CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW Regular Meeting February 17, 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 documents. 5:00 Pre-Meeting Discussion 5:30 Regular Meeting A. Matters from the public not on the agenda (please limit to 3 minutes) B. Consent Agenda (Note: Any consent agenda item may be pulled and moved to the regular agenda if a BAR member wishes to discuss it, or if any member of the public is present to comment on it. Pulled applications will be discussed at the beginning of the meeting.) 1. BAR Meeting Minutes, October 20, 2020 2. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-02-01 511 East Water Street Tax Parcel 530074000 Charles and Virginia Pinnell, Owners Dean Maupin, Applicant Open pavilion at rear C. Deferred Items 5:45 3. 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 6:30 4. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 20-11-02 612 West Main Street Tax Parcel 290003000 Heirloom West Main Street Second Phase LLC, Owner Jeff Dreyfus, Bushman Dreyfus Architects, Applicant New construction of a mixed-use development February 17, 2021 BAR Packet Guide 1 D. New Items 7:15 5. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-02-02 636 Park Street Tax Parcel 520113000 Jennifer and Blakeley Greenhalgh, Owners and Applicants New fence 7:45 6. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-02-03 1331 West Main Street Tax Parcel 100006000 MKV Property LLC, Owner Jozo Andelic, Applicant Exterior painting E. Other Business 7. Staff questions/discussion 8. PLACE update F. Adjourn February 17, 2021 BAR Packet Guide 2 BAR MINUTES CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW Regular Meeting October 20, 2020 – 5:30 p.m. Zoom Webinar Welcome to this Regular Monthly Meeting of the Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review (BAR). Due to the current public health emergency, this meeting is being held online via Zoom. The meeting process will be as follows: For each item, staff will make a brief presentation followed by the applicant’s presentation, after which members of the public will be allowed to speak. Speakers shall identify themselves, and give their current address. Members of the public will have, for each case, up to three minutes to speak. Public comments should be limited to the BAR’s jurisdiction; that is, regarding the exterior design of the building and site. Following the BAR’s discussion, and before the vote, the applicant shall be allowed up to three minutes to respond, for the purpose of clarification. Thank you for participating. Members Present: Cheri Lewis, Carl Schwarz, Jody Lahendro, James Zehmer, Breck Gastinger, Sonja Lengel, Tim Mohr, Andy McClure Members Absent: Ron Bailey Staff Present: Patrick Cory, Robert Watkins, Jeffrey Werner, Joe Rice Pre-Meeting: Staff created a guiding document regarding Certificate of Appropriateness Approval Process with three guiding questions for the pre-meeting discussion. The Board and staff had an open discussion regarding the Certificate of Appropriateness Approval Process going forward. Staff emphasized the importance of a standardized checklist of what applicants have to go through. There are three options: Approval, Denial, and Deferral with the actions of the BAR. Each applicant should assume that they will get a deferral from the BAR. Only one COA will be issued for each project. These are going to the steps before an applicant gets a Certificate of Appropriateness from the BAR: Preliminary Discussion, Pre-Application Conference, and COA Application submission to the BAR. The meeting was called to order at 5:30 PM by the Chairman A. Matters from the public not on the agenda No Comments from the Public B. Consent Agenda (Note: Any consent agenda item may be pulled and moved to the regular agenda if a BAR member wishes to discuss it, or if any member of the public is present to comment on it. Pulled applications will be discussed at the beginning of the meeting.) 1. July 21, 2020 BAR Minutes 2. Certificate of Appropriateness Application 1 BAR Meeting Minutes October 20, 2020 BAR 20-09-04 128 Chancellor Street Tax Parcel 290132000 Center for Christian Study, Owner Thomas Keogh, Train Architects, and William Sherman, Applicants Exterior alterations and addition Mr. Gastinger moved to approve the Consent Agenda. (Ms. Lewis seconded the motion) The motion passed 8-0. C. Deferred Items 3. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 20-09-05 1619 University Avenue Tax Parcel 090102000 Sovran Bank, Owner Brian Quinn, Milrose Consultants, Applicant Exterior lighting Jeff Werner, Staff Report - 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. Applicant provided information confirming that the lamping for all proposed fixtures will have a Color temperature that does not exceed 3,000K. Staff recommends approval of the CoA. BAR may consider conditions for the tree and vegetation trimming, including requiring that any work within the public right of way be coordinated with the City. Ryan McGrath, Applicant – This is a Bank of America site. The idea is to bring up the lighting levels at all of these sites for security reasons and safety reasons within a 50 foot radius of ATMs and entrances. Last time we spoke, there were issues or concerns about the lighting levels and Josh Waggoner with GMR sent some renderings to you, which you had requested. I believe that we sent some additional cut sheets. Josh Waggoner, GMR – We were asked for additional renderings for what the site would look like following up the different sides of the site. We were also asked to confirm that we can get it to 3K. The site was approved non-compliant due to some city ordinance we could not meet while meeting compliance. We want to be able to light as much as we can and for security reasons and strictly for people who want to use the ATM at night. That’s our general purpose as well as upgrading the site lighting. We have a mix of lighting on site right now ranging from 57K down to 3K. This will unify that as well. It will make everything look cohesive and aesthetically pleasing. That’s what we are trying to achieve now. QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC Geary Albright – I was wondering if the lights have downward facing reflectors to keep the light from illuminating the skies as much as possible. Since this came up, I am going to point that out. 2 BAR Meeting Minutes October 20, 2020 Mr. Waggoner – All of our fixtures are full cutoff fixtures. All of the light is directed 90 degrees down. We have no up light on this site. All of our fixtures are full cutoff. QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD Mr. McClure – I was curious. Mr. Albright is the landlord of mine at one of the buildings that is adjacent to this property. The new pole that you are putting in the “back left.” I am looking at the plus and minus on the lumon scale. Directly in front of the light, it has a plus 3. Behind it has a plus 2. How does that translate into lighting and glare? Mr. Waggoner – Those are not pluses. They are just a point. Those are calculations at grade. If you took the light reader and put it on the ground, that would be what your foot candles would be. That is type four fixture with backlight control. The UAX 1, which will be on the bottom left hand corner, is facing away from the parking garage. That would have a backlight shield facing the property line. There would be no light trespass your property line on the back from that area. That fixture has a shield on the LED pods in the fixture. There will be no light throw on the backside of that fixture. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC No Comments COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Mohr – I am still a little concerned about the lighting levels around the ATMs and the foyer. There are three wall packs around the ATM. The rendering really doesn’t show us what is anticipated. The other problem with the rendering is that it really doesn’t account for all of the other lighting that’s going on in the general vicinity. It does play a role in this. We have asked for dimming controls on this, correct? Mr. Werner – That’s something we have requested. The fixtures are available with dimmers. It’s not part of the lamp itself. I think it’s a separate control. My recommendation would be to require that if you want. Mr. Mohr – Without something to give us a reference for what is really going on nearby. They are showing what their lighting is doing relative to the property line, which is a weird concept. That’s an old and misguided approach anyway. I am a little concerned about the ATM being a real hot spot. That’s something that can be adjusted in the field. We won’t be swapping out bulbs for some time because LEDs have a long lifespan. With the foyer and anyplace where there is a real concentration, we would want to have some way of dealing with the potential for glare. The full cutoff is great from a dark skies standpoint. This building is on a knoll. The glare potential seems to be still significant. Mr. Waggoner – I will start with the hot spot comment. Every state requires ten foot candles within a five foot radius of the ATM. That’s the minimum. This has been approved non-compliant. We still want to be as close to that as possible strictly for people utilizing the ATM at night. That’s our main reason for that. Referring the full site calculations, the highest that I have in front of an ATM is 15. It’s directly in front of the ATM and then it dies off about ten feet further beyond the property line. Your hot spot is strictly maintained 3 BAR Meeting Minutes October 20, 2020 to the site. I do understand your qualms with it. We are trying to make sure that people have the visibility to be able to use this ATM at night. Mr. Mohr – Is the USB 1 a wallpack? Mr. Waggoner – USB 1 is a wallpack. Mr. Mohr – You have USA 2 coming down that pathway. Is that a wallpack? Mr. Waggoner – USA 2 and USB 1 are both wallpacks. They are full cutoff with a g rating of 1. The glare rating is as low as you can get. Mr. Mohr – The UBL 1 next to that USB 1? Mr. Waggoner – UBL 1 is a canopy mounted fixture. That would be mounted to the canopy facing the street down. For the canopy fixtures on the front, there is an archway that dips down. To get rendering of that, it would be really misconstrued. You would probably have a big tree in front of it to be able to get up in there. You have a huge archway that is upset by three feet. That’s the reason for not having a great rendering of those. It’s just not easy to get to. Mr. Mohr – In the back portion, there are 9.6 foot candles on one side and 7.2 foot candles on the other side. It doesn’t make sense to me. Mr. Waggoner – That’s just the way the candles lay out. We have run real world scenarios. Everything you see is built up. The stairs, hand rails, archways, and canopy are built up. Everything you are seeing is real. This is real output of what will be on site given your approval. Mr. Mohr – I could understand about the ATMs. I could see about the foyer. You have a pretty low light level in there and still be able to perceive it. That’s what it makes it really hard to understand. It really doesn’t deal with the ambient light. The ambient light could be cancelling out potential brightness quotient. Mr. Waggoner – That was another comment I wanted to touch on for a moment. When we light for security for banking purposes, the reason we don’t build in other peoples’ fixtures is because we don’t want to rely on them for our security. If somebody was to get robbed, and the street lights went out. We built them into our design. We built them into our design that people will be safe if the fixture is on. If the city fixture is out, we have no control over that. That’s the reason why we don’t build other peoples’ fixtures as a general normal. We can’t rely on them for liability purposes. It is just not in our realm. Mr. Schwarz – We really don’t have the tools to review this the way that we want to. I think that the applicant has given us everything that we have asked for. You keep mentioning dimming. It would be great if you could put dimming on these. I am not sure we have any power to enforce that. Suppose you get it installed and you discover that it doesn’t have to be so bright. You could potentially have some energy savings. Mr. Waggoner – We talked about this the first time when we spoke about dimming on everything outside of the compliance area. Most of these fixtures effect our compliance 4 BAR Meeting Minutes October 20, 2020 area. If we dim it and it doesn’t catch somebody in the plant area, then we are still under our lumon output that we want to be at. It’s a slippery slope. Ms. Lewis – Could you clarify the term compliance area? Mr. Waggoner – That’s a financial institution requirement. Five feet radius around that ATM needs to be a maintained ten feet candle minimum at three feet above grade. I do understand how it could be misconstrued. Fifty feet around each exposure needs to be two feet candles three feet above grade. If you are able to walk up to an ATM and you’re able to park and walk to that ATM, that parking spot also needs to be two feet candles. That is a regulatory standard for all financial institutions in a regulated state. That’s your basic outline of your compliance area regarding financial institutions. Mr. Schwarz – The lighting that exists is awful. I recognize that this is going to be a vast improvement. We are nervous. We’re also not experts enough to know how best to regulate this. Mr. Mohr – I appreciated your candor and your willingness to work through this with us. Mr. Waggoner – We do this all of the time. We look up the ordinance first. We have an obligation to the bank to meet the state statute for the ordinance. If we can’t meet it, then we go through this process. More than to do what we need to do to get this approved. Ms. Lewis – I wanted to thank the applicant for taking into consideration all of the requests and incorporating them into the submittal for this meeting. Motion: Mr. Mohr Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City Design Guidelines for Site Design and Elements, I move to find that the proposed lighting satisfies the BAR’s criteria and is compatible with this property and other properties in the Corner ADC District, and that the BAR approves the application as submitted. Ms. Lewis seconds. Motion passes (8-0). D. New Items 4. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 20-10-01 204 Hartmans Mill Road Tax Parcel 260038000 Jocelyn Johnson and William Hunt, Owner Melissa T. Colombo, Applicant Outbuilding demolition Staff Report, Jeffrey Werner – Year Built: Cottage: Evidence suggests the NW corner of the cottage was constructed c1900-1910, with additions through the 1920s. The east extension and rear shed component was later followed by the rear [bathroom] addition. House: c1873, with ongoing additions through 1920. District: Individually Protected Property Known as the George T. Nimmo House, family tradition holds that the original house--believed to be the northeast corner--was built in 1870, with later additions occurring over an extended period. Nimmo acquired the property in 1873 and tax records indicate three periods of building activity--1873-1874, 1880-1885, and 1915-1920. The original house likely dates to 1873. The 5 BAR Meeting Minutes October 20, 2020 periods of construction coincide with Census data showing the growth of the Nimmo household. CoA request to demolish existing, wood-framed, single story cottage. After examining the structure, it staff’s opinion that the cottage is in a significantly deteriorated condition. There might be individual components (mantle, some windows, etc.) and materials (bricks, floorboards, etc.) that are salvageable for reuse elsewhere; however, rehabilitation of the cottage—in place or relocated--would require significant, if not entire, demolition, with the reconstruction incorporating a limited amount of salvageable, original material. Staff recommends approval of the demolition CoA, with a condition that the applicant provide for the BAR archive scaled, sketch drawings of the structure—floor plan, roof plan, four elevations. Mr. Schwarz – It’s also a demolition of a tree? Melissa Colombo, Applicant – There is a tree that will need to come down. There is an ash tree that is next to the existing house. It is leaning towards the cottage. It’s raised up their exterior heat pump by a foot in the last couple of years. They had an arborist come out to try to save it. It’s going to come down one way or the other. It will nice if it comes down controlled. One of the big problems with that cottage is that they have had major septic backup into it. It is the slippery slope of the deterioration of the interior. There is a lot of mold. Even if it were to be restored to its fullest, it cannot by occupied. QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No Questions from the Public QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD No Questions from the BAR COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC No Comments from the Public COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD Ms. Lewis – Have we asked the applicant to photograph or do any recording before the demolition occurs? Mr. Werner – I will share what we have done with other projects. The photographs are good. The sketch drawings provide that context of what we are looking at in the photos. We are not looking for an architectural drawing, but just a sketch would be sufficient to provide reference with the photographs. We typically do request that for demolitions. Ms. Colombo – I don’t have an issue with that. That’s totally reasonable to document it before it is taken down. Mr. Lahendro – I would ask for the bigger favor. As the building is coming down, maybe take some photographs. In our inspection of the cabin, we found that above the ceiling, the roof framing is painted as a finished area. If possible, take some photographs. That would add even more to the record. 6 BAR Meeting Minutes October 20, 2020 Ms. Colombo – We can definitely take care of that. If there are any materials that can be reclaimed, the goal is to reclaim that. After this, the whole point of this cottage coming down is to be able to put an addition for a modern family that is growing that would like to add an addition onto it. Any building materials that could be reused, the goal is to reuse those. Mr. Zehmer – I agree with staff that it is beyond repair. I would encourage the owners to try to clear out around the cemetery to respect those people that are buried there. Ms. Colombo – I believe that they knew that the cemetery was there. I believe that they have contact information for distant relatives. We will pass that on. Motion: Ms. Lewis - Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the ADC Guidelines for Demolition, I move to find that the proposed demolition satisfies the BAR’s criteria and is compatible with this IPP, and that the BAR approves the request as submitted, with the following condition: • that the property be documented before and during demolition, including sketches that can be made, and that this documentation be forwarded to the city. Mr. Lahendro seconds. Motion passes (8-0). E. Other Business 5. 106 Oakhurst Circle Pre-Application Conference • Applicant took some time to incorporate some of the comments made by the BAR at the meeting last month. • The applicant is working within a very tight spot. • The primary concern that the applicant has is the impact on the adjacent properties around the property. • There are a number of trees and shrubs that are native and there is a good vegetative buffer. Those trees and shrubs would have to be removed if going in on the north side. • Going in on the north side has been completely ruled out. • Everything is going to be done to avoid the root zones of the trees on the property. • There would also be the activity of construction that would also have an effect on the surrounding area. • There is an oak tree that is decaying and leaning that will have to be removed. • Those living there would be subject to people coming and going into the local business. • There are already pressures on the property. • There is probably going to be six residents living within the duplex. • The applicant is looking at removing the porch and rebuilding the porch. • Another impact is the dogwood tree with going the southern route. • It would be hard to avoid the impact with the dogwood trees. • There is going to be a holding to the original character of the building. • There was a discussion with questions and answers with the applicant starting with the site. • Mr. Gastinger noted that there is no reason for the driveway going through the front yard. Mr. Gastinger thought that the driveway on one side would be best. • Mr. Schwarz did address the curb cut with applicant. • Mr. Zehmer was also supportive in this project in not taking the driveway across the front yard. 7 BAR Meeting Minutes October 20, 2020 • Every effort is going to be made to save the trees on the property during the construction. • Mr. Schwarz did recommend that it would be best not to screen the front of the house with plantings. • There was a discussion between the BAR and the applicant regarding this project and if there were any concerns that the BAR had with the project moving to a COA application and submission. • The Chairman went over the different items that will need to be submitted with the application. The items include the movement of the driveway to the south, the hyphen, cut sheets of windows and doors, landscape plan, elevation drawings, material list, exterior lighting, and a wall section. The BAR recessed for a five minute recess. 6. City/County Courts Project Preliminary Discussion • The discussion began with the introduction to the scope and schedule of the project. • This is one of the most important projects with the Charlottesville and Albemarle County community. • There will be more meetings with the BAR in the coming years with multiple Certificate of Appropriateness applications. • There was a presentation on the preconditions of the site. • The new county courts building will be constructed at the site of the Levy Building in phase I. The courts will be moved to this new building. • In phase II, the County Circuit and County District Courts building will be renovated. • The County Circuit Court is moved back into the renovated building and the City General District Court will be moved into the new Courts Building. • Stakeholders include both the city and county with the courthouse project. • Project is slated to be finished in five years in 2025. • The current time is programming and planning. • Phases I and II will be designed together within schematic design and design development. • The BAR will be involved in schematic design, landscape design, site plan, renovation, and new construction at the same time. • The BAR review will be involved though the middle of 2021. • The first COA will be for the demolition of the 1980s addition to the Levy Building. • Thinking about the demolition permit at this moment in time. • The buildings to be demolished have no historic significance. They belong to the Historic District. • Several Board members did emphasize the importance of documenting what will be found of historically significance. • There was also archaeological opportunities that members of the Board wanted to be documented. 7. Belmont Bridge Project Update ▪ Mr. Gastinger brought up the fast turnaround and the mock up panels. ▪ Since staff was not on the meeting call, the Belmont Bridge Project Update was moved to a future meeting. 8 BAR Meeting Minutes October 20, 2020 8. Staff Questions/Discussion Tents on the Downtown Mall • The BAR and staff had a discussion regarding the use of tents on the downtown mall. • The BAR wants to make temporary changes with tent relief. • The BAR can only make recommendations with tents on the downtown mall. The BAR does not have the authority to make a determination. • The BAR can only make suggestions on where the tents are going to be set up with the restaurant patios. The Zoning Administrators can only make those determinations. • The BAR would like the regulations to be loosened for the tents on the downtown mall. • There was further discussion regarding the timeline and when the use of tents would end. Motion: Ms. Lewis - In recognition of the global pandemic’s threat to the economic vitality of our historic City, the BAR unanimously expresses that outdoor tents and any supporting equipment or conditions including sides of tents, locating that does not conform to the current permits, access to electrical facilities, and other measures to support outdoor economic activity in the City, be permitted for as long as the Governor’s state of emergency is in effect. Mr. McClure seconds. Motion passes (8-0). Lighting Standards • Street lighting is erratic – Mr. Mohr • Memo written to the Planning Commission – Lighting does need to be part of the zoning rewrite of the comprehensive plan update. • There was support amongst the other members of the BAR to send the memo to the Planning Commission and Comprehensive Plan consultants. • Mr. Lahendro recommended that there be a work session between the Planning Commission and the Board of Architectural Review on lighting. BAR Training Preservation Awards Discussion LEAP Energy Guide 9. PLACE Committee Update F. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:34 PM. 9 BAR Meeting Minutes October 20, 2020 Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-02-01 511 East Water Street Tax Parcel 530074000 Charles and Virginia Pinnell, Owners Dean Maupin, Applicant Open pavilion at rear Application components (please click each link to go directly to PDF page): • Staff Report • Historic Survey • Application Submittal February 17, 2021 BAR Packet Guide 3 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW STAFF REPORT February 17, 2021 Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-02-01 511 East Water Street, Tax Parcel 530074000 Owner: Charles and Virginia Pinnell Applicant: Dean Maupin Project: Open pavilion at rear Background Year Built: ca. 1910 District: Downtown ADC District Status: Contributing This vernacular small commercial building was built in the first decade of the twentieth century. The one-story brick building has three openings facing East Water Street, each headed with segmental arches. Photos from the late twentieth century identify Tox-Eol Exterminating Company as a tenant. Prior BAR Reviews No prior BAR reviews. Application  Applicant Submittal: Dean Maupin submittal, dated January 22, 2021: Project statement, rendering of proposed pavilion with dimensions and material details, plats and aerial photographs edited to show location of proposed pavilion, photos of existing site conditions CoA for the construction of a 20-ft x 24-ft open pavilion at the rear of the building. Treated and stained pine framing, and asphalt shingle hipped roof. Pavilion floor to be pea gravel surface that currently comprises the rear patio. 511 East Water Street - Pavilion (February 9, 2021) 1 Discussion Staff finds the concept, profile, and materials for the proposed pavilion to be in keeping with the Design Guidelines. The rear of the subject parcel is only visible from the alley that runs off 5th Street SE, and the rear patio is further shielded by a wood fence. In August 2019, the BAR approved a similar pavilion that is much more visible from the public right-of-way, at 601-617 East Market Street (BAR 19-07-05). Figure 1: View from 5th Street SE down the alley that leads towards the rear of the subject parcel. The parcel itself is not visible in this image. Photo from Google Street View, 2012. Suggested Motions Approval: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed pavilion at 511 East Water Street satisfies the BAR’s criteria and is compatible with this property and other properties in the Downtown ADC District, and that the BAR approves the application as submitted. (or with the following modifications…) Denial: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed pavilion at 511 East Water Street does not satisfy the BAR’s criteria and is not compatible with this property and other properties in the Downtown ADC District, and that for the following reasons the BAR denies the application as submitted. 511 East Water Street - Pavilion (February 9, 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 Standards for Site Design and Elements G. Garages, Sheds, & Other Structures A number of houses in Charlottesville’s historic districts have garages, outbuildings and distinctive site features, particularly properties that contain a large house on a large lot. The most common outbuilding is the garage. Site features may vary considerably and may include fountains, ponds, pools, trellises, pergolas or benches, as well as recreational spaces such as playsets or basketball courts. 1) Retain existing historic garages, outbuildings, and site features in their original locations. 2) If it is acceptable to relocate a secondary structure, locate it in such a way that it remains consistent with the general pattern of outbuildings to the main structure. (See Chapter 7 C. Moving Historic Structures.) 3) Choose designs for new outbuildings that are compatible with the major buildings on the site. 4) Take clues and scale from older outbuildings in the area. 5) Use traditional roof slopes and traditional materials. 6) Place new outbuildings behind the dwelling. 7) If the design complements the main building however, it can be visible from primary elevations or streets. 8) The design and location of any new site features should relate to the existing character of the property. 511 East Water Street - Pavilion (February 9, 2021) 3 Pertinent Standards for Rehabilitations L. Rear of Buildings The area behind commercial buildings is often forgotten and neglected. This area may be a utilitarian space for deliveries and storage of discarded goods. However, in some cases the rear of the building may provide the opportunity for a secondary entrance, particularly if oriented to a public alley. The appearance of the back area then becomes important to the commercial district and to the individual business. Customers may be provided with direct access from any parking area behind the building. In these cases, the back entrance becomes a secondary entrance to the store and is the first contact the customer makes with the business. 1) Meet all handicapped accessibility requirements. 2) Consolidate and screen mechanical and utility equipment in one location when possible. 3) Consider adding planters or a small planting area to enhance and highlight the rear entrance, and create an adequate maintenance schedule for them. 4) Retain any historic door or select a new door that maintains the character of the building and creates an inviting entrance. 5) Note building and ADA codes when and if changing dimensions or design of entrance. 6) Windows define the character and scale of the original façade and should not be altered. 7) If it is necessary to replace a window, follow the guidelines for windows earlier in this chapter. 8) If installation of storm windows is necessary, follow the guidelines for windows earlier in this chapter. 9) Remove any blocked-in windows and restore windows and frames if missing. 10) Security grates should be unobtrusive and compatible with the building. 11) Avoid chain-link fencing. 12) If the rear window openings need to be covered on the interior for merchandise display or other business requirements, consider building an interior screen, and maintain the character of the original window’s appearance from the exterior. 13) Ensure that the design of the lighting relates to the historic character of the building. 14) Consider installing signs and awnings that are appropriate for the scale and style of the building. 15) Design and select systems and hardware to minimize impact on the historic fabric of the building. 16) Ensure that any fire escapes meet safety regulations and that no site elements inhibit proper egress. 17) Ensure that any rear porches are well maintained; and if used as upper floor entrance(s), are well lit and meet building codes while retaining their historic character. 511 East Water Street - Pavilion (February 9, 2021) 4 • JBW 8/19/2020 Board of Architectural Review (BAR) Certificate of Appropriateness Please Return To: City of Charlottesville Department of Neighborhood Development Services P.O. Box 911, City Hall Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Telephone (434) 970-3130 During Public Health Emergency, electronic submittal will suffice Please submit tefl (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 Charles and Virginia Pinnell Applicant Name _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Project Name/Description, _ _O_p_e1 __ p1 a_v_il_io_n_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Parcel Number_ _ 53_0_0_7_ _4_00 ____ _ 511 East Water Street Project Property Address _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Signature of Applicant Applicant Information I hereby attest that the information I have provided is, to the Add best my kno ledge, correct. · __,_.....,____,___,_._____ •......._........,_..._........:'--- Signa ure Date Property Owner Information (if not applicant) J) ea"' 'tfavf\ Print Name Date Address: 'L982 White Hall Rd., PO Box 808 Property Owner Permission (if not applicant) Crozat, VA 22932 I have read this application and hereby give my consent to Email: info@pinnellcustomleather.com its submission. Phone: (W) 434-823-9800 (C) 434-981-2397 CL ,-j '!,.,_ t l 01/20/2021 Signature Date Do you intend to apply for Federal or State Tax Charles Pinnell 01/20/2021 _______ _ Credits for this project? _ _ N_IA Print Name Date Description of Proposed Work (attach separate narrative if necessary): _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Constmction of open pavilion at rear of property 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 Board of Architectural Review Description of Proposed Pavilion at 511 East Water Street Proposed construction of an apporximate 20’ by 24’ wooden pavilion in the existing approximately 27’ by 30’ open patio space in the rear (north side) of 511 East Water Street. Construction to provide a open, covered outdoor environment aesthetically in touch with the surrounding historic downtown business district to accommodate a growing demand for outdoor dining. Construction to meet or exceed city building practices and codes. Proposed Pavilion Rendering For 511 E Water St Patio Size: 20' x 24' Height: 167 in. Treated and Stained Pine Posts and Beams Tongue and Groove Ceiling Architectural Asphalt Shingle Roof Gutters With Downspouts For Drainage All Lumber To Meet Or Exceed City Building Code Dimensions Concrete Footings To City Building Code Flooring To Include Existing Pea gravel Surface 511 E Water Street—Front Elevation Current Plat Proposed Structure on Plat (Not to Scale) Arial Photograph of Site and Surrounding Structures City GIS Property Diagram Patio North Elevation Patio East Elevation Patio South Elevation Patio West Elevation 511 E Water Plat With Pavilion (Not to Scale) 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 • Historic Survey • Application Submittal February 17, 2021 BAR Packet Guide 4 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW STAFF REPORT February 17, 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. January 20, 2021 – BAR deferred the request. Applicant unable to attend the meeting. 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. (Note: No changes to information provided for the January 20, 2021 meeting.)  Photographs provided by staff. (Note: Additional photos added in the staff report.) 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 (February 10, 2021) 1 Discussion Front Porch Reconstruction To the extent possible, the reconstruction will rely on the information available in the photographs, the matching components that remain on the house, and nearby porches of a similar period. The existing brick porch, metal rail and light fixture above the entrance will be removed.  Dimensions: Photos and the shadow lines on the brick provide the width and height. The proposed reconstruction generally conforms to the original dimensions.  Columns: (Similar to the columns at 406 Altamont Circle.) * o Capital: Photos indicate Angular (Scamozzi) Ionic. o Shaft: Smooth. Round columns at the front. Square, engaged columns at the walls. o Base: Appropriate for Ionic column.  Trim/Cornice: Match existing profiles and dimensions of the existing cornice. *  Railing (top rail, bottom rail, and pickets): Detail cannot be determined from the photos and the railing at the rear porch are not original. Recommend that new will match or be similar to the Colonial Revival style railing at 406 Altamont Circle. Painted. Color: TBD. * (Note: The new rail will be at height that conforms to the current building code requirements.)  Roof: Original roof was standing-seam metal. New roof proposed as EPDM or equivalent. o Note: Standing-seam metal would be preferred. The BAR should discuss this further with the applicant. Staff also recommends roofline be elevated. *  Gutters and Downspouts: Original porch had built-in gutters; new gutter type not specified. In lieu of the built in gutter, if not replicated, staff suggests a detail similar to that approved for 201 East High Street. *  Flooring and steps: 1 x 4 or 1 x 6 wood flooring. Height of the floor will be similar to that of the existing brick porch. Painted. Color: TBD. *  Apron trim at porch deck and step risers: 1 x wood and a profiled trim beneath the overhang of the flooring and treads. Apron face to align with the plinth of the column base. Painted. Color: TBD. *  Ceiling: Beaded-board with simple cove or crown at entablature, similar to existing celling at rear, upper porch. Porch ceiling will be above—and encroach onto--the brick arches above the entry and two windows. Painted. Color: TBD. *  Porch framing and piers: Wood frame on brick piers. BAR should clarify locations and details for brick piers. Staff recommends square piers of red brick (similar to the house); located beneath and aligned with each front column. *  Lighting: No fixture(s) indicated. BAR should apply the following condition: For any exterior light fixture, the lamping will have a Color Temperature not to exceed 3,000K, preferably dimmable, and will comply with the City’s “Dark Sky” ordinance. Applicant will provide to staff cut sheets for the BAR archive. 116 West Jefferson (February 10, 2021) 2 Note: Except for the cornice detail, in the event of an unknown detail, applicant shall look to existing conditions on houses of a similar period, such as 406 Altamont Circle. * - Indicates references in the Appendix. 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 Front Porch Reconstruction: Staff finds that the proposed reconstruction is appropriate, except for the use of an EPDM roof in lieu of standing-seam metal. Staff recommends that a motion to approve reference the narrative/clarifications above and the attached photographs as supplemental to the applicant’s submittal. Removal of the Building Connection: Staff recommends approval. Alterations to the Contemporary Structure: Staff recommends approval. Typically, the installation of new windows and doors requires a high level of scrutiny and review. Given the age of this structure and the builder-grade quality of its materials, staff does not believe additional specificity is necessary for the new doors and windows. 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 … 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…. 116 West Jefferson (February 10, 2021) 3 Criteria, Standards, and Guidelines Review Criteria Generally Sec. 34-284(b) of the City Code states that, in considering a particular application the BAR shall approve the application unless it finds: (1) That the proposal does not meet specific standards set forth within this division or applicable provisions of the Design Guidelines established by the board pursuant to Sec.34-288(6); and (2) The proposal is incompatible with the historic, cultural or architectural character of the district in which the property is located or the protected property that is the subject of the application. Pertinent Standards for Review of Construction and Alterations include: (1) Whether the material, texture, color, height, scale, mass and placement of the proposed addition, modification or construction are visually and architecturally compatible with the site and the applicable design control district; (2) The harmony of the proposed change in terms of overall proportion and the size and placement of entrances, windows, awnings, exterior stairs and signs; (3) The Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation set forth within the Code of Federal Regulations (36 C.F.R. §67.7(b)), as may be relevant; (4) The effect of the proposed change on the historic district neighborhood; (5) The impact of the proposed change on other protected features on the property, such as gardens, landscaping, fences, walls and walks; (6) Whether the proposed method of construction, renovation or restoration could have an adverse impact on the structure or site, or adjacent buildings or structures; (7) Any applicable provisions of the City’s Design Guidelines. Pertinent guidelines 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. 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. 116 West Jefferson (February 10, 2021) 4 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. 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. 116 West Jefferson (February 10, 2021) 5 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 (February 10, 2021) 6 APPENDIX Staff recommends elevation porch roofline and using standing-seam metal in lieu of EPDM. BAR should discuss height relative to window sills. As drawn With altered roofline Existing cornice at 116 West Jefferson Street. New porch cornice to match. 116 West Jefferson (February 10, 2021) 7 116 West Jefferson Street (Existing) Original porch at 116 West Jefferson Street 116 West Jefferson (February 10, 2021) 8 Illustrative porch detail for 116 West Jefferson Street: Dimensions and proportions should match or be similar to 406 Altamont Circle and/or appropriate to the period. The BAR should discuss specific dimensions, if necessary. 116 West Jefferson Street (existing) – note ceiling board and trim 116 West Jefferson (February 10, 2021) 9 Original porch at 116 West Jefferson Street. 116 West Jefferson (February 10, 2021) 10 Column capitol 406 Altamont Circle 116 West Jefferson (February 10, 2021) 11 406 Altamont Circle 406 Altamont Circle – note ceiling board and trim 116 West Jefferson (February 10, 2021) 12 Detail from porch reconstruction at 201 East High Street. Reference is to gutter condition only. 116 West Jefferson (February 10, 2021) 13 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 Present Owner: Family Services of C'vill-Albemarle Height to Cornice: 21. 5 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 20-11-02 612 West Main Street Tax Parcel 290003000 Heirloom West Main Street Second Phase LLC, Owner Jeff Dreyfus, Bushman Dreyfus Architects, Applicant New construction of a mixed-use development Application components (please click each link to go directly to PDF page): • Staff Report • Historic Survey • Application Submittal February 17, 2021 BAR Packet Guide 5 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW STAFF REPORT February 17, 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: Bushman Dreyfus Architects drawings, 612 West Main Street (Six- Twelve), dated January 29, 2021: Landscape Plan, Street Elevation, North Elevation, South Elevation, and East/West Elevations. Five sheets. 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 Applicant has requested that this discussion focus on the landscaping and elevation design. 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. 612 West Main Street (February 9, 2021) 1 This application is a formal CoA request; however, the applicant has acknowledged that this meeting—and, possibly, subsequent meetings—will be treated as a continued discussion towards presenting a final submittal and that, except for a deferral, no BAR action will be taken. As part of this intermediate review, the BAR by consensus may express an opinion about the project as presented. (For example, the BAR may take a non-binding vote to express support, opposition, or even questions and concerns regarding the project’s likelihood for an approved CoA. These will not represent approval or even endorsement of the CoA, but will represent the BAR’s opinion on the project, relative to preparing the project for final submittal. While such votes carry no legal bearing and are not binding, BAR members are expected to express their opinions—both individually and collectively--in good faith as a project advances towards an approved CoA.) This is an iterative process and these discussions should be thorough and productive. The goal is to establish what is necessary for a final submittal that provides the information necessary for the BAR to evaluate the project and to then approve or deny the requested CoA. . In response to any questions from the applicant and/or for any recommendations to the applicant, the BAR should rely on the germane sections of the ADC District Design Guidelines and related review criteria. While elements of other chapters may be relevant, staff recommends that the BAR refer to the criteria in Chapter II--Site Design and Elements and Chapter III--New Construction and Additions. Of particular assistance for this discussion are the criteria in Chapter III:  Setback, including landscaping and site  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; 612 West Main Street (February 9, 2021) 2 o SUP item 4: The Landowner (including, without limitation, any person who is an agent, assignee, transferee or successor in interest to the Landowner) shall prepare a Protective Plan for the Rufus Holsinger Building located on property adjacent to the Subject Property at 620- 624 West Main Street (“Holsinger Building” or “Adjacent Property”). […]  There shall be pedestrian engagement with the street with an active, transparent, and permeable façade at street level; o SUP item 3: There shall be pedestrian engagement with the street with an active, transparent, and permeable façade at street level. Suggested Motions Staff recommends no formal action, except to accept the applicant’s request for a deferral. (With an applicant’s deferral, there is no calendar requirement for when the application returns to the BAR.) Criteria, Standards, and Guidelines Review Criteria Generally Sec. 34-284(b) of the City Code states that, in considering a particular application the BAR shall approve the application unless it finds: (1) That the proposal does not meet specific standards set forth within this division or applicable provisions of the Design Guidelines established by the board pursuant to Sec.34-288(6); and (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 (February 1, 2021) 3 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 (February 1, 2021) 4 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 (February 1, 2021) 5 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 (February 1, 2021) 6 Questions to focus the discussion: Landscape / hardscape concept drawings • Comments in regards to the proportion of planting relative to the building and the street/ public zone. • We are in a gray area with the new curb alignments proposed in the West Main Streetscape plan. We are required (4) trees for the 612 building frontage, regardless, and will be planning to place these. Can the focus of the discussion look to the placement of these project specific trees? Does the BAR feel we need to take further steps with the WMS plan? Building elevations • The north (West Main Street) elevation has not changed greatly from the previous discussion when the BAR found its development to be approvable. We will continue to refine it in the months ahead. • We would appreciate any comments regarding the south and west elevations. • The north, west and east elevations will be all brick. For cost reasons, we propose the south elevation as mostly stucco, bounded by brick at the east and west corners. This is a similar treatment to the south facade as at 600 West Main Street (stucco facade bounded by metal panels on the east and west corners). Will the BAR approve such a change of material on the rear facade? WEST MAIN STREET 4 REQUIRED STREET TREES EXISTING CURB LINE MURAL WALL 3 BIKE RACKS PLANTING RAISED PLANTER RAISED PLANTER (3) BENCHES RAISED PLANTER WITH BENCH (2) 6” STEPS 6” STEP WATER FEATURE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE 2 BIKE MINI MART RACKS RETAIL PROMENADE COURTYARD 612 WEST MAIN STREET 612 WEST MAIN STREET RESIDENTIAL ENTRY LANDSCAPE PLAN 612 WEST MAIN STREET 3/32”=1’-0” BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR SUBMISSION 02.09.2021 LANDSCAPE PLAN 1 PROPOSED WEST NEW CURB LINE MAIN STREETSCAPE TREES (4) WEST MAIN STREETSCAPE OVERLAY 612 WEST MAIN STREET BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR SUBMISSION 02.09.2021 WEST MAIN STREETSCAPE OVERLAY 2 WATER BASIN STONE BENCH (2) STONE BENCH METAL PLANTER METAL PLANTER METAL PLANTER CONCRETE RETAINING WALL 13’ X 4’ 13’ X 4’ 14’ X 5’ STREET TREE COURTYARD STREETSCAPE NORTH ELEVATION 3/32”=1’-0” 612 WEST MAIN STREET BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR SUBMISSION 02.09.2021 NORTH ELEVATION 3 Retail Promenade Public Sidewalk West Main Street Bench and Planting beyond Stone Water Basin Bench and Planting beyond 10’ Setback Line STREETSCAPE FACING WEST COURTYARD FACING MURAL ILLUSTRATIVE ELEVATIONS 1/8”=1’-0” Wood Bench on Metal Ideas in Planter Form and Integration with Stair Planters as More sculptural Varied Scales in Paving to delineate Textures and Topography Basin with small bubbler for sound Seating opportunity path and place introduced in plantings spill to be integral LANDSCAPE PRECEDENT IMAGES BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR SUBMISSION 02.09.2021 LANDSCAPE PRECEDENT IMAGES 4 BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR SUBMISSION 02.09.2021 VIEW FROM EAST 5 BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR SUBMISSION 02.09.2021 DETAIL VIEW 6 BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR SUBMISSION 02.09.2021 VIEW OF SOUTH 7 SIX HUNDRED WEST MAIN SIX-TWELVE WEST MAIN HOLSINGER BUILDING FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH STREET ELEVATION BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR SUBMISSION 02.09.2021 STREET ELEVATION 8 METAL COPING TEXTURED BRICK STUCCO METAL COPING BRICK TEXTURED BRICK BRICK NORTH ELEVATION BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR SUBMISSION 02.09.2021 1/16" = 1'-0" NORTH ELEVATION 9 STUCCO METAL COPING STUCCO STUCCO BRICK METAL COPING BRICK BALCONY RAILING SOUTH ELEVATION BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR SUBMISSION 02.09.2021 SOUTH ELEVATION 10 STUCCO STAIR TOWER METAL COPING METAL COPING TEXTURED BRICK CONCRETE BEHIND BRICK 600 WALL PAINTED BRICK BALCONY RAILING TERRACE PRIVACY PANEL METAL COPING WEST MAIN ST. RAILROAD HOLSINGER BUILDING (DASHED) SIX HUNDRED WEST MAIN (DASHED) WEST ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR SUBMISSION 02.09.2021 EAST/WEST ELEVATIONS 11 LIGHT BRICK - TEXTURE LIGHT BRICK BRICK TEXTURE STUCCO EXTERIOR WITH METAL WINDOW SURROUNDS BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR SUBMISSION 02.09.2021 PRECEDENT RESEARCH | FACADE MATERIALS 12 VERTICAL RETAIL OPENINGS SEPARATED DISPLAY WINDOWS RETAIL WINDOWS AT THE STREET WINDOW PLANTER BOXES BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR SUBMISSION 02.09.2021 PRECEDENT RESEARCH | FACADE DESIGN 13 BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR SUBMISSION 02.09.2021 PREVIOUS ELEVATION SKETCH 14 ALBEMARLE/GLEASON HOTEL APPROX. WIDTH OF ALBEMARLE HOTEL FACADE HISTORIC PROPERTY LINES (RED) WEST MAIN STREET 4 REQUIRED STREET TREES 612 PROPERTY LINES (BLUE) EXISTING CURB LINE 3 BIKE RACKS PLANTING RAISED PLANTER RAISED PLANTER (3) BENCHES RAISED PLANTER WITH BENCH (2) 6” STEPS 6” STEP WATER FEATURE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE 2 BIKE MINI MART RACKS PUBLIC SPACE RETAIL PROMENADE ENTRY COURTYARD PLAZA MINI MART BLUE MOON DINER 612 WEST MAIN STREET 620 W. MAIN ST. (FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH ANNEX) 612 WEST MAIN STREET RESIDENTIAL ENTRY FIRST BAPTIST 600 W. MAIN COURTYARD CHURCH BUILDING AREA: 16,368 sq ft 600 W. MAIN 612 W. MAIN BUILDING FOOTPRINT (BLUE) BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR SUBMISSION 02.09.2021 HISTORIC MAP OVERLAY 15 UnCommon UnCommon LARK ON MAIN UnCommon UnCommon 510-600 510-600 W.W. Main Main Street Street First First 612 W. Baptist Baptist MAIN STREET Church Church 510-600 The The Flats 510-600 FlatsW.W. Main Main Street Street First First Baptist Baptist Church Church THE FLATS The The Flats Flats UnCommon 66’-4” 66’-4” + Appurtenance + Appurtenance 66’-4” 66’-4” + Appurtenance 69’-11” + Appurtenance 69’-11” + Appurtenance + Appurtenance 510-600 W. Main Street UnCommon First 82’-6” 82’-6” Baptist 52’-0”Church Steeple Steeple The + APPURTENANCE Flats 69’-11” 69’-11” 510-600 W. Main Street + Appurtenance 103’-0” + 103’-0” + Appurtenance + Appurtenance Appurtenance 82’-6” 82’-6” Steeple Steeple First Baptist Church 103’-0”103’-0” +103’-0” The Flats APPURTENANCE + Appurtenance + Appurtenance 66’-4” + APPURTENANCE 66’-4” + Appurtenance 69’-11” + Appurtenance 66’-4” + Appurtenance 82’-6” Steeple 103’-0” + 69’-11” Appurtenance + Appurtenance 82’-6” Steeple 103’-0” + Appurtenance BUSHMAN BUSHMAN DREYFUS DREYFUS ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECTS, PC PC • BLUE • BLUE MOONMOON DINERDINER MIXEDMIXED USE REDEVELOPMENT USE REDEVELOPMENT • 510-600 • 510-600 WESTWEST MAIN MAIN STREET, STREET, CHARLOTTESVILLE, CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA VA Wednesday, Wednesday, January January 20, 2016 20, 2016 1/16" 1/16" = 1'-0" = 1'-0"Parking Parking Level North Level BUSHMAN BUSHMAN North DREYFUS Elevation ElevationDREYFUS ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECTS, PC •PCBLUE BLUE MOON • MOON DINER DINER MIXEDMIXED USE REDEVELOPMENT USE REDEVELOPMENT • 510-600 • 510-600 WESTSTREET, WEST MAIN MAIN STREET, CHARLOTTESVILLE, CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA VA Wednesday, Wednesday, JanuaryJanuary 20, 2016 20, 2016 1/16" =1/16" = 1'-0"ParkingParking 1'-0" Level Level North North Elevation Elevation BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS, PC • BLUE MOON DINER MIXED USE REDEVELOPMENT • 510-600 WEST MAIN STREET, CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA Wednesday, January 20, 2016 1/16" = 1'-0" Parking Level North Elevation BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS, PC • BLUE MOON DINER MIXED USE REDEVELOPMENT • 510-600 WEST MAIN STREET, CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA Wednesday, January 20, 2016 1/16" = 1'-0" Parking Level North Elevation BATTLE Battle Battle BUILDING Building Building Battle Battle Building Building 510-600 510-600 W.W. Main MainStreet Street 612 TheW.Standard The MAIN STREET Standard 510-600 510-600 W.W. Main Main Street Street THEThe The STANDARD Standard Standard Battle Building 510-600 Battle Building W. Main Street The 52’-0” Standard + +APPURTENANCE 510-600 W. Main Street 71’-0” + The Standard APPURTENANCE 90’-4” + APPURTENANCE 90’-4” 90’-4” + Appurtenance + Appurtenance 90’-4” + Appurtenance 90’-4” 90’-4” + Appurtenance 69’-11” + Appurtenance 69’-11” + Appurtenance + Appurtenance 69’-11” + Appurtenance 90’-4” + Appurtenance 71’-0” 71’-0” + Appurtenance 69’-11” Appurtenance 69’-11” + Appurtenance + Appurtenance 71’-0” + Appurtenance 69’-11” + Appurtenance 71’-0” 71’-0” + Appurtenance + Appurtenance 71’-0” + Appurtenance BUSHMAN BUSHMAN DREYFUS DREYFUS ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECTS, PC PC • BLUE • BLUE MOONMOON DINERDINER MIXEDMIXED USE REDEVELOPMENT USE REDEVELOPMENT • 510-600 • 510-600 WESTWEST MAIN MAIN STREET, STREET, CHARLOTTESVILLE, CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA VA Wednesday, Wednesday, January January 20, 2016 20, 2016 1/16" 1/16" = 1'-0" = 1'-0"Parking Parking Level North Level BUSHMAN BUSHMAN North DREYFUS Elevation ElevationDREYFUS ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECTS, PC •PCBLUE BLUE MOON • MOON DINER DINER MIXEDMIXED USE REDEVELOPMENT USE REDEVELOPMENT • 510-600 • 510-600 WESTSTREET, WEST MAIN MAIN STREET, CHARLOTTESVILLE, CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA VA Wednesday, Wednesday, JanuaryJanuary 20, 2016 20, 2016 1/16" =1/16" = 1'-0"ParkingParking 1'-0" Level Level North North Elevation Elevation BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS, PC • BLUE MOON DINER MIXED USE REDEVELOPMENT • 510-600 WEST MAIN STREET, CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA Wednesday, January 20, 2016 1/16" = 1'-0" Parking Level North Elevation BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS, PC • BLUE MOON DINER MIXED USE REDEVELOPMENT • 510-600 WEST MAIN STREET, CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA Wednesday, January 20, 2016 1/16" = 1'-0" Parking Level North Elevation ELEVATOR OVERRUN ROOFTOP EQUIPMENT 560'-11" app. +560'-0" ARCHITECT UPPER ROOF BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC 3'-8" 4'-7" 820 East High Street 556'-4" Charlottesville VA 22902 +555'-5" 434.295.1936 ROOF DEVELOPER HEIRLOOM WEST MAIN DEVELOPMENT 10'-7" c/o Grayson Consulting 2093 Goodling Road North Garden VA 22959 CIVIL ENGINEER/LANDSCAPE +544'-10" TIMMONS GROUP 6TH LEVEL 608 Preston Avenue, Suite 200 Charlottesville VA 22903 10'-7" MEP, FP ENGINEERS STAENGL ENGINEERING 1159 Crozet Avenue, Suite A Crozet, VA 22932 +534'-3" STRUCTURAL ENGINEER 5TH LEVEL Dunbar Milby Williams Pittman & Vaughan TYPE IIIB height from ground plane 110 Third Street Charlottesville, VA 22902 10'-7" 70'-0" +523'-8" 4TH LEVEL 10'-7" height at street 45'-5 3/4" +513'-1" 3RD LEVEL 10'-7" address: +502'-6" 2ND LEVEL 510-600 WEST Existing Bldg (dashed) Existing Bldg (dashed) MAIN STREET CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 13'-9" TYPE IA PROJECT #15171 +488'-9" EDITIONS/REVS GROUND MARK DATE DESCRIPTION 486'-4" SEE EXISTING BLDG RENOVATION DRAWINGS SEE EXISTING BLDG RENOVATION DRAWINGS 4/26/17 CD Set CONC. SITE WALL 11 2'-5" calculated ground plane A6.23 Century CenturyLink Link Old OldAbemarle Abemarle Century Hotel Hotel Century Link Link 510-600 510-600 W.W. Main MainStreet Street Old Old Abemarle Abemarle Hotel The The Hotel Atlantic Atlantic 510-600 510-600 W.W. Main Main Street Street Marriot Marriot Hotel The Hotel The Atlantic Atlantic Marriot Marriot Hotel Hotel 502 W. Main Street 11'-0" 5 4 10 ABC Store A6.24 A6.22 A6.21 512 W. Main Street GATE TO COURTYARD 600 W. Main Street 616 W. Main Street 510 W. Main Street Hartnagle-Perkins House W/ CORTEN SURROUND Hawkins-Perry House University Tire Century Link LINK Old Abemarle Hotel Century510-600 W. W.Main Link+ Appurtenance Street The Old Atlantic Abemarle MAIN Hotel 510-600 W. Main Street Marriot Hotel The Atlantic Marriot Hotel New Mixed Use Building CENTURY OLD ALBERMARLE67’-0” HOTEL 510-600 MAIN STREET 612 W. STREET QUIRK HOTEL FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH +MARRIOTT Appurtenance HOTEL +477'-9" PARKING 67’-0” 67’-0” 54’-6” 54’-6” 67’-0” 69’-11” 69’-11” + Appurtenance 54’-6” 54’-6” 76’-0” 76’-0” 69’-11” 69’-11” + Appurtenance + Appurtenance 72’-8” 72’-8” 76’-0” + Appurtenance + Appurtenance 76’-0” 72’-8” 72’-8” + Appurtenance 67’-0” 54’-6” 69’-11” + Appurtenance 76’-0” 72’-8” + Appurtenance 67’-0” 54’-6” 67’-0” 69’-11” + APPURTENANCE WEST MAIN STREET ELEVATION 0 4' 8' 16' 1/8" = 1'-0" 1 A2.00 52’-0” + APPURTENANCE 54’-6” WEST MAIN STREET ELEVATION 69’-11” + Appurtenance 52’-0” + APPURTENANCE 76’-0” 82’-6” STEEPLE 72’-8”72’-8” + APPURTENANCE + Appurtenance PERMIT SET 01.26.2018 printed 4:19 PM, 1/29/18 A2.00 BUSHMAN BUSHMAN DREYFUS DREYFUS ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECTS, PC PC • BLUE • BLUE MOONMOON DINERDINER MIXEDMIXED USE REDEVELOPMENT USE REDEVELOPMENT • 510-600 • 510-600 WESTWEST MAIN MAIN STREET, STREET, CHARLOTTESVILLE, CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA VA Wednesday, Wednesday, January January 20, 2016 20, 2016 1/16" 1/16" = 1'-0" = 1'-0"Parking Parking Level North Level BUSHMAN BUSHMAN North DREYFUS Elevation ElevationDREYFUS ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECTS, PC •PCBLUE BLUE MOON • MOON DINER DINER MIXEDMIXED USE REDEVELOPMENT USE REDEVELOPMENT • 510-600 • 510-600 WESTSTREET, WEST MAIN MAIN STREET, CHARLOTTESVILLE, CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA VA Wednesday, Wednesday, JanuaryJanuary 20, 2016 20, 2016 1/16" =1/16" = 1'-0"ParkingParking 1'-0" Level Level North North Elevation Elevation BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS, PC • BLUE MOON DINER MIXED USE REDEVELOPMENT • 510-600 WEST MAIN STREET, CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA Wednesday, January 20, 2016 1/16" = 1'-0" Parking Level North Elevation BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS, PC • BLUE MOON DINER MIXED USE REDEVELOPMENT • 510-600 WEST MAIN STREET, CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA Wednesday, January 20, 2016 1/16" = 1'-0" Parking Level North Elevation BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR SUBMISSION 02.09.2021 WEST MAIN STREET BUILDINGS 16 Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-02-02 636 Park Street Tax Parcel 520113000 Jennifer and Blakeley Greenhalgh, Owners and Applicants New fence Application components (please click each link to go directly to PDF page): • Staff Report • Historic Survey • Application Submittal February 17, 2021 BAR Packet Guide 6 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW STAFF REPORT February 17, 2021 Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-02-02 636 Park Street, Tax Parcel 520113000 Owner/Applicant: Jennifer and Blakeley Greenhalgh Project: New fence Background Year Built: 1950 District: North Downtown ADC District Status: Contributing This two-story, five-bay brick house was constructed by Harry Munson in 1950 in the Colonial Revival style. The landmark survey is attached. Prior BAR Reviews (See appendix) Application  Applicant Submittal: Jennifer Greenhalgh submittal, dated January 25, 2021: Site plan, photo of existing site conditions, photos of preferred fence option and alternative fence option. CoA for the construction of a fence on the inside perimeter of the skip laurel hedge that lines the property’s frontage along Park Street and Evergreen Avenue. Applicant prefers 48” high vertical panel wood fence, but also proposes a 48” high metal fence as an alternative option. Discussion Staff finds the proposed fencing to be appropriate, with a preference towards Fence Option 2 (metal fence). Metal fences are a more common fence type along Park Street (see photos below): 636 Park Street (February 9, 2021) 1 Figure 1: Metal fence at 728 Park Street. Image from Figure 2: Metal fence at 620 Park Street. Google Street View, 2019. Image from Google Street View, 2017 Suggested Motions Approval: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed fence at 636 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 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 fence at 636 Park Street does not satisfy the BAR’s criteria and is not compatible with this property and other properties in the North Downtown ADC District, and that for the following reasons the BAR denies the application as submitted. Criteria, Standards and Guidelines Review Criteria Generally Sec. 34-284(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; 636 Park Street (February 9, 2021) 2 (2) The harmony of the proposed change in terms of overall proportion and the size and placement of entrances, windows, awnings, exterior stairs and signs; (3) The Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation set forth within the Code of Federal Regulations (36 C.F.R. §67.7(b)), as may be relevant; (4) The effect of the proposed change on the historic district neighborhood; (5) The impact of the proposed change on other protected features on the property, such as gardens, landscaping, fences, walls and walks; (6) Whether the proposed method of construction, renovation or restoration could have an adverse impact on the structure or site, or adjacent buildings or structures; (7) Any applicable provisions of the City’s Design Guidelines. Pertinent Guidelines for Site Design include: C. WALLS AND FENCES There is a great variety of fences and low retaining walls in Charlottesville’s historic districts, particularly the historically residential areas. While most rear yards and many side yards have some combination of fencing and landscaped screening, the use of such features in front yards varies. Materials may relate to materials used on the structures on the site and may include brick, stone, wrought iron, wood pickets, or concrete. 1) Maintain existing materials such as stone walls, hedges, wooden picket fences, and wrought iron fences. 2) When a portion of a fence needs replacing, salvage original parts for a prominent location. 3) Match old fencing in material, height, and detail. 4) If it is not possible to match old fencing, use a simplified design of similar materials and height. 5) For new fences, use materials that relate to materials in the neighborhood. 6) Take design cues from nearby historic fences and walls. 7) Chain-link fencing, split rail fences, and vinyl plastic fences should not be used. 8) Traditional concrete block walls may be appropriate. 9) Modular block wall systems or modular concrete block retaining walls are strongly discouraged but may be appropriate in areas not visible from the public right-of-way. 10) If street-front fences or walls are necessary or desirable, they should not exceed four (4) feet in height from the sidewalk or public right-of-way and should use traditional materials and design. 11) Residential privacy fences may be appropriate in side or rear yards where not visible from the primary street. 12) Fences should not exceed six (6) feet in height in the side and rear yards. 13) Fence structures should face the inside of the fenced property. 14) Relate commercial privacy fences to the materials of the building. If the commercial property adjoins a residential neighborhood, use a brick or painted wood fence or heavily planted screen as a buffer. 15) Avoid the installation of new fences or walls if possible in areas where there are no are no fences or walls and yards are open. 16) Retaining walls should respect the scale, materials and context of the site and adjacent properties. 17) Respect the existing conditions of the majority of the lots on the street in planning new construction or a rehabilitation of an existing site. 636 Park Street (February 9, 2021) 3 APPENDIX Prior BAR reviews June 17, 2008 - BAR approved (9-0) the application (for shutters; enlarged rear porch; garage windows, door and siding; rear patio; new walkway; remove front boxwoods; remove rear 2 pines and gingko; replace rear drive with pavers) with the condition that the ginkgo remains. Submit the driveway pavement pattern and material to staff for approval. Informal suggestion: shutters should overlap window casing to appear to be hung. August 16, 2011 – BAR denied (6-0) painting the unpainted brick house and approved (6-0) the proposed removal of the Sugar Maple and its replacement and the landscape plan as submitted. NOTE: As a friendly suggestion, the applicant should consider planting 2 trees in the front yard. The following species were recommended: Sugar Maple, American Beech, Willow Oak, Red Oak or White Oak. May 2014 – As a consent agenda item, BAR approved (9-0) the conversion of a concrete-block garage in the rear into a cottage. This project entailed the installation of HardiePlank siding, new doors and windows, and a new canopy over the entry doors. 636 Park Street (February 9, 2021) 4 Board of Architectural Review (BAR) Certificate of Appropriateness PleaseReturnTo: City of Charlottes.,,lle Departmentof Neighbol'tloodDevelopment Services P.O.Box911, City Hall Chatlottesvile,Virginia22902 Telephone(434) 970,,3130 Pl•ase aubmlt ~•rd copin and one (1) digital copy of ae~icatlon tonn and all attachm~. Pleeae fnclude appUcation fee u f~lows; New co~tion proj4M:t$37!(_Demolltlonof a contributing structure $375; A~al of 8.AR Cfoe:ision$125; Addition• and othtr projects requiring BAR •~proval S125; Administrative approvai $100. Make c.hocka ptyable to the Ctty of Charlottetvlllo. The BARmeets the thirdTuesdayof the month. Deadline for submilttabis Tuesday~ weeks prior lo next BAR meetingby 3:30 p.m. /t.t:I~ OwnerName Jennilcr and lf6F1 Greenhalgh Applicant Name._Jc;..;n_n_it1_e_r..cG_re_cn_h_a..,lg'-h _______ _ ProjectName/De.aiption Wood fence ParcelNumbe<~S=-20"'1"'1"'3-'-000""------ ProjeetProperty Address._6_3_6_P_a_rl<_· S_t_rec __, _____________________ _ AppUc::antlnfo,matipn otW•stnt SkJnatutt Address: 636 Part.:Scrc:cc I herebyatta&ithat the informationI have provided is.,to tho Cha:lonesvilk. Va,22902 Email: jcn.patham(«eail.com Phone:~) _______ (C) 434.531.62111 ~odge.axred, I /z.~~I Property Ownerlnformption (If not IRRHClnt) Pm1Name I lz5/ 2.1 , 0nn 1-hl,,(1veChht>lst-. Date Address:. _____________ _ property OwnerPermittJon(If not appUcant) I have read thi5 applicatlontnd herebygive my consentlo II.$tubniuion. Elll8i,.._=--------=,------ Phone:(W)______ (C)____ _ Signatuc& Date Do you intendto apply lof' Federalor StatenucCredits ror this project? ____ N~I... A'------- Prilt Name Date Description of Proposed Work (attach separate narrative tf necessary): _____________ _ Constructionof fonccper attached plan. List AU Attachn,-nts (see reverse side for submittal requirements); For Offic• Uae Only Approved/Disapproved by: _______ _ RecelvOd by: _________ _ Feepaid:____ ,Cash/Ck.#__ OateRecelw!d:________ _ _ Dote: ----------- Conditions of approval:_________ _ Rqvis9d Z016 i I I EXl$TING,RONT YARD .-~ ., ·,:.;,:,'" ,_..•.;.:.,- --- . ,:_ ..,,. ~ ·•.~ ::~, ~ .. ~- .,;:, - ' >' ; Iii ,•..·'·~---:.-.:):"s:'41-,, •'., to;'~,: - • r<-, ,• ;.,.__ •, , .. ' ... ·: ' L,. ,. ',. •,M". ,, ' : .. ,. -~~--- --~ ', .··, ·, ;.· '. ,r-~jf!(-" ,_ -..,F'.' .,, .,• . - _:•;~ . ,,,:> .-t:"·,:.~';(I~; ,..,,•,y ~~: :::':, 51 ' " ' •' -~- . •' q.__ ,. ,.,_ ~- ... ~ ·~ -·' ,... .>..a . . . JI' .----. . . .. !~~,. - " , .. ' ..,. ..il'"-i: Iii ·P ___.. ' • •-~ -, . .o(i, ·-r·~ ~--· 1111 . -~~ . \ ~-~: ~-~~.:'•~/ ~"t~:, ,t,....~' ·· 111',1 g ,._ _, - . . ,tp:'" .., -~'-. '... '#' . • . • ,,_,;-:;_{'.- I" , ,f; • •<} .. - . • - ',. ·,: ,~,- ;·,.,_.•, ... .,::,c. -~ ,. :11. ~ •-. .. , ,41)' -rlii ! ''< ,,- ~~•,,1 .. -,. ·.""• ,,,\it'"I,r ~l _;,•y..-..,;·---,.:; I··•:--~ _J ... ,. - :M-,. .(. ~j+t, -·~~ •F. r. ~ ~>·it ~ ··"· .~·:'1if..,~. ,"i.:! f 11f, '~• •' ~. .,.1 :> •Sf:\ c,l'.:-,I:,• •-!-·"JJ-it-;.., '.,-_':I,,, '',_(•. q«, 11 ~"4"( ~-1• .), _;;., - ~,, ,.,, ',\ -~\.(),' ~- ~ )' :-...-t~._,1•. '"'. • U, • , .... .-,.,r. 4\c ~•• ··,Jf.,'.jcI~"'i- • ~-....~.,;:,t;_" ' ·,, ·•, ,... .. ,,, .. , ..'<, ~, •<- ·-.i,;, '.,,. '"f',, • .,.. ~, - ;·, 11:tt:.~'_,,.,,,~· M .. ' ~~;:l @..,.,_ . .,;. •\!.• • :r .. .<_.._,., .• r.,• ,( !$. ~.. ~~ '--~ ' ----~;,,.~:· r ~✓----':A~••t~,;., ~~:.,. -..,''-.¥-,, , ... •~: ~l',1,,- ;i.: · '-~ --"'-!:--•; ~"";-'. ' ,'•""";~-~-• .. .......,~---=---..:..::, .. LilJ _ '• PR!F!RREO FENCEOPTION: ..... VERTICALPANELWOCXlFENCE EXi$'r,NG SKtP LAI..IRS.STO $TAYON THE STR6ET$JOEOf=THEFENCE "INTHEEVENTASK!P LAUREl.OtESWEW!U. R£9t.AC£lf1'11AEDIAT'B.Y .... FENCEOPTION2: MEtAJ..FENC£ EXISTINGSlEOf lHE FENCE "INTHE EVEN'r A $KIP lAUREl. O!ESWE \\IIU. AEPl.ACEIT IMMEDIATELY .V<.:K!i~ • ~ 1)€$1(.;N O:Sl'Nl