City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Regular Meeting March 16, 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 from November 17, 2020 2. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-03-01 414 East Main Street, TMP 280049000 Downtown ADC District Owner: Virginia Pacific Investments, LLC Applicant: Greg Jackson/TOPIA design Project: Improvements to the rear of the building 3. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-03-02 1001 West Main Street, TMP 100050000 West Main ADC District Owner: M & J Real Estate, LLC Applicant: Michael Martin, State Permits, Inc. Project: Exterior alterations March 16, 2021 BAR Agenda (3/10/2021) 1 4. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-03-03 301 5th Street, SW, TMP 290104000 Individually Protected Property Owner/Applicant: Michael McMahon Project: Rear addition 5. Special Use Permit – BAR recommendation BAR 21-03-04 64 University Way, TMP 050048000 Rugby Road-University Circle-Venable ADC District Owner: Neighborhood Investments, LLC Applicant: Chris Henningsen, Henningsen Kestner Architects SUP Request: Increase in residential density and allow a reduction in side yard setbacks to address the non-conforming structure. C. New Items 6. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-03-05 420 West Main, TMP 290011000 Downtown ADC District Owner: A Cadgene, Main Street Land Trust, LLC., Applicant: Greg Jackson/TOPIA design Project: Canopy for the Little Star restaurant 7. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-03-06 128 Chancellor Street, TMP 090105000 The Corner ADC District Owner: University Christian Ministries Applicant: Tom Keough, Train Architects Project: Front façade alterations 8. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-03-07 506 Park Street, TMP 530123000 North Downtown ADC District Owner: Presbyterian Church Ch’ville Trust Applicant: Karim Habbab, brw architects Project: Modify approved addition 9. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-03-08 500 Court Square, TMP 530096000 North Downtown ADC District Owner: 500 Court Square Applicant: Doug Brooks, on behalf of the condo assoc. Project: Replace four, apartment windows March 16, 2021 BAR Agenda (3/10/2021) 2 10. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-03-09 735 Northwood Avenue, TMP 340078000 North Downtown ADC District Owner: Laura and Phillip Smith Applicant: David Mullen, Halcyon Project: Rear dormer, roof shingle replacement E. Other Business 11. Staff questions/discussion South Street Inn Landscaping Plan Lighting at The Standard 12. PLACE update F. Adjourn March 16, 2021 BAR Agenda (3/10/2021) 3 BAR MINUTES CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW Regular Meeting November 17, 2020 – 5:30 p.m. Zoom Webinar Welcome to this Regular Monthly Meeting of the Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review (BAR). Due to the current public health emergency, this meeting is being held online via Zoom. The meeting process will be as follows: For each item, staff will make a brief presentation followed by the applicant’s presentation, after which members of the public will be allowed to speak. Speakers shall identify themselves, and give their current address. Members of the public will have, for each case, up to three minutes to speak. Public comments should be limited to the BAR’s jurisdiction; that is, regarding the exterior design of the building and site. Following the BAR’s discussion, and before the vote, the applicant shall be allowed up to three minutes to respond, for the purpose of clarification. Thank you for participating. [Times noted below are rough estimates only.] Members Present: Cheri Lewis, Breck Gastinger, Carl Schwarz, James Zehmer, Ron Bailey, Tim Mohr, Sonja Lengel, Jody Lahendro Members Absent: Andy McClure Staff Present: Jeff Werner, Brian Wheeler, Patrick Cory, Robert Watkins Pre-Meeting: There was no Pre-Meeting due to a miscommunication with the Communication Staff. The meeting was called to order at 5:31 PM by staff. A. Matters from the public not on the agenda No Public Comment B. Consent Agenda (Note: Any consent agenda item may be pulled and moved to the regular agenda if a BAR member wishes to discuss it, or if any member of the public is present to comment on it. Pulled applications will be discussed at the beginning of the meeting.) 1. August 18, 2020 BAR Meeting Minutes Mr. Gastinger moved to approve the Consent Agenda. (Second by Mr. Zehmer) Motion passed 8-0. C. Deferred Items 2. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 20-02-06 751 Park Street Tax Parcel 520049000 Patrick Tennant, Owner Jeff Dreyfus, Bushman Dreyfus Architects, Applicant Side porch removal 1 BAR Meeting Minutes November 17, 2020 Staff Report, Jeff Werner – Year Built: 1904 District: North Downtown ADC District Status: Contributing 751 Park Street is the only frame Colonial Revival dwelling on Park Street. The two-story, three-bay house is oriented east towards Park Street and has a porch that spans the façade. The building has an impressive classical cornice and an asymmetrical slate roof: its primary hipped volume is interrupted by several gables, dormers, and extensions. The house was built for William J. Keller, a prominent shoe merchant in Charlottesville. February 2020 – BAR accepted the applicant’s request for a deferral. Request CoA to allow removal of the porch, stairs and entry at the north elevation, replacement of the entry door with a new, vinyl-clad window, and, where indicated, replacement of the aluminum siding with painted, wood lap siding. In 2009, the BAR unanimously approved a CoA for alterations to the building’s exterior, including removing the north porch and replacing its door with a window; however, in the subsequent work, the north porch was not removed. The design guidelines recommend the repair of deteriorated wood siding and to replace only when it is beyond repair. Applicant proposes to use salvageable material, to the extent possible. Regarding the demolition of the north porch, stairs and entry see below staff’s review of the City’s standards for considering demolitions. Should demolition be approved, staff finds that the submitted drawings and photographs provide adequate documentation for the BAR record. Note: Clarifications per discussion with the applicant. • The existing downspout at the porch roof will be extended down to grade. • See the note on sheet 3 of the drawings. At the east side, where the porch roof extends beyond the corner, the aluminum siding will be repaired similar to the condition on the west side. Jeff Dreyfus, Bushman Dreyfus Architects – Our request differs from when we were in front of the BAR last February in that we are not looking to remove the siding on the rest of the house. We have decided to focus the request only on the demolition of the existing side porch. As staff noted, it was approved in 2010. At the time, the cost of it was too great to do the rest of the work that was being done on the house. At that time, one of the neighbors, who wrote in support of this application noted that porch had fallen into disrepair and was not used. This has been something that’s been new to Mr. Tennant’s ownership of the house. The overall idea here is removal of that side porch. We will talk about some of the reasons behind it. With it being removed, there is s stair landing just below this window. The smaller window beneath that landing has a powder room back there. The idea would be put that in a vinyl clad window. With the house’s existing as it exists, it has aluminum siding on it. When we start to remove the porch, we’re going to be exposing some material underneath there. The question of how we patch and repair that came up. Our proposal would be the entire area that is dashed red, which is between the large protruding bay and the area on the left, would be re-sided with wood. When we take the aluminum siding off, we don’t know what the condition of the wood underneath it will be. We will salvage as much of that as we can. What we can’t, we will replace with wood of the same dimensions so that we can come back with lap siding. The same would be the case on this other side elevation. We would propose not just a small patch, but the entire area on that side of the house to go back as wood. There is a small area where the roof intrudes on the bow front slightly. We would hope to be able to salvage enough of the aluminum siding to be able to patch that area seamlessly. That is the request. There are a couple of reasons that we have come to you again. Since that time, we have had a structural engineer review the condition of the structure. The report was attached to some supplemental information we provided you with. His determination is that the porch is structurally unsound, not usable as it is, and it would require complete reconstruction. The other reason that we’re here to talk with you is the belief that this porch wasn’t necessarily original to the house. We do understand that the Sanborn maps from 1929 shows a porch in this location or an appendage in 2 BAR Meeting Minutes November 17, 2020 this location. It’s not definitive on whether or not that it existed when the house was constructed in 1904. The railings on the front of the house have classical detailing. The railing and the ballestrod on the side porch, which is more Victorian, is seemingly a different era. This is a very odd intersection with bow front of the north side of the house intersecting the cornice of the roof, quite inelegantly. It just seems to have been an afterthought. The interior railing of the house relates closely to the front of the house. The structural engineer’s report recommends any work needs to be complete replacement. QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No Questions from the Public QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD Ms. Lewis – Was there any indication that there was a door under this current landing and stairway that would have accessed the basement? Mr. Dreyfus – No. In this elevation drawing, we do show an existing window that is there. It certainly appears to always have been a window, not a doorway. There is a doorway right around the corner on the side of the building. Mr. Bailey – That porch cannot be seen from Park Street. Is that correct? Mr. Dreyfus – That is correct. It sits within the crook of the building here. There is a very large shrub right here blocking that view. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC No Comments from the Public COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Gastinger – When we first reviewed this, I had some questions about the necessity of removing this piece and what role it might have played in the history of this structure. Given the added information, I feel that it gives us a bit more cause to approve it. The care with which they are approaching this project will lend itself to longer term sustainability for the building as a whole. Mr. Lahendro – There was some question about the historic connection of the porch to the house. There were some members who thought that it was historic. It has been there since 1929, which makes it historic. Was anything done to help protect it/put a tarp over it so it wouldn’t continue to deteriorate over the past year? Mr. Dreyfus – Nothing was done. As one of the neighbors pointed out, she called it derelict condition before the tenants bought it. Nothing had been done in that regard to protect it. Mr. Lahendro – I disagree completely with where this is going. This is an important porch. It’s historic. The gentleman, who built this house, lived here until the 1950s. There was no major change to the building in the 1920s. We know, by the Sanborn Maps, that it’s been here since the 20s. It faced the side road. It was an important part elevation of the house as bowed window of the dining room on that elevation indicates for that side. Not doing anything to protect it in the meantime is called demolition by neglect. This should not be torn off. It is 3 BAR Meeting Minutes November 17, 2020 convenience and it is important to the original layout of the house and to the entrance to the house. It violates our demolition guidelines and it should not be taken off. Mr. Mohr, did you visit the site? Mr. Mohr – Yes, I did visit the site. Mr. Lahendro – Is this porch not salvageable? Mr. Mohr – I think that it is salvageable. I think that this is the conundrum of older houses in general. It starts out as a colonial and ends up as a Queen Ann. I know that wasn’t the case with this particular house. Mr. Lahendro – I am not trying put you on the spot, Mr. Mohr. I am questioning the engineer’s assessment. I have salvaged far worse things than this before. Mr. Mohr – It is not unsalvageable. Mr. Lahendro – I completely disagree with the engineer’s report. I was wondering, as a professional builder and architect, what you thought about salvageability. Mr. Mohr – I think that it is salvageable. Ms. Lewis – I don’t support demolition because of the poor shape the structure may be in. I support because I don’t feel that this porch is a significant, important part of the district. Nor do I think that the features are special or notable compared to all of the other significant and notable features on this property. This house is important. There is a lot of things that are unique about it. It is the only colonial revival that is made of wood. I do not believe this porch is original. We do know that in 1929, there was some sort of structure there. From the Sanborn Map, there are no stairs shown. What kind of structure was there? We know it was either a slate or tin roof, according to the Sanborn Map. We know that it was one story. This landing is actually one and a half stories off of the ground. I would support demolition of this because I don’t think that this landing and stairs show any significant features that relate either to the property it is attached to nor to the district. I do think that cornice jutting into the bow siding tells me that it was a later addition. I just can’t believe that any architect or builder would have built this very attractive property and structure would do that. I don’t think it is original. I do think that it is old. I don’t think it is notable. I would support demolition of it under our guidelines. Mr. Mohr – It is vestal. It is on a secondary street. It doesn’t enhance the building in anyway. Duly recording it certainly and making it clear that it was there. I think it is important to the timeline and the house to acknowledge that it was there. I don’t feel that it is intrinsic to the historic integrity of the house, but having it recorded is. Once we work around handicap access with biometrics in 20 years, are handicap access points going to become historic? I don’t think so. There is an overlay of just pure functionality to this. I think that it is interesting, but I don’t think it is critical. We want to encourage people to take good care of their houses. We are going to make them “jump through hoops” to something that seems arbitrary. I understand where Mr. Lahendro is coming from. This is a judgement call. I don’t think this is a “sword worth falling on.” 4 BAR Meeting Minutes November 17, 2020 Motion – Ms. Lewis - Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City Design Guidelines for Rehabilitation, I move to find that the proposed exterior alterations and demolition satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are compatible with this property and other properties in the Downtown ADC district, and that the BAR approves the application as submitted, with the clarification that the siding where the porch cornice meets the exterior wall be restored, as noted in the most recent materials submitted by the applicant to the BAR before the November 2020 meeting. Ron Bailey seconds motion. Motion passes (6-2, Jody Lahendro and James Zehmer opposed). D. New Items 3. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 20-11-01 731 Locust Avenue Tax Parcel 510026000 Roberta Bell Williamson and Elizabeth Mary Meyer, Owner Michael Pleasants, Applicant Roof Replacement Staff Report, Jeff Werner – Year Built: 1917 District: Martha Jefferson Historic Conservation District Status: Contributing. Two-story, two-bay, hipped-roof, stucco-finished dwelling has central cross gables with boxed cornices and returns. A hipped-roof porch encompasses the entire facade and wraps around the north elevation. The porch is supported by simple Tuscan columns and balustrade. The main entrance is the north bay of the front facade. A two-story addition and attached screened-in porch are located at the rear. CoA request to replace existing standing-seam copper roofing on the house as follows: • Main portion: Replace with standing-seam, painted metal. Color: TBD—likely forest green, dark grey, black, or similar natural/ earth tones. • Back portion: Replace with asphalt shingles. Color: Similar/complimentary to metal roof. • Eave mounted gutters and downspouts replaced as needed. Color: Gutters to match roof or fascia; downspouts to be white. Within Historic Conservation Districts (HCD), a CoA is not required for alterations that are not visible from abutting streets. With that applicable here, staff recommends approval of asphalt shingles on the back roof of the house, as noted in the graphic above, which includes the rear portion of the main roof. Relative to the request that the BAR consider allowing asphalt shingles on the entire roof, staff notes that when the district was established, the Martha Jefferson neighborhood identified standing-seam metal roofs as one of the architectural character-defining features to be preserved. Note: The guidelines for projects within a HCD are, by design, less rigid than an ADC District or an IPP. The HCD overlay is intended to preserve the character-defining elements of the neighborhoods and to assure that new construction is not inappropriate to that character, while minimally imposing on current residents who may want to upgrade their homes. Within the existing HCDs are buildings and/or areas that might easily qualify for an ADC District or as an IPP; however, in evaluating proposals within HCDs, the BAR may apply only the HCD requirements and guidelines. QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No Questions from the Public QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD 5 BAR Meeting Minutes November 17, 2020 Mr. Zehmer – Do we know when that rear addition was added to the building? Michael Pleasants, Applicant – I believe that it was in the 1980s. Roberta Williamson, Owner – The house addition in the back was added in 1995. The porch off of that addition was added in 2002. This will be the fourth time the roof has been replaced. There was very little roof left on the house. There were gaping holes in the roof. We put a roof on the house. That had to be replaced when the addition was built in 1995. It was in shreds. It was blamed on the maple trees. The roof that was placed on the addition in 95 was replaced with the porch addition because everything leaked. I wish that Mr. Pleasants had brought some of the pictures of how the roof has leaked to the inside of the house since the last replacement. Mr. Gastinger – The staff report says that it recommends asphalt shingles on the back roof of the house, which includes the rear portion of the main roof. Mr. Werner – I may have left a note in there inadvertently. There is the rear triangle on the main roof. I had suggested that if it helps with your budget, you can asphalt that. I left that in the text. I changed the image. I didn’t change the text. Mr. Zehmer – Is the intent and desire for asphalt on the back roof and standing seam on the main roof? Mr. Schwarz – The application is for what is shown on the screen. The applicant just wants to bring up the question in case we would be OK with doing the entire roof in asphalt. Mr. Mohr – Mr. Pleasants, aren’t asphalt roofs the ones being trashed by the tree? Mr. Pleasants – The trees are not the concern. It is the poor quality installation on the roof. It is supposed to be a double locked standing seam metal roof. It is a single locked standing seam metal roof. In numerous locations, there is wall clutter finding its way into the house. The main culprit of this is just poor craftsman quality. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC No Comments from the Public COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Schwarz – Is there anybody that would amenable to the asphalt on the entire roof? It is pretty clear that standing seam metal roofs are part of this. I checked the Conservation District guidelines that are not just for Martha Jefferson. It said under building materials: long lasting durable and natural materials are preferred including brick, wood stucco, and standing seam metal roofs. The language is all “should, encourage” and things like that. How about asphalt shingles on the rear roof? Is there any further discussion we need to have? I don’t think the guidelines actually specify the hits and ridges. We do like them to be not large and chunky. I don’t think that is in the guidelines. Mr. Mohr – Copper is a late 20th century fixation on the part of Charlottesville and Albemarle County. 6 BAR Meeting Minutes November 17, 2020 Ms. Williamson – That is what the roof was originally. Motion – Ms. Lewis – Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including architectural character-defining features for this district, I move to find that the proposed roof replacement, standing-seam metal on the main roof and asphalt shingles on the rear roof, satisfies the BAR’s criteria and is compatible with this property and other properties in the Martha Jefferson Historic Conservation District, and that the BAR approves the application as submitted, with a mere suggestion that there be no chunkiness in the ridges. Breck Gastinger seconds. Motion passes (8-0). 4. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 20-10-02 230 West Main Street Tax Parcel 280001000 Brands Hatch LLC, Owner Frederick Wolf, Wolf Ackerman Design LLC, Applicant Water Street gate Jeff Werner, Staff Report – This CODE Building project initially encompassed multiple structures at 215 West Water Street, 218-220 West Main Street, and 230 West Main Street. The site is now a single parcel, 230 West Main Street. Except for the preserved façade of what had been 218-220 West Main Street (constructed in 1901), the entire project is new construction. This CoA request was on the October 20, 2020 agenda. Prior to the meeting, applicant requested it be pulled from the agenda; however, staff has retained the initial BAR number, 20- 10-02. CoA request to install a street-level, metal gate at/near the Water Street entrance to the CODE Building’s inner courtyard. (Note: This CoA request is for a separate CoA, not an amendment to the CoAs approved for the CODE Building, BAR 17-08-01). The most recent, similar request was the installation of security gates at 500 Court Square (The Monticello Hotel), which the BAR approved in January 2019. In April 2004, the BAR approved a CoA for security gates in the brick arcade along North 1st Street for the First United Methodist Church (101 East Jefferson Street). For both projects, staff presented the design guidelines for Walls and Fences [from Chapter 2 – Site Design and Elements], which is applicable for this request. Additionally, staff suggests the BAR refer to the design guidelines for Street-Level Design, Materials & Textures, and Details & Decoration [from Chapter 3 - New Construction and Additions]. Staff requested that the applicant provide detail on the gate, including dimensions of the rails and pickets, proposed color/finish, and information on the gate hardware. If the BAR approves the design as currently submitted, staff recommends a condition that the gate’s details be submitted for the BAR record. Note: The gate will likely require an amendment to the Site Plan, including reviews for compliance with zoning, building code, and public safety requirements. Regardless of BAR approval of the requested CoA, construction of the gate will be subordinate to the requirements of the approved Site Plan or its subsequent revision, if required, and/or the requirements of the Building Permit. In the event that those reviews significantly alters the approved design, design staff may require BAR review of those changes. Fred Wolf, Wolf Ackerman Design – We have taken and run this past Brian Haluska (City Planner), who said that there would be no site plan amendment required. I have worked closely with Francis Vineyard in making sure that we understand the implications from a building code standpoint since this could impact egress. We made sure that we had that covered. This has been a tremendous project. We have been moving along at a good clip and everything is going 7 BAR Meeting Minutes November 17, 2020 very smoothly. One of the great things that we were excited about in this project was the owner’s willingness to commit to such a site amenity for the building but to also be shared with the community. We did not design this space to close it off. We want it to be used. We want it to function the way that we had hoped. We love the fact it could improve connectivity between the Mall and Water Street. It has all types of great benefits to the project. Security has always been some concern on this, particularly when you open up an exposed private site to public traffic, particularly late hours and after hours traffic. We have been thinking about different ways we can tackles this. As we got further into the design and construction documents, we have consultants, who have been working with us on a number of things including security consultants. We have talked about how we manage traffic in and out of the building and how we manage traffic on the site. Their suggestion was that it was important to have as a preemptive measure a way to limit the passage through the site overnight and after hours. It is our goal that this would be built and installed and never closed. We won’t know until this is open. This is going to be a new kind of space. It is a new kind of building. From time to time, if it is needed, for the owner to have the flexibility to limit passage through their site was important to them. They have committed that on any given day, the gate would be left open. If it was to be closed, as part of some process, it would certainly be open during the hours when people would be downtown, using the Mall and socializing. It is not just work hours. It would include after hours when people are using the movie theater and going to dinner. The other thing that is important to know is that the character and tenants in this building know that it is not going to by a typical 9 to 5 office building. It has a variety of tenants doing different types of business. Many will work late into the evening into early in the morning. As a matter of the building functioning for its own users, that can’t be closed. We took this approach realizing that the Mall is a very special streetscape and we did not want to put anything physical there. We felt like putting something at the Water Street edge would be a successful way to provide a visual deterrent to signal to somebody that passage through this space is not permitted when that gate is closed. We will probably have some type of signage down at the Mall. It seemed like a reasonable way to make limit the passage through the site after hours and hope the owners feel comfortable. They will be able address security concerns with people being on their property. We do have a few gate details as well as the panic hardware, the perforation, and the color chip. The gate will match the color of the metal platting of the building, which have been previously approved. The goal is for this to be discrete. The previous scheme was too much for everyone to tackle on the engineering side. It is a steel structure, painted, There is a cross lateral brace that happens on the panels and the caster underneath to take the load off of that. QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No Questions from the Public QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Schwarz – With the signs that you would put up on the Mall, do you have any thoughts on what that might be? Mr. Wolf – I don’t. We are working with Gropen. They are doing a signage package. I assume it will have something to do with that. I don’t even know if it is needed. It may be a temporary sign that is put out there and taken down. I don’t know if it would be permanently affixed to anything. It could be something as simple as saying that the park is closed. It will something that tells people this semi-public space is now closed if not a tenant of the building. 8 BAR Meeting Minutes November 17, 2020 Mr. Gastinger – Our capacity to really effect a long term operation is pretty limited or non- existent. If we were to approve this, that would keep either the current owner or future owner from also closing this gate and never opening it. Would there be? Mr. Wolf – I would let the owner speak to that. Given the value of that space and the importance that the owners placed on that as one of the amenities, Jeffrey and his team see as an amenity that they are creating that is an urban gesture back to the city. I can’t imagine that there would ever be a desire for that. It is just not in the spirit of what we have done. The fact that there could be a need for it is probably highly limited and questionable. It would be virtually impossible to go back later and try to retrofit this in versus build it in and engage with the structure now that we have. It actually makes more sense to put it up now and simply never use it than to try and come back and retrofit it in. In an ideal world, it will never be shut. If we find that we have an issue, they need ways to be able manage that as part of their private property. What we are trying to do is to make something that as transparent as it could be while achieving what they need to achieve so that we do not disrupt or lose the visual connection and the transparency that we have through that space. We had a long discussion about why you would want to do it on both ends. Doing something like this on the Mall side was certainly not in the spirit of what we were doing. Doing it on the Water Street side next to our service elevator and our loading dock and our garage entrance seemed like that if there is a back or a more service oriented side to the building, this was the side that made sense to try and tackle the problem and achieve what we could by sending that visual signifier/clue to somebody, who is a pedestrian in the Mall. It is a more subtle way of telling somebody that they can’t go in there. Mr. Schwarz – You said it would be difficult to install later. Is it possible to install the attachment points now and the gate later? Mr. Wolf – It may be. We’re embedding the vertical posts so they are flush with our clating, which is brick on one side and metal on the other. We have two different details there. That post goes down and it will have a plate that goes into the structural deck that is below the pavers. That portion of the design will not be visible. It is going to have a serious base plate. It may be possible to do something like that. From the owner’s perspective, if they determined somewhere down the line that they do need to close it overnight, I am guessing they probably won’t. They would like to have the opportunity to be able to do that as opposed to wait the several months. Given the space, it is a generous space. It is 21 feet wide. There is room to work. Working in that space will be a lot easier doing it now before all of the pladding is up and the pavers are in. Then you are trying to put weight on the pavers. Our goal and the hope is to do it now. Mr. Bailey – Do you have any idea what kind of security monitoring they are planning to do? Is it going to be permanent or guards? Mr. Wolf – They do have some cameras. There is video monitoring. They are going to have some security detail overnight. From a management standpoint, I don’t know if it is 24 hours a day. They will certainly have somebody there. Mr. Zehmer – What is the thinking behind using the perforated aluminum for the personnel doors? 9 BAR Meeting Minutes November 17, 2020 Mr. Wolf – The reasoning is to prevent somebody from reaching through and being able to grab the panic bar, disengage it, and open the gate from the Water Street side and walk in. Those doors do have to work as exits. Anybody that is in the courtyard space needs to be able to get out without any special effort. It is a common issue with gates. Mr. Zehmer – I almost see to one side or the other with the door. You can stick your arm through the large gate and “trip it” that way. Mr. Wolf – Where you activate that is going to be biased towards the side where it latches. With the spacing on the pickets, you would have to get your hand through and around. I feel where we have it now, it would be difficult for somebody to come back and get enough leverage to operate from that. Mr. Zehmer – Do you have a sense of what the casters are going to be made out of? It is more of a maintenance thing. I could see this thing over time leaving a marker, cutting a groove in the paving. Mr. Wolf – Our structural engineer has said that the diagonal bracing is going to do enough work that he felt comfortable it could hold up that corner without the caster. It may be something that will go away. There are casters that have a spring mechanism so that they are able to adjust a little bit with slight variations in elevation. That would certainly help. I was worried about trying to give the structural engineer some help by putting that out there. It is probably going to have some type of high density rubber on the wheel. Mr. Gastinger – Because of the panic bar, you really can go through this any time of day. Mr. Wolf – That is true. You need to be a ruler follower and see the sign on the Mall saying that the courtyard is closed. What it does prevent is somebody coming from Water Street in at the top and cutting down. It is necessary byproduct of the building code that we can’t lock that space off unless the building was closed. Rather than test that, we decided to build in what we thought was the appropriate level of egress. Mr. Mohr – It is fundamentally a sign saying ‘stay out.’ It is an obstacle Mr. Wolf – The only way it would become an obstacle would be if we had something on the Mall side. With geometry and the spirit of the Mall, it did not feel appropriate. Ms. Lewis – We have a pretty on target guideline on walls and fences. If street front walls and fences are necessary and desirable, they shall not exceed four feet in height from the sidewalk or public right of way. I think we have a sidewalk restored there and it is a public right of way. Even if we say that this is a side or rear yard, that height is still limited to six feet. From what I can tell, this is nine feet high, which is double the amount our guidelines would allow. If the applicant could tell us, why we should ignore that guideline. Mr. Wolf – The overall height is ten feet, six inches. The door is at nine feet. Part of what is driving the height of this thing is the scale of that opening, which is rather monumental. We have a first floor level, which is 17 feet tall on the Mall side. There is a lot in the things that we have done internally to the building that start to make a four foot gate, not only impractical for the limitation of somebody moving through the space, but seeming out of scale with the rest of the building. A four foot fence or gate might make sense as a distinction between a yard and a 10 BAR Meeting Minutes November 17, 2020 sidewalk. If somebody wanted to jump over that, they would jump over it pretty easily. I did not view this as a fence. When I look at other gates that we see, they are typically taller than four. When you think about service alleys, I had never thought of it as a fence. Mr. Mohr – I would call it an architectural element. A fence is not a part of the building. This would be like taking St. Paul’s Cathedral and making all of the doors feet higher. The scale thing is really an issue there. At the First Episcopal on First Street, Madison designed the iron gates into the side yard. I think those are eight feet. It was treated more as a doorway than a fence function. It was directly attached to the building. I would be inclined to interpret this more in the realm of a door than I would a fence. Mr. Werner – At Court Square, the idea of an enclosure does step away. I think that the idea that gates and fences more fits with what the material is, the shape, and how it fits in there. I would agree that these types of circumstances, filling the opening has been allowed. That is what I see in the BAR record and what you have done at Court Square. Mr. Zehmer – By definition, fences usually don’t move. This is on hinges and has casters. It is intended to move and be functional. Ms. Lewis – We don’t have a guideline that goes to moveable gates or security gates. Mr. Mohr – Ms. Lewis, I think that it is a valid question. Mr. Schwarz had a technical issue during this part of the meeting. Mr. Gastinger took over as Chair until Mr. Schwarz rejoined the meeting. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC No Comments from the Public COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Zehmer – When you look at the plan view of this, I think the fact that it is held back from the façade of the building, makes the height not as much of a problem for me. It would be up in your face if it was right at the façade at the opening. The fact that they have held it back acknowledges that it keeps that as an opening when seen from the street. Mr. Mohr – One option would be, if you wanted something that didn’t appear, you could technically put in rolled out nord with doors on it. You wouldn’t get the height in it. Mr. Wolf – I think that might have been the owner’s presumption that is where this would have gone first. Because this opening is directly adjacent to the garage opening, this wanted to be treated differently. I didn’t want those two things to come off too similar. The ones that typically that have a man door in them are not aesthetically pleasing. Mr. Mohr – I agree with the decision. I was just curious. The door heights is usually compromised by the panel breakdown. Mr. Schwarz rejoined the meeting after having some technical issues with his computer. 11 BAR Meeting Minutes November 17, 2020 Mr. Lahendro – Considering that the sole purpose for this gate is security, it could have been a whole lot worse to provide just a solid door for security. I am very grateful that the architect and the owner have decided to do something that is attractive and expensive and compatible with the design. I am very pleased with what they are suggesting. Mr. Gastinger – I am going to disagree. I don’t support this as it is. When we were reviewing this building at the beginning, we were very appreciative and recognized the immense contribution that the passage through this building was going to make to the city. That accessibility to that public courtyard and passing through to Water Street was something that was always applauded at every presentation. If there was some way to know that this was something that was going to be used after 2 AM, I think we might all have a different feeling about it. We really have no way of knowing how this could be used by future owners or with the assurances of the current owners. It would dramatically impact the visual character of Water Street. The Water Street façade is already pretty. Throughout the review of this building, we were concerned about its scale and its severity. We weighed that against some of the elements of the building like the passage through and liked how it stepped down to the Mall and the courtyard. In lieu of really good guidelines that give us something to go on related to security fencing, I think this is something quite different. We look at some of the guidelines that we do have about the impacts of proposed changes on the site, adjacent buildings, structures, public space. This says something that is quite cold and off putting to our public spaces. I do think it is designed well to be very minimally impactful and open. We just don’t know when that will be. I have concerns about it. Mr. Schwarz – I completely agree with Mr. Gastinger on this one. It is not that I don’t trust you or the applicant to want to make this open as much as possible. We have no control over that. We have no control if the project is sold in the future. During a time of night when the street is probably at its scariest, this fence could potentially be closed or the gate would potentially be closed, making that street even more forbodding, when having a big opening right there would go a long way to making this street feel more active during those late hours at night. There are some examples around town where we have approved gates. There was a gate approved at First United Methodist Church for their playground. The difference is that those other spaces where these have been approved are clearly private spaces or they are clearly utilitarian service spaces. This is clearly a public space or intended to appear as a public space. It is not a place where you would expect to find a large gate like this. I don’t think it qualifies for an exception to our guidelines. Ms. Lewis made a good point on the guidelines that she read off. It violates the spirit of those guidelines quite significantly. Ms. Lewis – When I was last on the BAR, we also approved the sally port that is next to the Levy Opera House. We approved the gate at the back of the Albemarle County office building on High Street. They created a sally port there to transport detainees. We have looked at these before and have applied the fence criteria. I think the fence criteria here is applicable because it is private space. The owner could close this forever and it will be a fence. There are no guarantees about hours that it will or won’t be open. I tend to agree with my colleagues. It is not so much about the materials and what it does. It is really about the lack of pedestrian flow and the promise of this application. I am looking at minutes from the August 15, 2017 meeting that was just a preliminary discussion. They wanted this space to be open up to the sky and celebrate it more on Water Street. You have a street wall on Water Street that is prettier. If I find this closed, I have to go around the block. I do think our guidelines go to flow, pedestrian use, and connectivity. I think this gate flies in the face of that. 12 BAR Meeting Minutes November 17, 2020 Mr. Wolf – One of the precedents that we looked at when we were talking about this was another public space in New York. Pele Park in New York has a large gate at the entry. It is a pocket park with a beautiful grove of trees and a wonderful water feature at the end of the back wall. It is an example of a public space that is controlled in some degree by the ability to close it at different times. That was a precedent. The details that we were looking at for how the gate could function. I hear what everyone is saying. I genuinely feel that this is an important amenity and one of the great aspects of the project. We are very proud of the connectivity and the openness. I believe that it is our client’s intentions not to subvert what was a considerable move to leave that much space unbuilt and create that semi-public space. I fully understand the desire to try and control movement and passage through what is still private property for them. At one point, we thought that could be done more with manpower and staffing. There could be times where you might need to be able to have some more robust way to limit passage through. That is what is in thinking behind this. It’s not to them to come take away for what is a very sincere urban gesture to begin with as a pocket park off of the Mall. Mr. Lahendro – Since this building first came to the BAR, our culture’s view of security has changed. We are now putting up planters around the University to keep cars from running into statues. There is a different attitude. I am assessing and evaluating this application in light of that kind of attitude and caution that is now going into how we think about our public spaces. That is unfortunate, but it is a reality. Ms. Lewis – Mr. Lahendro, is there a guideline that addresses security issues that gives us a little boost on that? Is there a historic guideline that you could point to that allows us to add it to a feature like this based on security? Mr. Lahendro – Not that I am aware of. It is all so new. Mr. Schwarz – I think our ordinance does have language about public necessity. If you want to take that somewhere to apply to this, I think you could. Ms. Lewis – It seems like a private necessity to me. Mr. Werner – I am going to look in the Secretary’s Standards to see if there is anything that addresses. We have things that have changed. Our guidelines are written to the extent of sign aesthetic, the visual aspects of a private space. We do have guidelines for parks and public facilities that we can control. This is a private space. I did add the street level design and hopefully that provided some guidance. This is something where it is not clear. What does it do visually? What does it achieve/not achieve as far as an aesthetic related to this building and to this design? Motion – Mr. Zehmer - Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City Design Guidelines for Site Design and Elements and New Construction I move to find that the proposed gate satisfies the BAR’s criteria and is compatible with this property and other properties in the Downtown ADC District, and that the BAR approves the application as submitted. Jody Lahendro seconds. Motion passes (5-3, Carl Schwarz, Breck Gastinger, and Cheri Lewis opposed). The Meeting was recessed for five minutes. 5. Certificate of Appropriateness Application 13 BAR Meeting Minutes November 17, 2020 BAR 20-11-04 946 Grady Avenue Tax Parcel 310060000 Dairy Central Phase 1, LLC, Owner Robert Nichols, Formwork Design Office, Applicant Modify window/door configurations Jeff Werner, Staff Report – Year Built: 1937-1964 District: IPP The former Monticello Dairy building was designated an IPP in 2008. The original central 2-story (5-bay) portion of the building, and flanking one-story (7-bay) portions are dated 1937. The east side addition (7-bay) was built in 1947/1964; the similar west side addition (6-bay) was built in 1959. Request for CoA to modify the NW corner of the building as follow: • At the north elevation: Reconfigure an existing storefront entry and an existing window. (Reuse the existing, swapping their locations, with the associated alterations to the masonry openings.) • At the west elevation: Replace an existing storefront entry and install a new storefront entry at an existing opening. (The lite configuration of the new differs from the existing; however, the configurations still align with the adjacent windows.) At the end of the staff report, I looked at it in context of what had been approved for these elevations and whether or not this significantly changed anything. On the 10th Street side, there is a door with a panel being replaced with a fulls height door and maintaining the alignment of the lights. I am not concerned with that change. This isn’t replicating anything original. There is the one original window that is still there on the far left. The intent was to align the lights, the windows, and the doors with that. I am OK as far as my recommendation with that. On the north elevation, there was the question about creating a new masonry opening and patching up one that had been there. As far as the alignment goes and using the original material, I am OK with that. You had asked about the changing of the masonry opening. I can’t offer an opinion on that. It is probably subject to what the interior use proposed for this. That might be guiding some of this. Robert Nichols, Formwork Design Office – My office is working for the tenant of this part of the building. This request and this idea to make this adjustment is born of the interior program that we are working. That was all absent when the design development of the building took place and all of the work went into that design and getting approval from you for the current state of the approval. Our desire is to change where we have passage. This is situated in such a way that it reinforces the programmatic layout that is happening on the interior of the building. To the extent that you have reviewed profiles, materials, those parameters would be maintained and duplicated. The door system that is in place and relocated. That is new construction, new material. The windows are original. They have been given a good look from a window contractor. They’re good candidates for relocating those windows. Those openings have good quality storns on the interior. That material would be switched over. My institutional knowledge of the development of the design is a little bit outside of my scope of recollection or involvement. Joshua Batman is the project manager of this. He is with Stony Point Development. QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No Questions from the Public QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD 14 BAR Meeting Minutes November 17, 2020 No Questions from the Board COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC No Comments from the Public COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Mohr – It seems rationale to me. It is staying within the rules of the game with that part of the building and making it functional and not violating the basic tenants of the aesthetics of it. I don’t see any issue. Mr. Gastinger – This project has been exemplary in a lot of ways for the way that they have adaptively reused and rehabilitated the structure. Everything that is being proposed here is in concert with the spirit that it was restored in the first place. Motion – Mr. Mohr - Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City Design Guidelines for Rehabilitation, I move to find that the proposed door and window changes satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are compatible with this Individually Protected Property, and that the BAR approves the request as submitted. Cheri Lewis seconds. Motion passes (8-0). 6. Certificate of Appropriateness Application 612 West Main Street Tax Parcel 290003000 fHeirloom West Main Street Second Phase LLC, Owner Jeff Dreyfus, Bushman Dreyfus Architects, Applicant New construction of a mixed-use development Jeff Werner, Staff Report – Year Built: 1959-1973 (concrete block automotive service building) District: West Main Street ADC District Status: Non-contributing April 16, 2019 - BAR discussion. 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. Note: On October 7, 2019, Council approved the SUP. January 22, 2020 – BAR discussion. CoA request for construction of a new, four-story mixed-use building. (The existing service station is a non-contributing structure; therefore, its demolition does not require a CoA.) Note: At three prior meetings (see above), the BAR discussed this project with the applicants, satisfying the statutory requirements for a pre-application conference per City Code section Sec. 34- 282(c)(4). This application is a formal request for a CoA and, per Sec. 34-285, the BAR must take action within sixty days of the submittal deadline. At this meeting, the BAR 15 BAR Meeting Minutes November 17, 2020 may defer the item to the next meeting; however, at that next meeting, only the applicant may request a deferral. Absent that request, the BAR must take action to approve, deny, or approve with conditions the CoA. I have a lot in here for the discussion. It follows the language that we have used for 125 or 128 Chancellor. I have added a list of recommendations for criteria that you might want to refer to. The applicant provided a list of the goals that the applicant would like to get out of this meeting. There is acknowledgement across the board that you are not voting on a COA tonight. It is certainly within your right to do so. If the applicant requests the deferral, the applicant can come back when they are ready. If the BAR defers this to the December meeting, it would have to come back next month. Mr. Lahendro – In the interest of full disclosure, I do need to state that I provide pro bono preservation advice and guidance to the adjacent landowner, First Baptist Church. I do not believe that I am receiving no financial payment for it and have no financial interest in that relationship. I believe that I can be a part of this discussion. Jeff Dreyfus, Bushman Dreyfus – The applicant is going to request deferral. This is in the spirit of receiving input as we continue to develop the project. There was a hiatus since our January preliminary discussion. Simply trying to get a better grasp on COVID issues but also budget and building size. I think we have narrowed down since then. We went ahead and applied for the Certificate of Appropriateness so that everyone knows we’re serious about the project moving forward with it. We do expect a bit of back and forth before we will ask for a vote. Tonight is really to bring some of you up to speed on the project for the first time but also to let you know the direction that we are taking the design and soliciting your input so that ultimately all of this is in the spirit that we when do come to a vote, we will have incorporated your input in a way that is acceptable by the time we get to that vote. Knowing that the BAR is no longer doing partial approvals, we really want to get this whole thing right. I will run through the presentation that we have provided you. I also have a few additional slides. Design never stands still when you’re on a schedule. There’s a little bit more project development that I can explain to you. I will try to touch upon the things that we are hoping you can comment on tonight. You obviously will comment on everything and we do encourage that. We would like to touch on building massing, elevations, material options, color scheme, and some details. The building owned by the Church is on the corner. There is an alley that is owned by the Church between the site and the Church. It is not on the property of 612 West Main Street. The property does directly abuts 600 West Main Street. Adjacent to it, are two contributing structures: what was once a mini mart and the Blue Moon Diner. Further down the street is an ABC Store and a commercial building on the corner. Directly across the street is the Albemarle Hotel. To give you an understanding of the building envelope that we are allowed to work with from the zoning ordinance. This building can only be four stories tall. The first floor has a 15 foot minimum required height. Four floors up, the fourth story has a required step back from West Main Street. There’s a required ten foot setback for the entire building from the property line from the sidewalk. At the fourth floor, we need to step back ten feet. The angle that we are required to step back on the rear of the property. This is simply the envelope we are allowed to work within. It also abuts to the east an internal courtyard for 600 West Main Street. This side of the former mini mart is painted by a well-known artist. That was approved by the BAR some time ago. You can see the ten foot setback from property line on the ground floor to the third floor. We are also showing the ten foot required setback on the fourth floor. There are going to be 41 units in the building. Here is the Sanborn Map from 1920 showing some of the properties 16 BAR Meeting Minutes November 17, 2020 that were here. You can see the Baptist Church and what is now the Blue Moon Diner. The red is the footprint of what is now being proposed. Our clients, as they think about the image of the building, the feel of the building is very different from 600 West Main Street. The idea is quiet and calming. On the interior, it is very serene with a bit minimalism to it as we go forward. This also begins to suggest the type of color scheme that we are thinking of. As we prepare a preliminary site plan, a little bit more of the specifics are here. You can see the mini mart building and the inner courtyard for 600 West Main Street. We do hope to connect to that internal to the building. We are honoring the ten foot setback along the property line here. We start to see the building façade here. We step back at about 28 feet from the property line here plus another three feet from the mini mart building. We have about a 30 foot wide plaza. This is intended to be the entry for the residents. The intention here is that the whole first floor front of the building is going to be retail, except for this portion. This setback will be the entrance for the residents. These are intended to be individual rental apartments, not condos. The building is not abutting the mini mart. We are not crossing the property line. We are exposing this portion of the mural, which is the majority of the mural. That portion, which is on the step back, is much less important to the composition as the whole. The thought is that we will have a landscaped area here for the residents to come through; not walled and not gated, but setback from the street. We’re thinking that there will be a water feature in there. We have a long way to go with the landscape design. This is the intention at the moment. We are also thinking of a planter along the street can allow siting, leaning against as people walk along. Having limited entry areas through that planter to try to help focus on certain areas of the building. The whole lower first floor front part is intended to be retail. There will be a complete retail presence there. There will be a small service entrance on this side for deliveries and move in. The south portion of the ground floor is going to studio apartments. It is retail with this corner for the lobby entry for the residents. With the lobby entry for the residents being here, the hope is that we will also connect with the interior courtyard at 600 West Main Street. The two facilities can share amenities and residents can come and go within the courtyard. Ways to allow permeating the planters here, the intention is not to provide an open front on the entire thing. That would feel like a very large gap in the urban fabric. Trying to hold the edge with landscaping along the property line and then setting the building back. We’re in conversations right now about perhaps making the planter less deep in certain areas so that we might be able to accommodate some outdoor dining along there. It really is not the intention at the moment for this to be outdoor dining. This is more landscape area. You can see some of the images and precedence we are thinking about for the water, the plantings. Even a large stone bench at the center as a place for people to hang out. Some of the materials we are thinking of for the planters. A section through the building describes a little bit of what I was talking about regarding retail on the ground floor stretching back probably two thirds of the distance. Because of the height of the ground floor that is required, we’re working on actually putting loft apartments in the back with some really nice views. On the south side, it steps back considerably. These units will get incredibly deep to bring light into this spaces if we try fill this whole volume. What you see here in terms of the buildable area, the grey zone above is what is allowed for apartments and a stairwell elevator, which we are going to have to have. That’s not really a part of the building massing. We are not building to the property line on the south. We have 5 foot 6 setback. It has a lot to do with the fact that the railroad tracks complicate construction considerably. By staying back 5.5 feet, we are not having to cross the property line and deal with the bureaucracy of building within the railroads right of way. We do have a parking garage here. There is no entrance to the parking garage from this property. There is a parking 17 BAR Meeting Minutes November 17, 2020 garage at 600 West Main Street. The parking aisle is right down the center of that basement. We intend to take advantage of that and grade through the basement level to connect the basement parking of 612 West Main Street to 600 West Main Street eliminating one of the concerns that the BAR had with the large garage door on this Main Street elevation. Some precedent images that we are looking at include simplicity, quiet as we can, a rhythm to it. As we look at some of these, a color scheme begins to emerge, neutral tones, perhaps dark colors, and a lighter color. We are not there yet. We are drawn to the drama of the dark openings within the lighter framework of the building. You can see the idea of the planter in front of the building that has an intermediate zone. We’re creating multiple spaces along the sidewalk for the experience, not just the passerby, but perhaps people in the retail space. These stone are well out of our budget. Stucco is an option. We also start to see some examples that are done in lighter colored brick. There is a simplicity to the layout of the windows and the openings. The light colored brick would be ideal. Light colored brick is out of our budget. Within our budget is brick and stucco for the main materials, both of which we like. If we were to do it in brick, we would like to paint the brick. That’s a point of discussion we would like to bring to the BAR. Red brick, which is obviously, the cheapest thing you can find in Virginia because there is so much of it is not what we are going for here. We would like to paint the, which is not part of the guidelines. We prefer it over stucco because of the texture the brick can provide to the exterior walls. Entry doors for the residents and some of the service areas right on the street so that we get a sense of solidity to these. On the right is a simple courtyard or space that is nicely landscaped and leads to the door for the residents. We are not intending a gate in this instance prior to getting to the residence. This is more for the idea of the courtyard right off of the sidewalk. A number of months ago, you saw some studies from us about the front elevation and how to break it down, ways we were beginning to think about the massing. Of those, this sketch rose to the top for some of the BAR members because of the modulation of the building in ways breaking it into 2 bay, 3 bay, and 4 bay modules along the street with the step back at the 4th floor. We were thinking, at the time, of setting back that area that would be the resident’s entrance. We preferred to have resident’s entrance set back in the landscaped area. Where are we now with the development and the thinking of the building? This probably describes much of what we are looking at trying to break the building massing down into components here and here with a center portion that is set back about one foot, four inches. You can see the 4th floor terrace, which is ten feet back from all of that. Even further back, you can see that entrance portion to the residences. We’re looking at a very open, glassy retail area. It is not intended for one retailer or five retailers. That is yet to be seen. It could be broken up to as many as five, perhaps more if we needed to put the demising walls down the center. I don’t think that is the idea. Calling some attention to the door for the residents setback a bit, this is the part of the building with the mural. You can start to see the color palate beginning to be a light colored material, whether that is brick or stucco with the darker surrounds. You can begin to see how some of the patterning might happen with the windows; just a regular rhythm of windows across the front for the residential units. Operable windows on the lower portion for each of these, emphasizing the view out. We are also thinking that we would like awnings over the retail openings. Whether or not those are canvass, painted steel is yet to be determined. You can begin to see we are differentiating the setback portion of this façade a little bit differently than that on the street. Thinking of some way we can define the entry to the residences is pretty quiet but staying within the rhythm of the rest of the façade. You see it further with 600 West Main Street in the distance as well as the mini mart and the Blue Moon Diner. We begin to see how the planter might break at certain points to allow for entry into this zone where there may 18 BAR Meeting Minutes November 17, 2020 be some seating for outdoor dining, perhaps even some bike storage. We’re beginning to think that it is going need to happen behind the planter. We’re beginning to think about landscape and how it can enhance the architecture itself. Vertical trees along this façade can help define some more of that rhythm of the smaller units along the façade itself. As we move back a bit, we want to look at it in context scale wise relative to the church, the annex building, and then stepping it up to 600 West Main Street, with this being the portion of the building that is closest to the street. Behind there are the terraces of ten feet behind. Much further back, that piece. With the framing, this is the piece that comes forward that we’re trying to modulate, not just with the indent of the building, but also perhaps the pairings of windows and groups. If we continue around the side of the building, I think it is going to be a straightforward west elevation. Not many openings in that. We have plot line issues. Hopefully within some of those openings, we will have a little bit of glass at the end of interior hallways. In terms of some of the details, the windows may be a dark steel that comes forward of the brick or stucco surface by about two inches to help frame the opening itself and to give some relief to the façade. Another way we might surround the openings is a very simple brick detail; turning a brick sideways and projecting it an inch or two from the façade of the building itself to frame that opening a little bit differently on the portion that steps back from the street. We might even pick up on that with the openings for the residential terraces above. A little bit of a detail is the black/dark surround for the mostly glass façade for the retail and awning to provide cover as people come in. This is very preliminary as well. As we go around to the back, you can see a very regular rhythm of windows. This is a residential building. We do anticipate having some balconies on the back. This is not necessarily where they are going be or how they are going to be. What you do see here are those lower portions that are the loft studio apartments and get higher glass as we go further forward. That’s about 5.5 feet from the property line. Above, we have terraces for those on the third floor. One of the things we are going to incorporate into the building is a green roof on this portion. It is going to allow us to not have to put in the large stormwater pipes along the street that we would have to otherwise. This is one of the measures that we are taking for this building in order to have less impact on stormwater system and the utility system as we go forward. It is a very simple regular back to this. QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No Questions from the Public QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Mohr – I do have a question regarding the back of the building. You are bringing in the parking from the other building? Mr. Dreyfus – That’s correct. Mr. Mohr – It is hidden from sectional view at this point? Those windows seem awfully short given the double heights space? Mr. Dreyfus – This was something we put together this afternoon to try to explain at least the massing as it’s going to work. The parking garage is below those lowest windows. It’s maybe the top four feet of the parking garage. The garage is above the grade at the location. We don’t intend to expose any of that. 19 BAR Meeting Minutes November 17, 2020 Mr. Mohr – This goes back to the West Main Street tree issue. You have vertical trees here. I presume that we’re going to have something much larger in front of this building ultimately. Mr. Dreyfus – I am presuming that you are correct. Because we don’t know the future of that. We are not planting where the tree would ultimately go. If the planting and the planters changes in the future, we can react to whatever the city does. That plan has not been finalized. It’s hard to know what might be planted here or where. Mr. Gastinger – Could you describe how you’re interacting with that plan or if it’s possible at future presentations to share what is planned in that section so we can better ascertain what the interaction with the planters and the street could be? Mr. Dreyfus – Absolutely. I would be happy to bring it to you at the next iteration. It’s very fuzzy. There would be a great deal of conjecture but happy to bring the last version of that street planting plan when we come back. Mr. Mohr – Aren’t there four stories at the forward section of 601? Mr. Dreyfus – It is six stories in the back, five stories here (left side of the building), four stories here (middle of the building), and three stories (front of the building). The building steps up. Mr. Mohr – It does have a four story element on the street? Mr. Dreyfus – Yes it does. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC No Comments from the Public COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Schwarz – With regards to massing: how long the street façade is broken up with regards to massing and fenestration and how the building steps back from the street for the residential entrance next to the mural. Mr. Lahendro – I have some concerns. I don’t feel like the street façade has modulated well enough to break up that mass. It reads because of the same colors, because of the repeating of the same fenestration units across the front; it reads too monolithic as a single building to my eye. That center section sitting back a foot gives enough distinction between the units. When the units are all articulated and have the same materials, this looks like to me a monumental institutional building with the vertical piers looking like columnar to me. I don’t think it is as successful as I had hoped for bringing a memory of row buildings on this part of Main Street. I have concerns about that. Mr. Mohr – I find it altogether too horizontal in its ultimate expression, which is the reason I was asking about height. It seems fundamentally to be a long horizontal building. What is successful about the building next door is that it brings a thin façade forward that plays in the same scale or footprint as the rest of the buildings on the street. The other thing that concerns me is the lack of color or certainly some vibrancy is a problem for me. What is a pretty lively street in terms of color and texture, everything is feeling a little dull for me. It needs some more 20 BAR Meeting Minutes November 17, 2020 life. I think there needs to be more verticality and a greater attempt to push and pull the façade to give it some sense of a smaller rhythm that we are currently looking at. I think it is really unfortunate that this didn’t come first. This could have easily culminated a parking entrance for the whole complex at a scale where it could have been really modulated. I have always found it problematic in the small façade of the other part. Mr. Lahendro – The planters look like barriers to me between the building and the sidewalk. I worry that the planters have some impact upon the size of the trees being planted. We’re replacing some really lovely large canopy trees in this area. They are being cut up by the utility people with their chainsaws. They are significant trees. I would hope that we will be trying to put back something larger and provide the kind of planting for that. Mr. Gastinger – I feel that the landscape, through the planters, does feel very token at the moment and not really contributing to a sense of scale or to better use by the pedestrian or the public. That’s where some context with West Main could be useful. I just want to point out that this rendering is trying to do the best to put the sun in a position where you’re getting a little bit of shadow. That must be 7 in the morning on July 21 st. Being the north façade, it has to work that much harder to have the kind of push and pull to really feel like there is enough depth within that façade to create that vertical rhythm that we have been talking about. Almost every part of the day, this is not going to have a lot of sun on the façade. Shadow lines are not going to be that pronounced. The use of color with the depth of the window mullions are really critical. Maybe using color more between the pieces might be one way of further modulating the façade. Mr. Zehmer – I had a thought that came from Mr. Werner’s question about our ability to allow for painting brick. If it is stucco, then I guess they can paint it. If they want to use brick, are they allowed to paint it? You could potentially paint these different row houses different colors. That would certainly break up the façade. Mr. Mohr – I always thought that painting had to do with historic surfaces. New brick, have at it. Mr. Zehmer – I did look at the new construction guidelines. It says that brick is the most appropriate material for new structures. Thin set brick is not permitted. On the next page, where they talk about paint. It says do not paint unpainted masonry surfaces. That has been referenced to existing masonry surface. Mr. Werner – The guidelines are recommendations and not ordinances. I have always made that distinction. I would be very comfortable recommending that the BAR, under the circumstances, to paint the new masonry structure. Mr. Schwarz – On the subject of massing, I am a little torn. I look at your elevations and I find it elegant. I want to think to what we currently have in Charlottesville. If you look at The Flats versus The Standard, the Flats has a very monolithic elevation. For some strange reason, The Standard is infinitely worse. It has a little street module that is a different color, material from the one next to it and the one next to it. There is a lot of depth of the façade. It’s terrible. It doesn’t work. I want to be a little cautious. If we tell them to just paint modules on it, or change the height of one versus the height of another, we have to be careful. 21 BAR Meeting Minutes November 17, 2020 Mr. Mohr – I think The Flats are successful because they are vertical. My only real issue is where it came to the railroad tracks. They should have punctuated it. This is a code limitation. It should have gone up another two or three stories. Another example being the Cherry Street Hotel. It is just that flat little box at the corner. They should have just built a different building at the corner. Mr. Schwarz – I just want to bring that up as an example. Mr. Mohr – I think color can be introduced not like they did at The Standard, maybe the canopies are an opportunity. It doesn’t have to be this. It can be all done in a quiet way. I think the other building is grim. It was fine for the back part. I think the front part needed to play better with the street with alleys and cacophony of colors. It is part of the character of that street. We can’t get too refined. I think they can still keep it quiet. I think it needs to have some color to bring it to life particularly at the retail level. Mr. Schwarz – I had a lot of hope for it. When I saw it on paper, I thought it was going to be good. What has been built is pretty awful. Mr. Gastinger – Since you mentioned The Flats, the setbacks in the notches of The Flats look to be a least ten feet. It has been different than what is being proposed here. Mr. Mohr – I think The Flats would have been way more successful if they had actually broken through the center. They had almost gotten there at one point. There is a courtyard in the back. That would have made it much more a collegiate compound. Mr. Schwarz – In my understanding, that for the building massing, there seems to be a want for more modulation, both vertical and horizontal. Is that what I am hearing? Mr. Lahendro – There is a difference between the west side of West Main Street, west of the bridge and the east side. The Planning Commission, a few years ago, changed the zoning to recognize the fact that the buildings on the west side of West Main Street are like The Standard and The Flats and the hospital. They’re larger. The hotels are larger buildings generally. The east side of West Main Street have more of the historic row buildings. That was the character that we’re trying preserve on the east side. The particular design here might be perfectly appropriate for the west side of West Main Street. I don’t think it is on the east side. Mr. Schwarz – I am not saying we should modulate it like separate buildings. I want us to be careful when we do it. I don’t know what lessons we can learn from The Standard. I think we need to learn some lessons from it because it didn’t work. Mr. Lahendro – I think there is a huge difference between The Flats and The Standard. It just a wonderful setback with The Flats with the large trees. The storefront is completely open. There is more engagement with the sidewalk. That’s what I am hoping for this building also. Mr. Mohr – The Flats is an altogether better urban building. On page 8, I find that center fenestration to be more in scale that makes sense. Where the Tom Ford elevation, which seems to be the direction you are heading, feels more like Fifth Avenue in New York to me. Mr. Schwarz – Let’s do window surrounds. That’s one of Mr. Dreyfus’ topics that he wanted to talk about. 22 BAR Meeting Minutes November 17, 2020 Mr. Mohr – The devil is in the details. I think, conceptually, there is some nice ideas there. For me, it’s more about the massing and how the windows are specifically treated. I think that could be very nicely handled. They’re heading in a nice direction with that. For me, the mass of the building feels too horizontal. Someone like Jimmy Griggs’ experiments with that building on West Main reminds of that right now. It’s just a little too horizontal. Mr. Lahendro – I am having a little trouble understanding you saying that it is too horizontal when I am seeing it as being too vertical. Are you talking about the whole block itself being the same height along the street? Mr. Mohr – More that I am reading those big blocks. I would rather they were maybe in half. I could also just see them as simply taller. When Mr. Dreyfus was outlining how the trees worked, that rhythm starts to work. The building really doesn’t have that rhythm. Mr. Dreyfus – The one thing that I would want to interject is that it can’t be taller. We have had our limitations on street façade height. Mr. Mohr – If you had a frame up there that carried it, but it was open, is that possible? Mr. Dreyfus – That’s something zoning is loathed to weigh in on at the moment. We have been asking this question. Mr. Mohr – It does have that little bit of that frame length language going. Mr. Dreyfus – We’re trying to push that. Mr. Schwarz – If you look at that elevation, it looks like the top of the third floor is about midway or close to the fourth floor at 600 West Main. Back to windows, any other comments on the idea using the dark metal surround or a simple brick detail or stucco detail. Any comments on the precedence? Mr. Zehmer – I have question about the function. You said the horizontal lower sash extrapolate. Would it slide up or slide out? Mr. Dreyfus – It would be an awning that pushes out and hinged at the top so that it flips out. Screens would be on the interior of the building not the exterior. Ms. Lewis – I feel that the surround has too much detail at this point. I think the massing meets our guidelines. I know that there are constraints under the SUP. I like the programming. I like the fact that it is stepped back from the main mural next door. I feel that I am looking at Neiman Marcus building at Lenox Place in Atlanta or Highland Park in Dallas. It looks like it’s a retail building that should have a lot of asphalt around it. Instead, it was plopped down on West Main Street. I am not being disrespectful to the applicant or his representative at all. I actually do like the palate of the building, the direction of a very clean looking palate. I agree that West Main has gotten some color. The color doesn’t bother me. I feel like the huge scale of the retail store front windows is really different than much of what we see. It would be the largest building with windows on the ground floor around here. I am looking at our guidelines on construction. There are actually a lot of guidelines for new construction on West Main. One 23 BAR Meeting Minutes November 17, 2020 of the guidelines is human scale, which includes balconies, porches, entrances, store fronts, and decorative elements. If the floors above the ground floor are residential, how about some balconies. This is a street. How about some street engagement? I don’t feel this building has any street engagement. This is a significant pedestrian corridor for us. It’s the most important corridor in this city. It connects the University and the downtown business district. To use some of these elements at the street level to reinforce elements seen elsewhere in the districts, such as cornices, entrances, display windows. Human scale is in two different guidelines that are under height and width. It is specifically applied to new construction. We don’t know whether these retail spaces would even have entrances off of West Main. We have been told about the door into the residences. I really don’t see any doors on those store fronts. I am assuming each of them would have a separate entrance and be separate spaces and not be accessed from within. I am back and forth on the planters. I am not certain whether they are there as a security measure and to guard against these glass windows and what is within them or whether they are trying to engage with the street as the applicant has said. There will be a presence, space there by itself. I don’t know how the building references any part of any historic district. I personally like the building. My last comment is to commend the applicant’s representative. This is a really great package of information just telling us historically what is involved with the SUP, giving us all kinds of elevations, giving us lots of information about the building envelope and what is permitted in your programming. This is a great example of a very thorough submission. Mr. Schwarz – I look at your precedent. I look at the building. I do think there’s a really nice elegance to it. I like it. Ms. Lewis makes some really good points. With big store front windows, it seems that is what we want and what the zoning seems to be calling for. If there was a form based code, I am sure it would support that. I am struggling with all of the big picture items on this. I am going back to the windows. I think your precedence for those and the ideas for how to details those are great. My concern is that you can’t afford a light colored brick. I am worried that you won’t be able to afford the details you are showing. That’s for you to prove to us. That is a concern of mine. This comes out being a lot less rich in detail. The simple details are expensive details unfortunately. If the richness goes away and the simplicity becomes even simpler and just plain flat, I think it is going to be completely unsuccessful. Mr. Mohr – I would like to see them spend the money on the window detailing and save the money by painting the brick. Mr. Schwarz – If that is how it balances out, that’s great. I want to make sure we’re not going to get into one of those value engineering cycles where we start off with something that’s great. We then slowly chip away at it until it isn’t. Let’s go to materials. Brick or stucco exterior, painted brick, and a question of using thin brick on the fourth floor terraces. I am going to add that while our guidelines do not allow thin brick, we have allowed it. The Code Building is clad in a thin brick veneer. It’s not glued to the building. Mr. Dreyfus – The only thing that I would like to add in that regard is the reason why we are thinking about it on the fourth floor is purely weight and structural issues. Thin brick doesn’t have to have mitered corners. There are pieces that allow you to turn the corner properly. It’s good to know that it has been used. In this instance, it is purely a weight issue. Mr. Mohr – It’s there because it is a qualitative issue. You have something that addresses the qualitative. I wanted to touch on something that Ms. Lewis was saying. Part of what makes that 24 BAR Meeting Minutes November 17, 2020 whole lower story seem a little off putting from a scale standpoint is that the planter solution seems suburban. I think that’s part of it. I think the planters do have to go away. The trees are great and an Italian classical sense. I also don’t see them as playing well with the street trees. I think that whole sidewalk scene needs to be re-thought. Mr. Bailey – I would be totally against the planters. I think it needs to be opened entirely and put in canopy trees along the street to make it friendlier. Mr. Lahendro – In thinking about The Flats and The Standard, I would hope the materials used on the front of the building would also carry around to the back of the building. It is a little discouraging at The Flats to see a bunch of cheap clapboards on the backside. Mr. Mohr – The Flats also have it on the higher levels as well. It gives a false façade. Ms. Lewis – To Mr. Mohr’s objection to this being too horizontal and my objection to that ground floor look. Mr. Gastinger – I think that could help. I think there are probably several different ways it could be done and still maintain the elegance that you are going for. The last thing we want it to feel like is a really cheap suburban row house building. I did just want to note that it is helpful to see the context of the adjacent buildings. The street view reminds me of the pretty sizeable historic structure on the north side of the street. It is actually going to have the same plane. It is also a painted brick building. It’s a building you don’t always see because the trees often obscure it. It does have some interesting lessons that might speak to a public and more of an inviting public approach to the historic fronts along this street edge. Mr. Schwarz – I am going to add on the subject of materials that although I would love to see an unpainted light colored brick, painted brick would be far superior to stucco just because of stucco means EIFS. I would want to see something hard and durable on the ground floor. I don’t know if there is another masonry products that you could look at. The other items on the outline include elevations, rhythm and scale of the openings on West Main, rhythm and scale of the openings on the south façade facing the railroads, the west façade, the window surrounds, and the neutral color schemes. Ms. Lengel – I would like to talk a little bit about the cornice line. It seems like you might be adding a thin seam to emphasize the cornice line and the verticality of the piers. Is that correct or is that something from the sketch up model that created the rendering? Mr. Dreyfus – That’s probably more of the sketch up model. One of the details we’re thinking about is if we have the steel surrounds, the cornice may actually be a projecting piece of steel that comes out through 3 or 4 inches from the buildings. We hadn’t really thought of that line. It reads as pronounced here. It may be a control joint. It wouldn’t be as pronounced. Ms. Lengel – I guess that I would like to see some more emphasis on that detail. Mr. Mohr – And the parapet is basically a railing too? Mr. Dreyfus – That’s correct. I don’t want to belabor any points. I am happy to hear anything else. This has been very helpful. 25 BAR Meeting Minutes November 17, 2020 Mr. Zehmer – You mentioned that there is a service entrance for the commercial shops on the west end facing Main Street. Mr. Dreyfus – It will be set back within the façade. We don’t intend to have a service door right there on. Mr. Zehmer – I assume that leads to a hallway that connects. Mr. Dreyfus – That’s correct. Mr. Zehmer – The reason I bring that up that I am curious if we will have a lot of delivery trucks parking in that alley trying to unload. Mr. Dreyfus – That won’t be allowed. Deliveries will be on West Main Street. Mr. Schwarz – Do you feel that you have gotten a good summary? Mr. Dreyfus – What I heard was more verticality, massing along this portion of the building, Mr. Mohr’s concern about horizontality, the stated detail is out of scale on West Main Street, material-wise, the devil is in the details, how to bring more life onto West Main Street with balconies or other variations that will allow some engagement, the planters are more of an impediment than they are an invitation into the retail. Mr. Mohr – I think that if you take the planters away, some of the glass area has no bigger than what you see on the plats. The uncommon is completely glass all of the way around at the first floor level. Part of that is that it is hard to understand entry sequences or anything because the planters are obscuring everything. I would be curious if your perception of that changes once you see it without the planters. There are some other parts. That is further up West Main too. Maybe that is the way Mr. Dreyfus gets a little more vertical rhythm out of this. Some of the facades are more hunched openings versus the retail level. Mr. Dreyfus – The other thing that I missed was the introduction of some color and street trees being more of the public realm and not necessarily related to this building. Mr. Schwarz – It’s really good to have all of this information at this point. In the future, as this progresses, I think staff gives you a little extra time to submit information. That would allow us to review it ahead of time and cut back the presentation. Mr. Dreyfus – Request to defer application to a later date – Carl Schwarz moves to accept the applicant's request for a deferral. Tim Mohr seconds. Motion passes (8-0). 7. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 20-11-03 117 Altamont Circle Tax Parcel 330123000 Viewmont Associates LLC, Owner Elaine Oakey and Lucius Bracey, Applicant Roof replacement 26 BAR Meeting Minutes November 17, 2020 Jeff Werner, Staff Report –Year Built: c1915 District: The North Downtown ADC Status: Contributing This 2-1/2 story, brick, Colonial Revival house has three bays, a central dormer and standing seam metal hipped roof with built-in gutters. The painted wood cornice features modillions and dentils. The single-bay front porch has Doric columns, the central entrance door has a fixed transom. Request for CoA: • Replace in-kind the existing painted standing seam metal roof, • Remove existing built-in gutters and downspouts and install half round gutters (roof- mounted) with round downspouts • Remove two brick chimneys and cover openings with new roofing. One of the chimneys is at the front next to the dormer. Another is to the rear on a portion that is an addition. I have included the scope of work in the discussion. I went back and looked at the BAR record since 2012. The current design guidelines were adopted. I found six specific instances where the COA request where five were approved and one was denied. The design guidelines recommend that chimneys be retained, if they contribute to the style and character of the building. Of the similar houses (with front dormers) on Altamont Circle, including towards High Street, only the two immediately east of 117 have a similarly located chimney. It is not prevalent characteristic of this style. John Epperly, Applicant – What I would like to add regarding the chimneys is the functionality. The one on the front is right in the valley of that dormer, which contributes to a very vulnerable detriment to the sustainability of the roof long term. It is able to be flashed. In the decades to come, when this starts to have some issues, that’s probably where it is going to start. Being that the chimneys are no longer functional, we think it is in the best interest of the roofing system to go ahead and remove them. QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No Questions from the Public QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Zehmer – Are the chimneys tied to fireplaces? Elaine Oakey, Applicant – They’re not functional. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC No Comments from the Public COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Schwarz – There are three pieces to this. I suggest we break it up into three pieces. The first one is replacing the existing painted standing seam medal roof. I can’t imagine any issues with that. Mr. Werner – I have the criteria attached for rehabilitation on roofing. Mr. Epperly is very familiar with what we require. Mr. Epperly – It is going to be a double standing seam pre-painted roof. The seams will be same on center as they are right now. It will all match up. 27 BAR Meeting Minutes November 17, 2020 Mr. Schwarz – Removing the existing built in gutters and downspouts and installing half- round gutters with round down spouts. Mr. Mohr – It does make me sad. It is pretty common. I understand why. Mr. Schwarz – The two brick chimneys. Any strong objections to both or either of them? Mr. Lahendro – I don’t think the chimneys are significant character defining feature of the buildings. It is not the way they are designed. I don’t have any problem with them. Ms. Lewis – They are bizarre. Mr. Zehmer – The only comment I would add is the fact there are three houses in a row that do have that very bizarre chimney coming up through the dormer lends itself to saying that they were probably built by the same builder. It does tell a story. I don’t think it’s worth holding up this application for that request to take them out. Mr. Gastinger – I appreciate the historic photo that was included in the landmarks. It just highlighted that the downspouts were painted a darker color, more in keeping with the brick. Only the top parts were painted the trim unlike they are currently painted where the trim leaks down the entire corner of the building. I think that would be a friendly suggestion. Ms. Oakey – As it long as it makes sense to Mr. Epperly, that’s fine. Motion – Mr. Gastinger - Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City Design Guidelines for Rehabilitations, I move to find that the proposed replacement of the roof, gutters, and downspouts and removal of two chimneys satisfy the BAR’s criteria and guidelines and are compatible with this property and other properties in the North Downtown ADC District, and that the BAR approves the application as submitted. Mr. Bailey seconds. Motion passes (8-0). The Meeting was recessed for five minutes. E. Pre-Application Discussion 8. 125 Chancellor Street Tax Parcel 90137000 Alpha Tau Omega Holding Corp, Owner Khanh Uong, Design Develop, LLC, Applicant Rear addition and site work • The house in the heart of the fraternity and sorority houses of the University of Virginia. • The house was purchased in 1995 and there have not been many repairs done to the house since the purchase. • The fraternity is looking to expand and do repairs to the current house. • The siding of the house is currently aluminum siding. • There was an addition to the house in 1950s by the previous owner of the building. • There is access to the house from a side alley in addition to the Chancellor Street entrance. • The front corner of the house has recently settled. 28 BAR Meeting Minutes November 17, 2020 • The proposal is to remove the rear portion of the house, a back garage, and two trees in the backyard. • There is an SUP for the site that requires 7 parking spots. • The plan does double the size of the building footprint on the site. • Two small trees will replace the trees in the back and three street trees will be added to the front of the house. • The first floor will remain the same and the rear portion will feature a break room and a kitchen for the fraternity. • There will be four bedrooms and attic space in the back addition. • The front porch is nor safe and the proposal is to rebuild the front porch. • The proposal is retain the trim work of the house. • There was a discussion between the BAR and the applicant regarding the project. The following topics were discussed between the BAR and the applicant: • Mr. Mohr brought up the size of the front porch. • The applicant did have a structural engineer look at the porch. According to the applicant, the porch was in poor shape. • There was much discussion regarding the front porch between the applicant and the BAR. • Staff did remind the applicant to properly document everything that is to be altered or changed on the existing building. • The applicant intent is to refurbish and maintain the windows and to replace the shutters currently on the building. • The new siding on the house will be Hardie Plank Siding. • There was support from the BAR for the massing of the project. Ms. Lengel did mention that the addition did seem top heavy. • Members of the BAR did provide some suggestions and recommendations to the applicant that could improve the project. • The applicant did summarize that the project is going to be rehabilitation on the front part and differentiation is on the back part. 9. 1001 West Main Street Tax Parcel 100050000 M&J Real Estate, LLC, Owner Ryan Perkins, Kimley-Horn, Applicant Exterior alterations • Staff provided a brief introduction to the BAR on the site project. • The applicant introduced the project for this site, which did include a mural proposal that will enhance the neighborhood for this Starbucks pickup store. • The applicant intends to use the artist Justine Cady from Baltimore to paint the mural for this Starbucks pickup store. • This artist has done murals for over Starbucks locations. • The applicant did provide a rendering of the mural of the bright energy and how it will come alive. • The applicant also provided improvements to be made to have bike traffic and bike parking in front of the store with up to eight spots for bikes. • There won’t be any pictures or images that promote coffee or the selling of coffee in the mural. 29 BAR Meeting Minutes November 17, 2020 • There will be an illuminated sign above the front entrance on West Main Street, another sign in the store, and another sign on the far right corner of the west façade facing 10th Street. • The BAR and the applicant had a preliminary discussion regarding the bike rack, materials, retaining wall, and the mural on the side of the building. • The chairman and other board members expressed excitement regarding this project. • The BAR provided recommendations and suggestions for improvement for this project. Some of the recommendations included: • Addressing the front windows and the painting of the windows. • Staff reminding the applicant that the community is going to provide feedback for the project. • Widespread support for the mural on the side of the building structure. • The bike parking being an excellent idea for this site. • Vegetation and planters would be ideal for the sloped grade coming down from the retaining wall. • There was a discussion regarding the guidelines on murals and that the guidelines don’t recommend murals. • There was a brief discussion between the BAR and the applicant regarding the windows and the painting of the front windows. F. Other Updates 10. Staff Questions/Discussion Plan for continued CoA discussion Pen Park Update BAR Training – explain requirements • Staff did go over the possible options and opportunities for BAR training. Preservation Awards Coordinate work session for Preservation Plan Coordinate work session re: Lighting 11. PLACE Update • There was no PLACE meeting. G. Adjournment The Meeting was adjourned at 11:08 PM. 30 BAR Meeting Minutes November 17, 2020 Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-03-01 414 East Main Street, TMP 280049000 Downtown ADC District Owner: Virginia Pacific Investments, LLC Applicant: Greg Jackson/TOPIA design Project: Improvements to the rear of the building Application components (please click each link to go directly to PDF page): • Staff Report • Historic Survey • Application Submittal March 16, 2021 BAR Agenda (3/10/2021) 4 City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Staff Report March 16, 2021 Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-03-01 414 East Main Street, TMP 280049000 Downtown ADC District Owner: Virginia Pacific Investments, LLC Applicant: Greg Jackson/TOPIA design Project: Improvements to the rear of the building Background Year Built: 1896 District: Downtown ADC Status: Contributing This substantial brick structure was built concurrently with the neighboring building at 410 East Main Street. The two buildings had coordinating architecture, but a 1914 fire damaged the west building (410 East Main) and its façade was subsequently rebuilt. 414 East Main Street is a three-story building is clad in pressed brick and has a wrought-iron balcony extending above the storefront. A heavy, projecting cornice on the parapet crowns the façade. The cinder-block rear addition was constructed prior to the mid-1960s. Prior BAR Actions October 2019 – BAR approved a mezzanine [rooftop] addition. Application • Submittal: TOPIA design drawings 414 E. Main St. Rear Improvements, dated February 23, 2021: Sheets 1 – 8. CoA request for alterations to and rehabilitation of the contemporary, rear elevation. Work to include: • Removal of inoperable wires, cables, panels and related conduits, consolidation of remaining utility and service connections. 414 East Main Street (March 8, 2021) 1 • At ground level, remove plywood and entry doors. Install new, commercial storefront entry and bent, metal canopy above. • Paint exterior wall, repair trim at existing double hung windows. • Note: No exterior lighting is proposed. From the applicant’s submittal: Proposed is general improvements to the alley facade of 414 E. Main Street. The primary objective is to replace the existing lower wall and doors with a new storefront system, in bronze color. The doors serve a utility space (to west), the rear of a basement retail space (center), and an apartment (to east). Included is a new 2’ x 17’ bent metal canopy over the doors, green. The two existing operable windows will receive new aluminum casing trim that matches the storefront bronze color and material. The building will be painted a warm medium gray color. The gutter will be replaced with a box gutter, in bronze color. The three downspouts will be replaced with one on the east side, in bronze color. The electrical and communication wires and conduit will be removed, re-routed, and generally cleaned up. Discussion The design guidelines for rehabilitations at the rear of buildings begins with following: “The area behind commercial buildings is often forgotten and neglected.” The alterations proposed for this the rear of this building will improve an elevation that has very much been forgotten and neglected. Staff recommends approval without conditions. Suggested Motions Approval: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find the alterations to the rear elevation at 414 East Main Street satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are compatible with this property and other properties in the Downtown ADC District, and that the BAR approves the application as submitted. (or with the following modifications/conditions…) 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; 414 East Main Street (March 8, 2021) 2 (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 Design Review Guidelines 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. 414 East Main Street (March 8, 2021) 3 LANDMARK SURVEY J~l IDENTIFICAtiON eASE DATA Street Address: 414 E. Main St. (formerly 410) Historic Name: NonnanBuilding Map and Parcel: 28-4~ Date/Peri cd : 1896 Census Track & Biock: J - ! z, "5 Style: Victorian' Present Owner: Wiley's Inc. Height to Cornice: Address: 410 E. Main St. Height in Stories: 3,2 Present Use: Men's Clothing Store Present Zoning: B-4 Original Owner: ThomasT. Norman Land Area (sq.ft.): 20.5' x 160' (3296 sf" ft.) Original Use: Dry GoodsStore! Assessed Value (land + imp.): r.;,.. •• ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION 410 and 414 E. Main Street were built as a 3-storey, 3-bay duplex with Renaissance Revival details, but the facade of 410 E. Main has been significantly altered. It must have been quite a handsomebuilding ,as originally conceived, but the l~ bays that remain can only hint at its fonner elegance. Construction is of pressed brick laid irrstretch- er bond on the facade, nowpainted light gray with white trim. Decorated pressed tin pilasters from the original storefront remain at each end of the facade. There is a recessed entrance loggia between them with two very slender iron Corinthianesque columnettes, probably also original, supporting a plain frieze. A balcony with wrought iron balustrade, supported on scroll brackets, extends across the facade above the storefront. The original facade. of which l~ bays remain, had brick piers at each end and between the bays, with a pair of windowsin each bay. The facade is now sliced offjlui~e. abrupt Iy at the western end. Windowsat the second level are double-sash, l-over-l , light, with individual 'Mdeated stone sills and a single cornice on consoles for each bay. Windowsat the third level are circular-headed, double-sash, l-over-l light, with ~icated stone sills and moulded round arches springing from hyphens that extend between the piers. A heavy projecting cornice on the parapet crowns the facade. It has egg-&-dart moulding, shaped modillions decorated with acanthus leaves, a paneled frieze, and plain,metal cornice stops. The third storey extends only a short di.st ance back. Both sect.ions have shed r.()()~~coy~r~~.~ith. ,>, ') HISTORICAL DESCRIPTION I~ James M. Smith purchased the site of 410-414 E. Main Street in 1866 (ACDB 63-263/ and enlarged and altered the house on the site. Alexander described it in 1874 as a "fanciful woodenbuilding witn circular headings" and urged him to replace his "inflanmable tinderbox". Smith and ThomasT. Normanconducted there a "large dry goods, grocery, and provision establishment". Nonnanpurchased a half interest in the property in 1880 (ACDB76-435), and after ~th's deathvhe acquired full ownership c. l891~In 18 he, re,Place" d the old building with the substant~al br~ck structure that Alexander had re~~ded. He app .,_ !~~ store roo~ and conducted hIS busines from the western one. Normandied In 1911, and In .• -m 1913, thi s eastern half of the building (414 E. Main St.) was awarded to his nd.ece ~-5. 'DlM.s (CitY m 25-415). In 1914 a fire which totally destroyed the Keller Building at 403 E. Main St. damagedthis building as well. Mrs. Davis repaired the damage immediately, leaving the original facade of her half of the building intact. It was occupied at that time by T. J. Will~ &Co., a grocery ~tore. The western ha~f of the building (410 E. Main) suff:red greater damagein the , fire, tore r et rom . . .. . la, . . ason, a .. I er owne . In rom 1928 until Hollis Rinehart and J. Dean Tilman, Sr.~RAP~ICS purchased it in 1935 (DB58-481, 85-489). Coleman' Jefferson Shop has occupied the building since the~ate 113~'s. The present owner purchased it in 1964 (DB259-245). Additional~References: ACDB76-435, 88-439; City DB22-475, 52-181, 193-289, 259-239; City WB9-66. CONDITIONS City/County Records SOURCES GordonE. Wiley, Jr. Good . Clayton Coleman Barbara Wiley Shirle exander, Recollections of Early Charlottesville Sanborn MapCo. - 1896, 1907, 1920, 1969 harlottesville Cit Direct~~' LANDMARK CO,MMISSION ·DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. AUGUST. 1974 Board of Architectural Review (BAR) Certificate of Appropriateness Please Return To: City of Charlottesville Department of Neighborhood Development Services P.O. Box 911, City Hall Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Telephone (434) 970-3130 Please submit ten (10) hard copies and one (1) dig Ital copy of appllcatlon form and all attachments. Please Include appllcatlon fee as follows: New construction project $375; Demolltlon 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 v'u,3)"1�• p.,G�C,"er: J:°11ves�"''""'� Applicant Name (. �ez 1�4�o-, Project Name/Description '11"1 e, ,11..,� ,e,.•._,, p,.�.� Parcel Number � 8-CO V9 00 0 'l_____e_. --�-"_..·_-\____(_\f"_-e_�_�___h_oe__ k) Project Property Address___,'1.....t...... _____ 11r __._'I--------------- Signature of Applicant I hereby attest that the information I have provided is, to the best of my knowledge, correct. Signature Date Property Owner Information {if not applicant) Print Name Date \I•--�.._,,. Pee.; '•c.. :Cl4""-,h"'•""'b Address: 2.•'.fi i C!b,;, S t .... -cct:, $'.,.t l Property Owner Permission {if not applicant)· I have read this application and hereby give my consent to au•., Email: e,. A\�-.u�\, c • ., � ,t� a12.-a/z...u.. its submission. -1 � Phone: (W) _______ (C) _______ Signature Date Do you intend to ap�or Federal or State Tax Credits_ for this project? ___..M---=_ o , _______ Aa.... u. c.. ,, Print Name Description of Proposed Work (attach separate narrative if necessary): V'e.A" fe.e ,.,,ta '� f "'•"C: !'• ""\:.) List All Attachments (see reverse side for submittal requirements): For Office Use Only Approved/Disapproved by: _________ Received by: ___________ Date: _________________ Fee paid: _____Cash/Ck. # ___ _ Conditions of approval: ___________ Date Received: ___________ Revised 2016 HISTORIC DISTRICT ORDINANCE: You can review the Historical Preservation and Architectural Design Control Overlay Districts regulations in the City of Charlottesville Zoning Ordinance starting with Section 34-271 online at www.charlottesville.org or at Municode.com for the City of Charlottesville. DESIGN REVIEW GUIDELINES: Please refer to the current ADC Districts Design Guidelines online at www.charlottesville.org. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: The following information and exhibits shall be submitted along with each application for Certificate of Appropriateness, per Sec. 34-282 (d) in the City of Charlottesville Zoning Ordinance: (1) Detailed and clear depictions of any proposed changes in the exterior features of the subject property; (2) Photographs of the subject property and photographs of the buildings on contiguous properties; (3) One set of samples to show the nature, texture and color of ma�erials ,prop_o��d;_ (4) The history pf an existing building or structure, if requested; (5) For new construction and projects proposing expansion · of the footprint · of an existing · building: a three- dimensional model (in physical or digital form); (6) In the case of a demolition request where structural integrity is at issue, the applicant shall provide a structural evaluation and cost estimates for rehabilitation, prepared by a professional engineer, unle�s waived by the BAR. APPEALS: Following a denial the applicant, the director of nei'ghborhood development services, or any_aggrieved person may appeal the decision to the city council, by filing a written notice of appeal within ten (10) working days of the date of the decision. Per Sec. 34-286. - City council appeals, an applicant shall seUorth, in-writing, the grounds for an appeal, including the procedure(s) or standard(s) alleged to have been violated or misapplied by the BAR, and/or any additional information, factors or opinions he or she deems relevant to the application. PROJECT BRIEF - ALLEY FACADE Proposed is general improvements to the alley facade of 414 E. Main Street. The primary objective is to replace the existing lower wall and doors with a new storefront system, in bronze color. The doors serve a utility space (to west), the rear of a basement retail space (center), and an apartment (to east). Included is a new 2’ x 17’ bent metal canopy over the doors, green. The two existing operable windows will receive new aluminum casing trim that matches the storefront bronze color and material. The building will be painted a warm medium gray color. The gutter will be replaced with a box gutter, in bronze color. The three downspouts will be replaced with one on the east side, in bronze color. The electrical and communication wires and conduit will be removed, re-routed, and generally cleaned up. 414 E. MAIN ST. REAR IMPROVEMENTS INTRODUCTION TOPIA design 02.23.2021 1/ 8 VIEW EAST FROM 4TH STRET NW VIEW EAST DOWN ALLEY VIEW EAST DOWN ALLEY VIEW EAST AT FACADE 414 E. MAIN ST. REAR NEW CANOPY CONTEXT TOPIA design 02.23.2021 2 /8 VIEW EAST PAST FACADE VIEW NORTHWEST AT FACADE VIEW WEST DOWN ALLEY VIEW NORTH INTO A COURTYARD 414 E. MAIN ST. REAR NEW CANOPY CONTEXT TOPIA design 02.23.2021 3 /8 SOUTH FACADE 414 E. MAIN ST. REAR NEW CANOPY EXISTING TOPIA design 02.23.2021 4 /8 NEW GUTTER NEW SINGLE DOWN SPOUT NEW STOREFRONT CASING TO MATCH NEW DOORS NEW STOREFRONT RAME AND DOORS SOUTH FACADE 414 E. MAIN ST. REAR NEW CANOPY EXISTING/PROPOSED TOPIA design 02.23.2021 5 /8 SOUTH FACADE 414 E. MAIN ST. REAR NEW CANOPY PROPOSED TOPIA design 02.23.2021 6 /8 4" 7'-6" 4' 8'-5" 4'-7" 1' 1' 16'-10" 2' FLOOR PLAN SECTION 414 E. MAIN ST. REAR NEW CANOPY PROPOSED TOPIA design 02.23.2021 7 /8 AWNING- BENT METAL, BOLT TO WALL CANOPY- EXAMPLE, BOLT TO WALL AND CABLES Bronze BLOCK WALL METAL AWNING ALUMINUM STOREFRONT, TRIM, GUTTER, DOWNSPOUT, LEADER HEAD 414 E. MAIN ST. REAR NEW CANOPY COLORS TOPIA design 02.23.2021 8 /8 Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-03-02 1001 West Main Street, TMP 100050000 West Main ADC District Owner: M & J Real Estate, LLC Applicant: Michael Martin, State Permits, Inc. Project: Exterior alterations Application components (please click each link to go directly to PDF page): • Staff Report • Historic Survey • Application Submittal March 16, 2021 BAR Agenda (3/10/2021) 5 City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Staff Report March 16, 2021 Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-03-02 1001 West Main Street, TMP 100050000 West Main ADC District Owner: M & J Real Estate, LLC Applicant: Michael Martin, State Permits, Inc. Project: Exterior alterations Background Year Built: c1920, 1936 District: West Main Street ADC District Status: Contributing A remnant of West Main’s 20th century auto-centric history, this structure has been modified and repurposed. The two-story, NE corner is the earliest and of heavy frame and brick with a modern concrete-block and metal panel facing. The SE corner, added after 1920 as a service station, featured an aluminum-framed display windows and an awning. The west end, built in 1936, is brick veneer over terra-cotta block with industrial windows and a bowstring-truss roof from an airplane hangar. This wing had garage door bays and was faced with enameled metal panels. Prior BAR Reviews See Appendix Application • Submittal: Soos & Associates drawings 1001 Main UVa Medical, dated February 19, 2021: Sheets 001 – 004. Hilton Displays drawings, Starbucks Coffee #65136, 1001 W Main St, Charlottesville VA 22903, dated February 8, 2021: four sheets. • Addendum: o Parking lot railing: Awnex, Inc. cut sheet. o Lighting: Trov cut sheets: L50 ASYM fixture; MP-L50-3H-48 masking plates; Wall mount arms o Storefront: Kawneer cut sheet, 190 Narrow Stile Entrance. o Glass: Vitro Architectural Glass spec information. o Grading and plantings: Kimley-Horn drawing, sheet CS-101, dated January 11, 2021. CoA request for exterior alterations to the east end of the building, including signage, new entrance door and transom, and modification to the parking area, including regrading, new railing, planters, and bike racks. Plantings in container to be Karl Foerster Feather Reed Grass. 1001 West Main (March 10, 2021) 1 Discussion and Recommendations Staff recommends approval with the understanding that the proposed signage will require a separate sign permit. Suggested Motions Approval: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find the proposed alterations at 1001 West Main Street satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are compatible with this property and other properties in the West Main ADC District, and that the BAR approves the application as submitted. (or with the following modifications/conditions…) Denial: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find the proposed alterations at 1001 West Main Street do not satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are not compatible with this property and other properties in the West Main ADC District, and that for the following reasons the BAR denies the application as submitted: Criteria, Standards, and Guidelines Review Criteria Generally Sec. 34-284(b) of the City Code states that, in considering a particular application the BAR shall approve the application unless it finds: (1) That the proposal does not meet specific standards set forth within this division or applicable provisions of the Design Guidelines established by the board pursuant to Sec. 34-288(6); and (2) The proposal is incompatible with the historic, cultural or architectural character of the district in which the property is located or the protected property that is the subject of the application. Pertinent Standards for Review of Construction and Alterations include: 1) Whether the material, texture, color, height, scale, mass and placement of the proposed addition, modification or construction are visually and architecturally compatible with the site and the applicable design control district; 2) The harmony of the proposed change in terms of overall proportion and the size and placement of entrances, windows, awnings, exterior stairs and signs; 3) The Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation set forth within the Code of Federal Regulations (36 C.F.R. §67.7(b)), as may be relevant; 4) The effect of the proposed change on the historic district neighborhood; 5) The impact of the proposed change on other protected features on the property, such as gardens, landscaping, fences, walls and walks; 6) Whether the proposed method of construction, renovation or restoration could have an adverse impact on the structure or site, or adjacent buildings or structures; 7) Any applicable provisions of the City’s Design Guidelines. Pertinent Guidelines for Site Design and Elements B. Plantings C. Walls and Fences D. Lighting Pertinent Guidelines for Rehabilitations B. Facades and Storefronts Pertinent Guidelines for Signs, Awnings, Vending, and Cafes A. Signs C. Awnings, Marquees, & Canopies 1001 West Main (March 10, 2021) 2 APPENDIX Prior BAR Reviews August 19, 2014 - BAR approved (6-0-1, Mohr) removal of metal panels on the façade. Application: http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/622635/BAR_1001%20West%20Main%20Street_A ug2014.pdf January 20, 2015 – BAR approved (7-0) design that would “unify the building, while giving a nod to its historic context.” The goal is to “provide functioning commercial, retail and service space for the growing surrounding context, while still allowing the historic aesthetic to be legible.” • Install garage-style storefront window systems in locations of previous garage doors. Dark bronze aluminum frames with horizontal muntins and clear glass. • Add some new or enlarged openings with fixed, clear class and horizontal muntins; also close two openings on east side. • Add three new canopies on main entrances, consisting of white steel frame and Douglas Fir wood slats with recessed down-lighting. Attached with steel cable support system. • Level and clean cornice on east façade. • Replace roof in same location and design. A 7’ louvered screen system will screen rooftop mechanical. • Parge and paint existing concrete masonry units (CMU). • Paint colors: Benjamin Moore Squire Hill Bluff (primary) and Graphite (trim). • Remove metal siding from rear of building. Parge and paint masonry. Basement windows will have glass blocks; second floor windows same material, style, and color as others. Application: http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/622636/BAR_1001%20West%20Main%20Street_Jan20 15.pdf September 17, 2015 – Administrative approval to demolish an unstable section of the front wall (east side), to re-frame, and to replace glass per approval plan. Application: http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/649270/BAR_1001%20West%20Main%20Street_Se pt2015.pdf November 15, 2016 – BAR approved changes to the west side of the building, revising the design for the building approved in January 2015. • The window and door openings remain the same on the front and rear facades; on the west façade an existing opening will be reduced in size. • The parapet is proposed to be raised in the front center façade to create a surround at the entrance doors. • The materials and colors of the west side of the building has changed from the original white painted masonry. Proposed materials are “Identity Wood” in dark brown and lighter brown, and Crossville “Basalt” 12’ x 24’ stacked tile at the entry surround. The building owner proposes to paint the east end of the building white, and to paint the rear of the building to match the lighter shade of brown. • Signage and lighting have changed. Three signs are proposed, which Zoning permits for a retail business on a corner site (101/2 Street and W Main Street). Two gooseneck lights are added at the entrance. Cove lighting is proposed along the metal cap at the roofline. Application: http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/698583/BAR_1001%20West%20Main%20Street_Nov20 16.pdf 1001 West Main (March 10, 2021) 3 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 104-0323 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data Property Information Property Names Property Evaluation Status Name Explanation Name Current Name Pizza Hut Function/Location Gas Station, 1001 West Main Street Not Evaluated Historic Albemarle Gas & Oil Company Historic Team Tires Historic Wood Field Hangar Property Addresses Current - 1001 Main Street West Route 250 County/Independent City(s): Charlottesville (Ind. City) Incorporated Town(s): No Data Zip Code(s): 22903 Magisterial District(s): No Data Tax Parcel(s): No Data USGS Quad(s): CHARLOTTESVILLE EAST Additional Property Information Architecture Setting: Urban Acreage: No Data Site Description: Summary of 1996 form: This building is located within the general surroundings of a city. Surveyor Assessment: 1984: A 1907 edition of Sanborne's [sic] Insurance Map shows a 2-story brick furniture store on the western part of the property at 1012 Main Street, and a wood yard with wooden office on the eastern portion at 1003 West Main Street. This wood yard may have been associated with the Piedmont Lumber Corp. which had offices across the street at this time. 1996: This building relates to the 20th century automobile reorientation of West Main street and as such contributes to the historic character of the street. Its earliest section i said by one informant to have formerly served as a dance hall with upstairs rooms to let, a business known as the Stagger Inn. The filling station that forms the southeast corner of the building was built in the 1920s and was later embedded into additions. A Mr. Rothwell acquired the property about 1936 and added the west end, into which he incorporated roof trusses and windows from a hanger at the defunct Foxfield Airport (Wood Field). The business was known at this time as the Albemarle Gas & Oil Company. Surveyor Recommendation: Recommended Not Eligible Ownership Ownership Category Ownership Entity Private No Data Primary Resource Information Resource Category: Commerce/Trade Resource Type: Service Station NR Resource Type: Building Historic District Status: No Data Date of Construction: Ca 1936 Date Source: Oral History Historic Time Period: World War I to World War II (1917 - 1945) Historic Context(s): Commerce/Trade, Transportation/Communication Other ID Number: No Data Architectural Style: No discernible style Form: No Data Number of Stories: 2.0 March 10, 2021 Page: 1 of 2 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 104-0323 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data Condition: Good Threats to Resource: Demolition, Development Architectural Description: 1984: There are enameled metal panels on this 1-story, flat-roofed building with 7 bays. There is a 1-story 1-bay porch with a flat roof and a gas pump island. This building is a "modern enameled garage style" structure built ca. 1955. There is an entrance in every bay; the two east bays contain an office and have fixed plate glass windows with doors with large glass single lights. The western 5 bays are garage bays with 3 garage doors on the overhead tracts and 2 double door entries. There is 1 chimney in the northwest corner of the building. The building has had a history of consistent alteration. 1996: This composite building consists of 3 sections. The earliest section, of indeterminate age, is the building's 2-story northeast corner, and is of heavy frame and brick construction with a modern concrete-block and metal panel facing. The building's southeast corner was added as a service station, and it features aluminum-framed display windows and an awning. The west end is constructed of brick veneer over terra-cotta block and incorporates large industrial windows and a bowstring roof from a former airplane hanger. This wing has several garage door bays and is faced with enameled metal panels. Exterior Components Component Component Type Material Material Treatment Structural System and Masonry Brick Veneer Exterior Treatment Roof Flat Unknown No Data Windows Fixed Aluminum No Data Secondary Resource Information Historic District Information Historic District Name: No Data Local Historic District Name: No Data Historic District Significance: No Data CRM Events Event Type: Survey:Phase I/Reconnaissance Project Review File Number: No Data Investigator: J. Daniel Pezzoni Organization/Company: DHR Photographic Media: Film Survey Date: 5/22/1996 Dhr Library Report Number: No Data Project Staff/Notes: Reconnaissance survey by J. Daniel Pezzoni in 1996 for nearly all files. Original Historic Landmarks commission (Department of Community Development) surveys by Eugenia Bibb, Summer 1984 used for some of these files. Some of these surveys by Bibb date to 1985 or 1986 as well. There are also some Virginia Historic Landmarks Commission forms included from an unspecified year (the 1970s based on physical appearance of forms). These have been completed by W. Kille. Entry into V-CRIS database by Melina Bezirdjian, January 2014. Bibliographic Information Bibliography: Sanborn Maps of Charlottesville, 1891. Telephone interview with Harry Knauf, Charlottesville, VA: May 1996. Property Notes: No Data March 10, 2021 Page: 2 of 2 R C 2017 STARBUCKS COFFEE COMPANY STARBUCKS R 2401 UTAH AVENUE SOUTH SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98134 (206) 318-1575 THESE DRAWINGS AND THE PROJECT MANUAL ARE CONFIDENTIAL AND SHALL REMAIN THE SOLE PROPERTY OF STARBUCKS CORPORATION, WHICH IS THE OWNER OF THE COPYRIGHT IN THIS WORK. THEY SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED (IN WHOLE OR IN PART), SHARED WITH THIRD PARTIES OR USED IN ANY MANNER ON OTHER PROJECTS OR EXTENSIONS TO THIS PROJECT WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF STARBUCKS CORPORATION. THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE INTENDED TO EXPRESS DESIGN INTENT FOR A PROTOTYPICAL STARBUCKS STORE (WHICH IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AT ANYTIME) AND DO NOT REFLECT ACTUAL SITE CONDITIONS. NEITHER PARTY SHALL HAVE ANY OBLIGATION NOR LIABILITY TO THE OTHER (EXCEPT STATED ABOVE) UNTIL A WRITTEN AGREEMENT IS FULLY EXECUTED BY BOTH PARTIES. STARBUCKS TEMPLATE VERSION i2020-04-20 ARCHITECT OF RECORD ASOOS OCIATES Soos & Associates, Inc. 105 Schelter Road Lincolnshire, IL 60069 p: 847 821 7667 EXISTING PHOTO - SOUTH EXISTING PHOTO - SOUTHEAST 1001 MAIN UVA MEDICAL CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE 1001 WEST MAIN STREET D:\Revit\89931-001_1001 Main_UVA Medical CENTRAL_tomreid6603.rvt PROJECT ADDRESS: PROJECT NAME: STORE #: TBD PROJECT #: 89931-001 ISSUE DATE: 2/19/2021 DESIGN MANAGER: PRODUCTION DESIGNER: SOOS CHECKED BY: SOOS Revision Schedule Rev Date By Description 2/19/2021 1:42:41 PM SHEET TITLE: EXISTING CONDITIONS EXISTING PHOTO - EAST EXISTING PHOTO - NORTHEAST SCALE: AS SHOWN SHEET NUMBER: 001 STARBUCKS SPACE STARBUCKS SPACE EXISTING ROOF SCREENING EXISTING ROOF SCREENING R T/PARAPET T/PARAPET C 2017 STARBUCKS COFFEE COMPANY EQ EQ 15' - 9" 15' - 9" STARBUCKS 3' - 4" EXISTING WALLS PAINTED R SW7006 - EXTRA WHITE 2401 UTAH AVENUE SOUTH SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98134 9" NEW WALL SIGNS. REFER TO SIGN (206) 318-1575 PACKAGE. EXISTING ENTRY CANOPY THESE DRAWINGS AND THE PROJECT MANUAL ARE CONFIDENTIAL AND SHALL REMAIN THE SOLE PROPERTY OF STARBUCKS 8" CMU PAINTED CORPORATION, WHICH IS THE OWNER OF THE NEW UPLIGHTING FOR SIGNAGE SW7006 - EXTRA WHITE COPYRIGHT IN THIS WORK. THEY SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED (IN WHOLE OR IN PART), SHARED WITH THIRD PARTIES OR USED IN ANY MANNER TRANSLUCENT WINDOW FILM ON OTHER PROJECTS OR EXTENSIONS TO THIS TRANSLUCENT WINDOW FILM ON EXISTING WINDOWS ON NEW DOOR PROJECT WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF STARBUCKS CORPORATION. THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE NEW DOOR AT EXISTING WINDOW INTENDED TO EXPRESS DESIGN INTENT FOR A OPENING. WIDEN OPENING AS REQ'D. PROTOTYPICAL STARBUCKS STORE (WHICH IS MATCH EXISTING STOREFRONT SYSTEM. SUBJECT TO CHANGE AT ANYTIME) AND DO NOT FINISH BLACK. REFLECT ACTUAL SITE CONDITIONS. NEITHER Interior 1st Floor Interior 1st Floor PARTY SHALL HAVE ANY OBLIGATION NOR LIABILITY TO THE OTHER (EXCEPT STATED 0" 0" ABOVE) UNTIL A WRITTEN AGREEMENT IS FULLY EXISTING STOREFRONT EXECUTED BY BOTH PARTIES. STARBUCKS TEMPLATE VERSION i2020-04-20 NEW VINYL WINDOW GRAPHICS ON EXISTING DOORS ARCHITECT OF RECORD ASOOS OCIATES Soos & Associates, Inc. 105 Schelter Road Lincolnshire, IL 60069 p: 847 821 7667 Basement Floor -11' - 0 1/2" PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION 1 Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" 2 Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" 13' - 9" EXISTING ROOF SCREENING EQ EQ 1001 MAIN UVA MEDICAL T/PARAPET CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 15' - 9" CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE 1001 WEST MAIN STREET NEW WALL WASHER LIGHTS 5' - 1" D:\Revit\89931-001_1001 Main_UVA Medical CENTRAL_tomreid6603.rvt NEW WALL SIGNS. REFER TO SIGN PACKAGE. 8" CMU PAINTED SW7006 - EXTRA WHITE 15' - 0" PROJECT ADDRESS: PROJECT NAME: TRANSLUCENT WINDOW FILM ON EXISTING WINDOWS EXISTING GAS PIPING AND ROOF DRAINS. PAINT TO MATCH WALL. Interior 1st Floor STORE #: TBD 0" PROJECT #: 89931-001 ISSUE DATE: 2/19/2021 NEW RETAINING WALL, DESIGN MANAGER: RAILINGS AND LANDSCAPING PRODUCTION DESIGNER: SOOS PER CIVIL PLANS CHECKED BY: SOOS Revision Schedule Rev Date By Description EXISTING GAS METERS Basement Floor -11' - 0 1/2" 2/19/2021 1:43:08 PM SHEET TITLE: PROPOSED ELEVATIONS SCALE: AS SHOWN PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION 3 Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" SHEET NUMBER: 002 R C 2017 STARBUCKS COFFEE COMPANY STARBUCKS R 2401 UTAH AVENUE SOUTH SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98134 (206) 318-1575 THESE DRAWINGS AND THE PROJECT MANUAL ARE CONFIDENTIAL AND SHALL REMAIN THE SOLE PROPERTY OF STARBUCKS CORPORATION, WHICH IS THE OWNER OF THE COPYRIGHT IN THIS WORK. THEY SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED (IN WHOLE OR IN PART), SHARED WITH THIRD PARTIES OR USED IN ANY MANNER ON OTHER PROJECTS OR EXTENSIONS TO THIS PROJECT WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF STARBUCKS CORPORATION. THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE INTENDED TO EXPRESS DESIGN INTENT FOR A PROTOTYPICAL STARBUCKS STORE (WHICH IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AT ANYTIME) AND DO NOT REFLECT ACTUAL SITE CONDITIONS. NEITHER PARTY SHALL HAVE ANY OBLIGATION NOR LIABILITY TO THE OTHER (EXCEPT STATED ABOVE) UNTIL A WRITTEN AGREEMENT IS FULLY EXECUTED BY BOTH PARTIES. STARBUCKS TEMPLATE VERSION i2020-04-20 ARCHITECT OF RECORD ASOOS OCIATES Soos & Associates, Inc. 105 Schelter Road VIEW AT NIGHT BUILDING PAINT COLOR Lincolnshire, IL 60069 p: 847 821 7667 1001 MAIN UVA MEDICAL CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE 1001 WEST MAIN STREET D:\Revit\89931-001_1001 Main_UVA Medical CENTRAL_tomreid6603.rvt PROJECT ADDRESS: PROJECT NAME: STORE #: TBD PROJECT #: 89931-001 ISSUE DATE: 2/19/2021 DESIGN MANAGER: PRODUCTION DESIGNER: SOOS CHECKED BY: SOOS Revision Schedule Rev Date By Description VIEW FROM SOUTHWEST VIEW FROM SOUTH 2/19/2021 1:43:10 PM SHEET TITLE: EXTERIOR RENDERINGS SCALE: AS SHOWN SHEET NUMBER: 003 R C 2017 STARBUCKS COFFEE COMPANY STARBUCKS R 2401 UTAH AVENUE SOUTH SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98134 (206) 318-1575 THESE DRAWINGS AND THE PROJECT MANUAL ARE CONFIDENTIAL AND SHALL REMAIN THE SOLE PROPERTY OF STARBUCKS CORPORATION, WHICH IS THE OWNER OF THE COPYRIGHT IN THIS WORK. THEY SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED (IN WHOLE OR IN PART), SHARED WITH THIRD PARTIES OR USED IN ANY MANNER ON OTHER PROJECTS OR EXTENSIONS TO THIS PROJECT WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF STARBUCKS CORPORATION. THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE INTENDED TO EXPRESS DESIGN INTENT FOR A PROTOTYPICAL STARBUCKS STORE (WHICH IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AT ANYTIME) AND DO NOT REFLECT ACTUAL SITE CONDITIONS. NEITHER PARTY SHALL HAVE ANY OBLIGATION NOR LIABILITY TO THE OTHER (EXCEPT STATED ABOVE) UNTIL A WRITTEN AGREEMENT IS FULLY EXECUTED BY BOTH PARTIES. STARBUCKS TEMPLATE VERSION i2020-04-20 ARCHITECT OF RECORD ASOOS OCIATES Soos & Associates, Inc. 105 Schelter Road VIEW FROM SOUTHEAST (ABOVE) VIEW FROM EAST Lincolnshire, IL 60069 p: 847 821 7667 1001 MAIN UVA MEDICAL CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE 1001 WEST MAIN STREET D:\Revit\89931-001_1001 Main_UVA Medical CENTRAL_tomreid6603.rvt PROJECT ADDRESS: PROJECT NAME: STORE #: TBD PROJECT #: 89931-001 ISSUE DATE: 2/19/2021 DESIGN MANAGER: PRODUCTION DESIGNER: SOOS CHECKED BY: SOOS Revision Schedule Rev Date By Description VIEW FROM SOUTHEAST VIEW FROM NORTHEAST 2/19/2021 1:43:12 PM SHEET TITLE: EXTERIOR RENDERINGS SCALE: AS SHOWN SHEET NUMBER: 004 STARBUCKS COFFEE #65136 1001 W Main St Charlottesville VA 22903 21-53853 HILTONDISPLAYS 125 HILLSIDE DRIVE • GREENVILLE SC 29607 P 800 353 9132 • F 864 242 2204 www.hiltondisplays.com ELEVATION A CHANNEL LETTERS B WINDOW VINYL C WINDOW VINYL QID 21-53853 JOB NAME Starbucks 65136 LOCATION 1001 W Main St Charlottesville VA 22903 CUSTOMER CONTACT A SALESMAN / PM Stasia Rohn DESIGNER Glenn Miller DWG. DATE 2-08-21 B C REV. DATE / REVISION SCALE As Noted FILE 2021/Starbucks/Locations/ Charlottesville VA/21-53853/ SB Charlottesville VA 21-53853 DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS ACCEPTED BY: EST: CLIENT: Scale: 1/4” = 1’ (11x17 paper) SLS/PM: LANDLORD: THE INTENT OF THIS DRAWING IS TO SHOW A CONCEPTUAL REPRESENTATION OF THE PROPOSED SIGNAGE. DUE TO VARIATIONS IN PRINTING DEVICES AND SUBSTRATES, THE FINISHED PRODUCT MAY DIFFER SLIGHTLY FROM DRAWING. X ELEVATION A CHANNEL LETTERS B WINDOW VINYL C WINDOW VINYL QID 21-53853 JOB NAME Starbucks 65136 LOCATION 1001 W Main St Charlottesville VA 22903 CUSTOMER CONTACT SALESMAN / PM Stasia Rohn A DESIGNER Glenn Miller DWG. DATE 2-08-21 REV. DATE / REVISION SCALE As Noted FILE 2021/Starbucks/Locations/ Scale: 1/8” = 1’ (11x17 paper) Charlottesville VA/21-53853/ SB Charlottesville VA 21-53853 DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS ACCEPTED BY: EST: CLIENT: SLS/PM: LANDLORD: THE INTENT OF THIS DRAWING IS TO SHOW A CONCEPTUAL REPRESENTATION OF THE PROPOSED SIGNAGE. DUE TO VARIATIONS IN PRINTING DEVICES AND SUBSTRATES, THE FINISHED PRODUCT MAY DIFFER SLIGHTLY FROM DRAWING. X EXTERIOR CHANNEL LETTERS - NON-ILLUMINATED - TRIMLESS - 2:1 Qty. 2 Scale: 3/8” = 1’ (11x17 paper) A QID 21-53853 JOB NAME 7’-6 3/4” Starbucks 65136 LOCATION 1001 W Main St Charlottesville VA 22903 1’-6” 0’-9” CUSTOMER CONTACT 9” CHANNEL LETTERS SALESMAN / PM GREEN with 18” SIREN Stasia Rohn SBC-SDS-18-EXT-SIREN-NIL DESIGNER SBC-SDS-9-PU-EXT-NIL-G Glenn Miller DWG. DATE 2-08-21 REV. DATE / REVISION Removable Fasteners For Service Access SCALE 2 3/8” Deep Note: Aluminum Channel As Noted Mounting method to be confirmed - Satin Black via tech survey FILE 1/4”- #7328 White Acrylic Face N.T.S. 2021/Starbucks/Locations/ - 1st Surface Green Vinyl Charlottesville VA/21-53853/ SB Charlottesville VA 21-53853 DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS ACCEPTED BY: EST: CLIENT: SLS/PM: LANDLORD: COLOR LEGEND THE INTENT OF THIS DRAWING IS TO SHOW A CONCEPTUAL REPRESENTATION OF THE PROPOSED SIGNAGE. DUE TO PMS/PAINT VINYL VARIATIONS IN PRINTING DEVICES AND SUBSTRATES, THE FINISHED PRODUCT MAY DIFFER SLIGHTLY FROM DRAWING. PMS 3425 C 3M 3630-126 SATIN BLACK NA PMS WHITE NA X N.T.S. Werner, Jeffrey B From: Mike Martin Sent: Monday, March 8, 2021 10:23 AM To: Werner, Jeffrey B Cc: Stasia Rohn Subject: Re: BAR Submittal for 3/16 Meeting -- Starbucks -- 1001 W Main St Attachments: Glass label.pdf; Trov_L50_SpecSheet_Asymmetric_Cove_updated.pdf; 17-2225_190_350_ 500_Door.pdf; 21486_Canada_United States_AWNEX (1).pdf; trov-masking-plate.pdf; 89931-001_1001 Main_EXISTING CANOPY.PDF; trov-wall-mount-arm.pdf ** WARNING: This email has originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.** Good Morning Jeff, Please find attached the following items as requested: - Cutsheets for the new wall lighting and accessories. The lights are spec’d at 2700K and 90CRI, so should be good on that. - Cutsheets for new door and glass. VLT for glass is 82 so should be good as well. This is a standard spec, not specifically noted on the dwgs. Should we revise and update to include these specifics? - Railing cutsheet - Existing canopy markup (dimensions and pics). We are working on providing you info in regards to any plantings at the parking lot. Thank you, Michael Martin Project Manager State Permits, Inc. 319 Elaines Ct Dodgeville, WI 53533 D:608-407-9090 mike@permit.com On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 3:25 PM Werner, Jeffrey B wrote: No problems. Monday works. Sorry to throw that you on a Friday afternoon! Sunny and 46 here, so I’m trying to clear off my list. Jeff 1 190, 350 AND 500 STANDARD ENTRANCES Single-Source Packages Generate Versatile First Impressions Curtis Culwell Center Ryerson Garland, Image Texas Centre and the School of Image Arts ARCHITECT Diamond HKS, Inc.,Schmitt Architects Inc., Toronto, Ontario, Canada Dallas, Texas GLAZING CONTRACTOR Stouffville B & B Glass,Glass Inc.,Inc., Stouffville, Dallas, Texas Ontario, Canada PHOTOGRAPHY PHOTOGRAPHER © Arthur Kendrick Blake Marvin – HKS Tough yet attractive, Kawneer’s Standard Entrances are designed as a PERFORMANCE single-source package of door, door frame and hardware that is easily To resist both lever arm and torsion forces that constantly act on any adaptable to custom requirements. Designed to complement new or door, all three entrances feature welded corner construction with Sigma remodel construction as well as modern or traditional architecture, they deep penetration and fillet welds plus mechanical fastenings at each are engineered, constructed and tested to make a good first impression corner – a total of 16 welds per door. Each door corner comes with a while withstanding the rigors of constant use by occupants and visitors. limited lifetime warranty, good for the life of the door under normal use. It is transferable from building owner to owner and is in addition to the standard two-year warranty covering material and workmanship of each Kawneer door. 1. T  hermoplastic GENERAL 1. elastomer weatherstrip in blade stop of frame • Heights vary up to 10'; widths range from approximately 3' to 4' jambs, header or transom bar. • Door frame face widths range to a maximum of 4", while depths range to 6" 2. Integral polymeric fin attached to adjustable • Door operation is single- or double-acting with maximum security astragal, creating an air locks or touch bar panics standard barrier between pairs of doors. • Architect’s classic 1" round, bent bar push/pull hardware is available in various finishes and sizes 2. 3. O  ptional surface- applied bottom • Infills range from 1/4" to 1" weatherstrip with flexible blade gasket. Extruded raised lip on threshold to provide FOR THE FINISHING TOUCH 3. continuous contact for bottom weatherstrip. Architectural Class I anodized aluminum finishes are available in clear 4. S  tandard 1/4" beveled and Permanodic® color choices. glass stops to sheet 4. water and dirt off without leaving residue. Painted finishes, including fluoropolymer, that meet AAMA 2605 are 5. A  vailable in all finishes offered in many standard choices and an unlimited number of specially offered by Kawneer. designed colors. 5. Solvent-free powder coatings add the “green” element with high performance, durability and scratch resistance that meet the standards ECONOMY of AAMA 2604. Kawneer’s bulb neoprene weatherstripping forms a positive seal around the door frame and provides a substantial reduction in air infiltration, resulting in improved comfort and economies in heating Sigma fillet welds top and cooling costs. The system is wear- and temperature-resistant and and bottom Sigma deep replaces conventional weatherproofing. The bottom weatherstrip penetration plug welds Steel back-up plate at the interior contains a flexible blade gasket to meet and contact top and bottom the threshold, enhancing the air and water infiltration performance characteristics. 190 NARROW STILE ENTRANCE • Is engineered for moderate traffic in applications such as stores, Reinforcing channel offices and apartment buildings • Vertical stile measures 2-1/8", top rail 2-1/4" and bottom rail 3-7/8" • Results in a slim look that meets virtually all construction requirements 350 MEDIUM STILE ENTRANCE • Provides extra strength for applications such as schools, institutions and other high-traffic applications • Vertical stiles and top rails measure 3-1/2" • Bottom rail measures 6-1/2" for extra durability 500 WIDE STILE ENTRANCE • Creates a monumental visual statement for applications such as banks, libraries and public buildings • Vertical stiles and top rail measures 5"; bottom rail measures 6-1/2" • Results in superior strength for buildings experiencing heavy traffic conditions Kawneer Company, Inc. 555 Guthridge Court 770.449.5555 © Kawneer Company, Inc. 2012–2019 Technology Park / Atlanta Norcross, GA 30092 kawneer.com Form Number 17-2225.B Permanodic® is a registered trademark of Kawneer Company, Inc. ARCHITECTURAL SYSTEMS | ENTRANCES + FRAMING | CURTAIN WALLS | WINDOWS 21486-21487 STARBUCKS FENCE 4 Description: 3 Create the perfect atmosphere with this CONFIDENTIALITY THE CONTENTS OF THIS DRAWING INCLUDE CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION WHICH IS THE SOLE PROPERTY OF xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx INC. ANY USE, DISCLOSURE OR REPRODUCTION OF THIS DRAWING, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, WITHOUT THE PRIOR exclusive Starbucks Patio Fencing system. WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx INC. IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. FENCE MODULE D This flexible sectional design can be configured to fit Starbucks Patios. Finished with Starbucks classic Black and built with 100% recyclable aluminum. 4" Made in USA. C 4'6" GATE MODULE 4 3 2 CONFIDENTIALITY THE CONTENTS OF THIS DRAWING INCLUDE CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION WHICH IS Specs: THE SOLE PROPERTY OF xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx INC. ANY USE, DISCLOSURE OR REPRODUCTION OF THIS DRAWING, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx INC. IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. D 3'6" Materials: 1 2'6 4 " • Aluminum Frame B • Steel Mesh and Feet Finish: 3 3 4 " TO 7 • Powder Coated Starbucks Flat Black, FENCE MODULE C #MT0028 2X SELF-CLOSING SPRING HINGE 3'2" Size: A • Fence, 42” high x 54” wide x 2” thick • 3” gap between modules STOP TAB • 4” wide plate at foot 4 3 • Gate, 38-1/4” high x 38” wide x 2” thick. 1 3'2 4 " 1 2'2 2 " B Weight: • 33 lbs per module GATE MODULE DO NOT SCALE FRO IMPERIAL DR How to Request a Quote: Contact: ALL DIMENS INCHE TOLERANCES OTHERWISE S LINEAR X ± X.X ± Send your Patio Layout along with dimensions A Sales@awnexinc.com 770-704-7140 X.XX ± X.XXX ± ANGULAR ± SURFACE FINIS include openings and gates to Awnex. www.awnexinc.com THIRD ANGLE PR 4 3 2 260 Valley Street, Suite 100, Ball Ground, GA 30107 " 6 1/4 - 3' 8" 9' - 8 1/2" EXISTING CANOPY 1 Scale: PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NUMBER: THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE CONFIDENTIAL STARBUCKS 1001 MAIN UVA MEDICAL 89931-001 AND SHALL REMAIN THE SOLE PROPERTY OF STARBUCKS CORPORATION WHICH IS THE OWNER OF THE COPYRIGHT IN THIS WORK. THEY SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED (IN WHOLE COFFEE COMPANY OR IN PART), SHARED WITH THIRD PARTIES OR USED IN ANY STORE NUMBER: MANNER OR OTHER PROJECTS OR EXTENSIONS TO THIS 2401 UTAH AVENUE SOUTH PROJECT WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF SEATTLE, WASHINGTON PROJECT ADDRESS: TBD STARBUCKS CORPORATION. THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE INTENDED TO EXPRESS DESIGN INTENT FOR A PROTOTYPICAL STARBUCKS STORE (WHICH IS SUBJECT 98026 1001 WEST MAIN STREET DESIGN MANAGER: TO CHANGE AT ANYTIME) AND DO NOT REFLECT ACTUAL SITE CONDITIONS. NEITHER PARTY SHALL HAVE ANY OBLIGATION (206) 318-1575 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 NOR LIABILITY TO THE OTHER (EXCEPT STATED ABOVE) UNTIL A WRITTEN AGREEMENT IS FULLY EXECUTED BY BOTH PARTIES. ISSUE DATE: 03/07/21 SHEET 005 : 01234564ÿ8539      ÿ  ÿÿÿÿ ÿ ÿ!"##"ÿ$%ÿ&ÿ 'ÿ!( )ÿ!ÿ* + *ÿ!ÿ',- ÿ./011ÿ25233ÿ46/045602ÿ26963ÿ67ÿ8/304ÿÿ9::ÿ;<= 82> @301 2 34564 Bÿ6ÿ80 A/3520753 E57234 4C::34/ C3 48 4D.8 24. ;?= ;?= FN6:01ÿ@35O PN673ÿ3FLKF150,000 >70,000 >50,000 >25,000 * CALCULATIONS FOR LED FIXTURES ARE BASED ON MEASUREMENTS THAT COMPLY WITH IES LM-80 TESTING PROCEDURES AND IES TM-21 CALCULATOR ELECTRICAL POWER CONSUMPTION 2W*/LF (6.6W/M) ; 4W/LF (13.2W/M) ; 6W/LF (19.8W/M) ; 8W/LF (26.4W/M) ; 10W/LF (33W/M) ; 12W/FL (39.6W/M) * 3W/LF (9.9W/M) at 220V -277V MAX FIXTURE RUN LENGTH 2W/LF 4W/LF 6W/LF 8W/LF 10W/LF 12W/LF Max Run Max Run Max Run Max Run Max Run Max Run Max Run Max Run Max Run Max Run Max Run Max Run Volts all 1’ all 4’ all 1’ all 4’ all 1’ all 4’ all 1’ all 4’ all 1’ all 4’ all 1’ all 4’ 120 214 214 186 186 152 152 114 114 91 91 76 76 220 374 392 340 340 277 277 209 209 95 167 95 139 277 374 494 374 428 349 349 263 263 95 190 95 175 POWER FACTOR 4W, 6W, 8W, 10W, 12W >0.9, 2W<0.9 OPERATING VOLTAGE MULTIVOLT: 110-277VAC, 50/60 Hz DRIVER INTEGRAL TO FIXTURE; DE-RATED POWER AND SYNCHRONOUS START-UP AT FULL BRIGHTNESS STARTUP TEMPERATURE -40˚F TO 122˚F (-40˚C TO 50˚C) OPERATING TEMPERATURE -40˚F TO 122˚F (-40˚C TO 50˚C) STORAGE TEMPERATURE -40˚F TO 176˚F (-40˚C TO 80˚C) SPECIFICATIONS SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITHOUT NOTICE. VISIT ECOSENSE LIGHTING INC. P • 310 . 496 . 6255 ECOSENSELIGHTING.COM FOR THE MOST CURRENT SPECIFICATIONS. 837 NORTH SPRING STREET F • 310 . 496 . 6256 © 2019 ECOSENSE LIGHTING INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. ECOSENSE, THE ECOSENSE LOGO, RISE, TROV, SLIM COVE AND ECOSPEC ARE 1/ 3 SUITE 103 T • 855 . 632 . 6736 REGISTERED TRADEMARKS OF ECOSENSE LIGHTING INC. LOS ANGELES, CA 90012 855 . 6 . ECOSEN FREEDOM TO CREATE™ 20210119 OV ERV I E W • S P EC I FI C ATI O N S • O R D ER I N G I NTER I O R + E X TER I O R | L 50 A SY M D AT E PROJECT FIRM TYPE CONTROL DIMMING 110-277VAC, ELV TYPE 0.07%-100%, REVERSE PHASE, TRAILING EDGE ETC control systems require 0-10V control using EcoSense LDCM. TROV will not work with ETC phase dimmers. PHYSICAL DIMENSIONS W 1.6” x H 2” x L 12”/48” ; (41.6mm x 50.5mm x 304.7mm/1201mm) HOUSING /LENS EXTRUDED ALUMINUM; UV STABILIZED POLYCARBONATE; STAINLESS STEEL FASTENERS; PLASTIC ENDCAPS RUBBER OVERMOLD FOR CABLE ASSEMBLY WEIGHT 1.52LBS / 0.69KG (1FT) ; 4.95LBS / 2.25KG (4FT) CONNECTORS INTEGRAL MALE/ FEMALE CONNECTORS ENVIRONMENT INDOOR • ETL CERTIFIED FOR DRY/DAMP LOCATIONS IP54 OUTDOOR • ETL CERTIFIED FOR WET LOCATIONS IP66 IMPACT RATED TO IK10 Not intended to be used in water features such as waterfalls, fountains, etc. BEAM ANGLE GRAZING, WASHING, COVE, ASYMMETRIC, LINE OF LIGHT MOUNTING OPTIONS INTEGRAL MOUNTING AND ADJUSTABLE AIMING FROM 0˚-180˚ IN 15˚ INCREMENTS FIXTURE RATING & CE, ETL CERTIFIED Title 24 CERTIFICATIONS RoHS COMPLIANT RoHS JA8-2016 ENERGY STAR COMPLIANT COMPLIANT RCM CERTIFIED *90 CRI models only LIMITED WARRANTY 5 YEARS WIRING OPTIONS (MVOLT): 110-277VAC Power Cable Assembly, TROV, Leader/Jumper, 10 foot.......................................................................CBL-3P-L-UNV-10* Power Cable Assembly, TROV, Leader/Jumper, 50 foot......................................................................CBL-3P-L-UNV-50* Power Cable Assembly, TROV, Jumper, 5 foot.........................................................................................CBL-3P-L-UNV-05** Power Cable Assembly, TROV, Jumper, 1 foot .........................................................................................CBL-3P-L-UNV-01** Power Cable Assembly, TROV, Adjustable Jumper, 0” to 7”.............................................................CBL-3P-L-UNV-ADJ Power Cable Assembly, TROV, Male and Female terminator caps..................................................CBL-3P-L-UNV-CAPS *Two (2) terminators are included with the 10’ and 50’ power cable. One Leader need per circuit/fixture run. Cables are not plenum rated. ** If using the 5’ or 1’ power cable assembly as a leader to power a run one set of CBL-3P-L-UNV-CAPS will also be need per cable. 0-10V CONTROL OPTIONS 100-120VAC / 277VAC Linear Dimming Control Module 0-10V - Plenum Rated ................. LDCM-PL-120-277-010V-GR All products come standard with ELV dimming capabilities. 0-10V Control options required for operation at 0-10V. OPTIONAL ACCESSORIES Mounting Mounting Track and Clips Set, 48 Inch Track, 8 Clips....... MNT-L-TRKCLIP-48........ 48” track and clips set will work with one 48” fixture or four 12” fixtures. (FOR INTERIOR USE ONLY) Mounting Track and Clips Set, 12 Inch Track, 2 Clips...........MNT-L-TRKCLIP-12........ 12” track will not work with 48” fixtures. (FOR INTERIOR USE ONLY) Mounting Track Clip, TROV, Set of 2......................................................... MNT-L-CLIP........ Clips needed = 12” fixtures need 1 set of 2 and 48” fixture needs 2 sets of 2. 90 Degree L bracket, TROV, Set of 2......................................................MNT-L-LBKT........ L-Brackets needed = 12” fixtures need 1 set of 2 and 48” fixture needs 1 set of 2. Angle Locking Clip, TROV, Pack of 10......................................... MNT-L-ANGLOCK........ Angle Locks needed = 12” fixtures need 1 and 48” fixtures need 2. (Must order separately) Mounting, Fine Adjustment Bracket, TROV........................................... MNT-L-FAB........ Fine Adjustment Brackets needed = 12” fixtures need 1 and 48” fixtures need 2. *Fine Adjustment Bracket is highly recommended for Grazing Optics. Mounting, Fine Adjustment L-Bracket, TROV.....................................MNT-L-LFAB........ Fine Adjustment L-Brackets needed = 12” fixtures need 1 and 48” fixtures need 2. *Fine Adjustment L-Bracket is recommended for Asymetric Optics when aiming is needed. Wall Mount Arm Wall Mount Arms needed = For individual fixture installations two arms and one Wall Mount Arm, 6 inch, TROV............................................................ WMA-L-CA-06 end set will be needed per fixture. For continuous run installation one endset will Wall Mount Arm, 12 inch, TROV............................................................. WMA-L-CA-12 be needed per run. Each end set contains one left and one right end plate. One Wall Mount Arm, 18 inch, TROV............................................................. WMA-L-CA-18 joining set wll be needed per joint. One arm per fixture will be need plus one extra Wall Mount Arm, 24 inch, TROV........................................................... WMA-L-CA-24 arm to complete the run. For example: A 10ft run made with two 4ft and two 1ft Wall Mount Arm End Plate Set, TROV, Includes Left and Right........ WMA-L-END fixtures will contain; 1 x WMA-L-END, 3 x WMA-L-JNR, and 5 x WMA-L-CA-12. Wall Mount Arm Joiner Plate, TROV.......................................................WMA-L-JNR Leader cables are not included with wall mount arms, end sets, or joiners sets. Masking Plates Masking Plate, 3 inch high, 12 inch, L50 & L35 ....................... MP-L50-3H-12 Masking Plates needed = One 12” plate is needed per 12” fixture and one 48” Masking Plate, 3 inch high, 48 inch, L50 & L35 .................... MP-L50-3H-48 plate is needed per 48” fixture. Landscape Stake Landscape Stake, 6 inch, TROV, Set of 2 .................................. LS-L-STK-06 Landscape Stakes needed = 12” and 48” fixtures both need one set of 2. Landscape Stake, 12 inch, TROV, Set of 2 .................................. LS-L-STK-12 Landscape Stake, 18 inch, TROV, Set of 2 ................................. LS-L-STK-18 Wire Box Conduit Connection, Wire Box, TROV, Interior Only, L50............CC-L-WIREBOX Wire box can be used instead of a leader cable to start a run. 1/2” conduit fitting can attach directly to the box on one end and the fixture to the other. SPECIFICATIONS SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITHOUT NOTICE. VISIT ECOSENSE LIGHTING INC. P • 310 . 496 . 6255 ECOSENSELIGHTING.COM FOR THE MOST CURRENT SPECIFICATIONS. 837 NORTH SPRING STREET F • 310 . 496 . 6256 © 2019 ECOSENSE LIGHTING INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. ECOSENSE, THE ECOSENSE LOGO, RISE, TROV, SLIM COVE AND ECOSPEC ARE 2/3 SUITE 103 T • 855 . 632 . 6736 REGISTERED TRADEMARKS OF ECOSENSE LIGHTING INC. LOS ANGELES, CA 90012 855 . 6 . ECOSEN FREEDOM TO CREATE™ 20210119 OV ERV I E W • S P EC I FI C ATI O N S • O R D ER I N G I NTER I O R + E X TER I O R | L 50 A SY M D AT E PROJECT FIRM TYPE 12 47.3 [304.8] [1201] 2.14 1.64 [54.5] [41.7] 1.64 [41.6] [ASYMMETRIC] 6.00 Ø 5.5 [10.2] 0.40 [151.7] 0. 2] [ 22 180° [22.1] 0.87 1.64 [41.7] 1.53 [38.9] 2.01 1.00 1.00 2.01 [51.1] [25.4] [25.4] [51.1] 2.90 [73.7] [ASYMMETRIC] 41.3 [1049] 6.00 29.3 6.00 [151.7] [744.6] [151.7] * 4FT FIXTURE 0.27 0.13 [6.89 3.30] Fine Adjustable L-Bracket: 0.72 [18.3] 15° 12.0in Recommended, 6.0in min 304.8mm 2.26 2.26 [57.4] [57.4] 15° [57.4] 2.36 2.75 [60.0] [69.9] [1.25in] 31.75mm [6.0in] 152.4mm SPECIFICATIONS SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITHOUT NOTICE. VISIT ECOSENSE LIGHTING INC. P • 310 . 496 . 6255 ECOSENSELIGHTING.COM FOR THE MOST CURRENT SPECIFICATIONS. 837 NORTH SPRING STREET F • 310 . 496 . 6256 © 2019 ECOSENSE LIGHTING INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. ECOSENSE, THE ECOSENSE LOGO, RISE, TROV, SLIM COVE AND ECOSPEC ARE 3/ 3 SUITE 103 T • 855 . 632 . 6736 REGISTERED TRADEMARKS OF ECOSENSE LIGHTING INC. LOS ANGELES, CA 90012 855 . 6 . ECOSEN FREEDOM TO CREATE™ 20210119 Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-03-03 301 5th Street, SW, TMP 290104000 Individually Protected Property Owner/Applicant: Michael McMahon Project: Rear addition Application components (please click each link to go directly to PDF page): • Staff Report • Historic Survey • Application Submittal March 16, 2021 BAR Agenda (3/10/2021) 6 City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Staff Report March 16, 2021 Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-03-03 301 5th Street, SW, TMP 290104000 Individually Protected Property Owner/Applicant: Michael McMahon Project: Rear addition Background Year Built: prior to 1876. (A one-story frame rear wing was added in 1907, then later expanded. Razed in 2010.) District: Individually Protected property The Shelton-Fuller House is a contributing structure in the Fifeville and Tonsler Neighborhoods Historic District, listed on the Virginia Landmarks Register and the National Register of Historic Places. It was built by John Shelton, a Black carpenter, possibly a Freeman who, in 1880, resided there with his wife, Rebecca, a seamstress, and their daughter, Julia. (Historic survey attached.) Prior BAR Review (See Appendix for complete summary) August 17, 2010 – BAR approved the rear addition with the following conditions: Hand-crimped galvalume roof to be used on the main portions of the roof [no commercial ridge vent on either the addition or original structure], and an alternate material (such as terne metal) should be considered for the mansard roofs above the porch and bay window; provide a revised site plan that considers an edge (hedge or wall) along Dice & 5th Streets; and size and configuration of paved areas and confirmation of materiality in that area, to be submitted for administrative review in consultation with appropriate board members. http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/620393/BAR_301%205th%20Street%20SW_Au gust2010.pdf September 2011 – Staff review of drawings submitted for Building Permit http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/620395/BAR_301%205th%20Street%20SW_Se pt2011.pdf 301 5th Street SW (March 10, 2021) 1 Application • Submittal: Mitchell/Matthews drawings 301 5th Street SW Addition & Renovation Permit Set, dated September 15, 2011: Sheets T-1, two unnumbered sheets, D-2 through D-4, D-1, L-1, A-1 through A-9, Jen-Weld window cut sheets (four sheets). Request for a CoA to construct a rear addition and related sitework. (In 2010, the BAR approved a CoA for this project; however, that CoA expired in 2012.) • Roofing: o Addition: Galvalum, standing-seam metal. Seamless gutters o Stair tower/Hyphen: EPDM o Note: The roof, soffit, fascia and crown on the house was replaced per the prior CoA. • Walls: stucco, painted: pearl • Trim: cement panels and wood, painted and stained. • Windows: Jen-Weld clad wood. Simulated divided light. Color: French White. o Note: Jen-Weld’s Tradition Plus windows are now known as the W-2500™ Clad- Wood. https://www.jeld-wen.com/en-us/products/windows/w-2500-clad-wood • Entrance doors: TBD • Garage doors: Insulated, steel, overhead doors • Shutters: TBD • Porch railing: Wood Guard rail system • Lighting: No exterior lighting is indicated. • Landscaping: o Lace Bark Elm. Six, along Dice Street o Japanese Maple. Three, at corners of house an addition o Misc. low plantings o Privacy fence: Fencing indicated on sheet L-1) is excluded from this request. • Mechanical equipment: See sheet A-1 for location. To be screened with evergreens. Discussion and Recommendations BAR may request clarification on items not specified; however, staff recommends approval with the following conditions: • Two entrance doors at the west elevation will be wood and with a design similar to that shown. • The insulated glass in the windows will have internal spacer bar aligned with the applied grilles. (Note: Jen-Weld Windows were approved for 167 Chancellor Street. That applicant confirmed with the manufacturer that an internal spacer bar is available.) • Shutters are wood or composite material, not vinyl or metal. Additionally, while no exterior lighting is proposed, the BAR may apply the following condition • For any future exterior lighting, if LED, the lamping will be dimmable, have a Color Temperature not to exceed 3,000K, and a Color Rendering Index not less than 80, preferably not less than 90. 301 5th Street SW (March 10, 2021) 2 Suggested Motions Approval: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the ADC District Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed addition and sitework at 301 5th Street SW satisfies the BAR’s criteria and is compatible with this IPP property and that the BAR approves the application as submitted.. [.. as submitted with the following modifications…] Denial: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the ADC District Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed addition and sitework at 301 5th Street SW do not satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are not compatible with this IPP property 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 (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 Design Guidelines for Site Design: B. Plantings E. Walkways &Driveways C. Walls and Fences H. Utilities & Other Site Appurtenances Pertinent Design Guidelines for New Construction P. Additions Pertinent Design Guidelines for Rehabilitation G. Roof 301 5th Street SW (March 10, 2021) 3 APPENDIX August 18, 2009 - The BAR approved (8-0) the certificate of appropriateness application (to rehabilitate the front porch, repair or replace deteriorated elements, rebuild the chimneys above the roofline, replace the roof, repair the rear brick wall, and regrade the yards and redesign site walls) with the following conditions: the detail and resolution for the site retaining wall at the sidewalk, as well as the restoration of the wall at the areaway and detail for the new front door shall be brought back to the BAR for approval. The other work included in the proposal is approved as submitted. April 20, 2010 – The BAR had a preliminary discussion regarding demolishing a rear addition and sheds; and adding a new rear addition and site work. In general, the BAR applauded the idea of removing the rear sheds and addition; liked the concept of a new addition, but thought the proposal is excessively large and overwhelms the house; suggested a perpendicular bar or another simpler footprint; questioned the commercial-looking window groupings, pergola, and large eaves; details are more Arts & Crafts than Victorian like the house. They like opening the corner, using a contrasting material, and 2/2 windows. June 15, 2010 - The BAR approved (6-2) demolition of sheds and rear addition, as well as general massing, scale and proportion of the new addition in concept only, with the provision that details related to the building envelope of the addition, precise window placement, and roof configuration, as well as details related to site design, colors, and materials all be submitted back to the BAR for final review. April 16, 2013 - The BAR had a preliminary discussion with the owner present. There was consensus to rebuild a wall across the front and turn the corner slightly. First choice is stone to match original, similar to wall at 303 5th Street SW, or second choice would be a contemporary expression of the old wall (warm-colored concrete with rounded top and same proportions, with stone piers at entrance). The BAR wants the City to have prepared construction drawings showing elevation and section. They have concerns how the footing will be placed under the sidewalk. 301 5th Street SW (March 10, 2021) 4 V) OWNER/ u � CONTRACTOR MITCHELL / MATTHEWS MICHAEL & ASHLEY McMAHON A•CHIUCTS l'lAtltlfRS 332 CLARKS TRACT )Ol'f,,ftS�� •C��V T,h04.'1,.Hso ...... ll'ttl F... ,o•. n,.suo KESWICK, VIRGINIA 22947 z P: 434.531.3663 � � u -z < - 0 u -> � 0 cc: � � � 0 >----4 ui .....l .....l � rJ) > (f) rJ) � "1-.l b ::c z b � 301 5TH STREET SW .....l cc: < . > 0 :r: � ::c 0 RECEIVED ADDITION & RENOVATION � >----4 .-ru.litb" d-.!dffl'l;v)J..-.-r,ft�z.lkwh D-2 TERRA.CE DEMOLITION PLAN =J,L-nen!Xm""'lmll,.,:u1 U!f tlKUJWlCioeS 10th.:: J\rdi!<'Cl D-3 FIRST FLOOR DEMOLITION PLAN ! D-4 SECOND FLOOR DEMOLITION PLAN � S-1 STRUCTURAL PLANS, NOTES It DETAILS TITLE S-2 FOUNDATION PLAN S-3 FIRST FLOOR FRAMING PLAN SHEET S-4 SECOND FLOOR FRAMING PLAN 0 S-5 ROOF FRAMING PLAN, TYP. WALL SECTION S-6 SECTIONS AND DETAILS PROJECT DATE � L-1 SITE It LANDSCAPING PLAN 0 DAAWN >< CHECKED A-1 TERRA.CE PLAN REVIEWED A-2 FIRST FLOOR PLAN A-3 SECOND FLOOR PLAN j:..Ll 0 A-4 ROOF PLAN z T--1 A-5 EAST It NORTH ELEVATIONS A-6 WEST It SOUTH ELEVATIONS A-7 TYPICAL WALL SECTION � A-8 BUILDING SECTION A-9 WINDOW SCHEDULE 1) Provide a finished, complete and watertight building as described and illustrated in these Reference: Parcel 290104000 construction documents. Fully complete all portions of the work, including those items of Owner: Michael & Ashley McMahon work, finishes, fixtures, equipment or materials that may not be shown but would DRAWING/DETAIL NUMBER reasonably be included in a finished project of this nature. VIEW (ELEVATION) Tax Map #: TMP 29-104 ��:�·����:· 2) The Contractor is responsible to coordinate all General Notes and associated work Zoning: R-lS H with electrical, mechanical, plumbing and site work. Use: Single Family Residence � Area: 7,746 sf. 3) All components, systems and all other manufactured articies, materials components and Location: 301 Fifth Street SW equipment shall be applied, installed, connected, erected, used, cleaned, stored, handled, SHE:E:T NUMBER WHERE: conditioned and maintained, etc. as per manufacturer's recommendations. CROSS RE:FE:RE:NCE: IS NOTED Any conflict, discrepancy or question concerning these documents or manufacturers' recommendations should be brought, in writing, to attention of the Owner before proceeding with the work. All assemblies required to be fire rated must be UL listed or Factory Mutual rated. DRAWING/DETAIL NUMBER 4) Equal materials or components to those specified may be considered. Discuss any OCCUPANCY GROUP........................ SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE proposed substitutions with the Owner and obtain an approval before ordering or SECTION T YPE OF CONSTRUCTION.............. M ASONRY & WOOD WALLS WOOD ROOF & FLOOR W/ proceeding with work. BASEMENT 5) All finished work shall be properly protected from damage by subsequent work or trades. All damage shall be repaired or replaced at the expense of parties responsible for damage. Any surfaces, materials, or equipment developing cracks, tears, SHE:E:T NUMBER WHERE: BUILDING AREAS: dislocations, blemishes, or problems of like nature shall be replaced, repaired or relieved CROSS RE:FE:RE:NCE: IS NOTED in a manner acceptable to the Owner. All cost related thereto shall be paid by the contractor without additional cost to Owner. DRAWING/DETAIL NUMBER 6) The contractor is responsible for carefully and thoroughly reviewing all drawings and specifications before beginning any work or ordering any materials. Any discrepancies in the drawings should immediately be brought to the attention of the Owner for DETAIL clarification before proceeding with the work. � DETAIL'S HOME: SHE:E:T NUMBER 7) It is expected and required that the General Contractor, individual specialized contractors and all sub-contractors be experienced in their trades and shall use SHE:E:T NUMBER WHERE: workmen who are skilled in their particular field. Quality workmanship and sound, solid, CROSS RE:FE:RE:NCE: IS NOTED trouble-free construction will be the standard of acceptance. SHE:E:T NUMBERS WHERE: ADDITIONAL 8) It is further expected that construction shall proceed in compliance with generally - � - CROSS - RE:FE:RE:NCE:S ARE: NOTED accepted good building practices, IF THERE IS ANY QUESTION CONCERNING NEED FOR ADDITIONAL DETAIL, METHOD, SUBSTITUTION OF MATERIAL Of< EQUIPMENT, ETC.... THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONSULT THE OWNER FOR ENLARGED DETAIL ADDITIONAL DRAWINGS Of< CLARIFICATION OF THE INTENT OF THE DOCUMENTS BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK. ---, 9) Do not scale these drawings. Where dimensions are incomplete or directions are not clear, contact the Owner for clarification. I I 10) Due to the irregular nature of the existing building and building materials, dimensions I I I I -� shown are to be field verified. The dimensions shown are for planning purposes only. The Contractor SHALL verify all site and existing conditions and dimensions prior to commencing work. \._ 11) The Contractor is responsible for any damage to existing roads and utilities which occur NOTE: MATERIALS L IST FOR GENEl w BSMT AWi ARCHITECTURAL WOODWORK INSTITUTE BASEMENT FOS FOW FACE OF STUD FACEOOFIVALL M MM METER MIWMETER SCH SECT SCHEDULE SECTON � Q � ,-l ,-l BM BEAM FCU F,.\N COIL UNIT MIN MINIMUM SHT SHEET � Cl) > P:..l if) BRG BEA'RE PAINTED T$.G TONGUE AND GROOVE PTD cs COUNTER SINK HDR HEADER PNL PANEL TB TO\VELBAR =oR COORDl'v\TE HTG HEATING PB PANICBAR Tl.(:)•'' � E n" < EAST K.F. KRAFT FACED QT QU LU Zone A (100 Year Flood Hazard) as shown r T.M.P. 29-103 � u on Federal Flood Rate Insurance Haps, � :z Sam I. � Diada C. Shaban effective date: June 15, 19 7 9. � Q � -> -l -l \!) D.B.1069 Pg.7 Utilities and Easements other than those shown � rJ) i:.r.l (fJ may exist. rJ) WC) I- z0 Nate: See recorded subdivision plat or title � I- 0 -l abstract for any additional easements or 0:: � restrictions that may impact this lot. BURNING BUSH T.M.P. 29-102 &I Ta� Marton /!?� 0i' <�J\ LIRIOPE! MULCH D.B.231 Pg.39 -Bf 'o/ 9:- ' . , ," PERIWINKLE! MULCH C) GRAVEL NOTE: . BASE SITE Pl.AN y PREPARED BY i][yi� 2 STORY ADDITION 1 RESIDENTlAL SU G SERVICES, DATED W/BASEMENT JANUARY 24, 2007. 6 FT. HIGH P.T. WOOD PRIV ACY FENCE (TYP.) FRONT YD SETBACK SITE PLAN L--1 ' 6'-8" 23'-4" 6'-0" ' I 6-8" 10'- 0" 6'-f;" ' MITCHELL / MATTHEWS A�CHITeCTS PLAtitiEIU � »t1-;,,5,.._.,u,,o ,ci-..no«�.. v�lml p- p ,,.,,--- I- - - - - - -· Tel,4:H.919.7$50 Fai,U4.'iT9,5llll ,\ :' I - I 4-2" i:.:u -< u - I I I I � z n i:.:u ' � -> I I 0 ' 0:: I I C) i:.:u 9 I I � � Q iiS I io I � ...l I 4-9" \9I � ...l 1 I I � io � U) > □-- I � V, i:.:u 1\2- (fl s U) F< UCl f- ENTR� ::c z -< r-s � ---'Is"" 0 � f- V-- BUILT-IN SEAT ';, FL. FIN. = T E I 0 !D ' CLG. HT. = , -0' ...l 0:: CJ 0u ' 6'- 6' i..----1--- 8'-8" ' lo :r: ::c '- ' 7 --- / I, � I 2 3 lib" 4'-0" h-4112.. � I - - 1 � \ \ r:,�" PROJECT DATE DRAWN �· �� d \� CHECKED f1\ Tl:D D Ar7J: T J:"\TJ:T "? REVlEWED .I.. .L.....L"-.....L ""-..L ... ._....,, .... A _._, _._, _._, /� ' �r,NORTH \j__)scALE: l/8 11 = 1'-0" 0 l' 2' 3' 4' 8' 16' A-- 1 � I SCALE: 1/8" = l '-0" ; I \ I 7-4' 5'-2' 2'-Z 3'-8" 4'-8" 22'-8' 6'-0' 4'-8' 3'-8' 1'-8" 6'-0'' 4'-4" I I MITCHELL / MATTHEWS AII.CHITECTS PLANNUS OPElo ,o,.-,....,;..v�u»l Tel: 04.919.75$4 F�, H4.97'J.S220 W.I.C. FL. FIN. = WOOD CLG. HT. = 8'-0" I MASTER BEDROOM FL. FIN. = WOOD CLG. HT. = 8-o· � WINDOW SEAT M. BATH FL. FIN. = TILE I 8'-8" ,. 6'-6" 1 CLG. HT.= 8'-0" -2�,r - ,�. 4'.,-0: _,_.,2'-4' 1 'I � ,_U I D" HALL I LAUNDRY FL. AN. = WOOD I u, FL. FIN. = TILE CLG. HT.= 1-0· I CLG. HT.= 7-6" �I I I I - - --31.Q'.'. I�.. I - - _ _J 2ND � I -, I BATH lt2 FLOOR PLAN I I FL. FIN. = TILE CLG. HT.= 8'-0" PROJECT DAlE DRAWN CHECKED REVJEWED SECOND FLOOR A--3 SCALE: 1/8"= 1'�0" 0 1' 2' 3' 4' 8' 16' I �K-�-������� SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" t'JJ:�lj�LL / MATTtJ}�Y'f� mr..;.,s,-- u,,o. ci-..n>t<- V-,rp,;.11'Hl Tel,04.919.7550 l'u,4H.9T9.52lll -z -< � � u - -> ,----- � 0 � - - -- -7 GALVALUME FIELD BENT STANDING SEAM METAL V _j_t- _ -- - -L- I � ROOFING INSTALLED PER MANUFACTURERS � I I I RECOMMENDATIONS (TYP.) 0:::: Cl � - u.f ..-l ..-l I LINE OF BUILDING BELOW (TYP.) � Cf) > (fJ 1-Ll Cf) � I- I- z0 I I �v � I I ..-l I I � � I I -< I I ::c I SINGLE-PLY ROOF SYSTEM MEMBRANE OVER � u I SLIP SHEET ON TAPERED RIGID INSULATION. [ � � � -...inII 11 V ctcndrmyn,,tWr'l�o : (TYP.) d,x,,lc"'-'flCf th,,-fW-rt'='."! • Tl,.,c,TlUutc,r11w�-ml-kfr, STUCOO CONTROL JOINT (TYP.) dcl�an,1\atf,-ir,g;:.Jlk-.eh anddm,rn,,n,a.nd,TT'.Jr,ep,.Tt INSTALL PER MANUFACTURER'S ;;rr,',facr,-.,.-..ru::iototh>Ard·o:tn---r RECOMMENDATIONS 2ND FLOOR BUILDING ELEVS WOOD GUARD RAIL SYSTEM ( �<::,� PROJECT DATE DRAWN STAINED WOOD EDGE BAND ( ��\ ��� ()�·\�\ CHECKED REVJEWED I I I I EXIST. BASEriENT _ I _ 1i _J I - C�NTITTO�D NORTH ELEVATION PANELS � TRIM (TYP.) 0 1' 2' 3' 4' 8' 16' A--5 SCALE: l/8 11 = 1'-0" �L� i SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" NEW FIELD BENT STANDING SEAM GALVALUME ROOFING FIELD BENT STANDING SEAM @ EXISTING ROOF (TYP) GALVALUME ROOFING (TYP) SEAMLESS GUTTER $ DOWNSPOUT STYEM (TYP) 2ND FLOOR CLG STUCOO SYSTEM WITH MEDIUM MITCHELL / MATTHEWS - TEXTURE FINISH. COLOR TO BE PEARL All.CHITECTS PLAtWEll.S :JoMT-�l,.........t..... ,a,.,.......a., V'...,;n:.zNtJ BY STO CORP OR APPROVED EQ. Tol:H-4.'JT9,tll0 F-...,H4,9n,5220 (TYP) ALUMINUM CLAD WOOD WINDOWS (TYP) 2ND FLOOR CEMENTITIOUS WOOD PANELS $ TRIM (TYP) 1ST FLOOR STAINED WOOD EDGE BAND (TYP) ��---+--t-ct-t--ENTRANCE DOOR (TYP) INSULATED STEEL OVERHEAD DOOR 1!1;.�H-----+�-.c...._-+--+-ttt-- CNP) -EXIST. BASEMENT - TERRA-CE LEVEL REAR (WEST) ELEVATION SCALE: l/8 11 = 1'-0" SEAMLESS GUTTER $ DOWNSPOUT STYEM (TYP) CLG. STUCCO SYST W/ MEDIUM TEXTURE FINISH. COLOR TO BE PEARL BY STO CORP OR APPROVED EQ. (TYP) STUCCO CONTROL JOINT (TYP) INSTALL PER -- ---, -� - 1----c--- ---, MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS 2ND FLOOR BUILDING OPERABLE SHUTTER SYSTEM W/ WOOD GUARD RAIL SYSTEM BEHIND - - --I�� ELEVS (TYP) 1ST FLOOR PROJECT STAINED WOOD EDGE BAND (TYP) DATE DRAWN CHECKED TERRACE LEVEL REVJEWED SOUTH ELEVATION 11 = 0 l' 2' 3' 4' 8' 16' A--6 SCALE: l/8 1'-011 SCALE: 1/8" = l'-0" 16'-3" 7-51/2" 15'-61/2" SINGLE-PLY ROOF SYSTEM: SINGLE-PLY MEMBPANE OVER SLIP SHEET ON MIN. THICKNESS RIGID INSUL.(3/4" TO 15 PER MITCHELL / MATTHEWS MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS) OVER All.CHITECTS PLAtlNEIIS lMT.oinJ,-•la,,o • 0,,,,-•.,.,..,..,.......,_l�OJ 5/8. PLYWOOD(OR ADVANTEC) ROOF DECK Toi: 04.979.ti5<1 Fu,t 04.979.5220 LINE OF ROOF BEYOND @ HIGHEST POINT(+/- 2.75' OF FALL W/1/4"/FT SLOPE) � 2ND FLOOR CLG --------­ MATCH EXIST. CLG. I \ I \ s C) I \ S! ·' C) I N co I cO NEW STUD WALL BEYOND @ LAUNDRY \ I \ I \ I _lND FLOQg_ --1,.,1..,___-'l<­ MATCH EXIST. FLR. NEW STUD WALL BEYOND @ KITCHEN -----+___..,_.,,,_ STRUCTUPAL POST(BEYOND) EXISTING WINDOW OPENING. DEMO WALL BELOW WINDOW TO ALLOW FOR NEW DOORWAY e Th1dr,.,w1,"5i1th>1T<'l"'1tyc,fth,­ An:ht,e,.:ta.nd rn.,ync,tll<"r<"j:J<}­ ,J,,::-,..J,,ru-,;,,J,wh.-:t1tthe-"-'f1""'' �.;,,-nt-< - . . 301 F IFTH STR EET f �3: r g=I p2 .F n :-o I McMAHON RESIDENCE I C, C, � CY:) g� zrr CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA ti ! :I p:c • §� ! Evi WINDOW INFORMATION TYPE DESCRIPTION WINDOWUNIT WIDTH(R.O.) HEIGHT (R.O.) REMARKS MITCHELL / MATTHEWS AllCHITECTS PlAHIU!lU A CLAD WOOD DOUBLE HUNG TCD3760 3'-21/8" 5'-0 3/4" »or,.;,,,s,_..u,,o . Ch<"-onJ.. V...,.,..l:ittl Tel,H4.979.15.SO fu:104.919.5220 B CLAD WOOD DOUBLE HUNG TCD3752 3'-21/8" 4'-4 3/4" C CLAD WOOD DOUBLE HUNG TCD2556 2'-21/8" ' 3/4" 4--8 < U-l � D CLAD WOOD CASEMENT TCC3640 3'-0 3/4'" 3'-4 3/4" � � u.J u- 0 � :::J E CLAD WOOD CASEMENT TCCP3272 2'--8 3/4'" 6'-0 3/4' PICTURE WINDOW u.J > 0 F CLAD WOOD CASEMENT TCCP3284 2'-8 3/4'' 7-0 3/4" PICTURE WINDOW � �- ::cu U-l Q G CLAD WOOD CASEMENT TCC3672 3'-0 3/4"" 6'-0 3/4" � -l H CLAD WOOD CASEMENT TCC3684 3'-0 3/4"" 7-0 3/4" � -l J CLAD WOOD CASEMENT TCCP4856 4'-0 3/4'" 5'-6 3/4" PICTURE WINDOW � Cf) > Cf) � � g C/) I- z0 � I- K CLAD WOOD AWNING 3'-0 3/4"" 2'-4 3/4' X TCA3628 -l L CLAD WOOD AWNING TCA3230 2-8 3/4'" 2'-6 3/4'' � < 0 z M CLAD WOOD AWNING TCA3630 3'-0 3/4 " 2'-6 3/4" :r: u X � N CLAD WOOD AWNING TCA4828 4'-0 3/4 " 2'-4 3/4" � � � EX � � EXISTING WINDOW REPAIR AS REQ'D; REPAIRS TO MATCH EXISTING WOOD WINDOW � � GENERAL NOTES: i---1 1. GENERAL SCOPE: The windows shown on the drawings are based upon units supplied by Jeldwen. Window units shown are from the Premium Wood Traditions Plus series. Provide window units for the model numbers designated, and where not designated, os required to � accommodate the opening size and finish work at these locations. ?JI work included in the installation of windows shall comply with the manufacturer's installation standards, instructions, and recommendations. 0 2. ROUGH OPENINGS: Provide structurally sound rough openings, fully flashed, for the installation of window units. Align window units to maintain level and plumb trim lines shown on the drawings, and spaced to accommodate building systems installed by other trades. ("r') Verify unit size and rough opening size for each wall opening prior to commencement of framing and the purchase of window units. C/) 3. FLEXIBLE FLASHING: Provide Vycor Plus Self-Adhered flashing manufactured by Grace Construction Products or equal approved by the Architect. Install, protect, and maintain during the construction period per the manufacturer's installation instructions. U-l 4, EXTERIOR CASING: The design shown is based upon field installation of cementitious boards (Hardi Trim) 3Swide by l"thick unless noted otherwise. 0 z \ 5. 6. GLAZING: Windows shall be glazed with Jeldwen lnsul Low E2 with argon filled cavity unless noted otherwise. Provide Simulated Divided Lites (SDL) to SAFETY GLASS: Provide tempered and heat strengthened glass where shown or accommodate the patterns shown unless noted otherwise. as required to comply with ANSI Z97.1 and testing requirements of16 CFR Part 1201 for category II materials. U-l 7. SCREENS: ?JI operable sash shall be fltted with factory assembled insect screens unless noted otherwise. � :::J 8. SEALANTS: Provide manufacturer's recommended sealant at exterior joints and window perimeter for a waterproof and air-tight installation. Provide 3/8"wide joint between window unit and adjacent material unless noted otherwise. Fit joint with backer rod and !ill joint 0 with sealant. WINDOW U-l 9. MOUNTING HEIGHTS: Refer to wall sections for window head and sill heights. SCHED. u 10 . WINDOW LOCATIONS: The exterior building elevation drawings do not show oil window locations. Refer to the floor plan drawings to identify oil window locations. g C/) 12. COLORS: All 1�ndows shall be factory finished in Jeldwen standard French White color. PROJECT 12. WOOD BLOCKING: Provide wood blocking for the installation of exterior window units and trim material. Shim and kerfblocking, as required, to provide a level and plum surface for alignment of the exterior casing trim material. DATT 0 z 13. WINDOW INSTALLATION AT SILL PAN: Provide a direct set installation with no sealant at the bottom ofthe window unit - keep open to allow for drainage of sill pan. DRAWN CHECKED � 14. EXISTING WINODWS: Existing 1�ndows to remain unless noted otherwise. Repair as required. All repairs to match existing window components. REVJEWED � 15. MUNTINS: Provide 7/8" Simulated Divided Lites (SDL) in pattern shown on the elevatoins. A--9 TRADITION PLUS WOOD WINDOWS AND PATIO DOORS JEL�EN WINDOWS & DOORS• Tradition Plus Clad-Wood Double-Hung Windows Premium Wood 1-WIDE UNIT 5 13/16" - -- - --------; - SEI: r::,'' ,·),.. L')'I" u 1.1 NEIGHBORHOODDtcvr /tit� I SERVICES 11/4" ------ 49/16"----� 3/4" 27/32" 'E 2 2 2011 ..-----��-�-NEIGHBORHOOODEYELO PMENTSERVIC ES 21/32" rn C: 25/32" 3/4" � -�0. vi ., 0 E .c 17/32" � g 0 a: I 17/32" II 21/32" 1 19/32" 1 7/8" 49/16" --- � - 1 1/4" ---- -- 5 13/16"--- - - ----< VERTICAL SECTION SCALE: 6" = 1' I I I Casement Awning Double-Hung Horizontal Sliding I)_! Architectural Detail Manual I I Fixed, Radius & Geometric Patio Doors Transoms RELIABILITY /or re al lite• March 2011 JELD-WEN reserves the right to change specifications without notice. Page 5-46 Tradition Plus Clad-Wood Double-Hung Windows Tradition Plus Clad-Wood Casement Windows Premium Wood Premium Wood 1-WIDE UNIT OPERATING UNIT Rough Opening 513/16" - - - --- --< - 3/8" Frame Size --- ---- - - - - - ----+----< - - 3/8" 1 1/2"---+-------- - - Sash Size ------ - - - ----+� 1 1/2" 1 3/16" - - - --- Glass Size _____..,__ 1 3/16" 1 1/4" --lit------ - --- 49/16" _ ____ __, _ Daylight Opening 211/32" 3/8" 1 21/32" 1 19/32" 49/16" 49/16" 17/32" 513/16" 513 16" 0, 1 1/4" 1 1/4" 0, C 17/32" 17/32" C ·c ·� l!l l!l a, vi a. vi vi a. 0 Daylight Opening ·c is � "' .c 0, :::, "' a 1: .<::!' ::, 1 3/16"--- --- Glass Size - - ---4- 1 3/16" "' 1/2" --------- - - ---- - - Sash Size ------ - - - ----+�----< 1/2" 23/8" - - ------ - - - - -- - - - Screen Size 23/8" Unit Size-- - -- - - - ---- - - - - - 17/32" HORIZONTAL SECTION 1 19/32" 217/32" 3/8" 29/32" 1 1/4" ---+, £ "' 119/32" �1---------- - - - Glass Size 119/32" 0 29/32"---- ---- - ---- - SashSize 29/32" UnitSize - - -- ----- - - - - - - ---------1 HORIZONTAL SECTION 17/32" 119/32" 217/32" 3/8" 2 9 2" 11/4" -.I-I----- - - - - 49/16" 513/16" VERTICAL SECTION SCALE: 6" = 1' SCALE: 6" = 1' Architectural Detail Manual Architectural Detail Manual March 2011 JELD-WEN reserves the right to change specifications without notice. March 2011 JELD-WEN reserves the right to change specifications without notice. Page 3-16 Page 1-53 JEL�EN w1Nnows � no oRs• Premium Wood Tradition Plus Clad-Wood Awning Windows OPERATING UNIT Rough Opening 3/8" t---+--- - -------- --- Frame Size -- ---------------ii---, 3/8" 1 9/16" �+--------- - ScreenSize ----------+---1 9/16" 49/16" 49/16" 5 13/16" 5 13/16" 1 1/4" 1 1/4" 17/32" 17/32" Daylight Opening 1 19/32" -<---- -- -- Glass Size 1 19/32" 29/32" ____...._ _ __________ SashSize 29/32" UnitSize - - - - -- -------- --------< HORIZONTAL SECTION SCALE: 6" = 1' Architectural Detail Manual March 2011 JELD-WEN reserves the right to change specifications without notice. Page 3-17 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE "A World Class City" Department of Neighborhood Development Services City Hall Post Office Box 911 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Telephone 434-970-3182 Fax 434-970-3359 www.charlottesville.org August 19, 2010 Michael and Ashley McMahon 332 Clark's Tract Keswick, VA 22947 Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 10-04-06 301 5th Street SW Tax Map 29 Parcel 104 Mitchell/Matthews, Architect/ Michael and Ashley McMahon, Owners Shed and addition demolitions, new addition and site work Dear Mr. and Mrs. McMahon, The above referenced project was discussed before a meeting of the City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review (BAR) on August 17, 2010. Approved (6-1 with Ayres against) as submitted with the following conditions: Hand­ crimped galvalume roof to be used on the main portions of the roof [ and no commercial ridge vent on either the addition or original structure] , and an alternate material (such as terne metal) considered for the mansard roofs above the porch and bay window; and a revised site plan that considers an edge (hedge or wall) along Dice & 5th Streets; and size and configuration of paved areas and confirmation of materiality in that area, to be submitted for administrative review in consultation with appropriate board members. Please submit the revised site plan and information to staff for review. If you choose to replace the porch and bay window roofs, please include the specific material. In accordance with Charlottesville City Code 34-285(b), this decision may be appealed to the City Council in writing within ten working days of the date of the decision. Written appeals, including the grounds for an appeal, the procedure(s) or standard(s) alleged to have been violated or misapplied by the BAR, and/or any additional information, factors or opinions the applicant deems relevant to the application, should be directed to Paige Barfield, Clerk of the City Council, PO Box 911, Charlottesville, VA 22902. This ce1tificate of appropriateness shall expire in one year (August 17, 2011), unless within that time period you have either: been issued a building permit for construction of the improvements 1 if one is required, or if no building permit is required, commenced construction. You may request an extension of the certificate of appropriateness before this approval expires for one additional year for reasonable cause. Upon completion of construction, please contact me for an inspection of the improvements included in this application. If you have any questions, please contact me at 434-970-3130 or scala@charlottesville.org. Sincerely yours, Mary Joy Scala, AICP Preservation and Design Planner cc: Mitchell Matthews Architects PO Box 5603 Charlottesville, VA 22905 2 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW STAFF REPORT August 17, 2010 Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 10-04-06 301 5 th Street SW Tax Map 29 Parcel 104 Mitchell/Matthews, Architect/ Michael and Ashley McMahon, Owners Shed and addition demolitions, new addition and site work Background 301 5 th Street SW (before 1876) is an individually protected property. It is also a contributing structure in the Fifeville and Tonsler Neighborhoods (National and State Register) Historic District. A one-story frame rear wing was added in 1907, with a frame second sto1y added before 1920. It was replaced with a one-story cinderblock wing that was later extended to both sides. August 18, 2009 - The BAR approved (8-0) the ce1iificate of appropriateness application (to rehabilitate the front porch, repair or replace deteriorated elements, rebuild the chimneys above the roofline, replace the roof, repair the rear brick wall, and regrade the yards and redesign site walls) with the following conditions: the detail and resolution for the site retaining wall at the sidewalk, as well as the restoration of the wall at the areaway and detail for the new front door shall be brought back to the BAR for approval. The other work included in the proposal is approved as submitted. April 20, 2010 - The BAR had a preliminaty discussion regarding demolishing a rear addition and sheds; and adding a new rear addition and site work. In general, the BAR applauded the idea of removing the rear sheds and addition; liked the concept of a new addition, but thought the proposal is excessively large and overwhelms the house; suggested a perpendicular bar or another simpler footprint; questioned the commercial-looking window groupings, pergola, and large eaves; details are more Arts & Crafts than Victorian like the house. They like opening the corner, using a contrasting material, and 2/2 windows. June 15, 2010 - Approved (6-2 with Ayres and Schoenthal opposed) demolition of sheds and rear addition, as well as general massing, scale and proportion of the new addition in concept only, with the provision that details related to the building envelope of the addition, precise window placement, and roof configurntion, as well as details related to site design, colors, and materials all be submitted back to the BAR for final review. Application The applicant is requesting a ce1iificate of appropriateness to build a new rear wood frame addition. The application addresses design details, materials, and colors. The applicant is also requesting approval of the site design. Proposed materials are stucco siding, color pearl; hand-crimped galvalume roofing, color unfinished; V wood trim and window cladding color iv01y; stair tower windows, trim, and stucco, color Hatiford green. The applicant also proposes to replace the standing seam metal roof on the existing building with a v"' � galvalume roof. 1 Other clarifications: Alumi�&;'\�a.,d �i��ws are proposed, However, custom windows, if used, may require that some or all / of the windows be painted wood. The rear basement level entry and the porch above have pairs of shutters can be closed for privacy. On the porch level a railing is located behind the shutters. The owner would like to try to keep the changes to the original house to a minimum. Repairs to the V original house will match existing. The existing historic "moat" sunounding the existing building will remain as is. Any repair work will / match existing. The owner is not planning to reconstruct it as previously requested. The owner would like to remove the existing fences along 5 th and Dice Streets and bring the grade up to the sidewalk; a new fence there is not proposed. V The existing stone wall along 5 th Street will remain and be repaired as needed to match existing. A wood privacy fence is proposed along the rear and south (side) property lines. Additional information isv fo1thcoming. Criteria 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, windm,vs, mvnings, exterior stairs and signs; (3) The Secreta,y 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; I. A property shall be used for its historic pwpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment. 2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. 3. Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements fi'om other buildings, shall not be undertaken. 4. Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved. 2 5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be preserved 6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterforation requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentmy, physical, or pictorial evidence. 7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The swface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. 8. Significant archeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken. 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated form the old and shall be compatible ·with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. JO. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in thefi1ture, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired (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; (8) Any applicable provisions of the c;ty's Design Guidelines. Pertinent Design Guidelines for Additions: P. 3.18 Additions 1. Function and Size a. Attempt to accommodate needed functions wit/tin tlte existing structure wit/tout building an addition. b. Limit tlte size of tlte addition so tit at it does not visually ove,power tlte exisiting building. 2. Location a. Attempt to locate tlte addition on rear or side elevations tit at are not visible from tlte street. b. ff addUional floors are constructed on top of a building, set the addition backfrom the main fac;ade so that its visual impact is minimized c. ff the addition is located on a prima,y elevation facing the street or if a rear addition faces a street, parking area, or an important pedestrian route, tlte fa<;ade of tlte addition should he treated under t!te new construction guidelines. 3. Design a. New additions should not destroy historic materials that characterize tlte property. b. The new work should be differentiatedfrom the old and should be compatible with tlte massing, size, scale, and arcltitectural features to protect tlte historic integrity of tlte property and its environment. 4. Replicatfon of Style a. A new addition should not be an exact copy of the design of the existing historic building. The design of new additions can be compatible with and respectful of existing buildings without being a mimic,y of their original design. b. ffthe new addition appears to be part of the existing building, the integrity of the original historic design is compromised and the vietFeris confi1sed over what is historic and what is new. 5. Materials and Features a. Use materials, windows, doors, architectural detailing, roofs, and colors that are compatible with historic buildings in tlte district. 6. Attachment to Existing Building a. Wherever possible, new additions or alterations to existing buildings should be done in such a manner that, if such additions or alterations were to be removed in the fitture, the essential form 3 and integrity of the buildings would be unimpaired b. The new design should not use the same wall plane, roof line, or cornice line of the existing structure. Pertinent Design Guidelines for Site Design: p. 2.3 B. PLANTINGS 1) Encourage the maintenance and planting of large trees on private property along the streetfronts, which contribute to the "avenue" effect. 2) Generally, use trees and plants that are compatible with the existing plantings in the neighborhood. 3) Use trees and plants that are indigenous to the area. 4) Retain existing trees and plants that help define the character of the district. 5) Replace diseased or dead plants with like or similar species if appropriate. 6) When constructing new buildings, identify and take care to protect significant existing trees and other plantings. 7) Choose ground cover plantings that are compatible with acijacent sites, existing site conddions, and the character of the building. 8) Select mulching and edging materials carefitlly and do not use plastic edgings, lava, crushed rock, unnaturally colored mulch or other historically unsuitable materials. p. 2.4 C. WALLS ANDFENCES 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 cluesfrom nearby historic fences and walls. 7) Chain-link fencing, split rail fences, vinyl plastic fences, and concrete block walls in general should not be used. 8) .if street-front fences or walls are necessmy or desirable, keep them below four (4) feet in height and use traditional materials and design. ) 9 Residential privacy fences may be appropriate in side or rear yards where not visible from the primary street. 1 OJ Avoid fences over six (6) feet in height. 11) Fence structure should face the inside ofthe fenced property. 12) Relate commercial privacy fences to the materials of the building. .(/the a. commercial property acijoins a residential neighborhood, use brick or painted b. ·wood fence or heavily planted screen as a buffer. 13) Avoid the installation of new fences or walls ifpossible in areas where there are no are no fences or walls and yards are open. 14) Retaining ·walls should respect the scale, materials and context of the site and acijacent properties. 15) Respect the existing conditions of the majority of the lots on the street in planning new construction or a rehabilitation of an existing site. p. 2.6 E. WALKWAYS &DRIVEWAYS 1) Use appropriate traditional paving materials like brick, stone, and scored concrete. 2) Limit asphalt use to driveways and parking areas. 4 3) Place drive,vays through the front yard only when no rear access to parking is available. 4) Do not demolish historic structures to provide areas for parking. 5) Add separate pedestrian pathways within larger parking lots, and provide crosswalks at vehicular lanes within a site. p. 2.9 H UTILITIES & OTHER SITE APPURTENANCES 1. Place overhead wires, utility poles and meters, antennae, trash containers, and exterior heat exchangers in locations where they are least likely to detractfrom the character of the site. 2. Encourage the installation of utility services underground. 3. Screen utilities and other site elements with fences, walls or plantings. 4. Antennae and communication dishes should be placed in inconspicuous rooftop locations. 5. Screen all rooftop mechanical equipment with a wall of material harmonious with the building or structure. Discussion and Recommendations Design of the privacy fence is needed. On the south side property line, the fence height should not exceed 4 feet beyond the front of the house toward Dice Street. The proposed yard grades should be clarified. Bringing it up to the sidewalk grade may be problematic. The material of the hardscape areas in the rear yard should be clarified. Mechanical equipment must meet setbacks and be screened. Suggested Motion Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City Design Guidelines for New Construction and Additions, and for Site Design, I move to find that the proposed addition and site and that the BA approve the s application ::S'� design satisfy the BAR's criteria and are compatible with this property and other prope1ties in this distr' t, W : �� � I) 't -M�'-� rj� w ,.J/ -!t -f:..t.:ir._,,- Sr� - ------ - - f/"\._ + �'{,l'tt,t/4 µ �•� (#If\ l--) � � \"" � � � _.,1 D11e e,;w---.._� � .. r S1n; s,u. -r vJ ( --��-�rf�� � - ts 5 ,,,� ;Jf£ M; ·_o u d �� -, ;{J� -f- � ("�� � fr1,,n,� t=- �� 1�� wµJ -·..-1 . -- .11. � �- b-l��lsqflbAO.J, Tu��� 2-)�.�� 'C � ti'- 4'{'lvf if� i),a .f 511,,. Boautldl off A11' notice�.) - let� i? � Prnpier-ty Owner Pcrmir.sion (if not appAicunO I have read this application und hereby give my consent to its submission. ����-/{ Signature Dcsc(iptio� of Proposed Work (atw.ch !iepal.'21(e :o.ou:rative if oecessa,y):. 1?--.elNlNA\ �(:- e )G\ '!o> tu� -- li\o�ll- � NootA ·fv?i\lJ\.t: tr� A,hOY\ t f 4:b:YA.�e. "?V\eAS,. Cov\<;!,t� ub:On 0f: \-'OM fa'YV\L- MA,d)(Y\ Y.tp1W6 h .{)C\£;:jJVV\ �jvv\efr\Vc -----� Attachmtnts (6ee c<..-vcrsc side fo .. submitta.l �qui�emenc�): t;.e_e., Ai\:21\.�'vlu\ O�{l(;,1<1,VVL;LA,\ � tJ/.� ,:;. 1 :b'.f\4i,1 t� ?Ju, rf(h 41Yld ,, t2Ae,- J?.Y1ttw\l\w,u1.k'.10 �.<-e{N\tw � � IJ- ii .-,�� w) For Office Use Onli1o.. _ • . _ ,...... _ ) Received by: - _s;i..:.__�---� ---- Fee paid: .S-} 00 � Cast@�� Date Received: &f �Sr\� I -"-0__ TABLE OF CONTENTS NARRATIVE 2 PROJECT DATA 3 VICINITY PLAN 4 EXISTING SITE & DEMOLITION PLAN 5 EXISTING PLANS 6 EXISTING PHOTOS 7 CONTEXT 8 PROPOSED SITE PLAN ��c ✓a �IV� 9 4$c� t .B;> . l) IO �� PROPOSED 1st & 2nd FLOORS Wtlt,4-7 <01{) �Op�$, 11 PROPOSED DICE STREET ELEVATION ��� 12 PROPOSED REAR ELEVATION 13 PROPOSl;J) � 14 15 5th STREET VIEW 16 - DICE STREET VIEW -, 17 �.){� 301 FIFTH STREET, CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA MITCHELL/MATTHEWS©2010 MCMAHON RESIDENCE ARCHITECTS AND URBAN PLANNERS JULY 27. 2010 CHARLOTTESVILLE 434 979 7550 NARRATIVE Objective Site The original, four room structure is too small to adequately serve as a residence The driveway access is from Dice Street. A two-car garage will be provided in the for a family of four. The objective of this project is to work within real and growing basement level to furnish off-street parking and to minimize the impact on the rear budgetary constraints to thoughtfully and appropriately transform this extremely yard. Landscaping, hardscaping and fencing are proposed, the details of which will small, dilapidated building into a modest, but adequate, home for a growing family. be addressed in the subsequent submission. Since our last submission, we have made significant changes to the building layout, mass, articulation and fenestration to address and incorporate comments received Proposed Work at the previous BAR meeting. The original 1870, four room structure will remain and the exterior appearance will ) be maintained in its current general state. Structural and cosmetic repairs will be Location addressed in a later submission. 30 I 5th Street SW is located at the intersection of 5th Street SW and Dice Streets in Charlottesville, Virginia. It lies in the Fifeville neighborhood district and is an indi­ The existing wood frame and masonry addition at the rear of the building will be re­ vidually protected property. moved as well as two large freestanding sheds in the rear yard. A new wood frame addition will be constructed to provide necessary living and bedroom space. The Background basement level of the addition will serve as a garage. Cues have been taken from 30 I 5th Street SW is known as the Shelton-Fuller House in the city of Charlottes­ the original house and the neighborhood for the development of an addition that is ville. The National Register of Historic Places Registration Form for the Fifeville appropriate to both. The eave lines, roof pitches, and window configuration from and Tonsler Neighborhoods Historic District describes it as follows: the original structure as well as the basic house width (as seen from Dice Street) have been maintained in the new construction. The articulation of the sides and "The She!ton-Fu!ler House at 301 5th Street SW is the third of this group of fairly rear also incorporates elements found in additions made to surrounding residences. large vernacular brick ! -houses constructed in the mid-19th century on land in the Consistent with other residences in the neighborhood, major materials on the addi­ eastern part of the district. Constructed ca. 1870 by John Fry, probably on specu­ tion include stucco, cementitious panels and trim, and glass. lation, the two-story, three-bay brick dwe!ling features a fa c;ade laid in a seven­ course-American-with-Flemish-bond pattern and the side and rear wa!ls and raised Proposed Demolition brick foundation laid in seven-course American bond. The house is an example of a To accommodate the proposed renovations, the following demolition will be re­ fairly ornate Victorian interpretation of the common vernacular !-house form and quired: has a be!lcast standing-seam metal gabled roof, deeply overhanging bracketed eaves, a central front gable, 2/2-sash wood windows, two semi-exterior-end brick chim­ Removal of the existing wood frame and masonry addition at the rear of the neys that pierce through the eaves, and a five-light transom and three-light sidelights building. around the front door: Both the projecting polygonal front bay window and the one­ bay front porch have mansard roofs. The use of a sha!low mansard roof as a decora­ Removal of the two existing free-standing sheds in the rear yard. tive element on a porch or projecting bay window was observed on approximately 15 dwe!lings in the district. This late-19th-century Victorian feature is somewhat Other miscellaneous demolition of site items or building components that may unique to this area of Charlottesv1Jle and may be associated with a particular bwlder, be required as part of the repairs to the original structure will be addressed in a who as of this time has not been identified." later submission. The nomination report also notes "a !-story frame wing on a raised basement ex­ tends the fu!I width of the rear of the house and appears to have been constructed in several sections." Both the original structure and later additions are in need of significant repair and the Owner wishes to return the property to a habitable single family home. 1 301 FIFTH STREET. C ARLOTHSV Ll V RGINIA /v'tlTCHELL/MATTHEWS 20 0 MCMAHOi\J RESIDE NC ARCHITECTS AND URBAN PLANi\JERS JULY 27. 20l0 CHARLOTTESVILLE 434 979 7550 PROJECT DATA Location: 30 I Fifth Street SW Shelton Fuller House Site Area: 7,746 sf(0.178 acres) Zoning: Existing: R-1S H Proposed: R-1S H Use: Existing: Residential Proposed: Residential Height: Existing: 2 stories + basement Proposed: 2 stories + basement Tax Map &- Parcel Number: TMP 29-104 Building Area: Original 1870 structure: Proposed Addition: First Floor - 565 nsf First Floor= 803 nsf Second Floor= 545 nsf Second Floor= 797 nsf Total = 1,110 nsf Total = I,600 nsf Existing living area (after demolition): 1,110 ns£ Proposed living area; 2,710 ns£ Notes: I. Basement areas not included. 2. All quantities, areas and dimensions are approximate and subject to change as the project is refined. 301 FIFTH STREET. C A.RLOTTFSV Lit. V RCINIA 2 MiTLHELl/MATTHEWS 20 0 MCMAHON RES! ENCE ARCHITECTS AND URBAN PLANNERS JULY 2'/. 2010 CHARLOTTESV LLE 434 979 7550 � MAP AERIAL VICINITY 301 FIFTH STREET. CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA MCMAHON RESIDENCE MITCHELL/MATTHEWS©2010 ARCHITECTS AND URBAN PLANNERS 3 JULY 27. 2010 CHARLOTTESVILLE 434 979 7550 - I I \ --����r--> t-t ·-j I K_ - - ---- -- !AA_" _SFf "° B 1DE _ _<:(!" ,;5 '-<�'f - - -__ \ ' -"---'-.-,:'-<- � 1- w w I I � I I­ t/) :cI- I I I I ol ) u/ �, �I �, tu I �I �I ;;;, er I :%1 �I I I er;ti I 0/ I I fl:1 I 9.' ------- - ---- --- ---1 - SETBA - - -- / - YARD _- _________ _ -------- - - - - SIDE - --- - - -- -- -- I _, ----- - -- ---- ---- - - '-+-- - - ------ ---- -- -------- -- - - LEGEND � AREAS TO BE DEMOLISHED EXISTING SITE & DEMOLITION PLANS 301 FIFTH STREET. CHARLOTTESVILLE. VIRGINIA MCMAHON RESIDENCE JULY 27. 2010 MITCHELL/MATTHEWS©20l0 ARCHITECTS AND URBAN PLANNERS CHARLOTTESVILLE 434 979 7S50 4 DICE STREET r-�-- --------i 1- I I '"' 0 1- w w ,� I"' "'1 I+---- / V ,11TrfITHI} �1f,I�� a:: I­ � I � t/) �"- :t I 1- I"' I 1 I I"' 1"' II I ---+I BASEMENT FIRST FLOOR SECOND FLOOR -- - ---- - --- ____ j ---- LEGEND � AREAS TO BE DEMOLISHED EXISTING PLANS 5 301 FIFTH STREET, CHARLOTTESVILLE. VIRGINIA MIT HELL/MATTHEWS©2010 MCMAHON RESIDENCE ARCHITECTS AND URBAN PLANNERS JULY 27. 20l0 CHARLOTTESVILLE 434 979 7550 FXTSTINr. RlJTIDTNr. 6 301 FIFTH STREET, CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA MIT( HE LL/MATTH EWS©2010 . MCMAHON RESIDENCE ARCHITECTS AND URBAN PLANNERS JULY 27. 2010 CHARLOTTESVILLE 434 979 7550 CONTEXT 301 FIFTH STREET, CHARLOTTESVILLE. VIRGINIA 7 MIT HELL/MATTHEW$©20l0 MCMAHON RESIDENCE ARCHITECTS AND URBAN PLANNERS JULY 27. 2010 CHARLOTTESVILLE 434 979 7550 DICE STREET / L ' -- �- JAPANESE �- MAPLE = -=---=- - -I+ ---�-7' I I --�----- '20'-0" CORNER SIDE YARD SETBACK I r +­ I I I I I I - --, l j I I - J __ I PROPOSED SHRUB PLANTINGS & MULCH I I I I BLUE HYDRANGEA I GRAVEL DRIVE - - _\ I I 25'-0' REAR YA \ ASSOCIATES LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS z w/Basement p " .t'> SITE DESIGNERS AND PLANNERS m Dwelling rn 0 831/ ROCKFISH GAP TRNPK. " GREENWOOD, VIRGINIA 22943 ll1 MOBILE: 434.882.3420 NOTES, IU w IU n VOICE/FAX: 540.456.6422 i:D 0 DAV!D@ANHOLDLA. COM I. CONC: 3000 PSI • 28 DAYS w z :s' X ADJUST EX. GASL/NES n 2. REINF: GRADE W AS NECESSARY FOR BASEMENT WELL 3. MAX SOIL BEARING PRESSURE = 2000 PSF CASSUMEDJ CONSTRUCTION. ALIGN WITH FACE OF 1. PROVIDE WALL CONTROL JOINTS 11 20'-0" MAX n ---------- BUILDING f- ---------- 77 X ---------- rn Oc BASEMENT WELL MORTARED n /' SQ. STONE STONE CAP rn "°> x x BRIC RETAINING WALLX COLUMN, TYPICAL TO MATCH ADJACENT RETAINING WALL SCHEDULE X x BRICK RETAINING WA L X 7, "' EXIST WALLS DIMENSIONS 97 X o> X o> ?>.. � "--._06' "' "B' ·c· ·w· -r� :9_,, ., "':o H• ·Os. CONCRETE RETAINING OS. - ·"}G�l.-4f':::-::;t -.:=::17 v,y, WALL WITH STONE CAP. "<..'. -- u PER CITY DIRECTIONS r-,.. TWO ?"RISERS.: 98.J0' ◄·-o· - ,·-o· 0 -5" 1 2·-11· SEE DETAIL. ""' 97 -----.: ''9 ,q . Q& 9�� SIGN '<°o, - 0 0 98.J0' '!'O�.�- I.S. i< I. S32 22 '20 "W 64 .50 ' 1157 STONE ' \ 'vo 'vo :s>s(;). ·O-s, /' SQ. ST0Nfy, ·7so, I' SQ. STONE COLUMN, TYPICAL CONCRETE LANDING COLUMN, TYPICAL It"! .. "" HORIZ EA ----I--®--'-'® FACE 6.5" STEP DOWN. CENTER DN WALL COLUMNS. :r,. II"! II 18" ADJUST EX. WATERLINES AS CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY VERT -----j..j_--.:,_J NECESSARY FOR WALL CONCRETE RETAINING WALL WITH STONE CAP AT BACK EXACT ELEVATIONS. EXISTING SIDEWALK AND RAMPS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTION OF SIDEWALK, TYPICAL. DEMOLISHED AS NECESSARY FOR CONSTRUCTION. AFTER WALL CONSTRUCTION THEY SHALL BE REPLACED TO MATCH EXISTING ELEVATIONS AND II"! 9 18' OET "A" FIFTH STREET S.W. CONDITIONS. DOWELS ----Hl'- (30. R/W) 111 " 18" SEE DETr-:"AA""---f-'-!1-..:.:_,, 01 - SITE PLAN VICINITY MAP: NTS (I,) - 11"! :z SCALE: I "=5' CONT • i: N � 0 Cf) I- COLUMNS SI-6LL HAVE A 4" THICK, NCRETE c, EXIST NG PORCH, (VALL 1.,Vr\L ,.,,n 4 f' c-n ..., , SHO WN BEHIND \ .:, f ,_,, .... • '-"' • I ...,, I' SQ. S7ONE ·� ·- -·--- �COLUMN, TYi /CAL ·c· .. ·- EX STING GRADE 1·-0· "B" /05' I T0P-10/.50' �T SIDEWALK \ \ �T.C.-IOU' ~,pU I ",.., . ,_ ' T.C.- 0/.5'� ' · ,, / I I LML 1 /05 � \ I 4" S7ONE CAP AT T �p \ \ I \ '\ 4" STONE<- ,P AT TOP _ NW" \ I ,OFC NCRETE WALi ___ .,, - . ~ ' \ \ -4.00� I ,T /00.50 \ \ ~· IL ,,,..,._._ \ I I. l,. -:'1vv � I I vv=1 'U.OU \ \ \ I \ '\ TW-99.l a·, I " I CCI DFTl1" J;>FT • ,. 1•• ,,., SECTION ,� Cf) IAIA; / � I \' \' \' \ I u \ h I \ �h \ COLUMNS SH�LL HAVE A , ' SK-I /00' I I I - '"�, \ \ I 4" THICK, Cc "!CRETE /00 -w ' ' ' ' � ,•. ' ' ' ,,11n 4 '' ': .. ,, ,: " - ' .. 'I/ \: \ \ ,VALL LV�L , .' ----' ,. " I ,, , ' ' ' I,., - '' " ' - -·., ,.,,,. ,·-,_,, ' -- ' ' ' I '- ' B ' ' ' ' ' ' ,. - / ...,fV/u.. ,._ ' � ' I Ill ' 1·,,. ' � -·- ' ,. ' L ' [, ' ' ,, ' ,. ' /, , ' " , .. ' ·7 ' ' ' Jc· ' ' ' rn□ I loc .. I ' ,' -, " ' I, ' '.' ·' ' .' c::: C'LJAI Lr) ?, ' ' ' -' I " ' ,. ' - ,.', ' ' "" ' ' " ' ' ' }' /· ' . ,' " I I ' WITH RETAIi ING WALL. 95' I I ' , " ', 95' "'\. " > 1, -'.I TOP OF FOOTING ' ' ,. 3/"!" CONCRETE FOOTER PROP SEO GRADE I J ELEVATION SEE ARCH \. WITH 2' Ml �/MUM ALONG, R0NT YARD C0NCf ETE FOOTER I JOINT \ COVER. SE DTL. I ' STEP OWN, SEE DT . 04. I \ \ -- - ' '"'TJ.i ?' PROPOSE/ GRADE / \ \ MIN MUM BETWEE, BOTTOM • SEALANT D! _J 90' "' L!.J "' ALONG FRO/ T YARD OF "OOTER 8 FINISHED - • ;:,cc u, 90' JOB No.: I" BACKER t':,_ I if; /4 • ROD ?- - � ,;; jjj "' s:: DET "B" fl'. u LL. Q, 0 "' � l,!1 j C, L ---. �--.--...,.._� S{ it i:i5 U) LE SIDINUTTERS 4 DOV'IN­ SPOUTS TO BE REPLAC.ED V'I/ COPPER �NEV'! V'IINDOV'IS 4 DOORS TO MATC.H EXISTINUARDRAILS PROPOSED REAR ELEVATION HISTORIC RESTORATION & RENOVATION LYNDHALL APARTMENTS 64 UNIVERSITY WAY, CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 HENNINGSEN KESTNER ARCHITECTS PROPOSED ELEVATIONS FEET 1108 EAST HIGH STREET, CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 PHONE (434) 971-7202 I FAX (434) 295-2413 I HENNINGSENKESTNER.COM 0 2 4 6 8 IO 20 40 2 6R APT. 2 6R APT. i==:::.url I\Lr;::::::====a PROPOSED STAIR i=lAcc- LAYOUT I 6R APT. I 6R APT. l-, ,_J l ___________J r-------------------, --------------------1 ' ' FIRE ESCAPE '7 I 6R APT. 5TORA�E EXISTINY•y �/ / ,/ /4 y, ff. ff, / ��� EXISTINYY� \J� 2 /4 i! ii I SR APT. I -3 i! I I EXISTINCel"'.T.NC)QD� --------------- �lt,f<(..)(��9111111" 1114'< l"AINT8' ..vc, a,lr,IC a,:,_..., �ei,.-��-- - -- (W4K l"AINTS:t NXIO T•♦ oer::.KI._ ATTAC:A+t!NT TO e,(16T, � S'l'e"nlUC,T,e.. cotff. 2>CIO l".T. � ... MN.�VIL� HISTORIC RESTORATION & RENOVATION LYNDHALL APARTMENTS 64 UNIVERSITY WAY, CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 HENNINGSEN KESTNER ARCHITECTS PROPOSED PORCH SECTION FEET 1108 EAST HIGH STREET, CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 PHONE (434) 971-7202 I FAX (434) 295-2413 I HENNINGSENKESTNER.COM 0 2 4 6 8 IO 20 40 ,_!'__ v---�- �I I J �� r " �� sr,...__ ��� e-rm.1'1� t«IN � 1112' �1-1 ,�=, -��� �� �1 X ,.--1-1,---�� �I �� =-�G# r 1 °"""""""""'"" IX��..._,.� f ' �,'I iJ I I .., � �IICIClf',,,,.,GIMltenu:::n.- � _/ M:Mcetei1.cM� HISTORIC RESTORATION & RENOVATION JHl( LYNDHALL APARTMENTS 64 UNIVERSITY WAY, CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 HENNINGSEN KESTNER ARCHITECTS PROPOSED RAILING DETAILS FEET 1108 EAST HIGH STREET, CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 PHONE (434) 971-7202 I FAX (434) 295-2413 I HENNINGSENKESTNER.COM 0 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 10 March, 2021 City of Charlottesville Department of Neighborhood Development Services City Hall Post Office Box 911 Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: Lyndhall Apartments - Updated Special Use Permit Narrative On behalf of Neighborhood Investments, LLC, we submit this request for a Special Use Permit for the Historic Restoration and Renovation of Lyndhall Apartments, tax parcel 50048000, located at 64 University Way in Charlottesville’s R-3H zoning district. There are three components of the requested Special Use Permit: 1.) An increase in residential density to 48 DUA from the 21 DUA permitted by-right (up to 87 is permitted with SUP). The current use as a 9-unit apt. building is a legal non- conforming use in the R3-H district due to the limited lot size. Our request for increased density is explained further below. 2.) Reduction of the side yard setback requirement from 1’ per every 4’ of height (minimum 10’) to the 10’ minimum. Although the building is existing and we are not proposing any changes that affect the side yard setbacks, this issue must be addressed as it is also a legal non-conforming condition. 3.) Reduction of the 3’ parking setback from the side property lines. Neighboring properties on both sides are currently paved up to the property lines, and are separated from the subject property by grade changes and existing retaining walls. The property is currently paved up to the property line on the North side, and the property immediately to the South (where we are proposing to expand the paving to the property line) has the same owner as the subject property. Current compliance with the requirements of Section 34-981 regarding drainage will not be impacted by the requested improvements. We seek this Special Use Permit as part of our proposed restoration of the building, which has received preliminary approval from the Virginia Department of Historic Resources and National Park Service for Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credits, as it is listed as a “Contributing Structure” within the Rugby Road – University Corner Historic District. This historic apartment building was constructed in 1915 with 12 units (4 per floor on 3 floors) over a basement level (above grade on 3 sides), which housed a communal dining room, commercial kitchen, and support spaces. The apartments themselves originally did not have their own kitchens, so when the building was reconfigured sometime around 1936, the units on the upper floors were combined, kitchens were added, and 2 new apartments were carved out of the dining room and support spaces in the basement. Currently, the building has 9 units, 2 units per floor on the lower three floors, and three smaller units on the top floor. The conversion was not planned thoughtfully however, and created awkward layouts featuring kitchens and bedrooms that can only be accessed through other bedrooms, to cite the worst example. Since the original apartment entrances on the upper floors are still intact, the historic preservation architect consultants who were engaged to provide guidance (Hill Studio of Roanoke, VA), suggested that we “uncombine” the units on the main floors and go back to using all 4 original entrance doors on each floor to access 4 smaller apartments, as the building was originally designed. This approach has yielded better 1-2 bedroom apartments that are more in keeping with the original layout of the building, but now include the kitchens, baths, closets, etc. that tenants demand in today’s rental market. For the sake of consistency and efficiency in terms of stacking structure, plumbing, etc., we are proposing to duplicate the layout of the first and second floors in the basement, which brings the total proposed number of units in the building to 16. Exterior improvements to the building are limited to restoration of the exterior to it’s historic appearance on the front and side facades, and the replacement of unsightly and deteriorated exterior fire escapes that were added to the rear of the building with covered exterior porches. Site improvements consist of: Widening of the driveway on the North side of the building for safer vehicle access, and replacement of existing retaining walls; Repaving and restriping of existing rear parking lot to increase parking capacity; Creation of landscaped patio area on the South side of the building for recreational use by residents; Landscape improvements; Installation of new and/or replacement utilities (water, sewer, electrical, and fire sprinkler line) into the building. The following is a list of specific areas of concern noted in the Special Use Permit application, with our responses outlining how each issue is addressed in our proposed plan: Section 34‐158(a)(5) Information and data identifying how many, if any, existing dwelling units on the development site meet the city's definition of an "affordable dwelling unit" and whether any such existing units, or equivalent affordable units, will remain following the development. Response: The owner has indicated that the existing building does not currently have any units that meet the city’s definition of an “affordable dwelling unit”. It is not anticipated that the renovated building will have affordable dwelling units, which are not required, as the building envelope falls under the 1.0 FAR threshold. Section 34‐157(a)(1) Whether the proposed use or development will be harmonious with existing patterns of use and development within the neighborhood. Response: The existing building is listed as a “Contributing Structure” within the Rugby Road – University Corner Historic District, and exterior improvements have received preliminary approval from the VA Dept. of Historic Resources and National Park Service for Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credits. The building has been in continuous use as student housing since it’s construction in 1915, and the proposed renovation will not change that use. Section 34‐157(a)(2) Whether the proposed use or development and associated public facilities will substantially conform to the city's comprehensive plan. Response: The proposed use and increase in residential density conforms to the city’s comprehensive plan, as the site is located within a “High Density Residential” zone on the General Land Use Plan. Although no affordable dwelling units are proposed as part of this project, it is our belief that if approved, the increase in residential density within this existing building will serve the purpose of reducing market pressure on affordable dwelling units elsewhere in the city. The proximity of the building to UVA grounds and the Corner District, as well as the existing sidewalks, bike lanes, and bus lines in the immediate vicinity of the building would make a density increase in this particular location especially likely to promote the goals of the Comprehensive plan in regards to walkability and transportation. Section 34‐157(a)(3) Whether proposed use or development of any buildings or structures will comply with all applicable building code regulations. Response: The proposed building renovation will comply with all applicable building code regulations. Section 34‐157(a)(4)(a) Traffic or parking congestion. Response: The proposed improvements to the parking area on the building site conform to current parking regulations for the proposed unit size and count. We do not anticipate additional traffic or parking pressure to the neighborhood as a result of the proposed use. Section 34‐157(a)(4)(b) Noise, lights, dust, odor, fumes, vibration, and other factors which adversely affect the natural environment. Response: The proposed use will not create any of the adverse impacts to the natural environment listed above. Section 34‐157(a)(4)(c) Displacement of existing residents or businesses. Response: The proposed renovation of the building will not displace any existing residents or businesses. If approved, the density increase in this location may help to reduce such displacement elsewhere in the city. Section 34‐157(a)(4)(d) Discouragement of economic development activities that may provide desirable employment or enlarge the tax base. Response: The proposed use will not discourage economic development activities. Section 34‐157(a)(4)(e) Undue density of population or intensity of use in relation to the community facilities existing or available. Response: Although we are asking for an increase in residential density, we do not feel that the proposed increase represents an undue increase in population density for this area. This building shares a block with several other historic student housing apartment buildings, and is located in a high density housing zone on the Comprehensive Plan. We are not proposing to expand the existing building envelope, and the proposed unit mix, if approved, will result in 16 one and two bedroom units with 24 bedrooms total. This is fewer than would be allowed by-right for a less sensitive renovation that would gut the interior, or for new construction on the property, which would allow 7 four bedroom units resulting in 28 bedrooms. Section 34‐157(a)(4)(f) Reduction in the availability of affordable housing in the neighborhood. Response: The proposed project will not reduce the availability of affordable housing in the neighborhood. Section 34‐157(a)(4)(g) Impact on school population and facilities. Response: As the past and proposed future use of the building is college student housing, we do not anticipate much if any impact to local school populations or facilities. Section 34‐157(a)(4)(h) Destruction of or encroachment upon conservation or historic districts Response: As stated above, the building is a Contributing Structure within an established Historic District, and the renovation will be performed in conformance with all applicable VADHR and NPS requirements for Historic Preservation Tax Credits. Section 34‐157(a)(4)(i) Conformity with federal, state and local laws, as demonstrated and certified by the applicant. Response: The project will conform to all applicable federal, state, and local laws. Section 34‐157(a)(5) Whether the proposed use or development will be in harmony with the purposes of the specific zoning district in which it will be placed. Response: The property is located within an R-3H zoning district. Both aspects of the proposed renovation (the historic preservation of the existing building, and the increased residential density, if approved) are harmonious with the purposes of the R-3H zoning district. Section 34‐157(a)(6) Whether the proposed use or development will meet applicable general and specific standards set forth within the zoning ordinance, subdivision regulations, or other city ordinances or regulations. Response: All applicable general and specific standards (other than those addressed by the SUP request itself) will be met by the proposed project. Section 34‐157(a)(7) When the property that is the subject of the application for a special use permit is within a design control district, city council shall refer the application to the BAR or ERB, as may be applicable, for recommendations as to whether the proposed use will have an adverse impact on the district, and for recommendations as to reasonable conditions which, if imposed, that would mitigate any such impacts. The BAR or ERB, as applicable, shall return a written report of its recommendations to the city council. Response: It is our understanding that the application to the BAR for review has been made by staff as part of the SUP process, and that the proposal will be considered by the Board during the March 16th meeting. Please do not hesitate to contact us should you have any questions, or require any additional information. Thank You, Christian E. Henningsen, AIA Project Architect Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-03-05 420 West Main, TMP 290011000 Downtown ADC District Owner: A Cadgene, Main Street Land Trust, LLC., Applicant: Greg Jackson/TOPIA design Project: Canopy for the Little Star restaurant Application components (please click each link to go directly to PDF page): • Staff Report • Historic Survey • Application Submittal March 16, 2021 BAR Agenda (3/10/2021) 8 City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Staff Report March 16, 2021 Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-03-05 420 West Main, TMP 290011000 Downtown ADC District Owner: A Cadgene, Main Street Land Trust, LLC., Applicant: Greg Jackson/TOPIA design Project: Canopy for the Little Star restaurant Background Year Built: c1960 District: Downtown ADC District Status: Contributing The former gas station was occupied by Jones Wrecker until it was renovated into a restaurant in 2001. The West Main Street Historic District (NRHP) describes the building as: Cinderblock faced with red and white metal; one story; flat roof; four bays; flat canopy over gas pumps, 1960-61, replacing 1931 gas station. Site of early 19th century brick blacksmith shop, possibly not demolished until 1931. R.F. Harris foundry on this lot and 416 West Main c1850 - c1930. Prior BAR Reviews (Germane to this request. A complete list of all prior review is in the Appendix.) May 2018 – BAR approved (6-0) painting and improvements to the front patio area, with the addition of a street tree at the NW corner, provided it meets sight line criteria and is selected from the approved tree list. The BAR recommends that the neon sign be considered an appropriate sign for the district. Balut seconded. Staff note: 1) Applicant’s plan did not indicate parcel boundaries. Staff clarified that BAR approval applies only to improvements on the applicant’s parcel. 2) Neon signs are not permitted in the Downtown ADC (Sec. 34-1041(c)). Application • Submittal: TOPIA design drawings New canopy, 420 W. Main Street, dated February 23, 2021: Sheets 1 through 19. CoA request for the construction of a metal canopy at the front (north) elevation. 420 West Main (March 8, 2021) 1 From the applicant’s submittal: Proposed is a cover for an exterior dining area, for shade and weather protection. The new metal canopy will be bolted to the building and supported by columns. The design intent is to be compatible yet distinct. The new structure is inspired by the form and materials of the original building, which was a gas/service station. The existing building is a modification of the original building, and currently is a restaurant. The new canopy has three steel columns (on concrete bases) that align with and share the configuration of the two original slanted steel columns (on a curb), that supported the gas pump canopy. The I-beam and channel steel structure follows the general configuration and structural logic of the original canopy, but is separate framing and alignment, and is different materials and colors. The canopy roof is a semi-translucent material that further distinguishes it as new and different from the original building, which has painted metal decking. Although compatible with the language and spirit of the original gas station the new construction will be differentiated, set back with a silver gray finish and white polycarbonate roofing. The silver gray color correlates with the not-original anodized aluminum of the storefront, garage doors, and exterior railing. The white poly roof decking relates with the current white building. With the original gas pump drive through canopy no longer open -and now enclosed with storefront- the new canopy returns an open air feel and function, and brings a balance to the building and site. Discussion and Recommendation This building currently contributes to the West Main Street district, which has a history of automobile-related businesses. The BAR should discuss how the façade changes relate to the original historic building. The building has been modified over the years, adapting this former service station to a restaurant. While the proposed canopy is aesthetically consistent with the current expression of the building’s architecture, it is still an addition onto the historic façade. Staff supports the design and intent, but recommends the new canopy be constructed in a manner that separates it from the existing building. This need not require additional posts, the canopy might still be connected to the building at points, for support, allowing the canopy to not appear as extending from the building. The BAR should also discuss how the seasonal plastic walls will be anchored. Additionally, the polycarbonate roof should be specified with a UV protective coating to mitigate yellowing. No exterior lighting is indicated; however, the BAR may apply conditions to address future lighting, if planned. 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 patio canopy at 420 West Main 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. ... as submitted with the following conditions: Denial: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed patio canopy at 420 West Main Street does not 420 West Main (March 8, 2021) 2 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: 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 (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 Design Review Guidelines for Rehabilitation B. Facades and Storefronts Over time, commercial buildings are altered or remodeled to reflect current fashions or to eliminate maintenance problems. Often these improvements are misguided and result in a disjointed and unappealing appearance. Other improvements that use good materials and sensitive design may be as attractive as the original building and these changes should be saved. The following guidelines will help to determine what is worth saving and what should be rebuilt. 1) Conduct pictorial research to determine the design of the original building or early changes. 2) Conduct exploratory demolition to determine what original fabric remains and its condition. 3) Remove any inappropriate materials, signs, or canopies covering the façade. 4) Retain all elements, materials, and features that are original to the building or are contextual remodelings, and repair as necessary. 5) Restore as many original elements as possible, particularly the materials, windows, decorative details, and cornice. 6) When designing new building elements, base the design on the “Typical elements of a commercial façade and storefront.” 7) Reconstruct missing or original elements, such as cornices, windows, and storefronts, if documentation is available. 8) Design new elements that respect the character, materials, and design of the building, yet are distinguished from the original building. 420 West Main (March 8, 2021) 3 9) Depending on the existing building’s age, originality of the design and architectural significance, in some cases there may be an opportunity to create a more contemporary façade design when undertaking a renovation project. 10) Avoid using materials that are incompatible with the building or within the specific districts, including textured wood siding, vinyl or aluminum siding, and pressure-treated wood, Avoid introducing inappropriate architectural elements where they never previously existed. APPENDIX Prior BAR Reviews March 14, 2000 – BAR approved a renovation/addition for restaurant. The canopy was enclosed for a bar area. The yellow and blue glazed masonry units were added at this time. April 19, 2005 – BAR approved a community mural for the wall on 5th Street, to be completed with the guidance of Philadelphia artist Isaiah Zagar. March 17, 2009 - BAR accepted the applicant’s deferral 7-0 to add details and address height issue for a patio fence. April 2009 – BAR approved a new 4 ft. high galvanized metal fence enclosing the outdoor patio; a new patio entrance and gate facing West Main Street; new lighting, and a new small section of concrete slab. October 2013 - BAR approved (6-0) as submitted with staff approval of the lighting, awning on southern elevation, repair of patio and paint colors. (Leaving original white enamel with a different color on the red band would be appropriate). May 2018 – BAR approved (6-0) painting and improvements to the front patio area, with the addition of a street tree at the NW corner, provided it meets sight line criteria and is selected from the approved tree list. The BAR recommends that the neon sign be considered an appropriate sign for the district. Balut seconded. Staff note: 1) Applicant’s plan did not indicate parcel boundaries. Staff clarified that BAR approval applies only to improvements on the applicant’s parcel. 2) Neon signs are not permitted in the Downtown ADC (Sec. 34-1041(c)). 420 West Main (March 8, 2021) 4 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 104-0083-0008 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data Property Information Property Names Property Evaluation Status Name Explanation Name Function/Location Commercial Building, 420 West Main Street Historic Whiting Oil Company Not Evaluated This Property is associated with the West Main Street Historic Property Addresses District. Current - 420 Main Street West County/Independent City(s): Charlottesville (Ind. City) Incorporated Town(s): No Data Zip Code(s): 22903 Magisterial District(s): No Data Tax Parcel(s): No Data USGS Quad(s): CHARLOTTESVILLE EAST Additional Property Information Architecture Setting: Urban Acreage: No Data Site Description: August 2016: The building sits on the southeast corner of the intersection of 5th Street SW and West Main Street. The building is setback from the street by the sidewalk and an enclosed patio area. The rear of the property is level paved parking with a retaining wall with decorative tile work along 5th Street. The building is oriented along West Main Street rather than following the angle and grade of 5th Street SW. The rear of the property along the railroad has mature trees and there are mature foundation plantings around the building that was originally a gas station and is now a restaurant. Surveyor Assessment: August 2016: The 1929 Sanborn Map shows that the western part of this property at that time was the site of “R. F. Harris & Co. Machine Shop and Foundry,” and that this building was not here. The 1931 City Directory lists it as the Whiting Oil Co. Inc., filling station. The ca. 1930 building has been modified and is currently used as a restaurant. It still retains a high degree of architectural integrity and contributes to the West Main Street Historic District in the areas of commerce and transportation. Surveyor Recommendation: Recommended Not Eligible Ownership Ownership Category Ownership Entity Private No Data Primary Resource Information Resource Category: Commerce/Trade Resource Type: Service Station NR Resource Type: Building Historic District Status: Contributing Date of Construction: Ca 1930 Date Source: Written Data Historic Time Period: World War I to World War II (1917 - 1945) Historic Context(s): Architecture/Community Planning, Commerce/Trade, Transportation/Communication Other ID Number: No Data Architectural Style: Vernacular Form: No Data Number of Stories: 1.0 Condition: Excellent Threats to Resource: None Known Architectural Description: August 2016: This ca. 1930 one-story, four-bay, concrete block former gas station is clad in aluminum panels and is currently used as a March 10, 2021 Page: 1 of 3 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 104-0083-0008 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data restaurant. The vernacular, flat-roofed building has some streamlined detailing and features a large cantilevered aluminum and steel overhang on the northeast corner. The roof cladding is not visible but the front parapet has “Whiting Oil Company” painted on it. The foundation is poured concrete. The three original service bays have been enclosed with nine-light, three panel garage doors. Goose-neck industrial lamp and original signs designating the function of each bay are located above the bay openings. The covered drive underneath the cantilever has been enclosed with modern plate glass windows and the current entrance is flanked by blue-tile clad walls enclosing two modern entrance doors. There is a one- story side concrete block wing to the east. The west side is clad in aluminum panels with fixed horizontal two-light aluminum frieze windows. The rear of the building has a plate glass storefront with side entrance on the southwest corner, and paired fixed two-light aluminum windows in the central bays with one modified to accommodate the kitchen exhaust. The bays are divided by concrete buttresses. Exterior Components Component Component Type Material Material Treatment Foundation Solid/Continuous Concrete Stuccoed/Parged Structural System and Masonry Concrete Block Exterior Treatment Roof Flat Unknown No Data Windows Fixed Aluminum No Data Structural System and Masonry Aluminum Panels Exterior Treatment Windows Fixed Aluminum No Data Secondary Resource Information Historic District Information Historic District Name: West Main Street Historic District Local Historic District Name: No Data Historic District Significance: The West Main Street Historic District in Charlottesville is a core part of an essentially linear district straddling West Main Street that links the downtown area of the city with the University of Virginia. It is significant under Criterion A in the areas of Transportation, Commerce, and African-American Ethnic Heritage. The period of significance stretches from 1820, the documented date for the earliest surviving resource, Inge’s Store at 331-333 West Main Street (MRA; 104-0035, 104-0075, 104-0083-0044) to 1970, when the addition to the 1949 Virginia Telephone and Telegraph Company Building (104-0083-0041) at 401-419 West Main Street was completed. CRM Events Event Type: Survey:Phase I/Reconnaissance Project Review File Number: No Data Investigator: Maral Kalbian Organization/Company: Maral S. Kalbian, LLC Photographic Media: Digital Survey Date: 8/17/2016 Dhr Library Report Number: No Data Project Staff/Notes: 19 new records Project Bibliographic Information: 2016: -Charlottesville Architectural and Historic Survey Files (mainly completed by Eugenia Bibb from the 1970 and 1980s) and archived on-line and at the Charlottesville Department of Community Development.; -Sanborn Maps of Charlottesville from 1891, 1896, 1902, 1907, 1929, and 1950; -Chataignes State Business Directories, 1877, 1880, 1884, 1887, 1890, 1893; -Hill State Business Directories 1902-1960, accessed via ancestry.com Bibliographic Information Bibliography: March 10, 2021 Page: 2 of 3 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 104-0083-0008 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data No Data Property Notes: No Data March 10, 2021 Page: 3 of 3 Board of Architectural Review (BAR) Certificate of Appropriateness Please Return To: City of Charlottesville Department of Neighborhood Development Services P.O. Box 911, City Hall Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Telephone (434) 970-3130 Please submit ten (10) hard copies and one (1) digital copy of appllcatlon 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 A w..1 .... f:...... ""'<•'... ;-t-'-e-�\ �� T°""'4J{ c.. Applicant Name 6 1,e7 J..-...i. ,.., Project Name/Description 't 2,o ..._, . A.. ,� t: �., •p y Parcel Number d. 90-0 I l ()oO Project Property Address I,(, 2o tv. /11-,:.. 1:h,e-et Signature of Applicant Applicant Information I hereby attest that the information I have provided is, to the Address: if �'I {3 l..f, """-'"" Ave=._ C::'1,""t• fdet .:,t«< · Lt•, 2= z. 9oa best of my knowledge, correct. Signature Date Property Owner Information {if not applicant} Print Name Date Address: a 61, v...., --� sb S&,,.,..-e; I_ Property Owner Permission (if not applicant) Email: s,. ,::.,._..,u ,•. 4, fro -z. � 4t1,..,, • 4 <.""�"'"' r ,o.., I have read this application and hereby give my consent to its submission. �/4� Phone: (W) _______ (C) ttU:--'O?"I- J-J:of Signature " Do you intend to apply for F.ederal or State Tax Credits for this project? __46...._..._'1,_______ All,., lA. C"'-'J ,......_ Print Name Date Description of Pr<>Jlosed Work (attach separate narrative if necessary):_______________ A� GfU•,•fy List All Attachments (see reverse side for submittal requirements): For Office Use Only Approved/Disapproved by: _________ Received by: ___________ Date: ----------------- Fee paid: _____Cash/Ck. # ____ Conditions of approval: ___________ Date Received: ___________ Revised 2016 HISTORIC DISTRICT ORDINANCE: You can review the Historical Preservation and Architectural Design Control Overlay Districts regulations in the City of Charlottesville Zoning Ordinance starting with Section 34-271 online at www.charlottesville.org or at Municode.com for the City of Charlottesville. DESIGN REVIEW GUIDELINES: Please refer to the current ADC Districts Design Guidelines online at www.charlottesville.org. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: The following information and exhibits shall be submitted along with each application for Certificate of Appropriateness, per Sec. 34-282 (d) in the City of Charlottesville Zoning Ordinance: (1) Detailed and clear depictions of any proposed changes in the exterior features of the subject property; (2) Photographs of the subject property and photographs of the buildings on contiguous properties; (3) One set of sampl�s to show the nature, texture and color of materials proposed; (4) The history of an existing building or structure, if requested; (5) For new construction and projects proposing expansion of the foo�print of an existing building: a three­ dimensional model (in physical or digital form); (6) In the case of a demolition request where structural integrity is at issue, the applicant shall provide a structural evaluation and cost estimates for rehabilitation, prepared by a professional engineer, unless waived by the BAR. APPEALS: Following a denial the applicant, the director of neighborhood development services, or any aggrieved person may appeal the decision to the city council, by filing a written notice of appeal within ten (10) working days of the date of the decision. Per Sec. 34-286. - City council appeals, an applicant shall set forth, in writing, the grounds for an appeal, including the procedure(s) or standard(s) alleged to have been violated or misapplied by the BAR, and/or any additional information, factors or opinions he or she deems relevant to the application. P R O J E C T B R I E F - N E W M E TA L C A N O P Y F O R O U T S I D E D I N I N G Proposed is a cover for an exterior dining area, for shade and weather protection. The new metal canopy will be bolted to the building and supported by columns. The design intent is to be compatible yet distinct. The new structure is inspired by the form and materials of the original building, which was a gas/service station. The existing building is a modification of the original building, and currently is a restaurant. The new canopy has three steel columns (on concrete bases) that align with and share the configuration of the two original slanted steel columns (on a curb), that supported the gas pump canopy. The I-beam and C- channel steel structure follows the general configuration and structural logic of the original canopy, but is separate framing and alignment, and is different materials and colors. The canopy roof is a semi-translucent material that further distinguishes it as new and different from the original building, which has painted metal decking. Although compatible with the language and spirit of the original gas station the new construction will be differentiated, set back with a silver gray finish and white polycarbonate roofing. The silver gray color correlates with the not-original anodized aluminum of the storefront, garage doors, and exterior railing. The white poly roof decking relates with the current white building. With the original gas pump drive through canopy no longer open -and now enclosed with storefront- the new canopy returns an open air feel and function, and brings a balance to the building and site. 420 W. MAIN STREET NEW CANOPY INTRODUCTION TOPIA design 02.23.2021 / 1// 19 VIEW OF NORTHEAST CORNER FROM W. MAIN STREET NORTH SIDEWALK VIEW OF NORTHWEST CORNER FROM W. MAIN STREET NORTH BIKE LANE 420 W. MAIN STREET NEW CANOPY CONTEXT TOPIA design 02.23.2021 2 / //19 NORTHEAST CORNER NORTH FACADE 420 W. MAIN STREET NEW CANOPY EXISTING TOPIA design 02.23.2021 3 / //19 NORTHWEST FACADE SOUTH FACADE 420 W. MAIN STREET NEW CANOPY EXISTING TOPIA design 02.23.2021 4 / //19 NORTH FACADE WITH TEMPORARY TENT NORTHWEST FACADE WITH TEMPORARY TENT 420 W. MAIN STREET NEW CANOPY EXISTING TOPIA design 02.23.2021 5 / //19 SOUTHEAST- EXISTING NORTH FACADE SOUTHEAST- CANOPY 420 W. MAIN STREET NEW CANOPY PROPOSED TOPIA design 02.23.2021 6 / //19 NORTH- EXISTING NORTH FACADE NORTH- CANOPY 420 W. MAIN STREET NEW CANOPY PROPOSED TOPIA design 02.23.2021 7 / //19 NORTHWEST- EXISTING NORTH NORTHWEST- CANOPY 420 W. MAIN STREET NEW CANOPY PROPOSED TOPIA design 02.23.2021 8 / //19 SOUTHEAST- EXISTING SOUTHEAST- CANOPY 420 W. MAIN STREET NEW CANOPY PROPOSED TOPIA design 02.23.2021 9 / //19 NORTHWEST- EXISTING NORTHWEST- CANOPY 420 W. MAIN STREET NEW CANOPY PROPOSED TOPIA design 02.23.2021 10 / //19 NORTH- EXISTING NORTH- CANOPY 420 W. MAIN STREET NEW CANOPY PROPOSED TOPIA design 02.23.2021 11 / //19 NORTHWEST- EXISTING NORTHWEST- CANOPY 420 W. MAIN STREET NEW CANOPY OPTIONS TOPIA design 02.23.2021 12 / //19 NORTHEAST- CANOPY WITH CLEAR SIDE WALL NORTHWEST- CANOPY WITH CLEAR SIDE 420 W. MAIN STREET NEW CANOPY DETAILS TOPIA design 02.23.2021 13 / //19 2 3 A-301 A-200 12'-8" 12'-8" 14'-0" 2'-0" 2' 9'-11" 4'-10" 2 A-301 20'-0" 20'-0" 3 A-200 3 A-200 2 A-300 3 A-200 2 A-301 FIRST FLOOR PLAN 420 W. MAIN STREET NEW CANOPY DRAWINGS TOPIA design 02.23.2021 14 / //19 20'-2" 38'-2" 5'-2" 1' 12'-8 1/2" 12'-8 1/2" 11'-8 3/4" 11'-6" 4'-9" 3' 3' 2 A-301 3' 30'-0" 3' 24'-9" 20'-0" 3' 3' 8'-3 3 3' 3 A-200 3 A-200 3' 8'-3 1/4" 2 A-300 8'-3 1/4" 3 A-200 8'-3 1/4" 11'-4 1/4" 2 A-301 FRAMING PLAN 420 W. MAIN STREET NEW CANOPY DRAWINGS TOPIA design 02.23.2021 15 / //19 NORTH ELEVATION NORTH SECTION 8" 10" 3" 11'-2" WEST ELEVATION WEST SECTION 420 W. MAIN STREET NEW CANOPY DRAWINGS TOPIA design 02.23.2021 16 / //19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 F 0 0 0 50 50 5 5 5 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 D X0 X0 X0 X0 X0 S6 S6 S6 S6 S6 HS HS HS HS HS C B F3.0 F3.0 F3.0 F3.0 FOOTING SIZE REQ'D EXISTING FOOTING SIZE TO BE VERIFIED IN THE FIELD A FOUNDATION PLAN 1/8" = 1'-0" 1. TYPICAL SLAB-ON-GRADE SHALL BE 4" NORMAL WEIGHT CONCRETE WITH 6X6- W1.4XW1.4 WWF AT MID-DEPTH, OVER VAPOR BARRIER/RETARDER (REF ARCH DWGS), OVER 4" POROUS FILL. 2. REFER TO DRAWING S--- FOR TYPICAL FOUNDATION DETAILS. 3. TYPICAL TOP OF EXTERIOR FOOTING ELEVATION SHALL BE RELATIVE TO TYPICAL FINISHED FIRST FLOOR ELEVATION XXX.XX' UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. 4. FOOTING EXCAVATIONS MAY REQUIRE ADDITIONAL UNDERCUT (AS INDICATED BY THE OWNER'S ON-SITE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER). BACKFILL EXCAVATION TO DESIGN SUBGRADE USING FLOWABLE FILL OR CONCRETE. 420 W. MAIN STREET NEW CANOPY STRUCTURAL TOPIA design 02.23.2021 17 / //19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 54'-10" 12'-8" 12'-8" 14'-0" 2'-0" 11'-6" 2'-0" SHEAR TAB C4X4.5 C4X4.5 F CONN, TYP 5'-0" C4X4.5 C4X4.5 D W8X18 W8X18 W8X18 4'-11" CAP PL CONN, TYP C4X4.5 C4X4.5 W8X18 W8X18 W8X18 W8X18 C C4X4.5 C4X4.5 W10X22 W10X22 B 29'-11" W10X22 W8X18 W8X18 W8X18 W10X26 W10X26 W10X26 C4X4.5 C4X4.5 20'-0" W8X18 W8X18 W8X18 C4X4.5 C4X4.5 W8X18 W8X18 W8X18 C4X4.5 C4X4.5 A W8X18 PROVIDE FULL HEIGHT PL PROVIDE L3X3X1/4 KICKER BACK EA SIDE WITH STAGGERED TO EXISTING JOIST TOP CHORD 1/2" THROUGH BOLTS AT 16" OC ROOF FRAMING PLAN 1/8" = 1'-0" 1. TOP OF ALL STEEL ROOF GIRDERS INDICATED THUS (+XX'-X") RELATIVE TO FINISH FIRST FLOOR. 2. PROVIDE 1 1/2", 22 GAGE, GALVANIZED STEEL ROOF DECK (TYPE B). CONNECT TO ROOF FRAMING MEMBERS AS INDICATED ON S---. 3. REFERENCE DRAWING S--- FOR TYPICAL ROOF CONSTRUCTION DETAILS. 4. PROVIDE STEEL ANGLE FRAMES AT ALL OPENINGS FOR ROOF DRAINS AND ROOF OVERFLOW DRAINS. REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL ROOF PLAN FOR LOCATIONS. REFER TO S--- FOR TYPICAL DETAIL OF FRAME. 420 W. MAIN STREET NEW CANOPY STRUCTURAL TOPIA design 02.23.2021 18 / //19 MATERIAL COLORS: STEEL FRAMING - SILVER GRAY ROOF DECKING - WHITE POLYCARBONATE SEASONAL WALLS - CLEAR, WHITE BORDER STRING LIGHTS - DIMMABLE MULTICOLOR 420 W. MAIN STREET NEW CANOPY COLORS TOPIA design 02.23.2021 19 / //19 Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-03-06 128 Chancellor Street, TMP 090105000 The Corner ADC District Owner: University Christian Ministries Applicant: Tom Keough, Train Architects Project: Front façade alterations Application components (please click each link to go directly to PDF page): • Staff Report • Historic Survey • Application Submittal March 16, 2021 BAR Agenda (3/10/2021) 9 City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Staff Report March 16, 2021 Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 21-03-06 128 Chancellor Street, TMP 090105000 The Corner ADC District Owner: University Christian Ministries Applicant: Tom Keough, Train Architects Project: Front façade alterations Year Built: c1926 District: The Corner ADC Status: Contributing Rectangular form, three-bay frame shingled swelling with Craftsman and Colonial Revival stylistic elements. Constructed as a dwelling, the house was occupied until 1969 when it transitions to other uses. Since the 1980s it is served as the Center for Christian Study. (Historic survey attached.) Prior BAR Actions June 2014 – Admin review of exterior deck alterations. August 18, 2020 – Preliminary discussion re: rear addition and front alterations October 20, 2020 – BAR approved rear addition. Applicant deferred action on alterations to the front elevation. Application • Submittal: William Sherman Architect, and Train Architects drawings Center for Christian Study, front Entry Modifications, dated 23 February 2021: Cover plus eight sheets. CoA request for alteration to the front entrance and terrace. Materials and components • Benches: SPAN style by Fine Concrete. 128 Chancellor Street (March 4, 2021) 1 • Planters: Custom parterre planters by Fine Concrete • Circular, teak bench at tree • Teak table with four chairs (moveable) • Brick pavers, sand set. • 4-ft high, horizontal board, wood enclosure to match existing. • New concrete sidewalk and driveway apron. Lighting • No exterior lighting shown or specified. Discussion Staff recommends approval. 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 alterations at 128 Chancellor Street satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are compatible with this property and other properties in The Corner ADC district, and that the BAR approves the application as submitted.. [.. as submitted with the following modifications…] Denial: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed alterations at 128 Chancellor Street do not satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are not compatible with this property and other properties in The Corner ADC ADC district, and that for the following reasons the BAR denies the application as submitted… Criteria, Standards, and Guidelines Review Criteria Generally Sec. 34-284(b) of the City Code states that, in considering a particular application the BAR shall approve the application unless it finds: (1) That the proposal does not meet specific standards set forth within this division or applicable provisions of the Design Guidelines established by the board pursuant to Sec.34-288(6); and (2) The proposal is incompatible with the historic, cultural or architectural character of the district in which the property is located or the protected property that is the subject of the application. Pertinent Standards for Review of Construction and Alterations include: (1) Whether the material, texture, color, height, scale, mass and placement of the proposed addition, modification or construction are visually and architecturally compatible with the site and the applicable design control district; (2) The harmony of the proposed change in terms of overall proportion and the size and placement of entrances, windows, awnings, exterior stairs and signs; (3) The Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation set forth within the Code of Federal Regulations (36 C.F.R. §67.7(b)), as may be relevant; (4) The effect of the proposed change on the historic district neighborhood; (5) The impact of the proposed change on other protected features on the property, such as gardens, landscaping, fences, walls and walks; 128 Chancellor Street (March 4, 2021) 2 (6) Whether the proposed method of construction, renovation or restoration could have an adverse impact on the structure or site, or adjacent buildings or structures; (7) Any applicable provisions of the City’s Design Guidelines. Pertinent ADC District Design Guidelines Chapter II – Site Design and Elements 128 Chancellor Street (March 4, 2021) 3 Board of Architectural Review (BAR) Certificate of Appropriateness Please Return To City of f'.harlottesville Department of Ne1ghbor·Mod OevelopmenrServices PO Box 911, City Hall Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Telephone (434) 970-3130 Please s ubmit ten (10) har d co pies and one (1) digital copy of app lication form and all attachments. Please include application fee a s follows: New constr uction project $375; Demolition of a contributing structure $375; Appeal of BAR decision $125; Additions and other projects requiring BAR approval $125; Adm inistrative 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. Own er Name V lt,S Applicant N ame-1•1n-1+n,.r- *In rj+/L=titk'.e I' I .,, l 1 -'t>/l\-'.l�h#t--+Ht+�l+-'J-�'M,jll>\--,l"l,wr�\'l"",+h�,-t 8 ti (db� ProJect Name/Description f(onT t::� 1 �0J1 tl pa :bm� Parcel Number 0?o�O&j"OO Project Property Address__ l i.�� _l '--'�---'c) '---e...:...::....:....---l.'"--=-.!,..:<,_- - --­ Phon � . .,.. Date Print Name Property Owner Permission (if not applicant) I have read this application and hereby give my consent to its submission. , Signature D o you intend to apply for Federal or State Tax Credits i.1, y{,� for this project? _fl�D�-- - Print Name ---- · · De nar ative · �If For Office Use Only Approved/Disapproved by _____ ____ _ Received by: _ _____ _ __ _ Date _____ ____ _ ____ _ Fee paid _ ___ Cash/Ck. # ____ Conditions of approval: ____ _____ _ Date Received ___ ___ __ _ Revised 2016 Center for Christian Study Front Entry Modifications Center for Christian Study 128 Chancellor Street Charlottesville, VA 22903 BAR Submission 23 February 2021 William Sherman Architect Tr a i n A r c h i t e c t s 612 East Jefferson Street Charlottesville, VA 22902 ph 434.293.2965 History Description of proposed work and Design Intent Description from Charlottesville Corner Survey, In order to address COVID concerns relative to the University’s 2020/2021 academic year the Study Center tented Charlottesville, Va. over the asphalt parking area on the north side of their property. That outdoor gathering area was a success over the course of the fall semester and led the Center to ask William Sherman Architects with Train Architects to design 128 Chancellor Street: Detached dwelling. Craftsman / Colonial permanent modifications to the front of their property along Chancellor Street; modifications that would formalize, Revival. Ca. 1926. Frame with wood shingles: 3 stories; hipped and build on, the success of the temporary outdoor space that was created in COVID time. The intention is to roof; 1 oversized front hipped dormer; symmetrical 3-bay provide a space that better serves the needs of the Center, provides a more welcoming space to the street and front; 1-bay front porch w/ paired Roman Doric columns and community, and preserves the existing specimen trees, including the mature Japanese maple in front of the house balustrade upper deck. One of only three shingle-clad dwellings and the historic gingko tree on the north property line. in the District, this house features a 3-sided bay opening onto the upper porch deck. A 4-story addition (3 stories of finished The existing front of the property is dominated by two asphalt (black top) parking areas – the one to the north has space and one parking level) was designed and constructed accommodated up to four vehicles, the one to the south, just one car. Between the two parking areas, flanking the in 1996 -1998. The addition includes a semi-detached open concrete sidewalk that leads to the front porch from the street, are two smaller planting areas – presently planted 128 Chancellor Street exit stair along the north elevation. Frame construction with with perennials, small shrubs and liriope. A mature japanese maple tree is located in the north planting area. wood shingles’ hipped and flat roofs both; is a style similar to the original construction but with a modern twist reflective of The primary design goals focused on three ideas – first, to eliminate the expanses of asphalt parking (black top); its era. second, to provide a variety of outdoor seating experiences, and third, to screen the existing garbage / recycling can storage area from the street and the new gathering spaces. Narrative The Center of Christian Study is one of the leading Christian The design solutions include the replacing the impervious asphalt parking areas, the concrete sidewalk to the front Study Centers in the Nation. Active in the University community door, and the smaller planting areas that flank the sidewalk with sand-set brick pavers on a drainage bed below that since the 1970’s, it first occupied a rented house on Elliewood is tied into the storm water treatment system that is being installed as part of the addition project. The brick pavers Avenue. It purchased the house on Chancellor Street in 1976. will be selected to match the existing brick masonry on the original 1926 house. While intended to encourage The Center’s program thrived in that location and grew to the outdoor student /staff activity the pavers at the north and south sides of the property will be designed to support extent that it began design work on an addition to the original vehicle parking as well. The hedge at the south property line will remain, and a planting bed will be added between house in 1996. Construction of that addition, which occupies the the south parking space and the area in front of the house. middle third of the site, was completed in 1998. The outdoor seating /gathering is envisioned as permanent bench seating interspersed with raised planters along The Center continued to thrive in that “Corner” location and by the Chancellor Street sidewalk – with custom color concrete bases and wood slat seating surfaces; wood furniture the 2010’s they were clearly outgrowing their facility. In 2015, the seating around the Japanese maple (after selective pruning) north of the front porch and a table and chair group to Center engaged William Sherman Architect with Train Architects the south of the front porch. More flexible, temporary seating options are possible at the north and south: tables to study their site and its potential for expansion. Working with with chairs or benches at the north either under cover of a tent or not; more small tables and chairs or just chairs at the City of Charlottesville guidelines and code requirements the south, depending the scheduled activity. Additional power will be provided at the north side of the project area regarding allowable building area, building height, and property for use during events e.g. temporary lighting and catering. No permanent lighting to supplement the existing front line setbacks, it was determined that a 3-story addition of porch lighting and street lighting is planned approximately 10,500 GSF (3,500 GSF per floor) could be constructed on the rear third of the site. It was also determined The garbage / recycling cans will be concealed by a wood enclosure that will match the wood enclosure wrapping that a project of that size could provide the space necessary to the existing north exterior stair; likewise, a wood screen fence of the same design will be constructed along the meet the center’s current needs and projected growth over the north edge of the brick terrace to screen the view to the underside of the neighboring wooden fire stair. next five to ten years. The project to design an addition at the rear of the site was begun in 2019. The alterations and addition At the north property line, the roots of the large gingko tree have caused damage to both the existing concrete work submitted to the BAR for approval in the fall of 2020 and sidewalk and asphalt parking area. In consultation with an arborist, these paved surfaces will be replaced with a were approved as part of the consent agenda at the October 20, mulched area where possible and replaced with the brick paving and new sidewalk in a way that best ensures the 2020 BAR meeting. future health of the tree. Narrative Center for Christian Study Front Entr y Modifications February 2021 1 2 8 C h a n c e l l o r S t , C h a r l o t t e s v i l l e , VA 2 2 9 0 3 William Sherman Architect Tr a i n A r c h i t e c t s 1. EXISTING SOUTH PARKING AREA 2. EXISTING PARKING AND TRASH STORAGE A. EXISTING 1926 BUILDING B. EXISTING 1996 ADDITION C. APPROVED NEW ADDITION D. MODIFIED FRONT ENTRY 3. EXISTING NORTH TIMBER STAIRS 4. EXISTING NORTH PARKING AREA 5. EXISTING PARKING AND WALKWAY Existing Conditions Center for Christian Study Front Entr y Modifications February 2021 1 2 8 C h a n c e l l o r S t , C h a r l o t t e s v i l l e , VA 2 2 9 0 3 William Sherman Architect Tr a i n A r c h i t e c t s Existing Site Plan Center for Christian Study Front Entr y Modifications February 2021 1 2 8 C h a n c e l l o r S t , C h a r l o t t e s v i l l e , VA 2 2 9 0 3 William Sherman Architect Tr a i n A r c h i t e c t s Chancellor Street Level Plan Center for Christian Study Front Entr y Modifications February 2021 1 2 8 C h a n c e l l o r S t , C h a r l o t t e s v i l l e , VA 2 2 9 0 3 William Sherman Architect Tr a i n A r c h i t e c t s Proposed View from Chancellor Street Sidewalk - Looking northwest Rendered View Center for Christian Study Front Entr y Modifications February 2021 1 2 8 C h a n c e l l o r S t , C h a r l o t t e s v i l l e , VA 2 2 9 0 3 William Sherman Architect Tr a i n A r c h i t e c t s Proposed View from Chancellor Street Sidewalk - Looking southwest Rendered View Center for Christian Study Front Entr y Modifications February 2021 1 2 8 C h a n c e l l o r S t , C h a r l o t t e s v i l l e , VA 2 2 9 0 3 William Sherman Architect Tr a i n A r c h i t e c t s Brick Pavers SPAN Bench by FINE CONCRETE Custom Parterre Planter by Horizontal Wood Boards (to match existing chimney masonry) FINE CONCRETE (to match existing north stair enclosure) Entry Plan Center for Christian Study Front Entr y Modifications February 2021 1 2 8 C h a n c e l l o r S t , C h a r l o t t e s v i l l e , VA 2 2 9 0 3 William Sherman Architect Tr a i n A r c h i t e c t s Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-03-07 506 Park Street, TMP 530123000 North Downtown ADC District Owner: Presbyterian Church Ch’ville Trust Applicant: Karim Habbab, brw architects Project: Modify approved addition Application components (please click each link to go directly to PDF page): • Staff Report • Historic Survey • Application Submittal March 16, 2021 BAR Agenda (3/10/2021) 10 City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Staff Report March 16, 2021 Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-03-07 506 Park Street, TMP 530123000 North Downtown ADC District Owner: Presbyterian Church Ch’ville Trust Applicant: Karim Habbab, brw architects Project: Modify approved addition Background Year Built: 1954 (Fellowship Hall 8th Street constructed in 1986) District: North Downtown ADC District Status: Contributing First Presbyterian Church is designed in the Colonial Revival style and based on James Gibbs’ 1722 Saint Martin-in-the-Fields in London. (Historic Survey attached.) Prior BAR Actions March 19, 2019 – BAR approved entrance and ADA ramp at the east elevation of the Fellowship Hall. June 2019 – BAR approved modifications to ADA entrance at east elevation (7th Street). July 2020 – BAR approved construction of a three-story addition to the Fellowship Hall, including a new exterior terrace and modifications to the existing driveway. Renovations at the west elevation of the Gathering Hall: Remove four arched windows to accommodate French doors; alterations and new landscaping at the front terrace. Alterations to the Gathering Hall courtyard terrace. Application • Submittal: BRW Architects drawings First Presbyterian Church Renovation +Addition, dated March 16, 2021: Pages 1 through 14. CoA request to enclose an existing arcade and construct a hyphen, construct an elevator tower, and demolish the concrete plaza at 7th Street and plant grass. This request alters the previously approved 506 Park Street (March 10, 2021) 1 three-story addition to the Fellowship Hall, which included a new exterior terrace and modifications to the existing driveway. Materials • Brick: Keuka Type 2 Mudbox smooth, Watsontown Brick. (Brick and mortar to match existing.) • Doors and windows to match proportion, color and lite configuration of existing. Glass shall be clear. Windows to be aluminum clad wood. • Trim to match existing and painted to match. • Hipped roof [at elevator tower] to be slate, with snow guards, similar to existing. • Internal gutters with scuppers and downspouts to match existing. • Wall sconces (at new doors) to match existing Discussion (Note: See the Appendix for clarification on how this request deviates from the July 2020 CoA.) There are four trees within the work area that, for the July 2020 CoA, had been approved for removal. Three of the trees could now be retained. The BAR should clarify this. At the elevator tower, the BAR should evaluate if the new brick panels should have sills similar to those on the adjacent, existing wall. Lighting fixtures to match what was approved in the July 2020 CoA; however, the BAR may apply the same conditions: • Lamping will be dimmable and not exceed a Color Temperature of 3,000k. • Uplights will be at a maximum of less than 3000 lumens. • Fixtures that emit 3000 lumens or more shall be full cut off. With the above items addressed, staff recommends approval of this request. 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 alterations at 506 Park 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. […as submitted with following conditions: …) Denial: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed alterations at 506 Park 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 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 506 Park Street (March 10, 2021) 2 (2) The proposal is incompatible with the historic, cultural or architectural character of the district in which the property is located or the protected property that is the subject of the application. Pertinent Standards for Review of Construction and Alterations include: (1) Whether the material, texture, color, height, scale, mass and placement of the proposed addition, modification or construction are visually and architecturally compatible with the site and the applicable design control district; (2) The harmony of the proposed change in terms of overall proportion and the size and placement of entrances, windows, awnings, exterior stairs and signs; (3) The Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation set forth within the Code of Federal Regulations (36 C.F.R. §67.7(b)), as may be relevant; (4) The effect of the proposed change on the historic district neighborhood; (5) The impact of the proposed change on other protected features on the property, such as gardens, landscaping, fences, walls and walks; (6) Whether the proposed method of construction, renovation or restoration could have an adverse impact on the structure or site, or adjacent buildings or structures; (7) Any applicable provisions of the City’s Design Guidelines. Pertinent Guidelines for Site Design and Elements B. Plantings 1) Encourage the maintenance and planting of large trees on private property along the streetfronts, which contribute to the “avenue” effect. 2) Generally, use trees and plants that are compatible with the existing plantings in the neighborhood. 3) Use trees and plants that are indigenous to the area. 4) Retain existing trees and plants that help define the character of the district, especially street trees and hedges. 5) Replace diseased or dead plants with like or similar species if appropriate. 6) When constructing new buildings, identify and take care to protect significant existing trees and other plantings. 7) Choose ground cover plantings that are compatible with adjacent sites, existing site conditions, and the character of the building. 8) Select mulching and edging materials carefully and do not use plastic edgings, lava, crushed rock, unnaturally colored mulch or other historically unsuitable materials. D. Lighting 1) In residential areas, use fixtures that are understated and compatible with the residential quality of the surrounding area and the building while providing subdued illumination. 2) Choose light levels that provide for adequate safety yet do not overly emphasize the site or building. Often, existing porch lights are sufficient. 3) In commercial areas, avoid lights that create a glare. High intensity commercial lighting fixtures must provide full cutoff. 4) Do not use numerous “crime” lights or bright floodlights to illuminate a building or site when surrounding lighting is subdued. 5) In the downtown and along West Main Street, consider special lighting of key landmarks and facades to provide a focal point in evening hours. 6) Encourage merchants to leave their display window lights on in the evening to provide extra illumination at the sidewalk level. 7) Consider motion-activated lighting for security. 506 Park Street (March 10, 2021) 3 E. Walkways & Driveways 1) Use appropriate traditional paving materials like brick, stone, and scored concrete. 2) Concrete pavers are appropriate in new construction, and may be appropriate in site renovations, depending on the context of adjacent building materials, and continuity with the surrounding site and district. 3) Gravel or stone dust may be appropriate, but must be contained. 4) Stamped concrete and stamped asphalt are not appropriate paving materials. 5) Limit asphalt use to driveways and parking areas. 6) Place driveways through the front yard only when no rear access to parking is available. 7) Do not demolish historic structures to provide areas for parking. 8) Add separate pedestrian pathways within larger parking lots, and provide crosswalks at vehicular lanes within a site. Pertinent Guidelines on New Construction and Additions P. Additions 1) Function and Size a. Attempt to accommodate needed functions within the existing structure without building an addition. b. Limit the size of the addition so that it does not visually overpower the existing building. 2) Location a. Attempt to locate the addition on rear or side elevations that are not visible from the street. b. If additional floors are constructed on top of a building, set the addition back from the main façade so that its visual impact is minimized. c. If the addition is located on a primary elevation facing the street or if a rear addition faces a street, parking area, or an important pedestrian route, the façade of the addition should be treated under the new construction guidelines. 3) Design a. New additions should not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. b. The new work should be differentiated from the old and should be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. 4) Replication of Style a. A new addition should not be an exact copy of the design of the existing historic building. The design of new additions can be compatible with and respectful of existing buildings without being a mimicry of their original design. b. If the new addition appears to be part of the existing building, the integrity of the original historic design is compromised and the viewer is confused over what is historic and what is new. 5) Materials and Features a. Use materials, windows, doors, architectural detailing, roofs, and colors that are compatible with historic buildings in the district. 6) Attachment to Existing Building a. Wherever possible, new additions or alterations to existing buildings should be done in such a manner that, if such additions or alterations were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the buildings would be unimpaired. b. The new design should not use the same wall plane, roof line, or cornice line of the existing structure. 506 Park Street (March 10, 2021) 4 APPENDIX 506 Park Street (March 10, 2021) 5 Re: Trees 506 Park Street (March 10, 2021) 6 Board of Architectural Review (BAR) Certificate of Appropriateness Please Return To: City of Charlottesville Department of Neighborhood Development Services P.O. Box 911, City Hall Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Telephone (434) 970-3130 Please submit ten (10) hard copies and one (1) digital copy of application form and all attachments. Please include application fee as follows: New construction project $375; Demolition of a contributing structure $375; Appeal of BAR decision $125; Additions and other projects requiring BAR approval $125; Administrative approval $100. Make checks payable to the City of Charlottesville. The BAR meets the third Tuesday of the month. Deadline for submittals is Tuesday 3 weeks prior to next BAR meeting by 3:30 p.m. Presbyterian Church Charlottesville Trust Owner Name___________________________________ Karim Habbab Applicant Name______________________________________ 530123000 First Presbyterian Church Renovation & Addition Parcel Number__________________________ Project Name/Description______________________________________ 506 Park Street, Charlottesville, VA 22902 Project Property Address____________________________________________________________________________ Signature of Applicant Applicant Information I hereby attest that the information I have provided is, to the 112 4th St. NE, Charlottesville, VA 22902 Address:______________________________________ best of my knowledge, correct. _____________________________________________ Email:________________________________________ khabbab@brw-architects.com 2/23/2021 __________________________________________ 434-971-7160 ext 207 (C) _______________ Phone: (W) _________________ Signature Date Karim Habbab 2/23/2021 __________________________________________ Property Owner Information (if not applicant) Print Name Date 506 Park St. Charlottesville, VA 22902 Address:______________________________________ Property Owner Permission (if not applicant) _____________________________________________ I have read this application and hereby give my consent to forbes@vmdo.com Email:________________________________________ its submission. Phone: (W) _________________ 434-296-7131 (C) _______________ 2/23/2021 _ __________________________________________ Signature Date Do you intend to apply for Federal or State Tax Credits Terry Scott Forbes 2/23/2021 _________________________________________ No for this project? _______________________ Print Name Date Description of Proposed Work (attach separate narrative if necessary):__________________________________ New minor expansion, new elevator shaft, and some sitework to existing church at Northeast corner. ______________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________ 14 page booklet containing required drawings and images. List All Attachments (see reverse side for submittal requirements): ______________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________ For Office Use Only Approved/Disapproved by: ______________________ Received by: ___________________________ Date: _______________________________________ Fee paid: ___________Cash/Ck. # _________ Conditions of approval: _________________________ Date Received: _________________________ ____________________________________________ Revised 2016 ____________________________________________ HISTORIC DISTRICT ORDINANCE: You can review the Historical Preservation and Architectural Design Control Overlay Districts regulations in the City of Charlottesville Zoning Ordinance starting with Section 34-271 online at www.charlottesville.org or at Municode.com for the City of Charlottesville. DESIGN REVIEW GUIDELINES: Please refer to the current ADC Districts Design Guidelines online at www.charlottesville.org. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: The following information and exhibits shall be submitted along with each application for Certificate of Appropriateness, per Sec. 34-282 (d) in the City of Charlottesville Zoning Ordinance: (1) Detailed and clear depictions of any proposed changes in the exterior features of the subject property; (2) Photographs of the subject property and photographs of the buildings on contiguous properties; (3) One set of samples to show the nature, texture and color of materials proposed; (4) The history of an existing building or structure, if requested; (5) For new construction and projects proposing expansion of the footprint of an existing building: a three- dimensional model (in physical or digital form); (6) In the case of a demolition request where structural integrity is at issue, the applicant shall provide a structural evaluation and cost estimates for rehabilitation, prepared by a professional engineer, unless waived by the BAR. APPEALS: Following a denial the applicant, the director of neighborhood development services, or any aggrieved person may appeal the decision to the city council, by filing a written notice of appeal within ten (10) working days of the date of the decision. Per Sec. 34-286. - City council appeals, an applicant shall set forth, in writing, the grounds for an appeal, including the procedure(s) or standard(s) alleged to have been violated or misapplied by the BAR, and/or any additional information, factors or opinions he or she deems relevant to the application. project: First Presbyterian Church 500 Park St Charlottesville, Va 22902 for: Owner job number: 18013 drawing: EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS revisions: C:\Revit_Local\18013_FPC_Phase1_khabbab.rvt FIRST FLOOR BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW 495' - 0 1/32" drawn by: checked by: Author Checker copyright: © 2018 brwarchitects, P.C. FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH GROUND FLOOR 483' - 9 19/32" T.O. Footing 483' - 0 19/32" RENOVATION + ADDITION B.O. Footing 482' - 0 19/32" 2/12/2019 5:03:47 PM 1 A300.1 1 MARCH 16 2021 PHASE 1 - 7TH STREET ELEVATION approval seal 1/4" = 1'-0" A200.1 date sheet 2/4/19 A200.1 Author PROGRESS SET First Presbyterian Church - 506 Park St, Charlottesville, VA 22902 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The new work will consist of: 1. Enclosed an existing exterior walkway 2. Addition of elevator shaft and some construction to enclose the courtyard 3. The exterior concrete plaza at 7th street shall be demolished and changed to grass MATERIALS • The new brick will be Keuka Type 2 Mudbox smooth from Watsontown Brick. New brick and mortar to match existing. • New glass in doors and windows at the entry shall adhere to BAR guidelines. Glass shall be clear and will match existing windows in proportion, color, and number of lites. Windows will be aluminum clad wood,to match look of existing windows. Color of cladding to be similar to existing windows. • New trim work shall be painted off- white, similar to existing trim. • New roof to be slate with snowguards, similar to existing. • Copper downspouts to match existing. PROJECT DESCRIPTION First Presbyterian Church Board of Architectural Review March 16, 2021 2 Site Addition & Sitework Court Square Park Downtown Mall SITE CONTEXT First Presbyterian Church Board of Architectural Review March 16, 2021 3 7TH STREET EXISTING PHOTOS - 7TH STREET First Presbyterian Church Board of Architectural Review March 16, 2021 4 7TH STREET EXISTING PHOTOS - 7TH STREET First Presbyterian Church Board of Architectural Review March 16, 2021 5 EXISTING PHOTOS - 7TH STREET First Presbyterian Church Board of Architectural Review March 16, 2021 6 EXISTING PHOTOS - 7TH STREET First Presbyterian Church Board of Architectural Review March 16, 2021 7 3D PERSPECTIVE First Presbyterian Church Board of Architectural Review March 16, 2021 8 3D PERSPECTIVE First Presbyterian Church Board of Architectural Review March 16, 2021 9 G G G G OHU W G S W W W SAN G SAN W OHU ACCESSIBLE ROUTE REVISION DESCRIPTION W OHU G OHU G W SAN 1. CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE WITH DOMINION U SAN W O OHU SAN S SAN G SAN G HU SAN SAN W SAN ENERGY PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION FOR THE DOWNSPOUTS TO SAN G D G G SAN SAN SAN NOTES: G G W RELOCATION OF ALL UNDERGROUND POWER LINES AND S W G G G REMAIN (TYP.) S W W W OHU SAN INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS. IT SHALL BE THE OHU W OHU SAN REVISION DESCRIPTION W U SAN OH OHU SAN 1. CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE WITH DOMINION O SAN RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO ENSURE S SAN OHU SAWCUT G SAN HU SAN OHU SAN SAN OHU SAN ENERGY PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION FOR THE OHU SAN REMOVE OHU OHU OHU SAN OHU SAN OHU SAN POWER RELOCATION WORK DOES NOT IMPACT THE RELOCATION OF ALL UNDERGROUND POWER LINES AND S PROJECT SCHEDULE. G REMOVE OHU REVISED PER CITY COMMENTS OHU INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS. IT SHALL BE THE OHU OHU 2. CONTRACTOR SHALL REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL AND OHU RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR LEGEND: TO ENSURE OHU OHU OHU OHU LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS FOR FINAL DETAILS OF ALL OHU POWER RELOCATION WORK DOES NOT IMPACT THE REMOVE BRICK PLANTER OHU OHU OHU HANDRAILS AND AMENITY SPACE HARDSCAPE PROPOSED FEATURES. REMOVE STORM LINE & PROJECT SCHEDULE. REVISED PER CITY COMMENTS G OH 3. CONTRACTOR SHALL (SEE REPAIR DAMAGEDPLAN) LANDSCAPE AND ASSOCIATED INLETS OHU 2. CONTRACTOR SHALL REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL AND W U OHU DETERIORATING AREAS OF PAVEMENT USING BEST G LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS FOR FINAL DETAILS OF ALL PRACTICES, WHICH MAY INCLUDE REMOVAL AND G REMOVE BUILDING SAN HANDRAILS AND AMENITY SPACE FEATURES. G CONCRETE SIDEWALK X W STRUCTURE AND REPLACEMENT OF FULL PAVEMENT SECTION WHERE X X REMOVE W G 3. CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR DAMAGED AND NECESSARY. DETERIORATING AREAS OF PAVEMENT USING BEST CONCRETE REMOVE STAIRS OHU 4. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, ALL EXISTING ROOF AND HANDRAIL G PRACTICES, WHICH MAY INCLUDE REMOVAL AND LEADERS AND ONSITEHEAVY PIPES DUTY SHALLASPHALT W REMAIN IN PLACE G REPLACEMENT OF FULL PAVEMENT SECTION WHERE HU O AND REMAIN UNALTERED. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY OHU NECESSARY. ENGINEER OF RECORD IN WRITING IMMEDIATELY UPON 4. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, ALL EXISTING ROOFREPAIR ASPHALT PER CITY REMOVE/RELOCATE HVAC UNITS. OHU DISCOVERY OF ANY UTILITY LINE NOTG MARKED BY MISS G CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE W LEADERS AND ONSITE PIPES SHALL REMAIN IN PLACE U STANDARDS G G W UTILITY. S SAN 11/19/2020 OHU SAN AND REMAIN G UNALTERED. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY G G SAN 5. ALL HARDSCAPE WALKING SURFACES TO MEET G ENGINEER OF RECORD IN WRITING IMMEDIATELY ASPHALT TOUPON BE MILLED & G DATE G ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS DISCOVERY OF ANY UTILITY LINE NOT MARKED OVERLAIDBY MISS G D G W G UTILITY. 11/19/2020 WITH ARCH/MEP. G 5. ALL HARDSCAPE WALKING SURFACES TO MEET OHU G ACCESSIBLE ROUTE OHU OHU OHU G W U W DATE OHU ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS G G W DATE G D G G NOTES: OHU OHU G W REMAIN (TYP.) DOWNSPOUTS TO W G G G G S W SAN W W W SAN 8/6/2 REVISION DESCRIPTION SAN REMOVE W OHU SAN 1. CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE WITH DOMINION G UGP SAN O SAN S G SAN G SAN HU SAN SAN SAN ENERGY PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION FOR THE DATE DRAWN REMOVE SAN 5 UGP W SAN SAN SAN RELOCATION OF ALL UNDERGROUND POWER LINES AND S OHU 8/6/20 OHU INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS. IT SHALL BE THE J. DENK G OHU UGP OHU RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO ENSURE OHU OHU OHU DRAWN BY DESIGNED OHU 5 UGP W OHU OHU OHU OHU OHU POWER RELOCATION WORK DOES NOT IMPACT THE X PROJECT SCHEDULE. OHU OHU J. DENKO G J. DENK REVISED PER CITY COMMENTS 2. CONTRACTOR SHALL REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL AND 5.35' SAN OHU LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS FOR FINAL DETAILS OF ALL DESIGNED BY CHECKED HANDRAILS AND AMENITY SPACE FEATURES. G SAWCUT G J. DENKO C. KOTAR G 5' 3. CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR DAMAGED AND UGP 5.35' DETERIORATING AREAS OF PAVEMENT USING BEST W 37' CHECKED BY SCALE PRACTICES, WHICH MAY INCLUDE REMOVAL AND OHU G OHU HARDSCAPE 1" = 20 UGP REPLACEMENT OF FULL PAVEMENT SECTION WHERE UGP UGP 5' 34.37' C. KOTARSKI X (SEE LANDSCAPE PLANS) NECESSARY. RETURN TO OWNER UGP OHU REMOVE SIGN AND 4. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, ALL EXISTING ROOF W G 37' SCALE SAN G W HARDSCAPE LEADERS AND ONSITE PIPES SHALL REMAIN IN PLACE 1" = 20' X 34.37' AND REMAIN UNALTERED. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY (SEE LANDSCAPE PLANS) RETURN TO OWNER REMOVE SIGN AND POLE TO REMAIN ENGINEER OF RECORD IN WRITING IMMEDIATELY UPON G PER CITY STD. PP-1 MIN. PAVEMENT PATCH DISCOVERY OF ANY UTILITY LINE NOT MARKED BY MISS G OHU G EXISTING GAS LATERAL 7 UTILITY. UTILITY PROVIDER RELOCATE POWER LINE 11/19/2020 AND COORDINATE WITH CONTRACTOR TO TEST PIT GAS SERVICE LINE 6 5. ALL HARDSCAPE WALKING SURFACES TO MEET G W DATE PRIOR TO COMMENCING MAJOR ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS OHU S O HU CONSTRUCTION TO DETERMINE DEPTH. IF 24" EXISTING GAS LATERAL 7 OF COVER CANNOT BE MAINTAINED, 6 CONTRACTOR TO TEST PIT GAS SERVICE LINE X G COORDINATE WITH CITY UTILITIES W PRIOR TO COMMENCING MAJOR G UGP DEPARTMENT FOR SERVICE LINE RELOCATION DATE CONSTRUCTION TO DETERMINE DEPTH. IF 24" FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH UGP SAN OHU 6' OF COVER CANNOT BE MAINTAINED, R3' 8/6/20 R5' UG 9' G G COORDINATE WITH CITY UTILITIES 9' P UGP UGP DEPARTMENT FOR SERVICE LINE RELOCATION CG-2 DRAWN BY 5 UGP W FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OHU UGP G 6' R3' R5' J. DENKO 9'R5' UG 6' W 6' 9' P UGP CG-2 DESIGNED BY 36.95' G 25.31' REMOVE CURB G SAN G X J. DENKO OHU X 6' W 6' R5' UGP 5.35' CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA COURTYARD UGP CHECKED BY UGP 36.95' 6' 25.31' (SEE LANDSCAPE PLANS) (2) 6" SCH 40 G G OHU 5' PVC CONDUIT C. KOTARSKI UGP CG-2 UGP (SEE NOTE #1) CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA X COURTYARD 6' 37' UGP W SCALE UGP X 6' X (SEE LANDSCAPE PLANS) (2) 6" SCH 40 HARDSCAPE X X 1" = 20' 34.37' PVC CONDUIT UGP (SEE LANDSCAPE PLANS) CG-2 SAN (SEE NOTE #1) FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH LAYOUT PLAN 6' G G X X X X HU X (2) BIKE LOCKERS OHU O O O X G X H HU G U X EXISTING GAS LATERAL BUILDING ADDITION 7 CONTRACTOR TO TEST PIT GAS SERVICE LINE 6 (2) BIKE LOCKERS O O ADA RAMP WITH X X W H HU PRIOR TO COMMENCING MAJOR SAN U UGP X HU O CONSTRUCTION TO DETERMINE DEPTH. IF 24" HANDRAIL ON BOTH SIDES BUILDING OF COVER ADDITION CANNOT BE MAINTAINED, G G COORDINATE WITH CITY UTILITIES W ADA RAMP WITH OHU O O HU UGP UGP DEPARTMENT FOR SERVICE LINE RELOCATION HU 4'HANDRAIL ON BOTH SIDES STOP SIGN UG UGP UGP UGP 2' P 6' R3' (MUTCD R1-1) G R5' UG 9' W 9' 5' P O O HU UGP CG-2 HU 4' O SAN STOP SIGN HU 2'OHU OHU G OHU OHU OHU OHU OHU OHU (MUTCD R1-1) "DO NOT ENTER" SIGN 6' W OHU 6' R5' UGP 5' UGP OHU (MUTCD R5-1) O 36.95' STANDARD SIDEWALK HU OH 1' CURB UGP OHU 25.31' OHU OHU OHU OHU G W U OHU OHU OHU MONOLITHIC WITH CURB S TRANSITION "DO NOT ENTER" SIGN O UGP HU OHU BIKE RACK (TYP.) (MUTCD R5-1) OHU OH CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA OHU UGP COURTYARD UGP O (3 RACKS, 6 BIKES) POLE TO REMAIN 6' 1' CURB PROPOSED EXIT U STANDARD SIDEWALK HU OH (SEE LANDSCAPE PLANS) U (2) 6" SCH 40 IN PLACE SAN MONOLITHIC WITH CURB S PVC CONDUIT TRANSITION VDOT STD CG-9B UGP CG-2 G OH BIKE (SEERACK NOTE(TYP.) #1) WITHOUT TRUNCATED OHU OH G LAYOUT PLAN 6' UGP G O U W W W W W (3 RACKS, 6 BIKES) W POLE TO REMAIN DOMES U HU PROPOSED EXIT X G G X X G G G IN PLACE VDOT STD CG-9B SAN OHU OH OHU WITHOUT TRUNCATED S G G OHU OHU G G U W W W W W W DOMES G G G G G SAN (2) BIKE LOCKERS OHU 83 NAD O O OHU OHU OHU X X H HU U X G G JOB NO BUILDING ADDITION G 83 4552 ADA RAMP WITH NAD SCALE 1”:40’ G G 1"=10' SCALE 1"=20' UGP G HANDRAIL ON BOTH SIDES 0 NAD JOB NO. SHEET N SAN G C4.0 83 45529 G 0 10' 20' 20' 40' X W G G O SCALE 1"=20' 1"=10' SCALE 1"=20' O HU CIVIL PLANS HU 4' STOP SIGN SHEET NO. 2' SAN 20' REMOVE TREE REMOVE BUILDING REMOVE ASPHALT REMOVE CONCRETE SAW CUT LEGEND: ASPHALT TO BE MILLED (MUTCD R1-1) 0 10' 20' 20' 40' C4.0 5' First Presbyterian Church OHU OHU OHU OHU OHU OHU OHU OHU "DO NOT ENTER" SIGN 40' OHU (MUTCD R5-1) Board of Architectural Review OHU O STANDARD SIDEWALK HU OH W U 1' CURB MONOLITHIC WITH CURB S TRANSITION BIKE RACK (TYP.) March 16, 2021 OHU OH (3 RACKS, 6 BIKES) POLE TO REMAIN U PROPOSED EXIT IN PLACE VDOT STD CG-9B G W G W G W W OH U W W WITHOUT TRUNCATED DOMES 10 G G G G G FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH SAN DATE REVISION DESCRIPTION C. KO OHU DESIG CHEC OHU J. D J. D OHU 45 OHU SHE DRA 4/2 C2 1" JOB SC D FILL IN EXISTING NORTH WINDOWS COURTYARD HALL 1 72 ELEV. 71 NEW GRASS , REMOVE EXISTING CONCRETE B.A.R 3 HALLWAY AND GALLERY 50 B.A.R 1 NEW ADA RAMP, REFER TO CIVIL DRAWINGS ENTRY SCALE 1”:10’ B.A.R 7TH ST PLAN 2 First Presbyterian Church Board of Architectural Review March 16, 2021 11 INFILL EXISTING WINDOW NEW ROOF ROOF 516' - 1 25/32" UPPER LEVEL 505' - 1 21/32" PARK STREET LEVEL 495' - 0 1/32" 7TH STREET LEVEL 483' - 9 19/32" NEW LIGHTING NEW DOORS NEW WINDOW RECESSED NEW SCONCE LIGHTING, SIMILAR BRICK TO EXISTING USED ELSEWHERE, NEW WINDOWS NEW HYPHEN NEW ELEVATOR TYPICAL SHAFT SCALE 1/8”:1’ ELEVATIONS - 7TH STREET AREA First Presbyterian Church Board of Architectural Review Unnamed March 16, 2021 12 FPC - PHASE II INTERIOR RENOVATIONS BRICK NOTES: THE PROPOSED BRICK, KEUKA TYPE 2 MUDBOX SMOOTH FROM WATSONTOWN BRICK, WAS CHOSEN DUE TO ITS SIMILARITY TO THE EXISTING OBSOLETE BRICK AND THE METHOD IT IS PRODUCED. MORTAR TO MATCH EXISTING AS WELL. EXISTING HISTORIC OBSOLETE BRICK. EXISTING LIGHT FIXTURE, NEW FIXTURES TO BE SIMILAR TO EXISTING KEUKA TYPE 2 MUDBOX SMOOTH FROM WATSONTOWN BRICK. MATERIAL SAMPLE - BRICK First Presbyterian Church Board of Architectural Review March 16, 2021 13 WINDOW NOTES: THE PROPOSED WINDOW, ARCHITECT RESERVE FROM PELLA, WAS CHOSEN DUE TO ITS DESIGN FEATURES SUCH AS THROUGH- STILE CONSTRUCTION AND PUTTY PROFILE AS WELL AS SIMILARITY TO THE WINDOWS ON THE EXISTING STRUCTURE. THE WINDOW WILL BE ALUMINUM CLAD WOOD WITH A FINISH TO MATCH THE EXISTING OFF-WHITE COLOR. THE WINDOW WILL CONTAIN SIMULATED DIVIDED LIGHTS IN THE DESIGN PATTERN DEPICTED ON THE ELEVATION DRAWINGS, REFLECTIVE OF THE ORIGINAL WINDOWS ON THE HISTORIC CHURCH. WINDOW CORNER SAMPLE. SPECIFIC DESIGN AND FINISH NOT DEPICTED. DESIGN DEPICTED IN ELEVATIONS AND FINISH TO BE OFF-WHITE SIMILAR TO EXISTING CHURCH. EXISTING WINDOW MATERIAL SAMPLE - WINDOW First Presbyterian Church Board of Architectural Review March 16, 2021 14 Email from Karim Habbab to Jeff Werner on March 12, 2021: Hi Jeff see below responses in red! Thanks. For context for question 3: We recessed the entry there at that corner and moved the door in from the original drawings I sent. Email from Jeff Werner to Karim Habbab on March 8, 2021, with responses from Karim in red. Karim: Couple of last minute questions. Forgive me if this is a bit tedious and redundant, but I am trying to anticipate the BAR’s questions. 1. Scope of revised work limited to only the NE corner—green shaded area—and will not alter the previously approved landscaping and etc. at the Courtyard, Gathering Terrace or the SW corner of the church property. Correct? Correct! 2. Assume all of these plantings are now omitted. Correct? That’s right! 3. Excluding sidewalk work at street, I have a new ADA ramp, the sidewalk repair at the right, and the steps will be removed per prior CoA. What is the grey area— sidewalk or paving? Also, BAR may ask about railing at ramp. Assume it will match what was done at the new entrance approved in 2019. The grey area is a new drive. . The new handicap ramp is at 8% so it requires handrails on both sides, painted black. At this point we did a minor revision to the plan submitted to BAR and are planning to keep both sets of stairs. 4. Trees. Originally, four trees would be removed. It appears three can remain, will they? The grading currently impacts all 4 trees and they’re all shown to be removed. The City’s detail to protect the tree critical root zone is not achievable for any of the trees. For example the large tree in between the existing entrance/exit lanes is 36” in diameter resulting in a 54’ radius critical root zone. Also, BAR will ask if that tree will be replaced, with what, and where? I don’t have an answer for this right now. 5. Sills at elevator tower panels. BAR may ask about matching the stone sills on the similar, existing panels. That would be fine to have a sill at the bottom of our recesses in the elevator shaft. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-03-08 500 Court Square, TMP 530096000 North Downtown ADC District Owner: 500 Court Square Applicant: Doug Brooks, on behalf of the condo assoc. Project: Replace four, apartment windows Application components (please click each link to go directly to PDF page): • Staff Report • Application Submittal March 16, 2021 BAR Agenda (3/10/2021) 11 City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Staff Report March 16, 2021 Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-03-08 500 Court Square, TMP 530096000 North Downtown ADC District Owner: 500 Court Square Applicant: Doug Brooks, on behalf of the condo assoc. Project: Replace four, apartment windows Background Year Built: 1924-1926 District: North Downtown ADC District Status: Contributing Colonial Revival nine story brick building, originally called the Monticello Hotel, was designed by architect Stanhope Johnson of Lynchburg. The building is also contributing structure in Charlottesville Albemarle County Courthouse Historic District, listed on the Virginia Landmarks Register and National Register of Historic Places. Previous BAR Reviews (Germane to this request. A complete list of all prior review is in the Appendix.) July 19, 2011 – BAR approved the replacement of nine existing wood windows in a 6th floor unit facing Market Street with aluminum clad wood window sash kits with exterior applied 7/8” putty profile muntins. This is the only approved window replacement at this time for the entire structure. Application • Submittal: Application with Pella Window proposal (dated 9/22/2020), report from Trebor Home Inspections (pages 5,6,7 and 8), exterior photo showing location of the proposed work. CoA request to replace four windows in a private apartment. Existing are 6/6, single pane, TDL, double-hung, wood windows. Proposed replacements are Pella Architect-series, double-hung, wood windows with insulted glass and applied grille to simulate the existing layout and muntin width. Discussion and Recommendations It is staff’s opinion that the identified moisture problems are in the frames and sills, not the existing sash. The windows are on the south, weather-facing elevation and therefore subject to wind and 500 Court Square (March 4, 2021) 1 rain. Resolving the problem with driving rain might be better accomplished with storm windows. There may also be flashing issues that should be addressed, regardless of the window solution. Repairs could be made to the moisture-related damage at the frames and sills. In the event of approval, BAR might discuss establishing standard to guide future requests. The following is from the July 2011 BAR staff report: The problem of replacing windows in a condominium building with many different owners [Individual units are privately owned] has come up before. This applicant is proposing an appropriate type of window replacement. The applicant said there have been many window replacements in the former Monticello Hotel building, some with simulated divided lights with grids between the glass. Apparently, these were done without BAR approval. Additionally, the BAR should require that there are spacer bars in the insulated glass, aligned with the applied grilles. 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 replacement of four windows at 500 Court Square 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. [.. 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 replacement of four windows at 500 Court Square 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 this application as submitted: … Criteria, Standards and Guidelines Review Criteria Generally Sec. 34-284(b) of the City Code states that, in considering a particular application the BAR shall approve the application unless it finds: (1) That the proposal does not meet specific standards set forth within this division or applicable provisions of the Design Guidelines established by the board pursuant to Sec.34-288(6); and (2) The proposal is incompatible with the historic, cultural or architectural character of the district in which the property is located or the protected property that is the subject of the application. Pertinent Standards for Review of Construction and Alterations include: (1) Whether the material, texture, color, height, scale, mass and placement of the proposed addition, modification or construction are visually and architecturally compatible with the site and the applicable design control district; (2) The harmony of the proposed change in terms of overall proportion and the size and placement of entrances, windows, awnings, exterior stairs and signs; (3) The Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation set forth within the Code of Federal Regulations (36 C.F.R. §67.7(b)), as may be relevant; (4) The effect of the proposed change on the historic district neighborhood; 500 Court Square (March 4, 2021) 2 (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) When reviewing any proposed sign as part of an application under consideration, the standards set forth within Article IX, Sections 34-1020, et seq. shall be applied; and (8) Any applicable provisions of the city’s Design Guidelines (see Sec. 34-288(6)). Pertinent Design Review Guidelines for Rehabilitation 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. 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. […] 500 Court Square (March 4, 2021) 3 APPENDIX Previous BAR Reviews February 28, 1989 - New windows in south wall façade and two to three outdoor mechanical units on fire stair June 27, 1989 - Install new railings on towers and two sets of stairs on roof January 23, 1990 - Install six new rear windows; close two fire door entrances; install vent; add two heat pump units on fire stairs April 24, 1990 - Screening for rear heat pumps June 21, 1994 - Replace new sliding doors February 2001 – Administrative approval to co-locate antenna on roof April 2001 – Administrative approval to replace two rooftop cabinets and upgrade communications equipment. July 2001- Administrative approval to locate six to nine rooftop antennas with accessory telecommunication cabinets October 2001 – Administrative approval: Remove three rooftop antennas and replace six. June 17, 2003 - Add two new rectangular windows in south elevation. September 21, 2004 – Install revolving door June 21, 2011 – BAR approved on the consent agenda to replace the balustrade with a painted terne-coated stainless-steel replica. July 19, 2011 – BAR approved the replacement of nine existing wood windows in a 6th floor unit facing Market Street with aluminum clad wood window sash kits with exterior applied 7/8” putty profile muntins. This is the only approved window replacement at this time for the entire structure. March 19, 2013 – BAR approved re-roofing and replacement of painted galvanized steel balustrade with painted copper balustrade. March 18, 2014 - BAR approved change in baluster material from painted copper to fiberglass as submitted. August 19, 2014 – Administrative approval to replace three antennas with three similar sized antennas. April 21, 2015 - BAR approved replacement of six rooftop antennas and add one new cabinet on roof. June 16, 2015 – BAR accepted applicant’s request for deferral re: proposed rooftop communications equipment. BAR recommended a master plan be developed that might include options for: locating the antennas behind the baluster; locating the antennas to the sides of the penthouse, and painting the antennas to match the penthouse; or adding screening to the penthouse area resulting in a wider penthouse. January 2019 – BAR approved installation of two metal security gates, with the following conditions: o Drawing #1 for the Porte Cochere (without the ovals) o Drawing #3 for the Court Square Tavern (without the ovals) o Request to look at the proportions for the Porte Cochere [height of gate relative to fixed panel above] o Request the gates be set back and swing inward o Submit the updated final drawings for the BAR Archive July 2020 – Administrative approval of additional communications equipment 500 Court Square (March 4, 2021) 4 Board of Architectural Review (BAR) Conservation District - Certifkat,e of Appropriateness Pease Return To· City oi Char1otra;111 e Department of Ne-ghoorrood OGvelopma ,t Sarv1ees_ PO Box 911 City Han Charlottesville V1rgm1a 22902_ Telephone (434) 970-3130 Please submit ten (10) harid copies and one (1) digJbl copy of application ronn and all attachments. Please Include application fee as follows: New construction project S376; Oemolition of a contributing structure $375; Appeal of BAR dec1slon S125; Additions and other ,projects requiring BAR approval '$125; .Adminiwatlvc approval $100._ Make checks 1payabl.e to the City of Charlottesville. Tho BAR meets tho thud Tuesday cf U-.e month. Deadline ror submitials s Tuesdaf 3 weeks pnor to next BAR meet.ng by 3:30 p.m. Pro;eet Name/Description S°OO (},�,_r SclM8£ AsroC • Parcel Number S' J O O ffa� 0S- ProJee! AddresS1Locat.on __S(__ o_ _ !!::.,;;.."'-e_ _o_...:Co_ __"l_...:::-> _,._:.:._ :::....::e "'�A-..:...-" ��--1c-'o _"_J._111_; 4;_:_11� f.r_...::: ...;__ cc;_ .,L..._.....J-___ / _G':_!_o_o_,_,_O_oo_ .Sio rllMI -s�+k Wisec.'"':3 OimerName ... 1 S. Mlt..� ApplcantName Applicant Information Signature of Ap.plicant I hereby attest 111at re ·nformation I have pro'!idec is to the_ :s1 of k ,•t ge oom:� na1 lwi'a' Proporty Owner Information '[if not app licant) St# 1,v;'f' Print ame Property Owner Permission (if not applicant) ....'laress ������3-;;;T"T:111::f�r-=-;��� � I t1a•:e read s applica on end hereby g,�e my consent o /�dO � .;, E a� Pnore N �J.• O, J J S:cir"'� • °B�. S gnat.ire 2b1/1.1 bate' Seo G.w+ � ..-. fts�,. lay "Do'-!1/11, Print ame (';, -St'• fl ...S,. �i�.s4""' J f 2. Z. Date / 2/ list Ah Attachments (see ,reverse side for :submittal requirements): For Office Use Only Approved1Oisapproved by· _____ ___ _ R"'ce,ved by ___________ Oate. ______ _________ _ Fee paid· _____Cash Ck # ____ Cond1bons of approval· __________ Date Recervecl· __________ R .-,sect April 2017 Trebor Home Inspections Wispelwey 1. Interior The visible portions of the home's following accessible interior components shall be inspected for any signs of deficiency in their general condition: ceilings, walls, floors, doors, windows, cabinets, countertops, stairs, balconies and accompanying railings. I will attempt to operate all accessible doors, windows and cabinet drawers to check for proper operation, except where furniture, window treatments or personal items prevent me from doing so. I report signs of water spillage, staining or condensation on interior surfaces. I do not evaluate the general condition of paint, wallpaper, or other finish treatments on the interior walls or ceilings or the functionality of window treatments. Items 1.0 DOORS Inspected 1.1 WINDOWS Major Deficiency (1) There was evidence of repeated water intrusion at the living room window sill, most notably at the left most jamb. The evidence extended down the wall and onto the floor. The area was checked with a moisture meter and found to be dry during the inspection. 500 Court Square Page 5 of 23 Trebor Home Inspections Wispelwey 500 Court Square Page 6 of 23 Trebor Home Inspections Wispelwey (2) Using reasonable force the two sashes where located in the pictures below could not be fully opened. NOTE: The window treatment on the left window was deteriorated and not functioning properly as can be seen in the picture. kitchen 500 Court Square Page 7 of 23 Trebor Home Inspections Wispelwey living area 1.2 FLOORS Inspected 1.3 CEILINGS Inspected 1.4 WALLS Inspected 1.5 CABINETS and COUNTERTOPS Inspected The interior of the home was visually inspected and the readily observable deficiencies were documented above. While every effort is made to identify major issues, because of the multilayered construction of most home components, concerns can be hidden from view or go unnoticed. The inspection did not involve moving furniture and inspecting behind furniture, under area rugs or in areas obstructed from view. I recommend referring to the sellers disclosure document for additional information about the homes interior. All deficiencies documented in this report should be considered and further investigated for correction by qualified, licensed professionals prior to purchasing the house. 500 Court Square Page 8 of 23 Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-03-09 735 Northwood Avenue, TMP 340078000 North Downtown ADC District Owner: Laura and Phillip Smith Applicant: David Mullen, Halcyon Project: Rear dormer, roof shingle replacement Application components (please click each link to go directly to PDF page): • Staff Report • Application Submittal March 16, 2021 BAR Agenda (3/10/2021) 12 City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Staff Report March 16, 2021 Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-03-09 735 Northwood Avenue, TMP 340078000 North Downtown ADC District Owner: Laura and Phillip Smith Applicant: David Mullen, Halcyon Project: Rear dormer, roof shingle replacement Background Year Built: 1931 District: North Downtown ADC District Status: Contributing Staff was unable to locate a historic survey for this property. Prior BAR Reviews n/a Application • Applicant Submittal: Halcyon Contracting drawings 735 Northwood Dormer Addition + Tesla Roof + Copper Gutters, dated March 2, 2021: Sheet 1, perspectives; Sheet 2, dormer addition drawings; Sheet 3-4, elevations (existing and proposed); Sheet 5, trim detail perspectives; Sheet 6-7, context and photos CoA for the construction of a rear dormer, replacement of the existing asphalt shingles with photovoltaic shingles, and replacement of the gutters and downspouts with copper gutters and downspouts. 735 Northwood Avenue (March 4, 2021) 1 Discussion Staff finds the massing and detailing of the proposed dormer appropriate, as well as the proposed copper gutters and downspouts. The BAR should discuss the appropriateness of photovoltaic shingles on the entire roof. 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 dormer and new roofing at 735 Northwood Avenue 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 dormer and new roofing at 735 Northwood Avenue 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; (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 New Construction: 735 Northwood Avenue (March 4, 2021) 2 P. Additions 1) Function and Size a. Attempt to accommodate needed functions within the existing structure without building an addition. b. Limit the size of the addition so that it does not visually overpower the existing building. 2) Location a. Attempt to locate the addition on rear or side elevations that are not visible from the street. b. If additional floors are constructed on top of a building, set the addition back from the main façade so that its visual impact is minimized. c. If the addition is located on a primary elevation facing the street or if a rear addition faces a street, parking area, or an important pedestrian route, the façade of the addition should be treated under the new construction guidelines. 3) Design a. New additions should not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. b. The new work should be differentiated from the old and should be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. 4) Replication of Style a. A new addition should not be an exact copy of the design of the existing historic building. The design of new additions can be compatible with and respectful of existing buildings without being a mimicry of their original design. b. If the new addition appears to be part of the existing building, the integrity of the original historic design is compromised and the viewer is confused over what is historic and what is new. 5) Materials and Features a. Use materials, windows, doors, architectural detailing, roofs, and colors that are compatible with historic buildings in the district. 6) Attachment to Existing Building a. Wherever possible, new additions or alterations to existing buildings should be done in such a manner that, if such additions or alterations were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the buildings would be unimpaired. b. The new design should not use the same wall plane, roof line, or cornice line of the existing structure. Pertinent Guidelines for Rehabilitation: G. Roof 1) When replacing a standing seam metal roof, the width of the pan and the seam height should be consistent with the original. Ideally, the seams would be hand crimped. 2) If pre-painted standing seam metal roof material is permitted, commercial-looking ridge caps or ridge vents are not appropriate on residential structures. 3) Original roof pitch and configuration should be maintained. 4) The original size and shape of dormers should be maintained. 5) Dormers should not be introduced on visible elevations where none existed originally. 735 Northwood Avenue (March 4, 2021) 3 6) Retain elements, such as chimneys, skylights, and light wells that contribute to the style and character of the building. 7) When replacing a roof, match original materials as closely as possible. a. Avoid, for example, replacing a standing-seam metal roof with asphalt shingles, as this would dramatically alter the building’s appearance. b. Artificial slate is an acceptable substitute when replacement is needed. c. Do not change the appearance or material of parapet coping. 8) Place solar collectors and antennae on non-character defining roofs or roofs of non-historic adjacent buildings. 9) Do not add new elements, such as vents, skylights, or additional stories that would be visible on the primary elevations of the building. 735 Northwood Avenue (March 4, 2021) 4 �i, Board of Architectural Review (BAR) Certificate of Appropriateness Please Return To: City of Charlottesville � -. fj1�1 0 ' t:_!l:j Department of Neighborhood Development Services ..--. -,, . • •• 1::01 P.O. Box 911, City Hall Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 ·�GJNIA.�'\�. Telephone (434) 970-3130 Please submit ten (10) hard copies and one (1) digital copy of application form and all attachments. Please include application fee as follows: New construction project $375; Demolition of a contributing structure $375; Appeal of BAR decision $125; Additions and other projects requiring BAR approval $125; Administrative approval $100. Make checks payable to the City of Charlottesville. The BAR meets the third Tuesday of the month. Deadline for submittals is Tuesday 3 weeks prior to next BAR meeting by 3:30 p.m. Owner Name Laura Proud Smith & Philip William Smith ------------ Applicant Name David Mullen Project Name/Description 735 Northwood Avenue Rear Roof Dormer Addition Parcel Number ---------- 340078000 Project Property Address 735 Northwood Avenue, Charlottesville, VA 22902 Signature of Applicant A.QR.licant Information I hereby attest that the }flf9rmatipj1 I have provided is, to the Address: 272 Lakeview Drive, Charlottesville VA, 22901 , b Ema il: dmullen@halcyon-contracting.com Phone: (W) (434)218-9694 (C) (434)218-9694 David Mullen 2/20/2021 Property Owner Information (if not applicant) Print Name Date Address: 735 Northwood Avenue, Charlottesville, VA 22902 Property Owner Permission (if not applicant) I have read this application and hereby give my consent to Email: philipwilliamsmith@gmail.com; lauraproudsmith@gmail.com its � 2/20/2021 � Phone: (W) ____ _ _ (C) (434)825-5563 S�na�ra D�e Do you intend to apply for Federal or State Tax Credits Laura Smith/ Philip Smith 2/20/2021 for this project? __________ Print Name Date Description of Proposed Work (attach separate narrative if necessar y): Addition of dormer on rear-yard facing face of existing roof adding bathroom and storage space to 3rd level of existing house. Existing house is clad in brick veneer with white painted trim, roofed with arch. asphalt shingles. Roofing on new dormer and replacement of existing shingles with Tesla Solar Roof tile system. Replacement of existing k-style gutters with half-rounc copper g_utters and downspouts. List All Attachments (see reverse side for submittal requirements): To be submitted electronically; Submittal requirements (1) drawing set for proposed addition, (2) photographs of property, (3) digital photographs/ descriptions of material only, (5) perspectives of digital 3d model of proposed extension which does not change existing building footprint. For Office Use Only Approved/Disapproved by: ______ __ _ _ Received by: ____________ Date: _ _ _ _ _____________ Fee paid: ___ __Cash/Ck. # ____ Conditions of approval: ___________ Date Received: ---------- - Revised 2016 735 Northwood Dormer Addition + Tesla Roof + Copper Gutters Perspectives 1 March 2, 2021 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 735 Northwood Dormer Addition + Tesla Roof + Copper Gutters Dormer Addition 2 March 2, 2021 WEST ELEVATION - October 21 3:00 PM NORTH ELEVATION - June 21 6:00 PM EAST ELEVATION - October 21 10:00 AM SOUTH ELEVATION - October 21 10:00 AM SCALE (TYPICAL): 3/32" = 1'-0" 735 Northwood Dormer Addition + Tesla Roof + Copper Gutters Elevations As Built 3 March 2, 2021 WEST ELEVATION - October 21 3:00 PM NORTH ELEVATION - June 21 6:00 PM EAST ELEVATION - October 21 10:00 AM SOUTH ELEVATION - October 21 10:00 AM SCALE (TYPICAL): 3/32" = 1'-0" 735 Northwood Dormer Addition + Tesla Roof + Copper Gutters Elevations As Proposed 4 March 2, 2021 Proposed Dormer Trim Existing Side Porch Soffit & Gable Trim Existing Main Roof Porch Soffit & Gable Trim Existing Front Porch 735 Northwood Dormer Addition + Tesla Roof + Copper Gutters Elevations Existing Trim As &Built Proposed Trim & Cladding Detail 5 March 2, 2021 Charlottesville Sanborn Map 21 ‑ 1920 735 Northwood Avenue ‑ Contiguous Neighboring Properties and Districts 735 Northwood Dormer Addition + Tesla Roof + Copper Gutters Context 6 March 2, 2021 735 Northwood Dormer Addition + Tesla Roof + Copper Gutters Photos 7 March 2, 2021