City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Regular Meeting April 20, 2021, 5:30 p.m. Remote meeting via Zoom Packet Guide This is not the agenda. Please click each agenda item below to link directly to the corresponding 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 December 15, 2020 2. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-04-01 200 West South Street, TMP 280100000 Downtown ADC District Owner: 200 South Street A Virginia Inn PA Applicant: Ross Fillman/Uhler and Co. Project: Landscaping Plan, South Street Inn 3. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-04-02 16 Elliewood Avenue, TMP 090097000 The Corner ADC District Owner: Elliewood Entertainment, Inc. Applicant: Anderson McClure/Biltmore Grill Project: Patio pavilion, Biltmore Grill April 20, 2021 BAR Packet 1 C. Deferred Items 5:40 4. 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: Construct canopy for dining area D. New Items 6:15 5. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-04-04 517 Rugby Road, TMP 050046000 Rugby Road-University Circle-Venable ADC District Owner: Alumni of Alpha Mu, Inc Applicant: Garett Rouzer/Dalgliesh Gilpin Paxton Architects Project: Alterations to fraternity house Note: This is a formal submittal; however, this will be treated as a preliminary discussion, per City Code section Sec. 34-282(c)(4). 7:00 6. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-04-05 485 14th Street, NW, TMP 090034000 Rugby Road-University Circle-Venable ADC District Owner: Hoo House, LLC Applicant: Greg Winkler, Kurt Wassenaar Project: Phase 1. Repair/replace windows, misc. exterior repairs and sitework Note: There is no BAR #21-04-03 on the agenda. That project was withdrawn. D. Preliminary Discussions 7:30 7. 485 14th Street, NW, TMP 090034000 Rugby Road-University Circle-Venable ADC District Owner: Hoo House, LLC Applicant: Greg Winkler, Kurt Wassenaar Project: Phases 1 and 2. Rear additions on residence 8:00 8. 120 Oakhurst Circle, TMP 110025000 Oakhurst-Gildersleeve ADC District Owner: Tenth and Main, LLC Applicant: Bill Chapman Project: Rear addition on residence E. Other Business 9. Staff questions/discussion Valentine House door/window 10. PLACE update F. Adjourn April 20, 2021 BAR Packet 2 BAR MINUTES CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW Regular Meeting December 15, 2020 – 5:30 p.m. Zoom Webinar Welcome to this Regular Monthly Meeting of the Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review (BAR). Due to the current public health emergency, this meeting is being held online via Zoom. The meeting process will be as follows: For each item, staff will make a brief presentation followed by the applicant’s presentation, after which members of the public will be allowed to speak. Speakers shall identify themselves, and give their current address. Members of the public will have, for each case, up to three minutes to speak. Public comments should be limited to the BAR’s jurisdiction; that is, regarding the exterior design of the building and site. Following the BAR’s discussion, and before the vote, the applicant shall be allowed up to three minutes to respond, for the purpose of clarification. Thank you for participating. Members Present: Carl Schwarz, Cheri Lewis, Breck Gastinger, Jody Lahendro, Andy McClure, James Zehmer, Sonja Lengel, Ron Bailey Members Absent: Tim Mohr Staff Present: Jeffrey Werner, Robert Watkins, Patrick Cory, Joe Rice Pre-Meeting: The early start for the pre-meeting was for the BAR to have a work session to discuss the current COA process. The two options presented by staff to the BAR with the COA application process were preliminary discussions and COA applications. There was a discussion regarding the processes going forward with COA process. Staff proposed a two-step process following the initial preliminary discussion in front to the BAR. This would be in accordance with City code and the ordinance. The first step would be a COA application with a deferral either by the BAR or the applicant and a final COA application submission. There was a lengthy discussion among those BAR members in attendance and city staff regarding the new COA application process. There is going to be one final COA submission for each project. There are no longer going to be multiple COAs for each project. The next step will be to send the changes to the COA process to the City Attorney for review. There was a brief discussion regarding the items on the meeting agenda. The meeting was called to order at 5:30 PM by the Chairman A. Matters from the public not on the agenda No Comments from the Public 1 BAR Meeting Minutes December 15, 2020 B. Consent Agenda (Note: Any consent agenda item may be pulled and moved to the regular agenda if a BAR member wishes to discuss it, or if any member of the public is present to comment on it. Pulled applications will be discussed at the beginning of the meeting.) No Consent Agenda Items C. Deferred Items 1. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 20-11-02 612 West Main Street Tax Parcel 290003000 Heirloom West Main Street Second Phase LLC, Owner Jeff Dreyfus, Bushman Dreyfus Architects, Applicant New construction of a mixed-use development Jeff Werner, Staff Report – This is a continuing discussion for a COA request that we're calling 612 West Main Street. The formal address is 602 to 616 West Main Street. There is an existing building on the site and it was constructed between 1959 and 1973. It will be demolished. It is a non-contributing structure in this ADC district. There will not be any COA for the demolition. The applicant last had a discussion with the BAR at the November meeting. This has been presented as a formal application for a COA. Tonight I do not believe the applicant is seeking action by the BAR. However, you all are required by the code to take an action. That action would be to approve the applicants request for a deferral. As we discussed before this meeting, this is a continued discussion. The applicant has presented the drawings that you all reviewed in November and offered annotations. The intent is to clarify and make sure everyone is on the same page with what the BAR is offering in its comments. There are seven or eight pages of additional information that's provided. I want to again reiterate that the clock is ticking on this and this is a formal application. You all accepted the applicants request for a deferral in November. However at this meeting, the BAR cannot make the motion. Only the applicant can request a deferral. Should the applicant not accept a deferral or not propose a deferral, the BARs options are only to approve it, deny it, or to approve it with conditions. In the context of this continued discussion, the goal of this is a dialogue. The applicant has some specific things that he wishes to address. I want to encourage the BAR to have that dialogue. This is just a presentation on where the design is. This is part of that iterative process of working things towards a complete application that you all can take action on. Mr. Lahendro – In our pre meeting, the Board expressed some confusion about what you'll be looking for tonight. As you make your presentation, would you be clear about what you want the Board comment on please? Jeff Dreyfus, Applicant – We are looking for comment on massing and elevation development on the West Main Street facade. Those two elements are key to the development of the rest of the building. Until we feel we're on an approvable track, comment beyond that presentation and discussion on our part is all premature. As you noticed in the package, we did not propose a landscape plan at this point. We think that is premature. I'll go through that, as I talk about some of the slides. The one thing I'd like to do first is to reiterate what we think we heard you all ask us to do after the last presentation of the facade on West Main Street. That is to reflect a multi parcel nature of the site's history and address the scale difference of West West Main Street versus East West Main Street. That means a smaller scale east of the bridge. It's been 2 BAR Meeting Minutes December 15, 2020 pointed out that we are setting a precedent for larger scale parcels on this side of West Main Street, east side of the bridge. You've asked us to mediate the horizontality of the parcel and the building. It is only three stories tall because of zoning. As we've been thinking through the comments that you all provided and looking for ways to move forward, it was also important to us to reiterate what we find as value on West Main Street. We all share them, but we could debate them. As a design team, we believe a mix of residential and retail is critical. Smaller retail spaces over larger big box retailers is what has typically been on the east side of West Main Street. There’s a challenge in that we have a 10 foot setback. How do we hold the edge? How do we maintain the lower scale of buildings east of the bridge? We've asked ourselves how we can enhance this part of West Main Street by bringing more residential life to the streets, making it a truly walkable neighborhood and adding space for more small retailers. I think a very important element is by being quiet. As we look at some of the images of buildings along West Main and not calling attention to ourselves in order to provide a visual respite from West Main Street at the moment. We are interested in taking a backseat architecturally and letting buildings like the Baptist Church and the Albemarle Hotel have the attention. The other thing that we're interested in doing is bringing a different demographic to West Main Street. This is not a building intended for students but for young professionals and older residents. When it comes to reflecting the multi parcel nature of the site, you can see the original plat lines on the parcel. You can also see the way we're beginning to look at breaking up the facade differently now to reflect the original widths of those parcels. In terms of scale, one of the larger buildings on this side of the bridge is the Albemarle Hotel. If we take the length of the Albemarle Hotel and reflect across the street, we can't work with the same exact proportions because we're not allowed the same height. Width wise, there's precedent for buildings of that size and length on West Main Street. You can begin to see how we're starting to break up the facade. This is not intended to propose any landscape at this point. This is really to show and to continue as we move forward. This reflects what the current plan is for the West Main Street streetscape project. You can see that the dashed red line is the current curb line. The proposal in this area is to encroach a little bit on the public right of way with the curb and plant the street trees right up along there. Our landscape architect has been in touch with the planners at Rhodsside and Harwell. They're very eager to work with us to devise a plan. They've reiterated that this is malleable and would like to work with us as soon as we start thinking about the public space here. This is not a proposal. This is merely a reflection of what is currently in the streetscape plan relative to the building we're looking at here. As we started to look at how we bring verticality to a very long and horizontal building, we are looking at other examples here and introducing retail. One of the things we really appreciate about the three images on the left are the retail spaces down below. The middle is a larger retail space behind multiple windows. The one on the left could be three individual retailers. The one on the right is one retailer within three bays. Looking at how we can offer the opportunity for the retail in the building we provide flexibility with smaller and local retailers, as opposed to big box retailers. How does that relate to the verticality we're trying to achieve on the facade of the building to counteract the horizontality and the grid of Windows above? We've mentioned this before, but texture. We'll talk about this in the facade itself. How do we introduce texture to create a difference? Is it color stucco on the right brick in the middle and on the left? These are elements we're going to continue to bring into the picture. I don't want to lose sight of the fact that we're thinking about these as we develop the diagram. Looking at precedents in Charlottesville: there's the Albemarle Hotel which has all three on the top; then and now. Interestingly, there were balconies on the Albemarle Hotel. It wasn't residential but there were some upper balconies there. Some of those balconies have been removed at this point, but they did exist. Then taller retail level on the ground floor which by code we certainly are needing to abide by. 3 BAR Meeting Minutes December 15, 2020 If we look at other examples in downtown Charlottesville, there's The Terraces which has taller retail on the ground floor. It's a taller building. You can see the type of arcade that is marching down the street and even turns the corner as it moves toward the mall. There is the residential building on 550 Water Street. It has been recently built and approved by the BAR. There is taller retail space on the ground floor. There is a bank on the first floor. It's not an entirely residential building. There is a large residential entry there on the street. They took the vertical and really exaggerated it on this building. Color and texture in this instance are the difference. As we look at the Code Building and the way they've brought verticality into that project, you can see the three story structure that runs up to the mall and how it's been similarly broken down. This is an office building with some retail below. The upper windows don't necessarily reflect a residential scale. That's something that we'll be talking about as we move into the diagram. We've got views that we've done from two different angles of this. We've been working on this since the submission a week ago. I find it to be very helpful to see this in a broader context. I don't think that this does it justice. We needed the time to develop it. What we've worked toward here is breaking down the mass, so that the building reads coming forward. This is the width of the Albemarle Hotel here and all of it working with the layout of the units inside. What is not reading quite as well are these portions of the building that are moved back two feet from the main façade. This upper portion is 10 feet back. That is from the required step back that we have. What we're thinking here is that these smaller and lower portions help differentiate the taller facade that comes forward two feet from there. These areas in red will be a different texture and potentially different color. Subtlety is going to be the key here, whether it's a deeply raked brick or a change to stucco. We're going to need to figure out how that change is made to really make them subordinate to the two masses that come forward. We heard that the larger retail on the ground floor read like a department store. We've gone the other direction, allowing the individual spaces the opportunity to combine or subdivide, depending upon the retailers that are looking to come in. On the upper floors we are adding Juliet balconies and looking to add greenery. There is a desire to engage with the street by allowing engagement with the street by residents, opening doors, and plants on the balconies. Bringing color to the building was something that was requested at the last meeting. While we are trying to remain quiet and subtle, the opportunity exists by bringing greenery into this and potentially with the awnings that the retailers might be able to use. We wanted to put this in the larger context of all of West Main Street, the scale of this, and how it is relating to other structures on the street. You can see the very top row is The Lark on Main Street is to the left The Flats are on the right. Below that is the Battle Building and The Standard, The Standard and The Flats are the closest in terms of building type. They are different scales and not really comparable. I would like to point out that we are trying to find a fine line of how to differentiate between the masses of this building and the two that come forward in particular. How do we do that? How do we break up this long elevation without it appearing to be like a series of phony townhouses? What we heard at the last BAR meeting is that The Standard is not particularly successful at it. It reads as a bit of a cacophony. The Flats is pretty much that flat. If we look at the lower drawing, it's really just comparing how this compares with the other buildings on the street. It has the same zoning as The Cork. The mass comes forward to the 10 foot setback and is the same height as The Cork. We've got a great deal of length there. We don't have the benefit of historic structures breaking it up as The Cork does in the front of it. I do recall that there was the question of whether or not it would be possible to raise the elevation of this building, so that we could get a four story facade on the street, even if it was balconies behind it. The answer to that is yes it is possible. Zoning would allow it. There are two reasons 4 BAR Meeting Minutes December 15, 2020 we are resisting that. One is that we feel that it's disingenuous to do it. The zoning of West Main Street really did intend for three story structures on this side of the bridge before that and then a 10 foot step back. The intent of that was to bring the scale of East West Main Street down. Doing that feels as though we would be trying to game the system frankly. The other reason that we prefer not to do it is that when viewed in context, especially next to The Holsinger building and the Baptist Church’s Annex building. This building as a three story building is taller. It seems to be a good mediator between the Annex building and the height of 600 West Main Street. Two images that we've been working on might describe a bit better the intention of what is set back from the street façade. This one in particular points out that a four story facade along there will dwarf the Holsinger Building. We're trying to be respectful of the context of what's around it. We are looking for comments and feedback on the elevation as it has progressed from the last time you saw it in terms of the development of it, and the direction of it. If that's not clear, please let me know. QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No Questions from the Public QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD No Questions from the Board COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC No Comments from the Public COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Gastinger – I think there are a lot of positive design developments here. I think that breaking up the roofline with the modulation with the rail and the solid parapet is helpful in accentuating those two volumes. I appreciate looking back at the former lot lines to bring some of that texture to the contemporary structure. I do think that changing the texture or the color of the hyphens has to be that pronounced. I think that will go a long way to further breaking down those volumes. I think those are all positive. I still am a little bit suspicious about the two foot indentation and if it's going to be as significant along the street plane to what we're reading in a flat elevation. This building will not be read in that elevation very often. I think that some of the modeling that you guys have done, where the light is just barely raking across the façade, is creating a deeper sensation of what that facade would look like than it actually will be on the north side of that building. I am curious to hear what other thoughts there are about that hyphen, other ways that we can further accentuate it, and ways that the site plan is developed with landscape and street trees that could further emphasize and break up that long rhythm of verticals. The only other question/comment I have is if there might not be some opportunity for you to lift the volume of the portion of the building that is eastern most. I wonder whether that will transition a little bit more to the 600. It might also give you some additional some opportunities for roof access, if that's a desire. It also would further break up that that secondary cornice line which is also pretty strong horizontal. Mr. Schwarz – Before we're done with this conversation, we should probably all confirm whether we agree with each other’s comments or not. For example, how does everyone feel about Mr. Gastinger’s idea of trying to raise the eastern most portion of the building? Mr. Gastinger, are you referring to that the front block putting up a false facade up on the fourth level? 5 BAR Meeting Minutes December 15, 2020 Mr. Gastinger – The portion that stepped back behind the entry plaza. Mr. Schwarz – Mr. Dreyfus, does zoning allow you to go a little taller on the back portion? Mr. Dreyfus – No, it does not. We could have an appurtenance. Our hope is to have a bit of an appurtenance as it is shown there. We would like to provide roof access, given the internal core of the building, and where circulation is happening. It would be back there. I think that's much taller than what we would be doing. Other than an appurtenance of a four story building, we are at the height. Mr. Lahendro – I thank Mr. Dreyfus. Clearly his office responded to our comments. I think that the two blocks are differentiated. I like that they're even different sizes, which gives even more of an impression of a different breakdown of scales and a more urban content character. Yes, I do wish the hyphens were set back more than two feet. I agree with Mr. Gastinger that it depends a lot upon the distinction of the brick and the color that could help read those or make them seem even more recessed if it's the proper color and dark enough. I think by having the horizontals between the floors of windows helps break down what I was concerned with the last time; the strong, monumental verticals. I think it shows a lot of success in meeting the kinds of concerns I had last time. Ms. Lewis – I agree with Mr. Lahendro. It seems to improve and be responsive to things that we've pointed out. Thanks to Mr. Dreyfus. Certainly the balconies and the engagement with the street was one of the conditions of the SUP that council granted. We recommended council grant it in 2019 for this. I think this gets closer to having that pedestrian street engagement. That was an expressed condition. I think it meets all of the new construction guidelines. I have no objection to that. The guideline that’s in our materials says there shall be pedestrian engagement with the street with an active, transparent, and permeable facade at street level. That could be interpreted a lot of different ways. I think that you’re getting closer to that. It does look like a quite beautiful building. I don't think that it's fading into nothingness. I think its austerity is quite beautiful. You've done a good job meeting the requirement of the 2019 SUP in breaking it down to this historical multi parcel massing and reflecting that. I like the gesture of keeping the width to the Albemarle Hotel width. Maybe that's a good tape measure for us for West Main Street. Mr. Zehmer – I agree with Mr. Gastinger and Mr. Lahendro about the size of the hyphens being set back further or using a darker material to make them appear to set back further. My only comment or question was that I don't recall the retail level on the ground floor. The earlier versions did have a wider base. I didn't quite recall that we had suggested doing away with that. I'm wondering if you all explored Mr. Lahendro’s point, defined the horizontal in between the floor levels between the second and third floor, which I think is successful. I am wondering if you did that in conjunction with a wider base of the retail space on the ground floor. I do think that kind of historic mixed use residential above retail in this area makes a lot of sense. If you look at the Holsinger Building next door, it has this wider base at the ground floor level. It may be where you can really break up the facade again. You have that five bay facade because that's the width of the fore bay that allows you to mix it up a little bit on this. One of the things I think that the Albemarle Hotel is successful with is that it's got a varied façade. You've got some arched windows and rectilinear windows. Even the retail level on that building is recessed quite a bit back from the street. I'm just wondering if that might be an exercise worth playing with. 6 BAR Meeting Minutes December 15, 2020 Mr. Dreyfus – We studied it a lot. What happened was the minute we started combining any of those retail bays into a larger horizontal element, the building began reading very horizontally again. It surprised me. I very much like the open retail at the bottom of the Albemarle Hotel. We tried really hard to incorporate that. It almost was an all or nothing proposition. Regardless of what we did, if we combined two and two and left one in the middle, it just began reading very horizontally again. I think we were doing that. We felt that we were doing the block a disservice because it just felt like a much longer building in every instance. Mr. Zehmer – Did you all try pulling the facade of those because of that recess in the back? I think the hotel has been recessed, but it still has columns out front, which may break up that horizontally. Mr. Dreyfus – It may be something that we can achieve at certain entrances. We're already losing 10 feet of the property because of the 10 foot setback. Eating further into the retail space is a painful proposition for a developer. It might be that we can do that on a small basis at those entries that have a door in it or something like that. Mr. Schwarz – Mr. Mohr had mentioned at the last meeting, and Jeff even responded to making the front portions of the building be falsely four stories tall. Are we all in agreement that it's okay to leave it as is? Or is there anybody else who agreed with Mr. Mohr strongly? That probably will come again in the future. Mr. Dreyfus, I think you make a good point that zoning did want this to be a three story district. I'm not sure we'd benefit from added height on the street front facade. Mr. Gastinger – I found those renderings pretty compelling to the points that Mr. Dreyfus was making about the transition to the larger 600 West Main Street. Mr. Lahendro – The transition from the larger 600 to 612, then to the Holsinger Building has a nice stepping quality there. Mr. Gastinger – I find it really good and positive that there is some potential collaboration with the future West Main Streetscape. I think that we could do real wonders with how this building might be modulating and what the views are along the sidewalk. It also occurs to me that there will certainly be a continuous sidewalk at the street. Another way to further break up the horizontal reading of the building is to perhaps break up or modulate the sidewalk at the facade line. When we talk about those hyphens in particular, we don’t want to talk about jamming a tree in there like there is on The Standard. Those could be moments of landscape space where there's either changing material, added vegetation, or a combination. Mr. Dreyfus – I think it's a great idea. Mr. Schwarz – I think you guys need to have in your back pocket a plan B should West Main Street streetscape project not happen. Mr. Dreyfus – I couldn't agree more. We don't have any idea what the timing is going to be. Personally, I think we have to proceed on the assumption that it will not be underway by the time we open this building. We have to have a plan. The plan probably needs to be one that is an interim step that we know that is acceptable to everyone right now. That then feeds into the longer range master plan. I think that's a bit of a challenge. I think that's the best way for us to all proceed. 7 BAR Meeting Minutes December 15, 2020 Mr. Gastinger – I think that's a better way of putting it. Rather than thinking of it as a plan B, think of it as a plan A. The West Main Streetscape is the next phase. You could make it look so obvious about where those street trees need to go. It makes it easy for those designers. Mr. Dreyfus – I think we'll design it with them as phases one and two. We don't want it to be a surprise to anybody. I think that's a great way to think about it. Mr. Schwarz – My fear is if we're counting on those street trees as the only street trees and they don't get put in, that’s a large swath of West Main Street that will no longer have street trees. I don't know how to resolve that. It's in the back of my mind. That is something to be worried about. Mr. Dreyfus – We don't want this standing there with no trees or no greenery with the assumption that they're coming and they don't come for 40 years. Unless there's anything or any questions we have even of the diagrammatic nature of the elevations. Any concerns that you see there? What I'm hearing is carry on and concern about the reading of the hyphens being dramatic enough so that the two main blocks will read. There are a variety of ways we can achieve it: color, texture, and more depth. I think I'm hearing we're on the right path. I'll ask for a deferral. We will continue to develop this. I really do appreciate the feedback that some of you have given us in the last few weeks. It has helped us understand people's concerns. We can't do this in a void. Each time you all have provided input. I think it's made the building that much better. We'll take the few concerns we heard tonight and keep pushing forward in this direction. Motion – Mr. Gastinger - moves to accept the applicant's request for a deferral. Carl Schwarz seconds. Motion passes (8-0). D. New Items 2. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 20-12-02 201 East Market Street Tax Parcel 330196000 City of Charlottesville & County of Albemarle, Owner Ryan Dewyea, City of Charlottesville, Applicant Mechanical units Jeffrey Werner, Staff Report – This is a Certificate of Appropriateness request for 201 East Market Street, which is the main library downtown. This building was constructed in 1906 and renovated in in 1936. Although I suspect this rare addition doesn't appear to be to date the 1936. It is a contributing structure in the North Downtown ADC district. The BAR has reviewed a few things over the last 10 or 15 years. A new bike rack and some work restoring the windows and handrails and some miscellaneous maintenance. This is a request for the replacement of the rooftop mechanical units. The key concern is there are installation of new pipes and conduits that need to get from the rooftop and down into the mechanical room in the basement of the building. Following the gray line there that I've indicated with a green arrow, 8 BAR Meeting Minutes December 15, 2020 there two chilled water pipes, and to and from and then two of the conduits are electrical service. As I had mentioned earlier, I think earlier the design guidelines really offer specific guidance for external conduits and piping. Rather they address screening of mechanical equipment and rooftop things utilities. To address the rooftop equipment, it is at the rear of the building, it will be replacing what is there. I did not recommend any changes or to add any screen. It's in the pipes and conduits that are on that West facade that we're interested in and that I want to focus on. As I mentioned, the applicant has reviewed several routes. There were the various options looked at. There seemed to be constraints, such as limited space. One they came into was there was some asbestos issues. It was one thing to get it around the outside of the building, but it's another once it's in there to get it routed to where it needs to be in the mechanical room and to do that with it within the distance that needs to be for something of this nature, particularly chilled water. In discussion with the applicant, I'm comfortable that they evaluated the options and what you're seeing is most feasible relative to their parameters. I have an outline for possibilities, for the visual impact of this, obviously will be visible. First being just simply leave it as is. They'll be in conduit. It will be the appearance of aluminum, including the brackets on the building. BAR can request that they be painted. You certainly can offer some instructions on how you prefer that. Another option was something that was applied to an entrance corridor project over by on Fontaine where some exterior duct work was contained within a metal frame. For their purposes over there on Fontaine, it made sense. Here, it almost become more intrusive than the conduit. Finally, simply an idea of some planting could either screen at the bottom or a tree might be taller. Concern there is that there's not a lot of space. This is a sidewalk into the rear entrance and on the left hand side is a loading dock which needs to be maintained access. The conduit will be coming in to the ground and running under the sidewalk into the basement. This isn't exactly an open space to be doing any plantings. Those are the four options that I offer. I recommend approval of the COA with one of the conditions that you all are comfortable with. Ryan Dewyea, Applicant – I can definitely speak to any specific details of the project. I am very familiar with the building and actually have some screenshots here on my phone. I can definitely talk through anything that that needs to needs to be addressed or could come up potentially. If it's alright with everyone, I could just give a brief synopsis similar to what staff just ran through there. Essentially the project is just replacing the rooftop chiller on the north side of the roof of the library. We actually swapped the units this past Saturday. The new unit was actually shorter in length than the old unit. It's a little less visible. Pedestrians could only or the public could only see it from Second Street Northeast. It's a little less visible in that regard. In discussions with kind of with library staff, with the stakeholders, and with just further examining the project with the engineer and design team, we had proposed this alternate piping route that runs out of the mechanical room on the north side of the building and comes up underground out of the mechanical room. There's a protrusion on the north side of the building really contains is a stairwell that was added later. I am not sure if it was in the 1936 addition. We're really wanting to mount the brackets along that wall on the side of the sidewalk between the loading dock and the sidewalk there. After exploring, crawling through the building, and looking at every other possible route, that was the most direct and most feasible route. Less visible was another thing we're just trying to be very cognizant of so. If there's anything in particular, I did just send some sketches and details. We didn't have a finalized design drawing from the engineer. He has offered to provide that too if this goes forward that. We'll definitely have that available and can other paint exposed piping and conduit to match as close we can as it runs up the wall there. 9 BAR Meeting Minutes December 15, 2020 QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No Questions from the Public QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Zehmer – The overall width of that pipe Chase is 24 inches, correct? Mr. Dewyea – Yes, that's correct. We were trying to account for the widest possible arrangement. After discussing it with the engineer, it's possible it's likely going to be less than 24 inches wide. We had originally planned on laying it out so that they were all side by side. We could probably move the conduit so that it was adjacent to each other as long as it was acceptable. We felt that that was going to be the widest possible arrangement. Yep, that's correct. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC No Comments from the Public COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Schwarz – I would vote for painting this a red/brown and be okay with that. Mr. Dewyea – This is the first process that I've gone through with BAR. Is this something that we would get the contractor to submit? Or would you like us to follow up with a sample or submittal once we get the paint finalized? Mr. Schwarz – We would need to discuss that. Personally, I would be fine if you just sent a paint sample to staff, even if it was Benjamin Moore color that you can look up online. Mr. Dewyea – I think the brick is, known that addition is a little bit different than the original building. That's something we would just have to go out there and match it. We could definitely submit it to staff. Mr. Schwarz – As far as I'm concerned, as long as it's not cherry red, you're well. Mr. Gastinger – I don't see this as an issue on the addition this addition to this historic structure. I would just add that there are portions where the white trim wraps around this addition and I would suggest that the conduit be painted white where it's crossing white trim and, and brick red where it's against brick. Mr. Bailey – Just out of curiosity, why not painted white and therefore play off of the horizontal white stripes? With that work, it's a possibility. I don't have strong feelings about it. I had thought it would match the white trim that's already on that building and would emphasize that. Mr. Gastinger – To my mind that would make it really visible quite an element and the only vertical white element on the building other than the massive columns on Market Street. Mr. Zehmer – I'd almost just say let them be what they are. It's on s modern addition. It's not the historic part of the building. If you're painting them, you're going to have to maintain that paint. 10 BAR Meeting Minutes December 15, 2020 Mr. Bailey – Would it be possible to get the conduits in a darker metal perhaps than just aluminum? Mr. Dewyea – That's something I could explore with the contractor. I know the insulation around the piping will be jacketed in aluminum. The conduit will also be that. Other than that, I don't know if a steal jacket would be potentially less. I could definitely see what the options were for that assembly. Mr. Schwarz – Mr. Zehmer has suggested leaving them alone. Is there anyone else who would be in favor of just letting the letting the pipes be as they are? Option two would be paint them a brick color all the way. Would anyone prefer if they'd put white or an off white where the marble is? Painting these is not a problem, correct? Mr. Dewyea – I don't foresee any problem with that. If there is an issue or something like that, I can follow up with staff afterwards. I don't see any problem. Motion – Ms. Lewis - Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the City’s ADC Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed rooftop units and exposed pipes and conduits satisfy the BAR’s criteria and is compatible with this property and other properties in the North Downtown ADC District, and that the BAR approves the application as submitted, with the following condition: • That the conduits be painted a close color to the existing brick to be approved by staff Ron Bailey seconds. Motion passes (8-0). 3. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 20-12-01 350 Park Street Tax Parcel 530109000 City of Charlottesville & County of Albemarle, Owner Eric Amtmann, Dalgliesh Gilpin Paxton Architects, Applicant Partial demolition Jeffrey Werner, Staff Report – A month or two ago. Eric, who's the architect with Dalgliesh Gilpin Paxton and representing the county, representing the applicants introduced the project to you all. You're familiar with what they've got planned over there. This is the first step in the expansion of the City County courts complex which is the area of the lot there adjacent to the Levy Building. This is a COA request for the demolition of the 1980s hyphen an addition on the east side or the rear of Levy Building. The Levy Building was constructed in 1852. It is a contributing structure in North downtown ADC District. Portion of this project site is also the next door parking lot, Zero Park Street. It is also within the downtown ADC district. This structure here was built in what they called the town hall as a performance space. It was renovated by the Levy family in the 1880s and then became the Levy Opera House. The building at some point transitioned to apartments. It now is being used by the City County courts to take on the name of the Levy Buildings. That's the background there. The project are within the North downtown ADC district. The existing high finish structure along with the Levy Building are designated as contributing. The BAR does have to review and approve the demolition, even if it is selective. It said 350 Park Street. The town of Charlottesville was established in 1761. That's when Nelson County was created. They moved the county seat into 11 BAR Meeting Minutes December 15, 2020 a more central location, which was this town here. There really wasn't a whole lot here. There was the courthouse and the site of the Levy Building was left open and was known as the town battery. Don't know what was done there. There's not a whole lot of reference to it. When I say this site, essentially that is Park Street, High Street, with Jefferson Street on the south. That entire block was left open until the construction of the Levy Building. There was the Swan Tavern in the southwest corner. There's still a structure there. There were two houses built on the block to the east of the Levy Building. Where you see the parking lot today was open space in 1760. As far as Zero Park Street goes, nothing's recorded. That's just the parking lot. Nothing was recorded to have been built. There is some evidence of a small utility structure being there in the late 1800s. The annex and the hyphen are on a parcel that was once known as 610 East High Street. According to the information we have, it appears a residence was built, possibly around 1885 to the 1890s. We know that the building at 614, which is still standing was a similar design and similar footprint. We're assuming this 1880s construction of 610 East High, from what we can determine, that building was demolished in the late 70s prior to the construction of the hyphen and the addition on the rear. Just want to point out in some of the Sanborn Maps, it'll look as if the Levy Building was longer and it was for a time. There was an addition on there. I can't determine when it was removed. It could have been 100 years ago. There was an addition at one time. You can see the where that hyphen is. That takes the space of where that prior addition had been. If you see somewhat of a discrepancy in the Sanborn Maps, that explains that. I went through the factors for determination during demolition. It's in the staff report on this. The hyphen and the annex were both constructed after 1980. We know they were in place in 1990. We know that the 610 East High was there into the 70s and possibly the 80s. The hyphen and the annex do lie within the Charlottesville Historic District, which is within the state and national register Historic District. However, the hyphen and addition were constructed after that designation. Therefore, they're not part of the part of the listing. That survey has not yet been updated. I can say that they're within a district. They are not listed as contributing to the state or national registered district. Asked to what extent the building structure associated with stock person architecture craftsman, I said not applicable. Whether the building structure or any features represented infrequent or rare example of a particular architectural style; they do not again. This is the hyphen and the addition. Are there any distinctive design texture or material that cannot be reproduced? That is not applicable. The degree to which the characters of this these structures will remain; both the hyphen in the annex will be removed entirely. Is this linked historically or aesthetically to other building structures? I noted, while the hyphen and the annex incorporates some architectural elements of the Levy Building, they are not. They reflect part of the historic fabric of the Levy Building. The overall structural condition integrity of the building. The demolition is being proposed in order to facilitate the expansion of the New City County courts complex. This is not a function of deterioration or instability of the structure. This is being done in order to facilitate a new building. Whether and to what extent the plan will preserve portions, features, etc., of the buildings of the addition in hyphen; none. They are being again removed in their entirety. We get to the section about any applicable provisions of the city's design guidelines. I noted in here that the design guidelines incorporate the Secretary Standards for Rehabilitation and includes a statement about archaeological resources stating that archaeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed mitigation measures will be undertaken. I know that in 2006, the BAR did request or recommend an archaeological investigation of some work over at the when they were building the sallyport at the county courthouse. In my report, I'm recommending that that subsequent to the planned demolition, when that's done, that a phase one archaeological survey be conducted in that area. This project area is defined and particularly beneath the paved surface at zero Park Street and 12 BAR Meeting Minutes December 15, 2020 what remains at 350 Park Street. The results to be submitted to the BAR record. The reason for doing that is that these are undisturbed area. Generally, the building area around the annex and the hyphen has probably been disturbed. Very little there in any field that might have been brought in maybe suspect. That's what an archaeologist can determine. It is that open space that offers some questions and maybe some answers from an archaeological survey. The situation is that the BAR cannot require this. It would be a recommendation. I'm hoping that can be something discussed with the applicant and could be offered. As I mentioned earlier tonight, there is evidence that John Jouett Senior, the father of Jack Jouett is buried at the site. The information indicates he was buried behind what was 610 East High Street. I believe in the maps I've shown where that may be. Mr. Jouett operated the Swan Tavern, and upon his death in 1802, was buried in that area. There are some references to this. There's still some research to be done. To me, it's strong enough evidence that Mr. Jouett may still be there. That is not a matter for the BAR to decide on or offer any requirement or recommendation on that. There are laws that that govern that situation so you all understand that my referencing it to it is that it's a matter of interest, certainly. The due diligence and in circumstances like this is to the people doing the excavation there that they do what they can to identify or if they encounter a human remains there. Eric Antmann, Applicant – We're basically in agreement with everything that's been presented. I also appreciate that staff did the heavy lifting of presenting all the criteria for demolition. We've been through the finer points of the design guideline criteria. I thought what I'd do is just take a minute to talk about one of the other conditions that staff didn't mention that we also agree with, which is documentation of the existing buildings before their demolition. We also like to say selective removals, because it's so much more careful than just demolition, which we of course, intend to be. We've done a very detailed dimension of the Levy Building itself in plan and elevation. The shaded areas are the areas of the hyphen and annex that are proposed to be removed. It's worth noting at the end of this series here that the plans which I've taken the liberty of intentionally rotating wrongly so they would agree with the other drawings we were looking at. These are measured drawings that the city performed. They're dated I think from 2018. We haven't confirmed all of those dimensions. We have figured this is quite adequate documentation of both exterior and interior conditions. The plans were provided by the city. Any questions on that before we move on to archaeology? Mr. Gastinger – Does this building have a basement? Mr. Antmann – It does have a partial basement in the hyphen section, which is adjacent to the Levy Building. That little area way on the northern wall there where there's a door and three steps that go down and this Northwest corner in plan. You go to the left up adjacent. That's the little stairway that goes down into the basement level. The ground as staff mentioned underneath these two buildings in their backfilled the area around their foundations has been disturbed multiple times in terms of any cultural resources that might be excellent. As preservation architects, we definitely recognize and understand the Secretary of the Interior's standards and the way that they're mentioned in the guidelines, referring archaeological resources that should be preserved and mitigated if disturbed, and I've reviewed that with leadership for the county. They understand that's an obligation of representing your citizens and preserving cultural resources. They're in agreement that this would be something that needs to be pursued; a phase one level Archaeological Survey to be performed. I think we 13 BAR Meeting Minutes December 15, 2020 need to discuss the area that that would apply to specifically the battery, which is the paved area of Zero Park Street. I think it’s the greatest area of interest. That's the western portion of the site to the left of the green selective removals area. That's zero. The parking between the annex and the Jessup Building and their 10 spaces, their immediate to the east is also an area that will be disturbed with the new construction of the district courts. Although that's not what's been looked at and discussed in the conversation regarding the battery and the area that we think where the resources might be most located. I think we'd want to have some more feedback, maybe from staff, in terms of the area that we're being encouraged or recommended that a survey be performed. As I understand it, an archeological survey is not a condition of this demolition. It would be if not done retroactively, the project could be ruled not in compliance is the way I understand the details of procedure here. Those would be my two questions back for staff. Is this specific area that we're talking about? How emotion actually might be worded so I can explain this to the county? Mr. Werner – I would say this is where archaeologists would give you a clear idea of what they would do. Predominantly, they would just do shovel tests and sift through that and see if it suggests any additional work. There might be some specific examination for a reported well, and possibly related to that building that was in that parking lot to the south of the Levy Building. We just did GPR work on two cemeteries in the city. And I was asked earlier, if that might work? I don't know. My understanding is that it tends to be somewhat of a blunt instrument. It's not going to find small things. Does it work through paving material? I don't know. I don't know what your schedule is for removing the paving material. As far as the area goes, I would suggest that we look at the entire site, and then defer to an archaeologist to establish an area of study. That would be probably the best thing to do. They're the ones digging the holes and they're not going to dig holes where they don't have to. Mr. Antmann – I think you're right. The resolution of ground penetrating radar is more for finding subterranean foundations of prior buildings and larger, massive structures than artifacts, smaller size, or even human remains wouldn't be discovered with GPR. Mr. Werner – That's where I think in that line of things. I just know, having been recently involved in the two cemeteries that the archaeologists get very stiff, when you start talking about things. The rules are clear the minute we disturb something. That's advice I would seek from someone else outside of this. I like the way you expressed it. This is an unknown space, with a story within a very important part of the city and county and its history. We really don't know exactly how this place was used. I think that's where if there was an objective, would it be in a way that we can interpret the history? Are there anything that offers us any clues to that story? The area would be within what you all have established as your project area with the delineation of any test at the discretion of the licensed archaeologist and their recommendations. I think I'd be okay with that. Mr. Antmann – There may be a question about schedule. Here we are at the end of 2020, where that asterisk is. We're in the blue area of BAR review. This is only for demolition. We'll be coming back a couple more times for schematic design review later on in this process for both the east sites and the west site. In terms of when this demolition might occur, construction is off the chart. It begins in the beginning of 2022. That's another point that I've made to the county. Right now we have the luxury of time to do any kind of archaeological investigation. It's not like we need to start construction next month. When the hyphen and the annex would come down remains to be determined. There are advantages to doing it sooner, but then we have to have weather protection, instructional stabilization for the existing Levy Building on 14 BAR Meeting Minutes December 15, 2020 the east side for longer. There are advantages to doing that. The area in question underneath paved areas is more where we're interested in possibly doing the archaeological investigation. Paving could be removed and that research could be done before the hyphen in the annex come down. In effect, these are really sort of two different issues. What the COA really focuses on is the removal of the buildings. We addressed the archaeology as a separate process. It's not really involved with the demolition, and would likely be done sooner before the buildings are demolished. Mr. Werner – I would say that the BAR could acknowledge for the record this offer and acknowledge that in the motion, but also in separating the two and the COA applies to the application as submitted. Does that make sense? Mr. Schwarz – It makes sense to me. Mr. Werner – I think that would be the way to do it and to acknowledge that we're dealing with local government here. As representatives of local government, I think it's reasonable to accept this assurance as valid and the COA as separate. QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No Questions from the Public QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Gastinger – I just want to clarify that the demolition request does not include the concrete curb and stair that seem to be a pretty clearly remnant from the residential landscape of 610 East Market. Mr. Antmann – Are you referring to the lawn area on the north side facing High Street? Mr. Gastinger – Yeah. It's an interesting little leftover that somehow survived the construction of this annex and feels like it perhaps could survive until we know a little bit more about what's going on the next iteration. Mr. Antmann – It's very likely that the new construction will be fairly close to the sidewalk and will disturb that area that should have been included in the removal area. What we're trying to do is not encroach onto the sidewalk and have to redo all the sidewalk. We're patching paving. We're trying to control the scope area as much as possible. It's very likely that stair should have been included. Yes, I would expect to remove that but not the concrete curb between the sidewalk and that grass. We would like to leave that. Mr. Zehmer – I have a question for staff. The COA is just for the demolition? A little bit of archaeology is just an aside? Mr. Werner – Given the timing of it, I think it's reasonable to accept their offer of just disconnecting it from the COA, just so that it doesn't encumber anything later. Mr. Zehmer – It would be in the application, though? 15 BAR Meeting Minutes December 15, 2020 Mr. Werner – No, they did not include it. The applicant and I have been discussing it for some time. No, it was not offered or what I was looking at was the project area as a whole. Mr. Zehmer – My question is pointed at defining what we're approving tonight. Mr. Werner – Without the phasing part of it and if there was pushback, then there would have been a discussion of how far does the BAR say, insisting on it, or recommending or requesting it. I think under the circumstances, we can separate that out. Mr. Schwarz – I think what staff told us is that they're going to provide the survey. That's not going to be part of our motion or motion is just to accept the demolition or deny it. Ms. Lewis – What would happen if they didn't do the Archaeological Survey? We're just taking it as an offer that’s not binding. Mr. Zehmer – I think it’s going to be more tied with the schematic design of a new building. Right now the demolition shown is the footprint of the existing building. Mr. Antmann – That's actually a fair point. That's the time to catch the County out on this. If the demolition of the Levy Building, hyphen, and annex is performed, and then we come back for schematic design approval of the new construction, and no archaeology has been done. At that point, I think you could call out the demolition as not being compliant with the Interior Standards. That's how it's explained basically in the staff report. Mr. Werner – Another way to think of it is the work that they'll be doing will require the removal of the parking space. It could be caught then. What the applicant is saying is the asphalt may come up sooner than the demolition. I had actually envisioned it the other way around. I guess I'm such a trusting individual. This one sounds not like something someone would renege on. I think that if the BAR were to make in its motion for approval, just simply a statement acknowledging so that it's not a condition and that it's in the formal record. Along with the minutes of this meeting, it's not a condition of approval. It's just acknowledging that the applicant has offered to do this at an appropriate time in the sequencing of the project. Ms. Lewis – Aren’t the Secretary’s Standards for demolition our standards? I thought our standards incorporated or referenced the Secretary of the Interior Standards. Mr. Werner – This is archaeology. Ms. Lewis – We're not able to link that. I'm not saying I don't trust the company. I think it's an important piece here. I turned off my video. Jeff. I walked across the street to look at this building. I am actually located right across the street. My question for Eric is along the same lines. What do you know about the connection between the historic building and the hyphen? I'm seeing that the Levy Building has a ground story. There is a topo change as you go further west on High Street. By the time you get to the hyphen and that door, there's a significant story above grade. I would imagine those two buildings are joined at least there, if not in the upper three stories of the Levy Building. That's what I'm learning about. How do you know how they're connected? How do you demolish a connection between a historic building without absolutely demolishing a historic building? Where does it end and the other begins? I'm not asking to be difficult. I just don't have much information in the plans that we have in front of us that tell you where you have to sever. Would the plan be to tear up the asphalt? Maybe you can 16 BAR Meeting Minutes December 15, 2020 see the sides of the building and get a bit better view of it. I can see where the plane would be. When you demolish, it's not going be a razor cut? We're talking about demolition of very lasting materials. It's not going to be, you know, laparoscopic? Mr. Antmann – That's why I prefer the term selective removals. That's why James would probably speak to historic preservation. Scholars, architects, and contractors use that term rather than demolition because demolition implies wrecking ball. First grade backhoes will be used on the on the annex. As you get closer to the hyphen, more precise tools need to be used to disconnect structural elements from each other before they're torn away. That's a very good point. It's done all the time. Care needs to be taken in terms of the connection to the lower level of the hyphen between the annex and the Levy Building and the hyphen there. That structure dates to the mid-1980s. Prior to that is the two story porch that was existent at some point in early 20th century. We don't know when that was demolished. Of any structural connections there, nothing is load bearing of the hyphen on to the Levy Building structure. They were simply put next to each other so that they didn't fall apart, basically. We do have structural engineers that will do drawings to guide the contractor and how to do those removals. It's not a carefree process. Ms. Lewis – I don't want to do this because this is located across the street from my office and property that I own. I would remind everybody that there was a selective removal of a courthouse building a block further down High Street. If anybody has been in Charlottesville long enough to remember, it did fall down. Despite every good architect and well intentioned engineer and a good demolition team, it happened. I would think that the most important thing to look at archaeologically is in that separation between the Levy Building and the hyphen and the annex. I'm not being very eloquent about it. It just seems like that moment when you begin to separate those buildings is a moment where there could be some archaeological discovery done. If you're going to find anything, it might be right there. Mr. Werner – I think you know the term today of architectural archaeology. What is that surface? The 1907 Sanborn map that I had included best shows that porch. In the Sanborn map, it's really difficult to interpret exactly what it even is. You can see that it's there in 1907 and then it's gone in 1920. As far as architectural elements that may remain beneath a wall in that vertical surface of the structure or even descending down into the ground, that would be something that a preservationist or an architect would look at. The first thing an archaeologist will say is ‘we can look.’ If it's disturbed, we don't know what disturbed it. There are an awful lot of sites all over town. The old jail is a good example of one that was actually built in an area where the slope dropped greatly. If you stand on the south side and look north, you see where it's all graded flat. Dirt was brought in from somewhere. I was actually involved in that and the dig in the courtyard. Archaeologists would be able to lay out a plan and say: what are we looking for? What are we looking at? What merit do we give something? Mr. Lahendro – My concern is that there already should be an archaeologist as part of this team providing advice about what level of archeological examination should be done. To talk about waiting until the architects apply for schematic design and have heavy equipment running all over the site between now and then destroying whatever possible archaeology and features there might be on the site is too late. This is such an important site that there should have been an archaeologist already as part of the team, who has done the initial archival research of this area, has made some conclusions about where there are sensitive places, and then provided the plan to the professional team about when archaeology should be done and 17 BAR Meeting Minutes December 15, 2020 what kind of archaeology is done. It's such an important site. The archaeologists should already be helping the design team and deciding how to go about doing their part of this work. Mr. Gastinger – In other recent projects with demolitions near sensitive historic structures, monitoring and stabilization measures were important aspects of those approvals. I'm just curious, what steps will be taken to monitor, protect, and preserve the Levy Opera House during demolition that you know about and for the Board to consider what recommendations or conditions we might want to suggest? Mr. Antmann – Any penetrations, the roofline, and the cornice line of that hip roof would remain intact. Stormwater drainage off the roof would be controlled by the existing structure. There could be openings in the east facade, where the hyphen is removed. That would obviously need to be protected from the weather. Any erosion that would occur along foundation lines on that eastern wall could potentially undermine the foundation of the Levy Building. It will need to be protected from the weather and kept dry so you don’t have weather, erosion, and the undermining of foundation. Obviously all of those things would need to be done. In terms of movement, we can install crack migration sensors, which are just little mechanical devices that tell you if the building is moving. Those are all things that can be done. Ms. Lewis – There's also the Jessup Building next door and the Swan Tavern, which are both incredibly historic resources to the downtown area. My building is only about 100 years old. I would ask how the demolition is actually done. Are you going to be wrecking balling? How is it done? It's a surgical thing in this tiny site. Mr. Antmann – Selective removals are usually done by site contractors that have essentially backhoes. The arm with the claw on the end that pulls this way. The bulk of the work will be done with that because they have the heavy equipment to do it. That will be monitored by the general contractor. They also have their own structural engineer on their staff that's responsible for monitoring those means and methods. They have insurance for that. The County also has their own architectural engineering team that will be doing inspections during that process as well. There's no blasting involved or anything like that. There's actually a large staging area to accommodate these operations. On the High Street side, it's a tight urban site. The work can be done from the south. There's actually a good staging area to perform the work without being a risk to other buildings. Mr. Bailey –What we're looking for is a Certificate of Appropriateness for just the annex on the hyphen. That's all we're supposed to be considering at this particular time. We can make recommendations. I'm looking at some of the language that was provided by staff. It basically says what you have to do is to make sure that the integrity of the remaining stuff is maintained. That's obviously something that must be done. I don't know how that would approach it assuming that everybody agrees that this is what's going to be done. The Certificate of Appropriateness is for this specific building, this hyphen in this annex. Why are we considering something else at this particular point? We're not allowed, as I understand it, to make any requirements with regard to archaeology? Mr. Werner – Two points. One is what may not remain of the original east facade, the back wall of the Levy Opera House. What is remaining needs to be protected during demolition. That wall, if it is an original element, is not to be removed in the demolition. The reason you would raise that here is whatever is existing, the BAR should be informed of that. In consideration of the future expansion and how that wall is treated, it will be incorporated into 18 BAR Meeting Minutes December 15, 2020 the design. The second piece being the evaluation archaeologically. I think the applicant has made clear that they're willing to do that and within the project area. Those are the two. Mr. Lahendro, you do a lot more with exposing things behind walls. I don't know if there's a way to express that. We're not saying they must preserve something beneath the wall and the hyphen. You're saying we'd like to know if you find it. Please don't demolish that without discussion. Mr. Bailey – I'm reading through the regulations, criteria, and standards that you've suggested here. Under Section 34-277, subsection C, one and two, seem to be specifically saying that you have to protect the east wall of the Levy Building. That would be automatically included in anything that we agree to here. It just seems that's naturally part of the procedure for agreeing to a demolition. They referred to it here as a selective thing. I'm trying to get what it is that you're particularly worried about if this subsection doesn't already cover that. What we should be focusing on is whether or not the annex and the hyphen should be demolished or not. Mr. Schwarz – Am I reading the appropriate questions or just double checking. There was some curiosity from the board members as to how this was all going to happen. Is that a correct assumption? Ms. Lewis – Yes, but I would also say exploring why we can't make a condition. Mr. Lahendro – I expressed how professionally one probably should go about approaching this site because of the importance of the site. Whether or not we have the authority to require it, that's quite a different issue. I don't think that we do. What I was describing was the normal, professional way of dealing with a historic site like this. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC No Comments from the Public COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Schwarz – We've expressed some comments. Are there other additional concerns or things that need to be addressed? Mr. Antmann – If you allow me to spend one more minute maybe putting your mind to rest on not archaeology, but selective removals. I've pulled up, while you were talking, a couple of photos to show you how this process actually worked on the Madison County Courthouse building for which we were the prime architect on. This is the Madison County Courthouse from the west side. It dates back to the 1820s. It's a very similar time period as our circuit court in Charlottesville. What we're looking at is a conglomeration of additions dating to roughly 1978. We did this work circa 2006. It's been awhile since this project was done. All of these areas across the back, which are quite extensive and attached to the historic building, were removed. With site excavation equipment, you can see the backhoe tearing all of this off. Where this chimney was attached to the building, we have all of these openings protected with plywood. These have been sealed with Spray Foam Insulation. All of the existing facade that was previously concealed has been protected in that photo. Here, you see how the site work was ramped up and stabilized against the wall to protect the foundations. The final step was installing underpinning against that wall. This is a similar condition that we have on the east side of the Levy Building where a subterranean story will be 19 BAR Meeting Minutes December 15, 2020 exposed with removals of existing contemporary modern construction. All the existing stormwater drainage off the downspouts have been protected and piped away from the back of the foundation. You can see how this downspout would have previously dumped right here, onto this exposed foundation. It's been piped around far away. This is all basically well protected. Those are the kinds of interventions that the construction team would take with the guidance of the design team. Hope that helps. All of this would be expected and would be part and parcel of just a normal approval of a demolition COA. This is a given that these things are included by default as requirements in that kind of COA. Hope that helps put your minds to rest a little. Mr. Lahendro – As long as we say in the motion not to destroy the east wall of the Levy Building. I'm confident that the architects and engineers can do that. As Eric has described, that's pretty straightforward. Mr. Zehmer – Just one quick thing on the submittal package on sheet three or four. It's titled Levy Building Selected Removals Plan. It does show in the plan view, taking out that small concrete stair. I know in some of the photographs that were marked up and shaded, that stair was not included on that shading. In terms of archaeology, I was confused. Maybe one way to think of it is we would recommend archaeology to be part of this demolition COA. Looking at the footprint of the Levy Building, it's on top of part of what was the residence at 610. On top of earlier, Levy Building additions, we may say something like we would support preemptive archeological study of the entire project site as the schematic design is developed. That's outside the footprint of what we're leaving. Motion – Mr. Zehmer – Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City Design Guidelines for Demolitions, I move to find that the proposed demolition satisfies the BAR’s criteria and is compatible with this property and other properties in the North Downtown ADC District, and that the BAR approves the application as submitted, with the following conditions: • that the east wall of the Levy Building is substantially protected from damage • that the BAR recommends archaeological work within the footprint of the proposed demolition area of the hyphen and annex • that the BAR encourages and supports archaeological planning as part of the schematic design development for the larger project site • that the demolition includes the concrete steps (formerly to a house) along High Street Cheri Lewis seconds motion. Motion passes (8-0). The meeting was recessed for five minutes. 4. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 20-12-04 106 Oakhurst Circle Tax Parcel 110005000 106 Oakhurst Circle LLC, Owner Patrick Farley, Architect, Applicant Renovation, addition, and site work Jeffrey Werner, Staff Report – Before you is a Certificate of Appropriateness request for 106 Oakhurst Circle. This is within the Oakhurst-Gildersleeve ADC district. The request is for alterations and site work. You all have reviewed this. You've had two preliminary discussions 20 BAR Meeting Minutes December 15, 2020 on this. Now it's come back as a formal COA request. The structure was built in 1922. It is a contributing structure within the Oakhurst Gildersleeve ADC District. It's a combination of Colonial Revival Craftsman style. It has a gabled roof stucco, stucco, siding overhanging Eaves with exposed rafter tails. The house includes a rear deck and a projecting rectangular one story bay window supported by wooden brackets on the west. The applicant is requesting primarily a construction with addition to the rear of the dwelling. The only work I believe is that there will be some site work at the front of the house and some alterations with the deck on the side, There are asphalt shingles. I think the plan is to replace it with standing seam. You all have held two work sessions on this. You should review tonight whether or not the applicant has provided the information that was requested. They certainly have provided a lot of details, information about components, and materials that were asked. The couple things that I just noted. You could probably address these in conditions. For the doors and windows, it appears that an insulated glass product is being used and with an applied grill. The BAR typically requires internal spacing bars for apply grills with insulated glass. For the lighting I think this is low lighting and pathway lighting. They are LED in it. The BAR has applied in the past conditions about the lamping with the color temperature. I am recommending approval of it with addressing those conditions. Patrick Farley, Applicant – One thing I'll address real quickly is on the windows. I just missed that detail and the spec piece that was included. I don't think I've ever done windows without spacer bars. It’s just simply an oversight. They will in fact have spacer bars to put your minds at ease. That's a done deal. I imagine there are some questions. I know I've attempted to hit everything on the list. There are a couple of changes to the design or really enhancements that resulted from the previous discussion. I am happy to address those. I'm curious to know if it's already pointed questions along those lines of details or anything that isn't clear or it wasn't clear in the graphics. QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC Bobby Williams – I'm Bobby Williams. My husband Peyton is next to me. We are the next door neighbors to this development or renovation. It has some serious impact on our personal property. As far as visual, noise, and what is going to be an extension of people living over there. There are going to be four cars essentially in our backyard. My husband's question is more on the tree canopy. I know there's a requirement on certain parts of it. With the number of trees that are going to be coming down to do this extension as well as the parking, will the tree canopy be preserved? That's important. We're mostly upset about the driveway being within three feet of our property line and four cars coming and going at all times of the day. I'm sure it's been put directly that they've given us the three feet that we are allowed between our property line and the driveway. Essentially, we are figuring that the three bedroom addition, along with the three bedroom house and the probable addition of the basement that has a full bath that possibly could have another person. We have at least six people, possibly more, depending on how they break up the bedrooms. It's just infringing on some of our privacy. We're not happy. We'd like to have that addressed. Mr. Farley – I imagine that at some point, sooner than later, we can have a direct conversation. I don't actually spend a lot of time here. In fact, I'm on the property right now broadcasting from the living room. I am happy to address those concerns and not happy that you’re unhappy. I hope I can allay some of your fears. I do think there's maybe a little bit of misinterpretation of information on the drawings or maybe not a proper interpretation. Let me start with the canopy question. First of all, what we're doing is converting from a single family to a two family. Yes, 21 BAR Meeting Minutes December 15, 2020 each has three bedrooms. There will be no more than three people in each of the units. We really expect that they are going to be medical students, graduate students and the type of tenants who have occupied this place since the current owner acquired it back in the 90s. The addition is positioned so that no trees will need to be taken to build. It's the only place on the site where construction could occur without compromising the trees. One of those three oaks that are in the immediate vicinity of the rear of the house is a question mark. We're doing everything we can in the way of the approach to the design of the footprint, and the foundation system. That lower level does not have any occupiable space. There will be a bathroom that's really just to serve the basement level. There won't be any tenancy at that level. We're designing this structure at the ground, in fact, to do everything we can to protect that oak tree that's closest to the house, closest to the addition. The overarching goal is tree protection. That goes for the entire site. We are actually approaching this project with an ecological mindset. In other words, we're going to transform the site inclusive of removing all of the invasive plants, and transforming that rear space, which has been overtaken with or nearly overtaken by invasive plants. It's a big mess. There's a 40 inch oak. The one oak that we're actually taking, which is on the site demolition plan is, is dead effectively, It's showing an open cavity at the base. It's leaning. It really needs to go. It's a liability at this point. In order to have any parking and access to the rear unit, which is really why we're doing it we need to have access to the unit. It's going to be a duplex. We can certainly do that by right. That tree does have to go. In a way, it's a win-win. We got to have the access. That tree is sick. It's reached near the end of its life. That is just a given in the project. Otherwise, there's a dogwood at the front of the property that is close enough that it will be impacted by the new proposed access. On that access, what's your question about or your concern about the separation? Yes, we are having to go right to the minimum of three feet from the property line. In the process of getting that access, one of the proposed requests is to remove and rebuild and improve the side porch. That porch will be shallow, partly not just because we need the space to get the access. Because we recognize that that's not a porch where people are really going to be hanging out a lot. It's really going to be in the rear. We're creating a niche between the addition and the existing where any outdoor activity is really going to be concentrated. Back to your concern along the property line. I recognize there's going to be impact during construction and beyond that. Looking at the site plan, you'll see that we're proposing two things that were intended specifically to buffer any kind of activity that happens in that backyard with respect to your property, which is what we call a living fence or a green screen element. It's a structure that's to support native climbing plants. The ones that I actually have listed in the planning schedule are plants that grow very fast and grow very dense. It's a perfect location relative to solar access. We’re coming in with additional trees to add to the buffering that you're providing under there. For what we do back there to go away or at least not be omnipresence or in your face. The overarching goal beyond the actual project itself is to be a good neighbor. Ms./Mr. Williams – Having the living fence is good visually. It has nothing to do with sound transmission. I was an environmental officer where my thing was sound/noise. The cars that are going to be parked very close to our outdoor area and our bedroom. Mr. Farley – We’re resorting to having to take up some of that space for parking. Not that I don’t like what you have in your yard. It is essentially the same condition. Ms. Williams – With four cars coming and going, it going to be very busy. 22 BAR Meeting Minutes December 15, 2020 Mr. Werner – The item before the BAR is the alterations and the changes to the house. I don’t really want to have a debate in the meeting between the applicant and neighbor. If we could get through the rest of the discussion, there are some issues that the BAR can address. Mr. Williams – The use of the land is not considered to be part of the BAR review? Mr. Schwarz – The location of parking lot can be looked at and evaluated. We can only deny it if it does not meet our guidelines. It is the same thing with the addition on the back of the house. We have to review in relation to our guidelines. We cannot review uses of the property. You bring up some points that we can look at and evaluate them based on our guidelines. QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD No Questions from the Board COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC No Comments from the Public COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Zehmer – On the south side of the elevation, we have those double stacked little balconies. There is a strong diagonal line. Is that the downspout off the porch over that second story balcony? Mr. Farley – You’re talking about the support column for the balconies that you are seeing that is on a diagonal. That’s one of the design items from the previous discussion that there was a concern about what was originally installed on a “wing wall” that projected out. There were some suggestions around potentially opening it up. We went back to ‘square one’ and rethought that. It works much better opened up architecturally. That’s an open side versus a closed wall. The column is effectively perpendicular to the slope of the site. Mr. Zehmer – The hyphen is much more successfully articulated in separated the addition from the original house. Ms. Llengel – I appreciate you addressing our comments from the last meeting. I do like the solutions you have done to the balconies. I think they look really sharp. I appreciate the more attention that you have paid to how the new attaches to the old building. Motion – Ms. Lewis – Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City’s ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed alterations and new construction satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are compatible with this property and other properties in the Oakhurst- Gildersleeve ADC District, and that the BAR approves the application as submitted. Jody Lahendro seconds. Motion passes (8-0). E. Other Business 5. Preliminary Discussion Combined Courts Parking Structure on East Market Street • There are three parcels for this proposed parking structure and in the downtown ADC District. 23 BAR Meeting Minutes December 15, 2020 • The purpose of the presentation of the introduction of the project and seeking feedback from the BAR on the design of this project. • The project is part of a memorandum of understanding between the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County from 2018 • The project will begin May 1 st in 2022 and shall have 90 spaces designated for Albemarle County Courts. • There are expected to be between 200 and 300 parking spaces with this project. • Street level commercial activity is expected with this project. • There are height limitations and sidewalk setback limitations. • The applicant is very curious as to how height is going to be measured given the slope of Market Street. • The applicant would also like to hear feedback regarding courtyards with the project. • The Lucky Seven and Guadalajara will need to be demolished and will require action by the BAR to be demolished. • Eighth Street will probably have to be abandoned and re-directed. • The purpose of the applicant meeting with the BAR is to extract as much information and feedback from the BAR. Public Comments Lyle Solla-Yates – I know the area well. It is very pedestrian friendly with a lot of connectivity. It’s one of the things that works really well here and very few other places in the city, I do encourage you to think about that very closely as you as you talk about this. This area works. It works for people on foot. There are a lot of options to keep it that working. And I'd like you to think about that. Rory Strolzenberg – Keeping in mind you know what is under your purview. I'd like to point out two things. First, I'd like to remind you about the 218 West Market Street project, where the BAR did require a pedestrian passageway through the building on a site that was not an existing Street. That is within your power to do. I think it would be a mistake to block off two blocks without any passageway in between. I can say I've been on the PLACE Design Task Force for over two years. I can't tell you how many times I've heard architects tell me about the importance of our historic tightly knit street grid. I urge you to consider that street grid and the impacts that this building will be having on it as part of that. I also urge you to go walk down to Water Street, and walk right next to that Water Street Garage. Take a look at it. See what you feel about the massing. See how you feel about the impact on the streetscape. Keep in mind that, though this garage is much smaller in that it will hold fewer than a third as many cars, the impact on the street wall and the length of the street wall will be about the same. I urge you to keep in mind as you consider this project if the city goes through with this boondoggle. • Following the public comments, the BAR provided feedback and answers to the questions asked by the applicant. • Mr. Gastinger brought up the massive long façade along Eighth Street. • This parking structure is going to be along and next to residential areas. Mr. Gastinger did emphasize the need for modulation along the façade. • There is a need to keep Eighth Street maintained as a pedestrian pathway and an alleyway behind Guadalajara to maintain pedestrian connectivity. • Members of the BAR did bring up the number of pedestrian that will be walking along Eighth Street. 24 BAR Meeting Minutes December 15, 2020 • Mr. Zehmer did bring up examples of good parking garages in Richmond for the applicant to look at for massing. • Staff also provided feedback for the applicant on this project and keeping the project pedestrian friendly. • The BAR recommended that the applicant look at the heights of adjacent structures. • The BAR provided feedback and comments on the design of the parking garage going forward. • Mr. Lahendro brought up the importance of pedestrian engagement with the building including landscape trees and canopy trees. • The applicant did thank the BAR for providing the feedback and comments 6. Staff Questions/Discussion Preservation Awards Coordinate work session for Preservation Plan Coordinate work session for lighting 7. PLACE Committee Update F. Adjournment The Meeting was adjourned at 9:23 PM. 25 BAR Meeting Minutes December 15, 2020 Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-04-01 200 West South Street, TMP 280100000 Downtown ADC District Owner: 200 South Street A Virginia Inn PA Applicant: Ross Fillman/Uhler and Co. Project: Landscaping Plan, South Street Inn Application components (please click each link to go directly to PDF page): • Staff Report • Historic Survey • Application Submittal April 20, 2021 BAR Packet 3 City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Staff Report April 20, 2021 Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-04-01 200 West South Street, TMP 280100000 Downtown ADC District Owner: 200 South Street A Virginia Inn PA Applicant: Ross Fillman/Uhler and Co. Project: Landscaping Plan, South Street Inn Background Year Built: 1856 District: Downtown ADC Status: Contributing Constructed for Thomas Jefferson Wertenbaker, the house remained a private residence until the 20th century, when it was used as a girls finishing school, a boarding house, and, possibly, as a brothel. In the 1980s, this house and neighboring 204 W. South Street were renovated and re- opened as the South Street Inn. The Greek Revival/Colonial Revival house is brick, 2-1/2-stories, with a hipped, standing-seam metal roof with two dormers. The front porch, originally only on the middle third of the north façade, was expanded as a wraparound porch between 1896 and 1907. Extension of the porch to the rear occurred sometime after the 1960s. (Historic survey attached.) Prior BAR Actions February 2020 – (BAR 20-02-01) BAR approved (6-0) removal of four trees at 108-110 W. South Street, including trees that straddled the line with 200 West South Street. BAR included the following recommendation: The applicant work with the adjacent landowner [200 West South Street] and come back to the BAR at a future date with a landscape plan that addresses the loss of vegetation and recommends the replacement of at least four trees on the site, two of which should be from Charlottesville’s Master Tree List for Large and Medium Deciduous Trees. Application • Applicant submittal: Uhler & Co. drawings for South Street Inn, dated March 15, 2021: G-2 Site Plan, Electrical Plan, and Landscape Plan, site photos (dated April 13, 2021). Cut sheet for Volt Lighting Max Spread Brass Path Lights 200 West South Street (April 14, 2020) 1 CoA request for a landscaping plan, which will satisfy the BAR’s recommendation in the February 2020 CoA approving the removal of four trees at 108-110 West South Street, including trees that straddled the parcel line with 200 West South Street. Notes: • All tree illumination will be downlighting. • Walkways to be 24 x 36 thermaled bluestone (Thermaled bluestone is cut and torched to provide a flat, non-slip surface.) • New fireplace at rear courtyard will be painted brick to match the inn with thermaled bluestone caps. • Pathway lighting to be Volt Lighting Max Spread Brass Path Lights. They are 2,700K and will be dimmable. Discussion Staff recommends approval as a Consent Agenda item. Suggested Motions Approval: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City Design Guidelines for Site Design, I move to find that the proposed landscaping plan for 200 West South 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 and with the condition that any new, exterior lighting will have lamping that is dimmable, have a Color Temperature not to exceed 3,000K, and have a Color Rendering Index that is not less than 80, preferably not less than 90. […with the following modifications/conditions…] Denial: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City Design Guidelines for Rehabilitations, I move to find that the proposed landscaping plan for 200 West South Street does not satisfy the BAR’s criteria and is not compatible with this property and other properties in the Downtown ADC District, and that for the following reasons the BAR denies the application as submitted: … 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; 200 West South Street (April 14, 2020) 2 (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: 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. 200 West South Street (April 14, 2020) 3 signed copy of application and one digital copy of the drawings 200 South Street A Virginia Inn PA Ross Fillman South Street Inn Landscaping Plan 280100000 200 West South Street Uhler & Company, 7957 Plank Rd Afton Va, 22920 (434) 547-0320, ross@uhlerandcompany.com N/A Landscaping at the South Street Inn Uhler & Co. drawings for South Street Inn, dated March 15, 2021: G-2 Site Plan, Electrical Plan, and Landscape Plan DATE BY DESCRIPTION NO. UP TRENCH DRAIN D/P CONCRETE D/P D/ D/P P City Engineer NDS Director D/ D/P TRENCH DRAIN P PEA GRAVEL D/ D/P P D/ P D/ P D/P D/ P D/ P LIVING AREA D/ 1554 SQ FT D/P P D/ DN P OPEN BELOW DRAIN PIPE D/P D/P D/P D/ P D/ G P / P/ P D/ DD P G /P Tree Illumination Tree Illumination D G G D/ P D/ D/P P G D/P D/ /P P G-2 Site Plan D G D/ G P , D/ 25' P D/P D/ G P G G Nat. Gas Conn. Nat. Gas Conn. for Heater for Heater D/ P G Nat. Gas Conn. for Heater Nat. Gas Conn. for Heater 4.5% MAX GRADE D/P D/ G P G G CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22901 20' Tree Illumination D/ P G Tree Illumination 200 & 204 SOUTH STREET 10' D/P D/ P G South Street Inn Nat. Gas Conn. for Gas Logs 12' Existing Cooling Tower GRAVEL DRAINAGE PIT 20' X 12' X 6.5' Uhler & Company Afton Va,22920 7957 Plank Rd DATE: 3/15/21 1st Floor SCALE: 1" : 10' SHEET: DATE BY DESCRIPTION NO. Leave all existing landscaping UP TRENCH DRAIN CONCRETE 204 SOUTH STREET City Engineer NDS Director 79' TRENCH DRAIN PEA GRAVEL LIVING AREA 1554 SQ FT DN OPEN BELOW 10'-9" 84 SQ FT Parking GAS GAS LANTERN LANTERN 3'-11 1/4" 3'-6" 9' Parking 8' 8' 68' 2'-6" TESLA CHARGER 17' 2'-8" 17'-2" 5'-8 1/2" 17' 3'-3" Electrical Plan 9'-9 13/16" Parking 8'-7 3/4" 12' 12' , 2'-8" Nat. Gas Conn. Nat. Gas Conn. for Heater 2'-8" for Heater Parking 17' Nat. Gas Conn. for Heater TESLA CHARGER Existing Holly 48' Parking CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22901 200 & 204 SOUTH STREET 21'-6" 5' South Street Inn 1'-10" 1'-10" 11 1/2" Parking Parking Parking Parking Nat. Gas Conn. for Gas Logs 1'-8" TESLA CHARGER TESLA CHARGER Uhler & Company Afton Va,22920 7957 Plank Rd DATE: 3/15/21 SCALE: 1" : 10' 1st Floor SHEET: DATE BY DESCRIPTION EXISTING BOXWOOD EXISTING BOXWOOD NO. Leave all existing landscaping PLANT LIST : CLOUD 9 DOGWOOD GREEN VELVET BOXWOOD LIMELIGHT HYDRANGEA FLARE FLARE FLARE BLOODGOOD JAPANESE MAPLE UP FLARE FLARE ENCORE AZELEA 16 CANDLES CLERTHRA EXISTING TREE EXISTING CAMELLIA EXISTING CAMELLIA EXISTING CAMELLIA EXISTING CAMELLIA EXISTING CAMELLIA EXISTING CAMELLIA EXISTING CAMELLIA EXISTING CAMELLIA EXISTING CAMELLIA FLARE RED TIPPED PHOTINIA DOGWOOD TRENCH DRAIN LIRIOPE ENCORE AZALEA GREEN GIANT THUJA CONCRETE ENCORE AZALEA FLARE 204 SOUTH STREET ENCORE AZALEA City Engineer NDS Director ENCORE AZALEA Plant Bed 79' FLARE Driveway ENCORE AZALEA TRENCH DRAIN ENCORE AZALEA PEA GRAVEL ENCORE AZALEA FLARE ENCORE AZALEA ENCORE AZALEA FLARE ENCORE AZALEA ENCORE AZALEA GROUNDCOVER LIVING AREA 1554 SQ FT ENCORE AZALEA FLARE DN OPEN BELOW 17'-3" X 4'-11" 10'-9" ELECTRIC METER 84 SQ FT 84 SQ FT Parking GAS GAS EXISTING CLIMBERS EXISTING CLIMBERS LANTERN LANTERN FLARE 3'-11 1/4" GAS METER 3'-6" 9' GREEN VELVET BOXWOOD PATH FLARE GREEN VELVET GREEN VELVET GREEN VELVETFLARE FLAREBOXWOOD 16 CANDLES 16 CANDLES 16 CANDLES 16 CANDLES 16 CANDLES 16 CANDLES 16 CANDLES BOXWOOD 16 CANDLES 16 CANDLES 16 CANDLES 16 CANDLES 16 CANDLES 16 CANDLES 16 CANDLES BOXWOOD CLETHRA CLETHRA CLETHRA CLETHRA CLETHRA CLETHRA CLETHRA CLETHRA CLETHRA CLETHRA CLETHRA CLETHRA CLETHRA CLETHRA RED TIPPED PHOTINIA Tree Illumination Tree Illumination GREEN VELVET 615834 Parking BOXWOOD GREEN VELVET GREEN VELVET GREEN VELVET 8' LIRIOPE BOXWOOD BOXWOOD BOXWOOD PINK DOGWOOD LIRIOPE PINK DOGWOOD STEEL 2 8' LANDSCAPE PLAN STEEL 2 STEEL 2 RED TIPPED PHOTINIA 68' 2'-6" GREEN VELVET GREEN VELVET GREEN VELVET FLARE CL Single Door in Building Next Door GREEN VELVET BOXWOOD STEEL DINING 2 TABLE TESLA CHARGER BOXWOOD BOXWOOD BOXWOOD 17' 2'-8" FLARE FLARE 17'-2" 5'-8 1/2" 17' 3'-3" GREEN VELVET BOXWOOD FLARE FLARE 586134 586134 586134 586134 GREEN VELVET GREEN VELVET GREEN VELVET 9'-9 13/16" , PATH GREEN VELVET BOXWOOD Parking BOXWOOD BOXWOOD BOXWOOD STEEL 2 8'-7 3/4" STEEL 2 STEEL 2 STEEL 2 TABLE TABLE TABLE RED TIPPED PHOTINIA TABLE 2 STEEL 2 STEEL 2 2 2 STEEL 2 STEEL STEEL 2 12' 12' STEEL STEEL STEEL 2 DINING DINING DINING DINING GREEN VELVET STEEL 2 STEEL 2 STEEL 2 SMALL SUV BOXWOOD STEEL 2 GREEN VELVET GREEN VELVET GREEN VELVET BOXWOOD BOXWOOD BOXWOOD 25' RED TIPPED PHOTINIA GREEN VELVET GREEN VELVET BOXWOOD GREEN VELVET BOXWOOD PATIO HEATER BOXWOOD GREEN VELVET PATIO HEATER BOXWOOD 2'-8" Nat. Gas Conn. GREEN VELVET Nat. Gas Conn. for Heater GREEN VELVET 2'-8" BOXWOOD GREEN VELVET BOXWOOD FLARE for Heater GREEN VELVET GREEN VELVET BOXWOOD FLARE Parking GREEN VELVET GREEN VELVET GREEN VELVET BOXWOOD BOXWOOD FLARE BOXWOOD BOXWOOD BOXWOOD RED TIPPED PHOTINIA 17' LIRIOPE GREEN VELVET BOXWOOD PATH GREEN VELVET Nat. Gas Conn. BOXWOOD GREEN VELVET BOXWOOD for Heater IR TESLA CHARGER C H A A H IR C Nat. Gas Conn. LIRIOPE for Heater PATIO HEATER PATIO HEATER GREEN VELVET 4.5% MAX GRADE BOXWOOD EXISTING HOLLY GREEN VELVET BOXWOOD GREEN VELVET BOXWOOD Existing Holly CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22901 48' GREEN VELVET BOXWOOD GREEN VELVET 200 & 204 SOUTH STREET BOXWOOD GREEN VELVET BOXWOOD Parking 84" SOFA 84" SOFA 20' GREEN VELVET BOXWOOD Tree Illumination Tree Illumination 21'-6" GREEN VELVET BOXWOOD GREEN VELVET BOXWOOD BLOODGOOD JAPANESE MAPLE BLOODGOOD JAPANESE MAPLE LIMELIGHT HYDRANGEA GREEN VELVET BOXWOOD PATH 10' South Street Inn GREEN VELVET BOXWOOD GREEN VELVET BOXWOOD End of Building GREEN VELVET BOXWOOD 5' IR C H A A H IR C LIMELIGHT GREEN VELVET HYDRANGEA BOXWOOD GREEN VELVET BOXWOOD 1'-10" GREEN VELVET 1'-10" 11 1/2" BOXWOOD THUJA GREEN GIANT Parking Parking Parking Parking Loading Zone GREEN VELVET BOXWOOD Nat. Gas Conn. GREEN VELVET for Gas Logs NAT. GAS FIREPLACE BOXWOOD 12' GREEN VELVET 1'-8" BOXWOOD LIMELIGHT HYDRANGEA LIMELIGHT HYDRANGEA Existing Cooling Tower LIMELIGHT HYDRANGEA LIMELIGHT HYDRANGEA GREEN VELVET BOXWOOD LIMELIGHT HYDRANGEA LIMELIGHT PATH HYDRANGEA THUJA GREEN GIANT LIMELIGHT HYDRANGEA LIMELIGHT HYDRANGEA THUJA GREEN GIANT LIMELIGHT HYDRANGEA LIMELIGHT THUJA GREEN GIANT HYDRANGEA LIMELIGHT HYDRANGEA THUJA GREEN GIANT THUJA GREEN GIANT JANE MAGNOLIA THUJA GREEN GIANT THUJA GREEN GIANT TESLA CHARGER THUJA GREEN GIANT Uhler & Company THUJA GREEN GIANT TESLA CHARGER THUJA GREEN GIANT THUJA GREEN GIANT THUJA GREEN GIANT THUJA GREEN GIANT THUJA GREEN GIANT THUJA GREEN GIANT Afton Va,22920 7957 Plank Rd THUJA GREEN GIANT DATE: 3/15/21 SCALE: 1st Floor 1" : 10' SHEET: Project Name_________________ _ Date_ _ _ _ _ _ �i-J PRODUCT SPECIFICATIONS Type or Model _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _Qty _ _____ II '1 VOLT® Low Voltage Landscape Lighting Max Spread Path & Area Lights - 330 Series Product Description The Max Spread Path ft Area Light is a high-quality outdoor light that lives up to its name. Featuring a tall stem and large flat hat, the luminaire projects an extra-wide beam of illumination with a diameter of about 16 ft. This allows you to use fewer lights to illuminate a path or garden area. Corrosion-resistant internal components and an easy-to• change bulb socket-and-enclosure ensure years of optimal performance. Lifetime Warranty. I Product Dimensions I �---,9•-----i �.. I Specifications t Construction: Solid Brass or Solid Raw Copper t Finish: Bronze, Powder Coated Black or Raw Copper t Lead Wire: 4' (standard) or 25' (optional) 18AWG n 1n" t Mounting: 10" Hammer'" Stake with cutout for wire exit t Lens: Clear Protective Polycarbonate lens t Light Source (sold separately): Bi·Pin (LED or Halogen) t Operating Voltage: 12V AC t Powered by: VOLT's Low Voltage Transformer I Features & Benefits I Warranty Lifetime Warranty I Certifications t Solid Brass or Copper Construction. t Pre aged patina or powder coated finish. t Stem is 1-inch thick and includes extra-long (1-inch) strip resistant threading for greater stability. t Beryllium copper socket · more corrosion resistant than M112owans c@ Max 20 wans copper. LISTED File #E466348 llSTl.0 File #£466348 t Silicone plug at lead wire exit prevents ground moisture and insects from entering luminaire through the stem. t Machine threaded body screws tight onto an O·ring for a moisture tight design. © Copyright 2021, VOLT" Lighting, Lutz, FL USA 33549• All rights reserved• 813.978.3700 www.voltlighting.com VOLT® 3W G4 LED Bi-Pin 2700K Bulb (20W Halogen Replacement) • Replaces 20 Watt Halogen G4 Bi-Pin Bulb • Bulb Type G4 Bi-Pin Lamp • Lumens: 300 • Energy Consumption: 3 watts • Color Temperature: 2700k (Warm White) • Color Rendering Index (CRI): 80-85 • Light Source: 33 SMD 2835 LED • Lifespan: 40,000 hours • Warranty: Lifetime Warranty • Made for use in damp locations • Conformal coating on circuit boards to prevent corrosion and water damage • ETL & UL Listed In stock G4-20-27 Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-04-02 16 Elliewood Avenue, TMP 090097000 The Corner ADC District Owner: Elliewood Entertainment, Inc. Applicant: Anderson McClure/Biltmore Grill Project: Patio pavilion, Biltmore Grill Application components (please click each link to go directly to PDF page): • Staff Report • Historic Survey • Application Submittal April 20, 2021 BAR Packet 4 City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Staff Report April 20, 2021 Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-04-02 16 Elliewood Avenue, TMP 090097000 The Corner ADC District Owner: Elliewood Entertainment, Inc. Applicant: Anderson McClure/Biltmore Grill Project: Patio pavilion, Biltmore Grill Background Year Built: #16: 1947; #16-1/2: 1930-1950 District: The Corner ADC District Status: Contributing 16 ½ Elliewood, originally a dwelling known as the Bruce House. Constructed of concrete block with brick trim. Rear service area was enclosed in 1980. The pergola/trellis built in 1981. A two- story rear addition built in 1994. The front addition built prior to 1996. The rooftop terrace added in 2001. 16 ½ Elliewood is a wood-frame structure, possibly built as an outbuilding. Prior BAR Reviews See Appendix Application • Submittal: Photos and plan of existing conditions and proposed pavilion, 7 sheets: CoA for the construction of a 20-ft x 30-ft open pavilion at the front patio, NE corner of the parcel. Pavilion to be stained, wood framing with a flat, corrugated-metal roof. Discussion Recommend approval on Consent Agenda. Staff finds the concept, design, and materials for the proposed pavilion to be consistent with the design guidelines and appropriate for a street that is dominated by bars and restaurants with similar, outdoor venues. 16 Elliewood Ave. - Pavilion (April 14, 2021) 1 Suggested Motions Approval: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed pavilion at 16 Elliewood Avenue satisfies the BAR’s criteria and is compatible with this property and other properties in the Corner ADC District, and that the BAR approves the application as submitted[.] [… as submitted with the following modifications…] Denial: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed pavilion at 16 Elliewood Avenue does not satisfy the BAR’s criteria and is not compatible with this property and other properties in the Corner ADC District, and that for the following reasons the BAR denies the application as submitted: Criteria, Standards and Guidelines Review Criteria Generally Sec. 34-284(b) of the City Code states that, in considering a particular application the BAR shall approve the application unless it finds: (1) That the proposal does not meet specific standards set forth within this division or applicable provisions of the Design Guidelines established by the board pursuant to Sec.34-288(6); and (2) The proposal is incompatible with the historic, cultural or architectural character of the district in which the property is located or the protected property that is the subject of the application. Pertinent Standards for Review of Construction and Alterations include: (1) Whether the material, texture, color, height, scale, mass and placement of the proposed addition, modification or construction are visually and architecturally compatible with the site and the applicable design control district; (2) The harmony of the proposed change in terms of overall proportion and the size and placement of entrances, windows, awnings, exterior stairs and signs; (3) The Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation set forth within the Code of Federal Regulations (36 C.F.R. §67.7(b)), as may be relevant; (4) The effect of the proposed change on the historic district neighborhood; (5) The impact of the proposed change on other protected features on the property, such as gardens, landscaping, fences, walls and walks; (6) Whether the proposed method of construction, renovation or restoration could have an adverse impact on the structure or site, or adjacent buildings or structures; (7) Any applicable provisions of the City’s Design Guidelines. Pertinent Standards for Site Design and Elements G. Garages, Sheds, & Other Structures 1) Retain existing historic garages, outbuildings, and site features in their original locations. 2) If it is acceptable to relocate a secondary structure, locate it in such a way that it remains consistent with the general pattern of outbuildings to the main structure. (See Chapter 7 C. Moving Historic Structures.) 3) Choose designs for new outbuildings that are compatible with the major buildings on the site. 4) Take clues and scale from older outbuildings in the area. 5) Use traditional roof slopes and traditional materials. 6) Place new outbuildings behind the dwelling. 16 Elliewood Ave. - Pavilion (April 14, 2021) 2 7) If the design complements the main building however, it can be visible from primary elevations or streets. 8) The design and location of any new site features should relate to the existing character of the property. APPENDIX Prior BAR Actions June 16, 2009 - BAR accepted (6-0) applicant’s deferral for the construction of a new patio. BAR asked for a more formal site plan and more-detailed architectural information on the proposed fence, deck, railing, and bar. The BAR suggested the applicant rethink the decking at the garden space and suggest alternatives. July 21, 2009 - BAR approved CoA for the patio as submitted (6-0-1, Gardner abstained) including the potential alternative of eliminating the deck and skewing the orientation of the bar, and with the provisions that the section of landscape immediately in front of the restaurant have mulch rather than gravel and be maintained as a planted garden rather than porous seating area, and that the fence enclosure for the new crushed stone patio area (16 ½ Elliewood) be studied and resubmitted with a design that will increase visibility between the patrons and the sidewalk. Both items should be resubmitted for administrative approval by staff—subsequently approved August 17, 2009. November 15, 2011 - BAR denied CoA for two seasonal tents in the side yard for the winter season (November 1 - February 28). The larger tent would be 30 ft by 30 ft; smaller tent would be 9 ft by 20 ft. Application denied as submitted (6-3, Graves, DeLoach, and Coiner opposed) because it does not meet the Design Guidelines. Later in the meeting the BAR, the BAR reversed the denial and approved (7-1-1, Osteen opposed, Hogg recused) a temporary grace period (through March 15, 2012) for all temporary tent requests, by which the CoA for the two seasonal tents was effectively approved, with the understanding that these tents are temporary until the Spring of 2012, allowing the BAR time to better define the Design Guidelines for structures not considered temporary (i.e., 7 days or less) when they occupy a site or are attached to a building within a design control district. December 18, 2012 – Approved CoA for a 25 x 25 ft. seasonal tent in the side yard for the winter season (6-1, Miller opposed) as submitted. August 20, 2013 – BAR deferred action (7-1, Graves opposed) for one month to request a more detailed resolution of the design: detailed landscape plan; railing alternative; address the length and massiveness of deck. September 17, 2013 - Approved (9-0) deck as submitted. The BAR preferred Option C (all six- board fencing), with a final landscape review by Mary Joy Scala and Laura Knott to incorporate more vertical, sustainable plantings. November 19, 2013 – Approved (7-0) CoA for a seasonal tent. 16 Elliewood Ave. - Pavilion (April 14, 2021) 3 Board of Architectural Review (BAR) Certificate of Appropriateness Please Return To: City ofChar!ottesvale Department of Neighborllood 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 fonn 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 BAl1 meeting by 3:30 p.m. Owner Name clh-t. W1c/ ,&11-er-fr,.,/l /1'1)_.f .J;,cApplicant Name 7k lh/1� - 19n Project Name/Description 81 '/f /110,r(f /2v' .1/J� Parcel Number___________ Project Property Address /rf fl/le WtJ.1A � (v;/&. Signature of Applicant Applicant Information Address: 'l{)8' IJ e./f"v>,,_f /Jr! I hereby attest that the information I have provided is, to the be,t ,ct Email: VYZ ,a ·n >(/! '7-2 ,:o� fn?e,.{t,4& '5r"lAI�U.N'\ � 7-2-2/ Phone: (W) - (C) '/J /-'fl/��?Kl l Signa re Date tzs- t7'8J /J;.,A'cDa.,,, /1'1 cfj {t 9�ox '{lo Property Owner Permission (if not applicant) I have read this application and hereby give my consent to ,1,...,,91,-e_jri.1A,-edl,(, w:; Email: 0 Phone: (W) _______ (C) ______ ffJl./-'I ()}- '33 J3 Date Do you intend to apply for�eral or State Tax Credits for this project? -------�"---=- tJ_____ Print Name 1--1-11 Date Description of Proposed Woric: (attach separate narrative if necessary): So /4J noP t>{JJY) r /Vr I,14'n·b',..,, List All Auachments (see reverse side for submittr»I requirements): For Off"1ee Us. Only Approved/Disapproved by: _________ Received by: ________ ___ Date: ________________ Fee paid: _____Cash/Ck.# ____ Conditions of approval: ___________ Date Received: ___________ Revised 2016 16 Elliewood: New pavilion (April 20, 2021) Page 1 of 7 Conceptual only: General structure and metal roofing; no curtains . (See detailed sketches in following pages.) 16 Elliewood: New pavilion (April 20, 2021) Page 2 of 7 Existing trellis Biltmore Grill Gravel patio Existing structures French drain in patio gravel 20-ft x 30-ft pavilion Screening trees at 20 Elliewood 16 Elliewood: New pavilion (April 20, 2021) Page 3 of 7 Existing trellis Pavilion framing to be similar to existing trellis Stain color to match (dark brown) Install drip edge at east Rafters notched into beam. (low) edge of roof No exposed, metal rafter ties. From side Angled bracing Facing Elliewood (both side of posts) Pavilion framing—modified from existing trellis detail Not to scale. For concept only. 16 Elliewood: New pavilion (April 20, 2021) Page 4 of 7 Existing trellis (from Elliewood) Biltmore GrillExisting (from Elliewood) trellis 16 Elliewood: New pavilion (April 20, 2021) Page 5 of 7 Existing patio Approx location of pavilion Screening trees at 20 Elliewood Existing patio (from Elliewood) 16 Elliewood: New pavilion (April 20, 2021) Page 6 of 7 Existing patio (from Elliewood) Screening trees at 20 Elliewood Approx location of pavilion Existing patio (from Elliewood) Existing structures at patio (to remain) 16 Elliewood: New pavilion (April 20, 2021) Page 7 of 7 9, 11, and 12 Elliewood (2017 Google Street View) 17 and 19 Elliewood (from Biltmore Grill patio) 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: Construct canopy for dining area Application components (please click each link to go directly to PDF page): • Staff Report • Historic Survey • Application Submittal April 20, 2021 BAR Packet 5 City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Staff Report April 20, 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 at front dining patio 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)). March 16, 2021 – BAR accepted applicants request to defer action on the proposed canopy. Application • Submittal: TOPIA design drawings New canopy, 420 W. Main Street, dated April 20, 2021: Sheets 1 through 28. CoA request for the construction of a metal canopy at the front (north) elevation. From the applicant’s submittal: 420 West Main (April 14, 2021) 1 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. Refinements following the March 2021 BAR discussion: The proposed canopy has a slimmer overall profile--with a thinner fascia and simpler structure. The existing building expands its yellow color--on the original canopy and the raised metal building band- to better define and accentuate it. The new silver gray canopy is lower and set back from the existing canopy to be a subordinate and complementary. The new canopy edge is thinner with a 9-1/2” high custom angled box gutter on a 10” c- channel. The previous fascia was 13” high with a 12” c-channel and 1” of flashing, with a concealed gutter. The slimming created an external gutter/fascia that has a slant the same angle as the columns. The fascia profile remains horizontal/level, with an internal sloped gutter leading to a downspout at the building’s northwest corner, which is white in color to blend in. In thinning and simplifying the canopy a noticeable W8 I-beam--that spanned (east west) from the existing W8 (that bears on the existing two columns)--was decoupled and removed, with the three new columns now going directly to the new canopy’s primary W10 I-beams (north south). For improved lighting and ventilation two large industrial style fans are under the canopy with strong but dimmable LED lights that meets the BAR lighting criteria. String lights complement. The W-8’s of the new canopy are connected/welded directly to the C-channel of the existing canopy. Then blocking is added between the W8’s. A ceiling soffit conceals the 2’ area where the existing and new structural members intersect. The color matches existing the warm light gray. 420 West Main (April 14, 2021) 2 No seasonal enclosures (clear walls) are being proposed. Discussion and Recommendation This building currently contributes to the West Main Street district, which has a history of automobile-related businesses. It has been modified over the years—from a service station to a restaurant. While the canopy is aesthetically consistent with the current expression of the building’s architecture, it is still an addition to 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. Note from the applicant, April 12, 2021 re: connection of the new canopy to the existing façade. The W-8’s of the new canopy are connected/welded directly to the C-channel of the existing canopy. Then blocking is added between the W8’s. The structural engineer needs the new W8’s to effectively span to the existing interior W10, indirectly in this case. So the new W8’s will be cut and welded to the existing C-channel, with blocking in between to clean it up and give the appearance the BAR member speaks of. Then, on the inside of the existing c-channel, there will be connecting structure to the existing W10, designed by the structural engineer (W8's as default) and all concealed by the new ceiling/soffit. This should have the same exterior appearance as the method described by the BAR member, which we feel is cleaner looking and helps to further differentiate the new from existing. The roofer, Jack Masloff of Lynch Roofing Co., is planning on using membrane flashing for the poly roofing. There may be a combination of metal flashing and adhesive membrane tape, with no ripping necessary. The architect, me, is requiring the roof flashing to be installed with as minimum and clean lines as possible, with appearance in consideration. We are using white flashing, compatible with the white roof. I’m happy to meet with the roofer to develop further details/specifics on the flashing, if desired. 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 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:… 420 West Main (April 14, 2021) 3 Criteria, Standards and Guidelines Review Criteria Generally Sec. 34-284(b) of the City Code states that, in considering a particular application, the BAR shall approve the application unless it finds: (1) That the proposal does not meet specific standards set forth within this division or applicable provisions of the Design Guidelines established by the board pursuant to Sec.34-288(6); and (2) The proposal is incompatible with the historic, cultural or architectural character of the district in which the property is located or the protected property that is the subject of the application. Pertinent Standards for Review of Construction and Alterations (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 The following guidelines will help to determine what is worth saving and what should be rebuilt. 1) Conduct pictorial research to determine the design of the original building or early changes. 2) Conduct exploratory demolition to determine what original fabric remains and its condition. 3) Remove any inappropriate materials, signs, or canopies covering the façade. 4) Retain all elements, materials, and features that are original to the building or are contextual remodelings, and repair as necessary. 5) Restore as many original elements as possible, particularly the materials, windows, decorative details, and cornice. 6) When designing new building elements, base the design on the “Typical elements of a commercial façade and storefront.” 7) Reconstruct missing or original elements, such as cornices, windows, and storefronts, if documentation is available. 8) Design new elements that respect the character, materials, and design of the building, yet are distinguished from the original building. 9) Depending on the existing building’s age, originality of the design and architectural significance, in some cases there may be an opportunity to create a more contemporary façade design when undertaking a renovation project. 10) Avoid using materials that are incompatible with the building or within the specific districts, including textured wood siding, vinyl or aluminum siding, and pressure-treated wood, Avoid introducing inappropriate architectural elements where they never previously existed. 420 West Main (April 14, 2021) 4 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 (April 14, 2021) 5 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 N E W M E T A L C A N O P Y F O R O U T S I D E D I N I N G P R O J E C T B R I E F - text from 3/16/21 BAR meeting 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. R E F I N E M E N T S - text for 4/20/21 BAR meeting The proposed canopy has a slimmer overall profile - with a thinner fascia and simpler structure. The existing building expands it’s yellow color -on the original canopy and the raised metal building band- to better define and accentuate it. The new silver gray canopy is lower and set back from the existing canopy to be a subordinate and complementary. The new canopy edge is thinner with a 9 1/2” high custom angled box gutter on a 10” c-channel. The previous fascia was 13” high with a 12” c-channel and 1” of flashing, with a concealed gutter. The slimming created an external gutter/fascia that has a slant the same angle as the columns. The fascia profile remains horizontal/level, with an internal sloped gutter leading to a downspout at the building’s northwest corner, which is white in color to blend in. In thinning and simplifying the canopy a noticeable W8 I-beam -that spanned (east west) from the existing W8 (that bears on the existing two columns)- was decoupled and removed, with the three new columns now going directly to the new canopy’s primary W10 I-beams (north south). For improved lighting and ventilation two large industrial style fans are under the canopy with strong but dimmable LED lights that meets the BAR lighting criteria. String lights complement. The W-8’s of the new canopy are connected/welded directly to the C-channel of the existing canopy. Then blocking is added between the W8’s. A ceiling soffit conceals the 2’ area where the existing and new structural members intersect. The color matches existing the warm light gray. No seasonal enclosures (clear walls) are being proposed. 420 W. MAIN STREET NEW CANOPY INTRODUCTION TOPIA design 04.20.2021 1/28 VIEW OF NORTHEAST CORNER FROM W. MAIN STREET NORTH SIDEWALK VIEW OF NORTHWEST CORNER FROM W. MAIN STREET NORTH BIKE LANE MAIN STREET 420 W. NEW CANOPY CONTEXT TOPIA design 02.23.2021 2/28 NORTHEAST CORNER NORTH FACADE MAIN STREET 420 W. NEW CANOPY EXISTING TOPIA design 04.20.2021 3/28 NORTH FACADE WITH TEMPORARY TENT NORTHWEST FACADE WITH TEMPORARY TENT 420 W. MAIN STREET NEW CANOPY EXISTING TOPIA design 04.20.2021 4/28 NORTHEAST VIEW 420 W. MAIN STREET NEW CANOPY PROPOSED TOPIA design 04.20.2021 5/28 NORTH FACADE NORTHEAST VIEW 420 W. MAIN STREET NEW CANOPY PROPOSED TOPIA design 04.20.2021 6/28 NORTHEAST VIEW 420 W. MAIN STREET NEW CANOPY PROPOSED TOPIA design 04.20.2021 7/28 NORTHEAST VIEW 420 W. MAIN STREET NEW CANOPY PROPOSED TOPIA design 04.20.2021 8/28 NORTH FACADE 420 W. MAIN STREET NEW CANOPY PROPOSED TOPIA design 04.20.2021 9/28 NORTH FACADE 420 W. MAIN STREET NEW CANOPY SPECIFICS TOPIA design 04.20.2021 10/28 NORTH FACADE 420 W. MAIN STREET NEW CANOPY PROPOSED TOPIA design 04.20.2021 11/28 NORTHWEST VIEW 420 W. MAIN STREET NEW CANOPY PROPOSED TOPIA design 04.20.2021 12/28 NORTHWEST VIEW 420 W. MAIN STREET NEW CANOPY PROPOSED TOPIA design 04.20.2021 13/28 NORTHWEST VIEW 420 W. MAIN STREET NEW CANOPY PROPOSED TOPIA design 04.20.2021 14/28 NORTH VIEW 420 W. MAIN STREET NEW CANOPY PROPOSED TOPIA design 04.20.2021 15/28 WEST VIEW 420 W. MAIN STREET NEW CANOPY PROPOSED TOPIA design 04.20.2021 16/28 NORTH ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION 420 W. MAIN STREET NEW CANOPY ELEVATIONS TOPIA design 04.20.2021 17/28 NORTH ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION 420 W. MAIN STREET NEW CANOPY ELEVATIONS TOPIA design 04.20.2021 18/28 NORTH SECTION 10" 9" 11'-6" WEST SECTION 420 W. MAIN STREET NEW CANOPY DRAWINGS TOPIA design 04.20.2021 19/28 column column column downspout FIRST FLOOR PLAN 420 W. MAIN STREET NEW CANOPY DRAWINGS TOPIA design 04.20.2021 20/28 22 3 A-301 A-301 A-200 38'-6 1/2" 20'-3" 1'-4 1/2" 12'-8" 12'-8" 11'-9" 2'-4" 15'-7" 2'-4" 4'-10" fascia/gutter W8 5'-1/2" 22 W10 W10 W10 2 3' A-301 A-301 A-301 column column column 3' W8 2 A-301 3' fascia/gutter 30'-1" 25'-1 1/2" 3' W8 soffit/ceiling 3' fan/light 3' W8 8'-3 3/4" W10 W10 W10 3' 3 A-200 33 A-200 A-200 3' downspout W8 8'-3 1/4" 2 A-300 8'-3 1/4" 8'-3 1/4" 11'-4 1/4" 22 A-301 A-301 FRAMING PLAN 420 W. MAIN STREET NEW CANOPY DRAWINGS TOPIA design 04.20.2021 21/28 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 1 NEW CANOPY 2 3 STRUCTURAL 4 TOPIA 5 design 6 7 04.20.2021 22/28 54'-10" 12'-8" 12'-8" 14'-0" 2'-0" 11'-6" 2'-0" 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 29'-11" B 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 04.20.2021 23/28 420 W. MAIN STREET NEW CANOPY VIEWS TOPIA design 04.20.2021 24/28 MAIN STREET 420 W. NEW CANOPY SPECIFICS, COLORS TOPIA design 04.20.2021 25/28 5” poly roof at 1% slope STEEL FRAMING - SILVER GRAY .5” 4” gutter W8 9.5” C10 W10 80 ROOF DECKING - WHITE POLYCARBONATE .5” 3.5” 4’-6” column plate SECTION DIAGRAM OF CANOPY EDGE Custom tapered metal fascia mounted level with internal sloped gutter. CEILING FAN WITH LIGHT -SILVER ALUMINUM STRING LIGHTS - DIMMABLE MULTICOLOR CEILING FAN/LIGHT - 110” Minka Aire Geant Aluminum Outdoor LED. Aluminum finish motor. Eight silver finish aluminum blades. Polycarbonate lens frosted glass. Integrated 40 watt dimmable LED light. 2417 lumens, comparable to a 150 watt incandescent. 3000K color temperature. 94 CRI. (or similar fan/light.) MAIN STREET 420 W. NEW CANOPY SPECIFICS, COLORS TOPIA design 04.20.2021 26/28 NORTHWEST - CANOPY WEST - CANOPY NORTHWEST - PREVIOUS WEST - PREVIOUS 420 W. MAIN STREET NEW CANOPY COMPARISON TOPIA design 04.20.2021 27/28 NORTH - CANOPY NORTHWEST - CANOPY NORTH - PREVIOUS NORTHWEST - PREVIOUS NORTH - EXIST NORTHWEST - EXIST 420 W. MAIN STREET NEW CANOPY COMPARISON TOPIA design 04.20.2021 28/28 Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-04-04 517 Rugby Road, TMP 050046000 Rugby Road-University Circle-Venable ADC District Owner: Alumni of Alpha Mu, Inc Applicant: Garett Rouzer/Dalgliesh Gilpin Paxton Architects Project: Alterations to fraternity house Application components (please click each link to go directly to PDF page): • Staff Report • Historic Survey • Application Submittal April 20, 2021 BAR Packet 6 City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Staff Report April 20, 2021 Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-04-04 517 Rugby Road, TMP 050046000 Rugby Road-University Circle-Venable ADC District Owner: Alumni of Alpha Mu, Inc Applicant: Garett Rouzer/Dalgliesh Gilpin Paxton Architects Project: Alterations to fraternity house Background Year Built: c1910 District: Rugby Road - University Circle - Venable Neighborhood ADC District Status: Contributing. (The house is also a contributing structure to the Rugby Road - University Corner Historic District - VLR 1983, NRHP 1984.) Constructed as a private residence, this 2-1/2 story, Colonial Revival houses is one of the few in the district covered entirely with wood shingles. (However, it is reported that the house originally had clapboard siding, which may exist below the shingles.) The house features a symmetrical, three-bay front façade with a hipped roof and a front, hipped dormer with latticed casement windows. On the side (south) façade is a two-story bay, on the front (east) facade is a center bay, distyle porch with attenuated Roman Doric columns and a hipped roof. The entrance door features geometrically glazed sidelights and an elliptical, fan-light transom. In the 1964, the house transitioned to a fraternity house, as it is currently used. (Historic survey attached.) Prior BAR Actions April 2014 – BAR (7-0). Front wood deck: Determined the enlargement of the decks on east elevation (front façade of building) is not appropriate; the proposed azek deck railing is not approved as proposed; the existing porches may be retained and repaired as an alternative. House: the wooden corner boards must be retained and repaired and not replaced with azek; the proposed front door design and materials are appropriate; replacing the railroad tie retaining wall with a parged concrete wall is acceptable; and the materials and configuration of the proposed windows is consistent with the guidelines (but the dormer windows will be retained). http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/622174/BAR_517%20Rugby%20Road_April2014.pdf 517 Rugby Road (April 14, 2021) 1 Records indicate this CoA may have been extended to October 15, 2016. Application • Submittal: Dalgliesh Gilpin Paxton Architects drawings for Delta Sigma Phi - University of Virginia, dated 3/30/2021: BAR-1 through BAR-5 (5 sheets) and three sheets with photographs. CoA request for construction of a rear addition, removal of the existing front porch, and constructing a new front porch. Discussion and Recommendations Note: While this a formal CoA request, due to the estimated cost of the addition, a preliminary discussion is required. The BAR may decide to take action on the porch request independent of the addition; however, the resubmittal for the addition would then be treated as a separate CoA, requiring a new application and the related fee. Regarding the proposed addition: During a preliminary discussion the BAR may, by consensus, express an opinion about the project as presented. (For example, the BAR might express consensus support for elements of the project, such as its scale and massing.) Such comments will not constitute a formal motion and the result will have no legal bearing, nor will it represent an incremental decision on the required CoA. There are two key objectives of a preliminary discussion: Introduce the project to the BAR; and allow the applicant and the BAR to establish what is necessary for a successful final submittal. That is, a final submittal that is complete and provides the information necessary for the BAR to evaluate the project using the ADC District Design Guidelines and related review criteria. In response to any questions from the applicant and/or for any recommendations to the applicant, the BAR should rely on the germane sections of the ADC District Design Guidelines and related review criteria. While elements of other chapters may be relevant, staff recommends that the BAR refer to the criteria in Chapter II--Site Design and Elements, Chapter III--New Construction and Additions, Chapter IV—Rehabilitation, and Chapter VII--Demolitions and Moving. As a checklist for the preliminary discussion, the criteria for Additions in Chapter III: • Function and Size • Location • Design • Replication of Style • Materials and Features • Attachment to Existing Building The BAR should also consider the building elements and details necessary to evaluate the project. Renderings and schematics communicates mass, scale, design and composition; however a complete application should include details and specific information about the projects materials and components. For example: • Measured drawings: Elevations, wall details, etc. • Roofing: Flat, hipped, etc. Metal, slate, asphalt. Flashing details. • Gutters/downspouts: Types, color, locations, etc. 517 Rugby Road (April 14, 2021) 2 • Foundation. • Walls: Masonry, siding, stucco, etc. • Soffit, cornice, siding, and trim. • Color palette. • Doors and windows: Type, lite arrangement, glass spec, trim details, etc. • Porches and decks: Materials, railing and stair design, etc. • Landscaping/hardscaping: Grading, trees, low plants, paving materials, etc. • Lighting. Fixture cut sheets, lamping, etc. Regarding the proposed removal and replacement of the front porch: The house was constructed c1910. The 1920 Sanborn Map indicates a porch of a similar size and location to the existing, if not the same one. The porch now incorporates wood decks on either side; however, the columns (full and engaged), the roof, and the entrance remain intact, allowing the existing [presumed original] porch to remain identifiable as a discrete element of the historic façade. In the design guidelines for porches (Section D in Rehabilitations) are three specific recommendations that should be applied here: 1. The original details and shape of porches should be retained including the outline, roof height, and roof pitch. 4. Replace an entire porch only if it is too deteriorated to repair or is completely missing, and design to match the original as closely as possible. 7. Do not remove or radically change entrances and porches important in defining the building’s overall historic character. 1920 Sanborn Map (517 Rugby Road is #318) GIS Map Suggested Motions Regarding the proposed addition: The BAR may vote to defer this request, in which case the matter will be on the meeting agenda for May 18, 2021. Or, the applicant may request a deferral, in which case it is the applicant’s decision on when the request is brought back to the BAR. Regarding the proposed removal and replacement of the front porch (See note in the Discussion): Approval: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed porch demolition and reconstruction at 517 Rugby Road satisfies the BAR’s criteria and is compatible with this property and other properties in the Rugby Road - University Circle - Venable Neighborhood ADC District, and that the BAR approves the application as submitted and with the understanding that the request CoA for rear addition will require a separate submittal as a new project[.] 517 Rugby Road (April 14, 2021) 3 [.. and with the following modifications…] Denial: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed porch demolition and reconstruction at 517 Rugby Road does not satisfy the BAR’s criteria and is not compatible with this property and other properties in the Rugby Road - University Circle - Venable Neighborhood ADC District, and that for the following reasons the BAR denies the application as submitted: … Criteria, Standards, and Guidelines Review Criteria Generally Sec. 34-284(b) of the City Code states that, in considering a particular application the BAR shall approve the application unless it finds: (1) That the proposal does not meet specific standards set forth within this division or applicable provisions of the Design Guidelines established by the board pursuant to Sec.34-288(6); and (2) The proposal is incompatible with the historic, cultural or architectural character of the district in which the property is located or the protected property that is the subject of the application. Pertinent Standards for Review of Construction and Alterations include: (1) Whether the material, texture, color, height, scale, mass and placement of the proposed addition, modification or construction are visually and architecturally compatible with the site and the applicable design control district; (2) The harmony of the proposed change in terms of overall proportion and the size and placement of entrances, windows, awnings, exterior stairs and signs; (3) The Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation set forth within the Code of Federal Regulations (36 C.F.R. §67.7(b)), as may be relevant; (4) The effect of the proposed change on the historic district neighborhood; (5) The impact of the proposed change on other protected features on the property, such as gardens, landscaping, fences, walls and walks; (6) Whether the proposed method of construction, renovation or restoration could have an adverse impact on the structure or site, or adjacent buildings or structures; (7) Any applicable provisions of the City’s Design Guidelines. Pertinent ADC District Design Guidelines Chapter II – Site Design and Elements B. Plantings C. Walls and Fences D. Lighting E. Walkways and Driveways F. Parking Areas and Lots G. Garages, Sheds, and Other Structures H. Utilities and Other Site Appurtenances Chapter III – New Construction and Additions Checklist from section P. Additions 1) Function and Size a. Attempt to accommodate needed functions within the existing structure without building an addition. 517 Rugby Road (April 14, 2021) 4 b. Limit the size of the addition so that it does not visually overpower the existing building. 2) Location a. Attempt to locate the addition on rear or side elevations that are not visible from the street. b. If additional floors are constructed on top of a building, set the addition back from the main façade so that its visual impact is minimized. c. If the addition is located on a primary elevation facing the street or if a rear addition faces a street, parking area, or an important pedestrian route, the façade of the addition should be treated under the new construction guidelines. 3) Design a. New additions should not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. b. The new work should be differentiated from the old and should be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. 4) Replication of Style a. A new addition should not be an exact copy of the design of the existing historic building. The design of new additions can be compatible with and respectful of existing buildings without being a mimicry of their original design. b. If the new addition appears to be part of the existing building, the integrity of the original historic design is compromised and the viewer is confused over what is historic and what is new. 5) Materials and Features a. Use materials, windows, doors, architectural detailing, roofs, and colors that are compatible with historic buildings in the district. 6) Attachment to Existing Building a. Wherever possible, new additions or alterations to existing buildings should be done in such a manner that, if such additions or alterations were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the buildings would be unimpaired. b. The new design should not use the same wall plane, roof line, or cornice line of the existing structure. Chapter 4 – Rehabilitation D. Entrances, Porches, and Doors 1) The original details and shape of porches should be retained including the outline, roof height, and roof pitch. 2) Inspect masonry, wood, and metal or porches and entrances for signs of rust, peeling paint, wood deterioration, open joints around frames, deteriorating putty, inadequate caulking, and improper drainage, and correct any of these conditions. 3) Repair damaged elements, matching the detail of the existing original fabric. 4) Replace an entire porch only if it is too deteriorated to repair or is completely missing, and design to match the original as closely as possible. 5) Do not strip entrances and porches of historic material and details. 6) Give more importance to front or side porches than to utilitarian back porches. 7) Do not remove or radically change entrances and porches important in defining the building’s overall historic character. 8) Avoid adding decorative elements incompatible with the existing structure. 9) In general, avoid adding a new entrance to the primary facade, or facades visible from the street. 517 Rugby Road (April 14, 2021) 5 10) Do not enclose porches on primary elevations and avoid enclosing porches on secondary elevations in a manner that radically changes the historic appearance. 11) Provide needed barrier-free access in ways that least alter the features of the building. a. For residential buildings, try to use ramps that are removable or portable rather than permanent. b. On nonresidential buildings, comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act while minimizing the visual impact of ramps that affect the appearance of a building. 12) The original size and shape of door openings should be maintained. 13) Original door openings should not be filled in. 14) When possible, reuse hardware and locks that are original or important to the historical evolution of the building. 15) Avoid substituting the original doors with stock size doors that do not fit the opening properly or are not compatible with the style of the building. 16) Retain transom windows and sidelights. 17) When installing storm or screen doors, ensure that they relate to the character of the existing door. a. They should be a simple design where lock rails and stiles are similar in placement and size. b. Avoid using aluminum colored storm doors. c. If the existing storm door is aluminum, consider painting it to match the existing door. d. Use a zinc chromate primer before painting to ensure adhesion. Chapter VII – Demolitions and Moving Reference Sec. 34-278. - Standards for considering demolitions. The following factors shall be considered in determining whether or not to permit the moving, removing, encapsulation or demolition, in whole or in part, of a contributing structure or protected property: a) The historic, architectural or cultural significance, if any, of the specific structure or property, including, without limitation: 1. The age of the structure or property; 2. Whether it has been designated a National Historic Landmark, listed on the National Register of Historic Places, or listed on the Virginia Landmarks Register; 3. Whether, and to what extent, the building or structure is associated with an historic person, architect or master craftsman, or with an historic event; 4. Whether the building or structure, or any of its features, represent an infrequent or the first or last remaining example within the city of a particular architectural style or feature; 5. Whether the building or structure is of such old or distinctive design, texture or material that it could not be reproduced, or could be reproduced only with great difficulty; and 6. The degree to which distinguishing characteristics, qualities, features or materials remain; b) Whether, and to what extent, a contributing structure is linked, historically or aesthetically, to other buildings or structures within an existing major design control district, or is one (1) of a group of properties within such a district whose concentration or continuity possesses greater significance than many of its component buildings and structures. 517 Rugby Road (April 14, 2021) 6 c) The overall condition and structural integrity of the building or structure, as indicated by studies prepared by a qualified professional engineer and provided by the applicant or other information provided to the board; d) Whether, and to what extent, the applicant proposes means, methods or plans for moving, removing or demolishing the structure or property that preserves portions, features or materials that are significant to the property's historic, architectural or cultural value; and e) Any applicable provisions of the city's design guidelines. 517 Rugby Road (April 14, 2021) 7 Board of Architectural Review (BAR) Certificate of Appropriateness Please Return To: City of Charlottesville Department of Neighborhood Development Services P.O. Box 911, City Hall Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Telephone (434) 970-3130 Please submit ten (10) hard copies and one (1) digital copy of application form and all attachments. Please include 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 Alumni of Alpha Mu, Inc. Applicant Name Garett Rouzer Project Name/D escription Delta Sigma Phi House Renovation Parcel Number 050046000 Project Property Address 517 Rugby Road, Charlottesville, VA 22903 Signature of Applicant Applicant Information I hereby attest that the information I have provided is, to the Address: 206 5th Street NE best of my knowledge, correct. Charl���ille VA 22902 Email: grouzer arch1tects.com 30 MAR 2021 :..._ Phone: (W) 434.977.4480 (C) _____ s� Date Garett Rouzer Property Owner Information (if not applicant) Print Name Date Address: 6231 26th Road N licant Arlington VA 22207 Email: ericedwardson@yahoo com Phone: (W) ______ (C) 703 629 8078 30 MAR 2021 Do you intend to apply_ for Federal or State Tax Credits Eric Edwardson for this project? __ N_o_______ Print Name Date Description of Proposed Work (attach separate narrative if necessary):..,...,..,,...,,....---,------=-------,----,--­ Addition to North Elevation, New Front Porch, New Doors and Windows at Basement Level List All Attachments (see reverse side for submittal requirements): Site Plan, Floor Plan, Exterior Elevations Images of Subject Property For Office Use Only Approved/Disapproved by: _________ Received by: ___________ Date: ________________ Fee paid: _____Cash/Ck.# _ _ __ Conditions of approval: ___________ Date Received: ___________ Revised 2016 UN IVE RS APARTMENTS, LLC INST 2017-4610 N/F RUGBY ITY CIR CL N E WV RAIL FENCE 8 43 TP EXISTING ADDITION G 2P H RT 8"x8" WOOD CURB 23 NO DB AT PL TE RE UP NC LL UP CO WA BOARD FENCE S 59°50'00" E 130.77' IS CMH IS MARKED GAS LINE ASHPALT GM VLT D W CB EM CONCRETE CONCRETE EXISTING WALKWAY AND STEPS RUGBY ROAD 75.00' N 29°56'00" E S 29°56'00" W 75.00' GRATE ASHPALT BOARD FENCE Φ TB Σ CONCRETE NEW WALKWAY AND STEPS BB TERRACE Δ IF 5.00' WALL N 59°50'00" W 130.77' UP IF 3/30/2021 DELTA SIGMA PHI - UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA | SITE & GROUND FLOOR PLAN B A R -1 4444 D ALGLIESH G ILPIN P AXTON A RCHITECTS 1" = 20' ADDITION EXISTING EXISTING RIDGE 4" PROPOSED RIDGE ASPHALT SHINGLES MATCH EXISTING EXTERIOR MILLWORK / CASINGS TO MATCH EXISTING CLAD WINDOWS NEW FRONT PORCH METAL ROOF HARDIE PLANK ARTISAN SIDING COMPOSITE STRUCTURAL COLUMNS & RAILING ASSEMBLIES COMPOSITE DECKING NEW CLAD DOORS BRICK FOUNDATION 3/30/2021 DELTA SIGMA PHI - UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA | TERRACE - SOUTH ELEVATION B A R -2 4444 D ALGLIESH G ILPIN P AXTON A RCHITECTS 1/8" = 1'-0" EXISTING RIDGE 4" PROPOSED RIDGE 29' 3/30/2021 DELTA SIGMA PHI - UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA | DRIVEWAY - NORTH ELEVATION B A R -3 4444 D ALGLIESH G ILPIN P AXTON A RCHITECTS 1/8" = 1'-0" ASPHALT SHINGLES MATCH EXISTING CLAD WINDOWS HARDIE PLANK ARTISAN SIDING HARDIE PANEL METAL RAILING COMPOSITE TREADS BRICK FOUNDATION 36' 3/30/2021 DELTA SIGMA PHI - UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA | PARKING LOT - WEST ELEVATION B A R -4 4444 D ALGLIESH G ILPIN P AXTON A RCHITECTS 1/8" = 1'-0" METAL ROOF NEW FRONT PORCH COMPOSITE STRUCTURAL COLUMNS & RAILING ASSEMBLIES COMPOSITE DECKING 3/30/2021 DELTA SIGMA PHI - UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA | ENTRY - EAST ELEVATION B A R -5 4444 D ALGLIESH G ILPIN P AXTON A RCHITECTS 1/8" = 1'-0" D E LTA S I G M A P H I H O U S E - U N I V E R S IT Y O F V I R G I N I A - R E F E R E N C E P H OTO G R AP H S DALGLIESH GILPIN PAXTON ARCHITECTS D E LTA S I G M A P H I H O U S E - U N I V E R S IT Y O F V I R G I N I A - R E F E R E N C E P H OTO G R AP H S DALGLIESH GILPIN PAXTON ARCHITECTS D E LTA S I G M A P H I H O U S E - U N I V E R S IT Y O F V I R G I N I A - R E F E R E N C E P H OTO G R AP H S DALGLIESH GILPIN PAXTON ARCHITECTS Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-04-05 485 14th Street, NW, TMP 090034000 Rugby Road-University Circle-Venable ADC District Owner: Hoo House, LLC Applicant: Greg Winkler, Kurt Wassenaar Project: Phase 1. Repair/replace windows, misc. exterior repairs and sitework Application components (please click each link to go directly to PDF page): • Staff Report • Application Submittal April 20, 2021 BAR Packet 7 City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Staff Report April 20, 2021 Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-04-05 485 14th Street, NW, TMP 090034000 Rugby Road-University Circle-Venable ADC District Owner: Hoo House, LLC Applicant: Greg Winkler, Kurt Wassenaar Project: Phase 1 - Repair/replace windows, misc. exterior repairs and sitework Background Year Built: 1920 District: Rugby Road-University Circle-Venable ADC District Status: Contributing (garage in rear is non-contributing) Four square, Colonial Revival residence. Prior BAR Reviews n/a Application • Submittal: Wassenaar-Winkler Architects/Planners submittal for 485 14th St NW: o BAR Submittal Set, dated April 2, 2021: Narrative (two pages) and sheets G1, EP1 - EP3, C1 - C4, A1 – A11 (19 pages). o Hoo House Renovation - Phase 1, dated March 11, 2021: Sheets G-101, D-101, D-201, E-101 (5 pages). CoA request for repair/replacement of existing windows, the repair/reconstruction of the front porch, the planting of new street trees, and related site work. The existing garage will be razed; it is non-contributing, a CoA is not required for demolition. Also, the scope of work includes elements that are considered routine repair and maintenance, which do not require a CoA; however, in the context of this request, the BAR may ask for clarifications, if necessary. 485 14th Street, NW - CoA Phase 1 (April 15, 2021) 1 Phase 1, from the applicant’s submittal (numbered here for reference) 1. Repair or rebuilding of the front porch as it now exists and without any architectural changes to the design, size or materials of the porch. Trim in need of repair may be replaced with Azek or other similar materials. 2. Repair of the existing Philadelphia gutter system and downspouts. 3. Repair and/or replacement of the existing windows. (A qualified window restorer will complete an evaluation of the existing windows to determine which can be repaired and which should be replaced. Those findings will be submitted to the BAR.) The proposed replacement windows are, in general, identical to windows approved by the BAR at 513 14th Street. (Applicant will provide it sheets.) 4. Structural repair and cosmetic cleanup of the existing rear stair addition. 5. Landscape cleanup, and replanting including new street trees. 6. Gravel the rear parking area. Staff Notes: • The submittal package includes information that illustrates Phases 2 and 3, however this CoA request is only for Phase 1. • The March 11, 2021 drawings indicate the removal and replacement of all windows. The narrative in the April 2, 2021 submittal modifies that plan, per item 3 above. • The March 11, 2021 and April 2, 2021 drawings include interior floor plans. Whiles these provide context for the project, the BAR does not have purview over interior alterations. Discussion and Recommendations Items 2, 4, 5, and 6. Staff finds these consistent with the design guidelines. Anticipating the removal of three trees, staff requested that Phase 1 include the planting of new trees, which are indicated on sheet C4, dated April 2, 2021. Item 1 proposes repair or rebuilding of the front porch as it now exists. Photographs indicate the porch is in disrepair. The railing and lattice are not original. The stairs may not be original; however, they align with the walk, so the original width and location are known. The piers, framing, apron, flooring, columns, entablature, ceiling, trim and roof all appear to be original, with some areas and elements in poor condition. Staff recommends that any new elements match the existing; including, but not limit to: beaded ceiling boards (no faux panels); painted, wood tongue-and-groove flooring (no imitation material); columns (round and engaged); simple cornice at the entablature. Additionally, the porch railing should be replaced in a manner appropriate to the period. Two nearby homes were built at a similar time and might serve as examples for the porch rail--403 14th Street NW (1921) and 1401 Gordon Ave (1925), see images below. Both also have similar columns and entry door designs. Staff recommends that the new railings be similar to these existing examples, and not require custom profiles. The pickets are square stock and the bottom rail is not profiled. The hand rail detail, however, may require some discussion. Item 3 proposes the repair and/or replacement of the existing windows, which are all wood, one- over-one, double-hung. The applicant will rely on the recommendations of an experienced mechanic regarding which windows can be repaired and which should be replaced. That 485 14th Street, NW - CoA Phase 1 (April 15, 2021) 2 information has not yet been provided and, without it, staff cannot offer comment or recommendation. The applicant intends to use windows similar to those approved for 513 14th Street, which were Andersen E-Series, Talon double-hung windows with insulated glass. (The E-Series windows are aluminum clad wood, which the BAR has allowed.) There appears to be an available Andersen trim that is similar to the existing. (See photos below.) Images re: porch details 485 14th Street, NW - CoA Phase 1 (April 15, 2021) 3 Photos of existing windows. Trim detail Suggested Motions Approval: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find that proposed window repairs/replacements, porch repairs, and landscaping at 435 14th Street NW satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are compatible with this property and other properties in the Rugby Road-University Circle-Venable ADC District, and that the BAR approves the application as submitted[.] [… with the following modifications: …) Denial: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed window repairs/replacements, porch repairs, and landscaping at 435 14th Street NW do not satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are not compatible with this property and other properties in the Rugby Road-University Circle-Venable ADC District, and for the following reasons the BAR denies the application as submitted: 485 14th Street, NW - CoA Phase 1 (April 15, 2021) 4 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. 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) 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. Pertinent Design Guidelines for Site Design 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. Pertinent Design 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. 485 14th Street, NW - CoA Phase 1 (April 15, 2021) 5 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. 19. The addition of shutters may be appropriate if not previously installed but if compatible with the style of the building or neighborhood. 20. In general, shutters should be wood (rather than metal or vinyl) and should be mounted on hinges. In some circumstances, appropriately dimensioned, painted, composite material shutters may be used. 21. The size of the shutters should result in their covering the window opening when closed. 22. Avoid shutters on composite or bay windows. 23. If using awnings, ensure that they align with the opening being covered. 24. Use awning colors that are compatible with the colors of the building. D. Entrances, Porches, and Doors 1. The original details and shape of porches should be retained including the outline, roof height, and roof pitch. 485 14th Street, NW - CoA Phase 1 (April 15, 2021) 6 2. Inspect masonry, wood, and metal or porches and entrances for signs of rust, peeling paint, wood deterioration, open joints around frames, deteriorating putty, inadequate caulking, and improper drainage, and correct any of these conditions. 3. Repair damaged elements, matching the detail of the existing original fabric. 4. Replace an entire porch only if it is too deteriorated to repair or is completely missing, and design to match the original as closely as possible. 5. Do not strip entrances and porches of historic material and details. 6. Give more importance to front or side porches than to utilitarian back porches. 7. Do not remove or radically change entrances and porches important in defining the building’s overall historic character. 8. Avoid adding decorative elements incompatible with the existing structure. 485 14th Street, NW - CoA Phase 1 (April 15, 2021) 7 April 2, 2021 485 14th Street, Charlottesville Virginia – Proposed Work Scope Summary for BAR The existing house at 485 14th Street has been recently purchased by our client Eric Trebour. The existing house has been in use as two student apartments with one four- bedroom unit on the ground floor and one four-bedroom unit on the second floor. The house has an old and serviceable, but not in good repair, rear access stair and porch. The proposed work for this project is to be completed in 3 distinct phases. For the sake of transparency and context, this application includes the work scope and plans for all three phases of the project. Our client has not made a determination on the phasing schedule for phases 2 and 3. Phase I Work scope This first increment of the work is designed to bring the house into good repair without any significant additions to the existing building. Work will include: - Repair or rebuilding of the front porch as it now exists and without any architectural changes to the design, size or materials of the porch. Some trim which is in need of repair may be replaced with Azek or other similar materials as an alternative to wood. In our experience these impermeable materials are indistinguishable from wood once installed and painted. - Repair of the existing Philadelphia gutter system. This is generally in good order but some resealing/rewelding of the gutter seams and downspout repair will be completed. - Repair and/or replacement of the existing windows. The owner is having a qualified window restorer complete an evaluation of the existing windows and will provide the BAR with these study results as to which windows can be repaired and which need to be replaced. The proposed replacement windows are in general identical to windows approved by the BAR on another project we completed on 14th street and we will provide full cut specification sheets for these. - Structural repair and cosmetic cleanup of the existing rear stair addition. - Landscape cleanup, and replanting including new proposed street trees. - Removal of the existing concrete garage building which is in poor repair - Cleanup and gravel for the rear parking area. th 210 West 12 Street, Waynesboro, VA 22980 | T- (540)941-3567 | www.wpluswdesign.com Studio : 258 Blue Springs Lane, Charlottesville, VA 22903 Phase II Work Scope The second increment of the proposed work is to replace the existing rear stair addition with a new code access stair, common bathroom, and living area. These are shown in the attached plan and renderings. - Note that the rear elevation of the phase II addition will be fully encapsulated as a part of the phase III workscope. - No new units are being added as a part of this phase of the work. - The proposed Hardy Plank exterior clapboard exterior is intended to distinguish the existing brick building from the new addition and be consistent with the historical manner in which these additions have been traditionally completed in similar buildings nearby. The addition of the Phase II work will conform to the NPS Historical renovation standards. Phase III Work Scope The third phase of the proposed work adds two additional units to the building and completes the maximum development of this site under the zoning envelope and setback requirements for this site. - This phase of the work follows the general size and proportions of the existing house except it is exterior sheathed in brick of a familial but contrasting color of the brick. The massing of the new rear section is at the building setback lines on the Gordon Avenue front and is intended to be typologically consistent with the existing house but of its time. Window treatment will be consistent with the existing front house building. This is a fabric building as to the street and existing house and will blend into the street scape without being an object of particular notice. 485 14th St NW Addition 200 West 12th Street, Waynesboro, VA 22980 Charlottesville, VA 22903 BAR SUBMITTAL SET Telephone (540) 941-3567 SHEET LIST G1 COVER EP1 EXISTING STRUCTURE PHOTOS EP2 EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD PHOTOS EP3 EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD PHOTOS C1 EXISTING SITE PLAN C2 PROPOSED SITE PLAN C3 EXISTING LANDSCAPE PLAN C4 PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PLAN A1 FIRST FLOOR PLAN 485 14th Street NW Renovation A2 SECOND FLOOR PLAN Charlottesville, VA 22903 A3 EXTERIOR ELEVATION A4 EXTERIOR ELEVATION 485 14th Street NW A5 EXTERIOR ELEVATION A6 PERSPECTIVE A7 PERSPECTIVE A8 PERSPECTIVE A9 PERSPECTIVE Perspective A10 PERSPECTIVE A11 MATERIALS/WINDOW DETAIL ARCHITECT : Wassenaar + Winkler, PLLC 200 West 12th Street Waynesboro, VA 22980 540-941-3567 Kurt Wassenaar, Principal Architect kurt@wpluswdesign.com SITE OWNER: G1 Hoo House, LLC N Eric Trebour 190 Blue Springs Lane Charlottesville, VA 22903 Vicinity Map 200 West 12th Street, Waynesboro, VA 22980 Telephone (540) 941-3567 485 14th Street NW Renovation Charlottesville, VA 22903 FRONT OF RESIDENCE FROM 14TH STREET SIDE OF RESIDENCE FROM GORDON AVENUE 485 14th Street NW REAR OF RESIDENCE FROM ALLEY SIDE OF RESIDENCE FROM ADJACENT PROPERTY EP1 EXISTING RESIDENCE PHOTOS EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD PHOTOS 485 14th Street NW Renovation 485 14th Street NW Charlottesville, VA 22903 200 West 12th Street, Waynesboro, VA 22980 EP2 Telephone (540) 941-3567 EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD PHOTOS 485 14th Street NW Renovation 485 14th Street NW Charlottesville, VA 22903 200 West 12th Street, Waynesboro, VA 22980 EP3 Telephone (540) 941-3567 20 .1' 1S E TO XIST RY IN EX GA G I ST RA IN GE G 15 'A LL EY 19 .4' EX IS TIN G GR AV 25 EL 'S P KN BL G. 10 'S BL EX .S /W EX IST IN G PA TIO EXISTING SITE PLAN 32 .9' E 10 BR XIS IC T. 'S Kw 2S BL /BA TO SE RY ME NT EX .S /W GO RD ON 40 .4' AV E. (6 0 'R OW ) 25 ' SB L EX IST .S /W T SF 9,8 - P.3 9 .M 76 4 14 TH ST RE ET NW (40 'R OW ) D. I. 485 14th Street NW Renovation 485 14th Street NW C1 Charlottesville, VA 22903 200 West 12th Street, Waynesboro, VA 22980 Telephone (540) 941-3567 EX IST IN G 15 'A LL EY EX ISTIN G GR AV 25 E LP 'S KN BL G. PR OP OS (2) E 10 ' 3 B PH D A ED AS DD SB RO E 3 ITIO L OM N UN ITS BIK E BIK 3' RA ER CK S SID PROPOSED SITE PLAN AC EW KS AL K 32 ' .9 20 'S E BL BR XIS IC T. Kw 2S /BA TO PH SE RY AS ME E1 NT RE EX NO .S VA TIO /W N GO RD ON 40 A .4' VE 25 ' SB . (6 L 0' RO B CK ) W S RA IKE EX IST .S /W T SF 9,8 - P.3 9 .M 76 4 14 TH ST RE ETN W (40 'R OW ) D. I. 485 14th Street NW Renovation 485 14th Street NW C2 Charlottesville, VA 22903 200 West 12th Street, Waynesboro, VA 22980 Telephone (540) 941-3567 20 ' .1 1S E TO XIST RY IN EX GA G IST RA IN GE G 15 'A LL EY 19 .4' EX IST IN G GR AV 25 EL 'S PK BL N G. 10 'S BL EX .S /W EX ISTIN G PA T IO EXISTING LANDSCAPE PLAN 32 .9' E 10 BR XIS IC T. 'S Kw 2S BL /BA TO SE RY ME NT EX .S /W GO RD ON 40 A .4' VE . (6 0' RO ) W 25 'S BL EX IST .S /W T SF 9,8 - P.3 9 .M 76 4 14 TH ST RE ET NW (40 'R OW ) D. I. 485 14th Street NW Renovation 485 14th Street NW C3 Charlottesville, VA 22903 200 West 12th Street, Waynesboro, VA 22980 Telephone (540) 941-3567 EX IST IN G 15 'A LL EY EX IST IN G GR AV 25 EL ' SB PK L NG . PR OPO (2) SE 10 3 B PH D A 'S ED AS DDI RO E 3 TIO BL OM N UN ITS BIK BIK 3' ER AC ER KS SID AC EW KS AL K PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PLAN 32 .9' 20 'S E BL BR XIS IC T. Kw 2S /BA TO PH SE RY AS ME E1 NT RE EX NO .S VA TIO /W N GO RD ON 40 .4' AV 25 E. ' SB L (6 0 'R B CK OW ) S RA IKE EX IST .S /W T SF 9,8 - P.3 9 .M 76 4 14 THS TR EE TN W (40 'R OW ) D. I. 485 14th Street NW Renovation 485 14th Street NW C4 Charlottesville, VA 22903 200 West 12th Street, Waynesboro, VA 22980 Telephone (540) 941-3567 46'-0" 200 West 12th Street, Waynesboro, VA 22980 BATH 8'-6" x 9'-6" LIVING ROOM 14'-2" x 17'-2" BEDROOM 3 KITCHEN 9'-0" X 11'-6" 10'-3" X 11'-8" W D REF Telephone (540) 941-3567 24'-0" 10' - 4 1/2" FLOOR TO FLOOR TO MATCH EX HOUSE. STAIR = 18R @ 6 15/16" & 17T @ 11" 38'-0" W D UP STO 6'-4" BEDROOM 2 10'-3" X 11'-8" LIVING ROOM 13'-0 x 15'-8" BEDROOM 1 SIDE 11'-0" X 15'-1" PORCH 13'-8" 7'-2 x 15'-8" 485 14th Street NW Renovation BATH Charlottesville, VA 22903 5'-6" x 7'-10" 20'-0" 485 14th Street NW DESK REF 40'-6" 12'-10 1/2" 11'-5 1/2" 13'-0" 9'-4 1/2" EXISTING CLO. BEDROOM 14'-10" EXISTING DW BEDROOM EXISTING BATH 5'-8" EXISTING DESK HALL CLOSET 32'-6" CLOSET CLOSET DOWN DESK DESK 10' - 4 1/2" FLOOR TO FLOOR EXISTING 9' - 3 1/2" FLOOR EXISTING 15'-2" 15'-0" UP TO CLG BEDROOM BEDROOM ENTRY PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR PLAN 12'-11 1/2" 9'-10" EXISTING PORCH 14'-8 1/2" A1 46'-0" 200 West 12th Street, Waynesboro, VA 22980 D BATH 6'-0" x 8'-6" LIVING ROOM 10'-0" x 18'-10" W BEDROOM 2 11'-2" X 11'-10" Telephone (540) 941-3567 24'-0" 24'-0" REF KITCHEN BEDROOM 1 7'-0" x 13'-0" 11'-2" X 12'-10" BEDROOM 3 9'-10" X 12'-8" DOWN W D 6'-4" PHASE 3 MINOR ALTERATIONS TO PHASE 2 CONSTRUCT NEW APARTMENTS 1st FLOOR 2BR w/ 1 BATH 2nd FLOOR 3 BR w/ 1 BATH 12 4 LIVING ROOM 13'-8" 13'-0 x 17'-8" 485 14th Street NW Renovation 12 4 BATH Charlottesville, VA 22903 5'-6" x 7'-10" 20'-0" 485 14th Street NW DESK REF 40'-6" 12'-10 1/2" 11'-5 1/2" 13'-0" 9'-4 1/2" EXISTING CLO. BEDROOM KITCHEN 14'-10" EXISTING DW BEDROOM EXISTING BATH 5'-8" EXISTING HALL CLOSET 32'-6" CLOSET CLOSET DOWN DESK INFILL FLOOR EXISTING EXISTING 15'-2" 15'-0" BEDROOM BEDROOM UP 8' - 9 3/4" FLOOR TO CLG EXISTING HALL PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR PLAN 12'-11 1/2" 9'-10" 14'-8 1/2" A2 ELEVATION - GORDON AVENUE 485 14th Street NW Renovation 485 14th Street NW A3 Charlottesville, VA 22903 200 West 12th Street, Waynesboro, VA 22980 Telephone (540) 941-3567 ELEVATION - REAR 485 14th Street NW Renovation 485 14th Street NW A4 Charlottesville, VA 22903 200 West 12th Street, Waynesboro, VA 22980 Telephone (540) 941-3567 ELEVATION - SIDE 485 14th Street NW Renovation 485 14th Street NW A5 Charlottesville, VA 22903 200 West 12th Street, Waynesboro, VA 22980 Telephone (540) 941-3567 RENDERING - VIEW A VIEW FROM CORNER OF 14TH ST. AND GORDON 485 14th Street NW Renovation 485 14th Street NW A6 Charlottesville, VA 22903 200 West 12th Street, Waynesboro, VA 22980 Telephone (540) 941-3567 VIEW FROM GORDON AVE. RENDERING - VIEW B 485 14th Street NW Renovation 485 14th Street NW A7 Charlottesville, VA 22903 200 West 12th Street, Waynesboro, VA 22980 Telephone (540) 941-3567 RENDERING - VIEW C 485 14th Street NW Renovation 485 14th Street NW A8 Charlottesville, VA 22903 200 West 12th Street, Waynesboro, VA 22980 Telephone (540) 941-3567 RENDERING - VIEW D 485 14th Street NW Renovation 485 14th Street NW A9 Charlottesville, VA 22903 200 West 12th Street, Waynesboro, VA 22980 Telephone (540) 941-3567 RENDERING - VIEW E 485 14th Street NW Renovation 485 14th Street NW Charlottesville, VA 22903 200 West 12th Street, Waynesboro, VA 22980 A10 Telephone (540) 941-3567 200 West 12th Street, Waynesboro, VA 22980 Telephone (540) 941-3567 BRICK SIDING GENERAL SHALE - HARDIPLANK - COBBLESTONE 485 14th Street NW Renovation OLD ENGLISH TUDOR Charlottesville, VA 22903 485 14th Street NW ROOFING TRIM PELLA ARCHITECT SERIES TIMBERLINE - SLATE BENJAMIN MOORE COLOR - HC-27 COLOR TO MATCH EXISTING (HISTORIC - MONTEREY WHITE) 1 MATERIAL LIST 2 WINDOW CUT SHEET A11 scale: N.T.S. scale: N.T.S. EXISTING SITE & BUILDING DATA: ZONING UMDH TAX MAP 9-P.34 PARCEL # 090034000 Charlottesville Studio - 258 Blue Springs Lane, Charlottesville, Va 22903 SITE SIZE 9,876 SF (SURVEY) 0.2270 AC (GIS) Hoo House Renovation - Phase 1 LEGAL LOT 1 & PART LOT 2 BLOCK 4 PRESTON HGTS. Waynesboro Office - 200 West 12th Street, Waynesboro, Va 22980 EXISTING 1920 MULTIFAMILY 2 STORY STRUCTURE. R-2 RESIDENTIAL APARTMENT HOUSE. 1st FLOOR 1,316 SF 2nd FLOOR 1,316 SF PORCHES 482 SF 485 14th Street EXISTING CONSTRUCTION DATA: Telephone/Fax (540) 941-3567 PARTIAL BASEMENT, 1st, 2nd, & PARTIAL ATTIC. CMU FOUNDATION Telephone (434) 973-0662 w/ BRICK VENEER. WOOD FRAMED WALLS w/ BRICK VENEER. WOOD FLOOR JOISTS BOTH FLOORS, WOOD CEILING & WOOD ROOF FRAMING. ASPHALT SHINGLE ON HIP ROOF. Charlottesville, Virginia 22903 CONSTRUCTION TYPE - V B GENERAL PROJECT STATEMENT: PHASE 1 OF THE HOO HOUSE RENOVATION IS A REPAIR PROJECT OF EXISTING SPACE WITHIN EXISTING STRUCTURE. REPLACE WINDOWS, REPLACE HVAC, REPLACE ELECTRICAL, REFINISH FLOORS, REPLACE BATHROOM FIXTURES, REPLACE KITCHEN CABINETS, REPLACE APPLIANCES, REPLACE FRONT PORCH FLOORING & REPLACE FRONT PORCH STRUCTURE THAT HAS DETERIORATED. APPLICABLE CODE: 2015 VIRGINIA EXISTING BUILDING CODE (VEBC) , AS INTERPRETED BY THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA; UNDER THE VIRGINIA CALLS TO ARCHITECT SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO (540) 941-3567 UNIFORM STATEWIDE BUILDING CODE. 2015 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE (IBC) CALLS ON PROJECT SPECIFIC WORK SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO THE LEAD 2015 VIRGINIA CONSTRUCTION CODE (VCC) TEAM MEMBER INDICATED BELOW. EACH DRAWING SHEET IS LEAD TEAM CONTACT: MASTERHEAD ORGANIZED BY A GRID GREG WINKLER CODE ANALYSIS: COORDINATE SYSTEM WITH NUMBERS ALONG THE TOP OF THE PROPOSED USE WITHIN THE EXISTING BUILDING FALLS UNDER 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 PROFESSIONAL SEAL THE SHEET AND LETTERS REPAIRS PER VEBC CHAPTER 5 AND OTHER VCC REFERENCES. A ALONG THE LEFT EDGE OF THE B N D U Y SHEET. DRAWINGS ARE GIVEN T IO C BI R R REPAIRS CONFORMANCE PER VEBC SEC 501.2 GO RD LOCATION COORDINATES BY SE CT D 2 ST A 1. MAINTAIN EXISTING LEVEL OF FIRE PROTECTION. ON WHERE THEIR LOWER LEFT AV E E1 E7 E N N G VEL EY 2. MAINTAIN EXISTING LEVEL OF MEANS OF EGRESS. E. (60 CORNER RESIDES ON A SHEET. F AS CO MI LL RK RA 3. MAINTAIN EXISTING LEVEL OF ACCESSIBILITY. 'R A DRAWING LOCATED WITH ITS 'A OW G PA G G EX IN 15 .S ) LOWER LEFT CORNER AT THE I /W H H3 H7 H8 FO EL IN G EXTREME LOWER LEFT OF A IN STRUCTURAL REPAIRS PER VEBC SEC 502.2.1 IST I J1 IST J3 J7 J8 SHEET WILL BE CALLED "D1". EX PR FOR DAMAGE LESS THAN SUBSTANTIAL STRUCTURAL DAMAGE, 10 J PH R BL EX ' SB L BY COMBINING THE GRID 'S REPAIRS SHALL BE ALLOWED THAT RESTORE THE BUILDING TO ITS REFERENCE (i.e. "D1") WITH 25 PRE-DAMAGED STATE. NEW STRUCTURAL MEMBER AND T THE SHEET NUMBER ON WHICH O CONNECTION USED FOR THE REPAIR SHALL COMPLY WITH VCC. EX THE DRAWING IS SHOWN (i.e.. THIS DRAWING SHALL NOT BE USED FOR N .S /W ZONE FOR KEYNOTES CONSTRUCTION UNLESS A PROFESSIONAL'S "A201"), THE REFERENCED SEAL AND SIGNATURE ARE ON THE DRAWING GA TOR G N RA Y ELECTRICAL REPAIR SHALL FOLLOW VEBC SEC 504.1 DRAWING, (D1-A201) CAN BE 1 S ISTI GE EM RY T BL EN QUICKLY LOCATED. EX AS O PROJECT TITLE / DESCRIPTION: .4' 'S 19 PA X. / B 2 ST TIO 76 4 9 - .M. 20 25 MECHANICAL REPAIR SHALL NOT MAKE THE BUILDING LESS 9,8 P.3 SF I. .1' E D. Hoo House T IC ING CONFORMING THAT IT WAS BEFORE PER VEBC SEC 5.5.1 G-6 DRAWING LOCATION SYSTEM G-8 PERSPECTIVE VIEW Renovation - Phase 1 Kw BR XIST .4' 40 E PLUMBING REPAIRS SHALL NOT USE MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES ) OW 10 PROHIBITED BY THE IPC PER VEBC SEC 506.1 ' SB 32 N.T.S. 'R .9' PROJECT ADDRESS / LOCATION /W L (40 .S 485 14th Street NW IST NW Charlottesville, VA 22903 EX UTILITY CONNECTIONS EE T DRAWING LOCATION SITE UTILITY CONNECTIONS ARE EXISTING AND NEED TO BE N R COORDINATE CLIENT NAME & ADDRESS: ST LOCATED AND MARKED BY MISS UTILITY PRIOR TO ANY DRAWING TITLE Hoo House, LLC th EXCAVATION. PROJECT ANTICIPATES RELOCATING ELECTRICAL 14 190 Blue Springs Lane METER AND ENTRANCE GEAR BY UTILITY COMPANY. Charlottesville, VA 22903 A1 WALL SECTION 1-1/2" Date 03/11/21 SINCE THIS IS AN EXISTING STRUCTURE IT IS ANTICIPATED THAT SCALE No. Revision Date EXISTING CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER FROM THESE DRAWING AND WORK SCOPE IDENTIFIED. NOTIFY THE OWNER AND ARCHITECT OF DISCREPANCIES PRIOR TO COMMENCING REPAIR WORK. H-3 SITE DIAGRAM I-6 TITLE VERIFY WORK SCOPE WITH OWNER PRIOR TO BEGINNING ANY DEMOLITION, REPAIR, OR REPLACEMENT WORK. FOR REFERENCE ONLY (NO SITE WORK PROPOSED) DESCRIPTION SITE I-1 APPLICABLE CODE STEEL RIGID A INSULATION D B FACE BRICK BATT INSULATION G-101 COVER SHEET C Drawn by GMW CONCRETE Checked by KMW GYPSUM WALL D-101 D-201 1st FLOOR & 2nd FLOOR EXISTING / DEMOLITION PLANS EXISTING/DEMOLITION EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS MASONRY BOARD N C COPYRIGHT 2021 WASSENAAR + WINKLER, PLLC A-101 1st & 2nd FLOOR PROPOSED PLANS 1 CONCRETE FINISHED WOOD 101 G-101 E-101 1st & 2nd FLOOR ELECTRICAL PLANS COMPACTED STONE PLYWOOD 22 A 1 UNDISTURBED PHASE 1 ROUGH WOOD EARTH K-1 DRAWING INDEX K-3 DRAWING CONVENTIONS & SYMBOLS K-6 MATERIAL LEGEND K-8 VICINITY MAP File Path: N:\Project Files\48514TH\_Architectural\A-000000\G101-Phase1.dwg N.T.S. FROM GOOGLE MAPS 3/11/2021 2:18 PM WALL LEGEND EXISTING EXTERIOR WALLS WOOD STUD WITH BRICK VENEER. Charlottesville Studio - 258 Blue Springs Lane, Charlottesville, Va 22903 Waynesboro Office - 200 West 12th Street, Waynesboro, Va 22980 EXISTING INTERIOR WALLS. 2x WOOD STUD w/ LATH AND PLASTER BOTH SIDES. WALL THICKNESS VARIES. NEW 2x4 WOOD STUD WALL @ 1'- 4" O.C. w/ 1/2" G.W.B. BOTH SIDES. EXISTING WALL OR INDICATED ITEM Telephone/Fax (540) 941-3567 TO BE REMOVED Telephone (434) 973-0662 DOOR NOTE: ALL DOORS NOT LABELED ARE EXISTING 40'-6" 40'-6" DOWN EXISTING ENTRY EXISTING UP LAUNDRY EXISTING DECK DOWN REMOVE REMOVE REMOVE REMOVE WINDOW WINDOW WINDOW WINDOW CALLS TO ARCHITECT SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO (540) 941-3567 CALLS ON PROJECT SPECIFIC WORK SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO THE LEAD REMOVE TEAM MEMBER INDICATED BELOW. DOOR REMOVE DOOR REMOVE LEAD TEAM CONTACT: GREG WINKLER 12'-10 1/2" 11'-5 1/2" 13'-0" CLOSET 12'-10 1/2" 11'-5 1/2" 13'-0" 9'-4 1/2" 9'-4 1/2" WINDOW WINDOW REMOVE REMOVE EXISTING EXISTING EXISTING EXISTING PROFESSIONAL SEAL BEDROOM BEDROOM KITCHEN KITCHEN N REMOVE D U Y WINDOW WINDOW REMOVE REMOVE REMOVE T IO 14'-10" 14'-10" BI R R KITCHEN KITCHEN EXISTING EXISTING SE CT 2 ST A CABS AND REMOVE CABS AND BEDROOM REMOVE BEDROOM E N N FIXTURES CLOSET FIXTURES CLOSET AS CO MI REMOVE REMOVE PH R I DOOR DOOR FO EL WINDOW WINDOW REMOVE REMOVE EXISTING EXISTING BATH BATH PR 5'-8" 5'-8" 5'-6 1/2" 3'-6" 2'-5" 5'-6 1/2" 3'-6" 2'-5" REMOVE EXISTING REMOVE REMOVE EXISTING T SHOWER HALL SHELF SHOWER HALL O 32'-6" 32'-6" THIS DRAWING SHALL NOT BE USED FOR N CONSTRUCTION UNLESS A PROFESSIONAL'S SEAL AND SIGNATURE ARE ON THE DRAWING REMOVE REMOVE DOWN REMOVE REMOVE DOWN CLOSET CLO REMOVE CLOSET CLOSET DOOR PROJECT TITLE / DESCRIPTION: SHELF Hoo House OPEN Renovation - Phase 1 TO BELOW PROJECT ADDRESS / LOCATION UP WINDOW WINDOW WINDOW WINDOW REMOVE REMOVE REMOVE REMOVE 485 14th Street NW EXISTING EXISTING EXISTING EXISTING 15'-2" 15'-2" 15'-0" 15'-0" UP Charlottesville, VA 22903 BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM CLIENT NAME & ADDRESS: Hoo House, LLC EXISTING EXISTING 190 Blue Springs Lane ENTRY REMOVE DOOR AND HALL Charlottesville, VA 22903 FRAME IN ITS ENTIRETY REMOVE REMOVE DOOR DOOR Date 03/11/21 No. Revision Date REMOVE REMOVE REMOVE REMOVE REMOVE WINDOW WINDOW WINDOW WINDOW WINDOW 12'-11 1/2" 9'-10" 14'-8 1/2" EXISTING 12'-11 1/2" 9'-10" 14'-8 1/2" PORCH REPAIRS TO FJ CJ & RR TO RESTORE REMOVE TO PRE DAMAGED STATE PORCH DECKING Drawn by GMW Checked by KMW C COPYRIGHT 2021 WASSENAAR + WINKLER, PLLC D-101 PHASE 1 K-1 FIRST FLOOR EXISTING/DEMOLITION PLAN K-6 SECOND FLOOR EXISTING/DEMOLITION PLAN File Path: N:\Project Files\48514TH\_Architectural\A-000000\A101-Phase1.dwg 1/4" 1/4" 3/11/2021 2:20 PM Charlottesville Studio - 258 Blue Springs Lane, Charlottesville, Va 22903 Waynesboro Office - 200 West 12th Street, Waynesboro, Va 22980 REMOVE WINDOW ATTIC TOP OF FF Telephone/Fax (540) 941-3567 Telephone (434) 973-0662 REMOVE WINDOW REMOVE WINDOW REMOVE WINDOW REMOVE WINDOW REMOVE WINDOW REMOVE WINDOW SECOND FLOOR TOP OF FF REPAIR AND REPLACE FRONT PORCH AS NECESSARY REMOVE WINDOW REMOVE WINDOW REMOVE WINDOW REMOVE WINDOW REMOVE WINDOW FIRST FLOOR TOP OF FF CALLS TO ARCHITECT SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO (540) 941-3567 CALLS ON PROJECT SPECIFIC WORK SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO THE LEAD TEAM MEMBER INDICATED BELOW. LEAD TEAM CONTACT: REPAIR AND GREG WINKLER REPLACE FRONT PORCH AS PROFESSIONAL SEAL NECESSARY BASEMENT TOP OF SLAB N D U Y T IO BI R R SE CT 2 ST A E N N E-1 EXISTING/DEMOLITION EXTERIOR ELEVATION - FRONT E-6 EXISTING/DEMOLITION EXTERIOR ELEVATION - SIDE AS CO MI PH R I FO EL 1/4" 1/4" PR T O THIS DRAWING SHALL NOT BE USED FOR N CONSTRUCTION UNLESS A PROFESSIONAL'S SEAL AND SIGNATURE ARE ON THE DRAWING PROJECT TITLE / DESCRIPTION: Hoo House Renovation - Phase 1 PROJECT ADDRESS / LOCATION 485 14th Street NW Charlottesville, VA 22903 CLIENT NAME & ADDRESS: Hoo House, LLC 190 Blue Springs Lane Charlottesville, VA 22903 Date 03/11/21 No. Revision Date REMOVE WINDOW REMOVE WINDOW REMOVE WINDOW REMOVE WINDOW REPAIR AND REPLACE FRONT PORCH AS NECESSARY REMOVE WINDOW REMOVE WINDOW REMOVE WINDOW REMOVE WINDOW Drawn by GMW Checked by KMW C COPYRIGHT 2021 WASSENAAR + WINKLER, PLLC D-201 NO WORK THIS PHASE PHASE 1 K-1 EXISTING/DEMOLITION EXTERIOR ELEVATION - REAR K-6 EXISTING/DEMOLITION EXTERIOR ELEVATION - SIDE File Path: N:\Project Files\48514TH\_Architectural\A-000000\A201-Phase1.dwg 1/4" 1/4" 3/11/2021 2:20 PM WALL LEGEND EXISTING EXTERIOR WALLS WOOD STUD WITH BRICK VENEER. Charlottesville Studio - 258 Blue Springs Lane, Charlottesville, Va 22903 PHASE 1 WORK SCOPE RENOVATION OF EXISTING HOUSE. EXISTING INTERIOR WALLS. Waynesboro Office - 200 West 12th Street, Waynesboro, Va 22980 SELECTIVE DEMOLITION 2x WOOD STUD w/ LATH AND PLASTER REMOVE RADIATORS BOTH SIDES. WALL THICKNESS VARIES. NEW HVAC NEW POWER METER NEW 2x4 WOOD STUD WALL @ 1'- 4" O.C. NEW ELECTRICAL w/IN BASEBOARD WIREMOLD & FISH INTO WALLS FOR w/ 1/2" G.W.B. BOTH SIDES. STANDARD HEIGHT OUTLETS AND SWITCHES THROUGHOUT. NEW BATH FIXTURES NEW KITCHEN CABINETS & APPLIANCES EXISTING WALL OR INDICATED ITEM TO BE REMOVED Telephone/Fax (540) 941-3567 REFINISH HARDWOOD FLOORS NEW TILE FLOORS IN BATHROOMS Telephone (434) 973-0662 NEW CLOSETS & BUILT-IN DESKS DOOR NOTE: ALL DOORS NOT NEW 2x WALL AT INTERIOR STAIR & 2nd FLOOR INFILL TO SEPARATE 1st & LABELED ARE EXISTING 2nd FLOOR APARTMENTS. NEW REPLACEMENT WINDOWS THROUGHOUT REMOVAL OF FRONT PORCH & FRONT STEPS DECKING SURFACE. REPLACE WITH 5/4 TREATED DECKING OR TREX DECKING. REPAIRS TO FRONT PORCH FLOOR JOIST, CEILING JOIST, & ROOF RAFTERS TO RESTORE TO PRE DAMAGED STATE. DOWN EXISTING ENTRY EXISTING UP LAUNDRY NEW ELEC EXISTING DECK DOWN METER CALLS TO ARCHITECT SHOULD BE DH 21051 DH 3451 DH 21051 DH 3451 DIRECTED TO (540) 941-3567 CALLS ON PROJECT SPECIFIC WORK INFILL FRAMING INFILL FRAMING SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO THE LEAD 3'-0 1/2" 3'-0 1/2" DESK DESK TEAM MEMBER INDICATED BELOW. REF REF 40'-6" 40'-6" LEAD TEAM CONTACT: GREG WINKLER 12'-10 1/2" 11'-5 1/2" 13'-0" 12'-10 1/2" 11'-5 1/2" 13'-0" 9'-4 1/2" 9'-4 1/2" EXISTING NEW EXISTING 3'-4" 3'-4" DH 21051 DH 21051 PROFESSIONAL SEAL BEDROOM KITCHEN BEDROOM 68 SINK SINK 68 NEW NEW 28 28 NEW N D U Y STOVE STOVE T IO 14'-10" 14'-10" BI R R NEW NEW KITCHEN DH 3451 DH 3451 EXISTING 2'-4" EXISTING SE CT 3'-0" 3'-0" 2 ST A BEDROOM BEDROOM E N N DW DW AS CO MI 3'-0 1/2" 4'-11" 5'-0 1/2" 3'-11 1/2" 4'-6 1/2" 4'-6" I FO EL NEW NEW DH 2444 DH 2444 (2 BATH )2 BATH (2 PR PH R 06 5'-8" 5'-8" )2 INFILL FRAMING CO3668 8 INFILL FRAMING CO3668 06 EXISTING EXISTING 8 2'-9" DESK 2'-4" 29"x 60" HALL CLOSET 29"x 60" HALL T CLOSET O SHOWER SHOWER 32'-6" 32'-6" THIS DRAWING SHALL NOT BE USED FOR N CONSTRUCTION UNLESS A PROFESSIONAL'S SEAL AND SIGNATURE ARE ON THE DRAWING 2'-0 1/2" 2'-0 1/2" CLOSET EX. FP CLOSET CLOSET CLOSET INFILL FRAMING DOWN DOWN 2'-4" DESK CLO DESK DESK 8 PROJECT TITLE / DESCRIPTION: 8 06 Hoo House 8 8 06 06 06 )2 1'-10 1/2" )2 )2 )2 (2 (2 EX. MASONRY (2 (2 4'-4 1/2" 5'-1" 3'-6" 5'-3 1/2" 4'-4 1/2" 5'-1" 3'-6" CHIMNEY Renovation - Phase 1 10'-11" 3'-0"x4'-4" INFILL FLOOR PROJECT ADDRESS / LOCATION 485 14th Street NW EXISTING EXISTING EXISTING EXISTING 15'-2" 15'-2" 15'-0" 15'-0" DH 3451 DH 3451 DH 3451 DH 3451 UP Charlottesville, VA 22903 BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM UP 8' - 9 3/4" FLOOR 68 TO CLG CLIENT NAME & ADDRESS: 30 Hoo House, LLC EXISTING 190 Blue Springs Lane 2'-11" 6'-7 1/2" HALL Charlottesville, VA 22903 INFILL FRAMING INFILL FRAMING 3 1/2" 4'-8" 2668 Date 03/11/21 No. Revision Date DH 3451 DH 3451 DH 3451 DH 3451 DH 3451 12'-11 1/2" 9'-10" 14'-8 1/2" EXISTING 12'-11 1/2" 9'-10" 14'-8 1/2" PORCH REPAIRS TO FJ CJ & RR TO RESTORE NEW 5/4 TO PRE DAMAGED STATE TREATED OR TREX DECKING Drawn by GMW Checked by KMW C COPYRIGHT 2021 WASSENAAR + WINKLER, PLLC A-101 PHASE 1 K-1 FIRST FLOOR PLAN K-6 SECOND FLOOR PLAN File Path: N:\Project Files\48514TH\_Architectural\A-000000\A101-Phase1.dwg 1/4" 1/4" 3/11/2021 2:20 PM LIGHTING LEGEND MARK QUAN SYMBOL DESCRIPTION RETROFIT BOX FOR NEW RETROFIT BOX FOR NEW ELECTRICAL OUTLET @ ELECTRICAL OUTLET @ Charlottesville Studio - 258 Blue Springs Lane, Charlottesville, Va 22903 STANDARD HEIGHT STANDARD HEIGHT CEILING FLUSH MOUNTED L1 24 LIGHT,OWNER TO SELECT TYPE Waynesboro Office - 200 West 12th Street, Waynesboro, Va 22980 BATHROOM LIGHTS,OWNER TO L2 6 SELECT TYPE 1'X1' LIGHT FIXTURE WITH EXHAUST PAINTED WD. 1 3/4" L3 2 FAN,OWNER TO SELECT TYPE CAP TRIM Telephone/Fax (540) 941-3567 Telephone (434) 973-0662 1x1 WOOD NAILER PRE-MADE 3/4" 1x8 WOOD TRIM POLYSTYRENE L4 25 S SWITCH LOCATION 7 7/8" BASE BOARD 8" EXISTING WALL L5 63 DUPLEX OUTLET EXISTING WALL 3/4" SHOE MOLD 1x1 WOOD NAILER L6 10 GFI GFI DUPLEX OUTLET C-1 BASEBOARD WIRING DETAIL C-3 ALT. BASEBOARD WIRING DETAIL L7 1 NEW POWER METER AND ENTRY 3" 3" GEAR L8 2 NEW SUB POWER PANEL LOCATION CALLS TO ARCHITECT SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO (540) 941-3567 DOWN CALLS ON PROJECT SPECIFIC WORK SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO THE LEAD TEAM MEMBER INDICATED BELOW. LEAD TEAM CONTACT: UP GREG WINKLER NEW ELEC CONDUIT AT THIS LOCATION TO REAR DOWN METER EXTERIOR WALL FOR FUTURE PHASE PROFESSIONAL SEAL 2 WORK N D U Y T IO SS SS BI R R SE CT 2 ST A E N N GFI GFI AS CO MI I FO EL GFI GFI PR PH R T O THIS DRAWING SHALL NOT BE USED FOR N S S CONSTRUCTION UNLESS A PROFESSIONAL'S SEAL AND SIGNATURE ARE ON THE DRAWING GFI GFI GFI SS GFI SS PROJECT TITLE / DESCRIPTION: S S GFI GFI Hoo House S PANEL A S PANEL B Renovation - Phase 1 PROJECT ADDRESS / LOCATION 485 14th Street NW DOWN Charlottesville, VA 22903 DOWN CLIENT NAME & ADDRESS: Hoo House, LLC 190 Blue Springs Lane Charlottesville, VA 22903 Date 03/11/21 UP No. Revision Date UP S SS Drawn by GMW NOTES: Checked by KMW EXISTING POWER PANEL LOCATED IN BASEMENT TO BE REPLACED & WILL BE HOUSE PANEL, FEEDING C COPYRIGHT 2021 WASSENAAR + WINKLER, PLLC SUB PANELS A & B WITHIN EACH UNIT. E-101 PHASE 1 K-1 FIRST FLOOR ELECTRICAL PLAN K-6 SECOND FLOOR ELECTRICAL PLAN K-9 LEGEND File Path: N:\Project Files\48514TH\_Architectural\A-000000\E101-Phase1.dwg 1/4" 1/4" 3/11/2021 2:19 PM Preliminary Discussion 485 14th Street, NW, TMP 090034000 Rugby Road-University Circle-Venable ADC District Owner: Hoo House, LLC Applicant: Greg Winkler, Kurt Wassenaar Project: Phases 1 and 2. Rear additions on residence Application components (please click each link to go directly to PDF page): • Staff Report • Application Submittal April 20, 2021 BAR Packet 8 City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Staff Report April 20, 2021 Preliminary Discussion 485 14th Street, NW, TMP 090034000 Rugby Road-University Circle-Venable ADC District Owner: Hoo House, LLC Applicant: Greg Winkler, Kurt Wassenaar Project: Phases 2 and 3. Additions and associated site work Background Year Built: 1920 District: Rugby Road-University Circle-Venable ADC District Status: Contributing (garage in rear is non-contributing) Four square, Colonial Revival residence. Prior BAR Reviews n/a Application • Submittal: Wassenaar-Winkler Architects/Planners narrative and drawings for 485 14th St NW Addition: o BAR Submittal Set, dated April 2, 2021: Narrative (two pages) and sheets G1, EP1 - EP3, C1 - C4, A1 – A11 (19 pages). o Phase 2, dated March 11, 2021: Sheets A1 – A8. o Phase 3, dated March 11, 2021: Sheets A1 – A8. Preliminary discission on Phases 2 and 3. Due to the estimated cost of the project(s), City Code section Sec. 34-282(c)(4) requires a pre-application conference [or preliminary discussion] prior to any formal BAR action. Paraphrased from the applicant’s submittal: Phase 2 Replace the existing rear stair addition, construct a new, code access stair, common bathroom, and living area. 485 14th Street, NW – Prelim Discussion: Phases 2 and 3 (April 15, 2021) 1 • Rear elevation of the phase II addition will be fully encapsulated as a part of phase 3. • No new units are being added. • Proposed Hardie Plank siding is intended to distinguish the existing brick building from the new addition and be consistent with the historical manner in which these additions have been traditionally completed in similar buildings nearby. The addition will conform to the NPS historical renovation standards. Phase 3 Add two additional units to the building, per the maximum allowed by zoning. • Work follows the general size and proportions of the existing house except it is exterior sheathed in brick of a familial but contrasting color of the brick. The massing of the new rear section is at the building setback lines on the Gordon Avenue front and is intended to be typologically consistent with the existing house but of its time. Window treatment will be consistent with the existing front house building. Discussion This is a preliminary discussion, no BAR action is required; however, by consensus, the BAR may express an opinion about the project or elements of the project. Such comments will not constitute a formal motion and will have no legal bearing, nor will it represent an incremental decision on the required CoA. There are two key objectives of a preliminary discussion: Introduce the project to the BAR; and allow the applicant and the BAR to establish what is necessary for a successful final submittal. That is, a final submittal that is complete and provides the information necessary for the BAR to evaluate the project using the ADC District Design Guidelines and related review criteria. In response to questions from the applicant and/or for recommendations to the applicant, the BAR should rely on the germane sections of the ADC District Design Guidelines and related review criteria. While elements of other chapters may be relevant, staff recommends that the BAR refer to the criteria in Chapter II--Site Design and Elements, Chapter III--New Construction and Additions, and Chapter VII – Demolitions and Moving. The BAR should consider the building elements and details necessary to evaluate the project. Renderings and schematics communicate mass, scale, design and composition; however a complete application should include details and specific information about the projects materials and components. For example: • Measured drawings: Elevations, wall details, etc. • Roofing: Flat, hipped, etc. Metal, slate, asphalt. Flashing details. • Gutters/downspouts: Types, color, locations, etc. • Foundation. • Walls: Masonry, siding, stucco, etc. • Soffit, cornice, siding, and trim. • Color palette. • Doors and windows: Type, lite arrangement, glass spec, trim details, etc. • Porches and decks: Materials, railing and stair design, etc. • Landscaping/hardscaping: Grading, trees, low plants, paving materials, etc. • Lighting. Fixture cut sheets, lamping, etc. 485 14th Street, NW – Prelim Discussion: Phases 2 and 3 (April 15, 2021) 2 Suggested Motions For a preliminary discussion, the BAR cannot take action on a formal motion. Criteria, Standards, and Guidelines Review Criteria Generally Sec. 34-284(b) of the City Code states that, in considering a particular application the BAR shall approve the application unless it finds: (1) That the proposal does not meet specific standards set forth within this division or applicable provisions of the Design Guidelines established by the board pursuant to Sec.34-288(6); and (2) The proposal is incompatible with the historic, cultural or architectural character of the district in which the property is located or the protected property that is the subject of the application. Pertinent Standards for Review of Construction and Alterations include: (1) Whether the material, texture, color, height, scale, mass and placement of the proposed addition, modification or construction are visually and architecturally compatible with the site and the applicable design control district; (2) The harmony of the proposed change in terms of overall proportion and the size and placement of entrances, windows, awnings, exterior stairs and signs; (3) The Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation set forth within the Code of Federal Regulations (36 C.F.R. §67.7(b)), as may be relevant; (4) The effect of the proposed change on the historic district neighborhood; (5) The impact of the proposed change on other protected features on the property, such as gardens, landscaping, fences, walls and walks; (6) Whether the proposed method of construction, renovation or restoration could have an adverse impact on the structure or site, or adjacent buildings or structures; (7) Any applicable provisions of the City’s Design Guidelines. Pertinent ADC District Design Guidelines Chapter II – Site Design and Elements B. Plantings C. Walls and Fences D. Lighting E. Walkways and Driveways F. Parking Areas and Lots G. Garages, Sheds, and Other Structures H. Utilities and Other Site Appurtenances Chapter III – New Construction and Additions Checklist from section 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. 485 14th Street, NW – Prelim Discussion: Phases 2 and 3 (April 15, 2021) 3 b. If additional floors are constructed on top of a building, set the addition back from the main façade so that its visual impact is minimized. c. If the addition is located on a primary elevation facing the street or if a rear addition faces a street, parking area, or an important pedestrian route, the façade of the addition should be treated under the new construction guidelines. 3) Design a. New additions should not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. b. The new work should be differentiated from the old and should be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. 4) Replication of Style a. A new addition should not be an exact copy of the design of the existing historic building. The design of new additions can be compatible with and respectful of existing buildings without being a mimicry of their original design. b. If the new addition appears to be part of the existing building, the integrity of the original historic design is compromised and the viewer is confused over what is historic and what is new. 5) Materials and Features a. Use materials, windows, doors, architectural detailing, roofs, and colors that are compatible with historic buildings in the district. 6) Attachment to Existing Building a. Wherever possible, new additions or alterations to existing buildings should be done in such a manner that, if such additions or alterations were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the buildings would be unimpaired. b. The new design should not use the same wall plane, roof line, or cornice line of the existing structure. Chapter VII – Demolitions and Moving Reference Sec. 34-278. - Standards for considering demolitions. The following factors shall be considered in determining whether or not to permit the moving, removing, encapsulation or demolition, in whole or in part, of a contributing structure or protected property: a) The historic, architectural or cultural significance, if any, of the specific structure or property, including, without limitation: 1. The age of the structure or property; 2. Whether it has been designated a National Historic Landmark, listed on the National Register of Historic Places, or listed on the Virginia Landmarks Register; 3. Whether, and to what extent, the building or structure is associated with an historic person, architect or master craftsman, or with an historic event; 4. Whether the building or structure, or any of its features, represent an infrequent or the first or last remaining example within the city of a particular architectural style or feature; 5. Whether the building or structure is of such old or distinctive design, texture or material that it could not be reproduced, or could be reproduced only with great difficulty; and 6. The degree to which distinguishing characteristics, qualities, features or materials remain; 485 14th Street, NW – Prelim Discussion: Phases 2 and 3 (April 15, 2021) 4 b) Whether, and to what extent, a contributing structure is linked, historically or aesthetically, to other buildings or structures within an existing major design control district, or is one (1) of a group of properties within such a district whose concentration or continuity possesses greater significance than many of its component buildings and structures. c) The overall condition and structural integrity of the building or structure, as indicated by studies prepared by a qualified professional engineer and provided by the applicant or other information provided to the board; d) Whether, and to what extent, the applicant proposes means, methods or plans for moving, removing or demolishing the structure or property that preserves portions, features or materials that are significant to the property's historic, architectural or cultural value; and e) Any applicable provisions of the city's design guidelines. 485 14th Street, NW – Prelim Discussion: Phases 2 and 3 (April 15, 2021) 5 200 West 12th St., Waynesboro, Va 22980 Telephone (540) 941-3567 20'-0" 20'-0" 10' - 4 1/2" FLOOR TO FLOOR TO MATCH EX HOUSE. STAIR = 18R @ 6 15/16" & 17T @ 11" W D UP DOWN W D PHASE 2 MINOR ALTERATIONS TO PHASE 1 CONSTRUCT NEW 22'x20' SPACE LIVING, BATH, & EGRESS STAIR. LIVING ROOM 13'-0 x 15'-8" 20'-0" 20'-0" EXISTING CONC SLAB & PATIO SPACE LIVING ROOM 13'-0 x 15'-8" CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22903 BATH BATH 485 14TH STREET RENOVATION 5'-6" x 7'-10" 5'-6" x 7'-10" NEW ELEC METER DESK DESK REF REF 40'-6" 40'-6" 485 14TH STREET 12'-10 1/2" 11'-5 1/2" 13'-0" 12'-10 1/2" 11'-5 1/2" 13'-0" 9'-4 1/2" 9'-4 1/2" EXISTING EXISTING CLO. CLO. BEDROOM BEDROOM KITCHEN KITCHEN 14'-10" 14'-10" EXISTING EXISTING DW BEDROOM DW BEDROOM NEW NEW BATH BATH 5'-8" 5'-8" EXISTING EXISTING DESK HALL CLOSET HALL CLOSET 32'-6" 32'-6" CLOSET CLOSET CLOSET CLOSET DOWN DOWN DESK DESK DESK INFILL FLOOR 10' - 4 1/2" FLOOR TO FLOOR EXISTING 9' - 3 1/2" FLOOR EXISTING EXISTING EXISTING 15'-2" 15'-2" 15'-0" 15'-0" UP TO CLG BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM UP 8' - 9 3/4" FLOOR TO CLG EXISTING HALL ENTRY 12'-11 1/2" 9'-10" 14'-8 1/2" 12'-11 1/2" 9'-10" 14'-8 1/2" EXISTING PORCH 1st FLOOR PLAN - PHASE 2 2nd FLOOR PLAN - PHASE 2 A1 PHASE 2 RENDERING - VIEW A 485 14th Street NW Renovation 485 14th Street NW A2 PHASE 2 Charlottesville, VA 22903 RENDERING - VIEW B 485 14th Street NW Renovation 485 14th Street NW A3 PHASE 2 Charlottesville, VA 22903 RENDERING - VIEW C 485 14th Street NW Renovation 485 14th Street NW A4 PHASE 2 Charlottesville, VA 22903 RENDERING - VIEW D 485 14th Street NW Renovation 485 14th Street NW A5 PHASE 2 Charlottesville, VA 22903 ELEVATION - GORDON AVENUE 485 14th Street NW Renovation 485 14th Street NW A6 PHASE 2 Charlottesville, VA 22903 ELEVATION - REAR 485 14th Street NW Renovation 485 14th Street NW A7 PHASE 2 Charlottesville, VA 22903 ELEVATION - SIDE 485 14th Street NW Renovation 485 14th Street NW A8 PHASE 2 Charlottesville, VA 22903 46'-0" 46'-0" 200 West 12th St., Waynesboro, Va 22980 D BATH BATH 6'-0" x 8'-6" LIVING ROOM 8'-6" x 9'-6" 10'-0" x 18'-10" LIVING ROOM W 14'-2" x 17'-2" BEDROOM 3 KITCHEN Telephone (540) 941-3567 9'-0" X 11'-6" 10'-3" X 11'-8" BEDROOM 2 11'-2" X 11'-10" W D REF 24'-0" 24'-0" 24'-0" REF KITCHEN BEDROOM 1 7'-0" x 13'-0" 11'-2" X 12'-10" BEDROOM 3 9'-10" X 12'-8" 10' - 4 1/2" FLOOR TO FLOOR TO MATCH EX HOUSE. STAIR = 18R @ 6 15/16" & 17T @ 11" 38'-0" W D UP DOWN W D STO 6'-4" 6'-4" BEDROOM 2 10'-3" X 11'-8" PHASE 3 LIVING ROOM MINOR ALTERATIONS TO PHASE 2 CONSTRUCT NEW APARTMENTS CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22903 13'-0 x 15'-8" 1st FLOOR 2BR w/ 1 BATH 2nd FLOOR 3 BR w/ 1 BATH 12 BEDROOM 1 SIDE 4 485 14TH STREET RENOVATION 11'-0" X 15'-1" PORCH LIVING ROOM 13'-8" 13'-8" 7'-2 x 15'-8" 13'-0 x 17'-8" 12 4 BATH BATH 5'-6" x 7'-10" 20'-0" 5'-6" x 7'-10" 20'-0" 485 14TH STREET DESK DESK REF REF 40'-6" 40'-6" 12'-10 1/2" 11'-5 1/2" 13'-0" 12'-10 1/2" 11'-5 1/2" 13'-0" 9'-4 1/2" 9'-4 1/2" EXISTING EXISTING CLO. CLO. BEDROOM BEDROOM KITCHEN 14'-10" 14'-10" EXISTING EXISTING DW BEDROOM DW BEDROOM EXISTING EXISTING BATH BATH 5'-8" 5'-8" EXISTING EXISTING DESK HALL CLOSET HALL CLOSET 32'-6" 32'-6" CLOSET CLOSET CLOSET CLOSET DOWN DOWN DESK DESK DESK INFILL FLOOR 10' - 4 1/2" FLOOR TO FLOOR EXISTING 9' - 3 1/2" FLOOR EXISTING EXISTING EXISTING 15'-2" 15'-2" 15'-0" 15'-0" UP TO CLG BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM UP 8' - 9 3/4" FLOOR TO CLG EXISTING HALL ENTRY 12'-11 1/2" 9'-10" 14'-8 1/2" 12'-11 1/2" 9'-10" 14'-8 1/2" EXISTING PORCH 1st FLOOR PLAN - PHASE 3 2nd FLOOR PLAN - PHASE 3 A1 PHASE 3 RENDERING - VIEW A 485 14th Street NW Renovation 485 14th Street NW A2 PHASE 3 Charlottesville, VA 22903 RENDERING - VIEW B 485 14th Street NW Renovation 485 14th Street NW A3 PHASE 3 Charlottesville, VA 22903 RENDERING - VIEW C 485 14th Street NW Renovation 485 14th Street NW A4 PHASE 3 Charlottesville, VA 22903 RENDERING - VIEW D 485 14th Street NW Renovation 485 14th Street NW A5 PHASE 3 Charlottesville, VA 22903 ELEVATION - GORDON AVENUE 485 14th Street NW Renovation 485 14th Street NW A6 PHASE 3 Charlottesville, VA 22903 ELEVATION - REAR 485 14th Street NW Renovation 485 14th Street NW A7 PHASE 3 Charlottesville, VA 22903 ELEVATION - SIDE 485 14th Street NW Renovation 485 14th Street NW A8 PHASE 3 Charlottesville, VA 22903 Preliminary Discussion 120 Oakhurst Circle, TMP 110025000 Oakhurst-Gildersleeve ADC District Owner: Tenth and Main, LLC Applicant: Bill Chapman Project: Rear addition on residence Application components (please click each link to go directly to PDF page): • Staff Report • Historic Survey • Application Submittal April 20, 2021 BAR Packet 9 City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Staff Report April 20, 2021 Preliminary Discussion 120 Oakhurst Circle, Tax Parcel 110025000 Owner: Tenth and Main, LLC Applicant: Bill Chapman Project: Rear addition (concerptual) Background Year Built: c1950 District: Oakhurst-Gildersleeve District Status: Non-contributing (Note: It is a contributing structure to the VLR/NRHP-listed Oakhurst-Gildersleeve Neighborhood Historic District, DHR# 104-5092) This modest one-story, three-bay frame house was built around 1950 for Susan W. Clark. Prior BAR Reviews July 21, 2020 - BAR approved CoA to construct parking area at rear of parcel. Application • Submittal: Photos and location maps. Rendering of conceptual design. Images of structures constructed with cargo containers. Preliminary discussion to review proposed addition at the rear of the dwelling. Proposed design incorporates modular construction and cargo containers. Prior to proceeding further, the applicant has asked if the BAR will consider a CoA for such a contemporary design. Discussion This is a preliminary discussion, no BAR action is required; however, by consensus, the BAR may express an opinion about the project or elements of the project. Such comments will not constitute a formal motion and will have no legal bearing, nor will it represent an incremental decision on the required CoA. 120 Oakhurst Circle (April 13, 2021) 1 There are two key objectives of a preliminary discussion: Introduce the project to the BAR; and allow the applicant and the BAR to establish what is necessary for a successful final submittal. That is, a final submittal that is complete and provides the information necessary for the BAR to evaluate the project using the ADC District Design Guidelines and related review criteria. In response to questions from the applicant and/or for recommendations to the applicant, the BAR should rely on the germane sections of the ADC District Design Guidelines and related review criteria. While elements of other chapters may be relevant, staff recommends that the BAR refer to the criteria in Chapter II--Site Design and Elements and Chapter III--New Construction and Additions. The BAR should also consider the building elements and details necessary to evaluate the project. Renderings and schematics communicates mass, scale, design and composition; however a complete application should include details and specific information about the projects materials and components. For example: • Measured drawings: Elevations, wall details, etc. • Roofing: Flat, hipped, etc. Metal, slate, asphalt. Flashing details. • Gutters/downspouts: Types, color, locations, etc. • Foundation. • Walls: Masonry, siding, stucco, etc. • Soffit, cornice, siding, and trim. • Color palette. • Doors and windows: Type, lite arrangement, glass spec, trim details, etc. • Porches and decks: Materials, railing and stair design, etc. • Landscaping/hardscaping: Grading, trees, low plants, paving materials, etc. • Lighting. Fixture cut sheets, lamping, etc. Suggested Motions This is a preliminary discussion and the BAR cannot take action on a formal motion. Criteria, Standards, and Guidelines Relevant Code provision for Preliminary Discussion Sec. 34-282. - Application procedures. (c) A pre-application conference with the entire BAR is mandatory for the following activities proposed within a major design control district: … (4) Development having a projected construction cost of three hundred fifty thousand dollars ($350,000.00) or more; 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. 120 Oakhurst Circle (April 13, 2021) 2 Pertinent Standards for Review of Construction and Alterations include: (1) Whether the material, texture, color, height, scale, mass and placement of the proposed addition, modification or construction are visually and architecturally compatible with the site and the applicable design control district; (2) The harmony of the proposed change in terms of overall proportion and the size and placement of entrances, windows, awnings, exterior stairs and signs; (3) The Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation set forth within the Code of Federal Regulations (36 C.F.R. §67.7(b)), as may be relevant; (4) The effect of the proposed change on the historic district neighborhood; (5) The impact of the proposed change on other protected features on the property, such as gardens, landscaping, fences, walls and walks; (6) Whether the proposed method of construction, renovation or restoration could have an adverse impact on the structure or site, or adjacent buildings or structures; (7) Any applicable provisions of the City’s Design Guidelines. Pertinent ADC District Design Guidelines Chapter II – Site Design and Elements B. Plantings C. Walls and Fences D. Lighting E. Walkways and Driveways F. Parking Areas and Lots G. Garages, Sheds, and Other Structures H. Utilities and Other Site Appurtenances Chapter III – New Construction and Additions Checklist from section P. Additions Many of the smaller commercial and other business buildings may be enlarged as development pressure increases in downtown Charlottesville and along West Main Street. These existing structures may be increased in size by constructing new additions on the rear or side or in some cases by carefully adding on extra levels above the current roof. The design of new additions on all elevations that are prominently visible should follow the guidelines for new construction as described earlier in this section. Several other considerations that are specific to new additions in the historic districts are listed below: 1) Function and Size a. Attempt to accommodate needed functions within the existing structure without building an addition. b. Limit the size of the addition so that it does not visually overpower the existing building. 2) Location a. Attempt to locate the addition on rear or side elevations that are not visible from the street. b. If additional floors are constructed on top of a building, set the addition back from the main façade so that its visual impact is minimized. c. If the addition is located on a primary elevation facing the street or if a rear addition faces a street, parking area, or an important pedestrian route, the façade of the addition should be treated under the new construction guidelines. 120 Oakhurst Circle (April 13, 2021) 3 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. 120 Oakhurst Circle (April 13, 2021) 4 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 104-5092-0010 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data Property Information Property Names Property Evaluation Status Name Explanation Name Function/Location House, 120 Oakhurst Circle Not Evaluated Property Addresses This Property is associated with the Oakhurst/Gildersleeve Current - 120 Oakhurst Circle Neighborhood Historic District. County/Independent City(s): Charlottesville (Ind. City) Incorporated Town(s): No Data Zip Code(s): 22903 Magisterial District(s): No Data Tax Parcel(s): No Data USGS Quad(s): CHARLOTTESVILLE WEST Additional Property Information Architecture Setting: Town Acreage: No Data Site Description: Privacy fence in front; overgrown lot. Surveyor Assessment: The original owner of this ca. 1950 1-story frame cottage with Colonial Revival detailing was Susan W. Clark. It is a contributing resource to the potential Oakhurst-Gildersleeve Neighborhood Historic District Surveyor Recommendation: No Data Ownership Ownership Category Ownership Entity Private No Data Primary Resource Information Resource Category: Domestic Resource Type: Single Dwelling NR Resource Type: Building Historic District Status: Contributing Date of Construction: Ca 1950 Date Source: Local Records Historic Time Period: The New Dominion (1946 - 1991) Historic Context(s): Domestic Other ID Number: No Data Architectural Style: Colonial Revival Form: No Data Number of Stories: 1.0 Condition: Good Threats to Resource: None Known Architectural Description: This 1-story, 3-bay, frame (weatherboard), gable-roofed (asphalt shingle) vernacular dwelling features some Colonial Revival detailing including 8/8-sash windows and an exterior-end brick chimney. Constructed ca. 1950, other details include aluminum awning over the door, batten shutters, and large rear extension. Exterior Components Component Component Type Material Material Treatment Foundation Solid/Continuous Concrete Block April 16, 2021 Page: 1 of 2 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 104-5092-0010 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data Roof Gable Asphalt Shingle Structural System and Frame Wood Weatherboard Exterior Treatment Windows Sash, Double-Hung Wood 8/8 Chimneys Exterior End Brick Bond, Common Secondary Resource Information Historic District Information Historic District Name: Oakhurst/Gildersleeve Neighborhood Historic District Local Historic District Name: No Data Historic District Significance: No Data CRM Events Event Type: Survey:Phase I/Reconnaissance Project Review File Number: HD104-5092 Investigator: Kalbian, Maral Organization/Company: Unknown (DSS) Photographic Media: No Data Survey Date: 3/1/2004 Dhr Library Report Number: No Data Project Staff/Notes: Survey conducted for the city of Charlottesville in preparation of Preliminary Information Form Project Bibliographic Information: Name: Bibb, Eugenia Record Type: Personal Papers Bibliographic Notes: Bibb, Engenia, "Field Notes," April 15, 2004. 1545 Dairy Road, Charlottesville, Va. 22903 ----------------------------- Name: Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps Record Type: Map ----------------------------- Name: Chville Assessors Records Record Type: Local Records Bibliographic Notes: Web Site Bibliographic Information Bibliography: No Data Property Notes: No Data April 16, 2021 Page: 2 of 2 120 Oakhurst Circle - Rear Addition Preliminary Discission April 20, 2021 120 Oakhurst Circle - Rear Addition Preliminary Discission April 20, 2021 120 Oakhurst Circle - Rear Addition Preliminary Discission April 20, 2021 120 Oakhurst Circle - Rear Addition Examples of cargo containers as design elements. Illustrative and for concept only. Preliminary Discission April 20, 2021 North Garden, Albemarle County — Peter Waldman, architect https://visicert.tumblr.com/post/116249116549/parcel-x-peter-waldman-north-garden-va-usa/amp Misc. on-line images — https://www.arch2o.com/applications-shipping-container-architecture/