City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Regular Meeting May 18, 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 per speaker) 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 January 20, 2021 2. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-05-01 503 Rugby Road, Tax Parcel 050052000 Rugby Road-University Circle-Venable Neighborhood ADC District Owner: Epsilon Sigma House Corps of Kappa Kappa Gamma Applicant: Erin Hannegan, Mitchell Matthews Architects Project: Modify approved design – entry light fixtures; trim at sections of south and north facades; screening at mechanical units; fence/wall at NW corner. 3. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-05-02 167 Chancellor Street, TMP 090126000 The Corner ADC District Owner: Alpha Omicron of Chi Psi Corp. Applicant: Kevin Schafer, Design Develop, LLC Project: Modify approved west elevation - extend steps to full width of the portico May 18, 2021 BAR Packet Guide 1 C. New Items 5:45 4. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-05-03 605 Preston Place, Tax Parcel 050111000 Rugby Road-University Circle-Venable Neighborhood ADC District Owner: Neighborhood Investment – PC, LP Applicant: Kevin Riddle, Mitchell Matthews Architects Project: Three-story apartment building with below-grade parking D. Other Business 5. Per City Council request: BAR consideration of Council’s May 3, 2021 Resolution of Intent to Remove, Relocate, Contextualize or Cover the Statues of Generals Lee and Jackson Currently Located Within City Parks. Note: This is intended as an opportunity for the BAR, in its role as an advisory body to Council, to consider and respond to Council’s request. 6. Staff questions/discussion Update on revisions to the ADC District Design Guidelines 7. PLACE update F. Adjourns May 18, 2021 BAR Packet Guide 2 BAR MINUTES CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW Regular Meeting January 20, 2021 – 5:30 p.m. Zoom Webinar Welcome to this Regular Monthly Meeting of the Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review (BAR). Due to the current public health emergency, this meeting is being held online via Zoom. The meeting process will be as follows: For each item, staff will make a brief presentation followed by the applicant’s presentation, after which members of the public will be allowed to speak. Speakers shall identify themselves, and give their current address. Members of the public will have, for each case, up to three minutes to speak. Public comments should be limited to the BAR’s jurisdiction; that is, regarding the exterior design of the building and site. Following the BAR’s discussion, and before the vote, the applicant shall be allowed up to three minutes to respond, for the purpose of clarification. Thank you for participating. [Times noted below are rough estimates only.] Members Present: Cheri Lewis, Breck Gastinger, Jody Lahendro, Carl Schwarz, Tim Mohr, Ron Bailey, Andy McClure, James Zehmer Members Absent: Sonja Lengel Staff Present: Patrick Cory, Jeff Werner, Robert Watkins, Joe Rice Pre-Meeting: Staff went over the different items on the agenda for the meeting. There was a concern about the railing at Beth Israel. That issue was addressed and resolved by staff. There was also discussion regarding the 125 Chancellor Street COA Application Staff went over the ivy on Market Street. The ivy is going to be on the building. Staff did go over the front porch reconstruction on West Jefferson. The meeting was called to order at 5:31 PM by the Chairman. A. Matters from the public not on the agenda No Comments from the Public B. Announcement of BAR Preservation Awards The Announcement of Preservation Awards was delayed until the BAR meeting next month. C. Consent Agenda (Note: Any consent agenda item may be pulled and moved to the regular agenda if a BAR member wishes to discuss it, or if any member of the public is present to comment on it. Pulled applications will be discussed at the beginning of the meeting.) 1. BAR Meeting Minutes – September 15, 2020 2. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-01-01 3 Gildersleeve Wood Tax Parcel 110019000 1 BAR Meeting Minutes January 20, 2021 William G. Chapman and Jeanette E. Peabody, Owners and Applicants New rear deck Mr. Gastinger moved to approve the Consent Agenda (Second by Mr. Lahendro) Motion passed 8-0. D. New Items 3. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-01-02 (Demolition) 125 Chancellor Street Tax Parcel 090137000 Alpha Tau Omega Holding Corp., Owner Khanh Uong, Design Develop, LLC, Applicant Rear addition and site work Staff Report, Jeff Werner – This is 125 Chancellor Street. This is a request because there's a demolition of a portion that is large enough that the demolition is treated under a separate Certificate of Appropriateness by the BAR. We will first be discussing the demolition request, which is for the portion at the rear of the house. The BAR will have to take action on that. That is followed up by the discussion for the proposed new work on the house. Both will follow the same steps. There may be people that wish to speak tonight. You can choose which application you would like to speak. This is a COA request for 125 Chancellor Street. This is a COA request for the demolition at a rear wing of the house. This house was constructed in 1898. It's a Victorian style building. It features several Lake East and Queen decorative motifs such as the mock half timbering and the front Gable and brackets beneath the overselling front eave. There was an addition to the rear, in addition to what is there. It was constructed around 1952. There is a garage in the back northwest corner that will be removed as part of this project. However, that is non-contributing and the BAR won't be taking action on that. In my discussion of this construction, a new addition will extend the use of the historic building. With that work, it will facilitate the building getting some much needed rehabilitation and repair. The historic rear wing is likely original. However, extension alterations would be necessary to incorporate it into the proposed rear edition. Just to be clear, we're talking about a new addition. That work requires the removal of the 1952 addition and this rear wing that we believe was original. In lieu of using the existing wing to connect the house and the addition, constructing a wider hyphen will more effectively and efficiently meet the fraternity programmatic needs. What they're looking to do is not have an addition that's just access to a small hallway, but something that's incorporating the larger house. The staff supports the approval of the COA request and recommends the following as condition: they provide for the BAR archives documentation of the rear elevation. That would be just a sketch of all the sides of it, including some photographs and the measure of elevations and floor plans. Design Build established our standard with what they did over there on Virginia Avenue. They're familiar with that. I did go through the criteria for demolition and offered my answers on each of the questions. If you have any about that, we certainly can refer to it. Khanh Uong, Applicant – We are requesting to remove this rear portion. We did look at it initially to see if we can incorporate. However, there's a couple limiting factors that preclude us from being able to do that. One: With the second floor of that rear addition, the extension is 16 inches lower than the rest of the second floor. It steps down. For us to be able to keep that, that requires a lot of restructuring, removing the floor Joyce, raising the floor and then by that time, the head height will be affected. The other limiting factor is you have to add this parking lot in the back that has to meet city standards. With all the drive aisles and parking lots, it really encroaches on how much area we have in the back to add 2 BAR Meeting Minutes January 20, 2021 this addition beyond just the setback. Unfortunately, we're hoping that we can take it down and then add an addition on the back that complements the front. Since it is on the rear, it's not really seen from the street. Taking it down won't affect the historic character of the remaining building as much. QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No Questions from the Public QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD Ms. Lewis – Since this is a partial demolition, guideline A6 is the only one that directly applies to a partial demolition, which addresses any remaining features. Are there any other guidelines that we have that will give us some guidance in a partial demolition? Mr. Werner – This references question A6. The criteria for a demolition doesn’t separate out the entire building or part of the building or a little bit of the building. The way I looked at it was given the three sides that will remain and the unique features of this building, would removing this roughly 8X15 piece on the rear see a significant loss or deterioration of the character. I didn’t see that we would. There is nothing else. This is what we have to refer to. Mr. Mohr – It does seem that there are actually two levels to the demolition here too. The porch is more about reconstruction because it is in bad repair. It’s not being obliterated. Mr. Werner – I looked at the porch reconstruction as part of the demolition COA. With the demolition COA, I was singularly looking at the rear. That’s how I was approaching it. Mr. Schwarz – The difference is the porch is being rebuilt. Mr. Werner – We’re not removing it and moving on. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC No Comments from the Public COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Mohr – Since they have to take the porch down and rebuild it. At the time, a little forensic exploration when you do the siding to see if there is any indication of the original attachment to the building. It bothers me having it project out. It feels one gable should be primary. The porch really competes with it. It seems out of scale to me. Mr. Werner – We do have information that acknowledges that this porch was reconstructed. The Sanborn Map support that. There is acknowledgment in the historic survey of that difference in character and style. It appears to have been done very early in the 20th century. It certainly is not original, but it certainly is old. Mr. Gastinger – I think we’re talking about that in the next application. Mr. Mohr – I was thinking more about if it is coming down at the same time as the rest of it, I would just request that there is some attention paid to if they find something. 3 BAR Meeting Minutes January 20, 2021 Mr. Bailey – Strictly speaking, it is not part of the demolition we are considering? Ms. Lewis – It is being demolished. I agree with Mr. Mohr. That porch is being demolished, unless the applicant is telling us they’re leaving significant features of it. It seems like it is being changed quite a bit. Mr. Schwarz – This is a technicality that we are arguing over. We can talk about it once we get past this. The demolition application only concerns the back. Staff has put the porch into the next application. It is being rebuilt in kind. We don’t have approve it as a demolition. If we want to talk about it now, you guys are free to. Mr. Bailey – Why don’t we deal with the demolition part first. We will get to the porch in the next COA, which is coming up later. Ms. Lewis – My concern is that there is a demolition being done to the porch. It is fine that it is not discussed here. We can talk about the demolition of the rear. There is demolition being done and it should be discussed. There should be a separate vote to demolish a very historic feature on this property. There should be two separate votes. One for the addition and one for the demolition of that feature. Mr. Schwarz – Because it is being rebuilt in kind and they are trying to tell us that they’re going to rebuild it exactly as it is. It’s a “different animal.” It is like replacing a roof or replacing a window. It is just a different procedure. It is a demolition but it’s going to be replaced exactly as it is. Ms. Lewis – Is it exactly? It’s in poor condition. I hope that it is not being replaced with the same materials exactly as it is. I don’t think that is the intention of the applicant. I do think there’s a demolition and our guidelines don’t actually say that an exception from a demolition is where something is being replaced. It’s not a window or a simple feature. It’s a significant feature that is being demolished. I think we’re entitled to look at it along with the replacement that is being presented. I agree with Mr. Mohr. Mr. Gastinger – I don’t think it limits our discussion of it at all. I think the way the applications have been presented, we should get past this point and bring it up in the next discussion. Mr. Schwarz – We have a procedural thing that we should probably discuss soon. Motion – Ms. Lewis - Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City Design Guidelines for Demolitions, I move to find that the proposed selective demolition at 125 Chancellor Street satisfies the BAR’s criteria and is compatible with this property and other properties in Corner ADC District, and that the BAR approves the application as submitted, with the following condition: • Provide for the BAR archives documentation of the rear elevation (all sides of the historic rear wing), including photographs and measured elevations and floor plans. Ron Bailey seconds motion. Motion passes (8-0). 4. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-01-02 (Demolition) 125 Chancellor Street Tax Parcel 090137000 4 BAR Meeting Minutes January 20, 2021 Alpha Tau Omega Holding Corp., Owner Khanh Uong, Design Develop, LLC, Applicant Rear addition and site work Staff Report, Jeff Werner – This is the second COA for 125 Chancellor Street. This COA request is for the new addition and renovation rehabilitation of existing house. There is some related site work involved. The house was constructed in 1888. It is a contributing building in The Corner ADC district. The BAR held a preliminary discussion of the proposed work back in November, I will note that the existing garage in the back corner is not contributing. They are removing it. That's not being addressed in this COA request. The proposed improvements and materials have been laid out in the site plan and are in the staff report. One correction is that there had been discussion of possibly requiring city ADA review. There was discussion of possibly requiring an ADA accessible ramp in the front. That has been addressed. It won't be necessary. The ADA ramp on the side will facilitate those requirements. Much of the preliminary discussion in November focused on the front porch, particularly its origin. I note that we reviewed the available information. While the current porch is stylistically different from the house it does likely date to the early 20th century. From the 1996 THR reconnaissance level survey, the porch may have been rebuilt. Originally, it was probably stylistically in keeping with the house. The present Colonial Revival porch, the one we see now, appears to be the same size as the original. It was probably added in the early 20th century. There are some notes I've made about what we should be primarily focusing on. The work and repairs that are proposed are always welcomed in a building. I know that there is some aluminum siding involved. Some discussion on that is necessary. I offer five points. If the COA is approved staff recommends a consideration of these conditions. One that the cement board siding on the addition would be smooth, no full grain. I saw in the photos a tremendous amount of old wires, conduit, boxes, phones, cables, etc. that would be removed to the extent that they're no longer being used. There's a lot of excess vegetation at the site. I don't necessarily want to see it bush hogged. There are some selective cleaning up that could be done. There appears to be a metal fence front along that that low wall that does show up in historic photographs. You would probably like to see that retained. There's trimming and pruning there. I think probably one or two invasive trees are in there. This goes to what Mr. Mohr was talking about. When the aluminum siding is removed, it would it would be nice for the BAR record to have photographs of what is below. This would not be for us to say. “Hey, we want you to make it look like that.” If that is being removed, it is an opportunity to get a snapshot of possibly what that original material looked like. I think that the comment was made about recording existing conditions at the front porch, in any sort of selective demolition. Khanh Uong, Applicant – There are a few site issues that we would like to discuss with you. The low fence on the front and the low wall. We had mentioned the city requiring a new hydrant and the location effect on some of the wall. Kendra Patrick, Applicant – We received comments after our last submission with it showing a fire hydrant and the removal of a small portion of the wall. They are now also requiring that the new water meter be placed behind the sidewalk. That will also need public utilities in and around it. The wall can’t be within that easement. It’s looking like a span of about 15 feet where the wall will need to be removed or jogged around all of the utilities. Before it was just this small area. It’s now growing. I would like to know how we should address that if it is worth maintaining the wall or removing it entirely. Mr. Gastinger – What is the nature of that retaining wall in the front? Do we have any pictures of it without it being covered up in vegetation? 5 BAR Meeting Minutes January 20, 2021 Mr. Uong – Maybe in the city’s historical survey, there was one fuzzy photo that showed it. Mr. Werner – It appears to be just a low concrete, covered wall. It is not dissimilar to what we have seen in other places. It is very low. Ms. Patrick – It only holds about a foot of dirt. It’s not so much necessary. It’s for aesthetics. Mr. Uong – At the last meeting we did focus a lot on the porch. We know the original porch was different and probably better in scale in proportion with the house. We have no documentation of what it looked like. With historic structures, you shouldn’t make something up. It’s probably better that we know what is here now. This is all rich in the 1920s. We can recreate that in time. The Board has expressed that they like the original version, which is closer to the house. We don’t feel it is right to fabricate something since we don’t know what it looked like. On the south elevation, there were some comments regarding the addition and its elevation to try to make it a little more playful. We did address that. We created double hung windows, so it has the same proportions as the front of the house with the shutters. We also block the blinds down closer to the front of the house. We also separate that rear addition porch away from the house. The scene between the two houses reads more clearly. There is a clear change between old and new. Those are the major changes that we addressed from the last meeting. QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No Question from the Public QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Zehmer – The eave line of the addition looked like it was above the roofline of the original house. On some of the other renderings, it looked like it was lower. I wanted clarity on where it is going to end up. Mr. Uong – The renderings are accurate. I think it is a little deceptive because the addition is pushed back from the other face. It brings it down. Mr. Schwarz – You said that there is going to be a 15 foot length area of the wall that has to be moved. Does it have to be moved a couple feet into the property? How wide is the easement that you need to avoid? Ms. Patrick – It would probably be seven to ten feet. The utilities would have to be a few feet back from the sidewalk. You would need a 5 foot easement around the utilities. The utilities have to be 5 feet apart from one another. Mr. Schwarz – I noticed that you put in some new trees that don’t currently exist. I was excited about those. Will they still be part of the design? Ms. Patrick – The trees will be part of the design. Mr. Lahendro – Going back to the front porch, it is a later change but it is still historic within the period of historic features. It does need to be preserved. Would the applicant please describe what they are planning to do with this porch? What is being proposed for the porch? 6 BAR Meeting Minutes January 20, 2021 Mr. Uong – The last time we presented we mentioned that we have a 3D laser scanner that helps us document distant additions. We have scanned the porch and we have all of the details. We are going to try to replicate it as closely as possible. However, off the shelf materials right now may be different. We might ask the Board if we have to replicate it exactly the way it is. Can we purchase new pieces that closely resembles what is there as possible? For most of the railing, we are going to go with wood painted railings. However, the columns, just for structural integrity and longevity, we are proposing a fiberglass structural column. Mr. Lahendro – You’re implying that you’re going to take it all apart and take it down. Mr. Uong – We went out there with our structural engineer. He deemed it as not safe. It’s pulling away from the building. It is structurally not sound. The wood is rotted. Bob Pinso, Applicant – Time has not been kind to this porch. There have been really ad hoc additions and variations. The subfloor is rotted. The Joyce work is coming apart. Somebody went underneath there and tried to jack it up. The design was only a single staircase. There is evidence of somebody trying to figure out how to solve the problem. It is not in great shape at all. There is a turning point where trying to create a safe environment and giving the Board what they are looking for. The pieces are really in rough shape. Mr. Lahendro – When was the building occupied? Mr. Pinso – It is currently occupied. Mr. Lahendro – I am really astonished that this is supposedly in such a condition that you have to dismantle and take this entire porch apart in a building that’s occupied now and being used. Instead of carefully trying to peel back the layers and taking off the trim and verifying that there is significant damage, have you done the probes to know that the structural system is completely gone? Mr. Pinso – I wouldn’t say completely gone. There is enough evidence around the perimeter. There are open areas where rot has formed. The soffit is dropping. The decking material is not original and in really rough shape. The columns are rotted in certain areas. There is a general perspective of how do we get this back and make it safe and recreate what is already there. This is subjective. From our perspective, it’s in really, really tough shape. If that is the approach that you would like use to take and be more surgical about it and try that methodology, I don’t know where the tipping point is and where we come back to you with what we found. It’s hard to take something apart to the level where you can actually see all of the issues without getting approval to move forward. We would be open to whatever you suggest. Mr. Lahendro – I am looking at the three columns on the right. They don’t seem to be anywhere near as damaged as the corner column, which makes sense. It’s more exposed on the corner. I would approach this by starting to selectively pull out the pieces that are severely damaged, taking some of the fascias off, the moldings off, and getting under the floor and looking at the structure under the floor. It is a historic feature. It should be repaired. Those elements that are severely damaged can be replaced, which means wood. The moldings shouldn’t be similar. They should match what is here. Mr. Uong – I think we understand your viewpoint. Unfortunately, it is hard for us to do exploratory work right now when the building is occupied. That’s why we went with this strategy of recreating it. However, if the Board approves we can build around. Once the building is unoccupied, we can start doing selective demolition, exploratory work, and more investigative work to determine what is feasible with the goal of retaining what is there and what is needed. If it comes to the point where it’s 7 BAR Meeting Minutes January 20, 2021 not salvageable and we have the structural documentation. Do we come back to the Board and figure out a new game plan? Mr. Lahendro – Don’t give in so easy. There is still the rest of the Board that will want to make itself known. I would rather hear the applicant tell us how the process is going to respect and preserve those features of the porch that are not damaged and replace those features and re-attach the structure to the building, to repair in kind, and to make it safe. If we knew that, we wouldn’t require you to come back every time you find something that you didn’t expect. It’s the process that I am more concerned about. I would much rather do it that way than for somebody to tell me that it is procedurally easier to tear it all down and build a new one and replace the features in fiberglass. Mr. Gastinger – If this was a restoration project, I don’t think it would be subject to our review? Mr. Schwarz – I think you might be right. Since we have a thorough review process in the city, I am wondering if you guys are certain that you’re not going to be required to put taller railings in. I don’t know what the railing is on the upper level. I think you have it drawn at 3 feet. The lower railing is at 42 inches. Mr. Uong – I think presidential allows three feet. Mr. Schwarz – It’s in the commercial building code. It’s not a single family or townhouse. I think you have to follow the commercial codes. Mr. Uong – I think there was an exception in there for R3. Mr. Zehmer – It lends itself to repair more than replace. If you’re repairing it, you can repair what is there. If you replace it, you may have to bring it up to code. Mr. Pinso – We would be under the rehab code. It is grey area. If you take it down, you should bring back that portion. If the top railing is rotting, you can’t put it back. I think that’s an issue we probably need to figure out. Mr. Mohr – It looks like the drawings are calling for PVC shutters. What is on there right now? Mr. Uong – Those shutters are metal. Mr. Schwarz – Is the PVC going to be hollow? Or is it a solid cross section? Mr. Uong – I would assume that it is solid. It’s not very thick. Mr. Schwarz – When we have approved foam materials, it’s the hollow extrusions we tend to shy away from. It’s the same thing with the vinyl windows. If it’s a solid section, we tend to be a little more lenient. Mr. Pinso – We are showing solid sections. Mr. Zehmer – With the two gable ends, the historic house will be infilled when the rear original part is demolished. The two gable ends that face over the top of the hyphen roof, do those have windows onto the hyphen? 8 BAR Meeting Minutes January 20, 2021 Mr. Pinso – They are not. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC No Comments from the Public COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Mohr – Given the discussion about the porch, I do think it looks better with one set of stairs. Is there a precedent that is telling you that you can make it one rung and have the porch on the left? Mr. Uong – The historical photos in the survey show a single rung. There is infill between those two left columns. Mr. Lahendro – Clearly the steps and railings are modern. Mr. Uong – You can tell that the landing was expanded to accommodate the new rung. We will also be moving that extra landing. Mr. Mohr – It does actually appeal to me that the shutters are picking up the accent color from the gable. It seems to draw that detail down into the house having that color repeated rather than having them be the same color window. Mr. Pinso – That would be fine with us. I would like to re-render it just to make sure. If we’re using the new color on the siding, we want to make sure that didn’t stand out. We would have to check with our clients. That whole siding is all blending. That color is not original. It is part of what is imbedded in the aluminum siding. Mr. Mohr – The one thing that does seem successful is that the detail up at the top being the accent color is picked up by the shutters. It does help draw that detail down and tie it into the house. It is hard to tell from the historic photos. It looks slightly darker. They are so grainy. Mr. Schwarz – Since it seems like this is necessary, I am frustrated with the City on this. I don’t understand why they have to move the water meter. It sounds like it would be better to not have the wall or to interrupt the wall as opposed to pulling it back to get away from the easement. You would have to regrade the grass. Can the meter be in the grass? Ms. Patrick – The meter will be in the grass. Mr. Schwarz – Theoretically, you could have the lawn come down to the sidewalk. The meter would be somewhere in there and the wall would be missing. Mr. Bailey – Do the other houses along that street have a wall as well? Is this something that this particular house has? Mr. Werner – Most of them have a wall of some kind. Mr. Schwarz – There used to be more stone walls on this street. At some point, some of them were rebuilt as concrete. They were rebuilt so long ago, we even considered those to be historic. This might be scored to look like block. 9 BAR Meeting Minutes January 20, 2021 Mr. Mohr – Did I miss something that the water meter couldn’t undercut the wall and put the water meter in the yard? They’re read by radio. Ms. Patrick – This is something we were told by city utilities. The wall must be removed in that whole area. We tried asking if the water meter could be put in the sidewalk in this case. They said ‘no.’ Mr. Gastinger – It is so frustrating that the city is putting us in that position. This really isn’t a wall. It shouldn’t be removed if we are protecting the fabric of this neighborhood. It’s a stupid reason. Mr. Schwarz – The ramp thing is really disturbing. That’s obviously not required. Mr. Mohr – What are they referring to as far as the water meter is concerned? Are they pointing to a specific regulation? Ms. Patrick – The water meter has to be upgraded because of the upgrades to the building. The fixture counts require a bigger meter. Mr. Mohr – I was wondering more about what would generate the clearance demand. Where is that standard coming from? Ms. Patrick – I looked at their standards and design manual. It is not very clear. It actually says the 20 foot easement around each utility like this. In the past, they have approved 5 feet. I would have to ask exactly what they are referring to. Mr. Pinso – What we would be willing to do to help is to try mock up something. We’re trying to do the right thing and make sure that the right amount of review is put on this. If we drew something and some alternatives, you guys could support us. Mr. Mohr – I just love that a water meter deserves ten feet of clear space. The telephone pole is allowed 6 feet in the middle of the sidewalk. It is so inconsistent. Mr. Lahendro – The Board could support you in terms of noting that the wall is historic. It’s part of the historic features of the site and the building. The building code does allow for waivers for certified historic buildings. You can ask if a waiver couldn’t be obtained in recognition of the historic wall. Mr. Gastinger – It’s important to note that it is an important feature of the neighborhood. Every property on that side of the street to Rugby Road has a low retaining wall. Mr. Werner – There is the ADA. We currently do not have an ADA Coordinator. There was a lot of default to conservative interpretation. The thing about the wall is that I thought it had more of something to do with the fire hydrant location. I just found the letter from city utilities. It says to “please show the new water meter behind the sidewalk and in the front yard. The city will need the new PUE for this as well.” I don’t know what a PUE is. “Due to the high curb present in this location, the meter needs to be moved back into the grass area so that it can be constructed properly. We can discuss further via email or phone if needed.” I always thought this was necessary for the fire hydrant. If they can put it in a slab at grade behind the wall, that would be something worth having further conversations. They are not unreasonable. The question for them would be whether that meter can be installed at grade and the wall kept in place. 10 BAR Meeting Minutes January 20, 2021 Mr. Mohr – I don’t understand it. The meter wrenches are pretty long. It doesn’t make any sense to me. Mr. Schwarz – I think the thing in the Standards and Design Manual that we fought over for so long is the fact that they don’t want to have any private construction over top of any public utility. Serving that meter will be going under a wall that will have to be purposed. They don’t want to have to worry about being responsible for rebuilding a wall. Mr. Werner – That is what I have heard as well. Mr. Mohr – It doesn’t make any sense. Mr. Schwarz – This is part of what was argued when the Standards and Design Manual was approved. It was a big argument. We lost some battles. Mr. Werner – Trying to think of a way to detach from this issue specifically. One thing I would recommend would be that if there does have to be a “jog” in the law, then you could reconstruct something that is similar. The city says “we understand this.” The applicant could take this out of this request and treat it later. There is a lot going on at this site. I am not sure that we can resolve this tonight. I would like to find a way to move forward. Part of the BAR review here is to give the COA to allow the site plan to move forward. There is some choreography here that isn’t perfect. A COE for the remainder of the project and this matter can come back in a separate request. It might not let the site plan be finalized. It does allow the designers to move forward in developing the construction drawings for the rest of the project. If that helps, that’s how I would like to see it broken up. I can reach out for some clarification. We have a lot of different people who have been talking. It is a lot of different people providing information on this. Let me pursue this further and if you all are willing to move forward with some type of comment. From the applicant end, come from saying “we would like to move forward and remove this” at your request so that it is not some condition to deal with later. That allows the rest of this to exist separately in another COA. Mr. Pinso – That makes perfect sense to us. We will fight the good fight. We will run into somebody who says that we can’t do that. We can illustrate things. There is nothing like a good diagram or alternatives. Mr. Schwarz – You are OK with us separating this portion of the site plan from the rest of the project? Mr. Pinso – Unless it is a bad idea. I don’t think we can give a definitive. I would rather move forward and get some kind of blessing on where we are so that we can move that part forward. Mr. Werner – Resolving that corner would be a separate COA and another application. Mr. Schwarz – When we make our approval tonight, let’s make some kind of statement that this wall is historic. Mr. Zehmer – Can we recommend that they remove the ivy and repair the fence? Mr. Werner – It is in the conditions. I have that in there as things that are recommended. Ms. Lewis – I just wanted to talk about the guidelines for rehabilitation in particular for restoration of existing features on the property. There are several that pertain to this application, particularly the 11 BAR Meeting Minutes January 20, 2021 proposal to replace existing shutters with PVC and to rebuild the columns in the front, which I assume are wood with fiberglass columns. From the rehabilitation guidelines, Section B, Guideline 5 – Restore as many elements as possible particularly materials, decorative details. Guideline 11 – Avoid materials where they never existed. Section C, Paragraph 20 – Address shutters in particular. Shutters should be wood and should be mounted on hinges. There is some language after that would allow for wood composite. I don’t see any PVC or other materials called out in the guidelines. Section D, Guideline 5 – Do not strip porches of historic materials and details. That is the purview of our Board. Mr. Bailey – There is also under that porch guideline, Guideline 4 – Replace an entire porch only if too deteriorated to repair or is completely missing. Design is to match as closely as possible. We really do need to know if it is too deteriorated. Mr. Uong – Our strategy is to repair it. Should we find that it is beyond repair, we will come back to the BAR. Mr. Lahendro – At the same time, I am fine with replacing the stair and the railings to what you show in your proposed design. I do want to commend the architects for making the changes to the addition on the back. It looks much better now. Ms. Lewis – I was about to thank the applicants for that too. You responded to our comments from the last meeting. It’s quite attractive too. Mr. Gastinger – I support the project especially with the changed attitude towards repair and restoration on the front porch, fighting the good fight on the side wall on the front, and with the more detail in the landscape plan. I think the architectural additions are elegant and appropriate and in accordance with our guidelines. Ms. Lewis – We’re approving PVC shutters and fiberglass columns? I just want to make clear that everybody supports this but me. They’re announcing that they will repair the porch. I haven’t heard anything about materials. Mr. Uong – We can investigate wood shutters. We just picked that for longevity and maintenance. Mr. Lahendro – Can we depend on the porch being repaired in kind for materials and features of appearance? Mr. Pinso – Absolutely. Our assessment was too light in relationship to preservation. It is in tough shape. It wasn’t us trying to say it was an easy decision. It was just so bad. We are cumulatively thinking about the safety issues and all of the things that we are going to find. That’s different than what we have found. We are re-committed to saying let’s re-check our assumptions and come back. We will have a much more cumulative understanding of what the problems are. We will present those problems and ask for a way forward. If the columns are completely rotted, what would you like for us to do? Those discussions will be had as a way forward. Mr. Lahendro – I think that is fair. The way that it is presented now is we’re replacing it without really knowing that it requires to be completely replaced. That’s for us as the Board to approve. We need to see evidence that it is too far gone to be repaired. Ms. Lewis – I was really impressed with the 3D heat scan that you showed us. I have no doubt that front corner is sinking. There are other conditions that make it tenuous. That doesn’t mean all of the 12 BAR Meeting Minutes January 20, 2021 architectural details there are tenuous. Structurally, you’re right. It’s not in great shape. It may not be safe for the students that are coming back. I am trying to distinguish between a condition that you definitely have identified that we don’t doubt is there. What could be preserved is a 100 year old porch. I noticed that the sunburst brackets are being preserved. If those are in bad shape, I would hope that they can be rehabbed or replicated. They seem to be in OK shape. I can’t support the PVC shutters or fiberglass columns. I would support the approach you have adopted to see what can be repaired. I don’t feel the applicant has to come back. Mr. Werner – The way I have been interpreting the BAR tweaking the scope is that if the applicant acknowledges it, this element has been revised or moved. That happens all of the time. That revision is incorporated into the motion. If something has to come back later, clarify that and remove it from the scope. Mr. Zehmer – On the porch, it seems that there is a downspout missing adjacent to that corner column, which likely has a lot to do with the condition. I am assuming that you’re going to address stormwater management in the restoration. I would encourage you to not let the condition to get worse and put a corrugated pipe as a temporary fashion to get the water away from there until you are able to start construction. Mr. Gastinger – I am wondering if we could approve the application and not approve the removal of the historic sidewall. If they can come up with a scenario that works with the city, they have the approval they need. They don’t have to come back to us rather than separate applications. Mr. Schwarz – Looking at the guidelines, the shutters, in general, should be wood. The existing shutters are metal. In some circumstances, appropriately dimensioned painted composite materials. That’s why I was asking if these were solid sections or hollow. What we have been trying to avoid is the cheap vinyl things you can buy at Lowes. If it is a PVC solid section of PVC trim, we allow it quite frequently. That’s what I am reading this as. My concern is that if they put up wood, in five years it is going to be rotten and unpainted and starting to sag again. The longevity of doing something that’s not wood appeals to me in this instance. Mr. Lahendro – Can PVC be mounted on hinges? Mr. Schwarz – It does need to be painted. Make sure you can put a dark color on that. Mr. Mohr – Fiberglass might be better than PVC. I empathize with Ms. Lewis’ point of view. They are wood windows. Ms. Lewis – Avoid materials where they never existed. With regard to Mr. Schwarz’s comment on this being a fraternity house, it is not undergraduates that maintain a fraternity house. Every fraternity house is not owned by the undergraduate members. It is owned by a house corporation or in a lot of cases they are owned by the universities or colleges. I don’t think there is an exemption in the guidelines. I don’t think we have the leeway to look at economic circumstances of different applicants under our guidelines. Mr. Schwarz – In the past, the fraternity houses have looked pretty awful. Ms. Lewis – No disagreement with you. I have been looking at these houses for a very long time. I don’t think our guidelines allow us to select who can maintain something. If it’s low income housing 13 BAR Meeting Minutes January 20, 2021 but in a historic house, we may feel bad imposing more expensive materials that are more costly to maintain. Mr. Schwarz – I am disagreeing with your reading of the guidelines. I think that it is allowed. It is permitted in certain circumstances. Ms. Lewis – Is PVC a composite? Mr. Uong – There is PVC and PVC composite. They are both solid. Mr. Zehmer – We have allowed composite slate shingles on roofs in this district as opposed to requiring Buckingham slate. Ms. Lewis – I would point out that composite slate is allowed in our guidelines. It is specifically called out as a material that is permitted. Mr. Schwarz – It says it here. In some circumstances, composite materials may be used. Mr. Werner – The best example was the Chippendale railing that was installed. It was a composite material that they used for that. It was something that Mr. Schwarz had recommended. There is a composite material that is solid. There is extruded vinyl. There is a distinct difference in how the materials are constructed. The BAR has allowed that. Mr. Mohr – At a very minimum, it really needs to be a paintable surface. It should be something that is designed for paint. You get that imperfection of a hand painted surface. In terms of your perception, that gets it a long way towards being a wood shutter and what you see. These are wood windows. It has to be up there with maintaining those components. Mr. Werner – I would strongly recommend the motion referred to the conditions that I inserted. I do agree with Mr. Gastinger’s suggestion about addressing the water meter. I think that is sufficient as well. Mr. Gastinger – We have the issue about the change relative to the front porch. We have the shutters. We have the side wall. Is there anything else? Mr. Schwarz – With that side wall, their drawing shows it jogging around a fire hydrant. I think that’s going to be a given no matter what. I am willing to concede that we can approve the drawing as submitted but not what they have described with the water meter. They would still be interrupting that wall. I think that they’re going to have interrupt it at least for the fire hydrant. Or we don’t approve the wall. I think we’re going to be stuck with that fire hydrant. Mr. Pinso – If you approve that wall as it is, we are going to fight the good fight. We’re going to do the due diligence. We’re going to show different versions of it. We will do our best. We are going to make it the best we can. We would like as much freedom as possible to do it. Motion – Mr. Gastinger – Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City Design Guidelines for Rehabilitations, I move to find that the proposed alterations, repairs, and new construction at 125 Chancellor Street satisfies the BAR’s criteria and is compatible with this property and other properties in Corner ADC District, and that the BAR approves the application as submitted with the following recommendations: 14 BAR Meeting Minutes January 20, 2021 • The cement board siding on the addition and aluminum siding will be smooth, no faux grain. • Remove from the exterior walls unnecessary wires, conduits, and related boxes. • Clearing of vegetation from the front (sidewalk) wall and metal fencing. • Trimming and pruning of remaining vegetation and removing invasive plants. • When the aluminum siding is removed, provide for the BAR record photographs of each elevation. • Shutters on the project should be wood and not PVC, and be the same color as the accent color in the front gable. In addition, the BAR supports the project’s approach of repair and restoration of the porch. In addition, the BAR recognizes that some elements of the porch will be reinstated given the documentation that has been prepared. The site wall is approved as drawn, but the BAR recommends the applicant work with the City to minimize any required demolition or reconstruction of the wall. Jody Lahendro seconds. Motion passes (7-1, Lewis opposed). The meeting was recessed for a three minute break. 5. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-01-03 801 Park Street Tax Parcel 470020000 Daniel G. Krasnegor and Kristin H. Jensen, Owners Megan Taylor, TimberStone Landscape Design, Applicant Landscaping Staff Report, Jeff Werner – This is a COA request for a landscape and hardscape plan. This is the Trevellian-Tennyson House. It was constructed in 1893. It is in the North Downtown ADC District. It is contributing. It was originally more elaborately detailed than it is now. It's a Queen Anne style house with a steeply pitched roof with tall chimneys, large dormer windows, and crusting at the ridges. It has been described as one of the most elaborately decorated homes on Park Street. It's been to the BAR twice for some renovations, particularly in February of 2017. The BAR approved a series of exterior renovations which were recognized by the BAR with a 2020 Preservation and Design Award for the rehabilitation of historic structure. The application before you this evening is a COA request for a conceptual master plan for plantings, patios, walkways, pools, and a parking area on the side street. We originally talked about not having any trees removed, but there is a small apple tree at the front sidewalk. They do hope to remove that. It will be replaced with the two serviceberry trees with one on each side of that walk. The BAR should discuss the applicants request for the option work at the front walk. That's something that they've specifically asked about. The intent is to correct the riser heights at the steps. It also provides an opportunity to better align it with the front of the house. The fact that it is concrete and not original to the house certainly is old but not original. The plan as it has been submitted as is to some extent conceptual. There is some detailed information in there. The applicant has provided some of the addendum sheets to establish the types of materials that are going to be used. This is a large scale project and this isn't going to be tackled all at once. They wish to establish some parameters that they can move forward with it. If they have to adjust something we've given a range of things that can be used. Staff is recommending approval of the COA. I've stated five conditions that I think cover the basis for allowing them to move forward with what's conceptual. There is a wood deck in the rear. There is a proposed shed. They are excluded from this and would require separate COAs at 15 BAR Meeting Minutes January 20, 2021 a later date. The only thing I would add is the patio or this proposed pool area is actually depressed down into the grade. Instead of having a pool with a big wall around it or a fence, it's allowing a continuous appearance of being open from Park Street back. The pool would be built at a much later phase. If it happens or when it happens, the goal is to incorporate some self-closing cover. That does not require the large fences that that we see in other situations. I think it is an excellent solution. It is depressed into the landscape and not elevated above it. Megan Taylor, Applicant – I will go over the existing conditions and the property goals. As you can see, this survey was done back in the fall. We had the built conditions surveyed, the mature trees surveyed, and the grade between the house and the rear detached studio, and the grade where the proposed pool might be located. There aren’t discernable landscape features other than the one front walkway connecting the front porch to the sidewalk on Park Street and the sidewalk connecting the porch to Park Hill Street. The overall goals for the property include an overall masterplan starting with any smaller planting projects. The overall goals for the property are to revitalize the landscape, revitalize the existing circulation and create new circulation, and to create private outdoor spaces. With revitalizing the landscape, the intent is to maintain the open park light aesthetic along the Park Street frontage and to create more private intimate garden spaces starting from the front plane of the house and moving back to the rear of the house. With revitalizing the circulation and creating new circulation, both of the existing walkways have entry steps. Where the risers are uneven, they can be hazardous to navigate, especially the steps on the sidewalk. Both walkways are also narrow and we are proposing to have them widened. The front walkway is cracking and settling in several places. There is grass and weeds growing into the joints. New circulation is needed from the off street parking area on Hill Street to the rear entrance of the main house to the entrance to the studio. The rear entrance to the house is used on a more regular basis. The entrance to the studio would be used for visiting family and guests. The final goal of the property is to create private outdoor spaces. There are no programmed or delineated outdoor spaces. Low retaining walls are needed to create these spaces due to the sloping grade. With the use of plantings and walls to create and define the private spaces, the homeowners will have the ability utilize the extent of their property as desired. This is a conceptual plan. The first phase would be the front yard plantings, the English garden, the front walkway, and the Park Hill walkway improvements. QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No Questions from the Public QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Gastinger – Thinking about existing trees in the front yard, are there other additional trees that didn’t show up on the survey on the north side of the lot? Ms. Taylor – There are some smaller trees. I believe there is a willow oak and a couple other trees that were saved. I believe that there was some clearing done when the renovation work happened on the house. On the area that was cleared on the northeastern side of the property, there were some trees that were saved. A couple of trees are not on this survey. Mr. Gastinger – They seemed to show up in the street view. Ms. Taylor – That apple tree just to the north of the front walkway seems to be dying. That would be the only tree that we are proposing to remove. 16 BAR Meeting Minutes January 20, 2021 Mr. Werner – The street view that is on Park Hill is a 2012 image. The Park Street view is more current. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC No Comments from the Public COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Mohr – The strategy makes a lot of sense. The only thing I would like to see are some more street trees. That part of Park Street going up the other side is the leaf treed part of the street. The house has the scale to handle some big trees down near the front. It would enhance the park like setting. Ms. Taylor – Are you suggesting understory trees as well as larger shade trees? Mr. Mohr – I am thinking large shade trees. The expanse and the openness is nice. I think having some large scale trees will take some time. Where some of the smaller houses were built in the 1970s, they really annihilated most of the bigger trees that were there at one time. Trying to fill in those trees would be nice. A good part of Park Street is shaded. Mr. Gastinger – That aerial photo from the 1930s is quite telling. There were larger trees on the property. A few of those might be already underway with the smaller trees that don’t show up on the survey. The newer proposed trees are smaller, understory. I think some consideration for some smaller canopy trees would be welcome as it relates to the neighborhood. Ms. Taylor – There are overhead utility lines on that side of the street. We could propose planting some of the larger trees a little bit further back than some of the typical street trees. Mr. Gastinger – That would be fine and we could leave some difference to finding a location to those. I think the design is really elegant and appropriate. For the early phases, I think we have more than enough information to give some approvals. I do want to speak about the concrete wall and stair. Clearly the stair has some safety issues in the way it has been constructed. I probably recommend or prefer keeping the location of the stair and path where it is. I don’t have an issue with adjusting and reconstructing the width or allowing for the newer material. The rest of the plan seems, if not including walls, future fencing, pool, or the deck, is an excellent direction in keeping with the house. Mr. Mohr – The survey implies that the walkways end at the porch. Mr. Schwarz – I went up and down Park Street. There is one other stair and concrete wall that is similar. It is down south of Lyons Court. It is pretty far away. I was trying to figure out if this was a character defining feature along Park Street. Walls are a character defining feature. We have stonewalls and brick walls. It seems so odd that it is such a tiny stair. It is crooked and not lined up with the front porch. It makes no sense with the house. I would be willing to say fix it and make it right. Ms. Taylor – The wall is hardly a wall. It is maybe 9 or 10 inches tall. If there are changes, it would be the entire length of that wall. Mr. Schwarz – If you want to rip up the front steps that would be OK. If the homeowners would like to put in stone along the whole wall, they can offer that. 17 BAR Meeting Minutes January 20, 2021 Mr. Werner – The next house down is that 1860s house. It even has the curved walls. There are two more going towards Farrish. Trying to determine where exactly that wall falls before they start tinkering with it, some of these are within the city right of way. There was a big discussion of these walls and whether to retain them and what to retain. Ms. Taylor, does that help you with where they were as far as fixing the risers? Ms. Taylor – I think the risers on the sidewalk are more important to the homeowners. That gets used more frequently, especially with guests. The riser height on those steps is actually greater than the riser height difference on the front walkway steps. It would not be critical to them if those concrete risers remain the same at the front. The concrete wall would remain the same. The only thing that would change on the front walkway would be the width and the paving material. I think a greater importance should be set to be focusing more on the sidewalk steps. Mr. Werner – If a motion is made, an alternative request from the applicant was that it was stated clearly in the motion. Mr. Schwarz – A quick comment on the suggestion on adding some street trees. You mentioned the power lines. It looks like it is all communication lines that run along that sidewalk. I could be wrong. In the past, we had this idea you could grow street trees over those. That might be a false assumption. It would be worth investigating if you go with our recommendation to put in some street trees. Mr. Mohr – I would second that. They are nowhere near as aggressive where the com lines are located. Mr. Gastinger – I would like to not characterize them as street trees but characterize the recommendation as for canopy trees. I think there is something to be said for the composition of different views for the house. Generally, it is getting larger canopy trees in there. There is not a consistent street tree along that section of Park Street. Mr. Lahendro – The Tree Commission has recommendations for appropriate canopy trees in the city. I suggest taking a look at that. Mr. Schwarz – Staff’s recommendation was that all of the trees be on the master tree list. We need to exclude the fruit trees from that. They will never find fruit trees on the city master list. Mr. Gastinger – I was curious about that recommendation. Is that to give more flexibility? Mr. Schwarz – The idea was to let them finish the design and not come back to us. Mr. Werner – If they prefer something different, they have a parameter to work with. Good call on the fruit trees. I didn’t realize they are not on the list. From a traffic calming design perspective, opening areas and closed areas and traveling from one area to another helps with that engagement with the road. The guidelines do get into height recommendations for proximity to utility lines. Mr. Lahendro – Are we in the discussion period? My opinion is that I see the need for the owners to have private spaces. I think the design is very skillfully done to provide that. It looks very attractive. It is thoughtful. I am entirely for the conceptual design. Mr. Schwarz – Do we have anyone opposed to what they have requested for the front walkway. 18 BAR Meeting Minutes January 20, 2021 Motion – Ms. Lewis – Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find that proposed landscape and hardscape plan at 801 Park Street satisfies the BAR’s criteria and is compatible with this property and other properties in the North Downtown ADC District, and that the BAR approves the application as submitted, with the following conditions: • That canopy trees be considered slightly set back from the street • New trees and plantings will conform to the City’s Master Tree List (dated October 2016) and Master Shrub List (dated February 2004), with the exception of fruit trees shown on the plan • Paving materials and walls will conform to the precedent images provided by the applicant. • Proposed walls will not to exceed a height of 4-feet above grade at any point on the outside face, as viewed from Park Street and as viewed from Park Hill. • As work progresses the applicant will work with staff the planned work to assure it is consistent with the CoA, with the understanding that revisions may require BAR review. • The CoA excludes the proposed shed and wood deck, which will require design review and a separate CoA. • That the BAR favors either Option 1 or 2 for the front steps to the sidewalk Mr. Schwarz seconds the motion. Motion passes 8-0. 6. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-01-04 301 East Jefferson Street Tax Parcel 330204000 Beth Israel Temple, Owner Kurt Keesecker, BRWArchitects, Applicant Entry renovations Jeff Werner, Staff Report – I spoke briefly at the Pre-Meeting. The only question that we had left was the resolution of that railing. Your addendum covered. That strips out the language that I had offered in a way to condition it or have further discussion. Diane Hillman, Applicant – I'm president of Congregation, Beth Israel. I am speaking tonight about the entry door security upgrade. The events of July and August of 2017 were felt throughout our community, but in particular, Congregation Beth Israel with both the KKK and the Unite the Right rallies. We were located between the Stonewall Jackson and Robert E. Lee statues. We were literally in the middle of the fight among the opposing forces. We experienced these events in a very unique and troubling way, one that I never expected to see in my lifetime, the rise of open aggressive anti- Semitism. We realize that life in our community has changed and that CBI needed to protect itself as never before the events. The events here and later in Pittsburgh reinforced our belief that we needed to be proactive, and to provide both physical and process improvements. In the last couple of weeks, we've understood that the great growth of racism and anti-Semitism and intolerance in general have grown even more than we ever expected. This project is a timely one. It follows on the project that you approved two years ago and that has been implemented at CBI, the addition of a fence and other security upgrades in our courtyard. In an effort to provide adequate security, we have been supported with assessments by The Department of Homeland Security and the Virginia Department of Emergency Management. We've received funding from FEMA for the current project that we are contemplating. Bruce Warrdell Architects and Karim Habbab have both been working on this project 19 BAR Meeting Minutes January 20, 2021 with us. The current conditions are that our sanctuary doors at the top of the steps on Jefferson Street are over 100 years old. They currently open inwards, which potentially impedes exit in an emergency. They are a weak point. They're very difficult to secure against unauthorized entry. They're also very leaky, whether it be cold or hot air that comes streaming in those very old doors. We plan to replace the doors with recessed outward opening doors that will be similar in design of the building in the early 1900s. They will be framed with metal door jam and soffit. We will extend the landing and railings to enhance safety. Both of the courtyard entry doors, the Jefferson Street door, and the Third Street door have resulted in the thermal instability. There's a lot of sunshine in the courtyard door and a lot of damp and cold on the Jefferson Street door. They're warped so that they do not close and secure properly. We are going to be replacing those doors with doors that are better. They will close properly behind people as they enter the building. In addition, we'll be providing enhanced security glass in and around the doors so that people from the inside can see what's happening and whether anybody is coming in. Finally, we will be adding electronic surveillance. Right now, we can’t visualize visitors to the sanctuary. If you're serving as an usher and you want to let in only people you want to let in, it's very difficult. You can't see who's at the door. We'll be adding an audio visual screen at those doors and additional enhancements so that the office can see who is coming to each of the other two doors and decide whether to let them in. That is really the sum total of the project. We hope that the Board of Architectural Review will consider these improvements with an eye to both security and architecture improvement. We've worked hard in partnership with BRW architects to develop an attractive, historically appropriate and secure plan to continue to protect Congregation Beth Israel, and its entire community of worshipers, students, and visitors. Karim Habbab, Applicant – As you can see here, these are some existing photos in the beginning of the booklet. This shows the sanctuary doors as they are now. I want to reiterate that these doors that are on there are not historic. We don't know exactly when they were installed. It was likely in the 60s or 70s. Those are the doors that we want to replace. This is an estimate of where we're adding a new step to this landing. You can see that the edge of that tape measure is where the new step is going to go. It's going to extend all the way back into where the doors are and slightly into that vestibule. There are some clearer drawings later on in the booklet. That's the interior. When you go into those sanctuary doors, that's what you see on the inside. These two are the other two doors that we're talking about: the Third Street entry and what we're calling the Jefferson Street doors or the lobby entry. This is a historic photo of what we believe could be the original historic doors at the sanctuary, which are not what is there now. You can see the design of them. Starting with the Third Street door, Diane mentioned the grant to upgrade the security and update the doors. On the left hand side is our sketch of what the new door would look like. It will have those glass panels at the top to increase visibility. When you're leaving the space, you can see who's on the other side of the doors. The design itself takes its cue from that black and white photograph you saw with the paneling. For the Jefferson Street entry, they're kind of a different animal on this side of the building. It is part of the newer addition that was built by BRW Architects. The design for those doors references the Gothic arch. On the right hand side, you can see that arch and those windows. We're referencing that design element into the new design of those doors and adding all of the glass paneling. You can see through the doors as well when you're exiting the building. With the sanctuary doors themselves, this is the existing plan on the left hand side. The way it is now is that the landing itself is inadequate, where you have the doors open inwards and you have a bunch of little steps. As you open the doors, there are some original pictures in the beginning of the booklet that show that condition. Our proposal, for egress reasons, is to have those doors open outwards. In order to do that, we have to recess the doors, add a step, and create that landing depth so that we can have those doors open outwards and have people safely exit that building. I will say there was a recent addition inside the sanctuary space that has another egress door from inside there that opens outwards for an emergency exit. This door is still used for occasions. It would be beneficial from a security standpoint that they open outwards. The design of those doors is a direct recall back to that 20 BAR Meeting Minutes January 20, 2021 historic photograph with the paneling. With the railings, we were thinking of how to modify the historic railings. We decided it would be better to leave those alone. Since we're pouring a new concrete landing at the top there, cleaning up all those little steps that exist there, and making the new landing, we can install new railings at that landing to satisfy the height requirement, since we're adding a new step and raising that level. With the materiality of the doors you can see this as our precedent palette. With the next picture you can see some schematic renders of what that recess could look like. Since we're pushing the doors back that created this, we saw it as an opportunity with these larger jams to reference back to the materials used in the ecclesiastical doors in big cities. It is this bronze material. In this case, we were thinking of that as the material to go on as the panels and the soffit of this recess, while the doors would be mahogany wood. QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC Kent Schlussel – I'm the chairman of the Congregation Beth Israel Safety and Security Committee. Since 2017, we have had four different safety and security inspections of our building and emergency procedures. Two of these inspections have resulted in written reports and two were recommendations verbally. The written reports were done by Department of Homeland Security about the secure communication network, SCM. SCM is a North American Jewish Federation organization. It has been authorized by DHS and FEMA to conduct security assessments. The verbal reports were done by Charlottesville Police Department in 2019. SCM last month was asked to review our proposed plan on the doors. I've also talked to the FBI and the State Police about the doors. All these reports were concerned about the physical security and safety of CBI building. We have done several things inside the building and outside of the building. The most noticeable was a courtyard renovation. We thank the BAR for approving this renovation. We will continue to improve our safety and security of CBI. All the inspectors noted the doors, especially the doors leading to the main sanctuary, as a problematic issue with safety and security. FEMA agrees with the analysis concerning the doors for the building. We were successful obtaining grant money, as Diane Hillman has stated previously. All the doors need to be replaced to improve both our safety and security procedures. As you can see from our request, I believe this will not only enhance the video of the building, but improve both safety and security of the building. I urge you to approve this plan. QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Zehmer – Do you have the original architectural drawings for the building? Bruce Wardell, Architect – We have some drawings that were done ten years prior to the addition in 1992 to 1994. We have those drawings. I am not aware of original drawings of the building. We have done existing drawings of the building. Mr. Zehmer – I appreciate your intent to replicate the original front doors and looking to see if there is a way to match some of the molding profiles and details for those doors. Maybe there is some other trim in the building that might lend some clues. Mr. Lahendro – It appears that the limestone step that is there now outside the door. Is it being proposed that is going to be demolished and replaced with concrete that is going to be part of the extension? Mr. Wardell – If we look at the entire stairway, it is a patchwork of different materials. The stairs up to the bottom landing are one kind of concrete. The stairs from the bottom of the landing up to the top of the landing are another kind of concrete. The sill into the door itself is a kind of stone. 21 BAR Meeting Minutes January 20, 2021 Mr. Lahendro – One of your drawings calls it out as limestone. Mr. Wardell – It probably is limestone. What has to happen is that has to come out to the edge for the landing. Mr. Lahendro – It appears to be part of the original fabric of the building. It would be a shame to demolish it to create monolithic concrete step. Mr. Wardell – There might be a way to detail an extension of this and perhaps even in limestone. Once we move this sill and we recess the doors inside by the three feet for each panel, we now have a surface that we have to treat that is an exterior surface. We end up with this band of stone here with a surface inside and a surface outside that are something else. As we are looking at this, we thought that patchwork that would create this part piece of this landing. We wanted that to be homogenous. As you raise the issue of the kind of original piece of this, there might be a solution where we can keep this. I am not sure the height of it is going to be exactly right. It is a puzzle. Our initial proposal was to make it a homogenous surface. Mr. Lahendro – I understand the complications. I am sure this existing limestone has some slope to it. It might even have some wear in the center of it that makes it not a straight line. Hopefully, you understand my point that this is original fabric. Mr. Wardell – The ideal concept and the technical solutions don’t work. We will know more when we pull the threshold up and know what is in the framing. It might be possible that we could layer this thing from the front, middle, and back and make all of them work together. If we can do that, I think that would be a wonderful solution. Mr. Gastinger – This portion of the concrete is going to be exposed to the side and I am just making sure that it is going to be held back from the edge of the stair. We also have enough clearance between that pedestal and the new riser. Mr. Wardell – We will probably put pavement in the concrete to match it a little more closely with the old concrete. You can see that this top landing is different than the top stair. The orange line is about where the new slab would be. It would be exposed to the side. It would be held away. The new railing would be anchored in the new concrete. Mr. Mohr – Is the bronze liner going to weather? Mr. Wardell – We are going to let it weather. If you go around to the larger cities, many places of worship have these bronze doors that have the patina on them. There is a manufacturer that will shape those panels. That bronze will have that shape to it. We will let it weather. Mr. Mohr – You are going to impress a panel in that? That is actually not going to be a modern arch. Its color and the wood door are going to be in the same family contrast wise. Mr. Wardell – The mahogany and the bronze will approach each other. We will have it for a year or two being pretty bright. Mr. Lahendro – I presume the panels in the jam will be aligned with the panels in the door? 22 BAR Meeting Minutes January 20, 2021 Mr. Wardell – That is probably right. Mr. Mohr – With the door where the arches are, is that in the new part? Mr. Wardell – That is in the 1994 addition. The 1994 addition referenced the arches in the original sanctuary. Mr. Mohr – The doors that you built in there were straight paneled. Mr. Wardell – They were all horizontal. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC No Comments from the Public COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Mohr – This is one of my favorite additions within Charlottesville. I thinkt that you did a fabulous job with this. I understand what you are doing with the front doors. The one door that I am less comfortable with is the changing of the rectangular door to that gothic style of door. I like the door that you have. I understand that you have to put some glass in it. I like your original design better. Mr. Schwarz – As far as the guidelines are concerned, I think the door replacements are fine for the new addition. I think the door replacement for the sanctuary is an exception to the guidelines. I think it is an understandable exception. I think you have executed it really well. I am in favor of this application. Your railing solution was very simple. I appreciate what Mr. Lahendro was saying with preserving that limestone threshold. I wonder if there is some way that threshold would indicate that you have changed things from what was original and being able to still see it might be an indication that this door used to be flush with the façade. It is now an indication of the change. Mr. Mohr – Isn’t the tough thing with that is that you have to extend that step? Mr. Wardell – We are extending it on both sides. On the inside, we have to get enough depth of substrate to get some kind of stone or masonry surface. It is an exterior surface. We have to waterproof it. We have to do that without making a dam. We have to get the waterproofing out. If we are going to preserve it, we have to figure out how to make that a non-movable joint, where it doesn’t expand and contract. There is some solution that when pull up the rug and the floor. We’re happy to bring something in front of you when we come up with some crazy idea. Mr. Mohr – If you have some kind of reference of the threshold that takes care of that aspect. I don’t see how you solve it going the other direction in terms of that piece of stone and adding another piece of nosing to get another foot. That part seems to be problematic. Mr. Wardell – You are backing yourself into the same solution that we came to and that is monolithic for the whole thing. Unfortunately, it is a process of elimination. I am not excluding trying to solve the problem. Some of it may be how that seal is anchored into the rest of the building. Mr. Habbab – Another issue is the edge of that seal is not high enough for the code to add that step. It slopes steeply from the threshold of the doors down to the edge of that seal. If you build that and go back, you would be going down to hit the edge of that limestone seal. 23 BAR Meeting Minutes January 20, 2021 Mr. Zehmer – The biggest challenge is waterproofing it and preventing water from getting in. You mentioned potentially adding some security cameras and devices. I didn’t know if that is something the BAR normally reviews. Mr. Schwarz – We probably should. They are the type of thing that appear. Mr. Zehmer – With working at the University, we try to position them looking back towards the doors so that it is not front and center. Mr. Wardell – Mr. Habbab, you have a proposal from the people and you have talked to them about that in their proposal? Mr. Habbab – We met onsite today. I think we will have an intercom with a camera on the side of one of the jams so they can see who is at the door. That feeds into a screen on the interior side of the door. Mr. Werner – It is installation into the masonry. My key concern is that you don’t bore into the brick and be discrete with your junction box. We don’t have that in the guidelines. That would be the recommendation. Mr. Zehmer – The applicant can do something that fits in well with the building and it doesn’t detract from the architecture. Mr. Mohr – You can use a remote camera with a fiber optic cable. Mr. Bailey – Would that not have an intercom capability? Mr. Mohr – The problem with the intercom aspect is that you have to have a panel for somebody to understand that there is an intercom. Once it becomes an intercom, you don’t have much of a choice. You have to have a panel for somebody to address. Mr. Gastinger – I support the project as it has been detailed. I think it is a really elegant solution to an unfortunate problem in reality. I think it is important in thanking Congregation Beth Israel for their continued commitment to taking issues of expansion or further protection and turning in an elegant design solution. Motion – Mr. Lahendro – Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed entrance alterations at 301 East Jefferson Street satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are compatible with this property and other properties in the North Downtown ADC District, and that the BAR approves the application as submitted. Tim Mohr seconds: Motion passes (8-0) 7. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-01-05 116 West Jefferson Street Tax Parcel 330183000 Jefferson Street Properties, LLC, Owner Gordon Johnson, Peter Johnson Builders, Applicant Porch reconstruction 24 BAR Meeting Minutes January 20, 2021 The applicant was not available at this meeting. The BAR moved onto the next item on the agenda. After a brief staff presentation on this project, the BAR moved to defer this project. Motion to Defer - Mr. Schwarz (Second by Mr. Gastinger) Motion passed 8-0. 8. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-01-06 408 East Market Street Tax Parcel 330183000 408 East Market Street Condo Owners Association, Owner Robert Nichols, Formwork Architecture, Applicant Exterior alterations Jeff Werner, Staff Report – This is a COA request for 408 East Market Street. This building was constructed in 1946. It is in the downtown ADC District. It is contributing. Anything within the downtown ADC District, Council designated as contributing regardless of the age or historic nature. However, this one now is 74 years old. It would be eligible for inclusion in the National Register district. What you're reviewing is a request to paint the exterior. There are some false railings above the main entry on those windows on the second and third floor. Remove those false railings. There are fabric canopies that will be removed and replaced at the center entrance with a metal awning. Somebody is going have to tell me the difference between a canopy and an awning. There are planters at the entrance that will be replaced with new plantings. The planting is going to include a Boston ivy intended to cover the walls on either side of the entrance. The paving in front of the public aggregate exposed concrete will be removed and replaced with bluestone pavings. In the discussion, there were some questions that you all had asked. The applicant has provided that information. There's a section to the canopy which we circulated. The Ivy tent is to cover the walls. There will be no railing. The painting above the window set back will be painted. Anything that's brick will be painted. Staff sees no issues. There was a question about some of the shading that appeared where the blue and the gray. That is all one color except the brown on that upper story is roofing material, but the brown above each of those six windows that will be painted blue, and then all the same color. All of the components proposed staff recommends approval of. We did suggest that the BAR have some discussion about the Ivy. There are four criteria from the facades and storefronts section of chapter three that we thought might be helpful in that discussion. We discussed this earlier evening, prior to the meeting, so that answers all the questions from our end. Robert Nichols, Applicant – My office has been asked by the condo association to help them get caught up with the preferred maintenance. That includes some addressing some style preferences and appearance preferences. We have prepared for them a masterplan responding to their request that covers quite a number of components of this building. Several are not being shown in this application. They expect them to be phased out over a long period of time. In the future somebody will be back to you to continue discussing and looking for approval for more extensive work on the side courtyards. The only approval that is being sought is the bit of bluestone in front of the entryway and on the two towers. There is nothing on the surface of the two flanking courtyards that we are asking about in this application. For funding reasons, things are being spaced out over a number of years. In the scope that we are talking about now, they might need to execute it in two phases. In this image, we are showing the paint on the exterior, the big surface is painted, the change in canopy, and the introduction of a painted aluminum one with integrated signage. We are also showing the demolition of the two raised planters on each side of the door and the bluestone paving. That is the scope that we are seeking approval for. I think that it is pretty likely that it will happen in two chunks that will include the paint/canopy and the work on the ground to get rid of the planters and start to bring that bluestone 25 BAR Meeting Minutes January 20, 2021 terrace to the exterior. In the staff report, the issue of ivy was raised with the ambiguity in the guidelines. Both in our own projects and also seeing many applications come before the BAR where vegetation comes up. There used to be some at the synagogue. The question of how to view that as part of a design proposal when the permanence of it might be less reliable. We are wary of relying on vegetation that way. We have taken steps in talking horticulturists and looking at other projects where there has been successful use of ivy in this way. We feel pretty good about this. This is a Boston ivy. It tends to be more cooperative than an English ivy. It doesn’t find its way into masonry joints or window jams. It is also very resilient and a quick grower. The main thing we have going for us here is the northern exposure will keep us from getting overheated and baked as the planting is starting to take hold. The owners of the building are very enthusiastic about this design and they have eagerly planned in their financial planning maintenance to anticipate some work to keep it looking good and keep it within its bounds. It is intended to remain on those two flanking towers. The canopy is currently on the front where it has some supports. It is essentially supported on four corners. We were interested in having less shade with less obscuring of the building and not having fabric to be a component of the façade of the building. Those are the criteria that have led to the current proposal. The overall construction of that is explained in the section that staff had asked for. The lettering on the signage is not clearly defined. Our assumption is that component would come back before staff as a sign application. There are a number of precedents that caught the eye of the client and the designers in our office. It is pretty to find a lot of nice precedents for that. QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No Questions from the Public QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Gastinger – The intention is to maintain the two willow oaks on either side of the building? Is that correct? Mr. Nichols – That is correct. If we could look at the elevation again, I want to make sure that clarification in where we applied paint color. It is on the second story on the captured panel above each sliding door. Within that zone, we’re showing that dark bronze color. It is intended to show painted metal. That’s an error on our part. That’s a brick panel. It doesn’t have any metalwork. That would be painted the dark blue color. Mr. Bailey – We’re talking about the two central towers and the awning. We’re not talking about the other sides of the building at this point for painting. Mr. Nichols – The painting would be comprehensive as shown in the renderings. That’s the only thing that would be touching would be the facades on the wings, demolition of the fabric canopies, awnings on those sides, more work happening in the center with that canopy, and the demolition of those “false railings” in front of the fixed glass. Ms. Lewis – You are not proceeding with the bluestone in front of the recessed areas at this point? Mr. Nichols – That’s correct. That’s not part of this application. Ms. Lewis – It appears to be on the plans we received. 26 BAR Meeting Minutes January 20, 2021 Mr. Schwarz – The bluestone will go in front of the front door, but not in the recessed areas? Mr. Nichols – That material we are showing is intended to emulate a current aggregated panel. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC No Comments from the Public COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Zehmer – Over the front doorway, with the name of the building, is the existing to remain or is that being replaced? Does that fall under our sign guidelines? Mr. Nichols – That’s captured within that bit of the design that I will come back to the BAR in the form of a sign permit application. It is not determined how the building wants to identify itself. Mr. Schwarz – That goes to staff to review those. The color seems great. What you are doing cleans this up nicely. I am fine with the Boston ivy. I think that is beautiful with Boston ivy growing on brick. My concern with the Boston ivy is that it is going to require a tall ladder/cherry picker once or twice a year. We need to expect that this ivy, once it is fully established, is going to start reaching out from the center bay. One solution would be to put a cable system on the brick and find something that doesn’t cling to the brick. I am OK with the idea of the ivy on the brick with the understanding it may go a little ‘wild.’ Ms. Lewis – The wire strategy was attempted at Congregation Beth Israel. It really never took off. I loved the idea as a way to screen that fenestrated wall and add privacy. I was disappointed as well as the congregation. Mr. Schwarz – I thought that it took a long time. Mr. Mohr – I think having the ivy take over a good chunk of that building wouldn’t be a bad thing. It is mostly a question of maintenance. It is less aggressive than American ivy. It is at the owners peril in terms of maintaining the building. They have to make sure that it doesn’t start growing into places that it shouldn’t be. It is modern brick and modern mortar. Mr. Gastinger – I am fine with the proposal of the ivy. I think it is a reasonable response. I am curious if you’re providing enough soil volume for the amount of ivy that you have coming up from the length of wall that you have shown. It is very narrow. I don’t think you will get the effect of what is shown in the renderings. I think it will be much more erratic in its growth pattern. Mr. Nichols – Is it solely a function of soil volume or in general in the best of circumstances? Mr. Gastinger – Both. It doesn’t look like there is any soil volume on the side of the tower. I think the conditions in those corners will be quite different than where there is a bit more airflow and sunlight. That will happen at the top as well. I think the proposal should stand on its own with the color whether or not the ivy is successful or not. I think either way it still meets our guidelines. It is a big improvement for this building. 27 BAR Meeting Minutes January 20, 2021 Mr. Mohr – I definitely agree with Mr. Nichols about the transformation of the NGIC Building. Painting that a dark color made an enormous difference. I don’t think it is quite as critical as this one. It is a street wall. I think it will be elegant. Mr. Schwarz – Mr. Gastinger, is the switch grass going to live? It is shady back there. Mr. Gastinger – It is north facing. I think that it will be all right. Motion – Ms. Lewis – Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including theADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed exterior alterations at 408 East Market Street satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are compatible with this property and other properties in the Downtown ADC District, and that the BAR approves the application as submitted. Tim Mohr seconds. Motion passes (8-0). E. Other Business 9. Preservation and Design Awards Dairy Central –Adaptive Reuse and Rehabilitation of a Historic Structure and New Construction Design Cork Hotel – Adaptive Reuse and Rehabilitation of Historic Structures and New Construction Design 801 Park Street – Rehabilitation of a Historic Structure First United Methodist Church – Rehabilitation of the Historic Steeple and installation of steeple illumination 10. Staff questions/discussion Update on Comp Plan re: Outdoor Lighting Plan Coordinate work session for Preservation Plan Coordinate work session re: Lighting 11. PLACE Update F. Adjournment Meeting was adjourned at 9:16 PM. 28 BAR Meeting Minutes January 20, 2021 29 BAR Meeting Minutes January 20, 2021 Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-05-01 503 Rugby Road, Tax Parcel 050052000 Rugby Road-University Circle-Venable Neighborhood ADC District Owner: Epsilon Sigma House Corps of Kappa Kappa Gamma Applicant: Erin Hannegan, Mitchell Matthews Architects Project: Modify approved design – entry light fixtures; trim at sections of south and north facades; screening at mechanical units; fence/wall at NW corner. Application components (please click each link to go directly to PDF page): • Staff Report • Historic Survey • Application Submittal May 18, 2021 BAR Packet Guide 3 City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Staff Report May 18, 2021 Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-05-01 503 Rugby Road, Tax Parcel 050052000 Rugby Road-University Circle-Venable Neighborhood ADC District Owner: Epsilon Sigma House Corps of Kappa Kappa Gamma Applicant: Erin Hannegan, Mitchell Matthews Architects Project: Modify approved design – entry light fixtures; trim at sections of south and north facades; screening at mechanical units; fence/wall at NW corner. Background Year Built: 1980 District: Rugby Road-University Circle-Venable Neighborhood ADC District Status: Non-contributing A two-story frame house occupied the subject parcel for most of the twentieth century and accommodated a noteworthy boarding house between 1928 and 1961, operated by proprietor Mary Speed. The boarding house was abandoned for a decade, damaged by fire, and was finally demolished in 1976 to make way for a new chapter house for the Kappa Kappa Gamma sorority. The present building was designed in a modern idiom by Johnson, Craven, and Gibson Architects and was completed in 1980. The concrete-block, brick-clad structure communicates its contemporary design through a split-gable roof, restrained ornament, and irregular footprint. Prior BAR Reviews April 16, 2019 - Preliminary Discussion August 20, 2019 - BAR found that the requested Special Use Permit for increased density and modified setbacks would not adversely impact the ADC, with the understanding that the final design and details will require BAR review and approval. September 2019 – (BAR 19-09-03) BAR approved CoA (8-1, Lahendro opposed) for renovation of existing building. Building footprint to be expanded, including infill of southeast corner and west addition, elevated over rear parking area. Numerous exterior alterations will communicate a significantly different design idiom, including a new primary entrance on the façade (east elevation); a symmetrical five-bay composition; an entry porch and stacked side porches; 503 Rugby Road (May 11, 2021) 1 pergolas; French windows on the east elevation; casement windows throughout the building; an expanded and articulated third floor; paired interior chimneys; a wide box cornice and a low- slung hipped roof. The applicant proposes to paint the existing brick cladding with white masonry paint and use cementitious lap siding to distinguish the enlarged third floor. The roof will be pre-finished standing seam metal in a charcoal color. The landscape plan includes a front lawn enclosed by low hedges; bluestone terraces and walks; a modified rear parking area paved in asphalt; and various trees and shrubs planted along the building’s sides. June 16, 2020 – BAR approved CoA for modifications to the design approved in September 2019, BAR 19-09-03. (See Appendix for list of approved changes.) Application • Applicant submittal: Mitchell Matthews Architects & Planners drawings 503 Rugby Road, Kapp Kappa Gamma Sorority, Board of Architectural Review: CoA Revisions, dated April 27, 2021: Cover with sheets 2 – 8. CoA request for modifications to the design approved in September 2019 (BAR 19-09-03). Proposed modification summarized in the Discussion, with staff comments inserted below each. Discussion Staff recommends approval as a Consent Agenda item. Proposed modification summarized as follows. • Alternative entry light fixture. (Approved fixture is unavailable.) o Staff: No issues. Proposed is dimmable, CT: 2,700k, CRI: 80 • Install trim at section of south façade to conceal existing concrete slab and metal beam o Staff: No issues. Necessary to conceal an unforeseen, existing condition. The proposed profile is appropriate and consistent with • Trim at section of north façade to conceal existing metal beam. o Staff: No issues. Solution is appropriate and replicates a prior condition. • Screening at mechanical units at north elevation. (Units taller than planned.) o Staff: No issues. North elevation is at the side, not visible from roads. • Fence line modified due to existing stormwater structure. (See sheet 6 of submittal.) o Staff: No issues, this is at the rear, NW corner of parcel. Fence line moved to avoid the structure and provide a vehicular guardrail—a low concrete wall at the fence. The triangular portion will be mulched. (Below: Prior plan, with notes, and the proposed change. Red line is the revised fence location.) 503 Rugby Road (May 11, 2021) 2 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 design modifications at 503 Rugby Road satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are 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[.] …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 design modifications at 503 Rugby Road do not satisfy the BAR’s criteria and guidelines and are not compatible with this property and other properties in the Rugby Road-University Circle-Venable Neighborhood ADC District, and for the following reasons the BAR denies the application as submitted: … Criteria, Standards, and Guidelines Review Criteria Generally Sec. 34-284(b) of the City Code states that, in considering a particular application the BAR shall approve the application unless it finds: (1) That the proposal does not meet specific standards set forth within this division or applicable provisions of the Design Guidelines established by the board pursuant to Sec.34-288(6); and (2) The proposal is incompatible with the historic, cultural or architectural character of the district in which the property is located or the protected property that is the subject of the application. Pertinent Standards for Review of Construction and Alterations include: (1) Whether the material, texture, color, height, scale, mass and placement of the proposed addition, modification or construction are visually and architecturally compatible with the site and the applicable design control district; (2) The harmony of the proposed change in terms of overall proportion and the size and placement of entrances, windows, awnings, exterior stairs and signs; (3) The Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation set forth within the Code of Federal Regulations (36 C.F.R. §67.7(b)), as may be relevant; (4) The effect of the proposed change on the historic district neighborhood; (5) The impact of the proposed change on other protected features on the property, such as gardens, landscaping, fences, walls and walks; (6) Whether the proposed method of construction, renovation or restoration could have an adverse impact on the structure or site, or adjacent buildings or structures; (7) Any applicable provisions of the City’s Design Guidelines. Pertinent Guidelines for Site Design and Elements C. Walls and Fences 1) Maintain existing materials such as stone walls, hedges, wooden picket fences, and wrought-iron fences. 2) When a portion of a fence needs replacing, salvage original parts for a prominent location. 3) Match old fencing in material, height, and detail. 503 Rugby Road (May 11, 2021) 3 4) If it is not possible to match old fencing, use a simplified design of similar materials and height. 5) For new fences, use materials that relate to materials in the neighborhood. 6) Take design cues from nearby historic fences and walls. 7) Chain-link fencing, split rail fences, and vinyl plastic fences should not be used. 8) Traditional concrete block walls may be appropriate. 9) Modular block wall systems or modular concrete block retaining walls are strongly discouraged but may be appropriate in areas not visible from the public right-of-way. 10) If street-front fences or walls are necessary or desirable, they should not exceed four (4) feet in height from the sidewalk or public right-of-way and should use traditional materials and design. 11) Residential privacy fences may be appropriate in side or rear yards where not visible from the primary street. 12) Fences should not exceed six (6) feet in height in the side and rear yards. 13) Fence structures should face the inside of the fenced property. 14) Relate commercial privacy fences to the materials of the building. If the commercial property adjoins a residential neighborhood, use a brick or painted wood fence or heavily planted screen as a buffer. 15) Avoid the installation of new fences or walls if possible in areas where there are no are no fences or walls and yards are open. 16) Retaining walls should respect the scale, materials and context of the site and adjacent properties. 17) Respect the existing conditions of the majority of the lots on the street in planning new construction or a rehabilitation of an existing site. D. Lighting 1) In residential areas, use fixtures that are understated and compatible with the residential quality of the surrounding area and the building while providing subdued illumination. 2) Choose light levels that provide for adequate safety yet do not overly emphasize the site or building. Often, existing porch lights are sufficient. 3) In commercial areas, avoid lights that create a glare. High intensity commercial lighting fixtures must provide full cutoff. 4) Do not use numerous “crime” lights or bright floodlights to illuminate a building or site when surrounding lighting is subdued. 5) In the downtown and along West Main Street, consider special lighting of key landmarks and facades to provide a focal point in evening hours. 6) Encourage merchants to leave their display window lights on in the evening to provide extra illumination at the sidewalk level. 7) Consider motion-activated lighting for security. H. Utilities and Other Site Appurtenances 1) Plan the location of overhead wires, utility poles and meters, electrical panels, antennae, trash containers, and exterior mechanical units where they are least likely to detract from the character of the site. 2) Screen utilities and other site elements with fences, walls, or plantings. 3) Encourage the installation of utility services underground. 4) Antennae and communication dishes should be placed in inconspicuous rooftop locations, not in a front yard. 503 Rugby Road (May 11, 2021) 4 5) Screen all rooftop mechanical equipment with a wall of material harmonious with the building or structure. Pertinent Guidelines for New Construction and Additions include: O. Details & Decoration 1) Building detail and ornamentation should be consistent with and related to the architecture of the surrounding context and district. 2) The mass of larger buildings may be reduced using articulated design details. 3) Pedestrian scale may be reinforced with details. Appendix Modifications approved June 2020 Proposed modification summarized as follows. • Replace the brick veneer on concrete retaining wall with painted stamped brick formwork. • Reduce height of Dining Terrace site wall adjacent to the parking space to 4’ in lieu of 5’. • Replace concrete pavers with scored concrete at dining terrace. • Replace the bluestone pavers in the sunken front yard along the site wall with grass. • Replace the bluestone paver walkway with crushed stone in North side yard. Porch to remain as bluestone. • Pave all parking spaces with asphalt in lieu of concrete. • Removal of (10) L-2 step light fixtures. • Delete the pergola over the lower side terrace. • Delete/defer pergola over Kappa beach. Proposed as an add alternate to retain. • Delete (2) sets of shutters from West elevation (back of building). • Delete (2) sets of shutters from North elevation (side of building). • Modify South facing window wall to raise sill of windows at 2nd floor lounge. • Substitute asphalt shingles for standing seam metal roof. Proposed as an add alternate to revert back. • Add window at House Director unit entry porch on front East elevation. • Add mechanical louver, required for ventilation, under overhang at rear West elevation. • At Parlor terrace, replace low wall with railing. 503 Rugby Road (May 11, 2021) 5 . , 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 Epsilon Sigma House Corps of Kappa Kappa Gamma Applicant Name Mitchell / Matthews Architects (c/o Erin Hannegan) for KKG Project Name/Description Kappa Kappa Gamma - 503 Rugby Road Parcel Number 050052000 ------------ Project Property Address_ 5_03 _ _R_u_gb_y_R_o_a_d _____________________________ _ Signature of Applicant Applicant Information Address: P.O. Box 5603, Charlottesville, VA 22905 I hereby attest that the information I have provided is, to the best of my knowledge, correct. Email: eh@mitchellmatthews.com Phone: (W) 434-979-7550 x208 (C) 215-266-6943 ~ t &wr~tf M ("Signature Erin R. Hannegan Property Owner Information (if not applicant) Print Name Address: 3466 Keswick Road, Keswick, VA 22947 Property Owner Permission (if not applicant) I have read this application and hereby give my consent to Email: cbrown1200@gmail.com its submission. Phone: (W) 804-564-6687 (C)_____ _ Signature Date Do you intend to apply for Federal or State Tax Credits for this project? _N_o _________ _ Catherine Brown Print Name D te (i-, YJ1t-1 Description of Proposed Work (attach separate narrative if necessary): ______________ _ Modifications to the approved CoA, including substitution of a discontinued light fixture. solutions to existing conditions revealed on the facade during the course of demolition, relocation of mechanical equipment to the ground necessitating a screen (fence) to conceal the units, and fence I site wall revisions at the rear parking area to accommodate existing civil (stormwater) cond1t1ons. List All Attachments (see reverse side for submittal requirements): vl Page, Graphic Booklet ...._ :±t>b:CeVY'-«.4>e..A For Office Use J)q._ly Approved/Disapproved by: ________ _ Received by:. u(PMMiu Date: ________________ _ Fee paid: \ U Cash/Ck.# t {j2,0 Conditions of approval: ___________ _ Date Received: Y l1._Q_/2,ggl Revised 2016 APRIL 27, 2021 503 RUGBY ROAD KAPPA KAPPA GAMMA SORORITY BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW: COA REVISIONS CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA ARCHITECT / APPLICANT Mitchell/Matthews Architects P.O. Box 5603 Charlottesville, VA 22905 p. 434.979.7550 f. 434.979.5220 www.mitchellmatthews.com OWNER Epsilon Sigma House Corporation Of Kappa Kappa Gamma Fraternity 3466 Keswick Road Keswick, VA 22947 p. 804.564.6687 e. cbrown1200@gmail.com OWNER’S AGENT GRS Properties, LLC P.O. Box 1880 Tuscaloosa, AL 35403-1880 p. 1.800.370.0725 e. Matt@grspropertiesllc.com www.greekresourceservices.com +607.73' +607.73' ELEVATIONS MATCH EXISTING BRICK COURSING 4 TRUSS BRG 4 TRUSS BRG +596.07' +596.07' A1 A1 A1 A1 A1 A1 A1 A1 B4 B4 A3 L-3 FIXTURE 3 3RD FLOOR 3 3RD FLOOR +587.69' +587.69' A4 A4 B8 A7 B8 A4 A4 A4 A5 A5 B5 B5 A6 A8 10'-7 1/2" 10'-7 1/2" L-3 FIXTURE B11 B10 B11 B9 B9 B9 B9 B9 2 2nd FLOOR 2 2nd FLOOR +577.06' +577.06' K K G 4 8" SIGNAGE A526 E1 E2 E1 L-3 FIXTURE L-3 FIXTURE 6 C4 D4 D4 C4 C4 D4 D4 C4 A526 C5 11'-4" 11'-4" L-6 FIXTURE BEYOND OUTDOOR VRF (MECH) UNITS, TYP OF 3. A9 REFER TO LANDSCAPE SHEETS FOR SCREENING FENCE (DASHED). B16 B14 B15 B15 B14 B14 B15 B15 B14 Rugby Road 1 1st FLOOR 1 1st FLOOR +565.73' +565.73' 1'-6" FIRE DEPT. L-5 FIXTURE L-2 FIXTURE L-2 FIXTURE BEYOND CONNECT. L-5 FIXTURE 10'-8" 10'-8" B19 B20 B20 B19 9'-6" -1 BASEMENT +555.06' REVISED FIXTURE REVISED PANEL 1'-1 1/2" 503 REVISED DETAILING REVISED DETAILING REVISED MECH UNITS Epsilon Sigma House Kappa Kappa Gamma B3 A2 A2 B3 B2 B1 B1 B2 A1 A1 A1 A1 D1 C1 D1 A8 A5 A5 10'-7 1/2" 10'-7 1/2" 5 L-3 FIXTURE L-3 FIXTURE A526 L-6 FIXTURE L-6 FIXTURE 8'-3" TO TOP OF WALL PLATE 8'-3" TO TOP OF WALL PLATE D3 C3 D3 D2 C2 D2 C5 D3 C3 D3 6'-10" TO CENTER OF CONNECTION 11'-4" 11'-4" 6'-4 1/2" TO BOTTOM B18 6'-4 1/2" TO BOTTOM OF WALL PLATE OF CONNECTION 6'-10" TO CENTER OF WALL PLATE OUTDOOR VRF (MECH) UNITS, TYP OF 3. 4'-4" REFER TO LANDSCAPE SHEETS FOR B12 B13 B12 B6 B7 B6 SCREENING FENCE (DASHED). B17 B12 B13 B12 HOSE BIB L-3 FIXTURE 2' L-2 FIXTURE 6' FENCE L-5 FIXTURE 5'-10" L-5 FIXTURE L-3 FIXTURE L-3 FIXTURE L-3 FIXTURE 10'-8" 10'-8" 2' 7' 8" HOSE BIB 2' 2' HOSE BIB BAR: COA REVISIONS M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S © 2 0 2 1 ELEVATIONS 2 APRIL 27, 2021 ARCHITECTS AND URBAN PLANNERS CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 434 979 7550 STAIR TOWER REVISED DETAIL A8 Rugby Road THIS FACE, REFER TO THIS FACE, REFER TO PHOTO WEST FACE OF STAIR PHOTO AT TOP RIGHT AT BOTTOM RIGHT 4 A526 503 L-3 FIXTURE 6 A526 C5 B16 L-5 FIXTURE Epsilon Sigma House Kappa Kappa Gamma DURING THE COURSE OF DEMOLITION, FOLLOWING REMOVAL OF THE EXISTING BALCONY (SHOWN AT RIGHT) ON THE SOUTH FACADE, THE AS-BUILT CONDITION WAS DISCOVERED TO BE DIFFERENT THAN THE AS-BUILT CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS THAT WERE USED FOR THE BASIS OF DESIGN. AS A RESULT, A REVISED DETAIL MUST BE USED TO CONCEAL THE EXPOSED STEEL AND CUT EDGE OF CONCRETE BALCONY SLAB. REFER SOUTH FACE OF STAIR TO ELEVATIONS ON PREVIOUS PAGE, ABOVE, AND DETAILS ON NEXT PAGE FOR PROPOSED REVISION. BAR: COA REVISIONS STAIR TOWER REVISED DETAIL M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S © 2 0 2 1 3 APRIL 27, 2021 ARCHITECTS AND URBAN PLANNERS CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 434 979 7550 FLASHING W/ WEEP TOP ENCLOSURE - O PER VCC SECTION 7 FIRESTOP DUCT PE UL DESIGN CAJ 7111 NEW SLAB AND DEC 5 1/2" EXISTING SLAB AND 2 1/16" 3 1/16" SPRAY-APPLIED FIR STAIR TOWER REVISED DETAIL METAL REGLET COUNTER FLASHING PROVIDE THIRD FLOOR OFFSET IN POWDER COATED PRE-FINISHED DOWNSPOUT CONTINUOUS ALUMINUM FLASHING ON AROUND ICE & WATER SHIELD ON 19/32" APA RATED FASCIA PLYWOOD ROOF SHEATHING 1 1/2" 5/16" EXISTING EXISTING REVISED DETAILING TO MIMIC THE FACE BRICK EXISTING JOISTS & FACE BRICK POWDER COATED PRE-FINISHED 1/2" SPRAY-APPLIED FIR CONTINUOUS ALUMINUM FLASHING WITH DRIP EDGE - MATCH BRICK PAINT COLOR CONDITION AT THE NEARBY SOUTH PROVIDE ICE & WATER SHIELD BETWEEN FASCIA ASSEMBLY AND EXISTING MASONRY WALL 5" x 3" x 1/8" BENT P CUT FROM 1" x 10" NOMINAL SMOOTH 6 11/16" 3/4" 1 1/2" FIRE CAULK ENTRY DOOR, REFER TO ENLARGED REFER TO DETAIL 5-A526 FOR ALL NOTES AND DIMENSIONS UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE CEMENTITIOUS TRIM BOARD - PAINTED 1/16" FLASHING SPRAY-APPLIED FIR PARTIAL ELEVATION AND 3D MODEL 5/8" GYPSUM SHEATHING JOIST SUBSTITUTE 5/16" 2 x 12 TREATED WOOD BLOCKING EXISTING MASONRY BOLTED TO EXISTING MASONRY WALL VIEW BELOW. DUCTS - OUTSIDE A 1 1/2" EXHAUST; RANGE H 1/2" TREATED WOOD BLOCKING & MAKEUP AIR - SEE POWDER COATED PRE-FINISHED CONTINUOUS ALUMINUM FLASHING WITH 1" 1 1/2" 1 1/2" DRIP EDGE - MATCH BRICK PAINT COLOR CUT FROM 5/4" x 3" NOMINAL SMOOTH 2ND FLOOR 8 1/4" 2ND FLOOR CEMENTITIOUS TRIM BOARD - PAINTED 2ND FLOOR 2 x 8 TREATED WOOD BLOCKING 2'-10" 2'-10" 5/4" x 10" NOMINAL SMOOTH THIN BRICK AT CEMENTITIOUS TRIM BOARD - PAINTED EXISTING BEAM WEB EXISTING CONCRETE EXISTING TREATED WOOD BLOCKING CONCRETE ATTACH BRICK TIE TO EXISTING BEAM BOLT INTO 2 x 10 TREATED WOOD BLOCKING TREATED BOLTED TO EXISTING MASONRY WALL WOOD Rugby 5/4" x 12" NOMINAL SMOOTH BLOCKING Road CEMENTITIOUS TRIM BOARD - PAINTED BLOCK BETW BETWEEN BEAM WEBS 2 x 12 TREATED WOOD BLOCKING FACE BRICK EXISTING SL BOLTED TO EXISTING MASONRY WALL SPRAY-APPLI 5/8" GYPSUM SHEATHING EXISTING CMU 1" 1 1/2" EXISTING CMU ATTACH BRICK TIE EXISTING TO EXISTING BEAM BEAM THIN BRICK AT 503 1" x 4" NOMINAL SMOOTH 5/8" EXISTING BEAM WEB PROVIDE CEMENTITIOUS TRIM BOARD - PAINTED EXISTING JO OFFSET IN 5/8" GYPSUM SHEATHING DOWNSPOUT AROUND FASCIA 3/16" 3/4" SPRAY-APPLI 5" x 3" x 1/8" B TO 1ST FLOOR 9'-9 5/16" CEMENTITIOUS SOFFIT BOARD - PAINTED FIRE CAULK 3/4" 1" 2 1/8" 1 1/8" 6 BRICK AT 2ND FLOOR WEST WALL 5 FASCIA AT 2ND FLOOR SOUTH WALL 4 BRICK AT 2ND FLOOR WEST WALL A526 SCALE: 3" = 1'-0" A526 SCALE: 3" = 1'-0" A526 SCALE: 3" = 1'-0" Epsilon Sigma House Kappa Kappa Gamma D1 A8 BOTTOM TOP ENCLOSURE ENCLOSUR -O PER VCC SECTION 7 FIRESTOP DUCT PE UL DESIGN CAJ 7111 NEW SLAB AND DEC EXISTING SLAB AND 5 L-3 FIXTURE L-3 FIXTURE SPRAY-APPLIED FIR A526 L-6 FIXTURE 8'-3" TO TOP OF WALL PLATE D2 FIRST FLOOR 6'-4 1/2" TO BOTTOM OF CONNECTION 6'-10" TO CENTER OF WALL PLATE B6 EXISTING JOISTS & SPRAY-APPLIED FIR L-3 FIXTURE SPRAY-APPLIED FIR 5'-10" JOIST SUBSTITUTE BAR: COA REVISIONS STAIR TOWER REVISED DETAIL 4 EXISTING MASONRY M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S © 2 0 2 1 APRIL 27, 2021 ARCHITECTS AND URBAN PLANNERS CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 434 979 7550 REVISED DETAIL AT SIDE ENTRY ON A1 A1 EAST FACADE A4 A4 B9 B9 Rugby A9 503 Road EXISTING CONDITION POST DEMOLITION FACE BRICK - PAINTED FABRIC FLASHING STEEL ANGLE - REFER TO STRUCTURAL METAL FLASHING Epsilon Sigma House Kappa Kappa Gamma 2 x 6 WOOD FRAMING BEHIND 1" 1 1/2" TRIM BOARDS 5/16" 5/4 x 4 NOMINAL CEMENTITIOUS 3/4"+/- TRIM BOARD - PAINT COLOR TBD PER BAR APPROVAL AN OVERZEALOUS DEMOLITION CREW MISTAKENLY REMOVED THE CAST 5/16" CEMENTITIOUS 1'-6 1/2" +/- (FIELD VERIFY) PANEL - PAINT COLOR TBD STONE LINTEL PICTURED ABOVE, THAT WAS ORIGINALLY INTENDED TO PER BAR APPROVAL REVISED DESIGN REMAIN. (IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A UNIQUE CONDITION.) THE REVISED PROPOSED DETAIL IS A HARDIE BOARD PANEL WITH TRIM SIMILAR TO THAT 2 x 6 WOOD PROPOSED PANEL AND TRIM TO BE PAINTED USED ON THE SOUTH FACADE. FRAMING BEHIND TRIM BOARDS TO MATCH WINDOWS AND RAILINGS, SIMILAR 5/4 x 4 NOMINAL CEMENTITIOUS TRIM BOARD - PAINT COLOR TBD PER BAR APPROVAL TO SOUTH FACADE, SEE ABOVE ENLARGED ELEVATION AND 3D MODEL VIEW AND SECTION DETAIL AT LEFT. PAINT ALL TRIM - COLOR 5/4 NOMINAL CEMENTITIOUS TRIM BOARD - PAINT COLOR (NOTE: PLANTINGS NOT SHOWN IN 3D VIEW) TBD PER BAR APPROVAL BAR: COA REVISIONS REVISED DETAIL AT SIDE ENTRY ON EAST FACADE M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S © 2 0 2 1 5 APRIL 27, 2021 ARCHITECTS AND URBAN PLANNERS CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 434 979 7550 MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT HAS PRO PER BEEN RELOCATED TO THE GROUND TY L REVISED MECH UNITS INE EX. RETAINING WALL SIM PROPERTY LINE PAVING KEY: (CONSISTENT WITH THE EXISTING CONTUNUES VEHICULAR NO VEHICULAR REVISED SITE WALL LIGHTING NOTES: CONCRETE RETAINING WALL GUARDRAIL GUARDRAIL 1 L510 WITH VEHICULAR GUARDRAIL BLUESTONE PAVING ON CONCRETE 1 1 L500 AND WOOD FENCE 1. SEE L100 FOR LIGHT FIXTURE SPECIFICATIONS AND LOCATION OF EQUIPMENT), AT THE WITH FENCE +/- MOUNTING HEIGHTS +/-6'-0" 6'-11" 6'-0 " EQ EQ 2 2. SEE ARCHITECTURE PLANS FOR LIGHT FIXTURE LOCATIONS 2 CONCRETE RETAINING WALL WITH 5' WOOD ON BUILDING 2 BLUESTONE STEPPING STONE NORTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING L510 L500 FENCE, BOTH SIDES 3. CENTER LIGHT FIXTURES ON PAVING AND WALLS AS NOTED FACE OF RAISED 6" X 6" CONCRETE STEP SYMBOLS: 3 PAVING JOINT, TYP; 3 AT AN INTERMEDIATE TERRACE. CORNER SCORED CONCRETE PAVING 5'-10" 3'-8" L500 POST ALIGN AS SHOWN (5) BIKE LOCKERS: MADLOCKER NARROW BY MADRAX. SEE ELECTRIC OUTLET - GFCI; FLUSH MOUNT IN BRICK CIVIL DRAWINGS +/- 12" ABOVE GRADE; SET WITHIN BRICK COURSE. 4 A FENCE SCREENING THE 4 (WH) WHITE OR (BR) BRONZE AS NOTED CRUSHED STONE PAVING 4'-0" L500 3 REVISED SITE PLAN TRASH 3'-0" ENCLOSURE RELOCATED L510 7 WALL HYDRANT - SEE PLUMBING DRAWINGS. FINISH TO EQUIPMENT HAS BEEN ADDED. THE TYP FREESTANDING WALL SECTION, STAMPED ON BOTH SIDES. BE POLISHED BRONZE FACE; MOUNT 24" ABOVE GRADE. DRAIN INLET; 5'-10" SPACE L510 SEE CIVIL 6'-6 EQUALLY FOOTING FOR WALL TO ANGLE AT PROPERTY LINE 4'-0" " DWGS 3 SITE WALL IS REVISED, TO FOLLOW 18 3'-3" 1 6'-0" 6'-0" 6'-0" 2'-0" THE PROPERTY LINE TO PROVIDE TYP L510 20'-10" STAMPED CONCRETE RETAINING WALL WITH CONC. RETAINING BRICK COPING; PAINT WALL AND COPING 5'-8" SIM 2'-4" WALL W/ VEHICULAR CLEARANCE AT THE UNITS. 4" GUARDRAIL AND LOADING 4'-0" 4'-0" 4'-0" 4'-3" SPACE L510 WOOD FENCE EQ 3 6 6" 1'-6" 10" 2'-0" 2'-0" 7 TYP 10" 5'-6' HORIZONTAL WOOD FENCE GATE L410 CRUSHED STONE PAVING ALIG NW 26'- L510 L510 14'-4" EX. LIGHT POST 7 ITH 1" 4 SITE WALL AND FENCE LOCATIONS AROUND TRASH ENCLOSURE HANDICAPPED SIGN POST, ATT. TO EX. 4 3 PRO 3'-10" O.C TYP 10" CENTERED ON PARKING SPACE JOINT 10" PER RETAINING WALL TY VEHICULAR GUARDRAIL, TYP; 4" X 6" GALVANIZED LIN 12 L-2S LIGHT E 11'-2" FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE STEEL TUBE WELDED BETWEEN POSTS CONCRETE SEATWALL PRO L500 PER SIM 8'-8" TY L STEEL POST, TYP 4'-2" 8'-7" INE ADA PARKING SPACE - SEE CIVIL DWGS. 7 EX. CONCRETE 0 NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE L51 RETAINING WALL FOR SIGNAGE AND STRIPING 1" X 6" INTERIM WOOD SUPPORT, TYP 6" WALL HYDRANT, SEE L100 L-3 SEE L120 SITE HAVE BEEN MODIFIED TO HORIZONTAL WOOD FENCING, TYP BOTH SIDES L-5 DOOR 1'-5" PAVING AGREE WITH REQUIRED STORM VEHICULAR GUARDRAIL 6" OPENING IN CONCRETE FOR DRAINAGE DRAIN INLET SEE CIVIL DWGS 7'-8" WATER REVISIONS - INCLUDING ASPHALT PAVING - SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS FOR DETAILS STAMPED CONCRETE RETAINING WALL WITH BRICK CAP; PAINT WALL " AND COPING COORDINATING AROUND '-6 NO VEHICULAR GUARDRAIL AND DIMENSIONS R4 6" AN EXISTING MANHOLE AND Rugby L-2W DRAIN INLET, TYP; L-7 Road SEE CIVIL DWGS (ABOVE) RELOCATED DRAIN INLET. L-2W L-2B +/- 5'-11" EQ UP PROPERTY LINE L-7 (ABOVE) L-2W 503 1 L510 SIM NO VEHICULAR L-2B GUARDRAIL PARKING LOT SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS 16'-0" L-6 BUILDING ABOVE L-2W 4 HOUSE BASEMENT LEVEL L410 LIGHT FIXTURE SEE L120 FOR EAST PROPERTY ABOVE 6" L-2B L-8 (ABOVE) 6" OPENING IN CONCRETE FOR SEE L120 DRAINAGE (TYP) L-7 UP UP Epsilon Sigma House Kappa Kappa Gamma L-2W PROPERTY LINE 16'-0" VINE PLANTER; ALIGN WITH 11 PAVING AS SHOWN; PROVIDE L-6 L500 SIM 18" MIN. TOPSOIL DEPTH LIGHT FIXTURE (TYP) PAVING JOINT TYP; ALIGN L-5 JOINTS WITH BUILDING AND PLANTING BED; 24" MINIMUM L-3 L-3 WALLS AS SHOWN 2'-0" TOPSOIL WALL HYDRANT, SEE L100 5 WALL MOUNTED WOOD WH EQ EQ EQ L520 BENCH - ADD ALTERNATE L-2B ELECTRICAL OUTLET, SEE L100 BRICK SEATWALL WITH BLUESTONE COPING, SEE L120 EX. CONCRETE 10'-0" L-2W RETAINING WALL 4' FREESTANDING 6 FACE OF WALL, TYP ALIGN 8 7'-6" BRICK WALL WITH BRICK COPING; L510 3 22'-5" PAINT BRICK, ALL SIDES JOINT L400 FACE OF COPING, TYP L-2W LIGHT DINING FLUSH CURB L-3 TERRACE 12'-6" BRICK SEATWALL WITH 8 2'-0" 3 TYP 9 EQ JOINT BLUESTONE COPING; 3'-0" 4'-0" L500 LIGHT PAINT BRICK SIM L400 PRO EQ PER TY L CONCRETE CURB L-2W L-2W 3 INE TRANSITION 6'-8" 2'-6" 3'-0" L-2W EXISTING CONDITION AT SAME RELOCATED PAVING 12'-0" LIGHT L-2B POWER POLE 4'-6" ALIGN L-2W 2'-6" 2'-0" WITH LIGHT; COPING JOINT, TYP. L-2W L-2W LOCATION AS PROPOSED MECH SEE CIVIL DWGS. ALIGN WITH PAVING BRICK RETAINING WALL WITH 4 L-3 L-3 BRICK COPING; PAINT BRICK L510 UNITS SHOWN ABOVE CONCRETE CURB; SEE CIVIL DWGS. 11 VINE PLANTER; ALIGN WITH PAVING AS SHOWN; PROVIDE 5'-11" VERIFY 15'-3" VERIFY L-2W UP UP L500 0 2 4 8 SIM 18" MIN. TOPSOIL DEPTH UP SEE L120 BAR: COA REVISIONS M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S REVISED SITE PLAN © 2 0 2 1 6 APRIL 27, 2021 ARCHITECTS AND URBAN PLANNERS CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 434 979 7550 REVISED PLANTING PLAN COORDINATING WITH REVISED CONDITIONS DESCRIBED ON PREVIOUS PAGE. SECTION AT LEFT (WITH LOCATION MARKED ON PLAN) SHOWING FENCE REVISED PLANTING PLAN HEIGHT OF 6’ SURROUNDING MECHANICAL UNITS. 18 OR APPROVAL PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. 18 (3) HYDRANGEA QUERCIFOLIA 'RUBY SLIPPERS', OAKLEAF HYDRANGEA, 4' O.C. (2) HYDRANGEA ANOMOLA PETIOLARIS CLIMBING HYDRANGEA ON WALL PRO PER TRASH TY LIN ENCLOSURE E (9) BUXUS ' GREEN BEAUTY', DRAIN BOXWOOD, 24" HT; 36" O.C. LOADING INLET Rugby AREA (12) ANEMONE 'HONORINE JOBERT' 18" O.C. Road BIKE (25) DRYOPTERIS ERYTHROSORA LOCKERS 'BRILLIANCE', AUTUMN FERN,18" O.C. ADA PARKING SPACE EXISTING TREES ON NEIGHBORING PROPERTY TO BE PRESERVED (6) ILEX x ROBIN, 48" O.C., 5' HT. (17) DRYOPTERIS ERYTHROSORA DRAIN 503 (15) ILEX VERTICILLATA 'RED SPRITE', INLET 'BRILLIANCE', AUTUMN FERN,18" O.C. (10) BUXUS ' GREEN BEAUTY', WINTERBERRY, 3' O.C. WITH BOXWOOD, 24" HT; 30" O.C. (5) TRYCIRTIS HIRTA X 'SINONOME', TOAD (2) ILEX VERTICILLATA 'JIM DANDY' (JD), LILY,18" O.C. WINTERBERRY DRAIN INLET, TYP (18) EPIMEDIUM 'PURPLE PIXI', (80) DESCHAMPSIA CESPITOSA,' BARRENWORT,12" O.C. (30) IRIS CRISTATA, ROAD TUFTED HAIRGRASS, 12" O.C. UP DWARF CRESTED IRIS; (1) BUXUS 'GREEN VELVET', 8" - 12" O.C. BOXWOOD, 30" ROUND WITH (10) PACHYSANDRA PROPERTY LINE LAWN PARKING LOT RUGBY (1) HYDRANGEA ANOMOLA PETIOLARIS SOD (JD) CLIMBING HYDRANGEA ON WALL (450 SF) WITH (15) PACHYSANDRA TERMINALIS Epsilon Sigma House Kappa Kappa Gamma (200) PACHYSANDRA TERMINALIS, JAPANESE PACHYSANDRA, 6"-8" O.C (6) BUXUS ' GREEN BEAUTY', HOUSE BOXWOOD, 24" HT; 30" O.C. (25) SISYRINCHIUM ANGUSTIFOLIUM, UP UP BLUE-EYED GRASS, 12" O.C (2) BUXUS 'GREEN VELVET', BOXWOOD, 36" ROUND, BOTH SIDES (8) BUXUS ' GREEN BEAUTY', (36) SISYRINCHIUM ANGUSTIFOLIUM, BOXWOOD, 24" HT; 30" O.C. BLUE-EYED GRASS, 12" O.C (JD) NOTE FRENCH DRAIN AT WALL, PROTECT (250) PACHYSANDRA TERMINALIS, JAPANESE DURING PLANTING PACHYSANDRA, 6"-8" O.C (1) HYDRANGEA ANOMOLA PETIOLARIS SIDEWALK EXISTING (40) PACHYSANDRA TERMINALIS, JAPANESE CLIMBING HYDRANGEA ON WALL FRONT (CH) TERRACE LAWN PACHYSANDRA, 6" O.C WITH (15) PACHYSANDRA TERMINALIS SOD (2) HYDRANGEA ANOMOLA PETIOLARIS (1) BUXUS 'GREEN VELVET', DINING (580 SF) 22'-5" CLIMBING HYDRANGEA (CH) VINE BOXWOOD, 30" ROUND, TERRACE WTIH (10) PACHYSANDRA BIKE (1) CLADRASTIS KENTUCKEA, (40) IRIS CRISTATA, TERRACE YELLOWWOOD TREE; 3" CAL. PRO DWARF CRESTED IRIS; (23) PER 8" - 12" O.C. (250) PACHYSANDRA TERMINALIS, JAPANESE PACHYSANDRA, TY L (45) (B'GV') INE 6"-8" O.C. WITH (300) GRAPE HYACINTH BULBS UP UP (B'GV') (2) BUXUS ' GREEN VELVET', UP BOXWOOD, 36" ROUND SIDE TERRACE (15) BUXUS ' GREEN BEAUTY', BAR: COA REVISIONS REVISED PLANTING PLAN M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S © 2 0 2 1 7 APRIL 27, 2021 ARCHITECTS AND URBAN PLANNERS CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 434 979 7550 LED wall luminaire Submitted by Lighting Environments Catalog Number: Type: Job Name: 31 099 K27 KAPPA KAPPA GAMMA HOUSE-UVA Architect: Mitchell Matthews Architects L6* (Charlottesville) Notes: VA21-141509 EXTERIOR LIGHTING Material: Luminaire housing constructed of cast bronze and Type: L-6 copper. Stainless steel fasteners. Designed for installation directly over a standard 4" octagonal wiring box. BEGA Product: 31-228 Glass: Hand-blown, three-ply opal glass with screw neck and flat Project: Kappa Kappa Gamma House LED wall luminaires APPROVED ALTERNATE FOR DISCONTINUED SPECIFIED FIXTURE crystal glass enclosure. Voltage: 6.3WLED 120V Electrical: 6.3W LED luminaire, 8 total system watts, -20°C start Color: Natural bronze and copper temperature. Integral 120V through 277V electronic LED driver, Options: 3000K Color temp 0-10V dimming. LED module(s) are available from factory for easy Modified: Type: L-6 replacement. LED color temperature is 3000K with a >80 CRI. Material: Luminaire housing constructed of copper, cast bronze Note: LEDs supplied with luminaire. Due to the dynamic nature and brass. Stainless steel fasteners. Designed for installation BEGA Product: 31-099 of LED technology, LED luminaire data on this sheet is subject directly to a standard 4" octagonal wiring box. Glass: Hand-blown, three-ply opal glass with screw neck. Project: Kappa Kappa Gamma House to change at the discretion of BEGA-US. For the most current technical data, please refer to www.bega-us.com. Electrical: 8.4W LED luminaire, 10.2 total system watts, -20°C Voltage: start temperature. Integral 120V through 277V electronic LED Color: Natural bronze and copper Finish: Natural cast bronze and copper finish. Time and weather driver, 0-10V dimming. LED module(s) are available from factory factors will create the natural patina of bronze and copper. Options: for easy replacement. LED color temperature is 3000K with a >80 CRI. Modified: 2700K Color temp CSA certified to U.S. and Canadian standards, suitable for wet locations. Protection class IP44 Note: LEDs supplied with luminaire. Due to the dynamic nature of LED technology, LED luminaire data on this sheet is subject Rugby Weight: 18.7 lbs to change at the discretion of BEGA-US. For the most current Road technical data, please refer to www.bega-us.com. ED, RE Finish: Natural cast bronze and copper finish. Time and weather Luminaire Lumens: 326 O V factors will create the natural patina of bronze and copper. A PPR FIXTUCH CSA certified to U.S. and Canadian standards, suitable for wet Y D USL TINUE T POR locations. Protection class IP44 O Weight: 15.9 lbs V I N N . PREDISCO T FRO CADE 503 Luminaire Lumens: 447 DA FA NOWCATE EAST X LO ON EN T C E M A R EPL E C TED IXTUR Epsilon Sigma House Kappa Kappa Gamma EL E F S A A C B D B C D D C Lamp A B C D Lamp A B C D 31 228 6.3 W LED 9 1⁄2 25 7⁄8 13 5 1⁄ 8 31 099 8.4 W LED 8 5⁄8 22 1⁄2 5 7⁄ 8 6 BAR: COA REVISIONS BEGA-US 1000 BEGA Way, Carpinteria, CA 93013 (805) 684-0533 FAX (805) 566-9474 www.bega-us .com ©copyright BEGA-US 2018 Updated 2/18 ©copyright BEGA-US 2018 Updated 2/18 CUT SHEETS: LIGHTING BEGA-US 1000 BEGA Way, Carpinteria, CA 93013 (805) 684-0533 FAX (805) 566-9474 www.bega-us .com M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S © 2 0 2 1 8 APRIL 27, 2021 ARCHITECTS AND URBAN PLANNERS CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 434 979 7550 Submitted On: Jan 25, 2021 1/1 Index Page 18 ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS EXTERIOR LIGHTING Dunbar, Williams, Milby, Pittman, and Vaughan STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS 110 Third St. NE, Charlottesville, VA 22902 PHONE: 434.293.5171 Setty MEP/FP ENGINEERS 3040 Williams Drive, Suite 600, Fairfax, VA 22031 PHONE: 703.691.2115 Timmons Group CIVIL ENGINEERS 608 Preston Ave, Suite 200, Charlottesville, VA 22903 PHONE: 434.295.1800 Wolf | Josey LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 310 2nd Street, SE, Suite F, Charlottesville, VA 22902 PHONE: 434.466.7472 18 Rugby FINAL SITE PLAN Road EPSILON SIGMA HOUSE OF KAPPA KAPPA GAMMA 503 503 RUGBY ROAD Charlottesville, VA Epsilon Sigma House Kappa Kappa Gamma This drawing is the property of the Architect & may not be re-produced or used without the express permission of the Architect. Mitchell Matthews Architects © 2019 The contractor is responsible for checking & verifying all levels and dimensions, and shall report any discrepancies to the Architect. L700 Lighting . PROJECT 1810 DATE 04/13/2021 REVISIONS MARK DATE DESCRIPTION 18 04/13/21 BULLETIN # 17 0 5 10 20 L700 BAR: COA REVISIONS REVISED PHOTOMETRIC PLAN M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S © 2 0 2 1 9 APRIL 27, 2021 ARCHITECTS AND URBAN PLANNERS CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 434 979 7550 Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-05-02 167 Chancellor Street, TMP 090126000 The Corner ADC District Owner: Alpha Omicron of Chi Psi Corp. Applicant: Kevin Schafer, Design Develop, LLC Project: Modify approved west elevation - extend steps to full width of the portico Application components (please click each link to go directly to PDF page): • Staff Report • Historic Survey • Application Submittal May 18, 2021 BAR Packet Guide 4 City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Staff Report May 18, 2021 Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 21-05-02 167 Chancellor Street, TMP 090126000 The Corner ADC District Owner: Alpha Omicron of Chi Psi Corp. Applicant: Kevin Schafer, Design Develop, LLC Project: Modify approved west elevation - extend steps to full width of the portico Background Year Built: 1915 District: The Corner ADC Status: Contributing This large, five-bay, two-and-a-half‐story dwelling shows elements of the Colonial Revival style; details include: brick stretcher bond, hip roof with one hip roof dormer, two‐bay front porch with piers and full entablature, and entrance with three-lite transom and sidelights. Prior BAR Reviews (See appendix for all reviews.) September 15, 2020 – BAR approved CoA for proposed addition and alterations, including site work and landscaping, to the existing fraternity house. Application • Applicant submittal: Renderings of west elevation (as approved by BAR in September 2020 and with proposed modification) and photos of similar conditions nearby. (3 pages, dated April 29, 2021.) CoA request to extend steps to full width of the west portico. Discussion Staff recommends approval as a Consent Agenda item. Several nearby buildings have similar entry porticos with full-width steps. 167 Chancellor Street (May 10, 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 modification of the west portico steps at 167 Chancellor Street 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 the ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed modification of the west portico steps at 167 Chancellor Street does not satisfy the BAR’s criteria and is not compatible with this property and other properties in The Corner ADC district, and that for the following reasons the BAR denies the application as submitted.. Criteria, Standards, and Guidelines Review Criteria Generally Sec. 34-284(b) of the City Code states that, in considering a particular application the BAR shall approve the application unless it finds: (1) That the proposal does not meet specific standards set forth within this division or applicable provisions of the Design Guidelines established by the board pursuant to Sec.34-288(6); and (2) The proposal is incompatible with the historic, cultural or architectural character of the district in which the property is located or the protected property that is the subject of the application. Pertinent Standards for Review of Construction and Alterations include: (1) Whether the material, texture, color, height, scale, mass and placement of the proposed addition, modification or construction are visually and architecturally compatible with the site and the applicable design control district; (2) The harmony of the proposed change in terms of overall proportion and the size and placement of entrances, windows, awnings, exterior stairs and signs; (3) The Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation set forth within the Code of Federal Regulations (36 C.F.R. §67.7(b)), as may be relevant; (4) The effect of the proposed change on the historic district neighborhood; (5) The impact of the proposed change on other protected features on the property, such as gardens, landscaping, fences, walls and walks; (6) Whether the proposed method of construction, renovation or restoration could have an adverse impact on the structure or site, or adjacent buildings or structures; (7) Any applicable provisions of the City’s Design Guidelines. Pertinent Guidelines for New Construction and Additions O. Details and Decoration (New) 1) Building detail and ornamentation should be consistent with and related to the architecture of the surrounding context and district. 2) The mass of larger buildings may be reduced using articulated design details. 3) Pedestrian scale may be reinforced with details. 167 Chancellor Street (May 10, 2021) 2 Appendix Prior BAR Reviews November 2017 - Preliminary discussion. BAR was supportive of something happening here, but not the submitted version. The changes to Chancellor Street side were more problematic: the big dormer is not appropriate; maintain the wrap-around porch, maybe come out only as far as first column. Maintain integrity on Chancellor Street side. Madison Lane side could be more contemporary and differentiated from historic fabric; invading setback on that side OK; maybe one-story full width porch instead of 2-story portico; play off the two volumes; porch can create own axis, not necessarily symmetrical; take cues from Greek revival – not-so-grand two-story porch. New addition could be more contemporary. http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/739824/2017- 11_167%20Chancellor%20Street_BAR.pdf April 2018 – BAR approved the application for general massing, concept and composition with details and the SUP recommendation to come back for BAR review. http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/754415/2018- 04_167%20Chancellor%20Street_BAR.pdf October 2019 – BAR recommended approval of Special Use Permit for setback variances; that based on the general design and building footprint as submitted the proposed Special Use Permit for 167 Chancellor Street will not have an adverse impact on the Corner ADC District, with the understanding that the final design and details will require future BAR review and approval and that the BAR extends the Certificate of Appropriateness from April 2018. http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/791772/2019- 10_167%20Chancellor%20Street_BAR.pdf August 18, 2020 – BAR accepted applicant’s request for deferral. 167 Chancellor Street (May 10, 2021) 3 167 Chancellor Street Extension of west portico steps May 18, 2021 (Rev 4/29/2021) Per CoA approved September 15, 2020 Proposed modification 167 Chancellor Street Extension of west portico steps May 18, 2021 (Rev 4/29/2021) Per CoA approved September 15, 2020 Proposed modification 167 Chancellor St. 167 Chancellor Street Extension of west portico steps May 18, 2021 (Rev 4/29/2021) Madison Lane - similar entry porticos 167 Chancellor St. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-05-03 605 Preston Place, Tax Parcel 050111000 Rugby Road-University Circle-Venable Neighborhood ADC District Owner: Neighborhood Investment – PC, LP Applicant: Kevin Riddle, Mitchell Matthews Architects Project: Three-story apartment building with below-grade parking Application components (please click each link to go directly to PDF page): • Staff Report • Historic Survey • Application Submittal May 18, 2021 BAR Packet Guide 5 City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Staff Report May 18, 2021 Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 21-05-03 605 Preston Place, Tax Parcel 050111000 Rugby Road-University Circle-Venable Neighborhood ADC District Owner: Neighborhood Investment – PC, LP Applicant: Kevin Riddle, Mitchell Matthews Architects Project: Three-story apartment building with below-grade parking Background Year Built: 1857 District: Rugby Road-University Circle-Venable Neighborhood ADC District Also designated an Individually Protected Property Status: Contributing Also known as Wyndhurst, 605 Preston Place was the manor house of the 100-acre farm that is now the Preston Heights section of the city. It is a typical 2-story, 3-bay, double-pile white weatherboard-clad house with Greek Revival details. Prior BAR Reviews (See appendix for the complete list) September 15, 2020 - Preliminary Discussion re: new apartment building. Application • Submittal: Mitchel Matthews Architects drawings 605 Preston Place, dated April 26, 2021: Cover; SK-44 Zoning; Survey Existing Conditions; View West Existing; View SW Existing; View SE Existing; Description; SK-268 Site Plan; SK-266 Plantings; SK-318 Parking Level Plan; SK-319 Typical Residential Level Plan; SK-305 Elevation West; SK-306 Elevation South; SK-317 Elevation South (shutters closed); SK-307 Elevation East; SK-308 Elevation North; SK-303 View SE; SK-312 View SW; SK-302 View West; SK-310 Material Palette; SK-314 Material Palette; Lighting (photometric); Lighting (renderings); and Lighting Product Sheets for fixtures A, B, C, D, F, G and H. (26 sheets) CoA request for construction of apartment building, including parking, landscaping and site improvements. 605 Preston Place (May 12, 2021) 1 Apartment Building • Walls: o Red brick o Painted stucco • Flat roof behind low parapet. Copper scuppers boxes and downspouts • Rooftop mechanical units screened with enclosures o Note: At the building façades, the parapets are brick. The BAR should discuss the wall details for the non-facade sections of rooftop enclosures. • Doors and Windows: Marvin Ultimate Clad Exterior, rubbed bronze • Shutters: Wood shutters, painted to match the stucco and trim • Stairs and balcony railings: Metal • Stairs: Metal framing with wood treads • Ceilings at balconies and stair landings: White Oak boards* • Decking at balconies and stair landings: Black Locust boards.* * Applicant’s note: Ceiling and deck boards will be spaced to allow drainage. The balconies are small [shallow]. Lighting • Type A. Sconce (parking): Lithonia Lighting, WDGE2 LED P3 o Dimmable available, CT 3000K, CRI 90, BUG 1-0-0 • Type B. Wall light (parking): Lightway Industries Inc, PDLW-12-LED-11W o Dimmable available, CT 3000K – 4,000K, CRI 80 • Type C. Step light (path): Eurofase Lighting, 31590-013 o Not dimmable, CT 3,000K, CRI 80 • Type D. Bollard (path): Eurofase Lighting, 31913 o Not dimmable, CT 3,000K, CRI 80 • Type E. (Omitted.) • Type F. Recessed light (stairs): Lithonia Lighting, LBR6WW ALO1 (500LM) SWW1 o Dimmable available, CT 3,000K, CRI 90 • Type G. Recessed light (stairs): Mark Architectural Lighting, SL2L 4 FLP 400LMF o Dimmable available CT 3,000K, CRI 80 • Type H. Wall wash (stairs): Mark Architectural Lighting, SL2L LOP 4 FLP 400LMF o Dimmable available CT 3,000K, CRI 80 • Balconies: No exterior light fixtures. The applicant noted that the balconies are shallow and ambient lighting from the interior will be sufficient. Color Palette • Trim and metal channel facias: Pantone 416C or similar. • Stucco: color similar to Pantone 416C • Metal railings: matte iron/dark gray Landscape and Site Work • Two (2) mature Deodora cedars will remain. • Construction will require the removal of six (6) trees: o One (1) 36” Oak o Three (3) 8” Dogwood 605 Preston Place (May 12, 2021) 1 o One (1) 10” Maple o One (1) 18” Tree • • • • New plantings include fifteen (15) trees: o Three (3) Blackgum (Nyssa Sylvatica) ▪ Note: On the City’s Tree List o Six (6) Shagbark Hickory (Carya Ovata) ▪ Note: On the City’s Tree List o Six (6) White Fringetree (Chionanthus Virginicus) ▪ Note: While not on the City’s Tree or Shrub lists, White Fringetree is identified as being native to the eastern US, from New Jersey to Florida. In 1997, the Virginia Native Plant Society named it the Wildflower of the Year. o Appalachian Sedge (Carex Appalachica). Groundcover typical at planting beds ▪ Note: Not on the City’s Tree or Shrub lists o Dart’s Gold Ninebark (Physocarpus Opulifolius): ▪ Alternative: Smooth Sumac (Rhus Glabra) ▪ Note: Both on the City’s Tree List o Pipevine (Aristolochia Macrophylla). Climbing plant intended to spread and cover wall ▪ Note: Not on the City’s Tree or Shrub lists • Alteration to the (west) stone patio at the existing house • Path: flagstone paving. • Low walls: brick with bluestone caps • Electrical transformers to be screened. • Parking: below grade, accesses from west via Preston Place Discussion Regarding historic designation Local This property, including the house, was first designated by the City as an IPP. When the City later established the Rugby Road-University Circle-Venable Neighborhood ADC District, Wyndhurst was incorporated into the district. State and federal Wyndhurst is listed on the Virginia Landmarks Register and the National Register of Historic Places as an individual site (https://www.dhr.virginia.gov/historic-registers/104- 0048/) and as a contributing structure to the Rugby Road-University Corner Historic District (https://www.dhr.virginia.gov/historic-registers/104-0133/). Being a contributing structure to a VLR/NRHP district carries no less importance than being individually listed, the term is intended to express that a district is important due to the sum of its contributing parts. However, the individual listing of a resource, like Wyndhurst, expresses the resource’s importance, in and of itself. Preliminary Discussion 605 Preston Place (May 12, 2021) 1 On September 15, 2020, the BAR held a preliminary discussion on this project. Notes from the meeting minutes are below. The BAR should discuss if the proposal is consistent with that input and whether the submittal provides the information necessary to evaluate this CoA request. Summary of Project o Recently a surface parking lot was proposed. o New apartment building located to the west of Wyndhurst. o Parking spaces support the new apartment building, relegated to the site interior. o Proposal of a connection that runs along south of the site to access the parking. o Access to parking designated for one-way travel and would reduce vehicle traffic. o Street could rejuvenate and strengthen the perception of Wyndhurst’s original frontage. o Not related to earlier proposal to move Wyndhurst or introduce surface parking. o New building will address the problems of earlier efforts. o Provide housing close to the University. o Potential in this proposal to animate the site. Summary of Board Comments and Questions o BAR indicated the project can be considered. o Interested in seeing how this project moves forward and could enhance the neighborhood. o Questions about the parking and the north yard. Parking spots 7 and 8 encroach very close to the building. o Cautious about the under sides of parking areas, bright lighting with the parking area. o Not sure about the grades on the other side of the building. o This is far more appropriate than what was previously proposed. o Staff reviewed the previous COA application that was denied in October 2019. o Parking lot proposal did nothing to enhance the Wyndhurst frontage. o Two trees are going to be retained. o Enter and exit [parking] from the north drive. o There would be a 25-foot setback for the front yard. o Concern about the distance between the proposed building and Wyndhurst [house]. o Basement windows [Wyndhurst] are going to stay where they are. o The guidelines are friendlier with a building versus a parking lot. o Some concern regarding the massing that was raised. o Straw poll: Project is better than proposed parking lot and better than moving the house. Staff Comments The following staff comments are not unintended as a comprehensive evaluation, but as a general summary of key design criteria and to provide a framework for the BAR’s discussion. The Design Guidelines provide recommendations for: Spatial Elements • Setbacks: Within 20 percent of the setbacks of a majority of neighborhood dwellings. o Average front setback is 43 feet, ranging between 10 feet and 80 feet. The recommended setback for the new building would be between 35 feet and 51 feet. 605 Preston Place (May 12, 2021) 1 ▪ The proposed building has a setback of approximately 20 feet. (Facing Preston Place, the two adjacent structures have setbacks of 15 feet and 27 feet. Wyndurst is setback 20 feet from the parcel line at the street.) ▪ Note: In September 2020, the applicant conferred with NDS. Per zoning, the minimum set back was determined to be 17.4 feet. • Spacing: Within 20 percent of the average spacing between houses on the block. o Average side spacing is 38 feet, ranging between 22 feet and 62 feet. The recommended spacing for the new building would be between 30 feet and 46 feet from the adjacent buildings. ▪ The proposed building is approximately 23 feet and 30 feet from the two adjacent buildings on Preston Place. (Wyndhurst is 30 feet and 22 feet from two adjacent buildings on Preston Place.) • Massing and Footprint: Relate to the majority of surrounding historic dwellings. o Not including the adjacent apartments [with a footprint of 42,50 square feet], the average footprint is 2,085 square feet, ranging from 961 square feet to 4,404 square feet. [Three building exceed 3,500 square feet.] ▪ The proposed building will be approximately 4,125 square feet. • Height and Width: Keep the height and width within a maximum of 200 percent of the prevailing height and width. o Height. The prevailing height is two stories, with the adjacent apartments at four stories. The recommended max height of the new building would be four stories. ▪ The proposed building will be three stories. o Width. Not including the adjacent apartments [150 feet facing Grady Avenue and 100 feet facing Preston Place], the average building width is 54 feet, ranging between 32 feet and 104 feet. The recommended max width of the new building would be 108 feet. ▪ The proposed building will be approximately 56 feet wide, facing Preston Place. Materials and Design • Roofing: Flat roofs may be appropriate on a contemporary designed building. 605 Preston Place (May 12, 2021) 1 o The new building will have a flat roof. • Screen rooftop equipment: o The new building’s rooftop mechanical units will be within enclosures. • Windows and Doors: Openings generally are recessed on masonry buildings—new construction should follow this; wood, aluminum-clad wood, solid fiberglass, and metal windows are preferred for new construction. o The new building’s windows and doors are single-lite and contemporary. o The doors and windows appear to be recessed, however the BAR should request clarification; possibly require a typical wall section. o Note: Applicant’s submittal does not indicate the glass specification. The Design Guidelines recommend that glass should be clear, which the BAR established as having a VLT of not less than 70%. Glass for residential windows and doors typically VLTs in the high 50s to low 60s. In 2018, the BAR clarified this recommendation to the consideration of alternatives to the 70% VLT minimum; that subsequent decisions be guided by the project’s location, the type of windows and location on the building, the fenestration design, energy conservation goals, and the intent of the architectural design. • Materials and Textures: Materials should be compatible with neighboring buildings. o Of the neighboring structures: seven are brick; six have wood siding or shingles; two are stucco; 10 have shutters. o The proposed building features brick and stucco, with metal accents. The balcony doors will be enclosed by wood shutters. • Color Palette (Paint): Colors should be compatible with adjacent buildings, not intrusive. o Neighboring structures include red brick, painted stucco, stained shingles, and painted siding—painted features are primarily light colors. Trim is predominantly white. Shutters are dark. The existing apartment building include stone columns and corner blocks. o The proposed palette features the red brick, deep grays on the stucco and metal. • Details and Decoration: Reduce the mass using articulated design details. o The facades are articulated by the fenestration and balconies, the central stairway (on the west elevation), the broken parapet, and the separate brick and stucco wall sections. Site Design, Landscaping, Lighting • Plantings: Retain existing trees, especially street trees; protect significant existing trees and other plantings. o At the street, two Deordora cypress (30” and 36” caliper) will be retained. o A 36” oak will be removed. o Fifteen new trees will be planted on the site. 605 Preston Place (May 12, 2021) 1 • Lighting: Use light levels that provide for adequate safety, yet do not overly emphasize the site or building. o Proposed fixtures available with lamping that is consistent with the BAR’s established guidelines: Dimmable; Color Temperature not to exceed 3,000K; Color Rendering Index of not less than 80, preferably not less than 90. BAR should establish a condition that all lamping. • Parking Areas and Lots: Screen parking lots from streets. o Proposed parking is underground, accessible through a side entrance. o Surface spaces for three vehicles at the side and rear corner of the new building. Secretary’s Standards The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties offers the following guidance for alterations and additions for a new use: Recommended • Designing new onsite features (such as parking areas, access ramps, or lighting), when required by a new use, so that they are as unobtrusive as possible, retain the historic relationship between the building or buildings and the landscape, and are compatible with the historic character of the property. • Designing new exterior additions to historic buildings or adjacent new construction that are compatible with the historic character of the site and preserves the historic relationship between the building or buildings and the landscape. • Removing non-significant buildings, additions, or site features which detract from the historic character of the site. • Locating an irrigation system needed for a new or continuing use of the site where it will not cause damage to historic buildings. Not recommended • Locating parking areas directly adjacent to historic buildings where vehicles may cause damage to buildings or landscape features or when they negatively impact the historic character of the building site if landscape features and plant materials are removed. • Introducing new construction on the building site which is visu ally incompatible in terms of size, scale, design, material, or color, which destroys historic relationships on the site, or which dam ages or destroys important landscape features, such as replacing a lawn with paved parking areas or removing mature trees to widen a driveway. • Removing a historic building in a complex of buildings or removing a building feature or a landscape feature which is important in defining the historic character of the site. • Locating an irrigation system needed for a new or continuing use of the site where it will damage historic buildings. Staff Recommendations If approval is considered, staff recommends the following conditions: • Requiring that all lamping be dimmable, if that option is available with the specified light fixtures, the Color Temperature not exceed 3,000K, and the Color Rendering Index is not less than 80, preferably not less than 90. • Underground the new electrical service. 605 Preston Place (May 12, 2021) 1 • During construction, protect the existing stone walls and curbs within the public right of way. Provide documentation prior to construction. If damaged, repair/reconstruct to match prior to final inspection. No site plan has been submitted for the proposed new work. During the site plan review process, it is not uncommon to see changes that alter the initial design. In considering an approval of the requested CoA, the BAR should be clear that any subsequent revisions or modifications to what has been submitted for that CoA will require a new application for BAR review. Additionally, the 1920 and c1965 Sanborn maps indicate this site has been undisturbed for at least the last 100 years. , the City’s Comprehensive Plan recommends that during land disturbing activities in areas likely to reveal knowledge about the past developers be encouraged to undertake archeological investigations. Additionally, the Secretary’s Standards, as referenced in the Design Guidelines, recommends that archeological resources should be protected, with mitigation measures should they be disturbed. A Phase I arkeological level survey would be appropriate at this site. Regarding prior BAR actions In October 2019, the BAR denied a CoA to construct a parking lot at this site. December 2019, upon appeal, City Council upheld the BAR’s action. The following summary may be helpful. (The formal record begins on page 299 of: http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/794415/AGENDA_20191202Dec02.pdf) In denying this CoA request, the BAR cited the ADC District Guidelines for Site Design and Elements (Chapter II). The BAR noted the direction provided in the Introduction (section A): “The relationship between a historic building and its site, landscape features, outbuildings, and other elements within the property boundary all contribute to a historic district’s overall image. Site features should be considered an important part of any project to be reviewed by the Board of Architectural Review.” The BAR noted that the request conflicts with the provisions of Parking Areas and Lots (section F), including: “4. Avoid creating parking areas in the front yards of historic building sites.” “8. Provide screening from adjacent land uses as needed.” And “10. Select lighting fixtures that are appropriate to a historic setting.” 605 Preston Place (May 12, 2021) 1 The BAR cited guidance from the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties [aka Secretary’s Standards], which are included by reference in the ADC District Guidelines. Specifically, from Alterations and Additions for a New Use (page 146), the Secretary’s Standards recommend against “Locating parking areas directly adjacent to historic buildings where vehicles may cause damage to buildings or landscape features or when they negatively impact the historic character of the setting if landscape features and plant materials are removed.” The BAR cited sections of the City Code for Historical Preservation and ADC Districts. Specifically, Sec. 34-271 - Purposes: The City of Charlottesville seeks, through the establishment of its several historic districts and through the protection of individually significant properties, to protect community health and safety, to promote the education, prosperity and general welfare of the public through the identification, preservation and enhancement of buildings, structures, landscapes, settings, neighborhoods, places and features with special historical, cultural and architectural significance. To achieve these general purposes, the City of Charlottesville seeks to pursue the following specific purposes: … (2) To assure that, within the city's historic districts, new structures, additions, landscaping and related elements will be in harmony with their setting and environs[.] Suggested Motions Approval: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find the proposed new construction at 605 Preston Place 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[.] ... 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 the proposed new construction at 605 Preston Place does not satisfy the BAR’s criteria and guidelines and is not compatible with this property and other properties in the Rugby Road-University Circle-Venable Neighborhood ADC District, and 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; 605 Preston Place (May 12, 2021) 1 (2) The harmony of the proposed change in terms of overall proportion and the size and placement of entrances, windows, awnings, exterior stairs and signs; (3) The Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation set forth within the Code of Federal Regulations (36 C.F.R. §67.7(b)), as may be relevant; (4) The effect of the proposed change on the historic district neighborhood; (5) The impact of the proposed change on other protected features on the property, such as gardens, landscaping, fences, walls and walks; (6) Whether the proposed method of construction, renovation or restoration could have an adverse impact on the structure or site, or adjacent buildings or structures; (7) Any applicable provisions of the City’s Design Guidelines. Sec. 34-282. - Application procedures. (d) … The following information and exhibits shall be submitted along with each application: 1) Detailed and clear descriptions of any proposed changes in the exterior features of the subject property, including but not limited to the following: the general design, arrangement, texture, materials, plantings and colors to be used, the type of windows, exterior doors, lights, landscaping, parking, signs, and other exterior fixtures and appurtenances. The relationship of the proposed change to surrounding properties will also be shown. 2) Photographs of the subject property and photographs of the buildings on contiguous properties. 3) Samples to show the nature, texture and color of materials proposed. 4) The history of an existing building or structure, if requested by the BAR or staff. For new construction and projects proposing expansion of the footprint of an existing building: a three-dimensional model (in physical or digital form) depicting the site, and all buildings and structures to be located thereon, as it will appear upon completion of the work that is the subject of the application. Pertinent ADC District Design Guidelines (The following excerpts are for reference only, not in lieu of the complete guidelines.) Chapter I – Introduction This property is within subarea c (Preston Place) of the Rugby Road-University Circle-Venable Neighborhood ADC District: A moderate scale single family residential neighborhood constructed in the 1920s and 1930s with the exception of Wyndhurst (605 Preston Place), built in 1857, which was the original farmhouse on the property; porches, brick, wood frame, variety of architectural styles, deep setbacks, wooded lots. Chapter II – Site Design and Elements A. Introduction The relationship between a historic building and its site, landscape features, outbuildings, and other elements within the property boundary all contribute to a historic district’s overall image. Site features should be considered an important part of any project to be reviewed by the Board of Architectural Review. The resulting character of many of the residential streets in the historic districts is one of lush plantings and mature shade trees. While there may be much variety within the house types and styles along a particular street, the landscape character ties together the setting and plays an important role in defining the distinctiveness of the districts. 605 Preston Place (May 12, 2021) 1 When making changes to a property within one of the historic districts, the entire site should be studied to better understand its original design and its context within its sub-area. When planning changes to a site in a historic district, create a new plan that reflects the site traditions of the area and that fits the scale of the lot. Consider using different types and scales of plantings that will create scale, define edges and enclose outdoor spaces of the site. The following sections provide more specific guidance. B. Plantings 1) Encourage the maintenance and planting of large trees on private property along the streetfronts, which contribute to the “avenue” effect. 2) Generally, use trees and plants that are compatible with the existing plantings in the neighborhood. 3) Use trees and plants that are indigenous to the area. 4) Retain existing trees and plants that help define the character of the district, especially street trees and hedges. 5) Replace diseased or dead plants with like or similar species if appropriate. 6) When constructing new buildings, identify and take care to protect significant existing trees and other plantings. 7) Choose ground cover plantings that are compatible with adjacent sites, existing site conditions, and the character of the building. 8) Select mulching and edging materials carefully and do not use plastic edgings, lava, crushed rock, unnaturally colored mulch or other historically unsuitable materials. C. Walls and Fences 1) Maintain existing materials such as stone walls, hedges, wooden picket fences, and wrought- iron fences. 2) When a portion of a fence needs replacing, salvage original parts for a prominent location. 3) Match old fencing in material, height, and detail. 4) If it is not possible to match old fencing, use a simplified design of similar materials and height. 5) For new fences, use materials that relate to materials in the neighborhood. 6) Take design cues from nearby historic fences and walls. 7) Chain-link fencing, split rail fences, and vinyl plastic fences should not be used. 8) Traditional concrete block walls may be appropriate. 9) Modular block wall systems or modular concrete block retaining walls are strongly discouraged but may be appropriate in areas not visible from the public right-of-way. 10) If street-front fences or walls are necessary or desirable, they should not exceed four (4) feet in height from the sidewalk or public right-of-way and should use traditional materials and design. 11) Residential privacy fences may be appropriate in side or rear yards where not visible from the primary street. 12) Fences should not exceed six (6) feet in height in the side and rear yards. 13) Fence structures should face the inside of the fenced property. 14) Relate commercial privacy fences to the materials of the building. If the commercial property adjoins a residential neighborhood, use a brick or painted wood fence or heavily planted screen as a buffer. 15) Avoid the installation of new fences or walls if possible in areas where there are no are no fences or walls and yards are open. 16) Retaining walls should respect the scale, materials and context of the site and adjacent properties. 605 Preston Place (May 12, 2021) 1 17) Respect the existing conditions of the majority of the lots on the street in planning new construction or a rehabilitation of an existing site. D. Lighting 1) In residential areas, use fixtures that are understated and compatible with the residential quality of the surrounding area and the building while providing subdued illumination. 2) Choose light levels that provide for adequate safety yet do not overly emphasize the site or building. Often, existing porch lights are sufficient. 4) Do not use numerous “crime” lights or bright floodlights to illuminate a building or site when surrounding lighting is subdued. 7) Consider motion-activated lighting for security. E. Walkways and Driveways 1) Use appropriate traditional paving materials like brick, stone, and scored concrete. 2) Concrete pavers are appropriate in new construction, and may be appropriate in site renovations, depending on the context of adjacent building materials, and continuity with the surrounding site and district. 3) Gravel or stone dust may be appropriate, but must be contained. 4) Stamped concrete and stamped asphalt are not appropriate paving materials. 5) Limit asphalt use to driveways and parking areas. 6) Place driveways through the front yard only when no rear access to parking is available. 7) Do not demolish historic structures to provide areas for parking. 8) Add separate pedestrian pathways within larger parking lots, and provide crosswalks at vehicular lanes within a site. F. Parking Areas and Lots 1) If new parking areas are necessary, construct them so that they reinforce the street wall of buildings and the grid system of rectangular blocks in commercial areas. 2) Locate parking lots behind buildings. 3) Screen parking lots from streets, sidewalks, and neighboring sites through the use of walls, trees, and plantings of a height and type appropriate to reduce the visual impact year-round. 4) Avoid creating parking areas in the front yards of historic building sites. 5) Avoid excessive curb cuts to gain entry to parking areas. 6) Avoid large expanses of asphalt. 7) On large lots, provide interior plantings and pedestrian walkways. 8) Provide screening from adjacent land uses as needed. 9) Install adequate lighting in parking areas to provide security in evening hours. 10) Select lighting fixtures that are appropriate to a historic setting. H. Utilities and Other Site Appurtenances 1. Plan the location of overhead wires, utility poles and meters, electrical panels, antennae, trash containers, and exterior mechanical units where they are least likely to detract from the character of the site. 2. Screen utilities and other site elements with fences, walls, or plantings. 3. Encourage the installation of utility services underground. 4. Antennae and communication dishes should be placed in inconspicuous rooftop locations, not in a front yard. 605 Preston Place (May 12, 2021) 1 5. Screen all rooftop mechanical equipment with a wall of material harmonious with the building or structure. Chapter III – New Construction and Additions A. Introduction The following guidelines offer general recommendations on the design for all new buildings and additions in Charlottesville’s historic districts. The guidelines are flexible enough to both respect the historic past and to embrace the future. The intent of these guidelines is not to be overly specific or to dictate certain designs to owners and designers. The intent is also not to encourage copying or mimicking particular historic styles. These guidelines are intended to provide a general design framework for new construction. Designers can take cues from the traditional architecture of the area, and have the freedom to design appropriate new architecture for Charlottesville’s historic districts. These criteria are all important when considering whether proposed new buildings are appropriate and compatible; however, the degree of importance of each criterion varies within each area as conditions vary. For instance, setback and spacing between buildings may be more important than roof forms or materials since there is more variety of the last two criteria on most residential streets. All criteria need not be met in every example of new construction although all criteria should be taken into consideration in the design process. When studying the character of a district, examine the forms of historic contributing buildings and avoid taking design cues from non-contributing structures. There may be the opportunity for more flexibility in designing new buildings or making an addition depending on the level of historic integrity of a particular area. Some parts of the historic districts retain a high degree of their original historic character. In these areas care should be taken to ensure that the new design does not visually overpower its historic neighboring buildings. In other areas where there are more non-contributing structures or more commercial utilitarian buildings, new designs could be more contemporary and the Board of Architectural Review (BAR) may be more flexible in applying these guidelines. 2. Flexibility The following guidelines offer general recommendations on the design for all new buildings and additions in Charlottesville’s historic districts. The guidelines are flexible enough to both respect the historic past and to embrace the future. The intent of these guidelines is not to be overly specific or to dictate certain designs to owners and designers. The intent is also not to encourage copying or mimicking particular historic styles. These guidelines are intended to provide a general design framework for new construction. Designers can take cues from the traditional architecture of the area and have the freedom to design appropriate new architecture for Charlottesville’s historic districts. 3. Building Types within the Historic Districts When designing new buildings in the historic districts, one needs to recognize that while there is an overall distinctive district character, there is, nevertheless, a great variety of historic building types, styles, and scales throughout the districts and sub-areas that are described in Chapter 1: Introduction. Likewise, there are several types of new construction that might be constructed within the districts the design parameters of these new buildings will differ depending on the following types: 605 Preston Place (May 12, 2021) 1 b. Residential Infill These buildings are new dwellings that are constructed on the occasional vacant lot within a block of existing historic houses. Setback, spacing, and general massing of the new dwelling are the most important criteria that should relate to the existing historic structures, along with residential roof and porch forms. B. Setback 2) Use a minimal setback if the desire is to create a strong street wall or setback consistent with the surrounding area. 3) Modify setback as necessary for sub-areas that do not have well-defined street walls. 10) Keep residential setbacks within 20 percent of the setbacks of a majority of neighborhood dwellings. C. Spacing 1) Maintain existing consistency of spacing in the area. New residences should be spaced within 20 percent of the average spacing between houses on the block. 3) In areas that do not have consistent spacing, consider limiting or creating a more uniform spacing in order to establish an overall rhythm. 4) Multi-lot buildings should be designed using techniques to incorporate and respect the existing spacing on a residential street. D. Massing and Footprint 2) New infill construction in residential sub-areas should relate in footprint and massing to the majority of surrounding historic dwellings. E. Height and Width 1) Respect the directional expression of the majority of surrounding buildings. In commercial areas, respect the expression of any adjacent historic buildings, which generally will have a more vertical expression. 2) Attempt to keep the height and width of new buildings within a maximum of 200 percent of the prevailing height and width in the surrounding sub-area. 5) Reinforce the human scale of the historic districts by including elements such as porches, entrances, storefronts, and decorative features depending on the character of the particular sub- area. F. Scale 1) Provide features on new construction that reinforce the scale and character of the surrounding area, whether human or monumental. Include elements such as storefronts, vertical and horizontal divisions, upper story windows, and decorative features. G. Roof 1) Roof Forms and Pitches e. Shallow pitched roofs and flat roofs may be appropriate in historic residential areas on a contemporary designed building. 2) Roof Materials: Common roof materials in the historic districts include metal, slate, and composition shingles. a. For new construction in the historic districts, use traditional roofing materials such as standing-seam metal or slate. 605 Preston Place (May 12, 2021) 1 3) Rooftop Screening a. If roof-mounted mechanical equipment is used, it should be screened from public view on all sides. b. The screening material and design should be consistent with the design, textures, materials, and colors of the building. c. The screening should not appear as an afterthought or addition the building. H. Orientation 1) New commercial construction should orient its façade in the same direction as adjacent historic buildings, that is, to the street. 2) Front elevations oriented to side streets or to the interior of lots should be discouraged. I. Windows and Doors 1) The rhythm, patterns, and ratio of solids (walls) and voids (windows and doors) of new buildings should relate to and be compatible with adjacent historic facades. a. The majority of existing buildings in Charlottesville’s historic districts have a higher proportion of wall area than void area except at the storefront level. 2) The size and proportion, or the ratio of width to height, of window and door openings on new buildings’ primary facades should be similar and compatible with those on surrounding historic facades. a. The proportions of the upper floor windows of most of Charlottesville’s historic buildings are more vertical than horizontal. 3) Traditionally designed openings generally are recessed on masonry buildings and have a raised surround on frame buildings. New construction should follow these methods in the historic districts as opposed to designing openings that are flush with the rest of the wall. 4) Many entrances of Charlottesville’s historic buildings have special features such as transoms, sidelights, and decorative elements framing the openings. Consideration should be given to incorporating such elements in new construction. 5) Darkly tinted mirrored glass is not an appropriate material for windows in new buildings within the historic districts. 6) If small-paned windows are used, they should have true divided lights or simulated divided lights with permanently affixed interior and exterior muntin bars and integral spacer bars between the panes of glass. 7) Avoid designing false windows in new construction. 8) Appropriate material for new windows depends upon the context of the building within a historic district, and the design of the proposed building. Sustainable materials such as wood, aluminum-clad wood, solid fiberglass, and metal windows are preferred for new construction. Vinyl windows are discouraged. 9) Glass shall be clear. Opaque spandrel glass or translucent glass may be approved by the BAR for specific applications. Note: In August 2018, the BAR clarified this recommendation as follows: BAR concluded that VLT 70 should remain the preference relative to clear glass. However, they acknowledged the case-by-case flexibility offered in the Design Guidelines; specifically, though not exclusively, that this allows for the consideration of alternatives— e.g. VLTs below 70--and that subsequent BAR decisions regarding glass should be guided by the project’s location (e.g. on the Downtown Mall versus a side street), the type of windows and location on the building (e.g. a street level storefront versus the upper floors of an office building), the fenestration design (e.g. continuous glass walls versus punched 605 Preston Place (May 12, 2021) 1 windows), energy conservation goals, the intent of the architectural design, matching historical glass, and so on. J. Porches 1) Porches and other semi-public spaces are important in establishing layers or zones of intermediate spaces within the streetscape. K. Street-Level Design 1) Street level facades of all building types, whether commercial, office, or institutional, should not have blank walls; they should provide visual interest to the passing pedestrian. 11) A parking garage vehicular entrance/exit opening should be diminished in scale, and located off to the side to the degree possible. L. Foundation and Cornice 1) Distinguish the foundation from the rest of the structure through the use of different materials, patterns, or textures. 2) Respect the height, contrast of materials, and textures of foundations on surrounding historic buildings. 3) If used, cornices should be in proportion to the rest of the building. 4) Wood or metal cornices are preferred. The use of fypon may be appropriate where the location is not immediately adjacent to pedestrians. M. Materials and Textures 1) The selection of materials and textures for a new building should be compatible with and complementary to neighboring buildings. 2) In order to strengthen the traditional image of the residential areas of the historic districts, brick, stucco, and wood siding are the most appropriate materials for new buildings. 3) In commercial/office areas, brick is generally the most appropriate material for new structures. “Thin set” brick is not permitted. Stone is more commonly used for site walls than buildings. 4) Large-scale, multi-lot buildings, whose primary facades have been divided into different bays and planes to relate to existing neighboring buildings, can have varied materials, shades, and textures. 5) Synthetic siding and trim, including, vinyl and aluminum, are not historic cladding materials in the historic districts, and their use should be avoided. 6) Cementitious siding, such as HardiPlank boards and panels, are appropriate. 7) Concrete or metal panels may be appropriate. 8) Metal storefronts in clear or bronze are appropriate. 9) The use of Exterior Insulation and Finish Systems (EIFS) is discouraged but may be approved on items such as gables where it cannot be seen or damaged. It requires careful design of the location of control joints. 10) The use of fiberglass-reinforced plastic is discouraged. If used, it must be painted. 11) All exterior trim woodwork, decking and flooring must be painted, or may be stained solid if not visible from public right-of-way. N. Paint 1) The selection and use of colors for a new building should be coordinated and compatible with adjacent buildings, not intrusive. 605 Preston Place (May 12, 2021) 1 2) In Charlottesville’s historic districts, various traditional shaded of brick red, white, yellow, tan, green, or gray are appropriate. For more information on colors traditionally used on historic structures and the placement of color on a building, see Chapter 4: Rehabilitation. 3) Do not paint unpainted masonry surfaces. 4) It is proper to paint individual details different colors. 5) More lively color schemes may be appropriate in certain sub-areas dependent on the context of the sub-areas and the design of the building. O. Details and Decoration 1) Building detail and ornamentation should be consistent with and related to the architecture of the surrounding context and district. 2) The mass of larger buildings may be reduced using articulated design details. 3) Pedestrian scale may be reinforced with details. Appendix Prior BAR Reviews August 14, 2017 – BAR approved moving [to 506-512 Preston Place] the house, porch, chimneys, and east side additions located at 605 Preston Avenue and demolition of the rear additions. June 18, 2019 – Request to construct a 25-space parking lot in the rear yard of the historic structure. The BAR moved to accept the applicant’s request for deferral (9-0). http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/791143/2019- 06_605%20Preston%20Place_BAR.pdf http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/792645/2019-06_Meeting%20Minutes_BAR.pdf October 15, 2019 – BAR denied CoA request to construct parking lot in the rear yard of the historic structure. (December 2019 – Council denied applicant appeal.) http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/791778/2019- 10_605%20Preston%20Place_BAR.pdf http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/792649/2019-10_Meeting%20Minutes_BAR.pdf 605 Preston Place (May 12, 2021) 1 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 BA~ el,g by 3: 0 p.m. Owner Name ~of u J.. Applicant Name_-="""'-""-L!._.__~-'--"'-'__,.c...:.....;:'f!.:;__ _____ _ Project Name/Description (oO~ f rG(--'0 'f('<,.e.... f\ Parcel Number OS'O l CI 00 0 ProjectPropertyAddress ~()( f~-n/\'Plt..c.e.., Ck,°"'(~-t1er~;{f,L. ()A. ,Z't...C/()1 Signature of Applicant Applicant Information I hereby attest that the information I have provided is, to the best of my knowledge, correct. £ <4:NA.Ar Signature DatJ Property Owner Information (if not applicant) ~1 Print Name 1 /\ tll~ Dt(-i 2-/u 't Date / Property Owner Permission (if not applicant) I have read this application and hereby give my consent to · submission. Do you intend to apply for Federal or State Tax Credits for this project? _________ _ Print Name Date List All Attachments (see reverse side for submittal requirements): For Office Use~ly Approved/Disapproved by: ________ _ Received by: LJ • ~ Date: _______________ _ Fee paid: 3'JS(P Cash/Ck.# \\5& Conditions of approval: __________ _ Date Received: I?...CJlJ ':\. \;?Ci: Revised 2016 605 PRESTON PLACE C H A R L O T T E S V I L L E , V A BAR REVIEW M I T C H E L L M AT T H E W S A R C H I T E C T S A pr il 26, 2021 S S R E G F T R O A P DR Location 605 Preston Place Area 0.396 acres (17,250 SF) Zone R-3H R-1UH Residential Units up to 21 DUA (by right) Parking Two bedroom apt. or smaller: AD 1 space RO Three or Four bedroom apt.: 2 spaces L Y P GB Height 45 feet (max) N R-3H R-3H TO RU ES R-3H Setbacks 17.5 feet (average of neigh- R (front) boring properties) P PL 0.396 acres Setbacks 1 ft per 2 ft height (10’ min) N (side) TO ES Setbacks na (double frontage lot - no PR (rear) rear yard) GR AD E Y AV AV E LL NW BE CA R-3H ST th 17 605 PRESTON PL M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlot t e s v i lle VA ZONING SUMMARY Architects & Planners SK-44 04.26.2021 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2021 605 PRESTON PL M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlot t e s v i lle VA SURVEY EXISTING CONDITIONS Architects & Planners 04.26.2021 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2021 605 PRESTON PL M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlot t e s v i lle VA VIEW WEST EXISTING CONDITIONS Architects & Planners 04.26.2021 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2021 605 PRESTON PL M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlot t e s v i lle VA VIEW SW EXISTING CONDITIONS Architects & Planners 04.26.2021 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2021 605 PRESTON PL M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlot t e s v i lle VA VIEW SE EXISTING CONDITIONS Architects & Planners 04.26.2021 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2021 The proposed new building is three stories over a parking level below grade. It is located to the west of the Wyndhurst house and to the north of the Preston Court Apartments. The parking level is accessed from a new drive that connects to Preston Place at the northwest corner of the site. Most parking spaces are concealed beneath the building, not visible from the street. The two most prominent trees on the site-- mature Deodora cedars-- are to be protected during construction and remain. Exterior mechanical/HVAC equipment will be located out of view behind parapets on the roof. Trash cans will be stored at the basement parking level, concealed from public view. Two transformers will be relocated further into the site-- away from Preston Place-- and screened by plantings. The site immediately adjacent to the historic Wyndhurst house will be minimally affected. The small lawn and narrow walk to the south of the house will be restored to their former conditions before renovation work on the Preston Court Aparments and Wyndhurst began. Other aspects of the proposal-- building materials, proportions, plantings, site walks, etc...-- are further illustrated in the pages that follow. 605 PRESTON PL M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlot t e s v i lle VA DESCRIPTION Architects & Planners 04.26.2021 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2021 PRESTON E e e AC PL 594 e N 580 582 f TO entry to parking PLACE under building ES PR c c a 596.6 HVAC/mech. equip. to be concelaed within parapets c 590.8 Wyndhurst g g a c c c d a 594.5 d g b b b b b b d 2 Deodora 589 592 590.2 Cedars to remain 2 transformers relocated here existing apartment courtyard a Nyssa Sylvatica (Blackgum) d Carex Appalachica (Appalachian Sedge) g Stone Paving groundcover typical at planting beds S S b Carya Ovata (Shagbark Hickory) e Physocarpus Opulifolius (Dart’s Gold Ninebark) R E alternative: Rhus Glabra (Smooth Sumac) O G FT A c Chionanthus Virginicus (White Fringetree) f Aristolochia Macrophylla (Pipevine) climbing plant intended to spread and cover wall PR DR 605 PRESTON PL M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlot t e s v i lle VA SITE PLAN Architects & Planners SK-268 04.26.2021 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2021 c Chionanthus Virginicus (White Fringetree) d Carex Appalachica (Appalachian Sedge) alternative: Carex Pensylvanica (Pennsylvania Sumac) a Nyssa Sylvatica (Blackgum) e Physocarpus Opulifolius (Dart’s Gold Ninebark) f Aristolochia Macrophylla (Pipevine) alternative: Rhus Glabra (Smooth Sumac) b Carya Ovata (Shagbark Hickory) g Stone Paving 605 PRESTON PL M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlot t e s v i lle VA PLANTINGS Architects & Planners SK-266 04.26.2021 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2021 PRESTON E AC PL N TO PLACE ES PR Wyndhurst existing apartment courtyard S S R E O G FT A PR DR 605 PRESTON PL M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlot t e s v i lle VA FLOOR PLAN Parking Level Architects & Planners SK-318 04.26.2021 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2021 PRESTON E AC PL 58’ N TO PLACE ES PR 23’- 6” 54’- 8” Wyndhurst 7’- 6” 11’- 8” 12’ 70’- 6” 12’ existing apartment courtyard S S R E O G FT A PR DR 605 PRESTON PL M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlot t e s v i lle VA FLOOR PLAN Typical Residential Level Architects & Planners SK-319 04.26.2021 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2021 Top of Parapet 627’ Top of Roof 622.5’ Finished Floor 591’ S S R E O G FT 10 A 5 PR DR 20 605 PRESTON PL M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlot t e s v i lle VA ELEVATION WEST Architects & Planners SK-305 04.26.2021 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2021 Top of Parapet 627’ Top of Roof 622.5’ Finished Floor 591’ S S R E O G FT 10 A 5 PR DR 20 605 PRESTON PL M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlot t e s v i lle VA ELEVATION SOUTH Architects & Planners SK-306 04.26.2021 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2021 Top of Parapet 627’ Top of Roof 622.5’ Finished Floor 591’ S S R E O G FT 10 A 5 PR DR 20 605 PRESTON PL M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlot t e s v i lle VA ELEVATION SOUTH (with some shutters closed) Architects & Planners SK-317 04.26.2021 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2021 Top of Parapet 627’ Top of Roof 622.5’ Finished Floor 591’ S S R E O G FT 10 A 5 PR DR 20 605 PRESTON PL M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlot t e s v i lle VA ELEVATION EAST Architects & Planners SK-307 04.26.2021 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2021 Top of Parapet 627’ Top of Roof 622.5’ Finished Floor 591’ Parking Level 580’ S S R E O G FT 10 A 5 PR DR 20 605 PRESTON PL M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlot t e s v i lle VA ELEVATION NORTH Architects & Planners SK-308 04.26.2021 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2021 S S R E O G FT A PR DR 605 PRESTON PL M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlot t e s v i lle VA VIEW SE Architects & Planners SK-303 04.26.2021 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2021 S S R E O G FT A PR DR 605 PRESTON PL M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlot t e s v i lle VA VIEW SW Architects & Planners SK-312 04.26.2021 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2021 S S R E O G FT A PR DR 605 PRESTON PL M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlot t e s v i lle VA VIEW WEST Architects & Planners SK-302 04.26.2021 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2021 Bluestone wall caps at brick 1 site walls 1 2 Meridian Brick - mix of Red Wirecut Flashed & Flat Set (or similar) 4 2 5 3 2 3 5 6 Custom Color Stucco Metal Railings in (Pantone 416C or sim.) (color similar to Pantone 416C) matte iron/dark at all clad windows and french doors + gray color exterior trim + metal channel fascias 4 1 White Oak (multi-coat clear finish) 6 6 at exterior soffits and back of stair recess Copper downspouts (patina to vary over time) 605 PRESTON PL M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlot t e s v i lle VA MATERIAL PALETTE Architects & Planners SK-310 04.26.2021 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2021 French inswing doors Black Locust Decking (basis of design: Marvin (multi-coat clear finish) Ultimate series) at balcony floors and stair treads and landings operable wood shutters metal railings (basis of design: Julius Blum) black locust balcony deck boards metal channel Marvin Ultimate Clad Exterior Doors Operable Bi-fold + Windows Wood Shutter Single Lites, no muntins/sash bars painted to match 12”+/- custom Pantone Clear glass railing components similar to profiles in color photo above (finish to be a consistent Square glazing profile matte iron for all components) Contemporary swinging handles in oil- 1’-6”+/- rubbed bronze PVD finish round spindles rectangular rails white oak soffit boards (typical) Julius Blum Railing Components face of stucco wall in matte iron/dark gray finish Section through Balcony (typical) 605 PRESTON PL M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlot t e s v i lle VA MATERIAL PALETTE Architects & Planners SK-314 04.26.2021 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2021 **BASE BID **BASE BID PACKAGE PACKAGE A A 0.0 0.1 0.5 2.9 8.1 4.4 6.5 7.4 3.5 0.0 0.1 0.4 1.4 2.8 2.4 3.2 5.1 8.6 A 0.0 0.1 0.0 3.9 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.7 1.3 3.0 0.0 11.2 3.6 1.9 1.2 1.1 4.0 A A 6.4 8.2 2.5 7.2 2.3 1.2 4.1 1.2 0.0 2.1 5.7 0.0 0.2 4.2 6.3 1.9 4.0 6.7 A B G A 0.0 3.1 6.6 9.8 2.4 0.0 5.5 7.4 0.9 4.8 9.7 6.5 4.7 1.0 7.8 2.4 0.9 1.2 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.4 3.7 8.2 12.9 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.6 1.0 23.2 3.4 0.0 10.6 5.1 4.0 4.2 5.0 3.1 4.1 1.0 2.0 0.6 1.5 1.5 2.1 1.8 2.2 1.9 2.0 1.8 1.9 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.5 F 2.4 1.6 H 0.0 0.1 1.9 4.7 C 12.3 1.0 9.6 3.2 0.0 9.4 20.3 2.8 6.4 0.2 0.5 C C 0.1 0.1 C C G H 0.0 2.6 1.8 1.7 1.0 0.9 1.9 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.5 C 0.0 0.2 0.0 11.5 3.4 1.4 1.2 1.4 5.2 0.0 0.0 A A 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.0 3.8 1.6 3.2 4.7 1.9 2.4 C 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 PRESTON PLACE APARTMENTS LIGHTING PLAN 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 4.1 8.9 1.6 A 0.2 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Plan View - GARAGE LEVEL C Scale - 1" = 10ft 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 **BASE BID 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.3 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 PACKAGE GH H F G D D D D D D Plan View D D D D D D D D 5.7 7.4 23.2 20.3 Scale - 1" = 10ft 2.1 5.5 10.6 9.4 **BASE BID 1.2 4.2 6.3 0.0 0.2 5.7 GH 2.4 0.0 3.1 9.8 6.6 7.4 8.2 3.4 12.9 3.7 1.9 H F 1.8 23.2 3.2 20.3 G F PACKAGE G H G 2.0 5.7 7.4 23.2 20.3 2.2 2.1 1.5 2.1 5.5 10.6 2.0 9.4 2.1 5.5 10.6 9.4 4.1 5.0 5.1 1.2 4.2 6.3 0.0 0.2 2.4 12.9 3.1 9.8 0.0 6.6 8.2 3.4 3.7 3.2 1.9 0.0 3.7 3.1 0.2 8.2 6.6 4.2 1.2 2.4 3.4 3.2 12.9 9.8 6.3 GH H F 1.8 G 1.9 5.7 7.4 23.2 1.9 20.3 F G1.8 H G 2.0 5.7 7.4 23.2 20.3 1.8 1.5 2.2 0.6 2.1 2.1 5.5 10.6 1.0 9.4 1.5 2.1 5.5 10.6 9.4 3.1 4.0 C 4.1 2.0 4.2 5.0 A A 0.0 1.9 6.7 0.0 4.0 9.7 0.9 4.8 0.0 1.0 0.6 0.0 9.6 1.0 CC0.1 5.1 B 0.20.50.4 0.4 0.0 0.21.612.3 0.5 0.5 0.2 6.4 0.2 0.1 0.5 0.4 C 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.2 C 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 C 0.7 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.7 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.9 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.8 0.0 3.7 3.1 0.2 8.2 6.6 4.2 1.2 2.4 3.4 3.2 12.9 9.8 6.3 C D F G1.8 1.9 H G A A A A 0.1 0.3 2.4 2.8 A A 0.4 0.2 4.7 1.9 C 1.9 5.7 7.4 20.3 23.2 0.1 0.1 1.8 0.1 0.0 1.5 0.6 1.0 2.1 5.5 10.6 9.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 C 4.0 3.1 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.0 2.9 1.4 3.9 4.2 8.1 4.4 6.5 7.4 3.5 2.4 3.2 5.1 8.6 2.8 1.2 1.4 1.7 1.3 3.0 1.1 11.2 3.6 1.9 1.2 1.1 4.0 0.0 6.4 8.2 2.5 7.2 2.3 1.2 4.1 6.5 4.7 1.0 7.8 2.4 0.9 1.2 2.6 1.8 1.7 1.0 0.9 1.9 0.0 3.4 1.4 1.2 5.2 0.0 11.5 3.8 1.6 3.2 4.7 1.9 2.4 0.0 4.1 8.9 1.6 C 1.0 0.6 1.0 9.6 C A 0.9 1.9 4.8 4.0 6.7 0.0 9.7 A0.0 A 0.9 0.2 1.6 6.4 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.2 C 0.4 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.5 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.2 0.1 12.3 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 B0.9 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 1.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.8 1.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.9 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 1.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.7 0.1 0.0 West View C D D D D D D D D D D D D D D 0.1 2.4 2.8 0.3 A A A A A Scale - 1" = 10ft 0.2 1.9 C4.7 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.1 Schedule 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.4 0.0 3.9 1.4 2.9 Lumens 6.5 6.4 0.0 3.8 2.6 11.5 8.2 4.7 11.2 1.6 3.4 1.8 1.0 2.5 3.6 8.1 2.8 1.1 1.2 4.1 3.2 1.4 1.7 7.8 7.2 1.9 1.4 2.4 4.4 8.9 4.7 1.0 1.2 2.4 2.3 1.7 3.2 6.5 1.6 1.9 0.9 1.4 1.1 1.2 1.3 5.1 7.4 2.4 5.2 1.9 1.2 4.1 4.0 3.0 8.6 3.5 Number Lumen Symbol Label Image QTY Manufacturer Catalog Number Description Lamp Filename per LLF Wattage Efficiency Distribution Polar Plot Notes Lamps Multiplier Lamp South View 10 Lithonia WDGE2 LED P3 30K WDGE2 LED WITH P3 - 1 WDGE2_LED_P 2615 1 1 22.55 100% TYPE III, Scale - 1" = 10ft Lighting 90CRI VF PERFORMANCE PACKAGE, 3_30K_90CRI_ VERY 3000K, 90CRI, VISUAL VF.ies SHORT, BUG A COMFORT FORWARD OPTIC RATING: B1 - - U0 - G0 1 LIGHTWAY PDLW-12-LED-11W LED Wall Sconce 1 PDLW-12- 337 1 1 8.08 100% INDUSTRIES, LED.IES INC B 8 Eurofase 31590-013 Step Light 1 31590.IES 100 1 1 4.9 90% *** FIXTURE COUNT Lighting INCLUDES BASE BID AS WELL AS AD ALT C OPTION. FINAL COUNTS TBD *** Statistics 14 Eurofase 31913 Short Bollard 1 31913 (1).IES 350 1 1 7.1 25% Description Symbol Avg Max Min Max/Min Avg/Min Lighting D east stairs bottom 1.7 fc 3.3 fc 0.5 fc 6.6:1 3.4:1 east stairs top 4.0 fc 4.2 fc 3.9 fc 1.1:1 1.0:1 not used 0 Luminis Canada SR135-L1W18-r1-R5 Scirocco SR135 (1 Bridgelux BXRC- 1 SR135- 2665 1 1 18.5 100% Type IV, *** NOT INCLUDED east walk lower level 1.7 fc 3.8 fc 0.6 fc 6.3:1 2.8:1 Inc. 40E4000-F Round LED L1W18r1-R5.ies Short IN BASE BID east walk mid level 3.6 fc 4.7 fc 3.3 fc 1.4:1 1.1:1 Array ) White 18W SSL OPTION, SEE AD E c/w Inventronics Driver ALT FOR FIXTURE elevator floor lvl 1 4.7 fc 9.7 fc 0.9 fc 10.8:1 5.2:1 LED40W-036-C1050-M- COUNT *** elevator floor lvl 2 5.0 fc 12.9 fc 0.0 fc N/A N/A D @ 120.00V elevator floor lvl 3 5.0 fc 12.9 fc 0.0 fc N/A N/A 3 Lithonia LBR6WW ALO1 (500LM) 6IN LBR Retrofit 500LM 3000K 1 LBR6WW_ALO1 492 1 1 5.76 100% DIRECT, SC- parking deck ramp 1.4 fc 8.1 fc 0.0 fc N/A N/A Lighting SWW1 (3000K) AR LSS Clear Semi-Specular Wall Wash _(500LM)_SWW 0=0.67, SC- parking deck ramp bottom 4.0 fc 8.6 fc 1.2 fc 7.2:1 3.3:1 MWD 90CRI 90CRI 1_(3000K)_AR_ 90=0.99 F LSS_MWD_90C parking deck surface 3.2 fc 11.5 fc 0.0 fc N/A N/A Designer RI.ies south walkway marker lights 0.1 fc 1.0 fc 0.0 fc N/A N/A FLVA-BE stairs apartment bottom 2.2 fc 4.2 fc 0.6 fc 7.0:1 3.7:1 Date 6 Mark SL2L 4 FLP 80CRI 30K Slot 2 LED, 4ft Length, Flushed LED 1 SL2L_4_FLP_80 1210 0.5 1 13.75 100% DIRECT, SC- stairs apartment top 2.8 fc 5.1 fc 1.5 fc 3.4:1 1.9:1 Architectural 400LMF Lens Position, 80CRI, 3000K CRI_30K_400L 0=1.14, SC- 04/22/2021 stairs wyndhurst 1.8 fc 5.9 fc 0.0 fc N/A N/A Lighting LED Boards, 400LMF MF.ies 90=1.03 Scale G **BASE BID wallwash bottom 7.0 fc 23.2 fc 0.0 fc N/A N/A SEE DRAWING wallwash lvl 2 7.9 fc 23.2 fc 1.2 fc 19.3:1 6.6:1 Drawing No. wallwash lvl 3 7.9 fc 23.2 fc 1.2 fc 19.3:1 6.6:1 6 Mark Architectural Lighting SL2L LOP 4 FLP 80CRI 30K 400LMF WW SLOT 2 LED 4FT LENGTH FLUSHED LENS POSITION 80CRI 3000K LED BOARDS LED 1 SL2L_LOP_4_FL P_80CRI_30K_4 00LMF_WW.ies 1159 1 1 13.75 100% DIRECT, SC- 0=1.58, SC- 90=1.13 west ramp North-South west stair walkway 0.2 fc 1.4 fc 0.7 fc 2.8 fc 0.0 fc 0.1 fc N/A 28.0:1 N/A 14.0:1 PACKAGE Summary NFC H 400LMF WALL WASH west walkway approach 0.9 fc 4.7 fc 0.0 fc N/A N/A 1 of 4 DISTRIBUTION west walkway building approach 4.2 fc 12.3 fc 0.5 fc 24.6:1 8.4:1 weststair walkway landing top 2.2 fc 6.4 fc 0.2 fc 32.0:1 11.0:1 605 PRESTON PL M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlot t e s v i lle VA LIGHTING Architects & Planners 04.26.2021 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2021 west birds eye PRESTON PLACE APARTMENTS LIGHTING PLAN birds eye south birds eye Designer FLVA-BE Date 04/22/2021 Scale SEE DRAWING Drawing No. Summary garage NFC entrance shaft 3 of 4 605 PRESTON PL M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlot t e s v i lle VA LIGHTING Architects & Planners 04.26.2021 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2021 WDGE2 LED Catalog Number PDLW-LED Architectural Wall Sconce Notes Construction: Type: • Steel housing and chassis Buy American Type • Bottom lens is white frosted acrylic Job Name: Light Source: Hit the Tab key or mouse over the page to see all interactive elements. • LED Introduction • Dimming to 10% Included The WDGE LED family is designed to meet Notes: specifier’s every wall-mounted lighting need in • Dark sky compliant a widely accepted shape that blends with any • Wall mount only D2 architecture. The clean rectilinear design comes Specifications in four sizes with lumen packages ranging from • Down light only 1,200 to 25,000 lumens, providing a true site-wide • ADA Compliant Depth (D1): 7" solution. Embedded with nLight® AIR wireless • Optional LBC large box cover to mount to standard Depth (D2): 1.5" controls, the WDGE family provides additional extension box Height: 9" H energy savings and code compliance. • UL and CUL listed WET location Width: 11.5" WDGE2 delivers up to 6,000 lumens with a soft, • LED Components Weight: 13.5 lbs non-pixelated light source, creating a visually • Replaceable Module (without options) comfortable environment. When combined with W D1 multiple integrated emergency battery backup • CRI > 80 options, including an 18W cold temperature • Universal 120/277 volt standard option, the WDGE2 becomes the ideal wall- • 5-Year Warranty on LED Components mounted lighting solution for pedestrian scale applications in any environment. WDGE LED Family Overview PDLW-24-LED PDLW-36-LED PDLW-47-LED Height - 3” Height - 3” Height - 3” Lumens (4000K) Luminaire Standard EM, 0°C Cold EM, -20°C Sensor Width - 24” Width - 36” Width - 47” P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 Depth - 2” Depth - 2” Depth - 2” WDGE1 LED 4W -- -- 1,200 2,000 -- -- -- -- Mounts to 2 x 4 box/opening oriented to match WDGE2 LED 10W 18W Standalone / nLight 1,200 2,000 3,000 4,500 6,000 -- fixture’s linear dimension WDGE3 LED 15W 18W Standalone / nLight 7,500 8,500 10,000 12,000 -- -- ORDERING INFORMATION WDGE4 LED -- -- Standalone / nLight 12,000 16,000 18,000 20,000 22,000 25,000 Example: PDLW-36-LED-O3C-4-T4-WSA Ordering Information EXAMPLE: WDGE2 LED P3 40K 80CRI VF MVOLT SRM DDBXD PDLW Size LED Kelvin Cage Finish Diffuser Options Series Package Color Temperature CRI Distribution Voltage Mounting Source Energy 2 3000K B1 Satin Black WFA White Frosted Acrylic LBC Large box cover standard Watts Dimming Lumens Star 4 4000K B2 Text Black juction box (5” wide x 6” high) WDGE2 LED P1 1 P1SW 27K 2700K 80CRI VF Visual comfort MVOLT Shipped included Shipped separately P2 1 P2SW 30K 3000K 90CRI forward throw 347 3 SRM Surface mounting AWS 3/8inch Architectural wall spacer 24-LED O1F 10 1100 0-10v NO Z1 Satin Bronze P3 1 P3SW 35K 3500K VW Visual comfort 480 3 bracket PBBW S urface-mounted back box (top, left, Z3 Text Bronze DIM LED dimming driver (0 - 10v) O1G 20 2200 0-10v NO wide ICW Indirect Canopy/Ceiling P4 1 Door with small window 40K 4000K right conduit entry). Use when there Optional W1 Yolk White (SW) is required to Washer bracket (dry/ is no junction box available. 36-LED F2F 36 3690 0-10v NO P5 1 accommodate sensors. See 50K 2 5000K damp locations only)7 3 3500K W2 Gloss White page 2 for more details. 47-LED O2F 20 2200 0-10v NO T4 Shimmer Gray 90CRI Consult Factory O2G 39 4400 0-10v NO M13 Anod Silver T6 Pewter Options Finish W13 Pearl Beige E4WH Emergency battery backup, Certified in CA Title 20 MAEDBS Standalone Sensors/Controls (only available with P1SW, P2SW & P3SW) DDBXD Dark bronze (4W, 0°C min) Optional PIR Bi-level (100/35%) motion sensor for 8-15’ mounting heights. Intended for use on DBLXD Black (See Price List) E10WH Emergency battery backup, Certified in CA Title 20 MAEDBS switched circuits with external dusk to dawn switching. DNAXD Natural aluminum (10W, 5°C min) M17 Brass Powder PIRH Bi-level (100/35%) motion sensor for 15-30’ mounting heights. Intended for use on DWHXD White Battery Backup Options E20WC Emergency battery backup, Certified in CA Title 20 MAEDBS switched circuits with external dusk to dawn switching M16 Antique Brass (18W, -20°C min) DSSXD Sandstone Available in 36” and 48” only PIR1FC3V Bi-level (100/35%) motion sensor for 8-15’ mounting heights with photocell pre- P2 Brushed Alum PE 4 Photocell, Button Type programmed for dusk to dawn operation. DDBTXD Textured dark bronze BB08 Battery backup unit providing P9 Brushed Nickel DS 5 Dual switching (comes with 2 drivers and 2 light engines; PIRH1FC3V Bi-level (100/35%) motion sensor for 15-30’ mounting heights with photocell pre- DBLBXD Textured black 8 Watts (1080lm) for 90-Minute see page 3 for details) programmed for dusk to dawn operation. DNATXD Textured natural aluminum DMG 6 0-10V dimming wires pulled outside fixture (for use with Networked Sensors/Controls (only available with P1SW, P2SW & P3SW) DWHGXD Textured white an external control, ordered separately) 28435 Industry Drive., Valencia, California 91355 NLTAIR2 PIR nLightAIR Wireless enabled bi-level motion/ambient sensor for 8-15’ mounting heights. DSSTXD Textured sandstone West Coast Sales: 800-325-4448 /661-257-0286• fax 800-323-2346 /661-257-0201 BCE Bottom conduit entry for back box (PBBW). Total of 4 entry NLTAIR2 PIRH nLightAIR Wireless enabled bi-level motion/ambient sensor for 15-30’ mounting heights. points. East Coast Sales: 866-350-0991 • fax 866-490-5754 See page 4 for out of box functionality www.lightwayind.com • sales@lightwayind.com Revision: 06/15/2020 One Lithonia Way • Conyers, Georgia 30012 • Phone: 1-800-705-SERV (7378) • www.lithonia.com WDGE2 LED COMMERCIAL OUTDOOR © 2019-2021 Acuity Brands Lighting, Inc. All rights reserved. Rev. 03/17/21 A B 605 PRESTON PL M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlot t e s v i lle VA LIGHTING PRODUCT SHEETS Architects & Planners 04.26.2021 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2021 TEL 905.695.2055 toll free 1 . 8 0 0 . 6 6 0 . 5 3 9 1 TEL 905.695.2055 toll free 1 . 8 0 0 . 6 6 0 . 5 3 9 1 FAX 9 0 5 . 6 9 5 . 2 0 5 6 toll free 1 . 8 0 0 . 6 6 0 . 5 3 9 0 FAX 9 0 5 . 6 9 5 . 2 0 5 6 toll free 1 . 8 0 0 . 6 6 0 . 5 3 9 0 33 West Beaver Creek Road Richmond Hill, Ontario Canada L4B 1L8 33 West Beaver Creek Road Richmond Hill, Ontario Canada L4B 1L8 31590, 3.6W LED OUTDOOR IN-WALL 31913, BOLLARD, 1X7W, LED PRODUCT DETAILS PRODUCT DETAILS No. : 31590­013 No. : 31913­027 Product Color : MARINE GREY Product Color : GRAPHITE GREY Width : 4.1875" Length : 4.75" Height : 2.9375" Width : 2.75" Ext : 2.5625" Height : 9.875" Weight : 0.5lbs Weight : 1.7lbs LIGHT SOURCE DETAILS LIGHT SOURCE DETAILS Light Source Type : INTEGRATED LED Light Source Type : INTEGRATED LED Input Voltage : 120V Input Voltage : 120V Bulb Voltage : 120V Bulb Voltage : 120V Socket Type : LED Socket Type : LED Total Wattage : 3.6W Total Wattage : 7W Total Lumen : 80lm Total Lumen : 140lm Kelvin : 3000K Kelvin : 3000K CRI : 80 CRI : 80 Dimmable : No Dimmable : No OPTIONS AVAILABLE TECHNICAL DETAILS OPTIONS AVAILABLE TECHNICAL DETAILS ITEM NO. FINISH SHADE ITEM NO. FINISH SHADE Driver : Electronic driver 120V 50/60Hz Driver : Electronic driver 120V 50/60Hz 31590­013 MARINE GREY 31913­027 GRAPHITE GREY Adjustable Lamp Head : No IP Rating : 54 31590­020 GRAPHITE GREY IP Rating : 65 Location : WET Location : WET Approval : Approval : Title 24 : Yes Title 24 : Yes PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT INFORMATION Job Name: Date: Category: Job Name: Date: Category: Comments: Comments: www.eurofase.com www.eurofase.com C D 605 PRESTON PL M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlot t e s v i lle VA LIGHTING PRODUCT SHEETS Architects & Planners 04.26.2021 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2021 Catalog Number Slot 2 LED Design2Ship ™ Type: Notes Recessed Linear FEATURES & SPECIFICATIONS TM INTENDED USE — Typical applications include corridors, lobbies, conference rooms and private offices. Slot 2 LED takes both form and function a step further Project: CONSTRUCTION — Retrofit, remodel, and new construction mounting types. See table for compatible Type with increased efficacy and integral controls creating a ceiling openings and thickness range. Optional goof rings available for additional overlap trim coverage. digitally addressable luminaire that is perfect where visually 1/2"-1-1/2" ceiling thickness harmonious illumination and energy efficiency are desired. 25° ambient temperature IC rated up to 1000lm OPTICS — 55° cutoff New construction frame accessories approved for 8 (4 in/4 out) No. 12 AWG conductors rated for LBR6 Flush TM Regressed Slot 2 LED is the ideal choice for spaces that emphasize lines and clean contemporary design. It is a perfect fit for Catalog Number: DO NOT TYPE HERE. Autopopulated field. Armstrong TechZone™ ceiling systems. A regressed lens 90°C through wiring. 1.0 S/MH standard (wallwash reflector available) 6" OPEN option provides added dimension to the sleek, slender 80CRI standard (90CRI optional) design. ELECTRICAL — Adjustable lumen output with three module options. Fixed lumen options also available. MVOLT 120/277V 50/60Hz driver (0-10V & 120V Phase Dimming to 10% min dimming level) 100LPW typical Specification Features (continued on page 2) Technical Drawing FCC CFR Title 47 Part 15 Class A for 277V. FCC CFR Title 47 Part 15 Class B for 120V. Retrofit | Remodel Housing Shielding L80 at 60,000 hours Nominal 2” x 2’, 3’, 4’, 5’, 6’, 7', 8’ and continuous Flush Lens: Snap-in 90% transmissive satin acrylic 3 SDCM rows in 1' increments as standard, upper housing lens. LISTINGS — Certified to US and Canadian safety standards. Damp location standard (Wet location, fabricated from cold-rolled steel with extruded Regressed Lens: Lay-in 90% transmissive satin acrylic covered ceiling optional). Some configurations are ENERGY STAR® certified, please visit www.energystar. aluminum ceiling trim. lens. gov for specific products. TAA compliant. UFC (3-530-01) specification compliant for power factor and THD. Finish GSA P100 6.2.4 compliant for power quality at full output; compliant up to 2000lm at fully dimmed output. Mounting Painted high reflectance matte white powder coat. Recessed. Available for sheetrock, 9/16” slot grid or Title 24 compliant (90CRI, up to 1000lm). Reflector 15/16” inverted tee ceilings, or 9/16” inverted tee. WARRANTY — 5-year limited warranty. Complete warranty terms located at: Precision-formed steel; high reflectance matte white www.acuitybrands.com/support/warranty/terms-and-conditions powder coat; 93% reflectivity. Design2Ship Note: Actual performance may differ as a result of end-user environment and application. Maximum order quantity of 500 linear feet per order. New Construction 5 business days from clean release of the order All values are design or typical values, measured under laboratory conditions at 25 °C. Specifications subject to change without notice. Fixture Performance - SL2L* Lumens Output 400 LMF 600 LMF** 800LMF** 1000LMF CAN BE USED TO COMPLY WITH 2019 MAB Fixture Style RLP FLP RLP FLP RLP FLP RLP FLP M Flush - (FLP) A+ Capable options indicated LE I D Delivered Lumens/FT 234 308 404 533 534 705 654 862 by this color background. JA8 HIGH EFFICACY LED LIGHT Input Watts/FT 4 4 6 6 8 8 11 11 SOURCE REQUIREMENTS battery pack Lumen/Watt 68 89 69 91 67 88 62 82 Module ordering * CCT (35K) * Consult factory for customized lumen output and wattage ORDERING INFORMATION Lead times will vary depending on options selected. Consult with your sales representative. Example: LBR6 ALO2 SWW1 AR LSS MWD MVOLT UGZ 90CRI **Based on calculated values A+ Capable options indicated by this color background. Series Lumens ‡ Color temperature‡ Reflector Color Reflector Flange Reflector Finish LBR6 6" Retrofit Adjustable Lumen Output Switchable CCT AR Clear (blank) Self-flanged LSS Semi-specular Ordering Example: SL2L QS LOP 4FT FLP FL 80CRI 30K 600LMF DARK 277 EMG NLIGHT LBR6WW 6" Retrofit Wallwash ALO1 500/750/1000lm SWW1 3000K-3500K-4000K-5000K WR‡ White painted TRW‡ White painted ALO2 1000/1500/2000lm BR‡ Black painted flange Fixed CCT ALO3 2000/2500/3000lm TRBL‡ Black painted 30K 3000K flange Fixed Lumen Output Series Program Linear Length Plan Total Run Length Fixture Style Ceiling Trim 35K 3500K 05LM 500lm 40K 4000K SL2L Slot 2 LED QS Quick Ship LOP Linear Optimized 2FT 2' 7FT 7’ RLP 1 Regressed Lens FL 3 5/8” Flange(sheetrock) 07LM 750lm 50K 5000K Linear Recessed (5 day Shipping) Plan 3FT 3' 8FT 8' FLP 2 Flush Lens TG 9/16” or 15/16" Flat or Inverted Tee 10LM 1000lm 4FT 4' __FT *Specify continuous linear GB 3 Trimless (sheetrock) feet in 1 foot increments 15LM 1500lm 5FT 5’ 20LM 2000lm 6FT 6' 25LM 2500lm 30LM 3000lm Direct Light Source Color Rendering Direct LED Color Temp Direct LED Light Output Direct Distribution Minimum Dimming Level Voltage Distribution Voltage Driver Options 80CRI 80 CRI 30K 3000K 400LMF 400 Lumens per FT (blank) Standard Distribution NODIM Non - Dim 120 120V 90CRI 90 CRI 35K 3500K 600LMF 600 Lumens per FT WW 4 Wall Wash MIN1 Constant current, dimming to 1% 277 277V MWD Medium wide MVOLT 120V - 277V UGZ Universal dimming to 10% 90CRI High CRI (90+) EC1‡ Extended Conduit (18") DARK Constant current, dimming to 0.1% (1.0 s/mh) 347V 0-10V; line voltage dimming (120V) AT‡ Airtight EC6‡ Extended Conduit (6ft) 40K 4000K 800LMF 800 Lumens per FT WW‡ Wallwash DALI‡ DALI dimming to 1% E10WCPR‡ Batterypack (10W constant power) T20 WL‡ Wet Location (IP55) 1000LMF 1000 Lumens per FT D10 Minimum dimming 10% driver for use Compliant remote test switch QDS‡ Quick disconnect plugs with JOT ELR‡ Batterypack (10W constant power) CP ‡ Chicago Plenum D1 Minimum dimming 1% driver for use Non-T20 Compliant remote test switch JOT‡ Wireless room control with “Just with JOT One Touch” pairing Emergency Options Control Input Options (blank) No Emergency (blank) 6 Non-dim CP Chicago Plenum E10WLCP 5 4ft Emergency Section with battery pack ZT 0-10V PWS 6' pre-wire, 3/8 diameter, 18 gauge nLight Options‡ New Construction Frames: Order as separate catalog number. Shipped separately. EC 4ft Emergency circuit NLIGHT nLight enabled NPP16D nLight® network power/relay pack with 0-10V dimming LBR6PFW 6" New construction frame with JBOX, 18" conduit Notes 4. Wall wash not available with RLP NPP16DER nLight® network power/relay pack with 0-10V dimming; ER controls fixtures on emergency circuit. LBR6PFWQDS 6" New construction frame with JBOX, 18" conduit, quick disconnects 1. Supplied with lift and shift lay-in lens. lens option. 5. Remote mounted. Not available NLTAIR2 nLight® Air enabled LBR6PFWCP 6" Chicago Plenum New construction frame with JBOX, 18" conduit 2. Supplied with snap-in lens. with CP. 3. Not intended for post sheetrock 6. Must select with NODIM option. NLTAIRER2 nLight® AIR Dimming Pack Wireless Controls. Controls fixtures on emergency circuit installation. NLTAIREM2 nLight® AIR Dimming Pack Wireless Controls. UL924 Emergency Operation, via power NOTE: ‡ indicates option value has ordering restrictions. Please reference the Option Value Ordering interrupt detection. Restictions chart on the next page. marklighting.com | 888-834-5684 | ©2017-2020 Acuity Brands Lighting, Inc. All Rights Reserved. We reserve the right F G, H to change design, materials and finish in any way that will not alter installed appearance or reduce function and performance. Page 1 SLOT 2 LED RECESSED LINEAR D2S 12/01/20 DOWNLIGHTING LBR6 605 PRESTON PL M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlot t e s v i lle VA LIGHTING PRODUCT SHEETS Architects & Planners 04.26.2021 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2021 City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Staff Summary for BAR Discussion May 18, 2021 City Council Intent to Remove, Relocate, Contextualize or Cover Two monumental sculptures (the “Statues”) and related pedestals, panels, plaques, signs, etc. • Stonewall Jackson Statue: East High Street, TMP 530039100 (Court Square Park) • Robert E. Lee Statue: East Market Street, TMP 330195000 (Market Street Park) District: North Downtown ADC District Status: Non-contributing Owner: City of Charlottesville Request On May 3, 2021 City Council adopted a resolution (attached) authorizing publication of notice of Council’s intention to remove, relocate, contextualize or cover statues of Confederate Generals Lee and Jackson currently located within city parks. With that, Council requested that the Board of Architectural Review (“BAR”) consider the stated intent and provide comment prior to Council’s public hearing, which has been scheduled for June 7, 2021. Background In March 2016 Charlottesville City Council received a petition to remove the statue/ sculpture of Confederate General Robert E. Lee (“Lee Statue”) from its location in Market Street Park. Following receipt of the petition, City Council established an advisory body referred to as the Blue Ribbon Commission on Race, Memorials and Public Spaces (“BRC”). The mission specified by City Council for the BRC was to provide City Council with options for telling the full story of Charlottesville’s history of race relations and for changing the City’s narrative through its public spaces, specifically including ways in which the City’s public spaces could be utilized to address race (including, among other items, removing or adding context to existing Confederate statues of Confederate Generals Robert E. Lee (located in Market Street Park) and Thomas J. “Stonewall” Jackson (located in Court Square Park)). The BRC’s Final Report was presented to City Council on December 19, 2016. The Final Report indicated that removal and relocation, or contextualization in place, were options recommended by the BRC. City Council considered the Final Report as well as many public comments received directly by councilors via email and community contacts. Thereafter, City Council voted on several occasions to implement various BRC recommendations; however, a civil lawsuit filed in March 2017 (the “Lawsuit”) and events of August 2017 intervened and hampered progress on several initiatives: • February 2017: City Council adopted a resolution stating its intention to remove a statue depicting Confederate General Robert E. Lee from a City park, and provided the City Manager a 60-day period to formulate a range of alternatives. The Lawsuit (and related BAR Discussion – CC May 3, 2021 Resolution (May 14, 2021) 1 injunctions prohibiting City Council from taking further action) precluded this intention from being carried out. • August 2017: City Council voted to approve a motion directing the Lee and Jackson Statues to be covered with black fabric, in mourning for lives lost the weekend of August 12, 2017. (The covers remained in place until February 26, 2018 when they were removed by order of the Circuit Court). Following the 2018 Court Order, the Lawsuit and related injunctions precluded City Council from covering the Statues • September 2017: City Council announced its intent to remove a statue/sculpture of Confederate General Thomas J. “Stonewall” Jackson from the park that is now known as Court Square Park, stating that such action should be taken as soon as possible, pending resolution of the Lawsuit. • November 2017: by resolution, City Council announced its intention to implement a two-phase process to establish a Master Plan for redesign of the public spaces in the North Downtown and Court Square Districts (including Market Street Park and Court Square Park), to involve numerous stakeholders, including representatives of the BAR. The Lawsuit and related injunctions made it difficult to proceed with this planning process in a cost-effective manner that would have allowed for discussion and development of a full range of options, so the process was put on hold. On April 21, 2021, the City received the Virginia Supreme Court’s mandate (final decision) on April 21, 2021. The mandate releases the City from the prohibitions of the injunction(s) entered by the Charlottesville Circuit Court In 2020 the Virginia General Assembly amended the provisions of Va. Code Sec. 15.2-1812 (effective July 1, 2021) removing prohibitive language and allowing a process by which City Council may proceed to make final decisions regarding its intent to remove, relocate, contextualize and/or cover the Statues. City Council will hold a public hearing on June 7, 2021 and has asked the BAR to consider the matter prior to the public hearing. City Council’s priority is removal of the Statues as soon as possible, and City Council would desire to cover or contextualize the Statues during a period of time that may intervene before removal can be accomplished. The Lee Statue has been in its current location for 97 years; the Jackson statue, for 100 years. In the mid-1990’s the City successfully undertook a process to have each Statue included on both the Virginia Landmarks Register (“VLR”) and the National Register of Historic Places (“NRHP”). The Nomination Forms for each Statue are available for BAR members and the general public to review on the website for the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (Lee: #104-0264; Jackson #104-0251). The Statues are located within a “Charlottesville and Albemarle County Courthouse District” (#104-0072), which district is itself listed on both the VLR and the NRHP. The VLR and NRHP listings represent state and federal recognition of properties, but they do not create any legal obligations or requirements for the City or other landowners. Consistent with the provisions of Va. Code Sec. 15.2-1812, City Council plans to offer the Statues for at least a 30-day period to any museum, historical society, government or military battlefield; therefore, one potential disposition of the Statues would be a transfer of ownership to BAR Discussion – CC May 3, 2021 Resolution (May 14, 2021) 2 another entity for relocation. Removal of the Statues from the parks would likely result in their being de-listed from the VLR and NRHP; however, if the Statues were transferred to another entity, and if the entity desired to maintain the listing, federal Department of Interior standards allow a process for review of the appropriateness of receiving site, relative to the purposes for which the Statues were listed. Discussion BAR Purview: City Council refers changes for City-owned property to the BAR for review and comment, through two channels: (1) changes proposed to be made to property that contains a “contributing structure” designated within the ADC Guidelines, or that is an “individually protected property” per City Code Sec. 34-273(b), go through the certificate-of-appropriateness process, pursuant to City Code Sec, 34-275 or Sec. 34-277; and (2) changes to other City-owned property are referred to the BAR for informal [advisory] review outside the COA process, as authorized by City Code Sec. 34-288(3). In the present circumstances: the Statues are not “buildings”, they are not designated on maps within the Guidelines as “contributing structures” within the local ADC District, and the parks are not individually protected properties per City Code Sec. 34-273(b); therefore, City Council’s request for review by the BAR falls within the informal [advisory] review category. In this capacity, the BAR may offer comment and recommendations. The following is intended as a framework for the BAR’s discussion of City Council’s stated intent to remove, relocate, contextualize and/or cover the Statues. No specific disposition has been proposed or decided at the time this staff report was written. City Council is following a statutory process referenced in Va. Code Sec. 15.2-1812 which requires City Council to state its intent, hold a public hearing, and offer the Statues to other entities. Once those steps have been taken, City Council has the sole authority to determine the disposition of the Statues. Between now and Council’s ultimate action(s), City Council may wish to take short-term interim steps (such as covering or contextualization) before removal/ relocation is completed and before a redesign of the two parks is undertaken. The Statues are not simple pieces of public art. They carry significant and different meanings to many different people. Since the events of August 11 and 12, 2017, they have even greater prominence in a national dialog on race, public space, right-wing extremism, public process, and equity. While a review of City Council’s intentions for disposition of the Statues involves complicated assessments outside the BAR’s usual focus on architectural matters involving landscaping and design, there are aspects of the Design Guidelines which can provide context for the BAR’s discussion. The City’s Architectural Design Control District Design Guidelines: The City’s ADC Design Guidelines (“Guidelines”) offer detailed guidance on window mullions, roof forms, landscape, and building mass (i.e., matters relating to “architectural compatibility” of a proposed action, see Va. Code Sec. 15.2-2306). Even within the Chapter on Public Design and Improvements, the focus of the Guidelines is on compatibility of a proposed action with “architectural features” and the “character” of the district. The Guidelines are ill-suited to evaluate the City Council’s intent relative to removal or relocation of the Statues, which involve actions that are the subject of a much larger, and important, cultural conversation than can be BAR Discussion – CC May 3, 2021 Resolution (May 14, 2021) 3 addressed as a design or architectural issue. Contextualization or covering of the Statues more closely resemble the types of actions typically reviewed by the BAR relative to specific proposals. As noted above, the Statues were previously covered for approximately six months in 2017-2018. It is staff’s understanding that covering the Statues is an option that Council may desire to implement on an interim basis prior to its preferred option of removing and/or relocating the Statues; however, contextualization and/or screening are actions which could also potentially be addressed within a Master Plan for redesign of these spaces. City Council’s resolutions, including those calling for a Master Plan/ Redesign of the parks, are consistent with the recommendations of the BRC, and contemplate BAR participation in a master planning process. (With the current review of the Guidelines, this discussion should be considered when updating Chapter VI, Public Design & Improvements.) Flexibility Within the Guidelines, Chapter I, Introduction, Section B gives some context, and urges flexibility. For example, “The guidelines are flexible enough to respect the historic past and to embrace the future.” Community Values: Chapter VI, Public Design & Improvements, Section A suggests that improvements and amenities added to public property within historic districts should be “compatible with the general architectural features and character of an area or district.” Chapter VI also states that “new public spaces and improvements should reflect contemporary design principles and values.” As to community values, the BAR may look to the Final Report of the BRC (December 2016), which provided a significant and inclusive public process of research, conversation and discovery, which produced recommendations that provide guidance to the City regarding. That process and the subsequent recommendations offer the BAR guidance in considering issues of historical interpretation, meaning, and community values. (Summary of the BRC’s recommendation is attached. The complete BRC Final Report is available on the City’s website. See pages 91 through 118 of: http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/793914/_CouncilBook_20161219Dec19.pdf.) False Sense of History: Chapter I, Introduction, Section E describes the BAR’s and the guideline’s role in reading our landscapes and fabrics as “physical records of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development ... will not be undertaken.” Statues occupy a particularly challenging place in the preservation movement and preservation law. In cities across the nation, removal of Confederate statues has been undertaken in recent years specifically to add historical context and communicate perspectives previously ignored. As noted by Professor Peter Byrne, Georgetown Law, in Stone Monuments and Flexible Laws: “The purposes of historic preservation include the conservation of the physical remains of the past that express the significance of past people, events, movements, and places in order to give contemporary people a sense of orientation to and meaning from their cultures and places”; but, citing the NRHP, “properties primarily commemorative in nature normally are not eligible for listing. ... Such resources are created consciously to shape cultural memory and often reflect biases that promote a fictitious or propagandistic narrative about the subject.” i BAR Discussion – CC May 3, 2021 Resolution (May 14, 2021) 4 Professor Byrne’s comments directly relate to a statement in the Guidelines, Chapter VI, Section J: “Public art is preferred that offers a place-making role in celebrating and communicating the history and culture of the districts.” The NRHP nominations for each Statue identify each Statue as public art, not as commemorative installations. The work of the BRC has educated many regarding the Lost Cause narrative that informed the selection of these particular installations to be placed in these particular locations within the City. In one of the City’s briefs to the Virginia Supreme Court, the City included the following excerpt from a 2009 decision of the United State Supreme Court in Pleasant Grove City, Utah v. Summum: “Governments have long used monuments to speak to the public. … A monument, by definition, is a structure that is designed as a means of expression. When a government entity arranges for construction of a monument, it does so because it wishes to convey some thought or instill some feeling in those who see the structure. … Public parks are often closely associated in the public mind with the governmental unit that owns the land. City parks. … commonly play an important role in defining the identity that a city projects to its own residents and to the outside world. ... Government decision makers select the monuments that portray what they view as appropriate for the place in question, taking into account such factors as aesthetics, history and local culture.” Many in the public may be unaware of the specific political, social and cultural forces that led to the installation of the Statues in the 1920’s. The research and communication of the BRC and many others in the Charlottesville community have greatly improved public awareness on these points. As the nation’s oldest and most respected preservation organization, The National Trust for Historic Preservation (NTHP) has shaped preservation approaches and preservation law in the United States. In recent years, the NTHP has expressed support for removing Confederate Monuments, both from a preservationist perspective and as guidance to review boards and local governments. The following is an excerpt from the NTHP’s 2020 Statement on Confederate Monuments: “We believe it is past time for us, as a nation, to acknowledge that these symbols do not reflect, and are in fact abhorrent to, our values and to our foundational obligation to continue building a more perfect union that embodies equality and justice for all. We believe that removal may be necessary to achieve the greater good of ensuring racial justice and equality. Although Confederate monuments are sometimes designated as historic, and while many were erected more than a century ago, the National Trust supports their removal from our public spaces when they continue to serve the purposes for which many were built—to glorify, promote, and reinforce white supremacy, overtly or implicitly.” ii Public Necessity: Through the experiences of our community in recent years, City Council developed its intent to remove the Statues out of a sense of public necessity. As documented in the work of the BRC prior to August 2017, and as experienced by the entire community in August 2017 to the present, City Council recognizes the significant harm and pain caused by the Statues to many residents. The issues related to removal, relocation, contextualization or covering the Statues are complex and relate directly to our ability and capacity, as a City and as City residents, to address a difficult and painful past. Residents of this community have been active in conversations about race and public spaces for many years. Leaders in our community, both elected and unelected, BAR Discussion – CC May 3, 2021 Resolution (May 14, 2021) 5 created a lengthy and considered process to facilitate these discussions, which yielded careful recommendations. Having the benefit of that public process and input, City Council has announced its intention to remove, relocate, contextualize and/or cover the Statues and the architectural focus of the Guidelines provides no basis on which to override that decision-making process. Character of the City’s Local Architectural Design Control District: The portions of the BAR Guidelines which relate to Council’s intentions, as presented at this time, are those which speak to landscape and neighborhood character. Chapter I of the Guidelines describes each ADC district in detail through a text narrative, with plan diagrams that identify contributing and non-contributing structures, and through the descriptions of sub-areas within each district. In the description of the North Downtown ADC District, there is no mention of the previously named Lee Park or Jackson Park, nor of the statues themselves; no mention of them as character defining features of the district. The descriptions for the sub-areas of Jefferson Street/High Street West and Court Square make no mention of the parks or statues. There is no mention of how the two parks (Market Street Park and Court Square Park) or the Statues contribute to the landscape character of the district. In Chapter II, Site Design and Elements, there is no mention of the Statues or either park. In Chapter VI, Public Design and Improvement, the statues are described as focal points of each park. In that same Chapter, Section J suggests that existing public art and statues should be maintained; however, in that same section there is also the recommendation that public art should offer “a place-making role in celebrating and communicating the history and culture of the districts”. The BRC’s Final Report documents in detail the misleading and damaging role of the statues in telling a specific Lost Cause narrative specifically intended to express inclusion of some in the community and the exclusion of others—a narrative incompatible with contemporary values. The Guidelines for this ADC District contain no mention of the Lost Cause narrative and its objectives. Consistent with City Council’s intentions new focal points for each park could be achieved by other means following removal, relocation, contextualization and/or covering of the Statues. The Statues have been documented and photographed, as evident by the VLR and NRHP listings. Removal or covering of the Statues will not result in a loss of information about them, and would pave the way for City Council to update its public spaces in a manner that adds context and historically correct detail previously omitted from the nominations that established the state- and federally-listed Courthouse District. Deference to City Council: Consistent with the BAR’s responsibility to serve as an advisory body (per City Code Section 34-288(3)), City Council has requested the BAR’s input relative to the intended changes to these parks. To be clear, per Va. Code Sec. 15.2-1812, at the conclusion of the process currently being followed by City Council, City Council “shall have sole authority to determine the final disposition” of the Statues. BAR Discussion – CC May 3, 2021 Resolution (May 14, 2021) 6 Also consistent with its role as an advisory body, the BAR should participate in any Master Plan process to redesign Market Street and Court Square Parks, and to provide input on any planned future improvements and installations in these locations. Recommended Action No BAR action is required; however, the BAR may instruct staff to provide Council a summary of this discussion. Attachments City Council Resolutions • May 3, 2021: Authorizing publication of notice of Council’s intention to remove, relocate, contextualize or cover statues of Confederate Generals Lee and Jackson currently located within city parks • February 6, 2017: Blue Ribbon Commission Public Spaces Recommendations • September 5, 2017: To transform the City of Charlottesville’s core public spaces in keeping with the recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Commission on Race, Memorials and Public Spaces such that a more complete history of race is told and the City’s commitment to truth, freedom and equity is affirmed • September 5, 2017: Remove and relocate the statue of Stonewall Jackson from Justice Park and expedite the removal of both the Jackson and Robert E. Lee statues pending final disposition • February 6, 2017: Remove statue of Robert E. Lee from Lee Park • February 6, 2017: Re-name Lee Park Recommendations: Blue Ribbon Commission on Race, Memorials, and Public Spaces • Summary from Final Report to City Council December 19, 2016 (From pages 7-19) i Byrne, J. Peter, Stone Monuments and Flexible Laws: Removing Confederate Monuments Through Historic Preservation Laws (June 22, 2020). https://ssrn.com/abstract=3633473 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3633473 National Trust for Historic Preservation Statement on Confederate Monuments, June 18, 2020 ii https://savingplaces.org/press-center/media-resources/national-trust-statement-on-confederate- memorials#.YJFyPflKhPY BAR Discussion – CC May 3, 2021 Resolution (May 14, 2021) 7 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PUBLICATION OF INTENTION TO REMOVE, RELOCATE, CONTEXTUALIZE OR COVER STATUES OF CONFEDERATE GENERALS LEE AND JACKSON CURRENTLY LOCATED WITHIN CITY PARKS, AND TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING THEREON WHEREAS, the Charlottesville City Council intends to remove, relocate, contextualize or cover the statutes of Confederate General Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson installed, respectively, within Market Street Park and Court Square Park ; now, therefore, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE: 1. THAT t relocate, contextualize or cover the Statues to be published within a newspaper having general circulation within the City. Such notice shall specify the time and place of a public hearing at which interested persons may present their views, not less than thirty (30) days after the date of publication of the notice, and 2. THAT t is hereby requested to consider stated intent to remove, relocate, contextualize or cover the Statues prior to the public hearing date specified in the published newspaper notice. RESOLUTION BLUE RIBBON COMMISSION PUBLIC SPACES RECOMMENDATIONS WHEREAS to transform the City of Charlottesville’s core public spaces in keeping with the recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Commission on Race, Memorials and Public Spaces (BRC) such that a more complete history of race is told and the City’s commitment to truth, freedom and equity is affirmed; and WHEREAS the Charlottesville City Council made a clear commitment to reveal and tell the full story of race through our City’s public spaces when it established the BRC in August 2016; and WHEREAS the BRC’s Final Report acknowledged that far too often our public spaces and histories have ignored, silenced or suppressed African American history, as well as the legacy of white supremacy and the unimaginable harms done under that cause; and WHEREAS the public spaces of Charlottesville’s Historic North Downtown and Court Square Districts contain the Robert E. Lee statue in Lee Park*, the Stonewall Jackson statue in Jackson Park, the slave auction block and the Reconstruction era’s Freedman’s Bureau; BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Charlottesville directs staff to: • In consultation with community and stakeholder groups chosen at the discretion of the City Manager such as the Jefferson School African American Heritage Center, the PLACE Design Task Force, the Human Rights Commission and the Historic Resources Commission to write and issue (within 90 days of the adoption of this Resolution) a Request for Proposal (RFP) for professional design services to create a Master Plan for the Historic North Downtown and Court Square Districts that would; o Redesign and transform Jackson Park through the addition of a new memorial to Charlottesville’s enslaved population while retaining its ability to function as a community gathering space, o Redesign Lee Park, independent of the Lee statue while retaining its ability to function as a community gathering space, o Replace the current plaque at the slave auction block with one that is legible, o Identify and acknowledge the site of the Freedman’s Bureau. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all submissions through the RFP process shall: • Provide at least two preliminary Master Plan options of the above inclusive of new site plans, elevations and sections, 3D visualizations, and specifications for signage, commemorative plaques, lighting and landscape elements as appropriate throughout this historic precinct so as to create a coherent narrative. • Engage the community at large in a manner that ensures that those underrepresented communities are fulsomely included in the process, as well as the Board of Architectural Review (BAR) the Historic Resources Commission, the Human Rights Commission, the PLACE Design Task Force, Planning Commission and City Council. • Provide preliminary cost estimates on all options. • Establish a timeline to be completed within 12 months of contract signing. • Allow for the development, design and implementation of a final Master Plan as adopted by City Council, with a projected estimated budget not to exceed $1,000,000.00** BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of Charlottesville, Virginia, supports re-naming Jackson Park and hereby directs staff to bring Council a range of options on how and what to rename the park within 60 days of the adoption of this Resolution for its consideration. Approved by Council February 6, 2017 * The City Council voted to relocate the Robert E. Lee statue per a majority vote taken on February 6, 2017. ** Should the fabrication and installation of a new memorial for Charlottesville’s enslaved population exceed the established budget, additional grants and private funds shall be raised to supplement the City’s contribution. RESOLUTION (as AMENDED) To transform the City of Charlottesville’s core public spaces in keeping with the recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Commission on Race, Memorials and Public Spaces (BRC) such that a more complete history of race is told and the City’s commitment to truth, freedom and equity is affirmed WHEREAS the Charlottesville City Council made a clear commitment to reveal and tell the full story of race through our City’s public spaces when it established the BRC in August 2016; and WHEREAS the BRC’s Final Report acknowledged that far too often our public spaces and histories have ignored, silenced or suppressed African American history, as well as the legacy of white supremacy and the unimaginable harms done under that cause; and WHEREAS the public spaces of Charlottesville’s Historic North Downtown and Court Square Districts contain the Robert E. Lee statue* in Emancipation Park, the Stonewall Jackson statue in Justice Park, the slave auction block and the Reconstruction era’s Freedman’s Bureau; BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Charlottesville directs staff to: • In consultation with community and stakeholder groups chosen at the discretion of the City Manager such as the Jefferson School African American Heritage Center, the PLACE Design Task Force, the Human Rights Commission, the University of Virginia and the Historic Resources Commission to write and issue (within 90 days of the adoption of this Resolution) a Request for Proposal (RFP) for professional design services in conjunction with expertise in art and history to create a Master Plan for the Historic North Downtown and Court Square Districts that would; o Remove the Robert E. Lee and “Stonewall” Jackson statues* from Emancipation and Justice Parks, pending court decisions and/or changes in the Virginia Code, o Provide near- and long-term park redesigns for both Justice and Emancipation Parks with and without the statues (as resolving the fate of these statues may take time, but the need to begin changing the narrative surrounding these statues is immediate), o Redesign Justice Park including the addition of a new memorial** to Charlottesville’s enslaved population while retaining its ability to function as a community gathering space, o Redesign Emancipation Park, independent of the Lee statue including the addition of a new memorial** in keeping with the recommendations of the BRC and results of an extensive public engagement process while retaining its ability to function as a community gathering space, o Replace the current plaque at the slave auction block with one that is legible, o Identify and acknowledge the site of the Freedman’s Bureau. o Incorporate the work of the Equal Justice Initiative with regards to the placement and installation of the historical marker commemorating the lynching of John Henry Adams in Albemarle County. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all submissions through the RFP process shall: • Provide for each park at least two preliminary Master Plan options (one with and one without the statues) of the above inclusive of new site plans, elevations and sections, 3D visualizations, and specifications for signage, commemorative plaques, lighting and landscape elements as appropriate throughout this historic precinct so as to create a coherent narrative. • Engage the community at large in a manner that ensures that those underrepresented communities were fulsomely included in the process, as well as the Board of Architectural Review (BAR) the Historic Resources Commission, the Human Rights Commission, the PLACE Design Task Force, the University of Virginia, Planning Commission and City Council. • Provide preliminary cost estimates on all options. • Establish a timeline to be completed within 12 months of contract signing. • Allow for the development, design and implementation of a final Master Plan as adopted by City Council, through a total project budget not to exceed $1,000,000.00** • Be given a three month extension for all submissions from the date pf the adoption of these amendments. • Be reviewed and rated by a community selection committee appointed by the City Manager, with representation inclusive but not limited to the above cited groups as well as external experts. • Begin a process of working with the necessary parties to include the library as part of this plan. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Architectural Review (BAR) shall meet as soon as possible to vote on the removal of both statues as required by Charlottesville City ordinances, so that there is no procedural delay in removing the statues should the courts find in the City’s favor. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of Charlottesville, Virginia, supports re-naming Jackson Park and hereby directs staff to bring Council a range of options on how and what to rename the park within 60 days of the adoption of this Resolution for its consideration. * NOTE: The Robert E. Lee statue will be relocated as per a 3:2 majority vote by City Council on February 6, 2017. The “Stonewall” Jackson statue will be relocated as per the date of the adoption of these amendments. **NOTE: Should the fabrication and installation of a new memorial for Charlottesville’s enslaved population (and other memorials) exceed the established budget, additional grants and private funds shall be raised to supplement the City’s contribution. The actual design of a new memorial to Charlottesville’s enslaved population (and an as yet to be determined memorial in Emancipation Park) shall be determined by an independent process (including but not limited to a design competition.) Approved by Council September 5, 2017 Clerk of Council (Resolution offered by Councilor Galvin, February 6, 2017 with amendments submitted by Councilor Galvin, on August 21, 2017 and on September 5, 2017 ) RESOLUTION To remove and relocate the statue of Stonewall Jackson from Justice Park and expedite the removal of both the Jackson and Robert E. Lee statues pending final disposition WHEREAS the monuments of Confederate generals Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson that sit in Charlottesville’s Emancipation and Justice Parks were erected not as war memorials after the Civil War, but as 20th Century testaments to a fictionalized, glorified narrative of the rightness of the Southern cause in that war, when the actual cause was an insurrection against the United States of America promoting the right of southern states to perpetuate the institution of slavery; and WHEREAS the continued presence of these monuments conveys the visual message that Charlottesville supports the cause for which these generals fought; and WHEREAS the Monuments of Confederate generals Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson have become flashpoints for white supremacist violence throughout the summer of 2017, with white nationalist and Ku Klux Klan rallies at the Jackson monument and culminating in the armed invasion of Charlottesville during the “Unite the Right” rally “defending” the Lee monument; and WHEREAS the continued presence of these monuments in Charlottesville’s historic downtown district constitute a clear and continuing threat to public safety, both from continuing white supremacist defense of their presence and from anti-racist activists who may feel motivated to vandalize them; and WHEREAS City Council voted on February 6, 2017, to remove the statue of Robert E. Lee from the park formerly known as Lee Park, and to change the name of the park; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that we, the City Council of Charlottesville, Virginia , order the removal of the statue of Stonewall Jackson from Justice Park as soon as possible, following the successful resolution of the current court case in favor of the City; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that upon the successful resolution of the current court case in favor of the City and until successful bids are accepted, both statues will be moved to a storage location pending final disposition, and successful bidders will be required to reimburse the cost of removal. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that if no responsive proposals are received, Council may consider donation of the statue to an appropriate venue; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City of Charlottesville will issue a Request for Bids for disposition of the statue, and will advertise this RFB widely, including to organizations responsible for sites with historic or academic connection to Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson or the Civil War, with the following criteria for award:  The statue will not be displayed to express support for a particular ideology.  The successful applicant will pay for or take responsibility for removal and transportation.  The removal and transportation will be carried out in a manner that preserves the integrity of the sculpture.  The display of the statue will preferably be in an educational, historic or artistic context.  The purchaser will pay for any repair for any damage to the park incurred as a result of the removal.  Some preference will be given to proposals that include a plan for maintenance of the statue’s National Register of Historic Places listing Approved by Council September 5, 2017 Clerk of Council Recommendations: Blue Ribbon Commission on Race, Memorials, and Public Spaces From the Final Report to City Council December 19, 2016 (From pages 7 through 19.) See pages 91 through 118 of: http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/793914/_CouncilBook_20161219Dec19.pdf Lee Park and Robert E. Lee Sculpture Background Philanthropist Paul Goodloe McIntire donated the Robert E. Lee sculpture to the city of Charlottesville in 1924. The sculpture was the second of four given by McIntire to the city and University between the years 1919 and 1924; the others include the Jackson, Lewis and Clark, and Clark sculptures. Lee Park, a formal urban square, was also one of five public parks that McIntire gave to the city. The sculpture, a heroic sized sculpture of Lee and his horse, Traveler, is located in the center of the park. Conceived by sculptor Henry Shrady, the initial models for the sculpture exhibited a strong vitality and conceptual tension. After Shrady’s untimely death, Italian artist Leo Lentelli completed the bronze sculpture, although in a manner that did not fulfill the original vision or meaning of the work. Shrady and Lentelli were both members of the National Sculpture Society, and were prolific and highly-regarded artists. The sculpture is significant as a work of art for its association with the late City Beautiful movement, and is listed on the Virginia Landmarks Register and the National Register of Historic Places as part of a Multiple Property Listing with the other McIntire donated artwork (Four Monumental Figural Outdoor Sculptures in Charlottesville, VA). The Lee and Jackson statues embodied the Lost Cause interpretation of the Civil War, which romanticized the Confederate past and suppressed the horrors of slavery and slavery's role as the fundamental cause of the war while affirming the enduring role of white supremacy. The Lost Cause interpretation was a key element in the ideological justification of the disfranchisement of African American voters and the segregation of African Americans in virtually all walks of life, including employment, education, housing, healthcare, and public accommodations. Reflecting many of the racist attitudes of the Jim Crow-era south, an unveiling ceremony for the sculpture was organized by local chapters of the Confederate Veterans, Sons of Confederate Veterans, and United Daughters of the Confederacy. Although a public park, the landscape surrounding the Lee sculpture retained a reputation as a segregated “whites only” space for decades, consistent with McIntire’s terms of deed for other racially segregated parks he donated to the city. In March 2016 city council received a petition to remove the Lee sculpture from the park and to rename the park in recognition of the sculpture’s troubling symbolism in the city. Options Considered As the statues now stand, there is nothing that indicates any challenge to the values of the Lost Cause and white supremacy that they represented when they were erected and that they continue to represent to many people today. This commission suggests that the Lee and Jackson statues belong in no public space unless their history as symbols of white supremacy is revealed and their respective parks transformed in ways that promote freedom and equity in our community. 2016 Recommendations: Blue Ribbon Commission on Race, Memorials, and Public Spaces 1 The commission therefore considered multiple options, including removal entirely from public view. After months of presentations, public comment, and discussion, two primary options for the Lee sculpture emerged as the best ways of meeting our charge. These included 1) moving the sculpture to McIntire Park and confronting its history there in a new context; or 2) confronting the sculpture in place by redesigning/transforming Lee Park. The work for either option may be accomplished through a design competition, the commission of new public art, or a standard request for proposal (RFP) process. The commission did not identify specific park designs, treatment for the sculpture, new art, or new interpretive narratives as a part of the option development process. Instead the commission identified a list of basic concepts, parameters, opportunities, and constraints for each option in the hope that these ideas will assist council in their decision. The Relocate Option [Lee Sculpture] The Relocate Option suggests moving the Lee sculpture to an unspecified site within McIntire Park. Interpretive information and a design setting would accompany the sculpture at its new location to help transform our understanding of its meaning. Lee Park would be renamed and redesigned to reflect its history and to maintain its use as a central public gathering space in downtown Charlottesville. City staff confirmed that the master plan for McIntire Park included potential locations for public art. However, the commission cautions that the site selection for the sculpture must be undertaken with great care in order to establish an appropriate context for the art. For example, placing the sculpture on hilltops or other commanding locations may allow the artwork to visually dominate large areas of the public park and perpetuate a “supremacy” narrative that the city wishes to avoid. On the other hand, the Dogwood Vietnam Memorial or other historic places within the park may help provide a new but relevant physical and conceptual context for the sculpture that situates it in the broad scope of local and national history. Staff prepared a preliminary cost estimate for moving the Lee sculpture. The conceptual estimate—including engineering, general conditions, basic site work, relocation, and contingency among other costs—totaled approximately $330,000. This estimate did not include design fees or construction costs associated with other landscape changes that would be required at both parks. The rationale for moving the sculpture to McIntire Park included several key points: • McIntire Park and the Lee sculpture both share a historical association with Paul McIntire. • McIntire Park contains another major veterans memorial which provides a new context for the Lee sculpture. • McIntire Park is a larger landscape that would not necessarily be dominated by the monumental scale of the Lee sculpture depending on the site selected for the sculpture. • Moving the Lee sculpture provides an opportunity to redesign the central square (Lee Park) to better fulfill its current role as a space for public activities. Some commission members expressed several concerns about this option: 2016 Recommendations: Blue Ribbon Commission on Race, Memorials, and Public Spaces 2 • Moving it would remove what would otherwise be the most prominent link in the chain of sites that will form a powerful, walkable, central and prominent challenge to our perverse racial narratives. • Moving the sculpture from its current location diminishes the integrity of the sculpture and the other historic buildings and landscapes downtown. • Moving the sculpture to McIntire Park would simply shift the interpretive and symbolic problems associated with the Lee sculpture from one public space to another. • Moving the sculpture to another park could incur expenses that would be better used to implement the commission’s full suite of recommendations • Moving the sculpture might occasion such considerable delay that nothing might happen to meet the charge of telling a more complete racial history and transforming the narrative for many years, if ever. Potential delays include likely legal challenges, changes to Council, opposition for relocation from advocates for McIntire Park, and greater expenses. The Transform-in-Place Option [Lee Sculpture] The Transform-in-Place Option focused on the historic significance of the sculpture and its unique ability to convey an important—although difficult and complex—story about Charlottesville’s past and its legacy today. Using an “additive” approach, this option’s success would rely on the inclusion of new accurate historical information and transformation of the sculpture and its place in the city’s evolution. The commission believes the revision needs to be done clearly, unambiguously, and on at least the same scale as the statue exists now, such as by lowering, covering, de-centering, or otherwise indicating the rejection of the Jim Crow-era narratives that dominated when the statue was erected. New design that deemphasizes the centrality of the sculpture and counters the Lost Cause narratives could achieve a real transformation of both the space and the narrative. Council may wish to consider the desired future use of the park as part of the deliberations. For example, major transformation of the entire park landscape to accommodate an interpretive program may limit the park’s use for other public functions such as festivals; other equally powerful but smaller scale transformation of the sculpture’s immediate context could address the need to challenge the meaning of the sculpture while also preserving the full spectrum of current programming within the park. Commissioners also recommended renaming the park. The rationale for transforming the Lee sculpture in place included several key points: • Retaining the sculpture in the park provides an opportunity to tell the complete story— good and bad—about Charlottesville’s past, and enables the city to confront the Jim Crow-era narratives of the sculpture and park in the public place where its prominence was, and is, obvious. • The Lee sculpture is a significant work of public art located in the authentic historic fabric of downtown Charlottesville. • This transformation may also create new interest and uses for the park. • Significant transformation of Civil War hero and Jim Crow-era monuments has never been done. To do so in Charlottesville would be of national and global interest and could serve to inspire many other communities to take action. • Numerous Charlottesville African American residents who have lived through decades of suppression of their history oppose removal on the grounds that it would be yet another 2016 Recommendations: Blue Ribbon Commission on Race, Memorials, and Public Spaces 3 example of hiding their experience. For them, transforming the statues in place forces remembrance of the dominance of slavery and Jim Crow white supremacy. • Transforming the sculpture in place may be a less costly solution, freeing up funds for other worthy causes Some commission members expressed concerns about this option: • The Lee sculpture physically dominates Lee Park through its central location and size, which could complicate the efforts to successfully transform the space. • No matter how dramatic the changes, any visible evidence of the statues may be insufficient to transform the park into a welcoming place for all. Significant challenges are associated with reinterpreting the sculpture in any location. Minimal or poorly-executed new design and interpretation for the sculpture and park(s) would fail to satisfy many people’s (and the commission’s) concerns about the negative symbolism of the Lee sculpture. Members of the commission agreed that simply adding new plaques or other small interpretive gestures would not fulfill the charge to tell “the full story of Charlottesville’s history of race and [change] the City’s narrative through our public spaces.” Preferred Option [Lee Sculpture] • Concept— The commission deliberated and voted on the two primary sculpture options in a two-step process. The commission ultimately chose to recommend sending both the Relocate and Transform-in-Place options to council for deliberation.* The commission believes that both options offer important opportunities and risks, as described above. The commission also voted unanimously to rename Lee Park to reflect a broad and inclusive vision of Charlottesville's history, consistent with the commission's intent to transform the parks and engage the community and citizens in determining the new names. [* The initial vote was 6-3 in favor of the Transform-in Place option. A subsequent commission work session resulted in a unanimous vote to send both options for council consideration. The commission also voted on the Relocate Option and Transform-in-Place individually, resulting in a 7-2 vote in favor of Relocate and 5-4 vote in favor of Transform-in-Place. (During the voting, four commissioners voted for Relocate, two for Transform, and three for both.)] • Impact to community/human rights— The presence of the Lee sculpture has perpetuated a false Lost Cause historical narrative for Charlottesville and has made many members of our community feel uncomfortable and unwelcome in the park. A new name, new design and new interpretive material for the park and sculpture may transform the landscape and situate the Lee sculpture in a new, more complete historical context that better reflects the community’s current values and understanding of its past. • Impact to historic resources—Both options retain the historic sculpture within the City of Charlottesville, which protects the McIntire collection of public artwork as an ensemble. Moving the Lee sculpture and/or changing the design of Lee Park would somewhat diminish its historic integrity and the historic integrity of its immediate environs. Any potential damaging impact to the sculpture during redesign or relocation may be minimized or mitigated by ensuring that the work is undertaken under the guidance of art conservators specializing in historic sculpture. • Impact to urban design—The concept protects the park as an important landscape space in downtown Charlottesville and offers the opportunity to redesign it in a way that makes it more welcoming to the community. 2016 Recommendations: Blue Ribbon Commission on Race, Memorials, and Public Spaces 4 • Public response—Members of the public voiced strong opinions for both retain and relocate options. • Legal issues—Transformative new design and narrative and/or relocation may incite legal challenges and lawsuits. • Costs—Undetermined. Costs would vary depending on the designs prepared for the park. • Revenue, if any—Likely none. • Fundraising required—To be determined by City Council. Grants and other fundraising may defray the costs to the public. Jackson Park and Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson Sculpture Background The Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson sculpture was the third of four art works commissioned by Paul Goodloe McIntire from members of the National Sculpture Society between the years 1919 and 1924. The bronze sculpture of Jackson and his horse, Little Sorrel, is set on a granite base carved with the allegorical figures of Faith and Valor. The sculptor was eminent artist Charles Keck who had created numerous monuments and memorials around the country, including the Lewis and Clark sculpture in Charlottesville and the Booker T. Washington monument at Tuskegee Institute. His sculpture of Jackson was considered at the time to be one of the best equestrian statues in the country. The sculpture is significant as a work of art for its association with the late City Beautiful movement, and is listed on the Virginia Landmarks Register and the National Register of Historic Places as part of a Multiple Property Listing with the other McIntire donated artwork (Four Monumental Figural Outdoor Sculptures in Charlottesville, VA). Jackson Park was created from the former McKee block and land adjacent to the county courthouse. The McKee block had been a busy residential and commercial area lining McKee Alley, occupied by white and African American merchants and families. Reputed to be “ramshackle,” the block was demolished— originally for the construction of a school for white children, although public outcry derailed the plans. McIntire later bought the land for the creation of the park, which he donated to the city. Like the dedication of the Lee sculpture, the 1921 dedication of the Jackson sculpture was organized by local chapters of the Confederate Veterans, Sons of Confederate Veterans, and United Daughters of the Confederacy and included a parade, dances, and decoration of the city with Confederate colors and flags. Options Considered The options for the disposition of the Jackson sculpture and Jackson Park are complicated by the undetermined fate of the County Court, located adjacent to Jackson Park. The court’s potential relocation may have a major (but unknown at this time) impact on the park and its use. In addition, separate but related recommendations for the memorialization of enslaved people in the Charlottesville region may also transform the use and meaning of the park and Court Square. (See the recommendations for the interpretation of the slave auction block and memorial below). Two other factors influenced decision-making process for the Jackson sculpture: 1) the Jackson sculpture is a much finer work of art than the Lee sculpture, and 2) in general, the Jackson sculpture was less of a “lightning rod” for public concern or outrage than the Lee sculpture. The commission discussed relocating the sculpture to McIntire Park and retaining it in its current 2016 Recommendations: Blue Ribbon Commission on Race, Memorials, and Public Spaces 5 park. Relocating the sculpture to McIntire Park offered some of the same benefits that could be achieved by relocating the Lee sculpture, including providing a new physical and conceptual context for the artwork. However, some members of the commission expressed concern that co- locating two major Confederate memorials within McIntire Park could alter the meaning of that landscape in ways that may be detrimental or inconsistent with its planned programming and design. Retaining the sculpture in the park, accompanied by new interpretive information and a new memorial for those enslaved in the Charlottesville area presents the opportunity to tell a more complete history of that public space. The commission emphasizes, however, that the simple addition of new plaques or other small scale interpretive gestures would be insufficient to satisfy the need to fully transform the sculpture and park. The design for any new interpretation may be accomplished through new public art, an RFP or through a design competition, perhaps through the same effort applied to the Lee sculpture. Staff had prepared a preliminary cost estimate for moving the Jackson sculpture to a new location. The conceptual estimate—including engineering, general conditions, site work, relocation, and contingency among other costs— totaled nearly $370,000. Preferred Option [Jackson Sculpture] • Concept— The commission deliberated and voted on the two primary sculpture options in a two-step process. The commission ultimately chose to recommend sending both the Relocate and Transform-in-Place options to council for deliberation.* The commission believes that both options offer important opportunities and also risks, as described above. The commission also voted unanimously to rename Lee Park to reflect a broad and inclusive vision of Charlottesville's history, consistent with the commission's intent to transform the parks and engage the community and citizens in determining the new names. [* The initial vote to transform the Jackson sculpture in place was undertaken simultaneously with the vote to transform the Lee sculpture in place. A subsequent commission work session resulted in a unanimous vote to send both options for council consideration. The commission also voted on the Relocate Option and Transform-in- Place individually, resulting in one vote in favor of Relocate and eight votes in favor of Transform-in-Place.] • Impact to community/human rights— The presence of the Jackson sculpture has perpetuated a false Lost Cause historical narrative for Charlottesville and has made many members of our community feel uncomfortable or unwelcome in the park. A new name, new interpretive material, and a new memorial within the Court Square area may conceptually transform the landscape and situate the Jackson sculpture in a new, more complete historical context that better reflects the community’s current values and understanding of its past. • Impact to historic resources—Both options retain the historic sculpture within the City of Charlottesville, which protects the McIntire collection of public artwork as an ensemble. Moving the Jackson sculpture and/or changing the design of Jackson Park would somewhat diminish its historic integrity and the historic integrity of its immediate environs. Any potential damaging impact to the sculpture during redesign or relocation may be minimized or mitigated by ensuring that the work is undertaken under the guidance of art conservators specializing in historic sculpture. 2016 Recommendations: Blue Ribbon Commission on Race, Memorials, and Public Spaces 6 • Impact to urban design—The concept protects the park as an important landscape space in downtown Charlottesville and offers the opportunity to reinterpret it in a way that makes it more welcoming to the community. • Public response—The Jackson sculpture received considerably less attention than the Lee sculpture during the public engagement process, although public opinion also varied between transform in place and relocate options. • Legal issues—Transformative new design and narrative and/or relocation may incite legal challenges and lawsuits. • Costs—Undetermined. Costs would vary depending on the designs prepared for the park. • Revenue, if any—Likely none. • Fundraising required—To be determined by City Council. Grants and other fundraising may defray the costs to the public. Court Square Slave Auction Block Background [This information is taken from city documents, including a historic marker inventory for Court Square.] The plaque memorializing one of several slave auction blocks around the Court Square area is located at a building labeled “Number Nothing.” This building was erected as a mercantile store in the 1820s. A stone block that once sat outside the building’s southwest corner was used for auctioning both goods and people until slavery was abolished in 1865. Slave auctions frequently took place on plantations, but enslaved people were sometimes traded in town on court days, when auctions for many types of goods were sold at auction houses or in front of public buildings. It was common to sell people at the Courthouse to settle debts owed to Albemarle County and for estate probates. Other locations, such as a tree stump near the court, functioned as auction blocks. The slave auction block was memorialized with a building-mounted plaque and a plaque set into the sidewalk near the Number Nothing building. Today, the plaque is virtually illegible. Options Considered Members of the public strongly supported the memorialization of those who suffered enslavement during Charlottesville’s and Albemarle’s ante-bellum era, particularly when it became known that more than half of the county’s population was enslaved during the Civil War years. Two options gained support during the process: • Replace the current plaque with a new plaque that is legible • Create a new memorial for Charlottesville’s enslaved population Preferred Option [Slave Auction Block] • Concept—the commission voted unanimously to support a two-phased process for interpreting the slave auction block and memorializing those who were enslaved in the Charlottesville area: first, to install a proper, visible historic marker to replace the current illegible marker, and second, to commission a new memorial through a competitive RFP process. The commission suggests that the memorial be located on or near Court Square. • Impact to community/human rights— The installation of a new plaque and memorial would fulfill a widely expressed goal for many members of the public who advocated for 2016 Recommendations: Blue Ribbon Commission on Race, Memorials, and Public Spaces 7 recognizing the terrible losses of those enslaved in the Charlottesville area. In addition, a new memorial to enslaved people would be both a tribute to those who endured the devastating hardships of slavery and a retort to the Jackson sculpture located nearby. • Impact to historic resources—The installation of a new plaque and memorial would not result in any damage to historic resources within the Court Square area, and, instead, would help interpret the historic events and meaning of the landscape. • Impact to urban design—A new plaque and memorial are appropriate additions to the public space within the Court Square area. • Public response—Members of the public consistently supported the replacement of the slave auction block plaque and addition of a new memorial for those who were enslaved in the Charlottesville area. • Legal issues—The installation of a new plaque and memorial on private and/or county property may require negotiations between the city and the other entities. • Costs—The cost to design and fabricate a new plaque is likely low (between $500 and $1500). The exact costs associated with commissioning a substantial new memorial are unknown; however, the proposed Vinegar Hill Monument provides a recent cost comparison, suggesting that $300,000-$500,000 is a reasonable estimate. • Revenue, if any—Likely none. • Fundraising required—To be determined by City Council. Grants and other fundraising may defray the costs to the public. Daughters of Zion Cemetery Background [The text for this section was taken from the Daughters of Zion Cemetery Preservation Strategies plan prepared in April 2016 by Liz Sargent and Shelley Sass.] The Daughters of Zion Cemetery is a historic community burial ground located within the city of Charlottesville. The cemetery has already been recognized as significant in the history of the community through listing in the National Register of Historic Places. The cemetery derives its significance from its association with the Daughters of Zion Mutual Aid Society, a Reconstruction-era women’s organization that sought to provide a place of dignified burial for the African American community within the context of a segregated society. Established in 1873, the cemetery remained an active burial ground until 1995. It is currently owned and maintained by the city of Charlottesville. Many members of the Charlottesville community retain familial bonds with those buried at the Daughters of Zion Cemetery. Over the course of 2015, several individuals and groups, in addition to the city of Charlottesville, began discussing ways to address the concerns about the deteriorating condition of the cemetery. Several individuals formed a group known as the Preservers of the Daughters of Zion Cemetery to serve as the core organizers of the effort to improve the condition of the cemetery. The cemetery has been the subject of a Preservation Strategies plan (April 2016) and a Historic American Landscape Survey (June 2016). The plan provides a prioritized list of projects that address the cemetery’s need for 1) emergency stabilization of features that are in poor condition or threatened with failure or loss; 2) community engagement and development of a plan; 3) follow up preservation treatments for features that do not require emergency stabilization; and4) long term care and maintenance procedure guidance and training. 2016 Recommendations: Blue Ribbon Commission on Race, Memorials, and Public Spaces 8 Options Considered The commission endorses the planning currently underway for the Daughters of Zion Cemetery and did not formulate or consider additional conservation options. Preferred Option [Daughters of Zion Cemetery] • Concept—The Daughters of Zion Cemetery Preservation Strategies plan (April 2016) recommended a series of actions designed to conserve the cemetery. The recommendations are based on sound, federally-recognized standards and best management practices and focus on the need for prioritized landscape stabilization and maintenance. The commission unanimously voted to recommend that that the city continue to provide financial support for the efforts of the Historic Resources Committee and the Preservers of the Daughters of Zion Cemetery to protect and maintain this important landscape. • Impact to community/human rights— Preservation of the cemetery will perpetuate a respectful environment for those interred and for their descendants, many of whom still live in Charlottesville. • Impact to historic resources— Stewardship of the cemetery will preserve the only extant place associated with the Daughters of Zion Mutual Aid Society, and offers the possibility to interpret this important aspect of Charlottesville’s Reconstruction-era history. It is important to acknowledge that cemeteries require specialized treatment through professional conservation practices to ensure their long-term preservation. • Impact to urban design—The Daughters of Zion cemetery is a historically significant landscape adjacent to the larger municipal Oakwood Cemetery. The cemetery helps form a large central green space near Charlottesville’s downtown and is a historic landscape that possesses a unique character worthy of care and protection. However, the cemetery’s relationship to adjacent streets, which are truncated or disconnected from the adjacent grid, means that the cemetery is relatively isolated and therefore may be more subject to undetected vandalism. • Public response—The Daughters of Zion Cemetery was one of the top five places identified for memorialization during the commission’s first public forum. • Legal issues—Legal documentation may be required for the incorporation of nonprofit “friends” groups that could support the preservation of the cemetery in the future. • Costs—The Daughters of Zion Cemetery Preservation Strategies report provided planning-level estimates of probable cost for priority projects ranging from $50,000- $122,500 in total. See the plan for details. Revenue, if any—Likely none. • Fundraising required—Grants and other fundraising may defray the costs of the landscape stabilization and other improvements. Vinegar Hill Community Background [This information is taken from city documents available online.] Vinegar Hill, one of the city’s first neighborhoods, was bordered loosely by Preston Ave., West Main St., and Fourth Street. It was established by Irish families in the early 1800s and incorporated into Charlottesville in 1835. African Americans fist moved onto the “Hill” after the Civil War. From the 1920s to the early 1960s it was the city’s principle black business district and the vibrant center of the community’s social life. Despite barriers to education and 2016 Recommendations: Blue Ribbon Commission on Race, Memorials, and Public Spaces 9 employment, African Americans gained economic opportunities through a wide range of small businesses in the Vinegar Hill area. Though many rented their Vinegar Hill housing— which often lacked running water, indoor plumbing, and electricity—residents lived and worked among their homes, schools, and churches in a close-knit community. Over 55 of the homes and businesses in Vinegar Hill were owned by African Americans. In the 1960s, noting Vinegar Hill’s large number of “substandard” homes, the voters of Charlottesville decided to redevelop the 20 acre neighborhood. Because of a poll tax, many of the residents were denied a say in their own future. By March 1965, one church, 30 businesses, and 158 families—140 of which were black—had been relocated as part of the city’s urban renewal process. Options Considered Two important memorialization plans for the Vinegar Hill neighborhood are currently underway; these include the Vinegar Hill Monument proposed for placement at the Jefferson School and plans for a new Vinegar Hill Park at the west end of the Downtown Mall. The Vinegar Hill Monument has been designed by internationally-recognized artist, Melvin Edwards, and has been partially funded by the City of Charlottesville, private donations, and a matching grant from the National Endowment for the Arts. The Vinegar Hill Park has been proposed by the Historic Resources Committee. The park would occupy the public walkway between the ice rink and Omni Hotel at the west end of the downtown mall. Preliminary proposals for the park include recommendations for the addition of interpretive and identity signage along the walkway. Preferred Option [Vinegar Hill] • Concept—The commission voted unanimously to recommend that the city provide financial assistance for the completion of the proposed Vinegar Hill Park. The commission also voted unanimously (with one abstention) to recommend that city council provide financial assistance for the fabrication and installation of the Vinegar Hill Monument, as designed. Finally, because of the Jefferson School African American Heritage Center’s preeminent position in telling the public history of Charlottesville’s African American community, the commission voted unanimously (with one abstention) to recommend that city council provide financial assistance for the fixed costs of the Center (rent and common area costs). • Impact to community/human rights— The Vinegar Hill neighborhood and its importance in the history of Charlottesville has been a consistent topic of interest for the public. Vinegar Hill is the best known, but not the only, lost African American neighborhood in the city; Gospel Hill, Pearl Street, Garrett Street, Canada, and others were also wiped out through urban renewal, redevelopment, or gentrification. Impact to historic resources— The addition of a new memorial to the Jefferson School complex and new interpretive information to the west end of the Downtown Mall in a location identified as Vinegar Hill Park by the designer of the Mall will create greater public awareness of this lost neighborhood and the forces that ruined it. The funding of the African American Heritage Center will likewise support its mission to generate public awareness of the city’s history and historic resources. • Impact to urban design—The proposed Vinegar Hill Park creates an interpreted landscape space at a major threshold into Charlottesville’s Downtown Mall. Although the current proposal is limited to the addition of new signage, the landscape within the corridor may be suitable for future redevelopment as designed park space. The proposal 2016 Recommendations: Blue Ribbon Commission on Race, Memorials, and Public Spaces 10 for the new Vinegar Hill Monument will place the memorial on the Jefferson School property. • Public response—Many members of the public have expressed a strong interest in telling the story of Charlottesville’s lost African American neighborhoods. • Legal issues—Likely none. • Costs—The new Vinegar Hill Park signs are estimated to cost approximately $5,000- $10,000. The fabrication and installation of the Vinegar Hill Monument is estimated to cost $320,000, a portion of which the city has already committed to funding. The memorial has a $100,000 matching grant from the NEA. • Revenue, if any—Likely none. • Fundraising required—Fundraising is underway by the Dialogue on Race Vinegar Hill Monument Committee. Highlighting and Linking Historic Places Background The historic sites inventory process identified over 70 places associated with important aspects of the city’s African American history as well as sites associated with Native American and labor history. The inventory is appended to this report. The places include cemeteries; neighborhoods; schools; churches; other buildings such as houses or businesses; roads and bridges; parks; memorialized “lost” sites; and lost sites with no memorialization. While many of the sites are well-documented, interpreted or protected, some are not. The rehabilitation of the Jefferson School—which now houses the African American Heritage Center, the Jefferson School City Center, and the expanded Carver Recreation Center— represents perhaps the city’s most prominent effort to revitalize an essential historical place in the city’s African American community. Many recently added historic markers now identify other important buildings and landscapes in the city, such as the Tonsler House and Daughters of Zion Cemetery. The Drewary Brown Bridge’s association with the Bridge Builders Award has revitalized its meaning in the community. Comments during the first public forum emphasized the community’s desire to expand the memorialization of diverse and “hidden” places and people and to protect the city’s historically African American resources, including neighborhoods, churches, and cemeteries. Many also recommended that the city’s stories be told through the perspective of the African American community, with no “sugar coating.” Options Considered Options for highlighting and linking historic places relate to information-gathering, planning, and protection for the city’s historic resources. Members of the public supported initiatives that would result in the collection of additional historical information about Charlottesville’s “lost” history through surveys and oral histories. Protecting and acknowledging a wide variety of historic sites—such as the Tonsler House and the Shelton House—were also important to members of the public. The community expressed some preference for installing historic markers at a variety of historic sites and protecting historic neighborhoods against the forces of gentrification. Members of the public and the commission also supported the improvement and maintenance of the Drewary Brown Bridge. 2016 Recommendations: Blue Ribbon Commission on Race, Memorials, and Public Spaces 11 Preferred Option [Highlighting and Linking Historic Places] • Concept—The commission voted unanimously to recommend two concepts: 1) To applaud the Bridge Builders Committee work to improve the visibility and appearance of the Drewary Brown Bridge and to encourage council's continued support of these efforts, including the inclusion of the Bridge Builders work in the West Main Street design process and 2) to recommend that council provide financial and planning support for historic resource surveys of African American, Native American and local labor neighborhoods and sites, seeking National Register listing and zoning and design guideline protection, where appropriate. • Impact to community/human rights— Many members of the public drew an explicit connection between the loss of historic African American neighborhoods and the current threats to neighborhoods by gentrification and inappropriate new development. Commissioners also noted the lack of visible and accurate interpretation of the city’s sites related to African American history. • Impact to historic resources—This recommendation would enable the successful protection of the city’s historic built fabric. • Impact to urban design—Zoning and design guideline protection would protect the historic character of the city’s neighborhoods. New design updates and maintenance of the bridge would also signal its important symbolism in the city. • Public response • Legal issues—Likely none, although zoning and design guidelines can impact property values. • Costs—The costs associated with historic resource surveys will vary based on the size of the areas. Costs for any changes or enhancements in the design of the bridge may be estimated based on schemes produced through the West Main Street schematic design plans. • Revenue, if any—Likely none. • Fundraising required—To be determined by City Council. Grants and other fundraising may defray the costs to the public. Place Names Options Considered The commission discussed options for naming and/or renaming public places and features, and agreed to avoid renaming current places with the exception of the Lee and Jackson parks as described earlier in the report. The commission understands that there is a city policy that governs the naming of new features. Preferred Option [Place Names] • Concept—The commission unanimously recommended that the city consider naming new streets, new bridges, new buildings, or other new infrastructure after people or ideas that represent the city’s history in consultation with the affected neighborhoods and other appropriate local bodies such as the Albemarle County Historical Society and the African American Heritage Center. 2016 Recommendations: Blue Ribbon Commission on Race, Memorials, and Public Spaces 12 • Impact to community/human rights— The commission supports engagement with the community and local institutions to identify appropriate people, events, and ideas to commemorate through naming. • Impact to historic resources—Likely none to historic resources, although providing names for new features and structures related to local history may help convey the importance of previously uncelebrated people and events. • Impact to urban design—Likely none. • Public response • Legal issues—Likely none. • Costs—Likely none beyond the costs associated with public engagement or other outreach to local institutions. • Revenue, if any—Likely none. • Fundraising required—Likely none. New Memorials Options Considered The public offered many ideas for new memorials during the public forums and through other communication with the commission. Suggestions included “hidden heroes” and other people and communities significant to the history of Charlottesville such as: enslaved workers at UVA, lost neighborhoods such as Gospel Hill, Isabella and William Gibbons, Queen Charlotte (Charlottesville’s namesake with African ancestry), Peter Fossett, Julian Bond, Eugene Williams, Sally Hemmings, Rebecca McGinness, local Native Americans, the Greers of Ivy Creek, Shadrach Battles, and many others. The commission noted these suggestions but also expressed a belief that the other two new monuments recommended for Charlottesville— the Vinegar Hill Monument and a memorial to those enslaved in the Charlottesville area—will be substantial new additions to the city’s public art collection and will require equally substantial financial commitment. The commission also noted the ability of other types of public art to convey more complex information than is possible with memorials to individuals. Preferred Option [New Memorials] • Concept—The commission unanimously recommended that the city not pursue the addition of other new monuments to specific individuals at this time. The commission recommends that the city explore other ways to recognize the city’s leaders and hidden heroes and invest in other creative ways to memorialize the full story of race in this community’s history including, but not limited to, new murals. • Impact to community/human rights— Monuments and memorials are often large, permanent installations that are intended to convey clear and simple narratives. Murals and other forms of public art may provide opportunities to tell complex stories about the city’s history through more dynamic means; they are also less expensive to implement and provide opportunities for community engagement. • Impact to historic resources—Likely none. • Impact to urban design—Murals or other public art may be implemented on a wide variety of city-owned buildings and structures, such as bridge abutments, walls, or at schools. 2016 Recommendations: Blue Ribbon Commission on Race, Memorials, and Public Spaces 13 • Public response • Legal issues—Likely none. • Costs—Would vary depending on the artist and the medium. • Revenue, if any—Likely none. • Fundraising required—To be determined by City Council. Grants and other fundraising may defray the costs to the public. Other Opportunities Options Considered The commission identified several additional opportunities to enhance a holistic reflection of our history. These focused primarily on programming and education. Preferred Options [Other Opportunities] The commission chose six options that received unanimous votes: • Recommend council sponsor research on the history of Charlottesville, together with the African American Heritage Center, UVA, Albemarle Charlottesville Historical Society, among others, which may provide the basis for a new more comprehensive story of the city. • Encourage the Charlottesville City School Board to ensure that the curriculum creates an opportunity for all students to learn the fuller history of our community including the difficult history of slavery and racism. This resolution also supports the teacher education required to carry out an effective educational program in local history. • Encourage the Charlottesville City School Board to ensure that courses in African American and Native American history are taught in local schools on a continual basis. • Support the ongoing efforts of the African American Heritage Center to develop curricula related to our complete history and encourage all the institutions that hold the history of Charlottesville— including Albemarle Charlottesville Historical Society and the University of Virginia—to be part of that development. • Urge the city to participate in the Equal Justice Initiative's Memorial to Peace and Justice by retrieving the memorial marking the lynching of John Henry James and displaying it locally as a commitment to confronting the truth and terror of white supremacy in the Jim Crow era. • Recommend designating March 3rd as either Liberation Day or Freedom Day in an annual commemoration of March 3, 1865. 2016 Recommendations: Blue Ribbon Commission on Race, Memorials, and Public Spaces 14