City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Regular Meeting June 15, 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 B. Consent Agenda 1. BAR Meeting Minutes from February 17, 2021 2. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 21-06-01 605 East Market Street (City Hall), TMP 530080000 Downtown ADC District Owner: City of Charlottesville Applicant: RJ Narkie/City of Charlottesville Project: Install security gate at alley between City Hall and the General District Court 3. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 21-06-02 5 Gildersleeve Wood, TMP 110018000 Oakhurst-Gildersleeve ADC District Owner/Applicant: Deren Bader and Paul Lyons Project: Replace sash in ten windows June 15, 2021 BAR Packet Guide 1 4. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 21-06-03 201 1st Street North, TMP 330178000 Downtown ADC District Owner: Fields Holdings, LLC Applicant: Stephen Christianson/Hill & Woods Funeral Home Project: Replace two bollard lights with pole-mounted lights. C. New Items 5:45 5. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 21-06-04 1001 West Main Street, TMP 100050000 West Main ADC District Owner: M & J Real Estate, LLC Applicant: Michael Martin/State Permits, Inc. Project: Mural on east (side) façade 6:30 6. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 21-06-05 1511 [1509-1511] University Avenue, TMP 090078100 The Corner ADC District Owner: Amorgos, LLC Applicant: Abigail Arnold, RA/Red Architects Project: Storefront alterations 7:15 7. Certificate of Appropriateness (HC District) BAR 21-06-06 905 Rugby Road, TMP 020076000 Rugby Road Historic Conservation District Owner: Susan Stanley Applicant: Ross Fillman/Uhler & Co. Project: Construction of a residence 8:15 8. Certificate of Appropriateness (HC District) BAR 21-06-07 854 Locust Avenue, Tax Parcel 510092000 Martha Jefferson Historic Conservation District Owner: Kaitlyn and Alan Taylor Applicant: Ashley Davies Project: Construction of a garage D. Other Business 6. Staff questions/discussion Update on revisions to the ADC District Design Guidelines 7. PLACE update F. Adjourn June 15, 2021 BAR Packet Guide 2 BAR MINUTES CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW Regular Meeting February 17, 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. Members Present: Carl Schwarz, Breck Gastinger, Ron Bailey, Cheri Lewis, Jody Lahendro, Tim Mohr, Andy McClure Members Absent: James Zehmer Staff Present: Patrick Cory, Robert Watkins, Jeffrey Werner, Joe Rice Pre-Meeting: Mr. Schwarz brought up the idea of possibly meeting to look over the guidelines. Mr. Gastinger agreed that a small number of people could meet and review the guidelines. Mr. Gastinger recently attended a state ARB meeting. He mentioned some of the differences and similarities between the state ARB meeting and the City BAR meeting. There was a discussion over the different items on the agenda and the consent agenda. There was a discussion regarding the 612 West Main Street project. The BAR also discussed last minute changes made to the large scale projects. The meeting was called to order at 5:30 PM by the chairman. A. Matters from the public not on the agenda No Comments from the Public B. Consent Agenda (Note: Any consent agenda item may be pulled and moved to the regular agenda if a BAR member wishes to discuss it, or if any member of the public is present to comment on it. Pulled applications will be discussed at the beginning of the meeting.) 1. BAR Meeting Minutes – October 20, 2020 2. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-02-01 511 East Water Street Tax Parcel 530074000 Charles and Virginia Pinnell, Owners 1 BAR Meeting Minutes February 17, 2021 Dean Maupin, Applicant Open pavilion at rear Ms. Lewis moved to approve Consent Agenda (Second by Mr. Lahendro). Consent Agenda approved 7-0. C. Deferred Items 3. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-01-05 116 West Jefferson Street Tax Parcel 330183000 Jefferson Street Properties, LLC, Owner Gordon Johnson, Peter Johnson Builders, Applicant Porch reconstruction Jeff Werner, Staff Report – This is a project that we had on the agenda last month, and Miss Johnson was not available to join us. We did have a brief discussion about it. I've modified the staff report accordingly. This is a COA request for 116 West Jefferson Street. This is in the North Downtown ADC District. This is formerly the River Come House. It is a Colonial Revival style home that was constructed in 1913. There's a building at the rear. I don't know whether to call it a house or a structure but it is contemporary. I think it was probably constructed sometime in the late 70s, early 80s. The house originally had a front porch. In the photos, you see it. It was removed in 1974. The request is first to reconstruct the front porches as best as possible, given the evidence and information we have available, which is summarized in the report. At the rear of the house, there is a hyphen that links the original house with the building in the back. They are looking to remove that. There are some alterations to the structure that include taking out some windows and adding some doors in the rear. Finally, on the rear of the existing house, where that hyphen is removed, the railing will be repaired to match what is there. We've had a lot of conversations about this and staff has been supportive of it. Reminder that the staff report, the photographs, and the application altogether form the body of this submittal. Make sure that when a motion is made, that if anything needs to be revised or amended, it is correctly expressed. Gordon Johnson, Applicant – Our intention here is to rebuild the porch as it was originally built and restore the rear decks in the same fashion as they were originally constructed. We’re looking to restore the original structure on the front and on the rear. QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No Questions from the Public QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Schwarz – The staff had a big long list of descriptions of the things you would match and do. Are you in agreement with those? Mr. Johnson – Yes. They all looked like they were in alignment with what we’re trying to accomplish. Mr. Schwarz – Your drawings had a built up roof. 2 BAR Meeting Minutes February 17, 2021 Mr. Werner – This is the design process. The “give and take” is what the BAR is good at. When we talked about it last time, Mr. Gastinger was looking on Google and there was a house around the corner that has similar columns. In the old photographs, there is a slightly vague ornamentation at the top of the column. The first item for discussion would be the type of column we’re talking about. As far as the discussion goes, this offers a checklist for you ii your conversation with the applicant. Mr. Schwarz – I see that you have everything illustrated. Are these illustrations all tied to one of your discussion points in the staff report? De we need to look at both? Mr. Werner – With the Scamazzi, the curls are rotated at an angle. In the old photograph, there is some ornamentation. You can see it in this image. The question for the BAR is: To the extent of being similar to what we can determine from the photographs, what detail does the BAR prefer for the column capital? I am recommending that we go through this staff report and anywhere I have a note or a recommendation. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC No Comments from the Public COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Schwarz – The cornice is going to match. Mr. Lahendro – I would recommend that the capitals be a Scamazzi Ionic similar to what is at Altamont Circle. Mr. Johnson, you will be limited to what is available on the market. Staff can help you with some of the possibilities for manufacturers that offer Scamazzi capitals. It will be your responsibility to match the Scamazzi capitals so that it is similar in appearance to this and also the proper size for the column and the pilaster. I would recommend that once you find what you want to use, send staff a copy of it. We can leave it up to administrative approval if the rest of the Board agrees. Mr. Werner – This is to express what we were talking about. For example, the ionic has canvas. This one simply has that band at the top. That seems to be what is there. The idea was that there be sort of ornament at the top and that it not be just plain below the capital. That’s the question for the BAR. Mr. Lahendro – The necking is that piece there. There appears to be something similar on the historic photo unlike what is at Altamont Circle. Mr. Johnson – I understand. Mr. Werner – It is probably more prominent in the engaged pilaster at the rear. You can see that line. For the BAR, is that a detail that you feel is important? Mr. Gastinger – The comments so far all suggest that we are treating this as a reconstruction. The recommendations from the Secretary of the Interior is that we match the details as closely as we can. Mr. Schwarz – Mr. Johnson, are you clear on what we’re talking about there? Mr. Johnson – Yes. I understand the details at the top of the column and having them all match and running them by you guys and maybe getting some feedback from you of some manufacturers. 3 BAR Meeting Minutes February 17, 2021 Mr. Schwarz – This should hopefully be through staff. If you provide staff with something that meets the criteria we’re describing, it should hopefully stop with staff. You don’t have to come back to us. Mr. Werner – The goal is not a $15,000 custom capital column. I know there is a lot of different varieties and types out there. We should be able to find something that’s available that begins to assimilate that ring at the top. Mr. Mohr – There’s no issue with Mr. Johnson reaching out to individual Board members for their opinions. Mr. Schwarz – The next issue on this one was the gutter detail. Mr. Werner – We have existing trim and cornice on the house. That can be replicated. The next on the list is the railing, the bottom rail, and the pickets. With the profile of the railing and the pickets, we are offering some latitude than on the column capitals. The height conformed to the building code. If there was anything more specific that you wanted to say about the railing, let staff know. The roof was the discussion and the staff recommendation was to evaluate it as a standing seam metal, acknowledging that some distance below the windows is necessary. The gutter and downspout component of it is necessary. If the applicant had a really good reason for going with the EPDM, now is the opportunity to present that. Mr. Johnson – We actually meant for it to say standing seam. I don’t think the intent was EPDM. The intent was to replicate what was there. If that is standing seam, that’s what we would do. Mr. Werner – On the gutter detail, we looked at 201 East High Street. This is where there was the discussion of the built-in gutter. They were not going to go with the built-in gutter. They had originally proposed a flat fascia. There was a request to go without the building gutter but to add a piece of crown that replicated that cornice that had been there. That’s a detail that, if you are all comfortable with, we are recommending for this project. Mr. Lahendro – Does this crown replicate what is on the main roof? Mr. Werner – What you see there is the sketch from 201 East High Street. Mr. Lahendro – What is the photograph on the bottom left? Mr. Werner – Everything on that page is from 201 East High Street. The only thing that we are referring to is that cornice of the front porch will be replicated, including that piece of crown. I roughly sketched the cornice. That’s the cornice that I approximately sketched in the photographs. There is a piece of a bed mold. There is a fascia piece with a bed mold. The condition here, replicating what was done at 201, it would look like that. The eave mounted gutter would be suspended in front of that crown. Mr. Schwarz – The goal is to rebuild the cornice as if the internal gutter was still there. Instead of doing the internal gutter, tack a half-round on the end. Mr. Lahendro – That crown is matching the crown that is on the main roof? As long as we say the whole cornice is matching the main roof from the fascia against the building up to the crown beneath the standing seam, including the modillion blocks. All of that is the same. We’re adding a half-round gutter to it. 4 BAR Meeting Minutes February 17, 2021 Mr. Mohr – Is the upper roof getting gutters? Mr. Johnson – That currently has built-in gutters that are remaining. We’re not doing any work to them. Mr. Mohr – If this was my house I would do this similarly, because of the rest of the house being like that. This is a premiere element as you approach the house. My inclination would be to remain with the building gutters. Given the quality of the house, that would be preferred to putting the half-rounds. They have compromised the line of the eave. This is just an opinion. Mr. Lahendro – I support that philosophically. Practically, there is not a built-in gutter that doesn’t leak. Mr. Werner – We are going to have to weigh Mr. Mohr’s opinion with future projects. This has been the BAR’s tradition of allowing these changes. The next question was the porch flooring. My assumption was that porch flooring was going to be 1 by 4 or 1 by 6 run front to back and not some trek material. Mr. Johnson – We’re trying to replicate what was there. Our intention was some wood decking to match that era. It would be what was in the photo as best as we can. It would be to match that. Mr. Werner – It would be wood. Mr. Lahendro – That’s what is at Altamont. I would use Altamont as our model. Mr. Werner – There is a note at the bottom that says “In the event of an unknown detail, applicant should look to the existing condition at Altamont.” The trim is clear. I am calling for ceiling board in a simple cove. It should not be anything too fancy. There are no light fixtures proposed. I was going to “open the door” if you had something in mind, we could talk about it. Mr. Johnson – I don’t think we have gotten that far in the design. It would be something simple and straightforward. There would be something over the front door. Mr. Werner – As far as the rest goes, I don’t have a lot of concern for the rear building. I think that comes through in the staff report. Mr. Schwarz – The windows are builder grade. I just want to know what is going back in. We do have rules about vinyl. What kind of windows are you putting in? Mr. Johnson – We haven’t gotten that far in that design either. They wouldn’t be vinyl. I am not even sure if we are replacing all of the windows or just windows where adjustments are made to the attachment. If that’s the case, it would just be to match the remaining windows as best as possible. Mr. Bailey – You’re talking about the windows in the contemporary building behind that. Mr. Schwarz – I think it would be good to suggest that you can match what is existing in style. If the existing windows are vinyl, the new windows should be wood, aluminum clad wood, or should be fiberglass composite. The four things that would need to be submitted to staff are the light fixture, window cut sheets, the railing profile, and the column capital that you would be choosing. Ms. Lewis – Is there any thought on restoring the shutters to this property? 5 BAR Meeting Minutes February 17, 2021 Mr. Johnson – There actually was discussion. They would like to restore what the building originally had. If you have any input on what that should be, that would be helpful. Mr. Gastinger – I think the shutters bring a lot to both of the elevations facing the street. It would be great to bring those back. Mr. Johnson – We will definitely incorporate that. Ms. Lewis – We should be getting list of materials of the porch from you, the applicant. It is primarily the flooring of the porch. Mr. Schwarz – That would go to staff to confirm that they are meeting what we discussed. Ms. Lewis – Are we voting on this as a final submittal? Mr. Werner – The photographs only offer so much. We’re providing a template with the other ones we have. With the flooring, I was getting at that it was wood. As far as the railings, they understand what we are shooting for. That’s the next step. When the building permit comes in, I will want to see what they are planning to do. That’s the final signoff. I think what we are saying is that the BAR is not requiring a custom, manufactured turning. We’re trying to find something of a similar profile of that period and trusting staff’s judgement. I think that’s appropriate for this sort of thing. I am quite comfortable with this. Mr. Schwarz – Does anybody have any concerns with approving it per the discussion items. We just have to clarify a few things. Mr. Werner – I have given specific references to existing components. Motion – Mr. Mohr – Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed front porch reconstruction and exterior alterations at 116 West Jefferson Street satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are compatible with this property and other properties in the North Downtown ADC District, and that the BAR approves the application as submitted, with the following modifications: • The front porch will have a standing-seam roof and gutter detail similar to that in the staff report. • That the approval references the narrative, clarifications and photographs included as supplemental in the staff report. • The applicant will submit for staff review the proposed column capital. • The applicant will provide for staff review details on the porch railing and pickets and any proposed exterior light fixtures. • The applicant will provide for staff review cut sheets for alterations to the windows and doors at the rear contemporary addition, with the understanding that the windows will not be vinyl, but may be wood, aluminum-clad wood, or fiberglass composite. Ron Bailey seconds motion. Motion passes (7-0) 4. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 20-11-02 612 West Main Street Tax Parcel 290003000 Heirloom West Main Street Second Phase LLC, Owner Jeff Dreyfus, Bushman Dreyfus Architects, Applicant New construction of a mixed-use development 6 BAR Meeting Minutes February 17, 2021 Jeff Werner, Staff Report – This is intended as a continuation of the discussion towards a final submittal towards the COA. We're not there tonight. The applicant is obligated on his end to request the deferral from the BAR. The BAR can only accept that. Lacking a request from the applicant, the BAR would have to take a vote up or down on this proposal at this time. This is a COA request for 612 West Main Street. The address is 602-616 West Main Street. We are referring collectively to 612 West Main Street. It is in the Downtown ADC District. Some people always wonder about that. The West Main District doesn't actually start until further down the block to the west. This is a request to construct a new mixed use building. As I've mentioned before, there's an existing concrete automotive building there built in the 1950s. It is not contributing and it's not subject to BAR review. You all have had a couple of discussions with the applicant. The last discussion was on December 15th. What we've been doing is working our way through a series of the design steps. The applicant has provided graphic information for you all to review and has presented tonight some questions that they would like to specifically get at in the conversation. It doesn't mean you all are only limited to what they're presenting and asking about. That's the “game plan” for this evening. Jeff Dreyfus, Applicant – We're just intending to keep you informed and give you an opportunity to continue to give us guidance prior to coming to you for official approval. What I'd like to do early in this is hand it over to Anne Pray, who is our landscape architect on the project to give you all a very quick overview, the questions that we sent our comments, any thoughts you all have, questions you have about the landscape, and the hardscape plan. The West Main Street elevation really hasn't changed much from what you all saw two months ago. I'll talk a little bit about some of the modifications that we're contemplating there. You will also see both West and South elevations so that we might get any input from you all on those as we continue to develop them. Anne Pray, Applicant – I want to speak a little bit about how we are trying to respond to some earlier comments about creating pedestrian engagement and making the building more active at the street and at the same time looking to break down the building mass and making it a little bit more pedestrian and body scale friendly to the street. I'm going to run through the plan design here pretty quickly, but probably work from the north elevation a little bit more so that we can look at that. In scale and in elevation, I think it reads a little bit better. From the outset of the project, this courtyard area has always been an important part of that residential entry of the building, which is one of its largest purposes. We're looking to create an engagement with the mural wall and also look at a way to just slide in a little bit smaller garden experience here with using a water feature, some benches, and some planting and at the same time opening up the courtyard for the entry. You can see one of the devices we're using is this connect with the larger building, a changing material on the ground plane from something smaller at the street to something larger that runs along the whole front of the building to something smaller in the courtyard again. We think that it gives it a little bit sense of place as you come in. We have three planters located along the length of the building. Two of the planters are at the four bay to create a little bit more of a density. We have this more open concept of the courtyard, closing it off a little bit in the front of the four bay side of the building and opening it up more towards the center and middle as we get to the five bay. Using a larger but singular planter towards the end relates the scale back to the earlier four bay in the building. As you run down to the west of the building, we are negotiating with grade a little bit. We have one singular stair that grows into two steps at the end. We have about a foot of grade change, running from east to west. On that side on the courtyard, we're looking to make it as open and as accessible as possible, so that grade does connect flush across to the main sidewalk. It's obviously more accessible for everyone. One of the things I want to point out here that I think is pretty important is that we get into is that we are required to show for trees to plant for trees. I want to talk about the placement of these trees as part of this project that's actually happening. We know that the West Main Streetscape plan shows for trees, obviously not in this location. I think it is problematically in a really different location with the curb line shifting in the future. We are 7 BAR Meeting Minutes February 17, 2021 actually also calling out the bike racks at this point on either ends of the building. You can see that on the west side. I'm using a low retaining wall to hold that space to create that niche for the two bike racks. On the eastern side, we have three bike racks there. The last little part here is that we are exploring the form and the permutations of the planters and how they work. The curvilinear idea is a little bit of a nod to what's happening on the inside of the building and the lobby, as we look to soften some of the edges and the hardness. We're trying to bring that outside in, in a playful way and in a more sculptural way. This is the overlay plan that shows four dashed, pink circles, outboard of the existing curb line. Those are the proposed West Main Streetscape trees. In quantity, it obviously works with what we've got and would just be a matter of coordination. However, the curb line is nearly two feet outboard of where the existing curb line is right now on West Main, which obviously lends us to believe that they're redesigning the whole street with parking and different curb lines and curb cuts. The extent to which we're actually going to be able to negotiate with that positioning at this point is unknown. I'd like to figure out exactly what the expectations are from the BAR as to how we're supposed to negotiate and handle that at this point. Here you can see an elevation. I think we all know the streetscape trees and the trees that we're proposing. Those four trees are really going to be what competes with the overall scale of the building here. Their placement will be working a little bit more symmetrically side to side with each one centered on a major column of the building. The planters bring the scale down to the pedestrian and the body. They work a little bit more to create a little bit of density against the building with your own perception of it as you're walking by. As you look at it, you can see the courtyard space again to the left. That's a much more open experience overall. As you walk by the first bay or the first true building, there's the four bay. That's more broken up with the planters and the trees. It is a more open center, last third, and then a planter on the end, knotting back to the balance of the four bay building preceding it with the open stair on the end and the retaining wall. I think it's important to talk about the water. One of the things about this building is that it does go from this very rectilinear clean facade outside. As you move your way into the building, it becomes a really calm, curvilinear, meditative experience. I think what we're trying to do by the introduction of water is introduce just a small sound and just a small nod to ‘you've come home.’ It is a little bit chiller and a little bit more common than what you just left on the street. We're trying to set up that choreography from the moment you enter into the courtyard. The articulation of that right now really has a long way to go to get the design done. The idea is that we would be introducing just a small amount of sound of water. Similarly, I think if you look in the next slide, you can see some different precedents. We are playing with the form of the planter. If it might have a little bit more of a batter to the front face how the bench itself could connect in or participate with the planter so that they are overall a little bit more sculptural, but also feel like they can be occupied. With the plantings themselves, I am really into creating a planting design as an important part of the piece. In this case, looking at the building, we actually have a lot of opportunity to use plants as texture and form and create some interesting palettes that you probably wouldn't see otherwise along the street. We'd be really looking to create some identity with making the planters really as big as we can and really get some good planting in there. I've got another image there of the paving precedents and different ideas in scale. I think that paving is going to be very calm, much like the building. We really looked to just maybe two different scales of paving to start to create a break between path and place. With the water base and on the end, there’s a very small nod to just a little something different on the street and introducing that idea of calm as you come into the building as resident. I think the next couple slides actually show this in the architectural rendering, if we want to take a look at that. It's nice to see the scale of the existing trees. We get a sense of how big these trees might hopefully become over time. You can see the courtyard and the planters laid out there. This is just obviously from the other end. I think what's nice to see here is actually just the stair. It's just a one foot gray change at that point. It's something we need to deal with and wanted to really keep it as open as possible. Really using a stair as an occupiable moment but to come up to the retail promenade and leaving that little bit of a space on the end for the bike racks. One thing I would say about the bike racks, because this might come up, is that I think it's really just been our experience looking at how they function at 600 right in the front of the building and right in front of the coffee and retail space. I think the takeaway there 8 BAR Meeting Minutes February 17, 2021 really is, it's been kind of problematic to really put them in a place of egress. As tricky as it has been, we are looking to give them their own space and make them noticeable, but not necessarily put them in the courtyard where we're trying to create a more intimate experience. Mr. Dreyfus – We do intend to have options for greenery along the balcony railings. Whether or not that is owner provided or tenant provided, we do have a long way to work through on that. We do intend to add that bit of color and texture to the façade. We're really looking for ways to quiet the building down. As Anne noted, the interior lobby of the residential entry is going to be very curvilinear. That is something that we are thinking may actually make its way out to the exterior of the building in a very quiet way next to the front door. We’re not ready to talk about that. In trying to quiet the building down, you'll see that we began thinking more about color and texture since our last conversation. The next slide does show how we're beginning to think about the particular elements of the façade. We are intending that the North, West, and East elevations will be brick. We'll talk in a minute about the texture of the brick and the hyphens as we discussed before. We’re thinking that the upper levels might be white or off white. We're thinking that the color of the building might be more of a heather brick or a lighter cream color. It's not going to be white. It's not going to be stark white. We know that much. We've got a ways to go. We're exploring brick that can be completely painted or brick that has enough soft color that we like it. We'll be back with more on that. I think what's important to note here is that we do believe that going with a different color on the retail level and ground level helps with the building to delineate what's residential and what's commercial in terms of its scale. It also makes the engagement with the street different from the facade as it goes higher up in the residential area. We're liking this. We don't quite yet know how we want to provide cover at the doors into the retail. That will be something that we continue to develop. You'll also see that perhaps that same darker color, which might be a metal. We're working toward that. That material would probably also introduce itself there on the left at the door into the residential lobby. You can begin to see the curve of that might express itself right in that small area. We're thinking upper windows and doors would be light in color as close match as we can get it to the brick material on the facade and darker down below. We would like to hear if this is an acceptable direction. The railings that we see on the balconies will also probably be light in color. Some of our earlier designs showed pretty soon stark contrast between black or dark bronze windows and doors and railings up above, which were similar to what's down below. It was becoming a little bit too checker boarding for our tastes. That's the direction that we're thinking we're going to go with colors. One thing I would like to note about the hyphens of the façade is that we are still imagining that the hyphens will be a different texture from the main blocks of the facade that move forward. We don't in any way think that the hyphens will be a different color but perhaps a different texture brick. Whether we model the surface or we do something with the control joints, we do want to make it subtly different. They step back, obviously, and they stepped down a little bit. We're trying to keep things related but quietly, different from one to the other. Here, you can also begin to see that the lower level that the darker color on the retail level does do what a number of buildings on West Main Street do. That is to call a distinction between the retail level and the residential levels up above, including on the Holsinger building right there on the right. There's a distinct line drawn there between the ground level engagement and the upper level residential. Here, we're beginning to talk about what the rear elevation will be. This might be a little bit hard to make out. On the lowest level, we have two story studio lofts behind those tall double doors. Those are probably Juliet balconies that can be opened. They speak to the height of that floor elevation. On West Main Street, we're supposed to have close to a 17 foot tall first floor. We're actually taking advantage of that to provide loft units on the backside of the building with living down below and a sleeping loft up above. The next level up has large terraces off of the units and also includes the green roof that we're going to be incorporating in the project. The green roof is down at this level and not on the rooftop. The rooftop may or may not be occupied in the future. We're not there yet. We think this is a great opportunity for us to bring the greenery and the softness of that to the living units on the south side of the building. The bronze 9 BAR Meeting Minutes February 17, 2021 panels that you see projecting perpendicular to the building are simply dividers between the units. For instance, on the second level at the far left, there are three bays of windows and doors that open on to that terrace before you get to the divider. That's one complete unit. After that, there's a two bay unit. That's what those are. We need to provide privacy panels between units. On the upper floors, you can see that there are balconies off each of the living rooms of the various units. The thing that I would like to point out here is that we would like to be able to stucco the upper part of the rear facade in this instance. The building to the right, 600 West Main Street, is metal panels. As most of you know, there are metal panels on the North, West, and East façade. On the South facade, we turn the corners on the South facade with the metal panels. The entire rear of the building is stucco. We want to do the same thing here on the upper three floors of this building. Quite frankly, it's a cost savings that we hope and anticipate will allow us to use brick for the rest of the building. It's not unusual for the rear of buildings in any urban environment is a different material. We would keep it quiet. It wouldn't be distinctly different from the brick. We'd come with whatever colors we're proposing in that regard. On the next slide, might be full elevations. Here you can see the elevations as they currently stand. The hyphens that we've discussed in the previous discussion are in the middle and on the far right. With the next drawing, there is a different texture on those hyphens and also on the residential block that sits back from the street. The next drawing should be the South elevation. As I described, there are upper balconies on the top two floors with terraces on that third floor level, just above the last studio loft balconies. With the next elevation, trying to take the motif from the north facade on the west elevation there on the left. Take the motif of the openings and sizes and continue that to give a bit of order to that facade, which is on the alley adjacent to the Holsinger building. The larger windows are all windows at the end of residential corridors. The two smaller windows there on the far left are within units to allow those to be third bedroom. On the far right, the elevation facing the courtyard of 600 West Main Street and the mass of the building of 600 West Main is dashed in the very dark line there on the left of that drawing. It's a very narrow courtyard. At the end of that courtyard would be doors leading into the lobby of 612 West Main Street. The tenants of both buildings will have access to the courtyard and to the lobby. If there is in the future, a rooftop amenity on this building, the tenants of the adjacent building could enjoy it. I think we've included some of our previous slides that showed ideas of ways that we can treat cheap different textures, different openings, and the windows. The middle right image, the light facade is not unlike what we're discussing, perhaps lighter color for the brick, but a darker color for the retail openings and being different from what's happening in the on the residential up above. As I mentioned in my notes, we'd appreciate any and all comments on the landscape hardscape especially as it relates to what Anne is showing, and importantly, noting that the tree locations relative to what is shown on the West Main Street streetscape project and any comments you have about the facade development, any of the elevations, the colors, materials we're contemplating at this point, and as well as stucco on the south side of the building. QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No Questions from the Public QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Mohr – The plans looks like there is a retaining wall next to the bikes. Is that correct? Ms. Pray – That’s correct. It is shown in the elevation. It is very small. It is only a foot tall and only 8 inches wide. Mr. Mohr – I was wondering if it matched the height of the planters or not. Ms. Pray – I don’t have it matching the planters. I just kept it a pretty low profile. 10 BAR Meeting Minutes February 17, 2021 Mr. Mohr – I was looking at the renderings. Mr. Dreyfus – That is the move-in door for the building for all of the tenants. There will be a curb there. There will be safety factors set up so that nothing goes rolling off of that end. Mr. Mohr – It looked like in the plans there was more of a wall there. It was just a resolution question. It makes more sense that there is a wall there. Ms. Pray – Initially, we thought about wrapping the stair back to the corner so you could approach the building from that corner. We needed the space for the bike racks. We ended up with the retaining wall to cut in that space for the racks. We have to utilize every inch. Mr. Dreyfus – Wrapping the stair didn’t make a lot of sense. We would be inviting people to step into a private alley. This was to direct people out toward the street. Mr. Mohr – I was remarking at the absence rather than the presence. Mr. Gastinger – I wanted to ask if there was any further thinking about the differences in that brick texture. The precedence that you showed at the end of the presentation have quite a wide range. Do you have any more to what you are currently thinking? Mr. Dreyfus – The next step is going to be offering specific samples to what we are thinking. We’re talking with our contractor and their suppliers about what those options are. We need enough of a distinct difference that it is noticeable when you look. Mr. Schwarz – If the West Main Street streetscape goes forward, are you still required to put in four street trees? Ms. Pray – We will have to do four trees. Mr. Dreyfus – It is a requirement at the moment. We are having to live by it. I think what Anne has done works well with the building. We don’t have the option of furthering the streetscape plan. We would be putting our trees in the street. If we go to that slide, you will see where Anne has placed the trees precludes the parking pull off areas or anything that they’re showing. It would appear to me that we could keep those trees precisely where she is proposing them. The City would have a little less cost as part of that project. Mr. Schwarz – Suppose the streetscape plan doesn’t go forward, are the power lines a problem? It seems that this site has accumulated some new power lines. Mr. Dreyfus – The power lines are a problem. We are going to deal with them during construction. I don’t know if we are going to be dealing with them permanently. We will have to deal with them temporarily. Mr. Schwarz – I would like your application to include temporary power plans. Even if poles are being moved temporarily, trees sometimes have to come down for temporary movement. Mr. Dreyfus – We will do that. They are going to be moved across the street. We will be happy to include the temporary power plan as part of the application. We will move the power lines back to where they are. A permanent solution would be undergounding them. 11 BAR Meeting Minutes February 17, 2021 Mr. Lahendro – With the footprint for the planters, I am trying to understand the significance of this unusual truncated circle shape. It has some relevance to what is going on inside the building. Mr. Dreyfus – On the interior of the building, the lobby is actually going to be a very curvilinear series of planes with few hard angles. We’re trying to bring that into the residential hallways as a part of the design. Anne’s thought is that we hint at it on the exterior in terms of the planter shape with what is happening on the interior. Ms. Pray – That was definitely a starting point. We liked the idea that the planters became more sculptural as part of the experience being on the sidewalk. The space between them still feels like inside. Mr. Lahendro – For pedestrians that don’t live in the building, those shapes would be completely alien to anything they can see on the building. Ms. Pray – The idea is that it might be captured by them and see something different. I think there is a way they interact with the building too. It seemed to use the planter as an opportunity to be a little more ‘playful’ on the street to soften the building. We are still working through it and what the final shapes will be. Mr. Mohr – Do they match the material of the window frames on the first floor level? Ms. Pray – It is definitely a detail question that I am not totally clear on. We still have to have those conversations. I think we would look to create some continuity. Mr. Dreyfus – One of the things that we have talked about with the shape of the planters is that they are softer. They’re a little bit more inviting. There is a playfulness to them that might invite something a little bit more relaxed on what is a pretty regimented façade. Ms. Lewis – Is the south façade on the upper floors stucco? Mr. Dreyfus – I don’t know for sure. My preference would be stucco. It might end up being EIFS. Ms. Lewis – I would support it on the back. I will definitely support it if it was stucco. Mr. Schwarz – Building codes require continuous exterior insulation on commercial buildings. In general when we see stucco, it is EIFS. I don’t know if it can be detailed in a different way. That’s something that needs to be fixed in our guidelines. There is no stucco anymore unless it is on concrete. Mr. Dreyfus – The real difficulty with EIFS is the hollowness when you tap on it. You can get a variety of finishes. We were very successful at 600 West Main on getting finishes on the EIFS that does not look like your standard EIFS. I think it is a matter of the intent of the architect and the ability of the installers to achieve something that’s not just “slathered on icing” that we see everywhere. That will definitely be a part of what we do. It is important that we get that surface right for the tenants of the building. It is not a throwaway material. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC No Comments from the Public COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD 12 BAR Meeting Minutes February 17, 2021 Mr. Gastinger – I really like the development of the site plan and the landscape, especially compared to where it was previously. The planters really felt like they were armoring the building or maybe having a very distinct zonation between the public sidewalk and in the walk in front of the retail spaces. I like the way that low step will get used a lot and will be a piece of street furniture. It would be in a more graceful way to make that delineation and make it more subtle. I like the shape of the planters for a couple of reasons. I think that it really does facilitate a lot more East/West movement along the facade of the building. At the same time gets a longer amount of planting area in proportion to the building. I will say though that I do think because maybe perhaps the thinness of the wall and the way that they're rendered in the plan, they do feel a little bit inconsequential or a little bit more like street furniture. There's maybe a balance there. I'm not sure if they either could get just a little bit larger or just beef up just a bit more to have a relationship to this building. There could be another one added. It seems like they're just a little bit sparse currently. I like that. I like the tactic. I like the materiality and the way that they be deployed. I think the material of them being a little bit more of street furniture and not feeling like a constructed built in feature might lend themselves to feeling a little bit more like almost quazi movable part of the street and maybe alleviate some of the fear that Jody might express about whether they really feel like they're a part of the public landscape. With the trees, this is my personal opinion. If we wait for the city to figure out West Main, we will still be waiting. I applaud the tactic to go ahead and put the trees in at the location that works best for this building. At a scale, that also works best for the street. I would hope that you'd consider species that will operate at that street tree scale and really create a high canopy that would make for a really excellent public space below. When the West Main Street project happens in about 30 years, they'll work around these trees. The only thing I would note about that is that we can be thinking about larger trees to make certain in the early planning that ample soil volumes are provided so that so that we really can get the kind of size and scale tree that they would appreciate there. Mr. Mohr – When the power lines come back, are they going create havoc with those trees? Mr. Dreyfus – They can and they will. I will say that we are talking with Dominion about the possibility of locating the power lines under the sidewalk. It is in everyone’s best interest if we could do it. We all know Dominion moves at its own pace and own schedule. We are hoping that we can do it. I hesitate to mention it. We don’t want it held against us in the future. Mr. Mohr – I agree with Breck about the planters. I like the one with the seat in it. I could actually see just making that a standard feature for all three of them. The other thing I could see doing is that they weren't great in plan but in elevation and extending the plantable area along like the building, it seems to me you could play with the elevation of the edge where it could be like a cone slice or something like that, where it has some more dynamic role to play at a 3d level. I know it's got plants in it. How many times a year are they not doing much? If it has a wandering edge or drives up one side where their playfulness is apparent, not just in plan but in elevation and section. I just fear for dominions behavior. Mr. Schwarz – I'm going to agree with what's been said so far. I want to see very tall, beautiful canopy trees on West Main. If the power lines end up needing to stay, I think Cova have done a good job of coexisting. Something of that scale would be appropriate if you keep the power lines. My other concern I brought up with the Code Building is that they have sworn to me that we're not going to end up with a bunch of yellow tape on all the on the edges of all the stair treads. I don't know if it's our zoning code. Wedge steps are not allowed. When they show up, they end up becoming tripping hazards. I think they're a wonderful landscape feature. I just want you guys to make sure that these steps and landscape don't become like him covered in bright yellow tape. 13 BAR Meeting Minutes February 17, 2021 Mr. Lahendro – I would concur with most of what I've heard so far. I would rather see that scale, but in a more native tree or one that's on the street tree list that the Tree Commission puts out. Mr. Schwarz – The other question from staff was to look at the elevations with the understanding that the north elevation is on the right track and the change in the material on the back. Mr. Lahendro – I would like to talk about the North elevation. This looks better to me than what I'm hearing than what's actually meant. The recessed planes of the hyphens are darker and obviously more recessed. The darkness is a symbol to indicate some kind of texture. What I'm hearing is that the texture that's desired at this point is subtle and not distinctive. I would prefer to see something that's more distinctive in the difference. I think this reads as we had intended or we had stated all along in that we're trying to mimic the scale of the individual historic buildings that are still left on this part of West Main that were here originally. That's my biggest worry about this elevation. Mr. Mohr – Your end elevations are quite asymmetrical and seem to have a lot of surface development. There's a playfulness in there. It also harkens back to some of those images you showed us from those urban buildings with multiple planes with your precedent images. I wonder if you really start playing with the level of detail in there, so it actually catches more shadow is more idiosyncratic and plays basically a different architectonic game than the quieter or very rectilinear façade. That possibly combined with darker materials but also the fact that we attach more shade and shadow. I think you have some clues in that East elevation to my mind that might enliven and at the same time distinguish those punch backs. I'd like to just quick slide over to the top section of the residential block on the north side, I could see doing that in a completely different like glass. It's much more of your beltline for your parapet runs around. That whole upper piece reads as something that is truly set back and is perhaps much more modern and translucent. That would again help the read of the scale. The brick on top of that feels a little heavy to me. If you put some brace a lay over the upper band of balconies that starts reading is more porch-like. I think it softens up the side of it on the south side. That would start to break it up vertically without really a great deal. You wouldn't be having to modulate surfaces or anything that would give you a scale breakdown. It does start to read as somewhat tower like. Mr. Gastinger – I am a little concerned about the subtlety and the thinness of the plane of the North elevation. It's not so much the elevation but more that the plan and the perspective views that would come from it. I'm concerned because I think almost every view from a pedestrian point of view or for driving down the road that this is really going to look like a long building because the plan changes are so subtle. As mentioned in the last meeting, the addition of those balcony railings stepping that height down the introduction of some different texture are some good techniques. It's really riding on that line of whether this is meeting that SUP recommendation that the mass is breaking down. It might be useful to include some more oblique perspectives in the package in the future. I think that's how this building will most likely be seen. If the intention is to truly have the brick in the textured brick berry so similar in color, I wonder if a more radical technique like making one of the bays that textured brick might be worth considering. I just continue to look for more depth from the façade. I am just worried that it's getting keeps getting thinner and thinner. Mr. Zehmer joined the meeting during the discussion of this agenda item. Mr. Schwarz – Are we all OK with the change to stucco/EIFS at the back? Are we all still on board with the massing? There seems to be more desire for more originality in the front façade. Mr. Mohr – I like the idea of doing something to make that top appear different. That would actually drive that whole block down lower and you wouldn't feel quite all the peace. To me, it's more like the main 14 BAR Meeting Minutes February 17, 2021 facade is so quiet. Maybe there's a much more intensive brick detail and idiosyncratic treatment of those drop back pieces that makes them taking up a look at some the really wild brick you see on some of the old residential structures in New York where it really has a degree of texture and detail that speaks to maybe the old church down the road or something. Mr. Schwarz – Are there any thoughts around the darker color around the retail entrances? Mr. Mohr – I like the idea of the planters relating to it. Mr. Lahendro – I think it is an interesting idea. I look forward to seeing how it is developed. Mr. Dreyfus – I thank you all very much. I realize this is a drawn out process. By the time we get to the approval, it is going to be a very short, brief meeting. For us, it feels productive and informative. Mr. Mohr – Where do things stand on the lighting on 600? Mr. Dreyfus – We have to make the final adjustment. We will have that done. We are ready for the BAR to go and look at it in the next week and a half. Mr. Dreyfus – I move for a deferral – Motion accept to deferral (Mr. Lahendro). Motion to accept deferral passes 7-0. The meeting was recessed for five minutes. D. New Items 5. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 21-02-02 636 Park Street Tax Parcel 520113000 Jennifer and Blakeley Greenhalgh, Owners and Applicants New fence Staff Report, Jeffrey Werner – What we have before us is a COA request for 636 Park Street. This is in the North Downtown ADC District. This is a 1950s Colonial Revival style home that was constructed in 1950 by a gentleman named Harry Munson. This is a request before you to install a new fence around the perimeter of the property. It will be set behind existing hedge that's there. We didn't find any issues with it and recommended approval. With fences and particularly along an arterial or primary road like we have with Park Street, I wanted to bring it to the BAR and so I did not recommend it for a Consent Agenda. We see no issues with this. Jennifer Greenhalgh, Applicant – The wood fence on the left is the one we prefer for a few reasons. One, we plan on eventually doing something to our backyard and we want a privacy fence in our backyard. We would like those two fences to match. The photo that you showed of the front of our house is a really old one. We have skip laurels that are probably 14 feet high. The fence is not really going to be visible. Our neighbor has a wooden fence like this. The apartment two doors down has a more modern wood fence. They use it as privacy for their patios. On the corner of Park and Farrish, they also have a wood fence. We prefer the look of the wood. It is more cost effective. It would be more preferable to our style. 15 BAR Meeting Minutes February 17, 2021 QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No Questions from the Public QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD Ms. Lewis – When you said that you approve this, the staff report says that the preferred is metal. Is that correct? What are you recommending approval of? Mr. Watkins – When I wrote the staff report, I think either option is appropriate. I found the metal fence to be more appropriate. Mr. Werner – When I talked with the applicant earlier, these are set behind that hedge. It has grown. There is a good screen. I had offered as a condition that the BAR might request, should the hedge be removed, that changes how this fence might be viewed. That was one of the things I felt was a mitigating factor to what they selected. I offered that as a recommendation. Ms. Greenhalgh – If for some reason, we have a skip laurel that dies, we will immediately replace it. We love it for the privacy. It tamps down the noise from Park Street. We plan on keeping those. Mr. Schwarz – Is the intention to paint the fence? Ms. Greenhalgh – It is. They have told me that you have to leave it for 4 to 6 weeks until you paint it. The intention is to paint it. I would like to paint it the color of our siding. It is something that you have approved before. Mr. Gastinger – Since we weren’t able to see the examples of the other wooden fences that you mentioned, are any of those in the front yard? Ms. Greenhalgh – Two of them are. Ms. Lewis – That’s not the front yard. Ms. Greenhalgh – It’s in the front yard. It’s not on the street side but it is still in the front yard. Mr. Gastinger – Are any of those on the street? Ms. Greenhalgh – No. The wood of the apartments are set off from the street. Mr. Gastinger – That has been more typical. The privacy of fences behind the front façade of the house are wooden. The fences along Park Street are typically rod iron or steel. Ms. Greenhalgh – You can see how tall our bushes are. The metal is double the cost. You’re not going to see them. It is something that we don’t prefer. I would really hope that we could do the wood. Mr. Schwarz – There is a wood picket fence at 717 Park Street right up against the curb. It is a new house on the corner of Lyons Court and Park Street. It is a split-level on the corner of Lyons Court and Park. Ms. Lewis – It is not four feet. It undulates. They just put it up. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC 16 BAR Meeting Minutes February 17, 2021 No Comments from the Public COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Schwarz – Skip laurel gets us in trouble. It violates our guidelines. A lot of people use it as an excuse to put in their own shrubs that are more than four feet tall on the sidewalk. We have had a number of properties come to us asking to put in a privacy screen right on the street. We can’t make you take it down. We do wish that you would cut it shorter. Ms. Greenhalgh – We actually got that approved through you guys to put that up. That was approved. Mr. Schwarz – I am looking at the picture from Google street view in 2012. They are tiny. You see these hedges up and down Park Street. Some of them did pop up without full Board approval. Mr. Mohr – The house across the street has had hedges like that for 20 years. Ms. Lewis – That’s really common in North Downtown. I have lived in the neighborhood for almost 25 years. I do appreciate everything that you have done with that house. I remember what it did look like. You put the shutters on. That front yard was not right. Once you put in the skip laurel in, it really looks great. Everything that you have done has almost restored the house. You have made it very attractive. Our guidelines, which we are supposed to follow, at 11 with privacy fences. Privacy fences may be appropriate in side yards or rear yards that are not visible from the street. It presumes that privacy fences shouldn’t be on primary streets. Unfortunately, you have two primary streets. I don’t see any other privacy fences up and down Park Street at all, which would prevent somebody at street level from seeing the house. There are some stone walls where you wouldn’t see it standing on the sidewalk. You would see it across the street. The engagement of our neighborhood with each other is what makes North Downtown special. The privacy fences are really antithetical, not just in the guidelines, but in the way that this neighborhood has developed. There is a good number of metal fences. You can see right through them. They really don’t act as privacy fences. We really don’t have fences that wall off the street engagement. That would be around the periphery of the property. I can’t support the wooden privacy fence, I could certainly support a 4 foot metal fence. Our guidelines are pretty clear. Ms. Greenhalgh – On the Evergreen side, are you saying that we can’t have wood back there? Ms. Lewis – The guidelines say side or rear yards. I would think that you can use it on the rear yard if there is any way to differentiate it. It wasn’t really clear if you wanted it around the whole yard or just on the street side. Ms. Greenhalgh – It would just be the front yard. We just got a puppy. We need a fence to keep him in. I don’t even want a fence. This is where this has all happened. We looked at doing an electric fence. Mr. Werner – When we talk about a privacy fence, in my mind, it is something six to eight feet tall and solid. Wood being more the height and the enclosure of it, my understanding from the Board is that wood is not preferred on the perimeter. Mr. Schwarz – I think we need to discuss this and see if everyone agrees with Cheri. For the definition of privacy fence, I agree with staff. We need to see what everyone thinks. Our guidelines does say to use materials that relate to materials in the neighborhood and to take cues from nearby historical fences and walls. It is true that the majority of the historic fences are metal. I think we need to see where everyone stands. 17 BAR Meeting Minutes February 17, 2021 Mr. Gastinger – Our guidelines really speak about wood picket fences, not wood, opaque fences. I definitely agree with Cheri. I think that the metal fence is consistent and a neighborhood defining feature related to the landscapes along Park Street. I think it would be very appropriate. I support a wooden, privacy fence as long as it was behind the front plane of the house as it faces Park Street. Mr. Schwarz – Remember, this is on a corner. That was where the question comes in. Mr. Gastinger – I think the character of the street changes the façade of the house facing Evergreen is a side façade. Mr. Mohr – I think the fence definition changes at the plane at the front of the house. It becomes a privacy fence from that point back. Mr. Schwarz – Is there anybody that would accept a wooden, four foot fence in the front yard? Ms. Greenhalgh – Four feet is an arbitrary number. If it is shorter, is that better? Mr. Zehmer – More of a picket style fence that has some reverberations to it would be more acceptable in the front. It gets away from being a privacy fence. I agree with Mr. Gastinger and Ms. Lewis that the iron fence would look better and stay in character of the neighborhood in the front yard. A taller privacy fence in the rear would be appropriate. I would be willing to consider more of a picket style fence if wood was desired for the front yard. Mr. Bailey – A picket fence would work. There is an example of one down the street. Mr. Lahendro – The example down the street is still a little too opaque. A picket fence that is open and doesn’t prohibit views, would be fine. Ms. Greenhalgh – I will speak with my husband and see about the metal versus picket. If we go metal and four feet, is it OK? If we go picket, should I send an email to staff with a photo of a four foot picket? Mr. Werner – If you go down to the corner of Farrish and Park, they just did a metal railing on the back of that. I don’t know what the cost of that was. I can send that to you. I can send you the guy that did it. Ms. Lewis – There is also one on Third Street. The one on the corner has a picket fence. They painted it white. There aren’t many examples in the neighborhood where people have fences in front yards. It is very small yard. That might be one for the applicant to look at. Mr. Werner – The other wood fence that we did was at the corner of Hedge and Park. That was approved a couple of years ago. It sounds like this is a deferral while we clarify some things. Mr. Mohr – At the corner of Fourth and Hedge, there are quite a few picket fences. Mr. Gastinger – It is important to note that Park Street is a little different than those other streets. It is a different scale of the house. It is a different approach into the city. It is a different set of landscapes. Ms. Lewis – This is a pretty attractive fence. It would definitely keep a dog out with a little bit more height if it is allowed. It doesn’t un-engage the house. It is well constructed. 18 BAR Meeting Minutes February 17, 2021 Ms. Greenhalgh – Either this style or the metal style would be OK? Ideally, I don’t want to defer. Mr. Schwarz – I would be willing to approve a metal fence or a wood picket fence that is somewhat transparent that allows some visibility through it. That picket fence would need to be submitted to staff at no more than four feet. Mr. Mohr – If there is a four foot fence, should it be in front of the skip laurel as opposed to behind it? Ms. Greenhalgh – There’s not a ton of room. The skip laurels are to the edge of the sidewalk. I don’t think there’s actually room to get a fence in there. Mr. Schwarz – I think we have asked for that before in situations on Park Street. In the case of something opaque, we have asked them to set it behind. Mr. Mohr – My one comment about a wood fence is that the house is a newer house. It doesn’t have the same level of details that older houses do. It does have that porch. It does make sense to me that it would relate to the house with a picket fence. Mr. Schwarz – If we are saying picket, we have offered some examples. We’re looking for something that is not full opaque. Mr. Gastinger – That’s too far to not know what this fence is. My proposal would be to approve a metal fence. If the applicant decides to propose a wood fence instead, that we consider that design when we have the detail. Mr. Bailey – I agree with the direction Carl is going in that we should consider both as a possible COA now, subject to approval by staff looking at the aesthetics of it and not defer this if we can avoid that. Mr. Schwarz – Maybe we need to make a motion and see who would accept that. Who would be willing to approve a metal fence or a picket fence with the stipulation that both fences are under 4 feet and that the picket fence be not fully opaque? Mr. Zehmer – I wonder if it is a wooden picket fence, it stylistically relates to the railings on the front porch of the house. Mr. Lahendro – What bothers me in the way that you phrase it, Carl, is that you say “not mostly opaque.” I would say “mostly not opaque.” Mr. Mohr – I think if you pick up off of the existing spacing and design of the house, you have something that you can see through and it relates to the house. Mr. Schwarz – I agree and like that. It is a railing design versus a fence design, which they might find costly. If we want to hem them on that, we can. Ms. Lewis – The railing on the balcony is a very tight picket. It would definitely keep a dog out of there. Mr. Schwarz – I don’t know what that would cost versus a traditional picket fence like you saw on the front yard lawns of that crazy intersection. 19 BAR Meeting Minutes February 17, 2021 Mr. Bailey – Do you want them to have a custom picket fence as opposed to going and finding something similar to that. Mr. Schwarz – This would be custom if we required them to match what is on the porch. Mr. Mohr – They would have to match the space between the pickets. They are applied to the back of the rail. It is still like a traditional picket fence. You’re picking up on the scale of the railing. They might actually use the detail around the gate. That does need to have some rigidity to it. Ms. Greenhalgh – I would have to have a top cap and bottom cap. I can send staff photos. I am fine with either of those options; either the picket that is similar to our railing above the porch or the metal. Motion – Mr. Schwarz – Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed fence at 636 Park Street satisfies the BAR’s criteria and is compatible with this property and other properties in the North Downtown ADC District, and that the BAR approves either a metal fence per the application or a wood picket fence to be painted, both fences to be under 4-feet tall. If a wood fence is selected, the picket spacing should approximate spacing of pickets on porch railing. Second by Mr. Bailey. Motion passes (7-1, Gastinger opposed). 6. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-02-03 1331 West Main Street Tax Parcel 100006000 MKV Property LLC, Owner Jozo Andelic, Applicant Exterior painting Staff Report, Jeffrey Werner – This is a COA request for 1331 West Main Street, which is actually in the West Main Street ADC district that extends down to The Corner there. This is a circa 1965 building. The West main facade features decorative cinderblock on a covered entrance that was original to the building's construction. Back in 2013 the BAR did approve of the exterior painting of the cinder block. There was some cement boards that were painted. The applicant is requesting to paint the brick that you see. This includes the brick on that front wall that you see with a whitewash. They're willing to comply with whatever recommendation that the BAR would have on that. There is some of the non-brick that they'll be painting in a dark gray color. We recommend approval with some conditions. While the design guidelines discourage painting on painted masonry, the building's relative lack of architectural distinction and recent construction date merits some exception. Typically if it's a brick building prior to the 1920s 1930s simply because of the nature the masonry, you don't want to put paint on it. That's not a problem with the paint as far as mechanical properties of the brick. Aesthetically, the owner wants to brighten this up. It's got a little bit of a used back in the corner look. That's caught the intent here. We recommended approval with some strong recommendation that the brick and mortar be repaired prior to any white washing. We want to recommend that they use a mineral paint suitable for painting on masonry surfaces. QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No Questions from the Public COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD 20 BAR Meeting Minutes February 17, 2021 Mr. Lahendro – When it changes hands and there is another owner and the brick has been whitewashed, what is to keep the new owner from painting it a solid white? Mr. Werner – Those are legitimate questions. This is where a lime paint and traditional whitewash would be preferable to any paint or product. Mr. Lahendro – Once it is painted, we cross the line. Mr. Zehmer – You said our guidelines discourage painting on painted masonry. Is that the exact verbage? Mr. Werner – “Do not paint on painted masonry.” Mr. Zehmer – That doesn’t sound like discouraging. It sounds like a direction. Mr. Werner – I am offering it in terms of the traditional whitewash. I don’t call it painting. The BAR has historically considered the painting relative to the age of the brick as a condition. It is a recommendation. My preference would have been to not paint the front wall. There’s relatively little brick. There’s absolute minimal brick on the building. The wall changed things for me. Mr. Gastinger – In my experience, it has been very seldom and very few examples when we’ve allowed painting brick. It is in very inconsequential locations or more contemporary locations. This might qualify. It’s pretty awful brick all around. There is nothing pretty distinguishing about it. Mr. Bailey – To the question of who is going to stop a future owner from painting something else, the answer is the BAR. Mr. Gastinger – They don’t have to come to the BAR to paint a wall. Mr. Schwarz – If we approve whitewash, we are approving ‘forever’ paint Mr. Lahendro – In the future, they don’t have to come to the BAR. Mr. Zehmer – It becomes painted maintenance masonry. Mr. Schwarz – The color of the paint does have to go to staff. We approved a complete demolition of a brick façade. The part that remained is now completely painted. We have definitely made exceptions before. If this building came to us for a demolition permit, I think it might have a good chance of being approved. I cannot deny painting brick that I would allow it to be demolished. Mr. Lahendro – I disagree with that. It is a characteristic, 1960s design. It is perfectly appropriate for when it was built. Mr. Bailey – Therefore, we should maintain historically, drab, useless architecture. Mr. Mohr – That’s really the question. Do we collectively believe or is there enough belief that this is an architecturally significant building? Mr. Schwarz – I think we have voted to demolish much more significant buildings in the past. That is where that comment came from. 21 BAR Meeting Minutes February 17, 2021 Mr. Mohr – The chicken place on West Main is an architecturally significant building. It has a whole lot of character. I wouldn’t want to see anything happen to that. Is this building architecturally significant? It doesn’t feel that it is well defined. It is a messy picture. It is hard to tell. Mr. Lahendro – That’s a distinctive, interesting, textured, concrete block. It is a great classic 50s/60s design. Ms. Lewis – It doesn’t look the same. I love the look of that photo. Mr. Zehmer – You also have some plantings in front of that block. Mr. Lahendro – If the purpose is to make this stand out, it seems that there are other ways to do that besides just painting the brick. Mr. Zehmer – The sign on the original University Diner could have been a character defining feature. It is not there anymore. Mr. Gastinger – I think the elegance of that little façade is proportional in its composition. I don’t think giving it a whitewash really changes that. If anything, it might make it more legible, given all of the things that have come up. Mr. Werner – They want to ‘freshen’ it up. That was the word that they used. Mr. Lahendro – Put some interesting plants in. Put some colorful umbrellas out in the front. Mr. Gastinger – Are the planters going to change? Mr. Werner – Nothing was said about that. There are some problems with the brick. It needs to be stabilized. The planters look like they are tacked on top of this. It is not anything internal. At the back wall, it is interesting and unique. I don’t know what is going on. I think they want to do something about the brick. They don’t know what. The next step is to whitewash it. We’re not here to design it for them. In looking at this, we can mention other things. There are opportunities to request some things. Mr. Gastinger – If they design a different canopy and painted with a different color, it could be interesting. Mr. Mohr – I would say that the wood needs to come off of the top of the walls. The one thing that I would wonder about is whether we let them do something with the railing. The railing seems inappropriate to that building. Do you let them do something with the railing and change the paint? The storefront is different than what was there. The unfortunate thing is that they painted the block. Mr. Lahendro – Let’s have them take the paint off. Mr. Gastinger – If you look at the corner, you can actually see the block. There is some sheet that covers the block. Mr. Mohr – Maybe the thing to do is to clean the thing up. That underside of that canopy looks like oily, formerly white paint. The canopy is bad. The planters are bad. 22 BAR Meeting Minutes February 17, 2021 Mr. Schwarz – There are a lot of things we can offer them that they can do to this. We have an application for whitewashing the brick and painting. Maybe we don’t have enough votes for that. If we don’t, we can deny it real fast. I would vote in favor of the application. I think staff’s note about the masonry that it be specified in point with Portland cement. I would be willing to approve this. Ms. Lewis – I am a little in concurrence with Mr. Schwarz. I think the character defining features from the submission aren’t there anymore. It’s not the same building. The brick is not the predominant material here. It really is a storefront look that was much more interesting several iterations before. I would support this with the caveat that the brick be repaired. There is a lot that can be done here. It’s not our job to design for this property owner. Mr. Zehmer – Where I struggle with it is the wording with our motion. It says that it meets the BARs criteria. The BARs criteria states to not paint unpainted masonry. If you’re going to word it that way, I am not going to be able to support it. Mr. Schwarz – The reason that this could not be on the Consent Agenda is if we do approve it, we need to state why. The ‘why’ is the exception. My thought on why we even exist at all as a board is because if everyone had to follow the guidelines word for word, staff could handle it. Ms. Lewis – The brick is a surround. It’s not the primary material. That’s what I would say. I would feel differently if we had a submission to paint the historic building to the right. It is two stories and has a lot of brick on it. I think that’s what our guidelines are going towards. I see the brick as a trim. It was the material used as a trim in a storefront looking building half a century ago. It has lost its defining features. Mr. Werner – It's a building that's owned by someone. They're leasing it to someone who uses it as a restaurant. It's that struggle of a business that sees a way to liven up the space and the building owners that own real estate. That's some of the tension I suspect here. Having had several conversations with the owner of the restaurant, they're very much open to taking a look behind that wall. If that's just a panel there, that's something that could be removed, I don't have any problem offering people recommendations consistent with revealing the history of the building. Mr. Zehmer – If you removed that panel of that historic block, the contrast in color between that and the brick is striking. If you painted the brick white, it loses that contrast. Mr. Schwarz – Mr. Lahendro and Mr. Zehmer are “no’s.” Where do you stand Mr. Gastinger? Mr. Gastinger – I would be in favor if the planters are removed, the wall is repaired, and we make sure that wall to the east has a single line to it. Mr. Werner – You are talking about that panel? Mr. Gastinger – It looks like there is a missing a top part of the wall. I would prefer the restoration that we have been discussing. That would be in keeping with the original design. Given the application as it is, I would be in support with those caveats. Mr. Mohr – I do think somebody could go at this in more sophisticated fashion, cleaning the brick, use a darker mortar, do things like that to make the brick come out, and remove the boarding. I think there are options to make what's here work a lot better than it does. I understand what they're trying to do as well. I'm a little conflicted about it. 23 BAR Meeting Minutes February 17, 2021 Mr. McClure – It is a drab building. This will improve how it looks. Motion – Mr. Schwarz – Having inserted the center set forth in the city code including ADC district design guidelines and moved to find the proposed painting at 1331 West Main Street satisfies the BARs criteria is compatible with this property other properties in the West Main Street ADC district. The BAR approves the application as submitted with the following modifications: • We would like to see them remove the wooden planters. • We would like to see them repair the masonry before painting and repair properly using the correct masonry mortar. • We would recommend that they investigate what's underneath the green paneling to see if the concrete block can be salvaged. • The paint should be intended for matte mineral paint or something that is intended for use on masonry. • The exception is due to the secondary nature of the material and on the building and the more contemporary and the more recent brick installation. Second by Ms. Lewis. Motion does not pass 4-4. Motion to defer application to next month – Mr. Zehmer – Second by Mr. Gastinger – Motion passes 8-0. E. Other Business 7. Staff Questions and Discussion Railing between Court and City Hall – Security recommendation from the Police Department to keep the alley empty. Discussion with City Attorney regarding COA process for the BAR. Set up of committee to review the guidelines – Mr. Schwarz, Mr. Gastinger, and Mr. Mohr will make up the committee 8. PLACE Update F. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 PM 24 BAR Meeting Minutes February 17, 2021 25 BAR Meeting Minutes February 17, 2021 Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 21-06-01 605 East Market Street (City Hall), TMP 530080000 Downtown ADC District Owner: City of Charlottesville Applicant: RJ Narkie/City of Charlottesville Project: Install security gate at alley between City Hall and the General District Court Application components (please click each link to go directly to PDF page): • Staff Report • Historic Survey • Application Submittal June 15, 2021 BAR Packet Guide 3 City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Staff Report June 15, 2021 Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-06-01 605 East Main Street and 606 East Market Street (City Hall), TMP 530080000 Downtown ADC District Owner: City of Charlottesville Applicant: RJ Narkie/City of Charlottesville Project: Install security gate at alley between City Hall and the General District Court Background Year Built: c1967 District: Downtown ADC District Status: Contributing City Hall and the General District Court, both designed by Stainback & Scribner (c. 1967). Prior BAR Reviews N/A Application • Submittal: City of Charlottesville Dept. of Public Works drawings GDC/Michie Annex Security Gate, dated May 7, 2021: Sheets A01 and A02. Request for CoA to install an 8-ft tall, metal security fence/gate in the small alley facing Market Street between City Hall and the General District Court (GDC). Recommendations and Discussion Staff recommends approval. The security fence/gate is necessary for the Charlottesville General Court. While the height exceeds the recommend 6’-0” and the design is contemporary, the 7’-6” wide gate/fence will be approximately 50’ from the curb and approximately 42’ from the building façade. Furthermore, the BAR informally reviewed the preliminary designs and expressed a preference for this design over the others presented. Suggested Motion Approval: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find the proposed gate 605 East Market Street satisfies the BAR’s criteria and is compatible with this property and other properties in the Downtown ADC District, and that the BAR approves the application [as submitted.] 605 E. Market Street (June 10, 2021) 1 [as submitted] with the following conditions: … Denial: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find the proposed gate 605 East Market Street does not satisfy the BAR’s criteria and is not compatible with this property and other properties in the Downtown ADC District, and that for the following reasons the BAR denies the application as submitted: Criteria, Standards, and Guidelines Review Criteria Generally Sec. 34-341(a) of the City Code states that, in considering a particular application the BAR shall approve the application unless it finds: 1. That the proposal does not meet specific standards set forth within this division or applicable provisions of the conservation district design guidelines; and 2. The proposal is incompatible with the historic, cultural or architectural character of the conservation district in which the property is located. Standards for Review of New Construction and Additions include: 1. Whether the form, height, scale, mass and placement of the proposed construction are visually and architecturally compatible with the site and the applicable conservation district; 2. The harmony of the proposed changes in terms of overall proportion and the size and placement of entrances and windows; 3. The impact of the proposed change on the essential architectural form and integrity of the existing building; 4. The effect, with respect to architectural considerations, of the proposed change on the conservation district neighborhood; 5. Any applicable provisions of the city's conservation district design guidelines. Pertinent Design Review Guidelines for Site Design and Elements include: C. Walls and Fences 5. For new fences, use materials that relate to materials in the neighborhood. 6. Take design clues from nearby historic fences and walls. 7. Chain-link fencing, split rail fences, and vinyl plastic fences should not be used. 12. Fences should not exceed six (6) feet in height in the side and rear yards. 13. Fence structure 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 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. 605 E. Market Street (June 10, 2021) 2 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,Virginia22902 Telephone (434) 970-3130 Please submit tOP {19) h11~.t 011jili11sand 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 City of Charlottesville ApplicantName RJ Narkie, Charlottesville Public Works Project Name/Description GDC/Michie Annex Security Gate Parcel Number_5_3_0_0_8_o_o_o_o _____ _ Project Property Address._ _:6:..::0-=-5-=E::....::..cM-=-=a::..::i::..:.n--=S--'-'tr:..::e-=-e-=-t &=-=--7:....:t.:..:.h--=S:....:::t1:....:·e'-"-e-=-t N=--=E'------------------- Signature of Applicant Applicant Information City of Charlottesville I hereby attest that the information I have provided is, to the Address:__ PO Box 91 l _____ Charlottesville, VA 22902 Email:__ _ Phone: (W) _ NARK.lE@charlottesville.gov Date 434.970.3664 RJ Narkie Property Owner Information (if not applicant) Print Name Date Address:----------------- Property Owner Permission (if not applicant) I have read this application and hereby give my consent to its submission. Email:---,-.,...,----------------- Phone: (W) _______ {C) _____ _ Signature Date Do you intend to apply for Federal or State Tax Credits for this project? __ n_o _______ _ Print Name Date Description of Proposed Work (attach separate narrative if necessary): Install metal security fence and gate at alley between City Hall (Marke-t'S'-'t-re-e-:-t-e'le_v_a...,.t.,....io-n")_a_n_d'G=-e-n-er-a Court List All Attach!'rlents (see rev~rse side for submittal reqyire-ment~): Dept. of Pub he Works drawmgs GDC/Michie Annex Security Gate, dated May 7, 2021: Sheets A0l and A02. For Office Use Only Approved/Disapprovedby: _________ _ Received by: ___________ _ Date: ________________ _ Fee paid: _____ Cash/Ck.# ___ _ Conditions of approval: __________ _ Date Received: __________ _ Revised 2016 EXAMPLE OF FENCEW/ PANICBARAS APPROVED BY FIREMARSHAL'S OFFICE NEWGATEINSTALLATION AREA EAST MARKET STREET - ,-- L( - II == n? b [ - ===:JI b lJ__ □ 1--,........ll--U--------1 L--~==~ r--=======--=:::::;-;:::~-=-=:_fl:::r:::::::::r:::;_ - \ ,_ "" I I / LJ w = \ - 1rNEW GATE HERE\ [ I 11---r--. < ~ /---I ANNEX GENERAL I ....,____ MICHIE I - I ~ < - DISTRICT BLDG - COURT ~ I ~;:=====::::±.==~-.--~- -_ ~___., tt:::'...=I I c::::::: \ ~-----, j ----....------!I \ b------..i-------" \f§sj I = \__' L / - -- "" - PLANVIEW 1/8• = 1•-o• SCALE rr THE CITY OF ProjectGDC MICHIE ANNEX SECURITY GATE Date: 5/7/2021 CHARLOTTESVILLE Drawing: PLAN Page: Department of Public Works Facilities Development 305 4th Street, N.W. ------------------ Revision: DRAFT AO1 Charlottesville, VA 22903 copyright 2005 - The City of Charlottesville - all rights reserved GENERAL Building DetailsNot DISTRICTShown MICHIEANNEX COURT BLDG -u- --u- Building DetailsNot Shown ~ '1-,<:> ,/~ -~ -S,~ 4X4 Square Post -- II II ~ II II II II II llx ---1 ~" Square Supports ,. /f' Square Pickets - 4" Apart 8 ~" WideSupport VonDuprinPanic Device :x 99 LeverTrim - Lockable Wire Mesh - Size TBD /Fasten side panels to side II II V 1111111111 11 11 of building. 1 SOUTH ELEVATION A01 SCALE 3/8.. = 1•-0• GENERAL MICHIE ANNEX DISTRICT BLDG COURT Building Details Not Building Details Not Shown Shown 9 = II I II II I II II II II II ~ VonDuprinPanic Device 98/99 Series Panic Device - .i" II I II II I II II II II II 2 SOUTH ELEVATION A01 SCALE 3/8.. = 1•-0• THE CITY OF ProjectGDC MICHIE ANNEX SECURITY GATE Date: 5/7 /21 CHARLOTTESVILLE Department of Public Works Facilities Development Drawing: ....__ Revision: ELEVATIONS ___ -----4 Page: A02 305 4th Street, N.W. DRAFT Charlottesville, VA 22903 copyright 2005 - The City of Charlottesville - all rights reserved Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 21-06-02 5 Gildersleeve Wood, TMP 110018000 Oakhurst-Gildersleeve ADC District Owner/Applicant: Deren Bader and Paul Lyons Project: Replace sash in ten windows Application components (please click each link to go directly to PDF page): • Staff Report • Historic Survey • Application Submittal June 15, 2021 BAR Packet Guide 4 City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Staff Report June 15, 2021 Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 21-06-02 5 Gildersleeve Wood, TMP 110018000 Oakhurst-Gildersleeve ADC District Owner/Applicant: Deren Bader and Paul Lyons Project: Replace sash in ten windows Background Year Built: House: c1921; Garage: c1950 District: Oakhurst-Gildersleeve ADC District Status: Contributing (both) Colonial Revival style home with a detached two-car garage. (The historic survey is attached.) Prior BAR Review (see Appendix) Application • Submittal: Pella Reserve window information and photographs of 5 Gildersleeve Wood and a similar house on Thomson Road. CoA request to replace the contemporary, single-lite sash (c1980) in ten windows with new that 6/1 sash that will replicate the original, c1920 windows. New sash to be Pella Reserve: Insulated glass; six-lite upper sash will have 7/8” applied grilles and internal spacer bars. Discussion and Recommendations Staff recommends approval as submitted. Suggested Motion Approval: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find the proposed window replacements for 5 Gildersleeve 5 Gildersleeve Wood (June 9, 2021) 1 Wood satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are compatible with this property and other properties in the Oakhurst-Gildersleeve ADC District, and that the BAR approves the application [as submitted.] […as submitted with the following conditions: …] Denial: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find the proposed window replacements for 5 Gildersleeve Wood do not satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are not compatible with this property and other properties in the Oakhurst-Gildersleeve ADC District, and that for the following reasons the BAR denies the application as submitted: Criteria, Standards and Guidelines Review Criteria Generally Sec. 34-284(b) of the City Code states that, in considering a particular application the BAR shall approve the application unless it finds: 1) That the proposal does not meet specific standards set forth within this division or applicable provisions of the Design Guidelines established by the board pursuant to Sec.34-288(6); and 2) The proposal is incompatible with the historic, cultural or architectural character of the district in which the property is located or the protected property that is the subject of the application. Pertinent Standards for Review of Construction and Alterations include: 1) Whether the material, texture, color, height, scale, mass and placement of the proposed addition, modification or construction are visually and architecturally compatible with the site and the applicable design control district; 2) The harmony of the proposed change in terms of overall proportion and the size and placement of entrances, windows, awnings, exterior stairs and signs; 3) The Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation set forth within the Code of Federal Regulations (36 C.F.R. §67.7(b)), as may be relevant; 4) The effect of the proposed change on the historic district neighborhood; 5) The impact of the proposed change on other protected features on the property, such as gardens, landscaping, fences, walls and walks; 6) Whether the proposed method of construction, renovation or restoration could have an adverse impact on the structure or site, or adjacent buildings or structures; 7) Any applicable provisions of the City’s Design Guidelines. Pertinent Guidelines for Rehabilitation: Windows […] 9) Reconstruction should be based on physical evidence or old photographs. 10) Avoid changing the number, location, size, or glazing pattern of windows by cutting new openings, blocking in windows, or installing replacement sash that does not fit the window opening. 11) Do not use inappropriate materials or finishes that radically change the sash, depth of reveal, muntin configuration, reflective quality or color of the glazing, or appearance of the frame. 12) Use replacement windows with true divided lights or interior and exterior fixed muntins with internal spacers to replace historic or original examples. 5 Gildersleeve Wood (June 9, 2021) 2 13) If windows warrant replacement, appropriate material for new windows depends upon the context of the building within a historic district, and the age and design of the building. Sustainable materials such as wood, aluminum-clad wood, solid fiberglass, and metal windows are preferred. Vinyl windows are discouraged. 14) False muntins and internal removable grilles do not present an historic appearance and should not be used. APPENDIX Prior BAR Reviews December 16, 2008 – BAR approved demolition of a shed (8-0). Renovations of porches, sunroom and 2-car garage approved 6-2 (Hogg, Knight). April 12, 2009 – BAR approved the request to remove a tree 7-0 on the consent agenda. July 20, 2010 - BAR could not support the proposal in current form. Mass and details are problematic. Outbuildings should be deferential to, and reflective of, the main structure. Note that accessory dwellings are not permitted in this zoning district. November 16, 2010 - BAR accepted applicant’s request for deferral (8-0). The BAR asked the applicant to continue to reduce the scale in relation to the main house, make the shape of the roof more sympathetic, and provide a site plan showing proposed improvements. August 16, 2011 – BAR accepted (5-0) applicant’s request for deferral. The BAR consensus was to further simplify the design of, and reduce the size of the proposed studio (find a balance between the use/size); submit additional information regarding the changes to the front wall, driveway, addition to garage, and landscaping removal; general accord with rear tree removal but before making that decision they want to see the revised studio and a site plan for the rear yard. November 15, 2011 - BAR approved (7-1-1, Hogg opposed, Osteen abstaining) the proposed site changes to the front yard, landscaping changes, and the change in roof material as submitted. Further, the proposed garage addition and the supplemental landscape lighting including the post at the front are not approved as submitted, and the applicant is requested to revise those to be consistent with the Design Guidelines. January 17, 2012 - BAR approved (9-0) applicant’s preferred R-2 fixture on the existing stone pier, the motion detector lights, and the changes to the shed roof as submitted. 5 Gildersleeve Wood (June 9, 2021) 3 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 104-5092-0014 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data Property Information Property Names Property Evaluation Status Name Explanation Name Function/Location House, 5 Gildersleeve Wood Not Evaluated Property Addresses This Property is associated with the Oakhurst/Gildersleeve Current - 5 Gildersleeve Wood Neighborhood Historic District. County/Independent City(s): Charlottesville (Ind. City) Incorporated Town(s): No Data Zip Code(s): 22903 Magisterial District(s): No Data Tax Parcel(s): No Data USGS Quad(s): CHARLOTTESVILLE WEST Additional Property Information Architecture Setting: Town Acreage: No Data Site Description: On east side of Gildersleeve Wood; stone wall along road; mature oaks; side driveway with stone gateposts leads back to garage. ----------------------------- Located south of house. Surveyor Assessment: The original owner of this Colonial Revival-style modified American Foursquare was R. Chapin Jones, who was Director of the Virginia Forest Service (now the Virginia Department of Forestry) as well as an instructor in Forestry at the University. His daughter Carolyn J. Silver, still lives in the house. It is one of the earliest dwellings on Gildersleeve Wood and is a contributing element to the potential Oakhurst-Gildersleeve Neighborhood Historic District. Surveyor Recommendation: No Data Ownership Ownership Category Ownership Entity Private No Data Primary Resource Information Resource Category: Domestic Resource Type: Single Dwelling NR Resource Type: Building Historic District Status: Contributing Date of Construction: Ca 1921 Date Source: Site Visit/Map Historic Time Period: World War I to World War II (1917 - 1945) Historic Context(s): Domestic Other ID Number: No Data Architectural Style: Colonial Revival Form: No Data Number of Stories: 2.0 Condition: Excellent Threats to Resource: None Known Architectural Description: This 2-story, 3-bay, hip-roofed (asphalt shingle), stuccoed dwelling uses elements of the Colonial Revival style. These include overhanging eaves, an interior-end brick chimney, 10-light sidelights around the front door, 1/1 and 6/1-sash windows, 1-bay side and front porches with Doric columns, an eyebrow dormer, and a tripartite multi-light/1 bay window on the first-floor front. Constructed ca. 1921, the house is well preserved. June 10, 2021 Page: 1 of 3 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 104-5092-0014 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data Exterior Components Component Component Type Material Material Treatment Roof Hipped Asphalt Shingle Foundation Solid/Continuous No Data Stucco Chimneys Interior End Brick No Data Structural System and Frame Wood Stuccoed Exterior Treatment Porch 1-story, 1-bay Wood Columns, Doric Windows Sash, Double-Hung Wood 6/1 Secondary Resource Information Secondary Resource #1 Resource Category: Domestic Resource Type: Garage Date of Construction: 1950Ca Date Source: Site Visit Historic Time Period: The New Dominion (1946 - 1991) Historic Context(s): Domestic Architectural Style: No Data Form: No Data Condition: No Data Threats to Resource: None Known Architectural Description: Garage: 1950s, this hip-roofed, stuccoed, 2-car garage was constructed in order to accommodate a larger car than the old garage would allow. Number of Stories: No Data Secondary Resource #2 Resource Category: DSS Legacy Resource Type: Shed Date of Construction: 1921Ca Date Source: Site Visit Historic Time Period: World War I to World War II (1917 - 1945) Historic Context(s): Domestic Architectural Style: No Data Form: No Data Condition: No Data Threats to Resource: None Known Architectural Description: Shed: This ca. 1921 hip-roofed stuccoed building was the original garage and was later converted into a shed. Number of Stories: No Data Historic District Information Historic District Name: Oakhurst/Gildersleeve Neighborhood Historic District Local Historic District Name: No Data Historic District Significance: No Data CRM Events June 10, 2021 Page: 2 of 3 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 104-5092-0014 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data Event Type: Survey:Phase I/Reconnaissance Project Review File Number: HD104-5092 Investigator: Kalbian, Maral Organization/Company: Unknown (DSS) Photographic Media: No Data Survey Date: 3/1/2004 Dhr Library Report Number: No Data Project Staff/Notes: Survey conducted for the city of Charlottesville in preparation of Preliminary Information Form Project Bibliographic Information: Name: Bibb, Eugenia Record Type: Personal Papers Bibliographic Notes: Bibb, Eugenia, "Field Notes," April 15, 2004, 1545 Dairy Road, Charlottesville, Va. 22903 ----------------------------- Name: Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps Record Type: Map ----------------------------- Name: Chville Assessors Records Record Type: Local Records Bibliographic Notes: Web Site Bibliographic Information Bibliography: No Data Property Notes: No Data June 10, 2021 Page: 3 of 3 '' - Board of Architectural Review (BAR) Certificate of Appropriateness Please Return To: City of Charlottesville Department of Neighborhood Development Services P.O. Box 911, City Hall Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Telephone (434) 970-3130 Please submil. tun (f9t l.aul upiH and one (1} digital copy of appJication form and all attachments. Please include application fee as foUows: New construction project $375; Demolition of a contributing structure $375; Appeal of BAR decision $125; .Additjons a,odptberprojectsregujrjngBARapproval $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 Daren Bader and Paul Lyons Applicant Name__ (o_wn_e_r_) ____________ _ ________ Project Name/Description__ W_in_d_o_w_re_p_la_c_e_m_e_n_t ______ Parcel Number__ l_l_O_O_lS_o_o_o _ Project Property Address __ s_G_i_ld_e_rs_I_ee_v_e_W_o_od ________________________ _ Signature of Applicant Applicant Information I hereby attest that the information I have provided is, to the Address: __s_G~ild~e_rs_l_ee_v_e_W~oo_d~~------­ best of my knowledge, correct. Charlottesv11le, Va 22903 Email: gilderwood@gmail.com z;>U(l;t,8~ Phone: (W)_______ (C) _____ _ Signature Date Deren Bader 4/5/21 Property Owner Information {if not applicant}i.-,dtrim to Print Name Date Address:_______________ _ Property Owner Permission (if not applicant) I have read this application and hereby give my consent to Email:_________________ _ its submission. Phone:(W)_______ (C}_____ _ DU(l;t,8~ Signature Date Do you intend to apply for Federal or State Tax Credits Deren Bader 4/5/21 for this project? __________ _ Print Name Date Description of Proposed Work (attach separate narrative if necessary):.~=-------,--~~...,.._---,-~--~~­ Replace the sash in ten (10) cl980s aluminum, 1/1, double-hung windows with Pella Reserve sash with insulated glass--applied grille on upper sash. New sash to be 6/1, replicating the original c1920 windows. Exterior wood trim to remain. List All Attachments (see reverse side for submittal requirements): Attached photos and Pella spec For Office Use Only Approved/Disapproved by: ________ _ Re~edby: Q, 2u:::xlob Date: ________________ _ ~e paid: ~Cash/Ck.# ~ Conditions of approval: __________ _ Date Received: :;>llO\2'9,.J Revised 2016 ' ' 5 Gildersleeve Wood Cuslomer:PAULLYONS Project Name: Paul l~ - 5 Gilde!sleeveWood, Clla!lollenile Quote~: 13885933 1 u.• t.ocalila: ~ 10 UPSTAIRS Pella®Reserve,Traditional,DoubleHung,34 X65,White ~ 1D Pl(. 1: Tr.ldilionall.Non-StaAdard Siutlon-Sbndalrd Sia Doui,a,o ~ Equal ~Sia:34XM 2085 GtMfal lnfonullon: St.lndanl. lumy. Clad. Plot. 5", 3 111111" &terior CGlcwI Finish: P...i., Sandalnl Endlncl;od, MIR lnwrior Coler I Fxiisll: Wheat StMl lnleriar Sash IP.-1: Clgff. Clgff, Slandanl. No Sash lugs v.. Light Pole Transition Pieces Light Pole Transition Pieces SKU#: LP-TP Volume D1scountsAvai"'a=-=e,------------------ was$45.BB $36.00 Quantity Price 2-5 $33.00 6+ $30.50 Color• Color* l!!' ADDTOCART According to manufacturer: Usually ships in 2-3 weeks Ships directly from the factory floor to ensure the quickest available delivery. Fixture Sold Separately. Note: Post top fitter (where fixture mounts) is 2.667 inches. • UNDERSTANDING OUR ESTIMATEDllEAD TIMES • ORDERp).ACEO .. PROCESSING TIME ORDERS1-!IPPED 1RANS1TTIME DELl\fEID' 0 0 0 Related Downloads lmJ;!erialProduct DescriJ;!tion lmJ;!erialInstallation Instructions .(ht!J;!s://media.alwka.com/groductattachments/files/downloacf$iflpsehiaedia.alwka.com/woductattachments/files/downloads/ gdf.gd!}, ·equently Bought Together . ,' .(httgs://www.bestgrice .(ht!J;!s://www.bestwice .(httgs://www.bestwice gole-with-brackets­ gole-transition­ gole-brackets-only). no-base). gieces-for-6sg), Light Pole Brackets Light Pole with Light Pole Trans­ .(onlY.) Brackets (no base). ition Pieces for 6SQ .(htlJ;!s://www.bestJ;!ri .(httgs://www.bestgri .(httgs://www.bestgri S4t.OO Sffit.86 S'l&.00 $32.94 $149.97 $56.00 0 Product SP-ecifications Weight 1Olbs I Brand I +- Imperial Street Lights Shipping Info ''f Usually ships in 2-3 weeks f ' f -- ----- - ---- ------➔! Brand Category Residential Lighting . . Lamps Included No CUSTOMERS WHO TRUSTED BEST PRICE IN THE UNIVERSE WITH THEIR PROJECTS < > ~ More.t\boutOurCo\"llp61Vl~ Our posts are designed to acconnnodate all industry standard 3" OD post lanterns. A mounting template and anchor bolts are included with most posts. The posts are available in all of o.ur quality finishes. SMB! also available in 8' and 12' length, SMB1-8i& SMBl-12, / .= *Ailchor·bo]tset ·- n~tiilctud~d L withSMBI pos'.. r --..._., c ~ik ~ =~.~--­ o:nf ~ ~ ·I J-Bolts Item# SMBJI 2 ~'s;io/Three J-Boltf: ~1 SMBl-10 509 507 506 503 WRB-6 WRB-1 Cast Aluminum Cast Aluminum Cast Aluminum Cast Aluminum Cast Aluminum WrapAroundBase WrapAroundBase Height 120" Height 99" Height 90'' Height72" Height42" Forusc·w/ 3" 0/D Forusew/ 3" 0/D 11"Base Fluted Pole .Fluted Pole 10 1/4" Base 10 1/4" Base post only.Height 32"- pcistonly. Height26?' IO 1/4" Base 10 1/4" Base 11 3/4_''Base 7 J,,2"Base -Stf Please see p~ge-82 for finish choices available for Surface,Mount;Posts '---~--------------------------------~-- 1•,;;;-~~;;_· ..~-·~------------------' H1f.PG:// 13f:5TPRICEINTH6UNI\/ER'.5S:, COM/ WR130-SletN-POLe­ DE'CORATIV5-BASes-TOV\lN-SQUAR5-G5!clBS- 3 - Price the iNCH-GUP-oV5R: _(httgs://www.bestgriceintheuniverse.com/). ~ > WRB6 Sign Pole Decorative Bases - Town Square Series - 3 inch Slip Over WRB6 Sign Pole Decorative Bases - Town Square Series - 3 inch Slip Over SKU#: WRB6 o ume Discounfs Ava1la6 e was S215.BB $171.94 Quantity Price 2-5 $171.00 6+ $162.67 Color• Color* ~ ADDTOCART According to manufacturer: Usually ships in 10 to 14 business days Ships directly from the factory floor to ensure the quickest available delivery. Contact us at (866) 707-0008 to get freight details or to place an order. • UNDERSTANDING OUR ESl'KMATED lEAD TIMES • ORDERPLACED .. PROCESSINGTIME ORDERSHIPPED .. TRANSITTIME DELIVERY l, 0 0 Related Downloads .§i,ecial Lite Lighting Catalog .§i,ecial Lite Mailbox Catalog .(htti,s://media.alwka.com/i,roductattachments/files/download'"1'1!11;1:1®'1l!!@it@PajRlgp1m'.rifuductattachments/files/dow Details About Special Lite Products Since 1967, Special Lite Products Company, Inc. has served millions of homes by designing, manufacturing and importing the finest quality cast aluminum outdoor lighting fixtures, mailboxes, posts and accessories. Special Lite is known to carry only the highest quality products that offer beauty and useful functionality at the same time, all the time. Sign Pole Decorative Bases Special Lite offers five decorative pole bases. The Vista Series, Del Flora Series, Town Square, and WRB7 Base each fit over a 3" diameter round pole for that extra decorative appeal. The Main Street Series base accommodates the square shape of the Main Street sign posts. Click here to view all colors & finish oi,tions for Si,ecial Lite Products (htti,://site.budgetmailboxes.com/blog/si,ecial­ lite-P.roducts-colors-finishes.html) .. Classic Series WRB1 Fits over 3" O/D Round Pole Two Piece Design 26" High 7 1/2" Diameter Del Flora Series WRB2 Fits over 3" 0/D Round Pole 26" High 6 3/4" Diameter Main Street Series WRB3 Fits over 4" Square Pole 14" High ?"Wide Town Square Series WRB6 Fits over 3" 0/D Round Pole 28" High 11 3/4" Diameter Metro Series WRB7 Fits over 3" 0/D Round Pole 4 3/16" High 7" Diameter Product S(!ecifications Documents & Downloads CUSTOMERS WHO TRUSTED BEST PRICE IN THE UNIVERSE WITH THEIR PROJECTS < > 0 ,·--- ! -- ~WITH ---·------- What are you shopping for? FERGUSON Account Projects Call --,,-------..~I ~------------------···----- Shipping to: North Garden, VA "' COVID-19 Update: Service & Delivery Info Item# bci3951169 Roseto Gaines3 Light 23" TallPost Lantern with Clear Glass Model:MVPL 1480MYB (4) I Write a Review < > $191.99 Free Shipping! Leaves the Warehouse Tomorrow, May 26th - ShiRRing to 22959 Finish: Mystic Black- 173 In Stock I Mystic h'llacK J' '--· ---------- --- -- -- - ---- - ~ll -~- + -l~[_____ -_- __M_ct~_c_art__ I.______L----==--=----~- - Save to Project 11 D Compare ---------------- Buy Now, Special Financing Available! On purchases of $500 for 6 months, or $1,000 for 12 months made with your Build.com Credit Card1 Click Here for Details - Overview --------- - Product Overview This product has additional required/recommended options. To configure, add to your cart. Post Lighting Accessories Required Features: • Clear Glass • Beautiful traditional style • Durable brass frame ensures years of reliable performance • Bulbs are not included with this item - bulb options will be presented upon checkout • Rated for installation and use in wet locations • Fully covered under manufacturer's limited lifetime warranty Dimensions: • Height: 23" • Width: 12" Electrical Specifications: • Number of Bulbs: 3 • Bulb Base: Candelabra (E12) • Watts per Bulb: 60 • Total Wattage: 180 • Voltage: 120 Additional Roseto Links • Browse all Roseto Products • Roseto Gaines Collection This product is listed under the following manufacturer number(s): Roseto MVPL1480AC Roseto MVPL 1480AB Aged Copper Antique Brass Roseto MVPL 1480MBZ Roseto MVPL 1480MYB Medici Bronze Mystic Black Roseto MVPL 1480PWT Roseto MVPL 1480PB Pewter Polished Brass Dimensions and Measurements Diameter e 12 in. Height e 23 in. Product Weight e 8.5 lbs. Width e 12 in. Wire Length e 6 in. 8 Included Components Bulb Included e No Motion Sensor e No Post Included e No Characteristics and Features Base Color 8 Bronze, Black, Copper, Brass, Pewter Bulb Base 0 Candelabra (E12) Bulb Shape 0 B10 Polished Finish Application 0 Genre 0 Traditional Glass Features 0 Clear Glass Light Direction 0 Ambient Lighting Material 0 Brass, Copper Number of Bulbs 0 3 Photocell 0 No Shade Color 0 Clear Shade Material 0 Glass Shade Shape 0 Lantern Solar 0 No Suggested Room Fit 0 Outdoor Theme 0 Traditional Electrical and Operational Information Power Source 0 Hardwired Voltage 0 120 Wattage 0 180 Watts Per Bulb 0 60 8 Warranty and Product Information Collection 0 Gaines Dark Sky 0 No Energy Star 0 No ETLListed 0 Yes ETLRating 0 Wet Location Location Rating 0 Wet Location Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 21-06-04 1001 West Main Street, TMP 100050000 West Main ADC District Owner: M & J Real Estate, LLC Applicant: Michael Martin/State Permits, Inc. Project: Mural on east (side) façade Application components (please click each link to go directly to PDF page): • Staff Report • Historic Survey • Application Submittal June 15, 2021 BAR Packet Guide 6 City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Staff Report June 15, 2021 Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-06-04 1001 West Main Street, TMP 100050000 West Main ADC District Owner: M & J Real Estate, LLC Applicant: Michael Martin, State Permits, Inc. Project: Mural on east (side) facade Background Year Built: c1920, 1936 District: West Main Street ADC District Status: Non-contributing A remnant of West Main’s 20th century auto-centric history, this structure has been modified and repurposed. The two-story, NE corner is the earliest and of heavy frame and brick with a modern concrete-block and metal panel facing. The SE corner, added after 1920 as a service station, featured an aluminum-framed display windows and an awning. The west end, built in 1936, is brick veneer over terra-cotta block with industrial windows and a bowstring-truss roof from an airplane hangar. This wing had garage door bays and was faced with enameled metal panels. Prior BAR Reviews (See Appendix for complete summary) March 2021 – BAR approved CoA for alterations to the east end of the building, including signage, new entrance door and transom, and modification to the parking area, including regrading, new railing, planters, and bike racks. Application • Submittal: Starbucks submittal, Mural Design Package, dated May 24, 2021: Cover; page 2; page 3, About the Artists (dated November 30, 2020); page 4, Area Map; page 5, Photos; page 6, [East Wall] Exterior Elevation*; pages 7 - 9, Proposed Exterior (renderings); and page 10, Proposed Mural. (* Note: Page 6 is from the CoA submittal approved by the BAR in March 2021. It is included for reference only and does not represent any changes to what was approved.) CoA request for a painted mural on the east façade, facing 10th Street, NW. 1001 West Main - Mural (June 8, 2021) 1 Discussion and Recommendations Staff recommends approval. The proposed mural does not obscure or interfere with architectural elements. While the Guidelines do not recommend covering an entire wall, this mural provides a point of interest on relatively featureless, painted masonry wall on the side of a former automobile service station. Furthermore, while the BAR does not evaluate the content of a proposed mural, this building sits at the entrance to the adjacent 10th and Page Neighborhood and this mural reflects on, is compatible, and, in fact, through one of the two artists, is generationally rooted in the historic narrative of that neighborhood. 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 mural at 1001 West Main Street satisfies the BAR’s criteria and is compatible with this property and other properties in the West Main ADC District, and that the BAR approves the application [as submitted.] […as submitted with the following conditions: …] Denial: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find the proposed mural at 1001 West Main Street does not satisfy the BAR’s criteria and is not compatible with this property and other properties in the West Main ADC District, and that for the following reasons the BAR denies the application as submitted: Criteria, Standards, and Guidelines Review Criteria Generally Sec. 34-284(b) of the City Code states that, in considering a particular application the BAR shall approve the application unless it finds: (1) That the proposal does not meet specific standards set forth within this division or applicable provisions of the Design Guidelines established by the board pursuant to Sec. 34-288(6); and (2) The proposal is incompatible with the historic, cultural or architectural character of the district in which the property is located or the protected property that is the subject of the application. Pertinent Standards for Review of Construction and Alterations include: 1) Whether the material, texture, color, height, scale, mass and placement of the proposed addition, modification or construction are visually and architecturally compatible with the site and the applicable design control district; 2) The harmony of the proposed change in terms of overall proportion and the size and placement of entrances, windows, awnings, exterior stairs and signs; 3) The Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation set forth within the Code of Federal Regulations (36 C.F.R. §67.7(b)), as may be relevant; 4) The effect of the proposed change on the historic district neighborhood; 5) The impact of the proposed change on other protected features on the property, such as gardens, landscaping, fences, walls and walks; 6) Whether the proposed method of construction, renovation or restoration could have an adverse impact on the structure or site, or adjacent buildings or structures; 7) Any applicable provisions of the City’s Design Guidelines. Pertinent Design Guidelines – Chapter VI: Public Design and Improvements J. Public Art, Statues, & Fountains 1. Maintain existing features related to public art, statues and fountains. 1001 West Main - Mural (June 8, 2021) 2 2. Public art is preferred that offers a place-making role in celebrating and communicating the history and culture of the districts. 3. Develop an appropriate relationship between materials, the scale of artwork and the surrounding environment. 4. Choose artwork that is appropriate for the current general character of the site. 5. Consider the appropriateness of the sculpture base. 6. Public art, statues, and fountains shall be maintained as accessible to the public. 7. A mural’s appearance, materials, colors, size, and scale should be compatible with the building and historic district of which the building is a part. 8. The use of neon, luminescent, or reflective paint or materials is discouraged. 9. A mural should not obscure or distort the historic features of a building, and should not cover an entire wall. 10. Murals painted on primary facades are rarely permitted and strongly discouraged. 11. In general, previously unpainted masonry should be left unpainted. 12. Painting directly onto the walls of a non-contributing building, or adding a mural to a previously-painted, non-primary elevation of a contributing building will be considered on a case-by-case basis. 13. In general, murals should be created on removable material, not directly on a building wall; installed on framing that allows water to weep between the mural and the wall; and attachments should not irrevocably damage the building. 14. Mural art that constitutes a sign shall conform to the sign regulations. APPENDIX Prior BAR Reviews August 19, 2014 - BAR approved (6-0-1, Mohr) removal of metal panels on the façade. Application: http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/622635/BAR_1001%20West%20Main%20S treet_Aug2014.pdf January 20, 2015 – BAR approved (7-0) design that would “unify the building, while giving a nod to its historic context.” The goal is to “provide functioning commercial, retail and service space for the growing surrounding context, while still allowing the historic aesthetic to be legible.” • Install garage-style storefront window systems in locations of previous garage doors. Dark bronze aluminum frames with horizontal muntins and clear glass. • Add some new or enlarged openings with fixed, clear class and horizontal muntins; also close two openings on east side. • Add three new canopies on main entrances, consisting of white steel frame and Douglas Fir wood slats with recessed down-lighting. Attached with steel cable support system. • Level and clean cornice on east façade. • Replace roof in same location and design. A 7’ louvered screen system will screen rooftop mechanical. • Parge and paint existing concrete masonry units (CMU). • Paint colors: Benjamin Moore Squire Hill Bluff (primary) and Graphite (trim). • Remove metal siding from rear of building. Parge and paint masonry. Basement windows will have glass blocks; second floor windows same material, style, and color as others. 1001 West Main - Mural (June 8, 2021) 3 Application: http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/622636/BAR_1001%20West%20Main%20Stree t_Jan2015.pdf September 17, 2015 – Administrative approval to demolish an unstable section of the front wall (east side), to re-frame, and to replace glass per approval plan. Application: http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/649270/BAR_1001%20West%20Main%20S treet_Sept2015.pdf November 15, 2016 – BAR approved changes to the west side of the building, revising the design for the building approved in January 2015. • The window and door openings remain the same on the front and rear facades; on the west façade an existing opening will be reduced in size. • The parapet is proposed to be raised in the front center façade to create a surround at the entrance doors. • The materials and colors of the west side of the building has changed from the original white painted masonry. Proposed materials are “Identity Wood” in dark brown and lighter brown, and Crossville “Basalt” 12’ x 24’ stacked tile at the entry surround. The building owner proposes to paint the east end of the building white, and to paint the rear of the building to match the lighter shade of brown. • Signage and lighting have changed. Three signs are proposed, which Zoning permits for a retail business on a corner site (101/2 Street and W Main Street). Two gooseneck lights are added at the entrance. Cove lighting is proposed along the metal cap at the roofline. Application: http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/698583/BAR_1001%20West%20Main%20Stree t_Nov2016.pdf 1001 West Main - Mural (June 8, 2021) 4 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 104-0323 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data Property Information Property Names Property Evaluation Status Name Explanation Name Current Name Pizza Hut Function/Location Gas Station, 1001 West Main Street Not Evaluated Historic Albemarle Gas & Oil Company Historic Team Tires Historic Wood Field Hangar Property Addresses Current - 1001 Main Street West Route 250 County/Independent City(s): Charlottesville (Ind. City) Incorporated Town(s): No Data Zip Code(s): 22903 Magisterial District(s): No Data Tax Parcel(s): No Data USGS Quad(s): CHARLOTTESVILLE EAST Additional Property Information Architecture Setting: Urban Acreage: No Data Site Description: Summary of 1996 form: This building is located within the general surroundings of a city. Surveyor Assessment: 1984: A 1907 edition of Sanborne's [sic] Insurance Map shows a 2-story brick furniture store on the western part of the property at 1012 Main Street, and a wood yard with wooden office on the eastern portion at 1003 West Main Street. This wood yard may have been associated with the Piedmont Lumber Corp. which had offices across the street at this time. 1996: This building relates to the 20th century automobile reorientation of West Main street and as such contributes to the historic character of the street. Its earliest section i said by one informant to have formerly served as a dance hall with upstairs rooms to let, a business known as the Stagger Inn. The filling station that forms the southeast corner of the building was built in the 1920s and was later embedded into additions. A Mr. Rothwell acquired the property about 1936 and added the west end, into which he incorporated roof trusses and windows from a hanger at the defunct Foxfield Airport (Wood Field). The business was known at this time as the Albemarle Gas & Oil Company. Surveyor Recommendation: Recommended Not Eligible Ownership Ownership Category Ownership Entity Private No Data Primary Resource Information Resource Category: Commerce/Trade Resource Type: Service Station NR Resource Type: Building Historic District Status: No Data Date of Construction: Ca 1936 Date Source: Oral History Historic Time Period: World War I to World War II (1917 - 1945) Historic Context(s): Commerce/Trade, Transportation/Communication Other ID Number: No Data Architectural Style: No discernible style Form: No Data Number of Stories: 2.0 March 10, 2021 Page: 1 of 2 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 104-0323 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data Condition: Good Threats to Resource: Demolition, Development Architectural Description: 1984: There are enameled metal panels on this 1-story, flat-roofed building with 7 bays. There is a 1-story 1-bay porch with a flat roof and a gas pump island. This building is a "modern enameled garage style" structure built ca. 1955. There is an entrance in every bay; the two east bays contain an office and have fixed plate glass windows with doors with large glass single lights. The western 5 bays are garage bays with 3 garage doors on the overhead tracts and 2 double door entries. There is 1 chimney in the northwest corner of the building. The building has had a history of consistent alteration. 1996: This composite building consists of 3 sections. The earliest section, of indeterminate age, is the building's 2-story northeast corner, and is of heavy frame and brick construction with a modern concrete-block and metal panel facing. The building's southeast corner was added as a service station, and it features aluminum-framed display windows and an awning. The west end is constructed of brick veneer over terra-cotta block and incorporates large industrial windows and a bowstring roof from a former airplane hanger. This wing has several garage door bays and is faced with enameled metal panels. Exterior Components Component Component Type Material Material Treatment Structural System and Masonry Brick Veneer Exterior Treatment Roof Flat Unknown No Data Windows Fixed Aluminum No Data Secondary Resource Information Historic District Information Historic District Name: No Data Local Historic District Name: No Data Historic District Significance: No Data CRM Events Event Type: Survey:Phase I/Reconnaissance Project Review File Number: No Data Investigator: J. Daniel Pezzoni Organization/Company: DHR Photographic Media: Film Survey Date: 5/22/1996 Dhr Library Report Number: No Data Project Staff/Notes: Reconnaissance survey by J. Daniel Pezzoni in 1996 for nearly all files. Original Historic Landmarks commission (Department of Community Development) surveys by Eugenia Bibb, Summer 1984 used for some of these files. Some of these surveys by Bibb date to 1985 or 1986 as well. There are also some Virginia Historic Landmarks Commission forms included from an unspecified year (the 1970s based on physical appearance of forms). These have been completed by W. Kille. Entry into V-CRIS database by Melina Bezirdjian, January 2014. Bibliographic Information Bibliography: Sanborn Maps of Charlottesville, 1891. Telephone interview with Harry Knauf, Charlottesville, VA: May 1996. Property Notes: No Data March 10, 2021 Page: 2 of 2 MURAL DESIGN PACKAGE DATE: 05/24/2021 PROJECT NAME: 1001 W Main St PROJECT TYPE: New STORE #: 65136 CPN# : 89931-001 REGION: Mid Atlantic CITY: Charlottesville, VA NEIGHBORHOOD: 10th & Page 1001 WEST MAIN STREET CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA We have been honored to work with the Charlottesville Mural Project and Bridge Progressive Arts Initiative to select two artists who have proposed a special collaboration for this important Charlottesville neighborhood. It is intended to be a welcoming, joyful burst of positivity created by and for the community. 0 5 . 24 . 20 20 2 1001 WEST MAIN STREET CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA A B O U T T H E A RT I S T S The Charlottesville Mural Project is pleased to join Starbucks in proposing a vibrant new mural on a non-primary cinder block facade at 1001 W. Main Street. The collaborative artwork by Hamilton Glass and Jae Johnson will transform an architecturally unremarkable wall by imbuing it with a sense of color and motion that enhances the existing character of the area. The mural incorporates perspectives shared by the 10th and Page Neighborhood Association and other residents, chief among them being the inclusion of a local artist in its creation. HAMILTON GLASS is among Virginia’s most prolific JAE JOHNSON is an emerging muralist from and distinguished muralists with a robust history of Charlottesville who has recently worked with The artwork is a striking and relevant complement to the existing visual landscape collaboration with artists and organizations across the Charlottesville Mural Project to create of public art in the immediate vicinity. The fow of the design tactfully accounts for the country, including The Boys & Girls Clubs and murals for Charlottesville Albemarle Technical window and architectural elements while simultaneously complementing both Wounded Warrior Project here in Charlottesville. Education Center, UVA Health, and UVA Athletics. the energy of W. Main Street and the warmth, vibrancy and neighborliness the He is the founder of Richmond’s Mending Walls Specializing in dynamic portraiture and figure project which uses public art as a tool to build drawing, he has exhibited work with New City Arts artists seek to celebrate in the adjacent 10th and Page community. empathy and connection. His career as an Initiative, McGuffey Art Center, and The Bridge artist stems from his architecture and design Progressive Arts Initiative. In adherence with BAR guidelines, the design is contained to portions of only one background. Despite working in the architecture wall, assuring it does not alter or distort the perceived geometry of the building. Born and raised in Charlottesville his family has field for 7 years, his passion for public art pushed multi-generational roots in the 10th and Page The Charlottesville Mural Project looks forward to working closely with both him to start a career as an artist. Neighborhood. esteemed artists to ensure the successful creation of what we believe will be an Public art has always been a big influence and inspiration of his, because of its power to influence iconic work of art for our city. and inspire the surrounding community. With every project he is given to create, a message is —Alan Gofÿnski, Executive Director built in that connects the work to the community The Bridge Progressive Arts Initiative & Charlottesville Mural Project in which it lives. 11.30.2020 3 1001 WEST MAIN STREET CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA VICINITY AND SITE PLAN W Main Stre et 2,034 sq ft 10th Street NW vicinity map key plan AREA MAP 0 5 . 24 . 20 20 4 1001 WEST MAIN STREET CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA INTERIOR/EXTERIOR PHOTOS 0 5 . 24 . 20 20 5 1001 WEST MAIN STREET CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 2 SCOPE OF WORK 1 NON-ILLUMINATED LOGO DISK 2 NON-ILLUMINATED IN-LINE PICK UP SIGN 3 AREA FOR MURAL (INDICATED BY GREEN SHADING) 4 BIKE PARKING RACKS 5 UPGRADED SLOPE GRADING TO ACCOMMODATE BIKE RACKS 1 2 3 4 5 KEY PLAN A B E X T E R I O R E L E VAT I O N W I T H S I G N AG E 0 5 . 24 . 20 20 6 1001 WEST MAIN STREET CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA KEY PLAN PROPOSED EXTERIOR - CUSTOM MURAL 0 5 . 24 . 20 20 7 1001 WEST MAIN STREET CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA KEY PLAN PROPOSED EXTERIOR - CUSTOM MURAL 0 5 . 24 . 20 20 8 1001 WEST MAIN STREET CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA KEY PLAN PROPOSED EXTERIOR - CUSTOM MURAL 0 5 . 24 . 20 20 9 1001 WEST MAIN STREET CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA Final work will be hand painted by the artists. PRO P O S ED CU S TOM MU R A L D I G I TA L S K E T C H 0 5 . 24 . 20 20 10 THANK YOU! Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 21-06-05 1511 [1509-1511] University Avenue, TMP 090078100 The Corner ADC District Owner: Amorgos, LLC Applicant: Abigail Arnold, RA/Red Architects Project: Storefront alterations Application components (please click each link to go directly to PDF page): • Staff Report • Historic Survey • Application Submittal June 15, 2021 BAR Packet Guide 7 City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Staff Report June 15, 2021 Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-06-05 1511 University Avenue, TMP 090078100 The Corner ADC District Owner: Amorgos, LLC Applicant: Abigail Arnold, RA/Red Architects Project: Storefront alterations Background Year Built: c1930 District: The Corner ADC District Status: Contributing This single story, brick building was constructed as a men’s clothing store. The Art Deco storefront has been modified, though portions remain: the side window’s tall transom featuring a sunburst tracery; the inset bricks bands with black glass corner blocks above the entry; the inset brick panels at the corner pier. Prior BAR Reviews October 20, 2015 – (1511 University Ave- College Inn) BAR denied approval for the deck. Approved CoA for (7-0) the storefront demolition and reconstruction as designed. Application • Applicant submittal: red architecture + planning drawings Store No: 4074, dated 05/21/2021: Sheets A0.0 through A0.6. Request CoA for alterations to the exterior elevations of the building, new signage, and new furnishings and railing at the outdoor café area. Project Narrative (From sheet A0.1) Chipotle Mexican Grill plans to renovate and occupy the existing [College Inn restaurant]. The changes proposed in this submittal are intended to embrace and preserve the history of the building 1511 University Ave (June 10, 2021) 1 and "The Corner" historic district while incorporating an appropriate level of trade dress for the Chipotle Mexican Grill brand into the overall design. The proposed design removes the existing white aluminum, operable storefront wall system and exterior white hex tile floor, and will be replaced by a non-operable charcoal-finished aluminum storefront wall system that will align with the original front wall location, as shown in the images from 1946. The existing storefront window on the west elevation with the transom panel of black Carrera glass in a stylized fan motif is in poor condition and will be replaced. The proposed design is a spandrel glass window that is faithful to the style and design of the original window. Further, the design replaces the existing white wood paneling and black trim of the College Inn sign with charcoal-finished, flat metal panels with white trim. The metal panel seam spacing will be nearly identical to the spacing of the wood panel widths, resulting in a similar aesthetic appearance. On the charcoal metal panels, flat white individual letters will spell out 'Chipotle' for the main sign. The square College Inn blade sign hung from the supports on the roof will be removed and replaced with a circular Chipotle Mexican Grill blade sign. Both signs will be externally illuminated by modern black powder coat adjustable sign lights installed in place of the existing gooseneck lighting. Lastly, the existing patio railing and furniture will be removed and replaced with Chipotle's prototypical style of patio railing and furniture. To match the existing surroundings, the furniture and railing will be moveable and painted [either] black [or charcoal gray]. Discussion and Recommendations Staff recommends approval of this request; however only after the following questions and conditions are resolved. Storefront Applicant indicated the glass will have a VLT of not less than 70%/. (email 6/9/2021) Windows Applicant indicated the glass will be dark, possibly gray. (email 6/9/2021) Art Deco window Applicant proposes to replace the window, with a matching lite pattern; however, the BAR should discuss with the applicant the available options, including further evaluation of repairing the window. Should questions remain, staff recommends the BAR consider approval of the CoA request with this window omitted. With that, what is done with the window would come back to the BAR as a later, separate submittal. Signage The BAR reviews the signage as part of the design review; however, all signage still requires a separate permit and must meet the sign regs relative to size, number, location. (Note: The photos in 5/A0.6 illustrate the sign lighting, not the sign design. The wall sign on the front facade will be simple, white letters on the gray panel, as shown in detail 3/A0.3.) 1511 University Ave (June 10, 2021) 2 Patio furniture The style and color are consistent with the guidelines. Staff does recommend a condition that the umbrellas be a uniform color and no signage or logos are allowed. Masonry Note on 2/A0.4 indicates the west elevation brick will be cleaned and sealed. • Cleaning the brick is fine, provided it is done appropriately. No abrasive chemicals, no high- pressure washing, etc., etc. • After the brick is cleaned, where necessary the wall should be properly repaired and repointed with an appropriate mortar. This building was constructed when Portland cement mortar was replacing lime mortar. Prior to any repairs, the applicant should determine which was used and make the repairs accordingly. • The guidelines recommend against water-proofing and sealing bricks. Staff advised the applicant and requested, if sealing is still planned, specification on the material to be used. Note on 3/A0.4 indicates the brick will be painted, which conflicts with the note on 2/A0.4. The applicant was asked to resolve and will advise. Regarding the infill masonry at this wall section, staff advised the applicant it is not necessary to make this appear as an original wall. The infill sections could be set back slightly and, while the infill should be red brick, is not critical that it match the existing. The BAR should discuss and request clarification. Exterior lighting fixtures and lamping No cut sheets provided. Staff recommends a condition that the lamping will be dimmable, have a Color Temperature not to exceed 3,000K, and have a Color Rendering Index not lower than 80, preferably not lower than 90. Also, that cut sheets will be submitted for the BAR record. Mechanical Rooftop ventilation is located at the rear. Mechanical units will be installed on the low platform at the east elevation. Recommended conditions: • Removal of all exterior wires, conduits, service boxes, pipes, etc. that are no longer in use or functioning. • Lamping for exterior lighting will be dimmable, have a Color Temperature not to exceed 3,000K, and have a Color Rendering Index not lower than 80, preferably not lower than 90. • Light fixture cur sheets will be submitted for the BAR record. • Umbrellas at the café space will be a uniform color and without signage or logos. • When the front sign board is removed, the existing condition will be photographed and submitted to staff. Suggested Motion Approval: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find the proposed alterations at 1511 University Avenue satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are compatible with this property and other properties in The Corner 1511 University Ave (June 10, 2021) 3 ADC District, and that the BAR approves the application as submitted, noting that signage will require a separate sign permit [.] […and with the following conditions: …] Denial: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find the proposed alterations at 1511 University Avenue do not satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are 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 (4) Federal Regulations (36 C.F.R. §67.7(b)), as may be relevant; (5) The effect of the proposed change on the historic district neighborhood; (6) The impact of the proposed change on other protected features on the property, such as gardens, landscaping, fences, walls and walks; (7) Whether the proposed method of construction, renovation or restoration could have an adverse impact on the structure or site, or adjacent buildings or structures; (8) Any applicable provisions of the City’s Design Guidelines. Pertinent Guidelines for Rehabilitation include: B. Facades and Storefronts 1. Conduct pictorial research to determine the design of the original building or early changes. 2. Conduct exploratory demolition to determine what original fabric remains and its condition. 3. Remove any inappropriate materials, signs, or canopies covering the façade. 4. Retain all elements, materials, and features that are original to the building or are contextual remodelings, and repair as necessary. 5. Restore as many original elements as possible, particularly the materials, windows, decorative details, and cornice. 6. When designing new building elements, base the design on the ‘typical elements of a Commercial façade and storefront’ (see drawing next page). 7. Reconstruct missing or original elements, such as cornices, windows, and storefronts, if documentation is available. 1511 University Ave (June 10, 2021) 4 8. Design new elements that respect the character, materials, and design of the building, yet are distinguished from the original building. 9. Depending on the existing building’s age, originality of the design and architectural significance, in some cases there may be an opportunity to create a more contemporary façade design when undertaking a renovation project. 10. Avoid using materials that are incompatible with the building or within the specific districts, including textured wood siding, unpainted or pressure-treated wood, and vinyl or aluminum siding. 11. Avoid introducing inappropriate architectural elements where they never previously existed. C. Windows 1) Prior to any repair or replacement of windows, a survey of existing window conditions is recommended. Note number of windows, whether each window is original or replaced, the material, type, hardware and finish, the condition of the frame, sash, sill, putty, and panes. 2) Retain original windows when possible. 3) Uncover and repair covered up windows and reinstall windows where they have been blocked in. 4) If the window is no longer needed, the glass should be retained and the back side frosted, screened, or shuttered so that it appears from the outside to be in use. 5) Repair original windows by patching, splicing, consolidating or otherwise reinforcing. Wood that appears to be in bad condition because of peeling paint or separated joints often can be repaired. 6) Replace historic components of a window that are beyond repair with matching components. 7) Replace entire windows only when they are missing or beyond repair. 8) If a window on the primary façade of a building must be replaced and an existing window of the same style, material, and size is identified on a secondary elevation, place the historic window in the window opening on the primary façade. 9) Reconstruction should be based on physical evidence or old photographs. 10) Avoid changing the number, location, size, or glazing pattern of windows by cutting new openings, blocking in windows, or installing replacement sash that does not fit the window opening. 11) Do not use inappropriate materials or finishes that radically change the sash, depth of reveal, muntin configuration, reflective quality or color of the glazing, or appearance of the frame. 12) Use replacement windows with true divided lights or interior and exterior fixed muntins with internal spacers to replace historic or original examples. 13) If windows warrant replacement, appropriate material for new windows depends upon the context of the building within a historic district, and the age and design of the building. Sustainable materials such as wood, aluminum-clad wood, solid fiberglass, and metal windows are preferred. Vinyl windows are discouraged. 14) False muntins and internal removable grilles do not present an historic appearance and should not be used. 15) Do not use tinted or mirrored glass on major facades of the building. Translucent or low (e) glass may be strategies to keep heat gain down. 16) Storm windows should match the size and shape of the existing windows and the original sash configuration. Special shapes, such as arched top storms, are available. 17) Storm windows should not damage or obscure the windows and frames. 18) Avoid aluminum-colored storm sash. It can be painted an appropriate color if it is first primed with a zinc chromate primer. 1511 University Ave (June 10, 2021) 5 19) The addition of shutters may be appropriate if not previously installed but if compatible with the style of the building or neighborhood. 20) In general, shutters should be wood (rather than metal or vinyl) and should be mounted on hinges. In some circumstances, appropriately dimensioned, painted, composite material shutters may be used. 21) The size of the shutters should result in their covering the window opening when closed. 22) Avoid shutters on composite or bay windows. 23) If using awnings, ensure that they align with the opening being covered. 24) Use awning colors that are compatible with the colors of the building. H. Masonry 1) Retain masonry features, such as walls, brackets, railings, cornices, window surrounds, pediments, steps, and columns that are important in defining the overall character of the building. 2) When repairing or replacing a masonry feature, respect the size, texture, color, and pattern of masonry units, as well as mortar joint size and tooling. 3) When repointing masonry, duplicate mortar strength, composition, color, and texture. a. Do not repoint with mortar that is stronger than the original mortar and the brick itself. b. Do not repoint with a synthetic caulking compound. 4) Repoint to match original joints and retain the original joint width. 5) Do not paint unpainted masonry. Maintenance Tips • Use knowledgeable contractors and check their references and methods. • Monitor the effects of weather on the condition of mortar and the masonry units and ensure that improper water drainage is not causing deterioration. • Prevent water from gathering at the base of a wall by ensuring that the ground slopes away from the wall or by installing drain tiles. • Prevent rising damp by applying a damp-proof course just above the ground level with slate or other impervious material. This work may require the advice of a historical architect. • Do not apply waterproof, water repellent or non-historic coatings in an effort to stop moisture problems; they often trap moisture inside the masonry and cause more problems in freeze/thaw cycles. • Repair leaking roofs, gutters, and downspouts; secure loose flashing. • Repair cracks which may indicate structural settling or deterioration and also may allow moisture penetration. • Caulk the joints between masonry and window frame to prevent water penetration. • Clean masonry only when necessary to halt deterioration or to remove heavy soiling. • Clean unpainted masonry with the gentlest means possible. • The best method is low-pressure water wash with detergents and natural bristly brushes. • Do not use abrasive cleaning methods, such as sandblasting or excessively high-pressure water washes. These methods remove the hard outer shell of a brick and can cause rapid deterioration. Sandblasted masonry buildings cannot receive federal or state tax credits. • Use chemical cleaners cautiously. Do not clean with chemical methods that damage masonry and do not leave chemical cleaners on the masonry longer than recommended. • Avoid freezing conditions when using water or water-based chemicals. 1511 University Ave (June 10, 2021) 6 • Damage caused by improper cleaning may include chipped or pitted brick, washed-out mortar, rounded edges of brick, or a residue or film. • Building owners applying for federal or state rehabilitation tax credits must conduct test patches before cleaning masonry. • Disintegrating mortar, cracks in mortar joints, loose bricks or damaged plaster work may signal the need for repair of masonry. • Repair damaged masonry features by patching, piecing in or consolidating to match original instead of replacing an entire masonry feature, if possible. • Repair stucco by removing loose material and patching with a new material that is similar in composition, color, and texture. • Patch stone in small areas with a cementitious material which, like mortar, should be weaker than the masonry being repaired. This type of work should be done by skilled craftsmen. • Use epoxies for the repair of broken stone or carved detail. Application of such materials should be undertaken by skilled craftsmen. Contact the Virginia Department of Historic Resources for technical assistance. • If masonry needs repaints, use an appropriate masonry paint system recommended by a paint manufacturer. • Use water-repellent coatings that breathe only as a last resort after water penetration has not been arrested by repointing and correcting drainage problems. L. Rear of Buildings 1) Meet all handicapped accessibility requirements. 2) Consolidate and screen mechanical and utility equipment in one location when possible. 3) Consider adding planters or a small planting area to enhance and highlight the rear entrance, and create an adequate maintenance schedule for them. 4) Retain any historic door or select a new door that maintains the character of the building and creates an inviting entrance. 5) Note building and ADA codes when and if changing dimensions or design of entrance. 6) Windows define the character and scale of the original façade and should not be altered. 7) If it is necessary to replace a window, follow the guidelines for windows earlier in this chapter. 8) If installation of storm windows is necessary, follow the guidelines for windows earlier in this chapter. 9) Remove any blocked-in windows and restore windows and frames if missing. 10) Security grates should be unobtrusive and compatible with the building. 11) Avoid chain-link fencing. Pertinent Guidelines for Signs, Awnings, Vending, and Cafes include. A. Signs 1. Types of Signs and Typical Locations [See design Guidelines. VI: Signs, Awnings, Vending, and Cafes ] 2. Placement a. Place signs so that they do not obstruct architectural elements and details that define the design of the building. b. Projecting signs for commercial buildings are limited to one per storefront. They should be no lower than 7 feet from the sidewalk, and no more than 3 feet from the surface of the building. They should not be placed above the second story sill line. For residential 1511 University Ave (June 10, 2021) 7 buildings, small projecting signs attached to the wall at the first floor or porch column are appropriate. d. Flat wall signs for commercial buildings can be located above the storefront, within the frieze of the cornice, on covered transoms, or on the pier that frames the display windows or generally on flat, unadorned surfaces of the façade or in areas clearly designed as sign locations. Flat wall signs for residential buildings can be appropriate if attached to the wall at the first floor or between porch columns. 3. Respect the signs of adjacent businesses. 4. Number of permanent signs a. The number of signs used should be limited to encourage compatibility with the building and discourage visual clutter. b. In commercial areas, signs should be limited to two total, which can be different types. c. A buildings should have only one wall sign per street frontage. d. In addition to the existing permitted signs, each business in a building with rear entrances may have one small flat mounted sign not to exceed 6 square feet. 5. Size a. All the signs on a commercial building should not exceed 50 square feet. b. Average height of letters and symbols should be no more than 12 inches on wall signs, 9 inches on awning and canopy signs, and 6 inches on window signs. c. Projecting signs should be a maximum of 10 square feet per face. e. Flat wall signs should not exceed 18 inches in height and should not extend more than 6 inches from the surface of the building. 6. Design a. Signs should be designed and executed by sign professionals who are skilled at lettering and surface preparation. 7. Shape a. Shape of signs for commercial buildings should conform to the area where the sign is to be located. b. Likewise, a sign can take on the shape of the product of service provided, such as a shoe for a shoe store. 8. Materials a. Use traditional sign materials, such as wood, glass, gold leaf, raised metal or painted wood letters, and painted wood letters on wood, metal, or glass. b. Newer products, such as painted MDO may also be used. c. Do not use shiny plastic products. d. Window signs should be painted or have decal flat letters and should not be three- dimensional. 9. Color a. Use colors that complement the materials and color of the building, including accent and trim colors. b. A maximum of three colors are recommended, although more colors can be appropriate. 10. Illumination a. Generally, signs should be indirectly lit with a shielded incandescent light source. b. Internally lit translucent signs are not permitted. […] 14. Halo-lit signs with opaque letters may be appropriate. 15. Sign Maintenance a. Signs that are not properly maintained should be removed. 1511 University Ave (June 10, 2021) 8 b. Signs of a business no longer occupying a building or storefront should be removed unless it is historically significant. E. Outdoor Cafes 1. Fences, Chains, and Bollards a. Should be wrought iron or black painted metal. b. Should be kept well-maintained. c. Chain-links shall be two inches in length or larger. d. Bollards shall be at least 3 inches in diameter. 2. Tables and Chairs a. Should be wrought iron, black painted or silvertone metal. Other materials or colors require BAR approval. b. Cloth tablecloths and removable seat cushions are permitted. Materials other than cloth, and color are subject to BAR approval. 3. Planters a. Should be compatible in terms of design, scale, and color with other elements of the café. The planter material shall be terra cotta or concrete. Other materials require BAR approval. 4. Umbrellas a. If used, may contain a maximum of one dark or neutral solid color that is compatible with the furniture. b. The size of the umbrella should be in scale with the table. Oversize umbrellas may be permitted, but all parts must be contained within the café space. c. No text is permitted on an outdoor café umbrella. 5. Trash Containers a. Black metal is preferred. b. Should be located within the café enclosure. Appendix Undated photo. (Roseberry) 1511 University Ave (June 10, 2021) 9 1511 University Ave (June 10, 2021) 10 TERRY VASSALOS 5/21/21 Consultant: r e d architecture + planning 589 w. nationwide blvd. suite b columbus, ohio 43215 tel: 614.487.8770 fax: 614.487.8777 COPYRIGHT 2021 THIS DRAWING IS AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE AND AS SUCH REMAINS THE PROPERTY OF CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC.. PERMISSION FOR USE OF THIS DOCUMENT IS LIMITED AND CAN BE EXTENDED ONLY BY WRITTEN AGREEMENT WITH CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC.. 3,125 SF 3 PROJECT VICINITY VIEW A0.0 N.T.S. CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC. PO BOX 182566 COLUMBUS, OH 43218-2566 TELEPHONE: 614.318.2400 INTERNET: WWW.CHIPOTLE.COM CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 AREA OF WORK 1511 UNIVERSITY AVE STORE NO.: 4074 UVA THE CORNER ADJACENT TENANT (N.I.C.) MINOR COURT LANE Issue Record: 05/21/21 BAR SUBMITTAL ADJACENT TENANTS (N.I.C.) MINOR COURT LANE Revisions: # ADJACENT TENANTS (N.I.C.) 2 PROJECT STREET VIEW - EXISTING CONDITIONS A0.0 N.T.S. SHEET INDEX PROJECT INFORMATION A0.0 - COVER PAGE PARCEL ID: 090078100 A0.1 - PROJECT NARRATIVE & BUILDING HISTORY ZONING: CD - CORNER DISTRICT CORRIDOR A0.2 - EXISTING CONDITIONS COUNTY: ALBEMARLE UN IVE Drawn: Checked: RS A0.3 - PROPOSED CONDITIONS PROPERTY TYPE: RESTAURANT (EXISTING AND PROPOSED) ITY CB, AA AA, TC AV A0.4 - EXTERIOR VIEW YEAR BUILT: 1930 EN UNIVERSITY OF UE Project No. VIRGINIA CAMPUS A0.5 - MATERIAL SAMPLES NEIGHBORHOOD: THE CORNER HISTORIC DISTRICT CMG1010 CONSTRUCTION TYPE: JOISTED MASONRY Contents: EXISTING SQUARE FOOTAGE: 3,125 SF (NO PROPOSED CHANGE) SCOPE OF WORK: ALTERATION OF THE EXISTING COLLEGE INN COVER PAGE KEY PLAN FOR A NEW CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL 1 A0.0 3/64" = 1'-0" A0.0 Consultant: r e d architecture + planning 589 w. nationwide blvd. suite b columbus, ohio 43215 tel: 614.487.8770 fax: 614.487.8777 3 VIEWS OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES - EXISTING CONDITIONS COPYRIGHT 2021 THIS DRAWING IS AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE A0.1 N.T.S. AND AS SUCH REMAINS THE PROPERTY OF CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC.. PERMISSION FOR USE OF THIS DOCUMENT IS LIMITED AND CAN BE EXTENDED ONLY BY WRITTEN AGREEMENT WITH CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC.. PROJECT NARRATIVE CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL PLANS TO RENOVATE AND OCCUPY THE EXISTING "THE COLLEGE INN" AND "CORNER GRILLED CHEESE" RESTAURANT SPACES ALONG UNIVERSITY AVENUE IN "THE CORNER" HISTORIC DISTRICT AREA OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA. THE CHANGES PROPOSED IN THIS SUBMITTAL ARE INTENDED TO EMBRACE AND PRESERVE THE HISTORY OF THE BUILDING AND "THE CORNER" HISTORIC DISTRICT WHILE INCORPORATING AN APPROPRIATE LEVEL OF TRADE DRESS FOR THE CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL BRAND INTO THE OVERALL DESIGN. THE PROPOSED DESIGN REMOVES THE EXISTING WHITE ALUMINUM, OPERABLE STOREFRONT WALL SYSTEM AND EXTERIOR WHITE HEX TILE FLOOR, AND WILL BE REPLACED BY A NON-OPERABLE CHARCOAL-FINISHED ALUMINUM STOREFRONT WALL SYSTEM THAT CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC. WILL ALIGN WITH THE ORIGINAL FRONT WALL LOCATION, AS SHOWN IN THE IMAGES FROM 1946. PO BOX 182566 COLUMBUS, OH 43218-2566 TELEPHONE: 614.318.2400 THE EXISTING STOREFRONT WINDOW ON THE WEST ELEVATION WITH THE TRANSOM PANEL OF BLACK CARRERA GLASS IN A INTERNET: WWW.CHIPOTLE.COM STYLIZED FAN MOTIF IS IN POOR CONDITION AND WILL BE REPLACED. THE PROPOSED DESIGN IS A SPANDREL GLASS WINDOW THAT IS FAITHFUL TO THE STYLE AND DESIGN OF THE ORIGINAL WINDOW. FURTHER, THE DESIGN REPLACES THE EXISTING WHITE WOOD PANELING AND BLACK TRIM OF THE COLLEGE INN RESTAURANT CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 SIGN WITH CHARCOAL-FINISHED FLAT METAL PANELS WITH WHITE TRIM. THE METAL PANEL SEAM SPACING WILL BE NEARLY IDENTICAL TO THE SPACING OF THE WOOD PANEL WIDTHS, RESULTING IN A SIMILAR AESTHETIC APPEARANCE. ON THE CHARCOAL 1511 UNIVERSITY AVE METAL PANELS, FLAT WHITE INDIVIDUAL LETTERS WILL SPELL OUT 'CHIPOTLE' FOR THE MAIN SIGN. THE SQUARE COLLEGE INN STORE NO.: 4074 UVA THE CORNER BLADE SIGN HUNG FROM THE SUPPORTS ON THE ROOF WILL BE REMOVED AND REPLACED WITH A CIRCULAR CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL BLADE SIGN. BOTH SIGNS WILL BE EXTERNALLY ILLUMINATED BY MODERN BLACK POWDER COAT ADJUSTABLE SIGN LIGHTS INSTALLED IN PLACE OF THE EXISTING GOOSENECK LIGHTING. LASTLY, THE EXISTING PATIO RAILING AND FURNITURE WILL BE REMOVED AND REPLACED WITH CHIPOTLE'S PROTOYPICAL STYLE OF PATIO RAILING AND FURNITURE. TO MATCH THE EXISTING SURROUNDINGS, THE FURNITURE AND RAILING WILL BE MOVEABLE AND PAINTED BLACK. BUILDING HISTORY THE BRICK COMMERCIAL BUILDING AT 1511 UNIVERSITY AVENUE, CONSTRUCTED CIRCA 1930 BY J.H. IRVING AND HARRY H. ROBINSON, REPLACED A FRAME BUILDING THAT HOUSED A GROCERY BUSINESS. THE COLLEGE INN RESTAURANT HAS OCCUPIED THE BUILDING SINCE 1953. AT SOME POINT AFTER 1946, THE ORIGINAL ART DECO STOREFRONT, WHICH WAS COMPOSED OF Issue Record: VIEWS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS CARRERA GLASS STOREFRONT WITH A SEMI-OCTAGONAL ARCHED CENTRAL ENTRANCE LOGGIA, WAS REPLACED WITH THE 2 05/21/21 BAR SUBMITTAL A0.1 N.T.S. CURRENT 50'S MID-CENTURY MODERN STOREFRONT WHICH ACCENTUATED THE TRAPEZOIDAL SHAPE OF THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT. THE EXISTING STOREFRONT IS STILL FRAMED BY A DECORATIVE BAND OF BRICK WITH CORNER BLOCKS OF BLACK CARRERA GLASS. IN 2015, THE COLLEGE INN RESTAURANT RECEIVED A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO MODIFY THE EXISTING STOREFRONT TO WHAT IS IS TODAY - A WHITE ALUMINUM, OPERABLE STOREFRONT WALL SYSTEM THAT IS SET BACK BEYOND THE FRONT FACADE OF THE BUILDING. TO GO ALONG WITH THE STOREFRONT CHANGES, COLLEGE INN ADDED AN Revisions: # EXTERIOR WHITE HEX TILE FLOOR TO THE RECESSED PATIO AREA. Drawn: Checked: CB, AA AA, TC Project No. CMG1010 Contents: PROJECT NARRATIVE & BUILDING HISTORY 1 A0.1 VIEWS OF 1946 BUILDING N.T.S. A0.1 Consultant: r e d DEMO SIGNAGE, PREPARE WALL DEMO INFILL PANELS; architecture + planning FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION PREPARE OPENING FOR 589 w. nationwide blvd. NEW CONSTRUCTION DEMO EXISTING DOOR, PREPARE suite b OPENING FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION columbus, ohio 43215 tel: 614.487.8770 fax: 614.487.8777 REMOVE EXISTING WALK-IN DEMO EXISTING DOOR; COOLER; PREPARE SLAB FOR PREPARE OPENING FOR FUTURE CONSTRUCTION FUTURE CONSTRUCTION 8" DEMO EXISTING DOOR, PREPARE OPENING FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION REMOVE DEMO PORTION OF EXISTING WALL, PREPARE FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION COPYRIGHT 2021 THIS DRAWING IS AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE AND AS SUCH REMAINS THE PROPERTY OF 6 DEMO ELEVATION - EAST 4 DEMO ELEVATION - WEST (CONT) CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC.. PERMISSION FOR USE OF THIS DOCUMENT IS LIMITED AND CAN BE A0.2 1/4" = 1'-0" A0.2 1/4" = 1'-0" EXTENDED ONLY BY WRITTEN AGREEMENT WITH CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC.. DEMO EXISTING ROOFTOP EQUIPMENT, TYP. REMOVE EXISTING GLAZING, TYP. OF (4) CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC. PO BOX 182566 COLUMBUS, OH 43218-2566 TELEPHONE: 614.318.2400 INTERNET: WWW.CHIPOTLE.COM REMOVE EXISTING STOREFRONT AND TRANSOM WINDOW CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 1511 UNIVERSITY AVE STORE NO.: 4074 UVA THE CORNER REMOVE UNUSED UTILITY METERS, PREPARE FOR FUTURE CONSTRUCTION 5 DEMO ELEVATION - WEST A0.2 1/4" = 1'-0" Issue Record: 05/21/21 BAR SUBMITTAL Revisions: # TENANT LEASE LINE DEMO EXISTING LIGHTS, TYP. OF (5) REMOVE WALL FINISHES, TYP. REMOVE CEILING AND REMOVE EXISTING DEMO SIGN AND DEMO WOOD CEILING FAN; TILE FLOOR FINISH WOOD PLANK FINISH FLOOR FINISH PRESERVE EXISTING 3 SIGN BOARD THROUGHOUT A0.2 REMOVE EXISTING Drawn: Checked: LIGHTS, TYP. OF (5) CB, AA AA, TC REMOVE EXISTING Project No. STOREFRONT REMOVE PORTION OF CMG1010 EXISTING STOREFRONT REMOVE EXISTING STOREFRONT Contents: 5 DEMO/EXISTING A0.2 CONDITIONS 3 A0.2 DEMO ELEVATION - SOUTH 1/4" = 1'-0" 2 A0.2 PROPOSED REFLECTED CEILING PLAN 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 A0.2 DEMO FLOOR PLAN 1/4" = 1'-0" A0.2 Consultant: r e d architecture + planning 589 w. nationwide blvd. suite b columbus, ohio 43215 tel: 614.487.8770 fax: 614.487.8777 COPYRIGHT 2021 THIS DRAWING IS AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE AND AS SUCH REMAINS THE PROPERTY OF CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC.. PERMISSION FOR USE OF THIS DOCUMENT IS LIMITED AND CAN BE EXTENDED ONLY BY WRITTEN AGREEMENT WITH CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC.. EXISTING WHITE METAL COPING EXISTING RED BRICK SOLDIER COURSE TENANT LEASE LINE EXISTING RED EXTERNALLY ILLUMINATED BRICK FINISH MEDALLION SIGN T.O. PARAPET SIGN LIGHTING, TYP. OF (5) 115'-9" PAINT EXISTING STRUCTURE CUSTOM WHITE BEYOND BLACK CHIPOTLE SIGNAGE, CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC. EXTERNALLY PO BOX 182566 WHITE TRIM, TYP. COLUMBUS, OH 43218-2566 ILLUMINATED TELEPHONE: 614.318.2400 INTERNET: WWW.CHIPOTLE.COM T.O. STOREFRONT T.O. STOREFRONT 108'-7" 108'-7" 3'-6" X 7'-0" CHARCOAL METAL CHARCOAL ALUMINUM CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 STOREFRONT PANEL SIGN BAND STOREFRONT, TYP. ENTRY DOOR FINISH ON EXISTING 1511 UNIVERSITY AVE WITH WOOD PULL SIGN BOARD STORE NO.: 4074 UVA THE CORNER CHARCOAL EXISTING HOSE BIB ALUMINUM STOREFRONT, TYP. FINISHED FLOOR FINISHED FLOOR 100'-0" 100'-0" 4 PROPOSED ELEVATION - VESTIBULE PROPOSED ELEVATION - SOUTH A0.3 1/4" = 1'-0" 3 A0.3 1/4" = 1'-0" Issue Record: 05/21/21 BAR SUBMITTAL Revisions: # TENANT LEASE LINE CHARCOAL ALUMINUM STOREFRONT, TYP. EXISTING SIGN BOARD 3'-6" X 7'-0" STOREFRONT ENTRY DOOR SIGN LIGHTING, TYP. OF (5) HEXAGON TILE FLOOR FINISH, SEE 3 A0.3 Drawn: Checked: CHARCOAL ALUMINUM MATERIAL STOREFRONT, TYP. SAMPLES CB, AA AA, TC 4 EXTERIOR RATED GYP CEILING CHARCOAL BRAKE Project No. A0.3 PAINTED 'VICTORIAN PEWTER' METAL SILL CMG1010 CAN LIGHT FIXTURE, TYP. OF (2) EXISTING SITE Contents: WHITE ALUMINUM DESIGN ELEMENTS SECURITY CAMERA STOREFRONT WINDOW IN 2 MOVEABLE BLACK PATIO FURNITURE, TYP. MOVEABLE BLACK RAILING PROPOSED A0.4 EXISTING OPENING CONDITIONS 2 PROPOSED REFLECTED CEILING PLAN 1 PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN A0.3 1/4" = 1'-0" A0.3 1/4" = 1'-0" A0.3 Consultant: EXISTING GUTTER, TYP. AREA FOR FUTURE MURAL r e d MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT COORDINATED WITH architecture + planning TENANT DESIGN TEAM 589 w. nationwide blvd. T.O. CMU PARAPET 112'-4" EXISTING CMU LOW WALL, suite b PAINT 'KNIGHT'S ARMOR' EXISTING CMU WALL, PAINT columbus, ohio 43215 T.O. CMU WALL 1-1/2" DIA PIPE RAILING, 'KNIGHT'S ARMOR' 110'-2" PAINT 'KNIGHT'S ARMOR' tel: 614.487.8770 fax: 614.487.8777 GROUND MOUNTED EXISTING DOOR TO 3' x 6'-8" H.M. REAR DOOR MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT SHARED UTILTIY IN EXISTING OPENING BASEMENT 1-1/2" DIA PIPE RAIL, PAINT KNIGHT'S ARMOR EXISTING CMU WALL, EXISTING CMU WALL, PAINT PAINTED WHITE 'KNIGHT'S ARMOR' EXISTING CMU LOW WALL, PAINT 'KNIGHT'S ARMOR' FINISHED FLOOR (BOH) EXISTING 100'-9" CONCRETE STEPS FINISHED FLOOR MAIN GRADE 100'-0" VARIES FINISHED FLOOR 99'-6" GRADE VARIES 6 PROPOSED ELEVATION - ALLEY 5 PROPOSED ELEVATION - EAST A0.4 1/4" = 1'-0" A0.4 1/4" = 1'-0" COPYRIGHT 2021 THIS DRAWING IS AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE AND AS SUCH REMAINS THE PROPERTY OF CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC.. PERMISSION FOR USE OF THIS DOCUMENT IS LIMITED AND CAN BE EXISTING PARKING EXTENDED ONLY BY WRITTEN AGREEMENT WITH CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC.. AREA FOR FUTURE MURAL ATTENDANT SHELTER, N.I.C. T.O. COPING COORDINATED WITH 115'-9" EXISTING CMU WALL AND INFILL EXISITNG BRICK HOLLOW METAL SERVICE TENANT DESIGN TEAM WINDOW, PAINT 'KNIGHT'S ARMOR' WALL, TYP., PAINT DOOR WITH TRANSOM IN 'KNIGHT'S ARMOR' EXISTING OPENING T.O. CMU PARAPET T.O. BRICK WALL 112'-4" 112'-4" AREA FOR FUTURE MURAL 9' - 7 7/8" 5' - 7 7/8" GROUND MOUNTED COORDINATED WITH INFILL INFILL MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT TENANT DESIGN TEAM 1-1/2" DIA PIPE RAIL, PAINT KNIGHT'S ARMOR EXISTING BRICK, PAINT CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC. 'KNIGHT'S ARMOR' PO BOX 182566 8' - 2 5/8" INFILL COLUMBUS, OH 43218-2566 TELEPHONE: 614.318.2400 INTERNET: WWW.CHIPOTLE.COM EXISTING PARKING ATTENDANT 2' - 5 3/8" SHELTER, N.I.C. GRADE FINISHED FLOOR (BOH) VARIES 100'-9" BOLLARD, TYP. OF (2) CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 GRADE 1511 UNIVERSITY AVE VARIES STORE NO.: 4074 UVA THE CORNER 4 PROPOSED ELEVATION - NORTH 3 PROPOSED ELEVATION - WEST (CONT) A0.4 1/4" = 1'-0" A0.4 1/4" = 1'-0" EXISTING WHITE METAL COPING, TYP. EXISTING RED BRICK EXISTING CHIMNEY ROOFTOP MECHANICAL SOLDIER COURSE BEYOND EQUIPMENT ON STEEL EXISTING STRUCTURAL DUNNAGE SUPPORTS, TYP. GLASS BLOCK EXISTING ROOF DRAIN, TYP. OF (3) 36" DIA. BLADE SIGN ATTACHED TO EXISTING EXISTING WHITE WOOD STRUCTURAL SUPPORT WINDOW FRAME, TOUCH-UP PAINT AS NEEDED, TYP. OF (4) T.O. COPING 115'-9" SPANDREL GLAZING, Issue Record: SIGN LIGHTING, TYP. OF (4) TYP. OF (5) 05/21/21 BAR SUBMITTAL SPANDREL WINDOW WITH ART DECO PATTERN MATCHING EXISTING HISTORICAL PATTERN T.O. STOREFRONT Revisions: # 108'-7" WALL PACK WHITE STOREFRONT LIGHITNG WINDOW IN EXISTING BRICK TO BE CLEANED AND OPENING WET SEALED TO PREVENT FUTURE STAINING, TYP. EXISTING CONCRETE BLOCK, EXISTING RED BRICK REPAINT PARKING SIGN WALL, TYP. GRADE VARIES 2 PROPOSED ELEVATION - WEST A0.4 1/4" = 1'-0" Drawn: Checked: CB, AA AA, TC Project No. CMG1010 Contents: PROPOSED CONDITIONS 1 A0.4 PROPOSED ELEVATION - WEST (OVERALL) 1/16" = 1'-0" A0.4 1511 University Ave. - Windows (June 10, 2021) Typical (of four) Consultant: r e d architecture + planning 589 w. nationwide blvd. suite b columbus, ohio 43215 tel: 614.487.8770 fax: 614.487.8777 COPYRIGHT 2021 THIS DRAWING IS AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE AND AS SUCH REMAINS THE PROPERTY OF CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC.. PERMISSION FOR USE OF THIS DOCUMENT IS LIMITED AND CAN BE EXTENDED ONLY BY WRITTEN AGREEMENT WITH CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC.. CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC. PO BOX 182566 COLUMBUS, OH 43218-2566 TELEPHONE: 614.318.2400 INTERNET: WWW.CHIPOTLE.COM CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 1511 UNIVERSITY AVE STORE NO.: 4074 UVA THE CORNER Issue Record: 05/21/21 BAR SUBMITTAL Revisions: # Drawn: Checked: CB, AA AA, TC Project No. CMG1010 Contents: EXTERIOR VIEW A0.5 Consultant: r e d architecture + planning 589 w. nationwide blvd. suite b columbus, ohio 43215 tel: 614.487.8770 fax: 614.487.8777 COPYRIGHT 2021 THIS DRAWING IS AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE AND AS SUCH REMAINS THE PROPERTY OF CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC.. PERMISSION FOR USE OF THIS DOCUMENT IS LIMITED AND CAN BE NOTE: PATIO RAILING AND FURNITURE FINISH TO BE BLACK TO MATCH EXTENDED ONLY BY WRITTEN AGREEMENT WITH ADJACENT PATIOS. PATIO RAILING AND FURNITURE WILL BE MOVEABLE. CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC.. 7 STOREFRONT, PATIO RAILING AND FURNITURE EXAMPLES 6 BLADE SIGN EXAMPLES A0.6 12" = 1'-0" A0.6 12" = 1'-0" CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC. PO BOX 182566 COLUMBUS, OH 43218-2566 TELEPHONE: 614.318.2400 INTERNET: WWW.CHIPOTLE.COM CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 1511 UNIVERSITY AVE STORE NO.: 4074 UVA THE CORNER VICTORIAN PEWTER KNIGHT'S ARMOR CHARCOAL (STOREFRONT) 5 SIGN LIGHTING EXAMPLES 4 COLOR SWATCHES A0.6 12" = 1'-0" A0.6 12" = 1'-0" Issue Record: 05/21/21 BAR SUBMITTAL Revisions: # Drawn: Checked: CB, AA AA, TC Project No. CMG1010 Contents: NOTE: FINISH COLOR TO MATCH 'CHARCOAL (STOREFRONT)' MATERIAL SAMPLES TRADITIONAL 1" WHITE HEX TILE WITH PEPPER LOGO 3 A0.6 MURAL EXAMPLE 12" = 1'-0" 2 A0.6 SIGN BAND PANEL MATERIAL AND COLOR SWATCH 12" = 1'-0" 1 A0.6 FLOOR TILE SWATCH 12" = 1'-0" A0.6 Certificate of Appropriateness (HC District) BAR 21-06-06 905 Rugby Road, TMP 020076000 Rugby Road Historic Conservation District Owner: Susan Stanley Applicant: Ross Fillman/Uhler & Co. Project: Construction of a residence Application components (please click each link to go directly to PDF page): • Staff Report • Application Submittal June 15, 2021 BAR Packet Guide 8 City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Staff Report June 15, 2021 Certificate of Appropriateness Application (HC District) BAR 21-06-06 905 Rugby Road, TMP 020076000 Rugby Road Historic Conservation District Owner: Susan Stanley Applicant: Ross Fillman/Uhler & Co. Project: Construction of new residence Background Year Built: 1951 District: Rugby Road Historic Conservation District Status: Non-contributing The existing residence is non-contributing and will be razed; no BAR review is required. Prior BAR Review N/A Application • Submittal: Architectural: Uhler & Company drawings, Sprinkler Residence, dated June 10, 2021: Sheets G-2, G-3, G-4, SP-1, A-1, A-2, EE-1 – EE-4, W-1, W-2, SV-1, SV-2, and E-1. Additional information, dated June 10, 2021: Door and window schedule; cut sheets for exterior wall sconces; photos (conceptual) for fencing and shutters. Landscape: Waterstreet Studio drawing Illustrative Site Plan, dated April 19, 2021: One sheet. Request CoA for construction of a two-story residence. Materials • Roof: Slate. • Gutter and downspout: Copper, 6-inch, half-round gutter; 3" x 4" rectangular downspouts • Cornice and trim: Hardie plank with crown and corbels. Color: TBD • Exterior wall: Masonry stucco. Color: TBD 905 Rugby Road (June 10, 2021) 1 • Foundation, walls and chimney: Veneer stone to match front retaining wall as close as possible. (See photo in Appendix.) • Windows: Jeld-Wen painted wood, applied grilles and internal spacer bars. Color: TBD • Doors: Painted with glass, applied grilles and internal spacer bars. Color: TBD • Shutters: Antique, wood-slab style. (See photo.) Color: TBD • Light Fixtures (See photos): o Gas sconce at fireplace. o Sconces at doors and upper window. o Recessed lights above doors. • Fence: Wood lattice (See photos.) • Railing at upper windows: Metal railing. Discussion and Recommendations Note: The regulations and guidelines for projects within a Historic Conservation District (HCD) are, by design, less rigid than those for an ADC District or an IPP. The HCD designations are intended to preserve the character-defining elements of the neighborhoods and to assure that new construction is not inappropriate to that character, while minimally imposing on current residents who may want to upgrade their homes. Within the existing HCDs are buildings and/or areas that might easily qualify for an ADC District or as an IPP; however, in evaluating proposals within HCDs, the BAR may apply only the HCD requirements and guidelines. Staff recommends approval. See specific comments below under Pertinent Design Review Guidelines. Suggested Motions Approval: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City Design Guidelines for Historic Conservation Districts, I move to find that the proposed residence and landscaping at 905 Rugby Road satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are compatible with this property and other properties in the Rugby Road Historic Conservation District, and that the BAR approves the application [as submitted.] […as submitted with the following conditions: …] Denial: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City Design Guidelines for Historic Conservation Districts, I move to find that the proposed residence and landscaping at 905 Rugby Road do not satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are not compatible with this property and other properties in the Rugby Road Historic Conservation District, and that for the following reasons the BAR denies the application as submitted: Criteria, Standards, and Guidelines Review Criteria Generally Sec. 34-341 of the City Code. Criteria for approval a. In considering a particular application the BAR shall approve the application unless it finds: 1. That the proposal does not meet specific standards set forth within this division or applicable provisions of the conservation district design guidelines; and 2. The proposal is incompatible with the historic, cultural or architectural character of the conservation district in which the property is located. 905 Rugby Road (June 10, 2021) 2 b. The BAR's review of the proposed new construction or addition to a building or structure shall be limited to factors specified in section 34-342. The BAR's review of the proposed demolition, razing or moving of any contributing structure shall be limited to the factors specified in section 34-343. c. The BAR, or city council on appeal, may require conditions of approval as are necessary or desirable to ensure that any new construction or addition would be compatible with the scale and character of the historic conservation district. Prior to attaching conditions to an approval, due consideration shall be given to the cost of compliance with the proposed conditions. Sec. 34-342 of the City Code. Standards for review of new construction and additions. The following features and factors shall be considered in determining the appropriateness of proposed new construction and additions to buildings or structures: 1) Whether the form, height, scale, mass and placement of the proposed construction are visually and architecturally compatible with the site and the applicable conservation district; 2) The harmony of the proposed changes in terms of overall proportion and the size and placement of entrances and windows; 3) The impact of the proposed change on the essential architectural form and integrity of the existing building; 4) The effect, with respect to architectural considerations, of the proposed change on the conservation district neighborhood; 5) Any applicable provisions of the city's conservation district design guidelines. Pertinent Design Review Guidelines for New Construction and Additions Building Location – setback and spacing 1. Align a new building close to the average building setback line on the same street, if established, or consistent with the surrounding area. 2. Maintain average spacing between buildings on the same street. Staff Comment: (See below.) Building Scale – height and massing 1. Keep the footprint, and massing of new buildings consistent with the neighborhood characteristics and compatible with the character of buildings on the same street. 2. Keep the height and width of new buildings within the prevailing average height and width. Exceptions up to 200% of the prevailing height and width may be approved by the BAR when contextually appropriate. 3. An addition needs to be perceived as an addition and therefore should not visually overpower the existing building in scale and design. 4. An accessory building should appear secondary to the main building in scale and design. 5. Larger buildings (commercial or multi-family) otherwise permitted by zoning should be designed and articulated to be compatible with the scale of the majority of adjacent buildings on the same street or block. Staff Comment: While the existing house is non-contributing, the setbacks, spacing, and width are consistent with other, contributing properties in the district. The proposed residence is approximately in the same location and within the same footprint of the existing house. The increase in height is compatible with the district. 905 Rugby Road (June 10, 2021) 3 Building Form – roofs and porches 1. Roof forms should reference contributing buildings on the same street or surrounding area. Other roof forms may be approved by the BAR when contextually appropriate. 2. If many of the contributing buildings on the same street have porches, then it is strongly recommended that the design of a new residence includes a porch or similar form of 1. similar width and depth. Building Openings – orientation, doors and windows 1. A single entrance door (or main entrance of a multifamily dwelling) facing the street is recommended. 2. Window and door patterns and the ratio of solids (wall area) to voids (window and door area) of new buildings should be compatible with contributing buildings in the surrounding area. 3. Windows should be simple shapes compatible with those on contributing buildings, which are generally vertically oriented in residential areas. Staff Comment: The proposed front facade and entrance features are somewhat unique, but not incompatible, given the variation in the district. Several contributing structures deviate from the single, central entrance typical of the Colonial Revival. (See the attached photos of adjacent structures.) The proposed design has similarities to 700 Rugby Road (c1920), which also features stucco, casement windows, and dual entrances. (See photos in the Appendix.) Building Materials and Textures 1. The selection of materials and textures for a new building should relate architecturally to the district, and should be compatible with and complementary to neighboring buildings. 2. Long-lasting, durable and natural materials are preferred, including brick, wood, stucco, and cementitious siding and standing seam metal roofs. Clear glass windows (VLT of 70% or more) are preferred. Staff Comment: The proposed building materials are stucco and stone with a slate roof. All durable materials and compatible with the district, which features a range of architectural styles, elements and materials. It is described as containing “an exceptional representation of late- Victorian and Colonial Revival residential and ecclesiastical architecture from the late 19th and early 20th century.” Building Paint 1. Painting unpainted brick or other masonry is discouraged because it is irreversible and may cause moisture problems. Staff Comment: This is a new structure. Within the Rugby Road HCD are several painted brick and stucco structures that are painted. Site 1. Fences or walls that abut a City street (or fences located in a side yard between a street and the front of the principal structure on a lot) should not exceed three and one-half feet in height. Staff Comment: Proposed wood fence is at the side yard and rear. Rugby Road Historic Conservation District adopted September 2, 2014: 905 Rugby Road (June 10, 2021) 4 Architectural character-defining features: • 1.5, 2.0, or 2.5 story dwellings with stucco, red brick or painted brick, or wood siding, • Front porticos or porches • Slate shingle roofs, gable or hipped roof forms, roof dormers, • Contributing outbuildings, and deep-set, planted front yards mostly unpaved with no visible garages. Staff Comment: The new residence will be stucco, two-stories, with a slate, gabled roof. The front arc will be landscaped. No garage is proposed. Appendix Existing footprint and proposed new. 905 Rugby Road (June 10, 2021) 5 Setbacks Existing stone wall 905 Rugby Road (June 10, 2021) 6 700 Rugby Road (Google Street View) 905 Rugby Road (June 10, 2021) 7 REVIEW OF DRAWINGS: SITEWORK / GRADING: WEATHERPROOFING NOTES: INSULATION: TO THE BEST OF OUR KNOWLEDGE THESE GRADING AND SITEWORK TO BE MINIMAL IN DEPICTED WEATHERPROOFING METHODS PROVIDE 2" XPS UNDERSLAB INSULATION PLANS ARE DRAWN TO COMPLY WITH ALL AREAS NOT DIRECTLY AFFECTED BY (SUCH AS SEALANT, CAULKING, AND MIN. 2-0" IN FROM EDGE AT GRADE. OWNERS SPECIFICATIONS. THE NEW CONSTRUCTION. FOLLOW BEST FLASHING) ARE NOT COMPREHENSIVE. FULLY ENCAPSULATE CRAWL WITH 20- MIL BUILDING CONTRACTOR/ HOMEOWNER TO PRACTICES AND LOCAL REQUIREMENTS IN FOLLOW THE REQUIREMENTS AND BEST VAPOR BARRIER. REVIEW AND VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND ORDER TO MINIMIZE ENVIRONMENTAL PRACTICES FROM BUILDING CODES, CRAWL WALLS = 2 1/2" CCF SPECS BEFORE CONSTRUCTION BEGINS. DAMAGE. PRODUCT MANUFACTURERS, AND EXT WALLS = 3" CCF DATE UHLER & COMPANY IS NOT LIABLE FOR FINISH GRADE MUST SLOPE AWAY FROM AGENCIES THAT DEVELOP STANDARDS FOR ROOF= 2" CCF UNDER ROOF DECK, 6" OCF ERRORS OR OMISSIONS. EXTERIOR FOUNDATION WALL, AT A HEIGHT THE PRODUCTS AND MATERIALS BEING BELOW THE CONTRACTOR MUST CHECK ALL OF 6" OVER A 10' DISTANCE. USED. BY DIMENSIONS AND OTHER DETAILS PRIOR BEFORE GRADING OPERATIONS, A ALL WOOD WITHIN 8" OF THE GROUND TO CONSTRUCTION AND BE SOLELY TEMPORARY PROTECTION FENCE SHALL BE SHALL BE PRESSURE TREATED OR RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY WORK NOT IN CONSTRUCTED AROUND ANY TREE WITHIN COMPROMISE A SUITABLY ROT RESISTANT CONFORMANCE WITH THE PLANS OR IN 50' OF THE FOUNDATION, AND A SILT FENCE MATERIAL. METAL CONNECTIONS WHICH CONFLICT WITH ANY APPLICABLE CODES. MUST BE INSTALLED DOWNSLOPE OF ANY TOUCH THIS WOOD SHALL BE GALVANIZED DESCRIPTION AREA WHERE SOIL IS DISTURBED. OR STAINLESS STEEL. CLEANUP: ALL FIXTURES, EQUIPMENT, GLAZING, FLOORS, ETC. SHALL BE PROTECTED AT ALL NO. TIMES. ALL SUBCONTRACTORS SHALL, AT ALL CODES AND REGULATIONS: TIMES, KEEP THE PREMISES FREE FROM FOUNDATION: Plumbing : ACCUMULATION OF WASTE MATERIAL OR IT IS THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND RUBBISH CAUSED BY THEIR WORK. general notes SUBCONTRACTORS RESPONSIBILITY TO FOOTINGS SHALL EXTEND BELOW LOCAL SUBCONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL ALL SUBCONTRACTOR TO ORGANIZE AND VERIFY AND COMPLY WITH CURRENT CITY, FROST LINE AND REST UPON CLEAN PIPES, EQUIPMENT AND FIXTURES LEAVE JOB IN A BROOM CLEAN CONDITION COUNTY, STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS, UNDISTURBED SOIL WITH A MINIMUM ACCORDING TO ALL APPLICABLE CODES AT THE END OF EACH WORK DAY. RULES, CODES, ORDINANCES AND BEARING CAPACITY OF 2000 psf OR AND MANUFACTURER INSTRUCTIONS. SUBCONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE ALL REGULATIONS. ENGINEERED DESIGN LOAD WORK NOT MEETING CODES OR RUBBISH, TOOLS, SCAFFOLDING AND IF GENERAL CONTRACTOR OR CMU AND CONCRETE SHALL BE MANUFACTURER INSTRUCTIONS SHALL BE SURPLUS MATERIALS AND LEAVE THE JOB SUBCONTRACTOR PERFORMS ANY WORK REINFORCED PER CODE OR PER PLAN THE SUBCONTRACTORS RESPONSIBILITY IN A BROOM CLEAN CONDITION AT THE IN CONFLICT WITH ABOVE MENTIONED WHICHEVER IS GREATER. TO REPAIR OR REPLACE AT THEIR CONCLUSION OF EACH PHASE OF WORK. LAWS, RULES, CODES, ORDINANCES AND PERFORATED DRAIN PIPES SHALL BE EXPENSE. PLEASE INFORM CONTRACTOR OF ANY REGULATIONS THEN CONTRACTOR OR LOCATED WITHIN A GRAVEL PERIMETER PROTECTIONS THAT NEED TO BE SUBCONTRACTOR PERFORMING SUCH AROUND FOUNDATION, AND INSTALLED PRIOR TO COMMENCING WORK. WORK SHALL BEAR ALL COSTS OF REPAIR INCORPORATE MULTIPLE DRAINAGE ANY DAMAGES WILL BE THE ARISING OUT OF NON CONFORMING WORK. OUTLETS LEADING DOWNSLOPE AWAY RESPONSIBILITY OF THE SUBCONTRACTOR FROM BUILDING TO REPAIR. ALL FIXTURES, EQUIPMENT, GLAZING, FLOORS, ETC. SHALL BE LEFT CLEAN AND MECHANICAL: READY FOR OCCUPANCY UPON COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT. ALL HVAC SHALL BE DESIGNED AND Sprinkle Residence BAR INSTALLED PER CURRENT APPLICABLE BUILDING MAINTENANCE: CODES AND MANUFACTURER INSTALLATION Framing Notes: INSTRUCTIONS MATERIALS USED IN CONSTRUCTION OF ALL SUBCONTRACTORS SHALL BE THIS PROJECT WILL DETERIORATE AS THE ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE TRUE, RESPONSIBLE FOR CODE COMPLIANCE OF PROJECT AGES UNLESS PROPERLY AND PLUMB, LEVEL, SQUARE, AND IN PROPER THEIR WORK. ALIGNMENT. SQUARE Square FOOTAGES: Footages ROUTINELY MAINTAINED. REPAIR OR REPLACEMENT OF WORK NOT OWNER/CLIENT SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE PROVIDE TEMPORARY SUPPORT AS MEETING CODE OR MANUFACTURER FOR ALL MAINTENANCE TO KEEP IN GOOD NECESSARY TO ENSURE THE STRUCTURAL INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS SHALL BE FIRST FLOOR FINISHED: 2009 Basement SECOND 1st FloorFLOOR FINISHED: 1419 Set WORKING ORDER. INTEGRITY OF THE BUILDING UNDER THE SUBCONTRACTORS RESPONSIBILITY CONSTRUCTION. TO REPAIR AT THEIR EXPENSE. 2nd Floor FIRE BLOCKING AND FIRE RESISTANT HVAC SUBCONTRACTOR TO SUPPLY AND 3rd Floor SHEATHING SHALL BE PROVIDED AS INSTALL DRYER VENT ACCORDING TO Garage REQUIRED AT CEILINGS, FLOORS, AND APPLICABLE CODES AND MANUFACTURER Front Porch ENCLOSED CHASES. INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS. Back Porch PROVIDE ADEQUATE BLOCKING FOR Deck CABINETRY, PLUMBING FIXTURES, HANDRAILS, GUARD RAILS,GRAB BARS, STORAGE OF MATERIALS: BATH HARDWARE, ETC. SUBCONTRACTORS SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR STORING THE , MATERIALS ON THE SITE ACCORDING TO MATERIAL SUPPLIERS AND MANUFACTURES ELECTRIC : Uhler & Company INSTRUCTIONS. THE MATERIALS SHALL BE KEPT SECURE SUBCONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL ALL AND PROTECTED FROM MOISTURE, PESTS, FIXTURES, OUTLETS AND EQUIPMENT AND VANDALS. ANY LOSS ARISING OUT OF DOOR AND WINDOW : ACCORDING TO ALL APPLICABLE CODES MATERIALS STORED AT THE SITE SHALL BE SUBCONTRACTOR TO INSTALL ALL BATH Design/ Build Afton Va,22920 THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE ALL BEDROOMS SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH FANS, DUCTS AND VENTS ACCORDING TO 7957 Plank Rd SUBCONTRACTOR WHO STORED THE AN EGRESS WINDOW MEETING ALL CODE DAMAGED OR LOST MATERIALS. CURRENT APPLICABLE CODES REPAIR OR REPLACEMENT OF WORK NOT TEMPERED GLASS TO BE PROVIDED MEETING CODE SHALL BE THE WHERE REQUIRED BY CODE SUBCONTRACTORS RESPONSIBILITY TO WINDOW AND DOOR SUPPLIER REPAIR AT THEIR EXPENSE. RESPONSIBLE FOR DETERMINING TEMPERED GLASS LOCATIONS DATE: 6/10/2021 SCALE: SHEET: G-2 NO. DESCRIPTION BY DATE Uhler & Company Sprinkle Residence BAR 3d Views, Front Design/ Build Set DATE: 7957 Plank Rd SCALE: SHEET: G-3 6/10/2021 , Afton Va,22920 NO. DESCRIPTION BY DATE Uhler & Company Sprinkle Residence BAR 3d Views, Rear Design/ Build Set DATE: 7957 Plank Rd SCALE: SHEET: G-4 6/10/2021 , Afton Va,22920 573 571 572 571 570 571 DATE 573 BY 571 572 4 57 DESCRIPTION DN NO. 569 569 569 Site Plan 568 PORCH 94 SQ FT 1 1/4" KITCHEN 445 SQ FT Sprinkle Residence BAR HER CLOSET 2'-9 1/2" 129 SQ FT 568 3' STUDY 221 SQ FT 10" 1'-6" HER BATH 119 SQ FT 1'-5" 569 567 1'-1 1/4" Set POWDER 22 SQ FT HIS BATH 68 SQ FT 566 HER BDRM 207 SQ FT LIVING 570 SQ FT UP HIS BDRM 183 SQ FT , 4' 568 Uhler & Company LIVING AREA 2009 SQ FT 568 PORCH 202 SQ FT Design/ Build Afton Va,22920 DN 7957 Plank Rd 567 564 566 DN DATE: 6/10/2021 SCALE: 563 1/8"=1'-0" SHEET: 562 565 566 SP-1 561 E15 EE-2 151555 151555 DATE BY 151555 151555 PORCH Dog Door 31'-3" X 2'-9" 87 SQ FT DESCRIPTION DOUBLE DEPTH BOOKSHELVES W216014L W304221 W206014LW186014LW206014L W2742 W216014L 4DB1425 1 1/4" W742124 U3926114 B2025L STANDARD SINGLE OVEN B1925R SB2725 B2125BH U3926114 NO. BOOKSHELVES UP4923115 UP4917115 U2724105L U3624105 U2724105R STACKED W/D BOOKSHELVES BOOKSHELVES BOOKSHELVES E35 IE-4 E29 E18 IE-2 KITCHEN E22 29'-11" X 14'-1" IE-1 E33 422 SQ FT E23 IE-3 BOOKSHELVES HER CLOSET B7230 IE-1 2'-9 1/2" 1st Floor 13'-8" X 8'-0" 112 SQ FT E30 3' E28 11DB9921 U3123105 U3023105 U2914105U1214105L IE-2 IE-2 E38 STUDY 14'-5" X 13'-11" E36 IE-4 201 SQ FT IE-4 UP10113115 UP10113115 DOUBLE DEPTH BOOKSHELVES W458114 W2110514R B9921 BOOKSHELVES SB4821 U6313105 Jetta Veracruz E37 B814524 DROP IN TUB S2 IE-4 E25 IE-2 HER BATH IE-1 S1 BOOKSHELVES BOOKSHELVES BOOKSHELVES 14'-5" X 6'-9" 106 SQ FT 1'-5" E27 IE-1 FLOATING VANITY E24 IE-1 Sprinkle Residence BAR E19 SB3021 ELECTRIC METER ELONGATED TOILET E4 POWDER KNEEWALL IN SHOWER EE-3 2'-10" X 6'-3" E40 E32 18 SQ FT HIS BATH IE-4 12'-2" X 5'-0" IE-1 E39 61 SQ FT ELONGATED TOILET IE-4 U2742105L S3 E26 SV-1 E20 Set IE-1 BOOKSHELVES 24" Wide Cabinet Pullout, with Side Accessible Shelving/ Drawers BOOKSHELVES E34 IE-3 HER BDRM E41 3DB824115 14'-5" X 13'-0" 187 SQ FT IE-4 LIVING E43 26'-9" X 18'-11" E42 541 SQ FT IE-5 UP IE-5 HIS BDRM 14'-5" X 11'-4" 163 SQ FT E31 , IE-3 U2742105R 24" Wide Pullout Cabinet, Side Accessible Hanging Closet. Shelves, and Drawers Uhler & Company UP15012114 U601270 UP15012114 4' Design/ Build Afton Va,22920 7957 Plank Rd LIVING AREA 2009 SQ FT PORCH 28'-11" X 6'-10" 196 SQ FT DN DATE: E2 6/10/2021 EE-1 SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0" SHEET: A-1 DATE BY DESCRIPTION NO. E18 2nd Floor MECHANICAL 14'-3" X 8'-2" 116 SQ FT WH HALL 12'-9" X 13'-10" 252 SQ FT S2 S1 IE-2 Sprinkle Residence BAR SB5921 DN E19 GUEST BEDROOM 1 BATH GUEST BEDROOM 2 14'-3" X 14'-0" 4'-11" X 10'-5" 14'-3" X 14'-0" 199 SQ FT 51 SQ FT 200 SQ FT OPEN BELOW 3'-7" X 15'-11" 57 SQ FT E45 IE-5 PLAYROOM OFFICE 10'-2" X 11'-10" 10'-2" X 11'-10" 120 SQ FT 120 SQ FT E44 IE-5 Set S3 SV-1 E20 U202672R U824315 U202672L U202672R U824315 U202672L 6'-10" ATTIC ATTIC , 14'-3" X 8'-2" 14'-3" X 8'-2" 116 SQ FT 116 SQ FT ATTIC 4'-11" X 8'-0" Uhler & Company ATTIC 39 SQ FT 10'-2" X 6'-7" ATTIC 66 SQ FT 10'-2" X 6'-7" 67 SQ FT Design/ Build Afton Va,22920 7957 Plank Rd LIVING AREA 1058 SQ FT DATE: 6/10/2021 2nd Floor SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0" SHEET: A-2 DATE 61'-3" BY 15'-0 1/2" 31'-2" 15'-0 1/2" DESCRIPTION 2'-9 1/4" NO. Ext. Elevations 18'-0 7/8" SLATE ROOF COLOR AND SIZE TBD VENEER STONE CHIMNEY 29'-6 7/8" STONE TO MATCH FRONT RETAINING WALL AS CLOSE AS POSSIBLE WALL MOUNT GAS SCONCE 6 INCH HALF ROUND COPPER GUTTERS Sprinkle Residence BAR 3"X4" RECTANGULAR COPPER DOWNSPOUTS PAINTED JAMES HARDIE SOFFITS AND EXTERIOR TRIM COLOR TBD STUCCO EXTERIOR WALLS COLOR TBD JELD-WEN PAINTED WOOD WINDOWS AND EXTERIOR DOORS SDL STYLE, WITH BLACK SPACER BARS ANTIQUE WOOD SLAB-STYLE SHUTTERS Set COLOR TBD VENEER STONE FOUNDATION WALL COVERING STONE TO MATCH FRONT RETAINING WALL AS CLOSE AS POSSIBLE 8'-8 3/8" D07 D06 D08 D05 , Uhler & Company South Elevation Design/ Build Afton Va,22920 7957 Plank Rd DATE: 6/10/2021 SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0" SHEET: EE-1 D04 D03 North Elevation D02 NO. DESCRIPTION BY DATE Uhler & Company Sprinkle Residence BAR Design/ Build Ext. Elevations Set DATE: 7957 Plank Rd SCALE: SHEET: 1/4"=1'-0" 6/10/2021 , EE-2 Afton Va,22920 DATE BY 1'-10" 1' 32'-5" 1' 3'-9" DESCRIPTION NO. Wall Mount Gas Sconce Blacksmith Wrought Iron Metal Handrail Railing to be Inset between Door Jamb Ext. Elevations 19'-7" Sprinkle Residence BAR 23'-10" 1'-4" Set 8'-8" , Uhler & Company Design/ Build Afton Va,22920 7957 Plank Rd East Elevation DATE: 6/10/2021 SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0" SHEET: Rear Corbel Profile Elevation EE-3 3040 West Elevation D01 NO. DESCRIPTION BY DATE Uhler & Company Sprinkle Residence BAR Design/ Build Ext. Elevations Set DATE: 7957 Plank Rd SCALE: SHEET: 1/4"=1'-0" 6/10/2021 , EE-4 Afton Va,22920 DATE 151555 151555 PORCH 94 SQ FT BY 8'-9" 5'-5 3/4" 8 3/4" 3'-8" 11'-9 1/2" 11'-9 1/2" 3'-8" 7'-3" 7'-8 1/2" D02 D03 DESCRIPTION W08 D04 2 1' 5 5 8 4'-5 1/2" 4'-5 1/2" 13'-9 1/2" 13'-9 1/2" 7 6'-2" NO. 6 KITCHEN 8'-1" 445 SQ FT 9' 8 8 HER CLOSET 1st Floor Wall 129 SQ FT & Beam Layout 14'-1 1/4" 2'-10" W01 ID15 3'-3" ID16 5 STUDY 9 1/2" 221 SQ FT 1'-5 3/4" 6'-1" 4 ID09 11'-5 1/4" 3'-0 3/4" 3 3 14'-6" 8'-7" 3'-9" 6'-3 1/2" 3'-2 1/2" 10 26'-9 1/2" 6'-9 1/2" 7'-1 1/2" 2 3/4" 8'-10 1/4" 5'-5" HER BATH 119 SQ FT 9 30'-10 1/2" X 16" ID13 10 6 2'-6 1/2" 8'-6" 1'-7" 3'-10" 4'-9" 6 11 5 34' 33' 32' ID11 ID14 ID05 2'-1" POWDER 5'-4 1/2" 5'-1" ID07 Sprinkle Residence BAR 22 SQ FT HIS BATH 8 1/2" 3'-9 1/2" 68 SQ FT 10 4'-4" ID06 6 ID06 ID12 2'-11" 26'-9 1/2" 2'-9 1/2" 3'-9" 2'-0 1/2" 5'-5" 1'-3 1/4" 7'-9 3/4" 5'-5" 6 W04 ID10 18'-11 3/4" 5'-8 1/2" Set 10 13'-0 1/2" HER BDRM 9'-6" 9'-1" 207 SQ FT 1 11'-5" LIVING W02 570 SQ FT UP 15' 14'-6" 15' 15' 14'-6" HIS BDRM 183 SQ FT 6'-2" W03 ID01 ID02 1'-11" , 2'-5 1/2" 6'-0 1/2" 8'-11 1/2" 8'-11 1/2" 6'-0 1/2" 5 5 Uhler & Company 11 1' 1' 2" 2" D08 2 10 10 12 5440 5' 10 D05 D07 D06 Design/ Build Afton Va,22920 7957 Plank Rd 2" 2" 14'-11 1/2" 6'-6" 5'-11 1/2" 5'-8" 5'-11 1/2" 6'-6" 14'-11 1/2" 7' LIVING AREA 2009 SQ FT 14'-11 1/2" 1' 28'-11" 1' 14'-11 1/2" PORCH 202 SQ FT DN 60'-10" DATE: 6/10/2021 SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0" 1st Floor SHEET: W-1 DATE BY 6'-8 1/2" 6'-8 1/2" DESCRIPTION W06 W06 W07 NO. 3 1/2" 8'-3 1/2" 12'-10" 8'-7" 9'-3 1/2" 8'-2 1/2" 8'-2 1/2" 2nd Floor Wall MECHANICAL & Beam layout 116 SQ FT 13'-11" 1 2 HALL 2 WH 252 SQ FT 1 4 ID17 4 ID24 2'-3" 4 ID25 ID23 4 2'-2" 4'-3 1/2" 4'-3 1/2" 1'-10" 1 1 4'-4" ID19 ID18 2'-2" 3'-8" 5'-4 3/4" 12'-11 1/4" 8' 4 ID20 ID26 2'-2" 3 3 3 SB5921 DN 14'-1" 14'-1" 34' W05 BATH D09 GUEST BEDROOM 1 GUEST BEDROOM 2 Sprinkle Residence BAR 199 SQ FT 51 SQ FT 200 SQ FT OPEN BELOW 57 SQ FT ID21 ID08 5'-1" PLAYROOM OFFICE 10'-6" 120 SQ FT 120 SQ FT 11'-11 1/4" 14'-6" 3'-8" 10'-2 1/2" 5' 10'-3" 14'-6" Set 4 ID27 ID22 4 U202672R U824315 U202672L U202672R U824315 U202672L 4 4 4 8'-2 1/2" 8'-2 1/2" ATTIC ATTIC 116 SQ FT 116 SQ FT 8'-1" ATTIC 6'-7 3/4" 39 SQ FT , ATTIC 66 SQ FT ATTIC 67 SQ FT Uhler & Company Design/ Build Afton Va,22920 7957 Plank Rd 13'-6" 3'-11" 13'-6" LIVING AREA 1058 SQ FT 2nd Floor DATE: 6/10/2021 SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0" SHEET: W-2 DATE BY DESCRIPTION NO. Section Views 3/8" Slate Roof 6" Copper Half Round Gutter Hardie 1x8 Fascia Painted Hardie Panel Soffit 3x8 Painted Wood Corbels 3 1/2" Painted Wood Crown Molding 1x6 Hardie Crown Backer Sprinkle Residence BAR 2x10 Hardie Frieze Board Pre-Tinted Masonry Cement Stucco 2" Veneer Stone, to Match Stone on Existing Retaining Wall ~Final Grade Height Set , Uhler & Company Design/ Build Afton Va,22920 7957 Plank Rd Cross Section 3 DATE: 6/10/2021 SCALE: 1/2"=1'-0" SHEET: SV-1 DATE BY DESCRIPTION NO. Section Views 5/8" CDX Roof Plywood Fully Covered in Ice and Water Shield 2-Ply 3/4" CDX Plywood, Laminated to make Single 1 1/2" Framing Member Curve Cut on CNC Router Table 2x8 Roof Rafters Mounted Square with Roof Surface Roof Structure Built with Temporary Props Before Walls are Built 6-Ply 1/2" x 3 1/2" CDX Plywood Strips, Stacked to make 3" Thick Top Plate for Interior Walls Top Plates and Walls Built after roof structure Rafter Blocking, Cut to shape of Overhang to Supposrt Sub-Fascia Sprinkle Residence BAR 16" Tall Floor Trusses Supported with Face Mount Hangers on Steel I Beams 2x8x10' Cantilevered Overhang Structure Set 16" Tall Steel I-Beam Sized Per Engineer 9'-11 1/2" , Uhler & Company Design/ Build Afton Va,22920 7957 Plank Rd DATE: 6/10/2021 SCALE: Elevation 6 1/4"=1'-0" SHEET: SV-2 E-1 1ST FLOOR ELECTRIC NOTES E-2 2ND FLOOR ELECTRIC NOTES TAPE LIGHT ON CLOSET TRIM TAPE LIGHT MOUNTED ON DOOR TRIM 1 MOTION SENSOR CONTROL MOTION SENSOR CONTROLLED 10" CONCRETE FOOTING 2 TV LOCATION #4 BENT J REBAR WALL ANCHORS 24" OC 3 #4 REBAR LENGTHWISE TOF: 565'-9 3/4" OR 2000 PSF SOIL, WHICHEVER IS DEEPER 3 TAPE LIGHT IN CABINET ON MOTION DETECTOR FOOTING OFFSET FOR 12" EXPOSURE ON RETAINING SIDE, 6" EXPOSURE ON NON-RETAINING SIDE 8" CONCRETE RETAINING WALL 4 RECESS STYLE EXHAUST FAN REBAR FROM FOOTINGS 24" OC 2 1/2" VENEER STONE TO GRADE EACH SIDE TAPE LIGHT UNDER CABINETS 5 PLUG MOLD UNDER CABINETS 6 BASEBOARD OUTLETS THROUGHOUT FIRST FLOOR 7 NATURAL GAS SCONCE DATE 8 DOTLESS LED TAPE LIGHT IN BOOKSHELVES 9 WALL SCONCES GOING UP STAIRS NATURAL GAS WHOLE HOME GENERATOR BY SIZED TO RUN: REFRIGERATOR/ KITCHEN APPLIANCES HVAC SYSTEM 10 ALL INTERIOR LIGHTS WATER HEATER (TANKLESS GAS) PORCH Dog Door 94 SQ FT DESCRIPTION LOAD SHED: 19 R4 R4 R4 R4 R4 R4 SECOND FLOOR HVAC 4" RECESS 4" RECESS 4" RECESS 4" RECESS 4" RECESS 4" RECESS 11 OUTDOOR HVAC UNIT LOCATION D02 D03 EXTERIOR LANTERN 1 EXTERIOR LANTERN 1 4 OUTLETS ON PATIO D04 12 LOCATION TBD 7 13 INDOOR HVAC UNIT LOCATION 5 NO. 14 199KBTU NATURAL GAS WATER HEATER 3 18 17 WCI304CB WOLF INDUCTION COOKTOP 3 15 15 MH6280BPBL MIELE SINGLE WALL OVEN 3 16 MH6200BMBL MIELE SINGLE ELECTRIC WALL OVEN R4 R4 R4 KITCHEN R4 R4 R4 R4 17 CDW2450 COVE PANEL READY DISHWASHER R4 R4 R4 4" RECESS 4" RECESS 4" RECESS 445 SQ FT 4" RECESS 4" RECESS 4" RECESS 4" RECESS 4" RECESS 4" RECESS 4" RECESS 1st Floor 18 SBI36UORH PANEL READY-RIGHT HINGE SUB ZERO FRIDGE HER CLOSET Electric 129 SQ FT ID15 16 ID16 3 STUDY 221 SQ FT CHANDELIER 11 ID09 SCONCE 1 SCONCE 1 PENDANT PENDANT 2 R4 R4 4" RECESS 4" RECESS Electric Notes Jetta Veracruz 10 4 HER BATH R4 CHANDELIER 119 SQ FT 4" RECESS OVERHEAD EXHAUST (LIGHT) SCONCE ID13 OVERHEAD ELECTRICAL PANEL SCONCE FLOATING VANITY Sprinkle Residence BAR EP 6 ID11 ID14 EXHAUST (LIGHT) 1 ID05 POWDER KNEEWALL IN SHOWER 22 SQ FT 4" RECESS R4 4" RECESS R4 ID07 1 HIS BATH 1 68 SQ FT ID06 ID06 ID12 EXHAUST (WALL MOUNTED) R4 R4 4" RECESS 4" RECESS Set ID10 9 24" Wide Cabinet Pullout, with Side Accessible Shelving/ Drawers CHANDELIER HER BDRM CHANDELIER 207 SQ FT 2 LIVING CHANDELIER 570 SQ FT UP R4 R4 4" RECESS 4" RECESS HIS BDRM 183 SQ FT , 2 ID01 ID02 Uhler & Company 24" Wide Pullout Cabinet, Side Accessible Hanging Closet. Shelves, and Drawers 8 8 Design/ Build Afton Va,22920 D08 5440 D05 7957 Plank Rd 19 R4 4" RECESS R4 4" RECESS D07 R4 4" RECESS R4 4" RECESS R4 R4 D06 4" RECESS 4" RECESS 19 4" RECESS R4 4" RECESS R4 7 CRAFTSMAN LANTERN LIVING AREA 2009 SQ FT PORCH 202 SQ FT DN DATE: 6/10/2021 SCALE: 1st Floor 1/4"=1'-0" SHEET: E-1 LEGEND EXISTING FEATURES I 1- STONE WALL 2- PROPERTY LINE B G PROPOSED FEATURES J A- EVERGREEN SCREENING TREES A 25’ SETBACK B- RETAINING WALL C F C- SEAT WALL D D- GAS GRILL 10’ SETBACK G 10’ SETBACK E E- FIREPIT TERRACE, ~20’ x 30’ 4 B H F- SHRUB PLANTING O A G- FENCE H- PAVERS I- TRASH STORAGE J- REAR PARKING, 18’ X 20’ K- RESIDENCE L- PORCH, 9’ X 27’ EXISTING HOUSE, TO M- ARRIVAL & PARKING, ~18’ X 20’ aterstreet studio DSCAPE ARCHITEC TS N BE DEMOLISHED N- RECONFIGURED DRIVE O- GATE NNERS G K P- LAWN, TYP. Q- PATH/STAIR O R- SMALL FLOWERING TREES L B EXISTING DRIVE, TO 2 BE RECONFIGURED Q P M 2 waterstreetstudio 25’ SETBACK R B waterstreetstudio 1 waterstreetstudio feet NEW STONE WALL, MATCH EXISTING 0 16’ waterstreet studio LANDSCAPE ARCHITEC TS ILLUSTRATIVE SITE PLAN 905 RUGBY ROAD RESIDENCE PRELIMINARY MASTERPLAN CIVIL ENGINEERS 19 | APRIL | 2021 5 905 Rugby Road—Additional information. June 10, 2021 Page 1 of 5 Windows Doors. 905 Rugby Road—Additional information. June 10, 2021 Page 2 of 5 Light fixture on fireplace chimney Front (south) elevation 905 Rugby Road—Additional information. June 10, 202 Page 3 of 5 Light fixture at rear doors Rear (north) elevation 905 Rugby Road—Additional information. June 10, 202 Page 4 of 5 Light fixture at 2nd floor window Side (east) elevation 905 Rugby Road—Additional information. June 10, 202 Page 5 of 5 Fence (conceptual) Door and window shutters (conceptual) 1 of 5 905 Rugby Rugby Road 2 of 6 608 614 616 700 712 714 3 of 6 Rugby Road 800 804 810 900 910 914 Rugby Road 4 of 6 922 (non-contributing) 918 924 928 936 Rugby Road 5 of 6 901 (non-contributing) 809 905 (non-contributing, to be razed) 905 (proposed new) 915 917 Rugby Road 7 of 6 919 921 929 933 Certificate of Appropriateness (HC District) BAR 21-06-07 854 Locust Avenue, Tax Parcel 510092000 Martha Jefferson Historic Conservation District Owner: Kaitlyn and Alan Taylor Applicant: Ashley Davies Project: Construction of a garage Application components (please click each link to go directly to PDF page): • Staff Report • Historic Survey • Application Submittal June 15, 2021 BAR Packet Guide 9 City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Staff Report June 15, 2021 Certificate of Appropriateness Application (Historic Conservation District) BAR 21-06-07 854 Locust Avenue, Tax Parcel 510092000 Martha Jefferson Historic Conservation District Owner: Kaitlyn and Alan Taylor Applicant: Ashley Davies Project: Construction of a garage Background Year Built: 1903 District: Martha Jefferson HC District Status: Contributing The property contains an imposing two-story painted-brick dwelling, constructed in 1903 for John S. White, a real estate lawyer. (Historic survey in applicant’s submittal.) Prior BAR Review September 2011 - BAR approved demolition of small cinder block addition (c1960) on the guest house, cinder block garage (c1960) attached to the barn, and open frame shed (c1970’s). August 18, 2020 – BAR approved demolition of the guest house and cinder block garage. Application • Applicant submittal: Bracey Designs drawings 854 Locust Ave., dated May 12, 2021: Site Plan; [garage] Plans; [garage] Elevations (two sheets); and Rendering. Request CoA for construction of a two-story, detached garage. Materials • Roof: Standing-seam metal. Painted to match the house roof. • Walls: Brick garage with painted shiplap siding on the upper shed dormers. • Windows: Four-lite, paired, casement windows. • Doors: Not visible from Locust Ave. 854 Locust Ave (June 10, 2021) 1 • Garage Doors: Paneled. • Light Fixtures: Wall sconces at garage doors. Fixtures not specified. • Balcony and rail: Not visible from Locust Ave. Discussion and Recommendations Note: The regulations and guidelines for projects within a Historic Conservation District (HCD) are, by design, less rigid than those for an ADC District or an IPP. The HCD designations are intended to preserve the character-defining elements of the neighborhoods and to assure that new construction is not inappropriate to that character, while minimally imposing on current residents who may want to upgrade their homes. Within the existing HCDs are buildings and/or areas that might easily qualify for an ADC District or as an IPP; however, in evaluating proposals within HCDs, the BAR may apply only the HCD requirements and guidelines. Within an HCD, the design review prioritizes what is visible from the public right of way. New structures concealed by the principal structure from all abutting streets are exempt from BAR review. With that, the four sides of the proposed garage are of the same design and materials, staff will focus on the front elevation. Staff recommends approval. (See comments below under Pertinent Design Review Guidelines for New Construction and Additions.) Suggested Motions Approval: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City Design Guidelines for Historic Conservation Districts, I move to find that the proposed garage at 854 Locust Avenue satisfies the BAR’s criteria and is compatible with this property and other properties in the Martha Jefferson Neighborhood Historic Conservation District, and that the BAR approves the application [as submitted.] […as submitted with the following conditions: …] Denial: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City Design Guidelines for Historic Conservation Districts, I move to find that the proposed garage at 854 Locust Avenue does not satisfy the BAR’s criteria and is not compatible with this property and other properties in the Martha Jefferson Neighborhood Historic Conservation District, and that for the following reasons the BAR denies the application as submitted: Criteria, Standards, and Guidelines Review Criteria Generally Sec. 34-341 of the City Code. Criteria for approval a. In considering a particular application the BAR shall approve the application unless it finds: 1. That the proposal does not meet specific standards set forth within this division or applicable provisions of the conservation district design guidelines; and 2. The proposal is incompatible with the historic, cultural or architectural character of the conservation district in which the property is located. b. The BAR's review of the proposed new construction or addition to a building or structure shall be limited to factors specified in section 34-342. The BAR's review of the proposed demolition, 854 Locust Ave (June 10, 2021) 2 razing or moving of any contributing structure shall be limited to the factors specified in section 34-343. c. The BAR, or city council on appeal, may require conditions of approval as are necessary or desirable to ensure that any new construction or addition would be compatible with the scale and character of the historic conservation district. Prior to attaching conditions to an approval, due consideration shall be given to the cost of compliance with the proposed conditions. Sec. 34-342 of the City Code. Standards for review of new construction and additions. The following features and factors shall be considered in determining the appropriateness of proposed new construction and additions to buildings or structures: 1) Whether the form, height, scale, mass and placement of the proposed construction are visually and architecturally compatible with the site and the applicable conservation district; 2) The harmony of the proposed changes in terms of overall proportion and the size and placement of entrances and windows; 3) The impact of the proposed change on the essential architectural form and integrity of the existing building; 4) The effect, with respect to architectural considerations, of the proposed change on the conservation district neighborhood; 5) Any applicable provisions of the city's conservation district design guidelines. Pertinent Design Review Guidelines for New Construction and Additions Building Location – setback and spacing 1. Align a new building close to the average building setback line on the same street, if established, or consistent with the surrounding area. 2. Maintain average spacing between buildings on the same street. Staff Comment: Garages generally located along the parcel line and either to the side or behind a house are common within the district, especially at the northern end of Locust Avenue; with most listed as contributing structures. The 1920 Sanborn Map indicates a garage located to the rear of this property. (See image and map in the Appendix.) Building Scale – height and massing 1. Keep the footprint, and massing of new buildings consistent with the neighborhood characteristics and compatible with the character of buildings on the same street. 2. Keep the height and width of new buildings within the prevailing average height and width. Exceptions up to 200% of the prevailing height and width may be approved by the BAR when contextually appropriate. 3. An addition needs to be perceived as an addition and therefore should not visually overpower the existing building in scale and design. 4. An accessory building should appear secondary to the main building in scale and design. 5. Larger buildings (commercial or multi-family) otherwise permitted by zoning should be designed and articulated to be compatible with the scale of the majority of adjacent buildings on the same street or block. Staff Comment: The proposed garage complies with these conditions. 854 Locust Ave (June 10, 2021) 3 Building Form – roofs and porches 1. Roof forms should reference contributing buildings on the same street or surrounding area. Other roof forms may be approved by the BAR when contextually appropriate. 2. If many of the contributing buildings on the same street have porches, then it is strongly recommended that the design of a new residence includes a porch or similar form of similar width and depth. Staff Comment: The garage roof material and form are compatible with the HCD. Building Openings – orientation, doors and windows 1. A single entrance door (or main entrance of a multifamily dwelling) facing the street is recommended. 2. Window and door patterns and the ratio of solids (wall area) to voids (window and door area) of new buildings should be compatible with contributing buildings in the surrounding area. 3. Windows should be simple shapes compatible with those on contributing buildings, which are generally vertically oriented in residential areas. Staff Comment: The garage is oriented towards the street. The arrangement and style of the doors and windows are compatible with the HCD. Building Materials and Textures 1. The selection of materials and textures for a new building should relate architecturally to the district, and should be compatible with and complementary to neighboring buildings. 2. Long-lasting, durable and natural materials are preferred, including brick, wood, stucco, and cementitious siding and standing seam metal roofs. Clear glass windows (VLT of 70% or more) are preferred. Staff Comment: The proposed materials are compatible with the HCD. Per the HCD regs, the replacement of windows and doors does not require a CoA. For additions and the construction of small, auxiliary buildings, it is staff’s interpretation that window and door specifications are not required for CoA approval. Relative to the provision for 70% VLT glass, in prior discussion the BAR established that this not be necessary or appropriate for residential projects. (The glass for most residential doors and windows typically has a VLT in the low 60s.) The proposed garage doors are compatible with the HCD, which features an eclectic range of styles and designs. Building Paint 1. Painting unpainted brick or other masonry is discouraged because it is irreversible and may cause moisture problems. Staff Comment: Brick and painted (white) siding and trim is compatible with the HCD. Site 1. Fences or walls that abut a City street (or fences located in a side yard between a street and the front of the principal structure on a lot) should not exceed three and one-half feet in height. Staff Comment: Not applicable. Proposed fence is behind the primary structure and not visible from Locust Ave. 854 Locust Ave (June 10, 2021) 4 Martha Jefferson Historic Conservation District Architectural character-defining features: 1. Encourage one-story front porches; 2. Encourage garages to be located in the rear yards; 3. The levels of a building’s stories should be consistent with those on surrounding structures with respect to the natural grade [for example, a first floor should not be raised so that it is higher than most surrounding first floors]; 4. Do not exclude well-designed, new contemporary architecture [there may be a misconception that only historic-looking new buildings are permitted]; 5. Encourage standing seam metal roofs; 6. Maintain and encourage tree canopy [Maintain the existing tree canopy and encourage new large shade trees]; 7. The following Historic Conservation Overlay District Design Guidelines are especially pertinent: a. maintain neighborhood massing and form; b. encourage the use of sustainable materials; c. limit the height of fences in front yards to 3 ½ feet in height. 8. Regarding the future development of the hospital properties, the neighborhood’s focus has been: a. not to tear down the old houses; to encourage low density residential development north of Taylor Walk (with the suggestion that Taylor Street be reinstated); b. to expect the High Street area to develop as a sensitively designed, high-quality, mixed use development; 9. Encourage good stewardship of Maplewood Cemetery. Staff Comment: Proposed garage is located in the rear yard and features a standing-seam metal roof. Appendix 854 Locust Ave (June 10, 2021) 5 854 Locust Ave (June 10, 2021) 6 PER ZONING SECT 34-1105 10' - 0" SIDE SETBACK 5' - 0" CLEAR PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINE DRIVEWAY LOC NEW GARAGE U (ACCESSORY STRUCTURE) S EXISTING HOUSE T (MAIN STRUCTURE) NEW PRIVACY FENCE AVE PER ZONING SECT 34-1105 10' - 0" SIDE SETBACK 25' - 0" REAR SETBACK 5' - 0" CLEAR 25' - 0" F RONT SE TBACK 854 LOCUST AVE - Site Plan Scale: 1" = 30'-0" 5/12/2021 1:46:14 PM 5' - 9 1/4" 12' - 0" 4' - 5 1/2" 2 2 004 004 UP STAIR LANDING 4' - 1 1/4" 4' - 1 1/4" 3' - 6" 17' - 10 3/4" 3' - 6 1/4" 3' - 11 1/2" BALCONY ABOVE 3' - 7 1/2" 16' - 9" 3' - 7 1/2" 3' - 10 3/4" GARAGE 101 BATHROOM 557 SF 1 1 24' - 3 1/2" 202 BALCONY 1 1 STUDIO 15' - 2" 15' - 2" 8' - 0" 004 004 7' - 7" 003 003 44 SF 201 Not Enclosed 3' - 4 1/2" 2' - 3 1/2" UTILITY 5' - 11" 6' - 4" CL EQ EQ 2' - 9" 2 2 003 003 2' - 6 1/2" 9' - 1" 1' - 9" 9' - 1" 2' - 5 1/2" 24' - 11" 1 Garage - Level 01 2 Garage - Level 02 3/16" = 1'-0" 3/16" = 1'-0" 854 LOCUST AVE - Plans Scale: 3/16" = 1'-0" 5/12/2021 1:46:14 PM 4' - 0" TYP STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF, COLOR AND TYPE TO MATCH EXISTING HOUSE Garage - Level 2 TP 15' - 9 3/4" 4' - 6" TYP WHITE SHIPLAP SIDING WHITE SHIPLAP SIDING 8' - 10 1/4" 23' - 4 1/4" Garage - Level 2 FF 6' - 11 1/2" Garage - Level 1 TP 1' - 3 1/2" 5' - 8" 10' - 0" WALL SCONCE 8' - 0" MASONRY, COLOR TO MASONRY, COLOR TO MATCH EXISTING HOUSE MATCH EXISTING HOUSE Pool House - Level 1 FF -4' - 4" 1 Elev - Garage - Left 2 Elev - Garage - Front 3/16" = 1'-0" 3/16" = 1'-0" 854 LOCUST AVE - Elevations Scale: 3/16" = 1'-0" 5/12/2021 1:46:16 PM STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF, COLOR AND TYPE TO MATCH EXISTING HOUSE Garage - Level 2 TP 15' - 9 3/4" WHITE SHIPLAP SIDING WHITE SHIPLAP SIDING 8' - 10 1/4" 23' - 4 1/4" Garage - Level 2 FF 1' - 3 1/2" 6' - 11 1/2" Garage - Level 1 TP 5' - 8" PTD WOD STAIR (NOT 10' - 0" VISIBLE FROM STREET) MASONRY, COLOR TO MASONRY, COLOR TO MATCH EXISTING HOUSE MATCH EXISTING HOUSE Pool House - Level 1 FF -4' - 4" 1 Elev - Garage - Right 2 Elev - Garage - Rear 3/16" = 1'-0" 3/16" = 1'-0" 854 LOCUST AVE - Elevations Scale: 3/16" = 1'-0" 5/12/2021 1:46:17 PM EXISTING HOUSE 854 LOCUST AVE - Renderings Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" 5/12/2021 1:46:18 PM