DRAFT BAR MINUTES CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW Regular Meeting June 15, 2021 – 5:00 PM 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: Jody Lahendro, Robert Edwards, Carl Schwarz, Cheri Lewis, Ron Bailey, James Zehmer, Tim Mohr Members Absent: Breck Gastinger, Andy McClure Staff Present: Patrick Cory, Lachen Parks, Robert Watkins, Jeff Werner Pre-Meeting: The Locust Avenue Certificate of Appropriateness Application was removed from the Agenda. There was a discussion regarding the College Inn window. The Gildersleeve Certificate of Appropriateness Application on the Consent Agenda was discussed in the Pre-Meeting. The Chairman did have a concern regarding the Woods Funeral Home lighting and the dark sky ordinance. Ms. Lewis had a question regarding the Consent Agenda and the motions attached to the individual Certificate of Appropriateness Applications on the Consent Agenda. Staff informed Ms. Lewis that by approving the Consent Agenda, the BAR is approving the motions in the staff report. The Gildersleeve and Funeral Certificate of Appropriateness Applications were pulled from the Consent Agenda. The Meeting was called to order at 5:30 PM by the Chairman. A. Matters from the public not on the agenda No Comments from the Public 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 June 15, 2021 (Draft) DRAFT 1. BAR Meeting Minutes from February 17, 2021 2. Certificate of Appropriateness Application 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 Mr. Zehmer moved to approve the Consent Agenda. (Second by Mr. Mohr). Motion approved 7-0. C. New Items 3. Certificate of Appropriateness Application 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 Jeff Werner, Staff Report – Year Built: House: c1921; Garage: c1950 District: Oakhurst- Gildersleeve ADC District Status: Contributing (both). 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. Deren Bader, Applicant – I did try to figure out what was the most appropriate window. I did contact the historical society to see if they could find an old photograph of the house with the original windows. They couldn’t do that. We bought the house in 2005. At that time, there was an old, dilapidated garage on the property. The roof of the garage had fallen in. My husband and I have a memory of there being some window sashes in that old garage that had been sitting on the ground, exposed to rain for a long time. When we removed the garage, we pulled all of that stuff out. Both of our memories were that the window sash were even. That is where our thoughts have been in what we would want to replace the windows that are in there now. QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No Questions from the Public QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Lahendro – Are these sashes shown in the photograph on the first floor original? Ms. Bader – Those are original windows. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC No Comments from the Public 2 BAR Meeting Minutes June 15, 2021 (Draft) DRAFT COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Zehmer – There is an image labeled southeast rear corner below the circled window on the right. It has 6 lights over 1 light. Do you know if that is an original window? Ms. Bader – Yes. All of those windows are original. Mr. Zehmer – It is important to know that they treated the second floor similar to the first floor. You probably heard some of the discussion in the pre-meeting. There us the example of the neighboring house on Thompson Street. We don’t have any evidence to guide us one way or the other. I felt it was necessary to have a quick discussion. I am supportive of replacing the windows. Mr. Lahendro – The larger pane of glass was a more expensive feature at that time. Putting it on the home sash on the first floor or main floor is entirely appropriate. It would show off the house. It would be a more expensive feature. It would provide uninterrupted light and views. For the second floor, I would expect it not to have the one over one. I would expect it to be a six over six or something more reasonable for the time. It would have been a divided sash. The reason the first floor is divided like it is, is to show off that full pane of glass and show how rich these people were. For the second floor, I would expect a less expensive treatment; a more common six over six would be perfectly appropriate. Mr. Zehmer – What they are proposing is a six over one in the spirit of Thompson Road. Mr. Lahendro – That makes sense too. Mr. Zehmer – My question was the position of the meeting rail. Mr. Lahendro – I think that is a greater expense than what they would do for the upstairs. It is a nine over one. I am good with a six over one or six over six. Motion – Mr. Zehmer – 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 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. Mr. Mohr seconds motion. Motion passes (7-0). 4. Certificate of Appropriateness Application 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. Jeff Werner, Staff Report – Year Built: 1937 (Originally the Hill & Irving Funeral Home) District: Downtown ADC District Status: Contributing. Late example of Colonial Revival architecture. Georgian motifs such as the two-storied rectangular mass, slate hipped roof, clapboard dormers, gabled pavilion with quoins delineating the corners, and double sass window are effectively combined with 3 BAR Meeting Minutes June 15, 2021 (Draft) DRAFT the Federal style doorways. Request for CoA to replace two bollard-lights with two, pole-mounted fixtures. QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No Questions from the Public QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Schwarz – Do you have any concerns with a lamp that would have a shielded top similar to what you currently have on your building? Ms. Willetts – With that, we were unable to find something that matched better than the ones with the glass top. It is not really an acorn but whatever that shape of the glass itself is. They no longer make that specific one. We were trying to find something similar. With the glass top, that matches the bell of the glass itself. We thought it would emit more light. We thought it would be an added safety feature. Mr. Schwarz – Is that the reason for the upgrade? Ms. Willetts – In general, we would like to put in pole lights. We have small walk lights that are up a little bit. They no longer work properly. You can move them around. We just wanted to upgrade the building’s appearance itself. We thought that would bring added light. If we got a taller pole light, it would be less likely for it to have any damage or be easily damaged. Mr. Mohr – Where would they be located? Ms. Willetts – We would have two replace those two small lights that we currently have. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC No Comments from the Public COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Schwarz – My concern was with the Dark Sky Ordinance. Because it is a residential style fixture, it meets our zoning code. It is always preferable to have a shield on top. Does anyone else share my concern? Mr. Mohr – My inclination would be to say that it would be better to use a modern pole light that washes that immediate area but not with bright light. I think this light will compete with the lights in front of the building. It is mimicking them. If you do something more up in the trees, it provides a very low level of aerial lighting. That would be more effective than something that is just another object. It seems that it competes with the lights that are already on the building. I would have said that the bollards are putting the light where it belongs. Ms. Willetts – With the light pole itself, the light would be about eight feet off of the sidewalk. It will be a little more than 7 feet off of the step itself. It wouldn’t be all of the lights in one line. Mr. Mohr – I think it competes with the other lights, which is the issue with having them be very similar. 4 BAR Meeting Minutes June 15, 2021 (Draft) DRAFT Ms. Willetts – Since they’re not tall lights, we didn’t want a whole different style. We wanted something that would not be low to the ground. Mr. Mohr – With the lights low to the ground, are they not getting enough light to the steps under the podium there? Ms. Willetts – I believe those were installed in the 70s. They aren’t very bright. I don’t even know if they work. Since we wanted to make that area more illuminated, we thought we would upgrade. Regardless, we have to replace those lights. Mr. Mohr – Are there any lights in the canopy? Ms. Willetts – There is one light in the canopy. We have the two sconces on the front door. There is nothing over the sidewalk. As people are coming by in the evening or in the winter when it is dark, the stairs are not very illuminated. Mr. Mohr – It still seems like a down light would be preferable than something that throws light all over the place. Ms. Willetts – I don’t mind continuing to look for a shield. To match the base of that light, that was only one I was able to find that was the correct size. You can find some at Lowes. They’re the ones that hang outside of the backdoor. Mr. Mohr – It’s very hard to find anything that matches. I don’t know if there is that much of an up- light component. Mr. Schwarz – It is 3 sixty watt bulbs. Theoretically, you could insert a sixty watt LED in there. It would be like the sun is sitting in front of your building. I don’t think that is your intention. I imagine you want this to be gently lit. This is a decorative thing for you. You’re getting light. You’re also upgrading the appearance of the fixtures. For better light quality, a modern down light would work. It doesn’t look like that is what you are aesthetically after. Ms. Willetts – We have reached out to Ferguson. We have tried other vendors that we have used. It is not really the style anymore. Mr. Zehmer – Did you consider replacing the sconce lights as well? You could have a set that matches. Ms. Willetts – We also have lights along the back wall in our parking lot. We have lights on the other end of the parking lot. They are all the same. We have the two sconces. We have other pole lights that were affixed years ago along the back wall of our parking lot. Mr. Mohr – Do they match the sconces? What about moving two of those over to your front? Ms. Willets – They’re a smaller fixture. Those would be too small. They’re at eye level. It wouldn’t look the way we would want it to look in the end. 5 BAR Meeting Minutes June 15, 2021 (Draft) DRAFT Motion – Mr. Schwarz – Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find the proposed light fixtures at 201 1st Street North satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are compatible with this property and other properties in the West Main ADC District, and that the BAR approves the application as submitted with the condition that the selected lamping is dimmable, has a Color Temperature not to exceed 3,000K, and has Color Rendering Index of not less than 80, preferably not less than 90. Ron Bailey seconds motion. Motion passes (7-0). 5. 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) façade Jeff Werner, Staff Report – 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. CoA request for a painted mural on the east façade, facing 10th Street, NW. Staff recommends approval. Alan Goffinski, Applicant – I pleased in proposing this brilliant, new mural on a non-primary cinder block façade at this location. This original, collaborative artwork by Hamilton Glass and Jay Johnson will transform an architecturally unremarkable wall by imbuing it with a sense of color of motion that enhances the existing character of the area. The mural incorporates perspectives shared by the Tenth and Page neighborhood association and other residents. Chiefly among them being the inclusion of the local artists in the creation. The artwork is a striking and relevant compliment to the existing visual landscape of public art in the immediate vicinity. The flow of the design is very deliberative in how it tactfully accounts for the windows and the architectural elements, while complimenting both the energy of West Main Street and the warmth, vibrancy, and neighborliness the artist seeks to celebrate in the adjacent Tenth and Page community. In adherence with the BAR guidelines, the design is contained to portions of only one wall, assuring it doesn’t alter or distort the perceived geometry of the building. We at the Charlottesville Mural Project look forward to closely working with both of these esteemed artists to ensure the successful creation of what we believe will be an iconic, original work of art for our city going into the future. Jay Johnson is an emerging muralist here in Charlottesville, who we have worked with on numerous projects including the Charlottesville/Albemarle Technical Education Center, UVA Health, and a project with UVA Athletics. He specializes in creating dynamic portraiture and figure drawing. He has exhibited our work in various galleries throughout town. He has done our community based artwork with a lot of organizations and initiatives throughout Charlottesville. We are pleased to pair him with Hamilton Glass, who is a very prolific and distinguished muralist in Central Virginia with a very robust history of collaboration with artists and organizations across the country with projects that have included Boys and Girls Club, the Wounded Warrior Project, and several projects with the Mural Project in the past. His career in art stems from his 6 BAR Meeting Minutes June 15, 2021 (Draft) DRAFT architectural and design background. Despite working in the architecture field for seven years, his passion for public art pushed him to start out as a career artist. Public art has always been a big inspiration of his because of the power to influence and inspire surrounding communities. With every project he has given to create, he strives to build in a message that connects the work to the community in which the artwork will live. Pairing up Hamilton Glass and Jay Johnson in this project was something that both artists embraced very enthusiastically and something that has been a real joy to watch come together. Jay has used his connection with the community and his deep knowledge in history growing up in the Tenth and Page community and his connections to his neighbors and his family, who have lived in that community for generations to create what is a beautiful, warm, and exciting piece of artwork. Lara Behnert, Applicant – I have had the great privilege of directly working on this project. Thank you so much for introducing us to Alan and his organization. We have been so thrilled to be working with Jay and Hamilton. They are both so talented and have worked really fast to put together a successful and joyful piece. Mr. Schwarz, I think that I heard you were worried we hadn’t taken it to the community board. We were down to the hour to get this to you to review. That would be our next step. We’re just hoping we have done the right thing. I am really excited about this project. There are a lot of people at Starbucks attached to this project. Senior executives are very excited about this project. QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No Questions from the Public QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD No Questions from the Board COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC No Comments from the Public COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Mohr – I am glad that people seem to be honing on solutions and ideas that do seem to respect the buildings and have a life of their own. I think it is great. Mr. Schwarz – It certainly meets our guidelines as far as not obscuring the building. I think it is great. Motion – Ms. Lewis – 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. Tim Mohr seconds. Motion passes (7-0). 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 BAR Meeting Minutes June 15, 2021 (Draft) DRAFT Jeff Werner, Staff Report – 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. 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. 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 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]. 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.). 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. 8 BAR Meeting Minutes June 15, 2021 (Draft) DRAFT • Cleaning the brick is fine, provided it is done appropriately. No abrasive chemicals, no high pressure washing, 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. Abigail Arnold, Applicant – I am working with Chipotle. We are going to take over this space. We are going to occupy and renovate it. We are going to make it look clean and embrace the history of the area and preserve that art deco window. We are going to try to give a little bit of an update so we get our branding in there. We are going to add a little liveliness especially with the neighboring tenant. The storefront is the big one and respecting the old storefront. On the signage, we are looking to swap the colors a little bit. It already has the white trim around it. That will match too. We will update the patio furniture. QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No Questions from the Public QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Schwarz – With the area you are proposing to paint, it looks like the building steps a couple times along that alleyway. Is it just the last final step that you were painting? Where does it start and stop? Ms. Arnold – If you are not interested in us painting the brick, we are good with that. Looking at the final step back of the brick, that is what we discussed. We would be open to not painting that brick and getting the best match we can. On page 1 where the white boxes are on the left side, that is where we 9 BAR Meeting Minutes June 15, 2021 (Draft) DRAFT are going to infill all of that. We will try to match what the brick is there in the mortar to make it look as matching as possible. You can see some remnants of infill. I think we can do a pretty good job with that having to paint. We would look at painting the CNU on the backside and around the corner. Mr. Schwarz – With the alley wall where you have the green algae, would it help to extend the scuppers out a little bit? Ms. Arnold – We thought about that. That alley is so narrow that any truck going down it would hit. That was one of our discussion ideas. Mr. Schwarz – The scuppers have been hit? Ms. Arnold – They have been chipped off. I guess it could be something other than a car. I would assume it was a car. Mr. Schwarz – It almost needs a better drip on the end. The water, when it was coming out, instantly tucked back against the wall. Ms. Arnold – It could be a low profile. Mr. Lahendro – Staff had a couple of issues on a few things that he mentioned in the staff report. I am wondering what your response is to things like water proofing the brick, the water proofing material, and that it should not be a water proof material. It should be water resistant material; something that is breathable. Ms. Arnold – I hadn’t yet planned the detail for that. I am definitely fine to not water proof it. That makes sense. We don’t want to get it stuck in the brick itself. Mr. Lahendro – Water proofing ends up capturing water that gets into a wall behind the water proofing. It starts to spoil the brick. Something that breathable that doesn’t allow water in; they do make such products. Ms. Arnold – That makes sense. We’re very open to that. Mr. Lahendro – That deco window is a focus of ours. It is one of the few really nice things that have been left behind. That’s a decorative feature and an important feature. The assessment is that it needs to be replaced. Who made that assessment? We would want to be really sure that it has to be replaced before we would agree to replace it. Is it still possible to have it investigated by a professional to see that it can’t be preserved? If anything, is taken out, repaired, put back, and hopefully have the paint stripped off the glass? Ms. Arnold – Absolutely. I thought it would just be removed. We will get a professional out, investigate it, and see what the best solutions are and do our best to preserve and keep what we can before going into replacement. Mr. Lahendro – There are people and craftsmen in the area that work on metal and have done restoration work. It’s harder. It’s not as straightforward or easy to understand as carpentry. They are available. Let us know if you need any references. 10 BAR Meeting Minutes June 15, 2021 (Draft) DRAFT Ms. Arnold – I was also worried about the paint with the glass. We can find out what happens when we start removing it. Mr. Lahendro – Let’s do some testing on it and if it can be kept. That would probably be a condition of ours that we try to preserve and restore that art deco window rather than replace it. Mr. Zehmer – On the rear portion of the building where those infill panels are, it looks like those have a concrete sill with plywood. Were those originally windows? What is behind the plywood? Ms. Arnold – When we were there, it looks like nothing. They already have issues with leakage in that area. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC No Comments from the Public COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Zehmer – Jody has already covered the art deco window. I would just echo his support of that in terms of preservation approaches as a first step. I didn’t want to talk about the infill on that rear portion of the building on the alley side. I was the project manager for the building directly across the alley that University now manages. We did a lot of research on the history of buildings in this area. There were a number of different businesses that actually were just access directly onto the alley. They didn’t have a storefront on University Avenue. I do think it is important especially if that is a concrete fill below the plywood. I think it is important to preserve that. I think it would be OK to infill that with brick or something. Instead of painting all of that wall, just paint the infill to try to have an echo of those former businesses and entrances onto that alley side. Mr. Schwarz – Staff had mentioned you could recess the brick. Mr. Zehmer – It is in our guidelines to not paint unpainted masonry. If it is new masonry infill, you could argue that you could paint that to set it apart from the original building fabric. If it is good condition, makd sure to preserve that sill. It lets it be reversible. I think the rear elevations facing the parking lot is painted. For maintenance purposes, if that was to be painted, I wouldn’t object to that. When we were doing the building across the alley, the Sanborn maps helped us learn what businesses were in the basement of 1515. That might also add to the history of this particular building. Ms. Lewis – The owner owns the parking lot back there. Is that shed part of the application? What do you plan to do with it? Ms. Arnold – That is not ours to touch as far as Chipotle, my client, is concerned. I do think that would be interesting. It is just a plywood box. Mr. Werner – Have you come across any original drawings of the building? We are starting to build a database of who the architects of these more contemporary buildings around the city were? Ms. Arnold – I just had what I got from you. It wasn’t much. It will be interesting what we find out as we get in there. 11 BAR Meeting Minutes June 15, 2021 (Draft) DRAFT Mr. Schwarz – With the little windows you are putting spandrel glass in, is that going to be black glass? Ms. Arnold – On the art deco window, is that all grey glass or black glass? I know that it is spandrel. In history, it has been opaque. For history, it is going to be what it is when we take the paint off. Mr. Schwarz – You have “glass block” on the corner. Ms. Arnold – Those are spandrel too; like structural glass. What we put down on the floor could be grey or black. We discussed what if we did something fun. It is so small. It definitely needs to be opaque. I would assume a dark grey. Motion – Mr. Schwarz – 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) 4 ADC District, and that the BAR approves the application as submitted, noting that signage will require a separate sign permit, with the following modifications: • The starburst window will be removed from the application so that it can be further studied to see if it can be repaired • 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 cut sheets will be submitted to staff 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. • The infill of the windows should be recessed, with concrete sills preserved, with the option to paint • The BAR would like to see the selected masonry sealer, submitted to staff. Jody Lahendro seconds. Motion passes (7-0). 7. Certificate of Appropriateness Application 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 Jeff Werner, Staff Report – 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. Request CoA for construction of a two-story residence. 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 12 BAR Meeting Minutes June 15, 2021 (Draft) DRAFT 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. Derek Uhler, Applicant – The plan is very thorough. I was the lead designer in conjunction with Water Street Studios. The main directive was trying to make something that looked a lot better than what is currently there. It is in a pretty bad state of disrepair. The owner is looking to drastically improve the property. With that, a pretty comprehensive landscape plan that really improves on what is there. We love the stone wall in the front. We would like to really keep that element and build on that element throughout the project. There was concern raised about the tree removal. Within the existing conditions, you can see that there are two large trees that are the main contention. One is directly on the eastern border of the property. It is on 905s property. The root system definitely goes across the property line. It’s an ash tree. We don’t believe we can work around that tree or the other large tree, which is on the west side of the house. Any kind of construction, because of the location of the tree, is going to negatively impact and most likely kill the tree. It’s just not in a good spot to build around it to really do anything else with the property. The tree on the other side is actually hanging over the roof of the existing structure. The footprint of the new structure is very similar. Any kind of construction around that tree is going to create an issue. We are saving the three dogwood trees along the southwest corner of the property. We will fence those off for construction and keep those in good shape. All of the other vegetation on the property would need to be removed to regrade and replant everything that we would like to put back. QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No Questions from the Public QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Schwarz – On the landscape plan, it looks like all of the trees on the site will be small flowering trees. Is that correct? Mr. Uhler – That is correct. We worked with Water Street Studios. I am happy to listen to recommendations there. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC Melissa Surgine Smith – (Emailed Comments to Staff) – The first question was about the target date of the project. There was also a question about the removal of trees on the property line and when it would be done. There was a question about bamboo removal on the rear and how it would be done. Ms. Smith had also had a question about the replacement of existing trees. That clarification is in the landscape plan. Water Street Studios identified what type of plants. There was a question about the grade of the drive and the parking of cars. According to staff, there will not a whole lot of change. There was a question about underground springs. The final question was about accessibility to their property. Mr. Uhler – I will be reaching out to Ms. Smith regarding all of those questions. I would love to meet onsite and go over the whole process. COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD 13 BAR Meeting Minutes June 15, 2021 (Draft) DRAFT Mr. Schwarz – Our guidelines are much more lax when it comes to historic conservation districts. There are a couple of guidelines in there that I think apply to this. One is front entrances. A main entrance facing the street is recommended. The way I read your design is that it is a very nice design. I was confused as to what is the front or the back. It appears the front is like the back. You have put a front on Rugby Road. The Martha Jefferson neighborhood asked for large trees in their neighborhood. Rugby didn’t ask for much at all. There are three requirements. They 1.5, 2, or 2.5 story dwellings. They do mention front porticos or porches. They mention slate shingled roofs, gable or hipped roof forms, roof dormers, and contributing out buildings with deep set planted front yards, mostly unpaved with no visible garages. You have no visible garage. You do have parking in the front yard. There is precedent for that. Mr. Uhler – We are trying to keep the view of cars from the street as limited as possible. Mr. Schwarz – There is one request that I would make for this project. There is no power lines on your side of the street. It would be fantastic if the owners could put in some street trees as opposed to everything being small flowering trees. I can only make that as a request. Mr. Uhler – The street trees as in up against the retaining wall on the yard side. Mr. Schwarz – I imagine what is below the retaining wall is probably not plantable. Mr. Uhler – We would be happy to do that. We have a little bit. Your comment about not mature hardwoods is also noted. That does seem like a design flaw. Mr. Lahendro – That’s a great idea. I would also add to tell Water Street to check the city’s recommended tree guidelines. There is a listing for the types of trees that are appropriate for Charlottesville that are canopy street trees. Mr. Schwarz – I don’t if anybody else has issue with the front door/front porch thing. There is a precedent for not having a front porch on Rugby. Mr. Zehmer – I don’t that it is against the guidelines. Mr. Mohr – The front door thing in the guidelines is an anti-duplex approach. I think that is the reason for it. It wants everything to look like R-1. It will be interesting to see how they address what door is going to be the front door. Mr. Uhler – To your point about some street trees, that might help soften the visual of that large front. Mr. Mohr – I don’t really see that. To me, it’s more of an issue of making that parking area go away. Philosophically, in the older neighborhoods, I object to how zoning works in terms of new construction and having off street parking. In the end, you end up with a cut as wide as what you just replaced. I have problem with it philosophically having the parking in front of the house. I think the street trees would go a long way towards alleviating that concern. I don’t have an issue with it at all. Mr. Bailey – I will note that the back also has multiple doors. They have a lot of doors. Mr. Uhler – The trees on the front to soften the whole thing would definitely work. I will get with Water Studios to work that out. The owner would be amenable to that. 14 BAR Meeting Minutes June 15, 2021 (Draft) DRAFT Mr. Mohr – I don’t see it as a softening. It is just simply reinforcing the road. Ms. Lewis – I don’t have a problem with the two front doors. The property that staff has pointed to at 700 Rugby Road has two front doors if you look at it. It is the one that is compared to this with a significant roofline. With 714 Rugby, I have never been able to figure out what the front of that house is. I don’t think, in a historic conservation district, it is fatal. The Rugby Historic Neighborhood is represented by a wide variety of architectural types. I don’t think that it is just Georgian in this neighborhood. Once you get off Rugby, you get even more diversity, cottage-like vernacular, and things that with some age on this house look like it was a certain era when a lot of this grand and quirky homes were built. I think it is perfectly compatible with the district. Mr. Lahendro – Where did you get the inspiration for those swooping “ski jump” slopes? Mr. Uhler – The owner actually came to us with a pretty firm design in mind. It was included in that. It is an architect who did that same design at the turn of the century. His whole style was small homes and making them feel cottage and cozy. There were questions about lighting. We put notes on our plan. It was 90 CRI, 2700K down lighting; nothing pointed vertically. We’re very concerned about that as well. There are some soffit lights down that we noted. We don’t have the exact specifications yet. We noted everything with the design criteria. Motion – Mr. Mohr – 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 with a request to introduce street trees along Rugby Road. Ron Bailey seconds motion. Motion passes (7-0). D. Other Business 8. Staff Questions/Discussion Update on revisions to the ADC District Design Guidelines There will be a preliminary discussion in July regarding the courts building project There was a discussion regarding the re-opening of City Hall and the resumption of in person meetings There will be a discussion regarding the unmarked graves at Pen Park There was also discussion regarding the Comprehensive Plan – Language seemed supportive of the BAR 9. PLACE Update E. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 7:43 PM. 15 BAR Meeting Minutes June 15, 2021 (Draft) DRAFT 16 BAR Meeting Minutes June 15, 2021 (Draft)