City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Regular Meeting July 20, 2021, 5:30 p.m. Remote meeting via Zoom Packet Guide This is not the agenda. Please click each agenda item below to link directly to the corresponding documents. Please note the times given are approximate only. 5:00 Pre-Meeting Discussion 5:30 Regular Meeting A. Matters from the public not on the agenda (please limit to 3 minutes per speaker) B. Consent Agenda (Note: Any consent agenda item may be pulled and moved to the regular agenda if a BAR member wishes to discuss it, or if any member of the public is present to comment on it. Pulled applications will be discussed at the beginning of the meeting.) 1. BAR Meeting Minutes from March 15, 2021 C. Deferred Items 2. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 21-05-03 605 Preston Place, Tax Parcel 050111000 Rugby Road-University Circle-Venable Neighborhood ADC District Owner: Neighborhood Investment – PC, LP Applicant: Kevin Riddle, Mitchell Matthews Architects Project: Three-story apartment building with below-grade parking D. New Items 3. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 21-08-01 603 Lexington Avenue, Tax Parcel 520167000 Martha Jefferson Historic Conservation District Owner: Richard Zeller Applicant: Kevin Schafer, Design Develop Project: First-floor addition August 17, 2021 BAR Packet Guide 1 4. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-08-02 735 Northwood Avenue, TMP 340078000 North Downtown ADC District Owner: Laura and Phillip Smith Applicant: David Mullen, Halcyon Project: Replace asphalt shingle roof with standing-seam metal, install PV panels E. Discussion Items Brief work session on ADC District Design Guidelines E. Other Business Staff questions/discussion In person meeting delayed. BAR vacancies at end of 2021 F. Adjourn August 17, 2021 BAR Packet Guide 2 BAR MINUTES CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW Regular Meeting March 16, 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: Cheri Lewis, Carl Schwarz, Breck Gastinger, Jody Lahendro, Robert Edwards, Andy McClure, Ron Bailey, Tim Mohr, James Zehmer Staff Present: Jeffrey Werner, Robert Watkins, Patrick Cory, Joe Rice Pre-Meeting: There was a discussion regarding the November BAR Minutes. City Communications Staff and staff went over the new platform in taking detailed minutes with the members of the BAR. Robert Edwards, new member of the BAR, was introduced to the other members of the BAR. Mr. Edwards is a historian. Staff and the BAR went over the Consent Agenda. There was a discussion regarding the items on the Consent Agenda. The COA for 5th Street SW was pulled from the Consent Agenda. The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 5:30 PM. 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.) Mr. Mohr moved to approve the Consent Agenda. (Second by Mr. Schwarz) The Consent Agenda was approved by a 9-0 vote. The 5th Street SW Certificate Of Appropriateness was pulled from the Consent Agenda for further discussion by the BAR. 1. BAR Meeting Minutes from November 17, 2020 2. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-03-01 414 East Main Street, TMP 280049000 Downtown ADC District 1 BAR Meeting Minutes March 16, 2021 Owner: Virginia Pacific Investments, LLC Applicant: Greg Jackson/TOPIA design Project: Improvements to the rear of the building 3. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-03-02 1001 West Main Street, TMP 100050000 West Main ADC District Owner: M & J Real Estate, LLC Applicant: Michael Martin, State Permits, Inc. Project: Exterior alteration 4. Special Use Permit – BAR recommendation BAR 21-03-04 64 University Way, TMP 050048000 Rugby Road-University Circle-Venable ADC District Owner: Neighborhood Investments, LLC Applicant: Chris Henningsen, Henningsen Kestner Architects SUP Request: Increase in residential density and allow a reduction in side yard setbacks to address the non-conforming structure. C. Deferred Items 5. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-03-03 301 5th Street SW, TMP 290104000 Individually Protected Property Owner/Applicant: Michael McMahon Project: Rear addition Jeff Werner, Staff Report – This is a COA request for 301 Fifth Street Southwest. It's an individually protected property. It's the Shelton four house. It is a contributing structure in the Fifeville and Tonsler Neighborhoods Historic Districts, which is listed on the National Register. It was built by John Shelton, a black carpenter, possibly a free man who in 1880, resided there with his wife, Rebecca, a seamstress and their daughter, Julia. This is one of the older homes in the city. The request is for a COA to construct a rear addition and related site work. This project had been reviewed by the BAR back in 2010. The project was delayed and the COA expired. That's why it's been brought back. The questions that were before that were brought up, were addressing the trees on the High Street side. There was the recommendation from one of the BAR members to revisit those. Staff recommends approval with the conditions that were referenced by Mr. Schwarz and whatever changes you all have. QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC Andy Gems – Just curious if there was an updated version of the proposal available for download. I only have the one from 2010 and 2011. Mr. McMahon – We’re making no changes. Mr. Werner – There are two drawings. There are the drawings that were reviewed by the BAR in 2010. There is another set that is dated September, 2011. Those were the construction drawings we had 2 BAR Meeting Minutes March 16, 2021 that were submitted the following year. I used the one from the BAR review in 2010. There is nothing new. Nothing has been altered. Mt. Watkins – Both of those drawings are available with the packet on the city website. QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Zehmer – You are not replacing the windows on the original house? Mr. McMahon – We are not at this time. We’re going to try to rebuild them. The windows on the front are not all the same from 100 years ago. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC No Comments from the Public COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Gastinger – For everyone's education, that Lacebark Elm is on the city's tree list only for limited use and it's for its invasive quality. I'm glad that you're interested in changing the species. I think it would be a better contribution to the neighborhood. As long as you use the Charlottesville recommended tree species for the medium or large scale canopy and also consider the way that they're located along the property line in the ways that they could contribute to the street. Currently, they're arching into the property. You may determine that along the street might be better. Mr. McMahon – If you have a recommendation, I would love to hear it. There is not going to be a fence there because of the grade of the city sidewalk and the storm sewer. Originally, my intention was to build that up and plant a row of trees. That’s something I tried to address at the time. It didn’t go anywhere. Mr. Gastinger – I think that’s fine. I think we will give you some latitude to select a tree. I don’t know the site well enough to feel confident. I also try to not give specific recommendations. I think the tree list is a great place to start. That will give a little bit of flexibility. Mr. McMahon – That is much appreciated. With the last process, what put it on hold was that I went on another project. What did it for me was that I was getting micromanagement on what kind of plants I could use. Thank for giving me that option. That was unexpected and much appreciated. Motion – Mr. Gastinger – Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the ADC District Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed addition and sitework at 301 5th Street SW satisfies the BAR’s criteria and is compatible with this IPP property and that the BAR approves the application as submitted, with the following conditions: • Two entrance doors at the west elevation will be wood and with a design similar to that shown. • The insulated glass in the windows will have an internal spacer bar aligned with the applied grilles. • Shutters are wood or composite material, not vinyl or metal. • For any future exterior lighting, the lamping will be dimmable, have a Color Temperature not to exceed 3,000K, and a Color Rendering Index not less than 80, preferably not less than 90. 3 BAR Meeting Minutes March 16, 2021 • That the proposed 6 lacebark elms be substituted with appropriate species from the Charlottesville Tree List in the medium to large canopy category and that the owner should have discretion to align those trees with the street. Ron Bailey seconds motion. Motion passes (9-0). D. New Items 6. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-03-05 420 West Main, TMP 290011000 Downtown ADC District Owner: A Cadgene, Main Street Land Trust, LLC. Applicant: Greg Jackson/TOPIA design Project: Canopy for the Little Star restaurant Jeff Werner, Staff Report – This is a COA request for 420 West Main Street. It is in the Downtown ADC District. The Downtown ADC District does extend a bit further down West Main than people realize. This request is to construct a canopy in the front corner of what had been a service station. This building was constructed in 1960s. It was renovated into restaurant use in 2001. It is a contributing structure within the West Main Street Historic District on the National Register. I think the most recent time we last saw it was in May of 2018. There were some improvements done in that patio area that you see on the front. This is a COA request for a structural and metal canopy at the front, north elevation. As far as staff’s recommendations, the building currently contributes to set to the West Main Street District, which has a history of automobile related businesses. The BAR should discuss how such changes relate to the original historic building. The building has been modified over the years, adapting it from a service station or restaurant. While the proposed canopy is aesthetically consistent with the current expression of the buildings architecture, it is still an addition to the historic façade. Staff does support the design techniques to support this proposal and the intent of the design. Our recommendation to the applicant and to you all is to see if there is some way that this could still have a physical separation from the existing building. It could possibly have some connection points. The surface does not appear to be a continuous part of the historic building. There was a comment from the BAR in the comments I received about how the seasonal plastic walls will be anchored. With the recommendation of the polycarbonate roof, there's a UV protective coating to the yellowing that can occur on that type of material. There is no exterior lighting indicated. However, the BAR can also apply, if you choose, the conditions that we've used for lighting. That is with the catenary lights. Our recommendation is approval and with the comments about the design. Greg Jackson, Applicant – There is a noting of lighting. It's not attached. There is a consideration for it. The owner wanted string lights that are dimmable and can adhere to the criteria that was suggested in 414. One thing that I am noting when I'm looking at this is that, unfortunately, my rendering is not as accurate as by color description. Page 12 gives a better indication of the difference in colors that would be if this is painted the silver gray against the white building. This was the change made from the last BAR meeting. QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No Questions from the Public 4 BAR Meeting Minutes March 16, 2021 QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Schwarz – You are intending on supporting this off of the structure that is in the existing canopy? You would puncturing the metal skin on the side of that canopy? Mr. Jackson – That’s correct. Mr. Schwarz – Have you thought about how that detail is going to work? Mr. Jackson – No. I am looking at the structural engineer’s diagram. That’s basically what it is. It doesn’t address that completely. I think that it is the intent to go through and connect to that W-10 that’s in there. We have to penetrate. I can certainly get back to you. The look would be to keep that flat appearance. It appears that the W-8 penetrates it. How that is done is tricky. Mr. Schwarz – The desire is that it will look like the beams are penetrating through the existing canopy versus taking it off and putting something else in its place. Mr. Lahendro – Is the design intent that the new canopy match and align with the existing historic canopy? Mr. Jackson – It borrows from the language. It's inspired by it and probably more so in this design. I didn't feel the need to deviate that much. It sets back from the original canopy. The original canopy can come out and still have its presence. It does set back. The columns stay in line and stay slanted together. It's trying to both work with what's there and honor it with a different set back: have a different coloring, have the different kind of roofing, be fresh and new construction. Even the rhythm of the W-8s across the beams are a different rhythm. Mr. Lahendro – I am asking less for all of those things than I am just the fascia of the new canopy. Mr. Jackson – The fascia would be very similar and just a flat surface. Mr. Gastinger – When putting up an infrastructure like this that allows for that installation of temporary wall panels, is that still governed by the tent codes or are we voting to allow a plastic wall on Main Street? Mr. Werner – Yes and no. I wondered that. It’s not a tent. Mr. Schwarz – They are plastic walls when the applicant wishes to have them up. The Potbelly Sandwich shop was going to put plastic in the brick openings, under The Standard. We have a structure in there. They have plastic in them. Mr. Werner – There was a beam issue there. How I am interpreting it is that this is a structure first. Second is the component that could be part of it. If so, how you all want to treat it. It is not a tent. Mr. Mohr – What happens if they glaze it in down the line? Does that become more of a building code question than a BAR question? I am wondering about its definition. 5 BAR Meeting Minutes March 16, 2021 Mr. Werner – I don’t have an actual legal definition. It is not a tent. It is a structure. That’s how I treated it in the staff report. We can certainly go back and defer and get a legal finding from zoning. Nothing seemed to indicate that this would be a tent. Mr. Mohr – The W-8s C-4s are not in alignment? They’re off grade with one another? Mr. Jackson – They’re not in alignment. On page 15, that’s more of the current alignment. We’re spacing the W-8s closer than they need to be. They can be the structure for the roof. It’s a cleaner system. In theory, you would not see from outside into the inside. From inside, you would see those timbers come in that space. Mr. Mohr – There is definitely some detail. Mr. Jackson – I want to make sure that they don’t conflict and make sure that it is visually working. Mr. Schwarz – You will need to develop a detail of how it intercepts the main portion of the building. There are a lot of metal panels that are not easy to cut a hole in. I think we get the design intent. I am curious how that will end up. Where does the water drain off of this? Is it flat? Is it sloping to one side? Mr. Jackson – It is a one percent slope from the building out to the front. The intent is for it to also be sloped out to the west, to the street corner. We would probably have to have some type of notch or tube to allow it to discharge up near the front corner. Mr. Mohr – The title implies that it’s actually pitching back toward the building. One advantage to that you bring your leaders down against the building and not float out in the outer corner if your pitch is running the other way. Mr. Jackson – That’s a possibility. It is basically a downspout. At this point, we probably are not going to have anything else attached to the building and just have it shoot out. If it is raining, it is coming out from that point and further away from the building. Mr. Mohr – It just implies the opposite direction. Mr. Schwarz – Did you describe how the side panels are going to work? When it gets cold and rainy, have you thought about how you’re going to apply those? Mr. Jackson – How we’re going to keep it from moving around? Mr. Schwarz – When the sun comes out, do you take them off or keep them in place? Mr. Jackson – With any design, the user can thwart any type of intention. We do our best when we design it to be rolled up and out of sight. When it is down, it is as clean as possible. Mr. Schwarz – The design intent is that they roll up into the ceiling? Mr. Jackson – If that is not the case, the design intent is for them not to be seen. Mr. Schwarz – They have a lot of storage space. I don’t think you can fold this up pretty tightly. I can’t see them taking it back inside. That’s a big question mark for me. 6 BAR Meeting Minutes March 16, 2021 Mr. Gastinger – Is the intention that these are seasonal or more like shades? Mr. Jackson – No, seasonal; just for the cold period. These were put in place. I probably would have gotten to it. When I sent it as a review to some of you guys a while back that was a question. We looked at it, I talked to the owner, and that's what we proposed. It wasn't necessarily a part of the original intention to have those. Had it been, I might have tried to look at some kind of sliding panel type of system or something. Even something like that begins to give it more of a presence that starts to take away from the building, rather than an open air canopy. With the clear plastic, it seems to allow it to still be an open air canopy that you can know that it's just a temporary type of cover. It actually hasn't come from the client. I can follow up on that. I assumed that they would want to use it since I see them all over. Maybe by next winter, it's not such a concern anymore where they have the full indoor dining, and it's not necessary. It's a thing now. When we first started talking about this, to have it for all the outdoor dining, I'm not sure if it will be that important. They might not even follow through with it Mr. Mohr – It looks like you have space along the street elevation inside the structure there. It would have a pretty significant role. You have about ten inches under the roof behind the outside channel. Mr. Jackson – We can adjust and make sure that there is space there. Mr. Mohr – With the short elevation, I don’t know how you’re going to do it there. Mr. Jackson – I assume that, when they are using these, is during the cold, winter time. When they’re not, I suspect that they’re going to take them down and place them somewhere in storage. It is really not going to be an up and down thing daily. It is going to be seasonal during the winter, if they even use them. We put them up as a scenario that was going to happen. I hadn’t talked to the restaurant owner about their intent. It was an assumption. Mr. Schwarz – It probably makes sense to design something, whether they use it or not. If Little Star sells to somebody else, who knows what the next person might want to do. Thinking about it is probably not a bad idea at this point. Mr. Werner – With the thinking about the Pot Belly Sandwich, one of the issues we had there is that they described “a shower” curtain that would just be pushed aside. That was a concern that we didn't want. It's either visible when it's used or it's not. I've been talking with Andy McClure about a project he has in mind and different ways of doing things. I'm not trying to suggest a deferral, but it may be a way to separate this out. When I was thinking about it, I had given some thought to it. It’s a tent. Craig came to us maybe 18 months ago with that affiliate across the street from City Hall. We had something that came in on East Water Street last month, at times referred to as a pergola. The idea of something within that permanent roof, permanent frame, permanent structure, I don't think of that as a tent. I do think how the sides are used really needs some thought. We are in a period right now where we're thinking about these enclosures because of circumstances with COVID. Looking at the Sky Bar, Commonwealth Bar and the discussion about that, it really came down to that permanence of that enclosure, that screening. It's understandable when it's cold out. I think your question, Carl initially is raising some questions in my head and I don't know how to answer them. It would be wise to decouple and to understand whether the city wants to go with these enclosures and how they want to treat them. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC No Comments from the Public 7 BAR Meeting Minutes March 16, 2021 COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD Mr. McClure – I just don't think deferring to the city for something that we can define ourselves is best. Personally, I guess I'm a little biased. I did talk to the owner of the restaurant about this, prior to it being presented to us. We did just approve the C and O thing. Prior to that, there were a couple other things like the Pot Bellied Sandwich and Sky Bar. We have some precedent. I don't know that we can't answer this question one way or another. Mr. Gastinger – This is a really cool building and one really character defining one for a certain era of Charlottesville and an era that is losing more of its members over the next few years. One of the really character defining features is that canopy that shoots out towards the street and its angled supports. While I very much do think a project could succeed here, I'm concerned that this really complicates the legibility of that canopy. The painting also muddles the story. I'm concerned about the fascia being the same depth and meeting in plane with the existing canopy. One thing that's also been lost in the current painting scheme of the entire structure all going to white is the clarity and celebration of that structural component. Previously, it was a maroon color. It really stood out from the rest of the structure. In this proposed painting scheme, not only are the angled supports all the same color, including the old ones, there could be a different way potentially of using color and maybe differentiation of that roof plane that still allows for the clear legibility of that original structure. With some tweaks, it can get there. I am concerned about it at the moment. I don’t know how to deal with the enclosure. That’s a really difficult one. It seems like that open space is really important to its historical character. I am worried that it is inching into being enclosed, which would destroy the legibility of it. Ms. Lewis – I’m supportive of the application for the canopy. I do think that it meets the guidelines. This building has, according to our records, the first iteration and closing that entryway box into the bar was 2000. I think there were revisions made to it prior to that; maybe ones that weren't approved by the BAR. Nevertheless, the building has evolved. I think the canopy is respectful of the original building. Certainly the new box was created and enclosed 21 years ago. I would like to see more detail on the drop sides, the impermanent sides, materials. I would agree with other members of the BAR that I'm not ready to approve the enclosure aspect of it without a little bit more information. I think you're you've got at least five or six industrial lights that you'll be removing, to place this canopy. There should be a lighting plan that should be submitted. It seems like there will need to be some lighting here, even though the canopy allows a bit of light. That's where I am on this currently. Mr. Lahendro – I think canopy can work. I would just like to see some distinction between the canopies, as you've designed it, Mr. Jackson, and what was there before. It is a contributing building to the ADC. Is it a contributing building to the West Main Street Historic District? I think it is looking at the DA HR report. The Secretary Standards would tell you with an addition like this to not create a false historicism and imply that the canopy that you're adding. There's no distinction between it and canopy that's there. Even if you dropped it six inches below the canopy that's there, that would be enough distinction in my mind. Maybe do something a little different to the fascia. I think a canopy is possible. I think that there's a good reason for it. I just would like to see some distinction between this new canopy and what's there. Mr. Mohr – From my perspective, I go back to Carl's first question there with the junction between the old and the new there. That really might be also parallel in what Jody said. Maybe what there needs to be is a reveal or resolution of the new parallels, the old one, or something there. They're separated and don't quite touch. Maybe they are a little bit out of plane. I just think there's some games you can play with the language of it that would create that sense of this is new. The basic form of it and everything is nice and complimentary. I don't have any problem with it. I just think it needs a little 8 BAR Meeting Minutes March 16, 2021 more development at the level of language that says I am different. Some of that could certainly be done with color. I think it is real problematic for those W-8s to pierce through it. I think that's where you got to get a little inventive. It just seems like there's some massaging to do to that to make it pull it off. If they decided to put curtains on it down the line, I just think that would have to come back. You'd have to figure out how they're laid out and all that kind of stuff. Mr. Jackson – I sent the first initial sketches to you. We moved it around to a few other people when I was just testing it out. We only put that curtain in there upon a question. Frankly, it could be very much like the Pavilion and the Michie Courtyard that is not intending to have them. If somebody had asked that question, I might have put them around that as well. We didn’t bring it forth necessarily. I would be happy to decoupling it. If the forces do come about that say they want something, we could bring it and show it. That was only to address a question of how it could be done. Mr. Mohr – The problem with it right now is the lightness and the smoothness and cleanness of it is pretty much not true. It harms your argument. It needs to go away, unless you want to come back and apply for that specifically. I think Mr. Schwarz and Mr. Lahendro are zeroing in on more distinction between the two pieces make sense to me. Mr. Jackson – We know the guidelines. Codes sometimes don't meet the specifics of a project and they're generic. In this case, at the end of the day, the building is better with the canopy than without, given where the building is now. It's not the original Sinclair 1960s gas station anymore. The canopy actually brings that spirit back, rather than take away from it. Mr. Schwarz – I'm supportive of this concept. I may have been the person who asked that question about the plastic on the walls. It would be important for you to make sure the client doesn't want those. I think it's better to design them in. At some point, someone's going to tack up some plastic. It will happen without coming to the BAR and then that'll be a whole issue in itself. That's up to you. That's between you and the client. What Jody and some of the others have been saying about trying to have a little more distinction between the existing canopy and the new are definitely very valid and good points. I'm struggling with it. As to whether I would have approved as is or not, I think it would be much, much better, with more distinction. The thing that holds me up the most and would make me want to defer this is I think it's not quite developed yet. Obviously, you figured out the structure. I want to know how this actually joins the metal panels. It looks really nice, neat, and clean. I want to know how you're going to figure that out, how you're going to flush into the building. You're going to have to figure out how the water stays, or it doesn't penetrate between the existing canopy and the new canopy. There's some details there that I think needs to be worked out. I think they could actually be very noticeable visually. If you're going to drop a downspout, we need to see it and we need to know where it goes. It's going to change the visual aspect of this project. Conceptually, I think it's a great project. I just think you need to take it up another level so we actually really know what it's going to look like. Mr. Lahendro – Greg, to your point about the Sinclair station, no, it's not. The bones of the Sinclair station are still here. One of the nice things about the design that was done to convert it to a restaurant is the fact that it kept those bones. Those bones are still obvious. They're so obvious that the building was just recently determined to be a contributing member to the historic district, not because of the restaurant changes, but because they didn't destroy the original Sinclair gas station bones. That station is still there. Continuing on with that line of thought, like the restaurant before, the new changes that we make now should have the same kinds of distinction. Mr. McClure – One point I want to point out is that nobody's really said anything wrong as far as I'm concerned. It already does have plastic sides today and it has for every winter. There's a bunch of 9 BAR Meeting Minutes March 16, 2021 restaurants that have that as well. I don't think they want plastic sides when they don't have to have plastic sides. I don't think anybody wants plastic sides when they don't have to have plastic sides. We're already approving stuff like that every day, every year. Mr. Schwarz – I think what is in front of Little Star right now is an exception due to the pandemic. I have no problem if they want to put plastic walls up to enclose this in the winter. I want to know what that looks like. Mr. Mohr – I think it is a vast improvement over the umbrellas or the tent, big time. It keeps the character of the architecture. It's like seeing window types in a more difficult project. We just need more detail. It doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the design at all. I don't have a problem with the canopy. It is front and center. It'd be good to have a better sense. This seems unresolved where it needs to be canopy to me, which I know that was your point. Mr. Zehmer – Just echoing a lot of the sentiments you've already heard. The canopies have been a traditional gas station feature even back to the 1920s. I think as a design feature it is something that should be celebrated. In terms of the plastic walls, I wonder if one way to make them a little more successful wouldn't be to pull them back from the front edge of the new proposed canopy. Right now, the rendering shows it dropping straight down off the front. I think that if you pull them back a foot or so it would give that reveal and give that definition to that canopy. I agree with Jody to see if there's a way to separate it from the building or drop it down just slightly so that the original canopy can still shine. Mr. Schwarz – It sounds like there's not enough for approval tonight. It sounds like you have support for the project. You've got a couple people asking you to differentiate the canopy a little bit, either drop it or find some other means of differentiation. If the client decides they want the side panels, you've heard some comments on how that might work. If they don't, great. Personally, if you want my vote, I need to see a little more detail development and how this meets the existing building just to make sure that there's no surprises when it's finished. If you don't want to show me the innards and the guts of what happens when you cut a section through there, that's fine. Mr. Mohr – What would a conditional approval consist of? Is that really not possible given how we are operating things right now? Ms. Lewis – It is a restaurant during COVID. A month in good weather does make a difference. We have an economy to open back up. This is a factor. Mr. Jackson – We were already trying to talk about ways to fast track it, if it was approved. The canopy is certainly something that I don't think necessarily has to be there. We can certainly come back with that. I don't think it can be lowered. I can look at that. In looking at how the structure connects, I think it needs to be at the same level. It is already set back. The color is different; maybe not enough. I had talked to the owner about where it connects with the side existing canopy and against a building to maybe hold back visually, with the C channel set back a few inches or so with a darker color as a very small way to separate it similar to that addition we saw earlier. They did a whole bigger part, but as a visual separation between the two elements. The owner wasn't interested in that. He's liking it and wants it that way. It would be back to the drawing board for Handleman. I agree about the details. It's a challenge to how much work ahead we do to present to see how it's going to fly. Because you can go in, you can spend a lot of time with details and run up the bill. It's always a tricky thing about that. I'm not sure really what I'm contributing to this decision point. It's good to hear what the general concept is. I can see the dilemma is whether this could be approved with conditions. 10 BAR Meeting Minutes March 16, 2021 Mr. Gastinger – I wonder if one strategy might be to taper that piece that can only reach towards the street, so that the canopies end up having a different thickness, which could be further differentiated by the color. It seems like that end piece could probably want to be a little bit lighter anyway and maybe it could be thinner and differentiate. Mr. Jackson – The outer band could definitely be a smaller, narrower profile. Mr. Schwarz – That's a good idea. I hate to say this. I feel fairly strongly that I think we need to at least defer this a month to let you verify all these things and make sure that it all works out that way. When I asked you the question about what happens when the beams meet the existing construction, and you said oh, ‘I haven't really thought about that much yet.’ I want to see something that says that you thought about it. I don't mean to be snarky about that. I think that eliminates surprises. It doesn't have to be a CD level section. I think we just need to see that you have you have thought about it. I am a little confused. I think at one point you mentioned, did I hear you say that ‘you just let it spill off the edge?’ Did I hear that correctly? Mr. Jackson – The front corner would have a scupper, a little exit port. Mr. Schwarz – That could make for a nice hole in the ground. It’s just another thing that would be important to think about. If you’re going to do that, we need to see a pile of rocks or something on the plan to show that it is not splashing off of the sidewalk or digging a hole in the ground. You could light the whole thing with string lights. That is not just as sufficient. It would be good to get those approved sooner. Ms. Lewis – It would be nice if the lighting were nicely designed as part of it. It is such a simple canopy. I wouldn’t want the lights to really be an afterthought. It could be a really nice thing. It can be very tucked away. Mr. Lahendro – If there was a procedure for getting something in a week and we could vote and look at it, and vote online, that would be fine with me too. I would want to see something. I think that it has been tried before or we can't do it or something like that. I understand that the need to hurry this along, but I would want to see something. Applicant requests a deferral – Motion to accept deferral by Ms. Lewis (Second by Mr. Gastinger). Motion passes 9-0. 7. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 21-03-06 128 Chancellor Street, TMP 090105000 The Corner ADC District Owner: University Christian Ministries Applicant: Tom Keough, Train Architects Project: Front façade alterations Jeff Werner, Staff Report – This is a COA request for 128 Chancellor Street. This structure is within The Corner ADC District. It is contributing. It was constructed in 1926. It's a rectangular form, three bay frame, shingle dwelling with Craftsman and Colonial Revival stylistic elements. It was constructed as a dwelling. The house was occupied until the 1960s, when it transitioned to other uses. Since the 1980s, it has served as the Center for Christian Study at the University of Virginia. This is a 11 BAR Meeting Minutes March 16, 2021 continuation of a project you all reviewed last year for the rear addition. There was some alterations to the front elevations. Those were pulled out to treat those separately. That's what's here before you now. This is a request for an alteration to the front entrance and to the terrace. I would characterize it as a hardscaping project up on that entrance terrace. Staff does recommend approval. William Sherman, Applicant – This project as mentioned is a hardscape project that is looking at the front entry, which is currently asphalt parking areas across the portion of the front and a couple of bushes and some ground cover in front of the house. The desire of the Christian Study Center is to make this usable in a way that would be more amenable to a range of uses. This is a view from the south corner looking at the removal of the asphalt and replacing that with brick on sand and a herringbone pattern. There is a series of benches along the edge of the sidewalk that are both intended as a gift and an invitation to the city in creating an edge that actually does demarcate the boundary between the center and the sidewalk. They are open to seating actually on both sides. There's also a small planter bed visible there. There is currently on the property, something of an enclosure for garbage and trash cans and a parking space on that south end. The parking space would now be bricked. That means it also could serve at times as not a parking space. The garbage can area would be enclosed in fencing that matches existing fencing on the property and painting that matches the paint color of the house. There's a boardwalk that runs back along the edge of the house there that's actually the fire regress from the fire stare of the new addition behind. In front of the existing house, there are no changes to the building structure itself. The landscape in front would be an area for terraces where they have some wooden furniture and some seating around an existing Japanese maple. The benches that you see there would create an edge to the street, while maintaining the current entrance to the front porch and the front door. To the left, we've showed this with the parking that is possible here. The goal and the intention is that it would not be used as parking all the time. It would be possible for them to put up a tent in conformance with all the tent regulations in that space or to simply have it as an open terrace that could serve as a as a social space for the center. There is on the northern property boundary a fence along that edge, which also masks dropping off of the property of the grade along that side and also screens a bit of the neighboring wooden fire stair that comes off that building. That would be the board fencing to match the current board fencing on the property itself. There is a large historic tree, which we have been working with tree consultants to protect. It actually may alter the line slightly where you see the arc around that tree. That arc is going to get a bit larger, which may mean the parking may be a bit more limited than we're showing here. There may be one space left if they were going to be using that for parking. The primary use here is and the goal is to actually put that tree in a better and healthier condition rather than running under the asphalt in the way that it is right now. I want to make clear that the cars are shown there simply for illustrative purposes. These are not formal parking spaces. This is primarily a hardscape landscape for social uses. QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC Geary Albright – We’re the back door neighbors to the center. We've been back there since they bought the building in 1976. We have concerns with the whole development of the property that have never been properly addressed. I know the towering nature of the rear aspect of it that we expressed concern about and the drainage issue and the loss of green space all conspired to make this quarter acre lot into a 10,000 square foot building. It just seems way out of proportion. When they put an addition on the back in 1996, we were fine with that. It still left a lot of green space in the back. I expressed concerns about their drainage which drains onto our parking lot and the facade which towers over our buildings. None of that was ever addressed. Robert Aulebach – We represent 134 Chancellor Street. The only thing in the front that I would suggest is that if you've walked there very often the sidewalk is very, very small. By putting that 12 BAR Meeting Minutes March 16, 2021 seating so close to the street, it'd be pretty hard for people to pass. It would probably be best if it was actually pushed back a little bit off the street to give room for people to pass. I'm thinking people in wheelchairs and things like that. That would be probably the only concern we have. Mr. Keough – We are aware of Dr. Albright’s concerns. They came up during the site plan review. We are actually in the midst of addressing those with the city, particularly around the stormwater. We were waiting for city comments on our stormwater plan. The intention is once we get that squared away with the city, we will meet with Dr. Albright to review what's been approved and what our strategy is. We're trying to do so in a manner that respects his issues that he raised last fall. It just hasn't come back from the city yet. Regarding the massing, we've actually moved the building back from the property line about 10 feet from when he last saw that in the fall. Just didn't feel the addition of the bump outs in the back, which we'll gpt into some code issues in terms of fiberglass. We just moved everything back a little bit, partly to address the same comments that were raised by him and some of the other Elliewood neighbors at that time. Mr. Schwarz – Does that mean that we will be seeing the building again? Mr. Keough – I don’t know. It looks the same. You have to tell me what you want to do about that. Mr. Schwarz – If it is moved back 10 feet, I don’t think we would have a problem. We do need to see that. Mr. Sherman – The actual footprint on the ground, where it meets the ground, stays where it was. We had some projecting bays on the back. We've actually just pulled them back. They don't project quite as far. As you recall with the elements on the back, there were three larger elements in relation to the core structure. We've reduced their presence in the back slightly by pulling them back partly for code issues. It was also partly for cost and massing issues. It was also partly to address the concern about how imposing this was going to be. There were a number of factors leading into that. I think we were all completely within the spirit. I think somebody looking at the two sets of drawings would have a hard time seeing that we did something differently. You would feel it was actually an improvement, looking at it from below. We'd be happy to show them to you and let us know if they need any further review. With respect to the front issue, that's actually the point about the sidewalk and the proximity of the sidewalk. We'd like to maintain that edge along the sidewalk edge. We could entertain modification of the actual bench design. That might prevent people from sitting on that side facing the street, if that was a concern. I understand completely the width of sidewalk issue. We are happy to work with neighbors to make things work as well as possible for everyone. We had been thinking of it actually from the other perspective of people walking up the street actually may feel comfortable just having a seat there along the way and having a conversation. In a way, it's a part of the outreach mission of the institution to invite participation and engagement with the community. QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Zehmer – Do you know what the width of the sidewalk is right there? Mr. Sherman – I believe it is a four foot sidewalk. Mr. Mohr – It doesn’t look like there are any power poles, except just off the side of your property. 13 BAR Meeting Minutes March 16, 2021 Mr. Sherman – There are no power poles. We are not adding any new lighting in the front. There is enough light coming from street lighting that already exists on the property. We don’t feel the need to add any additional lighting to the property. Mr. Schwarz – From the street view and the photos that have been submitted, it really looks like the site slopes down from the street towards the building. Is that accurate? I am trying to understand how that is incorporated in the site plan. Mr. Sherman – The primary slope is actually running from parallel to the street rather than back. The adjustment that we're making slightly is where the brick meets the house. We have an area that will be actually a slightly recessed gravel area, immediately adjacent to the house. We're not running the brick right up into the shingles. There's some utility lines there that are existing. The gas service comes in there. We're going to be holding the brick back a bit from the house and using that to pitch the water in a way that follows the current topography. It's all being handled as part of the actual drainage itself. Where that water goes is being handled as part of the more comprehensive review that we're doing on all of this site drainage with the city right now. Mr. Keough – Beneath the brick and the sand bed, there is a drainage system that is porous. It is being taken around to the stormwater system. Mr. Schwarz – There is not going to be any need for a step from the sidewalk to the brick. Is it all flush from the sidewalk? Mr. Sherman – It is all flush. That sidewalk is in pretty bad shape, mostly because what the roots have been doing. That will all be cleaned up as part of this process. We’re working to make sure we don’t do any damage to the roots and leave the tree in a better situation. Mr. Schwarz – One of the questions that came up from the public was the timeframe for construction. I think it was a sorority down the street. They were curious how it was going effect the school year. I imagine this is going to be a long term project to build Mr. Keough – We're working with Alexander Nicholson and they’re our construction manager with Design Phase Services. They’ve estimated 16 months construction period. At this point in time, we're targeting a December 1, 2021 start time with a march, 2023 completion date. We've actually met with the sorority down the street just the other day. We did speak to them a little bit of this timeframe and impact of the project. We have reached out to them in St. Paul's Memorial Church. Dr. Albright will be next as soon as we get our city comments on the stormwater. Mr. Werner – I know this project has caused some angst. I've gotten a lot of questions about it. There is the continued process that Tom and Bill referred to. To make sure you all know that anything that comes out of the site plan review the changes, I'm in that loop. If something changes, you'll know about it. It won't be something that we miss. I understand some folks asked about the driveway, construction traffic, and who's going to fix what. Joey Winter had been the planner on this project. I think Ms. Creasy has stayed on this one. I'm trying to get some information from her that I can share with people. I've been looking at the map. I'm curious how they're going to get the construction in and out of there. I've built on difficult sites. If you see a change on this property or something that changes because of the construction activity of permanent alteration, we'll review it. 14 BAR Meeting Minutes March 16, 2021 Mr. Gastinger – I have a question for Mr. Sherman. You talked about how the protection of the gingkoes is going to happen. How are you intending to protect the Japanese maple? You’re going to have to remove almost 6 to 8 inches of the top surface to install those pavers. Mr. Sherman – The current design holds that diameter around the Japanese maple at about 54 inches. We are working with Bartlett Tree Services, who have been caring for these trees for a longer period. They felt our plans were going to be fine with particular respect to the Japanese maple and recommending that we expand the diameter with respect to the gingkoes. That’s what we’re basing that on. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC No Comments from the Public COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Zehmer – I support the application. I like the benches the way they are. I don’t think you should put a back on them. The incentive is to be more welcoming. Mr. Bailey – I agree with that. Mr. Gastinger – Last time this was presented, I had a number of concerns about the precedent that this could set for the street and the amount of paving that's installed in the front yard. I think the planted area got smaller and less consequential. This is going to be basically potted plants at the street front. Even though this is a tiny site, it is a bit jarring that the entire lot would be paved. I would have preferred that, if the benches could even move in board and that band be a low hedge or continue to break up the continuation of the brick and paved surface at the sidewalk, I think that would be more in keeping with the character of the neighborhood and adjoining properties. My other concern probably is still within our guidelines. The color of the brick pavers and the brown shingle together, with this extent, is a lot. It's very brown. It gets pretty intense. I think that shows up even in the renderings. I think that while that color might be found appropriate by the board, I might recommend you look at a little bit more contrast, it might just feel very samey. Those are my concerns. Mr. Schwarz – I'm inclined to agree with Breck on the amount of hardscape. I'm struggling to understand the scale of the site. When you're there or when you look at photographs of it, it feels so much smaller than it looks on your plan. I'm just struggling to understand what I'm missing. Maybe you're going to limb up the Japanese maple and suddenly it'll make more sense. I am struggling with this. Mr. Lahendro – I would just say I agree with Breck. Philosophically, I'd love to see more green in front of it. Canonbury House, which is just next door, and they have a lawn area or an earthen area. They can't keep plants there because the people are stepping all over it. It just ends up being denuded from the activity that goes on. As much as I agree with Breck, I'd love to see green too. The reality is I don't think you could keep it. Motion – Ms. Lewis - Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed alterations at 128 Chancellor Street satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are compatible with this property and other properties in The Corner ADC district, and that the BAR approves the application as submitted, 15 BAR Meeting Minutes March 16, 2021 with a recommendation for the applicants to look at the brick color on the chimney, to seek more contrast for the hardscape. (Carl Schwarz seconds motion.) Motion passes (7-2, Breck Gastinger and Andy McClure opposed). The Meeting was recessed for five minutes by the Chairman 8. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-03-07 506 Park Street, TMP 530123000 North Downtown ADC District Owner: Presbyterian Church Charlottesville Trust Applicant: Karim Habbab, brw architects Project: Modify approved addition Jeff Werner, Staff Report –This is a COA request for 506 Park Street. This is a within the North Downtown ADC District. The First Presbyterian Church is designed in a Colonial Revival style. It's based on James Gibson's 1722 St. Martin in the Fields in London. It was constructed in 1954. The Fellowship Hall on the Seventh Street was constructed in 1986. Last summer, you all reviewed extensive changes going on the primary line on the east side, with the addition of a new gathering hall and exterior terrace. There were some other changes going on towards the front of the church. This is where we used to have a revision to a COA. This is a new request. This is to modify what was approved last summer. This is in that north east corner, where that addition was planned. That's being eliminated there. Instead, a handicap access ramp will be built and an elevator tower constructed at the rear of sanctuary. It’s a relatively simple project. It's just making sure that everyone understands what's still in and what's not in, relative to the prior work. I think there's some questions about trees that we're going to have to get into. As far as what's been proposed, there's nothing here that staff felt was problematic. There's some clarifications we've received from the applicant that I think you all should discuss. For example, the elevator tower at the back of the sanctuary and the adding of sills to those insets. The sills and the clarification on the landscaping were the two things that we wanted you to make sure we're clear on. We have no problem with this one and recommend approval. Bruce Wardell, Applicant – I'll give you a little bit of background on this just to set the stage. This is certainly a function of the sequence that these things happen in. Early in the project, we bring something that we need approval for, to get other things going. It's a combination of understanding the ultimate costs of that addition, combined with what is a unique opportunity for the church. The addition was actually phase two and three of a four and five phase plan. The later phases were renovation of the interior of the building. The combination of finding that the costs of the addition were higher than we had expected, along with a relatively unique opportunity to be able to renovate a building when it's not being used, particularly for a church, that's always an issue that you have to wrestle with. How do you keep the thing going while you're doing major work inside? Within the last two or three months, the church decided to take the opportunity to do the comprehensive interior renovation of the church and make this addition actually the phase five of the addition. This is really an effort to put in place for the interior renovation, but also allows for the future construction of the addition as we had envisioned it initially. The major thing that means architecturally, is that arcade that is currently open gets enclosed as an entry from the parking lot. They did not want to put off the accessibility of the entire building. It is one of these odd situations in which we have to place an elevator that is waiting for the building to surround it. They're in really that gracious of a way to do that. The way that we've done it in this case is we have taken up the language that existed on the building already. These blind windows existed actually right in the place where the elevator is. Enclose the arcade and leave the existing colonnade. Leaving the existing colonnade does a number of things. It 16 BAR Meeting Minutes March 16, 2021 certainly preserves the access to the building there. It creates a very logical and identifiable entry. We will add the accessibility to that. It also separates from the street what will ultimately become an area that inevitably children will be playing in. There's an architectural barrier between what will be a play yard and the street itself. The landscaping in that area is obviously relatively minimal. It is a placeholder for a future addition. I think one of the things that we discussed recently was the removal of a number of trees and the identification of trees along the driveway that goes from the upper parking lot to the lower parking lot. The part of the site plan that will be done that is currently under review from the city is the originally planned connection from the upper parking lot to the lower parking lot. That drive from the upper parking lot to the lower parking lot will include the trees that were originally identified for the ultimate site plan. There are some initial pieces of that site plan. You can see the road from the upper parking lot. If you will touch that drive that goes from the upper parking lot, the trees from the original site plan will be planted during this phase of the work. There are no changes to the interior courtyard. There are no changes that we will continue. We will build the front terrace that is on Park Street. There are no changes to that. Karim Habbab, Applicant – We had some questions on the handrails from staff. Mr. Werner – With the handrails, my sense was that it was going to be what matched the ADA entrance that was added two years ago. My understanding was that this was going to be similar. Mr. Wardell – That’s correct. It matches the conditions around the building. Mr. Habbab – There was a question about the maple tree that staff had asked us about. That does not need to be removed for the new grading. That tree will be staying. Mr. Gastinger – Can we confirm what one that is in the plan? Mr. Werner – If you look at the right hand side, there are four London plane trees. Above the second one, you can see a tree there. There's probably a 30 inch maple. I don't know how London plane tree manages an understory tree. That was what I asked. Is that staying or going? Was it something we reviewed last summer? I couldn't recall. I just want to make sure that didn't slip by. Mr. Habbab – I believe that tree was mislabeled on the drawing. I think it was labeled as 24 inch maple. Mr. Wardell – Any tree that we do preserve is going to be preserved temporarily. Mr. Gastinger – That tree is going to go? Or is it going to stay? Mr. Wardell – That tree could stay from the grading plan. It would be my preference that we institute the new planting of the new trees. Start with that. That would be my preference. Mr. Gastinger – The other three trees were slated for removal? Mr. Wardell – Yes. That has to do with the grading necessities. Mr. Werner – They were all approved for removal. What you are seeing with the trees is identical to what we saw last summer. There are obviously some plants, lower plantings. As far as trees go, what we are seeing, is the same thing last summer. That is definitely not a 30 inch maple back there. 17 BAR Meeting Minutes March 16, 2021 QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No Question from the Public QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Mohr – The elevator is painful. Is that something that is totally absorbed when the addition goes on? Mr. Wardell – That’s right. It will be surrounded by the addition. Mr. Mohr – Is there any harm in taking it up to pick up the window bane? Mr. Wardell – We had a series of discussions about where that thing would stop. Did you want to take it all of the way up to the rake of the building? Unfortunately, the technical clearances that we need won’t let us take it down to the bell course. The height of the thing is right in the middle. That’s why we introduced the bell course and tried to do a plain vanilla top to the top of the thing. Mr. Mohr – Would it make it any better to take it to the top of the windows so that it is mimicking the other windows and put a flat roof on it? Mr. Wardell – We could do that. Mr. Mohr – It seems that it is drawing more attention to itself. I am just wondering if there is a way to minimize it more. Mr. Wardell – This is not a design issue that we’re going to “fall on our sword” for. We are happy to design this by consensus. Ms. Lewis – By doing that, you would get rid of the appearance of having to disguise the window that you are needing to break in. That little room does make sense. Mr. Mohr – There isn’t a white band over the jack arches. The model is a little off. There is really nothing happening up there in the main gable? Mr. Schwarz – There is a trim board above the window heads. Mr. Mohr – It looks like it might be a pent eave? Mr. Wardell – The rake for the gable goes all of the way across. There is a half-round window in the gable. Mr. Mohr – Model is a little funky in that regard. I just wondered if there was some way to minimize it even more. Mr. Wardell – I think you can make a strong argument for bringing it up to the trim that is just above the third story windows. Mr. Mohr – I don’t know if I would bother putting anything more exotic than what you already have down in the middle band and move that middle band up. 18 BAR Meeting Minutes March 16, 2021 Mr. Wardell – That makes a lot of sense. When the addition is done, we know that the east side of this wall will still be exposed inside. The north side may be exposed. That sill will be a part of the addition on that when it is done. I am certainly amenable to those modifications. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC No Comments from the Public COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Lahendro – I just want to confirm that the change of the door entry to the arcade has been moved back one bay so that we can delete the fenestration that was in that arch facing Seventh Street. I see it in the packet as an appendix. That is certainly a great improvement. Mr. Wardell – We moved it back. It gave us two open arches and an outside space. Ms. Lewis – I should have acknowledged up front. I am a member of this church. I am not involved in this process. I don’t have a personal interest defined by Virginia law in the outcome of this vote. I believe that I can participate. Mr. Gastinger – I have a few questions about how the site plan will work. I don’t have any concerns with the architecture. Knowing how kids are dropped off here for school wondering how people might move from the lower parking lot up to any portion of the building, it seems that the ADA ramp is a ‘tortured’ way to enter that pavilion. How were you thinking about that? Do the stairs still need to be removed? Mr. Wardell – In the most recent version, both stairs to the pavilion will still be there. Starting the ramp at that point, as opposed to down the sidewalk, made sense. It’s the most efficient path. It really is a pragmatic piece there. It’s not going to have any real architecture to it. It is really a dedicated path up there. It will have handrails on both sides. Ms. Lewis – The entrance to the preschool is further down on Seventh Street. It was moved 1.5 years ago. They no longer share the entrance. Mr. Gastinger – What about passage from the parking lot up through to the front of the building towards Park Street? Mr. Wardell – That road will be graded exactly the way it was proposed last summer. In the site plan, there will be bollards that will control the ability to go between those during the week. They cut off access between the two levels or open access between the two levels. Mr. Schwarz – This is probably ready for a motion. I would recommend with that motion that the elevator have a recommendation that the applicant look into changing the height and that we don’t design it for him. Mr. Zehmer – On the last page of the packet, there is a window sample. The note does say that it is not the final sample. I am just wondering when they find a window that does match the mutton profile, that can be submitted to staff for verification. Mr. Schwarz – The window note says that you’re going to use a putty style mutton. Is that the intention? 19 BAR Meeting Minutes March 16, 2021 Mr. Wardell – You’re catching me off guard here. I am not sure where we are with Pella and the muttons right now. It’s been awhile. We were working with Pella Windows to get a profile that more closely matched the existing profile on the building. I don’t know what their current response is. Mr. Schwarz – I think we approved this before. I believe this page was in the last submittal. Mr. Zehmer – Does this relate to filling in the arcade? Mr. Wardell – It has to do with the windows filling in the arcade is what we are looking at. Mr. Schwarz – You’re matching the ones from an addition that was added relatively recently. Mr. Wardell – The windows would really match that. What we were actually trying to match is the configuration of the details from the front windows that face Park Street. It’s a little bit different fenestration configuration, but we are looking to approximate those proportions. Motion – Mr. Lahendro – Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed alterations at 506 Park Street satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are compatible with this property and other properties in the North Downtown ADC District, and that the BAR approves the application as submitted, with these recommendation: • that the height as shown of the elevator be reconsidered • that the white banding around the elevator be reconsidered, and changes allowed if the designer decides to do so Carl Schwarz seconds motion 9. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-03-08 500 Court Square, TMP 530096000 North Downtown ADC District Owner: 500 Court Square Applicant: Doug Brooks, on behalf of the condo assoc. Project: Replace four, apartment windows Jeff Werner, Staff Report – This is a COA request to replace four windows in an apartment at 500 Court Square. The building is in the North Downtown ADC District. It is contributing. It is a Colonial Revival nine story brick building. This was originally the Monticello Hotel designed by architects Daniel Johnson of Lynchburg constructed in 1924/1926. It's also a contributing structure in Charlottesville, Albemarle County Courthouse Historic District list on the Virginia landmarks Register and the National Register of Historic Places. The BAR has reviewed some of the things at this site; most recently some security gates. I had to go back to 2011. The last BAR review related to windows within an apartment. Back in July 2011 the BAR approved to placement of non-existing windows on the sixth floor unit facing Market Street; approved with the aluminum clad window, sash kits, and applied a mutton that matched. From reading the staff report, it was clear that there have been replacements over the years that have not gone to the BAR. The comment at that time was that when this was approved, the city recommended the homeowners group, basically to come up with a plan for when windows are replaced. What is it that we want? Possibly July 2011 is an example. That's one side of it. With replacement of windows, I will say I'm getting a lot of questions in the last couple months about window replacements. I've been repeatedly pushing the point to people that repairing windows is 20 BAR Meeting Minutes March 16, 2021 a lot less expensive than replacing them. That fits the bill here. What I am looking at is some water infiltration; probably more having issues with the sill and the window frame than with the sash. Something could be fixed with some repairs to the sill and better caulking and maybe storm windows on the exterior. This is the south side. We all know that's the heavy weather side of any building in Charlottesville, particularly if it's up in the air like this one. My recommendation wasn’t necessarily yes or no to replacements. From a cost standpoint, I don't know if it's necessarily the right solution. Simply replacing the windows may not fix the problem that they're having with water infiltration. If the BAR does approve this, I think, it's an opportunity to express a standard that not approving requests that come in for 500 Court Square; but certainly expressing maybe what would be expected in an application. What is acceptable as a replacement is the criteria for that. We certainly have conditions with us where, with insulated glass and applied grills, the grills are the same dimensions, the same light configurations, same alignments with the spacebar within the insulated glass. The applicant was not on the call for this application. Mr. Lahendro – This is an important issue. We don’t want individual condo owners to come in and start replacing windows differently from one to the other. It needs brought holistically. A case needs to be made that there’s something wrong with the windows holistically before we start agreeing to a standard for replacing them. I am not ready to proceed with anything until we get some clarification here. Ms. Lewis – I have represented the condominium association in the past. I can speak with assurance that the windows are considered part of common elements. Responsibility for that is shared with all of the unit owners within the building. They’re residential and commercial. Mr. Brooks is the President of Real Property. They’re the licensed community manager for common interests associations. Mr. Bailey – It is very similar to the condos that I own in DC. The windows are owned by the association. What you need to have is for them to have a common standard and come to us and ask us if that common standard is appropriate for that building as an association. Mr. Werner – The application came from Doug Brooks. The BAR moved onto the other item on the agenda to give this applicant time to join the meeting. The BAR returned to this application following the last item on the agenda. Mr. Werner – This came up briefly and you read the report. This had come up back in 2011. Mary Joy was asking ‘what is our standard?’ Is this something that the, in this case, an individual apartment owner who has asked to do this? Or is this something that the building itself, you all look to do, as part of a comprehensive project for everything? It have been some mix and matches over there. If there's a grand plan in place, that makes it a lot easier to say, ‘here's what we want to address. When an owner says we're going to do something, and the BAR needs to be prepared for that kind of piecemeal approach. How do you see that moving forward? Mr. Brooks – Unfortunately, it's the ladder from what we can determine. It's a mixed use condominium. The common elements and declaration is such that the windows are actually considered part of the unit, which makes it challenging. The condominium association is more or less left with, in essence, doing architectural review itself and then approving a certain appearance and standard that it could impose. However, since I came on board, which was after the 2011 application by one of the 21 BAR Meeting Minutes March 16, 2021 owners, our answer has been ‘stop, you can't do anything.’ We're in a historic district and we need BAR approval. We went through that with BAR when we did our balustrade and rooftop etc. We know that folks had slipped through the cracks prior to 2011, doing the replacements on their own, slipping it by the board of directors there. It was self-managed from 1978 until 2014 13. I think that's how a lot of that occurred. The quick answer to the BAR is that the association would love to set the standard. I see in the notes that 2011 set that standard with French vanilla and divided light with spacer grills. I was intrigued when I got that. I'd never seen that documentation. There's no plan in place from an owner and association perspective to do a group project all at once. I think the association would love a standard that it could then apply. The applicant, whether it be the building and the owner together, would have to run it by the BAR to confirm that we're conforming to the approved standard. That's kind of a huge run out in response. QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No Questions from the Public COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Lahendro – Has a survey by an engineer or a professional been done of the windows around the building? Mr. Brooks – I am not aware of any survey. The association has been responsible for exterior surfaces. I believe around 80% to 90% of the windows are original. All of the lower level windows from the fourth floor down are original. Mr. Lahendro – Are there complaints from the owners about the windows in the entire building? Mr. Brooks –Few and far between. I think that some of the folks that have renovated their units without applying may have had those complaints. I asked immediately for documentation as to why the request. They provided a home inspection report. Essentially what we see now and I also saw in a note from staff was a misdiagnosis by one of our infamous home inspectors to the why they're seeing water damage. I think that's from condensation. We have old windows that aren't low E. In essence, it was a cold water coil and fan system, like they used to have in hotels back in the 50s. We have cold air blowing against an original window and it is moisture and condensation is what you're seeing there. I think owners are frustrated with the fact it's very difficult to clean or maintain or paint these from the inside. Certainly they don't tilt in. They feel cold air and have wet sills when it's really hot. Mr. Schwarz – I just want to clarify. All of the windows from the fourth floor down are all original. In looking at the photos that I took, the windows above that level, at least 50%, have been replaced. Is that inaccurate to you? Mr. Brooks – I don’t want to challenge you on that. I know we have been spending a great deal of time on painting and caulking these windows. I would be happy to follow up and do a more formal inspection on that. We just haven’t had the number of requests. It has been off the radar. Mr. Schwarz – It might actually help the argument for replacements if 10% of the windows are all original and the rest are new. To me, it looked like a lot of replacements have already been done. It looks like there are different types. This one does not meet our guidelines or standards. We have been harsh to applicants, who have had much worse windows. We can discuss an appropriate standard for replacements, should a window warrant replacement. 22 BAR Meeting Minutes March 16, 2021 Mr. Mohr – From my perspective, it really needs a full building report so we know what we’re dealing with here. It does seem dealing with it piecemeal is insane for something that is one building. If they’re trying to maintain it, it would be good for things to be consistent throughout. That’s a real nightmare to have so many different systems going on. This is one of the conundrums of old buildings and modern HVAC technology. It certainly doesn’t help the system blowing right on the windows. That is double jeopardy right there with the way those systems are set up. Mr. Bailey – Wouldn’t be appropriate at this point for us to ask for the building to try to come up with their own standards before anyone comes to us? Mr. Werner – If the window needs to be replaced, picking something is the easy part. The ‘heavy lift’ is showing why a replacement window is needed. There is a perception that there will be saving of money. The question for the BAR is what is it that we need to see or staff needs to present to you. I don’t know if there’s a way to express that. That’s where you all have difficulty evaluating what it is. I have difficulty expressing to people what they need to bring to the table. Mr. Schwarz – That is going to be a very long conversation that we need to have as part of the guidelines review to set a standard of what is a window that warrants replacement. We do seem to keep moving that bar around a little bit. That would be good to set that bar at a good location and a consistent location for each applicant. Mr. Mohr – In terms of the guidelines, we should look at what UVA has done in reference to this very same problem on large buildings. What has their approach been? It seems that there is a lot of intelligence there. This building is an ‘odd man’ in a lot of ways. It is one of the biggest residential buildings in downtown. It doesn’t really have a coherent approach to some of the systems that compose the building. UVA deals with large buildings because it is an organization. It can do it. It seems that we need to find a model. Jody might know some examples at the school where they would deal with a building this size. Mr. Lahendro – At New Cabell Hall, all of the windows were renovated, repaired, recaulked, and restrung. They were taken out and repaired off site. They were brought back and re-installed. The frames were repaired and replaced. There is precedent there. It’s been done. For the dormitories, there is a different standard for dormitories. They have taken out the windows and replaced them. It depends on the building and the historic importance of it. Mr. Mohr – With that in mind, I can see an argument that everything at street level should be restored and kept as is. The residential portion moves to a more modern, consistent window type throughout. Infiltration is a big deal. Mr. Lahendro – I would like to have it established that there is a problem. We need a survey by a professional. We need to be told that there is a problem and what the problem is. We can then address it appropriately. Mr. Werner – If there is an apartment owner with windows in bad shape, the BAR has the ability to say that you can’t have building look like that. What is the stewardship responsibility of the owner? If somebody lets their windows go bad and you have to replace them, is the applicant paying for that? Mr. Brooks – Our understanding of the governing documents is that the association is responsible for the exterior maintenance, defined as caulking, sealing, and painting. However, the actual element itself 23 BAR Meeting Minutes March 16, 2021 is a property of the unit owner. That's why we've engaged in this long term caulking and painting program to alleviate those issues and to prevent them. Mr. Zehmer – Do you think that would be up to the individual owners to install storm windows or would that be a building responsibility? Mr. Brooks – Our reading is that would be a unit owner responsibility. Mr. Schwarz – I know that we tell homeowners to install storm windows to protect their historic windows. When you look at the façade of this building and the few windows that have storm windows, they are the worst looking ones. Mr. Zehmer – I feel like it is unfortunate, to some degree, that the windows are the responsibility of the unit owners. That's the way you all have your organization set up and structured. I can't argue with it. It's unfortunate. It seems to me like it's a part of the envelope of the building itself. I did just share on the chat, the link to the Secretary of the Interior standards, which definitely recommend repairing windows and installing storms as the first line of defense. I think it absolutely echoes what staff had pointed out. It's a lot actually less expensive to repair than to replace. Mr. Lahendro – I will point out there are some decent interior storm windows. They don’t always have to be the exterior type. Mr. Zehmer – That is something that UVA has started to do quite a bit with installing interior storms, so that we don't attract the historic character and the exterior. We can achieve some energy improvement and sustainability measures. We definitely did that at O'Neill Hall and the rugby apartment building. That's another tactic. Mr. Werner – When someone does something like this, do you ever bring in a crane? Or do you dangle a scaffolding over the side? What's the mechanism that you all use for this exterior work? Mr. Brooks – When an owner replaces a window of this type, it is typically done from the inside. Mr. Werner – How would you caulk it? Mr. Brooks – A lot of these are partially self-sealing and these windows probably would not use a full copy. It's not like a NP one copied around the exterior. We would have to get Pelas installation instructions to confirm for this model how they would do that. Mr. Schwarz – Ron, you said that the associations would come up with their own standard. The last application developed a good standard, which was the off white and then using the applied buttons with a spacer bar between the glasses. With what James and Jody have said, an interior storm window would be a great solution to this, I would strongly recommend against exterior storm windows as a solution. It's great that it is a big building so you don't notice. When you look, the windows are a lot of different types and the storm windows are not doing any favors for the building. Mr. Bailey – Would you have a motion based on repairing the windows and install interior storm windows? Mr. Schwarz – I think my motion would be to deny this application. 24 BAR Meeting Minutes March 16, 2021 Motion to deny the application – Mr. Lahendro – Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find that the replacement of four windows at 500 Court Square does not satisfy the BAR’s criteria and is not compatible with this property and other properties in the North Downtown ADC district, and that for the following reasons the BAR denies this application as submitted: the project would specifically violate guidelines C.1., C.2., and C.7 under the City Design guidelines for Rehabilitation. Tim Mohr seconds motion. Motion passes (9-0). 10. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-03-09 735 Northwood Avenue, TMP 340078000 North Downtown ADC District Owner: Laura and Phillip Smith Applicant: David Mullen, Halcyon Project: Rear dormer, roof shingle replacement Jeff Werner, Staff Report – This is a COA request for the addition of a rear dormer and is a request to install photovoltaic shingles in replacement of the existing asphalt. This house was built in 1931. It is in the North Downtown ADC District. It is considered contributing. This is a COA request for construction rear dormer replacing the existing asphalt shingles with photovoltaic shingles, and replacement of the gutters and downspouts. It is standard seamless gutters. They want to go with copper gutters and downspouts. We think everything's fine with the rear edition and certainly with copper. I put this on the regular agenda. I'm so intrigued by the roofings and it probably deserved the discussion we're going to have about it. As I mentioned before we started, we don't have a sample. I know the applicants tried to get a hold of one and figure out how to take a look at it. They can better address what their schedule is, as far as moving forward. It is more important to get the okay and move forward with the dormer and maybe separate out the shingles. There are not really any issues with this one. David Mullen, Applicant – With the shingles, we’re waiting to hear back from Tesla on whether we could get a sample of the photovoltaic shingles. They were more concerned about whether we would get approval on that dormer and whether they could move forward with coming up with a design and giving us a design for the Tesla panels that we would then approve and they would they would like to do that. After the approval by the BAR of the basic plan on the dormer. I think we'd get more engagement with them after we've got a go ahead on the basic plan for the dormer. Right now we don't have a sample yet of the photovoltaic panel other than what information you can already find online about it. 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 25 BAR Meeting Minutes March 16, 2021 Mr. Zehmer – I am not sure about the interior configuration. On the rear dormer, I feel the two side windows should be a little bit closer to the center window. Mr. Mullen – That’s certainly possible to move them in a little bit. Mr. Gastinger – As to the roof shingles, this is an ideal situation where the roof shingles themselves will be able to conform pretty closely as I understand that system to the roof shape. In this instance, this will be a great example of a solar installation that pretty carefully preserves the roof shape and appearance. I am excited to see it. Mr. Bailey – I do have a question with regards to why they are reluctant to not move forward before the dormer is approved. How is that working? Are they leasing the shingles to you? I don’t understand what the arrangement is. Mr. Mullen – From what I understand, they typically want to start the process with an approved permit. They will start with us earlier. Mr. Schwarz – The design work that they have to put in engineering the circuitry, they want to make sure they have a project in hand. Mr. Mullen – The way that I interpret is they are trying to do is get a fixed plan from us. Mr. Schwarz – This can be a fantastic test case and a good example. The imagery that is on Tesla’s website is pretty close to what you get. I probably could approve the shingles tonight and you submit the final shingles design to staff to make sure there is no surprises in there. Mr. Lahendro – I looked through the Tesla website. I had more questions than when I started with the construction of putting purlins in. I found it to be more uninformative than informative. I did not find the images or the information to help me at all. I have more issues with the shingles than I do with the dormer. I would like to see a sample. I worry there is a reflection from the Tesla shingles. Are there any examples of the shingles in the area that have been installed? Mr. Mullen – I think there aren’t because they’re in the process of expanding where they will install shingles. That would be a new thing for our area. I am not really sure what is represented on the website. They are on the third generation of the design of the shingles themselves. I am not sure if there are some photos/diagrams on the website that handle their system and not how they do it anymore. Mr. Lahendro – If they do get installed, it is done in such a way that they can be replaced. I can’t imagine that they’re going to last as long as an asphalt shingle roof. Ms. Lewis – I share Jody’s concern. This is located close to my house. The way the topography falls down from Northwood down to Second, you can actually see this house. This is especially visible to the properties that are on Robertson Lane. Because of the topo, this house sits very high up. There are houses under it. I love that we are experimenting with this on the back of a building. There are homes that can clearly see this easily. I am curious what the material will look like. We don’t have any samples. During COVID, we glossed over this not being able to share tactile samples. That’s one downside of the current circumstances. We do need to have a little bit more information about this if we aren’t able to share it in person. I support it. I would love to see what they looked like. There could be some impact on the neighbors below them. 26 BAR Meeting Minutes March 16, 2021 Mr. Mullen – You're right. There are houses down the street that are exposed to 735 Northwood. There's not much to tree cover in that direction. To the south and to the east, there's more tree cover. The building across directly across the street from 735 Northwood is a garage for a house on Park Street. That is a question. What the glare properties are of the tiles themselves. That would be more information that we need. Mr. Werner – Would the panel only be on the front, south facing? Mr. Mullen – The actual solar panels would be on the front. The system combined solar panels with other titles that don't have a solar panel in them but are aesthetically the same format. Blinds infills the roof out. The units at the edge, where they need to cut the panel in the factory; those don't have photovoltaic arrays in them. It's only the full panels that you see in a roof. Mr. Schwarz – The whole roof is going to look the same? Mr. Mullen – Right. The front elevation shows you can see on the upper roof is the Tesla solar roof shingles. Mr. Mohr – I would need to know what the solar shingles are. It looks like there is a scale issue as drawn. Mr. Schwarz – That scale looks like what was on the website, unless they have been redesigned. Mr. Mullen – That’s 15 inches by 43 inches, which is what they have on the website. Mr. Mohr – That would be a really big slate. They look a little clunky. If they’re not drawing attention to themselves, that might not be an issue. I think that we need a sense of what they are. The other board members do have a point. Mr. Bailey – Are there any other houses in the other historic districts that have other forms of solar power installed on their roofs? Has that been allowed in the past? Mr. Schwarz – Not facing a street that I know of. Mr. Werner – The only ones I am familiar with are in the Martha Jefferson neighborhood. I know that there has been some commercial applications that are below parapets. A year ago, somebody built an array in their backyard. I haven’t seen anything like this. There is some excitement about it. Mr. Schwarz – I am going to propose that we make a motion to approve the dormer so that the design work can happen. I don’t know how the procedure would work for staff. Since it sounds like we need more information to fully approve the shingles, let’s get this thing moving. Mr. Werner – I think that is a wise course. The only solar powered project that I was involved in was the one at Campbell Hall. The problem is how you anchor these things onto a 30 year old concrete roof. The attachment is the challenge. There might be some construction details related to this. I think it makes sense to treat it separately. Let’s see what comes out of the design effort. Justin Pinchum – I am interested to know if you’ve seen any Tesla tiles anywhere else in Charlottesville. This will be our first ‘go’ with it. We’re learning with you guys. 27 BAR Meeting Minutes March 16, 2021 Mr. Werner – There’s just nothing I've seen before. It's really exciting, but probably more questions than anything. What we've seen has been the traditional glass panels that are roof mounted. In those cases, the primary concern I've talked to folks has been making sure your underlying roof is in good shape before you spend a lot of money putting panels on it. If you're at year 25 of the 30 year shingles, fix that before putting the panels on it. This obviously solves that problem or appears to. I haven't seen anything. Mr. Pinchum – Our understanding is that it resembles a fully slated roof is the look they're going for but without actually seeing a physical sample. Mr. Mullen, you have asked Tesla for a physical sample and you haven’t heard a positive reply? Mr. Mullen – Not yet. If they’re unable to get us a physical sample at a reasonable time, would some sort of actual photographs and specification drawings of the tiles suffice and some documentation about glare and what that material does. Mr. Schwarz – That would be fine. Ms. Lewis – Spec sheets or what is available would be fine. Mr. Schwarz – My understanding from looking at their website was that the process laying down a membrane roof. They fasten the shingles on top of that. Mr. Lahendro was asking purlins. We would be curious to know if there is an extra structural piece in there. Is it solar shingles fastened down on top of the membrane? Is it thin or thick? That would be something we would want to know. Mr. Gastinger – I can imagine why Tesla is not sending samples to every person considering a project. They are probably very protective and they are probably not cheap. If it helps your case, this is going to be a really important test case for Charlottesville. It will have the capacity to demonstrate that this is an appropriate way of integrating solar in a historic district. If this board feels they can’t get to that decision, I can’t imagine a better installation in Charlottesville. I can imagine a lot of really bad places where this project would be a bad idea or with roofs that are much more complex. If it can’t happen here, I don’t know where it does happen in Charlottesville. This is a really important question. Mr. Pinchum – Do you have a sense of the tiles that would need to be cut in a normal roof installation if those are glass tiles that look like the Tesla tile? Mr. Mullen – From what I have read there has been three generations of the Tesla tile in development. With previous iterations, those tiles would be field cut. It sounds like they are cut in the factory. Everything is brought to site. Mr. Werner – I think of the house up there on Park. Two and a half years ago, they put the copper roof on and about blinded me every time I walked by. We've approved bright shiny things up on roofs; from that perspective, I think the way I'm thinking about it is the when's the full slate shingles that just simply look so completely different. That's in lieu of real slate. You have that comparison that you have to get past. This is a house that is 20th century. It has asphalt shingles on it. We're not looking to replicate a slate roof or cedar shakes or something like that. I think that maybe the uniformity of these is something I think that's something you could see in an image. Mr. Mohr – I think it might end up being a lot nicer looking than an asphalt shingle roof. Looking at the website, it looks nice. We need some ‘hands-on’ facts about it. 28 BAR Meeting Minutes March 16, 2021 Ms. Lewis – I leave it to the applicant to provide us with that information. Motion for Denial – 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 dormer and gutter and downspouts at 735 Northwood Avenue satisfies the BAR’s criteria and is compatible with this property and other properties in the North Downtown ADC District, and that the BAR approves the application as submitted with the recommendation that the two flanking windows on the rear elevation of the dormer have equidistant spacing between the center windows and the edges of the dormer. James Zehmer seconds motion. Motion passes (9- 0). E. Other Business 11. Staff Questions/Discussion South Street Inn Landscaping Plan • Staff brought this to the BAR for the recommendation of how to treat this landscaping plan. • After a very brief discussion, the BAR recommended that the applicant bring the landscaping plan back to the BAR for review, even if it is on the Consent Agenda. Jefferson School • Awning on the front of the school. • After discussing, the BAR is comfortable with staff approving this administratively. Lighting at The Standard Comprehensive Plan Update 12. PLACE Update F. Adjournment Meeting was adjourned at 9:30 PM 29 BAR Meeting Minutes March 16, 2021 30 BAR Meeting Minutes March 16, 2021 Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 21-05-03 605 Preston Place, Tax Parcel 050111000 Rugby Road-University Circle-Venable Neighborhood ADC District Owner: Neighborhood Investment – PC, LP Applicant: Kevin Riddle, Mitchell Matthews Architects Project: Three-story apartment building with below-grade parking Application components (please click each link to go directly to PDF page): • Staff Report • Historic Survey • Application Submittal August 17, 2021 BAR Packet Guide 3 City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Staff Report August 17, 2021 Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 21-05-03 605 Preston Place, Tax Parcel 050111000 Rugby Road-University Circle-Venable Neighborhood ADC District Owner: Neighborhood Investment – PC, LP Applicant: Kevin Riddle, Mitchell Matthews Architects Project: Three-story apartment building with below-grade parking Background Year Built: 1857 District: Rugby Road-University Circle-Venable Neighborhood ADC District Also designated an Individually Protected Property Status: Contributing Also known as Wyndhurst, 605 Preston Place was the manor house of the 100-acre farm that is now the Preston Heights section of the city. It is a typical 2-story, 3-bay, double-pile, weatherboard-clad house with Greek Revival details. Prior BAR Reviews (See appendix for the complete list) September 15, 2020 - Preliminary Discussion re: new apartment building. http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/798341/2020-09_605%20Preston%20Place_Preliminary%20Discussion.pdf May 18, 2021 – (re: new apartment building) BAR accepted applicant’s request for deferral. http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/798408/2021-05_605%20Preston%20Place_BAR.pdf Application • Submittal: Mitchel Matthews Architects drawings 605 Preston Place, dated July 23, 2021: (Sheets listed in the Appendix.) CoA request for construction of apartment building, including parking, landscaping and site improvements. (Note: The following is a summary only of the project scope. For specific details or clarification, refer to the applicant’s July 23, 2021 submittal.) Apartment Building • Walls: Stucco, painted (Note: Brick sections omitted) • Flat roof behind low parapet. Metal scuppers boxes and downspouts • Rooftop mechanical units screened with enclosures 605 Preston Place (August 9, 2021) 1 • Doors and Windows: Marvin Ultimate Clad Exterior, rubbed bronze • Shutters: Wood shutters, operable bi-fold, painted to match the stucco and trim • Stair/balcony railings: Metal (rectangular rails, round pickets), color similar to Pantone 418C • Stairs: Metal framing (color similar to Pantone 418C) with wood treads, • Ceilings at balconies and stair landings: White Oak boards, clear finish* • Decking at balconies and stair landings: Black Locust boards, clear finish* * Applicant’s note: Ceiling and deck boards will be spaced to allow drainage. The balconies are small [shallow]. Lighting • Type A. Sconce (parking): Lithonia Lighting, WDGE2 LED P3 o Dimmable available, CT 3000K, CRI 90, BUG 1-0-0 • Type B. Wall light (parking): Lightway Industries Inc, PDLW-12-LED-11W o Dimmable available, CT 3000K – 4,000K, CRI 80 • Type C. Step light (path): Eurofase Lighting, 31590-013 o Not dimmable, CT 3,000K, CRI 80 • Type D. (Omitted.) • Type E. (Omitted.) • Type F. Recessed light (stairs): Lithonia Lighting, LBR6WW ALO1 (500LM) SWW1 o Dimmable available, CT 3,000K, CRI 90 • Type G. Recessed light (stairs): Mark Architectural Lighting, SL2L 4 FLP 400LMF o Dimmable available CT 3,000K, CRI 80 • Type H. Wall wash (stairs): Mark Architectural Lighting, SL2L LOP 4 FLP 400LMF o Dimmable available CT 3,000K, CRI 80 • Balconies: No exterior light fixtures. The applicant noted that the balconies are shallow and ambient lighting from the interior will be sufficient. Color Palette • Clad windows and French doors: Similar to Pantone 418C or similar. • Exterior trim and metal channel fascias: Similar Pantone 418C or similar. • Stucco (two colors): Similar to Pantone 4222C and Pantone 418C. • Metal railings and stair frames: Similar to Pantone 418C or similar. • White Oak boards, clear finish • Black Locust boards, clear finish Landscape and Site Work • Two (2) mature Deodora cedars will remain. • Construction will require the removal of five (5) trees: o One (1) 36” Ash (Submittal includes arborist letter) o Three (3) 8” Dogwood o One (1) 10” Maple o Note: The 18” tree noted on the plan is no longer standing. • New plantings: o a. Three (3) Blackgum (Nyssa Sylvatica): ▪ At the east side of Wyndhurst ▪ Note: On the City’s Tree List o b. Six (6) Shagbark Hickory (Carya Ovata): 605 Preston Place (August 9, 2021) 2 ▪ On the south, to the rear of the existing Preston Court Apartments ▪ Note: On the City’s Tree List o c. Six (6) White Fringetree (Chionanthus Virginicus): ▪ Note: While not on the City’s Tree or Shrub lists, White Fringetree is identified as being native to the central Virginia. (In 1997, the Virginia Native Plant Society named it the Wildflower of the Year.) • https://plants.sc.egov.usda.gov/home/plantProfile?symbol=CHVI3 o d. Appalachian Sedge (Carex Appalachica): ▪ Groundcover typical at planting beds ▪ Note: While not on the City’s Tree or Shrub lists, it is listed as native to central Virginia. • https://plants.sc.egov.usda.gov/home/plantProfile?symbol=CAAP5 o e. Dart’s Gold Ninebark (Physocarpus Opulifolius); Alternative: Smooth Sumac (Rhus Glabra): ▪ Hedge above retaining wall at driveway/parking entrance ▪ Note: Both on the City’s Tree List o f. Pipevine (Aristolochia Macrophylla) and Woodbine (Clematis Virginiana). ▪ Climbing plant intended to spread and cover wall at driveway/parking entrance ▪ Note: While not on the City’s Tree or Shrub lists, Pipevine and Woodbine are both listed as native to central Virginia. • https://plants.sc.egov.usda.gov/home/plantProfile?symbol=ARMA7 • https://plants.sc.egov.usda.gov/home/plantProfile?symbol=CLVI5 • Alteration to the (west) stone patio at the existing house • Path: Concrete • Patio: flagstone paving. • Low walls: fieldstone with bluestone caps • Electrical transformers to be screened. • Parking: below grade, accesses from west via Preston Place • Driveway wall: fieldstone with metal planting boxes (climbing plants—incl. Woodbine and Pipevine), metal railing and plantings at top (Dart’s Gold Ninebark or Smooth Sumac.) Discussion Regarding historic designation Local This property, including the house, was first designated by the City as an IPP. When the City later established the Rugby Road-University Circle-Venable Neighborhood ADC District, Wyndhurst was incorporated into the district. State and federal Wyndhurst is listed on the Virginia Landmarks Register and the National Register of Historic Places as an individual site (https://www.dhr.virginia.gov/historic-registers/104-0048/) and as a contributing structure to the Rugby Road-University Corner Historic District (https://www.dhr.virginia.gov/historic-registers/104-0133/). Being a contributing structure to a VLR/NRHP district carries no less importance than being individually listed, the term is intended to express that a district is important due to the sum of its contributing parts. However, the individual listing of a resource, like Wyndhurst, expresses the resource’s importance, in and of itself. 605 Preston Place (August 9, 2021) 3 September 15, 2020 Preliminary Discussion Notes from the meeting minutes are below. The BAR should discuss if the proposal is consistent with that input and whether the submittal provides the information necessary to evaluate this CoA request. Summary of Project o Recently a surface parking lot was proposed. o New apartment building located to the west of Wyndhurst. o Parking spaces support the new apartment building, relegated to the site interior. o Proposal of a connection that runs along south of the site to access the parking. o Access to parking designated for one-way travel and would reduce vehicle traffic. o Street could rejuvenate and strengthen the perception of Wyndhurst’s original frontage. o Not related to earlier proposal to move Wyndhurst or introduce surface parking. o New building will address the problems of earlier efforts. o Provide housing close to the University. o Potential in this proposal to animate the site. Summary of Board Comments and Questions o BAR indicated the project can be considered. o Interested in seeing how this project moves forward and could enhance the neighborhood. o Questions about the parking and the north yard. Parking spots 7 and 8 encroach very close to the building. o Cautious about the under sides of parking areas, bright lighting with the parking area. o Not sure about the grades on the other side of the building. o This is far more appropriate than what was previously proposed. o Staff reviewed the previous COA application that was denied in October 2019. o Parking lot proposal did nothing to enhance the Wyndhurst frontage. o Two trees are going to be retained. o Enter and exit [parking] from the north drive. o There would be a 25-foot setback for the front yard. o Concern about the distance between the proposed building and Wyndhurst [house]. o Basement windows [Wyndhurst] are going to stay where they are. o The guidelines are friendlier with a building versus a parking lot. o Some concern regarding the massing that was raised. o Straw poll: Project is better than proposed parking lot and better than moving the house. Staff Comments on the July 23, 2021 submittal The following staff comments are not unintended as a comprehensive evaluation, but as a general summary of key design criteria and to provide a framework for the BAR’s discussion. The Design Guidelines provide recommendations for: Spatial Elements • Setbacks: Within 20 percent of the setbacks of a majority of the neighborhood dwellings. o Average front setback is 43 feet, ranging between 10 feet and 80 feet. The recommended setback for the new building would be between 35 feet and 51 feet. ▪ The proposed building has a setback of approximately 20 feet. (Facing Preston Place, the two adjacent structures have setbacks of 15 feet and 27 feet. Wyndurst is setback 20 feet from the parcel line at the street.) 605 Preston Place (August 9, 2021) 4 ▪ Note: In September 2020, the applicant conferred with NDS. Per zoning, the minimum set back was determined to be 17.4 feet. • Spacing: Within 20 percent of the average spacing between houses on the block. o Average side spacing is 38 feet, ranging between 22 feet and 62 feet. The recommended spacing for the new building would be between 30 feet and 46 feet from the adjacent buildings. ▪ The proposed building is approximately 23 feet and 30 feet from the two adjacent buildings on Preston Place. (Wyndhurst is 30 feet and 22 feet from two adjacent buildings on Preston Place.) • Massing and Footprint: Relate to the majority of the surrounding historic dwellings. o Not including the adjacent apartments [with a footprint of 42,50 square feet], the average footprint is 2,085 square feet, ranging from 961 square feet to 4,404 square feet. [Three building exceed 3,500 square feet.] ▪ The proposed building will be approximately 4,125 square feet. • Height and Width: Keep the height and width within a maximum of 200 percent of the prevailing height and width. o Height. The prevailing height is two stories, with the adjacent apartments at four stories. The recommended max height of the new building would be four stories. ▪ The proposed building will be three stories. o Width. Not including the adjacent apartments [150 feet facing Grady Avenue and 100 feet facing Preston Place], the average building width is 54 feet, ranging between 32 feet and 104 feet. The recommended max width of the new building would be 108 feet. ▪ The proposed building will be approximately 56 feet wide, facing Preston Place. Materials and Design • Roofing: Flat roofs may be appropriate on a contemporary designed building. o The new building will have a flat roof. • Screen rooftop equipment: o The new building’s rooftop mechanical units will be within enclosures. 605 Preston Place (August 9, 2021) 5 • Windows and Doors: Openings generally are recessed on masonry buildings—new construction should follow this; wood, aluminum-clad wood, solid fiberglass, and metal windows are preferred for new construction. o Doors and windows will be Marvin Ultimate Clad Exterior. Doors will have insulated glass with applied grilles and internal space bars. Windows will be single-lite casements with insulated glass. o Sheet SK-355 indicates the locations of doors with balconies versus those without. o Note: Applicant’s submittal does not indicate the glass specification. The Design Guidelines recommend that glass should be clear, which the BAR established as having a VLT of not less than 70%. Glass for manufactured residential windows and doors typically VLTs in the high 50s to low 60s. In 2018, the BAR clarified this recommendation to the consideration of alternatives to the 70% VLT minimum; that subsequent decisions be guided by the project’s location, the type of windows and location on the building, the fenestration design, energy conservation goals, and the intent of the architectural design. • Materials and Textures: Materials should be compatible with neighboring buildings. o Of the neighboring structures: seven are brick; six have wood siding or shingles; two are stucco; 10 have shutters. o The proposed building features painted stucco with metal accents. Some of the balcony doors will be enclosed by wood shutters. The stucco is proposed as either a true, three- coat [masonry] stucco or synthetic stucco. The applicant is seeking options that will allow alternative pricing. The BAR should discuss and, possibly, establish what options would be acceptable. (Note: The use of EIFS is discouraged; however, the BAR has allowed its use. Most recently, for the project at 1532 Virginia Avenue. June 2020.) • Color Palette (Paint): Colors should be compatible with adjacent buildings, not intrusive. o Neighboring structures include red brick, painted stucco, stained shingles, and painted siding—painted features are primarily light colors. Trim is predominantly white. Shutters are dark. The existing apartment building include stone columns and corner blocks. o The proposed palette features the grays, greens and black. • Details and Decoration: Reduce the mass using articulated design details. o The facades are articulated by the fenestration and balconies, the central stairway (on the west elevation), the broken parapet, and the color variations of the stucco wall sections. Site Design, Landscaping, Lighting • Plantings: Retain existing trees, especially street trees; protect significant existing trees and other plantings. o At the street, two Deordora cypress (30” and 36” caliper) will be retained. o A 36” oak will be removed. o Fifteen new trees will be planted on the site. • Lighting: Use light levels that provide for adequate safety, yet do not overly emphasize the site or building. 605 Preston Place (August 9, 2021) 6 o Proposed fixtures are available with lamping that is consistent with the BAR’s established guidelines: Dimmable; Color Temperature not to exceed 3,000K; Color Rendering Index of not less than 80, preferably not less than 90. BAR should establish a condition that all lamping used will comply. • Parking Areas and Lots: Screen parking lots from streets. o Proposed parking is underground, accessible through a side entrance. o Surface spaces for three vehicles at the side and rear corner of the new building. Regarding prior BAR actions In October 2019, the BAR denied a CoA to construct a parking lot at this site. December 2019, upon appeal, City Council upheld the BAR’s action. The following summary may be helpful. (The formal record begins on page 299 of: http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/794415/AGENDA_20191202Dec02.pdf) In denying this CoA request, the BAR cited the ADC District Guidelines for Site Design and Elements (Chapter II). The BAR noted the direction provided in the Introduction (section A): “The relationship between a historic building and its site, landscape features, outbuildings, and other elements within the property boundary all contribute to a historic district’s overall image. Site features should be considered an important part of any project to be reviewed by the Board of Architectural Review.” The BAR noted that the request conflicts with the provisions of Parking Areas and Lots (section F), including: “4. Avoid creating parking areas in the front yards of historic building sites.” “8. Provide screening from adjacent land uses as needed.” And “10. Select lighting fixtures that are appropriate to a historic setting.” The BAR cited guidance from the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties [aka Secretary’s Standards], which are included by reference in the ADC District Guidelines. Specifically, from Alterations and Additions for a New Use (page 146), the Secretary’s Standards recommend against “Locating parking areas directly adjacent to historic buildings where vehicles may cause damage to buildings or landscape features or when they negatively impact the historic character of the setting if landscape features and plant materials are removed.” The BAR cited sections of the City Code for Historical Preservation and ADC Districts. Specifically, Sec. 34-271 - Purposes: The City of Charlottesville seeks, through the establishment of its several historic districts and through the protection of individually significant properties, to protect community health and safety, to promote the education, prosperity and general welfare of the public through the identification, preservation and enhancement of buildings, structures, landscapes, settings, neighborhoods, places and features with special historical, cultural and architectural significance. To achieve these general purposes, the City of Charlottesville seeks to pursue the following specific purposes: … (2) To assure that, within the city's historic districts, new structures, additions, landscaping and related elements will be in harmony with their setting and environs[.] Staff Recommendations If approval is considered, staff recommends the following conditions: • Requiring that all lamping be dimmable, if that option is available with the specified light fixtures, the Color Temperature not exceed 3,000K, and the Color Rendering Index is not less than 80, preferably not less than 90. 605 Preston Place (August 9, 2021) 7 • Underground the new electrical service. • During construction, protect the existing stone walls and curbs within the public right of way. Provide documentation prior to construction. If damaged, repair/reconstruct to match prior to final inspection. No site plan has been submitted for the proposed new work. During the site plan review process, it is not uncommon to see changes that alter the initial design. In considering an approval of the requested CoA, the BAR should be clear that any subsequent revisions or modifications to what has been submitted for that CoA will require a new application for BAR review. Additionally, the 1920 and c1965 Sanborn maps indicate this site has been undisturbed for at least the last 100 years. The City’s Comprehensive Plan recommends that during land disturbing activities in areas likely to reveal knowledge about the past developers be encouraged to undertake archeological investigations. Additionally, the Secretary’s Standards, as referenced in the Design Guidelines, recommends that archeological resources should be protected, with mitigation measures should they be disturbed. A Phase I archeological level survey would be appropriate at this site. Suggested Motions Approval: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find the proposed new construction at 605 Preston Place satisfies the BAR’s criteria and is compatible with this property and other properties in the Rugby Road-University Circle-Venable Neighborhood ADC District, and that the BAR approves the application as submitted[.] ... as submitted [with the following modifications: …] Denial: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find the proposed new construction at 605 Preston Place does not satisfy the BAR’s criteria and guidelines and is not compatible with this property and other properties in the Rugby Road-University Circle-Venable Neighborhood ADC District, and for the following reasons the BAR denies the application as submitted: … 605 Preston Place (August 9, 2021) 8 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. Sec. 34-282. - Application procedures. (d) … The following information and exhibits shall be submitted along with each application: 1) Detailed and clear descriptions of any proposed changes in the exterior features of the subject property, including but not limited to the following: the general design, arrangement, texture, materials, plantings and colors to be used, the type of windows, exterior doors, lights, landscaping, parking, signs, and other exterior fixtures and appurtenances. The relationship of the proposed change to surrounding properties will also be shown. 2) Photographs of the subject property and photographs of the buildings on contiguous properties. 3) Samples to show the nature, texture and color of materials proposed. 4) The history of an existing building or structure, if requested by the BAR or staff. For new construction and projects proposing expansion of the footprint of an existing building: a three-dimensional model (in physical or digital form) depicting the site, and all buildings and structures to be located thereon, as it will appear upon completion of the work that is the subject of the application. Pertinent ADC District Design Guidelines (The following excerpts are for reference only, not in lieu of the complete guidelines.) Chapter I – Introduction http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/793063/1_Introduction%20II_BAR.pdf http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/793062/2_Introduction%20I_BAR.pdf This property is within subarea c (Preston Place) of the Rugby Road-University Circle-Venable Neighborhood ADC District: A moderate scale single family residential neighborhood constructed in the 1920s and 1930s with the exception of Wyndhurst (605 Preston Place), built in 1857, which was 605 Preston Place (August 9, 2021) 9 the original farmhouse on the property; porches, brick, wood frame, variety of architectural styles, deep setbacks, wooded lots. Chapter II – Site Design and Elements http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/793064/3_Chapter%20II%20Site%20Design%20and%20Elements_BAR.pdf A. Introduction The relationship between a historic building and its site, landscape features, outbuildings, and other elements within the property boundary all contribute to a historic district’s overall image. Site features should be considered an important part of any project to be reviewed by the Board of Architectural Review. The resulting character of many of the residential streets in the historic districts is one of lush plantings and mature shade trees. While there may be much variety within the house types and styles along a particular street, the landscape character ties together the setting and plays an important role in defining the distinctiveness of the districts. When making changes to a property within one of the historic districts, the entire site should be studied to better understand its original design and its context within its sub-area. When planning changes to a site in a historic district, create a new plan that reflects the site traditions of the area and that fits the scale of the lot. Consider using different types and scales of plantings that will create scale, define edges and enclose outdoor spaces of the site. The following sections provide more specific guidance. B. Plantings 1) Encourage the maintenance and planting of large trees on private property along the streetfronts, which contribute to the “avenue” effect. 2) Generally, use trees and plants that are compatible with the existing plantings in the neighborhood. 3) Use trees and plants that are indigenous to the area. 4) Retain existing trees and plants that help define the character of the district, especially street trees and hedges. 5) Replace diseased or dead plants with like or similar species if appropriate. 6) When constructing new buildings, identify and take care to protect significant existing trees and other plantings. 7) Choose ground cover plantings that are compatible with adjacent sites, existing site conditions, and the character of the building. 8) Select mulching and edging materials carefully and do not use plastic edgings, lava, crushed rock, unnaturally colored mulch or other historically unsuitable materials. C. Walls and Fences 1) Maintain existing materials such as stone walls, hedges, wooden picket fences, and wrought-iron fences. 2) When a portion of a fence needs replacing, salvage original parts for a prominent location. 3) Match old fencing in material, height, and detail. 4) If it is not possible to match old fencing, use a simplified design of similar materials and height. 5) For new fences, use materials that relate to materials in the neighborhood. 6) Take design cues from nearby historic fences and walls. 7) Chain-link fencing, split rail fences, and vinyl plastic fences should not be used. 8) Traditional concrete block walls may be appropriate. 605 Preston Place (August 9, 2021) 10 9) Modular block wall systems or modular concrete block retaining walls are strongly discouraged but may be appropriate in areas not visible from the public right-of-way. 10) If street-front fences or walls are necessary or desirable, they should not exceed four (4) feet in height from the sidewalk or public right-of-way and should use traditional materials and design. 11) Residential privacy fences may be appropriate in side or rear yards where not visible from the primary street. 12) Fences should not exceed six (6) feet in height in the side and rear yards. 13) Fence structures should face the inside of the fenced property. 14) Relate commercial privacy fences to the materials of the building. If the commercial property adjoins a residential neighborhood, use a brick or painted wood fence or heavily planted screen as a buffer. 15) Avoid the installation of new fences or walls if possible in areas where there are no are no fences or walls and yards are open. 16) Retaining walls should respect the scale, materials and context of the site and adjacent properties. 17) Respect the existing conditions of the majority of the lots on the street in planning new construction or a rehabilitation of an existing site. D. Lighting 1) In residential areas, use fixtures that are understated and compatible with the residential quality of the surrounding area and the building while providing subdued illumination. 2) Choose light levels that provide for adequate safety yet do not overly emphasize the site or building. Often, existing porch lights are sufficient. 4) Do not use numerous “crime” lights or bright floodlights to illuminate a building or site when surrounding lighting is subdued. 7) Consider motion-activated lighting for security. E. Walkways and Driveways 1) Use appropriate traditional paving materials like brick, stone, and scored concrete. 2) Concrete pavers are appropriate in new construction, and may be appropriate in site renovations, depending on the context of adjacent building materials, and continuity with the surrounding site and district. 3) Gravel or stone dust may be appropriate, but must be contained. 4) Stamped concrete and stamped asphalt are not appropriate paving materials. 5) Limit asphalt use to driveways and parking areas. 6) Place driveways through the front yard only when no rear access to parking is available. 7) Do not demolish historic structures to provide areas for parking. 8) Add separate pedestrian pathways within larger parking lots, and provide crosswalks at vehicular lanes within a site. F. Parking Areas and Lots 1) If new parking areas are necessary, construct them so that they reinforce the street wall of buildings and the grid system of rectangular blocks in commercial areas. 2) Locate parking lots behind buildings. 3) Screen parking lots from streets, sidewalks, and neighboring sites through the use of walls, trees, and plantings of a height and type appropriate to reduce the visual impact year-round. 4) Avoid creating parking areas in the front yards of historic building sites. 5) Avoid excessive curb cuts to gain entry to parking areas. 6) Avoid large expanses of asphalt. 7) On large lots, provide interior plantings and pedestrian walkways. 605 Preston Place (August 9, 2021) 11 8) Provide screening from adjacent land uses as needed. 9) Install adequate lighting in parking areas to provide security in evening hours. 10) Select lighting fixtures that are appropriate to a historic setting. H. Utilities and Other Site Appurtenances 1. Plan the location of overhead wires, utility poles and meters, electrical panels, antennae, trash containers, and exterior mechanical units where they are least likely to detract from the character of the site. 2. Screen utilities and other site elements with fences, walls, or plantings. 3. Encourage the installation of utility services underground. 4. Antennae and communication dishes should be placed in inconspicuous rooftop locations, not in a front yard. 5. Screen all rooftop mechanical equipment with a wall of material harmonious with the building or structure. Chapter III – New Construction and Additions http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/793066/5_Chapter%20IV%20Rehabilitation_BAR.pdf A. Introduction The following guidelines offer general recommendations on the design for all new buildings and additions in Charlottesville’s historic districts. The guidelines are flexible enough to both respect the historic past and to embrace the future. The intent of these guidelines is not to be overly specific or to dictate certain designs to owners and designers. The intent is also not to encourage copying or mimicking particular historic styles. These guidelines are intended to provide a general design framework for new construction. Designers can take cues from the traditional architecture of the area, and have the freedom to design appropriate new architecture for Charlottesville’s historic districts. These criteria are all important when considering whether proposed new buildings are appropriate and compatible; however, the degree of importance of each criterion varies within each area as conditions vary. For instance, setback and spacing between buildings may be more important than roof forms or materials since there is more variety of the last two criteria on most residential streets. All criteria need not be met in every example of new construction although all criteria should be taken into consideration in the design process. When studying the character of a district, examine the forms of historic contributing buildings and avoid taking design cues from non-contributing structures. There may be the opportunity for more flexibility in designing new buildings or making an addition depending on the level of historic integrity of a particular area. Some parts of the historic districts retain a high degree of their original historic character. In these areas care should be taken to ensure that the new design does not visually overpower its historic neighboring buildings. In other areas where there are more non-contributing structures or more commercial utilitarian buildings, new designs could be more contemporary and the Board of Architectural Review (BAR) may be more flexible in applying these guidelines. 2. Flexibility The following guidelines offer general recommendations on the design for all new buildings and additions in Charlottesville’s historic districts. The guidelines are flexible enough to both respect the historic past and to embrace the future. The intent of these guidelines is not to be overly specific or to dictate certain designs to owners and designers. The intent is also not to encourage copying or mimicking particular historic styles. These guidelines are intended to 605 Preston Place (August 9, 2021) 12 provide a general design framework for new construction. Designers can take cues from the traditional architecture of the area and have the freedom to design appropriate new architecture for Charlottesville’s historic districts. 3. Building Types within the Historic Districts When designing new buildings in the historic districts, one needs to recognize that while there is an overall distinctive district character, there is, nevertheless, a great variety of historic building types, styles, and scales throughout the districts and sub-areas that are described in Chapter 1: Introduction. Likewise, there are several types of new construction that might be constructed within the districts the design parameters of these new buildings will differ depending on the following types: b. Residential Infill These buildings are new dwellings that are constructed on the occasional vacant lot within a block of existing historic houses. Setback, spacing, and general massing of the new dwelling are the most important criteria that should relate to the existing historic structures, along with residential roof and porch forms. B. Setback 2) Use a minimal setback if the desire is to create a strong street wall or setback consistent with the surrounding area. 3) Modify setback as necessary for sub-areas that do not have well-defined street walls. 10) Keep residential setbacks within 20 percent of the setbacks of a majority of neighborhood dwellings. C. Spacing 1) Maintain existing consistency of spacing in the area. New residences should be spaced within 20 percent of the average spacing between houses on the block. 3) In areas that do not have consistent spacing, consider limiting or creating a more uniform spacing in order to establish an overall rhythm. 4) Multi-lot buildings should be designed using techniques to incorporate and respect the existing spacing on a residential street. D. Massing and Footprint 2) New infill construction in residential sub-areas should relate in footprint and massing to the majority of surrounding historic dwellings. E. Height and Width 1) Respect the directional expression of the majority of surrounding buildings. In commercial areas, respect the expression of any adjacent historic buildings, which generally will have a more vertical expression. 2) Attempt to keep the height and width of new buildings within a maximum of 200 percent of the prevailing height and width in the surrounding sub-area. 5) Reinforce the human scale of the historic districts by including elements such as porches, entrances, storefronts, and decorative features depending on the character of the particular sub-area. F. Scale 605 Preston Place (August 9, 2021) 13 1) Provide features on new construction that reinforce the scale and character of the surrounding area, whether human or monumental. Include elements such as storefronts, vertical and horizontal divisions, upper story windows, and decorative features. G. Roof 1) Roof Forms and Pitches e. Shallow pitched roofs and flat roofs may be appropriate in historic residential areas on a contemporary designed building. 2) Roof Materials: Common roof materials in the historic districts include metal, slate, and composition shingles. a. For new construction in the historic districts, use traditional roofing materials such as standing- seam metal or slate. 3) Rooftop Screening a. If roof-mounted mechanical equipment is used, it should be screened from public view on all sides. b. The screening material and design should be consistent with the design, textures, materials, and colors of the building. c. The screening should not appear as an afterthought or addition the building. H. Orientation 1) New commercial construction should orient its façade in the same direction as adjacent historic buildings, that is, to the street. 2) Front elevations oriented to side streets or to the interior of lots should be discouraged. I. Windows and Doors 1) The rhythm, patterns, and ratio of solids (walls) and voids (windows and doors) of new buildings should relate to and be compatible with adjacent historic facades. a. The majority of existing buildings in Charlottesville’s historic districts have a higher proportion of wall area than void area except at the storefront level. 2) The size and proportion, or the ratio of width to height, of window and door openings on new buildings’ primary facades should be similar and compatible with those on surrounding historic facades. a. The proportions of the upper floor windows of most of Charlottesville’s historic buildings are more vertical than horizontal. 3) Traditionally designed openings generally are recessed on masonry buildings and have a raised surround on frame buildings. New construction should follow these methods in the historic districts as opposed to designing openings that are flush with the rest of the wall. 4) Many entrances of Charlottesville’s historic buildings have special features such as transoms, sidelights, and decorative elements framing the openings. Consideration should be given to incorporating such elements in new construction. 5) Darkly tinted mirrored glass is not an appropriate material for windows in new buildings within the historic districts. 6) If small-paned windows are used, they should have true divided lights or simulated divided lights with permanently affixed interior and exterior muntin bars and integral spacer bars between the panes of glass. 7) Avoid designing false windows in new construction. 8) Appropriate material for new windows depends upon the context of the building within a historic district, and the design of the proposed building. Sustainable materials such as wood, aluminum- 605 Preston Place (August 9, 2021) 14 clad wood, solid fiberglass, and metal windows are preferred for new construction. Vinyl windows are discouraged. 9) Glass shall be clear. Opaque spandrel glass or translucent glass may be approved by the BAR for specific applications. Note: In August 2018, the BAR clarified this recommendation as follows: BAR concluded that VLT 70 should remain the preference relative to clear glass. However, they acknowledged the case-by-case flexibility offered in the Design Guidelines; specifically, though not exclusively, that this allows for the consideration of alternatives—e.g. VLTs below 70--and that subsequent BAR decisions regarding glass should be guided by the project’s location (e.g. on the Downtown Mall versus a side street), the type of windows and location on the building (e.g. a street level storefront versus the upper floors of an office building), the fenestration design (e.g. continuous glass walls versus punched windows), energy conservation goals, the intent of the architectural design, matching historical glass, and so on. J. Porches 1) Porches and other semi-public spaces are important in establishing layers or zones of intermediate spaces within the streetscape. K. Street-Level Design 1) Street level facades of all building types, whether commercial, office, or institutional, should not have blank walls; they should provide visual interest to the passing pedestrian. 11) A parking garage vehicular entrance/exit opening should be diminished in scale, and located off to the side to the degree possible. L. Foundation and Cornice 1) Distinguish the foundation from the rest of the structure through the use of different materials, patterns, or textures. 2) Respect the height, contrast of materials, and textures of foundations on surrounding historic buildings. 3) If used, cornices should be in proportion to the rest of the building. 4) Wood or metal cornices are preferred. The use of fypon may be appropriate where the location is not immediately adjacent to pedestrians. M. Materials and Textures 1) The selection of materials and textures for a new building should be compatible with and complementary to neighboring buildings. 2) In order to strengthen the traditional image of the residential areas of the historic districts, brick, stucco, and wood siding are the most appropriate materials for new buildings. 3) In commercial/office areas, brick is generally the most appropriate material for new structures. “Thin set” brick is not permitted. Stone is more commonly used for site walls than buildings. 4) Large-scale, multi-lot buildings, whose primary facades have been divided into different bays and planes to relate to existing neighboring buildings, can have varied materials, shades, and textures. 5) Synthetic siding and trim, including, vinyl and aluminum, are not historic cladding materials in the historic districts, and their use should be avoided. 6) Cementitious siding, such as HardiPlank boards and panels, are appropriate. 7) Concrete or metal panels may be appropriate. 8) Metal storefronts in clear or bronze are appropriate. 605 Preston Place (August 9, 2021) 15 9) The use of Exterior Insulation and Finish Systems (EIFS) is discouraged but may be approved on items such as gables where it cannot be seen or damaged. It requires careful design of the location of control joints. 10) The use of fiberglass-reinforced plastic is discouraged. If used, it must be painted. 11) All exterior trim woodwork, decking and flooring must be painted, or may be stained solid if not visible from public right-of-way. N. Paint 1) The selection and use of colors for a new building should be coordinated and compatible with adjacent buildings, not intrusive. 2) In Charlottesville’s historic districts, various traditional shaded of brick red, white, yellow, tan, green, or gray are appropriate. For more information on colors traditionally used on historic structures and the placement of color on a building, see Chapter 4: Rehabilitation. 3) Do not paint unpainted masonry surfaces. 4) It is proper to paint individual details different colors. 5) More lively color schemes may be appropriate in certain sub-areas dependent on the context of the sub-areas and the design of the building. O. Details and Decoration 1) Building detail and ornamentation should be consistent with and related to the architecture of the surrounding context and district. 2) The mass of larger buildings may be reduced using articulated design details. 3) Pedestrian scale may be reinforced with details. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties Secretary’s Standards The Secretary’s Standards offers the following guidance for alterations and additions for a new use: Recommended • Designing new onsite features (such as parking areas, access ramps, or lighting), when required by a new use, so that they are as unobtrusive as possible, retain the historic relationship between the building or buildings and the landscape, and are compatible with the historic character of the property. • Designing new exterior additions to historic buildings or adjacent new construction that are compatible with the historic character of the site and preserves the historic relationship between the building or buildings and the landscape. • Removing non-significant buildings, additions, or site features which detract from the historic character of the site. • Locating an irrigation system needed for a new or continuing use of the site where it will not cause damage to historic buildings. Not recommended • Locating parking areas directly adjacent to historic buildings where vehicles may cause damage to buildings or landscape features or when they negatively impact the historic character of the building site if landscape features and plant materials are removed. • Introducing new construction on the building site which is visu ally incompatible in terms of size, scale, design, material, or color, which destroys historic relationships on the site, or which dam ages or destroys important landscape features, such as replacing a lawn with paved parking areas or removing mature trees to widen a driveway. 605 Preston Place (August 9, 2021) 16 • Removing a historic building in a complex of buildings or removing a building feature or a landscape feature which is important in defining the historic character of the site. • Locating an irrigation system needed for a new or continuing use of the site where it will damage historic buildings. Appendix Prior BAR Reviews August 14, 2017 – BAR approved moving [to 506-512 Preston Place] the house, porch, chimneys, and east side additions located at 605 Preston Avenue and demolition of the rear additions. June 18, 2019 – Request to construct a 25-space parking lot in the rear yard of the historic structure. The BAR moved to accept the applicant’s request for deferral (9-0). http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/791143/2019-06_605%20Preston%20Place_BAR.pdf http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/792645/2019-06_Meeting%20Minutes_BAR.pdf October 15, 2019 – BAR denied CoA request to construct parking lot in the rear yard of the historic structure. (December 2019 – Council denied applicant appeal.) http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/791778/2019-10_605%20Preston%20Place_BAR.pdf http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/792649/2019-10_Meeting%20Minutes_BAR.pdf Application Submittal: Mitchel Matthews Architects drawings 605 Preston Place, dated July 23, 2021: Cover SK-44 Zoning SK-343 View SE Survey, Existing Conditions SK-350 View SW View West, Existing Conditions SK-351 View NW View SW, Existing Conditions SK-346 View West View SE Existing Conditions SK-348 Material Palette Description SK-349 Material Palette SK-323 Site Plan SK-355 Diagrammatic Sections SK-327 Plantings & Paving SK-353 Driveway Wall SK-324 Floor Plan, Parking Level Lighting (photometric) SK-325 Floor Plan, Typical Lighting (renderings) SK-329 Elevation West Lighting Product Sheets for fixtures A, B SK-328 Elevation West Lighting Product Sheets for fixtures C SK-334 Elevation South Lighting Product Sheets for fixtures F, G, H SK-331 Elevation South Appendix (cover sheet) SK-332 Elevation South (some shutters closed) Arborist’s Evaluation Ash Tree at NW corner SK-337 Elevation East Wyndhurst West Terrace, Existing Conditions SK-336 Elevation East Neighborhood Context, Outer Ring SK-340 Elevation North Neighborhood Context, Inner Ring SK-338 Elevation North Precedent, Park Lane Apartments 605 Preston Place (August 9, 2021) 17 605 PRESTON PLACE C H A R L O T T E S V I L L E , V A BAR REVIEW M I T C H E L L M AT T H E W S A R C H I T E C T S J u ly 23, 2021 S S R E G F T R O A P DR Location 605 Preston Place Area 0.396 acres (17,250 SF) Zone R-3H R-1UH Residential Units up to 21 DUA (by right) Parking Two bedroom apt. or smaller: AD 1 space RO Three or Four bedroom apt.: 2 spaces L Y P GB Height 45 feet (max) N R-3H R-3H TO RU ES R-3H Setbacks 17.5 feet (average of neigh- R (front) boring properties) P PL 0.396 acres Setbacks 1 ft per 2 ft height (10’ min) N (side) TO ES Setbacks na (double frontage lot - no PR (rear) rear yard) GR AD E Y AV AV E LL NW BE CA R-3H ST th 17 605 PRESTON PL M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlot t e s v i lle VA ZONING SUMMARY Architects & Planners SK-44 07.23.2021 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2021 605 PRESTON PL M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlot t e s v i lle VA SURVEY EXISTING CONDITIONS Architects & Planners 07.23.2021 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2021 605 PRESTON PL M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlot t e s v i lle VA VIEW WEST EXISTING CONDITIONS Architects & Planners 07.23.2021 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2021 605 PRESTON PL M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlot t e s v i lle VA VIEW SW EXISTING CONDITIONS Architects & Planners 07.23.2021 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2021 605 PRESTON PL M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlot t e s v i lle VA VIEW SE EXISTING CONDITIONS Architects & Planners 07.23.2021 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2021 The proposed new building is three stories over a parking level below grade. It is located to the west of the Wyndhurst house and to the north of the Preston Court Apartments. The parking level is accessed from a new drive that connects to Preston Place at the northwest corner of the site. Most parking spaces are concealed beneath the building, not visible from the street. The two most prominent trees on the site-- mature Deodora cedars-- are to be protected during construction and remain. Exterior mechanical/HVAC equipment will be located out of view behind parapets on the roof. Trash cans will be stored at the basement parking level, concealed from public view. Two transformers will be relocated farther into the site-- away from Preston Place-- and screened by plantings. The site immediately adjacent to the historic Wyndhurst house will be minimally affected. The small lawn and narrow walk to the south of the house will be restored to their former conditions before renovation work on the Preston Court Aparments and Wyndhurst began. Site/exterior lighting will be motion-activated and have a color temperature not to exceed 3000K with a color rendering index not lower than 80. Other aspects of the proposal-- building materials, proportions, plantings, site walks, etc...-- are further illustrated in the pages that follow. 605 PRESTON PL M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlot t e s v i lle VA DESCRIPTION Architects & Planners 07.23.2021 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2021 PRESTON E e e AC PL 594 f f e N 580 582 TO PLACE ES i PR c c a 596.6 HVAC/mech. equip. to be concealed within parapet c 590.8 Wyndhurst h g a c c c d a 594.5 d g b b b b b b d 2 Deodora 589 h 592 590.2 Cedars to remain 2 transformers relocated here existing apartment courtyard a Nyssa Sylvatica (Blackgum) d Carex Appalachica (Appalachian Sedge) g Bluestone Paving i Liriodendron Tulipifera (Tulip Poplar) groundcover typical at planting beds S S b Carya Ovata (Shagbark Hickory) e Physocarpus Opulifolius (Dart’s Gold Ninebark) h Concrete Walk R E alternative: Rhus Glabra (Smooth Sumac) O G FT A c Chionanthus Virginicus (White Fringetree) f Clematis Virginiana (Woodbine) and Aristolochia Macrophylla (Pipevine) climbing plants intended to spread and cover walls PR DR 605 PRESTON PL M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlot t e s v i lle VA SITE PLAN Architects & Planners SK-323 07.23.2021 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2021 c Chionanthus Virginicus (White Fringetree) d Carex Appalachica (Appalachian Sedge) alternative: Carex Pensylvanica (Pennsylvania Sumac) a Nyssa Sylvatica (Blackgum) f Clematis Virginiana f Aristolochia Macrophylla e Physocarpus Opulifolius (Dart’s Gold Ninebark) (Woodbine) (Pipevine) alternative: Rhus Glabra (Smooth Sumac) b Carya Ovata (Shagbark Hickory) g Bluestone Paving 605 PRESTON PL M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlot t e s v i lle VA PLANTINGS & PAVING Architects & Planners SK-327 07.23.2021 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2021 PRESTON E AC PL 20’ * N TO PLACE ES PR Wyndhurst existing apartment courtyard * Width of the entry drive to be as narrow as the city zoning administrator allows. S S R E O G FT A PR DR 605 PRESTON PL M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlot t e s v i lle VA FLOOR PLAN parking level Architects & Planners SK-324 07.23.2021 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2021 PRESTON E AC PL N 58’ TO PLACE ES PR 23’ - 6” 54’ - 8” Wyndhurst 11’ - 8” 7’-6” 12’ 70’ - 6” 12’ existing apartment courtyard S S R E O G FT A PR DR 605 PRESTON PL M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlot t e s v i lle VA FLOOR PLAN typical Architects & Planners SK-325 07.23.2021 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2021 S S R E O G FT A PR DR 605 PRESTON PL M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlot t e s v i lle VA ELEVATION WEST Architects & Planners SK-329 07.23.2021 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2021 Top of Parapet 627’ Top of Roof 622.5’ Finished Floor 591’ S S R E O G FT 10 A 5 PR DR 20 605 PRESTON PL M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlot t e s v i lle VA ELEVATION WEST Architects & Planners SK-328 07.23.2021 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2021 S S R E O G FT A PR DR 605 PRESTON PL M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlot t e s v i lle VA ELEVATION SOUTH Architects & Planners SK-334 07.23.2021 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2021 Top of Parapet 627’ Top of Roof 622.5’ Finished Floor 591’ S S R E O G FT 10 A 5 PR DR 20 605 PRESTON PL M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlot t e s v i lle VA ELEVATION SOUTH Architects & Planners SK-331 07.23.2021 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2021 Top of Parapet 627’ Top of Roof 622.5’ Finished Floor 591’ S S R E O G FT 10 A 5 PR DR 20 605 PRESTON PL M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlot t e s v i lle VA ELEVATION SOUTH (with some shutters closed) Architects & Planners SK-332 07.23.2021 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2021 S S R E O G FT A PR DR 605 PRESTON PL M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlot t e s v i lle VA ELEVATION EAST Architects & Planners SK-337 07.23.2021 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2021 Top of Parapet 627’ Top of Roof 622.5’ Finished Floor 591’ S S R E O G FT 10 A 5 PR DR 20 605 PRESTON PL M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlot t e s v i lle VA ELEVATION EAST Architects & Planners SK-336 07.23.2021 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2021 S S R E O G FT A PR DR 605 PRESTON PL M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlot t e s v i lle VA ELEVATION NORTH Architects & Planners SK-340 07.23.2021 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2021 Top of Parapet 627’ Top of Roof 622.5’ Finished Floor 591’ Parking Level 580’ S S R E O G FT 10 A 5 PR DR 20 605 PRESTON PL M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlot t e s v i lle VA ELEVATION NORTH Architects & Planners SK-338 07.23.2021 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2021 S S R E O G FT A PR DR 605 PRESTON PL M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlot t e s v i lle VA VIEW SE Architects & Planners SK-343 07.23.2021 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2021 S S R E O G FT A PR DR 605 PRESTON PL M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlot t e s v i lle VA VIEW SW Architects & Planners SK-350 07.23.2021 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2021 S S R E O G FT A PR DR 605 PRESTON PL M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlot t e s v i lle VA VIEW NW Architects & Planners SK-351 07.23.2021 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2021 S S R E O G FT A PR DR 605 PRESTON PL M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlot t e s v i lle VA VIEW WEST Architects & Planners SK-346 07.23.2021 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2021 7 1 Bluestone wall caps at site walls 1 2 6 Fieldstone Wall Stucco 4 (Western Maryland Thin or similar) true 3-coat stucco or synthetic stucco (color similar to Pantone 4222C) 2 5 3 2 3 5 Custom Color Stucco Metal Railings (Pantone 418C or sim.) true 3-coat stucco or synthetic stucco (color to match metal at all clad windows and french doors + trim and windows, (color similar to Pantone 418C) exterior trim + metal channel fascias similar to Pantone 418C) 7 4 6 White Oak (multi-coat clear finish) at exterior soffits and back of stair recess 605 PRESTON PL M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlot t e s v i lle VA MATERIAL PALETTE Architects & Planners SK-348 07.23.2021 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2021 French inswing doors Black Locust Decking (basis of design: Marvin (multi-coat clear finish) Ultimate series) at balcony floors, stair treads and landings operable wood shutters metal railings (basis of design: Julius Blum) Marvin Ultimate Clad Casement Windows (basis of design) black locust balcony deck boards Single Lite metal channel Clear glass Marvin Ultimate Clad Exterior Doors Operable Bi-fold Square glazing (basis of design) Wood Shutter profile Simulated Divided Lites with painted to match 12”+/- spacer bars custom Pantone railing components similar to color 7/8” muntins profiles in photo above (finish to match windows and exterior Clear glass 4”+/- 1’-7”+/- Square glazing profile Contemporary swinging handles in round spindles rectangular rails white oak soffit oil-rubbed bronze PVD finish (typical) boards Julius Blum Railing Components face of stucco in matte iron/dark gray finish wall Section through Balcony 605 PRESTON PL M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlot t e s v i lle VA MATERIAL PALETTE Architects & Planners SK-349 07.23.2021 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2021 B A A A A B A A B B B B A A A condition A condition B section at door(s) without balcony section at door(s) with balcony depth of balcony typically less than 1’-8” plan key (exception: balcony at SE corner) 605 PRESTON PL M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlot t e s v i lle VA DIAGRAMMATIC SECTIONS Architects & Planners SK-355 07.23.2021 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2021 dart’s gold ninebark climbing plants to include woodbine and pipevine metal planting boxes recessed into wall (custom color to match w ay metal trim on proposed building) dr ive S S R E O G FT A PR DR 605 PRESTON PL M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlot t e s v i lle VA DRIVEWAY WALL Architects & Planners SK-353 07.23.2021 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2021 not used 605 PRESTON PL M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlot t e s v i lle VA LIGHTING Architects & Planners 07.23.2021 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2021 605 PRESTON PL M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlot t e s v i lle VA LIGHTING Architects & Planners 07.23.2021 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2021 WDGE2 LED Catalog Number PDLW-LED Architectural Wall Sconce Notes Construction: Type: • Steel housing and chassis Buy American Type • Bottom lens is white frosted acrylic Job Name: Light Source: Hit the Tab key or mouse over the page to see all interactive elements. • LED Introduction • Dimming to 10% Included The WDGE LED family is designed to meet Notes: specifier’s every wall-mounted lighting need in • Dark sky compliant a widely accepted shape that blends with any • Wall mount only D2 architecture. The clean rectilinear design comes Specifications in four sizes with lumen packages ranging from • Down light only 1,200 to 25,000 lumens, providing a true site-wide • ADA Compliant Depth (D1): 7" solution. Embedded with nLight® AIR wireless • Optional LBC large box cover to mount to standard Depth (D2): 1.5" controls, the WDGE family provides additional extension box Height: 9" H energy savings and code compliance. • UL and CUL listed WET location Width: 11.5" WDGE2 delivers up to 6,000 lumens with a soft, • LED Components Weight: 13.5 lbs non-pixelated light source, creating a visually • Replaceable Module (without options) comfortable environment. When combined with W D1 multiple integrated emergency battery backup • CRI > 80 options, including an 18W cold temperature • Universal 120/277 volt standard option, the WDGE2 becomes the ideal wall- • 5-Year Warranty on LED Components mounted lighting solution for pedestrian scale applications in any environment. WDGE LED Family Overview PDLW-24-LED PDLW-36-LED PDLW-47-LED Height - 3” Height - 3” Height - 3” Lumens (4000K) Luminaire Standard EM, 0°C Cold EM, -20°C Sensor Width - 24” Width - 36” Width - 47” P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 Depth - 2” Depth - 2” Depth - 2” WDGE1 LED 4W -- -- 1,200 2,000 -- -- -- -- Mounts to 2 x 4 box/opening oriented to match WDGE2 LED 10W 18W Standalone / nLight 1,200 2,000 3,000 4,500 6,000 -- fixture’s linear dimension WDGE3 LED 15W 18W Standalone / nLight 7,500 8,500 10,000 12,000 -- -- ORDERING INFORMATION WDGE4 LED -- -- Standalone / nLight 12,000 16,000 18,000 20,000 22,000 25,000 Example: PDLW-36-LED-O3C-4-T4-WSA Ordering Information EXAMPLE: WDGE2 LED P3 40K 80CRI VF MVOLT SRM DDBXD PDLW Size LED Kelvin Cage Finish Diffuser Options Series Package Color Temperature CRI Distribution Voltage Mounting Source Energy 2 3000K B1 Satin Black WFA White Frosted Acrylic LBC Large box cover standard Watts Dimming Lumens Star 4 4000K B2 Text Black juction box (5” wide x 6” high) WDGE2 LED P1 1 P1SW 27K 2700K 80CRI VF Visual comfort MVOLT Shipped included Shipped separately P2 1 P2SW 30K 3000K 90CRI forward throw 347 3 SRM Surface mounting AWS 3/8inch Architectural wall spacer 24-LED O1F 10 1100 0-10v NO Z1 Satin Bronze P3 1 P3SW 35K 3500K VW Visual comfort 480 3 bracket PBBW S urface-mounted back box (top, left, Z3 Text Bronze DIM LED dimming driver (0 - 10v) O1G 20 2200 0-10v NO wide ICW Indirect Canopy/Ceiling P4 1 Door with small window 40K 4000K right conduit entry). Use when there Optional W1 Yolk White (SW) is required to Washer bracket (dry/ is no junction box available. 36-LED F2F 36 3690 0-10v NO P5 1 accommodate sensors. See 50K 2 5000K damp locations only)7 3 3500K W2 Gloss White page 2 for more details. 47-LED O2F 20 2200 0-10v NO T4 Shimmer Gray 90CRI Consult Factory O2G 39 4400 0-10v NO M13 Anod Silver T6 Pewter Options Finish W13 Pearl Beige E4WH Emergency battery backup, Certified in CA Title 20 MAEDBS Standalone Sensors/Controls (only available with P1SW, P2SW & P3SW) DDBXD Dark bronze (4W, 0°C min) Optional PIR Bi-level (100/35%) motion sensor for 8-15’ mounting heights. Intended for use on DBLXD Black (See Price List) E10WH Emergency battery backup, Certified in CA Title 20 MAEDBS switched circuits with external dusk to dawn switching. DNAXD Natural aluminum (10W, 5°C min) M17 Brass Powder PIRH Bi-level (100/35%) motion sensor for 15-30’ mounting heights. Intended for use on DWHXD White Battery Backup Options E20WC Emergency battery backup, Certified in CA Title 20 MAEDBS switched circuits with external dusk to dawn switching M16 Antique Brass (18W, -20°C min) DSSXD Sandstone Available in 36” and 48” only PIR1FC3V Bi-level (100/35%) motion sensor for 8-15’ mounting heights with photocell pre- P2 Brushed Alum PE 4 Photocell, Button Type programmed for dusk to dawn operation. DDBTXD Textured dark bronze BB08 Battery backup unit providing P9 Brushed Nickel DS 5 Dual switching (comes with 2 drivers and 2 light engines; PIRH1FC3V Bi-level (100/35%) motion sensor for 15-30’ mounting heights with photocell pre- DBLBXD Textured black 8 Watts (1080lm) for 90-Minute see page 3 for details) programmed for dusk to dawn operation. DNATXD Textured natural aluminum DMG 6 0-10V dimming wires pulled outside fixture (for use with Networked Sensors/Controls (only available with P1SW, P2SW & P3SW) DWHGXD Textured white an external control, ordered separately) 28435 Industry Drive., Valencia, California 91355 NLTAIR2 PIR nLightAIR Wireless enabled bi-level motion/ambient sensor for 8-15’ mounting heights. DSSTXD Textured sandstone West Coast Sales: 800-325-4448 /661-257-0286• fax 800-323-2346 /661-257-0201 BCE Bottom conduit entry for back box (PBBW). Total of 4 entry NLTAIR2 PIRH nLightAIR Wireless enabled bi-level motion/ambient sensor for 15-30’ mounting heights. points. East Coast Sales: 866-350-0991 • fax 866-490-5754 See page 4 for out of box functionality www.lightwayind.com • sales@lightwayind.com Revision: 06/15/2020 One Lithonia Way • Conyers, Georgia 30012 • Phone: 1-800-705-SERV (7378) • www.lithonia.com WDGE2 LED COMMERCIAL OUTDOOR © 2019-2021 Acuity Brands Lighting, Inc. All rights reserved. Rev. 03/17/21 A B 605 PRESTON PL M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlot t e s v i lle VA LIGHTING PRODUCT SHEETS Architects & Planners 07.23.2021 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2021 TEL 905.695.2055 toll free 1 . 8 0 0 . 6 6 0 . 5 3 9 1 FAX 9 0 5 . 6 9 5 . 2 0 5 6 toll free 1 . 8 0 0 . 6 6 0 . 5 3 9 0 33 West Beaver Creek Road Richmond Hill, Ontario Canada L4B 1L8 31590, 3.6W LED OUTDOOR IN-WALL PRODUCT DETAILS No. : 31590­013 Product Color : MARINE GREY Width : 4.1875" Height : 2.9375" Ext : 2.5625" Weight : 0.5lbs LIGHT SOURCE DETAILS Light Source Type : INTEGRATED LED Input Voltage : 120V Bulb Voltage : 120V Socket Type : LED Total Wattage : 3.6W Total Lumen : 80lm Kelvin : 3000K CRI : 80 Dimmable : No OPTIONS AVAILABLE TECHNICAL DETAILS ITEM NO. FINISH SHADE Driver : Electronic driver 120V 50/60Hz 31590­013 MARINE GREY Adjustable Lamp Head : No 31590­020 GRAPHITE GREY IP Rating : 65 Location : WET Approval : Title 24 : Yes PROJECT INFORMATION Job Name: Date: Category: Comments: www.eurofase.com C 605 PRESTON PL M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlot t e s v i lle VA LIGHTING PRODUCT SHEETS Architects & Planners 07.23.2021 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2021 Catalog Number Slot 2 LED Design2Ship ™ Type: Notes Recessed Linear FEATURES & SPECIFICATIONS TM INTENDED USE — Typical applications include corridors, lobbies, conference rooms and private offices. Slot 2 LED takes both form and function a step further Project: CONSTRUCTION — Retrofit, remodel, and new construction mounting types. See table for compatible Type with increased efficacy and integral controls creating a ceiling openings and thickness range. Optional goof rings available for additional overlap trim coverage. digitally addressable luminaire that is perfect where visually 1/2"-1-1/2" ceiling thickness harmonious illumination and energy efficiency are desired. 25° ambient temperature IC rated up to 1000lm OPTICS — 55° cutoff New construction frame accessories approved for 8 (4 in/4 out) No. 12 AWG conductors rated for LBR6 Flush TM Regressed Slot 2 LED is the ideal choice for spaces that emphasize lines and clean contemporary design. It is a perfect fit for Catalog Number: DO NOT TYPE HERE. Autopopulated field. Armstrong TechZone™ ceiling systems. A regressed lens 90°C through wiring. 1.0 S/MH standard (wallwash reflector available) 6" OPEN option provides added dimension to the sleek, slender 80CRI standard (90CRI optional) design. ELECTRICAL — Adjustable lumen output with three module options. Fixed lumen options also available. MVOLT 120/277V 50/60Hz driver (0-10V & 120V Phase Dimming to 10% min dimming level) 100LPW typical Specification Features (continued on page 2) Technical Drawing FCC CFR Title 47 Part 15 Class A for 277V. FCC CFR Title 47 Part 15 Class B for 120V. Retrofit | Remodel Housing Shielding L80 at 60,000 hours Nominal 2” x 2’, 3’, 4’, 5’, 6’, 7', 8’ and continuous Flush Lens: Snap-in 90% transmissive satin acrylic 3 SDCM rows in 1' increments as standard, upper housing lens. LISTINGS — Certified to US and Canadian safety standards. Damp location standard (Wet location, fabricated from cold-rolled steel with extruded Regressed Lens: Lay-in 90% transmissive satin acrylic covered ceiling optional). Some configurations are ENERGY STAR® certified, please visit www.energystar. aluminum ceiling trim. lens. gov for specific products. TAA compliant. UFC (3-530-01) specification compliant for power factor and THD. Finish GSA P100 6.2.4 compliant for power quality at full output; compliant up to 2000lm at fully dimmed output. Mounting Painted high reflectance matte white powder coat. Recessed. Available for sheetrock, 9/16” slot grid or Title 24 compliant (90CRI, up to 1000lm). Reflector 15/16” inverted tee ceilings, or 9/16” inverted tee. WARRANTY — 5-year limited warranty. Complete warranty terms located at: Precision-formed steel; high reflectance matte white www.acuitybrands.com/support/warranty/terms-and-conditions powder coat; 93% reflectivity. Design2Ship Note: Actual performance may differ as a result of end-user environment and application. Maximum order quantity of 500 linear feet per order. New Construction 5 business days from clean release of the order All values are design or typical values, measured under laboratory conditions at 25 °C. Specifications subject to change without notice. Fixture Performance - SL2L* Lumens Output 400 LMF 600 LMF** 800LMF** 1000LMF CAN BE USED TO COMPLY WITH 2019 MAB Fixture Style RLP FLP RLP FLP RLP FLP RLP FLP M Flush - (FLP) A+ Capable options indicated LE I D Delivered Lumens/FT 234 308 404 533 534 705 654 862 by this color background. JA8 HIGH EFFICACY LED LIGHT Input Watts/FT 4 4 6 6 8 8 11 11 SOURCE REQUIREMENTS battery pack Lumen/Watt 68 89 69 91 67 88 62 82 Module ordering * CCT (35K) * Consult factory for customized lumen output and wattage ORDERING INFORMATION Lead times will vary depending on options selected. Consult with your sales representative. Example: LBR6 ALO2 SWW1 AR LSS MWD MVOLT UGZ 90CRI **Based on calculated values A+ Capable options indicated by this color background. Series Lumens ‡ Color temperature‡ Reflector Color Reflector Flange Reflector Finish LBR6 6" Retrofit Adjustable Lumen Output Switchable CCT AR Clear (blank) Self-flanged LSS Semi-specular Ordering Example: SL2L QS LOP 4FT FLP FL 80CRI 30K 600LMF DARK 277 EMG NLIGHT LBR6WW 6" Retrofit Wallwash ALO1 500/750/1000lm SWW1 3000K-3500K-4000K-5000K WR‡ White painted TRW‡ White painted ALO2 1000/1500/2000lm BR‡ Black painted flange Fixed CCT ALO3 2000/2500/3000lm TRBL‡ Black painted 30K 3000K flange Fixed Lumen Output Series Program Linear Length Plan Total Run Length Fixture Style Ceiling Trim 35K 3500K 05LM 500lm 40K 4000K SL2L Slot 2 LED QS Quick Ship LOP Linear Optimized 2FT 2' 7FT 7’ RLP 1 Regressed Lens FL 3 5/8” Flange(sheetrock) 07LM 750lm 50K 5000K Linear Recessed (5 day Shipping) Plan 3FT 3' 8FT 8' FLP 2 Flush Lens TG 9/16” or 15/16" Flat or Inverted Tee 10LM 1000lm 4FT 4' __FT *Specify continuous linear GB 3 Trimless (sheetrock) feet in 1 foot increments 15LM 1500lm 5FT 5’ 20LM 2000lm 6FT 6' 25LM 2500lm 30LM 3000lm Direct Light Source Color Rendering Direct LED Color Temp Direct LED Light Output Direct Distribution Minimum Dimming Level Voltage Distribution Voltage Driver Options 80CRI 80 CRI 30K 3000K 400LMF 400 Lumens per FT (blank) Standard Distribution NODIM Non - Dim 120 120V 90CRI 90 CRI 35K 3500K 600LMF 600 Lumens per FT WW 4 Wall Wash MIN1 Constant current, dimming to 1% 277 277V MWD Medium wide MVOLT 120V - 277V UGZ Universal dimming to 10% 90CRI High CRI (90+) EC1‡ Extended Conduit (18") DARK Constant current, dimming to 0.1% (1.0 s/mh) 347V 0-10V; line voltage dimming (120V) AT‡ Airtight EC6‡ Extended Conduit (6ft) 40K 4000K 800LMF 800 Lumens per FT WW‡ Wallwash DALI‡ DALI dimming to 1% E10WCPR‡ Batterypack (10W constant power) T20 WL‡ Wet Location (IP55) 1000LMF 1000 Lumens per FT D10 Minimum dimming 10% driver for use Compliant remote test switch QDS‡ Quick disconnect plugs with JOT ELR‡ Batterypack (10W constant power) CP ‡ Chicago Plenum D1 Minimum dimming 1% driver for use Non-T20 Compliant remote test switch JOT‡ Wireless room control with “Just with JOT One Touch” pairing Emergency Options Control Input Options (blank) No Emergency (blank) 6 Non-dim CP Chicago Plenum E10WLCP 5 4ft Emergency Section with battery pack ZT 0-10V PWS 6' pre-wire, 3/8 diameter, 18 gauge nLight Options‡ New Construction Frames: Order as separate catalog number. Shipped separately. EC 4ft Emergency circuit NLIGHT nLight enabled NPP16D nLight® network power/relay pack with 0-10V dimming LBR6PFW 6" New construction frame with JBOX, 18" conduit Notes 4. Wall wash not available with RLP NPP16DER nLight® network power/relay pack with 0-10V dimming; ER controls fixtures on emergency circuit. LBR6PFWQDS 6" New construction frame with JBOX, 18" conduit, quick disconnects 1. Supplied with lift and shift lay-in lens. lens option. 5. Remote mounted. Not available NLTAIR2 nLight® Air enabled LBR6PFWCP 6" Chicago Plenum New construction frame with JBOX, 18" conduit 2. Supplied with snap-in lens. with CP. 3. Not intended for post sheetrock 6. Must select with NODIM option. NLTAIRER2 nLight® AIR Dimming Pack Wireless Controls. Controls fixtures on emergency circuit installation. NLTAIREM2 nLight® AIR Dimming Pack Wireless Controls. UL924 Emergency Operation, via power NOTE: ‡ indicates option value has ordering restrictions. Please reference the Option Value Ordering interrupt detection. Restictions chart on the next page. marklighting.com | 888-834-5684 | ©2017-2020 Acuity Brands Lighting, Inc. All Rights Reserved. We reserve the right F G, H to change design, materials and finish in any way that will not alter installed appearance or reduce function and performance. Page 1 SLOT 2 LED RECESSED LINEAR D2S 12/01/20 DOWNLIGHTING LBR6 605 PRESTON PL M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlot t e s v i lle VA LIGHTING PRODUCT SHEETS Architects & Planners 07.23.2021 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2021 APPENDIX  Mature ash tree to be removed (misidentified on survey as an oak)      October 5, 2020  Richard Spurzem 1025 Wertland St. Charlottesville, VA 22903   Dear Richard Spurzem,    I was asked to inspect and do a risk evaluation of an ASH tree located behind 605 Preston Place Charlottesville, VA 22903. Below are the results of my above ground, visual tree evaluation of the tree and recommendations.  The ASH tree has no major lean and the root plate looks to be intact with no upheaval. The crown health is fair to poor, with noticeable die back in the tips of branches and several mid-sized branches completely dead.  In recent years the Charlottesville area has become a hot-zone for the invasive pest, Emerald Ash Borer. The ASH tree behind 605 Preston Place has never been treated for Emerald Ash Borer (EAB). There are several mature ASH trees on Preston Place with much healthier crowns. These trees were treated for EAB as evident by the spent plugs, used in the treatment for EAB in the root flare.  It is my professional opinion that the tip die back in this tree and dead branches are consistent with an EAB infestation. Emerald Ash Borer weakens the structural integrity of ASH trees and makes branch and trunk failure much more likely. I recommend removal of this tree.       Sincerely,    Sean Schanbacher Certified Arborist PD 1906A 605 PRESTON PL M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlot t e s v i lle VA ARBORIST’S EVALUATION ASH TREE AT NW Architects & Planners 07.23.2021 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2021 Based on the prevalence of mortar joints and the CMU used for support, the terrace paving-- as well as the steps at the west door-- appears to be a later addition, not original to the 1850’s house. We propose to keep the existing terrace elevation but to replace the current paving with bluestone to match what is pictured at g on page SK-327 605 PRESTON PL M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlot t e s v i lle VA WYNDHURST WEST TERRACE EXISTING CONDITIONS Architects & Planners 07.23.2021 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5 6 4 3 2 7 1 8 8 605 PRESTON PL M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlot t e s v i lle VA NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT OUTER RING Architects & Planners 07.23.2021 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2021 2 3 1 4 5 6 7 4 5 3 6 2 7 1 8 8 605 PRESTON PL M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlot t e s v i lle VA NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT INNER RING Architects & Planners 07.23.2021 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2021 605 PRESTON PL M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlot t e s v i lle VA PRECEDENT PARK LANE APARTMENTS Architects & Planners 07.23.2021 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2021 39 University Circle Apartments Altamont Circle Apartments 68 University Way Apartments 605 PRESTON PL M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlot t e s v i lle VA PRECEDENT UNIVERSITY CIRCLE APTS. + ALTAMONT CIRCLE APTS. Architects & Planners 07.23.2021 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2021 Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 21-08-01 603 Lexington Avenue, Tax Parcel 520167000 Martha Jefferson Historic Conservation District Owner: Richard Zeller Applicant: Kevin Schafer, Design Develop Project: First-floor addition Application components (please click each link to go directly to PDF page): • Staff Report • Historic Survey • Application Submittal August 17, 2021 BAR Packet Guide 4 City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Staff Report August 17, 2021 Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-08-01 603 Lexington Avenue, Tax Parcel 520167000 Martha Jefferson Historic Conservation District Owner: Richard Zeller Applicant: Kevin Schafer, Design Develop Project: First-floor addition Background Year Built: 1893-1897 District: Martha Jefferson Historic Conservation District Status: Contributing The two-story house is stucco and features a hipped roof and a surrounding porch. Prior BAR Reviews July 2019 - BAR approved CoA for demolition of garage/shed, and construction of new. Application • Applicant Submitted: Design Develop drawings 603 Lexington Avenue, dated July 2021: Cover; (blank); Sheets #3 – 20. (20 pages.) Request CoA for the construction of first-floor additions on south and north elevations. Project description (From applicant’s submittal) Proposed addition includes enclosing an existing side porch to create a ground level master suite for the owners to age in place. A second addition to the north side of the house extends the existing powder room and includes the addition of a main laundry room. The proposed project remains in keeping with the architectural considerations of the conservation district neighborhood. Proposed changes maintain essential architectural form and integrity of the existing house while creating a distinction between old and new in the following ways: • Proposed addition employs a change in material that distinguishes the new construction from the existing historic house • Existing porch columns will remain in place and will be engaged into the new structure. 603 Lexington Avenue (August 9, 2021) 1 • Existing brick piers are restored to align with existing column locations. • Existing porch elements including the beam and railing are expressed through trim on the proposed addition. • Proposed window placement maintains the harmony of existing windows and a new window is added to the front of the addition to provide balance for the front elevation. • The north addition continues the harmony established by the modern addition to the rear and existing north side. The proposed bathroom and laundry room extends to the edge of the existing enclosed porch and the existing modern roof is extended towards the front of the house to include the addition. Existing trim is continued onto the new massing. Discussion 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. In general, staff recommends approval; however, there are elements that should be discussed and/or clarified: • Changing the existing single-window to a double-window. Is this an appropriate alteration to the primary façade? • Clarify detail of the composite panels on the south addition. (Profiled or trim applied to flat panels, etc.?) • Clarify wall material at the north addition. (Photograph of the existing would be sufficient.) • Provide cut sheets and/or information on the new windows. There is no specific requirement for HC Districts, but helpful to know what is proposed—wood, clad, true divided light, insulated glass with applied grilles, etc. • Window trim and sill detail. Staff recommends the new match existing or be similar. Suggested Motions Approval: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the Historic Conservation District Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed first floor addition at 603 Lexington Avenue satisfies the BAR’s criteria and are compatible with this property and other properties in the Martha Jefferson Historic Conservation District, and that the BAR approves the application [as submitted]. Or [as submitted with the following modifications/conditions:] Denial: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the Historic Conservation District Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed first floor addition at 603 Lexington Avenue does not satisfy the BAR’s criteria and is not compatible with this property and other properties in the Martha Jefferson Historic Conservation District, and that for the following reasons the BAR denies the application as submitted:… 603 Lexington Avenue (August 9, 2021) 2 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, 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 Guidelines for the Martha Jefferson Historic Conservation District 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. 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. 603 Lexington Avenue (August 9, 2021) 3 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. 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. 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. 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. Building Paint 1. Painting unpainted brick or other masonry is discouraged because it is irreversible and may cause moisture problems. 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. Architectural character-defining features of the Marth Jefferson HC District: 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]; 603 Lexington Avenue (August 9, 2021) 4 7. The following Historic Conservation Overlay District Design Guidelines are especially pertinent: maintain neighborhood massing and form; encourage the use of sustainable materials; and 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: 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); and to expect the High Street area to develop as a sensitively designed, high-quality, mixed use development; 9. Encourage good stewardship of Maplewood Cemetery. 603 Lexington Avenue (August 9, 2021) 5 603 Lexington Avenue TM/P: 52/167 DHR: 104-5144-0045 Primary Resource Information: Single Dwelling, Stories 2.00, Style: Other, 1892-1897. August 2007: The Locust Grove Investment Company built this 2-story, 2-bay, stucco- finished, hipped-roof dwelling on speculation between 1893 and 1897 and sold it to widowed Sarah E. Eastham in 1897. The house features a hipped-roof porch that encircles the east-facing façade and most of the southern elevation before it terminates against a portion of the rear of the house that projects beyond the main mass. The porch is approached via only a single low step and is supported by symmetrically distributed slender turned posts with knobs and fan-like brackets, with a simplified spindle balustrade. The double, stained-glass doors are located in the north bay of the 1st floor and are topped by a transom. A 2/2-sash window occupies the other 1st floor bay, while each of the 2 2nd story bays also have single 2/2-sash windows. The building’s cornice features exposed brackets below the projecting tin roof. A small sunroom currently under renovation abuts the western corner of the north elevation. Because of a grade change, the porch is supported on brick piers on the south elevation. Individual Resource Status: Single Dwelling Contributing: 1 Board of Architectural Review (BAR) Conservation District - Certificate of Appropriateness Please Return To: City of Charlottesville Department of Neighborhood Development Services P.O. Box 911, City Hall Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Telephone (434) 970-3130 Please submit ten {18} hard copies and one (1) digital copy of application form and all attachments. Please include application fee as follows; New construction project $375; Demolition of a contributing structure $375; Appeal of BAR decision regarding new construction or demolition $125. Make checks payable to the City of Charlottesville. No fee r uired fo ; Additions and other projects requiring BAR approval and not listed above; Administrative approvals; Appeals of BAR decisions if the original application was not subject to an application fee. 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. Project Name/Descrfption__ A_d_d_it_i_on_to_r_es_i_d_e_n_ce ________ Parcel Number___ s__ ')O_l6_7_0_0_0 _____ _ Project Address/Location._6_0_3_L_e_x_i_n_g_to_n_A_v_e _________________________ _ Richard and Virginia Zeller Owner Name_______________ _ Applicant Information information I have provided is. to the Address:. ________________ _ rect. Email:_________________ _ Phone: (W) _______ (H) _____ _ Date Print Name Property Owner Information {if not applicant) Address: 603 Lexington Ave, Charlottesville 22902 Property Owner Permission (if not applicant) I have read this appllcatlonand hereby give my consentto its SUbn115910f\.. Email: rzeller6 I6@aol.com Phone: (W) _______ (H) _____ _ Signature Oat £~;,[ 2 e,//4 r ·7/4,,Jl?Z/ &'ate 7 Print Name Description of Proposed Work (attach separate narrative if necessary): ______________ _ Construction of first floor addition List All Attachments (see reverse side for sut}mittal requirements): For Office Use Only Approved/Disapproved by: _________ _ Received by: ___________ _ Date: ________________ _ Fee paid: _____ Cash/Ck.# ___ _ Conditions of approval: __________ _ Date Received: __________ _ Revised April 20 17 Re: 603 Lexington Ave | BAR Submission Kevin Schafer Thu 8/12/2021 3 22 PM To: Werner, Jeffrey B ** WARNING: This email has originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.** 8/16/2021 Mail - Watkins, Robert - Outlook DD Response: We've clarified this on page 13 of the booklet, but it will be trim applied to flat panels. Photos: Need three pics that show BAR the existing conditions. DD Response: Existing conditionsphotoshave been addedtopages 4 and 5 of thebooklet. Due tothebeautiful landscapingon theZeller'sproperty, gettinga clear shotcan bechallenging-parti cularly in summer! Thank you, Kevin designdevelopllc.com 603 LEXINGTON AVE. BAR SUBMISSION AUGUST|2021 LOCATION: THE SITE IS LOCATED AT 603 LEXINGTON AVENUE AND IS LOCATED WITHIN THE MARTHA JEFFERSON CONSERVATION DISTRICT. THE SITE IS ZONED R-1S. 1 | COVER PROJECT DESCRIPTION: THE PROPOSED ADDITIONS TO 603 LEXINGTON AVENUE INCLUDE ENCLOSING 3 | TABLE OF CONTENTS AN EXISTING SIDE PORCH TO CREATE A GROUND LEVEL MASTER SUITE FOR THE OWNERS TO AGE IN PLACE. A SECOND ADDITION TO THE NORTH SIDE OF THE HOUSE EXTENDS THE EXISTING POWDER ROOM AND INCLUDES THE ADDITION OF A MAIN LAUNDRY ROOM. THE PROPOSED PROJECT 4-5 | EXISTING CONDITIONS REMAINS IN KEEPING WITH THE ARCHITECTURAL CONSIDERATIONS OF THE CONSERVATION DISTRICT NEIGHBORHOOD. PROPOSED CHANGES MAINTAIN ESSENTIAL ARCHITECTURAL FORM AND 6 | NEIGHBORHOOD MAP INTEGRITY OF THE EXISTING HOUSE WHILE CREATING A DISTINCTION BETWEEN OLD AND NEW IN THE FOLLOWING WAYS: •PROPOSED ADDITION EMPLOYS A CHANGE IN MATERIAL THAT DISTINGUISHES THE NEW 7 | CONTEXT PHOTOS CONSTRUCTION FROM THE EXISTING HISTORIC HOUSE •EXISTING PORCH COLUMNS WILL REMAIN IN PLACE AND WILL BE ENGAGED INTO THE NEW 8-9 | SIMILAR BAR APPROVED ADDITIONS STRUCTURE. •EXISTING BRICK PIERS ARE RESTORED TO ALIGN WITH EXISTING COLUMN LOCATIONS. •EXISTING PORCH ELEMENTS INCLUDING THE BEAM AND RAILING ARE EXPRESSED THROUGH 10-11 | PERSPECTIVE VIEWS - FRONT ADDITION TRIM ON THE PROPOSED ADDITION. • PROPOSED WINDOW PLACEMENT MAINTAINS THE HARMONY OF EXISTING WINDOWS AND 12-13 | DETAIL VIEWS - FRONT ADDITION A NEW WINDOW IS ADDED TO THE FRONT OF THE ADDITION TO PROVIDE BALANCE FOR THE FRONT ELEVATION. • THE NORTH ADDITION CONTINUES THE HARMONY ESTABLISHED BY THE MODERN ADDITION 14-15 | PERSPECTIVE VIEWS - NORTH ADDITION TO THE REAR AND EXISTING NORTH SIDE. THE PROPOSED BATHROOM AND LAUNDRY ROOM EXTENDS TO THE EDGE OF THE EXISTING ENCLOSED PORCH AND THE EXISTING MODERN ROOF 16-17 | FRONT ELEVATIONS IS EXTENDED TOWARDS THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE TO INCLUDE THE ADDITION. EXISTING TRIM IS CONTINUED ONTO THE NEW MASSING. 18-19 | SOUTH ELEVATIONS MASSING AND FOOTPRINT: THE PROPOSED MASTER BATHROOM ADDITION AT THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE IS WITHIN THE FOOTPRINT OF AN EXISTING SIDE PORCH AND IS INCLUDED UNDER THE EXISTING 20-21 | NORTH ELEVATIONS PORCH ROOF. THE PROPOSED LAUNDRY ROOM ADDITION REMAINS ALIGNED WITH THE CURRENT NORTH EDGE OF THE HOUSE AND THE CHANGE OF MASS OCCURS WITH AN EXTENSION TOWARDS THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE. THE EXISTING HOUSE IS 2,285 SQ FT AND THE PROPOSED ADDITIONS TOTAL 22 | PROJECT PLANS 240 SQ FT. THE FRONT ADDITION IS 160 SF AND NORTH ADDITION IS 80 SF. 23-24 | PLANS OF ADDITIONS 603 LEXINGTON AVE TABLE OF CONTENTS DESIGN DEVELOP, LLC CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 3 AUGUST, 2021 603 LEXINGTON AVE EXISTING CONDITIONS DESIGN DEVELOP, LLC CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 4 AUGUST, 2021 EXISTING CONDITIONS - SOUTHEAST EXISTING CONDITIONS - NORTHEAST EXISTING CONDITIONS - SOUTHEAST EXISTING CONDITIONS - NORTHEAST 603 LEXINGTON AVE EXISTING CONDITIONS DESIGN DEVELOP, LLC CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 5 AUGUST, 2021 E AV PO LY PLA KEL RS T VE 2 NA 6 TO 603 LEXINGTON AVE ING 1 LEX 5 FARI E SH S AV T 4 LES AR 3 CH ST. SY CA MO RE VE ST TA USC LO 603 LEXINGTON AVE NEIGHBORHOOD MAP DESIGN DEVELOP, LLC CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 6 AUGUST, 2021 1 2 3 601 LEXINGTON 605 LEXINGTON 600 LEXINGTON 4 5 6 606 LEXINGTON 608 LEXINGTON 612 LEXINGTON 603 LEXINGTON AVE CONTEXT PHOTOS DESIGN DEVELOP, LLC CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 7 AUGUST, 2021 EXISTING COLUMN PANELIZED WOOD SIDING EXISTING RAILING NEW STAIR BRICK W/ STONE TREADS EXISTING FRONT APPROVED FRONT BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS, PC BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS, PC 820-B EAST HIGH STREET CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 22902 712 LEXINGTON AVE 12/30/19 1/4" = 1'-0" EXISTING WEST ELEVATION 11 820-B EAST HIGH STREET CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 22902 712 LEXINGTON AVE 12/30/19 1/4" = 1'-0" PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION 12 EXISTING COLUMN MOVED OR REPLACED PANELIZED WOOD SIDING EXISTING SIDE APPROVED SIDE 712 LEXINGTON AVE, SIDE PORCH ADDITION BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS, PC 820-B EAST HIGH STREET CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 22902 712 LEXINGTON AVE 12/30/19 1/4" = 1'-0" EXISTING NORTH ELEVATION 13 BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS, PC 820-B EAST HIGH STREET CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 22902 712 LEXINGTON AVE 12/30/19 1/4" = 1'-0" 1/8” = 1’-0 PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION14 APPROVED JANUARY 2020 603 LEXINGTON AVE SIMILAR BAR APPROVED ADDITIONS DESIGN DEVELOP, LLC CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 8 AUGUST, 2021 EXISTING CONDITIONS APPROVED ADDITION, COMPLETED APPROVED ADDITION APPROVED ADDITION 1115 HAZEL ST, SIDE ADDITION APPROVED FEBRUARY 2020 603 LEXINGTON AVE SIMILAR BAR APPROVED ADDITIONS DESIGN DEVELOP, LLC CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 9 AUGUST, 2021 603 LEXINGTON AVE EXISTING PERSPECTIVE VIEW DESIGN DEVELOP, LLC CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 10 AUGUST, 2021 EXISTING ROOF LINE MAINTAINED EXISTING WINDOW MOVED OUT TO EDGE OF EXISTING PORCH NEW 3’-6” WINDOWS TO MATCH EXISTING EXISTING COLUMNS EX- PRESSED ON EXTERIOR CHAIR RAIL TO REFLECT EXISTING RAILING HEIGHT NEW BRICK PIERS TO ALIGN WITH EXISTING COLUMNS REPLACE EXISTING SINGLE WINDOW WITH NEW DOUBLE WINDOW TO MATCH EXISTING 603 LEXINGTON AVE PROPOSED PERSPECTIVE VIEW DESIGN DEVELOP, LLC CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 11 AUGUST, 2021 EXISTING DOUBLE WINDOW BELOW SINGLE WINDOW TO BE INTRODUCED TO FRONT FACADE 603 LEXINGTON AVE EXISTING DETAIL VIEW DESIGN DEVELOP, LLC CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 12 AUGUST, 2021 NEW WINDOWS TO MATCH EXISTING EXISTING EAVE TO REMAIN COMPOSITE TRIM AT EXIST- ING BEAM EXISTING WINDOW RELOCATED EXISTING COLUMNS HARDIE TO REMAIN ARTISAN LAP COMPOSITE SIDING FLAT TRIM BEHIND HALF COLUMNS COMPOSITE PANELING; TRIM APPLIED TO FLAT PANELS NEW BRICK PIERS TO ALIGN WITH EXISTING COLUMNS. NEW LATTICE TO MATCH EXISTING 603 LEXINGTON AVE PROPOSED DETAIL VIEW DESIGN DEVELOP, LLC CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 13 AUGUST, 2021 603 LEXINGTON AVE EXISTING PERSPECTIVE VIEW - NORTH ADDITION DESIGN DEVELOP, LLC CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 14 AUGUST, 2021 EXISTING ROOF LINE EXTENDED NEW SQUARE WINDOWS TO MATCH EXISTING SQUARE WINDOW ON NORTH ELEVATION EXISTING PORCH TRIM EXTENDED TO NEW ADDITION EXISTING CMU FOUN- DATION EXTENDED TO NEW ADDITION 603 LEXINGTON AVE PROPOSED PERSPECTIVE VIEW - NORTH ADDITION DESIGN DEVELOP, LLC CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 15 AUGUST, 2021 SCALE: 1/4” = 1’-0 603 LEXINGTON AVE EXISTING FRONT ELEVATION DESIGN DEVELOP, LLC CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 16 AUGUST, 2021 SCALE: 1/4” = 1’-0 603 LEXINGTON AVE PROPOSED FRONT ELEVATION DESIGN DEVELOP, LLC CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 17 AUGUST, 2021 SCALE: 1/4” = 1’-0 603 LEXINGTON AVE EXISTING SOUTH ELEVATION DESIGN DEVELOP, LLC CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 18 AUGUST, 2021 SCALE: 1/4” = 1’-0 603 LEXINGTON AVE PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION DESIGN DEVELOP, LLC CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 19 AUGUST, 2021 SCALE: 1/4” = 1’-0 603 LEXINGTON AVE EXISTING NORTH ELEVATION DESIGN DEVELOP, LLC CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 20 AUGUST, 2021 NEW ADDITION SCALE: 1/4” = 1’-0 603 LEXINGTON AVE PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION DESIGN DEVELOP, LLC CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 21 AUGUST, 2021 NEW WINDOWS NEW WINDOWS EXISTING DOUBLE WINDOW TO BE RELOCATED TO FRONT ELEVATION 603 LEXINGTON AVE PROPOSED WINDOW INFORMATION DESIGN DEVELOP, LLC CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22 AUGUST, 2021 603 LEXINGTON AVE PROPOSED WINDOW INFORMATION DESIGN DEVELOP, LLC CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 23 AUGUST, 2021 SCREENED PORCH KITCHEN DINING ROOM OFFICE HALLWAY PANTRY EXIST. HALF BATH MATCH EXISTING LIVING ROOM PROPOSED PORCH DEPTH FOR LIVING ROOM HALF BATH AND EXTENSION PROPOSED HALF BATH + LAUNDRY ADDITION LAUNDRY 4” INFILL EXISTING PROPOSED FULL SIDE PORCH MAIN LEVEL BATH WITH MASTER SUITE EXISTING PARLOR BATHROOM AND CLOSET ENTRY WIC EXISTING FIRST FLOOR PLAN PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR PLAN 1/8” = 1’-0 1/8” = 1’-0 603 LEXINGTON AVE PLAN OF PROJECT DESIGN DEVELOP, LLC CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 24 AUGUST, 2021 EXTEND EXISTING LIVING ROOM WALL TO MATCH ADDITION MOVE EXISTING DOUBLE WINDOW DIRECTLY TO EDGE OF ADDITION NEW 3’-6” WINDOW FULL NEW 3’POCKET AREA OF FOR MASTER BATH BATH DOORS STUDY REINSTALL PREVIOUSLY INFILL EXISTING REMOVED POCKET SIDE PORCH DOORS WITH MASTER BATHROOM AND CLOSET WIC NEW 3’-6” WINDOW REPLACE EXISTING SINGLE FOR MASTER CLOSET WINDOW WITH DOUBLE WINDOW FOR MASTER 1/8” = 1’-0 BEDROOM 1/4” = 1’-0 603 LEXINGTON AVE PLAN OF PORCH ADDITION DESIGN DEVELOP, LLC CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 25 AUGUST, 2021 ENLARGE EXISTING CLOSET ENCLOSE WALL OF EXISTING PORCH AREA OF 3’ WINDOW ABOVE STUDY WATER CLOSET NEW KNEE WALL FOR SPATIAL SEPARATION EXTEND WALL TO MATCH PORCH DEPTH WALL EXTENDS 13’-2” TO ACCOMMODATE NEW LAUNDRY ROOM 3’-6” WINDOW ABOVE WASHER / DRYER 1/8” = 1’-0 1/4” = 1’-0 603 LEXINGTON AVE PLAN OF LAUNDRY ADDITION DESIGN DEVELOP, LLC CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 26 AUGUST, 2021 Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-08-02 735 Northwood Avenue, TMP 340078000 North Downtown ADC District Owner: Laura and Phillip Smith Applicant: David Mullen, Halcyon Project: Replace asphalt shingle roof with standing-seam metal, install PV panels Application components (please click each link to go directly to PDF page): • Staff Report • Application Submittal August 17, 2021 BAR Packet Guide 5 City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Staff Report August 17, 2021 Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-08-02 735 Northwood Avenue, TMP 340078000 North Downtown ADC District Owner: Laura and Phillip Smith Applicant: David Mullen, Halcyon Project: Replace asphalt shingle roof with standing-seam metal, install PV panels Background Year Built: 1931 District: North Downtown ADC District Status: Contributing Prior BAR Reviews March 2021 – BAR approved construction of a rear former and replacement of the roof shingles. Request to install photovoltaic shingles was omitted. http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/798395/2021- 03_735%20Northwood%20Avenue_BAR.pdf Application • Applicant Submittal: Halcyon Contracting drawings 735 Northwood, dated July 27, 2021: existing elevations; proposed elevations; and roof perspectives. (Four pages.) Request CoA to replace the existing asphalt shingles with standing-seam metal and install photovoltaic (PV) panels on the south facing roof. Replace existing, white, K-type gutters with half-round, white. (March 2021 CoA had approved copper gutters and downspouts.) The metal roofing to be crimped at the ridge, 21” pan widths, color to be Matte Black, low gloss. Discussion Re: replacing asphalt shingles with standing-seam metal 735 Northwood Avenue (August 2, 2021) 1 Slate or asphalt shingles are common on Colonial Revival styles homes; however, standing-seam metal is typical on many of Charlottesville’s historic homes, especially on Park Street. There is no historic survey or other information that identifies the original roof material. The City’s 1962 Sanborn Maps (below) indicate the house is masonry, with the note tile, brick faced, and a solid dot indicating a composition roof; most likely asphalt shingles. Tabbed, asphalt shingles were common in the 1930s; however, we can only assume the current asphalt shingles reflect the original material. Note: The house has brick veneer over clay structural tiles—or blocks—versus brick over framed-wood construction. Prior BAR reveiws related to changing the existing roof. • July2014 – 734 Park Street (c1892, Victorian vernacular): BAR approved replacing slate with standing-seam metal. http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/622126/BAR_743%20Park%20Street_July20 14.pdf • June 2017 - 632 Park Street (c1928, Colonial Revival, brick): BAR approved replacing asphalt shingles with synthetic slate. http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/720724/BAR_632%20Park%20Street_June2 017.pdf • June 2018 – 810 East High Street (c1872, Victorian, brick): BAR approved replacing slate with standing-seam metal. http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/757648/BAR_801%20East%20High%20Stre et_June2018.pdf Re: PV panels Since adoption of the current ADC District Design Guidelines, the BAR has reviewed and approved nine CoA request related to PV panels, six in the last three years.* Six were either IPPs or within an ADC District, all except one installed rooftop panels. Two were installations onto standing-seam metal roofs—1102 Carlton Ave and 420 Park Street. (* Not including March 735 Northwood Avenue (August 2, 2021) 2 2021 request to install PV shingles at 735 Northwood Avenue, which was omitted from the project prior to approving the CoA.) The Design Guidelines (Rehabilitation, Roofing) do not specifically recommend against solar panels on historic roofs, but instead recommended they be placed on non-character defining roofs or roofs of non-historic adjacent buildings. However, the next provision recommends against adding new elements that would be visible on the primary elevations of the building. (The Design Guidelines closely follow the recommendations in the Secretary’s Standards, included in the Appendix.) Due to the orientation of this house and the constraints of the parcel, there are only three options for functional PV panels: on the south-facing roof; on an addition to the primary elevation, or on a new structure erected in the front yard. The first is proposed, the other two would arguably be less preferable. While not formally presented or approved, the BAR’s 2018 discussions on updating the Design Guidelines include a suggestion that the installation of PV panels not damage or interfere with historic material. That is, that PV panels be evaluated as non-permanent alterations that should not interfere with or alter the historic roof. (Relative to this request, that the PV panels not permanently interfere with the new, standing-seam metal roof.) Given the above and that the Design Guidelines are intended to provide flexibility, with an acknowledgement that sustainable and green building design is complimentary to the goals of historic preservation, staff suggests this CoA can be approved, provided the BAR expresses that the alternatives are limited and less-preferable, and with the following conditions: • the PV panels will not damage or interfere with the new roof; • any associated PV equipment—boxes, cables, etc.—will be located to the side or rear of the house and properly screened. Suggested Motions Approval: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed metal roof and PV panels at 735 Northwood Avenue 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]. Or [as submitted with the following conditions/modifications: …] Denial: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed metal roof and PV panels at 735 Northwood Avenue do not satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are not compatible with this property and other properties in the North Downtown ADC District, and that for the following reasons the BAR denies the application as submitted: 735 Northwood Avenue (August 2, 2021) 3 Criteria, Standards and Guidelines Review Criteria Generally Sec. 34-284(b) of the City Code states that, in considering a particular application the BAR shall approve the application unless it finds: (1) That the proposal does not meet specific standards set forth within this division or applicable provisions of the Design Guidelines established by the board pursuant to Sec.34-288(6); and (2) The proposal is incompatible with the historic, cultural or architectural character of the district in which the property is located or the protected property that is the subject of the application. Pertinent Standards for Review of Construction and Alterations 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: G. Roof 1) When replacing a standing seam metal roof, the width of the pan and the seam height should be consistent with the original. Ideally, the seams would be hand crimped. 2) If pre-painted standing seam metal roof material is permitted, commercial-looking ridge caps or ridge vents are not appropriate on residential structures. 3) Original roof pitch and configuration should be maintained. 4) The original size and shape of dormers should be maintained. 5) Dormers should not be introduced on visible elevations where none existed originally. 6) Retain elements, such as chimneys, skylights, and light wells that contribute to the style and character of the building. 7) When replacing a roof, match original materials as closely as possible. a. Avoid, for example, replacing a standing-seam metal roof with asphalt shingles, as this would dramatically alter the building’s appearance. b. Artificial slate is an acceptable substitute when replacement is needed. c. Do not change the appearance or material of parapet coping. 8) Place solar collectors and antennae on non-character defining roofs or roofs of non-historic adjacent buildings. 9) Do not add new elements, such as vents, skylights, or additional stories that would be visible on the primary elevations of the building. 735 Northwood Avenue (August 2, 2021) 4 Appendix Pertinent Guidelines from the Secretary’s Standards Building Exterior – Roofs: Alterations/Additions for the New Use Recommended: Installing mechanical and service equipment on the roof such as air conditioning, transformers, or solar collectors when required for the new use so that they are inconspicuous from the public right-of- way and do not damage or obscure character defining features. Designing additions to roofs such as residential, office, or storage spaces; elevator housing; decks and terraces; or dormers or skylights when required by the new use so that they are inconspicuous from the public right-of-way and do not damage or obscure character-defining features. Not Recommended: Installing mechanical or service equipment so that it damages or obscures character- defining features; or is conspicuous from the public right-of-way. Radically changing a character-defining roof shape or damaging or destroying character- defining roofing material as a result of incompatible design or improper installation techniques. Energy Conservation - Roofs Recommended: Placing solar collectors on non-character-defining roofs or roofs of non-historic adjacent buildings. Not Recommended: Placing solar collectors on roofs when such collectors change the historic roofline or obscure the relationship of the roof features such as dormers, skylights, and chimneys. 735 Northwood Avenue (August 2, 2021) 5 Board of Architectural Review (BAR) Certificate of Appropriateness Please Return To: City of Charlottesville Department of Neighborhood Development Services P.O. Box 911, City Hall Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Telephone (434) 970-3130 Please submit ten (10) hard copies and one (1) digital copy of application form and all attachments. Please include application fee as follows: New construction project $375; Demolition of a contributing structure $375; Appeal of BAR decision $125; Additions and other projects requiring BAR approval $125; Administrative approval $100. Make checks payable to the City of Charlottesville. The BAR meets the third Tuesday of the month. Deadline for submittals is Tuesday 3 weeks prior to next BAR meeting by 3:30 p.m. Philip Smith & Laura Proudsmith Owner Name___________________________________ David Mullen Applicant Name______________________________________ 735 Northwood Avenue Photovoltaic Array & Metal Roofing Parcel Number__________________________ Project Name/Description______________________________________ 735 Northwood Avenue, Charlottesville, VA 22902 Project Property Address____________________________________________________________________________ Signature of Applicant Applicant Information I hereby attest that the information I have provided is, to the 272 Lakeview Drive, Charlottesville VA, 22901 Address:______________________________________ best of my knowledge, correct. _____________________________________________ dmullen@halcyon-contracting.com Email:________________________________________ 21/07/27 __________________________________________ 434-218-9694 Phone: (W) _________________ (C) _______________ Signature Date David Mullen 21/07/27 __________________________________________ Property Owner Information (if not applicant) Print Name Date 735 Northwood Avenue, Charlottesville, VA 22902 Address:______________________________________ Property Owner Permission (if not applicant) _____________________________________________ I have read this application and hereby give my consent to philipwilliamsmith@gmail.com; Email:________________________________________ its submission. lauraproudsmith@gmail.com 434 825-5563 Phone: (W) _________________ (C) _______________ _ __________________________________________ Signature Date Do you intend to apply for Federal or State Tax Credits _________________________________________ for this project? _______________________ Print Name Date Replacement of asphalt shingle roofing on existing Description of Proposed Work (attach separate narrative if necessary):__________________________________ roof with painted metal roofing and photovoltaic panels as shown in attached drawings. ______________________________________________________________________________________________ Double lock standing seam panels. Panels are 21” wide with 1” tall standing seams. All hips and ridges are finished by folding the roofing panels ______________________________________________________________________________________________ together into a standing seam (no cap). Metal is factory painted with a low gloss finish. Photovoltaic panels are Rec Alpha Black List All Attachments (see reverse side for submittal requirements): 735 Northwood Avenue BAR app drawing set 210727.pdf ______________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________ For Office Use Only Approved/Disapproved by: ______________________ Received by: ___________________________ Date: _______________________________________ Fee paid: ___________Cash/Ck. # _________ Conditions of approval: _________________________ Date Received: _________________________ ____________________________________________ Revised 2016 ____________________________________________ NORTH ELEVATION - June 21 6:00 PM WEST ELEVATION - October 21 3:00 PM H. EAST ELEVATION - October 21 10:00 AM SOUTH ELEVATION - October 21 10:00 AM SCALE (TYPICAL): 3/16" = 1'-0" 20 735 NORTHWOOD ‑ METAL ROOFING AND PHOTOVOLTAIC ARRAY July 27, 2021 WEST ELEVATION - October 21 3:00 PM NORTH ELEVATION - June 21 6:00 PM EAST ELEVATION - October 21 10:00 AM SOUTH ELEVATION - October 21 10:00 AM H. 735 NORTHWOOD ‑ METAL ROOFING AND PHOTOVOLTAIC ARRAY 21 July 27, 2021 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 735 NORTHWOOD ‑ METAL ROOFING AND PHOTOVOLTAIC ARRAY Roof Perspectives July 27, 2021 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 735 NORTHWOOD ‑ METAL ROOFING AND PHOTOVOLTAIC ARRAY Roof Perspectives July 27, 2021 Werner, Jeffrey B From: David Mullen Sent: Monday, August 2, 2021 6:30 PM To: Werner, Jeffrey B Cc: Watkins, Robert Subject: Re: 735 Northwood ** WARNING: This email has originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.** Jeffrey, Re roofing; Here's the Blue Ridge Roofing's exact specification for the roofing panels; Is this the detail you're looking for? There are further specifications in this document which maybe I could submit without the quotation? The clients have selected Englert Matte Black low gloss for the roofing, I can provide a sample if necessary. The gutters will be reinstalled as white (current gutters are white) half round with round downspouts (currently k-style and rectangular) and I could possibly also provide the roofers spec for that. Re the PV panel roof connections I will confirm the attachment method. We plan to have a conduit from the PV panel through the roof and interior of the house to the location of the batteries, which will be located under the existing rear concrete and brick deck in a fully enclosed area, so other than the panels there shouldn't be any externally exposed equipment. 1 On Mon, Aug 2, 2021 at 5:47 PM Werner, Jeffrey B wrote: David: Working on the staff reports. A question and some items to be aware of. Standing-seam metal roof  Q: Proposed pan-width, seam height, and roof color?  The BAR typically applies a condition that the ridge of the standing-seam metal roof be hand crimped, and not have commercial-looking ridge caps or ridge vents. PV panels  The BAR typically applies two conditions: o the PV panels will not damage or interfere with the roof (so they will ask about the connections); o any associated PV equipment—boxes, cables, etc.—will be located to the side or rear of the house and properly screened. Jeff ----------------------------- Jeff Werner, AICP Historic Preservation and Design Planner City of Charlottesville Neighborhood Development Services City Hall | P.O. Box 911 610 East Market Street Charlottesville, VA 22902 2 Re: Agenda and Staff Report for 08/17 BAR Meeting David Mullen dmullen@halcyon-contracting.com Mon 8/16/2021 12:51 PM To:Watkins, Robert Cc: Werner, Jeffrey B ** WARNING: This email has originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.** Jeffrey and Robert, further specifications from the photovoltaic installer (Crux Solar): We will need to coordinate with the roofer a pentration for conduit from the top of the solar array through the front roof to connect to the location where the battery and panels will be installed below the existing rear deck. We may run the conduit from the rear soffit down alongside the existing externally installed radon chimney at the left corner of the rear elevation and back under the deck, or we may opportunistically run conduit for wiring all the way from the roof down through the basement and into the storage area under the deck which will be the location of the solar batteries. The rails for the attachment of solar panels will be black Ironridge XR rails: https://www.ironridge.com/pitched-roofs/xr-flush-mount-for-pitched-roofs/ mounted on S5 solar panel clips which are designed to attach to the standing seam of a metal roof; https://s-5.com/products/s-5-u-clamps/ The Snowguard at the front edge of the solar panel array will be this; https://fromridgetoeave.com/why-we-love-snowmax-and-you-should-too/ This snowguard, mounts with clips on the standing seam like a traditional snowguard, holds snow at the bottom edge of the PV array and has a clip-in section for a strip of metal roofing to match color but we are considering having the full rail powder coated so as to be more uniform. These are the solar panels; https://usa.recgroup.com/sites/default/files/documents/ds_rec_alpha_black_series_en.pdf?t= 1629131426 Kelly Faust has also provided a photo of a similar installation that he installed a while back, black solar panels on black roof, attached. Best Regards, David