City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Regular Meeting October 19, 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. Pre-Meeting Discussion 5:30 Regular Meeting A. Matters from the public not on the agenda B. Consent Agenda 1. BAR meeting minutes from April 20, 2021 2. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 21-10-01 109-111 West Water Street, Tax Parcel 280013000 Downtown ADC District Owner: Mall Property, LLC Applicant: Ali Sevindi Project: Install roll-up doors in two storefront openings. 3. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 21-10-05 110-114 Old Preston Ave, Tax Parcel 330278000 Downtown ADC District Owner/Applicant: Joey Conover Project: Install door at building entrance C. Deferred Items 5:45 4. 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 October 19, 2021 BAR Packet Guide 1 D. New Items 6:45 5. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-10-03 485 14th Street, NW, TMP 090034000 Rugby Road-University Circle-Venable ADC District Owner: Hoo House, LLC Applicant: Greg Winkler, Kurt Wassenaar Project: Phases 2 and 3 - Renovations and rear addition 7:30 6. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-10-04 310 East Main Street, TMP 280041000 Downtown ADC District Owner: Armory 310 East Main, LLC Applicant: Robert Nichols/Formworks Project: Facade renovation E. Preliminary Discussion 8:15 7. Certificate of Appropriateness Application (HC District) 1615 East Market Street, Tax Map Parcel 110005000 Woolen Mills HC District Owner/Applicant: Jennifer and Lemuel Oppenheimer Project: Construct residence Note: Oct 6, 2021, owner requested prelim discussion in lieu of CoA review. 8:45 8. Certificate of Appropriateness Application (HC District) 700 Locust Avenue, Tax Map Parcel 510066000 Martha Jefferson HC District Owner/Applicant: Eric M & Galia Mann-Hielscher Project: Construct outbuilding 9:00 9. Certificate of Appropriateness Application (HC District) 1804 Chesapeake Street, Tax Map Parcel 55A141000 Woolen Mills HC District Owner/ Applicant: Emily and Anthony Lazaro Project: Construct addition F. Other Business Staff questions/discussion Garage door at Hill & Wood 123 Bollingwood Preservation Awards Update on administrative reviews Brief discussion ADC District Design Guidelines (Time permitting) PLACE update G. Adjourn October 19, 2021 BAR Packet Guide 2 BAR MINUTES CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW Regular Meeting April 20, 2021 – 5:00 PM Zoom Webinar Welcome to this Regular Monthly Meeting of the Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review (BAR). Due to the current public health emergency, this meeting is being held online via Zoom. The meeting process will be as follows: For each item, staff will make a brief presentation followed by the applicant’s presentation, after which members of the public will be allowed to speak. Speakers shall identify themselves, and give their current address. Members of the public will have, for each case, up to three minutes to speak. Public comments should be limited to the BAR’s jurisdiction; that is, regarding the exterior design of the building and site. Following the BAR’s discussion, and before the vote, the applicant shall be allowed up to three minutes to respond, for the purpose of clarification. Thank you for participating. Members Present: Jody Lahendro, Carl Schwarz, Andy McClure, James Zehmer, Breck Gastinger, Cheri Lewis, Robert Edwards, Tim Mohr Members Absent: Ron Bailey Staff Present: Patrick Cory, Joe Rice, Robert Watkins, Jeff Werner Pre-Meeting: The Pre-Meeting was done in closed session. Motion – Mr. Gastinger – I move that the BAR members certify by recorded vote that to the best of each member’s knowledge, fully public business matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion convening the closed meeting were heard, discussed, or considered in the closed meeting. (Second by Mr. Schwarz) Motion passed 7-0 with one abstention. The start of the meeting was delayed for ten minutes. The meeting was called to order at 5:40 PM by the Chairman. A. Matters from the public not on the agenda No Comments from the Public B. Consent Agenda (Note: Any consent agenda item may be pulled and moved to the regular agenda if a BAR member wishes to discuss it, or if any member of the public is present to comment on it. Pulled applications will be discussed at the beginning of the meeting.) 1. BAR Meeting Minutes from December 15, 2020 2. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-04-01 200 West South Street, TMP 280100000 Downtown ADC District Owner: 200 South Street A Virginia Inn PA 1 BAR Meeting Minutes April 20, 2021 Applicant: Ross Fillman/Uhler and Co. Project: Landscaping Plan, South Street Inn 3. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-04-02 16 Elliewood Avenue, TMP 090097000 The Corner ADC District Owner: Elliewood Entertainment, Inc. Applicant: Anderson McClure/Biltmore Grill Project: Patio pavilion, Biltmore Grill Motion to approve the Consent Agenda by Mr. Gastinger. (Second by Mr. Lahendro). Motion passes 7-0 with one abstention. C. Deferred Items 4. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-03-05 420 West Main, TMP 290011000 Downtown ADC District Owner: A Cadgene, Main Street Land Trust, LLC Applicant: Greg Jackson/TOPIA design Project: Construct canopy for dining area Jeff Werner, Staff Report – Year Built: c1960 District: Downtown ADC District Status: Contributing. The former gas station was occupied by Jones Wrecker until it was renovated into a restaurant in 2001. The West Main Street Historic District (NRHP) describes the building as: Cinderblock faced with red and white metal; one story; flat roof; four bays; flat canopy over gas pumps, 1960-61, replacing 1931 gas station. Site of early 19th century brick blacksmith shop, possibly not demolished until 1931. R.F. Harris foundry on this lot and 416 West Main c1850 - c1930. CoA request is for the construction of a metal canopy at the front (north) elevation. Proposed is a cover for an exterior dining area for shade and weather protection. The new metal canopy will be bolted to the building and supported by columns. The design intent is to be compatible yet distinct. The new structure is inspired by the form and materials of the original building, which was a gas/service station. The existing building is a modification of the original building, and currently is a restaurant. The new canopy has three steel columns (on concrete bases) that align with and share the configuration of the two original slanted steel columns (on a curb), that supported the gas pump canopy. The I-beam and channel steel structure follows the general configuration and structural logic of the original canopy, but is separate framing and alignment and is different materials and colors. The canopy roof is a semi- translucent material that further distinguishes it as new and different from the original building, which has painted metal decking. Although compatible with the language and spirit of the original gas station the new construction will be differentiated, set back with a silver gray finish and white polycarbonate roofing. The silver gray color correlates with the not-original anodized aluminum of the storefront, garage doors, and exterior railing. The white poly roof decking relates with the current white building. With the original gas pump drive through canopy no longer open -and now enclosed with storefront- the new canopy returns an open air feel and function, and brings a balance to the building and site. Refinements following the March 2021 BAR discussion: The proposed canopy has a slimmer overall profile--with a thinner fascia and simpler structure. The existing building expands its yellow color--on the original canopy and the raised metal building band- to better define and accentuate it. The new silver gray canopy is lower and set back from the existing canopy to be a subordinate and 2 BAR Meeting Minutes April 20, 2021 complementary. The new canopy edge is thinner with a 9-1/2” high custom angled box gutter on a 10” channel. The previous fascia was 13” high with a 12” c-channel and 1” of flashing, with a concealed gutter. The slimming created an external gutter/fascia that has a slant the same angle as the columns. The fascia profile remains horizontal/level, with an internal sloped gutter leading to a downspout at the building’s northwest corner, which is white in color to blend in. In thinning and simplifying the canopy a noticeable W8 I-beam--that spanned (east west) from the existing W8 (that bears on the existing two columns)--was decoupled and removed, with the three new columns now going directly to the new canopy’s primary W10 I-beams (north south). For improved lighting and ventilation two large industrial style fans are under the canopy with strong but dimmable LED lights that meets the BAR lighting criteria. String lights complement. The W-8’s of the new canopy are connected/welded directly to the C-channel of the existing canopy. Then blocking is added between the W8’s. A ceiling soffit conceals the 2’ area where the existing and new structural members intersect. The color matches existing the warm light gray. 420 West Main (April 14, 2021) 3 No seasonal enclosures (clear walls) are being proposed. Greg Jackson, Applicant – The canopy profile is much thinner. The edge is different in that it is sloped. It is now set back down from the existing canopy. We took on the building to celebrate the color of the canopy and bring it out. One of the additions at the time was this yellow tile structure. We went with that. It seems to fit a gas station type of feel as well as to snap out the canopy and bring that around the building. It really helps the building get stronger and be more emphasized in of itself. For the lighting, we looked at what we thought would be appropriate. Big fans seem to work there. We wanted to keep it really simple. We had the lights with the fans. They’re dimmable and they meet the criteria that you gave for the rear. If we did lighting, it should be this with the certain criteria. On the existing canopy, those two existing slanted columns that hold up that canopy rest on a W-8 that then holds up W-10s. That used to go all the way across. We have figured out a way to not do that all of the way across and leave it as existing. The new columns would go straight up to W-10s. That makes it thinner. We also follow through with some specifics in the designs of the fascia profile. That’s an internal gutter to the outside making the whole thing thinner. We worked on that a little bit to make that stand out more as something that is different from the existing and makes a cleaner connection. QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No Questions from the Public QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Schwarz – You did mention the flashing where the new roof meets the old. You said that you intend to use an adhered flashing. You seem confident that this is going to work. I am a little confused as to how it is going to work. Are you going to have to remove the brick metal flash under it? Are you going to take flashing to the face of the metal? What is your thought on how that works? Mr. Jackson – I consulted with the roofer. He felt that would be an appropriate solution to use the membrane to take the poly-roof along the edge. Where it attaches to the back of the building, we likely might put some kind of metal flashing and attach to the building with the membrane. We are going to keep it low profile and pick the appropriate color. I think I have said white that would work with the roofing. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC No Comments from the Public 3 BAR Meeting Minutes April 20, 2021 COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Mohr – I like the way you resolved the gutter. Originally, you had a really small one. It is now a big one and very clean. Having that one single gutter and getting the drain down the back really works. Mr. Jackson – We went to a C-10 instead of a C-12. That helped narrow it down. We couldn’t go any further than that with the W-10s. The gutter box is slanted at 9.5 inches there. I think that’s going to be the profile you see and perceive. We’re able to get an internal sloped gutter all of the way across and down at the right slope. It needs about 4 inches. Mr. Mohr – I think it is a good resolution. I think you’ve really resolved the questions we had about it being too integrated with the other structure. It’s distinctly its own animal. You’re not carrying that one beam through underneath. It works for me. I think it is a big improvement. Mr. Gastinger – I think this is a huge improvement. I think the color really hits it in all of the right places. It really distinguishes and pulls out the original canopy in a nice way. I appreciate the clarity in distinction. I am concerned about the multi-color stream lights. I would prefer a single white light given the prominence of that corner. Mr. Jackson – Those lights can change colors. We can get any type of product. My understanding is that they will be all white, all red, and all green. They can may be different colors at one time. I think that 95% of the time they will be regular white lights. Mr. Mohr – Can you balance the color? Mr. Jackson – I think it is all adjustable. That’s just a particular product. It does say multi-color. I think the intent is that they can be different colors. Mr. Schwarz – The primary light source is coming from the ceiling fans? Mr. Jackson – That’s correct. That handles or addresses having a more permanent type of light. I like having the fans. I think the big fans will be really neat. They’re quite large. That type of larger fan goes at a slower RPM. It has a nice effect. It meets the criteria that you were looking for. Mr. Schwarz – I am not going to hold you up for the stream lights. I think you have done a great job. Mr. Werner – The concern about different colored lights is primarily that sign is on all night. If this is lighting during hours of operation, that might help. A sign out on West Main would be on all night creating a red glow. 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 patio canopy at 420 West Main Street satisfies the BAR’s criteria and is compatible with this property and other properties in the Downtown ADC district, and that the BAR approves the application as submitted. Andy McClure seconds motion. Motion passes (8-0). D. New Items 5. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-04-04 4 BAR Meeting Minutes April 20, 2021 517 Rugby Road, TMP 050046000 Rugby Road-University Circle-Venable ADC District Owner: Alumni of Alpha Mu, Inc Applicant: Garett Rouzer/Dalgliesh Gilpin Paxton Architects Project: Alterations to fraternity house Note: This is a formal submittal; however, this will be treated as a preliminary discussion, per City Code section Sec. 34-282(c)(4). Jeff Werner, Staff Report – Year Built: c1910 District: Rugby Road - University Circle - Venable Neighborhood ADC District Status: Contributing. (The house is also a contributing structure to the Rugby Road - University Corner Historic District - VLR 1983, NRHP 1984.) Constructed as a private residence, this 2-1/2 story, Colonial Revival houses is one of the few in the district covered entirely with wood shingles. (However, it is reported that the house originally had clapboard siding, which may exist below the shingles.) The house features a symmetrical, three-bay front façade with a hipped roof and a front, hipped dormer with latticed casement windows. On the side (south) façade is a two-story bay, on the front (east) facade is a center bay, distyle porch with attenuated Roman Doric columns and a hipped roof. The entrance door features geometrically glazed sidelights and an elliptical, fan-light transom. In the 1964, the house transitioned to a fraternity house, as it is currently used. CoA request for construction of a rear addition, removal of the existing front porch, and constructing a new front porch. While this a formal CoA request, due to the estimated cost of the addition, a preliminary discussion is required. The BAR may decide to take action on the porch request independent of the addition; however, the resubmittal for the addition would then be treated as a separate CoA, requiring a new application and the related fee. During a preliminary discussion the BAR may, by consensus, express an opinion about the project as presented. (For example, the BAR might express consensus support for elements of the project, such as its scale and massing.) Such comments will not constitute a formal motion and the result will have no legal bearing, nor will it represent an incremental decision on the required CoA. There are two key objectives of a preliminary discussion: Introduce the project to the BAR; and allow the applicant and the BAR to establish what is necessary for a successful final submittal. That is, a final submittal that is complete and provides the information necessary for the BAR to evaluate the project using the ADC District Design Guidelines and related review criteria. In response to any questions from the applicant and/or for any recommendations to the applicant, the BAR should rely on the germane sections of the ADC District Design Guidelines and related review criteria. While elements of other chapters may be relevant, staff recommends that the BAR refer to the criteria in Chapter II--Site Design and Elements, Chapter III--New Construction and Additions, Chapter IV—Rehabilitation, and Chapter VII--Demolitions and Moving. As a checklist for the preliminary discussion, the criteria for Additions in Chapter III: • Function and Size • Location • Design • Replication of Style • Materials and Features • Attachment to Existing Building The BAR should also consider the building elements and details necessary to evaluate the project. Renderings and schematics communicates mass, scale, design and composition; however a complete application should include details and specific information about the projects materials and components. For example: • Measured drawings: Elevations, wall details, etc. • Roofing: Flat, hipped, etc. Metal, slate, asphalt. Flashing details. • Gutters/downspouts: Types, color, locations, etc. Foundation. • Walls: Masonry, siding, stucco, etc. • Soffit, cornice, siding, and trim. • Color palette. • Doors and windows: Type, lite arrangement, glass spec, trim details, etc. • Porches and decks: Materials, railing and stair design, etc. • Landscaping/hardscaping: Grading, trees, low plants, paving materials, etc. • Lighting. Fixture cut sheets, lamping, etc. The house was constructed c1910. The 1920 Sanborn Map indicates a porch of a similar size and location to the existing, if not the same one. The porch now incorporates wood decks on either side; however, the columns (full and engaged), the roof, and the entrance remain intact, allowing the existing [presumed original] porch to remain identifiable as a discrete element of the historic façade. In the design guidelines for porches (Section D in Rehabilitations) are three 5 BAR Meeting Minutes April 20, 2021 specific recommendations that should be applied here: 1. The original details and shape of porches should be retained including the outline, roof height, and roof pitch. 4. Replace an entire porch only if it is too deteriorated to repair or is completely missing, and design to match the original as closely as possible. 7. Do not remove or radically change entrances and porches important in defining the building’s overall historic character. Mr. Lahendro – Is this a COA application or is this a preliminary discussion? Mr. Werner – It came in as an application. I am calling it what it is. I don’t know the cost of this project. I think the information is lacking for you to issue a COA. Given that it came in as an application, you can have that discussion and defer at the end for action at a later date. Mr. Lahendro – I would like to know what we’re reviewing here and what the applicants wants us to review. Mr. Schwarz – The applicant should tell us what he wants us to review. I think we need to treat this as a preliminary discussion. It’s not a complete application. There are some missing documents. Our ordinance requires that this is a preliminary discussion given the cost of the project. Garrett Rouzer, Applicant – That is understood. We expect to exceed that $350,000 cap. If this could be treated as our required preliminary discussion and we can receive feedback from the Board, we would appreciate that. Mr. Zehmer – I thought that I heard that the expansion of the current front porch deck was approved by a previous BAR. The staff report says prior BAR actions determined that the enlargement of the deck is not appropriate. Mr. Werner – The deck was approved but not the materials. When someone comes in with an application, staff can say that it is incomplete and not send to the BAR. We still want to have some review. You can defer to next month. The applicant can bring the same thing back. By accepting an application, it does not compel you to consider approval if it is not ready to be approved. I will get clarification on what happened. My understanding is that the deck was approved but not the materials and railings. Mr. Zehmer – It would be helpful to know the clarity on that and know if this particular applicant steps in line with BAR actions and approvals. Mr. Rouzer – There are two elements happening here. One is the front porch replacement. The other larger move is the addition of the western part towards the back of the lot. You can see the grey-scaled portion is the existing house with the new addition basically on the left hand side of the sheet. The intent here is to continue with materials as far as the asphalt roof and tying into that hardy plank siding and brick foundation work along with plad window units. We are tying in the new construction basically behind the mass of the existing building. This is the south elevation portion. The north section here with the existing on the left hand side and the new on the right. Mr. Lahendro – Is the existing house still shingled and painted white and the addition is clabbered? Mr. Rouzer – It is wood siding. The addition is proposed to be cement board siding. Mr. Lahendro – The existing house is not shingled. I see white. Are the shingles painted white? 6 BAR Meeting Minutes April 20, 2021 Mr. Werner – In this older report, it says that in 1987, they removed the wood shades. That’s the entirety. At this point in time, it is all clabbered. QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC Eric Edwardson – It is Masonite siding permanently clabbered. It was replaced in 1987. The shingles that had been there were pulled off and replaced. QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD Ms. Lewis – Knowing that you have Masonite siding, you wouldn’t consider replacing that? Mr. Edwardson – It had degraded in a number of places pretty seriously. I know that they had some trouble. The siding comes down pretty low to the ground in a lot of places. Water has done damage to it over the years. The hardy plank was a better product at this point. Ms. Lewis – Knowing that the shingles were removed and it is not an original material, it does have a tendency to degrade. It seems like it would be a nice opportunity. I think the hardy plank would fit our guidelines. I wouldn’t have any concern replacing the Masonite siding if you wanted to do that. Mr. Werner – The flanking decks that you see were in place. In 2014, the request was to extend that further around the south side. That is what was not approved. Those wing decks were there at that time. There was a series of other improvements that were done back in the 80s. The 2014 request was some improvements that were approved. It was the extension of the deck that was not approved. What you see didn’t go in without BAR review. That happened prior to the BAR reviewing that as a house within a district. Mr. Schwarz – With the new porch, is that intended to match the existing? Are you copying the detail? Or are you approximating it and making a larger front porch? Mr. Rouzer – The intent was to take those details and carry those over those bays. The existing wood porch extensions would be rebuilt. The intent was to take that existing center bay and extend it over the front elevation. Mr. Schwarz – Are all of the materials composite? Mr. Rouzer – Yes. Mr. Zehmer – Basically, you’re tearing off that original porch completely and replacing it with four new columns and a new roof. Is that the intent? Mr. Rouzer – That’s the intent but keeping with the details that are there now. That’s basically in that center bay. We would use that center bay to drive those details. Ms. Lewis – Is the current profile hipped? Are you replicating that on the new one? The pictures aren’t really clear about what the existing is. It’s hard to tell. Mr. Rouzer – Yes, the existing is hipped. In image 5, you can see the angle. 7 BAR Meeting Minutes April 20, 2021 Ms. Lewis – It definitely is a little bit different profile. Is the height of the roof the same from the bottom of the existing porch? Would the columns be the same height? Mr. Rouzer – Yes. That would be the intent. Ms. Lewis – My only concern would be the beautiful light over the door. I am just making sure that is visible. We’re not seeing drawings with dimensions and a little bit more detail. I just wanted to confirm that would be important for my vote. Mr. Mohr – If I was to take the porch drawing literally, the columns seem more slender and the eave more exaggerated. I would be surprised if the roof pitch wasn’t flatter. The drawing seems more generic than specific to that detail. Am I right about that? If you look at the entablature in the photo, the eave bears out more projection to it. Mr. Rouzer – If that’s a concern, we can certainly adjust that, ideally adjusting so that the roof functions better. Either way would be fine. Ms. Lewis – The existing porch is quite a simple porch. There’s not a whole lot of fuss on this property at the cornice or soffits. Mr. Gastinger – While I think the porch design proposed is a reasonable approach, there’s not a lot of support in our guidelines for this kind of change. In Chapter 4, Section B1, it says the original details in the shape of porches should be retained including the outlying roof height and roof pitch. Number 4 says replacing an entire porch only if it is too deteriorated to repair or is completely missing and designed to match the original as closely as possible. Number 7 says to not remove or radically change entrances, porches, and important defining the building’s overall historic character. The Secretary of Interior standards also have very stringent recommendations relative to changing the primary entrance of this historic structure. I am not convinced that this is necessary. I am supportive of the addition in the back. I have real problems with the porch proposal. Mr. Lahendro – I would second that. The porch is clearly an important character defining feature of the house on the main elevation, centered on this elevation, the main decorative feature, and it is historic. I could never vote for destroying a historic character defining feature to replace it with something else. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC No Comments from the Public COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Mohr – I agree with Jody and Breck on the porch. I don’t see much differentiation between the old and the new. One way I could see bringing some of the house’s original character back would be to go to hardy shingles or hardy shakes on the existing building. At least you have contextual difference between the old and the new and harken back to what the house was clad in originally. If anything is done to the porch, it has to be a secondary addition to the porch. The dormers on the back of the house have very thin walls. Is that really as they are going to be or just a schematic? The dormer walls seem awfully thin. 8 BAR Meeting Minutes April 20, 2021 Mr. Rouzer – The intent is to flat frame those and make that a 5 quarter by fours. The idea is to go ahead and keep those as thin as possible. Mr. Mohr – Resembling the Queen Anne dormer on the front as far as its window to wall relationship? The front dormer has very thin walls. Mr. Rouzer – There is a diamond shaped pattern on those existing windows we were not carrying. That is the intent. Mr. Schwarz – You will be OK getting a building permit? How is that going to be insulated? Mr. Rouzer – Rigid insulation. We’re concerned about it. Mr. Schwarz – I agree with Tim on this. We have had a couple projects where we see very thin, historic rooflines. When things get built, it appears much, much ‘chunkier.’ If you’re assuring us that it is going to look like this, that’s great. We just want to make sure we don’t get any surprises later. It’s really unfortunate when that does happen. Mr. Rouzer – We have done this on prior projects that exist in the city. Mr. Edwardson – I have a picture about the siding issue. It’s from Coy Bearfoot’s Corner book. Mr. Werner – The shingles were reported in a 1983 survey with the note that it was believed that the house was originally clabbered. It was odd pointing that this house was the only house in the district with shingles and then say we don’t think this house was originally here. Ms. Lewis – The notation actually says clabbered underneath to be believed weather board. Mr. Werner – That proved to be true with the renovations after that. Mr. Edwardson – This picture clearly shows that it is clabbered siding. It also shows a railing on top of that porch roof. Ms. Lewis – What year is that? Mr. Edwardson – I believe that the picture is around 1921. It is referenced in the book. I managed to get a digital version from one of the University groups. Mr. Zehmer – Looking at that photo on the south side, was there an open porch that later was enclosed? Mr. Edwardson – There’s an open porch and a part underneath that was enclosed as well. Mr. Zehmer – I think it would be awesome to include that photograph in the presentation materials so we can reference it. As you’re developing your drawings, we would need to see a drawing that shows everything that would be removed. On the rear of the elevation of the house, it looks like there’s a stair tower bump out. I don’t know if that was original to the house. We would want to see that clearly shown on the demo plan. Looking at the photo, it looks like there are two chimneys currently existing in the house. I did like Tim’s idea of similar materials for the original portion of the house and the rear 9 BAR Meeting Minutes April 20, 2021 addition. I think the original was clabbered siding. It looked like there were some pretty strong vertical corner boards. Mr. Werner – That came up in the 2014 discussion. There was a lot of work done. Mr. Mohr – My concern right now is there’s not enough differentiation between old and new. Mr. Schwarz – It looks like the only differentiation is that you have a different exposure on your siding. You just told us that you’re going to replace the siding on the original house as well. Does that mean everything is going to be the same exposure? Mr. Rouzer – No. We would differentiate between the exposures with definitely keeping the smaller on the historic portion of the house and going with a wider on the new addition. Mr. Schwarz – Our guidelines say not to use the same roofline or eave line. You do step back the massing. We have been a little lenient on some of those things. I do think this one is so subtle with the differences. I can think of some other methods where you can find some differentiation. Mr. Mohr – I was thinking about the shingles and maybe doing away with the floor boards throughout the corner; something that makes it distinct relative to the clabbered house. Mr. Schwarz – It looks like you are using the artisan siding. I know it is a better product than the standard James Hardy stuff. Mr. Mohr – Thinking about shingles from a maintenance standpoint and trying to think of a way to differentiate the old and the new a bit more. It is a substantial addition. That’s the danger when you’re carrying a whole lot of the same stylistic cues all the way around. Mr. Zehmer – You could also consider a different roofing material for the original versus the addition. Mr. Mohr – The boarding is significantly different. If it is 4 inch on the old house, what are you thinking for the new part? Mr. Rouzer – Artisan has a 7.35 inch reveal with their 8 inch boards. Mr. Mohr – What do you have on the old house? Mr. Rouzer – I think it is 4.5. It is significantly narrower. Mr. Schwarz – Does the house have gutters? Or are they internal? Mr. Edwardson – It should have gutters. They may have disappeared from time to time in its history. Mr. Schwarz – When this comes back, it would be good to see the gutters on the elevations. Mr. Rouzer – Our intent here was to really tie into that roofline and the eave line coming around and continuing that gutter profile on the existing into the new. Is there concern about doing that? Should we have greater differentiation there? 10 BAR Meeting Minutes April 20, 2021 Mr. Schwarz – I am OK if you use the same roofline. You need to find something that differentiates this more. Maybe that is breaking the roofline or maybe some other tactic. You need to find something that does a little bit more. Mr. Mohr – Breaking the roofline in a case like this seems forced. It is more about doing something with the materials. I think it gets forced if you drop the eave a foot. Internally, it makes sense to have the eave at the same height. Mr. Lahendro – It appears that the addition is set back from the corners of the historic house a couple of feet. Unfortunately, the elevation drawing if it was shaded or showed the shadow line, that would help a lot in indicating that one block is distinct from another. I don’t mind seeing the eave lower. I think that does help with the differentiation between the two parts. The other options you pointed out was (different roofing materials. Different siding materials are all fine and acceptable. I haven’t given the addition a lot of thought. Mr. Schwarz – Is there anybody who would be supportive of replacing the porch and building it back larger? Ms. Lewis – I probably would be supportive if the profile of the porch would remain the same. The renderings are a completely different porch. The entablature is ‘fussier’ than what’s there. The 1984 nomination notes that the columns are intonated doric. They seem to have some detail on the top. They are much plainer and thinner than what is proposed here. The railings are not reflective of the existing historic building. I would love to see a lattice in lieu of these. That’s probably picking too much up from the windows. I wonder if something else can be done with the railings so that it looks less chunky. Mr. Lahendro – They could go to the historic photograph that Mr. Edwardson showed and take that railing and replicate it. Mr. Mohr – If you could have the original porch and add wings to it, it would have to be set back slightly. There’s something you could take off the original porch. Mr. Edwardson – There is nothing set in stone with how that porch would work. Mr. Schwarz – We have precedent. We have denied far smaller expansions of porches. Mr. Rouzer – With that feedback, can we do a deferral on the front porch and come back with something more sensitive to that historic photo and the setback portions. Would that be an option? Mr. Schwarz – When you come back with the full COA, you could present a different idea. If we had to break up the approval, we could vote to approve the rear addition and defer you on the front porch. If you still want to keep trying to find a solution for the front porch, please do include in your next submittal. It might get broken out of that. It might make it. It might convince us all. Mr. Mohr – I can see putting a porch up where the side porch used to be. That’s even on the south side of the house. Mr. Zehmer – I think that porch is there. It has just been enclosed. 11 BAR Meeting Minutes April 20, 2021 Mr. Mohr – I assume you want the space and not have it as a porch. If you restored that as a porch or having that as an outdoor deck space over there, it is more appropriate to modify that rather than the old porch on the front of the house. Ms. Lewis – I wonder what my fellow members of the BAR think about the existing railing. The porch stretches the entire width of the front façade of the house. What is proposed is covering up the two first story windows and demolishing the existing and extending it. The porch does exist. There is something you can stand on each side of the front windows. Mr. Edwardson – It is a pressure treated deck style with wings off it that juts out of it slightly from the line of the existing old porch. Mr. Schwarz – It is very clear and obvious that it is a later addition. Ms. Lewis – We want to give the applicant some guidance. If the majority of the Board is not in favor of extending the porch covering, what are we looking for? What would be acceptable? Do you want the existing railings to stay there? Mr. Mohr – I would rather see that disappear and go back to the porch. That is why I was suggesting something with the south end of the building where there used to be a porch. Mr. Schwarz – You’re creating an L with the addition between the former porch and the addition. Can you fill that in, cover up another parking space with a porch off the side of the addition? Mr. Rouzer – Potentially, certainly with this feedback, we could review with the owners and see if that meets their needs as well. Mr. Schwarz – Some of the stuff that you can bring to us would be an existing elevation and plan of what is being removed or demolished. If you could provide an existing site plan that shows any demo on the site that would be important for us to look at. Mr. Rouzer – This was all constructive and appreciated. Our key takeaway being that differentiation between the existing and the new and coming up with an option that we think is successful for you to take a look at. We will key in on that for our submittal. Our understanding is the massing that is being shown in that layout is successful and differentiating between the historic and the new. Mr. Schwarz – If you have any exterior lighting planed, we definitely want to see that. Mr. Gastinger – Any window replacements or repairs requires quite a bit of documentation. Motion to Defer – Mr. Rouzer – Request to Defer – Mr. Schwarz moves to accept request for deferral – Second by Ms. Lewis – Motion passes 8-0. 6. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 21-04-05 485 14th Street, NW, TMP 090034000 Rugby Road-University Circle-Venable ADC District Owner: Hoo House, LLC Applicant: Greg Winkler, Kurt Wassenaar Project: Phase 1. Repair/replace windows, misc. exterior repairs and sitework 12 BAR Meeting Minutes April 20, 2021 Jeff Werner, Staff Report – Year Built: 1920 District: Rugby Road-University Circle-Venable ADC District Status: Contributing (garage in rear is non-contributing) Submittal: Wassenaar-Winkler Architects/Planners submittal for 485 14th St NW: o BAR Submittal Set, dated April 2, 2021: Narrative (two pages) and sheets G1, EP1 - EP3, C1 - C4, A1 – A11 (19 pages). o Hoo House Renovation - Phase 1, dated March 11, 2021: Sheets G-101, D-101, D-201, E-101 (5 pages). CoA request for repair/replacement of existing windows, the repair/reconstruction of the front porch, the planting of new street trees, and related site work. The existing garage will be razed; it is non- contributing, a CoA is not required for demolition. Also, the scope of work includes elements that are considered routine repair and maintenance, which do not require a CoA; however, in the context of this request, the BAR may ask for clarifications, if necessary. Phase 1, from the applicant’s submittal (numbered here for reference) 1. Repair or rebuilding of the front porch as it now exists and without any architectural changes to the design, size or materials of the porch. Trim in need of repair may be replaced with Azek or other similar materials. 2. Repair of the existing Philadelphia gutter system and downspouts. 3. Repair and/or replacement of the existing windows. (A qualified window restorer will complete an evaluation of the existing windows to determine which can be repaired and which should be replaced. Those findings will be submitted to the BAR.) The proposed replacement windows are, in general, identical to windows approved by the BAR at 513 14th Street. (Applicant will provide it sheets.) 4. Structural repair and cosmetic cleanup of the existing rear stair addition. 5. Landscape cleanup, and replanting including new street trees. 6. Gravel the rear parking area. Discussion and Recommendations Items 2, 4, 5, and 6. Staff finds these consistent with the design guidelines. Anticipating the removal of three trees, staff requested that Phase 1 include the planting of new trees, which are indicated on sheet C4, dated April 2, 2021. Item 1 proposes repair or rebuilding of the front porch as it now exists. Photographs indicate the porch is in disrepair. The railing and lattice are not original. The stairs may not be original; however, they align with the walk, so the original width and location are known. The piers, framing, apron, flooring, columns, entablature, ceiling, trim and roof all appear to be original, with some areas and elements in poor condition. Staff recommends that any new elements match the existing; including, but not limit to: beaded ceiling boards (no faux panels); painted, wood tongue-and-groove flooring (no imitation material); columns (round and engaged); simple cornice at the entablature. Additionally, the porch railing should be replaced in a manner appropriate to the period. Two nearby homes were built at a similar time and might serve as examples for the porch rail--403 14th Street NW (1921) and 1401 Gordon Ave (1925), see images below. Both also have similar columns and entry door designs. Staff recommends that the new railings be similar to these existing examples, and not require custom profiles. The pickets are square stock and the bottom rail is not profiled. The hand rail detail, however, may require some discussion. Item 3 proposes the repair and/or replacement of the existing windows, which are all wood, oneover-one, double-hung. The applicant will rely on the recommendations of an experienced mechanic regarding which windows can be repaired and which should be replaced. That 485 14th Street, NW - CoA Phase 1 (April 15, 2021) 3 information has not yet been provided and, without it, staff cannot offer comment or recommendation. The applicant intends to use windows similar to those approved for 513 14th Street, which were Andersen E-Series, Talon double-hung windows with insulated glass. (The E-Series windows are aluminum clad wood, which the BAR has allowed.) There appears to be an available Andersen trim that is similar to the existing. Kurt Wassenaar, Applicant – This is a repair project. I just want to introduce why we’re doing this project in phases. I didn’t want there to be any hidden agenda pieces of this. We started out with a house. This is the phase I piece that is general repair of a slightly deteriorating house. The back of the house is not in good shape right now. Our intention would be to rebuild right away. Part of this is drive by a desire to have this house repaired and ready for rental in the Fall. We’re concerned about timing relative to getting it ready. The back piece is not in good shape and serviceable. We would propose to 13 BAR Meeting Minutes April 20, 2021 paint it and get it into structurally reasonable shape so that the house can be rented in the Fall. I thought staff’s suggestions on the porch were fine. We don’t have any problem at all in replicating the railings. We did not proceed to take apart the porch. There’s enough loose stuff. I crawled under it. It is in one of those states. If you started to take it apart, you wouldn’t know what you have gotten into. We figured we would leave that for later once we got into it. We didn’t want to start a demolition on the thing before we talked with the BAR and gotten your ‘blessing’ with what we were going to do. What we’re basically going to do is replace it and restore it as it is right now. Staff had suggested that we use bead board ceiling and that’s fine. We will replace the columns. One or two of them are probably serviceable. The other ones may need to be replicated. We would proposed to do that as they are. The porch deck is a tongue in groove wood. We will do our best to replace that. It is probably going to have to come apart completely. It is pretty badly rotted out. You can see that the lattice at the bottom is damaged in a great number of places. A part of that due to a lot of vegetation that has crawled into the edges and pieces. We’re going to strip that back and get rid of the pieces of landscaping that are contributing to the deterioration of the porch. We’re happy to consider any suggestions the BAR might have on that. Our goal is to put it back as it was according to the Secretary Standards and make that happen. I will apologize to the BAR for not having the window thing resolved. It has been hard to find somebody to come look at the windows, who is qualified to determine if they can be repaired or replaced or restored. My proposal is that we would get that report done and submitted to staff for approval. I know that is a sensitive issue. We don’t have any objections restoring the windows as they are. There are a lot of windows. Some in OK shape and some are in really bad shape. A lot of the trees are jaunt and really need to be taken out. We have proposed to replant where needed according to the city standards. We will do that as part of the first phase. The first phase would allow us, with your approval, to get the house put back together again and do the interior work. We have a parallel construction permit in with the city for the interior work. Staff and I talked about the gutters. It has existing Philadelphia gutters. It is my belief that they were probably reworked 5 or ten years ago. They were pretty quality jobs at the time. There were some welded seems that need to be retend and re-glued back together. They’re not in bad shape at all. There is fascia rot that would be repaired. We would put the fascia and soffits back as they are now. They’re pretty simple profiles. QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No Questions from the Public QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Schwarz – If you were to replace the windows, there was a window picked out that had a jam profile that matched the brick mold on the existing windows. Is the intention to remove the existing brick mold as well as the window? Mr. Wassenaar – Yes. A lot of those are rotted out as well. We had gone through a very extensive exercise on the renovation of the house down the road with the BAR. We finally arrived at a brick mold window assembly virtually identical to what was there earlier that the BAR had approved. We are proposing effectively the same design and window for this, except these windows are one over one and don’t have any divided light. Obviously, under the Secretary Standards, if we can restore or save pieces of it that work and are consistent with the replaced windows, we will do that. When we get into them, they might be rotted pieces or other chunks that need to be dealt with. We will include that in our report to you on all of those components of the entire window assembly. Mr. Schwarz – Usually, it is a little easier to approve the replacement of window sash than the brick mold. 14 BAR Meeting Minutes April 20, 2021 Mr. Wassenaar – The only reason I am hesitant to that is I don’t know what we’re going to get into once we start taking these things apart. Mr. Mohr – What is the plan with the metal storms? Mr. Wassenaar – They would go away. They’re not an attractive feature of the house. In support of the idea of replacing the windows, we would have the opportunity to put in insulated glass and new systems, which would be a little bit better from the thermal performance standpoint. It is a balance between protecting the Secretary’s Standards and doing a good job on the rest of it. That’s really the purpose of the report we will get into some detail to try to figure out. Mr. Schwarz – I am looking at your existing and proposed landscape plans. On the new plan, you have on the back corner an 18 inch black locust remain that doesn’t show on the existing plan. Was that a mistake? Mr. Wassenaar – That tree is there and it will stay. Mr. Schwarz – There is a tree there and it will remain. Mr. Wassenaar – In the phase III work, it would be demolished. It is a nice tree and one of the few trees that has any redeeming value. Unfortunately, it doesn’t fit with the development plan that works in the fully developed phase. We would put in other trees to fill in that part. Mr. Schwarz – We’re getting three new poplars along the street. That’s great. Mr. Edwards – Why are we only voting on phase I right now? Why are we holding off on voting phases II and III? Is it because you need to see what happens in phase I? Mr. Wassenaar – It is really from a timing standpoint. We have to move on our construction in order to make our deadline. We didn’t want to deceive the Board. We also didn’t want to delay what we needed to do to meet our deadline for the development side of it. When we talked with staff, we had to debate whether we should disclose the whole thing. Having been the chairman of the Board, we decided it would be better if we just showed you what we’re doing completely. We can address that. Mr. Werner – It covers the preliminary discussion as well. If we get it all here, you can see what fits and doesn’t fit and get some feeling for it. There is a lot of stuff they can do that is maintenance in phase I that doesn’t require the BAR approval. If there are issues with the windows, you may want to pare down so that it is clear what can be done. I would suggest wrapping up where you stand on this phase. We can dive into the next phase. Mr. Lahendro – In the application, it indicates that repairs to the porch will be made to those elements that are severely damaged. They’re going to be replaced with synthetic materials. I would certainly like to know more. Does that include Dutchman? Is there a drawing surveying the damage to the front porch that it is going to be repaired? If not, can I have a better description of things like the columns? How much of the columns are damaged? How much is going to be repaired? Mr. Wassenaar – We do not have that information at this time. We went up on a ladder and looked at it and tried to figure out what was what. Until you actually take the thing apart and see what is in it and how it is put together and what the status is, it is very hard to know that. 15 BAR Meeting Minutes April 20, 2021 Mr. Lahendro – Your alternative is to tell a carpenter to go at it? Mr. Wassenaar – Not at all. Mr. Lahendro – It would be nice to know what is damaged before you start repairing. Mr. Wassenaar – I will make a suggestion to the Board. What we have done in the past on situations like this where we have difficulty figuring out what is what is to do a little bit of exploratory surgery/repair report for the Board and have it reviewed by staff or a couple members of the Board to make sure we’re on track with your standards. From my standpoint as an architect, this is pretty straightforward. The Secretary’s Standards are very clear about how we use materials and how they would work. I am open to any suggestions you would like us to follow relative to addressing those concerns. Mr. Lahendro – My memory of the Secretary’s Standards is that you don’t do Dutchman or replace historic wooden elements with synthetic material. Mr. Wassenaar – I think that is generally the case. We have had a lot of discussions over the years on a number of projects about what point you shift to modern materials that don’t require painting and maintenance. If they look identical to what you started out with, are they OK or not? There are a lot of scenarios which develop out of that. I don’t know if I have ever gotten complete clarity on what the right direction of that is. We’re aware of the standards. We would follow the Secretary’s Standards on materials as much as we could. Mr. Lahendro – I don’t know what advantage you get if you have a number of ballisters with 20 of them and five need to be replaced. You do those in Azick. You keep the other wood ballisters. I don’t know what advantage there is in that. You don’t paint those five as often. Mr. Wassenaar – I guess there is a common sense practicality piece of this. My normal suggestion would be if we can replace historic materials with things that look identical to the historic materials in every way, shape, or form, that’s a reasonable outcome from an economic and historic preservation standpoint. On the Gordon Avenue building, The Bridges, we had very difficult construction problems relative to face brick application with the setback numbers. We actually used a very thin set brick on a metal backing that was indistinguishable from actual brick. We put up a test panel. The BAR looked at it and approved it. I don’t know that anybody had known different about the fact it was fairly sophisticated piece of work to achieve a look and a feel that is indistinguishable from real brick. I am not trying to argue with you. I am just trying to seek clarification. If you can suggest a pathway to resolve these things, I am happy to consider it. We want to be consistent with the city standards and with the Secretary’s guidelines. At the same time, I would appeal for any common sense practicality in this particular case. The railing is not consistent with any of the normal typological forms on other railings. I would anticipate we’re going to be replacing the entire railing. I don’t think we would want any of the existing ballisters or profiles to be part of the final work. Mr. Lahendro – I would like to know what specifically is being requested and for the applicant to do the research and to make the design decisions in consultation with the guidelines and the Secretary’s standards and come to us with what they’re proposing. Mr. Zehmer – When I look at sheet A-101, which is phase I. It says Phase I work scope. The bullet points specifically say: new replacement windows throughout, removal of front porch and front decking surface, replace with five quarter treated decking, repairs to front floor joyce, porch ceiling 16 BAR Meeting Minutes April 20, 2021 joyce, roof rafters to restore pre-damaged state. The letter in front of the application talks about trying to make repairs where possible. The notes in the scope of work say full scale replacement. I think there’s a discrepancy between the description and what is in the drawing. That’s making it difficult for me to know what we’re approving. Mr. Wassenaar – The intent of those indications was that we were going to deal with one way or the other. You’re correct in the notations. Mr. Zehmer – For me, it does come back to Jody’s recommendation of a more thorough survey to document existing conditions and really understand what can be repaired, which is our preference, versus what is so far gone and may need to be replaced. Mr. Wassenaar – What we didn’t want to do was to begin a disassembly exercise in order to determine what was workable and what wasn’t workable and get ourselves in trouble with the Board from proceeding with a construction project that wasn’t authorized and approved. I am open to whatever process you suggest as the optimum one. We’re trying to follow the rules here and do something that makes sense. Guidance would be appreciated. Mr. Schwarz – If they’re going to basically replace what is there in kind, that is considered maintenance. That is something that is not under our purview. Is that correct? What we need to do in our motion is to decide how much of this replacement can be done with alternative materials. Is that a fair statement? Mr. Werner – There is a lot of stuff where I would communicate with people. There is a level of trust. Mr. Schwarz – If the applicant was to use all wood to match what is existing to do any patching or repair. If no profiles change, it was all put back the way it was. That is something the applicant could do without an application? Mr. Werner – Yes. Given that the porch railing no longer exists if this was only the porch, I could probably work with the applicant to see this is what needs to happen. You should look at it all together. We say matched in kind. I get a photograph. Mr. Schwarz – You have offered some pictures of neighboring porches that were built at about the same time. We could put in our motion the railing should match the more historic railings. I think we can find a way to craft a motion to make this whole thing work for phase I. Mr. Wassenaar – We are also the contractors for the project. We’re licensed A contractors. There’s not going to be some third party running around and doing this randomly on the project. Mr. Zehmer – To answer your question about how do you answer some of these questions about going too far, it is common practice to do architectural probes to determine the amount of deterioration. Mr. Wassenaar – If you take a column apart or try to figure out if it is good or not, you don’t really know that until you get in there into the inside of it and see how it is put together. Sometimes, I have had the experience of you don’t know where to end as you start taking things apart. They’re not suitable or structural or reasonable to deal with. There are parts of this porch that have those attributes that worry me about how far we go and where we start to do it. If it was simply drilling a hole into it and saying that it looks fine, that would be one thing. If I am dealing with a whole top of the capital of 17 BAR Meeting Minutes April 20, 2021 a column, I am not going to know that until I take that apart. My plea would be the standard if we discover that, we put it back. We can almost do a halves review where we take a picture of the profile. We document the profile. We agree to put it back together in a way that you can’t tell that it was repaired. That would be the reasonable standard. I will defer to your judgement on where that line is. We’re trying to do this without spending a million dollars. It is a repair job; not a complete rebuild of the house. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC No Comments from the Public COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Schwarz – I would like to be able to see if we can craft a motion that says what the line is between when replacements need to be the same material or where a synthetic material can be used. We can just say all must go back as wood. I think the applicant can proceed on the porch almost at will. The main construction on this is the stair piece on the back. We have some site issues and we have the details about the porch. 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 porch repairs and landscaping at 435 14th Street NW satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are compatible with this property and other properties in the Rugby Road-University Circle-Venable ADC District, and that the BAR approves the submitted Phase I application, excluding the window repairs and replacement, with the following conditions: • Any new elements match the existing; including, but not limited to o Beaded ceiling boards (no faux panels) o Painted, wood tongue-and-groove flooring (no imitation material) o Columns (round and engaged) o Simple cornice at the entablature of the porch • The porch railing should be replaced in a manner appropriate to the period (similar to other properties on 14th Street as specified in the staff report), and the handrail leading down the porch steps should match Carl Schwarz seconds motion. Motion passes (8-0). E. Preliminary Discussion 7. 485 14th Street, NW, TMP 090034000 Rugby Road-University Circle-Venable ADC District Owner: Hoo House, LLC Applicant: Greg Winkler, Kurt Wassenaar • The BAR and the applicant had a discussion regarding phases II and III of 485 14th Street Northwest. • The applicant provided information on the renovation of the existing house. • The building will meet code requirements in the Fall for occupancy according to the applicant. • There is a high probability of doing the whole project according to the applicant. It will be dependent on the timing. • The little additions in the back were done later. The applicant wants to differentiate from the existing part of the house with the new part of the house that is being added. • The applicant is trying to keep the rooflines together. 18 BAR Meeting Minutes April 20, 2021 • The project is very similar to a project down the street from this project. • No landscaping has been included to show the different architectural aspects of the project. • The BAR asked questions and provided feedback to the applicant regarding phases II and III of this project. • The applicant indicated that he would return to the BAR with both phases II and III at the same time. The meeting was recessed for ten minutes. 8. 120 Oakhurst Circle, TMP 110025000 Oakhurst-Gildersleeve ADC District Owner: Tenth and Main, LLC Applicant: Bill Chapman Project: Rear addition on residence • This project has been previously reviewed by the BAR. • The applicant would like for the BAR to determine whether they would entertain this project proposal. • The applicant presented what he envisions with this project to the BAR. • Members of the BAR asked questions of the applicant during the preliminary discussion. Members of the BAR also provided feedback about this proposed project. • Mr. Lahendro did bring up that the structure is contributing in the state and national historic districts. Mr. Lahendro also brought up the scale and the massing relationship between the addition and the existing house and the context of the district. • The biggest issue that members of the BAR had with this proposed project was the massing and the height of the structure. F. Other Business Staff Questions/Discussion Valentine Horse door window PLACE Update G. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 PM. 19 BAR Meeting Minutes April 20, 2021 Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 21-10-01 109-111 West Water Street, Tax Parcel 280013000 Downtown ADC District Owner: Mall Property, LLC Applicant: Ali Sevindi Project: Install roll-up doors in two storefront openings. Application components (please click each link to go directly to PDF page): • Staff Report • Historic Survey • Application Submittal October 19, 2021 BAR Packet Guide 3 City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Staff Report October 19, 2021 Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 20-10-01 109-111 West Water Street, Tax Parcel 280013000 Downtown ADC District Owner: Mall Property, LLC Applicant: Ali Sevindi Project: Install roll-up doors in two storefront openings. Background Year Built: 1997 District: Downtown ADC District Status: Contributing (Note: When the district was established, all existing structures were designated contributing.) Prior BAR Reviews January 1997 – BAR approved CoA for new building. (The current building at this site.) March 2015 – BAR approved CoA for mural on wall facing the back alley. September 21, 2021 - Preliminary discussion of the proposed roll-up doors. Application • Applicant submittal: CoA application, dated September 20, 2021, with photos and information on proposed roll up door. Request CoA for the removal of two existing windows and the installation of two roll-up doors within the openings. (Locations indicated in the photo in the Appendix.) Discussion and Recommendations Given the age of this structure, staff recommends applying the design guidelines for New Construction. Staff recommends approval with the conditions listed in the suggested motion. 109-111 West Water Street (October 14, 2021) 1 Suggested Motion Approval: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find the proposed roll up doors at 109-111 West Water Street satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are compatible with this property and other properties in the Downtown ADC District, and that the BAR approves the application as submitted with the following conditions: • The glass be clear, preferably a VLT of not less than 70%, with a specification provided to staff. • The metal to be powder coated white. • Any exterior weatherstripping applied to the masonry opening is white, similar to the doors. Denial: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find the roll up doors at 109-111 West Water Street do not satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are not compatible with this property and other properties in the Downtown ADC District, and for the following reasons BAR denies the application as submitted…. Criteria, Standards and Guidelines Review Criteria Generally Sec. 34-284(b) of the City Code states that in considering a particular application the BAR shall approve the application unless it finds: (1) That the proposal does not meet specific standards set forth within this division or applicable provisions of the Design Guidelines established by the board pursuant to Sec.34-288(6); and (2) The proposal is incompatible with the historic, cultural or architectural character of the district in which the property is located or the protected property that is the subject of the application. Pertinent Standards for Review of Construction and Alterations include: 1) Whether the material, texture, color, height, scale, mass and placement of the proposed addition, modification or construction are visually and architecturally compatible with the site and the applicable design control district; 2) The harmony of the proposed change in terms of overall proportion and the size and placement of entrances, windows, awnings, exterior stairs and signs; 3) The Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation set forth within the Code of Federal Regulations (36 C.F.R. §67.7(b)), as may be relevant; 4) The effect of the proposed change on the historic district neighborhood; 5) The impact of the proposed change on other protected features on the property, such as gardens, landscaping, fences, walls and walks; 6) Whether the proposed method of construction, renovation or restoration could have an adverse impact on the structure or site, or adjacent buildings or structures; 7) Any applicable provisions of the City’s Design Guidelines. Pertinent Guidelines for New Construction 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. b. In the West Main Street corridor in particular, new buildings should reinforce this traditional proportion. 109-111 West Water Street (October 14, 2021) 2 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. b. Glass storefronts would generally have more horizontal proportions than upper floor openings. 3) Traditionally designed openings generally are recessed on masonry buildings and have a raised surround on frame buildings. New construction should follow these methods in the historic districts as opposed to designing openings that are flush with the rest of the wall. 4) Many entrances of Charlottesville’s historic buildings have special features such as transoms, sidelights, and decorative elements framing the openings. Consideration should be given to incorporating such elements in new construction. 5) Darkly tinted mirrored glass is not an appropriate material for windows in new buildings within the historic districts. 6) If small-paned windows are used, they should have true divided lights or simulated divided lights with permanently affixed interior and exterior muntin bars and integral spacer bars between the panes of glass. 7) Avoid designing false windows in new construction. 8) Appropriate material for new windows depends upon the context of the building within a historic district, and the design of the proposed building. Sustainable materials such as wood, aluminum-clad wood, solid fiberglass, and metal windows are preferred for new construction. Vinyl windows are discouraged. 9) Glass shall be clear. Opaque spandrel glass or translucent glass may be approved by the BAR for specific applications. Appendix Locations of proposed roll-up doors 109-111 West Water Street (October 14, 2021) 3 1 t: r.. , r 1 i 11 f a k1 A 2na 114 Street, SW P ottxq' CBt "" 4/ IBx BB 1B H ST_U LA - Historic Survey C.V. Naylor/Pace- Wranek House Spring, 1981 I go VA. i SaNAel2S _ 9AI9 ,jjlen«(t~all'()n STREET ADDRESS: 114 Second Street, S.W. HISTORIC NAME: Pace-Wranek House MAP a PARCEL: 28-13 DATE/PERIOD: c. 1884, 1955, 1957, 1958 CENSUS TRACT AND BLOCK: 1-311 STYLE: Victorian Vernacular PRESENT ZONING: B-4 HEIGHT (tocornice)OR STORIES: 2 5 toreys ORIGINAL OWNER: Benjami n R. Pace DIMENSIONS AND LAND AREA: 52.25' x 76.35' (4005 sq. f t c ] ORIGINAL USE: Res idence CONDITION: Fa ir PRESENT USE: Renta 1 Property (Res idence & Commerc ia1) SURVEYOR: Bibb PRESENT OWNER: Cassie Virginia Naylor DATE OF SURVEY: Spr ing 1981 ADDRESS: 747 Park Street SOURCES: City ICounty Records Charlottesville, Vi rgiriia 22901 Gray's 1877 Map of Charlottesville Sanborn Map Co. - 1886 ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION This is a basic two-storey, three-bay, single-pile house on an English basement. Wall construction is of brick laid i,n Flemish bond. The house is painted white. The medium-pitched gable roof has an additional central able on the facade and is covered with standing-seam metal and has projecting eaves and verges, shaped rafter enJs, and small brackets shaped like rafter ends in the gables. There is an interior chimney with small cap and stringcourse on each side of the central hall. Windows are double-sash, 2-over-2 light, with wooden sills and plain surrounds. Pairs of narrow l-over-l light windows are located at the second level in the center bay of the facade and at the south end of the house. A one-storey porch covers the center bay of the facade. It has a low-pitched hip roof covered with standing-seam metal, a boxed cornice, plain frieze with paneled brackets below it, bracketed square posts with cham- fered corners, and sawn ba lus t rade , The porch floor is wooden, but the steps have been replaced with concrete. Three-light sidelights over panels extend to the .op of the 3-1 ight. rectangular transom above the entrance door. There is a one-storey rectangular bay window at the southern end of the house. It has a truncated hip roof covered with standing-seam metal and an entablature with diamond-shaped sawn pendants appl ied to the frieze. It has five smaller 2-over-2 1 ight windows. (The lower part of the bay window is obscured by one of the commercial additions.) An original gable-roofed one-storey rear wing covers the north bay. A later hip-roofed one-storey addition covers the other two bays. Shed~roofed porches behind both additions have been enclosed. One-storey, flat-roofed commercial additions of cinderblock construction project from both side bays of the facade and from the south end. Because this house is set on a lot much higher than the street and the new additions are at street level, they are at the level of the house's Engl ish basement. HISTORICAL DESCRIPTION In 1884 Benjamin R. Pace purchased a 76 ft. lot extending from Main Street to I/ater Street along Hill Street (Second Street SW) (ACDB 83-210). There were several buildings on the lot. A comparison of the 1877 Gray map and the 1886 Sanborn map shows that this house was built during that period, and tax records indicate that was probably in 1884. Pace subdivided the property and sold this house to Rica S. Godwin (Mrs. John M. Godwin) in 1891 (City DB 2-210). She died the next year and left it to her two daughters who sold it to Joseph Wranek in 1906 (City WB 1-46, DB 18-23). The Wranek family lived there for a quarter centry before selling it to C. C. Wells and Marshall Wells in 1945 (BD 72-147). J. L. Naylor bought it from them in 1945 (DB·72-147), and it is still owned by his heirs (WB 16-75). The house has been used as rental property for half a century. Small commercial wings were added to it in 1955, 1957, and 1958, but the house itself is still used as a residence. HISTORIC LANDMARKS C~MMISSION - DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT e11tt� �.�.·-· 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 �- i: &;l_� lNlA-\.� Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Staff email: wernerjb@charlo�esvdle.gov Telephone (434) 970-3130 watkinsro@charlottesvdle.gov Please :1ubmi• t1A f�O) �•FIi 11111i■s .Jnd one (1) digital copy of application form and all attachments. Please include application fee as follows: New construction project $375; Demolition of a contributing stru cture $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 B�R meets the third Tuesday of the month. Deadline for submittals is Tuesday 3 weeks prior to next BAR meeting by 3:30 p.m. Owner Name___ M_all_ _Pr_ o_ ...!,. pe_rty --::.......:.L:.::L-= C=--------Applicant Name_______________ Project Name/Description Installation of roll-updoors Parcel Number 2800l3000 Project Property Address 109-111 W est Wat er Str e et Applicant Information Signature of Applicant \I\[ QS-+ '\I\J Cl\�\ I hereby attest that the information I have provided is, to the best of my knowledge, g)rrect. (�0 V a::: .g • tif i -s:.... se"' 1 f � II\ 1f Q) u, i .. 0 ... a: ! H J B� cu .s J flS :::J .!!! 'tj II;: Section: 4 1/2" Insulated 1/2" Insulated FV Color: Powder lE�a-�I!! **FULLVIEW •• co ro Coat (CHI Black) -0 Ina �$ Sectlon:3 1/2" Insulated 1/2" Insulated FV Color: Powder "tJ 0 C: ::, **FULLVIEW** Coat (CHI Black) Cl) C" s< Sectlon:2 1/2" Insulated 1/2" Insulated FV Color: Powder �� **FULLVIEW ** 'o :.t; Coat (CHI Black) ,_ u II_ Sectlon:1 1/2'' Insulated 1/2" Insulated Q) 111:, FV Color: Powder C\1 **FULLVIEW** Cl> Coat (CHI Black) 111:i� la \'9 ■ XJ� NCDCO -1::; 1o -·0 • aHt: ! -� , ■ d ::) g APPLE DOOR OF WAYNESBORO INC. •£•' - O:�c:o QCD1547818 -· < 1.0000 Door(s) 8'7" x 6'3" 3297R Powder Coat (CHI cu !! gCT ...................... "' Black) U ALL SHADED AREAS ARE FOR .,0 2" - - 46 3/8" - 4 1/8 11 41/8" I - I t 18" II II II II t- � 41/4" II II II II 13 3/4 � 18" 11 6'-3" t- 18" II II fl II t ♦ 13 3/4" t- t ' 21" II fl II II 41/ 8" I ! � Ir 8'-7" _ -1 1 'lz" ; h sv\a..--+eJ cfea._, �Ill�� l::>o�c- colc-r- w h�+e.- ®Jill D BBB 1/211 = l 1 SCALE □ □ DATE loV��H�A5 5oo�sl 9-14-21 Aluminum Full-View Dimensions shown are not for glazing purposes. Garage Door 109-111 West Water Street. Roll up doors. October 2021. Install roll-up door West Water Street 2nd Street, SW Install roll-up door Install roll-up door West Water Street Install roll-up door 2nd Street, SW Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 21-10-05 110-114 Old Preston Ave, Tax Parcel 330278000 Downtown ADC District Owner/Applicant: Joey Conover Project: Install door at building entrance Application components (please click each link to go directly to PDF page): • Staff Report • Historic Survey • Application Submittal October 19, 2021 BAR Packet Guide 4 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW STAFF REPORT October 19, 2021 Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-10-05 110-114 Old Preston Ave, Tax Parcel 330278000 Downtown ADC District Owner/Applicant: Joey Conover Project: Install door at building entrance Background Year Built: 1915 District: Downtown ADC District Status: Contributing L.W. Cox Building. Two story, fieldstone, commercial building reflects a vernacular style. Initially for auto repairs and storage, with storefronts in the two western bays and garage doors in the three eastern bays. After 1976, the building served as a print shop for John G. Conover. Prior BAR Actions June 2019 – BAR approved CoA to remove through-wall A/C unit and install a window similar to three adjacent windows Application • Applicant submittal: CoA application, September 29, 2021 with photos and door spec. Request to CoA for installation of a full-lite, wood door in an existing, wood-framed entry. Door to be stained to match the existing frame and trim. Discussion This doorless, wood-framed entry is not original, likely added after 1976, and the exterior trim has been altered from that seen in the c1980 photos. (See the Appendix.) The building’s five bays have been altered over time to accommodate adaptive use of the building. Adding a door to this non-historic opening will not negatively impact the character of the building and the new door will match that in an adjacent entry. Staff recommends approval with a condition that the glass be clear, as defined by the BAR. 110-114 Old Preston Avenue (Oct 14, 2021) 1 Suggested Motions Approval: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find the proposed entry door at 110-114 Old Preston 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 condition that the door glass be clear, with staff to confirm the VLT is within an acceptable range. Denial: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find the proposed entry door at 110-114 Old Preston Avenue does not satisfy the BAR’s criteria and is not compatible with this property and other properties in the Downtown ADC District, and for the following reasons the BAR denies the application as submitted:… Criteria, Standards, and Guidelines Review Criteria Generally Sec. 34-284(b) of the City Code states that, in considering a particular application the BAR shall approve the application unless it finds: (1) That the proposal does not meet specific standards set forth within this division or applicable provisions of the Design Guidelines established by the board pursuant to Sec.34-288(6); and (2) The proposal is incompatible with the historic, cultural or architectural character of the district in which the property is located or the protected property that is the subject of the application. Pertinent Standards for Review of Construction and Alterations include: (1) Whether the material, texture, color, height, scale, mass and placement of the proposed addition, modification or construction are visually and architecturally compatible with the site and the applicable design control district; (2) The harmony of the proposed change in terms of overall proportion and the size and placement of entrances, windows, awnings, exterior stairs and signs; (3) The Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation set forth within the Code of Federal Regulations (36 C.F.R. §67.7(b)), as may be relevant; (4) The effect of the proposed change on the historic district neighborhood; (5) The impact of the proposed change on other protected features on the property, such as gardens, landscaping, fences, walls and walks; (6) Whether the proposed method of construction, renovation or restoration could have an adverse impact on the structure or site, or adjacent buildings or structures; (7) Any applicable provisions of the City’s Design Guidelines. Pertinent Guidelines on Rehabilitations V: Rehabilitation D. Entrances, Porches, and Doors […] 7) Do not remove or radically change entrances and porches important in defining the building’s overall historic character. 8) Avoid adding decorative elements incompatible with the existing structure. 9) In general, avoid adding a new entrance to the primary facade, or facades visible from the street. 110-114 Old Preston Avenue (Oct 14, 2021) 2 […] 12) The original size and shape of door openings should be maintained. 13) Original door openings should not be filled in. 14) When possible, reuse hardware and locks that are original or important to the historical evolution of the building. 15) Avoid substituting the original doors with stock size doors that do not fit the opening properly or are not compatible with the style of the building. […] Appendix 1980 (City Survey) 2012 (Google Street View) 110-114 Old Preston Avenue (Oct 14, 2021) 3 c1980 (City Survey) 2021 (JW) 110-114 Old Preston Avenue (Oct 14, 2021) 4 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 Fax (434) 970-3359 Please submit ten (10) copies of application fonn and all attachments. For a new construction project, please Include $375 application fee. For all other projects requiring BAR approval, please Include $125 application fee. For projects that require only administrative approval, please include $100 administrative fee. Make checks payable to the City of Charlottesville. The BAR meets the third Tuesday of the month. Deadline for submittals is Tuesday 3 weeks prior to next BAR meeting by 3:30 p.m. Owner Name;__,;��l'L!�L-.J..,,,,t.��:f6,,jr.&::::�L---APPlicant Name � Project Name/Description VJ h-1,-J Parcel Number S ? 0 Z T ¥07TD Property Address //@ ' / / '-/ 0( o/ ;Jr-esfp}1 � Signature of Applicant Applicant Information I hereby attest that the information I have provided is, to the Address: '310 lt� H·S"'-.) best of my knowledge, correct. (Signature also denotes e,�4-� W's -i.:2:70I commitment to pay invoice for required mail notices.) Email: j0'-���"38 )\c. • �_ Phone: 0N) 'f'5'1 ��) _____ FAX: ______________ Property Owner Permission (If not applicant) I have read this application and hereby give my consent to its submission. "' � 1; F{ , /Z � /-. Do you intend to apply for Federal or State Tax Credits for this project? __,..&.,;lhl;,_' �------ � tl, Llt,uIJ8te � \If�mi 'l- ll ,lJa'@6 ,nty 9fter b--1 Prin ame Date ' ents): For Office Use Only Approved/Disapproved by: _________ Received by: ___________ Date: _________________ Fee paid: _____Cash/Ck. # ____ Conditions of approval: ___________ Date Received: _____________ J:\NEIGHPLAN\FORMS\Updatcd Forms 8.8.08\BAR Certificate of Appropriateness.doc Created on 8/8/2008 I HISTORIC DISTRICT ORDINANCE: You can review the Historical Preservation and Architectural Design Control Overlay Districts regulations in the City of Charlottesville Zoning Ordinance starting with Section 34-271 online at www.charlottesville.org or at Municode.com for the City of Charlottesville. DESIGN REVIEW GUIDELINES: Please refer to the current ADC Districts Design Guidelines online at I I www.chartottesville.brg. SUBMITTAL REQqlREMENTS: The following information and exhibits shall be submitted along with each I application for Certificate of Appropriateness, per Sec. 34-282 (d) in the City of Charlottesville Zoning Ordinance: (1) Detailed and clear depictions of any proposed changes in the exterior features of the subject property; I (2) Photographs of the subject property and photographs of the buildings on contiguous properties; (3) One set of samples to show the nature, texture and color of materials proposed; (4) The history of a� existing building or structure, if requested; (5) For new construbtion and projects proposing expansion of the footprint of an existing building: a three­ dimensional model (in physical or digital form); 1 (6) In the case of a bemolition request where structural integrity is at issue, the applicant shall provide a structural evaluation and cost estimates for rehabilitation, prepared by a professional engineer, unless waived by the BAR. APPEALS: Following a denial the applicant, the director of neighborhood development services, or any aggrieved person may appeal the decision to the city council, by filing a written notice of appeal within ten (10) working days of the date of the decision. Per Sec. 34-286. - City council appeals, an applicant shall set forth, in writing, the grounds for an appeal, including the procedure(s) or standard(s) alleged to have been violated or misapplied by the BAR, and/or any additional information, factors or opinions he or she deems relevant to the application. 110-114 Old Preston·Avenue Install new door, similar to existing door on the left. 9/15/21, 1:09 PM m2o Quote Form Quote Form 2 g® BETTER LIVING INC 3450 BERKMAR DR CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 22901 434-973-4333 I ��� I � Project Information (19 #5372321 Revision #8586652) I Hide Project Name: joey conbver Quote Date: 9/15/2021 Customer: Submitted Date: Contact Name: PO#: Phone (Main): Phone (Cell): Sales Rep Name: Lenny Lohr Customer Type: Salesperson: Terms: I Delivery Information Hide Shipping Contact: Comments: Shipping Address: City: State: Zip: Unit Detail Hide All Configuration OJ)tlons Item: 0001: Ext 36" x 80" F7902LE LHI 6 9/16" FrameSaver Location: Quantity: 1 Air 36"x80" Single Door Configuration Optior,s Hide. l • Piroduct Category: Exterior Doors • Manufacturer: Reeb - Wood Exterior • Piroduct Type: Exterior EXTERIOR Left-Hand In.swing • Region: East • P.roduct I Material: Performance Series Wood • Material Type: Fir • eonfiguration (Units viewed from Exterior): Single Door I • Fiactory Finish Option: No • Slab I Width: 36" • • Slab Height: 80" • Piroduct Style: Full Lite • Raised Molding: None • �lass I Type: Clear • Grille Type: None I htlps://2g.edgenet.com/VlewProjects/GetBaslcQuote?Projectld=5372321 1/3 I 9/15/21, 1:09 PM m2o Quote Form I •Insulation: Low E • odel: F7002LE • anding: Left Hand lnswing ee •e rame Material: FrameSavere • amb Depth: 6 9/16 11 • Casing/Brickmould Pattern: Nonee • �Inge Type: Radius x Radiuse • t;tinge Brand: Reebe ' • �Inge Finish: US15 Satin Nickele •e �ill: Public Access (w/ Thermal Break) Sille · • SIii Finish: Mill •e �ultl-Polnt Lock: Nonee •e �ore: Double Lock Bore 2-3/8" Backset •e �trike Jamb Prep: No .e , • 'f"eatherstrip Type: Compressione • Weatherstrip Color: Bronzee • Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2021 12:07 PM To: 'llohr@btrlvg.com' Subject: F7002 l � � � I I ""'"'"""11--4--3/4' LOW-€ INSULA1EO GLAS5 26. 36' DOOR DETAIL SCALE: 3/4" = ,·..a F7002LE �::0 DCv.:R UNIT FO 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 09.27.2021 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. : 31590-013 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 31590-013 MARINE GREY Adjustable Lamp Head : No 31590-020 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 09.27.2021 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 09.27.2021 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 09.27.2021 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 09.27.2021 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 09.27.2021 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 605 PRESTON Charlott e sv i llePL VA PRECEDENT UNIVERSITY CIRCLE APTS. + ALTAMONT CIRCLE APTS. MA IrTcChHi tE eL cL t/s M & AT P lTaH n EnW erSs Charlot t e s v i lle VA 07.23.2021 PRECEDENT ALTAMONT CIRCLE + UNIVERSITY CIRCLE APARTMENT BUILDINGS All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. A4r3 c 4 .h 9 7i 9t. 7e 5c5 t 0s & Plan© n e2r 0 2s 1 09.27.2021 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 APARTMENT BUILDING Architects & Planners 09.27.2021 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2021 605 Preston Place. Elevations only. BAR staff summary. Not applicant’s formal submittal. West Elevation from Applicant’s July 23, 2021 submittal West Elevation from Applicant’s Sept 27, 2021 submittal 605 Preston Place. Elevations only. BAR staff summary. Not applicant’s formal submittal. South Elevation from Applicant’s July 23, 2021 submittal South Elevation from Applicant’s Sept 27, 2021 submittal 605 Preston Place. Elevations only. BAR staff summary. Not applicant’s formal submittal. East Elevation from Applicant’s July 23, 2021 submittal East Elevation from Applicant’s Sept 27, 2021 submittal 605 Preston Place. Elevations only. BAR staff summary. Not applicant’s formal submittal. North Elevation from Applicant’s July 23, 2021 submittal North Elevation from Applicant’s Sept 27, 2021 submittal Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-10-03 485 14th Street, NW, TMP 090034000 Rugby Road-University Circle-Venable ADC District Owner: Hoo House, LLC Applicant: Greg Winkler, Kurt Wassenaar Project: Phases 2 and 3 - Renovations and rear addition Application components (please click each link to go directly to PDF page): • Staff Report • Application Submittal October 19, 2021 BAR Packet Guide 6 City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Staff Report October 19, 2021 Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-10-03 485 14th Street, NW, TMP 090034000 Rugby Road-University Circle-Venable ADC District Owner: Hoo House, LLC Applicant: Greg Winkler, Kurt Wassenaar Project: Phases 2 and 3 - Renovations and rear addition Background Year Built: 1920 District: Rugby Road-University Circle-Venable ADC District Status: Contributing (garage in rear is non-contributing) Four square, Colonial Revival residence. Prior BAR Reviews April 20, 2021 – BAR approved CoA for Phase 1: Repair/replacement of existing windows, the repair/reconstruction of the front porch, the planting of new street trees, and related site work. April 20, 2021 - Preliminary discussion of Phases 2 and 3 http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/798404/2021-04_485%2014th%20Street%20NW_Preliminary%20Discussion.pdf Application • Submittal: Wassenaar-Winkler Architects/Planners drawings 485 14th St NW Addition: o Phase 2, dated September 27, 2021: G1 Cover; EP1 Existing Structure Photos; EP2 Existing Neighborhood Photos; EP3 Existing Neighborhood Photos; C1 Site Development Summary; C2 Ex & Pro Site Diagrams; C3 Ex & Pro Landscape; A1 First Floor Plan; A2 Second Floor Plan; A3 Exterior Elevation; A4 Exterior Elevation; A5 Exterior Elevation; A6 Perspective; A7 Perspective; A8 Perspective; A9 Perspective; A10 Perspective; A11 Materials/Window Detail. o Phase 3, dated September 27, 2021: G1 Cover; EP1 Existing Structure Photos; EP2 Existing Neighborhood Photos; EP3 Existing Neighborhood Photos; C1 Site Development Summary; C2 Ex & Pro Site Diagrams; C3 Ex & Pro Landscape; A1 First Floor Plan; A2 Second Floor Plan; A3 Exterior Elevation; A4 Exterior Elevation; A5 Exterior Elevation; 485 14th Street, NW - CoA Phases 2 and 3 (October 14, 2021) 1 A6 Perspective; A7 Perspective; A8 Perspective; A9 Perspective; A10 Perspective; A11 Materials/Window Detail. CoA request for Phases 2 and 3 of a three-phase project. (CoA for Phase 1 approved in April 2021.) The applicant has requested that the two phases be evaluated and considered as a single CoA request. Phase 2 includes removal of the existing rear stairs and construction of a two-story addition. Phase 3 includes a two-story addition onto the Phase 2 addition. Note: Phase 1 included the planting of new street trees and minor site work. The rear garage is non- contributing, removal did not—or, will not--require BAR review. Phase 2 (paraphrased from April 2021 narrative) Replace the rear/porch with new addition. • Rear elevation of the phase II addition will be fully encapsulated as a part of phase 3. • Hardie Plank siding is intended to distinguish the existing house from the new addition and be consistent with the historical manner in which these additions have been traditionally completed in similar buildings nearby. Phase 3 (paraphrased from April 2021 narrative) Add two additional units to the building, per the maximum allowed by zoning. • Work follows the general size and proportions of the existing house except it is brick of a familial but contrasting color. The massing at the building setback lines on the Gordon Avenue front and is intended to be typologically consistent with the existing house but of its time. Window treatment will be consistent with the existing front house building. Materials for Phases 2 and 3 • Brick (Phase 3 only): General Shale. Color: Old English Tudor. (Mortar color not specified) • Siding: Hardieplank. Color: Cobblestone • Trim: Hardieplank. Color: BM HC-108, Sandy Hook Gray • Roof: Timberline asphalt. Color: slate • Gutters and downspouts: Not specified • Windows: Pella Architect Series, 1/1, double-hung • Doors: Not specified • Porch deck, columns, ceiling (Phase 2 only): Not specified • Balcony rails (Phase 3 only): Not specified • Landscaping: (See landscape plans in Appendix) Phase 2 retains a 6” cypress and a 18” locust; however, these will be removed in Phase 3. • Walkway: Not specified • Exterior lighting: Not specified • Location/screening of mechanical units and utility boxes: Not specified Discussion and Recommendations The BAR should consider the building elements and details necessary to evaluate the project. Renderings and schematics communicate mass, scale, design and composition; however a complete application should include details and specific information about the projects materials and components. For example: • Measured drawings: Elevations, wall details, etc. 485 14th Street, NW - CoA Phases 2 and 3 (October 14, 2021) 2 • Roofing: Flat, hipped, etc. Metal, slate, asphalt. Flashing details. • Gutters/downspouts: Types, color, locations, etc. • Foundation. • Walls: Masonry, siding, stucco, etc. • Soffit, cornice, siding, and trim. • Color palette. • Doors and windows: Type, lite arrangement, glass spec, trim details, etc. • Porches and decks: Materials, railing and stair design, etc. • Landscaping/hardscaping: Grading, trees, low plants, paving materials, etc. • Lighting. Fixture cut sheets, lamping, etc. Staff recommends that additional information and material specifications are necessary for a complete review and formal action; however, the general design and materials, as presented, are not inconsistent with the design guidelines. With that, while staff recommends this request be deferred, the BAR should discuss the project, as presented, and express any modifications, if necessary, and request the specific information that should be provided when this application is resubmitted. This project will also require a site plan review. Because that process may result in changes to the proposed work—landscaping, building footprint, parking area, etc.—by deferring this application any necessary changes can be incorporated into what is resubmitted for the BAR design review. Regarding a deferral: The BAR can defer this request, which would require the applicant resubmit the in time for the November 16 BAR meeting. Or, the BAR can accept the applicant’s request for deferral, which allows the applicant to choose the timing of any resubmittal. Additionally, it should be made clear that a CoA has an 18-month period of validity, which, if certain conditions are not met, can be extended for reasonable cause and at the applicant’s request. (Refer to Sec. 34-280 for the specific conditions applicable to the period of validity.) The requested CoA would apply to Phases 2 and 3 as presented, so the conditions for the period of validity apply to both. For example, if Phase 2 is initiated, but work on Phase 3 is delayed and the period of validity conditions related to Phase 3 are not met, a new CoA would be required. Finally, Sec. 34-277(a)(2)—below--requires that demolition of the existing rear porch be addressed as a separate CoA, not with the CoA permitting alterations. Staff erred in not making this distinction. Deferring the current CoA request will allow that matter to be properly resolved. Sec. 34-277. - Certificates of appropriateness; demolitions and removals. (a) No contributing structure located within a major design control district, and no protected property, shall be moved, removed, encapsulated or demolished (in whole or in part) unless and until an application for a certificate of appropriateness has been approved by the BAR, or the city council on appeal, except that: (2) Where the moving, removing, encapsulation or demolition of any contributing structure or protected property will disturb or affect fewer than twenty-five (25) square feet, total, of exterior wall, roof or other exterior surfaces, such activity shall be deemed an alteration subject to the review process set forth within section 34-275, above. 485 14th Street, NW - CoA Phases 2 and 3 (October 14, 2021) 3 Suggested Motions Deferral: For the reasons expressed, I move to defer this request until the BAR’s next scheduled meeting. Or: I move to accept the applicant request for deferral. Approval: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find that proposed Phase 2 and Phase 3 alterations and construction at 485 14th Street NW satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are compatible with this property and other properties in the Rugby Road-University Circle-Venable ADC District, and that the BAR approves the application [as submitted]. Or [as submitted with the following modifications/conditions: …] Denial: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed Phase 2 and Phase 3 alterations and construction at 485 14th Street NW do not satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are not compatible with this property and other properties in the Rugby Road-University Circle-Venable ADC District, and for the following reasons the BAR denies the application as submitted:… Criteria, Standards, and Guidelines Review Criteria Generally Sec. 34-284(b) of the City Code states that, in considering a particular application the BAR shall approve the application unless it finds: (1) That the proposal does not meet specific standards set forth within this division or applicable provisions of the Design Guidelines established by the board pursuant to Sec.34-288(6); and (2) The proposal is incompatible with the historic, cultural or architectural character of the district in which the property is located or the protected property that is the subject of the application. Standards for Review of Construction and Alterations include: (1) Whether the material, texture, color, height, scale, mass and placement of the proposed addition, modification or construction are visually and architecturally compatible with the site and the applicable design control district; (2) The harmony of the proposed change in terms of overall proportion and the size and placement of entrances, windows, awnings, exterior stairs and signs; (3) The Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation set forth within the Code of Federal Regulations (36 C.F.R. §67.7(b)), as may be relevant; (4) The effect of the proposed change on the historic district neighborhood; (5) The impact of the proposed change on other protected features on the property, such as gardens, landscaping, fences, walls and walks; (6) Whether the proposed method of construction, renovation or restoration could have an adverse impact on the structure or site, or adjacent buildings or structures; (7) When reviewing any proposed sign as part of an application under consideration, the standards set forth within Article IX, sections 34-1020, et seq. shall be applied; and (8) Any applicable provisions of the City’s Design Guidelines. Pertinent ADC District Design Guidelines I: Introduction (Part 1) II: Introduction (Part 2) III: Site Design and Elements IV: New Construction and Additions 485 14th Street, NW - CoA Phases 2 and 3 (October 14, 2021) 4 V: Rehabilitation VIII: Moving and Demolition Chapter II – Site Design and Elements B. Plantings C. Walls and Fences D. Lighting E. Walkways and Driveways F. Parking Areas and Lots H. Utilities and Other Site Appurtenances Chapter III – New Construction and Additions Checklist from section P. Additions 1) Function and Size a. Attempt to accommodate needed functions within the existing structure without building an addition. b. Limit the size of the addition so that it does not visually overpower the existing building. 2) Location a. Attempt to locate the addition on rear or side elevations that are not visible from the street. b. If additional floors are constructed on top of a building, set the addition back from the main façade so that its visual impact is minimized. c. If the addition is located on a primary elevation facing the street or if a rear addition faces a street, parking area, or an important pedestrian route, the façade of the addition should be treated under the new construction guidelines. 3) Design a. New additions should not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. b. The new work should be differentiated from the old and should be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. 4) Replication of Style a. A new addition should not be an exact copy of the design of the existing historic building. The design of new additions can be compatible with and respectful of existing buildings without being a mimicry of their original design. b. If the new addition appears to be part of the existing building, the integrity of the original historic design is compromised and the viewer is confused over what is historic and what is new. 5) Materials and Features a. Use materials, windows, doors, architectural detailing, roofs, and colors that are compatible with historic buildings in the district. 6) Attachment to Existing Building a. Wherever possible, new additions or alterations to existing buildings should be done in such a manner that, if such additions or alterations were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the buildings would be unimpaired. b. The new design should not use the same wall plane, roof line, or cornice line of the existing structure. Chapter VII – Demolitions and Moving Reference Sec. 34-278. - Standards for considering demolitions. 485 14th Street, NW - CoA Phases 2 and 3 (October 14, 2021) 5 The following factors shall be considered in determining whether or not to permit the moving, removing, encapsulation or demolition, in whole or in part, of a contributing structure or protected property: a) The historic, architectural or cultural significance, if any, of the specific structure or property, including, without limitation: 1. The age of the structure or property; 2. Whether it has been designated a National Historic Landmark, listed on the National Register of Historic Places, or listed on the Virginia Landmarks Register; 3. Whether, and to what extent, the building or structure is associated with an historic person, architect or master craftsman, or with an historic event; 4. Whether the building or structure, or any of its features, represent an infrequent or the first or last remaining example within the city of a particular architectural style or feature; 5. Whether the building or structure is of such old or distinctive design, texture or material that it could not be reproduced, or could be reproduced only with great difficulty; and 6. The degree to which distinguishing characteristics, qualities, features or materials remain; b) Whether, and to what extent, a contributing structure is linked, historically or aesthetically, to other buildings or structures within an existing major design control district, or is one (1) of a group of properties within such a district whose concentration or continuity possesses greater significance than many of its component buildings and structures. c) The overall condition and structural integrity of the building or structure, as indicated by studies prepared by a qualified professional engineer and provided by the applicant or other information provided to the board; d) Whether, and to what extent, the applicant proposes means, methods or plans for moving, removing or demolishing the structure or property that preserves portions, features or materials that are significant to the property's historic, architectural or cultural value; and e) Any applicable provisions of the city's design guidelines. 485 14th Street, NW - CoA Phases 2 and 3 (October 14, 2021) 6 Appendix 485 14th Street, NW - CoA Phases 2 and 3 (October 14, 2021) 7 485 14th St NW Addition- Phase 2 200 West 12th Street, Waynesboro, VA 22980 Charlottesville, VA 22903 BAR SUBMITTAL SET Telephone (540) 941-3567 SHEET LIST G1 COVER EP1 EXISTING STRUCTURE PHOTOS EP2 EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD PHOTOS EP3 EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD PHOTOS C1 SITE DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY C2 EX & PRO SITE DIAGRAMS C3 EX & PRO LANDSCAPE A1 FIRST FLOOR PLAN 485 14th Street NW Renovation A2 SECOND FLOOR PLAN A3 EXTERIOR ELEVATION Charlottesville, VA 22903 A4 EXTERIOR ELEVATION A5 EXTERIOR ELEVATION 485 14th Street NW A6 PERSPECTIVE A7 PERSPECTIVE A8 PERSPECTIVE A9 PERSPECTIVE A10 PERSPECTIVE Perspective A11 MATERIALS/WINDOW DETAIL ARCHITECT : Wassenaar + Winkler, PLLC 200 West 12th Street Waynesboro, VA 22980 540-941-3567 Kurt Wassenaar, Principal Architect kurt@wpluswdesign.com SITE OWNER: Hoo House, LLC N Eric Trebour 190 Blue Springs Lane Charlottesville, VA 22903 Vicinity Map G1 PHASE 2 200 West 12th Street, Waynesboro, VA 22980 Telephone (540) 941-3567 485 14th Street NW Renovation Charlottesville, VA 22903 FRONT OF RESIDENCE FROM 14TH STREET SIDE OF RESIDENCE FROM GORDON AVENUE 485 14th Street NW REAR OF RESIDENCE FROM ALLEY SIDE OF RESIDENCE FROM ADJACENT PROPERTY EP1 PHASE 2 EXISTING RESIDENCE PHOTOS EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD PHOTOS 485 14th Street NW Renovation 485 14th Street NW Charlottesville, VA 22903 PHASE 2 200 West 12th Street, Waynesboro, VA 22980 EP2 Telephone (540) 941-3567 EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD PHOTOS 485 14th Street NW Renovation 485 14th Street NW Charlottesville, VA 22903 PHASE 2 200 West 12th Street, Waynesboro, VA 22980 EP3 Telephone (540) 941-3567 485 14th Street NW Renovation 485 14th Street NW C1 Charlottesville, VA 22903 PHASE 2 200 West 12th Street, Waynesboro, VA 22980 Telephone (540) 941-3567 200 West 12th Street, Waynesboro, VA 22980 EXISTING 15' ALLEY EXISTING 15' ALLEY Telephone (540) 941-3567 EXISTING GRAVEL REMOVE EXISTING 20.1' PARKING AREA PROPOSED ASPHALT PARKING 1 STORY GARAGE D 19.4' A HE CTR VER 25' SBL 25' SBL ELE IFY O IC D MO 3' CONC S/W REMOVE EXISTING S/W 485 14th Street NW Renovation REMOVE EXISTING GORDON AVE. (60' ROW) CONC. PATIO PROPOSED ADDITION PROPOSED Charlottesville, VA 22903 PORCH GORDON AVE. (60' ROW) PHASE 2 NEW LIVING ROOM AND EXIT STAIR EX. S/W EX. S/W REMOVE EX. 2 485 14th Street NW STORY PORCH 10' SBL 10' SBL 20' SBL 20' SBL EXIST. 2 STORY BRICK w/BASEMENT EXIST. 2 STORY 32.9' 32.9' BRICK w/BASEMENT PHASE 1 RENOVATION 40.4' 40.4' 25' SBL 25' SBL EXISTING PORCH EXISTING PORCH T.M 9 - P.34 T.M 9,876 SF 9 - P.34 9,876 SF EXIST. S/W EXIST. S/W D.I. D.I. 14TH STREET NW (40' ROW) 14TH STREET NW (40' ROW) EXISTING SITE PLAN PROPOSED SITE PLAN C2 PHASE 2 200 West 12th Street, Waynesboro, VA 22980 EXISTING 15' ALLEY EXISTING 15' ALLEY Telephone (540) 941-3567 EXISTING GRAVEL REMOVE EXISTING 20.1' PARKING AREA PROPOSED ASPHALT PARKING 1 STORY GARAGE D 19.4' A HE CTR VER 25' SBL 25' SBL ELE IFY O IC D MO 3' CONC S/W REMOVE EXISTING S/W 485 14th Street NW Renovation REMOVE EXISTING GORDON AVE. (60' ROW) CONC. PATIO PROPOSED ADDITION PROPOSED Charlottesville, VA 22903 PORCH GORDON AVE. (60' ROW) PHASE 2 NEW LIVING ROOM AND EXIT STAIR EX. S/W EX. S/W REMOVE EX. 2 485 14th Street NW STORY PORCH 10' SBL 10' SBL 20' SBL 20' SBL EXIST. 2 STORY BRICK w/BASEMENT EXIST. 2 STORY 32.9' 32.9' BRICK w/BASEMENT PHASE 1 RENOVATION 40.4' 40.4' 25' SBL 25' SBL EXISTING PORCH EXISTING PORCH T.M 9 - P.34 T.M 9,876 SF 9 - P.34 9,876 SF EXIST. S/W EXIST. S/W D.I. D.I. 14TH STREET NW (40' ROW) 14TH STREET NW (40' ROW) EXISTING LANDSCAPE PLAN PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PLAN C3 PHASE 2 CONC WALK 200 West 12th Street, Waynesboro, VA 22980 Telephone (540) 941-3567 20'-0" W D UP LIVING ROOM PHASE 2 13'-0 x 15'-8" SIDE 20'-0" PORCH 7'-2 x 20'-0" 485 14th Street NW Renovation BATH Charlottesville, VA 22903 5'-6" x 7'-10" EXISTING (2) STACKED PWR MTR 485 14th Street NW CLO. REF DESK EXISTING BEDROOM EXISTING DW BEDROOM EXISTING BATH PWR PNL EXISTING PHASE HATCH LEGEND DESK HALL CLOSET PHASE 1 CLOSET CLOSET DOWN DESK DESK PHASE 2 - PROPOSED 10' - 4 1/2" FLOOR TO FLOOR EXISTING 9' - 3 1/2" FLOOR EXISTING UP TO CLG BEDROOM BEDROOM PHASE 1 - EXISTING ENTRY PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR PLAN EXISTING PORCH A1 PHASE 2 200 West 12th Street, Waynesboro, VA 22980 Telephone (540) 941-3567 20'-0" DOWN W D PHASE 2 20'-0" 12 4 LIVING ROOM 13'-0 x 17'-8" 485 14th Street NW Renovation BATH Charlottesville, VA 22903 5'-6" x 7'-10" 485 14th Street NW REF DESK EXISTING BEDROOM KITCHEN EXISTING DW BEDROOM EXISTING BATH PWR PNL EXISTING PHASE HATCH LEGEND HALL DESK PHASE 1 CLOSET CLOSET CLOSET DESK DOWN DESK PHASE 2 - PROPOSED INFILL FLOOR EXISTING EXISTING BEDROOM BEDROOM PHASE 1 - EXISTING UP 8' - 9 3/4" FLOOR TO CLG EXISTING HALL PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR PLAN A2 PHASE 2 ELEVATION - GORDON AVENUE 485 14th Street NW Renovation 485 14th Street NW A3 Charlottesville, VA 22903 PHASE 2 200 West 12th Street, Waynesboro, VA 22980 Telephone (540) 941-3567 ELEVATION - REAR 485 14th Street NW Renovation 485 14th Street NW A4 Charlottesville, VA 22903 PHASE 2 200 West 12th Street, Waynesboro, VA 22980 Telephone (540) 941-3567 ELEVATION - SIDE 485 14th Street NW Renovation 485 14th Street NW A5 Charlottesville, VA 22903 PHASE 2 200 West 12th Street, Waynesboro, VA 22980 Telephone (540) 941-3567 RENDERING - VIEW A VIEW FROM CORNER OF 14TH ST. AND GORDON 485 14th Street NW Renovation 485 14th Street NW A6 Charlottesville, VA 22903 PHASE 2 200 West 12th Street, Waynesboro, VA 22980 Telephone (540) 941-3567 VIEW FROM GORDON AVE. RENDERING - VIEW B 485 14th Street NW Renovation 485 14th Street NW A7 Charlottesville, VA 22903 PHASE 2 200 West 12th Street, Waynesboro, VA 22980 Telephone (540) 941-3567 RENDERING - VIEW C 485 14th Street NW Renovation 485 14th Street NW Charlottesville, VA 22903 A8 PHASE 2 200 West 12th Street, Waynesboro, VA 22980 Telephone (540) 941-3567 RENDERING - VIEW D 485 14th Street NW Renovation 485 14th Street NW A9 Charlottesville, VA 22903 PHASE 2 200 West 12th Street, Waynesboro, VA 22980 Telephone (540) 941-3567 RENDERING - VIEW E 485 14th Street NW Renovation 485 14th Street NW Charlottesville, VA 22903 PHASE 2 200 West 12th Street, Waynesboro, VA 22980 A10 Telephone (540) 941-3567 200 West 12th Street, Waynesboro, VA 22980 Telephone (540) 941-3567 SIDING TRIM HARDIPLANK - COBBLESTONE BENJAMIN MOORE COLOR - HC-108 485 14th Street NW Renovation (HISTORIC - SANDY HOOK GRAY) Charlottesville, VA 22903 485 14th Street NW ROOFING PELLA ARCHITECT SERIES TIMBERLINE - SLATE COLOR TO MATCH EXISTING 1 MATERIAL LIST 2 WINDOW CUT SHEET A11 PHASE 2 scale: N.T.S. scale: N.T.S. 485 14th St NW Addition - Phase 3 200 West 12th Street, Waynesboro, VA 22980 Charlottesville, VA 22903 BAR SUBMITTAL SET Telephone (540) 941-3567 SHEET LIST G1 COVER EP1 EXISTING STRUCTURE PHOTOS EP2 EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD PHOTOS EP3 EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD PHOTOS C1 SITE DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY C2 EX & PRO SITE DIAGRAMS C3 EX & PRO LANDSCAPE A1 FIRST FLOOR PLAN 485 14th Street NW Renovation A2 SECOND FLOOR PLAN A3 EXTERIOR ELEVATION Charlottesville, VA 22903 A4 EXTERIOR ELEVATION A5 EXTERIOR ELEVATION 485 14th Street NW A6 PERSPECTIVE A7 PERSPECTIVE A8 PERSPECTIVE A9 PERSPECTIVE A10 PERSPECTIVE Perspective A11 MATERIALS/WINDOW DETAIL ARCHITECT : Wassenaar + Winkler, PLLC 200 West 12th Street Waynesboro, VA 22980 540-941-3567 Kurt Wassenaar, Principal Architect kurt@wpluswdesign.com SITE OWNER: Hoo House, LLC N Eric Trebour 190 Blue Springs Lane Charlottesville, VA 22903 Vicinity Map G1 PHASE 3 200 West 12th Street, Waynesboro, VA 22980 Telephone (540) 941-3567 485 14th Street NW Renovation Charlottesville, VA 22903 FRONT OF RESIDENCE FROM 14TH STREET SIDE OF RESIDENCE FROM GORDON AVENUE 485 14th Street NW REAR OF RESIDENCE FROM ALLEY SIDE OF RESIDENCE FROM ADJACENT PROPERTY EP1 PHASE 3 EXISTING RESIDENCE PHOTOS EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD PHOTOS 485 14th Street NW Renovation 485 14th Street NW Charlottesville, VA 22903 PHASE 3 200 West 12th Street, Waynesboro, VA 22980 EP2 Telephone (540) 941-3567 EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD PHOTOS 485 14th Street NW Renovation 485 14th Street NW Charlottesville, VA 22903 PHASE 3 200 West 12th Street, Waynesboro, VA 22980 EP3 Telephone (540) 941-3567 485 14th Street NW Renovation 485 14th Street NW C1 Charlottesville, VA 22903 PHASE 3 200 West 12th Street, Waynesboro, VA 22980 Telephone (540) 941-3567 200 West 12th Street, Waynesboro, VA 22980 EXISTING 15' ALLEY EXISTING 15' ALLEY Telephone (540) 941-3567 EXIST. PARKING EXIST. PARKING 25' SBL 25' SBL BIKE RACKS EXISTING S/W PROPOSED ADDITION EXISTING S/W PHASE 3 (2) 3 BEDROOM UNITS 485 14th Street NW Renovation GORDON AVE. (60' ROW) Charlottesville, VA 22903 EXISTING PORCH GORDON AVE. (60' ROW) EXIST. 2 STORY EXIST. 2 STORY EXISTING PORCH 10' SBL 10' SBL EX. S/W 485 14th Street NW EX. S/W 20' SBL 20' SBL EXIST. 2 STORY BRICK w/BASEMENT 32.9' EXIST. 2 STORY 32.9' BRICK w/BASEMENT PHASE 1 RENOVATION 40.4' 40.4' 25' SBL 25' SBL EXISTING PORCH EXISTING PORCH T.M T.M 9 - P.34 9 - P.34 9,876 SF 9,876 SF EXIST. S/W EXIST. S/W D.I. D.I. 14TH STREET NW (40' ROW) 14TH STREET NW (40' ROW) EXISTING SITE PLAN PROPOSED SITE PLAN C2 PHASE 3 200 West 12th Street, Waynesboro, VA 22980 EXISTING 15' ALLEY EXISTING 15' ALLEY Telephone (540) 941-3567 EXIST. PARKING EXIST. PARKING 25' SBL 25' SBL BIKE RACKS EXISTING S/W PROPOSED ADDITION EXISTING S/W PHASE 3 (2) 3 BEDROOM UNITS 485 14th Street NW Renovation GORDON AVE. (60' ROW) Charlottesville, VA 22903 EXISTING PORCH GORDON AVE. (60' ROW) EXIST. 2 STORY EXIST. 2 STORY EXISTING PORCH 10' SBL 10' SBL EX. S/W 485 14th Street NW EX. S/W 20' SBL 20' SBL EXIST. 2 STORY BRICK w/BASEMENT 32.9' EXIST. 2 STORY 32.9' BRICK w/BASEMENT PHASE 1 RENOVATION 40.4' 40.4' 25' SBL 25' SBL EXISTING PORCH EXISTING PORCH T.M T.M 9 - P.34 9 - P.34 9,876 SF 9,876 SF EXIST. S/W EXIST. S/W D.I. D.I. 14TH STREET NW (40' ROW) 14TH STREET NW (40' ROW) EXISTING LANDSCAPE PLAN PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PLAN C3 PHASE 3 46'-0" (2) STACKED PWR MTR GUARD RAIL CONC WALK BIKE RACKS 200 West 12th Street, Waynesboro, VA 22980 BATH 8'-6" x 9'-6" LIVING ROOM 14'-2" x 17'-2" BEDROOM 3 KITCHEN 9'-0" X 11'-6" 10'-3" X 11'-8" PHASE 3 W D REF Telephone (540) 941-3567 24'-0" 10' - 4 1/2" FLOOR TO FLOOR TO MATCH EX HOUSE. STAIR = 18R @ 6 15/16" & 17T @ 11" WATER HEATER BELOW STAIR PWR PNL ACCESSIBLE ROUTE 38'-0" W D UP 6'-4" EX. STAIR = 18R @ 6 15/16" BEDROOM 2 & 17T @ 11" 10'-3" X 11'-8" EXISTING LIVING ROOM BEDROOM 1 SIDE PORCH PHASE 2 11'-0" X 15'-1" 13'-8" 7'-2 x 15'-8" 485 14th Street NW Renovation Charlottesville, VA 22903 EX BATH 20'-0" EXISTING (2) STACKED PWR MTR 485 14th Street NW DESK REF EXISTING CLO. BEDROOM PHASE HATCH LEGEND EXISTING DW BEDROOM EXISTING BATH PHASE 3 - PROPOSED PWR PNL EXISTING DESK HALL CLOSET PHASE 1 CLOSET CLOSET DOWN DESK DESK PHASE 2 - EXISTING 10' - 4 1/2" FLOOR TO FLOOR EXISTING 9' - 3 1/2" FLOOR EXISTING UP TO CLG BEDROOM BEDROOM PHASE 1 - EXISTING ENTRY PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR PLAN EXISTING PORCH A1 PHASE 3 46'-0" GUARD RAIL 200 West 12th Street, Waynesboro, VA 22980 D BATH 6'-0" x 8'-6" LIVING ROOM 10'-0" x 18'-10" W BEDROOM 2 11'-2" X 11'-10" PWR PNL PHASE 3 Telephone (540) 941-3567 24'-0" 24'-0" REF KITCHEN BEDROOM 1 7'-0" x 13'-0" 11'-2" X 12'-10" BEDROOM 3 9'-10" X 12'-8" DOWN W D 6'-4" PHASE 3 MINOR ALTERATIONS TO PHASE 2 CONSTRUCT NEW APARTMENTS 1st FLOOR 3 BR w/ 1 BATH 2nd FLOOR 3 BR w/ 1 BATH 12 4 PHASE 2 LIVING ROOM 13'-8" 13'-0 x 17'-8" 485 14th Street NW Renovation 12 4 BATH Charlottesville, VA 22903 5'-6" x 7'-10" 20'-0" 485 14th Street NW DESK REF EXISTING CLO. BEDROOM KITCHEN PHASE HATCH LEGEND EXISTING DW BEDROOM EXISTING BATH PHASE 3 - PROPOSED PWR PNL EXISTING HALL PHASE 1 CLOSET CLOSET CLOSET DOWN DESK PHASE 2 - EXISTING INFILL FLOOR EXISTING EXISTING BEDROOM BEDROOM PHASE 1 - EXISTING UP 8' - 9 3/4" FLOOR TO CLG EXISTING HALL PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR PLAN A2 PHASE 3 ELEVATION - GORDON AVENUE 485 14th Street NW Renovation 485 14th Street NW A3 Charlottesville, VA 22903 PHASE 3 200 West 12th Street, Waynesboro, VA 22980 Telephone (540) 941-3567 ELEVATION - REAR 485 14th Street NW Renovation 485 14th Street NW A4 Charlottesville, VA 22903 PHASE 3 200 West 12th Street, Waynesboro, VA 22980 Telephone (540) 941-3567 ELEVATION - SIDE 485 14th Street NW Renovation 485 14th Street NW A5 Charlottesville, VA 22903 PHASE 3 200 West 12th Street, Waynesboro, VA 22980 Telephone (540) 941-3567 RENDERING - VIEW A VIEW FROM CORNER OF 14TH ST. AND GORDON 485 14th Street NW Renovation 485 14th Street NW A6 Charlottesville, VA 22903 PHASE 3 200 West 12th Street, Waynesboro, VA 22980 Telephone (540) 941-3567 VIEW FROM GORDON AVE. RENDERING - VIEW B 485 14th Street NW Renovation 485 14th Street NW A7 Charlottesville, VA 22903 PHASE 3 200 West 12th Street, Waynesboro, VA 22980 Telephone (540) 941-3567 RENDERING - VIEW C 485 14th Street NW Renovation 485 14th Street NW Charlottesville, VA 22903 A8 PHASE 3 200 West 12th Street, Waynesboro, VA 22980 Telephone (540) 941-3567 RENDERING - VIEW D 485 14th Street NW Renovation 485 14th Street NW A9 Charlottesville, VA 22903 PHASE 3 200 West 12th Street, Waynesboro, VA 22980 Telephone (540) 941-3567 RENDERING - VIEW E 485 14th Street NW Renovation 485 14th Street NW Charlottesville, VA 22903 PHASE 3 200 West 12th Street, Waynesboro, VA 22980 A10 Telephone (540) 941-3567 200 West 12th Street, Waynesboro, VA 22980 Telephone (540) 941-3567 BRICK SIDING GENERAL SHALE - HARDIPLANK - COBBLESTONE 485 14th Street NW Renovation OLD ENGLISH TUDOR Charlottesville, VA 22903 485 14th Street NW ROOFING TRIM PELLA ARCHITECT SERIES TIMBERLINE - SLATE BENJAMIN MOORE COLOR - HC-108 COLOR TO MATCH EXISTING (HISTORIC - SANDY HOOK GRAY) 1 MATERIAL LIST 2 WINDOW CUT SHEET A11 PHASE 3 scale: N.T.S. scale: N.T.S. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-10-04 310 East Main Street, TMP 280041000 Downtown ADC District Owner: Armory 310 East Main, LLC Applicant: Robert Nichols/Formworks Project: Facade renovation Application components (please click each link to go directly to PDF page): • Staff Report • Historic Survey • Application Submittal October 19, 2021 BAR Packet Guide 7 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW STAFF REPORT October 19, 2021 Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-10-04 310 East Main Street, TMP 28004100 Downtown ADC District Owner: Armory 310 East Main, LLC Applicant: Robert Nichols/Formworks Project: Facade renovations/alterations Background Year Built: 1916. In 1956 the north façade was reconstructed. The existing north façade was constructed in 1982. (The south façade may have been at this same time, staff will confirm.) District: Downtown ADC District Status: Contributing (Note: When the district was established, all existing structures were designated contributing.) Prior BAR Review None Application • Submittal: Formwork Design drawings 310 East Main Street, dated September 28, 2021: Cover; Sheet 2, Context - East Main Street; Sheet 3, Context - Water Street; Sheet 4, East Main Street Views; Sheet 5, Water Street Views; Sheet 6, Mall Level Plan. CoA request for alterations to the Main Street (north) and Water Street (south) facades. The proposed work will alter the 20th century facades. Discussion and Recommendations The original, 1916 facades no longer exist. The proposed alterations will replace the contemporary facades constructed in the 1980s. The November 1980 National Register nomination of the Charlottesville and Albemarle County Courthouse Historic District does not include this address, nor do any of the building descriptions for this block match the current design. Unless the building 310 East Main Street (October 13, 2021) 1 [the facades] are of exceptional importance, it does not meet the 50-year threshold necessary for consideration for the National Register. https://www.dhr.virginia.gov/historic-register/ A Property that can be Nominated for Listing in the Registers should: • Have achieved historical significance at least 50 years prior to today and/or is of exceptional importance; and • Is associated with at least one of the following: o An important event or historic trend; o A significant person whose specific contributions to history can be identified and documented; o An important architectural or engineering design; or it represents the work of a master; or it is a distinguishable entity although its components may lack individual distinction; o Has the potential to answer important research questions about human history (most commonly these properties are archaeological sites); and • Retain physical integrity through retention of historic materials, appearance, design, and other physical features. There are two questions for the BAR to discuss: 1. Do the existing facades—together or singularly; as part of the mall or as a single structure; and due to age, design, architect. and/or other factors—contribute to historic character of the Downtown ADC and should they be protected? (Emphasizing that an ADC District is a City designation, and not dependent on state or national designation.) 2. If the facades are to be altered--together or singularly—are the proposed changes consistent with the ADC District Design Guidelines? Additionally, due to the unique nature of the existing facades, the BAR might consider applying components of the design standards for both New Construction and for Rehabilitation. The applicant has not specified the glass to be used. The BAR may request that information or address it as a condition of approval. In the Appendix is a summary of BAR’s July 17, 2018 discussion re: Clear Glass. Suggested Motions Approval: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City Design Guidelines for New Construction and Additions and for Rehabilitation, I move to find that the proposed façade alterations at 310 East Main Street satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are compatible with this property and other properties in the Downtown ADC district, and that the BAR approves the application [as submitted]. or [as submitted with the following conditions/modifications: …]. Denial: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City Design Guidelines for New Construction and Additions and for Rehabilitation, I move to find that the proposed façade alterations at 310 East Main Street do not satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are not compatible with this property and other properties in the Downtown ADC district, and for the following reasons the BAR denies the application … 310 East Main Street (October 13, 2021) 2 Criteria, Standards and Guidelines Review Criteria Generally Sec. 34-284(b) of the City Code states that, in considering a particular application the BAR shall approve the application unless it finds: (1) That the proposal does not meet specific standards set forth within this division or applicable provisions of the Design Guidelines established by the board pursuant to Sec.34-288(6); and (2) The proposal is incompatible with the historic, cultural or architectural character of the district in which the property is located or the protected property that is the subject of the application. Pertinent Standards for Review of Construction and Alterations include: (1) Whether the material, texture, color, height, scale, mass and placement of the proposed addition, modification or construction are visually and architecturally compatible with the site and the applicable design control district; (2) The harmony of the proposed change in terms of overall proportion and the size and placement of entrances, windows, awnings, exterior stairs and signs; (3) The Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation set forth within the Code of Federal Regulations (36 C.F.R. §67.7(b)), as may be relevant; (4) The effect of the proposed change on the historic district neighborhood; (5) The impact of the proposed change on other protected features on the property, such as gardens, landscaping, fences, walls and walks; (6) Whether the proposed method of construction, renovation or restoration could have an adverse impact on the structure or site, or adjacent buildings or structures; (7) Any applicable provisions of the City’s Design Guidelines. Pertinent Guidelines for New Construction and Additions include: 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. b. In the West Main Street corridor in particular, new buildings should reinforce this traditional proportion. 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. b. Glass storefronts would generally have more horizontal proportions than upper floor openings. 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. 310 East Main Street (October 13, 2021) 3 6) If small-paned windows are used, they should have true divided lights or simulated divided lights with permanently affixed interior and exterior muntin bars and integral spacer bars between the panes of glass. 7) Avoid designing false windows in new construction. 8) Appropriate material for new windows depends upon the context of the building within a historic district, and the design of the proposed building. Sustainable materials such as wood, aluminum-clad wood, solid fiberglass, and metal windows are preferred for new construction. Vinyl windows are discouraged. 9) Glass shall be clear. Opaque spandrel glass or translucent glass may be approved by the BAR for specific applications. 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. 2) When designing new storefronts or elements for storefronts, conform to the general configuration of traditional storefronts depending on the context of the sub-area. New structures do offer the opportunity for more contemporary storefront designs. 3) Keep the ground level facades(s) of new retail commercial buildings at least eighty percent transparent up to a level of ten feet. 4) Include doors in all storefronts to reinforce street level vitality. 5) Articulate the bays of institutional or office buildings to provide visual interest. 6) Institutional buildings, such as city halls, libraries, and post offices, generally do not have storefronts, but their street levels should provide visual interest and display space or first floor windows should be integrated into the design. 7) Office buildings should provide windows or other visual interest at street level. 8) Neighborhood transitional buildings in general should not have transparent first floors, and the design and size of their façade openings should relate more to neighboring residential structures. 9) Along West Main Street, secondary (rear) facades should also include features to relate appropriately to any adjacent residential areas. 10) Any parking structures facing on important streets or on pedestrian routes must have storefronts, display windows, or other forms of visual relief on the first floors of these elevations. 11) A parking garage vehicular entrance/exit opening should be diminished in scale, and located off to the side to the degree possible. Pertinent Guidelines for Rehabilitation include: B. Facades and Storefronts Over time, commercial buildings are altered or remodeled to reflect current fashions or to eliminate maintenance problems. Often these improvements are misguided and result in a disjointed and unappealing appearance. Other improvements that use good materials and sensitive design may be as attractive as the original building and these changes should be saved. The following guidelines will help to determine what is worth saving and what should be rebuilt. 1) Conduct pictorial research to determine the design of the original building or early changes. 2) Conduct exploratory demolition to determine what original fabric remains and its condition. 3) Remove any inappropriate materials, signs, or canopies covering the façade. 4) Retain all elements, materials, and features that are original to the building or are contextual remodelings, and repair as necessary. 5) Restore as many original elements as possible, particularly the materials, windows, decorative details, and cornice. 310 East Main Street (October 13, 2021) 4 6) When designing new building elements, base the design on the “Typical elements of a commercial façade and storefront” (see drawing next page). 7) Reconstruct missing or original elements, such as cornices, windows, and storefronts, if documentation is available. 8) Design new elements that respect the character, materials, and design of the building, yet are distinguished from the original building. 9) Depending on the existing building’s age, originality of the design and architectural significance, in some cases there may be an opportunity to create a more contemporary façade design when undertaking a renovation project. 10) Avoid using materials that are incompatible with the building or within the specific districts, including textured wood siding, vinyl or aluminum siding, and pressure-treated wood, 11) Avoid introducing inappropriate architectural elements where they never previously existed. Appendix: Summary of BAR Discussion July 17, 2018 re: Clear Glass: 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. 310 East Main Street, c1970 310 East Main Street (October 13, 2021) 5 Curiously, the wrong street. ?? '" """.;, .. Ii; ;/fle;,lij/cai(oll "•. .S.tREET. ADDRESS: 310 E. Main Street HISTORIC NA~E: Tilman Building (J.D. &J.S. Tilman's) :. \ IMAP~a PARcEL: 28- 41 DATE /PERIOO: 1916 and 1956 ;,'CENSUS''fRACT AND B1.0CK: 1-124 STYLE: Victorian :: ' PRESENT .iONING: B- 4 HEIGHT (to cornice)OR STORIES: 2 1/2, 3 storeys , ',bRtGINAL OWNER: J. Lean Tilman, Sr. DIMENSIONS AND LAND AREA: 27' x 232' (6,140 sq. ft.) ~. ,QRIQI.NAL ,USE: DIy GoodsStore CONDITION : Good ;; ,..PRE·SENT USE: Lepartmen~Store SURVEYOR : Bibb ~ ..f!RESENT OWNER: J. Dean Ti.Iman, Jr., G. M:Neir Tilman, DATE OF SURVEY: Spring 1979 . ADORESS: 310 E. Main Street William T. TilmarsOURCES: City Records William T. Tilman .. , . Cflarlottesville, VA Holsinger's Charlottesville ~•• ~~~~ •••• ~ •• ~ •••• ~ ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• s.a.nb.o.rn •pw •• ~.~• ••.• -•• 1.8.96~, ••19.0.7.,.1.9.2.0 ••••••••• ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION " This 2-storey, 3-bay building with pointed-arched windowsevokes the Gothic Revival style of a half century before. Construction is of pressed brick laid in stretcher bond on the facade. A 1956 remodelling gave the building an - rncongrtous Coloni.a.I Revival storefront: Corner pilasters support an entablature and pediment above a recessed en- - trance loggia. The original storefront had a narrower loggia and simple entablature: Windowsat the second level - are double-sash, 8-over-8 light, with 4-light rectangular transoms .. The center muntins are wider to give .the appear- ance' of narrow paired windows. Their pointed arches continue as windowsurrounds. The area above each window, under L the arch, is faced with concrete and has a raised brick circle in its center. There is a low attic storey at the ~ front of the building with tiny Gothic double-sash windowswith pointed arches. These windowsrest directly on a :.. narrow concrete stringcourse. The parapet is topped by a simple concrete cornice. Behind it, a tar-&-gravel shed roof slopes to the rear. The flat-roofed, windowless, 3-storey rear addition is built of brick laid in 5-course American bond. It has a storefront entrance at the basement level framed by a band of stretchers. HISTORICAL DESCRIPTION J. D. &J. S. Tilman's was founded in 1905 and for several years occupied one of the ~ain Street store rooms in the * magnificent old bank building on the northwest corner of Main and Fourth Streets. J. Dean Tilman, Sr .', purchased t.. lot in 1915 (City DB27-455) and completed the present building the next year (DB28-82). A 2-storey brick house had once stood on the site, but it was destroyed in the 1909 fire. The building was completely remodel~d and given " a new storefront, and a large 3-storey rear wing with a basement entrance on Water Street was added in 1956. The , Tilman family still owns the building and conducts their business there. Additional References: City DB28-17, 375-149; WE9-66. " HlSTORIC LANOMA-R.f(S COMMI,S$I·OH DEPA'RTME,NT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT LANDMARK SURVEY Bibb/Spring 1979 IDENTIFICATION BASE DATA Street Address: 310 E. Main Street Historic Name: Tilman Building (J.D. & J.S. Tilman's) Map and Parcel: Date/Peribd: 1916 and 1956 28-41- { Census Track & Block: /- !7..-- c Style: Victorian Present Owner: Height to Cornice: man, William t. Tilman J. Dean Tilman Jr. G. McNeir Til- -. Address: Height in Stories: 2t, 3 310 E. Main Street Present Use: Department Store Present Zon ing: B-4 Original Owner: J. Dean Tilman, Sr. Land Area (sq.ft.):27' x 232' (6140 sq. ft.) Original Use: Assessed Value (land + imp.): Dry Goods Store ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION This 2-storey, 3-bay building with pointed-arched windows evokes the Gothic Revival style of a half century before. Construction is of pressed brick laid in stretcher bond on ..the facade. A 1956 remodelling gave the building an incongruous Colonial Revival storefront: Corner pilasters support an entablature and pediment above a recessed en- trance loggia. The orginial storefront had a narrower loggia and 'simple entablature. Windows at the second level are double-sash, 8-over-8 light, with 4-light rectangular transoms. The center muntins are wider to give the appearance of narrow paired windows. Their pointed arches continue as window surrounds. The area above each window, under the arch, is faced with concrete and has a raised brick circle in its center. There is a low attic storey at the front of the building with tiny Gothic double-sash windows with pointed arches. These windows rest directly on a narrow concrete stringcourse. The parapet is topped by a simple concrete cornice. Behind it, a tar-&-gravel shed roof slopes to the rear. The flat-roofed, windowless, 3-storey rear addition is built of brick laid in 5-course American bond. It has a storefront entrance at the basement level framed by a band of stretchers. HISTORICAL DESCRIPTION J. D. & J. S. Tilman's was founded in 1905 and for several years occupied one of the Main Street store rooms in the magnificent old bank building at the ~rthwest corner of Main and Fourth Streets. J. Dean Tilman, Sr., purchased this lot in 1915 (City DB 27-455) and completed the present building the next year (DB 28-82). A 2-storey brick house had once stood on the site, but it was destroyed in the 1909 fire. The building was completely remodeled and given a new storefront, and a large 3-storey rear wing with a basement entrance on Water Street was added in J956. The Tilman f.m.~: ,.~tillowns the building and conducts their business there. Additional Deed References: City DB 28-17,37· "WB 9-66 . .•.. ~.:; .:' GRAPHICS CONDITIONS City Records William T. Tilman SOURCES Good Holsinger's Charl~ttesvi lIe Sanborn Map Co. - 1896, 1907, 1920 ~.~--------------------------------------~------------------------~~ LANDMARK CO,MMISSION-DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, AUGUST. 1974 10- logo go pA Soli Board of Architectural Review (BAR) Certificate of Appropriateness Please Return To: City of Charlottesville Department of Neighborhood Development Services P.O. Box 911, City Hall Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Telephone (434) 970-3130 Please submit ten (10) hard copies and one (1) digital copy of application form and all attachments. Please include application fee as follows: New construction project $375; Demolition of a contributing structure $375; Appeal of BAR decision $125; Additions and other projects requiring BAR approval $125; Administrative approval $100. Make checks payable to the City of Charlottesville. The BAR meets the third Tuesday of the month. Deadline for submittals is Tuesday 3 weeks prior to next BAR meeting by 3:30 p.m. Owner Name___________________________________ Armory 310 E Main, LLC Applicant Name______________________________________ Robert Nichols, Formwork Design Office, LLC Project Name/Description______________________________________ 310 E Main Facade Renovation Parcel Number__________________________ 280041000 Project Property Address____________________________________________________________________________ 310 E Main St, Charlottesville, VA Signature of Applicant Applicant Information I hereby attest that the information I have provided is, to the 619 E High St, Suite A Address:______________________________________ best of my knowledge, correct. _____________________________________________ Email:________________________________________ robert@formworkusa.com Sept 26, 2021 __________________________________________ Phone: (W) 434-296-2223 _________________ (C) _______________ 434-760-3337 Signature Date Robert F Nichols Sept 26, 2021 __________________________________________ Property Owner Information (if not applicant) Print Name Date Address:______________________________________ 26360 Valley View Ave Property Owner Permission (if not applicant) _____________________________________________ Carmel, CA 93923 I have read this application and hereby give my consent to Email:________________________________________ its submission. martin@armoryasset.com Phone: (W) _________________ (434) 806-1918 (C) _______________ _ __________________________________________ Sept 26, 2021 Signature Date Do you intend to apply for Federal or State Tax Credits _________________________________________ Martin Klingel, Manager, 310 East Main, LLC Sept 26, 2021 for this project? _______________________ no Print Name Date See attached application package Description of Proposed Work (attach separate narrative if necessary):__________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________ List All Attachments (see reverse side for submittal requirements): ______________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________ For Office Use Only Approved/Disapproved by: ______________________ Received by: ___________________________ Date: _______________________________________ Fee paid: ___________Cash/Ck. # _________ Conditions of approval: _________________________ Date Received: _________________________ ____________________________________________ Revised 2016 HISTORIC DISTRICT ORDINANCE: You can review the Historical Preservation and Architectural Design Control Overlay Districts regulations in the City of Charlottesville Zoning Ordinance starting with Section 34-271 online at www.charlottesville.org or at Municode.com for the City of Charlottesville. DESIGN REVIEW GUIDELINES: Please refer to the current ADC Districts Design Guidelines online at www.charlottesville.org. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: The following information and exhibits shall be submitted along with each application for Certificate of Appropriateness, per Sec. 34-282 (d) in the City of Charlottesville Zoning Ordinance: (1) Detailed and clear depictions of any proposed changes in the exterior features of the subject property; (2) Photographs of the subject property and photographs of the buildings on contiguous properties; (3) One set of samples to show the nature, texture and color of materials proposed; (4) The history of an existing building or structure, if requested; (5) For new construction and projects proposing expansion of the footprint of an existing building: a three- dimensional model (in physical or digital form); (6) In the case of a demolition request where structural integrity is at issue, the applicant shall provide a structural evaluation and cost estimates for rehabilitation, prepared by a professional engineer, unless waived by the BAR. APPEALS: Following a denial the applicant, the director of neighborhood development services, or any aggrieved person may appeal the decision to the city council, by filing a written notice of appeal within ten (10) working days of the date of the decision. Per Sec. 34-286. - City council appeals, an applicant shall set forth, in writing, the grounds for an appeal, including the procedure(s) or standard(s) alleged to have been violated or misapplied by the BAR, and/or any additional information, factors or opinions he or she deems relevant to the application. 310 EAST MAIN STREET WATER STREET FACADE PEDESTRIAN MALL FACADE CHARLOTTESVILLE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS SUBMITTED SEPTEMBER 28, 2021 © 2021 FORMWORK DESIGN OFFICE, LLC …the Milgraum Center was immediately labeled as a "Futuristic" building because of its angled entrance to the mall and its entirely glass facade. The building was meant to be a focal point on Main Street. Many thought its construction set a dangerous precedent on the Mall. In 1985, the Board of Architectural Review was set up in Charlottesville to address growing concerns about architectural changes downtown. However controversial, this building is a statement of 20th- century architectural style on Main Street. EAST MAIN FACADE, C. 1974 EAST MAIN FACADE, C. 1916 Excerpt from "More than a Mall: A Guide to Historic Charlottesville. Albemarle Charlottesville Historical Society, 2010 320 E. MAIN 316 E. MAIN SUBJECT BUILDING 308 E. MAIN 300 E. MAIN HARDWARE STORE 310 E. MAIN ST, A.K.A. MILGRAUM CENTER BANK ANNEX PEOPLE'S BANK PRESENT DAY 310 EAST MAIN CONTEXT - EAST MAIN STREET 2 FORMWORK DESIGN OFFICE, llc © 2021 CHARLOTTESVILLE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW SUBMISSION 9/28/21 SUBJECT BUILDING 316 E. MAIN 310 E. MAIN ST HARDWARE STORE WATER ST FACADE WATER ST FACADE SUBJECT BUILDING 320 E. MAIN 310 E. MAIN ST WATER ST FACADE WATER ST FACADE 316 E. MAIN HARDWARE STORE WATER ST FACADE 310 EAST MAIN CONTEXT - WATER STREET 3 FORMWORK DESIGN OFFICE, llc © 2021 CHARLOTTESVILLE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW SUBMISSION 9/28/21 01 ALUMINUM STOREFRONT SYSTEM 02 BRAKE-METAL CLAD MULLIONS, SPANDRELS, ETC. 03 ALUMINUM ENTRY SYSTEM 04 1.5" DEEP REVERSE-CHANNEL LETTERS WITH INTEGRAL LIGHTING - COLOR TEMP: 3000K; LETTER HT: 18" 05 GRADUATED CERAMIC FRIT ON GLASS PANELS AT SPANDREL CONDITIONS 05 06 FIXED GLAZED PANELS 02 01 03 04 03 06 310 EAST MAIN WATER STREET VIEWS 4 FORMWORK DESIGN OFFICE, llc © 2021 CHARLOTTESVILLE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW SUBMISSION 9/28/21 05 01 ALUMINUM STOREFRONT SYSTEM 02 BRAKE-METAL CLAD MULLIONS, SPANDRELS, ETC. 02 03 ALUMINUM ENTRY SYSTEM 04 1" DEEP DIMENSIONAL LETTERS; LETTER HT: 18" 05 BREAK-METAL FRAME & PANELS W/ CNC OVERLAY 06 'SHADOW' SCREEN IN CONTRASTING MATERIAL 06 FIXED GLAZED PANELS 04 01 02 03 310 EAST MAIN EAST MAIN STREET VIEWS 5 FORMWORK DESIGN OFFICE, llc © 2021 CHARLOTTESVILLE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW SUBMISSION 9/28/21 01 EXISTING BRICK FLOORING TO REMAIN 02 DASH INDICATETS EXST BRICK REMAINS ON WALL OR NEW BRICK TO MATCH 03 INFILL WITH BLUESTONE 04 NEW STOREFRONT ENTRY 04 RETAIL SPACE 04 01 02 ELEVATOR 03 PEDESTRIAN MALL 310 EAST MAIN MALL LEVEL PLAN 6 FORMWORK DESIGN OFFICE, llc © 2021 CHARLOTTESVILLE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW SUBMISSION 9/28/21 310 EAST MAIN STREET WATER STREET FACADE PEDESTRIAN MALL FACADE CHARLOTTESVILLE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS SUBMITTED SEPTEMBER 28, 2021 © 2021 FORMWORK DESIGN OFFICE, LLC …the Milgraum Center was immediately labeled as a "Futuristic" building because of its angled entrance to the mall and its entirely glass facade. The building was meant to be a focal point on Main Street. Many thought its construction set a dangerous precedent on the Mall. In 1985, the Board of Architectural Review was set up in Charlottesville to address growing concerns about architectural changes downtown. However controversial, this building is a statement of 20th- century architectural style on Main Street. EAST MAIN FACADE, C. 1974 EAST MAIN FACADE, C. 1916 Excerpt from "More than a Mall: A Guide to Historic Charlottesville. Albemarle Charlottesville Historical Society, 2010 320 E. MAIN 316 E. MAIN SUBJECT BUILDING 308 E. MAIN 300 E. MAIN HARDWARE STORE 310 E. MAIN ST, A.K.A. MILGRAUM CENTER BANK ANNEX PEOPLE'S BANK PRESENT DAY 310 EAST MAIN CONTEXT - EAST MAIN STREET 2 FORMWORK DESIGN OFFICE, llc © 2021 CHARLOTTESVILLE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW SUBMISSION 9/28/21 SUBJECT BUILDING 316 E. MAIN 310 E. MAIN ST HARDWARE STORE WATER ST FACADE WATER ST FACADE SUBJECT BUILDING 320 E. MAIN 310 E. MAIN ST WATER ST FACADE WATER ST FACADE 316 E. MAIN HARDWARE STORE WATER ST FACADE 310 EAST MAIN CONTEXT - WATER STREET 3 FORMWORK DESIGN OFFICE, llc © 2021 CHARLOTTESVILLE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW SUBMISSION 9/28/21 05 01 ALUMINUM STOREFRONT SYSTEM 02 BRAKE-METAL CLAD MULLIONS, SPANDRELS, ETC. 02 03 ALUMINUM ENTRY SYSTEM 04 1" DEEP DIMENSIONAL LETTERS; LETTER HT: 18" 05 BREAK-METAL FRAME & PANELS W/ CNC OVERLAY 06 'SHADOW' SCREEN IN CONTRASTING MATERIAL 07 06 FIXED GLAZED PANELS 07 MODULAR BRICK - GREY MERIDIAN ® BRICK 04 01 02 GREY FLASHED WIRECUT 03 1.866.259.6263 meridianbrick.com Columbia, SC Architectural Series 310 EAST MAIN EAST MAIN STREET VIEWS 4 FORMWORK DESIGN OFFICE, llc © 2021 CHARLOTTESVILLE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW SUBMISSION 9/28/21 01 ALUMINUM STOREFRONT SYSTEM 02 BRAKE-METAL CLAD MULLIONS, SPANDRELS, ETC. 03 ALUMINUM ENTRY SYSTEM 04 1.5" DEEP REVERSE-CHANNEL LETTERS WITH INTEGRAL LIGHTING - COLOR TEMP: 3000K; LETTER HT: 18" 05 GRADUATED CERAMIC FRIT ON GLASS PANELS AT SPANDREL CONDITIONS 05 06 FIXED GLAZED PANELS 02 01 03 04 03 06 310 EAST MAIN WATER STREET VIEWS 5 FORMWORK DESIGN OFFICE, llc © 2021 CHARLOTTESVILLE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW SUBMISSION 9/28/21 01 EXISTING BRICK FLOORING TO REMAIN 02 DASH INDICATETS EXST BRICK REMAINS ON WALL OR NEW BRICK TO MATCH 03 INFILL WITH BLUESTONE 04 NEW STOREFRONT ENTRY 04 RETAIL SPACE 04 01 02 ELEVATOR 03 PEDESTRIAN MALL 310 EAST MAIN MALL LEVEL PLAN 6 FORMWORK DESIGN OFFICE, llc © 2021 CHARLOTTESVILLE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW SUBMISSION 9/28/21 Certificate of Appropriateness Application (HC District) 1615 East Market Street, Tax Map Parcel 110005000 Woolen Mills HC District Owner/Applicant: Jennifer and Lemuel Oppenheimer Project: Construct residence Note: Oct 6, 2021, owner requested prelim discussion in lieu of CoA review. Application components (please click each link to go directly to PDF page): • Staff Report • Application Submittal October 19, 2021 BAR Packet Guide 8 City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Staff Report October 19, 2021 Prelim Discussion 1615 East Market Street, Tax Map Parcel 110005000 Woolen Mills HC District Owner/ Applicant: Jennifer and Lemuel Oppenheimer Project: Construction of residence Background Year Built: n/a District: Woolen Mills HC District Status: n/a Prior BAR Review N/A Application o Submittal: Elizabeth Sloan. Architect, drawings Addition to the Lazaro Residence, dated August 4, 2021: Sheet 100 – Basement Floor Schematic; Sheet 101 - Basement Floor Schematic; Sheet 102 - Second Floor Schematic; Sheet 200 - Elevations; Sheet 201 - Elevations; Sheet 300 – Section; Sheet 301- Section; Sheet 303 - Sections. o Plat: Subdivision of Lots 12A and 12B o Photos of nearby proeprties Preliminary discussion of a proposed new house of 4,310 gross square feet to be built on Lot 12B of the subdivided Lot 12. Discussion and Recommendations This is a preliminary discussion, no BAR action is required; however, by consensus, the BAR may express an opinion about the project or elements of the project. Such comments will not constitute a formal motion and will have no legal bearing, nor will it represent an incremental decision on the required CoA. There are two key objectives of a preliminary discussion: Introduce the project to the BAR; and allow the applicant and the BAR to establish what is necessary for a successful final submittal, including: o Roof: 1615 East Market Street - New Residence - Prelim (October 15, 2021) 1 o Gutter and downspout: o Cornice and Trim: o Exterior walls: o Doors and Windows: o Light Fixtures: 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. Existing house (to remain) New house Staff comments also inserted below, under HC District Design Guidelines for New Construction and Additions. Suggested Motions For a preliminary discussion, the BAR cannot take action on a formal motion. Criteria, Standards, and Guidelines Review Criteria Generally Sec. 34-341 - 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. 1615 East Market Street - New Residence - Prelim (October 15, 2021) 2 Sec. 34-342 - 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. HC District Design Guidelines for New Construction and Additions Building Location – setback and spacing 1. Align a new building close to the average building setback line on the same street, if established, or consistent with the surrounding area. 2. Maintain average spacing between buildings on the same street. Comment: The front setback (property line) is generally consistent with nearby properties. The spacing between the new house and 1605 East Market is generally consistent; relative to 1617 East Market, the spacing is roughly half the average. Throughout the HC District, building spacing varies widely, so there is no typical dimension for the district. 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. 1615 East Market Street - New Residence - Prelim (October 15, 2021) 3 2. Keep the height and width of new buildings within the prevailing average height and width. Exceptions up to 200% of the prevailing height and width may be approved by the BAR when contextually appropriate. 3. An addition needs to be perceived as an addition and therefore should not visually overpower the existing building in scale and design. 4. An accessory building should appear secondary to the main building in scale and design. 5. Larger buildings (commercial or multi-family) otherwise permitted by zoning should be designed and articulated to be compatible with the scale of the majority of adjacent buildings on the same street or block. Comment: Throughout the HC District, building footprints vary widely. At approximately 1,500, the footprint of the proposed house is generally consistent with those nearby. The height and width (facing East Market) are consistent with nearby houses. 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. Comment: Consistent with the district and nearby structures 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. Comment: Consistent with the district and nearby structures 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. Comment: Materials not specified. Elevations indicate siding and metal roofing, consistent with the district. Building Paint 1. Painting unpainted brick or other masonry is discouraged because it is irreversible and may cause moisture problems. Comment: n/a 1615 East Market Street - New Residence - Prelim (October 15, 2021) 4 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. Comment: n/a Woolen Mills Village Historic Conservation District Architectural character-defining features: 1. Encourage one-story front porches; 2. Encourage garages to be located in the rear yards 3. The levels of a building’s stories should be consistent with those on surrounding structures with respect to the natural grade [for example, a first floor should not be raised so that it is higher than most surrounding first floors] 4. Do not exclude well-designed, new contemporary architecture [there may be a misconception that only historic-looking new buildings are permitted] 5. Encourage standing seam metal roofs 6. Maintain and encourage tree canopy [Maintain the existing tree canopy and encourage new large shade trees] 7. Maintain neighborhood massing and form; encourage the use of sustainable materials 8. Encourage existing site features (wrought iron fencing, stone walls, shared streets) 9. Encourage good stewardship of Riverview Cemetery. Appendix Sec. 34-340. - Actions requiring certificate of appropriateness; exemptions; penalties. a) A certificate of appropriateness (COA) must be approved in accordance with this division, prior to the commencement of construction, erection, alteration, or demolition of certain buildings, structures or improvements, as follows: 1. All new buildings and structures require a COA if they require a building permit, and unless they are concealed by the principal structure from all abutting streets. 2. All new fences and walls that abut a street, or which are located in a side yard between a street and the front of the principal structure on a lot, require a COA. b) The following proposed additions to existing buildings or structures require a COA: 1. Additions located wholly or partially to the side or front of the principal structure on a lot; or 2. Additions located on a lot that abuts a street on the side or rear; or 3. Additions that are equal to or greater than fifty (50) percent of the total gross floor area of the existing building; or 4. Additions located to the rear that exceed the height or width of the existing building or structure. 1615 East Market Street - New Residence - Prelim (October 15, 2021) 5 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 HaH Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Telephone (434) 970-3130 five (5) Please submit t� 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 required for: I Additions and other projects requiring BAR approval and not listed above; Administrative approvals; Appeals of BAR d�isions if the original application was not subject to an application fee. The BAR meets the third Tuesday of the month. Deadline for submitta,s is Tuesday 3 weeks prior to next BAR meeting by 3:30 p.m. Project Name/Description tlJivv Oppc.'1\hC.lUt-V' \"tu'l�--C... Paree.I Number __________ Project Address/Locqtion Lt>t n..i, I \pl S"" [c--S r Utu,�- '::.\_ Owner Name �elt\b1UltY CUAUil �e M Vl t- i Applicant Name---"..... S . )LU AA.i........_; __________ ......... 0O cv1v1c,. vv Applicant Information Signature of Applicant I hereby attest that the information I have provided is. to the best of my knowledge, correct. s� cili�j1�1 Property Owner Information (if not applicant) Address: t;tu-y\Q__ Email:_____________________ Phone: (W} ___.....-___ (H) _______ Sig Date Lev,,,u;t e l 0Q(kH h e 11viv q(i�ZA L, Print Name (5..o'--oVv 1/\,,l,V) Date Description of Proposed Work (attach separate narrative if necessary): _______________ List All Attachments (see reverse side for submittal requirements)� For Office Use Only Approved/Disapproved by: _________ Received by: ____________ Date: _________________ Fee paid: ____ _____Cash/Ck. # ____ Conditions of approval: ___________ Date Received:_....__________ Revised April 2017 CONSERVATION DISTRICT ORDINANCE: You can review the Historic Conservation Overlay Districts regulations in the City of Charlottesville Zoning Ordinance starting with Section 34-335 online at ,roco11 cl2.�loUorprillo o� or at Municode.com for the City of Charlottesville. www.charlottesv1lle.gov DESIGN GUIDELINES: Please refer to the current Historic Conservation Districts Design Guidelines online at 1;w,2A1.ei,f111letteouille.01 J. www.charlottesville.gov. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: Per Sec 34-345, the applicant shall submit sufficient information to make a determination whether further review and a certificate of appropriateness is required. If the director determines that review and approval by the BAR is required, then the applicant shall submit a complete application that includes the following information: (1) A written description of proposed exterior changes; (2) A general sketch plan of the property including: the location of existing structures; property and setback lines; and any proposed new construction, additions or deletions, parking areas, and fences; (3) The total gross floor area of the existing building and of any proposed additions; (4) Elevation drawings depicting existing conditions and proposed exterior changes; (5) Photographs of the subject property in context of the buildings on contiguous properties; (6) In the case of a demolition request where structural integrity is at issue, the applicant shall provide a structural evaluation and cost estimates for rehabilitation, prepared by a professional engineer. The director may waive the requirement for a structural evaluation and cost estimates in the case of an emergency, or if the building is the primary residence of the applicant. Description of Proposed Work A new house of 4,310 gross square feet to be built on Lot 12B of the subdivided Lot 12: Thos. L. Farish Dec’d Lots known as 1615 East Market Street. As this home is within the Woolen Mills Historic Conservation District, it will comply with the guidelines set forth for new construction, including: Building Location – setback and spacing  Align a new building close to the average building setback line on the same street, if established, or consistent with the surrounding area.  Maintain average spacing between buildings on the same street. Building Scale – height and massing  Keep the footprint, and massing of new buildings consistent with the neighborhood characteristics and compatible with the character of buildings on the same street.  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. Building Form – roofs and porches  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  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  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. Site  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. RMC DESIGN Crozet, Virginia WOOLEN MILLS 434.409.7379 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA © Copyright RMC Design, LLC. All rights reserved 2021 SCHEMATIC DESIGN SEPTEMBER 28, 2021 SHEET LIST T1.1 TITLE PAGE SP1.1 SITE PLAN A1.0 BASEMENT PLAN (NOT INCLUDED) A1.1 FIRST FLOOR PLAN A1.2 SECOND FLOOR PLAN A1.3 ROOF PLAN (NOT INCLUDED) A2.1 EXTERIOR ELEVATION A2.2 EXTERIOR ELEVATION WOOLEN MILLS HOUSE CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 28 SEPTEMBER 2021 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS T1.1 RMC DESIGN Crozet, Virginia 434.409.7379 © Copyright RMC Design, LLC. All rights reserved 2021 11'-0" LOWER TERRACE 16'-0" +/- HARDSCAPE DRAINAGE EASEMENT - 10'-0" 11'-0" GRADE SLOPES PORCH LANDING UP DOWN WOOD DECK FAMILY SCREENED PORCH DN 21'-0" 8'-0" KITCHEN WOOD COVERED LANDING DINING & SITTING UP WOOD PORCH 8'-0" UP UP PANTRY DN PARKING MUDRM STAIR HALL PROPERTY LINE SIDE ENTRANCE OFFICE FOYER 11'-0" EAST MARKET STREET SITE PLAN DIAGRAM 2 SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" 30'-0" +/- 25'-0" PARKING WOOLEN MILLS HOUSE CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA PROPERTY LINE 28 SEPTEMBER 2021 N SITE E PLAN EAST MARKET STREET W S SP1.1 SITE PLAN 1 SCALE: 1/8 = 1' 0" RMC DESIGN Crozet, Virginia LOWER TERRACE HARDSCAPE 434.409.7379 © Copyright RMC Design, LLC. All rights reserved 2021 PORCH LANDING LIVING 17'-0" X 18'-0" CAB AND BOOKCASES BUILT-IN TV FINISHED PORCH ABOVE BASEMENT 10' VAULTED CEILING IN LIVING STEREO BAR KITCHEN 14' X 17'-6" FINISHED DINING & BASEMENT SITTING 14'-10" X 15'-6" 9'-8" UP UP 5'-4" PANTRY 4'-0" DN MUDRM STAIR HALL UNFINISHED BASEMENT OFFICE 13'-5" X 11'-8" FOYER WOOLEN MILLS HOUSE CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 28 SEPTEMBER 2021 PORCH ABOVE FLOOR PLANS BASEMENT PLAN 1ST FLOOR PLAN GROSS SQUARE FOOTAGE = 1495 SF 1 2 A1.1 SCALE: 1/4 = 1' 0" SCALE: 1/4 = 1' 0" GROSS SQUARE FOOTAGE = 1495 SF RMC DESIGN Crozet, Virginia 434.409.7379 © Copyright RMC Design, LLC. All rights reserved 2021 5'-0" 5'-2" X 7'-2" 4'-0" 3'-0" MASTER 13'-0" X 15'-4" 7'-4 1/2" 3'-9" 5'-0" 3'-9" 7'-2" 5'-2" X 11'-4" BUILT-IN 3'-0" +/- DESK 5'-0" DRESSER LAUNDRY 3'-0" CLR BEDROOM 1 WOOLEN MILLS HOUSE 11'-0" X 13'-6" CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 28 SEPTEMBER 2021 3'-0" CLR EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 2ND FLOOR PLAN 1 SCALE: 1/4 = 1' 0" GROSS SQUARE FOOTAGE = 1320 SF A1.2 RMC DESIGN Crozet, Virginia 434.409.7379 © Copyright RMC Design, LLC. All rights reserved 2021 FRONT ELEVATION -SOUTH 1 SCALE: 1/4 = 1' 0" WOOLEN MILLS HOUSE CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 28 SEPTEMBER 2021 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS SIDE ELEVATION -EAST 2 A2.1 SCALE: 1/4 = 1' 0" RMC DESIGN Crozet, Virginia 434.409.7379 © Copyright RMC Design, LLC. All rights reserved 2021 BACK ELEVATION -NORTH 1 SCALE: 1/4 = 1' 0" WOOLEN MILLS HOUSE CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 28 SEPTEMBER 2021 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS SIDE ELEVATION -WEST 2 A2.2 SCALE: 1/4 = 1' 0" PLAT SHOWING APPROVED FOR RECORDATION , SUBDIVISION PLAT OF LOTS 12A a A PORTION OF 128 CITY SUB AGENT OR AUTH. OESIGNEE CHAIRMAN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OATE OATE LOT 12 OWNERS' A0PROVAL THE SURVEY OF LANO OESCRIBEO HEREON IS WITH THOS. L. FARISH DEC'D LOTS THE FREE CONSENT ANO IN ACCORDANCE WIT H THE OESUIE OF THE UNDERSIGNED OWNERS, KNOWN AS PROPRIETORS ANO/ OR TRUSTEES 1615 EAST MARKET STREET LEMUEL OPPENHEMIER DATE CHARLOTTESVILLE VIRGINIA JENNIFER OPPENHEMIER DATE roR NOTARY PUBLIC• ------------ LEMUEL S JENNIFER OPPENHEMIER STATE Of' ___ CITY/COUNTY OF------1 SCALE , 1 11 = 25' DATE, JUNE 11,2021 THE rOREGOING IIIISTRUMENT WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE ME THIS- DAY OF---, 20-. '2!!,' 15' 5' 125' 5d 20· 10' o· 25' 100 ° OLD ALBEMARLE SURVEYING, LLC 700 EAST HIGH STREET CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22902 NOTES' I. OWNERS - LEMUEL 8 JENNIFER OPPENHEMIER 2. REFERENCE - O.B 802,P 251,254 PLAT LOT 128 11,971 S.F. I Contiguous Properties to New House on Lot 12B, 1615 East Market Street Buildable Lot 12B Western contiguous house, 1615 East Market Street Eastern contiguous house, 1617 East Market Street Certificate of Appropriateness Application (HC District) 700 Locust Avenue, Tax Map Parcel 510066000 Martha Jefferson HC District Owner/Applicant: Eric M & Galia Mann-Hielscher Project: Construct outbuilding Application components (please click each link to go directly to PDF page): • Staff Report • Historic Survey • Application Submittal October 19, 2021 BAR Packet Guide 9 City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Staff Report October 19, 2021 Prelim Discussion 700 Locust Avenue, Tax Map Parcel 510066000 Martha Jefferson HC District Owner/Applicant: Eric M & Galia Mann-Hielscher Project: Construct outbuilding Background House (Garage is non-contributing): Year Built: 1900 District: Martha Jefferson HC District Status: Contributing Prior BAR Review None Application • Submittal: BSC drawings Accessory Structure Build, dated October 2021: Sheet BSC.1. Preliminary discussion of proposed rear yard accessory structure. Property is on a corner lot, so the new structure is subject to design review. Discussion Staff believes that, following the BAR’s preliminary discussion, this CoA request can be administratively reviewed per the conditions of Sec. 34-346—see the Appendix. This is a preliminary discussion, no BAR action is required; however, by consensus, the BAR may express an opinion about the project or elements of the project. Such comments will not constitute a formal motion and will have no legal bearing, nor will it represent an incremental decision on the required CoA. 700 Locust Ave – Accessory Structure - Prelim (October 15, 2021) 1 There are two key objectives of a preliminary discussion: Introduce the project to the BAR; and allow the applicant and the BAR to establish what is necessary for a successful final submittal Materials • Roof: Standing seam metal. Color: TBD • Gutter and downspout: Not indicated • Cornice and Trim: Match the house • Exterior walls: o 12” wood siding. Color: Light/Medium Brown Wood Tone o Brick water table. Color: Dark grey • Doors and Windows: Lite patterns as indicated. • Light Fixtures: Not indicated Staff comment to the applicant, October 12, 2021: The design reads a bit eclectic, so we’ll see what the BAR thinks. Contemporary is fine, but they might question the mixed elements. The two segments need not be identical, but the elements of each should be consistent within that segment. For example, continue the bricks on the alley side of the long section or eliminate the bricks altogether. (See the two images below.) Staff comments also inserted below, under HC District Design Guidelines for New Construction and Additions. 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 700 Locust Ave – Accessory Structure - Prelim (October 15, 2021) 2 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. Suggested Motion For a preliminary discussion, the BAR cannot take action on a formal motion. Criteria, Standards, and Guidelines Review Criteria Generally Sec. 34-341 - 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 - 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. HC District Design Guidelines for New Construction and Additions Building Location – setback and spacing 1. Align a new building close to the average building setback line on the same street, if established, or consistent with the surrounding area. 2. Maintain average spacing between buildings on the same street. Comment: This is an accessory structure in the same location as a prior garage. 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. 700 Locust Ave – Accessory Structure - Prelim (October 15, 2021) 3 2. Keep the height and width of new buildings within the prevailing average height and width. Exceptions up to 200% of the prevailing height and width may be approved by the BAR when contextually appropriate. 3. An addition needs to be perceived as an addition and therefore should not visually overpower the existing building in scale and design. 4. An accessory building should appear secondary to the main building in scale and design. 5. Larger buildings (commercial or multi-family) otherwise permitted by zoning should be designed and articulated to be compatible with the scale of the majority of adjacent buildings on the same street or block. Comment: (see note above) 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. Comment: The roof form and vertical element are not typical for the HCD; however, this is an accessory structure and the MI HDC guidelines encourage well-designed, new contemporary architecture. 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. Comment: The windows and door om the Street, Alley, and Neighbor elevations follow a pattern and arrangement similar to other accessory structures. Those on the Yard elevation are somewhat unique. 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. Comment: Brick, wood siding and trim, and standing-seam metal roofing are compatible with the MJ HCD. Building Paint 1. Painting unpainted brick or other masonry is discouraged because it is irreversible and may cause moisture problems. 700 Locust Ave – Accessory Structure - Prelim (October 15, 2021) 4 Comment: n/a 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. Comment: n/a Pertinent Guidelines for the Martha Jefferson Historic Conservation District Architectural character-defining features: 1. Encourage one-story front porches; 2. Encourage garages to be located in the rear yards; 3. The levels of a building’s stories should be consistent with those on surrounding structures with respect to the natural grade [for example, a first floor should not be raised so that it is higher than most surrounding first floors]; 4. Do not exclude well-designed, new contemporary architecture [there may be a misconception that only historic-looking new buildings are permitted]; 5. Encourage standing seam metal roofs; 6. Maintain and encourage tree canopy [Maintain the existing tree canopy and encourage new large shade trees]; 7. The following Historic Conservation Overlay District Design Guidelines are especially pertinent: a. maintain neighborhood massing and form; b. encourage the use of sustainable materials; and c. limit the height of fences in front yards to 3 ½ feet in height. 8. Regarding the future development of the hospital properties, the neighborhood’s focus has been: a. Not to tear down the old houses; to encourage low density residential development north of Taylor Walk (with the suggestion that Taylor Street be reinstated); and b. to expect the High Street area to develop as a sensitively designed, high-quality, mixed use development; 9. Encourage good stewardship of Maplewood Cemetery. Appendix Sec. 34-340. - Actions requiring certificate of appropriateness; exemptions; penalties. a) A certificate of appropriateness (COA) must be approved in accordance with this division, prior to the commencement of construction, erection, alteration, or demolition of certain buildings, structures or improvements, as follows: 1. All new buildings and structures require a COA if they require a building permit, and unless they are concealed by the principal structure from all abutting streets. 2. All new fences and walls that abut a street, or which are located in a side yard between a street and the front of the principal structure on a lot, require a COA. b) The following proposed additions to existing buildings or structures require a COA: 1. Additions located wholly or partially to the side or front of the principal structure on a lot; or 2. Additions located on a lot that abuts a street on the side or rear; or 3. Additions that are equal to or greater than fifty (50) percent of the total gross floor area of the existing building; or 700 Locust Ave – Accessory Structure - Prelim (October 15, 2021) 5 4. Additions located to the rear that exceed the height or width of the existing building or structure. Sec. 34-346. - Administrative review. a) The director of neighborhood development services may review, and may approve or deny, or may refer to the full BAR for review and approval, the following types of applications for certificates of appropriateness: 1. Fences; 2. Applications that have previously been reviewed by the BAR, if the BAR has authorized final review by the director; 3. Applications for minor accessory buildings or additions, after consultation with the chair of the BAR. 700 Locust Ave – Accessory Structure - Prelim (October 15, 2021) 6 700 Locust Ave – Accessory Structure - Prelim (October 15, 2021) 7 700 Locust Avenue TM/P: 51/66 DHR: 104-5144-0085 Primary Resource Information: Single Dwelling, Stories 2.00, Style: Late 19th and Early 20th Century American Movement, 1900 August 2007: Still retaining its excellent Late Victorian Vernacular details in the present day, this two-story, three-bay, side-gabled, frame dwelling was constructed in 1900 by Charles H. Ergenbright. Ergenbright was a salesman and sold the house in 1899. It exchanged hands once more before Elijah Dunn, an aged city magistrate, bought the house in 1907 as a house for himself and his unmarried, adult children. The building is L- shaped, with a one-bay gabled wing that projects beyond the facade on the southern side of the main mass. The recessed, two-bayed northern portion of the west-facing facade is covered by a hipped-roof porch on the 1st floor that is approached by a series of wooden steps, and supported by freestanding and engaged turned posts with knobs and a turned balustrade. The posts also have fan-like brackets. The porch abuts the projecting south wing, as do the double leaf entrance of the entrance with the two-light transom overhead. The north bay of the northern portion’s 1st floor and both of the bays of the 2nd story have single two/two-sash windows. The one-bay southern wing features a projecting, semi- hexagonal bay window on the 1st floor, with single, slender windows on each of its sides and a paired set in the central section; all windows are one/one-sash. The bay window unit is topped by an entablature with brackets, while the 2nd story is occupied by a pair of slender one/one-sash windows. A small casement window occupies the center of the gable. The roof has exposed rafter ends and is covered by asphalt shingles. Two brick chimneys are visible. A two-story frame addition with a modern screened-in porch on the 1st floor is flush with the south elevation. Individual Resource Status: Single Dwelling Contributing Total: 1 Individual Resource Status: Garage Non-Contributing Total: 1 CONTACT INFORMATION OWNER: 2718 WEST END AVE, STE 126-339 NASHVILLE, TN 37203 ERIC MANN-HIELSCHER 847-691-4353 700 LOCUST AVE CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 PROJECT DESIGNER: MATT SCHLACHTER matt@thebettersoundcompany.com 847-691-4353 BUILDING CALCULATIONS BLACK WOOD PANELING ALL ROOFS TO BE STANDING SEAM METAL FOOTPRINT AREA: EXISTING X,XXX S.F. ACCESSORY STRUCTURE 800 S.F. NEW TOTAL X,XXX S.F. BUILDING COVERAGE: MAX. ALLOWABLE FOR R10 ZONING 12" WOOD SIDING 30% OF 34,560 S.F. 10,368 S.F. PROPOSED COVERAGE 2,536 S.F. GENERAL NOTES - PRELIMINARY COLORS ARE DARK GREY BRICK, LIGHT/MEDIUM BROWN WOOD TONE, LIGHT STANDING 36" BRICK WATERTABLE SEAM METAL ROOF. FINAL COLOR SELECTIONS TO BE DETERMINED - SITE PLAN PRELIMINARY, ACTUAL DIMENSIONS TO BE CONFIRMED AND NOTATED ON SITE PLAN BY SURVEYOR - WOOD SIDING TO BE TRUE WOOD - HARDIPLANK OR VINYL SIDING NOT IN DESIGN SCHEME - WINDOW MULLIN SCHEME TO MATCH EXISTING HOUSE - OVERHANG AND EAVE DETAIL TO MATCH EXISTING HOUSE Yard Elevation - MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT TO BE 15' 3 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" ALL ROOFS TO BE STANDING SEAM METAL BLACK WOOD PANELING BLACK WOOD PANELING STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF 700 LOCUST AVE Side Yard 2 STORY RESIDENCE Side Yard 15' 12" WOOD SIDING 12" WOOD SIDING Rear Yard 004 A: 3,833 sq ft 36" BRICK WATERTABLE Street Elevation Neighbor Elevation 5 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 2 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" BLACK WOOD PANELING Accessory Structure DATE: 004 OCTOBER, 2021 A: 727 sq ft STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF STANDING SEAM NOTES: METAL ROOF HISTORICAL SUBMISSION 19'-8" 12" WOOD SIDING 36'-7 1/2" 5' PROJECT: ACCESSORY STRUCTURE BUILD 36" BRICK 700 LOCUST AVE CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA WATERTABLE 5' SHEET TITLE: Alley Elevation Site Plan 4 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" BSC.1 Certificate of Appropriateness Application (HC District) 1804 Chesapeake Street, Tax Map Parcel 55A141000 Woolen Mills HC District Owner/ Applicant: Emily and Anthony Lazaro Project: Construct addition Application components (please click each link to go directly to PDF page): • Staff Report • Historic Survey • Application Submittal October 19, 2021 BAR Packet Guide 10 City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Staff Report October 19, 2021 Prelim Discussion 1804 Chesapeake Street, Tax Map Parcel 55A141000 Woolen Mills HC District Owner/ Applicant: Emily and Anthony Lazaro Project: Construct addition Background Year Built: 1906 District: Woolen Mills Historic Conservation District Status: Contributing From the NRHP listing: Victorian, Folk. Two-story, three-bay single pile house with Victorian vernacular details is covered by an asphalt shingle, side-gabled roof. The frame house is clad in weatherboard with 2/2 double-hung windows in the façade’s two side bays. The house has a full width front porch supported by four freestanding and two engaged turned posts with knee braces and covered by a standing-seam metal shed roof. An exterior, brick chimney is located on the west elevation. There is a single story addition to the rear. Prior BAR Review N/A Application • Submittal: RMC Design drawings Woolen Mills House - Schematic Design, dated September 28, 2021: T1.1 Title Page; SP1.1 Site Plan; A1.1 First Floor Plan; A1.2 Second Floor Plan; A2.1 Exterior Elevations; A2.2 Exterior Elevations. Preliminary discussion to review proposed addition to a dwelling. Discussion and Recommendations Staff believes that, following the BAR’s preliminary discussion, this CoA request can be administratively reviewed per the conditions of Sec. 34-346—see the Appendix. 1804 Chesapeake Street - Addition – Prelim (October 15, 2021) 1 This is a preliminary discussion, no BAR action is required; however, by consensus, the BAR may express an opinion about the project or elements of the project. Such comments will not constitute a formal motion and will have no legal bearing, nor will it represent an incremental decision on the required CoA. There are two key objectives of a preliminary discussion: Introduce the project to the BAR; and allow the applicant and the BAR to establish what is necessary for a successful final submittal, including: o Roof: o Gutter and downspout: o Cornice and Trim: o Exterior walls: o Doors and Windows: o Light Fixtures: The design review should focus on the components of the project that will be visible from Chesapeake Street. The proposed addition is entirely to the rear of the existing structure. The new roofline will extend above that of the 1906 house, though not to a height that it will be visible from the street. The west side of the addition will extend only slightly beyond the side of the 1906 house and existing addition. Additional staff comments also inserted below, under HC District Design Guidelines for New Construction and Additions. 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. Suggested Motions For a preliminary discussion, the BAR cannot take action on a formal motion. Criteria, Standards, and Guidelines Review Criteria Generally Sec. 34-341 - 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. 1804 Chesapeake Street - Addition – Prelim (October 15, 2021) 2 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 - 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. HC District Design Guidelines for New Construction and Additions Building Location – setback and spacing 1. Align a new building close to the average building setback line on the same street, if established, or consistent with the surrounding area. 2. Maintain average spacing between buildings on the same street. Comment: This property lies at the NE corner of the district, with few structures nearby. The proposed addition extends the footprint of an existing addition and will not significantly alter the existing side yard spacing. 1804 Chesapeake Street - Addition – Prelim (October 15, 2021) 3 Building Scale – height and massing 1. Keep the footprint, and massing of new buildings consistent with the neighborhood characteristics and compatible with the character of buildings on the same street. 2. Keep the height and width of new buildings within the prevailing average height and width. Exceptions up to 200% of the prevailing height and width may be approved by the BAR when contextually appropriate. 3. An addition needs to be perceived as an addition and therefore should not visually overpower the existing building in scale and design. 4. An accessory building should appear secondary to the main building in scale and design. 5. Larger buildings (commercial or multi-family) otherwise permitted by zoning should be designed and articulated to be compatible with the scale of the majority of adjacent buildings on the same street or block. Comment: (See comment above.) 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. Comment: Generally consistent with the district and the existing house. 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. Comment: Consistent with the existing house; however, these will not be visible from Chesapeake Street. 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. Comment: Not specified. Building Paint 1. Painting unpainted brick or other masonry is discouraged because it is irreversible and may cause moisture problems. 1804 Chesapeake Street - Addition – Prelim (October 15, 2021) 4 Comment: n/a 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. Comment: n/a Woolen Mills Village Historic Conservation District Architectural character-defining features: 1. Encourage one-story front porches; 2. Encourage garages to be located in the rear yards 3. The levels of a building’s stories should be consistent with those on surrounding structures with respect to the natural grade [for example, a first floor should not be raised so that it is higher than most surrounding first floors] 4. Do not exclude well-designed, new contemporary architecture [there may be a misconception that only historic-looking new buildings are permitted] 5. Encourage standing seam metal roofs 6. Maintain and encourage tree canopy [Maintain the existing tree canopy and encourage new large shade trees] 7. Maintain neighborhood massing and form; encourage the use of sustainable materials 8. Encourage existing site features (wrought iron fencing, stone walls, shared streets) 9. Encourage good stewardship of Riverview Cemetery. Appendix Sec. 34-340. - Actions requiring certificate of appropriateness; exemptions; penalties. a) A certificate of appropriateness (COA) must be approved in accordance with this division, prior to the commencement of construction, erection, alteration, or demolition of certain buildings, structures or improvements, as follows: 1. All new buildings and structures require a COA if they require a building permit, and unless they are concealed by the principal structure from all abutting streets. 2. All new fences and walls that abut a street, or which are located in a side yard between a street and the front of the principal structure on a lot, require a COA. b) The following proposed additions to existing buildings or structures require a COA: 1. Additions located wholly or partially to the side or front of the principal structure on a lot; or 2. Additions located on a lot that abuts a street on the side or rear; or 3. Additions that are equal to or greater than fifty (50) percent of the total gross floor area of the existing building; or 4. Additions located to the rear that exceed the height or width of the existing building or structure. Sec. 34-346. - Administrative review. a) The director of neighborhood development services may review, and may approve or deny, or may refer to the full BAR for review and approval, the following types of applications for certificates of appropriateness: 1. Fences; 1804 Chesapeake Street - Addition – Prelim (October 15, 2021) 5 2. Applications that have previously been reviewed by the BAR, if the BAR has authorized final review by the director; 3. Applications for minor accessory buildings or additions, after consultation with the chair of the BAR. 1804 Chesapeake Street - Addition – Prelim (October 15, 2021) 6 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 002-1260-0093 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data Property Information Property Names Property Evaluation Status Name Explanation Name Function/Location House, 1804 Chesapeake Street Not Evaluated Property Addresses This Property is associated with the Woolen Mills Village Historic Current - 1804 Chesapeake Street District. County/Independent City(s): Charlottesville (Ind. City) Incorporated Town(s): No Data Zip Code(s): 22902 Magisterial District(s): No Data Tax Parcel(s): No Data USGS Quad(s): CHARLOTTESVILLE EAST Additional Property Information Architecture Setting: Village Acreage: No Data Site Description: Jan. 2007: The house sits at street grade. The site slopes away from the street. A modern garden wall surrounds the site and a few mature deciduous trees scattered on the front lawn. ----------------------------- Jan. 2007: There are no secondary resources associated with this property. Surveyor Assessment: Jan. 2007: The Woolen Mills Village Historic District is eligible under Criterion A for its association with nineteenth-century industrial and social history and Criterion C for its collection of industrial architecture and vernacular workers housing. Several industrial structures and buildings of the original mill remain on the site and the houses that once housed the mill’s workers are still occupied by neighborhood residents today. The house stands as an example of the vernacular two-story, three-bay form with well-preserved Queen Anne details. August 2009: The Woolen Mills Village has been at the center of Charlottesville’s history since the mid-19th-century. Positioned at the foot of Monticello Mountain where the Rivanna River meets the mouth of Moore’s Creek, the Charlottesville Woolen Mills developed throughout the 19th century to become one of the City’s and the region’s most noteworthy industries. With few of the early factory buildings enduring due to fires and reconstruction, the buildings built by the late-19th and early 20th-century mill employees have come to define the village. As an industrial center with local and statewide prominence, the District is locally significant in the area of Industry under Criterion A. As an example of a company town, the District is also locally significant in the areas of Community Planning and Development and Social History under Criterion A. It is locally eligible under Criterion C for Architecture; its small collection of turn-of-the-century industrial resources and larger collection of domestic buildings retain a high degree of integrity. The industrial resources are largely brick with large expanses of glazed windows and saw tooth or flat roofs. The residential resources reflect the various architectural styles popular of the period of significance, including Gothic Revival, Late Victorian, Colonial Revival, and Craftsman/Bungalow. The District’s period of significance – 1847-1962 – begins with the construction of the earliest the employee dwellings and ends with the closing of the mills. In 1897, WHL and Bessie Scruggs sold the western half of lot 3 of the Farish plat to his brother, John W. Scruggs (County 116-341). This deed states that John W. Scruggs and their parents were already living on the lot, presumably one of the houses now demolished in the eastern portion of lot 3. In 1905, Scruggs and his wife, Ethel E. Scruggs, sold the western half of lot 3 to William T. Atkins for $300 (County 131-135). Atkins built the house known as 1804 Chesapeake Street on the western half of the lot in 1906 (building listed in 1906 County Land Book). Atkins died in 1922, leaving the property to his wife, Martha (County WB 36-462). Martha Atkins died in 1966 and the property was divided amongst their heirs, many of whom were part of the Scruggs family. In the 1920 census, a Cornelia Scruggs is listed as living as a boarder with Martha and William T. Atkins, both of whom were in their 40s. The relationship between the two families in unclear. William T. Atkins’s heirs sold the house known as 1804 Chesapeake Street and the western half of lot 3 to Hattie L. Crable in 1968 for $4,300 (City 312-235). Crable sold the property to TE Wood in 1969 (City 312-243). In 1983, Wood subdivided the parcel and sold the house known as 1804 Chesapeake Street and its immediate, street-fronting lot B to Peter C. Johnson for $345,000 (City 443-778, 464-236, plat City 443-779). The property was sold several times thereafter, before present owner Trienet P. Coggeshall purchased it in 2003 for $287,500 (City 563-602, 588-49, 812-578, 923-814). Surveyor Recommendation: No Data Ownership Ownership Category Ownership Entity Private No Data October 12, 2021 Page: 1 of 3 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 002-1260-0093 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data Primary Resource Information Resource Category: Domestic Resource Type: Single Dwelling NR Resource Type: Building Historic District Status: Contributing Date of Construction: 1906 Date Source: Local Records, Tax Historic Time Period: Reconstruction and Growth (1866 - 1916) Historic Context(s): Architecture/Community Planning, Domestic Other ID Number: No Data Architectural Style: Victorian, Folk Form: No Data Number of Stories: 2.0 Condition: Good Threats to Resource: None Known Architectural Description: Jan. 2007: This is two-story, three-bay single pile house with Queen Anne details is covered by an asphalt shingle, side gable roof. The frame house is clad in weatherboard with four, 2/2 double-hung windows on the facade. The house has a full width front porch with turned posts and brackets that is covered by a standing-seam metal shed roof. Two pilasters are situated on each corner of the house. An exterior, brick chimney is located on the east side of the house. There is a single story addition to the rear. July 2009: In preparation for the Woolen Mills Village Historic District proposed in July-August 2009, all previously surveyed resources were re-evaluated and their records updated. This two-story, three-bay single pile house with Victorian vernacular details is covered by an asphalt shingle, side-gabled roof. The frame house is clad in weatherboard with 2/2 double-hung windows in the façade’s two side bays. The house has a full width front porch supported by four freestanding and two engaged turned posts with knee braces and covered by a standing-seam metal shed roof. An exterior, brick chimney is located on the west elevation. There is a single story addition to the rear. Exterior Components Component Component Type Material Material Treatment Porch 1-story, 3-bay Wood Posts, Turned Roof Gable, Side Asphalt Shingle Windows Sash, Double-Hung Wood 2/2 Structural System and Frame Wood Weatherboard Exterior Treatment Chimneys End Brick Bond, Common Secondary Resource Information Historic District Information Historic District Name: Woolen Mills Village Historic District Local Historic District Name: No Data Historic District Significance: No Data CRM Events Event Type: NRHP Nomination DHR ID: 002-1260-0093 Staff Name: Brandt, Lydia Mattice Event Date: 8/1/2009 Staff Comment This resource was surveyed in support of the NRHP nomination process for the Woolen Mills Village Historic District. October 12, 2021 Page: 2 of 3 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 002-1260-0093 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data Event Type: Survey:Volunteer Project Review File Number: No Data Investigator: Woolen Mills Road, Inc. Organization/Company: Unknown (DSS) Photographic Media: No Data Survey Date: 1/1/2007 Dhr Library Report Number: No Data Project Staff/Notes: This survey was a collaboration between volunteer Woolen Mills residents and UVA students in addition to VDHR staff. Project Bibliographic Information: Record Type: Local Records Bibliographic Notes: City of Charlottesville, Virginia. Deed Books. Charlottesville City Courthouse, Charlottesville, Virginia. County of Albemarle, Virginia. Deed Books. Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesville, Virginia. County of Albemarle, Virginia. Land Books. Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesville, Virginia. Bibliographic Information Bibliography: No Data Property Notes: No Data October 12, 2021 Page: 3 of 3 200 1 1 300 301 1 EXISTING BASEMENT 2 201 201 1' - 9 1/4" 2 303 15' - 5 3/4" BATH LOWER LEVEL FAMILY ROOM 16' - 3 3/4" 1 18' - 0" 303 20' - 0" UP 3' - 5 1/4" 15' - 4 1/2" 3' - 6" 2' - 0" PROGRESS PRINT 9' - 5" 14' - 6 3/4" 24' - 0" 2 200 BASEMENT PLAN - SCHEMATIC 1 1/4" = 1'-0" PLOTTED ON: 8/4/2021 6:34:23 PM PROJECT NORTH N DESIGN PHASE DESIGN ISSUE DATE BASEMENT FLOOR - Revisions Job Number: Project Number SHEET No. ADDITION TO THE No. Date Description Drawn: LS LAZARO RESIDENCE SCHEMATIC 1804 CHESAPEAKE STREET CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22902 Scale: Date: 1/4" = 1'-0" 8/4/21 100 © 2021 Elisabeth Sloan, Architect 1 200 1 1 300 301 UP 15' - 3 3/4" PLAY ROOM LIBRARY/ MUSIC ROOM HALF BATH 1 2 201 5' - 9" 201 DINING KITCHEN MUD ROOM 2 10' - 10 1/2" 303 Reuse NEW existing 18' - 6 1/2" sliding door STAIR 3' - 6" LIVING ROOM 1 PORCH 18' - 0" 303 18' - 9 1/4" 13' - 3 1/2" PROGRESS PRINT 2' - 0" 24' - 0" 10' - 2 1/2" 2 200 FIRST FLOOR PLAN - SCHEMATIC PLOTTED ON: 8/4/2021 6:37:41 PM 1 1/4" = 1'-0" PROJECT NORTH N DESIGN PHASE DESIGN ISSUE DATE FIRST FLOOR - Revisions Job Number: Project Number SHEET No. ADDITION TO THE No. Date Description Drawn: LS LAZARO RESIDENCE SCHEMATIC 1804 CHESAPEAKE STREET CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22902 Scale: Date: 1/4" = 1'-0" 8/4/21 101 © 2021 Elisabeth Sloan, Architect 1 200 1 1 300 301 DN 1 2 11' - 11 3/4" 201 D 201 LAUNDRY LAUNDRY W WALK IN 2 CLOSET 303 6' - 0 3/4" 4' - 3 1/2" 8' - 11" 13' - 3 1/2" M. BATHROOM 16' - 4 1/4" 1 TUB 18' - 0" 303 20' - 0" MAIN BEDROOM SHOWER PROGRESS PRINT 6' - 1 1/4" Window Seat PLOTTED ON: 8/4/2021 6:43:02 PM 2 200 24' - 0" PROJECT NORTH SECOND FLOOR PLAN - SCHEMATIC 1 1/4" = 1'-0" N DESIGN PHASE DESIGN ISSUE DATE SECOND FLOOR - Revisions Job Number: Project Number SHEET No. ADDITION TO THE No. Date Description Drawn: Author LAZARO RESIDENCE SCHEMATIC 1804 CHESAPEAKE STREET CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22902 Scale: Date: 1/4" = 1'-0" 8/4/21 102 © 2021 Elisabeth Sloan, Architect 1 301 1 300 1 1 300 301 EXIST EXIST 2ND FLR CEILING 18' - 2 1/4" EXIST Top of 2nd Floor Plate 16' - 2 1/4" SECOND FLOOR - SUB FLOOR 9' - 8" SECOND FLOOR - SUB FLOOR 9' - 8" FIN Exist Second Floor 8' - 4" FIN Exist Second Floor 8' - 4" FIRST FLOOR FIRST FLOOR 0" 0" EX BASEMENT - TOP OF SLAB EX BASEMENT - TOP OF SLAB -7' - 10" -7' - 10" PROGRESS PRINT NORTH ELEVATION -SCHEMATIC SOUTH ELEVATION - SCHEMATIC 1 2 1/4" = 1'-0" 1/4" = 1'-0" PLOTTED ON: 8/4/2021 6:50:41 PM PROJECT NORTH N DESIGN PHASE DESIGN ISSUE DATE ELEVATIONS - Revisions Job Number: Project Number SHEET No. ADDITION TO THE No. Date Description Drawn: LS LAZARO RESIDENCE SCHEMATIC 1804 CHESAPEAKE STREET CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22902 Scale: Date: 1/4" = 1'-0" 8/4/21 200 © 2021 Elisabeth Sloan, Architect 1 2 303 303 EXIST Top of 2nd Floor Plate 16' - 2 1/4" SECOND FLOOR - SUB FLOOR 9' - 8" FIN Exist Second Floor 8' - 4" FIRST FLOOR FIRST FLOOR 0" 0" EX BASEMENT - TOP OF SLAB -7' - 10" EXIST NEW BASEMENT -9' - 8" EAST ELEVATION - SCHEMATIC 2 1/4" = 1'-0" 2 1 303 303 EXIST EXIST 2ND FLR CEILING 18' - 2 1/4" SECOND FLOOR - SUB FLOOR 9' - 8" FIN Exist Second Floor 8' - 4" PROGRESS PRINT FIRST FLOOR FIRST FLOOR 0" 0" EX BASEMENT - TOP OF SLAB -7' - 10" PLOTTED ON: 8/4/2021 6:55:39 PM EXIST NEW BASEMENT -9' - 8" PROJECT NORTH 1 WEST ELEVATION - SCHEMATIC 1/4" = 1'-0" N DESIGN PHASE DESIGN ISSUE DATE ELEVATIONS - Revisions Job Number: Project Number SHEET No. ADDITION TO THE No. Date Description Drawn: LS LAZARO RESIDENCE SCHEMATIC 1804 CHESAPEAKE STREET CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22902 Scale: Date: 1/4" = 1'-0" 08/04/21 201 © 2021 Elisabeth Sloan, Architect EXIST Top of 2nd Floor Plate 16' - 2 1/4" SECOND FLOOR - SUB FLOOR 9' - 8" FIN Exist Second Floor 8' - 4" FIRST FLOOR FIRST FLOOR 0" 0" EX BASEMENT - TOP OF SLAB -7' - 10" PROGRESS PRINT SECTION NORTH SOUTH THRU NEW STAIR AND M. BATH 1 1/2" = 1'-0" PLOTTED ON: 8/4/2021 6:57:31 PM PROJECT NORTH N DESIGN PHASE DESIGN ISSUE DATE Revisions Job Number: Project Number SHEET No. ADDITION TO THE No. Date Description Drawn: LS SECTIONS - SCHEMATIC LAZARO RESIDENCE 1804 CHESAPEAKE STREET Scale: Date: 1/2" = 1'-0" 8/4/21 300 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22902 © 2021 Elisabeth Sloan, Architect EXIST Top of 2nd Floor Plate 16' - 2 1/4" NEW HALL ENTRY VESTIBULE MAIN BEDROOM SECOND FLOOR - SUB FLOOR 9' - 8" LIVING ROOM KITCHEN FIRST FLOOR FIRST FLOOR 0" 0" FAMILY ROOM SCHEMATIC SECTION NORTH SOUTH AT BRIDGE EX BASEMENT - TOP OF SLAB 1 -7' - 10" 1/2" = 1'-0" PLOTTED ON: 8/4/2021 6:58:32 PM PROJECT NORTH N DESIGN PHASE DESIGN ISSUE DATE Revisions Job Number: Project Number SHEET No. ADDITION TO THE No. Date Description Drawn: Author SECTIONS - SCHEMATIC LAZARO RESIDENCE 1804 CHESAPEAKE STREET Scale: Date: 1/2" = 1'-0" 07/27/21 301 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22902 © 2021 Elisabeth Sloan, Architect EXIST Top of 2nd Floor Plate 16' - 2 1/4" 9' - 6" 8' - 6" HALL CLOSET M. BATHROOM M. BEDROOM SECOND FLOOR - SUB FLOOR SECOND FLOOR - SUB FLOOR 9' - 8" 9' - 8" FIN Exist Second Floor FIN Exist Second Floor 8' - 4" 8' - 4" 5' - 4 1/4" 8' - 8" NEW STAIR PORCH KITCHEN DINING TO LOWER LEVEL LIVING ROOM PORCH FIRST FLOOR FIRST FLOOR FIRST FLOOR 0" 0" 0" EXISTING BASEMENT CLST FAMILY ROOM EXIST NEW BASEMENT -9' - 8" SCHEMATIC SECTION AT M. BEDROOM, LIVING ROOM, PORCH SCHEMATIC SECTION AT KITCHEN AND BRIDGE 1 2 PROGRESS PRINT 1/4" = 1'-0" 1/4" = 1'-0" PLOTTED ON: 8/4/2021 7:14:42 PM PROJECT NORTH N DESIGN PHASE DESIGN ISSUE DATE Revisions Job Number: Project Number SHEET No. ADDITION TO THE No. Date Description Drawn: LS SCHEMATIC SECTIONS LAZARO RESIDENCE 1804 CHESAPEAKE STREET Scale: Date: 1/4" = 1'-0" 08/04/21 303 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22902 © 2021 Elisabeth Sloan, Architect