City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Regular Meeting November 16, 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. Regular Meeting A. Matters from the public not on the agenda [or on the Consent Agenda] (please limit to 3 minutes per speaker) B. Consent Agenda 1. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 21-11-01 218 West Market Street, Tax Parcel 330276000 Owner/Applicant: Heirloom Downtown Mall Development, LLC Applicant Rep: Jeff Dreyfus, Bushman-Dreyfus Architects Project: Demolition of existing structure 2. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 21-11-02 106 Oakhurst Circle, Tax Map Parcel 110005000 Oakhurst-Gildersleeve ADC District Owner: 106 Oakhurst Circle LLC Applicant: Patrick Farley Project: Landscaping plan 3. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 21-11-03 122 Maywood Lane, Tax Parcel 110060000 Owner: Neighborhood Properties, LLC Applicant: Chris Henningsen, Henningsen Kestner Architects, Inc. Project: Partial demolition, additions and rehabilitation to the house and cottage 4. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 21-11-04 128 Chancellor Street, TMP 090105000 The Corner ADC District Owner: University Christian Ministries Applicant: Tom Keough, Train Architects Project: Façade alterations November 16, 2021 BAR Packet Guide 1 5. Certificate of Appropriateness (HC District) BAR 21-11-05 1804 Chesapeake Street, Tax Map Parcel 55A141000 Woolen Mills HC District Owner/Applicant: Emily and Anthony Lazaro Project: Construct rear addition 6. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 21-11-06 745 Park Street, Tax Parcel 520051100 North Downtown ADC District Owners/Applicants: Karen Vadja and Kevin Riddle Demolition of existing dwelling C. Deferred Items 7. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 10-11-04 123 Bollingwood Road, TMP 070022000 Individually Protected Property Owner: Juliana and William Elias Applicant: Jeff Dreyfus, Bushman Dreyfus Architects Project: Modifications to west elevation D. New Items 8. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 21-11-07 946 Grady Avenue, TMP 310060000 Individually Protected Property Owner: Dairy Central Phase 1, LLC Applicant: Joshua Batman Project: Install gas-powered heaters over entries 9. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 21-11-08 111-115 West Main Street (also 113), TMP 330259000 Downtown ADC District Owner: West Mall, LLC Applicant: Caitlin Schafer, Henningsen-Kestner Architects Project: Storefront alteration E. Discussion Items (No actions will be taken.) 10. Update on project status BAR 20-11-03 612 West Main Street, Tax Parcel 290003000 West Main ADC District Owner: Heirloom West Main Street Second Phase LLC Applicant: Jeff Dreyfus, Bushman Dreyfus Architects Project: New construction of a mixed-use development November 16, 2021 BAR Packet Guide 2 F. Other Business Election of new chair and vice chair Staff questions/discussion Preservation Awards G. Adjourn November 16, 2021 BAR Packet Guide 3 Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 21-11-01 218 West Market Street, Tax Parcel 330276000 Owner/Applicant: Heirloom Downtown Mall Development, LLC Applicant Rep: Jeff Dreyfus, Bushman-Dreyfus Architects Project: Demolition of existing structure Application components (please click each link to go directly to PDF page): • Staff Report • Historic Survey • Application Submittal November 16, 2021 BAR Packet Guide 4 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW STAFF REPORT November 16, 2021 Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 21-11-01 218 West Market Street, Tax Parcel 330276000 Owner/Applicant: Market Street Promenade, LLC, Owner/ Heirloom Real Estate Holdings LLC Applicant Rep: Jeff Dreyfus, Bushman-Dreyfus Architects Project: Demolition of Existing Structure Background Year Built: 1938 District: Downtown ADC District Status: Contributing (Note: By code, all structures in the Downtown ADC are designated as contributing, regardless of year built or historic significance.) 218 West Market Street is a contributing structure in the Downtown ADC District. City assessment records indicate the building was constructed in 1938. A c1965 Sanborn Map indicates this structure at the site--see Appendix. From the 1982 NRHP nomination of the Charlottesville and Albemarle County Courthouse Historic District: A&P Grocery. brick (stretcher bond); 1 story; flat roof; 3 bays. Commercial Vernacular, c1950. Brick pediment over central entrance; large fixed-paned windows, balustrade along parapet. Prior BAR Actions: September 21, 2010 - BAR approved the design as submitted (7-0-1 with Wolf recused) to renovate a basement space for use as a new restaurant and bar that will front on Old Preston Avenue. May 21, 2013 - Approved (8-0) as submitted. (Signage) March 13, 2019 – BAR approved demolition CoA Motion: Sarafin moved having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City Design Guidelines for Demolition, I move to find that the proposed demolition of 218 West Market Street satisfies the BAR’s criteria and guidelines and is compatible with this property and other properties in the Downtown ADC District, and that the BAR approves the application with the following conditions: • The COA be extended an additional year past the 18 month to 30 months • The demolition of the building is contingent upon the granting of a COA and building permit for this buildings replacement 218 West Market Street – Demo CoA (Nov 8, 2021) 1 • Request to have the building documented and photographed for the public record, if the building is to be demolished Lahendro seconded. Approved (4-0-2, with Schwarz and Ball recused.) Application Applicant submittal: • Bushman Dreyfus submittal: CoA application, dated October 22, 2021; memorandum, dated October 25, 2021: BAR action memo, dated March 22, 2019; applicant narrative, site plan and photographs—pages numbered 1 through 10. (13 pages.) Request for the demolition of existing commercial building at the edge of the downtown mall. The intent of this demolition is to provide additional parking on the site, with the potential of being redeveloped for the site of a mixed use structure in the future of Charlottesville’s downtown development. Discussion and Recommendations This request was approved in March 2019; however, that CoA has expired. Given the prior approval, staff recommends approval as a Consent Agenda item with the motion for approval as stated below. Suggested Motions Approval: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed demolition of 218 West Market Street satisfies the BAR’s criteria and guidelines and is compatible with this property and other properties in the Downtown ADC District, and that the BAR approves the application as application with the following conditions: • The COA be extended to 30 months. [An additional year past the statutory 18 month period of validity.] • BAR staff approval of the demolition permit is contingent upon: o Applicant will submit for the record documentation and photographs of the existing building. o BAR approval of a COA for this building’s replacement. o An approved building permit for construction of that replacement. Denial: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed demolition of 218 West Market Street does not satisfy or the BAR’s criteria and guidelines 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. 218 West Market Street – Demo CoA (Nov 8, 2021) 2 Pertinent Standards for Review of Demolitions: Sec. 34-278. - Standards for considering demolitions. 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; Applicant comment: Apart from being approximately 69 years old, this structure is not distinctive and has been significantly modified over the years. Since the time the [NRHP] nomination was written, the building has been dramatically changed with the elimination of its parapet balustrade, modifications to the original masonry, and the addition of the brick wall that now fronts Old Preston Avenue (enclosing what was a triangular outdoor service area at the rear of the lot). In the mid 1980’s, the structure was further modified with the cutting of large storefront openings into the east-facing bearing wall, and the addition of a postmodern arcade and porticos along the north and east elevations. (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; Applicant comment: The property is noted as a contributing structure to the Charlottesville-Albemarle County Courthouse Historic District. (3) Whether, and to what extent, the building or structure is associated with a historic person, architect or master craftsmen, or with a historic event; Applicant comment: No known associations. (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; Applicant comment: No such characteristics are attributed to this building. (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 Applicant comment: The brick building and its metal storefront could be readily reproduced with today’s materials and techniques. (6) The degree to which distinguishing characteristics, qualities, features, or materials remain. Applicant comment: Aside from some original brick and possibly original storefront on West Market Street, no distinguishing characteristics, qualities, features or materials remain. 218 West Market Street – Demo CoA (Nov 8, 2021) 3 (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 of a group of properties within such a district whose concentration or continuity possesses greater significance than many of its component buildings. Applicant comment: The property is part of the historic downtown commercial district and will remain as such, if this particular building is replaced with another commercial or mixed- use building. (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. Applicant comment: A structural study has not been completed. (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. Applicant comment: The building is neither an historic cultural marker nor does it represent an important moment in Charlottesville’s architectural development. As such, the applicant proposes to demolish the building. Pertinent and Relevant Information Regarding Demolitions A. Introduction Historic buildings are irreplaceable community assets; and once they are gone, they are gone forever. With each successive demolition or removal, the integrity of a historic district is further eroded. Therefore, the demolition or moving of any contributing building in a historic district should be considered carefully. Charlottesville’s Zoning Ordinance contains provisions that require the property owner to obtain approval prior to demolishing a contributing property in a historic district or an Individually Protected Property (IPP). The following review criteria should be used for IPP’s and (contributing) buildings that are proposed for demolition or relocation. Plans to demolish or remove a protected property must be approved by the BAR or, on appeal, by the City Council after consultation with the BAR. Upon receipt of an application for demolition or removal of a structure, the BAR has 45 days to either approve or deny the request. If the request is denied and the owner appeals to the City Council, the Council can either approve or deny the request. If Council denies the request, the owner may appeal to the City Circuit Court. In addition to the right to appeal to City Council or the Circuit Court, there is a process that enables the owner to demolish the building or structure if certain conditions have been met. After the owner has appealed to City Council and has been denied, the owner may choose to make a bona fide offer to sell the building or structure and land. 218 West Market Street – Demo CoA (Nov 8, 2021) 4 The property must be offered at a price reasonably related to the fair market value of the structure and land and must be made to the city or to any person or firm or agency that gives reasonable assurance that it is willing to preserve and restore the property. City Council must first confirm that the offering price is reasonably related to the fair market value. The time during which the offer to sell must remain open varies according to the price, as set out in the State Code and the Zoning Ordinance. If such a bona fide offer to sell is not accepted within the designated time period, the owner may renew the demolition request to City Council and will be entitled to a Certificate of Appropriateness that permits the demolition of the structure. B. Demolition of Historic Structures Review Criteria for Demolition 1) The standards established by the City Code, Section 34-278. 2) The public necessity of the proposed demolition 3) The public purpose or interest in land or buildings to be protected. 4) Whether or not a relocation of the structure would be a practical and preferable alternative to demolition. 5) Whether or not the proposed demolition would adversely or positively affect other historic buildings or the character of the historic district. 6) The reason for demolishing the structure and whether or not alternatives exist. 7) Whether or not there has been a professional economic and structural feasibility study for rehabilitating or reusing the structure and whether or not its findings support the proposed demolition. Guidelines for Demolition 1) Demolish a historic structure only after all preferable alternatives have been exhausted. 2) Document the building thoroughly through photographs and, for especially significant buildings, measured drawings according to Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) Standards. This information should be retained by the City of Charlottesville Department of Neighborhood Development Services and the Virginia Department of Historic Resources. 3) If the site is to remain vacant for any length of time, maintain the empty lot in a manner consistent with other open spaces in the districts. 218 West Market Street – Demo CoA (Nov 8, 2021) 5 Appendix 218 West Market Street – Demo CoA (Nov 8, 2021) 6 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. Heirloom Downtown Mall Development LLC Applicant Name______________________________________ Owner Name___________________________________ Heirloom Downtown Mall Development LLC Existing retail structure Project Name/Description______________________________________ 330276000 Parcel Number__________________________ 218 West Market Street Project Property Address____________________________________________________________________________ Signature of Applicant Applicant Information I hereby attest that the information I have provided is, to the 178 Columbus Ave, #231409 Address:______________________________________ best of my knowledge, correct. _____________________________________________ New York, NY 10023 Email:________________________________________ jeff@levien3.com 10/22/2021 __________________________________________ 917-612-0630 Phone: (W) _________________ (C) _______________ Signature Date Jeff Levien 10/22/2021 __________________________________________ Property Owner Information (if not applicant) Print Name Date Address:______________________________________ Property Owner Permission (if not applicant) _____________________________________________ I have read this application and hereby give my consent to Email:________________________________________ its submission. Phone: (W) _________________ (C) _______________ _ __________________________________________ Signature Date Do you intend to apply for Federal or State Tax Credits _________________________________________ no for this project? _______________________ Print Name Date Demolition of existing structure Description of Proposed Work (attach separate narrative if necessary):__________________________________ On March 13, 2019, the BAR approved the demolition of the existing structure. Due to COVID and the bottleneck ______________________________________________________________________________________________ in the construction industry for planning and undertaking work, the C of A expired recently. We are requesting a period ______________________________________________________________________________________________ of 36 months before the expiration of this new C of A. List All Attachments (see reverse side for submittal requirements): Narrative, underground parking study, photos of existing and neighboring structures. ______________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________ For Office Use Only Approved/Disapproved by: ______________________ Received by: ___________________________ Date: _______________________________________ Fee paid: ___________Cash/Ck. # _________ Conditions of approval: _________________________ Date Received: _________________________ ____________________________________________ Revised 2016 ____________________________________________ Memorandum To: Jeff Werner From: Jeff Dreyfus Date: 10/25/2021 Subject: 218 West Market / re-application of C of A for demolition Dear and members and staff of the Board of Architectural Review, Attached is an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition of the structure at 218 West Market Street. This identical application was previously submitted and approved by the BAR on March 13, 2019 (notification of approval attached). The approval was for a 30 month period, expiring on September 19, 2021. Upon receiving the BAR’s March 2019 approval, the owner began the process of applying for a Special Use Permit for increased density and height, which was approved by City Council on September 8, 2020, six months into the pandemic shutdown. Planning for this project was halted due to the pandemic and has forced a delay in the planning and approval process. The owner is intent on completing a project on the site, and looks forward to working with the BAR during the planning process. In order to proceed with the project, we request the same approval as that granted in 2019 with a modification to include a 36 month expiration date and with the same 2 additional clauses noted in the previous approval: •. The demolition of the building is contingent upon the granting of a C of A and building permit for this building replacement. •. Request to have the building documented and photographed for the public record, if the building is to be demolished. Thanks for your time and your assistance as we work together to contend with these unprecedented times! Sincerely, Jeff Dreyfus Project Architect Bushman Dreyfus Architects PC 820b East High Street Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Telephone 434.295.1936 From: Mess, Camie To: Jeff Levien Cc: Werner, Jeffrey B Subject: February BAR Actions - 218 West Market Street Date: Friday, March 22, 2019 4:23:08 PM March 22, 2019 Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 19-02-04 218 West Market Street Tax Parcel 330276000 Market Street Promenade, LLC, Owner/ Heirloom Real Estate Holdings LLC, Applicant Demolition of Existing Structure Dear Applicant, The above referenced project was discussed before a meeting of the City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review (BAR) on March 13, 2019. The following action was taken: Motion: Sarafin moved having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City Design Guidelines for Demolition, I move to find that the proposed demolition of 218 West Market Street satisfies the BAR’s criteria and guidelines and is compatible with this property and other properties in the Downtown ADC District, and that the BAR approves the application with the following conditions: ·         The COA be extended an additional year past the 18 month to 30 months ·         The demolition of the building is contingent upon the granting of a COA and building permit for this buildings replacement ·         Request to have the building documented and photographed for the public record, if the building is to be demolished Lahendro seconded. Approved (4-0-2, with Schwarz and Ball recused.) If you would like to hear the specifics of the discussion, the meeting video is on-line at: http://charlottesville.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=1352 This certificate of appropriateness shall expire in 18 months (September 13, 2020), unless within that time period you have either been issued a building permit for construction of the improvements if one is required, or if no building permit is required, commenced the project. You may request an extension of the certificate of appropriateness before this approval expires for one additional year for reasonable cause. (See City Code Section 34-280. Validity of certificates of appropriateness.) If you have any questions, please contact me at 434-970-3998 or messc@charlottesville.org. Sincerely, Camie Mess Camie Mess Assistant Historic Preservation and Design Planner            City of Charlottesville Phone: 434.970.3398 Email: messc@charlottesville.org BAR Certificate of Appropriateness 218 West Market Street Demolition Application Narrative 218 West Market Street presents an opportunity for the City to further its stated goals for the Downtown Mixed-Use Corridor of increased commerce and additional housing in the entertainment and employment center of our town. Looking at the current and future expansion of Charlottesville, the BAR must identify opportunities for accommodating growth in ways that are sensitive to our historic urban fabric by protecting important structures in our cultural and urban development while recognizing that some old buildings must be allowed to be taken down to make way for the future. The structure at 218 West Market Street is listed as a contributing structure to the Charlottesville- Albemarle County Courthouse Historic District, and is in the Downtown Architectural Design Control District. The National Register Nomination only notes the following about the building: “218 (A&P Grocery): brick (stretcher bond); 1 story; flat roof; 3 bays. Commercial Vernacular. Ca. 1950. Brick pediment over central entrance; large fixed-paned windows; balustrade along parapet.” As the BAR reviews the City’s standards for considering demolitions in an ADC District, we offer the following perspectives: (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; Apart from being approximately 69 years old, this structure is not distinctive & has been significantly modified over the years. Since the time the nomination was written, the building has been dramatically changed with the elimination of its parapet balustrade, modifications to the original masonry, and the addition of the brick wall that now fronts Old Preston Avenue (enclosing what was a triangular outdoor service area at the rear of the lot). In the mid 1980’s, the structure was further modified with the cutting of large storefront openings into the east-facing bearing wall, and the addition of a post modern arcade and porticos along the north and east elevations. (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; The property is noted as a contributing structure to the Charlottesville-Albemarle County Courthouse Historic District. (3) Whether, and to what extent, the building or structure is associated with a historic person, architect or master craftsmen, or with a historic event; There are no known associations. (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; No such characteristics are attributed to this building. (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 The brick building and its metal storefront could be readily reproduced with today’s materials and techniques. (6) The degree to which distinguishing characteristics, qualities, features, or materials remain. Aside from some original brick and possibly original storefront on West Market Street, no 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 of a group of properties within such a district whose concentration or continuity possesses greater significance than many of its component buildings. The property is part of the historic downtown commercial district and will remain as such if this particular building is replaced with another commercial or mixed-use building. (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. A structural study has not been completed. (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. The building is neither an historic cultural marker nor does it represent an important moment in Charlottesville’s architectural development. As such, the applicant proposes to demolish the building. Additionally, we offer that this parcel (approximately 0.56 acres) is significantly underutilized with its suburban model of at-grade parking for 29 cars directly in front of the 1980’s storefronts and colonnade. Occupying roughly one half of the site, the existing structure presents a huge impediment to maximizing the potential density for land so deep in the center of our commercial and residential core. The vision for the redevelopment of the property is of a mixed-use structure with retail, commercial and residential units. As part of the Urban Core Parking Zone, such by-right development here does not require onsite parking; however, the economics of developing commercial and residential uses in this urban location will necessitate the inclusion of some onsite parking for residents and workers. With permission to demolish the existing structure, a large below-grade parking level could be constructed across the site, with entry at the lowest corner on Old Preston Avenue (see attached parking study plan). Requiring that the existing structure remain would preclude underground parking for any type of development here. Having weighed the preservation of our architectural past alongside the limited opportunities our town has to accommodate growth, the BAR has approved demolition of other contributing structures including the Studio Art building at 1106-1112 West Main Street, the Escafe restaurant building at 215 West Water Street, and the Clock Shop at 201 West Water Street. The land at 218 West Market Street represents a similar opportunity as those sites, offering the chance for increased density and vitality downtown, but it requires the removal of the existing structure. If the existing structure is required to remain in place for future development, this site will, by necessity, continue to be an underutilized anomaly in our urban fabric. Granting permission to raze the building is an important step in furthering the growth and development of our downtown core with vibrant, mixed-use developments such as the one contemplated for this site. 2 Preliminary parking level study 3 View of the property looking southwest North façade 4 Vinegar Hill Theater to the northwest North façade detail, Vinegar Hill Theater to the right 5 North façade detail: brickwork from three different periods of construction Northeast corner of the building: brickwork from three different periods of construction 6 East façade Added brickwork in portico of east façade 7 Parking lot viewed from Old Preston Avenue Parking lot and building viewed from the downtown mall 8 South façade, added after the original construction. Old Preston Avenue; structure on the right. 9 South facade Adjacent structure at southwest corner 10 Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 21-11-02 106 Oakhurst Circle, Tax Map Parcel 110005000 Oakhurst-Gildersleeve ADC District Owner: 106 Oakhurst Circle LLC Applicant: Patrick Farley Project: Landscaping plan Application components (please click each link to go directly to PDF page): • Staff Report • Application Submittal November 16, 2021 BAR Packet Guide 5 City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Staff Report November 16, 2021 Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-09-02 106 Oakhurst Circle, Tax Map Parcel 110005000 Oakhurst-Gildersleeve ADC District Owner: 106 Oakhurst Circle LLC Applicant: Patrick Farley Project: Landscaping plan Background Year Built: 1922 District: Oakhurst-Gildersleeve ADC District Status: Contributing Designed as a combination of Colonial Revival and Craftsman styles, this two-story dwelling has a gabled roof, stucco siding, overhanging eaves with exposed rafter ends, a pent roof between the first and second floor, an interior stuccoed chimney, a concrete stoop, and a central door sheltered by a gabled hood supported by brackets. Triple eight-by-eight casement windows are found on the first floor, while eight-over-eight-sash double-hung windows are used on the second floor and flank a central triple eight-by-eight casement bay window. French doors on the east side lead out to a patio. The house also includes a rear deck and a projecting rectangular one-story bay window supported by wooden brackets on the west end. (Oakhurst-Gildersleeve Neighborhood Historic District.) Prior BAR Reviews • September 15, 2020 – BAR held a Primary Discussion on the materials submitted. • October 20, 2020 - BAR held a Primary Discussion. • December 15, 2020 – BAR approved CoA for alterations to existing house and a rear addition. • September 21, 2021 - BAR approved CoA for alterations to existing house and a rear addition (rev. to December 2021 approval); however, the landscaping plan was omitted. Application • Submittal: Patrick Farley Architect drawings 106 Oakhurst Circle, Sheet A, dated September 28, 2021. CoA request for proposed landscaping plan. 106 Oakhurst – Landscaping (Nov. 8, 2021) 1 Landscaping: • Remove: 6” Crepe Myrtle (front), 6” Dogwood (front), 4” Holly (rear), 40” Oak (rear)*. • New: See Plant Schedule on Sheet A. (Rain Garden, Ferns, Oak Garden, Living Fence/Green Screen, Pollinator Garden.) • Hardwood mulch within planting areas. Paving: • Walking Path (front): Cut slate/flagstone in aggregate with steel edging • Driveway (front): Concrete, permeable pavers • Driveway (rear and existing): Crushed Buckingham slate with steel edging • Entry Porch: Slate pavers.* Exterior Lighting: • Pathway lights: AQ Lighting, 3 Tier Pagoda Pathway Light, LED, CCT 2,700K or 5,000K Parking: • Rear: Pres-cast retaining wall* * Added to or omitted from prior submittal. Discussion Previously, the existing driveway (along the north parcel line) was eliminated and a new constructed (along the north parcel line). The project will now retain the existing and use the new to create a loop for access to and egress from the parking area behind the house. To allow flexibility in the required placement and width of the new driveway—for ex., to minimize removal of the existing stone curbing--City Code Section 34-972(a)(5) allows for the BAR to make recommendations to the city traffic engineer. The suggested motion for approval includes that recommendation. Suggested Motions Approval: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City’s ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed landscaping plan for 106 Oakhurst Circle satisfies the BAR’s criteria and is compatible with this property and other properties in the Oakhurst- Gildersleeve ADC District, and that the BAR approves the application [as submitted]. Additionally, the BAR recommends the city traffic engineer allow flexibility relative to the required driveway entrance width. Of particular concern, to extent possible, is preservation of the existing granite curb stones. […as submitted with the following conditions: …] Denial: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City’s ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed landscaping plan for 106 Oakhurst Circle does not satisfy the BAR’s criteria and is not compatible with this property and other properties in the Oakhurst- Gildersleeve ADC District, and that for the following reasons the BAR denies the application as submitted: Criteria, Standards, and Guidelines Review Criteria Generally 106 Oakhurst – Landscaping (Nov. 8, 2021) 2 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 ADC District Design Guidelines Chapter II – Site Design and Elements (Link: III: Site Design and Elements) • Plantings • Walkways and Driveways • Walls and Fences • Parking Areas and Lots • Lighting • Utilities and Other Site Appurtenances Appendix: City Code Section 34-972. - Location, yard areas, and driveways. (a) For lots containing a single-family detached dwelling or a two-family dwelling, parking may be located within any yard. Driveways and off-street parking spaces, regardless of zoning district, shall be subject to the following location and dimensional requirements, with such requirements applying to the portion of the driveway and off-street parking spaces located between the right-of-way and the building line. (1) No driveway entrance or exit shall intersect with a street at a location closer than fifteen (15) feet to any street intersection; (2) No driveway within a residential district, or used for residential purposes, shall be located within three (3) feet from the line of an adjacent property; (3) For driveways and off-street parking spaces, except those off-street parking spaces provided in a garage or carport, the portion of the driveway and off-street parking area located between the right-of-way and the building setback line shall not exceed a maximum of twenty-five (25) percent of the lot area between the right-of-way and building line. This does not prohibit a lot from having one (1) one-way driveway entrance of a maximum width of twenty (20) feet; 106 Oakhurst – Landscaping (Nov. 8, 2021) 3 (4) The above language notwithstanding, all driveway entrances shall meet a minimum width requirement of twenty (20) feet and shall not exceed a maximum width of thirty (30) feet, except as allowed by subsection (5) of this section. (5) For off-street parking areas in Architectural Design Control Districts and Historic Conservation Districts, as defined in Article II of this chapter, the city traffic engineer may approve a modification in the required driveway entrance width on properties zoned for multi-family residential, commercial, industrial or mixed-use development following a recommendation from the Board of Architectural Review for such modification. Specific factors to be considered by the city traffic engineer include, but are not limited to, expected traffic volumes, internal site circulation, volume of truck traffic, speed limit of the adjacent roadway, and the presence of turn lanes. (b) Driveways and common parking areas, except for single-family detached or two-family dwellings, shall also be subject to the following location and dimensional requirements, with such requirements applying to the portion of the driveway located between the right-of-way and the building line: (1) No driveway entrance or exit shall intersect with a public street at a location closer than fifteen (15) feet to any street intersection, or less than five (5) feet from the end of a curb radius; (2) The total width of driveway entrances (curb cuts) shall not exceed thirty-three (33) percent of the lot frontage. This does not prohibit a lot from having one (1) two-way driveway entrance of a maximum width of thirty (30) feet; (3) Parking shall be located in side or rear yards, except that: (i) Parking may not be located within any yard that faces a public street; and (ii)Parking may be located within any yard in the following districts: Urban Corridor, Highway Corridor, and Industrial Corridor. If a lot faces more than one (1) public street, parking shall be prohibited in the yard that fronts on the public street with the highest functional classification rating. If all roads abutting the yard have the same functional classification, parking shall be prohibited in the yard serving as front yard for the parcel. (4) […] (5) […] (6) No off-street parking area shall be located closer than three (3) feet to any side or rear property line. No driveway within a residential district, or used for residential purposes, shall be located within three (3) feet from the line of an adjacent property. (7) Any parking established in yards that face any public street(s) shall be subject to the street buffer provisions of section 34-873(b), and, in addition must include a masonry or similar type wall between the parking area and the public street(s). The wall shall be no less than thirty-two (32) inches in height. (c) For lots containing a single-family attached dwelling, parking may be located within any yard. Driveways and off-street parking spaces, except those off-street parking spaces provided in a garage or carport, shall not exceed a maximum of twenty-five (25) percent of the lot area between the right-of-way and building setback line. This does not prohibit a lot from having one (1) one-way driveway entrance of a maximum width of twenty (20) feet. (d) When more than one (1) driveway is provided along a frontage in a single ownership, there shall be a separation of at least twenty (20) feet at the curb line between each driveway, and a six-inch raised protective curb parallel to the street extending not less than two-thirds ( 2/3 ) the length of the island shall be placed inside the property line between the driveways. 106 Oakhurst – Landscaping (Nov. 8, 2021) 4 (e) Parking spaces must be designed and used in such a manner as to prevent cars parked in a driveway from encroaching into the public right-of-way. (f) For zoning purposes, driveways begin at the boundary separating a property from the right-of- way. Driveways may only be constructed using materials permitted by section 34-982. Entrances must conform to designs listed in the most recent version of the City of Charlottesville Standards and Design Manual. (g) The location and design of entrance and exit driveways shall be approved by the director of neighborhood development services to ensure a safe and convenient means of ingress and egress, using current access management principles. 106 Oakhurst – Landscaping (Nov. 8, 2021) 5 Board of Architectural Review (BAR) Certificate of Appropriateness Please Return To: City of Charlottesville Department of Neighborhood Development Services P.O. Box 911, City Hall Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Telephone (434) 970-3130 Please submit ten (10) hard copies and one (1) digital copy of application form and all attachments. Please include application fee as follows: New construction project $375; Demolition of a contributing structure $375; Appeal of BAR decision $125; Additions and other projects requiring BAR approval $125; Administrative approval $100. Make checks payable to the City of Charlottesville. The BAR meets the third Tuesday of the month. Deadline for submittals is Tuesday 3 weeks prior to next BAR meeting by 3:30 p.m. 106 Oakhurst Circle LLC c/o C. diPierro Owner Name___________________________________ Patrick Farley Architect, PLLC Applicant Name______________________________________ 106 Oakhurst Circ/Renovations & Additions Project Name/Description______________________________________ 110005000 Parcel Number__________________________ 106 Oakhurst Circle, Charlottesville, Va. 22903 Project Property Address____________________________________________________________________________ Signature of Applicant Applicant Information I hereby attest that the information I have provided is, to the 5836 Taylor Creek Rd. Address:______________________________________ best of my knowledge, correct. Afton, Va. 22920 _____________________________________________ Email:________________________________________ patrick@patrickfarley.net ________________________________09/28/21_________ 434-205-0225 Phone: (W) _________________ (C) _______________ 804-306-4927 Signature _ Date J. Patrick Farley 09/28/21 __________________________________________ Property Owner Information (if not applicant) Print Name Date 106 Oakhurst Circle LLC c/o C. diPierro Address:______________________________________ Property Owner Permission (if not applicant) _____________________________________________ 65 W Meadow Rd., Setauket, NY 11733 I have read this application and hereby give my consent to Email:________________________________________ oakhurstcircle@icloud.com its submission. Phone: (W) _________________ (C) _______________ 434-882-4426 _ __________________________________0__ 9/28/2021 _ Signature Date Do you intend to apply for Federal or State Tax Credits Charles G diPierro for 106 Oakhurst Circle LLC 09/28/2021 _______________________________________ No. for this project? _______________________ Print Name Date Description of Proposed Work (attach separate narrative if necessary):__________________________________ Small addition with new driveway cut to access small off-street parking area in rear yard + new landscaping at front yard. List all attachments: Existing and Proposed Site Plans For Office Use Only Received by: ___________________________ Approved/Disapproved by: ______________________ Fee paid: ___________Cash/Ck. # _________ Date: _______________________________________ Date Received: _________________________ Conditions of approval: _________________________ Revised 2016 ____________________________________________ ____________________________________________ ___**Special Note: This submission comprises a scaled-down approach to previously approved design. isList all attachments:t all attachments: 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. LAYOUT N O TE S: - I PLANT TAC -- -- SCHEDULE I L E GE N D -- 1. VERIFY LOCATION OF ALL BUILDINGS, WALLS, ROADS AND CURBS AFFECTING LANDSCAPE SCOPE OF WORK. -- """"'- 2. VERIFY LOCATION OF ALL VAULTS, ELECTRICAL DUCT BANKS, MANHOOLES, CONDUIT AND PIPING, DRAINAGE STRUCTURES, POINT OF CONNECTION TO PUBLIC STORMWATER SYSTEM AND OTHER UTILITIES. • ' C D ....... ,...,_ Ptncll Patlt .111- ............ 8) lREES It LARGE SHRlllS - 3. TAKE ALL D11,IENSIONS FROM BACK OF CURB, FACE or WALL OR BUILDING. OR THE CERNTERLINE OF COWMNS OR TREES U.N.O. All E AmMIICYII Cllrdndl DIMENSIONS CALLffi OUT AS EQUAL ARE EQIJIDISTANT MEASUREMENTS TO DESIGNATED CENTERLINE(S). F lfloabrl'HR'I pn.1Jw1a Fl ild- G ""fo"""""" ~ 4. TAKE ALL Dlt.lENSIONS PERPENDICULAR TO ANY REFERENCE UNE. H WORK LINE, FACE or BUILDING, FACE OF WALL OR CENTERLINE. I SHRUBS II Fl.OYERING PLANTS !- N J 1v -- 5. All WORK PERFORMED \\lll-llN Tl-IE DRIP LINE OF TREES C DESIGNATED TREE TO SAVE SHAll BE HAND LABOR u ti, C --- -·- PWJNARRG/IIDENo N -;.., 6. All r!.NGLES TO BE 90 DEGREES MD ALL LINES OF PAVING AND FENCING TO BE PARAllEL UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. MAINTAIN w N ITT HORIZONTAL ALJGNI.IENT OF ADJACENT ELEMENTS AS NOTED ON DRA\\INGS. ,_ -- _,.,,._ Camrncrl Mllwed l - I- - -.ii'+-- -- ,_ Sl:1 > ~ 7. HOLD TOPS OF WALLS LEVEL U.N.O. GROUND CO\fR/HERBACEOUS IUNTS ,, Y: u .......... Xlnllatrlm :c ___ I zQJ;i';"'"' \J 8. REFERENCE TO NORTH REFERS TO TRUE NORTH. REFERrnCE TO --- ... .... SCALE IS FOR FULL-SIZED DRAIIINGS ONLY. DO NOT SCALE FROIII 0 DRAWINGS. Pwpl•- u ~ ti 9. NOTES AND DETAILS 00 SPECIFIC DRAWINGS TAKE PRECEDENCE , Blue- a: OVER GENERAL NOTES AND TYPICAL DETAILS. llue-irlmnmed Galdlmld < '£ -- __ 0 Amr- ,_, SmoothBLMIIAltel- (( NEW SLATE PAVERS ENTRY PORCH @ EXT'G 10. ALL COOCRETE SLABS OR FOOllNGS SHALL BE DOWELED INTO AEUTTlNG WAllS, FOUNDATIONS AND FOOllNGS USING BARS OF THE SAME SIZE U.N.O, SEE DETAILS. MIit' Ycrk IRmNlld + > I • --- 11. ALL ELECTRICAL WIRING RUNS SHAll BE ROUGH-IN & INSPECTED EXISltlG lREE/SHRUB EXISTING DRIVEWAY: NEW SURFACE OF PRIOR TO ANY INSTAUATION OF NEW CONCRETE AND/OR MASONRY WORK. w PRIME & DBL. SEAL W/L-B CRUSHED An1alan.:,\ls c:mdlnlll Q -- ,., ..I BUCKINGHAM Sl}I TE TOPPING W/STL EDGING (HOLD TO EXT'G LIMITS) ,~- lil6di.'-,lhtto ,_ < ....,..,,_ a: NEW 2-STORY ADDITION ~-__:c"'II----J-Jl--------+-----18"x30" CUT SLATE FLAGSTONE GRADING N OTES .....,_ Ra!Tlla•- <( ,;,.~ rt lit ' ~ (.) PATH IN L-9 CRUSHED SLATE BED FERNS u. \Ii <>:: W/METAL EDGING 1, ALL FINISHED GRADES SHALL PR0'¥1DE FOR NAl\JRAL RUNOff OF WATER WITHOUT LOW SPOTS OR POCKETS UNLESS INTENDED BY EXISltlG AR!la!VITAE "' l% (.) ARCHITECT FOR CN-SITE DETENTIOO. SET FLOW LINES ACCURATELY ,----·- :ii:: \) • I iJ!;t:::Hr--i~I--POLLINA TOR GARDEN -' (PER SCHEDULE) AND PROVIDE A MINIMUl.l 2% AND A MAXl~Ul,I 50% GRADIENT U.N.O. 2. HOLD FINISHED GRADES FOO SHRUBS AND GROUNDCOVER AREAS 1 ,~- '··--·- u l% lfl n ,r4 -- • INCH BELOW TOP OF ADJACENT PAVEI.IENT, CURBS, OR HEADERS O!K GARDENS dN U.N.O. IN DRAWINGS. ~~"OAK GARDEN" >o 0:: - -¢- • (PER SCHEDULE) 3. GRADUALLY ROUND Off TU'S AND TOES Cf ALL Pl.ANTED SLOPES ild GIi PAlH CR S1EP LIGHT ;;;; 0 -- TO PRODUCE A SMOOlH AND NATURAllY-APPEARING TRANSITION I- ·O -- HARDWOOD MULCH BET\'j[EN RELAllVELY LEVEL AREAS AND SLOPES. N ;J) lhlte Wood All.- ~2· 01,1( PATH TYP. WITHIN ~ 0 if PLAN 1ED AREAS 4. CONFLJCTS AND DICREPANOES WITH GRADES SI-IALl BE BROUGHT 1Dod1111d PNolC 0 TO lHE ATTENTION OF lHE ARCHITECT IMMEDIATELY AND PRIOR TO PROCEEDING WllH THE walK. tl. M /;I; u, sq NEW PORCH NEW CONC.APRON U\IIG SIHENS -- TO MATCH EXISTING 5. CONTRACTOR SHAll BE RESPONSIBLE FOO LOCATING AND NOllNG ANY UNDERGROUND UTlLITY LINES PRIOR TO GRADING, TRENa-llNG, G~~UL~• Tii"'IN~ =- PLANllNG OR OTHER RELATED SITE WORK. RESTORAllON OF CONCRETE GRID UTILJTIES DAI.IAGED B'f COOTRACTOR SHALL BE ldAOE AT lHE PAVERS CONTRACTORS EXPENSE TO THE SAllSFACTION OF O'MIIER_ Pmolo, , , _ .... 5. SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE LINES SHALL BE PLACED TO ALLOW A ~ I .:..--· .:..c-­ MINIMUM OF 12" COVER, UNLESS INDICATED OTHERIMSE IN ELEVATIONS. :?-· SLATE PAVERS 7. ALL TOPSOIL TO BE STOCKPILED FOR RE-APPLICATION. COORD­ NOTE LANDSCAPE WORK Will BE EXECUTED VIA D~ GN-BUILD, THUS FlNAL LOCATION/QUANllTIES TB  I 12"XB" CONC. STRIP INATE LOCAllON IMTH ARCHITECT & O\\IIIER AND PROTECT 'MlH TARP 0 18" OAK o ;/ ii / NEW DRIVEWAY: PRIME & DBL. SEAL W/L-8 CRUSHED BUCKINGHAM SLATE TOPPING W/STL EDGING k- j EXISTING cam.JRS i 4 UTILJTY POL£ CONC. RETAINING WALL FERN BED (PER SCHEDULE) b-:= I NEW CONTOURS WALK PATH DETAIL LIVING FENCE (PER SCHEDULE) (fl z 0 C~PACTED A(J-TE f-- SUBCOORSE \'DOT ZM 0 0 <( o' 0 z w DRIVEWAY & PARKING EDGE DETAIL 0c'. 0 w (fl 0 [L 0 0c'. [L LL.J __J C_) /,. ~" / / a::: I I I ----------------- I iCY 1 I / I I I I I I I I I I I I I / I I / / 5:r~%G B'fR&Ol{o (NOH-0Rl,AL) / / ✓o --- .l6" OAK / ' I \ '' ; ' 6" CREPE Y'rRT TO BE REMO\IE ' I / I-­ I ' --- _,., ~ en I ; I I I I I I I I I I I I I I / u 0:: u I I a::: I I I I .i2·0W EXISTING CONC. SIDEVIM.K TO EE REYOVED >­ I I I I (/) I I I I I I I I Q 0:: II I I ~ I I / I I ~ I I / / / / I I I I 0 0 I I I I /;/9,,,; I I I J2' OAK J6" OAK I I I I I I I I I 32" OAK I 0 I I l-r-'-.,-,1 I I I 0 I I I I I ; I I I I I I I I I I I I / 1 1 8-; I I 0 I I I I I I I I I I I I /6'AA; I I I I I I I I I c.o I I I. I I I ! c::::, UTUlY POLE I I II I I I I I I I 15" OAK I I I I I I I I ;o I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 28 SEPlEMBER 2021 SITE DEMOLITION PLAN I I SC: 1"=20'-0" I A . F I N A L B. A. R. SUBMISSION (S I T E 0 N L Y) 106 Oakhurst Circle Revised Landscape Plan — staff notations BAR review November 16, 2021 August 2021 No changes No changes Revision - November 2021 (Revised plan dated Sept 28, 2021) Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 21-11-03 122 Maywood Lane, Tax Parcel 110060000 Owner: Neighborhood Properties, LLC Applicant: Chris Henningsen, Henningsen Kestner Architects, Inc. Project: Partial demolition, additions and rehabilitation to the house and cottage Application components (please click each link to go directly to PDF page): • Staff Report • Application Submittal November 16, 2021 BAR Packet Guide 6 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW STAFF REPORT November 16, 2021 Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 21-11-03 122 Maywood Lane, Tax Parcel 110060000 Oakhurst Circle-Gildersleeve ADC District Owner: Neighborhood Properties, LLC Applicant: Henningsen Kestner Architects, Inc. Project: Partial demolitions, new addition, and rehabilitation of dwelling Background Year Built: 1937 District: Oakhurst Circle-Gildersleeve ADC District Status: Contributing 1-1/2 story, gable-roofed, vernacular Colonial-Revival with two, gabled dormers. Prior BAR Actions December 19, 2017 – BAR approved CoA (7-0) for the partial demolitions, new additions and rehabilitations to the house and cottage… with either retention of the original, slightly cantilevered entrance hood [on the main house] or to extend the cantilevered hood for functional purposes. Also, a window sample will come back to the BAR to be reviewed. http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/739599/BAR_122%20Maywood%20Lane_Dec2017.pdf Application • Applicant submittal: Henningsen and Kestner Architects drawings Renovation of 111-115 W Main St Storefront, dated 25 October 2021: Sheets BAR.00 - BAR.06. (7 sheets.) Request CoA for partial demolitions, additions and rehabilitations. (Note: This request does not include alterations to the cottage, which were part of the 2017 submittal.) Front • Remove entry door; install new door and trim • New concrete stair and stoop • Painted metal railings 122 Maywood (Nov. 11, 2021) 1 West (left side elevation) • Demolish porch and basement room • Construct 1-1/2 story addition with new windows and doors. • Foundation: hard-coat stucco on CMU, painted. • Siding: fiber cement siding, painted. • Roof: asphalt shingles. Rear • Demolish steps, entry deck and brick piers; construct pressure-treated wood deck and stairs. • Remove six (6) windows (retain one) and two (2) doors; install new entry door and windows (two double and one single) • Install new door and windows. • Install skylight. East (right side elevation) • Remove one (1) single window; install triple window. Existing: Roof: Install new shingles Siding and trim: Repaint Stucco foundation: Repaint existing New: Windows: Legacy http://legacy-products.com/prod_leg_spec.php and http://legacy-products.com/pdf/legacy_dh.pdf Doors: (Applicant to provide information.) Discussion and Recommendations A CoA for the proposed work was approved (7-0) on December 19, 2017. (Meeting minutes in the Appendix.) That CoA expired in June 2019. Staff recommends approval as submitted with the conditions noted in the motion below. Suggested motion Approval: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City’s ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed alterations at 122 Maywood Lane satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are compatible with this property and other properties in the Oakhurst- Gildersleeve ADC District, and that the BAR approves the application as submitted, with the following conditions: • Cut sheets for the windows and doors will be provided [to staff] for the BAR record. • The insulated glass will have internal spacer bars that align with simulated divided lites. Denial: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City’s ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed alterations at 122 Maywood Lane do not satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are not compatible with this property and other properties in the Oakhurst- Gildersleeve ADC District, and that for the following reasons the BAR denies the application as submitted: … 122 Maywood (Nov. 11, 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 4) Federal Regulations (36 C.F.R. §67.7(b)), as may be relevant; 5) The effect of the proposed change on the historic district neighborhood; 6) The impact of the proposed change on other protected features on the property, such as gardens, landscaping, fences, walls and walks; 7) Whether the proposed method of construction, renovation or restoration could have an adverse impact on the structure or site, or adjacent buildings or structures; 8) Any applicable provisions of the City’s Design Guidelines. Pertinent Design Review Guidelines for New Construction and Additions IV: New Construction and Additions 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 exisiting 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. 122 Maywood (Nov. 11, 2021) 3 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. Pertinent Design Review Guidelines for Rehabilitation V: Rehabilitation D. Entrances, Porches, and Doors 1. The original details and shape of porches should be retained including the outline, roof height, and roof pitch. 2. Inspect masonry, wood, and metal or porches and entrances for signs of rust, peeling paint, wood deterioration, open joints around frames, deteriorating putty, inadequate caulking, and improper drainage, and correct any of these conditions. 3. Repair damaged elements, matching the detail of the existing original fabric. 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. 5. Do not strip entrances and porches of historic material and details. 6. Give more importance to front or side porches than to utilitarian back porches. 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. 10. Do not enclose porches on primary elevations and avoid enclosing porches on secondary elevations in a manner that radically changes the historic appearance. 11. Provide needed barrier-free access in ways that least alter the features of the building. a. For residential buildings, try to use ramps that are removable or portable rather than permanent. b. On nonresidential buildings, comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act while minimizing the visual impact of ramps that affect the appearance of a building. 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. 16. Retain transom windows and sidelights. …. C. Windows 1) Retain original windows when possible. 2) Uncover and repair covered up windows and reinstall windows where they have been blocked in. 3) If the window is no longer needed, the glass should be retained and the back side frosted, screened, or shuttered so that it appears from the outside to be in use. 122 Maywood (Nov. 11, 2021) 4 4) Repair original windows by patching, splicing, consolidating or otherwise reinforcing. Wood that appears to be in bad condition because of peeling paint or separated joints often can be repaired. 5) Replace historic components of a window that are beyond repair with matching components. 6) Replace entire windows only when they are missing or beyond repair. 7) If a window on the primary façade of a building must be replaced and an existing window of the same style, material, and size is identified on a secondary elevation, place the historic window in the window opening on the primary façade. 8) Reconstruction should be based on physical evidence or old photographs. 9) Avoid changing the number, location, size, or glazing pattern of windows by cutting new openings, blocking in windows, or installing replacement sash that does not fit the window opening. 10) Do not use inappropriate materials or finishes that radically change the sash, depth of reveal, muntin configuration, reflective quality or color of the glazing, or appearance of the frame. 11) Use replacement windows with true divided lights or interior and exterior fixed muntins with internal spacers to replace historic or original examples. 12) If windows warrant replacement, appropriate material for new windows depends upon the context of the building within a historic district, and the age and design of the building. Sustainable materials such as wood, aluminum-clad wood, solid fiberglass, and metal windows are preferred. Vinyl windows are discouraged. 13) False muntins and internal removable grilles do not present an historic appearance and should not be used. 14) Do not use tinted or mirrored glass on major facades of the building. Translucent or low (e) glass may be strategies to keep heat gain down. 15) Storm windows should match the size and shape of the existing windows and the original sash configuration. Special shapes, such as arched top storms, are available. 16) Storm windows should not damage or obscure the windows and frames. 17) Avoid aluminum-colored storm sash. It can be painted an appropriate color if it is first primed with a zinc chromate primer. 18) The addition of shutters may be appropriate if not previously installed but if compatible with the style of the building or neighborhood. 19) In general, shutters should be wood (rather than metal or vinyl) and should be mounted on hinges. In some circumstances, appropriately dimensioned, painted, composite material shutters may be used. 20) The size of the shutters should result in their covering the window opening when closed. 21) Avoid shutters on composite or bay windows. 22) If using awnings, ensure that they align with the opening being covered. 23) Use awning colors that are compatible with the colors of the building. Appendix BAR meeting minutes December 19, 2017 BAR 17-12-03, 122 Maywood Lane, Tax Parcel 110060000 Owner: Neighborhood Properties, LLC / Applicant Henningsen Kestner Architects, Inc., Additions and Renovations Applicant: Planning on using cellular PVC as opposed to wood aluminum clad windows. He also said that they had already taken off the asbestos siding from the cottage. Mohr: Generally, I don’t have a problem with the proposal, other than that front stoop and the little hood, which seems to be a real part of the character of the house. 122 Maywood (Nov. 11, 2021) 5 Schwarz: Is there anything that needs to be done to differentiate the addition? Or once it is built, will it be different enough. Mohr: It isn’t stridently modern, but it is clearly an addition. Applicant: We don’t want to have any siding on the addition; we wanted it to look more like an enclosed porch. Schwarz: The changes you are making are how a house would naturally evolve. Balut: I agree with Tim’s comment that it is unfortunate to lose one of the key identifying features of the house. What you have proposed with it extruding out, is perfectly within our regulations. Is the size of that pediment larger than what currently exists? Applicant: It is not significantly larger. Balut: I think with that addition and the larger addition on the side, I think it looks like how a house would evolve in Virginia. It is called telescoping, when you put that side piece on, and it is very common. The fact that you proposed something that is trimmed that out and you proposed something that is more like a porch extension addition. From a massing standpoint I think it fits the guidelines. I could go either way on the front; I think it is similar enough that it is keeping with the original design intent of the house. Just to conclude, I think the other additions and modifications are fine as well. Mohr: I think it makes more sense to take that existing hood and extend it. The scale of it seems right for the building, and the one you are proposing looks a little bit too fancy, for lack of a better word. If you extend it to 3 or 3 ½ feet out, then you get the coverage while you are under the door. Balut: I agree, I think that is a better solution. Applicant: I think the problem with extending it, is that is raised so we can have the right entablature and such on top of the columns. I do not think you can extend that. Mohr: You wouldn’t include the columns. You could just have it cantilevered. It would be little tricky, but it is possible. My concern is that little hood seems like a character defining feature of the house. Sarafin: The hood with the dormers makes the composition of the house. I would be inclined to not alter the entrance; I think everything else is entirely appropriate. Mohr: That would be my first choice. Clayborne: I could go either way. I do like the scale of the original hood, I like that better than what I see here. Graves: Where do we stand on the window conversation? Miller: That is a great point, if we look at the guidelines, it would say no, but we are currently working on updating them. 122 Maywood (Nov. 11, 2021) 6 Mohr: We are talking about a composite material correct? They can be painted and are not flimsy like a vinyl window. I am not adverse to it. Miller: Are the muntins a similar size? Applicant: Whatever you all decide, we can do that. Graves: I don’t think our guidelines support it, but I think it is comparable to aluminum clad windows and it might even be a superior material over time. Plus, it is paintable and we could specify a simulated divided light. Mohr: These actually look more like a wood window than aluminum clad and they will take paint. Schwarz: I wanted to clarify that it is only the windows marked for demolition that you would change out correct? Also, you offered to bring in a sample correct. Applicant: Yes. Graves: I am supportive of the windows and the porch either way. Schwarz: I can support the porch and what is proposed. It is how a house would evolve over time and it also makes it a little dressier. Sarafin: I would argue that the porch with the slight cantilevered overhang as it exists is a character defining feature of this style colonial style house that I would argue ought to be retained. It is such a character defining feature of this style and time period of house and I would hate to lose it. Applicant: In that case would you suggest having wrought iron railing projecting out? Mohr: Yes, that way you still have the entablature, and the greater detail of the addition and it helps distinguish the two. Miller: I see agreement from everyone. I like the original and it seems like you would be able to extend it, but if someone strongly agreed with the new porch, it is not something that makes or breaks it for me. Overall, I think the demolitions are appropriate. Mohr: I think the hood has a lot to do with the character of the building. Clayborne: I am not going to dig my heels on that one, like I said I could go either way. Sarafin: It looks entirely appropriate to me. Schwarz: I am curious on what you are planning for the overhang of this door. Applicant: The existing overhang is low, and the approach to the door is straight ahead, so the brackets are not a problem with the current configuration. With the proposed configuration, we want to raise the structure to have the same eave line as the rest of the house. 122 Maywood (Nov. 11, 2021) 7 Schwarz: So you are going to bring a downspout down but the front of the steps? Applicant: Correct. Schwarz: What is your reasoning for replacing all of the windows? Applicant: The windows are in pretty bad condition. Schwarz: Is the muntin pattern going to change? Applicant: No. Schwarz: I feel this one is losing any character it had, but then again it is an outbuilding. Mohr: Are the windows rearranged because you have changed the inside configuration? Applicant: Yes. Schwarz: Can you see this from the street? Applicant: No. Sarafin: Is there a driveway that continues along the right, down to two more houses? Applicant: No, it continues along the house, but goes to the back of the property. Sarafin: So, I think the motion stands as it is, adding in the cottage. Mohr: I think that should be up to them, if you want to extend it for functionality reasons, Motion: Sarafin moved: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City Design Guidelines for Rehabilitation and for New Construction, I move to find that the proposed partial demolitions, new additions and rehabilitations to the house and cottage satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are compatible with this property and other properties in the Oakhurst Circle- Gildersleeve Wood ADC district, and that the BAR approves the application as submitted with either retention of the original, slightly cantilevered entrance hood [on the main house] or to extend the cantilevered hood for functional purposes. Also, a window sample will come back to the BAR to be reviewed. Balut seconded. Approved (7-0). 122 Maywood (Nov. 11, 2021) 8 Board of Architectural Review (BAR) Certificate of Appropriateness Please Retum 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 fonn and all attachments. Please include application feo as follows: New construction projeet $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 Charlottcsvillo. The BAR meets the th,rd Tuesday of lhe month. Deadline for submrttals is Tuesday 3 weeks prior lo nexl BAR meeting by 3:30 p.m. Owner Name Neighborflood Investments, LLC Applicant Name Christian E Henningsen, HK Architects Project Name/Description Add~ions & Renovations Parcel Numbe-r 1100600000 Project Property Address 122 Maywood Lane, Charlottesville, VA, 22903 Signature of Applicant Applicant Information Address: 1108 E. High St. Charlottesville, VA, 22902 Email: chris@henningsenkestner.com • IO•t'S-t.l Phone: (W) 434-971-7202 (C) _ _ __ __ Date Christian E. Henni ngsen, AJA 10-25-2021 Property Owner Information lif not applicant) Print Name Date Address: 810 Catalpa Ct., Charlottesville, VA 22903 Property Owner Permission (if not applicant) I have read this application and hereby give my consent to Email; nchard@ne1gh6orh0odprops.com it s s u ~ Phone: (W) 434-923-8900 (C) _ _ _ __ ,: i~z~"' ,0,1,,-.u Signature , Date Do you intend to apply for Federal or State Tax Credits Richard T. Spurzem 10-25-202 1 for this proje-ct? -'-' N"'o_ _ _ _ __ __ Print Name Oat'? Description of Proposed Work (attach separate narrative if necessary): Addition and interior renovation (This is a resubmission of a previously approved proposal due to expiration of the original COA) List All Attachments (see reverse side for submittal requirements): BAR application package, sheets 00-06 Submitted electronically For Office Use Only Approved/Disapproved by: _ __ _ _ _ _ __ Received by: _ _ _ __ _ _ __ __ Date: _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ Fee paid: _ _ _ __;Cash/Ck. # _ _ __ Conditions of approval: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ __ Date Received: _ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ Revised 2015 Ultimate Swinging French Door Collection Unit Features.......................................................................................................................................................... 1 Standard Divided Lite Options................................................................................................................................ 6 Optional Interior Square Simulated Divided Lite .................................................................................................... 7 Inswing Handing Configurations............................................................................................................................. 8 Outswing Handing Configurations.......................................................................................................................... 9 Ult Swing FD COLL 11708532 Architectural Detail Manual Ult Swing FD COLL 11708532 Architectural Detail Manual Ultimate Swinging French Door Collection Unit Features Swinging French Door Collection consists of: For the following products, please reference their individual chapters: UIFD IZ3: Ultimate Inswing French Door IZ3 Ultimate Inswing French Door G2 UOFDIZ3/UOFDIZ4: Ultimate Outswing French Door IZ3/IZ4 Ultimate Inswing French Door 2 1/4" G2 UIFDAT: Ultimate Inswing French Door Arch Top Ultimate Inswing Door (3" stiles) UOFDAT: Ultimate Outswing French Door Arch Top Ultimate Outswing French Door G2 UIFD2.25IZ3: Ultimate Inswing French Door 2 1/4" IZ3 Ultimate Outswing French Door 2 1/4" G2 UOFD2.25IZ3: Ultimate Outswing French Door 2 1/4" IZ3 Ultimate Outswing Door (3" stiles) UIFD2.25AT: Ultimate Inswing French Door Arch Top and IZ3 UOFD2.25AT: Ultimate Outswing Arch Top 2 1/4" and IZ3/IZ4 NOTE: IZ3 and IZ4 units are not available with the CE mark Frame:  Frame thickness: 1 1/16" (27)  Frame width: 4 9/16" (116)  Fiberglass reinforced pultruded sill with water shed and weep system ◦ Standard color: beige ◦ Optional color: bronze  Optional interior sill liner of Oak, Mahogany or Cherry  Standard Oak sill liner  Optional interior sill liner of Mahogany or Cherry Panel:  Panel thickness: 1 3/4" (44) - UIFD IZ3, UOFD IZ3/IZ4, UIFDAT, UOFDAT ◦ Top rail height and stile width: 4 3/4" (121) ◦ Sidelite stile width: 3" (76) ◦ Traditional French Door bottom rail height: 8 1/8" (206) ◦ Contemporary Door bottom rail height: 4 3/4" (121) ◦ Bottom rail:  Stave core is used for Pine, Cherry, Douglas Fir and Mahogany  Laminated veneer lumber (LVL) is used for White Oak ◦ Stationary stile and hinged stile:  LVL is used for White Oak, Mahogany and Cherry  Stave core is used for Pine and Douglas Fir ◦ Locking stile: all wood species use LVL ◦ Top rail:  LVL is used for White Oak  Solid wood for Mahogany and Cherry  Stave core is used for Pine and Douglas Fir ◦ Intermediate rail: solid wood for all species  Panel thickness: 2 1/4"(57) - UIFD2.25 IZ3, UOFD2.25 IZ3, UIFD2.25AT, UOFD2.25AT ◦ Top rail height and stile width: 6" (152) ◦ Bottom rail height: 8 1/8" (206) ◦ Bottom rail, stationary stile, locking stile, hinged stile and top rail for all species use LVL ◦ Top rail is solid wood for arch top doors ◦ Intermediate rail: solid face laminated  Standard interior wood cope sticking: ogee  Optional interior wood cope sticking: square NOTE: Contemporary doors will default to square sticking with an option to select ogee  Panels are interior glazed Raised/Flat Panel Option:  Standard stamped raised panel uses .080” (2) aluminum to the exterior with foam backing  Core is medium density fiberboard (MDF) with non finger-jointed wood laminated to the interior NOTE:  Panel option not available with Contemporary door  Ultimate Inswing / Outswing French Door Arch Top products with Raised and Flat panel options are not available with CE mark. Ver 2019.3 2019-07-29 Ult Swing FD COLL-1 19972255 Marvin Signature Collection Architectural Detail Manual Ultimate Swinging French Door Collection Unit Features Hardware:  Multi-point lock: applied to active and optional on inactive panels, 2 3/8" (60) backset, with latch engagement and three locking points, with option of keyed alike. ◦ Dead bolt ◦ Head jamb bolt  Manual head and foot bolt standard on inactive panel with option of multi-point lock  Multi-point lock is standard on 2 1/4" inactive panels  Optional mortise lock and passage latch on active panel  Optional prep for passage latch with deadbolt  Optional no lock/no bore  Optional lever handle set: active, inactive and dummy  Traditional handle set finish options: ◦ Powder coat finishes: Satin Taupe, White, Dark Bronze, Matte Black ◦ Metal finishes: Satin Chrome, Polished Chrome, Antique Brass, Oil Rubbed Bronze, Brass PVD, Oil Rubbed Bronze PVD, Satin Nickel PVD  Contemporary handle set finish options: ◦ Painted finishes: Matte Black, Dark Bronze, ◦ Metal finishes: Oil Rubbed Bronze PVD, Satin Nickel PVD Hinges:  Adjustable hinges ◦ Standard finish: Satin Taupe with a steel substrate  Optional powder coat finish: Gold Tone, Dark Bronze. Silver Frost, White, Matte Black  Optional finish: Antique Brass, Satin Chrome, Oil Rubbed Bronze, Polished Chrome, Brass PVD, Satin Nickel PVD, Oil Rubbed Bronze PVD ◦ Dimensions are 4 1/4"(108) x 3 3/4"(95) with 3/8"(10) radius corners  Adjustment is 3/16"(5) for horizontal and vertical of panels in frame ◦ Quantity per panel for UIFD IZ3, UOFD IZ3  Unit rough opening height ≤ 96" (2438) = three hinges per panel  Optional four hinges for unit rough opening height ≥ 86 1/2" (2197) and ≤ 96”(2438) ◦ Quantity per panel for UIFDAT, UOFDAT  Unit rough opening height ≤ 80" (2032) = three hinges per panel  Unit rough opening height ≥ 84" (2134) and ≤ 96”(2438) = four hinges per panel ◦ Quantity per panel for UIFD2.25 IZ3, UOFD2.25 IZ3, UIFD2.25AT, and UOFD2.25AT  Unit rough opening height ≤ 86 1/2”(2197) = three hinges per panel  Unit rough opening height > 86 1/2” (2197) and ≤ 96 (2438) = four hinges per panel  Unit rough opening height > 96” (2438) = five hinges per panel  Optional four hinges for unit rough opening height ≤ 96”(2438)  Optional butt hinge for 1 3/4" doors ◦ Default finish (Inswing): Satin Taupe with steel substrate; Optional finishes: Brass Plated, Solid Brass, Antique Brass, Oil Rubbed Bronze, Satin Chrome, Satin Nickel, White, Stainless Steel, Satin Nickel PVD ◦ Default finish (Outswing): Solid Brass or Stainless Steel with non-removable pin ◦ Dimensions: 4" (102) x 4" (102) with radius corners ◦ Quantity per panel  Unit rough opening height < 86 1/2” (2198) = three hinges per panel  Unit rough opening height ≥ 86 1/2” (2198) up to ≤ 110 1/2”(2807) = four hinges per panel  Unit rough opening height > 110 1/2" (2807) = five hinges per panel  Optional ball bearing hinges for 2 1/4" doors and 1 3/4" doors ◦ Default finish is Satin Chrome with a brass substrate; Optional finish: Solid Brass, Bronze with a brass substrate or stainless steel (2 1/4" only) ◦ Dimensions:  For 2 1/4" doors, 4 1/2" (114) x 4 1/2" (114) with square corners.  For 1 3/4" doors, 4 1/2" (114) x 4 1/2" (114) with radius corners ◦ Quantity per panel  Unit rough opening height < 86 1/2” (2198) = three hinges per panel  For 2 1/4" doors: Unit rough opening height ≥ 86 1/2” (2198) up to ≤ 96”(2438) = four hinges per panel  For 2 1/4" doors: Unit rough opening height > 96” (2438) = five hinges per panel  For 1 3/4" doors: Unit rough opening height ≥ 86 1/2” (2198) up to ≤ 110 1/2”(2807) = four hinges per panel  For 1 3/4" doors: Unit rough opening height > 110 1/2” (2807) = five hinges per panel Ver 2019.3 2019-07-29 Ult Swing FD COLL-2 19972255 Marvin Signature Collection Architectural Detail Manual Ultimate Swinging French Door Collection Unit Features Optional Screens: (Inswing Units only)  Ultimate swinging screen: ◦ Four concealed hinges per panel are factory installed within the Z bar ◦ Handle includes latch with exterior handle and internal locking mechanism  Default: Contemporary Handle available in Bronze PVD, Nickel PVD, Matte Black, Dark Bronze  Optional: Traditional Handle available in Brass PVD, Bronze PVD, Satin Taupe, Satin Nickel PVD. ◦ Screen Colors: Pebble Gray, Bahama Brown, Evergreen, Bronze, Stone White, Ebony, Wineberry, Coconut Cream, Hampton Sage, Cashmere, Sierra White, Cadet Gray, Cascade Blue, Liberty Bronze (Pearlescent), Gunmetal, Suede, Clay ◦ Standard screen mesh: charcoal fiberglass  Optional screen mesh: bronze, charcoal aluminum, silver aluminum, black aluminum, or charcoal high transparency fiberglass mesh (CH Hi-Tran) Weather Strip:  Weather strip at all panel perimeter points  Standard color: beige  Optional color: black Mulling:  For mull performance, refer to the General Mulling chapter of the ADM. Ver 2021.3 2021-06-29 Ult Swing FD COLL-3 19972255 Marvin Signature Collection Architectural Detail Manual Ultimate Swinging French Door Collection Unit Features Continued Glass and Glazing:  Glazing method: Insulating - Dual Pane or Tri Pane  Glazing seal: Silicone glazed  Standard glass: Insulating Dual Pane Low E2 with Argon or Air  Optional dual-pane glass make-ups: ◦ Low E1 Argon or Air, ◦ Low E3 Argon or Air, ◦ Low E2/ERS Argon or air, ◦ Low E3/ERS Argon or air, clear, tints, tempered, obscure, and decorative glass options  Optional Tri Pane glass make-ups: ◦ Low E2/E1 Argon, Krypton-Argon, or Air ◦ Low E3/E1 Argon, Krypton-Argon, or Air ◦ Low E1 Argon, Krypton-Argon, or Air  Available glass types: ◦ Laminated ◦ Tempered ◦ Obscure  Tints: ◦ Bronze ◦ Gray ◦ Green ◦ Reflective Bronze  Decorative glass options: ◦ Frost ◦ Reed ◦ Narrow Reed ◦ Rain ◦ Sandblasted ◦ Glue Chip  All glass is of select quality complying with ASTM C 1036. Tempered or Laminated safety glazing per CPSC 16 CFR 1201. Insulating glass is manufactured and tested to pass level ASTM 2190 and is IGCC certified.  IZ3 has tempered exterior pane.  For additional specialty glazing options, please contact your Marvin representative. Lock Status Sensor (Optional):  Available for UIFD IZ3, UIFD2.25 IZ3, UIFD2.25AT, UOFD IZ3, UOFD2.25 IZ3, UOFD2.25AT.  Refer to Lock Status Sensor Installation Instructions for requirements.  To achieve a closed and locked status, The Lock Status Sensor requires that the door must be closed to depress the anti-slam mechanism so that the door can be manually locked. It allows easy integration with home automation systems using a wireless connection. ◦ Requires purchase of secondary transmitter for operation. Marvin will prep for this option. Wired connection not available.  Wireless Lock Status Sensor is located within the width and height of the operating panel.  Sensor Location will always be integrated into the locking hardware system. Ver 2019.3 2019-07-29 Ult Swing FD COLL-4 19972255 Marvin Signature Collection Architectural Detail Manual Ultimate Swinging French Door Collection Standard Divided Lite Options 23/32" (18) Insulating Glass Aluminum 23/32" Contour GBG 5/8" 5/8" (16) (16) 5/8" SDL 5/8" SDL W/Spacer 7/8" 7/8" (22) (22) 7/8" SDL 7/8" SDL W/Spacer Bar 1 1/8" 1 1/8" (29) (29) 1 1/8" SDL 1 1/8" SDL W/Spacer Bar 2 13/32" 2 13/32" 2 13/32" (61) (61) (61) 2 13/32" SDL 2 13/32" SDL 2 13/32" SDL W/One Spacer Bar W/Two Spacer Bars Ver 2019.3 2019-07-29 Ult Swing FD COLL-5 19972255 Marvin Signature Collection Architectural Detail Manual Ultimate Swinging French Door Collection Optional Interior Square Simulated Divided Lite 5/8" 5/8" (16) (16) 5/8" SDL 5/8" SDL W/Spacer 7/8" 7/8" (22) (22) 7/8" SDL 7/8" SDL W/Spacer Bar 1 1/8" 1 1/8" (29) (29) 1 1/8" SDL 1 1/8" SDL W/Spacer Bar 1 15/16" 1 15/16" (49) (49) 1 15/16" SDL 1 15/16" SDL W/Two Spacer Bars 2 13/32" 2 13/32" (61) (61) 2 13/32" SDL 2 13/32" SDL W/Two Spacer Bars Ver 2019.3 2019-07-29 Ult Swing FD COLL-6 19972255 Marvin Signature Collection Architectural Detail Manual Ultimate Swinging French Door Collection Inswing Handing Configurations XX R OX L XO R OX R XX L XO L OOO OOX L XOO R OOX R XOO L OXO L OXO R OXX L OXX R XXO R XXO L OOOO XXOO L XXOO R OOXX L OOXX R OXXO L OXXO R 1 3/4" Archtop Doors Entrance Systems 2 1/4" Rectangular and Archtop Doors OX L XO R XO L OX R O XL XR OXO L OXO R OXXO L OXXO R OO XX R XX L Ver 2019.3 2019-07-29 Ult Swing FD COLL-7 19972255 Marvin Signature Collection Architectural Detail Manual Ultimate Swinging French Door Collection Outswing Handing Configurations XX L OX R XO L OX L XX R XO R OOO OOX R XOO L OOX L XOO R OXO R OXO L OXX R OXX L XXO L XXO R OOOO XXOO R XXOO L OOXX R OOXX L OXXO R OXXO L 1 3/4" Archtop Doors Entrance Systems 2 1/4" Rectangular and Archtop Doors OX R XO L XO R OX L O XR XL OXO R OXO L OXXO R OXXO L XX L XX R Ver 2019.3 2019-07-29 Ult Swing FD COLL-8 19972255 Marvin Signature Collection Architectural Detail Manual Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 21-11-04 128 Chancellor Street, TMP 090105000 The Corner ADC District Owner: University Christian Ministries Applicant: Tom Keough, Train Architects Project: Façade alterations Application components (please click each link to go directly to PDF page): • Staff Report • Historic Survey • Application Submittal November 16, 2021 BAR Packet Guide 7 City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Staff Report November 16, 2021 Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 21-03-06 128 Chancellor Street, TMP 090105000 The Corner ADC District Owner: University Christian Ministries Applicant: Tom Keough, Train Architects Project: Front façade alterations Background Year Built: c1926 District: The Corner ADC Status: Contributing Rectangular form, three-bay frame shingled swelling with Craftsman and Colonial Revival stylistic elements. Constructed as a dwelling, the house was occupied until 1969 when it transitions to other uses. Since the 1980s it is served as the Center for Christian Study. (Historic survey attached.) Prior BAR Actions (complete list in Appendix) October 20, 2020 – BAR approved CoA for rear addition. http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/798351/2020-10_128%20Chancellor%20Street_BAR.pdf March 16, 2021 – BAR approved CoA for front terrace landscaping. http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/798386/2021-03_128%20Chancellor%20Street_BAR.pdf Application • Submittal: William Sherman Architect, and Train Architects drawings Modification to previously approved Center for Christian Study, dated October 26, 2021: Cover; narrative; photos (2 sheets); revised footprint; parking level plan; lower level plan; street level plan; upper level plan; attic & roof plan; roof plan; building section; isometrics; elevation renderings; front landscaping plan; and front renderings (3 sheets). • Supplemental Information: o William Sherman Architect, and Train Architects drawing A8.01, Wall Sections, undated: metal railing detail highlighted. o Belgard stacked block retaining wall selection. Color: Rustic Oak. o Renderings (two), showing rear and side elevations. 128 Chancellor Street (Nov. 11, 2021) 1 CoA request for alteration to the front entrance and to the rear addition footprint and elevations. Building Elevations – Rear Addition • Reduce the square footage of the main and upper levels by reducing the distance the cantilever out toward the east. The footprint of the parking level remains unchanged. • Reduce the number of windows on the north and south elevation. • Change the East retaining wall material to engineered stacked block from concrete. • Move the east retaining back away from the east property line; and addition of low-gro fragrant sumac as ground cover/buffer between the stacked block retaining wall and the properties on Elliewood Avenue. • Relocate the guard fence from the top of the retaining wall to be in line with the face of the building as the area between the retaining and building is not accessible. Front Entry • Relocate the bike racks from the back of the building to along the northern edge of the new brick terrace at the front of the building. This will likely reduce the number of cars parked in the northern half of the terrace from four cars to two cars. • Plant low-gro fragrant sumac around the existing Ginkgo tree in the northwest corner of the site. • Remove the planter boxes along the sidewalk from the project in their entirety and in their place provide permanent planting beds with a mix of four (4) serviceberry and two (2) cherry trees planted amidst liriope. • Reduce the number of benches along the sidewalk to three (3) 4-foot benches and delete the wooden bench around the existing Japanese maple (upon further review of the heath of tree there was not enough clearance for the bench.) Discussion At the rear addition, the tan wall sections had been approved as 2’ x 8’ exterior panels. The revisions indicate siding, similar to the brown wall sections. Staff suggests this change is not significant and the use of siding is consistent with the design guidelines. Staff finds the proposed modifications are consistent with the prior BAR approvals and recommends approval. Note: Staff received an email expressing concern and suggestions regarding this project. See the Appendix. Suggested Motions Approval: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed alterations at 128 Chancellor Street satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are compatible with this property and other properties in The Corner ADC District, and that the BAR approves the application as submitted.. [.. as submitted with the following modifications…] Denial: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed alterations at 128 Chancellor Street do not satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are not compatible with this property and other properties in The Corner ADC ADC District, and that for the following reasons the BAR denies the application as submitted… 128 Chancellor Street (Nov. 11, 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 ADC District Design Guidelines Chapter II – Site Design and Elements III: Site Design and Elements A. Introduction The relationship between a historic building and its site, landscape features, outbuildings, and other elements within the property boundary all contribute to a historic district’s overall image. Site features should be considered an important part of any project to be reviewed by the Board of Architectural Review. […] The resulting character of many of the residential streets in the historic districts is one of lush plantings and mature shade trees. While there may be much variety within the house types and styles along a particular street, the landscape character ties together the setting and plays an important role in defining the distinctiveness of the districts. When making changes to a property within one of the historic districts, the entire site should be studied to better understand its original design and its context within its sub-area. When planning changes to a site in a historic district, create a new plan that reflects the site traditions of the area and that fits the scale of the lot. Consider using different types and scales of plantings that will create scale, define edges and enclose outdoor spaces of the site. The following sections provide more specific guidance. B. Plantings 1) Encourage the maintenance and planting of large trees on private property along the streetfronts, which contribute to the “avenue” effect. 128 Chancellor Street (Nov. 11, 2021) 3 2) Generally, use trees and plants that are compatible with the existing plantings in the neighborhood. 3) Use trees and plants that are indigenous to the area. 4) Retain existing trees and plants that help define the character of the district, especially street trees and hedges. 5) Replace diseased or dead plants with like or similar species if appropriate. 6) When constructing new buildings, identify and take care to protect significant existing trees and other plantings. 7) Choose ground cover plantings that are compatible with adjacent sites, existing site conditions, and the character of the building. 8) Select mulching and edging materials carefully and do not use plastic edgings, lava, crushed rock, unnaturally colored mulch or other historically unsuitable materials. C. Walls and Fences 1) Maintain existing materials such as stone walls, hedges, wooden picket fences, and wrought-iron fences. 2) When a portion of a fence needs replacing, salvage original parts for a prominent location. 3) Match old fencing in material, height, and detail. 4) If it is not possible to match old fencing, use a simplified design of similar materials and height. 5) For new fences, use materials that relate to materials in the neighborhood. 6) Take design cues from nearby historic fences and walls. 7) Chain-link fencing, split rail fences, and vinyl plastic fences should not be used. 8) Traditional concrete block walls may be appropriate. 9) Modular block wall systems or modular concrete block retaining walls are strongly discouraged but may be appropriate in areas not visible from the public right-of-way. 10) If street-front fences or walls are necessary or desirable, they should not exceed four (4) feet in height from the sidewalk or public right-of-way and should use traditional materials and design. 11) Residential privacy fences may be appropriate in side or rear yards where not visible from the primary street. 12) Fences should not exceed six (6) feet in height in the side and rear yards. 13) Fence structures should face the inside of the fenced property. 14) Relate commercial privacy fences to the materials of the building. If the commercial property adjoins a residential neighborhood, use a brick or painted wood fence or heavily planted screen as a buffer. 15) Avoid the installation of new fences or walls if possible in areas where there are no are no fences or walls and yards are open. 16) Retaining walls should respect the scale, materials and context of the site and adjacent properties. 17) Respect the existing conditions of the majority of the lots on the street in planning new construction or a rehabilitation of an existing site. E. Walkways and Driveways 1) Use appropriate traditional paving materials like brick, stone, and scored concrete. […] Chapter III – New Construction and Additions IV: New Construction and Additions P. Additions 1) Function and Size a. Attempt to accommodate needed functions within the existing structure without building an addition. 128 Chancellor Street (Nov. 11, 2021) 4 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. 128 Chancellor Street (Nov. 11, 2021) 5 APPENDIX Prior BAR Actions • June 2014 – Admin review of exterior deck alterations. • August 18, 2020 – Preliminary discussion re: rear addition and front alterations • October 20, 2020 – BAR approved CoA for rear addition. Applicant deferred action on alterations to the front elevation. • March 16, 2021 – BAR approved CoA for front terrace landscaping. Email to staff From: Susan Aulebach Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2021 11:31 AM To: Werner, Jeffrey B Cc: Betty Graumlich Subject: Re: Application for 128 Chancellor Street Jeff, Thank you for sending us these drawings. It was especially helpful that you included the previously approved drawings so we could understand the changes. Our primary concern focuses on the benches in front of the house. We believe they are too close to the sidewalk, creating a hazard to the pedestrians that frequent Chancellor Street. The sidewalk is already too narrow, in our opinion, and the benches , coupled with the cars parked on the street, just make it harder to get by. One solution would be to move the benches 2 feet closer to the house or change their orientation from parallel to the street to perpendicular. We also still don’t understand how the city would allow the Center to put brick pavers down in the front yard. They have essentially built out every square inch of the property, with very little green space, creating potential water runoff issues. One can only hope that the planners have adequately addressed this problem. We would like the opportunity to speak at the meeting on Tuesday to put forward our concerns. What do we need to do to get on the agenda? Rob Aulebach will be the one speaking. We are not located in Charlottesville, so would also appreciate information on the best way to access the meeting. This is a big project on a small piece of property. As neighbors we are concerned about the impact of such a big undertaking. We appreciate the time and effort you and others are investing to make sure the project is done right. Susan 128 Chancellor Street (Nov. 11, 2021) 6 Modifications to previously approved Center for Christian Study Projects Center for Christian Study 128 Chancellor Street Charlottesville, VA 22903 BAR Submission 26 October 2021 William Sherman Architect | 612 East Jefferson Street Charlottesville, VA 22902 ph. 434.293.2965 History Description of proposed work and Design Intent Description from Charlottesville Corner Survey, Building Elevations Charlottesville, Va. • Reduce the square footage of the main and upper levels by reducing the distance they 128 Chancellor Street: Detached dwelling. Craftsman / Colonial Revival. cantilever out toward the east. The footprint of the parking level remains unchanged. Ca. 1926. Frame with wood shingles: 3 stories; hipped roof; 1 oversized • Reduce the number of windows on the north and south elevation. front hipped dormer; symmetrical 3-bay front; 1-bay front porch w/ paired • Change the East retaining wall material to engineered stacked block from concrete. Roman Doric columns and balustrade upper deck. One of only three shin- • Move the east retaining back away from the east property line; and addition of low-gro gle-clad dwellings in the District, this house features a 3-sided bay opening fragrant sumac as ground cover / buffer between the stacked block retaining wall and onto the upper porch deck. A 4-story addition (3 stories of finished space the properties on Elliewood Avenue. and one parking level) was designed and constructed in 1996 -1998. The • Relocate the guard fence from the top of the retaining wall to be inline with the face of the addition includes a semi-detached open exit stair along the north elevation. building as the area between the retaining and building is not accessible. Frame construction with wood shingles’ hipped and flat roofs both; is a style similar to the original construction but with a modern twist reflective Front Entry 128 Chancellor Street of its era. The Modifications to the Center for Christian Study project that included • Relocate the bike racks from the back of the building to along the northern edge of the new an addition to the east and renovations to the 1996 project was submitted brick terrace at the front of the building. This will likely reduce the number of cars parked in to the BAR on 9/3/202; it was awarded a Certificate of Appropriateness. A the northern half of the terrace from 4 cars to 2 cars. project for Improvements to the Front Entry along Chancellor Street was • Plant low-gro fragrant sumac around the existing Ginkgo tree in the northwest corner of the submitted to the BAR on 2/23/202; it, too, received a Certificate of Appro- site. priateness. • Remove the planter boxes along the sidewalk from the project in their entirety and in their Following the completion of the Design Development phase of the Modifi- place provide permanent planting beds with a mix of serviceberry (4) and cherry trees (2) cations project our CM priced the project. As a result of that pricing scope planted amidst liriope. reductions (VE) were undertaken, those that are relevant to the BAR • Reduce the number of benches along the sidewalk to (3) 4-foot benches, and delete the included 1) reducing the square footage of the main and upper levels by wooden bench around the existing Japanese maple (upon further review of the heath of tree reducing the distance each of those levels was cantilevered to the east 2) there was not enough clearance for the bench) reducing the number of windows on the north and south elevation and 3) changing the retaining wall from concrete construction to engineered stacked block. Following BAR review of the Front Entry improvement project the final Site Plan was submitted to the City for review. City review comments relevant to the BAR included 1) relocating the bike racks from the back of the site to the front of the site 2) deleting all the planters along the side- walk in favor of “permanent” plantings 3) requesting compliance with City planting guidelines particularly as it relates to shrubbery at the front of the Study Center and 4) reworking our storm water strategy at the rear (east) of the site. This submission addresses the scope reduction (VE) modifications and the City review comments pertaining to the final site plan submittal. Modifications to previously approved Center for Christian Study Projects 128 Chancellor Street, Charlottesville, Virginia William Sherman Architect | 1. EXISTING SOUTH PARKING AREA 2. EXISTING PARKING AND TRASH STORAGE A. EXISTING 1926 BUILDING B. EXISTING 1996 ADDITION C. APPROVED NEW ADDITION D. MODIFIED FRONT ENTRY 3. EXISTING NORTH TIMBER STAIRS 4. EXISTING NORTH PARKING AREA 5. EXISTING PARKING AND WALKWAY Modifications to previously approved Center for Christian Study Projects 128 Chancellor Street, Charlottesville, Virginia William Sherman Architect | 1. 1926 WEST (CHANCELLOR STREET) 2. 1996 ADDITION NORTH A. EXISTING 1926 BUILDING B. EXISTING 1996 ADDITION C. APPROVED NEW ADDITION D. MODIFIED FRONT ENTRY 3. 1996 ADDITION NORTHEAST 4. 1996 ADDITION EAST (ELLIEWOOD AVENUE) 5. 1996 ADDITION SOUTH Modifications to previously approved Center for Christian Study Projects 128 Chancellor Street, Charlottesville, Virginia William Sherman Architect | BUILDING FOOTPRINT DIAGRAM RETAINING WALL DIAGRAM PRIOR REVISED APPROVED OUTLINE OUTLINE Modifications to previously approved Center for Christian Study Projects 128 Chancellor Street, Charlottesville, Virginia William Sherman Architect | EX STAIR 115 EX STO 116 EX GARAGE PARKING UNEXCAVATED 100 101 STORAGE ROOM ELEV. 121 HALL LAUNDRY/STO 125 122 HVAC STAIR MECHANICAL 103 124 102 ELEVATOR 126 PARKING LEVEL PLAN Scale: 161 " = 1'-0" NORTH 0 8' 16' 32' 64' 128' M o d i f i c a t i o n s t o p r eCve in ot eur s Fl yo r aCph pr i rs o tiv a ne dS t uCd e y nE tx e p ar n sf i oo nr aCn h d rF i r so tn it a n S t u d y P r o j e c t s 1 2 8 C h a n c e l l oE r n St trr ye e tM , o C hda ir fl oi ct t ae ts vi iol l ne s, V i r g i n i a William Sherman Architect | | Train Architects 128 Chancellor Street, Charlottesville, Virginia EX STAIR 215 EX MECH #1 214 EX EX BATHROOM RESIDENTIAL 207 EX MECH EX MECH KITCHEN EX OFFICE #1 200A 200B 201 EX BEDROOM #3 216 213 W D EX EX HALL #2 EX EX LIVING / DINING STO 203 HALL #2 EX BATH 208 202 209 204 EX. OFFICE #2 217 EX BEDROOM #4 EX BEDROOM #1 EX BEDROOM #2 212 EX OFFICE #3 205 206 218 EX MECH #2 211 STAIR 224 EX OFFICE #4 210 ELEVATOR 226 LOWER LEVEL PLAN Scale: 161 " = 1'-0" NORTH 0 8' 16' 32' 64' 128' M o d i f i c a t i o n s t o p r eCve in ot eur s Fl yo r aCph pr i rs o tiv a ne dS t uCd e y nE tx e p ar n sf i oo nr aCn h d rF i r so tn it a n S t u d y P r o j e c t s 1 2 8 C h a n c e l l oE r n St trr ye e tM , o C hda ir fl oi ct t ae ts vi iol l ne s, V i r g i n i a William Sherman Architect | | Train Architects 128 Chancellor Street, Charlottesville, Virginia BATH 320 EX OUTDOOR TERRACE EX STAIR 315 STUDY ROOM BALCONY 322 316 CORR EX OUTDOOR TERRACE 317 OFFICE OFFICE GREAT HALL 308 310 EX 323B VEST EX FRONT ROOM KITCHEN/ EX MEN'S 314 301 CONCIERGE 305B 302 EX VEST 305D CLO 307B EX HALL 303 EX LOBBY COMMONS CORR GREAT HALL 305A 307A 318 323A CLO PORCH 307C 300 EX VEST 305E EX RICHMAN ROOM 304 PRINT & EX OFFICE WOMEN'S OFFICE OFFICE STO 305C 311 309 312 GREAT HALL 323C CORR PREP 319 THRU VESTIBULE PASS KITCHEN 313 325 STAIR 324 BATH 321 ELEVATOR 326 DW CHANCELLOR STREET LEVEL PLAN Scale: 161 " = 1'-0" NORTH 0 8' 16' 32' 64' 128' M o d i f i c a t i o n s t o p r eCve in ot eur s Fl yo r aCph pr i rs o tiv a ne dS t uCd e y nE tx e p ar n sf i oo nr aCn h d rF i r so tn it a n S t u d y P r o j e c t s 1 2 8 C h a n c e l l oE r n St trr ye e tM , o C hda ir fl oi ct t ae ts vi iol l ne s, V i r g i n i a William Sherman Architect | | Train Architects 128 Chancellor Street, Charlottesville, Virginia EX STAIR 415 MEETING ROOM 422 BALCONY 416 CORR 417 EX OFFICE LIBRARY 405 STACK EX 423B DIRECTOR'S OFFICE 402 WOMEN EX BATH 404 WINDOW SEAT EXISTING 410B LIBRARY EX HALL READING CLO EX EX 403 ROOM LIBRARY CORRIDOR 410C CORR BALCONY STUDY 411 READING ROOM 410A 418 401B 401A 423A EX RECEPTION/ ADMINISTRATION EX OFFICE MGR 406 TOILET TOILET 400 408A 408B LIBRARY STACKS 423C CORR 419 VESTIBULE 425 STAIR STUDY 424 ROOM 413 BATH 421 ELEVATOR 426 UPPER LEVEL PLAN Scale: 161 " = 1'-0" NORTH 0 8' 16' 32' 64' 128' M o d i f i c a t i o n s t o p r eCve in ot eur s Fl yo r aCph pr i rs o tiv a ne dS t uCd e y nE tx e p ar n sf i oo nr aCn h d rF i r so tn it a n S t u d y P r o j e c t s 1 2 8 C h a n c e l l oE r n St trr ye e tM , o C hda ir fl oi ct t ae ts vi iol l ne s, V i r g i n i a William Sherman Architect | | Train Architects 128 Chancellor Street, Charlottesville, Virginia EX ATTIC 500 EX STAIR 503 EX STO 501 EX PRINT ROOM 502 ATTIC & ROOF PLAN Scale: 161 " = 1'-0" NORTH 0 8' 16' 32' 64' 128' M o d i f i c a t i o n s t o p r eCve in ot eur s Fl yo r aCph pr i rs o tiv a ne dS t uCd e y nE tx e p ar n sf i oo nr aCn h d rF i r so tn it a n S t u d y P r o j e c t s 1 2 8 C h a n c e l l oE r n St trr ye e tM , o C hda ir fl oi ct t ae ts vi iol l ne s, V i r g i n i a William Sherman Architect | | Train Architects 128 Chancellor Street, Charlottesville, Virginia ROOF PLAN Scale: 161 " = 1'-0" NORTH 0 8' 16' 32' 64' 128' M o d i f i c a t i o n s t o p r eCve in ot eur s Fl yo r aCph pr i rs o tiv a ne dS t uCd e y nE tx e p ar n sf i oo nr aCn h d rF i r so tn it a n S t u d y P r o j e c t s 1 2 8 C h a n c e l l oE r n St trr ye e tM , o C hda ir fl oi ct t ae ts vi iol l ne s, V i r g i n i a William Sherman Architect | | Train Architects 128 Chancellor Street, Charlottesville, Virginia Modifications to previously approved Center for Christian Study Projects 128 Chancellor Street, Charlottesville, Virginia William Sherman Architect | SOUTHEAST ISOMETRIC NORTHEAST ISOMETRIC Modifications to previously approved Center for Christian Study Projects 128 Chancellor Street, Charlottesville, Virginia William Sherman Architect | WEST (CHANCELLOR STREET) ELEVATION SOUTH ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATION Modifications to previously approved Center for Christian Study Projects 128 Chancellor Street, Charlottesville, Virginia William Sherman Architect | EXISTING TREE NEW ELECTRICAL OUTLET EXISTING LOW WOOD FENCE TO REMAIN EXISTING WOOD STEPS TO REMAIN EX FRONT ROOM EX RICHMAN ROOM (4) BICYCLE PARKING SPACES NEW LOW WOOD GRAVEL GRAVEL FENCE TO MATCH EXSITING EX PORCH NEW HORIZONTAL BOARD TRASH CAN ENCLOSURE NEW TIMBER EDGING FRANGRANT SUMAC 2" CALIPER FLOWERING PLANTED STAGGERED CHERRY AT 2' O.C. (PRUNUS YEODENSIS & CVS) (RHUS AROMATICA) w/ LIRIOPE GROUND COVER TEAK TABLE AND CHAIRS EXISTING GINKGO HERRINGBONE SAND SET BRICK PAVERS w/ STEEL EDGING (TYPICAL) NEW SIDEWALK, CURB, TEAK TABLE AND CHAIRS 2" CALIPER FLOWERING AND CURB CUT EXISTING JAPANESE MAPLE w/ CHERRY NEW LIRIOPE GROUND COVER (PRUNUS YEODENSIS & CVS) w/ LIRIOPE GROUND COVER (3) 48"Lx20"Wx18"H CONCRETE SPAN BENCH w/ WOOD SEAT BY FINE CONCRETE (4) 2" CALIPER SERVICE BERRY (AMELANCHIER x GRANDIFLORA) w/ LIRIOPE GROUND COVER CHANCELLOR STREET New Front Entry Plan Scale: 18" = 1'-0" NORTH 0 4' 8' 16' 32' 64' Center For Christian Study Expansion and Front Entry Modifications | Train Architects 128 Chancellor Street, Charlottesville, Virginia Brick Pavers to match existing chimney SPAN bench by FINE CONCRETE Horizontal wood boards to match existing stair enclosure Modifications to previously approved Center for Christian Study Projects 128 Chancellor Street, Charlottesville, Virginia William Sherman Architect | PROPOSED VIEW FROM CHANCELLOR STREET SIDEWALK - LOOKING SOUTHWEST Modifications to previously approved Center for Christian Study Projects 128 Chancellor Street, Charlottesville, Virginia William Sherman Architect | PROPOSED VIEW FROM CHANCELLOR STREET SIDEWALK - LOOKING WEST Modifications to previously approved Center for Christian Study Projects 128 Chancellor Street, Charlottesville, Virginia William Sherman Architect | PROPOSED VIEW FROM CHANCELLOR STREET SIDEWALK - LOOKING NORTHWEST Modifications to previously approved Center for Christian Study Projects 128 Chancellor Street, Charlottesville, Virginia William Sherman Architect | Rail Detail Firefox about:blank Center for Christian Study Stacked Block retaining wall material and color, TRK - 11/11/2021 1 of 1 11/11/2021, 10:53 AM ( ' Certificate of Appropriateness (HC District) BAR 21-11-05 1804 Chesapeake Street, Tax Map Parcel 55A141000 Woolen Mills HC District Owner/Applicant: Emily and Anthony Lazaro Project: Construct rear addition Application components (please click each link to go directly to PDF page): • Staff Report • Application Submittal November 16, 2021 BAR Packet Guide 8 City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Staff Report November 16, 2021 Certificate of Appropriateness (HC District) BAR 21-11-05 1804 Chesapeake Street, Tax Map Parcel 55A141000 Woolen Mills HC District Owner/Applicant: Emily and Anthony Lazaro Project: Construct rear 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 • October 19, 2021 - Preliminary discussion of proposed addition. Application • Submittal: Elizabeth Sloan, Architect, project narrative (dated Oct. 18, 2021) and drawings Addition to the Lazarro Residence (dated Oct. 26, 2021): Sheets A100, A101, A102, A103, A200, A201, A300, and 301. Request CoA for addition to the existing dwelling. Discussion and Recommendations Staff recommends approval as a Consent Agenda item. 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 1804 Chesapeake Street - Addition (Nov. 8, 2021) 1 of the addition will extend only slightly (1’– 9 1/2”) beyond the west 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 Approval: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City Design Guidelines for Historic Conservation Districts, I move to find that the proposed addition at 1804 Chesapeake Street satisfies the BAR’s criteria and is compatible with this property and other properties in the Rugby Road Historic Conservation District, and that the BAR approves the application [as submitted.] […as submitted with the following conditions: …] Denial: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City Design Guidelines for Historic Conservation Districts, I move to find that the proposed addition at 1804 Chesapeake Street does not satisfy the BAR’s criteria and is not compatible with this property and other properties in the Rugby Road Historic Conservation District, and that for the following reasons the BAR denies the application as submitted: Criteria, Standards, and Guidelines Review Criteria Generally Sec. 34-341 - 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: 1804 Chesapeake Street - Addition (Nov. 8, 2021) 2 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. 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.) 1804 Chesapeake Street - Addition (Nov. 8, 2021) 3 Building Form – roofs and porches 1. Roof forms should reference contributing buildings on the same street or surrounding area. Other roof forms may be approved by the BAR when contextually appropriate. 2. If many of the contributing buildings on the same street have porches, then it is strongly recommended that the design of a new residence includes a porch or similar form of similar width and depth. 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: Siding: cedar shakes, stained to match the house. Roof: GAF fiberglass/asphalt shingles on residence; standing-seam metal on porch. Building Paint 1. Painting unpainted brick or other masonry is discouraged because it is irreversible and may cause moisture problems. 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 1804 Chesapeake Street - Addition (Nov. 8, 2021) 4 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; 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 (Nov. 8, 2021) 5 Elisabeth Sloan, Architect Anthony and Emily Lazaro Proposed Addition 1804 Chesapeake Street Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 The owners would like to add a two-story addition with a walk out basement to the rear of the existing house. The existing house is a two-stories tall and one room deep, with a one-story addition to the rear. The City Assessor’s records indicate that this house was built in 1900. It is a simple vernacular structure with a gable roof parallel to the street, two rooms wide and one room deep, with a center staircase. The front façade has a one-story front porch with Victorian style columns. The current house is 1447 square feet. The total proposed addition is 1067 square feet, which brings the completed project of 2514 square feet, a size in keeping with the neighbors. As you can see the house immediately to the east is very modern in design. The house to the west is a very modest 1880s one-story cottage with an accessory shed located to the west, near the street’s edge. 1804 Chesapeake Street (Owners’ House) 1800 Chesapeake Street (Contiguous) 1800 Shed at street (further west) 2024 MINOR ROAD C H A R L O T T E S V I L L E , V I R GI N I A 222903 434/989-3686 LIZSLOAN-ARC HITECT .COM Elisabeth Sloan, Architect Legend Parcels Addresses City Limits Title: Date: 10/18/2021 DISCLAIMER:The City makes no warranties, expressed or implied, concerning the accuracy, completeness or suitability of this data, and it should not be construed or used as a legal description. The information displayed is a compilation of records, information, and data obtained from various sources, and the City is not responsible for it's accuracy or how current it may be. Every reasonable effort is made to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the data. Pursuant to Section 54.1-402 of the Code of Virginia, any determination of topography or contours, or any depiction of physical improvements, property lines or boundaries is for general information only and shall not be used for the design, modification or construction of improvements to real property or for flood plain determination. Area Map of Chesapeake Street 1803 Chesapeake Street 1803 ½ Chesapeake Street 2024 MINOR ROAD CHARLOTTESVILLE, 2 VI RGINIA 222903 434/989-3686 LIZSLOAN-ARC HITECT .COM Elisabeth Sloan, Architect 1805 Chesapeake Street 301 Riverside Avenue (Across the street) 292 Riverside Avenue 1905 Chesapeake Street 1900 Chesapeake Street 1812 Chesapeake Street (Contiguous) 2024 MINOR ROAD CHARLOTTESVILLE, 3 VI RGINIA 222903 434/989-3686 LIZSLOAN-ARC HITECT .COM Elisabeth Sloan, Architect 1800 Market Street (Contiguous) 1819 Market Street Woolen Mills Chapel (Contiguous Adjacent Lot to west) Legend Parcels Addresses City Limits Title: Date: 10/18/2021 DISCLAIMER:The City makes no warranties, expressed or implied, concerning the accuracy, completeness or suitability of this data, and it should not be construed or used as a legal description. The information displayed is a compilation of records, information, and data obtained from various sources, and the City is not responsible for it's accuracy or how current it may be. Every reasonable effort is made to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the data. Pursuant to Section 54.1-402 of the Code of Virginia, any determination of topography or contours, or any depiction of physical improvements, property lines or boundaries is for general information only and shall not be used for the design, modification or construction of improvements to real property or for flood plain determination. Map of Contiguous Properties 2024 MINOR ROAD CHARLOTTESVILLE, 4 VI RGINIA 222903 434/989-3686 LIZSLOAN-ARC HITECT .COM Elisabeth Sloan, Architect The owners’ intention is to add on to their home in a style that respects the scale, style, and details of the original farm house. Additionally, they have thoughtfully placed the addition to accommodate an existing rear yard Hackberry tree and their neighbor’s adjacent mature tree. The addition will be clad in cedar shingle or some other siding of a different proportion and scale to the existing lapped wood siding, which has a 6-inch reveal. The hipped roof of the addition is similar in slope, but a different type of roof which is less pronounced then the gabled roof of the original house. The contiguous neighbors are 1812 Chesapeake to the east, 1800 Chesapeake to the west, to the west side is 1809 East Market Street and to the rear is 1819 East Market Street, which is owned by the Woolen Mills Chapel Foundation and is currently an empty lot. As you can see from the above photos that this is a very architecturally diverse area with regards to style and time of construction. This home is located on the north east edge of the Woolen Mills Historic District. We believe that the proposed addition meets the design guidelines. Prepared by Elisabeth Sloan, Architect October 18, 2021 2024 MINOR ROAD CHARLOTTESVILLE, 5 VI RGINIA 222903 434/989-3686 LIZSLOAN-ARC HITECT .COM 200 EXISTING HOUSE 1 1 300 301 1 EXISTING BASEMENT 2 201 201 1' - 9 1/4" 2 303 15' - 6 1/2" BATH LOWER LEVEL FAMILY ROOM 16' - 3 3/4" 1 18' - 0" 303 20' - 0" 20' - 0" UP 3' - 6" 3' - 5 1/4" 15' - 4 3/4" Deck Above 2' - 0" PROGRESS PRINT 9' - 5" 14' - 6 3/4" 24' - 0" 2 200 BASEMENT PLAN - SCHEMATIC PLOTTED ON: 10/26/2021 12:32:10 PM 1 1/4" = 1'-0" PROJECT NORTH N DESIGN PHASE DESIGN ISSUE DATE Revisions Job Number: Project Number SHEET No. BASEMENT FLOOR - ADDITION TO THE LAZARO RESIDENCE No. Date Description Drawn: LS SCHEMATIC 1804 CHESAPEAKE STREET CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22902 Scale: Date: 1/4" = 1'-0" 10/26/21 100 © 2021 Elisabeth Sloan, Architect 1 200 1 1 300 301 UP PLAY ROOM LIBRARY/ MUSIC ROOM HALF BATH 1 2 201 5' - 9" 201 DINING KITCHEN MUD ROOM 1' - 9 1/2" 2 303 10' - 10 1/2" NEW 18' - 6 1/2" STAIR Reuse Existing Sliding door DN Reuse Existing Skylight 3' - 6" LIVING ROOM 1 NEW PORCH 18' - 0" 303 18' - 9 1/4" 13' - 3 1/2" New Epee Wood Deck PROGRESS PRINT 2' - 0" 2' - 0" 9' - 5 1/4" 14' - 6 3/4" 24' - 0" 10' - 2 1/2" 2 PLOTTED ON: 10/26/2021 12:18:21 PM 200 FIRST FLOOR PLAN - SCHEMATIC 1 1/4" = 1'-0" PROJECT NORTH N DESIGN PHASE DESIGN ISSUE DATE Revisions Job Number: Project Number SHEET No. FIRST FLOOR - ADDITION TO THE LAZARO RESIDENCE No. Date Description Drawn: LS SCHEMATIC 1804 CHESAPEAKE STREET CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22902 Scale: Date: 1/4" = 1'-0" 10/26/21 101 © 2021 Elisabeth Sloan, Architect 1 200 1 1 300 301 DN 1 2 9' - 10 1/2" 11' - 11 3/4" 201 D 201 LAUNDRY LAUNDRY 12' - 1 1/4" W 2 303 WALK IN CLOSET 6' - 0 3/4" 4' - 3 1/2" 8' - 10 1/2" 13' - 4" 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: 10/26/2021 1:40:25 PM 2 200 24' - 0" PROJECT NORTH SECOND FLOOR PLAN - SCHEMATIC 1 1/4" = 1'-0" N DESIGN PHASE DESIGN ISSUE DATE Revisions Job Number: Project Number SHEET No. SECOND FLOOR - ADDITION TO THE LAZARO RESIDENCE No. Date Description Drawn: Author SCHEMATIC 1804 CHESAPEAKE STREET CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22902 Scale: Date: 1/4" = 1'-0" 10/26/21 102 © 2021 Elisabeth Sloan, Architect EXISTING HOUSE STANDING GAF FIBERGLASS SEAM SHINGLES METAL ROOF 4:12 4:12 SLOPE SLOPE STANDING VA Y LL LLE SEAM EY VA METAL ROOF 6:12 SLOPE H IP IP H RIDGE 6:12 SLOPE 6:12 SLOPE ADDITION RIDGE GAF FIBERGLASS SHINGLES 6:12 SLOPE IP H H IP EY 6:12 SLOPE IP LL H H IP VA PLOTTED ON: 10/26/2021 1:38:25 PM PROJECT NORTH N DESIGN PHASE DESIGN ISSUE DATE Revisions Job Number: Project Number SHEET No. SCHEMATIC - ROOF ADDITION TO THE LAZARO RESIDENCE No. Date Description Drawn: Author PLAN 1804 CHESAPEAKE STREET CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22902 Scale: Date: 1/4" = 1'-0" 10/26/21 103 © 2021 Elisabeth Sloan, Architect 1 1 300 301 1 1 300 301 HIPPED ROOF WITH GAF SHINGLES ADDITION BEYOND HIPPED ROOF WITH GAF SHINGLES. EXIST EXIST 2ND FLR CEILING 18' - 2 1/4" EXIST Top of 2nd Floor Plate 16' - 2 1/4" EXISTING HORIZONTAL CEDAR SHAKE WOOD SIDING SHINGLES STAINED TO MATCH EXISTING SKYLIGNT TO BE REUSED EXISTING HOUSE SECOND FLOOR - SUB FLOOR COLOR STANDING SEAM 9' - 8" METAL ROOF 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: 10/26/2021 3:37:24 PM PROJECT NORTH N DESIGN PHASE DESIGN ISSUE DATE Revisions Job Number: Project Number SHEET No. ELEVATIONS - ADDITION TO THE LAZARO RESIDENCE No. Date Description Drawn: LS SCHEMATIC 1804 CHESAPEAKE STREET CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22902 Scale: Date: 1/4" = 1'-0" 10/26/21 200 © 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" ADDITIION 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" 8' - 0" 28' - 8" 18' - 0" PLOTTED ON: 10/26/2021 3:40:28 PM EX BASEMENT - TOP OF SLAB -7' - 10" EXIST NEW BASEMENT PROJECT NORTH -9' - 8" N EXUSTING HOUSE ADDITIION WEST ELEVATION - SCHEMATIC 1 1/4" = 1'-0" DESIGN PHASE DESIGN ISSUE DATE Revisions Job Number: Project Number SHEET No. ELEVATIONS - ADDITION TO THE LAZARO RESIDENCE No. Date Description Drawn: LS 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: 10/26/2021 3:45:22 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: 10/26/2021 3:54:00 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" 10/26/21 301 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22902 © 2021 Elisabeth Sloan, Architect Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 21-11-06 745 Park Street, Tax Parcel 520051100 North Downtown ADC District Owners/Applicants: Karen Vadja and Kevin Riddle Project: Demolition of existing dwelling Application components (please click each link to go directly to PDF page): • Staff Report • Application Submittal November 16, 2021 BAR Packet Guide 9 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW STAFF REPORT November 16, 2021 Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-11-06 745 Park Street, Tax Parcel 520051100 North Downtown ADC District Owners/Applicants: Karen Vadja and Kevin Riddle Project: Demolition of existing dwelling Background Year Built: 1957 District: North Downtown ADC District Status: Contributing Brick, stretcher bond; l-1/2 stories; gable roof (composition); 3 bays. Detached house, 1950s-60s. Entrance in center bay. Exterior end chimney on north, single ramp. (NRHP listing for the Charlottesville and Albemarle County Courthouse Historic District. VDHR #104-0072.) Prior BAR Actions September 21, 2021 – Preliminary discussion of proposed demolition. BAR expressed support for approval. Presentation • Submittal: Demolition of 745 Park Street, dated October 26, 2021: Cover, location; plat; existing conditions (2 sheets); demolition criteria, examples of house type elsewhere (3 sheets); 700 block of park street; and north downtown ADC above 700 block. (11 sheets.) Request for CoA to demolish the existing, approx. 35-f x 30-ft, single story, brick dwelling. Owners planning significant and extensive improvements to home. Renovations to existing impractical; razing is preferred. Note: A CoA is required to raze a contributing structure. Also, a CoA is also required for subsequent construction on or alteration to the site. 745 Park Street – Dem CoA (Nov. 8, 2021) 1 Discussion and Recommendations While a contributing structure, it must be noted that when the ADC District was established, all but approximately 15 primary structures were similarly designated. This district, including 745 Prk Street) was established in 1991. (It was expanded in 2005 to include the area north of downtown, between McIntire Road and 1st Street North.) Prior to 1996, when establishing an ADC district, it was the City’s practice to designate all structures as contributing. Additionally, while this dwelling was constructed 64 years ago and is thus eligible to be considered for possible designation, it is unique only because it is dissimilar in age and style from the houses that characterize this district. Between Lyons Court and the Bypass, within the ADC District on the west side of Park Street, there are four houses north and four houses south of 745 Park Street. They date from 1840 to 1936; the median year built is 1910. On the east side of Park, not in the district, there are 15 homes, dating from 1946 to 1967; the median year built is 1951. Prior demolitions in the North Downtown ADC District, which might be helpful. • 705 Park Street, demo 1920s garage and construct new, CoA approved April 17, 2012. http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/622122/BAR_705%20Park%20Street_March2012.pdf http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/622121/BAR_705%20Park%20Street_July2012.pdf • 713 Park Street, demo c1920 garage, CoA approved April 21, 2009. http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/790894/BAR_713%20Park%20Street_April2019.pdf Suggested Motions Approval: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed demolition of 745 Park Street satisfies the BAR’s criteria and guidelines and is compatible with this property and other properties in the Downtown ADC District, and that the BAR approves the application as application with the following conditions: • BAR staff approval of the demolition permit is contingent upon: o Applicant will submit for the record documentation and photographs of the existing building. Denial: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed demolition of 745 Park Street does not satisfy or the BAR’s criteria and guidelines 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 745 Park Street – Dem CoA (Nov. 8, 2021) 2 (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. City Code Sec. 34-278. Standards for considering demolitions. 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: Note: Staff concurs with the Owner comments 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; Owner comment: The house was built in 1957. This makes it unusually young to be included in the Park Street ADC. It’s not even older than the majority of houses on the east side of the 700 block--none of them included within the ADC District. 2) Whether it has been designated a National Historic Landmark (NRHP), listed on the National Register of Historic Places, or listed on the Virginia Landmarks Register (VLR); Staff: The North Downtown ADC District is part of the Charlottesville and Albemarle County Courthouse Historic District. (104-0072),1 which is listed on the VLR (1980, 1995) and the NRHP (1982, 2008). 745 Park Street is recorded in the district inventory; however, the inventory does not indicate contributing or non-contributing resources—see pdf page 50 of the NRHP nomination. From the NRHP nomination, 1995 amendment: (Emphasis added. Refer to map in the Appendix) As viewed on a map, the northernmost section of the district is seen as a projecting arm terminating at Lyons Court and at the 250 Bypass. Middle-and upper-middle-class residences extend along both sides of Park Street to Lyons Court. Similar houses are found interspersed on the northwestern side of Park Street between Lyons Court and the Route 250 Bypass; however, this area has been weakened by the recent construction of a large church unsympathetic in scale and quality to its neighbors. Houses on the northeastern side of Park Street, north of Lyons Court, are uniformly of post-1930 construction and not suitable for inclusion in the historic district at this time. […] An irregular route is followed by the northern boundary between McIntire Road and Park Street. Such a course roughly follows the pattern of development of the low-lying area 1 https://www.dhr.virginia.gov/VLR_to_transfer/PDFNoms/104- 0072_CharlottesvilleAndAlbemarleCountyCourthouse_HD_1980-1995_Amendment_Final_Nomination.pdf 745 Park Street – Dem CoA (Nov. 8, 2021) 3 between the higher elevations of Park Street and North First Street. The houses that are excluded are, for the most part, post-1930 builder houses. 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; Owner comment: No associations are known. 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; Owner comment: This house is not rare or singular. There are many dozens of houses in the city-- none of them protected within an ADC-- built in the same era and style of this house. They can be found in almost every corner of the city. Some are older. Some are younger. In some cases, entire streets are made up of variations of this house. (Photographs of examples are included in the presentation.) 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 Owner comment: No 6) The degree to which distinguishing characteristics, qualities, features or materials remain; Owner comment: The brick exterior, windows and doors appear to be original. 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 of a group of properties within such a district whose concentration or continuity possesses greater significance than many of its component buildings and structures. Owner comment: No. 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; Owner comment: [Structure is sound,] to the best of our knowledge. 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 Owner comment: Dwelling will be razed. The most distinctive and memorable aspects of this property-- the only ones through which it truly adds to the fabric of the west side 745 Park Street – Dem CoA (Nov. 8, 2021) 4 of Park Street-- are landscape elements: the stone wall at the sidewalk and the huge arborvitae screening the yard. We will keep those. e) Any applicable provisions of the city’s Design Guidelines. Staff: See ADC Guidelines for Demolition of Historic Structures. Pertinent ADC District Design Guidelines Chapter VII: Demolition and Moving. B Demolition of Historic Structures Review Criteria for Demolition 1) The standards established by the City Code, Section 34-278 Staff: See above: Code Requirement for Considering Demolitions. 2) The public necessity of the proposed demolition. Staff: There is no public necessity. 3) The public purpose or interest in land or buildings to be protected. Staff: The requested demolition is necessary for the construction of a new dwelling, for which construction will require BAR review and approval. 4) The existing character of the setting of the structure or area and its surroundings. Staff: See owner’s comments and presentation. 5) Whether or not a relocation of the structure would be a practical and preferable alternative to demolition. Staff: This is not a unique structure. Relocation would not be a preferable alternative. 6) Whether or not the proposed demolition would affect adversely or positively other historic buildings or the character of the historic district. Staff: Demolition will not adversely or positively affect the other historic buildings or the character of the district. 7) Whether or not there has been a professional economic and structural feasibility study for rehabilitating or reusing the structure and whether or not its findings support the proposed demolition. Staff: A structural report has not been received. Owner acknowledges there are no known structural issues. Guidelines for Demolition 745 Park Street – Dem CoA (Nov. 8, 2021) 5 1) Demolish a historic structure only after all preferable alternatives have been exhausted. 2) Document the building thoroughly through photographs and, for especially significant buildings, measured drawings according to Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) Standards. This information should be retained by the City of Charlottesville Department of Neighborhood Development Services and the Virginia Department of Historic Resources. (See staff recommendation.) 3) If the site is to remain vacant for any length of time, maintain the empty lot in a manner consistent with other open spaces in the districts. 745 Park Street – Dem CoA (Nov. 8, 2021) 6 Appendix Construction dates for nearby structures Year: Prior to 1957 Year: 1957 Year: After 1957 745 Park Street – Dem CoA (Nov. 8, 2021) 7 Survey area from 1995 amendment to the Charlottesville and Albemarle County Courthouse Historic District City map indicating dates of construction 745 Park Street – Dem CoA (Nov. 8, 2021) 2 Karen and Kevin Riddle owner Demolition of house 520051100 745 Park Street 745 Park Street Charlottesville VA 22902 kscottriddle@gmail.com 10/26/2021 (434)882-3145 (434)882-3738 Kevin’s cell Karen’s cell Kevin Riddle 10/26/2021 no Demolition of 1957 structure 745 PARK STREET demolition road ro ut pa e rk 25 e hi tir ll 0 in b yp mc as s ly on 5 74 s av et en re ue st k ar p location 745 PARK STREET 10/26/2021 plat 745 PARK STREET 10/26/2021 existing conditions 745 PARK STREET 10/26/2021 existing conditions 745 PARK STREET 10/26/2021 Reason for demolition We are planning significant home improvements. The renovation process will involve so much removal and modification of the existing house that trying to retain some fraction of ground floor structure and exterior walls will make the project more cumbersome and expensive than simply tearing down to the foundations and starting over. We question the contributing role of the existing house. It has almost none of the attributes that form the historic fabric on this side of Park Street. In age and materials and style, it has far more in common with the houses on the opposite side of Park Street. Yet at the 700 and 800 blocks of Park Street, the properties on the east side are excluded from the North Downtown ADC. If the city had intended for a house like this to be protected, the east side of the street would have been included in the ADC. Architecturally, this house does not contribute to what makes the west side of Park Street exceptional. The only way in which it is compatible with neighboring houses is its deep siting, almost 100 feet from Park Street. Otherwise, it shares almost none of the characteristics that make most houses on this side of the street distinctive. Its size and proportions are not compatibale with the older houses. It lacks a spacious front porch. It lacks a pedestrian walk to the front door. The brick veneer is perfectly fine for its time, but it’s nothing special: a standard running bond in an extremely common factory brick. It possesses none of the finer variations typical of older masonry. From the street, the asphalt shingles of the gable roof are prominent in a way that is unusual on this side of the block and not compatible with it. Age of the house The house was built in 1957. This makes it unusually young to be included in the Park Street ADC. It’s not even older than the majority of houses on the east side of the 700 block-- none of them included within the ADC. Is it listed on any national or Virginia historic registers? No. Is the house associated with an historic person, architect or No, to the best of our knowledge. tradesman? Is it associated with an historic event? Does the house or any of its features represent an infrequent No. This house is not rare or singular. There are many dozens of houses in the city-- none of them protected within an ADC-- built in the same era and style of this house. They can be or the first or last remaining example of its kind within the city? found in almost every corner of the city. Some are older. Some are younger. In some cases, entire streets are made up of variations of this house. Photographs of examples are includ- ed in later pages of this document. Is the house of such old or distinctive design, texture or ma- No. terial that it could not be reproduced, or could be reproduced only with great difficulty? To what extent do distinguishing characteristics, qualities, The brick exterior, windows and doors appear to be original. features or materials remain? Is this house linked-- historically or aestheically-- to other build- No. ings or structures within the ADC? Is it one of a group of properties within the district whose No. conentrations or continuity possess greater significance than many of its component buildings? Is it in good structural condition? Yes, to the best of our knowledge. To what extent does the applicant propose to preserve fea- The most distinctive and memorable aspects of this property-- the only ones through which it truly adds to the fabric of the west side of Park Street-- are landscape elements: the tures or materials significant to the property’s historic, architec- stone wall at the sidewalk and the huge arborvitae screening the yard. We will keep those. tural or cultural value? demolition criteria 745 PARK STREET 10/26/2021 examples of house type elsewhere north avenue 745 PARK STREET 10/26/2021 examples of house type elsewhere willard drive 745 PARK STREET 10/26/2021 examples of house type elsewhere forest hills avenue 745 PARK STREET 10/26/2021 700 block of park street, east 745 PARK STREET 10/26/2021 north downtown ADC above 700 block 745 PARK STREET 10/26/2021 Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 10-11-04 123 Bollingwood Road, TMP 070022000 Individually Protected Property Owner: Juliana and William Elias Applicant: Jeff Dreyfus, Bushman Dreyfus Architects Project: Modifications to west elevation Application components (please click each link to go directly to PDF page): • Staff Report • Historic Survey • Application Submittal November 16, 2021 BAR Packet Guide 10 City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Staff Report November 16, 2021 Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 10-11-04 123 Bollingwood Road, TMP 070022000 Individually Protected Property Owner: Juliana and William Elias Applicant: Jeff Dreyfus, Bushman Dreyfus Architects Project: Modifications to the west elevation Background Year Built: 1884 District: IPP Disney-Keith House, a vernacular farmhouse. Between 1923 and the mid-20th century, Arthur Keith’s wife, Ellie Wood Keith, operated a riding academy here.* A barn, outbuildings, and stables immediately west of the house are no longer standing, but can be seen on the c1965 Sanborn Maps and 1966 aerial photo--see the Appendix. The existing garage south of the house was constructed in 1988. (*It is said that Elliewood Avenue was named for Mrs. Keith, but we cannot be certain.) Prior BAR Review July 19, 1988 – BAR approved CoA for a new detached garage in the rear yard, a rear fence, and minor alterations to the main house. November 2, 1989 – BAR approved CoA for enclosure of the rear porch, with siding, windows, shutters and paint color to match existing. November 16, 2010 – BAR accepted applicant’s request for deferral. (CoA request to modify the west elevation: replacing single window with a triple window; replace single window with French doors to match doors on east elevation; and construct a painted wood pergola/sunscreen. New window and doors to be painted wood, with painted, operable wood shutters.) September 28, 2020 – Admin approval of roof replacement (in kind). Application • Applicant submittal: Bushman-Dreyfus submittal, dated November 2, 2021: Site Concept Plan; Existing Conditions; Photographic History of the Property; Elevation Concept; and Precedent Images. 123 Bollingwood (Nov. 10, 2021) 1 Request CoA to modify the west elevation of the rear addition: remove the small roof over the door and replace the door and two adjacent windows with a three-panel sliding door. (The landscape plan, including other work on the property, is aspirational and included in the submittal for context only.) Discussion and Recommendations Modifications to the west elevation: The existing door and window to the left (in the photos and elevations) are not in the historic photos and were added after/during construction of the small addition to the SW corner of the main house. (See the comparison photos in the Appendix.) The City’s landmark survey suggests the rear wing was added to the original, 1884 house, with that work completed in two stages, likely prior to 1923. Staff believes the rear addition (excluding the addition at the SW corner) likely dates to between 1894 and prior to 1907.* Staff suggests the alterations to the elevation should be allowed, within the framework of the design guidelines, and supports this request conceptually. With that, staff suggests BAR discuss whether or not the proposed sliding doors are appropriate, within the framework of the design guidelines. The applicant’s submittal makes clear the design intent for the proposed changes: To connect the interior and exterior with better views and accessibility to the entertainment terrace. The design is intended to emphasize a distinction between the older building fabric and the modern renovation, not to pretend that this work was part of the historic fabric. * Typically, house additions are associated with growing households. The census data does not tell us when this house was expanded, but it does show how many people were living here. It is speculation only, but the census suggests the addition likely dates to between 1894 and 1907, when Lambert Disney and his family occupied the house. o 1884: Frederick Wm. Disney constructs 123 Bollingwood. o 1890 Census: Records are not available. o 1894: Property given to Lambert Disney. o 1900 Census: Lambert Disney and his nine children. (Disney’s wife died in 1895.) o 1907: Property sold to Stella Carver o 1908: Property sold to Frank Thornton. o 1910 Census: Thornton, his wife, and four daughters. o 1919: Property sold to Henry Corbet. o 1920 Census: Corbet, his wife, and two children. o 1923: Property sold to Albert Bolling, then to Arthur Keith. o 1930 Census: Keith, his wife, two children, and two servants. o 1940 Census: Keith, his wife, and three children. Suggested Motion Approval: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City’s ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed alterations at 123 Bollingwood Road satisfies the BAR’s criteria and is compatible with this IPP and that the BAR approves the application [as submitted]. […as submitted with the following conditions: …] 123 Bollingwood (Nov. 10, 2021) 2 Denial: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City’s ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed alterations at 123 Bollingwood Road does not satisfy the BAR’s criteria and is not compatible with this IPP, and that for the following reasons the BAR denies the application as submitted: Criteria, Standards, and Guidelines Review Criteria Generally Sec. 34-284(b) of the City Code states that, in considering a particular application the BAR shall approve the application unless it finds: (1) That the proposal does not meet specific standards set forth within this division or applicable provisions of the Design Guidelines established by the board pursuant to Sec.34-288(6); and (2) The proposal is incompatible with the historic, cultural or architectural character of the district in which the property is located or the protected property that is the subject of the application. Pertinent Standards for Review of Construction and Alterations include: (1) Whether the material, texture, color, height, scale, mass and placement of the proposed addition, modification or construction are visually and architecturally compatible with the site and the applicable design control district; (2) The harmony of the proposed change in terms of overall proportion and the size and placement of entrances, windows, awnings, exterior stairs and signs; (3) The Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation set forth within the Code of Federal Regulations (36 C.F.R. §67.7(b)), as may be relevant; (4) The effect of the proposed change on the historic district neighborhood; (5) The impact of the proposed change on other protected features on the property, such as gardens, landscaping, fences, walls and walks; (6) Whether the proposed method of construction, renovation or restoration could have an adverse impact on the structure or site, or adjacent buildings or structures; (7) Any applicable provisions of the City’s Design Guidelines. Pertinent ADC District Design Guidelines Chapter 4 – Rehabilitation Link: V: Rehabilitation A. Introduction These design review guidelines are based on the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, found on page 1.8. “Rehabilitation” is defined as “the process of returning a property to a state of utility, through repair or alteration, which makes possible an efficient contemporary use while preserving those portions and features of the property which are significant to its historic, architectural, and cultural values.” Rehabilitation assumes that at least some repair or alteration of the historic building will be needed in order to provide for an efficient contemporary use; however, these repairs and alterations must not damage or destroy materials, features or finishes that are important in defining the building’s historic character. Also, exterior additions should not duplicate the form, material, and detailing of the structure to the extent that they compromise the historic character of the structure. The distinction between rehabilitation and restoration is often not made, causing confusion among building owners and their architect or contractor. Restoration is an effort to return a building to a particular state at a particular time in its history, most often as it was originally built. Restoration 123 Bollingwood (Nov. 10, 2021) 3 projects are less concerned with modern amenities; in fact, they are often removed in order to capture a sense of the building at a certain time in its history. Rehabilitation is recognized as the act of bringing an old building into use by adding modern amenities, meeting current building codes, and providing a use that is viable C. Windows 1) Prior to any repair or replacement of windows, a survey of existing window conditions is recommended. Note number of windows, whether each window is original or replaced, the material, type, hardware and finish, the condition of the frame, sash, sill, putty, and panes. 2) Retain original windows when possible. 3) Uncover and repair covered up windows and reinstall windows where they have been blocked in. 4) If the window is no longer needed, the glass should be retained and the back side frosted, screened, or shuttered so that it appears from the outside to be in use. 5) Repair original windows by patching, splicing, consolidating or otherwise reinforcing. Wood that appears to be in bad condition because of peeling paint or separated joints often can be repaired. 6) Replace historic components of a window that are beyond repair with matching components. 7) Replace entire windows only when they are missing or beyond repair. 8) If a window on the primary façade of a building must be replaced and an existing window of the same style, material, and size is identified on a secondary elevation, place the historic window in the window opening on the primary façade. 9) Reconstruction should be based on physical evidence or old photographs. 10) Avoid changing the number, location, size, or glazing pattern of windows by cutting new openings, blocking in windows, or installing replacement sash that does not fit the window opening. 11) Do not use inappropriate materials or finishes that radically change the sash, depth of reveal, muntin configuration, reflective quality or color of the glazing, or appearance of the frame. 12) Use replacement windows with true divided lights or interior and exterior fixed muntins with internal spacers to replace historic or original examples. 13) If windows warrant replacement, appropriate material for new windows depends upon the context of the building within a historic district, and the age and design of the building. Sustainable materials such as wood, aluminum-clad wood, solid fiberglass, and metal windows are preferred. Vinyl windows are discouraged. 14) False muntins and internal removable grilles do not present an historic appearance and should not be used. 15) Do not use tinted or mirrored glass on major facades of the building. Translucent or low (e) glass may be strategies to keep heat gain down. 16) Storm windows should match the size and shape of the existing windows and the original sash configuration. Special shapes, such as arched top storms, are available. 17) Storm windows should not damage or obscure the windows and frames. 18) Avoid aluminum-colored storm sash. It can be painted an appropriate color if it is first primed with a zinc chromate primer. 19) The addition of shutters may be appropriate if not previously installed but if compatible with the style of the building or neighborhood. 20) In general, shutters should be wood (rather than metal or vinyl) and should be mounted on hinges. In some circumstances, appropriately dimensioned, painted, composite material shutters may be used. 21) The size of the shutters should result in their covering the window opening when closed. 123 Bollingwood (Nov. 10, 2021) 4 22) Avoid shutters on composite or bay windows. 23) If using awnings, ensure that they align with the opening being covered. 24) Use awning colors that are compatible with the colors of the building. D. Entrances, Porches, and Doors Entrances and porches are often the primary focal points of a historic building. Their decoration and articulation help define the style of the structure. Entrances are functional and ceremonial elements for all buildings. Porches have traditionally been a social gathering point as well as a transition area between the exterior and interior of a residence. The important focal point of an entrance or porch is the door. Doors are often a character-defining feature of the architectural style of a building. The variety of door types in the districts reflects the variety of styles, particularly of residential buildings. 1) The original details and shape of porches should be retained including the outline, roof height, and roof pitch. 2) Inspect masonry, wood, and metal or porches and entrances for signs of rust, peeling paint, wood deterioration, open joints around frames, deteriorating putty, inadequate caulking, and improper drainage, and correct any of these conditions. 3) Repair damaged elements, matching the detail of the existing original fabric. 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. 5) Do not strip entrances and porches of historic material and details. 6) Give more importance to front or side porches than to utilitarian back porches. 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. 10) Do not enclose porches on primary elevations and avoid enclosing porches on secondary elevations in a manner that radically changes the historic appearance. 11) Provide needed barrier-free access in ways that least alter the features of the building. 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. 16) Retain transom windows and sidelights. 17) When installing storm or screen doors, ensure that they relate to the character of the existing door. a. They should be a simple design where lock rails and stiles are similar in placement and size. b. Avoid using aluminum colored storm doors. c. If the existing storm door is aluminum, consider painting it to match the existing door. d. Use a zinc chromate primer before painting to ensure adhesion. 123 Bollingwood (Nov. 10, 2021) 5 Appendix Current Historic (Unknown date, assume mid- to late-20th century.) 123 Bollingwood (Nov. 10, 2021) 6 c1965 Sanborn Map 1966 aerial photo 1990 aerial photo 123 Bollingwood (Nov. 10, 2021) 7 DRIVE RELOCATED EXISTING TREES CHILDREN’S MAPLE PARKING GRANITE CURB BRICK PATH AD PLAY LAWN WOOD RO PR OP ER TY LI RETAINING WALL SE TB AC K STAIR B O L L IN G POOL FENCE RETAINING WALL RESIDENCE NE WITH FENCE ABOVE GATE POOL FENCE POOL POOL TERRACE LAWN osed DINING TERRACE Prop ge chan LOW RETAINING STAIR AND GATE SEAT WALL DEMO POND RABBIT HUTCH GATE STEP DOWN POOL FENCE GARAGE SETB A C K 09.13.2021 PR OPER TY LIN E SECRET CHILDREN’S GARDEN BRICK TERRACE POOL EQUIPMENT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN CHICKENS PERGOLA RECONFIGURE GARAGE L1.00 SITE PLAN SCREENING PLANTINGS DOORS TO ONE 0 5 10 20 PEDESTRIAN DOOR FENCE CONCEPT SCALE 1”=10’ November 2, 2021 123 Bollingwood Road Site Concept Plan Limit of work outlined in red November 2, 2021 123 Bollingwood Road Existing Conditions The property has been substantially altered over time. The enclosed sleeping porch on the left in these 2 images has been completely removed. The rear additions have also been altered over time. November 2, 2021 123 Bollingwood Road Photographic History of the Property EXISTING ELEVATION Exterior renovation would be limited to the southwest facade of the structure - a series of later additions to the original farm house, not visible from Bollingwood Road. The interior space at this location is the kitchen and fam- ily dining area, and the goal of the project is to connect the interior and exterior with better views and accessibil- ity to the entertainment terrace. The design is intended to emphasize a distinction between the older building fabric and the modern renovation, not to pretend that this work was part of the historic fabric. Modifications would include: - Removal of small roof over door. - Replace door and 2 windows with single, three-panel sliding door with minimal frame and with metal surround encasing sliding door. - Repair and replace all wood siding effected by the modification. ELEVATION CONCEPT November 2, 2021 123 Bollingwood Road Elevation Concept Older, historic fabric with modern interventions November 2, 2021 123 Bollingwood Road Precedent Images Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 21-11-07 946 Grady Avenue, TMP 310060000 Individually Protected Property Owner: Dairy Central Phase 1, LLC Applicant: Joshua Batman Project: Install gas-powered heaters over entries Application components (please click each link to go directly to PDF page): • Staff Report • Historic Survey • Application Submittal November 16, 2021 BAR Packet Guide 11 City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Staff Report November 16, 2021 Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-11-07 946 Grady Avenue, TMP 310060000 Individually Protected Property Owner: Dairy Central Phase 1, LLC Applicant: Joshua Batman Project: Install fourteen (14) wall-mounted heaters Background Year Built: 1937-1964 District: IPP Former Monticello Dairy building. Designated an IPP in 2008. The original central 2-story (5-bay) portion of the building and flanking one-story (7-bay) portions are dated 1937. The east side addition (7-bay) was built in 1947/1964; the similar west side addition (6-bay) was built in 1959. Prior BAR Reviews (See appendix for complete summary) October 19, 2021 – Staff informally presented this to the BAR, noting a formal submittal was pending. Generally, BAR expressed concern for permanently installing heaters into or above the brick arches. Of particular concern on the primary facades, noting that Dairy Central was recognized by the BAR with a 2020 Design and Preservation award. BAR suggested portable heaters, which would not alter or anchor into the building, would not require penetrating the wall, and would not require BAR approval. Application • Submitted by applicant: Exterior photos (4 sheets); Cunningham-Quill drawings (sheets P1.10, P1.11 and A2.10) with mark-up showing proposed heater locations and heater spec. Request for CoA to install fourteen (14) gas-powered, infrared heaters on exterior walls: eleven (11) on the north façade and three (3) on the west façade. Discussion and recommendation Staff recommends denial of this request. Permanent installation of the heaters into the masonry wall and penetration of the walls for gas and electric conduits will damage the masonry and introduce a 946 Grady Avenue – exterior heaters (November 9, 2021) 1 component that is incompatible with the historic façade.* The heaters are inconsistent with the building and the previously approved alterations and rehabilitations. Additionally, the heaters will be used only seasonally, serving a need that can be addressed with portable heaters and without altering or damaging the historic façade. (* See locations in Appendix.) Regarding installation of the proposed heaters: Two mounting brackets are anchored into the masonry wall. Gas and electric are supplied via separate conduits through the wall. (See Appendix.) Regarding portable heaters: (See images in the Appendix.) The proposed wall-mounted heater (Dayton #21MK93) produces 34,000 BTUs, heats a 64 sq. ft. area [immediately adjacent to the wall], and costs approximately $1,200, not including installation. Portable, propane heaters are available that produce between 38,000 and 48,000 BTUs, can heat areas from 200 to 324 sq. ft., and costs range between $200 to $500, not including propane. (www.toptenreviews.com/best-patio-heaters) Staff note: On October 26, 2021, citing the informal discussion with the BAR, staff recommended to the applicant they consider withdrawing the request and, in lieu of wall-mounted heaters, use portable heaters. The applicant replied: “We appreciate the BAR’s concerns. We are trying to help the operation of the market with this request. The temporary heaters are costly and burdensome to the staff/merchants and we are trying to respond to the desire to keep outdoor dining available as long into the colder months as possible. We would like to keep the application at present and look forward to hearing the BAR’s thoughts on the matter.” Should the BAR consider approval of this request, staff recommends the following conditions: • The heaters will be installed above the existing arches. • Wall penetrations for the mounting brackets and conduits will be within the mortar joints and in a manner to minimize, if not avoid, damage to the bricks. • Gas and electric supply (conduits, junction boxes, etc.) will be through the wall at each heater, individually, and installed in a manner that minimizes exterior visibility. Building permit application will indicate the specific location of each heater, wall penetrations, and visible (exterior) supply conduits and connections. Staff will review for compliance with the CoA. • If/when the heaters are removed, the masonry walls will be repaired in accordance with the ADC District Design Guidelines. Suggested Motion Denial: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed exterior heaters do not satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are not compatible with this Individually Protected Property, and for the following reasons the BAR denies the request as submitted: … Approval: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed exterior heaters satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are compatible with this Individually Protected Property, and that the BAR approves the request [as submitted]. [as submitted with the following conditions:]. 946 Grady Avenue – exterior heaters (November 9, 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) 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 Guidelines for Rehabilitation B. Facades and Storefronts 1) Conduct pictorial research to determine the design of the original building or early changes. 2) Conduct exploratory demolition to determine what original fabric remains and its condition. 3) Remove any inappropriate materials, signs, or canopies covering the façade. 4) Retain all elements, materials, and features that are original to the building or are contextual remodelings, and repair as necessary. 5) Restore as many original elements as possible, particularly the materials, windows, decorative details, and cornice. 6) When designing new building elements, base the design on the “Typical elements of a commercial façade and storefront.” (See page 7 at V: Rehabilitation ) 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. 946 Grady Avenue – exterior heaters (November 9, 2021) 3 11) Avoid introducing inappropriate architectural elements where they never previously existed. H. Masonry 1) Retain masonry features, such as walls, brackets, railings, cornices, window surrounds, pediments, steps, and columns that are important in defining the overall character of the building. 2) When repairing or replacing a masonry feature, respect the size, texture, color, and pattern of masonry units, as well as mortar joint size and tooling. 3) When repointing masonry, duplicate mortar strength, composition, color, and texture. a) Do not repoint with mortar that is stronger than the original mortar and the brick itself. b) Do not repoint with a synthetic caulking compound. 4) Repoint to match original joints and retain the original joint width. 5) Do not paint unpainted masonry. Appendix Prior BAR Reviews • May 21, 2013- BAR approved CoA for restoration of windows and a new patio at Three Notch’d Brewing Co. • September 19, 2017 – The BAR held a preliminary discussion on partial demolitions. • November 21, 2017 – Preliminary discussion. Rehabilitation of the former Monticello Dairy building. • January 17, 2018 –BAR approved CoA for demolition. • January 17, 2018 – BAR approved CoA for additions and landscape plan. • June 19, 2018 – BAR approved CoA for revisions, including retail doors and storefront at the east and west of the center bay of the north elevation, and on the west side (10th St.). • August 21, 2018 - BAR approved CoA for revisions to glass VLT. • March 19, 2019 - BAR approved CoA for revisions. • November 21, 2019 – BAR recommended Council approve the Comprehensive Signage Plan. • November 17, 2020 - BAR approved CoA to reconfigure an existing storefront entry and an existing window (north elevation) and replace an existing storefront entry and install a new storefront entry at an existing opening (west elevation). • January 20, 2021 – BAR announces 2020 Preservation and Design Awards, which includes recognition of the Dairy Central project for Adaptive Re-Use and Rehabilitation of a Historic Structure and New Construction Design. 946 Grady Avenue – exterior heaters (November 9, 2021) 4 Regarding proposed locations: The submittal indicates the heaters will be installed above the existing arches. (Arrows indicate openings where heaters are proposed.) North façade –east (January 2018 BAR submittal: weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/764579/2018-01_946%20Grady%20Avenue_BAR.pdf) North façade –east (Google street view) 946 Grady Avenue – exterior heaters (November 9, 2021) 5 North façade – center east (Google street view). 946 Grady Avenue – exterior heaters (November 9, 2021) 6 North façade – center west (Google street view). Openings where heaters are proposed. 946 Grady Avenue – exterior heaters (November 9, 2021) 7 North façade – west (Google street view). 946 Grady Avenue – exterior heaters (November 9, 2021) 8 West façade (Google street view). 946 Grady Avenue – exterior heaters (November 9, 2021) 9 Regarding installation of the proposed heaters: From Dayton Patio Heater #21MK93 Installation, Operation, Maintenance and Parts Manual: www.grainger.com/ec/pdf/21MK93_1.pdf 946 Grady Avenue – exterior heaters (November 9, 2021) 10 Regarding portable heaters: Wall-mounted heaters. (Images for context only and do not show the specific heater proposed.) Portable heaters. 946 Grady Avenue – exterior heaters (November 9, 2021) 11 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.in. ownerName DAJ)&`/ Cg/Vm4 7rf%g/,C4C, App|icantName 16£.hca i ` r<{ Brfu4ttcinA,ProjectName/DescriptionD4//Zyw#ZKgrParcelNumber / prcjrectpropertyAIrddress q Gr{ro rty6Nub Clfty¢+OTTE,i:VieLc.i/4 92C}63 ', Signature of Applicant ADDlicant Information I hereby attest that the information I have provided is, to the Address: oci 6,ut2ze6r-r- =Trf l66r ProDertv Owner Information (if not aDDlicant) Addres_s. fthe+€Jani€:7g-+fcwieir- A4o CJr"£77' S7¥€7 ,PLrgT>rty.qu_n_e_I_P:_|TTli_ssiqp (if,not. appJlca.B.tJ r78>V ,ce± J£"rt-a:t:as:ebLe}::,;hn!:applicationandherebygivemyconsentto Email: Phone: (W) Signature Date Do you intend to apply for Federal or State Tax Credits for this project? Print Name Date Description of proposed work (attach separate narrative if necessary): &J4CL /4G4irg¢S CD`/ £&¢h/r 0TO f"6fts Owl GordL_:Fag__L_£__ 4w_ t¢ frcL dr F OfL 3bc)A|i, Dis7l#ri)LI_~iz___ f tytl;a.rJ ^l)bftr)Ff > ! List AII Attachments (see reverse side for submittal requirements): if_i_4_IJ _. _ GC_6vprT|cr^J , f tyD Spec Si+456.r f=zne wf yLL ItefllzIZ.. For office use only Approved/Disapproved by: F`eceived by: Date: Fee paid: Cash/Ck. # Conditions of approval: Date Received: Revised 2016 HISTORIC DISTRICT ORDINANCE: You can review the H/.sto#.ca/ Preservafi.or} and Arc#f.fecfura/ Oesj.gn Oonfro/ Over/ay Di'sfrt.cfs 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 ADO D/.sfr/.cfs Des/.gr) Gu/.de//.nes online at www.charlottesville.org. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: The following information and exhibits shall be submitted along with each application for Certificate of Appropriateness, per See. 34-282 (d; in the City of Charlottesvil!e 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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² 7<32) %(/6/$%  )D[ *$6 *$68372578 &:678%83 0%+,1387 /DQGVFDSH$UFKLWHFW :DWHUVWUHHW6WXGLR *$6 (DVW0DLQ6WUHHW *$65(*8/$7259(176 &:'1 &KDUORWWHVYLOOH9$  837+58522) 7<3  3KRQH  6WDOO& 6WDOO) &  ) *$6 &: 6WDOO$ 6WDOO% $ % 6WDOO+  + 6WDOO, , 6WDOO' 6WDOO* &: *$6'172 ' * 68%0(7(560%+,1387 6(('(7$,/21':*3 7<3,&$/)25($&+5(67$85$17 &(175$/+$// *$6  &: *$6 *$683720$8 :(67+$// ($67+$//  0%+,1387    *$6 &:  &RS\ULJKW‹ )OH[ ,VVXHV5HYLVLRQV )/; ($67/281*(   3(50,7%,'3$&.$*(  %,'$''(1'80   &216758&7,216(7 6WDOO- 6WDOO. 6WDOO/ - . / *$6 &: * *$65(*8/$7259(176 6WDOO0 837+58522) 7<3 * 0 '5< *$683720$8 *$6 36, 0%+,1387 6WDOO1 6WDOO2 6WDOO3 &: 1 2 3 &: +:&3  +: +:5 (; 6WDOO5 5 0RQWLFHOOR'DLU\ 36,*$6 (:+ &: &:'1 (/(&0(&+5220 *$//21&$3$&,7< 63 6WDOO4 &KDUORWWHVYLOOH9$  72%$6(0(17 4 .:$793+ '5< 6WDOO0 '5<635'1 0  63'1 72%$6(0(17 0$,1*$668%0(7(5 63 63 6383)520 63583)520 %$6(0(17 %$6(0(17 &4$ &: *$6  'UDZLQJ7LWOH '$,5< ,668(')25&216758&7,21 /(9(/% 3$57,$/'$,5</(9(/)/2253/$1%'20(67,& :$7(5 3/$1 6&$/(    :$7(5 $0 6FDO 'UDZQ%\    6$7 'DWH &KHFNHG%\  &KHFNHU 3 &811,1*+$0_48,// $5&+,7(&76 3//& 67 675((71: 68,7( :$6+,1*721'&  3+ ); ZZZFXQQLQJKDPTXLOOFRP 2ZQHU 6WRQ\3RLQW'HVLJQ%XLOG *DUUHWW6WUHHW6XLWH2 &KDUORWWHVYLOOH9$ 3KRQH *$68372578 0%+,1387 *$65(*8/$725 &20081,7<50$ &LYLO(QJLQHHU 9(176837+58  7LPPRQV*URXS 522) 7<3  3UHVWRQ$YHQXH6XLWH &KDUORWWHVYLOOH9$ 3KRQH )D[  6WUXFWXUDO(QJLQHHU (KOHUW%U\DQ *$6 'ROOH\0DGLVRQ%RXOHYDUG &: 6XLWH 0F/HDQ9$ 5(7$,/ 3KRQH 5(67$85$17  0(3(QJLQHHU 6. /DZUHQFH3HUU\ $VVRFLDWHV (DVW6DOHP$YHQXH6(6XLWH &:+: 5RDQRNH9LUJLQLD +:5 3KRQH² &$33('$%9&/* )D[ )25)8785(&211 /DQGVFDSH$UFKLWHFW :DWHUVWUHHW6WXGLR (DVW0DLQ6WUHHW &KDUORWWHVYLOOH9$ 3KRQH *$683720$8 0%+,1387 *$65(*8/$725 9(176837+58522) +$// *<07(1$17$  )$0,/<5(675220   *$6 &:+: +:5$%9&/* &: (:+ *$//21 93+.: 0(&+$1,&$/ / :& :20(16 5220 :& :& 0(165(675220 $ 5(675220  &:  +: (; +:5 +:&3  / / *$6 :& :& (:&  &: / &: :& :& / %$6(0(17+$// *$6 *$6 &:+:  6725$*(  +:5$%9&/* :& 85  / / '5< 6WDOO6 63 79 :& 85 79 6 &RS\ULJKW‹  3 &:  ,VVXHV5HYLVLRQV *$6 +: 3 (:&   ($5/<)281'$7,216758&785(3(50,7%,'6(7 +:5 :& 85 / /  3(50,7%,'3$&.$*( '5<635 / / %$6(0(17635,1./(5 :& :&  %,'$''(1'80 )5$%9 79 79 =21(&21752/9$/9( 63   &216758&7,216(7 &:)5$%9 :& :& '28%/(&+(&.%)3 &:'1 :5(675220 05(675220   63583 '5< '20(67,&:$7(5 53=%)3 (/(&50 +$// 6725 6383 0$,1%(/*5$'(    :+ 635 ),5(0$,1 %(/*5$'( 635 :$7(550 $/$50&+(&.9$/9( '  '5< )5$%9 &:'1 '5<3,3(9$/9( 06 127( &225',1$7(:$7(5 )0 :+ 6(59,&((175$1&( )'& &:'1 :+ 67$,5$ :,7+(/(&75,&$/ $ 6(59,&(/2&$7,21 06 06 0RQWLFHOOR'DLU\ * &KDUORWWHVYLOOH9$  -1&/  /2$',1*'2&.  75$6+&20350  '$,5<%$6(0(17)/2253/$1'20(67,&:$7(5  &4$ 36, 6&$/(    'UDZLQJ7LWOH *$66(59,&( '$,5< 3,3(6/((9(6 ,668(')25&216758&7,21 *$683 7+58522) 3/80%,1*3/$1127(6   '20(67,&:$7(53,3,1*%(/2:*5$'(6+$//%(7<3( .  &233(5$670%:,7+%5$=('&233(5-2,176 /($')5((  %$6(0(17 :+ &:'1  635,1./(50$,1%(/2:6/$%25*5$'(6+$//%($::$& '8&7,/(,521:,7+5(675$,1('%(//$1'63,*27-2,176$1' *$6.(7('),77,1*6 /(9(/$ 3/$1 *$66(59,&(0(7(5$1'5(*8/$725 %<&+$5/277(69,//(*$6&203$1< &)+(67&211(&7('/2$' )((7'(9(/23('/(1*7+  :$7(5 $0 6FDO 'UDZQ%\    $XWKRU 3$57,$/'$,5</(9(/)/2253/$1$'20(67,& 'DWH  &KHFNHG%\ &KHFNHU :$7(5 3 6&$/(    PROPOSED KEYNOTES: A A.9 B C C.1 C.4 C.6 D E F G G.9 H CUNNINGHAM | QUILL N1. PROPOSED NEW STEEL WINDOW (SIMILAR TO TYPE A). ARCHITECTS N2. PROPOSED NEW STEEL WINDOW PLLC METAL PANEL METAL PANEL TYPE 1 TYPE 2 (SIMILAR TO TYPE B). 1054 31ST STREET NW Zoning Building Height N3. PROP. ENTRY DOOR TYPE 1. SUITE 315 BUILDING T.O. Mtl Type 1 Parapet 541.42 EXPANSION WASHINGTON, DC 545.71 N4. PROPOSED MASONRY INFILL W/ VCC Building Height JOINT SALVAGED BRICK FROM EXISTING 20007 541.26 BUILDING ONSITE TO MATCH SCREEN WALL MASONRY AT INFILL LOCATION. PH. 202.337.0090 TYPE 1 FX. 202.337.0092 N5. PROP. ENTRY DOOR TYPE 2. www.cunninghamquill.com N12 N4 N16 N14 C1A Office - Lvl 3 TOS N6. PROPOSED ENTRY DOOR TYPE 4 48' - 5" ZONING HEIGHT 47' - 10" VCC HEIGHT 526.42 N20 TYP. W/ TRANSOM TO MATCH TRANSOM 3 TYPE E. 13' - 6" W7C Owner: N7. PROPOSED ENTRY DOOR, TO Stony Point Design Build F F F F2 MATCH EXISTING WOOD PANEL AND 3 Office - Lvl 2 TOS 200 Garrett Street, Suite O 1' - 2 1/4" 36' - 2 1/2" GLASS DOOR. Charlottesville, VA 22902 512.92 3 Dairy East Roof Dairy East Roof Phone: 434-466-5634 N8. PROPOSED NEW STEEL WINDOW 13' - 6" 508.36 508.36 (SIMILAR TO TYPE G). C3B C3A Civil Engineer: Office - Lvl 1 TOS G2 G2 G2 G G G G G G K G2 G2 N9. PROPOSED NEW STEEL Timmons Group 499.42 WINDOW. 608 Preston Avenue, Suite 200 Dairy - Level 1 TOS 9' - 11" VCC Avg. Grade Plane 3 3 Charlottesville, VA 22903 495.81 N10. PROPOSED NEW ENTRY DOOR 493.45 Phone: 434-327-1688 I Lobby TOS I I I2 I2 I2 I2 I2 I2 I2 I2 I2 TYPE 3 W/ TRANSOM & SIDELIGHTS. Zoning Measuring Point Fax: 434-295-8317 489.50 493.00 GRADY AVENUE N11. PROPOSED METAL EXIT DOORS. 3 N13 N18 N9 N8 N9 N8 N9 N18 N9 N9 N9 N13N19 N9 N8 N9 N13N18 N12. NEW GLASS & ALUMINUM Structural Engineer: 3 Ehlert Bryan SIGNAGE C BY OTHERS MECH LOUVER, RE MECH. DRAWINGS DOOR. 1451 Dolley Madison Boulevard, South Elevation @ SE Corner of Ex. Bldg. BUILDING SIGNAGE B PTD SS REVEAL PANEL, COLOR: BLACK 4 N13. EMERGENCY OVERFLOW Suite 220 1/16" = 1'-0" BRICK CONTROL JOINT OUTLET FROM ROOF McLean, VA 22101 Phone: 703-827-9552 N14. NEW METAL COPING, CP TYPE 2 MEP Engineer: East Elevation Lawrence Perry & Associates 3 N15. PROPOSED NEW STEEL 1/16" = 1'-0" WINDOW (SIMILAR TO TYPE H) 15 East Salem Avenue SE, Suite 101 Roanoke, Virginia 24011 N16. PROPOSED NEW STEEL Phone: 540-342—1816 WINDOW (SIMILAR TO TYPE F) Fax: 540-344-3410 N17. SALVAGED WINDOW & SILL RELOCATED TO LOCATION SHOWN Landscape Architect: H G.9 G F E D C.6 C.4 C.1 C B A Waterstreet Studio N18. RESTORE EXISTING GUTTER OR 418 East Main Street COLLECTOR BOX AND DOWNSPOUT Charlottesville, VA 22902 Phone: 434-295-8177 N19. NEW METAL GUTTER OR COLLECTOR AND DOWNPOUT TO SCREEN WALL TYPE 1 CONTROL JOINT MATCH EXISTING ROOF ACCESS BRICK TYPE 1 N20. EXISTING CORNICE/COLUMNS LADDER TO BE CLEANED AND RESTORED METAL PANEL TYPE 1 Zoning Building Height METAL PANEL TYPE 2 541.42 N21. COLLECTOR BOX TO MATCH VCC Building Height ELEVATION OF NEW THROUGH WALL MASONRY INFILL TO MATCH BUILDING EXPANSION JOINT 541.26 OVERFLOW DRAIN OUTLET EXISTING W/ SALVAGED BRICK SCREEN WALL TYPE 1 N22. FILL EX. SCUPPER WITH EX. 3 BRICK TO MATCH WALL N14 N17 C2C C2B 3 Office - Lvl 3 TOS 48' - 5" ZONING HEIGHT 47' - 10" VCC HEIGHT Dairy High Roof TOS N20 TYP. 3 526.42 525.08 W7D 15' - 3" (V.I.F.) EXPANSION JOINT @ GARAGE WALL AND PARAPET H.1 H H H WALL SCONCE Office - Lvl 2 TOS Dairy - Level 2 TOS 512.92 510.75 W2 PHASE 1 14' - 0" (V.I.F.) B 3 TRANSFORMER S1 S1 S1 Office - Lvl 1 TOS Dairy - Level 1 TOS 499.42 VCC Avg. Grade Plane Copyright © 2018 495.81 3 493.45 N21N22 N13N18 N10 N12 N13N19N21 N11 N11 N14 N22N21N18N13 Issues / Revisions GRADY AVE. Zoning Measuring Point S2 493.00 08/29/18 EARLY FOUNDATION + STRUCTURE PERMIT / BID SET MURAL WALL: SEE BAR COA 3 GARAGE EXHAUST FOR PROPOSED MURAL BELOW STAIR (BEYOND) 1 10/19/18 PERMIT + BID PACKAGE 61' - 7" 2 11/05/18 BID ADDENDUM West Elevation 3 02/01/19 CONSTRUCTION SET 2 1/16" = 1'-0" 1 2 1 3 2 A3.10 A3.10 A3.11 A4.10 A3.11 6.7 6.4 5.6 5.1 4.6 4 3.7 3.4 2.8 1.9 1.3 1 Monticello Dairy METAL PANEL TYPE 1 (COPPER) - SCREEN WALL TYPE 1 TYP SIZE: 1'-3" x 3'-0", SET IN FLAT 946 Grady Ave Charlottesville, VA 16' - 1" 20' - 0" 20' - 0" 10' - 0" 32' - 0" 9' - 7 1/2" 20' - 4 1/2" 20' - 0" 16' - 1" SEAM PANEL SYSTEM IN VERTICAL RUNNING BOND PATTERN, TYP METAL PANEL TYPE 2 (ZINC), TYP SIZE: 1'-0" x 3'-9 1/2", SET IN REVEAL Zoning Building Height PANEL SYSTEM IN VERTICAL STACK 541.42 BOND PATTERN, TYP VCC Building Height METAL PANEL TYPE 2 541.26 W3 W4 W3 W3 W4 CQA # 21702 C2D C2E C2D C2E METAL PANEL TYPE 2 47' - 9 3/4" VCC HEIGHT 48' - 5" ZONING HEIGHT Drawing Title ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION W7B W7A 3 N1 C C C C C N14 3 N20 TYP. Dairy - Level 2 TOS Elevations 3 510.75 14' - 11" E E (V.I.F.) SIGNAGE A J J J J J A A A A.1 A B B B B B2 B B B B B D D Dairy - Level 1 TOS VCC Avg. Grade Plane 495.81 493.45 3 Zoning Measuring Point N1 S3 N3 N1 N1 N4 N1 N1 N3 N4 N13 S3 N5 N17 N4 N5 S3 N6 N7 N20 TYP. N6 S3 N5 N17 N4 N4 N2 N5 S3 N13 S3 N4 N17 493.00 3 3 3 3 3 WOOD ST. PROPOSED RETAIL WALL S3 PROPOSED RETAIL WALL PROPOSED RETAIL WALL 3 PROPOSED RETAIL WALL 2/6/2019 8:58:22 PM SIGN D BY OTHERS SIGN D BY OTHERS SIGN D BY OTHERS SIGN D BY OTHERS 10TH ST. Scale Drawn By 3 As indicated CQA Date Checked By 03/01/18 CQA 1 North Elevation 1/16" = 1'-0" DRAWING PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED ON 8.29.18 EARLY FOUNDATION + STRUCTURAL PERMIT/BID PACKAGE A2.10 Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 21-11-08 111-115 West Main Street (also 113), TMP 330259000 Downtown ADC District Owner: West Mall, LLC Applicant: Caitlin Schafer, Henningsen-Kestner Architects Project: Storefront alteration Application components (please click each link to go directly to PDF page): • Staff Report • Historic Survey • Application Submittal November 16, 2021 BAR Packet Guide 12 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW STAFF REPORT November 16, 2021 Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-11-08 111-115 West Main Street (also 113), TMP 330259000 Downtown ADC District Owner: West Mall, LLC Applicant: Caitlin Schafer, Henningsen-Kestner Architects Project: Storefront alteration Background Year Built: c1913-1914 District: Downtown ADC District Status: Contributing Known as the Feuchtenberger Building, it was constructed in 1913-14 as a 4-bay duplex store with apartments above. The façade was changed in the early 1990’s. The rear of the brick building is accessed by a concrete driveway from West Market Street. The rear façade of the building is partially obscured by the former church annex) building on the abutting property. Prior BAR Review (See Appendix) Projetc scope Application • Applicant submittal: Henningsen and Kestner Architects drawings Renovation of 111-115 W Main St Storefront, dated 16 November 2021: Sheets BAR.00 - BAR.10. (11 sheets.) CoA request for the rehabilitate of the façade and replacement of the storefront. • Storefront: o Stain exposed wood with Arborcoat. Cordovan Brown o Remove canopy and install new: red cedar with Cu standing-seam roof. o Remove the two cornices and install a continuous cornice over both storefronts. Painted wood. Benj Moore Simply White. o Install thin-set brick floor entries. 111-115 West Main (Nov. 10, 2021) 1 • Upper floor windows: Remove wood sills and headers, expose stone or metal and paint. Benj Moore Simply White. Discussion and Recommendations The existing storefront is not original. The stone headers and sills on the upper windows are covered with metal flashing. (See photos in Appendix and the applicant’s submittal.) Staff asked the applicant to clarify the work at the upper floor windows: All the windows are staying, as is, that includes the brickmould and mull cap. The only change we want to make is to the headers and sills. The header and sill covers that are there now, are a flashing / metal cover. If the original header and sills are in good condition, we will take the metal covers off. If they are not, we will keep the existing covers on and paint them. Staff recommends approval. Suggested Motion Approval: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed façade rehabilitation and storefront alterations for 111-115 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]. or [as submitted with the following conditions:]. Denial: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, the ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed façade rehabilitation and storefront alterations for 111- 115 West Main Street 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: … 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; 111-115 West Main (Nov. 10, 2021) 2 (4) The effect of the proposed change on the historic district neighborhood; (5) The impact of the proposed change on other protected features on the property, such as gardens, landscaping, fences, walls and walks; (6) Whether the proposed method of construction, renovation or restoration could have an adverse impact on the structure or site, or adjacent buildings or structures; (7) Any applicable provisions of the City’s Design Guidelines. Pertinent Guidelines for Rehabilitation include: V: Rehabilitation B. Facades and Storefronts 1) Conduct pictorial research to determine the design of the original building or early changes. 2) Conduct exploratory demolition to determine what original fabric remains and its condition. 3) Remove any inappropriate materials, signs, or canopies covering the façade. 4) Retain all elements, materials, and features that are original to the building or are contextual remodelings, and repair as necessary. 5) Restore as many original elements as possible, particularly the materials, windows, decorative details, and cornice. 6) When designing new building elements, base the design on the “Typical elements of a commercial façade and storefront” (see drawing next page). 7) Reconstruct missing or original elements, such as cornices, windows, and storefronts, if documentation is available. 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 Prior BAR Review February 16, 2010 - BAR approved CoA, with the requirement that the paint color. Approvals included replacing the existing garage door with bronze aluminum storefront doors with transom; unblocking window openings and adding new double-hung windows and two square awning windows; repainting the previously painted Market Street facade. April 20, 2010 – BAR accepted the applicant’s request for deferral. May 18, 2010 – BAR approved CoA for exterior alterations 111-115 West Main (Nov. 10, 2021) 3 111-115 West Main (Nov. 10, 2021) 4 Refer to the images in applicant’s submittal. 111-15 West Main is noted. 111-115 West Main (Nov. 10, 2021) 5 SURVEY Bibb/Spr~nQ 1979 IDENTIFICATION BASE DATA St:-eet Adoress: 111-115 w. ~n Stree~ Historic Name: reuchtenberger 9~lding xao and Parce l : 33-259 Date/Period: :'913-14 Census irack & Block: 1-31~ Style: No Identifiable Style Pr'es ent Owne!'": Sahpia -:-=-l.palas Height to Cornice: Aaaress: Jl6 ,-ark Wa' . ~ k Height in Stories: /// Tar \W~ '4 ?resent Use: ~en's Clo~~9 5~or~ Appliance Sta e~/Lr ?resent Zoning: 3-4 Original Owner: to. w •• euc.htenoerge= Land Area (so. ft.): 47.66' " 145' 17.5' x ao: (9310.7 sq .. :t.) Original Use: 3akery: Theatre Assessed Value {land + imD.) : CHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION :-::isl.S a large and =at..'ler scarkly de~ailed 3 ,,~::>r'4-bay duplex store builCing >ri!:hapaz tmerrt s en :..'le =ans~~c~::>n is of br1.ck laid in 7-course AIDe __ n bond. The first level has ceen faced ~i~'l shallow brick lai :..., stretC:le= bond. The ·•• estern storefront has been :IIOdern.ized.but 1:..,"'e eastern one is ?robably original. ~ recessed semi-~lypt~cal-arched log~~a wi~~ a =o~~d-archeci rec2ssed en~rance wi~'in i~_ now concealed ~y a S1gTI ac=::>sst.."'e c::>pof c~e storef==>nt. The entrance ~::>~'le upper levels is located be~ •• een ~'le storef!:'onts and has a ?e~ent on consoles. Sach storef=onc has a nar!:'owdecorated co~ce. and t..'1.e eastern one ret~ns l.~ decorated ~ecal :r~eze also. Above ~~ese. anow~er co~ce ex--ends across ~~e en~~re facade. Windows are ?~=ed and 1r2 ~.e same hel.~ht at ::>O~~!:he second and ~~rd levels. They are ~ouble-sash, l-over-l light, ~~~~ a s~ngle concrete 'l.l~ and rxs~caced ~tone 11.ncel (?~nted wn~te) :~r eacn ?a~=. There is a fluted pilaster wit..~=aised ~OtS on t..~e ==::.eze :>et'Neen e acn paa r of w:Lncows. .i\ .?roJe~.:.:'l.C; cor:u.ce .",l.t..~ co rn ace s tio es , decO~at2d br3.cke1:s, a.."'lc. ==.:.eze ...•. l.~~ L~se~ ?anels ~~cijecorac~ve moul~,g c=owns ~'e ?arapet. 3ehind lot, a ~~-&-gravel shed roof slopes gently ~~ ~~e sforey . HISTORICAL DESCRIPTION ~ ~~ee~briCk building built, according ~ Alexander, in the ~~rd quarter of t..'le19~~ cen~~ ~y 509hia ~sc~t 0:: tbe grocer! and dr! qoads fir.:!of nannaqan, Abell & Co •• stood on !:he eastern half of t..,islot; and a ~NO-stOr! ~rick ~uilding once used ~y the ~ntlcello Sank stood on ~he ~estern half. E. W. Feuchtenberger bought ~~e lot in 1913 (Ci~! ~B 25-191), core down t.."'e existL.g buildings, and erected ~~e ?resent one. ~e operated a baker! in the eastern· half and lived above. The Virginia ~eatre showed silent eova e s in the ,.,este= half. '!'he bu· - Id in 1927 to Jefferson-Larayet-c•• t=es. L,c. (DB 59-261). The present owners purchased it when ration liauida~ed its a s in 1966 (DB 278-79). The Men and Bovs' Shoo has occuoied the eastern r~ years: T~e weste stor~om housed electrical appliance· stores· for the l~st 25 years. C:"ty DB 25-323; GRAPHICS City ?.ecor:!s CONDITIONS A. G. Costan SOURCES Good ~s. Nick Tripolas (Soph:"a P. T~ipolas) Jack Cohn of ~en and Boys' Shop Alexander, R.ecollec1:ions of Sarl" C:Jarlottesville ~M,...rn-= ::;an..."'oal ..•. 9C·" ~~~O -:~a~':ot:-:es\'·n.:.~. ..._~ ·)i.=-e-::~ori.es LANDMARK COMMISSION ·DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. AUGUST,1974 I I A I ounty/ city I'] VIRGINIA HISTORIC LANDMARKS COMMIES 35 DO THE REIS I loi_ S` SHOP SALE RENOVATION FOR 111-115 WMAIN ST STOREFRONT g .. g .... CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS APPLICATION PACKAGE 'I' 11\ () N 16 NOVEMBER 2021 I BAR.00 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (' ~3 ij 3 i i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (' ~ ij -i :::! i i NO.I DATE I DRAWINGRELEASE to 111-115 11"1 MAIN STREET CERT. OF APPROPRIATENESS ]HI\( > ~ APPLICATION PACKAGE NO.I DATE I REVISION HENNINGSEN KESTNER • 0 ARCHITECTS ~ 1108 EAST HIGH STREET, CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 JOB NUMBER :20:34 FILE NO. :20:34-SAl"tOI PHONE(434) 971-7202 IFAX(434) 295-2413 IHENNINGSENKESTNER.COM ::c ± iji (l'I a ~ a ~ (' ~ ~ I I .l\ § ::c ::c iji iji a ~ a ~ (\ (\ ~ ~ I I .l\ .l\ ~ ~ ~ NO.I DATE I DRAWINGRELEASE tc 111-115 Y'l MAIN STREET CERT. OF APPROPRIATENESS ]HI\( > ~ APPLICATION PACKAGE NO.I DATE I REVISION HENNINGSEN KESTNER • 0 ARCHITECTS 1108 EAST HIGH STREET, CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 N JOB NUMBER :2094 FILE NO. :2094-ElAR0:2 PHONE (434) 971-7202 I FAX (434) 295-2413 I HENNINGSENKESTNER.COM p rn X I II~ U) I I -I u ~ z (i\ 11 I rn r  rn < )> I II~ -I () z ,Q_' ~ ~----------18~1 II== Q 0 II== 0 I~ 11------- In [j o' = II== 1111111111111111 Ill Ill lllll I I Ill 11111 ,Q_' t:li I!! tr:= t:li Ii o' n = n = tr:= o' Oi Ii ,, -------===;  tr:= Q t,- ~~1 , o=~, ~ ai II I 0 I OJ lJ) -I(\ -I :Z :Z C\ lf\ Al t» :Z m---1 G)> Go zGdmlflz )> C) ::{Al OJZ rn$l Dez5;==D lf\ m mG m" G-m m---1 :r t'f> < Al G\ mD ~ m m C) m )> Q Q :rG Al z )> Q lJ) z NO,I DATE I DRAWINGRELEASE t,j 111-115 v'l MAIN STREET > CERT. OF APPROPRIATENESS ]HI\( ~ APPLICATION PACKAGE 1IN0,1 DATE I REVISION 111 HENNINGSEN KESTNER • 0 ARCHITECTS w 111 11 111108 EAST IDGH STREET, CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 JOB NUMBER ::2054 I FILE NO. ::2O54-6ARO5 l-------l---------1--------------------1 I I PHONE (434) 971-7202 FAX (434) 295-2413 HENNINGSENKESTNER.C0M p 1) ~ () I I 1171 rn: 1 I r] I 1)  ll ~ Q ~ () U) rn I 1  rn~ 11 CJ p rn r II IOI rn111b rn < )> -I 1111111111111111 IIII () o' z tr:= 1---- [j 0 II== 1---- 0 II== - n - 0 II== ...- Q'  [j ti== ~~ [j = Q - ti== o' -H H \ ti==  ~ II I () I 71 ---1 ('I )> lJ) lJ) rn :r C\ 2 lJ) C\ 2 OJ lJ) z 2 2 OJ lJ) o rn r:r: OAJ---1---lX )> rn rn rn o :r: :r c rn z~::{~AJX Oz AJOJ~Oij) ---1t1lJ) J>-u =io~2 t1 n\OAI-U~ 0 0~ QOffi~~ ~ )> nl :r Ml rn (\ o -I t!---1 o~tl710J _AIAI ::{Al =ct! 2 ~2~~ ~ft)Z nt ---!Z::{ lJ) ---!6---llJ) ~o ~~ )>ft) ---llJ) I ti -I I nt -I :z)> ~~~ z:r ~~rn j!'.:~ lJ) -u 0 lJ)1tlo (\ OJ-I ---llJ) A Al I r=rntl Alz 'r~ Al 7 :rZ 0 -l'A- -Al OD 11 :z rn _,_ rnrn Z_lJ) 0 z rn\ :r ~ -I 2 (i\ 71 (j\ --<. ti )> --<. )> z z r NO.I DATE I DRAWING RELEASE t:c 111-115 V"i MAIN STREET > CERT. OF APPROPRIATENESS ]HI\( ~ APPLICATION PACKAGE 1INO.I DATE I REVISION 111 HENNINGSEN KESTNER • 0 ARCHITECTS . . . . . 111 +-- JOB NUMBER .2094 I FILE NO. .2O94-EIARO4 II l---+------1-------------------1 111108 EAST HIGH STREET, CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 I I PHONE (434) 971-7202 FAX (434) 295-2413 HENNINGSENKESTNER.C0M (JI (JI I) ( ~ m -X (j) I I~ --I z Ul rC (i\ J_ l~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~J Ml I m }: 1) r )> r m r Ul () )> () z c- 7'. (j\ .,­ --;; m X --l m ill 6 ill 11 -1 :r)> () -( ~ I-!'! r m r ill (j\ )I 6 m ~ r 7'. J 11 :r)> (i'I 11 iii 7'. z ::; . (j\ ~ Ill Cl ui 11 r 11 )> () -( Ill -( m ill ..:; ~ 1 11 iii ~ ~ ..- --;; _I I I '-... _t,. II - I 01 1,:,: I~ ~™ ~~~~~ NO.I DATE I DRAWINGRELEASE tc 111-115 ~- MAIN ST. STOREFRONT GERT. OF APPROPRIATENESS ]HI\( > ~ APPLIGATION PAGKAGE NO.I DATE I REVISION HENNINGSEN KESTNER • 0 ARCHITECTS 1108 EAST HIGH STREET, CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 Vl JOB NUMBER 2094 FILE NO. 2O94-ARf:1O5 PHONE (434) 971-7202 IFAX (434) 295-2413 IHENNINGSENKESTNER.COM ------------------ ~ .~ r Fl I I I I 1) I I I I t:::± I I A) I I I I I I () w rt I I I I 1) I I I I Fl I I () I I I I I I (j) ::t::± I I _____________ ~ C m rn tJ m I rn 1) \) \) r ~ ~ l___J )> z 1 rnz ~m -}: ('I ---l ]\I ;Tiz .~ ~=====I \) lJ) \)~ ~ I I ~ I I I I I I ~~ L_-----;========~ rnffi ~ ~ 1--"T"""! ~}: lJ) - ('I ---l ~ 11 7't. :!': --1 ~ -;; ~ ~ ~ffi ~ i= ~---l -( ~~ lJ) z - @ )> ~ ~---..i.~-;========i ~ r- ~ _ _J I 11 l J J: ~ 11 m ]\ z . ~ ~ IJ ~ r ~ I ------- ~ ~ I t ~ 1 11 I m _L___J ~ .J ]\ I z ~ i ~ffi (\}: . 1't. 71- rZ \) lJ) Om ~---l _I I I~ ~ '--- -f:s. II -- I qi I! I~ L s·-o· ,l NO.I DATE I DRAWINGRELEASE co 111-115 ~- MAIN ST. STOREFRONT CERT. OF APPROPRIATENESS ]HI\( > ~ APPLICATION PACKAGE NO.I DATE I REVISION HENNINGSEN KESTNER • 0 ARCHITECTS 1108 EAST HIGH STREET, CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 ~ JOB NUMBER ::20S4 l FILE NO. ::20S4-AR606 PHONE (434) 971-72021 FAX (434) 295-24131 HENNINGSENKESTNER.COM lf\ m (\ -I () z UJ 1 II i" C) 0111 Ulll 0111 ;;:::::11 Ulll :r:r mi- ~i- mi- tvi- 1i- 1() < _)> < =)> =)> IJc m --t - --t m --t x --t >< --t t-Ji 1(j) X(j) 1(j) (j) (j) UT 1J 8'-8" o- 0 -I UT -I 0 -I ~ -I (Jl -I IZ c() =() c() -() =() -G\ -I 0 0 -I 0 10 0 t-J A A A =7' A ~ ~~~~ '-- -I>- =l l ~ ~ (Jl ~ I )> )> ~ 11 11 11 11 11  U!I Al Al 11 C) I t-J () () I I / )t lJ Al >< >< () Ul ~\ >< -I 0 (J) m 0 (J) m 0 t-J 0 t-J ::{0 0 I () -I >< ()-IX mx mx mo :rOJ )>Al () z Alg:tn Al g: tn IJ (Jl IJ (j' --t 11 ()(j) Al (j) 1J Z--1 IJ z -I )> 2 )>11 z m i-m 0m omz omz Alm -I Alm:z - IJ 0 < IJ (i\ -I () (j) :::i 11 Al z )>(j) )>01 )>m llm () -I )> A)--t ZAJm z 0 OJ OJ() 0)01)> :S: Al --t Al 11)> m OJ A A)()::{ (J)z mZ z r- :r AJOAI IJ ()Alm ()AJ(j) Al AJA! () 11 m (J)m z r­ :Z 0 11 }0 IJ IJ (i\ 0 () zoAI zo () )>() )> --1Z ---! Al -I -I NO.I DATE I DRAWINGRELEASE t:o 111-115 V'l. MAIN ST. STOREFRONT CERT. OF APPROPRIATENESS ]HI\( > ?O APPLICATION PACKAGE NO. I DA TE I REVISION HENNINGSEN KESTNER • 0 ARCHITECTS 1108 EAST HIGH STREET, CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 .....J JOB NUMBER 2054 FILE NO. 2054-ARBOi PHONE (434) 971-7202 IFAX(434)295-24131 HENNINGSENKESTNER.COM ~ Is ij ::I i NO.I DATE I DRAWING RELEASE to 111-115 ~ MAIN STREET CERT. OF APPROPRIATENESS ]HI\( > ?O APPLICATION PACKAGE NO. I DATE I REVISION HENNINGSEN KESTNER • 0 ARCHITECTS 1108 EAST HIGH STREET, CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 00 JOB NUMBER 2054 FILE NO. 2O54-SAR.08 PHONE (434) 971-7202 I FAX (434) 295-2413 I HENNINGSENKESTNER.COM I ~ =i i NO.I DATE I DRAWINGRELEASE to 111-115 ~ MAIN STREET CERT. OF APPROPRIATENESS ]HI\( > ~ APPLICATION PACKAGE NO.I DATE I REVISION HENNINGSEN KESTNER • 0 ARCHITECTS 1108 EAST HIGH STREET, CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 JOB NUMBER .20S4 FILE NO. .20S4-BARO"! PHONE (434) 971-72021 FAX(434)295-24131 HENNINGSENKESTNER.COM "° ('I (J\ - -- -~ ~-~ r_ 0 :i! 0~ ~ 8,"f:.m ~m ~ -I ~ ij -> ~- ;I~ i (J\ z ~i (J\ -x ~ (\ m ~o -7'. ro ~ -I ~ -< m F m ~ i ~ ~ ~ 0 11 ~ ~ u ~ ~~ I~ m-t ~ ij ~ i ~ NO.I DATE I DRAWTNGRELEASE bj 111-115 ~ MAIN STREET CERT. OF APPROPRIATENESS ]HI\( > ~ APPLICATION PACKAGE NO.I DATE I REVISION HENNINGSEN KESTNER • ~ ARCHITECTS 1108 EAST HIGH STREET, CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 0 JOB NUMBER :2094 FILE NO. :2094-6A!'1.IO PHONE (434) 971-7202 I FAX(434) 295-2413 I HENNINGSENKES1NERCOM Update on project status BAR 20-11-03 612 West Main Street, Tax Parcel 290003000 West Main ADC District Owner: Heirloom West Main Street Second Phase LLC Applicant: Jeff Dreyfus, Bushman Dreyfus Architects Project: New construction of a mixed-use development Application components (please click each link to go directly to PDF page): • Staff Report • Historic Survey • Application Submittal • 11/15/2021 addendum November 16, 2021 BAR Packet Guide 13 City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Project Update Only November 16, 2021 The following is the staff report from February 17, 2021 with noted revisions (*) and prior meeting minutes attached BAR 20-11-03 602-616 West Main (612 West Main), TMP 290003000 West Main Street ADC District Owner: Jeff Levine, Heirloom West Main Street Second Phase LLC Applicant: Jeff Dreyfus, Bushman-Dreyfus Project: New, mixed-use building Background (existing building) Year Built: 1959-1973 (concrete block automotive service building) District: West Main Street ADC District Status: Non-contributing Prior BAR Reviews (See Appendix for complete list) Application CoA request for construction of a new, four-story mixed-use building. (The existing service station is a non-contributing structure; therefore, its demolition does not require a CoA.) Discussion (* revised for Nov 16, 2021 presentation) * Applicant has requested an opportunity to present an update the BAR. This update will not require the applicant request a deferral. The BAR may ask questions and initiate a discussion; however, the BAR should not treat this presentation similar to the meetings on November 17, 2020, December 15, 2020, and February 17, 202, where the BAR discussed the project, provided input, and then accepted applicant’s request for deferral. While this is not on the agenda as a regular item, staff still sent notice letters that the matter will be discussed. With that, staff recommends the chair invite and allow public comment for the record. BAR recommendations (June 18, 2019) as incorporated into the Special Use Permit (SUP) • Garage entry shall not be accessed directly from the building’s street wall along West Main Street o SUP item 1.e: […] No direct access shall be provided into the underground parking from the Building’s street wall along West Main Street. 612 West Main Street (February 1, 2021 – amended for Nov 16, 2021 update) 1 • The building’s mass shall be broken down to reflect the multi-parcel massing historically on the site, as well as the West Main Street context, using building modulation; and • The building and massing refer to the historic building. o SUP item 2: The mass of the Building shall be broken down to reflect the multi-parcel massing historically on the site, as well as the West Main Street context, using building modulation. The Building and massing refer to the historic buildings on either side. • The Holsinger Building be seismically monitored during construction; o SUP item 4: The Landowner (including, without limitation, any person who is an agent, assignee, transferee or successor in interest to the Landowner) shall prepare a Protective Plan for the Rufus Holsinger Building located on property adjacent to the Subject Property at 620- 624 West Main Street (“Holsinger Building” or “Adjacent Property”). […] • There shall be pedestrian engagement with the street with an active, transparent, and permeable façade at street level; o SUP item 3: There shall be pedestrian engagement with the street with an active, transparent, and permeable façade at street level. Suggested Motions * No action will be taken. 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 ADC District Design Guidelines Chapter 2 – Site Design and Elements III: Site Design and Elements 612 West Main Street (February 1, 2021 – amended for Nov 16, 2021 update) 2 Chapter 3 – New Construction and Additions IV: New Construction and Additions APPENDIX Prior BAR Actions April 16, 2019 - BAR discussion June 18, 2019 – BAR recommended approval of Special Use Permit for additional residential density, that the redevelopment will not have an adverse impact on the West Main Street ADC District, with the understanding that the massing is not final, and must be further discussed, and [will require] a complete full design review at future BAR meeting(s) and propose the following conditions [for the SUP]: • Garage entry shall not be accessed directly from the building’s street wall along West Main Street; • The building’s mass shall be broken down to reflect the multi-parcel massing historically on the site, as well as the West Main Street context, using building modulation; • The building and massing refer to the historic building. • The Holsinger Building be seismically monitored during construction; • There shall be pedestrian engagement with the street with an active, transparent, and permeable façade at street level. http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/791150/BAR_612%20West%20Main%20Street_June2019_SUP%20A pplication.pdf Note: On October 7, 2019, Council approved the SUP. (See the Appendix.) January 22, 2020 – BAR discussion November 17, 2020 – BAR accepted applicant’s request for deferral. http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/798357/2020-11_612%20W%20Main%20Street_BAR.pdf December 15, 2020 – BAR accepted applicant’s request for deferral. http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/798366/2020-12_612%20W%20Main%20Street_BAR.pdf February 17, 2021– BAR accepted applicant’s request for deferral. http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/798380/2021-02_612%20W%20Main%20Street_BAR.pdf Approved SUP for 602-616 West Main Resolution Approving a Special Use Permit to Allow High Density Residential Development for Property Located At 602-616 West Main Street, Approved by Council, October 7, 2019 http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/791739/20191007Oct07.pdf […] 1. The specific development being approved by this special use permit (“Project”), as described within the site plan exhibit required by City Code §34-158(a)(1), shall have the following minimum attributes/ characteristics: 612 West Main Street (February 1, 2021 – amended for Nov 16, 2021 update) 3 a. Not more than one building shall be constructed on the Subject Property (the “Building”). The Building shall be a Mixed Use Building. b. The Building shall not exceed a height of four (4) stories. c. The Building shall contain no more than 55 dwelling units. d. The Building shall contain space to be occupied and used for retail uses, which shall be located on the ground floor of the Building facing West Main Street. The square footage of this retail space shall be at least the minimum required by the City’s zoning ordinance. e. Underground parking shall be provided within a parking garage structure constructed underneath the Building serving the use and occupancy of the Building. All parking required for the Project pursuant to the City’s zoning ordinance shall be located on-site. All parking required pursuant to the ordinance for the Project shall be maximized onsite to the satisfaction of the Planning Commission. No direct access shall be provided into the underground parking from the Building’s street wall along West Main Street. 2. The mass of the Building shall be broken down to reflect the multi-parcel massing historically on the site, as well as the West Main Street context, using building modulation. The Building and massing refer to the historic buildings on either side. 3. There shall be pedestrian engagement with the street with an active, transparent, and permeable façade at street level. 4. The Landowner (including, without limitation, any person who is an agent, assignee, transferee or successor in interest to the Landowner) shall prepare a Protective Plan for the Rufus Holsinger Building located on property adjacent to the Subject Property at 620- 624 West Main Street (“Holsinger Building” or “Adjacent Property”). The Protective Plan shall provide for baseline documentation, ongoing monitoring, and specific safeguards to prevent damage to the Holsinger Building, and the Landowner shall implement the Protective Plan during all excavation, demolition and construction activities within the Subject Property (“Development Site”). At minimum, the Protective Plan shall include the following: a. Baseline Survey—Landowner shall document the existing condition of the Holsinger Building (“Baseline Survey”). The Baseline Survey shall take the form of written descriptions, and visual documentation which shall include color photographs and/or video recordings. The Baseline Survey shall document the existing conditions observable on the interior and exterior of the Holsinger Building, with close-up images of cracks, staining, indications of existing settlement, and other fragile conditions that are observable. The Landowner shall engage an independent third party structural engineering firm (one who has not participated in the design of the Landowner’s Project or preparation of demolition or construction plans for the Landowner, and who has expertise in the impact of seismic activity on historic structures) and shall bear the cost of the Baseline Survey and preparation of a written report thereof. The Landowner and the Owner of the Holsinger Building (“Adjacent Landowner”) may both have representatives present during the process of surveying and documenting the existing conditions. A copy of a completed written Baseline Survey Report shall be provided to the Adjacent Landowner, and the Adjacent Landowner shall be given 612 West Main Street (February 1, 2021 – amended for Nov 16, 2021 update) 4 fourteen (14) days to review the Baseline Survey Report and return any comments to the Landowner. b. Protective Plan--The Landowner shall engage the engineer who performed the Baseline Survey to prepare a Protective Plan to be followed by all persons performing work within the Development Site, that may include seismic monitoring or other specific monitoring measures of the Adjacent Property if recommended by the engineer preparing the Protective Plan, and minimally shall include installation of at least five crack monitors. Engineer shall inspect and take readings of crack monitors at least weekly during ground disturbance demolition and construction activities. Reports of monitor readings shall be submitted to the city building official and Adjacent Landowner within two days of inspection. A copy of the Protective Plan shall be provided to the Adjacent Landowner. The Adjacent Landowner shall be given fourteen (14) days to review the Report and return any comments to the Landowner. c. Advance notice of commencement of activity--The Adjacent Landowner shall be given 14 days’ advance written notice of commencement of demolition at the Development Site, and of commencement of construction at the Development Site. This notice shall include the name, mobile phone number, and email address of the construction supervisor(s) who will be present on the Development Site and who may be contacted by the Adjacent Landowner regarding impacts of demolition or construction on the Adjacent Property. The Landowner shall also offer the Adjacent Landowner an opportunity to have meetings: (i) prior to commencement of demolition at the Development Site, and (ii) at least fourteen (14) days prior to commencement of construction at the Development Site, on days/ times reasonably agreed to by both parties. During any such preconstruction meeting, the Adjacent Landowner will be provided information as to the nature and duration of the demolition or construction activity and the Landowner will review the Protective Plan as it will apply to the activities to be commenced. d. Permits--No demolition or building permit, and no land disturbing permit, shall be approved or issued to the Landowner, until the Landowner provides to the department of neighborhood development services: (i) copies of the Baseline Survey Report and Protective Plan, and NDS verifies that these documents satisfy the requirements of these SUP Conditions, (ii) documentation that the Baseline Survey Report and Protective Plan were given to the Adjacent Landowner in accordance with these SUP Conditions. Meeting minutes: April 16, 2019 (Preliminary Discussion) Applicant, Jeff Dreyfus, Bushman Dreyfus Architects - This is more of a philosophical question and a process question. 612 West Main is the University Tire site that will be developed by the same team that is building 600 West Main Street. We are going to request an SUP for increased density. This zoning district no longer allows increased height as part of an SUP. The current density is 43 units per acre and this site would by-right be 20 dwelling units. With the SUP, 120 dwelling units per acre would be 55 dwelling units. The question before us is what is required by the zoning ordinance of the BAR in the instance of an SUP. If the zoning ordinance says we can build it and we still have to go for a COA for 20 units, how far do we have to go to be able to fill that same box with 55 units? The ordinance says that when the property that is subject to the application for an SUP is within a Design Control District, City Council shall refer the application to the BAR for recommendations for whether the proposed use will have an adverse impact on the District. Because it is in a Control District, we 612 West Main Street (February 1, 2021 – amended for Nov 16, 2021 update) 5 will have to go through the COA process anyway. However, it’s hard to design a detailed elevation if we don’t know what we are going to be allowed to put in it. Do we design a building for 55 units, not knowing if we are going to get that at the end of the process? In in this particular instance, the use and having to work within the already defined limits of the zoning ordinance, so how far should we go? To expect that a developer would fund a very long and expensive process without knowing if they will get the increased density, what is reasonable? Mr. Sarafin - The Guideline that talks about SUPs and having the BAR consider use is confusing because we don’t do that. Ms. Mess - There is a specific part of the Guideline to make sure that the use will benefit the general public somehow. Mr. Sarafin - In this case if you are talking about 20 vs. 55 residential units, in terms of design we are talking about the same envelope. You either get the SUP or you don’t and then you design a 20 or 55 unit façade for this, which comes to the BAR. Mr. Schwarz - It is a formality, but it could also be an opportunity for the applicant to test us on what kind of massing the BAR would be okay with approving. It would be important to ask about the complete build-out version before going through the entire SUP process. It’s more about how much you want to hear from the BAR before going into the SUP. Mr. Sarafin - Agrees and states that that is more important than the distribution of fenestration on the façade for a 20 vs. 55 window building. Mr. Mohr - It has more to do with the massing implications of the higher density. The parking thing is frustrating because the Guidelines clearly state that we shouldn’t have parking entrances on the main streets and we have done it everywhere. Mr. Dreyfus - How can you not have parking on your property without trespassing someone else’s property? Mr. Mohr - You’d have to have a local solution brokered by the City to make that happen. Parking has just been something that we’ve had to wrestle with in terms of what it does to street scale. Mr. Dreyfus - Agrees, but unfortunately it’s a requirement we are backed into as designers. There is a slight hope to connect to the parking garage below at 600. There are many complications associated with that but it would be great to do that. Mr. Mohr - In this case you have a long enough street level that you could make a hyphen or break the block in two. With bigger projects, the whole review process needs to be tailored differently so is acknowledges that larger projects have to go in phases and we have to be able to provide assurances that going forward it works. Mr. Dreyfus - Ultimately the BAR has the trump card of not granting the COA and if you don’t want the massing that is presented as the first meeting after the SUP is granted, it is no different than working through that process before. It’s a process question and there is considerable risk involved for an owner if they don’t have the knowledge density wise. In this instance, it seems like the City is 612 West Main Street (February 1, 2021 – amended for Nov 16, 2021 update) 6 asking for increased density so we are ready to go through the process of working with the BAR, but as an owner it makes sense that they want to have the assurances. Mr. Schwarz - We can make it clear in our motion. As a formality we have to recommend the SUP to the Planning Commission and then to Council and we could say that the density is fine but that we want to look at massing in our recommendation. Mr. Dreyfus - To be clear, we have to submit massing and elevations and a site plan. We aren’t trying to get out of it, but the question is how far that should go. Mr. Balut - There is a good chance that everyone is going to approve the increased density. Assuming that that happens, the BAR can offer feedback on the massing that will be very helpful before getting into fenestration. If you bring in massing models first, you could get really good feedback on them. Mr. Dreyfus - So if the submission made next month has some concept of massing, as broad or generalized as it is, we might have the opportunity to get the recommendation from the BAR to the City Council that the use is not detrimental to the district, which is all that is required. We would get some feedback so that when we come on the next round, we are one meeting further into the process. Mr. Mohr - The use parameters are pretty low bar. It’s mostly things like no parking on the first level. From a form based code standpoint, he is more interested in defining plate heights and that sort of thing rather that what is going on inside the walls. Mr. Lahendro - The mixed-use component of what is being shown here is just as important. Retail on the first level and a high activation between the sidewalk and the first floor is just as important as the residential. Mr. Sarafin - As long as you aren’t proposing putting apartments or parking on the street level, the public use component and the BAR recommending an SUP for use demonstrates that it is acceptable. What happens from floor 2 and up isn’t as important, except for seeing how it is expressed architecturally on the façade. Mr. Balut - It is unlikely that the BAR would approve anything close to this long building and it will require some give and take on the front. It’s really important that when you do the calculus for those 55 units, understand that a significant amount of the chunk will likely be taken away in order to achieve that. Mr. Dreyfus - We have started that process, but we don’t want to churn too much time and money on something that we don’t know is going to be allowed density-wise. Mr. Lahendro - It may be helpful to revisit some of the reasoning behind the Planning Commission’s change of zoning on West Main Street. Previously there was a change in zoning from the north to south side and it was then changed from west to east of the bridge, which is because the character of the two sides have changed. There is more of the historic character still left on the east side and that character is more modest in size and scale than what the west side has become. The height and pattern of building plays into creating breaks in the long blocks, which was very important to the Commission. 612 West Main Street (February 1, 2021 – amended for Nov 16, 2021 update) 7 Mr. Werner - With the SUP process, the BAR can make recommendations like not having an apartment wall but instead to have a very active, permeable street. They become more than the Guidelines and you don’t have to have the design to make recommendations. Mr. Dreyfus - The two existing contributing structures that are part of 600 West Main actually sit forward of the required setback for this new building, which is exciting and there will be variability. Meeting minutes: June 18, 2019 (SUP recommendation) Staff Report, Jeff Werner - This parcel contains a non-contributing concrete block automotive building within the West Main Street ADC District. The building was in 1959, and finished to its current state in 1973. The request is to increase the by-right residential density if 43 DU/acre to 120 DU/acre. Increasing the allowed density will allow construction of a variety of dwelling unit sizes at various price points. When the property that is the subject of the application for an SUP is within a design control district, city council shall refer the application to the BAR or ERB, as may be applicable, for recommendations as to whether the proposed use will have an adverse impact on the district, and for recommendations as to reasonable conditions which, if imposed, that would mitigate any such impacts. The BAR shall return a written report of its recommendations to the city council. In evaluating thus SUP request, the Planning Commission and, ultimately, City Council will take into consideration the BAR’s recommendation on whether or not the SUP, if approved, would adversely impact West Main Street ADC district and, if so, any proposed conditions to mitigate the impact. The BAR’s recommendations is not a function of how the site will be used or occupied, but an evaluation of the requested SUP relative to the criteria within the ADC Design Guidelines. That is, will allowing increased density result in a project that conflicts with the Guidelines? Understanding that at a later date the final design must be reviewed and approved by the BAR, staff recommends the BAR find that the SUP will not have an adverse impact on the West Main ADC District. However, in reviewing the SUP the BAR has the opportunity to discuss and offer recommendations on the proposed massing and building envelope and how it engages the streetscape and neighboring properties, etc. Furthermore, the BAR may request that the Planning Commission and City Council consider including these design recommendations as conditions of approval for the SUP. The PLACE committee has had several discussions about block length lately and the block length here between 5th and 7th Street is about 525’. As far as a historic block, what you have now is what has been there since the City became a modern place. Applicant, Jeff Dreyfus - When we were here two months ago we talked about the process of an SUP and the recommendation. This is a reaction to what we did on 600 West Main Street, the adjacent property. We found ourselves in a situation where were having to design a façade for an SUP that we didn’t know we were going to get. This is an attempt to put the horse before the cart to know that with your recommendation, assuming the Planning Commission and City Council approve the SUP, then we get to start in on design. The massing that we show is by-right within the district, as well as height. Additional height is not a possibility here so we are asking for a recommendation that filling the box that is allowable with more units rather than those that are currently by-right is a good thing and doesn’t adversely impact on the district. We will come back to the BAR many times with the design as we move forward and anything we put forward at this time would be purely conjecture. We would rather know we have the increased density and we come to you with designs that react to that. We have gotten approval for a mural on the side of the former Mini Mart building and we are contemplating if it would be a possibility to create a small plaza next to that as part of this building so that it might be preserved. Engagements with the street is critical and we intend to have retail on the ground floor on the street side. Residential would very likely be on the backside of the ground floor facing the railroad 612 West Main Street (February 1, 2021 – amended for Nov 16, 2021 update) 8 tracks. The elevation diagrams indicate the recognition that the Guidelines talk about respecting former lot lines, even if not streets that didn’t come through in this instance. It’s something that we will be taking into account as well. Once we know we have the increased density it will be a good, robust conversation. Questions from The Public: Patricia Edwards - Resides at 212 6th Street NW. I’m concerned about parking and how people are going to get that parking. Right now, everyone parks there, including construction workers, UVA employees, etc. and it has gotten so bad that a large truck like a firetruck couldn’t get up the Brown Street hill if needed. Where are folks supposed to park? There are also questions about the retaining wall at First Baptist Church and what will happen to it because the driveway is important to us. Mr. Dreyfus - The very preliminary study of this site shows that we could get approximately 53 cars in a below-grade parking area. The maximum density we could have is 55 dwelling units. This project will likely be self-parked and people will be parking in the garage. Regarding the retaining wall, we can’t say it will be maintained but it will be replaced. Assuming there is below-grade parking, we will be building basement and retaining walls. We don’t have the right to impinge on the church’s alley on that side drive so it will be maintained. Any wall on that property line will be structurally sound. Don Gathers - I am the deacon at First Baptist Church. The applicant is asking for approval and saying that he will get the schematics at a later date, which we’ve seen in the City that that has failed before. I would much rather see everything laid out before you grant any approval to go ahead. There is a plan for 53-55 units with parking, but the ground floor will also be some sort of strip mall or grocery usage. Where does that additional parking go? As the oldest and most historic black church in the area, we are very concerned as to what this will do to our immediate area and what the landscape would look like moving forward, especially with the proposed plans to put a mural on the building. Questions from The Board: Mr. Lahendro - The plan indicates an entrance to the underground parking on the south end of the building and underground detention structures on the north end. Is that set in stone? Mr. Dreyfus - Nothing is set in stone. Any suggestions, ideas, or preferences that you have about where an entry to parking might be located we would like to hear it. This has all been very preliminary, recognizing that we have the space to do these sorts of things. Mr. Balut - What is the length of the lot along West Main Street? Mr. Dreyfus - 165’ according to the site plan. Comments from The Public: Patricia Edwards - West Main Street is dense enough. My neighborhood, Star Hill, is being adversely impacted by what is happening on West Main Street. I urge you to deny any further density. This whole issue of density must be taken seriously and these ancient neighborhoods surrounding West Main are being adversely impacted and we don’t even know the full extent of it. We are being impacted by construction. Our water was turned off yesterday because of it and we can’t go down streets anymore because of it. Additionally the Annex building is in such a shape that it won’t withstand this construction without significant damage. That building shouldn’t be allowed to be that close to it and we are about to apply for historic designation for that building. It is wild that that type of building could be that close to a building of this significance and age. 612 West Main Street (February 1, 2021 – amended for Nov 16, 2021 update) 9 Don Gathers - We are very concerned about what this particular usage would do to our building and our congregation. The parking issue alone is concerning and the structural damage it could potentially cause to our structure is mindboggling. As a City we need to take a look at the efforts we are making towards density and slow down, especially in that corridor where it isn’t necessary and could be potentially damaging to another historically black neighborhood. Comments from The Board: Mr. Mohr - One of the reasons for the increased density is to reduce the actual footprint on the lot in order to play with massing. Is that a correct assumption? Mr. Dreyfus - We will see, but the reality is with fewer units you could still build that same box with whatever permutations we need to in order to get approval. Increased density allows us to put the same units within the same box. Density is measured by parcel, not footprint. Mr. Mohr - To get the increased density, we would expect more ability to manipulate the massing in return. Mr. Balut - If you reduce the massing then you don’t necessarily need the density to get more units. However, if you increased the density you have more flexibility in unit size. Mr. Mohr - I’m just thinking about being able to manipulate the building mass and still keeping the economics. This mass isn’t that big but there is still a question of rhythm and scale. Even though it’s just preliminary, right now the box looks a little intimidating and it might be good to have things that break it up. Mr. Dreyfus - Understood, but part of the question is, is increased density adversely impacting the district? The building could be as big for fewer units. Mr. Schwarz - The public has come in with very valid concerns, but unfortunately our concerns are just with the outside of the building. The public needs to go to the Planning Commission for these things. I wouldn’t put any conditions on this building that I wouldn’t also put on it if it were just 20 units. Mr. Sarafin - We have been reprimanded by City Council before for commenting on density. Mr. Balut - The process that we are involved in is a smart one and we should look at how density might affect the massing and volume of the building. If we allow increased density, they are more likely to max it out as much as possible because that’s what almost everyone does. If there is less density, then perhaps that wouldn’t happen. There is a cap on square footage size of units and they wouldn’t fill it up with 4 bedrooms. Mr. Schwarz - Students would rent them just like The Flats. We would be getting just as many cars on the street from 19 unit, as opposed to people who might rent a 1 bedroom unit that wouldn’t be students but would actually live in the town. Mr. Werner - The recommendation is whether or not allowing additional density would, as a function of the Design Guidelines, have a detrimental impact. As far as a recommendation to Planning Commission and Council goes, the issue is that you can put 10 units for X square feet or 200 units at X 612 West Main Street (February 1, 2021 – amended for Nov 16, 2021 update) 10 square footage but they both result in the same building envelope. As the Design Guidelines go, we can’t get into what is going on in that interior footprint. However, relative to traffic issues and activity at the site like the entrance to the parking garage would be a design element to raise a question to. Ms. Miller - I disagree. When he does something by-right, we are back to the Guidelines. As soon as it becomes an SUP, there is more given and take than if you are doing something by-right. We may be able to exert ourselves in a way now to say that we might be okay with additional density but to also include things to counteract that. Mr. Werner - It has to only be regarding the exterior façade. Ms. Miller - Council and Planning Commission can put any list of requirements they want and it doesn’t matter if it makes sense with our Guidelines because everything is up for debate because they aren’t doing by-right zoning. We are recommending the things we think would make a special use permit okay if we say that increased density is okay. Mr. Lahendro - I have been involved with First Baptist Church for a few years and I give pro bono preservation and architectural advice to them, as well as condition survey work. However, I don’t believe I need to take myself out of the conversation because I get no financial benefit from it or from being a part of this conversation. That said, I’ve been in conversation with Brian Haluska, the City Planner for this application, and this particular block of Main Street in 1929 was a commercial grocery produce distribution center. University Tire and three other buildings were there, which is important because the heirloom construction project now was approved under a different zoning designation than there is now. That zoning allowed a higher building. It’s lower now because the Planning Commission took into account that Main Street changes at the railroad crossing rather than north and south. The east side of Main Street has a very different character, which is noted in the city code. Within the Zoning Ordinance for the West Main east zoning category there’s also a requirement that the apparent mass and scale of each building over 100’ wide shall be reduced through the use of building and material modulation to provide a pedestrian scale, architectural interest, and to ensure the building is compatible with the character of the district. This building is 165’ on a block that historically had buildings similar in size and an SUP could only be granted if the design respects that broken pattern of smaller buildings or gives the impression of such through its design. Mr. Tim Lasley - I would like to make a comment as a member of the public. The Special Use Permit that this property is proposing is especially important because if you can compromise that you can increase the density, the BAR can manipulate its massing in a way that it becomes a public affordance. It’s by the same architect and if it relates into the 600 West Main project and having the mural on the Market building, there are many opportunities to come in and connect them together to create a more permeable public space. If the two projects could be meshed together more efficiently, it could afford great public urban spaces. Mr. Lahendro - With all due respect to Ms. Edwards and Mr. Gathers, density is coming to Charlottesville. It’s going to happen and I’d rather do our best to control it so the increased density is justified for this building. Another concern that was brought up by the public was the structural stability of the Annex if this goes forward. It can be safeguarded and there are monitored systems that you can put on existing buildings to record any movement of the building. An engineering firm can send out warnings if there is movement over a certain amount. There are ways of constructing next to another building and doing it carefully and not damaging that building, so I’m not worried about that if those safeguards are built into the project. 612 West Main Street (February 1, 2021 – amended for Nov 16, 2021 update) 11 Ms. Miller - If we go forward with the recommendation for increased density that should be one stipulation to require. Mr. Schwarz - Putting conditions on this sound good, but we need to be sure that if the SUP fails and they come back with a by-right project, we still feel that we can do all of those things as the BAR. The argument that we can’t bargain as much because it’s not an SUP is flawed. Additionally, can we change the wording on this? It shouldn’t be a recommendation, but instead we just find no reason that this would violate our Design Guidelines. It implies advocacy. Mr. Werner - That wording is directly from the code. It is ultimately a finding that our opinion would or would not adversely impact it. Mr. Balut - If we approve the SUP, how will we have less bite with our Guidelines? Ms. Miller - It’s just that the SUP gives us the ability to put on conditions that have nothing to do with our Guidelines. Mr. Balut - So then are we as a board not confident that the Guidelines that we have are suitable as they are written to address the volume and massing of this proposal? Mr. Werner - A SUP has a tremendous amount of discretion. It allows a locality to apply conditions that it thinks are necessary to offset that special use. We would be recommending things for them to consider and if they want to add those conditions under the SUP then it becomes something that is nonnegotiable. Mr. Balut - It sounds like we have the opportunity to implement our own form-based code. From a preliminary look at this, it is a really difficult thing to stipulate in a discussion based on minimal information. If we have to make decisions holistically that we are bound to, we need more time to do that. Mr. Dreyfus - The statements Mr. Lahendro made are part of the Zoning Ordinance and the Guidelines so they are already required. Mr. Balut - We don’t need to specify breaking up the mass or setting it back because we already have the ability to do that with our Guidelines. The question is what beyond the scope of our Guidelines might we want to consider to make a stipulation. Mr. Gastinger - It’s helpful to be clear about it. The approval of an SUP doesn’t release them from any of our assessments relative to the Guidelines. However, because the request is relative to density, it helps to be clear that our recommendation does not mean that there aren’t things that we are going to require relative to that street façade, which could challenge their ability to even have that density. Mr. Balut - That seems implied and understood already. Mr. Lahendro - We may want to be more definitive about it because it says that the length of the building can be reduced through the use of building and material modulation and articulation. Is it enough to just change material every 50’? In my mind it needs to be a physical break to break up the length and it needs to be more than just a material change. 612 West Main Street (February 1, 2021 – amended for Nov 16, 2021 update) 12 Mr. Balut - It’s a difficult discussion to have. How far do we go to make that determination? Ms. Miller - There is value in getting the Planning Commission and City Council invested in some of these restrictions from the beginning of the process. It also helps if the developer is fully aware of where we are going and that the neighborhood also understands what we are okay with. It doesn’t hurt to put a list together of our concerns. Mr. Mohr - It’s also important for Council to understand that we make a distinction between density and massing. Mr. Sarafin - We are talking about the same building envelope either way, which makes this discussion difficult. The only worry is that we make a recommendation either way and it comes off as a commentary on the density part of it. There is an advocacy tinge to it that makes it problematic and awkward for us because it’s outside of our consideration. Mr. Schwarz - It is a courtesy that we are allowed to speak. Mr. Sarafin - Whatever recommendation we make, we should make it very clear that what we are concerned with are the potential physical manifestations of high density here and things that might affect the thing on the street. Mr. Mohr - If there’s going to be increased density, there has to be a greater involvement with the design team in terms of massing and how the building is going to work. Mr. Schwarz - It sounds like parking shouldn’t be accessed directly from West Main, the building mass must be broken down to reflect the three parcel massing historically on the site using building modulation, and the Holsinger building must be seismically monitored during construction. Mr. Dreyfus - How can you avoid accessing parking off of West Main if the only side you have accessible is on West Main Street? Mr. Schwarz - That is better suited to be argued with the Planning Commission. You have 600 West Main and potentially you could work with the church because they have parking and access behind their building. There are just wish list items. Ms. Miller - The reason I gave up voting for the project next door is because there is an unwillingness to come in off of any buildable square inch of the other project. That is a concern to consider when we’re talking about a request to multiply the density by three. Mr. Balut - We are taking this very seriously and trying to understand the best way to help, but one of the main things is that we don’t want a superblock building. We want to understand the historical context and the desire to break up that building is going to be quite prevalent. The idea of the pocket park is great, but that is just one way to break up the massing and there needs to be another, if not two more ways to do that. The concern is by going to increased density, which I am in favor of in theory, it could send the wrong message that it could be filled out more and we don’t want to mislead you in that way. 612 West Main Street (February 1, 2021 – amended for Nov 16, 2021 update) 13 Ms. Miller - Perhaps the breaks between the buildings go back as far as the backside of 600 West Main that is deep in the lot. Mr. Mohr - Either way the key is that we want you to be able to really manipulate the massing and have some permeability back into the street from it even if it is just visual. Mr. Lahendro - A great deal of pedestrian engagement along the sidewalk with transparency is needed as well. Ms. Miller - We want it to defer to the historic houses and to the Holsinger building that are on either side of it. Mr. Sarafin - Good idea. We don’t need these things to be completely spelled out, but we should state that we want to reserve the right to do so. Mr. Lasley - The two building can create a dialogue together. Having the same owner creates a unique opportunity in an urban space so the two buildings could really speak. Mr. Werner - If Planning Commission and Council agreed to include your recommendations as conditions they would become an agreement that we are obligated to respond to. They aren’t conditions that you could put on later that they could appeal to Council. You have to be careful about not recommending conditions that zoning wouldn’t allow. Mr. Sarafin - They should be items that we are concerned about for their consideration rather than conditions. How can we really put a condition to break this into three distinct buildings on this site when we don’t know enough? Mr. Schwarz - We could write it in a way that is flexible and general enough. Mr. Balut - It has to be general. We can’t define three separate buildings tonight. We have to let the architect do it and then we can evaluate it. Motion: Schwarz moved that the proposed special use permit for additional residential density for the redevelopment at 612 West Main Street will not have an adverse impact on the West Main Street ADC District, with the understanding that the massing is not final, and must be further discussed, and [will require] a complete full design review at future BAR meeting(s) and propose the following conditions [for the SUP]: • Garage entry shall not be accessed directly from the building’s street wall along West Main Street; • That the building’s mass shall be broken down to reflect the multi-parcel massing historically on the site, as well as the West Main Street context, using building modulation; • That the Holsinger Building be seismically monitored during construction; • That there shall be pedestrian engagement with the street with an active, transparent, and permeable façade at street level; • And that the building and massing refer to the historic buildings on either side. Mohr seconded. Approved (7-0-2 with Earnst and Ball recused). 612 West Main Street (February 1, 2021 – amended for Nov 16, 2021 update) 14 Meeting minutes: January 22, 2020 Preliminary Discussion: 612 West Main Street Jeff Dreyfus presented on 612 West Main Street. Jeff Dreyfus worked closely with the BAR on 600 West Main Street. This was just a preliminary presentation of what 612 West Main Street (University Tire) is going to look like. These are the some of the highlights of this presentation by Jeff Dreyfus. The first was to pursue a special use permit for the piece of land. Height was not an option for this piece of property. Height was limited to four stories. The BAR recommended to Council that increased density would not have an adverse impact. There were several conditions that were proposed. Jeff Dreyfus went over some of the conditions that were proposed by Council. This is very different from 600 West Main Street. The ground floor will be retail with residential on the floors above the retail floor. Main entry for the residents will be on the sidewalk. There will be a secondary entry for residents on the backside of the “pocket park.” The hope is to have a restaurant near the “pocket park” that could activate or take up the “pocket park.” There is a great opportunity. The hope is to be back in front of the BAR next month. The idea is to get the reaction and feedback from the BAR. There was a discussion among the BAR members and Jeff Dreyfus providing feedback and constructive criticism for the applicant on the plan. Members of the BAR each provided their concerns for the applicant. Jeff Dreyfus did leave with a good idea of what improvements need to be made on the project going forward. Meeting minutes: November 17, 2020 Jeff Werner, Staff Report – Year Built: 1959-1973 (concrete block automotive service building) District: West Main Street ADC District Status: Non-contributing April 16, 2019 - BAR discussion. June 18, 2019 – BAR recommended approval of Special Use Permit for additional residential density, that the redevelopment will not have an adverse impact on the West Main Street ADC District, with the understanding that the massing is not final, and must be further discussed, and [will require] a complete full design review at future BAR meeting(s) and propose the following conditions [for the SUP]: • Garage entry shall not be accessed directly from the building’s street wall along West Main Street; • The building’s mass shall be broken down to reflect the multi-parcel massing historically on the site, as well as the West Main Street context, using building modulation; • The building and massing refer to the historic building. • The Holsinger Building be seismically monitored during construction; • There shall be pedestrian engagement with the street with an active, transparent, and permeable façade at street level. Note: On October 7, 2019, Council approved the SUP. January 22, 2020 – BAR discussion. CoA request for construction of a new, four-story mixed-use building. (The existing service station is a non- contributing structure; therefore, its demolition does not require a CoA.) Note: At three prior meetings (see above), the BAR discussed this project with the applicants, satisfying the statutory requirements for a pre-application conference per City Code section Sec. 34- 282(c)(4). This application is a formal request for a CoA and, per Sec. 34-285, the BAR must take action within sixty days of the submittal deadline. At this meeting, the BAR may defer the item to the next meeting; however, at that next meeting, only the applicant may request a deferral. Absent that 612 West Main Street (February 1, 2021 – amended for Nov 16, 2021 update) 15 request, the BAR must take action to approve, deny, or approve with conditions the CoA. I have a lot in here for the discussion. It follows the language that we have used for 125 or 128 Chancellor. I have added a list of recommendations for criteria that you might want to refer to. The applicant provided a list of the goals that the applicant would like to get out of this meeting. There is acknowledgement across the board that you are not voting on a COA tonight. It is certainly within your right to do so. If the applicant requests the deferral, the applicant can come back when they are ready. If the BAR defers this to the December meeting, it would have to come back next month. Mr. Lahendro – In the interest of full disclosure, I do need to state that I provide pro bono preservation advice and guidance to the adjacent landowner, First Baptist Church. I do not believe that I am receiving no financial payment for it and have no financial interest in that relationship. I believe that I can be a part of this discussion. Jeff Dreyfus, Bushman Dreyfus – The applicant is going to request deferral. This is in the spirit of receiving input as we continue to develop the project. There was a hiatus since our January preliminary discussion. Simply trying to get a better grasp on COVID issues but also budget and building size. I think we have narrowed down since then. We went ahead and applied for the Certificate of Appropriateness so that everyone knows we’re serious about the project moving forward with it. We do expect a bit of back and forth before we will ask for a vote. Tonight is really to bring some of you up to speed on the project for the first time but also to let you know the direction that we are taking the design and soliciting your input so that ultimately all of this is in the spirit that we when do come to a vote, we will have incorporated your input in a way that is acceptable by the time we get to that vote. Knowing that the BAR is no longer doing partial approvals, we really want to get this whole thing right. I will run through the presentation that we have provided you. I also have a few additional slides. Design never stands still when you’re on a schedule. There’s a little bit more project development that I can explain to you. I will try to touch upon the things that we are hoping you can comment on tonight. You obviously will comment on everything and we do encourage that. We would like to touch on building massing, elevations, material options, color scheme, and some details. The building owned by the Church is on the corner. There is an alley that is owned by the Church between the site and the Church. It is not on the property of 612 West Main Street. The property does directly abuts 600 West Main Street. Adjacent to it, are two contributing structures: what was once a mini mart and the Blue Moon Diner. Further down the street is an ABC Store and a commercial building on the corner. Directly across the street is the Albemarle Hotel. To give you an understanding of the building envelope that we are allowed to work with from the zoning ordinance. This building can only be four stories tall. The first floor has a 15 foot minimum required height. Four floors up, the fourth story has a required step back from West Main Street. There’s a required ten foot setback for the entire building from the property line from the sidewalk. At the fourth floor, we need to step back ten feet. The angle that we are required to step back on the rear of the property. This is simply the envelope we are allowed to work within. It also abuts to the east an internal courtyard for 600 West Main Street. This side of the former mini mart is painted by a well-known artist. That was approved by the BAR some time ago. You can see the ten foot setback from property line on the ground floor to the third floor. We are also showing the ten foot required setback on the fourth floor. There are going to be 41 units in the building. Here is the Sanborn Map from 1920 showing some of the properties that were here. You can see the Baptist Church and what is now the Blue Moon Diner. The red is the footprint of what is now being proposed. Our clients, as they think about the image of the building, the feel of the building is very different from 600 West Main Street. The idea is quiet and calming. On the interior, it 612 West Main Street (February 1, 2021 – amended for Nov 16, 2021 update) 16 is very serene with a bit minimalism to it as we go forward. This also begins to suggest the type of color scheme that we are thinking of. As we prepare a preliminary site plan, a little bit more of the specifics are here. You can see the mini mart building and the inner courtyard for 600 West Main Street. We do hope to connect to that internal to the building. We are honoring the ten foot setback along the property line here. We start to see the building façade here. We step back at about 28 feet from the property line here plus another three feet from the mini mart building. We have about a 30 foot wide plaza. This is intended to be the entry for the residents. The intention here is that the whole first floor front of the building is going to be retail, except for this portion. This setback will be the entrance for the residents. These are intended to be individual rental apartments, not condos. The building is not abutting the mini mart. We are not crossing the property line. We are exposing this portion of the mural, which is the majority of the mural. That portion, which is on the step back, is much less important to the composition as the whole. The thought is that we will have a landscaped area here for the residents to come through; not walled and not gated, but setback from the street. We’re thinking that there will be a water feature in there. We have a long way to go with the landscape design. This is the intention at the moment. We are also thinking of a planter along the street can allow siting, leaning against as people walk along. Having limited entry areas through that planter to try to help focus on certain areas of the building. The whole lower first floor front part is intended to be retail. There will be a complete retail presence there. There will be a small service entrance on this side for deliveries and move in. The south portion of the ground floor is going to studio apartments. It is retail with this corner for the lobby entry for the residents. With the lobby entry for the residents being here, the hope is that we will also connect with the interior courtyard at 600 West Main Street. The two facilities can share amenities and residents can come and go within the courtyard. Ways to allow permeating the planters here, the intention is not to provide an open front on the entire thing. That would feel like a very large gap in the urban fabric. Trying to hold the edge with landscaping along the property line and then setting the building back. We’re in conversations right now about perhaps making the planter less deep in certain areas so that we might be able to accommodate some outdoor dining along there. It really is not the intention at the moment for this to be outdoor dining. This is more landscape area. You can see some of the images and precedence we are thinking about for the water, the plantings. Even a large stone bench at the center as a place for people to hang out. Some of the materials we are thinking of for the planters. A section through the building describes a little bit of what I was talking about regarding retail on the ground floor stretching back probably two thirds of the distance. Because of the height of the ground floor that is required, we’re working on actually putting loft apartments in the back with some really nice views. On the south side, it steps back considerably. These units will get incredibly deep to bring light into this spaces if we try fill this whole volume. What you see here in terms of the buildable area, the grey zone above is what is allowed for apartments and a stairwell elevator, which we are going to have to have. That’s not really a part of the building massing. We are not building to the property line on the south. We have 5 foot 6 setback. It has a lot to do with the fact that the railroad tracks complicate construction considerably. By staying back 5.5 feet, we are not having to cross the property line and deal with the bureaucracy of building within the railroads right of way. We do have a parking garage here. There is no entrance to the parking garage from this property. There is a parking garage at 600 West Main Street. The parking aisle is right down the center of that basement. We intend to take advantage of that and grade through the basement level to connect the basement parking of 612 West Main Street to 600 West Main Street eliminating one of the concerns that the BAR had with the large garage door on this Main Street elevation. 612 West Main Street (February 1, 2021 – amended for Nov 16, 2021 update) 17 Some precedent images that we are looking at include simplicity, quiet as we can, a rhythm to it. As we look at some of these, a color scheme begins to emerge, neutral tones, perhaps dark colors, and a lighter color. We are not there yet. We are drawn to the drama of the dark openings within the lighter framework of the building. You can see the idea of the planter in front of the building that has an intermediate zone. We’re creating multiple spaces along the sidewalk for the experience, not just the passerby, but perhaps people in the retail space. These stone are well out of our budget. Stucco is an option. We also start to see some examples that are done in lighter colored brick. There is a simplicity to the layout of the windows and the openings. The light colored brick would be ideal. Light colored brick is out of our budget. Within our budget is brick and stucco for the main materials, both of which we like. If we were to do it in brick, we would like to paint the brick. That’s a point of discussion we would like to bring to the BAR. Red brick, which is obviously, the cheapest thing you can find in Virginia because there is so much of it is not what we are going for here. We would like to paint the, which is not part of the guidelines. We prefer it over stucco because of the texture the brick can provide to the exterior walls. Entry doors for the residents and some of the service areas right on the street so that we get a sense of solidity to these. On the right is a simple courtyard or space that is nicely landscaped and leads to the door for the residents. We are not intending a gate in this instance prior to getting to the residence. This is more for the idea of the courtyard right off of the sidewalk. A number of months ago, you saw some studies from us about the front elevation and how to break it down, ways we were beginning to think about the massing. Of those, this sketch rose to the top for some of the BAR members because of the modulation of the building in ways breaking it into 2 bay, 3 bay, and 4 bay modules along the street with the step back at the 4th floor. We were thinking, at the time, of setting back that area that would be the resident’s entrance. We preferred to have resident’s entrance set back in the landscaped area. Where are we now with the development and the thinking of the building? This probably describes much of what we are looking at trying to break the building massing down into components here and here with a center portion that is set back about one foot, four inches. You can see the 4th floor terrace, which is ten feet back from all of that. Even further back, you can see that entrance portion to the residences. We’re looking at a very open, glassy retail area. It is not intended for one retailer or five retailers. That is yet to be seen. It could be broken up to as many as five, perhaps more if we needed to put the demising walls down the center. I don’t think that is the idea. Calling some attention to the door for the residents setback a bit, this is the part of the building with the mural. You can start to see the color palate beginning to be a light colored material, whether that is brick or stucco with the darker surrounds. You can begin to see how some of the patterning might happen with the windows; just a regular rhythm of windows across the front for the residential units. Operable windows on the lower portion for each of these, emphasizing the view out. We are also thinking that we would like awnings over the retail openings. Whether or not those are canvass, painted steel is yet to be determined. You can begin to see we are differentiating the setback portion of this façade a little bit differently than that on the street. Thinking of some way we can define the entry to the residences is pretty quiet but staying within the rhythm of the rest of the façade. You see it further with 600 West Main Street in the distance as well as the mini mart and the Blue Moon Diner. We begin to see how the planter might break at certain points to allow for entry into this zone where there may be some seating for outdoor dining, perhaps even some bike storage. We’re beginning to think that it is going need to happen behind the planter. We’re beginning to think about landscape and how it can enhance the architecture itself. Vertical trees along this façade can help define some more of that rhythm of the smaller units along the façade itself. As we move back a bit, we want to look at it in context scale wise relative to the church, the annex building, and then stepping it up to 600 West Main Street, with this being the portion of the building 612 West Main Street (February 1, 2021 – amended for Nov 16, 2021 update) 18 that is closest to the street. Behind there are the terraces of ten feet behind. Much further back, that piece. With the framing, this is the piece that comes forward that we’re trying to modulate, not just with the indent of the building, but also perhaps the pairings of windows and groups. If we continue around the side of the building, I think it is going to be a straightforward west elevation. Not many openings in that. We have plot line issues. Hopefully within some of those openings, we will have a little bit of glass at the end of interior hallways. In terms of some of the details, the windows may be a dark steel that comes forward of the brick or stucco surface by about two inches to help frame the opening itself and to give some relief to the façade. Another way we might surround the openings is a very simple brick detail; turning a brick sideways and projecting it an inch or two from the façade of the building itself to frame that opening a little bit differently on the portion that steps back from the street. We might even pick up on that with the openings for the residential terraces above. A little bit of a detail is the black/dark surround for the mostly glass façade for the retail and awning to provide cover as people come in. This is very preliminary as well. As we go around to the back, you can see a very regular rhythm of windows. This is a residential building. We do anticipate having some balconies on the back. This is not necessarily where they are going be or how they are going to be. What you do see here are those lower portions that are the loft studio apartments and get higher glass as we go further forward. That’s about 5.5 feet from the property line. Above, we have terraces for those on the third floor. One of the things we are going to incorporate into the building is a green roof on this portion. It is going to allow us to not have to put in the large stormwater pipes along the street that we would have to otherwise. This is one of the measures that we are taking for this building in order to have less impact on stormwater system and the utility system as we go forward. It is a very simple regular back to this. Comments from The Public: No Questions from the Public Questions from The Board: Mr. Mohr – I do have a question regarding the back of the building. You are bringing in the parking from the other building? Mr. Dreyfus – That’s correct. Mr. Mohr – It is hidden from sectional view at this point? Those windows seem awfully short given the double heights space? Mr. Dreyfus – This was something we put together this afternoon to try to explain at least the massing as it’s going to work. The parking garage is below those lowest windows. It’s maybe the top four feet of the parking garage. The garage is above the grade at the location. We don’t intend to expose any of that. Mr. Mohr – This goes back to the West Main Street tree issue. You have vertical trees here. I presume that we’re going to have something much larger in front of this building ultimately. Mr. Dreyfus – I am presuming that you are correct. Because we don’t know the future of that. We are not planting where the tree would ultimately go. If the planting and the planters changes in the future, we can react to whatever the city does. That plan has not been finalized. It’s hard to know what might be planted here or where. 612 West Main Street (February 1, 2021 – amended for Nov 16, 2021 update) 19 Mr. Gastinger – Could you describe how you’re interacting with that plan or if it’s possible at future presentations to share what is planned in that section so we can better ascertain what the interaction with the planters and the street could be? Mr. Dreyfus – Absolutely. I would be happy to bring it to you at the next iteration. It’s very fuzzy. There would be a great deal of conjecture but happy to bring the last version of that street planting plan when we come back. Mr. Mohr – Aren’t there four stories at the forward section of 601? Mr. Dreyfus – It is six stories in the back, five stories here (left side of the building), four stories here (middle of the building), and three stories (front of the building). The building steps up. Mr. Mohr – It does have a four story element on the street? Mr. Dreyfus – Yes it does. Comments from The Public: No Comments from the Public Comments from The Board: Mr. Schwarz – With regards to massing: how long the street façade is broken up with regards to massing and fenestration and how the building steps back from the street for the residential entrance next to the mural. Mr. Lahendro – I have some concerns. I don’t feel like the street façade has modulated well enough to break up that mass. It reads because of the same colors, because of the repeating of the same fenestration units across the front; it reads too monolithic as a single building to my eye. That center section sitting back a foot gives enough distinction between the units. When the units are all articulated and have the same materials, this looks like to me a monumental institutional building with the vertical piers looking like columnar to me. I don’t think it is as successful as I had hoped for bringing a memory of row buildings on this part of Main Street. I have concerns about that. Mr. Mohr – I find it altogether too horizontal in its ultimate expression, which is the reason I was asking about height. It seems fundamentally to be a long horizontal building. What is successful about the building next door is that it brings a thin façade forward that plays in the same scale or footprint as the rest of the buildings on the street. The other thing that concerns me is the lack of color or certainly some vibrancy is a problem for me. What is a pretty lively street in terms of color and texture, everything is feeling a little dull for me. It needs some more life. I think there needs to be more verticality and a greater attempt to push and pull the façade to give it some sense of a smaller rhythm that we are currently looking at. I think it is really unfortunate that this didn’t come first. This could have easily culminated a parking entrance for the whole complex at a scale where it could have been really modulated. I have always found it problematic in the small façade of the other part. Mr. Lahendro – The planters look like barriers to me between the building and the sidewalk. I worry that the planters have some impact upon the size of the trees being planted. We’re replacing some really lovely large canopy trees in this area. They are being cut up by the utility people with their chainsaws. They are significant trees. I would hope that we will be trying to put back something larger and provide the kind of planting for that. 612 West Main Street (February 1, 2021 – amended for Nov 16, 2021 update) 20 Mr. Gastinger – I feel that the landscape, through the planters, does feel very token at the moment and not really contributing to a sense of scale or to better use by the pedestrian or the public. That’s where some context with West Main could be useful. I just want to point out that this rendering is trying to do the best to put the sun in a position where you’re getting a little bit of shadow. That must be 7 in the morning on July 21st. Being the north façade, it has to work that much harder to have the kind of push and pull to really feel like there is enough depth within that façade to create that vertical rhythm that we have been talking about. Almost every part of the day, this is not going to have a lot of sun on the façade. Shadow lines are not going to be that pronounced. The use of color with the depth of the window mullions are really critical. Maybe using color more between the pieces might be one way of further modulating the façade. Mr. Zehmer – I had a thought that came from Mr. Werner’s question about our ability to allow for painting brick. If it is stucco, then I guess they can paint it. If they want to use brick, are they allowed to paint it? You could potentially paint these different row houses different colors. That would certainly break up the façade. Mr. Mohr – I always thought that painting had to do with historic surfaces. New brick, have at it. Mr. Zehmer – I did look at the new construction guidelines. It says that brick is the most appropriate material for new structures. Thin set brick is not permitted. On the next page, where they talk about paint. It says do not paint unpainted masonry surfaces. That has been referenced to existing masonry surface. Mr. Werner – The guidelines are recommendations and not ordinances. I have always made that distinction. I would be very comfortable recommending that the BAR, under the circumstances, to paint the new masonry structure. Mr. Schwarz – On the subject of massing, I am a little torn. I look at your elevations and I find it elegant. I want to think to what we currently have in Charlottesville. If you look at The Flats versus The Standard, the Flats has a very monolithic elevation. For some strange reason, The Standard is infinitely worse. It has a little street module that is a different color, material from the one next to it and the one next to it. There is a lot of depth of the façade. It’s terrible. It doesn’t work. I want to be a little cautious. If we tell them to just paint modules on it, or change the height of one versus the height of another, we have to be careful. Mr. Mohr – I think The Flats are successful because they are vertical. My only real issue is where it came to the railroad tracks. They should have punctuated it. This is a code limitation. It should have gone up another two or three stories. Another example being the Cherry Street Hotel. It is just that flat little box at the corner. They should have just built a different building at the corner. Mr. Schwarz – I just want to bring that up as an example. Mr. Mohr – I think color can be introduced not like they did at The Standard, maybe the canopies are an opportunity. It doesn’t have to be this. It can be all done in a quiet way. I think the other building is grim. It was fine for the back part. I think the front part needed to play better with the street with alleys and cacophony of colors. It is part of the character of that street. We can’t get too refined. I think they can still keep it quiet. I think it needs to have some color to bring it to life particularly at the retail level. 612 West Main Street (February 1, 2021 – amended for Nov 16, 2021 update) 21 Mr. Schwarz – I had a lot of hope for it. When I saw it on paper, I thought it was going to be good. What has been built is pretty awful. Mr. Gastinger – Since you mentioned The Flats, the setbacks in the notches of The Flats look to be a least ten feet. It has been different than what is being proposed here. Mr. Mohr – I think The Flats would have been way more successful if they had actually broken through the center. They had almost gotten there at one point. There is a courtyard in the back. That would have made it much more a collegiate compound. Mr. Schwarz – In my understanding, that for the building massing, there seems to be a want for more modulation, both vertical and horizontal. Is that what I am hearing? Mr. Lahendro – There is a difference between the west side of West Main Street, west of the bridge and the east side. The Planning Commission, a few years ago, changed the zoning to recognize the fact that the buildings on the west side of West Main Street are like The Standard and The Flats and the hospital. They’re larger. The hotels are larger buildings generally. The east side of West Main Street have more of the historic row buildings. That was the character that we’re trying preserve on the east side. The particular design here might be perfectly appropriate for the west side of West Main Street. I don’t think it is on the east side. Mr. Schwarz – I am not saying we should modulate it like separate buildings. I want us to be careful when we do it. I don’t know what lessons we can learn from The Standard. I think we need to learn some lessons from it because it didn’t work. Mr. Lahendro – I think there is a huge difference between The Flats and The Standard. It just a wonderful setback with The Flats with the large trees. The storefront is completely open. There is more engagement with the sidewalk. That’s what I am hoping for this building also. Mr. Mohr – The Flats is an altogether better urban building. On page 8, I find that center fenestration to be more in scale that makes sense. Where the Tom Ford elevation, which seems to be the direction you are heading, feels more like Fifth Avenue in New York to me. Mr. Schwarz – Let’s do window surrounds. That’s one of Mr. Dreyfus’ topics that he wanted to talk about. Mr. Mohr – The devil is in the details. I think, conceptually, there is some nice ideas there. For me, it’s more about the massing and how the windows are specifically treated. I think that could be very nicely handled. They’re heading in a nice direction with that. For me, the mass of the building feels too horizontal. Someone like Jimmy Griggs’ experiments with that building on West Main reminds of that right now. It’s just a little too horizontal. Mr. Lahendro – I am having a little trouble understanding you saying that it is too horizontal when I am seeing it as being too vertical. Are you talking about the whole block itself being the same height along the street? 612 West Main Street (February 1, 2021 – amended for Nov 16, 2021 update) 22 Mr. Mohr – More that I am reading those big blocks. I would rather they were maybe in half. I could also just see them as simply taller. When Mr. Dreyfus was outlining how the trees worked, that rhythm starts to work. The building really doesn’t have that rhythm. Mr. Dreyfus – The one thing that I would want to interject is that it can’t be taller. We have had our limitations on street façade height. Mr. Mohr – If you had a frame up there that carried it, but it was open, is that possible? Mr. Dreyfus – That’s something zoning is loathed to weigh in on at the moment. We have been asking this question. Mr. Mohr – It does have that little bit of that frame length language going. Mr. Dreyfus – We’re trying to push that. Mr. Schwarz – If you look at that elevation, it looks like the top of the third floor is about midway or close to the fourth floor at 600 West Main. Back to windows, any other comments on the idea using the dark metal surround or a simple brick detail or stucco detail. Any comments on the precedence? Mr. Zehmer – I have question about the function. You said the horizontal lower sash extrapolate. Would it slide up or slide out? Mr. Dreyfus – It would be an awning that pushes out and hinged at the top so that it flips out. Screens would be on the interior of the building not the exterior. Ms. Lewis – I feel that the surround has too much detail at this point. I think the massing meets our guidelines. I know that there are constraints under the SUP. I like the programming. I like the fact that it is stepped back from the main mural next door. I feel that I am looking at Neiman Marcus building at Lenox Place in Atlanta or Highland Park in Dallas. It looks like it’s a retail building that should have a lot of asphalt around it. Instead, it was plopped down on West Main Street. I am not being disrespectful to the applicant or his representative at all. I actually do like the palate of the building, the direction of a very clean looking palate. I agree that West Main has gotten some color. The color doesn’t bother me. I feel like the huge scale of the retail store front windows is really different than much of what we see. It would be the largest building with windows on the ground floor around here. I am looking at our guidelines on construction. There are actually a lot of guidelines for new construction on West Main. One of the guidelines is human scale, which includes balconies, porches, entrances, store fronts, and decorative elements. If the floors above the ground floor are residential, how about some balconies. This is a street. How about some street engagement? I don’t feel this building has any street engagement. This is a significant pedestrian corridor for us. It’s the most important corridor in this city. It connects the University and the downtown business district. To use some of these elements at the street level to reinforce elements seen elsewhere in the districts, such as cornices, entrances, display windows. Human scale is in two different guidelines that are under height and width. It is specifically applied to new construction. We don’t know whether these retail spaces would even have entrances off of West Main. We have been told about the door into the residences. I really don’t see any doors on those store fronts. I am assuming each of them would have a separate entrance and be separate spaces and not be accessed from within. I am back and forth on the planters. I 612 West Main Street (February 1, 2021 – amended for Nov 16, 2021 update) 23 am not certain whether they are there as a security measure and to guard against these glass windows and what is within them or whether they are trying to engage with the street as the applicant has said. There will be a presence, space there by itself. I don’t know how the building references any part of any historic district. I personally like the building. My last comment is to commend the applicant’s representative. This is a really great package of information just telling us historically what is involved with the SUP, giving us all kinds of elevations, giving us lots of information about the building envelope and what is permitted in your programming. This is a great example of a very thorough submission. Mr. Schwarz – I look at your precedent. I look at the building. I do think there’s a really nice elegance to it. I like it. Ms. Lewis makes some really good points. With big store front windows, it seems that is what we want and what the zoning seems to be calling for. If there was a form based code, I am sure it would support that. I am struggling with all of the big picture items on this. I am going back to the windows. I think your precedence for those and the ideas for how to details those are great. My concern is that you can’t afford a light colored brick. I am worried that you won’t be able to afford the details you are showing. That’s for you to prove to us. That is a concern of mine. This comes out being a lot less rich in detail. The simple details are expensive details unfortunately. If the richness goes away and the simplicity becomes even simpler and just plain flat, I think it is going to be completely unsuccessful. Mr. Mohr – I would like to see them spend the money on the window detailing and save the money by painting the brick. Mr. Schwarz – If that is how it balances out, that’s great. I want to make sure we’re not going to get into one of those value engineering cycles where we start off with something that’s great. We then slowly chip away at it until it isn’t. Let’s go to materials. Brick or stucco exterior, painted brick, and a question of using thin brick on the fourth floor terraces. I am going to add that while our guidelines do not allow thin brick, we have allowed it. The Code Building is clad in a thin brick veneer. It’s not glued to the building. Mr. Dreyfus – The only thing that I would like to add in that regard is the reason why we are thinking about it on the fourth floor is purely weight and structural issues. Thin brick doesn’t have to have mitered corners. There are pieces that allow you to turn the corner properly. It’s good to know that it has been used. In this instance, it is purely a weight issue. Mr. Mohr – It’s there because it is a qualitative issue. You have something that addresses the qualitative. I wanted to touch on something that Ms. Lewis was saying. Part of what makes that whole lower story seem a little off putting from a scale standpoint is that the planter solution seems suburban. I think that’s part of it. I think the planters do have to go away. The trees are great and an Italian classical sense. I also don’t see them as playing well with the street trees. I think that whole sidewalk scene needs to be re-thought. Mr. Bailey – I would be totally against the planters. I think it needs to be opened entirely and put in canopy trees along the street to make it friendlier. Mr. Lahendro – In thinking about The Flats and The Standard, I would hope the materials used on the front of the building would also carry around to the back of the building. It is a little discouraging at The Flats to see a bunch of cheap clapboards on the backside. 612 West Main Street (February 1, 2021 – amended for Nov 16, 2021 update) 24 Mr. Mohr – The Flats also have it on the higher levels as well. It gives a false façade. Ms. Lewis – To Mr. Mohr’s objection to this being too horizontal and my objection to that ground floor look. Mr. Gastinger – I think that could help. I think there are probably several different ways it could be done and still maintain the elegance that you are going for. The last thing we want it to feel like is a really cheap suburban row house building. I did just want to note that it is helpful to see the context of the adjacent buildings. The street view reminds me of the pretty sizeable historic structure on the north side of the street. It is actually going to have the same plane. It is also a painted brick building. It’s a building you don’t always see because the trees often obscure it. It does have some interesting lessons that might speak to a public and more of an inviting public approach to the historic fronts along this street edge. Mr. Schwarz – I am going to add on the subject of materials that although I would love to see an unpainted light colored brick, painted brick would be far superior to stucco just because of stucco means EIFS. I would want to see something hard and durable on the ground floor. I don’t know if there is another masonry products that you could look at. The other items on the outline include elevations, rhythm and scale of the openings on West Main, rhythm and scale of the openings on the south façade facing the railroads, the west façade, the window surrounds, and the neutral color schemes. Ms. Lengel – I would like to talk a little bit about the cornice line. It seems like you might be adding a thin seam to emphasize the cornice line and the verticality of the piers. Is that correct or is that something from the sketch up model that created the rendering? Mr. Dreyfus – That’s probably more of the sketch up model. One of the details we’re thinking about is if we have the steel surrounds, the cornice may actually be a projecting piece of steel that comes out through 3 or 4 inches from the buildings. We hadn’t really thought of that line. It reads as pronounced here. It may be a control joint. It wouldn’t be as pronounced. Ms. Lengel – I guess that I would like to see some more emphasis on that detail. Mr. Mohr – And the parapet is basically a railing too? Mr. Dreyfus – That’s correct. I don’t want to belabor any points. I am happy to hear anything else. This has been very helpful. Mr. Zehmer – You mentioned that there is a service entrance for the commercial shops on the west end facing Main Street. Mr. Dreyfus – It will be set back within the façade. We don’t intend to have a service door right there on. Mr. Zehmer – I assume that leads to a hallway that connects. Mr. Dreyfus – That’s correct. 612 West Main Street (February 1, 2021 – amended for Nov 16, 2021 update) 25 Mr. Zehmer – The reason I bring that up that I am curious if we will have a lot of delivery trucks parking in that alley trying to unload. Mr. Dreyfus – That won’t be allowed. Deliveries will be on West Main Street. Mr. Schwarz – Do you feel that you have gotten a good summary? Mr. Dreyfus – What I heard was more verticality, massing along this portion of the building, Mr. Mohr’s concern about horizontality, the stated detail is out of scale on West Main Street, material- wise, the devil is in the details, how to bring more life onto West Main Street with balconies or other variations that will allow some engagement, the planters are more of an impediment than they are an invitation into the retail. Mr. Mohr – I think that if you take the planters away, some of the glass area has no bigger than what you see on the plats. The uncommon is completely glass all of the way around at the first floor level. Part of that is that it is hard to understand entry sequences or anything because the planters are obscuring everything. I would be curious if your perception of that changes once you see it without the planters. There are some other parts. That is further up West Main too. Maybe that is the way Mr. Dreyfus gets a little more vertical rhythm out of this. Some of the facades are more hunched openings versus the retail level. Mr. Dreyfus – The other thing that I missed was the introduction of some color and street trees being more of the public realm and not necessarily related to this building. Mr. Schwarz – It’s really good to have all of this information at this point. In the future, as this progresses, I think staff gives you a little extra time to submit information. That would allow us to review it ahead of time and cut back the presentation. Mr. Dreyfus – Request to defer application to a later date – Carl Schwarz moves to accept the applicant's request for a deferral. Tim Mohr seconds. Motion passes (8-0). Meeting minutes: December 15, 2020 Jeff Werner, Staff Report – This is a continuing discussion for a COA request that we're calling 612 West Main Street. The formal address is 602 to 616 West Main Street. There is an existing building on the site and it was constructed between 1959 and 1973. It will be demolished. It is a non-contributing structure in this ADC district. There will not be any COA for the demolition. The applicant last had a discussion with the BAR at the November meeting. This has been presented as a formal application for a COA. Tonight I do not believe the applicant is seeking action by the BAR. However, you all are required by the code to take an action. That action would be to approve the applicants request for a deferral. As we discussed before this meeting, this is a continued discussion. The applicant has presented the drawings that you all reviewed in November and offered annotations. The intent is to clarify and make sure everyone is on the same page with what the BAR is offering in its comments. There are seven or eight pages of additional information that's provided. I want to again reiterate that the clock is ticking on this and this is a formal application. You all accepted the applicants request for a deferral in November. However at this meeting, the BAR cannot make the motion. Only the applicant can request a deferral. Should the applicant not accept a deferral or not propose a deferral, the BARs options are only to approve it, deny it, or to approve it with conditions. In the context of this continued discussion, the goal of this is a dialogue. The applicant has some specific things that he wishes to address. I want to encourage the BAR to have that dialogue. This is just a presentation on where the 612 West Main Street (February 1, 2021 – amended for Nov 16, 2021 update) 26 design is. This is part of that iterative process of working things towards a complete application that you all can take action on. Mr. Lahendro – In our pre meeting, the Board expressed some confusion about what you'll be looking for tonight. As you make your presentation, would you be clear about what you want the Board comment on please? Jeff Dreyfus, Applicant – We are looking for comment on massing and elevation development on the West Main Street facade. Those two elements are key to the development of the rest of the building. Until we feel we're on an approvable track, comment beyond that presentation and discussion on our part is all premature. As you noticed in the package, we did not propose a landscape plan at this point. We think that is premature. I'll go through that, as I talk about some of the slides. The one thing I'd like to do first is to reiterate what we think we heard you all ask us to do after the last presentation of the facade on West Main Street. That is to reflect a multi parcel nature of the site's history and address the scale difference of West West Main Street versus East West Main Street. That means a smaller scale east of the bridge. It's been pointed out that we are setting a precedent for larger scale parcels on this side of West Main Street, east side of the bridge. You've asked us to mediate the horizontality of the parcel and the building. It is only three stories tall because of zoning. As we've been thinking through the comments that you all provided and looking for ways to move forward, it was also important to us to reiterate what we find as value on West Main Street. We all share them, but we could debate them. As a design team, we believe a mix of residential and retail is critical. Smaller retail spaces over larger big box retailers is what has typically been on the east side of West Main Street. There’s a challenge in that we have a 10 foot setback. How do we hold the edge? How do we maintain the lower scale of buildings east of the bridge? We've asked ourselves how we can enhance this part of West Main Street by bringing more residential life to the streets, making it a truly walkable neighborhood and adding space for more small retailers. I think a very important element is by being quiet. As we look at some of the images of buildings along West Main and not calling attention to ourselves in order to provide a visual respite from West Main Street at the moment. We are interested in taking a backseat architecturally and letting buildings like the Baptist Church and the Albemarle Hotel have the attention. The other thing that we're interested in doing is bringing a different demographic to West Main Street. This is not a building intended for students but for young professionals and older residents. When it comes to reflecting the multi parcel nature of the site, you can see the original plat lines on the parcel. You can also see the way we're beginning to look at breaking up the facade differently now to reflect the original widths of those parcels. In terms of scale, one of the larger buildings on this side of the bridge is the Albemarle Hotel. If we take the length of the Albemarle Hotel and reflect across the street, we can't work with the same exact proportions because we're not allowed the same height. Width wise, there's precedent for buildings of that size and length on West Main Street. You can begin to see how we're starting to break up the facade. This is not intended to propose any landscape at this point. This is really to show and to continue as we move forward. This reflects what the current plan is for the West Main Street streetscape project. You can see that the dashed red line is the current curb line. The proposal in this area is to encroach a little bit on the public right of way with the curb and plant the street trees right up along there. Our landscape architect has been in touch with the planners at Rhodsside and Harwell. They're very eager to work with us to devise a plan. They've reiterated that this is malleable and would like to work with us as soon as we start thinking about the public space here. This is not a proposal. This is merely a reflection of what is currently in the streetscape plan relative to the building we're looking at here. As we started to look at how we bring verticality to a very long and horizontal building, we are looking at other examples here and introducing retail. One of 612 West Main Street (February 1, 2021 – amended for Nov 16, 2021 update) 27 the things we really appreciate about the three images on the left are the retail spaces down below. The middle is a larger retail space behind multiple windows. The one on the left could be three individual retailers. The one on the right is one retailer within three bays. Looking at how we can offer the opportunity for the retail in the building we provide flexibility with smaller and local retailers, as opposed to big box retailers. How does that relate to the verticality we're trying to achieve on the facade of the building to counteract the horizontality and the grid of Windows above? We've mentioned this before, but texture. We'll talk about this in the facade itself. How do we introduce texture to create a difference? Is it color stucco on the right brick in the middle and on the left? These are elements we're going to continue to bring into the picture. I don't want to lose sight of the fact that we're thinking about these as we develop the diagram. Looking at precedents in Charlottesville: there's the Albemarle Hotel which has all three on the top; then and now. Interestingly, there were balconies on the Albemarle Hotel. It wasn't residential but there were some upper balconies there. Some of those balconies have been removed at this point, but they did exist. Then taller retail level on the ground floor which by code we certainly are needing to abide by. If we look at other examples in downtown Charlottesville, there's The Terraces which has taller retail on the ground floor. It's a taller building. You can see the type of arcade that is marching down the street and even turns the corner as it moves toward the mall. There is the residential building on 550 Water Street. It has been recently built and approved by the BAR. There is taller retail space on the ground floor. There is a bank on the first floor. It's not an entirely residential building. There is a large residential entry there on the street. They took the vertical and really exaggerated it on this building. Color and texture in this instance are the difference. As we look at the Code Building and the way they've brought verticality into that project, you can see the three story structure that runs up to the mall and how it's been similarly broken down. This is an office building with some retail below. The upper windows don't necessarily reflect a residential scale. That's something that we'll be talking about as we move into the diagram. We've got views that we've done from two different angles of this. We've been working on this since the submission a week ago. I find it to be very helpful to see this in a broader context. I don't think that this does it justice. We needed the time to develop it. What we've worked toward here is breaking down the mass, so that the building reads coming forward. This is the width of the Albemarle Hotel here and all of it working with the layout of the units inside. What is not reading quite as well are these portions of the building that are moved back two feet from the main façade. This upper portion is 10 feet back. That is from the required step back that we have. What we're thinking here is that these smaller and lower portions help differentiate the taller facade that comes forward two feet from there. These areas in red will be a different texture and potentially different color. Subtlety is going to be the key here, whether it's a deeply raked brick or a change to stucco. We're going to need to figure out how that change is made to really make them subordinate to the two masses that come forward. We heard that the larger retail on the ground floor read like a department store. We've gone the other direction, allowing the individual spaces the opportunity to combine or subdivide, depending upon the retailers that are looking to come in. On the upper floors we are adding Juliet balconies and looking to add greenery. There is a desire to engage with the street by allowing engagement with the street by residents, opening doors, and plants on the balconies. Bringing color to the building was something that was requested at the last meeting. While we are trying to remain quiet and subtle, the opportunity exists by bringing greenery into this and potentially with the awnings that the retailers might be able to use. We wanted to put this in the larger context of all of West Main Street, the scale of this, and how it is relating to other structures on the street. You can see the very top row is The Lark on Main Street is to the left The Flats are on the right. Below that is the Battle Building and The Standard, The Standard and The Flats are the closest in terms of building type. They are different scales and not really 612 West Main Street (February 1, 2021 – amended for Nov 16, 2021 update) 28 comparable. I would like to point out that we are trying to find a fine line of how to differentiate between the masses of this building and the two that come forward in particular. How do we do that? How do we break up this long elevation without it appearing to be like a series of phony townhouses? What we heard at the last BAR meeting is that The Standard is not particularly successful at it. It reads as a bit of a cacophony. The Flats is pretty much that flat. If we look at the lower drawing, it's really just comparing how this compares with the other buildings on the street. It has the same zoning as The Cork. The mass comes forward to the 10 foot setback and is the same height as The Cork. We've got a great deal of length there. We don't have the benefit of historic structures breaking it up as The Cork does in the front of it. I do recall that there was the question of whether or not it would be possible to raise the elevation of this building, so that we could get a four story facade on the street, even if it was balconies behind it. The answer to that is yes it is possible. Zoning would allow it. There are two reasons we are resisting that. One is that we feel that it's disingenuous to do it. The zoning of West Main Street really did intend for three story structures on this side of the bridge before that and then a 10 foot step back. The intent of that was to bring the scale of East West Main Street down. Doing that feels as though we would be trying to game the system frankly. The other reason that we prefer not to do it is that when viewed in context, especially next to The Holsinger building and the Baptist Church’s Annex building. This building as a three story building is taller. It seems to be a good mediator between the Annex building and the height of 600 West Main Street. Two images that we've been working on might describe a bit better the intention of what is set back from the street façade. This one in particular points out that a four story facade along there will dwarf the Holsinger Building. We're trying to be respectful of the context of what's around it. We are looking for comments and feedback on the elevation as it has progressed from the last time you saw it in terms of the development of it, and the direction of it. If that's not clear, please let me know. Questions from The Public: No Questions from the Public Questions from The Board: No Questions from the Board Comments from The Public: No Comments from the Public Comments from The Board: Mr. Gastinger – I think there are a lot of positive design developments here. I think that breaking up the roofline with the modulation with the rail and the solid parapet is helpful in accentuating those two volumes. I appreciate looking back at the former lot lines to bring some of that texture to the contemporary structure. I do think that changing the texture or the color of the hyphens has to be that pronounced. I think that will go a long way to further breaking down those volumes. I think those are all positive. I still am a little bit suspicious about the two foot indentation and if it's going to be as significant along the street plane to what we're reading in a flat elevation. This building will not be read in that elevation very often. I think that some of the modeling that you guys have done, where the light is just barely raking across the façade, is creating a deeper sensation of what that facade would look like than it actually will be on the north side of that building. I am curious to hear what other thoughts there are about that hyphen, other ways that we can further accentuate it, and ways that the site plan is developed with landscape and street trees that could further emphasize and break up that long rhythm of verticals. The only other question/comment I have is if there might not be some opportunity for you to lift the volume of the portion of the building that is eastern most. I wonder whether that will transition a little bit more to the 600. It might also give you some additional some 612 West Main Street (February 1, 2021 – amended for Nov 16, 2021 update) 29 opportunities for roof access, if that's a desire. It also would further break up that that secondary cornice line which is also pretty strong horizontal. Mr. Schwarz – Before we're done with this conversation, we should probably all confirm whether we agree with each other’s comments or not. For example, how does everyone feel about Mr. Gastinger’s idea of trying to raise the eastern most portion of the building? Mr. Gastinger, are you referring to that the front block putting up a false facade up on the fourth level? Mr. Gastinger – The portion that stepped back behind the entry plaza. Mr. Schwarz – Mr. Dreyfus, does zoning allow you to go a little taller on the back portion? Mr. Dreyfus – No, it does not. We could have an appurtenance. Our hope is to have a bit of an appurtenance as it is shown there. We would like to provide roof access, given the internal core of the building, and where circulation is happening. It would be back there. I think that's much taller than what we would be doing. Other than an appurtenance of a four story building, we are at the height. Mr. Lahendro – I thank Mr. Dreyfus. Clearly his office responded to our comments. I think that the two blocks are differentiated. I like that they're even different sizes, which gives even more of an impression of a different breakdown of scales and a more urban content character. Yes, I do wish the hyphens were set back more than two feet. I agree with Mr. Gastinger that it depends a lot upon the distinction of the brick and the color that could help read those or make them seem even more recessed if it's the proper color and dark enough. I think by having the horizontals between the floors of windows helps break down what I was concerned with the last time; the strong, monumental verticals. I think it shows a lot of success in meeting the kinds of concerns I had last time. Ms. Lewis – I agree with Mr. Lahendro. It seems to improve and be responsive to things that we've pointed out. Thanks to Mr. Dreyfus. Certainly the balconies and the engagement with the street was one of the conditions of the SUP that council granted. We recommended council grant it in 2019 for this. I think this gets closer to having that pedestrian street engagement. That was an expressed condition. I think it meets all of the new construction guidelines. I have no objection to that. The guideline that’s in our materials says there shall be pedestrian engagement with the street with an active, transparent, and permeable facade at street level. That could be interpreted a lot of different ways. I think that you’re getting closer to that. It does look like a quite beautiful building. I don't think that it's fading into nothingness. I think its austerity is quite beautiful. You've done a good job meeting the requirement of the 2019 SUP in breaking it down to this historical multi parcel massing and reflecting that. I like the gesture of keeping the width to the Albemarle Hotel width. Maybe that's a good tape measure for us for West Main Street. Mr. Zehmer – I agree with Mr. Gastinger and Mr. Lahendro about the size of the hyphens being set back further or using a darker material to make them appear to set back further. My only comment or question was that I don't recall the retail level on the ground floor. The earlier versions did have a wider base. I didn't quite recall that we had suggested doing away with that. I'm wondering if you all explored Mr. Lahendro’s point, defined the horizontal in between the floor levels between the second and third floor, which I think is successful. I am wondering if you did that in conjunction with a wider base of the retail space on the ground floor. I do think that kind of historic mixed use residential above retail in this area makes a lot of sense. If you look at the Holsinger Building next door, it has this wider base at the ground floor level. It may be where you can really break up the facade again. You have that five bay facade because that's the width of the fore bay that allows you to mix it up a little bit on this. 612 West Main Street (February 1, 2021 – amended for Nov 16, 2021 update) 30 One of the things I think that the Albemarle Hotel is successful with is that it's got a varied façade. You've got some arched windows and rectilinear windows. Even the retail level on that building is recessed quite a bit back from the street. I'm just wondering if that might be an exercise worth playing with. Mr. Dreyfus – We studied it a lot. What happened was the minute we started combining any of those retail bays into a larger horizontal element, the building began reading very horizontally again. It surprised me. I very much like the open retail at the bottom of the Albemarle Hotel. We tried really hard to incorporate that. It almost was an all or nothing proposition. Regardless of what we did, if we combined two and two and left one in the middle, it just began reading very horizontally again. I think we were doing that. We felt that we were doing the block a disservice because it just felt like a much longer building in every instance. Mr. Zehmer – Did you all try pulling the facade of those because of that recess in the back? I think the hotel has been recessed, but it still has columns out front, which may break up that horizontally. Mr. Dreyfus – It may be something that we can achieve at certain entrances. We're already losing 10 feet of the property because of the 10 foot setback. Eating further into the retail space is a painful proposition for a developer. It might be that we can do that on a small basis at those entries that have a door in it or something like that. Mr. Schwarz – Mr. Mohr had mentioned at the last meeting, and Jeff even responded to making the front portions of the building be falsely four stories tall. Are we all in agreement that it's okay to leave it as is? Or is there anybody else who agreed with Mr. Mohr strongly? That probably will come again in the future. Mr. Dreyfus, I think you make a good point that zoning did want this to be a three story district. I'm not sure we'd benefit from added height on the street front facade. Mr. Gastinger – I found those renderings pretty compelling to the points that Mr. Dreyfus was making about the transition to the larger 600 West Main Street. Mr. Lahendro – The transition from the larger 600 to 612, then to the Holsinger Building has a nice stepping quality there. Mr. Gastinger – I find it really good and positive that there is some potential collaboration with the future West Main Streetscape. I think that we could do real wonders with how this building might be modulating and what the views are along the sidewalk. It also occurs to me that there will certainly be a continuous sidewalk at the street. Another way to further break up the horizontal reading of the building is to perhaps break up or modulate the sidewalk at the facade line. When we talk about those hyphens in particular, we don’t want to talk about jamming a tree in there like there is on The Standard. Those could be moments of landscape space where there's either changing material, added vegetation, or a combination. Mr. Dreyfus – I think it's a great idea. Mr. Schwarz – I think you guys need to have in your back pocket a plan B should West Main Street streetscape project not happen. Mr. Dreyfus – I couldn't agree more. We don't have any idea what the timing is going to be. Personally, I think we have to proceed on the assumption that it will not be underway by the time we 612 West Main Street (February 1, 2021 – amended for Nov 16, 2021 update) 31 open this building. We have to have a plan. The plan probably needs to be one that is an interim step that we know that is acceptable to everyone right now. That then feeds into the longer range master plan. I think that's a bit of a challenge. I think that's the best way for us to all proceed. Mr. Gastinger – I think that's a better way of putting it. Rather than thinking of it as a plan B, think of it as a plan A. The West Main Streetscape is the next phase. You could make it look so obvious about where those street trees need to go. It makes it easy for those designers. Mr. Dreyfus – I think we'll design it with them as phases one and two. We don't want it to be a surprise to anybody. I think that's a great way to think about it. Mr. Schwarz – My fear is if we're counting on those street trees as the only street trees and they don't get put in, that’s a large swath of West Main Street that will no longer have street trees. I don't know how to resolve that. It's in the back of my mind. That is something to be worried about. Mr. Dreyfus – We don't want this standing there with no trees or no greenery with the assumption that they're coming and they don't come for 40 years. Unless there's anything or any questions we have even of the diagrammatic nature of the elevations. Any concerns that you see there? What I'm hearing is carry on and concern about the reading of the hyphens being dramatic enough so that the two main blocks will read. There are a variety of ways we can achieve it: color, texture, and more depth. I think I'm hearing we're on the right path. I'll ask for a deferral. We will continue to develop this. I really do appreciate the feedback that some of you have given us in the last few weeks. It has helped us understand people's concerns. We can't do this in a void. Each time you all have provided input. I think it's made the building that much better. We'll take the few concerns we heard tonight and keep pushing forward in this direction. Motion – Mr. Gastinger - moves to accept the applicant's request for a deferral. Carl Schwarz seconds. Motion passes (8-0). Meeting minutes: February 17, 2021 Jeff Werner, Staff Report – This is intended as a continuation of the discussion towards a final submittal towards the COA. We're not there tonight. The applicant is obligated on his end to request the deferral from the BAR. The BAR can only accept that. Lacking a request from the applicant, the BAR would have to take a vote up or down on this proposal at this time. This is a COA request for 612 West Main Street. The address is 602-616 West Main Street. We are referring collectively to 612 West Main Street. It is in the Downtown ADC District. Some people always wonder about that. The West Main District doesn't actually start until further down the block to the west. This is a request to construct a new mixed use building. As I've mentioned before, there's an existing concrete automotive building there built in the 1950s. It is not contributing and it's not subject to BAR review. You all have had a couple of discussions with the applicant. The last discussion was on December 15th. What we've been doing is working our way through a series of the design steps. The applicant has provided graphic information for you all to review and has presented tonight some questions that they would like to specifically get at in the conversation. It doesn't mean you all are only limited to what they're presenting and asking about. That's the “game plan” for this evening. 612 West Main Street (February 1, 2021 – amended for Nov 16, 2021 update) 32 Jeff Dreyfus, Applicant – We're just intending to keep you informed and give you an opportunity to continue to give us guidance prior to coming to you for official approval. What I'd like to do early in this is hand it over to Anne Pray, who is our landscape architect on the project to give you all a very quick overview, the questions that we sent our comments, any thoughts you all have, questions you have about the landscape, and the hardscape plan. The West Main Street elevation really hasn't changed much from what you all saw two months ago. I'll talk a little bit about some of the modifications that we're contemplating there. You will also see both West and South elevations so that we might get any input from you all on those as we continue to develop them. Anne Pray, Applicant – I want to speak a little bit about how we are trying to respond to some earlier comments about creating pedestrian engagement and making the building more active at the street and at the same time looking to break down the building mass and making it a little bit more pedestrian and body scale friendly to the street. I'm going to run through the plan design here pretty quickly, but probably work from the north elevation a little bit more so that we can look at that. In scale and in elevation, I think it reads a little bit better. From the outset of the project, this courtyard area has always been an important part of that residential entry of the building, which is one of its largest purposes. We're looking to create an engagement with the mural wall and also look at a way to just slide in a little bit smaller garden experience here with using a water feature, some benches, and some planting and at the same time opening up the courtyard for the entry. You can see one of the devices we're using is this connect with the larger building, a changing material on the ground plane from something smaller at the street to something larger that runs along the whole front of the building to something smaller in the courtyard again. We think that it gives it a little bit sense of place as you come in. We have three planters located along the length of the building. Two of the planters are at the four bay to create a little bit more of a density. We have this more open concept of the courtyard, closing it off a little bit in the front of the four bay side of the building and opening it up more towards the center and middle as we get to the five bay. Using a larger but singular planter towards the end relates the scale back to the earlier four bay in the building. As you run down to the west of the building, we are negotiating with grade a little bit. We have one singular stair that grows into two steps at the end. We have about a foot of grade change, running from east to west. On that side on the courtyard, we're looking to make it as open and as accessible as possible, so that grade does connect flush across to the main sidewalk. It's obviously more accessible for everyone. One of the things I want to point out here that I think is pretty important is that we get into is that we are required to show for trees to plant for trees. I want to talk about the placement of these trees as part of this project that's actually happening. We know that the West Main Streetscape plan shows for trees, obviously not in this location. I think it is problematically in a really different location with the curb line shifting in the future. We are actually also calling out the bike racks at this point on either ends of the building. You can see that on the west side. I'm using a low retaining wall to hold that space to create that niche for the two bike racks. On the eastern side, we have three bike racks there. The last little part here is that we are exploring the form and the permutations of the planters and how they work. The curvilinear idea is a little bit of a nod to what's happening on the inside of the building and the lobby, as we look to soften some of the edges and the hardness. We're trying to bring that outside in, in a playful way and in a more sculptural way. This is the overlay plan that shows four dashed, pink circles, outboard of the existing curb line. Those are the proposed West Main Streetscape trees. In quantity, it obviously works with what we've got and would just be a matter of coordination. However, the curb line is nearly two feet outboard of where the existing curb line is right now on West Main, which obviously lends us to believe that they're redesigning the whole street with parking and different curb lines and curb cuts. The extent to which we're actually going to be able to negotiate with that positioning at this point is unknown. I'd like to figure out exactly what the expectations 612 West Main Street (February 1, 2021 – amended for Nov 16, 2021 update) 33 are from the BAR as to how we're supposed to negotiate and handle that at this point. Here you can see an elevation. I think we all know the streetscape trees and the trees that we're proposing. Those four trees are really going to be what competes with the overall scale of the building here. Their placement will be working a little bit more symmetrically side to side with each one centered on a major column of the building. The planters bring the scale down to the pedestrian and the body. They work a little bit more to create a little bit of density against the building with your own perception of it as you're walking by. As you look at it, you can see the courtyard space again to the left. That's a much more open experience overall. As you walk by the first bay or the first true building, there's the four bay. That's more broken up with the planters and the trees. It is a more open center, last third, and then a planter on the end, knotting back to the balance of the four bay building preceding it with the open stair on the end and the retaining wall. I think it's important to talk about the water. One of the things about this building is that it does go from this very rectilinear clean facade outside. As you move your way into the building, it becomes a really calm, curvilinear, meditative experience. I think what we're trying to do by the introduction of water is introduce just a small sound and just a small nod to ‘you've come home.’ It is a little bit chiller and a little bit more common than what you just left on the street. We're trying to set up that choreography from the moment you enter into the courtyard. The articulation of that right now really has a long way to go to get the design done. The idea is that we would be introducing just a small amount of sound of water. Similarly, I think if you look in the next slide, you can see some different precedents. We are playing with the form of the planter. If it might have a little bit more of a batter to the front face how the bench itself could connect in or participate with the planter so that they are overall a little bit more sculptural, but also feel like they can be occupied. With the plantings themselves, I am really into creating a planting design as an important part of the piece. In this case, looking at the building, we actually have a lot of opportunity to use plants as texture and form and create some interesting palettes that you probably wouldn't see otherwise along the street. We'd be really looking to create some identity with making the planters really as big as we can and really get some good planting in there. I've got another image there of the paving precedents and different ideas in scale. I think that paving is going to be very calm, much like the building. We really looked to just maybe two different scales of paving to start to create a break between path and place. With the water base and on the end, there’s a very small nod to just a little something different on the street and introducing that idea of calm as you come into the building as resident. I think the next couple slides actually show this in the architectural rendering, if we want to take a look at that. It's nice to see the scale of the existing trees. We get a sense of how big these trees might hopefully become over time. You can see the courtyard and the planters laid out there. This is just obviously from the other end. I think what's nice to see here is actually just the stair. It's just a one foot gray change at that point. It's something we need to deal with and wanted to really keep it as open as possible. Really using a stair as an occupiable moment but to come up to the retail promenade and leaving that little bit of a space on the end for the bike racks. One thing I would say about the bike racks, because this might come up, is that I think it's really just been our experience looking at how they function at 600 right in the front of the building and right in front of the coffee and retail space. I think the takeaway there really is, it's been kind of problematic to really put them in a place of egress. As tricky as it has been, we are looking to give them their own space and make them noticeable, but not necessarily put them in the courtyard where we're trying to create a more intimate experience. Mr. Dreyfus – We do intend to have options for greenery along the balcony railings. Whether or not that is owner provided or tenant provided, we do have a long way to work through on that. We do intend to add that bit of color and texture to the façade. 612 West Main Street (February 1, 2021 – amended for Nov 16, 2021 update) 34 We're really looking for ways to quiet the building down. As Anne noted, the interior lobby of the residential entry is going to be very curvilinear. That is something that we are thinking may actually make its way out to the exterior of the building in a very quiet way next to the front door. We’re not ready to talk about that. In trying to quiet the building down, you'll see that we began thinking more about color and texture since our last conversation. The next slide does show how we're beginning to think about the particular elements of the façade. We are intending that the North, West, and East elevations will be brick. We'll talk in a minute about the texture of the brick and the hyphens as we discussed before. We’re thinking that the upper levels might be white or off white. We're thinking that the color of the building might be more of a heather brick or a lighter cream color. It's not going to be white. It's not going to be stark white. We know that much. We've got a ways to go. We're exploring brick that can be completely painted or brick that has enough soft color that we like it. We'll be back with more on that. I think what's important to note here is that we do believe that going with a different color on the retail level and ground level helps with the building to delineate what's residential and what's commercial in terms of its scale. It also makes the engagement with the street different from the facade as it goes higher up in the residential area. We're liking this. We don't quite yet know how we want to provide cover at the doors into the retail. That will be something that we continue to develop. You'll also see that perhaps that same darker color, which might be a metal. We're working toward that. That material would probably also introduce itself there on the left at the door into the residential lobby. You can begin to see the curve of that might express itself right in that small area. We're thinking upper windows and doors would be light in color as close match as we can get it to the brick material on the facade and darker down below. We would like to hear if this is an acceptable direction. The railings that we see on the balconies will also probably be light in color. Some of our earlier designs showed pretty soon stark contrast between black or dark bronze windows and doors and railings up above, which were similar to what's down below. It was becoming a little bit too checker boarding for our tastes. That's the direction that we're thinking we're going to go with colors. One thing I would like to note about the hyphens of the façade is that we are still imagining that the hyphens will be a different texture from the main blocks of the facade that move forward. We don't in any way think that the hyphens will be a different color but perhaps a different texture brick. Whether we model the surface or we do something with the control joints, we do want to make it subtly different. They step back, obviously, and they stepped down a little bit. We're trying to keep things related but quietly, different from one to the other. Here, you can also begin to see that the lower level that the darker color on the retail level does do what a number of buildings on West Main Street do. That is to call a distinction between the retail level and the residential levels up above, including on the Holsinger building right there on the right. There's a distinct line drawn there between the ground level engagement and the upper level residential. Here, we're beginning to talk about what the rear elevation will be. This might be a little bit hard to make out. On the lowest level, we have two story studio lofts behind those tall double doors. Those are probably Juliet balconies that can be opened. They speak to the height of that floor elevation. On West Main Street, we're supposed to have close to a 17 foot tall first floor. We're actually taking advantage of that to provide loft units on the backside of the building with living down below and a sleeping loft up above. The next level up has large terraces off of the units and also includes the green roof that we're going to be incorporating in the project. The green roof is down at this level and not on the rooftop. The rooftop may or may not be occupied in the future. We're not there yet. We think this is a great opportunity for us to bring the greenery and the softness of that to the living units on the south side of the building. The bronze panels that you see projecting perpendicular to the building are simply dividers between the units. For instance, on the second level at the far left, there are three bays of windows and doors that open on to that terrace before you get to the divider. That's one complete unit. After that, there's a two bay unit. That's what those are. We need to provide 612 West Main Street (February 1, 2021 – amended for Nov 16, 2021 update) 35 privacy panels between units. On the upper floors, you can see that there are balconies off each of the living rooms of the various units. The thing that I would like to point out here is that we would like to be able to stucco the upper part of the rear facade in this instance. The building to the right, 600 West Main Street, is metal panels. As most of you know, there are metal panels on the North, West, and East façade. On the South facade, we turn the corners on the South facade with the metal panels. The entire rear of the building is stucco. We want to do the same thing here on the upper three floors of this building. Quite frankly, it's a cost savings that we hope and anticipate will allow us to use brick for the rest of the building. It's not unusual for the rear of buildings in any urban environment is a different material. We would keep it quiet. It wouldn't be distinctly different from the brick. We'd come with whatever colors we're proposing in that regard. On the next slide, might be full elevations. Here you can see the elevations as they currently stand. The hyphens that we've discussed in the previous discussion are in the middle and on the far right. With the next drawing, there is a different texture on those hyphens and also on the residential block that sits back from the street. The next drawing should be the South elevation. As I described, there are upper balconies on the top two floors with terraces on that third floor level, just above the last studio loft balconies. With the next elevation, trying to take the motif from the north facade on the west elevation there on the left. Take the motif of the openings and sizes and continue that to give a bit of order to that facade, which is on the alley adjacent to the Holsinger building. The larger windows are all windows at the end of residential corridors. The two smaller windows there on the far left are within units to allow those to be third bedroom. On the far right, the elevation facing the courtyard of 600 West Main Street and the mass of the building of 600 West Main is dashed in the very dark line there on the left of that drawing. It's a very narrow courtyard. At the end of that courtyard would be doors leading into the lobby of 612 West Main Street. The tenants of both buildings will have access to the courtyard and to the lobby. If there is in the future, a rooftop amenity on this building, the tenants of the adjacent building could enjoy it. I think we've included some of our previous slides that showed ideas of ways that we can treat cheap different textures, different openings, and the windows. The middle right image, the light facade is not unlike what we're discussing, perhaps lighter color for the brick, but a darker color for the retail openings and being different from what's happening in the on the residential up above. As I mentioned in my notes, we'd appreciate any and all comments on the landscape hardscape especially as it relates to what Anne is showing, and importantly, noting that the tree locations relative to what is shown on the West Main Street streetscape project and any comments you have about the facade development, any of the elevations, the colors, materials we're contemplating at this point, and as well as stucco on the south side of the building. Questions from The Public: No Questions from the Public Questions from The Board: Mr. Mohr – The plans looks like there is a retaining wall next to the bikes. Is that correct? Ms. Pray – That’s correct. It is shown in the elevation. It is very small. It is only a foot tall and only 8 inches wide. Mr. Mohr – I was wondering if it matched the height of the planters or not. Ms. Pray – I don’t have it matching the planters. I just kept it a pretty low profile. Mr. Mohr – I was looking at the renderings. 612 West Main Street (February 1, 2021 – amended for Nov 16, 2021 update) 36 Mr. Dreyfus – That is the move-in door for the building for all of the tenants. There will be a curb there. There will be safety factors set up so that nothing goes rolling off of that end. Mr. Mohr – It looked like in the plans there was more of a wall there. It was just a resolution question. It makes more sense that there is a wall there. Ms. Pray – Initially, we thought about wrapping the stair back to the corner so you could approach the building from that corner. We needed the space for the bike racks. We ended up with the retaining wall to cut in that space for the racks. We have to utilize every inch. Mr. Dreyfus – Wrapping the stair didn’t make a lot of sense. We would be inviting people to step into a private alley. This was to direct people out toward the street. Mr. Mohr – I was remarking at the absence rather than the presence. Mr. Gastinger – I wanted to ask if there was any further thinking about the differences in that brick texture. The precedence that you showed at the end of the presentation have quite a wide range. Do you have any more to what you are currently thinking? Mr. Dreyfus – The next step is going to be offering specific samples to what we are thinking. We’re talking with our contractor and their suppliers about what those options are. We need enough of a distinct difference that it is noticeable when you look. Mr. Schwarz – If the West Main Street streetscape goes forward, are you still required to put in four street trees? Ms. Pray – We will have to do four trees. Mr. Dreyfus – It is a requirement at the moment. We are having to live by it. I think what Anne has done works well with the building. We don’t have the option of furthering the streetscape plan. We would be putting our trees in the street. If we go to that slide, you will see where Anne has placed the trees precludes the parking pull off areas or anything that they’re showing. It would appear to me that we could keep those trees precisely where she is proposing them. The City would have a little less cost as part of that project. Mr. Schwarz – Suppose the streetscape plan doesn’t go forward, are the power lines a problem? It seems that this site has accumulated some new power lines. Mr. Dreyfus – The power lines are a problem. We are going to deal with them during construction. I don’t know if we are going to be dealing with them permanently. We will have to deal with them temporarily. Mr. Schwarz – I would like your application to include temporary power plans. Even if poles are being moved temporarily, trees sometimes have to come down for temporary movement. Mr. Dreyfus – We will do that. They are going to be moved across the street. We will be happy to include the temporary power plan as part of the application. We will move the power lines back to where they are. A permanent solution would be undergounding them. 612 West Main Street (February 1, 2021 – amended for Nov 16, 2021 update) 37 Mr. Lahendro – With the footprint for the planters, I am trying to understand the significance of this unusual truncated circle shape. It has some relevance to what is going on inside the building. Mr. Dreyfus – On the interior of the building, the lobby is actually going to be a very curvilinear series of planes with few hard angles. We’re trying to bring that into the residential hallways as a part of the design. Anne’s thought is that we hint at it on the exterior in terms of the planter shape with what is happening on the interior. Ms. Pray – That was definitely a starting point. We liked the idea that the planters became more sculptural as part of the experience being on the sidewalk. The space between them still feels like inside. Mr. Lahendro – For pedestrians that don’t live in the building, those shapes would be completely alien to anything they can see on the building. Ms. Pray – The idea is that it might be captured by them and see something different. I think there is a way they interact with the building too. It seemed to use the planter as an opportunity to be a little more ‘playful’ on the street to soften the building. We are still working through it and what the final shapes will be. Mr. Mohr – Do they match the material of the window frames on the first floor level? Ms. Pray – It is definitely a detail question that I am not totally clear on. We still have to have those conversations. I think we would look to create some continuity. Mr. Dreyfus – One of the things that we have talked about with the shape of the planters is that they are softer. They’re a little bit more inviting. There is a playfulness to them that might invite something a little bit more relaxed on what is a pretty regimented façade. Ms. Lewis – Is the south façade on the upper floors stucco? Mr. Dreyfus – I don’t know for sure. My preference would be stucco. It might end up being EIFS. Ms. Lewis – I would support it on the back. I will definitely support it if it was stucco. Mr. Schwarz – Building codes require continuous exterior insulation on commercial buildings. In general, when we see stucco, it is EIFS. I don’t know if it can be detailed in a different way. That’s something that needs to be fixed in our guidelines. There is no stucco anymore unless it is on concrete. Mr. Dreyfus – The real difficulty with EIFS is the hollowness when you tap on it. You can get a variety of finishes. We were very successful at 600 West Main on getting finishes on the EIFS that does not look like your standard EIFS. I think it is a matter of the intent of the architect and the ability of the installers to achieve something that’s not just “slathered on icing” that we see everywhere. That will definitely be a part of what we do. It is important that we get that surface right for the tenants of the building. It is not a throwaway material. Comments from The Public: 612 West Main Street (February 1, 2021 – amended for Nov 16, 2021 update) 38 No Comments from the Public Comments from The Board: Mr. Gastinger – I really like the development of the site plan and the landscape, especially compared to where it was previously. The planters really felt like they were armoring the building or maybe having a very distinct zonation between the public sidewalk and in the walk in front of the retail spaces. I like the way that low step will get used a lot and will be a piece of street furniture. It would be in a more graceful way to make that delineation and make it more subtle. I like the shape of the planters for a couple of reasons. I think that it really does facilitate a lot more East/West movement along the facade of the building. At the same time gets a longer amount of planting area in proportion to the building. I will say though that I do think because maybe perhaps the thinness of the wall and the way that they're rendered in the plan, they do feel a little bit inconsequential or a little bit more like street furniture. There's maybe a balance there. I'm not sure if they either could get just a little bit larger or just beef up just a bit more to have a relationship to this building. There could be another one added. It seems like they're just a little bit sparse currently. I like that. I like the tactic. I like the materiality and the way that they be deployed. I think the material of them being a little bit more of street furniture and not feeling like a constructed built in feature might lend themselves to feeling a little bit more like almost quazi movable part of the street and maybe alleviate some of the fear that Jody might express about whether they really feel like they're a part of the public landscape. With the trees, this is my personal opinion. If we wait for the city to figure out West Main, we will still be waiting. I applaud the tactic to go ahead and put the trees in at the location that works best for this building. At a scale, that also works best for the street. I would hope that you'd consider species that will operate at that street tree scale and really create a high canopy that would make for a really excellent public space below. When the West Main Street project happens in about 30 years, they'll work around these trees. The only thing I would note about that is that we can be thinking about larger trees to make certain in the early planning that ample soil volumes are provided so that so that we really can get the kind of size and scale tree that they would appreciate there. Mr. Mohr – When the power lines come back, are they going create havoc with those trees? Mr. Dreyfus – They can and they will. I will say that we are talking with Dominion about the possibility of locating the power lines under the sidewalk. It is in everyone’s best interest if we could do it. We all know Dominion moves at its own pace and own schedule. We are hoping that we can do it. I hesitate to mention it. We don’t want it held against us in the future. Mr. Mohr – I agree with Breck about the planters. I like the one with the seat in it. I could actually see just making that a standard feature for all three of them. The other thing I could see doing is that they weren't great in plan but in elevation and extending the plantable area along like the building, it seems to me you could play with the elevation of the edge where it could be like a cone slice or something like that, where it has some more dynamic role to play at a 3rd level. I know it's got plants in it. How many times a year are they not doing much? If it has a wandering edge or drives up one side where their playfulness is apparent, not just in plan but in elevation and section. I just fear for dominions behavior. Mr. Schwarz – I'm going to agree with what's been said so far. I want to see very tall, beautiful canopy trees on West Main. If the power lines end up needing to stay, I think Cova have done a good job of coexisting. Something of that scale would be appropriate if you keep the power lines. My other concern I brought up with the Code Building is that they have sworn to me that we're not 612 West Main Street (February 1, 2021 – amended for Nov 16, 2021 update) 39 going to end up with a bunch of yellow tape on all the on the edges of all the stair treads. I don't know if it's our zoning code. Wedge steps are not allowed. When they show up, they end up becoming tripping hazards. I think they're a wonderful landscape feature. I just want you guys to make sure that these steps and landscape don't become like him covered in bright yellow tape. Mr. Lahendro – I would concur with most of what I've heard so far. I would rather see that scale, but in a more native tree or one that's on the street tree list that the Tree Commission puts out. Mr. Schwarz – The other question from staff was to look at the elevations with the understanding that the north elevation is on the right track and the change in the material on the back. Mr. Lahendro – I would like to talk about the North elevation. This looks better to me than what I'm hearing than what's actually meant. The recessed planes of the hyphens are darker and obviously more recessed. The darkness is a symbol to indicate some kind of texture. What I'm hearing is that the texture that's desired at this point is subtle and not distinctive. I would prefer to see something that's more distinctive in the difference. I think this reads as we had intended or we had stated all along in that we're trying to mimic the scale of the individual historic buildings that are still left on this part of West Main that were here originally. That's my biggest worry about this elevation. Mr. Mohr – Your end elevations are quite asymmetrical and seem to have a lot of surface development. There's a playfulness in there. It also harkens back to some of those images you showed us from those urban buildings with multiple planes with your precedent images. I wonder if you really start playing with the level of detail in there, so it actually catches more shadow is more idiosyncratic and plays basically a different architectonic game than the quieter or very rectilinear façade. That possibly combined with darker materials but also the fact that we attach more shade and shadow. I think you have some clues in that East elevation to my mind that might enliven and at the same time distinguish those punch backs. I'd like to just quick slide over to the top section of the residential block on the north side, I could see doing that in a completely different like glass. It's much more of your beltline for your parapet runs around. That whole upper piece reads as something that is truly set back and is perhaps much more modern and translucent. That would again help the read of the scale. The brick on top of that feels a little heavy to me. If you put some brace a lay over the upper band of balconies that starts reading is more porch-like. I think it softens up the side of it on the south side. That would start to break it up vertically without really a great deal. You wouldn't be having to modulate surfaces or anything that would give you a scale breakdown. It does start to read as somewhat tower like. Mr. Gastinger – I am a little concerned about the subtlety and the thinness of the plane of the North elevation. It's not so much the elevation but more that the plan and the perspective views that would come from it. I'm concerned because I think almost every view from a pedestrian point of view or for driving down the road that this is really going to look like a long building because the plan changes are so subtle. As mentioned in the last meeting, the addition of those balcony railings stepping that height down the introduction of some different texture are some good techniques. It's really riding on that line of whether this is meeting that SUP recommendation that the mass is breaking down. It might be useful to include some more oblique perspectives in the package in the future. I think that's how this building will most likely be seen. If the intention is to truly have the brick in the textured brick berry so similar in color, I wonder if a more radical technique like making one of the bays that textured brick might be worth considering. I just continue to look for more depth from the façade. I am just worried that it's getting keeps getting thinner and thinner. 612 West Main Street (February 1, 2021 – amended for Nov 16, 2021 update) 40 Mr. Zehmer joined the meeting during the discussion of this agenda item. Mr. Schwarz – Are we all OK with the change to stucco/EIFS at the back? Are we all still on board with the massing? There seems to be more desire for more originality in the front façade. Mr. Mohr – I like the idea of doing something to make that top appear different. That would actually drive that whole block down lower and you wouldn't feel quite all the peace. To me, it's more like the main facade is so quiet. Maybe there's a much more intensive brick detail and idiosyncratic treatment of those drop back pieces that makes them taking up a look at some the really wild brick you see on some of the old residential structures in New York where it really has a degree of texture and detail that speaks to maybe the old church down the road or something. Mr. Schwarz – Are there any thoughts around the darker color around the retail entrances? Mr. Mohr – I like the idea of the planters relating to it. Mr. Lahendro – I think it is an interesting idea. I look forward to seeing how it is developed. Mr. Dreyfus – I thank you all very much. I realize this is a drawn out process. By the time we get to the approval, it is going to be a very short, brief meeting. For us, it feels productive and informative. Mr. Mohr – Where do things stand on the lighting on 600? Mr. Dreyfus – We have to make the final adjustment. We will have that done. We are ready for the BAR to go and look at it in the next week and a half. Motion to accept to applicant’s request for deferral (Mr. Lahendro). Motion to accept deferral passes 7-0. 612 West Main Street (February 1, 2021 – amended for Nov 16, 2021 update) 41 ALBEMARLE/GLEASON HOTEL APPROX. WIDTH OF ALBEMARLE HOTEL FACADE HISTORIC PROPERTY LINES (RED) 612 PROPERTY LINES (BLUE) PUBLIC SPACE ENTRY PLAZA MINI MART BLUE MOON DINER 620 W. MAIN ST. (FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH ANNEX) FIRST BAPTIST 600 W. MAIN COURTYARD CHURCH BUILDING AREA: 16,368.57 sq ft 600 W. MAIN 612 W. MAIN BUILDING FOOTPRINT (BLUE) BUSHMAN DREYFUS BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS ARCHITECTS PC PC •• 612 612 WEST WEST MAIN MAIN ST ST BARSUBMISSION BAR SUBMISSION12.08.2020 11.5.2021 HISTORIC HISTORIC MAP MAP OVERLAY OVERLAY 1 1 ENTRANCE PARKING ENTRANCE DINER RETAIL RETAIL PLAZA RETAIL COURTYARD LOBBY 612 W. MAIN 600 W. MAIN RAILROAD BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR SUBMISSION 11.5.2021 SITE PLAN 2 OLD ALBERMARLE HOTEL THEN NOW OLD ALBERMARLE HOTEL THEN NOW THE TERRACES 550 WATER STREET CODE BUILDING THE TERRACES 550 WATER STREET CODE BUILDING BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR SUBMISSION 11.5.2021 PRECEDENT RESEARCH | CHARLOTTESVILLE 3 IMAGE OF PRELIMINARY BRICK MOCKUP SELECTED TEXTURE FOR HYPHENS - ANGLED BRICK WITH RAKED JOINTS IMAGES OF TEXTURED PATTERNS AND FLAT BRICK PATTERNS USED ON THE SAME BUILDING BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR SUBMISSION 11.5.2021 PRECEDENT RESEARCH | BRICK TEXTURE 4 SIX HUNDRED WEST MAIN SIX-TWELVE WEST MAIN HOLSINGER BUILDING FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH STREET ELEVATION BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR SUBMISSION 11.5.2021 STREET ELEVATION 5 METAL COPING MECH. SCREEN ANGLED TEXTURE STUCCO BALCONY RAILING METAL COPING ANGLED TEXTURE THIN BRICK CLADDING THIN BRICK CLADDING AT TERRACES STUCCO BRICK BRICK INSET BRICK 536'-1" ROOF DECK RAILING FIXED WDWS OVER AWNING, TYP. METAIL COPING 525'-4" TERRACE DOORS, TYP. STREET WALL DECK LVL AT JULIET BALCONIES RAILING TERRACE DOORS, TYP. AT JULIET BALCONIES RAILING 51'-4" ANGLED TEXTURED STOREFRONT STREET WALL HT. 37'-9 3/8" BRICK WALL BEYOND THIN BRICK CEILING BRICK SURROUND ALL GLASS DOOR/ STOREFRONT BEYOND ALL GLASS DOOR 487'-6 5/8" AVE. LVL OF CURB IN STOREFRONT STOREFRONT ALL GLASS STOREFRONT INSET METAL PLANEL BRICK SURROUND, TYP. DOORS, TYP. 484'-9" CURVED PLASTER ENTRY WALL STOREFRONT AVE. GRADE PLANE NORTH ELEVATION BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR SUBMISSION 11.5.2021 1/16" = 1'-0" NORTH ELEVATION 6 METAL COPING STUCCO METAL COPING STUCCO BRICK STUCCO PARAPET BEYOND METAL HEAD DTL, TYP. TERRACE DOORS AT BALCONIES, TYP. INSET STUCCO, TYP. FIXED WDWS OVER AWNING, TYP. METAL SILL DTL, TYP. METAL CLADDING AT BALCONY EDGES CASEMENT WDW TERRACE RAILING METAL COPING STUCCO INSET STUCCO BRICK CASEMENT WDW SOUTH ELEVATION BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR SUBMISSION 11.5.2021 SOUTH ELEVATION 7 600 OUTLINE METAL COPING METAL COPING ELEVATOR OVERRUN STUCCO STAIR TOWER BEYOND, STUCCO METAL COPING STUCCO METAL COPING TEXTURED BRICK METAL COPING CONCRETE BEHIND BRICK 600 WALL BRICK METAL COPING INSET BRICK METAL COPING INSET BRICK INSET BRICK STOREFRONT CASEMENT WDW OVER FIXED RAILING BALCONY RAILING METAL CLADDING AT INSET BRICK BALCONY EDGES INSET BRICK ANGLED TEXTURE STOREFRONT FIXED WINDOW BRICK SILL FIXED WDW, BRICK SILL OVER AWNING BRICK SURROUND BRICK TERRACE PRIVACY PANEL INSET BRICK, TYP. STOREFRONT METAL COPING FIRE GLASS IN FIRE WDW FRAME BRICK SILL BRICK INSET BRICK INSET METAL PANEL INSET METAL PANEL INSET BRICK, TYP. STOREFRONT STOREFRONT STOREFRONT WEST MAIN ST. BRICK SILL BRICK SILL ALL GLASS DOOR HOLSINGER BUILDING RAILROAD (DASHED) ENTRY FROM 600 SIX HUNDRED WEST MAIN (DASHED) WEST ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR SUBMISSION 11.5.2021 EAST/WEST ELEVATIONS 8 BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR SUBMISSION 11.5.2021 LANDSCAPE PLAN 9 BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR SUBMISSION 11.5.2021 LANDSCAPE ELEVATION 10 ALBEMARLE/GLEASON HOTEL APPROX. WIDTH OF ALBEMARLE HOTEL FACADE HISTORIC PROPERTY LINES (RED) 612 PROPERTY LINES (BLUE) PUBLIC SPACE ENTRY PLAZA MINI MART BLUE MOON DINER 620 W. MAIN ST. (FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH ANNEX) FIRST BAPTIST 600 W. MAIN COURTYARD CHURCH BUILDING AREA: 16,368.57 sq ft 600 W. MAIN 612 W. MAIN BUILDING FOOTPRINT (BLUE) BUSHMAN DREYFUS BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS ARCHITECTS PC PC •• 612 612 WEST WEST MAIN MAIN ST ST BARBAR MEETING 11.16.2021 SUBMISSION 12.08.2020 HISTORIC HISTORIC MAP MAP OVERLAY OVERLAY 1 1 ENTRANCE PARKING ENTRANCE DINER RETAIL RETAIL PLAZA RETAIL COURTYARD LOBBY 612 W. MAIN 600 W. MAIN RAILROAD BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR MEETING 11.16.2021 SITE PLAN 2 OLD ALBERMARLE HOTEL THEN NOW OLD ALBERMARLE HOTEL THEN NOW THE TERRACES 550 WATER STREET CODE BUILDING THE TERRACES 550 WATER STREET CODE BUILDING BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR MEETING 11.16.2021 PRECEDENT RESEARCH | CHARLOTTESVILLE 3 IMAGE OF PRELIMINARY BRICK MOCKUP SELECTED TEXTURE FOR HYPHENS - ANGLED BRICK WITH RAKED JOINTS IMAGES OF TEXTURED PATTERNS AND FLAT BRICK PATTERNS USED ON THE SAME BUILDING BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR MEETING 11.16.2021 PRECEDENT RESEARCH | BRICK TEXTURE 4 SIX HUNDRED WEST MAIN SIX-TWELVE WEST MAIN HOLSINGER BUILDING FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH STREET ELEVATION BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR MEETING 11.16.2021 STREET ELEVATION 5 METAL COPING MECH. SCREEN ANGLED TEXTURE STUCCO BALCONY RAILING METAL COPING ANGLED TEXTURE THIN BRICK CLADDING THIN BRICK CLADDING AT TERRACES STUCCO BRICK BRICK INSET BRICK 536'-1" ROOF DECK RAILING FIXED WDWS OVER AWNING, TYP. METAIL COPING 525'-4" TERRACE DOORS, TYP. STREET WALL DECK LVL AT JULIET BALCONIES RAILING TERRACE DOORS, TYP. AT JULIET BALCONIES RAILING 51'-4" ANGLED TEXTURED STOREFRONT STREET WALL HT. 37'-9 3/8" BRICK WALL BEYOND THIN BRICK CEILING BRICK SURROUND ALL GLASS DOOR/ STOREFRONT BEYOND ALL GLASS DOOR 487'-6 5/8" AVE. LVL OF CURB IN STOREFRONT STOREFRONT ALL GLASS STOREFRONT INSET METAL PLANEL BRICK SURROUND, TYP. DOORS, TYP. 484'-9" CURVED PLASTER ENTRY WALL STOREFRONT AVE. GRADE PLANE NORTH ELEVATION BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR MEETING 11.16.2021 1/16" = 1'-0" NORTH ELEVATION 6 METAL COPING STUCCO METAL COPING STUCCO BRICK STUCCO PARAPET BEYOND METAL HEAD DTL, TYP. TERRACE DOORS AT BALCONIES, TYP. INSET STUCCO, TYP. FIXED WDWS OVER AWNING, TYP. METAL SILL DTL, TYP. METAL CLADDING AT BALCONY EDGES CASEMENT WDW TERRACE RAILING METAL COPING STUCCO INSET STUCCO BRICK CASEMENT WDW SOUTH ELEVATION BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR MEETING 11.16.2021 SOUTH ELEVATION 7 600 OUTLINE METAL COPING METAL COPING ELEVATOR OVERRUN STUCCO STAIR TOWER BEYOND, STUCCO METAL COPING STUCCO METAL COPING TEXTURED BRICK METAL COPING CONCRETE BEHIND BRICK 600 WALL BRICK METAL COPING INSET BRICK METAL COPING INSET BRICK INSET BRICK STOREFRONT CASEMENT WDW OVER FIXED RAILING BALCONY RAILING METAL CLADDING AT INSET BRICK BALCONY EDGES INSET BRICK ANGLED TEXTURE STOREFRONT FIXED WINDOW BRICK SILL FIXED WDW, BRICK SILL OVER AWNING BRICK SURROUND BRICK TERRACE PRIVACY PANEL INSET BRICK, TYP. STOREFRONT METAL COPING FIRE GLASS IN FIRE WDW FRAME BRICK SILL BRICK INSET BRICK INSET METAL PANEL INSET METAL PANEL INSET BRICK, TYP. STOREFRONT STOREFRONT STOREFRONT WEST MAIN ST. BRICK SILL BRICK SILL ALL GLASS DOOR HOLSINGER BUILDING RAILROAD (DASHED) ENTRY FROM 600 SIX HUNDRED WEST MAIN (DASHED) WEST ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR MEETING 11.16.2021 EAST/WEST ELEVATIONS 8 WEST MAIN STREET 4 REQUIRED STREET TREES MURAL WALL 3 BIKE RACKS PLANTING RAISED PLANTER RAISED PLANTER WITH BENCH PLANTER AT GRADE BENCHES (2) 6” STEPS 6” STEP PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE 608 WEST MAIN RETAIL PROMENADE concrete surface COURTYARD concrete pavers 612 WEST MAIN STREET 612 WEST MAIN STREET RESIDENTIAL ENTRY LANDSCAPE PLAN 612 WEST MAIN STREET BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR MEETING 11.16.2021 LANDSCAPE PLAN 9 STONE BENCH STONE BENCH IN GRADE PLANTING METAL PLANTER METAL PLANTER CONCRETE RETAINING WALL 13’ X 4’ 14’ X 5’ PLANTING AT BOTH SIDES OF COURTYARD STREET TREE COURTYARD STREETSCAPE NORTH ELEVATION 3/32”=1’-0” 612 WEST MAIN STREET BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR MEETING 11.16.2021 LANDSCAPE ELEVATION 10 BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR MEETING 11.16.2021 STREET VIEW FROM WEST 11 BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR MEETING 11.16.2021 VIEW FROM WEST 12 BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR MEETING 11.16.2021 STREET VIEW FROM EAST 13 BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR MEETING 11.16.2021 VIEW FROM 6TH ST NW 14 BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR MEETING 11.16.2021 ENTRY VIEW 15 BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR MEETING 11.16.2021 VIEW OF PLAZA/MURAL 16 BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR MEETING 11.16.2021 STOREFRONT VIEW 17 BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR MEETING 11.16.2021 VIEW FROM WEST 18 BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR MEETING 11.16.2021 VIEW OF SOUTH FACADE 19 BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR MEETING 11.16.2021 DETAIL VIEW 20 Categories for Past Preservation Awards 2020 Preservation Awards: Adaptive Re-Use and Rehabilitation of a Historic Structure and New Construction Design [Dairy Central] Adaptive Re-Use and Rehabilitation of Historic Structures and New Construction Design [Quirk Hotel] Rehabilitation of a Historic Structure [801 Park Street, the Trevillian-Tennyson House, c. 1893] Rehabilitation of the Historic Steeple and Installation of Steeple Illumination [First United Methodist Church] BAR awards not given between 2015 and 2019. Awards given in 2015 and earlier: Preston A. Coiner Preservationist Award: given to a non-architect or design professional for their contributions to preserve historic resources in our City Best Designer Award:given to an architect or design professional for their contributions to preserve historic resources in our City Best Renovation of an Historic Structure Best Restoration of an Historic Structure Best Adaptive Re-Use of an Historic Structure Best Addition to an Historic Structure Best New Construction in an Historic District Best Contribution in Documenting Historic Resources Best Window Restoration Best Façade Restoration Outstanding Individual Achievement