City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Regular Meeting December 21, 2021, 5:30 p.m. Remote meeting via Zoom Packet Guide This is not the agenda. Please click each agenda item below to link directly to the corresponding documents Pre-Meeting Discussion 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 (Note: Any consent agenda item may be pulled and moved to the regular agenda if a BAR member wishes to discuss it, or if any member of the public is present to comment on it. Pulled applications will be discussed at the beginning of the meeting.) 1. Approval of meeting minutes from May 18, 2021 2. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 21-12-01 112 W Market Street (The Haven), TMP 330254000 Downtown ADC District Owner: First Street Church Project, LLC Applicant: Kathy Garstang, Building Goodness Foundation Project: Garden C. Deferred Items 3. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 21-04-04 517 Rugby Road, TMP 050046000 Rugby Road-University Circle-Venable ADC District Owner: Alumni of Alpha Mu, Inc Applicant: Garett Rouzer/Dalgliesh Gilpin Paxton Architects Project: Alterations to fraternity house December 21, 2021 BAR Packet 1 4. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 20-11-03 612 West Main Street (also 602-616), Tax Parcel 290003000 West Main ADC District Owner: Heirloom West Main Street Second Phase LLC Applicant: Jeff Dreyfus, Bushman Dreyfus Architects Project: Construction of a mixed-use building E. Discussion Items (No actions will be taken.) Preliminary Discussion 540 Park Street, TMP 520183000 North Downtown ADC District Owner: Jessica and Patrick Fenn Applicant: Ashley LeFew Falwell / Dalgliesh Gilpin Paxton Architects Project: Addition and alterations Possible discussions 200 West Water Street, alterations F. Other Business Belmont Bridge – wall update Staff questions/discussion Preservation Awards G. Adjourn December 21, 2021 BAR Packet 2 BAR MINUTES CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW Regular Meeting May 18, 2021 – 5:30 p.m. Zoom Webinar Welcome to this Regular Monthly Meeting of the Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review (BAR). Due to the current public health emergency, this meeting is being held online via Zoom. The meeting process will be as follows: For each item, staff will make a brief presentation followed by the applicant’s presentation, after which members of the public will be allowed to speak. Speakers shall identify themselves, and give their current address. Members of the public will have, for each case, up to three minutes to speak. Public comments should be limited to the BAR’s jurisdiction; that is, regarding the exterior design of the building and site. Following the BAR’s discussion, and before the vote, the applicant shall be allowed up to three minutes to respond, for the purpose of clarification. Thank you for participating. [Times noted below are rough estimates only.] Members Present: Carl Schwarz, Breck Gastinger, Robert Edwards, Cheri Lewis, Tim Mohr, Andy McClure, James Zehmer Members Absent: Jody Lahendro, Ron Bailey Staff Present: Patrick Cory, Robert Watkins, Joe Rice, Jeff Werner, Lisa Robertson, Chip Boyles Pre-Meeting: There was a brief discussion regarding the items on the agenda and the Consent Agenda. There was a discussion regarding the statues and whether there should be a public hearing on the recommendation for the statues A procedure was established on how the statues were going to be discussed and the public hearing with the statue recommendation. Staff went over the one new COA application on the agenda at Preston Place. The meeting was called to order at 5:30 PM. A. Matters from the public not on the agenda No Comments from the Public B. Consent Agenda (Note: Any consent agenda item may be pulled and moved to the regular agenda if a BAR member wishes to discuss it, or if any member of the public is present to comment on it. Pulled applications will be discussed at the beginning of the meeting.) 1. BAR Meeting Minutes – January 20, 2021 2. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-05-01 503 Rugby Road, Tax Parcel 050052000 Rugby Road-University Circle-Venable Neighborhood ADC District Owner: Epsilon Sigma House Corps of Kappa Kappa Gamma Applicant: Erin Hannegan, Mitchell Matthews Architects 1 BAR Meeting Minutes May 18, 2021 Project: Modify approved design – entry light fixtures; trim at sections of south and north facades; screening at mechanical units; fence/wall at NW corner. 3. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-05-02 167 Chancellor Street, TMP 090126000 The Corner ADC District Owner: Alpha Omicron of Chi Psi Corp. Applicant: Kevin Schafer, Design Develop, LLC Project: Modify approved west elevation - extend steps to full width of the portico Ms. Lewis moved to approve (Second by Mr. Zehmer) – Motion passed 6-0. C. New Items 4. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-05-03 605 Preston Place, Tax Parcel 050111000 Rugby Road-University Circle-Venable Neighborhood ADC District Owner: Neighborhood Investment – PC, LP Applicant: Kevin Riddle, Mitchell Matthews Architects Project: Three-story apartment building with below-grade parking Staff Report, Jeff Werner – Year Built: 1857 District: Rugby Road-University Circle-Venable Neighborhood ADC District Also designated an Individually Protected Property Status: Contributing Also known as Wyndhurst, 605 Preston Place was the manor house of the 100-acre farm that is now the Preston Heights section of the city. It is a typical 2-story, 3-bay, double-pile white weatherboard-clad house with Greek Revival details. CoA request for construction of apartment building, including parking, landscaping and site improvements. Apartment Building • Walls: o Red brick o Painted stucco • Flat roof behind low parapet. Copper scuppers boxes and downspouts • Rooftop mechanical units screened with enclosures o Note: At the building façades, the parapets are brick. The BAR should discuss the wall details for the non-facade sections of rooftop enclosures. • Doors and Windows: Marvin Ultimate Clad Exterior, rubbed bronze • Shutters: Wood shutters, painted to match the stucco and trim • Stairs and balcony railings: Metal • Stairs: Metal framing with wood treads • Ceilings at balconies and stair landings: White Oak boards* • Decking at balconies and stair landings: Black Locust boards.* * Applicant’s note: Ceiling and deck boards will be spaced to allow drainage. The balconies are small [shallow]. Lighting • Type A. Sconce (parking): Lithonia Lighting, WDGE2 LED P3 o Dimmable available, CT 3000K, CRI 90, BUG 1-0-0 • Type B. Wall light (parking): Lightway Industries Inc, PDLW-12-LED-11W o Dimmable available, CT 3000K – 4,000K, CRI 80 • Type C. Step light (path): Eurofase Lighting, 31590-013 o Not dimmable, CT 3,000K, CRI 80 • Type D. Bollard (path): Eurofase Lighting, 31913 o Not dimmable, CT 3,000K, CRI 80 2 BAR Meeting Minutes May 18, 2021 • Type E. (Omitted.) • Type F. Recessed light (stairs): Lithonia Lighting, LBR6WW ALO1 (500LM) SWW1 o Dimmable available, CT 3,000K, CRI 90 • Type G. Recessed light (stairs): Mark Architectural Lighting, SL2L 4 FLP 400LMF o Dimmable available CT 3,000K, CRI 80 • Type H. Wall wash (stairs): Mark Architectural Lighting, SL2L LOP 4 FLP 400LMF o Dimmable available CT 3,000K, CRI 80 • Balconies: No exterior light fixtures. The applicant noted that the balconies are shallow and ambient lighting from the interior will be sufficient. Color Palette • Trim and metal channel facias: Pantone 416C or similar. • Stucco: color similar to Pantone 416C • Metal railings: matte iron/dark gray Landscape and Site Work • Two (2) mature Deodora cedars will remain. • Construction will require the removal of six (6) trees: o One (1) 36” Oak o Three (3) 8” Dogwood o One (1) 10” Maple o One (1) 18” Tree • New plantings include fifteen (15) trees: o Three (3) Blackgum (Nyssa Sylvatica) ▪ Note: On the City’s Tree List o Six (6) Shagbark Hickory (Carya Ovata) ▪ Note: On the City’s Tree List o Six (6) White Fringetree (Chionanthus Virginicus) ▪ Note: While not on the City’s Tree or Shrub lists, White Fringetree is identified as being native to the eastern US, from New Jersey to Florida. In 1997, the Virginia Native Plant Society named it the Wildflower of the Year. o Appalachian Sedge (Carex Appalachica). Groundcover typical at planting beds ▪ Note: Not on the City’s Tree or Shrub lists o Dart’s Gold Ninebark (Physocarpus Opulifolius): ▪ Alternative: Smooth Sumac (Rhus Glabra) ▪ Note: Both on the City’s Tree List o Pipevine (Aristolochia Macrophylla). Climbing plant intended to spread and cover wall ▪ Note: Not on the City’s Tree or Shrub lists • Alteration to the (west) stone patio at the existing house • Path: flagstone paving. • Low walls: brick with bluestone caps • Electrical transformers to be screened. • Parking: below grade, accesses from west via Preston Place This property, including the house, was first designated by the City as an IPP. When the City later established the Rugby Road-University Circle-Venable Neighborhood ADC District, Wyndhurst was incorporated into the district. On September 15, 2020, the BAR held a preliminary discussion on this project. Notes from the meeting minutes are below. The BAR should discuss if the proposal is consistent with that input and whether the submittal provides the information necessary to evaluate this CoA request. Recommended • Designing new onsite features (such as parking areas, access ramps, or lighting), when required by a new use, so that they are as unobtrusive as possible, retain the historic 3 BAR Meeting Minutes May 18, 2021 relationship between the building or buildings and the landscape, and are compatible with the historic character of the property. • Designing new exterior additions to historic buildings or adjacent new construction that are compatible with the historic character of the site and preserves the historic relationship between the building or buildings and the landscape. • Removing non-significant buildings, additions, or site features which detract from the historic character of the site. • Locating an irrigation system needed for a new or continuing use of the site where it will not cause damage to historic buildings. Staff Recommendations If approval is considered, staff recommends the following conditions: • Requiring that all lamping be dimmable, if that option is available with the specified light fixtures, the Color Temperature not exceed 3,000K, and the Color Rendering Index is not less than 80, preferably not less than 90. • Underground the new electrical service. • During construction, protect the existing stone walls and curbs within the public right of way. Provide documentation prior to construction. If damaged, repair/reconstruct to match prior to final inspection. No site plan has been submitted for the proposed new work. During the site plan review process, it is not uncommon to see changes that alter the initial design. In considering an approval of the requested CoA, the BAR should be clear that any subsequent revisions or modifications to what has been submitted for that CoA will require a new application for BAR review. Additionally, the 1920 and c1965 Sanborn maps indicate this site has been undisturbed for at least the last 100 years. , the City’s Comprehensive Plan recommends that during land disturbing activities in areas likely to reveal knowledge about the past developers be encouraged to undertake archeological investigations. Additionally, the Secretary’s Standards, as referenced in the Design Guidelines, recommends that archeological resources should be protected, with mitigation measures should they be disturbed. A Phase I archeological level survey would be appropriate at this site. Kevin Riddle, Applicant – It is a proposal for a small three story apartment building. We did bring this to you informally back in September, 2020. It has evolved quite a bit since then. The significant changes would involve the parking. Originally, we had proposed a lane that would cross from west to east connecting Preston Place along the southern boundary. We had parking that was partly under the south side of the building. We have changed course. The parking is located under the building. Its access is from a single drive at the northwest portion of the property. You can see where cars can enter the site from Preston Place and park under the building. There are three spaces that are out at the end of the drive. The parking is mostly concealed from view. The footprint of the building and the massing have been refined and evolved significantly since our last meeting. It is a building that is stepped back its northern wing from the southern wing. There’s a large stair that accesses the apartments in a deep recess. From Preston Place looking to the west toward the building, what you see appears to be two volumes more so than a single building. There are quite a number of shallow balconies. Since we first brought the project to you, we have had a number of meetings on site. We have met with the neighbors on at least four occasions. We have had this out there. We have been discussing our process with everybody who lives nearby as much as we can. We have listened to the neighbors. We certainly haven’t accommodated all of their concerns with the changes here. We tried to address what we can while still keeping the project viable. The two most prominent trees on the site are these Deodora Cedars that are at the southwest. We plan to keep those trees and do our utmost during construction to preserve them. Trash cans will be located underneath the building. There are a couple of transformers that are currently located pretty close to Preston Place. Those will be relocated further in and largely concealed by the landscaping. With the site adjacent to Wyndhurst, we don’t plan on doing very much there. There are some plantings proposed. The intent here is to leave it as it was for decades since the 4 BAR Meeting Minutes May 18, 2021 1920s up until recent construction. There is a short lawn in front of it. We do show a modest path of stones that would lead around Wyndhurst and back to a couple of parking spaces at the northeast off of Preston Place. With the materials in the proposed new building, we believe them to be compatible with what is elsewhere in the neighborhood. The illustrations speak for themselves. QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC Paul Wright – I would like to comment on the balconies. Many of our concerns were addressed. I don’t know how it was done based on the drawings I have seen. I would like to know how the concerns about the balconies were addressed. Mr. Riddle – I explicitly said that many of the concerns were addressed. I didn’t mean to phrase it that way. I think I said that we couldn’t accommodate all of the concerns that the neighbors raised. We did do our utmost to listen and address them in part. QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Gastinger – Has there been any arborist assessment of the 36 inch oak that is on site that is to be removed? Mr. Riddle – We do have an arborist report. We can pass that along. My understanding is that the existing trees on site that are to be removed are pretty far along. They don’t have a lot of life left. Mr. Schwarz – I am guessing the driveway is about 24-25 feet wide. Have you explored whether there is any way to reduce the width of that at the curb cut? Mr. Riddle – When I look at the zoning and have a two way travel on a driveway that doesn’t have parking on either side, it appears that the city expects 24 feet. If we could reduce that down to 20 feet, I think that would be great and it would be acceptable with this being a small lot. I think narrowing it down would be good. There is still the question of whether city zoning is going to be OK with that. Mr. Schwarz – I thought it was 20 feet. Mr. Riddle – We can look at the language and confirm that. Mr. Schwarz – I think there is language that the BAR can recommend a narrower curb cut. If you could investigate that, that would be great. I think you are showing the parapets as brick. Is that the intention? Mr. Riddle – Yes it is. We haven’t yet had an opportunity to explore how much from street level you would be able to see those. There are going to be portions of those enclosures that would not be visible from the street. A brick cladding there wouldn’t be necessary. There are enough places. If you look at page 17 and our view from the southeast, there are places where the parapets are going to be turning and visible. Continuing to use the same brick cladding in those locations would be pretty important to preserve this appearance. We know that is going to imply some structural work that would not be necessary otherwise. Mr. Schwarz – With the wood soffits and the wood underneath the balconies, you do intend to drain water through the top surface of the balcony and having it percolate through the undersides? 5 BAR Meeting Minutes May 18, 2021 Mr. Riddle – The little section detail perhaps divulges a little too much with the construction approach. It is a little bit of a place holder. We don’t really want water to be dripping through or spilled drinks coming through from one balcony down to another balcony. Our intention is to have that balcony floor covered. I don’t think it is going to be spaced. I think we’re going to slope that slightly to drain water away from the balcony and not to encourage it to get into the cavity space. Architecturally, our intention remains the same. You will see a light colored wood like oak as the soffit material on the underside. Mr. Schwarz – The intention is to not have water drips. You’re going to have the water drain off the top surface. It looks like your lighting plan may not be quite coordinated with the final site plan you have. How are those bollards mounted? Are they in the brick wall? Mr. Riddle – The intention with those bollards is that they would actually be mounted to the surface walk. Presumably, there would be a flexible conduit used under the walk when it is poured. These bollards have a base that can be mounted to the walk. Mr. Schwarz – That is not a tripping hazard? Mr. Riddle – They are a little more prominent than a recessed or flush walk. This is based on an early round of discussions we had with our lighting consultant. This is what we are going with for our lighting strategy. I understand your concern that they are sticking out on a narrow walk. Mr. Schwarz – Aesthetically, they’re great. I was curious. Mr. Riddle – That’s one where we’ll confront it as we get further in the process. If we decide to go with a different option, we know that if this project was to be approved, we would have to update you if there is a change in direction. Ms. Lewis – Is the building 36 feet to the parapet? Mr. Riddle – That’s correct. Ms. Lewis – I know there are members of the public who are concerned about the relationship between this building and Wyndhurst. What is the roofline height on Wyndhurst? Mr. Riddle – The eaves of Wyndhurst are about 27/28 feet up from the ground level. If you look at the south elevation, you can see the brow that we have there over the stucco portion that extends out is roughly equivalent to the eaves of the house. When you get up to the ridge of Wyndhurst, the ridge of Wyndhurst is actually taller than this building. Ms. Lewis – Is there a little bit of grade change on that lie from the north to the southside? Mr. Riddle – Yes. The elevation is noted on the site plan. You can see that along the walk at the southern boundary. We are stepping up as the grades do so that the walk can meet with the landing of the stair that leads down into the Preston Court Apartments courtyard. As you get over into Wyndhurst, it is about four feet when you get to the landing at the bottom of the wood stair. It is about four feet up from what would be a patio area that is adjacent to the south and southeast portion of the new building. 6 BAR Meeting Minutes May 18, 2021 Mr. Mohr – With the wall packs, the ledges, and the A fixers along the parking lot wall, I was wondering if it makes sense to knock those down one temperature range to 2700 and keep your basic lighting package to minimize that going down the driveway. Mr. Riddle – That sounds fine to us. Mr. Mohr – I don’t think it is necessary beneath the building. The more constant light color and temperature, the better it is from a visibility standpoint. Mr. Gastinger – It is clear in the synapse between the two volumes there is a lighter colored material. Is that the white oak that we’re seeing in that soffit that continues into the interior? Mr. Riddle – Yes. Mr. Gastinger – The other question is about the paving material. It is called out in the drawings as a stone paving. The photo looks like a blue stone. The wall cap is called out as blue stone. The renderings are a little bit lighter. Is there a particular thought about the stone choice? Is blue stone what you are proposing? Mr. Riddle – Yes it is. We haven’t picked out a particular stone for the paving on the walks. As this is proposed, it would be similar to the capstones. If we could have a slight distinction so that there was a slightly darker color for the capstone along the walls, that would be nice. We just don’t have samples of what we might use for those walks. Mr. Gastinger – There is an existing, per our previous reviews and the survey, stone patio on the western side of Wyndhurst. What is the condition of that? Are you intending to maintain in place or reuse any of that stone as part of that paved plaza between the two structures? Mr. Riddle – At the moment, we hadn’t planned to reuse any. It is in rather rough shape. It’s pretty deteriorated. It’s hard to discern. We have yet to do an investigation of that terraced area that you are referring to, to see if materials there would be salvageable. With investigation, we could make a better assessment and decide if some of that could be reused. Mr. Mohr – One other thing that Carl noted about narrowing down the driveway is whether there was a possibility of getting another tree in there. In the summer, that’s going to radiate a lot of heat. Mr. Riddle – I think that’s a good suggestion. Mr. Mohr – It helps minimize the canyon-like effect. Mr. Schwarz – A question came in from Ms. Turner. When was the side yard of the only remaining façade of this historical structure carved off as a building lot? What is the obligation of the owner to preserve the historic structure and setting at 605? Is the current owner and developer getting tax credits for this historic property? Mr. Riddle – That question goes to zoning. It is not related to architecture. It’s a lot where this building is allowed. We’re not touching the historic structure with this building. We’re staying about 12 feet away. 7 BAR Meeting Minutes May 18, 2021 Mr. Schwarz – Is it the same parcel? Mr. Riddle – It is the same parcel. Mr. Schwarz – The actual lot hasn’t been separated off. Do you know if the owner is going to try to get tax credits on Wyndhurst? Mr. Riddle – I don’t think that is his intention. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC Scott Colley – We are concerned about the flavor and the sense of neighborhood as the University encroaches closer and closer into the neighborhood. That wall has been breached. Christine Colley – This addresses the historic district in relation to the massing, scale, and infill of the new building. If we are serious about having a historic district, it is important to make it financially possible and desirable for buyer to buy, renew, and maintain historic houses. There is no source of money for keeping these houses going. All of you know how expensive that can be. We bought our house six years ago. We spent the price of the house again. If we make the living experience of the area less desirable by high density, high concentrations of students, selling the idea to people who would otherwise be charmed and delighted to be part of the historical preservation is going to become more and more difficult. Paul Wright – I am opposed to the project on multiple levels. I urge the Board to deny the application. The project will cause meaningful harm to the historical fabric of the district, allow incompatible architecture with little meaningful reference to the protected structure next to it, and significantly eliminate a historical view of a contributing structure for future generations. The 6-0 decision the Board stated that a parking lot was not compatible with the Individual Protected Property. It is difficult to understand how this new proposal would not cause greater harm. I was in favor of that project as I have been in favor of every project in this neighborhood, except this one. Section 34-335 states the purpose of historical conservation overlay district is to preserve buildings of special cultural and architectural significance. The most important part of that is that serves as an important reminder of the heritage of the city. It is hard to fathom how a student apartment that will completely shield the protected property from view as one enters Preston Place does not fail to meet preservation standards on this rule alone. The proposed structure will not be in harmony with scale and character of the existing buildings. The proposed building is out of scale and proportion as it relates to Preston Court Apartments and Wyndhurst to maximize the number of students that can be housed at this site. A shorter height that establishes a stepdown from the Preston Court Apartments would require greater compatibility. The contemporary style of the proposed building emphasizes a colder, harder, and angular characteristic that will not be in harmony with the scale and character of existing buildings in nearby protected properties. The parcel represents a bright line between the University and Charlottesville. Approval will allow further encroachment into a neighborhood that has been fighting to preserve the historical character for decades. I urge the Board to deny the applicant a Certificate of Appropriateness. Larry Goedde – I want to endorse what the Paul Wright said. I agree with him completely. The building is completely out of scale with the neighborhood. The proposed structure is oriented to the south in terms of what it is picking up on design and materials. From every other direction, it is all two story family houses. It is a variety of different kinds of materials. What is being proposed there is a three story building with these balconies incompatible with the neighborhood. This is an area of small 8 BAR Meeting Minutes May 18, 2021 wooded lots. It is a matter of a couple of yards from this house to the driveway going to the basement parking. The context of inserting this apartment building is a neighborhood of two story residential buildings; not apartment buildings. They are not student apartments. This is a residential neighborhood of mostly professional and retired people. I view it as completely out of scale with the proposed building. The neighborhood is against these balconies. They are a constant source of noise and irritation from the Preston Court Apartments. Beth Turner – I am not against adding housing units to Charlottesville and the historic district. I am against this proposal. I do not believe it is appropriate. I do not believe it has an appropriate design. The fenestration, roofline, and materials are wrong. They do nothing to compliment any of the other structures. The only structure they want to reference is the Preston Court Apartments, which is out of scale. It is not appropriate to the setting, the historic structure, the cedars, and the historic relationship. It is that relationship with the landscape I want you to think about. The terrace and the house need to be acknowledged. A place can be put for more housing units on that lot if that is what the zoning calls for. The appropriateness, which is your purview, is something we are counting on you to really think about and to acknowledge. The current owner made it clear to us that he was going to build an apartment building there. He was going to move the old house to another lot. He couldn’t move the old house. He has chosen to ignore it. He is building this structure that abuts the old house. Letter from Mrs. Price – There are two qualities that define Preston Place. The first is the variety of architectural styles among the houses and how this variety is held together within a shared approach, the use of setbacks, creative massing, and detail. The proposed building is basically a large ‘shoebox.’ It may take Preston Court Apartments as inspiration. That building features more complex massing and a wealth of decorative detail. Although the new building should not have the same degree of monumentality or ornament, it has so little more that it is essentially nothing more than a parapet with some typical surface cutouts. I appreciate the attention that has been paid to the landscaping. The design totally ignores the second defining quality of Preston Place: the steep hillside that wraps around. The arrangement of houses, especially on the inside of the street is varied and picturesque. If you look up the hillside westward toward the higher Rugby Road area, the whole effect is that of an Italian hill town. Mitchell Matthews’ new proposed building is flat with a strongly defined broad access and imposes a new and large rectangular complex: Wyndhurst, Preston Court Apartments, and the proposed building onto the irregular pictorial arrangement of buildings that is there now. If the new building is to be considered as infill rather than in position, I would like to see a rendering of how it would look next to the property it will abut. I cannot fathom how the new design works either by style or scale at 625 Preston Place. Richard Crozier – I second the motions of a lot of the other residents. It seems like the wrong thing to do if one considers that the Wyndhurst house is an important piece of Charlottesville history. It is one of the visible reminders of some rather dark Charlottesville history. We should try to keep that thing visible. Lisa Kendrick – I feel that the house and property is seen as one. It has not been divided. We are losing sight of the house and the grounds around it. For a historical neighborhood, the city has to decide whether to preserve these and stand up for these neighborhoods. We live here and take care of it. One of the reasons he is having great success in renting out the property and wanting to build more for others is because it really is lovely. We stay here and he goes home. You are just adding to the intensity of the student population here. It is happening so intensely. It is hard to take a breath because of this constant noise has increased because of the Preston Court Apartments. They are about to be full. I agree with everything all of our neighbors have said. We are trying to maintain this historical 9 BAR Meeting Minutes May 18, 2021 neighborhood. It has been so hard for five years now. I am asking you to reject this idea that they have presented and come up with some other idea that is more supportive. Emily Steinhilber – We just purchased our home about a month ago. We have been cleaning up the interior of the home. If this building is built as proposed, that will be our view from the front yard. It will fundamentally change the character of the neighborhood. We have seen in this neighborhood is a close knit community. It is a residential neighborhood. I hope that you will consider that in your decision. I appreciate your service and your decision. COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Gastinger – I have a number of thoughts. I appreciate the commentary from the architects and from the concerned citizens. I agree with some of what both have said. I was opposed to the earlier project that had a parking lot on this site. It seems that the parking area was not sufficiently deferential to the adjacent house, which is very important to telling Charlottesville’s early history. It also didn’t seem like a use that was necessary and worth the damage that it would do to the reading of that structure. It is possible to imagine a contemporary structure on this site that is complimentary of Wyndhurst and that is relative to the scale of the surrounding neighborhood. There are some aspects of this project that could definitely do that. The materiality and the color that is proposed in the model and the renderings is actually a quiet approach towards this site. It actually recedes quite a bit, especially in its relationship to the very bright, white structure of the historic home. It pops it out. I have some concerns about the scale. I wish I had more information relative to the adjacent 625 and to the adjacent Preston Court Apartments. It does sit in a transitional location within the block. I don’t know if we fully appreciate the relationship to 625. I am concerned about the removal of the oak and the way that the drive aisle might be damaging to the experience of the neighborhood. I do think that it is an improvement over what was proposed earlier that had the drive aisle going through the block and it had cars parking near the foot of Wyndhurst. The approach is a better one. I am concerned about the height of that retaining wall and how close it is to 625. I am also concerned that the oak would have to go. It still remains in a lot of the perspectives. It’s really hard to tell what the impact of losing that tree is. They have to remove that tree. It is still providing a lot of green in the perspectives. It’s a little bit misleading. Mr. Mohr – I don’t have a problem with the materiality of it. I do see where it is problematic in the sense of the massing. It’s a full blown apartment building sliding more into the district. That started with the construction of Preston Place. The objections of the balconies strictly facing the side yard towards the house to the north is certainly understandable. I didn’t feel the parking lot was an appropriate approach. One question I have is whether the wing to the north should lose a floor. The driveway is problematic in terms of its scale relative to the neighborhood. I assume what is driving that is because it has to be a two lane driveway. They already have enough parking issues in that area. I am torn about it. I understand the logic of more housing. At the same time, it is not really housing that really works with this neighborhood. This is all a series of single bedrooms and shared common space. This is student housing. These are not apartments. That is a questionable item. That is dealing with function. Function is not in our purview. It’s about that north edge and whether or not the massing of that should be reconsidered and if there’s something that can be done about the driveway. There was an earlier version where the driveway went straight into the building. It does get you the gaping lawn issue. That would allow the green space in the yard to come down. The way the existing Deodoras work along that edge is pretty well. The real issue is to the north towards the smaller building and completely obscuring the Wyndhurst building from that street. It is a mixed bag. This is an area where the zoning is calling for higher density. I am conflicted about how exactly how we’re supposed to address that. 10 BAR Meeting Minutes May 18, 2021 Ms. Lewis – I wanted to echo what Mr. Mohr said about addressing the neighborhood comments and our lack of jurisdiction over a lot of those comments. This board looks at the ADC Architectural Design Control District Guidelines. We look at the application in front of us and decide whether the application meets those guidelines. We may deal with zoning issues tangently. They inform the massing and the size of other forms of the building itself. We don’t dictate zoning. We also don’t dictate use. That was established when the underlying zoning was up-zoned in 2003/2005 by the city. I think it is university medium density (UMD). I want to acknowledge that it is quite a change in the neighborhood. This board doesn’t have a say in all of the objections that the neighbors have voiced even though we may agree with them. I lived on this street almost 40 years ago as a student right across the street. At that time, 632 Preston Place had converted from single-family into a group home/sorority house. It was students. It remains student housing as does 630 Preston Place, as do the fraternities on the far other side. They are directly across from Wyndhurst. Preston Place is one of the most charming places you can live in within the city. The variation of architecture and the preservation level of very old structures make it a really lovely place. Long ago, the zoning was changed. Long ago, multi-family started the intrusion on the Grady side on this block or Preston Place. I would note that although this application places a building there, we’re not changing the zoning. I don’t think we’re changing the use all that much. Students have been in this area for a while. I think there are certain things the applicant has done correctly and done right and may be has done in response to preliminary discussions that may have been had last year or informally. I know that the balconies have been reduced so that there will be no lighting on them. They’re basically places that I don’t think you could put a chair. They do engage the street hopefully in a good way but not in a way where people are out shouting and congregating in the same way that Preston Court Apartments allow people to do. It is a large building. The massing is something my colleagues have noted. The applicant has done a pretty good job with articulating the building and breaking it down in its design; including those balconies, which break up the massing of the exterior. I do agree that the dark color is a nice contrast with the white clapboard of Wyndhurst. It shows Wyndhurst off as best as a contemporary building can. The applicant has also responded to earlier meetings with us. They relegated the parking to underground. There was surface parking before. I think the neighbors would appreciate that. I do wonder if the applicant might be able to pursue a waiver from the city to reduce that lane that goes underneath the building and see if the 24 feet could be choked down a little bit or down to one lane, considering how few spaces are under there. I don’t know how many times you would have two cars enter and exit at the same time. It seems like it could help a little there. I think that is something we could look at so we can make sure that there is a decreased impact on adjoining 625. I would tend to be in favor of this application. I am leaning that way for reasons in the staff report that it really does meet the guidelines. I just don’t find anything objectionable under our guidelines. Mr. Edwards – I don’t have much to add. I agree with my fellow members. I do feel that this does meet the guidelines. I hear what the residents are saying. I hear your concerns. It makes me wonder if there has been a dialogue between the architect and the residents. I would encourage you to continue having that open dialogue. This does seem to follow the guidelines. Mr. McClure – There are a lot of cities that require the neighborhoods surrounding projects to sign off/come to meetings like this to voice their opinion as a group. We’re limited in what we can do. In situations like this, it sucks. Mr. Zehmer – I went over there this afternoon and took a couple laps around Preston Place. I feel that Preston Place Apartments addresses Grady Avenue. I don’t think of that apartment complex as part of this neighborhood. It is on the same block. It faces Grady Avenue. It has size in its rear elevation. I do agree that there’s a lot of student housing in this general vicinity. There’s a fraternity with a new 11 BAR Meeting Minutes May 18, 2021 addition across the street from Wyndhurst. There is some on the other side of Preston Place. It is noted on the Sanborn Map that it used to be called Wyndhurst Circle instead of Preston Place. I think that speaks to the significance of Wyndhurst as a house. I don’t necessarily think that blocking the west view of Wyndhurst is a horrible thing. I don’t feel it is the primary façade of the house. I think the façade faces the backside of Preston Place Apartments. For the proposed design, I do like the color palates. They draw on some of the earth tones. One of the character defining features of that neighborhood does have an “arts and crafts” feel to it. You do have cottages and houses that are nestled into the landscape around in that area and have softer lines. I think the proposed project is a little bit harsh. My wish would be for something that can fill the need for adding more housing space but something that looks more residential in nature that better suits the neighborhood. Looking at the staff report, the thing that jumped out to me in terms of our review criteria: City code states that in considering a particular application, the BAR shall approve the application unless the BAR finds the proposal incompatible with the historic, cultural, and architectural character of the district in which the property is located or the protected property that is the subject of the application. I don’t feel that this fits in or is compatible with the historic, cultural, or architectural character of this district. I don’t think that I would be able to support this. I wouldn’t be opposed to something within that space. Mr. Schwarz – I think this typology is actually fitting for a neighborhood like this. We have examples throughout Charlottesville in some of the older neighborhoods where a three story walkup apartment building does fit into a neighborhood. There are some examples over in University Circle. There are examples scattered around the Rugby Venable neighborhood. I am very frustrated that this is student housing. I wish you hadn’t shown the floor plans. It is so clear that is what it is. That’s not our purview. I am also disappointed that’s what has become of the Preston Court Apartments. It’s sad. That’s not our purview. I agree a lot with what Ms. Lewis said. I agree with Mr. Gastinger on the materiality. The brick, the stucco, and the color scheme does make it recessive. I think it fits in a residential neighborhood. With the steel on the balconies, I am wavering on that. It’s contemporary. It’s not something you find in the neighborhood. It’s attached to iron railings. That might make sense. I am most bothered by the open stair. If the intention is that it looks like two buildings, I don’t think it does it. It is going to look messy and look more like an apartment building. That open stair is not helping the compatibility with the neighborhood. If you just glazed it that would go a long way. I am leaning towards approval with some modifications. I do want to see what you’re thinking of with handling the water on the balconies. We’ve discussed various items. They seem like they’re not fully flushed out yet. It would be good to know. When this goes through the site plan, it is going to change. It should come back to us so we know what the implications are. I think your curb cut is significantly wider than any of the curb cuts in the neighborhood. As much as the city will allow, I think you need to reduce it. Mr. Mohr made a really good point about adding a tree right there. One of the beautiful things about this neighborhood is the tree canopy. It is very complete. It would be nice to maintain that. I do appreciate you adding the gum trees adjacent to Wyndhurst. That’s definitely a hole in the tree canopy. Mr. Gastinger – If we don’t take action on this tonight, I feel there’s just a few more drawings that are necessary to adequately assess the impact of this on adjacent properties. We’re just getting hints of Wyndhurst or little hints of Preston Court or 625. I would ask for some longer sections to describe that relationship. It’s difficult to do that with some of the materials that are included. Mr. Mohr – In other parts of the city, we have asked for 3-D modeling to pick up adjacent buildings. One of the things that isn’t apparent in the drawings is how much bigger that façade at Preston Place is than this building. It is in a transitional space. Wyndhurst is a pretty sizable building. The building next to it is quite small. The same is true of the white house. You have this major drop off in scale. On the other side of the street, you have this large fraternity with a very large parking area. You have a 12 BAR Meeting Minutes May 18, 2021 number of houses in the immediate vicinity with quite large parking lots. It is trying to maintain that quality in the density of the tree canopy and doing a better job of embedding the building. Whether that means manipulating the height of the left block; that does have some appeal. I can see where it becomes architecturally problematic having one of the blocks taller than the other one. We really can’t address use. I think a number of the neighborhood objections run much deeper than what the BAR can address. Mr. Riddle – The zoning is R-3 for this property. Everything we are proposing, as far as use, density, and size are entirely appropriate and within the zoning regulations. One of the things that has come up a few times is the large tree that is close to the boundary with 625. It was misidentified on the surveys as oak. It is an ash. The arborist who did inspect it months ago pointed out that it is currently dying. It has limbs that are dead. It does appear to be at the end of its life. That’s certainly a report that we can include in materials that we subsequently present. With talking to the neighbors, a few neighbors brought up how the discussion can be important. We have had multiple meetings with neighbors. We have met with them onsite. We have exchanged emails with them. Ahead of this meeting, I sent them a preview of our presentation. We have done a lot to keep them in the loop, even though there is a great deal of opposition. With regards to the massing of the building, it is worth pointing out that if you were to build a single-family house or a couple of townhouses on this property, you could build them to the same size. As far as modulating the massing goes, I understand some personal preferences might be for greater modulation. I can imagine a project where that would be interesting and exciting. My question: Is what we are proposing cross a line to being inappropriate or not appropriate? That’s a struggle for us to understand how this would be deemed inappropriate for its massing considering what is allowed in this neighborhood and considering what staff mentioned about it staying within a percentage range of heights of nearby buildings. Comments about the building looking harsh are a little hard for us to assess when we are comparing it to guidelines. Somebody mentioned something about wanting to keep a view from the west side of the circle to Wyndhurst. I understand where people are coming from, especially if they’re used to having that view who have lived in the neighborhood or walked around the circle for a long time. At the same time, you could argue that empty space that has been there takes a little bit from what could be perceived as a street wall along that edge. This building comes in and fills a space. The interpretation that the Preston Court Apartments belong to Grady Avenue and not to Preston Circle; I don’t see that. I look at the Preston Court Apartments and I see three significant facades. They’re in the west, south, and east. I see it as a building that participates inevitably with this circle. In the guidelines for this particular historic district, it is noted specifically that Wyndhurst was among two farms that were initially subdivided and sold off in the early 20th century largely for the sake of housing and an expanding university faculty and students. Even though the demographic of the potential tenants in this building are not something that the BAR can address, it is entirely appropriate that there are students living here. There have been students living here for decades. Mr. Schwarz – Is there anybody who is opposed to a 6 unit, 3 story apartment building here? Mr. Zehmer – I am not opposed to it. The word that I wasn’t using was the word ‘inappropriate.’ The word that I was citing from our staff report was ‘incompatible.’ I could support the building here. I feel that it was incompatible. Mr. Schwarz – You could support it in concept. You would like to see some significant changes? Mr. Zehmer – That’s correct. 13 BAR Meeting Minutes May 18, 2021 Mr. Schwarz – Is there anyone else in the same boat with significant changes? Things such as stepping back the northwest corner. Do they need to completely change the materiality? Is it too big? Is it too close to Wyndhurst? Ms. Lewis – Not major changes. James’ comments were very persuasive to me. I am at a loss to think of one architectural detail of this building that takes a cue from another building on Preston, except for Preston Court Apartments. A lot of the street is vernacular or primitive looking. There are a lot of different architectural styles. I wouldn’t want to borrow from all of them at one time. It would be nice if this building reminded us of the other beautiful buildings further down the street. I am persuaded for not a wholesale. That would get me over. I don’t disagree with James’ objection to compatibility. I do agree that exposed stairway is a little new dorm for me. I can say that because I lived in a new dorm. You have that Motel 6 in the middle. I do wonder if you were able to glaze it or shade it to obstruct that from the street view. There might be a design opportunity in that space for that façade that shields that. I would agree with Carl on that one as well. With regards to the balconies, it sounds like the group is in favor. When I lived across the street at 632, I was in the room that has the balcony on it. Balconies on Preston have been used by misbehaving students. These balconies are modest and they’re hopefully not nearly as large as what I was afforded. That’s a use reality that this board has no say on this. Mr. Schwarz – I do think you, Kevin, are trying to put the residential details in there. I think the shudders are a nice addition. You have a contemporary building. It is a nod that there are houses nearby. Mr. Riddle – I know there are various takes on this. We’re going for something that we viewed as just a rather simple building with materials that we do see elsewhere on the block. When you’re trying to pick and choose “quotations” from around the circle, it can converge into pastiche in doing that. We wanted to be cautious about incorporating that. It is a pretty eclectic circle. That is one of its virtues. The Preston Court Apartments coming along in the 1920s really caused a big change. Further circumscribing and diminishing the original presence of the historic house are all of the houses that were built around the circle. It looks like a place where historic fabric is dynamic. Introducing a building that doesn’t necessarily be too deferential or take too many cues from what is around it. There is something to be said for that. Mr. Mohr – Even if this is a single-family house, the way it would get developed, Wyndhurst would be blocked from view from the street edge if it was broken up. It does seem like this is fundamentally an addendum to the original big building. I think having a better sense of the street scale would actually, in reference to Preston Place and the scale of this building, would make for a better argument about the scale of your building. Mr. Schwarz – I want to figure out how we can tie this up in a way that makes sense. I am under the impression that we’re not going to get an approval tonight. I do want to make sure Kevin gets the right direction. Mr. Riddle – I do believe that the owner would like a vote tonight. If there is a set of conditions that might be attached to this application so that some members could see their way to approval. Mr. Schwarz – We can do that. That is risky in that we cannot have administrative approvals. We have to either design things tonight or it would be better to defer. With a show of hands, who could 14 BAR Meeting Minutes May 18, 2021 approve this tonight with conditions? I think you’re better off requesting a deferral. If you want a vote, you know what is going happen. We don’t want to do that. Mr. Gastinger – I am largely supportive of the approach and what has been designed here. I feel like I need a little more information related to the scales, especially on the northwest corner, the drive aisle, and the retaining wall. Mr. Schwarz – I want to know what you’re going to do with the balconies. I strongly suggest enclosing that staircase. I am not sure it is going to be a deal killer. I think that is really important. Ms. Lewis – Besides aesthetics and compatibility with the neighborhood, I would think an open stairwell would be a noisy place for neighbors. If the consideration here is to lessen the impact on an apartment building, enclosing those stairs might be a better way of accomplishing that. It might be a nice concession. Mr. Riddle – Does that get to points about behavior and remark whether it will be noisy or not? Is that an architectural issue? Ms. Lewis – It is if you can insulate noise from the street. Do we have materials on the stairs? Mr. Schwarz – It is metal and wood. I liked how Cheri described it. It has a Motel 8 feel to it with the open stair. The connotation that I have seen with an open stair is very rarely done in a way that feels residential or feels compatible with a neighborhood of this type of character. It feels like something that is ‘cheap.’ Mr. Riddle – If you look at the west perspective, I am not seeing ‘cheap’ there. I would be concerned with enclosing the stair with some kind of glazed volume. It might take from the perception you have of these two separate wings of the building. I think it is clearer and crisper in this rendition. Mr. Schwarz – I don’t think you’re getting two buildings out of this. It is reading as one with a hole in the middle. It doesn’t seem like there is a whole lot of agreement. Mr. Mohr – I read it as two masses. If you do glaze it in, unless you step it back, it will definitely continue to read as one solid block. You have to get that glass line significantly back behind the corner. Are both facades in plane? Mr. Riddle – The one on the left/north is back a bit. Mr. Mohr – Whether it is a glaze or screen, you would have to pull it back behind that. Mr. Riddle – In the floor plan, the landing is projected beyond the north wing. Mr. Schwarz – I don’t know if the perspective is deceptive or not, it does look very light filled. It looks like there is a skylight in there. Mr. Riddle – I haven’t artificially enhanced that. I know that it is an illustration. There would be lighting in there that would help to enhance this space when people are going up and down the stairs. I think it is proposed to be something that has slightly higher aspirations than just a fire escape. Mr. Schwarz – You’re putting nice materials on there. 15 BAR Meeting Minutes May 18, 2021 Mr. Gastinger – We did recently approve a very similar approach on the Virginia Avenue apartment building. It is for the BAR to decide if that context has an impact on this neighborhood. Mr. Schwarz – I think that one also had an upper level that was partially open to the sky. For me, I don’t know if that would have helped here. I think it is the context. Mr. Mohr – My concern was that driveway edge and that delineation. I don’t think the massing, when you bring in the other building façade, is as big as it seems right now. The building is very front and center as we currently look at it. The building to the left is considerably lower once you starting taking in the aggregate. The one thing that would soften it would be if it had a pitched roof. That’s antithetical to the building to the right and to the aesthetics of this building. It is about working on the street edge and doing something about that driveway. Maybe that retaining wall has a planter edge where it spills down. One of the elevations showed vines coming down one side. A lot of this can be handled and starting to bring in some things that make the detailing more residential and less commercial. A lot of that is at the street edge. Mr. Schwarz – Kevin, you have pretty good support for the project in general with some modifications. Mr. Riddle – This has been very helpful. Regarding the balconies in the neighborhood, there is opposition to them. They are rather shallow balconies. If we were to eliminate most or all of them, it would create an even greater challenge to potentially incorporating the kind of detailing that would give it a greater sense of scale and give it something of a residential touch, which some people are looking for here. I want to confirm that, among BAR members, that the balconies seem to be OK. Mr. Zehmer – Somebody had mentioned possibly not having them on the north façade that would overlook right into the backyards of a lot of the neighbors. That is maybe a consideration. Mr. Riddle – I do see what you mean there. Mr. Zehmer – Tim phrased it really well in terms of trying out detailing more residential in nature than commercial in nature. I want to echo that. In looking at the view west, with that big retaining wall off of the driveway going down, maybe consider stone. Make that retaining wall not feel like part of the building. Make it more natural. It is worth taking a walk around Preston Place and looking at the other landscape features. Mr. Riddle – That’s a pretty good suggestion. Mr. Schwarz – It would be nice if you started the site plan process while this is going on. Mr. Gastinger – I do think that western entrance to Wyndhurst is an important story to that house. Some acknowledgement of that terrace and doorway can be made in the design of that interior space. It is very difficult to see what is happening in there. Whether it is retaining some of that material or reusing that material that would be important. Mr. Riddle – Based on your comments, we do want to evaluate that terrace more. When we return, we can fill you in more about it. 16 BAR Meeting Minutes May 18, 2021 Applicant moved to defer the application – Ms. Lewis moved to accept the applicant request for a deferral (Second by Mr. Schwarz). – Motion passes 7-0 The meeting was recessed for five minutes. Other Business 5. Per City Council Request: BAR consideration of Council’s May 3, 2021 Resolution of Intent to Remove, Relocate, Contextualize, or Cover the Statues of Generals Lee and Jackson Currently Located Within City Parks Note: This is intended as an opportunity for the BAR, in its role as an advisory body to Council, to consider and respond to Council’s request. • Staff briefly summarized the written report regarding the statues of Confederate Generals Lee and Jackson located within city parks. o The written staff report will be the formal record. • The BAR was asked by Council to analyze the intent to remove, relocate, contextualize, or cover the statues of Lee and Jackson and provide comment to Council prior to the Council public hearing on the statues on June 7th. • The Council intent is to remove the statues as soon as possible. • Since the statues are not contributing structures in the North Downtown ADC District, the BAR has no purview over the removal or relocation of the statues. • The BAR does serve as an advisory board to the Council and it is in that capacity that Council has asked the BAR to provide comment. • Staff provided the history of the statues and the actions and intent of Council with removing or relocating the statues. . COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC No Comments from the Public COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD • Mr. Gastinger commented on the role of the Board of Architectural Review as a volunteer board appointed by City Council. • Mr. Gastinger did refer to the guidelines in his comments regarding the history and the building of the statues. • Mr. Gastinger referred to the following: o Design Guideline Section 1E, Number 3 – Physical records of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development will not be undertaken. o National Historic Preservation Act – Properties or structures like sculptures that are primarily commemorative in nature that are designed or constructed after the occurrence of an important historic event or after the life of an important person that they serve less as evidence of that particular person’s productive life but as evidence of a later generation’s assessment of the past. There has been a misconception by some that the statues are historic. They were created to shape the historic narrative. This has been documented by the Blue Ribbon Commission. These statues tell an incomplete history and they tell a false, painful, and damaging lost cause narratives. That would go against the above guideline. 17 BAR Meeting Minutes May 18, 2021 o Design Guideline Section 1 – Architectural design Control Districts – Detail and point out properties and elements that define the district. In the North Downtown ADC description, there is no mention of Lee Park or the statues as character defining features. In the sub-area of Jefferson Street and High Street West, it makes no mention of Market Street Park, Court Square Park, or the statues as important or character defining features in the district. There is no guidance related to the role that these statues play or contribute in a positive way to the landscape character of the district. o Design Guideline Section 2 (Site Design & Elements) – Does not address statues in public parks. o Design Guideline Section 6J, Number 1 – Does suggest existing public art and statues should be maintained. However, public art is preferred that offers a place making role in celebrating and communicating the history and culture of the districts. The Blue Ribbon Commission report already documents the damaging and misleading role of the statues in telling a lost cause narrative. It is meant include some in the community and exclude others. That narrative is not compatible with the contemporary values. o National Trust for Historic Preservation – issued multiple white papers describing support for removal of Confederate monuments from a preservationist perspective. The National Trust supports the removal from our public spaces when they continue to serve the purposes for which they were built to glorify, promote, and reinforce white supremacy. • Following the presentation from Mr. Gastinger, there was a discussion regarding what Mr. Gastinger presented to the other members of the Board of Architectural Review. • Ms. Lewis expressed excitement of what could be designed in the parks following the removal of the statues. • There was a discussion among the BAR members regarding the role of the BAR in crafting a statement to send to Council prior to the public hearing on June 7th. STATEMENT FROM THE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW With careful consideration of our Design Guidelines, with guidance from respected national preservation organizations, and in acknowledgement of the Blue Ribbon Commission’s public process and work to better understand the history and harmful legacy of these statues, we wish to state our strong support for City Council’s intention to remove the Lee and Jackson statues and to temporarily cover and contextualize the statues during a period of time before removal can occur. Furthermore, we look forward to working with a public process to understand how the parks may be redesigned in the future in accordance with our Guidelines. Motion – Mr. Schwarz – (Second by Mr. Mohr) – Send Statement to Council prior to the Council public hearing regarding the Jackson and Lee statues on June 7th. Motion passes 7-0. 6. Staff questions/discussion Update on revisions to the ADC District Design Guidelines 7. PLACE Update 18 BAR Meeting Minutes May 18, 2021 D. Adjournment Meeting was adjourned at 8:28 PM 19 BAR Meeting Minutes May 18, 2021 20 BAR Meeting Minutes May 18, 2021 Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 21-12-01 112 W Market Street (The Haven), TMP 330254000 Downtown ADC District Owner: First Street Church Project, LLC Applicant: Kathy Garstang, Building Goodness Foundation Project: Garden Application components (please click each link to go directly to PDF page): • Staff Report • Historic Survey • Application Submittal December 21, 2021 BAR Packet 3 City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review December 21, 2021 Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 21-12-01 112 W Market Street (The Haven), TMP 330254000 Downtown ADC District Owner: First Street Church Project, LLC Applicant: Kathy Garstang, Building Goodness Foundation Project: Garden Background Year Built: c1897, Annex post-1920 District: Downtown ADC District Status: Contributing. 112 West Market Street is a brick church built in 1897 in the Late Gothic Revival style. The church has two towers with pyramidal roofs and the main body of the church has pointed windows. The building originally housed the congregation of the First Christian Church. Prior BAR Review (Complete list in the Appendix) Application • Applicant’s submittal: Local Design Collective drawings The Haven - Vegetable Garden, dated 11/30/2021: Cover and sheets 2 – 5. CoA request for construction of a garden at the northwest corner of the site. Proposed garden will feature the following: • Vegetable Garden Walls: Low retaining wall to separate the garden from the street/sidewalk. Inside the garden the wall would be curb height (6”), outside the garden the wall would grow from north to south, reaching a max height at the south corner of 30.” Prefer 2’, brick wall, with option for thinner, concrete wall that may be more cost effective and would match the existing landscape language on the west side of the property • Existing Sign: Refurbished with a chalkboard insert for garden updates! • Raised Vegetable Planters: 24” weathering steel planters (1/4” thick plate steel) 112 West Market Street (Dec 7, 2021) 1 • Gravel Paths • Gravel Circle: Around the base of the existing Crepe Myrtle, held in by steel edging • Red Sculptural Bench: Resin or fiberglass with a low back (custom fabrication) • Edible Garden: Berries, herbs and fruits Discussion and Recommendations Staff recommends approval with the condition inserted 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 garden at 112 West Market Street satisfies the BAR’s criteria and is compatible with this property and other properties in the Downtown ADC District, and that the BAR approves the application as submitted with the condition the appearance of the garden and garden area will be properly maintained in that tools and other items—tomato cages, plants stakes, mulch and soil bags, etc.--will be stored when not in use, the garden will not become overgrown, and in the off season dead plants will be removed or tilled under. Denial: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed garden at 112 West Market Street does not satisfy the BAR’s criteria and is not compatible with this property and other properties in the Downtown ADC District, and that for the following reasons the BAR denies the application as submitted: … Criteria and Guidelines 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; 112 West Market Street (Dec 7, 2021) 2 7) Any applicable provisions of the City’s Design Guidelines. Pertinent ADC District Design Guidelines for Site Design and Elements Link: III: Site Design and Elements B. Plantings 1) Encourage the maintenance and planting of large trees on private property along the streetfronts, which contribute to the “avenue” effect. 2) Generally, use trees and plants that are compatible with the existing plantings in the neighborhood. 3) Use trees and plants that are indigenous to the area. 4) Retain existing trees and plants that help define the character of the district. 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. G. Garages, Sheds, & Other Structures 1) Retain existing historic garages, outbuildings, and site features. 2) Choose designs for new outbuildings that are compatible with the major buildings on the site. 3) Take clues and scale from older outbuildings in the area. 4) Use traditional roof slopes and traditional materials. 5) Place new outbuildings behind the dwelling. 6) If the design complements the main building however, it can be visible from primary elevations or streets. 7) The design and location of any new site features should relate to the existing character of the property. APPENDIX Prior BAR Review July 20, 2007 – Staff administratively approved substitution of Marvin for Kolbe and Kolbe windows following consultation with BAR. March 20, 2007 – BAR approved CoA request for window sash replacement for all window openings in the Annex. January 16, 2007 – BAR made recommendations re: a special use permit for renovations for a day shelter. August 17, 2006 – BAR held preliminary discussion re: the possible future use of this property. September 18, 2007 – BAR approved changes to the building for new ground level doors and canopies, and infill of six windows with brick, with the understanding that the roof material of canopies will be revised [not slate]; that the center support [on the eastern canopy] will be eliminated; that the new pair of doors is subject to approval of the landscape plan; and that 112 West Market Street (Dec 7, 2021) 3 details of the canopies will return to the BAR as they are developed. BAR also held preliminary discussion re: renovation of the site, stairs, a new ground level terrace, courtyard, retaining walls and plantings. December 18, 2007 - BAR approved CoA (8-0-1) final landscaping and exterior changes details as submitted. October 21, 2008 – BAR approved CoA (6-0-1 with Wolf recusing) revisions to the site and landscape design as submitted. Architectural changes were also improved including: a steel picket gate, new northwest corner entry, 15-pane door with transom, a glass canopy, and CMU fill for window under the stairs. April 20, 2010 – BAR approved CoA for raised garden beds with cool weather covers (4-2-1 with Adams and Hogg opposed and Wolf recused) with provision that lexan be used rather than plastic for the cool weather covers, and the raised planters proposed around two existing trees be eliminated. May 18, 2010 - BAR approved CoA (6-0-1 with Wolf recused) a sculpture in the Haven courtyard as submitted with the condition that staff will work with the applicant to resolve the issues with the foundation and footing. [All seemed in agreement that the grass turf could be adjusted to cover the concrete base as necessary]. April 19, 2011 - BAR approved CoA(6-1-1 with Brennan opposed and Wolf recused to replace a low brick wall with a two ft. concrete wall, and to add a four ft. tall honeysuckle vine scrim on top of the wall (total six ft. measured from concrete driveway on west side). April 17, 2012 –BAR proved CoA for laurel hedge along the west sidewalk 112 West Market Street (Dec 7, 2021) 4 The Haven - Vegetable Garden BAR Submission 11.30.21 The Haven - Charlottesville, VA Aerial of Project Site - Google Earth From 1st Street From corner at Market Street Project Area 1st Street Market Street 2 LOCAL Design Collective 11/30/2021 The Haven - Vegetable Garden Existing Conditions Legend 1. Existing Sign: Refurbished with a chalkboard insert for garden updates! 2. Raised Vegetable Planters: Weathering steel planters (1/4”- 1/2” thick plate steel). Consistent ‘top of planter’ elevation, set at +6.0” above 0.0” (shown on plan). Planters will become taller as grade drops away as shown. Max height of tallest planter to be 30” 3. Lawn: To remain 4. Existing Sidewalks 5. 1st Street 6. East Market St. 7. The Haven Building 8. Enlarged Flower Bed: Existing tree and shrubs + Berries, herbs and flowering perennials 9. Existing Utility Cover 7 10. Existing Crape-myrtle 11. Relocated Dogwood 8 + TW +6.0” 6 1 10 + BW -11.0” 4 3 + 0.0” + TW +6.0” 2 8 11 + TW +6.0” + BW -30.0” 9 4 5 3 LOCAL Design Collective 11/30/2021 The Haven - Vegetable Garden Proposed - Vegetable Garden Plan N 0’ 4’ 8’ 16’ 24’ Weathering Steel Raised Planters Weathering steel planters - Iron Mountain House - NBW Landscape Architects (Raw) weathering steel planters set into lawn - newly installed - google image Gridded layout w/ consistent ‘top of planter,’ but varying ht. - Medlock Ames - NBWLA 4 LOCAL Design Collective 11/30/2021 The Haven - Vegetable Garden Precedent Images Legend 1. Vegetable Garden Walls: Low retaining wall to separate the garden from the street/sidewalk. Inside the garden the wall would be curb height (6”), outside the garden the wall would grow from north to south, reaching a max height at the south corner of 30.” We are showing a 2’ thick brick option, but feel a thinner, concrete option may be more cost effective and would match the existing landscape language on the west side of the property. 2. Existing Sign: Refurbished with a chalkboard insert for garden updates! 3. Raised Vegetable Planters: 24” weathering steel planters (1/4” thick plate steel) 4. Gravel Paths 5. Gravel Circle: Around the base of the existing Crepe Myrtle, held in by steel edging 6. Red Sculptural Bench: Resin or fiberglass with a low back (custom fabrication) 7. Existing Sidewalk 10 8. 1st Street 9. East Market St. 10. The Haven 4 11. Small Lawn 6 12. Edible Garden: Berries, herbs and fruits 13. Concrete Area: encompassing existing utility cover 3 2 9 5 12 13 11 1 7 8 5 LOCAL Design Collective 11/30/2021 The Haven - Vegetable Garden Possible - Future Full Build-Out N 0’ 4’ 8’ 16’ 24’ Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 21-04-04 517 Rugby Road, TMP 050046000 Rugby Road-University Circle-Venable ADC District Owner: Alumni of Alpha Mu, Inc Applicant: Garett Rouzer/Dalgliesh Gilpin Paxton Architects Project: Alterations to fraternity house Application components (please click each link to go directly to PDF page): • Staff Report • Historic Survey • Application Submittal December 21, 2021 BAR Packet 4 City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Staff Report December 21, 2021 Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-04-04 517 Rugby Road, TMP 050046000 Rugby Road-University Circle-Venable ADC District Owner: Alumni of Alpha Mu, Inc Applicant: Garett Rouzer/Dalgliesh Gilpin Paxton Architects Project: Alterations to fraternity house Background Year Built: c1910 District: Rugby Road - University Circle - Venable Neighborhood ADC District Status: Contributing. (The house is also a contributing structure to the Rugby Road - University Corner Historic District - VLR 1983, NRHP 1984.) Constructed as a private residence. 2-1/2 story, Colonial Revival. The house features a symmetrical, three-bay front façade with a hipped roof and a front, hipped dormer with latticed casement windows. On the side (south) façade is a two-story bay, on the front (east) facade is a center bay, distyle porch with attenuated Roman Doric columns and a hipped roof. The entrance door features geometrically glazed sidelights and an elliptical, fan-light transom. In the 1964, the house transitioned to its current use as a fraternity house. The City’s 1983 historic survey notes the siding is wood shingles, which were installed over the original, weatherboard wood siding. Per the applicant’s 2014 submittal*, in 1987, both layers were removed--including the corner boards and trim--and replaced with the current Masonite siding. Additionally, the applicant noted: the windows were originally 2 over 2—some have been replaced; the originally open south porch was enclosed with 8 over 8 windows; the wood shingle or slate roof was replaced with asphalt shingles; and the southwest chimney was lowered and capped. Historic survey attached. *http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/622174/2014-04_517%20Rugby%20Road_BAR.pdf Prior BAR Actions April 2014 – BAR (7-0). Front wood deck: Determined the enlargement of the decks on east elevation (front façade of building) is not appropriate; the proposed azek deck railing is not 517 Rugby Road (December 15, 2021) 1 approved as proposed; the existing porches may be retained and repaired as an alternative. House: the wooden corner boards must be retained and repaired and not replaced with azek; the proposed front door design and materials are appropriate; replacing the railroad tie retaining wall with a parged concrete wall is acceptable; and the materials and configuration of the proposed windows is consistent with the guidelines (but the dormer windows will be retained). http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/622174/BAR_517%20Rugby%20Road_April2014.pdf Records indicate this CoA may have been extended to October 15, 2016. April 20, 2021 – Preliminary discussion of proposed addition and reconstruction of front porch. No action taken. Meeting minutes in the Appendix. (While submitted as a formal application, due to the estimated cost of the addition a preliminary discussion was required.) http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/798405/2021-04_517%20Rugby%20Road_BAR.pdf Application • Submittal: Dalgliesh Gilpin Paxton Architects drawings for Delta Sigma Phi - University of Virginia, dated 12/14/2021: Sheets 01 through 20. CoA request for front porch extension and reconstruction, the addition to and rehabilitation of the existing house, and the related sitework and landscaping. Existing • Existing chimney to remain • Existing frieze board to remain • Replace siding with exposure (6”) to match that of the existing, non-historic Masonite siding. • Replace corner board to match existing non-historic • Repair existing windows: Applicant’s note: Existing windows date to mid-twentieth century. Replacement sashes were installed c.2014 or later. Anticipated repairs in place will only include weather sealing, painting, and limited wood restoration as required. • Existing skylight to remain • Repair existing security lights • Shutters on East Elevation will be repaired and reinstalled with their current inoperable function. Shutters on other elevations have previously been removed and will not be replaced. • New gutters and downspouts: Ogee profile painted aluminum gutter, rectangular painted aluminum downspout. Front Porch: Applicant’s note: Annotated photos document existing historic and non-historic conditions. Submittal drawings illustrate both detailed existing historic condition, and new condition with distinguishing details. • New metal roofing on existing non-historic entry porch roof: Prefinished (painted, Charcoal Gray) standing seam metal roof with traditional appearance to seams and hips. • Porch addition with metal roofing, railing, columns and entablature with details to differ from historic • Historic porch columns, architrave and frieze to remain • Porch ceiling (additions): Cementitious bead-board ceiling • Gutters and downspouts: Ogee profile painted aluminum gutter, rectangular painted aluminum downspout. 517 Rugby Road (December 15, 2021) 2 • New brick pier (match existing brick) • Historic front door, transom and sidelights will remain. Rear Addition • Remove existing stair, projection and dormer. • Roof: New asphalt shingles to match existing non-historic • Siding: new, 7 1/4” exposure cementitious siding and corner board. (The exposure will differentiate the addition from the existing house, which will have a 6” exposure.)_ • Panels at rear elevation: cementitious flat panels with flat trim. • Doors and windows: New aluminum clad windows. Pella Reserve. • Trim: New rim board. • Cornice: Existing cornice has frieze board below the bed molding. New cornice on the addition will omit this frieze board for distinguishing characteristic. • New brick foundation (match existing brick) • Stairs: Wood, painted. • Railings: Metal, painted black. • Gutters and downspouts: Ogee profile painted aluminum gutter, rectangular painted aluminum downspout. Lighting • Driveway facade door lighting fixture: Progress Lighting 5” cylinder. Dimmable, CT 3000K, CRI 90. • Social terrace lighting fixture: Standard flood lights. (120W PAR-38 lamping is available that is dimmable and with CT 3000K.) • Recessed lighting fixtures: Iolite LED. Dimmable, CT 3000K. CRI 90. Note: [from applicant]: Building-mounted security lighting has been moved to lowest position possible that provides adequate area illumination for pedestrian safety, while remaining above pedestrian reach height to prevent tampering. Site • Terrace and patio: Brick walls with blue stone pavers • Retaining wall (with steps) at front yard: 24 - 30” +/- height. Fieldstone wall similar to existing. Alternate: CMU/concrete wall with stone facing, pending final wall height. Landscaping • New tree at front yard: Black gum tree • Hedge at front yard hedge and at rear patio: Buttonbush • Front walk plantings: American sweetshrub • Hedge at side yard: Winterberry holly Note: all on City’s tree and shrub lists Discussion and Recommendations BAR should rely on the germane sections of the ADC District Design Guidelines and related review criteria. While elements of other chapters may be relevant, staff recommends that the BAR refer to 517 Rugby Road (December 15, 2021) 3 the criteria in Chapter II--Site Design and Elements, Chapter III--New Construction and Additions, Chapter IV—Rehabilitation, and Chapter VII--Demolitions and Moving. As a checklist for the preliminary discussion, the criteria for Additions in Chapter III: • Function and Size • Location • Design • Replication of Style • Materials and Features • Attachment to Existing Building The BAR should also consider the building elements and details necessary to evaluate the project. Renderings and schematics communicates mass, scale, design and composition; however a complete application should include details and specific information about the projects materials and components. For example: • Measured drawings: Elevations, wall details, etc. • Roofing: Flat, hipped, etc. Metal, slate, asphalt. Flashing details. • Gutters/downspouts: Types, color, locations, etc. • Foundation. • Walls: Masonry, siding, stucco, etc. • Soffit, cornice, siding, and trim. • Color palette. • Doors and windows: Type, lite arrangement, glass spec, trim details, etc. • Porches and decks: Materials, railing and stair design, etc. • Landscaping/hardscaping: Grading, trees, low plants, paving materials, etc. • Lighting. Fixture cut sheets, lamping, etc. Regarding the front porch: The house was constructed c1910. The 1920 Sanborn Map (below) indicates a porch of a similar size and location to the existing; however, in 1915 (photos below) the porch roof was flat with an upper railing—the columns and entablature appear to be the same, if not similar. The prior design essentially replaced the existing porch, extending it across the façade. The current design retains the existing columns (full and engaged) and entablature as a discrete element, separate from the porch extensions on either side (images below). 517 Rugby Road (December 15, 2021) 4 BAR should discuss the extent that the details and features of the new are differentiated from the existing—columns, railings, entablature, celling, etc. In the design guidelines for porches (Section D in Rehabilitations) are three specific recommendations that should be applied here: 1. The original details and shape of porches should be retained including the outline, roof height, and roof pitch. 4. Replace an entire porch only if it is too deteriorated to repair or is completely missing, and design to match the original as closely as possible. 7. Do not remove or radically change entrances and porches important in defining the building’s overall historic character. Staff note on suggested motions: Applicant informed staff they plan to complete the construction documents in April 2022 and initiate construction by June 2022. This project has at least three separate components: the front porch, the addition to/rehab of the existing house, and the related site work/landscaping. If there are elements of a component that require clarification and/or further submittals, but the other 517 Rugby Road (December 15, 2021) 5 component(s) are acceptable as submitted, staff suggests approving what is ready and omitting from the CoA what is not. A requested CoA cannot be approved piecemeal. Components cannot be approved, with others deferred for consideration under the same application. However, the latter can be omitted from the approved CoA and resubmitted later as a new request, requiring a new application and fee. BAR should consider the following conditions: • All lamping for exterior lights will be dimmable, have a Color Temperature not exceeding 3,000K, and have a Color Rendering Index of not less than 80, preferably not less than 90. • The cementitious siding, trim and materials will be smooth, no faux grain. 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 front porch extension and reconstruction, the addition to and rehabilitation of the existing house, and the related sitework and landscaping at 517 Rugby Road satisfies the BAR’s criteria and is compatible with this property and other properties in the Rugby Road - University Circle - Venable Neighborhood ADC District, and that the BAR approves the application as submitted[.] [.. with the following conditions/modifications: …] Denial: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find that the front porch extension and reconstruction, the addition to and rehabilitation of the existing house, and the related sitework and landscaping at 517 Rugby Road does not satisfy the BAR’s criteria and is not compatible with this property and other properties in the Rugby Road - University Circle - Venable Neighborhood ADC District, and that for the following reasons the BAR denies the application as submitted: … Criteria, Standards, and Guidelines Review Criteria Generally Sec. 34-284(b) of the City Code states that, in considering a particular application the BAR shall approve the application unless it finds: (1) That the proposal does not meet specific standards set forth within this division or applicable provisions of the Design Guidelines established by the board pursuant to Sec.34-288(6); and (2) The proposal is incompatible with the historic, cultural or architectural character of the district in which the property is located or the protected property that is the subject of the application. Pertinent Standards for Review of Construction and Alterations include: (1) Whether the material, texture, color, height, scale, mass and placement of the proposed addition, modification or construction are visually and architecturally compatible with the site and the applicable design control district; (2) The harmony of the proposed change in terms of overall proportion and the size and placement of entrances, windows, awnings, exterior stairs and signs; (3) The Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation set forth within the Code of Federal Regulations (36 C.F.R. §67.7(b)), as may be relevant; (4) The effect of the proposed change on the historic district neighborhood; (5) The impact of the proposed change on other protected features on the property, such as gardens, landscaping, fences, walls and walks; 517 Rugby Road (December 15, 2021) 6 (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 B. Plantings C. Walls and Fences D. Lighting E. Walkways and Driveways F. Parking Areas and Lots G. Garages, Sheds, and Other Structures H. Utilities and Other Site Appurtenances Chapter III – New Construction and Additions Link: IV: New Construction and Additions I. Windows and Doors 1) The rhythm, patterns, and ratio of solids (walls) and voids (windows and doors) of new buildings should relate to and be compatible with adjacent historic facades. a. The majority of existing buildings in Charlottesville’s historic districts have a higher proportion of wall area than void area except at the storefront level. b. In the West Main Street corridor in particular, new buildings should reinforce this traditional proportion. 2) The size and proportion, or the ratio of width to height, of window and door openings on new buildings’ primary facades should be similar and compatible with those on surrounding historic facades. a. The proportions of the upper floor windows of most of Charlottesville’s historic buildings are more vertical than horizontal. b. Glass storefronts would generally have more horizontal proportions than upper floor openings. 3) Traditionally designed openings generally are recessed on masonry buildings and have a raised surround on frame buildings. New construction should follow these methods in the historic districts as opposed to designing openings that are flush with the rest of the wall. 4) Many entrances of Charlottesville’s historic buildings have special features such as transoms, sidelights, and decorative elements framing the openings. Consideration should be given to incorporating such elements in new construction. 5) Darkly tinted mirrored glass is not an appropriate material for windows in new buildings within the historic districts. 6) If small-paned windows are used, they should have true divided lights or simulated divided lights with permanently affixed interior and exterior muntin bars and integral spacer bars between the panes of glass. 7) Avoid designing false windows in new construction. 8) Appropriate material for new windows depends upon the context of the building within a historic district, and the design of the proposed building. Sustainable materials such as wood, aluminum-clad wood, solid fiberglass, and metal windows are preferred for new construction. Vinyl windows are discouraged. 9) Glass shall be clear. Opaque spandrel glass or translucent glass may be approved by the BAR for specific applications. 517 Rugby Road (December 15, 2021) 7 Checklist from section P. Additions 1) Function and Size a. Attempt to accommodate needed functions within the existing structure without building an addition. b. Limit the size of the addition so that it does not visually overpower the existing building. 2) Location a. Attempt to locate the addition on rear or side elevations that are not visible from the street. b. If additional floors are constructed on top of a building, set the addition back from the main façade so that its visual impact is minimized. c. If the addition is located on a primary elevation facing the street or if a rear addition faces a street, parking area, or an important pedestrian route, the façade of the addition should be treated under the new construction guidelines. 3) Design a. New additions should not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. b. The new work should be differentiated from the old and should be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. 4) Replication of Style a. A new addition should not be an exact copy of the design of the existing historic building. The design of new additions can be compatible with and respectful of existing buildings without being a mimicry of their original design. b. If the new addition appears to be part of the existing building, the integrity of the original historic design is compromised and the viewer is confused over what is historic and what is new. 5) Materials and Features a. Use materials, windows, doors, architectural detailing, roofs, and colors that are compatible with historic buildings in the district. 6) Attachment to Existing Building a. Wherever possible, new additions or alterations to existing buildings should be done in such a manner that, if such additions or alterations were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the buildings would be unimpaired. b. The new design should not use the same wall plane, roof line, or cornice line of the existing structure. Chapter 4 – Rehabilitation Link: V: Rehabilitation 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. 517 Rugby Road (December 15, 2021) 8 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. 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 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. 517 Rugby Road (December 15, 2021) 9 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. […] Chapter VII – Demolitions and Moving Link: VIII: Moving and Demolition Reference 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; 2. Whether it has been designated a National Historic Landmark, listed on the National Register of Historic Places, or listed on the Virginia Landmarks Register; 3. Whether, and to what extent, the building or structure is associated with an historic person, architect or master craftsman, or with an historic event; 4. Whether the building or structure, or any of its features, represent an infrequent or the first or last remaining example within the city of a particular architectural style or feature; 5. Whether the building or structure is of such old or distinctive design, texture or material that it could not be reproduced, or could be reproduced only with great difficulty; and 6. The degree to which distinguishing characteristics, qualities, features or materials remain; b) Whether, and to what extent, a contributing structure is linked, historically or aesthetically, to other buildings or structures within an existing major design control district, or is one (1) of a group of properties within such a district whose concentration or continuity possesses greater significance than many of its component buildings and structures. c) The overall condition and structural integrity of the building or structure, as indicated by studies prepared by a qualified professional engineer and provided by the applicant or other information provided to the board; 517 Rugby Road (December 15, 2021) 10 d) Whether, and to what extent, the applicant proposes means, methods or plans for moving, removing or demolishing the structure or property that preserves portions, features or materials that are significant to the property's historic, architectural or cultural value; and e) Any applicable provisions of the city's design guidelines. APPENDIX UPDARE BAR meeting minutes April 20, 2021 BAR 21-04-04 517 Rugby Road, TMP 050046000 Rugby Road-University Circle-Venable ADC District Owner: Alumni of Alpha Mu, Inc Applicant: Garett Rouzer/Dalgliesh Gilpin Paxton Architects Project: Alterations to fraternity house Note: This is a formal submittal; however, this will be treated as a preliminary discussion, per City Code section Sec. 34-282(c)(4). Jeff Werner, Staff Report – Year Built: c1910 District: Rugby Road - University Circle - Venable Neighborhood ADC District Status: Contributing. (The house is also a contributing structure to the Rugby Road - University Corner Historic District - VLR 1983, NRHP 1984.) Constructed as a private residence, this 2-1/2 story, Colonial Revival houses is one of the few in the district covered entirely with wood shingles. (However, it is reported that the house originally had clapboard siding, which may exist below the shingles.) The house features a symmetrical, three-bay front façade with a hipped roof and a front, hipped dormer with latticed casement windows. On the side (south) façade is a two-story bay, on the front (east) facade is a center bay, distyle porch with attenuated Roman Doric columns and a hipped roof. The entrance door features geometrically glazed sidelights and an elliptical, fan-light transom. In the 1964, the house transitioned to a fraternity house, as it is currently used. CoA request for construction of a rear addition, removal of the existing front porch, and constructing a new front porch. While this a formal CoA request, due to the estimated cost of the addition, a preliminary discussion is required. The BAR may decide to take action on the porch request independent of the addition; however, the resubmittal for the addition would then be treated as a separate CoA, requiring a new application and the related fee. During a preliminary discussion the BAR may, by consensus, express an opinion about the project as presented. (For example, the BAR might express consensus support for elements of the project, such as its scale and massing.) Such comments will not constitute a formal motion and the result will have no legal bearing, nor will it represent an incremental decision on the required CoA. There are two key objectives of a preliminary discussion: Introduce the project to the BAR; and allow the applicant and the BAR to establish what is necessary for a successful final submittal. That is, a final submittal that is complete and provides the information necessary for the BAR to evaluate the project using the ADC District Design Guidelines and related review criteria. In response to any questions from the applicant and/or for any recommendations to the applicant, the BAR should rely on the germane sections of the ADC District Design Guidelines and related review criteria. While elements of other chapters may be relevant, staff recommends that the BAR refer to the criteria in Chapter II--Site Design and Elements, Chapter III--New Construction and Additions, Chapter IV—Rehabilitation, and Chapter VII--Demolitions and Moving. As a 517 Rugby Road (December 15, 2021) 11 checklist for the preliminary discussion, the criteria for Additions in Chapter III: • Function and Size • Location • Design • Replication of Style • Materials and Features • Attachment to Existing Building The BAR should also consider the building elements and details necessary to evaluate the project. Renderings and schematics communicates mass, scale, design and composition; however a complete application should include details and specific information about the projects materials and components. For example: • Measured drawings: Elevations, wall details, etc. • Roofing: Flat, hipped, etc. Metal, slate, asphalt. Flashing details. • Gutters/downspouts: Types, color, locations, etc. Foundation. • Walls: Masonry, siding, stucco, etc. • Soffit, cornice, siding, and trim. • Color palette. • Doors and windows: Type, lite arrangement, glass spec, trim details, etc. • Porches and decks: Materials, railing and stair design, etc. • Landscaping/hardscaping: Grading, trees, low plants, paving materials, etc. • Lighting. Fixture cut sheets, lamping, etc. The house was constructed c1910. The 1920 Sanborn Map indicates a porch of a similar size and location to the existing, if not the same one. The porch now incorporates wood decks on either side; however, the columns (full and engaged), the roof, and the entrance remain intact, allowing the existing [presumed original] porch to remain identifiable as a discrete element of the historic façade. In the design guidelines for porches (Section D in Rehabilitations) are three specific recommendations that should be applied here: 1. The original details and shape of porches should be retained including the outline, roof height, and roof pitch. 4. Replace an entire porch only if it is too deteriorated to repair or is completely missing, and design to match the original as closely as possible. 7. Do not remove or radically change entrances and porches important in defining the building’s overall historic character. Mr. Lahendro – Is this a COA application or is this a preliminary discussion? Mr. Werner – It came in as an application. I am calling it what it is. I don’t know the cost of this project. I think the information is lacking for you to issue a COA. Given that it came in as an application, you can have that discussion and defer at the end for action at a later date. Mr. Lahendro – I would like to know what we’re reviewing here and what the applicants wants us to review. Mr. Schwarz – The applicant should tell us what he wants us to review. I think we need to treat this as a preliminary discussion. It’s not a complete application. There are some missing documents. Our ordinance requires that this is a preliminary discussion given the cost of the project. Garrett Rouzer, Applicant – That is understood. We expect to exceed that $350,000 cap. If this could be treated as our required preliminary discussion and we can receive feedback from the Board, we would appreciate that. Mr. Zehmer – I thought that I heard that the expansion of the current front porch deck was approved by a previous BAR. The staff report says prior BAR actions determined that the enlargement of the deck is not appropriate. Mr. Werner – The deck was approved but not the materials. When someone comes in with an application, staff can say that it is incomplete and not send to the BAR. We still want to have some review. You can defer to next month. The applicant can bring the same thing 517 Rugby Road (December 15, 2021) 12 back. By accepting an application, it does not compel you to consider approval if it is not ready to be approved. I will get clarification on what happened. My understanding is that the deck was approved but not the materials and railings. Mr. Zehmer – It would be helpful to know the clarity on that and know if this particular applicant steps in line with BAR actions and approvals. Mr. Rouzer – There are two elements happening here. One is the front porch replacement. The other larger move is the addition of the western part towards the back of the lot. You can see the grey-scaled portion is the existing house with the new addition basically on the left hand side of the sheet. The intent here is to continue with materials as far as the asphalt roof and tying into that hardy plank siding and brick foundation work along with clad window units. We are tying in the new construction basically behind the mass of the existing building. This is the south elevation portion. The north section here with the existing on the left hand side and the new on the right. Mr. Lahendro – Is the existing house still shingled and painted white and the addition is clapboard? Mr. Rouzer – It is wood siding. The addition is proposed to be cement board siding. Mr. Lahendro – The existing house is not shingled. I see white. Are the shingles painted white? Mr. Werner – In this older report, it says that in 1987, they removed the wood shingles. That’s the entirety. At this point in time, it is all clapboard. QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC Eric Edwardson – It is Masonite siding permanently clapboard. It was replaced in 1987. The shingles that had been there were pulled off and replaced. QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD Ms. Lewis – Knowing that you have Masonite siding, you wouldn’t consider replacing that? Mr. Edwardson – It had degraded in a number of places pretty seriously. I know that they had some trouble. The siding comes down pretty low to the ground in a lot of places. Water has done damage to it over the years. The hardy plank was a better product at this point. Ms. Lewis – Knowing that the shingles were removed and it is not an original material, it does have a tendency to degrade. It seems like it would be a nice opportunity. I think the hardy plank would fit our guidelines. I wouldn’t have any concern replacing the Masonite siding if you wanted to do that. Mr. Werner – The flanking decks that you see were in place. In 2014, the request was to extend that further around the south side. That is what was not approved. Those wing decks were there at that time. There was a series of other improvements that were done back in the 80s. The 2014 request was some improvements that were approved. It was the extension of 517 Rugby Road (December 15, 2021) 13 the deck that was not approved. What you see didn’t go in without BAR review. That happened prior to the BAR reviewing that as a house within a district. Mr. Schwarz – With the new porch, is that intended to match the existing? Are you copying the detail? Or are you approximating it and making a larger front porch? Mr. Rouzer – The intent was to take those details and carry those over those bays. The existing wood porch extensions would be rebuilt. The intent was to take that existing center bay and extend it over the front elevation. Mr. Schwarz – Are all of the materials composite? Mr. Rouzer – Yes. Mr. Zehmer – Basically, you’re tearing off that original porch completely and replacing it with four new columns and a new roof. Is that the intent? Mr. Rouzer – That’s the intent but keeping with the details that are there now. That’s basically in that center bay. We would use that center bay to drive those details. Ms. Lewis – Is the current profile hipped? Are you replicating that on the new one? The pictures aren’t really clear about what the existing is. It’s hard to tell. Mr. Rouzer – Yes, the existing is hipped. In image 5, you can see the angle. Ms. Lewis – It definitely is a little bit different profile. Is the height of the roof the same from the bottom of the existing porch? Would the columns be the same height? Mr. Rouzer – Yes. That would be the intent. Ms. Lewis – My only concern would be the beautiful light over the door. I am just making sure that is visible. We’re not seeing drawings with dimensions and a little bit more detail. I just wanted to confirm that would be important for my vote. Mr. Mohr – If I was to take the porch drawing literally, the columns seem more slender and the eave more exaggerated. I would be surprised if the roof pitch wasn’t flatter. The drawing seems more generic than specific to that detail. Am I right about that? If you look at the entablature in the photo, the eave bears out more projection to it. Mr. Rouzer – If that’s a concern, we can certainly adjust that, ideally adjusting so that the roof functions better. Either way would be fine. Ms. Lewis – The existing porch is quite a simple porch. There’s not a whole lot of fuss on this property at the cornice or soffits. Mr. Gastinger – While I think the porch design proposed is a reasonable approach, there’s not a lot of support in our guidelines for this kind of change. In Chapter 4, Section B1, it says the original details in the shape of porches should be retained including the outlying roof height and roof pitch. Number 4 says replacing an entire porch only if it is too 517 Rugby Road (December 15, 2021) 14 deteriorated to repair or is completely missing and designed to match the original as closely as possible. Number 7 says to not remove or radically change entrances, porches, and important defining the building’s overall historic character. The Secretary of Interior standards also have very stringent recommendations relative to changing the primary entrance of this historic structure. I am not convinced that this is necessary. I am supportive of the addition in the back. I have real problems with the porch proposal. Mr. Lahendro – I would second that. The porch is clearly an important character defining feature of the house on the main elevation, centered on this elevation, the main decorative feature, and it is historic. I could never vote for destroying a historic character defining feature to replace it with something else. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC No Comments from the Public COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Mohr – I agree with Jody and Breck on the porch. I don’t see much differentiation between the old and the new. One way I could see bringing some of the house’s original character back would be to go to hardy shingles or hardy shakes on the existing building. At least you have contextual difference between the old and the new and harken back to what the house was clad in originally. If anything is done to the porch, it has to be a secondary addition to the porch. The dormers on the back of the house have very thin walls. Is that really as they are going to be or just a schematic? The dormer walls seem awfully thin. Mr. Rouzer – The intent is to flat frame those and make that a 5 quarter by fours. The idea is to go ahead and keep those as thin as possible. Mr. Mohr – Resembling the Queen Anne dormer on the front as far as its window to wall relationship? The front dormer has very thin walls. Mr. Rouzer – There is a diamond shaped pattern on those existing windows we were not carrying. That is the intent. Mr. Schwarz – You will be OK getting a building permit? How is that going to be insulated? Mr. Rouzer – Rigid insulation. We’re concerned about it. Mr. Schwarz – I agree with Tim on this. We have had a couple projects where we see very thin, historic rooflines. When things get built, it appears much, much ‘chunkier.’ If you’re assuring us that it is going to look like this, that’s great. We just want to make sure we don’t get any surprises later. It’s really unfortunate when that does happen. Mr. Rouzer – We have done this on prior projects that exist in the city. 517 Rugby Road (December 15, 2021) 15 Mr. Edwardson – I have a picture about the siding issue. It’s from Coy Bearfoot’s Corner book. Mr. Werner – The shingles were reported in a 1983 survey with the note that it was believed that the house was originally clapboard. It was odd pointing that this house was the only house in the district with shingles and then say we don’t think this house was originally here. [JW note: ????] Ms. Lewis – The notation actually says clapboard underneath to be believed weather board. Mr. Werner – That proved to be true with the renovations after that. Mr. Edwardson – This picture clearly shows that it is clapboard siding. It also shows a railing on top of that porch roof. Ms. Lewis – What year is that? Mr. Edwardson – I believe that the picture is around 1921. It is referenced in the book. I managed to get a digital version from one of the University groups. Mr. Zehmer – Looking at that photo on the south side, was there an open porch that later was enclosed? Mr. Edwardson – There’s an open porch and a part underneath that was enclosed as well. Mr. Zehmer – I think it would be awesome to include that photograph in the presentation materials so we can reference it. As you’re developing your drawings, we would need to see a drawing that shows everything that would be removed. On the rear of the elevation of the house, it looks like there’s a stair tower bump out. I don’t know if that was original to the house. We would want to see that clearly shown on the demo plan. Looking at the photo, it looks like there are two chimneys currently existing in the house. I did like Tim’s idea of similar materials for the original portion of the house and the rear addition. I think the original was clapboard siding. It looked like there were some pretty strong vertical corner boards. Mr. Werner – That came up in the 2014 discussion. There was a lot of work done. Mr. Mohr – My concern right now is there’s not enough differentiation between old and new. Mr. Schwarz – It looks like the only differentiation is that you have a different exposure on your siding. You just told us that you’re going to replace the siding on the original house as well. Does that mean everything is going to be the same exposure? Mr. Rouzer – No. We would differentiate between the exposures with definitely keeping the smaller on the historic portion of the house and going with a wider on the new addition. Mr. Schwarz – Our guidelines say not to use the same roofline or eave line. You do step back the massing. We have been a little lenient on some of those things. I do think this one 517 Rugby Road (December 15, 2021) 16 is so subtle with the differences. I can think of some other methods where you can find some differentiation. Mr. Mohr – I was thinking about the shingles and maybe doing away with the floor boards throughout the corner; something that makes it distinct relative to the clapboard house. Mr. Schwarz – It looks like you are using the artisan siding. I know it is a better product than the standard James Hardy stuff. Mr. Mohr – Thinking about shingles from a maintenance standpoint and trying to think of a way to differentiate the old and the new a bit more. It is a substantial addition. That’s the danger when you’re carrying a whole lot of the same stylistic cues all the way around. Mr. Zehmer – You could also consider a different roofing material for the original versus the addition. Mr. Mohr – The boarding is significantly different. If it is 4 inch on the old house, what are you thinking for the new part? Mr. Rouzer – Artisan has a 7.35 inch reveal with their 8 inch boards. Mr. Mohr – What do you have on the old house? Mr. Rouzer – I think it is 4.5. It is significantly narrower. Mr. Schwarz – Does the house have gutters? Or are they internal? Mr. Edwardson – It should have gutters. They may have disappeared from time to time in its history. Mr. Schwarz – When this comes back, it would be good to see the gutters on the elevations. Mr. Rouzer – Our intent here was to really tie into that roofline and the eave line coming around and continuing that gutter profile on the existing into the new. Is there concern about doing that? Should we have greater differentiation there? Mr. Schwarz – I am OK if you use the same roofline. You need to find something that differentiates this more. Maybe that is breaking the roofline or maybe some other tactic. You need to find something that does a little bit more. Mr. Mohr – Breaking the roofline in a case like this seems forced. It is more about doing something with the materials. I think it gets forced if you drop the eave a foot. Internally, it makes sense to have the eave at the same height. Mr. Lahendro – It appears that the addition is set back from the corners of the historic house a couple of feet. Unfortunately, the elevation drawing if it was shaded or showed the shadow line, that would help a lot in indicating that one block is distinct from another. I don’t mind seeing the eave lower. I think that does help with the differentiation between the 517 Rugby Road (December 15, 2021) 17 two parts. The other options you pointed out was (different roofing materials. Different siding materials are all fine and acceptable. I haven’t given the addition a lot of thought. Mr. Schwarz – Is there anybody who would be supportive of replacing the porch and building it back larger? Ms. Lewis – I probably would be supportive if the profile of the porch would remain the same. The renderings are a completely different porch. The entablature is ‘fussier’ than what’s there. The 1984 nomination notes that the columns are intonated doric. They seem to have some detail on the top. They are much plainer and thinner than what is proposed here. The railings are not reflective of the existing historic building. I would love to see a lattice in lieu of these. That’s probably picking too much up from the windows. I wonder if something else can be done with the railings so that it looks less chunky. Mr. Lahendro – They could go to the historic photograph that Mr. Edwardson showed and take that railing and replicate it. Mr. Mohr – If you could have the original porch and add wings to it, it would have to be set back slightly. There’s something you could take off the original porch. Mr. Edwardson – There is nothing set in stone with how that porch would work. Mr. Schwarz – We have precedent. We have denied far smaller expansions of porches. Mr. Rouzer – With that feedback, can we do a deferral on the front porch and come back with something more sensitive to that historic photo and the setback portions. Would that be an option? Mr. Schwarz – When you come back with the full COA, you could present a different idea. If we had to break up the approval, we could vote to approve the rear addition and defer you on the front porch. If you still want to keep trying to find a solution for the front porch, please do include in your next submittal. It might get broken out of that. It might make it. It might convince us all. Mr. Mohr – I can see putting a porch up where the side porch used to be. That’s even on the south side of the house. Mr. Zehmer – I think that porch is there. It has just been enclosed. Mr. Mohr – I assume you want the space and not have it as a porch. If you restored that as a porch or having that as an outdoor deck space over there, it is more appropriate to modify that rather than the old porch on the front of the house. Ms. Lewis – I wonder what my fellow members of the BAR think about the existing railing. The porch stretches the entire width of the front façade of the house. What is proposed is covering up the two first story windows and demolishing the existing and extending it. The porch does exist. There is something you can stand on each side of the front windows. 517 Rugby Road (December 15, 2021) 18 Mr. Edwardson – It is a pressure treated deck style with wings off it that juts out of it slightly from the line of the existing old porch. Mr. Schwarz – It is very clear and obvious that it is a later addition. Ms. Lewis – We want to give the applicant some guidance. If the majority of the Board is not in favor of extending the porch covering, what are we looking for? What would be acceptable? Do you want the existing railings to stay there? Mr. Mohr – I would rather see that disappear and go back to the porch. That is why I was suggesting something with the south end of the building where there used to be a porch. Mr. Schwarz – You’re creating an L with the addition between the former porch and the addition. Can you fill that in, cover up another parking space with a porch off the side of the addition? Mr. Rouzer – Potentially, certainly with this feedback, we could review with the owners and see if that meets their needs as well. Mr. Schwarz – Some of the stuff that you can bring to us would be an existing elevation and plan of what is being removed or demolished. If you could provide an existing site plan that shows any demo on the site that would be important for us to look at. Mr. Rouzer – This was all constructive and appreciated. Our key takeaway being that differentiation between the existing and the new and coming up with an option that we think is successful for you to take a look at. We will key in on that for our submittal. Our understanding is the massing that is being shown in that layout is successful and differentiating between the historic and the new. Mr. Schwarz – If you have any exterior lighting planed, we definitely want to see that. Mr. Gastinger – Any window replacements or repairs requires quite a bit of documentation. Motion to Defer – Mr. Rouzer – Request to Defer – Mr. Schwarz moves to accept request for deferral – Second by Ms. Lewis – Motion passes 8-0. 517 Rugby Road (December 15, 2021) 19 2021.11.30 replaced. c. 1915 Photograph (Built c.1910) c. 1983 Photograph 1964 Delta Sigma Phi was Established at UVA Colonial Revival Photograph by Holsinger 2021 Photograph 2022 Proposed Construction 12/14/2021 DELTA SIGMA PHI- UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA | 517 RUGBY ROAD 01 4444 DALGLIESH GILPIN PAXTON ARCHITECTS 12/14/2021 DELTA SIGMA PHI- UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA | SITE MAP 02 4444 DALGLIESH GILPIN PAXTON ARCHITECTS 12/14/2021 DELTA SIGMA PHI- UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA | SITE MAP WITH KEY NOTES 03 4444 DALGLIESH GILPIN PAXTON ARCHITECTS Entry Porch East Lawn Facing South East Lawn Facing North-West Entry Porch facing East across Rugby Road 12/14/2021 DELTA SIGMA PHI- UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA | REFRENCE PHOTOGRAPHS 04 4444 DALGLIESH GILPIN PAXTON ARCHITECTS NOT TO SCALE Driveway facing South-West Adjacent Property facing South Parking area facing South-East Parking area facing East 12/14/2021 DELTA SIGMA PHI- UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA | REFRENCE PHOTOGRAPHS 05 4444 DALGLIESH GILPIN PAXTON ARCHITECTS NOT TO SCALE Parking area facing North-East Parking area facing North-East Adjacent Property facing East Site Map of Contiguous Properties- Next Page 12/14/2021 DELTA SIGMA PHI- UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA | REFRENCE PHOTOGRAPHS 06 4444 DALGLIESH GILPIN PAXTON ARCHITECTS NOT TO SCALE A. 4 University Circle B. 1 University Circle C. 506 Rugby Road D. 513 Rugby Road 12/14/2021 DELTA SIGMA PHI- UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA | CONTIGUOUS PROPERTIES 07 4444 DALGLIESH GILPIN PAXTON ARCHITECTS NOT TO SCALE 12/14/2021 DELTA SIGMA PHI- UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA | SELECTIVE REMOVALS 08 4444 DALGLIESH GILPIN PAXTON ARCHITECTS NOT TO SCALE DRAWING KEY: 14. NEW 7 1/4” EXPOSURE CEMENTITIOUS SIDING AND CORNER BOARD FOR PAINT 15. NEW ALUMINUM CLAD WINDOWS WITH INTERNAL SPACER BARS, PAINT (SEE PG. 20) 1. EXISTING CHIMNEY TO REMAIN 16. NEW RIM BOARD FOR PAINT 2. EXISTING FRIEZE BOARD TO REMAIN, REPAIR FOR PAINT 17. NEW SECURITY LIGHTING FIXTURE (SEE PG. 17-18) 3. REPLACE EXISTING NON- HISTORIC MASONITE SIDING WITH 6” EXPOSURE CEMENTITIOUS SIDING FOR PAINT 18. CONCRETE SLAB TERRACE 4. REPLACE EXISTING CORNER BOARD TO MATCH EXISTING NON-HISTORIC 19. EXISTING SKYLIGHT TO REMAIN, REPAIR AND PAINT SASH 5. REPAIR EXISTING NON-HISTORIC WINDOWS; EXISTING SASH FOR PAINT 20. REPAIR EXISTING SECURITY LIGHTS 6. NEW STANDING- SEAM METAL ROOF ON EXISTING NON-HISTORIC ENTRY PORCH; CHARCOAL GRAY TO MATCH EXISTING ASPHALT 21. CEMENTITIOUS FLAT STILE AND RAIL; CEMENTITIOUS FRAMING PANEL, PAINTED SHINGLES 22. PORCH FLOORING; 1”X12” FIBER CEMENT COMPOSITE BOARDS WITH WOOD FINISH COLOR 7. NEW STANDING-SEAM METAL ROOF ON PORCH ADDITION; CHARCOAL GRAY TO MATCH EXISTING ASPHALT SHINGLES 23. PORCH CEILING; 1”X6” BEADED FIBER CEMENT COMPOSITE BOARDS FOR PAINT 8. NEW PORCH COLUMNS AND ENTABLATURE WITH DISTINGUISHABLE DETAILS (SEE PG. 16) 24. PVC LATTICE 9. NEW WOODEN PORCH RAILING, FOR PAINT (SEE PG. 16) 25. EXISTING FRONT DOOR AND SIDE LITES TO REMAIN; REPAIR AND PAINT 10. NEW BRICK 26. NEW GALVANIZED STEEL BAR STOCK HANDRAILS, PAINTED BLACK (SEE PG. 16) 11. NEW OGEE ALUMINUM GUTTERS AND RECTANGULAR DOWNSPOUTS, FOR PAINT 27. EXISTING NON-HISTORIC SHUTTERS TO REMAIN AS NON OPERABLE, FOR PAINT 12. HISTORIC PORCH COLUMNS, ARCHITRAVE AND FRIEZE TO REMAIN; REPAIR FOR PAINT (SEE PG. 14-15) 28. NEW ALUMINUM CLAD DOOR WITH INTERNAL SPACER BARS (SEE PG. 20) 13. NEW ASPHALT SHINGLES TO MATCH EXISTING NON-HISTORIC 29. EXISTING DOOR TO BE REPLACED WITH ALUMINUM CLAD DOOR WITH INTERNAL SPACER BAR 12/14/2021 DELTA SIGMA PHI- UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA | ENTRY ELEVATION RENDERING 09 4444 DALGLIESH GILPIN PAXTON ARCHITECTS NOT TO SCALE DRAWING KEY: 14. NEW 7 1/4” EXPOSURE CEMENTITIOUS SIDING AND CORNER BOARD FOR PAINT 15. NEW ALUMINUM CLAD WINDOWS WITH INTERNAL SPACER BARS, PAINT (SEE PG. 20) 1. EXISTING CHIMNEY TO REMAIN 16. NEW RIM BOARD FOR PAINT 2. EXISTING FRIEZE BOARD TO REMAIN, REPAIR FOR PAINT 17. NEW SECURITY LIGHTING FIXTURE (SEE PG. 17-18) 3. REPLACE EXISTING NON- HISTORIC MASONITE SIDING WITH 6” EXPOSURE CEMENTITIOUS SIDING FOR PAINT 18. CONCRETE SLAB TERRACE 4. REPLACE EXISTING CORNER BOARD TO MATCH EXISTING NON-HISTORIC 19. EXISTING SKYLIGHT TO REMAIN, REPAIR AND PAINT SASH 5. REPAIR EXISTING NON-HISTORIC WINDOWS; EXISTING SASH FOR PAINT 20. REPAIR EXISTING SECURITY LIGHTS 6. NEW STANDING- SEAM METAL ROOF ON EXISTING NON-HISTORIC ENTRY PORCH; CHARCOAL GRAY TO MATCH EXISTING ASPHALT 21. CEMENTITIOUS FLAT STILE AND RAIL; CEMENTITIOUS FRAMING PANEL, PAINTED SHINGLES 22. PORCH FLOORING; 1”X12” FIBER CEMENT COMPOSITE BOARDS WITH WOOD FINISH COLOR 7. NEW STANDING-SEAM METAL ROOF ON PORCH ADDITION; CHARCOAL GRAY TO MATCH EXISTING ASPHALT SHINGLES 23. PORCH CEILING; 1”X6” BEADED FIBER CEMENT COMPOSITE BOARDS FOR PAINT 8. NEW PORCH COLUMNS AND ENTABLATURE WITH DISTINGUISHABLE DETAILS (SEE PG. 16) 24. PVC LATTICE 9. NEW WOODEN PORCH RAILING, FOR PAINT (SEE PG. 16) 25. EXISTING FRONT DOOR AND SIDE LITES TO REMAIN; REPAIR AND PAINT 10. NEW BRICK 26. NEW GALVANIZED STEEL BAR STOCK HANDRAILS, PAINTED BLACK (SEE PG. 16) 11. NEW OGEE ALUMINUM GUTTERS AND RECTANGULAR DOWNSPOUTS, FOR PAINT 27. EXISTING NON-HISTORIC SHUTTERS TO REMAIN AS NON OPERABLE, FOR PAINT 12. HISTORIC PORCH COLUMNS, ARCHITRAVE AND FRIEZE TO REMAIN; REPAIR FOR PAINT (SEE PG. 14-15) 28. NEW ALUMINUM CLAD DOOR WITH INTERNAL SPACER BARS (SEE PG. 20) 13. NEW ASPHALT SHINGLES TO MATCH EXISTING NON-HISTORIC 29. EXISTING DOOR TO BE REPLACED WITH ALUMINUM CLAD DOOR WITH INTERNAL SPACER BAR 12/14/2021 DELTA SIGMA PHI- UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA | ENTRY ELEVATION RENDERING W/O TREES 10 4444 DALGLIESH GILPIN PAXTON ARCHITECTS NOT TO SCALE DRAWING KEY: 14. NEW 7 1/4” EXPOSURE CEMENTITIOUS SIDING AND CORNER BOARD FOR PAINT 15. NEW ALUMINUM CLAD WINDOWS WITH INTERNAL SPACER BARS, PAINT (SEE PG. 20) 1. EXISTING CHIMNEY TO REMAIN 16. NEW RIM BOARD FOR PAINT 2. EXISTING FRIEZE BOARD TO REMAIN, REPAIR FOR PAINT 17. NEW SECURITY LIGHTING FIXTURE (SEE PG. 17-18) 3. REPLACE EXISTING NON- HISTORIC MASONITE SIDING WITH 6” EXPOSURE CEMENTITIOUS SIDING FOR PAINT 18. CONCRETE SLAB TERRACE 4. REPLACE EXISTING CORNER BOARD TO MATCH EXISTING NON-HISTORIC 19. EXISTING SKYLIGHT TO REMAIN, REPAIR AND PAINT SASH 5. REPAIR EXISTING NON-HISTORIC WINDOWS; EXISTING SASH FOR PAINT 20. REPAIR EXISTING SECURITY LIGHTS 6. NEW STANDING- SEAM METAL ROOF ON EXISTING NON-HISTORIC ENTRY PORCH; CHARCOAL GRAY TO MATCH EXISTING ASPHALT 21. CEMENTITIOUS FLAT STILE AND RAIL; CEMENTITIOUS FRAMING PANEL, PAINTED SHINGLES 22. PORCH FLOORING; 1”X12” FIBER CEMENT COMPOSITE BOARDS WITH WOOD FINISH COLOR 7. NEW STANDING-SEAM METAL ROOF ON PORCH ADDITION; CHARCOAL GRAY TO MATCH EXISTING ASPHALT SHINGLES 23. PORCH CEILING; 1”X6” BEADED FIBER CEMENT COMPOSITE BOARDS FOR PAINT 8. NEW PORCH COLUMNS AND ENTABLATURE WITH DISTINGUISHABLE DETAILS (SEE PG. 16) 24. PVC LATTICE 9. NEW WOODEN PORCH RAILING, FOR PAINT (SEE PG. 16) 25. EXISTING FRONT DOOR AND SIDE LITES TO REMAIN; REPAIR AND PAINT 10. NEW BRICK 26. NEW GALVANIZED STEEL BAR STOCK HANDRAILS, PAINTED BLACK (SEE PG. 16) 11. NEW OGEE ALUMINUM GUTTERS AND RECTANGULAR DOWNSPOUTS, FOR PAINT 27. EXISTING NON-HISTORIC SHUTTERS TO REMAIN AS NON OPERABLE, FOR PAINT 12. HISTORIC PORCH COLUMNS, ARCHITRAVE AND FRIEZE TO REMAIN; REPAIR FOR PAINT (SEE PG. 14-15) 28. NEW ALUMINUM CLAD DOOR WITH INTERNAL SPACER BARS (SEE PG. 20) 13. NEW ASPHALT SHINGLES TO MATCH EXISTING NON-HISTORIC 29. EXISTING DOOR TO BE REPLACED WITH ALUMINUM CLAD DOOR WITH INTERNAL SPACER BAR 12/14/2021 DELTA SIGMA PHI- UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA | DRIVEWAY ELEVATION RENDERING 11 4444 DALGLIESH GILPIN PAXTON ARCHITECTS NOT TO SCALE DRAWING KEY: 14. NEW 7 1/4” EXPOSURE CEMENTITIOUS SIDING AND CORNER BOARD FOR PAINT 15. NEW ALUMINUM CLAD WINDOWS WITH INTERNAL SPACER BARS, PAINT (SEE PG. 20) 1. EXISTING CHIMNEY TO REMAIN 16. NEW RIM BOARD FOR PAINT 2. EXISTING FRIEZE BOARD TO REMAIN, REPAIR FOR PAINT 17. NEW SECURITY LIGHTING FIXTURE (SEE PG. 17-18) 3. REPLACE EXISTING NON- HISTORIC MASONITE SIDING WITH 6” EXPOSURE CEMENTITIOUS SIDING FOR PAINT 18. CONCRETE SLAB TERRACE 4. REPLACE EXISTING CORNER BOARD TO MATCH EXISTING NON-HISTORIC 19. EXISTING SKYLIGHT TO REMAIN, REPAIR AND PAINT SASH 5. REPAIR EXISTING NON-HISTORIC WINDOWS; EXISTING SASH FOR PAINT 20. REPAIR EXISTING SECURITY LIGHTS 6. NEW STANDING- SEAM METAL ROOF ON EXISTING NON-HISTORIC ENTRY PORCH; CHARCOAL GRAY TO MATCH EXISTING ASPHALT 21. CEMENTITIOUS FLAT STILE AND RAIL; CEMENTITIOUS FRAMING PANEL, PAINTED SHINGLES 22. PORCH FLOORING; 1”X12” FIBER CEMENT COMPOSITE BOARDS WITH WOOD FINISH COLOR 7. NEW STANDING-SEAM METAL ROOF ON PORCH ADDITION; CHARCOAL GRAY TO MATCH EXISTING ASPHALT SHINGLES 23. PORCH CEILING; 1”X6” BEADED FIBER CEMENT COMPOSITE BOARDS FOR PAINT 8. NEW PORCH COLUMNS AND ENTABLATURE WITH DISTINGUISHABLE DETAILS (SEE PG. 16) 24. PVC LATTICE 9. NEW WOODEN PORCH RAILING, FOR PAINT (SEE PG. 16) 25. EXISTING FRONT DOOR AND SIDE LITES TO REMAIN; REPAIR AND PAINT 10. NEW BRICK 26. NEW GALVANIZED STEEL BAR STOCK HANDRAILS, PAINTED BLACK (SEE PG. 16) 11. NEW OGEE ALUMINUM GUTTERS AND RECTANGULAR DOWNSPOUTS, FOR PAINT 27. EXISTING NON-HISTORIC SHUTTERS TO REMAIN AS NON OPERABLE, FOR PAINT 12. HISTORIC PORCH COLUMNS, ARCHITRAVE AND FRIEZE TO REMAIN; REPAIR FOR PAINT (SEE PG. 14-15) 28. NEW ALUMINUM CLAD DOOR WITH INTERNAL SPACER BARS (SEE PG. 20) 13. NEW ASPHALT SHINGLES TO MATCH EXISTING NON-HISTORIC 29. EXISTING DOOR TO BE REPLACED WITH ALUMINUM CLAD DOOR WITH INTERNAL SPACER BAR 12/14/2021 DELTA SIGMA PHI- UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA | PARKING ELEVATION RENDERING 12 4444 DALGLIESH GILPIN PAXTON ARCHITECTS NOT TO SCALE DRAWING KEY: 14. NEW 7 1/4” EXPOSURE CEMENTITIOUS SIDING AND CORNER BOARD FOR PAINT 15. NEW ALUMINUM CLAD WINDOWS WITH INTERNAL SPACER BARS, PAINT (SEE PG. 20) 1. EXISTING CHIMNEY TO REMAIN 16. NEW RIM BOARD FOR PAINT 2. EXISTING FRIEZE BOARD TO REMAIN, REPAIR FOR PAINT 17. NEW SECURITY LIGHTING FIXTURE (SEE PG. 17-18) 3. REPLACE EXISTING NON- HISTORIC MASONITE SIDING WITH 6” EXPOSURE CEMENTITIOUS SIDING FOR PAINT 18. CONCRETE SLAB TERRACE 4. REPLACE EXISTING CORNER BOARD TO MATCH EXISTING NON-HISTORIC 19. EXISTING SKYLIGHT TO REMAIN, REPAIR AND PAINT SASH 5. REPAIR EXISTING NON-HISTORIC WINDOWS; EXISTING SASH FOR PAINT 20. REPAIR EXISTING SECURITY LIGHTS 6. NEW STANDING- SEAM METAL ROOF ON EXISTING NON-HISTORIC ENTRY PORCH; CHARCOAL GRAY TO MATCH EXISTING ASPHALT 21. CEMENTITIOUS FLAT STILE AND RAIL; CEMENTITIOUS FRAMING PANEL, PAINTED SHINGLES 22. PORCH FLOORING; 1”X12” FIBER CEMENT COMPOSITE BOARDS WITH WOOD FINISH COLOR 7. NEW STANDING-SEAM METAL ROOF ON PORCH ADDITION; CHARCOAL GRAY TO MATCH EXISTING ASPHALT SHINGLES 23. PORCH CEILING; 1”X6” BEADED FIBER CEMENT COMPOSITE BOARDS FOR PAINT 8. NEW PORCH COLUMNS AND ENTABLATURE WITH DISTINGUISHABLE DETAILS (SEE PG. 16) 24. PVC LATTICE 9. NEW WOODEN PORCH RAILING, FOR PAINT (SEE PG. 16) 25. EXISTING FRONT DOOR AND SIDE LITES TO REMAIN; REPAIR AND PAINT 10. NEW BRICK 26. NEW GALVANIZED STEEL BAR STOCK HANDRAILS, PAINTED BLACK (SEE PG. 16) 11. NEW OGEE ALUMINUM GUTTERS AND RECTANGULAR DOWNSPOUTS, FOR PAINT 27. EXISTING NON-HISTORIC SHUTTERS TO REMAIN AS NON OPERABLE, FOR PAINT 12. HISTORIC PORCH COLUMNS, ARCHITRAVE AND FRIEZE TO REMAIN; REPAIR FOR PAINT (SEE PG. 14-15) 28. NEW ALUMINUM CLAD DOOR WITH INTERNAL SPACER BARS (SEE PG. 20) 13. NEW ASPHALT SHINGLES TO MATCH EXISTING NON-HISTORIC 29. EXISTING DOOR TO BE REPLACED WITH ALUMINUM CLAD DOOR WITH INTERNAL SPACER BAR 12/14/2021 DELTA SIGMA PHI- UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA | SOCIAL TERRACE ELEVATION RENDERING 13 4444 DALGLIESH GILPIN PAXTON ARCHITECTS NOT TO SCALE Existing Historic Column Base Existing Historic Front Porch Column Capital and Entablature 12/14/2021 DELTA SIGMA PHI- UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA | PORCH ENTABLITURE DETAIL 14 4444 DALGLIESH GILPIN PAXTON ARCHITECTS NOT TO SCALE Existing Historic Front Porch Pilaster Base Existing Historic Front Porch Pilaster Capital and Entablature 12/14/2021 DELTA SIGMA PHI- UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA | RAILING DETAILS 15 4444 DALGLIESH GILPIN PAXTON ARCHITECTS NOT TO SCALE Existing Front Porch Condition New Front Porch Condition New Metal Handrail Condition 12/14/2021 DELTA SIGMA PHI- UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA | FRONT PORCH DETAILS 16 4444 DALGLIESH GILPIN PAXTON ARCHITECTS 1/2” : 1’ 12/14/2021 DELTA SIGMA PHI- UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA | DRIVEWAY FACADE DOOR LIGHTING FIXTURE 17 4444 DALGLIESH GILPIN PAXTON ARCHITECTS NOT TO SCALE 12/14/2021 DELTA SIGMA PHI- UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA | SOCIAL TERRACE LIGHTING FIXTURE 18 4444 DALGLIESH GILPIN PAXTON ARCHITECTS NOT TO SCALE 12/14/2021 DELTA SIGMA PHI- UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA | RECESSED LIGHTING FIXTURES 19 4444 DALGLIESH GILPIN PAXTON ARCHITECTS NOT TO SCALE 12/14/2021 DELTA SIGMA PHI- UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA | GLASS INTERNAL SPACER BAR DETAIL 20 4444 DALGLIESH GILPIN PAXTON ARCHITECTS Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 20-11-03 612 West Main Street (also 602-616), Tax Parcel 290003000 West Main ADC District Owner: Heirloom West Main Street Second Phase LLC Applicant: Jeff Dreyfus, Bushman Dreyfus Architects Project: Construction of a mixed-use building Application components (please click each link to go directly to PDF page): • Staff Report • Historic Survey • 12/17 Application Addendum • 11/30 Submittal December 21, 2021 BAR Packet 5 City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Staff Report December 21, 2021 Certificate of Appropriateness Application 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: Whitney Hudson, Jeff Dreyfus / Bushman Dreyfus Architects 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 • Applicant’s submittal: Bushman Dreyfus Architects drawings for 612 West Main Street, dated November 30, 2021: 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 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. • 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. 612 West Main Street (December 7, 2021) 1 • 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 Approval: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed new, mixed-use building at 612 West Main Street satisfies the BAR’s criteria and is compatible with this property and other properties in the West Main Street 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 ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed new, mixed-use building at 612 West Main Street does not satisfy the BAR’s criteria and is not compatible with this property and other properties in the West Main Street ADC District, and that for the following reasons the BAR denies the application as submitted: … Criteria, Standards, and Guidelines Review Criteria Generally Sec. 34-284(b) of the City Code states that, in considering a particular application the BAR shall approve the application unless it finds: 1) That the proposal does not meet specific standards set forth within this division or applicable provisions of the Design Guidelines established by the board pursuant to Sec.34-288(6); and 2) The proposal is incompatible with the historic, cultural or architectural character of the district in which the property is located or the protected property that is the subject of the application. Pertinent Standards for Review of Construction and Alterations include: 1) Whether the material, texture, color, height, scale, mass and placement of the proposed addition, modification or construction are visually and architecturally compatible with the site and the applicable design control district; 2) The harmony of the proposed change in terms of overall proportion and the size and placement of entrances, windows, awnings, exterior stairs and signs; 3) The Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation set forth within the Code of Federal Regulations (36 C.F.R. §67.7(b)), as may be relevant; 4) The effect of the proposed change on the historic district neighborhood; 5) The impact of the proposed change on other protected features on the property, such as gardens, landscaping, fences, walls and walks; 6) Whether the proposed method of construction, renovation or restoration could have an adverse impact on the structure or site, or adjacent buildings or structures; 612 West Main Street (December 7, 2021) 2 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 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 November 16, 2021 – Applicant provided update on the project, with no action taken. 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 612 West Main Street (December 7, 2021) 3 […] 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: 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 612 West Main Street (December 7, 2021) 4 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 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 612 West Main Street (December 7, 2021) 5 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 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. 612 West Main Street (December 7, 2021) 6 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 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 612 West Main Street (December 7, 2021) 7 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. 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 612 West Main Street (December 7, 2021) 8 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 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 612 West Main Street (December 7, 2021) 9 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. 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. 612 West Main Street (December 7, 2021) 10 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 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 612 West Main Street (December 7, 2021) 11 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. 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. 612 West Main Street (December 7, 2021) 12 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. 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 612 West Main Street (December 7, 2021) 13 could send the wrong message that it could be filled out more and we don’t want to mislead you in that way. 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 (December 7, 2021) 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- 612 West Main Street (December 7, 2021) 15 282(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 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 612 West Main Street (December 7, 2021) 16 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 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 612 West Main Street (December 7, 2021) 17 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. 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. 612 West Main Street (December 7, 2021) 18 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 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, 612 West Main Street (December 7, 2021) 19 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. 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 612 West Main Street (December 7, 2021) 20 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. 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 612 West Main Street (December 7, 2021) 21 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. 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 (December 7, 2021) 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 612 West Main Street (December 7, 2021) 23 entrance and be separate spaces and not be accessed from within. I am back and forth on the planters. I 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 (December 7, 2021) 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 (December 7, 2021) 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 612 West Main Street (December 7, 2021) 26 address. I want to encourage the BAR to have that dialogue. This is just a presentation on where the 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 612 West Main Street (December 7, 2021) 27 very long and horizontal building, we are looking at other examples here and introducing retail. One of 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 612 West Main Street (December 7, 2021) 28 and The Flats are the closest in terms of building type. They are different scales and not really 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 612 West Main Street (December 7, 2021) 29 whether that will transition a little bit more to the 600. It might also give you some additional some 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 612 West Main Street (December 7, 2021) 30 five bay facade because that's the width of the fore bay that allows you to mix it up a little bit on this. 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. 612 West Main Street (December 7, 2021) 31 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 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 612 West Main Street (December 7, 2021) 32 doesn't mean you all are only limited to what they're presenting and asking about. That's the “game plan” for this evening. Jeff Dreyfus, Applicant – We're just intending to keep you informed and give you an opportunity to continue to give us guidance prior to coming to you for official approval. What I'd like to do early in this is hand it over to Anne Pray, who is our landscape architect on the project to give you all a very quick overview, the questions that we sent our comments, any thoughts you all have, questions you have about the landscape, and the hardscape plan. The West Main Street elevation really hasn't changed much from what you all saw two months ago. I'll talk a little bit about some of the modifications that we're contemplating there. You will also see both West and South elevations so that we might get any input from you all on those as we continue to develop them. Anne Pray, Applicant – I want to speak a little bit about how we are trying to respond to some earlier comments about creating pedestrian engagement and making the building more active at the street and at the same time looking to break down the building mass and making it a little bit more pedestrian and body scale friendly to the street. I'm going to run through the plan design here pretty quickly, but probably work from the north elevation a little bit more so that we can look at that. In scale and in elevation, I think it reads a little bit better. From the outset of the project, this courtyard area has always been an important part of that residential entry of the building, which is one of its largest purposes. We're looking to create an engagement with the mural wall and also look at a way to just slide in a little bit smaller garden experience here with using a water feature, some benches, and some planting and at the same time opening up the courtyard for the entry. You can see one of the devices we're using is this connect with the larger building, a changing material on the ground plane from something smaller at the street to something larger that runs along the whole front of the building to something smaller in the courtyard again. We think that it gives it a little bit sense of place as you come in. We have three planters located along the length of the building. Two of the planters are at the four bay to create a little bit more of a density. We have this more open concept of the courtyard, closing it off a little bit in the front of the four bay side of the building and opening it up more towards the center and middle as we get to the five bay. Using a larger but singular planter towards the end relates the scale back to the earlier four bay in the building. As you run down to the west of the building, we are negotiating with grade a little bit. We have one singular stair that grows into two steps at the end. We have about a foot of grade change, running from east to west. On that side on the courtyard, we're looking to make it as open and as accessible as possible, so that grade does connect flush across to the main sidewalk. It's obviously more accessible for everyone. One of the things I want to point out here that I think is pretty important is that we get into is that we are required to show for trees to plant for trees. I want to talk about the placement of these trees as part of this project that's actually happening. We know that the West Main Streetscape plan shows for trees, obviously not in this location. I think it is problematically in a really different location with the curb line shifting in the future. We are 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, 612 West Main Street (December 7, 2021) 33 which obviously lends us to believe that they're redesigning the whole street with parking and different curb lines and curb cuts. The extent to which we're actually going to be able to negotiate with that positioning at this point is unknown. I'd like to figure out exactly what the expectations are from the BAR as to how we're supposed to negotiate and handle that at this point. Here you can see an elevation. I think we all know the streetscape trees and the trees that we're proposing. Those four trees are really going to be what competes with the overall scale of the building here. Their placement will be working a little bit more symmetrically side to side with each one centered on a major column of the building. The planters bring the scale down to the pedestrian and the body. They work a little bit more to create a little bit of density against the building with your own perception of it as you're walking by. As you look at it, you can see the courtyard space again to the left. That's a much more open experience overall. As you walk by the first bay or the first true building, there's the four bay. That's more broken up with the planters and the trees. It is a more open center, last third, and then a planter on the end, knotting back to the balance of the four bay building preceding it with the open stair on the end and the retaining wall. I think it's important to talk about the water. One of the things about this building is that it does go from this very rectilinear clean facade outside. As you move your way into the building, it becomes a really calm, curvilinear, meditative experience. I think what we're trying to do by the introduction of water is introduce just a small sound and just a small nod to ‘you've come home.’ It is a little bit chiller and a little bit more common than what you just left on the street. We're trying to set up that choreography from the moment you enter into the courtyard. The articulation of that right now really has a long way to go to get the design done. The idea is that we would be introducing just a small amount of sound of water. Similarly, I think if you look in the next slide, you can see some different precedents. We are playing with the form of the planter. If it might have a little bit more of a batter to the front face how the bench itself could connect in or participate with the planter so that they are overall a little bit more sculptural, but also feel like they can be occupied. With the plantings themselves, I am really into creating a planting design as an important part of the piece. In this case, looking at the building, we actually have a lot of opportunity to use plants as texture and form and create some interesting palettes that you probably wouldn't see otherwise along the street. We'd be really looking to create some identity with making the planters really as big as we can and really get some good planting in there. I've got another image there of the paving precedents and different ideas in scale. I think that paving is going to be very calm, much like the building. We really looked to just maybe two different scales of paving to start to create a break between path and place. With the water base and on the end, there’s a very small nod to just a little something different on the street and introducing that idea of calm as you come into the building as resident. I think the next couple slides actually show this in the architectural rendering, if we want to take a look at that. It's nice to see the scale of the existing trees. We get a sense of how big these trees might hopefully become over time. You can see the courtyard and the planters laid out there. This is just obviously from the other end. I think what's nice to see here is actually just the stair. It's just a one foot gray change at that point. It's something we need to deal with and wanted to really keep it as open as possible. Really using a stair as an occupiable moment but to come up to the retail promenade and leaving that little bit of a space on the end for the bike racks. One thing I would say about the bike racks, because this might come up, is that I think it's really just been our experience looking at how they function at 600 right in the front of the building and right in front of the coffee and retail space. I think the takeaway there 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. 612 West Main Street (December 7, 2021) 34 Mr. Dreyfus – We do intend to have options for greenery along the balcony railings. Whether or not that is owner provided or tenant provided, we do have a long way to work through on that. We do intend to add that bit of color and texture to the façade. We're really looking for ways to quiet the building down. As Anne noted, the interior lobby of the residential entry is going to be very curvilinear. That is something that we are thinking may actually make its way out to the exterior of the building in a very quiet way next to the front door. We’re not ready to talk about that. In trying to quiet the building down, you'll see that we began thinking more about color and texture since our last conversation. The next slide does show how we're beginning to think about the particular elements of the façade. We are intending that the North, West, and East elevations will be brick. We'll talk in a minute about the texture of the brick and the hyphens as we discussed before. We’re thinking that the upper levels might be white or off white. We're thinking that the color of the building might be more of a heather brick or a lighter cream color. It's not going to be white. It's not going to be stark white. We know that much. We've got a ways to go. We're exploring brick that can be completely painted or brick that has enough soft color that we like it. We'll be back with more on that. I think what's important to note here is that we do believe that going with a different color on the retail level and ground level helps with the building to delineate what's residential and what's commercial in terms of its scale. It also makes the engagement with the street different from the facade as it goes higher up in the residential area. We're liking this. We don't quite yet know how we want to provide cover at the doors into the retail. That will be something that we continue to develop. You'll also see that perhaps that same darker color, which might be a metal. We're working toward that. That material would probably also introduce itself there on the left at the door into the residential lobby. You can begin to see the curve of that might express itself right in that small area. We're thinking upper windows and doors would be light in color as close match as we can get it to the brick material on the facade and darker down below. We would like to hear if this is an acceptable direction. The railings that we see on the balconies will also probably be light in color. Some of our earlier designs showed pretty soon stark contrast between black or dark bronze windows and doors and railings up above, which were similar to what's down below. It was becoming a little bit too checker boarding for our tastes. That's the direction that we're thinking we're going to go with colors. One thing I would like to note about the hyphens of the façade is that we are still imagining that the hyphens will be a different texture from the main blocks of the facade that move forward. We don't in any way think that the hyphens will be a different color but perhaps a different texture brick. Whether we model the surface or we do something with the control joints, we do want to make it subtly different. They step back, obviously, and they stepped down a little bit. We're trying to keep things related but quietly, different from one to the other. Here, you can also begin to see that the lower level that the darker color on the retail level does do what a number of buildings on West Main Street do. That is to call a distinction between the retail level and the residential levels up above, including on the Holsinger building right there on the right. There's a distinct line drawn there between the ground level engagement and the upper level residential. Here, we're beginning to talk about what the rear elevation will be. This might be a little bit hard to make out. On the lowest level, we have two story studio lofts behind those tall double doors. Those are probably Juliet balconies that can be opened. They speak to the height of that floor elevation. On West Main Street, we're supposed to have close to a 17 foot tall first floor. We're actually taking advantage of that to provide loft units on the backside of the building with living down below and a sleeping loft up above. The next level up has large terraces off of the units and also includes the green roof that we're going to be incorporating in the project. The green roof is down at this level and not on the rooftop. The rooftop may or may not be occupied in the future. We're not there yet. We think this is a great opportunity for us to bring the greenery and the softness of that to the living units on the 612 West Main Street (December 7, 2021) 35 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 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. 612 West Main Street (December 7, 2021) 36 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. 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. 612 West Main Street (December 7, 2021) 37 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. 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 612 West Main Street (December 7, 2021) 38 everywhere. That will definitely be a part of what we do. It is important that we get that surface right for the tenants of the building. It is not a throwaway material. Comments from The Public: No Comments from the Public Comments from The Board: 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. 612 West Main Street (December 7, 2021) 39 Mr. Schwarz – I'm going to agree with what's been said so far. I want to see very tall, beautiful canopy trees on West Main. If the power lines end up needing to stay, I think Cova have done a good job of coexisting. Something of that scale would be appropriate if you keep the power lines. My other concern I brought up with the Code Building is that they have sworn to me that we're not going to end up with a bunch of yellow tape on all the on the edges of all the stair treads. I don't know if it's our zoning code. Wedge steps are not allowed. When they show up, they end up becoming tripping hazards. I think they're a wonderful landscape feature. I just want you guys to make sure that these steps and landscape don't become like him covered in bright yellow tape. 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 612 West Main Street (December 7, 2021) 40 future. I think that's how this building will most likely be seen. If the intention is to truly have the brick in the textured brick berry so similar in color, I wonder if a more radical technique like making one of the bays that textured brick might be worth considering. I just continue to look for more depth from the façade. I am just worried that it's getting keeps getting thinner and thinner. Mr. Zehmer joined the meeting during the discussion of this agenda item. Mr. Schwarz – Are we all OK with the change to stucco/EIFS at the back? Are we all still on board with the massing? There seems to be more desire for more originality in the front façade. Mr. Mohr – I like the idea of doing something to make that top appear different. That would actually drive that whole block down lower and you wouldn't feel quite all the peace. To me, it's more like the main 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 (December 7, 2021) 41 612 West Main BAR Submittal for December 21, 2021 - Notes on Dec 17, 2021 Addendum (Staff Review Dec 20, 2021 - 11:42 a.m.) Nov 30 2021 Dec 17 2021 (Addendum) # Title # Title Note 1 Cover 2 SUP Conditions (cover) 1 Historic Map Overlay 3 Historic Map Overlay (re: SUP) n/c 4 Relationship to 600 W Main (cover) 2 Site Plan 5 Site Plan Change at entry plaza (courtyard) 6 Fence between buildings New 7 Building Elevations (cover) 3 A2.00 West Main Elev 8 West Main Elev Minor rev to rooftop screen 4 A2.01 North Elev 9 North Elev Revised: notes re: glass types; brick type 5 A2.02 East Elev 10 East Elev Revised: Note re: brick type 6 A2.03 South Elev 11 South Elev Revised: Note re: brick type at east end; rooftop screen 7 A2.04 West Elev 12 West Elev Revised: notes re: glass types; brick type 13 Window Surrounds New 14 Wall Sections (cover) 8 A4.00 Wall Sections 15 A4.00 Wall Sections Hyphen Wall Section added 16 A4.01 Wall Sections New 17 A4.02 Wall Sections New 18 Details (cover) 9 A6.02 Plan Details 19 A6.02 Plan Details n/c 20 A6.03 Plan Details New 21 Building Materials (cover) 22 Building Materials New 23 Glazing New 24 Signage (cover) 25 Signage Compliance New 26 Mech Units (cover) 27 Roof Plan New 28 Renderings New 29 Landscape (cover) 10 Landscape Plan 30 Landscape Plan Misc. change at entry/courtyard 31 Existing Trees New 11 Landscape Elevation 32 Landscape Elevation Misc. change at entry. Sizes of planters at storefront 33 Landscape Materials New 34 Lighting (cover) 35 Exterior Lighting Concept New 36 Dark Light (list) New 37 Dark Light (elevation) New 38 Dark Light (rendering - composite) New 39 Dark Light (rendering - brick inserts) New 40 Dark Light (rendering - roof deck) New 41 Dark Light (rendering - portals) New 42 Dark Light (rendering - Lobby Entry signage)New 43 Dark Light (rendering - Lobby Entry) New 44 Dark Light (rendering - pathway and egress) New 45 Dark Light- Façade (elevation - Planters) New 46 Dark Light- Façade (elevation) New 47 Dark Light- Façade (rendering) New 48 Dark Light- Entry (elevation) New 49 Dark Light- Entry (rendering) New 50 Dark Light- Mural (elevation) New 51 Dark Light- Mural (rendering) New 52 Dark Light- Thank you (note) New 53 Views (cover) 12 Street View from West Main 54 Street view from west n/c 13 View from West 55 View from west n/c 14 Street view from east 56 Street view from east Change at entry landscape 15 View from 6th St NW 57 View from 6th St NW Change at entry landscape 16 Entry View 58 Entry View Change at entry landscape 17 View of Plaza./Mural 59 View of Plaza./Mural Change at entry landscape 18 Storefront View 60 Storefront View n/c 20 View of South Façade 61 View of South Façade Color change: balconies 21 Detail view 62 Detail view Color change: balconies 19 View from west 63 View from west n/c 612 WEST MAIN STREET BAR MEETING 12.21.2021 | CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS SUP CONDITIONS BAR MEETING 12.21.2021 | CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS 612 WEST MAIN STREET 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 12.21.2021 SUBMISSION 12.08.2020 HISTORIC HISTORIC MAP MAP OVERLAY OVERLAY 3 1 RELATIONSHIP TO SIX HUNDRED WEST MAIN BAR MEETING 12.21.2021 | CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS 612 WEST MAIN STREET 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 12.21.2021 SITE PLAN 612 & 600 5 SETBACK Detail MURAL WALL RESIDENTIAL ENTRY PLANTING 20' ENTRY PLAZA BED 608 W. MAIN PLANTING BED Fence 2 FENCE/GATE 608 MECH RECESSED ENTRANCE GRATE 7" FENCE ENTRY FROM 600 COURTYARD Plan View Fence 1 BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR MEETING 12.21.2021 FENCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS 6 BUILDING ELEVATIONS BAR MEETING 12.21.2021 | CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS 612 WEST MAIN STREET ARCHITECT BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC 820 East High Street, Charlottesville VA 434.295.1936 DEVELOPER HEIRLOOM WEST MAIN STREET, SECOND PHASE LLC 2093 Goodling Road, North Garden VA OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE CHRUSCIEL GROUP 28 Country Club Dr., E. Longmeadow, MA 413.246.8450 CIVIL ENGINEER TIMMONS GROUP 608 Preston Avenue, Suite 200, Charlottesville VA 434.295.5624 MEP, FP ENGINEERS LU+S ENGINEERS 4924 Dominion Blvd, Glen Allen, VA 804.925.2600 STRUCTURAL ENGINEER DUNBY STRUCTURAL 110 Third Street, Charlottesville, VA 434.293.5171 LIGHTING DESIGNER DARK LIGHT DESIGN 265 Union Boulevard, Suite 1420, St. Louis, MO 314.797.2184 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRAY DESIGN ASSOCIATES 1012 Wildmere Place, Charlottesville, VA 434.242.7642 SPECIFICATIONS SPEC GUY SPEC. CONSULTANT 8812 Bridgeport Bay Circle, Mount Dora, FL 704.367.1991 N O TI C RU ST N O C R FO T O N address: 612 WEST MAIN STREET SIX HUNDRED WEST MAIN SIX-TWELVE WEST MAIN PROJECT #18160 HOLSINGER BUILDING MARK DATE DESCRIPTION EDITIONS/REVS STREET ELEVATION 1/16" = 1'-0" 1 0 8' 16' 32' 8 WEST MAIN STREET ELEVATION BAR SUBMISSION MEETING: 12.21.2021 printed 4:16 PM, 12/17/21 8 ARCHITECT BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC 820 East High Street, Charlottesville VA 434.295.1936 2 1 1 2 DEVELOPER A4.01 A4.01 A4.00 A4.00 HEIRLOOM WEST MAIN STREET, SECOND PHASE LLC UPPER ROOF 2093 Goodling Road, North Garden VA 550'-9 1/2" OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE CHRUSCIEL GROUP ELEV. & E. STAIR - SINGLE CASEMENT W/SIDELITE, 28 Country Club Dr., E. Longmeadow, MA EFIS, COLOR TO SCREEN (NIC) 413.246.8450 OVER LOWER WDW, GLASS 2N MATCH BRICK CIVIL ENGINEER BRICK #2 BEYOND, TIMMONS GROUP MODULAR, RAKED JTS BRICK #1 - METAL COPING BALCONY RAILING 608 Preston Avenue, Suite 200, W/ANGLED PATTERN Charlottesville VA MONARCH SIZE BRICK #4 - W. STAIR - EFIS COLOR 434.295.5624 BRICK #1 - SINGLE CASEMENT W/SIDELITE, TO MATCH BRICK BRICK #5 - THIN BRICK CLADDING MONARCH SIZE OVER LOWER WDW, GLASS 2N BRICK #4 - INSET BRICK #4 - INSET MEP, FP ENGINEERS THIN MONARCH AT 4TH FLOOR TERRACE LU+S ENGINEERS 4924 Dominion Blvd, Glen Allen, VA ROOF 804.925.2600 536'-1" STRUCTURAL ENGINEER DUNBY STRUCTURAL RAILING 110 Third Street, Charlottesville, VA 12'-1" 434.293.5171 FIXED WDWS OVER LIGHTING DESIGNER AWNING, TYP., METAIL COPING DARK LIGHT DESIGN GLASS 2N 265 Union Boulevard, Suite 1420, St. Louis, MO FOURTH FLOOR 314.797.2184 525'-4" TERRACE DOORS, TYP. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRAY DESIGN ASSOCIATES AT JULIET BALCONIES, 1012 Wildmere Place, Charlottesville, VA GLASS 2N 434.242.7642 SPECIFICATIONS SPEC GUY SPEC. CONSULTANT 8812 Bridgeport Bay Circle, Mount Dora, FL RAILING 704.367.1991 RAILING THIRD FLOOR 49'-11 5/8" 514'-5 1/4" N O CASEMENT WDWS TI 41'-6 3/8" STREET WALL HT. GLASS 2N C RU 37'-9 3/8" 38'-6 1/4" ST N SECOND FLOOR O C 503'-6 1/2" BRICK #2 BEYOND, R BRICK #4 FO MODULAR, RAKED JTS THIN BRICK CLG W/ANGLED PATTERN T O BRICK SURROUND N GLASS 3 - ALL GLASS DOOR/ FENCE/GATE STOREFRONT BEYOND @608 address: GROUND FLOOR 612 WEST 488'-2 1/2" 487'-6 5/8" 28' 52'-7 5/8" 15' 60'-4" 12' MAIN STREET AVE. LVL OF CURB PROJECT #18160 484'-9" GLASS 3 - ALL GLASS STOREFRONT, GLASS 3 - ALL GLASS BRICK #2 BEYOND, INSET METAL PLANEL BRICK SURROUND, TYP. MARK DATE DESCRIPTION AVE. GRADE PLANE DOOR IN GLASS 1N STOREFRONT GLASS 1N DOORS, TYP. MODULAR, RAKED JTS STOREFRONT, GLASS 1N W/ANGLED PATTERN EDITIONS/REVS CURVED PLASTER ENTRY WALL, COLOR TO MATCH BRICK STOREFRONT, GLASS 1N PARKING 477'-3" FOUNDATION 474'-2 1/2" NORTH ELEVATION 1/8" = 1'-0" 1 0 4' 8' 16' 9 NORTH ELEVATION BAR SUBMISSION MEETING: 12.21.2021 printed 4:16 PM, 12/17/21 9 ARCHITECT 600 OUTLINE BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC 820 East High Street, Charlottesville VA 434.295.1936 4 METAL COPING DEVELOPER A4.02 HEIRLOOM WEST MAIN STREET, SECOND PHASE LLC UPPER ROOF 2093 Goodling Road, North Garden VA 550'-9 1/2" OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE CHRUSCIEL GROUP 28 Country Club Dr., E. Longmeadow, MA 413.246.8450 METAL COPING CIVIL ENGINEER TIMMONS GROUP E. STAIR, EFIS TO 608 Preston Avenue, Suite 200, CMU BEHIND MATCH BRICK Charlottesville VA 600 WALL 434.295.5624 BRICK #2, MODULAR, RAKED JTS MEP, FP ENGINEERS W/ANGLED PATTERN LU+S ENGINEERS 4924 Dominion Blvd, Glen Allen, VA ROOF 804.925.2600 536'-1" STRUCTURAL ENGINEER BRICK #4 - INSET DUNBY STRUCTURAL 110 Third Street, Charlottesville, VA BRICK #1 - 434.293.5171 CASEMENT WDW MONARCH SIZE LIGHTING DESIGNER OVER FIXED, GLASS 2 DARK LIGHT DESIGN 265 Union Boulevard, Suite 1420, St. Louis, MO FOURTH FLOOR 314.797.2184 525'-4" BRICK #5 - INSET LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRAY DESIGN ASSOCIATES BRICK #4 - INSET MONARCH 1012 Wildmere Place, Charlottesville, VA 434.242.7642 FIXED WINDOW, GLASS 2N SPECIFICATIONS FIXED WDW, SPEC GUY SPEC. CONSULTANT 8812 Bridgeport Bay Circle, Mount Dora, FL OVER AWNING, BRICK SURROUND 704.367.1991 GLASS 2 THIRD FLOOR 514'-5 1/4" N O FIXED WINDOW, TI FIXED WDW, C GLASS 2N RU OVER AWNING, GLASS 2 ST N SECOND FLOOR O C 503'-6 1/2" R FO INSET METAL PANEL INSET METAL PANEL T O N STOREFRONT, GLASS 2 STOREFRONT, GLASS 1N ALL GLASS DOOR, address: GROUND FLOOR GLASS 3 612 WEST 488'-2 1/2" MAIN STREET 608 WEST MAIN (DASHED) WEST MAIN PROJECT #18160 MARK DATE DESCRIPTION ENTRY FROM 600 EDITIONS/REVS PARKING 477'-3" FOUNDATION SIX HUNDRED WEST MAIN 474'-2 1/2" (DASHED) EAST ELEVATION 1/8" = 1'-0" 1 0 4' 8' 16' 10 EAST ELEVATION BAR SUBMISSION MEETING: 12.21.2021 printed 4:16 PM, 12/17/21 10 ARCHITECT BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC 820 East High Street, Charlottesville VA 434.295.1936 1 DEVELOPER A4.02 HEIRLOOM WEST MAIN STREET, METAL COPING SECOND PHASE LLC UPPER ROOF 2093 Goodling Road, North Garden VA 550'-9 1/2" OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE CHRUSCIEL GROUP ELEV. & E. STAIR - 28 Country Club Dr., E. Longmeadow, MA METAL COPING SCREEN (NIC) EFIS, COLOR TO MATCH BRICK 413.246.8450 EFIS, COLOR TO MATCH BRICK BALCONY RAILING CIVIL ENGINEER W. STAIR - EFIS, TIMMONS GROUP COLOR TO MATCH BRICK PARAPET BEYOND 608 Preston Avenue, Suite 200, BRICK #3, MODULAR, SINGLE CASEMENT W/SIDELITE, GUARDRAIL (NIC) Charlottesville VA RAKED JTS OVER LOWER WDW, GLASS 2 434.295.5624 MEP, FP ENGINEERS LU+S ENGINEERS 4924 Dominion Blvd, Glen Allen, VA ROOF TERRACE DOORS 804.925.2600 536'-1" AT BALCONIES, TYP., STRUCTURAL ENGINEER GLASS 2 DUNBY STRUCTURAL 110 Third Street, Charlottesville, VA 434.293.5171 FIXED WDWS OVER AWNING, TYP. LIGHTING DESIGNER DARK LIGHT DESIGN 265 Union Boulevard, Suite 1420, METAL SILL DTL, TYP. St. Louis, MO 314.797.2184 FOURTH FLOOR 525'-4" LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRAY DESIGN ASSOCIATES INSET EFIS, TYP. 1012 Wildmere Place, Charlottesville, VA 434.242.7642 SPECIFICATIONS CASEMENT WDW, SPEC GUY SPEC. CONSULTANT GLASS 2 8812 Bridgeport Bay Circle, Mount Dora, FL 704.367.1991 THIRD FLOOR 514'-5 1/4" BRICK #3, MODULAR, RAKED JTS N O TERRACE RAILING TI C RU METAL COPING ST N SECOND FLOOR O C 503'-6 1/2" R EFIS, COLOR TO MATCH FO BRICK T O INSET EFIS N 22'-6 7/8" address: 612 WEST MAIN STREET GROUND FLOOR 488'-2 1/2" PROJECT #18160 MARK DATE DESCRIPTION EDITIONS/REVS 165'-5 7/8" PARKING SINGLE CASEMENT W/SIDELITE, 477'-3" OVER LOWER WDW, GLASS 1S FOUNDATION 474'-2 1/2" SOUTH ELEVATION 1/8" = 1'-0" 1 0 4' 8' 16' 11 SOUTH ELEVATION BAR SUBMISSION MEETING: 12.21.2021 printed 4:16 PM, 12/17/21 11 ARCHITECT BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC 820 East High Street, Charlottesville VA 434.295.1936 3 DEVELOPER A4.02 HEIRLOOM WEST MAIN STREET, SECOND PHASE LLC UPPER ROOF 2093 Goodling Road, North Garden VA 550'-9 1/2" OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE METAL COPING CHRUSCIEL GROUP 28 Country Club Dr., E. Longmeadow, MA W. STAIR - EFIS COLOR 413.246.8450 TO MATCH BRICK CIVIL ENGINEER TIMMONS GROUP 608 Preston Avenue, Suite 200, METAL COPING Charlottesville VA 434.295.5624 METAL COPING BRICK #3 71'-3 5/8" 19'-10 7/8" MEP, FP ENGINEERS LU+S ENGINEERS 4924 Dominion Blvd, Glen Allen, VA ROOF 804.925.2600 536'-1" STRUCTURAL ENGINEER DUNBY STRUCTURAL METAL COPING 110 Third Street, Charlottesville, VA BRICK #4 - INSET 434.293.5171 INBRICK #4 - INSET WINDOW, GLASS 2 LIGHTING DESIGNER DARK LIGHT DESIGN RAILING BALCONY RAILING 265 Union Boulevard, Suite 1420, St. Louis, MO FOURTH FLOOR 314.797.2184 525'-4" LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT BRICK #1 - PRAY DESIGN ASSOCIATES METAL CLADDING AT 1012 Wildmere Place, Charlottesville, VA MONARCH SIZE 33'-9 3/8" BALCONY EDGES 434.242.7642 WINDOW, GLASS 2 SPECIFICATIONS BRICK SILL SPEC GUY SPEC. CONSULTANT BRICK SILL 8812 Bridgeport Bay Circle, Mount Dora, FL 704.367.1991 BRICK #2, MODULAR, THIRD FLOOR RAKED JTS TERRACE PRIVACY 514'-5 1/4" W/ANGLED PATTERN PANEL BRICK #4 - INSET N BRICK #3, MODULAR, O WINDOW, GLASS 2 METAL COPING TI RAKED JTS FIRE GLASS IN C RU FIRE WDW FRAME, BRICK SILL BRICK #3, MODULAR, GLASS 4 ST RAKED JTS N SECOND FLOOR O C 503'-6 1/2" R FO BRICK #4 - INSET T O BRICK #4 - INSET N STOREFRONT, GLASS 2 WEST MAIN ST. 22'-8 7/8" BRICK SILL BRICK SILL address: GROUND FLOOR 612 WEST 488'-2 1/2" MAIN STREET HOLSINGER BUILDING RAILROAD PROJECT #18160 (DASHED) MARK DATE DESCRIPTION EDITIONS/REVS PARKING 477'-3" FOUNDATION 474'-2 1/2" WEST ELEVATION 1/8" = 1'-0" 1 0 4' 8' 16' 12 WEST ELEVATION BAR SUBMISSION MEETING: 12.21.2021 printed 4:16 PM, 12/17/21 12 ARCHITECT BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC 820 East High Street, Charlottesville VA 434.295.1936 DEVELOPER HEIRLOOM WEST MAIN STREET, SECOND PHASE LLC 2093 Goodling Road, North Garden VA OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE CHRUSCIEL GROUP 28 Country Club Dr., E. Longmeadow, MA 413.246.8450 CIVIL ENGINEER TIMMONS GROUP 608 Preston Avenue, Suite 200, Charlottesville VA 434.295.5624 MEP, FP ENGINEERS LU+S ENGINEERS 4924 Dominion Blvd, Glen Allen, VA 804.925.2600 STRUCTURAL ENGINEER DUNBY STRUCTURAL 110 Third Street, Charlottesville, VA 434.293.5171 7'-4 3/8" 7'-4 3/8" LIGHTING DESIGNER DARK LIGHT DESIGN 265 Union Boulevard, Suite 1420, St. Louis, MO 314.797.2184 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRAY DESIGN ASSOCIATES 1012 Wildmere Place, Charlottesville, VA 434.242.7642 SPECIFICATIONS SPEC GUY SPEC. CONSULTANT 8812 Bridgeport Bay Circle, Mount Dora, FL 704.367.1991 N O TI C RU ST N O C R FO T O N address: 612 WEST 7'-4 3/8" 7'-4 3/8" MAIN STREET PROJECT #18160 MARK DATE DESCRIPTION EDITIONS/REVS WINDOW ELEVATION 1/2" = 1'-0" 1 WINDOW ELEVATION 1/2" = 1'-0" 1 0 1' 2' 4' 13 0 1' 2' 4' 13 WINDOW SURROUNDS BAR SUBMISSION MEETING: 12.21.2021 printed 4:19 PM, 12/17/21 13 WALL SECTIONS BAR MEETING 12.21.2021 | CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS 612 WEST MAIN STREET 49'-4" C222 49'-4" C222 ROOF 48' C216 ROOF 48' C216 536'-1" 536'-1" 46'-8" C210 46'-8" C210 WOOD STRUCTURE ROOF ASSEMBLY: ROOF MEMBRANE 1/4" EXTERIOR GYP 45'-4" C204 TAPERED POLYISO INSULATION MIN R-25 45'-4" C204 41'-4" C186 MIN 1/4"/FT. S;OPE TO DRAINS 41'-4" C186 1/2 HR NORTH TERRACE ASSEMBLY: MIN 1 1/2" THICKNESS AT ROOF DRAINS CAP FLASHING. FINISH CERAMIC TILE TERRACE PAVERS 5/8" EXTERIOR GYP TO MATCH WINDOWS PAVER PEDASTAL SYSTEM 44' C198 WATERPROOF MEMBRANE AND DOORS, TYP. FULLY-ADHERED TPO ROOF MEMBRANE 40' C180 PLYWOOD SHEATHING PER STRUCT 40' C180 TAPERED INSULATION 3 1/2" ACOUSTIC FIBERGLASS BATT SUBFLOOR PER STRUCT PEDESTAL PAVER INSULATION, UNFACED; AT BOTTOM OF I-JOISTS PER STRUCT SYSTEM AT TERRACE 42'-8" C192 CAVITY R-38 SPRAY FOAM INSULATION (1) LAYER TYPE X GWB 1/2" RESILIENT CHANNELS, SPACING 38'-8" C174 CONCEALED LINTEL 38'-8" C174 PER MANUFACTURER SYSTEM AT OPENING (1) LAYER 5/8" TYPE X GWB HEAD, TYP. ARCHITECT BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC FOURTH FLOOR 37'-4" C168 FOURTH FLOOR 37'-4" C168 820 East High Street, Charlottesville VA 525'-4" 525'-4" 434.295.1936 DEVELOPER STEEL GUARDRAIL, FINISH HEIRLOOM WEST MAIN STREET, TO MATCH WINDOWS AND 36' C162 36' C162 SECOND PHASE LLC 2093 Goodling Road, North Garden VA DOORS, TYP. OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE CHRUSCIEL GROUP 28 Country Club Dr., E. Longmeadow, MA 34'-8" C156 34'-8" C156 413.246.8450 CIVIL ENGINEER TIMMONS GROUP 608 Preston Avenue, Suite 200, Charlottesville VA 434.295.5624 MEP, FP ENGINEERS LU+S ENGINEERS 28' C126 28' C126 4924 Dominion Blvd, Glen Allen, VA 804.925.2600 STRUCTURAL ENGINEER DUNBAR 26'-8" C120 26'-8" C120 110 Third Street, Charlottesville, VA 434.293.5171 THIRD FLOOR THIRD FLOOR 514'-5 1/4" 514'-5 1/4" LIGHTING DESIGNER DARK LIGHT DESIGN 265 Union Boulevard, Suite 1420, 25'-4" C114 25'-4" C114 St. Louis, MO 314.797.2184 1/2 HR WOOD STRUCTURE FLOOR ASSEMBLY: LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRAY DESIGN ASSOCIATES 1/4" LUXURY VINYL TILE 1012 Wildmere Place, Charlottesville, VA 1" GYPCRETE 24' C108 24' C108 434.242.7642 1/4" RESILIENT MAT THIN BRICK AT INSET SPECIFICATIONS PLYWOOD SUBFLOOR PER STRUCT SPEC GUY SPEC. CONSULTANT 8812 Bridgeport Bay Circle, Mount Dora, FL I-JOISTS PER STRUCT 704.367.1991 3 1/2" ACOUSTIC FIBERGLASS BATT INSULATION, 22'-8" C102 22'-8" C102 UNFACED; AT BOTTOM OF CAVITY 1/2" RESILIENT CHANNELS, SPACING PER MANUFACTURER N (1) LAYER 5/8" TYPE X GWB 21'-4" 18'-8" C96 C84 STEEL GUARDRAIL. FINISH 18'-8" C84 O TI TO MATCH WINDOWS AND C DOORS, TYP. RU ST 17'-4" C78 17'-4" C78 N O C R CUT BRICK SILL FO 16' C72 16' C72 T O SECOND FLOOR SECOND FLOOR N 503'-6 1/2" 503'-6 1/2" 14'-8" C66 14'-8" C66 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA CONCEALED LINTEL address: 2 HR PODIUM SEPARATION FLOOR ASSEMBLY: 13'-4" C60 SYSTEM AT OPENING HEAD, TYP. 13'-4" C60 612 WEST MAIN STREET 1/4" LUXURY VINYL TILE 1" GYPCRETE 1/4" RESILIENT MAT RAKED JOINTS, TYP. PROJECT #18160 PLYWOOD SUBFLOOR PER STRUCT 12' C54 12' C54 MARK DATE DESCRIPTION FRAMING PER STRUCT 05.21.2021 100% DD DRAWINGS 3 1/2" ACOUSTIC FIBERGLASS BATT INSULATION, METAL PANEL SYSTEM. UNFACED; AT BOTTOM OF CAVITY FINISH TO MATCH WINDOWS EDITIONS/REVS 01 12.15.2021 100% VE DD DRAWINGS (1) LAYER 5/8" TYPE X GWB AND DOORS, TYP. 10'-8" C48 10'-8" C48 1/2" RESILIENT CHANNELS, SPACING PER MANUFACTURER (2) LAYERS 5/8" TYPE X GWB 1'-4" C6 1'-4" C6 9'-4" C42 15" BRICK AT RETURN GROUND FLOOR GROUND FLOOR 0" C0 0" C0 488'-2 1/2" 488'-2 1/2" WALL SECTIONS PARKING PARKING 100% VE DESIGN 477'-3" 477'-3" DEVELOPMENT 12.15.2021 printed 12:54 PM, 12/16/21 HYPHEN WALL SECTION 1/2" = 1'-0" 2 NORTH WALL SECTION 1/2" = 1'-0" 1 A4.00 0 1' 2' 4' A4.00 0 1' 2' 4' A4.00 50'-8" C228 49'-4" C222 ROOF 48' C216 536'-1" 46'-8" C210 45'-4" C204 ARCHITECT BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC 820 East High Street, Charlottesville VA METAL SILL BETWEEN WINDOW 434.295.1936 AND BRICK SILL, TYP. 37'-4" C168 DEVELOPER FOURTH FLOOR HEIRLOOM WEST MAIN STREET, 525'-4" SECOND PHASE LLC 2093 Goodling Road, North Garden VA OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE 36' C162 CHRUSCIEL GROUP 28 Country Club Dr., E. Longmeadow, MA 413.246.8450 CIVIL ENGINEER TIMMONS GROUP 34'-8" C156 608 Preston Avenue, Suite 200, Charlottesville VA 434.295.5624 MEP, FP ENGINEERS 33'-4" C150 LU+S ENGINEERS 4924 Dominion Blvd, Glen Allen, VA 804.925.2600 STRUCTURAL ENGINEER DUNBAR 26'-8" C120 110 Third Street, Charlottesville, VA THIRD FLOOR 434.293.5171 514'-5 1/4" LIGHTING DESIGNER DARK LIGHT DESIGN 25'-4" C114 265 Union Boulevard, Suite 1420, St. Louis, MO 314.797.2184 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRAY DESIGN ASSOCIATES CONCEALED 24' C108 1012 Wildmere Place, Charlottesville, VA 434.242.7642 LINTEL, TYP. SPECIFICATIONS SPEC GUY SPEC. CONSULTANT 8812 Bridgeport Bay Circle, Mount Dora, FL 22'-8" C102 704.367.1991 16' C72 N SECOND FLOOR O 503'-6 1/2" TI C 14'-8" C66 RU ST N O C 13'-4" C60 R FO CUT BRICK WITH CONCEALED T O LINTEL HEADER N 12' C54 THIN BRICK ON CFS SOFFIT CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 10'-8" C48 address: 612 WEST MAIN STREET 1'-4" C6 PROJECT #18160 MARK DATE DESCRIPTION 01 12.15.2021 100% VE DD DRAWINGS EDITIONS/REVS GROUND FLOOR 0" C0 488'-2 1/2" PARKING WALL SECTIONS 477'-3" 100% VE DESIGN DEVELOPMENT 12.15.2021 printed 12:54 PM, 12/16/21 PLAZA WALL SECTION 1/2" = 1'-0" 1 A4.01 0 1' 2' 4' A4.01 52' C234 ROOF 536'-1" 50'-8" C228 GUARDRAIL; FINISH TO 49'-4" C222 53'-4" C222 MATCH DOORS AND WINDOWS ROOF 48' C216 ROOF 52' C216 536'-1" 536'-1" TILE ON PEDESTAL SYSTEM 46'-8" C210 50'-8" C210 FOURTH FLOOR 525'-4" 45'-4" C204 49'-4" C204 CONTINUOUS METAL FASCIA ARCHITECT TO MATCH GUARDRAIL BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC 820 East High Street, Charlottesville VA 434.295.1936 SLOPED BRICK STUCCO FINISH ON 37'-4" C168 41'-4" C168 UNDERSIDE OF BALCONY DEVELOPER FOURTH FLOOR FOURTH FLOOR HEIRLOOM WEST MAIN STREET, 525'-4" 525'-4" SECOND PHASE LLC 2093 Goodling Road, North Garden VA OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE 36' C162 40' C162 CHRUSCIEL GROUP 28 Country Club Dr., E. Longmeadow, MA THIRD FLOOR 413.246.8450 514'-5 1/4" CIVIL ENGINEER TIMMONS GROUP 34'-8" C156 38'-8" C156 608 Preston Avenue, Suite 200, Charlottesville VA 434.295.5624 GUARDRAIL; FINISH TO MATCH MEP, FP ENGINEERS 33'-4" C150 37'-4" C150 WINDOWS AND DOORS LU+S ENGINEERS 4924 Dominion Blvd, Glen Allen, VA 804.925.2600 TILE TERRACE ON STRUCTURAL ENGINEER CUT BRICK AT SILL, TYP. PEDASTAL SYSTEM DUNBAR 26'-8" C120 30'-8" C120 110 Third Street, Charlottesville, VA THIRD FLOOR THIRD FLOOR 434.293.5171 GREEN ROOF PER CIVIL 514'-5 1/4" 514'-5 1/4" LIGHTING DESIGNER DARK LIGHT DESIGN 25'-4" C114 29'-4" C114 265 Union Boulevard, Suite 1420, St. Louis, MO 314.797.2184 CONCEALED LINTEL AT SECOND FLOOR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT INSET THIN BRICK TO HEADER, TYP. 503'-6 1/2" PRAY DESIGN ASSOCIATES MATCH FULL BRICK 24' C108 28' C108 1012 Wildmere Place, Charlottesville, VA 434.242.7642 SPECIFICATIONS THIN BRICK SOFFIT SPEC GUY SPEC. CONSULTANT 8812 Bridgeport Bay Circle, Mount Dora, FL 22'-8" C102 26'-8" C102 704.367.1991 16' C72 20' C72 N SECOND FLOOR SECOND FLOOR HEAD TRIM; FINISH TO O 503'-6 1/2" 503'-6 1/2" TI MATCH WALL C 14'-8" C66 18'-8" C66 RU ST EIFS STUCCO FINISH N O C 13'-4" C60 17'-4" C60 R CONFLICT TO BE CONFLICT TO BE FO RESOLVED WITH RESOLVED WITH T STRUCT STRUCT O N 12' C54 16' C54 INSET METAL PANEL SYSTEM; FINISH TO MATCH WINDOWS AND DOORS CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 10'-8" C48 14'-8" C48 address: METAL PANEL RETURN; FINISH TO MATCH WINDOWS 612 WEST AND DOORS 9'-4" C42 MAIN STREET 1'-4" C6 5'-4" C6 PROJECT #18160 MARK DATE DESCRIPTION SILL; FINISH TO MATCH 01 12.15.2021 100% VE DD DRAWINGS WALL EDITIONS/REVS GROUND FLOOR GROUND FLOOR GROUND FLOOR 0" C0 4' C0 488'-2 1/2" 488'-2 1/2" 488'-2 1/2" 2'-8" C-6 1'-4" C-12 0" C-18 PARKING PARKING WALL SECTIONS 477'-3" 477'-3" PARKING 100% VE DESIGN 477'-3" DEVELOPMENT 12.15.2021 printed 12:55 PM, 12/16/21 EAST WALL SECTION 1/2" = 1'-0" 4 WEST WALL SECTION 1/2" = 1'-0" 3 SOUTH WALL SECTION 1/2" = 1'-0" 1 A4.02 0 1' 2' 4' A4.02 0 1' 2' 4' A4.02 0 1' 2' 4' A4.02 DETAILS BAR MEETING 12.21.2021 | CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS 612 WEST MAIN STREET 3/4" THIN BRICK TO MATCH FULL BRICK TABS II THIN BRICK SUPPORT SYSTEM CONTINUOUS R-3.8 EPS INSULATION 2x8 FRAMING WRB NICRETE BRICK VENEER 2x4 FRAMING 15/32" FRT PLYWOOD BRICK TIES. FASTEN TO FRAMING. BACKING AT RECESS AIR GAP FURRING CONTINUOUS R-3.8 EPS INSULATION WRB 1 1/2" GLASS-MAT-FACED GWB NICRETE BRICK SURROUND AND RETURN METAL PANEL SYSETM MIN. R-13 MINERAL FIBER INSULATION BETWEEN STUDS. (2) 5/8" TYPE X GWB STOREFRONT SYSTEM ARCHITECT BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC 820 East High Street, Charlottesville VA 434.295.1936 DEVELOPER HEIRLOOM WEST MAIN STREET, NORTH WALL FLOOR 4 PLAN DETAIL 1 1/2"= 1'-0" 6 SECOND PHASE LLC 0 6'' 12'' 18'' A6.02 2093 Goodling Road, North Garden VA ANGLED BRICK BELOW OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE CHRUSCIEL GROUP 28 Country Club Dr., E. Longmeadow, MA 413.246.8450 CIVIL ENGINEER CFS STUDS TIMMONS GROUP 608 Preston Avenue, Suite 200, 8" R-13 INSULATION BTWN. STUDS Charlottesville VA 434.295.5624 5/8" GWB MEP, FP ENGINEERS STEEL COLUMN PER STRUCT. WITH 3 HR LU+S ENGINEERS 4924 Dominion Blvd, Glen Allen, VA SPRAY-APPLIED FIRE RESISTIVE MATERIAL. 804.925.2600 STRUCTURAL ENGINEER DUNBAR 110 Third Street, Charlottesville, VA 434.293.5171 LIGHTING DESIGNER DARK LIGHT DESIGN 265 Union Boulevard, Suite 1420, St. Louis, MO 314.797.2184 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRAY DESIGN ASSOCIATES 1012 Wildmere Place, Charlottesville, VA 434.242.7642 NORTH WALL GROUND FLOOR PLAN DETAIL 1 1/2"= 1'-0" 2 SPECIFICATIONS 0 6'' 12'' 18'' A6.02 SPEC GUY SPEC. CONSULTANT TABS II THIN BRICK SUPPORT 8812 Bridgeport Bay Circle, Mount Dora, FL 704.367.1991 SYSTEM 8" 3/4" THIN BRICK TO MATCH BRICK VENEER NICRETE THIN BRICK AT RECESS TO N MATCH FULL BRICK VENEER O TI C THIN BRICK TABS SYSTEM RU ON BACKING AT RECESS BRICK SURROUND ST 15/32" FRT PLYWOOD N NICRETE BRICK VENEER O C BRICK TIES. FASTEN TO FRAMING FURRING R FO CORRIDOR CLEAR WIDTH AIR GAP CONTINUOUS R-3.8 EPS INSULATION T O N 5'-8 3/8" 5'-7 1/8" WRB BRICK SILL BELOW 2x8 FRAMING CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 2 1/8" SETBACK address: FROM BRICK 612 WEST MAIN STREET FACE PROJECT #18160 WINDOW UNIT AS SPECIFIED MARK DATE DESCRIPTION 01 12.15.2021 100% VE DD DRAWINGS EDITIONS/REVS QUAKER M600 8" SERIES WINDOW UNIT WITH NAILING FIN. ANGLED BRICK BELOW 2x4 FRAMING MIN. R-13 MINERAL BRICK TIE FASTENED TO FIBER INSULATION SHEATHING BETWEEN STUDS. 8" (2) 5/8" GWB TYPE X (2) 5/8" TYPE X GWB 3 1/2" GLASS FIBER BATT INSULATION IN CAVITY MIN R-13 LINE OF FLOOR FRAMING 2x6 FRAMING AT TYPICAL EXTERIOR WALLS 5/8" GWB TYPE X 2x8 FRAMING AT WALLS DEMISING WALL: 2x8 SILL PLATE, 2x6 STAGGERED WITH BRICK RETURNS 5/8" EXTERIOR GWB TYPE X FRAMING PLAN DETAILS CONTINUOUS R-3.8 EPS INSULATION 100% VE DESIGN DEVELOPMENT AIR GAP 12.15.2021 BRICK VENEER printed 12:56 PM, 12/16/21 WEST WALL FLOOR 2-4 PLAN DETAIL 1 1/2"= 1'-0" 5 NORTH WALL FLOOR 2-3 PLAN DETAIL 1 1/2"= 1'-0" 1 A6.02 0 6'' 12'' 18'' A6.02 0 6'' 12'' 18'' A6.02 ARCHITECT BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC 820 East High Street, Charlottesville VA 434.295.1936 DEVELOPER HEIRLOOM WEST MAIN STREET, SECOND PHASE LLC 2093 Goodling Road, North Garden VA OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE CHRUSCIEL GROUP 28 Country Club Dr., E. Longmeadow, MA 413.246.8450 CIVIL ENGINEER TIMMONS GROUP 608 Preston Avenue, Suite 200, Charlottesville VA 434.295.5624 MEP, FP ENGINEERS LU+S ENGINEERS 4924 Dominion Blvd, Glen Allen, VA 804.925.2600 STRUCTURAL ENGINEER DUNBAR 110 Third Street, Charlottesville, VA 434.293.5171 LIGHTING DESIGNER DARK LIGHT DESIGN 265 Union Boulevard, Suite 1420, St. Louis, MO 314.797.2184 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRAY DESIGN ASSOCIATES 1012 Wildmere Place, Charlottesville, VA 434.242.7642 SPECIFICATIONS SPEC GUY SPEC. CONSULTANT 8812 Bridgeport Bay Circle, Mount Dora, FL 704.367.1991 N O TI C RU ST N O C R FO T O N CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA address: 612 WEST MAIN STREET PROJECT #18160 MARK DATE DESCRIPTION (2) 5/8" GWB TYPE X EDITIONS/REVS 2x6 FRAMING 3 1/2" GLASS FIBER BATT INSULATION IN CAVITY MIN R-13 2 1/2" 2" 8" BACKER ROD 5/8" GWB TYPE X AND SEALANT 5/8" EXTERIOR GWB TYPE X PLAN DETAILS XPS INSULATION BRICK VENEER 100% VE DESIGN REINFORCING MESH DEVELOPMENT EIFS BASE, FINISH COATS printed 12:56 PM, 12/16/21 SOUTH WALL FLOOR 2-4 PLAN DETAIL 1 1/2"= 1'-0" 1 A6.03 0 6'' 12'' 18'' A6.03 BUILDING MATERIALS BAR MEETING 12.21.2021 | CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS 612 WEST MAIN STREET MATERIALS/PRODUCTS SCHEDULE BRICK SELECTION - Nitterhouse Architectural Brick OPTION EXTERIOR MATERIAL BASIS OF DESIGN DESCRIPTION NOTES REVISED size: monarch 2 1/4" x 15 5/8" x proud sections of north façade, floors 3 5/8"; finish: traditional; color: A-13 BRICK 1 concrete masonry brick - monarch Nitterhouse - Nicrete 1-3 (see elevations); control joints to coursing: running bond be zipper-type following brick pattern joints: concave; mortar: Argos - Putty size: modular 2 1/4" x 7 5/8" x 3 5/8"; recessed sections of north façade, finish: traditional; color: A-13 floors 1-3 & plaza elevation, floors 1-4 BRICK 2, 3 concrete masonry brick - modular Nitterhouse - Nicrete pattern: every 5th or 6th brick angled 5 coursing: running bond degrees, alternate between rotating left joints: raked; mortar: Argos - Putty and right; zipper-type ctrl joints insets on east and west main bldg size: modular thin w/ corners facades,clg of the residential entry; ctrl BRICK 4 concrete masonry brick - thin Nitterhouse - Nicrete finish: traditional; color: A-13 joints to be zipper-type following brick mortar: Argos - Putty pattern size: monarch thin w/ corners 4th floor north façade, insets on west BRICK 5 concrete masonry brick - thin Nitterhouse - Nicrete finish: traditional; color: A-13 main volume mortar: Argos - Putty (1) rowlock course of BRICK A at (3) Color: A-13 Finish: traditional WINDOW sides of window/door openings on 1st proud sections of north façade only For joints, size, coursing and pattern see elevations and materials chart. brick header course Nitterhouse - Nicrete floor / BRICK M at all (4) sides of SURROUND (see elevations) window/door openings on floors 2-3; joints: TBD south façade, core enclosures on the STUCCO stucco cement board coating Masterwall Rollershield CFIS texture: Versatex 0.5 roof; high impact mesh in areas indicated on elevation Permabase Flex Cement Board curved residential entrance wall ENTRY WALL exterior plaster finish: Varius w/Masterwall coating cladding Imetco Element Panel or break metal cladding above retail windows inset RETAIL INSET metal panels color: paint to match windows as necessary to match from brick facade PARAPET CAP metal coping cap break metal color: paint to match windows south balconies & terrace, floors 2-4; north juliette balconies, floors 2-3; RAILINGS powder-coated steel custom fabricated railings color: paint to match windows north terrace dividers & sections of terrace railings, floor 4 PRIVACY PANELS painted steel panels w/in frame color: paint to match windows south terrace dividers FENCE @608 powder-coated steel custom fabricated fencing color: paint to match windows SCREEN NIC Roof screen structure with solid metal Selected texture for "hyphens" and entry plaza wall. panels to match privacy panels. GUARDRAIL NIC Roof deck guardrail aluminum fixed, awning and casement color: custom "resembles" color line to include screens and hardware for WINDOWS Quaker - modern series, w/nailing fin windows match dark champagne/light bronze crank-out awnings & casements retail spaces & lobby opening to 600 STOREFRONT storefront system Old Castle/EFCO center set storefront color: paint to match windows courtyard Old Castle - Terra Swing 61E or TERRACE DOORS terrace and balcony doors EFCO T325I color: paint to match windows TERRACE DOORS - Quaker M600 color: paint to match windows ALTERNATE windows on north facade GLASS 1N , 2N thermally insulated glazing Viracon VE1-2M VLT: 70 MIN tempered glass at 0-18" AFF Viracon VNE 1-63 w/laminated 1st level south façade GLASS 1S thermally insulated acoustic glazing acoustic pane tempered glass at 0-18" AFF levels 2-4 south façade GLASS 2 thermally insulated glazing Viracon VNE 1-63 Lower VLT permitted levels 1-4 east and west facades tempered glass at 0-18" AFF EFIS/Plaster Texture: varius Color: to match brick All Glass Entrance System; Blumcraft hardware retail & 600 courtyard doors set into GLASSS 3 all glass doors Virginia Glass and Metals, Old Castle, storefront system, type F door w/lock other FireFrames Curtainwall Series 60 x Metal GLASS 4 aluminum fire rated windows 90mm color: paint to match windows 120min frame, windows, tempered Uses: railings, GLASS - cardinal glass for Quaker windows same types apply - 70min VLT for privacy panels, ALTERNATE north, lami for south 1st floor fencing, planters, Thermoplastic Polyoefin (TPO), fully Versico: Versiweld QA TPO, Fully ROOFING adhered Adhered color: TBD; thickness: 60mil heat welded system door/window frames, ceramic tile pavers on Buzon BC terraces at 2nd floor south units and coping TERRACE PAVERS ceramic tile Keope: In & Out Percorsi pedestal system 4th floor north units at stepback, Color: light bronze color: TBD balconies and roof deck mica finish BALLAST roof ballast stones Yard Works LLC - cobble #2 grey stones terraces at 2nd floor south units FLOORING MATERIAL BASIS OF DESIGN DESCRIPTION NOTES REVISED LVT luxury vinyl tile Expanko - CorkCore LVT color: Cottonwood BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC TILE-L large format porcelain tile • 612 Emilceramica WEST MAIN ST Ergon Stone Talk color: White; size: 24"x48"; pattern TBD; 1/16" grout joints; grout color lobby floor tile BAR MEETING 12.21.2021 BUILDING MATERIALS 22 Minimal TBD embedded alum. strips at transitions color: clear sealer 1" (25mm) Insulating VE1-2M 1" (25mm) Insulating VNE1-63 PERFORMANCE DATA PERFORMANCE DATA Transmittance Transmittance Visible Light 70% Visible Light 62% Solar Energy 33% Solar Energy 24% UV 10% UV 5% Reflectance Reflectance Visible Light-Exterior 11% Visible Light-Exterior 10% Visible Light-Interior 12% Visible Light-Interior 10% Solar Energy 31% Solar Energy 37% NRFC U-Value NRFC U-Value Winter 0.30 (hr x sqft x °F) Winter 0.25 (hr x sqft x °F) Summer 0.26 (hr x sqft x °F) Summer 0.21 (hr x sqft x °F) Shading Coefficient 0.44 Shading Coefficient 0.32 Relative Heat Gain 91Btu/(hr x sqft) Relative Heat Gain 68Btu/(hr x sqft) Solar Heat Gain Coefficient (SHGC) 0.38 Solar Heat Gain Coefficient (SHGC) 0.28 LSG 1.84 LSG 2.21 Makeup VE1-2M 1_ (25mm) Insulating - Viracon Makeup VNE1-63 1_ (25mm) Insulating - Viracon 1/4" (6mm) clear with VE-2M #2 1/4" (6mm) clear with VNE-63 #2 1/2" (13.2mm) space - air filled 1/2" (13.2mm) space - argon filled 1/4" (6mm) clear 1/4" (6mm) clear Viracon's solar and optical performance data is center of glass data based on the National Fenestration Rating Viracon's solar and optical performance data is center of glass data based on the National Fenestration Rating Council measurement standards, calculated using Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory's (LBNL) WINDOW 7 Council measurement standards, calculated using Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory's (LBNL) WINDOW 7 software. software. Winter and Summer U-Values are the only performance values available for spandrel glazing. The U-Values for Winter and Summer U-Values are the only performance values available for spandrel glazing. The U-Values for spandrel glazing are the same as the corresponding vision unit. The spandrel color does not impact U-Value. spandrel glazing are the same as the corresponding vision unit. The spandrel color does not impact U-Value. BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR MEETING 12.21.2021 GLAZING 23 SIGNAGE BAR MEETING 12.21.2021 | CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS 612 WEST MAIN STREET Example Signage at Entry Example Signage RELEVANT ZONING REGULATIONS Sec. 34-1038. (i)Wall signs. (1)…No wall sign shall cover, cross or otherwise hide any column, belt course or other decorative architectural feature of a building, including any balcony. (2) No part of any wall sign may project more than one (1) foot outward from the facade of the building to which it is attached. (3)No part of any wall sign may project above the height of the bottom sill of any second story window of the building facade to which it is attached. If such sill height is less than the height specified below, then the lesser of the two (2) heights shall govern. (4)In any case: MAX SIGN HEIGHT: 20 FT a.No wall sign shall exceed a height of twenty (20) feet. 20' PER Sec. 34-1038.I.4.A b.No wall sign shall exceed an area of one hundred (100) square feet. Sec. 34-1040. (c)Mixed-use buildings: (1)Where fifty (50) percent or more of the gross floor area of a building consists of residential uses: a. One (1) development sign shall be allowed, not to exceed an area of twenty-five (25) square feet, and the aggregate area of all signs for ancillary non-residential uses or establishments shall not exceed sixty (60) square feet. TOTAL DEVELOPMENT SIGNAGE PER Sec. b. No wall sign may exceed thirty (30) square feet. 2 sq ft 34-1040.C.1.A; MAX 25 SF 6' Sec. 34-1042. 12 sq ft 12 sq ft 12 sq ft 12 sq ft 12 sq ft (d) No internally lit signs, except internally lit channel letters, or neon signs shall be 2' permitted. (e)The character of all signs shall be harmonious to the character of the structure on which TOTAL ANCILLARY SIGNAGE 5' they are to be placed. Among other things, consideration shall be given to the location of PER Sec. 34-1040.C.1.B; 60 sq ft signs on the structure in relation to the surrounding buildings, the use of compatible colors, MAX 60 SF 2 sq ft 5" the use of appropriate materials, the size and style of lettering and graphics, and the type of lighting. SIGNS TO INCORPORATE BUSINESS LOGO WITH SOLID BACKGROUND, SAME COLOR AND FINISH MATERIAL AS NOTED IN ELEVATION, AS PRESCRIBED IN Sec. 34-1042.E SIGNAGE COMPLIANCE DIAGRAM BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR MEETING 12.21.2021 SIGNAGE COMPLIANCE 25 MECHANICAL UNITS BAR MEETING 12.21.2021 | CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS 612 WEST MAIN STREET 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 12'-9 1/4" 12'-7" 25'-2" 12'-7" 12'-7" 12'-7" 12'-7" 12'-7" 12'-7" 40'-9 3/8" 1 #DrgID 1 1 9 #LayID A3.00 A3.01 4 1 15 A4.00 A 16'-8" 620 W. MAIN ST. (FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH ANNEX) ARCHITECT BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC 820 East High Street, Charlottesville VA 434.295.1936 10' 1 10 DEVELOPER 1 4 HEIRLOOM WEST MAIN STREET, B 16 16 SECOND PHASE LLC 2093 Goodling Road, North Garden VA 10' OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE CHRUSCIEL GROUP 28 Country Club Dr., E. Longmeadow, MA 413.246.8450 10' CIVIL ENGINEER RETAIL MAU (NIC) TIMMONS GROUP 608 Preston Avenue, Suite 200, RETAIL MAU (NIC) WALK PADS Charlottesville VA RETAIL EF (NIC) 434.295.5624 RETAIL EF (NIC) MEP, FP ENGINEERS LU+S ENGINEERS 4924 Dominion Blvd, Glen Allen, VA SCREEN (NIC) 804.925.2600 4 ODUs (SEE MECH.) STRUCTURAL ENGINEER 17 2 HR DUCT CHASE 2HR MECH. 2 HR DUCT CHASE DUNBY STRUCTURAL FROM RETAIL 1 SHAFT FROM RETAIL 2 & 3 110 Third Street, Charlottesville, VA 434.293.5171 OAU (SEE MECH.) C 5' 4 LIGHTING DESIGNER ELEVATOR E STAIR 500-S1 500-S2 17 DARK LIGHT DESIGN W STAIR 265 Union Boulevard, Suite 1420, VESTIBULE St. Louis, MO DN 501 314.797.2184 SCREEN (NIC) F4 DN LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PL PRAY DESIGN ASSOCIATES 1012 Wildmere Place, Charlottesville, VA 62'-8 1/2" 501 44" MIN. 434.242.7642 1 12 SPECIFICATIONS SPEC GUY SPEC. CONSULTANT 8812 Bridgeport Bay Circle, Mount Dora, FL 704.367.1991 SCREEN (NIC) ROOF DECK (NIC) D 1,716 sq ft GREEN ROOF N O 1,200 sq ft TI C RU GUARDRAIL (NIC) ST 10' N O C R FO T O N 10' address: E 612 WEST 600 W. MAIN MAIN STREET PROJECT #18160 MARK DATE DESCRIPTION EDITIONS/REVS 19'-11 1/2" F 1 17 1 #DrgID 1 1 11 #LayID A3.00 A3.01 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 PL 14 ROOF PLAN BAR SUBMISSION MEETING: 12.21.2021 printed 4:16 PM, 12/17/21 ROOF 1/8" = 1'-0" 1 27 0 4' 8' 16' 27 View from Street Level to South View from Street Level to Southwest (tree hidden for clarity) Mechanical units and possible future kitchen exhaust fans modeled in red for clarity. They are not visible from the street. A mechanical screen is not needed. Bird's Eye View of Rooftop View from Street Level to Southeast BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR MEETING 12.21.2021 MECHANICAL UNITS 28 LANDSCAPE BAR MEETING 12.21.2021 | CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS 612 WEST MAIN STREET 4 REQUIRED STREET TREES WEST MAIN STREET ULMUS AMERICANA ‘VALLEY FORGE’ 2” CAL. MURAL WALL 3 BIKE RACKS RAISED PLANTER PLANTING (2) 6” STEPS RAISED PLANTER WITH BENCH PLANTER AT GRADE BENCH HANDRAILS 6” STEP PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE 608 WEST MAIN RETAIL PROMENADE plain gray concrete surface COURTYARD Hanover Preststone Paver Natural Tudor Finish 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 12.21.2021 LANDSCAPE PLAN 30 PROPOSED WEST NEW CURB LINE MAIN STREETSCAPE TREES (4) EXISTING TREES 612 WEST MAIN STREET (5) Zelkova serrata at propery line will be removed (1) Zelkova serrata to remain, outside of project area BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR MEETING 12.21.2021 EXISTING TREES 31 STONE BENCH IN GRADE PLANTING METAL PLANTER METAL PLANTER CONCRETE RETAINING WALL 12’- 3’6” 13’9” x 3’6” PLANTING AT BOTH SIDES OF COURTYARD STREET TREE Color to match Windows and Railings Color to match Windows and Railings COURTYARD STREETSCAPE NORTH ELEVATION 3/32”=1’-0” 612 WEST MAIN STREET BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR MEETING 12.21.2021 LANDSCAPE ELEVATION 32 Natural Tudor Finish Vestre: Berg Bike Rack Handrail Precedent Wood Bench at Planter Concrete Pavers: Hanover Prest Paver Natural Tudor Finish Planter Color Anodized Aluminum Tube Rail To match windows and rails Return to ground at top and bottom Sarcoccoa humilis Ulmus americana ‘Valley Forge’ Mix Evergeen Ferns | Groundcovers Viburnum davidii STREET TREE: Canopy Tree COURTYARD GARDEN: Evergreens and Textures PLANTERS:Annuals and Grasses LANDSCAPE MATERIAL IMAGES BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR MEETING 12.21.2021 LANDSCAPE MATERIALS 33 LIGHTING BAR MEETING 12.21.2021 | CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS 612 WEST MAIN STREET Exterior Lighting Concept 612 West Main Street December 17, 2021 BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR MEETING 11.16.2021 VIEW FROM 6TH ST NW 14 Seattle www.darklight-design.com St. Louis 206 682 1720 612 West Main Street | Exterior Lighting Concept Today’s Discussion Overall Facade Concept Facade Entry Mural December 17, 2021 | Page 2 Overall Facade Concept | Elevation 612 West Main Street | Exterior Lighting Concept Lobby Entry - ceiling-recessed small aperture adjustable downlights Roof Deck - cap-integrated continuous linear downlight on backside of parapet to illuminate roof deck surface Portals - ceiling-recessed small aperture adjustable downlights Textured Brick Insets - direct burial uplight 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 Planters - small aperture marker luminaires to softly illuminate plantings NORTH ELEVATION 3/32”=1’-0” 612 WEST MAIN STREET Pathway - at grade floor-grazing luminaires Pinned Letter Sign - low wattage accent light with elliptical beam BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR MEETING 11.16.2021 LANDSCAPE ELEVATION 10 Mural - ground-mounted adjustable accent lights December 17, 2021 | Page 3 Overall Facade Concept | Rendering - Composite 612 West Main Street | Exterior Lighting Concept December 17, 2021 | Page 4 Overall Facade Concept | Rendering - Brick Insets 612 West Main Street | Exterior Lighting Concept December 17, 2021 | Page 5 Overall Facade Concept | Rendering - Roof Deck 612 West Main Street | Exterior Lighting Concept December 17, 2021 | Page 6 Overall Facade Concept | Rendering - Portals 612 West Main Street | Exterior Lighting Concept December 17, 2021 | Page 7 Overall Facade Concept | Rendering - Lobby Entry Signage 612 West Main Street | Exterior Lighting Concept December 17, 2021 | Page 8 Overall Facade Concept | Rendering - Lobby Entry 612 West Main Street | Exterior Lighting Concept December 17, 2021 | Page 9 Overall Facade Concept | Rendering - Pathway and Egress 612 West Main Street | Exterior Lighting Concept December 17, 2021 | Page 10 Overall Facade Concept | Rendering - Planters 612 West Main Street | Exterior Lighting Concept December 17, 2021 | Page 11 Facade | Elevation 612 West Main Street | Exterior Lighting Concept Luminii Kendo L Wet W: 0.83” | H: 0.3” USAI LittleOnes Micro M1RA Round Adjustable Ø: 1.25” (ceiling aperture) Sistemalux Nanoled Ø: 1.75” (wall aperture) METAL PLANTER METAL PLANTER CONCRETE RETAINING WALL 13’ X 4’ 14’ X 5’ Erco Tesis STREETSCAPE Ø: 8.125” December 17, 2021 | Page 12 Facade | Rendering 612 West Main Street | Exterior Lighting Concept December 17, 2021 | Page 13 Entry | Elevation 612 West Main Street | Exterior Lighting Concept USAI LittleOnes Micro M1RA Round Adjustable Ø: 1.25” (ceiling aperture) Erco Gecko W: 4.875” | D: 6. 3125 | H: 9.875” Sistemalux Mini Suit H: 1.625” | Ø: 7.25” STONE BENCH STONE BENCH IN GRADE PLANTING Erco Tesis Ø: 8.125” December 17, 2021 | Page 14 Entry | Rendering 612 West Main Street | Exterior Lighting Concept December 17, 2021 | Page 15 Mural | Elevation 612 West Main Street | Exterior Lighting Concept USAI LittleOnes Micro M1RA Round Adjustable Ø: 1.25” (ceiling aperture) HK ZXLF-2 W: 12.4” | H:3.75” | Ø: 2.25” Erco Gecko W: 4.875” | D: 9.875 | H: 8’ (pole) Sistemalux Mini Suit H: 1.625” | Ø: 7.25” STONE BENCH STONE BENCH IN GRADE PLANTING Erco Tesis Ø: 8.125” December 17, 2021 | Page 16 PLANTING AT BOTH SIDES OF COURTYARD Mural | Rendering 612 West Main Street | Exterior Lighting Concept December 17, 2021 | Page 17 612 West Main Street | Exterior Lighting Concept Thank you! December 17, 2021 | Page 18 VIEWS BAR MEETING 12.21.2021 | CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS 612 WEST MAIN STREET BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR MEETING 12.21.2021 STREET VIEW FROM WEST 54 BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR MEETING 12.21.2021 VIEW FROM WEST 55 BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR MEETING 12.21.2021 STREET VIEW FROM EAST 56 BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR MEETING 12.21.2021 VIEW FROM 6TH ST NW 57 BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR MEETING 12.21.2021 ENTRY VIEW 58 BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR MEETING 12.21.2021 VIEW OF PLAZA/MURAL 59 BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR MEETING 12.21.2021 STOREFRONT VIEW 60 BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR MEETING 12.21.2021 VIEW OF SOUTH FACADE 61 BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR MEETING 12.21.2021 DETAIL VIEW 62 BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR MEETING 12.21.2021 VIEW FROM WEST 63 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 WEST 612 WEST MAIN MAIN ST ST BAR SUBMISSION BAR SUBMISSION 12.08.2020 11.30.2021 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 11.30.2021 SITE PLAN 2 ARCHITECT BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC 820 East High Street, Charlottesville VA 434.295.1936 DEVELOPER HEIRLOOM WEST MAIN STREET, SECOND PHASE LLC 2093 Goodling Road, North Garden VA OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE CHRUSCIEL GROUP 28 Country Club Dr., E. Longmeadow, MA 413.246.8450 CIVIL ENGINEER TIMMONS GROUP 608 Preston Avenue, Suite 200, Charlottesville VA 434.295.5624 MEP, FP ENGINEERS LU+S ENGINEERS 4924 Dominion Blvd, Glen Allen, VA 804.925.2600 STRUCTURAL ENGINEER DUNBY STRUCTURAL 110 Third Street, Charlottesville, VA 434.293.5171 LIGHTING DESIGNER DARK LIGHT DESIGN 265 Union Boulevard, Suite 1420, St. Louis, MO 314.797.2184 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRAY DESIGN ASSOCIATES 1012 Wildmere Place, Charlottesville, VA 434.242.7642 SPECIFICATIONS SPEC GUY SPEC. CONSULTANT 8812 Bridgeport Bay Circle, Mount Dora, FL 704.367.1991 N O TI C RU ST N O C R FO T O N CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA address: 612 WEST MAIN STREET SIX HUNDRED WEST MAIN SIX-TWELVE WEST MAIN PROJECT #18160 HOLSINGER BUILDING MARK DATE DESCRIPTION 03.26.2021 50% DD DRAWINGS EDITIONS/REVS 05.21.2021 100% DD DRAWINGS STREET ELEVATION 1/16" = 1'-0" 1 0 8' 16' 32' A2.00 WEST MAIN STREET ELEVATION BAR SUBMISSION 11.30.2021 (MEETING: 12.21.2021) printed 4:27 PM, 11/30/21 A2.00 ARCHITECT BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC 820 East High Street, Charlottesville VA 434.295.1936 DEVELOPER HEIRLOOM WEST MAIN STREET, SECOND PHASE LLC UPPER ROOF 2093 Goodling Road, North Garden VA 550'-9 1/2" OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE CHRUSCIEL GROUP SINGLE CASEMENT W/SIDELITE, 28 Country Club Dr., E. Longmeadow, MA 413.246.8450 OVER LOWER WDW, GLASS 2N 15'-6 5/8" ELEV. & E. STAIR - MECH. SCREEN - CIVIL ENGINEER EFIS, COLOR TO MATCH BRICK BALCONY RAILING PERFORATED MTL TIMMONS GROUP BRICK #2 BEYOND, 608 Preston Avenue, Suite 200, MODULAR, RAKED JTS METAL COPING Charlottesville VA W. STAIR - EFIS COLOR 434.295.5624 9'-8" 9'-8" W/ANGLED PATTERN BRICK #1 - BRICK #3 - BRICK #1 - SINGLE CASEMENT W/SIDELITE, TO MATCH BRICK AMBASSADOR SIZE, BRICK #3 - INSET THIN BRICK CLADDING AMBASSADOR SIZE, OVER LOWER WDW, GLASS 2N MEP, FP ENGINEERS 6' RAKED JTS AT 4TH FLOOR TERRACE RAKED JTS LU+S ENGINEERS 4924 Dominion Blvd, Glen Allen, VA ROOF DECK 804.925.2600 536'-1" STRUCTURAL ENGINEER DUNBY STRUCTURAL RAILING 110 Third Street, Charlottesville, VA 12'-1" 434.293.5171 FIXED WDWS OVER LIGHTING DESIGNER AWNING, TYP., METAIL COPING DARK LIGHT DESIGN GLASS 2N 265 Union Boulevard, Suite 1420, St. Louis, MO FOURTH FLOOR 314.797.2184 525'-4" TERRACE DOORS, TYP. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRAY DESIGN ASSOCIATES AT JULIET BALCONIES, 1012 Wildmere Place, Charlottesville, VA GLASS 2N 434.242.7642 SPECIFICATIONS SPEC GUY SPEC. CONSULTANT 8812 Bridgeport Bay Circle, Mount Dora, FL RAILING 704.367.1991 RAILING 52'-4 7/8" THIRD FLOOR 49'-11 5/8" 514'-5 1/4" N O CASEMENT WDWS TI 41'-6 3/8" STREET WALL HT. GLASS 2N C 37'-10 5/8" RU 37'-9 3/8" 38'-6 1/4" ST N SECOND FLOOR O C 503'-6 1/2" BRICK #2 BEYOND, R THIN BRICK CEILING FO MODULAR, RAKED JTS W/ANGLED PATTERN T BRICK SURROUND O N ALL GLASS DOOR/ STOREFRONT BEYOND CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA address: GROUND FLOOR 612 WEST 488'-2 1/2" 487'-6 5/8" 28' 52'-7 5/8" 15' 60'-4" 12' MAIN STREET AVE. LVL OF CURB PROJECT #18160 484'-9" ALL GLASS DOOR STOREFRONT, ALL GLASS BRICK #2 BEYOND, INSET METAL PLANEL BRICK SURROUND, TYP. MARK DATE DESCRIPTION 03.26.2021 50% DD DRAWINGS AVE. GRADE PLANE IN STOREFRONT GLASS 1N DOORS, TYP. MODULAR, RAKED JTS STOREFRONT, GLASS 1N W/ANGLED PATTERN EDITIONS/REVS 05.21.2021 100% DD DRAWINGS CURVED PLASTER ENTRY WALL, COLOR TO MATCH BRICK STOREFRONT, GLASS 1N PARKING 477'-3" FOUNDATION 474'-2 1/2" NORTH ELEVATION 1/8" = 1'-0" 1 0 4' 8' 16' A2.01 NORTH ELEVATION BAR SUBMISSION 11.30.2021 (MEETING: 12.21.2021) printed 4:27 PM, 11/30/21 A2.01 ARCHITECT 600 OUTLINE BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC 820 East High Street, Charlottesville VA 434.295.1936 METAL COPING DEVELOPER HEIRLOOM WEST MAIN STREET, SECOND PHASE LLC UPPER ROOF 2093 Goodling Road, North Garden VA 550'-9 1/2" OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE CHRUSCIEL GROUP 28 Country Club Dr., E. Longmeadow, MA 413.246.8450 METAL COPING CIVIL ENGINEER TIMMONS GROUP E. STAIR, EFIS TO 608 Preston Avenue, Suite 200, TEXTURED BRICK Charlottesville VA MATCH BRICK CONCRETE BEHIND 434.295.5624 600 WALL BRICK #2, MODULAR, RAKED JTS MEP, FP ENGINEERS W/ANGLED PATTERN LU+S ENGINEERS 4924 Dominion Blvd, Glen Allen, VA ROOF DECK 804.925.2600 536'-1" STRUCTURAL ENGINEER INSET BRICK DUNBY STRUCTURAL 110 Third Street, Charlottesville, VA BRICK #1 - 434.293.5171 CASEMENT WDW AMBASSADOR SIZE, LIGHTING DESIGNER OVER FIXED RAKED JTS DARK LIGHT DESIGN 265 Union Boulevard, Suite 1420, St. Louis, MO FOURTH FLOOR 314.797.2184 525'-4" INSET BRICK LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRAY DESIGN ASSOCIATES INSET BRICK 1012 Wildmere Place, Charlottesville, VA 434.242.7642 FIXED WINDOW, GLASS 2N SPECIFICATIONS FIXED WDW, SPEC GUY SPEC. CONSULTANT 8812 Bridgeport Bay Circle, Mount Dora, FL OVER AWNING, BRICK SURROUND 704.367.1991 GLASS 2 THIRD FLOOR 514'-5 1/4" N O FIXED WINDOW, TI FIXED WDW, C GLASS 2N RU OVER AWNING, GLASS 2 ST N SECOND FLOOR O C 503'-6 1/2" R FO INSET METAL PANEL INSET METAL PANEL T O N STOREFRONT, GLASS 1 STOREFRONT, GLASS 1N CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA ALL GLASS DOOR, address: GROUND FLOOR GLASS 3 612 WEST 488'-2 1/2" MAIN STREET 608 WEST MAIN (DASHED) WEST MAIN PROJECT #18160 MARK DATE DESCRIPTION 03.26.2021 50% DD DRAWINGS ENTRY FROM 600 EDITIONS/REVS 05.21.2021 100% DD DRAWINGS PARKING 477'-3" FOUNDATION SIX HUNDRED WEST MAIN 474'-2 1/2" (DASHED) EAST ELEVATION 1/8" = 1'-0" 1 0 4' 8' 16' A2.02 EAST ELEVATION BAR SUBMISSION 11.30.2021 (MEETING: 12.21.2021) printed 5:02 PM, 11/30/21 A2.02 ARCHITECT BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC 820 East High Street, Charlottesville VA 434.295.1936 DEVELOPER HEIRLOOM WEST MAIN STREET, METAL COPING SECOND PHASE LLC UPPER ROOF 2093 Goodling Road, North Garden VA 550'-9 1/2" OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE CHRUSCIEL GROUP ELEV. & E. STAIR - 28 Country Club Dr., E. Longmeadow, MA METAL COPING SINGLE CASEMENT W/SIDELITE, EFIS, COLOR TO MATCH BRICK 413.246.8450 EFIS, COLOR TO OVER LOWER WDW, GLASS 2 MATCH BRICK MECH. SCREEN - CIVIL ENGINEER W. STAIR - EFIS, TIMMONS GROUP COLOR TO MATCH BRICK BALCONY RAILING PERFORATED MTL 608 Preston Avenue, Suite 200, BRICK #4, MODULAR, PARAPET BEYOND Charlottesville VA RAKED JTS 434.295.5624 MEP, FP ENGINEERS LU+S ENGINEERS 4924 Dominion Blvd, Glen Allen, VA ROOF DECK TERRACE DOORS 804.925.2600 536'-1" AT BALCONIES, TYP., STRUCTURAL ENGINEER GLASS 2 DUNBY STRUCTURAL 110 Third Street, Charlottesville, VA 434.293.5171 FIXED WDWS OVER AWNING, TYP. LIGHTING DESIGNER DARK LIGHT DESIGN 265 Union Boulevard, Suite 1420, METAL SILL DTL, TYP. St. Louis, MO 314.797.2184 FOURTH FLOOR 525'-4" LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRAY DESIGN ASSOCIATES INSET EFIS, TYP. 1012 Wildmere Place, Charlottesville, VA 434.242.7642 SPECIFICATIONS CASEMENT WDW, SPEC GUY SPEC. CONSULTANT GLASS 2 8812 Bridgeport Bay Circle, Mount Dora, FL 704.367.1991 56'-4 1/2" THIRD FLOOR 514'-5 1/4" N O TERRACE RAILING TI C RU METAL COPING ST N SECOND FLOOR O C 503'-6 1/2" R EFIS, COLOR TO MATCH FO BRICK T O INSET EFIS N BRICK #4, MODULAR, RAKED JTS CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22'-7 1/8" address: 612 WEST MAIN STREET GROUND FLOOR 488'-2 1/2" PROJECT #18160 MARK DATE DESCRIPTION 03.26.2021 50% DD DRAWINGS EDITIONS/REVS 05.21.2021 100% DD DRAWINGS 165'-6" PARKING SINGLE CASEMENT W/SIDELITE, 477'-3" OVER LOWER WDW, GLASS 2 FOUNDATION 474'-2 1/2" SOUTH ELEVATION 1/8" = 1'-0" 1 0 4' 8' 16' A2.03 SOUTH ELEVATION BAR SUBMISSION 11.30.2021 (MEETING: 12.21.2021) printed 5:02 PM, 11/30/21 A2.03 ARCHITECT BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC 820 East High Street, Charlottesville VA 434.295.1936 DEVELOPER HEIRLOOM WEST MAIN STREET, SECOND PHASE LLC UPPER ROOF 2093 Goodling Road, North Garden VA 550'-9 1/2" OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE METAL COPING CHRUSCIEL GROUP 28 Country Club Dr., E. Longmeadow, MA W. STAIR - EFIS COLOR 413.246.8450 TO MATCH BRICK CIVIL ENGINEER TIMMONS GROUP 608 Preston Avenue, Suite 200, METAL COPING Charlottesville VA 434.295.5624 METAL COPING BRICK 10' 71'-3 5/8" 19'-10 7/8" MEP, FP ENGINEERS LU+S ENGINEERS 4924 Dominion Blvd, Glen Allen, VA ROOF DECK 804.925.2600 536'-1" STRUCTURAL ENGINEER DUNBY STRUCTURAL METAL COPING 110 Third Street, Charlottesville, VA INSET BRICK 12'-1" 434.293.5171 INSET BRICK STOREFRONT, GLASS 1 LIGHTING DESIGNER DARK LIGHT DESIGN RAILING BALCONY RAILING 265 Union Boulevard, Suite 1420, St. Louis, MO FOURTH FLOOR 314.797.2184 525'-4" LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT BRICK #1 - PRAY DESIGN ASSOCIATES METAL CLADDING AT 1012 Wildmere Place, Charlottesville, VA AMBASSADOR SIZE, 33'-9 3/8" BALCONY EDGES 434.242.7642 RAKED JTS STOREFRONT, GLASS 1 SPECIFICATIONS BRICK SILL SPEC GUY SPEC. CONSULTANT BRICK SILL 8812 Bridgeport Bay Circle, Mount Dora, FL 704.367.1991 BRICK #2, MODULAR, THIRD FLOOR RAKED JTS TERRACE PRIVACY 514'-5 1/4" W/ANGLED PATTERN PANEL INSET BRICK, TYP. N BRICK #4, MODULAR, O STOREFRONT, GLASS 1 METAL COPING TI RAKED JTS FIRE GLASS IN 42'-7/8" C RU FIRE WDW FRAME, BRICK SILL BRICK #4, MODULAR, GLASS 4 ST RAKED JTS N SECOND FLOOR O C 503'-6 1/2" R INSET BRICK FO T O INSET BRICK, TYP. N STOREFRONT, GLASS 1 WEST MAIN ST. 22'-8 7/8" BRICK SILL CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA BRICK SILL address: GROUND FLOOR 612 WEST 488'-2 1/2" MAIN STREET HOLSINGER BUILDING RAILROAD PROJECT #18160 (DASHED) MARK DATE DESCRIPTION 03.26.2021 50% DD DRAWINGS EDITIONS/REVS 05.21.2021 100% DD DRAWINGS PARKING 477'-3" FOUNDATION 474'-2 1/2" WEST ELEVATION 1/8" = 1'-0" 1 0 4' 8' 16' A2.04 WEST ELEVATION BAR SUBMISSION 11.30.2021 (MEETING: 12.21.2021) printed 5:02 PM, 11/30/21 A2.04 CAST STONE CAP, MIN 1" OVERHANG EACH SIDE 40' C180 PEDESTAL PAVER SYSTEM AT TERRACE 38'-8" C174 CONCEALED LINTEL SYSTEM AT OPENING HEAD, TYP. FOURTH FLOOR 37'-4" C168 525'-4" 36' C162 34'-8" C156 33'-4" C150 ARCHITECT BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC 820 East High Street, Charlottesville VA 434.295.1936 DEVELOPER HEIRLOOM WEST MAIN STREET, SECOND PHASE LLC 28' C126 2093 Goodling Road, North Garden VA OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE CHRUSCIEL GROUP 28 Country Club Dr., E. Longmeadow, MA 26'-8" C120 413.246.8450 THIRD FLOOR CIVIL ENGINEER 514'-5 1/4" TIMMONS GROUP 608 Preston Avenue, Suite 200, Charlottesville VA 25'-4" C114 434.295.5624 MEP, FP ENGINEERS LU+S ENGINEERS 4924 Dominion Blvd, Glen Allen, VA 804.925.2600 24' C108 THIN BRICK AT INSET STRUCTURAL ENGINEER DUNBY STRUCTURAL 110 Third Street, Charlottesville, VA 434.293.5171 22'-8" C102 LIGHTING DESIGNER DARK LIGHT DESIGN 265 Union Boulevard, Suite 1420, St. Louis, MO 314.797.2184 STEEL GUARDRAIL LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 18'-8" C84 PRAY DESIGN ASSOCIATES 1012 Wildmere Place, Charlottesville, VA 434.242.7642 SPECIFICATIONS SPEC GUY SPEC. CONSULTANT 17'-4" C78 8812 Bridgeport Bay Circle, Mount Dora, FL 704.367.1991 16' C72 N SECOND FLOOR O 503'-6 1/2" TI C RU 14'-8" C66 ST N O C 13'-4" C60 R FO T O N 12' C54 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 10'-8" C48 address: METAL PANEL SYSTEM 612 WEST MAIN STREET PROJECT #18160 MARK DATE DESCRIPTION RAKED JOINTS, TYP. 05.21.2021 100% DD DRAWINGS 1'-4" C6 EDITIONS/REVS 15" BRICK AT RETURN GROUND FLOOR 0" C0 488'-2 1/2" PARKING WALL SECTIONS 477'-3" BAR SUBMISSION 11.30.2021 (MEETING: 12.21.2021) printed 3:04 PM, 11/30/21 NORTH WALL SECTION 1/2" = 1'-0" 1 A4.00 0 1' 2' 4' A4.00 3/4" THIN BRICK TO MATCH FULL BRICK TABS II THIN BRICK SUPPORT SYSTEM CONTINUOUS R-3.8 EPS INSULATION 2x8 FRAMING WRB NICRETE BRICK VENEER 2x4 FRAMING 15/32" FRT PLYWOOD BRICK TIES. FASTEN TO FRAMING. BACKING AT RECESS AIR GAP FURRING CONTINUOUS R-3.8 EPS INSULATION WRB 1 1/2" GLASS-MAT-FACED GWB NICRETE BRICK SURROUND AND RETURN METAL PANEL SYSETM MIN. R-13 MINERAL FIBER INSULATION BETWEEN STUDS. (2) 5/8" TYPE X GWB STOREFRONT SYSTEM ARCHITECT BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC 820 East High Street, Charlottesville VA 434.295.1936 DEVELOPER HEIRLOOM WEST MAIN STREET, NORTH WALL FLOOR 4 PLAN DETAIL 1 1/2"= 1'-0" 6 SECOND PHASE LLC 0 6'' 12'' 18'' A6.02 2093 Goodling Road, North Garden VA ANGLED BRICK BELOW OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE CHRUSCIEL GROUP 28 Country Club Dr., E. Longmeadow, MA 413.246.8450 CIVIL ENGINEER CFS STUDS TIMMONS GROUP 608 Preston Avenue, Suite 200, 8" R-13 INSULATION BTWN. STUDS Charlottesville VA 434.295.5624 5/8" GWB MEP, FP ENGINEERS STEEL COLUMN PER STRUCT. WITH 3 HR LU+S ENGINEERS 4924 Dominion Blvd, Glen Allen, VA SPRAY-APPLIED FIRE RESISTIVE MATERIAL. 804.925.2600 STRUCTURAL ENGINEER DUNBY STRUCTURAL 110 Third Street, Charlottesville, VA 434.293.5171 LIGHTING DESIGNER DARK LIGHT DESIGN 265 Union Boulevard, Suite 1420, St. Louis, MO 314.797.2184 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRAY DESIGN ASSOCIATES 1012 Wildmere Place, Charlottesville, VA 434.242.7642 NORTH WALL GROUND FLOOR PLAN DETAIL 1 1/2"= 1'-0" 2 SPECIFICATIONS 0 6'' 12'' 18'' A6.02 SPEC GUY SPEC. CONSULTANT TABS II THIN BRICK SUPPORT 8812 Bridgeport Bay Circle, Mount Dora, FL 704.367.1991 SYSTEM 8" 3/4" THIN BRICK TO MATCH BRICK VENEER NICRETE THIN BRICK AT RECESS TO N MATCH FULL BRICK VENEER O TI C THIN BRICK TABS SYSTEM RU ON BACKING AT RECESS BRICK SURROUND ST 15/32" FRT PLYWOOD N NICRETE BRICK VENEER O C BRICK TIES. FASTEN TO FRAMING FURRING R FO CORRIDOR CLEAR WIDTH AIR GAP CONTINUOUS R-3.8 EPS INSULATION T O N 5'-8 3/8" 5'-7 1/8" WRB BRICK SILL BELOW 2x8 FRAMING CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 2 1/8" SETBACK address: FROM BRICK 612 WEST MAIN STREET FACE PROJECT #18160 WINDOW UNIT AS SPECIFIED MARK DATE DESCRIPTION EDITIONS/REVS QUAKER M600 8" SERIES WINDOW UNIT WITH NAILING FIN. ANGLED BRICK BELOW 2x4 FRAMING MIN. R-13 MINERAL BRICK TIE FASTENED TO FIBER INSULATION SHEATHING BETWEEN STUDS. 8" (2) 5/8" GWB TYPE X (2) 5/8" TYPE X GWB 3 1/2" GLASS FIBER BATT INSULATION IN CAVITY MIN R-13 LINE OF FLOOR FRAMING 2x6 FRAMING AT TYPICAL EXTERIOR WALLS 5/8" GWB TYPE X 2x8 FRAMING AT WALLS DEMISING WALL: 2x8 SILL PLATE, 2x6 STAGGERED WITH BRICK RETURNS 5/8" EXTERIOR GWB TYPE X FRAMING PLAN DETAILS CONTINUOUS R-3.8 EPS INSULATION BAR SUBMISSION 11.30.2021 AIR GAP (MEETING: 12.21.2021) BRICK VENEER printed 3:04 PM, 11/30/21 WEST WALL FLOOR 2-4 PLAN DETAIL 1 1/2"= 1'-0" 5 NORTH WALL FLOOR 2-3 PLAN DETAIL 1 1/2"= 1'-0" 1 A6.02 0 6'' 12'' 18'' A6.02 0 6'' 12'' 18'' A6.02 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 SUBMISSION 11.30.2021 LANDSCAPE PLAN 10 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 SUBMISSION 11.30.2021 LANDSCAPE ELEVATION 11 BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR SUBMISSION 11.30.2021 STREET VIEW FROM WEST 12 BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR SUBMISSION 11.30.2021 VIEW FROM WEST 13 BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR SUBMISSION 11.30.2021 STREET VIEW FROM EAST 14 BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR SUBMISSION 11.30.2021 VIEW FROM 6TH ST NW 15 BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR SUBMISSION 11.30.2021 ENTRY VIEW 16 BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR SUBMISSION 11.30.2021 VIEW OF PLAZA/MURAL 17 BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR SUBMISSION 11.30.2021 STOREFRONT VIEW 18 BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR SUBMISSION 11.30.2021 VIEW FROM WEST 19 BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR SUBMISSION 11.30.2021 VIEW OF SOUTH FACADE 20 BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR SUBMISSION 11.30.2021 DETAIL VIEW 21 Preliminary Discussion 540 Park Street, TMP 520183000 North Downtown ADC District Owner: Jessica and Patrick Fenn Applicant: Ashley LeFew Falwell / Dalgliesh Gilpin Paxton Architects Project: Addition and alterations Application components (please click each link to go directly to PDF page): • Staff Report • Historic Survey • Application Submittal December 21, 2021 BAR Packet 6 City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review December 21, 2021 Preliminary Discussion 540 Park Street, TMP 520183000 North Downtown ADC District Owner: Jessica and Patrick Fenn Applicant: Ashley LeFew Falwell / Dalgliesh Gilpin Paxton Architects Project: Alteration, rear addition, and new pool house Background Year Built: 1900 District: North Downtown ADC District Status: Contributing, including two outbuildings: garage and pool house. (Note: While designated contributing, the pool house was constructed between 2000 and 2002. See images in Appendix.) 540 Park Street is a two-story asymmetrical wood house with a Doric veranda. Constructed by William T. Vandergrift for the Maphis family. Wood siding was covered in stucco. Prior BAR Actions (see Appendix) Application • Applicant’s submittal: Dalgliesh Gilpin Paxton Architects narrative (one page) and drawings (12 sheets) for 540 Park Street, dated December 1, 2021. Preliminary discussion of proposed alteration, rear addition, and new pool house. 540 Park Street – Prelim Discussion (Dec. 15, 2021) 1 From applicant’s submittal Architectural Summary: The architectural plan proposes to demolish the existing pool house structure, construct a new lower profile pool house, and revise the east addition within the existing footprint. The goals of the project are to achieve a new coordinated aesthetic for the rear pool courtyard, add square footage, and improve the functionality of the existing square footage for the current owner. Front of House: • Removable screen panels are proposed for the southwest portion of the existing front porch. Back of House: • Overall, the new architecture around the rear pool courtyard of the house will be thoughtfully considered, holistically designed, and will result in improved functionality for the owners upon completion. The architectural language of the altered East addition and new pool house will be modern, rendered in colors and high-quality materials that are compatible with the main house, but not intended to imitate the house stylistically. The stucco exterior walls will have a smooth finish, clad metal windows and doors will be dark in color, and the roofs will be copper. Landscape Summary: The landscape plan proposes renovations to the existing hardscapes at the front and side of the house as well as modifications to paving and planting at the back of the house to support the proposed architectural changes. Front of House: • Existing crushed stone paths will be realigned and replaced with stepping stones in lawn. The north path section will be removed and replaced with lawn. • The crushed stone landing in the front of the house will be paved in bluestone and raised slightly for drainage purposes. • The steps down from the front porch will be rebuilt to adjust to a revised landing elevation. Stair treads will be lengthened. • An existing black walnut along the street is in poor health and is proposed to be removed. • The front lawn will be regraded to a more gentle pitch. A new stone seatwall at the west end of the lawn will retain approximately 12” of soil. Side of House: • Pathways and hardscapes on the south side of the house along Farish Street will be upgraded and paved in bluestone or brick. Back of House: • Paving along the back and east side of the house will respond to the architectural changes and match or complement existing paving. Discussion This is a preliminary discussion, no BAR action is required; however, by consensus, the BAR may express an opinion about the project as presented. (For example, the BAR might express consensus support for elements of the project, such as its scale and massing.) Such comments will not constitute a formal motion and the result will have no legal bearing, nor will it represent an incremental decision on the required CoA. 540 Park Street – Prelim Discussion (Dec. 15, 2021) 2 There are two key objectives of a preliminary discussion: Introduce the project to the BAR; and allow the applicant and the BAR to establish what is necessary for a successful final submittal. That is, a final submittal that is complete and provides the information necessary for the BAR to evaluate the project using the ADC District Design Guidelines and related review criteria. In response to any questions from the applicant and/or for any recommendations to the applicant, the BAR should rely on the germane sections of the ADC District Design Guidelines and related review criteria. While elements of other chapters may be relevant, staff recommends that the BAR refer to the criteria in Chapter II--Site Design and Elements, Chapter III--New Construction and Additions, and Chapter VII--Demolitions and Moving. For the new pool house: From G. Garages, Sheds, and Other Structures in Chapter II • Choose designs for new outbuildings that are compatible with the major buildings on the site. • Take clues and scale from older outbuildings in the area. • Use traditional roof slopes and traditional materials. • Place new outbuildings behind the dwelling. • If the design complements the main building however, it can be visible from primary elevations or streets. • The design and location of any new site features should relate to the existing character of the property. For the rear addition: From the checklist for Additions in Chapter III. • Function and Size • Location • Design • Replication of Style • Materials and Features • Attachment to Existing Building Additionally, the discussion should address any questions regarding the materials and components. For example: • Roofing • Gutters/Downspouts • Cornice • Siding and Trim • Doors and Windows • Landscaping • Lighting Re: razing the existing pool house: The pool house was constructed between 2000 and 2002. (See Appendix.) Staff is uncertain why it was designated a contributing structure. While a formal review will require compliance with Code section 34-2779(a), there is nothing to indicate this structure is historic or that its demolition would negatively impact the character of the ADC District. (Per 34-277(a), a CoA is required for the demolition of a contributing structure.) 540 Park Street – Prelim Discussion (Dec. 15, 2021) 3 Suggested Motions For a preliminary discussion, the BAR cannot take action on a formal motion. 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 Link: III: Site Design and Elements Chapter III – New Construction and Additions Link: IV: New Construction and Additions Checklist from section P. Additions 1) Function and Size a. Attempt to accommodate needed functions within the existing structure without building an addition. b. Limit the size of the addition so that it does not visually overpower the existing building. 2) Location a. Attempt to locate the addition on rear or side elevations that are not visible from the street. b. If additional floors are constructed on top of a building, set the addition back from the main façade so that its visual impact is minimized. c. If the addition is located on a primary elevation facing the street or if a rear addition faces a street, parking area, or an important pedestrian route, the façade of the addition should be treated under the new construction guidelines. 3) Design 540 Park Street – Prelim Discussion (Dec. 15, 2021) 4 a. New additions should not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. b. The new work should be differentiated from the old and should be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. 4) Replication of Style a. A new addition should not be an exact copy of the design of the existing historic building. The design of new additions can be compatible with and respectful of existing buildings without being a mimicry of their original design. b. If the new addition appears to be part of the existing building, the integrity of the original historic design is compromised and the viewer is confused over what is historic and what is new. 5) Materials and Features a. Use materials, windows, doors, architectural detailing, roofs, and colors that are compatible with historic buildings in the district. 6) Attachment to Existing Building a. Wherever possible, new additions or alterations to existing buildings should be done in such a manner that, if such additions or alterations were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the buildings would be unimpaired. b. The new design should not use the same wall plane, roof line, or cornice line of the existing structure. Chapter 4 – Rehabilitation Link: V: Rehabilitation Chapter VII – Demolitions and Moving Link: VIII: Moving and Demolition Reference 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; 2. Whether it has been designated a National Historic Landmark, listed on the National Register of Historic Places, or listed on the Virginia Landmarks Register; 3. Whether, and to what extent, the building or structure is associated with an historic person, architect or master craftsman, or with an historic event; 4. Whether the building or structure, or any of its features, represent an infrequent or the first or last remaining example within the city of a particular architectural style or feature; 5. Whether the building or structure is of such old or distinctive design, texture or material that it could not be reproduced, or could be reproduced only with great difficulty; and 6. The degree to which distinguishing characteristics, qualities, features or materials remain; b) Whether, and to what extent, a contributing structure is linked, historically or aesthetically, to other buildings or structures within an existing major design control district, or is one (1) of a group of properties within such a district whose concentration or continuity possesses greater significance than many of its component buildings and structures. 540 Park Street – Prelim Discussion (Dec. 15, 2021) 5 c) The overall condition and structural integrity of the building or structure, as indicated by studies prepared by a qualified professional engineer and provided by the applicant or other information provided to the board; d) Whether, and to what extent, the applicant proposes means, methods or plans for moving, removing or demolishing the structure or property that preserves portions, features or materials that are significant to the property's historic, architectural or cultural value; and e) Any applicable provisions of the city's design guidelines. APPENDIX Prior BAR Actions July 18, 2005- Administrative Approval given to repaint the house. September 20, 2005- BAR approved CoA with conditions (7-0-1) architectural and site changes with certain details to come back to BAR. Architectural changes: 1. Rear porch extended; replace stairs at south end of porch with at the north end, to wood, painted; replace double window with a painted, wood doors with transom. 2. Install painted, wood shutters on all windows with operable hardware. 3. Replace front stair treads. Site changes: 1. Remove existing wood fence, concrete and brick walks, a portion of the asphalt pavement, and planting beds. 2. Construct brick walks and dining terrace using salvaged bricks. 3. Front yard: install evergreen hedge; wood gates; stone dust walkway with brick edge. 4. Rear yard: Construct swimming pool with bluestone coping; flagstone pool terrace; stone privacy wall with painted wood cap (along Farish Street); painted. wood security fence around balance of rear yard. April 18, 2006- BAR approved CoA (6-0) fence details. October 16, 2007- BAR approved (6-0-1) CoA for shed. BAR requested that the roof framing on the underside of the exposed roof is dealt with similarly to the existing detail. November 18, 2014- BAR approved CoA, with re-roofing details to be submitted for Administrative Approval. [Note that removal of Philadelphia gutters would require an additional application for BAR approval]. February 21, 2018 – BAR approved CoA to replace the existing painted standing seam metal roof with a copper standing seam roof with pan dimensions and seam heights to match the existing. The new roof will have copper snow guards in a 2-1-2 pattern. Replace the Philadelphia Gutter system with 6” copper half round gutters mounted on eaves with 4” copper downspouts. BAR required downspouts be painted to minimize visibility and, as much as possible, locate downspouts to minimize visibility, especially at prominent corners. 540 Park Street – Prelim Discussion (Dec. 15, 2021) 6 Pool House 540 Park Street – Prelim Discussion (Dec. 15, 2021) 7 ARCHITECTURAL SUMMARY: The architectural plan proposes to demolish the existing poolhouse structure, construct a new lower profile poolhouse, and revise the East addition within the existing footprint. The goals of the project are to achieve a new coordinated aesthetic for the rear pool courtyard, add square footage, and improve the functionality of the existing square footage for the current owner. FRONT OF HOUSE: Removable screen panels are proposed for the Southwest portion of the existing front porch. BACK OF HOUSE: Overall, the new architecture around the rear pool courtyard of the house will be thoughtfully considered, holistically designed, and will result in improved functionality for the owners upon completion. The architectural language of the altered East addition and new poolhouse will be modern, rendered in colors and high-quality materials that are compatible with the main house, but not intended to imitate the house stylistically. The stucco exterior walls will have a smooth finish, clad metal windows and doors will be dark in color, and the roofs will be copper. LANDSCAPE SUMMARY: The landscape plan proposes renovations to the existing hardscapes at the front and side of the house as well as modifications to paving and planting at the back of the house to support the proposed architectural changes. FRONT OF HOUSE: Existing crushed stone paths will be realigned and replaced with stepping stones in lawn. The north path section will be removed and replaced with lawn. The crushed stone landing in the front of the house will be paved in bluestone and raised slightly for drainage purposes. The steps down from the front porch will be rebuilt to adjust to a revised landing elevation. Stair treads will be lengthened. An existing black walnut along the street is in poor health and is proposed to be removed. The front lawn will be regraded to a more gentle pitch. A new stone seatwall at the west end of the lawn will retain approximately 12” of soil. SIDE OF HOUSE : Pathways and hardscapes on the south side of the house along Farish Street will be upgraded and paved in bluestone or brick. BACK OF HOUSE: Paving along the back and east side of the house will respond to the architectural changes and match or complement existing paving. POOL PLAN EQUIP. NORTH FENCE LINE PROPERTY LINE EXISTING POOLHOUSE EXISTING EXTERIOR STAIR EXISTING EXISTING POOL MAIN HOUSE PROPOSED DEMOLITION BUILDING FOOTPRINT 0 8' 16' 24' EXISTING PARKING EXISTING STORAGE BUILDING FARISH STREET E x i s t i n g P l a n 5 4 0 P A R K S T R E E T 12/1/2021 D ALGLIESH G ILPIN PAXTON A RCHITECTS Scale: 3/32" = 1'-0" POOL EQUIP. PLAN NORTH PROPERTY LINE FENCE LINE PROPOSED POOLHOUSE W DR EXISTING MAIN HOUSE EXISTING POOL PROPOSED DEMOLITION NEW BUILDING FOOTPRINT/ ALTERED SHELL 0 8' 16' 24' EXISTING PARKING EXISTING STORAGE BUILDING FARISH STREET R e n o v a t e d L o w e r L e v e l & P o o l h o u s e P l a n 5 4 0 P A R K S T R E E T 12/1/2021 D ALGLIESH G ILPIN PAXTON A RCHITECTS Scale: 3/32" = 1'-0" PR OPER T Y LINE ex. sh ru bs ex. fen ce NE PR OP ER T Y LI ex. wa ln u t P L AY L AWN P OO L HO US E rem ove ex. ex . s ycamore PAR K STR EE T wa ln u t bl u e s to n e ex . h e ml o c k h e d g e landing ex . pav i ng S I D E WA L K ex. sh ru b s L AW N HOUS E ex . pool 18” sto n e ret a ini n g wa l l ex. o a k P OR C H b r ick or s te ppi n g s to n e s i n l aw n co ncrete p avin g paved path ex . wall and fence step s step s ex . par k i ng ex . l i n d e n ex . s hr ubs PR OP ER T Y LI NE EX . S HED FA RI SH ST RE E T ex . steps and walk 1/16” = 1’ 0’ 8’ 16’ 32’ Site Plan Fenn Residence November 30, 2021 PR OPER T Y LINE ex. sh ru bs ex. fen ce NE PR OP ER T Y LI ex. wa ln u t P L AY L AWN P OO L E X . C R U SH E D S TO N E PAT H S TO B E R E M O V E D rem ove ex. ex . s ycamore PAR K STR EE T wa ln u t ex . h e ml o c k h e d g e S I D E WA L K ex. sh ru b s L AW N HOUS E bl u e s to n e ex . pool 18” sto n e landing ret a ini n g wa l l P OR C H b r ick or s te ppi n g s to n e s i n l aw n co ncrete p avin g ex . wall and fence step s step s E X . S TEP P ING S TONES A ND L A ND INGS TO BE R EP L AC ED ex . l i n d e n ex . s hr ubs PR OP ER T Y LI NE EX . S HED FA RI SH ST RE E T ex . steps and walk 1/16” = 1’ 0’ 8’ 16’ 32’ Site Plan - Existing Conditions Overlay 0 8 16 32 Fenn Residence November 30, 2021 Pat hs and l a n di n g s to b e re a l i gn e d a n d u p gra de d S o u t h e nt ra n ce to b e re a l i gne d and p ave d Crushed s to n e p at h to be removed a n d rep laced wit h lawn Cr ushed sto n e l a n di n g to b e re p l a ce d w i t h b l u e s to n e N o r t h e nt ra n ce to b e re move d EXISTING CONDITIONS Fenn Residence November 30, 2021 VERIFY HEAD HT VERIFY HEAD HT VERIFY HEAD/SILL HT VERIFY VERIFY HEAD HT VERIFY HEAD HT HEAD HT FOOTPRINT OF FOOTPRINT OF EXTERIOR STAIR EXISTING ADDITION EXISTING ADDITION TO BE REMOVED SOUTH EAST E x i s t i n g E l e v a t i o n s - S o u t h & E a s t 5 4 0 P A R K S T R E E T 12/1/2021 D ALGLIESH G ILPIN PAXTON A RCHITECTS Scale: 3/32" = 1'-0" PROPOSED NEW SHELL ON FIRST & SECOND LEVELS EXISTING LOWER LEVEL TO REMAIN WITH NEW OPENINGS PROPOSED FOOTPRINT OF REMOVABLE SCREEN PANELS EXISTING ADDITION ADDED TO EXISTING PORCH N e w S o u t h E l e v a t i o n 5 4 0 P A R K S T R E E T 12/1/2021 D ALGLIESH G ILPIN PAXTON A RCHITECTS Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0" LOW SLOPE FLAT SEAM COPPER ROOF SMOOTH STUCCO PAINTED TO MATCH MAIN HOUSE NEW METAL CLAD WINDOWS & DOORS FOOTPRINT OF EXISTING ADDITION TO REMAIN N e w E a s t E l e v a t i o n 5 4 0 P A R K S T R E E T 12/1/2021 D ALGLIESH G ILPIN PAXTON A RCHITECTS Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0" STONE CHIMNEY COPPER ROOF METAL CLAD WINDOWS & DOORS SMOOTH STUCCO ON EXTERIOR WALLS WEST SOUTH P r o p o s e d P o o l h o u s e E l e v a t i o n s 5 4 0 P A R K S T R E E T 12/1/2021 D ALGLIESH G ILPIN PAXTON A RCHITECTS Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0" West Elevation - Park Street South Elevation - Farish Street Black Walnut - Proposed Removal East Elevation North Elevation Black Walnut - Park St Power Lines M a i n H o u s e - R e f e r e n c e P h o t o g r a p h s 5 4 0 P A R K S T R E E T 12/1/2021 D ALGLIESH G ILPIN PAXTON A RCHITECTS Scale: 1' = 1'-0" South Elevation East Elevation South Elevation West Elevation Southeast View E x i s t i n g P o o l h o u s e - R e f e r e n c e P h o t o g r a p h s 5 4 0 P A R K S T R E E T 12/1/2021 D ALGLIESH G ILPIN PAXTON A RCHITECTS Scale: 1' = 1'-0" 616 Park Street - Southwest View 534 Park Street - North/ Farish St 534 Park Street - West/ Park St 532 Park Street - West/ Park St 611 Park Street - East/ Park St 601 Park Street - East/ Park St N e a r b y P r o p e r t i e s - R e f e r e n c e P h o t o g r a p h s 5 4 0 P A R K S T R E E T 12/1/2021 D ALGLIESH G ILPIN PAXTON A RCHITECTS Scale: 1' = 1'-0" City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review December 21, 2021 Discussion Only 200 W Water Street, Tax Map 28 Parcel 79 Applicant: Ron Smith / Smith & Robertson, Inc. Owner: Chauncey Hutter Project: Building alterations, new wall and entry gate. Background Year Built: 1935 (Art deco service station) District: Downtown ADC District Status: Contributing. Prior BAR Actions • April 15, 2003 - BAR denied (4-3) CoA for addition to Mono Loco. • May 20, 2003 – BAR approved (5-2) CoA for revised plan, planting details to come back. • April 19, 2005 – BAR approved CoA for extending patio into parking area, install canvas canopy, construct fence along 2nd Street, existing stucco wall and gates along Water Street to remain, variety of new plantings. • August 16, 2005 - BAR approved (6-0) CoA for clear canopy sheeting with condition when not necessary (winter and summer) it be rolled up, out of sight, not appear permanent. Project Within the existing building, new restaurant featuring Korean and Japanese Fusion style cuisine with indoor and outdoor seating. Existing trees, low wall at Water Street, dining tent, and fence along 2nd Street to remain. Proposed alterations: • Paint building. (Walls: Navajo White. Corner piers, header band: Café Au Lait. Doors and windows: Dark Bronze.) • Remove awning and TV cabinet on east elevation. • Remove non-historic roll-up door at east elevation; install single door with sidelites. New to be me (The existing door is not historic, installed sometime between 2012 and 2019.) • Construct at NE corner a low wall (tie into the existing stucco wall). New wall to be stone with a Korean-style cap featuring a barrel tiles. 200 West Water Street – Discussion (Dec 16, 2021) 1 • Construct at the east patio a Korean-style gate. Wood gates within a wood frame featuring a roof with barrel tiles. Frame to have stucco side panels. Discussion and Recommendations Staff sees no issues related to the painting, installation of the new door, and removal of the awning and TV box. However, design for the new wall and entry gate would be unique for this ADC District and staff suggested the applicant consult with the BAR prior to developing and submitting a formal CoA request. The design guidelines for Site Design and Elements generally support a stone wall and wood entry gate that reflect a typical, local design. However, under a strict application of the guidelines, a Korean-style wall and gate would arguably be incompatible with the historic, cultural or architectural character of this property and the Downtown ADC District. The existing structure is a 1930s service station. The building retains several defining architectural features; however, the garage doors have been removed and the site so completely altered that the property no longer reads as a service station. In the context of this property, the new fence and gate might be no better or worse than the prior changes. In the context of the Downtown ADC District the proposed style would be unique. From Chapter 1: Introduction Flexibility: The following guidelines offer general recommendations on the design for all new buildings and additions in Charlottesville’s historic districts. The guidelines are flexible enough to both respect the historic past and to embrace the future. The intent of these guidelines is not to be overly specific or to dictate certain designs to owners and designers. The intent is also not to encourage copying or mimicking particular historic styles. These guidelines are intended to provide a general design framework for new construction. Designers can take cues from the traditional architecture of the area and have the freedom to design appropriate new architecture for Charlottesville’s historic districts. 1. Downtown ADC District c. Water/South Street: industrial, parking, narrow sidewalks, hard edges, larger warehouse scale, masonry, open space, backyard of Main Street, downhill, auto oriented, quirky modern style. [emphasis added] From Chapter 2: Site Design and Elements C. Walls and Fences • For new fences [and walls], use materials that relate to materials in the neighborhood. • Take design cues from nearby historic fences and walls. G. Garages, Sheds, & Other Structures, • Retain existing historic garages, outbuildings, and site features. • Choose designs for new outbuildings that are compatible with the major buildings on the site. • Take clues and scale from older outbuildings in the area. • Use traditional roof slopes and traditional materials. • The design and location of any new site features should relate to the existing character of the property. 200 West Water Street – Discussion (Dec 16, 2021) 2 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 for Site Design and Elements Link: III: Site Design and Elements C. Walls and Fences There is a great variety of fences and low retaining walls in Charlottesville’s historic districts, particularly the historically residential areas. While most rear yards and many side yards have some combination of fencing and landscaped screening, the use of such features in front yards varies. Materials may relate to materials used on the structures on the site and may include brick, stone, wrought iron, wood pickets, or concrete. 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. 200 West Water Street – Discussion (Dec 16, 2021) 3 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. G. Garages, Sheds, & Other Structures 1) Retain existing historic garages, outbuildings, and site features. 2) Choose designs for new outbuildings that are compatible with the major buildings on the site. 3) Take clues and scale from older outbuildings in the area. 4) Use traditional roof slopes and traditional materials. 5) Place new outbuildings behind the dwelling. 6) If the design complements the main building however, it can be visible from primary elevations or streets. 7) The design and location of any new site features should relate to the existing character of the property. Pertinent ADC District Design Guidelines for Rehabilitation Chapter 4 – Rehabilitation Link: 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. 200 West Water Street – Discussion (Dec 16, 2021) 4 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. 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. […] K. Paint 1) Do not remove paint on wood trim or architectural details. 2) Do not paint unpainted masonry. 3) Choose colors that blend with and complement the overall color schemes on the street. Do not use bright and obtrusive colors. 4) The number of colors should be limited. Doors and shutters can be painted a different color than the walls and trim. 5) Use appropriate paint placement to enhance the inherent design of the building. 200 West Water Street – Discussion (Dec 16, 2021) 5 Umma’s. 200 West Water Street - For discission only Dec 21, 2021 1 of 8 View from Water Street View from 2nd Street Umma’s. 200 West Water Street - For discission only Dec 21, 2021 2 of 8 Remove awning and Remove awning and Replace garage door with 3’-0” TV cabinet swing door with two sidelights Trees to remain Trees to remain Branch wall/fence to remain Tent and existing walls New entrance gate (NTS) to remain New wall. Return to existing wall. (NTS) View from 2nd Street Umma’s. 200 West Water Street - For discission only Dec 21, 2021 3 of 8 Approx. NTS. Umma’s. 200 West Water Street - For discission only Dec 21, 2021 4 of 8 gate wall Conceptual: For context only Umma’s. 200 West Water Street - For discission only Dec 21, 2021 5 of 8 Umma’s. 200 West Water Street - For discission only Dec 21, 2021 6 of 8 Note: Building is currently gray. Wall color as shown. Umma’s. 200 West Water Street - For discission only Dec 21, 2021 7 of 8 Umma’s. 200 West Water Street - For discission only Dec 21, 2021 8 of 8 October 2012 (Google Street View) Roll up door at east elevation. July 2019 (Google Street View) CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW STAFF MEMO December 21, 2021 Update: Corners and Slip Joints for MSE walls BAR 17-08-02 Belmont Bridge City of Charlottesville, Owner/Applicant Belmont Bridge Background The Belmont Bridge, constructed in 1962, is located in the Downton ADC District and provides vehicular and pedestrian crossing over the BBRR/CSX rail lines, Avon Street, and Water Street. Due to deterioration, replacing the bridge has long been one of the city’s transportation priorities. Now fully funded, construction is underway with completion expected in 2022/2023. Prior BAR Actions September 18, 2018: Approval of the design with the following conditions: • Approve the horizontal concept of the MSE panels; BAR requests further development of this design, which must come back to the BAR for approval • Denial of the use of brick [whether faux or actual] on the east side of the bridge [on abutment, north of Water Street] • Request to see an existing example of the proposed street light [Applicant will advise on location in Northern Virginia where this fixture type is installed.] • Request that applicant revisit details on the stairs—the south stairs particularly--to create more fluidity and cohesion with the rest of the design concept for the bridge. http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/724633/BAR_Belmont%20Bridge_Aug%202017.pdf August 20, 2019: BAR approved CoA as follows: proposed bridge, lighting and site work satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are compatible with this property and other properties in the Downtown ADC District, and that the BAR approves the application with the following additions. • That the striations will wrap the corners at the abutment, and should appear cut at any obstructions as discussed;* • That lamping for the pole lights will have a minimum 80 color rendering index (CRI), although 90 is preferred; • The BAR strongly recommends review of the overhang at the knuckle to reduce the perceived heaviness of the beam, and to visually separate the beam from the parapet; • The BAR to provide advisory review of the special provision for the concrete panels for the retaining wall system. * Specifically: A) At the two corners of the south abutment the striation pattern of the panels on the east and west walls will appear to wrap the corner onto the abutment wall under bridge; and B) where the striated wall panels meet the sloped parapet (above), the ground level (at the base), and an obstruction (a different, non‐striated element that has been inserted onto or through the vertical plane of the striated wall‐‐for example, the stairs and the bike/ped tunnels) the Belmont Bridge (December 21, 2021) 1 striation pattern will terminate as if cut, similar to a natural, exposed rock outcropping if cut for a road or bored into for an opening. Note: Refer to slides #3 and 19 of the presentation. http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/791520/BAR_Belmont%20Bridge_August2019.pdf Information for Discission Submittal 019A – MSE Wall 100 FT Elevation. The BAR approved the bridge design with a condition that the striations wrap the corners at the abutment. The engineers have determined that this cannot be done with the MSE walls. (A mitered corner piece would undermine the structural integrity of the retaining wall.) The solution requires a separate corner column, so the striations will not appear continuous. We have a similar situation along the length of the walls, with the solution being a series of slip joint columns. For reference, see wall elevations from the August 2020 BAR discussion—attached. The new elevation shows a section of the new bridge abutment on the east side, south of the RR tracks. (Image below is of the current bridge but helps visualize what is shown in the new elevation.) Belmont Bridge (December 21, 2021) 2 Belmont Bridge (December 21, 2021) 3 TRANSMITTAL To: City of Charlottesville Date: 11/22/2021 610 East Market Street P.O Box 911 Project: Belmont Bridge/20-11 Charlottesville, VA 22902 Project No: 0020-104-101, C501 Attn: Mr. Jeanette Janiczek Re: Submittal 019A - MSE Wall 100 FT Elevation We are sending you: Shop Drawings Prints Plans X Submittals Change Order Copy of Letter Samples Specifications Original Copies Date Rev. Description 1 11/22/2021 RECO's MSE Wall 100 ft Elevation and additional comments. X For Approval X For Review and Comment Resubmit ______ Copies For Approval For Your Use Approved As Submitted Return ______ Corrected Prints X As Requested Approved As Noted Returned for Corrections For Information For Record For Bids Due on: Remarks: Sincerely, CC: CCG Project Team Grant Walker By: Vikas Gumte Project Manager Title: Project Engineer GEOTEXTILE FILTER FABRIC GEOTEXTILE FILTER FABRIC 12" MIN. WIDE PLACED AS 12" MIN. WIDE VARIES PER SHOWN PLACED AS SHOWN WALL GEOMETRY 1/4" MIN. SPACE BETWEEN BACK FACE OF SLIP JOINT SLIP JOINT & FRONT OF PANEL SEE ELEVATION PRECAST 1/4" - 3/4" GAP BETWEEN WALL PANEL PANEL FACE OR EDGE AND CORNER UNIT(TYP) PRECAST 8" 8" WALL PANEL 2" MIN. 2" MIN. SEE WALL ELEVATION SEE WALL ELEVATION 20" BEARING PADS 8" (2 PER JOINT) THEORETICAL CORNER POINT CORNER ELEMENT 70 DEGREE CORNER ELEMENT DETAIL NO SCALE SLIP JOINT DETAIL NO SCALE WALL B WALL C WALL C WALL A SLIP JOINT COLUMN T42-1 5'-9 1/4" 9'-10 1/2" T72-13 PANEL WIDTH PANEL WIDTH CORNER COLUMN CORNER COLUMN A -6 A -8 T36-1 T36-1 T36-1 T36-1 A -4R T66-18 T66-2 T66-1 T66-28 A -8R A -35R A -5R A -4R A -5 A -13 A -27 A -4R A -16 A -29 A -12 A -34 A -1 A -4 A -15R A -25 A -18 A -16R A -4R A -30 COPYRIGHT 2021 THE REINFORCED EARTH COMPANY® A -1 B30-1 A -35R B30-2R A -5R B30-1 A -4 B30-2R A -5R B30-2R 2'-9 1/4" 1'-1 3/4" TO PANEL EDGES TO PANEL EDGES 20960 PREPARED BY: DESIGN PROJECT NAME: THE DESIGN CONTAINED ON THESE DRAWINGS IS PAGE NAME: SUBMITTAL DATE: PROJECT NO.: SET PAGE # THS IDRAWN I GCONTAN I SNI FORMATO I NPROPRE ITARYTOTHEREN I FORCEDEARTH STATE PROJECT #0020-104-101, B601 11/19/2021 BY: S 3 BASED ON INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE OWNER. COMPANYA ,NDSIBENI GFURNS IHEDFORTHEUSEOF__________________O , NLYN I VDOT SM ON THE BASIS OF THIS INFORMATION, THE CONNECTO I NWT IHTHS IPROJECTA ,NDTHENI FORMATO I NCONTAN I EDHEREN ISINOTTO REINFORCED EARTH COMPANY HAS DESIGNED, AND MSE WALL FORMLINER MSE WALLS DRAWN BETRANSMT ITEDTOANYOTHERORGANZ IATOI NUNLESSSPECF IC I ALLYAUTHORZ IEDN I BY: IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE INTERNAL STABILITY OF SM 100-FT ELEVATION WRTIN I GBYTHEREN I FORCEDEARTHCOMPANYT.HEREN I FORCEDEARTHCOMPANYS I THE STRUCTURE ONLY. EXTERNAL STABILITY, 9212 Falls of Neuse Rd - Suite 201 INCLUDING FOUNDATION (BEARING CAPACITY AND ROUTE 20 (9TH STREET) EXCLUSVIELC I ENSEEN I THEUNT IEDSTATESUNDERPATENTSHELDBYOURAFFL IA ITED CHECKED Raleigh, NC 27615 SETTLEMENT) AND GLOBAL STABILITY (INCLUDING COMPANE ISA,NDTHEFURNS IHN I GOFTHSIDRAWN I GDOESNOTCONSTT IUTEAN BY: SLIDING AND ROTATION), IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF EXPRESSEDORM I PLEIDLC I ENSEUNDERANYAPPLC I ABLEPATENTS. Ph.: (919)453-2011 / Fax.: (513)297-7930 JH CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE VIRGINIA THE OWNER. Vikas Gumte From: MASTRONARDI Daniel Sent: Friday, November 19, 2021 4:43 PM To: Vikas Gumte Cc: Grant Walker; HANSBERGER Jonathan; HARRIS Joe; MARKHAM Steven Subject: RE: Belmont Bridge Replacement (UPC 75878) - Submittal 019 - MSE Wall Mock Up Renderings Attachments: 20960 PANEL LINER DETAILS_100FT.pdf Vikas, Please see attached 100ft elevation as requested. Please note RECo’s aesthetic elevation and detail are meant to be schematic by nature and may vary slightly with final design. Some additional comments for consideration regarding the corner, slip joint and aesthetic patterns: ‐ With regards to use of corner element pieces, it is strongly recommended to keep these as using mitered/beveled panels will create multiple issues. o The multiple degrees of corner angles will make it difficult to either produce or field cut these to precisely fit in the field when placed o With these mitered panels, they will be very susceptible to breaking while handling in construction and after installation due to the narrow profile of the corner edges. Along with this narrow corner profile, the architectural features will be prone to breaking after installation as well. o For service life of the structure, MSE walls are meant to accommodate slight movements and keeping the corner joint closed will be impossible. It is likely a mitered corner will open up over time with settlement and create continuing maintenance issues as well as be visually unappealing as it opens. ‐ Another issue that is being brought to light in laying out the pattern on the panels is how the architectural finish will be applied on narrow panels such as at corners. o As the contract documents show, the narrow panels have the standard patterns applied but in a modified manner where features are moved/stretched from the standard positions.(example panel type 27 to the right of the corner in the elevation was originally depicted to be less than 10ft wide) This is not going to be possible with a precast formliner as the patterns are going to be fixed and required to be cut either on the left or the right side depending on where the end of the panel will be required. o As a proposed solution, RECo is showing a full width panel starting from the corner and moving outward from there. A phase line will be required in the shown wall and that will require a slip joint to be placed in the second phase between the two phases to accommodate any differential settlements between the two phases. This is most likely the ideal location to have a cut panel where the patterns will have that joint to separate them from either side. As shown in the elevation, the slip joint location is approximate and will most likely be adjusted based on phase construction dimensions required. Please feel free to reach out with any further questions. If another call to discuss is needed, we can be available. Thank you and have a good weekend. Dan Daniel T. Mastronardi III Project Manager The Reinforced Earth Company Office: 703.547.8797 x1123 Mobile: 607.759.0744 1 MSE PANEL TYPE NUMBERS M.S.E. WALL TYPICAL SECTIONS AND DETAILS M.S.E. WALL RAILING DETAILS 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 Projects previously proposed at BAR meetings 743 Park Street 415 10th Street NW (Church at 10th Street NW and Grady Avenue) Memorial to Enslaved Laborers (University of Virginia) 301 East Jefferson Street (Congregation Beth Israel) 400 Rugby Road (Westminster Presbyterian Church) 714 West Street (and other homes renovated by Jeremy Caplin) Cheri proposes 10th and Grady Church as well as Memorial to Enslaved Laborers at UVA. 135 Bollingwood Road (1935 International-style house) CODE Building