City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Regular Meeting March 15, 2022, 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. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 22-03-01 1835 University Circle, TMP 060069000 Rugby Rd-University Cir-Venable ADC District Owner: Meg Conklin and John Jay Applicant: Mary Wolf / Wolf-Josey Project: Landscaping 2. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 20-03-02 223 East Main Street, TMP 33023400 Downtown ADC District Owner: Labace, LLC Applicant: Tony Labace Project: Replace storefront C. Deferred Items n/a March 15, 2022 BAR Packet Guide 1 D. Preliminary Discussions (including questions from staff) 3. 1301 Wertland Street, TMP 040303000 Wertland Street ADC District Project: New residential building 4. 32 University Circle, TMP 060094000 Rugby Rd-University Cir-Venable ADC District (non-contributing) Project: Window replacements 5. 1901 East Market Street, TMP 55A149000 IPP within the Woolen Mills HC District Project: Rear addition 6. 111 14th Street NW, TMP 090074000 Rugby Rd-University Cir-Venable ADC District (non-contributing) Project: Proposed Mural DI. Work Session 7. Zoning Ordinance Revisions James Freas, NDS Director DII. Other Business DIII. Adjourn March 15, 2022 BAR Packet Guide 2 Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 22-03-01 1835 University Circle, TMP 060069000 Rugby Rd-University Cir-Venable ADC District Owner: Meg Conklin and John Jay Applicant: Mary Wolf / Wolf-Josey Project: Landscaping Application components (please click each link to go directly to PDF page): • Staff Report • Historic Survey • Application Submittal March 15, 2022 BAR Packet Guide 3 City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Staff Report March 15, 2022 Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 22-03-01 1835 University Circle, TMP 060069000 Rugby Rd-University Cir-Venable ADC District Owner: Meg Conklin and John Jay Applicant: Mary Wolf / Wolf-Josey Project: Landscaping Background Year Built: c. 1922 District: Rugby Road-University Circle-Venable ADC District Status: Contributing This five-bay Georgian Revival house is one of several on University Circle designed by noted local architect Eugene Bradbury. Prior BAR Reviews October 20, 2015 (15-10-01): The BAR moves (6-1) to find that a second-story addition to an existing garage is compatible with the ADC district. Application • Applicant’s submittal: Narrative summary. Drawings (5 sheets) for 1835 University Circle by Wolf Josey Landscape Architects: Proposed Pool Site Plan (Sheet 1); Existing Conditions Overlay (Sheet 2); Contiguous Properties (Sheet 3); Site Perimeter Views (Sheet 4); Existing Conditions on Site (Sheet 5) Request CoA to construct a pool and introduce new landscaping to the west yard on the side of the house. A bluestone-paved patio will surround the pool, and bluestone steps will replace existing brick steps that lead down a slope from the house. The undisturbed area of the side yard will remain as lawn. Existing large cedar tree near the proposed pool will be removed with new plantings along the north and east property boundaries and the addition of perennials, shrubs, and dogwood trees on the slope between the pool and the house. 1835 University Circle (March 10, 2022) 1 Discussion The west (side) yard is largely screened from the public right-of-way by large boxwoods along the University Circle property boundary. The design guidelines recommend that new outbuildings are placed behind dwellings but offer no such recommendation for pools. Given the proposed pool’s minimal paving, muted palette, and boxwood buffer from the street, staff considers the siting in the side yard appropriate. Staff finds that the material palette, scale, and proposed plantings of this landscape plan are consistent with other properties in the district. Based on the criteria in Chapter II: Site Design and Elements of the ADC District Design Guidelines, staff recommends approval, with a recommendation that the applicant consider adding an additional shade tree to compensate for the loss of the cedar tree. Suggested motion Approval: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City’s ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed pool and landscape plan at 1835 University Circle satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are compatible with this property and other properties in the Rugby Road-University Circle-Venable ADC District, and that the BAR approves the application as submitted. Denial: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed fence and landscape plan at 1835 University Circle do not satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are not compatible with this property and other properties in the Rugby Road-University Circle-Venable ADC District, and that for the following reasons the BAR denies the application as submitted… Criteria, Standards, and Guidelines Review Criteria Generally Sec. 34-284(b) of the City Code states that, In considering a particular application the BAR shall approve the application unless it finds: 1) That the proposal does not meet specific standards set forth within this division or applicable provisions of the Design Guidelines established by the board pursuant to Sec.34-288(6); and 2) The proposal is incompatible with the historic, cultural or architectural character of the district in which the property is located or the protected property that is the subject of the application. Pertinent Standards for Review of Construction and Alterations include: 1) Whether the material, texture, color, height, scale, mass and placement of the proposed addition, modification or construction are visually and architecturally compatible with the site and the applicable design control district; 2) The harmony of the proposed change in terms of overall proportion and the size and placement of entrances, windows, awnings, exterior stairs and signs; 3) The Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation set forth within the Code of Federal Regulations (36 C.F.R. §67.7(b)), as may be relevant; 4) The effect of the proposed change on the historic district neighborhood; 5) The impact of the proposed change on other protected features on the property, such as gardens, landscaping, fences, walls and walks; 6) Whether the proposed method of construction, renovation or restoration could have an adverse impact on the structure or site, or adjacent buildings or structures; 7) Any applicable provisions of the City’s Design Guidelines. Pertinent ADC District Design Guidelines 1835 University Circle (March 10, 2022) 2 Chapter II – Site Design and Elements B. Plantings 1. Encourage the maintenance and planting of large trees on private property along the streetfronts, which contribute to an “avenue” effect. 2. Generally, use trees and plants that are compatible with the existing plantings in the neighborhood. 3. Use trees and plants that are indigenous to the area. 4. Retain existing trees and plants that help define the character of the district, especially street trees and hedges. 5. Replace diseased or dead plants with like or similar species if appropriate. 6. When constructing new buildings, identify and take care to protect significant existing trees and other plantings. 7. Choose ground cover plantings that are compatible with adjacent sites, existing site conditions, and the character of the building. 8. Select mulching and edging materials carefully and do not use plastic edgings, lava, crushed rock, unnaturally colored mulch or other historically unsuitable materials. C. Walls & Fences 1. Maintain existing materials such as stone walls, hedges, wooden picket fences, and wrought iron fences. 2. When a portion of a fence needs replacing, salvage original parts for a prominent location. 3. Match old fencing in material, height, and detail. 4. If it is not possible to match old fencing, use a simplified design of similar materials and height. 5. For new fences, use materials that relate to materials in the neighborhood. 6. Take design clues from nearby historic fences and walls. 7. Chain-link fencing, split rail fences, and vinyl plastic fencesshould not be used. 8. Traditional concrete block walls may be appropriate. 9. Modular block wall systems or modular concrete block retaining walls are strongly discouraged, but may be appropriate in areas not visible from the public right-of-way. 10. If street-front fences or walls are necessary or desirable, they should not exceed four (4) feet in height from the sidewalk or public right-of-way and should use traditional materials and design. 11. Residential privacy fences may be appropriate in side or rear yards where not visible from the primary street. 12. Fences should not exceed six (6) feet in height in the side and rear yards. 13. Fence structure 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 brick or painted wood fence or heavily planted screen as a buffer. 15. Avoid the installation of new fences or walls if possible in areas where there are no are no fences or walls and yards are open. 16. Retaining walls should respect the scale, materials and context of the site and adjacent properties. 17. Respect the existing conditions of the majority of the lots on the street in planning new construction or a rehabilitation of an existing site. E. Walkways and Driveways 1. Use appropriate traditional paving materials like brick, stone, and scored concrete. 1835 University Circle (March 10, 2022) 3 2. Concrete pavers are appropriate in new construction, and may be appropriate in site renovations, depending on the context of adjacent building materials, and continuity with the surrounding site and district. 3. Gravel or stone dust may be appropriate, but must be contained. 4. Stamped concrete and stamped asphalt are not appropriate paving materials. 5. Limit asphalt use to driveways and parking areas. 6. Place driveways through the front yard only when no rear access to parking is available. 7. Do not demolish historic structures to provide areas for parking. 8. Add separate pedestrian pathways within larger parking lots, and provide crosswalks at vehicular lanes within a site. G. Garages, Sheds & Other Structures 1. Retain existing historic garages, outbuildings, and site features in their original locations. 2. If it is acceptable to relocate a secondary structure, locate it in such a way that it remains consistent with the general pattern of outbuildings to the main structure. (See Chapter VII C. Moving Historic Structures.) 3. Choose designs for new outbuildings that are compatible with the major buildings on the site. 4. Take clues and scale from older outbuildings in the area. 5. Use traditional roof slopes and traditional materials. 6. Place new outbuildings behind the dwelling. 7. If the design complements the main building however, it can be visible from primary elevations or streets. 8. The design and location of any new site features should relate to the existing character of the property. 1835 University Circle (March 10, 2022) 4 February 22, 2022 Subject: BAR Narrative Summary 1835 University Circle Pool Project Summary: A new swimming pool is proposed for the side yard of 1835 University Circle. The existing site is a large open yard that sits 7’ below the front yard of the house and is accessed down a steep 3:1 slope. A side porch overlooks the site and would provide the primary access route to the pool. Existing large boxwoods screen the site from the University Circle. The pool will be minimally paved to preserve the sense of an open lawn. The west edge of the pool will align with the front face of the house. The primary seating area will be at the east end of the pool. Paving will be bluestone. A low stone seat wall at the base of the slope will define the south edge of the pool and help minimize the slope and any drainage issues. Due to grading the existing brick steps down from the porch will be removed and replaced with bluestone steps with brick or bluestone risers. A language of stone and bluestone currently exists within the landscape in the back of the house and along the driveway. The project proposes to remove a large cedar tree on the north side of the pool. The tree is currently leaning towards the house and there is concern that the pool construction could further impact the tree structurally. Tree preservation is a priority for the owners and the pool is sited to preserve two large maples and two large spruce trees. Planting along the north and east property line will be augmented with native deciduous and evergreen shrubs and trees to create a woodland edge and buffer for the neighbors to the north and east. The boxwood planting along University Circle will be extended to strengthen the visual buffer from the street. The slopes leading down to the pool which are currently planted in lawn will be planted with shrubs, understory trees and perennials creating a stronger separation between the pool and the landscape in the front of the house. The pool will have an automatic pool cover and will not require fencing. Lighting will consist of low path lights and wall lights to provide safe and functional access from pool to the house. Lights will be dimmable LED bronze fixtures. 310 Second Street SE Suite F Charlottesville VA 22902 • T.434.466.7472 • www.wolfjosey.com PR OPER T Y LINE ex . ma pl e ex . holli es, magnoli a and az alea wi th new wi therod v i bur num, holly, d og wood, redbud NE pool PR OP ER T Y LI n e w box wo o d s equi p. lawn +98 bluestone pav i ng lawn steps ex . spr uce PR OPE R T Y LIN E i nset spa ex . l a rg e +98.70 1 8 ’ x 42’ pool box wo o d s lawn CIRCLE ex . ma pl e +99 blue - sidewalk stone seat wall stone UNIVERSITY wi th bluesont c ap steps +100 wall li g ht(t yp) ex . spr uce new ex , dog wood and perenni als perenni als bl u e s to n e ex . souther n and shr ubs s te ps steps magnoli a pathli g ht (t yp) ex i sti ng landsc api ng s h r u bs a n d d o g wo o d s f ro nt l aw n P OR C H PROPOSED POOL - Site Plan 1/16” = 1’ 1835 University Circle 0’ 8’ 16’ 32’ Februar y 22, 2022 PR OPER T Y LINE ex . ma pl e ex . holli es, c ypress, magnoli a and az alea ex . bedli ne ex . ce d a r to be removed ex . spr uce PR OPE R T Y LIN E sidewalk ex . be dl in e ex . l a rg e CIRCLE box wo o d s ex . ma pl e UNIVERSITY ex . spr uce ex . br i c k s ta i r s ex , d og wood and perenni als to be re move d ex . steps ex i sti ng landsc api ng P OR C H HOUS E EXISTING CONDITIONS OVERLAY 1/16” = 1’ 1835 University Circle 0’ 8’ 16’ 32’ Februar y 22, 2022 1 8 3 5 Un ive rs i t y Circl e - si de ya rd 1 8 3 5 U n i ve r s i t y Ci rc l e - H o u s e 1 8 3 1 Un ive rs i t y Circl e - ea st si de 1 8 4 1 U n i ve r s i t y Ci rc l e - we s t s i de CONTIGUOUS PROPERTIES 1835 University Circle Februar y 22, 2022 1 8 3 5 Un ive rs i t y Ci rcl e po rch 1 8 4 1 U n i ve r s i t y Ci rc l e - vi e w n o r t h fro m p o o l s i te 1 8 3 2 Ways id e Pl ace - v i ew n o r th f ro m pool site Vi e w we s t towa rds U n i ve r s i t y Ci rc l e fro m p o o l s i te SITE PERIMETER VIEWS 1835 University Circle Februar y 22, 2022 Po rc h E xi s t i n g s te p s to b e re p l a ce d Po ol si te L a rg e ce da r to b e re move d E xi s t i n g b l u e s to n e a n d s to n e wall o n s i te EXISTING CONDITIONS ON SITE 1835 University Circle Februar y 22, 2022 Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 20-03-02 223 East Main Street, TMP 33023400 Downtown ADC District Owner: Labace, LLC Applicant: Tony Labace Project: Replace storefront Application components (please click each link to go directly to PDF page): • Staff Report • Historic Survey • Application Submittal March 15, 2022 BAR Packet Guide 4 City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Staff Report March 15, 2022 Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 20-01-01 223 East Main Street, TMP 33023400 Downtown ADC District Owner: Labace, LLC Applicant: Tony Labace Project: Replace storefront Background Year Built: c. 1821, alterations mid-1800s, 1917, 1970s District: Downtown ADC District Status: Contributing 223 West Main is believed to be a c1864 addition to neighboring 225 West Main, which was constructed in the 1821 and one of the oldest buildings in the City. Alterations over time have left only fragments of the original structure. The existing storefront is believed to date to the 1970s. (Historic survey attached.) Prior BAR Reviews January 22, 2020 (20-01-01): The applicant proposes to replace the storefront and requests a deferral in order to get pricing information. The BAR moves (7-0) to accept the applicant’s request for a deferral. (See Appendix for minutes of January 2020 discussion). Application • CoA submittal dated December 5, 2019. Elevation and plan for proposed storefront. Photos of existing. Glass specifications. CoA request for the replacement of the c1970s commercial storefront. New frame to match the existing, which is clear anodized aluminum, with similar window and door configurations. New storefront will be straight, returning to an earlier wall alignment visible on the floor slab. The plywood sections will be replaced with flat metal panels (matching the frame). The storefront will use clear glass with a VLT of 80%. 223 East Main Street (March 10, 2022) 1 Discussion The BAR was supportive of this project in January 2020 but the applicant requested a deferral so he could return for approval when he was ready for construction. Staff recommends approval of this CoA. Suggested motion Approval: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City’s ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed storefront at 223 East Main Street satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are compatible with this property and other properties in the Downtown ADC District, and that the BAR approves the application as submitted. Denial: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed storefront at 223 East Main Street do not satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are not compatible with this property and other properties in the Downtown ADC District, and that for the following reasons the BAR denies the application as submitted… Criteria, Standards, and Guidelines Review Criteria Generally Sec. 34-284(b) of the City Code states that, In considering a particular application the BAR shall approve the application unless it finds: 1) That the proposal does not meet specific standards set forth within this division or applicable provisions of the Design Guidelines established by the board pursuant to Sec.34-288(6); and 2) The proposal is incompatible with the historic, cultural or architectural character of the district in which the property is located or the protected property that is the subject of the application. Pertinent Standards for Review of Construction and Alterations include: 1) Whether the material, texture, color, height, scale, mass and placement of the proposed addition, modification or construction are visually and architecturally compatible with the site and the applicable design control district; 2) The harmony of the proposed change in terms of overall proportion and the size and placement of entrances, windows, awnings, exterior stairs and signs; 3) The Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation set forth within the Code of Federal Regulations (36 C.F.R. §67.7(b)), as may be relevant; 4) The effect of the proposed change on the historic district neighborhood; 5) The impact of the proposed change on other protected features on the property, such as gardens, landscaping, fences, walls and walks; 6) Whether the proposed method of construction, renovation or restoration could have an adverse impact on the structure or site, or adjacent buildings or structures; 7) Any applicable provisions of the City’s Design Guidelines. Pertinent ADC District Design Guidelines Chapter III: New Construction & Additions I. Windows & Doors … 8) Glass shall be clear. Opaque spandrel glass or translucent glass may be approved by the BAR for specific applications. Chapter IV: Rehabilitation B. Facades & Storefronts 223 East Main Street (March 10, 2022) 2 1) Conduct pictorial research to determine the design of the original building or early changes. 2) Conduct exploratory demolition to determine what original fabric remains and its condition. 3) Remove any inappropriate materials, signs, or canopies covering the façade. 4) Retain all elements, materials, and features that are original to the building or are contextual remodelings, and repair as necessary. 5) Restore as many original elements as possible, particularly the materials, windows, decorative details, and cornice. 6) When designing new building elements, base the design on the “Typical elements of a commercial façade and storefront” (see drawing next page). 7) Reconstruct missing or original elements, such as cornices, windows, and storefronts, if documentation is available. 8) Design new elements that respect the character, materials, and design of the building, yet are distinguished from the original building. 9) Depending on the existing building’s age, originality of the design and architectural significance, in some cases there may be an opportunity to create a more contemporary façade design when undertaking a renovation project. 10) Avoid using materials that are incompatible with the building or within the specific districts, including textured wood siding, vinyl or aluminum siding, and pressure-treated wood. 11) Avoid introducing inappropriate architectural elements where they never previously existed. C. Windows … 15) Do not use tinted or mirrored glass on major facades of the building. Translucent or low glass may be strategies to keep heat gain down. Appendix: Minutes from January 22, 2020 BAR meeting discussion on 223 East Main Street: QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC None QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Zehmer – Is the intent to replace the whole storefront? Jeff Werner – It will be all of the way across the storefront. Mr. Schwarz – How is this going to be constructed? How is it going to work at the top and at the bottom? Tony Labace, Applicant – Tiel Construction in the site plan should have that in your packet. Jeff Werner – The applicant is not pursuing this immediately. What would be helpful would be a shop drawing of when you go forward. At this point, it is not cast in stone. The question for the BAR is whether the applicant can contact some people, and get some cost estimates. Tony Labace – I do recall talking to the construction company. The panels will match and everything that goes with it. Mr. Lahendro – What is to finish on the frame? 223 East Main Street (March 10, 2022) 3 Tony Labace – It is what you see in the picture, only 60 years later. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC None COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Gastinger – I don’t have any issue with this in principle. Seeing those shop drawings and having some confidence in the final design and that it’s matching the intention that we are imagining. Mr. Lahendro – Are the horizontal openings at the top glass too? Tony Labace – No. From the header down to the plywood metal frame is where the glass is going to be. Mr. Lahendro – Metal panels in that very top, horizontal element? Tony Labace – Sure. Mr. Zehmer – It’s currently plywood that matches the plywood below. Tony Labace – I was going to try to do it this winter. I just put in a $20,000 sub-zero freezer in. I am going to wait until next fall. At that time, I am certainly happy to come forward and present. Mr. Lahendro – I am fine with the concept. I would like to see how it is finally designed. You clearly don’t know at this point. Tony Labace – We had several options. My original thought was all glass, except for the bottom part. That’s a steel header up top. The glass is going to go underneath the steel header. Do you see where those lights are back there? That’s all steel. Mr. Lahendro – Is it right up against that curtain wall? Tony Labace – It is. Mr. Ball – No changes to the awning or lights? Tony Labace – No. Mr. Schwarz – There are many different things that you can do that would be perfectly fitting with our guidelines. I want to know what you intend to do. You can move forward with confidence thinking you are going to achieve something. If you get a shop drawing, submit it to staff. Staff can put it on the consent agenda. Jeff Werner – That was the goal. We could let him move forward with getting some costing for this. A deferral and a shop drawing submission for the consent agenda. Mr. Lahendro – Does that give you the confidence to proceed? 223 East Main Street (March 10, 2022) 4 Tony Labace – Sure. I am pretty open about it. Part of the problem is that expresso window is plexiglass. It has been plexiglass for 14 years. The two panels by the door were plexiglass. Mr. Schwarz – It is better for you to request a deferral. That gives you an infinite amount of time to come back to the BAR. If the BAR imposes a deferral, you will have to come back next month. Tony Labace – I would like to request a deferral. Deferral: Applicant requested a deferral pending the final details with the contractor. Mr. Gastinger made the motion to accept the deferral (Mr. Lahendro seconded). Motion passed 7- 0. 223 East Main Street (March 10, 2022) 5 J{lenl ijlcallo,n, STREET ADDRESS: 223-225 E. Main Street HISTORIC NAME: Jones-Hartnagle Bui 1ding MAP. 6 PARCEL: 33-234 & 233 DATE/PERIOD: c. 1821, mid-1800's, 1917, 1970's CENSUS TRACT AND BLOCK: STYLE: Vernacular PRESENT ZONING: B-4 HEIGHT (tocornice)OR STORIES: 2 storeys ORIGINAL OWNER: John R.. Jones DIMENSIONS AND LAND AREA: #223-18175' x92' 97' (1743 sq. ft;.) ORIGINAL USE: Store CONDITION: Good #225-20.2"x92.98' (1878 sq. ft.) PRESENT USE: Confectionary & TV Studio/Music Store SURVEYOR: Bibb PRESENT OWNER: Jess i e T. Hook Car l R.. Stacy, Jr , DATE OF SURVEY: Winter 1983 ADDRESS: 1203 Hill top Road 1904 Wakefiel d Rd. SOURCES: CitY/County Records: Carl 11.. Stacy, Jr. Ch'ville, Va 22903 Ch'vi11e, VA 22901 Ch'ville City Directories Harold Wright (#223 ) (#225 ) Alexander, Recollections of Earl y Charlottesvi 11e Holsinger's Charlottesville, other Holsinger photos Sanborn Map C~). -:-1886,1891,1896,1907,1920 ARCHITECTURALDESCRIPTION This is almost certainly the oldest bui lding remaining on Main Street, but very little original fabric has survived the repeated alterations. The eastern half is the original section. Two s t o r evs tn l l , two bays wide, and double j pile, it probably resembled the early 19th centry buildings on Court Square which followed the side hall plan and had 1 iving quarters for the storekeeper on the second level. Construction is of brick laid in Flemish bond on the facade and the eastern (Thi rd Street) el evation. The western hal f was probably a dupl i cate, except that the bri ck is laid in American bond. The building still has a hip roof covered with standing-seam metal, but its projecting eaves and cornice brackets have been replaced with a parapet. The eastern half (#225) has a high parapet with a wooden entablature which still remains above the false front. In the early years of this cen t ry , both store rooms had recessed central entrances, and a single storefront entablature extended across the entire building. The second storey living quarters above both store rooms were dismantled some years ago and the stairways that gave access to them were removed. The remains of a fireplace can still be seen in #223, but a finished interior wall covers the windows, if they still exist. The storefront of #223 is now covered with vertical wooden siding around the display windows and the upper level is covered with wooden shingles. #225 is covered with dark brown metal board-&-batten siding and has a recessed second storey balcony. Its 2-storey rear extension is constructed of brick laid in 5-course American bond. Brick is the one-storey wing behind that is laid. in 7-course American bond .. HISTORICAL DESCRIPTION Alexander states that the original section of this building was bui It by Col. John R. Jones who also conducted a store at "Number Nothing", Court Square. He purcahsed this lot in 1821 (ACDB 22-377), and the oldest part of the building was standing byi1828. According to Alexander, the building was on a high foundation, and the floor of the storeroom was later lowered some four feet. James A. Watson, John Hasson, and Dennis Boyle purcahsed the building in 1855 (ACDB 54-269). Frederick Hartnagle was the occupant at that time, and he purchased the building in 1857 & 1864 (ACOB 56-204, 60-418). He extended the building to the rear and bui It the western half of the duplex soon after acquiring ownership. S. C. Chancellor bought the property from Hartnagle's estate in 1913 (City DB 25-18) and sold it two years later to Hollis Rinehart (DB 27-112). Until that time, it had been occupied by a series of bakeries and confectionaries for half a century or more. The Co-operative Drug Co; , Inc., brought the eastern half (#225) in 1917 (DB 30-172). The side windows were bricked up, a pa rape t built and the upper level of the facade covered with what appears to have been a plywood panel possibly stuccoed. J. l. Hartman bought it in 1923 (DB 44-239, 45-404) and sold to L. S. Macon in 1927 (DB 59-244). The Standard Drug Co. occupied the storeroom from the mid 1930's until 1950. After that, it housed a series of small dress hops until Carl R. Stacey, Jr. purchased it in 1972 for his music store (DB 338-382). He added the balcony, rebui It the storefront, and covered the facade with metal siding. The upper level of the western half of the facade (#223) may not have been significantly al te ned until a 1953 remodeling when it was covered with a metal false front. Walter R. Ellington bought that half in 1917 (DB 30-466) and sold it in 1932 to J. P. Ellington (DB 77-301). They conducted a clothing store therc for twenty years. E. J. Perkins bought it from the Ell ingtons in 1943 (DB /13-201) and the Standard Marshall Coporation bought it from his estate in 1946 (DB 128-277) and sold it in 1965 to the Rinehart's Kenridge Properties, Inc. (DB 263-435). Jessie T. Hook bought it from the Rinehart fami ly in 1976 (DB 370-511). Shoe stores occupied the storeroom from the mid 1930's to the mid 1960's. Theinterior was completely remodeled in 1965 to adapt it for use as a radio station. It was again remodeled in 1976 to include a small storeroom at the front of the building. The present fa 1se f ron t da tes to tha t time. Additional References: City DB 361-1 HISTORIC LANDMARKS COMMISSION - DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT yr tlI lity c VIR( r p r a. a,ra4ww 1 4 Watkins, Robert From: Sent: Wednesday, March 9, 2022 1:42 PM To: Werner, Jeffrey B Cc: Watkins, Robert; chaps ice cream Subject: RE: New storefront at Chap's ** WARNING: This email has originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.** Reflect Reflect Winter U- Summer VLT (ext) (int) Value U-Value SHGC SC LSG CLEAR + CLEAR 80% 15% 0.47 0.50 0.73 1.10 Here is the glazing spec requested. Respectfully yours, Stephen Wagner Commercial Management 1 Disclaimer: This email is confidential and should not be used by anyone who is not the original intended recipient. If you have received this email in error please inform the sender and delete it from your mailbox or any other storage mechanism. Charlottesville Glass & Mirror cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of Charlottesville Glass & Mirror or one of its agents. From: Werner, Jeffrey B Sent: Wednesday, March 9, 2022 12:40 PM To: Stephen Cc: Watkins, Robert; chaps ice cream Subject: New storefront at Chap's Stephen: Need to confirm the layout and materials for the Chap’s storefront. Sketch below based on what Tony shared with me back on 2020. Let me know if anything is different. We want to this approved by the BAR meeting next Tuesday.  Metal frame and fixed panels: clear, anodized.  Thermal glass, clear. Otherwise, the only spec I need is for the glass VLT. We realize there are a range of ways to define clear glass, but the BAR’s standard is a VLT of not less than 70%. There is some flexibility in that, but that’s the starting point. Higher is great, but it cannot go much lower. This is especially important for storefronts, where we don’t want a wall of mirrors on the mall. Jeff 2 ----------------------------- Jeff Werner, AICP 3 1301 WERTLAND ST. PARCEL 040303000 BAR SUBMISSION PRESENTED BY 03|15|2022 1301 WERTLAND ST. 1907 SANBORN MAP BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 2 MARCH 15, 2022 1301 WERTLAND ST. EXISTING CONDITIONS BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 3 MARCH 15, 2022 1301 WERTLAND ST. EXISTING STREETWALL CADENCE BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 4 MARCH 15, 2022 2010 1301 WERTLAND ST. EXISTING OBSERVATIONS BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 5 MARCH 15, 2022 HOW DO CITIES CHANGE OVER TIME? HOW DO WE INCREASE DENSITY APPROPRIATELY AS POPULATION INCREASES? WHAT HAPPENS WHEN RURAL AREAS BECOME URBAN? HOW DO WE PROTECT AND PRESERVE HISTORIC STRUCTURES AS CONTEXT ERODES? WERTLAND STREET STUDY SEVEN DEVELOPMENT CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 418 E. MAIN STREET CHECKED BY: KS DRAWN BY: MK 434-806-8365 Page 6 2010 ISSUE DATE: 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS March 8, 2022 1301 WERTLAND ST. A1.1 1" = 20'-0" EXISTING CONDITIONS BAR SUBMISSION A1.1 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 7 MARCH 15,SHEET 2022# OF 3 PROPOSED STRAIGHTENED ACCESS AISLE 10' SIDE YARD SETBACK WERTLAND STREET STUDY SEVEN DEVELOPMENT RELOCATE BLDG FORWARD 75' 15' REARYARD SETBACK SKEW 15' FRONT YARD SETBACK 5° RELOCATE BLDG FORWARD 75' CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 418 E. MAIN STREET CHECKED BY: KS DRAWN BY: MK 10' SIDE YARD SETBACK Page 10 ISSUE DATE: 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS March 8, 2022 1301 WERTLAND ST. A1.1 1" = 20'-0" PROPOSED BUILDING RELOCATION BAR SUBMISSIONA1.1 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 8 MARCH 15, 2022 SHEET # OF 3 VEHICULAR ENTRANCE 10' SIDE YARD SETBACK WERTLAND STREET STUDY SEVEN DEVELOPMENT 28'-3" 25'-0" 56'-0" 45'-6" FRONT YARD INTERIOR 15' REARYARD SETBACK & LANDSCAPING COURT 15' FRONT YARD SETBACK 93'-6" 12'-0" PED. ENTRANCE 36'-0" CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 418 E. MAIN STREET CHECKED BY: KS DRAWN BY: MK 25'-0" 10'-0" 10' SIDE YARD SETBACK Page 11 ISSUE DATE: 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS March 9, 2022 1301 WERTLAND ST. A1.1 1" = 20'-0" CONTEXT PHOTOS BAR SUBMISSIONA1.1 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 9 MARCH 15, 2022 SHEET # OF 3 PROVIDE NEW FOUNDATIONS FOR HISTORIC HOUSE AND PROVIDE STRUCTURE STABILITY FOR THE NEXT 200 YEARS GIVE PROMINENCE TO THE HISTORIC HOUSE BY BRINGING FORWARD IN IT’S STREETWALL CONTEXT MAINTAIN AXIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH 13TH STREET RELOCATE VEHICULAR ENTRANCE TO PROPERTY REAR ELIMINATE A CURB CUT AND SURFACE PARKING LOT MASK BACKGROUND BUILDING WITH HISTORIC HOUSE PROVIDE A SMALLER SCALE OF NEW BUILDING ON THE STREET 1301 WERTLAND ST. POTENTIAL ADVANTAGES BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 10 MARCH 15, 2022 1301 WERTLAND ST. PRECEDENT: VARSITY HALL BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 11 MARCH 15, 2022 1301 WERTLAND ST. PRECEDENT: NEW AND OLD BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 12 MARCH 15, 2022 1301 WERTLAND ST. PROPOSED MASSING BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 13 MARCH 15, 2022 1301 WERTLAND ST. EXISTING PERSPECTIVE FROM 13TH STREET BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 14 MARCH 15, 2022 PROPOSED 1301 WERTLAND ST. PROPOSED MASSING FROM 13TH STREET BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 15 MARCH 15, 2022 32 University Circle file:///J:/NEIGHPLAN/Historic%20Preservation%20and%20Design/SCANNED%20Historic%20Surveys/Historic%20Surveys%20by% 20Street%20Name/U%20Streets/University%20Circle/32%20University%20Circle/32%20University%20Circle_Historic% 20Survey.pdf 32 University Circle