Packet Guide City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Regular Meeting July 19, 2022, 5:30 p.m. Hybrid Meeting (In-person at CitySpace and virtual via Zoom) Pre-Meeting Discussion Regular Meeting A. Matters from the public not on the agenda [or on the Consent Agenda] B. Consent Agenda 1. Meeting minutes September 21, 2021 2. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 22-06-02 636 Park Street, TMP 520113000 North Downtown ADC District (contributing) Owners and applicants: Jennifer and Blakely Greenhalgh Project: Rooftop solar panels 3. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 22-06-03 500 Court Square, TMP 530096000 North Downtown ADC District (contributing) Owner: Monticello Hotel Event & Receptions LLC; 500 Court Square LLC Applicant: Caitlin Byrd Schafer, Henningsen Kestner Architects Project: South addition--window replacements and fire escape alterations 4. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 22-07-02 123 Bollingwood Road, TMP 070022000 Individually Protected Property Owner: Juliana and William Elias Applicant: Gabrielle Sabri / Grounded LLC Project: Landscaping plan 5. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 22-07-03 605 Preston Place, TMP 50111000 IPP and Rugby Road-University Circle-Venable ADC District Owner: Neighborhood Investment – PC, LP Applicant: Kevin Riddle, Mitchell Matthews Architects Project: Modify windows in new apartment building (CoA approved October 2021) July 2022 BAR Packet 1 6. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 22-07-04 207 14th Street, TMP 090070100 Rugby Road-University Circle-Venable ADC District Owner: University Hotel Management, LLC Applicant: Bill Chapman Project: Exterior alterations C. Deferred Items (None) D. New Items 7. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 22-06-04 517 Rugby Road, TMP 050046000 Rugby Road-University Circle-Venable Neighborhood ADC District (contributing) Owner: Alumni of Alpha Mu, Inc. Applicant: Garett Rouzer, Dalgliesh Gilpin Paxton Architects Project: Porch repair and alterations and window sash replacements 8. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 22-06-05 159 Madison Lane, TMP 090145000 The Corner ADC District (contributing) Owner: Montalto Corporation Applicant: Jack Cann, Montalto Corporation Project: Install brick infill panels (and other repairs to south porch) 9. Sign Permit - BAR Consent for Design Approval BAR 22-06-01 550 East Water Street Suite 101, TMP 530162302 Downtown ADC District (contributing) Owner: Downtown Office, LLC Applicant: Kyle Gumlock, Gropen, Inc. Project: Install pole sign 10. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 22-06-06 0 Preston Place (also 508 and 516 Preston Place), TMP 050118001, 050118002 Rugby Road-University Circle-Venable ADC District Owner: Steve & Sue Lewis Applicant: Leigh Boyes Project: New residence July 2022 BAR Packet 2 11. Recommendation to City Council – IPP Designation BAR 22-07-01 415/415-B 10th Street NW, TMP 4046000 Owner/Applicant: Dairy Holdings, LLC Former church, parish hall, and rectory for Trinity Episcopal Church Request for designation as an Individually Protected Property E. Other Business 12. Updates Review of Courts Expansion Zoning rewrite Downtown Mall – update on VLR/NRHP nomination 13. Staff questions/discussion F. Adjourn July 2022 BAR Packet 3 BAR MINUTES CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW Regular Meeting September 21, 2021 – 5:00 PM Zoom Webinar Welcome to this Regular Monthly Meeting of the Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review (BAR). Due to the current public health emergency, this meeting is being held online via Zoom. The meeting process will be as follows: For each item, staff will make a brief presentation followed by the applicant’s presentation, after which members of the public will be allowed to speak. Speakers shall identify themselves, and give their current address. Members of the public will have, for each case, up to three minutes to speak. Public comments should be limited to the BAR’s jurisdiction; that is, regarding the exterior design of the building and site. Following the BAR’s discussion, and before the vote, the applicant shall be allowed up to three minutes to respond, for the purpose of clarification. Thank you for participating. Members Present: Mr. Mohr, Ms. Lewis, Mr. Schwarz, Mr. Gastinger, Mr. Zehmer, Mr. Edwards Members Absent: Mr. Lahendro, Staff Present: Patrick Cory, Robert Watkins, Jeff Werner Pre-Meeting: There was a discussion regarding the items on the Consent Agenda and possibly moving an item from the Consent Agenda. Mr. Gastinger had a question about the 209 Second Street application. Staff went over the questions about the application. Mr. Schwarz had a question about the Preliminary Discussion. Ms. Lewis had a question about the Gildersleeve Application. Staff did go over the application with the BAR. The meeting was called to order at 5:40 PM by the Chairman. A. Matters from the public not on the agenda No Comments from the Public B. Consent Agenda (Note: Any consent agenda item may be pulled and moved to the regular agenda if a BAR member wishes to discuss it, or if any member of the public is present to comment on it. Pulled applications will be discussed at the beginning of the meeting.) 1. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-09-04 301 East Jefferson Street, Tax Parcel 330204000 North Downtown ADC District Owner: Congregation Beth Israel Applicant: Karim Habbab, BRW Architects Project: Install lighting at Sanctuary entry 1 BAR Meeting Minutes September 21, 2021 Ms. Lewis moved to approve the Consent Agenda (Mr. Mohr seconded). Motion passes 6-0. C. New Items 2. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-09-01 209 2nd Street, SW, Tax Parcel 280077000 Downtown ADC District Owner: Same Street LLC Applicant: Jim Rounsevell Project: Alterations to existing structure Jeff Werner, Staff Report – Constructed c1880, the Watson House is a two-story vernacular house within the Downtown ADC District. This house--and the adjacent, matching house—feature three- bays, single pile, with a front-facing central gable and a medium-pitched gable roof. Sitting on a low foundation, the front porch is topped by a low-pitched hip roof supported by four Tuscan columns. The roofs standing-seam metal with Philadelphia gutters. The historic survey is attached. Request for a CoA to rehabilitate and renovate the exterior of the existing historic house and the existing rear addition. (The proposed work will modify what the BAR approved Aug. 2019. Staff has attached a comparison.) August 2019 – BAR approved rehabilitation and renovation of the exterior of the existing historic house and the existing rear addition. Scope of Work East Elevation: • Install new entry door. Existing in-swing door is a hazard, swinging into an interior stair landing. South Elevation: • At the rear addition, remove previously approved doors and windows. • Install twin, windows. • Install two skylights. Velux. Fixed. CFP 6060. (Bathrooms #2 and 3.) West Elevation: • Remove window at main house, first floor. Install entry door. Steps and landing to be painted wood, identical to front steps—3-1/2” tongue and groove. • Remove the single-sash casement windows at addition, second floor and install new, similar to existing. North Elevation: • Remove existing, first floor windows (one on main house, two on rear addition). Note: Per applicant’s photos, the main house window has already been removed and the opening bricked up. • Install at the addition an entry door with steps and landing. Steps and landing to be bluestone. • Install roof skylight. Velux. Fixed. FCM 2222. (Bathroom #1.) Existing - General: • Windows: Repair/renovate existing double hung windows. Existing windows do not function--do not meet Code for egress. Paint white to match existing. • Brick: Repair mortar, match existing with Lehigh flamingo color mortar. Mortar type N. • New doors and windows to be Andersen E-series, per Better Living quote #1217826, dated 8/27/2021. • Velux Skylights (FCM and CFP) per cut sheets provided by the applicant. 2 BAR Meeting Minutes September 21, 2021 Paint: o All windows, doors, exterior trim, fasicas, risers, porch columns, ceiling, beams etc: Ben. Moore OC-152, Super white, semi-gloss, to match existing white on existing windows, fascia, freeze boards, etc. o Existing board and batten siding (rear): Ben. Moore HC-168, Chelsea Gray. o Porch flooring, treads: Ben. Moore AC-27 Galveston gray, semi-gloss, with non-slip additive. o Porch railings: black. Ben. Moore 2132-10, Black, gloss. o Brick will not be painted. • The patio area is yet to be determined and currently not in the scope of work (future). It has not really been designed but a concept was included as a courtesy. • Existing paving and pea gravel to be removed. • Existing white wall in back gets Virginia creeper which turns red in the fall. A small water feature to counteract heat island effect TBD. • Front: Existing dogwoods to remain with new dark green ground cover below, poss. Woodland phlox or sim. • Garden is honey dust (crushed brown stone a-la- bocce court). • Patio is bluestone pavers on stone dust. Like next door, new bluestone treads on over decaying concrete for front steps (safety issue-see existing images). Overgrown north side is replaced with bluestone stepping stones to access Bedroom #3. • A low hedge (<3’ high) shields the base of the adjacent building along the Northside. Lighting: (Not indicated. Notes From the applicant.) • Exterior lighting for the patio is TBD. All exterior lighting to be 2700K, CRI of 95 or better. All low voltage, low key, landscape lighting. (No exterior flood lights.). • No wall mounted fixtures other than two full cut-off fixtures at both entries (see cut sheet attached). • Porch has ceiling cut outs for three 3-1/2” recessed dimmable MR16 fixtures that will light the porch volume. (Contrasted lighting, white trim). All lighting done in consultation with Mark Schulyer Lighting Design. Discussion The house was constructed c1880 and, per the Sanborn Maps (see appendix), the single-story, rear addition was in place by 1896. As such, repairs to the existing masonry must be done carefully and use an appropriate lime mortar, relative to the amount, if any, of Portland cement used. Reference NPS Preservation Brief #2: Repointing Mortar Joints in Historic Masonry Buildings. https://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/briefs/2-repoint-mortar-joints.htm The two, single sash casements at the second floor, rear addition are likely sash salvaged from an original, enclosed window; however, the board-and-batten addition appears to be post-1960s. The existing, first floor window at Bedroom #1 has already been removed and the opening bricked closed, without BAR review and approval. Note: While a historic window, it is possible this is not original to the building. Per the Sanborn Maps (see appendix), the window may have added between 1907 and 1920. (There is not a matching window on the south wall.) Options available for the BAR: • Accept the change and completed brick work. • If extant, the original window could be reinstalled; however, due to the proposed use, the public safety code requires this be a fire-rated wall, including the window. As such, any replacement will require a new, fire-rated window. • Allow the bricked opening, but require it be installed as inset panel, not flush with the exterior wall, thus expressing the change from the original. 3 BAR Meeting Minutes September 21, 2021 Jim Rounsevell, Applicant – With the window on the north side that was bricked in, it is really unclear from the site survey that the north wall is close to three feet. You’re not allowed to have any openings that close to a lot line according to the building code. I am not sure that a fire-rated window would even be possible. If the Board decided that they wanted to do an indent there with brick, the south side doesn’t have an opening on it. I agree with you about the mortar. In the condition that I found the building, there are some repairs that need to get fixed. I am pretty picky about those things. Where the oven was going to go in the previous submission, there’s a steel door that is there. It comes out. The idea was to go back to a window that was closer in keeping to what was original. In this case, I was thinking of toothing in the masonry to match it. If the Board decides it wants a recess there reflecting where the doorframe was, that’s fine. With the upper windows, I am ‘game’ for whatever seems appropriate to everyone. The left one was clearly mismatched from the right one. If we wanted to match that, we’re totally flexible on that. Originally the submission had the French doors and two sidelights. As I understand it, the doors would not fit underneath the roof. We’re going to have to pry open the roof. As you can see from the photographs, they omitted those doors. In order to meet egress for the restaurant, insert the door where the window was on the west end of the original building. With the front, the proposal for swapping out the door, that’s a life safety thing. If you left the door that’s there, you’re going to ‘headbut’ somebody coming down the stairs. I don’t think it is safe. When you have transient occupants, the door outswing is safer than an inswing door, especially against a path of egress down the stairs. It has to be glass so you can see. With the railings, the existing railings are black metal. The ones on the concrete steps going out of the building will simply be repainted. There’s a railing on the south side of the building that is clearly not original. It looks like a kit. Technically, it’s not required. There’s less than a 30 inch drop off the porch to the adjacent surface. It still might be appropriate to put a railing back there because of the transient occupants. With the railings that go up the new steps onto the porch, we will put the original railings back there as well. QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No Questions from the Public QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Mohr – With the railings going up the steps to the porch (given the height up the porch), those could still actually be handrails instead of guardrails? Mr. Rounsevell – Absolutely. Going up the concrete steps that could also just be handrails. It is a little ‘over-wrought.’ In some of the existing photos, you can see the railings. Mr. Zehmer – Is the front door the original front door? Mr. Rounsevell – I don’t know. I was hoping that staff would know. Mr. Werner – I couldn’t tell. Mr. Schwarz – With the landscaping side-lighting, is that going to come back as a later application? Mr. Rounsevell – We had made a first pass on it. I never submitted anything for a landscape plan. I am not sure how this works. I am happy to talk about general thoughts. That will get phased in at a later date. Leave time on materials is awful at this point. If this continues, we will be lucky to have this ready to go by the end of January. 4 BAR Meeting Minutes September 21, 2021 Mr. Schwarz – It would be fine if you separated the two. Once you know what the landscape is going to be, come back with that rather than guessing. Mr. Rounsevell – Is of any help to go through it very quickly as a precursor? Mr. Werner – Make sure there’s nothing being cut down or being removed. There are no new tress I know of in the back. Mr. Rounsevell – I don’t think there’s anything. The dogwoods in the front will stay. The lower ground cover on the front is beat to hell. That has to get ‘some love.’ The hard surfaces are the same. With this clientele, you have to up the ante. We’re not cutting any trees down in the back, supplementing the wall that was previously approved. We’re just trying to keep it simple. Mary Wolfe is going to help with it. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC No Comments from the Public COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD Ms. Lewis – For staff, thank you for doing the elevations comparing the existing and the 2019 approval and what is in front of us. That helped a lot because I wasn’t on the Board in 2019. That was very helpful on this. Mr. Mohr – I would concur with everybody’s conclusion. I seriously doubt there was a window on that north elevation. Given that it’s a bedroom wall, it makes sense that it didn’t have a window. It does seem to me the front door had a little more body to it and might not be as exciting or a truly modern glass door as opposed to something that divides lights. The other option would be keying off the old door where the upper floor panels are glass and solid bottom panel. It just seems the divided light thing feel that it is not front doorish. I agree that it needs to have glass. Functionally, I do get what the applicant is doing. I was thinking the door could have a little bit more personality. Mr. Zehmer – I believe that I saw that the top two panels are currently glass. Is that correct? I might encourage you all to look at the house next door at 213 to see if those two front doors match and are historic. If so, the likelihood of them being original is higher. I would suggest moving that existing door to the front side of the jam so it can swing out. We already have glass in the top two panels; maybe consider putting glass in the middle panels so it is a little more transparent. It would help preserve the original front door while also achieving the safety goals. I agree that it is more of a reach. I didn’t see anything in the staff report that spoke to a guideline about whether or not we allow replacement of front doors. Mr. Werner – We do/don’t. There is so much focus on windows that it feels like doors are forgotten. That’s the approach I have taken on this. This is a building that we’re going to ‘breathe some life back into it. Looking at it over time and pictures that are available, it is difficult to determine. We could do an analysis on the door and make a determination. The idea would be what it is replaced with is appropriate. That would be the key. Is a full light, insulated, glass door appropriate? Arguably, no. It would be a six-panel door. That’s where you come down to a situation where there’s no right or wrong. The guidelines offer that direction. I don’t know if this was original. I can’t determine that. I know what was originally there was not a glass door. The option would be, while changing the swing, you all may request this be a six panel door. 5 BAR Meeting Minutes September 21, 2021 Mr. Schwarz – For me, it’s a case of either keep the door/reverse the swing or replace it/let it be. I agree with you Tim. I also feel the divided light does not really violate our guidelines. It’s obviously something new. I don’t know where we fall. Anybody else have a hang-up with this door being removed? Mr. Mohr – The door is a simple stamp on ownership. Unless there’s a really spectacular door that clearly had history, in my opinion, it is ‘open season’ on the door. My only issue is that I think it should have a little more personality: either be really modern or have more solid in void. It currently reads as a patio door. Mr. Rousenvell – I am game for throwing some personality at it. My biggest hang-up is the transparency for life safety. If it’s a six panel that has that and the panels are glass, would something like that be OK? Mr. Mohr – I think it needs to be something with a little more personality. Mr. Werner – Doors are jammed into entrances and porches. When we don’t know if something is clear, we need to go back to what the Secretary’s standards say. There is no doubt that it is to retain original material. One of the keys here is to maintain existing openings and size. We’re not talking about taking out that frame and transom. Something might have to change with the style. You maintain that existing frame and trim by maintaining that existing transom. When it comes to doors, safety, and access, it gets a little bit more difficult than windows. My deference here would be that the door be retained. Whatever is new goes in there. It stays in the existing frame and opening. That doesn’t change. It even says to retain existing hardware. There is some room for some flexibility here. Motion – Mr. Mohr – Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City Design Guidelines for Rehabilitations, I move to find that the proposed exterior alterations at 209 2nd Street SW satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are compatible with this property and other properties in the Downtown ADC District, and that the BAR approves the application as submitted, with the condition that the landscape plan will be submitted at a future date and with a recommendation that the applicant look into alternate solutions for the front door, either mimicking the existing door but all glass or be a more modern door, and that the trim and casing be retained, while still allowing that the door swing properly. Should the door be found to be historic, the BAR recommends that it stay somewhere on the property. Mr. Schwarz seconds the motion. Motion passes (6-0). 3. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-09-02 106 Oakhurst Circle, Tax Map Parcel 110005000 Oakhurst-Gildersleeve ADC District Owner: 106 Oakhurst Circle LLC Applicant: Patrick Farley Project: Modifications to approved rear addition (CoA: December 15, 2020) Jeff Werner, Staff Report – Year Built: 1922, District: Oakhurst-Gildersleeve ADC District Status: Contributing. Designed as a combination of Colonial Revival and Craftsman styles, this two-story dwelling has a gabled roof, stucco siding, overhanging eaves with exposed rafter ends, a pent roof 6 BAR Meeting Minutes September 21, 2021 between the first and second floor, an interior stuccoed chimney, a concrete stoop, and a central door sheltered by a gabled hood supported by brackets. Triple eight-by-eight casement windows are found on the first floor, while eight-over-eight-sash double-hung windows are used on the second floor and flank a central triple eight-by-eight casement bay window. French doors on the east side lead out to a patio. The house also includes a rear deck and a projecting rectangular one-story bay window supported by wooden brackets on the west end. (Oakhurst-Gildersleeve Neighborhood Historic District.) CoA request for proposed alterations to existing house and a rear addition. Site work to include a new driveway, which will require removal of the south porch and replacement with a shallower version. Note: The proposed addition is significantly scaled-back from what the BAR approved in December 2020. Attached is a comparison of the two. For existing conditions, see information submitted for the October 2020 preliminary discussion. Roofing • Addition and existing house to be interlocking metal shingles. Simple design, flat, not ornamented. Color to be dark gray/slate. (Replace existing asphalt shingles on house). Materials • Stucco: Smooth finish, “StoPowerwall” stucco system. (www.stocorp.com)* • Trim: Fiber cement, painted.* • Doors and Windows (casement): Anderson, aluminum clad wood. White with black exterior trim.* https://aw930cdnprdcd.azureedge.net/-/media/aw/files/brochures/2020-to-current-literature/e-series- brochure.pdf?modified=20210712191053 Note: The lite patterns will be as shown on the renderings. For insulated glass with applied grills, the BAE should require internal spacer bars. • Ceiling at covered parking: Tongue and grooved trim, stained.* • Low wall: Board-formed concrete wall with stone cap.* Balconies, Deck and Stairs • Railing: Wood rail (natural finish) on panels with flat metal bars (painted).* • Decking/Treads: Composition material. Trim and exposed framing below to be painted.* Landscaping • Remove: 6” Crepe Myrtle (front), 6” Dogwood (front), 4” Holly (rear), 40” Oak (rear).* • New: See Plant Schedule on Sheet A. (Rain Garden, Ferns, Oak Garden, Living Fence/Green Screen, Pollinator Garden.)* • Hardwood mulch within planting areas.* Paving • Walking Path (front): Cut slate/flagstone in aggregate with steel edging* • Driveway (front): Concrete, permeable pavers* • Driveway (rear and existing): Crushed Buckingham slate with steel edging* Exterior Lighting • Pathway lights: AQ Lighting, 3 Tier Pagoda Pathway Light, LED, CCT 2,700K or 5,000K* • Soffit lighting: Recessed can lights, TBD* * No change from December 2020. Discussion Staff recommends approval, with the suggested conditions related to the applied grills on insulated glass windows. 7 BAR Meeting Minutes September 21, 2021 Driveway Previously, the existing driveway (along the north parcel line) was eliminated and a new constructed (along the north parcel line). The project will now retain the existing and use the new to create a loop for access to and egress from the parking area behind the house. City Code Section 34-972(a)(5) allows for the BAR to make recommendations [to the city traffic engineer] regarding modifications in the required driveway entrance widths. Conditions may require some flexibility—for example, as necessary to minimize the removal of the existing stone curbing. Staff is consulting with zoning and will address this more specifically during the September 21 meeting. Patrick Farley, Applicant – What we’re doing is reverting back to just single-family. Previously, we were going for two family upgrades. There is a photograph of the rear, which has the existing poorly built (soon to be removed) rear deck. The footprint of the addition nearly perfectly fits into that footprint. It is a very small addition. With regards to the roofing, we were previously looking at two things. One is upgrading the existing roof, which is asphalt shingles, to interlocking medal shingles. The rear addition was going to have standing seam. We had the advantage of that “hyphen” that broke the roof forms apart. We had a lot more scale on the addition working in our favor. It’s now really about upgrading, uniformity, and integration. The roof being a smaller area on the rear addition tying into the existing roof seems self-evident. It’s the same material. We’re sticking with the upgrade to the interlocking shingle approach. We’re hoping to have fully off street parking. Hence, the loop/in and out. That’s the logic behind that site plan change. We still hold to making the landscape planting improvements at the front yard. In the rear, we’re going to scale that back and keep our options open for any future endeavors we might want to undertake on the property. QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No Questions from the Public QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Gastinger – Can you give us an update on the strategy with the trees in the back? I know that was one of the major site drivers. Have any of the trees been removed? How has the site plan changed your approach? Mr. Farley – This strategy is much friendlier to the three oaks that are of some concern. The addition is occupying the existing footprint of this deck. Really net impacting the trees. We will be cutting a foundation. There is already disturbance there. We had the arborist, who was here a week ago. The one oak that was already essentially dead would have to be removed. It was just taken out. He did give us some advice around how we can approach, not only the foundation; he will come in and do some aeration, feeding, and nurturing of those trees as necessary. We still intend to do everything we can to protect them and the roots. That’s one of the reasons behind this. Mr. Mohr – The one not clear to me is the direction of travel. If I was to look at this by the angle of the parking, you’re considering the primary entrance as an added entrance. The concrete grid apron suggests otherwise. The other thing is that it seems pretty common that the primary walk to the front door actually addresses the sidewalk and not the driveway. I would see it might have a spur to the driveway. More than anything, the circulation implied at the front confuses me relative to the implied circulation in the back. 8 BAR Meeting Minutes September 21, 2021 Mr. Farley – We’re anticipating student renters. They’re coming primarily from the direction of traffic; coming in from classes. That is the northern approach to the property. There’s a landscape agenda, where I want to take the bisecting of the yard away and give more back to some plant diversity in that front yard space. The existing sidewalk needs to be redone completely. It’s all busted up. The concrete has been lifted by those oaks. We just want to take a different approach and not even use concrete. The idea behind the grid paver section is to allow more infiltration versus something that is less pervious on that side. Mr. Mohr – Where the concrete is would be the ‘out?’ That makes sense relative to the other side. I assume you’re not tearing up the existing driveway. Mr. Farley – We’re essentially extending it down, connecting it to the loop, and improving it with the material. We have a ‘grandfather’ in place there. Mr. Mohr – Generally, when we were talking about the driveway not cutting in front of the house, I understand what you’re talking about in terms of the landscape. I don’t think a footpath would split the landscape. You would be walking through it. On Park Street, we have generally encouraged people to maintain that connection to the sidewalk. I am not sure that I understand it. It fits with how the house relates to the street. Mr. Farley – I am favoring a subtle symmetry to make the front porch functional and pliable as a sitting area. It can an entrance off-center. That’s part of what is going on. It’s bringing foot traffic from that side versus down the center to re-imagine how that front porch works versus it being a perfectly symmetrical space that you pass through. The idea is you have a place to sit and enjoy being engaged. The landscaping is more active in terms of having pollinator plants. We’re really trying to emphasize that front yard as a place you don’t just pass through. You can actually enjoy it. There is a little more to the agenda as it relates directly to the redesign of the front porch. I don’t know if that is clear in the information that you have. There’s enough space where a couple of people can hang out. Mr. Schwarz – I know we can’t rule on program. I would hope you can help me understand about what we have to do in dealing with the city for these driveways. It’s a single-family home you’re going to have students renting? Mr. Farley – Yes. Nothing has changed. It’s been a student rental home for 30+ years. Mr. Schwarz – With the last iteration, you actually had separate units? Mr. Farley – It was a two family. It was six bedrooms. We’re now pulling it back to four, which is the maximum allowable. Mr. Schwarz – Can you tell us about these interlocking shingles? Was there a spec or something that I missed? Mr. Farley – Did staff include those references? Mr. Werner – I can’t remember. Mr. Farley – We have a contractor onboard. It is a well-known contractor that is good with these kind of projects. There are a number of products. When you go online, you get installer websites, not the 9 BAR Meeting Minutes September 21, 2021 website where the product originates. I am going to rely on whoever the roofer is to work that out. It’s the same thing for standing seam. Mr. Werner – The interlocking metal shingles is a 1920s stamped decorative design. There is a lot out there. You can get a metal shingle that looks like a slate shingle. If there is something you all are not comfortable with on this period of house, maybe that’s the way to express it. It’s a 1922 craftsman style house. Is there something on here as a type of roof that would not work? We can maybe work from there. Standing seam metal would be fine here. The metal I saw looked flat, a little more mechanical than the full slate. Mr. Farley – What we’re after is that we’re assuming the original roof was shingles. There are no records. We’re thinking of it more in terms of texture and hue. What is there now is pretty awful. Anything we do is going to be an improvement. If it was slate, why did they remove the slate and put up shingles? Shingles are definitely appropriate. There’s plenty of precedent in this district. Shingles is the right texture and color that is befitting of the period and some slate-like hue. Mr. Schwarz – My concern is that we have had the fraternity one. They wanted to do full slate out of metal. It had some very funny in-conditions. My only comment would be that if we approve this tonight, it’s going to be something staff is going to have to look at and say that meets what they were discussing so that there’s no really ‘chunky’ overlap of the shingles wrapping over the rakes. Mr. Farley – If we were to stick with shingles/the existing materials, but go to a high end of a fiberglass, would that be acceptable by virtue of the fact that it is the existing material? Mr. Schwarz – I don’t think we can deny that. You’re replacing what is there. I am not saying anything bad about the metal. It is some caveat for staff to look out for. With the windows, will they have spacer bars? Mr. Farley – Yes. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC No Comments from the Public COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Gastinger – The addition seems to be a responsible and good approach. As it gets scaled back, it has less pressure on it. It’s more in keeping with the neighborhood and the house. Whatever decision led to that, in general, is a net plus. I do have real concerns about the driveway approach and the loop road. Initially when we first reviewed it, it took a bit to get over the parking in the backyard. It was in keeping with the scale of the addition and the overall building. Even at that time, we requested a consideration of moving the path to the other side so that it minimized the amount of paved surface. Looking at the loop road now, it seems very out of scale with both the house and the neighborhood. Looking back at the ADC description of this neighborhood, three sentences refer to the mature plantings and lush character of this small pocket neighborhood. It’s like it is not required. I would be able to support an approach that still puts the parking in the rear if it would limit it to a single drive. The existing drive would be preferred. It seems over the top to require a looped drive around the entire house to put parking in the back. 10 BAR Meeting Minutes September 21, 2021 The project had a number of things we were reviewing in the past. We really didn’t absorb the small retaining walls and the off-center entrance to the building. Given the stately character of the front of this house and its symmetrical façade, it seems a little ‘tortured’ to having the walls frame an off- centered entrance. It seems like an odd addition to the front of this great house. Mr. Mohr – I would second that. My thing about the path curving off is that it seems the pre-car relationship of a lot of these houses was that it went down to the sidewalk. You didn’t bring them into the yard. It has this English cottage quietness to it, the way it currently exists in that photo. Having the pollinator garden split in half by a walkway could be a walking path with a lot of green in it. I don’t think it bifurcates that space at all. If you want to create more of an outdoor area, maybe there’s some seating somewhere in the front yard that’s in the middle of that garden. It really counters the effectiveness of that hood and the front door to have that retaining wall sliding everything off to the side and interrupting that front façade. I understand the concept. I don’t think it is that kind of space right there. It does fight the architecture of the house. I am not sure that I understand the reason for so much driveway. It does seem like one entrance should serve. Ms. Lewis – I am supportive of the application and the new addition on the back. The volumes are really nicely handled with the stair coming down. It is more appealing in its reduced shape. My big problem is the addition of the second driveway. One of our guidelines for new construction does talk about the impact of additions or construction on current gardens and landscaping. We’re taking a big swath out of this front yard. These driveways may not pass muster on one guideline. It states that driveways can’t occupy more than 25% of the front yard between the building line and the right of way. If you at page 91 of the packet, the scale is ‘funky.’ If you at the back of the property, you can see where the 25 foot setback line is. It would be the setback from the front. If you apply that off of Oakhurst Circle and look at whether these two driveways take up more than 25%. I think these two driveways exceed more than 25%. We can encourage zoning to waive that or give special consideration. I am not quite sure why. The purpose of the reduced addition is to restore this to the R-2 zoning or single-family zoning with renters. I don’t understand why the programming requires a second driveway. It seems like it would serve a more intense use. Planning for future use, this is R-2. I don’t think these two huge driveways in this small front yard are consummate with single-family. There’s another zoning guideline we were sent. The curb-cuts are not to exceed 33% of the lot frontage. That is going to be pretty close. We’ve already acknowledged some of the historic pavers might be impacted by that. I just can’t support this circular drive. I continue to support this application and thank the applicant for crafting a nice addition and endeavoring to be sensitive to the beauty of the landscape, especially in this backyard. Mr. Werner – I went back and forth with zoning on this. That was one of the questions that the applicant raised about the area involved. Zoning’s interpretation, as they applied it, is reduce the setback from the edge of the right of way to the house. When I started scaling and doing the math, one of the problems that our GIS is fairly accurate up to parcel boundaries. This one is off by ten feet. As far as that 25% is concerned, it’s close. My slide-rule didn’t go that far. With the width across the front, the curb-line is 52 feet. I calculated that width with the 9 foot existing driveway and the new 8 foot driveway would result in 32.6%; less than that 33%. These numbers are all following the fine decimal points. We are looking at the design. Is the design OK? Mr. Gastinger – I don’t think it matters. I don’t think the design is consistent with the neighborhood. That’s our purview. Ms. Lewis – The guidelines are there for a reason. They’re to limit the amount of hardscape/curb-cuts in a front yard in a residential zoning district. The language of 34-972 says that it is 25% between the 11 BAR Meeting Minutes September 21, 2021 building setback line and the right of way. It doesn’t say feet from building. It is not consummate with single-family. It is a lot more hardscape. It does impact the gardens and landscaping in this front yard. Mr. Schwarz – In reference to your recommendation (staff), even if we found the two driveways to be OK, I would not want to give zoning the flexibility to say “two driveways but they need to be 18 feet wide. We will take two feet off the 20 feet we usually require.” The BAR would set limits. If zoning and the site plan review wants to do something different, the plan would have to come back to us. Mr. Werner – We have dealt with this with aprons. If the applicant wants to go with one driveway, that would be a new driveway. I would encourage you all to express to the city engineer to minimize the width of that apron, minimize the disruption to the existing stone curbing. It would remain with the conversation to go with two or one that happens to be the new one. If we keep the old driveway and nothing changes, nothing changes. If they add a second driveway or add a new driveway/abandon the original, I encourage you to make some statement about minimal disturbance relative to the apron. No matter what you say, there are setbacks relative to the driveway. The reason I want to be clear about this is because there was a project about a month after I started. I didn’t even realize it had occurred. The BAR thought that a driveway was a good idea. Just because the BAR discussed it might be an interesting idea, it was not part of the motion. Even though you can’t change zoning, we can still make a recommendation to the city engineer. Mr. Schwarz – There’s a difference between making a recommendation. On some site plans we can say “this is what we are able to approve.” If the site plan process doesn’t allow it, it needs to come back to us. Mr. Mohr – If I was to look at the two driveways, my functional preference would be the lower one. It comes closer to the house. It gives access to the porch. It works with the geometry of getting into the garage. The one closer to the house, on the north side, is the one I would abandon. Unfortunately, it is the one that currently exists. In terms of preference, the new driveway is better than the old one even though it does separate the house from the yard. I think it functions better. I suppose you can change the direction of the cars. Given the use of the house, having that adjacency to that corner of the house, I am assuming it works well with your plan on the inside. That would be my preference. Mr. Schwarz – My one concern with that would be if that’s a new driveway, there will be even more pressure to make it a wide driveway. The 20 foot minimum makes no sense to me and it scares me. It’s sitting in our code. I don’t know how far they would allow us to wittle that down. Mr. Farley – I brought this up last year. There was some internal exchange with the city engineer. He basically said they take it on a case by case basis. A 20 foot driveway would make no sense here. That’s where we have the flexibility and we can be very subjective about it. That’s what I would do especially with that percentage eating into the landscape. One oak would have to go for that to work. I would agree with what Mr. Mohr just said. I am pretty sure my client would want to favor the southern/new entrance. It is safer. You pass by the house. That part of the circle is tight. Coming around, going past the house, and turning in versus the way it works now. It sneaks up on you. It’s very dense and comes right up to the sidewalk. You don’t even know the driveway is there. The southern entrance does make sense. We’re not against the central/retaining the center line entrance. What is there on the plan now is a carryover. That was originally a pedestrian entrance down to the second unit in the rear. We’re getting rid of that. We will still have pedestrian traffic that’s going to go down that side and come in the backside. It seemed to make sense. I am not hung up on that scheme. It sounds like this is going towards holding onto the current relationship with this sidewalk 12 BAR Meeting Minutes September 21, 2021 Mr. Mohr – You have quite a bit more front yard at that point. There’s certainly nothing precluding some seating area. I think the two driveways imply a different scale. Mr. Schwarz – Does anybody have any concerns with anything other than the driveway? Do we have any concerns with the house? Mr. Mohr – Just the retaining walls. That’s it. I’m not worried about the shingles as long you pick something nice. Mr. Schwarz – We can approve the house. With that approval, the landscape stays the same. The applicant can get a building permit. The site plan can come back to us. We can continue discussing. The site plan will come back to us as a new COA if the applicant is in a rush to get a building permit. We approve the house with no change to the landscape. The landscape can come back to us as a new COA. We can’t administratively approve what we’re discussing. Mr. Zehmer – You say approve the existing landscape. We approved (December 2020) a change to the landscape and to add the driveway on the south side. Are you saying that we stick with that approval? Or keep what is existing and come back with what you want? Mr. Schwarz – Keep what is currently in place on the site. I am not sure the old site plan still applies. That plan goes with the house with the addition on the back. It no longer is valid. Mr. Werner – You can make that statement. The applicant can come in with a prior approval. It’s still a COA for that. Mr. Schwarz – That would be for the whole project as it was before. Mr. Werner – This is the part the City Attorney had raised. Don’t amend the COA as a new COA. I don’t think there’s nothing wrong with you all making a statement of this new COA being a replacement of that. Make that clear. The site plan has that with what is submitted to the city. In reviewing the driveway with zoning and the city engineer, if it comes back and it modifies this, go to the drawing again. As it was drawn in December 2020, the parking area in the back was such that it allowed vehicles to do a T turn and come back out. As it is currently drawn, the intent is pull in and park, back out, and continue another way. There would have to be some modifications to the parking lot area. Mr. Schwarz – I’m not saying go back to the approved 2020 plan. I am saying to leave the ground as it is. Nothing gets touched. That site plan from 2020 goes with a different building than what we’re looking at right now. Mr. Werner – This replaces what was reviewed in 2020. Whatever comes back to you, there will also be some changes in that parking area in the back. You can account for the front walk. You have clarified that. The landscaping plan, as far as vegetation, nothing has really changed as far as the paved surface goes. As far as the driveway goes, there is some clarification on that. Mr. Schwarz – We’re treating the landscape plan as a preliminary discussion. We’re going to give the applicant some advice on what we think would be approvable. There are going to be changes that he’s going to have to figure out on his own. He will have to rotate the parking. We will let him do that under some guidance. 13 BAR Meeting Minutes September 21, 2021 Mr. Mohr – He doesn’t have to do a lot to the parking. He has a pretty generous apron to begin with. He has the parking underneath the house. I don’t think that’s such a big deal. It needs to be a separate application. I am agreeing with that bifurcation so that he can keep moving. Mr. Schwarz – With the preliminary discussion of the landscape, Tim, you’re preferring the driveway on the south. Was that the general consensus? Mr. Gastinger – I could see a successful application with either scenario. I do worry in thinking about student housing. This quickly could become not a 3 car parking area but 5 or 6. With the sensitive vegetation, I would ask the applicant to think about a way that protects and is really clear about where parking is to be located. Mr. Schwarz – The suggestion is to make the front walkway connect up to the sidewalk? Mr. Gastinger – Those are two really sensitive trees. I would be cautious about installing a new sidewalk in that area. I would recommend it. It would be consistent with our guidelines and the Secretary of Interior’s Standards to maintain the straight walk from the front door to the sidewalk. Motion – Mr. Schwarz – Carl Schwarz moves: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City’s ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed alterations and new construction at 106 Oakhurst Circle for the house alone, and not the landscape elements, satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are compatible with this property and other properties in the Oakhurst-Gildersleeve ADC District, and that the BAR approves that portion of the application as submitted with the following conditions: that the window muntins will have internal spacer bars, that the metal shingles should be reviewed by staff and should resemble shingles (staff should pay attention to ridges and details at rakes and eaves), and a strong recommendation that the walls that have been added at the front stoop are not set asymmetrically. The previous CoA granted in December 2020, while still valid, is not valid in pieces. The BAR looks forward to reviewing the landscape plan for this project. Ms. Lewis seconds motion. Motion passes (6-0). The meeting was recessed for five minutes. 4. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 21-09-03 936 Rugby Road, TMP 030144000 Rugby Road Historic Conservation District Owner: Sharon and Michael Nedzbala Applicant: Leigh Boyes Project: Side addition (Note: Covered porch at rear is not subject to review.) Jeff Werner, Staff Report – Year Built: c1911 District: Rugby Road Historic Conservation District Status: Contributing Stucco, vernacular dwelling designed by Eugene Bradbury. Addition • Roof: Match existing (asphalt dimension shingles) or standing-seam copper. • Gutter and downspout: Match existing. • Cornice and trim: Match existing. • Exterior wall: Match existing. Stucco. 14 BAR Meeting Minutes September 21, 2021 • Chimney: Match existing detail. Stucco. • Windows: Painted, wood, casement windows. Color: TBD • Light Fixtures: None indicated. Request CoA for construction of an addition onto the west south side and a covered porch at the rear. (NOTE: The rear, covered porch will not be visible from Rugby Road or Preston Avenue, due to the elevation and grade. Staff concluded this component does not require a CoA.) Discussion and Recommendations Note: The regulations and guidelines for projects within a Historic Conservation District (HCD) are, by design, less rigid than those for an ADC District or an IPP. The HCD designations are intended to preserve the character-defining elements of the neighborhoods and to assure that new construction is not inappropriate to that character, while minimally imposing on current residents who may want to upgrade their homes. Within the existing HCDs are buildings and/or areas that might easily qualify for an ADC District or as an IPP; however, in evaluating proposals within HCDs, the BAR may apply only the HCD requirements and guidelines. The BAR should discuss the use of an exterior chimney, which represents a new architectural element—the four existing chimneys are interior. Otherwise, staff recommends approval. (See specific comments below under Pertinent Design Review Guidelines.) 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 Ms. Lewis – I was supportive of putting this on the Consent Agenda given that it should be an IPP. It is in a Historic Conservation District and not in an ADC. The only thing staff asked us to look at the new chimney that is exterior instead of the ones that are interior. The location of it is really not at all prominent to the street-side. Given how the house is situated in the lot, I don’t if anybody else could see it. It looks like a very thoughtful addition to this house. I do support this. Mr. Zehmer – This is a very successful addition. The chimney being exterior actually helps. The width of the addition is inset slightly from the adjoining original portion of the building. By having that step in and having the exterior chimney be different from the original house helps show this as an addition. It works well. Motion – Ms. Lewis – Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City Design Guidelines for Historic Conservation Districts, I move to find that the proposed addition at 936 Rugby Road satisfy the BAR’s criteria and is compatible with this property and other properties in the Rugby Road Historic Conservation District, and that the BAR approves the application as submitted. Mr. Mohr seconds the motion. Motion passes (6-0). 15 BAR Meeting Minutes September 21, 2021 D. Preliminary Discussion 5. 745 Park Street – Demolition Year Built: 1957 District: North Downtown ADC District Status: Contributing Brick, stretcher bond; l-1/2 stories; gable roof (composition); 3 bays. Detached house, 1950s-60s. Entrance in center bay. Exterior end chimney on north, single ramp. (NRHP listing for the Charlottesville and Albemarle County Courthouse Historic District. VDHR #104-0072.) Preliminary discussion on request to demolish the existing, approx. 35-f x 30-ft, single story, brick dwelling. Owners planning significant and extensive improvements to home. Renovations to existing impractical; razing is preferred. Note: A CoA is required to raze a contributing structure. Also, a CoA is also required for subsequent construction on or alteration to the site. Discussion and Recommendations The BAR should discuss if the proposed demolition is compatible with the ADC District Design Guidelines for Demolitions. As is standard for demolition requests, should the BAR consider approval, pending a formal submittal and request, staff will recommend condition of approval that prior to demolition the applicant will provide sketch plan and photographs of the existing dwelling and site. While a contributing structure, it must be noted that when the ADC District was established, all but approximately 15 primary structures were similarly designated. This district, including 745 Prk Street) was established in 1991. (It was expanded in 2005 to include the area north of downtown, between McIntire Road and 1st Street North.) Prior to 1996, when establishing an ADC district, it was the City’s practice to designate all structures as contributing. Additionally, while this dwelling was constructed 64 years ago and is thus eligible to be considered for possible designation, it is unique only because it is dissimilar in age and style from the houses that characterize this district. Between Lyons Court and the Bypass, within the ADC District on the west side of Park Street, there are four houses north and four houses south of 745 Park Street. They date from 1840 to 1936; the median year built is 1910. On the east side of Park, not in the district, there are 15 homes, dating from 1946 to 1967; the median year built is 1951. Prior demolitions in the North Downtown ADC District, which might be helpful. • 705 Park Street, demo 1920s garage and construct new, CoA approved April 17, 2012. http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/622122/BAR_705%20Park%20Street_March2012.pdf http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/622121/BAR_705%20Park%20Street_July2012.pdf • 713 Park Street, demo c1920 garage, CoA approved April 21, 2009. http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/790894/BAR_713%20Park%20Street_April2019.pdf Note: Comments above and in the review below are based on the information provided and are intended for discussion only. Comments and recommendation may change when a formal request is submitted. • Owners want to make improvements to the house and demolish the house down to the foundation. • Owners just want to have the flexibility to demolish the house. • Owners were encouraged to submit a COA application. 16 BAR Meeting Minutes September 21, 2021 • Board members were very supportive of the owners’ plans for the improvements that they would like to make to the house. E. Other Business Staff Questions/Discussion • Annual meeting to be held in November – Elections to be held for Chair and Vice- Chair. • Staff went over the possible return to in person meetings. Brief Discussion ADC District Design Guidelines • Staff provided an update regarding the approval of the Comprehensive Plan. • Following approval of the Comprehensive Plan, the city will begin work on the Zoning Rewrite. Staff asked if members of the Board had any concerns with the Zoning in ADC Districts. • Staff also asked for their concerns and feedback with the ADC District Design Guidelines. PLACE Update F. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:32 PM 17 BAR Meeting Minutes September 21, 2021 Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 22-06-02 636 Park Street, TMP 520113000 North Downtown ADC District (contributing) Owners and applicants: Jennifer and Blakely Greenhalgh Project: Rooftop solar panels Application components (please click each link to go directly to PDF page): • Staff Report • Application Submittal June 22, 2022 4 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW STAFF REPORT June 22, 2022 Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 22-06-02 636 Park Street, TMP 520113000 North Downtown ADC District (contributing) Owners and applicants: Jennifer and Blakely Greenhalgh Project: Rooftop solar panels Background Year Built: 1950 District: North Downtown ADC District Status: Contributing This two-story, five-bay brick house was constructed by Harry Munson in 1950 in the Colonial Revival style. The landmark survey is attached. Prior BAR Reviews (See appendix for reviews prior to February 2021) February 2021 – BAR approved (7-1) the installation of a fence on the inside perimeter of the skip laurel hedge that lines the property’s frontage along Park Street and Evergreen Avenue Application • Applicant Submittal: Blakeley Greenhalgh submittal, dated May 26, 2022: Site plan diagram illustrating location of proposed rooftop solar panels. CoA to install rooftop solar panels on the house and garage at 636 Park Street. Solar panels to be installed in the following locations (see diagram): (a) Rear (east) roof plane of primary house (b) Rear porch roof (c) North and south hipped planes of rear ell addition roof (d) East and west planes of garage roof 636 Park Street (June 10, 2022) 1 Discussion Since adoption of the current ADC District Design Guidelines, the BAR has reviewed and approved ten CoA requests related to photovoltaic panels, seven in the last four years. Seven were either IPPs or within an ADC District, and all except one installed rooftop panels. The Design Guidelines (Rehabilitation, Roofing) do not specifically recommend against solar panels on historic roofs, but instead recommended they be placed on non-character defining roofs or roofs of non-historic adjacent buildings. The application proposes installing solar panels on roof planes that are all situated at the rear of the subject property: on the back of the roof, on the rear porch, on the rear addition, and on the garage. As such, staff finds the proposed rooftop solar panels to be consistent with the guidelines and compatible with the ADC district. 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 rooftop solar panels at 636 Park Street satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are compatible with this property and other properties in the North Downtown ADC District, and that the BAR approves the application as submitted. (or with the following modifications…) Denial: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed rooftop solar panels at 636 Park Street do not satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are not compatible with this property and other properties in the North Downtown ADC District, and that for the following reasons the BAR denies the application as submitted. 636 Park Street (June 10, 2022) 2 Criteria, Standards and Guidelines Review Criteria Generally Sec. 34-284(b) of the City Code states that, In considering a particular application the BAR shall approve the application unless it finds: (1) That the proposal does not meet specific standards set forth within this division or applicable provisions of the Design Guidelines established by the board pursuant to Sec.34-288(6); and (2) The proposal is incompatible with the historic, cultural or architectural character of the district in which the property is located or the protected property that is the subject of the application. Pertinent Standards for Review of Construction and Alterations include: (1) Whether the material, texture, color, height, scale, mass and placement of the proposed addition, modification or construction are visually and architecturally compatible with the site and the applicable design control district; (2) The harmony of the proposed change in terms of overall proportion and the size and placement of entrances, windows, awnings, exterior stairs and signs; (3) The Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation set forth within the Code of Federal Regulations (36 C.F.R. §67.7(b)), as may be relevant; (4) The effect of the proposed change on the historic district neighborhood; (5) The impact of the proposed change on other protected features on the property, such as gardens, landscaping, fences, walls and walks; (6) Whether the proposed method of construction, renovation or restoration could have an adverse impact on the structure or site, or adjacent buildings or structures; (7) Any applicable provisions of the City’s Design Guidelines. Pertinent Guidelines for Rehabilitation: Chapter 4 Rehabilitation G. Roof 1) When replacing a standing seam metal roof, the width of the pan and the seam height should be consistent with the original. Ideally, the seams would be hand crimped. 2) If pre-painted standing seam metal roof material is permitted, commercial-looking ridge caps or ridge vents are not appropriate on residential structures. 3) Original roof pitch and configuration should be maintained. 4) The original size and shape of dormers should be maintained. 5) Dormers should not be introduced on visible elevations where none existed originally. 6) Retain elements, such as chimneys, skylights, and light wells that contribute to the style and character of the building. 7) When replacing a roof, match original materials as closely as possible. a. Avoid, for example, replacing a standing-seam metal roof with asphalt shingles, as this would dramatically alter the building’s appearance. b. Artificial slate is an acceptable substitute when replacement is needed. c. Do not change the appearance or material of parapet coping. 8) Place solar collectors and antennae on non-character defining roofs or roofs of non-historic adjacent buildings. 9) Do not add new elements, such as vents, skylights, or additional stories that would be visible on the primary elevations of the building. 636 Park Street (June 10, 2022) 3 Pertinent Guidelines from the Secretary’s Standards Building Exterior – Roofs: Alterations/Additions for the New Use Recommended: Installing mechanical and service equipment on the roof such as air conditioning, transformers, or solar collectors when required for the new use so that they are inconspicuous from the public right-of- way and do not damage or obscure character defining features. Designing additions to roofs such as residential, office, or storage spaces; elevator housing; decks and terraces; or dormers or skylights when required by the new use so that they are inconspicuous from the public right-of-way and do not damage or obscure character-defining features. Not Recommended: Installing mechanical or service equipment so that it damages or obscures character- defining features; or is conspicuous from the public right-of-way. Radically changing a character-defining roof shape or damaging or destroying character- defining roofing material as a result of incompatible design or improper installation techniques. Energy Conservation - Roofs Recommended: Placing solar collectors on non-character-defining roofs or roofs of non-historic adjacent buildings. Not Recommended: Placing solar collectors on roofs when such collectors change the historic roofline or obscure the relationship of the roof features such as dormers, skylights, and chimneys. Appendix Prior BAR reviews June 17, 2008 - BAR approved CoA (9-0) for shutters; enlarged rear porch; garage windows, door and siding; rear patio; new walkway; remove front boxwoods; remove rear 2 pines and gingko; replace rear drive with pavers, with the condition that the ginkgo remains. Submit the driveway pavement pattern and material to staff for approval. Informal suggestion: shutters should overlap window casing to appear to be hung. August 16, 2011 – BAR denied CoA (6-0) painting the unpainted brick house and approved (6-0) removal of the Sugar Maple and its replacement and the landscape plan as submitted. NOTE: BAR suggested applicant considers planting 2 trees in the front yard, recommending: Sugar Maple, American Beech, Willow Oak, Red Oak or White Oak. May 2014 – As a consent agenda item, BAR approved (9-0) the conversion of a concrete-block garage in the rear into a cottage. This project entailed the installation of HardiePlank siding, new doors and windows, and a new canopy over the entry doors. 636 Park Street (June 10, 2022) 4 Board of Architectural Review (BAR) Certificate of Appropriateness ADC Districts and IPPs Please Return To: City of Charlottesville Department of Neighborhood Development Services P.O. Box 911, City Hall Staff contacts: .__ Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Jeff Werner wernerjb@charlottesville.gov Telephone (434) 970-3130 Robert Watkins watkinsro@charlottesville.gov Please submit the signed application form and a digital copy of submittal and attachments (via email or thumb drive). Please include application fee as follows: New construction project $375; Demolition of a contributing structure $375; Appeal of BAR decision $125; A dditions and other projects requiring BAR approval $125; Administrative approval $100. Make checks payable to the City of Charlottesville. The BAR meets the third Tuesday of the month. Deadline for submittals is Tuesday 3 weeks prior to next BAR meeting by 3:30 p.m. Owner Name Jennifer and Blakely Greenhalgh Applicant Name______ . __ ________ _ _ft_o_p _s_o_la__ R _ oo Project Name/Description__ e_ r_ p_an___ls_______ Parcel Number__52_0_l_1_3_0_0_0______ _P r_ Project Property Address__6_3_6_a_ t _ e_e_____ _k S_r t _______________________ Signature of Applicant Applicant Information Address: 636 Park Street Charlottesville, Va. 22902_ E m a il: i e n.parham@gmail .com blakeley2000@gmail.com Phone: (W)______ (C) 434.531.6281 1_ Property Owner Information (if not applicant) Print Name Date Address:.______________ _ _ __ Property Owner Permission {if not applicant} I have read this application and hereby give my consent to Email:__________________ its submission. Phone: (W) ______ (C) _____ _ Signature Date Do you intend to apply for Federal or State Tax Credits _ for this project? ___N_o______ Print Name Date Description of Proposed Work (attach separate narrative if necessary):. _ _ _____________ Roottop solar panels per at tached List All Attachments (see reverse side for submittal requirements): A'-::t � Ju-:-.. u - 1Af-'iL'� 4' �,a..NA� For Office Use Only Approved/Disapproved by: _____ _ ___ ____ _ Received by: ________ Date: _________________ Fee paid: _____Cash/Ck.# ____ Conditions of approval: ___________ Date Received: _______ _ ___ Revised 2016 636 Park Street-solar panels ,. Indicate above the location of proposed panels. For example: ., ·� ur frh I " I ' -- • ' roof ·, . .., .'!" - ·'111, •' ------�-. ' ,.;"-�♦... -=-- ... � .ti ..,. ----- '! , ,.,;_ ,. · Watkins, Robert From: Blakeley Greenhalgh Sent: Wednesday, June 8, 2022 9:28 AM To: Watkins, Robert Cc: Werner, Jeffrey B Subject: Re: 636 Park Street - solar panels. ** 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.** Most of the panels that I have been presented with are 360-400 watt panels. Here is a screen shot of the layout and potential technology: 1 We are still awaiting one quote to some in before we pick a vendor but want to make sure we have approval before I go down this road. Let me know what else you need from me. Thanks, Blake On Tue, Jun 7, 2022 at 4:26 PM Watkins, Robert wrote: Dear Blake, I’m working with Jeff to prepare the staff report for your application. Do you have more information on the panels you’d like to install yet? Thanks, Robert 2 Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 22-06-03 500 Court Square, TMP 530096000 North Downtown ADC District (contributing) Owner: Monticello Hotel Event & Receptions LLC; 500 Court Square LLC Applicant: Caitlin Byrd Schafer, Henningsen Kestner Architects Project: Lower floor window replacements and fire escape alterations Application components (please click each link to go directly to PDF page): • Staff Report • Historic Survey • Application Submittal June 22, 2022 5 City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Staff Report June 22, 2022 Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 22-06-03 500 Court Square, TMP 530096000 North Downtown ADC District (contributing) Owner: Monticello Hotel Event & Receptions LLC; 500 Court Square LLC Applicant: Caitlin Byrd Schafer, Henningsen Kestner Architects Project: South addition--window replacements and fire escape alterations Background: Year Built: 1924-1926 District: North Downtown ADC District Status: Contributing Colonial Revival, nine-story, brick building, originally called the Monticello Hotel, was designed by architect Stanhope Johnson of Lynchburg. The building is also a contributing structure in the Charlottesville Albemarle County Courthouse Historic District, listed on the VLR and NRHP. Prior BAR Reviews (See Appendix for complete list.) November 29, 2021 – Admin. approval of rooftop generators for telecom equipment, gas pipe to be run inside the building. April 19, 2022 – BAR approves (6-0) CoA to install exterior gas pipe on south elevation to connect to rooftop generators Attachments • Submittal: Henningsen Kestner drawings Renovation of 500 Court Square Second & Third Floor, dated May 31, 2022: o BAR.01: Application title page o BAR.02: Site photos, including photos of windows and fire escape to be altered o BAR.03: Existing and proposed floor plans of second floor o BAR.04: Existing and proposed floor plans of third floor o BAR.05: Original architectural drawing of rear elevation windows before addition o BAR.06: Replacement window specifications o BAR.07: Fire escape specifications 500 Court Square (south elevation) – (June 10, 2022) 1 CoA to replace non-historic windows on second and third floors of south addition and extend the rear fire escape to ground and install fire escape door at third floor. (Installing the door and the lower section of the fire escape will replace previously removed elements.) Replacement windows will be white aluminum clad, double hung Marvin Ultimate windows. Existing brick sills will be retained. Discussion The windows to be replaced are located on a rear (south) addition constructed between 1957 and 1964. The existing, undivided windows do not match windows on the 1920s building and do not contribute to its historic character. The replacement windows will better complement those located on the rest of the building. Staff finds that the fire escape extension and associated new door opening are unobtrusive; the fire escape is already situated on that elevation, an auxiliary side of the building, and extending it to the ground will reinstall a previously existing element and not impact the building’s character. Staff recommends approval. Suggested Motions Approval: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the City’s ADC Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed window replacements and fire escape alterations at 500 Court Square satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are compatible with this property and other properties in the North Downtown ADC District, and the BAR approves the application as submitted. 500 Court Square (south elevation) – (June 10, 2022) 2 […as submitted with the following conditions:…] Denial: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the City’s ADC Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed window replacements and fire escape alterations at 500 Court Square do not satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are not compatible with this property and other properties in the North Downtown ADC District, and for the following reasons the BAR denies the application as submitted. Criteria, Standards, and Guidelines Review Criteria Generally Sec. 34-284(b) of the City Code states that, in considering a particular application the BAR shall approve the application unless it finds: (1) That the proposal does not meet specific standards set forth within this division or applicable provisions of the Design Guidelines established by the board pursuant to Sec. 34-288(6); and (2) The proposal is incompatible with the historic, cultural or architectural character of the district in which the property is located or the protected property that is the subject of the application. Pertinent Standards for Review of Construction and Alterations include: (1) Whether the material, texture, color, height, scale, mass and placement of the proposed addition, modification or construction are visually and architecturally compatible with the site and the applicable design control district; (2) The harmony of the proposed change in terms of overall proportion and the size and placement of entrances, windows, awnings, exterior stairs and signs; (3) The Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation set forth within the Code of Federal Regulations (36 C.F.R. §67.7(b)), as may be relevant; (4) The effect of the proposed change on the historic district neighborhood; (5) The impact of the proposed change on other protected features on the property, such as gardens, landscaping, fences, walls and walks; (6) Whether the proposed method of construction, renovation or restoration could have an adverse impact on the structure or site, or adjacent buildings or structures; (7) Any applicable provisions of the City’s Design Guidelines. Pertinent Guidelines for Rehabilitation: Windows Chapter 4 Rehabilitation 2) Retain original windows when possible. 3) Uncover and repair covered up windows and reinstall windows where they have been blocked in. […] 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. 500 Court Square (south elevation) – (June 10, 2022) 3 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. Pertinent Guidelines for Rehabilitation: Rear of Buildings Chapter 4 Rehabilitation 1) Meet all handicapped accessibility requirements. 2) Consolidate and screen mechanical and utility equipment in one location when possible. 3) Consider adding planters or a small planting area to enhance and highlight the rear entrance, and create an adequate maintenance schedule for them. 4) Retain any historic door or select a new door that maintains the character of the building and creates an inviting entrance. 5) Note building and ADA codes when and if changing dimensions or design of entrance. 6) Windows define the character and scale of the original façade and should not be altered. 7) If it is necessary to replace a window, follow the guidelines for windows earlier in this chapter. 8) If installation of storm windows is necessary, follow the guidelines for windows earlier in this chapter. 9) Remove any blocked-in windows and restore windows and frames if missing. 10) Security grates should be unobtrusive and compatible with the building. 11) Avoid chain-link fencing. 12) If the rear window openings need to be covered on the interior for merchandise display or other business requirements, consider building an interior screen, and maintain the character of the original window’s appearance from the exterior. 13) Ensure that the design of the lighting relates to the historic character of the building. 14) Consider installing signs and awnings that are appropriate for the scale and style of the building. 15) Design and select systems and hardware to minimize impact on the historic fabric of the building Pertinent Guidelines for Site Design and Elements: Utilities and Other Site Appurtenances Chapter 2 Site Design and Elements Site appurtenances, such as overhead utilities, fuel tanks, utility poles and meters, antennae, exterior mechanical units, and trash containers, are a necessary part of contemporary life. However, their placement may detract from the character of the site and building. 1. Plan the location of overhead wires, utility poles and meters, electrical panels, antennae, trash containers, and exterior mechanical units where they are least likely to detract from the character of the site. 2. Screen utilities and other site elements with fences, walls, or plantings. 3. Encourage the installation of utility services underground. 4. Antennae and communication dishes should be placed in inconspicuous rooftop locations, not in a front yard. 5. Screen all rooftop mechanical equipment with a wall of material harmonious with the building or structure. 500 Court Square (south elevation) – (June 10, 2022) 4 Appendix: Previous BAR Reviews February 28, 1989 - New windows in south wall façade and two to three outdoor mechanical units on fire stair June 27, 1989 - Install railings on towers and two sets of stairs on roof January 23, 1990 - Install six windows; close two fire door entrances; install vent; add two heat pump units on fire stairs April 24, 1990 - Screening for rear heat pumps June 21, 1994 - Replace new sliding doors February 2001 – Admin approval: co-locate antenna on roof April 2001 – Admin approval: replace two rooftop cabinets and upgrade telecom equipment. July 2001- Admin approval: locate six to nine rooftop antennas with accessory telecom cabinets October 2001 – Administrative approval: Remove three rooftop antennas and replace six. June 17, 2003 – Approve Add two new rectangular windows in south elevation. September 21, 2004 – Approve revolving door June 21, 2011 – Approve replacement the balustrade with a painted terne-coated stainless-steel replica. July 19, 2011 – Approve replacement of nine existing wood windows in a 6th floor unit facing Market Street with aluminum clad wood window sash kits with exterior applied 7/8” putty profile muntins. (This is the only approved window replacement at this time for the entire structure.) March 19, 2013 – Approve re-roofing and replacement of painted galvanized steel balustrade with painted copper balustrade. March 18, 2014 - Approve change in baluster material from painted copper to fiberglass as submitted. August 19, 2014 – Admin approval to replace three antennas with three similar sized antennas. April 21, 2015 - Approve replacement of six rooftop antennas and add one new cabinet on roof. June 16, 2015 – BAR accepted applicant’s request for deferral re: proposed rooftop communications equipment. BAR recommended a master plan be developed that might include options for: locating the antennas behind the baluster; locating the antennas to the sides of the penthouse, and painting the antennas to match the penthouse; or adding screening to the penthouse area resulting in a wider penthouse. January 2019 – Approve installation of two metal security gates, with the following conditions: o Drawing #1 for the Porte Cochere (without the ovals) o Drawing #3 for the Court Square Tavern (without the ovals) o Request to look at the proportions for the Porte Cochere [height of gate relative to fixed panel above] o Request the gates be set back and swing inward o Submit the updated final drawings for the BAR Archive July 22, 2020 – Admin approval of additional communications equipment. 500 Court Square (south elevation) – (June 10, 2022) 5 -----,--------------------------.--.-----; -- LANDMARK SURVEY IDENTIFICATION BASE DATA Street Address: 516 East Jefferson Street Historic Name: The Monticello Hotel Map and Parcel: 53-96 Date/Period: 1924-26 Census Track & Block: 1-112 Style: Neo-Classical Revival Present Owner: Monticello Plaza Condominiums Height to Cornice: 103.28 Address: Box 591, City Height in Stories: 9 Present Use: Hotel Present Zoning: B-3 Original Owner: Jackson Park Hotel Company land Area (sq. ft.): Land: 24,600 Original Use: Hotel Assessed Value (land + imp.): Building: 55,450 ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION The Monticello Hotel illustrates the return to classical architecture in the first part of this century. The architect, Stanhope Johnson of Lynchburg, was a leader in the Roman & neo-Classical revivals. The first two levels of this massive facade is treated with Doric pilasters supporting a horizontal entablature with triglyphs. Between the range of pilasters the architect placed tri-part windows with thermal windows above. The tope of the hotel is capped by a hugh cornice and balustrade. The public dining room is designed with graceful Adamesque details including slender engaged columns, finely carved entabla- - tures, and delicate carvings. The room is one of the finest revival spaces in the city. HISTORICAL DESCRIPTION In 1924 the Jackson Park Hotel Company purchased a row of Nineteenth century merchantile structures, from R. E. Yowell and razed them. The cornerstone was laid in 1925 and the building was opened to the public in 1929. In 1957, the Jackson Park Hotel Company sold the property to the Monticello Hotel Company for $925,000. In 1973, the owners began to convert the hotel into condominiums. Deed references: (see Farish House for pre-1924 references) City DB 48-199, 340-360, 352-455. GRAPHICS / CONDtTl0NS SOURCES Good City Records LANDMARK CO.MMISSION-DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ---'----[,L--.-. ~ s-la. ioi it IRTT r r FIrm n UK w r ItI f 1! LU P MONTICELLO HOTEL n 1 T? r u INN No Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 22-07-02 123 Bollingwood Road, TMP 070022000 Individually Protected Property Owner: Juliana and William Elias Applicant: Gabrielle Sabri / Grounded LLC Project: Landscaping plan Application components (please click each link to go directly to PDF page): • Staff Report • Historic Survey • Application Submittal July 2022 BAR Packet 4 City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Staff Report July 19, 2022 Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 22-07-02 123 Bollingwood Road, TMP 070022000 Individually Protected Property Owner: Juliana and William Elias Applicant: Project: Landscaping plan Background Year Built: 1884 District: IPP Disney-Keith House, a vernacular farmhouse. Between 1923 and the mid-20th century, Arthur Keith’s wife, Ellie Wood Keith, operated a riding academy here. A barn, outbuildings, and stables immediately west of the house are no longer standing. The existing garage was constructed in 1988. Prior BAR Review July 19, 1988 – BAR approved CoA for a new detached garage in the rear yard, a rear fence, and minor alterations to the main house. November 2, 1989 – BAR approved CoA for enclosure of the rear porch, with siding, windows, shutters and paint color to match existing. November 16, 2010 – BAR accepted applicant’s request for deferral. (CoA request to modify the west elevation: replacing single window with a triple window; replace single window with French doors to match doors on east elevation; and construct a painted wood pergola/sunscreen. New window and doors to be painted wood, with painted, operable wood shutters.) September 28, 2020 – Admin approval of roof replacement (in kind). November 16, 2021 – BAR reviewed the proposed alterations to the west elevation and accepted applicant’s request for a deferral (7-0). May 17, 2022 - BAR approved alterations to west elevation: new sliding door and exterior stoop. 123 Bollingwood Rd - Landscaping Plan (July 11, 2022) 1 Application • Applicant submittal: Grounded submittal package for Elias Residence, dated 7/19/2022: Project summary; Materials; Existing Conditions (2 sheets); Existing Conditions: Contiguous Properties; Topo survey (Roger Ray & Assoc.); and Site Plan L1.00. Request CoA for landscaping plan, which includes: • Site grading to provide positive drainage. Removal of the grading fill that had been a previous horse-riding ring. • Removal of the rear portion of the driveway and asphalt adjacent to the existing garage. • Removal of the existing brick patio at the rear of the residence. • One Maple tree in poor condition has previously been removed by the homeowners due to disease. Several trees to be removed are noted on the landscape plan; none are mature or significant in nature. • Addition of a bluestone stepper front walkway. • Addition of a 13' x 7' pool with 18" bluestone seat wall coping. • Addition of a mortared bluestone patio between house and pool. • Addition of complementary planting beds in the patio and pool area. Trees and shrubs to comply with the Charlottesville Master Tree List. • No additional exterior lighting. Discussion and Recommendations Staff recommends approval. 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 landscaping plan for 123 Bollingwood Road satisfies the BAR’s criteria and is compatible with this IPP and that the BAR approves the application [as submitted]. […as submitted with the following conditions: …] Denial: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City’s ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed landscaping plan for 123 Bollingwood Road does not satisfy the BAR’s criteria and is not compatible with this IPP, and that for the following reasons the BAR denies the application as submitted: Criteria, Standards, and Guidelines Review Criteria Generally Sec. 34-284(b) of the City Code states that, in considering a particular application the BAR shall approve the application unless it finds: (1) That the proposal does not meet specific standards set forth within this division or applicable provisions of the Design Guidelines established by the board pursuant to Sec.34-288(6); and (2) The proposal is incompatible with the historic, cultural or architectural character of the district in which the property is located or the protected property that is the subject of the application. Pertinent Standards for Review of Construction and Alterations include: 123 Bollingwood Rd - Landscaping Plan (July 11, 2022) 2 (1) Whether the material, texture, color, height, scale, mass and placement of the proposed addition, modification or construction are visually and architecturally compatible with the site and the applicable design control district; (2) The harmony of the proposed change in terms of overall proportion and the size and placement of entrances, windows, awnings, exterior stairs and signs; (3) The Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation set forth within the Code of Federal Regulations (36 C.F.R. §67.7(b)), as may be relevant; (4) The effect of the proposed change on the historic district neighborhood; (5) The impact of the proposed change on other protected features on the property, such as gardens, landscaping, fences, walls and walks; (6) Whether the proposed method of construction, renovation or restoration could have an adverse impact on the structure or site, or adjacent buildings or structures; (7) Any applicable provisions of the City’s Design Guidelines. Pertinent ADC District Design Guidelines Chapter 2 Site Design and Elements Chapter 2 Site Design and Elements 123 Bollingwood Rd - Landscaping Plan (July 11, 2022) 3 ADC District or IPP ADC Districts and IPPs Staff contacts: Staff Jeff email:wernerjb@charlottesville.gov Werner wernerjb@charlottesville.gov watkinsro@charlottesville.gov Robert Watkins watkinsro@charlottesville.gov Please submit the signed application form and a digital copy of submittal and attachments (via email or thumb drive). Note: No submittal deadline for Admin Review William Elias and Juliana Bueno Gabrielle Sabri / Grounded LLC Landscaping 070022000 123 Bollingwood Road Secretarys Sand Road Esmont, Va 22937 434.249.7779 6/14/22 Gabrielle Sabri 6/14/22 123 Bollingwood Road, Charlottesville, Va. 22903 Jeff Elias 6-14-2022 W. Jeff Elias 6-14-2022 No See separate narrative for proposed demolition, preservation, and site additions Project narrative, Proposed materials, Existing conditions, Site Survey, Site Plan charlottesville.gov charlottesville.gov CHARLOTTESVILLE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN CONTROL DISTRICTS DESIGN GUIDELINES Chapter 1 Introduction (Part 1) http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/793062/2_Introduction%20I_BAR.pdf Chapter 1 Introduction (Part 2) http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/793063/1_Introduction%20II_BAR.pdf Chapter 2 Site Design and Elements http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/793064/3_Chapter%20II%20Site%20Design%20and%20Elements_BAR.pdf Chapter 3 New Construction and Additions http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/793065/4_Chapter%20III%20New%20Construction%20and%20Additions_BAR.pdf Chapter 4 Rehabilitation http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/793066/5_Chapter%20IV%20Rehabilitation_BAR.pdf Chapter 5 Signs, Awnings, Vending, and Cafes http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/793067/6_Chapter%20V%20Signs%20Awnings%20Vending%20and%20Cafes_BAR.pdf Chapter 6 Public Improvements http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/793068/7_Chapter%20VI%20Public%20Improvements_BAR.pdf Chapter 7 Moving and Demolition http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/793069/8_Chapter%20VII%20Moving%20and%20Demolition_BAR.pdf P R O J E C T S U M M A RY Please see the 123 Bollingwood Road architecture CoA submittal for BAR meeting dated May 17, 2022 for architectural renovations associated with this project. The site changes are as follows: • Site grading to provide positive drainage. Removal of the grading fill that had been a previous horse riding ring. • Removal of the rear portion of the driveway and asphalt adjacent to the existing garage. • Removal of the existing brick patio at the rear of the residence. • One Maple tree in poor condition has previously been removed by the homeowners due to disease. Several trees to be removed are noted on the landscape plan; none are mature or significant in nature. • Addition of a bluestone stepper front walkway. • Addition of a 13'X7' pool with 18" bluestone seatwall coping. • Addition of a mortared bluestone patio between house and pool. • Addition of complementary planting beds in the patio and pool area. Trees and shrubs to comply with the Charlottesville Master Tree List. • No additional exterior lighting. 123 B O L L I N G W O O D R O A D, C H A R L O T T E S V I L L E, V I R G I N I A ELIAS RESIDENCE S O A K E P O O L: WA L L M AT E R I A L S: PAV I N G M AT E R I A L S: 13'X7' O A K R I D G E S TO N E V E N E E R W I T H M AT E R I A L S F R E D E R I C K B LO C K O A K R I D G E S TO N E W I T H T H E R M A L B LU E S TO N E A N D B LU E S TO N E S T E P P E R S B LU E S TO N E C A P B LU E S TO N E C A P, S E AT WA L L H E I G H T S U R R O U N D E D BY B LU E S TO N E PAT I O A N D PLANTING BEDS 07.19.2022 123 B O L L I N G W O O D R O A D, C H A R L O T T E S V I L L E, V I R G I N I A ELIAS RESIDENCE EXISTING CONDITIONS E X I S T I N G C O N D I T I O N S: R A I L R O A D T I E E X I S T I N G C O N D I T I O N S: B R I C K PAT I O TO B E E X I S T I N G C O N D I T I O N S: R E A R A S P H A LT P L A N T E R S TO B E R E M O V E D REMOVED D R I V E A N D PA R K I N G TO B E R E M O V E D 07.19.2022 DRIVEWAY HERE TO REMAIN 123 B O L L I N G W O O D R O A D, C H A R L O T T E S V I L L E, V I R G I N I A ELIAS RESIDENCE FUTURE LAWN THIS PORTION OF ASPHALT TO BE EXISTING CONDITIONS REMOVED E X I S T I N G V E G E TAT I O N TO R E M A I N: F R O N T E X I S T I N G C O N D I T I O N S TO R E M A I N: E X I S T I N G C O N D I T I O N S: R E A R A S P H A LT TO P L A N T I N G B E D S A N D M AT U R E B OX W O O D S M AT U R E T R E E S TO R E M A I N B E R E M O V E D A N D S E E D E D. F R O N T E N T RY TO R E M A I N D R I V E TO R E M A I N. 07.19.2022 123 B O L L I N G W O O D R O A D, C H A R L O T T E S V I L L E, V I R G I N I A ELIAS RESIDENCE C O N T I G U O U S P R O P E R T I E S: C O N T I G U O U S P R O P E R T I E S: C O N T I G U O U S P R O P E R T I E S: 117 B O L L I N G W O O D R O A D F R O M 123 B O L L I N G W O O D R O A D, LO O K I N G 133 B O L L I N G W O O D R O A D N O R T H TO WA R D 117 B O L L I N G W O O D R O A D CONTIGUOUS PROPERTIES E X I S T I N G C O N D I T I O N S: C O N T I G U O U S P R O P E R T I E S: V I E W F R O M T H E S I T E V I E W O U T WA R D TO WA R D 133 B O L L I N G W O O D A C R O S S B O L L I N G W O O D R O A D TO WA R D 120 A N D R O A D: (7) A M E R I C A N B OX W O O D S TO S C R E E N T H I S 07.19.2022 122 B O L L I N G W O O D R O A D A R E A , A S P H A LT TO B E R E M O V E D REMOVE SMALLER BOXWOODS EWAY G DRIV 501 I N 499 EX I S T MAIN 502 TO RE 503 EXISTING BOXWOODS TO REMAIN EXISTING PICEA ABIES, TO REMAIN + 503.36 + BC 503.60 EX 500 504 (1) PICEA ABIES 8-9' 50 50BLEND TOPSOIL/AGGREGATE; SEED AND STRAW FOR STABILIZED EDGE REMOVE 4" 1 PARKING 50 5 50 COURT DOGWOOD THERMAL BLUESTONE STEPPERS, DRY-LAID 2 50 503 EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN, TYP. 504 506 8" MAPLE TREE EXISTING PLANTING TO REMAIN BEDS TO REMAIN MAPLE STUMP TO BE REMOVED .00 505 + 505 503.10 EX+ REMOVE DRIVEWAY 1 503.0 .5 EX PAVING + LP + 503 3 3.1% 505.4 FFE + 504.40 EX EXISTING LAWN LAWN TO EXISTING 5 REMOVE WOOD 504.2 REMAIN RESIDENCE RETAINING WALL AIN FFE BLUESTONE H DR STEP NC MORTARED FRE BLUESTONE PAVING 5 504.2 MIXED PERENNIALS 504 (7) FOTHERGILLA FFE 27 GARDENII 'BLUE MIST' 2% 1 2% 9 + + 503. 503.0 + LP 9'x13' SOAKE POOL WITH INTEGRAL + AUTOCOVER WITH THERMAL 0 BS 0 BLUESTONE CAP AND OAK RIDGE 504.0 503.2 NEW DOOR BY 5 503.5 504.2 + B T DRAIN + TW W 503.16 STONE VENEER ON EXPOSED SIDES ARCHITECT 6 + TS 504.6 (1) AMELANCHIER FFE + 1.5% EXISTING PLANTING 'AUTUMN BRILLIANCE' 04.18 SLO BEDS TO REMAIN BW 5 504 508 BLUESTONE PAVERS 0 EX HP/ 1.2 REMOVE RAILROAD + 50 .01 3 502.9 TIE PLANTER WALL + 503 + DI 1 21" CREPE MYTLE FOR + + 3.15 2% 503 LP REMOVAL 50 + 503.70 EX DI + HP 504.12 4.5% 2.95 0 3.50 502.0 9 + BS 503.25 DI 2% 503.2 1.5% D 0 5.5% + S 50 NEW GEN INDEPENDENCE I 5 + BS BOXWOODS, 24"-30" HT + +T REMOVE 29 506 DRIVEWAY 503. 1.5% PAVING BLUESTONE STAIR FFE 503.97 + TS 503.76 + 501 LAWN EXISTING 3 (9) FOTHERGILA 50 502 GARAGE GARDENII 'BLUE MIST' FFE 504.04 FFE 504.07 EXISTING AMERICAN BOXWOODS TO REMAIN (7) AMERICAN BOXWOODS, 4'-5' HT x 4' WIDTH 0 5 10 20 L1.00 Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 22-07-03 605 Preston Place, TMP 50111000 IPP and Rugby Road-University Circle-Venable ADC District Owner: Neighborhood Investment – PC, LP Applicant: Kevin Riddle, Mitchell Matthews Architects Project: Modify windows in new apartment building (CoA approved October 2021) Application components (please click each link to go directly to PDF page): • Staff Report • Historic Survey • Application Submittal July 2022 BAR Packet 5 City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Staff Report July 19, 2021 Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 22-07-03 605 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: Modify windows in new apartment building Background Year Built: 1857 (existing structure) District: Rugby Road-University Circle-Venable Neighborhood ADC District Also designated an Individually Protected Property Status: Contributing Also known as Wyndhurst, 605 Preston Place was the manor house of the 100-acre farm that is now the Preston Heights section of the city. It is a typical 2-story, 3-bay, double-pile, weatherboard-clad house with Greek Revival details. Prior BAR Reviews (See appendix for the complete list) September 15, 2020 - Preliminary Discussion re: new apartment building. May 18, 2021 – (re: new apartment building) BAR accepted applicant’s request for deferral. August 17, 2021 - (re: new apartment building) BAR accepted applicant’s request for deferral. October 19, 2022 – BAR approved CoA for apartment building, including parking, landscaping and site improvements. http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/799036/2021-10_605%20Preston%20Place_BAR.pdf Application • Submittal: Mitchel Matthews Architects drawings 605 Preston Place Revised Elevations, dated June 10, 2022: Cover; SK-44; Survey of Exising Conditions; Description [of modifications]; SK-364; SK-370; SK-371; SK-372; SK-403; SK-373; SK-408; SK-409; SK-377; SK-404; SK- 378; SK-411; SK-379; SK-405; SK-380; SK-412; SK-384; and SK-388. (22 sheets.) 605 Preston Place – modify windows (June 30, 2022) 1 CoA request for to modify the windows for the approved new apartment building. Discussion The materiality has not changed, nor have the details relative to wall sections. The proposed size and location modifications are not significant, in that they maintain the proportions, rhythm, and pattern of the approved design. Staff recommends approval. From prior reviews, the BA made only a few comments related to the windows. • August 2021: The addition of the window muntins to the balcony doors gives it a more residential feel and breaks down the scale. • October 2021: The fenestration reflects the residential scale of apertures elsewhere on the street. • October 2021: The divided lights was one of the biggest improvements that was made. Suggested Motions Approval: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find the proposed modifications of the windows for the new apartment building at 605 Preston Place satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are compatible with this property and other properties in the Rugby Road-University Circle-Venable Neighborhood ADC District, and that the BAR approves the application as submitted[.] ... as submitted [with the following modifications: …] Denial: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find the proposed modifications of the windows for the new apartment building at 605 Preston Place do not satisfy the BAR’s criteria and guidelines and are not compatible with this property and other properties in the Rugby Road-University Circle-Venable Neighborhood ADC District, and for the following reasons the BAR denies the application as submitted: … 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; 605 Preston Place – modify windows (June 30, 2022) 2 (4) The effect of the proposed change on the historic district neighborhood; (5) The impact of the proposed change on other protected features on the property, such as gardens, landscaping, fences, walls and walks; (6) Whether the proposed method of construction, renovation or restoration could have an adverse impact on the structure or site, or adjacent buildings or structures; (7) Any applicable provisions of the City’s Design Guidelines. Sec. 34-282. - Application procedures. (d) … The following information and exhibits shall be submitted along with each application: 1) Detailed and clear descriptions of any proposed changes in the exterior features of the subject property, including but not limited to the following: the general design, arrangement, texture, materials, plantings and colors to be used, the type of windows, exterior doors, lights, landscaping, parking, signs, and other exterior fixtures and appurtenances. The relationship of the proposed change to surrounding properties will also be shown. 2) Photographs of the subject property and photographs of the buildings on contiguous properties. 3) Samples to show the nature, texture and color of materials proposed. 4) The history of an existing building or structure, if requested by the BAR or staff. For new construction and projects proposing expansion of the footprint of an existing building: a three-dimensional model (in physical or digital form) depicting the site, and all buildings and structures to be located thereon, as it will appear upon completion of the work that is the subject of the application. Pertinent ADC District Design Guidelines Chapter III – New Construction and Additions http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/793066/5_Chapter%20IV%20Rehabilitation_BAR.pdf I. Windows and Doors 1) The rhythm, patterns, and ratio of solids (walls) and voids (windows and doors) of new buildings should relate to and be compatible with adjacent historic facades. a. The majority of existing buildings in Charlottesville’s historic districts have a higher proportion of wall area than void area except at the storefront level. 2) The size and proportion, or the ratio of width to height, of window and door openings on new buildings’ primary facades should be similar and compatible with those on surrounding historic facades. a. The proportions of the upper floor windows of most of Charlottesville’s historic buildings are more vertical than horizontal. 3) Traditionally designed openings generally are recessed on masonry buildings and have a raised surround on frame buildings. New construction should follow these methods in the historic districts as opposed to designing openings that are flush with the rest of the wall. 4) Many entrances of Charlottesville’s historic buildings have special features such as transoms, sidelights, and decorative elements framing the openings. Consideration should be given to incorporating such elements in new construction. 5) Darkly tinted mirrored glass is not an appropriate material for windows in new buildings within the historic districts. 6) If small-paned windows are used, they should have true divided lights or simulated divided lights with permanently affixed interior and exterior muntin bars and integral spacer bars between the panes of glass. 7) Avoid designing false windows in new construction. 605 Preston Place – modify windows (June 30, 2022) 3 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. Note: In August 2018, the BAR clarified this recommendation as follows: BAR concluded that VLT 70 should remain the preference relative to clear glass. However, they acknowledged the case-by-case flexibility offered in the Design Guidelines; specifically, though not exclusively, that this allows for the consideration of alternatives—e.g. VLTs below 70--and that subsequent BAR decisions regarding glass should be guided by the project’s location (e.g. on the Downtown Mall versus a side street), the type of windows and location on the building (e.g. a street level storefront versus the upper floors of an office building), the fenestration design (e.g. continuous glass walls versus punched windows), energy conservation goals, the intent of the architectural design, matching historical glass, and so on. Appendix Prior BAR Reviews August 14, 2017 – BAR approved moving [to 506-512 Preston Place] the house, porch, chimneys, and east side additions located at 605 Preston Avenue and demolition of the rear additions. June 18, 2019 – Request to construct a 25-space parking lot in the rear yard of the historic structure. The BAR moved to accept the applicant’s request for deferral (9-0). http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/791143/2019-06_605%20Preston%20Place_BAR.pdf http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/792645/2019-06_Meeting%20Minutes_BAR.pdf October 15, 2019 – BAR denied CoA request to construct parking lot in the rear yard of the historic structure. (December 2019 – Council denied applicant appeal.) http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/791778/2019-10_605%20Preston%20Place_BAR.pdf http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/792649/2019-10_Meeting%20Minutes_BAR.pdf 605 Preston Place – modify windows (June 30, 2022) 4 605 PRESTON PLACE C H A R L O T T E S V I L L E , V A REVISED ELEVATIONS M I T C H E L L M AT T H E W S A R C H I T E C T S J u n e 10, 2022 S S R E G F T R O A P DR Location 605 Preston Place Area 0.396 acres (17,250 SF) Zone R-3H R-1UH Residential Units up to 21 DUA (by right) Parking Two bedroom apt. or smaller: AD 1 space RO Three or Four bedroom apt.: 2 spaces L Y P GB Height 45 feet (max) N R-3H R-3H TO RU ES R-3H Setbacks 17.5 feet (average of neigh- R (front) boring properties) P PL 0.396 acres Setbacks 1 ft per 2 ft height (10’ min) N (side) TO ES Setbacks na (double frontage lot - no PR (rear) rear yard) GR AD E Y AV AV E LL NW BE CA R-3H ST th 17 605 PRESTON PL M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlot t e s v i lle VA ZONING SUMMARY Architects & Planners SK-44 06.10.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2022 605 PRESTON PL M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlot t e s v i lle VA SURVEY EXISTING CONDITIONS Architects & Planners 06.10.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2022 The proposed building received unanimous approval from the BAR in October of 2021. Since then, locations and dimensions of windows and doors have changed on three of the proposed building elevations-- the south, west and north. Otherwise, the project’s exterior remains the same as it was when approved. The front (west) facade-- facing Preston Place-- is entirely unchanged. None of the doors/windows on that elevation have been altered since approval. The changes occurred because we revised the internal layout of bedrooms and bathrooms, spurring the need to relocate and/or resize certain windows. We regard the revisions as minor. They are not a departure from the overall appearance, character and scale of the previously approved project. The footprint, the building height, the exterior materials, the parking area and the site work all remain the same as before. 605 PRESTON PL M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlot t e s v i lle VA DESCRIPTION Architects & Planners 06.10.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2022 PRESTON E e e AC PL 594 f f e N 580 e 582 TO PLACE ES c i PR c a c 596.6 HVAC/mech. equip. to be concealed within parapet 590.8 Wyndhurst h g a j d c c a 594.5 d g b b b b b d 2 Deodora 589 h 592 590.2 Cedars to remain 2 transformers relocated here existing apartment courtyard a Nyssa Sylvatica (Blackgum) d Carex Appalachica (Appalachian Sedge) g Bluestone Paving i Liriodendron Tulipifera (Tulip Poplar) groundcover typical at planting beds S S b Gleditsia Triacanthos (Thornless Honeylocust) e Physocarpus Opulifolius (Dart’s Gold Ninebark) h Concrete Walk j Chionanthus Virginicus (White Fringetree) R E alternative: Rhus Glabra (Smooth Sumac) pruned as a shrub at front of southwest O G FT A c Chionanthus Virginicus (White Fringetree) f Clematis Virginiana (Woodbine) and Aristolochia Macrophylla (Pipevine) hanging/crawling/climbing plants intended to partially cover walls building face PR DR 605 PRESTON PL M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlot t e s v i lle VA SITE PLAN UNCHANGED Architects & Planners SK-364 06.10.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2022 S S R E O G FT A PR DR 605 PRESTON PL M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlot t e s v i lle VA ELEVATION WEST UNCHANGED Architects & Planners SK-370 06.10.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2022 Top of Parapet 627’ Top of Roof 622.5’ Finished Floor 591’ S S R E O G FT 10 A 5 PR DR 20 605 PRESTON PL M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlot t e s v i lle VA ELEVATION WEST UNCHANGED Architects & Planners SK-371 06.10.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2022 S S R E O G FT A PR DR 605 PRESTON PL M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlot t e s v i lle VA ELEVATION SOUTH PREVIOUS Architects & Planners SK-372 06.10.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2022 S S R E O G FT A PR DR 605 PRESTON PL M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlot t e s v i lle VA ELEVATION SOUTH PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE Architects & Planners SK-403 06.10.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2022 Top of Parapet 627’ Top of Roof 622.5’ Finished Floor 591’ S S R E O G FT 10 A 5 PR DR 20 605 PRESTON PL M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlot t e s v i lle VA ELEVATION SOUTH PREVIOUS Architects & Planners SK-373 06.10.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2022 Top of Parapet 627’ Top of Roof 622.5’ Finished Floor 591’ S S R E O G FT 10 A 5 PR DR 20 605 PRESTON PL M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlot t e s v i lle VA ELEVATION SOUTH PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE Architects & Planners SK-408 06.10.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2022 Top of Parapet 627’ Top of Roof 622.5’ Finished Floor 591’ S S R E O G FT 10 A 5 PR DR 20 605 PRESTON PL M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlot t e s v i lle VA ELEVATION SOUTH shutters closed PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE Architects & Planners SK-409 06.10.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2022 S S R E O G FT A PR DR 605 PRESTON PL M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlot t e s v i lle VA ELEVATION EAST PREVIOUS Architects & Planners SK-377 06.10.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2022 605 PRESTON PL M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlot t e s v i lle VA ELEVATION EAST PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE Architects & Planners SK-404 06.10.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2022 Top of Parapet 627’ Top of Roof 622.5’ Finished Floor 591’ S S R E O G FT 10 A 5 PR DR 20 605 PRESTON PL M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlot t e s v i lle VA ELEVATION EAST PREVIOUS Architects & Planners SK-378 06.10.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2022 Top of Parapet 627’ Top of Roof 622.5’ Finished Floor 591’ S S R E O G FT 10 A 5 PR DR 20 605 PRESTON PL M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlot t e s v i lle VA ELEVATION EAST PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE Architects & Planners SK-411 06.10.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2022 S S R E O G FT A PR DR 605 PRESTON PL M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlot t e s v i lle VA ELEVATION NORTH PREVIOUS Architects & Planners SK-379 06.10.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2022 605 PRESTON PL M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlot t e s v i lle VA ELEVATION NORTH PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE Architects & Planners SK-405 06.10.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2022 Top of Parapet 627’ Top of Roof 622.5’ Finished Floor 591’ Parking Level 580’ S S R E O G FT 10 A 5 PR DR 20 605 PRESTON PL M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlot t e s v i lle VA ELEVATION NORTH PREVIOUS Architects & Planners SK-380 06.10.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2022 Top of Parapet 627’ Top of Roof 622.5’ Finished Floor 591’ Parking Level 580’ S S R E O G FT 10 A 5 PR DR 20 605 PRESTON PL M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlot t e s v i lle VA ELEVATION NORTH PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE Architects & Planners SK-412 06.10.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2022 S S R E O G FT A PR DR 605 PRESTON PL M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlot t e s v i lle VA VIEW WEST UNCHANGED Architects & Planners SK-384 06.10.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2022 6 1 Bluestone wall caps at site walls 1 2 1 Meridian Brick - mix of Red Wirecut Flashed & Flat Set (or similar) 4 5 3 2 5 Fieldstone Wall Custom Color 1 (Western Maryland Thin or similar) (Pantone 439C or sim.) Metal Railings at all clad windows and french doors (dark gray color + exterior trim + metal fascias similar to Pantone 7 4287C) 6 3 7 4 Custom Color Copper (Pantone 4101C or sim.) (vertical seam panels -- treated to produce a verdigris patina) 605 PRESTON PL M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlot t e s v i lle VA MATERIAL PALETTE UNCHANGED Architects & Planners SK-388 06.10.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2022 Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 22-07-04 207 14th Street, TMP 090070100 Rugby Road-University Circle-Venable ADC District Owner: University Hotel Management, LLC Applicant: Bill Chapman Project: Exterior alterations Application components (please click each link to go directly to PDF page): • Staff Report • Application Submittal July 2022 BAR Packet 6 City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Staff Report July 19, 2022 Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 22-07-04 207 14th Street, TMP 090070100 Rugby Road-University Circle-Venable ADC District Owner: University Hotel Management, LLC Applicant: Bill Chapman Project: Exterior alterations Background Year Built: 1964 (constructed as a hotel) District: Rugby Road - University Circle - Venable ADC District Status: Non-contributing [Note: This concrete block structure was not designated contributing due to its age in 2005, when the ADC district was established.) Prior BAR Reviews (Additional BAR reviews in Appendix) February 15, 2022 – BAR approved (9-0, Consent Agenda) recommendation to City Council that the proposed Special Use Permit for 207 14th Street will not adversely impact the Rugby Road- University Circle-Venable Neighborhood ADC District and that any later, related alterations to the site or structure will require BAR design review and an approved CoA. http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/799370/2022-02_207%2014th%20Street%20NW_BAR.pdf Application • Submittal: Orban Design drawing 14th St Hotel, dated June 10, 2022, sheet A-1 and supplemental information provided by applicant (8 sheets). Request CoA to allow limited exterior alterations to existing, two-story structure and site, including: • At 14th Street NW: replace nose-parking with semi-circle drive-through loading zone defined by planters. Asphalt gets replaced by stamped concrete. (Supplemental information sheet 1.) • Remove through-wall air conditioners on south and west faces, infill openings and cover with Grainger architectural grilles. (Supplemental information sheets 3 and 4) 207 14th St NW (July 12, 2022) 1 • Period railings to be retained. At 2nd floor, install taut-wire rail behind existing railing to meet code requirements. (Sheet A-1.) • Replace exterior wall sconces at each room with new. (Supplemental information sheet 7.) • Remove existing storm windows, wood double hung windows to be retained. • Ground floor, east elevation: remove existing, twin, double-hung windows and install wood/alum-clad sliding window to allow easy COVID-friendly access to staffed office within. Install aluminum awning above (Black). (Sheet A-1 and supplemental information sheets 1 and 8.) • Re-paint exterior. o Walls: Winter White, Pantone BM-OC-2 or sim. o Doors: Pantone 7684c and 144c.) o Railing and awning: Black o Windows and trim, doorframes: White • North elevation: Retain existing fence at both ends. Install wall-mounted mechanical units, one per unit. (Supplemental information sheets 5 and 6.) Discussion and Recommendation Staff recommends approval with the conditions noted in the suggest motion. Note: Signage is shown on the elevation for context only. Regardless of a CoA approval, all signage requires a separate sign permit, which is reviewed by design staff. However, if there are comments or concerns about the signage as shown, the BAR can provide instruction to staff for that sign permit review. Suggested Motion Approval: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find the rehabilitation of and alterations to the existing structure at 207 14th Street NW satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are 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 and with the following conditions and modifications: • While trees and plantings have been shown for context, specifically at the driveway and south elevation, any later trees and/or plantings will be species selected from the City’s Master Tree and Master Shrub lists, and reported to staff for the BAR archive. The climbing plant(s) indicated at south elevation will be a native species (such as wisteria, clematis, trumpet honeysuckle, American ivy) that will not damage the masonry and will be maintained to not spread beyond the decorative block wall sections, as noted on the renderings. • The new driveway at 14th Street will be scored concrete, not stamped concrete. • For exterior area lighting, the lamping will be dimmable, have a Color Temperature not exceeding 3,000K, and a Color Rendering Index not less than 80, preferably not less than 90. • BAR suggests removing from the exterior walls any unnecessary/no-longer-in-service wires, cables, and conduits. 207 14th St NW (July 12, 2022) 2 Criteria, Standards, and Guidelines Review Criteria Generally Sec. 34-284(b) of the City Code states that, in considering a particular application the BAR shall approve the application unless it finds: (1) That the proposal does not meet specific standards set forth within this division or applicable provisions of the Design Guidelines established by the board pursuant to Sec.34-288(6); and (2) The proposal is incompatible with the historic, cultural or architectural character of the district in which the property is located or the protected property that is the subject of the application. Pertinent Standards for Review of Construction and Alterations include: (1) Whether the material, texture, color, height, scale, mass and placement of the proposed addition, modification or construction are visually and architecturally compatible with the site and the applicable design control district; (2) The harmony of the proposed change in terms of overall proportion and the size and placement of entrances, windows, awnings, exterior stairs and signs; (3) The Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation set forth within the Code of Federal Regulations (36 C.F.R. §67.7(b)), as may be relevant; (4) The effect of the proposed change on the historic district neighborhood; (5) The impact of the proposed change on other protected features on the property, such as gardens, landscaping, fences, walls and walks; (6) Whether the proposed method of construction, renovation or restoration could have an adverse impact on the structure or site, or adjacent buildings or structures; (7) Any applicable provisions of the City’s Design Guidelines. Pertinent ADC District Design Guidelines ADC District Design Guidelines Chapter 1 Introduction (Part 1) Chapter 1 Introduction (Part 2) Chapter 2 Site Design and Elements Chapter 3 New Construction and Additions Chapter 4 Rehabilitation Chapter 5 Signs, Awnings, Vending, and Cafes 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 the “avenue” effect. 2) Generally, use trees and plants that are compatible with the existing plantings in the neighborhood. 3) Use trees and plants that are indigenous to the area. 4) Retain existing trees and plants that help define the character of the district, especially street trees and hedges. 5) Replace diseased or dead plants with like or similar species if appropriate. 6) When constructing new buildings, identify and take care to protect significant existing trees and other plantings. 207 14th St NW (July 12, 2022) 3 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. E. Walkways and Driveways 1) Use appropriate traditional paving materials like brick, stone, and scored concrete. 2) Concrete pavers are appropriate in new construction, and may be appropriate in site renovations, depending on the context of adjacent building materials, and continuity with the surrounding site and district. 3) Gravel or stone dust may be appropriate, but must be contained. 4) Stamped concrete and stamped asphalt are not appropriate paving materials. 5) Limit asphalt use to driveways and parking areas. 6) Place driveways through the front yard only when no rear access to parking is available. 7) Do not demolish historic structures to provide areas for parking. 8) Add separate pedestrian pathways within larger parking lots, and provide crosswalks at vehicular lanes within a site. Chapter IV: Rehabilitation B. Facades and Storefronts The following guidelines will help to determine what is worth saving and what should be rebuilt. 1) Conduct pictorial research to determine the design of the original building or early changes. 2) Conduct exploratory demolition to determine what original fabric remains and its condition. 3) Remove any inappropriate materials, signs, or canopies covering the façade. 4) Retain all elements, materials, and features that are original to the building or are contextual remodelings, and repair as necessary. 5) Restore as many original elements as possible, particularly the materials, windows, decorative details, and cornice. 6) When designing new building elements, base the design on the “Typical elements of a commercial façade and storefront.” 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. 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. 207 14th St NW (July 12, 2022) 4 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 Chapter V: Signs, Awnings, Vending, and Cafes C. Awnings, Marquees, & Canopies 1. Types a. Fixed, sloped fabric awnings are the traditional awning type and are appropriate for most historic buildings, both residential and commercial. b. Boxed or curved fabric awnings; a more current design treatment, may be used on a non-historic or new commercial building. c. Marquees and canopies fabricated from rigid materials are appropriate on some commercial buildings, however, they must fit the storefront design and not obscure important elements such as transoms or decorative glass. d. Historic marquees and canopies should be retained and maintained on historic building facades. e. Backlit awnings or canopies used as illuminated signs are inappropriate. 2. Placement a. Place awnings carefully within the storefront, porch, door, or window openings so they so not obscure elements of damage materials. b. Choose designs that do not interfere with existing signs or distinctive architectural features of the building, or with street trees or other elements along the street. c. Choose an awning shape that fits the opening in which it is installed. d. Make sure the bottom of the awning valance is at least 7 feet high, or consistent with the current building code. 3. Color and Materials a. Coordinate colors with the overall building color scheme. Solid colors, wide stripes, and narrow stripes may be appropriate, but not overly bright or complex pattern. b. Aluminum, vinyl plastic, or overly ornate fabric awnings are generally inappropriate for any buildings within the historic districts. c. Contemporary marquees or canopies may be constructed of combinations of metal, wood, and glass; some types of plastic may be appropriate. APPENDIX: Additional BAR reviews January 19, 2010 – BAR recommended (8-0) to City Council that they approve a special use permit for a hotel on this site. The BAR had concerns regarding the building and site designs, which they will address when the certificate of appropriateness application comes before them: reduce parking on 15th Street; don’t make the public (sidewalk) spaces private-looking; public interactions with building (doors, windows, patios) are important; commend landscaping on 14th Street and saving original building. 207 14th St NW (July 12, 2022) 5 April 5, 2010 – City Council approved a special use permit for a 31-room hotel (the zoning allows the possibility of maximum 100 rooms by special use permit). Two conditions of approval pertinent to the COA review include: a reduction in side yard setback for the two story addition from 23 feet to 10 feet on the north, and 7 feet on the south; and a reduction in on-site parking from 13 to 3 spaces, with remaining parking in 14th Street garage. July 19, 2011 and August 16, 2011 – Item removed from BAR agenda due to incomplete submission. September 20, 2011 - BAR approved (4-0-1 with Wolf recused) the application in concept for boutique hotel, with the following conditions: 1. Treatment of the east and west ends of the building be reconsidered to simplify the materials; 2. Trellis design be revisited to reduce its size and presence on the south elevation; 3. Additional information including wall sections, window details, information about canopies on the west end of building and their design and attachment to the building, and sun shades be submitted for review and approval by the board. Rendering: http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/620868/2011-09_207%2014th%20Street%20NW_BAR.pdf October 18, 2011 - BAR approved (6-0-1 with Wolf recused) design details for boutique hotel as submitted, with the metal fence pulled back to the building line on the 14th Street side. 207 14th St NW (July 12, 2022) 6 EXISTING CONCRETE BLOCK WALLS REPAINTED WHITE. NEW CODE COMPLIANT GUARD RAIL BM OC-21 "WINTER WHITE" OR EQUAL BEHIND EXISTING RAILING, BLACK FRAME, CABLE RAIL INFILL 1 SIDE ELEVATION A-1 1/4" = 1'-0" 0 4' NEW SIGNAGE, TBD. CABLE RAIL INFILL 1"X1.2" BLACK METAL HANDRAIL & POSTS 14th ST HOTEL 1" BLACK ANODIZED ALUM. CANOPY 9'-0" 1'-6" LOCATION: 8" 207 14th ST NW CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 3'-021" 4'-4" 3'-6" 8'-621" 3" ELEVATIONS 1" 321" NEW SLIDER WINDOW +/-4'-0" SHEET NAME: ISSUE: REVIEW 2 STREET ELEVATION 3 RAILING DETAIL DATE: 06/10/2022 A-1 1/4" = 1'-0" A-1 0 4' 1" = 1'-0" 0 1' A-1 SHEET #: 207 14th Street - Supplemental Information - BAR Submittal July 19, 2022 1 of 8 The current nose-in parking off 14th Street will be replaced by a semi-circle drive-through loading zone defined by planters. Asphalt gets replaced by stamped concrete. Ground floor east-facing window replaced with new wood/alum-clad sliding window to allow easy COVID- friendly access to staffed office within. Aluminum awning above. 207 14th Street - Supplemental Information - BAR Submittal July 19, 2022 2 of 8 Storm windows removed, wood double hung windows retained. Door colors are Pantone 7684c and 144c. (Inspired by Blue Note jazz label record covers from the era, while also nodding to (UVA) collegiate colors.) Masonry walls, windows, and trim to be panted white. Period railings retained but 2nd floor railing gets added height and taut wires be- hind for code/safety. (See architectural detail on sheet A-1.) 207 14th Street - Supplemental Information - BAR Submittal July 19, 2022 3 of 8 Thru-wall air conditioners on south and west elevations to be removed, masonty openings infilled and covered with Grainger ar- chitectural grilles. (Grilles will not function for ventilation, but as a decorative cover for the wall repair.) 207 14th Street - Supplemental Information - BAR Submittal July 19, 2022 4 of 8 No changes to rear (west) elevation other than building-wide paint, window repair. Thru-wall air conditioners removed and the masonty openings infilled and covered with Grainger architectural grilles. (Grilles will not function for ventilation, but as a decorative cover for the wall repair.) 207 14th Street - Supplemental Information - BAR Submittal July 19, 2022 5 of 8 North elevation, not typically visible as it abuts an alley that is fenced at both ends, will have wall mount exterior split systems, one per unit 207 14th Street - Supplemental Information - BAR Submittal July 19, 2022 6 of 8 North elevation: Install wall-mounted mechanical units, one per room/unit. 207 14th Street - Supplemental Information - BAR Submittal July 19, 2022 7 of 8 Exterior light at each door. White. Typ. 207 14th Street - Supplemental Information - BAR Submittal July 19, 2022 8 of 8 https://www.andersenwindows.com/windows-and-doors/windows/sliding-windows/e-series-gliding-window/ Ground floor, east elevation: remove existing double-hung windows and install wood/ alum-clad sliding window. Install aluminum awning above. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 22-06-04 517 Rugby Road, TMP 050046000 Rugby Road-University Circle-Venable Neighborhood ADC District (contributing) Owner: Alumni of Alpha Mu, Inc. Applicant: Garett Rouzer, Dalgliesh Gilpin Paxton Architects Project: Porch repair and alterations, chimney reconstruction, and window sash replacements Application components (please click each link to go directly to PDF page): • Staff Report • Historic Survey • Application Submittal June 22, 2022 6 City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Staff Report June 22, 2022 Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 22-06-04 517 Rugby Road, TMP 050046000 Rugby Road-University Circle-Venable Neighborhood ADC District (contributing) Owner: Alumni of Alpha Mu, Inc. Applicant: Garett Rouzer, Dalgliesh Gilpin Paxton Architects Project: Porch repair and alterations and window sash replacements Background Year Built: c1910 District: Rugby Road - University Circle - Venable Neighborhood ADC District Status: Contributing. (Also a contributing structure to the Rugby Road - University Corner Historic District, VLR 1983 and NRHP 1984.) Constructed as a private residence, 2-1/2 story, Colonial Revival 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. Prior BAR Actions April 15, 2014 – The BAR approved (7-0) a series of exterior alterations, including window replacements, roofing repairs, door replacements, and general maintenance operations. Note: Records indicate this CoA may have been extended to October 15, 2016. December 21, 2021 – The BAR approved (8-0) the demolition of non-historic rear portions, construction of a rear addition, and related site work and landscaping. This Certificate of Appropriateness did not address alterations to the front porch. Application • Submittal: Dalgliesh Gilpin Paxton Architects drawings Delta Sigma Phi - University of Virginia, dated 05/31/2022: Sheets 1 through 24. 517 Rugby Road (June 14, 2022) 1 Request CoA to remove the non-historic decks flanking the front porch, re-construct the roof of the front porch, and replace all non-historic sash with Marvin sash replacement kits (new sash within frame inserts; existing wood frames and exterior trim to remain). Porch alterations • Retain and repair existing elements: o Columns o Architrave and frieze associated with porch roof o Stairs and skirt board • Remove: o Non-historic flanking decks o Asphalt shingles on porch roof • Install new: o Azek skirt boards and composite lattice panels on sides o Painted wood railing o Standing-seam metal roof Windows • Remove non-historic sash and replace with Marvin exterior clad/interior primed insulated window sash within frames inserts. Insulated glass, applied grilles with internal spacer bars. • Existing entrance door, transom and sidelights and window at the east dormer to remain. 517 Rugby Road (June 14, 2022) 2 Discussion and Recommendations Front porch: Staff suggests removal of the flanking decks and the rehabilitation of the existing porch are appropriate and recommend approval. Windows: The applicant has provided documentation that, with the exception of the diamond- pattern windows in the east dormer, all of the sash are replacements (installed into the existing frames) sometime after 1987. In 2014, the BAR approved a remove the post-1987 replacement sash and install Marvin replacements with frame inserts. Staff recommends approval. (Note: The BAR has denied replacement sash inserts; however, the most recent request proposed removing original sash and installing new windows with frame inserts under-sized for the existing opening, requiring wide metal trim panels at the sides, heads and sills. For 517 Rugby Road, the original sash no longer exist and the replacement frames will fit relatively right to the existing frames.) 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 repair, removal of non-historic porch wings, and window sash replacements at 517 Rugby Road satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are 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 repair, removal of non-historic porch wings, and window sash replacements at 517 Rugby Road do not satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are 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; 517 Rugby Road (June 14, 2022) 3 (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. 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. 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. […] 517 Rugby Road (June 14, 2022) 4 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. […] 517 Rugby Road (June 14, 2022) 5 Board of Architectural Review (BAR) Certificate of Appropriateness Please Return To: City of Charlottesville Department of Neighborhood Development Services P.O. Box 911, City Hall Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Telephone (434) 970-3130 Please submit ten (10) hard copies and one (1) digital copy of application form and all attachments. Please include application fee as follows: New construction project $375; Demolition of a contributing structure $375; Appeal of BAR decision $125; Additions and other projects requiring BAR approval $125; Administrative approval $100. Make checks payable to the City of Charlottesville. The BAR meets the third Tuesday of the month. Deadline for submittals is Tuesday 3 weeks prior to next BAR meeting by 3:30 p.m. Alumni of Alpha Mu, Inc. Owner Name___________________________________ Garett Rouzer Applicant Name______________________________________ Delta Sigma Phi House Renovation Project Name/Description______________________________________ 050046000 Parcel Number__________________________ 517 Rugby Road Project Property Address____________________________________________________________________________ Signature of Applicant Applicant Information I hereby attest that the information I have provided is, to the 206 5th Street NE Address:______________________________________ best of my knowledge, correct. Charlottesville, VA 22902 _____________________________________________ grouzer@dgparchitects.com Email:________________________________________ 5/31/22 __________________________________________ 434.977.4480 Phone: (W) _________________ (C) _______________ Signature Date Garett Rouzer 5/31/22 __________________________________________ Property Owner Information (if not applicant) Print Name Date 1522 E Military Way Address:______________________________________ Property Owner Permission (if not applicant) Salt Lake City, UT 84103 _____________________________________________ I have read this application and hereby give my consent to its submission. ericedwardson@yahoo.com Email:________________________________________ Phone: (W) _________________ (C) _______________ 703.629.8078 _ 5/31/22 __________________________________________ Signature Date Do you intend to apply for Federal or State Tax Credits Eric Edwardson 5/31/22 _________________________________________ No for this project? _______________________ Print Name Date Description of Proposed Work (attach separate narrative if necessary):__________________________________ Repair of existing front porch, removal of non-historic wings and retaining wall ______________________________________________________________________________________________ Sash replacement of non-historic windows, previously approved by BAR ______________________________________________________________________________________________ List All Attachments (see reverse side for submittal requirements): Exterior Elevation, Window Survey, Images of Subject Property ______________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________ For Office Use Only Approved/Disapproved by: ______________________ Received by: ___________________________ Date: _______________________________________ Fee paid: ___________Cash/Ck. # _________ Conditions of approval: _________________________ Date Received: _________________________ ____________________________________________ Revised 2016 ____________________________________________ c. 1915 Photograph (Built c.1910) c. 1983 Photograph 1964 Delta Sigma Phi was Established at UVA Colonial Revival Photograph by Holsinger DELTA SIGMA PHI DELTA SIGMA PHI 2021 Photograph 2022 Proposed Construction 05/31/2022 DELTA SIGMA PHI- UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA | 517 RUGBY ROAD 4444 DALGLIESH GILPIN PAXTON ARCHITECTS 05/31/2022 DELTA SIGMA PHI- UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA | SITE MAP 4444 DALGLIESH GILPIN PAXTON ARCHITECTS Entry Porch East Lawn Facing South East Lawn Facing North-West Entry Porch facing East across Rugby Road 05/31/2022 DELTA SIGMA PHI- UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA | REFRENCE PHOTOGRAPHS 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 05/31/2022 DELTA SIGMA PHI- UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA | REFRENCE PHOTOGRAPHS 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 05/31/2022 DELTA SIGMA PHI- UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA | REFRENCE PHOTOGRAPHS 4444 DALGLIESH GILPIN PAXTON ARCHITECTS NOT TO SCALE A. 4 University Circle B. 1 University Circle C. 506 Rugby Road D. 513 Rugby Road 05/31/2022 DELTA SIGMA PHI- UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA | CONTIGUOUS PROPERTIES 4444 DALGLIESH GILPIN PAXTON ARCHITECTS NOT TO SCALE 05/31/2022 DELTA SIGMA PHI- UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA | DRIVEWAY ELEVATION RENDERING 4444 DALGLIESH GILPIN PAXTON ARCHITECTS NOT TO SCALE Existing Historic Column Base Existing Historic Front Porch Column Capital and Entablature 05/31/2022 DELTA SIGMA PHI- UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA | PORCH ENTABLITURE DETAIL 4444 DALGLIESH GILPIN PAXTON ARCHITECTS NOT TO SCALE Existing Historic Front Porch Pilaster Base Existing Historic Front Porch Pilaster Capital and Entablature 05/31/2022 DELTA SIGMA PHI- UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA | RAILING DETAILS 4444 DALGLIESH GILPIN PAXTON ARCHITECTS NOT TO SCALE NON-HISTORIC NEW METAL ROOF 3" 6" 5 1/16" 3" 3" 1'-1 3/8" 1 1/16" 4 1/4" HISTORIC 8'-4 3/4" NEW PAINTED WOOD RAILING 4x4 SQ. POSTS 3 1/2" 1" SQ. PICKETS 1' 2'-8 3/4" 3'-6" RESTORED WOOD COLUMNS & PILASTERS 3 3/4" COMPOSITE DECKING 1" ALIGN w/EXISTING PORCH 2 1/2" 2" NON-HISTORIC AZEK SKIRT BOARD 6 3/4" NEW COMPOSITE LATTICE EXISTING BRICK PIER FRONT PORCH GRADE 1 SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" 5/31/2022 DELTA SIGMA PHI - UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA | ENTRY PORCH S D -2 4444 D ALGLIESH G ILPIN P AXTON A RCHITECTS RESUBMITTAL OF 2014 BAR APPLICATION FOR WINDOW REPLACMENT: * 2014 BAR-APPROVED WINDOW REPLACEMENT WAS NEVER PERFORMED. * 2014 WINDOW CONDITION SURVEY IS STILL ACCURATE. * NEW CUT SHEET FOR PROPOSED 2022 WINDOW SASH REPLACEMENT KITS PROVIDED. * HIGHLIGHTED ITEMS IN FOLLOWING PAGES FROM 2014 APPLICATION SUPPORT 2022 WINDOW REPLACEMENT APPLICATION. HIGHLIGHTED 2014 ITEMS SUPPORT PROPOSED 2022 WINDOW REPLACEMENT APPLICATION. 2014 WINDOW SURVEY SUPPORTS 2022 WINDOW REPLACEMENT APPLICATION. 2014 WINDOW SURVEY SUPPORTS 2022 WINDOW REPLACEMENT APPLICATION. 2014 WINDOW SURVEY SUPPORTS 2022 WINDOW REPLACEMENT APPLICATION. 2014 WINDOW SURVEY SUPPORTS 2022 WINDOW REPLACEMENT APPLICATION. * 2014 BAR-APPROVED WINDOW REPLACEMENT WAS NEVER PERFORMED. * NEW CUT SHEET FOR PROPOSED 2022 WINDOW SASH REPLACEMENT KITS PROVIDED. * 2014 BAR-APPROVED WINDOW REPLACEMENT WAS NEVER PERFORMED. * NEW CUT SHEET FOR PROPOSED 2022 WINDOW SASH REPLACEMENT KITS PROVIDED. * 2014 BAR-APPROVED WINDOW REPLACEMENT WAS NEVER PERFORMED. * NEW CUT SHEET FOR PROPOSED 2022 WINDOW SASH REPLACEMENT KITS PROVIDED. Pinnacle Series CLAD DOUBLE HUNG - Concealed Jambliner Option SECTION DETAILS : DIVIDED LITE OPTIONS SCALE: 3" = 1'-0" CONTEMPORARY INNER BAR OGEE PERIMETER GLASS STOP GLASS STOP GRILLE AVAILABLE STYLES - PUTTY - OGEE - CONTEMPORARY DETAIL: A SEE BELOW FOR GRILLE OPTIONS 5/8" WDL WITH 7/8" WDL WITH 1 1/4" WDL WITH 2" WDL WITH INNER BAR INNERBAR INNERBAR INNERBAR STANDARD INSULATING GLASS 13/16" INNERGRILLE DEPENDING UPON 3/4" PROFILED INNERGRILLE LOCATION 1" PROFILED INNERGRILLE 7/8" STICK GRILLE 1 1/4" STICK GRILLE Glass: LoE 366 Exterior: White Interior: Primed for Paint Hardware: White Screens: None NOTE: * ALL WDL OPTIONS CAN BE ORDERED WITH OR WITHOUT INNER BAR * PERIMETER GRILLES ONLY AVAILABLE IN THE 7/8" AND 1 1/4" OGEE STYLE GLASS STOP (SEE DETAIL: A) 8/6/19 * 2014 BAR-APPROVED WINDOW REPLACEMENT WAS NEVER PERFORMED. * NEW CUT SHEET FOR PROPOSED 2022 WINDOW SASH REPLACEMENT KITS PROVIDED. Pinnacle Series CLAD DOUBLE HUNG - Concealed Jambliner Option SECTION DETAILS : OPERATING / PICTURE SCALE: 3" = 1'-0" OPERATING HEAD JAMB & SILL JAMBS PICTURE HEAD JAMB & SILL JAMBS 8/6/19 Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 22-06-05 159 Madison Lane, TMP 090145000 The Corner ADC District (contributing) Owner: Montalto Corporation Applicant: Jack Cann, Montalto Corporation Project: Install brick infill panels and replace porch pavers Application components (please click each link to go directly to PDF page): • Staff Report • Historic Survey • Application Submittal June 22, 2022 7 City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Staff Report June 22, 2022 Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 22-06-05 159 Madison Lane, TMP 090145000 The Corner ADC District (contributing) Owner: Montalto Corporation Applicant: Jack Cann, Montalto Corporation Project: Install brick infill panels (and other repairs to south porch) Background Year Built: 1928 District: The Corner ADC District Status: Contributing Fraternity house designed by UVA architecture professor Stanislaw Makielski. Prominently situated at the north edge of the Madison Bowl, the five-bay, two-story brick house has a two-story Tuscan- columned portico at its center. Prior BAR Review September 18, 2007 - The BAR approved (8-0) a Chippendale style railing on the top roof area, with the stipulation that it be painted white. April 18, 2017 – The BAR approved (7-0) an accessible brick and metal ramp at the building’s northeast corner and the associated installation of a landscape planter and light fixture. Application • Applicant submittal: Jack Cann submittal: Photographs of building illustrating portico and stair disrepair and windows beneath portico. Request CoA to infill with brick the three, basement-level windows at the front of the porch. Applicant also wishes to address additional maintenance issues, including: o Reset basket-weave brick paving on the portico floor and replace bricks where necessary 159 Madison Lane (June 13, 2022) 1 o Repair east and west stairs portico stairs o Reconstruct deteriorated concrete stairs leading from kitchen to portico Staff finds that these activities fall under “routine maintenance and repair” and intend to review these repairs administratively. The BAR can offer any suggestions or feedback on these proposed repairs. Discussion and Recommendations The applicant has asked to brick-in the three basement-level opening under the portico to address maintenance issues and prevent vandalism. The original windows no longer exist. The three openings are headed with steel lintels, all significantly corroded. This corrosion has contributed to the buckling of the brick bulkhead wall beneath the portico. The applicant has also shared that the three windows are also subject to vandalism from passersby. The windows are therefore currently covered up with insulation and metal screens. In historic photographs, each window has two-lites separated by a mullion. Compared with the building’s other fenestration (lunettes, double-hung sash windows, compass-headed French doors) these basement windows appear utilitarian in nature. There are nearby examples of the apparent or suggested filling-in of basement-level openings. For example, at 165 Rugby Road (a nearby fraternity house), the arched basement openings under the rear porch are filled-in and stucco clad. Figure 1: 1965 photo of 159 Madison Lane with view Figure 2: Filled-in arched basement of basement-level windows. openings at 165 Rugby Road Staff finds that filling in these utilitarian openings will not alter the building’s historic character and will contribute to its future maintenance. In addition to the necessary repairs to the masonry, the steel littles have deteriorated and must be replaced. Staff recommends the brick infill, recessed (1/2” 159 Madison Lane (June 13, 2022) 2 to 1”) into the opening. Brick should be similar, but not matching, differentiating new from old. The other option would be infill with CMU, recessed (1/2” to 1”) into the opening, then parged and painted a neutral color. The flat arches and the brick sills should be retained. The infill panels should be simple and unadorned. If brick, they should not be tooted into the existing, allowing restoration/recreation of the original, if later considered. The BAR should state the preferred solution, including any details related to material and color (brick, parging), masonry coursing, depth of panel recess, etc. Repairs to the existing brick should use matching or similar bricks, replicating the existing bond and coursing. The existing mortar should be evaluated and, if necessary, repairs made with mortar using an appropriate proportion of lime [vs Portland cement]. 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 infill of three masonry openings at 159 Madison Lane satisfies the BAR’s criteria and is compatible with this district and that the BAR approves the application [as submitted]. […as submitted with the following conditions: …] 159 Madison Lane (June 13, 2022) 3 Denial: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City’s ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed infill of three masonry openings at 159 Madison Lane does not satisfy the BAR’s criteria and is not compatible with this 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 4 – Rehabilitation Link: Chapter 4 Rehabilitation A. Introduction These design review guidelines are based on the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, found on page 1.8. “Rehabilitation” is defined as “the process of returning a property to a state of utility, through repair or alteration, which makes possible an efficient contemporary use while preserving those portions and features of the property which are significant to its historic, architectural, and cultural values.” Rehabilitation assumes that at least some repair or alteration of the historic building will be needed in order to provide for an efficient contemporary use; however, these repairs and alterations must not damage or destroy materials, features or finishes that are important in defining the building’s historic character. Also, exterior additions should not duplicate the form, material, and detailing of the structure to the extent that they compromise the historic character of the structure. The distinction between rehabilitation and restoration is often not made, causing confusion among building owners and their architect or contractor. Restoration is an effort to return a building to a particular state at a particular time in its history, most often as it was originally built. Restoration 159 Madison Lane (June 13, 2022) 4 projects are less concerned with modern amenities; in fact, they are often removed in order to capture a sense of the building at a certain time in its history. Rehabilitation is recognized as the act of bringing an old building into use by adding modern amenities, meeting current building codes, and providing a use that is viable C. Windows 1) Prior to any repair or replacement of windows, a survey of existing window conditions is recommended. Note number of windows, whether each window is original or replaced, the material, type, hardware and finish, the condition of the frame, sash, sill, putty, and panes. 2) Retain original windows when possible. 3) Uncover and repair covered up windows and reinstall windows where they have been blocked in. 4) If the window is no longer needed, the glass should be retained and the back side frosted, screened, or shuttered so that it appears from the outside to be in use. 5) Repair original windows by patching, splicing, consolidating or otherwise reinforcing. Wood that appears to be in bad condition because of peeling paint or separated joints often can be repaired. 6) Replace historic components of a window that are beyond repair with matching components. 7) Replace entire windows only when they are missing or beyond repair. 8) If a window on the primary façade of a building must be replaced and an existing window of the same style, material, and size is identified on a secondary elevation, place the historic window in the window opening on the primary façade. 9) Reconstruction should be based on physical evidence or old photographs. 10) Avoid changing the number, location, size, or glazing pattern of windows by cutting new openings, blocking in windows, or installing replacement sash that does not fit the window opening. 11) Do not use inappropriate materials or finishes that radically change the sash, depth of reveal, muntin configuration, reflective quality or color of the glazing, or appearance of the frame. 12) Use replacement windows with true divided lights or interior and exterior fixed muntins with internal spacers to replace historic or original examples. 13) If windows warrant replacement, appropriate material for new windows depends upon the context of the building within a historic district, and the age and design of the building. Sustainable materials such as wood, aluminum-clad wood, solid fiberglass, and metal windows are preferred. Vinyl windows are discouraged. […] 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. 159 Madison Lane (June 13, 2022) 5 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. […] F. Foundation 1) Retain any decorative vents that are original to the building. 2) Offset infill between brick piers either with concrete block or solid masonry to ensure that a primary reading of a brick foundation is retained. 3) When repointing or rebuilding deteriorated porch piers, match original materials as closely as possible. 4) Where masonry has deteriorated, take steps as outlined in the masonry section of these guidelines. H. Masonry 1) Retain masonry features, such as walls, brackets, railings, cornices, window surrounds, pediments, steps, and columns that are important in defining the overall character of the building. 2) When repairing or replacing a masonry feature, respect the size, texture, color, and pattern of masonry units, as well as mortar joint size and tooling. 3) When repointing masonry, duplicate mortar strength, composition, color, and texture. a. Do not repoint with mortar that is stronger than the original mortar and the brick itself. b. Do not repoint with a synthetic caulking compound. 4) Repoint to match original joints and retain the original joint width. 5) Do not paint unpainted masonry. Maintenance Tips • Use knowledgeable contractors and check their references and methods. • Monitor the effects of weather on the condition of mortar and the masonry units and ensure that improper water drainage is not causing deterioration. • Prevent water from gathering at the base of a wall by ensuring that the ground slopes away from the wall or by installing drain tiles. • Prevent rising damp by applying a damp-proof course just above the ground level with slate or other impervious material. This work may require the advice of a historical architect. • Do not apply waterproof, water repellent or non-historic coatings in an effort to stop moisture problems; they often trap moisture inside the masonry and cause more problems in freeze/thaw cycles. • Repair leaking roofs, gutters, and downspouts; secure loose flashing. • Repair cracks which may indicate structural settling or deterioration and also may allow moisture penetration. • Caulk the joints between masonry and window frame to prevent water penetration. • Clean masonry only when necessary to halt deterioration or to remove heavy soiling. • Clean unpainted masonry with the gentlest means possible. • The best method is low-pressure water wash with detergents and natural bristly brushes. • Do not use abrasive cleaning methods, such as sandblasting or excessively high-pressure water washes. These methods remove the hard outer shell of a brick and can cause rapid deterioration. Sandblasted masonry buildings cannot receive federal or state tax credits. 159 Madison Lane (June 13, 2022) 6 • Use chemical cleaners cautiously. Do not clean with chemical methods that damage masonry and do not leave chemical cleaners on the masonry longer than recommended. • Avoid freezing conditions when using water or water-based chemicals. • Damage caused by improper cleaning may include chipped or pitted brick, washed-out mortar, rounded edges of brick, or a residue or film. • Building owners applying for federal or state rehabilitation tax credits must conduct test patches before cleaning masonry. • Disintegrating mortar, cracks in mortar joints, loose bricks or damaged plaster work may signal the need for repair of masonry. • Repair damaged masonry features by patching, piecing in or consolidating to match original instead of replacing an entire masonry feature, if possible. • Repair stucco by removing loose material and patching with a new material that is similar in composition, color, and texture. • Patch stone in small areas with a cementitious material which, like mortar, should be weaker than the masonry being repaired. This type of work should be done by skilled craftsmen. • Use epoxies for the repair of broken stone or carved detail. Application of such materials should be undertaken by skilled craftsmen. Contact the Virginia Department of Historic Resources for technical assistance. • If masonry needs repaints, use an appropriate masonry paint system recommended by a paint manufacturer. • Use water-repellent coatings that breathe only as a last resort after water penetration has not been arrested by repointing and correcting drainage problems. 159 Madison Lane (June 13, 2022) 7 Board of Architectural Review (BAR) Certificate of Appropriateness ADC Districts and IPPs Please Return To: City of Charlottesville Department of Neighborhood Development Services P.O. Box 911, City Hall Staff contacts: Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Jeff Werner wemerjb@charlottesville.gov Telephone {434) 970-3130_ Robert Watkins watkinsro@charlottesville.gov Please submit the signed application form and a d igital copy of submittal and attachments (via email or thumb drive). Please include application fee as follows: New construction project $375; Demolition of a contributing structure $375; Appeal of BAR decision $125; Additions and other projects requiring BAR approval $12S; Administrative approval $100. '-<«•c«<«'-"❖ >C< Make checks payable to the City of Charlottesville. ❖ Y/ff'f//,C C•C<•✓-C❖Y,C•CW✓N//N/.❖C•C❖ ❖Y,w; The BAR meets the third Tuesday of the month. Deadline for submittals is Tuesday 3 weeks prior to next BAR meeting by 3:30 p.m. Owner Name Montalto Corporation _ k__ Applicant Name_Jac Cann ____ ___ _____________ Repair masonry at soufu portico porch Project Name/Description 0 _ __ Parcel Number__0_9_ 0_1_4_5_00 _____ Project Property Address,__1_5_9_M_a_di__.o s _n_L_an_e_________________________ Applicant Information ��-7 II II Address:880 Rio East Court, Suite B_ � q.vJe��, � CharlottesvilJe, Va 22901 �-- Email: <:iackcann@earthlink.net > Phone: (YV) _______ (C) _______ I: · �\1,,1."1. &gnature ..X)\\ll?. Clt.�tJ ,c.: --r...�. 'ta-z.-i. Property Owner Information (if not applicant) L,.,,.,!:�!!L��<�<�<❖C❖C❖,<<,W/;;,y,-o❖e<❖C•C•e<<-e<<'-"'.-OW'-"'"-'•"""'•Y.->Y✓h>Y✓ ,.,E��,!.;... .,,,w,w; t Property Owner Name Oo"""'h""n 0th 'l LL C.. Applicant Name K'1 \t. 6'.t'"" locJ:. A. Property Owner lnfonnallon D. Sign Description / Address 1 "l. 3 F Mc..� s+. Im;. "Freestanding_ Projecting from wall_ (hc:--,\�+ks111·1(c... vA "2."Z.ctot. Aatagainstwal_ �t__ Other__n Phone Number j � '1- i '- I- IOI 5 •New signs wllh concrete footingsAoundations a,en Email W J� i,\ ' { "- �@ b. t C'.'l�. (, 0 M required to get a building permit before any conct&tan placement. Contact NOS at 434-970-3182. B. Property Owner Pannlsslon Size: Width L; 1, � Height If J/'1 .. = I, the undel'signed. owner or the property on which \ • 'l '1 Total Sq. Ft (Area may be lhis sign is to be erected, have read this appication measured using up to 8 straight. intersecting Unes.) and hen,by give my consent for this sign to be erected on my propertyfoulldlng. Max height to top of sigrr. j · 31 l-- + s....., QA V' v---..-, Min c1aarance to bottom or sign; 3 • ls;- '4 . Lighted? N� (Yd) Internal_ External_n C. Applicant'slnformatlon Allach a� of your sign lhat includes: exact I, the undersigned, agree to abide by all condillons of location on bulding; dimensions; materials; colors:n the City Sign Ordinance and Building Code In the worclngllogos; and lighting. erection cf this sign. and understand that my permit can be revoked at any li1le for just cause. F. SiJn Location Information Signed 11 l � street.Address S5o f Wo.b..- S\. s......� 10 t Is this sjgn replacing a pnNious sign. either for your Print Name (G,, l t. ('M"'°' lo e, l. business or a previous business?� (Y/Q) <"¾"' "L- µ, CompanyName (w:1t..,.., �c..n If yes, attach a 1st of lhe signs being replaced and Address \7 iraf�P• rnn"' Are the,e other signs on the property?� ft'IN) If yes. attach a list of lhese other signs and their sizes, even if they are not for your business. ForOfflc:e Use Only Sign Pennit No ___ Appnmds TaxMap__ Pan:el ___ ZonJng __ Zoning Administrator________ BZACase No _____ Date ___ Praservallon and Design Planns (EC cw ADC districts only) BAR No Date ___ Conditions of Approval ________ Data. ______ Amount Paid.____ cash/Check#___ Date Paid.____ Recaived by ___ SPECIFICATIONS • MATERlALS/METHOD: l ---3" - -+ - 1" 1: 3/8" Aluminum sign blank, Painted 23 3/4" 2: 18"x 5 5/16" Vinyl logo 3: l"x 1" Aluminum Angle, Adhesive Mount to '" Aluminum Blank 4: Mechanically fasten to post, Countersink fasteners 5: 3"x 3" Post. Painted I 6: Direct burial into concrete, 24" deep (i}X��� 14) i }-OETAI{,. 18" - -- ---1 +-0 [HJ FONTS � FIRST HERITAGE I N/A ' © COLORS � N 1: MP White, Satin 2: Avery Impulse Blue Vinyl 3: MP White, Satin ----·..�-. .. ..• j !-��� - �·��j , .. �.-- '/I,:'. ::,;rii�·. 5: MP Black, Satin � •. .. . •.•. �· I,'r ) •)I • -.- •�/' •.· .:•�-- � llla!!!II .'\ /· •If •. ::_· r"' '., • I ";,4r ,·;" .. '' . .. ... _'. j '. " ,. - ' -- .,;:__ ,J • �.- . · .. - ::i12:· __ -✓� . ., ���- . � ,...._ �-:" INSTALL NOTES � .' il! Direct burial into concrete ..·.:a l; Install 12" from concrete < SIDEWALK [�-A = 0 ti;� :- � • .. t 4 ._ . )' .::/ :i, • .... •�·...� ;p�,-j• ( l : FRONT ELEVATION: ONE POST , PHOTO COMP QTY 1 D 4 Ei GROPEN First Heritage Mortgage Office Signage Whit Douglas 434.227.5101 wdouglas@fhmtg.com PROJECT LEAD: Kyle Gum!ock DESIGN: Justin Gaydos HOURS: 4.5, (2) 1 DATE: 04.20.22 REV: 12) 04.27.22 With the exa�11on of previously COP\"righ'.€d wor� rurnished by c;ien1, the abov� renderingr�mainstl\ee1cJus1vej)!opertyo!G1C'l)ro,lnc. Thisdes,\}nmaynottla copi,;d in whole or in part wilhout thewrinen consent of Ur open. Ire ©2022 SIGN TYPE· 1 Post SCALE, 1:10. 1:4 PAGE: 33920 Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 22-06-06 0 Preston Place, 050118001 and 050118002 Rugby Road-University Circle-Venable Neighborhood ADC District (noncontributing) Owner: Steve & Sue Lewis Applicant: Leigh Boyes, Sage Designs Project: Construction of new single-family residence Application components (please click each link to go directly to PDF page): • Staff Report • Historic Survey • Application Submittal June 22, 2022 8 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW STAFF REPORT June 22, 2022 Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 22-06-06 0 Preston Place, TMPs 050118001 and 050118002 Rugby Road-University Circle-Venable Neighborhood ADC District (vacant parcel, non-contributing) Owner: Steve & Sue Lewis Applicant: Leigh Boyes, Sage Designs Project: New single-family residence Background Year Built: Extant remnants of c1920-1937 parking garages District: Rugby Road-University Circle-Venable Neighborhood ADC Status: non-contributing These parcels historically contained a stone and frame garage complex. All the remains are low segments of the masonry walls stand along the western and northern property lines, which will be retained. The parcels are otherwise vacant and undeveloped. This project is on two parcels: TMP 050118001 (now addressed 516 Preston Place) and TMP 050118002 (now addressed 508 Preston Place). Property owner will be combining these parcels; therefore, for consistency from the prelim discussion in February, staff refers to the project as 0 Preston Place, understanding that the CoA request applies to what are currently two separate parcels. Prior BAR Review August 14, 2017 – BAR approved moving a house located at 605 Preston Place to the vacant land at 0 Preston Place. February 15, 2022 – BAR has a preliminary discussion about a proposed single-family residence on vacant land at 0 Preston Place. Application • Submittal: Sage Designs drawings Lewis Residence, 0 Preston Place, dated May 30, 2022: o S1.0 – Site context photos o S1.1 – Preliminary landscape and site plan o S1.2 – Building perspectives and material swatches o A1.1 – First floor plan 0 Preston Place (June 13, 2022) 1 o A1.2 – Second floor plan o A2.2 – Elevations o A2.1 – Elevations CoA request to construct a new single-family residence and attached garage op vacant parcels. Note 1: The applicant is anticipating revisions to the landscaping plan (specifically, tree and plant selections) and modifications to the driveway (as necessary to comply with zoning requirements that driveway/parking area dos not exceed 25% of the front yard.) For the BAR action, these components can be included (with conditions, if warranted) or separated (to be reviewed later as separated submittals). Note 2: The consolidation of the two parcels has not been completed, which requires the resolution of utility easements and conformance with appliable zoning requirements. Staff does not anticipate this will result in significant changes to the current design, if any. In the event of changes, staff suggests these be reviewed with the BAR chair to determine if they warrant a resubmittal and formal review or they can simply be noted in the BAR record. Materials • Roof: factory-painted dark bronze standing-seam metal and dark • Gutters: K-style or half-round, dark bronze. • Cupola: painted composite siding with copper roof and weathervane • Walls: field stone veneer and painted cement fiber board siding • Porches: painted composite columns, composite sun-shade trellis, and bluestone pavers. • Chimneys: field stone veneer • Windows: factory-painted Pella or Jeldwen metal-clad wood windows with simulated divided lites or shadow bars • Doors: factory-painted Pella or Jeldwen metal-clad wood doors with simulated divided lites or shadow bars • Garage doors: Overhead Door “Courtyard Collection” insulated steel garage doors Landscaping/Site Work • pea gravel driveway and motor court • bluestone paths and terraces • new stone retaining walls to match existing • picket fence along street Discussion and Recommendations The BAR had a preliminary discussion on this project at the February 2022 meeting. Video link below (discussion at 03:07:50) - https://boxcast.tv/channel/vabajtzezuyv3iclkx1a?b=tycoam74nerhajuktwgz. During the prelim discussion, the BAR offered the following: • Stone retaining walls along property line will be retained as is, with new wall added. BAR recommended new wall be differentiated from existing. • Concerned about elaboration of garage and recommends street-facing door be removed. • Requested diagrams/drawings showing proposed house in relation to neighboring buildings. • Recommended perspective or 3D views of proposed house to express site context and parcel depth. • Acknowledged the variety of architectural styles on Preston Place, that proposed house fits. 0 Preston Place (June 13, 2022) 2 • Concerned about use of different materials on façade, proposed altering roof lines between stone core and siding-clad wings. From the ADC District design Guidelines – Introduction Rugby Road - University Circle - Venable Neighborhood ADC District: This residential area north of the University of Virginia was carved out of two large farms to house the University’s growing number of students and faculty during the boom years between 1890 and 1930. The neighborhood contains a number of architecturally significant structures including apartment buildings, residential dwellings, and fraternity houses, as well as a school, a library, and two churches. Although a wide variety of architectural styles exist in this area, the Colonial Revival and Georgian Revival styles are most commonly represented. Subarea C. Preston Place: A moderate scale single family residential neighborhood constructed in the 1920s and 1930s with the exception of Wyndhurst (605 Preston Place), built in 1857, which was the original farmhouse on the property; porches, brick, wood frame, variety of architectural styles, deep setbacks, wooded lots. The BAR should consider the following 14 criteria for new construction from Chapter III of the ADC District Design Guidelines: A. Building Types within the Historic Districts (Staff used Subarea C to generate typical dimensions and building comparisons. See Appendix and attached for summary and images of existing structures in Subarea C.) Staff Comment: The proposed house will be residential infill on a street of existing historic houses. With residential infill, the Design Guidelines express that the following criteria are the most important: • Setback • Spacing • General massing • Residential roof and porch forms B. Setback: For residential infill, setbacks should be within 20% of the [neighborhood average]. Staff Comment: Exising front setbacks range between 20 ft to 80 feet. Average is 51 feet. Recommended range for new is 41 feet to 61 feet. Front setback of proposed house is approximately 45 feet. C. Side Spacing: New residences should be spaced within 20% of the average spacing. Staff Comment: Spacings between existing houses range between 22 feet to 62 feet. Average is 39 feet. Recommended range for new is 31 feet to 47 feet. Spacing between proposed house and 620 Preston Place is approximately 25 feet. Slightly less than the lowest recommended spacing; however, it is equal to or greater than the three lowest dimensions: 22-ft, 23-ft, 25-ft, 30-ft, 32-ft, 40-ft, 42-ft, 50-ft, 60-ft, and 62-ft. D. Massing and Footprint: New infill residential should relate in footprint and massing to the majority of surrounding historic dwellings. 0 Preston Place (June 13, 2022) 3 Staff Comment: • (Footprint) Existing footprints range between 1,389 square feet to 5,218 square feet. Average is 2,234 sq ft. Footprint of proposed house is approximately 4,800 square feet and within the range of the subarea. • (Massing) The proposed house, viewed from the street, is wider than average and exceeds the maximum; however, its two-stories are the same as 10 of the 14 houses in the subarea, its large footprint visually reads as four individual structures (see the perspectives on sheet S1.2), and as summarized below, other elements such as materials, color, and landscaping will mitigate the massing. E. Height and Width: Attempt to keep the height and width of new buildings within a maximum of 200 percent of the prevailing height and width in the sub-area. Staff Comment: • (Height) Existing heights range between 1-1/2 floors to 2 floors. (Floors = stories.) Average is just under 2 floors. Recommended maximum for new just under 4 floors. Height of the proposed house is 2 floors, well under the recommended maximum. • (Width) Existing widths range between 34 feet to 106 feet. Average is 55 feet. Width of the proposed house is 156 feet, which exceeds the existing range; however, perception of this length will likely be broken down by a number of elements, allowing this house to relate other houses on Preston Place. • The height of the house varies in an A-B-A-B pattern of one- and two-story sections. • The variation of stone veneer and siding minimizes the visual predominance of a single material. • The porches, the porte cochere, and frontward plantings will visually buffer the massing. • Historically located at this site (early 20th century) was an approximately 216-ft long, masonry structure of individual garages. (The garages are not shown on the 1920 Sanborn Maps, but are visible in the 1937 aerial photos. They were razed between 2006 and 2009. F. Scale: Provide features on new construction that reinforce the scale and character of the surrounding area, whether human or monumental. Include elements such as storefronts, vertical and horizontal divisions, upper story windows, and decorative features. Staff Comment: The proposed house has two stories and a familiar pattern of windows and doors, resulting in a scale similar to houses in the subarea. G. Roof Staff Comment: The hipped roof on the proposed house is similar to hipped roofs on several other Preston Place houses, including 620, 622 and 608 Preston Place. The factory-painted standing-seam metal is an appropriate material. (See the Appendix for roof types and materials within the subarea.) Staff recommends a condition of approval requiring half-round gutters and full-round downspouts. H. Orientation 0 Preston Place (June 13, 2022) 4 Staff Comment: The house is situated on an irregular parcel with frontage on the primary Preston Place loop and its connector east to Burnley Avenue. The proposed house is oriented towards Preston Place. I. Windows and Doors Staff Comment: The proposed house has windows and doors in a pattern and scale familiar to neighboring historic houses in the district. The aluminum-clad wood windows are an appropriate window type for new construction. Staff recommends a condition of approval requiring internal spacer bars within insulated glass (doors and windows) with applied grills. J. Porches Staff Comment: Houses on Preston Place have a variety of porch styles, from single-bay covered entrances to full-length porches. The porch on the proposed house is consistent with the subarea. K. Foundation and Cornice Staff Comment: Some sections of the house and garage will have a stone-veneer base at the foundation. The house’s deep eaves relate to several other deep-eaved houses on Preston Place, including 620 and 622 Preston Place. M. Materials and Textures Staff Comment: The proposed composite siding is an appropriate material. The guidelines recommend that stone is more commonly used for site walls than buildings, but do not prohibit its use. There are numerous examples of stone buildings in Charlottesville’s historic districts. Staff recommends a condition of approval requiring that exposed face of siding and trim be smooth; no faux graining. N. Paint [Color palette] Staff Comment: In addition to the fieldstone veneer, the exterior walls (siding, trim, columns) will be painted white, the shutters painted black or green. This palette is appropriate. O. Details and Decoration Staff Comment: The Design Guidelines suggest that building detail and ornamentation relate to the surrounding context. Staff finds the proposed style and details similar to those found in the subarea; however, the building reads as a contemporary structure. During the preliminary discussion, the BAR expressed concern that some elements—for ex., the garage cupola--are more elaborate than those found nearby. Staff agrees the proposed house has a greater degree of elaboration than its neighbors; however, the proposed design and materials are not incompatible with the subarea. Regarding the site, staff is concerned that a substantial amount of the front yard is consumed by the driveway and parking area. Chapter II of the Design Guidelines (Site Design & Elements) recommend placing parking in the rear: 0 Preston Place (June 13, 2022) 5 Staff recommends a condition of approval requiring that engaged columns be square E. Walkways & Driveways: Place driveways through the front yard only when no rear access to parking is available. Staff Comment: Staff recommends the BAR consider alternate driveway layouts that would minimize impact on the front yard. The front elevation is essentially identical to the design reviewed for the February 15 preliminary discussion, except for modification of the first floor of the garage. 0 Preston Place (June 13, 2022) 6 Suggested Motions Approval: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed single-family house, garage and landscaping at 0 Preston Place satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are 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]. or [as submitted with the following conditions/modifications: …]. Denial: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City’s ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed single-family house, garage and landscaping at 0 Preston Place do not satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are not compatible with this property and other properties in the Rugby Road-University Circle-Venable Neighborhood ADC district, and for the following reasons the BAR denies the application … 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. Links to the Design Guidelines: Chapter 1 Introduction (Part 1) Chapter 1 Introduction (Part 2) Chapter 2 Site Design and Elements Chapter 3 New Construction and Additions Chapter 4 Rehabilitation Chapter 5 Signs, Awnings, Vending, and Cafes Chapter 6 Public Improvements Chapter 7 Moving and Demolition 0 Preston Place (June 13, 2022) 7 Pertinent Guidelines for New Construction and Additions include: B. Setback. 1) Construct new commercial buildings with a minimal or no setback in order to reinforce the traditional street wall. 2) Use a minimal setback if the desire is to create a strong street wall or setback consistent with the surrounding area. 3) Modify setback as necessary for sub-areas that do not have well-defined street walls. […] 7) New buildings, particularly in the West Main Street corridor, should relate to any neighborhoods adjoining them. Buffer areas should be considered to include any screening and landscaping requirements of the zoning ordinance. […] 9) Keep residential setbacks within 20 percent of the setbacks of a majority of neighborhood dwellings. C. Spacing 1) Maintain existing consistency of spacing in the area. New residences should be spaced within 20 percent of the average spacing between houses on the block. […] 3) In areas that do not have consistent spacing, consider limiting or creating a more uniform spacing in order to establish an overall rhythm. 4) Multi-lot buildings should be designed using techniques to incorporate and respect the existing spacing on a residential street. D. Massing and Footprint […] 2) New infill construction in residential sub-areas should relate in footprint and massing to the majority of surrounding historic dwellings. 3) Neighborhood transitional buildings should have small building footprints similar to nearby dwellings. a. If the footprint is larger, their massing should be reduced to relate to the smaller-scaled forms of residential structures. b. Techniques to reduce massing could include stepping back upper levels, adding residential roof and porch forms, and using sympathetic materials. […] E. Height and Width 1) Respect the directional expression of the majority of surrounding buildings. In commercial areas, respect the expression of any adjacent historic buildings, which generally will have a more vertical expression. 2) Attempt to keep the height and width of new buildings within a maximum of 200 percent of the prevailing height and width in the surrounding sub-area. […] 5) Reinforce the human scale of the historic districts by including elements such as porches, entrances, storefronts, and decorative features depending on the character of the particular sub-area. F. Scale 0 Preston Place (June 13, 2022) 8 1) Provide features on new construction that reinforce the scale and character of the surrounding area, whether human or monumental. Include elements such as storefronts, vertical and horizontal divisions, upper story windows, and decorative features. G. Roof 1) Roof Forms and Pitches a. The roof design of new downtown or West Main Street commercial infill buildings generally should be flat or sloped behind a parapet wall. b. Neighborhood transitional buildings should use roof forms that relate to the neighboring residential forms instead of the flat or sloping commercial form. c. Institutional buildings that are freestanding may have a gable or hipped roof with variations. d. Large-scale, multi-lot buildings should have a varied roof line to break up the mass of the design using gable and/or hipped forms. e. Shallow pitched roofs and flat roofs may be appropriate in historic residential areas on a contemporary designed building. f. Do not use mansard-type roofs on commercial buildings; they were not used historically in Charlottesville’s downtown area, nor are they appropriate on West Main Street. 2) Roof Materials: Common roof materials in the historic districts include metal, slate, and composition shingles. a. For new construction in the historic districts, use traditional roofing materials such as standing-seam metal or slate. b. In some cases, shingles that mimic the appearance of slate may be acceptable. c. Pre-painted standing-seam metal roof material is permitted, but commercial-looking ridge caps or ridge vents are not appropriate on residential structures. d. Avoid using thick wood cedar shakes if using wood shingles; instead, use more historically appropriate wood shingles that are thinner and have a smoother finish. e. If using composition asphalt shingles, do not use light colors. Consider using neutral-colored or darker, plain or textured-type shingles. f. The width of the pan and the seam height on a standing-seam metal roof should be consistent with the size of pan and seam height usually found on a building of a similar period. H. Orientation 1) New commercial construction should orient its façade in the same direction as adjacent historic buildings, that is, to the street. 2) Front elevations oriented to side streets or to the interior of lots should be discouraged. I. Windows and Doors 1) The rhythm, patterns, and ratio of solids (walls) and voids (windows and doors) of new buildings should relate to and be compatible with adjacent historic facades. a. The majority of existing buildings in Charlottesville’s historic districts have a higher proportion of wall area than void area except at the storefront level. 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. 0 Preston Place (June 13, 2022) 9 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. J. Porches 1) Porches and other semi-public spaces are important in establishing layers or zones of intermediate spaces within the streetscape. L. Foundation and Cornice 1) Distinguish the foundation from the rest of the structure through the use of different materials, patterns, or textures. 2) Respect the height, contrast of materials, and textures of foundations on surrounding historic buildings. 3) If used, cornices should be in proportion to the rest of the building. 4) Wood or metal cornices are preferred. The use of fypon may be appropriate where the location is not immediately adjacent to pedestrians. M. Materials and Textures 1) The selection of materials and textures for a new building should be compatible with and complementary to neighboring buildings. 2) In order to strengthen the traditional image of the residential areas of the historic districts, brick, stucco, and wood siding are the most appropriate materials for new buildings. 3) In commercial/office areas, brick is generally the most appropriate material for new structures. “Thin set” brick is not permitted. Stone is more commonly used for site walls than buildings. 4) Large-scale, multi-lot buildings, whose primary facades have been divided into different bays and planes to relate to existing neighboring buildings, can have varied materials, shades, and textures. 5) Synthetic siding and trim, including, vinyl and aluminum, are not historic cladding materials in the historic districts, and their use should be avoided. 6) Cementitious siding, such as HardiPlank boards and panels, are appropriate. 7) Concrete or metal panels may be appropriate. 8) Metal storefronts in clear or bronze are appropriate. 0 Preston Place (June 13, 2022) 10 9) The use of Exterior Insulation and Finish Systems (EIFS) is discouraged but may be approved on items such as gables where it cannot be seen or damaged. It requires careful design of the location of control joints. 10) The use of fiberglass-reinforced plastic is discouraged. If used, it must be painted. 11) All exterior trim woodwork, decking and flooring must be painted, or may be stained solid if not visible from public right-of-way. N. Paint 1) The selection and use of colors for a new building should be coordinated and compatible with adjacent buildings, not intrusive. 2) In Charlottesville’s historic districts, various traditional shaded of brick red, white, yellow, tan, green, or gray are appropriate. For more information on colors traditionally used on historic structures and the placement of color on a building, see Chapter 4: Rehabilitation. 3) Do not paint unpainted masonry surfaces. 4) It is proper to paint individual details different colors. 5) More lively color schemes may be appropriate in certain sub-areas dependent on the context of the sub-areas and the design of the building. O. Details and Decoration 1) Building detail and ornamentation should be consistent with and related to the architecture of the surrounding context and district. 2) The mass of larger buildings may be reduced using articulated design details. 3) Pedestrian scale may be reinforced with details. 0 Preston Place (June 13, 2022) 11 Appendix Year Roof Roof Address Style Walls Trim Shutters Bays Built type material 605 Preston c1857 Vernacular siding painted hipped metal 3 Pl 611 Preston board and c1830 Vernacular painted gabled metal 3 Pl batten 615-619 1929 Neo-Colonial brick painted gabled asphalt Y 3 Preston Pl 625 Preston c1936 Neo-Colonial siding painted gabled asphalt 4 Pl 630 Preston Craftsman / 1922 shingles painted gabled asphalt Y 4 Pl Shingle 626 Preston siding/concrete 1946 Neo-Colonial painted gabled asphalt Y 4 Pl block 624 Preston 1920- Craftsman siding painted gabled asphalt 3 Pl 1935 Vernacular Italian / 620 Preston 1923 Mediterranean stucco painted hipped asphalt Y 2 Pl / Georgian Revival 622 Preston Georgian 1935 stucco painted hipped asphalt Y 5 Pl Revival 612 Preston Georgian 1935 brick painted gabled asphalt Y 3 Pl Revival 608 Preston Georgian 1929 brick painted hipped slate Y 3 Pl Revival 619 Cabell Colonial 1930 brick painted hipped asphalt Y 3 Ave Revival 627 Cabell 1930 Foursquare stucco painted hipped asphalt 3 Ave Cottage / brick with 635 Cabell 1925 Modified siding on shed painted gabled asphalt 3 Ave Mixed dormer 0 Preston Pl Neo-Colonial stone, siding painted hipped metal Y 5 0 Preston Place (June 13, 2022) 12 0 Preston Place — BAR review June 22 2022 Houses in Subarea C page 1 of 4 605 Preston Place (1857) 611 Preston Place (1830) 515/619 Preston Place (1929) 625 Preston Place (1936) 0 Preston Place — BAR review June 22 2022 Houses in Subarea C page 2 of 4 630 Preston Place (1922) 626 Preston Place (1946) 624 Preston Place (1935) 620 Preston Place (1923) 0 Preston Place — BAR review June 22 2022 Houses in Subarea C page 3 of 4 622 Preston Place (1935) 612 Preston Place (1935) 608 Preston Place (1929) 619 Cabell Ave. (1930) 0 Preston Place — BAR review June 22 2022 Houses in Subarea C page 4 of 4 627 Cabell Ave. (1930) 635 Cabell Ave. (1925) 0 Preston Place 0 Preston Place - BAR 6/22/2022 - 1 of 7 0 Preston Place Subarea C 0 Preston Place - BAR 6/22/2022 - 2 of 7 0 Preston Place Subarea C 80’ 78’ 75’ 45’ 70’ 32’ 70’ 27’ 45’ 42’ 26’ 48’ 20’ 50’ Front Setback 45’ Approx. per GIS Average = 51 ft (+/- 20% 41 ft to 61 ft) Range: 20 ft to 80 ft Proposed house: Approx. 45 ft Rugby Road-University Circle-Venable Neighborhood ADC District 0 Preston Place - BAR 6/22/2022 - 3 of 7 0 Preston Place 60’ Subarea C 25’ 10’ 15’ 42’ 32’ 40’ 25’ 22’ 23’ 62’ 30’ 50’ Side-yard Spacing Approx. per GIS Average = 39 ft (+/- 20% = 31 ft to 47 ft) Range: 22 ft to 62 ft Proposed house: Approx. 25 ft Rugby Road-University Circle-Venable Neighborhood ADC District 0 Preston Place - BAR 6/22/2022 - 4 of 7 0 Preston Place 2,242 sf Subarea C 1,834 sf 1,519 sf 4,800 sf 1,389 sf 1,949 sf 2,264 sf 2,090 sf 1,600 sf 1,641 sf 1,901 sf 2,700 sf 3,134 sf 5,218 sf 1,800 sf Footprint Approx, per GIS Average = 2,234 sq ft Range: 1,389 sq ft to 5,218 sq ft Proposed house: Approx. 4,800 sq ft Rugby Road-University Circle-Venable Neighborhood ADC District 0 Preston Place - BAR 6/22/2022 - 5 of 7 0 Preston Place Subarea C 2.0 flrs 2.0 flrs 2.0 flrs 2.0 flrs 2.0 flrs 2.0 flrs 1.5 flrs 1.5 flrs 2.0 flrs 2.0 flrs 1.5 flrs 2.0 flrs 2.0 flrs 2.0 flrs Height (floors) 2.0 flrs Per GIS Average = 1.9 floors (200% = 3.8 flrs) Range: 1.5 to 2.0 floors Proposed house: Approx. 2.0 floors Rugby Road-University Circle-Venable Neighborhood ADC District 0 Preston Place - BAR 6/22/2022 - 6 of 7 0 Preston Place Subarea C 52 ft 63 ft 40 ft 156 ft 50 ft 34 ft 52 ft 50 ft 54 ft 57 ft 50 ft 56 ft 40 ft 106 ft Width (facing street) 56 ft Approx. per GIS Average = 55 ft Range: 34 ft to 106 ft Proposed house: Approx. 156 ft Rugby Road-University Circle-Venable Neighborhood ADC District 0 Preston Place - BAR 6/22/2022 - 7 of 7 Early/mid-20th century garages c1960s Sanborn Map Early/mid-20th century garages Propose residence 2006 aerial photo (City GIS) Board of Architectural Review (BAR) Certificate of Appropriateness Please Return To: City of Charlottesville Department of Neighborhood Development Services P.O. Box 911, City Han Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Telephone (434) 970-3130 Please submit ten (10) hard copies and one {1) digital copy of application fonn and all attachments. Please Include application fee as follows: New construction project $375; Demolition of a contributing structure $375; Appeal of BAR decision $125; Additions and other projects requiring BAR approval $125; Administrative approval $100. Make checks payable to the City of Charlottesville. The BAR meets the third Tuesday of the month. Deadline for submlttals Is Tuesday 3 weeks prior to next BAR meeting by 3:30 p.m. Owner Name � o ..c=."lf'.:'? .i.Joic::;....______ Project Name/Description 0 &..-o.J � Parcel Number () S:OIISooI 4J Project Property Address O ft.i;1"b...J Pu.t.e:) CAW beI'l!:5!1/\1..t.E"., Vl't. O�o//StJ0L Signature of Applicant Appllcant Information provided ls, to the I hereby attest that the information I have stof m (/o de , rrect. : �� . --;�� PC:$1-22- Print Name Oate Signatur,e sDate/3, /2-2.. Date Do you Intend to apply for Federal or State Tax Credits S+evet1 Let..JI:!) for this project? __ ..__.A/.�----- Print Name For Office Use Only Approved/Disapproved by: _________ Received by: ___________ Date: ------------------ Fee paid: ____Cash/Ck.# ____ Conditions of approval: __________ Date Received: R�vi#d2016 ------------ LEWIS RESIDENCE SAGE DESIGNS 0 PRESTON PLACE, TMP 050118001 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA. 22903 3033 ALBERNE CHURCH LANE, ESMONT, VA. 22937 05/30/22 434-296-7381 S1.0 SITE CONTEXT PHOTOS LEWIS RESIDENCE SAGE DESIGNS 0 PRESTON PLACE, TMP 050118001 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA. 22903 3033 ALBERNE CHURCH LANE, ESMONT, VA. 22937 05/30/22 434-296-7381 S1.1 1 PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE/SITE PLAN - 16 "=1'-0" LEWIS RESIDENCE SAGE DESIGNS 0 PRESTON PLACE, TMP 050118001 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA. 22903 3033 ALBERNE CHURCH LANE, ESMONT, VA. 22937 05/30/22 434-296-7381 S1.2 BUILDING PERSPECTIVES & BUILDING/SITE MATERIALS DN LEWIS RESIDENCE SAGE DESIGNS PRESTON PLACE, CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA. 22903 3033 ALBERNE CHURCH LANE, ESMONT, VA. 22937 05/30/22 434-296-7381 A1.1 FIRST FLOOR PLAN LEWIS RESIDENCE SAGE DESIGNS PRESTON PLACE, CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA. 22903 3033 ALBERNE CHURCH LANE, ESMONT, VA. 22937 05/30/22 434-296-7381 A1.2 SECOND FLOOR PLAN LEWIS RESIDENCE SAGE DESIGNS PRESTON PLACE, CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA. 22903 3033 ALBERNE CHURCH LANE, ESMONT, VA. 22937 05/30/22 434-296-7381 A2.2 ELEVATIONS LEWIS RESIDENCE SAGE DESIGNS PRESTON PLACE, CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA. 22903 3033 ALBERNE CHURCH LANE, ESMONT, VA. 22937 05/30/22 434-296-7381 A2.1 ELEVATIONS CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW STAFF REPORT July 19, 2022 Recommendation to City Council – IPP designation BAR 22-07-01 415/415-B 10th Street NW, TMP 4046000 Owner/Applicant: Dairy Holdings, LLC Background The church, parish hall, and rectory were originally constructed elsewhere and relocated to this site in--or soon after--1939 by the congregation of Trinity Episcopal Church. The church, built in 1910 in Palmyra (Fluvanna County), was disassembled and moved to 10th Street in 1939. According to church history, either in 1939 or very soon after, the parish hall and rectory were either moved to 10th Street from other locations or constructed new; however, their origins and dates of construction are uncertain. (Between 1919 and 1939, Trinity was located at what is now a pocket park at intersection of West High Street and Preston Avenue. The acquisition of land for Lane High School and McIntire Road forced the congregation’s move to 10th Street, leaving behind a church and, possibly, a separate dwelling, which were razed. In 1974, the congregation moved from 10th Street to its present location at 1118 Preston Avenue.) Prior BAR Reviews The property is not locally designated, no prior applications to the BAR. Note: In December 2021, acknowledging efforts to preserve the buildings, the BAR awarded the owner a 2021 Preservation and Design Award for Important Preservation of a Significant Neighborhood Structure. 415 10th Street NW IPP (July 12, 2022) 1 Request The BAR is asked to make a recommendation to City Council on the owners request to designate as an Individually Protected Property (IPP) an approximately 0.19-acre parcel with three existing structures—referred to as church, parish hall, and rectory--at the NE corner of 10th Street, NW and Grady Avenue. This request would amend City Code Section 34-273(b), designating the parcel an IPP, and City Code Section 34-1, adding to the parcel the overlay of a Minor Architectural Design Control District. Designation of an IPP follows the process for an amendment to the City's zoning ordinance and zoning map, including a public hearing and notification. In reviewing the requested designation, City Council shall consider the recommendations of the Planning Commission and the Board of Architectural Review (BAR) regarding criteria found in City Code Section 34-274. Attachments: • City’s 1981 Historical Survey of 415 10th Street NW • VDHR VCRIS documentation from the 2020 survey [10th and Page Neighborhood] • Photos and maps. Proposed revisions to Sec. 34-273. - Individually protected properties. (b) Following is a list of landmarks, buildings and structures outside the city's major design control districts, which are deemed by city council to be of special historic, cultural, or architectural value (each, individually, a "Protected Property"). Each parcel containing a protected property is hereby designated a minor design control district. […] 71.1 414/415-B Tenth [10th] Street, NW Tax Map 4 Parcel 46 Note: The number 71.1 is used to maintain the alphabetical order of the IPP list. Discussion Based on the criteria found in Section 34-274 (analysis below), staff recommends the BAR recommend that City Council amend Code Sec. 34-274 to add this parcel to the list of IPPs and to amend the Zoning Map to designate this parcel as an IPP, with the church, parish hall, and rectory as contributing structures. Note: An IPP is a local designation, therefore primary consideration should be given to its importance to this city and this community. While it is helpful to refer to the NRHP criteria, neither eligibility nor listing should be considered requirements for local recognition. In fact, the relevant City Code section states that IPP designation is not determined by NRHP listing, but a way to encourage nomination of historic properties to the National Register of Historic Places and the Virginia Landmarks Register. Additionally, of the City’s 76 IPPs: • 32 are not listed on the NRHP • 25 are individually listed on the NRHP • 19 are contributing resources to a NRHP historic district (most, if not all, were IPPs before being included in a district) 415 10th Street NW IPP (July 12, 2022) 2 Suggested Motions Recommend approval: Having reviewed the criteria for designation of Individually Protected Properties per City Code Section 34-274, I move the BAR recommend that City Council approve the request to designate 415/415-B 10th Street NW (Parcel 4-46) an Individually Protected Properties. Or Recommend denial: Having reviewed the criteria for designation of Individually Protected Properties per City Code Section 34-274, I move that for the following reasons the BAR recommend that City Council deny the petitions to designate this property an Individually Protected Property: … Standard of Review – IPP Designation Sec. 34-274. - Additions to and deletions from districts or protected property list. a) City council may, by ordinance, from time to time, designate additional properties and areas for inclusion within a major design control district; remove properties from a major design control district; designate individual buildings, structures or landmarks as protected properties; or remove individual buildings, structure or landmarks from the city's list of protected properties. Any such action shall be undertaken following the rules and procedures applicable to the adoption of amendments to the city's zoning ordinance and zoning map. b) Prior to the adoption of any such ordinance, the city council shall consider the recommendations of the planning commission and the board of architectural review ("BAR") as to the proposed addition, removal or designation. The commission and BAR shall address the following criteria in making their recommendations: [listed below with staff comments inserted] (1) The historic, architectural or cultural significance, if any, of a building, structure or site and whether it has been listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or the Virginia Landmarks Register (VLR); Staff Comment: The property is not currently listed on the NRHP or the VLR. In 2020, the City completed an architectural and historical survey of 434 properties within the 10th and Page Neighborhood, which included 415/415-B 10th Street NW and the three structures on the property. The review board of the Virginia Department of Historic Resources recommended the 10th and Page Neighborhood Historic District be eligible for listing on the VLR and NRHP, with Trinity’s former church, parish hall, and rectory identified as contributing resources; however, the buildings were not recommended for individual listing at that time. The church and parish hall are significant for their wood-frame vernacular Gothic architecture as well as for the role Trinity Episcopal Church’s members played in the Charlottesville community in the twentieth century, especially during the City’s local civil rights movement. (2) The association of the building, structure or site with an historic person or event or with a renowned architect or master craftsman; Staff Comment: The property contains three structures, but only the history of the church building is clearly known. The building was built in 1910 in Palmyra, Fluvanna County, and was designed by C. Chastain Cocke. Preliminary research identifies Cocke as a contractor 415 10th Street NW IPP (July 12, 2022) 3 and bridge builder in Fluvanna County, but neither his architecture or other buildings are renowned or prominent. The property is associated with those twentieth-century leaders of the City’s African- American community who attended Trinity Episcopal Church and the church itself made significant strides to unite and empower Black Charlottesville residents during the City’s era of segregation. Rev. Cornelius Dawson, Rev. Henry Mitchell, and George Ferguson were part of the Trinity Church community and all distinguished leaders in Charlottesville’s civil rights movement. Rev. Dawson led Trinity Episcopal Church between 1936 and 1946 and assisted local nurse Daisy Green in founding the Janie Porter Barrett Nursery School, a preschool that first served African-American families and remains Virginia’s longest-operating daycare. Rev. Mitchell helmed the church between 1958 and 1977 and launched the Trinity Program in 1964, which provided Black children with summer camp activities as well as year-round preschool services. Rev. Mitchell was also the first Black president of the Charlottesville school board. George Ferguson was an active congregant at the church and a prominent Black undertaker in Charlottesville. Ferguson led the Charlottesville NAACP as president and campaigned to integrate the University of Virginia hospital. Given Trinity Church’s ties with these three significant leaders and the services that the church itself sponsored, like the Trinity Program, to serve Charlottesville’s Black community during the twentieth century, the three buildings are significant for their association with historic people and events. (3) The overall aesthetic quality of the building, structure or site and whether it is or would be an integral part of an existing design control district; Staff Comment: The three buildings are striking and attractive framed structures that are significantly visible at the busy intersection of 10th Street NW and Preston and Grady avenues. The church building is the most prominent of the three buildings. The wood-frame vernacular Gothic building is articulated with a steep front-end gable roof and inset pointed- arch bargeboard that creates a recess framing a circular window and the front entrance beneath. The building is further complemented by pointed-arch windows that illuminate the sanctuary. The former parish hall and rectory, are architecturally simpler than the church building. The parish hall is a one-story gable-roofed wood building with two-over-two sash windows and asbestos siding. The rectory resembles many other early twentieth-century dwellings in Charlottesville: it is a two-story wood house with a front-facing gable roof, one-over-one sash windows, and a gable-roofed front porch. 415 10th Street NW IPP (July 12, 2022) 4 Even though the church possesses more striking visual qualities than the parish hall or rectory, all three buildings complement each other and together are still clearly legible as a mid-twentieth-century church campus. The property is not within an existing City-designated Architectural Design Control (ADC) District. It is ¼-mile east of the Rugby Road-University Circle-Venable Neighborhood ADC District; 1/3-mile north of the Wertland Street and West Main ADC Districts; and within a few blocks of three IPPs. (4) The age and condition of a building or structure; Staff Comment: Only construction date of the church is confidently known: 1910 in Palmyra, VA, then disassembled and moved in 1939. The parish hall and rectory were reportedly relocated from other sites, though possibly constructed as new buildings at the present site. A 1937 aerial image (below) of the site suggests that neither building was present at least two years prior to the church being relocated here in in 1939. All three buildings have existed at the present site for 83 years. The present owner recently conducted exterior repairs to the church and parish hall. The buildings are in good to fair condition. (During the July 12, 2022 Planning Commission meeting, the owner’s representative commented that in 2020 the following had been completed on the church and parish hall: misc. repairs and panting of exterior; reglaze the windows; update the MEP systems and equipment; alterations for ADA accessibility; repairs to a foundation wall; and expose the rafters within the parish hall.) 415 10th Street NW IPP (July 12, 2022) 5 1937 aerial image of site. Parcel highlighted in orange. No buildings present. (https://geoportal.lib.virginia.edu/UVAImageDiscovery/) (5) Whether a building or structure is of old or distinctive design, texture and material; Staff Comment: The vernacular Gothic architectural language employed on the church is relatively uncommon in the city and distinguishes the church from other buildings in Charlottesville. This vernacular Gothic style is conveyed through the pointed-arch bargeboard in the front gable, the circular window on its façade, and the pointed-arch windows on all elevations. Its wood construction is also uncommon for church buildings in the city. (6) The degree to which the distinguishing character, qualities or materials of a building, structure or site have been retained; Staff Comment: The vernacular Gothic architectural language employed at the church is relatively uncommon in the city and distinguishes the church from other buildings in Charlottesville. The completeness of the church campus is also a distinguishing quality of the site; together, the church building, parish hall, and rectory all served essential purposes for a functioning church in the twentieth century. All three buildings were critical to Trinity Episcopal Church operations and together, still contribute to the site’s historic character. (7) Whether a building or structure, or any of its features, represents an infrequent or the first or last remaining example of a particular detail or type of architecture in the city; Staff Comment: The church and parish hall are rare surviving examples of wood church buildings within Charlottesville city limits. Most of the City’s surviving churches built before 1960 are masonry (brick or concrete block). Of the City’s landmark church buildings 415 10th Street NW IPP (July 12, 2022) 6 that are historically associated with Charlottesville’s African-American community, most are masonry: Mt. Zion Baptist Church (105 Ridge Street, constructed 1884), First Baptist Church [also Delevan Baptist Church] (632 West Main Street, constructed 1877), Ebenezer Baptist Church (113 6th Street NW, constructed 1894, rebuilt 1907), and Church of God in Christ (132 Rosser Avenue East, constructed 1947). Within the City, staff identified only two other surviving wood churches built before 1960: the Woolen Mills Chapel (1819 E. Market Street, constructed 1887) and the former Bethel Baptist Church building (501 Commerce Street, constructed 1920). Given the rarity of wood churches in Charlottesville, the church and parish hall at 415 10th Street merit protection. From the 2020 survey: This site has been the location of a neighborhood religious organization for over fifty years. The architecture of both the dwelling and the church building complex is one of the few intact examples of a mid-20th century African American religious landscape in Charlottesville. While, some of the original fabric has been altered on the parish house and the church annex, the chapel remains intact. The value of Trinity Episcopal lies in its role as a community gathering place and house of worship serving the 10th and Page neighborhood and the larger city of Charlottesville. (8) Whether a building or structure is part of a geographically definable area within which there exists a significant concentration or continuity of buildings or structures that are linked by past events or, aesthetically, by plan or physical development, or within which there exist a number of buildings or structures separated geographically but linked by association or history. Staff Comment: The buildings lie at the NE corner of the historically working-class, predominately African American neighborhood known as 10th and Page. The church was culturally and historically an integral part of that neighborhood, more so than representing an aesthetic or architectural relationship to the neighborhood. The property is also linked to other landmark church buildings historically associated with Charlottesville’s Black community. Of these, three are within City-designated Architectural Design Control Districts and one is designated an Individually Protected Property: Mt. Zion Baptist Church (105 Ridge Street, constructed 1884), First Baptist Church [also Delevan Baptist Church] (632 West Main Street, constructed 1877), Ebenezer Baptist Church (113 6th Street NW, constructed 1894, rebuilt 1907), and Church of God in Christ (132 Rosser Avenue East, IPP, constructed 1947). Other citations for additional reference: • Trinity Episcopal Church: Our History. https://trinityepiscopalcville.org/about-us/our-history/ • 106 Group, April 2020. [VDHR] Preliminary Information Form for 10th and Page Historic District. • 106 Group, June 2020. Reconnaissance Architectural History Survey Of The 10th And Page Neighborhood: Charlottesville, Virginia. • Brennan, Eryn, 2012. Religious Communities in Transition: Three African-American Churches in Preston Heights. Public Comments Received: 415 10th Street NW IPP (July 12, 2022) 7 On April 27, 2022 the applicant held a community meeting at the Brick Cellar inside Dairy Market at 946 Grady Avenue at 6:00 pm. Ten members of the public attended the meeting. The meeting was recorded and is available to the public through the developer. Several members of the public stated their preference that the owner seek historic designation of the Subject Property to ensure the building on the site would remain. On June 10, 2022 the City’s Historic Resources Committee sent to the Planning Commission and City Council a letter requesting they “initiate the process necessary to establish 415 10th Street, NW, as a locally designated historic property, with the church, parish hall, and rectory as contributing structures.” 415 10th Street NW IPP (July 12, 2022) 8 �lenlijlca1u'on, STREET ADDRESS: 415 Tenth Street, NW HISTORIC NAME : Trinity Episcopal Church MAP 8 PARCEL: 4-46 DATE/PERIOD: 1910; moved to present site 1939 CENSUS TRACT AND BLOCK: 2-402 STYLE: Victorian Vernacular PRESENT ZONING : R-2 HEIGHT (to cornice) OR S TORIES: 1 storey ORIGINAL OWNER: Episcopal Church of the Ascension DIMENSIONS AND LAND AREA : 75 x 105 7875 sq. ft. ) 1 1 ( ORIGINAL USE: Church CONDITION : Good PRESENT USE: Church SURVEYOR: Bibb PRESENT OWNER: Monticello Dairy, Inc. DATE OF SURVEY: Winter 1981 SOURCES: The Daily Progress, Ch ville Bicentennal Edition 1 ADDRESS : P. 0. Box 77 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 City Records April 13, 1962 Trinity Episcopal Church Minnie L. McGehee of Fluvanna Co. Hist. Society Bulletin of Fluvanna Co. Historical Society #34 ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION Trinity Church is a very simple one-storey rectangular weatherboarded building set on a cinderblock foundation with a full basement. It is three bays wide and five bays long. There is a marble cornerstone inscribed 1 1 Trinity Church, 1939 11 • The weatherboarding on both sides of the building is beaded, but not on the front and rear. It is painted white with dark green trim. The steep gable roof is covered with slate and has a boxed cornice witb,_ returns. A simple pointed-arched bargeboard of vertical beaded siding dominates the facade. There is a wheel window under the arch. Windows on the sides of the building are double-sash, pointed-arched, Gothic windows with tinted glass and architrave trim. There are narrower lancet windows in the side bays of the facade. The pointed-arched pair of entrance doors in the center bay is of simple beaded board-&-batten construction. A photograph of the building before it was moved shows a square bell tower cenbened above the facade, and a small gable-roofed entrance vestibule, neither of which was reconstructed on the Charlottesville site. The rear elevation has simple cornice returns without the bargeboard and is broken only by a pointed-arched attic level window above the altar. A small wing covers the rear bay of the south side. It matches in most details, including beaded weatherboarding, and is probably original. An enclosed shed-roofed porch behind it serves as a hyphen between the church building and the parish house to the west. HISTORICAL DESCRIPTION This building was designed and built in 1910 by C. Chastain Cocke for the Episcopal Church of the Ascension on the eastern edge of Palmyra. When the congregation disbanded less than three decades later, the building was given or sold to Trinity Episcopal Mansion in Charlottesville. Established in 1919, Trinity had been holding services in a building at the foot of Beck 1 s Hill. In 1939, when the City began acquiring all the land in that area for the construction of Lane High School, the Diocese bought this lot at the corner of Tenth Street and Grady Avenue (City DB 100-202). The church building was dismantled and moved from Palmyra that same year. The new Trinity Episcopal Church building on Preston Avenue was completed in 1974, and this building was sold to the Monticello Dairy, Inc. (DB 357-422). It is now occupied by the Pentecostal Assembly Church. Additional Reference: City DB 197-321. HISTORIC LANDMARKS COMMISSION - DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT \ 415 10th Street, NW (2019/2020 survey) 415 10th Street, NW (2019/2020 survey) 415 10th Street, NW (2019/2020 survey) 415 10th Street, NW (2019/2020 survey) 415 10th Street, NW (2019/2020 survey) 415 10th Street, NW (2019/2020 survey) Attachment 4: Photos and maps for 415 10th St NW IPP - July 12, 2022 Page 1 of 5 1920 location of Trinity Episcopal Church: 213 W. High Street City GIS 1920 Sanborn Map Note: This is the location of the congregation in 1920. This building was reportedly razed after the congregation relocated to 10th Street. Attachment 4: Photos and maps for 415 10th St NW IPP - July 12, 2022 Page 2 of 5 c1937 location of Trinity Episcopal Church: 213 W. High Street 1937 https://geoportal.lib.virginia.edu/UVAImageDiscovery/ 1937 https://geoportal.lib.virginia.edu/UVAImageDiscovery/ City GIS Attachment 4: Photos and maps for 415 10th St NW IPP - July 12, 2022 Page 3 of 5 1957 former location of Trinity Episcopal Church: 213 W. High Street 1957 https://geoportal.lib.virginia.edu/UVAImageDiscovery/ Images not at same scale 1957 location of Trinity Episcopal Church on 10th Street, NW 1957 https://geoportal.lib.virginia.edu/UVAImageDiscovery/ Attachment 4: Photos and maps for 415 10th St NW IPP - July 12, 2022 Page 4 of 5 1920 Sanborn Map at 10th Street and Grady Avenue Grady Ave City GIS (current) 10th Street Grady Ave 1920 Sanborn Map 10th St NW Attachment 4: Photos and maps for 415 10th St NW IPP - July 12, 2022 Page 5 of 5 c1960 Sanborn Map at 10th Street and Grady Avenue Grady Ave City GIS (current) 10th Street Grady Ave c1960 Sanborn Map 10th St NW