Packet Guide City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Regular Meeting August 16, 2022, 4:00 p.m. (pre-meeting) and 5:30 p.m. Hybrid Meeting (In-person at CitySpace and virtual via Zoom) Special meeting: Review materials for Courts Expansion, Levy Site. No action to be taken. Pre-Meeting Discussion Regular Meeting A. Matters from the public not on the agenda [or on the Consent Agenda] (please limit to 3 minutes per speaker) B. Consent Agenda (Note: Any consent agenda item may be pulled and moved to the regular agenda if a BAR member wishes to discuss it, or if any member of the public is present to comment on it. Pulled applications will be discussed at the beginning of the meeting.) 1. Meeting minutes October 19, 2021 C. Deferred Items 2. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 21-07-05 350 Park Street, TMP 530109000 and 530108000 North Downtown ADC District Owner: City of Charlottesville and County of Albemarle Applicant: Eric Amtmann, DGP Architects [on behalf of Albemarle County] Project: New courthouse building (at Levy Building) Note: Courts expansion: If necessary, discuss possible Special Meeting Aug 31? D. New Items 3. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 22-08-01 Downtown Mall Downtown ADC District Owner: City of Charlottesville Applicant: Riaan Anthony, Parks and Recreation Project: Install grates at three mall fountains 4. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 22-08-02 800 East Market Street, TMP 530160000 Downtown ADC District (contributing property) Owner: City of Charlottesville Applicant: Scott Hendrix, Facilities Development Division Project: Roof replacement, Key Recreation Center BAR Packet Guide August 16, 2022 1 5. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 22-08-03 210 West Market Street, TMP 330271000 Downtown ADC District (contributing property) Owner: McSwain Properties LLC Applicant: Jeff Dreyfus, Bushman Dreyfus Architects/ Heirloom Development, LLC Project: Building demolition E. Other Business 6. Preliminary Discussion 921 Rugby Road, TMP 020072000 Rugby Road HC District Owner: Grave and John Coleman Applicant: Keith Scott, Rosey Architects Project: Shed demo, landscape alterations 7. Staff questions/discussion 612 Locust Avenue, TMP 510039000 Martha Jefferson HC District Project: Shed/garage demo 311 East Market Street. Downtown ADC District Project: Foundation vents F. Adjourn BAR Packet Guide August 16, 2022 2 BAR MINUTES CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW Regular Meeting October 19, 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: Cheri Lewis, James Zehmer, Carl Schwarz, Ron Bailey, Jody Lahendro, Breck Gastinger, Robert Edwards, Tim Mohr Staff Present: Patrick Cory, Joe Rice. Jeff Werner, Robert Watkins Pre-Meeting: The Pre-Meeting started with a brief discussion for the Preservation Awards led by staff. Staff did go over the awards from previous years. There was a discussion of possible candidates for Preservation Awards for 2021. Staff went over some of the staff questions including the garage door at Hill and Wood Funeral Home. Members of the BAR recommended a dark color that doesn’t make the garage door stand out. The BAR went over a sidewalk in front of a house on Park Street. The BAR is willing to review the sidewalk as part of a formal Certificate of Appropriateness Application in a future meeting. Staff introduced 123 Bollingwood. The BAR would like a formal COA submission. The meeting was called to order at 5:30 PM by the Chairman. A. Matters from the public not on the agenda Joey Conover – I am speaking about 110 and 114 Old Preston Avenue, which is on the Consent Agenda. The applications speaks for itself. Staff was very helpful in finding some old photographs. That was exciting for me. I emailed you with a link with some more historic photos. I went down to the Historical Society and found a few photos. Hard to get good resolution on them. With most of them, you can see part of the building. I am open to answering any questions you have about our application. Mark Kavit – I would like to see the BAR involved with the Future Land Use Map. I have seen input from you. Input from you is very important. Most cities feel that old buildings are important to the character of s city. Last Tuesday, I watched the end of the Planning Commission meeting when Commissioner Stolzenberg tried to water down the protections of the ADC Districts. I hope that you will not allow this to happen by voicing your concern. Preservation Piedmont has written a letter that I 1 BAR Meeting Minutes October 21, 2021 hope that you have seen. One of the commissioners is a member of Preservation Piedmont. She can maybe share the letter. This past Spring, I had a conversation with Commissioner Stolzenberg. I live on Altamont Street and have spent the last 13 years restoring my house. He told me that my block is the model what they hope to achieve with the FLUM. Why is this block marked for higher density than the rest of North Downtown? The BAR needs to become involved in this matter. This block should be the same as the rest of North Downtown. I am concerned for the entire North Downtown area. B. Consent Agenda (Note: Any consent agenda item may be pulled and moved to the regular agenda if a BAR member wishes to discuss it, or if any member of the public is present to comment on it. Pulled applications will be discussed at the beginning of the meeting.) 1. BAR meeting minutes from April 20, 2021 2. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 21-10-01 109-111 West Water Street, Tax Parcel 280013000 Downtown ADC District Owner: Mall Property, LLC Applicant: Ali Sevindi Project: Install roll-up doors in two storefront openings 3. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 21-10-05 110-114 Old Preston Ave, Tax Parcel 330278000 Downtown ADC District Owner/Applicant: Joey Conover Project: Install door at building entrance Motion to approve the Consent Agenda by Mr. Gastinger (Second by Mr. Lahendro). Motion passes 8-0. C. Deferred Items 4. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 21-05-03 605 Preston Place, Tax Parcel 050111000 Rugby Road-University Circle-Venable Neighborhood ADC District Owner: Neighborhood Investment – PC, LP Applicant: Kevin Riddle, Mitchell Matthews Architects Project: Three-story apartment building with below-grade parking Jeff Werner, Staff Report – Year Built: 1857 District: Rugby Road-University Circle-Venable Neighborhood ADC District Also designated an Individually Protected Property Status: Contributing Also known as Wyndhurst, 605 Preston Place was the manor house of the 100-acre farm that is now the Preston Heights section of the city. It is a typical 2-story, 3-bay, double-pile, weatherboard-clad house with Greek Revival details. CoA request for construction of apartment building, including parking, landscaping and site improvements. (Note: The following is a summary only of the project scope. For specific details or clarification, refer to the applicant’s submittal.) • Walls: Brick with copper panels. • Flat roof behind low parapet. Metal scuppers boxes and downspouts 2 BAR Meeting Minutes October 21, 2021 • Parapet cap: Metal. Color: Pantone 4287C or sim. • Rooftop mechanical units screened within brick parapet • Doors and Windows: Marvin Ultimate Clad Exterior. Color: Marvin Bahama Brown, similar to Pantone 439C. (Atrium entry door color: Pantone 4101C or sim.) Hardware: rubbed bronze. • Shutters: Metal, bi-fold, operable. Color: Match Marvin Bahama Brown, similar to Pantone 439C. • Balconies and railings: Metal (rectangular rails, round pickets). Color: Pantone 4287C or sim. • Decking at balconies: Black Locust boards, clear finish. (Applicant has noted the deck boards will be spaced to allow drainage.) Lighting • Type A. Sconce (parking): Lithonia Lighting, WDGE2 LED P3 o Dimmable available, CT 3000K, CRI 90, BUG 1-0-0 • Type B. Wall light (parking): Lightway Industries Inc, PDLW-12-LED-11W o Dimmable available, CT 3000K – 4,000K, CRI 80 • Type C. Step light (path): Eurofase Lighting, 31590-013 o Not dimmable, CT 3,000K, CRI 80 • Type D. (Omitted.) • Type E. (Omitted.) • Type F. (Omitted.) • Type G. (Omitted.) • Type H. (Omitted.) • Balconies: No exterior light fixtures. The applicant noted that the balconies are shallow and ambient lighting from the interior will be sufficient. Color Palette • Clad windows and French doors: Marvin Bahama Brown, similar to Pantone 439C. (Atrium entry door color: Pantone 4101C or sim.) Hardware: rubbed bronze. • Metal railings and balcony frame: dark gray, Pantone 4287C or sim. • Black Locust balcony decking: clear finish Landscape and Site Work • Two (2) mature Deodora cedars will remain. • Construction will require the removal of five (5) trees: o One (1) 36” Ash (Submittal includes arborist letter) o Three (3) 8” Dogwood o One (1) 10” Maple o Note: The 18” tree noted on the plan is no longer standing. • New plantings: o a. Three (3) Blackgum (Nyssa Sylvatica): ▪ At the east side of Wyndhurst ▪ Note: On the City’s Tree List o b. Five (5) Thornless Honeylocust (Gleditsia Triacanthos): ▪ On the south, to the rear of the Preston Court Apartments ▪ Note: On the City’s Tree List o c and j. White Fringetree (Chionanthus Virginicus): ▪ While not on the City’s Tree or Shrub lists, White Fringetree is identified as being native to the central Virginia. (In 1997, the Virginia Native Plant Society named it the Wildflower of the Year.) • https://plants.sc.egov.usda.gov/home/plantProfile?symbol=CHVI3 o d. Appalachian Sedge (Carex Appalachica): ▪ Groundcover typical at planting beds 3 BAR Meeting Minutes October 21, 2021 ▪ While not on the City’s Tree or Shrub lists, it is listed as native to central Virginia. • https://plants.sc.egov.usda.gov/home/plantProfile?symbol=CAAP5 o e. Dart’s Gold Ninebark (Physocarpus Opulifolius); Alternative: Smooth Sumac (Rhus Glabra): ▪ Hedge at driveway and above retaining wall at driveway/parking entrance. ▪ Note: In lieu of the metal planters on the all, the plantings will be at the top and hang down over the wall as they grow. ▪ Both on the City’s Tree List o f. Pipevine (Aristolochia Macrophylla) and Woodbine (Clematis Virginiana). ▪ Climbing plant intended to spread and cover wall at driveway/parking entrance ▪ Note: While not on the City’s Tree or Shrub lists, Pipevine and Woodbine are both listed as native to central Virginia. • https://plants.sc.egov.usda.gov/home/plantProfile?symbol=ARMA7 • https://plants.sc.egov.usda.gov/home/plantProfile?symbol=CLVI5 o i. One (1) Tulip Poplar (Liriodendron Tulipifera): ▪ At driveway ▪ On the City’s Tree List • Alteration to the (west) stone patio at the existing house • Path: Concrete • Patio: flagstone paving. • Low walls: fieldstone with bluestone caps • Electrical transformers to be screened. • Parking: below grade, accesses from west via Preston Place • Driveway wall: fieldstone with climbing plants—incl. Woodbine and Pipevine. o Note: The previous design indicated a metal rail at the top of the wall, which is not shown on the current drawings; however, it will be installed if required by code. Discussion Regarding historic designation Local This property, including the house, was first designated by the City as an IPP. When the City later established the Rugby Road-University Circle-Venable Neighborhood ADC District, Wyndhurst was incorporated into the district. State and federal Wyndhurst is listed on the Virginia Landmarks Register and the National Register of Historic Places as an individual site (https://www.dhr.virginia.gov/historic-registers/104-0048/) and as a contributing structure to the Rugby Road-University Corner Historic District (https://www.dhr.virginia.gov/historic-registers/104-0133/). Regarding prior BAR actions In October 2019, the BAR denied a CoA to construct a parking lot at this site. December 2019, upon appeal, City Council upheld the BAR’s action. The following summary may be helpful. (The formal record begins on page 299 of: http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/794415/AGENDA_20191202Dec02.pdf) In denying this CoA request, the BAR cited the ADC District Guidelines for Site Design and Elements (Chapter II). The BAR noted the direction provided in the Introduction (section A): “The relationship between a historic building and its site, landscape features, outbuildings, and other elements within the property boundary all contribute to a historic district’s overall image. Site features should be considered an important part of any project to be reviewed by the Board of 4 BAR Meeting Minutes October 21, 2021 Architectural Review.” The BAR noted that the request conflicts with the provisions of Parking Areas and Lots (section F), including: “4. Avoid creating parking areas in the front yards of historic building sites.” “8. Provide screening from adjacent land uses as needed.” And “10. Select lighting fixtures that are appropriate to a historic setting.” The BAR cited guidance from the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties [aka Secretary’s Standards], which are included by reference in the ADC District Guidelines. Specifically, from Alterations and Additions for a New Use (page 146), the Secretary’s Standards recommend against “Locating parking areas directly adjacent to historic buildings where vehicles may cause damage to buildings or landscape features or when they negatively impact the historic character of the setting if landscape features and plant materials are removed.” The BAR cited sections of the City Code for Historical Preservation and ADC Districts. Specifically, Sec. 34-271 - Purposes: The City of Charlottesville seeks, through the establishment of its several historic districts and through the protection of individually significant properties, to protect community health and safety, to promote the education, prosperity and general welfare of the public through the identification, preservation and enhancement of buildings, structures, landscapes, settings, neighborhoods, places and features with special historical, cultural and architectural significance. To achieve these general purposes, the City of Charlottesville seeks to pursue the following specific purposes: … (2) To assure that, within the city's historic districts, new structures, additions, landscaping and related elements will be in harmony with their setting and environs[.] Staff Recommendations If approval is considered, staff recommends the following conditions: • Requiring that all lamping be dimmable, if that option is available with the specified light fixtures, the Color Temperature not exceed 3,000K, and the Color Rendering Index is not less than 80, preferably not less than 90. • Underground the new electrical service. • During construction, protect the existing stone walls and curbs within the public right of way. Provide documentation prior to construction. If damaged, repair/reconstruct to match prior to final inspection. • Recommendation [to the city traffic engineer] on the proposed driveway width. No site plan has been submitted for the proposed new work. During the site plan review process, it is not uncommon to see changes that alter the initial design. In considering an approval of the requested CoA, the BAR should be clear that any subsequent revisions or modifications to what has been submitted for that CoA will require a new application for BAR review. Additionally, the 1920 and c1965 Sanborn maps indicate this site has been undisturbed for at least the last 100 years. The City’s Comprehensive Plan recommends that during land disturbing activities in areas likely to reveal knowledge about the past developers be encouraged to undertake archeological investigations. Additionally, the Secretary’s Standards, as referenced in the Design Guidelines, recommends that archeological resources should be protected, with mitigation measures should they be disturbed. A Phase I archeological level survey would be appropriate at this site. Mr. Lahendro – I do wish that there was something about the comments made at the last meeting. I have trouble remembering. I am more interested in what was said the last time we saw this. It has the most relevance for what we’re seeing tonight. I would ask the applicant, as they present this, to point out those things that have been changed since the last meeting and if any changes were made as a result of comments made by us. 5 BAR Meeting Minutes October 21, 2021 Ms. Lewis – My question was about comments from neighbors and the public about the preservation of Wyndhurst (the historic structures itself). I wandered if staff could possibly address the duty of a property owner to maintain the building. It is relevant to this application. Mr. Werner – If a property within a historic district or an IPP (Individually Protected Property) is determined to be detrimental to the character of the district, there are provisions the city can use to cite the owner with a zoning violation. The BAR could initiate that. I would meet with zoning staff to issue a letter making recommendations. I have not had to deal with that. It would take a little bit of research for me to know the steps and responses. I know that this house had been approved to be moved down the street. We would have to say what we are citing them for or what the issues are that are causing it to have a detrimental effect on the historic character of the district and on the site. Kevin Riddle, Applicant – I want to emphasize the significant efforts that we have been making along this process to start and maintain a conversation with everybody in the neighborhood. It has been going on for some time beginning after that formal meeting we had with you back in September, 2020. As the design has progressed, we have hosted multiple meetings with the neighbors: October 29, 2020, January 25, 2021, and January 27, 2021. We have exchanged numerous emails with neighbors and concerned citizens with Preservation Piedmont. After the last BAR meeting, we held another meeting on August 25th on site that was attended by neighbors to further discuss the project. We have made a robust effort to initiate conversation with interested parties to keep the conversation going. I believe that we have a pretty comprehensive understanding of the neighbor’s differences with our proposal. Where we haven’t addressed components of their critique, it is not for a lack of listening. It mostly boils down to differences in the strategies that we prefer when designing a new building in an older neighborhood. In the last meeting, we proposed a building with a primarily stucco exterior. Several members of the BAR didn’t support this choice. We have returned to an earlier variation that we presented 4 or 5 months ago that is clad in a red brick veneer. Many of you expressed reservations about the stair in the previous version being open on one side. The stair is now enclosed. The entry remains prominent with a copper structure replacing the open recess. Mr. Lahendro pointed out several of the proposed walks and adjacent site walls could endanger the two cedar trees. Those trees are very important. We have relocated the north-south walk to be several feet farther away from the nearest cedar. We’ve eliminated a low site wall that was previously shown along the west edge of that walk. That walk is simply one at grade. There won’t be the kind of significant disturbance with the foundations for the wall. There was also an east/west walk that previously extended from the building’s entrance down to Preston Place. We’ve eliminated that walk. We realized the presence of the trees there near Preston Place are so close that introducing a new city sidewalk on that side of Preston Place wouldn’t be practical. That walk we had previously shown going out to the street would have terminated where the paving is. We already have an existing sidewalk that runs along the north side of the Preston Court Apartments. That can be used and that allows for a pedestrian connection to the proposed building with a lot less disturbance to the site. In the last meeting, James brought up the potential to re-orient the building with the entry facing south instead of facing the street. It was pretty late in the meeting. We weren’t able to respond to that comment. We have studied a lot of variations on this proposal. Among them, we have considered the implications of a re-oriented project where the new apartment building would have a parent if not actual frontage adjacent to the Preston Court Apartments. Accompanying this idea, we felt it was vital to pull the south wall off the proposed building so it would align with Wyndhurst. If we didn’t do this, the perception of a new frontage shared with Wyndhurst would be lost. The west building elevation along Preston Place would also become harder to proportion without that recessed entry that we currently have. However, this alignment with Wyndhurst would severely reduce the overall size of the building. To compensate, we considered what the outcome would be if we added an 6 BAR Meeting Minutes October 21, 2021 entire story to the project. We realized, not only this would introduce new objections about building height, we would have to introduce an egress stair. That would effectively nullify any 4th story gains. Programmatically, this solution didn’t come together. In the previous meeting, several members observed that more space between the proposed building and Wyndhurst would benefit the project. We moved the east wall of the apartment building two feet farther away from Wyndhurst. That leaves a terrace that is more than 15% deeper than what it was with the last design. In August, Breck noted that it was unlikely that the elevated recessed planting boxes we proposed in the driveway wall would actually support plantings through the winter. We took that advice and we have eliminated them. We now propose that pipevine would be planted along the top of the north driveway wall. It could be allowed. With it being a stone wall, it has the potential to be a fairly handsome wall even if it is rather tall. The planting developing over time would only enhance it. When the plantings are immature, it will still be a nice feature. Breck was also concerned about shagbark hickories that we had proposed and that they may not thrive in this setting. Instead of hickories, we now propose thornless honey locusts. They occupy a row south of the proposed building. QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC Elizabeth Turner – Where is the view from the north side of the proposed apartment building? That is the view from the house that is next door. I don’t see it. We don’t see the proximity of the house next door. I see a lot of drawings that relate to the Preston Apartments. I see some drawings that relate to Wyndhurst. That is not quite clear. Do the drawings account for this apartment building next to a house? The second question has to do with the proposed grading between the Preston Court Apartments and the new proposed building and the house to the north of the apartment building. I am interested in the grading in relation to those properties and runoff. Have they accounted for runoff? How are they mitigating that landscaping and grading? I am concerned about that in relation to the preservation of the trees. One of the walls has been removed. I want to know how they’re digging and what they’re doing with the runoff. Mr. Riddle – Ms. Turner was asking about a perspective view looking down Preston Place from a vantage north of the project. We don’t have a perspective view in this package looking that direction. We do have elevations. We have two elevations. One that is fairly expansive that does include Wyndhurst. We thought that would be sufficient along with multiple perspectives that we show, including one that does show from the east side with Wyndhurst in the foreground and the proposed building in the background. Regarding issues with the site and runoff, those are issues that we will end up resolving with the civil engineers as the site plan develops. Mr. Werner – This project will require a site plan review. No site plan has been submitted for the proposed new work. During the site plan review process, it is not uncommon to see changes that alter the initial design. In considering an approval of a requested COA, the BAR should be clear that any subsequent revisions or modifications to what has been submitted for that COA. If the site plan alters what was approved, they would have to resubmit a new BAR review. The drainage questions and tree protections are handled in the site plan. If there are conditions about where things are being put and kinds of trees, those will be incorporated into the site plan. You do not review drainage issues. Larry Goedde – I have a question about the preservation. What is the status of Wyndhurst relative to this building? On the maps, they are shown as being a single parcel. The developers have insisted that Wyndhurst is separate. There is this development they’re putting up. We really don’t know what the condition of Wyndhurst is. We have heard that the roof is leaking badly. We’ve wondered if the building is being let go. Isn’t the historic building part of the parcel that is being developed? Shouldn’t 7 BAR Meeting Minutes October 21, 2021 it be a major consideration in any design that is being proposed? It looks like it is being overwhelmed by a proposed new building? Paul Wright – Currently, there is a massive amount of trash that sits in open cans on the tree protection line between the two properties. I would like to know how trash is going to be addressed by the building. Is there any place on this design for the parking of scooters and bicycles? Mark Kavit – I am trying calculate the number of units that have been approved for the future land use plan to know what we have. How many units will this project bring online? Lisa Kendrick – If you’re in that building at 625 Preston Place and looking towards the new possible building, how close is it and what is that going to look like? I am just down the street. The massiveness of the building is interesting to me. When Mr. Riddle was talking about predominantly brick, does that mean the front or the sides? When he said predominantly brick, I wasn’t clear on what that exactly means. Mr. Werner – 625 Preston Place is (if looking at the street map), the apartments on Grady are to the south. Wyndhurst is on 605 Preston Place and is on the parcel on the east side. 625 Preston Place is directly above that. Mr. Riddle – We have not been involved in any evaluation of the existing structure of Wyndhurst as part of our task. What we’re bringing to the BAR is a presentation of a new building. I am not in a position to talk about Wyndhurst and its condition. Regarding trash for this particular project, we have set aside an area within the parking level where the trash totters will be kept through the week. Regarding trash for the Preston Court Apartments, that is out of our purview. Regarding bike storage, we haven’t identified areas for bike or scooter storage. That is something we may potentially find space for that. We don’t have the number of units finalized. Our obligation is to make sure we stay within the density limit that the city zoning allows for. The elevations make it fairly clear that there is a lot of brick on the exterior. There is copper cladding on the new entry enclosure. It is a largely brick building. The distance between the proposed building and 625 Preston Place is a little over 29 feet. QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Gastinger – Can you explain more about the brick patterning that is visible in some of the perspectives? I noticed that there are two brick samples that are also shared as part of the details. Can you explain the intentions there? Mr. Riddle – To add some variation and a bit of character to the building. We thought some expressive brickwork could be useful. In the west façade, we are showing bricks laid with slightly projecting headers in the vertical line of a number of the windows. Up at the parapet wall, we are showing a brick screen where there are deliberate voids. We thought it might be a helpful way to break up the wall there and to add some visual variation to allow a little bit of seeing through. The walls will be sufficiently solid that the mechanical equipment can still be concealed. We’re proposing a mix of those two brick types by Meridian. We can provide samples in the future, if necessary should the project be approved. They are readily available. Mr. Gastinger – Those bricks will be mixed. It will be an even mix. The tonal change is textural and not a different colored brick? 8 BAR Meeting Minutes October 21, 2021 Mr. Riddle – We have attempted to be as accurate as possible with the illustrations. We’re not intending that there would be one brick set aside for the headers on top of the rest. It is intended to be a random mix. We thought those colors would be complimentary and keep the palate from being as quite as redundant as it might with one type. Mr. Mohr – In the previous version, we talked about reducing the throat of the driveway as it came to the street. I am not seeing that. I am curious what conclusion you came to there. Mr. Riddle – We are proposing that it could be as narrow as 18 feet if the city is OK with that. That would not be an extremely wide drive here. It was a clearance that that the owners were comfortable with. There is still a potential option there if it was necessary to bring it down further. We thought 18 feet was a comfortable width considering the number of cars served by this project. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC Christine Colley – My comments concern the architectural guidelines for control districts. The idea that new infill in residential areas should relate in footprint and massing to the majority surrounding historic dwellings. The guidelines suggest that sympathetic materials is one tool that designers can use to reduce the visual impact of the mass of new buildings. New material choices for this submission are more in tune with the surrounding buildings. The sympathetic materials are not used to address the fact that the mass and spacing created on the lot are very different from that of the surrounding properties. The historic district is open, airy, and green. In this submission, built forms, building, driveways, walkways, parking surfaces, and other hardscape fill most of the lot. Green and open spaces are minimal. The spacing of the proposed building in relation to Wyndhurst is tight and jarring. The effect of the new building is to obscure Wyndhurst rather than to relate it to the open respectful way that other buildings in the historic district relate to their neighbors. The building of Preston Court Apartments did Wyndhurst no favors. The design crowds Wyndhurst to the extent that the views of the older house from the street are fleeting. The architectural guidelines seem to clarify and give examples of how new buildings can relate to and respect the character of a historic district. Doing entails a great deal more than choosing surface materials from a list of those visible in the district. Lisa Kendrick – It is the same building we keep seeing over and over with a few tweaks to it. I do appreciate the openness that the applicant has had with asking for input. It works both ways. We have given multiple ideas and suggestions. I appreciate you hearing us. It is also mutual in that we are willing to give you input and feedback. When I look at this building, I see that it does not contribute to Wyndhurst. We just heard that Wyndhurst is not even being considered in this project. This whole site is a historical site. It has not been subdivided. Wyndhurst should be considered in the development of this new building. It does not contribute to the historical neighborhood. It is too large in mass and scale. We have seen this architectural firm do beautiful work that is cohesive and supportive of this community in the fraternity that they just renovated. This building that you are proposing on the Wyndhurst historical site does not reflect the talent that you have to make this historical site more beautiful and outstanding. I have sent multiple pictures of ideas to you. I just want that recognized. There has been feedback. It’s the same building. It is a loss of greenspace. The greenspace is part of the historical site. Genevieve Keller – I am speaking as a member of Preservation Piedmont. Preservation Piedmont has reviewed the Preston Place submission at the request of some of the neighbors. Our comments are consolidated from reviews of several members of our board. We certainly appreciate the adoption of the brick exterior. That helps the new infill building to recede and embraces a more familiar material 9 BAR Meeting Minutes October 21, 2021 palate. It fits better with the adjacent historic buildings. The open brick on the parapets is fuzzy if not necessary for air flow around the mechanicals could possibly be eliminated. Brick like the brick on the adjacent Preston Court Apartments would enhance the project further by adding more material quality. The subtle detail of this proposed brick is appreciated. The brick color and metal pladding color are not quite a red clay brick and green. They’re close enough to read as part of the entire composition of the three buildings. We also paid attention to fenestration and shutters. Please ensure shutters are required as a condition of approval so they are not eliminated at a later cost cutting phase. The fenestration, as shown, is appropriate and should be retained as a condition. The new drawings show a connection between the two sections of the building, as well as a defined entry way. We find them both to be significant improvements to the building design. Enlarging the door in the portico would enhance the project. There is still a great difference of 14 feet from top to driveway at the bottom. A planter at the base and the plantings shown in the landscape plan help reduce that visual impact. There are still guardrails around the retaining wall of the drive down. The stone base and retaining wall seem appropriate. Mr. Schwarz read the rest of the letter from Preservation Piedmont into the public record. Paul Wright – Lack of information about Wyndhurst condition is reminiscent of plausible deniability. Its historic preservation is in peril. I would hope the BAR would address that. Trash from Preston Court will be on this property. It is forbidden by this board. Approve a design that does not permit other buildings’ trash on it. There’s no way to address that. The lack of horizontal lines make the massing read as a slab and in need of different bricking details. The screening at the top invokes a sense of 70s architecture. UVA and the surrounding areas have strived to eliminate it with severe consequences. None of it exists. It has little relation to the overall neighborhood. The architect has done fantastic projects. I am aghast as to why I can look across the street on University Circle or up Rugby Road and ‘defy’ anyone to say that these were designed by the same people. Those buildings are historical, have modern details, and fit within a historic design context. The only people, who will help us, is you. If you don’t insist on it, this is what we will get. This is the 3rd/4th time we have looked at it. There is no better detailing. Only the BAR can help us. I hope tonight you will do that. Larry Goedde – I have been to most of the meetings with the architect. The architect simply ignored our comments from the beginning. The architect insisted from the beginning that this has nothing to do with Wyndhurst. It has everything to do with Wyndhurst. What they insisted from the beginning is that it is a by right design. Every time this was brought up, the neighbors asked about the historic district and the adjacent historical building. The response was “that’s not our concern. We’re doing this by right.” The Board should really consider this question. Wyndhurst is shown as being part of this parcel. What is being proposed clearly overshadows the historical building. It blocks it out completely from certain angles. This is something that needs to be considered. It is out of scale. I agree with my neighbors in their comments. Elizabeth Turner – I want to speak about the footprint of this building. It remains largely unaltered. The desire to maximize profit and to ignore the historic structure is a fatal flaw in this design. We need to consider scale. Referring to chapter 3 of your guidelines, which has to do with a structure not overwhelming the surrounding properties. 625 Preston Place is virtually ignored in this latest submission. That hole that comprises the driveway into the parking garage is a wall that abuts that property. We need to consider scale. We need to respect Wyndhurst, which is derelict property. The roof is rusting through. The building is leaking. The fastest way for a building to go down is to let the roof go. It’s a crime. I would encourage you to be vigilant about considering the whole parcel. We’re counting on you to respect the historic district and enforce the guidelines that are on the books. 10 BAR Meeting Minutes October 21, 2021 Jean Hiatt – I agree with a lot of the things that people are saying. I thank you for unanimously declining the August submission for the design of this building. The action did provide the time for the architect to go back to the drawing board, consider some recommendations, and create a building design that more thoughtfully respects this property and the Preston Court Apartments. Out of concern for the homeowners living nearby and the significance of this historic property, the best scenario would be to leave this piece of land open as part of the Wyndhurst landscape. Because of regulations in our current zoning law, the property owner has a right to construct a building. It is important to work towards a satisfactory design for this proposed structure. I was pleased to see that Mr. Riddle includes a connection between the two sections of the building. That is a significant improvement to the building design. I strongly recommend the new doorway and portico be enlarged. The entrance door appears to be the same size as the nearby ground window. That small size is counter to the doorway being a significant focal point of the entranceway. I appreciate the drawings incorporating windows with divided lights. That design reflects the windows in the nearby historic buildings. I hope the divided lights and shutters will be retained. The removal of the balconies would be a plus for the neighborhood. People hanging out on balconies would likely impact the nearby neighbors’ peaceful enjoyment of their homes. Please consider changing the design to show more of a distinction in the brickwork between the main façade and the foundation and the main façade and the cornice. Please include a requirement the developer adhere to Dark Sky Guidelines with shielded light fixtures. I am concerned about the current state of neglect of Wyndhurst Manor House. Richard Crozier – I support what Ms. Colley had said. She said it articulately. The proposed building is too big. COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Werner – Per the ordinance for the ADC Districts and IPPs, in considering a particular application, the BAR shall approve the application, unless it finds the proposal does not meet the specific standards set forth within this provision that would be within the Design Guidelines established by the Board or the proposal is incompatible with the historic, cultural, and architectural character of the district in which the property is located and the protected property that is subject of the application. Those are the reasons for denial or approval. In any statement of denial, you are required to establish why the denial was stated. Following approval of an application by the BAR, any aggrieved person may note an appeal of the BAR decision to City Council by filing a written notice of appeal within 10 working days of the day of the decision. If you (BAR) were to approve this, anyone who wishes can appeal that decision to City Council. However, there is fee for that. That is part of the BAR application. There’s a form to fill out. At the end of that 10 days, there is no opportunity for appeal. Should the BAR deny an application, the applicant may have the same opportunity to file an appeal with the fee and application. On any BAR decision, there is an opportunity for appeal to City Council. There’s no deadline for when something goes to Council. If the BAR denies something and the City Council upholds that denial, the applicant or property owner can appeal that decision to the courts. If you approved this, it is appealed to Council, and Council upheld the approval, that appeal to the courts is only available to the applicant and landowner. I just want to make sure everyone knows that you make decisions. You are not a legislative body. Your decisions are appealable to Council. That’s available to both sides of this argument. What you decide, if somebody disagrees with it, is not final. There is 10 days in which to take that action. I am citing from the City Code Section 34-286, City Council Appeals, Section 34-285, Approval or Denial of Applications by the BAR relative to the BAR conditions for approving an application from Section 34-284, BAR Review and Hearing. Those are the options that available so that everyone knows going forward regardless of the BAR decision. 11 BAR Meeting Minutes October 21, 2021 Mr. Schwarz – Can you explain the site plan process? I believe there is an opportunity for public input. Is that the case with this? Does this count as their public meeting? Mr. Werner – I know that there is public comment during a site plan. There is less discretion involved. There is more of a checklist involved. People can raise issues at any time. People can make comments to city staff. There is less discretion. I would look at a site plan from the design review. Mine would be to look at what you reviewed, what has been submitted with the site plan, and if they align. If they don’t align, is it a significant enough issue that it should be brought back to the BAR? Mr. Schwarz – It give some people an opportunity to understand. They can ask the site plan reviewers how that is going. Those would be opportunities for people to get a little more information. Mr. Werner – You can ask where the trash cans will be stored during the week. It can be a condition that the trash cans be stored in that underground space or inside those doors. Mr. Zehmer – In terms of the setbacks, is that applied to what is above grade? This driveway is right up on that property line to the north. Mr. Werner – That would be addressed during the site plan. That is a zoning question. The fact that it is underground, it is not in your purview. It would be something in the site plan that the zoning administrator would review it. Mr. Mohr – I believe the driveway has to be 3 feet off the property line. I am not sure where the retaining wall qualifies. I think that is the guiding principle. There seems to be a lot of distrust from the neighborhood about scale. That’s the one thing I am not reading here. If I look at this in the city map, Preston Place and Wyndhurst are large buildings. I see it as being a mediating presence between Preston Place and the smaller buildings. Wyndhurst footprints are very similar. The massing is different. It does a pretty good job of starting to break the scale down. One thing that is of interest to me is that by making the primary entrance off the pedestrian side street between Preston Place and the new structure, the entrance relationship is curiously backwards. If you flip the building, the way the notch works, that is a more appropriate way to approach the building. I realize that doesn’t quite work with the setback angle. It is something to note. The building has a notch right now. If I was to look at the plan, I would say its primary approach is either head on or from the north. If you were to mirror it or flip it the other way, the entry sequence makes more sense to me than facing Preston Place. Your stagger works better once you start having your entrance come from Preston Place. This does have some other issues in terms of the setback. The wider sidewalk should be facing down. It is more of an observation. It seems more counter intuitive. It is picking up the line of the street. That’s why the setback works like that. The capture of the L seems a little bit backwards given the primacy of the walkway. I don’t have a solution for it. I think having the centerpiece collected together in a closed fashion is more successful. I would be inclined to say that I would rather see the bulk of that the same color as the windows and the copper highlights accentuate the canopy and the front door. It is more recessive. It reads a little ‘funny’ to me relative to the other metal on the building. I agree with the comment from the Piedmont Preservation Alliance about the screened brick. It seems a little gratuitous. I do like the idea of using the hand molded brick. That really softens things at a street level considerably. I don’t have an issue with the massing. I don’t have an issue with the scale of it. Eighteen feet is better. I would much rather see something like twelve feet at the entrance. You can get a tree in there. That would soften that entrance 12 BAR Meeting Minutes October 21, 2021 a little bit more. A peninsula or something like that would pinch the entrance itself. It is not a high traffic area. That would be a more appropriate move from a scale standpoint and help create a little more separation from the house to the north. That two feet does make a difference between the two buildings. Whatever we do, there needs to be a commitment from the developer about properly maintaining and really taking care of the house next door. That’s part and parcel of this. Ms. Lewis – I wanted to thank staff for the three elevations and different perspectives reflecting the three submittals from the applicant. That was really helpful. That was extra work considering the agenda we have. Mr. Gastinger – Fringetree is a fantastic plant. I am concerned about its proposed location flanking either side of the Wyndhurst entry. That is a tree that can get 12 to 20 feet tall. It would substantially obscure that façade. I like the way it is depicted in the elevations. Something more in the 6 to 8 foot range would be more appropriate for allowing the reading of that house. I worry that it is going to ‘bury’ Wyndhurst a little bit. I fully support the undergrounding of power. Given the locations of the power poles and especially in proximity to the Deodora Cedars, any undergrounding should be coordinated with tree protection. I don’t want there to be an accident there. I agree with the public comment about some of the architectural detailing. Shutters were mentioned. This project has a nice combination of materials and detail. That is something we all expect and we need to continue to carry forward as part of our approval or vote on this project. I am also sympathetic with the condition of Wyndhurst. Given that this is part of the project property, I am supportive of whatever means we have at our disposal to ensure that the integrity and the water proofing barrier for that structure is intact. I do see them as combined projects even if Mr. Riddle’s firm has not been hired for that part of the renovation. This project has come some distance. It began with an appropriate approach to mitigating the scale between some difficult and nuanced circumstances. In the end this is a project that is actually properly scaled. What they have proposed breaks up the mass in a way that is appropriate to a residential neighborhood. It will give more consistency to that street elevation. The materiality is one that is appropriate. There are projects that should be a little more forward in their aesthetic. This one is smart to actually be quiet and recede. I especially appreciate the views looking at Wyndhurst with the project in the background. On SK 382, the darkness of the brick and the texture of the brick actually sets Wyndhurst out in a nice and elegant way. The brick detailing on the parapet did actually break down a little bit of the mass. It was an interesting addition. Mr. Lahendro – The most immediate historic context for this new building is Preston Place. I don’t know how we can ignore that. Preston Place and its connection to the residential neighborhood is awkward. It made an ‘orphan’ out of Wyndhurst. It was poorly conceived in terms of its location in the neighborhood. I have no problem with the design. I like that it is a little more modern. It is not trying to replicate Preston Place. It is changing its detailing. It is being quieter. I like these setbacks as the building goes from south to north. That is appropriate. It reduces the apparent scale and massing of the building as you’re going down that side street. I like the detailing, copper, and the brick screen in the parapet. I don’t have any issues with any of that. The only thing I would ask for is that as much separation between the property to the north and this property. If we can get enough separation to get in some larger plantings, I would love to see that. I can support what I am looking at. 13 BAR Meeting Minutes October 21, 2021 Ms. Lewis – I don’t have an issue with the massing. I do appreciate that the applicant pulled the building two feet off of Wyndhurst to give some space and respect there. The fenestration reflects the residential scale of apertures elsewhere on the street. The building also meets our guidelines. There are also buildings and similar outdoor spaces up and down Preston Place. The removal of a center sidewalk to reduce the disturbance to the front yard, especially the Deodoras, is a good move. There really is no sense of a sidewalk that will only lead to a one way street. This improves pedestrian circulation by leaving it south and joining it to the hardscape of Preston Place Apartments. The change to the brick and materiality, making it two tones, will make this façade rich. It will compliment other properties on the street. The primary one being Preston Place Apartments and other properties. The change to brick is one that is familiar with the material on the street. Generally, I am very pleased that the buildings, which were looking like separate buildings with a Motel 7 stairway in the middle, have been joined with the copper pladding. The entry way that has been created satisfies our guidelines. With regard to Wyndhurst, it should be a condition of our motion that the owner be required to maintain Wyndhurst. If there is any indication and complaint, the city will follow up within 30 days of receiving such a complaint from any neighboring owner or member of the public about the condition of this property. I understand it is outside of a Certificate of Appropriateness application. I agree with the neighbors, particularly Ms. Kendrick, who did note that this does impact a very historic structure. We can’t let it be, by dereliction, destroyed. Mr. Lahendro – I meant to thank the public for the observations about Wyndhurst. I would ask that the BAR consider asking staff to initiate legal inspections that are allowed to make sure that the Wyndhurst is not being demolished by neglect. We need to protect Wyndhurst. Mr. Riddle – The owner has assured us that there is a misunderstanding about the condition of the roof that it is definitely not leaking. He does truly intend to restore the house and to preserve it. That is the intent. It is not for it to fall by the wayside. Mr. Zehmer – The staff report with the three images comparing the submittals was very helpful. The divided lights was one of the biggest improvements that was made. It is also supported by Ms. Hiatt in her letter. It would be nice to try to make a condition to ensure that is retained along with the shutters. That really does add to the residential appearance. This has come a long way. I can get behind it. Mr. Schwarz – If it is in the application, we approve it. We want it to be there. If it comes out, we want to hear about that. I appreciate all of the changes that have been made. You have done everything that I have asked for in the last meetings. Your detailing is subtle. It is clean. It is still contemporary. It also has a residential scale and residential feel to it. It helps this project tie itself back into the neighborhood much better. There has been a lot of suggestions tonight. I don’t know how we are going to write those down. While I agree with some of them, I would be willing to approve this as is with some of the conditions that staff had put in the staff report. We need to figure out from everyone else whether that is approvable. Which of these conditions do we need to put on it? With the house, I don’t know how we can attach that to our motion. If there is concern for the house, we just need to make sure staff gets on that and confirms the condition and whether it is something that is a zoning violation or not. Mr. Mohr – On the lighting front, I can’t quite read the schedule. With those wall packs, what is lumen rating on them? Mr. Riddle – Lumen per lamp is 2,600. Mr. Mohr – Are they along the wall? 14 BAR Meeting Minutes October 21, 2021 Mr. Riddle – Yes. If you look at page 29, you can see a garage view of those on the wall. You can also see a couple that are called out along the driveway wall outside. Mr. Mohr – Are these going to be controlled or dimmable? Mr. Riddle – I don’t if we plan for them to be dimmable. They are intended to be motion activated. We’re glad to consider a condition of approval some re-evaluation of those lights. We might seek an alternative if the particular fixtures called out here don’t quite fit into the guidelines. Do you see them falling out of what is prescribed? Mr. Mohr – I am nervous about their lumen output. You are in a pretty dark neighborhood with a lot of trees. You actually need to see in there can be pretty low. I would worry about light pollution. Somebody mentioned Dark Sky. We don’t have a particularly good handle on lighting code at this point. The owners of The Standard went through some ‘pain and suffering’ on the West Main lighting. I would like to avoid that. One way to do that is if you have a dimming package on these, you can fine tune it even to the season. It seems that would be advisable since we don’t want to draw attention to that underground area. I would prefer to see you are able to control the lighting level. Mr. Riddle – This particular fixture does come with a dimming option. Mr. Mohr – It did look like it. You have it mounted low. You also don’t want that to read as a light well, particularly in that scale of a neighborhood. Mr. Schwarz – That is one of staff’s recommendations that all lamping is dimmable and the color temperature not exceed 3000K in the color rendering and not be less than 80, preferably 90. Mr. Werner – Lighting is reviewed as part of the site plan. That is an opportunity where I double check. Mr. Mohr – Having the dimmability and the flexibility would be good. Mr. Bailey – In looking at the staff recommendations, could we put the recommendation for a 12 foot driveway as opposed to an 18 foot driveway? Mr. Schwarz – We should recommend a width. Mr. Werner – That would be like what you have at Oakhurst. A recommendation that the city traffic engineer consider allowing flexibility. That would be the motion there. Mr. Riddle – Our concern is that if it is unlikely that the city engineer would be OK with it, can it be a condition? Are you hoping to apply leverage to the decision from the city? Mr. Werner – By code, the BAR can make a recommendation. You are able to use it in working with them. It is in the code to be applied in historic districts where there are constraints like this. There are reasons for the BAR to make the recommendation. That’s all they can make. There still may be an issue the traffic engineer can’t make the change. Mr. Mohr – How does everybody feel about the brick as selected? Preservation Piedmont suggested hand form brick. I like that idea. I didn’t hear anybody else second it. 15 BAR Meeting Minutes October 21, 2021 Mr. Schwarz – I like it. I am not going to vote against what they have. Mr. Lahendro – I feel the same way. There is certainly a financial implication. Mr. Schwarz – Some of the other conditions that were talked about tonight were the Fringetrees in front of Wyndhurst, modifying staff’s undergrounding of power; make sure it is done so with tree protection, pinching the driveway further, and the pierce brick. Are we OK with that? Mr. Werner – There is also a recommendation about archaeology. It can’t be a requirement. It does fall within something that you have recommended for sites of this nature. Mr. Schwarz – The other thing that staff had recommended was protecting the existing stone walls and curbs in the public right of way, provide documentation prior to construction, and if damaged, repair or reconstruct to match prior to final inspection. Mr. Gastinger – Several of us mentioned some concern about window condition at Wyndhurst. Ms. Lewis – I would support a condition that would say that the city cannot issue the Certificate of Appropriateness until a building inspector has inspected Wyndhurst. That’s the best we can do. Mr. Werner – I am not going to touch this. Relative to maintenance issues, there is a provision in the code that allows us to cite property owners. The zoning administrator and I can have a conversation about it. Honestly, I cannot advise you on how to incorporate that into a motion. Mr. Schwarz – If we were to put that into the motion and the city had a problem with it, would they strip it from there and the rest of the motion would stand? Mr. Riddle – The owner has informed us that his plans for Wyndhurst are being reviewed by the Department of Historic Resources. I don’t know if the information or evaluations that come from that could be useful in the motion that you are making. I don’t have information about the schedule when an evaluation would come from that body. It is currently being reviewed. Mr. Werner – In circumstances like that, I administratively review projects that have rehabilitation tax credits associated with it. The tax credits are not always applicable to all work. Is there something else that we can bring to the BAR? There has been a couple of those that we have looked at. I am not aware of anything. There is an agreement with the owner on what is done and how it is done and what is associated with it. It may not be everything. I would have to see that. I can’t comment on that. Mr. Schwarz – How many people would require Ms. Lewis’ motion amendment to be part of an approval for them to vote for approval? Mr. Lahendro – Would we say the same thing by making a motion saying that we direct staff to do what is legally possible to be sure that Wyndhurst is not being demolished by neglect? There are ordinances against demolishment by neglect. I would ask staff to find out what is the mechanism for making sure it is not happening. The review by the Department of Historic Resources is happening as a result of it being a contributing member or a historic resource and what will happen to it if development happens. There is no condition a survey being done. The issue of a leak in the roof and the building undergoing deterioration is not going to play into the DHR work and what they are doing right now. 16 BAR Meeting Minutes October 21, 2021 Ms. Lewis – If we are considering imposing a requirement of a phase I archaeological survey on land that hasn’t been inhabited for 100 years, I don’t know why we can’t send our own city officials out to look at a building. This is a city cost. This is what they’re supposed to do. I find it a lot less burdensome and a lot less troublesome legally as far as imposing something that is out of our purview or is burdensome on the applicant than I do with an archaeological survey. I would still like to see the survey. I would have liked to have seen the applicant offer that. Sending our own building officials out to look at a structure, with the permission of the owner, as a condition of this Certificate of Appropriateness seems very reasonable to me. Mr. Gastinger – The project has been presented as full in its documentation that the site plan wraps Wyndhurst. The perspectives include images of Wyndhurst intact. We are voting for approval of this building as a complimentary structure to an intact Wyndhurst. It is reasonable to assume to ensure that is the case. Motion – Carl Schwarz moves – Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find the proposed new construction at 605 Preston Place satisfies the BAR’s criteria and is compatible with this property and other properties in the Rugby Road-University Circle-Venable Neighborhood ADC District, and that the BAR approves the application as submitted, with the following modifications and recommendations: • We require that all lamping be dimmable, if that option is available with the specified light fixtures, the Color Temperature not exceed 3,000K, and the Color Rendering Index is not less than 80, preferably not less than 90. • We recommend undergrounding the new electrical service in a manner that protects existing trees • We require that during construction, the applicant must protect the existing stone walls and curbs within the public right of way. Provide documentation prior to construction. If damaged, repair/reconstruct to match prior to final inspection. • We make a recommendation to the city traffic engineer that the proposed driveway be 12 feet wide or as narrow as possible • We recommend that a smaller statured tree or shrub be selected from the City’s Master Tree List for the site of the currently proposed fringetrees in front of Wyndhurst • We recommend that all archaeological resources be protected and documented, and a Phase 1 archaeological survey be conducted • We require that City staff will follow up on concerns over the condition of Wyndhurst and determine if there are zoning violations. Ron Bailey seconds motion. Motion passes (8-0). The meeting was recessed for five minutes. D. New Items 5. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 21-10-03 485 14th Street, NW, TMP 090034000 Rugby Road-University Circle-Venable ADC District Owner: Hoo House, LLC Applicant: Greg Winkler, Kurt Wassenaar Project: Phases 2 and 3 - Renovations and rear addition 17 BAR Meeting Minutes October 21, 2021 Jeff Werner, Staff Report – Year Built: 1920 District: Rugby Road-University Circle-Venable ADC District Status: Contributing (garage in rear is non-contributing). Four square, Colonial Revival residence. CoA request for Phases 2 and 3 of a three-phase project. (CoA for Phase 1 approved in April 2021.) The applicant has requested that the two phases be evaluated and considered as a single CoA request. Phase 2 includes removal of the existing rear stairs and construction of a two-story addition. Phase 3 includes a two-story addition onto the Phase 2 addition. Note: Phase 1 included the planting of new street trees and minor site work. The rear garage is noncontributing, removal did not—or, will not--require BAR review. Phase 2 (paraphrased from April 2021 narrative) Replace the rear/porch with new addition. • Rear elevation of the phase II addition will be fully encapsulated as a part of phase 3. • Hardie Plank siding is intended to distinguish the existing house from the new addition and be consistent with the historical manner in which these additions have been traditionally completed in similar buildings nearby. Phase 3 (paraphrased from April 2021 narrative) Add two additional units to the building, per the maximum allowed by zoning. • Work follows the general size and proportions of the existing house except it is brick of a familial but contrasting color. The massing at the building setback lines on the Gordon Avenue front and is intended to be typologically consistent with the existing house but of its time. Window treatment will be consistent with the existing front house building. Materials for Phases 2 and 3 • Brick (Phase 3 only): General Shale. Color: Old English Tudor. (Mortar color not specified) • Siding: Hardieplank. Color: Cobblestone • Trim: Hardieplank. Color: BM HC-108, Sandy Hook Gray • Roof: Timberline asphalt. Color: slate • Gutters and downspouts: Not specified • Windows: Pella Architect Series, 1/1, double-hung • Doors: Not specified • Porch deck, columns, ceiling (Phase 2 only): Not specified • Balcony rails (Phase 3 only): Not specified • Landscaping: (See landscape plans in Appendix) Phase 2 retains a 6” cypress and a 18” locust; however, these will be removed in Phase 3. • Walkway: Not specified • Exterior lighting: Not specified • Location/screening of mechanical units and utility boxes: Not specified Discussion and Recommendations The BAR should consider the building elements and details necessary to evaluate the project. Renderings and schematics communicate mass, scale, design and composition; however a complete application should include details and specific information about the projects materials and components. For example: • Measured drawings: Elevations, wall details, etc. • Roofing: Flat, hipped, etc. Metal, slate, asphalt. Flashing details. • Gutters/downspouts: Types, color, locations, etc. • Foundation. • Walls: Masonry, siding, stucco, etc. • Soffit, cornice, siding, and trim. • Color palette. 18 BAR Meeting Minutes October 21, 2021 • Doors and windows: Type, lite arrangement, glass spec, trim details, etc. • Porches and decks: Materials, railing and stair design, etc. • Landscaping/hardscaping: Grading, trees, low plants, paving materials, etc. • Lighting. Fixture cut sheets, lamping, etc. Staff recommends that additional information and material specifications are necessary for a complete review and formal action; however, the general design and materials, as presented, are not inconsistent with the design guidelines. With that, while staff recommends this request be deferred, the BAR should discuss the project, as presented, and express any modifications, if necessary, and request the specific information that should be provided when this application is resubmitted. This project will also require a site plan review. Because that process may result in changes to the proposed work—landscaping, building footprint, parking area, etc.—by deferring this application any necessary changes can be incorporated into what is resubmitted for the BAR design review. Regarding a deferral: The BAR can defer this request, which would require the applicant resubmit the in time for the November 16 BAR meeting. Or, the BAR can accept the applicant’s request for deferral, which allows the applicant to choose the timing of any resubmittal. Additionally, it should be made clear that a CoA has an 18-month period of validity, which, if certain conditions are not met, can be extended for reasonable cause and at the applicant’s request. (Refer to Sec. 34-280 for the specific conditions applicable to the period of validity.) The requested CoA would apply to Phases 2 and 3 as presented, so the conditions for the period of validity apply to both. For example, if Phase 2 is initiated, but work on Phase 3 is delayed and the period of validity conditions related to Phase 3 are not met, a new CoA would be required. Finally, Sec. 34-277(a)(2)—below--requires that demolition of the existing rear porch be addressed as a separate CoA, not with the CoA permitting alterations. Staff erred in not making this distinction. Deferring the current CoA request will allow that matter to be properly resolved. Sec. 34-277. - Certificates of appropriateness; demolitions and removals. (a) No contributing structure located within a major design control district, and no protected property, shall be moved, removed, encapsulated or demolished (in whole or in part) unless and until an application for a certificate of appropriateness has been approved by the BAR, or the city council on appeal, except that: (2) Where the moving, removing, encapsulation or demolition of any contributing structure or protected property will disturb or affect fewer than twenty-five (25) square feet, total, of exterior wall, roof or other exterior surfaces, such activity shall be deemed an alteration subject to the review process set forth within section 34-275, above. Kurt Wassenaar, Applicant – This is an update of Phase I that you approved back in April. We have successfully found a company to restore the windows. Those are now being completed. There were no new windows added to the building. The existing windows were restored. We were able to save the ceiling wood, which is a B board trim. That’s being saved and restored. There was some question about the deck material for the front porch. That is being replaced with wood. There’s some structural damage underneath that. We’re replacing that with wood. There was a suggestion/requirement that we replace the railings with the railings that were done down the road at a similar project to this. We’re following those guidelines. I don’t believe there are any items we had on prior conditions that have not been addressed by us. It has been consistent with your recommendations and goals. I think we have everything done. We did have a survey of the site done. We are completely within the survey boundaries in our zoning envelope for all of the building parts. I don’t know if there are any issues 19 BAR Meeting Minutes October 21, 2021 where the building is outside of anything. It would not change from the zoning envelope. I think everything you’re seeing is within your purview and not a zoning related issue relative to the building envelope. The existing backyard structure is pretty close to collapse. We did look at trying to work with it. It is really gone. We are planning on taking it off and using it as a link piece. I don’t know if there are any outstanding issues on the existing Phase I piece. With Phase II, there are some code-related issues of the existing house that need to be addressed. They conform under the existing building code. They’re really not up to code standards that the owner is comfortable with. The Phase II part is a two story addition. It does include a rear fire exit and a rear fire stair, which is conforming to the current code. That was a safety issue we wanted to address as well as providing a living space for the 2 four bedroom units that are on the two floors of the existing building. There is a front porch on the existing Phase II building. This is the 2nd floor. It is a common bathroom, living room, etc. We have finished construction drawings for these projects. We’re happy to provide the full drawings. (Next Slide) This is the proposed Phase II side elevation from Gordon Avenue. We’re just trying to work with the typology of the building. You had requested that we shift the eave line in the rear section to distinguish it from the original house. We shifted the colors on that to more properly contrast the existing trim and roof with the existing house with the new addition. (Next Slide) This is the rear Phase II addition. It faces the alley. There are parking spaces in front of the house. We did not show all of the plantings in front of this with these renderings. There are plantings that go along the base of that. (Next Slide) We’re just trying to follow the basic geometry and typology of the existing house. (Next Slide) This is a street view. We’re just trying to fit in with the existing houses and the buildings around it. (Next Slide) This is the view from the alleyway drive in with the Phase II configuration. We have parking along the back. We’re proposing a standard curb. The alley is gravel now. We will pave that back parking area. We do have back racks, which offset two of the parking requirements on the zoning. (Next Slide) This is a side elevation from the entrance of the alley looking at the back of the house. You can see two entrance doors. The door on the left is a door into the main floor of the ground floor unit of the existing house. The door on the right is the door to the stairway that goes up to the upper floor addition section. (Next Slide) This is the back of the Phase II addition. (Next Slide) This is oblique corner from the adjacent house looking at the backyard. There is quite a bit of yard there. (Next Slide) These are the specifications of the windows. These are the exact same window type on the project that we did down the road. These are consistent with the similar addition we 3 years ago up the street towards 17th Street. Roofing is hardy plank siding. We picked the trim colors to match your recommendations on the contrast you had asked us to provide. These windows are one over one double hung windows. With Phase III, the current plan of the owner is to build the second phase of the project right now. We’re working quickly to get the first phase done for January occupancy. We would proceed onto the Phase II work. I am aware of the validity period of the BAR approval. If the Board sought to extend this for us to save your workload down the road, I would certainly be happy to have any extensions you’re preparing to offer on this. There is a high probability that we will build it within the envelope of the current approval. This is the view from Gordon Avenue looking at the addition. We adjusted the building to fit the recommendations you have given us in April relative to the offset between the buildings. The door that you see is the door to the ground floor of the rear addition section. The stairway that you saw in the Phase II addition serves the upper floor apartments. There’s no other entrance door. (Next Slide) The new addition essentially wraps the existing Phase II addition. It is completely encapsulated by the Phase III work. It is on two floors. (Next Slide) This is the Gordon Avenue elevation. The end of the porch is cut off by the new addition. It effectively joins that stairway that you saw. It is effectively wrapping the end of the Phase II addition and encompassing that stair piece. (Next Slide) This is the rear elevation. We’re trying to do a little bit more long-term harmonious design. It will be the permanent solution to the design down the road. It has parking within 4 feet of the 20 BAR Meeting Minutes October 21, 2021 back of the building. (Next Slide) This is the elevation from the adjacent house. It is the connector piece on the other side. (Next Slide) This is the same oblique view from the alleyway looking across at the house. With the meeting in April, we took careful notes and tried to do everything you advised us to do. We agreed with the consensus opinion of the Board. We have been consistent with implementing the recommendations of the Board at that time. I hope that we’re coming to you with what you had asked us to do as completely as we could make it. (Next Slide) There are some nice trees across the back. We’re saving those. Staff mentioned that there were trees that we’re removing. Most of those are not survivable trees. They’re old and damaged. If they had been something we thought that was worthy of saving, we would have tried to do that. They’re not viable trees. They have been badly banged up by cars, kids, and everything else. (Next Slide) This is the material palate. We picked a contrasting brick color at the recommendation of the Board. As you know, city utilities are a mystery in places. Our contractor is excavating to try to find all of those, which is why we haven’t yet submitted a site plan. As soon as we are successful in identifying all of the utility pieces, we will be submitting the site plan. QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No Questions from the Public QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Schwarz – The windows show some heavy jams. Is that a graphical error? Mr. Wassenaar – Yes. The windows are the same that we had approved in the prior addition. Mr. Schwarz – It’s more the brick mold that goes around them? Mr. Wassenaar – We can give you additional detail that will match. We also modified the eave line to drop it a little bit so that the rooflines don’t conflict. They don’t portend that they’re emulating the existing house. Mr. Schwarz – Can you describe the two back, little balconies? Mr. Wassenaar – Those are just flat balconies with a railing that the doors open in They’re not protruding beyond the edge. We’re within a foot of the zoning envelope. We’re just trying to provide a nice living room experience off that backside of the building. Mr. Schwarz – Are they wood that is painted? Mr. Wassenaar – It will be a metal railing. Mr. Gastinger – You described a difference in the brick color. I sense a color difference in some of the renderings. Would you describe more about how they would compare/contrast? Mr. Wassenaar – We have dealt with this with the National Park Service guidelines on not trying to emulate or duplicate the color of the existing brick. The general rule is that we want shift the color enough that it looks different when you see it in various light conditions. That’s the goal. I think we did that. If there’s a question about that, we can certainly refine the design intent. The samples that we provided to you do that relative to the existing brick color. We just got a new color rendering that is going to give us a better ability to match the brick colors without having a problem with that. It’s been 21 BAR Meeting Minutes October 21, 2021 hard to get those exactly right because of the lighting and the variation of the existing brick that has aged on the existing house. The design intent is that it be a contrasting red brick that is different from the front house brick. Mr. Gastinger – It looks like a little bit more brown and lighter. How would you describe the difference? We just have the renderings. Mr. Wassenaar – The palate of the back of the house that we were working with was to try to go to more of a lighter color because of the mass of the building. It reduces the visual mass in that alley corner. It is obviously a subjective call. Mr. Gastinger – With Phase III, there are a number of plantings that are suggested in the renderings. Will we be receiving a planting plan? Mr. Wassenaar – Yes. That’s going to be part of our site plan submission. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC No Comments from the Public COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Schwarz – My one concern is the change in colors. It is obviously going to be new construction. Even the brick will obviously be new brick. You are just continuing the roofline. I know our guidelines are picky about breaking the roofline. You are recessing the roofline. I am not sure the change in colors was necessary. Mr. Wassenaar – We were following your suggestions. We thought it wasn’t a bad suggestion. Whether we got the colors right or contrast right, I am open to suggestions from my colleagues. It’s pretty open ended. The National Park Service Guidelines want there to be a differentiation. What that means is really anybody’s guess. Mr. Gastinger – I feel it is impossible to evaluate the brick with the perspectives. Relative to color, they’re washed out. It is hard to tell. We know, from the existing photos, that is a really rich, red brick. Seeing the two photos of a brick panel against existing, I can be swayed either way. The project is very straightforward and appropriate for the context. It just needs a little more detail, seeing the landscape plan, and some clarity about the brick intentions. Mr. Wassenaar – We have this new color emitter technology that we can actually do a map of the exact color frequencies of the existing brick. We’re limited in terms of what is available in the market place. We can come back to you with a review of the sample boards of what the actual color is. We may be able to get some of the brick as we do the demolition of that little chunk in the back and present that to you. Mr. Schwarz – If still stuck with COVID issues, you can also drop off a sample panel. Mr. Lahendro – I think it is impossible to match the existing bricks. You come as close as you can. It will be distinct enough to be able to tell that it is a later addition. I agree with Karl about making it deliberately different. That does worry me. I would say to get as close as you can. It’s going to be different. 22 BAR Meeting Minutes October 21, 2021 Mr. Wassenaar – That’s a subjective comment. I am hoping to consider the Park Guidelines to lead us in the direction of doing something that is contrasting so you don’t mistake the old with the new. This is such a small building on an intimate scale. If you want us to match, we can certainly do that. The shifts in the rooflines are enough along with the difference in construction. Mr. Lahendro – I guarantee you that the mortar joints will be different. There is so much that is going to be different even if you try to match it exactly. It’s going to read as a different building. Mr. Wassenaar – We have never succeeded in matching these things on historical restorations very well. In general, I favor a contrast than a badly matched attempt. Mr Lahendro – Putting a brown brick addition on a red brick building bothers me. We’re being asked for a COA approval for Phase III? I am worried about improving something that we know that the windows are shown to be wrong. Some other details are wrong on the packets we have received. Is that what we’re being asked to do? Mr. Schwarz – Staff has suggested that we defer this. It does need a little more information. It needs a landscape plan and some lighting. Mr. Zehmer – A deferral would be for Phase II and Phase III? Mr. Schwarz – Correct. We should have a good conversation. When the applicant brings it back, he knows exactly what he needs to do to get an approval. Mr. Zehmer – I want to be considerate of his schedule. If he is coming back next month and trying to get Phase II complete by January that might be tough. Mr. Lahendro – Would it help if we went ahead and voted on a COA for Phase II? Mr. Wassenaar – It would. That would avoid the brick problem. Mr. Werner – There are some details to know what we’re getting. It would be helpful. I am putting that out there to cover my bases. I think that it would be wise to split these up. That would help them. There is an investment going on in this expansion. Saving $125 on making this application is probably the best idea. It would be fine for you to evaluate it and make it clear that you’re approving only Phase II. There still might be some clarification points that you want to address. Mr. Mohr – It seems to me that we should hold it to the same standard we ask of other people. There’s nothing here that is going to be a problem. The applicant already has the construction drawings. As long as he shares the eave detail, column detail, and fachia detail, we’re consistent with how we treat other people. Mr. Lahendro – I would ask that staff be clear in what the applicant is lacking. Mr. Werner – It is always a struggle from a design review. Renderings are really helpful. Renderings can illustrate but they’re not construction drawings. I have had things come in where renderings look like the picture. That’s not what it was. I look at this and see a porch detail, porch ceiling, porch columns, and porch flooring. We have done awnings on the backs of buildings and asked for a section through how those are attached. It comes back to us. 23 BAR Meeting Minutes October 21, 2021 Mr. Wassenaar – If you want to make approval of the construction drawings for Phase II, we’re happy to do that. We’re close to be able to do that. It would be helpful to us to not to defer to November because of our construction schedule if possible. I respect the wisdom of the Board. Mr. Werner – We have a porch that is a prominent feature. I want to make sure we have gone to great length in discussing column details. Is there something going on here that needs to be expressed and articulated when it comes in, I am not “catching hell” for it? Mr. Wassenaar – Let us provide you with construction drawings of what it is. We’ll do that as part of a conditional approval. Mr. Schwarz – We can’t have staff administratively approve anything unless it has been fully described to us. We can say that staff can confirm what we discussed in the meeting has been achieved and has been met. If we’re going to approve this Phase II, we’re going to have to pick out some of these details in this meeting right now. Everyone is going to have to feel comfortable with you verbally telling us. For example, the porch columns appear to be round Tuscan columns. Is that what we’re seeing? Are they wood? Mr. Wassenaar – They’re wood, square columns because they’re a secondary column from the front porch. Mr. Schwarz – Is there any exterior lighting? Mr. Wassenaar – Yes. It is recessed lighting. The ceiling of that would be B board. The deck below, on the porch is a wood deck similar in type and construction to the front porch deck. Mr. Mohr – How does the building meet the ground at the porch and along the siding edge? Is that brick or concrete? Mr. Wassenaar – It is a concrete sub-piece that sits there. The front of that edge will sit up on it. We will match the windows from what we did in the other project that you have already approved. We can give you a detail on the fachia and soffits. Mr. Mohr – The corner boards look wide. Is that how it is going to go? Mr. Wassenaar – It is a narrower one consistent with the width of the hardy plank. Mr. Zehmer – What is the porch floor? Mr. Wassenaar – The porch floor is wood. Mr. Schwarz – The corner boards will be about 6 inches. Is that correct? Mr. Wassenaar –That’s correct. Mr. Werner – We have entablature on the front porch. We have a porch ceiling. That can be a guide. Mr. Wassenaar – We’re going to follow that. That’s the intent. 24 BAR Meeting Minutes October 21, 2021 Mr. Lahendro – As it has been pointed out, this is to be distinguished from the historic part of the building. We’re not looking to exactly reproduce the front porch. This is a secondary porch. Simplify the details that give the character without exactly matching. Mr. Wassenaar – The proportions need to be familial and consistent with an appropriate proportion with the front of the house. Mr. Schwarz – We have the lighting and porch construction. We have a better understanding of the trim boards. It will be a concrete foundation that will be exposed underneath the siding underneath the porch. Mr. Mohr – There needs to be freeze to the window heads. On the old house there is the jack arch and the freeze board? The rendering implies it is doing the same thing. Mr. Wassenaar – That is correct. In Phase II, there is no brick. We would include a detail for that in the Phase III submittal. Mr. Schwarz – With Phase II, you have a wide freeze board above the top of the windows. Is that the intent? Mr. Wassenaar – That is correct. Mr. Schwarz – I am trying to get you to verbally describe any of these questions. That’s the only way we’re going to be able to approve this tonight. We’re teasing out things. Can you describe the eave? What type of soffit is going up there? Mr. Wassenaar – It is going to be a hardy plank flat. The existing house is a Philadelphia Gutter. These gutters are going to be regular, aluminum gutters. Mr. Mohr – Set on a flat fachia at one by six? Mr. Wassenaar – That’s correct. Mr. Mohr – The windows in Phase II are down by a flat casing that makes up the difference of that jack arch to line up? Mr. Wassenaar – That’s correct. I can see this either way. I thought this was more appropriate. It’s really a secondary part of the typology of the building. It is more modern of its time. Mr. Mohr – I was wondering about taking the freeze board down to land on the casing lengths for the new part and have a distinction between how the window heads are handled. Mr. Wassenaar – My preference is what we have drawn here. I can see it the other way if that was important. Mr. Schwarz – For simplicity and if we are going to vote on this tonight, we probably want to leave it as he has drawn it. Mr. Wassenaar – I see the Phase II piece as a separate part of the building that is secondary to the main house. I don’t know if it needs mimic the detail on the brick part of the building. 25 BAR Meeting Minutes October 21, 2021 Mr. Schwarz – If we voted on this tonight, it would be without a full landscape plan. We understand what trees are going and staying for Phase II. Are we comfortable with that? Mr. Gastinger – I am comfortable with that. It doesn’t seem that there is any new proposed plantings or demolitions as part of Phase II. Mr. Werner – I understand that it is being expressed verbally so there is a record here. I am trying to envision this. It’s good. It’s difficult to not have a piece of paper. Two years ago, unless it was an administrative review, decisions could not deferred to staff. Things had to be addressed completely. Things seem to make sense at the moment. Mr. Wassenaar – I spent a decade on the Board. Mr. Gastinger – I don’t think there is much objectionable in the proposal. We’re spending way too much time on this project. Mr. Wassenaar – It is a simple building. It is not that complex of a building. Motion (Phase II) – Mr. Schwarz – Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find that only the proposed Phase 2 alterations and construction at 485 14th Street NW satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are compatible with this property and other properties in the Rugby Road-University Circle- Venable ADC District, and that the BAR approves the Phase 2 portions of the application, as has been verbally confirmed in this meeting. Those items include: • The porch will have wood square columns, with a beadboard ceiling, a wood deck. • There will be a concrete foundation. • The corner boards will be approximately 6” wide, to be consistent with the siding. • There will be a fiber cement soffit and a standard aluminum gutter. • There will be a tall frieze board above the window heads. • The only exterior lighting for Phase 2 will be in the ceiling of the porch, and will be dimmable, will have a color temperature that does not exceed 3000 K, and will have a color rendering index of not less than 80, preferably not less than 90. • The color of the siding and trim should match the paint color that is on the original house. Mr. Lahendro seconds motion. Motion passes (8-0). 6. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 21-10-04 310 East Main Street, TMP 280041000 Downtown ADC District Owner: Armory 310 East Main, LLC Applicant: Robert Nichols/Formworks Project: Facade renovation Robert Watkins, Staff Report –Year Built: 1916. In 1956 the north façade was reconstructed. The existing north façade was constructed in 1982. (The south façade may have been at this same time, staff will confirm.) District: Downtown ADC District Status: Contributing (Note: When the district was established, all existing structures were designated contributing.) CoA request for alterations to the Main Street (north) and Water Street (south) facades. The proposed work will alter the 20th century facades. Discussion and Recommendations The original, 1916 facades no longer exist. The proposed alterations will replace the contemporary facades constructed in the 1980s. The November 1980 National Register nomination of the 26 BAR Meeting Minutes October 21, 2021 Charlottesville and Albemarle County Courthouse Historic District does not include this address, nor do any of the building descriptions for this block match the current design. Unless the building [the facades] are of exceptional importance, it does not meet the 50-year threshold necessary for consideration for the National Register. https://www.dhr.virginia.gov/historic-register/ A Property that can be Nominated for Listing in the Registers should: • Have achieved historical significance at least 50 years prior to today and/or is of exceptional importance; and • Is associated with at least one of the following: o An important event or historic trend; o A significant person whose specific contributions to history can be identified and documented; o An important architectural or engineering design; or it represents the work of a master; or it is a distinguishable entity although its components may lack individual distinction; o Has the potential to answer important research questions about human history (most commonly these properties are archaeological sites); and • Retain physical integrity through retention of historic materials, appearance, design, and other physical features. There are two questions for the BAR to discuss: 1. Do the existing facades—together or singularly; as part of the mall or as a single structure; and due to age, design, architect. and/or other factors—contribute to historic character of the Downtown ADC and should they be protected? (Emphasizing that an ADC District is a City designation, and not dependent on state or national designation.) 2. If the facades are to be altered--together or singularly—are the proposed changes consistent with the ADC District Design Guidelines? Additionally, due to the unique nature of the existing facades, the BAR might consider applying components of the design standards for both New Construction and for Rehabilitation. The applicant has not specified the glass to be used. The BAR may request that information or address it as a condition of approval. In the Appendix is a summary of BAR’s July 17, 2018 discussion re: Clear Glass. Robert Nichols, Applicant – This building has two facades. It is one the few through buildings on the Mall. The owner of the property has come to us to replace them for performance and technical reasons and to give the building a better presence on the Mall. We’re presenting two full facades: Water Street and East Main Street. Both faces of the building have that familiar proportional rhythm that shows up on the Mall; a narrow component that is associated with circulation and entrance into the building, particularly the entrance to upper floors. A wider bay is dedicated to (at the street level) display of retail merchandise and goods. Both of these facades are working with those proportions. With the Mall side, one of the conditions that is going to remain in place is that elevator that creates the circular context shaft that’s been made of glass. We’re doing away with that enclosure and shape. The elevator is where the vertical circulation is taking place in that building. We have worked on keeping that as a vertical element and proportional element on the Mall façade. We’re between the old Hardware Store and the Annex to the Bank of America building. I have described the A/B vertical proportion associated with the elevator and the storefront/retail function and the occupyable office space. That is being conceived as a relative straightforward masonry/brick frame with a large aperture at the ground that is creating the vision and the passage with a double height aperture above where the two occupied floors are. There is a painted metal condition that divides the larger opening. To the left of the retail display is the entry to the retail area and the entry into the building proper and vertical circulation. Street numbering signage hangs in three dimensional lettering from the ‘header’ on the underside of the second floor. The brick is going to be a worn grey color. We don’t have a selection yet. I don’t have a sample. To resolve the relationship with the neighboring building, we have a ~6 inch recess and 27 BAR Meeting Minutes October 21, 2021 8 inches in width of the recessed panel in brick that will allow the corners of the neighboring building to be expressed and to avoid a continuous plane of the adjacent brick with the new brick. The vertical shaft condition is receiving a decorative treatment of charcoal and fabricated aluminum. What we’re currently working with is we’re looking for a density of ornament there. What we’re showing is a collection of rhythms and patterns using steel and ideally would be a bronze. We’re trying to see if we can get the effect we want using not much of it. It will be cost effective. This is not fully resolved. It is likely we will bringing you something that is fully resolved/resolution at another meeting. With the Water Street side, we have done a lot of work on Water Street. We think of it as a slightly ‘gruntier,’ heavier duty version of what is happening on the Mall side. This is the back end of those buildings or light industrial or warehouse storage buildings. We have developed this façade. Aside from the brick panels that bound the façade, the infill is all conceived of as an industrial metal profiles. That allows us to increase the glass size. We’re interested in getting as much daylight in here as we can. We have a very narrow building and a very deep floor plan. We’re paying close attention to daylight. We can’t illuminate this whole building. We have solar and glare issues. We have faced those before. We have strategies on the interior addressing that. This façade is largely about a lighter, metal structure that is creating these frames for relatively large apertures. We have a similar proportional strategy. We have a vision up above that narrow bay. The detail that I am showing here is that we’re intending to handle spandrel conditions with a coating that creates diffusion in the glass. That’s going to be the source of concealing the structure and the fire stop behind those horizontal bands. This is the floorplan at the Mall level. It goes a little bit deeper than the purview of the BAR. It may help you understand what is happening. You can perceive some depth there. You will pass into the public way once you cross that threshold. QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No Questions from the Public QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Zehmer – You have shown the address. Can you have the same address on both sides of the building? Mr. Nichols – I am not sure how they handle addressing. We need some identification for wayfinding on the Water Street side. I don’t have any clear idea what the rules are if that is just a backdoor. The intention is for it is to help people find it. If that means it changes, we can bring signage clarification. Mr. Werner – The primary issue with the posting address is for 911. There are things that you have to follow. I would suggest looking at the style of the lettering and numbering. There might be some signage on the window or door. When it comes in, it would be something you looked at. All of the signage requires a separate permit. Mr. Mohr – Are you rebuilding this entire building in this volume? Mr. Nichols – Yes. There’s going to be some interior work. It’s really incidental partitions. Mr. Mohr – When you talk about lighting, no skylights or any kind of roof scape? Mr. Nichols – At the moment, no. 28 BAR Meeting Minutes October 21, 2021 Mr. Gastinger – Can you describe a little bit more about the fritting strategy? If I understand it correctly, it is just in the spandrel. That is what is shown on the left side of page 5. It would not be the kind of opaque tone that’s suggested in the rendering. Mr. Nichols – It is not the full glass that is opaque. If we’re looking at page 5, the spandrel in the narrow portion above the street number is where the floor assembly is. That is concealed by opaque metal. On the other bays, there will be a transition to the frit. Mr. Gastinger – In the rendering on the Main Street side, there seems to be some different tonal values to some of the glass panels. That’s not any fritting? Mr. Nichols – No. Those would be uniform. For uniformity, you can refer to the panel on the left. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC No Comments from the Public COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Schwarz – I can’t find anything in the guidelines that would specifically bar us from approving this. There are still some things that need to be worked out. Unlike a residential project, there’s a lot of commercial construction. There is still a lot of unknowns. I would love to see a wall section. You’re showing a lot of depth. It would be nice to know how much depth is there and how these things are being put together. That would give you some time to figure out the artistic piece on the elevator. My recommendation is going to be to ask you to defer this. I see no reason that I would deny it. Mr. Gastinger – It is really elegant. I like the approach. The elevator forced you into really nice vertical proportions and taking it to the rear façade. Those are pretty successful. Mr. Mohr – For your solar control, and not just the relationship between the two facades, but on the south façade, you can maybe pick up some cues or elements from the elevator façade and repeat those in the back. That might be a way to address the fact that it is south facing. That’s why I was asking about skylights; thinking about ways to bring in light to the center of the building and carry that language through. Mr. Nichols – Are you talking about application on the Water Street façade in that narrow bay? Mr. Mohr – I am thinking there might be a way to take it to another level but also be able to control sunlight. Mr. Nichols – Do you have an interest in density ornaments? Mr. Mohr – Yes with depth in the façade. That’s a façade you can see that façade from a number of different angles. That façade gets pounded with sun. You have an intriguing language starting there. It gives you some depth of feel for your façade on the south side but also deals with solar control. Mr. Lahendro – I have no comments or objections to what is being proposed. Ms. Lewis – I am generally supportive of this project. I don’t find the current building contributes at all to the ADC District. That’s a threshold question we’re asked to address. 29 BAR Meeting Minutes October 21, 2021 Mr. Nichols – In addition to some modeling and drawing, we will get some physical brick samples to your hands. I will talk with staff about how to do that. Mr. Schwarz – I am glad that you focused us on the gray on that application. Applicant requests a deferral – Motion to Accept Applicant Request for Deferral – Mr. Schwarz – Second by Mr. Gastinger – Motion passes 8-0. Ms. Lewis did leave the meeting. E. Preliminary Discussion 7. Certificate of Appropriateness Application (HC District) 1615 East Market Street, Tax Map Parcel 110005000 Woolen Mills HC District Owner/Applicant: Jennifer and Lemuel Oppenheimer Project: Construct residence Note: Oct 6, 2021, owner requested prelim discussion in lieu of CoA review • All of the preliminary discussions are within Conservation Districts and there is no requirement for a preliminary discussion. • With a Conservation District, staff has a lot more latitude for administrative review. Staff is allowed to do this by ordinance. • Staff introduced this application to the Board. • The applicants have subdivided a parcel on East Market Street. Easier to add a new house versus adding additions to the existing house. • The spacing with the neighbor to the east might be a little slight. Not much to take issue with this project. • The only thing missing was a list of materials. • Mr. Gastinger brought up the need for a site diagram. Mr. Gastinger also thought that the house looked appropriate and was within the Guidelines. • Mr. Gastinger was curious about the spacing and setbacks when compared to the rest of the neighborhood. • The applicant is currently working with an architect on this project. The house will come up to the 25 feet and not so close to our neighbor to the east. • The applicant did have a question regarding solar panels. Staff did address the applicant’s question with solar panels. Solar panels are not a problem within Conservation Districts. Mr. Schwarz moves to authorize staff to perform administrative review for this project. Tim Mohr seconds motion. Motion passes (7-0, Lewis had departed meeting). 8. Certificate of Appropriateness Application (HC District) 700 Locust Avenue, Tax Map Parcel 510066000 Martha Jefferson HC District Owner/Applicant: Eric M & Galia Mann-Hielscher Project: Construct outbuilding • Staff introduced the application to the Board for a preliminary discussion. • This application can be approved administratively through current City Code. There were some questions regarding components of the application. • Applicant was eager to listen to feedback from the BAR. 30 BAR Meeting Minutes October 21, 2021 • Mr. Schwarz did ask about the plywood color. The applicant is going to be using cedar. • The applicant is willing to do whatever is asked by the BAR to do on the construction of this outbuilding. • Mr. Gastinger brought up how close to the street this outbuilding is going to be. • The existing garage is going to be demolished to make room for the new outbuilding. It is non- contributing. • The fence is going to remain. The new building is going to have an enlarged footprint • Mr. Mohr thought that the exterior to the new outbuilding was confusing. He thought that the brick was strange. • The applicant is planning to use cedar paneling on the exterior. 9. Certificate of Appropriateness Application (HC District) 1804 Chesapeake Street, Tax Map Parcel 55A141000 Woolen Mills HC District Owner/ Applicant: Emily and Anthony Lazaro Project: Construct addition • Staff introduced the proposed project to the BAR for feedback and suggestions. Staff would have no issues reviewing this project administratively. • The applicant doesn’t have a material list due to the prices of materials. • The timeline for construction was Spring, 2022. • Cedar does fall into the guidelines for the exterior. • Members of the Board agreed that this project is a Consent Agenda item on a future Agenda or have staff administratively review the project. F. Other Business Staff Questions/Discussion • Board is going to vote on a new Chair and Vice-Chair for the BAR at the November BAR meeting. • There is a lot going on in the town. There are a lot of planters popping up on the Downtown Mall. Garage Door at Hill & Wood 123 Bollingwood Preservation Awards Update on Administrative Reviews Brief Discussion on ADC District Guidelines PLACE Update G. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 PM. 31 BAR Meeting Minutes October 21, 2021 Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 21-07-05 350 Park Street, TMP 530109000 and 530108000 North Downtown ADC District Owner: City of Charlottesville and County of Albemarle Applicant: Eric Amtmann, DGP Architects [on behalf of Albemarle County] Project: New courthouse building (at Levy Building) Note: Courts expansion: If necessary, discuss possible Special Meeting Aug 31? Application components (please click each link to go directly to PDF page): • Staff Report • Historic Survey • Application Submittal BAR Packet Guide August 16, 2022 3 City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Staff Report August 16, 2022 Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-07-05 350 Park Street, TMP 530109000 and 530108000 North Downtown ADC District Owner: City of Charlottesville and County of Albemarle Applicant: Eric Amtmann, Dalgliesh-Gilpin-Paxton Architects [on behalf of Albemarle County] Project: Expansion of City-County Courts Complex (at Levy Building) Background 350 Park Street 0 Park Street Year Built: Levy Building 1852, Annex c1980 Year Built: N/A, parking lot District: North Downtown ADC District District: North Downtown ADC District Status: Contributing Status: N/A The Levy Building is Greek Revival, constructed with brick laid in American bond with Flemish bond variant. Three stories, hipped roof, three-bay front, heavy entablature supported by monumental stuccoed pilasters on brick pedestals, crossette architraves, and brick water table. Prior BAR Reviews (See Appendix, includes links to prior submittals and meeting videos.) Application • Applicant submitted: Fentress Architects drawing and presentation Albemarle County & Charlottesville City General District Courts Complex, dated August 5, 2022 (32 pages). CoA request for construction of an addition to the Levy Building and new construction related to the expansion of the City-County Courts Complex. Discussion Since October 2020, the BAR has had three formal discussions regarding this project—not including the December 2020 approval of the selective demolition. Recently, four members of the BAR met separately with the design team to review modifications and discuss what information the BAR needs to consider taking a formal action on the requested CoA. Following those discussions, Courts Expansion/Levy Building Aug 16, 2022 (Aug 9, 2022) 1 the design team revised the submittal documents and, on August 16 prior to the formal BAR meeting, will have at the project site material and color samples for the BAR to review. In these discissions, the BAR has referred to the criteria in the ADC District Design Guidelines, particularly Chapter III. New Construction and Additions and Chapter VI. Public Buildings and Structures. From Chapter III. New Construction and Additions • Setback, including landscaping and • Windows and Doors site improvements • Street-Level Design • Spacing • Foundation and Cornice • Massing and Footprint • Materials and Textures • Height and Width • Paint [Color palette] • Scale • Details and Decoration, including lighting • Roof and signage • Orientation From Chapter VI. Public Buildings and Structures, in • Public buildings should follow design guidelines for new construction. • New structures, including bridges, should reflect contemporary design principles. Additionally, the BAR has applied the provisions of Sec. 34-282.d (below) as a checklist for the information necessary to evaluate this request. Except for a 3-D model (per item 5), which the BAR did not request, the information submitted has been thorough, comprehensive, and responsive to the BAR’s requests and comments. Sec. 34-282.d 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. 5) 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. Suggested Motions Approval: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City Design Guidelines for Public Design and Improvements, I move the proposed courts expansion project at the Levy Building satisfies the BAR’s criteria and is compatible with the North Downtown ADC District, and that the BAR approves the application as submitted. Courts Expansion/Levy Building Aug 16, 2022 (Aug 9, 2022) 2 …as submitted with the following conditions [or modifications]: … Denial: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City Design Guidelines for Public Design and Improvements, I move the proposed courts expansion project at the Levy Building does not satisfy the BAR’s criteria and is not compatible with the North Downtown ADC District, and that for the following reasons the BAR denies the application as submitted:… Criteria, Standards, and Guidelines Review Criteria Generally Sec. 34-284(b) of the City Code states that, in considering a particular application the BAR shall approve the application unless it finds: (1) That the proposal does not meet specific standards set forth within this division or applicable provisions of the Design Guidelines established by the board pursuant to Sec.34-288(6); and (2) The proposal is incompatible with the historic, cultural or architectural character of the district in which the property is located or the protected property that is the subject of the application. Pertinent Standards for Review of Construction and Alterations include: (1) Whether the material, texture, color, height, scale, mass and placement of the proposed addition, modification or construction are visually and architecturally compatible with the site and the applicable design control district; (2) The harmony of the proposed change in terms of overall proportion and the size and placement of entrances, windows, awnings, exterior stairs and signs; (3) The Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation set forth within the Code of Federal Regulations (36 C.F.R. §67.7(b)), as may be relevant; (4) The effect of the proposed change on the historic district neighborhood; (5) The impact of the proposed change on other protected features on the property, such as gardens, landscaping, fences, walls and walks; (6) Whether the proposed method of construction, renovation or restoration could have an adverse impact on the structure or site, or adjacent buildings or structures; (7) Any applicable provisions of the City’s Design Guidelines. Pertinent ADC District Design Guidelines Links to the 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 Index Chapter II – Site Design and Elements A. Introduction The relationship between a historic building and its site, landscape features, outbuildings, and other elements within the property boundary all contribute to a historic district’s overall image. Site Courts Expansion/Levy Building Aug 16, 2022 (Aug 9, 2022) 3 features should be considered an important part of any project to be reviewed by the Board of Architectural Review. There is much variety in site design and elements between and within the various historic districts in Charlottesville. The commercial areas of the downtown mall, West Main Street Corridor and the Corner, generally have few site features since the buildings usually cover much of the lot and have very limited setbacks. The early nineteenth century rowhouses near the courthouse are similar to commercial lot coverage with the exception that some may have a very small front yard with limited foundation or ground cover plantings. Many of the nineteenth century dwellings in the North Downtown area and along parts of Ridge and Wertland streets also have limited setbacks and are spaced closely together. In these cases there are small front yards composed of grass or ground cover and often containing large canopy trees. The edges of these areas often are planted with low shrubs or flower beds, and the houses are surrounded by foundation plantings. Iron fences, hedges or low stone walls may separate the homeowner’s property from the public sidewalk. In other parts of the North Downtown area, particularly along Park Street, many of the dwellings are sited on larger lots and are placed further back on the lot. In these cases the front yard is a large lawn defined by border plantings and usually a low stone retaining wall or iron fence. Some have larger boxwood hedges and rows of box defining the entrance walkway. Large canopy trees, smaller ornamental trees and flower beds are additional elements often found within these spaces. The resulting character of many of the residential streets in the historic districts is one of lush plantings and mature shade trees. While there may be much variety within the house types and styles along a particular street, the landscape character ties together the setting and plays an important role in defining the distinctiveness of the districts. When making changes to a property within one of the historic districts, the entire site should be studied to better understand its original design and its context within its sub-area. When planning changes to a site in a historic district, create a new plan that reflects the site traditions of the area and that fits the scale of the lot. Consider using different types and scales of plantings that will create scale, define edges and enclose outdoor spaces of the site. The following sections provide more specific guidance. The elements of urban landscapes, parks, and other open spaces in public ownership, including sidewalks, streets, plantings, street furniture, and street lighting also contribute to the character of the district and are discussed in Chapter 6: Public Improvements. 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. Courts Expansion/Levy Building Aug 16, 2022 (Aug 9, 2022) 4 6) When constructing new buildings, identify and take care to protect significant existing trees and other plantings. 7) Choose ground cover plantings that are compatible with adjacent sites, existing site conditions, and the character of the building. 8) Select mulching and edging materials carefully and do not use plastic edgings, lava, crushed rock, unnaturally colored mulch or other historically unsuitable materials. C. Walls and Fences 1) Maintain existing materials such as stone walls, hedges, wooden picket fences, and wrought- iron fences. 2) When a portion of a fence needs replacing, salvage original parts for a prominent location. 3) Match old fencing in material, height, and detail. 4) If it is not possible to match old fencing, use a simplified design of similar materials and height. 5) For new fences, use materials that relate to materials in the neighborhood. 6) Take design cues from nearby historic fences and walls. 7) Chain-link fencing, split rail fences, and vinyl plastic fences should not be used. 8) Traditional concrete block walls may be appropriate. 9) Modular block wall systems or modular concrete block retaining walls are strongly discouraged but may be appropriate in areas not visible from the public right-of-way. 10) If street-front fences or walls are necessary or desirable, they should not exceed four (4) feet in height from the sidewalk or public right-of-way and should use traditional materials and design. 11) Residential privacy fences may be appropriate in side or rear yards where not visible from the primary street. 12) Fences should not exceed six (6) feet in height in the side and rear yards. 13) Fence structures should face the inside of the fenced property. 14) Relate commercial privacy fences to the materials of the building. If the commercial property adjoins a residential neighborhood, use a brick or painted wood fence or heavily planted screen as a buffer. 15) Avoid the installation of new fences or walls if possible in areas where there are no are no fences or walls and yards are open. 16) Retaining walls should respect the scale, materials and context of the site and adjacent properties. 17) Respect the existing conditions of the majority of the lots on the street in planning new construction or a rehabilitation of an existing site. D. Lighting 1) In residential areas, use fixtures that are understated and compatible with the residential quality of the surrounding area and the building while providing subdued illumination. 2) Choose light levels that provide for adequate safety yet do not overly emphasize the site or building. Often, existing porch lights are sufficient. 3) In commercial areas, avoid lights that create a glare. High intensity commercial lighting fixtures must provide full cutoff. 4) Do not use numerous “crime” lights or bright floodlights to illuminate a building or site when surrounding lighting is subdued. 5) In the downtown and along West Main Street, consider special lighting of key landmarks and facades to provide a focal point in evening hours. 6) Encourage merchants to leave their display window lights on in the evening to provide extra illumination at the sidewalk level. Courts Expansion/Levy Building Aug 16, 2022 (Aug 9, 2022) 5 7) Consider motion-activated lighting for security. 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. F. Parking Areas and Lots 1) If new parking areas are necessary, construct them so that they reinforce the street wall of buildings and the grid system of rectangular blocks in commercial areas. 2) Locate parking lots behind buildings. 3) Screen parking lots from streets, sidewalks, and neighboring sites through the use of walls, trees, and plantings of a height and type appropriate to reduce the visual impact year-round. 4) Avoid creating parking areas in the front yards of historic building sites. 5) Avoid excessive curb cuts to gain entry to parking areas. 6) Avoid large expanses of asphalt. 7) On large lots, provide interior plantings and pedestrian walkways. 8) Provide screening from adjacent land uses as needed. 9) Install adequate lighting in parking areas to provide security in evening hours. 10) Select lighting fixtures that are appropriate to a historic setting. H. Utilities and Other Site Appurtenances 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. Chapter III – New Construction and Additions A. Introduction The following guidelines offer general recommendations on the design for all new buildings and additions in Charlottesville’s historic districts. The guidelines are flexible enough to both respect the historic past and to embrace the future. The intent of these guidelines is not to be overly specific or to dictate certain designs to owners and designers. The intent is also not to encourage copying or mimicking particular historic styles. These guidelines are intended to provide a general design framework for new construction. Designers can take cues from the traditional architecture of the Courts Expansion/Levy Building Aug 16, 2022 (Aug 9, 2022) 6 area, and have the freedom to design appropriate new architecture for Charlottesville’s historic districts. These criteria are all important when considering whether proposed new buildings are appropriate and compatible; however, the degree of importance of each criterion varies within each area as conditions vary. For instance, setback and spacing between buildings may be more important than roof forms or materials since there is more variety of the last two criteria on most residential streets. All criteria need not be met in every example of new construction although all criteria should be taken into consideration in the design process. When studying the character of a district, examine the forms of historic contributing buildings and avoid taking design cues from non-contributing structures. There may be the opportunity for more flexibility in designing new buildings or making an addition depending on the level of historic integrity of a particular area. Some parts of the historic districts retain a high degree of their original historic character. In these areas care should be taken to ensure that the new design does not visually overpower its historic neighboring buildings. In other areas where there are more non-contributing structures or more commercial utilitarian buildings, new designs could be more contemporary and the Board of Architectural Review (BAR) may be more flexible in applying these guidelines. Thus, the overall context of historic integrity of an area needs to be understood and considered on an individual basis and what may be appropriate in some areas may not be appropriate in others. According to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation: • New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. • New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. 1. Sustainability Sustainability means meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Green building means building practices that use energy, water, and other resources wisely. The City of Charlottesville and the Board of Architectural Review support the principles of green building and sustainable design in order to create a community that is healthy, livable, and affordable: • Preservation is the most sustainable choice. Adaptive reuse of a historic building or living in a pre-owned home reduces consumption of land and materials for new construction, and may reduce housing costs. • Durable building materials such as brick, wood, cementitious siding, and metal roofs are economical and more compatible with the character of the community. • Mixed-use development provides an alternative to sprawl that allows residents to live within walking distance of activities, thereby reducing time spent in the car. • Infill development is an efficient use of land that can provide diversity in housing sizes and types, and can revitalize neighborhoods. • Options for walking, bicycling, and transit promote healthy living and reduce dependence on automobiles and energy use. Courts Expansion/Levy Building Aug 16, 2022 (Aug 9, 2022) 7 • Designing buildings for the local climate helps conserve energy. • Locally obtained building materials, rapidly renewable or recycled materials, non-toxic materials and finishes, and wood certified by the Forest Stewardship Council provide sustainable choices. • Alternative construction techniques, such as structural insulated panels (SIPS), are energy efficient. • Low impact development methods (porous pavement, rain gardens, vegetated buffers, green roofs) retain storm water on site and protect street water quality by filtering runoff. • Use of rating systems such as LEED, Energy Star, and EarthCraft House are encouraged. Sustainability and preservation are complementary concepts, and both goals should be pursued. Nothing in these guidelines should be construed to discourage green building or sustainable design. If such a design is found to conflict with a specific guideline, the BAR shall work with the applicant to devise a creative design solution that meets the applicant’s goals for sustainability, and that is compatible with the character of the district and the property. 2. Flexibility The following guidelines offer general recommendations on the design for all new buildings and additions in Charlottesville’s historic districts. The guidelines are flexible enough to both respect the historic past and to embrace the future. The intent of these guidelines is not to be overly specific or to dictate certain designs to owners and designers. The intent is also not to encourage copying or mimicking particular historic styles. These guidelines are intended to provide a general design framework for new construction. Designers can take cues from the traditional architecture of the area and have the freedom to design appropriate new architecture for Charlottesville’s historic districts. 3. Building Types within the Historic Districts When designing new buildings in the historic districts, one needs to recognize that while there is an overall distinctive district character, there is, nevertheless, a great variety of historic building types, styles, and scales throughout the districts and sub-areas that are described in Chapter 1: Introduction. Likewise, there are several types of new construction that might be constructed within the districts the design parameters of these new buildings will differ depending on the following types: d. Institutional: Government buildings, churches, schools, and libraries are all structures that represent a unique aspect of community life and frequently have special requirements that relate to their distinct uses. For these reasons, these buildings usually are freestanding and their scale and architectural arrangements may be of a different nature than their residential and historic neighbors, but their materials should blend with the character of the districts. e. Multi-lot Often new commercial, office, or multiuse buildings will be constructed on sites much larger than the traditionally sized lots 25 to 40 feet wide. Many sites for such structures are located on West Main Street and in the 14th and 15th Street area of Venable Neighborhood. These assembled parcels can translate into new structures whose scale and mass may overwhelm neighboring existing structures. Therefore, while this building type may need to respond to the various building conditions of the site, it also should employ design techniques to reduce Courts Expansion/Levy Building Aug 16, 2022 (Aug 9, 2022) 8 its visual presence. These could include varying facade wall planes, differing materials, stepped-back upper levels, and irregular massing. 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. 4) Avoid deep setbacks or open corner plazas on corner buildings in the downtown in order to maintain the traditional grid of the commercial district. 5) In the West Main Street corridor, construct new buildings with a minimal (up to 15 feet according to the zoning ordinance) or no setback in order to reinforce the street wall. If the site adjoins historic buildings, consider a setback consistent with these buildings. 6) On corners of the West Main Street corridor, avoid deep setbacks or open corner plazas unless the design contributes to the pedestrian experience or improves the transition to an adjacent residential area. 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. 8) At transitional sites between two distinctive areas of setback, for instance between new commercial and historic commercial, consider using setbacks in the new construction that reinforce and relate to setbacks of the historic buildings. 9) For new governmental or institutional buildings, either reinforce the street wall through a minimal setback, or use a deep setback within a landscaped area to emphasize the civic function of the structure. 10) 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. 2) Commercial and office buildings in the areas that have a well-defined street wall should have minimal spacing between them. 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 1) New commercial infill buildings’ footprints will be limited by the size of the existing lot in the downtown or along the West Main Street corridor. Their massing in most cases should be simple rectangles like neighboring buildings. 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. Courts Expansion/Levy Building Aug 16, 2022 (Aug 9, 2022) 9 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. 4) Institutional and multi-lot buildings by their nature will have large footprints, particularly along the West Main Street corridor and in the 14th and 15th Street area of the Venable neighborhood. a. The massing of such a large scale structure should not overpower the traditional scale of the majority of nearby buildings in the district in which it is located. b. Techniques could include varying the surface planes of the buildings, stepping back the buildings as the structure increases in height, and breaking up the roof line with different elements to create smaller compositions. 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. 3) In commercial areas at street front, the height should be within 130 percent of the prevailing average of both sides of the block. Along West Main Street, heights should relate to any adjacent contributing buildings. Additional stories should be stepped back so that the additional height is not readily visible from the street. 4) When the primary façade of a new building in a commercial area, such as downtown, West Main Street, or the Corner, is wider than the surrounding historic buildings or the traditional lot size, consider modulating it with bays or varying planes. 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 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. 2) As an exception, new institutional or governmental buildings may be more appropriate on a monumental scale depending on their function and their site conditions. 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. Courts Expansion/Levy Building Aug 16, 2022 (Aug 9, 2022) 10 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. 3) Rooftop Screening a. If roof-mounted mechanical equipment is used, it should be screened from public view on all sides. b. The screening material and design should be consistent with the design, textures, materials, and colors of the building. c. The screening should not appear as an afterthought or addition the building. 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. 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. Courts Expansion/Levy Building Aug 16, 2022 (Aug 9, 2022) 11 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. K. Street-Level Design 1) Street level facades of all building types, whether commercial, office, or institutional, should not have blank walls; they should provide visual interest to the passing pedestrian. 2) When designing new storefronts or elements for storefronts, conform to the general configuration of traditional storefronts depending on the context of the sub-area. New structures do offer the opportunity for more contemporary storefront designs. 3) Keep the ground level facades(s) of new retail commercial buildings at least eighty percent transparent up to a level of ten feet. 4) Include doors in all storefronts to reinforce street level vitality. 5) Articulate the bays of institutional or office buildings to provide visual interest. 6) Institutional buildings, such as city halls, libraries, and post offices, generally do not have storefronts, but their street levels should provide visual interest and display space or first floor windows should be integrated into the design. 7) Office buildings should provide windows or other visual interest at street level. 8) Neighborhood transitional buildings in general should not have transparent first floors, and the design and size of their façade openings should relate more to neighboring residential structures. 9) Along West Main Street, secondary (rear) facades should also include features to relate appropriately to any adjacent residential areas. 10) Any parking structures facing on important streets or on pedestrian routes must have storefronts, display windows, or other forms of visual relief on the first floors of these elevations. 11) A parking garage vehicular entrance/exit opening should be diminished in scale, and located off to the side to the degree possible. 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. Courts Expansion/Levy Building Aug 16, 2022 (Aug 9, 2022) 12 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. 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 [Color] 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. P. Additions 1) Function and Size a. Attempt to accommodate needed functions within the existing structure without building an addition. b. Limit the size of the addition so that it does not visually overpower the existing building. 2) Location a. Attempt to locate the addition on rear or side elevations that are not visible from the street. b. If additional floors are constructed on top of a building, set the addition back from the main façade so that its visual impact is minimized. Courts Expansion/Levy Building Aug 16, 2022 (Aug 9, 2022) 13 c. If the addition is located on a primary elevation facing the street or if a rear addition faces a street, parking area, or an important pedestrian route, the façade of the addition should be treated under the new construction guidelines. 3) Design a. New additions should not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. b. The new work should be differentiated from the old and should be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. 4) Replication of Style a. A new addition should not be an exact copy of the design of the existing historic building. The design of new additions can be compatible with and respectful of existing buildings without being a mimicry of their original design. b. If the new addition appears to be part of the existing building, the integrity of the original historic design is compromised and the viewer is confused over what is historic and what is new. 5) Materials and Features a. Use materials, windows, doors, architectural detailing, roofs, and colors that are compatible with historic buildings in the district. 6) Attachment to Existing Building a. Wherever possible, new additions or alterations to existing buildings should be done in such a manner that, if such additions or alterations were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the buildings would be unimpaired. b. The new design should not use the same wall plane, roof line, or cornice line of the existing structure. Chapter VI – Public Design and Improvements A. Introduction Public spaces define the spatial organization of the City, forming the basis for social, cultural, and economic interaction. The Downtown Pedestrian Mall is the centerpiece of the community. Charlottesville’s historic parks, trails, boulevards, cemeteries, playgrounds, and other open spaces help balance the desired urban density and promote healthy living and quality of life. Public spaces accommodate multiple functions and provide social venues. The historic uses and organization of public spaces represent a timeline of cultural practices and values of the community. Significant features should be identified and respected when changes are proposed. New public spaces and improvements should reflect contemporary design principles and values. Charlottesville has a rich history of public improvements, which include public buildings, bridges, streetscape landscaping and lighting, street furniture, monuments, public art, fountains, and signage. Many of these improvements have been made within the historic districts, and there will be the opportunity to create additional such amenities in future years. All changes or improvements require BAR review and approval, and should be compatible with the general architectural features and character of an area or district. Repairs and maintenance should match original materials and design, and should be accomplished in a historically appropriate manner. All public improvements should reflect the quality and attention to detail and craftsmanship of the overall historic districts’ character. B. Plazas, Parks & Open Spaces Courts Expansion/Levy Building Aug 16, 2022 (Aug 9, 2022) 14 1. Maintain existing spaces and important site features for continued public use.consistent with the original design intent, 2. Maintain significant elements in a historic landscape: grave markers, structures, landforms, landscaping, circulation patterns, boundaries, and site walls. 3. Design new spaces to reinforce streetscape and pedestrian goals for the district. These areas offer the opportunity to provide visual focal points and public gathering spaces for the districts. 4. New landscaping should be historically and regionally appropriate, indigenous when possible, and scaled for the proposed location and intended use. 5. Exterior furniture and site accessories should be compatible with the overall character of the park or open space. 6. Repairs and maintenance work should match original materials and design, and should be accomplished in a historically appropriate manner. 7. Avoid demolishing historic buildings to create open spaces and parks. C. Public Buildings and Structures 1. Public buildings should follow design guidelines for new construction. 2. New structures, including bridges, should reflect contemporary design principles. D. Streets, Walks, & Curbs 1. Retain historic paving or curbing. 2. If any historic paving or curbing is uncovered in future public projects, consider reusing it or parts of it in the new project. 3. Make street paving consistent throughout districts. 4. When widening existing streets provide sidewalks, street trees, and other elements that maintain the street wall and emphasize the human scale. 5. Limit paved areas to streets, driveways and pedestrian areas. 6. Consider using some type of distinctive crosswalks at key intersections or crossings. 7. Avoid faux techniques or appearances in materials, such as stamped asphalt or concrete. 8. When sidewalks must be repaired, match adjacent materials in design, color, texture, and tooling. 9. Avoid variation in sidewalk and curb materials. 10. When sidewalks need replacement, use a paving unit, such as brick or concrete with a tooled or saw cut joint that relates to the scale of the districts. 11. Avoid excessive curb cuts for vehicular access across pedestrian ways. 12. Where curb cuts are necessary, they should be consistent with other curb cuts in the area 13. Do not block sidewalks with street furniture elements. 14. Remove obsolete signs and poles. E. Street Trees & Plantings 1. Maintain existing plantings in public rights of way. 2. Replace damaged or missing street trees with appropriate species. New street trees should be planted in appropriate locations. Consult the City-approved plant list. 3. Install plantings in areas like medians, divider strips, and traffic islands. 4. Locate planters so that they do not block sidewalks. F. Lighting 1. In pedestrian areas, use smaller-scaled light fixtures that do not create a glare. Courts Expansion/Levy Building Aug 16, 2022 (Aug 9, 2022) 15 2. Light fixtures can vary according to district or sub-area and can be in traditional or contemporary styles. 3. Provide adequate lighting at critical areas of pedestrian/vehicular conflict, such as parking lots, alleys, and crosswalks. 4. Limit the number of styles of light fixtures and light sources used in each district except in cases of varying sub-areas or distinctive areas, such as bridges. 5. Light color and intensity should be consistent throughout a general area or subarea of a 6. historic district. Use similar lamping (bulb type) and/or wattage to maintain a consistent quality of light. 7. Provide street lighting fixtures with flat lenses that are shielded and directed down to the site in order to reduce glare and prevent uplighting. I. Public Signs 1. Maintain the coordinated design for a citywide gateway, directional, and informational public sign system. 2. Add a distinctive street sign system for historic districts. 3. Continue to install plaques or signs commemorating significant events, buildings, and individuals in the districts. 4. Avoid placing sign posts in locations where they can interfere with the opening of vehicle doors. 5. Preserve existing historic plaques located in the district. 6. New plaques should be discreetly located and should not obscure architectural elements. K. Parking Facilities 1. Ensure that the design of any new parking structure follows the design guidelines in Chapter 3 for new multi-lot buildings and street-level design. 2. The street-level design of parking garage facilities should engage pedestrians through the use of storefronts, display windows or other visual features. 3. Avoid demolishing historic buildings to construct new parking facilities. 4. Locate vehicular exits and entrances to minimize their impact on the primary street on which they are located. 5. Parking at the ground level should not be visible from the street. 6. Reduce the scale of the openings by providing separate entrances and exits. 7. Consider the impact of interior and roof lighting. Courts Expansion/Levy Building Aug 16, 2022 (Aug 9, 2022) 16 APPENDIX Prior BAR Reviews February 2003 – Prelim discussion. Temporary sally port and ADA ramp. (350 Park Street.) March 2003 - Prelim discussion. Permanent ADA ramp. (350 Park Street.) City-County Courts Complex October 20, 2020 – Pre-application discussion re: planned City-County Courts Complex, including necessary selective demolition of the Levy Building’s hyphen and annex. No action taken. http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/798347/2020- 10_350%20Park%20Street_Preliminary%20Discussion.pdf Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXJTStxpZDw December 15, 2020 – BAR approved CoA for selective demolition of the Levy Building hype and east annex. Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City Design Guidelines for Demolitions, I move to find that the proposed demolition satisfies the BAR’s criteria and is compatible with this property and other properties in the North Downtown ADC District, and that the BAR approves the application as submitted, with the following conditions: • that the east wall of the Levy Building is substantially protected from damage; • that the BAR recommends archaeological work within the footprint of the proposed demolition area of the hyphen and annex; • that the BAR encourages and supports archaeological planning as part of the schematic design development for the larger project site; • that the demolition includes the concrete steps (formerly to a house) along High Street. (Zehmer, Lewis second. Motion passed 8-0.) http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/798365/2020-12_350%20Park%20Street_BAR.pdf Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6C5e0cJf4s July 20, 2021 – BAR accepted applicant’s request for deferral. http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/799308/2021-07_350%20Park%20Street_BAR.pdf Video: https://boxcast.tv/channel/vabajtzezuyv3iclkx1a?b=fv9pkoqglj79dwzp7r0h February 16, 2022 - BAR accepted applicant’s request for deferral. http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/799363/2022-02_350%20Park%20Street_BAR.pdf Video: https://boxcast.tv/channel/vabajtzezuyv3iclkx1a?b=tycoam74nerhajuktwgz Courts Expansion/Levy Building Aug 16, 2022 (Aug 9, 2022) 17 Albemarle County & Charlottesville City General District Courts Complex City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review August 5, 2022 August 5, 2022 SITE PLAN Albemarle County & Charlottesville City General District Courts Complex Charlottesville, VA SITE CONTEXT August 5, 2022 Albemarle County & Charlottesville City General District Courts Complex Charlottesville, VA August 5, 2022 SITE AERIAL Albemarle County & Charlottesville City General District Courts Complex Charlottesville, VA August 5, 2022 SITE AERIAL Albemarle County & Charlottesville City General District Courts Complex Charlottesville, VA 1935 CIRCUIT COURT BUILDING ANNEX 1803 HISTORIC CIRCUIT COURT BUILDING 1851 LEVY BUILDING August 5, 2022 EXISTING BUILDINGS Albemarle County & Charlottesville City General District Courts Complex Charlottesville, VA 1 3 3 2 1 2 August 5, 2022 WEST SITE IMAGES Albemarle County & Charlottesville City General District Courts Complex Charlottesville, VA 4 6 4 5 6 5 August 5, 2022 EAST SITE IMAGES Albemarle County & Charlottesville City General District Courts Complex Charlottesville, VA EAST SITE - BUILDING DESIGN August 5, 2022 Albemarle County & Charlottesville City EAST SITE General District Courts Complex Charlottesville, VA PORTICO ENTRANCE: FAÇADE: The portico architecture has undergone several adjustments and enhancements since the previous The façade has been refIned through adjustments in the proportional relationships, and changes in presentation. The top of the portico has been extended to be closely aligned with the architrave of the materials. The scale of the cornice that wraps the building has increased in size providing a more Levy building giving more gravity to the entrance and visual prominence to the entrance. The building defined cap to the architecture. The façade is broken into a base, ground story, second story (piano is massed into three components: the primary building mass (courtrooms), the entrance massing and nobile / courts floor), and cornice/top. Brick corbeling and complementary cast stone are integrated into chambers (secondary height), and the hyphen connecting Levy (tertiary height). The primary cornice is rusticated base and architrave giving classical proportion with modern detailing. slightly lower than the Levy and thus deferential to the historic structure. The cornice lines have been adjusted and refined. Bricks are a custom blend of four colors to sensitively respond to the rich range of colors of the historic buildings within Court Square; bricks are a Norman brick proportion to distinguish new from historic The red brick is deliberately intended to be similar in color to the existing brick, yet lighter, so as to create brickwork. Two sample boards under consideration are included as part of this submission. Mortar is a backdrop to the adjacent historic buildings. Equally, the portico and window trim colors of light blue/ matching the brick to reduce the contrasting colors and create a harmonious relationship in the complex gray differentiates from its neighbors and maintains a civic character and complementary relationship. of judicial buildings. The accent color of light blue/gray is incorporated into the storefront, the cast stone sills, and the cornice/trim, adding distinctive component to the composition. Equally, the fenestration The portico is a modern expression of slender steel columns with a brise soleil screen. Within the design is a departure from the 6 over 6, or 9 over 9 divided lite double hung windows common to the portico, the weartherlock has shifted to a butt-joint glazing system making it more transparent and open neighboring buildings. to the public. The addition of metal panels framing the central bays of the entrance further punctuates the portico entrance within the brick facade. The two-story order directly corresponds to the Levy Building order and the 1803 portico, giving a clear message of the civic purpose of the building. The depth of pilasters has increased to four inches to provide more shadow on the façade. The metal penthouse screen wall is deeply set back from the building and is not in view from several vantage points. The screen wall is ten feet above the roof and clad in gray metal panels to blend with the skyline. The walls along Redland property (south and west elevations) have been studied and reworked. The façade was reduced by seventeen feet in the west-east direction and broken into proportions commensurate with the townhouse quality of the neighboring buildings. Subtle recessed panels give scale and reinforce proportions. The east façade has reduced fenestration to create an A-B-A-B-A arrangement expressive of the courtrooms within. This adjustment brings down the scale fronting the Jessup House. The north elevation is proportional to the Levy Building expressing the chambers within and sets back from Levy. The lowered hyphen restores the full historic cornice of Levy along the east side. Stairs on the north and south are expressed in an adjustment to fenestration heights and further breaks the scale down for the neighboring streets. August 5, 2022 NARRATIVE Albemarle County & Charlottesville City EAST SITE General District Courts Complex Charlottesville, VA EAST HIGH STREET STAIRS, WALL, AND PLANTING AT LEVY GARAGE RAMP FRONTAGE TO REMAIN, STAIRS TO BE REPAIRED AND REPOINTED. LEVY BUILDING PLANTING/ BIORETENTION AREA JESSUP 7TH STREET NE HOUSE PLANTING AREA PARK STREET NEW WEST SITE BUILDING REDLANDS CLUB EAST JEFFERSON STREET TH NOR 0' 20' 40' 60' Scale: 1/32"=1' August 5, 2022 August 5, 2022 TERIALS SITE PALET SITE PLAN PLAN Albemarle County & Charlottesville City Albemarle County Courts Complex EAST SITE EAST SITE General District Courts Complex Charlottesville, VA Charlottesville, VA EAST HIGH STREET LEVY BUILDING JESSUP HOUSE 7TH STREET NE PARK STREET PARKING AREA MODIFIED (BY OTHERS) REDLANDS CLUB E. JEFFERSON STREET 0 10 20 PLAN TRUE August 5, 2022 FIRST FLOOR Albemarle County & Charlottesville City EAST SITE General District Courts Complex Charlottesville, VA EAST HIGH STREET LEVY BUILDING JESSUP HOUSE 7TH STREET NE PARK STREET OPEN TO BELOW REDLANDS CLUB E. JEFFERSON STREET 0 10 20 PLAN TRUE August 5, 2022 SECOND FLOOR Albemarle County & Charlottesville City EAST SITE General District Courts Complex Charlottesville, VA August 5, 2022 MASSING DIAGRAM Albemarle County & Charlottesville City EAST SITE General District Courts Complex Charlottesville, VA August 5, 2022 COLONNADE PORTICO DIAGRAM Albemarle County & Charlottesville City EAST SITE General District Courts Complex Charlottesville, VA CAST STONE CAPPED BENCH A BLUESTONE STEPS WITH HANDRAIL LINEAR IN-GRADE UPLIGHTING UNDER BENCH (2 PER BENCH) BOLLARDS PLANTING AREA LOW TO MEDIUM SHRUBS BLUESTONE ACCENT BAND PARK STREET BRICK SEAT WALL FLAG POLE IN GRADE UP LIGHTING PORTICO OVERHEAD ELLIPSE WITH BLUESTONE ACCENT BAND BLUESTONE WALL WITH UNDERLIGHTING B B’ BLUESTONE ACCENT BAND NEW BUILDING BLUESTONE BOLLARDS ACCENT BAND BRICK PAVING TH NOR BRICK WALL TREE OPENING AND SOIL THORNLESS HONEY CELLS BENEATH PAVING LOCUSTS 0" 4' 8' 12' 16' EXISTING PARKING AND CURB Scale: 1/8"=1' A’ August 5, 2022 August 5, 2022 SITE PLAN SITE PLAN PLAZA PALETTE MATERIALS - PLAZA ENLARGEMENT ENLARGEMENT Albemarle County & Charlottesville City Albemarle County Courts Complex EAST SITE EAST SITE General District Courts Complex Charlottesville, VA Charlottesville, VA 158”” b bench h LEVY BUILDING REDLANDS CLUB BRICK WALL BLUESTONE BANDING BRICK PAVERS BENCH PAVING ELLIPSE BENCH TREE SHRUB PLANTING PLANTING PLAZA SECTION: NORTH-SOUTH A-A' NEW BUILDING BLUESTONE BOLLARD WALL + BLUESTONE FFE 502.5' BANDING ROADWAY SIDEWALK THORNLESS BENCH HONEYLOCUST LINEAR IN-GRADE UPLIGHTING UNDER BENCH PLAZA SECTION: WEST-EAST B-B' August 5, 2022 August 5, 2022 SITE SECTIONS MATERIALS PALETTE Albemarle County & Charlottesville City Albemarle County Courts Complex EAST EAST SITE SITE General District Courts Complex Charlottesville, VA Charlottesville, VA August 5, 2022 VIEW ON PARK STREET LOOKING NORTH AND EAST Albemarle County & Charlottesville City EAST SITE General District Courts Complex Charlottesville, VA August 5, 2022 SITE PERSPECTIVE - PLAZA FROM SOUTH Albemarle County & Charlottesville City EAST SITE General District Courts Complex Charlottesville, VA August 5, 2022 ELEVATION - WEST Albemarle County & Charlottesville City EAST SITE General District Courts Complex Charlottesville, VA PORTICO CORNICE (METAL PANEL) SOFFIT (METAL PANEL) BRISE SOLEIL (GALVANIZED AESS STEEL, PAINTED) TRANSOMS AND COLUMNS COVERS (ALUM) ALUMINUM AND GLASS LINEAR LIGHT FIXTURE STOREFRONT (BUTT GLAZING) WEATHERLOCK ROOF AND FASCIA (METAL PANEL) ALUMINUM AND GLASS STOREFRONT (BUTT GLAZING) GALVANIZED AESS TUBE STEEL (PAINTED) August 5, 2022 SECTION PERSPECTIVE - PORTICO Albemarle County & Charlottesville City EAST SITE General District Courts Complex Charlottesville, VA August 5, 2022 VIEW OF LEVY FROM EAST HIGH STREET AND PARK AVE Albemarle County & Charlottesville City EAST SITE General District Courts Complex Charlottesville, VA August 5, 2022 SITE PERSPECTIVE - LEVY FROM HIGH STREET Albemarle County & Charlottesville City EAST SITE General District Courts Complex Charlottesville, VA August 5, 2022 ELEVATION - NORTH Albemarle County & Charlottesville City EAST SITE General District Courts Complex Charlottesville, VA August 5, 2022 ELEVATION - EAST Albemarle County & Charlottesville City EAST SITE General District Courts Complex Charlottesville, VA August 5, 2022 ELEVATION - SOUTH Albemarle County & Charlottesville City EAST SITE General District Courts Complex Charlottesville, VA PARAPET COPING (METAL) CORNICE (GFRC) CORBELLED ARCHITRAVE (NORMAN BRICK) ALUMINUM AND GLASS STOREFRONT TRANSOM CORBELLED STRING COURSING (NORMAN BRICK) 4 INCH STEP SILL (CAST STONE) NORMAN BRICK PILASTER TYPICAL NORMAN BRICK WALL (3 BLENDS WITH 1/3 RUNNING BOND) LINTEL (ALUM PANEL) ALUMINUM AND GLASS STOREFRONT FENESTRATION BELT COURSE (CAST STONE) WITH RUSTICATED BRICK WATER TABLE (NORMAN BRICK) August 5, 2022 SECTION PERSPECTIVE - TYPICAL BAY Albemarle County & Charlottesville City EAST SITE General District Courts Complex Charlottesville, VA CONTEMPORARY METAL ENTRY BRICK BLEND - OPTION 1 BRICK BLEND - OPTION 2 BRICK SAMPLE BOARD OPTIONS AT LEVY FACADE NORMAN BRICK WITH 1/3 RUNNING BOND PATTERN BLUE/GRAY COLOR RANGE BRICK WITH BLUE/GRAY ACCENT TRIM PRECEDENT August 5, 2022 EXTERIOR FINISHES Albemarle County & Charlottesville City EAST SITE General District Courts Complex Charlottesville, VA August 5, 2022 BASE COURSE BANDING RELATIONSHIPS STUDY Albemarle County & Charlottesville City EAST SITE General District Courts Complex Charlottesville, VA STONE TOPPED BENCH INGRADE UPLIGHTING UNDER BENCH CONTEMPORARY LIT BOLLARDS BRICK PAVING BLUESTONE STAIR BLUESTONE PAVING AT COLUMN August 5, 2022 January August 24th, 5, 2022 MATERIALS EXTERIOR PALETTE MATERIALS PALETTE Albemarle County & Charlottesville City Albemarle County Courts Complex EAST SITE General District Courts Complex Charlottesville, VA Charlottesville, VA CRUSHED GRAVEL TREE PIT THORNLESS HONEY LOCUST PAVING AT SITE, PARK ST August 5, 2022 EXTERIOR MATERIALS PALETTE Albemarle County & Charlottesville City EAST SITE General District Courts Complex Charlottesville, VA BRICK WALL - SITE PRECEDENT BRICK WALL - SITE PRECEDENT BRICK WALL - SITE PRECEDENT BRICK WALL BRICK WALL BRICK WALL BLUESTONE CAP BLUESTONE WALL BLUESTONE WALL August 5, 2022 EXTERIOR MATERIALS PALETTE Albemarle County & Charlottesville City EAST SITE General District Courts Complex Charlottesville, VA Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 22-08-01 Downtown Mall Downtown ADC District Owner: City of Charlottesville Applicant: Riaan Anthony, Parks and Recreation Project: Install grates at three mall fountains Application components (please click each link to go directly to PDF page): • Staff Report • Application Submittal BAR Packet Guide August 16, 2022 4 City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Staff Report August 16, 2022 Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 22-08-01 Downtown Mall Downtown ADC District Owner: City of Charlottesville Applicant: Riaan Anthony, Parks and Recreation Project: Install grates at three mall fountains [excludes large fountain at Central Place) Background The Downtown Pedestrian Mall was designed by Lawrence Halprin Associates from 1973-76. The first five blocks of East Main Street were pedestrianized in 1976. In 1980 the mall was extended by two blocks on West Main Street. The west end (at the Omni) was completed in 1985. The east end completed in 2006 with construction of the Transit Center, Freedom of Expression wall, and the Amphitheater. Prior BAR Reviews No reviews related to the fountains. See Appendix for all mall-related reviews. Application Application Submitted: • Application and images from Parks and Rec, including proposed grate alignment. Request CoA for the installation of metal grates, painted black, t the three (3) small fountain on the Downtown Mall: • between 2nd Street West and 1st Street, • between 2nd Street East and 3rd Street East, • between 4th Street East and 5th Street East. Installation of the grates is in response to concerns regarding pedestrian safety on the Downtown Mall and potential liability relative to provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The grates (painted black) will be installed flush with the brick pavers, set on metal brackets anchored to the fountain’s granite blocks and are intended to be permanent. The grating is Downtown Mall Fountains Aug 2022 (August 9, 2022) 1 constructed of 1” x 3/16” slats, spaced 1/2” apart on perpendicular metal rods. (Note: At this time, no related or similar alterations have been proposed for the fountain at Central Place.) Recommendations and Discussion The BAR has reviewed multiple projects with components related to ADA accessibility-- primarily, if not entirely, related to accessible ramps and entrances associated with buildings. Typically, if not in all cases, the options reflect alterations commonly accepted as standard. Addressing pedestrian safety on the Mall presents a challenge and the BAR is asked to strike a balance between respecting the Halprin design and necessary adaptation. Installing grates is not the only viable solution; however, the City has determined the fountain pools must be covered and the grates provide a reasonable and, more importantly, expedient solution. Unless a viable, available alternative is proposed, staff recommends the BAR approve the grates, but with two conditions: • The grates be fabricated such that installation does not require boring anchors into the existing stone. For ex, the grates would be supported by a metal flange at the perimeter (see below). • The grates are deemed temporary for a period of one (1) year [following installation], with the understanding that pedestrian safety at all of the Mall’s fountains will evaluated during the City’s planned stakeholder discussions and any proposed changes will be presented to the BAR. [Sketches by BAR staff. For discussion only.] Downtown Mall Fountains Aug 2022 (August 9, 2022) 2 Downtown Mall Fountains Aug 2022 (August 9, 2022) 3 With that in mind, staff has reviewed the relevant guidelines in Chapter VI of the ADC District Design Guidelines and provides the following comments for the BAR to discuss and consider: From B. Plazas, Parks & Open Spaces 1. Maintain existing spaces and important site features for continued public use consistent with the original design intent. Staff comment: With the goal of maintaining continued public use consistent with the original design intent, staff suggests the BAR consider the following: • the original fountains will be retained, • the reversibility of the proposed grates • the absence of a reasonable, equally effective alternative. 2. Maintain significant elements in a historic landscape: grave markers, structures, landforms, landscaping, circulation patterns, boundaries, and site walls. Staff comment: The physical elements of Halprin’s design are generally intact; where original material has been replaced, the new largely reflects the original design, though not always replicating it. Arguably, the most evident and debated change has been the altered circulation patterns due to the outdoor cafés and dinning spaces; however, these did not result in permeant, physical changes. If installed without boring into the stone blocks, the metal grates will not permanently alter the fountains. (If bored anchors are necessary, the BAR should discuss how these can be minimized and, if later removed, how the holes will be repaired.) From the Charlottesville Downtown Mall PIF, prepared by Robinson & Associates, Inc. April 2022: Certain character-defining elements of the original design (planters, bollards, fountains, willow oak bosques) remain, while others (streetlights, metal and wood chairs) have been altered or changed out but retain some of the character of the original, LHA-designed features. The permanent location of the chairs, bolted into place, contrasts with the ability to move the LHA benches short distances in order to create spontaneous gathering spaces. The spatial organization that the LHA design devised to influence movement along the Mall also remains, although the current use of public space for private dining areas hinders its original effect and adds to the sense of clutter on the Mall. The dining areas and the permanent locations of the chairs also detract from the Mall’s intended function as a public gathering space for purposes other than private dining. It should be noted that both these alterations to the original design intent are reversible. The Downtown Mall continues, however, to fulfill much of its original purpose in its original location – offering an attractive public space to bring residents and visitors to the downtown area, providing housing for twenty-four hour use, and spurring the local economy. Integrity of location, design, setting, feeling, and association therefore remain moderate to strong. Downtown Mall Fountains Aug 2022 (August 9, 2022) 4 3. Design new spaces to reinforce streetscape and pedestrian goals for the district. These areas offer the opportunity to provide visual focal points and public gathering spaces for the districts. Staff comment: The changes are not associated with a new streetscape or pedestrian space. 4. New landscaping should be historically and regionally appropriate, indigenous when possible, and scaled for the proposed location and intended use. Staff comment: No new landscaping is proposed. 5. Exterior furniture and site accessories should be compatible with the overall character of the park or open space. Staff comment: BAR should discuss if the proposed metal grates are compatible/incompatible with the overall character of the Downtown Mall. 6. Repairs and maintenance work should match original materials and design, and should be accomplished in a historically appropriate manner. Staff comment: The original materials, physical design and function will not be altered; however, the perception and experience of the fountains will differ from the intent of the Halprin design. 7. Avoid demolishing historic buildings to create open spaces and parks. Staff comment: Not applicable. The existing fountains will remain in place. J. Public Art, Statues, & Fountains 1. Maintain existing features related to public art, statues and fountains. Staff comment: The existing fountains will remain in place. 2. Public art is preferred that offers a place-making role in celebrating and communicating the history and culture of the districts. Staff comment: The mall should be accessible to everyone. 3. Develop an appropriate relationship between materials, the scale of artwork and the surrounding environment. Staff comment: The existing materials will remain in place. 4. Choose artwork that is appropriate for the current general character of the site. Downtown Mall Fountains Aug 2022 (August 9, 2022) 5 Staff comment: No new artwork is proposed. 5. Consider the appropriateness of the sculpture base. Staff comment: No applicable. 6. Public art, statues, and fountains shall be maintained as accessible to the public. Staff comment: [Note: Items 7 through 14 are not germane to the fountains.] Suggested Motions Approval: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City Design Guidelines for Public Design and Improvements, I move the proposed fountain grates satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are compatible with the Downtown Mall and the Downtown ADC district, and that the BAR approves the application as submitted. …as submitted with the following conditions [or modifications]: … Denial: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City Design Guidelines for Public Design and Improvements, I move proposed fountain grates do not satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are not compatible with the Downtown Mall and the Downtown ADC district, and that for the following reasons the BAR denies the application as submitted:… Criteria, Standards, and Guidelines Review Criteria Generally Sec. 34-284(b) of the City Code states that, In considering a particular application the BAR shall approve the application unless it finds: (1) That the proposal does not meet specific standards set forth within this division or applicable provisions of the Design Guidelines established by the board pursuant to Sec.34-288(6); and (2) The proposal is incompatible with the historic, cultural or architectural character of the district in which the property is located or the protected property that is the subject of the application. Pertinent Standards for Review of Construction and Alterations include: 1) Whether the material, texture, color, height, scale, mass and placement of the proposed addition, modification or construction are visually and architecturally compatible with the site and the applicable design control district; 2) The harmony of the proposed change in terms of overall proportion and the size and placement of entrances, windows, awnings, exterior stairs and signs; 3) The Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation set forth within the Code of 4) Federal Regulations (36 C.F.R. §67.7(b)), as may be relevant; 5) The effect of the proposed change on the historic district neighborhood; 6) The impact of the proposed change on other protected features on the property, such as gardens, landscaping, fences, walls and walks; Downtown Mall Fountains Aug 2022 (August 9, 2022) 6 7) Whether the proposed method of construction, renovation or restoration could have an adverse impact on the structure or site, or adjacent buildings or structures; 8) Any applicable provisions of the City’s Design Guidelines. Pertinent Design Review Guidelines for Public Design and Improvements Chapter 6 Public Improvements A. Introduction Public spaces define the spatial organization of the City, forming the basis for social, cultural, and economic interaction. The Downtown Pedestrian Mall is the centerpiece of the community. Charlottesville’s historic parks, trails, boulevards, cemeteries, playgrounds, and other open spaces help balance the desired urban density and promote healthy living and quality of life. Public spaces accommodate multiple functions and provide social venues. The historic uses and organization of public spaces represent a timeline of cultural practices and values of the community. Significant features should be identified and respected when changes are proposed. New public spaces and improvements should reflect contemporary design principles and values. Charlottesville has a rich history of public improvements, which include public buildings, bridges, streetscape landscaping and lighting, street furniture, monuments, public art, fountains, and signage. Many of these improvements have been made within the historic districts, and there will be the opportunity to create additional such amenities in future years. All changes or improvements require BAR review and approval, and should be compatible with the general architectural features and character of an area or district. Repairs and maintenance should match original materials and design, and should be accomplished in a historically appropriate manner. All public improvements should reflect the quality and attention to detail and craftsmanship of the overall historic districts’ character. B. Plazas, Parks & Open Spaces 1. Maintain existing spaces and important site features for continued public use consistent with the original design intent. 2. Maintain significant elements in a historic landscape: grave markers, structures, landforms, landscaping, circulation patterns, boundaries, and site walls. 3. Design new spaces to reinforce streetscape and pedestrian goals for the district. These areas offer the opportunity to provide visual focal points and public gathering spaces for the districts. 4. New landscaping should be historically and regionally appropriate, indigenous when possible, and scaled for the proposed location and intended use. 5. Exterior furniture and site accessories should be compatible with the overall character of the park or open space. 6. Repairs and maintenance work should match original materials and design, and should be accomplished in a historically appropriate manner. 7. Avoid demolishing historic buildings to create open spaces and parks. J. Public Art, Statues, & Fountains 1. Maintain existing features related to public art, statues and fountains. Downtown Mall Fountains Aug 2022 (August 9, 2022) 7 2. Public art is preferred that offers a place-making role in celebrating and communicating the history and culture of the districts. 3. Develop an appropriate relationship between materials, the scale of artwork and the surrounding environment. 4. Choose artwork that is appropriate for the current general character of the site. 5. Consider the appropriateness of the sculpture base. 6. Public art, statues, and fountains shall be maintained as accessible to the public. 7. A mural’s appearance, materials, colors, size, and scale should be compatible with the building and historic district of which the building is a part. 8. The use of neon, luminescent, or reflective paint or materials is discouraged. [9 through 14 related to murals.] Design Guidelines that specifically address ADA accessibility: Chapter 3. Rehabilitation D. Entrances, Porches & Doors 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. Downtown Mall Fountains Aug 2022 (August 9, 2022) 8 Appendix: Reference to fountains from: Design, Master Plan Philosophy and Concepts. Prepared by Lawrence Halprin and Associates, June 1974. Design Elements (page 29, under Elements of the Plan) The basic design of the Main St. Mall does not observe the linear quality of the street as a continuous way, which has proved a monotonous element in so many Mall designs. Rather, it reorganizes it into a series of "outdoor rooms" Unlike the separate rooms of a building, these rooms are interconnected and in sequence. The room image is defined by groups of trees called bosques. The bosques break up the continuous street into series of islands where people are encouraged to pause and relax. A typical bosque will consist of a cluster of 6 to 8 trees in double rows, usually with a small granite fountain, benches, chairs, and planter pots. Lighting fixtures are clustered around tree trunks, providing both up and down lighting. The rest of the Mall will be lit by high and low bollards Additional refence to fountains from the 2022 PIF. Trees, fountains, lighting, and street furniture: In addition to the two-dimensional patterned ground, LHA employed three-dimensional features to organize space and influence movement along the Mall. Extant features include four fountains constructed in the first two building campaigns, bosques of willow oak trees spaced at different intervals along the Mall’s course, three sizes of movable planters, two types of lighting, bollards, and trash receptacles. These elements were located along, but on either side, of the Mall’s center line, encouraging pedestrians to take a meandering course down Main Street. The original construction also included dozens of movable benches and two hexagonal kiosks where information could be posted. All the aforementioned elements were custom-designed by LHA. Chairs (DHR ID#104-5994-0005) remain available for pedestrians, but they are off- the-shelf models installed in 2009 and bolted into place. Both of the original kiosks have been removed. Central Place, a small plaza at the northeast corner of East 2nd Street, stands halfway along the Mall. It consists of herringbone brick paving; the Mall’s largest fountain, composed of three granite uprights in a depressed brick pool (DHR ID#104-5994-0001); and red maple trees along 2nd Street NE and on the south side of East Main Street. The only remaining LHA-designed trash receptacle (DHR ID#104-5994-0014) is also located at Central Place. The other three fountains of the LHA design (DHR ID#104-5994-0002) are located within tree bosques along Main Street. All three consist of a square, stepped, granite pool, with its floor below the level of the Mall paving and a granite base and top. Two of the fountain tops are round, one is square. The fountains were designed to tempt visitors to pause in their movement along the Mall, giving the opportunity for social interaction. The gathering space around the three Main Street fountains is currently restricted, however, by dining area enclosures serving restaurants facing the Mall. Downtown Mall Fountains Aug 2022 (August 9, 2022) 9 Prior BAR actions. Date Project BAR Action Jun-03 Vendor cart Approve Jul-03 Vendor table with freestanding grill and propane stove Deny Aug-03 Vending table with display wall Deny Dec-03 Vendor cart Approve Aug-04 Transit Center and Mall extension details - lighting Approve Aug-04 Transit Center and Mall extension details - site furniture Approve Sep-04 Transit Center and Amphitheater Defer Dec-04 Vending cart Defer Dec-04 Amphitheater (Design Details) Approved Jan-05 Amphitheater (Design Details) Approve Mar-05 Transit Center design changes Deny Transit Center and Amphitheater and Mall Extension Apr-05 Defer (Design Changes) - retaining wall and railings Apr-05 Replace Douglas Fir Deny May-05 Transit Center and Mall Extension (Design Changes) Approve Jun-05 First Amendment Monument Approve Jul-05 Amphitheater handicapped ramps (design changes) Not discussed Aug-05 First Amendment Monument Approve - signage Dec-05 Newsstand Kiosk Approve Transit Center and Amphitheater (Revised Belmont Dec-05 Approve Bridge Ramp) Mar-06 Newsstand kiosk redesign Approve Sep-06 "Sister Cities" sculpture location Preliminary Discussion Oct-06 "Sister Cities" sculpture Approve Jan-07 Comprehensive Transit Center Approve Feb-07 Downtown wayfinding signage Preliminary Discussion Aug-07 Downtown wayfinding signage Approve Dec-07 Downtown Mall Renovation: mall benches Preliminary Discussion Downtown Mall Renovation: approved planters, May-08 Approve additional benches, misc. related to mall repairs Downtown Mall Renovation: BAR requested 4 x 12 brick in herringbone be replicated s for mall repairs. (July 21, Jun-08 2008. City Council accepted BAR-requested/approved brick for mall repairs.) Downtown Mall Fountains Aug 2022 (August 9, 2022) 10 Downtown Mall Renovation: Final decision on brick size, runnels, lights and light poles, granite and newspaper Aug-08 boxes BAR approved 4 x 12 brick bricks for main field Approve and 4 x 8 bricks for crosswalks, and misc. Requested other samples granite, etc. come back for BAR approval Downtown Wayfinding Signage - gateways signs and pole Sep-08 Approve revision Downtown Mall Renovation: Vehicular crossings design, Oct-08 Approve fire lane, drinking fountains, brick and granite colors Nov-08 Downtown Mall Renovation: Vehicular crossings design Approve Jan-09 West end plaza design Approve Jan-11 New sidewalk at Transit Station Defer Jan-11 Sister Cities clock Preliminary Discussion Feb-11 Sister Cities clock Approve Mar-11 Sister Cities clock Approve Sep-11 New sidewalk at Transit Station Approve Jan-12 First and Main Medallion Approve Jun-12 Light fixture changes (Parks and Rec) Approve Apr-16 Replace existing mall benches (Parks and Rec) Defer Move lamp posts and install synthetic tree grates (Parks Jul-16 Deny and Rec) Apr-17 Replace existing mall benches (Parks and Rec) Deny Nov-18 Remove dead tree at Omni (Parks and Rec) Approve Downtown Mall Fountains Aug 2022 (August 9, 2022) 11 Mal1 fountain grates - July 2022 - page I of 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; 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. City project: No fee Deadline for submittals is Tuesday 3 weeks prior to next BAR meeting by 3:30 p.m. Owner Name City of Charlottesville Applicant Name City of Charlottesville Parks & Recreation_ Project Name/Description lnStall grates at three fountains Parcel Number__ _____ ____ Downtown Mall ___ Project Property Address___________ _________ _ ____________ __ Signature of Applicant Applicant Information I hereby attest that the information I have provided is, to the Address: Riaan Anthony, Parks & Recreation best of my knowledge, correct. Ci of Charlottesville Email: anthonyr char ottesville.gov Phone:(W) _______ (C) ______ -f-ture _. Property Owner Information (if not applicant) Print Name te 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______ Date Print Name Description of Proposed Work (attach separate narrative if necessary):....,...,,--=-------------­ Installation of metal grates at three (3) mall fountains: between 2nd Street West and 1st Street; between 2nd Street East and 3rd Street East; and between 4th Street East and 5th Street East, List All Attachments (see reverse side for submittal requirements): For Office Use Only Approved/Disapproved by: _________ Received by: ____________ Date : __ ___ _ __________ ___ Fee paid: _____Cash/Ck.# ____ Conditions of approval: ____ _______ Date Received: ______ ______ Revised 2016 Mall fountain grates - July 2022 - page 2 of 4 HISTORiC DISTRICT ORDINANCE: You can review the Historical Prese,vation and Architectural Design Control Overlay Districts reg,ulations in the City of Charlottesville Zoning Ordinance starting with Section 34-271 online at charlottuvllle.gov or at Municode.com for the City of Charlottesville. DESIGN REVIEW GUIDELINES: Please refer to the current ADC Districts Design Guidelines online at charlottesvllle.gov SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: The following information and exhibits shall be submitted along with each application for Certificate of Appropriateness, per Sec. 34-282 (d) in the City of Charlottesville Zoning Ordinance: (1) Detailed and clear depictions of any proposed changes in the exterior features of the subject property; (2) Photographs of the subject property and photographs of the buildings on contiguous properties; (3) One set of samples to show the nature, texture and color of materials proposed; (4) The history of an existing building or structure, if requested; (5) For nev,i construction and projects proposing expansion of the footprint of an existing building: a three­ dimensional model (in physical or digital form); (6) In the case of a demolition request where structural integrity is at issue, the applicant shall provide a structural evaluation and cost estimates for rehabilitation, prepared by a professional engineer, unless waived by the BAR. APPEALS: Following a denial the applicant, the director of neighborhood development services, or any aggrieved person may appeal the decision to the city council, by filing a written notice of appeal within ten (10) working days of the date of the decision. Per Sec. 34-286. - City council appeals, an applicant shall set forth, in writing, the grounds for an appeal, including the procedure(s) or standard(s) alleged to have been violated or misapplied by the BAR, and/or any additional information, factors or opinions he or she deems relevant to the application. CHARLOTTESVILLE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN CONTROL DISTRICTS DESIGN GUIDELINES Chapter 1 Introduction {Part 1) http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/793062/2_lntroduction%20I_BAR.pdf Chapter 1 Introduction (Part 2) http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/793063/1 _Introduction%2011_BAR.pdf Chapter 2 Site Design and Elements http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/793064/3_Chapter%2011%20Site%20Design%20and%20Elements_BAR.pdf Chapter 3 New Construction and Additions http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/793065/4_Chapter%20III%20New°/o20Construction%20and%20Additions_BAR. pdf Chapter 4 Rehabilitation http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/O/edoc/793066/5_Chapter%20IV%20Rehabilitation_BAR.pdf Chapter 5 Signs, Awnings, Vending, and Cafes http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/O/edoc/793 067/6_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 !I( !I 11 II! : llli'i II'. I I.! 1 11 II 11 I 11 : I< { - FOUNTAIN 1 ·1 ' I -r,,rf •li I j- FOUNTAIN I BORDER 4 iI BORDER I I I ! 11 > J,� , 11 1 I FOUNTAIN FOUNTAIN FEATURE I I � ' FEATURE ' I ' l'i--. FEATURE I ' ' I I 1· t-- FEATURE ...,"II I I I PEDESTAL II /'l'f'f PEDESTAL i I l ' I i I iI i" I I Ii11I I; : 1 I 1! ' I PEDESTRIAN . '\ . :-- PEDESTRIAN 1 :, '! I I ALUMINUM 111, ALUMINUM GRATING GRATING 1 II II 1i 11 11 I I :1 SQUARE CIRCULAR '" FOUNTAIN FOUNTAIN l. ··-..:.._. __,.. - '· at:lt.J I 11-..• I --� ·r ��?·-�1 .· .·.... ·� .. 9:2l�,-!;•_� �---- . - 'i � -:, ;.:;.r. - . -�. .... - ;;,- -..�-=-"".":.:.. e. � �., Cl 5· (1) 00 2' I � N 0 GRATING CQLJNTAIN N N PHOTO I PHOTO "O Cl OQ (1) w 0 >-+-, +>- fowitain Grates. Painted black. Installed flush with mall, Existing (approx.) set on brackets anchored in the stone. Mallpavers Approx. through section. For context only. Not to scale g s· � � ;...t � � N N I IMC � SG-ADA 0 >-+i Grating � Mall fountain grates: Parks and Recreation submittal. (July 2022) P&R: Page 1 of 1 Painted black Mall fountain grates: sketch by BAR staff (July 28, 2022) BAR staff: Page 1 of 9 Proposed grates Mall fountain grates: BAR staff (July 28, 2022) BAR staff: Page 2 of 9 Staff Presentation to City Council June 16th, 2008 Mall PIF/VCRIS 2022 BAR staff: Page 3 of 9 Mall fountain grates: BAR staff (July 28, 2022) https://www.pinterest.com/pin/484207397414450287/ Presentation to City Council June 16th, 2008 Presentation to City Council June 16th, 2008 Mall fountain grates: BAR staff (July 28, 2022) BAR staff: Page 4 of 9 https://www.tclf.org/landscapes/charlottesville-mall Presentation to City Council June 16th, 2008 Presentation to City Council June 16th, 2008 Mall fountain grates: BAR staff (July 28, 2022) BAR staff: Page 5 of 9 From: MORE THAN JUST BRICKS : FIELD GUIDE to the CHARLOTTESVILLE DOWNTOWN PEDESTRIAN MALL Mall fountain grates: BAR staff (July 28, 2022) - Halprin design BAR staff: Page 6 of 9 Mall fountain grates: BAR staff (July 28, 2022) - Halprin design BAR staff: Page 7 of 9 Mall fountain grates: BAR staff (July 28, 2022) - Similar installations - for discussion only BAR staff: Page 8 of 9 Trench Grating in the Kiener Park Fountain https://www.hendrickcorp.com/architectural/project-gallery/fountain-grating-kiener-plaza-park/ Mall fountain grates: BAR staff (July 28, 2022) - Similar installations - for discussion only BAR staff: Page 9 of 9 Colorful Fountain Lights at Suntrust Park https://www.hendrickcorp.com/architectural/project-gallery/fountain-grating-suntrust-park/ Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 22-08-02 800 East Market Street, TMP 530160000 Downtown ADC District (contributing property) Owner: City of Charlottesville Applicant: Scott Hendrix, Facilities Development Division Project: Roof replacement, Key Recreation Center Application components (please click each link to go directly to PDF page): • Staff Report • Historic Survey • Application Submittal BAR Packet Guide August 16, 2022 5 City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Staff Report August 16, 2022 Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 22-08-02 800 East Market Street, TMP 530160000 Downtown ADC District (contributing property) Owner: City of Charlottesville Applicant: Scott Hendrix, Facilities Development Division Project: Roof replacement, Key Recreation Center Background Year Built: 1937 District: Downtown ADC District Status: Contributing Serving as the National Guard Armory between 1937 and the 1970s, this brick, art deco building replaced the original armory (located at the current Police Station). When the armory relocated to its present site on Avon Street Extended, the structure was converted to a City recreation center and, following his death in 2004, named to honor Herman Key, Jr., a local athlete and prominent advocate for disabled athletes. Prior BAR Reviews N/A Application • Submittal: City of Charlottesville Dept. of Public Works Key Recreation Center Roof Assessment, dated October 23, 2018. Request for CoA to repair/replace roof, including the slate roof and the membrane roofs behind the parapet walls. Any necessary trim repairs will match existing. (See images in Appenddix.) Note: While this is being reviewed as a CoA request, Facilities Development has stated this is intended as a preliminary discussion and they seek from the BAR recommendations, suggestions, 800 E. Market Street – Aug 2022 (August 9, 2022) 1 and any questions related to the options available. With that, staff anticipates the matter will be deferred following the discussion. Recommendations and Discussion The consultant working with Facilities Development believes the slate is likely Buckingham slate. It appears to be non-fading and matches other Central Virginia slate in texture, color and strength. If the existing slate is not re-used here, the consultant recommended the City retain what is salvageable for use elsewhere. Assuming most of the shingles are original, they have been in place for 85 years. Slate roofs can last 75 to 200 years. Buckingham slate, on average, can last 150 years. For comparison: o Asphalt, three-tabbed shingles are typically a 20- to 30-year product, at best. o Faux slate is advertised as a 100-year product, but this is a relatively new material, with warranties generally of 50 years. o Painted metal roofing can last 40 to 70 years, with that possibly being extended, depending on thickness, quality of the installation, and proper maintenance. o Copper roofing can last for over a century, with that extended much longer, depending on thickness, quality of the installation, and proper maintenance. Whether the slate is repaired or replaced, the roof pitch and configuration will be unchanged. (There are no features such as dormers, skylights, etc. No new elements are proposed.) Options available include: • Reuse salvageable slate, using slate or faux slate to complete the roof. • Install new slate shingles. • Install faux slate shingles. • Install standing-seam metal roof. (Presumably painted.) • Install three-tabbed asphalt shingles. The design guidelines support reuse of the existing and the installation of either new slate or faux slate. The use of standing-seam metal would alter the building’s appearances and is not recommended. The use of asphalt shingles would arguably maintain the appearance of shingles and, being a 30-yar material, represent the least-permanent option (thus reversible); however, while not specifically discouraged by the guidelines, it is certainly not a preferred option. Suggested Motion Staff recommends no formal action, except to defer this matter. (With an applicant’s request for deferral, there is no calendar requirement for when the application returns to the BAR. In the absence of an applicant requested deferral and the BAR defers it, the application must be presented at the next meeting.) Criteria, Standards, and Guidelines Review Criteria Generally Sec. 34-341(a) 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 conservation district design guidelines; and 800 E. Market Street – Aug 2022 (August 9, 2022) 2 2. The proposal is incompatible with the historic, cultural or architectural character of the conservation district in which the property is located. Standards for Review of New Construction and Additions include: 1. Whether the form, height, scale, mass and placement of the proposed construction are visually and architecturally compatible with the site and the applicable conservation district; 2. The harmony of the proposed changes in terms of overall proportion and the size and placement of entrances and windows; 3. The impact of the proposed change on the essential architectural form and integrity of the existing building; 4. The effect, with respect to architectural considerations, of the proposed change on the conservation district neighborhood; 5. Any applicable provisions of the city's conservation district design guidelines. Pertinent Design Review Guidelines for Rehabilitations (Chapter 3) include: Link: Chapter 3 New Construction and Additions 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. I. Wood The flexibility of wood has made it the most common building material throughout much of America’s building history. Because it can be shaped easily by sawing, planing, carving, and gouging, wood is used for a broad range of decorative elements, such as cornices, brackets, shutters, columns, storefronts, and trim on windows and doors. In addition, wood is used in major elements such as framing, siding, and shingles. 1) Repair rotted or missing sections rather than replace the entire element. a. Use epoxies to patch, piece, or consolidate parts. 800 E. Market Street – Aug 2022 (August 9, 2022) 3 b. Match existing materials and details. 2) Replace wood elements only when they are rotted beyond repair. a. Match the original in material and design by substituting materials that convey the same visual appearance or by using surviving material. b. Base the design of reconstructed elements on pictorial or physical evidence from the actual building rather than from similar buildings in the area. c. Complement the existing details, size, scale, and material. 3) Do not substitute vinyl for wood railing and trim. Some composites, including fiberglass reinforced composite, may be found acceptable as a substitute material for a specific application, but must be painted. Appendix 800 E. Market Street – Aug 2022 (August 9, 2022) 4 800 E. Market Street – Aug 2022 (August 9, 2022) 5 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; Additions and other projects requiring BAR approval $125; Administrative approval $100. Make checks payable to the City of Charlottesville. The BAR meets the third Tuesday of the month. Deadline for submittals is Tuesday 3 weeks prior to next BAR meeting by 3:30 p.m. Owner Name City of Charlottesville Applicant Name City ofCharlottesville Facilities Development Div._ Project Name/Description Roof replacement - Key Rec Center Parcel Number_�5�3�0_1�6_00 _ 0__ 0�----­ Project Property Address SOO E Market 8t· ---------------------------------- Applicant Information I hereby att that the information I have provided is, to the Address: Scott Hendrix, Facilities Development Division best of my k owledge, correct. City of Charlottesville Email: hendrix@charlottesville.gov )_ 7-z.a.-zz.. Phone: 0/V) _______ (C)434-465-5739 (mobile Signature Date_ c::; e-o:r:r: {4%5)ra.t 7 . 'Z-0 -�"Z- Property Owner Information (if not applicant) Date Address:_____ _______ _ ___ Property Owner PermJssion (if not applicant) I have read this application and hereby give my consent to Email:------------------ its submission. Phone: 0/V) ______ (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): _______________ Replacement/repair ofroofing, including replacement of slate, possibly using faux-slate shingles. List All Attachments (see reverse side for submittal requirements): For Office Use Only Approved/Disapproved by: _________ Received by: ____________ Date: ________ __ ___ ____ Fee paid: _ _ _ __Cash/Ck. # ___ _ Conditions of approval: ___________ Date Received: ___________ Revised 2016 KEY RECREATION CENTER 18 Roof Assessment Key Recreation Center East Market Street Charlottesville October 23, 2018 General: The Key Recreation Center has a 10,074 square foot roof that is divided into three areas – a center steep pitched slate roof, and two low-slope single ply roofs. Copper gutters are continuous at the edges of the slate roof, and dump to pipe boots at grade. The low-slope roofs have sumped through-wall scuppers, that connect to conductor heads and downspouts. Snow guards are installed in two series of double courses at the edges of the slate sections. Inspection of the slate roof was done by high definition video shot by drone. Roof Support Structure: When viewed from inside, the roof deck supporting the slate is made of tectum panels. Tectum is incapable of supporting such weight, so it assumed that there is an additional decking material above the tectum. The tectum panels are in very good shape. Slate Shingles: The shingles are in poor condition. As with all slate roofs with some age on them, there are broken, split or missing slates. A repair project in 2013 replaced approximately 60 slate. The new slate are not of similar width as the original, so there are some excessive gaps. Currently, there are several hundred slate shingles that require replacement. The snow guards are bronze butterfly type. Roughly 550 snow guards were replaced in 2013. The cricket flashing of the chimney will eventually have water issues, as the slate was installed to close to the valley, and a couple appear broken. All step flashings are in good condition, however their counter flashing are in poor condition. The wood trim fascia is in very poor condition, is loose in many areas, and is suffering from rot. Single Ply Roofing: Both low-slope roofs are fully adhered EPDM over a tapered insulation system. The field membranes are in good condition. The significant rising parapets are covered with membrane, and have termination bars installed. A metal coping is present on all parapets. Like the slate roof, the low-slope sections of Key Rec under went a repair project in 2013. All field seams were stripped in, suspect areas re-roofed, and all flashing re-done. This work was successful in extending the life of the membrane roof system. Penetrations: There are numerous penetrations on the membrane roofing – pitch pockets for refrigerant lines, pipe vents, exhaust fans, roof hatches and surface mounted sleepers. For the most part, all penetrations are in fine shape. The 2013 repairs have rejuvenated the flashings, and they should last a while. Drainage: The slate roof has half round copper gutters which are in very good condition. The downspouts have minor compression damage, but are otherwise sound. The scuppers, conductor heads and downspouts of the flat roofs are likewise in good condition. The south scupper has cabling running through the scupper, which collects minor amounts of debris – a very minor issue. 19 Remediation: The following maintenance and repairs are recommended for contemplation: 1. Replace slate roof. Install roof felts, ice & water barrier, proper ridge flashing, repair wood trim. If bid in 2018, expect bids in the $320,000 - $350,000 range. (high priority, 3-5 years) 2. Remove ridge slate and reinstall in a manner to shed water. (high priority, within a year) 3. Replace all wood trim, profile to match existing. Install drip edge to protect new trim. (high priority, within 3-5 years) 4. Re-roof low-slope roofs. Remove all existing system components, and replace with a fully adhered 60mil reinforced membrane over tapered polyisocyanurate insulation. 2018 construction cost - $45,000 – 50,000. (low priority, 5+ years) 5. Regularly inspect and clear gutters of debris. (regular maintenance) Conclusion: The slate roof is in need of replacement, and should be budgeted within the next five years. With nothing more than routine maintenance, the membrane roofs should last another five to ten years. 20 Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 22-08-03 210 West Market Street, TMP 330271000 Downtown ADC District (contributing property) Owner: McSwain Properties LLC Applicant: Jeff Dreyfus, Bushman Dreyfus Architects/ Heirloom Development, LLC Project: Building demolition Application components (please click each link to go directly to PDF page): • Staff Report • Historic Survey • Application Submittal BAR Packet Guide August 16, 2022 6 City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Staff Report August 16, 2022 Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 22-08-03 210 West Market Street, TMP 330271000 Downtown ADC District (contributing property) Owner: McSwain Properties LLC Applicant: Jeff Dreyfus, Bushman Dreyfus Architects/ Heirloom Development, LLC Project: Building demolition Background Year Built: c1935 as service station, renovated c1965 District: Downtown ADC District Status: Contributing (Note: By code, all structures in the Downtown ADC are designated as contributing, regardless of year built or historic significance.) Cinder block with white metal veneer panels and blue accent band (panels removed after 1980). Single story, flat roof, three bays; original service bays in west section likely closed. Fixed glass storefront; entrance in east bay. Staff research indicates the west wing (parallel to Market Street) was constructed c1935 as a four bay, single story, cinder block service station, possibly with applied exterior tiles [per the c1960s Sanborn Maps]. As early as 1886 and until the early 1930s, there was one and then three small, single-story, framed dwellings. The 1936 City Directory lists at the site a service station owned by Thomas Miller. By the 1951 it is Sam’s Gulf Service Station. The 1937 aerial photo appears to show the service station, but the image is poor. It is clearly visible in the 1957 photo. The angled, east wing is not shown in the c1960s Sanborn Maps, but visible in the 1967 photo, suggesting when it was constructed. By the 1970s, if not prior, the structure was occupied by Brown’s Lock and Safe. (See images and maps in Appendix.) Prior BAR Actions: n/a 210 West Market Street – Demo CoA (Aug 9, 2022) 1 Application • Applicant submittal: Bushman Dreyfus submittal dated July 20, 2022: CoA application, narrative, photographs, and site plan. (10 pages) Request for the demolition of existing commercial building. From applicant’s submittal: 210 West Market Street presents an opportunity for the City to further its stated goals for the Downtown Mixed-Use Corridor of increased commerce and additional housing in the entertainment and employment center of our town. Looking at the current and future expansion of Charlottesville, the BAR must identify opportunities for accommodating growth in ways that are sensitive to our historic urban fabric by protecting important structures in our cultural and urban development while recognizing that some old buildings must be allowed to be taken down to make way for the future. With that in mind, the BAR approved demolition of the neighboring structure at 218 West Market Street in 2019. Approval to demolish 210 West Market Street would be consistent with the BAR’s previous action, serving the long-term greater good to the City by making way for increased density on the site, rather than maintaining the existing structure with its suburban model of parking between the street and the building Discussion and Recommendations Per a review of the standards for considering demolitions (Code Sec. 34-278) and the Review Criteria for Demolition in the Design Guidelines (see below), staff concurs with the applicant’s comments, generally, and finds no compelling argument to deny the requested demolition. Should the BAR approve the request, staff suggests the following conditions of approval: • Staff approval of the demolition permit [when that application is submitted] is contingent upon: 1. Applicant providing for the BAR record documentation of the existing building. [In addition to the photos provided, documentation will include dimensioned floor plans and elevations. Similar to documentation provided for 1532 Virginia Ave, January 2019.] 2. An approved building permit for construction of the new building. Or, in lieu of item 2: o BAR approval of proposed site treatment following demolition and prior to site redevelopment. Unless other criteria of the ADC District Design Guidelines prevail, BAR will apply Chapter 2. Site Design. Staff also suggests the BAR consider as ether a condition or a recommendation that the redevelopment of the site incorporate stone elements that reflect the stone foundation wall at the south elevation. See staff comments below under Sec. 34-278(d). Suggested Motions Approval: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed demolition of 210 West Market Street satisfies the BAR’s criteria and guidelines and is compatible with this property and other properties in the Downtown ADC District, and that the BAR [approves the application as submitted]. 210 West Market Street – Demo CoA (Aug 9, 2022) 2 Or […approves the application as submitted with the following conditions:] … Denial: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed demolition of 210 West Market Street does not satisfy or the BAR’s criteria and guidelines and is not compatible with this property and other properties in the Downtown ADC District, and for the following reasons the BAR denies the application as submitted:… Criteria, Standards, and Guidelines Review Criteria Generally Sec. 34-284(b) of the City Code states that, In considering a particular application the BAR shall approve the application unless it finds: (1) That the proposal does not meet specific standards set forth within this division or applicable provisions of the Design Guidelines established by the board pursuant to Sec.34-288(6); and (2) The proposal is incompatible with the historic, cultural or architectural character of the district in which the property is located or the protected property that is the subject of the application. Pertinent Standards for Review of Demolitions: Sec. 34-278. - Standards for considering demolitions. The following factors shall be considered in determining whether or not to permit the moving, removing, encapsulation or demolition, in whole or in part, of a contributing structure or protected property: (a) The historic, architectural or cultural significance, if any, of the specific structure or property, including, without limitation: (1) The age of the structure or property; Applicant comment: The age of the structure is unclear. As noted above, the National Register Nomination notes it as “Ca. 1955”. The City’s tax assessment records note the year built as 1920. Staff comment: (See Background) Staff has determined the west wing was constructed c1935 as a single-story service station. The east wing was constructed c1965. (2) Whether it has been designated a National Historic Landmark, listed on the National Register of Historic Places or listed on the Virginia Landmarks Register; Applicant comment: The property is noted as a contributing structure to the Charlottesville-Albemarle County Courthouse Historic District. Staff comment: Concur with applicant. See VDHR #104-0072, https://www.dhr.virginia.gov/historic-registers/104-0072/ (3) Whether, and to what extent, the building or structure is associated with a historic person, architect or master craftsmen, or with a historic event; 210 West Market Street – Demo CoA (Aug 9, 2022) 3 Applicant comment: No known associations. Staff comment: Concur with applicant. (4) Whether the building or structure or any of its features, represent an infrequent or the first or last remaining example within the city of a particular architectural style or feature; Applicant comment: No such characteristics are attributed to this building. Staff comment: Concur with applicant. (5) Whether the building or structure is of such old or distinctive design, texture or material that it could not be reproduced, or could be reproduced only with great difficulty; and Applicant comment: The building and its stucco facade could be readily reproduced with today’s materials and techniques. Staff comment: Concur with applicant. (6) The degree to which distinguishing characteristics, qualities, features, or materials remain. Applicant comment: The NRHP nomination does not note any distinguishing characteristics, qualities, features or materials. Since the NRHP listing, the exterior white metal panels have been removed. Staff comment: Concur with applicant. (b) Whether, and to what extent, a contributing structure is linked, historically or aesthetically, to other buildings or structures within an existing major design control district, or is one of a group of properties within such a district whose concentration or continuity possesses greater significance than many of its component buildings. Applicant comment: The property is part of the historic downtown commercial district and will remain as such if this particular building is replaced with another commercial or mixed- use building. Staff comment: The c1935 gas station corresponds to a local construction boom of service stations and dealerships: 1920s to 1950s. However, unlike West Main Street and Preston Avenue, this building is not within or associated with a concentration of similar buildings. The extant auto-related buildings from this period include the following: • 1001 W. Main St (1920) • 1221 E. Market St (1935) • 2115 Jefferson Park Ave (1920) • 500 Monticello Rd (1940) • 824 Preston Ave (1934) • 416-418 W. Main St (1941) • 200 W. Water St (1935) • 408 Monticello Rd (1945) • 1214 E. High St (1939) 210 West Market Street – Demo CoA (Aug 9, 2022) 4 The building’s construction and evolution reflect the commercial development of this block; however, it is not linked historically or aesthetically to the surrounding structures. (c) The overall condition and structural integrity of the building or structure, as indicated by studies prepared by a qualified professional engineer and provided by the applicant or other information provided to the board. Applicant comment: A structural study has not been completed. Staff comment: The current use of the building and the photos provided by the applicant suggest the structure is not unstable or in poor condition. Demolition is requested to facilitate redevelopment of the site. (d) Whether, and to what extent, the applicant proposes means, methods or plans for moving, removing, or demolishing the structure or property that preserves portions, features or materials that are significant to the property’s historic, architectural, or cultural value. Applicant comment: The building is neither an historic cultural marker nor does it represent an important moment in Charlottesville’s architectural development. As such, the applicant proposes to demolish the building. Additionally, we offer that this parcel (approximately 0.144 acres) is underutilized with its suburban model of at-grade parking in front of and behind the building. Occupying roughly one-half to two-thirds of the site, the existing structure presents an impediment to maximizing the potential density for land so deep in the center of our commercial and residential core. The vision for the redevelopment of the property is of a mixed-use structure. 210 West Market Street – Demo CoA (Aug 9, 2022) 5 Having weighed the preservation of our architectural past alongside the limited opportunities our town has to accommodate growth, the BAR has approved demolition of other contributing structures including the Studio Art building at 1106-1112 West Main Street, the Escafe restaurant building at 215 West Water Street, the Clock Shop at 201 West Water Street, and the building on the adjacent property at 218 West Market Street. The land at 210 West Market Street represents a similar opportunity as those sites, offering the chance for increased density and vitality downtown, but it requires the removal of the existing structure. If the existing structure is required to remain in place for future development, this site will, by necessity, continue to be an underutilized anomaly in our urban fabric. Granting permission to raze the building is an important step in furthering the long-term growth and development of our downtown core with vibrant, mixed-use developments such as the one contemplated for this site Staff comment: Proposal is to raze the entire structure; no elements, features or materials will be retained. Staff concurs with the applicant that the building and site are not historically, architecturally, or culturally significant. However, the stone foundation wall (south elevation) reflects the use of similar stone nearby--images below. South elevation of 210 West Market Street Old Preston Avenue 210 West Market Street – Demo CoA (Aug 9, 2022) 6 1st Street and Market Street: Market Street Park 3rd Street NE and Market Street Pertinent design guidelines re: Demolitions Link: Chapter 7 Moving and Demolition A. Introduction Historic buildings are irreplaceable community assets; and once they are gone, they are gone forever. With each successive demolition or removal, the integrity of a historic district is further eroded. Therefore, the demolition or moving of any contributing building in a historic district should be considered carefully. Charlottesville’s Zoning Ordinance contains provisions that require the property owner to obtain approval prior to demolishing a contributing property in a historic district or an Individually Protected Property (IPP). 210 West Market Street – Demo CoA (Aug 9, 2022) 7 The following review criteria should be used for IPP’s and (contributing) buildings that are proposed for demolition or relocation. Plans to demolish or remove a protected property must be approved by the BAR or, on appeal, by the City Council after consultation with the BAR. Upon receipt of an application for demolition or removal of a structure, the BAR has 45 days to either approve or deny the request. If the request is denied and the owner appeals to the City Council, the Council can either approve or deny the request. If Council denies the request, the owner may appeal to the City Circuit Court. In addition to the right to appeal to City Council or the Circuit Court, there is a process that enables the owner to demolish the building or structure if certain conditions have been met. After the owner has appealed to City Council and has been denied, the owner may choose to make a bona fide offer to sell the building or structure and land. The property must be offered at a price reasonably related to the fair market value of the structure and land and must be made to the city or to any person or firm or agency that gives reasonable assurance that it is willing to preserve and restore the property. City Council must first confirm that the offering price is reasonably related to the fair market value. The time during which the offer to sell must remain open varies according to the price, as set out in the State Code and the Zoning Ordinance. If such a bona fide offer to sell is not accepted within the designated time period, the owner may renew the demolition request to City Council and will be entitled to a Certificate of Appropriateness that permits the demolition of the structure. B. Demolition of Historic Structures Review Criteria for Demolition 1) The standards established by the City Code, Section 34-278. Staff comment: See comments under Standards for considering demolitions. 2) The public necessity of the proposed demolition. Staff comment: Demolition is not a public necessity; the building has not been condemned or deemed unsafe. However, in considering the request, the BAR might weigh the public benefit of the site’s redevelopment. 3) The public purpose or interest in land or buildings to be protected. Staff comment: See comments under Standards for considering demolitions, item a. 4) Whether or not a relocation of the structure would be a practical and preferable alternative to demolition. Staff comment: See comments under Standards for considering demolitions, item d. 210 West Market Street – Demo CoA (Aug 9, 2022) 8 5) Whether or not the proposed demolition would adversely or positively affect other historic buildings or the character of the historic district. Staff comment: See comments under Standards for considering demolitions, item d. 6) The reason for demolishing the structure and whether or not alternatives exist. Staff comment: See comments under Standards for considering demolitions, item d. 7) Whether or not there has been a professional economic and structural feasibility study for rehabilitating or reusing the structure and whether or not its findings support the proposed demolition. Staff comment: See comments under Standards for considering demolitions, item c Guidelines for Demolition 1) Demolish a historic structure only after all preferable alternatives have been exhausted. 2) Document the building thoroughly through photographs and, for especially significant buildings, measured drawings according to Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) Standards. This information should be retained by the City of Charlottesville Department of Neighborhood Development Services and the Virginia Department of Historic Resources. 3) If the site is to remain vacant for any length of time, maintain the empty lot in a manner consistent with other open spaces in the districts. 210 West Market Street – Demo CoA (Aug 9, 2022) 9 Appendix 210 West Market Street – Demo CoA (Aug 9, 2022) 10 210 West Market Street – Demo CoA (Aug 9, 2022) 11 210 West Market Street – Demo CoA (Aug 9, 2022) 12 210 West Market Street – Demo CoA (Aug 9, 2022) 13 210 West Market Street – Demo CoA (Aug 9, 2022) 14 210 West Market Street – Demo CoA (Aug 9, 2022) 15 Board of Architectural Review (BAR) Certificate of Appropriateness Please Return To: City of Charlottesville Department of Neighborhood Development Services P.O. Box 911, City Hall Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Telephone (434) 970-3130 Please submit ten (10) hard copies and one (1) digital copy of application form and all attachments. Please include application fee as follows: New construction project $375; Demolition of a contributing structure $375; Appeal of BAR decision $125; Additions and other projects requiring BAR approval $125; Administrative approval $100. Make checks payable to the City of Charlottesville. The BAR meets the third Tuesday of the month. Deadline for submittals is Tuesday 3 weeks prior to next BAR meeting by 3:30 p.m. Owner N ame Mcswain Properties LLC Applicant Name Heirloom Downtown Mall Development LLC Project Name/Description Existing retail structure ------------ Parcel Number 330271000 Project Property Address 210 West Market Street Signature of Applicant Applicant Information I hereby attest that the information I have provided is, to the Address: 178 Columbus Ave., #231409 best of my��!tlge, corre . New York NY 10023 Email: jeff@heirloomdev.com 7/20/22 Phone: (W)_ _____ _ (C) 917-612-0630 Date Jeff Levien 7/20/22 Property Owner Information (if not applicant) Print Name Date Address: PO Box 2 Property Owner Permission (if not applicant) Charlottesville, VA 22902 I have read this application and hereby give my consent to Email:_________________ _ its ub _, ·sion. . � · · Phone: (W)______ (C)______ _,... . . . � D�e