Packet Guide City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Regular Meeting September 20, 2022, 5:30 p.m. Hybrid Meeting (In-person at CitySpace and virtual via Zoom) Pre-Meeting Discussion Regular Meeting A. Matters from the public not on the agenda [or on the Consent Agenda] (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 November 16, 2021 C. Deferred Items n/a D. New Items 2. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 22-09-01 608 Preston Avenue, TMP 320014000 Individually protected Property Owner: King Lumber Partners, LLC Applicant: Bradley Kipp/Random Row Brewery Project: Random Row Brewery – enclosed patio area 3. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 22-09-02 113 West Main Street, TMP 330259000 Downtown ADC District Owner: West Mall, LLC Applicant: Ben Wilkes/United Way Project: Mural 4. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 22-09-03 1301 Wertland Street, TMP 040303000 Wertland Street ADC District Owner: Roger and Jean Davis, Trustees Applicant: Kevin Schafer/Design Develop Project: New apartment building/existing Wertenbaker House c1830 September 20, 2022 BAR Packet Guide 1 5. Certificate of Appropriateness Preliminary Discussion (no action to be taken) BAR # 22-09-04 0 3rd Street NE, TMP 330020001 North Downtown ADC District Owner: Scott Loughery Applicant: Candace Smith, Architect Project: New residence on vacant lot E. Other Business 6. Discussion: No action to be taken Modifications to approved façade. BAR 20-11-03 (December 2021- approved CoA) 612 West Main Street (also 602-616), Tax Parcel 290003000 West Main ADC District Owner: Heirloom West Main Street Second Phase LLC Applicant: Jeff Dreyfus, Bushman Dreyfus Architects Project: Construction of a mixed-use building 6.1. Discussion: No action to be taken Options for the required height step backs. BAR 19-09-04 (September 2019 - recommended SUP would have no adverse impact.) 218 West Market Street Tax Parcel 330276000 Owner: Market Street Promenade, LLC, Owner Applicant: Heirloom Real Estate Holdings LLC, Applicant Project: New structure 7. Staff questions/discussion Church solar panels 1940s metal windows F. Adjourn September 20, 2022 BAR Packet Guide 2 BAR MINUTES CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW Regular Meeting November 16, 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: Breck Gastinger, Ron Bailey, Jody Lahendro, Carl Schwarz, Robert Edwards, James Zehmer, Cheri Lewis Members Absent: Tim Mohr, Andy McClure Staff Present: Joe Rice, Patrick Cory, Jeff Werner, Robert Watkins Pre-Meeting: There was no Pre-Meeting. The Meeting was called to order at 5:30 PM by staff. A. Matters from the public not on the agenda Robert Aulebach – I represent the Kappa Delta house at 120 Chancellor Street, the neighbor to 128 Chancellor Street on the Consent Agenda. They made some significant revisions to their front yard, which looks terrific. They had benches along the street. The sidewalk along the street is quite narrow. If they leave the benches where they are, there really isn’t a lot of room, especially if somebody was to sit on the benches. We had three suggestions. One would be to make the benches perpendicular to the street or move them back one foot closer to the home. That would leave enough space. William Sherman – I just wanted to note that we do take those concerns seriously. One of the things we have done as part of our revision, which involved increasing the trees, plantings, bushes, and shrubs in that front area, was to reduce the size of those benches so you wouldn’t have groups of people gathering on them. It’s a challenge to pull them back or to run them perpendicular with the limited space through there. I am happy to explore some more subtle aspects of the design that may encourage people to be sitting facing in. They were originally intended to double in participating with the street. It would be to scale. It would not involve any substantive change to the design. The spirit of these revisions throughout the design/development process of the project had been to lessen the impact on neighbors. By reducing the height of that retaining wall, pulling it away from the property line, creating a planted area between the base of our retaining wall and the existing retaining wall on the site, and designing it in a way, we can do the entire construction without encroaching on the lower edge of the site. All of our changes have been moving in that direction to lessen the impact of this project on all of the neighbors. 1 BAR Meeting Minutes November 16, 2021 Geary Albright – I am the neighbor behind the development at 128 Chancellor Street. The front of the building looks great. It would be nice if there was some greenspace. I know that has been addressed out front. There is a lot of trees and greenspace. In The Corner District, they’re trying preserve all of the greenery that is possible. I am wondering if there are things that can be done to make the rear of the building more ecologically friendly as they are trying to do with the front of the building. B. Consent Agenda (Note: Any consent agenda item may be pulled and moved to the regular agenda if a BAR member wishes to discuss it, or if any member of the public is present to comment on it. Pulled applications will be discussed at the beginning of the meeting.) 1. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 21-11-01 218 West Market Street, Tax Parcel 330276000 Owner/Applicant: Heirloom Downtown Mall Development, LLC Applicant Rep: Jeff Dreyfus, Bushman-Dreyfus Architects Project: Demolition of existing structure 2. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 21-11-03 122 Maywood Lane, Tax Parcel 110060000 Owner: Neighborhood Properties, LLC Applicant: Chris Henningsen, Henningsen Kestner Architects, Inc. Project: Partial demolition, additions and rehabilitation to the house and cottage 3. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 21-11-04 128 Chancellor Street, TMP 090105000 The Corner ADC District Owner: University Christian Ministries Applicant: Tom Keough, Train Architects Project: Façade alterations 4. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 21-11-05 1804 Chesapeake Street, Tax Map Parcel 55A141000 Woolen Mills HC District Owner/Applicant: Emily and Anthony Lazaro Project: Construct rear addition 5. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 21-11-06 745 Park Street, Tax Parcel 520051100 North Downtown ADC District Owners/Applicants: Karen Vadja and Kevin Riddle Demolition of existing dwelling Motion – Mr. Gast)inger – Move to pull Oakhurst Circle from the Consent Agenda and approve the rest of the Consent Agenda. (Second by Mr. Zehmber (Motion passes 7-0) 2 BAR Meeting Minutes November 16, 2021 C. Deferred Items 6. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 21-11-02 106 Oakhurst Circle, Tax Map Parcel 110005000 Oakhurst-Gildersleeve ADC District Owner: 106 Oakhurst Circle LLC Applicant: Patrick Farley Project: Landscaping plan Robert Watkins, Staff Report – Year Built: 1922 District: Oakhurst-Gildersleeve ADC District Status: Contributing. Designed as a combination of Colonial Revival and Craftsman styles, this two- story dwelling has a gabled roof, stucco siding, overhanging eaves with exposed rafter ends, a pent roof between the first and second floor, an interior stuccoed chimney, a concrete stoop, and a central door sheltered by a gabled hood supported by brackets. Triple eight-by-eight casement windows are found on the first floor, while eight-over-eight-sash double-hung windows are used on the second floor and flank a central triple eight-by-eight casement bay window. French doors on the east side lead out to a patio. The house also includes a rear deck and a projecting rectangular one-story bay window supported by wooden brackets on the west end. (Oakhurst-Gildersleeve Neighborhood Historic District.) Landscaping: • Remove: 6” Crepe Myrtle (front), 6” Dogwood (front), 4” Holly (rear), 40” Oak (rear)*. • New: See Plant Schedule on Sheet A. (Rain Garden, Ferns, Oak Garden, Living Fence/Green Screen, Pollinator Garden.) • Hardwood mulch within planting areas. Paving: • Walking Path (front): Cut slate/flagstone in aggregate with steel edging • Driveway (front): Concrete, permeable pavers • Driveway (rear and existing): Crushed Buckingham slate with steel edging • Entry Porch: Slate pavers.* Discussion Previously, the existing driveway (along the north parcel line) was eliminated and a new constructed (along the north parcel line). The project will now retain the existing and use the new to create a loop for access to and egress from the parking area behind the house. To allow flexibility in the required placement and width of the new driveway—for ex., to minimize removal of the existing stone curbing- -City Code Section 34-972(a)(5) allows for the BAR to make recommendations to the city traffic engineer. The suggested motion for approval includes that recommendation. Patrick Farley, Applicant – We have the right to retain the existing driveway for parking purposes. You can squeeze two cars into it right now. In the new iteration of this property, where we’re going to have four less bedrooms, we’re increasing the capacity for the site to hold up to four cars; possibly more if we can squeeze them in to take pressure off the circle and anticipating future development on the site. We’re looking to get off-street parking out of the front yard. We have already had zoning look at this. The only issues were requirements with setbacks at the property lines. There is the minimum requirement of 20 feet between the driveway cuts at the curb line. We have about 26 feet. We meet the 3 foot setbacks on either side. QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No Questions from the Public 3 BAR Meeting Minutes November 16, 2021 QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD No Questions from the Board COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC No Comments from the Public COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Gastinger – From the conversation we had with this project, we had been pretty clear that we strongly preferred moving the driveway access to the other side. We did not like the idea of the driveway moving around to the back. It came to me as a surprise that the driveway remained establishing this as a permanent parking space, which is an informal gravel drive now. It is not in keeping with the spirit of the guidelines. Section 2, Letter F, includes things like “if new parking areas are necessary, construct them so they reinforce the street wall building, locate parking lots behind buildings, and avoid creating parking areas in the front yards of historic building sites.” Going from a pretty narrow lot and having so much of the yard dedicated to driveway access and parking is in contrast to that. I don’t know if the rest of the Board feels that way. I feel it sets a damaging precedent. Mr. Lahendro – A very distinctive character of the District and Oakhurst Circle is the number of plantings, grass, and greenery in the front of the building. I worry that this sets a precedent for allowing more and more parking right in the front and taking away from that greenery and that suburban quality of the Circle, especially imagining cars sitting there. Ms. Lewis – I also agree with Breck and Jody. We spent a lot of time in previous meetings with this applicant discussing the changed location of the driveway and the configuration of it. I am disappointed that this would come back opposite to how we have supported this application and that it would come back on a landscaping plan. It’s a little disingenuous. Mr. Schwarz – While I would have preferred that this existing driveway would have gone away. That was what I thought we had discussed. It is an existing driveway. It would currently already hold cars on it. It’s not like we’re adding more parking to the front yard. We’re adding a driveway to the backyard, which is more pavement. Personally, I would be willing to approve it. They’re not adding parking. They’re making an existing spot not gravel. Mr. Zehmer – The plans put crushed Buckingham Slate there. It’s not gravel. It’s not asphalt either. Carl does have a point. It is an existing driveway and parking area. I would like to see it go away. At the same time, it is tough to argue with something that is already there. I had a chance to look at the video from the September meeting. It looks like you did address one of the concerns in terms of the sidewalk going out to the street and the bench walls flanking the front door not being asymmetrical. I do appreciate that. You did respond to our comments on the front. Mr. Gastinger – When we talked about moving the driveway in the past, it was largely in the context of a thru-passage. Have you looked at whether keeping the existing driveway as the access to the proposed parking would work? And not require the new curb cut? Mr. Farley – We did. It’s a pretty tight squeeze through there. There’s the topography of the rear that makes it pretty difficult. This is a way to take the path of least resistance. We have to make small alterations. We were going to do that anyway. It is a better plan from a traffic flow standpoint. I could have misunderstood you in the previous meeting. I do not recall agreeing to delete that existing 4 BAR Meeting Minutes November 16, 2021 condition. I do recall, very clearly, getting rid of the loop and reconfiguring the site accordingly. I don’t have any recollection of getting rid of the driveway. I did revise the front yard scheme. Mr. Lahendro – It could be my misunderstanding. I just assumed that when we talked about putting in the new driveway, the old one would go away. I did not realize that we were talking about keeping the old one and putting in a new one. Mr. Farley – I can appreciate that. The issue, as I recall, was the loop. It was the drive-thru the circuit. That was too much site involvement/site impact relative to the little addition to the four bedroom home. I accepted that. That actually did make sense. I wasn’t entirely surprised. I will ask, in the context of the new land use plan, where this is a medium intensity district, does anybody have any opinion about that, keeping current conditions in anticipation of potentially doing something else at this site down the road? Mr. Schwarz – I don’t know what the future BAR will approve when a large development wants to show up in a historical district. Until we change our guidelines, those are our guidelines. We definitely owe you a vote to see if there may be enough support for this. Mr. Bailey – If you’re going to be doing a loop that means that driveway would be useful for getting behind the building. Why aren’t you using that driveway to get behind the building and not opening a new curb? Mr. Farley – I am not saying we are. That’s a potential, future idea that we discussed. It would be very difficult to do that as an ‘in’ versus an ‘out.’ It require more site work at this point. Motion to Approve – Mr. Schwarz - Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City’s ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed landscaping plan for 106 Oakhurst Circle satisfies the BAR’s criteria and is compatible with this property and other properties in the Oakhurst Gildersleeve ADC District, and that the BAR approves the application as submitted. Additionally, the BAR recommends the city traffic engineer allow flexibility relative to the required driveway entrance width. Of particular concern, to extent possible, is preservation of the existing granite curb stones. Motion Falls Mr. Lahendro – Is there a compromise where some sort of material can be used for the existing parking area that would allow grass to grow between the units and keep the green? Mr. Farley – We’re actually doing that with the new entrance with brick pavers. It’s a symmetrical condition. Mr. Lahendro – It’s not just pervious paving. It would allow grass to grow and can be green. Mr. Schwarz – When you say grid pavers, these are the concrete with the little holes in them? Mr. Farley – Yes. Ms. Lewis – It would be impossible to ask for a sample to be passed around. I wonder if the applicant could produce a photo so we can see what we’re talking about if this is viable. I am looking at the plan. Staff shared images of what the pavers would look like for members of the BAR to see. 5 BAR Meeting Minutes November 16, 2021 Mr. Lahendro – It is not ideal. I could support that. Mr. Gastinger – We’re talking about one parking space. If the circle was the additional street parking, there would be a car that could park on the street in that location. I feel it is against our guidelines. I’m going to vote against it. The planting plan is great. I love the palates. Mr. Farley – I forgot to note that we’re creating a new driveway cut. We’re losing one but we still have one off street space and gaining one on parking space on site. Mr. Schwarz – Jody said that he would be willing to accept this compromise. There’s not enough support. Anything that would make a 4th person happy? Mr. Gastinger – For me, it is the cars parked in the front yard. This is not a driveway that would be approved in Charlottesville today nor by this Board if it was new. Passing around the site would be better. You wouldn’t have cars parked in the front yard. It would even be fewer parking spaces if that was the case. Mr. Zehmer – The question would be whether the applicant would be willing accept a motion that included removal of that existing parking. Do we want to see a revised planting plan? Mr. Schwarz – It sounds like the rest of you do not want to see the existing driveway remain? Is that the correct understanding? Ms. Lewis – The question James asked the applicant wasn’t answered. I wonder if that is a good question to ask the applicant at this point. I wondered if the applicant had a response to that. You have a majority that would vote for this landscape plan if that parking space in the front was removed. Would you agree to delete that? I think we can do that here. Mr. Farley – We have a building permit about to be issued. We can’t delay this another month. We have already lost a month here. We will delete it. I don’t know what we’re going to do with that deletion. We will figure something out. We’re deleting a driveway. We don’t have to resubmit for what we’re doing with the empty space there? Mr. Werner – I don’t know. There is a range of options that could be expressed that deviates from that. It could be examined then. That gives you an option to phrase the conditions. If it changes, we can reevaluate. Mr. Farley – I understand. We will figure it out and it will be good. I want to make sure we are clear on the process here. We have to remove an existing driveway. We don’t have to come back for approval on what we do there. Mr. Schwarz – Tell us you’re going to sod or turn it into grass. If you want to mix in the plantings, contact staff about it. It might not have to come in front of us. Mr. Gastinger – It doesn’t have to come in front of us. When we have approved things in the past with conditions, we have sometimes requested that whatever the final plan is, it is submitted for the record. 6 BAR Meeting Minutes November 16, 2021 Mr. Zehmer – I was going to suggest that. That was the second half of my question. If we’re removing that parking space, we also remove the curb cut and repair the sidewalk back to the normal sidewalk in that location. Ms. Lewis – Wouldn’t you be removing some granite at the new driveway location so that could be reused? Mr. Farley – In theory, yes. Ms. Lewis – You can call it a neighborhood garden. I would imagine that could be extended the width of that. It is not that wide. Mr. Werner – What is there now in front of the existing driveway is concrete. It appears that when the city did the new contemporary curb and gutters, the sidewalk went up to it and stopped. Mr. Zehmer – What we’re trying to avoid is if we agree to let him sod it but leave the curb cut, it will become a parking spot again. Mr. Werner – What you’re also asking is that the granite curb be infill extended so that you’re not just addressed at what happens at the ‘no longer’ driveway but also what happens at the street. Mr. Zehmer – That would be my preference. If they can reuse material removed from the other side, it’s a good one. Ms. Lewis – That was part of staff’s proposed motion. It was preservation of existing granite curb stones. Motion to Approve – Ms. Lewis – Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City’s ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed landscaping plan for 106 Oakhurst Circle satisfies the BAR’s criteria and is compatible with this property and other properties in the Oakhurst Gildersleeve ADC District, and that the BAR approves the application as submitted with the following modifications: • that the existing parking spot be removed and that the area be landscaped consistent with the landscaping plan for the adjoining front yard area • that the granite curbstones being removed for the new driveway be reused to enclose the existing driveway curb cut. • Additionally, the BAR recommends the city traffic engineer allow flexibility relative to the required driveway entrance width. Mr. Gastinger second. Motion passes 7-0. 7. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 10-11-04 123 Bollingwood Road, TMP 070022000 Individually Protected Property Owner: Juliana and William Elias Applicant: Jeff Dreyfus, Bushman Dreyfus Architects Project: Modifications to west elevation 7 BAR Meeting Minutes November 16, 2021 Jeff Werner, Staff Report – Year Built: 1884 District: IPP Disney-Keith House, a vernacular farmhouse. Between 1923 and the mid-20th century, Arthur Keith’s wife, Ellie Wood Keith, operated a riding academy here.* A barn, outbuildings, and stables immediately west of the house are no longer standing, but can be seen on the c1965 Sanborn Maps and 1966 aerial photo--see the Appendix. The existing garage south of the house was constructed in 1988. (*It is said that Elliewood Avenue was named for Mrs. Keith, but we cannot be certain.) Request CoA to modify the west elevation of the rear addition: remove the small roof over the door and replace the door and two adjacent windows with a three-panel sliding door. (The landscape plan, including other work on the property, is aspirational and included in the submittal for context only.) Discussion and Recommendations Modifications to the west elevation: The existing door and window to the left (in the photos and elevations) are not in the historic photos and were added after/during construction of the small addition to the SW corner of the main house. (See the comparison photos in the Appendix.) The City’s landmark survey suggests the rear wing was added to the original, 1884 house, with that work completed in two stages, likely prior to 1923. Staff believes the rear addition (excluding the addition at the SW corner) likely dates to between 1894 and prior to 1907.* Staff suggests the alterations to the elevation should be allowed, within the framework of the design guidelines, and supports this request conceptually. With that, staff suggests BAR discuss whether or not the proposed sliding doors are appropriate, within the framework of the design guidelines. The applicant’s submittal makes clear the design intent for the proposed changes: To connect the interior and exterior with better views and accessibility to the entertainment terrace. The design is intended to emphasize a distinction between the older building fabric and the modern renovation, not to pretend that this work was part of the historic fabric. * Typically, house additions are associated with growing households. The census data does not tell us when this house was expanded, but it does show how many people were living here. It is speculation only, but the census suggests the addition likely dates to between 1894 and 1907, when Lambert Disney and his family occupied the house. Jeff Dreyfus, Applicant – We deferred ten years ago on this. I will request a deferral now. No vote is anticipated. No vote is wanted at this point. With this presentation, we did include a concept plan. What we’re here for tonight is for preliminary comments. What you will see in the site plan and on the proposed elevation change are ideas. As a protected property, you all have purview over all of the property. Before we go far with any of this, we wanted to solicit your input, thoughts, and viability of what we’re thinking and what the owner is contemplating. The portion of the building we’re talking about is blocked in red. Anna Boeschenstein, Applicant – We’re in the preliminary stages of figuring out what to do with this property. We don’t plan to do anything besides some possibly foundation planting for the Bollingwood side of the house. We’ll keep the existing driveway as you enter the north side of the house with a stone or brick pathway to the main door. We’ll reconfigure the existing parking; just give it a bit more shape. What they would really like to do in the back is create more usable space. In the rear yard of the house, there’s some drainage issues off the kitchen. They have water draining up against boards. The backyard is filled with gravel. At the moment, there is an asphalt driveway that continues around to the back through that pool area next to the garage. That was added after the riding ring was pulled out. We’re suggesting that we reduce the paving that is bisecting the house from its rear yard, contain the parking to the side, and give them an upper lawn, which is a landscaped lawn as it is today on the upper side with a retaining wall that will help us deal with some of the grading issues and give them more usable space. We’re also looking at a pool fence that will be a decorative wood fence in 8 BAR Meeting Minutes November 16, 2021 conjunction with the wall. The wall might be brick or stone. We have gotten that far with the pool terrace and the hardscape connecting the various areas. Mr. Dreyfus – I will move onto the façade proposal. Staff has pointed out for you the area we’re talking about what is behind this door and these two windows. The window on the left is directly into the kitchen. The door straddles the kitchen. The window on the right is the breakfast area. That door is between the two. The space has a limited connection with this terrace. It is the place the family spends most of their time outdoors. The proposal here is to put in a larger door system that would connect the indoors much better with the outdoors. That porch is an interesting one. There doesn’t seem to be any indication when it was built. It was after the photos staff shared with us. The family just completed a complete overhaul of the wraparound porch, which was exquisitely done. They do care about caring for the property. (Next Slide) You can see here the existing elevation. Below it is a sketch concept. We’re here tonight to talk about this with you. Ten years ago, we were looking at providing access to the yard from the two windows on the ground floor to the left. It was clear that there was real concern about taking the most historic part of the house and modifying it in a way that would have opened that elevation out to the yard. In talking further with them, the idea that we could connect the kitchen and the breakfast room out to this terrace grew. This is a diagram that does express an intent of doing something distinctly different from the historic fabric of the house so that there’s no confusion. The Guidelines for the Secretary of the Interior are no false stoicism. In thinking about the door system that might go here, we could certainly put in some divided lights. That seems a little ‘hokie’ and ‘phony’ to us. Our thought here is to be distinctly modern in this one intervention in the most inconspicuous part of the entire property. From an interior perspective, it would make a huge difference. In looking at the Design Guidelines for the Architectural Control Districts, it is noted that rehabilitation is recognized as the act of bringing an old building into use by adding modern amenities, meeting current building code, and providing a use that is viable. We feel this is being a modern amenity and is modern in its style. (Next Slide) These are other projects that have done similar types of work, taking old fabric and contrasting the new with it. Other than these precedent images, we did not want to take this so far that were backing ourselves into a corner. I would rather hear your thoughts on this concept of something that is bold and distinctly different. (Next Slide) We do have a current survey of the property that might explain the current driveway coming through the entire property to access the garage. Removing that seems to be a nice step to putting the house back into a fully landscaped setting as opposed to surrounding it with asphalt to the north, west, and Bollingwood Road on the east. QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No Questions from the Public QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD 9 BAR Meeting Minutes November 16, 2021 Mr. Gastinger – A lot of the architectural description doesn’t really refer much to landscape elements other than the more recent writing. Are there any other existing elements that are acknowledged about earlier design of that rear landscape? Ms. Boeschenstein – Not really. In the front, there’s a couple of beautiful oaks. Back in the 70s and 80s, there were these falling down shedrow barns, overgrowth. Since then, there has been a few attempts at planting some maples for each of the children they would like to keep. There’s nothing significant. Mr. Gastinger – It’s pretty clear that the doorway and the left window are not even in their original locations. The windows look more contemporary. Are they contemporary windows? Mr. Dreyfus – Yes. I believe the two windows are probably 80s. I am not certain of that. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC No Comments from the Public COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Schwarz – The back of this building has been significantly modified since the middle of the 20th century. There’s nothing historic that you would be changing. If you want to put an addition back there, we would probably allow something like that. Cutting a big opening and putting in a modern door, I can’t see a problem with that at all. I have no concerns with the landscape plan. It looks like you’re on the right track. Mr. Lahendro – Considering where it is, it is not a prominent elevation from the road, it’s not an intervention in the most historic part of the house or impacting a character defining feature of the historic house, this wing was never a distinctive architectural element, and it was always utilitarian and it has been fiddled with, I am fine with the intervention. I love the boldness. I love that you’re not trying to create something that’s phony. Mr. Gastinger – I support the project. It looks great. It is a really elegant approach. The landscape plan seems well on its way. I don’t see any issues with it regarding our guidelines. Mr. Zehmer – I support it as well. My only concern was the two additions. I was concerned the opening spread across most of the addition. Ms. Lewis – I am supportive as well. I am just curious about how that opening will look. We do have guidelines about new openings. There was a suggestion that it might be a sliding glass. Some of the examples you have given of existing properties where this has been utilized show plate glass with no moveable portion. I wonder if you could give us a little more idea about what the owners are looking to do. Mr. Dreyfus – Skye Sliding Doors make a frameless sliding door. It is basically plate glass. They are beautiful. They are very minimal and really exquisite. That would be our goal. Ms. Boeschenstein – I am going to assume that you might like a similar approach taken with the landscape; perhaps not brick, not modern materials. What are your feelings on that? 10 BAR Meeting Minutes November 16, 2021 Mr. Gastinger – We don’t have a lot of guidelines for a landscape like this unless there was more knowledge about of the character defining features that would have been part of that landscape. The palate is encouraged to be native and non-invasive. I think you have the ability to design that in keeping with the approach you are having with the house; both a contemporary approach and something more historic related. One concern is inventing some history that occurred for this house that we just don’t know about. Mr. Dreyfus – We have received the feedback we were hoping for. We appreciate it. I appreciate the Board allowing us to come and run these ideas by you before we dive in. I am excited by the reception. Applicant request for Deferral – Motion to Accept Deferral – Mr. Schwarz – Second by Mr. Lahendro – Motion passes 7-0. D. New Items 8. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 21-11-07 946 Grady Avenue, TMP 310060000 Individually Protected Property Owner: Dairy Central Phase 1, LLC Applicant: Joshua Batman Project: Install gas-powered heaters over entries Jeff Werner, Staff Report – Year Built: 1937-1964 District: IPP Former Monticello Dairy building. Designated an IPP in 2008. The original central 2-story (5-bay) portion of the building and flanking one-story (7-bay) portions are dated 1937. The east side addition (7-bay) was built in 1947/1964; the similar west side addition (6-bay) was built in 1959. Request for CoA to install fourteen (14) gas- powered, infrared heaters on exterior walls: eleven (11) on the north façade and three (3) on the west façade. Discussion and recommendation Staff recommends denial of this request. Permanent installation of the heaters into the masonry wall and penetration of the walls for gas and electric conduits will damage the masonry and introduce a component that is incompatible with the historic façade.* The heaters are inconsistent with the building and the previously approved alterations and rehabilitations. Additionally, the heaters will be used only seasonally, serving a need that can be addressed with portable heaters and without altering or damaging the historic façade. (* See locations in Appendix.) Regarding installation of the proposed heaters: Two mounting brackets are anchored into the masonry wall. Gas and electric are supplied via separate conduits through the wall. (See Appendix.) Regarding portable heaters: (See images in the Appendix.) The proposed wall-mounted heater (Dayton #21MK93) produces 34,000 BTUs, heats a 64 sq. ft. area [immediately adjacent to the wall], and costs approximately $1,200, not including installation. Portable, propane heaters are available that produce between 38,000 and 48,000 BTUs, can heat areas from 200 to 324 sq. ft., and costs range between $200 to $500, not including propane. (www.toptenreviews.com/best-patio-heaters) 11 BAR Meeting Minutes November 16, 2021 Staff note: On October 26, 2021, citing the informal discussion with the BAR, staff recommended to the applicant they consider withdrawing the request and, in lieu of wall-mounted heaters, use portable heaters. The applicant replied: “We appreciate the BAR’s concerns. We are trying to help the operation of the market with this request. The temporary heaters are costly and burdensome to the staff/merchants and we are trying to respond to the desire to keep outdoor dining available as long into the colder months as possible. We would like to keep the application at present and look forward to hearing the BAR’s thoughts on the matter.” Should the BAR consider approval of this request, staff recommends the following conditions: • The heaters will be installed above the existing arches. • Wall penetrations for the mounting brackets and conduits will be within the mortar joints and in a manner to minimize, if not avoid, damage to the bricks. • Gas and electric supply (conduits, junction boxes, etc.) will be through the wall at each heater, individually, and installed in a manner that minimizes exterior visibility. Building permit application will indicate the specific location of each heater, wall penetrations, and visible (exterior) supply conduits and connections. Staff will review for compliance with the CoA. • If/when the heaters are removed, the masonry walls will be repaired in accordance with the ADC District Design Guidelines. Joshua Batman, Applicant – This is a utilitarian request. It’s something our vendors have requested. I understand that it is not the most popular thing from a historic conservation context. The temporary gas heaters can be expensive and difficult for the staff to set out, take down, and lock up every evening. That’s the genesis of this request. Staff has pretty accurately described where they go and what we’re requesting. We did try to pick colors that tied to the theme of the Dairy Market. It’s pretty clear what we’re asking for. I understand your reservations. QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No Questions from the Public QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Schwarz – They’re mounted a foot/18 inches off the wall. They’re on arms that stick out. Is that correct? Mr. Batman – Yes. They have little arms. Mr. Bailey – How far would the heat reach from the heaters out onto the patios? Mr. Batman – That’s difficult to say based on wind. It would probably reach out about ten feet out into the space. It is in an effort to try to bring more life to that patio and more room to the Market during the colder months. Mr. Bailey – It is still going to be part of the patio that would not have to be heated. You would have to have portable heaters in any case. Is the intention to heat the whole area? Mr. Batman – The intention is to modify the temperature outside so that people feel more comfortable eating outside during a longer portion of the cold season. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC 12 BAR Meeting Minutes November 16, 2021 Lisa Kendrick – Is it noisy? Mr. Batman – It shouldn’t be terribly noisy. You might hear a little of woosh from the gas coming out and burning. It wouldn’t be loud, mechanical noises. COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Gastinger – This has been a project to work on over the years. We all feel glad for the care that was taken to restore and preserve this building. It’s been a very successful change and addition to the city. Learning about this building and its early design recognition led us to appreciate that front long façade. It has shined in the way it has been restored. It really is hard to see how this proposal doesn’t jeopardize that restoration. I can’t support it. Looking further to our guidelines and to the Secretary of Interior’s standards, there are several point about not adding mechanical systems that radically change, damage, or destroy the character defining features or installing systems or ducts that cause damage to historic building materials or character defining features. It’s very clear that long façade is one of the primary ones. Unfortunately, I can’t support this. Mr. Schwarz – We do have guidelines. There is nothing about exterior heaters. Anything mechanical shouldn’t be on the front wall. Mr. Batman – It is a very utilitarian request. I understand your concerns. Mr. Lahendro – I agree with what has been said. I can’t support it. It’s a permanent intervention. It’s incompatible. It jumps out, especially not being at every window. It is being asked because it is inconvenient for the staff to be working with portable heaters. The historic building and preserving it is worth a little bit of inconvenience. Motion – Mr. Lahendro - Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed exterior heaters do not satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are not compatible with this Individually Protected Property, and for the following reasons the BAR denies the request as submitted: • The proposed project would be a permanent intervention • The proposed project would inflict damage to the historic structure • The proposed project is noncompliant with the guidelines Mr. Gastinger seconded the Motion. Motion passes 7-0. 9. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 21-11-08 111-115 West Main Street (also 113), TMP 330259000 Downtown ADC District Owner: West Mall, LLC Applicant: Caitlin Schafer, Henningsen-Kestner Architects Project: Storefront alteration Jeff Werner, Staff Report – Year Built: c1913-1914 District: Downtown ADC District Status: Contributing. Known as the Feuchtenberger Building, it was constructed in 1913-14 as a 4-bay duplex store with apartments above. The façade was changed in the early 1990’s. The rear of the brick building is accessed by a concrete driveway from West Market Street. The rear façade of the building is partially obscured by the former church annex) building on the abutting property. CoA request for the rehabilitate of the façade and replacement of the storefront. 13 BAR Meeting Minutes November 16, 2021 • Storefront: o Stain exposed wood with Arborcoat. Cordovan Brown o Remove canopy and install new: red cedar with Cu standing-seam roof. o Remove the two cornices and install a continuous cornice over both storefronts. Painted wood. Benj Moore Simply White. o Install thin-set brick floor entries. • Upper floor windows: Remove wood sills and headers, expose stone or metal and paint. Benj Moore Simply White. Discussion and Recommendations The existing storefront is not original. The stone headers and sills on the upper windows are covered with metal flashing. (See photos in Appendix and the applicant’s submittal.) Staff asked the applicant to clarify the work at the upper floor windows: All the windows are staying, as is, that includes the brickmould and mull cap. The only change we want to make is to the headers and sills. The header and sill covers that are there now, are a flashing / metal cover. If the original header and sills are in good condition, we will take the metal covers off. If they are not, we will keep the existing covers on and paint them. Staff recommends approval. Caitlin Schafer, Applicant – As you have walked by this building, you have noticed the canopy and a few pieces are in need of restoration and a little bit of facelift. We began by looking at some historic storefronts and the historic images that were included in our proposal. I have decided to take the approach of stripping back as much as possible, exposing the original building, and then taking different pieces throughout the historic images and applying them. We’re hoping to keep it pretty simple so that the few more decorative items on this building stand out. The window sills and headers were covered at some point. We’re not sure why. We’re hoping what is underneath is in good condition and we can expose it. If we do some demolition and realize that they’re not able to be exposed, we will probably keep what is there, which is a metal surround and paint it the matching white color. We had introduced a traditional cornice that runs the whole length of the storefront. Currently, there are two blocks on either side. The middle door isn’t addressed. We’re hoping by having the piece come all of the way across will make it more cohesive. We’re keeping the wood storefront that’s there. It’s in good condition. It is a nice, polite statement to the storefront. We’re just going to stain it a darker color. It has some red to it right now. By taking that red out of the stain and making it darker, it will contrast a little bit more to the brick. The existing canopy is in the worst condition. We’re going to strip that back and keep the beams that are there. Those beams do stand from the exterior to the interior space. We’re going to keep them. They do feel oversized to me. By introducing more of an overhang with the roof and a true fascia, we’re hoping that the beams read a little less tall. We’re going to do a standing seam copper roof. We’re hoping that it pops off the light surround that we have. The tile on the different entrances is in pretty bad shape. We’re hoping to do a fence so that the brick on the Mall extends into that store space. QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No Questions from the Public QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD 14 BAR Meeting Minutes November 16, 2021 Mr. Schwarz – You’re keeping the wood storefront. The trim that goes around it to the new cornice will be painted. Is there a reason that you’re not using something more permanent like fiber cement? It seems that it might be more durable. Ms. Schafer – We would like to use a more composite material. A fypon material would probably be best and last longer. That would be the hope. It’s making sure that ties in nicely with that wood storefront too. That would be ideal to use a more composite material. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC No Comments from the Public COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Schwarz –I find this perfectly approval. You have done a nice job. Mr. Lahendro – Are you trying to replicate a historic condition by putting this cornice back? Ms. Schafer – Yes. That is correct. It’s something that is shown in a couple of the historic images. It would be to match a more historic feel. Mr. Lahendro – You don’t have the details of what that cornice would look like up close like the moldings. I expect fypon doesn’t have the particular kind of moldings that would have been originally on this building. Ms. Schafer – I specified different kinds of moldings on that section. Those are the moldings we would like to use. I don’t know if they are historically accurate. Mr. Lahendro – If it’s based on the photographs that I see, there’s nothing close enough to know exactly what was there. I worry about trying to replicate something that we don’t have enough information about. I would almost rather see something that was obviously a little different and not try to fool someone. Mr. Schwarz – Look at page 186 of the packet. I don’t think what they’re proposing looks like what was originally there. Mr. Zehmer – That was also my concern. This has a simple crystal crown molding that runs across. You have to imagine that the actual opening does go right up to that bottom line structurally. It has little framed-out panels. Ms. Schafer – The design was more a nod to a historic storefront and not an effort to replicate what originally was there. Mr. Bailey – What you’re proposing looks very clean elegant. It doesn’t look historic in the way that Jody was concerned about. It looks pretty good. Ms. Lewis – It is certainly not like the 1974 photograph that we have of those storefronts. I support it. Mr. Schwarz – Make sure whatever you do use is durable. 15 BAR Meeting Minutes November 16, 2021 Motion – Mr. Zehmer – Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed façade rehabilitation and storefront alterations for 111-115 West Main Street satisfies the BAR’s criteria and is compatible with this property and other properties in the Downtown ADC district, and that the BAR approves the application as submitted. Mr. Bailey seconds. Motion passes 7-0. E. Discussion Items (No Actions will be taken) 10. Update on project status BAR 20-11-03 612 West Main Street, Tax Parcel 290003000 West Main ADC District Owner: Heirloom West Main Street Second Phase LLC Applicant: Jeff Dreyfus, Bushman Dreyfus Architects Project: New construction of a mixed-use development • Staff introduced this as a project update for 612 West Main Street that the applicant requested. • A Special Use Permit was approved by City Council for this project. • Staff did circulate notice letters and notice signs regarding this project to the neighbors around this project. • Staff did remind the applicant that there is going to be a new BAR starting in January. • The Chair asked why the staff is bringing this to the BAR for review and discussion. • Staff wanted to give the public opportunity to comment on the project. There is going to be no formal action taken on the project. • Jeff Dreyfus (Applicant) provided an update on this project to the BAR. It has been six months since the last update to the BAR. • Mr. Dreyfus said that the intent of coming to the BAR is to get feedback and recommendations from the BAR on how to proceed to a formal approval. The applicant does hope to start work and construction in February. The overall design will be set and ready to go. • The applicant is planning on returning to the BAR next month to get a formal approval. • Anne Pray (Applicant) presented the landscape plan for this project. QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No Questions from the Public QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Gastinger – Can you give us an update on how you’re approaching the street trees that are not part of the project? I see that you have them located. Is that something you will be installing? Mr. Dreyfus – They are a requirement by the city. If were to try to place them where the masterplan for West Main Street shows them, they would be out in the public right of way. Mr. Schwarz – In the renderings, I see the tree on the 600 West Main Street property line. Is that going to remain? Mr. Dreyfus – I believe that is correct. Ms. Pray – That’s correct. 16 BAR Meeting Minutes November 16, 2021 Mr. Schwarz – You’re going to be taking out five trees, leave an existing one, and putting in four new ones? Ms. Pray – That’s correct. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC Jake Lassen – I live at 600 West Main Street. I just moved into the building. I just wanted to raise concerns about this project. There are quite a bit of small issues and large issues. Rooms are already starting to droop. The floors aren’t level. Windows can’t open because of many reasons. I am wondering with this drastic change and approach, there might not be as many lessons learned and material mistakes are going to be made in the new building. Joey Conover – We live at 310 6th Street Southwest, which is a couple blocks behind this building. We walk up 5th Street frequently to West Main Street. I just wanted to a ‘plug in’ about the backside of the building and it is not forgotten. No building will ever be built up against it because of the railroad track. I didn’t understand what Mr. Dreyfus was saying about the EIFS. I was wondering what the material was on the backside. I don’t want the backside to be blank. My other comment was on the front side of the building. The plans look very nice. I would just encourage more public seating to be included in the project. I am glad to see that small foyer public area in the front. When the other building was built, I was excited about the courtyard that was built. Anything that can make it feel like a public space is appreciated. I appreciate the front façade and the recessing around the front windows. Those do a nice job of breaking up the façade. COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Schwarz – In response to the first comment, our purview is the exterior of the building. We want it to be long-lasting and durable. Mr. Gastinger – One of the biggest things with this building is getting the brick right. Looking at the images, I do like the approach with using the texture. That could really be fun and is a way to break it up. There could be more color differentiation in the hyphens if it is intended to be the same brick. The main thing I am concerned about, looking at the image of the preliminary brick mockup, is that the brick that is selected there is really uniform and cold. I feel that it looks pretty institutional. I am very concerned about what this times the entire façade starts to look like. It’s going to be very bright and plain. It doesn’t have the same kind of modeling and life that the other examples that you share. Even the digital model shows a lot of subtle modeling and color variation within the brick. I am afraid we’re not going to get that based on that mockup. I would certainly encourage investigating, if that is the brick, some mixture of subtle tonal variation. I am concerned this is going to be very bright white. Mr. Dreyfus – We felt the same way about the brick. We are looking at a different brick. Mr. Schwarz – You have a lot of thin brick. I would like to see an installation detail or an installation cut sheet, something from the manufacturer. It looks like you’re using that for field brick on the upper levels and the recesses in the windows? Mr. Dreyfus – That’s correct. 17 BAR Meeting Minutes November 16, 2021 Mr. Schwarz – You may have two different installation methods. With our guidelines, I thought there was something in there about not using thin brick. The idea behind that was that the glue-on brick has a tendency to fall off. If you’re going to use that around the window surrounds, maybe that’s the way it happens. We would want to see something more for as a field brick. In your drawings, you said it was EIFS. Label it as EIFS. I would love to see some plan details for the recesses or something that gives us the dimensions. The renderings look fantastic. It would be nice to have what this is going to be. If you have plan for the power lines, I would love to see that in the drawings. Mr. Dreyfus – We did talk about this. We have to go on the assumption that the power lines will ultimately be there. They will relocated during construction. We really don’t have any control over Dominion Power. It will have to be put back where they are. Mr. Schwarz – With that existing tree on the landscape plan, there is a little bit of some plans showing it and some plans not showing it. It’s there and it’s staying. With the steps in the front, you come up to the property line where you have the two steps up. You’re probably going to need some handrails. I don’t think they’re allowed to extend over the public sidewalk. With those trees, you said they’re required. I am going to suggest that the Board put some wording in the motion that really locks them in there. I don’t fully trust the city with the site plan process. We have had some site plans that get changed at the last minute. The project is moving in a great direction. I am very happy with what I am seeing. Mr. Gastinger – Related to the trees, is there an opportunity to select a species that would be more in keeping with the West Main strategy? Ms. Pray – I am really trying to use an elm cultivar instead of using a Zelkova, actually using a Valley Forge. I really want to be in keeping with a true canopy sized tree that can work on the street. I would like to have that vase shape. It would really open up well. We have not finalized that. Mr. Gastinger – I love that direction. I don’t know what is planned in this area. It might be worth checking. Ms. Pray – It’s a great opportunity to get four trees along Main Street. Ms. Lewis – I would like to see detail on the railings for the front and south facades. Mr. Schwarz – If you are doing an expedited construction schedule, does that mean you will have a site plan that is done soon? Mr. Dreyfus – Yes. We hope to have an approved final site plan in early January, 2022. We are moving ahead under that assumption. It’s been a very slow process with the city. That is the plan. We will start footings and foundations digging as soon as we can after that. We won’t have completed final construction documents until early April, 2022. We have the opportunity to make adjustments if we need to. Mr. Schwarz – I am just wondering when you bring this in for final approval from us, do you think you might have some concept where the fire hydrants and waterlines are going to be? Mr. Dreyfus – Yes. We can show you all of that. It is on the plans. It’s all pretty clear and finalized. It’s just a matter of it working through the city process right now. We can include, as part of that next submission, the site plan as it currently stands. 18 BAR Meeting Minutes November 16, 2021 Mr. Zehmer – It has come a long way since we first saw it. Mr. Bailey – It’s going in the right direction. Mr. Schwarz – No motion is needed because this was a discussion. How you plan to light this will be good to know. Mr. Dreyfus – We need some good brick panels and details. The lighting is going to be very subtle. We may not have a final lighting plan for that submission. It is hopefully something we can come back to you with in the future. F. Other Business Election of new chair and vice chair • Mr. Schwarz nominated Mr. Gastinger for Chair and Ms. Lewis for Vice-Chair – Mr. Bailey second the motion and nomination – Motion passes 7-0. Staff questions/discussion Preservation Awards • After much discussion between members of the BAR and staff of possible candidates for possible awards, it was decided to have a list of nominees for the Preservation Awards for the December meeting. G. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:42 PM. 19 BAR Meeting Minutes November 16, 2021 Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 22-09-01 608 Preston Avenue, TMP 320014000 Individually protected Property Owner: King Lumber Partners, LLC Applicant: Bradley Kipp/Random Row Brewery Project: Random Row Brewery – enclosed patio area Application components (please click each link to go directly to PDF page): • Staff Report • Historic Survey • Application Submittal September 20, 2022 BAR Packet Guide 3 City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Staff Report September 20, 2022 Certificate of Appropriateness BAR # 22-09-01 608 Preston Avenue, TMP 320014000 Individually Protected Property Owner: King Lumber Partners, LLC Applicant: Bradley Kipp/Random Row Brewery Project: Random Row Brewery – enclosed patio area Background Year Built: Site first developed in 1909 District: Individually Protected Property Status: Contributing 608 Preston Avenue is a former industrial site developed by the King Lumber Company, a major lumber processing and distributing center. At one time, it was Charlottesville’s largest employer. King Lumber Company went out of business during the Great Depression, but the property continued to be used and developed in the intervening decades. The property was used for storage and later, as a Napa Auto Parts location. The site contains numerous buildings that relate to its industrial use. Its primary building is a three-story brick warehouse facing Preston Avenue. This stepped gable-fronted building was constructed in 1909. A one-story metal-clad annex is situated immediately west of the historic brick warehouse building. This annex was constructed sometime between 1957 and 1966 and was originally connected to the adjacent warehouse. In 2016, parts of this annex were demolished to create a new pedestrian gallery between the historic warehouse and the annex, transforming the annex into a freestanding building. Prior BAR Reviews December 18, 2007 – BAR conducts preliminary discussion on rehabilitation of historic King Building and alterations to adjacent annex. http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/622048/BAR_608%20Preston%20Avenue_Dec2007.pdf 608 Preston Avenue (September 6, 2022) 1 March 18, 2008 – BAR approved (7-0) as submitted demolition of part of the rear shed, concrete loading area, part of annex roof and walls and certain openings in King Building both to restore historic openings and to alter window openings and doors. BAR approved (7-0) the rehab of the King Building and additions to the annex with the condition that the design of the connector piece be required to be revised to be more open (revised elevation to be submitted for staff approval) and the BAR requested that the orientation of the stair be studied in an effort to reduce the size of the balcony landings; and that the elevator be investigated to make it as low as possible; and that the color of the steel is to be approved by staff. The approval includes the proposed color to repaint the brick if the applicant chooses to do that. The site plan including the height of the wall (to possibly be reduced) will come back to the BAR for approval. The signage must be approved separately. In general, simpler signage is better; check with staff on monument signage regulations; straightforward landscaping is preferred. http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/622051/BAR_608%20Preston%20Avenue_March2008.pdf April 15, 2008 – BAR reviews site plan for project, applicant requests deferral. May 20, 2008 - BAR approved (8-0) the site plan design with the following conditions: Construction details for 2 benches and detail for the termination of sawcut of poured-in-place terraces and any other handrail details that become necessary are to come back for staff approval. http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/622052/BAR_608%20Preston%20Avenue_May2008.pdf July 2008 – BAR recommended approval of a SUP to allow live music events. August 27, 2012 – Administrative approval of 33-ft x 10-ft x 9-ft high patio cover with corrugated metal roofing. (Alteration to existing loading dock at rear elevation of single-story, metal-clad annex.) http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/622053/BAR_608%20Preston%20Avenue_Aug2012.pdf February 17, 2015 - BAR approved (6-0) the renovation project as submitted. Project includes: • Demolition of a portion of the annex to create an open pedestrian gallery between brick warehouse and annex • New fire escape on brick warehouse • Refurbish brick • Recladding annex with corrugated galvalume siding • New window configuration in annex http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/622049/BAR_608%20Preston%20Avenue_Feb2015.pdf April 21, 2015 - The BAR approved the revisions to the renovation plan. http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/625050/BAR_608%20Preston%20Avenue_April2015.pdf Application • Submittal: Narrative of proposed alterations; current site photographs; elevation drawing of existing conditions; elevation drawing of proposed alterations; plan of proposed covered patio structure; swatch of proposed metal roofing material CoA request for the construction of a metal canopy at the front (northeast) elevation of annex building. 608 Preston Avenue (September 6, 2022) 2 Canopy will be supported by 6 steel I-beams that match I-beams at present front entrance as well as those supporting smaller canopy at building rear. Canopy will be clad in metal tuff-rib panel. Discussion and Recommendation This building is a contributing element to the King Lumber Company IPP at 608 Preston Avenue. This IPP encompasses the subject building, the 1909 brick warehouse immediately east, and two one-story industrial buildings at the rear. The subject building (Random Row Brewery) is not the site’s primary historic structure and has already experienced substantial alterations from its original appearance. Aerial photographs reveal that the structure was built sometime between 1957 and 1966 (see Appendix for photos). The structure was originally a one-story addition to the brick King Lumber Company warehouse. However, in 2016, the site was substantially reconfigured. The annex was partially demolished to create a new pedestrian gallery separating it from the historic warehouse. As a result, the annex became a freestanding building. The annex was also entirely reclad in galvanized metal and its apertures were reconfigured to create larger windows. Staff finds the use of industrial materials, like I-beams, consistent with the site’s industrial history and the subject building’s contemporary appearance. Because the building is not the IPP’s primary historic structure and because it has already experienced such dramatic alterations, staff finds that the proposed project will contribute positively to the building’s continued use. 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 patio canopy at 608 Preston Avenue satisfies the BAR’s criteria and is compatible with this property and other Individually Protected Properties, and that the BAR approves the application as submitted. ... as submitted with the following conditions: Denial: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed patio canopy at 608 Preston Avenue does not satisfy the BAR’s criteria and is not compatible with this property and other Individually Protected Properties, 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 608 Preston Avenue (September 6, 2022) 3 (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 Design Review Guidelines for Rehabilitation Chapter 4 Rehabilitation B. Facades and Storefronts Over time, commercial buildings are altered or remodeled to reflect current fashions or to eliminate maintenance problems. Often these improvements are misguided and result in a disjointed and unappealing appearance. Other improvements that use good materials and sensitive design may be as attractive as the original building and these changes should be saved. The following guidelines will help to determine what is worth saving and what should be rebuilt. 1) Conduct pictorial research to determine the design of the original building or early changes. 2) Conduct exploratory demolition to determine what original fabric remains and its condition. 3) Remove any inappropriate materials, signs, or canopies covering the façade. 4) Retain all elements, materials, and features that are original to the building or are contextual remodelings, and repair as necessary. 5) Restore as many original elements as possible, particularly the materials, windows, decorative details, and cornice. 6) When designing new building elements, base the design on the “Typical elements of a commercial façade and storefront.” 7) Reconstruct missing or original elements, such as cornices, windows, and storefronts, if documentation is available. 8) Design new elements that respect the character, materials, and design of the building, yet are distinguished from the original building. 9) Depending on the existing building’s age, originality of the design and architectural significance, in some cases there may be an opportunity to create a more contemporary façade design when undertaking a renovation project. 10) Avoid using materials that are incompatible with the building or within the specific districts, including textured wood siding, vinyl or aluminum siding, and pressure-treated wood, Avoid introducing inappropriate architectural elements where they never previously existed. 608 Preston Avenue (September 6, 2022) 4 APPENDIX Historic Aerial Photographs (from https://geoportal.lib.virginia.edu/UVAImageDiscovery/) 1957 (site of subject building highlighted: 1966 (subject building highlighted): 608 Preston Avenue (September 6, 2022) 5 Sanborn Maps 608 Preston Avenue (September 6, 2022) 6 ADC District or IPP 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 contact: Charlottesville. Virginia 22902 Jeff Werner wernerjb@charlottesville.gov Telephone (434) 970-3130 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 $125: Additions and other oroiects reauirina BA$ aooroval $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 King Lumber Partners, LLC Applicant Name Kevin McElroy , Random Row Brewing Co. Project Name/Description Covered patio at Random Row Brewing Co. 3200 I 4000 Parcel Number Project Property Address 608 Preston Avenue Ste. A ... Signature of Applicant Applicant Information I hereby attest that the information I have provided is, to the Address: 608 Preston Ave, Ste A best of my knowledge. correct. Charlottesville, VA, 22903 Email: kevin@randomrow.com 8/26/2022 Phone: (W) 434-284-8466 (C) 757-620-6919 s1:.� Date Kevin McElroy 8/26/2022 Property Owner Information (if not applicant) Print Name Date Address: 1208 Preston Avenue Property Owner Permission (if not applicant) i�/- C-vile,22903 I have read this application and hereby give my consent to Email: markwgreen@gmail.com Phone: (W) ______ (C) 434-409-3313 �------ 8-26-22 Signature Date Do you intend to apply for Federal or State Tax Credits Mark Green 8/26/22 for this project? ___N_o_______ Print Name Date Description of Proposed Work (attach separate narrative if necessary): Construct open rooted patio structure (see attachments tor detailed into) 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 Random Row Brewing Co. 608 Preston Ave., Ste A Charlottesville, VA 22903 Board of Architectural Review (BAR) Certificate of Appropriateness (ADC Districts and IPP’s) Attachments requested (1) Detailed and clear depictions of any proposed changes in the exterior features of the subject property : We are requesting approval to build an open structure with a roof covering our 912 sq.ft. patio space on the Preston Ave. facing side of our building. The structure would consist of 6 steel I-beams (3 in front and 3 in rear of proposed structure), similar to the existing I-beams that make up the structure of the entrance awning on the same side, roofed with Galvanized/galvalum colored tuff-rib panel (see attachment (3) for details on material). Since the COVID-19 pandemic, customers have been more interested in outdoor seating. As a result, we have expanded our seating capacity on our patio and attempted to extend the seasons with heaters and tents. Currently we are renting a large 20’ x 20’ tent and have additional 10’ x 10’ tents for rain and sun cover. To improve the aesthetics of our building, we are hoping to replace the tents with a permanent roof that will blend in with the current building. (2) Photographs of the subject property and photographs of the buildings on contiguous properties : Current front of building, picture taken from median of Preston Avenue, showing temporary tent structures: Additional images of front of building: Rear of building, showing a similar, smaller covered patio structure that was previously approved by the BAR: King Lumber Building adjacent to subject property: Drawing of existing frontage of building: Conceptual drawing of proposed patio cover from front: Drawing of proposed “floor plan” of covered patio structure, which is essentially the layout of the current patio space that the roofed structure will cover: (3) One set of samples to show the nature (TUFF-RIB, Galvanized/galvalume) (4) The history of an existing building or structure, if requested: available upon request (5) For new construction and projects proposing expansion of the footprint of an existing building: a three-dimensional model (in physical or digital form): N/A (6) In 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: N/A Ace Ironworks LLC 389 Wildwood Court Charlottesville, Va 22901 (434) 466-5358 SK-2 LINE OF PROPOSED CANOPY ROOF 3" 37'-416 RANDOM ROW 608 PRESTON AVE 11" 15'-516 12'-87 8" LINE OF PROPOSED Scale: 3 CANOPY COLUMN 16=1'-0" Issued: 9/8/22 LINE OF PROPOSED CANOPY COLUMN Revisions: Decription: Drawing Number: SK-1 Ace Ironworks LLC 389 Wildwood Court Charlottesville, Va 22901 (434) 466-5358 LINE OF EXISTING BUILDING RANDOM ROW 608 PRESTON AVE 19' HATCH: PROPOSED CANOPY AREA 26' Scale: 3 16=1'-0" Issued: 9/8/22 1" Revisions: 34 21'-3" Decription: Drawing Number: SK-2 Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 22-09-02 113 West Main Street, TMP 330259000 Downtown ADC District Owner: West Mall, LLC Applicant: Ben Wilkes/United Way Project: Mural Application components (please click each link to go directly to PDF page): • Staff Report • Historic Survey • Application Submittal September 20, 2022 BAR Packet Guide 4 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW STAFF REPORT September 20, 2022 Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 22-09-02 113 West Main Street, TMP 330259000 Downtown ADC District Owner: West Mall, LLC Applicant: Ben Wilkes/United Way Project: Mural (on rear and side elevation, visible from West Market Street) Background Year Built: 1913 District: Downtown ADC District Status: Contributing 111-115 West Main Street is a three-story brick commerial building in downtown Charlottesville. The building has two, two-bay commercial units and is crowned with a projecting cornice at the parapet. Built in 1913, the building originally housed a bakery and a silent movie theater. A theater continued to operate in the western half of the building until 1966; the east half was long home to the Men and Boys’ Shop. Prior BAR Actions November 16, 2021 – BAR approved CoA to replace ground-floor retail storefronts. Application Applicant Submitted: • United Way of Greater Charlottesville submittal: Mural narrative; diagrams showing location and position of proposed mural; proposed mural design Paint a mural on the building’s rear (side oriented towards Market Street). Mural would wrap building corner and would consist of: • Large rectangular-framed mural on north elevation • Discrete painted butterflies on west elevation 113 West Main Street (September 6, 2022) 1 Conceptual. 113 West Main Street (September 6, 2022) 2 Discussion The north elevation’s brick cladding is already painted. The proposed mural does not obscure or interfere with architectural element--staff finds this portion of the mural appropriate. The proposed butterflies on the west elevation would be applied on masonry that is currently unpainted. The Design Guidelines do not recommend painting unpainted masonry, so the BAR should discuss if this mural section is appropriate. Staff notes the butterflies are limited in size and number and the west wall is not a primary elevation. (In fact, for several decades it appears this was an interior wall.) The proposed butterflies complement, even complete the mural, and will likely invite people to view the entire mural. If there are concerns, the BAR might reduce the size and/or number or butterflies and establish precise locations; however, staff encourages the BAR to allow them, in some form. Suggested Motions Approval: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City Design Guidelines for Rehabilitation, and Public Design and Improvements, I move to find that the proposed mural at 113 West Main Street satisfies the BAR’s criteria and is compatible with this property and other properties in the Downtown ADC District, and that the BAR approves the application as submitted. (or with the following modifications/conditions…) Denial: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City Design Guidelines for Rehabilitation, and Public Design and Improvements, I move to find that the proposed mural 113 West Main 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 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. 113 West Main Street (September 6, 2022) 3 Pertinent Design Review Guidelines for Rehabilitation: Chapter 4 Rehabilitation K. Paint 1) Do not remove paint on wood trim or architectural details. 2) Do not paint unpainted masonry. 3) Choose colors that blend with and complement the overall color schemes on the street. Do not use bright and obtrusive colors. 4) The number of colors should be limited. Doors and shutters can be painted a different color than the walls and trim. 5) Use appropriate paint placement to enhance the inherent design of the building. Pertinent Design Review Guidelines for Public Design and Improvements: Chapter 6 Public Improvements J. Public Art, Statues, & Fountains 1) Maintain existing features related to public art, statues and fountains. 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) A mural should not obscure or distort the historic features of a building, and should not cover an entire wall. 10) Murals painted on primary facades are rarely permitted and strongly discouraged. 11) In general, previously unpainted masonry should be left unpainted. 12) Painting directly onto the walls of a non-contributing building, or adding a mural to a previously- painted, non-primary elevation of a contributing building will be considered on a case-by-case basis. 13) In general, murals should be created on removable material, not directly on a building wall; installed on framing that allows water to weep between the mural and the wall; and attachments should not irrevocably damage the building. 14) Mural art that constitutes a sign shall conform to the sign regulations. 113 West Main Street (September 6, 2022) 4 SURVEY Bibb/Spr~nQ 1979 IDENTIFICATION BASE DATA St:-eet Adoress: 111-115 w. ~n Stree~ Historic Name: reuchtenberger 9~lding xao and Parce l : 33-259 Date/Period: :'913-14 Census irack & Block: 1-31~ Style: No Identifiable Style Pr'es ent Owne!'": Sahpia -:-=-l.palas Height to Cornice: Aaaress: Jl6 ,-ark Wa' . ~ k Height in Stories: /// Tar \W~ '4 ?resent Use: ~en's Clo~~9 5~or~ Appliance Sta e~/Lr ?resent Zoning: 3-4 Original Owner: to. w •• euc.htenoerge= Land Area (so. ft.): 47.66' " 145' 17.5' x ao: (9310.7 sq .. :t.) Original Use: 3akery: Theatre Assessed Value {land + imD.) : CHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION :-::isl.S a large and =at..'ler scarkly de~ailed 3 ,,~::>r'4-bay duplex store builCing >ri!:hapaz tmerrt s en :..'le =ans~~c~::>n is of br1.ck laid in 7-course AIDe __ n bond. The first level has ceen faced ~i~'l shallow brick lai :..., stretC:le= bond. The ·•• estern storefront has been :IIOdern.ized.but 1:..,"'e eastern one is ?robably original. ~ recessed semi-~lypt~cal-arched log~~a wi~~ a =o~~d-archeci rec2ssed en~rance wi~'in i~_ now concealed ~y a S1gTI ac=::>sst.."'e c::>pof c~e storef==>nt. The entrance ~::>~'le upper levels is located be~ •• een ~'le storef!:'onts and has a ?e~ent on consoles. Sach storef=onc has a nar!:'owdecorated co~ce. and t..'1.e eastern one ret~ns l.~ decorated ~ecal :r~eze also. Above ~~ese. anow~er co~ce ex--ends across ~~e en~~re facade. Windows are ?~=ed and 1r2 ~.e same hel.~ht at ::>O~~!:he second and ~~rd levels. They are ~ouble-sash, l-over-l light, ~~~~ a s~ngle concrete 'l.l~ and rxs~caced ~tone 11.ncel (?~nted wn~te) :~r eacn ?a~=. There is a fluted pilaster wit..~=aised ~OtS on t..~e ==::.eze :>et'Neen e acn paa r of w:Lncows. .i\ .?roJe~.:.:'l.C; cor:u.ce .",l.t..~ co rn ace s tio es , decO~at2d br3.cke1:s, a.."'lc. ==.:.eze ...•. l.~~ L~se~ ?anels ~~cijecorac~ve moul~,g c=owns ~'e ?arapet. 3ehind lot, a ~~-&-gravel shed roof slopes gently ~~ ~~e sforey . HISTORICAL DESCRIPTION ~ ~~ee~briCk building built, according ~ Alexander, in the ~~rd quarter of t..'le19~~ cen~~ ~y 509hia ~sc~t 0:: tbe grocer! and dr! qoads fir.:!of nannaqan, Abell & Co •• stood on !:he eastern half of t..,islot; and a ~NO-stOr! ~rick ~uilding once used ~y the ~ntlcello Sank stood on ~he ~estern half. E. W. Feuchtenberger bought ~~e lot in 1913 (Ci~! ~B 25-191), core down t.."'e existL.g buildings, and erected ~~e ?resent one. ~e operated a baker! in the eastern· half and lived above. The Virginia ~eatre showed silent eova e s in the ,.,este= half. '!'he bu· - Id in 1927 to Jefferson-Larayet-c•• t=es. L,c. (DB 59-261). The present owners purchased it when ration liauida~ed its a s in 1966 (DB 278-79). The Men and Bovs' Shoo has occuoied the eastern r~ years: T~e weste stor~om housed electrical appliance· stores· for the l~st 25 years. C:"ty DB 25-323; GRAPHICS City ?.ecor:!s CONDITIONS A. G. Costan SOURCES Good ~s. Nick Tripolas (Soph:"a P. T~ipolas) Jack Cohn of ~en and Boys' Shop Alexander, R.ecollec1:ions of Sarl" C:Jarlottesville ~M,...rn-= ::;an..."'oal ..•. 9C·" ~~~O -:~a~':ot:-:es\'·n.:.~. ..._~ ·)i.=-e-::~ori.es LANDMARK COMMISSION ·DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. AUGUST,1974 I I A I ounty/ city I'] VIRGINIA HISTORIC LANDMARKS COMMIES 35 DO THE REIS I loi_ S` SHOP SALE Board of Architectural Review (BAR) Certificate of Appropriateness Please Return To: City of Charlottesville Department of Neighborhood Development Services P 0. Box 911, City Hall Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Telephone (434) 970-3130 Please submit the signed application form and a digital copy of submit tal and attachments (via email or thumb drive). Please include appl1cauon tee as tollows: New construction project $JI!>; Oemol1llon ot a contnbutmg structure $JI!>; 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 1s Tuesday 3 weeks prior to next BAR meebng by 3 30 p m Owner Name t Mall. LLC Wes_ -=;:;;R.aav Applicant Name__ _ _ _ i_ R es = =_ o p t_e====------- Project Name/Desc ription __M_u_r_ 3 ____________ Parcel Number __ a_ _l 2 5 __ 3 0 __ __ 9 0 ____ 0 0 ____ Project Property Address__! _I3eW _ t_M_ _ s_ _ .:..:.in---=:..S.:..:.te a__ .r .:._t____________ e ____________ Signature of Applicant Applicant Information 1_ 1 �St�.�u_i1e��I�-----­ Acldress: ___�2 �0_0�G_arre__ Charlonesvdle, Va 22902 Email: bwilkes'a uniedwaycville.o t rg Phone: r,N) (804) 615-604 0 (C) _______ R avi R espeto 8/3/2 0 2 Property Owner Information (if not applicant) Print Name Date . u·.,,1e.1 =S =---- ­ 2 W-,--. _M_..,.ain,..,...-S..t ,-,-- Address:. ____,.,, ! l,-_ on if not a licant Ch.1rlottes, ille. Va. 22902 nd hereby give m consent to Email: charleY'u, vorkapartments.nct Phone: r,N) (434)984-4517 (C ) ___ _ ____ Do you intend to apply for Federal or State Tax Credits 8/3/22 0 for this project? ----'- o'-------- N'""_ Print Name Date Description of Proposed Work (attach separate narrative if necessary): _____ _____ ______ Painted mural on rear (north) wall see attached 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 United Way of Greater Charlottesville August 29, 2022 Dear Members of the Board of Architectural Review, United Way of Greater Charlottesville is pleased to propose an uplifting new mural on a non­ primary, previously painted brick far;ade at 113 W Main Street. The artwork by local muralist Jae Johnson will beautify a previously unremarkable wall and enliven an active corner adjacent to Charlottesville's Historic Downtown Mall. In producing this mural, United Way seeks to contribute to a diverse and inspirational narrative of Greater Charlottesville, and we are thrilled to do so by working with an artist who was born, raised, and has established his artistic career right here in our community. Additionally, in efforts to work as a partner to the small business community, we hope that this activation of an under-used space in a primary business district will promote tourism and economic prosperity. The artwork itself communicates a message of unity and collaboration that aligns with the mission of United Way, as well as the interests of our nonprofit, corporate, and public sector partners. Our property contacts at West Mall, LLC have been co-creators in the development of the proposed artwork, and neighboring building occupants including The Haven have been engaged for their feedback and support. In adherence with BAR guidelines, the design does not obstruct a historic feature and conforms to the character and geometry of the site. United Way of Greater Charlottesville looks forward to working closely with the proposed artist and partners to ensure the successful creation of a vibrant mural that celebrates and connects our community. Sincerely, l\c,alAJ Ravi Respeto President & CEO United Way of Greater Charlottesville HISTORIC DISTRICT ORDINANCE: You can review the Historical Preservation and Architectural Design Control Overlay Districts regulations in the City of Charlottesville Zoning Ordinance starting with Section 34-271 online at chartottesvllle.gov or at Municode.com for the City of Charlottesville. DESIGN REVIEW GUIDELINES: Please refer to the current ADC Districts Design Guidelines onl1ne at chartottesvllle.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 new construction and projects proposing expansion of the footprint of an existing building: a three­ dimensional model (in physical or digital form); (6) In the case of a demolition request where structural integrity is at issue, the applicant shall provide a structural evaluation and cost estimates for rehabilitation, prepared by a professional engineer, unless waived by the BAR. APPEALS: Following a denial the applicant, the director of neighborhood development services. or any aggrieved person may appeal the decision to the city council, by filing a written notice of appeal within ten (10) working days of the date of the decision. Per Sec. 34-286. - City council appeals, an applicant shall set forth, in writing, the grounds for an appeal, including the procedure(s) or standard(s) alleged to have been violated or misapplied by the BAR, and/or any additional information, factors or opinions he or she deems relevant to the application. CHARLOTTESVILLE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN CONTROL DISTRICTS DESIGN GUIDEUNES Chapter I Introduction (Part I) http://weblink.charlottesviI le.org/public/0/edoc/793062/2_Introduction%20 I_BAR.pd f Chapter 1 Introduction (Part 2) http://webIink.charlottesvil le.org/public/0/edoc/793 063/ I_I ntroduction%20 I I_BAR.pd f Chapter 2 Site Design and Elements http://weblink.charlottesviI le.org/public/0/edoc/793064/3_Chapter%20lI%20Site%20Design%20and%20E lements_BAR.pdf Chapter 3 New Construction and Additions http ://webIink.charlonesviI le.org/public/0/ edoc/793 065/4_Chapter%20 II I%20New°l<,20Construction%20and%20Additions _BAR.pdf Chapter 4 Rehabilitation http://webIink.charlouesviI le.org/public/0/edoc/793066/5 _Chapter%20IV%20RehabiIitation_BAR.pdf Chapter 5 Signs, Awnings, Vending, and Cafes http://webIink.charlottesvil le.org/public/0/edoc/793067/6 _Chapter%20V%20S igns%20Awnings%20Vending%20and%20Cafes_BAR.pdf Chapter 6 Public Improvements http://weblink.charlonesvi I le.org/public/0/edoc/793068/7_Chapter%20V I %20PubI ic%20lm provements_BAR. pdf Chapter 7 Moving and Demolition http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/793069/8_Chapter%20V 11%20Moving%20and%20Demolition_BAR.pdf V 113 \ est am treet - proposed mural Indicate location of the proposed mural Show general design/concept of the artwork lf' Ji :) , . .·..� ·•�.. · ......,'/. • .., ... . . .... . . .. ,...... �. . . · .· •' I ., ,•· :·.: �-' � . . . • ..... ' '•'�\·· . .. . I • ... ·· I , . , s ... •• _., • • • • • .. ..•A • ... ...._:. • t/·· -� � > I ,:..·' --. � ••��. . •• • • ' I .., ..... . .,..,,. ..... ,...... .; .. . ,f • I • . • I • • '- .. ' ,... �··•�.,. "'•· . .. f#if.. �...... • . ��.. · •_......•• . ,.,-. • ♦.. r � ••• ' • t. • .' • • . ..... 1.-•••, tr-. . � •• . - ►-... �-T- :- ' . ., - I • • ·-, . 'f:; . . � �; • • ' I> . .. �,,.... •• -� ... : . . ... � I .1tr·...: •••'. ... .. %� .•· , • .• • J .. . . ... .. • . \ ,• • ....., . . .•.., •..... ..,.. e.. .,.. , ,., -;.. ·'!i I -�--� -- --�-•I.,. .. . . .. � ... .. • ,. ,,.\ :-- . .... '----- ............... .. >' I . • ., ........I _ \ I LEFT: Door oor E: Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 22-09-03 1301 Wertland Street, TMP 040303000 Wertland Street ADC District Owner: Roger and Jean Davis, Trustees Applicant: Kevin Schafer/Design Develop Project: New apartment building/existing Wertenbaker House c1830 Application components (please click each link to go directly to PDF page): • Staff Report • Historic Survey • Application Submittal September 20, 2022 BAR Packet Guide 5 City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Staff Report September 20, 2022 Certificate of Appropriateness BAR # 22-09-03 1301 Wertland Street, TMP 040303000 Wertland Street ADC District Owner: Roger and Jean Davis, Trustees Applicant: Kevin Schafer/Design Develop Project: New apartment building/existing Wertenbaker House c1830 Background Year Built: [Likely] 1842. (Some believe c1815 or c1830, but that cannot be confirmed.) District: Wertland Street ADC District Status: Contributing 1301 Wertland Street--the Wertenbaker House--is a two-story, three-bay, brick house with a rear ell. (Wm. Wertenbaker was UVa’s second librarian, serving from 1826 until 1880, he died in 1882.) Built in the Greek Revival style, it owes much of its appearance to renovations later in the century, when a Victorian porch was added. (In 1842. Wertenbaker acquired 27-acres from James Dinsmore’s estate. He immediately sold all but 6 ¾-acres, on which the house was built. By 1886, the parcel was 1.4-acres. By the 1980s, it had been reduced to 0.4-acres. See map in Appendix.) Prior BAR Reviews See Appendix for links to previous submittals and video recording of previous reviews. February 15, 2022: BAR held a preliminary discussion for this project. March 15, 2022: BAR held a preliminary discussion for this project. Application • Submittal: Design Develop drawings 1301 Wertland Street, dated August 31, 2022 (31 pages). Proposed construction of apartment building, including parking, landscaping and site improvements, adjacent to c. 1830 Wertenbaker House. 1301 Wertland Street – Sept 20, 2022 (9-8-2022) 1 Discussion This application follows two preliminary discussions: February 15, 2022 and March 15, 2022. (See Appendix for links to prior submittals and meeting videos.) With the two prior discussions, staff requested the project be submitted as a formal CoA request. (Public notice is not required for prelim discussions; however, the concern is that continued informal discussions [on a large-scale project like this] without notice might exclude input from neighboring property owners and others. With that, this review will be a continuation of the prior discussions, so the BAR will not take action to approve or deny the CoA; however, because it is now a formal application, the BAR must take action to defer the matter to a later meeting. In this discussion the BAR may express an opinion about the project as presented. (For example, the BAR may take a non-binding vote to express support, opposition, or even questions and concerns regarding the project’s likelihood for an approved CoA. These will not represent approval or even endorsement of the CoA, but will represent the BAR’s opinion on the project, relative to preparing the project for final submittal. While such votes carry no legal bearing and are not binding, BAR members are expected to express their opinions—both individually and collectively--in good faith as a project advances towards an approved CoA.) This is an iterative process and these discussions should be thorough and productive. The goal is to establish what is necessary for a final submittal that provides the information necessary for the BAR to evaluate the project and to then approve or deny the requested CoA. In response to any questions from the applicant and/or for any recommendations to the applicant, the BAR should rely on the germane sections of the ADC District Design Guidelines and related review criteria. While elements of other chapters may be relevant, staff recommends that the BAR refer to the criteria in Chapter II--Site Design and Elements, Chapter III--New Construction and Additions, and Chapter VI – Public Design and Improvements. Staff recommends that the BAR refer to the criteria in Chapter II--Site Design and Elements and Chapter III--New Construction and Additions. Of assistance are the following criteria from Chapter III: A. Residential Infill F. Scale K. Foundation & Cornice B. Setback G. Roof L. Materials & Textures C. Spacing H. Orientation M. Paint [Color palette] D. Massing & Footprint I. Windows & Doors N. Details & Decoration E. Height & Width J. Porches To assist with discussion. Materials and elements to be specified. • Roof • Trim • Balcony details • Screening (HVAC, • Gutters • Doors & windows • Plantings utilities. • Downspouts • Lighting • Patios & walks • Exterior walls • Railings • Public spaces The BAR must also evaluate the impact of new construction on the historic house and site. 1301 Wertland Street – Sept 20, 2022 (9-8-2022) 2 • Relative to the site, the Design Guidelines incorporate by reference the Secretary’s Standards for Rehabilitation, which recommend that archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. For some projects, that BAR has recommended an archeological investigation of the site. Given the significance of this site and its association connection to two prominent individuals associated with the University (Wertenbaker and Dinsmore), staff recommends a Phase I archeological survey be conducted prior to any site disturbance, with the results submitted for the BAR record. • Relative to the historic house, the design guidelines for Additions provide a useful framework. Additionally, a former BAR member suggested that for this project—and for others with similar circumstances--the BAR establish a design ethic regarding the house and site. To identify the characteristics, elements, and design/preservation principles unique to this property, and use them for guidance when evaluating the new design. The following summarize the BAR’s February and March discussions. In the Appendix are links to the previous submissions and video recordings of these discussions. Summary of BAR discussion, Feb 15, 2022: • BAR requests that architects consider the new building’s setback in comparison to the setbacks of other buildings on Wertland • Concern that the garage entrance would be dangerous given its proximity to the sidewalk • Height of the building is imposing. Breaking up the building mass may make it less imposing • Materiality may break up the building mass, perhaps by using darker colors • Stepping down building as it reaches Wertland Street may break down mass • Relate building height to the cornice line of historic house • Concern over the busy-ness of the new building’s elevation facing Wertenbaker House: too many competing elements • The site offers an opportunity to build something that frames or accentuates historic building Summary of BAR discussion, March 15, 2022: • General support for moving historic house. It would improve street wall and visibility of the historic house • Scheme would require two BAR applications: one to move house and a second to build new structure • Fact that house would remain on original parcel supports case for moving it • Request to more deeply investigate skewed footprint of Wertenbaker House; compare it to historic maps • BAR comments that by moving historic house, more attention paid to it and opportunity to rehabilitate it for new sue • Urban conditions have changed so drastically around Wertenbaker House that skewed footprint is not important to retain. After move, house should have new relationship to street • Important to distinguish between design decisions intended to complement historic fabric and design decisions intended for good urban design and better pedestrian experience 1301 Wertland Street – Sept 20, 2022 (9-8-2022) 3 Spatial Elements Note: The following approximations are for nearby structures only, not a broad analysis of the entire district, which range widely. • Setbacks: Within 20 percent of the setbacks of a majority of the neighborhood dwellings. o Average front setback for nearby structures is approximately 33 feet, ranging between 0 and 95 feet. ▪ The proposed building setback is approximately 15 feet. • Spacing: Within 20 percent of the average spacing between houses on the block. o Average side spacing for nearby structures is approximately 31 feet, ranging between 5 and 93 feet. ▪ The proposed building spacing is approximately 27 feet from 1215 Wertland Street and 10 feet from the existing house. • Massing and Footprint: Relate to the majority of the surrounding historic dwellings. o Average footprint for nearby structures is approximately 4,000 square feet, ranging from 1,500 square feet to 14,000 square feet. ▪ The proposed building footprint will be approximately 5,600 square feet. 1301 Wertland Street – Sept 20, 2022 (9-8-2022) 4 • Height and Width: Keep the height and width within a maximum of 200 percent of the prevailing height and width. o Height. The prevailing height nearby structures is three stories, ranging from two to five stories. The recommended max height of the new building would be six stories. ▪ The proposed building will be just under five stories. o Width. The average building width nearby structures is approximately 45 feet, ranging between approximately 30 feet and 72 feet. ▪ The proposed building will be approximately 40 feet wide. Suggested Motions 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. 34-284(b) of the City Code states that, in considering a particular application the BAR shall approve the application unless it finds: (1) That the proposal does not meet specific standards set forth within this division or applicable provisions of the Design Guidelines established by the board pursuant to Sec.34-288(6); and (2) The proposal is incompatible with the historic, cultural or architectural character of the district in which the property is located or the protected property that is the subject of the application. Pertinent Standards for Review of Construction and Alterations include: (1) Whether the material, texture, color, height, scale, mass and placement of the proposed addition, modification or construction are visually and architecturally compatible with the site and the applicable design control district; (2) The harmony of the proposed change in terms of overall proportion and the size and placement of entrances, windows, awnings, exterior stairs and signs; (3) The Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation set forth within the Code of Federal Regulations (36 C.F.R. §67.7(b)), as may be relevant; (4) The effect of the proposed change on the historic district neighborhood; (5) The impact of the proposed change on other protected features on the property, such as gardens, landscaping, fences, walls and walks; (6) Whether the proposed method of construction, renovation or restoration could have an adverse impact on the structure or site, or adjacent buildings or structures; (7) Any applicable provisions of the City’s Design Guidelines. Pertinent ADC District Design Guidelines Chapter I – Introduction Chapter 1 Introduction (Part 1) and Chapter 1 Introduction (Part 2) 5. Wertland Street ADC District Subdivision of four large lots in the 1880s provided the impetus for the development of this University-adjacent neighborhood. It survives today as one of Charlottesville’s best examples of vernacular Victorian domestic architecture. Queen Anne, vernacular Victorian, foursquares, and 1301 Wertland Street – Sept 20, 2022 (9-8-2022) 5 Colonial Revival residences with a variety of gabled, hipped and complex roof forms, large dormers, porches, and porticos line the street. Many of the larger residences have been converted to student housing with parking in the front yards, however, the district retains its residential character. Primarily mid-to-late nineteenth century, 2 to 3 stories, large lots, predominantly shallow setbacks, narrow spacing, brick, slate and metal roofs, older apartment building, large scale infill apartment buildings, front site parking, mature landscaping, overhead utilities, cobra head lights, low stone walls, ornate metal fencing, large parking lots, hedges, concrete retaining walls, small planted islands, smaller lots. Chapter II – Site Design and Elements Chapter 2 Site Design and Elements Chapter III – New Construction and Additions Chapter 3 New Construction and Additions A. Introduction … 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: b. Residential Infill These buildings are new dwellings that are constructed on the occasional vacant lot within a block of existing historic houses. Setback, spacing, and general massing of the new dwelling are the most important criteria that should relate to the existing historic structures, along with residential roof and porch forms. 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. 1301 Wertland Street – Sept 20, 2022 (9-8-2022) 6 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. 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 1301 Wertland Street – Sept 20, 2022 (9-8-2022) 7 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. 6) In the West Main Street corridor, regardless of surrounding buildings, new construction should use elements at the street level, such as cornices, entrances, and display windows, to reinforce the human scale. 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. 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. 1301 Wertland Street – Sept 20, 2022 (9-8-2022) 8 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. 5) Darkly tinted mirrored glass is not an appropriate material for windows in new buildings within the historic districts. 6) If small-paned windows are used, they should have true divided lights or simulated divided lights with permanently affixed interior and exterior muntin bars and integral spacer bars between the panes of glass. 7) Avoid designing false windows in new construction. 8) Appropriate material for new windows depends upon the context of the building within a historic district, and the design of the proposed building. Sustainable materials such as wood, aluminum- clad wood, solid fiberglass, and metal windows are preferred for new construction. Vinyl windows are discouraged. 9) Glass shall be clear. Opaque spandrel glass or translucent glass may be approved by the BAR for specific applications. J. Porches 1301 Wertland Street – Sept 20, 2022 (9-8-2022) 9 1) Porches and other semi-public spaces are important in establishing layers or zones of intermediate spaces within the streetscape. L. Foundation and Cornice 1) Distinguish the foundation from the rest of the structure through the use of different materials, patterns, or textures. 2) Respect the height, contrast of materials, and textures of foundations on surrounding historic buildings. 3) If used, cornices should be in proportion to the rest of the building. 4) Wood or metal cornices are preferred. The use of fypon may be appropriate where the location is not immediately adjacent to pedestrians. M. Materials and Textures 1) The selection of materials and textures for a new building should be compatible with and complementary to neighboring buildings. 2) In order to strengthen the traditional image of the residential areas of the historic districts, brick, stucco, and wood siding are the most appropriate materials for new buildings. 3) In commercial/office areas, brick is generally the most appropriate material for new structures. “Thin set” brick is not permitted. Stone is more commonly used for site walls than buildings. 4) Large-scale, multi-lot buildings, whose primary facades have been divided into different bays and planes to relate to existing neighboring buildings, can have varied materials, shades, and textures. 5) Synthetic siding and trim, including, vinyl and aluminum, are not historic cladding materials in the historic districts, and their use should be avoided. 6) Cementitious siding, such as HardiPlank boards and panels, are appropriate. 7) Concrete or metal panels may be appropriate. 8) Metal storefronts in clear or bronze are appropriate. 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 palette] 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. 1301 Wertland Street – Sept 20, 2022 (9-8-2022) 10 2) The mass of larger buildings may be reduced using articulated design details. 3) Pedestrian scale may be reinforced with details. Checklist from section P. Additions Many of the smaller commercial and other business buildings may be enlarged as development pressure increases in downtown Charlottesville and along West Main Street. These existing structures may be increased in size by constructing new additions on the rear or side or in some cases by carefully adding on extra levels above the current roof. The design of new additions on all elevations that are prominently visible should follow the guidelines for new construction as described earlier in this section. Several other considerations that are specific to new additions in the historic districts are listed below: 1) Function and Size a. Attempt to accommodate needed functions within the existing structure without building an addition. b. Limit the size of the addition so that it does not visually overpower the existing building. 2) Location a. Attempt to locate the addition on rear or side elevations that are not visible from the street. b. If additional floors are constructed on top of a building, set the addition back from the main façade so that its visual impact is minimized. c. If the addition is located on a primary elevation facing the street or if a rear addition faces a street, parking area, or an important pedestrian route, the façade of the addition should be treated under the new construction guidelines. 3) Design a. New additions should not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. b. The new work should be differentiated from the old and should be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. 4) Replication of Style a. A new addition should not be an exact copy of the design of the existing historic building. The design of new additions can be compatible with and respectful of existing buildings without being a mimicry of their original design. b. If the new addition appears to be part of the existing building, the integrity of the original historic design is compromised and the viewer is confused over what is historic and what is new. 5) Materials and Features a. Use materials, windows, doors, architectural detailing, roofs, and colors that are compatible with historic buildings in the district. 6) Attachment to Existing Building a. Wherever possible, new additions or alterations to existing buildings should be done in such a manner that, if such additions or alterations were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the buildings would be unimpaired. b. The new design should not use the same wall plane, roof line, or cornice line of the existing structure. Chapter I – Rehabilitation Chapter 4 Rehabilitation 1301 Wertland Street – Sept 20, 2022 (9-8-2022) 11 Appendix Prior BAR Reviews February 15, 2022: BAR held a preliminary discussion for this project. • Submittal • Video recording (discussion at 03:29:25) March 15, 2022: BAR held a preliminary discussion for this project. • Submittal • Video recording (discussion at 08:46) 1301 Wertland Street – Sept 20, 2022 (9-8-2022) 12 1301 Wertland Street – Sept 20, 2022 (9-8-2022) 13 Wm. Wertenbaker Property Approx. parcel lines, based on historical survey notes 1301 Wertland Street – Sept 20, 2022 (9-8-2022) 14 1301 WERTLAND ST. PARCEL 040303000 BAR SUBMISSION PRESENTED BY 08|30|2022 3 | TABLE OF CONTENTS 4 | NEIGHBORHOOD MAP 6| ZONING MAP 7 | AXIAL VEHICULAR APPROACH 8 | SURVEY 9 | PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN 10 | STREET VIEW FROM WERTLAND 11 | CONTINUED SITE STRATEGIES 12 | SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS SUBMISSIONS 13| SUMMARY OF REVISION 14 | EXISTING AND PROPOSED STREET VIEWS 18 | RENDERED ELEVATIONS 22 | RENDERINGS 24 | SITE ORGANIZATIONAL DIAGRAMS 28 | PLANS 1301 WERTLAND ST. TABLE OF CONTENTS BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 3 AUGUST 30TH, 2022 1 5 2 10 4 6 3 11 W TN HS 7 14T 12 WER TLAN D ST 8 ST NW W 2 ST N 13TH 9 12 1/ 1301 WERTLAND ST. NEIGHBORHOOD MAP BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 4 AUGUST 30TH, 2022 1 1 2 3 4 1989 2011 1992 2006 5 6 7 8 1830 2005 1984 1965 1930 9 10 11 11 12 1997 1987 2010 1999 1301 WERTLAND ST. CONTEXT PHOTOS BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 5 AUGUST 30TH, 2022 1301 WERTLAND ST. ZONING MAP BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 6 AUGUST 30TH, 2022 1301 WERTLAND ST. EXISTING AXIAL CONDITIONS BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 7 AUGUST 30TH, 2022 FORESIGHTPC.COM (434) 589-8395 FORESIGHT S U R V E Y, P C LAND SURVEYING | LAND PLANNING 106 CROFTON PLAZA, SUITE 8 912 E HIGH STREET, SUITE C PALMYRA, VA 22963 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 TOPO EXHIBIT TAX MAP 4 PARCEL 303 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA F:\Survey\PROJECTS\21.261 1301 WERTLAND STREET\SURVEY\DWG\TOPO\21.261 - 1301 WERTLAND ST - TOPO (20210818).dwg 509 512 WALL MAX HEIGHT 41.4" TW 504.00 TW 506.66 503.90 503.21 50 3 -6.0 9% 2 50 50 2 503 502.80 TW 506.00 505 6 50 WALL MAX HEIGHT 38.4" 1" = 20': 0 20 40 PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA N 1301 WERTLAND STREET DATE 08/04/2022 THE WORK OF PROJECT 2207003 LINE + GRADE 1 PREVIOUSLY TESTED SITE OBSERVATIONS: 1. THE EXISTING SURFACE PARKING LOT IS THE ONLY APPROPRIATE LOCATION ON THE SITE TO DEVELOP. THE EXISTING HOUSE IS TOO SIGNIFICANT TO ENCROACH ON OR DEMOLISH. CONFIRMED. 2. THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE HISTORIC HOUSE TO THE STREET SHOULD BE PRESERVED (I.E. NEW BUILDING SHOULD NOT BE IN FRONT OF THE HISTORIC FACADE). THIS WILL CREATE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR A DYNAMIC AND THOUGHTFUL FRONT COURTYARD. CONFIRMED. PREVIOUS ITERATIONS THAT CONSIDERED MOVING THE EXISTING HOUSE FORWARD DREW CRITICISMS FOR DISRUPTING THE HISTORIC STREETWALL RELATIONSHIP / EXISTING SKEW TO WERTLAND STREET. 3. THE DESIGN OF THE FRONT COURTYARD SHOULD INFORM THE DESIGN OF THE STRUCTURE. RELATE TO AND “GROUND” THE HISTORIC STRUCTURE. PREVIOUS ITERATIONS DREW CRITICISMS FOR A COURTYARD THAT WAS TOO CONTEMPORARY. THE COURTYARD SHOULD ESTABLISH THE PRESENCE OF THE HISTORIC STRUCTURE AND REINFORCE ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH WERTLAND STREET. 4. THE LANDSCAPING ON SITE HAS DEFERRED MAINTENANCE THAT SHOULD BE ADDRESSED DURING THE PROJECT. CONFIRMED. 5. THE EXISTING GRADE PROVIDES OPPORTUNITIES FOR SUB-GRADE PARKING. QUESTIONED, BUT CONFIRMED. THE PREVIOUS SLIDE FROM LINE + GRADE CIVIL ENGINEERS SHOWS COMPLIANT SUB-GRADE AND ASSOCIATED ENTRANCE. 1301 WERTLAND ST. STREET VIEW FROM WERTLAND BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 10 AUGUST 30TH, 2022 KEY: 1. UTILIZE EXISTING HARDSCAPE PARKING AREA TO A HIGHER / BETTER USE 2. ESTABLISH A SUFFICIENT DISTANCE TO THE HISTORIC HOUSE TO ENSURE SAFE PRESERVATION. 3. MAINTAIN HISTORIC STREETWALL AND ENHANCE FRONT COURTYARD. 4. RESPECT SETBACKS PER ZONING REQUIREMENTS. 5. ALIGN BUILDING FACADE WITH WERTLAND STREET. 3 WERTLAND STREET STUDY SEVEN DEVELOPMENT 3 10'-0" 12'-8" 10'-2" 2 5 15'-0" 1 15'-0" BUILDABLE AREA CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA FRONT REAR 418 E. MAIN STREET SETBACK SETBACK CHECKED BY: KS DRAWN BY: MK 4 4 434-806-8365 10'-0" SIDE SETBACK 4 A1.1 SITE PLAN 1 SITE PLAN WITH BUILDABLE AREA A1.1 1" = 20'-0" ISSUE DATE: August 25, 2021 CONTINUED SITE STRATEGIES A1.1 BAR SUBMISSION 1301 WERTLAND ST. SHEET #1 OF 5 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 11 AUGUST 30TH, 2022 PREVIOUS SUBMISSION 01/03/2022 FAVORABLE CONSIDERATIONS: - RETAINING THE EXISTING HISTORIC STRUCTURE IN SITU DESIGN DIRECTIONS: - BREAK DOWN BUILDING MASS - STEPBACK STREET WALL - SIMPLIFY GLAZING ARRANGEMENT - AVOID LIGHT BRICK / LIGHT MATERIALS - CONSIDER TREATMENT OF SUB-GRADE PARKING ENTRY SEQUENCE PREVIOUS SUBMISSION 03/09/2022 FAVORABLE CONSIDERATIONS: - MORE FAVORABLE STREETWALL / STEPBACKS DESIGN DIRECTIONS: - RETAIN HISTORIC CONTEXT / RELATIONSHIP OF HISTORIC STRUCTURE TO WERTLAND STREET 1301 WERTLAND ST. PREVIOUS SUBMISSION SUMMARY BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 12 AUGUST 30TH, 2022 6 3 5 4 2 1 1. APPLY GENEROUS STEPBACKS AT THE FRONT FACADE IN ORDER TO PRESENT A TWO-STORY MASS TO THE STREET, MUCH MORE IN KEEPING WITH ADJACENT CONTEXT. INTRODUCE ROOF TERRACES AND BALCONIES TO ENGAGE THE STREET AND ENGAGE THE PEDESTRIAN. 2. SIMPLIFY THE GLAZING ARRANGEMENT. 3. UTILIZE DARKER MATERIALS / AVOID LIGHT BRICK AND LIGHT WOOD. 4. BREAK DOWN BUILDING MASS INTO DISTINCT, LEGIBLE VOLUMES. 5. INTERNALIZE STAIRS TO AVOID “UTILITY” ELEMENTS ON BUILDING 8 PERIPHRY, ADJACENT TO THE HISTORIC STRUCTURE. 6. EMPLOY SETBACK ON THE SIDE ELEVATION TO STEP THE BUILDING AWAY FROM THE HISTORIC STRUCTURE. 7. LOWER SITE WALLS, CHANGE PAVING, AND CONFIRM COMPLIANT SITE LINES AT THE PROPOSED PARKING ENTRANCE. 8. REFINE MATERIALS / PLANTING ON COURTYARD TO EMPHASIZE / RELATE 7 TO THE HISTORIC STRUCTURE. 1301 WERTLAND ST. SUMMARY OF RESPONSES TO BOARD COMMENT BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 13 AUGUST 30TH, 2022 1301 WERTLAND ST. EXISTING PERSPECTIVE FROM 13TH STREET BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 14 AUGUST 30TH, 2022 PROPOSED 1301 WERTLAND ST. PROPOSED PERSPECTIVE FROM 13TH STREET BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 15 AUGUST 30TH, 2022 1301 WERTLAND ST. EXISTING PERSPECTIVE FROM WERTLAND STREET BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 16 AUGUST 30TH, 2022 EXISTING 1301 WERTLAND ST. PROPOSED PERSPECTIVE FROM WERTLAND STREET BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 17 AUGUST 30TH, 2022 1301 WERTLAND ST. WERTLAND STREET ELEVATION (SOUTH) BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 18 AUGUST 30TH, 2022 EXISTING 1301 WERTLAND ST. SIDE ELEVATION (EAST) BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 19 AUGUST 30TH, 2022 1301 WERTLAND ST. COURTYARD ELEVATION (WEST) BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 20 AUGUST 30TH, 2022 EXISTING 1301 WERTLAND ST. REAR ELEVATION (NORTH) BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 21 AUGUST 30TH, 2022 PROPOSED 1301 WERTLAND ST. PROPOSED PERSPECTIVE ON WERTLAND ST. BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22 AUGUST 30TH, 2022 1301 WERTLAND ST. CENTRAL PEDESTRIAN AXIS BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 23 AUGUST 30TH, 2022 EXISTING PIN OAK TO BE PRESERVED COURTYAR D BOUNDA RY SEVEN DEVELOPMENT VEHICLE HARDSCAPE ENTRY COURT PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION AXIS DESTINATIONS COURTYAR D BOUNDA RY VEHICLE ENTRY ROOF 418 E. MAIN STREET CHECKED BY: KS DRAWN BY: MK Page ISSUE D August 31 A1. EXISTING SHEET #10 1301 WERTLAND ST. ORGANIZATIONAL SITE DIAGRAM BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 24 AUGUST 30TH, 2022 WERTLAND STREET STUDY SEVEN DEVELOPMENT ROOF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 418 E. MAIN STREET CHECKED BY: KS DRAWN BY: MK 434-806-8365 NOTE: LANDSCAPE PLANS AND COURTYARD DESIGN TO Page 10 BE FURTHER DEVELOPED IN SUBSEQUENT SUBMISSIONS PROPOSED ISSUE DATE: August 31, 2022 A1.4 1301 WERTLAND ST. FRONT COURTYARD EVALUATION BAR SUBMISSIONSHEET #9 OF 7 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 25 AUGUST 30TH, 2022 NOTE: LANDSCAPE PLANS AND COURTYARD DESIGN TO BE FURTHER DEVELOPED IN SUBSEQUENT SUBMISSIONS PROPOSED 1301 WERTLAND ST. COURTYARD PERSPECTIVE BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 26 AUGUST 30TH, 2022 NOTE: LANDSCAPE PLANS AND COURTYARD DESIGN TO BE FURTHER DEVELOPED IN SUBSEQUENT SUBMISSIONS 1301 WERTLAND ST. RENDERED SITE PLAN BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 27 AUGUST 30TH, 2022 WERTLAND STREET STUDY 13'-0" 10'-0" SEVEN DEVELOPMENT 503' - 0" 20'-0" DN @ 6% PARKING LEVEL 506' - 0" ELECTRICAL METERS INSIDE GARAGE WALL 3'-8" 505' - 0" 15'-0" STREET LEVEL 1'-10" CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 5'-0" 418 E. MAIN STREET CHECKED BY: KS DRAWN BY: MK A1.2 PARKING PL EXISTING 1 PARKING PLAN A1.2 1/16" = 1'-0" ISSUE DATE: August 31, 202 A1.2 SHEET #1 OF 7 1301 WERTLAND ST. PROPOSED PARKING LEVEL PLAN BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 28 AUGUST 30TH, 2022 SEVEN DEVELOPMENT 513', 523.5' UNIT 1 UNIT 1 (TYP.) (TYP.) UNIT 2 UNIT 2 (TYP.) (TYP.) 418 E. MAIN STREET CHECKED BY: KS DRAWN BY: MK A1.3 TYPIC 1 BUILDING P FIRST AND SECOND RESIDENTIAL LEVELS A1.3 1/16" = 1'-0" ISSUE DAT August 31, 2 A1.3 SHEET #2 O 1301 WERTLAND ST. PROPOSED 1ST / 2ND RESIDENTIAL LEVEL PLAN BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 29 AUGUST 30TH, 2022 WERTLAND STREET STUDY SEVEN DEVELOPMENT TERRACE 534' UNIT 1 (TYP.) TERRACE UNIT 3 UNIT 4 UNIT 4 UNIT 4 (TYP.) (TYP.) (TYP.) CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 418 E. MAIN STREET CHECKED BY: KS DRAWN BY: MK A1.4 THIRD FLOO EXISTING 1 THIRD LEVEL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL LEV A1.4 1/16" = 1'-0" ISSUE DATE: August 31, 202 A1.3 SHEET #3 OF 7 1301 WERTLAND ST. PROPOSED 3RD LEVEL PLAN BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 30 AUGUST 30TH, 2022 SEVEN DEVELOPMENT 534' TERRACE TERRACE TERRACE TERRACE UNIT 4 UNIT 4 UNIT 4 543.5' 418 E. MAIN STREET CHECKED BY: KS DRAWN BY: MK A1.5 FOURT 1 FLOOR RESIDE FOURTH LEVEL RESIDENTIAL LEVEL A1.5 1/16" = 1'-0" ISSUE DAT August 31, 2 A1.3 SHEET #4 O 1301 WERTLAND ST. PROPOSED 4TH LEVEL PLAN BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 31 AUGUST 30TH, 2022 Certificate of Appropriateness Preliminary Discussion (no action to be taken) BAR # 22-09-04 0 3rd Street NE, TMP 330020001 North Downtown ADC District Owner: Scott Loughery Applicant: Candace Smith, Architect Project: New residence on vacant lot Application components (please click each link to go directly to PDF page): • Staff Report • Application Submittal September 20, 2022 BAR Packet Guide 6 City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Staff Report September 20, 2022 Certificate of Appropriateness Preliminary Discussion BAR 22-09-01 0 3rd Street NE, TMP 330020001 North Downtown ADC District Owner: Scott Loughery Applicant: Candace Smith/Architect Project: New residence , Background Year Built: Vacant lot District: North Downtown ADC District Status: n/a According to all available information, this parcel has never been developed. Prior BAR Review n/a Application • Submittal: Candace M.P. Smith, Architects PC drawings and photos for new residence (19 pages). CoA request to construct a new single-family residence and detached garage on vacant parcel. Discussion and Recommendations From the ADC District Design Guidelines – Introduction Chapter 1 Introduction (Part 1) and Chapter 1 Introduction (Part 2) • North Downtown ADC District: Adjacent to the Albemarle County Courthouse and laid out according to the 1762 town grid, this area served as the city’s first civic, religious, and commercial center. Thomas Jefferson, James Monroe and James Madison were frequent 0 3rd Street, NE - Sept 2020 Prelim Discussion (9/7/22) 1 visitors to the Court Square area. Park Street residences built in the late eighteenth century for lawyers, judges and other professionals still retain their architectural integrity. Today, this district represents the socio-economic and architectural evolution of the original town. • Subarea D: narrow streets, residential, small to moderate scale, broad mix of styles, porches, metal roofs, 1-½ to 2 stories, generally shallow setbacks and spacing with some variety, landscaping. This is a preliminary discussion, no BAR action is required; however, by consensus, the BAR may express an opinion about the project as presented. (For example, the BAR might express consensus support for elements of the project, such as its scale and massing.) Such comments will not constitute a formal motion and the result will have no legal bearing, nor will it represent an incremental decision on the required CoA. There are two key objectives of a preliminary discussion: Introduce the project to the BAR; and allow the applicant and the BAR to establish what is necessary for a successful final submittal. That is, a final submittal that is complete and provides the information necessary for the BAR to evaluate the project using the ADC District Design Guidelines and related review criteria. In response to any questions from the applicant and/or for any recommendations to the applicant, the BAR should rely on the germane sections of the ADC District Design Guidelines and related review criteria. While elements of other chapters may be relevant, staff recommends that the BAR refer to the criteria in Chapter II--Site Design and Elements and Chapter III--New Construction and Additions. Of particular assistance, as a checklist for the preliminary discussion, are the criteria from Chapter III: A. Building Types within the Historic Districts: Residential Infill B. Setback C. Spacing D. Massing and Footprint E. Height and Width F. Scale G. Roof H. Orientation I. Windows and Doors J. Porches K. Foundation and Cornice L. Materials and Textures M. Paint [Color palette] N. Details and Decoration Materials list, to assist with the discussion: • Roof: type, material, color • Gutters: style, material, color • Exterior walls: Brick, color, coursing, accent band, arches • Trim: Doors and windows, cornice • Doors and windows: • Shutters 0 3rd Street, NE - Sept 2020 Prelim Discussion (9/7/22) 2 • Porches: Columns, flooring, ceilings, trim, railings. • Garage doors: • Exterior lighting: • Driveway: • Plantings: • Patios and walks: • Fencing: Chapter III--New Construction and Additions The BAR should consider the following 14 criteria for new construction from Chapter III of the ADC District Design Guidelines: A. Building Types within the Historic Districts. 3.b. Residential Infill: These buildings are new dwellings that are constructed on the occasional vacant lot within a block of existing historic houses. Setback, spacing, and general massing of the new dwelling are the most important criteria that should relate to the existing historic structures, along with residential roof and porch forms. Note: * To generate average dimensions and building comparisons, staff reviewed 30 dwellings within Subarea D that are near the vacant parcel. See the Appendix and attached images of neighboring houses. (There are approximately 110 primary structures in Subarea D.) B. Setback: For residential infill, setbacks should be within 20% of the [neighborhood average].* Staff Comment: Front setbacks range between 6 feet and 55 feet, with an average of 18 feet. Recommended range for new is 19 feet to 28 feet. The proposed setback is approximately 21 feet, within the recommended range. C. Side Spacing: New residences should be spaced within 20% of the average spacing.* Staff Comment: Side spacing ranges between 6 feet and 50 feet, with an average of 15 feet. Recommended range for new construction is 12 feet to 19 feet. The proposed spacing (north side) is approximately 30 feet, which exceeds the recommended spacing; however, it is within the range of existing spacings and not out of character with the subarea. (Note: The spacing on the south side is dictated by an existing access easement.) D. Massing and Footprint: New infill residential should relate in footprint and massing to the majority of surrounding historic dwellings.* Staff Comment: • (Massing) See height and width, below. • (Footprint) Existing footprints range between 768 square feet and 3,900 square feet, with an average of 1,700 square feet. The footprint of the proposed house is approximately 1,800 square feet, within the range of the subarea. 0 3rd Street, NE - Sept 2020 Prelim Discussion (9/7/22) 3 E. Height and Width: Attempt to keep the height and width of new buildings within a maximum of 200 percent of the prevailing height and width in the sub-area.* Staff Comment: • (Height) Existing heights range between 2 and 3 stories, with an average of 2 stories. Recommended maximum is 4 floors. The height of the proposed house is 2-1/2 stories, within the range of the subarea and below the recommended maximum. • (Width) Existing widths range between 23 feet and 78 feet, with an average of 40 feet. Recommended maximum for new is 78 feet. The width (front wall) of the proposed house is 52 feet, within the range of the subarea and below the recommended maximum. F. Scale: Provide features on new construction that reinforce the scale and character of the surrounding area, whether human or monumental. Include elements such as storefronts, vertical and horizontal divisions, upper story windows, and decorative features.* Staff Comment: The proposed house has two-one-half stories, similar to the houses in the subarea. G. Roof * Staff Comment: There is no typical roof type or material. Of the 30 nearby houses in the subarea: 14 have hipped roofs; 14 have gabled roofs, two have flat roofs. One-third have asphalt shingles, slightly more have standing-seam metal, three feature slate. H. Orientation * Staff Comment: Similar to most of the houses in the subarea, the proposed new will be oriented east-west and facing the street on a rectangular parcel. I. Windows and Doors * Staff Comment: Doors and windows have not been specified. The proposed windows and doors are in a pattern and scale generally similar to neighboring houses in the subarea. Single and twin double-hung windows are prevalent. Triple windows are less common; however, there are several examples within the subarea—primarily 1st Street and Altamont Circle—and the proposed units are only on the rear elevation. Entry doors vary within the subarea, split between glazed doors and solid, most of the solid being raised panel. Transom are prevalent, featured on more than two-thirds of the houses. One-third features sidelights and transoms. Only one features just sidelights. There are no typical entries based on the year built or architecture. J. Porches * 0 3rd Street, NE - Sept 2020 Prelim Discussion (9/7/22) 4 Staff Comment: Houses in the subarea have a variety of front porch styles, from single- bay covered entrances to full-length and wrap-around porches and a variety of side and back porches. Both the front and side porches on the proposed house are consistent with the subarea. K. Foundation and Cornice Staff Comment: The 30 homes nearby represent ten architectural styles--over half are some variation of vernacular. Construction dates ranging from the early 19th century to late 20th century. Two-thirds date from 1890 to 1930. The foundation of the new house will be brick and feature banding that distinguishes it from the upper walls. A prominent element of the house is the elevated front porch and two sets of stairs from the sidewalk. Given the topography of North Downtown, this is not uncommon within the adjacent subarea. 14 of the nearby houses have seven or more steps from the sidewalk to the front porch; eight have 13 or more; three have at last 22 steps; on; six houses have fewer than three steps. As rendered, the cornice features a frieze board, soffit, and fascia; however, the detail, dimensions, and material have not been finalized. M. Materials and Textures * Staff Comment: Two-thirds of the nearby homes are brick, so the proposed brick is an appropriate material. (One-quarter feature siding, a few feature stucco.) N. Paint [Color palette]: #1. Colors for a new building should be coordinated and compatible with adjacent buildings, not intrusive.* Staff Comment: The color palette has not been finalized. For the sample set of houses, the wall color is predominately red brick (15) or painted a neutral color (12; cream, tan, white). Three houses feature muted colors (light blue, yellow, mauve). Windows and trim are predominantly painted a neutral color (28; cream, white). One house has dark trim, another includes light blue elements. Where there are shutters, all are painted black or dark green, except one with gray shutters. O. Details and Decoration: … should be consistent with and related to the architecture of the surrounding context and district. * Staff Comment: As rendered, the details and ornamentation are not finalized, but are generally in character with the surrounding houses, which have such a broad range of architectural styles there are few typical features. The proposed brick banding is similar to the brick bands at 430 1st Street and also reflects the horizontal trim elements at 413 2nd Street and 418 4th Street. 0 3rd Street, NE - Sept 2020 Prelim Discussion (9/7/22) 5 E. Walkways & Driveways: Place driveways through the front yard only when no rear access to parking is available.* Staff Comment: Due to the site’s topography and the easement to allow neighbors continued use of the existing side driveway, the front driveway (north side) is necessary to allow access to the primary garage. Suggested Motions While this a formal CoA request, because of the required preliminary discussion the BAR cannot take action to approve or deny the request; however, a formal action should be taken to defer this item to a future BAR meeting. Staff recommends the applicant request deferral and the BAR accept that request, which allows the applicant to determine when to resubmit. Criteria, Standards and Guidelines Review Criteria Generally Sec. 34-284(b) of the City Code states that, in considering a particular application the BAR shall approve the application unless it finds: (1) That the proposal does not meet specific standards set forth within this division or applicable provisions of the Design Guidelines established by the board pursuant to Sec.34-288(6); and (2) The proposal is incompatible with the historic, cultural or architectural character of the district in which the property is located or the protected property that is the subject of the application. Pertinent Standards for Review of Construction and Alterations include: (1) Whether the material, texture, color, height, scale, mass and placement of the proposed addition, modification or construction are visually and architecturally compatible with the site and the applicable design control district; (2) The harmony of the proposed change in terms of overall proportion and the size and placement of entrances, windows, awnings, exterior stairs and signs; (3) The Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation set forth within the Code of Federal Regulations (36 C.F.R. §67.7(b)), as may be relevant; (4) The effect of the proposed change on the historic district neighborhood; (5) The impact of the proposed change on other protected features on the property, such as gardens, landscaping, fences, walls and walks; (6) Whether the proposed method of construction, renovation or restoration could have an adverse impact on the structure or site, or adjacent buildings or structures; (7) Any applicable provisions of the City’s Design Guidelines. Links to the Design Guidelines: Chapter 1 Introduction (Part 1) Chapter 1 Introduction (Part 2) Chapter 2 Site Design and Elements Chapter 3 New Construction and Additions Chapter 4 Rehabilitation Chapter 5 Signs, Awnings, Vending, and Cafes 0 3rd Street, NE - Sept 2020 Prelim Discussion (9/7/22) 6 Chapter 6 Public Improvements Chapter 7 Moving and Demolition Pertinent Guidelines for New Construction and Additions include: B. Setback. 1) Construct new commercial buildings with a minimal or no setback in order to reinforce the traditional street wall. 2) Use a minimal setback if the desire is to create a strong street wall or setback consistent with the surrounding area. 3) Modify setback as necessary for sub-areas that do not have well-defined street walls. […] 7) New buildings, particularly in the West Main Street corridor, should relate to any neighborhoods adjoining them. Buffer areas should be considered to include any screening and landscaping requirements of the zoning ordinance. […] 9) Keep residential setbacks within 20 percent of the setbacks of a majority of neighborhood dwellings. C. Spacing 1) Maintain existing consistency of spacing in the area. New residences should be spaced within 20 percent of the average spacing between houses on the block. […] 3) In areas that do not have consistent spacing, consider limiting or creating a more uniform spacing in order to establish an overall rhythm. 4) Multi-lot buildings should be designed using techniques to incorporate and respect the existing spacing on a residential street. D. Massing and Footprint […] 2) New infill construction in residential sub-areas should relate in footprint and massing to the majority of surrounding historic dwellings. 3) Neighborhood transitional buildings should have small building footprints similar to nearby dwellings. a. If the footprint is larger, their massing should be reduced to relate to the smaller- scaled forms of residential structures. b. Techniques to reduce massing could include stepping back upper levels, adding residential roof and porch forms, and using sympathetic materials. […] E. Height and Width 1) Respect the directional expression of the majority of surrounding buildings. In commercial areas, respect the expression of any adjacent historic buildings, which generally will have a more vertical expression. 2) Attempt to keep the height and width of new buildings within a maximum of 200 percent of the prevailing height and width in the surrounding sub-area. 0 3rd Street, NE - Sept 2020 Prelim Discussion (9/7/22) 7 […] 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. G. Roof 1) Roof Forms and Pitches a. The roof design of new downtown or West Main Street commercial infill buildings generally should be flat or sloped behind a parapet wall. b. Neighborhood transitional buildings should use roof forms that relate to the neighboring residential forms instead of the flat or sloping commercial form. c. Institutional buildings that are freestanding may have a gable or hipped roof with variations. d. Large-scale, multi-lot buildings should have a varied roof line to break up the mass of the design using gable and/or hipped forms. e. Shallow pitched roofs and flat roofs may be appropriate in historic residential areas on a contemporary designed building. f. Do not use mansard-type roofs on commercial buildings; they were not used historically in Charlottesville’s downtown area, nor are they appropriate on West Main Street. 2) Roof Materials: Common roof materials in the historic districts include metal, slate, and composition shingles. a. For new construction in the historic districts, use traditional roofing materials such as standing-seam metal or slate. b. In some cases, shingles that mimic the appearance of slate may be acceptable. c. Pre-painted standing-seam metal roof material is permitted, but commercial-looking ridge caps or ridge vents are not appropriate on residential structures. d. Avoid using thick wood cedar shakes if using wood shingles; instead, use more historically appropriate wood shingles that are thinner and have a smoother finish. e. If using composition asphalt shingles, do not use light colors. Consider using neutral- colored or darker, plain or textured-type shingles. f. The width of the pan and the seam height on a standing-seam metal roof should be consistent with the size of pan and seam height usually found on a building of a similar period. H. Orientation 1) New commercial construction should orient its façade in the same direction as adjacent historic buildings, that is, to the street. 2) Front elevations oriented to side streets or to the interior of lots should be discouraged. I. Windows and Doors 0 3rd Street, NE - Sept 2020 Prelim Discussion (9/7/22) 8 1) The rhythm, patterns, and ratio of solids (walls) and voids (windows and doors) of new buildings should relate to and be compatible with adjacent historic facades. a. The majority of existing buildings in Charlottesville’s historic districts have a higher proportion of wall area than void area except at the storefront level. b. In the West Main Street corridor in particular, new buildings should reinforce this traditional proportion. 2) The size and proportion, or the ratio of width to height, of window and door openings on new buildings’ primary facades should be similar and compatible with those on surrounding historic facades. a. The proportions of the upper floor windows of most of Charlottesville’s historic buildings are more vertical than horizontal. b. Glass storefronts would generally have more horizontal proportions than upper floor openings. 3) Traditionally designed openings generally are recessed on masonry buildings and have a raised surround on frame buildings. New construction should follow these methods in the historic districts as opposed to designing openings that are flush with the rest of the wall. 4) Many entrances of Charlottesville’s historic buildings have special features such as transoms, sidelights, and decorative elements framing the openings. Consideration should be given to incorporating such elements in new construction. 5) Darkly tinted mirrored glass is not an appropriate material for windows in new buildings within the historic districts. 6) If small-paned windows are used, they should have true divided lights or simulated divided lights with permanently affixed interior and exterior muntin bars and integral spacer bars between the panes of glass. 7) Avoid designing false windows in new construction. 8) Appropriate material for new windows depends upon the context of the building within a historic district, and the design of the proposed building. Sustainable materials such as wood, aluminum-clad wood, solid fiberglass, and metal windows are preferred for new construction. Vinyl windows are discouraged. 9) Glass shall be clear. Opaque spandrel glass or translucent glass may be approved by the BAR for specific applications. J. Porches 1) Porches and other semi-public spaces are important in establishing layers or zones of intermediate spaces within the streetscape. L. Foundation and Cornice 1) Distinguish the foundation from the rest of the structure through the use of different materials, patterns, or textures. 2) Respect the height, contrast of materials, and textures of foundations on surrounding historic buildings. 3) If used, cornices should be in proportion to the rest of the building. 4) Wood or metal cornices are preferred. The use of fypon may be appropriate where the location is not immediately adjacent to pedestrians. M. Materials and Textures 0 3rd Street, NE - Sept 2020 Prelim Discussion (9/7/22) 9 1) The selection of materials and textures for a new building should be compatible with and complementary to neighboring buildings. 2) In order to strengthen the traditional image of the residential areas of the historic districts, brick, stucco, and wood siding are the most appropriate materials for new buildings. 3) In commercial/office areas, brick is generally the most appropriate material for new structures. “Thin set” brick is not permitted. Stone is more commonly used for site walls than buildings. 4) Large-scale, multi-lot buildings, whose primary facades have been divided into different bays and planes to relate to existing neighboring buildings, can have varied materials, shades, and textures. 5) Synthetic siding and trim, including, vinyl and aluminum, are not historic cladding materials in the historic districts, and their use should be avoided. 6) Cementitious siding, such as HardiPlank boards and panels, are appropriate. 7) Concrete or metal panels may be appropriate. 8) Metal storefronts in clear or bronze are appropriate. 9) The use of Exterior Insulation and Finish Systems (EIFS) is discouraged but may be approved on items such as gables where it cannot be seen or damaged. It requires careful design of the location of control joints. 10) The use of fiberglass-reinforced plastic is discouraged. If used, it must be painted. 11) All exterior trim woodwork, decking and flooring must be painted, or may be stained solid if not visible from public right-of-way. N. Paint 1) The selection and use of colors for a new building should be coordinated and compatible with adjacent buildings, not intrusive. 2) In Charlottesville’s historic districts, various traditional shaded of brick red, white, yellow, tan, green, or gray are appropriate. For more information on colors traditionally used on historic structures and the placement of color on a building, see Chapter 4: Rehabilitation. 3) Do not paint unpainted masonry surfaces. 4) It is proper to paint individual details different colors. 5) More lively color schemes may be appropriate in certain sub-areas dependent on the context of the sub-areas and the design of the building. O. Details and Decoration 1) Building detail and ornamentation should be consistent with and related to the architecture of the surrounding context and district. 2) The mass of larger buildings may be reduced using articulated design details. 3) Pedestrian scale may be reinforced with details. 0 3rd Street, NE - Sept 2020 Prelim Discussion (9/7/22) 10 Appendix Year Roof Roof Front Address Style Walls Shutters Built type material porch 407 2nd St. NE c1900 Victorian brick gable asphalt Y Y 409 2nd St. NE 1892 Vernacular siding gable asphalt Y N Victorian 410 2nd St. NE 1896 siding hip ptd metal Y Y Vernacular 411 2nd St. NE 1908 Victorian brick hip copper Y N 413 2nd St. NE 1894 Victorian siding hip ptd metal Y Y 415 2nd St. NE 1910 Victorian siding gable ptd metal Y N Victorian 419 2nd St. NE 1893 siding hip ptd metal Y Y Vernacular 422 2nd St. NE 1839 Federal brick gable slate Y Y 423 2nd St. NE 1913 Victorian brick hip ptd metal Y Y 425 2nd St. NE 1911 Victorian brick hip ptd metal Y N 426 2nd St. NE c1836 Federal brick gable ptd metal Y Y Victorian 428 2nd St. NE c1895 stucco gable asphalt Y N Vernacular Victorian 440 2nd St. NE 1895 siding hip asphalt Y N Vernacular Victorian 500 2nd St. NE c1920 brick gable asphalt Y N Vernacular 501 2nd St. NE 1981 Contemporary siding gable ptd metal Y N 517 2nd St. NE 1990 Contemporary stucco flat flat Y N poss. 115 E. High St. Federal brick gable ptd metal Y Y c1828 201 E. High St. 1895 Neo-Classical brick gable slate Y Y 205 E. High St. 1894 Italianate brick hip ptd metal Y Y 211 E. High St. 1850 Federal brick hip asphalt Y N 406 1st St. N c1920 Tudor stucco gable slate Y N 430 1st St. N 1994 Contemporary brick flat flat Y N 412 3rd St. NE 1927 Vernacular brick gable asphalt Y N 414 3rd St. NE 1924 Vernacular brick hip asphalt Y N 420 3rd St. NE 1927 Four-square brick hip ptd metal Y N 432 3rd St. NE 1932 Vernacular brick hip asphalt Y N 435 3rd St. NE 1930 Vernacular brick hip asphalt Y N 437 3rd St. NE 1930 Ranch brick hip ptd metal Y N 414 4th St. NE 1930 Four-square brick gable asphalt Y Y 418 4th St. NE 1903 Vernacular siding gable asphalt Y N 0 3rd Street, NE - Sept 2020 Prelim Discussion (9/7/22) 11 Width Front Side Footprint Steps: sidewalk Address Stories (ft) Setback (ft) Spacing (ft) (SF) to porch 407 2nd St. NE 2 45 18 n/a 2,232 3 409 2nd St. NE 2 42 6 16 1,405 2 410 2nd St. NE 2 31 33 36 1,523 9 411 2nd St. NE 1.5 30 11 6 1,671 3 413 2nd St. NE 2 36 10 14 1,308 3 415 2nd St. NE 2 34 12 18 2,746 3 419 2nd St. NE 2 34 11 11 1,224 2 422 2nd St. NE 2 52 54 50 2,044 9 423 2nd St. NE 2 35 18 12 990 4 425 2nd St. NE 2 40 18 9 1,002 4 426 2nd St. NE 2 70 55 10 1,716 13 428 2nd St. NE 2 28 50 12 1,154 22 440 2nd St. NE 2 31 50 n/a 1,209 22 500 2nd St. NE 2.5 40 40 n/a 1,485 22 501 2nd St. NE 3 78 13 n/a 3,200 8 517 2nd St. NE 3 23 14 n/a 1,126 0 115 E. High St. 2 45 14 8 1,608 5 201 E. High St. 2 55 25 6 1,415 7 205 E. High St. 3 35 30 6 1,708 13 211 E. High St. 2 45 23 8 2,116 9 406 1st St. N 2 31 15 11 1,366 1 430 1st St. N 2 30 15 31 1,139 0 412 3rd St. NE 2 38 16 20 768 3 414 3rd St. NE 2 37 16 n/a 960 4 420 3rd St. NE 2 30 16 16 994 4 432 3rd St. NE 2.5 35 16 n/a 3,868 2 435 3rd St. NE 2.5 36 22 n/a 1,270 8 437 3rd St. NE 1.5 36 30 10 1,435 18 414 4th St. NE 2.5 33 27 n/a 3,900 16 418 4th St. NE 2 43 27 14 2,309 14 Average 2 39 24 15 1,696 8 0 3rd Street, NE - Sept 2020 Prelim Discussion (9/7/22) 12 0 3rd Street, NE - BAR Preliminary Discussion Sept 20, 2022 Sheet 1 of 19 A B B A C C (JW 9-6-22) 0 3rd Street, NE - BAR Preliminary Discussion Sept 20, 2022 Sheet 2 of 19 (JW 9-6-22) 0 3rd Street, NE - BAR Preliminary Discussion Sept 20, 2022 Sheet 3 of 19 (JW 9-6-22) 0 3rd Street, NE - BAR Preliminary Discussion Sept 20, 2022 Sheet 4 of 19 (JW 9-6-22) 0 3rd Street, NE - BAR Preliminary Discussion Sept 20, 2022 Sheet 5 of 19 (JW 9-6-22) 0 3rd Street, NE - BAR Preliminary Discussion Sept 20, 2022 Sheet 6 of 19 (JW 9-6-22) 0 3rd Street, NE - BAR Preliminary Discussion Sept 20, 2022 Sheet 7 of 19 (JW 9-6-22) 0 3rd Street, NE - BAR Preliminary Discussion Sept 20, 2022 Sheet 8 of 19 (JW 9-6-22) 0 3rd Street, NE - BAR Preliminary Discussion Sept 20, 2022 Sheet 9 of 19 (JW 9-6-22) 0 3rd Street, NE - BAR Preliminary Discussion Sept 20, 2022 Sheet 10 of 19 (JW 9-6-22) 0 3rd Street, NE - BAR Preliminary Discussion Sept 20, 2022 Sheet 11 of 19 (JW 9-6-22) 0 3rd Street, NE - BAR Preliminary Discussion Sept 20, 2022 Sheet 12 of 19 (JW 9-6-22) 0 3rd Street, NE - BAR Preliminary Discussion Sept 20, 2022 Sheet 13 of 19 (JW 9-6-22) 0 3rd Street, NE - BAR Preliminary Discussion Sept 20, 2022 Sheet 14 of 19 (JW 9-6-22) 0 3rd Street, NE - BAR Preliminary Discussion Sept 20, 2022 Sheet 15 of 19 (JW 9-6-22) 0 3rd Street, NE - BAR Preliminary Discussion Sept 20, 2022 Sheet 16 of 19 (JW 9-6-22) 0 3rd Street, NE - BAR Preliminary Discussion Sept 20, 2022 Sheet 17 of 19 (JW 9-6-22) 0 3rd Street, NE - BAR Preliminary Discussion Sept 20, 2022 Sheet 18 of 19 (JW 9-6-22) 0 3rd Street, NE - BAR Preliminary Discussion Sept 20, 2022 Sheet 19 of 19 (JW 9-6-22) 0 3rd Street, NE — BAR 2022 Houses in Subarea D (For discussion only 8/17/22) page 1 of 8 Subarea D 0 3rd Street NE 0 3rd Street, NE — BAR 2022 Houses in Subarea D (For discussion only 8/17/22) page 2 of 8 501 2nd Street NE (1981) 517 2nd Street NE (1990) 425 2nd Street NE (1911) 423 2nd Street NE (1913) 419 2nd Street NE (1893) 0 3rd Street, NE — BAR 2022 Houses in Subarea D (For discussion only 8/17/22) page 3 of 8 415 2nd Street NE (1910) 413 2nd Street NE (1894) 411 2nd Street NE (1908) 409 2nd Street NE (1892) 0 3rd Street, NE — BAR 2022 Houses in Subarea D (For discussion only 8/17/22) page 4 of 8 407 2nd Street NE (c1900) 115 East High Street (possibly c1828) 201 East High Street (1895) Nit– shown: Porch reconstructed 2021 205 East High Street (1894) 0 3rd Street, NE — BAR 2022 Houses in Subarea D (For discussion only 8/17/22) page 5 of 8 211 East High Street (1850) 406 1st Street N (c1920) 430 1st Street N (1994) 410 2nd Street NE (1896) 422 2nd Street NE (1839) 0 3rd Street, NE — BAR 2022 Houses in Subarea D (For discussion only 8/17/22) page 6 of 8 426 2nd Street NE (c1836) 428 2nd Street NE (c1895) 440 2nd Street NE (1895) 500 2nd Street NE (c1920) 0 3rd Street, NE — BAR 2022 Houses in Subarea D (For discussion only 8/17/22) page 7 of 8 437 3rd Street NE (1940) 435 3rd Street NE (1930) 412 3rd Street NE (1927) 420 3rd Street NE (1923) 0 3rd Street, NE — BAR 2022 Houses in Subarea D (For discussion only 8/17/22) page 8 of 8 414 3rd Street NE (1924) 432 3rd Street NE (1932) 418 4th Street NE (1903) 414 4th Street NE (1930) Discussion: No action to be taken Modifications to approved façade. BAR 20-11-03 (December 2021- approved CoA) 612 West Main Street (also 602-616), Tax Parcel 290003000 West Main ADC District Owner: Heirloom West Main Street Second Phase LLC Applicant: Jeff Dreyfus, Bushman Dreyfus Architects Project: Construction of a mixed-use building September 20, 2022 BAR Packet Guide 7 City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Staff Memo September 20, 2022 Discussion only. No action will be taken. Information below is the December 2021 staff report with updates noted (*) * NOTE: Applicant has requested a discussion with the BAR re: possible modifications to the primary façade. As of Sept 9, 2022, applicant has not provided drawings or renderings of proposed changes; however, the following will allow the BAR to prepare for the discussion and respond to information presented during the Sept 20 meeting. BAR 20-11-03 [Note: CoA approved December 15, 2021] 602-616 West Main (612 West Main), TMP 290003000 West Main Street ADC District Owner: Jeff Levine, Heirloom West Main Street Second Phase LLC Applicant: Whitney Hudson, Jeff Dreyfus / Bushman Dreyfus Architects Project: New, mixed-use building Background (existing building) Year Built: 1959-1973 (concrete block automotive service building) District: West Main Street ADC District Status: Non-contributing Prior BAR Reviews (See Appendix for complete list) * December 15, 2021 – BAR approved CoA for proposed new structure. http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/798366/2020-12_612%20W%20Main%20Street_BAR.pdf Meeting video link (begin at 1:08:00): https://boxcast.tv/channel/vabajtzezuyv3iclkx1a?b=gg2jysv5qqahf4movdwv Application CoA request for construction of a new, four-story mixed-use building. (The existing service station is a non-contributing structure; therefore, its demolition does not require a CoA.) * Primary facade from approved CoA 612 West Main Street Discussion Sept 2022 (9/9/2022) 1 Discussion BAR recommendations (June 18, 2019) as incorporated into the Special Use Permit (SUP) • Garage entry shall not be accessed directly from the building’s street wall along West Main Street o SUP item 1.e: […] No direct access shall be provided into the underground parking from the Building’s street wall along West Main Street. • The building’s mass shall be broken down to reflect the multi-parcel massing historically on the site, as well as the West Main Street context, using building modulation; and • The building and massing refer to the historic building. o SUP item 2: The mass of the Building shall be broken down to reflect the multi-parcel massing historically on the site, as well as the West Main Street context, using building modulation. The Building and massing refer to the historic buildings on either side. • The Holsinger Building be seismically monitored during construction; o SUP item 4: The Landowner (including, without limitation, any person who is an agent, assignee, transferee or successor in interest to the Landowner) shall prepare a Protective Plan for the Rufus Holsinger Building located on property adjacent to the Subject Property at 620- 624 West Main Street (“Holsinger Building” or “Adjacent Property”). […] • There shall be pedestrian engagement with the street with an active, transparent, and permeable façade at street level; o SUP item 3: There shall be pedestrian engagement with the street with an active, transparent, and permeable façade at street level. Suggested Motions * Action taken December 2021: Carl Schwarz moves: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed new, mixed-use building at 612 West Main Street satisfies the BAR’s criteria and is compatible with this property and other properties in the West Main Street ADC District, and that the BAR approves the application as submitted per the drawings dated December 17, 2021 and included in the BAR packet, with the following conditions: • With the condition that the BAR needs to see a sample panel of the brick to confirm its color, texture, and that there will be sufficient differentiation between the various portions of the building • That street trees are a necessary component of this project's certificate of appropriateness, and that the certificate of appropriateness for the entire project is not valid without them. Should at any time the trees need to be removed or the species changed, the applicant will be required to return to the BAR for an amended certificate of appropriateness. • We recommend that you consider back-lighting the retail windows to provide illumination at night. Tim Mohr seconds motion. Motion passes (8-0). 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: 612 West Main Street Discussion Sept 2022 (9/9/2022) 2 1) That the proposal does not meet specific standards set forth within this division or applicable provisions of the Design Guidelines established by the board pursuant to Sec.34-288(6); and 2) The proposal is incompatible with the historic, cultural or architectural character of the district in which the property is located or the protected property that is the subject of the application. Pertinent Standards for Review of Construction and Alterations include: 1) Whether the material, texture, color, height, scale, mass and placement of the proposed addition, modification or construction are visually and architecturally compatible with the site and the applicable design control district; 2) The harmony of the proposed change in terms of overall proportion and the size and placement of entrances, windows, awnings, exterior stairs and signs; 3) The Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation set forth within the Code of Federal Regulations (36 C.F.R. §67.7(b)), as may be relevant; 4) The effect of the proposed change on the historic district neighborhood; 5) The impact of the proposed change on other protected features on the property, such as gardens, landscaping, fences, walls and walks; 6) Whether the proposed method of construction, renovation or restoration could have an adverse impact on the structure or site, or adjacent buildings or structures; 7) Any applicable provisions of the City’s Design Guidelines. Pertinent ADC District Design Guidelines Chapter 2 – Site Design and Elements III: Site Design and Elements Chapter 3 – New Construction and Additions IV: New Construction and Additions APPENDIX Prior BAR Actions April 16, 2019 - BAR discussion (meeting minutes attached) June 18, 2019 – BAR recommended approval of Special Use Permit for additional residential density, that the redevelopment will not have an adverse impact on the West Main Street ADC District, with the understanding that the massing is not final, and must be further discussed, and [will require] a complete full design review at future BAR meeting(s) and propose the following conditions [for the SUP]: • Garage entry shall not be accessed directly from the building’s street wall along West Main Street; • The building’s mass shall be broken down to reflect the multi-parcel massing historically on the site, as well as the West Main Street context, using building modulation; • The building and massing refer to the historic building. • The Holsinger Building be seismically monitored during construction; • There shall be pedestrian engagement with the street with an active, transparent, and permeable façade at street level. http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/791150/BAR_612%20West%20Main%20Street_June2019_SUP%20A pplication.pdf (meeting minutes attached) Note: On October 7, 2019, Council approved the SUP. (See the Appendix.) 612 West Main Street Discussion Sept 2022 (9/9/2022) 3 January 22, 2020 – BAR discussion (meeting minutes attached) November 17, 2020 – BAR accepted applicant’s request for deferral. http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/798357/2020-11_612%20W%20Main%20Street_BAR.pdf (meeting minutes attached) December 15, 2020 – BAR accepted applicant’s request for deferral. http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/798366/2020-12_612%20W%20Main%20Street_BAR.pdf (meeting minutes attached) February 17, 2021– BAR accepted applicant’s request for deferral. http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/798380/2021-02_612%20W%20Main%20Street_BAR.pdf (meeting minutes attached) November 16, 2021 – Applicant provided update on the project, with no action taken. http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/799346/2021-11_612%20West%20Main%20Street_Discussion.pdf (meeting minutes attached) Approved SUP for 602-616 West Main Resolution Approving a Special Use Permit to Allow High Density Residential Development for Property Located At 602-616 West Main Street, Approved by Council, October 7, 2019 http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/791739/20191007Oct07.pdf […] 1. The specific development being approved by this special use permit (“Project”), as described within the site plan exhibit required by City Code §34-158(a)(1), shall have the following minimum attributes/ characteristics: a. Not more than one building shall be constructed on the Subject Property (the “Building”). The Building shall be a Mixed Use Building. b. The Building shall not exceed a height of four (4) stories. c. The Building shall contain no more than 55 dwelling units. d. The Building shall contain space to be occupied and used for retail uses, which shall be located on the ground floor of the Building facing West Main Street. The square footage of this retail space shall be at least the minimum required by the City’s zoning ordinance. e. Underground parking shall be provided within a parking garage structure constructed underneath the Building serving the use and occupancy of the Building. All parking required for the Project pursuant to the City’s zoning ordinance shall be located on-site. All parking required pursuant to the ordinance for the Project shall be maximized onsite to the satisfaction of the Planning Commission. No direct access shall be provided into the underground parking from the Building’s street wall along West Main Street. 2. The mass of the Building shall be broken down to reflect the multi-parcel massing historically on the site, as well as the West Main Street context, using building modulation. The Building and massing refer to the historic buildings on either side. 612 West Main Street Discussion Sept 2022 (9/9/2022) 4 3. There shall be pedestrian engagement with the street with an active, transparent, and permeable façade at street level. 4. The Landowner (including, without limitation, any person who is an agent, assignee, transferee or successor in interest to the Landowner) shall prepare a Protective Plan for the Rufus Holsinger Building located on property adjacent to the Subject Property at 620- 624 West Main Street (“Holsinger Building” or “Adjacent Property”). The Protective Plan shall provide for baseline documentation, ongoing monitoring, and specific safeguards to prevent damage to the Holsinger Building, and the Landowner shall implement the Protective Plan during all excavation, demolition and construction activities within the Subject Property (“Development Site”). At minimum, the Protective Plan shall include the following: a. Baseline Survey—Landowner shall document the existing condition of the Holsinger Building (“Baseline Survey”). The Baseline Survey shall take the form of written descriptions, and visual documentation which shall include color photographs and/or video recordings. The Baseline Survey shall document the existing conditions observable on the interior and exterior of the Holsinger Building, with close-up images of cracks, staining, indications of existing settlement, and other fragile conditions that are observable. The Landowner shall engage an independent third party structural engineering firm (one who has not participated in the design of the Landowner’s Project or preparation of demolition or construction plans for the Landowner, and who has expertise in the impact of seismic activity on historic structures) and shall bear the cost of the Baseline Survey and preparation of a written report thereof. The Landowner and the Owner of the Holsinger Building (“Adjacent Landowner”) may both have representatives present during the process of surveying and documenting the existing conditions. A copy of a completed written Baseline Survey Report shall be provided to the Adjacent Landowner, and the Adjacent Landowner shall be given fourteen (14) days to review the Baseline Survey Report and return any comments to the Landowner. b. Protective Plan--The Landowner shall engage the engineer who performed the Baseline Survey to prepare a Protective Plan to be followed by all persons performing work within the Development Site, that may include seismic monitoring or other specific monitoring measures of the Adjacent Property if recommended by the engineer preparing the Protective Plan, and minimally shall include installation of at least five crack monitors. Engineer shall inspect and take readings of crack monitors at least weekly during ground disturbance demolition and construction activities. Reports of monitor readings shall be submitted to the city building official and Adjacent Landowner within two days of inspection. A copy of the Protective Plan shall be provided to the Adjacent Landowner. The Adjacent Landowner shall be given fourteen (14) days to review the Report and return any comments to the Landowner. c. Advance notice of commencement of activity--The Adjacent Landowner shall be given 14 days’ advance written notice of commencement of demolition at the Development Site, and of commencement of construction at the Development Site. This notice shall include the name, mobile phone number, and email address of the construction supervisor(s) who will be present on the Development Site and who may be contacted by the Adjacent Landowner regarding impacts of demolition or construction on the Adjacent Property. 612 West Main Street Discussion Sept 2022 (9/9/2022) 5 The Landowner shall also offer the Adjacent Landowner an opportunity to have meetings: (i) prior to commencement of demolition at the Development Site, and (ii) at least fourteen (14) days prior to commencement of construction at the Development Site, on days/ times reasonably agreed to by both parties. During any such preconstruction meeting, the Adjacent Landowner will be provided information as to the nature and duration of the demolition or construction activity and the Landowner will review the Protective Plan as it will apply to the activities to be commenced. d. Permits--No demolition or building permit, and no land disturbing permit, shall be approved or issued to the Landowner, until the Landowner provides to the department of neighborhood development services: (i) copies of the Baseline Survey Report and Protective Plan, and NDS verifies that these documents satisfy the requirements of these SUP Conditions, (ii) documentation that the Baseline Survey Report and Protective Plan were given to the Adjacent Landowner in accordance with these SUP Conditions. 612 West Main Street Discussion Sept 2022 (9/9/2022) 6 Meeting minutes: April 16, 2019 (Preliminary Discussion) Applicant, Jeff Dreyfus, Bushman Dreyfus Architects - This is more of a philosophical question and a process question. 612 West Main is the University Tire site that will be developed by the same team that is building 600 West Main Street. We are going to request an SUP for increased density. This zoning district no longer allows increased height as part of an SUP. The current density is 43 units per acre and this site would by-right be 20 dwelling units. With the SUP, 120 dwelling units per acre would be 55 dwelling units. The question before us is what is required by the zoning ordinance of the BAR in the instance of an SUP. If the zoning ordinance says we can build it and we still have to go for a COA for 20 units, how far do we have to go to be able to fill that same box with 55 units? The ordinance says that when the property that is subject to the application for an SUP is within a Design Control District, City Council shall refer the application to the BAR for recommendations for whether the proposed use will have an adverse impact on the District. Because it is in a Control District, we will have to go through the COA process anyway. However, it’s hard to design a detailed elevation if we don’t know what we are going to be allowed to put in it. Do we design a building for 55 units, not knowing if we are going to get that at the end of the process? In in this particular instance, the use and having to work within the already defined limits of the zoning ordinance, so how far should we go? To expect that a developer would fund a very long and expensive process without knowing if they will get the increased density, what is reasonable? Mr. Sarafin - The Guideline that talks about SUPs and having the BAR consider use is confusing because we don’t do that. Ms. Mess - There is a specific part of the Guideline to make sure that the use will benefit the general public somehow. Mr. Sarafin - In this case if you are talking about 20 vs. 55 residential units, in terms of design we are talking about the same envelope. You either get the SUP or you don’t and then you design a 20 or 55 unit façade for this, which comes to the BAR. Mr. Schwarz - It is a formality, but it could also be an opportunity for the applicant to test us on what kind of massing the BAR would be okay with approving. It would be important to ask about the complete build-out version before going through the entire SUP process. It’s more about how much you want to hear from the BAR before going into the SUP. Mr. Sarafin - Agrees and states that that is more important than the distribution of fenestration on the façade for a 20 vs. 55 window building. Mr. Mohr - It has more to do with the massing implications of the higher density. The parking thing is frustrating because the Guidelines clearly state that we shouldn’t have parking entrances on the main streets and we have done it everywhere. Mr. Dreyfus - How can you not have parking on your property without trespassing someone else’s property? Mr. Mohr - You’d have to have a local solution brokered by the City to make that happen. Parking has just been something that we’ve had to wrestle with in terms of what it does to street scale. 612 West Main Street Discussion Sept 2022 (9/9/2022) 7 Mr. Dreyfus - Agrees, but unfortunately it’s a requirement we are backed into as designers. There is a slight hope to connect to the parking garage below at 600. There are many complications associated with that but it would be great to do that. Mr. Mohr - In this case you have a long enough street level that you could make a hyphen or break the block in two. With bigger projects, the whole review process needs to be tailored differently so is acknowledges that larger projects have to go in phases and we have to be able to provide assurances that going forward it works. Mr. Dreyfus - Ultimately the BAR has the trump card of not granting the COA and if you don’t want the massing that is presented as the first meeting after the SUP is granted, it is no different than working through that process before. It’s a process question and there is considerable risk involved for an owner if they don’t have the knowledge density wise. In this instance, it seems like the City is asking for increased density so we are ready to go through the process of working with the BAR, but as an owner it makes sense that they want to have the assurances. Mr. Schwarz - We can make it clear in our motion. As a formality we have to recommend the SUP to the Planning Commission and then to Council and we could say that the density is fine but that we want to look at massing in our recommendation. Mr. Dreyfus - To be clear, we have to submit massing and elevations and a site plan. We aren’t trying to get out of it, but the question is how far that should go. Mr. Balut - There is a good chance that everyone is going to approve the increased density. Assuming that that happens, the BAR can offer feedback on the massing that will be very helpful before getting into fenestration. If you bring in massing models first, you could get really good feedback on them. Mr. Dreyfus - So if the submission made next month has some concept of massing, as broad or generalized as it is, we might have the opportunity to get the recommendation from the BAR to the City Council that the use is not detrimental to the district, which is all that is required. We would get some feedback so that when we come on the next round, we are one meeting further into the process. Mr. Mohr - The use parameters are pretty low bar. It’s mostly things like no parking on the first level. From a form based code standpoint, he is more interested in defining plate heights and that sort of thing rather that what is going on inside the walls. Mr. Lahendro - The mixed-use component of what is being shown here is just as important. Retail on the first level and a high activation between the sidewalk and the first floor is just as important as the residential. Mr. Sarafin - As long as you aren’t proposing putting apartments or parking on the street level, the public use component and the BAR recommending an SUP for use demonstrates that it is acceptable. What happens from floor 2 and up isn’t as important, except for seeing how it is expressed architecturally on the façade. Mr. Balut - It is unlikely that the BAR would approve anything close to this long building and it will require some give and take on the front. It’s really important that when you do the calculus for those 55 units, understand that a significant amount of the chunk will likely be taken away in order to achieve that. 612 West Main Street Discussion Sept 2022 (9/9/2022) 8 Mr. Dreyfus - We have started that process, but we don’t want to churn too much time and money on something that we don’t know is going to be allowed density-wise. Mr. Lahendro - It may be helpful to revisit some of the reasoning behind the Planning Commission’s change of zoning on West Main Street. Previously there was a change in zoning from the north to south side and it was then changed from west to east of the bridge, which is because the character of the two sides have changed. There is more of the historic character still left on the east side and that character is more modest in size and scale than what the west side has become. The height and pattern of building plays into creating breaks in the long blocks, which was very important to the Commission. Mr. Werner - With the SUP process, the BAR can make recommendations like not having an apartment wall but instead to have a very active, permeable street. They become more than the Guidelines and you don’t have to have the design to make recommendations. Mr. Dreyfus - The two existing contributing structures that are part of 600 West Main actually sit forward of the required setback for this new building, which is exciting and there will be variability. 612 West Main Street Discussion Sept 2022 (9/9/2022) 9 Meeting minutes: June 18, 2019 (SUP recommendation) Staff Report, Jeff Werner - This parcel contains a non-contributing concrete block automotive building within the West Main Street ADC District. The building was in 1959, and finished to its current state in 1973. The request is to increase the by-right residential density if 43 DU/acre to 120 DU/acre. Increasing the allowed density will allow construction of a variety of dwelling unit sizes at various price points. When the property that is the subject of the application for an SUP is within a design control district, city council shall refer the application to the BAR or ERB, as may be applicable, for recommendations as to whether the proposed use will have an adverse impact on the district, and for recommendations as to reasonable conditions which, if imposed, that would mitigate any such impacts. The BAR shall return a written report of its recommendations to the city council. In evaluating thus SUP request, the Planning Commission and, ultimately, City Council will take into consideration the BAR’s recommendation on whether or not the SUP, if approved, would adversely impact West Main Street ADC district and, if so, any proposed conditions to mitigate the impact. The BAR’s recommendations is not a function of how the site will be used or occupied, but an evaluation of the requested SUP relative to the criteria within the ADC Design Guidelines. That is, will allowing increased density result in a project that conflicts with the Guidelines? Understanding that at a later date the final design must be reviewed and approved by the BAR, staff recommends the BAR find that the SUP will not have an adverse impact on the West Main ADC District. However, in reviewing the SUP the BAR has the opportunity to discuss and offer recommendations on the proposed massing and building envelope and how it engages the streetscape and neighboring properties, etc. Furthermore, the BAR may request that the Planning Commission and City Council consider including these design recommendations as conditions of approval for the SUP. The PLACE committee has had several discussions about block length lately and the block length here between 5th and 7th Street is about 525’. As far as a historic block, what you have now is what has been there since the City became a modern place. Applicant, Jeff Dreyfus - When we were here two months ago we talked about the process of an SUP and the recommendation. This is a reaction to what we did on 600 West Main Street, the adjacent property. We found ourselves in a situation where were having to design a façade for an SUP that we didn’t know we were going to get. This is an attempt to put the horse before the cart to know that with your recommendation, assuming the Planning Commission and City Council approve the SUP, then we get to start in on design. The massing that we show is by-right within the district, as well as height. Additional height is not a possibility here so we are asking for a recommendation that filling the box that is allowable with more units rather than those that are currently by-right is a good thing and doesn’t adversely impact on the district. We will come back to the BAR many times with the design as we move forward and anything we put forward at this time would be purely conjecture. We would rather know we have the increased density and we come to you with designs that react to that. We have gotten approval for a mural on the side of the former Mini Mart building and we are contemplating if it would be a possibility to create a small plaza next to that as part of this building so that it might be preserved. Engagements with the street is critical and we intend to have retail on the ground floor on the street side. Residential would very likely be on the backside of the ground floor facing the railroad tracks. The elevation diagrams indicate the recognition that the Guidelines talk about respecting former lot lines, even if not streets that didn’t come through in this instance. It’s something that we will be taking into account as well. Once we know we have the increased density it will be a good, robust conversation. Questions from The Public: Patricia Edwards - Resides at 212 6th Street NW. I’m concerned about parking and how people are going to get that parking. Right now, everyone parks there, including construction workers, UVA 612 West Main Street Discussion Sept 2022 (9/9/2022) 10 employees, etc. and it has gotten so bad that a large truck like a firetruck couldn’t get up the Brown Street hill if needed. Where are folks supposed to park? There are also questions about the retaining wall at First Baptist Church and what will happen to it because the driveway is important to us. Mr. Dreyfus - The very preliminary study of this site shows that we could get approximately 53 cars in a below-grade parking area. The maximum density we could have is 55 dwelling units. This project will likely be self-parked and people will be parking in the garage. Regarding the retaining wall, we can’t say it will be maintained but it will be replaced. Assuming there is below-grade parking, we will be building basement and retaining walls. We don’t have the right to impinge on the church’s alley on that side drive so it will be maintained. Any wall on that property line will be structurally sound. Don Gathers - I am the deacon at First Baptist Church. The applicant is asking for approval and saying that he will get the schematics at a later date, which we’ve seen in the City that that has failed before. I would much rather see everything laid out before you grant any approval to go ahead. There is a plan for 53-55 units with parking, but the ground floor will also be some sort of strip mall or grocery usage. Where does that additional parking go? As the oldest and most historic black church in the area, we are very concerned as to what this will do to our immediate area and what the landscape would look like moving forward, especially with the proposed plans to put a mural on the building. Questions from The Board: Mr. Lahendro - The plan indicates an entrance to the underground parking on the south end of the building and underground detention structures on the north end. Is that set in stone? Mr. Dreyfus - Nothing is set in stone. Any suggestions, ideas, or preferences that you have about where an entry to parking might be located we would like to hear it. This has all been very preliminary, recognizing that we have the space to do these sorts of things. Mr. Balut - What is the length of the lot along West Main Street? Mr. Dreyfus - 165’ according to the site plan. Comments from The Public: Patricia Edwards - West Main Street is dense enough. My neighborhood, Star Hill, is being adversely impacted by what is happening on West Main Street. I urge you to deny any further density. This whole issue of density must be taken seriously and these ancient neighborhoods surrounding West Main are being adversely impacted and we don’t even know the full extent of it. We are being impacted by construction. Our water was turned off yesterday because of it and we can’t go down streets anymore because of it. Additionally the Annex building is in such a shape that it won’t withstand this construction without significant damage. That building shouldn’t be allowed to be that close to it and we are about to apply for historic designation for that building. It is wild that that type of building could be that close to a building of this significance and age. Don Gathers - We are very concerned about what this particular usage would do to our building and our congregation. The parking issue alone is concerning and the structural damage it could potentially cause to our structure is mindboggling. As a City we need to take a look at the efforts we are making towards density and slow down, especially in that corridor where it isn’t necessary and could be potentially damaging to another historically black neighborhood. Comments from The Board: 612 West Main Street Discussion Sept 2022 (9/9/2022) 11 Mr. Mohr - One of the reasons for the increased density is to reduce the actual footprint on the lot in order to play with massing. Is that a correct assumption? Mr. Dreyfus - We will see, but the reality is with fewer units you could still build that same box with whatever permutations we need to in order to get approval. Increased density allows us to put the same units within the same box. Density is measured by parcel, not footprint. Mr. Mohr - To get the increased density, we would expect more ability to manipulate the massing in return. Mr. Balut - If you reduce the massing then you don’t necessarily need the density to get more units. However, if you increased the density you have more flexibility in unit size. Mr. Mohr - I’m just thinking about being able to manipulate the building mass and still keeping the economics. This mass isn’t that big but there is still a question of rhythm and scale. Even though it’s just preliminary, right now the box looks a little intimidating and it might be good to have things that break it up. Mr. Dreyfus - Understood, but part of the question is, is increased density adversely impacting the district? The building could be as big for fewer units. Mr. Schwarz - The public has come in with very valid concerns, but unfortunately our concerns are just with the outside of the building. The public needs to go to the Planning Commission for these things. I wouldn’t put any conditions on this building that I wouldn’t also put on it if it were just 20 units. Mr. Sarafin - We have been reprimanded by City Council before for commenting on density. Mr. Balut - The process that we are involved in is a smart one and we should look at how density might affect the massing and volume of the building. If we allow increased density, they are more likely to max it out as much as possible because that’s what almost everyone does. If there is less density, then perhaps that wouldn’t happen. There is a cap on square footage size of units and they wouldn’t fill it up with 4 bedrooms. Mr. Schwarz - Students would rent them just like The Flats. We would be getting just as many cars on the street from 19 unit, as opposed to people who might rent a 1 bedroom unit that wouldn’t be students but would actually live in the town. Mr. Werner - The recommendation is whether or not allowing additional density would, as a function of the Design Guidelines, have a detrimental impact. As far as a recommendation to Planning Commission and Council goes, the issue is that you can put 10 units for X square feet or 200 units at X square footage but they both result in the same building envelope. As the Design Guidelines go, we can’t get into what is going on in that interior footprint. However, relative to traffic issues and activity at the site like the entrance to the parking garage would be a design element to raise a question to. Ms. Miller - I disagree. When he does something by-right, we are back to the Guidelines. As soon as it becomes an SUP, there is more given and take than if you are doing something by-right. We may be able to exert ourselves in a way now to say that we might be okay with additional density but to also include things to counteract that. 612 West Main Street Discussion Sept 2022 (9/9/2022) 12 Mr. Werner - It has to only be regarding the exterior façade. Ms. Miller - Council and Planning Commission can put any list of requirements they want and it doesn’t matter if it makes sense with our Guidelines because everything is up for debate because they aren’t doing by-right zoning. We are recommending the things we think would make a special use permit okay if we say that increased density is okay. Mr. Lahendro - I have been involved with First Baptist Church for a few years and I give pro bono preservation and architectural advice to them, as well as condition survey work. However, I don’t believe I need to take myself out of the conversation because I get no financial benefit from it or from being a part of this conversation. That said, I’ve been in conversation with Brian Haluska, the City Planner for this application, and this particular block of Main Street in 1929 was a commercial grocery produce distribution center. University Tire and three other buildings were there, which is important because the heirloom construction project now was approved under a different zoning designation than there is now. That zoning allowed a higher building. It’s lower now because the Planning Commission took into account that Main Street changes at the railroad crossing rather than north and south. The east side of Main Street has a very different character, which is noted in the city code. Within the Zoning Ordinance for the West Main east zoning category there’s also a requirement that the apparent mass and scale of each building over 100’ wide shall be reduced through the use of building and material modulation to provide a pedestrian scale, architectural interest, and to ensure the building is compatible with the character of the district. This building is 165’ on a block that historically had buildings similar in size and an SUP could only be granted if the design respects that broken pattern of smaller buildings or gives the impression of such through its design. Mr. Tim Lasley - I would like to make a comment as a member of the public. The Special Use Permit that this property is proposing is especially important because if you can compromise that you can increase the density, the BAR can manipulate its massing in a way that it becomes a public affordance. It’s by the same architect and if it relates into the 600 West Main project and having the mural on the Market building, there are many opportunities to come in and connect them together to create a more permeable public space. If the two projects could be meshed together more efficiently, it could afford great public urban spaces. Mr. Lahendro - With all due respect to Ms. Edwards and Mr. Gathers, density is coming to Charlottesville. It’s going to happen and I’d rather do our best to control it so the increased density is justified for this building. Another concern that was brought up by the public was the structural stability of the Annex if this goes forward. It can be safeguarded and there are monitored systems that you can put on existing buildings to record any movement of the building. An engineering firm can send out warnings if there is movement over a certain amount. There are ways of constructing next to another building and doing it carefully and not damaging that building, so I’m not worried about that if those safeguards are built into the project. Ms. Miller - If we go forward with the recommendation for increased density that should be one stipulation to require. Mr. Schwarz - Putting conditions on this sound good, but we need to be sure that if the SUP fails and they come back with a by-right project, we still feel that we can do all of those things as the BAR. The argument that we can’t bargain as much because it’s not an SUP is flawed. Additionally, can we 612 West Main Street Discussion Sept 2022 (9/9/2022) 13 change the wording on this? It shouldn’t be a recommendation, but instead we just find no reason that this would violate our Design Guidelines. It implies advocacy. Mr. Werner - That wording is directly from the code. It is ultimately a finding that our opinion would or would not adversely impact it. Mr. Balut - If we approve the SUP, how will we have less bite with our Guidelines? Ms. Miller - It’s just that the SUP gives us the ability to put on conditions that have nothing to do with our Guidelines. Mr. Balut - So then are we as a board not confident that the Guidelines that we have are suitable as they are written to address the volume and massing of this proposal? Mr. Werner - A SUP has a tremendous amount of discretion. It allows a locality to apply conditions that it thinks are necessary to offset that special use. We would be recommending things for them to consider and if they want to add those conditions under the SUP then it becomes something that is nonnegotiable. Mr. Balut - It sounds like we have the opportunity to implement our own form-based code. From a preliminary look at this, it is a really difficult thing to stipulate in a discussion based on minimal information. If we have to make decisions holistically that we are bound to, we need more time to do that. Mr. Dreyfus - The statements Mr. Lahendro made are part of the Zoning Ordinance and the Guidelines so they are already required. Mr. Balut - We don’t need to specify breaking up the mass or setting it back because we already have the ability to do that with our Guidelines. The question is what beyond the scope of our Guidelines might we want to consider to make a stipulation. Mr. Gastinger - It’s helpful to be clear about it. The approval of an SUP doesn’t release them from any of our assessments relative to the Guidelines. However, because the request is relative to density, it helps to be clear that our recommendation does not mean that there aren’t things that we are going to require relative to that street façade, which could challenge their ability to even have that density. Mr. Balut - That seems implied and understood already. Mr. Lahendro - We may want to be more definitive about it because it says that the length of the building can be reduced through the use of building and material modulation and articulation. Is it enough to just change material every 50’? In my mind it needs to be a physical break to break up the length and it needs to be more than just a material change. Mr. Balut - It’s a difficult discussion to have. How far do we go to make that determination? Ms. Miller - There is value in getting the Planning Commission and City Council invested in some of these restrictions from the beginning of the process. It also helps if the developer is fully aware of where we are going and that the neighborhood also understands what we are okay with. It doesn’t hurt to put a list together of our concerns. 612 West Main Street Discussion Sept 2022 (9/9/2022) 14 Mr. Mohr - It’s also important for Council to understand that we make a distinction between density and massing. Mr. Sarafin - We are talking about the same building envelope either way, which makes this discussion difficult. The only worry is that we make a recommendation either way and it comes off as a commentary on the density part of it. There is an advocacy tinge to it that makes it problematic and awkward for us because it’s outside of our consideration. Mr. Schwarz - It is a courtesy that we are allowed to speak. Mr. Sarafin - Whatever recommendation we make, we should make it very clear that what we are concerned with are the potential physical manifestations of high density here and things that might affect the thing on the street. Mr. Mohr - If there’s going to be increased density, there has to be a greater involvement with the design team in terms of massing and how the building is going to work. Mr. Schwarz - It sounds like parking shouldn’t be accessed directly from West Main, the building mass must be broken down to reflect the three parcel massing historically on the site using building modulation, and the Holsinger building must be seismically monitored during construction. Mr. Dreyfus - How can you avoid accessing parking off of West Main if the only side you have accessible is on West Main Street? Mr. Schwarz - That is better suited to be argued with the Planning Commission. You have 600 West Main and potentially you could work with the church because they have parking and access behind their building. There are just wish list items. Ms. Miller - The reason I gave up voting for the project next door is because there is an unwillingness to come in off of any buildable square inch of the other project. That is a concern to consider when we’re talking about a request to multiply the density by three. Mr. Balut - We are taking this very seriously and trying to understand the best way to help, but one of the main things is that we don’t want a superblock building. We want to understand the historical context and the desire to break up that building is going to be quite prevalent. The idea of the pocket park is great, but that is just one way to break up the massing and there needs to be another, if not two more ways to do that. The concern is by going to increased density, which I am in favor of in theory, it could send the wrong message that it could be filled out more and we don’t want to mislead you in that way. Ms. Miller - Perhaps the breaks between the buildings go back as far as the backside of 600 West Main that is deep in the lot. Mr. Mohr - Either way the key is that we want you to be able to really manipulate the massing and have some permeability back into the street from it even if it is just visual. Mr. Lahendro - A great deal of pedestrian engagement along the sidewalk with transparency is needed as well. 612 West Main Street Discussion Sept 2022 (9/9/2022) 15 Ms. Miller - We want it to defer to the historic houses and to the Holsinger building that are on either side of it. Mr. Sarafin - Good idea. We don’t need these things to be completely spelled out, but we should state that we want to reserve the right to do so. Mr. Lasley - The two building can create a dialogue together. Having the same owner creates a unique opportunity in an urban space so the two buildings could really speak. Mr. Werner - If Planning Commission and Council agreed to include your recommendations as conditions they would become an agreement that we are obligated to respond to. They aren’t conditions that you could put on later that they could appeal to Council. You have to be careful about not recommending conditions that zoning wouldn’t allow. Mr. Sarafin - They should be items that we are concerned about for their consideration rather than conditions. How can we really put a condition to break this into three distinct buildings on this site when we don’t know enough? Mr. Schwarz - We could write it in a way that is flexible and general enough. Mr. Balut - It has to be general. We can’t define three separate buildings tonight. We have to let the architect do it and then we can evaluate it. Motion: Schwarz moved that the proposed special use permit for additional residential density for the redevelopment at 612 West Main Street will not have an adverse impact on the West Main Street ADC District, with the understanding that the massing is not final, and must be further discussed, and [will require] a complete full design review at future BAR meeting(s) and propose the following conditions [for the SUP]: • Garage entry shall not be accessed directly from the building’s street wall along West Main Street; • That the building’s mass shall be broken down to reflect the multi-parcel massing historically on the site, as well as the West Main Street context, using building modulation; • That the Holsinger Building be seismically monitored during construction; • That there shall be pedestrian engagement with the street with an active, transparent, and permeable façade at street level; • And that the building and massing refer to the historic buildings on either side. Mohr seconded. Approved (7-0-2 with Earnst and Ball recused). 612 West Main Street Discussion Sept 2022 (9/9/2022) 16 Meeting minutes: January 22, 2020 Preliminary Discussion: 612 West Main Street Jeff Dreyfus presented on 612 West Main Street. Jeff Dreyfus worked closely with the BAR on 600 West Main Street. This was just a preliminary presentation of what 612 West Main Street (University Tire) is going to look like. These are the some of the highlights of this presentation by Jeff Dreyfus. The first was to pursue a special use permit for the piece of land. Height was not an option for this piece of property. Height was limited to four stories. The BAR recommended to Council that increased density would not have an adverse impact. There were several conditions that were proposed. Jeff Dreyfus went over some of the conditions that were proposed by Council. This is very different from 600 West Main Street. The ground floor will be retail with residential on the floors above the retail floor. Main entry for the residents will be on the sidewalk. There will be a secondary entry for residents on the backside of the “pocket park.” The hope is to have a restaurant near the “pocket park” that could activate or take up the “pocket park.” There is a great opportunity. The hope is to be back in front of the BAR next month. The idea is to get the reaction and feedback from the BAR. There was a discussion among the BAR members and Jeff Dreyfus providing feedback and constructive criticism for the applicant on the plan. Members of the BAR each provided their concerns for the applicant. Jeff Dreyfus did leave with a good idea of what improvements need to be made on the project going forward. 612 West Main Street Discussion Sept 2022 (9/9/2022) 17 Meeting minutes: November 17, 2020 Jeff Werner, Staff Report – Year Built: 1959-1973 (concrete block automotive service building) District: West Main Street ADC District Status: Non-contributing April 16, 2019 - BAR discussion. June 18, 2019 – BAR recommended approval of Special Use Permit for additional residential density, that the redevelopment will not have an adverse impact on the West Main Street ADC District, with the understanding that the massing is not final, and must be further discussed, and [will require] a complete full design review at future BAR meeting(s) and propose the following conditions [for the SUP]: • Garage entry shall not be accessed directly from the building’s street wall along West Main Street; • The building’s mass shall be broken down to reflect the multi-parcel massing historically on the site, as well as the West Main Street context, using building modulation; • The building and massing refer to the historic building. • The Holsinger Building be seismically monitored during construction; • There shall be pedestrian engagement with the street with an active, transparent, and permeable façade at street level. Note: On October 7, 2019, Council approved the SUP. January 22, 2020 – BAR discussion. CoA request for construction of a new, four-story mixed-use building. (The existing service station is a non- contributing structure; therefore, its demolition does not require a CoA.) Note: At three prior meetings (see above), the BAR discussed this project with the applicants, satisfying the statutory requirements for a pre-application conference per City Code section Sec. 34- 282(c)(4). This application is a formal request for a CoA and, per Sec. 34-285, the BAR must take action within sixty days of the submittal deadline. At this meeting, the BAR may defer the item to the next meeting; however, at that next meeting, only the applicant may request a deferral. Absent that request, the BAR must take action to approve, deny, or approve with conditions the CoA. I have a lot in here for the discussion. It follows the language that we have used for 125 or 128 Chancellor. I have added a list of recommendations for criteria that you might want to refer to. The applicant provided a list of the goals that the applicant would like to get out of this meeting. There is acknowledgement across the board that you are not voting on a COA tonight. It is certainly within your right to do so. If the applicant requests the deferral, the applicant can come back when they are ready. If the BAR defers this to the December meeting, it would have to come back next month. Mr. Lahendro – In the interest of full disclosure, I do need to state that I provide pro bono preservation advice and guidance to the adjacent landowner, First Baptist Church. I do not believe that I am receiving no financial payment for it and have no financial interest in that relationship. I believe that I can be a part of this discussion. Jeff Dreyfus, Bushman Dreyfus – The applicant is going to request deferral. This is in the spirit of receiving input as we continue to develop the project. There was a hiatus since our January preliminary discussion. Simply trying to get a better grasp on COVID issues but also budget and building size. I think we have narrowed down since then. We went ahead and applied for the Certificate of Appropriateness so that everyone knows we’re serious about the project moving forward with it. We do expect a bit of back and forth before we will ask for a vote. Tonight is really to bring some of you up to speed on the project for the first time but also to let you know the direction that we are taking the design and soliciting your input so that ultimately all of this is in the spirit that we when do come to a vote, we will have incorporated your input in a way that is acceptable by the time we get to that vote. 612 West Main Street Discussion Sept 2022 (9/9/2022) 18 Knowing that the BAR is no longer doing partial approvals, we really want to get this whole thing right. I will run through the presentation that we have provided you. I also have a few additional slides. Design never stands still when you’re on a schedule. There’s a little bit more project development that I can explain to you. I will try to touch upon the things that we are hoping you can comment on tonight. You obviously will comment on everything and we do encourage that. We would like to touch on building massing, elevations, material options, color scheme, and some details. The building owned by the Church is on the corner. There is an alley that is owned by the Church between the site and the Church. It is not on the property of 612 West Main Street. The property does directly abuts 600 West Main Street. Adjacent to it, are two contributing structures: what was once a mini mart and the Blue Moon Diner. Further down the street is an ABC Store and a commercial building on the corner. Directly across the street is the Albemarle Hotel. To give you an understanding of the building envelope that we are allowed to work with from the zoning ordinance. This building can only be four stories tall. The first floor has a 15 foot minimum required height. Four floors up, the fourth story has a required step back from West Main Street. There’s a required ten foot setback for the entire building from the property line from the sidewalk. At the fourth floor, we need to step back ten feet. The angle that we are required to step back on the rear of the property. This is simply the envelope we are allowed to work within. It also abuts to the east an internal courtyard for 600 West Main Street. This side of the former mini mart is painted by a well-known artist. That was approved by the BAR some time ago. You can see the ten foot setback from property line on the ground floor to the third floor. We are also showing the ten foot required setback on the fourth floor. There are going to be 41 units in the building. Here is the Sanborn Map from 1920 showing some of the properties that were here. You can see the Baptist Church and what is now the Blue Moon Diner. The red is the footprint of what is now being proposed. Our clients, as they think about the image of the building, the feel of the building is very different from 600 West Main Street. The idea is quiet and calming. On the interior, it is very serene with a bit minimalism to it as we go forward. This also begins to suggest the type of color scheme that we are thinking of. As we prepare a preliminary site plan, a little bit more of the specifics are here. You can see the mini mart building and the inner courtyard for 600 West Main Street. We do hope to connect to that internal to the building. We are honoring the ten foot setback along the property line here. We start to see the building façade here. We step back at about 28 feet from the property line here plus another three feet from the mini mart building. We have about a 30 foot wide plaza. This is intended to be the entry for the residents. The intention here is that the whole first floor front of the building is going to be retail, except for this portion. This setback will be the entrance for the residents. These are intended to be individual rental apartments, not condos. The building is not abutting the mini mart. We are not crossing the property line. We are exposing this portion of the mural, which is the majority of the mural. That portion, which is on the step back, is much less important to the composition as the whole. The thought is that we will have a landscaped area here for the residents to come through; not walled and not gated, but setback from the street. We’re thinking that there will be a water feature in there. We have a long way to go with the landscape design. This is the intention at the moment. We are also thinking of a planter along the street can allow siting, leaning against as people walk along. Having limited entry areas through that planter to try to help focus on certain areas of the building. The whole lower first floor front part is intended to be retail. There will be a complete retail presence there. There will be a small service entrance on this side for deliveries and move in. The south portion of the ground floor is going to studio apartments. It is retail with this corner for the lobby entry for the residents. With the lobby entry for the residents being here, the hope is that we will also connect with the interior courtyard at 600 West Main Street. The two facilities can share amenities and residents can come and go within the courtyard. 612 West Main Street Discussion Sept 2022 (9/9/2022) 19 Ways to allow permeating the planters here, the intention is not to provide an open front on the entire thing. That would feel like a very large gap in the urban fabric. Trying to hold the edge with landscaping along the property line and then setting the building back. We’re in conversations right now about perhaps making the planter less deep in certain areas so that we might be able to accommodate some outdoor dining along there. It really is not the intention at the moment for this to be outdoor dining. This is more landscape area. You can see some of the images and precedence we are thinking about for the water, the plantings. Even a large stone bench at the center as a place for people to hang out. Some of the materials we are thinking of for the planters. A section through the building describes a little bit of what I was talking about regarding retail on the ground floor stretching back probably two thirds of the distance. Because of the height of the ground floor that is required, we’re working on actually putting loft apartments in the back with some really nice views. On the south side, it steps back considerably. These units will get incredibly deep to bring light into this spaces if we try fill this whole volume. What you see here in terms of the buildable area, the grey zone above is what is allowed for apartments and a stairwell elevator, which we are going to have to have. That’s not really a part of the building massing. We are not building to the property line on the south. We have 5 foot 6 setback. It has a lot to do with the fact that the railroad tracks complicate construction considerably. By staying back 5.5 feet, we are not having to cross the property line and deal with the bureaucracy of building within the railroads right of way. We do have a parking garage here. There is no entrance to the parking garage from this property. There is a parking garage at 600 West Main Street. The parking aisle is right down the center of that basement. We intend to take advantage of that and grade through the basement level to connect the basement parking of 612 West Main Street to 600 West Main Street eliminating one of the concerns that the BAR had with the large garage door on this Main Street elevation. Some precedent images that we are looking at include simplicity, quiet as we can, a rhythm to it. As we look at some of these, a color scheme begins to emerge, neutral tones, perhaps dark colors, and a lighter color. We are not there yet. We are drawn to the drama of the dark openings within the lighter framework of the building. You can see the idea of the planter in front of the building that has an intermediate zone. We’re creating multiple spaces along the sidewalk for the experience, not just the passerby, but perhaps people in the retail space. These stone are well out of our budget. Stucco is an option. We also start to see some examples that are done in lighter colored brick. There is a simplicity to the layout of the windows and the openings. The light colored brick would be ideal. Light colored brick is out of our budget. Within our budget is brick and stucco for the main materials, both of which we like. If we were to do it in brick, we would like to paint the brick. That’s a point of discussion we would like to bring to the BAR. Red brick, which is obviously, the cheapest thing you can find in Virginia because there is so much of it is not what we are going for here. We would like to paint the, which is not part of the guidelines. We prefer it over stucco because of the texture the brick can provide to the exterior walls. Entry doors for the residents and some of the service areas right on the street so that we get a sense of solidity to these. On the right is a simple courtyard or space that is nicely landscaped and leads to the door for the residents. We are not intending a gate in this instance prior to getting to the residence. This is more for the idea of the courtyard right off of the sidewalk. A number of months ago, you saw some studies from us about the front elevation and how to break it down, ways we were beginning to think about the massing. Of those, this sketch rose to the top for some of the BAR members because of the modulation of the building in ways breaking it into 2 bay, 3 bay, and 4 bay modules along the street with the step back at the 4th floor. We were thinking, at the time, of setting back that area that would be the resident’s entrance. We preferred to have resident’s entrance set back in the landscaped area. 612 West Main Street Discussion Sept 2022 (9/9/2022) 20 Where are we now with the development and the thinking of the building? This probably describes much of what we are looking at trying to break the building massing down into components here and here with a center portion that is set back about one foot, four inches. You can see the 4th floor terrace, which is ten feet back from all of that. Even further back, you can see that entrance portion to the residences. We’re looking at a very open, glassy retail area. It is not intended for one retailer or five retailers. That is yet to be seen. It could be broken up to as many as five, perhaps more if we needed to put the demising walls down the center. I don’t think that is the idea. Calling some attention to the door for the residents setback a bit, this is the part of the building with the mural. You can start to see the color palate beginning to be a light colored material, whether that is brick or stucco with the darker surrounds. You can begin to see how some of the patterning might happen with the windows; just a regular rhythm of windows across the front for the residential units. Operable windows on the lower portion for each of these, emphasizing the view out. We are also thinking that we would like awnings over the retail openings. Whether or not those are canvass, painted steel is yet to be determined. You can begin to see we are differentiating the setback portion of this façade a little bit differently than that on the street. Thinking of some way we can define the entry to the residences is pretty quiet but staying within the rhythm of the rest of the façade. You see it further with 600 West Main Street in the distance as well as the mini mart and the Blue Moon Diner. We begin to see how the planter might break at certain points to allow for entry into this zone where there may be some seating for outdoor dining, perhaps even some bike storage. We’re beginning to think that it is going need to happen behind the planter. We’re beginning to think about landscape and how it can enhance the architecture itself. Vertical trees along this façade can help define some more of that rhythm of the smaller units along the façade itself. As we move back a bit, we want to look at it in context scale wise relative to the church, the annex building, and then stepping it up to 600 West Main Street, with this being the portion of the building that is closest to the street. Behind there are the terraces of ten feet behind. Much further back, that piece. With the framing, this is the piece that comes forward that we’re trying to modulate, not just with the indent of the building, but also perhaps the pairings of windows and groups. If we continue around the side of the building, I think it is going to be a straightforward west elevation. Not many openings in that. We have plot line issues. Hopefully within some of those openings, we will have a little bit of glass at the end of interior hallways. In terms of some of the details, the windows may be a dark steel that comes forward of the brick or stucco surface by about two inches to help frame the opening itself and to give some relief to the façade. Another way we might surround the openings is a very simple brick detail; turning a brick sideways and projecting it an inch or two from the façade of the building itself to frame that opening a little bit differently on the portion that steps back from the street. We might even pick up on that with the openings for the residential terraces above. A little bit of a detail is the black/dark surround for the mostly glass façade for the retail and awning to provide cover as people come in. This is very preliminary as well. As we go around to the back, you can see a very regular rhythm of windows. This is a residential building. We do anticipate having some balconies on the back. This is not necessarily where they are going be or how they are going to be. What you do see here are those lower portions that are the loft studio apartments and get higher glass as we go further forward. That’s about 5.5 feet from the property line. Above, we have terraces for those on the third floor. One of the things we are going to incorporate into the building is a green roof on this portion. It is going to allow us to not have to put in the large stormwater pipes along the street that we would have to otherwise. This is one of the measures that we are taking for this building in order to have less impact on stormwater system and the utility system as we go forward. It is a very simple regular back to this. 612 West Main Street Discussion Sept 2022 (9/9/2022) 21 Comments from The Public: No Questions from the Public Questions from The Board: Mr. Mohr – I do have a question regarding the back of the building. You are bringing in the parking from the other building? Mr. Dreyfus – That’s correct. Mr. Mohr – It is hidden from sectional view at this point? Those windows seem awfully short given the double heights space? Mr. Dreyfus – This was something we put together this afternoon to try to explain at least the massing as it’s going to work. The parking garage is below those lowest windows. It’s maybe the top four feet of the parking garage. The garage is above the grade at the location. We don’t intend to expose any of that. Mr. Mohr – This goes back to the West Main Street tree issue. You have vertical trees here. I presume that we’re going to have something much larger in front of this building ultimately. Mr. Dreyfus – I am presuming that you are correct. Because we don’t know the future of that. We are not planting where the tree would ultimately go. If the planting and the planters changes in the future, we can react to whatever the city does. That plan has not been finalized. It’s hard to know what might be planted here or where. Mr. Gastinger – Could you describe how you’re interacting with that plan or if it’s possible at future presentations to share what is planned in that section so we can better ascertain what the interaction with the planters and the street could be? Mr. Dreyfus – Absolutely. I would be happy to bring it to you at the next iteration. It’s very fuzzy. There would be a great deal of conjecture but happy to bring the last version of that street planting plan when we come back. Mr. Mohr – Aren’t there four stories at the forward section of 601? Mr. Dreyfus – It is six stories in the back, five stories here (left side of the building), four stories here (middle of the building), and three stories (front of the building). The building steps up. Mr. Mohr – It does have a four story element on the street? Mr. Dreyfus – Yes it does. Comments from The Public: No Comments from the Public Comments from The Board: Mr. Schwarz – With regards to massing: how long the street façade is broken up with regards to massing and fenestration and how the building steps back from the street for the residential entrance next to the mural. 612 West Main Street Discussion Sept 2022 (9/9/2022) 22 Mr. Lahendro – I have some concerns. I don’t feel like the street façade has modulated well enough to break up that mass. It reads because of the same colors, because of the repeating of the same fenestration units across the front; it reads too monolithic as a single building to my eye. That center section sitting back a foot gives enough distinction between the units. When the units are all articulated and have the same materials, this looks like to me a monumental institutional building with the vertical piers looking like columnar to me. I don’t think it is as successful as I had hoped for bringing a memory of row buildings on this part of Main Street. I have concerns about that. Mr. Mohr – I find it altogether too horizontal in its ultimate expression, which is the reason I was asking about height. It seems fundamentally to be a long horizontal building. What is successful about the building next door is that it brings a thin façade forward that plays in the same scale or footprint as the rest of the buildings on the street. The other thing that concerns me is the lack of color or certainly some vibrancy is a problem for me. What is a pretty lively street in terms of color and texture, everything is feeling a little dull for me. It needs some more life. I think there needs to be more verticality and a greater attempt to push and pull the façade to give it some sense of a smaller rhythm that we are currently looking at. I think it is really unfortunate that this didn’t come first. This could have easily culminated a parking entrance for the whole complex at a scale where it could have been really modulated. I have always found it problematic in the small façade of the other part. Mr. Lahendro – The planters look like barriers to me between the building and the sidewalk. I worry that the planters have some impact upon the size of the trees being planted. We’re replacing some really lovely large canopy trees in this area. They are being cut up by the utility people with their chainsaws. They are significant trees. I would hope that we will be trying to put back something larger and provide the kind of planting for that. Mr. Gastinger – I feel that the landscape, through the planters, does feel very token at the moment and not really contributing to a sense of scale or to better use by the pedestrian or the public. That’s where some context with West Main could be useful. I just want to point out that this rendering is trying to do the best to put the sun in a position where you’re getting a little bit of shadow. That must be 7 in the morning on July 21st. Being the north façade, it has to work that much harder to have the kind of push and pull to really feel like there is enough depth within that façade to create that vertical rhythm that we have been talking about. Almost every part of the day, this is not going to have a lot of sun on the façade. Shadow lines are not going to be that pronounced. The use of color with the depth of the window mullions are really critical. Maybe using color more between the pieces might be one way of further modulating the façade. Mr. Zehmer – I had a thought that came from Mr. Werner’s question about our ability to allow for painting brick. If it is stucco, then I guess they can paint it. If they want to use brick, are they allowed to paint it? You could potentially paint these different row houses different colors. That would certainly break up the façade. Mr. Mohr – I always thought that painting had to do with historic surfaces. New brick, have at it. Mr. Zehmer – I did look at the new construction guidelines. It says that brick is the most appropriate material for new structures. Thin set brick is not permitted. On the next page, where they talk about paint. It says do not paint unpainted masonry surfaces. That has been referenced to existing masonry surface. 612 West Main Street Discussion Sept 2022 (9/9/2022) 23 Mr. Werner – The guidelines are recommendations and not ordinances. I have always made that distinction. I would be very comfortable recommending that the BAR, under the circumstances, to paint the new masonry structure. Mr. Schwarz – On the subject of massing, I am a little torn. I look at your elevations and I find it elegant. I want to think to what we currently have in Charlottesville. If you look at The Flats versus The Standard, the Flats has a very monolithic elevation. For some strange reason, The Standard is infinitely worse. It has a little street module that is a different color, material from the one next to it and the one next to it. There is a lot of depth of the façade. It’s terrible. It doesn’t work. I want to be a little cautious. If we tell them to just paint modules on it, or change the height of one versus the height of another, we have to be careful. Mr. Mohr – I think The Flats are successful because they are vertical. My only real issue is where it came to the railroad tracks. They should have punctuated it. This is a code limitation. It should have gone up another two or three stories. Another example being the Cherry Street Hotel. It is just that flat little box at the corner. They should have just built a different building at the corner. Mr. Schwarz – I just want to bring that up as an example. Mr. Mohr – I think color can be introduced not like they did at The Standard, maybe the canopies are an opportunity. It doesn’t have to be this. It can be all done in a quiet way. I think the other building is grim. It was fine for the back part. I think the front part needed to play better with the street with alleys and cacophony of colors. It is part of the character of that street. We can’t get too refined. I think they can still keep it quiet. I think it needs to have some color to bring it to life particularly at the retail level. Mr. Schwarz – I had a lot of hope for it. When I saw it on paper, I thought it was going to be good. What has been built is pretty awful. Mr. Gastinger – Since you mentioned The Flats, the setbacks in the notches of The Flats look to be a least ten feet. It has been different than what is being proposed here. Mr. Mohr – I think The Flats would have been way more successful if they had actually broken through the center. They had almost gotten there at one point. There is a courtyard in the back. That would have made it much more a collegiate compound. Mr. Schwarz – In my understanding, that for the building massing, there seems to be a want for more modulation, both vertical and horizontal. Is that what I am hearing? Mr. Lahendro – There is a difference between the west side of West Main Street, west of the bridge and the east side. The Planning Commission, a few years ago, changed the zoning to recognize the fact that the buildings on the west side of West Main Street are like The Standard and The Flats and the hospital. They’re larger. The hotels are larger buildings generally. The east side of West Main Street have more of the historic row buildings. That was the character that we’re trying preserve on the east side. The particular design here might be perfectly appropriate for the west side of West Main Street. I don’t think it is on the east side. 612 West Main Street Discussion Sept 2022 (9/9/2022) 24 Mr. Schwarz – I am not saying we should modulate it like separate buildings. I want us to be careful when we do it. I don’t know what lessons we can learn from The Standard. I think we need to learn some lessons from it because it didn’t work. Mr. Lahendro – I think there is a huge difference between The Flats and The Standard. It just a wonderful setback with The Flats with the large trees. The storefront is completely open. There is more engagement with the sidewalk. That’s what I am hoping for this building also. Mr. Mohr – The Flats is an altogether better urban building. On page 8, I find that center fenestration to be more in scale that makes sense. Where the Tom Ford elevation, which seems to be the direction you are heading, feels more like Fifth Avenue in New York to me. Mr. Schwarz – Let’s do window surrounds. That’s one of Mr. Dreyfus’ topics that he wanted to talk about. Mr. Mohr – The devil is in the details. I think, conceptually, there is some nice ideas there. For me, it’s more about the massing and how the windows are specifically treated. I think that could be very nicely handled. They’re heading in a nice direction with that. For me, the mass of the building feels too horizontal. Someone like Jimmy Griggs’ experiments with that building on West Main reminds of that right now. It’s just a little too horizontal. Mr. Lahendro – I am having a little trouble understanding you saying that it is too horizontal when I am seeing it as being too vertical. Are you talking about the whole block itself being the same height along the street? Mr. Mohr – More that I am reading those big blocks. I would rather they were maybe in half. I could also just see them as simply taller. When Mr. Dreyfus was outlining how the trees worked, that rhythm starts to work. The building really doesn’t have that rhythm. Mr. Dreyfus – The one thing that I would want to interject is that it can’t be taller. We have had our limitations on street façade height. Mr. Mohr – If you had a frame up there that carried it, but it was open, is that possible? Mr. Dreyfus – That’s something zoning is loathed to weigh in on at the moment. We have been asking this question. Mr. Mohr – It does have that little bit of that frame length language going. Mr. Dreyfus – We’re trying to push that. Mr. Schwarz – If you look at that elevation, it looks like the top of the third floor is about midway or close to the fourth floor at 600 West Main. Back to windows, any other comments on the idea using the dark metal surround or a simple brick detail or stucco detail. Any comments on the precedence? Mr. Zehmer – I have question about the function. You said the horizontal lower sash extrapolate. Would it slide up or slide out? 612 West Main Street Discussion Sept 2022 (9/9/2022) 25 Mr. Dreyfus – It would be an awning that pushes out and hinged at the top so that it flips out. Screens would be on the interior of the building not the exterior. Ms. Lewis – I feel that the surround has too much detail at this point. I think the massing meets our guidelines. I know that there are constraints under the SUP. I like the programming. I like the fact that it is stepped back from the main mural next door. I feel that I am looking at Neiman Marcus building at Lenox Place in Atlanta or Highland Park in Dallas. It looks like it’s a retail building that should have a lot of asphalt around it. Instead, it was plopped down on West Main Street. I am not being disrespectful to the applicant or his representative at all. I actually do like the palate of the building, the direction of a very clean looking palate. I agree that West Main has gotten some color. The color doesn’t bother me. I feel like the huge scale of the retail store front windows is really different than much of what we see. It would be the largest building with windows on the ground floor around here. I am looking at our guidelines on construction. There are actually a lot of guidelines for new construction on West Main. One of the guidelines is human scale, which includes balconies, porches, entrances, store fronts, and decorative elements. If the floors above the ground floor are residential, how about some balconies. This is a street. How about some street engagement? I don’t feel this building has any street engagement. This is a significant pedestrian corridor for us. It’s the most important corridor in this city. It connects the University and the downtown business district. To use some of these elements at the street level to reinforce elements seen elsewhere in the districts, such as cornices, entrances, display windows. Human scale is in two different guidelines that are under height and width. It is specifically applied to new construction. We don’t know whether these retail spaces would even have entrances off of West Main. We have been told about the door into the residences. I really don’t see any doors on those store fronts. I am assuming each of them would have a separate entrance and be separate spaces and not be accessed from within. I am back and forth on the planters. I am not certain whether they are there as a security measure and to guard against these glass windows and what is within them or whether they are trying to engage with the street as the applicant has said. There will be a presence, space there by itself. I don’t know how the building references any part of any historic district. I personally like the building. My last comment is to commend the applicant’s representative. This is a really great package of information just telling us historically what is involved with the SUP, giving us all kinds of elevations, giving us lots of information about the building envelope and what is permitted in your programming. This is a great example of a very thorough submission. Mr. Schwarz – I look at your precedent. I look at the building. I do think there’s a really nice elegance to it. I like it. Ms. Lewis makes some really good points. With big store front windows, it seems that is what we want and what the zoning seems to be calling for. If there was a form based code, I am sure it would support that. I am struggling with all of the big picture items on this. I am going back to the windows. I think your precedence for those and the ideas for how to details those are great. My concern is that you can’t afford a light colored brick. I am worried that you won’t be able to afford the details you are showing. That’s for you to prove to us. That is a concern of mine. This comes out being a lot less rich in detail. The simple details are expensive details unfortunately. If the richness goes away and the simplicity becomes even simpler and just plain flat, I think it is going to be completely unsuccessful. Mr. Mohr – I would like to see them spend the money on the window detailing and save the money by painting the brick. 612 West Main Street Discussion Sept 2022 (9/9/2022) 26 Mr. Schwarz – If that is how it balances out, that’s great. I want to make sure we’re not going to get into one of those value engineering cycles where we start off with something that’s great. We then slowly chip away at it until it isn’t. Let’s go to materials. Brick or stucco exterior, painted brick, and a question of using thin brick on the fourth floor terraces. I am going to add that while our guidelines do not allow thin brick, we have allowed it. The Code Building is clad in a thin brick veneer. It’s not glued to the building. Mr. Dreyfus – The only thing that I would like to add in that regard is the reason why we are thinking about it on the fourth floor is purely weight and structural issues. Thin brick doesn’t have to have mitered corners. There are pieces that allow you to turn the corner properly. It’s good to know that it has been used. In this instance, it is purely a weight issue. Mr. Mohr – It’s there because it is a qualitative issue. You have something that addresses the qualitative. I wanted to touch on something that Ms. Lewis was saying. Part of what makes that whole lower story seem a little off putting from a scale standpoint is that the planter solution seems suburban. I think that’s part of it. I think the planters do have to go away. The trees are great and an Italian classical sense. I also don’t see them as playing well with the street trees. I think that whole sidewalk scene needs to be re-thought. Mr. Bailey – I would be totally against the planters. I think it needs to be opened entirely and put in canopy trees along the street to make it friendlier. Mr. Lahendro – In thinking about The Flats and The Standard, I would hope the materials used on the front of the building would also carry around to the back of the building. It is a little discouraging at The Flats to see a bunch of cheap clapboards on the backside. Mr. Mohr – The Flats also have it on the higher levels as well. It gives a false façade. Ms. Lewis – To Mr. Mohr’s objection to this being too horizontal and my objection to that ground floor look. Mr. Gastinger – I think that could help. I think there are probably several different ways it could be done and still maintain the elegance that you are going for. The last thing we want it to feel like is a really cheap suburban row house building. I did just want to note that it is helpful to see the context of the adjacent buildings. The street view reminds me of the pretty sizeable historic structure on the north side of the street. It is actually going to have the same plane. It is also a painted brick building. It’s a building you don’t always see because the trees often obscure it. It does have some interesting lessons that might speak to a public and more of an inviting public approach to the historic fronts along this street edge. Mr. Schwarz – I am going to add on the subject of materials that although I would love to see an unpainted light colored brick, painted brick would be far superior to stucco just because of stucco means EIFS. I would want to see something hard and durable on the ground floor. I don’t know if there is another masonry products that you could look at. The other items on the outline include elevations, rhythm and scale of the openings on West Main, rhythm and scale of the openings on the south façade facing the railroads, the west façade, the window surrounds, and the neutral color schemes. 612 West Main Street Discussion Sept 2022 (9/9/2022) 27 Ms. Lengel – I would like to talk a little bit about the cornice line. It seems like you might be adding a thin seam to emphasize the cornice line and the verticality of the piers. Is that correct or is that something from the sketch up model that created the rendering? Mr. Dreyfus – That’s probably more of the sketch up model. One of the details we’re thinking about is if we have the steel surrounds, the cornice may actually be a projecting piece of steel that comes out through 3 or 4 inches from the buildings. We hadn’t really thought of that line. It reads as pronounced here. It may be a control joint. It wouldn’t be as pronounced. Ms. Lengel – I guess that I would like to see some more emphasis on that detail. Mr. Mohr – And the parapet is basically a railing too? Mr. Dreyfus – That’s correct. I don’t want to belabor any points. I am happy to hear anything else. This has been very helpful. Mr. Zehmer – You mentioned that there is a service entrance for the commercial shops on the west end facing Main Street. Mr. Dreyfus – It will be set back within the façade. We don’t intend to have a service door right there on. Mr. Zehmer – I assume that leads to a hallway that connects. Mr. Dreyfus – That’s correct. Mr. Zehmer – The reason I bring that up that I am curious if we will have a lot of delivery trucks parking in that alley trying to unload. Mr. Dreyfus – That won’t be allowed. Deliveries will be on West Main Street. Mr. Schwarz – Do you feel that you have gotten a good summary? Mr. Dreyfus – What I heard was more verticality, massing along this portion of the building, Mr. Mohr’s concern about horizontality, the stated detail is out of scale on West Main Street, material- wise, the devil is in the details, how to bring more life onto West Main Street with balconies or other variations that will allow some engagement, the planters are more of an impediment than they are an invitation into the retail. Mr. Mohr – I think that if you take the planters away, some of the glass area has no bigger than what you see on the plats. The uncommon is completely glass all of the way around at the first floor level. Part of that is that it is hard to understand entry sequences or anything because the planters are obscuring everything. I would be curious if your perception of that changes once you see it without the planters. There are some other parts. That is further up West Main too. Maybe that is the way Mr. Dreyfus gets a little more vertical rhythm out of this. Some of the facades are more hunched openings versus the retail level. Mr. Dreyfus – The other thing that I missed was the introduction of some color and street trees being more of the public realm and not necessarily related to this building. 612 West Main Street Discussion Sept 2022 (9/9/2022) 28 Mr. Schwarz – It’s really good to have all of this information at this point. In the future, as this progresses, I think staff gives you a little extra time to submit information. That would allow us to review it ahead of time and cut back the presentation. Mr. Dreyfus – Request to defer application to a later date – Carl Schwarz moves to accept the applicant's request for a deferral. Tim Mohr seconds. Motion passes (8-0). 612 West Main Street Discussion Sept 2022 (9/9/2022) 29 Meeting minutes: December 15, 2020 Jeff Werner, Staff Report – This is a continuing discussion for a COA request that we're calling 612 West Main Street. The formal address is 602 to 616 West Main Street. There is an existing building on the site and it was constructed between 1959 and 1973. It will be demolished. It is a non-contributing structure in this ADC district. There will not be any COA for the demolition. The applicant last had a discussion with the BAR at the November meeting. This has been presented as a formal application for a COA. Tonight I do not believe the applicant is seeking action by the BAR. However, you all are required by the code to take an action. That action would be to approve the applicants request for a deferral. As we discussed before this meeting, this is a continued discussion. The applicant has presented the drawings that you all reviewed in November and offered annotations. The intent is to clarify and make sure everyone is on the same page with what the BAR is offering in its comments. There are seven or eight pages of additional information that's provided. I want to again reiterate that the clock is ticking on this and this is a formal application. You all accepted the applicants request for a deferral in November. However at this meeting, the BAR cannot make the motion. Only the applicant can request a deferral. Should the applicant not accept a deferral or not propose a deferral, the BARs options are only to approve it, deny it, or to approve it with conditions. In the context of this continued discussion, the goal of this is a dialogue. The applicant has some specific things that he wishes to address. I want to encourage the BAR to have that dialogue. This is just a presentation on where the design is. This is part of that iterative process of working things towards a complete application that you all can take action on. Mr. Lahendro – In our pre meeting, the Board expressed some confusion about what you'll be looking for tonight. As you make your presentation, would you be clear about what you want the Board comment on please? Jeff Dreyfus, Applicant – We are looking for comment on massing and elevation development on the West Main Street facade. Those two elements are key to the development of the rest of the building. Until we feel we're on an approvable track, comment beyond that presentation and discussion on our part is all premature. As you noticed in the package, we did not propose a landscape plan at this point. We think that is premature. I'll go through that, as I talk about some of the slides. The one thing I'd like to do first is to reiterate what we think we heard you all ask us to do after the last presentation of the facade on West Main Street. That is to reflect a multi parcel nature of the site's history and address the scale difference of West West Main Street versus East West Main Street. That means a smaller scale east of the bridge. It's been pointed out that we are setting a precedent for larger scale parcels on this side of West Main Street, east side of the bridge. You've asked us to mediate the horizontality of the parcel and the building. It is only three stories tall because of zoning. As we've been thinking through the comments that you all provided and looking for ways to move forward, it was also important to us to reiterate what we find as value on West Main Street. We all share them, but we could debate them. As a design team, we believe a mix of residential and retail is critical. Smaller retail spaces over larger big box retailers is what has typically been on the east side of West Main Street. There’s a challenge in that we have a 10 foot setback. How do we hold the edge? How do we maintain the lower scale of buildings east of the bridge? We've asked ourselves how we can enhance this part of West Main Street by bringing more residential life to the streets, making it a truly walkable neighborhood and adding space for more small retailers. I think a very important element is by being quiet. As we look at some of the images of buildings along West Main and not calling attention to ourselves in order to provide a visual respite from West Main Street at the moment. We are interested in taking a backseat architecturally and letting buildings like the Baptist Church and the Albemarle Hotel have the attention. The other thing that we're interested in doing is bringing a different demographic to West 612 West Main Street Discussion Sept 2022 (9/9/2022) 30 Main Street. This is not a building intended for students but for young professionals and older residents. When it comes to reflecting the multi parcel nature of the site, you can see the original plat lines on the parcel. You can also see the way we're beginning to look at breaking up the facade differently now to reflect the original widths of those parcels. In terms of scale, one of the larger buildings on this side of the bridge is the Albemarle Hotel. If we take the length of the Albemarle Hotel and reflect across the street, we can't work with the same exact proportions because we're not allowed the same height. Width wise, there's precedent for buildings of that size and length on West Main Street. You can begin to see how we're starting to break up the facade. This is not intended to propose any landscape at this point. This is really to show and to continue as we move forward. This reflects what the current plan is for the West Main Street streetscape project. You can see that the dashed red line is the current curb line. The proposal in this area is to encroach a little bit on the public right of way with the curb and plant the street trees right up along there. Our landscape architect has been in touch with the planners at Rhodsside and Harwell. They're very eager to work with us to devise a plan. They've reiterated that this is malleable and would like to work with us as soon as we start thinking about the public space here. This is not a proposal. This is merely a reflection of what is currently in the streetscape plan relative to the building we're looking at here. As we started to look at how we bring verticality to a very long and horizontal building, we are looking at other examples here and introducing retail. One of the things we really appreciate about the three images on the left are the retail spaces down below. The middle is a larger retail space behind multiple windows. The one on the left could be three individual retailers. The one on the right is one retailer within three bays. Looking at how we can offer the opportunity for the retail in the building we provide flexibility with smaller and local retailers, as opposed to big box retailers. How does that relate to the verticality we're trying to achieve on the facade of the building to counteract the horizontality and the grid of Windows above? We've mentioned this before, but texture. We'll talk about this in the facade itself. How do we introduce texture to create a difference? Is it color stucco on the right brick in the middle and on the left? These are elements we're going to continue to bring into the picture. I don't want to lose sight of the fact that we're thinking about these as we develop the diagram. Looking at precedents in Charlottesville: there's the Albemarle Hotel which has all three on the top; then and now. Interestingly, there were balconies on the Albemarle Hotel. It wasn't residential but there were some upper balconies there. Some of those balconies have been removed at this point, but they did exist. Then taller retail level on the ground floor which by code we certainly are needing to abide by. If we look at other examples in downtown Charlottesville, there's The Terraces which has taller retail on the ground floor. It's a taller building. You can see the type of arcade that is marching down the street and even turns the corner as it moves toward the mall. There is the residential building on 550 Water Street. It has been recently built and approved by the BAR. There is taller retail space on the ground floor. There is a bank on the first floor. It's not an entirely residential building. There is a large residential entry there on the street. They took the vertical and really exaggerated it on this building. Color and texture in this instance are the difference. As we look at the Code Building and the way they've brought verticality into that project, you can see the three story structure that runs up to the mall and how it's been similarly broken down. This is an office building with some retail below. The upper windows don't necessarily reflect a residential scale. That's something that we'll be talking about as we move into the diagram. We've got views that we've done from two different angles of this. We've been working on this since the submission a week ago. I find it to be very helpful to see this in a broader context. I don't think that this does it justice. We needed the time to develop it. What we've worked toward here is breaking 612 West Main Street Discussion Sept 2022 (9/9/2022) 31 down the mass, so that the building reads coming forward. This is the width of the Albemarle Hotel here and all of it working with the layout of the units inside. What is not reading quite as well are these portions of the building that are moved back two feet from the main façade. This upper portion is 10 feet back. That is from the required step back that we have. What we're thinking here is that these smaller and lower portions help differentiate the taller facade that comes forward two feet from there. These areas in red will be a different texture and potentially different color. Subtlety is going to be the key here, whether it's a deeply raked brick or a change to stucco. We're going to need to figure out how that change is made to really make them subordinate to the two masses that come forward. We heard that the larger retail on the ground floor read like a department store. We've gone the other direction, allowing the individual spaces the opportunity to combine or subdivide, depending upon the retailers that are looking to come in. On the upper floors we are adding Juliet balconies and looking to add greenery. There is a desire to engage with the street by allowing engagement with the street by residents, opening doors, and plants on the balconies. Bringing color to the building was something that was requested at the last meeting. While we are trying to remain quiet and subtle, the opportunity exists by bringing greenery into this and potentially with the awnings that the retailers might be able to use. We wanted to put this in the larger context of all of West Main Street, the scale of this, and how it is relating to other structures on the street. You can see the very top row is The Lark on Main Street is to the left The Flats are on the right. Below that is the Battle Building and The Standard, The Standard and The Flats are the closest in terms of building type. They are different scales and not really comparable. I would like to point out that we are trying to find a fine line of how to differentiate between the masses of this building and the two that come forward in particular. How do we do that? How do we break up this long elevation without it appearing to be like a series of phony townhouses? What we heard at the last BAR meeting is that The Standard is not particularly successful at it. It reads as a bit of a cacophony. The Flats is pretty much that flat. If we look at the lower drawing, it's really just comparing how this compares with the other buildings on the street. It has the same zoning as The Cork. The mass comes forward to the 10 foot setback and is the same height as The Cork. We've got a great deal of length there. We don't have the benefit of historic structures breaking it up as The Cork does in the front of it. I do recall that there was the question of whether or not it would be possible to raise the elevation of this building, so that we could get a four story facade on the street, even if it was balconies behind it. The answer to that is yes it is possible. Zoning would allow it. There are two reasons we are resisting that. One is that we feel that it's disingenuous to do it. The zoning of West Main Street really did intend for three story structures on this side of the bridge before that and then a 10 foot step back. The intent of that was to bring the scale of East West Main Street down. Doing that feels as though we would be trying to game the system frankly. The other reason that we prefer not to do it is that when viewed in context, especially next to The Holsinger building and the Baptist Church’s Annex building. This building as a three story building is taller. It seems to be a good mediator between the Annex building and the height of 600 West Main Street. Two images that we've been working on might describe a bit better the intention of what is set back from the street façade. This one in particular points out that a four story facade along there will dwarf the Holsinger Building. We're trying to be respectful of the context of what's around it. We are looking for comments and feedback on the elevation as it has progressed from the last time you saw it in terms of the development of it, and the direction of it. If that's not clear, please let me know. Questions from The Public: No Questions from the Public Questions from The Board: No Questions from the Board 612 West Main Street Discussion Sept 2022 (9/9/2022) 32 Comments from The Public: No Comments from the Public Comments from The Board: Mr. Gastinger – I think there are a lot of positive design developments here. I think that breaking up the roofline with the modulation with the rail and the solid parapet is helpful in accentuating those two volumes. I appreciate looking back at the former lot lines to bring some of that texture to the contemporary structure. I do think that changing the texture or the color of the hyphens has to be that pronounced. I think that will go a long way to further breaking down those volumes. I think those are all positive. I still am a little bit suspicious about the two foot indentation and if it's going to be as significant along the street plane to what we're reading in a flat elevation. This building will not be read in that elevation very often. I think that some of the modeling that you guys have done, where the light is just barely raking across the façade, is creating a deeper sensation of what that facade would look like than it actually will be on the north side of that building. I am curious to hear what other thoughts there are about that hyphen, other ways that we can further accentuate it, and ways that the site plan is developed with landscape and street trees that could further emphasize and break up that long rhythm of verticals. The only other question/comment I have is if there might not be some opportunity for you to lift the volume of the portion of the building that is eastern most. I wonder whether that will transition a little bit more to the 600. It might also give you some additional some opportunities for roof access, if that's a desire. It also would further break up that that secondary cornice line which is also pretty strong horizontal. Mr. Schwarz – Before we're done with this conversation, we should probably all confirm whether we agree with each other’s comments or not. For example, how does everyone feel about Mr. Gastinger’s idea of trying to raise the eastern most portion of the building? Mr. Gastinger, are you referring to that the front block putting up a false facade up on the fourth level? Mr. Gastinger – The portion that stepped back behind the entry plaza. Mr. Schwarz – Mr. Dreyfus, does zoning allow you to go a little taller on the back portion? Mr. Dreyfus – No, it does not. We could have an appurtenance. Our hope is to have a bit of an appurtenance as it is shown there. We would like to provide roof access, given the internal core of the building, and where circulation is happening. It would be back there. I think that's much taller than what we would be doing. Other than an appurtenance of a four story building, we are at the height. Mr. Lahendro – I thank Mr. Dreyfus. Clearly his office responded to our comments. I think that the two blocks are differentiated. I like that they're even different sizes, which gives even more of an impression of a different breakdown of scales and a more urban content character. Yes, I do wish the hyphens were set back more than two feet. I agree with Mr. Gastinger that it depends a lot upon the distinction of the brick and the color that could help read those or make them seem even more recessed if it's the proper color and dark enough. I think by having the horizontals between the floors of windows helps break down what I was concerned with the last time; the strong, monumental verticals. I think it shows a lot of success in meeting the kinds of concerns I had last time. Ms. Lewis – I agree with Mr. Lahendro. It seems to improve and be responsive to things that we've pointed out. Thanks to Mr. Dreyfus. Certainly the balconies and the engagement with the street was one of the conditions of the SUP that council granted. We recommended council grant it in 2019 for this. I think this gets closer to having that pedestrian street engagement. That was an expressed 612 West Main Street Discussion Sept 2022 (9/9/2022) 33 condition. I think it meets all of the new construction guidelines. I have no objection to that. The guideline that’s in our materials says there shall be pedestrian engagement with the street with an active, transparent, and permeable facade at street level. That could be interpreted a lot of different ways. I think that you’re getting closer to that. It does look like a quite beautiful building. I don't think that it's fading into nothingness. I think its austerity is quite beautiful. You've done a good job meeting the requirement of the 2019 SUP in breaking it down to this historical multi parcel massing and reflecting that. I like the gesture of keeping the width to the Albemarle Hotel width. Maybe that's a good tape measure for us for West Main Street. Mr. Zehmer – I agree with Mr. Gastinger and Mr. Lahendro about the size of the hyphens being set back further or using a darker material to make them appear to set back further. My only comment or question was that I don't recall the retail level on the ground floor. The earlier versions did have a wider base. I didn't quite recall that we had suggested doing away with that. I'm wondering if you all explored Mr. Lahendro’s point, defined the horizontal in between the floor levels between the second and third floor, which I think is successful. I am wondering if you did that in conjunction with a wider base of the retail space on the ground floor. I do think that kind of historic mixed use residential above retail in this area makes a lot of sense. If you look at the Holsinger Building next door, it has this wider base at the ground floor level. It may be where you can really break up the facade again. You have that five bay facade because that's the width of the fore bay that allows you to mix it up a little bit on this. One of the things I think that the Albemarle Hotel is successful with is that it's got a varied façade. You've got some arched windows and rectilinear windows. Even the retail level on that building is recessed quite a bit back from the street. I'm just wondering if that might be an exercise worth playing with. Mr. Dreyfus – We studied it a lot. What happened was the minute we started combining any of those retail bays into a larger horizontal element, the building began reading very horizontally again. It surprised me. I very much like the open retail at the bottom of the Albemarle Hotel. We tried really hard to incorporate that. It almost was an all or nothing proposition. Regardless of what we did, if we combined two and two and left one in the middle, it just began reading very horizontally again. I think we were doing that. We felt that we were doing the block a disservice because it just felt like a much longer building in every instance. Mr. Zehmer – Did you all try pulling the facade of those because of that recess in the back? I think the hotel has been recessed, but it still has columns out front, which may break up that horizontally. Mr. Dreyfus – It may be something that we can achieve at certain entrances. We're already losing 10 feet of the property because of the 10 foot setback. Eating further into the retail space is a painful proposition for a developer. It might be that we can do that on a small basis at those entries that have a door in it or something like that. Mr. Schwarz – Mr. Mohr had mentioned at the last meeting, and Jeff even responded to making the front portions of the building be falsely four stories tall. Are we all in agreement that it's okay to leave it as is? Or is there anybody else who agreed with Mr. Mohr strongly? That probably will come again in the future. Mr. Dreyfus, I think you make a good point that zoning did want this to be a three story district. I'm not sure we'd benefit from added height on the street front facade. Mr. Gastinger – I found those renderings pretty compelling to the points that Mr. Dreyfus was making about the transition to the larger 600 West Main Street. 612 West Main Street Discussion Sept 2022 (9/9/2022) 34 Mr. Lahendro – The transition from the larger 600 to 612, then to the Holsinger Building has a nice stepping quality there. Mr. Gastinger – I find it really good and positive that there is some potential collaboration with the future West Main Streetscape. I think that we could do real wonders with how this building might be modulating and what the views are along the sidewalk. It also occurs to me that there will certainly be a continuous sidewalk at the street. Another way to further break up the horizontal reading of the building is to perhaps break up or modulate the sidewalk at the facade line. When we talk about those hyphens in particular, we don’t want to talk about jamming a tree in there like there is on The Standard. Those could be moments of landscape space where there's either changing material, added vegetation, or a combination. Mr. Dreyfus – I think it's a great idea. Mr. Schwarz – I think you guys need to have in your back pocket a plan B should West Main Street streetscape project not happen. Mr. Dreyfus – I couldn't agree more. We don't have any idea what the timing is going to be. Personally, I think we have to proceed on the assumption that it will not be underway by the time we open this building. We have to have a plan. The plan probably needs to be one that is an interim step that we know that is acceptable to everyone right now. That then feeds into the longer range master plan. I think that's a bit of a challenge. I think that's the best way for us to all proceed. Mr. Gastinger – I think that's a better way of putting it. Rather than thinking of it as a plan B, think of it as a plan A. The West Main Streetscape is the next phase. You could make it look so obvious about where those street trees need to go. It makes it easy for those designers. Mr. Dreyfus – I think we'll design it with them as phases one and two. We don't want it to be a surprise to anybody. I think that's a great way to think about it. Mr. Schwarz – My fear is if we're counting on those street trees as the only street trees and they don't get put in, that’s a large swath of West Main Street that will no longer have street trees. I don't know how to resolve that. It's in the back of my mind. That is something to be worried about. Mr. Dreyfus – We don't want this standing there with no trees or no greenery with the assumption that they're coming and they don't come for 40 years. Unless there's anything or any questions we have even of the diagrammatic nature of the elevations. Any concerns that you see there? What I'm hearing is carry on and concern about the reading of the hyphens being dramatic enough so that the two main blocks will read. There are a variety of ways we can achieve it: color, texture, and more depth. I think I'm hearing we're on the right path. I'll ask for a deferral. We will continue to develop this. I really do appreciate the feedback that some of you have given us in the last few weeks. It has helped us understand people's concerns. We can't do this in a void. Each time you all have provided input. I think it's made the building that much better. We'll take the few concerns we heard tonight and keep pushing forward in this direction. Motion – Mr. Gastinger - moves to accept the applicant's request for a deferral. Carl Schwarz seconds. Motion passes (8-0). 612 West Main Street Discussion Sept 2022 (9/9/2022) 35 Meeting minutes: February 17, 2021 Jeff Werner, Staff Report – This is intended as a continuation of the discussion towards a final submittal towards the COA. We're not there tonight. The applicant is obligated on his end to request the deferral from the BAR. The BAR can only accept that. Lacking a request from the applicant, the BAR would have to take a vote up or down on this proposal at this time. This is a COA request for 612 West Main Street. The address is 602-616 West Main Street. We are referring collectively to 612 West Main Street. It is in the Downtown ADC District. Some people always wonder about that. The West Main District doesn't actually start until further down the block to the west. This is a request to construct a new mixed use building. As I've mentioned before, there's an existing concrete automotive building there built in the 1950s. It is not contributing and it's not subject to BAR review. You all have had a couple of discussions with the applicant. The last discussion was on December 15th. What we've been doing is working our way through a series of the design steps. The applicant has provided graphic information for you all to review and has presented tonight some questions that they would like to specifically get at in the conversation. It doesn't mean you all are only limited to what they're presenting and asking about. That's the “game plan” for this evening. Jeff Dreyfus, Applicant – We're just intending to keep you informed and give you an opportunity to continue to give us guidance prior to coming to you for official approval. What I'd like to do early in this is hand it over to Anne Pray, who is our landscape architect on the project to give you all a very quick overview, the questions that we sent our comments, any thoughts you all have, questions you have about the landscape, and the hardscape plan. The West Main Street elevation really hasn't changed much from what you all saw two months ago. I'll talk a little bit about some of the modifications that we're contemplating there. You will also see both West and South elevations so that we might get any input from you all on those as we continue to develop them. Anne Pray, Applicant – I want to speak a little bit about how we are trying to respond to some earlier comments about creating pedestrian engagement and making the building more active at the street and at the same time looking to break down the building mass and making it a little bit more pedestrian and body scale friendly to the street. I'm going to run through the plan design here pretty quickly, but probably work from the north elevation a little bit more so that we can look at that. In scale and in elevation, I think it reads a little bit better. From the outset of the project, this courtyard area has always been an important part of that residential entry of the building, which is one of its largest purposes. We're looking to create an engagement with the mural wall and also look at a way to just slide in a little bit smaller garden experience here with using a water feature, some benches, and some planting and at the same time opening up the courtyard for the entry. You can see one of the devices we're using is this connect with the larger building, a changing material on the ground plane from something smaller at the street to something larger that runs along the whole front of the building to something smaller in the courtyard again. We think that it gives it a little bit sense of place as you come in. We have three planters located along the length of the building. Two of the planters are at the four bay to create a little bit more of a density. We have this more open concept of the courtyard, closing it off a little bit in the front of the four bay side of the building and opening it up more towards the center and middle as we get to the five bay. Using a larger but singular planter towards the end relates the scale back to the earlier four bay in the building. As you run down to the west of the building, we are negotiating with grade a little bit. We have one singular stair that grows into two steps at the end. We have about a foot of grade change, running from east to west. On that side on the courtyard, we're looking to make it as open and as accessible as possible, so that grade does connect flush across to the main sidewalk. It's obviously more accessible for everyone. One of the things I want to point out here that I think is pretty 612 West Main Street Discussion Sept 2022 (9/9/2022) 36 important is that we get into is that we are required to show for trees to plant for trees. I want to talk about the placement of these trees as part of this project that's actually happening. We know that the West Main Streetscape plan shows for trees, obviously not in this location. I think it is problematically in a really different location with the curb line shifting in the future. We are actually also calling out the bike racks at this point on either ends of the building. You can see that on the west side. I'm using a low retaining wall to hold that space to create that niche for the two bike racks. On the eastern side, we have three bike racks there. The last little part here is that we are exploring the form and the permutations of the planters and how they work. The curvilinear idea is a little bit of a nod to what's happening on the inside of the building and the lobby, as we look to soften some of the edges and the hardness. We're trying to bring that outside in, in a playful way and in a more sculptural way. This is the overlay plan that shows four dashed, pink circles, outboard of the existing curb line. Those are the proposed West Main Streetscape trees. In quantity, it obviously works with what we've got and would just be a matter of coordination. However, the curb line is nearly two feet outboard of where the existing curb line is right now on West Main, which obviously lends us to believe that they're redesigning the whole street with parking and different curb lines and curb cuts. The extent to which we're actually going to be able to negotiate with that positioning at this point is unknown. I'd like to figure out exactly what the expectations are from the BAR as to how we're supposed to negotiate and handle that at this point. Here you can see an elevation. I think we all know the streetscape trees and the trees that we're proposing. Those four trees are really going to be what competes with the overall scale of the building here. Their placement will be working a little bit more symmetrically side to side with each one centered on a major column of the building. The planters bring the scale down to the pedestrian and the body. They work a little bit more to create a little bit of density against the building with your own perception of it as you're walking by. As you look at it, you can see the courtyard space again to the left. That's a much more open experience overall. As you walk by the first bay or the first true building, there's the four bay. That's more broken up with the planters and the trees. It is a more open center, last third, and then a planter on the end, knotting back to the balance of the four bay building preceding it with the open stair on the end and the retaining wall. I think it's important to talk about the water. One of the things about this building is that it does go from this very rectilinear clean facade outside. As you move your way into the building, it becomes a really calm, curvilinear, meditative experience. I think what we're trying to do by the introduction of water is introduce just a small sound and just a small nod to ‘you've come home.’ It is a little bit chiller and a little bit more common than what you just left on the street. We're trying to set up that choreography from the moment you enter into the courtyard. The articulation of that right now really has a long way to go to get the design done. The idea is that we would be introducing just a small amount of sound of water. Similarly, I think if you look in the next slide, you can see some different precedents. We are playing with the form of the planter. If it might have a little bit more of a batter to the front face how the bench itself could connect in or participate with the planter so that they are overall a little bit more sculptural, but also feel like they can be occupied. With the plantings themselves, I am really into creating a planting design as an important part of the piece. In this case, looking at the building, we actually have a lot of opportunity to use plants as texture and form and create some interesting palettes that you probably wouldn't see otherwise along the street. We'd be really looking to create some identity with making the planters really as big as we can and really get some good planting in there. I've got another image there of the paving precedents and different ideas in scale. I think that paving is going to be very calm, much like the building. We really looked to just maybe two different scales of paving to start to create a break between path and place. With the water base and on the end, there’s a very small nod to just a little something different on the street and introducing that idea of calm as you come into the building as resident. I think the next couple slides actually show this in the architectural rendering, if we want 612 West Main Street Discussion Sept 2022 (9/9/2022) 37 to take a look at that. It's nice to see the scale of the existing trees. We get a sense of how big these trees might hopefully become over time. You can see the courtyard and the planters laid out there. This is just obviously from the other end. I think what's nice to see here is actually just the stair. It's just a one foot gray change at that point. It's something we need to deal with and wanted to really keep it as open as possible. Really using a stair as an occupiable moment but to come up to the retail promenade and leaving that little bit of a space on the end for the bike racks. One thing I would say about the bike racks, because this might come up, is that I think it's really just been our experience looking at how they function at 600 right in the front of the building and right in front of the coffee and retail space. I think the takeaway there really is, it's been kind of problematic to really put them in a place of egress. As tricky as it has been, we are looking to give them their own space and make them noticeable, but not necessarily put them in the courtyard where we're trying to create a more intimate experience. Mr. Dreyfus – We do intend to have options for greenery along the balcony railings. Whether or not that is owner provided or tenant provided, we do have a long way to work through on that. We do intend to add that bit of color and texture to the façade. We're really looking for ways to quiet the building down. As Anne noted, the interior lobby of the residential entry is going to be very curvilinear. That is something that we are thinking may actually make its way out to the exterior of the building in a very quiet way next to the front door. We’re not ready to talk about that. In trying to quiet the building down, you'll see that we began thinking more about color and texture since our last conversation. The next slide does show how we're beginning to think about the particular elements of the façade. We are intending that the North, West, and East elevations will be brick. We'll talk in a minute about the texture of the brick and the hyphens as we discussed before. We’re thinking that the upper levels might be white or off white. We're thinking that the color of the building might be more of a heather brick or a lighter cream color. It's not going to be white. It's not going to be stark white. We know that much. We've got a ways to go. We're exploring brick that can be completely painted or brick that has enough soft color that we like it. We'll be back with more on that. I think what's important to note here is that we do believe that going with a different color on the retail level and ground level helps with the building to delineate what's residential and what's commercial in terms of its scale. It also makes the engagement with the street different from the facade as it goes higher up in the residential area. We're liking this. We don't quite yet know how we want to provide cover at the doors into the retail. That will be something that we continue to develop. You'll also see that perhaps that same darker color, which might be a metal. We're working toward that. That material would probably also introduce itself there on the left at the door into the residential lobby. You can begin to see the curve of that might express itself right in that small area. We're thinking upper windows and doors would be light in color as close match as we can get it to the brick material on the facade and darker down below. We would like to hear if this is an acceptable direction. The railings that we see on the balconies will also probably be light in color. Some of our earlier designs showed pretty soon stark contrast between black or dark bronze windows and doors and railings up above, which were similar to what's down below. It was becoming a little bit too checker boarding for our tastes. That's the direction that we're thinking we're going to go with colors. One thing I would like to note about the hyphens of the façade is that we are still imagining that the hyphens will be a different texture from the main blocks of the facade that move forward. We don't in any way think that the hyphens will be a different color but perhaps a different texture brick. Whether we model the surface or we do something with the control joints, we do want to make it subtly different. They step back, obviously, and they stepped down a little bit. We're trying to keep things related but quietly, different from one to the other. Here, you can also begin to see 612 West Main Street Discussion Sept 2022 (9/9/2022) 38 that the lower level that the darker color on the retail level does do what a number of buildings on West Main Street do. That is to call a distinction between the retail level and the residential levels up above, including on the Holsinger building right there on the right. There's a distinct line drawn there between the ground level engagement and the upper level residential. Here, we're beginning to talk about what the rear elevation will be. This might be a little bit hard to make out. On the lowest level, we have two story studio lofts behind those tall double doors. Those are probably Juliet balconies that can be opened. They speak to the height of that floor elevation. On West Main Street, we're supposed to have close to a 17 foot tall first floor. We're actually taking advantage of that to provide loft units on the backside of the building with living down below and a sleeping loft up above. The next level up has large terraces off of the units and also includes the green roof that we're going to be incorporating in the project. The green roof is down at this level and not on the rooftop. The rooftop may or may not be occupied in the future. We're not there yet. We think this is a great opportunity for us to bring the greenery and the softness of that to the living units on the south side of the building. The bronze panels that you see projecting perpendicular to the building are simply dividers between the units. For instance, on the second level at the far left, there are three bays of windows and doors that open on to that terrace before you get to the divider. That's one complete unit. After that, there's a two bay unit. That's what those are. We need to provide privacy panels between units. On the upper floors, you can see that there are balconies off each of the living rooms of the various units. The thing that I would like to point out here is that we would like to be able to stucco the upper part of the rear facade in this instance. The building to the right, 600 West Main Street, is metal panels. As most of you know, there are metal panels on the North, West, and East façade. On the South facade, we turn the corners on the South facade with the metal panels. The entire rear of the building is stucco. We want to do the same thing here on the upper three floors of this building. Quite frankly, it's a cost savings that we hope and anticipate will allow us to use brick for the rest of the building. It's not unusual for the rear of buildings in any urban environment is a different material. We would keep it quiet. It wouldn't be distinctly different from the brick. We'd come with whatever colors we're proposing in that regard. On the next slide, might be full elevations. Here you can see the elevations as they currently stand. The hyphens that we've discussed in the previous discussion are in the middle and on the far right. With the next drawing, there is a different texture on those hyphens and also on the residential block that sits back from the street. The next drawing should be the South elevation. As I described, there are upper balconies on the top two floors with terraces on that third floor level, just above the last studio loft balconies. With the next elevation, trying to take the motif from the north facade on the west elevation there on the left. Take the motif of the openings and sizes and continue that to give a bit of order to that facade, which is on the alley adjacent to the Holsinger building. The larger windows are all windows at the end of residential corridors. The two smaller windows there on the far left are within units to allow those to be third bedroom. On the far right, the elevation facing the courtyard of 600 West Main Street and the mass of the building of 600 West Main is dashed in the very dark line there on the left of that drawing. It's a very narrow courtyard. At the end of that courtyard would be doors leading into the lobby of 612 West Main Street. The tenants of both buildings will have access to the courtyard and to the lobby. If there is in the future, a rooftop amenity on this building, the tenants of the adjacent building could enjoy it. I think we've included some of our previous slides that showed ideas of ways that we can treat cheap different textures, different openings, and the windows. The middle right image, the light facade is not unlike what we're discussing, perhaps lighter color for the brick, but a darker color for the retail openings and being different from what's happening in the on the residential up above. As I mentioned in my notes, we'd appreciate any and all comments on the landscape hardscape especially as it relates to what Anne is showing, and importantly, noting that the tree locations relative to what is shown on the West Main Street streetscape project and any comments you have about the facade development, 612 West Main Street Discussion Sept 2022 (9/9/2022) 39 any of the elevations, the colors, materials we're contemplating at this point, and as well as stucco on the south side of the building. Questions from The Public: No Questions from the Public Questions from The Board: Mr. Mohr – The plans looks like there is a retaining wall next to the bikes. Is that correct? Ms. Pray – That’s correct. It is shown in the elevation. It is very small. It is only a foot tall and only 8 inches wide. Mr. Mohr – I was wondering if it matched the height of the planters or not. Ms. Pray – I don’t have it matching the planters. I just kept it a pretty low profile. Mr. Mohr – I was looking at the renderings. Mr. Dreyfus – That is the move-in door for the building for all of the tenants. There will be a curb there. There will be safety factors set up so that nothing goes rolling off of that end. Mr. Mohr – It looked like in the plans there was more of a wall there. It was just a resolution question. It makes more sense that there is a wall there. Ms. Pray – Initially, we thought about wrapping the stair back to the corner so you could approach the building from that corner. We needed the space for the bike racks. We ended up with the retaining wall to cut in that space for the racks. We have to utilize every inch. Mr. Dreyfus – Wrapping the stair didn’t make a lot of sense. We would be inviting people to step into a private alley. This was to direct people out toward the street. Mr. Mohr – I was remarking at the absence rather than the presence. Mr. Gastinger – I wanted to ask if there was any further thinking about the differences in that brick texture. The precedence that you showed at the end of the presentation have quite a wide range. Do you have any more to what you are currently thinking? Mr. Dreyfus – The next step is going to be offering specific samples to what we are thinking. We’re talking with our contractor and their suppliers about what those options are. We need enough of a distinct difference that it is noticeable when you look. Mr. Schwarz – If the West Main Street streetscape goes forward, are you still required to put in four street trees? Ms. Pray – We will have to do four trees. Mr. Dreyfus – It is a requirement at the moment. We are having to live by it. I think what Anne has done works well with the building. We don’t have the option of furthering the streetscape plan. We would be putting our trees in the street. If we go to that slide, you will see where Anne has placed 612 West Main Street Discussion Sept 2022 (9/9/2022) 40 the trees precludes the parking pull off areas or anything that they’re showing. It would appear to me that we could keep those trees precisely where she is proposing them. The City would have a little less cost as part of that project. Mr. Schwarz – Suppose the streetscape plan doesn’t go forward, are the power lines a problem? It seems that this site has accumulated some new power lines. Mr. Dreyfus – The power lines are a problem. We are going to deal with them during construction. I don’t know if we are going to be dealing with them permanently. We will have to deal with them temporarily. Mr. Schwarz – I would like your application to include temporary power plans. Even if poles are being moved temporarily, trees sometimes have to come down for temporary movement. Mr. Dreyfus – We will do that. They are going to be moved across the street. We will be happy to include the temporary power plan as part of the application. We will move the power lines back to where they are. A permanent solution would be undergounding them. Mr. Lahendro – With the footprint for the planters, I am trying to understand the significance of this unusual truncated circle shape. It has some relevance to what is going on inside the building. Mr. Dreyfus – On the interior of the building, the lobby is actually going to be a very curvilinear series of planes with few hard angles. We’re trying to bring that into the residential hallways as a part of the design. Anne’s thought is that we hint at it on the exterior in terms of the planter shape with what is happening on the interior. Ms. Pray – That was definitely a starting point. We liked the idea that the planters became more sculptural as part of the experience being on the sidewalk. The space between them still feels like inside. Mr. Lahendro – For pedestrians that don’t live in the building, those shapes would be completely alien to anything they can see on the building. Ms. Pray – The idea is that it might be captured by them and see something different. I think there is a way they interact with the building too. It seemed to use the planter as an opportunity to be a little more ‘playful’ on the street to soften the building. We are still working through it and what the final shapes will be. Mr. Mohr – Do they match the material of the window frames on the first floor level? Ms. Pray – It is definitely a detail question that I am not totally clear on. We still have to have those conversations. I think we would look to create some continuity. Mr. Dreyfus – One of the things that we have talked about with the shape of the planters is that they are softer. They’re a little bit more inviting. There is a playfulness to them that might invite something a little bit more relaxed on what is a pretty regimented façade. Ms. Lewis – Is the south façade on the upper floors stucco? 612 West Main Street Discussion Sept 2022 (9/9/2022) 41 Mr. Dreyfus – I don’t know for sure. My preference would be stucco. It might end up being EIFS. Ms. Lewis – I would support it on the back. I will definitely support it if it was stucco. Mr. Schwarz – Building codes require continuous exterior insulation on commercial buildings. In general, when we see stucco, it is EIFS. I don’t know if it can be detailed in a different way. That’s something that needs to be fixed in our guidelines. There is no stucco anymore unless it is on concrete. Mr. Dreyfus – The real difficulty with EIFS is the hollowness when you tap on it. You can get a variety of finishes. We were very successful at 600 West Main on getting finishes on the EIFS that does not look like your standard EIFS. I think it is a matter of the intent of the architect and the ability of the installers to achieve something that’s not just “slathered on icing” that we see everywhere. That will definitely be a part of what we do. It is important that we get that surface right for the tenants of the building. It is not a throwaway material. Comments from The Public: No Comments from the Public Comments from The Board: Mr. Gastinger – I really like the development of the site plan and the landscape, especially compared to where it was previously. The planters really felt like they were armoring the building or maybe having a very distinct zonation between the public sidewalk and in the walk in front of the retail spaces. I like the way that low step will get used a lot and will be a piece of street furniture. It would be in a more graceful way to make that delineation and make it more subtle. I like the shape of the planters for a couple of reasons. I think that it really does facilitate a lot more East/West movement along the facade of the building. At the same time gets a longer amount of planting area in proportion to the building. I will say though that I do think because maybe perhaps the thinness of the wall and the way that they're rendered in the plan, they do feel a little bit inconsequential or a little bit more like street furniture. There's maybe a balance there. I'm not sure if they either could get just a little bit larger or just beef up just a bit more to have a relationship to this building. There could be another one added. It seems like they're just a little bit sparse currently. I like that. I like the tactic. I like the materiality and the way that they be deployed. I think the material of them being a little bit more of street furniture and not feeling like a constructed built in feature might lend themselves to feeling a little bit more like almost quazi movable part of the street and maybe alleviate some of the fear that Jody might express about whether they really feel like they're a part of the public landscape. With the trees, this is my personal opinion. If we wait for the city to figure out West Main, we will still be waiting. I applaud the tactic to go ahead and put the trees in at the location that works best for this building. At a scale, that also works best for the street. I would hope that you'd consider species that will operate at that street tree scale and really create a high canopy that would make for a really excellent public space below. When the West Main Street project happens in about 30 years, they'll work around these trees. The only thing I would note about that is that we can be thinking about larger trees to make certain in the early planning that ample soil volumes are provided so that so that we really can get the kind of size and scale tree that they would appreciate there. Mr. Mohr – When the power lines come back, are they going create havoc with those trees? 612 West Main Street Discussion Sept 2022 (9/9/2022) 42 Mr. Dreyfus – They can and they will. I will say that we are talking with Dominion about the possibility of locating the power lines under the sidewalk. It is in everyone’s best interest if we could do it. We all know Dominion moves at its own pace and own schedule. We are hoping that we can do it. I hesitate to mention it. We don’t want it held against us in the future. Mr. Mohr – I agree with Breck about the planters. I like the one with the seat in it. I could actually see just making that a standard feature for all three of them. The other thing I could see doing is that they weren't great in plan but in elevation and extending the plantable area along like the building, it seems to me you could play with the elevation of the edge where it could be like a cone slice or something like that, where it has some more dynamic role to play at a 3rd level. I know it's got plants in it. How many times a year are they not doing much? If it has a wandering edge or drives up one side where their playfulness is apparent, not just in plan but in elevation and section. I just fear for dominions behavior. Mr. Schwarz – I'm going to agree with what's been said so far. I want to see very tall, beautiful canopy trees on West Main. If the power lines end up needing to stay, I think Cova have done a good job of coexisting. Something of that scale would be appropriate if you keep the power lines. My other concern I brought up with the Code Building is that they have sworn to me that we're not going to end up with a bunch of yellow tape on all the on the edges of all the stair treads. I don't know if it's our zoning code. Wedge steps are not allowed. When they show up, they end up becoming tripping hazards. I think they're a wonderful landscape feature. I just want you guys to make sure that these steps and landscape don't become like him covered in bright yellow tape. Mr. Lahendro – I would concur with most of what I've heard so far. I would rather see that scale, but in a more native tree or one that's on the street tree list that the Tree Commission puts out. Mr. Schwarz – The other question from staff was to look at the elevations with the understanding that the north elevation is on the right track and the change in the material on the back. Mr. Lahendro – I would like to talk about the North elevation. This looks better to me than what I'm hearing than what's actually meant. The recessed planes of the hyphens are darker and obviously more recessed. The darkness is a symbol to indicate some kind of texture. What I'm hearing is that the texture that's desired at this point is subtle and not distinctive. I would prefer to see something that's more distinctive in the difference. I think this reads as we had intended or we had stated all along in that we're trying to mimic the scale of the individual historic buildings that are still left on this part of West Main that were here originally. That's my biggest worry about this elevation. Mr. Mohr – Your end elevations are quite asymmetrical and seem to have a lot of surface development. There's a playfulness in there. It also harkens back to some of those images you showed us from those urban buildings with multiple planes with your precedent images. I wonder if you really start playing with the level of detail in there, so it actually catches more shadow is more idiosyncratic and plays basically a different architectonic game than the quieter or very rectilinear façade. That possibly combined with darker materials but also the fact that we attach more shade and shadow. I think you have some clues in that East elevation to my mind that might enliven and at the same time distinguish those punch backs. I'd like to just quick slide over to the top section of the residential block on the north side, I could see doing that in a completely different like glass. It's much more of your beltline for your parapet runs around. That whole upper piece reads as something that is truly set back and is perhaps much more modern and translucent. 612 West Main Street Discussion Sept 2022 (9/9/2022) 43 That would again help the read of the scale. The brick on top of that feels a little heavy to me. If you put some brace a lay over the upper band of balconies that starts reading is more porch-like. I think it softens up the side of it on the south side. That would start to break it up vertically without really a great deal. You wouldn't be having to modulate surfaces or anything that would give you a scale breakdown. It does start to read as somewhat tower like. Mr. Gastinger – I am a little concerned about the subtlety and the thinness of the plane of the North elevation. It's not so much the elevation but more that the plan and the perspective views that would come from it. I'm concerned because I think almost every view from a pedestrian point of view or for driving down the road that this is really going to look like a long building because the plan changes are so subtle. As mentioned in the last meeting, the addition of those balcony railings stepping that height down the introduction of some different texture are some good techniques. It's really riding on that line of whether this is meeting that SUP recommendation that the mass is breaking down. It might be useful to include some more oblique perspectives in the package in the future. I think that's how this building will most likely be seen. If the intention is to truly have the brick in the textured brick berry so similar in color, I wonder if a more radical technique like making one of the bays that textured brick might be worth considering. I just continue to look for more depth from the façade. I am just worried that it's getting keeps getting thinner and thinner. Mr. Zehmer joined the meeting during the discussion of this agenda item. Mr. Schwarz – Are we all OK with the change to stucco/EIFS at the back? Are we all still on board with the massing? There seems to be more desire for more originality in the front façade. Mr. Mohr – I like the idea of doing something to make that top appear different. That would actually drive that whole block down lower and you wouldn't feel quite all the peace. To me, it's more like the main facade is so quiet. Maybe there's a much more intensive brick detail and idiosyncratic treatment of those drop back pieces that makes them taking up a look at some the really wild brick you see on some of the old residential structures in New York where it really has a degree of texture and detail that speaks to maybe the old church down the road or something. Mr. Schwarz – Are there any thoughts around the darker color around the retail entrances? Mr. Mohr – I like the idea of the planters relating to it. Mr. Lahendro – I think it is an interesting idea. I look forward to seeing how it is developed. Mr. Dreyfus – I thank you all very much. I realize this is a drawn out process. By the time we get to the approval, it is going to be a very short, brief meeting. For us, it feels productive and informative. Mr. Mohr – Where do things stand on the lighting on 600? Mr. Dreyfus – We have to make the final adjustment. We will have that done. We are ready for the BAR to go and look at it in the next week and a half. Motion to accept to applicant’s request for deferral (Mr. Lahendro). Motion to accept deferral passes 7-0. 612 West Main Street Discussion Sept 2022 (9/9/2022) 44 Meeting minutes: November 16, 2021 Members Present: Breck Gastinger, Ron Bailey, Jody Lahendro, Carl Schwarz, Robert Edwards, James Zehmer, Cheri Lewis Members Absent: Tim Mohr, Andy McClure Staff Present: Joe Rice, Patrick Cory, Jeff Werner, Robert Watkins Update on project status BAR 20-11-03 612 West Main Street, Tax Parcel 290003000 West Main ADC District Owner: Heirloom West Main Street Second Phase LLC Applicant: Jeff Dreyfus, Bushman Dreyfus Architects Project: New construction of a mixed-use development • Staff introduced this as a project update for 612 West Main Street that the applicant requested. • A Special Use Permit was approved by City Council for this project. • Staff did circulate notice letters and notice signs regarding this project to the neighbors around this project. • Staff did remind the applicant that there is going to be a new BAR starting in January. • The Chair asked why the staff is bringing this to the BAR for review and discussion. • Staff wanted to give the public opportunity to comment on the project. There is going to be no formal action taken on the project. • Jeff Dreyfus (Applicant) provided an update on this project to the BAR. It has been six months since the last update to the BAR. • Mr. Dreyfus said that the intent of coming to the BAR is to get feedback and recommendations from the BAR on how to proceed to a formal approval. The applicant does hope to start work and construction in February. The overall design will be set and ready to go. • The applicant is planning on returning to the BAR next month to get a formal approval. • Anne Pray (Applicant) presented the landscape plan for this project. Questions From The Public No Questions from the Public Questions From The Board Mr. Gastinger – Can you give us an update on how you’re approaching the street trees that are not part of the project? I see that you have them located. Is that something you will be installing? Mr. Dreyfus – They are a requirement by the city. If were to try to place them where the masterplan for West Main Street shows them, they would be out in the public right of way. Mr. Schwarz – In the renderings, I see the tree on the 600 West Main Street property line. Is that going to remain? Mr. Dreyfus – I believe that is correct. Ms. Pray – That’s correct. Mr. Schwarz – You’re going to be taking out five trees, leave an existing one, and putting in four new ones? 612 West Main Street Discussion Sept 2022 (9/9/2022) 45 Ms. Pray – That’s correct. Comments From The Public Jake Lassen – I live at 600 West Main Street. I just moved into the building. I just wanted to raise concerns about this project. There are quite a bit of small issues and large issues. Rooms are already starting to droop. The floors aren’t level. Windows can’t open because of many reasons. I am wondering with this drastic change and approach, there might not be as many lessons learned and material mistakes are going to be made in the new building. Joey Conover – We live at 310 6th Street Southwest, which is a couple blocks behind this building. We walk up 5th Street frequently to West Main Street. I just wanted to a ‘plug in’ about the backside of the building and it is not forgotten. No building will ever be built up against it because of the railroad track. I didn’t understand what Mr. Dreyfus was saying about the EIFS. I was wondering what the material was on the backside. I don’t want the backside to be blank. My other comment was on the front side of the building. The plans look very nice. I would just encourage more public seating to be included in the project. I am glad to see that small foyer public area in the front. When the other building was built, I was excited about the courtyard that was built. Anything that can make it feel like a public space is appreciated. I appreciate the front façade and the recessing around the front windows. Those do a nice job of breaking up the façade. Comments From The Board Mr. Schwarz – In response to the first comment, our purview is the exterior of the building. We want it to be long-lasting and durable. Mr. Gastinger – One of the biggest things with this building is getting the brick right. Looking at the images, I do like the approach with using the texture. That could really be fun and is a way to break it up. There could be more color differentiation in the hyphens if it is intended to be the same brick. The main thing I am concerned about, looking at the image of the preliminary brick mockup, is that the brick that is selected there is really uniform and cold. I feel that it looks pretty institutional. I am very concerned about what this times the entire façade starts to look like. It’s going to be very bright and plain. It doesn’t have the same kind of modeling and life that the other examples that you share. Even the digital model shows a lot of subtle modeling and color variation within the brick. I am afraid we’re not going to get that based on that mockup. I would certainly encourage investigating, if that is the brick, some mixture of subtle tonal variation. I am concerned this is going to be very bright white. Mr. Dreyfus – We felt the same way about the brick. We are looking at a different brick. Mr. Schwarz – You have a lot of thin brick. I would like to see an installation detail or an installation cut sheet, something from the manufacturer. It looks like you’re using that for field brick on the upper levels and the recesses in the windows? Mr. Dreyfus – That’s correct. Mr. Schwarz – You may have two different installation methods. With our guidelines, I thought there was something in there about not using thin brick. The idea behind that was that the glue-on brick has a tendency to fall off. If you’re going to use that around the window surrounds, maybe that’s the way it happens. We would want to see something more for as a field brick. In your drawings, you said it was EIFS. Label it as EIFS. I would love to see some plan details for the recesses or something that gives 612 West Main Street Discussion Sept 2022 (9/9/2022) 46 us the dimensions. The renderings look fantastic. It would be nice to have what this is going to be. If you have plan for the power lines, I would love to see that in the drawings. Mr. Dreyfus – We did talk about this. We have to go on the assumption that the power lines will ultimately be there. They will relocated during construction. We really don’t have any control over Dominion Power. It will have to be put back where they are. Mr. Schwarz – With that existing tree on the landscape plan, there is a little bit of some plans showing it and some plans not showing it. It’s there and it’s staying. With the steps in the front, you come up to the property line where you have the two steps up. You’re probably going to need some handrails. I don’t think they’re allowed to extend over the public sidewalk. With those trees, you said they’re required. I am going to suggest that the Board put some wording in the motion that really locks them in there. I don’t fully trust the city with the site plan process. We have had some site plans that get changed at the last minute. The project is moving in a great direction. I am very happy with what I am seeing. Mr. Gastinger – Related to the trees, is there an opportunity to select a species that would be more in keeping with the West Main strategy? Ms. Pray – I am really trying to use an elm cultivar instead of using a Zelkova, actually using a Valley Forge. I really want to be in keeping with a true canopy sized tree that can work on the street. I would like to have that vase shape. It would really open up well. We have not finalized that. Mr. Gastinger – I love that direction. I don’t know what is planned in this area. It might be worth checking. Ms. Pray – It’s a great opportunity to get four trees along Main Street. Ms. Lewis – I would like to see detail on the railings for the front and south facades. Mr. Schwarz – If you are doing an expedited construction schedule, does that mean you will have a site plan that is done soon? Mr. Dreyfus – Yes. We hope to have an approved final site plan in early January, 2022. We are moving ahead under that assumption. It’s been a very slow process with the city. That is the plan. We will start footings and foundations digging as soon as we can after that. We won’t have completed final construction documents until early April, 2022. We have the opportunity to make adjustments if we need to. Mr. Schwarz – I am just wondering when you bring this in for final approval from us, do you think you might have some concept where the fire hydrants and waterlines are going to be? Mr. Dreyfus – Yes. We can show you all of that. It is on the plans. It’s all pretty clear and finalized. It’s just a matter of it working through the city process right now. We can include, as part of that next submission, the site plan as it currently stands. Mr. Zehmer – It has come a long way since we first saw it. Mr. Bailey – It’s going in the right direction. 612 West Main Street Discussion Sept 2022 (9/9/2022) 47 Mr. Schwarz – No motion is needed because this was a discussion. How you plan to light this will be good to know. Mr. Dreyfus – We need some good brick panels and details. The lighting is going to be very subtle. We may not have a final lighting plan for that submission. It is hopefully something we can come back to you with in the future. 612 West Main Street Discussion Sept 2022 (9/9/2022) 48 Discussion: No action to be taken Options for the required height step backs. BAR 19-09-04 (September 2019 - recommended SUP would have no adverse impact.) 218 West Market Street Tax Parcel 330276000 Owner: Market Street Promenade, LLC, Owner Applicant: Heirloom Real Estate Holdings LLC, Applicant Project: New structure September 20, 2022 BAR Packet Guide 8 City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Staff Report September 20, 2022 Discussion only. No action will be taken. Information below is the September 17, 2019 staff report with updates noted (*) * NOTE: Applicant has requested a discussion with the BAR re: possible modifications to the height step backs. As of Sept 9, 2022, applicant has not provided drawings or renderings of proposed changes; however, the following will allow the BAR to prepare for the discussion and respond to information presented during the Sept 20 meeting. BAR 19-09-04 *Sept 17, 2019 - BAR recommended the SUP would not have adverse impact. 218 West Market Street Tax Parcel 330276000 Owner: Market Street Promenade, LLC, Owner Applicant: Heirloom Real Estate Holdings LLC, Applicant Project: SUP request to increase density and building height [of new structure] Background 218 West Market Street is a contributing structure in the Downtown ADC District. City assessment records indicate the commercial building was constructed in 1938. A c1955 Sanborn Map indicates this structure at the site. The brick building previously housed an A&P Grocery but has since been substantially modified. A covered arcade was added to the north and east elevations in the 1980s. Prior BAR Reviews September 21, 2010 - BAR approved the design as submitted (7-0-1 with Wolf recused) to renovate a basement space for use as a new restaurant and bar that will front on Old Preston Avenue. [Note: Not germane to current request.] May 21, 2013 - Approved (8-0) as submitted. (Signage) [Note: Not germane to current request.] March 13, 2019 – BAR approved the demolition of the building on the subject parcel (4-0-2, with Schwarz and Ball recused). Demolition is contingent upon the granting of a COA and building permit for its replacement. * September 17, 2019 - BAR recommended the SUP would not have an adverse impact. http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/791628/2019-09_218%20West%20Market%20Street_BAR.pdf See motion below. Meeting minutes in appendix. * November 16, 2021 - BAR approved demolition of the building. (Prior CoA had expired.) Application The applicants have submitted a Special Use Permit (SUP) request in anticipation of constructing on the site a mixed-use development with retail and commercial uses on the ground floor and residential units on the upper floors. The SUP request is to allow additional residential density and increased building height. 218 West Market Street - Discussion - Sept 20, 2022 (9/9/2022) 1 Zoning permits 43 dwelling units (DUs) per acre; allowing up to 24 units on the property by right. Request to increase the density to 240 DUs per acre; allowing 134 units on the property. The increase density will accommodate a variety of residential units in the development. Zoning permits 70-feet in height by right. Request to increase the height to 101-feet. The additional height would enable the development’s increased density and mixed-use functions. The applicants have illustrated the maximum envelope with a SUP. Submittal materials also provide studies of a more sculpted building. These studies are not intended to establish a design direction, but provide an idea of how a more developed building might appear on the site. Relevant City Code Section: Sec. 34-157(7) When the property that is the subject of the application for a special use permit is within a design control district, city council shall refer the application to the Board of Architectural Review (BAR) or Entrance Corridor Review Board (ERB), as may be applicable, for recommendations as to whether the proposed use will have an adverse impact on the district, and for recommendations as to reasonable conditions which, if imposed, that would mitigate any such impacts. The BAR or ERB, as applicable, shall return a written report of its recommendations to the city council. Discussion In evaluating this SUP request, the Planning Commission and, ultimately, City Council will take into consideration the BAR’s recommendation on whether or not the SUP, if approved, would adversely impact Downtown ADC district and, if so, any proposed conditions to mitigate the impact. The BAR’s recommendations are not a function of how the site will be used or occupied, but an evaluation of the requested SUP relative to the criteria within the ADC Design Guidelines. That is, will allowing the requested increased residential occupancy and the increased overall height result in a project that conflicts with the Guidelines? In reviewing the SUP the BAR has the opportunity to discuss—and offer recommendations on-- the proposed massing and building envelope, and how it engages the streetscape and neighboring properties, etc., etc. Furthermore, the BAR may request that the Planning Commission and City Council consider including these design recommendations as conditions of approval for the SUP. For reference: • June 2012: 218 West Water Street. SUP request for 82.6-feet. BAR recommended approval. • September 2014: 200 2nd Street SW. SUP request for increased density (to 60 DU/acre) and for 101-feet. BAR recommended approval. • June 2015: 550 East Water Street. SUP request for 101-feet. BAR was not supportive of increased height. • August 2017: 201 West Water Street. SUP request for 94.17-feet. BAR recommended approval. Suggested Motions * Approved motion: 218 West Market Street - Discussion - Sept 20, 2022 (9/9/2022) 2 Gastinger moved to recommend that the proposed Special Use Permit for 218 West Market Street will not have an adverse impact on the Downtown ADC District, with the understanding that the final design and details will require BAR review and approval and that increased density and height is granted with the understanding that the building design will have the flexibility to mitigate potential impacts on the Downtown ADC District by addressing these items of considerations and concern: • The building’s massing will be broken up to provide compatibility with the character- defining features of the historic district • Provide adequate protection of adjacent historic structures • Provide a plan to replace the street trees on site • Improve pedestrian character of Old Preston and Market Street • Provide pedestrian through access between Market Street and Old Preston. Mohr seconded. Approved (9-0). Criteria, Standards, and Guidelines Review Criteria Generally Sec. 34-284(b) of the City Code states that, in considering a particular application the BAR shall approve the application unless it finds: (1) That the proposal does not meet specific standards set forth within this division or applicable provisions of the Design Guidelines established by the board pursuant to Sec.34-288(6); and (2) The proposal is incompatible with the historic, cultural or architectural character of the district in which the property is located or the protected property that is the subject of the application. Pertinent Standards for Review of Construction and Alterations include: (1) Whether the material, texture, color, height, scale, mass and placement of the proposed addition, modification or construction are visually and architecturally compatible with the site and the applicable design control district; (2) The harmony of the proposed change in terms of overall proportion and the size and placement of entrances, windows, awnings, exterior stairs and signs; (3) The Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation set forth within the Code of Federal Regulations (36 C.F.R. §67.7(b)), as may be relevant; (4) The effect of the proposed change on the historic district neighborhood; (5) The impact of the proposed change on other protected features on the property, such as gardens, landscaping, fences, walls and walks; (6) Whether the proposed method of construction, renovation or restoration could have an adverse impact on the structure or site, or adjacent buildings or structures; (7) Any applicable provisions of the City’s Design Guidelines. Pertinent Guidelines for New Construction and Additions include: 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: 218 West Market Street - Discussion - Sept 20, 2022 (9/9/2022) 3 a) 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. b) Durable building materials such as brick, wood, cementitious siding, and metal roofs are economical and more compatible with the character of the community. c) 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. d) Infill development is an efficient use of land that can provide diversity in housing sizes and types, and can revitalize neighborhoods. e) Options for walking, bicycling, and transit promote healthy living and reduce dependence on automobiles and energy use. f) Designing buildings for the local climate helps conserve energy. g) 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. h) Alternative construction techniques, such as structural insulated panels (SIPS), are energy efficient. i) 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. j) 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. D. Massing & Footprint While the typical footprint of commercial building from the turn of the twentieth century might be 20 feet wide by 60 feet long or 1200 square feet per floor, new buildings in the downtown can be expected to be somewhat larger. Likewise, new buildings in the West Main Street corridor may be larger than this district’s historic buildings. It is important that even large buildings contribute to the human scale and pedestrian orientation of the district. 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. 218 West Market Street - Discussion - Sept 20, 2022 (9/9/2022) 4 3) Neighborhood transitional buildings should have small building footprints similar to nearby dwellings. a) If the footprint is larger, their massing should be reduced to relate to the smaller- scaled forms of residential structures. b) Techniques to reduce massing could include stepping back upper levels, adding residential roof and porch forms, and using sympathetic materials. 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 & Width The actual size of a new building can either contribute to or be in conflict with a historic area. This guideline addresses the relationship of height and width of the front elevation of a building mass. A building is horizontal, vertical, or square in its proportions. Residential buildings’ height often relates to the era and style in which they were built. Houses in the historic districts for the most part range from one to three stories with the majority being two stories. Most historic residential buildings range in width from 25 to 50 feet. While some commercial buildings are larger, the majority are two to three stories in height. Most historic commercial buildings range from 20 to 40 feet in width. The West Main Street corridor has a greater variety of building types. Early nineteenth-century (Federal and Greek Revival) and early-twentieth-century (Colonial Revival) designs often have horizontal expressions except for the townhouse form which is more vertical. From the Victorian era after the Civil War through the turn of the century, domestic architecture is usually 2 to 2 1/2 stories with a more vertical expression. Commercial buildings may be divided between horizontal and vertical orientation depending on their original use and era of construction. 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. a) 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. 5) In the West Main Street corridor, regardless of surrounding buildings, new construction should use elements at the street level, such as cornices, entrances, and display windows, to reinforce the human scale. 218 West Market Street - Discussion - Sept 20, 2022 (9/9/2022) 5 F. Scale Height and width also create scale, the relationship between the size of a building and the size of a person. Scale can also be defined as the relationship of the size of a building to neighboring buildings and of a building to its site. The design features of a building can reinforce a human scale or can create a monumental scale. In Charlottesville, there is a variety of scale. For instance, an institutional building like a church or library may have monumental scale due to its steeple or entry portico, while a more human scale may be created by a storefront in a neighboring commercial building. 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. * Appendix Meeting minutes from September 17, 2019 Special Use Permit BAR 19-09-04, 218 West Market Street, Tax Parcel 330276000 Market Street Promenade, LLC, Owner / Heirloom Real Estate Holdings LLC, Applicant Increased building height and increased density Mr. Ball recused himself from this application. Staff Report, Jeff Werner: 218 West Market Street is a contributing structure in the Downtown ADC District. City assessment records indicate the commercial building was constructed in 1938. A c1955 Sanborn Map indicates this structure at the site. The brick building previously housed an A&P Grocery but has since been substantially modified. A covered arcade was added to the north and east elevations in the 1980s. Earlier this year the BAR approved the demolition of the building on the subject parcel and the demolition is contingent upon the granting of a COA and building permit for its replacement. The applicants have submitted a SUP request in anticipation of constructing on the site a mixed-use development with retail and commercial uses on the ground floor and residential units on the upper floors. The SUP request is to allow additional residential density and increased building height. Zoning permits 43 dwelling units per acre; allowing up to 24 units on the property by right. The request would increase the density to 240 DUs per acre, allowing 134 units on the property. The increase density will accommodate a variety of residential units in the development. Zoning permits 70-feet in height by right. The request is to increase the height to 101-feet. The additional height would enable the development’s increased density and mixed-use functions. The applicants have illustrated the maximum envelope with a SUP. The submittal materials also provide studies of a more sculpted building. These studies are not intended to establish a design direction, but provide an idea of how a more developed building might appear on the site. Per City Code Sec. 34-157(7) “When the property that is the subject of the application for a special use permit is within a design control district, city council shall refer the application to the Board of Architectural Review or Entrance Corridor Review Board, as may be applicable, for recommendations as to whether the proposed use will have an adverse impact on the district, and for recommendations as to 218 West Market Street - Discussion - Sept 20, 2022 (9/9/2022) 6 reasonable conditions which, if imposed, that would mitigate any such impacts. The BAR or ERB, as applicable, shall return a written report of its recommendations to the city council.” In evaluating this SUP request, the Planning Commission and, ultimately, City Council will take into consideration the BAR’s recommendation on whether or not the SUP, if approved, would adversely impact Downtown ADC district and, if so, any proposed conditions to mitigate the impact. The BAR’s recommendations are not a function of how the site will be used or occupied, but an evaluation of the requested SUP relative to the criteria within the ADC Design Guidelines. That is, will allowing the requested increased residential occupancy and the increased overall height result in a project that conflicts with the Guidelines? In reviewing the SUP the BAR has the opportunity to discuss and offer recommendations on the proposed massing and building envelope, and how it engages the streetscape and neighboring properties, etc., etc. Furthermore, the BAR may request that the Planning Commission and City Council consider including these design recommendations as conditions of approval for the SUP. There has been a lot of discussion in the community about additional density and parking Downtown. Our purview is the visual aspect of the exterior, which should be made clear going forward. Applicant, Jeff Dreyfus: We are talking about density and height on this particular site. We are asking for a recommendation that the SUP for both density and height does not have an adverse impact on the district. As we’ve discussed with 612 West Main, we have a long way to go with final design of a building and the COA gives the BAR the opportunity to sculpt the building as we go through the process. The initial submission shows the maximum allowable building envelope if it were built to its greatest volume. There is no intention to go there and it wouldn’t be allowed by the BAR. However, the increased density and height on this site will give us a lot more flexibility from an economic perspective to be able to sculpt the building in a way that it is taller and thinner. Before we begin this process, we would like to know that we have the ability to increase the height and density, which is why we are here tonight. QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC: None. QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD: Ms. Miller: Some of those comments probably have an affect on the historic district. Mr. Werner: I’m talking about the uses like how many apartments, who would be renting them, etc., which are not relative to the design of the exterior. Mr. Lahendro: What are some of the guiding principles that you would use to design the building and have it be acceptable within the historic district and to the BAR? Mr. Dreyfus: An important criterion is the scale of the street on both sides and trying to maintain the scale of buildings nearby. This is an interesting site because it steps down dramatically as you move toward the larger site. Part of the presentation includes views from Ridge-McIntire because this needs to be seen in the larger context. We show its height is relative to other buildings that have already been approved, including the Code Building and West 2nd. The step backs required by zoning begin to enforce that already, but perhaps we continue to cornice line coming from the mall of the Whiskey Jar building and step backs happen from there so that the scale steps up, not right on the street. That is one of the most critical urban design elements in all of this so that it begins to fit in. We will continue to discuss materials as well. We feel strongly 218 West Market Street - Discussion - Sept 20, 2022 (9/9/2022) 7 that the entry into the parking area is well located off of Old Preston instead of having people turn into West Market. This is a much safer way to go. The number of cars coming and going from there won’t be huge and it allows us to get the parking off of the West Market Street façade. Mr. Gastinger: On Old Preston all existing trees on the site would need to be removed and presumably the street trees along Market Street would also need to be removed. Can you confirm if that is the case and what opportunities this project might have in improving the pedestrian character of those two streets? Mr. Dreyfus: I can’t speak to the trees at the moment. One of the most important elements of this structure is how pedestrians are welcomed into the building. It might be with an indent plaza of sorts with setbacks under canopies, but I can’t speak to it at the moment. If continuing some of the greenery down that street is critical, then we would like to hear that now so we can begin to think about that. I forgot to mention that It’s important to understand that we tried to compare the by-right height and what the shadows cast would look like vs. with the SUP during the sun studies we did toward the back of this. The one difference is on the longest day of the year. The only difference is that the shadow would be cast on the lawn of those condos furthest south, but it wouldn’t even cast a shadow on the roof of those, so the impact is very minor. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC: Mr. Gastinger: We received an email just before this meeting started from the public and I thought it would be appropriate to read it aloud. It is from Joey Conover and it says “Hello BAR members. I am writing regarding the 218 West Market SUP request on tomorrow’s agenda as the property manager for the neighboring building at 110-114 Old Preston Avenue. I wanted to bring a few items to your attention for consideration. I have an event but plan to attend as I am able. 1) Increased height density: In general, we feel the increased density is healthy for the increasing housing stock the urban core of Charlottesville. Although we are hoping increased height does not feel overly imposing and appreciate the proposed setbacks, it is necessary to increase the housing stock and the height may be worth it. Adding more retail along Old Preston Avenue and West Market expands the pedestrian commercial area in a positive way. There will likely be future design considerations, but at this time we support the project moving forward. 2) Neighbors: Please note that the application has our building marked on their SUP plans as Vinegar Hill, which no longer exists as a commercial business. There are two separate unrelated buildings that touch this project, Lighthouse Theater and our building, which currently houses Vibe Think and the Albemarle County Economic Development Office. 3) Historic Preservation: Our building at 110 Old Preston Avenue was built prior to 1900. It’s built primarily out of stone, including the party wall with the current Artful Lodger building. We continue to be concerned about the structural integrity of our historic building and would like to hear public reassurance that this new project will take particular care in the demolition of the existing building, which is currently tied to our building with steel beams, as well as excavation during underground parking and subsequent construction. There is also a roof overhand that currently goes over the property line, which appears original. This may affect their design. 4) Green roof: For aesthetic and environmental reasons we highly recommend the BAR require this project include at least the amount of green roof that has been proposed, if not more. There is a large storm water drain that goes under the sidewalk along Old Preston Avenue. I understand that the Heirloom is planning to direct all roof rainwater to this direction, where most of it already goes. 5) Old Preston façade: The elevations on page 7 are not 100% clear if the levels along Old Preston will be parking 218 West Market Street - Discussion - Sept 20, 2022 (9/9/2022) 8 apertures, or if that is retail level. I think it is retail, but if not, I would recommend that this façade be a more public facing retail-oriented façade to continue the feel of the Downtown Mall. 6) Pedestrian access: There is a lot of foot traffic through the current parking lot at 218 West Market. I would suggest that the BAR require that the project maintain pedestrian access along the Whiskey Jar side of the building to allow public movement through that corridor. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to ask.” COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD: Mr. Mohr: I don’t find any issue with density or height. I think it will all be in the massing of the building. The comments about pedestrian connections and the transparency of the building to the street from both directions are important. I would hesitate to call it a structure and I would rather see it developed more as a compound or a series of structures. The massing models make me nervous because they don’t seem to be separated. Ms. Miller: It makes a lot of sense to have density here, but this application does make me nervous because the previous building with the same owner and team used every square inch of allowable space. Increasing density might encourage bad behavior with the building that is to come. While density is great in this spot, I don’t think a giant building is. It would need to be broken into pieces or significantly shaved back in order to be a good addition to the historic district. The points made about the pedestrian experience, trees, and being sure not to damage the existing stone wall are all important too. Mr. Mohr: They didn’t build absolutely to the edge. Mr. Lahendro: I am willing to support the density and height, but we have a long way to go to design the building. It will be a challenge to do a building this large that is compatible with the other buildings and storefronts that abut it on both sides. We also have pedestrian access from all sides to this building and it is anchoring the end of the mall. The trees that are already there at the end are very welcoming and I strongly urge them to stay or have something like them. Mr. Schwarz: My first thought when they were going for maximum height was absolutely not because it is out of context, but looking more closely, it seems like it is at an area where there will hopefully be more height nearby. The renderings imply that there is an illusion of multiple buildings. Actions like that are going to go a long way in making it successful. I am very concerned that because of the slope to the site, you will end up with a big parking plinth underneath as you walk along the side. The idea of maintaining pedestrian access throughout the eastside of the side is intriguing. I don’t know if it’s possible or if it will create a scary space, but it continues the block module that we have Downtown. I am not ready to make it a condition, but you should definitely investigate it. It would also allow you to pull the building off the side and get some windows there so it isn’t just a wall. Mr. Mohr: A lot of what happens in development of towns like ours is that we lose the topography. There is a sense from going to a higher street to a lower street and big bases wipe that out. Mr. Gastinger: I encourage you not to give up on Old Preston because of its current condition. Changing the entrance of the parking lot itself might open up new possibilities with a significant section of that street. I encourage the City to also re-think that section to the extent that they can 218 West Market Street - Discussion - Sept 20, 2022 (9/9/2022) 9 because that street is going to gain even more importance as the town becomes more dense and Preston continues to develop. The street trees are going to be a significant loss and it will be critical to find ways to mitigate that. Mr. Balut: I am supportive of the application. This is an amazing site and it has great potential, so you have a great opportunity to make a wonderful statement by continuing the mall and making a good pedestrian experience on at least three sides. It will be a crucial part of the project so I look forward to seeing how that will develop. This would be a great opportunity to play with the massing and find ways that it can be more elegant and compatible with every adjacency. I am encouraged by the massing studies already and I encourage you to keep going in that direction. I encourage the green roof that you have and to add more to encourage more greenery and reduce storm water runoff on the site. Mr. Sarafin: I am generally in favor. The pedestrian piece is very important, as well as making provisions to 110 Old Preston as work is being done. At the street level and scale, what happens at Old Preston needs to relate to those historic buildings. It is a challenging site, but it’s also a site that could be better utilized. While there may be concern about what is visible from the mall side, what we would be gaining from the other side is helping to better ground and anchor the mall. It also begins to extend it some. Mr. Lahendro: Going forward, I will be looking closely at the materiality, the transparency at the pedestrian level and engaging the public, landscaping, and tying that building into the fabric of this historic area. Mr. Schwarz: You may want to look at the zoning code’s street wall requirements to make sure your hands aren’t tied with that. You may want to speak with to Planning Commission about it. One condition we may want to add is the adequate protection of adjacent buildings. Ms. Miller: The pedestrian and street trees up to three sides of the building, which reinforces the block size, might be a good condition too. Mr. Lahendro: I don’t know if that is tied into density and height, or if that is something that would come to us later when we get to the details. Mr. Mohr: One of the reasons we agree to the increased density and height is so that you have some room to make the building a compound or a series of buildings. We aren’t just saying to fill up the void. Mr. Sarafin: We have a pretty clear list of concerns that, if addressed and met, there will not be an adverse impact on the district. We want a nice list for City Council to consider. We’ve thought about them and will continue to think about them and so should they when crafting the conditions that will be put on this SUP. Mr. Mohr: We don’t want to pin them down right now about specifics because we don’t really know what the specifics are yet. We have to have faith in our processes, and these are all considerations. It’s also a transition zone in that its moving from the Downtown Mall scale to presumably a larger scale that will eventually occupy that entire portion of the town. 218 West Market Street - Discussion - Sept 20, 2022 (9/9/2022) 10 Mr. Schwarz: As labeling this a transition zone, I would be concerned with the Planning Commission sticking in a bulk plane on the east side, which wouldn’t serve any good. Mr. Mohr: It’s not strictly about the scale of the mall. Mr. Lahendro: All of these are concerns, but there is one condition, which is that the increased density and height is approved, providing the massing is broken up to provide compatibility with the character-defining features of the historic district. Ms. Miller: I don’t want to arbitrarily say fewer units per acre because we don’t know what the applicant can do to creatively make it work and meet our Guidelines, but I also don’t want them to think they can just have the maximum number of approved units and the building has to meet that. Mr. Balut: Even if there is a by-right volume and they maximize that, we have the right to deny that request if we feel it isn’t compatible with the district. We don’t have to stipulate too much because it is already understood. If we as a Board don’t feel that the maximum by-right volume proposed is compatible, then we would just not vote in favor of it. Mr. Sarafin: There is value in underscoring this point for City Council. Mr. Schwarz: In the staff conditions, I would strike the phrase that says “based on the general design and building footprint as submitted,” and instead just recommend that the SUP will not have an adverse impact. I also like Mr. Lahendro’s comment about having a condition that says the massing will be broken up to provide compatibility with the character-defining features of the historic district. Ms. Miller: Could we also have a loftier goal regarding the trees on the site and say that they will maintain street trees on site? Mr. Gastinger: My only concern with that is that all of the trees are already compromised in significant ways. Ms. Miller: It wouldn’t necessarily be those trees, but they could find a way to work trees in. Mr. Gastinger: What about saying to provide street trees to mitigate? Mr. Mohr: We should do better than just mitigating it. We want something positive. Mr. Gastinger: We can say they will provide a plan to replace the street trees lost on site. Motion: Gastinger moved to recommend that the proposed Special Use Permit for 218 West Market Street will not have an adverse impact on the Downtown ADC District, with the understanding that the final design and details will require BAR review and approval and that increased density and height is granted with the understanding that the building design will have the flexibility to mitigate potential impacts on the Downtown ADC District by addressing these items of considerations and concern: 218 West Market Street - Discussion - Sept 20, 2022 (9/9/2022) 11 • The building’s massing will be broken up to provide compatibility with the character- defining features of the historic district • Provide adequate protection of adjacent historic structures • Provide a plan to replace the street trees on site • Improve Pedestrian character of Old Preston and Market Street • Provide pedestrian through access between Market Street and Old Preston. Mohr seconded. Approved (9-0). 218 West Market Street - Discussion - Sept 20, 2022 (9/9/2022) 12 City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Staff Memo September 20, 2022 Discussion 101 E. Jefferson Street, TMP 330190000 North Downtown ADC District (contributing) First Methodist Church Project: Rooftop solar panels Background Year Built: 1923 District: North Downtown ADC District Status: Contributing First United Methodist Church is a Colonial Revival, brick church with a monumental portico and four Doric columns, with a tower and steeple. Project The congregation is considering the installation of solar panels onto the existing slate roof. 101 E. Jefferson – solar panels discussion 9/20 (9/7/2022) 1 Discussion Since adoption of the current ADC District Design Guidelines, the BAR has reviewed and approved ten CoA requests related to photovoltaic panels, seven in the last four years. Seven were either IPPs or within an ADC District, and all except one installed rooftop panels. The Design Guidelines (Rehabilitation, Roofing) do not specifically recommend against solar panels on historic roofs, but instead recommended they be placed on non-character defining roofs or roofs of non-historic adjacent buildings. 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: 101 E. Jefferson – solar panels discussion 9/20 (9/7/2022) 2 (1) Whether the material, texture, color, height, scale, mass and placement of the proposed addition, modification or construction are visually and architecturally compatible with the site and the applicable design control district; (2) The harmony of the proposed change in terms of overall proportion and the size and placement of entrances, windows, awnings, exterior stairs and signs; (3) The Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation set forth within the Code of Federal Regulations (36 C.F.R. §67.7(b)), as may be relevant; (4) The effect of the proposed change on the historic district neighborhood; (5) The impact of the proposed change on other protected features on the property, such as gardens, landscaping, fences, walls and walks; (6) Whether the proposed method of construction, renovation or restoration could have an adverse impact on the structure or site, or adjacent buildings or structures; (7) Any applicable provisions of the City’s Design Guidelines. Pertinent Guidelines for Rehabilitation: Chapter 4 Rehabilitation G. Roof 1) When replacing a standing seam metal roof, the width of the pan and the seam height should be consistent with the original. Ideally, the seams would be hand crimped. 2) If pre-painted standing seam metal roof material is permitted, commercial-looking ridge caps or ridge vents are not appropriate on residential structures. 3) Original roof pitch and configuration should be maintained. 4) The original size and shape of dormers should be maintained. 5) Dormers should not be introduced on visible elevations where none existed originally. 6) Retain elements, such as chimneys, skylights, and light wells that contribute to the style and character of the building. 7) When replacing a roof, match original materials as closely as possible. a. Avoid, for example, replacing a standing-seam metal roof with asphalt shingles, as this would dramatically alter the building’s appearance. b. Artificial slate is an acceptable substitute when replacement is needed. c. Do not change the appearance or material of parapet coping. 8) Place solar collectors and antennae on non-character defining roofs or roofs of non-historic adjacent buildings. 9) Do not add new elements, such as vents, skylights, or additional stories that would be visible on the primary elevations of the building. Pertinent Guidelines from the Secretary’s Standards Building Exterior – Roofs: Alterations/Additions for the New Use Recommended: Installing mechanical and service equipment on the roof such as air conditioning, transformers, or solar collectors when required for the new use so that they are inconspicuous from the public right-of- way and do not damage or obscure character defining features. Designing additions to roofs such as residential, office, or storage spaces; elevator housing; decks and terraces; or dormers or skylights when required by the new use so that they are inconspicuous from the public right-of-way and do not damage or obscure character-defining features. 101 E. Jefferson – solar panels discussion 9/20 (9/7/2022) 3 Not Recommended: Installing mechanical or service equipment so that it damages or obscures character- defining features; or is conspicuous from the public right-of-way. Radically changing a character-defining roof shape or damaging or destroying character- defining roofing material as a result of incompatible design or improper installation techniques. Energy Conservation - Roofs Recommended: Placing solar collectors on non-character-defining roofs or roofs of non-historic adjacent buildings. Not Recommended: Placing solar collectors on roofs when such collectors change the historic roofline or obscure the relationship of the roof features such as dormers, skylights, and chimneys. Appendix: Street view images 101 E. Jefferson – solar panels discussion 9/20 (9/7/2022) 4 101 E. Jefferson – solar panels discussion 9/20 (9/7/2022) 5 101 E. Jefferson – solar panels discussion 9/20 (9/7/2022) 6 City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Staff Memo September 20, 2022 Discussion 32 University Circle, Tax Parcel Rugby Road - University Circle - Venable Neighborhood ADC District Windows Background Year Built: 1947 District: Rugby Road - University Circle - Venable Neighborhood ADC District Status: Non-contributing Four-story, brick apartment building, with a flat roof behind a parapet. Brick is five-course American bond with sandstone stills. The low, first floor is treated as an English basement, with rusticated brickwork and a sandstone water table. The center, front bay features a shallow, two- story, flat-roof portico with fluted, Ionic columns; above the fourth floor windows is a sandstone frieze with a Greek fret, capped by stone dentils and cornice. A stone cornice runs above the fourth-floor windows of the front wings with a capped, brick parapet above. (The side and rear bays and rear wings are wings generally unadorned.) The windows are metal, true divided lite. The four wings primarily feature double-hung 6/6 windows. The windows on the bays are primarily 16-lite (4x4) fixed windows with operable casements, with an assortment of double- hung 6/6 windows, 6-lite (2x3) paired casements, and 1/1 double-hung windows, which do not appear original. Prior BAR Actions N/A Discussion Repairs are necessary to make the windows operable and weathertight. Options are to repair the existing, 1940s metal windows frame, relace them, or some combination of both. The building is a non-contributing structure to the ADC District; therefore it could be razed without BAR review—see map below. However, being within the district requires BR review for exterior alterations and new construction. 32 University Circle Sept 2022 (9-9-2022) 1 Front (south) elevation Question: In evaluating window repairs or replacements, how do we apply the window guidelines to non-contributing structures? While retaining existing windows in non-contributing buildings should be encouraged under certain n circumstances—certainly for a mid-20th century building--staff suggests that replacing the windows be evaluated based on the impact to the district. As such, for non-conforming structures to the extent possible the Rehabilitation guidelines should be applied, but the prevailing guidelines should be from New Construction and Additions. For example, applying the five criteria below would allow window replacements, provided they were of an appropriate material, did not alter the number or location of the windows, did not alter the masonry opening (including retaining the arches and sills), and used windows with a similar glazing pattern and operability. 32 University Circle Sept 2022 (9-9-2022) 2 From the design guidelines for New Construction and Additions 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. From the design guidelines for Rehabilitation 10) Avoid changing the number, location, size, or glazing pattern of windows by cutting new openings, blocking in windows, or installing replacement sash that does not fit the window opening. 11) Do not use inappropriate materials or finishes that radically change the sash, depth of reveal, muntin configuration, reflective quality or color of the glazing, or appearance of the frame. 12) Use replacement windows with true divided lights or interior and exterior fixed muntins with internal spacers to replace historic or original examples. 13) If windows warrant replacement, appropriate material for new windows depends upon the context of the building within a historic district, and the age and design of the building. Sustainable materials such as wood, aluminum-clad wood, solid fiberglass, and metal windows are preferred. Vinyl windows are discouraged. From design staff questions to the City’s Property Management staff https://www.charlottesville.gov/265/Property-Maintenance • Context: Apartment building in a historic district. Owner wants to replace windows because existing don’t latch and/or operate. (Many are painted shut; some are metal casements with non-working cranks; some double-hungs have been painted so often the sash latch does not line up.) I explained that the old could be repaired and that new would not solve the problem—that they’d eventually get painted shut or painted open, etc. etc. Ground floor tenants want the windows screwed shut or have latches that lock. o Codes are for buildings (rental or owner occupied, hence the strikethrough). • What are the requirements for operability and security? o Virginia Maintenance Code - 304.13.2 Openable windows. Every window, other than a fixed window, shall be easily openable and capable of being held in position by window hardware (not propped open with a stick, etc.). o Latches or other types of window locks provide the security which are typically included with all windows. • Can windows have keyed latches or be secured with screws or wood blocks? o Keyed latches, screws (NO). I’m assuming the block is there for added security (yes, allowed if easily removable) • Are the requirements for all windows within an apartment unit or can some be sealed as long as one is operable o (openable?), etc.? See code section above, and yes for all windows. Bedroom windows are required to be openable. 32 University Circle Sept 2022 (9-9-2022) 3 • Is there any distinction related to height off the ground? (For ex, rules for ground floor apartments vs upper story.) o No difference (unless there is something in the building code. • Not sure this one is answerable, but for the casement windows with the non-functioning cranks, is there any prohibition to removing the cranks, so the windows would open/close by hand? o See code section above. • Anything I might be missing? o At the time a building is built is how building codes are enforced. For instance, no building codes in early 1900’s, so we cannot make an owner retrofit a building based on the current codes adopted and enforced (building codes change every 3 years). So, in the end, the changes needed to the “crank” window would mean the window would need to be replaced to maintain safety and security. But then of course, this would need to be approved by the BAR and Building/BCO). From my previous research, these “crank” types of windows are no longer being made for residential purposes and replacements would be hard to find (if at all). So, the only solution would be to replace the window with a new window to maintain the safety and security of the occupants. Suggested Motions No action to be taken. Criteria, Standards, and Guidelines Review Criteria Generally Sec. 34-284(b) of the City Code states that, in considering a particular application the BAR shall approve the application unless it finds: (1) That the proposal does not meet specific standards set forth within this division or applicable provisions of the Design Guidelines established by the board pursuant to Sec.34-288(6); and (2) The proposal is incompatible with the historic, cultural or architectural character of the district in which the property is located or the protected property that is the subject of the application. Pertinent Standards for Review of Construction and Alterations include: (1) Whether the material, texture, color, height, scale, mass and placement of the proposed addition, modification or construction are visually and architecturally compatible with the site and the applicable design control district; (2) The harmony of the proposed change in terms of overall proportion and the size and placement of entrances, windows, awnings, exterior stairs and signs; (3) The Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation set forth within the Code of Federal Regulations (36 C.F.R. §67.7(b)), as may be relevant; (4) The effect of the proposed change on the historic district neighborhood; (5) The impact of the proposed change on other protected features on the property, such as gardens, landscaping, fences, walls and walks; (6) Whether the proposed method of construction, renovation or restoration could have an adverse impact on the structure or site, or adjacent buildings or structures; (7) Any applicable provisions of the City’s Design Guidelines. 32 University Circle Sept 2022 (9-9-2022) 4 Pertinent Guidelines for New Construction and Additions Chapter 3 New Construction and Additions I. Windows and Doors 1) The rhythm, patterns, and ratio of solids (walls) and voids (windows and doors) of new buildings should relate to and be compatible with adjacent historic facades. a. The majority of existing buildings in Charlottesville’s historic districts have a higher proportion of wall area than void area except at the storefront level. b. In the West Main Street corridor in particular, new buildings should reinforce this traditional proportion. 2) The size and proportion, or the ratio of width to height, of window and door openings on new buildings’ primary facades should be similar and compatible with those on surrounding historic facades. a. The proportions of the upper floor windows of most of Charlottesville’s historic buildings are more vertical than horizontal. b. Glass storefronts would generally have more horizontal proportions than upper floor openings. 3) Traditionally designed openings generally are recessed on masonry buildings and have a raised surround on frame buildings. New construction should follow these methods in the historic districts as opposed to designing openings that are flush with the rest of the wall. 4) Many entrances of Charlottesville’s historic buildings have special features such as transoms, sidelights, and decorative elements framing the openings. Consideration should be given to incorporating such elements in new construction. 5) Darkly tinted mirrored glass is not an appropriate material for windows in new buildings within the historic districts. 6) If small-paned windows are used, they should have true divided lights or simulated divided lights with permanently affixed interior and exterior muntin bars and integral spacer bars between the panes of glass. 7) Avoid designing false windows in new construction. 8) Appropriate material for new windows depends upon the context of the building within a historic district, and the design of the proposed building. Sustainable materials such as wood, aluminum-clad wood, solid fiberglass, and metal windows are preferred for new construction. Vinyl windows are discouraged. 9) Glass shall be clear. Opaque spandrel glass or translucent glass may be approved by the BAR for specific applications. Pertinent Guidelines for Rehabilitation Chapter 4 Rehabilitation C. Windows Windows add light to the interior of a building, provide ventilation, and allow a visual link to the outside. They also play a major part in defining a building’s particular style. Because of the wide variety of architectural styles and periods of construction within the districts, there is a corresponding variation of styles, types, and sizes of windows. Windows are one of the major character-defining features on buildings and can be varied by different designs of sills, panes, sashes, lintels, decorative caps, and shutters. They may occur in regular intervals or in asymmetrical patterns. Their size may highlight various bay divisions in the building. All of the windows may be the same or there may be a variety of types that give emphasis to certain parts of the building. 32 University Circle Sept 2022 (9-9-2022) 5 1) Prior to any repair or replacement of windows, a survey of existing window conditions is recommended. Note number of windows, whether each window is original or replaced, the material, type, hardware and finish, the condition of the frame, sash, sill, putty, and panes. 2) Retain original windows when possible. 3) Uncover and repair covered up windows and reinstall windows where they have been blocked in. 4) If the window is no longer needed, the glass should be retained and the back side frosted, screened, or shuttered so that it appears from the outside to be in use. 5) Repair original windows by patching, splicing, consolidating or otherwise reinforcing. Wood that appears to be in bad condition because of peeling paint or separated joints often can be repaired. 6) Replace historic components of a window that are beyond repair with matching components. 7) Replace entire windows only when they are missing or beyond repair. 8) If a window on the primary façade of a building must be replaced and an existing window of the same style, material, and size is identified on a secondary elevation, place the historic window in the window opening on the primary façade. 9) Reconstruction should be based on physical evidence or old photographs. 10) Avoid changing the number, location, size, or glazing pattern of windows by cutting new openings, blocking in windows, or installing replacement sash that does not fit the window opening. 11) Do not use inappropriate materials or finishes that radically change the sash, depth of reveal, muntin configuration, reflective quality or color of the glazing, or appearance of the frame. 12) Use replacement windows with true divided lights or interior and exterior fixed muntins with internal spacers to replace historic or original examples. 13) If windows warrant replacement, appropriate material for new windows depends upon the context of the building within a historic district, and the age and design of the building. Sustainable materials such as wood, aluminum-clad wood, solid fiberglass, and metal windows are preferred. Vinyl windows are discouraged. 14) False muntins and internal removable grilles do not present an historic appearance and should not be used. 15) Do not use tinted or mirrored glass on major facades of the building. Translucent or low (e) glass may be strategies to keep heat gain down. 16) Storm windows should match the size and shape of the existing windows and the original sash configuration. Special shapes, such as arched top storms, are available. 17) Storm windows should not damage or obscure the windows and frames. 18) Avoid aluminum-colored storm sash. It can be painted an appropriate color if it is first primed with a zinc chromate primer. 19) The addition of shutters may be appropriate if not previously installed but if compatible with the style of the building or neighborhood. 20) In general, shutters should be wood (rather than metal or vinyl) and should be mounted on hinges. In some circumstances, appropriately dimensioned, painted, composite material shutters may be used. 21) The size of the shutters should result in their covering the window opening when closed. 22) Avoid shutters on composite or bay windows. 23) If using awnings, ensure that they align with the opening being covered. 24) Use awning colors that are compatible with the colors of the building. 32 University Circle Sept 2022 (9-9-2022) 6 Appendix 32 University Circle Sept 2022 (9-9-2022) 7 32 University Circle - Discussion only - BAR Sept 20, 2022 Page 1 of 20 Font (south) elevation 9-9-2022 32 University Circle - Discussion only - BAR Sept 20, 2022 Page 2 of 20 Rear bay (north side) 9-9-2022 Font (south) elevation 32 University Circle - Discussion only - BAR Sept 20, 2022 Page 3 of 20 9-9-2022 32 University Circle - Discussion only - BAR Sept 20, 2022 Page 4 of 20 Rear bay (north side) Side (east) elevation [looking towards Univ Cr.] 9-9-2022 32 University Circle - Discussion only - BAR Sept 20, 2022 Page 5 of 20 Rear bay (north side) Side (east) elevation [looking towards Univ Cr.] 9-9-2022 32 University Circle - Discussion only - BAR Sept 20, 2022 Page 6 of 20 Front bay and wing (north side) Rear NW wing (north side) 9-9-2022 32 University Circle - Discussion only - BAR Sept 20, 2022 Page 7 of 20 1st floor - window in side wings 9-9-2022 32 University Circle - Discussion only - BAR Sept 20, 2022 Page 8 of 20 1st Floor window — Front (SW) bay (south elevation) 9-9-2022 32 University Circle - Discussion only - BAR Sept 20, 2022 Page 9 of 20 1st Floor window — Front (SW) wing (south elevation) 9-9-2022 32 University Circle - Discussion only - BAR Sept 20, 2022 Page 10 of 20 Windows above entry door — front portico (south elevation) 32 University Circle - Discussion only - BAR Sept 20, 2022 Page 11 of 20 1st floor - window in side bays 9-9-2022 32 University Circle - Discussion only - BAR Sept 20, 2022 Page 12 of 20 Casements in west bay 9-9-2022 32 University Circle - Discussion only - BAR Sept 20, 2022 Page 13 of 20 9-9-2022 32 University Circle - Discussion only - BAR Sept 20, 2022 Page 14 of 20 9-9-2022 Casement in east bay 32 University Circle - Discussion only - BAR Sept 20, 2022 Page 15 of 20 9-9-2022 Casements in west bay 32 University Circle - Discussion only - BAR Sept 20, 2022 Page 16 of 20 Year Built N.C, = non-contributing 1914 1910 1970 1922 1912 1922 N.C, 1910 N.C, 1921 1947 N.C, 1914 1917 1915 1928 c1910 1910 1938 1924 N.C, 9-9-2022 32 University Circle - Discussion only - BAR Sept 20, 2022 Page 17 of 20 33 University Circle (1910) 38 University Circle (1938) 36 University Circle (1910) 34 University Circle (1917) 9-9-2022 32 University Circle - Discussion only - BAR Sept 20, 2022 Page 18 of 20 26 University Circle (1970) 27 University Circle (1914) 9-9-2022 29 University Circle (1914 31 University Circle (1928) 32 University Circle - Discussion only - BAR Sept 20, 2022 Page 19 of 20 20 University Circle (1912) 30 University Circle (1910) 1836 University Circle (c1959) 1824 University Circle (1915) 9-9-2022 32 University Circle - Discussion only - BAR Sept 20, 2022 Page 20 of 20 1835 University Circle (1922) 1831 University Circle (1987) 9-9-2022 1832 University Circle (2014) 1841 University Circle (1910)