Agenda City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Regular Meeting October 18, 2022, 5:30 p.m. Hybrid Meeting (In-person at CitySpace and virtual via Zoom) Welcome to this Regular Monthly Meeting of the Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review. Staff will introduce each item, followed by the applicant’s presentation, which should not exceed ten minutes. The Chair will then ask for questions from the public, followed by questions from the BAR. After questions are closed, the Chair will ask for comments from the public. For each application, members of the public are each allowed three minutes to ask questions and three minutes to offer comments. Speakers shall identify themselves and provide their address. Comments should be limited to the BAR’s purview; that is, regarding only the exterior aspects of a project. Following the BAR’s discussion and prior to taking action, the applicant will have up to three minutes to respond. Please note the times given are approximate only. 5:00 Pre-Meeting Discussion 5:30 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 for the December 21, 2021 meeting. C. Deferred Items 5:40 2. Certificate of Appropriateness 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 6:15 3. 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 October 18, 2022 BAR Meeting (10-13-2022 - Final) 1 D. New Items 6:50 4. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR # 22-10-01 1109 & 1121 Wertland Street (1025-1213), TMP 040305000 Wertland Street ADC District Owner: Neighborhood Investments--WS Applicant: Richard Spurzem Project: Rehabilitate exterior siding and trim 7:10 5. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR # 22-10-02 101 East Jefferson Street, TMP 330190000 North Downtown ADC District (contributing) Owner: First United Methodist Church Applicant: William L. Owens, AIA Project: Install rooftop solar panels 7:40 6. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR # 22-10-03 612 West Main Street (also 602-616), TMP 290003000 West Main ADC District Owner: Heirloom West Main Street Second Phase LLC Applicant: Jeff Dreyfus, Bushman Dreyfus Architects Project: New building: modification to approved façade E. Other Business 8:15 7. Discussion: No action to be taken. Request: Options for the required height step backs. BAR # 19-09-04 (Sept 2019: BAR recommended SUP would have no adverse impact.) 218 West Market Street, TMP 330276000 Owner: Market Street Promenade, LLC, Owner Applicant: Heirloom Real Estate Holdings LLC, Applicant Project: New structure 8:45 8 Discussion: No action to be taken. Request: Relocate c1900 building approx. 25-feet towards street. 1025 Wertland Street, (1025-1213), TMP 040305000 Wertland Street ADC District Owner: Neighborhood Investments --WS Applicant: Kevin Riddle, Mitchell Matthews 9:15 9. Staff questions/discussion  Intro: 300 Court Square  BAR Notebook  Mall trees  BAR awards 2022 F. Adjourn 9:30 October 18, 2022 BAR Meeting (10-13-2022 - Final) 2 BAR MINUTES CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW Regular Meeting December 21, 2021 – 5:00 PM Zoom Webinar Welcome to this Regular Monthly Meeting of the Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review (BAR). Due to the current public health emergency, this meeting is being held online via Zoom. The meeting process will be as follows: For each item, staff will make a brief presentation followed by the applicant’s presentation, after which members of the public will be allowed to speak. Speakers shall identify themselves, and give their current address. Members of the public will have, for each case, up to three minutes to speak. Public comments should be limited to the BAR’s jurisdiction; that is, regarding the exterior design of the building and site. Following the BAR’s discussion, and before the vote, the applicant shall be allowed up to three minutes to respond, for the purpose of clarification. Thank you for participating. Members Present: James Zehmer, Carl Schwarz, Cheri Lewis, Ron Bailey, Breck Gastinger, Jody Lahendro, Robert Edwards, Tim Mohr Members Absent: Andy McClure Staff Present: Patrick Cory, Robert Watkins, Jeff Werner, Remy Trail, James Freas Pre-Meeting: James Freas, the new director of Neighborhood Development Services, joined the BAR meeting to be introduced to the BAR. Staff sent out information about the Belmont Bridge and if the BAR had any questions regarding the slip joints of the Belmont Bridge. The BAR was given an update regarding the Belmont Bridge and the slip joints on the Belmont Bridge. Mr. Gastinger expressed disappointment in this process with the Belmont Bridge. There was discussion on Rugby Road. There was discussion regarding the Rugby Road COA application. Ms. Lewis brought up the guidelines for the neighborhood with Rugby Road. The chairman had a question for Mr. Freas regarding changes being made to the final site plan after the COA has been issued. The chairman wanted to bring it to the attention of Mr. Freas. A. Matters from the public not on the agenda No Public Comments B. Consent Agenda (Note: Any consent agenda item may be pulled and moved to the regular agenda if a BAR member wishes to discuss it, or if any member of the public is present to comment on it. Pulled applications will be discussed at the beginning of the meeting.) 1. Approval of Meeting Minutes from May 18, 2021 2. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 21-12-01 112 W Market Street (The Haven), TMP 330254000 Downtown ADC District Owner: First Street Church Project, LLC Applicant: Kathy Garstang, Building Goodness Foundation BAR Meeting Minutes December 21, 2021 (Draft) 1 Project: Garden Motion by Mr. Lahendro to approve the Consent Agenda – Second by Ms. Lewis – Motion passes 6-0 with one abstention (Mr. Gastinger) C. Deferred Items 3. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 21-04-04 517 Rugby Road, TMP 050046000 Rugby Road-University Circle-Venable ADC District Owner: Alumni of Alpha Mu, Inc Applicant: Garett Rouzer/Dalgliesh Gilpin Paxton Architects Project: Alterations to fraternity house Jeff Werner, Staff Report –Year Built: c1910 District: Rugby Road - University Circle - Venable Neighborhood ADC District Status: Contributing. (The house is also a contributing structure to the Rugby Road - University Corner Historic District - VLR 1983, NRHP 1984.) Constructed as a private residence. 2-1/2 story, Colonial Revival. The house features a symmetrical, three-bay front façade with a hipped roof and a front, hipped dormer with latticed casement windows. On the side (south) façade is a two-story bay, on the front (east) facade is a center bay, distyle porch with attenuated Roman Doric columns and a hipped roof. The entrance door features geometrically glazed sidelights and an elliptical, fan-light transom. In the 1964, the house transitioned to its current use as a fraternity house. The City’s 1983 historic survey notes the siding is wood shingles, which were installed over the original, weatherboard wood siding. Per the applicant’s 2014 submittal*, in 1987, both layers were removed--including the corner boards and trim--and replaced with the current Masonite siding. Additionally, the applicant noted: the windows were originally 2 over 2—some have been replaced; the originally open south porch was enclosed with 8 over 8 windows; the wood shingle or slate roof was replaced with asphalt shingles; and the southwest chimney was lowered and capped. CoA request for front porch extension and reconstruction, the addition to and rehabilitation of the existing house, and the related sitework and landscaping. Existing • Existing chimney to remain • Existing frieze board to remain • Replace siding with exposure (6”) to match that of the existing, non-historic Masonite siding. • Replace corner board to match existing non-historic • Repair existing windows: Applicant’s note: Existing windows date to mid-twentieth century. Replacement sashes were installed c.2014 or later. Anticipated repairs in place will only include weather sealing, painting, and limited wood restoration as required. • Existing skylight to remain • Repair existing security lights • Shutters on East Elevation will be repaired and reinstalled with their current inoperable function. Shutters on other elevations have previously been removed and will not be replaced. • New gutters and downspouts: Ogee profile painted aluminum gutter, rectangular painted aluminum downspout. Front Porch Applicant’s note: Annotated photos document existing historic and non-historic conditions. Submittal drawings illustrate both detailed existing historic condition, and new condition with distinguishing details. BAR Meeting Minutes December 21, 2021 (Draft) 2 • New metal roofing on existing non-historic entry porch roof: Prefinished (painted, Charcoal Gray) standing seam metal roof with traditional appearance to seams and hips. • Porch addition with metal roofing, railing, columns and entablature with details to differ from historic • Historic porch columns, architrave and frieze to remain • Porch ceiling (additions): Cementitious bead-board ceiling • Gutters and downspouts: Ogee profile painted aluminum gutter, rectangular painted aluminum downspout. • New brick pier (match existing brick) • Historic front door, transom and sidelights will remain. Rear Addition • Remove existing stair, projection and dormer. • Roof: New asphalt shingles to match existing non-historic • Siding: new, 7 1/4” exposure cementitious siding and corner board. (The exposure will differentiate the addition from the existing house, which will have a 6” exposure.) • Panels at rear elevation: cementitious flat panels with flat trim. • Doors and windows: New aluminum clad windows. Pella Reserve. • Trim: New rim board. • Cornice: Existing cornice has frieze board below the bed molding. New cornice on the addition will omit this frieze board for distinguishing characteristic. • New brick foundation (match existing brick) • Stairs: Wood, painted. • Railings: Metal, painted black. • Gutters and downspouts: Ogee profile painted aluminum gutter, rectangular painted aluminum downspout. Lighting • Driveway facade door lighting fixture: Progress Lighting 5” cylinder. Dimmable, CT 3000K, CRI 90. • Social terrace lighting fixture: Standard flood lights. (120W PAR-38 lamping is available that is dimmable and with CT 3000K.) • Recessed lighting fixtures: Iolite LED. Dimmable, CT 3000K. CRI 90. Note: [from applicant]: Building-mounted security lighting has been moved to lowest position possible that provides adequate area illumination for pedestrian safety, while remaining above pedestrian reach height to prevent tampering. Site • Terrace and patio: Brick walls with blue stone pavers • Retaining wall (with steps) at front yard: 24 - 30” +/- height. Fieldstone wall like existing. Alternate: CMU/concrete wall with stone facing, pending final wall height. Landscaping • New tree at front yard: Black gum tree • Hedge at front yard hedge and at rear patio: Buttonbush • Front walk plantings: American sweetshrub • Hedge at side yard: Winterberry holly Discussion and Recommendations BAR should rely on the germane sections of the ADC District Design Guidelines and related review criteria. While elements of other chapters may be relevant, staff recommends that the BAR refer to Chapter IV—Rehabilitation, and Chapter VII--Demolitions and Moving. BAR Meeting Minutes December 21, 2021 (Draft) 3 As a checklist for the preliminary discussion, the criteria for Additions in Chapter III: • Function and Size • Location • Design • Replication of Style • Materials and Features • Attachment to Existing Building The BAR should also consider the building elements and details necessary to evaluate the project. Renderings and schematics communicates mass, scale, design and composition; however a complete application should include details and specific information about the projects materials and components. For example: • Measured drawings: Elevations, wall details, etc. • Roofing: Flat, hipped, etc. Metal, slate, asphalt. Flashing details. • Gutters/downspouts: Types, color, locations, etc. • Foundation. • Walls: Masonry, siding, stucco, etc. • Soffit, cornice, siding, and trim. • Color palette. • Doors and windows: Type, lite arrangement, glass spec, trim details, etc. • Porches and decks: Materials, railing and stair design, etc. • Landscaping/hardscaping: Grading, trees, low plants, paving materials, etc. • Lighting. Fixture cut sheets, lamping, etc. Regarding the front porch: The house was constructed c1910. The 1920 Sanborn Map (below) indicates a porch of a similar size and location to the existing; however, in 1915 (photos below) the porch roof was flat with an upper railing—the columns and entablature appear to be the same, if not similar. The prior design essentially replaced the existing porch, extending it across the façade. The current design retains the existing columns (full and engaged) and entablature as a discrete element, separate from the porch extensions on either side. BAR should discuss the extent that the details and features of the new are differentiated from the existing—columns, railings, entablature, celling, etc. In the design guidelines for porches (Section D in Rehabilitations) are three specific recommendations that should be applied here: 1. The original details and shape of porches should be retained including the outline, roof height, and roof pitch. 4. Replace an entire porch only if it is too deteriorated to repair or is completely missing, and design to match the original as closely as possible. 7. Do not remove or radically change entrances and porches important in defining the building’s overall historic character. Staff note on suggested motions: Applicant informed staff they plan to complete the construction documents in April 2022 and initiate construction by June 2022. This project has at least three separate components: the front porch, the addition to/rehab of the existing house, and the related site work/landscaping. If there are elements of a component that require clarification and/or further submittals, but the other component(s) are acceptable as submitted, staff suggests approving what is ready and omitting from the CoA what is not. A requested CoA cannot be approved piecemeal. Components cannot be approved, with others deferred for consideration under the same application. However, the latter can be omitted from the approved CoA and resubmitted later as a new request, requiring a new application and fee. BAR should consider the following conditions: BAR Meeting Minutes December 21, 2021 (Draft) 4 • All lamping for exterior lights will be dimmable, have a Color Temperature not exceeding 3,000K, and have a Color Rendering Index of not less than 80, preferably not less than 90. • The cementitious siding, trim and materials will be smooth, no faux grain. Eric Amtmann, Applicant – With this first slide, I would like to start with going briefly through the various periods that we have seen the building in and make a clear distinction so we all have the same understanding of the existing historic versus existing non-historic to the period of significance, which we are calling early 20th Century circa 1915. Staff touched on that with the shingles as being one of those items. The top left photo is circa 1915; built roughly in 1910. What we can see there is a slate shingled roof as evidenced by the lead hip-caps, horizontal siding, and corner boards. You can see that there are 41 rows of siding in this existing historic condition. You can see, on the south side, there is an open porch within 5 years of being built as well as shutters on both primary east façade and north façade. You can see a distyled center bay entry porch with a low slope, most likely close to a flat roof with a balustrade, saturated tarp paper for the roofing material, possibly flat seamed metal. We can’t tell from the photograph. We can see that it has a very low slope and a railing from the front column connecting to the house. We know that it has vertical pickets. Those are the significant existing historic conditions. Moving to the top right photo (circa 1983), the corner boards and siding were completely obscured with a shingles overlay. That’s what previous reports say covered the previous historic siding material. Today, those shingles are gone. The siding underneath is existing non-historic Masonite. The corner boards do appear to be historic. If they’re repairable, we would certainly like to keep them in their existing position. You can see from the front entry porch retains its distyle configuration. It appears to have close to the historic entablature up through the cornice in place. The roof has been removed and replaced. You can see the peak of that hip comes almost up to the windowsill. The porch on the south side has been enclosed. It appears that gutters and downspouts are close to their original historic configuration. Down and to the left, we have siding in place, which is non-historic, shutters remaining on the east elevation, which is the entry elevation (non-historic). The windows have also been replaced. With the existing windows, I can’t tell you what was there in 1983. We do know that the double hung, two over two windows that are there now are not the historic windows. They were also not replaced with sash replacements as proposed in 2014, the last time this project came before the BAR. Sash replacements with the existing, non-historic frames was approved. That work was not done. We still have the mid-century windows and will be proposing to repair those in place. There are some details regarding the entry porch. I have photographs that are detailed photographs. The understructure (the floor, the flooring) are existing non-historic. There are various conditions of historic and non- historic. In our proposed elevation, we’re proposing to retain the historic center bay porch in place and adding rings. There would be distinguishing details so that we’re not copying the historic conditions. Next Slide In the center part of the house is the historic existing footprint with the enclosed to the south. The purple areas are areas of proposed new construction of covered parking area and terraced to the left and open/uncovered terrace to the south. In that same area, those cross-hatched red areas are selected removals of existing non-historic additions. The blue areas on the east elevation on the entry side would be the proposed porch extensions. You can see the dystyled columns and the half rectangular pilasters (all historic) engaged to the east wall. We would be proposing to add half engaged pilasters of different profiles and round columns at the outside corners. Next Slide The bubbles distinguish all the specific materials. With landscaping, we have a city plant list with items called out as appropriate. There are some existing steps that lead up to this center entrance, which will be reconstructed with retaining walls as well as a second new sidewalk instead of steps slightly to the south and a retaining wall rebuilt between those two stairs. There is an existing tree to the left of the driveway. It is the biggest tree in the front yard. It is in good condition, and it will be retained. On the southeast corner of the house, there’s a new tree. That tree is no longer there. We will BAR Meeting Minutes December 21, 2021 (Draft) 5 leave it for questions if anybody has questions about the detail. If you see the two arrows on the plan, it is a split plan. We’re showing the first floor, which is one story higher to the east on the entry side. To the west, it is the lower floor. Next Slide These are existing condition photographs. There is an aggregation of various conditions of that porch. We have treated lumber, balustrades, decking, and treated lumber floor joists all dangerous states of disrepair. In the lower right, that’s the existing set of steps and the non-existent retaining wall. Next Slide The top left photograph is the northeast corner, which shows how the driveway goes down towards the west side of the site and the lower level. It also shows views from adjacent properties. With the two at the bottom, you can see existing, non-historic secretions on the back. We’re certain that these are non- historic. The brick and the mortar are clearly a later period than the main house. On that second floor, the intersection of that little roof and the historic cornice would not have been done that way. It is clear an afterthought of a later addition. Next Slide This slide shows the areas to be removed. Next Slide The main thing to focus with these renderings is the change in details that provide information for the viewer of what is historic and what is non-historic. Speaking to just the main house, there is an existing breeze board, which shows in the historic photographs. That has been recreated. It exists in its historic condition along with the corner boards. We would retain that. There’s no trim board or rim boards at the bottom. As you move around to the north elevation, you can see the two conditions side by side. The existing historic is on the left and the proposed on the right with changes in the siding spacing. You can also see the changes in the molding profiles and locations. Next Slide What is in blue is the existing historic columns from the bases up to the capitals, freeze, and bed mold in some locations. On the south side, the bed mold has been removed and replaced with a piece of crown molding of a different profile. The proposed area is flanking left and right. Next Slide You can see on the left (south) where the 14 is. That’s the new dormer on the back with siding parallel to the roof. That would have a 3 over 3 windows. The number 3 dormer is on the right (the historic condition with its horizontal siding). There are changes in profiles and siding that indicate it is subtle. It’s enough for DHR and Interior Secretary Standards for distinction of historic and new. Next Slide Photo documentation of front porch. Existing column base is on the left. The non-historic replaced above the bed mold condition is all new structure and trim above the bed mold. Same thing for the pilaster attached to the house. Next Slide The drawing on the left is the field measurements of the existing conditions. That would be for the center bay. We’re proposing to construct for the left and right flanking bays detailed on the right. The existing is Roman Doric simplified. The profiles aren’t elaborate. We’re proposing to have the new details more in line with Tuscan order. You can see the difference between the attic base on the left and the Taurus base on the right as well as decking and capital differences and changes in the moldings on the architrave and bed mold. BAR Meeting Minutes December 21, 2021 (Draft) 6 Next Slide There is also detail for the section for how we would do the railing. This appropriate for a mid-century addition to an early 20th century porch. On the left, is the wood railing. The detail on the right is the metal handrail, which you get around the southwest side of the terraces. Next Slide With the light cut sheets, the down light goes over the lower-level entrance door. The wall or soffit mounted security lighting is indicated in various locations all along the rendered elevations. We have them as low as we can get them to minimize light throw onto adjoining properties but high enough to light the area that needs to be lit and out of the reach range of tampering. Those are the recessed ceiling lights above the parking area. QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC Eric Edwardson – I am from the Alumni Corporation Board. I just wanted to let you know that I was here. QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Zehmer – On the first plan that shows the demolition, it looks like there are a couple of windows shown as being removed. I didn’t see those being removed from the elevations. I am just wandering if you could speak to that. Are those going to be removed? Mr. Amtmann – They’ll be removed and replaced with new units to match the rest of the new units that are going in on the first and second floors and up in the attic level. That’s all embedded with the new construction, except for the porch on the south. On the lower level, those need to be doors that go out to that covered terrace area. The flanking windows are shown as relocated. Mr. Zehmer – There’s one on the north side at the driveway? Mr. Amtmann – That’s at the lower level. I am not sure why that is shown as being removed. That’s a small coal hopper window. Mr. Zehmer – The diagram shows those as being non-historic? Mr. Antmann – That’s correct. Mr. Zehmer – Is that the just the sash that is non-historic or the opening itself? Mr. Antmann – In the first and second floors or the ones that are being removed? Mr. Zehmer – The ones being removed. Mr. Antmann – They are all non-historic. That lower level is reconfigured. Mr. Schwarz – The street shrubs are awfully tall. Is that intentional to let them get that tall? Google said that those would be about 13 feet tall in front of the front porch. With the button bush, it would be 6 to 12 feet tall along the street. Is the intention for those to get to full height? BAR Meeting Minutes December 21, 2021 (Draft) 7 Mr. Amtmann – No. They need to be maintained down at the street level to around 5 feet, maybe 6 feet. Foundation plantings next to the porch need to be 3 feet. We don’t want those over the floor when we have about 28 inches of vertical there. Mr. Gastinger – You referenced the retaining wall on Rugby. I didn’t see a material list or height. I don’t see much information about that in the documentation. Mr. Amtmann – Staff and I did discuss that. I guess it didn’t get into what was submitted on record. We will do either a block or concrete retaining wall with stone facing or just a stone wall. The intent would be to have it be rounded field stone that looks like it is natural to that area. The reason I don’t say it is a reinforced concrete wall or stone wall is because I am not sure how high it is. We need a structural engineer to detail that. It’s not going to be an engineered self-stacking, non-mortared wall. The intent is for it to look like a field stone retaining wall. Mr. Gastinger – That would be a stone cap as well? Mr. Amtmann – Not with a cap like you think of as a ledge stone. It’s just the rubble wall up to a mortared top. Mr. Schwarz – With the front porch roof, you mentioned when you were looking at the historic photographs that the current roof goes up to the underside of the windowsill. Your drawings show it a little bit lower and labels it as a historic roof to be reroofed. Are you intending to lower the slope of the roof? Mr. Amtmann – No. We wouldn’t be changing the framing unless it needed to be changed. Mr. Schwarz – It will match what is existing? Mr. Amtmann – The existing non-historic roof framing will stay where it is and be repaired in place if necessary. Ms. Lewis – You’re saying all of the windows on the back of the house are not original? Mr. Amtmann – None of the windows surrounding the house, to my knowledge, are historic. They have all been replaced roughly mid-century. They have aluminum sash liners and glazing compound conditions that are not historic. It is not glass from 1910. I can’t speak for sure about the frames inside the walls because we haven’t torn them apart. We’re not changing them except on the east elevation where they have become embedded within the new construction addition. They’re going to be repaired in place. Ms. Lewis – They’re going away on the backside of the addition. Do you think the placement of the windows is original? Mr. Amtmann – I think they’re slightly different sized. We have zoomed in on the siding spacing. We know where the tops and bottoms are. You count off 41 courses in the existing photograph. You do the same on the historic photograph. The windows don’t line up. I think they have moved subtly from the historic condition. We’re not changing them. . Ms. Lewis – What about the door? Is that thought to be original on the back? Is there a transom that has been painted over? What is that detail? BAR Meeting Minutes December 21, 2021 (Draft) 8 Mr. Amtmann – I am honestly not sure since we were planning on that being within the new construction. We haven’t surveyed that door closely. Mr. Mohr – With the security lighting, how do you envision that being used? Is that just because there’s a security situation? Are those things are going to be on all the time? Mr. Amtmann – A little bit of both. I want to show the distinction between the lighting that is already there and what elevation it is at. Above the Delta Sigma Phi letters, there’s some security lighting up there by the downspout and on the other corner, southeast corner in the same location. Those are all the way up at roof level. We will be keeping those in place and repairing if necessary. Everything else is proposed to be new. We have a situation here where there’s a lot of pedestrian traffic at night, after social events, or coming home late from the library, Parts of this building are out of sight, hidden from view of the street, and in secluded areas with no site line. That’s why I am calling them security lighting. We can have them motion-activated if that’s something the Board feels strongly about. There would be periods during a social event where they would be turned on and left on for extended periods of time. Around the other three sides, we have them basically at one floor level above where the ground level is; not all the way up at this very high roof level where you get a lot of light wash spreading further than it needs to. We’re trying to keep them down low so it would be just lighting in the walking areas below. Mr. Zehmer – On the front porch, you were discussing the existing porch’s Roman-Doric columns and the additions being Tuscan. I do think you have been successful to retain that center section. I am worried about where the entablature from the two wings crash into the original porch. Are those entablatures the exact same? Mr. Amtmann – That is the same height. It would intersect well but not be a molding profile. It is basically a flat distillation of the curved molding. Mr. Zehmer – All of the other elements line up? Mr. Amtmann – That’s correct. That mold and the crown mold would. Similar effort was taken where the rail intersection is around the two bases. We’re trying to get that bottom rail to rest in there with the profile on the attic base so it can be coped in without chopping up that base or having an awkward connection. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC No Comments from the Public COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Mohr –The spotlights concern me. At the very minimum, it seems to me that they ought to be footed. There are glare bombs without any kind of shroud on them. Mr. Amtmann – We can certainly do that. Mr. Mohr – That is an antiquated lighting system. Doing something to reduce the amount of light spray and making sure they are really pointed down makes sense. They’re probably more effective up high just for the simple reason you can make them point down. The house is a little below the street. Mr. Amtmann – The existing security lights are up high at the roof level on the entry side. BAR Meeting Minutes December 21, 2021 (Draft) 9 Mr. Mohr – I would rather see a strategy of down lights rather than something that is on the house projecting away from the house. The other thing I wondered about is the pitch on the shed to the left. What is the pitch on that side? Mr. Amtmann – I am not sure. It is existing. I haven’t measured it. It is shown the way it exists. I can’t tell you exactly what the slope is. Mr. Mohr – It looks flat. What about putting a flatter pitch on the two wings so that you get some sense of the prominence of the center section rather than having the same slope? Mr. Amtmann – That’s a good idea. We would be amenable to that, and the roofing material could accommodate that as well. We have 412 slope on it right now. That painted standing seam metal roof can accommodate down to a 212 slope. That’s a good suggestion. Regarding the security lighting, I’d suggest the Board consider making a note in their approval that final fixture be approved administratively. We can certainly accommodate that. Mr. Lahendro – I’m concerned about the two different columns. I’m curious what the Board members think. I understand the intent to have some subtle differences between the two so that you can tell which one is original and which one is later. I worry that instead of a deliberate decision to make a subtle difference, it is going to look more like a clumsy mistake in trying to match something. I prefer a simple square column for the porch extensions and leaving the Doric original columns for the original porch as a distinction between what is new and what is historic. This is the one thing that bothers me: the necking being different. Mr. Amtmann – That’s an interesting comment. We looked at a couple of different schemes that considered square columns there with simpler profiles to them. We thought it looked too weak and that there was too much of a distinction between the two. With the change in the roof slope now also indicating more of a distinction, it is going to have a lighter feel above that entablature. I think that might be a good idea; more distinction that’s clearly differentiated is not as a bad match. Mr. Lahendro – I would like to know what other Board members think. Am I making something up? Is this a concern of anyone else? Mr. Mohr – That’s a very good point. I think that you’re right about the roof making those two more of a line. I can even see if you were worried about the sense of scale, even doing a corner condition where you have three columns if you wanted to make it more distinct and make them square. That would create enough of a distinction from how the corners turn with the old house (round columns) versus three square columns. Mr. Amtmann – We sketched and looked at where the new cornice or the new entablature is hanging on the historic entablature where that T intersection is. We had another column there. It looked like paired columns at that center bay. It was becoming too much. We took it out. With more slender members, we would revisit putting that column back there as well which brackets both of those side bays instead of just letting it hang off the end. Mr. Mohr – If you reinforce that corner that would really get the distinction between how one turns the corner. Mr. Gastinger – I still have a concern. I can’t support the extension of the porch generally. I don’t think our guidelines support it. I don’t think that is in the spirit of the Secretary of Interior Standards. In particular, number 7 of section D: “Do not remove or radically change entrances and porches BAR Meeting Minutes December 21, 2021 (Draft) 10 important defining the building’s overall historic character.” From the historic photos, this has been defining from its construction. I don’t mind the extension of the paved surfaces that are existing there or remaking those into something that is safer. I would also just note that in prior Board review, according to the staff notes, that in 2014 enlargement of the decks that might have been proposed at that time was deemed not appropriate. Otherwise, I am supportive of the project. The approach in the back makes sense. I don’t have too much concern about that. I do feel that this is quite a big change to the historic structure. Mr. Schwarz – I do feel there are enough questions about this porch that we need to separate this COA between the big addition and the porch so that you get a chance to look at the columns, look at the roof slope and bring it back to the Board. It might be important to see, before you do that, how many people on the Board would be supportive of that porch. Mr. Zehmer – If we go down the road of adding roofs to the side porches and that is something we want to accept but there is going to be changes in slope and changes to the columns, I think we would like to see it again in front of the BAR. I would support possibly approve the rear addition and ask them to bring the porch back. Mr. Gastinger – Is there’s anyone ready to approve the porch as documented tonight? I don’t think we will be there. Let’s set that aside and see if there are any other questions related to the rear addition or any other comments related to the rear addition or the site plan. Mr. Schwarz – I had a comment about the site plan. With the plantings along the street, if it is a solid line of hedges, treat it like a wall or a fence. Five or six feet tall is too much for me. If it can be a species that can be lower, I find it problematic to say that it will be cut lower. It never happens. Once it is tall, it is forever that way. I don’t if that is something we can request on this or not. Mr. Gastinger – Button bushes are a little tricky. It is not a particularly robust shrub. Mr. Mohr – I find the decks going off more incompatible with the house than the porch wings. They seem like real anomalies to me. It does make sense that the building is continuing to evolve to some degree. I understand Mr. Gastinger’s point. The porch can be done in such a way. It would be one thing if this was an absolute architectural gem. It is a nice house. I think it can take some modification over time without compromising the character. The low decks don’t do it for me. Mr. Werner – The last time you looked at a hedge, it was 128 Madison Lane. They were adding a continuing hedge around it. You all had made a recommendation that the front hedge be maintained at four feet or lower, any side hedge be properly maintained at five feet or lower. It was a recommendation. If I recall, the conversation was one of the enforcement. I do believe that if you establish a height as a condition of approval that allows us to have something to fall back on. I don’t think it’s outside the possibilities of what you all can establish as a condition. Mr. Schwarz –Mr. Gastinger, I don’t know what a button bush is. Mr. Gastinger – Button bush is a native shrub. It is a good species. It’s found in the woods in damp areas. It doesn’t have a huge track record as a particularly robust hedge in the city. I would strongly recommend to the group that they consider something that is going to be more robust and deal with the foot traffic and the conditions on that busy corner. I do like the recommendation of keeping it maintained at four feet or lower. Mr. Schwarz – For precedent, when Chris Long was doing his house on Park Street, I know we held them up for at least three meetings because of a hedge that he wanted in the front. We finally got them BAR Meeting Minutes December 21, 2021 (Draft) 11 down to a boxwood that was short. He proceeded to plant something behind it that was about ten feet tall. Mr. Amtmann – We’re not interested in trying to circumvent the requirements or desires on this. We’re trying to add landscaping that’s an improvement to the neighborhood. We’re open to all kinds of suggestions. Mr. Gastinger – It sounds like there’s general support. I haven’t heard any strong concerns about the rear addition. The kinds of conditions that I have heard relate to the ones that the staff have already recommended: shrouds on security lighting, the retaining wall at Rugby to be field stone or field stone clad wall, and the recommendation of the hedge at the street be maintained at four feet or lower. Mr. Mohr – Do want motion detectors on the security lighting so it is not on all night? That goes back to the city having a lighting ordinance. Light pollution is an issue. Mr. Werner – The retaining wall at the front yard with a 20 to 30 inch height with field stone wall similar to existing alternative: concrete wall with stone pending final wall height. It’s in the staff report as an option. Mr. Amtmann – Would it be better for the applicant to remove consideration of the porch from this application to be presented in a new application at a later date so it doesn’t have to be declined in this motion? Motion – Ms. Lewis – Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find that the demolition and addition to and rehabilitation of the existing house, specifically the rear addition and the related site work and landscaping at 517 Rugby Road satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are compatible with this property and other properties in the Rugby Road - University Circle - Venable Neighborhood ADC District, and that the BAR approves the application as submitted with the following conditions or modifications: • That the applicant will submit a substitute fixture for the yard security lights that will include shrouds and motion detectors. • All lamping for exterior lights will be dimmable, have a Color Temperature not exceeding 3,000K, and have a Color Rendering Index of not less than 80, preferably not less than 90. • We recommend choosing a smaller shrub species more suitable for being sidewalk adjacent and that it is required to be maintained at a height not to exceed four feet. • The cementitious siding, trim and materials will be smooth, no faux grain. • That the retaining wall at Rugby Road be a fieldstone or fieldstone-clad wall. Mr. Lahendro seconds the motion. This motion does not address approval of the front porch. Motion passes 8-0. 4. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 20-11-03 612 West Main Street (also 602-616), Tax Parcel 290003000 West Main ADC District Owner: Heirloom West Main Street Second Phase LLC Applicant: Jeff Dreyfus, Bushman Dreyfus Architects Project: Construction of a mixed-use building Jeff Werner, Staff Report – Year Built: 1959-1973 (concrete block automotive service building) BAR Meeting Minutes December 21, 2021 (Draft) 12 District: West Main Street ADC District Status: Non-contributing. CoA request for construction of a new, four-story mixed-use building. (The existing service station a non-contributing structure; therefore, its demolition does not require a CoA.) 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 çade at street level; o SUP item 3: There shall be pedestrian engagement with the street with an active, ransparent, and permeable façade at street level. Jody Lahendro – In the interest of full disclosure, I have my office in the Holsinger Building next door, The First Baptist Church. While I have a wonderful view of the construction that is going to start to happen next door. I have no financial interests or connection at all to the project at 612 West Main Street. I feel that I can participate in this discussion without any partiality Jeff Dreyfus, Applicant – We are looking for design approval of the project tonight. We hope to begin construction in April of 2022. What I will try to focus on tonight is landscape and hardscape. That has evolved a bit since the last meeting. We have a lighting concept that we would like to review with all of you. I would like to touch upon the brick for the exterior. At the last meeting, there was a request for a number of technical details, which are now in the package that you all have, specifically related to thin brick and how it will be attached to the building and detailed questions such as railings, which are also now in the packet. Next Slide What you see here is a plan of the ground floor of both 600 and 612 West Main Street, the new project. This is here in the event we start talking about the façade. The east side of the building will be exposed in the courtyard of 600 West Main Street. It also gives you an idea that the two buildings will be connected via that existing courtyard. We have yet to work out the details of how the paving might change within the courtyard. That will happen so we have access to the new building. Next Slide You start to see some of the exterior details. We do have to close the space on the far left. On the new building on the right side (600 West Main Street in the light gray), there are some mechanical units. That will remain between the two buildings. There will be a small fence that will hide those mechanical units from view on both sides. You will see that the window surrounds, the windows, the railings, and this fence are all shown as being a light bronze. This comes across as way too gold throughout the presentation. We’re happy to come back with physical examples of the items for a final review. BAR Meeting Minutes December 21, 2021 (Draft) 13 Next Slide With the building elevations, I don’t believe there’s anything new. We still have the majority of the façade that comes towards West Main Street broken into the two masses that come forward with hyphens between them. Stepping back further is the fourth floor and the entrance to the residential component of the project. Next Slide As we get further into the details, I can talk about the brick. At the last BAR meeting, we had some images of our first pass at brick. Concern was expressed that what we were showing was too institutional and a little too much like school cafeteria, almost a glazed brick. The color was a bit more like concrete. Since that time, we have identified another brick that we like very much. It is a much cleaner brick. Unfortunately, because of the supply chain, we are probably three to four weeks out before we will have a sample panel done for final review and approval. We’re working as hard as we can to get that completed. That sample panel will have a number of conditions in them representing what we’re talking about tonight. On these drawings, you will see that we identify five different types of brick. Brick #1 is called Monarch Brick. It’s actually twice the length of the standard brick. It’s as thin as the standard brick. The two elements that come forward will be the Monarch Brick. The joints will be standard concave joints. What we’re looking to do here is a very quiet and relatively smooth surface. Another one of those bricks is a thin version of the Monarch Brick. That’s brick #5. It is the same brick visually. Technically, it’s a different thickness. That brick will be used above the windows in those two portions of the building that come forward. The hyphens will be a standard modular brick. It will have a raked joint. We’re looking to emphasize the horizontals. We will also have angled bricks within that. You’ll be able to see that further into the presentation. That is so those panels recede. It will also be used on the residential entry. At the residential entry, there is going to be a plaster wall. It will be the one material that is smoother than anything else on the façade. The textured brick will be used on the hyphens, the residential component in the back, and on the left hand side (the east elevation of that residential lot) as it faces 600 West Main Street’s courtyard. The rest of the building will be standard modular brick with concave joints, whether thin or thick. Those are the various brick types. The 3-D representations may be the easier place to look at all of them. Knowing that the brick is a crucial component of this, there are samples we are having made and will be done to represent all of the various conditions, including the brick surrounds that we’re showing around each of the windows. Next Slide This is the elevation facing 600 West Main Street. It is all textured modular brick for this façade. Next Slide For glass, we are specifying that the glass on the entire north façade will be 70% VLT per the guidelines. That will be in both the retail and the residential components. All of the facades are going to be lesser for energy efficiency. Next Slide This is the south façade facing the railroad tracks. As we have discussed, the brick wraps the bookends. We have EFIS exterior insulation system. It essentially looks like stucco on the rear façade. It will be a color that will come close to matching the brick. The railings will be the light bronze. Next Slide This is the elevation facing the alley between us and the Holsinger Building to the west. You can see the hyphen on the far left. The textured brick on that will dive into the standard modular brick on the remainder of the building. It is a setback between those two elevations. Next Slide BAR Meeting Minutes December 21, 2021 (Draft) 14 This is a close up of the retail on the lower level and the residential on the upper level. These are the first three floors. You can see the Monarch Brick The surround on the retail ends will be metal. You will see that more in the 3-D representations. The railings will be a horizontal bar on top. We’re not going to be seeing attachments on the sides. The railings themselves are half-inch round rods. They will be irregularly spaced. The elevation is so highly regulated. Next Slide What we wanted to show here is how the thin brick will be attached to the building as much as the standard brick. The brick that we will be proposing comes with corner sections. When thin brick turns the corner, there are sections that are fabricated so that the brick looks like a standard brick thickness from the side. It won’t appear to be wallpaper. This is a section through the north façade showing retail, residential, and the step-back for the upper terrace on the fourth floor. Next Slide This is a detail through the residential entrance with a sloped ceiling with thin brick on the ceiling sloping down to the glass entry of the residential lobby. One thing that has changed is that we just learned that we will have a green roof on a portion of this building. We were anticipating that was on the south elevation as you can see on the far right. The terraces just above the ground floor level would have a green roof off the terraces themselves. Unfortunately, we were just informed that we need to move it to the rooftop for purposes that are more technical. There will still be a green roof here. We hope, in the future, to have a rooftop terrace. There’s not a plan at the moment to provide access to the public. The green roof will be up there and is being planned so we don’t preclude a rooftop terrace in the future. Next Slide Some of the details are showing more of the thin brick, where we intent to use it, and calling out some of the details of the brick that surrounds the protrusions around some of the windows. Next Slide On this page, you do start to see what we are proposing. This is a photograph of the brick that we anticipate using. You can see on the second image that is the pattern we are proposing for the hyphens and the residential block that sits back from the street. One point of reference for the brick we’re talking about is that it is not as light as the brick that was used on the Quirk. This is a little darker. We have a sample of that to show that to you once the samples are up. We’re looking for more of a cream color that has a bit of grey in it. The plaster for the walled residential entry. Next Slide This is talking about signage for both the residential component and the retail components. Our proposal is that for the residential, the signage would be slightly offset of the wall. Above the five retail entries, would be the signage for the individual retailers. It would be applied to the metal panels. They will not be backlit. With the lighting concept, we will talk about how the signage for the retail would be lit. We are well under the city’s allowed maximum signage. Next Slide The planned mechanical units will not be seen from the street from any angle. They’re set well into the middle of the building. You can see where the rooftop terrace might be going in the future. At this point, there does not appear to be any need for screening of these units. Anne Pray, Applicant – Next Slide BAR Meeting Minutes December 21, 2021 (Draft) 15 I want to go through some of the few changes we have made to the plan that are some subtle shifts. The plan should look familiar to everyone at this point. In the residential and tree area, we have straightened out the garden plan to allow for the curve of the residential entry to really read as something more special and unique to the whole surrounding. That garden plan has gone from the senioous form to the more straight lines coming into the building. We are now specifically calling out the street trees. There were some questions about that the last time. We are calling out those trees. We have also added in two handrails at the end of the plan. To the far left, you can see those. In general, we have more specific callouts for materials here. We are calling out the plain grey concrete surface along the front of the building and the concrete pavers in the residential entry area. The plan should read as pretty familiar. Next Slide In the conversation last month, there was some questions about the existing conditions. One question was about what type of trees are there now. The trees are zelkovas. You can see in the plan the one with the green center is going to stay. That is just beyond our property boundary and closer to the retail store. We have these five zelkovas along the frontage that will go. Next Slide You can see in the elevation a couple of the changes. The four trees as required, the shifts in the garden plan allowing for the curve to read a little bit more clearly at the residential entry, and the handrails at the end. The metal planters on the far right did grow slightly. We have a little more planting area in that planter. Next Slide We are trying to identify and get clearer about the intent with all of the subtle elements that are making up this landscape: the bike rack, the handrail, one of our planters has a bench on it. We’re looking at a wood product to use for that, concrete pavers. The planter color will match the windows and the rails. There’s a little bit about the tree canopy and the planting in the courtyard, which we are looking to make that planting be about greens and textures and not a lot of color there. We’re looking to use the planters to get more vibrant color going along the street but trying to project that kind of calm presence with the plantings. Mr. Dreyfus – Next Slide The lighting concept is to allow those two elements, the two blocks closest to West Main Street to move forward by not emphasizing them, allowing the interior lighting to move closer to the street. Part of the BAR’s guidelines are to bring as much life to the street. Our concern about how they’re lighting those two blocks that move forward would be that we might be obliterating the actual activity in the lighting coming from the residential units. We have a multilayered lighting scheme to try to allow the vitality/activity of what is going on within to actually liven up that part that is closest to West Main Street. Next Slide This slide is the overview. With the following slides, they will address the individual components. We are not suggesting this light will be yellow. These were part of the lighting concept presentation to us about how and where we would be putting lights. We have 3000K as the light sources. This is just to represent where it will be. Each of these individual components will be able to individually be dimmed. I would suggest those two columns at the far right on the hyphen and besides the residential entry; we would be able to dim those down individually. The overall scheme is to light the residential entry sign for the residential entry back from the street. There will be a little downlight in that vestibule. The rest of the light will be coming from within the building. The hyphens and the BAR Meeting Minutes December 21, 2021 (Draft) 16 residential entry block would have light coming from the ground. Those two hyphens and residential component are going to have a textured brick. The point is to really emphasize that as we graze it with light from below. The fourth floor terraces will not have lights on the building. You can see a little glow on the fourth floor. That’s going to be light reflected off of the paving on those terraces. There will be some lighting in the railing/cornice. On the backside of it, we will be putting a little light on the ground surface. There won’t be any lights on the building. On the building, the remaining element would be lighting of the retail signs in each of the bays. That’s the only light within the larger elements that comes forward. We’re really highlighting retailers’ signage at night as it is seen from West Main Street. The final element is that there will be some lighting in the sides, within the planters, to throw some ambient lighting on the sidewalk. Next Slide Some of the types of lights that we’re looking at include the linear light. You can see the purple dashed line up at the cornice. That is on the resident’s side of the cornice lighting down. That’s the linear light at the top right. The next light is light that we will be using that will be within the retail headers/lighting the signage and over at the residential component throwing light down on the walking surfaces. That fixture to the right would be inside the planters. The light at the bottom would be in the ground throwing light up onto the two hyphens and over the residential component. Next Slide The light patterning on the top right would be for the retailers and how the light would be seen on the retailer façade. On the bottom right is how we would be grazing the textured brick and the hyphens. Next Slide In the residential components, you can see the downlights. We will be using the lighting for the 612 sign. It will probably be a ground-mounted light nearby. You can some ground-lights putting a little bit of light (edge of the planting bed) on the path towards the residential entry. Next Slide The other thing we wanted to note here was that part of the reason we designed the building the way we have was not to cover up the mural on the side at 600 West Main Street. We wanted to keep that. We want it to be an element of experience walking down Main Street. The lighting of that will be very soft and intended to give it a glow so it does have a presence at night. Next Slide The views speak well for themselves. We tried very hard to model texture brick in the locations that it will be. It’s hard for that to come across in some of these renderings. I believe the massing of the building reads clearly in terms of where we will have color, how we will have color, and overall massing and street presence. It has been a long road for all us. While we don’t have a final brick selection and you saw the first lighting presentation of a lighting concept, we would like to ask for approval conditioned on final approved brick color and pattern. If there are issues or concerns and if we need to come back regarding lighting, we’re happy to do that. With two members of the BAR leaving after this meeting, we would hate to lose the continuity. With an attempt to begin construction in the early spring, we don’t have time to lose. QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No Questions from the Public BAR Meeting Minutes December 21, 2021 (Draft) 17 QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Mohr – You mentioned color. I am not seeing a lot of color. I am seeing lighter tones in the building next door. The only color I am seeing is the bronze in the plantings. Is that correct? Mr. Dreyfus – That is correct. We have had this discussion before. Our hope is that we will get it with planter boxes on the railings. As I have said, that is not entirely within owner’s control because of maintenance issues. Mr. Gastinger – You said that the brick panels will be forthcoming. Is the strategy with the way the textured pattern is to be created with one edge of the brick tilting out? Is that still the plan? Mr. Dreyfus – That is still the plan. Mr. Gastinger – I am curious how much relief you’re thinking about getting or hoping to get with that. Is that being filled with mortar on the back side? Mr. Dreyfus – When it is laid, it will be filled with mortar in the back so the backside of the wall is a continuous surface. We don’t want water sitting back there. In terms of the depth of the furthest brick or furthest out-corner of the brick, my recollection of the sample panel was that it was an inch and a half. It will be represented on the panels. We have done some panels. Until we get the right brick, we did not want to send anybody to Allied Street. It would have been a futile effort. It will be represented in those. I suspect that it is going to be an inch and a half. Twi inches might be a little bit of a stretch. Mr. Lahendro – Does that mean the head joints are going to be wider there? Or is the brick going to be cut so that the head joint is consistently the same width? Mr. Dreyfus – The head joint will consistently the same width. Mr. Lahendro – With the number of street trees, how were four street trees decided upon? Ms. Pray – The four is based on the city requirements for canopy coverage and street frontage. I believe there were more trees there because they were fronting a parking lot. Me. Lahendro – Is that the minimum? Could more trees be added? Ms. Pray – We meet the requirement for the number of trees. We exceed the canopy coverage by almost four times the amount based on that site plan calculation. If we looked at adding another tree, it would likely happen on the far right hand side of the building as we look at that elevation. The team has always talked about the trees as far as looking forward to the West Main Street project. They show four trees in that area. We worked back and forth with that number as well. Mr. Lahendro – It looked like to me that they were paired. I thought that had something to do with the architecture of the two prominent bays. Is that not the case? Ms. Pray – The layout is in part to work with the architecture. Mr. Lahendro – A tree could not be added in that gap between the two pairs? Ms. Pray – I do not believe so. If there was really a discussion to be had there, you could discuss shifting that second group of trees on the right hand side one bay over and maybe adding a third tree to the right. We’re trying to create the continuity down and address that space in the middle and leave it BAR Meeting Minutes December 21, 2021 (Draft) 18 open. In looking at the right hand side and if those two trees were to shift one section over, you could potentially get a third tree in on that right hand end. The issue becomes that door on the end is an egress door. We’re looking to make sure that stays pretty clear. The idea is that it is not going to be broken up by anything. This layout worked well with the building and met all of the requirements. Mr. Lahendro – I was just imagining live trees evenly spaced along those two prominent sections, just evenly spaced there. In thinking about the pedestrian experience of going down the street and having continuous canopy coverage. Ms. Pray – How the trees relate to the building, the spacing on them does allow for a tree to go there in the middle to create that equal spacing that you’re talking about. It could create another level of experience for the pedestrians. We would be open to discuss it if that is something people are thinking about more as we look at the evolution of the building. Mr. Lahendro – I appreciate the architectural connection. It probably would not be picked up by the average pedestrian. They would be more appreciative of having the continuous canopy coverage. Mr. Mohr – I realize that this has a lot to do with the West Main evolution. One thing your lighting plan doesn’t really address is how the sidewalk gets lit. Mr. Dreyfus – There will be street lights. Mr. Mohr – Do you know what the distribution of those is likely to be? Mr. Dreyfus – That is located on a civil plan that we have. Mr. Mohr – I was wondering how they relate to your tree locations. Ms. Pray – The team is actively working on that layout. I know that Whitney had a call with the civil engineer last week. I believe they discussed this. At one point, we really weren’t sure what jurisdiction it was going to be on. I do know that we’re actively trying to figure out who gets to make that call. Mr. Dreyfus – Whitney is saying that we can propose the location of the lights. Ms. Pray – We would work to make that work out with the trees. Mr. Gastinger – I’m not sure what the division of labor is between what you do and what the city will be in charge of. How are those tree pits going to be constructed? Ms. Pray – I don’t have enough detail right now to provide a good answer. I can tell you, based on my own path, I would really push to get the best possible tree detail going here. We are looking to make sure these trees are going to thrive. We want this to become an environment and not just a façade. We would like it to be active as much as we can make it. There is a condition here with the space of the sidewalk and the curb. The real benefit can come in the depth of the pit and what happens underneath the sidewalk. I really be pushing to make that detail a good one. Mr. Schwarz – Do you know where the power poles are going? Mr. Dreyfus – Currently, the power poles are not scheduled to be relocated. We will temporarily relocate the power across the street as we did at 600 West Main Street. Right now, Dominion has control over all of that. There isn’t any plan to redo those. They’re not in our purview. BAR Meeting Minutes December 21, 2021 (Draft) 19 Mr. Schwarz – Do you have a drawing that shows where they currently exist? Ms. Pray – I think they are right in front of that third tree. There is one in that picture. Mr. Schwarz – The trees currently work around those? Ms. Pray – Yes. We’re talking about things being buried. There’s a little back and forth on that. Mr. Schwarz – When the power lines were supplemented for the adjacent property and moved around, a lot of the trees on this property got a ‘haircut.’ One of the healthiest zelkovas on Old West Main Street is directly across the street in front of the Albemarle Hotel, does that face a similar fate? Is that going to be trimmed back? Mr. Dreyfus – I don’t think anyone of us can answer that one. I can’t speak for whatever the power company is going to do. Ms. Pray – It falls into so many different purviews; Dominion, West Main Streetscape, or the City of Charlottesville street trees. I really want trees on Main Street. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC No Comments from the Public COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Zehmer – The light that you’re putting on the railing to shine down on the terrace will not continue across the gap? Mr. Dreyfus – That is correct. It would only be on that portion of the upper balcony that is solid. Mr. Mohr – You talked about laminating the façade with the residential use. It would also seem that there ought to be some sort of lighting strategy for backlighting all of the commercial glass along the street level. At nighttime it maintains its light on the street. It seems to me that is pretty critical during the active hours of the street. Mr. Dreyfus – Just so I am clear on what you’re suggesting. You’re suggesting that there be some sort of requirement for lighting that the retailers light their store from within at night even when they’re closed. Mr. Mohr – At least directly behind the glass display, something that dissolves the glass and gives it some sparkle. It seems to me that the scale of the entrance is intriguing. It feels like it ought to read more like a two story move. When I first saw it, it felt too much like the scale of a garage opening. It didn’t emphasize that entry condition. It’s more a matter of how you handle the verticality of that. It seems to me the lower two floors ought to read as a piece of that. I think the scale of it reads a little funny to me as it currently exists. I am concerned about color. Signage and things like that in the windows will certainly help. The best image in describing the building (page 63) is where you get a read of the sense of the frame and how the window outlines work. The front entrance needs to be bolder. BAR Meeting Minutes December 21, 2021 (Draft) 20 Mr. Schwarz – With a big building on West Main Street, there are always reservations. There are always going to be things that we want to see that are improved and better. We can continue with an iteration over and over again. This façade has a lot of depth to it. That’s great. I haven’t seen a project yet come before the Board that has this much depth and detail in it. As far as I am concerned, you have done a very good job with the building. I know that I picked on you a lot for the color of the neighboring building. That was graphite. With this lighter color scheme, that doesn’t bother me as much. It does seem more in keeping with Main Street. My only concerns are the trees. I don’t know where to fall on that. We’re going to be stuck with what we’re going to be stuck with. Unfortunately, City Council didn’t want to give us a revised West Main Street. We can only spend so much money. I don’t know how we’re going to handle your brick samples and color samples. We will have to figure that out. We can’t partially approve something. I would be ready to vote on approval for this building with some additional conditions. I am going to ask for a condition on the trees. Mr. Gastinger – Getting these trees to be successful is really critical to the city and to the success of this building. For me, this is a species that should do well and if they’re healthy will get considerably larger than they’re shown in the renderings. For this building on the north side of the street, I would rather have four really good, healthy trees than five miserable ones. I say that to encourage every method possible to get them as much soil volume or connected soil volume to those trees on Main Street so they do thrive. If they did, they will come very close to getting that continuous canopy. . The brick is the main material of this entire building. I am supportive of this project. It has come a great distance and can be a really great contribution to the city. Getting that brick is so important. I do feel uncomfortable having such an important piece be so unproven. What could that review really mean? We have been put in situations where we have reviewed samples after approval. The brick order has already been placed or there’s no time in the construction sequence. What real capacity would we have together with the architecture team when reviewing those samples? What is appropriate within the way our ordinance is written in a way that we can review items after Certificate of Appropriateness has been given? Mr. Dreyfus – No brick order has been placed and no brick order will be placed until we get a vote from the BAR that this brick is acceptable. We’re not going to play that game. We don’t intend to. Approval of the design contingent on final approval of the brick seems reasonable. I don’t know if that is possible given the guidelines or the rules. We are working hard to get samples done. It would be our intention to set up a variety of times when members of the Board can come and meet at the Allied brickyard and look at them together. We are ready and willing, as soon as they’re there, to meet with all of you as soon as we can to discuss and review them. Mr. Mohr – We are in extraordinary times right now. We have to grant some degree of flexibility for that very reason. Building materials right now are so ridiculously difficult to comprehend. Mr. Gastinger – Related to the mockup, if there is a way to also mimic or study the up-lighting, I really like the lighting strategy of emphasizing the hyphens and that texture. It can be absolutely incredible or jarring. I am thinking of the sharp angles and uplift. It can be a bit much. I think you will find that pretty quickly when the mockup is made. I hope that what you’re imagining happens. Mr. Dreyfus – We can use the mockup to test the number of options there regardless of the programs that we and our lighting consultant can use. It would be much better to test it before it goes into the ground and get that angle right. Mr. Zehmer – With the brick, did you mention the mortar color? BAR Meeting Minutes December 21, 2021 (Draft) 21 Mr. Dreyfus – The mortar is going to be as close to a match to the brick itself as we can get. We’re for the portion that comes forward. We really want that to be very quiet. We’re not looking for contrasting mortar. We will be raking that same color mortar in the hyphens. Mr. Mohr – With the lighting, given that you’re dealing with very specific colors and very specific objective in terms of how you’re going to shadow it, it seems to me that we might want to grant you some flexibility in terms of the exact color range of light. The same goes for the plaster. I don’t know if that is going to have any kind multi-valiant surface to it. Mr. Dreyfus – That wasn’t the intention at this point. It is a relatively flat, very simple surface in contrast to the brick. This is sitting within the textured brick wall. Mr. Werner – I know the question was raised about what I thought. Given the situation with the sample panel, I understand that collaboration is necessary. When it comes to how all of you should make a decision, the answer I would get from the City Attorney would be if it’s not something that you can approve, then don’t approve it. If there’s something you want to see in order to approve it, then request that. As far as direction from the city, I can’t provide a straight answer. This is one of the challenges we have. We have a set of design guidelines and we’re really talking details. There’s that push and pull of whether conceptual drawings and renderings of more value than a detailed drawing. The challenge you all have: Is this building conceptually what you are looking for? You have a list of things that come from your recommendations to Council for a Special Use Permit. Those are what you identified as really critical. They were broad. As far as looking at a sample panel, I would be clear on what it is you’re hoping to see, what is too far, and what is not far enough so that the sample panel is expressing what all of you are interested in looking at first. Second, when that sample panel is ready, what actions are you all looking to make? Are you looking to possibly say that’s not what you had thought and start over? Are you looking to make collaborative adjustments to what is presented? Mr. Gastinger – In this case, we’re not trying to evaluate options. Mr. Dreyfus and his team have bent over backwards to try to show what this building will look like. I don’t think anybody is confused about that. We have everything except for the actual material. We could vote on the material that has been presented with the stipulation that a review of a panel conforms with what was presented tonight. I think that is what Mr. Dreyfus and his team are asking for us to do. That framing maybe limits the concern about having some kind of contingent. It is an approval. If the Board felt on reviewing the sample panel that it didn’t reflect what was presented tonight, we would ask that it be submitted as a change/modification to the approval. Mr. Bailey – Would that be a formal vote next month? How would that work? Mr. Gastinger – Only if there was a change and if we felt that it was not what was presented. Mr. Schwarz – In the past, we have said staff will review something to see if it conforms to what has been described to us. In a sense, we are doing that again. Mr. Dreyfus – There is a material that is shown and called out in the documents that you have. If you’re approving it based on that and if we need to come back with something else, we would have to come back and request a change. Mr. Schwarz – Is it fair to say that it is the texture that everyone is concerned with? Or is it the material? Mr. Werner – You approve things all the time with conditions. What happens is that those condition are met. I review the construction drawings. I will not sign off on a building permit. We have that BAR Meeting Minutes December 21, 2021 (Draft) 22 check. When you all are very clear in what you want, what am I comparing it against? It is this helpful to have the discussion. I don’t want to go through what we went through with panels next door at 600 West Main Street. I don’t want to run afoul of the process. Mr. Gastinger – We’re looking for color and textures, consistent with what has been presented tonight, and the texture of the textured panels is sufficient to create the distinction between the hyphens and the masses in the way that the project has been presented. Mr. Mohr – We’re just trying to confirm that what is in front of us now matches the physical versions Mr. Werner – I just want to make sure when you go out there and look at it and if there is any question on that, the default to the applicant and his team is they must do the following. Mr. Zehmer – If it is reasonably in accordance with what they’ve submittied tonight, they are good to go. It has to be very different. We can’t nitpick a sample panel that is the material that they’re proposing tonight. Mr. Mohr – I would not be expecting the applicant to be advocating for that. We’re getting into a much greater detail with this than we do with a lot of projects. That is also because we trust what the applicant is saying. There is some professional courtesy here that we believe what he is attempting to do. He just has to confirm it. Mr. Gastinger – I feel that we can be really close to a motion here. Motion – Mr. Schwarz – 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. Second by Mr. Mohr. Motion passes 8-0. The meeting was recessed for 5 minutes. D. Discussion Items (No Actions will be taken) Preliminary Discussion 540 Park Street, TMP 520183000 North Downtown ADC District Owner: Jessica and Patrick Fenn Applicant: Ashley LeFew Falwell / Dalgliesh Gilpin Paxton Architects Project: Addition and alterations BAR Meeting Minutes December 21, 2021 (Draft) 23 • Staff presented the project to the BAR. Staff gave a very brief overview of the project that is being proposing for North Downtown. • The pool house is a contributing structure. City ordinance requires that it be brought before the BAR since it is the demolition of the pool house/a contributing structure. • The applicant presented what the project was going to include. The project was a new pool house and a new addition on the side of the house. • The applicant presented the footprint of the new pool house. • With the landscape, the plan is to renovate and upgrade some of the hardscape on the property. One of the entrances from Park Street is to be removed. • There is going to be an upgrade to the paths and creating a landing in front of the house. • The applicant presented the material list and the appearances for the new addition to the site of the house. • The BAR provided feedback and suggestions for the applicant regarding the new proposed project of the new pool house. • The BAR was supportive of the project. E. Other Business Belmont Bridge – wall update Staff Questions/Discussion Preservation Awards Breck Gastinger moves that the BAR grants the following awards this year: • Best Rehabilitation of an Historic Structure 743 Park Street • Special Contribution to the Cultural Landscape of Charlottesville Memorial to Enslaved Laborers (University of Virginia) • Best New Site Construction in an Historic District 301 East Jefferson Street (Congregation Beth Israel) • Outstanding Individual Achievement 400 Rugby Road (Westminster Presbyterian Church) • Important Preservation of a Significant Neighborhood Structure (or Building) 415 10th Street NW (Church at 10th Street NW and Grady Avenue) • Preston A. Coiner Preservation Award Mary Joy Scala Jody seconds motion. Motion passes (8-0). F. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:25 PM. BAR Meeting Minutes December 21, 2021 (Draft) 24 City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Staff Report October 18, 2022 Certificate of Appropriateness 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 available information, this parcel has never been developed. Prior BAR Review September 20, 2022 – BAR held preliminary discussion re: new residence. Video from the meeting. Start at 02:30:00. https://boxcast.tv/channel/vabajtzezuyv3iclkx1a?b=nvdouryu5aooh1orqwxd Link to Sept 20, 2022 submittal, go to pdf page 100 of: Sept 20 2022 BAR Packet Application • Applicant’s submittal: Candace M.P. Smith, Architects PC drawings and information for Loughrey New Residence 0 3rd Street NE, dated for Oct 18, 2022 BAR meeting: o Narrative and List Of Attachments (2 pages) o Images of neighboring properties (8 pages) o Plans and Elevations (10 pages) o Conceptual Landscape Plan (3 pages) o 3D views (8 pages) o Preliminary material selections (8 pages) 0 3rd Street, NE – Oct 18, 2022 (10/13/2022) 1 Request CoA for a new single-family residence and detached structure 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 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. 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 are the criteria from Chapter III: A. Building Types within the Historic H. Orientation Districts: Residential Infill I. Windows and Doors B. Setback J. Porches C. Spacing K. Foundation and Cornice D. Massing and Footprint L. Materials and Textures E. Height and Width M. Paint [Color palette] F. Scale N. Details and Decoration G. Roof Materials list, to assist with the discussion: • Roof: type, material, color • Porches: Columns, flooring, ceilings, • Gutters: style, material, color trim, railings. • Exterior walls: Brick, color, • Garage doors: coursing, accent band, arches • Exterior lighting: • Trim: Doors and windows, cornice • Driveway: • Doors and windows: • Plantings: • Shutters • 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 0 3rd Street, NE – Oct 18, 2022 (10/13/2022) 2 important criteria that should relate to the existing historic structures, along with residential roof and porch forms. Notes: * 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.) Link to images in Sept 20, 2022 staff report, go to pdf page 139 of: Sept 20 2022 BAR Packet ** In response to BAR comments on Sept 20, to evaluate dwellings on the on the same block--including not in the ADC District—staff reviewed 19 properties on 3rd Street NE (between High Street and Hedge Street) and on Park Plaza (between Hedge Street and Parkway). Note: The BAR has typically not evaluated a proposal relative to what exists on adjacent, undesignated properties because demolitions, new construction on, and alterations to those properties are not subject to BAR review. Under such a practice, the BAR might require a new building match the adjacent; however, the BAR cannot require that those existing, adjacent buildings even remain, let alone remain similar to the new. Per code, maximum height is 35-ft (typically read as 3 stories); minimum front setback is 25-ft (unless modified by Zoning Administrator); minimum side setback is 5-ft. [Building footprint is the maximum allowed by the setbacks.]. For fencing, unless subject to design control regs, there is no height limit nor material requirements in the City Code. B. Setback: For residential infill, setbacks should be within 20% of a majority of neighborhood dwellings. [Staff did not evaluate existing setbacks for the entire North Downtown ADC District].* Staff Comment: Front setbacks range between 6 feet and 55 feet, with an average of 18 feet. Recommended range for new construction is 19 feet to 28 feet. The proposed setback is approximately 21 feet, within the recommended range. (Note: 21-ft front setback established per consultation with the City Zoning Administrator.) Relative to the adjacent block** Front setbacks range between 16 feet and 50 feet; average of 27 feet. Applying the methodology in the guidelines suggests a range of 22 feet to 32 feet. C. Side Spacing: New residences should be spaced within 20% of the average spacing between houses on the block.* 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 (south side) is approximately 30 feet, which exceeds the recommended spacing; however, it is function of an existing access easement and within the range of existing spacing in the subarea. The north side spacing is approximately 12-ft, within the recommended range. (Note: The south setback is dictated by an existing access easement. The north setback has been intentionally increased to exceed the required 5-ft minimum.) 0 3rd Street, NE – Oct 18, 2022 (10/13/2022) 3 Relative to the adjacent block** Side spacing ranges between 6 feet and 50 feet, with an average of 15 feet. Applying the methodology in the guidelines suggests a range of 12 feet to 19 feet. (See above re: the south side spacing.) North side spacing is approx. 12-ft. 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 surrounding historic dwellings. Relative to the adjacent block** Footprints range between 768 sq ft and 3,868 sq ft, within an average of 1,214 sq ft. Proposed footprint is at the higher range for dwellings on the block. 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 of surrounding historic dwellings.* Staff Comment: • (Height) Existing heights range between 2 and 3 stories, with an average of 2 stories. (Prevailing is 2 stories.) Recommended maximum is 4 floors. The height of the proposed house is 3 stories (viewed from the street) and therefore within the range of surrounding historic dwellings and below the maximum recommended by the ADC District design guidelines. (Note: R1-S zoning allows a maximum height of 35-ft. Applicant consulted with the City Zoning Administrator to confirm the proposed height complies with the City Code.) • (Width) Existing widths range between 23 feet and 78 feet, with an average of 40 feet. (There is no prevailing width.) 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 maximum recommended by the ADC District design guidelines. 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 three-stories (viewed from the street). Relative to the adjacent block** Scale generally being a function of height and width. Height (on block) • 1-story: 1 0 3rd Street, NE – Oct 18, 2022 (10/13/2022) 4 • 1.5 stories: 7 • 2 stories: 8 • 2.5 stories: 3 • Average height: 1.8 stories • Prevailing height: 2 stories Applying the height criteria in the guidelines, the maximum height is 3- to 4- stories. Proposed house is 3-stores. Width (on block) • 18-ft: 1 • 29-ft: 1 • 30- to 38-ft: 16 • 42-ft: 1 • Average width: 33-ft • Prevailing width: n/a • 200% of the average width: 66-ft Applying the width criteria in the guidelines, the maximum width is 66-ft. Proposed house is 53-ft. 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. Relative to the adjacent block** See table and photos in Appendix. 12 have hipped roofs; seven are gabled. 17 have asphalt shingles; two have standing-seam metal. 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: Guidelines refer to the number, type, size, spacing, etc. should relate to and be compatible with adjacent historic facades and be similar and compatible with those on surrounding historic facades. * 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. 0 3rd Street, NE – Oct 18, 2022 (10/13/2022) 5 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 * 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. 1) Foundation and Cornice: Respect the height, contrast of materials, and textures of foundations on surrounding historic buildings.* Staff Comment: The 30 homes reviewed in the subarea 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: Building should be compatible with and complementary to neighboring buildings.* Staff Comment: Two-thirds of the 30 homes reviewed in the subarea are brick, so the proposed brick is an appropriate material. (One-quarter feature siding, a few feature stucco.) Relative to the adjacent block** See table and photos in Appendix 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 0 3rd Street, NE – Oct 18, 2022 (10/13/2022) 6 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. Relative to the adjacent block** See table and photos in Appendix 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 ground level garage. Note: Relative to visibility [from the street] of the interior courtyard, while not proposed, the design guidelines allow for side and rear yard fencing up to six (6) feet in height. Suggested Motions Approval: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find the proposed new residence at 0 3rd Street NE satisfies the BAR’s criteria and is compatible with this property and other properties in the North Downtown ADC District, and that the BAR approves the application [as submitted]. Or, [... 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 new residence at 0 3rd Street NE does not satisfy the BAR’s criteria and is not compatible with this property and other properties in the North Downtown ADC District, and that for the following reasons the BAR denies the application as submitted: Note: Absent approval or denial, the BAR must take action to defer this request. Staff recommends that be at the applicant’s request. 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: 0 3rd Street, NE – Oct 18, 2022 (10/13/2022) 7 (1) That the proposal does not meet specific standards set forth within this division or applicable provisions of the Design Guidelines established by the board pursuant to Sec.34-288(6); and (2) The proposal is incompatible with the historic, cultural or architectural character of the district in which the property is located or the protected property that is the subject of the application. Pertinent Standards for Review of Construction and Alterations include: (1) Whether the material, texture, color, height, scale, mass and placement of the proposed addition, modification or construction are visually and architecturally compatible with the site and the applicable design control district; (2) The harmony of the proposed change in terms of overall proportion and the size and placement of entrances, windows, awnings, exterior stairs and signs; (3) The Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation set forth within the Code of Federal Regulations (36 C.F.R. §67.7(b)), as may be relevant; (4) The effect of the proposed change on the historic district neighborhood; (5) The impact of the proposed change on other protected features on the property, such as gardens, landscaping, fences, walls and walks; (6) Whether the proposed method of construction, renovation or restoration could have an adverse impact on the structure or site, or adjacent buildings or structures; (7) Any applicable provisions of the City’s Design Guidelines. Links to the Design Guidelines: Chapter 1 Introduction (Part 1) Chapter 1 Introduction (Part 2) Chapter 2 Site Design and Elements Chapter 3 New Construction and Additions Chapter 4 Rehabilitation Chapter 5 Signs, Awnings, Vending, and Cafes Chapter 6 Public Improvements Chapter 7 Moving and Demolition 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. 0 3rd Street, NE – Oct 18, 2022 (10/13/2022) 8 C. Spacing 1) Maintain existing consistency of spacing in the area. New residences should be spaced within 20 percent of the average spacing between houses on the block. […] 3) In areas that do not have consistent spacing, consider limiting or creating a more uniform spacing in order to establish an overall rhythm. 4) Multi-lot buildings should be designed using techniques to incorporate and respect the existing spacing on a residential street. D. Massing and Footprint […] 2) New infill construction in residential sub-areas should relate in footprint and massing to the majority of surrounding historic dwellings. 3) Neighborhood transitional buildings should have small building footprints similar to nearby dwellings. a. If the footprint is larger, their massing should be reduced to relate to the smaller- scaled forms of residential structures. b. Techniques to reduce massing could include stepping back upper levels, adding residential roof and porch forms, and using sympathetic materials. […] E. Height and Width 1) Respect the directional expression of the majority of surrounding buildings. In commercial areas, respect the expression of any adjacent historic buildings, which generally will have a more vertical expression. 2) Attempt to keep the height and width of new buildings within a maximum of 200 percent of the prevailing height and width in the surrounding sub-area. […] 5) Reinforce the human scale of the historic districts by including elements such as porches, entrances, storefronts, and decorative features depending on the character of the particular sub-area. F. Scale 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. 0 3rd Street, NE – Oct 18, 2022 (10/13/2022) 9 d. Large-scale, multi-lot buildings should have a varied roof line to break up the mass of the design using gable and/or hipped forms. e. Shallow pitched roofs and flat roofs may be appropriate in historic residential areas on a contemporary designed building. f. Do not use mansard-type roofs on commercial buildings; they were not used historically in Charlottesville’s downtown area, nor are they appropriate on West Main Street. 2) Roof Materials: Common roof materials in the historic districts include metal, slate, and composition shingles. a. For new construction in the historic districts, use traditional roofing materials such as standing-seam metal or slate. b. In some cases, shingles that mimic the appearance of slate may be acceptable. c. Pre-painted standing-seam metal roof material is permitted, but commercial-looking ridge caps or ridge vents are not appropriate on residential structures. d. Avoid using thick wood cedar shakes if using wood shingles; instead, use more historically appropriate wood shingles that are thinner and have a smoother finish. e. If using composition asphalt shingles, do not use light colors. Consider using neutral- colored or darker, plain or textured-type shingles. f. The width of the pan and the seam height on a standing-seam metal roof should be consistent with the size of pan and seam height usually found on a building of a similar period. H. Orientation 1) New commercial construction should orient its façade in the same direction as adjacent historic buildings, that is, to the street. 2) Front elevations oriented to side streets or to the interior of lots should be discouraged. I. Windows and Doors 1) The rhythm, patterns, and ratio of solids (walls) and voids (windows and doors) of new buildings should relate to and be compatible with adjacent historic facades. a. The majority of existing buildings in Charlottesville’s historic districts have a higher proportion of wall area than void area except at the storefront level. b. In the West Main Street corridor in particular, new buildings should reinforce this traditional proportion. 2) The size and proportion, or the ratio of width to height, of window and door openings on new buildings’ primary facades should be similar and compatible with those on surrounding historic facades. a. The proportions of the upper floor windows of most of Charlottesville’s historic buildings are more vertical than horizontal. 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. 0 3rd Street, NE – Oct 18, 2022 (10/13/2022) 10 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 2) Distinguish the foundation from the rest of the structure through the use of different materials, patterns, or textures. 3) Respect the height, contrast of materials, and textures of foundations on surrounding historic buildings. 4) If used, cornices should be in proportion to the rest of the building. 5) Wood or metal cornices are preferred. The use of fypon may be appropriate where the location is not immediately adjacent to pedestrians. M. Materials and Textures 1) The selection of materials and textures for a new building should be compatible with and complementary to neighboring buildings. 2) In order to strengthen the traditional image of the residential areas of the historic districts, brick, stucco, and wood siding are the most appropriate materials for new buildings. 3) In commercial/office areas, brick is generally the most appropriate material for new structures. “Thin set” brick is not permitted. Stone is more commonly used for site walls than buildings. 4) Large-scale, multi-lot buildings, whose primary facades have been divided into different bays and planes to relate to existing neighboring buildings, can have varied materials, shades, and textures. 5) Synthetic siding and trim, including, vinyl and aluminum, are not historic cladding materials in the historic districts, and their use should be avoided. 6) Cementitious siding, such as HardiPlank boards and panels, are appropriate. 7) Concrete or metal panels may be appropriate. 8) Metal storefronts in clear or bronze are appropriate. 0 3rd Street, NE – Oct 18, 2022 (10/13/2022) 11 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. Pertinent Guidelines for Site Design and Elements include: B. Plantings 1) Encourage the maintenance and planting of large trees on private property along the streetfronts, which contribute to the “avenue” effect. 2) Generally, use trees and plants that are compatible with the existing plantings in the neighborhood. 3) Use trees and plants that are indigenous to the area. 4) Retain existing trees and plants that help define the character of the district, especially street trees and hedges. 5) Replace diseased or dead plants with like or similar species if appropriate. 6) When constructing new buildings, identify and take care to protect significant existing trees and other plantings. 7) Choose ground cover plantings that are compatible with adjacent sites, existing site conditions, and the character of the building. 8) Select mulching and edging materials carefully and do not use plastic edgings, lava, crushed rock, unnaturally colored mulch or other historically unsuitable materials. C. Walls and Fences 1) Maintain existing materials such as stone walls, hedges, wooden picket fences, and wrought-iron fences. 2) When a portion of a fence needs replacing, salvage original parts for a prominent location. 3) Match old fencing in material, height, and detail. 4) If it is not possible to match old fencing, use a simplified design of similar materials and height. 5) For new fences, use materials that relate to materials in the neighborhood. 0 3rd Street, NE – Oct 18, 2022 (10/13/2022) 12 6) Take design cues from nearby historic fences and walls. 7) Chain-link fencing, split rail fences, and vinyl plastic fences should not be used. 8) Traditional concrete block walls may be appropriate. 9) Modular block wall systems or modular concrete block retaining walls are strongly discouraged but may be appropriate in areas not visible from the public right-of-way. 10) If street-front fences or walls are necessary or desirable, they should not exceed four (4) feet in height from the sidewalk or public right-of-way and should use traditional materials and design. 11) Residential privacy fences may be appropriate in side or rear yards where not visible from the primary street. 12) Fences should not exceed six (6) feet in height in the side and rear yards. 13) Fence structures should face the inside of the fenced property. 14) Relate commercial privacy fences to the materials of the building. If the commercial property adjoins a residential neighborhood, use a brick or painted wood fence or heavily planted screen as a buffer. 15) Avoid the installation of new fences or walls if possible in areas where there are no are no fences or walls and yards are open. 16) Retaining walls should respect the scale, materials and context of the site and adjacent properties. 17) Respect the existing conditions of the majority of the lots on the street in planning new construction or a rehabilitation of an existing site. E. Walkways and Driveways 1) Use appropriate traditional paving materials like brick, stone, and scored concrete. 2) Concrete pavers are appropriate in new construction, and may be appropriate in site renovations, depending on the context of adjacent building materials, and continuity with the surrounding site and district. 3) Gravel or stone dust may be appropriate, but must be contained. 4) Stamped concrete and stamped asphalt are not appropriate paving materials. 5) Limit asphalt use to driveways and parking areas. 6) Place driveways through the front yard only when no rear access to parking is available. 7) Do not demolish historic structures to provide areas for parking. 8) Add separate pedestrian pathways within larger parking lots, and provide crosswalks at vehicular lanes within a site. F. Parking Areas and Lots 1) If new parking areas are necessary, construct them so that they reinforce the street wall of buildings and the grid system of rectangular blocks in commercial areas. 2) Locate parking lots behind buildings. 3) Screen parking lots from streets, sidewalks, and neighboring sites through the use of walls, trees, and plantings of a height and type appropriate to reduce the visual impact year-round. 4) Avoid creating parking areas in the front yards of historic building sites. 5) Avoid excessive curb cuts to gain entry to parking areas. 6) Avoid large expanses of asphalt. 7) On large lots, provide interior plantings and pedestrian walkways. 8) Provide screening from adjacent land uses as needed. 9) Install adequate lighting in parking areas to provide security in evening hours. 10) Select lighting fixtures that are appropriate to a historic setting. G. Garages, Sheds, and Other Structures 1) Retain existing historic garages, outbuildings, and site features in their original locations. 2) If it is acceptable to relocate a secondary structure, locate it in such a way that it remains consistent with the general pattern of outbuildings to the main structure. (See Chapter 7 C. Moving Historic Structures.) 0 3rd Street, NE – Oct 18, 2022 (10/13/2022) 13 3) Choose designs for new outbuildings that are compatible with the major buildings on the site. 4) Take clues and scale from older outbuildings in the area. 5) Use traditional roof slopes and traditional materials. 6) Place new outbuildings behind the dwelling. 7) If the design complements the main building however, it can be visible from primary elevations or streets. 8) The design and location of any new site features should relate to the existing character of the property. H. Utilities and Other Site Appurtenances 1. Plan the location of overhead wires, utility poles and meters, electrical panels, antennae, trash containers, and exterior mechanical units where they are least likely to detract from the character of the site. 2. Screen utilities and other site elements with fences, walls, or plantings. 3. Encourage the installation of utility services underground. 4. Antennae and communication dishes should be placed in inconspicuous rooftop locations, not in a front yard. 5. Screen all rooftop mechanical equipment with a wall of material harmonious with the building or structure. 0 3rd Street, NE – Oct 18, 2022 (10/13/2022) 14 Appendix Subarea (sample set) 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 – Oct 18, 2022 (10/13/2022) 15 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 – Oct 18, 2022 (10/13/2022) 16 3rd Street/Park Plaza "Block" Year Roof Roof Front Address Style Walls Built type material porch 436 3rd St 1920 Vernacular stone gable asphalt N 440 3rd St 1940 Cottage/Bungalow stone gable asphalt Y 500 Park 1957 Ranch ptd brick gable asphalt Y Plz 505 Park ptd 1920 Cottage/Bungalow gable asphalt Y Plz brick/stucco 506 Park 1945 Vernacular ptd CMU hipped asphalt Y Plz 507 Park 1945 Cottage/Bungalow brick gable asphalt N Not in ADC District Plz 510 Park Craftsman 1928 brick hipped asphalt Y Plz Vernacular 514 Park 1937 Vernacular brick gable asphalt Y Plz 518 Park Craftsman 1928 brick gable asphalt Y Plz Vernacular 521 Park 1979 Cottage/Bungalow stucco gable asphalt N Plz 523 Park 1947 Cottage/Bungalow faux-stone gable asphalt Y Plz 527 Park 1948 Colonial Revival stucco gable asphalt Y Plz 526 Park 1935 Cottage/Bungalow brick gable asphalt Y Plz 412 3rd St 1927 Vernacular brick gable asphalt Y In ADC District 414 3rd St 1924 Vernacular brick hip asphalt Y 420 3rd St 1927 Four-square brick hip s-s metal Y 432 3rd St 1932 Vernacular brick hip asphalt Y 435 3rd St 1930 Vernacular brick hip asphalt Y 437 3rd St 1930 Ranch brick hip s-s metal Y 0 3rd Street, NE – Oct 18, 2022 (10/13/2022) 17 3rd Street/Park Plaza "Block" Side Steps: Front Setback Footprint Address Stories Width (ft) Spacing sidewalk (ft) (SF) (ft) to porch 436 3rd St 2 32 16 15 864 3 440 3rd St 1.5 37 17 1114 4 500 Park Plz 1 31 27 15 1444 7 505 Park Plz 2.5 37 21 1097 3 Not in ADC District 506 Park Plz 2 32 24 17 972 11 507 Park Plz 1.5 30 31 19 810 1 510 Park Plz 1.5 32 16 19 1296 15 514 Park Plz 2 30 32 10 1222 20 518 Park Plz 2 18 38 862 22 521 Park Plz 1.4 35 28 14 909 1 523 Park Plz 1.5 29 26 25 909 1 527 Park Plz 1.5 42 24 21 1124 3 526 Park Plz 2 37 50 1164 20 412 3rd St 2 38 16 20 768 3 In ADC District 414 3rd St 2 37 16 n/a 960 4 420 3rd St 2 30 16 16 994 4 432 3rd St 2.5 35 16 n/a 3868 2 435 3rd St 2.5 36 22 n/a 1270 8 437 3rd St 1.5 36 30 10 1435 18 Side Steps: Front Setback Footprint Average Stories Width (ft) Spacing sidewalk (ft) (SF) (ft) to porch Not in ADC 1.7 32 27 17 1061 9 In ADC 2.1 35 19 15 1549 7 Block 1.8 33 25 17 1215 8 0 3rd Street, NE – Oct 18, 2022 (10/13/2022) 18 Adjacent Properties not in ADC District 0 3rd Street, NE – Oct 18, 2022 (10/13/2022) 19 0 3rd Street, NE – Oct 18, 2022 (10/13/2022) 20 0 3rd Street, NE – Oct 18, 2022 (10/13/2022) 21 0 3rd Street, NE – Oct 18, 2022 (10/13/2022) 22 Candace M. P. Smith Architect, P.C. 202 Sixth Street NE Charlottesville, VA 22902 Tel.: 434.963.4500 Fax: 434.979.1936 www.cmpsarchitect.com NARRATIVE AND LIST OF ATTACHMENTS for Board of Architectural Review Meeting October 18, 2022 Preliminary Discussion Re: New Residence near Hedge Street and Park Plaza (3rd St. NE, Parcel #330020001) in Charlottesville, VA—“0 Third Street NE” Narrative See prior narrative for description of site limitations and materials submitted for 9/20/22 BAR meeting for first preliminary discussion. Responding to the board’s comments, we have included a visual document of a “walk down 3rd Street NE” (a historic district in which our new house will reside), and a continuation down the street as it transitions to Park Plaza (which is not in this historic district and has no BAR review); as well as a few glimpses and samples of 2nd St NE. As illustrated, most homes have driveways and/or parking on their property, which is somewhat counter to the comments received at the first preliminary discussion which suggested that neighbors largely park on the street. Please note that the old abandoned Hedge Street is a legally required driveway easement to the property behind this property, and is not viewed as the personal driveway for this home. Like the downhill neighbor next door, a driveway is provided at grade to the right of this house for the owner’s day to day use. Other comments received at the first preliminary discussion implied having “so many steps” was an aberration to this district, or neighborhood. Many of the homes, within and beside this district, adapt their homes to the natural topography and place their homes on the highest elevations of their properties. Many up the street towards downtown (in this historic district) and down the street on Park Plaza (outside the historic district) have as many or more steps up to their front doors (see photos in a “walk down 3rd street” attached). The driveway to the right of this house, that meets the grade of 3 rd Street NE /Park Plaza leads to a courtyard for accessing the garages that are closer to the street level. Note that the downhill, next-door neighbor has a 6’-10” fence along a portion of this property line which limits their view of this property and new home. This is shown both on the site plan and in the 3D model provided. The wide privet hedge that completes that property line down to the end of 3rd Street/beginning of Park Plaza is 85% on this new property and will be removed and replaced with more elegant plantings—trees, shrubs and groundcover. See attached conceptual planting plans. The retaining wall for the lower courtyard that is near the north property will be brick. BAR Narrative & Attached Items For Preliminary Discussion Meeting October 18, 2022 Page 2 However, that wall is planned to be short enough to receive and retain the new parking court, and a railing above will allow more day light into the neighbor’s downhill property. Planting beds are planned along this wall to provide abundant greenery facing the downhill neighbor. At the rear of the house there is a courtyard with retaining walls to allow the finish floor of the house to begin at a lower elevation. The rear yard of the house will have an accessory structure (coincidentally opposite an existing garage structure on the other side of the abandoned Hedge Street/required easement). A terrace is planned at the rear of the house. A 3D virtual model has been created and views of this have been captured to share with the Board. Two different front elevations have been proposed to mitigate the height of the structure at the street level—both schemes provide a raised “plinth” for the house foundation to visually begin upon—a common theme in the neighborhood. The two front entrances allow entry at the lower ground level front door, and alternatively provide stairs to a higher front porch/front door. Both of these 3D models have the same sides and rear elevations past the front of the house. Both are shown as full height brick, the owner’s preferred material. Two other models were created with the ground floor entrance but a change in materials above the foundation—one with siding and an alternate with stucco. We would like the board to discuss which of the two entries are preferred, and which materials they would find acceptable. Final decisions on material selection will be made as the project progresses through pricing and discussions with a selected contractor. A conceptual landscape plan has been prepared to show the depth and breadth of landscaping anticipated. One plan addresses the ground floor entrance option, and one plan addresses the side stairs up to the higher front porch/front door scheme. Again, the side and rear elevations/conceptual planting plans would be similar in whichever front door scheme is selected. Finally, an example of an exterior light fixture is shown, along with some possible paint colors, roofing color, and brick color. Final selections would be submitted with plans for final approval. These are provided now for any additional comments the Board would like to make regarding these elements. List of Attachments 1, Visual walk down 3rd Street, Park Plaza and 2nd Street 2. Preliminary drawings SK3 10/18/22 with floor plans (showing two different options for front entry/street-side garden walls) and elevations, to be viewed in conjunction with the 3D virtual model images. 2. Various views of the 3D virtual models 3. Preliminary selections for roofing, brick, lighting and painting Candace M. P. Smith Architect, P.C. 202 Sixth Street NE Charlottesville, VA 22902 Tel.: 434.963.4500 Fax: 434.979.1936 www.cmpsarchitect.com A WALK DOWN 3RD ST. NE, THEN PARK PLAZA, THEN BRIEFLY ON 2ND ST. NE (Captured from Google Street View September 2022) LOUGHREY NEW RESIDENCE 0 THIRD STREET NE for Board of Architectural Review Discussion October 18 2022 Of note: multiple private driveways for home (not limited to “parking on street”), taller brick homes, retaining walls at sidewalk edges, and multiple homes with multiple stairs up to higher ground for first floor entries because of hilly topography in North downtown Charlottesville. 3RD STREET NE 1. Brick retaining walls against sidewalk to 2. Garage and fence gates against road reduce height of foundation (Queen Charlotte) (Queen Charlotte) 3. Foundation plantings between sidewalk and 4. Buildings abut sidewalk nearer High Street building (Queen Charlotte) 5. Wrought iron detailing against sidewalk w 6. Brick two story, steps from sidewalk and at foundation plantings beyond porch 7. Two story brick house with driveway to left of 8. White stucco two story hipped roof with house driveway to right of house 9. Driveway to right of house (w wrought iron 10. Driveway to left of brick house and large detailing) to visible parking past front of house; parking area directly against road driveway to left of next house also to visible parking past front of house 11. Picket fence and foundation plantings 12. Picket fence gates to garden entrance (could against property line (no sidewalk where lawn be used for driving access) from curb to fence) 13. Driveway to left of house up hill, with 14. Fieldstone wall and picket fence directly fieldstone retaining wall against sidewalk with against sidewalk steps directly up to side of front (screened) porch and gates beyond 15. Solid gates directly against sidewalk w 16. “Uphill neighbor” w multiple steps up to multiple steps at sidewalk up to “uphill high grade and then additional steps up to neighbor” house finish floor 17. Abandoned Hedge Street required 18. “Downhill neighbor” visible across 0 3rd St easement to buildings behind 0 3rd St NE NE 19. Privet hedgerow and 6’-10” existing fence at 20. “Downhill neighbor’s” driveway to right of “Downhill neighbor’s” property line house, actively used as driveway PARK PLAZA continuation of 3RD STREET NE 21. Hipped house uphill with multiple steps 22. House down and across street from 0 3rd St (approx. 12) up to front porch across street NE with multiple steps (approx. 19) up to front from 0 3rd Street and “downhill neighbor”. porch 23. (Same) house a little further down and 24. House even a little further down and across across street from 0 3rd St NE with multiple street from 0 3rd St NE, set high on the hill with steps (two sets) (approx. 19 steps to front door) multiple steps (approx. 28 steps to front door) 25. (Same) house even a little further down and across street from 0 3rd St NE, set high on the 26. House (adjacent to # 22 and # 24) high on hill with multiple steps (approx. 28 steps to the hill with multiple steps (approx. 25 steps to front door) front door) 27. Driveway to right of house; driveway to left 28. Two-story brick house at corner with of house numerous steps up hill to house (approx. 18 steps) 2ND STREET NE 29. Two and one-half story brick house 30. Driveway to left of house 31. Stone retaining wall against sidewalk with 32. Brick retaining wall at sidewalk with steps steps up, and then more steps up to porch up to two-and-one-half story brick house 33. Concrete retaining wall with multitude of 34. Concrete steps up and steps up to front steps up porch (approx. 20 steps) 35. Concrete steps up and steps up to front 36. Driveway to left of house with fence & gate porch (approx. 27 steps) just back from face of house 38. Six to seven parking spaces directly adjacent 37. Tall stone retaining wall at sidewalk to sidewalk 39. Parking court with 2-3 car spaces directly 40. At end of 2nd street next to Wine: 3-1/2 adjacent to sidewalk story brick house with stone retaining walls against sidewalk and driveway 41. Stone retaining wall against sidewalk with steps up to front porch (approx. 20 steps); and driveway to right of house Candace M. P. Smith Architect, P.C. 202 Sixth Street NE Charlottesville, VA 22902 Tel.: 434.963.4500 Fax: 434.979.1936 www.cmpsarchitect.com Conceptual Landscape Plans for Schemes D & E Scale 1:10 LOUGHREY NEW RESIDENCE 0 THIRD STREET NE for Board of Architectural Review Discussion October 18 2022 Overall view of model-three neighbors and neighbor’s garage Neighbors up and downhill Scheme D ground floor entry View from up 3rd St NE View from Hedge Street View of Scheme D ground floor entry, solid gates at driveway and neighbor’s fence beyond Neighbors up and down hill Scheme E first floor entry View of Scheme D ground floor entry, siding above brick foundation, solid gates at driveway and neighbor’s fence beyond View of Scheme D ground floor entry, stucco above brick foundation, solid gates at driveway and neighbor’s fence beyond View of ground floor entry Scheme D View of driveway & Scheme D ground floor entry View of driveway & Scheme E first floor entry View of driveway & Scheme D ground floor entry with siding above brick foundation View of driveway & Scheme D ground floor entry with stucco above brick foundation Rear courtyard & Hedge Street Rear and north side with neighbor’s fence Candace M. P. Smith Architect, P.C. 202 Sixth Street NE Charlottesville, VA 22902 Tel.: 434.963.4500 Fax: 434.979.1936 www.cmpsarchitect.com Preliminary Selections for: Roofing, Brick, Lighting & Painting LOUGHREY NEW RESIDENCE 0 THIRD STREET NE for Board of Architectural Review Discussion October 18 2022  0123567897 666612 67997 Pinnacle®Pristine Colors Black Coastal Granite Hearthstone Pewter Summer Storm Oyster Pearl* Copper Canyon Heather Majestic Shake Weathered Wood -Shown on cover Weathered Shadow Morning Harvest Tan• Green• Sunset• • Limited regional availability. Please contact your local supplier. 9/16/22, 1:18 PM Printout 1807 Seminole Trail Ste 102 Q Charlottesville, VA 22901 'O www.nancybshouseoflights.com C. 434-975-4448 Fax: 434-974-5644 • office@nancybshouseoflights.com LED Outdoor Wall Sconce Item ID: 612971 Finish: Bronze Width: 6.00" Height: 18.00"' Bulbs Voltage: 120 V Qty. Type Base Watt Incl. Source LM. CCT CRI Avg.Life Dim Beam 1 PCB PCB Integrated 20.00 W Yes LED 1700.00 Im 3000 K 80 CRI Details Safety Listing: cETLus Safety Rating: Wet Glass: White Canopy: 1T'x5.25" Extension: 4.00" Weight: 3.42 lb Please be advised that all prices and information shown here are subject to verification by our showroom personnel. In the event o f a discrepancy, we reserve the right to make any corrections necessary. https:/Jlights. nancybshouseoflig hts.com/brand-16/sku-612971 /led-outdoor-wall-sconce 1/1 City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Staff Report October 18, 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 prior submittals and video links.) February 15, 2022: BAR held a preliminary discussion for this project. March 15, 2022: BAR held a preliminary discussion for this project. September 20, 2022: BAR held a discussion for this project. Applicant requested deferral. Meeting video link (begin at 1:22:00): https://boxcast.tv/channel/vabajtzezuyv3iclkx1a?b=nvdouryu5aooh1orqwxd Application • Submittal: Design Develop drawings 1301 Wertland Street, dated October 4, 2022 (44 pages). Proposed construction of apartment building, including parking, landscaping and site improvements, adjacent to c. 1830 Wertenbaker House. [Staff note: the submittal does not address what is planned for the historic house re: maintenance, alterations, and/or rehabilitation.] 1301 Wertland Street – Oct 18, 2022 (10/11/2022) 1 Discussion (See in the Appendix a comparison of the submittals from Feb, March, Sept, and October.) This review may be a continuation of prior discussions, with no action taken by the BAR; however, because this is now a formal application and has been deferred once, unless the applicant requests— and is granted a deferral--the BAR must take action to either approve or deny the requested CoA. (Ref. Code Sec. 34-285.) 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 • Doors & Windows • Plantings/Landscaping • Gutters and Downspouts • Lighting • Patios & walks • Exterior walls • Railings • Trim • Balcony details • Public spaces • Screening (HVAC, utilities) The BAR must also evaluate the impact of new construction on the historic house and site. • 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. 1301 Wertland Street – Oct 18, 2022 (10/11/2022) 2 • Wertland Street ADC District • Wertland Street Historic District (VLR/NRHP) www.dhr.virginia.gov/historic-registers/104-0136/ 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 1301 Wertland Street – Oct 18, 2022 (10/11/2022) 3 • 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 Summary of BAR Discussion September 20, 2022: Meeting video link (begin at 1:22:00): https://boxcast.tv/channel/vabajtzezuyv3iclkx1a?b=nvdouryu5aooh1orqwxd 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. 1301 Wertland Street – Oct 18, 2022 (10/11/2022) 4 • 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. • 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. 1301 Wertland Street – Oct 18, 2022 (10/11/2022) 5 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 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. 1301 Wertland Street – Oct 18, 2022 (10/11/2022) 6 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. 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. 1301 Wertland Street – Oct 18, 2022 (10/11/2022) 7 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 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. 1301 Wertland Street – Oct 18, 2022 (10/11/2022) 8 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. 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. 1301 Wertland Street – Oct 18, 2022 (10/11/2022) 9 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 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. 1301 Wertland Street – Oct 18, 2022 (10/11/2022) 10 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. 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 1301 Wertland Street – Oct 18, 2022 (10/11/2022) 11 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 As applicable to any exterior alterations at the historic house 1301 Wertland Street – Oct 18, 2022 (10/11/2022) 12 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) Misc maps and information 1301 Wertland Street – Oct 18, 2022 (10/11/2022) 13 1301 Wertland Street – Oct 18, 2022 (10/11/2022) 14 Wm. Wertenbaker Property Approx. parcel lines, based on historical survey notes 1301 Wertland Street – Oct 18, 2022 (10/11/2022) 15 1301 Wertland Street – Oct 18, 2022 (10/11/2022) 16 1301 Wertland Street – Oct 18, 2022 (10/11/2022) 17 1301 Wertland Street – Oct 18, 2022 (10/11/2022) 18 1301 WERTLAND ST. PARCEL 040303000 BAR SUBMISSION PRESENTED BY 10 | 04 | 2022 2 1 | COVER 3 | TABLE OF CONTENTS 4 |PROXIMITY MAP 5 | ZONING MAP 7 | STUDENT MOVEMENT INTO SENSITIVE AREAS 8-9 | PROJECT NARRATIVE 10-11| MASSING AND SITE DIAGRAMS 12-13 | RESPONSES TO BOARD COMMENTS AND GUIDELINE DIRECTION 14-21 |RENDERINGS 22 | STREET SECTION 23 | SPACING DIAGRAM 24 | STREETWALL DIAGRAM 25-28 | RENDERED ELEVATIONS 29| LANDSCAPE PRECEDENTS 30 | COURTYARD PERPSECTIVE 31| PLANTING SELECTIONS 32| APPENDIX ONE: WHAT DOES MAX BUILD OUT ACTUALLY LOOK LIKE? 34 | APPENDIX TWO: WHAT DIRECTION HAVE RECENT COMPREHENSIVE PLANS PROVIDED? 42 | APPENDIX THREE: ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS 1301 WERTLAND ST. TABLE OF CONTENTS BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 3 OCTOBER 4TH, 2022 1M ILE RA 1/ 2 DIU M S/ UNIVERSITY TRANSIT ILE SYSTEM BUS STOPS 20 M (6 WITHIN 1/4 MILE) 1/4 RA MI LE DIU R INUTE W S AD / 10 IUS SITE MINUTE WALK ALK /5 THE LAWN MINUTE W THE CORNER ALK CHARLOTTESVILLE AREA TRANSIT (CAT) BUS STOPS (3 WITHIN 1/4 MILE) 1301 WERTLAND ST. PROXIMITY MAP BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 4 OCTOBER 4TH, 2022 LOCATION 1301 WERTLAND STREET AREA .404 ACRES / 17,589 SQ FT ZONE UHD - UNIVERSITY HIGH DENSITY ZONE INTENT CONSISTING OF AREAS IN THE VICINITY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA CAMPUS, IN WHICH HIGH-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS, INCLUDING MULTIFAMILY USES, ARE ENCOURAGED. RESIDENTIAL 26 UNITS / UP TO 64 DUA BY RIGHT UNITS 35 UNITS / UP TO 87 DUA WITH SUP PROPOSED: 12 UNITS PARKING ONE SPACE FOR EVERY TWO BEDROOMS SITE HEIGHT 50’ MAX SETBACKS 15’-0” MIN. (FRONT) SETBACKS 1’-0” FOR EVERY 4’-0” HEIGHT (SIDE) 8’-0” MIN. SETBACKS 15’-0” MIN. (REAR) SPACING THERE SHALL BE A MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN ANY TWO (2) BUILDINGS LOCATED ON THE SAME LOT, EQUAL TO THAT REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE STATE BUILDING OR FIRE CODES, OR EIGHT (8) FEET, WHICHEVER IS GREATER. OVERLAYS ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN CONTROL DISTRICTS AND INDIVIDUALLY PROTECTED PROPERTIES ZONING ACROSS THE STREET FROM BOUNDARY NOTES OF CORNER MODIFIED PARKING ZONE WERTLAND STREET CONSIDERED A “PRIMARY STREET” IN THE MIXED-USE CORNER DISTRICT 1301 WERTLAND ST. CURRENT ZONING MAP BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 5 OCTOBER 4TH, 2022 SENSITIVE COMMUNITY AREAS SENSITIVE COMMUNITIES CENSUS BLOCK GROUPS WITH RELATIVELY HIGH PERCENTAGES OF COMMUNITIES POTENTIALLY MOST SENSITIVE TO DISPLACEMENT PRESSURES. SENSITIVE COMMUNITY AREAS ARE THE PORTIONS OF THESE BLOCK GROUPS IDENTIFIES AS GENERAL RESIDENTIAL AREAS ON THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP. FACTORS FACTORS INCLUDED IN ANALYSIS: - % HOUSEHOLD INCOME <$30,000/YEAR, ABOUT 30% AMI - % PEOPLE OF COLOR (% OF COMMUNITY THAT IS NOT WHITE/NON-HISPANIC) DATA: BLOCK GROUPS, ACS 2018 5-YEAR ESTIMATES SITE BLUE OUTLINE: SENSITIVE COMMUNITY AREAS ORANGE OUTLINE: OFF-CAMPUS STUDENT HOUSING GREEN OUTLINE: UNIVERSITY 1301 WERTLAND ST. 2021 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SENSITIVE AREAS BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 6 OCTOBER 4TH, 2022 MULTI-FAMILY INFILL ON OR 6 SINGLE FAMILY SURFACE PARKING LOT RESIDENCES x6 x6 x6 x6 x6 x6 x3 1301 WERTLAND ST. STUDENT MOVEMENT INTO SENSITIVE AREAS BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 7 OCTOBER 4TH, 2022 TAKING CUES FROM THE CHARLOTTESVILLE ADCD DESIGN GUIDELINES; PART III: NEW CONSTRUCTION THE DESIGN GUIDELINE COMPELS US TO PROPOSE A PROJECT THAT ENDEAVORS TO... A. INTRODUCTION: (PG 6) OFTEN NEW COMMERCIAL, OFFICE, OR MULTI-USE BUILDINGS WILL BE CONSTRUCTED ON SITES MUCH LARGER THAN THE TRADITIONALLY SIZED LOTS 25 TO 40 FEET WIDE. MANY SITES FOR SUCH STRUCTURES ARE LOCATED ON WEST MAIN STREET AND ... TAKE CUES FROM THE ADJACENT CONTEXTUAL STRUCTURES ALONG THE WERTLAND STREET IN THE 14TH AND 15TH STREET AREA OF THE VENABLE NEIGHBORHOOD. THESE ASSEMBLED ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN CONTROL DISTRICT. REDUCE THE VISUAL PRESENCE BY REDUCING THE PARCELS CAN TRANSLATE INTO NEW STRUCTURES WHOSE SCALE AND MASS MAY OVERWHELM MASS INTO FOUR DISTINCT VOLUMES. PROVIDE A GENEROUS STEPPED-BACK THIRD STORY. PROVIDE NEIGHBORING EXISTING STRUCTURES. THEREFORE, WHILE THIS BUILDING TYPE MAY NEED TO IRREGULAR MASSING THAT RESPONDS TO THE UNIQUE CONDITIONS OF THE HISTORIC WERTENBAKER RESPOND TO THE VARIOUS BUILDING CONDITIONS OF THE SITE, IT ALSO SHOULD EMPLOY HOUSE (5 DEGREE SKEW TO THE STREET). DESIGN TECHNIQUES TO REDUCE ITS VISUAL PRESENCE. THESE COULD INCLUDE VARYING FACADE WALL PLANES, DIFFERING MATERIALS, STEPPED-BACK UPPER LEVELS, AND IRREGULAR MASSING. B. SETBACK: (PG 7) CONSTRUCT NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS WITH A MINIMAL OR NO SETBACK IN ORDER TO REINFORCE THE TRADITIONAL STREET WALL. USE A MINIMAL SETBACK IF THE DESIRE IS TO CREATE A STRONG STREET WALL OR SETBACK CONSISTENT WITH THE ... REACT AND RESPOND TO ADJACENT STRUCTURES, PARTICULARLY ALONG THE WESTERN SIDE OF SURROUNDING AREA. KEEP RESIDENTIAL SETBACKS WITHIN 20 PERCENT OF THE SETBACKS OF A WERTLAND STREET, AFTER THE JOG IN THE ROAD AT 12 1/2 STREET NW. THE JOG IN WERTLAND STREET IS UNFORTUNATE, BUT HAS BECOME THE RECOGNIZABLE NORMATIVE CONDITION, WHILE SEVERING THE MAJORITY OF NEIGHBORHOOD DWELLINGS. AT TRANSITIONAL SITES BETWEEN TWO DISTINCTIVE DISTRICT INTO TWO DISTINCT STREETWALL CONDITIONS. WEST OF 12 1/2 STREET NW, THE DISTRICT UTILIZES AREAS OF SETBACK, FOR INSTANCE BETWEEN NEW COMMERCIAL AND HISTORIC COMMERCIAL, VERY TIGHT, LIMITED FROM SETBACKS, EXCEPT FOR THE HISTORIC WERTENBAKER HOUSE (AN IMPORTANT CONSIDER USING SETBACKS IN THE NEW CONSTRUCTION THAT REINFORCE AND RELATE TO REASON TO RETAIN THE ORIGINAL LOCATION OF THE HOUSE). SETBACKS OF THE HISTORIC BUILDINGS. C. SPACING: (PG 8) MAINTAIN EXISTING CONSISTENCY OF SPACING IN THE AREA. NEW RESIDENCES SHOULD BE SPACED WITHIN 20 PERCENT OF THE AVERAGE SPACING BETWEEN ... REINFORCE THE ESTABLISHED AND EXISTING SPACING BETWEEN BUILDINGS FOUND ON THE BLOCK. HOUSES ON THE BLOCK. IN AREAS THAT DO NOT HAVE CONSISTENT SPACING, CONSIDER EVEN IN THE EASTERN PORTION OF THE WERTLAND STREET ADCD, WHERE GENEROUS FRONT YARDS ARE LIMITING OR CREATING A MORE UNIFORM SPACING IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH AN OVERALL PROVIDED, SIDE YARDS ARE VERY LIMITED. AN ANALYSIS OF SPACING CAN BE FOUND LATER IN THIS BOOKLET. RHYTHM. D. MASSING AND FOOTPRINT: (PG 9) NEIGHBORHOOD TRANSITIONAL BUILDINGS SHOULD ... REDUCE LARGER MASSING TO SMALLER-SCALED FORMS BY BREAKING UP THE ROOF LINE, VARYING HAVE SMALL BUILDING FOOTPRINTS SIMILAR TO NEARBY DWELLINGS. THE SURFACE OF THE BUILDING, AND STEPPING BACK THE BUILDING AT THE STREET LINE. 1. IF THE FOOTPRINT IS LARGER, THEIR MASSING SHOULD BE REDUCED TO RELATE TO THE SMALLER-SCALED FORMS OF RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES. BY ALLOWING STAIRS TOWERS AND BALCONIES TO CREATE VISUAL SLOTS IN THE MASS, THE PROPOSED 2. TECHNIQUES TO REDUCE MASSING COULD INCLUDE VARYING THE SURFACE STRUCTURE READS AS A SERIES OF (4) TWO-STORY, 30’ WIDE RESIDENTIALLY-SCALED MASSES, SIMILAR LANES OF THE BUILDINGS, STEPPING BACK THE BUILDINGS AS THE STRUCTURE TO WATER STREET EXTENDED OR BRICK TOWN HOMES FOUND THROUGHOUT THE AREA. THE ROTATED INCREASES IN HEIGHT, AND BREAKING UP THE ROOF LINE WITH DIFFERENT BRICK MASS AND FOOTPRINT ALSO REITERATE THE SKEW OF THE HISTORIC HOUSE TO WERTLAND STREET. ELEMENTS TO CREATE SMALLER COMPOSITIONS. ... RESPECT THE DIRECTIONAL EXPRESSION OF THE SURROUNDING BUILDINGS BY ESTABLISHING A DIRECTIONAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE OLD AND NEW CONSTRUCTION. E. HEIGHT AND WIDTH: (PG 10) RESPECT THE DIRECTIONAL EXPRESSION OF THE MAJORITY OF SURROUNDING BUILDINGS. ATTEMPT TO KEEP THE HEIGHT AND WIDTH OF NEW BUILDINGS THE TWO STORY BRICK MASS OF THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE ALIGNS WITH THE HEIGHT OF THE CORNICE WITHIN A MAXIMUM OF 200 PERCENT OF THE PREVAILING HEIGHT AND WIDTH IN THE LINE OF THE EXISTING HOUSE. THE WIDTH OF THE BRICK MASSES DIRECTLY RELATE TO THE RESIDENTIAL SURROUNDING SUB-AREA. REINFORCE THE HUMAN SCALE OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICTS BY SCALE FOUND ALONG WERTLAND STREET. THE PROJECT REINFORCES THE HUMAN SCALE BY PROVIDING INCLUDING ELEMENTS SUCH AS PORCHES, ENTRANCES, STOREFRONTS, AND DECORATIVE BALCONIES AND PORCHES. LANDSCAPING AROUND THE BUILDING MINIMIZES THE VISUAL IMPACT OF THE HEIGHT FROM THE STREET. FEATURES DEPENDING ON THE CHARACTER OF THE PARTICULAR SUB-AREA. ... ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THIS DISTRICT HAS VARYING SCALES, ARCHITECTURAL STYLES, USES, AND F. SCALE: (PG 11) IN CHARLOTTESVILLE, THERE IS A VARIETY OF SCALE. REINFORCE THE SCALE TECHNIQUES IN DEALING WITH SCALE. REINFORCE THIS VARIATION BY PROVIDING A THOUGHTFULLY AND CHARACTER OF THE SURROUNDING AREA, WHETHER HUMAN OR MONUMENTAL. COMPOSED AND COHESIVE EXTERIOR THAT DIRECTLY REFERENCES THE SCALE OF THE ADJACENT HISTORIC STRUCTURE. INTRODUCE DETAILING ELEMENTS TO REINFORCE THE HUMAN SCALE. 1301 WERTLAND ST. PROJECT NARRATIVE BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 8 OCTOBER 4TH, 2022 TAKING CUES FROM THE CHARLOTTESVILLE ADCD DESIGN GUIDELINES; PART III: NEW CONSTRUCTION THE DESIGN GUIDELINE COMPELS US TO PROPOSE A PROJECT THAT ENDEAVORS TO... G. ROOF: (PG 12) LARGE-SCALE, MULTI-LOT BUILDINGS SHOULD HAVE A VARIED ROOF LINE ...PROVIDE A VARIED ROOF LINE TO BREAK UP THE MASSING. UTILIZE THE VOIDS CREATED BY STAIRS, TO BREAK UP THE MASS OF THE DESIGN USING GABLE AND/OR HIPPED FORMS. SHALLOW BALCONIES, AND BUILDING FORMS TO PROVIDE A VARIED ROOF LINE. UTILIZE PARAPETS IN LIEU OF PITCHED ROOFS AND FLAT ROOFS MAY BE APPROPRIATE IN HISTORIC RESIDENTIAL AREAS ON A LARGE OVERHANGS TO SHIELD MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT WHILE REDUCING THE VISUAL IMPACT OF CONTEMPORARY DESIGNED BUILDING. THE ROOF LINE. ...THE PROPOSED PROJECT ADDRESSES THE STREET WITH A TWO-STORY CORNER TOWER ELEMENT ON H. ORIENTATION: (PG 14) NEW COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION SHOULD ORIENT ITS FAÇADE IN THE SOUTHEASTERN CORNER THAT SERVES TO ENGAGE THE PEDESTRIAN WHILE BREAKING DOWN THE THE SAME DIRECTION AS ADJACENT HISTORIC BUILDINGS, THAT IS, TO THE STREET. MASS OF THE FRONT FACADE. THIS MASS ALSO RESOLVES THE SKEW OF THE BRICK BASE BUILDING. THE PROJECT ALSO HAS THE UNIQUE OPPORTUNITY TO “FACE” THE WERTENBAKER HOUSE AND THE I. WINDOWS AND DOORS: (PG 15) THE RHYTHM, PATTERNS, AND RATIO OF SOLIDS (WALLS) AND FRONT YARD. BY ADDING BALCONIES AND LARGE GLAZING BAYS TOWARDS THE HISTORIC HOUSE, THE VOIDS (WINDOWS AND DOORS) OF NEW BUILDINGS SHOULD RELATE TO AND BE COMPATIBLE PROPOSED PROJECT AIMS TO ORIENT ITSELF COMPOSITIONALLY IN TWO DIRECTIONS. WITH ADJACENT HISTORIC FACADES. THE SIZE AND PROPORTION, OR THE RATIO OF WIDTH TO ...PROVIDE APPROPRIATELY PROPORTIONED WINDOWS THAT RELATE TO AND ARE COMPATIBLE WITH HEIGHT, OF WINDOW AND DOOR OPENINGS ON NEW BUILDINGS’ PRIMARY FACADES SHOULD ADJACENT HISTORIC FACADES. RESIDENTIAL SCALED, PUNCHED OPENINGS ARE PROPOSED IN A MORE BE SIMILAR AND COMPATIBLE WITH THOSE ON SURROUNDING HISTORIC FACADES. TRADITIONAL AND RATIONAL ORDER ARRANGEMENT. ON FACADES THAT FACE WERTLAND STREET AND THE WERTENBAKER HOUSE, APPROPRIATELY PROPORTIONED GLAZING BAYS HAVE BEEN INTRODUCED K. STREET-LEVEL DESIGN: (PG 17) STREET LEVEL FACADES OF ALL BUILDING TYPES, WHETHER TO BREAK UP THE MASS AND ENGAGE THE PEDESTRIAN. COMMERCIAL, OFFICE, OR INSTITUTIONAL, SHOULD NOT HAVE BLANK WALLS; THEY SHOULD PROVIDE VISUAL INTEREST TO THE PASSING PEDESTRIAN. NEIGHBORHOOD TRANSITIONAL ... ELIMINATE BLANK WALLS THROUGH CHANGE IN MATERIALS, BALCONIES, PORCHES, CIRCULATION BUILDINGS IN GENERAL SHOULD NOT HAVE TRANSPARENT FIRST FLOORS, AND THE DESIGN CORE ELEMENTS, AND APPROPRIATE AMOUNTS OF GLAZING. CREATE A DISTINCT TWO-STORY MASS TO AND SIZE OF THEIR FAÇADE OPENINGS SHOULD RELATE MORE TO NEIGHBORING RESIDENTIAL FACE THE STREET BY REFERENCING THE CORNICE LINE OF THE WERTENBAKER HOUSE. PROVIDE A THIRD STRUCTURES. STORY THAT RECEDES FROM THE STREETWALL / BUILDING FACADES. UTILIZE PORCHES AND ENTRANCES TO BREAK DOWN BLANK WALLS. L. FOUNDATION & CORNICE: (PG 18) FACADES GENERALLY HAVE A THREE-PART COMPOSITION: A FOUNDATION OR BASE THAT RESPONDS AT THE PEDESTRIAN OR STREET, THE ...PROPOSE A BRICK FOUNDATION AND BRICK BASE. ABOVE THE BRICK CORNICE LINE (AT THE SILL OF MIDDLE SECTION, AND THE CAP OR CORNICE THAT TERMINATES THE MASS AND ADDRESSES THE THIRD FLOOR WINDOWS) TRANSITION TO A THIRD STORY THAT STEPS BACK FROM WERTLAND STREET HOW THE BUILDING MEETS THE SKY AND REMAINS ORTHOGONAL TO THE STREET (FURTHER EMPHASIZING THE SKEW OF THE BRICK MASS BELOW). LEGIBLE VOLUMES TERMINATE IN A PARAPET WALL AND COPING CAP TO VISUALLY SIMPLIFY THE FORM. M. MATERIALS & TEXTURES: (PG 19) THE SELECTION OF MATERIALS AND TEXTURES FOR A NEW BUILDING SHOULD BE COMPATIBLE WITH AND COMPLEMENTARY TO NEIGHBORING BUILDINGS. IN ORDER TO STRENGTHEN THE TRADITIONAL IMAGE OF THE RESIDENTIAL AREAS ... SELECT HIGH-QUALITY, LOW MAINTENANCE MATERIALS THAT ARE IN KEEPING WITH ADJACENT OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICTS, BRICK, STUCCO, AND WOOD SIDING ARE THE MOST APPROPRIATE ESTABLISHED MATERIAL CHOICES. THE PROPOSED MATERIALS ARE BRICK AND FIBER-CEMENT PANELIZED MATERIALS FOR NEW BUILDINGS. LARGE-SCALE, MULTI-LOT BUILDINGS, WHOSE PRIMARY SIDING (I.E. HARDIEPANEL). KEY AREAS WILL UTILIZE METAL PANEL TRIM. FACADES HAVE BEEN DIVIDED INTO DIFFERENT BAYS AND PLANES TO RELATE TO EXISTING NEIGHBORING BUILDINGS, CAN HAVE VARIED MATERIALS, SHADES, AND TEXTURES. N. PAINT: (PG 20) THE SELECTION AND USE OF COLORS FOR A NEW BUILDING SHOULD BE ... AVOID BRIGHTLY COLORED OR INTRUSIVE PAINT COLORS COORDINATED AND COMPATIBLE WITH ADJACENT BUILDINGS, NOT INTRUSIVE. O. DETAILS AND DECORATIONS: (PG 21) MORE SUCCESSFUL NEW BUILDINGS MAY TAKE THEIR CUES FROM HISTORIC IMAGES AND REINTRODUCE AND REINTERPRET DESIGNS OF TRADITIONAL ... PROVIDE A HOLISTIC COMPOSITION THAT IS DEFERENTIAL TO ITS HISTORIC CONTEXT. TAKE CUES FROM DECORATIVE ELEMENTS OR MAY HAVE A MODERNIST APPROACH IN WHICH DETAILS AND ADJACENT BRICK DETAILING IN HEADERS, SILLS, SOLIDER COURSING, AND CORNICES. TAKE CUES FROM DECORATION ARE MINIMAL. CORNICE LINE HEIGHTS AND BUILDING PROPORTIONS. 1301 WERTLAND ST. PROJECT NARRATIVE BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 9 OCTOBER 4TH, 2022 STEP 1: COVER EXISTING SURFACE PARKING LOT STEP 3: BREAK DOWN MASS THROUGH STEP 5: FOR THE PROPOSED BUILDING MASS IN FRONT VERTICAL VOIDS AT STAIR TOWERS AND BALCONIES OF THE WERTENBAKER HOUSE, SKEW THE FORM TO EMPHASIZE THE HISTORIC RELATIONSHIP TO THE STREET STEP 2: IDENTIFY 12 INDIVIDUAL UNITS, STEP 4: LIMIT THE IMPACT OF HEIGHT INCORPORATING A STEP BACK FROM THE STREET BY ESTABLISHING A BRICK MASS THAT IS THE SAME HEIGHT AS THE WERTENBAKER CORNICE LINE 1301 WERTLAND ST. PROPOSED MASSING DEVELOPMENT BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 10 OCTOBER 4TH, 2022 RESIDENTIAL SCALED VOLUMES RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL SCALED VOLUMES SCALED VOLUMES SCALED VOLUMES USE 5 DEGREE SKEW XISTING HO TO WERTLAND STREET FRONT OF E ORIGINAL CONCEPT 1301 WERTLAND ST. PROPOSED SITE ORGANIZATION AND DIAGRAM BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 11 OCTOBER 4TH, 2022 3 5 6 6 1 4 2 2 ELEV. 538 ELEV. 538 1. ELIMINATE THE FOURTH FLOOR TO REDUCE THE HEIGHT AND MASS IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE WERTENBAKER HOUSE. 2. ELIMINATE THE EXTERIOR EGRESS WALKWAY AND RAILINGS. INTERNALIZE THE STAIRS AND ACCESS TO UNITS. 3. REFERENCE THE ADJACENT CONTEXT IN MASS, SCALE, AND HEIGHT. (I.E. BREAK DOWN IN THE BUILDING INTO MORE RESIDENTIALLY SCALED VOLUMES). 4. REFERENCE THE ADJACENT CONTEXT IN STYLE, MATERIALITY AND DETAILING. 5. ELIMINATE THE “COMMERCIAL” GLAZED OPENINGS AND REFERENCE THE ADJACENT CONTEXT FOR WINDOW PROPORTION AND ARRANGEMENT. 6. “FLIP” THE INTERIOR LAYOUT TO “SHOWCASE” THE HISTORIC STRUCTURE AND FRONT YARD FROM THE LIVING ROOMS. 1301 WERTLAND ST. SUMMARY OF RESPONSES TO BOARD COMMENT BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 12 OCTOBER 4TH, 2022 1 3 5 5 6 4 2 2 6 ELEV. 538 ELEV. 538 1. EMPLOY DESIGN TECHNIQUES TO REDUCE VISUAL PRESENCE. THESE COULD INCLUDE VARYING FACADE WALL PLANES, DIFFERING MATERIALS, STEPPED-BACK UPPER LEVELS, AND IRREGULAR MASSING. 2. ESTABLISHING A DIRECTIONAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE OLD AND NEW CONSTRUCTION 3. REDUCE LARGER MASSING TO SMALLER-SCALED FORMS BY BREAKING UP THE ROOF LINE, VARYING THE SURFACE OF THE BUILDING, AND STEPPING BACK THE BUILDING AT THE STREET LINE. 4. PROVIDE A VARIED ROOF LINE TO BREAK UP THE MASSING. 5. 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. 6. 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. 1301 WERTLAND ST. COMPATIBILITY WITH ADCD GUIDELINES FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 13 OCTOBER 4TH, 2022 1301 WERTLAND ST. RENDERED SITE PLAN BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 14 OCTOBER 4TH, 2022 PROPOSED 1301 WERTLAND ST. COURTYARD PERSPECTIVE BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 15 OCTOBER 4TH, 2022 1301 WERTLAND ST. EXISTING PERSPECTIVE FROM 13TH STREET BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 16 OCTOBER 4TH, 2022 PROPOSED 1301 WERTLAND ST. PROPOSED PERSPECTIVE FROM 13TH STREET BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 17 OCTOBER 4TH, 2022 1301 WERTLAND ST. EXISTING PERSPECTIVE FROM WERTLAND STREET BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 18 OCTOBER 4TH, 2022 EXISTING 1301 WERTLAND ST. PROPOSED PERSPECTIVE FROM WERTLAND STREET BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 19 OCTOBER 4TH, 2022 PROPOSED 1301 WERTLAND ST. PROPOSED PERSPECTIVE ON WERTLAND ST. BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 20 OCTOBER 4TH, 2022 1301 WERTLAND ST. CENTRAL PEDESTRIAN AXIS BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 21 OCTOBER 4TH, 2022 574' 560' 546' 538' 532' 510' 502' SITE SECTION 1301 WERTLAND ST. STREET SECTIONS / ADJACENT MASSING BAR SUBMISSION SITE SECTION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22 OCTOBER 4TH, 2022 10’ 25’ 15’ <10’ <10’ <10’ <10’ <15’ <10’ <10’ <15’ <10’ <15’ <15’ 1301 WERTLAND ST. SPACING WITHIN THE WERTLAND STREET ADCD BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 23 OCTOBER 4TH, 2022 30’ 20’ 15’ EAST 20’ 0’ 25’ WEST 15’ 15’ 25’ 25’ 1301 WERTLAND ST. STREETWALL WITHIN THE WERTLAND STREET ADCD BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 24 OCTOBER 4TH, 2022 1301 WERTLAND ST. WERTLAND STREET ELEVATION (SOUTH) BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 25 OCTOBER 4TH, 2022 1301 WERTLAND ST. SIDE ELEVATION (EAST) BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 26 OCTOBER 4TH, 2022 1301 WERTLAND ST. COURTYARD ELEVATION (WEST) BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 27 OCTOBER 4TH, 2022 1301 WERTLAND ST. REAR ELEVATION (NORTH) BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 28 OCTOBER 4TH, 2022 1301 WERTLAND ST. LANDSCAPE PRECEDENTS BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 29 OCTOBER 4TH, 2022 PIN OAK TO REMAIN C. D. B. C. D. E. F. C. D. E. F. A. 1301 WERTLAND ST. COURTYARD PERSPECTIVE BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 30 OCTOBER 4TH, 2022 A. B. C. D. E. F. 1301 WERTLAND ST. PLANTING SELECTIONS BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 31 OCTOBER 4TH, 2022 APPENDIX ONE: WHAT IS “MAX BUILD-OUT” MASSING? 1. MAX BUILD OUT PER EXISTING ZONING REGULATIONS - NOT CONSIDERING HISTORIC HOUSE. 2. MAX BUILD OUT PER FUTURE LAND USE MAP (FLUM) - CONSIDERING HISTORIC HOUSE VOLUME: 464,817 CU FT UNITS: 26 BEDS: 91 VOLUME: 273,377 CU FT UNITS: 20 BEDS: 70 3. PREVIOUS PROPOSAL - CONSIDERING HISTORIC HOUSE 4. FINAL MASSING PROPOSAL VOLUME: 160,680.62 CU FT UNITS: 12 BEDS: 38 VOLUME: 155,750.5 CU FT UNITS: 12 BEDS: 38 1301 WERTLAND ST. WHAT DOES “MAX BUILD-OUT” MASSING LOOK LIKE? BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 33 16 OCTOBER 4TH, 2022 APPENDIX TWO: RECENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GOALS 2003 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE MAP SITE 1301 WERTLAND ST. 2003 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 35 6 OCTOBER 4TH, 2022 ON L N PL D H DAIRYD W D O DR RD T HAR R NAS O LE PE BLUE A R CR VE O RD NE ON UM D CO CT PE CR BY-PASS HIT AR RD N FAULCO NN ST RD TO W RD W RY E CT HE D PA DS LN T GENTRY £ ¤ SU GE PARKER E R STONE IN S AF KL HIR OAKLE DR NG SI L AN DR T D 250 N OXFORD AR R RD ON STONE HE BU AN WE L L FO R LANE RI ES DR SEYMOUR RD ST DR RID D AL CH HERNDO N CK D R BU DM LI T EL SHERWOOD RD ID FIEL D RD P SQ IE ON LN BRU VEG LIS N LE R TO RD G M G G GREENF CE A OO BR PA AS SS ER PRESCELLY PL G EN RK RD SE SA EA RE AR ON BRO D FE TW W VE OL D COURT ST CT E UE MYE OO LAN L OO BR D NO D DR RUTLE DS LM RS DR RE TO OO PL D W BR D IEL OKM MO BY IELDS W L K DR HF TT W NY ST MA RD GLO RT EN PL WE £ ¤ OO IS BL £ ¤ ING NO 85 BE RO HI ME IVY RD 1 TH ERE COU LA RU AD EW 63 RW 4 AR HA MO ROSE HILL KE ROSLYN E ¤ £ N IL W CA 743 DR HE O IDL ICK M £ RT NT G DGE AV FO E BI AD STO RO RM D ROSLYN XH ¤ GL ND R ER £ ¤ 63 LE RE CT N RO AD MA IAN AM DR G AD OK TR TO ST T N 1 RU EY M RO N RO ST MA RK BS LN ING RD GE FOREST LN CT LBO S M DR NT M BY BE DR RID SP AD AF £ LN RD RIDGE ¤ DR LA IVY RIN REDIN HU RO G LAK GTON DRIVE DR CO OL E RD BR E ST W LANE WA UR A T FORE RO D BR TE LILI LN RA NN LN R DR CI BIN FE IG IS M ES OO RO D RO DR BL HT AL HI SS ID E 601 AD NBRIE FIE CIR CT CO LL R DR E LA Y W UR NC PL W LAMBS ROAD O LD NE E KE UR RM K DR WOOD WOODLAKE TV WILLI IDE O FA OO D GE OV AD DR VE T BL GREE AL PR FI GENERAL LAND USE PLAN PL RO BR ST IVE W 50 AMSB RAIN PL PEY TOWN RO IE DR TREE DR £ EL HE ¤ CO SL WI ROAD 3 IE LA IGH YN LD VD SNOW PRESTON LS NE NE AG 74 ME DEN DR MM TS TO N URG DOMINION RK E W WE OL DR HIL RUGBY RD DRIVE RE HO BL PL ON WEALTH RI D RO FO BIR AN AC OX RIO CO HO RV D E R NA PL O UR DR OOD LIB GL PK M D LN RD OL SPRIN CT IN FO HARROW RD DR ER CT RO PA RD AD SE OA S DR RD TY TT FARM RD AG AS RD KS RD LM IV E CT AM ON AD N PU CT LN TO S RD HA CO IVE N CT VE Y KS OW RD K RD G TT Y RI DR GH IN PL TE DR E G AD RD PU CIR IVE OA AD NT ITH YD RD P D NE TIN NE RO RO OO RD ES IVY HU TW RUGBY R SH EL HIL BL WE LA E LLI D BR IN RO WA E FO TT RD RD PLYMOU R LIC LS WYNRIDGE DR DELLW STF EA EY NG CK IV FA AD IV AD CO OX RD ET S £ WEST ¤ 65 RD OL E R ST AU ER SE IEL WYNRIDGE LN ST MASO TH URT 7 WA IV AV ES WIL RT ED BU DS TE UR DR OOD D KE DR HO DR AVE PL LV FIELD N LN RID OR RD IEL FIE CO BE PL HY EM CO GE LD MIN HF T AVE RD O OLD DR MALL DR UR H CH E CR ER R LT RT ROAD ST S SA CI EA MINOR BROO NO DW EEN LB ALBERT K NW LO QU DR U RIDGE W ON KENSINGTON WHITEWO CT RD CT KNIGH CO EL O T CT WELLFORD OD RD CT T M TE N S XT ROAD PARKER UR M STONE LEY EXETER IN BUS SA AVE CO ASH SU L IER IZ CO DR E FORE BR CT ST EM MT OXFORD E OO D LN LA LTH PR AN ALE DR CHA CT ST AL ER HERNDON R CIR WEA CIR CH WALDEN CT AB SHERWOOD RD WE BL FIEL D HILLSD RD CT K MON M LN VD LA CT OA COM THA EE O ST ND R SE RR ON SUMERSET OL D FE ED TO ET SS RUTLED OAK CT NE S K TR FIE LN GE WN RD PL RIE M CT IVY PINE OR MANCHESTER CT D LA LD W £ FRANKLIN EL GE GREEN GR RM D ¤ PE ND GE AVE TA OA H T N N YT MA RD EE R S RD RD CRIT ARBOR ON NB OL RD DO ST DR RI RD AV FE FREE RO DS RD ER LD STATE SS AL DR CREST DR RD NE E DR IE LAN EF 250 E BOWLES LN RD WE IE LA CT PRESTON 29 AK NE AG RUGBY LE E NCH ST W RO DR IV DR TE FIE RT G £ ¤ DR 743 RD BEE RD LD RR H TU VE Y LOCUST BRA LT N O AN EL RD RD DO RUGBY NO EN EA LN CT LA £ TT ¤ N RD L IV FA CH AD ET S RD RT RE NW K W GREE GAZE NG RO RD IN LL EE TE P AVE H NBRIE LN BO G G TO HI O 65 W R AVE GE BIRD LN AD EY WO RR CR CT FOUNTA NTI ER M ES EW EL LN ME EMM 4 CT IN M GE KENSINGTON ROS EL CO RID E LE DR T AP N TE N CO DR ARBO E CT HU CT AVE R IA L OD IVE RT IED LN LA CH EN W ROBINSON R RO OR R RT OL L DR O WE RR GL TU ED SS EL CT E ST DR AD WAY ST EL PA PIN GN LO LN GE KING WAK RR RD GA LE IVE I PL UR BA DR ST EFIE W E CO TE EN CO ME MA W MILL PARK LD TE VU RR AP HAV L LFRIE LTH DR LIS PS UR G E TS CT AC MOC HO O NT BI SA CT CH AV DR T MILLS PE VER IN AS T P LT US CO TONE PL CU KS PL MIRA R MO EW EMM E CT PL DR M RIVER ST TON R L ST LN W ROBINSON RO O Y LN E AI CU AY RI RE CT KERR E LN LN CO WESTWO RIV W LOCU REYNARD NE AV ST MA TR AD DENIC RD DR E ER OLD FORGE DR PEBBLE CREEK CT RIE E FE R AY WESTWOO WI DI AS O OA O WOODS ST DR EXT WOODS RD RD CH RIDG OLE BRE PL KS DY D NC A OD PL R RD ND S STILLFR MIC RU D RD BL CA O OR AN A G S HAE VE N HILLWO LINE S CT LN AK MIN ME UF L RI T UR NN N RD GASO OO BR NL IDGE RD DE BR D O OD RD PL F OMO D ID KB DE S ON DU R SOL SE Y G SE N ST OO RU VE DR O HO DR MI ALLE AC ING L WILSO CT AN LL LN LE RR PL NO URN RI BO LE BY K RD K BL BLACKB E WO LE HO S ND VE RY LN OD WAY UN PL OC STURBR OLD SALEM NW ST LN BL CIR CT AR DR E EW CIR OD DR WIL ST Y DR PL RIER IV GREENWAY APARTMENTS ML VE TE GR EWO TR DR HARDWO R RN ROSS E RD EA KER AI INGL D EE EE I HB RD AMHERST VE TER RD HE PARK ST ENB CH ST N HIL T N OD OD PK ER ID Y OP RA RD DR A CABELL AVE AL ES L DR AUGUSTA ZA R DR LA WOOD LO ON T AVE CL W AR TO RC N M COUR HUNTWOOD LN GRE HE G R ON BA W ST LE E RS LET IO NS BE RA DR DR SA W AS LC ST TO COMMON Y AN DR YO KIN PL SH D RIE RK AVE O KE DRIVE INGLE AD DR ROAD TAR LINE RK D ST FA NL EL NO CT DR MO GE BAR SH ES TWO TOWN G IV T UT LN E Y BY IT T RR DU CO T SE E M EN IR UR IN NB CHAR N PE NTF OR OO EX DR RT SO D PL BY E X WILLIAM CT L W UR PL BU VE CK NB ROSE HILL DR RI S VER RD Y ST EM HIL N E CO INDIA RD EE AN £ KI ¤ 6 DY ROAD WENDO GE A DR DR OR DR GU T H RD SO BA NG T 65 ND PEND TER SW AN UR LETO LANE AN LO AR GR AVE AR D LI M GL MEAD PARK RD N JAME AW CO TN COU E ER COUR BL UN CIR BR RT FO E A DW ED OAKS CED RN B IL RD N AN NL SH AV GU DE O VE STO WES OWB VD TR WEST BUNK ST KE GE CK GU AD LL E V T E OU LO GTON ER DR ME NW RI DR AMHE TO RO DR S E C TU PL HILL LA WN MET HY AD AV OO C H ROOK DS AD AL DR L GREENWAY LN SM £ RST BIR RD SD D T LN ILL EE CT ¤ BYPASS DR O RO CHARLOTT BENNIN DR EL LL DR LN O LN Y E R S EM EY HI ES W RD HARDWO IE TE E CIR AU CIR RD ST CK AD RN HW ST ROSS R MEADOW CH ON PL IN S RI RT B RO MI IT LI G IN X EE ER E HTS LD M WA IR NO AV MID E RD KIN AV LL CA TM WA RD C I IE LE GE HO LAM BIR GR ST N YN AD CT ST 250 HF OR RD ES RO SM VICA H RE LID TR LI EY E AV CT IT DL GE AMHE RST RD JOHN T R RO ER RK VE ER DR AL W RD AY IT HE CE S MADISON LL SM E AD UR DR BET Y ST HF R FR PA OD OD DR AV CABELL AVE ES I DW AR WO AU E VA AC HA Y E CO ED E OD LE K EX N IE LE OD RIC DRIV WO HOLL EN LE R Y CH EY E DRIVE KELSE OO ST £ LD CIR W ¤ RR PR ITH R AY LC AVE AUGUSTA PA G HU K KEN CT IFD HC HI CL EENE TRIPP CT RR E ID RST AVE AV RK TO RS W KS S CI LL W. CT OOD GH WIN CIR KE 631 T LE RD CT NR TW BR CT T HO RD ST SU NE ES GR E H NDY E N R EA ST MN Y R RD RK DG KE DO BRA AVE CT AVE DHU TE AN W T RH ER LE RS W DR O UR WA L W C DR N DR BL BA RI AR CA U AS IV HE YO S ST WA DO Y AR ON DA CO T ST RT RU IM HI WOO £ R NC KE YM M CROSSING ¤ RE ER RN AM ST AN W AY RA AL E CT DR RS MEA ST ST ATH LA LN C N Y R OW C KENWOO VI CH GR VIS VE LN L ST D ER MO EEN RS CT LIE CT MA DIS KS Y VALL H OR GR EY LL RT RI OR W D KEIT ION GB RD RT Y LO DA ON AN T GA CO M L COMMON RO DR NC PEN PARK WOOD LN MER IA N PETERSON LN D BY-PASS AD AV RD PK UR RD TI N CE X 20 N MA CO RU EX FOXB LE AVE BE SIT FO TO ROO T Y AD D WY ¤ £ K ¤ AL E CA C DAIR EX LANE BELFIELD LOOP £ GR R Y PL AD AR 29 BAR LIE TW O 250 ME OV TOWN WILLO ROAD CO G PI UT NE AD E E LN WDAL D WA L CA IT OW RD E LANE D ER RD TOP RI PA HO IN BR M LEY W SP E LA LN CT OO TS NE IV GROVER CT GE OO RD ES O K RK NASH DR VA ST TT RID DR AV CT LL RD RD UN CIR ON CT SW AD HE M RO IV TN PL IRY BU VE ROSE HILL DR T ST ER Y O LE H PE BLUE ONER FT N N O DA E RD OV BE LA NN ON UM Y NR D BO CT ILL AV EL ITC PE CR UN BY-PASS RD P ER AR N ST AN DR I AN NN ST RD RD WH TTO RD K SO FAULC DR YA RY E CT HE D SA LN PA TH £ ¤ E SU A E GENTRY HS RK TH CY AV E RD SS A DG CO SW LN EAF ROSSER HIR DR LN NT OAKL 250 NG ST C VE IA RD AR R ND BU RI GO DR ES ES DR H LO STONE HE SEYMOUR RD MO N LANE W DR RO RD ST RID DE CH CK BU LIN T NT E R ID P SQ RM L IE ON BRU OD VEG LIS LE TO RD G R ET GR MAR IV GE CE AVE AS SS ER PRESCELLY PL G W SA DO LE DR WO CT HA LL D LM EE TN TO W TH LN E Y 1 6 T E BR T BY UE H MA NY KENT CR IS AVE E HI ME MIN RU N CIR MIDM BL CO ROSE HILL E A N IL CA OO DW G N IA ED STO LE ST HS DR GB BR ST RU M RO RL C T MA A LBOU RN 10 MB AF £ LN B ¤ KW DRIVE DR Y N W OR DE AD ON D LILI LN LN RID CI NC ES OO AY 601 TO LY GE CIR AV NA HS R NL ALW LEWIS DR TV T GE N BLV FI L T RN PEY RD AV O IE O VE ES EL WE S TON N OR RK 13T OL W HS HO CU SPR AV OR D E D OXF E NS NW RV E RD PL DR OOD D E RD HARROW RD PA RD OR DR UIR MER AL FARM RD AG LM IV M D RD AV HA CO IVE AV Y IGG OU HA G CAR LL D CIR ONT PE KL NE NE RO ES AD IVY TW 17T RD IVE LE ING AV RR PLYMO AR FO D ST RO E AMHE EA AD Y W IVE E MT CIR CK UTH SE OX ST MASON LN ES AVE WI TE UR C DR BU BE CO LN TU HO DR PL 12T RD E O DR LD LA CR ST T IR LB AC HI UR W VE ST EL WELLFORD WO PARKER LOUDON C STONE IN BUS LL L OXFORD E IZA HS T ST AL HERNDON ER SHERWOOD RD FIELD RD M LN BE RD A OD CA ST OLD FE ON L RUTLED RD ND PL IVY IER SS TH £ ¤ W FRANKLIN EV D ND GE AVE R N R VIR RST BIR MA RD RD RR OL RD RD AV N FE CL RO SS AL DO DR LEWIS E 250 E E IE L AV PRESTON AG NE RUGBY RIV ST RM RO KE Y DR CT TH GIN IEW ET ST RD BEE n) Y LOCUST TI S N L RUGBY LN LA LN CT E TT AD IV FA CHW RD NE AVE AVE GA M TN NE 15T LN KENSINGTON CO OO LN N ER AVE IA S LE ME 1/2 RIED LN LA ER EY E TO DR D RR ED ST AR LO LN SE RD SS O PE S NS (unope RV TL GE CIR TE T CU R DR EMM RO T 14 BE RO ST LN W ROBINSON E WI CU W CO AVE IL FER AVE AY OO WESTWO AV LOCU ST WOODS RD ROA BO ST N CT D RO D S LN OD RD RD S R RU Y SI ES LSO ON PL OO IS DE M D STILLF D DE GB S DE ST G DR LM LAT LN LL RR K BER ST VE LE AN RE PL UN Y D E R N ST Q 10 NW AV TA LN HO EW CIR OC WIL Y BL CIR PL GREENWAY HARDWO TE AR R RN ROSSE LE ML MEADOWT IV E HB RD X GB AR AMHERST R UNIV PARK ST HI OD D AVE R HE AV CABELL AVE AUGUSTA RA AI ER CH RO AR TTO TSO HE DA WOO W NS CL AS COMMON PL S DE SI AVE OT D FAU NO ST BAR AN LO R T UT T ST LYO ON ME EN TY CT PE OO RTH CA BE BU E ROSE HILL DR ID FO NA ST NO CO E EX L PL DA DR SO LE M Y ET ST N LAM BIR AVE AR GL DR ER R CT C BL RD LO WEST CIR E AV DW ED AW TE RN BOU N CT L E GE VD TR ER NL E SH AV VE AMHE LN ST AV CO AV THOM NS AV C HIL O T TU RI LE RST SM WE BIR £ EE A ST ¤ BYPASS T LL LN RT RD S CIR L CT E RD T ST PR LE R R MEADOW N S BE R RU AR X IT Y TR ES TO PL AV RD LL LAM BIR LE CT 250 DIS RD TR CA H N CT RD TRIPPER M CT S BET MADISO SON KELSEY CT CR DW ST AR AC ES HA ST RD N AVE ST ST RI E H CM D TW KS PR AVE CT OOD HW ST CH LL Y CEL LA O AVE RS OR NS LN U IV RD WA LE N DA HI £ YM M ¤ ST MADISO CC ALL ST ST C M Y GR VIS S ST AN RIV SO LL ST D MA BYPASS IED BET ITY LO AN RO DI M T EM WOOD AD AV N ES ND Y 20 T AV BE LN RD Y MA ALL E CA TI LE EX CIR O LO A PE AD I JO DW MA BE RS ROAD G IED WA AR CA LH CO NORTHW E RI PA O IN M HS UN RO S AC NW LA TS O E ST OU IVE S RK VA ST AV H NG LAN ON E NE MB LL HE HIL N T D G CIR NIA E NN Y NR AV ELK NS OOD EVE UN AP LN H ST AN ET AN ST IF N TO AN RD BO ER Y AV L DR I E AL AV WA EMM RD CY A ROSSER N AVE H TH CO SW LN RR GO DR ES TH KELSE NW ST IVE E RD ST CH NT E RR RGR ED OD RO RD M PR RD IVE RR LE T DE 16T H ST HI RE H KENT CR MIN ON AVE E CHA MIDM CO ER TH AR HC ST SAD AN CT MAN H ST OR LT MO N 10 13T LB NC LY GE AV NA EEN E 9T LEWIS TRIPP H ST H ON R ALD RO AV £ RD LEY ON OR AVE 13T RD CU SPR OR ¤ E N E NW E AV AV S AV RS LE R SO E AV DR IGG CAR GE L ONT KS 17T £ D ME ST Y E E NW MT CIR CT OOD LN ACK RE WIN AR HIL ¤ BE LN WB WO NT 12T E AV 14T ST R 11T H ST AV LOUDON HA LL E AVE TW AI RD CA ST N ON ST EV RS VIR R CK RD N CL H LE RE RIV ST KE LEWIS GIN IEW DR n) TI LN ITY I MTN NE 15T TI LN IA 1/2 ER ST AR RA SE O S (unope MN ST QUI ST AVE IL CELL 20 AVE ROA VIS ST BO ROB R RD LN RD Y LSO M PO RG LAT ST RE RO D ST 10 ERT AV TA ST GB HI UNIV AVE RO 29 PAO ST SON OT FAU Y R CA LYO ON E BE OL FO NO LL DA E LE ET ST E N DR CT RD TE N PARK CT JA ST LLO DRIV YCAST LN PA MB O GT ST AV THOM WE NS IN O MA NT RT E PR LE R RD RU AR DIS SON CT PL RIVE ST ST ST E S HW ELLI LA CIR O RD LN LE AV ST L LN E M MIN AVE BYPASS NCE EM ES ND G H ST AV CI OO LO AD PE Mc JOH D MA BE MO I IV NORTHW CO AV NC UN IS R ON ME SMc NG ST E AV D RO G H N ST OOD EVE AN ST TO CIR ES ST AL EMM IA RR IVER ED RR RGR OD ST ON DE H CHA SAD MO 13T EEN E H RS RE XIN £ N ¤ CO LER DR 9T £ Y NW RE ¤ 8T RD ON WB WINE EWO T 11T RI AV HA SITY WINE AVE CIR N OR K IR LE DR LAR RA IN T HA NY M RTO ST 20 TO OC YM 29 PAO NTI CEL ST OL Y PO E ST PARK JAM ST DRIV AST B PA AVE E PL ES ELLI HA AV LI LN E MIN AVE GE CIR V ING OM D McI SE NC ST LE AV H ST A ST N MO CU RE A ST 8T WINE RI CIR OR R HA N Z Y RTO NYC ST E WC ER HA AI SE VE PA LE LEX ON W N CU EAS AV E EAS N PA ZE AV E Mc LE RV LN ST MALCO CL RD ST EL O MALCOL CL AR ST 1ST TLA ST RK L Y RD RV LN NE CO ST LM ST S AR VIE LEY OI WN WAL WA ST BON AL LO ST E M N 1ST R GR LE £ ¤ TL A RM CRESC RD R NE Y 10TH DR KER E CT BE ST E W WERT PAG GR NE DA NT ENT S RD CO ST VAL ST AV KW AR ICK W L LAND E ST M ES AC AL FARI 1421 K RUN DR IL E ST VIE LEY ALTA ST ST A MO CIR O SH ST DR E ST WN WA ST PAR BO N ST LO A CH AV DI NW LO E MON ST PLAZ PO ST AV E £ E HA EM ¤ RD W 13 ST AV T DR OR 2ND PL £ RD IR AY LLY ¤ ALT CIR LE LLY ST HED E SP LK ST RIC RM ICK AR 12 ST Y DR CRESCE 12 1/2 NEW NE 250 RD H MO ST GE E DR RM SYC ST CT DR ST HO H KE HM ER W RL 10 1/2 ST HO WERTL PAG Y Mc CO AM GR E 7T TAY WA HIG AN ST T IRE OR AV RD EL DR RO E O B L LO GH NT E AV H ST ICK W E AV E'S ND AVE R WOOD W MA MA IE 10T HOU ON ST OR PRESTON ST BRO AND ST GE PLE HI ES VA A AL FARIS MCINT AD SP ST MO SE 1421 IN WN ST K ST EDUK D WHITE ST RU IL DR ST OV JEF A RD AN ST ST 4TH AVE CE BEND ST VE HEAD RO R LE S ST CIR ELT FER ALT ST H PARK ELSO E NS T DR MA AM T JEFFERSON MA GR OR SON H ST OLD H ST PAR LEE 8T AD GIL AM M ST LO D ST AP ST A CH RK SEV 5TH ST T NW BLV E M ST ET SIT CRE TN E OAKHURST S ST 7TH CIR ST AV OE LN O 8 TH PL AZ ST PO 11T STE DR RE ST AD £ LAN E HIGH HA ON YA T ¤ ROO SP 6TH CIR AVE COMMER JEF SO RIDGE £ RD DR W E R E WN ¤ T ST AV FER ME ST CE TT AN UT TA ST Y R RD T WAR CT 2ND RO DR RIW PL AL ST ST SON RD WA TE K NE EST ST MONR S ST WAL H 250 BRO E ST ES ST ST ET LO ST H AS PA E JEA E 13 S ST UG OP KER CIR Y HE LIN ST DR Y SNL LIT 9 1/2 ST MA HE E P GILDERSLEEV O RI ST NT NC AR 2ND ER IC PLZ AV 12 ST IN TLE R NT EL T AN SQ Y VA DR 6TH VA DON OP ST 7TH AL ST RIV LA 1ST LL WOOD PA 12 1/2 LL RO HIG IN B NEW R ST DG LLE 250 IB LL ST MA RM H NAL DEL 2ND S SPE DR AV AV D S H ST 9TH ST AD MO ST ST LL LK RM 9T CRI NT LE EVA CA CH SO ST 3RD WA SY H ST ST ST Y BRAN N CT E 7TH ST RO E L IE MO DO UT TER E AV HO ADCT DR H ROAD NO 4TH R Mc CO ALDE H KE CA LN VE ST AD VA RO 2 10TH ST 13T 5TH KIN ST HO ST ST G H ST M GRO G RD AR SO E RM 12TH ST 7T AY ST CHER ST TA MO WA ME BO HIG MO 10TH D 10 1/ H ST JON W KING UT N CIR R TIRE FA VAL 4T HI LA OO SPR ASO LSEA RY CA YL HA ST WATER H GAR CK DR CHE AVE U BL F F RE CIR STADIUM NE D DIC ST E ES DR LEY 11T E RET FA RM H ST H M ST GLE W ST ST ST HS KE IRW ING T RIVER OB 13T OR ST MAURY D E SO AN RD E'S AS E 6 1/2 PANT ER ST ST H ST ON MIMOSA TE NT ELM AY AV OAK MA ND H 2ND AV AVE SE ST IG ST W M HI CA RR KING UT RI PATO APPLETREE PIEDMONT AVE N ST MA 6T 4TH ST RK OR CT IN PIE ST H NG CL TE RR ST ST RV N BAK T HO ST H ST 12T ET AVE ST OPS VE ER AVON CH PRESTON T PL OLM AR ST 5T M RR OL TO ST E BRO RD MON AT BINGL P LE DR EH GROEXT ST ES RK PRICE ST MO N ST EY KE PIN GRAVES ST ON LTON AP AIN U N MIMOSA NUNL ST OR NW E VER E ST EA ST VA LA LN SE ST ISH D VE ER AVE WN S OAK NG PA KE AR NE CT ST TI AV N ST Y RD ST LE RD LL SH HANO ST ST ST ES R AV VY CH SH HIN CE E EV E D OR ES WHITE EY TER S LITTL CIN N FIFE DRIV JEF DAVI GRAV TO E AM AV T 18 T 4 TH DR AVE RD ES UL CIS MA E ST ST H ST T BEND SO N AV LL FRAN E ROCK DUK RO RD AV OAK TH GE Y HEAD ST WAY ST BO VA ER N HILL ST WA DR S O E OD LT FONTAINE AVE O F AV JEFF BE E ST A MA LAS TH CARLTO RID 7 1/2 16T THO ST ST LM ELSO ER GO ST PIEDMONT AVE L D NT E IR AV E ST MONPELIER ON PARK DR LL R FOREST HILLS AVE ST RM LEWIS DR JEFFERSON OR RD MA RCH AL ST GR UG PLATEAU FA T OR FA SO HU ST AP OL D ST TF KE LLY AD STCH GIL LE 8 EXT EAM S SUMM T EVE ITY ST TODD AVE RA E MS HE E HIGH ST EN M DO IV BA D ST NU CE AD CHU RD ERS E CENTER 1ST ST ST YC AV ER NS ON ST HO CT AV LN S AVE BRO UNIV AT WILLI RK E ¤ £ CE H ELL E T UR BA RD E RY S RD E ST 782 E M E AV RK 18T 5TH AVE OR RA AV DG W ST TN ROBERTSON AVE EL W SO E SD IFF RU BLV WESTERL ER MAN GA T IT ST IO BO RIS E RD DR ST ALE AK Y MYR AV ERVIE S UR RI ST ET ST UT RE NT LAF LL SID ST HIGHLAND CL SP TT TLE OLIN ES H IV R AYE ING LE AVE MOR CE LN LA OAKHURST ST TN 7 TH CI ST L BE ST TTE CIR E N IAR AV AVE OE LN E RA AV RG UL ER E CR RR DR BE PO FOREST 8 TH LA N ST AV ES AVE ET E RIV RO E AV CT ST ING BL EXT MA OS TU STE PA AVE DA 11T RAYMOND BR Y NR DR Y BU ST RIV E E CK EN GE D E RK BO CH D G RN NA LA RR AV TRAILRIDG HE BRID ST ET LA 2N P CR RD LIN N JEFFERSON NK ST IM BAIN EE RD ST BU YO E BE AVE RIB RY EE FO AV S 6TH LIN CIR N T AV AVE UN ST JEF SO RD P COMMER ST L UL K ST MO E SH ER DE RA ST REE RD ST £ HIL ST CA OA M RD ER E R ¤ E WN H N CT NT AN ST E G ST RD E ST AM AN HA RO RL 6T ME WAR RO RR FER DR AV ST CT ST IN NA CH CE AV TT PE SE TO AN RO RT RD UT ST LEONARD BL ERN AV ST CKS AY R RAN RIDG EL E RO RD LE WAR AV 1ST RI ST OS CR E N AV X TRA MARCHANT UTH M DR TU YA RIW N CK LIOT ST ST BIN E BR ST SO ES AN C S ST SON DA W S TE FT OA ST TO NE ST PR TM SO PL EST DOL ND RD ON R E DW S MI S TH ST H O SUNSET GAN AV N T AV GE 250 ON BA M N DL AY H WA ST E AV SA LT MOR E BRO ILE INE T RL SU MO OR OP AL ST ST E IL AN ET RA DG E NR ES S ST 5T ST DR O TH ITH AN H E ST AV D PAR NRISE PH TA RIA ST CY Y RD L AV KH TE PA MON UID IAN RD RA E A E VIS IN RD LK OMA ST CT CA RI ST ST HAM RD ET EL G OR K SM ROSSER AV HE CA IE TA IN ON SNL LIT /2 ST INI VI E MA LOOP RID T NT IVER JE ER ST SON LL AV HA R CLEV EH GILDERSLEEV ST LL TO DR RL EN E LN U N ST 2ND ER ICK AG UID PLZ LEY M AV NG AN R RO ELAN RD ST ME CA CT DR T TL E GE PI VA NO IN IA VE T E PT BI GE RO VIN SQ MASON VA TO 91 RE N 6TH LN L CK AVE AL D AV GO CK ID E BRUNSW PA O B E N RD HUNT US H E WATERBURY AV 7TH ST LA N BE O AV ST L ST GREENWICH E LR RO ST R LA 1ST WOOD W RD ND E RD O PEL IN HILL RO AI AG ST ST RO CR HIG AVE WO PA AD MONTICEL CA P MA E LL N TR AV W ST NDO LL AV TT SA ST WIL VI EE BLI BAYLOR ST R CT E ST MA H NA EN S C NT 2ND DEL S OD LL RK E H RD Y ST LK T K RR CRIS INE HIG LN RO ON PA DR K DARI HS C DR 9TH ST DU LA E HLA R RD TI RM UID TICE HARTFORD ST LAN LL LL ERI CI RK N ET IN TE LYNN 9T ST DR ND WOODFOLK TO RL RD EVA PL BA PA SO RD AV EY AV RD NS ON KL E CA R DANBURY RO FL ET AVE PL YLOR E ES SO ROAD MILFORD T 3RD AN D DR EA EH RO AN ER WA RO CT SU UG O ON T LO AC TER ST EN MON RE AVE EM CK FR N C E RAYMOND FF 7 TH R MO E ROYS PL GE T DR BR LA ST ER SEL ON PA NC HS ND AV DO JE OO ADC ONOVA T AV D UT DR TER EY CLE RD HA LA E E KW AV EK LN BRA TN E VEL TIN H ST LN E Y 1 6 T K E E AV E IV DR T DR OO CRE HI AND YD E 4 TH PAR M RD E DR N N D RES ST W AVE H CR KENT MANILA MOO AVESTE CL LN E ST E LE MI LN OE RIO ST RIVES K AD LOR AL RO ER ON ST MIDM CO N ST DR EE MA CT H O CIR ST LN INC ST 13T RT T V ALD ET 5 TH T AD KIN LTO E CR ST NAY AU GRO OW ST DR AVE E N PO N G T RO BL LL AV EE E M RIA ST SS UR PL AV HS YE ST SLAT G BR 10T RD RIS DG AR AN SO ST CS M 12TH ST H E GR HS PL IAN RL NA HAR NO AY X CHE ST LK FT HB LO CHR ES OLD WATE 10 AVE ME FI RID Y KING VIEW IM PL HAR RO LINDEN BO WE D RD RO 10T VISTA R TMA NC T ROAD GR UG QUARRY RD ISTA ME JON CT OL R MILL KEY IS NS LE W EL EM UT CI PL DR N RR E RD CIR R TROOST KNOLL § BELLE IG ¦ ¨ DE EA DR N DR ON LY CHANDLERS HS HA LID ON MC RRY FA H PL TO EAST VA HI STO 4T CT T AV ST O SPR LLIA DR SO OD E PL 64 LS NC EY HIL TOWLER ST MONTE AL E HA CHE R COURT ST SEL LA TO SH D WO NE MT PL O H VIEW FL BRO MO GA C STADIUM R N VIE AV NA OL AVE U H EA DR BL F F HS CIR DIC LL OK IN MA NG ST ST W NE D ST PL R LEWIS T KM CAME EA ES MID D R PE 11T T LO LO FA LN RET E DLE DR E RM PP H ST ET SHAS EN L EY TO ST AZAL W VE ER ST N TA CT ST CT ST IRW AV FIELDING KE RE LN KE LN ING RIVER RD T PL OB 13T DRIVE GL £ ST ¤ MAURY ES AN RD LE ST § ¦ ¨ AS /2 PANT GARDEN 780 BI RD ST ST NE CE O R ST BE N ON MIMOSA ELM AY 13T M HARRIS N YE 64 DR NT HS T CU LA IN AV OR KING CAMELLIA SPR IVE OA MA OU 61 CREEK E H RO RO QU H 2ND NW A S CA ER T ST AD ST 5T HI DR PATO E APPLETREE GLEN PIEDMONT AVE N ST K T 6T 4 TH TH ST ER EX AVE RK UIR MER CT AL TH ST ST AV NG TE RR R DR CL ST ST N BA ST H ST IG G VE LER ET AVE SC OPS CAR ON LL AVON CH £ ¤ VA T ONT PL OLM AR A 781 KL GROEXT 12 M 5T R OL 17T BI NG BO T § ¦ ¨ RD AV N DR UG R ST ST E RK MI PRICE D O N H 64 R SA ST CH EY PIN GRAVES ST TA TO KE MO E ON VE IE LTON NUNL E MT CIR DR DO RN WY DR LN N MIMOSA ST E PE R KER NC LEGE LN ES AVE EXT RT MANSFIELD AS RD COL ST PA PK VA ST ISH £ D ¤ TE 1 HA NOVE AK PL RY RD R 63 LN AVE T K CT 12T INWOOD N AR LOCKSLEY CT TI MOUNTA AV ST T SO E RO OA ST LE L SH AC ER AD TERR HI COUNTRY ET FF ES R ST AV VY LE CH GREEN APTS JE SH HIN EV CE VE LE SUNS ID E OR LOUDON AS £ ¤ 780 TER OM FIFE AN £ ¤ ON ST DRIV CO D GRAV TO HS HA AM E £ ¤ CIS T1 UN TH YR AV LITT DAV EL DR R UL TR 631 FI STREET EXT µ E RD ST Y CI 20 T 5TH IN FRAN GR CA NA RS ST ROCK LL W PI EE E 8T NE N DM AV LE WAY OA HS E Y RD HU ST ST BO VE H FE VIL STCARLTORN 53 R VIR BROOK K CT RS D HILL ST WA DR Land Use S DG AD FONTAINE AVE RD O T G MA A TS JEF OA RO BE E UR STAGECOACH LEWIS AS O RI OT K HIL HB /2 HO 16T SIDE LM E NC LAKE ST R SOUTH W HILL AVE ST ST E SC LY KE OO T ST GO PIEDMONT AVE D DRIV NT TH L DR GIN Low Density Residential Park or Preserved Open Space 71 IR ST M MONPELIER D ON n) OR GL S ER FOREST HILLS AVE ST R LEWIS D R RD OL CH T CT PLATEAU FA FA M TN TF T D HU ST High Density Residential Public or Semi-Public W NS AK 15T LY U RA STC LN EXT Y I 1 /2 UR SUMM ES T SIT ST TODD AVE E AD A DO B R ST NU ST HE ** Denotes property not subject to the E AV L Neighborhood Commercial IV E SE RD CENTER CT 1ST BRO YC AT O E C N S CH HO UN (unope AV LN S AVE City of Charlottesville's municipal authority RR WILLI E ¤ £ T H CE ST AL UR BA EL RD O 14 Mixed Use E S RD E 782 AV OR YS AVE RK 18T AVE RA AVE AV DG N ER LI EL ROBERTSON AVE MA W O E ROA S BO F RU WESTERLY T GA S ST DAL LN IT ST Business and Technology BO PA RRIS Y RD ES DR LIF AK MY NT OT IDE IE SS UR RI ST NUT LA E LL RT ST HIGHLAND SP FA LAT OL IN R CE LE AV ERV IV R IN ST RC LE T RE AVE Y RO D LN Q LA 10 E Miles BE STE TTE G RS CI ST AL E 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 AVE E AV MO RG ST C L RR DR GB FOREST UNI IA HI AV R U ST AV AVE T RO E RIV RO E E T ST ING BL EXT MA TU AVE D RAYMOND E BR E Map adopted as part of the 2013 Comprehensive Plan by Charlottesville City Council on August 19, 2013. E RY BU RIV E E C EN IDG FAU TRAILRIDG E RK CH A D LO R G V RN NA ON K LA BR AV LIN HE ET ER BE ST 2N P FO CR BAIN NO RD N L DA JEFFERSON LE NK T ST IM EE RIB RD ST YO BU E B CT RD AVE EE RY ST FO AV UL LIN CT ET L AV ST L K ST MO E ST SH THOM DE RA ST RD ST HIL M RD CA ER WE H N RT CT NT ST E ET S RE G ST RD E AM RR H L R RU RL AR 6T R N RO PR AV ST LI CH AV AR D IS RN PE WA TO CKS SON S E RO RD LEONARD B E AV ST ST EA RAN I H EL RA E TM ST RO LE UT D 1ST TR OS X T ST CR E MARCHANT VE TU NA N CK SO L IO CEL BR ST B S E AN C S DA RD ST RD IN FT OA ST VE TO ST PR SO PL D ND ON M GA N AV MON S TT MID DW O SUNSET N E BA O LP MO R N AY ES M TTH OR ST GE AV AV LT AV NG E ILE LA RL T S CI MO AL S E IL RA DR E N D P UNR T ITH PE KH TE ST E JO MA BE TA RIA ST YR L AV RID IAN U RA H S5 A A RD IS CT EL ET V I H R ID MA RK NI CA UN ST D S ST IST E HAM R OR ST SM IN D AV H ON NO ER E IN VIL E AA LOOP RID ST TO HA CLE EH ST NS DR VE RL SO LN LA AN IER TO N NG AN ST EN ICK VEL CT I AL U M LEY EMM RO E GE RD BI N ST ME CA GE PI NO ID IA RR IVE PT AN G RR RO VIN MASON OD L RE ID T A DE L D AV C E BRUNSW C KL VE H O CHA B TA E RD LR US HUNT E SAD K WATERBURY AV N AV ST GREENWICH E RO AN 13T AI AG E RD RD S 9T HILL H R ST D RO CR AVE WO PA LL MONTICEL AD RD CA TR N E BL IN RS VI LE R AV SO ST DR LO CT W AV ETT SA WIL E Y BAYLOR NW R E E RK ST IEN WO OD EK 11T RD T PA K RR HA HIG LN RO ON DR EL YS N IC DR DAR DU IN LA E CK H ET RD U HARTFORD LA LA N IR LE N CI RK N LI DR TE ID LYNN ER ST ITY DR RD WOODFOLK TO RL S IC D PL BA PA RSO RD AV AV ON K ND UN DANBURY RO FL AVE AN ST PL YLO E MILFORD D AN EA EH NT RO CT S U O T LO FR TER AC R GE EN ROA FE R AVE DR PAO ST C IE RAYMOND MO KL EN R MO E ROYS PL GE DR BR MO DRI YCAST F PA MB O AN IN SEL NT PA AV JE OO DA R CE DR EY CLE AV L E AT D K LN KW L ST MIN AVE V VE REE K G ELL E E LA E IN MO I Mc PAR IV NC DR OO ES C YD E AV ND RD DR H ES E ST N N D OOR ST W AVE ST MANILA LE M CL E RIO LN E ST AL RIVES CO K ON LO R MA CT DR 8T CO ER ST N ST EE OR ST O T CIR ST LN ES RTO RT ET AD O OW CR IN ST E NAY U ST HA DR AVE LT E EN PO G LL LE O BL SA N AV E RIA YE ST R E UR PL SLAT RIS N AV E IEW ST ER DG S W EAS AV VE CS HAR Mc TH E GR PL IAN NA ST ES X LN LK F HB FI LO CH OL D AR AVE 1ST N ID IM PL LINDEN Y RD TL A RD H RO WE RO D ART VO R GR R NE A CO NC ROAD OL MA U QUARRY R ST ISTA ME SITE VIST CT R MIL GE KEY CI IS L RD NS D LE WN BELLEV EL RR WA BON PL DR TROOST E MO § KNOLL IG ¦ ¨ HA DR DR N LID E M LY CHANDLERS MC H PL NT TO EAST IR STO RM CT PL ST LK LIA DR NE AV D E H LEY 64 DR AL HIL TOWLER CT BE ST MONTE OO E SE ER COURT SH PL WERT PAG D NE MO MT T VIEW BR FL RD N W OO OL R ICK V IN K IE LAND LN A NG 10T ON EA D CAMEL ST ST W ES PL M AL T MID PE RU LO LO DR E DL DR PP ST S ST ET SHA ALT EN ET ON AZAL STA CT ER FIELDING NS T AM T CT KE RE LN LN T NW PL DRIVE M £ ¤ LE ST ST § BI RD ¦CK ¨ HA ON GARDEN 780 NE RD E O DR ER T BE TA NC M HARRIS T 2ND 64 DR NT RD LA CAMELLIA Y IVE I RO CREEK 13 S RO QU H CIR DR Y P ST AD MI 12 ST 5T GLEN Y AL 1 2 1 /2 STXT LL DR S AVE R E DR HO H O ST AV /2 Mc C HO SC 7T ON £ ¤ AR HIG 781 RE 1 BO W M §¦ ¨ UG MIC H 64 TA H £10 VE HIE AVE ST R DO R RN GE D WY D E ST N PRESTON LN T CA COLL PK RT RD MANSFIELD BRO NTI AVE EX ST ¤ 1 LN E R AIN HA PL 63 CT OOD WNERSONS RD TAINW ST ST MOUN LOCKSLEY WHITE RO ST T JEF 4 TH AVE AD COUNTRY TERR F HEAD ET EF LT F ST J GREEN APTS H ER SUNS MCI ELS OMAS PAR £ 8T ¤ JEFFERSON ¤ K 780 MA SO OL D ST £ LE OTHM CO EAM EVE D £ LVD ¤ U NT EL 631 I R ST NS RY STREET EXT NF CI E RK µ RD 20 5 TH GR 5TH I W PI E EN ST ET T NE LE H RD OAKHURST ST 7 TH HU T CIR N CR VIL 53 BROOK C RS B OS 11T Land Use DR AD ST D OE L T RG RO LA TS OA U STAGECOACH 6TH HB CIR N AVE COMME E OT K E SID OA C E WN E LAKE HIL ST N SOUTH W RO RCE Park or Preserved Open Space HILL AVE LY E SC TT OO DRIV AN L Low Density Residential AY R RIDG D RD DR ST W S TE NE EST ST EVE OLD R ST CT WA BRO ST NR ES S O H High Density Residential Public or Semi-Public MON A LK UG CA ST T MA JE ER LL 2ND VA DR SQ Neighborhood Commercial IN VA N ** Denotes property not subject to the N ST BE L ST LA 1ST WOOD GILDERSLE PEL MA City of Charlottesville's municipal authority NDO LL ST NA MA 2ND S DMixed CRI ELE Use 9TH ST TI LL LL EY ES VAN SO 3RD S WA ON E 7 TH T SBusiness ER T and Technology D DONO UT TER BR A AV A 4 TH M H VA E ST RO CT V ST ALD 5 TH KIN ST GRO T Miles M GS RD ST HS 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 AY KING CHE T 10T JON W N A RRY L SE VA 4T O Map adopted as part of the 2013 Comprehensive Plan by Charlottesville City Council on August 19, 2013. SPR SO HA CHE R ST LA O GA STADIUM AVE H CIR DIC L D ST R EA ES LE D NE E RET RM ST W ST ST ST KE IN T OB Y GL MAURY AS E /2 ST G ST ON T N ELM G OA 61 H KIN 2ND AV S CA ER T ST ST BAR SUBMISSION HI 2013 GENERAL LAND USE PLAN PATO APPLETREE PIEDMONT AVE ST K 1301 WERTLAND ST. 6T 4 TH ST ER ST ST NG CL TE RR R ST N BA ST H VE LER VA T A GROEXT BI NG M 5T R OL TO ON R ST RK R PRICE EY OCTOBER 4TH, 2022 N ST PIN TO KE L ON CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA LTON NU N N ST 636 VER KER ES KM ST PA VA RY RD AVE CT T TI AV ST OA L ANO RR AV LE SH HIN CE VID E FIF E T E C IS Y L SITE 1301 WERTLAND ST. 2018 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DRAFT BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 37 6 OCTOBER 4TH, 2022 City of Charlottesville Future Land Use Map Map adopted by the Charlottesville City RESIDENTIAL Council on November 15, 2021, as part Ri oR Limited commercial uses allowed in all residential districts, to be further described in the Zoning of the 2021 Comprehensive Plan update. d. Ordinance. Zoning tools will regulate affordability and maximum allowable development for all . Rd G re categories and will consider demolition disincentives, as feasible. On the next page, you can e ll nb Hi rie r view a version of this map with da rD Description An Ce gu r. parcel boundaries. Hy sR r. D dr General Residential: Allow for additional housing choice within existing residential d. d. ok e a hi ul s R ro ic ic ht b M neighborhoods throughout the city. ig ow Rd . He ead General Residential (Sensitive Community Areas): Allow for additional housing choice, M Ken woo d and tools to mitigate displacement, within existing residential neighborhoods that have Ln. high proportions of populations that may be sensitive to displacement pressures. (Note: Grove Rd. The boundaries for these areas should evolve during the zoningupdate process, as . et t St .N Ln. Melb Gentry described on page 25 of the Comprehensive Plan.) Ba n St Em lmo rra A . ourn Rd il rli c m Medium Intensity Residential: Increase opportunities for housing development M ks ng y to gb Rd e Rd n including affordable housing, along neighborhoods corridors, near community amenities, Ru . Bl vd . . r employment centers, and in neighborhoods that are traditionally less affordable. ne ar W Rugby Higher-Intensity Residential: Provide opportunities for higher density, multi-family d. Ave. wy W. yR Westwood Pk hn focused development. Incentivize affordability and increased intensity to meet Affordable . gb Rd. Rose Hill Dr . Ru Jo Housing Plan goals. Iv y Rd Ca MIXED USE NODES AND CORRIDORS . . Rd W lh ats ou an o n rm nA St Neighborhood Mixed Use Corridor: Neighborhood-scaled mixed use areas arranged ve . t. de . kS Al along corridors that support existing residential districts. . r St 25 Pa 0- is Pr . ve BY rr . es Rd Ha Neighborhood Mixed Use Node: Compact neighborhood centers that encompass a mix of tA e. to P W Av n r us ve U . Av t. N Rd E ni SITE c land uses arranged in smaller scale buildings. on Ri e. N Lo ve ire Po hS gt r St. p si nt lar xin ty cI 10t St 2nd Business and Technology Mixed Use: Light industrial and production uses, with other M Av . Le Wes Hig e. tM ain S hS commercial and residential uses (where appropriate). t. Ma rke t. High St. t St Urban Mixed Use Corridor: Higher intensity mixed use development arranged along . . ve . ve Wa A ter eA k corridors between employment, commercial, and civic hubs of the city. St. r Pa ad Ch on 9th St. SW Me er rs Urban Mixed Use Node: Urban mixed use districts that support community housing, ry f fe Av Je employment, and commercial development. e. e. E. Ma Av Fontaine Ave. Ext. Ch rke es Mo tS ap ide Downtown Core: A primary, central mixed use activity hub for the city. rry Av e. nt ice t. ea ke ers Che llo St. e. Av Riv . Av OTHER CATEGORIES St e. JPA Ca ling rlt h ib on 5t Str t. Av eS Open Spaces and Parks: Includes both public and private spaces e. Monticello Rd Ell dg Cle iot vel tA Ri a nd ve St. Cemetery: Includes both public and private cemeteries Ave . . on Av Civic: Includes governmental buildings 5 . is Rd . Education: Charlottesville City Schools and Non-City Schools Harr Ave. Linden UVA: Properties owned by the University of Virginia Stream Buffer: 100’ buffer 0 0.5 miles City of Charlottesville Boundary and Urban Development Area 1301 WERTLAND ST. 2022 FUTURE LAND USE MAP BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 738 OCTOBER 4TH, 2022 1301 WERTLAND ST. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 39 11 OCTOBER 4TH, 2022 1301 WERTLAND ST. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 12 40 OCTOBER 4TH, 2022 1301 WERTLAND ST. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 41 13 OCTOBER 4TH, 2022 APPENDIX THREE: ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS 546' - 0" (33'-0") T/ PARAPET 534' - 0" (21'-0") THIRD FLOOR 523' - 6" (10'-6") SECOND FLOOR 513' - 0" (0'-0") FIRST FLOOR SEVEN DEVELOPMENT 505' - 0" (-8'-0") STREET LEVEL 502' - 0" (-11'-0") PARKING LEVEL SOUTH ELEVATION 546' - 0" (33'-0") T/ PARAPET 534' - 0" (21'-0") THIRD FLOOR 523' - 6" (10'-6") SECOND FLOOR CHECKED BY: KS DRAWN BY: MK 513' - 0" (0'-0") FIRST FLOOR SK1 BUI 505' - 0" (-8'-0") ELEVA STREET LEVEL 502' - 0" (-11'-0") ISSUE D PARKING LEVEL October NORTH ELEVATION SK SHEET # 546' - 0" (33'-0") T/ PARAPET 534' - 0" (21'-0") THIRD FLOOR 523' - 6" (10'-6") SECOND FLOOR 513' - 0" (0'-0") FIRST FLOOR WEST ELEVATION 505' - 0" (-8'-0") STREET LEVEL 502' - 0" (-11'-0") SEVEN DEVELOPMENT PARKING LEVEL 546' - 0" (33'-0") T/ PARAPET 534' - 0" (21'-0") THIRD FLOOR CHECKED BY: KS DRAWN BY: MK 523' - 6" (10'-6") SECOND FLOOR 513' - 0" (0'-0") SK2 BUIL FIRST FLOOR ELEVAT ISSUE D 505' - 0" (-8'-0") October EAST ELEVATION SK STREET LEVEL 502' - 0" (-11'-0") PARKING LEVEL SHEET # City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Staff Report October 18, 2022 Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR # 22-10-01 1109 & 1121 Wertland Street (1025-1213), TMP 040305000 Wertland Street ADC District Owner: Neighborhood Investments—WS Applicant: Richard Spurzem Project: Rehabilitate exterior siding and trim Background Year Built: 1109 constructed c1890; 1121 constructed c1895. District: Wertland Street ADC District Status: Contributing 1109: The basic massing of this Victorian house is similar to that of those on either side of it, with different proportions. Very likely all three were built about the same time, perhaps by the same builder. This is a two-story, three-bay, double-pile house with a projecting bay at the eastern end of the facade. An original two-storv addition, with a one-story addition behind it, covers the rear elevation, and there is also a small one-story wing on the eastern side. The walls, probably originally weatherboarded, were covered with imitation brick tar paper siding in the mid-1900's, and that has now been replaced or covered with vinyl siding imitating the original weatherboarding. (See historical survey) 1121: House combines Late Victorian or Queen Anne elements such as a complex roofline and wood- shingle sheathing in the front and side gables and dormer gable with Classical Revival details such as the Ionic columns and dentil molding of the front porch and the elliptical fanlight over the front entry, Other features include turned porch balusters and a double front door. (See historical survey) Prior BAR Review (Note: This parcel has multiple structures. Related to 1109 & 1121 Wertland St. below. See the Appendix for all reviews related to this parcel.) September 15, 2015 – (1109 Wertland St.) BAR approved the demolition of rear additions and the proposed new rear addition (8-0), but would like to see lighting, trim details, how to resolve siding, windows, roof details, and an investigation of lowering the flat roof. BAR approved replacing the metal siding with Hardie siding or (as a preference) removing and rehabilitating the existing, if possible. http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/647019/BAR_1109%20Wertland%20Street_Sept2015.pdf 1109 and 1121 Wertland Street Oct 18, 2022 (10/12/2022) 1 Application • Applicant submittal: Photos of 1109 & 1121 Wertland Street Request CoA to remove the existing siding and trim to expose original wood below. Then, as needed, repair existing or replace with wood material. 1109 Wertland Street: Remove aluminum siding and aluminum trim/panels at window trim and sills, soffits, and porches. Repair/replace the presumably wood lap siding, wood window trim/sills, wood trim at soffits/eaves, and install beaded-board at porch ceiling. 1121 Wertland Street: Remove the asbestos siding, then repair/replace the presumably wood siding underneath. Remove aluminum on windows, repair/replace trim and sills. Repair/replace any missing or damaged cedar shingles on gable ends. (Soffits and gable trim are not covered with metal.) Discussion and Recommendations In 2015, the applicant completed a similar exterior rehabilitation at 1025 Wertland Street. • BAR review: http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/647020/BAR_1025%20Wertland%20Street_Sept2015.pdf • Project photos: http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/656125/BAR_1025%20Wertland%20Street_%20in%20progress%20ph otos.pdf Staff recommends approval of the requested CoA and commends the applicant for rehabilitating the historic appearances of these structures. With that approval, staff suggests the BAR consider and include in the motion guidance relative to anticipated unknowns [condition of original material, missing elements, etc.] and establishing reasonable parameters for addressing them via consultation with staff. [Note: The following is the July 21, 2021 review of 743 Park Street. A request identical to this one.] Staff recommends the BAR allow the applicant to move forward with removing contemporary, non- original siding and trim, allowing an evaluation of the underlying materials, and with that to apply reasonable conditions that allow the rehabilitation and/or replacement of those materials. For example, that the salvageable wood siding be retained and used to the extent possible. In the event that only a portion of the siding can be salvaged—and in lieu of having walls with a mix of new and salvaged siding--the BAR recommends the salvaged material be re-used on complete walls, prioritizing the front elevation. Once the underlying conditions are assessed, the applicant will consult with staff about the extent of old and new material to be used and where, with the understanding that staff may request guidance from the BAR. For any new siding, the applicant will use wood. Should the existing trim not be salvageable, particularly any profiled components, the applicant will consult with staff regarding the new material to be used and to assure that the new matches or is appropriately similar to the existing, relative to dimension and profile. Again, with the understanding that staff may request guidance from the BAR. More specifically, the BAR should discuss whether any replacement materials should replicate the existing (custom material, if necessary) or if it is acceptable to use available materials that have similar dimensions and profiles. Proposed conditions of approval. 1109 and 1121 Wertland Street Oct 18, 2022 (10/12/2022) 2 • If replacement of potions of the exposed siding and trim is necessary, the new will match the dimensions and scale, including the exposure dimension of the siding and general profile of any trim components. • Owners and contractor shall consult with City staff regarding unsalvageable original materials and selecting appropriate replacement material. • Applicant to provide for the BAR record progress photos of the work, including the original material and of the project upon completion. Suggested Motion Approval: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City Design Guidelines for ADC Districts, I move to find that the proposed exterior rehabilitations at 1109 and 1121 Wertland Street satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are compatible with this property and other properties in the Wertland Street ADC District, and that the BAR approves the application [as submitted.] or [as summited, with the following modifications and/or conditions:…] Denial: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City Design Guidelines for ADC Districts, I move to find that the proposed exterior rehabilitations at 1109 and 1121 Wertland Street do not satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are not compatible with this property and other properties in the Wertland Street ADC District, and for the following reasons the BAR denies the application … Criteria, Standards and Guidelines Review Criteria Generally Sec. 34-284(b) of the City Code states that, in considering a particular application the BAR shall approve the application unless it finds: (1) That the proposal does not meet specific standards set forth within this division or applicable provisions of the Design Guidelines established by the board pursuant to Sec.34-288(6); and (2) The proposal is incompatible with the historic, cultural or architectural character of the district in which the property is located or the protected property that is the subject of the application. Pertinent Standards for Review of Construction and Alterations include: (1) Whether the material, texture, color, height, scale, mass and placement of the proposed addition, modification or construction are visually and architecturally compatible with the site and the applicable design control district; (2) The harmony of the proposed change in terms of overall proportion and the size and placement of entrances, windows, awnings, exterior stairs and signs; (3) The Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation set forth within the Code of Federal Regulations (36 C.F.R. §67.7(b)), as may be relevant; (4) The effect of the proposed change on the historic district neighborhood; (5) The impact of the proposed change on other protected features on the property, such as gardens, landscaping, fences, walls and walks; (6) Whether the proposed method of construction, renovation or restoration could have an adverse impact on the structure or site, or adjacent buildings or structures; (7) Any applicable provisions of the City’s Design Guidelines. 1109 and 1121 Wertland Street Oct 18, 2022 (10/12/2022) 3 Pertinent Guidelines for Rehabilitation include: Link: Chapter 4 Rehabilitation E. Cornice 1) Keep the cornice well sealed and anchored, and maintain the gutter system and flashing. 2) Repair rather than replace the cornice. 3) Do not remove elements of the original composition, such as brackets or blocks, without replacing them with new ones of a like design. 4) Match materials, decorative details, and profiles of the existing original cornice design when making repairs. 5) Do not replace an original cornice with a new one that conveys a different period, style, or theme from that of the building. 6) If the cornice is missing, the replacement should be based on physical or documented evidence, or barring that, be compatible with the original building. 7) Do not wrap or cover a cornice with vinyl or aluminum; these substitute materials may cover up original details and also may hide underlying moisture problems. I. Wood 1. Repair rotted or missing sections rather than replace the entire element. a. Use epoxies to patch, piece, or consolidate parts. b. Match existing materials and details. 2. Replace wood elements only when they are rotted beyond repair. a. Match the original in material and design by substituting materials that convey the same visual appearance or by using surviving material. b. Base the design of reconstructed elements on pictorial or physical evidence from the actual building rather than from similar buildings in the area. c. Complement the existing details, size, scale, and material. 3. Do not substitute vinyl for wood railing and trim. Some composites, including fiberglass reinforced composite, may be found acceptable as a substitute material for a specific application, but must be painted. J. Synthetic Siding 1. Avoid applying synthetic siding. 2. Remove synthetic siding and restore original building material, if possible. 1109 and 1121 Wertland Street Oct 18, 2022 (10/12/2022) 4 Appendix 1109 and 1121 Wertland Street Oct 18, 2022 (10/12/2022) 5 1109 and 1121 Wertland Street Oct 18, 2022 (10/12/2022) 6 1984 VLR/NRHP Map 2011 City ADC District Map 1109 and 1121 Wertland Street Oct 18, 2022 (10/12/2022) 7 Prior BAR Reviews related to this parcel. Date Wertland St Project Action May-06 1115, 1115-1/2 Demolition of buildings on site Approve Jul-06 1107-1/2 Demolition of building on site Approve Sep-06 1115 New construction Prelim Discussion Oct-06 1115 New construction Approve w/ cond. Jun-07 1115, 1115-1/2 Demolition of buildings on site Approve May-11 1025-1213 Proposed 48-unit, four-story apartment complex built over a 52- Prelim Discussion space, below-grade, parking garage Jun-11 1025-1213 Proposed 48-unit, four-story apartment complex built over a 52- Approve space, below-grade, parking garage Sep-15 1025 Remove two decks and refinish the original wood siding by Approve removing the asbestos siding Sep-15 1109 Remove multiple additions on North elevation, construct two-story Approve - demolition addition on the North elevation, and remove existing metal horizontal siding from the house and install new painted fiberglass siding. Sep-15 1109 Remove multiple additions on North elevation, construct two-story Details to come back addition on the North elevation, and remove existing metal to the BAR horizontal siding from the house and install new painted fiberglass siding. Nov-15 1213 Remove two decks that connect to one original covered front entry Approve porch, replace porch decking with mahogany tongue and grooved decking. New Azek rails installed to enclose the porch. May-16 1107 Exterior renovations, including removing concrete patio and Approve w/ construction of a two-story addition on rear of original house modifications May-16 1201 Demolition of existing addition Approve May-16 1201 Construction of a new 2-story addition Approve with modifications 1109 and 1121 Wertland Street Oct 18, 2022 (10/12/2022) 8 1109 and 1121 Wertland Street - BAR review October 18, 2022 Pg 1 of 12 1109 Wertland Street 1109 and 1121 Wertland Street - BAR review October 18, 2022 Pg 2 of 12 1109 Wertland Street 1109 and 1121 Wertland Street - BAR review October 18, 2022 Pg 3 of 12 1109 Wertland Street 1109 and 1121 Wertland Street - BAR review October 18, 2022 Pg 4 of 12 1109 Wertland Street 1109 and 1121 Wertland Street - BAR review October 18, 2022 Pg 5 of 12 1109 Wertland Street 1109 and 1121 Wertland Street - BAR review October 18, 2022 Pg 6 of 12 1109 Wertland Street 1109 and 1121 Wertland Street - BAR review October 18, 2022 Pg 7 of 12 1121 Wertland Street 1109 and 1121 Wertland Street - BAR review October 18, 2022 Pg 8 of 12 1121 Wertland Street 1109 and 1121 Wertland Street - BAR review October 18, 2022 Pg 9 of 12 1121 Wertland Street 1109 and 1121 Wertland Street - BAR review October 18, 2022 Pg 10 of 12 1121 Wertland Street 1109 and 1121 Wertland Street - BAR review October 18, 2022 Pg 11 of 12 1121 Wertland Street 1109 and 1121 Wertland Street - BAR review October 18, 2022 Pg 12 of 12 1121 Wertland Street City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Staff Memo October 18, 2022 Certificate of Appropriateness BAR # 22-10-02 101 East Jefferson Street, TMP 330190000 North Downtown ADC District (contributing) Owner: First United Methodist Church Applicant: William L. Owens, AIA Project: Install 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. Prior BAR Actions (See appendix for complete list) October 18, 2016 – BAR approved (8-0) steeple lighting. (BAR awarded a 2020 Preservation and Design Award: Rehabilitation of Historic Steeple and Installation of Steeple Illumination.) September 20, 2022 – Informal discussion, staff questions re: proposed solar panels. Meeting video link (begin at 4:41:00): https://boxcast.tv/channel/vabajtzezuyv3iclkx1a?b=nvdouryu5aooh1orqwxd Application • Submittal: Wm. L Owens Architect, First United Methodist Church Solar Panel Project, dated September 27, 2022: Photo sims (three pages) and Site photos (four pages) and specs for Quick Mount PV QBase® Shake & Slate Mount | QMNS. Request CoA for installation of roof-top solar panels. • Information about the Quick Mount PV system is in the submittal packet. (See also: www.quickmountpv.com/integrated-system.html) • All electrical connections will be made in the attic or the basement. The only exposed equipment other than the panels will be a 2” conduit running from the backside of the array on the west facing roof, along the roofline at the east face of the steeple, and down the north face of 101 E. Jefferson – rooftop solar panels - Oct 2022 (10/11/2022) 1 the steeple to the existing electrical service at ground level in the courtyard. The conduit will be painted to match the existing slate or brick. • The panels will be 5” - 7” above the slate. No higher than 7”. Note on the existing roof: Buckingham slate. Original to building, 1923. Life cycle of Buckingham slate can exceed 150 years. Discussion Since 2010, the BAR has reviewed 15 projects with solar panel arrays, all were approved. (See list in the Appendix.) Since adoption of the current design guidelines, the BAR has reviewed and approved 11 CoA requests for photovoltaic panels--eight in ADC Districts and three in HC Districts. All, except one, were rooftop arrays. 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. In the BAR staff reports for several projects reviewed between 2010 and 2017, the Preservation and Design Planner applied the following when recommending approval: The panels extend up from the roof by less than one foot, which does not significantly change the profile of the roofline. This appears to be an interpretation of a recommendation in the Secretary’s Standards to not place panels where they will change the historic roofline or obscure the relationship of the roof features such as dormers, skylights, and chimneys. That is, panels that are installed low and parallel to the roof surface will not change the profile of the roofline. During the 2018-2020 [pre-COVID] discussions re: updating the design guidelines, staff noted the following BAR comments related to solar panels: Chapter III. Rehabilitation, Roof: • Should not damage or interfere with historic material. • If existing roof is relatively flat, panels should not create the illusion of a sloped roof. • Advise owners to inspect condition of existing roof prior to attaching solar equipment; make necessary repairs—even replacement—prior to installing solar equipment. • Address/evaluate photovoltaic shingles as replacement shingles. • Address/evaluate how panels are attached to historic roofs. At the September 20, 2022 meeting, staff asked the BAR for informal comments on this pending request, with the following offered: Questions: o How will the panels be installed/mounted? (Brackets, hardware, etc.) o Where will wires/cables/conduit and equipment boxes be placed and how will they be screened, of necessary? o How high will the panels be above the slate? o How will the slate roof be protected during installation and subsequent maintenance of the solar panels? (Concern for condition of slate tiles with more-frequent activity.) o Photo-sim: panels on sanctuary are oriented NW. Comments: o Preference: install panels on rear addition; avoid panels on sanctuary. 101 E. Jefferson – rooftop solar panels - Oct 2022 (10/11/2022) 2 o Re: maximizing panel area, a frame over the parking area (east side) might be evaluated. 101 E. Jefferson – rooftop solar panels - Oct 2022 (10/11/2022) 3 Suggested Motions Approval: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find the proposed roof-top solar panels at 101 East Jefferson Street satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are compatible with this property and other properties in the North Downtown ADC District, and that the BAR approves the application [as submitted]. Or, [... 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 roof-top solar panels at 101 East Jefferson Street do not satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are not compatible with this property and other properties in the North Downtown ADC District, and that for the following reasons the BAR denies the application as submitted: Criteria, Standards and Guidelines Review Criteria Generally Sec. 34-284(b) of the City Code states that, In considering a particular application the BAR shall approve the application unless it finds: (1) That the proposal does not meet specific standards set forth within this division or applicable provisions of the Design Guidelines established by the board pursuant to Sec. 34-288(6); and (2) The proposal is incompatible with the historic, cultural or architectural character of the district in which the property is located or the protected property that is the subject of the application. Pertinent Standards for Review of Construction and Alterations include: (1) Whether the material, texture, color, height, scale, mass and placement of the proposed addition, modification or construction are visually and architecturally compatible with the site and the applicable design control district; (2) The harmony of the proposed change in terms of overall proportion and the size and placement of entrances, windows, awnings, exterior stairs and signs; (3) The Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation set forth within the Code of Federal Regulations (36 C.F.R. §67.7(b)), as may be relevant; (4) The effect of the proposed change on the historic district neighborhood; (5) The impact of the proposed change on other protected features on the property, such as gardens, landscaping, fences, walls and walks; (6) Whether the proposed method of construction, renovation or restoration could have an adverse impact on the structure or site, or adjacent buildings or structures; (7) Any applicable provisions of the City’s Design Guidelines. Pertinent Guidelines for Rehabilitation: Chapter 4 Rehabilitation G. Roof 1) When replacing a standing seam metal roof, the width of the pan and the seam height should be consistent with the original. Ideally, the seams would be hand crimped. 2) If pre-painted standing seam metal roof material is permitted, commercial-looking ridge caps or ridge vents are not appropriate on residential structures. 3) Original roof pitch and configuration should be maintained. 4) The original size and shape of dormers should be maintained. 5) Dormers should not be introduced on visible elevations where none existed originally. 101 E. Jefferson – rooftop solar panels - Oct 2022 (10/11/2022) 4 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. 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. 101 E. Jefferson – rooftop solar panels - Oct 2022 (10/11/2022) 5 Appendix Prior BAR Actions • February 17, 2004 – Preliminary discussion re: iron fencing. • April 20, 2004 – BAR approved the addition of a five-ft high, wrought iron fence parallel to the east property line to protect the public from a large window well. • March 15, 2011 – BAR approved (7-0) modifications to/replacement of main entry doors as submitted with conditions: (a) door be replaced, not modified, with existing doors saved/stored on site; and (b) glass in the new door is clear glass, not beveled glass. • June 21, 2011 – BAR approved (6-0) a new bathroom addition as submitted. • October 18, 2016 – BAR approved (8-0) steeple lighting. (BAR awarded a 2020 Preservation and Design Award: Rehabilitation of Historic Steeple and Installation of Steeple Illumination.) • September 20, 2022 – Informal discussion, staff questions re: proposed solar panels. Solar panel installations reviewed by BAR since 2010. All were approved. Date Address District Roof type (location of panels) Apr-10 215 East High St North Downtown parapet (not visible) Aug-10 222 South St Downtown frame in back yard (rear) Oct-10 219 14th St NW Rugby-U Circle-Venable standing-seam metal (side) Mar-12 230 West Main St Downtown parapet (not visible) Oct-16 206 West Market St Downtown parapet (not visible) Aug-16 450 Rugby Rd Rugby-U Circle-Venable flat roof (rear) May-17 615 Lexington Ave Martha Jeff HC standing-seam metal (rear) Jul-18 503 Lexington Ave Martha Jeff HC standing-seam metal (side) Apr-19 1102 Carlton Ave IPP standing-seam metal (rear) Aug-19 507 Ridge St Ridge Street frame in back yard (rear) Mar-19 206 5th St NE North Downtown membrane (rear) Mar-19 420 Park St North Downtown standing-seam metal (side and rear) Mar-19 924 Rugby Rd Rugby Road HC standing-seam metal (front and rear) Aug-21 735 Northwood Ave North Downtown standing-seam metal (front) Jun-22 636 Park St North Downtown standing-seam metal (rear) 101 E. Jefferson – rooftop solar panels - Oct 2022 (10/11/2022) 6 First United Methodist Church Solar Panel Project Photo Simulation 1 William L. Owens Architect, LLC October 7, 2022 First United Methodist Church Solar Panel Project Photo Simulation 2 William L. Owens Architect, LLC October 7, 2022 First United Methodist Church Solar Panel Project Photo Simulation 3 William L. Owens Architect, LLC October 7, 2022 First United Methodist Church Solar Panel Project Site Photos – East Jefferson Street Property from E. Jefferson St./1st St. N. Intersection Property from E. Jefferson St./2nd St. N.E. Intersection Facing Property from E. Jefferson St. Facing Property from E. Jefferson St. William L. Owens Architect, LLC September 27, 2022 First United Methodist Church Solar Panel Project Site Photos – 1st Street N. Property from E. High St./1st St. N. Intersection Property from E. Jefferson St./1st St. N. Intersection Facing Properties from E. Jefferson St./1st St. N. Intersection Facing Properties from E. High St./1st St. N. Intersection William L. Owens Architect, LLC September 27, 2022 First United Methodist Church Solar Panel Project Site Photos – 2nd Street N.E. Neighboring Property from 2nd Street N.E. Property from 2nd Street N.E. Facing Property from E. High St./2nd St. N.E. Intersection Facing Property from E. Jefferson St./2nd St. N.E Intersection William L. Owens Architect, LLC September 27, 2022 First United Methodist Church Solar Panel Project Site Photos – E. High Street Property from E. High St./2nd St. N.E. Intersection Property from E. Hight St./1st St. N. Intersection Facing Properties from E. High St./1st St. N. Intersection Facing Properties from E. High St./2nd St. N.E. Intersection William L. Owens Architect, LLC September 27, 2022 QBase® Shake & Slate Mount | QMNS 4X .32 THRU THIS EDGE TOWARDS ROOF RIDGE (CLEARANCE FOR 5/16" HARDWARE) 8 4.000 18.00 7 1 6 2.500 6.50 1 2 5 1.250 9.00 3.750 .500 18.00 3 4 1.500 1.90 FLASHING HEIGHT (ITEMS 4 & 5) 3 QBASE (ITEM 2) AND POST (ITEM 6) 2 NOTES: 2.50 1 POST AND FLASHING AVAILABLE IN MILL FINISH, 2.00 AND BRONZE ANODIZED FINISH 1 2 FLASHING MAY BE SPUN OR PRESSED ITEM 3 STAINLESS STEEL LAG SCREWS INCLUDED WITH DESCRIPTION QTY. NO. ANODIZED FINISH 1 CAP SCREW, HEX HEAD, 5/16"-18 X 3/4" UNC-2A, GRADE 8, 1 MAGNI 2 QBASE, 1-1/4" ID, FOR 5/16" HARDWARE, A360 CAST AL 1 3 LAG SCREW, HEX HEAD, 5/16" X 3", ZINC 2 TITLE: 4 5 FLASHING, CONE, 18"X18"X.032", 3003 AL, MILL COLLAR, COUNTER FLASHING, 1-1/4" ID EPDM 1 1 QMNS: QBASE METAL, SHAKE 6 POST, 1-1/4" OD X 3-1/4", 6063-T5/6063-T6, MILL 1 AND SLATE MOUNT 7 WASHER, SEALING, 5/16" ID X 1-1/4" OD, EPDM BONDED SS 1 UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: SIZE DRAWN BY: RAD REV CAP SCREW, 5/16"-18 X 1" UNC-2A, NYLON PATCH, W/ CAPTIVE DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES 8 PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL WASHER, 1"OD, 18-8 SS 1 TOLERANCES: FRACTIONAL 1/8 A DATE: 8/9/2019 14 THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DRAWING IS THE SOLE PROPERTY OF QUICK MOUNT PV. ANY REPRODUCTION IN PART OR AS A WHOLE WITHOUT THE DO NOT SCALE DRAWING TWO PLACE DECIMAL .19 WRITTEN PERMISSION OF QUICK MOUNT PV IS PROHIBITED. COPYRIGHT © 2019 QUICK MOUNT PV THREE PLACE DECIMAL .094 SCALE: 1:8 WEIGHT: 1.94 SHEET 1 OF 1 5 4 3 2 1 PLEASE NOTE: Cedar shakes treated with ACQ or CCA wood preservatives or fire retardant chemicals, or shakes with higher concentrations of natural tannins, may cause accelerated corrosion when in direct contact with aluminum. The Cedar Shingle & Shake Bureau recommends pre-painting both sides of the flashing using a good metal or bituminous paint. It is also advisable to use an appropriate physical barrier to isolate the aluminum from these corrosive chemicals. Accepted barriers include standard roofing felt, ice & water shield type underlayment, or 10 mil thick polyethylene sheeting. Please check with your shake roofer and/or supplier to see if your shakes require these barriers. Caution: Prior to installation, check that proper screw embedment will be achieved for the necessary site load and roofing configurations. BI7.2.3-14 Aug-2019, Rev 12 Installation Instructions for Slate Roof Installation Tools Required: tape measure, slate roofing bar AKA slate ripper, chalk line, stud finder, caulking gun and sealant compatible with roofing material, drill, 4" diameter diamond embedded hole saw, masonry drill bit matching size of hole saw pilot drill bit, grinder with cutoff wheel, hammer, 7/32" high speed drill bit, and impact gun with 1/2" socket WARNING: Quick Mount PV products are NOT designed for and should NOT be used to anchor fall protection equipment. 1 2 3rd course 3 Butt e dge Mark the centerline of the rafter. To mark the location of the QBase, position the Using a masonry drill bit, drill a pilot hole at the bottom edge of the flashing flush with or just center of the QBase location you marked in step 2. above the butt edge (drip) of the slate, the top This drill bit should match the size of the guide bit edge extended up under the 3rd course, and the of your hole saw. cone centered over your rafter centerline. 4 5 6 Using a cutoff wheel in a grinder, score the slate To remove the slate below the score, slightly lift Using a 4" diameter diamond hole saw and the above the mounting area at 4 inches above the the lower portion of slate with a slate ripper, then pilot hole drilled in step 3, drill through the existing center of the QBase location. In step 5, you will gently but firmly tap the top piece with a hammer. slate. remove the slate below the score line, which The lower piece should break off cleanly. will allow you to slide the flashing up under the remaining slate in step 10. 7 8 9 Using QBase (item 2) as a guide, align two Fill pilot holes with sealant compatible with roof- Prior to mounting to the roof, seat the grade-8 cap clearance holes vertically with the center of the ing material such as Chemlink M-1, Geogreen screw (item 1) through bottom of QBase. Secure the rafter. Mark the center of these 2 holes. Drill 7/32" 4500, or Solar Seal 900. QBase to the rafter with (2) 5/16" lag screws (item 3) pilot hole at each of the 2 marks. Hold drill square and tighten to a snug fit. to rafter. Do not use QBase as a drill guide. continued on next page BI7.2.3-14 Aug-2019, Rev 12 10 11 3rd course 12 Slide the flashing over the QBase and under the Screw on the post. Apply a bead of sealant around the area where the slate above. Make sure you get up and under the cone flashing meets the post. 3rd course of slate. 13 You are now ready for the rack of your choice. Follow all the directions of the rack manufacturer as well as the mod- ule manufacturer. All roofing manufacturers’ written instructions must also be followed by anyone modifying a roof system. Please consult the roof manufactur- er's specs and instructions prior to touching the roof. Install the EPDM rubber counter flashing over the post, and attach all the remaining hardware (items 7-10) on top of the post for safekeeping un- til the racking is ready to install. Additional Tips for Installing Mounts on a Slate Roof:  If you have access to the underside of the roof, you can provide solid blocking at the location of the mount.  It is possible that the roof is sheathed with solid wood boards that are thick enough to hold the mounts. It is important to verify the thickness, condition, and structural integrity of the wood you are attaching to and to consult an engineer licensed in your state to determine the bolting requirements.  It can be difficult getting the flashing over the nails of the first course of slate. Helpful hint: slide the slate ripper up to or past the nail, then slide a piece of standard steel flashing over the slate ripper, allowing the slate ripper to guide the steel flashing over the nail. Then remove the slate ripper, slide the aluminum cone flashing into place and remove the steel flashing.  Walking directly on a slate roof can break the slate. The most common way to distribute a person's weight is to lay a ladder on the slate roof and walk on the ladder. Be sure to secure the ladder so that it cannot slip or fall. 925-478-8269 | www.quickmountpv.com | info@quickmountpv.com BI7.2.3-14 2700 Mitchell Dr. | Walnut Creek, CA 94598 Aug-2019, Rev 12 ©2019 by Quick Mount PV. All rights reserved. City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Staff Memo October 18, 2022 Certificate of Appropriateness BAR # 22-10-03 612 West Main Street (also 602-616), TMP 290003000 West Main ADC District Owner: Heirloom West Main Street Second Phase LLC Applicant: Jeff Dreyfus, Bushman Dreyfus Architects Project: New building: modification to approved façade Background (existing building) Year Built: 1959-1973 (concrete block automotive service building) District: West Main Street ADC District Status: Non-contributing (proposed demolition does not require BAR approval) Prior BAR Reviews (See Appendix for complete list, including meeting minutes.) 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 September 20, 2022 – Informal discussion with applicant re: modification of the approved façade. Meeting video link (begin at 3:50:00): https://boxcast.tv/channel/vabajtzezuyv3iclkx1a?b=nvdouryu5aooh1orqwxd Application • Submittal: Bushman-Dreyfus drawings/images 612 West Main Street Modifications to Approved façade, (32 pages). CoA request for modification of the approved façade design. (CoA approved December 15, 2021 for a new, four-story mixed-use building.) Discussion I. Approved Special Use Permit: In evaluating the proposed façade modifications, the BAR must account for the conditions of the approved Special Use Permit (SUP). In approving the SUP, City Council applied several of the BAR’s recommendations, see below. Having been incorporated into the SUP as conditions of approval, they are now requirements that must be met with any alterations to the project design. 612 West Main Street Discussion Oct 18, 2022 (10/11/2022) 1 • BAR recommendation: 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. • BAR recommendation: 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. • BAR recommendation: 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”). […] • BAR recommendation: 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. II. Approved Design CoA, December 2021: Carl Schwarz moved: 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 second. Motion passed 8-0. III. Modified façade design: In evaluating the proposed modifications, in addition to accounting for items I and II above, the BAR should apply criteria from Chapter 3 – New Construction and Additions. Specifically, 612 West Main Street Discussion Oct 18, 2022 (10/11/2022) 2 though not exclusively: Materials and Textures; Paint [color palette]; and Details and Decoration The historic buildings on West Main are predominantly brick, but it is not universal. • 320 West Main (1899) is stucco. • 323 West Main (1940 or 1956) feature glazed, blue tile. • 420 West Main (1960) features metal panels. • 633 West Main (1918) is stucco. Possibly not original, but has been stucco since at least 1983, when the building was surveyed. • 711 West Main (1893) features one of the few cast metal facades in the City. • 1001 West Main (1920) featured metal panels, until they were removed in 2014. As staff understands the development of the guidelines, discouraging the use of EIFS reflects the concerns at that time regarding its durability and visual quality. In the two decades since, there have been significant changes in the composition, quality, and durability of non- traditional stucco. Staff has not evaluated these new products enough to make a recommendation; however, staff suggests an informed, knowledgeable discussion of these product might present options that had not been formerly considered. Suggested Motions Approval: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find the proposed façade alterations at 612 West Main Street satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are compatible with this property and other properties in the West Main Street ADC District, and that the BAR approves the application [as submitted]. Or, [... 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 façade alterations at 612 West Main Street do not satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are not compatible with this property and other properties in the West Main Street ADC District, and that for the following reasons the BAR denies the application as submitted: Criteria, Standards, and Guidelines Review Criteria Generally Sec. 34-284(b) of the City Code states that, in considering a particular application the BAR shall approve the application unless it finds: 1) That the proposal does not meet specific standards set forth within this division or applicable provisions of the Design Guidelines established by the board pursuant to Sec. 34-288(6); and 2) The proposal is incompatible with the historic, cultural or architectural character of the district in which the property is located or the protected property that is the subject of the application. Pertinent Standards for Review of Construction and Alterations include: 1) Whether the material, texture, color, height, scale, mass and placement of the proposed addition, modification or construction are visually and architecturally compatible with the site and the applicable design control district; 2) The harmony of the proposed change in terms of overall proportion and the size and placement of entrances, windows, awnings, exterior stairs and signs; 612 West Main Street Discussion Oct 18, 2022 (10/11/2022) 3 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 3 – New Construction and Additions Link: IV: New Construction and Additions 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] The appropriateness of a color depends on the size and material of the painted area and the context of surrounding buildings, 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. 612 West Main Street Discussion Oct 18, 2022 (10/11/2022) 4 O. Details and Decoration The details and decoration of Charlottesville’s historic buildings vary tremendously with the different styles, periods, and types. Such details include cornices, roof overhang, chimneys, lintels, sills, brackets, brick patterns, shutters, entrance decoration, and porch elements. The important factor to recognize is that many of the older buildings in the districts have decoration and noticeable details. Also, many of the buildings were simply constructed, often without architects and on limited budgets that precluded costly specialized building features. At the same time, some of Charlottesville’s more recent commercial historic structures have minimal architectural decoration. It is a challenge to create new designs that use historic details successfully. One extreme is to simply copy the complete design of a historic building and the other is to “paste on” historic details on a modern unadorned design. Neither solution is appropriate for designing architecture that relates to its historic context and yet still reads as a contemporary building. More successful new buildings may take their clues from historic images and reintroduce and reinterpret designs of traditional decorative elements or may have a modernist approach in which details and decoration are minimal. 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. 612 West Main Street Discussion Oct 18, 2022 (10/11/2022) 5 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.) 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 […] 612 West Main Street Discussion Oct 18, 2022 (10/11/2022) 6 1. The specific development being approved by this special use permit (“Project”), as described within the site plan exhibit required by City Code §34-158(a)(1), shall have the following minimum attributes/ characteristics: a. Not more than one building shall be constructed on the Subject Property (the “Building”). The Building shall be a Mixed Use Building. b. The Building shall not exceed a height of four (4) stories. c. The Building shall contain no more than 55 dwelling units. d. The Building shall contain space to be occupied and used for retail uses, which shall be located on the ground floor of the Building facing West Main Street. The square footage of this retail space shall be at least the minimum required by the City’s zoning ordinance. e. Underground parking shall be provided within a parking garage structure constructed underneath the Building serving the use and occupancy of the Building. All parking required for the Project pursuant to the City’s zoning ordinance shall be located on-site. All parking required pursuant to the ordinance for the Project shall be maximized onsite to the satisfaction of the Planning Commission. No direct access shall be provided into the underground parking from the Building’s street wall along West Main Street. 2. The mass of the Building shall be broken down to reflect the multi-parcel massing historically on the site, as well as the West Main Street context, using building modulation. The Building and massing refer to the historic buildings on either side. 3. There shall be pedestrian engagement with the street with an active, transparent, and permeable façade at street level. 4. The Landowner (including, without limitation, any person who is an agent, assignee, transferee or successor in interest to the Landowner) shall prepare a Protective Plan for the Rufus Holsinger Building located on property adjacent to the Subject Property at 620- 624 West Main Street (“Holsinger Building” or “Adjacent Property”). The Protective Plan shall provide for baseline documentation, ongoing monitoring, and specific safeguards to prevent damage to the Holsinger Building, and the Landowner shall implement the Protective Plan during all excavation, demolition and construction activities within the Subject Property (“Development Site”). At minimum, the Protective Plan shall include the following: a. Baseline Survey—Landowner shall document the existing condition of the Holsinger Building (“Baseline Survey”). The Baseline Survey shall take the form of written descriptions, and visual documentation which shall include color photographs and/or video recordings. The Baseline Survey shall document the existing conditions observable on the interior and exterior of the Holsinger Building, with close-up images of cracks, staining, indications of existing settlement, and other fragile conditions that are observable. The Landowner shall engage an independent third party structural engineering firm (one who has not participated in the design of the Landowner’s Project or preparation of demolition or construction plans for the Landowner, and who has expertise in the impact of seismic activity on historic structures) and shall bear the cost of the Baseline Survey and preparation of a written report thereof. The Landowner and the Owner of the Holsinger Building (“Adjacent 612 West Main Street Discussion Oct 18, 2022 (10/11/2022) 7 Landowner”) may both have representatives present during the process of surveying and documenting the existing conditions. A copy of a completed written Baseline Survey Report shall be provided to the Adjacent Landowner, and the Adjacent Landowner shall be given fourteen (14) days to review the Baseline Survey Report and return any comments to the Landowner. b. Protective Plan--The Landowner shall engage the engineer who performed the Baseline Survey to prepare a Protective Plan to be followed by all persons performing work within the Development Site, that may include seismic monitoring or other specific monitoring measures of the Adjacent Property if recommended by the engineer preparing the Protective Plan, and minimally shall include installation of at least five crack monitors. Engineer shall inspect and take readings of crack monitors at least weekly during ground disturbance demolition and construction activities. Reports of monitor readings shall be submitted to the city building official and Adjacent Landowner within two days of inspection. A copy of the Protective Plan shall be provided to the Adjacent Landowner. The Adjacent Landowner shall be given fourteen (14) days to review the Report and return any comments to the Landowner. c. Advance notice of commencement of activity--The Adjacent Landowner shall be given 14 days’ advance written notice of commencement of demolition at the Development Site, and of commencement of construction at the Development Site. This notice shall include the name, mobile phone number, and email address of the construction supervisor(s) who will be present on the Development Site and who may be contacted by the Adjacent Landowner regarding impacts of demolition or construction on the Adjacent Property. The Landowner shall also offer the Adjacent Landowner an opportunity to have meetings: (i) prior to commencement of demolition at the Development Site, and (ii) at least fourteen (14) days prior to commencement of construction at the Development Site, on days/ times reasonably agreed to by both parties. During any such preconstruction meeting, the Adjacent Landowner will be provided information as to the nature and duration of the demolition or construction activity and the Landowner will review the Protective Plan as it will apply to the activities to be commenced. d. Permits--No demolition or building permit, and no land disturbing permit, shall be approved or issued to the Landowner, until the Landowner provides to the department of neighborhood development services: (i) copies of the Baseline Survey Report and Protective Plan, and NDS verifies that these documents satisfy the requirements of these SUP Conditions, (ii) documentation that the Baseline Survey Report and Protective Plan were given to the Adjacent Landowner in accordance with these SUP Conditions. 612 West Main Street Discussion Oct 18, 2022 (10/11/2022) 8 BAR 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 Oct 18, 2022 (10/11/2022) 9 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 Oct 18, 2022 (10/11/2022) 10 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 Oct 18, 2022 (10/11/2022) 11 BAR 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 Oct 18, 2022 (10/11/2022) 12 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 Oct 18, 2022 (10/11/2022) 13 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 Oct 18, 2022 (10/11/2022) 14 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 Oct 18, 2022 (10/11/2022) 15 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 Oct 18, 2022 (10/11/2022) 16 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 Oct 18, 2022 (10/11/2022) 17 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 Oct 18, 2022 (10/11/2022) 18 BAR 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 Oct 18, 2022 (10/11/2022) 19 BAR 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 Oct 18, 2022 (10/11/2022) 20 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 Oct 18, 2022 (10/11/2022) 21 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 Oct 18, 2022 (10/11/2022) 22 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 Oct 18, 2022 (10/11/2022) 23 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 Oct 18, 2022 (10/11/2022) 24 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 Oct 18, 2022 (10/11/2022) 25 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 Oct 18, 2022 (10/11/2022) 26 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 Oct 18, 2022 (10/11/2022) 27 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 Oct 18, 2022 (10/11/2022) 28 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 Oct 18, 2022 (10/11/2022) 29 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 Oct 18, 2022 (10/11/2022) 30 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 Oct 18, 2022 (10/11/2022) 31 BAR 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 Oct 18, 2022 (10/11/2022) 32 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 Oct 18, 2022 (10/11/2022) 33 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 Oct 18, 2022 (10/11/2022) 34 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 Oct 18, 2022 (10/11/2022) 35 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 Oct 18, 2022 (10/11/2022) 36 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 Oct 18, 2022 (10/11/2022) 37 BAR 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 Oct 18, 2022 (10/11/2022) 38 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 Oct 18, 2022 (10/11/2022) 39 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 Oct 18, 2022 (10/11/2022) 40 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 Oct 18, 2022 (10/11/2022) 41 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 Oct 18, 2022 (10/11/2022) 42 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 Oct 18, 2022 (10/11/2022) 43 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 Oct 18, 2022 (10/11/2022) 44 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 Oct 18, 2022 (10/11/2022) 45 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 Oct 18, 2022 (10/11/2022) 46 BAR 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 Oct 18, 2022 (10/11/2022) 47 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 Oct 18, 2022 (10/11/2022) 48 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 Oct 18, 2022 (10/11/2022) 49 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 Oct 18, 2022 (10/11/2022) 50 612 WEST MAIN STREET BAR MEETING 10.18.2022 | CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS PREVIOUS BUILDING ELEVATIONS BAR MEETING 10.18.2022 | CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS 612 WEST MAIN STREET ARCHITECT BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC 820 East High Street, Charlottesville VA 434.295.1936 DEVELOPER HEIRLOOM WEST MAIN STREET, SECOND PHASE LLC 2093 Goodling Road, North Garden VA OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE CHRUSCIEL GROUP 28 Country Club Dr., E. Longmeadow, MA 413.246.8450 CIVIL ENGINEER TIMMONS GROUP 608 Preston Avenue, Suite 200, Charlottesville VA 434.295.5624 MEP, FP ENGINEERS LU+S ENGINEERS 4924 Dominion Blvd, Glen Allen, VA 804.925.2600 STRUCTURAL ENGINEER DUNBY STRUCTURAL 110 Third Street, Charlottesville, VA 434.293.5171 LIGHTING DESIGNER DARK LIGHT DESIGN 265 Union Boulevard, Suite 1420, St. Louis, MO 314.797.2184 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRAY DESIGN ASSOCIATES 1012 Wildmere Place, Charlottesville, VA 434.242.7642 SPECIFICATIONS SPEC GUY SPEC. CONSULTANT 8812 Bridgeport Bay Circle, Mount Dora, FL 704.367.1991 N O TI C RU ST N O C R FO T O N address: 612 WEST MAIN STREET SIX HUNDRED WEST MAIN SIX-TWELVE WEST MAIN PROJECT #18160 HOLSINGER BUILDING MARK DATE DESCRIPTION EDITIONS/REVS STREET ELEVATION 1/16" = 1'-0" 1 0 8' 16' 32' 8 WEST MAIN STREET ELEVATION BAR SUBMISSION MEETING: 12.21.2021 printed 4:16 PM, 12/17/21 PREVIOUS ARCHITECT BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC 820 East High Street, Charlottesville VA 434.295.1936 2 1 1 2 DEVELOPER A4.01 A4.01 A4.00 A4.00 HEIRLOOM WEST MAIN STREET, SECOND PHASE LLC UPPER ROOF 2093 Goodling Road, North Garden VA 550'-9 1/2" OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE CHRUSCIEL GROUP ELEV. & E. STAIR - SINGLE CASEMENT W/SIDELITE, 28 Country Club Dr., E. Longmeadow, MA EFIS, COLOR TO SCREEN (NIC) 413.246.8450 OVER LOWER WDW, GLASS 2N MATCH BRICK CIVIL ENGINEER BRICK #2 BEYOND, TIMMONS GROUP MODULAR, RAKED JTS BRICK #1 - METAL COPING BALCONY RAILING 608 Preston Avenue, Suite 200, W/ANGLED PATTERN Charlottesville VA MONARCH SIZE BRICK #4 - W. STAIR - EFIS COLOR 434.295.5624 BRICK #1 - SINGLE CASEMENT W/SIDELITE, TO MATCH BRICK BRICK #5 - THIN BRICK CLADDING MONARCH SIZE OVER LOWER WDW, GLASS 2N BRICK #4 - INSET BRICK #4 - INSET MEP, FP ENGINEERS THIN MONARCH AT 4TH FLOOR TERRACE LU+S ENGINEERS 4924 Dominion Blvd, Glen Allen, VA ROOF 804.925.2600 536'-1" STRUCTURAL ENGINEER DUNBY STRUCTURAL RAILING 110 Third Street, Charlottesville, VA 12'-1" 434.293.5171 FIXED WDWS OVER LIGHTING DESIGNER AWNING, TYP., METAIL COPING DARK LIGHT DESIGN GLASS 2N 265 Union Boulevard, Suite 1420, St. Louis, MO FOURTH FLOOR 314.797.2184 525'-4" TERRACE DOORS, TYP. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRAY DESIGN ASSOCIATES AT JULIET BALCONIES, 1012 Wildmere Place, Charlottesville, VA GLASS 2N 434.242.7642 SPECIFICATIONS SPEC GUY SPEC. CONSULTANT 8812 Bridgeport Bay Circle, Mount Dora, FL RAILING 704.367.1991 RAILING THIRD FLOOR 49'-11 5/8" 514'-5 1/4" N O CASEMENT WDWS TI 41'-6 3/8" STREET WALL HT. GLASS 2N C RU 37'-9 3/8" 38'-6 1/4" ST N SECOND FLOOR O 503'-6 1/2" C BRICK #2 BEYOND, R BRICK #4 MODULAR, RAKED JTS FO THIN BRICK CLG W/ANGLED PATTERN T O BRICK SURROUND N GLASS 3 - ALL GLASS DOOR/ FENCE/GATE STOREFRONT BEYOND @608 address: GROUND FLOOR 612 WEST 488'-2 1/2" 487'-6 5/8" 28' 52'-7 5/8" 15' 60'-4" 12' MAIN STREET AVE. LVL OF CURB PROJECT #18160 484'-9" GLASS 3 - ALL GLASS STOREFRONT, GLASS 3 - ALL GLASS BRICK #2 BEYOND, INSET METAL PLANEL BRICK SURROUND, TYP. MARK DATE DESCRIPTION AVE. GRADE PLANE DOOR IN GLASS 1N STOREFRONT GLASS 1N DOORS, TYP. MODULAR, RAKED JTS STOREFRONT, GLASS 1N W/ANGLED PATTERN EDITIONS/REVS CURVED PLASTER ENTRY WALL, COLOR TO MATCH BRICK STOREFRONT, GLASS 1N PARKING 477'-3" FOUNDATION 474'-2 1/2" NORTH ELEVATION 1/8" = 1'-0" 1 0 4' 8' 16' 9 NORTH ELEVATION BAR SUBMISSION MEETING: 12.21.2021 printed 4:16 PM, 12/17/21 PREVIOUS ARCHITECT 600 OUTLINE BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC 820 East High Street, Charlottesville VA 434.295.1936 4 METAL COPING DEVELOPER A4.02 HEIRLOOM WEST MAIN STREET, SECOND PHASE LLC UPPER ROOF 2093 Goodling Road, North Garden VA 550'-9 1/2" OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE CHRUSCIEL GROUP 28 Country Club Dr., E. Longmeadow, MA 413.246.8450 METAL COPING CIVIL ENGINEER TIMMONS GROUP E. STAIR, EFIS TO 608 Preston Avenue, Suite 200, CMU BEHIND MATCH BRICK Charlottesville VA 600 WALL 434.295.5624 BRICK #2, MODULAR, RAKED JTS MEP, FP ENGINEERS W/ANGLED PATTERN LU+S ENGINEERS 4924 Dominion Blvd, Glen Allen, VA ROOF 804.925.2600 536'-1" STRUCTURAL ENGINEER BRICK #4 - INSET DUNBY STRUCTURAL 110 Third Street, Charlottesville, VA BRICK #1 - 434.293.5171 CASEMENT WDW MONARCH SIZE LIGHTING DESIGNER OVER FIXED, GLASS 2 DARK LIGHT DESIGN 265 Union Boulevard, Suite 1420, St. Louis, MO FOURTH FLOOR 314.797.2184 525'-4" BRICK #5 - INSET LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRAY DESIGN ASSOCIATES BRICK #4 - INSET MONARCH 1012 Wildmere Place, Charlottesville, VA 434.242.7642 FIXED WINDOW, GLASS 2N SPECIFICATIONS FIXED WDW, SPEC GUY SPEC. CONSULTANT 8812 Bridgeport Bay Circle, Mount Dora, FL OVER AWNING, BRICK SURROUND 704.367.1991 GLASS 2 THIRD FLOOR 514'-5 1/4" N O FIXED WINDOW, TI FIXED WDW, GLASS 2N C OVER AWNING, RU GLASS 2 ST N SECOND FLOOR O 503'-6 1/2" C R FO INSET METAL PANEL INSET METAL PANEL T O STOREFRONT, GLASS 2 STOREFRONT, N GLASS 1N ALL GLASS DOOR, address: GROUND FLOOR GLASS 3 612 WEST 488'-2 1/2" MAIN STREET 608 WEST MAIN (DASHED) WEST MAIN PROJECT #18160 MARK DATE DESCRIPTION ENTRY FROM 600 EDITIONS/REVS PARKING 477'-3" FOUNDATION SIX HUNDRED WEST MAIN 474'-2 1/2" (DASHED) EAST ELEVATION 1/8" = 1'-0" 1 0 4' 8' 16' 10 EAST ELEVATION BAR SUBMISSION MEETING: 12.21.2021 printed 4:16 PM, 12/17/21 PREVIOUS ARCHITECT BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC 820 East High Street, Charlottesville VA 434.295.1936 1 DEVELOPER A4.02 HEIRLOOM WEST MAIN STREET, METAL COPING SECOND PHASE LLC UPPER ROOF 2093 Goodling Road, North Garden VA 550'-9 1/2" OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE CHRUSCIEL GROUP ELEV. & E. STAIR - 28 Country Club Dr., E. Longmeadow, MA METAL COPING SCREEN (NIC) EFIS, COLOR TO MATCH BRICK 413.246.8450 EFIS, COLOR TO MATCH BRICK BALCONY RAILING CIVIL ENGINEER W. STAIR - EFIS, TIMMONS GROUP COLOR TO MATCH BRICK PARAPET BEYOND 608 Preston Avenue, Suite 200, BRICK #3, MODULAR, SINGLE CASEMENT W/SIDELITE, GUARDRAIL (NIC) Charlottesville VA RAKED JTS OVER LOWER WDW, GLASS 2 434.295.5624 MEP, FP ENGINEERS LU+S ENGINEERS 4924 Dominion Blvd, Glen Allen, VA ROOF TERRACE DOORS 804.925.2600 536'-1" AT BALCONIES, TYP., STRUCTURAL ENGINEER GLASS 2 DUNBY STRUCTURAL 110 Third Street, Charlottesville, VA 434.293.5171 FIXED WDWS OVER AWNING, TYP. LIGHTING DESIGNER DARK LIGHT DESIGN 265 Union Boulevard, Suite 1420, METAL SILL DTL, TYP. St. Louis, MO 314.797.2184 FOURTH FLOOR 525'-4" LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRAY DESIGN ASSOCIATES INSET EFIS, TYP. 1012 Wildmere Place, Charlottesville, VA 434.242.7642 SPECIFICATIONS CASEMENT WDW, SPEC GUY SPEC. CONSULTANT GLASS 2 8812 Bridgeport Bay Circle, Mount Dora, FL 704.367.1991 THIRD FLOOR 514'-5 1/4" BRICK #3, MODULAR, RAKED JTS N TERRACE RAILING O TI C RU METAL COPING ST N SECOND FLOOR O C 503'-6 1/2" R EFIS, COLOR TO MATCH FO BRICK T INSET EFIS O N 22'-6 7/8" address: GROUND FLOOR 612 WEST 488'-2 1/2" MAIN STREET PROJECT #18160 MARK DATE DESCRIPTION EDITIONS/REVS 165'-5 7/8" PARKING SINGLE CASEMENT W/SIDELITE, 477'-3" OVER LOWER WDW, GLASS 1S FOUNDATION 474'-2 1/2" SOUTH ELEVATION 1/8" = 1'-0" 1 0 4' 8' 16' 11 SOUTH ELEVATION BAR SUBMISSION MEETING: 12.21.2021 printed 4:16 PM, 12/17/21 PREVIOUS ARCHITECT BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC 820 East High Street, Charlottesville VA 434.295.1936 3 DEVELOPER A4.02 HEIRLOOM WEST MAIN STREET, SECOND PHASE LLC UPPER ROOF 2093 Goodling Road, North Garden VA 550'-9 1/2" METAL COPING OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE CHRUSCIEL GROUP 28 Country Club Dr., E. Longmeadow, MA W. STAIR - EFIS COLOR 413.246.8450 TO MATCH BRICK CIVIL ENGINEER TIMMONS GROUP 608 Preston Avenue, Suite 200, METAL COPING Charlottesville VA 434.295.5624 METAL COPING BRICK #3 71'-3 5/8" 19'-10 7/8" MEP, FP ENGINEERS LU+S ENGINEERS 4924 Dominion Blvd, Glen Allen, VA ROOF 804.925.2600 536'-1" STRUCTURAL ENGINEER DUNBY STRUCTURAL METAL COPING 110 Third Street, Charlottesville, VA BRICK #4 - INSET 434.293.5171 INBRICK #4 - INSET WINDOW, GLASS 2 LIGHTING DESIGNER DARK LIGHT DESIGN RAILING BALCONY RAILING 265 Union Boulevard, Suite 1420, St. Louis, MO FOURTH FLOOR 314.797.2184 525'-4" LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT BRICK #1 - PRAY DESIGN ASSOCIATES METAL CLADDING AT 1012 Wildmere Place, Charlottesville, VA MONARCH SIZE 33'-9 3/8" BALCONY EDGES 434.242.7642 WINDOW, GLASS 2 SPECIFICATIONS BRICK SILL SPEC GUY SPEC. CONSULTANT BRICK SILL 8812 Bridgeport Bay Circle, Mount Dora, FL 704.367.1991 BRICK #2, MODULAR, THIRD FLOOR RAKED JTS TERRACE PRIVACY 514'-5 1/4" W/ANGLED PATTERN PANEL BRICK #4 - INSET N BRICK #3, MODULAR, O WINDOW, GLASS 2 METAL COPING TI RAKED JTS FIRE GLASS IN C FIRE WDW FRAME, RU BRICK SILL BRICK #3, MODULAR, GLASS 4 ST RAKED JTS N SECOND FLOOR O 503'-6 1/2" C R BRICK #4 - INSET FO T O BRICK #4 - INSET N STOREFRONT, GLASS 2 WEST MAIN ST. 22'-8 7/8" BRICK SILL BRICK SILL address: GROUND FLOOR 612 WEST 488'-2 1/2" MAIN STREET HOLSINGER BUILDING RAILROAD PROJECT #18160 (DASHED) MARK DATE DESCRIPTION EDITIONS/REVS PARKING 477'-3" FOUNDATION 474'-2 1/2" WEST ELEVATION 1/8" = 1'-0" 1 0 4' 8' 16' 12 WEST ELEVATION BAR SUBMISSION MEETING: 12.21.2021 printed 4:16 PM, 12/17/21 PREVIOUS BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR MEETING 10.18.2022 STREET VIEW FROM EAST MODIFICATIONS BAR MEETING 10.18.2022 | CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS 612 WEST MAIN STREET III New Construction & Additions M. Materials & 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 The use of varied materials on a commercial facade adds visual interest where it cannot be seen or damaged. It requires careful by dividing the building into different levels. 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. This row of turn-of-the-century residences illustrate the most common materials used in period construction: stucco, wood siding, and brick. CHARLOTTESVILLE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN CONTROL DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES 19 REID MARKET 600 Preston Ave GRADUATE 1309 W Main St 1107 W Main St 1003 W Main St 1001 W Main St DRAFTSMAN 1106 W Main St MAYA OLD ALBEMARLE HOTEL 633 W Main St 617 W Main St 108 6th St NW PUBLIC Fish & Oyster 106 W Main St 513 W Main RESIDENCE INN 612 WEST MAIN 315 W Main St CHAPS ICE CREAM 502 W Main St BITTERSWEET 223 E Main St 106 E Main St 325 W Main St CAFE FRANK 600 W Main St 420 W Main St 317 E Main St 218 Water St 112 W Main KILWIN'S 313 E Main St 125 W Water St 103 1st St S RAPTURE 303 E Main St 108-110 South Street West PINK BUILDING 100 South Street West SULTAN KEBAB 200 Garrett St 333 2nd St SE BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR MEETING 10.18.2022 MAP OF STUCCO BUILDINGS DOWNTOWN BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR MEETING 10.18.2022 PRECEDENT IMAGES MATERIALS BAR MEETING 10.18.2022 | CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS 612 WEST MAIN STREET SAND 2.0 FINISH AGGRELIME FINISH SAND 2.0 FINISH AGGRELIME FINISH BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR MEETING 10.18.2022 FAÇADE TEXTURES MASTER WALL STUCCO MASTER WALL ROLLERSHIELD DRAINAGE CIFS 12 Rollershield Drainage CIFS® 12 Rollershield Drainage CIFS® 12 steps up Features & Benefits our standard system with Primecoat Primer for better looks and weather protection. It • 12-year limited warranty features high weather and air protection • Durable and efficient SuperiorShield Rollershield along with high R-value continuous insulation board. Air/Water Barrier Approved Substrate • Cost effective Master Wall Insulation Board The system offers the designer a full • Class leading Master Wall Standard Mesh with spectrum of finish options from our standard Superior Finishes to specialty Medium Impact Resistance finishes. • Primecoat Primer for improved looks Cemplaster Fiberstucco Metal Lath over water barrier of paper backed metal lath 1 2 3 Cemplaster 4 Fiberstucco 5 6 7 1. Framing and Approved Substrate (by others) 8 2. Rollershield Liquid-applied Air/ Water Barrier (LAB) 3. Vertical notched adhesive and drainage channel CFSSD008 Cemplaster Fiberstucco 4. Master Wall Insulation Board 5. F&M or MBB Base Coat application over Rollershield LAB with 6. Standard Mesh minimum Primecoat and Superior Finish 7. Primecoat Primer 8. Superior Finish These drawings relay the conceptual conditions of Master Wall® Systems and are not the construction drawings. Ultimately the design and detailing of an entire wall system is the responsibility of a professional. These details will guide the design professional in the use of Master Wall® Products. Master Wall disclaims design, warranty or construction intent or responsibility. Bold or brand name = Master Wall® Product. 2016 Master Wall Inc. ® BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR MEETING 10.18.2022 FAÇADE MATERIALS PRODUCT DATA DETAILS BAR MEETING 10.18.2022 | CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS 612 WEST MAIN STREET TERRACE DOOR AT MAIN NORTH FAÇADE STEEL RAILING, PTD. 3 1/2" 7 5/8" 1 1/2" 8 8 8 8 8 2 2 2 2 2 1 1/2" 3/8" HYPHEN WINDOW INSWING TERRACE 1/2" DOOR EIFS FINISH COAT TEAR-AWAY 'L' BEAD, TYP. 4" EPS INSULATION WRB 4 1/4" 7 5/8" 2x6 FRAMING AT TYPICAL EXTERIOR WALLS 5" 8 8 DEMISING WALL: 2x8 SILL PLATE, 2x6 STAGGERED FRAMING 2 7/8" 2 2 3/8" 5/8" 3/4" TEAR-AWAY 'L' BEAD, TYP. 1 1/2"= 1'-0" 0 6'' 12'' 18'' BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR MEETING 10.18.2022 FAÇADE PLAN DETAIL NEW BUILDING ELEVATIONS BAR MEETING 10.18.2022 | CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS 612 WEST MAIN STREET SIX HUNDRED WEST MAIN SIX-TWELVE WEST MAIN HOLSINGER BUILDING FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR MEETING 10.18.2022 STREET ELEVATION 1 METAL COPING CONTROL JT., TYP. EIFS INSET METAL COPING METAL PANEL EIFS TEXTURE B INSET 536'-1" ROOF DECK EIFS, TEXTURE A METAL RAILING 525'-4" STREET WALL DECK LVL EIFS INSET EIFS, TEXTURE B METAL SILL METAL PANEL INSET CONTROL JT., TYP. 48'-6 3/8" METAL SILL EIFS INSET EIFS TEXTURE A, EIFS, TEXTURE B STREET WALL HT. FLRS 2-4 37'-9 3/8" METAL SILL METAL FENCE/GATE STOREFRONT, GLASS 1N CURVED PLASTER ENTRY WALL STUCCO, 1ST FLR TEXTURE B 487'-6 5/8" STUCCO, 1ST FLR METAL AWNING, TYP. STUCCO, 1ST FLR METAL AWNING, TYP. AVE. LVL OF CURB TEXTURE B STUCCO 1ST FLR, TEXTURE B STOREFRONT, TYP. STUCCO 1ST FLR, 2'-9 5/8" 484'-9" STOREFRONT W/ALL AVE. GRADE PLANE EIFS TEXTURE A, TEXTURE A EIFS TEXTURE A, TEXTURE A GLASS DOORS, TYP. FLRS 2-4 FLRS 2-4 BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR MEETING 10.18.2022 NORTH ELEVATION 2 600 OUTLINE CMU BEHIND 600 WALL METAL PANEL INSET METAL PANEL INSET METAL AWNING STOREFRONT, STOREFRONT, GLASS 1N GLASS 1N 608 WEST MAIN (DASHED) WEST MAIN ENTRY FROM 600 SIX HUNDRED WEST MAIN (DASHED) BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR MEETING 10.18.2022 EAST ELEVATION 3 CASEMENT WDW METAL COPING METAL GUARDRAIL EIFS, TEXTURE A EIFS INSET METAL SILL EIFS INSET METAL PANEL RAILING METAL SILL CONTROL JT., TYP. STUCCO, TEXTURE A BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR MEETING 10.18.2022 SOUTH ELEVATION 4 METAL COPING METAL COPING EIFS TEXTURE A METAL COPING METAL GUARDRAIL BALCONY RAILING METAL CLADDING AT BALCONY EDGES EIFS TEXTURE B, 2-3 FLRS METAL SILL, TYP. EIFS TEXTURE A, 2-4 FLRS TERRACE PRIVACY PANEL CONTROL JTS, TYP. METAL COPING STUCCO, TEXTURE A WEST MAIN ST. METAL SILL HOLSINGER BUILDING RAILROAD (DASHED) BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR MEETING 10.18.2022 WEST ELEVATION 5 VIEWS BAR MEETING 10.18.2022 | CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS 612 WEST MAIN STREET BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR MEETING 10.18.2022 STREET VIEW FROM WEST BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR MEETING 10.18.2022 VIEW FROM WEST BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR MEETING 10.18.2022 STREET VIEW FROM EAST BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR MEETING 10.18.2022 VIEW FROM 6TH ST NW BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR MEETING 10.18.2022 ENTRY VIEW BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR MEETING 10.18.2022 STOREFRONT VIEW BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR MEETING 10.18.2022 VIEW FROM WEST BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PC • 612 WEST MAIN ST BAR MEETING 10.18.2022 VIEW OF SOUTH FACADE City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Staff Report October 18, 2022 Discussion only. No action will be taken. Possible modifications to the height stepbacks. 218 West Market Street Tax Parcel 330276000 Owner: Market Street Promenade, LLC, Owner Applicant: Heirloom Real Estate Holdings LLC, Applicant Prior BAR Reviews (germane to this discussion) March 13, 2019 – BAR approved the demolition of 218 West Market Street. 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 218 West Market Street. (CoA had expired.) Application • Applicant submittal: Bushman Dreyfus narrative and drawings 218 West Market / Amendment of Special Use Permit, dated October 10, 2022 (8 pages). Prior to a formal request [to City Council] to amend the SUP*, the applicant seeks the BAR’s input re: the alternatives and consistency with ADC District design guidelines. (* City Council approved the SUP September 8, 2020. See Appendix) (Note for clarity: This discussion is re: the stepbacks of the building’s upper floors, not the setbacks from the property line.) From the applicant’s narrative (refer to the entire document for complete summary): In our preliminary planning, the design team has identified a zoning anomaly for this site that we wish to correct through an amendment to the existing Special Use Permit. The zoning ordinance states the following: o "After forty-five (45) feet, there shall be a minimum stepback of twenty-five (25) feet along the length of the street wall. However, any streetwall fronting upon a numbered street within this district between Ridge Street and 10th Street East shall, after forty- five (45) feet, be required to have a stepback of five (5) feet." We are requesting an amendment to the existing Special Use Permit to require the following: o A minimum ten (10) foot stepback on West Market Street o A minimum five (5) foot stepback on Old Preston Avenue. 218 West Market Street - Discussion – Oct 18, 2022 (10/12/2022) 1 Discussion BAR’s September 17, 2019 recommendation to Council re: the SUP. 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). Suggested Motions No action will be taken. Criteria, Standards, and Guidelines Review Criteria Generally Sec. 34-284(b) of the City Code states that, in considering a particular application the BAR shall approve the application unless it finds: (1) That the proposal does not meet specific standards set forth within this division or applicable provisions of the Design Guidelines established by the board pursuant to Sec.34-288(6); and (2) The proposal is incompatible with the historic, cultural or architectural character of the district in which the property is located or the protected property that is the subject of the application. Pertinent Standards for Review of Construction and Alterations include: (1) Whether the material, texture, color, height, scale, mass and placement of the proposed addition, modification or construction are visually and architecturally compatible with the site and the applicable design control district; (2) The harmony of the proposed change in terms of overall proportion and the size and placement of entrances, windows, awnings, exterior stairs and signs; (3) The Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation set forth within the Code of Federal Regulations (36 C.F.R. §67.7(b)), as may be relevant; (4) The effect of the proposed change on the historic district neighborhood; (5) The impact of the proposed change on other protected features on the property, such as gardens, landscaping, fences, walls and walks; (6) Whether the proposed method of construction, renovation or restoration could have an adverse impact on the structure or site, or adjacent buildings or structures; (7) Any applicable provisions of the City’s Design Guidelines. Pertinent Guidelines for New Construction and Additions include: D. Massing & Footprint 218 West Market Street - Discussion – Oct 18, 2022 (10/12/2022) 2 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. 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 218 West Market Street - Discussion – Oct 18, 2022 (10/12/2022) 3 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. 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. 218 West Market Street - Discussion – Oct 18, 2022 (10/12/2022) 4 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 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. 218 West Market Street - Discussion – Oct 18, 2022 (10/12/2022) 5 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 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 218 West Market Street - Discussion – Oct 18, 2022 (10/12/2022) 6 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 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 218 West Market Street - Discussion – Oct 18, 2022 (10/12/2022) 7 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 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 218 West Market Street - Discussion – Oct 18, 2022 (10/12/2022) 8 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. 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 218 West Market Street - Discussion – Oct 18, 2022 (10/12/2022) 9 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: • 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 – Oct 18, 2022 (10/12/2022) 10 SUP approved by City Council September 8, 2020 http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/797104/20200908Sep08.pdf RESOLUTION APPROVING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 218 WEST MARKET STREET WHEREAS, landowner Market Street Promenade, LLC is the current owner of a lot identified on 2019 City Tax Map 33 as Parcel 276 (City Parcel Identification No. 330276000), having an area of approximately 0.562 acre (24,480 square feet) (the “Subject Property”), and WHEREAS, the landowner proposes to redevelop the Subject Property by constructing a mixed use building at a height of up to 101 feet on the Subject Property, with retail space on the ground floor facing West Market Street, residential dwelling units at a density of up to 240 dwelling units per acre, and underground parking (“Project”); and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is located within the Downtown Architectural Design Control District established by City Code §34-272(1) and contains an existing building that is classified as a “contributing structure”, and the City’s board of architectural review (BAR) has been notified of this special use permit application and the BAR believes that any adverse impacts of the requested additional height, the loss of the existing contributing structure, and the massing of the proposed building to be constructed can be adequately addressed within the process of obtaining a certificate of appropriateness from the BAR; WHEREAS, the Project is described in more detail within the Applicant’s application materials dated submitted in connection with SP19-00006 and a preliminary site plan dated August 13, 2019, as required by City Code §34-158 (collectively, the “Application Materials”); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and City Council conducted a joint public hearing, after notice and advertisement as required by law, on November 12, 2019; and WHEREAS, upon consideration of the comments received during the joint public hearing, the information provided by the landowner within its application materials, and the information provided within the Staff Report, the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the proposed special use permit for the Project; and WHEREAS, upon consideration of the Planning Commission’s recommendation, and the Staff Reports discussing this application, public comments received, as well as the factors set forth within Sec. 34-157 of the City’s Zoning Ordinance, this Council finds and determines that granting the proposed Special Use subject to suitable conditions would serve the public necessity, convenience, general welfare or good zoning practice; now, therefore, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia that, pursuant to City Code §§ 34-557 and 34-560, a special use permit is hereby approved and granted to authorize a building height of up to 101 feet, and residential density of up to 240 dwelling units per acre, for the Project, subject to the following conditions: 1. The specific development being approved by this special use permit (“Project”), as 218 West Market Street - Discussion – Oct 18, 2022 (10/12/2022) 11 described within the August 13, 2019 site plan exhibit submitted as part of the application materials, as 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, containing residential and commercial uses in the percentages required by the Ordinance adopted by City Council on July 16, 2018 amending Article VI (Mixed Use Corridor Districts) of Chapter 34 (Zoning Ordinance) (relating to bonus height or density within mixed use zoning districts). b. The commercial floor area within the Building shall contain space to be occupied and used for retail uses, which shall be located on the ground floor of the Building. The square footage of this retail space shall be at least the minimum required by the City’s zoning ordinance or, if none, equivalent square footage in relation to the gross floor area of the Building as depicted in the August 13, 2019 site plan exhibit submitted as part of the application materials (subject to adjustment of the GFA, as necessary to comply with requirements of any COA approved by the BAR. c. Underground parking shall be provided within a parking garage structure constructed underneath the Building. 2. The mass of the Building shall be broken up to provide compatibility with the character defining features of the Downtown Architectural Design Control District (City Code §34- 272(1)), subject to approval by the City’s board of architectural review. 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 building located on property adjacent to the Subject Property at 110 Old Preston Avenue (“Adjacent Property”). The Protective Plan shall provide for baseline documentation, ongoing monitoring, and specific safeguards to prevent damage to the 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 building at 110 Old Preston Avenue (“Baseline Survey”). The Baseline Survey shall take the form of written descriptions, and visual documentation which may include color photographs and video recordings. The Baseline Survey shall document the existing conditions observable on the interior and exterior of the Adjacent Property, 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 218 West Market Street - Discussion – Oct 18, 2022 (10/12/2022) 12 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 Adjacent Property (“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 shall include seismic monitoring or other specific monitoring measures of the Adjacent Property as recommended by the engineer preparing the Protective Plan. A copy of the Protective Plan shall be provided to the Adjacent Landowner. The Adjacent Landowner shall be given fourteen (14) days to review the Report and return any comments to the Landowner. c. Advance notice of commencement of activity--The Adjacent Landowner shall be given 14 days’ advance written notice of commencement of demolition at the Development Site, and of commencement of construction at the Development Site. This notice shall include the name, mobile phone number, and email address of the construction supervisor(s) who will be present on the Development Site and who may be contacted by the Adjacent Landowner regarding impacts of demolition or construction on the Adjacent Property. The Landowner shall also offer the Adjacent Landowner an opportunity to have meetings: (i) prior to commencement of demolition at the Development Site, and (ii) at least fourteen (14) days prior to commencement of construction at the Development Site, on days/ times reasonably agreed to by both parties. During any such preconstruction meeting, the Adjacent Landowner will be provided information as to the nature and duration of the demolition or construction activity and the Landowner will review the Protective Plan as it will apply to the activities to be commenced. 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. 218 West Market Street - Discussion – Oct 18, 2022 (10/12/2022) 13 Memorandum To: Jeff Werner From: Jeff Dreyfus Date: 10/10/2022 Subject: 218 West Market / Amendment of Special Use Permit To the members of the BAR: The owner of 218 West Market Street was granted a Special Use Permit on September 8, 2020 (with an extension approved on March 4, 2022) for increased height and density on the parcel as the City looks to expand its housing stock and affordable housing options. In our preliminary planning, the design team has identified a zoning anomaly for this site that we wish to correct through an amendment to the existing Special Use Permit. The zoning ordinance states the following: "After forty-five (45) feet, there shall be a minimum stepback of twenty-five (25) feet along the length of the street wall. However, any streetwall fronting upon a numbered street within this district between Ridge Street and 10th Street East shall, after forty-five (45) feet, be required to have a stepback of five (5) feet." We are requesting an amendment to the existing Special Use Permit to require the following: - A minimum ten (10) foot stepback on West Market Street - A minimum five (5) foot stepback on Old Preston Avenue. As the only through-block parcel on the north side of the downtown mall, this parcel is an anomaly in the City, as it requires a 25’ stepback on both West Market Street and Old Preston Avenue. This presents impediments to maximizing the parcel's potential for increased density and for contributing positively to the urban fabric on both streets. The double 25’ stepback on this parcel results in a building footprint that makes it impossible to achieve the type of density the Special Use Permit allows and that the City is looking to achieve because it will cramp and distort the standard dimensions and shapes of units. Additionally, if the 25’ stepback were consistently applied along West Market Street (as currently required), it will result in a downtown core of podium buildings with small towers sitting atop 3 story bases. In conversations with NDS staff, we learned that there was no consideration for the uniqueness of this particular parcel when the current zoning ordinance was adopted. The requirement for a 25’ stepback on Old Preston Avenue seems contrary to the nature of the street itself. While a 25’ stepback on the downtown mall seems reasonable in respect to the predominantly 3-story height of historic structures, side streets perpendicular to the downtown mall require only a 5’ stepback. As a narrow street with the Omni’s utility yard and parking garage fronting it, Old Preston Avenue is more like a side street of the downtown mall than it is an extension of the mall. We also learned that the 25’ stepback requirement along West Market Street was adopted largely to prevent a tall structure from encroaching too closely on Market Street Park should such a structure ever be built on the open parking lot south of the park. While this may be reasonable for that particular site, the 25’ stepback would result in an entire street of podium structures if all parcels Bushman Dreyfus Architects PC 820b East High Street Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Telephone 434.295.1936 10/10/2022 Amendment of Special Use Permit Page 2 of 2 along West Market Street were developed to meet this requirement. Urbanistically, this is contrary to the typical 10’ +/- building stepback typically employed in new construction to allow light and air to make its way to the street while accommodating reasonably sized terraces for residential units. It’s also important to note that the stepback requirements for other zoning districts in the City range from 0’ to 10’; with this in mind, the 25’ stepback required on the entirety of Market Street seems excessive. Modifying the stepback requirement via an amendment to the SUP will allow the City to correct the zoning anomaly of a 25’ stepback on a minor street such as Old Preston Avenue, and it will rectify the disparity between the required 25’ stepback on Market Street and the more typical urban condition of a 10’ stepback to moderate building scale and provide residential terraces of a reasonable size. This request does not constitute a design proposal, nor does it increase density or height as those are fixed by the SUP. The stepbacks define the envelope within which the design team must work to create a building that will be approved at a later date by the BAR. Modifying the stepbacks at this time will provide the BAR and the design team greater flexibility in how we shape and sculpt a building that is appropriate for this particular site. As an amendment to the existing Special Use Permit, this stepback modification must go before the BAR, the Planning Commission and finally, City Council. In this process, the BAR is charged with the following: "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 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 or ERB, as applicable, shall return a written report of its recommendations to the city council." With this application, we seek the BAR’s recommendation that the proposed Special Use Permit amendment will not have an adverse impact on the design control district, knowing that the final design of any structure on this site still awaits input, review and approval by the Board of Architectural Review. Sincerely, Jeff Dreyfus REQUEST FOR STEPBACK RELIEF AT 218 WEST MARKET STREET 218 WEST. MARKET ST. ZONE: MIXED-USE DOWNTOWN CORRIDOR "D" ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN CONTROL DISTRICT URBAN CORRIDOR PARKING ZONE PRIMARY STREETS: WEST MARKET ST., OLD PRESTON AVE. LAND AREA: 0.56 ACRES/24,393 SF EAST MAIN ST WEST MARKET ST DENSITY: 240 DUA - 9/8/20 APPROVED SUP DWELLING UNITS: 134 UNITS - 9/8/20 APPROVED SUP STREET WALL HT: 40' MIN., 45 ' MAX. OVERALL HEIGHT: 101' - PER 9/8/20 APPROVED SUP SITE AVERAGE 218 W. MARKET ST. GRADE PLANE: 448'-3" STEPBACK: 25' AFTER 45', BOTH STREET WALLS E Sec. 34-558. - Streetwall regulations. N AV TO RES P "After forty-five ( 45) feet, there shall be a minimum stepback of OL D twenty-five (25) feet along the length of the streetwall. However, any streetwall fronting upon a numbered street within this district between Ridge Street and 10th Street, East shall, after forty-five ( 45) feet, be required to have a stepback of five (5) feet. SPECIAL USE PERMIT MODIFICATION STEPBACK: 5' AFTER 45' ALONG OLD PRESTON AVENUE 10' AFTER 45' ALONG WEST MARKET STREET "After forty-five ( 45) feet, there shall be a minimum stepback of five ( 5') along the length of the Preston Avenue streetwall and ten ( 10') feet along the length of the West Market Street streetwall. Heirloom Development 218 WEST MARKET STREET 10/10/22 SUP MODIFICATION OF STEPBACK SITE PLAN 1 W MARKET ST WHISKEY JAR RESIDENTIAL VE NA TO ES PR D WEST MARKET STREET OL 25' LEVELS 2 AND 3 25' REQUIRED 25' STEPBACK WHISKEY JAR 5' PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL 5' STEPBACK W MARKET ST E NU REQUIRED E COMMERCIAL 25' STEPBACK AV ON E AV PROPOSED ON ST 10' STEPBACK ST RE RE DP DP OMNI HOTEL 10' OL LIGHT HOUSE STUDIO OL LEVEL 1 (PEDESTRIAN MALL) EAST MAIN ST. WHISKEY JAR CODE VINEGAR W MARKET ST HILL OMNI PARKING E AV ON ST RE DP OMNI OL VINEGAR HILL PARKING - BASEMENT LEVEL LEVELS 4 -9 N Heirloom Development 218 WEST MARKET STREET 10/10/22 SUP MODIFICATION OF STEPBACK MAXIMUM BUILDING ENVELOPE 2 FLOOR PLAN LAYOUTS EXPERIENCE A HARDSHIP FOR 25' 153' PROPERLY DESIGNED RESIDENTIAL UNITS. UNFEASIBLE DEPTH FOR NOTE: STEPBACK RELIEF WILL NOT CHANGE UNIT QUANTITY. RESIDENTIAL USE LEVEL 9 WEST MARKET LEVEL 8 STREET LEVEL 7 REQUIRED 25' LEVEL 6 STEPBACK REQUIRED 25' STEPBACK 25' LEVEL 5 25' 25' LEVEL 4 OLD PRESTON AVENUE LEVEL 3 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 1 E MAIN ST UNFEASIBLE DEPTH FOR WEST MARKET RESIDENTIAL USE PARKING OLD PRESTON STREET AVENUE 25' 98' REQUIRED STEPBACKS REQUIRED STEPBACKS 10' 65' 30' LIGHT AND AIR 65' 43' LEVEL 9 5' LEVEL 8 WEST MARKET LEVEL 7 STREET PROPSED 5' LEVEL 6 STEPBACK 63' 10' LEVEL 5 5' PROPSED 10' LEVEL 4 STEPBACK OLD PRESTON AVENUE LEVEL 3 LEVEL 2 75' LEVEL 1 E MAIN ST LIGHT AND AIR LEVELS 4 THROUGH 9 LEVELS 2 & 3 WEST MARKET PARKING OLD PRESTON LEVEL 1 ROOF TERRACE STREET AVENUE PROPOSED STEPBACKS PROPOSED STEPBACKS Heirloom Development 218 WEST MARKET STREET 10/10/22 SUP MODIFICATION OF STEPBACK STEPBACK FLOORS 4-9 3 WEST MARKET - VIEW TOWARDS MCINTYRE WEST MARKET - VIEW TOWARDS COMMON HOUSE DOWNTOWN MALL - VIEW TOWARDS OMNI HOTEL DEPTH WILL NOT PROPERLY 98' DEPTH IS NOT FEASIBLE BROAD ELEVATION ACHIEVE LIGHT AND AIR 152' 25' STEPBACK 25' STEPBACK 25' STEPBACK 25' STEPBACK TWO SMALLER BUILDING 25' STEPBACK 25' STEPBACK 25' STEPBACK MASSES VIEW TOWARDS MCINTYRE VIEW TOWARDS COMMON HOUSE VIEW TOWARDS OMNI HOTEL 65' DEPTH NEEDED FOR DOUBLE 65' LOADED CORRIDOR AND LIGHT AND AIR DEPTH NEEDED FOR DEPTH NEEDED FOR REDUCED BUILDING MASS 65' DOUBLE LOADED DOUBLE LOADED LIGHT AND AIR 65' CORRIDOR CORRIDOR LIGHT AND AIR 10' STEPBACK 5' STEPBACK ON OLD PRESTON 10' STEPBACK 10' STEPBACK 10' STEPBACK 5' STEPBACK VIEW TOWARDS MCINTYRE VIEW TOWARDS COMMON HOUSE VIEW TOWARDS OMNI HOTEL WEST MARKET TOWARDS MCINTYRE WEST MARKET TOWARDS COMMON HOUSE DOWNTOWN MALL TOWARDS OMNI HOTEL Heirloom Development 218 WEST MARKET STREET 10/10/22 SUP MODIFICATION OF STEPBACK MASSING COMPARISON 4 5' AND 10' STEPBACK PRECEDENT AT MIXED-USE LOCATIONS 218 WEST MARKET STREET IS UNIQUELY BURDENED COMPARISON OF STEPBACK REGULATIONS: Downtown Stepback Requirement: 25’ stepback after 45’ along entire streetwall. Buildings fronting on Water Street are exempt. Stepbacks in Nearby Zoning Districts and other Mixed Use Districts: Downtown Extended: " " 10’ after 50’, along 70% of the streetwall. 218 WEST MARKET 10 25 Downtown North: " " " Only for facades facing a low-density 10 residential district, 10’ after 3 stories, 5 along 70% of the streetwall. 25 5 5 Otherwise, none. 5 5 Water Street: " " " None along Water Street. 10 10 25 5 5 5 5 Along South Street:" " 25’ after 45’ because of small height 5 limits applicable to the South Street 25 zoning district with historic buildings, 0 10 5 and 10’ after 45’ along Ridge Street. West Main East: " " " 10’ after 40’. 25 0 West Main West: " " " 10’ after 40’. Corridor: High Street: " " " None, max. building height is only 35’. Neighborhood Commercial " 10’ after 45 feet, only along 50% of the streetwall. Central City Corridor: " " 10’ after 45’ along 70% of the streetwall. None of the other mixed use districts require a 25 foot stepback on the front other LEGEND than Water Street District, and there the stepback is only required for those 0' STEPBACK Highway: " " " " None. buildings that front on South Street. South Street’s zoning district's intent is to “preserve the historic pedestrian scale” of a small grouping of large historic 5' STEPBACK Cherry Ave: " " " " 10’ after 35’. homes, where the maximum building height is 45 feet. 10' STEPBACK Urban: " " " " None. The buildings along Market Street do not have an equivalent “special” district to 25' STEPBACK protect per the “purpose and intent” of the South Street zoning district. For buildings in the Downtown District that front on Water Street, and for buildings in the Water Street District that front on Water Street, there is NO stepback requirement – note the 101’ streetwall of the CODE building along Water Street. Heirloom Development 218 WEST MARKET STREET 10/10/22 SUP MODIFICATION OF STEPBACK STEPBACK REQUIREMENTS BY ZONING DISTRICT 5 NO IMPACT TO SHADOWS E MAIN ST E MAIN ST WEST MARKET ST. WEST MARKET ST. MCGUFFEY ART BROWN'S MCGUFFEY ART BROWN'S CENTER CENTER WHISKEY JAR WHISKEY JAR 218 W. MARKET ST. CODE 218 W. MARKET ST. CODE MCGUFFEY MCGUFFEY CONDOS CONDOS E E AV AV ON ON T T ES ES PR PR VINEGAR VINEGAR D D HILL HILL OL OL OMNI OMNI REQUIRED STEPBACKS - LONGEST DAY OF THE YEAR: 2PM JUNE 21ST N REQUIRED STEPBACKS - SHORTEST DAY OF THE YEAR: 2PM DECEMBER 21ST N E MAIN ST E MAIN ST WEST MARKET ST. WEST MARKET ST. MCGUFFEY ART BROWN'S MCGUFFEY ART BROWN'S CENTER CENTER WHISKEY JAR WHISKEY JAR 218 W. MARKET ST. CODE 218 W. MARKET ST. CODE MCGUFFEY MCGUFFEY CONDOS CONDOS E E AV AV ON ON T T ES ES PR PR VINEGAR VINEGAR D D HILL HILL OL OL OMNI OMNI PROPOSED STEPBACKS - LONGEST DAY OF THE YEAR: 2PM JUNE 21ST N PROPOSED STEPBACKS - LONGEST DAY OF THE YEAR: 2PM DECEMBER 21ST N Heirloom Development 218 WEST MARKET STREET 10/10/22 SUP MODIFICATION OF STEPBACK SHADOW STUDIES 6 City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Staff Report October 18, 2022 Preliminary Discussion 1025 Wertland Street, (1025-1213), TMP 040305000 Wertland Street ADC District Owner: Neighborhood Investments --WS Applicant: Kevin Riddle, Mitchell Matthews Project: Relocate building approx. 25-feet towards street. Background Year Built: c. 1910, Georgian Revival District: Wertland Street ADC District Status: Contributing Prior BAR Review (Note: This parcel has multiple structures. Related to 1025 Wertland St. below. See Appendix for all reviews related to this parcel.) September 15, 2015 – (1025 Wertland St.) BAR approved removal of contemporary siding and rehabilitation of historic exterior. http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/647020/BAR_1025%20Wertland%20Street_Sept2015.pdf http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/656125/BAR_1025%20Wertland%20Street_%20in%20progress%2 0photos.pdf Application Applicant seeks BAR comments on proposed relocation of 1025 Wertland Street approximately 25-feet south, closer to Wertland Street. Reference Mitchell/Matthews Architects & Planners submittal dated 09/09/2022, sheets 1, 2, and 3. Discussion Comments from the applicant: • Will get arborist assessment re: large magnolia’s survivability if house is moved. • More detailed description of the move— dimensioned distance forward, etc.---will be provided with a formal application. BAR should use the following framework for this discussion. 1025 Wertland St. Discussion Oct 18, 2022 (10/12/2022) 1 From the Design Guidelines for Moving 1. Move buildings only after all alternatives to retention have been exhausted. 2. Contact the Virginia Department of Historic Resources first if the building is to remain listed on the Virginia Landmarks Register and the National Register of Historic Places. 3. Seek assistance in documenting the building in its original site before undertaking the move. a. Photograph the building and the site thoroughly. b. Measure and document the existing conditions and building if the move will require substantial reconstruction. 4. Thoroughly assess the building’s structural condition in order to minimize any damage that might occur during the move. 5. Select a contractor who has experience in moving buildings and check references. 6. Secure the structure from vandalism and potential weather damage before and after its move. 7. If the site is to remain vacant for any length of time, maintain the empty lot in a manner consistent with other open space in the district. 8. Whenever possible, move buildings intact. BAR should also request information re: site elements and conditions (landscaping, trees, walls, walks, etc.) and how they will be altered, maintained, and/or protected during and following the move. See maps in Appendix for historical context. Suggested Motions None. Discussion only, 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. Standards for Considering Demolition and Moving According to City Code Section 34-278 the following factors shall be considered in determining whether or not to permit the moving, removing, encapsulation or demolition, in whole or in part, of a contributing structure or protected property: (a) The historic, architectural or cultural significance, if any, of the specific structure or property, including, without limitation: (1) The age of the structure of property; Staff comment: c1910 1025 Wertland St. Discussion Oct 18, 2022 (10/12/2022) 2 (2) Whether it has been designated a National Historic Landmark, listed on the National Register of Historic Places or listed on the Virginia Landmarks Register; Staff comment: The building is a contributing structure within in the Wertland Street Historic District. VLR 1984; NRHP 1985. www.dhr.virginia.gov/historic-registers/104-0136/ The Wertland Street ADC District was established by the City in 1999. (3) Whether, and to what extent, the building or structure is associated with a historic person, architect or master craftsmen, or with a historic event; Staff comment: No known associations or events. (4 ) Whether the building or structure or any of its features, represent an infrequent or the first or last remaining example within the city of a particular architectural style or feature; Staff comment: From the NRHP listing: Georgian Revival. Frame (white asbestos siding); 2-stories; slate hipped roof with 3 dormers; 3 bays; one bay porch with Tuscan columns; projecting central bay above first story with Palladian doorway; addition to west rear. (5) Whether the building or structure is of such old or distinctive design, texture or material that it could not be reproduced, or could be reproduced only with great difficulty; and Staff comment: Demolition is not proposed. (6) The degree to which distinguishing characteristics, qualities, features, or materials remain. Staff comment: All will remain. Demolition is not proposed. (b) Whether, and to what extent, a contributing structure is linked, historically or aesthetically, to other buildings or structures within an existing major design control district, or is one of a group of properties within such a district whose concentration or continuity possesses greater significance than many of its component buildings. Staff comment: 1025 Wertland Street is similar in age, materiality, and design to other nearby structures, thus contributing to the overall character of the historic district. (c) The overall condition and structural integrity of the building or structure, as indicated by studies prepared by a qualified professional engineer and provided by the applicant or other information provided to the board. Staff comment: No structural report has been submitted; however, this is a preliminary discussion only. BAR should advise what information is necessary for a formal CoA request. 1025 Wertland St. Discussion Oct 18, 2022 (10/12/2022) 3 (d) Whether, and to what extent, the applicant proposes means, methods or plans for moving, removing, or demolishing the structure or property that preserves portions, features or materials that are significant to the property’s historic, architectural, or cultural value; and Staff comment: The plan is to move the building. Applicant should clarify if any elements or components will be removed and/or altered. (e) Any applicable provisions of the city’s Design Guidelines. Staff comment: (See below.) Pertinent Design Guidelines from Chapter VII. Demolition and Moving Review Criteria for Moving Historic Buildings Link: Chapter 7 Moving and Demolition 1. The standards established by City Code, Section 34- 278. Staff comment: (See above.) 2. The public necessity of the proposed move. Staff comment: There is no public necessity. 3. The public purpose or interest in land or buildings to be protected. Staff comment: This structure is locally designated as a contributing structure to the Wertland Street ADC District. Per City Code Sec. 34-271, such designation is intended to protect community health and safety, to promote the education, prosperity and general welfare of the public through the identification, preservation and enhancement of buildings, structures, landscapes, settings, neighborhoods, places and features with special historical, cultural and architectural significance. This structure is listed on the VLR and NRHP as a contributing structure to the Wertland Street Historic District. The NRHP is the official list of the Nation's historic places worthy of preservation. (www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/index.htm) 4. The effect upon the existing character of the setting of the structure or area and its surroundings. Staff comment: The structure will be moved 25-feet south, remaining within the district and on the same parcel. 5. Whether or not the proposed relocation site would have a detrimental effect on the structural soundness of the building. Staff comment: Applicant should address in the formal request. 6. Whether or not the proposed relocation would have a negative or positive effect on other sites or structures within the historic district. 1025 Wertland St. Discussion Oct 18, 2022 (10/12/2022) 4 Staff comment: No indication the move would negatively impact the district or adjacent sites. 7. Whether or not the proposed relocation site would be compatible with the architectural aspects of the structure. Staff comment: The structure will remain within the district and on the same parcel. 8. Whether or not the proposed relocation is the only practical means of saving the structure from demolition. Staff comment: The reason for moving the house has not been expressed. Demolition has not been mentioned or presented as an alternative. 9. Whether or not the structure would remain protected. Staff comment: The guidelines recommend coordination with VDHR to determine if building will retain state and federal listing. Local designation is independent of any VLR/NRHP listing; therefore, per the information so far provided, staff would recommend the local designation be retained.* *Per City Code Sec. 34-288. Responsibilities of BAR. The function of the board of architectural review ("BAR") shall be to administer the provisions of this division. In carrying out this responsibility the BAR shall: … 2) Recommend additional surveys of potential districts or properties, and recommend properties for inclusion in or deletion from major design control districts or the city's list of protected properties. 1025 Wertland St. Discussion Oct 18, 2022 (10/12/2022) 5 Appendix 1025 Wertland St. Discussion Oct 18, 2022 (10/12/2022) 6 1025 Wertland St. Discussion Oct 18, 2022 (10/12/2022) 7 1984 VLR/NRHP Map 2011 City ADC District Map 1025 Wertland St. Discussion Oct 18, 2022 (10/12/2022) 8 Prior BAR reviews for this parcel Date Wertland St Project Action 1115, 1115- May-06 Demolition of buildings on site Approve 1/2 Jul-06 1107-1/2 Demolition of building on site Approve Sep-06 1115 New construction Prelim Discussion Oct-06 1115 New construction Approve w/ cond. 1115, 1115- Jun-07 Demolition of buildings on site Approve 1/2 Proposed 48-unit, four-story apartment complex built over May-11 1025-1213 Prelim Discussion a 52-space, below-grade, parking garage Proposed 48-unit, four-story apartment complex built over Jun-11 1025-1213 Approve a 52-space, below-grade, parking garage Remove two decks and refinish the original wood siding by Sep-15 1025 Approve removing the asbestos siding Remove multiple additions on North elevation, construct two-story addition on the North elevation, and remove Approve - Sep-15 1109 existing metal horizontal siding from the house and install demolition new painted fiberglass siding. Remove multiple additions on North elevation, construct two-story addition on the North elevation, and remove Details to come Sep-15 1109 existing metal horizontal siding from the house and install back to the BAR new painted fiberglass siding. Remove two decks, replace porch decking with mahogany Nov-15 1213 tongue and grooved decking. New Azek rails installed to Approve enclose the porch. Exterior renovations, including removing concrete patio Approve w/ May-16 1107 and construction of a two-story addition on rear of original modifications house May-16 1201 Demolition of existing addition Approve Approve with May-16 1201 Construction of a new 2-story addition modifications 1025 Wertland St. Discussion Oct 18, 2022 (10/12/2022) 9 NW WER ET TLA ND NW RE STR EET ST T EE STR H H E LT NT TW TE 1025 WERTLAND M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlottesville VA EXISTING HOUSE LOCATION Architects & Planners 1 09.09.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2022 #102 5 ali gne d wi NW th ad jace nt ho uses WER ET TLA ND NW RE STR EET ST T EE STR H H E LT NT TW TE 1025 WERTLAND M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlottesville VA HOUSE RELOCATED Architects & Planners 2 09.09.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2022 1025 WERTLAND M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlottesville VA FRONT VIEW Architects & Planners 3 09.09.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2022 300 Court Square – For discussion only. Oct 13, 2022 1 of 15 Former site of Eagle Tavern, constructed prior to 1791. Hotel constructed in 1854, became known as Farrish House. Until 1925, was known as the Colonial Hotel. 300 Court Square – For discussion only. Oct 13, 2022 2 of 15 300 Court Square – For discussion only. Oct 13, 2022 3 of 15 300 Court Square – For discussion only. Oct 13, 2022 4 of 15 300 Court Square – For discussion only. Oct 13, 2022 5 of 15 300 Court Square – For discussion only. Oct 13, 2022 6 of 15 Colonial Hotel - Holsinger 1915 Charlottesville Then & Now—VIRGINIA Magazine (uvamagazine.org) https://uvamagazine.org/articles/charlottesville_then_now May 2013 300 Court Square – For discussion only. Oct 13, 2022 7 of 15 c1976. Note brick is painted 300 Court Square – For discussion only. Oct 13, 2022 8 of 15 East Jefferson Street 300 Court Square – For discussion only. Oct 13, 2022 9 of 15 6th Street 300 Court Square – For discussion only. Oct 13, 2022 10 of 15 6th Street 300 Court Square – For discussion only. Oct 13, 2022 11 of 15 300 Court Square – For discussion only. Oct 13, 2022 12 of 15 300 Court Square – For discussion only. Oct 13, 2022 13 of 15 300 Court Square – For discussion only. Oct 13, 2022 14 of 15 Paint removed with abrasive and/or power wash 300 Court Square – For discussion only. Oct 13, 2022 15 of 15 Mall Trees – For discussion only. Oct 13, 2022 1 of 1 W. 2nd Downtown Mall E. 2nd 1st E. 4th E. 5th E. 3rd 2021 BAR Awards Best Rehabilitation of an Historic Structure 743 Park Street Special Contribution to the Cultural Landscape of Charlottesville Memorial to Enslaved Laborers (University of Virginia) Best New Site Construction in an Historic District 301 East Jefferson Street (Congregation Beth Israel) Outstanding Individual Achievement 400 Rugby Road (Westminster Presbyterian Church) Important Preservation of a Significant Neighborhood Structure (or Building) 415 10th Street NW (Church at 10th Street NW and Grady Avenue) Preston A. Coiner Preservation Award Mary Joy Scala