Packet Guide City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Regular Meeting November 15, 2022, 5:30 p.m. Hybrid Meeting (In-person at CitySpace and virtual via Zoom) Pre-Meeting Discussion Regular Meeting A. Matters from the public not on the agenda [or on the Consent Agenda] B. Consent Agenda 1. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR # 22-11-01 0 Preston Place, TMP 050118001 and 050118002 Rugby Road-University Circle-Venable ADC District Owner: Sue and Steve Lewis Applicant: Leigh Boyes, Sage Designs Project: Landscaping 2. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR # 22-11-02 480 Rugby Road, TMP 090003000 Rugby Road-University Circle-Venable ADC District Owner: Westminster Presbyterian Church Applicant: Breck Gastinger, Local Design Collective Project: Landscaping, site work (Common Grounds) 3. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR # 22-11-04 402 Park Street, Tax Parcel 530115000 North Downtown ADC District Owner: Anchor Charlottesville Office 2, LLC Applicant: Kendra Moon / Line+Grade Project: Demo drive-through/ATM kiosk. New landscaping. C. Deferred Items 4. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR # 22-09-04 0 3rd Street NE, TMP 330020001 North Downtown ADC District Owner: Scott Loughery Applicant: Candace Smith, Architect November 2022 BAR Packet 1 Project: New residence on vacant lot D. New Items 5. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR # 22-11-03 507 Ridge Street, Tax Parcel 290141000 Ridge Street ADC District Owner/Applicant: Kimberly and Clayton Lauter Project: Demo backyard shed/cottage 6. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR # 22-11-05 914 Rugby Road. TMP 50145000 Rugby Road Historic Conservation District Owner: Erin and George Sloane Applicant: John Voight / JKV Architects Project: Alterations to front porch, side addition 7. Certificate of Appropriateness Preliminary Discussion (No action to be taken) 300 Court Square, TMP 530096100 North Downtown ADC District Owner: Eagle Tavern, LLC Applicant: Candace DeLoach, Claudine Wispelwey Project: Exterior alterations 8. Certificate of Appropriateness Preliminary Discussion (No action to be taken) 204 Hartmans Mill Road, TMP 260038000 Individually Protected Property Owner: Jocelyn Johnson and William Hunt Applicant: Dan Zimmerman / Alloy Workshop Project: Addition and exterior alterations DI. Other Business 9. Mall Trees. Discussion with Parks and Rec 10. Staff questions/discussion  BAR awards 2022  Holiday dinner (and alumni reunion) DII. Adjourn November 2022 BAR Packet 2 Certificate of Appropriateness BAR # 22-11-01 0 Preston Place, TMP 050118001 and 050118002 Rugby Road-University Circle-Venable ADC District Owner: Sue and Steve Lewis Applicant: Leigh Boyes, Sage Designs Project: Landscaping Application components (please click each link to go directly to PDF page): • Staff Report • Application Submittal November 2022 BAR Packet 3 City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Staff Report November 15, 2022 Certificate of Appropriateness BAR # 22-11-01 0 Preston Place, TMP 050118001 (also 508-516 Preston Place) Rugby Road-University Circle-Venable ADC District Owner: Sue and Steve Lewis Applicant: Leigh Boyes, Sage Designs Project: Landscaping Background Year Built: Extant remnants of c1920-1937 parking garages District: Rugby Road-University Circle-Venable Neighborhood ADC Status: non-contributing Parcel historically contained a stone and frames garage complex. All that remains are low segments masonry walls along the west and north borders, which will be retained. Prior BAR Review August 14, 2017 – BAR approved CoA to move Wyndhurst (605 Preston Place) to this lot. Not realized. February 15, 2022 – BAR preliminary discussion re: single-family residence at 0 Preston Place. July 19, 2022 - BAR approved CoA for single-family residence. Application • Submittal: Sage Designs drawings Lewis Residence, Preliminary Landscape/Site Plan, dated 11/7/2022: Sheet S1.1. Request CoA for landscaping plan. Discussion and Recommendations Staff recommends approval with the fencing conditions suggested in the motion. (Note: The initial plan included mock orange on the plant list. The applicant has removed that species, due to it being invasive.) 0 Preston Place Nov 15, 2022 (11/7/2022) 1 Suggested Motions Approval: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed landscaping at 0 Preston Place satisfies the BAR’s criteria and is compatible with this property and other properties in the Rugby Road-University Circle-Venable Neighborhood ADC district, and that the BAR approves the application as submitted with the following conditions: • New picket fencing in front yard to be similar to those at nearby properties on Preston Place and not exceed a height of 4-ft. New fencing at the side and rear yards to be similar to those at nearby properties on Preston Place and not exceed a height of 6-ft. Where a new rear and/or side yard fence is incorporated into a stone wall, the total height shall not exceed 6-ft. Wood fencing will be either painted or have an opaque stain. Prior to construction the applicant will present the design to staff to assure compliance with this condition and the design guidelines for Walls and Fences. [See Appendix.] 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 II – Site Design and Elements B. Plantings 1. Encourage the maintenance and planting of large trees on private property along the streetfronts, which contribute to an “avenue” effect. 2. Generally, use trees and plants that are compatible with the existing plantings in the neighborhood. 3. Use trees and plants that are indigenous to the area. 4. Retain existing trees and plants that help define the character of the district, especially street trees and hedges. 5. Replace diseased or dead plants with like or similar species if appropriate. 0 Preston Place Nov 15, 2022 (11/7/2022) 2 6. When constructing new buildings, identify and take care to protect significant existing trees and other plantings. 7. Choose ground cover plantings that are compatible with adjacent sites, existing site conditions, and the character of the building. 8. Select mulching and edging materials carefully and do not use plastic edgings, lava, crushed rock, unnaturally colored mulch or other historically unsuitable materials. C. Walls and Fences 1) Maintain existing materials such as stone walls, hedges, wooden picket fences, and wrought-iron fences. 2) When a portion of a fence needs replacing, salvage original parts for a prominent location. 3) Match old fencing in material, height, and detail. 4) If it is not possible to match old fencing, use a simplified design of similar materials and height. 5) For new fences, use materials that relate to materials in the neighborhood. 6) Take design cues from nearby historic fences and walls. 7) Chain-link fencing, split rail fences, and vinyl plastic fences should not be used. 8) Traditional concrete block walls may be appropriate. 9) Modular block wall systems or modular concrete block retaining walls are strongly discouraged but may be appropriate in areas not visible from the public right-of-way. 10) If street-front fences or walls are necessary or desirable, they should not exceed four (4) feet in height from the sidewalk or public right-of-way and should use traditional materials and design. 11) Residential privacy fences may be appropriate in side or rear yards where not visible from the primary street. 12) Fences should not exceed six (6) feet in height in the side and rear yards. 13) Fence structures should face the inside of the fenced property. 14) Relate commercial privacy fences to the materials of the building. If the commercial property adjoins a residential neighborhood, use a brick or painted wood fence or heavily planted screen as a buffer. 15) Avoid the installation of new fences or walls if possible in areas where there are no are no fences or walls and yards are open. 16) Retaining walls should respect the scale, materials and context of the site and adjacent properties. 17) Respect the existing conditions of the majority of the lots on the street in planning new construction or a rehabilitation of an existing site. 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. 0 Preston Place Nov 15, 2022 (11/7/2022) 3 Appendix 0 Preston Place Nov 15, 2022 (11/7/2022) 4 LEWIS RESIDENCE SAGE DESIGNS 0 PRESTON PLACE, TMP 050118001 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA. 22903 3033 ALBERNE CHURCH LANE, ESMONT, VA. 22937 11/07/22 434-296-7381 S1.1 PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE/SITE PLAN - 1"=10'-0" Certificate of Appropriateness BAR # 22-11-02 480 Rugby Road, TMP 090003000 Rugby Road-University Circle-Venable ADC District Owner: Westminster Presbyterian Church Applicant: Breck Gastinger, Local Design Collective Project: Landscaping, site work (Common Grounds) Application components (please click each link to go directly to PDF page): • Staff Report • Historic Survey • Application Submittal November 2022 BAR Packet 4 City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Staff Report November 15, 2022 Certificate of Appropriateness 408 Rugby Road, TMP 090003000 (Also 1710 Gordon Avenue. Formerly 214 Rugby Road.) Rugby Road-University Circle-Venable ADC District Owner: Westminster Presbyterian Church Applicant: Breck Gastinger, Local Design Collective Project: Landscaping Background Year Built: c. 1900-1915 District: Rugby Road-University Circle-Venable ADC District Status: Contributing Built as detached dwelling; now a community coffee-house. Eclectic/Vernacular. Circa 1900- 1915. Brick (6-course American bond with Flemish variant on front); 2-1/2-stories; hipped roof; one front oversized hipped dormer; asymmetrical 3-bay front; 3-sided, 2-story projecting front bay; 1- story side porch, now screened. Segmental arches over openings; rounded hood over front door. Characterized by highly articulated facades, this early brick house has served as a nonprofit community coffeehouse since the 1960s. Prior BAR Reviews n/a Application • Applicant’s submittal: Local Design Collective drawings Common Grounds Terrace: Westminster Presbyterian Church, dated October 21, 2022: Sheets 1 through 12. Request CoA for landscaping and related sitework. (No new exterior lighting is proposed.) Discussion Staff recommends approval as submitted. 480 Rugby Road Nov 15, 2022 (11/7/2022) 1 Comments from the applicant in response to initial questions. • Explanation why the large tree visible on Google street view is no longer there. o Local Design Collective: The large tree was a mulberry. They can be problematic and there were concerns this tree’s roots may be undermining the existing structure. Early in design conversations, removal was suggested as part of this request; however, the owner decided to remove without notifying the design team. That said, Westminster Presbyterian has planted significant canopy trees on other portions of its campus and along Rugby Road: elms, gingko, Kentucky coffee tree, among others. The overhead lines present a challenge to new, canopy-scaled trees at the side yard. • The dwarf fothergilla and ninebark provide [visual] interest over many seasons; however, fothergilla loses its leaves in winter. Bordering a structure, would an evergreen be preferrable? Explain removal of the boxwood—as neighborhood-defining plant, per the Design Guidelines--and planting fothergilla? o Local Design Collective: The boxwood in the front yard will remain. The boxwood in the side yard have grown too large and visually isolate the screened porch from the rest of the yard. The congregation wants the yard and the porch to be more welcoming and conducive to gatherings and activities. The boxwood will not be discarded, but transplanted to the north of the new terrace, screening the adjacent parking. The porch is only a few feet above the yard, therefore the new, lower--and native--plantings are preferred. Suggested motion Approval: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City’s ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed landscaping plan at 480 Rugby Road satisfies the BAR’s criteria and are compatible with this property and other properties in the Rugby Road-University Circle-Venable ADC District, and that the BAR approves the application as submitted. 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; 480 Rugby Road Nov 15, 2022 (11/7/2022) 2 4) The effect of the proposed change on the historic district neighborhood; 5) The impact of the proposed change on other protected features on the property, such as gardens, landscaping, fences, walls and walks; 6) Whether the proposed method of construction, renovation or restoration could have an adverse impact on the structure or site, or adjacent buildings or structures; 7) Any applicable provisions of the City’s Design Guidelines. Pertinent ADC District Design Guidelines Chapter II – Site Design and Elements B. Plantings 1. Encourage the maintenance and planting of large trees on private property along the streetfronts, which contribute to an “avenue” effect. 2. Generally, use trees and plants that are compatible with the existing plantings in the neighborhood. 3. Use trees and plants that are indigenous to the area. 4. Retain existing trees and plants that help define the character of the district, especially street trees and hedges. 5. Replace diseased or dead plants with like or similar species if appropriate. 6. When constructing new buildings, identify and take care to protect significant existing trees and other plantings. 7. Choose ground cover plantings that are compatible with adjacent sites, existing site conditions, and the character of the building. 8. Select mulching and edging materials carefully and do not use plastic edgings, lava, crushed rock, unnaturally colored mulch or other historically unsuitable materials. 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. 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. […] 480 Rugby Road Nov 15, 2022 (11/7/2022) 3 Appendix 1920 Sanborn Map c1965 Sanborn Map 480 Rugby Road Nov 15, 2022 (11/7/2022) 4 Common Grounds Terrace Westminster Presbyterian Church BAR COA application October 21, 2022 Project Narrative: The intention is to create a small garden space in the side yard of Common Grounds for the Congregation’s youth ministries. The garden is formed by new plantings, benches, and tables to create options for teaching, studying, and hosting youth activities. The new project also improves accessibility throughout the Westminster campus. A rebuilt stair at the porch entrance improves safety and repairs a rotting sill condition. The existing concrete stair will remain, with a new stair and landing constructed on top. New plantings will create a better garden experience and improved visibility for Common Grounds. 566.25+ +565.75 D Sidewalk Add Alt #1 +567.75 SHED Bench Bench TERRACE Table G +568.25 FELLOWSHIP HALL SHED fut ure sid Lawn ew a +568.5 lk COMMON GROUNDS LIBRARY GORDON AVENUE +562.75 +568.5 +562 future sidewalk Bench ENTRY DRIVE RUGBY ROAD N 0’ 5’ 10’ 20’ 40’ COMMON GROUNDS TERRACE Westminster Presbyterian Church 2 Terrace Plan Context BAR COA Application October 21, 2022 Lawn +566.25 +565.75 Notes • Forsythia only removed on either side of stair. • Provide bench backs along portions of bench Existing • Concrete below benches (included in totals) Forsythia provides edge to pavers and lawn. • Pavers to be concrete, permeable paver system set on clean, angular gravel per manufacturer +567.75 Bench recommendation. Slope subsurface away from Storage building and provide 4” perforated draintile for any overflow. TERRACE Conc • Rebuild existing concrete stair to Common Grounds Porch on top of existing stair. Bench Bench Pavers • Freestanding wood screen/fence provides storage, 562 hides building utilities. 5/4 x 6 wood slats on treated 568 posts. Full 2” x 8” cap. Boards to be prepainted. Accessible Picnic Table • Provide tree/shrub planting and prepare beds at front of plantings. Annual/perennials by WPC. • Benches: Grill +568.25 • Painted steel bases and back supports +568.0 • Rot-resistant native timber - locust or equal • Corrosion resistant fasteners Lawn +568.5 COMMON GROUNDS New Stair +562.75 563 567 566 565 564 Conc 568 Existing Path +568.5 Pavers 56 9 56 9 Existing Path Conc Bench Existing N 0’ 2.5’ 5’ 10’ 20’ Forsythia COMMON GROUNDS TERRACE Westminster Presbyterian Church 3 Terrace Plan Detail BAR COA Application October 21, 2022 Project location COMMON GROUNDS TERRACE Westminster Presbyterian Church 4 Existing Photos BAR COA Application October 21, 2022 COMMON GROUNDS TERRACE Westminster Presbyterian Church 5 Concept Rendering BAR COA Application October 21, 2022 COMMON GROUNDS TERRACE Westminster Presbyterian Church 6 Concept Rendering BAR COA Application October 21, 2022 COMMON GROUNDS TERRACE Westminster Presbyterian Church 7 Concept Rendering BAR COA Application October 21, 2022 COMMON GROUNDS TERRACE Westminster Presbyterian Church 8 Concept Rendering BAR COA Application October 21, 2022 PROGRESS PLANTING PLAN N 0’ 2.5’ 5’ 10’ 20’ COMMON GROUNDS TERRACE Westminster Presbyterian Church 9 Planting Plan BAR COA Application October 21, 2022 COMMON GROUNDS TERRACE Westminster Presbyterian Church 10 Materials: Wood Bench Inspiration BAR COA Application October 21, 2022 EXISTING MATERIALS COMMON GROUNDS TERRACE Westminster Presbyterian Church 11 Existing materials BAR COA Application October 21, 2022 COMMON GROUNDS TERRACE Westminster Presbyterian Church 12 Materials: Detail Approach BAR COA Application October 21, 2022 ADC District or IPP ADC Districts and IPPs Staff contacts: Staff Jeff email:wernerjb@charlottesville.gov Werner wernerjb@charlottesville.gov watkinsro@charlottesville.gov Please submit the signed application form and a digital copy of submittal and attachments (via email or thumb drive). Deadline for Nov 15: Oct 25. Deadline for Dec 20: Nov 29. Westminster Presbyterian Church Breck Gastinger Common Grounds Terrace 090003000 400 Rugby Road 400 Rugby Road Charlottesville, 22903 10/18/22 Nancy T Paulson 10/18/22 no Landscaping and site alterations at Common Grounds Terrace, Westminster Presbyterian charlottesville.gov charlottesville.gov CHARLOTTESVILLE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN CONTROL DISTRICTS DESIGN GUIDELINES Chapter 1 Introduction (Part 1) http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/793062/2_Introduction%20I_BAR.pdf Chapter 1 Introduction (Part 2) http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/793063/1_Introduction%20II_BAR.pdf Chapter 2 Site Design and Elements http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/793064/3_Chapter%20II%20Site%20Design%20and%20Elements_BAR.pdf Chapter 3 New Construction and Additions http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/793065/4_Chapter%20III%20New%20Construction%20and%20Additions_BAR.pdf Chapter 4 Rehabilitation http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/793066/5_Chapter%20IV%20Rehabilitation_BAR.pdf Chapter 5 Signs, Awnings, Vending, and Cafes http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/793067/6_Chapter%20V%20Signs%20Awnings%20Vending%20and%20Cafes_BAR.pdf Chapter 6 Public Improvements http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/793068/7_Chapter%20VI%20Public%20Improvements_BAR.pdf Chapter 7 Moving and Demolition http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/793069/8_Chapter%20VII%20Moving%20and%20Demolition_BAR.pdf Certificate of Appropriateness BAR # 22-11-04 402 Park Street, Tax Parcel 530115000 North Downtown ADC District Owner: Anchor Charlottesville Office 2, LLC Applicant: Kendra Moon / Line+Grade Project: Demo drive-through/ATM kiosk. New landscaping. Application components (please click each link to go directly to PDF page): • Staff Report • Historic Survey • Application Submittal November 2022 BAR Packet 5 City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Staff Report November 15, 2022 Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR # 22-11-04 402 Park Street, Tax Parcel 530115000 North Downtown ADC District Owner: Anchor Charlottesville Office 2, LLC Applicant: Kendra Moon / Line+Grade Project: Demo drive-through/ATM kiosk. New landscaping. Background Year Built: 1974 District: North Downtown ADC District Status: Contributing (bank and drive-through structure) Prior to the bank, at this corner, facing Park Street, was a two-story brick dwelling (constructed between 1897 and 1901). By the 1960s, it had converted to office use. (See maps in Appendix.) Prior BAR Actions: March 18, 2003 - BAR approved repairs the brick parapets w/metal coping. March 15, 2011 – BAR approved replacement of brick pavers on walkways and courtyard and modification to handrails to deter skateboarders Application • Applicant submittal: Line+Grade Civil Engineering submittal. Narrative and photographs dated October 25, 2022 and Site Plan dated November 3, 2022 (Sheets C1.0, C2.0, and C2.1). Request CoA for demolition of the drive-through/ATM kiosk and new site work/landscaping related to the reconfiguration of the parking area. Discussion and Recommendations Staff recommends approval with the following condition (included in the suggested motion below): 402 Park Street – Nov 15, 2022 (11/7/2022) 1 • Applicant will provide for the BAR record documentation of the existing building. [In addition to the photos provided, documentation will include dimensioned floor plans and elevations. Similar to documentation provided for 1532 Virginia Ave, January 2019.] Suggested Motions Approval: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed demolition and landscaping at 402 Park Street satisfy the BAR’s criteria and guidelines and are compatible with this property and other properties in the North Downtown ADC District, and that the BAR approves the application as submitted with the condition that the Applicant will provide for the BAR record documentation of the existing building. [Note: In addition to the photos provided, documentation will include a dimensioned, sketch floor plan and elevations or photographs with dimensions noted.] Criteria, Standards, and Guidelines Review Criteria Generally Sec. 34-284(b) of the City Code states that, In considering a particular application the BAR shall approve the application unless it finds: (1) That the proposal does not meet specific standards set forth within this division or applicable provisions of the Design Guidelines established by the board pursuant to Sec.34-288(6); and (2) The proposal is incompatible with the historic, cultural or architectural character of the district in which the property is located or the protected property that is the subject of the application. Pertinent Standards for Review of Demolitions: Sec. 34-278. - Standards for considering demolitions. The following factors shall be considered in determining whether or not to permit the moving, removing, encapsulation or demolition, in whole or in part, of a contributing structure or protected property: (a) The historic, architectural or cultural significance, if any, of the specific structure or property, including, without limitation: (1) The age of the structure or property; Applicant comment: The drive-through is believed to have been built at the same time as the bank, which according to GIS records, was in 1974. Staff comment: Bank and drive-through built in 1974 per City’s records. (2) Whether it has been designated a National Historic Landmark, listed on the National Register of Historic Places or listed on the Virginia Landmarks Register; Applicant comment: The structure is not designated or listed on any of the above. Staff comment: The bank is noted in the inventory of the NRHP nomination for the Charlottesville and Albemarle County Courthouse Historic District (VDHR #104-0072); however, per the VCRIS record for the property (104-0072-0186), the building is not a contributing resource to the district. The drive-through is not mentioned. From the NRHP listing. (www.dhr.virginia.gov/historic-registers/104-0072/ 402 Park Street – Nov 15, 2022 (11/7/2022) 2 • 402 Park Street (United Virginia Bank): brick and glass (common bond); 2 stories; modified gable roof; 3 bays. Commercial with Colonial Revival influence. 1970. Pre- fabricated fixed windows; steel frame with brick facade; large 2-story, plate-glass viewing window to rear walkway. (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; Applicant comment: The structure is not associated with any of the above. Staff comment: Concur with applicant. (4) Whether the building or structure or any of its features, represent an infrequent or the first or last remaining example within the city of a particular architectural style or feature; Applicant comment: The [drive-through] is not of a distinct architectural style. Staff comment: The bank and the drive-through share the same design and materiality. Within the City, there are other buildings of this period with similar, modern interpretations of traditional forms. The bank building will remain. (5) Whether the building or structure is of such old or distinctive design, texture or material that it could not be reproduced, or could be reproduced only with great difficulty; and Applicant comment: The building material is brick and could be easily reproduced. Staff comment: Concur with applicant. (6) The degree to which distinguishing characteristics, qualities, features, or materials remain. Applicant comment: The drive-through is proposed to be completely removed. Its materials and style resemble the main structure on the property (the former bank) Staff comment: Concur with applicant. Additionally, the bank building will remain. (b) Whether, and to what extent, a contributing structure is linked, historically or aesthetically, to other buildings or structures within an existing major design control district, or is one of a group of properties within such a district whose concentration or continuity possesses greater significance than many of its component buildings. Applicant comment: The drive-through is linked to the former bank (to remain). Staff comment: The building’s design is not linked historically or aesthetically to the surrounding structures, except the 1974 bank, which will remain. Of the 18 structures immediately nearby, the median built-date is 1908: four were built prior to 1854; 14 between 1900 and 1925. 402 Park Street – Nov 15, 2022 (11/7/2022) 3 (c) The overall condition and structural integrity of the building or structure, as indicated by studies prepared by a qualified professional engineer and provided by the applicant or other information provided to the board. Applicant comment: No formal assessment has been conducted, but there is visual evidence of disrepair in the masonry. Please see the photo below for evidence of cracking near the building edges. Staff comment: Concur with applicant. The structure shows some disrepair, though nothing visually suggests it is at-risk. Demolition is requested to facilitate the reconfiguration n of the parking area. (d) Whether, and to what extent, the applicant proposes means, methods or plans for moving, removing, or demolishing the structure or property that preserves portions, features or materials that are significant to the property’s historic, architectural, or cultural value. Applicant comment: No portions of the drive-through are planned to be preserved. As mentioned, its architectural style resembles the former bank structure on the property, which is to remain. Staff comment: Proposal is to raze the entire structure; no elements, features or materials will be retained. Staff concurs with the applicant that the building and site are not historically, architecturally, or culturally significant. Pertinent design guidelines re: Site Design and Elements Link: Chapter 2 Site Design and Elements B. Plantings 402 Park Street – Nov 15, 2022 (11/7/2022) 4 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. 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. Pertinent design guidelines re: Demolitions Link: Chapter 7 Moving and Demolition B. Demolition of Historic Structures Review Criteria for Demolition 1) The standards established by the City Code, Section 34-278. Staff comment: See comments under Standards for considering demolitions. 2) The public necessity of the proposed demolition. Staff comment: Demolition is not a public necessity; the building has not been condemned or deemed unsafe. 3) The public purpose or interest in land or buildings to be protected. Staff comment: See comments under Standards for considering demolitions, item a. 4) Whether or not a relocation of the structure would be a practical and preferable alternative to demolition. 402 Park Street – Nov 15, 2022 (11/7/2022) 5 Staff comment: See comments under Standards for considering demolitions, item d. 5) Whether or not the proposed demolition would adversely or positively affect other historic buildings or the character of the historic district. Staff comment: See comments under Standards for considering demolitions, item d. 6) The reason for demolishing the structure and whether or not alternatives exist. Staff comment: See comments under Standards for considering demolitions, item d. 7) Whether or not there has been a professional economic and structural feasibility study for rehabilitating or reusing the structure and whether or not its findings support the proposed demolition. Staff comment: See comments under Standards for considering demolitions, item c Guidelines for Demolition 1) Demolish a historic structure only after all preferable alternatives have been exhausted. 2) Document the building thoroughly through photographs and, for especially significant buildings, measured drawings according to Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) Standards. This information should be retained by the City of Charlottesville Department of Neighborhood Development Services and the Virginia Department of Historic Resources. 3) If the site is to remain vacant for any length of time, maintain the empty lot in a manner consistent with other open spaces in the districts. 402 Park Street – Nov 15, 2022 (11/7/2022) 6 Appendix 1877 Gray map Sanborn Maps 402 Park Street – Nov 15, 2022 (11/7/2022) 7 402 Park Street – Nov 15, 2022 (11/7/2022) 8 DEMOLITION APPLICATION TO: Board of Architectural Review City of Charlottesville FROM: Kendra Moon, PE Line and Grade Civil Engineering DATE: October 25, 2022 RE: 402 Park Street Drive-through Demolition Request Property Details: Parcel ID Numbers: 530115000 Total Acres: 0.62 Owner: Anchor Charlottesville Office 2, LLC Property Address: 402 Park Street Current Tenant: Anchor Health Properties (Office) Zoning: DNH ADC District: North Downtown A. Demolition Request The applicant hereby requests to demolish the drive-through that was built to accompany the former bank located at the corner of Park Street and E. High Street (please see Images 1 and 2). The former bank (Image 3) is now an office building, therefore the drive-through is no longer needed. The applicant would prefer to remove this structure and add a few more parking spaces to the lot. All ADC standards for considering demolitions are met. 113 4th St. NE; STE 100 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 TEL: (434) 262-0169 LINE-GRADE.COM Image 1. Structure location 402 Park Street Drive-through Demolition Request October 25, 2022 | Page 2 Image 2. Drive-through structure to be demolished Image 3. Former bank on subject property, to remain (credit: Google) B. Structure Description The drive-through is 178 sf, 18.9 ft in height, and of brick construction, with a stretcher bond pattern and soldier course header. The roof is metal and gable-style, built to match that of the former bank building on the property. The structure style may be described as American Modern, built in 1974. 402 Park Street Drive-through Demolition Request October 25, 2022 | Page 3 The structure is exhibiting signs of disrepair in the masonry, especially at the joints above the “window” openings where the steel rods are integrated for structural support. Though the structure could be repaired, it is not of use to the current owner. Image 4. Visual disrepair in brick joints Also of note is the structure’s location, which is shielded by buildings from the viewshed of major roads and can only be seen from 7th Street NE and the adjacent parking lot. C. Standards for Considering Demolitions 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; The drive-through is believed to have been built at the same time as the bank, which according to GIS records, was in 1974. (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; The structure is not designated or listed on any of the above. (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; The structure is not associated with any of the above. (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; The building structure is not of a distinct architectural style. (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 The building material is brick and could be easily reproduced. 402 Park Street Drive-through Demolition Request October 25, 2022 | Page 4 (6) The degree to which distinguishing characteristics, qualities, features, or materials remain. The drive-through is proposed to be completely removed. Its materials and style resemble the main structure on the property (the former bank). 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. The drive-through is linked to the former bank (to remain). 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. No formal assessment has been conducted, but there is visual evidence of disrepair in the masonry. Please see the photo below for evidence of cracking near the building edges. 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. No portions of the drive-through are planned to be preserved. As mentioned, its architectural style resembles the former bank structure on the property, which is to remain. D. Conclusion Though this drive-through is designated a contributing structure, it is not of historical significance and is not included on any historic registry. It was built for a specific function which is no longer useful to the current property owner and building tenant. Its style and materials are easily reproducible and mimic the main building on site, which is to be preserved. List of Appendices Appendix A: Site Plan Amendment Sheets C1.0 and C2.0 Appendix B: Additional Building Photographs Appendix A Site Plan Amendment Sheets C1.0 and C2.0 402 Park Street | Drive-through Demolition Request © 2018 - LINE+GRADE, LLC LEGEND GENERAL DEMOLITION STRUCTURE DEMOLITION FULL-DEPTH PAVEMENT REMOVAL SAWCUT LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE JOHN W ZUNKA JOHN W ZUNKA APN: 530118000 APN: 530121000 ANCHOR CHARLOTTESVILLE OF FICE, LLC APN:530122100 AC 50.83' S64°01'50"E S64°01'50"E 61.83' FOUND 1/2'' 11.00' FOUND 1/2'' 7 LITTLE IRON ROD S64°02'05"E FOUND LEAF 493 PARCEL X IRON ROD ILLEGIBLE 131.81' MAG NAIL LINDEN CVL 2" PER BOOK 708, COVERED CLEARANCE PAGE 320 14.95' AREA POLE PE DROP INLET 490 489 TOP=484.04 488 485 487 BEGIN CURB DEMOLITION 486 DEMOLISH 1 STORY BRICK INV. IN=480.85 492 SAWCUT PAVEMENT BUILDING AND CANOPY SAWCUT PAVEMENT ASPHALT OUTSIDE RIGHT OF WAY INV. OUT=480.85 DROP INLET GUTTER DEMOLISH MEDIAN (TYP) REMOVE EXISTING SIGNS TOP=484.21 DROP INLET ERADICATE EXISTING TOP=483.75 INV. IN=480.48 (15") 8" TC CLEARANCE INV. OUT=481.70 INV. IN=480.36 (16") 48 PAVEMENT MARKINGS 10.0' 2.9' INV. OUT=478.48 POLE 7 4 LOD 5805 SF 5.9' 1 STORY BLACK DROP INLET BRICK BUILDING TOP=481.03 5.4' 1 GUM 49 14.0' 10" TC 18" RCP 67.98' 5.0' ±178 SQ.FT. 16" TC 8" TC 18.90' HIGH 6' 3.7' 4 PS REMOVE EXISTING SIGN 20 IP 18 BLACK TOP=483.43 HICKORY 10 PS 4902 PS SAWCUT PAVEMENT WALNUT INV. IN=476.46 2. 9.3' IP INV. OUT=476.31 DROP INLET P RC EXISTING CONDITIONS AND DEMOLITION PLAN 5 TOP=484.6715" IP 48 PER ZONING REPORT PROTECT TREE DURING 122.22' INV. IN=482.7± 49 6 8" TC 12" TC INV. OUT=482.2± 20' SETBACK LINE 1 ~ JAPANESE REMOVAL OF CURB 8" TC ~ MAPLE TOP=484.48 EXISTING SIGNS 9 8" TC INV. IN=477.66 SW PARCEL 1 REMOVE TREE 48 TO REMAIN NV. IN=478.28 NW PER BOOK 708, PAGE 320 487 DROP INLET NV. IN=477.54 NE 486 INV. OUT=477.47 E 20' SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT TOP=484.74 RCP 6 BLACK 15" 15" RC IN=+/- 482.13 GUM PER BOOK 708, PAGE 320 & ERADICATE EXISTING MANHOLE LOT 1 INV. OUT=481.93 8" TC LOD 5805 SF TOP=484.27 BOOK 708, PAGE 400 BENCH PAVEMENT MARKINGS 0 485 IP INV. IN=480.97 S P TOP=489.29 491 49 INV. =485.77 (TOP SUBDIVISION PLAT SHOWING LOTS THRU 5 INV. IN=480.90 SW UNITED VIRGINIA BANK ON COURT SQUARE SITE PLAN AMENDMENT #1 OF 5" O.D PIPE) INV. OUT=480.89 S26°32'20"W PRIDE HOLDINGS LLC ASPHALT PER BOOK 375, PAGE 206 N25°26'59"E 8 1 2 " CABLE, POSSIBLY 48 402 PARK STREET APN:530117000 ELECTRIC VISIBLE 74.81'(M) 68.81' CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA IN STRUC. 52.9' RELOCATE EXISTING 491 BENCH SAWCUT EXISTING GRIND DOWN STUMP SIDEWALK RCP MIN. 8" FOR REPAVING WALL CO IES ERADICATE EXISTING GATE TP 0 PAVEMENT MARKINGS PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY WIDTH VAR 49 486 490 11 485 6 BLACK MAGNOLIA AC PROTECT EX. WALL 4 CREPE 7TH STREET NORTHEAST MRYTLE GUM EXISTING CG-2 TO REMAIN FOUND (ASPHALT ROAD) S65°04'19"E SET X CUT LID 10" RCP 9 PS (FADED LINES) MAG NAIL S25°25'36”W 79.74' MANHOLE 51.76' N64°59'56”W WALL TOP=488.50 CI SET X CUT 3.81' INV. IN=486.58 SW WALL INV. IN=485.68 W COVERED AREA INV. OUT=+/- 485.43 FOUND 1/2'' PORCH 6 COVERED IRON ROD 48 48 AREA 29.59' N63'49 WALL 8'35''W FOUND 1/2'' W 44.48' N63'48'35''W IRON ROD ' ” . 28 '37 4.51' N63°48'35”W 17 °21 STEPS 6 BLACK 7 0 GUM S WALL FOUND COVERED AREA NAIL PORCH HOLE WALL LOT 5 SUBDIVISION PLAT SHOWING LOTS THRU 5 UNITED VIRGINIA BANK ON COURT SQUARE PER BOOK 375, PAGE 206 EB LOT 4 GLOBAL EVENTMAKERS, INC SUBDIVISION PLAT SHOWING LOTS THRU 5 APN:530112B00 UNITED VIRGINIA BANK ON COURT SQUARE PER BOOK 375, PAGE 206 #402 EASEMENT OVER A PORTION OF LOT I 11/03/2022 FOR OVERHANG OF EXISTING ROOF CORNICE 2 STORY BOOK 381, PAGE 382 WAI KWAN LAU & HAY L HARDY DANIEL C. HYER BRICK BUILDING LOT 3 APN:530113000 Lic. No. 45596 SUBDIVISION PLAT SHOWING LOTS THRU 5 ±3,863 SQ.FT. UNITED VIRGINIA BANK ON COURT SQUARE ±44' HIGH PER BOOK 375, PAGE 206 COVERED WGM ACQUISITIONS, LLC APN:530115000 BLACK CAT, LLC APPROVED DCH APN:530114000 SUBMISSION NO. 2 S25°10'17"W PROJECT 2202005 72.72'(M) T H E W O R K O F COVERED AREA L I N E + G R A D E 15' SETBACK LINE PER ZONING REPORT N 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND DEMOLITION PLAN 1" = 10': 0 10 20 C1.0 © 2018 - LINE+GRADE, LLC LEGEND PARKING LOT PAVEMENT PROPOSED VEGETATED AREA JOHN W ZUNKA JOHN W ZUNKA APN: 530118000 APN: 530121000 ANCHOR CHARLOTTESVILLE OF FICE, LLC APN:530122100 AC 50.83' S64°01'50"E S64°01'50"E 61.83' FOUND 1/2'' 11.00' FOUND 1/2'' 7 LITTLE IRON ROD S64°02'05"E FOUND LEAF PARCEL X IRON ROD ILLEGIBLE 131.81' MAG NAIL LINDEN PROPOSED CG-2 PER BOOK 708, SEE DETAIL 6/C3.0 PAGE 320 OAKLEAF HYDRANGEA (2) OAKLEAF HYDRANGEA (1) DWARF OAKLEAF HYDRANGEA 12' FOTHERGILLA (3) DWARF ASPHALT AMERICAN 12' FOTHERGILLA GUTTER (1) DWARF HORNBEAM FOTHERGILLA (3) DWARF R5' 8.5' FOTHERGILLA 6' (VARIES) 18' 7 BLACK GUM 20' 4 AMERICAN HORNBEAM 20 HICKORY PROPOSED CG-2 AMERICAN HORNBEAM 18 BLACK SEE DETAIL 6/C3.0 WALNUT 8' 8.5' 5 18' PER ZONING REPORT PROPOSED CG-2 11 20' SETBACK LINE SEE DETAIL 6/C3.0 C 8' LOD 5805 SF PARCEL 1 C C C C C C C PER BOOK 708, PAGE 320 3' R3' R 20' SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT R3' 6 BLACK SITE AND LANDSCAPING PLAN PER BOOK 708, PAGE 320 & GUM BOOK 708, PAGE 400 LOT 1 COMPACT PARKING SPACE (TYP) SUBDIVISION PLAT SHOWING LOTS THRU 5 22.5' MILL AND RESURFACE UNITED VIRGINIA BANK ON COURT SQUARE SITE PLAN AMENDMENT #1 S26°32'20"W 22' PRIDE HOLDINGS LLC ASPHALT ASPHALT PARKING LOT PER BOOK 375, PAGE 206 N25°26'59"E 13.33' 402 PARK STREET APN:530117000 74.81'(M) 68.81' CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA ADA ACCESS ROUTE 7' 1.1 R3' PROPOSED CG-12 8.5' WALL 5.44' 7/C3.0 R31' IES GATE VAN VAN 8.5' PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY WIDTH VAR 11 6 BLACK MAGNOLIA AC 4 CREPE 7TH STREET NORTHEAST MRYTLE GUM 2 FOUND (ASPHALT ROAD) 18' S65°04'19"E SET X CUT LID 8 MAG NAIL S25°25'36”W 79.74' 51.76' N64°59'56”W WALL SET X CUT 3.81' WALL COVERED AREA FOUND 1/2'' PORCH COVERED IRON ROD AREA 29.59' N63'48'35''W WALL FOUND 1/2'' W 44.48' N63'48'35''W IRON ROD ' ” .28 '37 (2) HANDICAP 4.51' N63°48'35”W 17 °21 STEPS PARKING SIGNS 6 BLACK 70 GUM S WALL FOUND COVERED AREA NAIL PORCH HOLE WALL LOT 5 SUBDIVISION PLAT SHOWING LOTS THRU 5 UNITED VIRGINIA BANK ON COURT SQUARE PER BOOK 375, PAGE 206 EB LOT 4 GLOBAL EVENTMAKERS, INC SUBDIVISION PLAT SHOWING LOTS THRU 5 APN:530112B00 UNITED VIRGINIA BANK ON COURT SQUARE PER BOOK 375, PAGE 206 #402 EASEMENT OVER A PORTION OF LOT I 11/03/2022 FOR OVERHANG OF EXISTING ROOF CORNICE 2 STORY BOOK 381, PAGE 382 WAI KWAN LAU & HAY L HARDY DANIEL C. HYER BRICK BUILDING LOT 3 APN:530113000 Lic. No. 45596 SUBDIVISION PLAT SHOWING LOTS THRU 5 ±3,863 SQ.FT. UNITED VIRGINIA BANK ON COURT SQUARE ±44' HIGH PER BOOK 375, PAGE 206 COVERED WGM ACQUISITIONS, LLC APN:530115000 BLACK CAT, LLC APPROVED DCH APN:530114000 SUBMISSION NO. 2 S25°10'17"W PROJECT 2202005 72.72'(M) T H E W O R K O F COVERED AREA L I N E + G R A D E 15' SETBACK LINE PER ZONING REPORT N 1 SITE AND LANDSCAPING PLAN 1" = 10': 0 10 20 C2.0 Appendix B Additional Building Photographs Photo 1. Eastern view Photo 2. Northeastern view 402 Park Street | Drive-through Demolition Request Photo 3. Northwestern view Photo 4. Southwestern view 402 Park Street | Drive-through Demolition Request Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 104-0072-0186 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data Property Information Property Names Property Evaluation Status Name Explanation Name Function/Location Bank, 402 Park Street Historic Sun Trust Bank Not Evaluated Historic United Virginia Bank This Property is associated with the Charlottesville and Albemarle County Courthouse Historic District. Property Addresses Current - 402 Park Street County/Independent City(s): Charlottesville (Ind. City) Incorporated Town(s): No Data Zip Code(s): 22902 Magisterial District(s): No Data Tax Parcel(s): No Data USGS Quad(s): CHARLOTTESVILLE EAST Additional Property Information Architecture Setting: Urban Acreage: No Data Site Description: Located on the northeast corner of Park Street and High Street in downtown Charlottesville. The parcel includes a paved parking lot that is northeast of the building. Surveyor Assessment: United Virginia Bank, constructed ca 1970-1975. Noncontributing. Surveyor Recommendation: Recommended for Further Survey Ownership Ownership Category Ownership Entity Private No Data Primary Resource Information Resource Category: Commerce/Trade Resource Type: Bank NR Resource Type: Building Historic District Status: Non-contributing Date of Construction: Ca 1970 Date Source: Written Data Historic Time Period: The New Dominion (1946 - 1991) Historic Context(s): Commerce/Trade Other ID Number: No Data Architectural Style: Other Form: No Data Number of Stories: 2.0 Condition: Good Threats to Resource: None Known Cultural Affiliations: No Data Cultural Affiliation Details: No Data Architectural Description: HD inventory: 402 Park (United Virginia Bank): brick and glass (common bond); 2 stories; modified gable roof; 3 bays. Commercial with November 04, 2022 Page: 1 of 2 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 104-0072-0186 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data Colonial Revival influence. 1970. Pre-fabricated fixed windows; steel frame with brick façade; large 2-story, plate-glass viewing window to rear walkway. Exterior Components Component Component Type Material Material Treatment Structural System and Masonry Brick American/Common Bond Exterior Treatment Secondary Resource Information Historic District Information Historic District Name: Charlottesville and Albemarle County Courthouse Historic District Local Historic District Name: No Data Historic District Significance: Charlottesville has been a regional political center since becoming the Albemarle County seat in 1762. In addition to its associations with Thomas Jefferson and the University of Virginia, the city is significant for the diversity of its 19th- and early-20th-century architecture. The heart of the district is the courthouse square, containing the courthouse and several 19th-century brick offices. Also in the district is an archetypical late-19th-century main street which was made into a pedestrian mall in the 1970s. Architectural highlights are the former public library, the former post office, and a railroad station, all employing a learned classicism. Adjacent industrial buildings and several adjoining residential neighborhoods complete the district. Scattered through the district are various Federal and Greek Revival houses. While not devoid of intrusions, the district gives Charlottesville’s downtown a strong sense of historical continuity. CRM Events Event Type: Survey:Phase I/Reconnaissance Project Review File Number: No Data Investigator: UVA Student Survey Organization/Company: UVA Photographic Media: Film Survey Date: 4/15/1980 Dhr Library Report Number: No Data Project Staff/Notes: No Data Bibliographic Information Bibliography: No Data Property Notes: No Data November 04, 2022 Page: 2 of 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 Application components (please click each link to go directly to PDF page): • Staff Report • Application Submittal November 2022 BAR Packet 6 City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Staff Report November 15, 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: n/a. (According to available information, parcel has never been developed.) District: North Downtown ADC District Status: n/a Prior BAR Review September 20, 2022 – BAR held preliminary discussion re: new residence. Link to meeting video. Discussion begins 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 October 18, 2022 - BAR reviewed new residence; accepted applicant’s request for a deferral. Link to the BAR meeting video. Discussion begins at 0:03:30. https://boxcast.tv/channel/vabajtzezuyv3iclkx1a?b=uzjazbhfohchjty5hs6f Link to October 18, 2022 submittal, go to pdf page 27 of: October 2022 BAR packet Application • Submittal: Candace M.P. Smith, Architects PC narrative and drawings, dated for November 15, 2022 BAR meeting (11 pages). CoA request to construct a new single-family residence and detached garage on vacant parcel. Note: Applicant is not seeking final BAR action during this meeting. Rather, the discussion is intended to resolve any outstanding questions prior to the final submittal. 0 3rd Street, NE – Nov 15, 2022 (11/7/22) 1 Discussion Applicant seeks BAR input on the following: o Variation of building height. o Porch options presented, including roof forms and railings. o Front gate. o Color palette. Suggested Motions No action is recommended, except to accept the applicant’s request for a deferral. Criteria, Standards and Guidelines Review Criteria Generally Sec. 34-284(b) of the City Code states that, in considering a particular application the BAR shall approve the application unless it finds: (1) That the proposal does not meet specific standards set forth within this division or applicable provisions of the Design Guidelines established by the board pursuant to Sec.34-288(6); and (2) The proposal is incompatible with the historic, cultural or architectural character of the district in which the property is located or the protected property that is the subject of the application. Pertinent Standards for Review of Construction and Alterations include: (1) Whether the material, texture, color, height, scale, mass and placement of the proposed addition, modification or construction are visually and architecturally compatible with the site and the applicable design control district; (2) The harmony of the proposed change in terms of overall proportion and the size and placement of entrances, windows, awnings, exterior stairs and signs; (3) The Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation set forth within the Code of Federal Regulations (36 C.F.R. §67.7(b)), as may be relevant; (4) The effect of the proposed change on the historic district neighborhood; (5) The impact of the proposed change on other protected features on the property, such as gardens, landscaping, fences, walls and walks; (6) Whether the proposed method of construction, renovation or restoration could have an adverse impact on the structure or site, or adjacent buildings or structures; (7) Any applicable provisions of the City’s Design Guidelines. Links to the Design Guidelines: Chapter 1 Introduction (Part 1) Chapter 1 Introduction (Part 2) Chapter 2 Site Design and Elements Chapter 3 New Construction and Additions Pertinent Guidelines for New Construction and Additions include: 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. 0 3rd Street, NE – Nov 15, 2022 (11/7/22) 2 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. 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. 0 3rd Street, NE – Nov 15, 2022 (11/7/22) 3 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. J. Porches 1) Porches and other semi-public spaces are important in establishing layers or zones of intermediate spaces within the streetscape. L. Foundation and Cornice 1) Distinguish the foundation from the rest of the structure through the use of different materials, patterns, or textures. 2) Respect the height, contrast of materials, and textures of foundations on surrounding historic buildings. 3) If used, cornices should be in proportion to the rest of the building. 4) Wood or metal cornices are preferred. The use of fypon may be appropriate where the location is not immediately adjacent to pedestrians. M. Materials and Textures 1) The selection of materials and textures for a new building should be compatible with and complementary to neighboring buildings. 2) In order to strengthen the traditional image of the residential areas of the historic districts, brick, stucco, and wood siding are the most appropriate materials for new buildings. 3) In commercial/office areas, brick is generally the most appropriate material for new structures. “Thin set” brick is not permitted. Stone is more commonly used for site walls than buildings. 4) Large-scale, multi-lot buildings, whose primary facades have been divided into different bays and planes to relate to existing neighboring buildings, can have varied materials, shades, and textures. 5) Synthetic siding and trim, including, vinyl and aluminum, are not historic cladding materials in the historic districts, and their use should be avoided. 6) Cementitious siding, such as HardiPlank boards and panels, are appropriate. 7) Concrete or metal panels may be appropriate. 8) Metal storefronts in clear or bronze are appropriate. 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. 0 3rd Street, NE – Nov 15, 2022 (11/7/22) 4 5) More lively color schemes may be appropriate in certain sub-areas dependent on the context of the sub-areas and the design of the building. O. Details and Decoration 1) Building detail and ornamentation should be consistent with and related to the architecture of the surrounding context and district. 2) The mass of larger buildings may be reduced using articulated design details. 3) Pedestrian scale may be reinforced with details. 0 3rd Street, NE – Nov 15, 2022 (11/7/22) 5 0 3rd Street, NE – Nov 15, 2022 (11/7/22) 6 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 November 15, 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. And prior minutes for plans and earlier 3D sketchup of proposed new house. Responding to the board’s comments, we have reduced the height of the house, determined that siding over a brick foundation is most suitable for reducing the scale of the overall height of the home, and prepared several questions for the Board to discuss so we can move to final approval at the December BAR meeting. Primary questions focus on the front porch form, and three are presented, with the client’s preference noted. Different roof forms and railings are shown. We would appreciate the Board providing their recommendation on this. Solid gates, similar to others in the neighborhood, will be painted, wood gates with solid panels, similar to the chosen garage doors. (Specifications on the garage doors will be provided at final but have been made.) Railings at the side, screened porches will be solid privacy panels. Paint colors have been selected and paint chips will be available to view at the11/15/22 meeting and will be specified at final submittal. Finally, a diagram of the street view of the uphill neighbor, our proposed house front at 3rd Street NE, and the downhill neighbor at Park Plaza is included to show the slope of the road, comparative finish floor heights and approximate roof peaks/ridges. Updated landscape plans and other requirements will be met and submitted for the December BAR. BAR Narrative & Attached Items For Preliminary Discussion Meeting November 15, 2022 Page 2 List of Attachments 1. SK4 (7) sheets showing a. Shorter front and side elevation b. Three front porches c. Front gate detail 2. SK4 Addendum a. Street profile diagram Certificate of Appropriateness BAR # 22-11-03 507 Ridge Street, Tax Parcel 290141000 Ridge Street ADC District Owner/Applicant: Kimberly and Clayton Lauter Project: Demo backyard shed/cottage Application components (please click each link to go directly to PDF page): • Staff Report • Historic Survey • Application Submittal November 2022 BAR Packet 7 City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Staff Report November 15, 2022 Certificate of Appropriateness Application 507 Ridge Street, Tax Parcel 290141000 Ridge Street ADC District Owners/Applicants: Clayton & Kimberly Lauter Project: Demolition of shed/cottage Background Year Built: Cottage/shed (House constructed c1895) District: Ridge Street ADC District Status: Contributing The Gianniny-Bailey House contributes to the series of Victorian residences along Ridge Street that date to the 1890s. This two-story, two-bay house was originally weatherboard, now covered with stucco. Notable features include a semi-octagonal projecting bay on the front façade, and Eastlake trim on the second story porch. The structure in the rear was built as a servant’s cottage. Prior BAR Actions March 2005: Approve painting of unpainted stucco. February 2006: Approve partial demolition and addition. May 2017: Approve roof and built-in gutter replacement. August 20, 2019: Approve frame-mounted, ground level, solar photovoltaic system in rear yard. Application • Submittal: Photographs of structure with additional notes and photos by staff. Request CoA for demolition of an approximately 10-ft x 12-ft, single-story, wood-framed structure in the rear yard. Discussion Staff visited the site on November 3, 2022 and found the cottage to be in poor condition, but not at immediate risk of collapse. (See attached photos and summary.) Owners plans to construct an accessory dwelling unit near/at the location of the cottage; however, they also expressed that 507 Ridge Street (August 14, 2019) 1 regardless of the ADU project, they do not wish to incur further expenses necessary to stabilize and maintain the cottage. With that, the owners have expressed willingness to allow relocation of the structure to another site, should someone express interest in acquiring it and provided the BAR approves the move. As summarized below, the design guidelines recommend against approving this request. Staff recommends the BAR discuss this matter and defer a decision until the December 20, 2022 BAR meeting—or, to a later date, if the applicant requests deferral. This would provide an opportunity to find a solution that preserves this structure, avoids a potentially contentious appeal to Council (should a demo CoA be denied), and/or avoids actions that might result in leveraging civil fines. Note: Staff refers to the following provisions of the City Code only as a matter of full disclosure and for information only, not to suggest a possible a path or outcome, nor to provide an enforceable interpretation of the Code. Per Sec. 34-277 (Certificates of appropriateness; demolitions and removals), the BAR must approve the razing or moving of a contributing structure, except upon the determination of the building code official that the building or structure is in such a dangerous, hazardous or unsafe condition that it could reasonably be expected to cause death or serious injury. Having no such determination by the City, that exception does not apply. Additionally, failure to obtain the necessary approval for demolitions, the owner is subject to a civil penalty not to exceed twice the fair market value of the building or structure, as determined by the city real estate tax assessment at the time of the demolition, razing or moving. (Sec. 34-86(b). See Appendix of this staff report.) The City’s current assessment for this structure is $2,700. (Reference J. Davis email of Nov. 9, 2202.) As such, the fine could not exceed $5,400. Per Sec. 34-281 (Maintenance and repair required), the owner of a contributing structure shall not shall allow it to fall into a state of disrepair which may result in the deterioration of any exterior appurtenance or architectural feature so as to produce or tend to produce a detrimental effect upon the character of a major architectural design district or the life and character of a contributing structure or protected property. In a violation of this requirement, the owner is subject to a civil penalty of $200 for the first violation, and a civil penalty of $500 for each subsequent violation. (Sec. 34-86(a)(10), see Appendix of this staff report.) Per Sec. 34-285 (Approval or denial of applications by BAR) and should the BAR deny the CoA, the applicant may appeal to Council and seek further remedy per Sec. 34-286 (City council appeals). (See Appendix of this staff report.) Should the BAR approve the demolition request, staff recommends the following condition (included in the suggested motion below): • Applicant will provide for the BAR record documentation of the existing building. [In addition to the photos provided, documentation will include dimensioned floor plans and elevations.] 507 Ridge Street (August 14, 2019) 2 Suggested Motions Approval: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed demolition at 507 Ridge Street satisfies the BAR’s criteria and guidelines for demolitions and that the BAR approves the application [as submitted with the condition that the applicant will provide for the BAR record documentation of the existing building]. or [as submitted with the following modifications/conditions: …] Denial: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed demolition at 507 Ridge Street does not satisfy the BAR’s criteria and guidelines for demolitions 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 Demolitions: Sec. 34-278. - Standards for considering demolitions. The following factors shall be considered in determining whether or not to permit the moving, removing, encapsulation or demolition, in whole or in part, of a contributing structure or protected property: (a) The historic, architectural or cultural significance, if any, of the specific structure or property, including, without limitation: (1) The age of the structure or property; Staff comment: The house and cottage were constructed in 1895 by Edgar Gianniny, the proprietor of the Gleason Hotel on West Main. (Passing through several owners, the property was acquired in 1940 by Grover Bailey, whose family occupied the house until 1962.) The available Sanborn Maps suggest the cottage was relocated at least once on the property. (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 house and cottage (VDR #104-0025-0019) are listed as contributing structures to the NRHP-listed Ridge Street Historic District (VDHR #104-0025). The VCRIS record indicates the property was found ineligible for individual listing. The cottage is identified as one of the three surviving servants quarters in the Ridge Street Historic District. [Note: Staff is researching the location 507 Ridge Street (August 14, 2019) 3 or condition of other, similar structures. That information will be presented at the November 15, 2022 meeting.] From the NRHP listing. https://www.dhr.virginia.gov/historic-registers/104-0025/ 507 [Ridge]: (Gianniny-Bailey House); frame (stucco covered weatherboard); 2 story; 2 bays; high pitched hip roof with pedimented gables over 3 projecting bays; one story veranda on north bay. Victorian Vernacular. 1895. (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: Nothing evident in the available records. The builder is not known. The initial owner was Edgar Gianniny, the proprietor of a local hotel. Servant’s cottage: The City’s 1994 survey identifies this structure as a servant’s cottage. According to the US Census and City Directories (between 1900 and 1960) and the City survey, we know the property changed ownership six times and until 1950 was primarily occupied by multiple renters. From the census record, two of the earliest owners had a servant listed in their household; however, neither lived at 507 Ridge Street for those census years. (See the Appendix.) Staff believes reference to a servant’s cottage most likely originated with Edgar Gianniny, who reportedly constructed the house in 1895. We cannot determine if Gianniny ever lived here initially; he sold the property in 1897 and in 1900 the house is occupied by a renter. (Curiously, Gianniny does not appear in the 1900 census and the 1910 census lists no one at 507 Ridge Street.) Gianniny reacquired the property in 1901. The biennial City Directories indicate he occupied the house in 1902 and 1904, so we can assume this was between 1901 and 1905. (In 1906, the house is sold to and occupied by Charles Apple.) Per the 1910 census Gianniny lives at 1116 East Market Street, and in the household is Ellen Johnson, age 60, listed as a servant. Also in 1910, Apple has moved to the area near Fry’s Spring, and in his household is John Scott, age 15, listed as a servant. It is possible both Gianniny and Apple while living at 507 Ridge Street employed a servant who occupied the cottage. However, the historical record suggests the cottage, if used as a servant’s quarters or occupied at all, was likely only from 1895 to 1897 and from 1901 to 1909. [Note: Further research might provide more conclusive evidence.] . (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: The structure is unique in its origin as a servant’s cottage; however, its style, elements and materiality are very common throughout this district and the City. (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: The building material is easily reproduced. (6) The degree to which distinguishing characteristics, qualities, features, or materials remain. 507 Ridge Street (August 14, 2019) 4 Staff comment: The structure will be razed (though, the owner may allow its relocation to another site). The applicant has expressed that—unless the building is relocated-- salvageable materials will be retained and incorporated (likely as interior elements) in a planned accessory dwelling unit in this location. (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: The features are less elaborate and ornate than surrounding, similar- period structures; however, the design and materiality are generally consistent with those buildings. Location: While Sanborn Maps are not reliable for precise scale and dimension, they are generally reliable for spatial relationships. The earliest maps showing this property indicate that between 1902 and 1920, the cottage was located on the south parcel line. On the 1920 map the cottage is either not shown or has moved farther back along the south parcel line. On the 1965 map (and on the 1966 aerial photo) the cottage is at its current location along the north parcel line. Pertinent design guidelines re: Demolitions Link: Chapter 7 Moving and Demolition A. Introduction Historic buildings are irreplaceable community assets; and once they are gone, they are gone forever. With each successive demolition or removal, the integrity of a historic district is further eroded. Therefore, the demolition or moving of any contributing building in a historic district should be considered carefully. Charlottesville’s Zoning Ordinance contains provisions that require the property owner to obtain approval prior to demolishing a contributing property in a historic district or an Individually Protected Property (IPP). The following review criteria should be used for IPP’s and (contributing) buildings that are proposed for demolition or relocation. Plans to demolish or remove a protected property must be approved by the BAR or, on appeal, by the City Council after consultation with the BAR. Upon receipt of an application for demolition or removal of a structure, the BAR has 45 days to either approve or deny the request. If the request is denied and the owner appeals to the City Council, the Council can either approve or deny the request. If Council denies the request, the owner may appeal to the City Circuit Court. In addition to the right to appeal to City Council or the Circuit Court, there is a process that enables the owner to demolish the building or structure if certain conditions have been met. After the owner has appealed to City Council and has been denied, the owner may choose to make a bona fide offer to sell the building or structure and land. 507 Ridge Street (August 14, 2019) 5 The property must be offered at a price reasonably related to the fair market value of the structure and land and must be made to the city or to any person or firm or agency that gives reasonable assurance that it is willing to preserve and restore the property. City Council must first confirm that the offering price is reasonably related to the fair market value. The time during which the offer to sell must remain open varies according to the price, as set out in the State Code and the Zoning Ordinance. If such a bona fide offer to sell is not accepted within the designated time period, the owner may renew the demolition request to City Council and will be entitled [to a CoA that permits demolition]. B. Demolition of Historic Structures Review Criteria for Demolition 1) The standards established by the City Code, Section 34-278. Staff comment: See comments under Standards for considering demolitions. 2) The public necessity of the proposed demolition. Staff comment: Demolition is not a public necessity; the building has not been condemned or deemed unsafe. 3) The public purpose or interest in land or buildings to be protected. Staff comment: See comments under Standards for considering demolitions, item a. 4) Whether or not a relocation of the structure would be a practical and preferable alternative to demolition. Staff comment: See comments under Standards for considering demolitions, item d. 5) Whether or not the proposed demolition would adversely or positively affect other historic buildings or the character of the historic district. Staff comment: See comments under Standards for considering demolitions, item d. 6) The reason for demolishing the structure and whether or not alternatives exist. Staff comment: See comments under Standards for considering demolitions, item d. 7) Whether or not there has been a professional economic and structural feasibility study for rehabilitating or reusing the structure and whether or not its findings support the proposed demolition. Staff comment: See comments under Standards for considering demolitions, item c 507 Ridge Street (August 14, 2019) 6 Guidelines for Demolition 1) Demolish a historic structure only after all preferable alternatives have been exhausted. 2) Document the building thoroughly through photographs and, for especially significant buildings, measured drawings according to Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) Standards. This information should be retained by the City of Charlottesville Department of Neighborhood Development Services and the Virginia Department of Historic Resources. 3) If the site is to remain vacant for any length of time, maintain the empty lot in a manner consistent with other open spaces in the districts. Appendix: Related City Code Sections Sec. 34-285. - Approval or denial of applications by BAR. c) Upon denial of an application (approval of an application with conditions over the objections of the applicant shall be deemed a denial), the applicant shall be provided written notice of the decision, including a statement of the reasons for the denial or for the conditions to which the applicant objects. Following a denial the applicant, the director of neighborhood development services, or any aggrieved person may appeal the decision to the city council, by filing a written notice of appeal within ten (10) working days of the date of the decision. (9-15-03(3); 12-17-12(1)) Sec. 34-286. - City council appeals. a) An applicant shall set forth, in writing, the grounds for an appeal, including the procedure(s) or standard(s) alleged to have been violated or misapplied by the BAR, and/or any additional information, factors or opinions he or she deems relevant to the application. The applicant, or his agent, and any aggrieved person, shall be given an opportunity to be heard on the appeal. b) In any appeal the city council shall consult with the BAR and consider the written appeal, the criteria set forth within section 34-276 or 34-278, as applicable, and any other information, factors, or opinions it deems relevant to the application. c) A final decision of the city council may be appealed by the owner of the subject property to the Circuit Court for the City of Charlottesville, by filing with the court a petition at law, setting forth the alleged illegality of the action taken. such petition must be filed with the circuit court within thirty (30) days after council's final decision. The filing of the petition shall stay the council's decision pending the outcome of the appeal; except that the filing of the petition shall not stay a decision of city council denying permission to demolish a building or structure. Any appeal which may be taken to the circuit court from a decision of the city council to deny a permit for the demolition of a building or structure shall not affect the right of the property owner to make the bona fide offer to sell referred to in subparagraphs (d) and (e), below. d) In addition to the right of appeal set forth above, the owner of a building or structure, the demolition of which has been the subject of an application appealed to the city council, shall, as a matter of right, be entitled to demolish such building or structure if all of the following conditions have been met: (1) The owner has appealed to city council for permission to demolish the building or structure, and city council has denied such permission; (2) The owner has, for the applicable sale period set forth herein below, and at a price reasonably related to the fair market value of the subject property, made a bona fide offer to sell the building or structure, and the land pertaining thereto, to a person or legal entity that gives reasonable assurance that the building or structure will be preserved and restored; and 507 Ridge Street (August 14, 2019) 7 (3) No bona fide contract, binding upon all parties thereto, shall have been executed for the sale of such landmark, building or structure, and the land pertaining thereto, prior to the expiration of the applicable sale period. (4) If all of the foregoing conditions are not met within the applicable sale period, then the city council's decision denying a permit shall stand, unless and until that decision is overturned by the circuit court. However, following expiration of the applicable sale period, a property owner may renew his request to the city council to approve the demolition of the historic landmark, building or structure. e) The time in which a property owner may take advantage of the rights afforded by subparagraph (d), above (the applicable "sale period") shall be as follows: (1) Three (3) months, when the offering price is less than [$25,000.00]. (2) Four (4) months when the offering price is equal to or greater than [$25,000] but less than [$40,000]. (3) Five (5) months when the offering price is equal to or is greater than [$40,000.00] but less than [$55,000]. (4) Six (6) months when the offering price is equal to or greater than [$55,000] but less than [$75,000.00]. (5) Seven (7) months when the offering price is equal to or is greater than [$75,000] but less than [$90,000]. (6) Twelve (12) months when the offering price is equal to or greater than [$90,000]. Sec. 34-86. - Schedule of civil penalties. a) Any violation of the following provisions of this chapter shall be subject to a civil penalty of two hundred dollars ($200.00) for the first violation, and a civil penalty of five hundred dollars ($500.00) for each subsequent violation arising from the same set of operative facts: (10) Any violation of Article II, Divisions 1—5, sections 34-240, et seq., regarding requirements for overlay districts. b) Any person who demolishes, razes or moves any building or structure which is subject to the regulations set forth within section 34-277 or section 34-340 without approval of the BAR or city council, shall be subject to a civil penalty not to exceed twice the fair market value of the building or structure, as determined by the city real estate tax assessment at the time of the demolition, razing or moving. (1) For purposes of this section, the term "person" shall include any individual, firm, partnership, association, corporation, company or organization of any kind, which is deemed by the Charlottesville Circuit Court to be responsible for the demolition, razing or moving. (2) An action seeking the imposition of the penalty shall be instituted by petition filed by the city in the Circuit Court of the City of Charlottesville, which shall be tried in the same manner as any action at law. It shall be the burden of the city to show the liability of the violator by a preponderance of the evidence. An admission of liability or finding of liability shall not be a criminal conviction for any purpose. (3) The defendant may, within twenty-one (21) days after the filing of the petition, file an answer and, without admitting liability, agree to restore the building or structure as it existed prior to demolition. If the restoration is completed within the time agreed upon by the parties or as established by the court, the petition shall be dismissed from the court's docket. 507 Ridge Street (August 14, 2019) 8 (4) The filing of the action pursuant to this section shall preclude a criminal prosecution for the same offense, except where the demolition, razing or moving has resulted in personal injury. (9-15-03(3); 10-18-10(1); 11-21-11(2); 12-17-12(1)) 507 Ridge Street (August 14, 2019) 9 507 Ridge Street - Servant's Cottage c1890s NRHP listing: Ridge Street Historic District www.dhr.virginia.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/104-0025_Ridge_St_HD_1982_Final_Nomination-1.pdf 507 Ridge Street: (Gianniny-Bailey House); frame (stucco covered weatherboard); 2 storey; 2 bays; high pitched hip roof with pedimented gables over 3 projecting bays; one storey veranda on north bay. Victorian Vernacular. 1895. (see survey sheet for additional details ) City survey 1970s/80s 1 507 Ridge Street - Servant's Cottage c1890s City survey 1994 2 507 Ridge Street - Servant's Cottage c1890s Oct 2022 3 507 Ridge Street - Servant's Cottage c1890s Oct 2022 4 5 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 104-0025-0019 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data Property Information Property Names Property Evaluation Status Name Explanation Name Function/Location Dwelling, 507 Ridge Street Historic/Current Glanny-Bailey House DHR Evaluation Committee: Not Eligible This Property is associated with the Ridge Street Historic District. Property Addresses Current - 507 Ridge Street County/Independent City(s): Charlottesville (Ind. City) Incorporated Town(s): No Data Zip Code(s): 22902, 22903 Magisterial District(s): No Data Tax Parcel(s): 290141000 USGS Quad(s): CHARLOTTESVILLE EAST Additional Property Information Architecture Setting: Urban Acreage: No Data Site Description: DHR Staff 2020: The Gianniny-Bailey House is located on the northwest side of Ridge Street, just south of the intersection of Ridge Street and Oak Street. A sidewalk and concrete retaining wall run along the eastern end of the property, between it and Ridge Street. A set of concrete steps lead from the sidewalk to a walkway leading to the front porch. Surveyor Assessment: 1980/1994: This nicely detailed Victorian residence is typical of the houses built on Ridge Street in the 1890s. The loss of many of them makes the remaining ones more important. This little second story porch, which has retained its Eastlake trim, is especially noteworthy. This house has one of the three surviving servants quarters in the Ridge Street Historic District. The Gianniny- Bailey House is important to the streetscape and the District. -------------------- 1993: E. M. Gianniny purchased this lot in 1895 (City DB 6-13) and built the house the same year, according to tax records. He sold it to E. M. Buck in 1897 (DB 8-331), then bought it back in 1901 (DB 12-103), and sold it to c. s. Apple in 1906 (DB 17-336). Ida L. Birch bought the house from Apple in 1915 (DB 27-487). Her husband, who had inherited it from her (WB 2-229), lost it during the Depression (DB 69-52, 86-128). E. I. and Mollie F. Bing owned it from 1935 to 1940, when they sold it to G.C. Bailey (DB 102-334), The Bailey family lived there for 22 years before selling it to Mrs. Lottie Scott in 1962. The weatherboarding was covered with stucco sometime between 1915 and 1962. -------------------- DHR Staff 2020: This building is a contributing resource to the Ridge Street Historic District. Surveyor Recommendation: Recommended Not Eligible Ownership Ownership Category Ownership Entity Private No Data Primary Resource Information Resource Category: Domestic Resource Type: Single Dwelling NR Resource Type: Building Historic District Status: Contributing Date of Construction: Ca 1895 Date Source: Written Data Historic Time Period: Reconstruction and Growth (1866 - 1916) Historic Context(s): Architecture/Community Planning, Domestic Other ID Number: No Data Architectural Style: Victorian, Queen Anne Form: No Data November 04, 2022 Page: 1 of 3 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 104-0025-0019 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data Number of Stories: 2.0 Condition: Good Threats to Resource: None Known Cultural Affiliations: No Data Cultural Affiliation Details: No Data Architectural Description: 1982: frame (stucco covered weatherboard); 2 storey; 2 bays; high pitched hip roof with pedimented gables over 3 projecting bays; one storey veranda on north bay. Victorian Vernacular. 1895. 1980-1994: This house is two storeys tall, three bays wide, and double pile, on a low foundation. The original weatherboarding has been covered with stucco, significantly altering the appearance of the house. The trim is painted green. There is a semi-octagonal projecting side bay on the facade, a rectangular projecting bay on the north side, and a projecting pavilion at the rear. The high-pitched hipped roof has steep pedimented gables over the three projecting bays and another centered over the southern elevation. It is covered with standing seam metal, painted red, and has Philadelphia gutters, projecting eaves and verges, and a boxed cornice. Corner brackets with a sunburst motif support the overhanging corners of the gable over the semi-octagonal bay. The sunburst motif is repeated at the peaks of the gables. The rear gable is weatherboarded; the other three are covered with pressed tin. There is a pair of 9-over-9 light tinted glass attic windows in the gable on the facade, and a single plain 1-over-1 light window in each of the others. There are two interior capped chimneys. Windows are double-sash with architrave trim, 1-over- 1 light on the facade and 2-over-2 light elsewhere. The one on the veranda has a paneled spandrel, suggesting that it may originally have been a triple sash window. A deep one-storey verandah covers the northern bay of the facade and wraps around the corner to a side entrance in the projecting bay on the north side. It has a medium-pitched truncated hipped roof covered with standing-seam metal with boxed cornice. The original spool frieze and simple balustrade are gone, square posts have replaced the attenuated Eastlake posts and brackets, and the floor and steps have been replaced with concrete. The wide entrance door in the northern bay has nine lights over three panels and a three-light rectangular transom. Beside the door there is a small double-sash window with one large light bordered by small lights. A small second storey porch is set on the roof of the verandah at windowsill level. It has a nearly flat roof, and it has retained its spool frieze, attenuated Eastlake posts with brackets, and turned balustrade. The second storey hall window gives access to the porch. There is a one-storey hipped-roofed back porch beside the projecting pavilion. Interior trim is symmetrically moulded with corner blocks. The three-flight open stair in the entrance hall has a decorated rail and paneled wall. The six fireplaces with Victorian mantels have been closed. ---------------------- January 1994 Exterior Components Component Component Type Material Material Treatment Chimneys Interior Central Brick Corbeled Structural System and Wood Frame Wood Weatherboard Exterior Treatment Roof Complex Metal No Data Windows Double-hung Wood No Data Porch Wrap-Around No Data Posts Foundation Solid/Continuous Stucco No Data Secondary Resource Information Historic District Information Historic District Name: Ridge Street Historic District Local Historic District Name: No Data Historic District Significance: Ridge Street Historic District has been listed in the National Register of Historic Places since 1982 as a part of the Charlottesville Multiple Resource Area form, which recorded much of the city’s historic architecture. An administrative error left the district off the Virginia Landmarks Register, but interest in state rehabilitation tax credits prompted city officials to seek designation in 2003. The residential district occupies four blocks just south of downtown and contains historic structures dating from the mid-1800s through the 1890s. Its ridge-top location attracted wealthy families who built stately Victorian-style houses there. The Ridge Street neighborhood was integrated even before the Civil War. A free black man owned property there as early as 1842 and, when the street was extended, its southern end was one of the city’s most fashionable African American neighborhoods. The district is relatively unchanged and remains a cohesive black community. CRM Events Event Type: DHR Evaluation Committee: Not Eligible November 04, 2022 Page: 2 of 3 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 104-0025-0019 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data DHR ID: 104-0025-0019 Staff Name: DHR Evaluation Committee Event Date: 5/1/2003 Staff Comment Angie Edwards presenting: Gianniny-Baily House, 507 Ridge St. Charlottesville, Tax Act File Number 2003-072, DHR File Number 104-0025-0019. This resource, a contributing building in the Charlottesville-Ridge Street Multiple Resource Area, was evaluated as locally significant under Criterion C (Architecture); the committee recommends that the resource is not eligible for listing with 28 points. The committee encourages the applicant to pursue a district nomination, especially as such a nomination is already in place, and has never been presented for VLR listing. Event Type: Rehabilitation Tax Credit DHR ID: 104-0025-0019 Staff Name: DHR Event Date: 4/11/2003 Staff Comment Denied - Tax Act File No. 2003-072 Event Type: Survey:Phase I/Reconnaissance Project Review File Number: No Data Investigator: Eugenia Bibb/Susan Smead Organization/Company: City of Charlottesville Photographic Media: Film Survey Date: 1/1/1994 Dhr Library Report Number: No Data Project Staff/Notes: Neg #13471, fr 11/14 - Jan 1994 Original survey by Eugenia Bibb in the fall of 1980 Event Type: Survey:Phase I/Reconnaissance Project Review File Number: No Data Investigator: Susan Smead & Eugenia Bibb Organization/Company: DHR Photographic Media: Digital Survey Date: 1/1/1994 Dhr Library Report Number: No Data Project Staff/Notes: No Data Project Bibliographic Information: DHR Staff 2020: Data based on 1978 and 1993 survey forms. Bibliographic Information Bibliography: No Data Property Notes: No Data November 04, 2022 Page: 3 of 3 507 Ridge Street - BAR staff photos Nov, 3 2022 10’ - 6” (+/-) 8’ - 2” (+/-) West South 10’ - 1-1/2” (+/-) 12’ - 1-1/2” (+/-) Approximate Not to scale North East 507 Ridge Street - BAR staff photos Nov, 3 2022 Approximate location Painted wood siding applied to 2x4 of brick chimney framed wall with bead-board applied on interior. Siding appears original, with some lower sections replaced with cedar siding. Trim, soffit and cornice ap- pear original, but cannot determine; minor repairs evident. Wall studs, sill beam, upper plate, ceiling joists, and roof rafters appears original, with several areas of visible 10’ - 1-1/2” (+/-) termite damage. Ceiling joists have nail patterns consistent with a simple ceiling, possible heavy paper or thin paneling. Plywood flooring over wood floor joists, of which several are modern. Structure set on stacked brick piers. Door and windows appear original; in poor condition, but salvageable. Where it remains, skipped board sheathing on roof rafters appears original; but in poor condition. Origi- nal roof no longer extant. Currently plywood sheathing with wood shakes and metal drip edge. Ridgeline is sagging in center. Leaks are evident, 12’ - 1-1/2” (+/-) especially at the chimney. Approximate Not to scale 507 Ridge Street - BAR staff photos Nov, 3 2022 Cottage City survey 1994 507 Ridge Street - BAR staff photos Nov, 3 2022 507 Ridge Street - BAR staff photos Nov, 3 2022 1902 Sanborn Map 1913 Sanborn Map Cottage? Cottage? 507 507 1920 Sanborn Map c1965 Sanborn Map Cottage? Cottage 507 507 507 Ridge Street - BAR staff photos Nov, 3 2022 507 Ridge Street - BAR staff photos Nov, 3 2022 507 Ridge Street - BAR staff photos Nov, 3 2022 Not period elements 507 Ridge Street - BAR staff photos Nov, 3 2022 507 Ridge Street - BAR staff photos Nov, 3 2022 507 Ridge Street - BAR staff photos Nov, 3 2022 Chimney 507 Ridge Street - BAR staff photos Nov, 3 2022 507 Ridge Street - BAR staff photos Nov, 3 2022 507 Ridge Street - BAR staff photos Nov, 3 2022 507 Ridge Street - BAR staff photos Nov, 3 2022 507 Ridge Street - BAR staff photos Nov, 3 2022 507 Ridge Street - BAR staff photos Nov, 3 2022 507 Ridge Street - BAR staff photos Nov, 3 2022 507 Ridge Street - BAR staff photos Nov, 3 2022 Certificate of Appropriateness BAR # 22-11-05 914 Rugby Road. TMP 50145000 Rugby Road Historic Conservation District Owner: Erin and George Sloane Applicant: John Voight / JKV Architects Project: Alterations to front porch, side addition Application components (please click each link to go directly to PDF page): • Staff Report • Historic Survey • Application Submittal November 2022 BAR Packet 8 City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Staff Report November 15, 2022 Certificate of Appropriateness Application (HC District) 914 Rugby Road. TMP 50145000 Rugby Road HC District Owner: Erin and George Sloane Applicant: John Voight / JKV Architects Project: Alterations and side addition Background Year Built: c1921 District: Rugby Road Historic Conservation District Status: Contributing Prior BAR Review N/A Application • Submittal: JKV Architects drawings 914 Rugby Road, dated October 26, 2022: Sheets A-1, A-2, A-3, and A-4. Request CoA for construction of a single story, side addition (replacing the exist two-story 1980s addition) and reconstruction of the front porch (replacing c1980s alterations). Note: The rear portion of the addition is not visible from Rugby Road and therefore exempt from BAR review. Discussion and Recommendations Note: The regulations and design guidelines for projects within a Historic Conservation District (HCD) are intentionally less rigid than those for an ADC District. The HCD designations are intended to preserve the character-defining elements of the neighborhoods and to assure new construction is not inappropriate to that character, while minimally imposing on residents who may want to upgrade their homes. Even for a HCD property that might qualify for the 914 Rugby Road Nov 15, 2022 (11/8/2022) 1 more-rigid designation, in evaluating the proposal the BAR may only apply the HCD requirements and guidelines. See staff comments below regarding the proposed roof style. (Building Form – roofs and porches.) Staff recommends either BAR approval [per the recommended motion below] or, should the BAR request modifications to the design, by direction to staff allow the subsequent review to be administrative. (Per City Code Sec. 34-346, an administrative review is allowed: a) with BAR authorization, for requests previously reviewed by the BAR; and b) for minor accessory buildings or additions, after consultation with the chair of the BAR.) Suggested Motions Approval: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City Design Guidelines for Historic Conservation Districts, I move to find that the proposed side addition and front porch alterations at 914 Rugby Road satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are compatible with this property and other properties in the Rugby Road Historic Conservation District, and that the BAR approves the application [as submitted]. […as submitted with the following conditions: …]. Criteria, Standards, and Guidelines Review Criteria Generally Sec. 34-341 of the City Code. Criteria for approval a. In considering a particular application the BAR shall approve the application unless it finds: 1. That the proposal does not meet specific standards set forth within this division or applicable provisions of the conservation district design guidelines; and 2. The proposal is incompatible with the historic, cultural or architectural character of the conservation district in which the property is located. b. The BAR's review of the proposed new construction or addition to a building or structure shall be limited to factors specified in section 34-342. The BAR's review of the proposed demolition, razing or moving of any contributing structure shall be limited to the factors specified in section 34-343. c. The BAR, or city council on appeal, may require conditions of approval as are necessary or desirable to ensure that any new construction or addition would be compatible with the scale and character of the historic conservation district. Prior to attaching conditions to an approval, due consideration shall be given to the cost of compliance with the proposed conditions. Sec. 34-342 of the City Code. Standards for review of new construction and additions. The following features and factors shall be considered in determining the appropriateness of proposed new construction and additions to buildings or structures: 1) Whether the form, height, scale, mass and placement of the proposed construction are visually and architecturally compatible with the site and the applicable conservation district; 2) The harmony of the proposed changes in terms of overall proportion and the size and placement of entrances and windows; 3) The impact of the proposed change on the essential architectural form and integrity of the existing building; 914 Rugby Road Nov 15, 2022 (11/8/2022) 2 4) The effect, with respect to architectural considerations, of the proposed change on the conservation district neighborhood; 5) Any applicable provisions of the city's conservation district design guidelines. Pertinent Design Review Guidelines for New Construction and Additions Building Location – setback and spacing 1. Align a new building close to the average building setback line on the same street, if established, or consistent with the surrounding area. 2. Maintain average spacing between buildings on the same street. Staff Comment: The side addition replaces and existing porch and will not conflict with the typical spacing within the district. Building Scale – height and massing 1. Keep the footprint, and massing of new buildings consistent with the neighborhood characteristics and compatible with the character of buildings on the same street. 2. Keep the height and width of new buildings within the prevailing average height and width. Exceptions up to 200% of the prevailing height and width may be approved by the BAR when contextually appropriate. 3. An addition needs to be perceived as an addition and therefore should not visually overpower the existing building in scale and design. […] Staff Comment: The addition is compatible with the scale and design of the existing house; the proposed materials, siding, and roof design differentiate the new from the existing. (Re: roof, see staff comment below.) Building Form – roofs and porches 1. Roof forms should reference contributing buildings on the same street or surrounding area. Other roof forms may be approved by the BAR when contextually appropriate. 2. If many of the contributing buildings on the same street have porches, then it is strongly recommended that the design of a new residence includes a porch or similar form of similar width and depth. Staff Comment: Of the 30+ properties in this district, there is no typical style or material for existing roofs in the district. (See attached images.) The BAR should discuss if the proposed mansard-style roof is compatible with the existing house and the district. (See staff comment above.) Building Openings – orientation, doors and windows 1. A single entrance door (or main entrance of a multifamily dwelling) facing the street is recommended. 2. Window and door patterns and the ratio of solids (wall area) to voids (window and door area) of new buildings should be compatible with contributing buildings in the surrounding area. 3. Windows should be simple shapes compatible with those on contributing buildings, which are generally vertically oriented in residential areas. 914 Rugby Road Nov 15, 2022 (11/8/2022) 3 Staff Comment: The scale, design, and locations of the addition windows are consistent with the existing house. Building Materials and Textures 1. The selection of materials and textures for a new building should relate architecturally to the district, and should be compatible with and complementary to neighboring buildings. 2. Long-lasting, durable and natural materials are preferred, including brick, wood, stucco, and cementitious siding and standing seam metal roofs. Clear glass windows (VLT of 70% or more) are preferred. Staff Comment: The proposed materials are consistent with the district. Brick, copper, wood and Boral trim and siding, and FRP columns. (The BAR has previously approved the use of Boral FRP materials.) Building Paint 1. Painting unpainted brick or other masonry is discouraged because it is irreversible and may cause moisture problems. Staff Comment: Brick repairs to the north (side) will be painted to match the existing masonry. Site 1. Fences or walls that abut a City street (or fences located in a side yard between a street and the front of the principal structure on a lot) should not exceed three and one-half feet in height. Staff Comment: n/a Rugby Road Historic Conservation District adopted September 2, 2014: Architectural character-defining features: • 1.5, 2.0, or 2.5 story dwellings with stucco, red brick or painted brick, or wood siding, • Front porticos or porches • Slate shingle roofs, gable or hipped roof forms, roof dormers, • Contributing outbuildings, and deep-set, planted front yards mostly unpaved with no visible garages. 914 Rugby Road Nov 15, 2022 (11/8/2022) 4 Rugby Road HC District — Dwellings (contributing structures) (1921) (1921) (1910) (1925) Rugby Road HC District — Dwellings (contributing structures) (1905) (1906) (1906) (1917) (1907) Rugby Road HC District — Dwellings (contributing structures) (1929) (1929) (1929) (1923) Rugby Road HC District — Dwellings (contributing structures) (1899) (1925) (1921) (1929) Rugby Road HC District — Dwellings (contributing structures) (1929) (1921) (1921) (1929) Rugby Road HC District — Dwellings (contributing structures) (1908) (1922) (1929) (1929) Rugby Road HC District — Dwellings (contributing structures) (1911) (1928) (1920) Proposed Rugby Road Historic District 914 Rugby Road Date: 1921 ca. (not on 1920 Sanborn map) District Status: Contributing Resources: 1 Single Dwelling (c); 1 Garage (c); 1 pool (c) Style: Colonial Revival Architectural Description: The side-gabled, 2.5-story, stretcher-bond brick veneer dwelling stands three bays wide and two bays deep. Symmetrically fenestrated, the facade features a central entrance flanked by 6/6 wood windows. The entrance is sheltered by a single-bay shed-roofed porch with sturdy, paired Tuscan post supports and a molded wood cornice. A fanlight transom and sidelights details the entry. Three 6/6 wood windows pierce the second story, with the central window smaller in size. Each window features fixed louvered shutters, square-edged sills, and a thin, molded wood surround. The upper windows feature rowlock brick lintels. A molded wood cornice with returns details the asphalt-shingled roof that is pierced with three attenuated gabled dormers. Each wood-frame dormer is lit with a 6/6 window and capped by prominent pedimented gable peak with boxed cornice and closed tympanum. An exterior-end and an interior-end brick chimney each rose from the roof. A two-story shed wing was added to the north corner of the dwelling. It features vinyl siding and 6/6 wood windows. A small sunporch addition was also added to the rear elevation, which is accessed by an exterior wood stair with portico. Secondary Resource: Garage, ca. 1921 The one-story, brick garage dates to circa 1921. Featuring a hipped asphalt-shingle roof, the garage includes a front-gabled projection with weatherboard -clad gable peak and two roll-up, paneled-with lights doors dating to circa 1960. The garage also features a molded wood cornice and poured concrete floor. Pool (1950?). An in-ground concrete pool is curvilinear in shape. It is currently empty and overgrown. Proposed Rugby Road Historic District Site Description: Set on a narrow, .48-acre rectangular parcel, the dwelling faces Rugby Road. A circular brick driveway extends across the front of the dwelling, with a spur extending along the side to a garage. The slightly sloping property features a small, grassy lawn, mature trees and shrubs, and some foundation landscaping. A fenced rear yard features a grassy lawn and an in-ground pool. The property line to the rear is wooded. Certificate of Appropriateness Preliminary Discussion (No action to be taken) 300 Court Square, TMP 530096100 North Downtown ADC District Owner: Eagle Tavern, LLC Applicant: Candace DeLoach, Claudine Wispelwey Project: Exterior alterations Application components (please click each link to go directly to PDF page): • Staff Report • Historic Survey • Application Submittal November 2022 BAR Packet 9 City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Staff Report November 15, 2022 Certificate of Appropriateness Application Preliminary Discussion (No action to be taken) 300 Court Square, TMP 530096100 North Downtown ADC District Owner: Eagle Tavern, LLC Applicant: Candace DeLoach, Claudine Wispelwey Project: Exterior alterations Background: Year Built: Farish House 1854; Annex (south wing) c1880. District: North Downtown ADC District Status: Contributing Prior BAR Reviews n/a Application • Attachments: o Site history and project narrative o Photos o Renderings o Historic Surveys Preliminary discussion of planned exterior rehabilitation and alterations. Applicant seeks input prior to preparing a formal submittal. Discussion This is a preliminary discussion, no BAR action is required; however, by consensus, the BAR may express an opinion about the project as presented. (For example, the BAR might express consensus support for elements of the project, such as its scale and massing.) Such comments will not 300 Court Square – Nov 15, 2022 (11/8/2022) 1 constitute a formal motion and the result will have no legal bearing, nor will it represent an incremental decision on the required CoA. There are two key objectives of a preliminary discussion: Introduce the project to the BAR; and allow the applicant and the BAR to establish what is necessary for a successful final submittal. That is, a final submittal that is complete and provides the information necessary for the BAR to evaluate the project using the ADC District Design Guidelines and related review criteria. In response to any questions from the applicant and/or for any recommendations to the applicant, the BAR should rely on the germane sections of the ADC District Design Guidelines and related review criteria. While elements of other chapters may be relevant, staff recommends that the BAR refer to the criteria in Chapter IV—Rehabilitation. (Link: Chapter 4 Rehabilitation) 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 c. Court Square: historic core, small scale, brick, row houses, gable roofs, simple designs, limited setback, 2 stories, limited plantings. Most of the buildings in Subarea C were constructed prior to 1900. Over half, including the Farish House, were built prior to 1860. 300 Court Square – Nov 15, 2022 (11/8/2022) 2 Suggested Motions No action to be taken. Criteria, Standards, and Guidelines Review Criteria Generally Sec. 34-284(b) of the City Code states that, in considering a particular application the BAR shall approve the application unless it finds: (1) That the proposal does not meet specific standards set forth within this division or applicable provisions of the Design Guidelines established by the board pursuant to Sec. 34-288(6); and (2) The proposal is incompatible with the historic, cultural or architectural character of the district in which the property is located or the protected property that is the subject of the application. Pertinent Standards for Review of Construction and Alterations include: (1) Whether the material, texture, color, height, scale, mass and placement of the proposed addition, modification or construction are visually and architecturally compatible with the site and the applicable design control district; (2) The harmony of the proposed change in terms of overall proportion and the size and placement of entrances, windows, awnings, exterior stairs and signs; (3) The Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation set forth within the Code of Federal Regulations (36 C.F.R. §67.7(b)), as may be relevant; (4) The effect of the proposed change on the historic district neighborhood; (5) The impact of the proposed change on other protected features on the property, such as gardens, landscaping, fences, walls and walks; (6) Whether the proposed method of construction, renovation or restoration could have an adverse impact on the structure or site, or adjacent buildings or structures; (7) Any applicable provisions of the City’s Design Guidelines. Pertinent ADC District Design Guidelines Chapter 4 Rehabilitation 300 Court Square – Nov 15, 2022 (11/8/2022) 3 The Zebra Carriage Hotel A Luxury Boutique Hotel 300 Court Square, Charlottesville Virginia BAR Submittal for review on November 15, 2022 COURT SQUARE HISTORY The original 300 Court Square building was a simple wooden framed building constructed around 1791 and housed The Eagle Tavern. The Eagle Tavern could seat 200 patrons. William P. Farish had already developed a stagecoach line in 1845 when he purchased the property and erected the current building in 1854. The Farish House Hotel soon thereafter became a major stagecoach stop. After the Civil War, federal occupying forces used it as a headquarters for two years. 300 Court Square has long been used as a gathering spot on court day for food and rest. Travelling peddlers sold products along the porch on monthly court days. Public dances and celebrations echoed through the large parlor halls. Operating as a hotel, also under the name, The Colonial Hotel, until the 1960’s, 300 Court Square was later converted into offices and apartments. PHOTO OF BUILDING AS IT EXIST CURRENTLY HOLSINGER’S 1915 PHOTOGRAPH Historic Court Square has long been the center of Charlottesville. The City’s courthouse has been in continuous use for over 200 years and is one of America’s most historic. No other courthouse has been used by three early American Presidents at the same time. Local elections were held here, and the County Court conducted business with the help of young attorneys and magistrates such as Thomas Jefferson and James Monroe. Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Monroe, along with James Madison later became Presidents and could at times be seen here together. ARCHITECT’S RENDERING OF BUILDING 300 Court Square – Front of building, North-Facing  Replace and relocate center windows on balconies with custom doors resembling original windows to allow guest access to balconies. Original windows will be used in other parts of the building.  Remove four smaller windows, investigations point to these windows as not original, infill with brick. Remaining windows will be centered and symmetrical.  Repair and repoint all areas of failing brick – examples of matching brick to be shown in meeting.  Whitewash brick to conceal brick and mortar variation and to blend years and years of variating mortar repairs. Please see photos of both buildings having been painted white (photos 1, 2A, 2B)  Brick is failing in many places, requesting ability to use a lime mortar sealant to stabilize the brick (photos 3-7, 9A, 9B &10).  Install operable paneled shutters to match Zero Court Square’s shutters on the North and East sides of the building (photos 11A, 11B, 12A & 12B)  Install original historic 9’ tall doors with upper true divided light panels - doors were found in the building. (photo 13)  Install original historic 9’ tall six-paneled outer doors to be propped open - doors were in building. (photo 14)  Doors, shutters, and trim to be painted “Green-Blue” No BS16D45 - by Fine Paints of Europe. Please see sample on actual building.  Paint downspouts antiqued copper color  Balcony ceilings to be painted Dolphin Cove 722 – Benjamin Moore. Please see sample on building.  Install four handmade copper gas lanterns flanking windows: French Quarter Lantern by Bevelo. (photo 15)  Install three handmade copper gas lantern pendants on the two balconies and above the front entry door. (photo 16)  Install four flush-mounted landscape lights in sidewalk to up-light plantings and illuminate pilaster detail  Install four low-watt down lights to illuminate top of pilasters  “THE ZEBRA CARRIAGE HOTEL” to be painted in black lettering on front top cornice  Signage is a vintage steel bracket and sign. (photo 17)  Install black and white canvas awning with Greek Key pattern that extends from door to street. Awning is supported by copper poles and illuminated from within  Install three flag poles for alternating flags  Remove existing exterior modern storm windows – nearly all are not functioning properly and have been compromised East Side of building – 6th Street  Install two-story columned portico to match the original one-story portico.  Portico will surround existing fire escape and continue to serve as an emergency egress. (See photo 10).  Portico railing to have zig-zag wood railing similar to “The Second Yard” on Market Street (photo 18)  Install brick handicap ramp that extends from the corner of building to the portico.  Remove door and steps to right of entry door (photo 19) and replace with historic window that matches the original window (photo 20 of original window)  Install new single 15 light wood entry door with true divide lights to replace non-functioning double doors. (photo 22)  Eagle Tavern sign to hang by this entrance  Replace solid wood doors and sidelights (originally widows) with a single true divided light door to look like windows. These doors will provide emergency egress  Install a handmade copper lantern on each level of portico. (photo 16)  A large portion of the brick wall will have to be replaced for structural reasons. (photos 3-10)  Install wood double doors with 15 true divided light doors to gift store. (photo 23 & 24)  All doors painted to be painted “green-blue” No BS 16D45 – Fine Paints of Europe  Gas lantern to be installed at gift store entry and at 100 Court Square entry (photo 15) Rear of the building – Not Visible from 6th Street  Replace mismatched, un-original windows with matching windows  A glass and wood door to match the windows will be installed in the center for emergency egress and to access the deck. (photo 24 & 25)  A two-story trellised wall will be built against the neighboring equipment building to hide the AC chiller on top. (photo 26)  A wooden deck will be built to the same level as the first-floor ballroom. (photo 26)  An arbor will be built over head to screen the huge amount of satellite dishes on the roof of the 29 building. This is a major eyesore and a big obstacle to overcome. (photos 27, 28 & 29)  A retractable glass roof will be installed just below the eves so events can occur during inclement weather.  A two-story stone chimney will be the focal point of the terrace and act to screen the satellite dishes (photo 26)  The small widow on the annex building that doesn’t match the others will be replaced with a 15 light glass door to allow for emergency egress and handicap access to the annex from the main building.  Windows on the 2nd and 3rd floors will have Bermuda Shutters to obscure the view (photo 26, 30) PHOTO SHOWING THREE OF THE ADDED WINDOWS (PHOTO 20) AND THE ORIGINAL PORTICO PHOTO 1 – HISTORIC PHOTO OF 6TH STREET SIDE OF BUILDING HAVING BEEN PAINTED WHITE PHOTO 2A & 2B – HISTORIC PHOTOS OF BUILDING EXTERIOR HAVING BEEN PAINTED WHITE PHOTO 3 – FAILING BRICK CONDITION PHOTO 4 – FAILING BRICK CONDITION PHOTO 5 – FAILING BRICK PHOTO 6 – MANY VARIATIONS OF MORTAR AND BRICKS – REPAIRS OVER THE YEARS PHOTO 7 – VARIATIONS OF MORTAR AND BRICK – POOR REPAIR WORK PHOTOS 9A & 9B – BRICK DETERIORATION ACTUAL CONDITIONS PHOTO 10 – FAILING BRICK AT STREET LEVEL, FIRE ESCAPE TO BE WRAPPED BY PORTICO PHOTO 11A - SHUTTERS ON ZERO COURT SQUARE, CHARLOTTESVILLE. DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM 300 COURT SQUARE PHOTO 11B – PANELED SHUTTERS ON ZERO COURT SQUARE PHOTO 12 A – ORIGINAL SHUTTER PINS PHOTO 12 B – ORIGINAL SHUTTER PINS PHOTO 13 – GLASS FRONT ENTRY DOORS – FOUND IN THE BUILDING PHOTO 14 - EXTERIOR FRONT DOORS TO STAY OPEN PHOTO 15 – WALL MOUNTED GAS LANTERN – “FRENCH QUARTER” BY BEVELO PHOTO 16 – HANGING GAS LANTERN – “FRENCH QUARTER” BY BEVELO PHOTO 17 – HISTORIC STEEL SIGN TO BE HUNG WEST OF FRONT ENTRY DOORS PHOTO 18 - SCISSOR RAILING TO BE USED ON PORTICO – THE SECOND YARD ON MARKET STREET PHOTO 19 – REMOVE DOOR AND STEPS TO RIGHT OF PORTICO – REPLACE WITH ORIGINAL WINDOW PHOTO 20 – ORIGINAL PORTICO AND ORIGINAL WINDOW TO NORTH OF PORTICO PHOTO 22 – NON FUNCTIONING DOUBLE DOORS TO BE REPLACED WITH 15 LIGHT DOOR TO MATCH WINDOWS PHOTO 23 - EXISTING 6TH STREET DOOR TO FUTURE GIFT STORE – TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED WITH 15-LIGHT DOUBLE DOORS SHOWN BELOW PHOTO 24 - DOORS TO BE USED FOR ENTRY TO GIFT STORE ON 6 TH STREET AND FROM BALLROOM TO TERRACE PHOTO 25 - NEW FRENCH DOORS TO BE LOCATED BETWEEN LOWER WINDOWS. DECK ADDED AT LEVEL OF THE DOORS PHOTO 27 - VIEW OF SATELLITE DISHES FROM SOUTH FACING WINDOWS PHOTO 28 - VIEW OF SATELLITE DISHES FROM COURTYARD – TERRACE ESSENTIAL TO BLOCK THESE EYESORES PHOTO 29 - VIEW OF AC CHILLER FROM “ANNEX ROOMS” PHOTO 26 – DECK WITH ARBOR AND TRELLIS TO BE BUILT TO OBSURE SATELLITE DISHES AND AC CHILLER PHOTO 30 - BERMUDA SHUTTERS ON BACK OF BUILDING – NECESSARY TO BLOCK VIEWS OF SATELLITE DISHES 300 Court Square - BAR discussion Nov 15, 2022 Proposed - NE Corner 300 Court Square - BAR discussion Nov 15, 2022 Proposed - North Elevation 300 Court Square - BAR discussion Nov 15, 2022 Proposed –East Elevation 300 Court Square - BAR discussion Nov 15, 2022 Proposed - Rear Courtyard 300 Court Square - BAR discussion Nov 15, 2022 Proposed - Rear Courtyard (interior) 300 Court Square - BAR discussion Nov 15, 2022 East Jefferson St. 1854 Farish House Enclosed Courtyard c1880 Annex Plan View 6th St. NE LANDMARK SURVEY IDENTIFICATION BASE DATA Street Address: 500 East Jefferson Street Historic Name: The Farish House ~lap and Parcel: 53-96.1 Date/Period: 1854 Census Track & Block: 1-112 Style: Greek Revival Present Owner: Joseph T. Norris Height to Cornice: Address: Box 591, City Height in Stories: 3 Pres en t Use : Offices and Hotel Annes Present Zoning: B- 3 > Original Owner: George L. Peyton Land Area (sq.ft.): 72 x 116 Original Use: Hotel Assessed Value (land + imp.): 20,380 + 21,270 41,650 ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION The Farish House is an example of the Greek Revival style of architecture w h i.ch characterized buildings of the 1850's. The structure is three stories high with a recessed pavilion providing a sheltered entrance. The pilasters are used to define and elaborate these changes in the wall plain. The capitals of the pilasters are formed out of molded brick, a refine- ment not Seen at the Levy Opera House or the Abell-Gleason House. Typically, the windows are treated with paneled spandrels. The walls are constructed of American bond (i.e. all streachers) brickwork, one of the first examples found in the city. HISTORICAL DESCRIPTION The site upon which the Farish House stands has always been used for public entertainment. Benjamin Brown and David Ross bought the lot from Thomas Walker and built the Eagle Tavern on this site prior to 1791. It was a typical eighteenth century tavern with a wide front veranda and four chimneys. The fate of the tavern is not known, but the existing structure is stylistically datable from the mid 1850's. When the Hotel was sold to William Farish in 1863, it was already known as the Farish House. Subsequently it has been known as the Hotel Colonial until 1925. Deed references: ACDB 47-206, 62-494, 63-489, City DB 1-309, 7-67, 11-350, 13-249, 13-331 (See Monticello Hotel for post 1924 deed references) CONDITIONS SOURCES City/County Records Average Alexander, Recollections, p.27. Illustrated Edition, Daily Progress. 1906. LANDMARK CO.MMISSION-DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ~[; Certificate of Appropriateness Preliminary Discussion (No action to be taken) 204 Hartmans Mill Road, TMP 260038000 Individually Protected Property Owner: Jocelyn Johnson and William Hunt Applicant: Dan Zimmerman / Alloy Workshop Project: Addition and exterior alterations Application components (please click each link to go directly to PDF page): • Staff Report • Historic Survey • Application Submittal November 2022 BAR Packet 10 City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Staff Report November 15, 2022 Certificate of Appropriateness Preliminary Discussion (No action to be taken) 204 Hartmans Mill Road, TMP 260038000 Individually Protected Property Owner: Jocelyn Johnson and William Hunt Applicant: Dan Zimmerman / Alloy Workshop Project: Addition and exterior alterations Background Year Built: House: c1873, with ongoing additions through 1920. District: Individually Protected Property George T. Nimmo House. Family tradition holds that the original house--believed to be the northeast corner--was built in 1870, with later additions occurring over an extended period. Nimmo acquired the property in 1873 and tax records indicate three periods of building activity--1873-1874, 1880-1885, and 1915-1920. The original house likely dates to 1873. The periods of construction coincide with Census data showing the growth of the Nimmo household. (Historic Survey and Census data attached.) Prior BAR Actions September 15, 2020 – BAR discussed proposed demolition of the cottage. In lieu of requiring an engineer’s evaluation, on September 22 four members of the BAR visited the site. October 20, 2020 – BAR approved CoA for demolition of the cottage. (As a condition of approval, the applicant provided staff with photos and documentation.) http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/798350/2020-10_204%20Hartmans%20Mill%20Road_BAR.pdf Application • Applicant’s submittal: Alloy Workshop drawings Johnson Hunt Renovations, dated November 8, 2022: Sheets A0.0, A1.1, A1.2, and A1.3. Preliminary discussion. No action to be taken. Proposed alterations to the single-story, framed house include two additions (enclosing a patio and deck), construction of two fireplaces, new windows and doors (in some locations), a screened porch, and an extension of the rear deck. 204 Hartman’s Mill Road Nov 15, 2022 (11/9/2022) 1 Discussion and Recommendations Regarding the proposed addition: During a preliminary discussion the BAR may, by consensus, express an opinion about the project as presented. (For example, the BAR might express consensus support for elements of the project, such as its scale and massing.) Such comments will not constitute a formal motion and the result will have no legal bearing, nor will it represent an incremental decision on the required CoA. 204 Hartman’s Mill Road Nov 15, 2022 (11/9/2022) 2 There are two key objectives of a preliminary discussion: Introduce the project to the BAR; and allow the applicant and the BAR to establish what is necessary for a successful final submittal. That is, a final submittal that is complete and provides the information necessary for the BAR to evaluate the project using the ADC District Design Guidelines and related review criteria. [Note: The ADC District guidelines are applied to IPP projects.] 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 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 IV— Rehabilitation. 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. 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. 204 Hartman’s Mill Road Nov 15, 2022 (11/9/2022) 3 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 II – Site Design and Elements Link: Chapter 2 Site Design and Elements B. Plantings C. Walls and Fences D. Lighting E. Walkways and Driveways F. Parking Areas and Lots G. Garages, Sheds, and Other Structures H. Utilities and Other Site Appurtenances Chapter III – New Construction and Additions Link: Chapter 3 New Construction and Additions Checklist from section P. Additions 1) Function and Size a. Attempt to accommodate needed functions within the existing structure without building an addition. b. Limit the size of the addition so that it does not visually overpower the existing building. 2) Location a. Attempt to locate the addition on rear or side elevations that are not visible from the street. b. If additional floors are constructed on top of a building, set the addition back from the main façade so that its visual impact is minimized. 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. 204 Hartman’s Mill Road Nov 15, 2022 (11/9/2022) 4 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 4 – Rehabilitation Link: Chapter 4 Rehabilitation D. Entrances, Porches, and Doors 1) The original details and shape of porches should be retained including the outline, roof height, and roof pitch. 2) Inspect masonry, wood, and metal or porches and entrances for signs of rust, peeling paint, wood deterioration, open joints around frames, deteriorating putty, inadequate caulking, and improper drainage, and correct any of these conditions. 3) Repair damaged elements, matching the detail of the existing original fabric. 4) Replace an entire porch only if it is too deteriorated to repair or is completely missing, and design to match the original as closely as possible. 5) Do not strip entrances and porches of historic material and details. 6) Give more importance to front or side porches than to utilitarian back porches. 7) Do not remove or radically change entrances and porches important in defining the building’s overall historic character. 8) Avoid adding decorative elements incompatible with the existing structure. 9) In general, avoid adding a new entrance to the primary facade, or facades visible from the street. 10) Do not enclose porches on primary elevations and avoid enclosing porches on secondary elevations in a manner that radically changes the historic appearance. 11) Provide needed barrier-free access in ways that least alter the features of the building. a. For residential buildings, try to use ramps that are removable or portable rather than permanent. b. On nonresidential buildings, comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act while minimizing the visual impact of ramps that affect the appearance of a building. 12) The original size and shape of door openings should be maintained. 13) Original door openings should not be filled in. 14) When possible, reuse hardware and locks that are original or important to the historical evolution of the building. 15) Avoid substituting the original doors with stock size doors that do not fit the opening properly or are not compatible with the style of the building. 16) Retain transom windows and sidelights. 204 Hartman’s Mill Road Nov 15, 2022 (11/9/2022) 5 17) When installing storm or screen doors, ensure that they relate to the character of the existing door. a. They should be a simple design where lock rails and stiles are similar in placement and size. b. Avoid using aluminum colored storm doors. c. If the existing storm door is aluminum, consider painting it to match the existing door. d. Use a zinc chromate primer before painting to ensure adhesion. 204 Hartman’s Mill Road Nov 15, 2022 (11/9/2022) 6 204 Hartman's Mill Rd Vicinity Map View 1 2 Not to Scale Not to Scale 204 Hartman's Mill Road| Charlottesville, VA, 22903 PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET INDEX ISSUE: Schematic Design I Parcel ID: 260038000 A0.0 - Cover Page Zoning: R-1SH A1.1 - Site Plan County: Charlottesville City A1.2 - Existing First Floor Plan Year Built: 1825 A1.3 - Proposed First Floor Plan Johnson Hunt Renovation Neighborhood: Ridge Street Construction Type: V Cover Page Existing SF: 1625 Proposed Addition SF: Proposed Renovated SF: DATE: November 8, 2022 Front Setback: 25'* Rear Setback: 25' Side Setback: 5' A0.0 GIS 3 Not to Scale 1 25 '0 " Site Plan Scale: 1" = 60' Property Line 5' 0" Building Setback Line 25 '0 " N True North N North Project A1.1 Site Plan Johnson Hunt Renovation 204 Hartman's Mill Road| Charlottesville, VA, 22903 DATE: November 8, 2022 ISSUE: Schematic Design I 1 KITCHEN 1st Floor Plan PATIO DECK Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0" DN OFFICE COMMON BEDROOM DECK DN BATH BATH HALL DN ROOM LIVING ROOM DINING DN PORCH BEDROOM N True North N North Project A1.2 Existing First Floor Plan Johnson Hunt Renovation 204 Hartman's Mill Road| Charlottesville, VA, 22903 DATE: November 8, 2022 ISSUE: Schematic Design I FLOOR PLAN LEGEND: New Addition DN COVERED STORAGE CL LIVING ROOM 14.5' x 14.5' BEDROOM PORCH BATH 10' x 13' STORAGE CL 5' x 8' 6' x 6.5' BENCH CL CL CL CL P R HALL WIC 6.25' x 13' KITCHEN 1/2 13' x 16' CL DN DINING BATH 10.5' x 15' D DN PRIMARY BEDROOM 14' x 17' W LAUNDRY 204 Hartman's Mill Road| Charlottesville, VA, 22903 7' x 12' OUTDOOR BENCH OFFICE STORAGE 9' x 10' PRIMARY BATH ISSUE: Schematic Design I 8' x 15.5' DECK Proposed First Floor Plan SCREENED PORCH Johnson Hunt Renovation DATE: November 8, 2022 N N Proposed First Floor Plan 1 A1.3 1/8” = 1’ 0” True Project North North Porch Close-ups Connection to Addition 204 HARTMAN'S MILL RD North Elevation Views 11.9.22 204 HARTMAN'S MILL RD East Elevation Views 11.9.22 204 HARTMAN'S MILL RD South Elevation Views 11.9.22 DI: Other Business Mall Trees: TO: Riaan Anthony, Deputy Director -Charlottesville Parks and Recreation FROM: Steve Gaines, Urban Forester - Charlottesville Parks and Recreation DATE: June 27, 2022 SUBJECT: Hazard Trees - Charlottesville Downtown Mall The Department of Parks and Recreation is responsible for the maintenance of Charlottesville's Downtown Mall. The health issues with canopy trees along the pedestrian corridor continue to be a concern. As the trees along the corridor are approximately 45 years old (trees were planted in 1976) symptoms and signs of significant decline are apparent. This memo outlines reasoning for mitigating potential hazards and failures of canopy trees in the near-term, as well as plans for moving forward with proposals (RFPs) for long-term mitigation strategies. The Downtown Mall complex includes 73 trees in total. Species composition includes Willow Oak, Shumard Oak, Gingko, Red Maple, and Norway Maple; with Willow Oak being the most common tree in the mall median. There are seven trees (five Willow Oaks, one Ailanthus, and three Red Maples) that should be removed within the next three months. These trees show signs of significant decay and could structurally fail, giving rise to pedestrian hazard. Visual symptoms of decline seen in these trees include obvious loss of vigorous growth, yellowing leaves, and dead branches. Detailed signs of causal agents contributing to decline of these trees include visual appearance of fruiting bodies (mushrooms/basidiocarps), and obvious evidence of insect activity (see attached figures). Additionally, in accordance with Charlottesville's Invasive Vegetation Management Plan, a mature Tree of Heaven (Ailanthus) is recommended for removal. The Downtown Mall canopy trees are an enormous asset to the city of Charlottesville. Due to the high level of stress that the trees are growing in, species composition and relative age of the canopy trees are a concern. These urban trees undergo environmental stresses such as severe restrictions for root development, increasingly high temperatures (heat from overhead sunlight as well as heat reflection from hard surface pavement), air pollution, drought/excess water extremes, insects, and fungal/bacterial pathogens. In general, stressed trees are more vulnerable to attacks from pathogens and/or insect infections. The fact that most of the trees are of one common species (Willow Oak) and are roughly the same age (approximately 45 - 50 years old), conditions are favorable for some sort of infection/infestation. The best method to combat potential infection is to encourage diversity of species composition and structure (size and age class), and to manage any known health defects before infection/infestation can spread. Removal of severely compromised trees are suggested by the Charlottesville Urban Forester. Similar suggestions have been echoed by specialists that recently observed the trees in question. Recent specialists include tree health experts from Big O Tree and Lawn Service, Bartlett Tree Experts, Virginia Cooperative Extension, and private consultation from Tree Matrix LLC. Any mitigation activity should be well communicated and should include several information sessions for the public. As any tree work in the mall will be closely observed, taking the opportunity to educate the public on tree health and pedestrian safety is paramount. Parks and Recreation staff will be available for workshops or public information sessions as deemed necessary. The process of tree removal will be planned and executed in a manner that causes the least disruption possible to pedestrian and business activity. Any trees scheduled for removal will be removed as quickly as possible to minimize disturbance to pedestrian traffic and businesses. Subject here November 9, 2022 Page: 2 It is important to note that a failure to act can and will lead to eventual tree failure, and potential hazard to pedestrian safety, as well as destruction of public and/or private property. The issue of transitioning the tree canopy to a more sustainable species composition and age class has been a consideration for several years. Charlottesville has been fortunate in that the trees occupying the downtown mall have been as healthy as they have been for the last 45 years. As stated earlier, stressed trees invite a myriad of biotic agents (pathogens/insects) that could have severe effects on tree health. As the trees are roughly the same age and same species, an organism could easily spread throughout the population and devastate the urban canopy. In December of 2015, the city of Charlottesville hired consultants to report on the conditions of each street tree occupying the mall. All findings and recommendations were presented in a final report to the city and has been available on the city's Urban Forestry website through Parks and Recreation. The 2015 report details health status of each of the mall's 73 trees and warns of potential health concerns often encountered with monocultures. Of particular concern for the authors were the level of vulnerability of urban trees after prolonged periods of stress. The authors (James Urban, FASLA and Keith Pritchard, ISA) stressed a need to address the lack of species diversity along the pedestrian corridor. Methods for addressing the issue, as suggested by the authors, may include the following: - Removing individual trees as they decline and become hazardous (with replacement plantings as vacancies become available) - Removing single blocks of trees at a time (and replacing all the trees within that block) -Removing select islands of trees at a time (and replanting all the trees within the island) -Combinations of suggestions as scenarios present themselves In June of 2021, The Department of Parks and Recreation developed a draft Request for Proposals (RFP) for Charlottesville's Downtown Pedestrian Mall. The RFP will be finalized as soon as possible. The RFP will solicit consultants to formulate guidelines for the long-term management of the mall as a constructed and planted landscape of historical and cultural significance, with considerable attention to trees as an essential element of the design. Parks and Recreation anticipate a high level of public criticism throughout this process. Potential mitigation strategies may include a high degree of public involvement, public education/engagement throughout, and a creative use of generated wood products. Tree 1 Figure 1: Large Diameter Willow Oak 24-26 inches in diameter. Significant wound starting approximately 5 feet up on tree bole. Obvious internal decay with carpenter ant activity. Location: Dining area – Petit Pois Figure 1: Large Diameter Willow Oak 24-26 inches in diameter. Significant wound starting approximately 5 feet up on tree bole. Obvious internal decay with carpenter ant activity. Location: Dining area – Petit Pois Tree 2 Figure 2: Red Maple, approximately 12 inches in diameter. Two significant wounds on tree bole (Approximately 4 feet high and 7 feet high respectively). Obvious internal decay at crotch, with additional infection evident in wilting leaves (probably Verticillium Wilt – unconfirmed currently). Location: Adjacent to Dining area – Petit Pois Figure 2: Red Maple, approximately 12 inches in diameter. Two significant wounds on tree bole (Approximately 4 feet high and 7 feet high respectively). Obvious internal decay at crotch, with additional infection evident in wilting leaves (probably Verticillium Wilt – unconfirmed currently). Location: Adjacent to Dining area – Petit Pois Tree 3 Figure 3: Willow Oak, approximately 22 inches in diameter. Obvious wound 5 feet high on tree bole, carpenter ant activity present. This wound is also flared and misshapen across the backside of the bole, further indicating instability. Location: Adjacent to 106 East Main Street Figure 3: Willow Oak, approximately 22 inches in diameter. Obvious wound 5 feet high on tree bole, carpenter ant activity present. This wound is also flared and misshapen across the backside of the bole, further indicating instability. Location: Adjacent to 106 East Main Street Tree 4 Figure 4: Willow Oak tree, approximately 12-14 inches in diameter. Tree displaying a few dead limbs in the upper canopy as well as large fruiting body on the stump (common indicator of severe internal decay). This tree has been heavily pruned over the years and is showing loss of vigor. Location: Across from Rockfish Brewing Company. Figure 4: Willow Oak tree, approximately 12-14 inches in diameter. Tree displaying a few dead limbs in the upper canopy as well as large fruiting body on the stump (common indicator of severe internal decay). This tree has been heavily pruned over the years and is showing loss of vigor. Location: Across from Rockfish Brewing Company. Tree 5 Figure 5: Ailanthus tree, approximately 10-12 inches in diameter. This tree is considered extremely invasive and is listed in Charlottesville’s Invasive Plant Management guidelines. Location: growing behind the Whiskey Jar restaurant. Figure 5: Ailanthus tree, approximately 10-12 inches in diameter. This tree is considered extremely invasive and is listed in Charlottesville’s Invasive Plant Management guidelines. Location: growing behind the Whiskey Jar restaurant. Tree 6 Figure 6: Willow Oak tree, approximately 14-16 inches in diameter. Tree has several dead limbs in the upper canopy and has been intensively pruned in the past. Tree displays fungal fruiting bodies toward the top branches, as well as bacterial weeping, both indicating internal decay. Location: Across from Wells Fargo Bank. Figure 6: Willow Oak tree, approximately 14-16 inches in diameter. Tree has several dead limbs in the upper canopy and has been intensively pruned in the past. Tree displays fungal fruiting bodies toward the top branches, as well as bacterial weeping, both indicating internal decay. Location: Across from Wells Fargo Bank. Tree 7 Figure 7: Willow Oak tree, approximately 16-18” in diameter. Standing tree has declining/dead branches toward the top of the tree in addition to swollen areas on tree bole (indication of internal decay). Location: Across from Parks and Recreation building entrance. Figure 7: Willow Oak tree, approximately 16-18” in diameter. Standing tree has declining/dead branches toward the top of the tree in addition to swollen areas on tree bole (indication of internal decay). Location: Across from Parks and Recreation building entrance. Trees 8 – 9 Trees 8-9 – Both trees are red maples and are completely dead. Suggest removing dead trees and replacing with live trees that will provide quality shade for pedestrians. Trees are located directly across from the fountain. Tree 10 Tree 10: Red maple tree infected with Verticillium Wilt (probably the same pathogen that killed trees 8- 9). Tree will not recover, suggest removing tree and replacing with appropriate species that will thrive and provide shade for pedestrians. Tree location: Adjacent to fountain on downtown mall. Tree 11 Tree 11: Red maple tree displaying two significant wound sites as well as significant decay. The structural integrity of the tree is compromised and should be removed. Suggest replacing tree with a more appropriate species that will contribute to shade services and pedestrian safety. Tree location: Adjacent to fountain on downtown mall. Mall Trees – For discussion only. Nov 15 202 (BAR staff) 1 of 1 W. 2nd Downtown Mall E. 2nd 1st E. 4th E. 5th E. 3rd