Packet Guide City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Regular Meeting December 20, 2022, 5:30 p.m. Hybrid Meeting (In-person at CitySpace and virtual via Zoom) Pre-Meeting Discussion Regular Meeting A. Matters from the public not on the agenda [or on the Consent Agenda] B. Consent Agenda 1. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR # 22-12-02 116 West Jefferson Street, Tax Parcel 330183000 North Downtown ADC District Owner: Jefferson Street Properties, LLC Applicant: Kristin Cory Project: Porch reconstruction, alterations to rear addition 2. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR # 22-12-03 1513-1515 University Avenue, TMP 090080000 The Corner ADC District Owner: Lloyd’s Building, LLC Applicant: James Zehmer/University of Virginia Project: Replace built-in gutters w/hanging gutters, install new asphalt shingles. C. Deferred Items 3. 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 Project: New residence on vacant lot 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 December 2022 BAR Packet 1 D. New Items 5. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR # 22-12-01 300 Court Square, TMP 530096100 North Downtown ADC District Owner: Eagle Tavern, LLC Applicant: Candace DeLoach Project: Exterior alterations E. Other Business 6. Staff questions/discussion  DT Mall NRHP update  BAR rep to DT Mall Committee F. Adjourn December 2022 BAR Packet 2 Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR # 22-12-02 116 West Jefferson Street, Tax Parcel 330183000 North Downtown ADC District Owner: Jefferson Street Properties, LLC Applicant: Kristin Cory Project: Porch reconstruction, alterations to rear addition Application components (please click each link to go directly to PDF page): • Staff Report • Historic Survey • Application Submittal December 2022 BAR Packet 3 City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Staff Report December 20, 2022 Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 22-12-02 116 West Jefferson Street, TMP 330183000 North Downtown ADC District Owner: Jefferson Street Properties, LLC Applicant: Gordon Johnson, Peter Johnson Builders Project: Front porch reconstruction, alterations at rear elevation Background Year Built: 1913 (the rear structure is contemporary) District: North Downtown ADC District Status: Contributing The Revercomb House follows the Colonial Revival style. The front porch was removed in 1974. Prior BAR Reviews January 2011 – BAR approved CoA for fencing under the rear porch and breezeway. January 20, 2021 – BAR deferred the request. Applicant unable to attend the meeting. February 17, 2021 – BAR approved CoA with conditions. (BAR # 21-01-06) Reconstruction of the north porch and misc. alterations to the contemporary rear addition. Application • Applicant Submittal: Elevations and Plans for 116 West Jefferson Street, dated 12/08/2022 (two sheets). • BAR staff notes summarizing proposed changes vs work approved in February 2021. (For general reference only; not in lieu of the submittal drawings.) • Photographs from the January 2021 report. (Additional photos in staff report.) Request for a CoA for reconstruction of the front porch, construction of painted wood stair at the connector (rear hyphen), installation of new door at the connector, and minor alterations to contemporary rear addition. Note: CoA for reconstruction of the front porch approved (7-0) in February 2021 has expired. That component of this request is unchanged from the prior submittal and approval. Staff report and submittal: http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/798377/2021-02_116%20W%20Jefferson%20Street_BAR.pdf 116 West Jefferson St - December 20, 2022 (12/8/2022) 1 Discussion Front Porch Reconstruction To the extent possible, the reconstruction will rely on the information available in the photographs, the matching components that remain on the house, and nearby porches of a similar period. The existing brick porch, metal rail and light fixture above the entrance will be removed. • Dimensions: Photos and the shadow lines on the brick provide the width and height. The proposed reconstruction generally conforms to the original dimensions. • Columns: (Similar to the columns at 406 Altamont Circle.) * o Capital: Photos indicate Angular (Scamozzi) Ionic. o Shaft: Smooth. Round columns at the front. Square, engaged columns at the walls. o Base: Appropriate for Ionic column. • Trim/Cornice: Match existing profiles and dimensions of the existing cornice. * • Railing (top rail, bottom rail, and pickets): Detail cannot be determined from the photos and the railing at the rear porch are not original. Recommend that new will match or be similar to the Colonial Revival style railing at 406 Altamont Circle. Painted. Color: TBD. * (Note: The new rail will be at height that conforms to the current building code requirements.) • Roof: Original roof was standing-seam metal. New roof to be standing-seam metal. • Gutters and Downspouts: Original porch had built-in gutters; new gutter type not specified. In lieu of the built-in gutter, if not replicated, staff suggests a detail similar to that approved for 201 East High Street. * • Flooring and steps: 1 x 4 or 1 x 6 wood flooring. Height of the floor will be similar to that of the existing brick porch. Painted. Color: TBD. * • Apron trim at porch deck and step risers: 1 x wood and a profiled trim beneath the overhang of the flooring and treads. Apron face to align with the plinth of the column base. Painted. Color: TBD. * • Ceiling: Beaded-board with simple cove or crown at entablature, similar to existing celling at rear, upper porch. Porch ceiling will be above—and encroach onto--the brick arches above the entry and two windows. Painted. Color: TBD. * • Porch framing and piers: Wood frame on brick piers. BAR should clarify locations and details for brick piers. Staff recommends square piers of red brick (similar to the house); located beneath and aligned with each front column. * • Lighting: No fixture(s) indicated. BAR should apply the following condition: For any exterior light fixture, the lamping will have a Color Temperature not to exceed 3,000K, preferably dimmable, and will comply with the City’s “Dark Sky” ordinance. Applicant will provide to staff cut sheets for the BAR archive. Note: Except for the cornice detail, in the event of an unknown detail, applicant shall look to existing conditions on houses of a similar period, such as 406 Altamont Circle. 116 West Jefferson St - December 20, 2022 (12/8/2022) 2 * - Indicates references in the Appendix. Rear – Building Connection (hyohen) Construct painted wood stairs and install new door at west elevation. Railing detail to match rear porch. Rear – Contemporary Structure • South Elevation: Remove two windows, existing door, and canopy. Install two larger windows. • North Elevation: Remove window and wall section. Install double doors and window. • West Elevation: Remove one window. Install new door in opening. Staff Recommendation Front Porch Reconstruction: Staff recommends approval with the same conditions and clarifications from the February 2021 CoA. • Front porch will have a standing-seam roof and gutter detail similar to that in the staff report. • Approval references the narrative, clarifications and photographs included as supplemental in the staff report • Applicant will submit for staff review the proposed column capital • Applicant will provide for staff review details on the porch railing and pickets and any proposed exterior light fixtures New stairs and door at connector and alterations to contemporary addition: Typically, the installation of new windows and doors requires a high level of scrutiny and review. Given the age of this structure and the builder-grade quality of its materials, staff does not believe additional specificity is necessary for the new doors and windows. Staff recommends approval with the following condition of approval (also from the February 2021 CoA): • Applicant will provide for staff review cutsheets for alterations to the windows and doors at the rear contemporary addition, with the understanding that the windows will not be vinyl, but may be wood, aluminum-clad wood, or fiberglass composite. New French door at rear porch (1st floor) and new six-panel door at the east elevation (basement) of 1913 house: Staff recommends approval with the following condition of approval: • On the 1913 house, the two new doors (frame and trim) will not alter the height, arch, or width of the existing masonry opening. Necessary brick repairs will be toothed-in, not saw cut, and use an appropriate mortar mix (lime vs Portland cement). The historic windows removed will be retained on the site and properly stored to allow later re-installation, if/when that occurs. Suggested Motion Approval: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed front porch reconstruction and exterior alterations at 116 West Jefferson Street satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are compatible with this property and other properties in the North Downtown ADC District, and that the BAR approves [the application as submitted with the following conditions: • Front porch will have a standing-seam roof and gutter detail similar to that in the staff report • Approval references the narrative, clarifications and photographs included as supplemental in the staff report • Applicant will submit for staff review the proposed column capital 116 West Jefferson St - December 20, 2022 (12/8/2022) 3 • Applicant will provide for staff review details on the porch railing and pickets and any proposed exterior light fixtures • Applicant will provide for staff review cutsheets for alterations to the windows and doors at the rear contemporary addition, with the understanding that the windows will not be vinyl, but may be wood, aluminum-clad wood, or fiberglass composite. • On the 1913 house, the two new doors (frame and trim) will not alter the height, arch, or width of the existing masonry opening. Necessary brick repairs will be toothed-in, not saw cut, and use an appropriate mortar mix (lime vs Portland cement). The historic windows removed will be retained on the site and properly stored to allow later re-installation, if/when that occurs. Criteria, Standards, and Guidelines Review Criteria Generally Sec. 34-284(b) of the City Code states that, in considering a particular application the BAR shall approve the application unless it finds: (1) That the proposal does not meet specific standards set forth within this division or applicable provisions of the Design Guidelines established by the board pursuant to Sec.34-288(6); and (2) The proposal is incompatible with the historic, cultural or architectural character of the district in which the property is located or the protected property that is the subject of the application. Pertinent Standards for Review of Construction and Alterations include: (1) Whether the material, texture, color, height, scale, mass and placement of the proposed addition, modification or construction are visually and architecturally compatible with the site and the applicable design control district; (2) The harmony of the proposed change in terms of overall proportion and the size and placement of entrances, windows, awnings, exterior stairs and signs; (3) The Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation set forth within the Code of Federal Regulations (36 C.F.R. §67.7(b)), as may be relevant; (4) The effect of the proposed change on the historic district neighborhood; (5) The impact of the proposed change on other protected features on the property, such as gardens, landscaping, fences, walls and walks; (6) Whether the proposed method of construction, renovation or restoration could have an adverse impact on the structure or site, or adjacent buildings or structures; (7) Any applicable provisions of the City’s Design Guidelines. Pertinent guidelines from the Secretary Of The Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties - Reconstruction • Recommended: Recreating the documented design of exterior features, such as the roof form and its coverings, architectural detailing, windows, entrances and porches, steps and doors, and their historic spatial relationships and proportions. • Not Recommended: Omitting a documented exterior feature, or rebuilding a feature but altering its historic design. Using inappropriate designs or materials that do not convey the historic appearance. Pertinent ADC District Design Guidelines Rehabilitations: C. Windows 1) Prior to any repair or replacement of windows, a survey of existing window conditions is recommended. Note number of windows, whether each window is original or replaced, the material, type, hardware and finish, the condition of the frame, sash, sill, putty, and panes. 2) Retain original windows when possible. 116 West Jefferson St - December 20, 2022 (12/8/2022) 4 3) Uncover and repair covered up windows and reinstall windows where they have been blocked in. 4) If the window is no longer needed, the glass should be retained and the back side frosted, screened, or shuttered so that it appears from the outside to be in use. 5) Repair original windows by patching, splicing, consolidating or otherwise reinforcing. Wood that appears to be in bad condition because of peeling paint or separated joints often can be repaired. 6) Replace historic components of a window that are beyond repair with matching components. 7) Replace entire windows only when they are missing or beyond repair. 8) If a window on the primary façade of a building must be replaced and an existing window of the same style, material, and size is identified on a secondary elevation, place the historic window in the window opening on the primary façade. 9) Reconstruction should be based on physical evidence or old photographs. 10) Avoid changing the number, location, size, or glazing pattern of windows by cutting new openings, blocking in windows, or installing replacement sash that does not fit the window opening. 11) Do not use inappropriate materials or finishes that radically change the sash, depth of reveal, muntin configuration, reflective quality or color of the glazing, or appearance of the frame. 12) Use replacement windows with true divided lights or interior and exterior fixed muntins with internal spacers to replace historic or original examples. 13) If windows warrant replacement, appropriate material for new windows depends upon the context of the building within a historic district, and the age and design of the building. Sustainable materials such as wood, aluminum-clad wood, solid fiberglass, and metal windows are preferred. Vinyl windows are discouraged. 14) False muntins and internal removable grilles do not present an historic appearance and should not be used. 15) Do not use tinted or mirrored glass on major facades of the building. Translucent or low (e) glass may be strategies to keep heat gain down. 16) Storm windows should match the size and shape of the existing windows and the original sash configuration. Special shapes, such as arched top storms, are available. 17) Storm windows should not damage or obscure the windows and frames. 18) Avoid aluminum-colored storm sash. It can be painted an appropriate color if it is first primed with a zinc chromate primer. 19) The addition of shutters may be appropriate if not previously installed but if compatible with the style of the building or neighborhood. 20) In general, shutters should be wood (rather than metal or vinyl) and should be mounted on hinges. In some circumstances, appropriately dimensioned, painted, composite material shutters may be used. 21) The size of the shutters should result in their covering the window opening when closed. 22) Avoid shutters on composite or bay windows. 23) If using awnings, ensure that they align with the opening being covered. 24) Use awning colors that are compatible with the colors of the building. 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. 116 West Jefferson St - December 20, 2022 (12/8/2022) 5 7) Do not remove or radically change entrances and porches important in defining the building’s overall historic character. 8) Avoid adding decorative elements incompatible with the existing structure. 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. 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. 116 West Jefferson St - December 20, 2022 (12/8/2022) 6 APPENDIX 116 west Jefferson – original porch Existing cornice at 116 West Jefferson Street. New porch cornice to match. 116 West Jefferson St - December 20, 2022 (12/8/2022) 7 116 West Jefferson Street (Existing) Original porch at 116 West Jefferson Street 116 West Jefferson St - December 20, 2022 (12/8/2022) 8 Illustrative porch detail for 116 West Jefferson Street: Dimensions and proportions should match or be similar to 406 Altamont Circle and/or appropriate to the period. The BAR should discuss specific dimensions, if necessary. 116 West Jefferson Street (existing) – note ceiling board and trim 116 West Jefferson St - December 20, 2022 (12/8/2022) 9 Original porch at 116 West Jefferson Street. 116 West Jefferson St - December 20, 2022 (12/8/2022) 10 Column capitol 406 Altamont Circle 406 Altamont Circle – note ceiling board and trim 116 West Jefferson St - December 20, 2022 (12/8/2022) 11 Detail from porch reconstruction at 201 East High Street. [Reference is to gutter condition only.] New French door at rear porch to be similar to existing door at 111 Altamont Circle: 116 West Jefferson St - December 20, 2022 (12/8/2022) 12 STANDING SEAM METAL ROOFING 1'-0" 1'-0" STANDING SEAM METAL ROOFING 1'-0" 82" 32" 1'-0" 82" 32" 1 1 1 1 PORCH CORNICE PORCH CORNICE TO MATCH EXISTING TO MATCH EXISTING PAINTED WOOD PAINTED WOOD EXISTING ADDITION ROUND COLUMNS ROUND COLUMNS TO HISTORIC STRUCTURE PAINTED WOOD PAINTED WOOD 9'-2" 9'-2" RAILING RAILING NEW WOOD PORCH NEW WOOD PORCH APRON, PAINTED APRON, PAINTED 3'-6" 3'-6" NEW PAINTED WOOD STAIR, GUARDRAIL TO MATCH EXISTING PORCH EXTERIOR ELEVATION - WEST PORCH ELEVATION 12/02/2022 EXTERIOR ELEVATION - NORTH ELEVATION 12/02/2022 RELOCATE EXISTING WINDOW, 116 WEST JEFFERSON STREET SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 116 WEST JEFFERSON STREET SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" INFILL SIDING TO MATCH EXISTING EXTERIOR ELEVATION - SOUTH 12/02/2022 116 WEST JEFFERSON STREET SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" NEW PAINTED WOOD REMOVE EXISTING NEW DOOR, PAINTED WITH HALL STAIR, GUARDRAIL TO WINDOW, INFILL WITH SIDING 2/5 GLASS PANES IN EXISTING WINDOW LOCATION EXISTING PORCH EXISTING ADDITION MATCH EXISTING PORCH TO MATCH EXISTING TO HISTORIC RESIDENCE NEW PAINTED WOOD STAIR 10'-1" 3'-5" 11 TREADS AT 11" EA RELOCATE EXISTING DOOR TO EXISTING WINDOW LOCATION. 3'-6" DN FILL IN EXISTING DOOR LOCATION WITH SIDING TO MATCH EXISTING 1'-6" EXTERIOR ELEVATION - NORTH FACADE OF ADDITION AT NEW STAIR 12/02/2022 PLAN AT NEW EXTERIOR STAIR 12/02/2022 116 WEST JEFFERSON STREET SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 116 WEST JEFFERSON STREET SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" EXISTING ADDITION TO HISTORIC STRUCTURE RELOCATE EXISTING DOOR INTO EXISTING WINDOW LOCATION, FILL IN SIDING TO MATCH AT THIS LOCATION REMOVE EXISTING WINDOW REMOVE EXISTING NEW DOOR AND TRANSOM STAIRS AND RAILING IN EXISTING WINDOW LOCATION NEW PAINTED WOOD STAIR, GUARDRAIL TO MATCH EXISTING PORCH NEW CASEMENT WINDOW TO MATCH EXISTING WINDOW ABOVE EXTERIOR ELEVATION - WEST 12/08/2022 EXTERIOR ELEVATION - SOUTH AT BALCONY 12/08/2022 116 WEST JEFFERSON STREET SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 116 WEST JEFFERSON STREET SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 116 West Jefferson 1 of 5 BAR staff notes intended only to illustrate changes from Feb 2021 to December 2022 submittal. North Elevation Reconstruction of front porch No changes 116 West Jefferson 2 of 5 BAR staff notes intended only to illustrate changes from Feb 2021 to December 2022 submittal. West Elevation Reconstruction of front porch Reconstruction of front Relocate door. porch (per February 2021 CoA). Add window Add door Remove connector Dec 2022 Add stairs Feb 2021 116 West Jefferson 3 of 5 BAR staff notes intended only to illustrate changes from Feb 2021 to December 2022 submittal. South Elevation—Contemporary Addition Move window down. Repair wall to match. (New stairs at Install larger connector) windows Feb 2021 Remove door and canopy Dec 2022 116 West Jefferson BAR staff notes intended only to illustrate changes from Feb 2021 to December 2022 submittal. 4 of 5 Connector Remove window. Remove connector. Repair siding to match Install new windows Connector remains New door and window Add stairs Feb 2021 Dec 2022 Connector remains Install door. Remove connector. 116 West Jefferson BAR staff notes intended only to illustrate changes from Feb 2021 to December 2022 submittal. 5 of 5 East Elevation Adjacent window. Similar Connector remains Remove connector. Install door. Feb 2021 Dec 2022 116 West Jefferson Street (BAR staff photo, Jan. 2021) 1 of 8 North Elevation—from W. Jefferson 116 West Jefferson Street (BAR staff photo, Jan. 2021) 2 of 8 West Elevation—from 2nd Street NW (looking SE) 116 West Jefferson Street (BAR staff photo, Jan. 2021) 3 of 8 South Elevation—Rear Addition West Elevation—from 2nd Street NW (looking NE) 116 West Jefferson Street (BAR staff photo, Jan. 2021) 4 of 8 East Elevation—from W. Jefferson East Elevation (looking NW from rear) 116 West Jefferson Street (BAR staff photo, Jan. 2021) 5 of 8 Rear Porches 116 West Jefferson Street (BAR staff photo, Jan. 2021) 6 of 8 Cornice Detail Rear Porch Detail 116 West Jefferson Street (BAR staff photo, Jan. 2021) 7 of 8 Cornice Detail Above Front Door (North Elevation) 116 West Jefferson Street (BAR staff photo, Jan. 2021) 8 of 8 Rear Addition—Siding Rear Addition—Window (typ) LANDMARK SURVEY IDENTIFICATION BASE DATA Street Address: 116 West Jefferson Street Historic Name: Revercomb House Map and Parcel: 33-183 Date/Period: 1913 Census Track & Block: 1- 314 Style: Colonial Revival Present Owner: Family Services of C'vill-Albemarle Height to Cornice: 21. 5 Address: 116 West Jefferson Street Height in Stories: 2 Present Use: Offices Present Zoning: B-3 Original Owner: J. C. Revercomb Land Area (sq.ft.): 47.5 x 116.5 Original Use: Residence Assessed Value (land + imp.): 8310 +' 5370 13,680 ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION The Revercomb House, until recently, was one of the fine examples of the Colonial Revival style. The floor plan is similar to Stanford White's Carrs Hill at the University. Built of brick that was once penciled so that the mortar joints would appear more even, the two story, three bay residence boasted of a handsome veranda with four Ionic columns with diagonal volutes, so characteristic of revival capitals, and a strong modillioned cornice that added sophistication to an otherwise ordinary structure. With this veranda gone, the Federal style entrance with fan and sidelights of beveled leaded glass looses much of its original elegance. On the interior the original doors, woodwork, and mantles are also typical of the Colonial Revival. The most interesting and unusual interior detail is the open spool-work lunette in the archway between the entrance and the stair hall. HISTORICAL DESCRIPTION In 1878, Elisah Gilmer bought the property from B. L. Powell (ACDB 69-4). Gilmer sold the property and the small one story brick structure to Mrs. B. G. Leterman in 1903 (DB 14-304). In 1909, J. C. Revercomb bought the property (DB 20-483) and in 1913 razed the older structure and built the present house. The house remained in the Revercomb family until 1972 when the Family Services of Charlottesville-Albemarle, Ihc. purchased it. The veranda was removed in 1974. GRAPHICS CONDITIONS SOURCES Average Miss Virginia Revercomb City Records \ LANDMARK CO.MMISS ION ·DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOP MEN' r 116 West Jefferson Street - Revercomb House c.1913 - Photos from City Historic Survey (1970s -1980s) 116 West Jefferson Street - Revercomb House c.1913 - Photo from Google street view (June 2018) 116 West Jefferson Street - Revercomb House c.1913 - Photos from City Historic Survey (1970s -1980s) 116 West Jefferson Street - Revercomb House c.1913 - Photos from City Historic Survey (1970s -1980s) East elevation West elevation 116 West Jefferson Street - Revercomb House c.1913 - Photos from City Historic Survey (1970s -1980s) Front (north) entrance Rear (south) elevation 116 West Jefferson Street - Revercomb House c.1913 - Photos from City Historic Survey (1970s -1980s) Front porch 116 West Jefferson Street - Revercomb House c.1913 - Photos from City Historic Survey (1970s -1980s) Front porch Rear elevation Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR # 22-12-03 1513-1515 University Avenue, TMP 090080000 The Corner ADC District Owner: Lloyd’s Building, LLC Applicant: James Zehmer/University of Virginia Project: Replace built-in gutters w/hanging gutters, install new asphalt shingles. Application components (please click each link to go directly to PDF page): • Staff Report • Historic Survey • Application Submittal December 2022 BAR Packet 4 City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Staff Report December 20, 2022 Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR # 22-12-03 1513-1515 University Avenue, TMP 090080000 The Corner ADC District Owner: Lloyd’s Building, LLC Applicant: James Zehmer/University of Virginia Project: Replace built-in gutters w/hanging gutters, install new asphalt shingles. Background Year Built: c1896 and 1927 District: The Corner ADC District Status: Contributing The building combines the c.1896 Minor house with a 1927 commercial building added facing University Ave. The house was two stories tall, triple pile, and constructed of brick with a high- pitched hip roof, still visible at the rear of the building. (Historical survey attached) Prior BAR Review February 17, 2016 - BAR approved (8-1) CoA for alterations to the south façade, including new storefront. Modifications to three large openings to come back to the BAR (for administrative approval) and paint color selection. June 20, 2017 – BAR approved (6-0) CoA for a mural on the east elevation. Application • Applicant’s submittal: Narrative, photos, and drawings, dated December 1, 2022 (17 pages) and supplemental photos, dated December 20, 2022 (5 pages). Request CoA to, at the rear portion of the building, replace the built-in gutters with hanging gutters and install new asphalt shingles to replace existing. 1515 University Ave - December 20, 2022 (12/14/2022) 1 Discussion Staff recommends approval with a condition that the new hanging gutters will retain the existing profile of the upper cornice, per the rough sketch below. (Similar to the CoA condition applied to the porch roof at 201 E. High Street, July 2019.) 1515 University Ave - December 20, 2022 (12/14/2022) 2 Suggested Motion Approval: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed roof alterations at 1515 University Avenue satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are compatible with this property and other properties in The Corner ADC District, and that the BAR approves the application as submitted with the condition with a condition that the new hanging gutters will retain the existing profile of the upper cornice. (Similar to the CoA condition applied to the porch roof at 201 E. High Street, July 2019.) 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 Link to Chapter 4 Rehabilitation E. Cornice 1) Keep the cornice well sealed and anchored, and maintain the gutter system and flashing. 2) Repair rather than replace the cornice. 3) Do not remove elements of the original composition, such as brackets or blocks, without replacing them with new ones of a like design. 4) Match materials, decorative details, and profiles of the existing original cornice design when making repairs. 5) Do not replace an original cornice with a new one that conveys a different period, style, or theme from that of the building. 1515 University Ave - December 20, 2022 (12/14/2022) 3 6) If the cornice is missing, the replacement should be based on physical or documented evidence, or barring that, be compatible with the original building. 7) Do not wrap or cover a cornice with vinyl or aluminum; these substitute materials may cover up original details and also may hide underlying moisture problems. G. Roof 1) When replacing a standing seam metal roof, the width of the pan and the seam height should be consistent with the original. Ideally, the seams would be hand crimped. 2) If pre-painted standing seam metal roof material is permitted, commercial-looking ridge caps or ridge vents are not appropriate on residential structures. 3) Original roof pitch and configuration should be maintained. 4) The original size and shape of dormers should be maintained. 5) Dormers should not be introduced on visible elevations where none existed originally. 6) Retain elements, such as chimneys, skylights, and light wells that contribute to the style and character of the building. 7) When replacing a roof, match original materials as closely as possible. a. Avoid, for example, replacing a standing-seam metal roof with asphalt shingles, as this would dramatically alter the building’s appearance. b. Artificial slate is an acceptable substitute when replacement is needed. c. Do not change the appearance or material of parapet coping. 8) Place solar collectors and antennae on non-character defining roofs or roofs of non-historic adjacent buildings. 9) Do not add new elements, such as vents, skylights, or additional stories that would be visible on the primary elevations of the building. 1515 University Ave - December 20, 2022 (12/14/2022) 4 AERIAL VIEW 1515 UNIVERSITY AVE. CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA FEBRUARY 29, 2016 December 1 2022 REV: MARCH 23, 2016 7 E LANCASTER AVE., SUITE 300 ARDMORE, PA 9003 LLOYD 1515 BUILDINGAvenue University HISTORY:OVERVIEW History Overview • 1896: Minor House was built • 1927: Commercial building was added to front of Minor Court House, completely removing the front facade. A pressing and cleaning business occupied one of the 3 rear storefront spaces facing Minor Court Alley. In the two storefronts facing University Avenue, Jameson’s Bookstore occupied the east half and The Cavalier Diner occupied the west. Boarding rooms occupied the second floor. • 1944: Cavalier Diner closed. The party wall was removed and Jameson’s Bookstore expanded to encompass the large first floor space we know today. • 1957: Jameson’s Bookstore was replaced by Lloyd’s Rexall Drug Store. • 1983 & ‘84: Lloyd Building is listed on the Virginia Landmark Register and National Register of Historic Places as part of the Rugby Road - University Corner Historic District. • 1994 - 2014: Lloyd Building was converted into Student Book Store. 1515 UNIVERSITY AVE. CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA FEBRUARY 29, 2016 December 1 2022 REV: MARCH 23, 2016 7 E LANCASTER AVE., SUITE 300 ARDMORE, PA 9003 1515 UNIVERSITY AVE. CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA FEBRUARY 29, 2016 December 1 2022 REV: MARCH 23, 2016 7 E LANCASTER AVE., SUITE 300 ARDMORE, PA 9003 1515 UNIVERSITY AVE. CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA FEBRUARY 29, 2016 December 1 2022 REV: MARCH 23, 2016 7 E LANCASTER AVE., SUITE 300 ARDMORE, PA 9003 1515 UNIVERSITY AVE. CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA FEBRUARY 29, 2016 December 1 2022 REV: MARCH 23, 2016 7 E LANCASTER AVE., SUITE 300 ARDMORE, PA 9003 1515 UNIVERSITY AVE. CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA FEBRUARY 29, 2016 December 1 2022 REV: MARCH 23, 2016 7 E LANCASTER AVE., SUITE 300 ARDMORE, PA 9003 HISTORIC IMAGES 1515 UNIVERSITY AVE. CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA FEBRUARY 29, 2016 December 1 2022 REV: MARCH 23, 2016 7 E LANCASTER AVE., SUITE 300 ARDMORE, PA 9003 HISTORIC IMAGES 1515 UNIVERSITY AVE. CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA FEBRUARY 29, 2016 December 1 2022 REV: MARCH 23, 2016 7 E LANCASTER AVE., SUITE 300 ARDMORE, PA 9003 Architectural Details - Minor House LLOYD BUILDING HISTORY:OVERVIEW • 1896: Minor House was built • 1927: Commercial building was added to front of Minor Court House, completely removing the front facade. A pressing and cleaning business occupied one of the 3 rear storefront spaces facing Minor Court Alley. In the two storefronts facing University Avenue, Jameson’s Bookstore occupied the east half and The Cavalier Diner occupied the west. Boarding rooms occupied the second floor. • 1944: Cavalier Diner closed. The party wall was removed and Jameson’s Bookstore expanded to encompass the large first floor space we know today. • 1957: Jameson’s Bookstore was replaced by Lloyd’s Rexall Drug Store. • 1983 & ‘84: Lloyd Building is listed on the Virginia Landmark Register and National Register of Historic Places as part of the Rugby Road - University Corner Historic District. • 1994 - 2014: Lloyd Building was converted into Student Book Store. 1515 UNIVERSITY AVE. CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA FEBRUARY 29, 2016 December 1 2022 REV: MARCH 23, 2016 7 E LANCASTER AVE., SUITE 300 ARDMORE, PA 9003 Architectural Detail Similarities LLOYD BUILDING HISTORY:OVERVIEW • 1896: Minor House was built • 1927: Commercial building was added to front of Minor Court House, completely removing the front facade. A pressing and cleaning business occupied one of the 3 rear storefront spaces facing Minor Court Alley. In the two storefronts facing University Avenue, Jameson’s Bookstore occupied the east half and The Cavalier Diner occupied the west. Boarding rooms occupied the second floor. • 1944: Cavalier Diner closed. The party wall was removed and Jameson’s Bookstore expanded to encompass the large first floor space we know today. • 1957: Jameson’s Bookstore was replaced by Lloyd’s Rexall Drug Store. • 1983 & ‘84: Lloyd Building is listed on the Virginia Landmark Register and National Register of Historic Places as part of the Rugby Road - University Corner Historic District. • 1994 - 2014: Lloyd Building was converted into Student Book Store. 1515 UNIVERSITY AVE. CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA FEBRUARY 29, 2016 December 1 2022 REV: MARCH 23, 2016 7 E LANCASTER AVE., SUITE 300 ARDMORE, PA 9003 Original Appearance of Minor House may have LLOYD BUILDING HISTORY:OVERVIEW resembled 105 West High Street, c. 1900 • 1896: Minor House was built • 1927: Commercial building was added to front of Minor Court House, completely removing the front facade. A pressing and cleaning business occupied one of the 3 rear storefront spaces facing Minor Court Alley. In the two storefronts facing University Avenue, Jameson’s Bookstore occupied the east half and The Cavalier Diner occupied the west. Boarding rooms occupied the second floor. • 1944: Cavalier Diner closed. The party wall was removed and Jameson’s Bookstore expanded to encompass the large first floor space we know today. • 1957: Jameson’s Bookstore was replaced by Lloyd’s Rexall Drug Store. • 1983 & ‘84: Lloyd Building is listed on the Virginia Landmark Register and National Register of Historic Places as part of the Rugby Road - University Corner Historic District. • 1994 - 2014: Lloyd Building was converted into Student Book Store. 1515 UNIVERSITY AVE. CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA FEBRUARY 29, 2016 December 1 2022 REV: MARCH 23, 2016 7 E LANCASTER AVE., SUITE 300 ARDMORE, PA 9003 FRONT VIEW FACING WEST FRONT VIEW FACING EAST South Elevation - University Avenue Street View 1515 UNIVERSITY AVE. CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA FEBRUARY 29, 2016 December 1 2022 REV: MARCH 23, 2016 7 E LANCASTER AVE., SUITE 300 ARDMORE, PA 9003 FRONT VIEW FACING WEST FRONT VIEW FACING EAST South Elevation - University Avenue Street View 1515 UNIVERSITY AVE. Note rear portion of building not visible from street CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA FEBRUARY 29, 2016 December 1 2022 REV: MARCH 23, 2016 7 E LANCASTER AVE., SUITE 300 ARDMORE, PA 9003 FRONT VIEW FACING WEST FRONT VIEW FACING EAST East Elevation - Wertland / 15th Street NW View 1515 UNIVERSITY AVE. Note rear portion of building not visible from street CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA FEBRUARY 29, 2016 December 1 2022 REV: MARCH 23, 2016 7 E LANCASTER AVE., SUITE 300 ARDMORE, PA 9003 FRONT VIEW FACING WEST FRONT VIEW FACING EAST Previous Slide Location of View 1515 UNIVERSITY AVE. CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA FEBRUARY 29, 2016 December 1 2022 REV: MARCH 23, 2016 7 E LANCASTER AVE., SUITE 300 ARDMORE, PA 9003 Proposed Work Remove Replace asphalt Philadelphia shingle roof gutter, install in-kind with 1/2 round architectural hanging gutter, shingles. painted white to match trim. EXISTING SOUTH Existing South ELEVATION Elevation GLAZING INSERT PROPOSED Existing EastEAST ELEVATION - OPTION A Elevation 1515 UNIVERSITY AVE. CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA FEBRUARY 29, December 12016 2022 REV: MARCH 23, 2016 7 E LANCASTER AVE., SUITE 300 ARDMORE, PA 9003 15113-1515 University Avenue - BAR review December 20, 2022 1 of 5 15113-1515 University Avenue - BAR review December 20, 2022 2 of 5 1513-1515 University Ave 15113-1515 University Avenue - BAR review December 20, 2022 1 of 5 15113-1515 University Avenue - BAR review December 20, 2022 4 of 5 Certificate of Appropriateness BAR # 22-11-03 507 Ridge Street, TMP 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 December 2022 BAR Packet 5 City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Staff Report December 20, 2022 Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR # 22-11-03 507 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, photovoltaic system in rear yard. • November 15, 2022: BAR deferred action re: demo of cottage/shed (BAR # 22-11-03). Link to the BAR meeting video. Discussion begins at approx. 01:30:00. https://boxcast.tv/channel/vabajtzezuyv3iclkx1a?b=zws6izrpegx6m7ox2o8i Link to November staff report and submittal, see pg. 70: BAR meeting packet - Nov 15 2022 Application • Submittal: Photographs of structure with additional notes and photos by staff. (See page 70 of pdf: BAR meeting packet - Nov 15 2022) Request CoA for demolition of an approximately 10-ft x 12-ft, single-story, wood-framed structure in the rear yard. 507 Ridge Street - BAR Dec 20, 2022 (12/13/2022 draft) 1 Discussion Note: No substantive changes to the November 15, 2002. Revisions are highlighted. 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 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. However, should there be an opportunity to relocate the structure to another site—likely a property not under BAR purview--staff suggests the BAR consider allowing that move as a solution that preserves the structure (or, at least, precludes immediate demolition) and 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.) 507 Ridge Street - BAR Dec 20, 2022 (12/13/2022 draft) 2 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.] 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; 507 Ridge Street - BAR Dec 20, 2022 (12/13/2022 draft) 3 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 has been unable to identify the locations or conditions of other, similar structures. None yet found in review of City surveys and NRHP listing for properties in the Ridge Street Historic District.] 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 507 Ridge Street - BAR Dec 20, 2022 (12/13/2022 draft) 4 Staff comment: The building material is easily reproduced. (6) The degree to which distinguishing characteristics, qualities, features, or materials remain. 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. (c) The overall condition and structural integrity of the building or structure, as indicated by studies prepared by a qualified professional engineer and provided by the applicant or other information provided to the board. Staff comment: No study/report submitted by applicant. (d) Whether, and to what extent, the applicant proposes means, methods or plans for moving, removing, or demolishing the structure or property that preserves portions, features or materials that are significant to the property’s historic, architectural, or cultural value; and Staff comment: The 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. (e) Any applicable provisions of the city’s Design Guidelines [Chapter 7: Moving and Demolitions]. Staff comment: See below, under B. Demolition of Historic Structures Pertinent design guidelines re: Demolitions 507 Ridge Street - BAR Dec 20, 2022 (12/13/2022 draft) 5 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. 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 above: 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. 507 Ridge Street - BAR Dec 20, 2022 (12/13/2022 draft) 6 3) The public purpose or interest in land or buildings to be protected. Staff comment: See comments above: 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 above: 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 above: Standards for considering demolitions, item d. Additionally, relative to the VLR/NRHP Ridge Street Historic District, per discussions with VDHR staff, November 4, 2022, removal of the cottage/shed would not cause the primary structure (house) to become non-contributing, nor the historic district to be de-listed. 6) The reason for demolishing the structure and whether or not alternatives exist. Staff comment: See comments above: 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 above: 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. 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)) 507 Ridge Street - BAR Dec 20, 2022 (12/13/2022 draft) 7 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 (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]. […] 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: 507 Ridge Street - BAR Dec 20, 2022 (12/13/2022 draft) 8 (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. (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 - BAR Dec 20, 2022 (12/13/2022 draft) 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 # 22-09-04 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 December 2022 BAR Packet 6 City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Staff Report December 20, 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, see page 100: 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, see page 27: October 2022 BAR packet November 15, 2022 - BAR reviewed new residence; accepted applicant’s request for a deferral. Link to the BAR meeting video. Discussion begins at 0:45:00. https://boxcast.tv/channel/vabajtzezuyv3iclkx1a?b=zws6izrpegx6m7ox2o8i Link to November submittal, see page 51: BAR meeting packet - Nov 15 2022 Application • Candace M.P. Smith, Architects PC submittal for Loughery Residence: o Narrative and List of Attachments. (2 pages) o Drawings SP-1, A-1 through A-8, dated 12/5/2022. (9 pages) o Conceptual Landscaping Plan and Planting List. (2 pages) o 3D renderings. (5 pages) 0 3rd Street, NE – December 20, 2022 (12/14/22) 1 o Material List and Color Palette. (16 pages) o Existing Site Plan and Photos. (7 pages) CoA request for a three-story, single-family residence and detached garage on vacant parcel. Discussion For the summary of the staff’s comments re: the design guidelines for New Construction and Additions, see the October 18, 2022 staff report, under Discussion and Recommendations at: 0 3rd St NE - October 18 2022 BAR packet This will be the BAR’s fourth discussion of this request. At each of the prior meetings (September 20, October 18, and November 15) and in correspondence to the BAR, several neighboring property owners expressed their questions and comments regarding the project. The applicant has been responsive to the BAR’s questions and recommendations. Staff recommends approval of the CoA, acknowledging the alternate liriope selection, see below. Landscaping Plan * = On the City’s Tree/Shrub List and/or not considered invasive in Virginia. Note the revision below to the liriope selection. • Trees: o Amelanchier – Serviceberry * o Acer palmatum 'Osakazuki' - "Osakazuki' Japanese Maple (matched pair) * • Shrubs, Evergreen: o Ilex cremate "Green Lustre' - 'Green Lustre' Japanese Holly * o Azalea 'Pink Pearl - Azalea 'Pink Pearl' * o Abelia 'Rose Creek' - 'Rose Creek' Abelia * • Shrubs, Deciduous: o Itea virginica - Virginia Sweetpsire “Henry's Garnet” * o Pyracantha coccinea – Firethorn * o Hydrangea paniculata 'Limelight’ - 'Limelight' Hydrangea * o Hydrangea paniculata ‘Little Quick Fire' - 'Little Quick Fire' Hydra * o Liriope Muscari will be substitute for the Liriope spicata 'Big Blue' indicated on the Landscape Plan. [Staff: Liriope spicata is noted as invasive by the City of Alexandria and Arlington County. (www.invasiveplantatlas.org/subject.html?sub=11562) From the applicant’s note to staff: Liriope spicata is a running type of liriope and could spread, although the brick walls will contain it. However, Liriope Muscari is a non-running, "clumping" variety that will not travel outside the brick walls. There are a couple varieties of muscari; the client will select one of those variants.] o Stephanandra incisa - Cutleaf Stephanandra * 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 new residence at 0 3rd Street, NE satisfies the BAR’s criteria and is compatible with this property and other properties in the North Downtown ADC District, and that the BAR approves the application [as submitted with the alternate liriope noted in the staff report]. 0 3rd Street, NE – December 20, 2022 (12/14/22) 2 or [as submitted with the alternate liriope noted in the staff report and 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 new residence at 0 3rd Street, NE does not satisfy the BAR’s criteria and is not compatible with this property and other properties in the North Downtown, and that for the following reasons the BAR denies the application as submitted: … Criteria, Standards and Guidelines Review Criteria Generally Sec. 34-284(b) of the City Code states that, in considering a particular application the BAR shall approve the application unless it finds: (1) That the proposal does not meet specific standards set forth within this division or applicable provisions of the Design Guidelines established by the board pursuant to Sec.34-288(6); and (2) The proposal is incompatible with the historic, cultural or architectural character of the district in which the property is located or the protected property that is the subject of the application. Pertinent Standards for Review of Construction and Alterations include: (1) Whether the material, texture, color, height, scale, mass and placement of the proposed addition, modification or construction are visually and architecturally compatible with the site and the applicable design control district; (2) The harmony of the proposed change in terms of overall proportion and the size and placement of entrances, windows, awnings, exterior stairs and signs; (3) The Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation set forth within the Code of Federal Regulations (36 C.F.R. §67.7(b)), as may be relevant; (4) The effect of the proposed change on the historic district neighborhood; (5) The impact of the proposed change on other protected features on the property, such as gardens, landscaping, fences, walls and walks; (6) Whether the proposed method of construction, renovation or restoration could have an adverse impact on the structure or site, or adjacent buildings or structures; (7) Any applicable provisions of the City’s Design Guidelines. 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. a. If the footprint is larger, their massing should be reduced to relate to the smaller- scaled forms of residential structures. 0 3rd Street, NE – December 20, 2022 (12/14/22) 3 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. […] b. Neighborhood transitional buildings should use roof forms that relate to the neighboring residential forms instead of the flat or sloping commercial form. c. […] d. […] 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. […] d. […] e. If using composition asphalt shingles, do not use light colors. Consider using neutral- colored or darker, plain or textured-type shingles. f. […] 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 0 3rd Street, NE – December 20, 2022 (12/14/22) 4 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) […] 4) […] 5) Synthetic siding and trim, including, vinyl and aluminum, are not historic cladding materials in the historic districts, and their use should be avoided. 6) Cementitious siding, such as HardiPlank boards and panels, are appropriate. 7) Concrete or metal panels may be appropriate. 8) Metal storefronts in clear or bronze are appropriate. 9) The use of Exterior Insulation and Finish Systems (EIFS) is discouraged but may be approved on items such as gables where it cannot be seen or damaged. It requires careful design of the location of control joints. 10) The use of fiberglass-reinforced plastic is discouraged. If used, it must be painted. 11) All exterior trim woodwork, decking and flooring must be painted, or may be stained solid if not visible from public right-of-way. N. Paint 1) The selection and use of colors for a new building should be coordinated and compatible with adjacent buildings, not intrusive. 2) In Charlottesville’s historic districts, various traditional shaded of brick red, white, yellow, tan, green, or gray are appropriate. For more information on colors traditionally used on historic structures and the placement of color on a building, see Chapter 4: Rehabilitation. 3) Do not paint unpainted masonry surfaces. 4) It is proper to paint individual details different colors. 5) More lively color schemes may be appropriate in certain sub-areas dependent on the context of the sub-areas and the design of the building. O. Details and Decoration 1) Building detail and ornamentation should be consistent with and related to the architecture of the surrounding context and district. 2) The mass of larger buildings may be reduced using articulated design details. 3) Pedestrian scale may be reinforced with details. 0 3rd Street, NE – December 20, 2022 (12/14/22) 5 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 December 20, 2022 Application for Certificate of Appropriateness Re: New Residence near Hedge Street and Park Plaza (3rd St. NE, Parcel #330020001) in Charlottesville, VA—“0 Third Street NE” Narrative The parcel for this proposed new residence is a vacant lot with complex grading and site restrictions. Existing grades slope 7’north down the street in front of the property, and slope up as much as 12’along each corresponding side. The site restrictions include a required access easement to the apartment building behind the lot, and there is a utility easement along that same southern edge. A power pole near the southern corner of the lot connects lines that traverse in front of the property near the sidewalk and across to both the downhill and uphill neighbors. These lines prohibit the opportunity for large street trees, but a serviceberry tree is planned at the corner of 3rd Street and the easement, and Japanese maples flank the front porch entry. A three-story home is proposed, with a ground floor largely embedded into the back slope and only accessible from the northern side of the property. The first floor above is provided with a walkout to a rear terrace. The finish first floor is below the adjacent rear grades so a brick retaining wall is planned along the property line, with either a metal guardrail (for the high grades above) or a 6’ fence may be added at that rear property line to provide privacy for the rear terrace. A detached accessory structure is also proposed at the rear of the property, similar to many neighboring properties. Regarding exterior materials, the exterior walls are proposed with a red brick foundation, and Hardie Plank horizontal, smooth siding above at the first and second floors. Red brick is also proposed at all the retaining walls and the front walkway and stairs from the street. Red brick piers and solid wood gates provide an enclosure to the rear terrace as well as the lower, side courtyard that will be used to access the garage area. Asphalt is planned for that lower courtyard and for the required easement on the southern edge. Roofing will be architectural/dimensional shingles on sloped hips roofs, including the front porch. There are also double story porches on the north and south sides. Like the front porch, they will have solid panel railings for privacy and consistency. Windows will be SDL double-hung windows, in black fiberglass with 1x4 casing at the Hardie Plank walls. French doors with SDL divided lites will be used at porches, and solid wood doors with a porthole will be used for the front door and the upper front porch door. The garage doors will be solid paneled of similar pattern as the gates. The rear terrace will likely be stamped/stained concrete or bluestone if the budget allows. BAR Narrative & Attached Items For Meeting December 20, 2022 Page 2 A conceptual landscape plan and planting list has been provided that now includes some native plants such as the Virginia Sweet Spire flanking the driveway on the northern edge next to the downhill neighbors. A brick retaining wall and metal pickets above (to create the 3’-0” guardrail from the courtyard side) is planned with consideration of the downhill neighbors for screening but also retention of some daylight. Pyracantha is planned at the inside corners of that retaining wall and is planned to be trained across the railing for perennial screening. Hollies are planned below the two Japanese maple that flank the front porch entry, and hydrangeas are envisioned for the edge against the required southern easement. Ground cover in the courtyard will complete the front walkways, and likewise is planned to hold the steep bank that exists at the northwest corner of the property. The 3d virtual model has been updated with the brick & siding exteriors, conceptual plantings, and various views are attached. A list of materials and paint colors are also included. Paint chips for preferred selection and the alternates listed will be available for viewing at the meeting. List of Attachments 1. Drawing of existing site conditions showing grades, site limitations, property lines 2. 3D view of topography of undeveloped site and photographs to and from property 3. Site plan with ground floor plan (at front of property) and first floor footprint at the rear terrace. Ground, first, second and roof plans are also provided. 4. Exterior elevations show all building faces and include the view from the front street and side easement with the panelled gates/fence, as well as without the gates for full view of the house faces. An additional view from the property line at the downhill neighbor is included to show the retaining wall along that edge. 5. Wall sections for porch details, main house cornice, and railing details are included 5. Conceptual landscape plan and planting list 6. Material selections for roofing, brick, etc. CANDACE M.P. SMITH A R C H I T E C T , P C 202 SIXTH ST. NE PO BOX 2431 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 T:434.963.4500 F:434.979.1936 New Residence for BAR Submittal 12-2-22 for SCOTT LOUGHREY NEAR HEDGE ST. & PARK PLAZA 1 SIDE (NORTH) ELEVATION A6 1/4" = 1'-0" SIDE (NORTH) ELEVATION DATE: 12/5/22 DRAWING SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" PROJECT NO: 2204 REVISION DATE:  CANDACE M.P. SMITH ARCHITECT, PC 2022 2 SIDE (NORTH) ELEVATION @ PROPERTY LINE A6 1/4" = 1'-0" A6 7 OF 9 CANDACE M.P. SMITH A R C H I T E C T , P C 202 SIXTH ST. NE PO BOX 2431 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 T:434.963.4500 F:434.979.1936 ELDH3268 * ELDH3268 * New Residence for BAR Submittal 12-2-22 for SCOTT LOUGHREY NEAR HEDGE ST. & PARK PLAZA 1 SIDE (SOUTH) ELEVATION A7 1/4" = 1'-0" SIDE (SOUTH) ELEVATION DATE: 12/5/22 DRAWING SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" PROJECT NO: 2204 REVISION DATE:  CANDACE M.P. SMITH ARCHITECT, PC 2022 PIERS AT REAR TERRACE - 2 SIDE (SOUTH) ELEVATION A7 1/4" = 1'-0" A7 8 OF 9 Candace M.P. Smith Architect, PC 202 Sixth Street NE Charlottesville, Va 22902 Tel: 434-963-4500 www.cmpsarchitect.com New Residence for Scott Loughrey 0 3rd Street NE For BAR Meeting 12/20/2022 Exterior Paint & Other Colors Preferred Scheme Alternate Scheme Roofing * Fiberglass shingles Black/gray Black/gray Prefinished half Gutters & Downspouts round gutters & Prefinished Black Prefinished Black round downspouts Ebony (Black) (Marvin Window Frame & Sash* Double hung Ebony (Black) (Marvin Elevate) Elevate) Doors (Porthole & Benjamin Moore Color Preview Behr "Alpine Trail" Garage) * "Black Knight" 2136-10 Benjamin Moore Color Preview Trim & Posts* Behr "Norwegian Blue" "Nimbus Gray" 2131-50 Benjamin Moore Color Preview Siding Hardie Plank Behr "Half Sea Fog" "Smokestack Gray" 2131-40 Benjamin Moore Color Preview Solid panels (or Front Porch Railings Behr "Alpine Trail" "Black Knight" 2136-10 (if solid metal pickets) panels) or Black Metal (if metal pickets) Benjamin Moore Color Preview Other Railings Solid panels Behr "Alpine Trail" "Black Knight" 2136-10 Benjamin Moore Color Preview Gates Solid panels Behr "Alpine Trail" "Black Knight" 2136-10 Brick * Red/maroon Red/maroon *See Material Selections. Material Selections Roofing: Atlas Roofing Pinnacle Pristine Colors "Pewter" Gutters & Downspouts: Prefinished black half round gutters & round downspouts Windows: Marvin Elevate "Ebony" with simulated divided lites, stainless spacer bars French Doors: Marvin Elevate "Ebony" with simulated divided lites, stainless spacer bars Custom Porthole Doors: Custom, painted, fir doors Garage Doors: Overhead Door "Signature Carriage" custom wood door Posts/Columns: Culpeper Columns dressed and painted with 1x4 bases Siding: Painted fiber cement board lap siding, Hardie Plank, 6" exposure Brick: General Shale "Buckingham Tudor" Light Fixtures: Nancy B's House of Lights Item Id: 612971  0123567897 666612 67997 Pinnacle®Pristine Colors Black Coastal Granite Hearthstone Pewter Summer Storm Oyster Pearl* Copper Canyon Heather Majestic Shake Weathered Wood -Shown on cover Weathered Shadow Morning Harvest Tan• Green• Sunset• • Limited regional availability. Please contact your local supplier. 11/22/22, 11:19 AM Marvin Elevate Product Catalog 2020 https://www.thewindowanddoorshoppe.com/catalogs/2020/marvin/elevate/#p=15 2/6 11/22/22, 11:19 AM Marvin Elevate Product Catalog 2020 https://www.thewindowanddoorshoppe.com/catalogs/2020/marvin/elevate/#p=15 4/6 11/22/22, 11:19 AM Marvin Elevate Product Catalog 2020 https://www.thewindowanddoorshoppe.com/catalogs/2020/marvin/elevate/#p=15 6/6 Signature Carriage Wood ® COLLECTION Custom crafted wood doors provide distinctive charm and unmatched luxury Note: Previous model Villa Madre Series numbers and panel styles are noted in parentheses in gray. Capturing the romantic lines and distinguished flare of old world estates, Villa Madre Series doors exemplify elegance and style. Doors provided unfinished, in paint-grade or stain-grade wood. Model 9960 Premium Construction (Insulation* standard) Horizontal Overlay (H) Vertical Overlay (C2) Vertical Overlay (C3) Vertical Overlay (C4) (580 Ortega) (580 Medina) (580 Pizarro) (580 Cruz) Square top Arched top Model 9940 Standard Construction Villa Madre Series, Model 9960, Vertical Overlay (580 Pizarro), (Insulation optional) 3PS- Three Pane Square Top windows with speciality glass, decorative hardware Horizontal/Grooved Overlay (HG) (570 Castille Grooved) Square top Arched top See additional window options on page 14. *Insulated R-value 4.75. Overhead Door Corporation uses a calculated door section R-value for our insulated doors. 11 9/16/22, 1:18 PM Printout 1807 Seminole Trail Ste 102 Q Charlottesville, VA 22901 'O www.nancybshouseoflights.com C. 434-975-4448 Fax: 434-974-5644 • office@nancybshouseoflights.com LED Outdoor Wall Sconce Item ID: 612971 Finish: Bronze Width: 6.00" Height: 18.00"' Bulbs Voltage: 120 V Qty. Type Base Watt Incl. Source LM. CCT CRI Avg.Life Dim Beam 1 PCB PCB Integrated 20.00 W Yes LED 1700.00 Im 3000 K 80 CRI Details Safety Listing: cETLus Safety Rating: Wet Glass: White Canopy: 1T'x5.25" Extension: 4.00" Weight: 3.42 lb Please be advised that all prices and information shown here are subject to verification by our showroom personnel. In the event o f a discrepancy, we reserve the right to make any corrections necessary. https:/Jlights. nancybshouseoflig hts.com/brand-16/sku-612971 /led-outdoor-wall-sconce 1/1 Existing Site Conditions Proposed New Residence Scott Loughrey 0 Third St. NE BAR Submittal 12/20/22 Uphill neighbor Apartment Driveway 3rd Street Park Plaza Downhill neighbor 3D Topo Proposed New Residence Scott Loughrey 0 Third St. NE BAR Submittal 12/20/22 Uphill neighbor New house site Downhill neighbor Existing Site Photos Proposed New Residence Scott Loughrey 0 Third St. NE BAR Submittal 12/20/22 Downhill neighbor Neighbors across street Standing near or just above new Finish 1st floor Uphill neighbor Apartment behind property Old Hedge Street Easement Downhill Front porch neighbor porch Hedge spanning PL Uphill neighbor Apartment behind property Downhill Neighbor Steep slope Apartment behind property Old Hedge Street Easement Crepe myrtles Downhill neighbor 3rd Story Apartment behind property Crepe myrtles Covered porch Certificate of Appropriateness BAR # 22-12-01 300 Court Square, TMP 530096100 North Downtown ADC District Owner: Eagle Tavern, LLC Applicant: Candace DeLoach Project: Exterior alterations Application components (please click each link to go directly to PDF page): • Staff Report • Historic Survey • Application Submittal December 2022 BAR Packet 7 City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Staff Report December 20, 2022 Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR # 22-12-01 300 Court Square, TMP 530096100 North Downtown ADC District Owner: Eagle Tavern, LLC Applicant: Candace DeLoach et al Project: Exterior alterations Background Year Built: Farish House 1854; Annex (south wing) c1880. (Historical surveys attached.) District: North Downtown ADC District Status: Contributing Prior BAR Reviews November 15, 2022 – Preliminary discussion of this request. BAR #22-12-01 Link to the BAR meeting video. Discussion begins at approx. 02:58:00. https://boxcast.tv/channel/vabajtzezuyv3iclkx1a?b=zws6izrpegx6m7ox2o8i Link to November submittal. See page 142: BAR meeting packet - Nov 15 2022 Request • Applicant’s submittal: o Site history and project narrative with photos. (8 pages) o Barry Moss, AIA drawings 300 Court Square Renovations, Zebra Carriage Hotel, dated December 13, 2022. (4 sheets). o Renderings. (5 sheets) CoA request for exterior rehabilitations and alterations to historic hotel, including reconstruction of historic east portico and construction of a two-story terrace over the rear courtyard. From the applicant’s narrative, including responses to Nov 15, 2022 BAR comments: 300 Court Square – Front of building, North-Facing • Remove four smaller windows, investigations point to these windows as not original, infill with brick. Remaining windows will be centered and symmetrical. We will provide additional close- 300 Court Square – December 20, 2022 (12/15/2022) 1 up photos of the brick and window interactions. We believe these [four windows] to not be original. (photos 1-4.) • In response to concerns that board members have regarding the request to unevenly apply whitewash to the exterior of the building, there is evidence that the entire building was painted white; we would like to invite board members to look at the revised sample on the exterior near the tavern entrance. We have added red wash to the lime wash to warm it and make it blend the various mortars and brick repairs. • Requesting to use a lime mortar on the brick repairs. [Staff note: In prior discussions with the applicants, staff noted that the repairs to the existing masonry would be considered maintenance and repair, provided the work would comply with the BAR design guidelines for Masonry, from Chapter IV-Rehabilitations.] • Window mullions, casings, sashes, fascia, railing and door trim to be painted “Gray Owl” Benjamin Moore - 2137 60. • Shutters, balcony railings, and upper eave to be painted “Braemer” No BS14C35 - by Fine Paints of Europe. Please see sample on actual building. • All exterior doors to be painted - “Green” – BS 16C39 by Fine Paints of Europe. • Install four handmade copper gas lanterns flanking both sides of ground-level 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) Items to be submitted to the City of Charlottesville for approval – in all three instances, we are requesting to install a hotel amenity placed on city property: • Install four flush-mounted landscape lights in sidewalk to up-light plantings and illuminate pilaster detail. Since this is city property, we will obtain their permission prior to installing. [Staff note: See Discussion and Recommendations.] • 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. Because this is city property, we will obtain their permission prior to installing the awning. [Staff note: See Discussion and Recommendations.] • Install steps from the landing of the portico on the 6th Street side. May we suggest that we will not build anything until we have the city’s permission, which would hopefully happen during construction or offer up that we will build the steps such that they could be removed if not approved? [Staff note: See Discussion and Recommendations.] East Side of building – 6th Street • Please see dimensional drawings of the portico as designed. Because this is designed to incorporate the existing fire escape, we ask that it is approved as drawn for functionality. Please refer to dimensional drawings submitted. [Staff note: See Discussion and Recommendations.] • We have elected to use electric lamps on the 6th Street side. We heard [Mr. Gastinger’s] concern and are reducing the number of gas lanterns used to only those on the North facing exterior (as previously submitted). • All exterior doors to be painted “Green” No BS 16C39 – Fine Paints of Europe • We will be installing an electric light fixture at the gift store entry. Rear of the building – Not Visible from 6th Street 300 Court Square – December 20, 2022 (12/15/2022) 2 • A two-story trellised wall will be built against the neighboring equipment building [to west, rear of Monticello Hotel] to hide the AC chiller on top. Two-story terrace to be built over the courtyard to screen satellite dishes from the room views. Please see submitted dimensional drawings of this structure. • Trellised terrace to be painted “Gray Owl” by Benjamin Moore – 2137-60. • A wooden deck will be built to the same level as the first-floor ballroom. • In consideration of the use of Bermuda Shutters, which garnered a lot of conversation, we will not use shutters on the south side of the annex building and would like to use Bermuda shutters only on the back side of the building which is not visible from the street. Discussion and Recommendations Staff commends that the BAR refer to the criteria in Chapter II - Site Design and Elements, of Chapter III - New Construction and Additions (specifically, Additions), and Chapter IV— Rehabilitation (including section L. Rear of Buildings). Staff comments: Removal of four windows, north elevation Re removal: We cannot say when these windows were installed, only that three were there in 1915. Per the design guidelines: Retain original windows when possible. The Secretary’s Standards allows for Removing windows from other historic period, provided they are properly documented and a recommendation they be stored. Re: infill of openings: If windows are removed, the BAR should determine how the masonry opening will be treated. (For example, if infilled with brick, should the it be toothed-in with matching bricks and coursing or in a manner that makes the infill evident?) General Repairs (Wood trim, doors, windows, etc. and masonry). See Appendix re: staff’s discussions with the applicant [from October 2022] re: work that could be completed without review as routine maintenance and repair. Awning at the north entrance Due to encroachment into the City right of way, a CoA should include a condition that construction requires resolution of that encroachment. North entrance – replace doors No issues. Existing doors and trim are not original. (See photos in Appendix.) Trellis, terrace, deck at rear courtyard No issues. East Portico The metal fire escape will be retained and incorporated into the portico, if constructed. Second, due to possible encroachment into the City right of way, a CoA should include a condition that construction requires resolution of any encroachment. Additionally, the CoA assumes the design will not require significant alterations due to building code requirements. BAR should discuss the design options: 300 Court Square – December 20, 2022 (12/15/2022) 3 • Using available information and period examples, attempt to reasonably replicate the original. (See photos in Appendix.) BAR should discuss if [non-historic] upper section should mimic the lower or be distinct from it. (See also the photos included in the November submittal.) • Treat the portico as a new element entirely and design accordingly. Color palette (see photo in Appendix) No issues with proposed palette or with similar variations, if there are changes.* The BAR should discuss the options regarding the masonry wash—red or white. Due to the necessary repairs to the brick and evidence that the walls had been painted, staff supports either wash. (* Per the design guidelines, colors for Greek Revival & Gothic Revival: Walls and trim are usually white with deep bright green trim or yellow walls with white trim and green shutters and doors.) Light Fixtures (as luminaries) Copper lanterns to match or be similar to those presented with the November 2022 submittal (photos 15 and 16). For electrical lighting (including up- and down-lighting at the pilasters), staff recommends condition that all lamping be dimmable, have a Color Temperature not exceeding 3,000K, and a Color Rendering Index not less than 80, preferable not less than 90. (Staff is not aware of any lamping requirements--brightness, glare, etc.--that apply to gas fixtures.) Re: up-lighting in the sidewalk. Approval should include a condition that installation requires resolution of any encroachment into the City right of way. Decorative features (Wall lamps, flag poles, signage, railing planters, etc.) Per the design guideline (Rehabilitation, under Entrances, Porches, and Doors): Avoid adding decorative elements incompatible with the existing structure. BAR should discuss appropriateness, including how the components will be anchored into the masonry. Operable shutters Extant hardware indicates there had been shutters. Staff finds the style/design appropriate and recommends a condition that the new shutters be wood, painted, have operable hardware, and must be properly sized for the openings. Bermuda shutters While not a traditional window treatment for Charlottesville, they will be only on the rear elevation. Additionally, installation is reversible and will not permanently alter the historic windows, nor obscure them any more than traditional shutters. (Note: Regardless of the latter, staff would not support these shutters on other elevations.) Mechanical units Applicant should indicate locations and appropriate screening of exterior mechanical units. Misc. BAR should require removal of obsolete wires, cables, and conduits from the exterior walls. 300 Court Square – December 20, 2022 (12/15/2022) 4 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 alterations and rehabilitations at 300 Court Square satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are compatible with this property and other properties in the North Downtown ADC District, and that the BAR approves the application [as submitted]. or [as submitted with the following 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 alterations and rehabilitations at 300 Court Square do not satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are not compatible with this property and other properties in the North Downtown, and that for the following reasons the BAR denies the application as submitted: … Criteria, Standards, and Guidelines Review Criteria Generally Sec. 34-284(b) of the City Code states that, in considering a particular application the BAR shall approve the application unless it finds: (1) That the proposal does not meet specific standards set forth within this division or applicable provisions of the Design Guidelines established by the board pursuant to Sec. 34-288(6); and (2) The proposal is incompatible with the historic, cultural or architectural character of the district in which the property is located or the protected property that is the subject of the application. Pertinent Standards for Review of Construction and Alterations include: (1) Whether the material, texture, color, height, scale, mass and placement of the proposed addition, modification or construction are visually and architecturally compatible with the site and the applicable design control district; (2) The harmony of the proposed change in terms of overall proportion and the size and placement of entrances, windows, awnings, exterior stairs and signs; (3) The Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation set forth within the Code of Federal Regulations (36 C.F.R. §67.7(b)), as may be relevant; (4) The effect of the proposed change on the historic district neighborhood; (5) The impact of the proposed change on other protected features on the property, such as gardens, landscaping, fences, walls and walks; (6) Whether the proposed method of construction, renovation or restoration could have an adverse impact on the structure or site, or adjacent buildings or structures; (7) Any applicable provisions of the City’s Design Guidelines. Pertinent ADC District Design Guidelines Chapter 2 Site Design and Elements Chapter 3 New Construction and Additions Chapter 4 Rehabilitation 300 Court Square – December 20, 2022 (12/15/2022) 5 Appendix Routine maintenance and repair items, as discussed with applicant October 2022. Wood: Repair, paint wood trim, ceilings, flooring, doors, windows, and railings. If necessary, replacement of any trim will match existing profiles. Wood or cement board is acceptable, no vinyl. If all new material is necessary i.e. at the wood cornice—review with BAR staff. Masonry: Point up and replacement of bricks, where necessary, will be consistent with the ADC District Design Guidelines for Rehabilitation (Chapter IV). With a significant amount of brick requiring replacement, staff recommended the new at least match the size, texture, and coursing of existing, acknowledging an exact match was unlikely and anticipating the brick walls will receive either a red wash or lime wash, subject to BAR approval. Shutters: BAR will support re-installation (there is existing hardware); however, must be wood, painted, with operable hardware, and BAR must approve the type/style, Doors and Windows: BAR approval required for any removals, replacements, or alterations. East Portico: BAR approval required for design. Staff suggested a recreation should reflect the original (per old photographs) or a new design could be contemporary, so that it reads as a modern addition. Staff noted that the fire escapes are outside BAR purview. General: • Resolve if any property line and/or City right of way encroachments that might impact the new work. • Obtain a sidewalk closure permit prior to beginning the work. (BP not required for maintenance and repair.) • Staff encouraged removal of obsolete wires, cables, and conduits. 300 Court Square – December 20, 2022 (12/15/2022) 6 Holsinger photo (1915): https://search.lib.virginia.edu/sources/images/items/uva-lib:1043135?idx=0&x=0.388&y=0.401&zoom=1.146 300 Court Square – December 20, 2022 (12/15/2022) 7 300 Court Square – December 20, 2022 (12/15/2022) 8 300 Court Square – December 20, 2022 (12/15/2022) 9 Color palette 300 Court Square – December 20, 2022 (12/15/2022) 10 The Zebra Carriage Hotel A Luxury Boutique Hotel 300 Court Square, Charlottesville Virginia BAR Submittal for review on November 15, 2022 – RESPONSES TO BAR COMMENTARY – Requesting Design Approval at December 20, 2022 meeting 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 Amended Submittal – Responses to November 15, 2022 submitted proposal 300 Court Square – Front of building, North-Facing  Remove four smaller windows, investigations point to these windows as not original, infill with brick. Remaining windows will be centered and symmetrical. We will provide additional close- up photos of the brick and window interactions. We believe these to not be original. See photos 1-4.  In response to concerns that board members have regarding the request to unevenly apply whitewash to the exterior of the building, there is evidence that the entire building was painted white; we would like to invite board members to look at the revised sample on the exterior near the tavern entrance. We have added red wash to the lime wash to warm it and make it blend the various mortars and brick repairs.  Requesting to use a lime mortar on the brick repairs.  Window mullions, casings, sashes, fascia, railing and door trim to be painted “Gray Owl” Benjamin Moore - 2137 60.  Shutters, balcony railings, and upper eave to be painted “Braemer” No BS14C35 - by Fine Paints of Europe. Please see sample on actual building.  All exterior doors to be painted - “Green” – BS 16C39 by Fine Paints of Europe.  Install four handmade copper gas lanterns flanking both sides of ground-level 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) Items to be submitted to the City of Charlottesville for approval – in all three instances, we are requesting to install a hotel amenity placed on city property.  Install four flush-mounted landscape lights in sidewalk to up-light plantings and illuminate pilaster detail. Since this is city property, we will obtain their permission prior to installing.  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. Because this is city property, we will obtain their permission prior to installing the awning.  Install steps from the landing of the portico on the 6th Street side. May we suggest that we will not build anything until we have the city’s permission, which would hopefully happen during construction or offer up that we will build the steps such that they could be removed if not approved? East Side of building – 6th Street  Please see dimensional drawings of the portico as designed. Because this is designed to incorporate the existing fire escape, we ask that it is approved as drawn for functionality. Please refer to dimensional drawings submitted.  We have elected to use electric lamps on the 6th Street side. We heard Breck’s concern and are reducing the number of gas lanterns used to only those on the North facing exterior (as previously submitted).  All exterior doors to be painted “Green” No BS 16C39 – Fine Paints of Europe  We will be installing an electric light fixture at the gift store entry. Rear of the building – Not Visible from 6th Street  A two-story trellised wall will be built against the neighboring equipment building to hide the AC chiller on top. Two-story terrace to be built over the courtyard to screen satellite dishes from the room views. Please see submitted dimensional drawings of this structure.  Trellised terrace to be painted “Gray Owl” by Benjamin Moore – 2137-60.  A wooden deck will be built to the same level as the first-floor ballroom.  In consideration of the use of Bermuda Shutters, which garnered a lot of conversation, we will not use shutters on the south side of the annex building and would like to use Bermuda shutters only on the back side of the building which is not visible from the street. PHOTOS 1 -4 ORIGINAL WINDOW – NOTE MORTAR AT EDGES UNORIGINAL WINDOW – NOTE MORTAR AT EDGES EXISTING METAL ROOF TO BE REPAINTED ORIGINAL COLOR (GREEN) NEW PTD. WOOD (MAHOGANY) 1"X 1.24" SCISSOR NEW CUSTOM PTD. WOOD ACTIVE SHUTTERS RAIL WITH MAXIMUM 4" OPENINGS EXISTING METAL ROOF TO BE WITH PIN HINGES AND SHUTTER STAYS, TYP. PAINTED BRICK REPAINTED ORIGINAL COLOR NEW EXIT DOOR TO MATCH EXIST. WINDOWS ACCENT LIGHT EXISTING BRICK REFURBISH EXISTING WINDOWS, TYPICAL REPAIRED BRICK AREAS, REPAIR AND REPAINT EXISTING WOOD CORNICE TYPICAL REPAIR EXISTING FIRE ESCAPE, MODIFY 6" TREADS TO BE 8" MINIMUM 3'-8" 11" 10'-10 1/2" NEW GAS LIGHT NEW AWNING 11" BRICK REPAIR AREAS, TYPICAL 5" 1'-4" 11'-9" 7'-4 1/4" 11 1/2" 11" EXISTING BRICK 4'-10" 6'-8" 6 1/2" BRASS/COPPER POLE NEW 1.5" X 1.5" PTD. STEEL POSTS 2'-3 1/2" NEW HANDRAIL TO MATCH EXISTING . PAINTED WOOD TRIM REPLACE EXISTING DOOR WITH WINDOW REPLACE EXISTING SINGLE DOOR TO MATCH EXISTING WINDOWS WITH DOUBLE DOOR MODIFY EXIST. LANDING LENGTH, 11'-0" NEW BRICK TO MATCH EXISTING NEW BLOOMCRAFT BRASS TOP RAIL @ 36" AFF REPAIR AND REBUILD EXIST. STEPS NEW HC RAMP 1:12, BRICK TO MATCH EXIST. NEW BRICK STEPS 2'-4" 6'-0" NEW PORTICO TO REPLACE EXISTING STOOP WOOD TRIM, CORNICE PROFILE TO MATCH EXISTING ROOF CORNICE. INTERNAL STRUCTURE TO BE STEEL NON-COMBUSTIBLE CONSTRUCTION. 300 COURT SQUARE RENOVATIONS 1 EAST ELEVATION ZEBRA CARRIAGE HOTEL A1 1/4"=1'-0" DECEMBER 13, 2022 BARRY MOSS, AIA NEW PAINTED GRAPHICS NEW PLANTER BOXES STRUCTUALLY MOUNTED TO EXISTING 300 COURT SQUARE RENOVATIONS RAILING TO PROVIDE 42" HIGH CODE-COMPLIANT HANDRAIL HEIGHT ZEBRA CARRIAGE HOTEL DECEMBER 13, 2022 9 1/2" BARRY MOSS, AIA NEW 2-STORY PORTICO; SEE SHEET A-1 FOR NOTES AND DIMENSIONS 5'-2" REFURBISH EXISTING WINDOWS, TYPICAL 3'-6" 2'-8" (3) NEW SURFACE-MOUNTED FLAG POLES AND MOUNTING PLATE REMOVE (4) NON-ORIGINAL EXISTING WINDOWS, REPAIR BRICK TO MATCH EXISTING 11" NEW CUSTOM PTD. WOOD SHUTTERS WITH HARDWARE NEW CUSTOM AWNING WITH BLACK & WHITE GREEK WAVE PATTERN AND BRONZE/COPPER POLES. INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED. 1'-2" NEW GAS LANTERNS 8'-0" REPLACE EXISTING DOORS WITH HISTORIC FRENCH DOORS 8'-1" 1 NORTH ELEVATION PAINTED STEEL TRELLIS JOISTS 2X12 GALV. STL. TUBE NEW CUSTOM PTD. WOOD BERMUDA SHUTTERS A2 1/4"=1'-0" ON REAR OF 300 COURT STREET ONLY 5'-9 1/4" 11 1/4" 11 1/4" 11" PAINTED STEEL TUBE JOISTS 8" 8" 8'-1 1/2" 6'-2 1/2" 11" 3'-2 1/4" 21'-6 3/4" 1'-1" EXISTING MECH. UNIT PAINTED STEEL TUBES REMOVE EXISTING WINDOW PAINTED 1X2 LATTICE AND REPAIR BRICK 27'-8 3/4" NEW FRENCH DOORS 12'-1 1/2" PAINTED WOOD STAIRS AND HANDRAILS PAINTED STEEL 8X8 GALV. TUBES 9'-0" STONE VENEER 2'-10" EXISTING ONE-STORY BUILDING WOOD DECK NEW REAR DECK AND FIREPLACE 5'-10" 5'-10" 20'-2" 2 SOUTH ELEVATION 3 SOUTH SECTION A2 1/4"=1'-0" A2 1/4"=1'-0" 300 COURT SQUARE RENOVATIONS ZEBRA CARRIAGE HOTEL 6'-10" 8" DECEMBER 13, 2022 5'-9 1/4" BARRY MOSS, AIA .PTD. GALV. STEEL TUBE EXISTING FIRE ESCAPE TO BE REFURBISHED AND MADE CODE COMPLIANT PTD. GALV. STEEL TUBE 21'-8 1/4" 5/4" X 3.5" PTD. TREATED WOOD TRIM PTD. TREATED 1X2 WOOD LATTICE PTD. TREATED 2X6 GUARD EXISTING MECHANICAL UNIT 3'-6" EXISTING ADJACENT BUILDING OPERABLE EXIT DOOR PANEL 2'-10" X 7'-0 PTD. METAL HAND/ GUARDRAILS 1 WEST ELEVATION A3 1/4"=1'-0" PTD. TREATED WOOD STRINGERS, RAILS, HANDRAILS, TREADS AND RISERS NEW BERMUDA SHUTTERS 2X12 PTD. GALV. STEEL TUBE JOISTS NEW PTD. WOOD SHUTTERS CAST STONE TOP 10" STONE VENEER FIREPLACE 3'-9" 1'-0" INTERMEDIATE 4X8 PTD. GALV. STEEL TUBE PTD. TREATED 1X2 LATTICE WOOD DECK ON 2X10 WOOD JOISTS @ 12" OC MAX MODIFY EXISTING WINDOW OPENING, ADD NEW EXIT DOOR. REMOVE NON-ORIGINAL WINDOW AND DOOR TO BE PAINTED WOOD TO MATCH EXISTING DOOR PROFILES. REPAIR WITH BRICK TO MATCH EXISTING 2 WEST SECTION A3 1/4"=1'-0" COURT SQUARE NEW BRICK STEPS BELOW NEW PTD. WOOD STAIRS NEW DECK AND TRELLIS 60'-4" 5'-4" (3) NEW FLAGPOLES 4'-3/4" 16'-3 3/4" EXISTING MECH UNIT FOR ADJACENT BUILDING NEW AWNING NEW STONE VENEER FIREPLACE 4'-1" 6'-8" 2'-10" 8'-1" 20'-2" 6'-0" REPAIR EXISTING FIRE ESCAPE 3'-7 3/4" 5'-1" PROPERTY LINE REPLACE EXISTING STOOP WITH NEW PORTICO 11'-0" SIXTH STREET 1 PLAN 300 COURT SQUARE RENOVATIONS A4 1/4"=1'-0" ZEBRA CARRIAGE HOTEL DECEMBER 13, 2022 BARRY MOSS, AIA 300 Court Square - BAR review Dec. 20, 2022 1 of 5 Applicant's renderings, Dec. 13, 2022 300 Court Square - BAR review Dec. 20, 2022 2 of 5 Applicant's renderings, Dec. 13, 2022 300 Court Square - BAR review Dec. 20, 2022 3 of 5 Applicant's renderings, Dec. 13, 2022 300 Court Square - BAR review Dec. 20, 2022 4 of 5 Applicant's renderings, Dec. 13, 2022 300 Court Square - BAR review Dec. 20, 2022 5 of 5 Applicant's renderings, Dec. 13, 2022 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 ~[; 6. Staff questions/discussion  BAR awards 2022  DT Mall NRHP update  Cafe space – string lighting