Packet Guide City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Regular Meeting January 18, 2023, 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. Meeting minutes February 15, 2022 and March 15, 2022 C. Deferred Items 2. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR # 22-09-03 1301 Wertland Street, TMP 040303000 Wertland Street ADC District Owner: Roger and Jean Davis, Trustees Applicant: Kevin Schafer/Design Develop Project: New apartment building/existing Wertenbaker House c1830 3. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR # 22-10-02 101 East Jefferson Street, TMP 330190000 North Downtown ADC District (contributing) Owner: First United Methodist Church Applicant: William L. Owens, AIA Project: FUMC solar panels D. New Items 4. Certificate of Appropriateness - Demolition BAR # 23-01-01 207-211 Ridge Street, TMP 290029000 Ridge Street ADC District (contributing) Owner: The Salvation Army Applicant: Erin Hannegan / Mitchell-Matthews Architects & Planners Project: Phased demolition of two, c1960s buildings. January 2023 BAR Packet 1 E. Other Business 5. Prelim. Discussion: 747 Park Street (misc. rehabilitations) 6. Staff questions/discussion  CLG annual report – BAR training  DT Mall NRHP listing and work group update  Cafe space – catenary lights (if time allows) F. Adjourn January 2023 BAR Packet 2 BAR MINUTES CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW Regular Meeting February 15, 2022 – 5:00 PM Zoom Webinar Welcome to this Regular Monthly Meeting of the Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review (BAR). Due to the current public health emergency, this meeting is being held online via Zoom. The meeting process will be as follows: For each item, staff will make a brief presentation followed by the applicant’s presentation, after which members of the public will be allowed to speak. Speakers shall identify themselves, and give their current address. Members of the public will have, for each case, up to three minutes to speak. Public comments should be limited to the BAR’s jurisdiction; that is, regarding the exterior design of the building and site. Following the BAR’s discussion, and before the vote, the applicant shall be allowed up to three minutes to respond, for the purpose of clarification. Thank you for participating. Members Present: Cheri Lewis, Breck Gastinger, James Zehmer, Jody Lahendro, Ron Bailey, Clayton Strange, David Timmerman, Robert Edwards, Hunter Smith Staff Present: Patrick Cory, Jeff Werner, Robert Watkins, Remy Trail Pre-Meeting: There was a discussion regarding the Albemarle County Courts building project. Staff went over the details of the Albemarle County Courts and City Courts complex. The BAR got a preliminary introduction to the project this past summer. Staff went over the project for the new members of the BAR. The Chairman did recommend that the new members of the BAR provide their feedback for the courts complex project. Mr. Zehmer had a question regarding the timelines of COAs. The timelines for COAs with the City of Charlottesville is 18 months. Staff did clarify the language and timeline for COAs approved by the BAR. Staff did provide the distinction of contributing and non-contributing buildings and structures. Non- contributing buildings can be demolished. A. Matters from the public not on the agenda No Comments from the Public B. Consent Agenda (Note: Any consent agenda item may be pulled and moved to the regular agenda if a BAR member wishes to discuss it, or if any member of the public is present to comment on it. Pulled applications will be discussed at the beginning of the meeting.) 1. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 22-02-01 617 Park Street, TMP 520186000 North Downtown ADC District Owner: Lucy Taurel and Alex Bassett Applicant: Adelle Chenier Project: Play structure 1 BAR Meeting Minutes February 15, 2022 2. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 22-02-02 413 Ridge Street, Tax Parcel 290136000 Ridge Street ADC District Owner/Applicant: Michaela Lieberman and Benjamin Martin Project: Fencing and landscape 3. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 22-02-03 511 N 1st Street, TMP 330001000 North Downtown ADC District Owner: Charlottesville Towers Condo Assoc. Applicant: Robert McGinnis Project: Alterations to main entry. 4. SUP Recommendation BAR 22-02-05 207 14th Street, NW; TMP 090070100 Rugby Rd-University Cir-Venable ADC District (non-contributing) Owner: University Limited Partnership Applicant: Bill Chapman Project: SUP to allow use as a hotel. (currently apartments.) Ms. Lewis moved to approve the Consent Agenda. (Second by Mr. Bailey) – Motion passes 9-0. C. Deferred Items 5. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 21-10-04 310 East Main Street, TMP 28004100 Downtown ADC District Owner: Armory 310 East Main, LLC Applicant: Robert Nichols/Formworks Project: Facade renovations/alterations Jeff Werner, Staff Report – Year Built: 1916. In 1956 the north façade was reconstructed. The existing north façade was constructed in 1982. (South façade may have been built at this same time.) District: Downtown ADC District Status: Contributing (Note: When the district was established, all existing structures were designated contributing.) CoA request for alterations to the Main Street (north) and Water Street (south) facades. The proposed work will alter the 20th century facades. See Appendix for comparison of October 2021 submittal and present submittal Discussion and Recommendations The original, 1916 facades no longer exist. The proposed alterations will replace the contemporary facades constructed in the 1980s. The November 1980 National Register nomination of the Charlottesville and Albemarle County Courthouse Historic District does not include this address, nor do any of the building descriptions for this block match the current design. Unless the building [the facades] are of exceptional importance, it does not meet the 50-year threshold necessary for consideration for the National Register. 2 BAR Meeting Minutes February 15, 2022 https://www.dhr.virginia.gov/historic-register/ A Property that can be Nominated for Listing in the Registers should: • Have achieved historical significance at least 50 years prior to today and/or is of exceptional importance; and • Is associated with at least one of the following: o An important event or historic trend; o A significant person whose specific contributions to history can be identified and documented; o An important architectural or engineering design; or it represents the work of a master; or it is a distinguishable entity although its components may lack individual distinction; o Has the potential to answer important research questions about human history (most commonly these properties are archaeological sites); and • Retain physical integrity through retention of historic materials, appearance, design, and other physical features. There are two questions for the BAR to discuss: 1. Do the existing facades—together or singularly; as part of the mall or as a single structure; and due to age, design, architect. and/or other factors—contribute to historic character of the Downtown ADC and should they be protected? (Emphasizing that an ADC District is a City designation, and not dependent on state or national designation.) 2. If the facades are to be altered--together or singularly—are the proposed changes consistent with the ADC District Design Guidelines? Additionally, due to the unique nature of the existing facades, the BAR might consider applying components of the design standards for both New Construction and for Rehabilitation. The applicant has not specified the glass to be used. The BAR may request that information or address it as a condition of approval. In the Appendix is a summary of BAR’s July 17, 2018 discussion re: glass. Robert Nichols, Applicant – Our current project is 310 East Main Street. It’s the building that currently has Vita Nova Pizza on the ground floor. It has a 1970s era curtain wall façade with very thin aluminum framed-in glass on The Mall side. In addition to a style that has been exhausted, they are in dire need of maintenance. That same description holds up for the Water Street façade. The building is about 22-23 feet wide. It goes all the way through the block from The Mall to Water Street. In October, 2021, we brought this project before the Board and reviewed our strategies for redesigning/redeveloping/rebuilding both front and back facades. We had a good discussion and a positive response. We’re back this month for two reasons. One is the front (East Main Street façade). It has currently has an elevator shaft that is visible on the street. It is a convex circular shaft. We know that it is going to revert back to a flat panel that is coplanar with the face of the building. It is just a blank panel. We’re not interested in seeing the elevator shaft the way it is now. It is a blank slate. We’ve considered it a blank slate for the decorative treatment. It already comes with a great proportion being three stories high and 8.5 feet wide. In our schedule, we asked for a deferral to give us more time to develop that. It wasn’t necessarily coordinated with the rest of the other construction on the building. What we showed last time was a ‘composition in two dimensions’ where we were experimenting with a little bit of relief. We had some bars in contrasting material that populated that vertical façade in varying rhythms. We got there by composing within this narrow vertical rectangle a collection of elements that produced some pleasing proportions. We have been working on a more systematic approach to creating a decoration on that façade. What it relies on are many small pieces of metallic 3 BAR Meeting Minutes February 15, 2022 finished material that will come in many varieties of shape. The view on the right is a computer generated view. It’s a perspective used to explain this thing. It is an array of tiles or little angle clips where the tiles go up in a regular array. They have certain parameters, which vary across the system. Each tile is flat against the elevator shaft. There’s an angle where that tile is bent and it projects from the elevator shaft. The length bent tab varies and the angle the tab is bent varies. Working with that is a palate. It gives you an opportunity to develop, by the combination of these many small pieces, very interesting visual effects from a static piece of architecture that will appear very dynamic and very interesting depending on the position from which you’re viewing it, your rate of speed as you walk by it, and a function of what daylight is doing at the time. If you look closely at this piece on the right, it may be not easy to identify any given tile that has an angle that is different from its neighbor. If you look at the whole piece, you can see a graphic move at the scale of the whole building where you get this river of that contrasting color coming down through the middle of that. In this case, the contrasting color will be the flat backing surface of the elevator shaft. That’s going to be a very thin bronzish color. These studies on the left are different demonstrations of ways in which repeated small moves (the similar material adjusted in a similar way) in combination in the aggregate create an effect that is commiserate with the scale of the whole assembly. The ability to do this is made possible with (CNC) manufacturing abilities which is a computer numerical control. This would be less interesting and prohibitively expensive if each of these pieces was made by hand. This whole system allows for the work that we do here in our design studio to defining how these tiles relate to one another, their angles, and tab lengths. We can send that information directly into the CNC machine shops that will produce the multiple tiles in an automated way. Given this ability to make these subtle changes over many different tiles laid out in an array such as this, we are using mathematical formulas to account for the effect of one course of these being stacked on another. How do you change the variation as you go to each one? How do you adjust that variation to change course? The parameters can adjust according to what course they are on. The means of producing this and how it is derived is mute once it is an object. It gives us access to an affect and result that would be hard to achieve. The effect will be quite interesting. One of the comments about this particular panel from the last meeting was that we might consider integrating lighting into this panel. We have considered that. We had considered it before. We have decided not to do that for a couple of reasons. Since this is up against the elevator shaft, we have very little depth available to us. We don’t have the kind of depth we often like to exploit to conceal lighting. We didn’t want to make lighting that needed to steal depth from inside the elevator shaft. It would introduce a need to maintain that from inside the shaft, which was unappealing to us. We have had some results on the Mall, particularly going back to when we designed the Blue Light Grill many years ago where we invested a lot of time in trying to develop a subtle lighting effect that looked pretty great in our mockups. When we got it installed, it was overshadowed/overpowered by the street lighting. We realized that a lot of what is happening particularly from two stories down is that street lighting illuminates that zone through people walk. Lighting, other than interior lighting, can have a tendency to be washed out. In this case, we’re relying on the backing material to reflect light. When somebody passes by and the varying degrees to which the bronze material is revealed, that would have an effect of showing the brightness and reflecting some color. When we came back from the last meeting, there were a couple of comments that we wanted to focus on. We were hoping to come back with the response to those comments. There is a fair amount of depth in this façade (in the depth of the framing members and the depth that is provided by the kind of primary frame around the tall glazing compared to the actual sash). We also have increased depth in that vertical panel on the left over the street number. We were talking about what some sun control might do on that façade both to control the sun for the benefit of the occupants but also for the appearance of the façade. Sun control is a real issue down there from an interior perspective. What opportunities do we have on the exterior of the building? We evaluated some common ways to address southern sun; horizontal planes that project out from the building and become visors over the glazed 4 BAR Meeting Minutes February 15, 2022 openings on the south. We also realized that, in this particular location, late afternoon sun should beam down Water Street from a low angle. That is also problematic. Low sun typically comes from the west. It takes a different strategy to combat that. We had horizontal blinds and vertical blinds. We’re calculating sun penetration into the building. It quickly became apparent that, given the width of this building (22 feet), we have about 21 feet of occupyable space back here. The length of the floorplate is about 250 feet. There is quite a lot of action we’re evaluating and proposing of the exterior of the building to improve and fine-tune the experience at this patch of floor on the interior. We found that the investment in exterior blinds on the building wasn’t going to be the right way to combat sun. We have integrated on the interior positions for automated roll down shades. In the vertical tower overlooking the doorway, we’re suspending that single steel mesh screen, which act as a sun shade. This is strong enough that it also acts as a safety guardrail. Operating windows and doors at that location can be opened and provide ventilation and a little connection to the street without having to add guardrails. QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC Nu Questions from the Public QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD Ms. Lewis – My question is about the windows fenestration on The Mall side. You’re showing glazed. What would that look like? Mr. Nichols – There will be a film on it as part of the energy development of it. I don’t know in what way we have standardized the criteria for windows on The Mall; whether it is visible transmission. I am aware that there have been issues in the past about vision and tinting. If there are technical standards, we would conform to those standards. We’re happy to provide samples. Ms. Lewis – Our guidelines for new construction in two different places say that glass should be clear. Opaque, spandrel, or translucent glass could be approved. Darkly tinted or near glass is not appropriate. The unique thing about this building is that it was pretty much demolished. There’s no historic fabric on this building. It is so unusual on the Downtown Mall. I think that gives the applicant a little bit more leeway. We’re not looking at existing transoms, openings, or a structure. It was made into this huge wall with this round elevator tower and not much more. We do need to adhere to the guidelines. Where the guidelines might be silent or might equivocate, we have more leeway with this application than we do with a lot of other buildings. If this was any other building on The Mall, it would be a very different consideration. Mr. Werner – On the last page of the staff report, I inserted a paragraph. Back in the summer of 2018, there was a request from the Planning Commission for how the BAR defined clear glass. We have been using this as the VLT percentage of not lower than 70 percent. There are so many different numbers that can be used to measure glass. This is the one the BAR had come down as the point. If you go below 70, the glass starts to become a mirror with the primary concern being the street level. You want to have those be permeable spaces into the shops and restaurants. You don’t want people looking in a mirror. Back in 2018, the BAR had a discussion about this. It gave itself some latitude and some instruction on understanding that there is other criteria that can be evaluated. It doesn’t always have to be at the 70 percent VLT. At Dairy Central, there are some windows where they went to 62 VLT. We had a difficult time discerning the difference between the 62 and the 70. There is some latitude there. The primary conclusion of the BAR was open for flexibility, provided there’s a design intent behind it and provided there is an explanation of why. 5 BAR Meeting Minutes February 15, 2022 Mr. Nichols – I always think of the tradeoff between visibilities with energy performance. Typically beefing up the energy performance can fight that. The climate condition that is best combatted with the beefed up film is solar penetration. Being on the north side of the building, we really don’t have that problem. We’re certainly not specifying a specific tint or mirror effect. I would be happy to provide samples. I think you will definitely perceive it as clear and clean glass. Mr. Timmerman – I am having a hard time with the 3-D image. I understand that you’re looking at a bronze background. With the break metal that’s on top of that, is the idea that would be thin slivers of metal that are broken up with sharp angles? Mr. Nichols – At the base and going up to around seven feet, those pieces probably wouldn’t qualify as break metal in terms of thickness. It probably would qualify as bent plate. The angle at which they’re broken would be relatively shallow. They don’t project so much. Their coursing would be taller (six inches a piece). Those bits are relatively stout and there are fewer of them. Those would have their corners touched by an abrasive to soften them up. They reveal the angle at which they are broken. It would be a quite subtle five degrees. There would be a reveal of around three quarters of an inch or something like that. Once we get above that human occupancy zone, those parameters would adjust consistently with not needing to worry about vandalism or safety. That would allow for a shorter coursing, more of a reveal, and probably thinner materials. Mr. Timmerman – On the right hand side, it is hard to tell from the renderings what to make of the storefront and if that is a typical storefront assembly or if there is something specific custom about it. I would be interested to hear more about that, as well as the brick selection that’s surrounding. Is there something particular that led to that colored brick? I would be interested in hearing about the intent on that. Mr. Nichols – That diagrammatic wall section describes the glazing system. The main idea there is that we have one masonry opening which is at the taller story. The two upper stories populate a single, taller masonry opening with the division between floors two and three. It’s going to be detailed in color and geometry in a way that suggests a steel or metallic system. It has a structural appearance. It looks like the shallow side of an open steel channel. The glazing system itself is relatively conventional. We’re using that intermediate spandrel condition there that will be in the same finish to try to extend the reading of the storefront so that it spans across floors two and three in a system that looks more integral to the building than just a storefront insert. With the brick, we are just happy to use a modular size, which is what we’re showing here. We and our client were interested in contrasting with the red brick down there. We want to drop a sample off. We’re definitely proposing a neutral grey. That one image shown on our print submission/digital PDF isn’t very compelling. We will go for a more uniform, cleaner selection. Mr. Gastinger – Your elevations shows it as a lighter grey/green color. The perspective is a darker grey. The sample is somewhere in between. Your drawings also seem to suggest a darker, mortar color. What is the most representative of your intention? Mr. Nichols – All of these ways of representation end up having varied effects. I would say that it is a darkened version of the elevation. The rendering is a little muddier and more shadowy than what we expect to bring to you as a sample. That printed picture is the kind of ranging in color and effect that they’re allowing on the brick, to my eye is darkening that up. To the extent that there is green coming through in the elevation, that’s incorrect. We would be much more neutral. 6 BAR Meeting Minutes February 15, 2022 Ms. Lewis – What is going on right at the bottom of the façade? I don’t see materials specified there. It looks like something vertical is happening below the storefront window at the entrance. Mr. Nichols – That’s still the brick masonry in an alternate bond pattern. I see that there’s a conflict between the elevation and the rendering. The rendering has that more correct. It’s the same material laid up in a sojourn. Ms. Lewis – It looks like it is doing two different things side by side. Mr. Nichols – The three dimensional rendering on the right is correct. The left implies something at a different scale going horizontal. It’s the brick of the same size/same specification. Mr. Lahendro – Despite your detailed description of the CNC metal screen, I’m still having a hard time understanding what I am reviewing. What is it going to look like? You’re creating a pattern with the CNC program as it is cutting out this screen? If that’s the case, what is the pattern? Is it a tight matrix-type of pattern? Is it something else? Mr. Nichols – The best I can do at the moment is to revert back to the view on pg. 5. At the moment, we haven’t yet locked it in. It’s very hard to show in print. Coming from the east/from the amphitheater at the Mall, the effect of the pattern would largely be invisible until you get within five feet. The direction that the blinding effect happens. It obscures the contrasting color in the back. Coming from the right, you would see the effect of this pattern more. It’s an abstract pattern. It’s intended to utilize the full three stories to have a building scale pattern where there is some continuity of the visible bronze color all the way down. If you look at that mockup, you start to get rivers of the bonze color coming through. There is an infinite amount of possibilities. We haven’t sent it to the fabricators and to our client that we have locked it in. With this view, if you something interesting or legible and if I was to rotate it, your understanding of that pattern would change. It would look different. Mr. Werner – This can maybe help the BAR. It almost seems to be a sculptural piece. You can think of it as a three dimensional mural. In that case, there’s a way of thinking this through, as not necessarily the design of it, but the location. The design doesn’t matter. As far as the installation at this location and what the result of the artwork might be, you step away from that. The other piece is just that (lessons learned from the Code Building), some of the metal panels that are at the street level. I am not suggesting you treat it as a sculpture. It is one way to think about it. Mr. Lahendro – How will you, as the architects, be sure that you’re getting what you want. Are you going to be doing a mockup of this and reviewing it on site? If so, can the BAR have the ability to also review it? I would like to know what it is we’re reviewing and being asked to approve. Clearly, you also don’t know at this point. Mr. Nichols – That’s correct. There will be mockups at a relatively small scale to demonstrate other aspects of this that are essential to its construction and performance but don’t describe the scale. You can learn a lot from the live, three dimensional modeling of it. That’s how we’re working on it. I would be happy (in the same way you review a mockup) to share with you our final review of this thing in that same way. We can emulate being at street level and having a cone of vision that starts to incorporate the full building façade and adjust for position. I appreciate your question and would like to offer that. I am describing something live, which might be difficult to coordinate. Our technology would let us deliver that as a series of frames/a video so we wouldn’t have to join together for something like that. 7 BAR Meeting Minutes February 15, 2022 Mr. Lahendro – I just bring up my own difficulty/my own hesitance in approving something that I don’t know what it’s going to look like. Maybe the rest of the BAR members are willing to accept it on faith. We go through an awful lot of trouble requiring mockups of traditional/conventional construction. This is something new that I have seen before the BAR. Mr. Nichols – I could prepare a video or even a series of still images. It would do a much better job than a physical sample portion of it describing/making pretty clear the effect. I know pretty closely what we want. I may have been able to present to you with twelve images that would have given you an idea. Ms. Lewis – I would just like to request a little bit more information about the materials. Are they going to be fragile? Will they damage? Will they be at the pedestrian level? You have mentioned bronze. We know there’s metal. I would just like to see the thickness. I think that I might have to see some sort of sample of this. The video would be great to capture the image of what you’re trying to do. Mr. Nichols – Along with the brick, we can submit a sample of three tiles of representative size; the fattest ones we expect to see at the base, something in the middle, and one of the finer ones from the top. We expect them to be painted aluminum. The bronze would be very thin; for the most part completely protected material. Mr. Bailey – How are the tiles attached to the bronze? Mr. Nichols – The tiles will have blind fasteners. As an assembly, the thing goes up in panels of six courses each. It would be assembled offsite. Those panels will go up in a more conventional way as if they were an opaque piece of glass in a glazing system. All of the fasteners would be concealed on the backside of that. Mr. Strange – Those will be the same material on the fenestration? Mr. Nichols – The glazing system on the building proper side of that will be fairly conventional. Mr. Gastinger – What is the max projection of one of those small tiles? Mr. Nichols –At the moment, I am showing them at three inches. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC No Comments from the Public COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Gastinger – It’s a given that there’s some concern about what exactly we would be approving. We’re definitely going to want to see a brick sample and some samples of this screen material and an animation of some sort to understand the fact. Mr. Strange – This screen is a real interesting dynamic on a re-interpretation of the leading program you get with brick. In that respect and given the size of the module, it’s a nice contemporary take on the kind of materials that are used on The Mall. 8 BAR Meeting Minutes February 15, 2022 Mr. Timmerman – I agree with that. It’s a really good idea. The number of questions that you have already received about what it is doing points to the fact that we’re interested in it. I question it because I think it’s a great idea. I want it to be really great. I’m looking at the image of your rendering and precedent images beside it. That’s very telling. The precedent images that you presented here really do show that moire effect very well. For me, the moire effect is all about this sleight of hand. At some point, you might look at something and it looks bland. The sun or moon comes out and you’re faced with this really striking contrast and this really beautiful pattern. Whether it is one bolt strike or a wave or on the other end of the spectrum and it is a very subtle screen-like effect. My feeling about the rendering that you have provided is that I am squinting and not quite feeling something there. These precedent images are maybe physical models that you can do with a CNC machine if this is a CNC project. I don’t know if there’s a way to miniaturize it and make it something that we can look at. I’m very interested to see more study on it. I am assuming that’s where you’re heading anyway when you talk about nailing the thing down. The other thing that I would like to mention, as far as the front façade goes, I am also interested in a little bit more detailing on the windows. With some of those elevations, it would be helpful to see the context that the building sits in; not necessarily that I would have to see direct relationships. I am interested in your comment about it being a proportional project. I am interested in see how the proportions of the façade relate to what is on either side, especially given the fact that’s how we experience of walking down The Mall. In thinking about the screen, I would like to see more variety or something with the window patterns. This goes back to the guidelines. There’s a decorative pattern to a lot of the precedents along The Mall. As we walk down The Mall, there’s the copper, metallic canopies that we look at and admire, the detailing from the 20s and 30s. There’s some more contemporary detailing that catches our eye. This is pretty neat that this is a detailing and decorative project. I would like to see how that pushes a little bit more in the window wall. In questioning the intent behind the solids versus the glass, you mentioned that the idea there was for a singular opening, singular aperture. When you mentioned that, I saw it. The big band going across it breaks it up or works against that singularity a little bit. I am interested in where the numbers are; the 310 and the joint of the glass. There is an interest there that I would like to see spread out to the other typical storefront patterns that happen everywhere else around. There’s a huge opportunity with the screen. This goes back to Ms. Lewis’ original comment about how this is a tabular rasa. The historic context was brutally ripped out of this thing. There’s a great opportunity here to bring back some ‘ghosts’ of the old detailing of years past on The Mall. Ms. Lewis – We haven’t talked about the Water Street side. I don’t have any objections to it. It meets our guidelines. My concerns and focus are on the transparency of the glass on The Mall. I am happy that the brick color is more nuanced and you provided a sample that gives a little bit more color than the elevation was shown. I am interested to see the color of the mortar and more details as other people have said including surrounds. I think the screen is pretty cool. It’s a great innovation. It’s a much better solution than what you had before us in October. It can be fantastic. We need more information about the materials and how it would work and what you were going to spell out in the moire. I am concerned about how these openings relate to existing buildings on the Downtown Mall. The first two guidelines under New Construction definitely ask us to looking at buildings’ openings, rhythm of voids and masses, and proportions and make sure those are similar to adjacent or nearby structures; maybe some elevations, maybe showing us anything in that block. It doesn’t have to be fancy. These three stories don’t strike me as being out of character. They do seem to have more of a commercial than other buildings traditionally do on The Mall. I am really supportive. It looks like a neat project. Mr. Gastinger – I am really supportive of the project. The way that you have approached these facades has been really successful. I really like the elongated proportions. They’re an appropriate, contemporary response to the condition that you found. There are a couple of concerns about the panel. My concern is the great, elegant, and long proportion. I hope that it is not detracted from the treatment 9 BAR Meeting Minutes February 15, 2022 you have to give the pattern in the lower 7 to 8 feet. I just worry that could get really flat and less interesting. I hope it wouldn’t feel like a different material in that portion. I’m not convinced by the effect in the rendering. I am concerned that the really beautiful/white ones are using the white material and it is all indirect light that creates shadow and creates a lot of contrast. What you’re proposing is using dark colors on a north façade. It’s not going to have direct sunlight. The potential is there for it to be exquisite. I’m not yet convinced by what you have shown us. The proportion of the depth of relief that you are working with is much less than the small little paper models of the other examples that you’re showing. I’m hoping it doesn’t feel two dimensional or underwhelming for the effort it is taking to create it. In the earlier elevations, the bronze color was really helpful in setting itself off against that primarily dark grey façade. I’m worried that we’re losing that color. If it was more like the rendering, it would be very dark. Maybe that lighter brick is helpful. There have been a few questions about the windows and the storefront system. In many cases, we don’t require as much information regarding that. In this case, the storefront is essentially almost the entire façade. It is well within our purview to understand more about that system and the glazing that would be included. Mr. Nichols – You’re talking about the Main Street side and how it ties in with the spandrel? Mr. Gastinger – How much detail is included in that section where it is the two inch piece and the glass and the character of that glass. I know that you put this up for final COA approval this evening. There are no questions about samples and details. Do you have any comment about where you are in the process? Mr. Nichols – We’re pretty far along. We have in our office the information about the storefront, scale, and what is going on with the storefront as it goes to the spandrel in the back. We understand here that it would be fairly easy to get to. The development of the screen is ongoing. The remaining questions would be addressed and approved in ‘one swoop’ without setting aside bits and pieces to come back or to be reviewed as samples in the conference room. With the general construction and design schedule, we need to keep going. It seems pretty clear from your comments today that what is happening, in terms of our choice of systems and basic structural conditions and material choices, it is very easy to isolate out the panel as off the construction schedule. I really don’t see that holding up our general work on the project. I would expect to be able to come back roughly eight weeks from now. We will be working on our construction documentation in the meantime. Mr. Gastinger – What I am hearing is general support for the direction and approach with some questions about some of the details, samples, understanding that there is a longer timeframe, and finalizing the construction of the panel. Do we have enough information to approve the panel tonight? I know that we also have challenges in how we could come back approve that at a later date. Mr. Werner – There are a couple of things that we need to clarify. One is the glass. Do you have something in mind? Is 70 VLT something that you want? That would be information provided by the company that does the storefronts. The second piece that we need to clarify is the difficulty with having renderings versus elevations. We get details that are slightly different. I noticed at the rear elevation that I can’t tell if things are supposed to align or if it is the way the rendering has it presented. An actual elevation in lieu of a rendering is probably preferable to make sure that we see all of the details. It does seem like there are some material samples that you all want to see; the front screen and the material in the back. I clearly hear support. I don’t know how you would phrase this unless you have strong opinions or you want to make some clarifications about the renderings so that we’re clear about what is understood. 10 BAR Meeting Minutes February 15, 2022 Mr. Gastinger – We’re getting more guidance from the city attorney and city staff about limiting or not allowing COAs with extensive conditions. We’re limited in our ability to come back approve COAs in a piecemeal fashion. It would certainly be my preference to approve this at a later date. We need a little bit more information to exactly understand what we’re approving. Mr. Nichols asked the BAR to defer the application to a later date – Mr. Zehmer moved to accept the deferral. (Second by Mr. Gastinger). Motion passes 9-0. 6. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 21-07-05 350 Park Street, TMP 530109000 and 530108000 North Downtown ADC District (non-contributing property) Owner: City of Charlottesville and County of Albemarle Applicant: Eric Amtmann, Dalgliesh-Gilpin-Paxton Architects [on behalf of Albemarle County] Project: New courthouse building (at Levy Building) Jeff Werner, Staff Report – 350 Park Street Year Built: Levy Building 1852, Annex c1980 District: North Downtown ADC District Status: Contributing 0 Park Street Year Built: N/A, parking lot District: North Downtown ADC District Status: N/A The Levy Building is Greek Revival, constructed with brick laid in American bond with Flemish bond variant. Three stories, hipped roof, three-bay front, heavy entablature supported by monumental stuccoed pilasters on brick pedestals, crossette architraves, and brick water table. CoA request for construction of an addition to the Levy Building and new construction related to the expansion of the City-County Courts Complex. Discussion While this is a formal CoA request, the applicant has acknowledged that this meeting will be treated as an intermediate review, that the applicant will request a deferral, and no formal BAR action will be taken, except to accept that request. However, by consensus the BAR may express an opinion about the project as presented. (For example, the BAR may take a non-binding vote to express support, opposition, or even questions and concerns regarding the project’s likelihood for an approved CoA. These will not represent approval or even endorsement of the CoA, but will represent the BAR’s opinion on the project, relative to preparing the project for final submittal. While such votes carry no legal bearing and are not binding, BAR members are expected to express their opinions—both individually and collectively--in good faith as a project advances towards an approved CoA.) This is an iterative process and these discussions should be thorough and productive. The goal is to establish what is necessary for a final submittal that provides the information necessary for the BAR to evaluate the project and to then approve or deny the requested CoA. In response to any questions from the applicant and/or for any recommendations to the applicant, the BAR should rely on the germane sections of the ADC District Design Guidelines and related review criteria. While elements of other chapters may be relevant, staff recommends that the BAR refer to the criteria in Chapter II--Site Design and Elements, Chapter III--New Construction and Additions, and Chapter VI – Public Design and Improvements. Of particular assistance for this discussion are the criteria in Chapter III: • Setback, including landscaping and site improvements • Spacing • Massing and Footprint 11 BAR Meeting Minutes February 15, 2022 • Height and Width • Scale • Roof • Orientation • Windows and Doors • Street-Level Design • Foundation and Cornice • Materials and Textures • Paint [Color palette] • Details and Decoration, including lighting and signage Also, the criteria under Public Buildings and Structures, in Chapter VI • Public buildings should follow design guidelines for new construction. • New structures, including bridges, should reflect contemporary design principles. Additionally, the BAR should consider Sec. 34-282(d). While the provision identifies what is required for a submittal, the BAR has historically applied this list with discretion, given that not all are necessary for every CoA request. 1) Detailed and clear descriptions of any proposed changes in the exterior features of the subject property, including but not limited to the following: the general design, arrangement, texture, materials, plantings and colors to be used, the type of windows, exterior doors, lights, landscaping, parking, signs, and other exterior fixtures and appurtenances. The relationship of the proposed change to surrounding properties will also be shown. 2) Photographs of the subject property and photographs of the buildings on contiguous properties. 3) Samples to show the nature, texture and color of materials proposed. 4) The history of an existing building or structure, if requested by the BAR or staff. 5) For new construction and projects proposing expansion of the footprint of an existing building: a three-dimensional model (in physical or digital form) depicting the site, and all buildings and structures to be located thereon, as it will appear upon completion of the work that is the subject of the application. Steve White, Applicant – We have been diligently advancing the design inside and outside for the last six months. Our intent tonight is to show you what we have progressed with and with our plan to come back a third time for design with regards to more granular detail. Tonight’s presentation is divided into four sections. The sections are the history, site context analysis, the building design, and materials/materiality. First Slide To orient everyone to the site, north is up. We’re looking at the parameters of the building site. We have Park Street on the west/left, High Street to the north, the Jessup House (county owned property) to the east/right, and we have East Jefferson Street to the south. We have the Redlands Club in that southwest corner. There is a 1980s addition that will be demolished as part of the project. What will remain is the original Levy structure from 1851 (top left corner). Next Slide The history of courts complex starts in 1803 with the building that’s on the right hand side (that cluster of two building facades). It was added onto a few times at least one hundred years. The façade you see there was 100 years after the original one was built. It is a wonderful, cultural resources that you have 12 BAR Meeting Minutes February 15, 2022 in Charlottesville. It will be the circuit court and remain as the circuit court when this project is finished. The project we’re discussing tonight is a lower court (General District Court). The building to the left is the 1938 addition. It was originally an administrative office building. It was converted to courts. It will have the remainder of the circuit court/higher court functions going on in that structure. Next Slide These pictures are giving you some historical research that we have been diving into over the last year. The Redlands Club (top right corner) is noteworthy. Next Slide Understanding the context of the region and of the Shenandoah. Next Slides We did fly a drone over the site. We used that to do investigative work related to façade restoration. We had them here to get a good birds-eye. This is looking west. The next slide is looking east. You can see on the top portion the Levy Building on the left and the 1980s addition (that will come down). The Redlands Club is hidden by a tree. Next Slide These three slides certainly are very important to us in the makeup of the character, proportion, scale, and the identity of this campus as a courts campus, a judicial facility made up of four structures. The fourth structure is the new structure. That’s important for us in keeping in mind how we figure out the identity of this new structure. Next Slides These next two or three slides are just the street views. Next Slide – Site Analysis This is just a sampling of the things that we were looking at. We looked at traffic patterns, those sheds to the site, and new sheds from the site, the site topography, solar orientation, etc. I included in the package three to four pages of written narrative. The intent there was to provide you with a narrated response. I encourage the Board to read through that. It does go through carefully the comments we received and our response to those comments. Next Slide This is our current site plan. There are a couple of things I want to point out about the site plan. As we get further into the discussion, the building is made up of a series of building forms. The forms are really driven a lot by the function that is within because we have large courtrooms. There are two large courtrooms. They make up the primary building mass. We have a series of “saddlebags” that support that primary mass with building, judge’s chambers to the north. We have the building entrance and portico. We have the hyphen/connection to the Levy Building. They are a contextual response to the building masses that are adjacent to our property; the lengths of walls, heights of walls, and where the 13 BAR Meeting Minutes February 15, 2022 steps occur. You will see that as we go through this. The other piece to this site plan that I want to point out is that we, since the first presentation, the entry plaza is really our most important space. It’s a public space, outdoor space that is essentially an outdoor room as framed by two buildings that are 150 to 200 years old. The third side is the new building/entry portico. That really becomes the place where you meet your associates, your attorney before going in, there are serious discussions before going in, and there are serious discussions after coming back out. This is intended to be a place of calming and respite and to be a civic space that is indicative of the gravitas of the court system. That’s what is going on. Next Slide The blue areas are the public spaces. Behind those blue spaces are the functional areas like the clerk’s offices and their highly trafficked spaces. They’re on the first floor. The Commonwealth Attorney is in the Levy Building. They take up the entirety of the Levy Building. You enter the main portico at that center portion where the elliptical form is. If you’re meeting with the Commonwealth Attorney, you would actually turn left and make your way to the Levy Building. There are stairs that flank the north and south ends of the building. Those are also expressed on the exterior and help break down the scale of the mass of the building. Next Slide This is where the most important functions of the building are. You go up through a double rotunda space into this linear corridor that feeds the two courts. One is the county general district court and the other is the city general district court with the judge’s chambers to the north. Next Slide This is the roof plan. We do have a mechanical screen. It has been deeply recessed from the primary elevation to be discrete and functionally moved off of the edge of the courtrooms to mitigate noise that occurs as a result of the units. Next Slide We’re going to shift to the portico. These are traditional porticoes that reflect civic, government, or academic functions. The bottom three are all courthouses either at the state or federal level, which are modern interpretations of those traditional porticoes. These are some of the things that we looked at the design of the front entrance. Next Slide We also carefully studied the proportions of the facades of the buildings, particularly the buildings that are part of the courts complex. The Levy, Greek revival is on the top left, the 1803 original structures’ additions from the 1870s and 1890s (an ionic order), and the bookended brick walls. Next Slide This is a rendering of that entry plaza. You can see that it is a formal symmetrical space, framed by the Redlands Club on the right and the Levy Building on the left. The portico is a modern expression in steel and glass. There are honey-locust trees, which frame the left and the right and create nice dapple light/shade for benches that are left and right. With the elliptical form, we have studied it quite 14 BAR Meeting Minutes February 15, 2022 extensively and we’re still studying different patterns for that elliptical form. On the end that is facing you, it creates the building signage but also separates the ADA access on the right from the stair access on the left as the site slopes right to left. Next Slide These are studies of the elliptical form; all predominantly in brick with highlights in bluestone. We have not settled on a particular pattern. We are investigating various patterns in design right now. Next Slide This is a colored rendition of the plan of that space. You can see the six trees. We previously had two on either side. We have now pushed the building back about 17 feet and added an additional honey locust to create a better proportioned outdoor room in a more ceremonial space. Next Slides This is a diagram illustrating the ADA accessible routes. Next Slide These two sections illustrate the benches and the trees and the site walls. Next Slide The building forms have been deliberately kept low. It is a two story structure that sits approximately 35 feet such that no portion of the new building is taller than the cornice line of the Levy Building. Next Slide In terms of the rhythm of that front façade, the last time you saw this it was a five bay order running across the entirety of that saddlebag. We have changed it to an ABA rhythm with a three bay order in the center with bookends left and right. It works well for us in terms of the function and the interior with queueing and screening. From a scale point of view, the relationship to the Levy Building was working better to create a ‘sibling’ of the Levy Building that is somewhat of a reflection. Next Slide This is a detail of how the portico/the way we’re thinking of the detailing at this time. It is a galvanized, architectural finished steel. It means that the welds are done to a certain level of quality. There’s no writing on the steel. It is very clean. If you galvanize and paint it, it can be a very nice finish. The anti-room is a roofed space. That’s where your weather-lock is. It’s nested internal to that larger element. The muttoned portion would be clad. It would be an aluminum clad storefront system that would not be the exposed steel. Next Slides This is the north side up on High Street with the Levy Building on the right and the addition that will be removed on the left. This next view is the design of the new structure. You can see that saddlebag that is the judge’s chambers. It is very similar in scale to the Levy Building in its dimension (left to 15 BAR Meeting Minutes February 15, 2022 right) and in that direction. You have the setback to the left with the recessed panel and the garage entrance. One thing to keep in mind with the courthouse is that there’s very specific functional criteria. We have a sally port for detainee transfer going down the ramp into a secure space. It’s also a secure zone for the judges and chief clerks to park. That was a very important functional requirement. That is tucked away. It also aligns with the face of the Jessup House on the left. Next Slide This gets into the detailing of the brick. Our intent here is to finesse the façade with very subtle details and to not overplay our hand and to be somewhat differential to the historic structures and to beget the detailed in proportions that are really nice. The steps in the façade are 2 to 4 inches depending on where you are. Those primary pilasters are all two inch changes in plane. The entablature is a series of corbels. There is cat stone that is intentionally a similar color to the brick as not to create a heavy striation that can be distracting. It’s also indicative of the function of the courts so that the courts are on that upper level. You have very tall ceilings there. That’s the reason for the really tall window. Next Slide This is the elevation from the east. That’s the Jessup House in the foreground. It is by enlarge covered. That building is about 10 to 15 feet away. Since you last saw it, the façade has been broken into an ABABA rhythm rather than one long strip of windows and pilasters. We thought that it broke it up nicely. It also is indicative of the two courts. There is a court on the left, a court on the right, and a space between. You can also see the subtle saddlebags. The saddlebag on the right is the judge’s chambers. You can see how that cornice line is picked up. There’s no parapet wall. There are pretty subtle steps that are occurring on and around the façade. Next Slide This is the north elevation with the Levy Building on the right, the hyphen on the left. You can see how much lower that hyphen is from not only the main structure but also the saddlebag of the chambers. The long element between the hyphen and the element on the left is the stair. That stair egresses out to grade. That expression is slightly different. The window is at the landing. We’re just trying to create some interest and some variation to help mitigate the fact that we have a pretty large institutional building across the street from a residential neighborhood. Next Slide This is the south façade. You can see the Redlands Club in the ‘ghosted’ thing on the left with the Levy Building behind it. You can see the relationship of the portico in the weather lock to the saddlebag of the entry element. That element has windows according to the interior arrangement. That proportion is very in keeping with the townhouses that are nearby. There are a couple of slight recessed panels between the stair and the entry element on the left. Next Slide This is an aerial view of the site from the south and east. Next Slide 16 BAR Meeting Minutes February 15, 2022 These are the materials. We have three brick blends we’re studying right now, all with darker mortars. An example is the national building museum where it uses the sandstone, a red brick, and a red mortar as a way to differentiate it from its neighbors. We’re also using a Norman brick. The trim colors are in that last slide. It is a blueish-slate color that we think works nicely with the brick. It is also a departure from the white trim, mutton windows that are predominant. Next Slides These are slides showing materials for the exterior plaza spaces. QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No Questions from the Public QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Strange – Can you talk more about why you’re using mimicry and a single material to mimic the classical forms of the adjacent building and is the correct approach here? Mr. White – We were intentionally not trying to use mimicry. There was the intentional use of other materials to avoid mimicry. Mr. Strange – There is so much use of a single material. I find it odd/strange that you wouldn’t make better use of contemporary ideas about brick in order to address the kind of classical language in a new way. It seems to me like a one-to-one relationship between what is existing and what you’re proposing and using brick as ‘paintbrush’ to do that. Mr. Zehmer – I thought that I had read the penthouse on the roof was ‘if needed.’ Is that needed? Mr. White – It is absolutely needed. If it was written as ‘if needed,’ that was an error on our part. Mr. Gastinger – Can you remind us what the nature of that screen will be? Mr. White – It would be a metal panel that would likely be in a vertical orientation. It would be abut seam. There would be no shadow line. It would likely be the same tone as the blue-grey of the window trim. Mr. Lahendro – No natural light in courtrooms. The only natural light in the building is going into the hallways that ring the building. Is that just the way it is with courtrooms and court buildings? Just the lack of windows? It looks like a fortress. It’s just a lack of transparency, penetration. It’s hard to believe that courtrooms can’t have natural light. Were you in the program not allowed to put natural light in the courtrooms? Mr. White – This is a very astute question. I appreciate you asking it. There will be light in the courtrooms. There will be a clear story light that will be high somewhat similar to the city district court. There is a clear story there. It is essentially a security and egress driven issue. I don’t know if you’re aware of how a modern new courthouse works. There are three essential elements. There’s the public, the judiciary, and the detainee. They’re all three separate circulation routes that can never cross, except for in the courtroom itself. They are very much a driver. I recently designed a courthouse for the federal courts that did have windows on the edge. The way you achieve that is by having extra stairs in the back in order to not to have to the circulation wrap around. We could do that here if we had more 17 BAR Meeting Minutes February 15, 2022 site. That was something we tried to achieve at one point. We’re really hemmed in by the size of the site to be able to get that. I am sensitive to this issue and realize that the judges and clerks spend most of their days in these rooms. To have natural light in them is really important. Mr. Zehmer – Is a skylight a viable option? Mr. White – Yes. It could be a viable option. Mr. Gastinger – I don’t see any clear story windows in the building facades. Where is the light coming in? Mr. White – Do you see the 16 foot dimension? Those windows are about 12 feet tall. That’s a clear story in that upper portion. Ms. Lewis – What is the remaining material on these windows? What would be called fenestration but they’re not clear story that would bring in natural light? Mr. White – Just regular vision glass. That tall window is all clear vision glass. Ms. Lewis – It is clear vision glass? There’s no natural light coming in it? I am not familiar with clear vision glass. Can you describe what that is? Mr. White – Did I say that there was no light coming in? Ms. Lewis – I thought that you had said that only the top, rectangular, horizontal windows would be the windows letting in the light. That was a clear story. Mr. White – The question was I don’t see any clear story windows. Show me the clear story. I was pointing out where the clear story is. When we say vision lights that means that they’re lights that you can see through. They’re clear. From the floor to 12 feet above the floor is a large window, which includes that horizontal band, which is called a clear story. All of them contribute to the light that goes into the courtroom. Ms. Lewis – There is a lot of natural light that goes into these courtrooms. Mr. White – The confusion was that there was a corridor. The corridor is on the exterior. It is part of that security requirement. It bounces light into the courtroom itself. The courtroom itself has bands of light that are high. Mr. Timmerman – Can you explain the front portico as it is designed? It looks like the vertical columns are disengaged from the portico below. It is like two separate structures there. The columns are outside the glass and the one story box below. Mr. White – That’s correct. Mr. Timmerman – Nothing really happens up there. That’s a solid roof above the first story. The second story canopy is just a decorative element. It is not to be occupied at any time? Mr. White – The roof/brise soleil would filter light for the second story of that atrium/lobby space with the views out to the western site, the circuit court. 18 BAR Meeting Minutes February 15, 2022 Mr. Timmerman – Is my interpretation of those windows is that it would be like a thin mutton steel fenestration? Mr. White – I would call it a steel aesthetic. Ms. Lewis – I have a question about this new space that you called a ‘weather lock.’ What was the origin of that that is new on this iteration? I am wondering how that came about. Mr. White – One thing we did was reduce the size of the mass of the entire structure, most of it being in that lobby sequence. Previously, that whole weather lock piece was essentially the first 17 feet of the entire building, which contained the queuing. What we have done is push the atrium inward. We still wanted a weather lock because it is very functional and it can get quite cold. It’s not good for energy use to not have a weather lock. This was essentially get us back to the weather lock in doing it in a different expression. Ms. Lewis – What was the reason that the building was reduced by that 17 feet? Mr. White – Inflation has gone up by 20 to 30 percent for construction. That was a mitigating factor to still meet the program and to still have a good building. Mr. Strange – Can you talk about the way the new construction connects with the Levy Building? Mr. White – There’s currently a hyphen that’s there now. That hyphen currently engages with the cornice. There’s a railing up there for maintenance workers. The cornice is really jammed into the other cornice. What we did was align the hyphen in plan so that the hyphen puncture into the Levy Building is exactly the same spot. We’re not making any different hole in plan. In elevation, we’re going down in order to restore that cornice all the way across. Mr. Lahendro – The Levy Building historic entrance and the way the architecture is designed to emphasize the entrance to the current building; that will no longer be an entrance? Mr. White – It will no longer be a public entrance. Mr. Lahendro – It will be a private entrance for the Commonwealth Attorneys and for the staff? Mr. White – Yes. As they see fit. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC No Comments from the Public COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Zehmer – I feel that the building as a whole is too monochromatic. It’s just a huge block of red. I was wondering if there might an opportunity. You said the trim of the windows was a blue slate color. I didn’t know if even some detailing on the window sills would break up the big mass of red. (Page 169) I worry about having this muttoned enclosure with such small panes of glass; feels like a cage. I would be worried that someone who is innocent until proven guilty would not feel comfortable walking through there. We will definitely want to look at details with the penthouse. With our guidelines with rooftop screening, units should be screened from public view. Screening design and 19 BAR Meeting Minutes February 15, 2022 materials should be consistent with the design, textures, materials, and colors of the building. Screening should not appear as an afterthought or an addition to the building. Right now, it is very schematic and conceptual. That’s what our guidelines say when you get to detailing that. It’s never an easy thing to do. With the portico, I respect the departure from that. I was intrigued by your precedent images. I wonder if there’s an opportunity to make that have a little more ‘pizazze.’ Mr. Strange – I would echo what you said about the portico. I think the precedents have more to offer. I appreciate the contemporary take on the portico. There is a degree of governmental transparency embodied by the examples that you showed that is lost here in the way that the fenestration is very similar if not exactly the same behind the portico. The weather lock occupies the entire portico. I feel that the purpose of the portico is to create an indoor/outdoor space. When the weather lock is in that space, it almost negates the functionality of the portico. I know it is a delicate game to be deferential but to also not be unremarkable. When I look at the image of these two buildings together, there’s no question that the new building is not competing with the Levy Building. It’s not very “exciting.” The materiality of the portico looks very dark. It shrinks compared to the size of the overall façade. It’s not doing the kind of things that the porticos do on some of the examples you showed in terms of creating a nice surface or a moment of engagement with the building, the public space. I am echoing the notion that the portico could do a lot more to engage this public space a little more effectively. I wonder if using the same architectural language to connect to the Levy Building is the right approach. This is a building of many masses. I wonder if the mass connects the existing building to the new building and should be articulated in the same way or if it should have a different kind of connection that really lets us know that it is a connection and creates a buffer zone between the new building and the old building. Mr. Bailey – Part of the thing with the portico is that people are complaining that the portico that the applicant offered the first time was too big. The applicant has shrunk it and it’s now too small. He may have offered a smaller portico because people thought it was too big the last time. Mr. Gastinger – There has been some improvement in the way that the rooflines and the volumes of the buildings have been clarified. That was part of it. It was not just the size of the portico but its relationship to the adjacent roofline. I definitely hear the commentary on the portico and the concern about the cage-like reading of a steel façade and tightly grained fenestration. My big concern is the unremarkable-ness of the rest of the building. I am very distressed about the direction that the building and its detailing has come. The lack of any differentiation in the material leads to a reading from me of a really big brick box with the least amount of detailing possible to get it passed the BAR. It’s not proportional to the scale of the building. It’s not using detail in a way that breaks down the building to make it feel more approachable from a pedestrian standpoint. The facades on High Street are really disasters. Because the foundation has the most minimal treatment, it is a full nine foot tall brick wall with no differentiation. You have chosen this way using classical proportions to modulate the building. The detailing is so skinny and so thin. It’s not very proportional at all in the way visually to the weight a cornice should have with the shadows it would cast. Maybe it doesn’t need to be a different color. If so, it seems like it needs to have a thicker, deeper proportion to create the kind of differentiation you are hoping for. While I appreciate budgetary concerns, this is a building we hope to be living with for the next 100 years. It is underwhelming. It is really difficult to imagine. This is something that is really important to the county and the city. The community deserves a better approach to these facades that are going to be there for a really long time. Mr. Lahendro – I concur with what Breck has said. I am especially disturbed by the High Street elevation and the pedestrian lack of experience on High Street. This is disastrous. 20 BAR Meeting Minutes February 15, 2022 Mr. Strange – I suspect the approach of using brick as a mono-material is an attempt to make this not just a complete copy of something classical. I wonder if there aren’t other ways to use brick that are not super-classist that might relate to classical proportions but could embue the façade with different textures. Just throwing this out as a way to possibly move forward. I respect the desire to not just make a classical building. If it has to have these different materials and follow these classical forms, how do you do that? Mr. Gastinger – I agree. Some of the examples that were shown as precedents offer some ways of doing that. I think bringing in more of the gray-blue of the steel of the entry portico into some more of the detailing. That could be a way of offering/improving the articulation of the structure, even with its current modulation. Things that Mr. Strange is mentioning, either with the hyphen or with the foundation, give it more depth. Mr. Timmerman – I am new to this. I was given the images of the previous submission. I noticed on High Street that there used to be windows at eye level. Is there a programmatic reason why you took them out? Mr. White – We do have some programmatic function in the basement. It is mostly sunken. We may have been exploring that at one point to try to get some eye level windows into this surface space down there. We can certainly look at ways to modulate the water table course to give it some interest and create some more visual interest to the façade. Mr. Timmerman – I will reiterate what the other board members have said. While High Street is not the front of the building, it’s really important to all of us. The whole site is really important. We live in a small city without a lot of real estate. These projects don’t come along very often. When they do come along, we really want to capitalize on them and not end up with something that is underwhelming. In that particular location, we all have experienced walking around the Levy Building. As you walk around that building and walk down High Street, we want something else there. We’re not looking for background. There’s a certain amount of focus that needs to be paid to that elevation beyond what the current expectation is. Underwhelming came up for me when looking at the front portico. Looking back at some of the previous project renderings, I favor the older one more than this one. This one seems diminutive. It almost seems residential in scale. While I appreciate the sensitivity that you’re going for as far as breaking up the massing and I appreciate opening up the public space in the front, seeing that elongated was good. You’re left with this little contraption on the big red brick building. It looks like an added on appendage. The original design/the front started to create its own pattern and its own texture; maybe breaking up the rest of big block behind it. I really liked Clayton’s idea about the transparency that we’re looking for in these kinds of public buildings. The idea of a portico is a first step to bridge that gap between the inside and the outside. That diminutive appendage that is there now seems to be more of a barrier. Ms. Lewis – I wanted to thank the applicant for two things that were achieved from the last iteration. One is this weather lock/vestibule area. We had noted that we wanted a place where litigants, attorneys, and other people coming to court would be gathering. I know the creation of this space was a response to those comments. With the breakup of that huge wall on East Jefferson Street, I really appreciate the windows that have been inserted in the detail and how that is articulated in that it wraps around to Seventh Street on the other side. I actually wished we had seen some of this with this slate/blue accents that you’re talking about; whether they be lentils, window surrounds, or whatever that looks like. It might have addressed some of the comments that my colleagues have about the solid brick. The brick samples you have given us would make the building a whole lot different than what it looked like in some of these renderings. It would be great to see that and what that looks like. I have a 21 BAR Meeting Minutes February 15, 2022 real problem with the High Street side. Fifty feet long of nothing but nine feet of brick with nothing else is not going to happen. High Street is an entrance corridor. It is designated as a very important corridor in our city. That is not going to fly for any of us. I was disappointed to see that. I understand that the garage entrance needs to be there. There has to be more detail on that. I understand that’s programmatic. I will definitely add support to the other comments about the portico. I know it sounds like we’re giving mixed messages. The width was reduced. The depth was also brought in. That’s one of the things that makes it unremarkable. It could be quite remarkable. The portico is a face on the building. This is not a very pretty face. I really regret that there’s no natural light in either of these courtrooms. There’s a way to figure that out. This is not a federal court. Half of the cases heard in these courts will be civil cases. There are no detainees in civil cases. There is no separate corridor in any of the four local courts. The detainees are brought in the same way that public enters. There are things we need to think about. This is not a prison. My last comment is about this weather lock. I completely agree with James’ comments. We have to look at the separation. It looks like a cell to me. It looks like a place I don’t want to be. The idea of having something that insulates people from the elements is very appealing. It’s a really important building for us. Mr. Gastinger – There were a number of sheets dedicated to the plaza. That has developed nicely. It seems flexible with the changes made to the portico. I would encourage the design team to think carefully about the amount of brick in that plaza, especially given the comments about the amount of brick in the façade. I would also encourage the design team to continue to make sure that the detailing allows for enough soil volume to make sure those three trees thrive in a pretty hard surface. Mr. Strange – On the Mall, they use a utility brick for the plaza. That’s one way to think about differentiating the plaza and buildings. Mr. White moved to request a deferral. Ms. Lewis moved to accept the deferral request. (Second by Mr. Zehmer) Motion passes 9-0. The meeting was recessed for five minutes. D. New Items 7. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 22-02-04 540 Park Street, TMP 520183000 North Downtown ADC District Owner: Jessica and Patrick Fenn Applicant: Ashley LeFew Falwell / Dalgliesh Gilpin Paxton Architects Project: Raze pool house, construct new; addition and alterations to house. Jeff Werner, Staff Report – Year Built: 1900 District: North Downtown ADC District Status: Contributing, including two outbuildings: garage and pool house. (Note: While designated contributing, the pool house was constructed between 2000 and 2002. See images in Appendix.) 540 Park Street is a two-story asymmetrical wood house with a Doric veranda. Constructed by William T. Vandergrift for the Maphis family. Wood siding was covered in stucco. Application • Applicant’s submittal: Dalgliesh Gilpin Paxton Architects narrative (two pages) and drawings (15 sheets, including five sheets from Wolf Josey Landscape Architects) for 540 Park Street, dated January 22 BAR Meeting Minutes February 15, 2022 25, 2022. Request for demolition of existing pool house, exterior alterations to rear addition, new pool house construction, and the execution of a new landscape plan. From applicant’s submittal Architectural Summary: The architectural plan proposes to demolish the existing pool house structure, construct a new lower profile pool house, and revise the east addition within the existing footprint. The goals of the project are to achieve a new coordinated aesthetic for the rear pool courtyard, add square footage, and improve the functionality of the existing square footage for the current owner. Front of House: • Removable screen panels are proposed for the southwest portion of the existing front porch. Back of House: • Overall, the new architecture around the rear pool courtyard of the house will be thoughtfully considered, holistically designed, and will result in improved functionality for the owners upon completion. The architectural language of the altered east addition and new pool house will be modern, rendered in colors and high-quality materials that are compatible with the main house, but not intended to imitate the house stylistically. The stucco exterior walls will have a smooth finish, clad metal windows and doors will be dark in color, and the roofs will be copper. Landscape Summary: The landscape plan proposes renovations to the existing hardscapes at the front and side of the house as well as modifications to paving and planting at the back of the house to support the proposed architectural changes. Front of House: • Existing crushed stone paths will be realigned and replaced with stepping stones in lawn. The north path section will be removed and replaced with lawn. • The crushed stone landing in the front of the house will be paved in bluestone and raised slightly for drainage purposes. • The steps down from the front porch will be rebuilt to adjust to a revised landing elevation. Stair treads will be lengthened. • An existing black walnut along the street is in poor health and is proposed to be removed. • The front lawn will be regraded to a more gentle pitch. A new stone seatwall at the west end of the lawn will retain approximately 12” of soil. Side of House: • Pathways and hardscapes on the south side of the house along Farish Street will be upgraded and paved in bluestone or brick. Back of House: • Paving along the back and east side of the house will respond to the architectural changes and match or complement existing paving. Discussion Staff recommends that the BAR refer to the criteria in Chapter II--Site Design and Elements, Chapter III--New Construction and Additions, and Chapter VII--Demolitions and Moving. Re: razing the existing pool house: The pool house was constructed between 2000 and 2002. (See Appendix.) Staff is uncertain why it was designated a contributing structure. While a formal review will require compliance with Code section 34-2779(a), there is nothing to indicate this structure is historic or that its demolition would negatively impact the character of the ADC District. (Per 34- 277(a), a CoA is required for the demolition of a contributing structure.) For the new pool house: From G. Garages, Sheds, and Other Structures in Chapter II • Choose designs for new outbuildings that are compatible with the major buildings on the site. 23 BAR Meeting Minutes February 15, 2022 • Take clues and scale from older outbuildings in the area. • Use traditional roof slopes and traditional materials. • Place new outbuildings behind the dwelling. • If the design complements the main building however, it can be visible from primary elevations or streets. • The design and location of any new site features should relate to the existing character of the property. For the rear addition: From the checklist for Additions in Chapter III. • Function and Size • Location • Design • Replication of Style • Materials and Features • Attachment to Existing Building Additionally, the discussion should address any questions regarding the materials and components. For example: • Roofing • Gutters/Downspouts • Cornice • Siding and Trim • Doors and Windows • Landscaping • Lighting The proposed alterations to the rear addition include a new shell within the footprint of the existing addition. This rear addition was substantially altered in 2014; the second floor of the addition is older than the floor and was previously supported by columns over an open porch. In 2014, the BAR approved a first-floor addition that enclosed the porch under the second floor. It is unclear if when this second floor addition was constructed, but given these substantial changes, staff finds the proposed alterations consistent with the guidelines. Mary Wolf, Applicant – For this property, we’re essentially renovating the front yard of the property and the side yard along Farish Street and creating some new landscape in association with the mew pool house. The renovations along the front include removal of an existing large walnut tree that’s in poor health. We’re planning to reshape and repave the crushed stone paths in front of the house and create a new landing at the front door. We’re also proposing to regrade some of the front lawn to make it a gentler slope and more functional for the family. This is the only lawn space on the property. As part of that leveling out, we’re a proposing a stone, low wall inboard of the property by about 25 feet from the sidewalk. We’re also proposing, along Park Street, to remove the existing tall hemlock hedge that exists. It’s about 12 to 14 feet tall. We’re proposing to replace that hedge with a boxwood hedge that we would like it to ultimately be 4 to 5 feet high that you can see over. We would back-plant that with some deciduous shrubs that would allow views into the property. The house sits pretty low down from the sidewalk. It’s the only house on Park Street that has that low siding relative to the street. We feel like having a little bit of height involved along the street without blocking views is really necessary. Along Farish Street, we’re also proposing to upgrade a lot of the existing stepping stone paths. We’re also proposing to remove two large ash trees that are growing very close to the existing shed along Farish Street. Ashley Falwell, Applicant – We’re looking at a zoomed in version of the site with the existing building, existing pool house. The red-hatched area is the proposed demolition. We would like to take 24 BAR Meeting Minutes February 15, 2022 out an existing exterior stair on the north side of the main house and the pool house that was built between 2000 and 2002. The gray hatched areas are the new building footprint or altered footprint. We are altering the shell of the east addition of the main house. It will be within the footprint of the existing east addition. We are making some changes to the exterior. We’re also showing the proposed pool house. We’re really trying to create an aesthetically unified courtyard around this existing pool. These are drawings showing what is there. You can see the east addition. We are keeping that footprint; altering the lower level and extruding that footprint up to the first and second floors. This is the south view showing that addition. We are going for a bit more modern expression with this addition; trying to keep the color palate very similar, high quality materials. We’re looking at a low slope, flat seamed, copper roof with stucco for the first and second floors and with a smooth finish. The existing house has a textured stucco finish, new metal clad windows and doors. The historical reference sheet for this original house references the noble and serene quality of the existing house. We’re trying to carry that into the addition and the new pool house. This is the new pool house that is a low bar building to create a courtyard space and have a more modern dialogue with the east addition. It has a stone chimney, copper roof, metal clad windows and doors, and going to use some smooth stucco for the exterior walls. The last time we presented, the Board was looking for a cut sheet on windows and doors. We’re looking at using Pela-reserve contemporary clad wood unit. This is the quality and detail that we’re going for. We have some exterior reference shots. The bottom three show the area that we’re effecting. We’re looking at referencing the stone on that existing privacy wall. This is the existing pool house structure that we would like to demolish. QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No Questions from the Public QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Gastinger – Can you describe the stucco product you’re thinking of using? Ms. Falwell – The stucco on the main house has a significant amount of texture in it. I think we’re trying to imitate that on the pool house. We’re definitely looking to do something fairly smooth that’s not going to have a modeled texture at all. It’s more about the massing, the planes, and continuing the color that would be consistent. It’s going to be true stucco. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC No Comments from the Public COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Gastinger – This is a huge improvement to the way that this house is presented. Thank you for that approach to lower that existing hedge and improve the visibility of this remarkable house. I find the additions really appropriate in the back. Motion – Ms. Lewis – Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City Design Guidelines, I move to find that the pool house demolition, new pool house construction, rear addition alterations, porch screening, and landscape plan at 540 Park 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 this application as submitted. Second by Mr. Lahendro. Motion passes 9-0. E. Discussion Items 25 BAR Meeting Minutes February 15, 2022 8. Preliminary Discussion 0 Preston Place, TMP 050118001 (or 050118002 or 050118003) Rugby Rd-University Cir-Venable ADC District Owner: Preston Place Properties, LLC Applicant: Leigh Boyes Project: New residence • Staff introduced the proposed project to the Board for this preliminary discussion on Preston Place. • There have been multiple COA applications from Preston Place in the recent past. • The applicant is proposing to build a single-family residence, three bedroom, and two stories with a mix of materials. • The plan is to use all of the existing stone walls that used to retain the storage container on that site. • The house will have a number of porches. • The applicant did present a summary of what they’re planning to do in terms of landscaping and plantings around the house. • After a brief presentation from the applicant, members of the Board provided feedback and guidance for the applicant for the project. • Mr. Gastinger had some concerns about the garage structure and the character of the garage structure. • Mr. Timmerman brought up fitting the house into the parcel could be an interesting design and inspiration and could tell a story about the site. • Mr. Timmerman wondered about the engagement with the neighboring house. The applicant was responsive to finding engagement with the neighboring house. • There is a mixed bag of different styles within this neighborhood. • The applicant does want stone elements within the house. 9. Preliminary Discussion 1301 Wertland Street, TMP 040303000 Wertland Street ADC District Owner: Jeanne and Roger Davis Applicant: Kevin Schafer / Design Develop Project: New residential building • The applicant presented the project proposal to the members of the BAR for their review and discussion. • The current house is the oldest structure within the Wertland Street ADC District. • The surface parking area on the property is the best place for the building of this new residential building. • The plan is to keep and maintain the current historic structure as part of the proposed project. • Members of the BAR posed questions for the applicant regarding the proposed project on Wertland Street. • There was concern about the primacy of the garage to Wertland Street and the imposing residential building compared to the historic structure. • Staff did remind the BAR that there are going to be more of these projects coming in front of the BAR in the future. • Members of the BAR provided constructive feedback and suggestions to the applicant as to what can be done to improve the project proposal. 26 BAR Meeting Minutes February 15, 2022 F. Work Session (TENTATIVE – May only introduce the matter for later discussion) • Brief work session to go over and discuss the Zoning Rewrite. G. Other Business Staff Questions/Discussion Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:57 PM 27 BAR Meeting Minutes February 15, 2022 BAR MINUTES CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW Regular Meeting March 15, 2022 – 5:00 PM Zoom Webinar Welcome to this Regular Monthly Meeting of the Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review (BAR). Due to the current public health emergency, this meeting is being held online via Zoom. The meeting process will be as follows: For each item, staff will make a brief presentation followed by the applicant’s presentation, after which members of the public will be allowed to speak. Speakers shall identify themselves, and give their current address. Members of the public will have, for each case, up to three minutes to speak. Public comments should be limited to the BAR’s jurisdiction; that is, regarding the exterior design of the building and site. Following the BAR’s discussion, and before the vote, the applicant shall be allowed up to three minutes to respond, for the purpose of clarification. Thank you for participating. Members Present: Cheri Lewis, James Zehmer, Robert Edwards, Breck Gastinger, David Timmerman, Clayton Strange, Jody Lahendro Staff Present: Patrick Cory, Robert Watkins, Jeff Werner, Remy Trail Pre-Meeting: Staff went over the meeting agenda. Mr. Gastinger did speak with the Wertland applicant regarding the preliminary discussion. Mr. Gastinger had questions about the minutes from the July BAR meeting. Mr. Gastinger asked that some changes be made to those minutes. Ms. Lewis recused herself from one of the preliminary discussion due to representing the applicant before the BAR on past projects. The Chairman brought the meeting to order at 5:30 PM. A. Matters from the public not on the agenda No Comments from the Public B. Consent Agenda (Note: Any consent agenda item may be pulled and moved to the regular agenda if a BAR member wishes to discuss it, or if any member of the public is present to comment on it. Pulled applications will be discussed at the beginning of the meeting.) 1. Approval of Meeting Minutes from July 21, 2021 2. Approval of Meeting Minutes from January 18, 2022 3. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 22-03-01 1835 University Circle, TMP 060069000 Rugby Rd-University Cir-Venable ADC District Owner: Meg Conklin and John Jay Applicant: Mary Wolf / Wolf-Josey 1 BAR Meeting Minutes March 15, 2022 Project: Landscaping 4. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 20-03-02 223 East Main Street, TMP 33023400 Downtown ADC District Owner: Labace, LLC Applicant: Tony Labace Project: Replace storefront Mr. Gastinger made the Motion to Approve the Consent Agenda with three edits to the July, 2021 BAR Minutes (Second by Ms. Lewis) – Motion passes 7-0. C. Deferred Items N/A D. Preliminary Discussions (including questions from staff) 5. 1301 Wertland Street, TMP 040303000 Wertland Street ADC District Project: New residential building • Kevin Schafer and Design Develop introduced the project for a new residential building on 1301 Wertland Street. • The existing lot is a large agrarian lot and the relationship with this house is an anomaly to the street. • The driveway has disconnected the house from its historic front. There was an effort to save some large trees. • The current house sits pretty far back from Wertland Street and still does have a drive aisle on 13th Street that cuts in front of the house. • One of the opportunities for this property was to straighten the drive aisle and get it out from in front of the house and move the historic building towards Wertland Street. • It would give it a presence on Wertland Street and maintain the relationship with 13th Street (its historic driveway). • It would provide an opportunity on the rear part of the site to add a building on the rear part of the site behind the historic building. • A precedent that the applicant to the BAR was the Varsity Hall at UVA. It was moved to a different location, repaired, and renovated. • The applicant is seeking feedback from the BAR regarding this potential project. • There would have to be two COA applications needed for this potential project: One for moving the historic structure and one for the new residential building. • Staff did note that there are tax credit opportunities available for this project. Staff did recommend doing the COA applications separately. • Members of the BAR did provide the feedback on what the applicant could do to improve the project/make the project feasible. • There is a lot of work that has to be done to stitch this project together. The applicant wanted to make sure to have positive feedback from the BAR before starting the work. 6. 32 University Circle, TMP 060094000 Rugby Rd-University Cir-Venable ADC District (non-contributing) 2 BAR Meeting Minutes March 15, 2022 Project: Window replacements • Staff presented this proposed window replacement project for this building. • The guidelines are ‘silent’ on window replacement on a non-contributing building/structure. • A previous applicant from Court Square at the Monticello Hotel was asked to make a window replacement plan. • According to Mr. Zehmer, UVA has been restoring windows on the historic buildings rather than replacing windows. • After much discussion with staff, the BAR recommended that staff work to protect the character of those things that are historic on the building. • The decision reached by the BAR was that any changes made to the building (window replacement) will require a Certificate of Appropriateness from the BAR. 7. 1901 East Market Street, TMP 55A149000 IPP within the Woolen Mills HC District Project: Rear addition • Staff reminded the BAR that this project should get the same attention as a contributing structure and building in an ADC District. • Ms. Lewis recused herself due to a conflict of interest of having represented the owners of this property in previous COA applications. • Staff presented the renderings of what the rear/suggested addition to this property. • Staff did emphasize the importance of the roofline and elevations between the original house, the 2002 addition, and the new rear, suggested addition. • One of the things that is successful with the 2002 addition is that there is a hyphen. • With the proposed addition, an elaborate hyphen would be good for the proposed addition. 8. 111 14th Street NW, TMP 090074000 Rugby Rd-University Cir-Venable ADC District (non-contributing) Project: Proposed Mural • The purpose of this preliminary discussion is whether a mural would an appropriate addition. • One of the suggestions was to move the mural closer to 14th Street and not be as close to the door. • The guidelines do state that there should be no painting on unpainted brick. • There was a precedent with the painting of Heather Heyer on brick. • One of the reason for the applicant wanting to paint this mural is because there is currently graffiti there. • The idea is to preclude people spray painting graffiti on this wall. • Staff is going to recommend to the applicant that they found a different place or what the sacrificial coating does. The meeting was recessed for ten minutes. Staff met with the design team of the Courts Complex Project to discuss the feedback that was received from the BAR. An application for the Courts Complex Project will be submitted in April. It was a very positive meeting with the design team. Staff is hoping to bring to the BAR next month six structures for a proposed historic conservation district. The CH Brown Historic District would be at 12th and Rosser on the north end of the Tenth and Page Neighborhood. The next step it to talk to the property owners about the architectural, character defining 3 BAR Meeting Minutes March 15, 2022 features that are important. That will be coming to the BAR with a recommendation from the BAR on the change in the zoning and change to the Design Guidelines. This district is going to be in memory of Reverend Brown, who designed many houses in Charlottesville. The idea is to start with these six houses. The idea is for this to come before the BAR in April, 2022. E. Work Session Zoning Ordinance Revisions James Freas, NDS Director • The zoning rewrite project has begun and it is a three part project. • The first part is the diagnostic and approach phase. o Staff and the consultant team is reviewing the current zoning and where the current zoning is out of step with best practices in zoning and the adopted Comprehensive Plan. o That approach will be documented in a report that is going to be released in the middle of April. o Feedback will be collected on the report and finalize the report to share with the Planning Commission and City Council by the end of June. o The drafting of the zoning ordinance will happen in the course of the summer. o The draft zoning ordinance will be released at the end of September/beginning of October. • The next part is receiving feedback/input with a goal of a final draft of a zoning document by the end of 2022 with an adoption a year from now. • The zoning ordinance should be an approachable and readable document. That is going to be the guiding principle going into the drafting process. o The new zoning ordinance will have a lot of illustrations, tables, charts, and it will use simple language. • Staff is going to look at what role the BAR is going to play in the zoning rewrite and the ADC Districts within the zoning rewrite. F. Other Business Staff Questions/Discussion Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:00 PM. 4 BAR Meeting Minutes March 15, 2022 Certificate of Appropriateness BAR # 22-09-03 1301 Wertland Street, TMP 040303000 Wertland Street ADC District Owner: Roger and Jean Davis, Trustees Applicant: Kevin Schafer/Design Develop Project: New apartment building/existing Wertenbaker House c1830 Application components (please click each link to go directly to PDF page): • Staff Report • Historic Survey • Application Submittal January 2023 BAR Packet 3 City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Staff Report January 18, 2023 Certificate of Appropriateness BAR # 22-09-03 1301 Wertland Street, TMP 040303000 Wertland Street ADC District Owner: Roger and Jean Davis, Trustees Applicant: Kevin Schafer/Design Develop Project: New apartment building/existing Wertenbaker House c1830 Background Year Built: [Likely] 1842. (Some believe c1815 or c1830, but that cannot be confirmed.) District: Wertland Street ADC District Status: Contributing 1301 Wertland Street--the Wertenbaker House--is a two-story, three-bay, brick house with a rear ell. (Wm. Wertenbaker was UVa’s second librarian, serving from 1826 until 1880, he died in 1882.) Built in the Greek Revival style, it owes much of its appearance to renovations later in the century, when a Victorian porch was added. (In 1842. Wertenbaker acquired 27-acres from James Dinsmore’s estate. He immediately sold all but 6 ¾-acres, on which the house was built. By 1886, the parcel was 1.4- acres. By the 1980s, it had been reduced to 0.4-acres. See map in Appendix.) Prior BAR Reviews February 15, 2022: BAR held a preliminary discussion for this project. Meeting video (01:22:00): BAR Meeting Feb 15 2022 Submittal: 1301 Wertland St - BAR Submittal February 2022 March 15, 2022: BAR held a preliminary discussion for this project. Meeting video (00:08:46): BAR Meeting March 15 2022 Submittal: 1301 Wertland St - BAR Submittal March 2022 September 20, 2022: BAR discussion; accepted applicant’s request for deferral. Meeting video (01:22:00): BAR Meeting Sept 20 2022 Submittal: 1301 Wertland St - BAR Submittal September 2022 October 18, 2022: BAR discussion; accepted applicant’s request for deferral. Meeting video (0:55:00): BAR Meeting October 18 2022 Submittal: 1301 Wertland St - BAR Submittal October 2022 1301 Wertland Street – January 18, 2023 (01/11/2023) 1 Application • Submittal: Design Develop drawings 1301 Wertland Street, dated December 27, 2022 (41 pages). Proposed construction of apartment building, including parking, landscaping and site improvements, adjacent to c. 1830 Wertenbaker House. [Staff note: the submittal does not address what is planned for the historic house re: maintenance, alterations, and/or rehabilitation.] Note: The rendering on sheet 18 of the submittal is incorrect. Correct image is in the Appendix of this staff report. Materials • Brick: Old Carolina Brick Company Handmade Brick In “Windsor.” Mortar: Argos “San Tan” • Siding: James Hardie Vertical Board-and-Batten Siding. Painted BM “Midnight Oil • Trim: Smooth Fiber Cement Boards. Painted BM “Midnight Oil • Metal Railing: Custom. Painted BM “Midnight Oil” • Windows: Jeld-Wen Aluminum clad, double-hung. Insulated, internal spacer bars. Color: “Sable” • Doors: Windsor wood [French] doors. Painted “Sable” • Doors: Jeld-Wen single-panel, steel door. • Balcony decking: Trex Enhanced Natural Decking. Color: “Coastal Bluff” • Garage Door: None • Canopy near garage entrance: (See image in Appendix.) Structural c-channels around the exterior (similar to balcony detail on Sheet 37). EPDM roof. Stained wood ceiling. • Exposed ceilings: (per applicant email) Ceilings will be exposed wood joists, stained dark, semi- transparent. (See images in Appendix.) Using YellaWood: pressure treated pine processed to accept staining. • Lighting: o Bollards (Pemco), wall sconces (Spitzer), and strip lighting (Sonoray): Lamping is dimmable, Color Temp does not exceed 3,000K. Sconces and strip lighting have Color Rending Index of 80. (CRI not noted for the bollards; however, they are not serving as overhead area lights.) o Garage ceiling (Spitzer): Lamping is dimmable; however, the Color Temp does not exceed 5,000K and the CRI is 70. (** BAR has required that lamping have a CT not exceeding 3,000K and a CRI not less than 80.) • Pathway paving: Brick. Scored concrete. • Landscaping: All specified plants are on the City’s Master List, unless (noted). o Trees: Bald Cypress; Sweetgum; Yellowwood; Serviceberry; Magnolia; Ginko. o Plantings: Inkberry Holly; Summersweet; Witchalder [Fothergilla]; Oakleaf Hydrangea; Arrowwood Viburnum. 1301 Wertland Street – January 18, 2023 (01/11/2023) 2 o Groundcover: Low Gro Sumac; Aronia; Liriope muscari (non-running, clumping variety; approved at 0 3rd Street, NE). o Perennial mix: (All are non-invasive.) Threadleaf Bluestar; Switchgrass; Dwarf Joe Pye Weed; Hyssop; Coneflower, Prairie Dropseed. Discussion (Attached is a comparison of current design and submittals from Feb, March, Sept, and October 2022.) In response to any questions from the applicant and/or for any recommendations to the applicant, the BAR should rely on the germane sections of the ADC District Design Guidelines and related review criteria. While elements of other chapters may be relevant, staff recommends that the BAR refer to the criteria in Chapter II--Site Design and Elements, Chapter III--New Construction and Additions, and Chapter VI – Public Design and Improvements. Staff recommends that the BAR refer to the criteria in Chapter II--Site Design and Elements and Chapter III--New Construction and Additions. Of assistance are the following criteria from Chapter III: A. Residential Infill F. Scale K. Foundation & Cornice B. Setback G. Roof L. Materials & Textures C. Spacing H. Orientation M. Paint [Color palette] D. Massing & Footprint I. Windows & Doors N. Details & Decoration E. Height & Width J. Porches • Roof • Doors & Windows • Plantings/Landscaping • Gutters and Downspouts • Lighting • Patios & walks • Exterior walls • Railings • Trim • Balcony details • Public spaces • Screening (HVAC, utilities) Wertland Street ADC District 1301 Wertland Street – January 18, 2023 (01/11/2023) 3 Wertland Street Historic District (National Register of Historic Places) www.dhr.virginia.gov/historic-registers/104-0136/ Note: In prior meetings it was noted that staff referred to contributing structures within the ADC District that are not historic---for ex. 1021 Wertland St, built 1999, and 1215 Wertland St., built 1965. The local district’s contributing structures are designated (shaded) on the City map. Note that the ADC District boundary and the contributing structures do not coincide with the NRHP designations. The following summarize the BAR’s February and March discussions. In the Appendix are links to the previous submissions and video recordings of these discussions. Summary of BAR discussion, Feb 15, 2022: • BAR requests that architects consider the new building’s setback in comparison to the setbacks of other buildings on Wertland • Concern that the garage entrance would be dangerous given its proximity to the sidewalk • Height of the building is imposing. Breaking up the building mass may make it less imposing • Materiality may break up the building mass, perhaps by using darker colors • Stepping down building as it reaches Wertland Street may break down mass 1301 Wertland Street – January 18, 2023 (01/11/2023) 4 • Relate building height to the cornice line of historic house • Concern over the busy-ness of the new building’s elevation facing Wertenbaker House: too many competing elements • The site offers an opportunity to build something that frames or accentuates historic building Summary of BAR discussion, March 15, 2022: • General support for moving historic house. It would improve street wall and visibility of the historic house • Scheme would require two BAR applications: one to move house and a second to build new structure • Fact that house would remain on original parcel supports case for moving it • Request to more deeply investigate skewed footprint of Wertenbaker House; compare it to historic maps • BAR comments that by moving historic house, more attention paid to it and opportunity to rehabilitate it for new sue • Urban conditions have changed so drastically around Wertenbaker House that skewed footprint is not important to retain. If moved, house should have new relationship to street • Important to distinguish between design decisions intended to complement historic fabric and design decisions intended for good urban design and better pedestrian experience Summary of BAR Discussion September 20, 2022: Meeting video (begin at 1:22:00): https://boxcast.tv/channel/vabajtzezuyv3iclkx1a?b=nvdouryu5aooh1orqwxd Summary of BAR October 18, 2022: Meeting video (begin at 0:55:00): https://boxcast.tv/channel/vabajtzezuyv3iclkx1a?b=uzjazbhfohchjty5hs6f Staff comments and recommendations: • Note: This will be the fifth time the BAR has reviewed this proposal. Given the BAR’s direct involvement in the evolution of this design, in the following staff’s goal is to be succinct and not, unless warranted, revisit or comment on every aspect of the project. (For example, ideally a garage entrance would not be so prominent on the primary façade; however, the location has been consistent throughout this review and the BAR has not recommended against it.) • The proposed spatial elements are consistent with the recommendations of the design guidelines. (See staff comments below, under highlighted items from Chapter III – New Construction and Additions.) • The proposed materials are consistent with the recommendations of the design guidelines. • No alterations have been proposed for the house; however the BAR might discuss with the applicant: how the house will be protected during construction activities; [baseline] documentation of the house prior to construction; any alterations or maintenance that might be necessary, planned, or anticipated; and etc. (In reviewing the SUP for 612 W. Main Street, the BAR recommended that the adjacent Holsinger Building be seismically monitored during construction. Council included in the SUP a condition requiring the owner to prepare a Protective Plan for the historic building.) 1301 Wertland Street – January 18, 2023 (01/11/2023) 5 • The historic porches, railings, and steps on the house are inaccurately portrayed in the applicant’s renderings. The BAR should establish that the renderings are illustrative only and no alterations to the house have been proposed, nor are any being reviewed and/or approved. • The lighting inside the garage has lamping with a Color Temp that exceeds 3,000K. Glare has been a problem with some LED lighting and on other projects the BAR has expressed concern re: the exterior impacts of seemingly interior lighting. Either alternate fixtures can be requested, or a condition of approval might require that the owner addresses any later, glare-related issues. • Relative to the site, the Design Guidelines incorporate by reference the Secretary’s Standards for Rehabilitation, which recommend that archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. For some projects, that BAR has recommended an archeological investigation of the site. Given the significance of this site and its association connection to two prominent individuals associated with the University (Wertenbaker and Dinsmore), staff recommends a Phase I archeological survey be conducted prior to any site disturbance, with the results submitted for the BAR record. Suggested Motions Approval: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find the proposed new building at and related alterations to 1301 Wertland Street satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are compatible with this property and other properties in the Wertland Street ADC District, and that the BAR approves the application [as submitted]. Or, [... as submitted] with the following conditions: Denial: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed new building at and related alterations to 1301 Wertland Street do not satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are not compatible with this property and other properties in the Wertland Street ADC District, and 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; 1301 Wertland Street – January 18, 2023 (01/11/2023) 6 (5) The impact of the proposed change on other protected features on the property, such as gardens, landscaping, fences, walls and walks; (6) Whether the proposed method of construction, renovation or restoration could have an adverse impact on the structure or site, or adjacent buildings or structures; (7) Any applicable provisions of the City’s Design Guidelines. Pertinent ADC District Design Guidelines Chapter I – Introduction Links: Chapter 1 Introduction (Part 1) and Chapter 1 Introduction (Part 2) 5. Wertland Street ADC District Subdivision of four large lots in the 1880s provided the impetus for the development of this University-adjacent neighborhood. It survives today as one of Charlottesville’s best examples of vernacular Victorian domestic architecture. Queen Anne, vernacular Victorian, foursquares, and Colonial Revival residences with a variety of gabled, hipped and complex roof forms, large dormers, porches, and porticos line the street. Many of the larger residences have been converted to student housing with parking in the front yards, however, the district retains its residential character. Primarily mid-to-late nineteenth century, 2 to 3 stories, large lots, predominantly shallow setbacks, narrow spacing, brick, slate and metal roofs, older apartment building, large scale infill apartment buildings, front site parking, mature landscaping, overhead utilities, cobra head lights, low stone walls, ornate metal fencing, large parking lots, hedges, concrete retaining walls, small planted islands, smaller lots. Chapter II – Site Design and Elements Link: Chapter 2 Site Design and Elements A. Introduction […] Many of the nineteenth century dwellings in the North Downtown area and along parts of Ridge and Wertland streets also have limited setbacks and are spaced closely together. In these cases there are small front yards composed of grass or ground cover and often containing large canopy trees. The edges of these areas often are planted with low shrubs or flower beds, and the houses are surrounded by foundation plantings. Iron fences, hedges or low stone walls may separate the homeowner’s property from the public sidewalk. B. Plantings 1) Encourage the maintenance and planting of large trees on private property along the streetfronts, which contribute to the “avenue” effect. 2) Generally, use trees and plants that are compatible with the existing plantings in the neighborhood. 3) Use trees and plants that are indigenous to the area. 4) Retain existing trees and plants that help define the character of the district, especially street trees and hedges. 5) Replace diseased or dead plants with like or similar species if appropriate. 6) When constructing new buildings, identify and take care to protect significant existing trees and other plantings. 7) Choose ground cover plantings that are compatible with adjacent sites, existing site conditions, and the character of the building. 8) Select mulching and edging materials carefully and do not use plastic edgings, lava, crushed rock, unnaturally colored mulch or other historically unsuitable materials. 1301 Wertland Street – January 18, 2023 (01/11/2023) 7 D. Lighting 1) In residential areas, use fixtures that are understated and compatible with the residential quality of the surrounding area and the building while providing subdued illumination. 2) Choose light levels that provide for adequate safety yet do not overly emphasize the site or building. Often, existing porch lights are sufficient. 3) In commercial areas, avoid lights that create a glare. High intensity commercial lighting fixtures must provide full cutoff. 4) Do not use numerous “crime” lights or bright floodlights to illuminate a building or site when surrounding lighting is subdued. […] E. Walkways and Driveways 1) Use appropriate traditional paving materials like brick, stone, and scored concrete. 2) Concrete pavers are appropriate in new construction, and may be appropriate in site renovations, depending on the context of adjacent building materials, and continuity with the surrounding site and district. 3) Gravel or stone dust may be appropriate, but must be contained. 4) Stamped concrete and stamped asphalt are not appropriate paving materials. 5) Limit asphalt use to driveways and parking areas. 6) Place driveways through the front yard only when no rear access to parking is available. 7) Do not demolish historic structures to provide areas for parking. 8) Add separate pedestrian pathways within larger parking lots, and provide crosswalks at vehicular lanes within a site. F. Parking Areas and Lots 1) If new parking areas are necessary, construct them so that they reinforce the street wall of buildings and the grid system of rectangular blocks in commercial areas. 2) Locate parking lots behind buildings. 3) Screen parking lots from streets, sidewalks, and neighboring sites through the use of walls, trees, and plantings of a height and type appropriate to reduce the visual impact year-round. 4) Avoid creating parking areas in the front yards of historic building sites. 5) Avoid excessive curb cuts to gain entry to parking areas. 6) Avoid large expanses of asphalt. 7) On large lots, provide interior plantings and pedestrian walkways. 8) Provide screening from adjacent land uses as needed. 9) Install adequate lighting in parking areas to provide security in evening hours. 10) Select lighting fixtures that are appropriate to a historic setting. H. Utilities and Other Site Appurtenances 1. Plan the location of overhead wires, utility poles and meters, electrical panels, antennae, trash containers, and exterior mechanical units where they are least likely to detract from the character of the site. 2. Screen utilities and other site elements with fences, walls, or plantings. 3. Encourage the installation of utility services underground. 4. Antennae and communication dishes should be placed in inconspicuous rooftop locations, not in a front yard. 1301 Wertland Street – January 18, 2023 (01/11/2023) 8 5. Screen all rooftop mechanical equipment with a wall of material harmonious with the building or structure. Chapter III – New Construction and Additions Link: Chapter 3 New Construction and Additions A. Introduction … 3. Building Types within the Historic Districts When designing new buildings in the historic districts, one needs to recognize that while there is an overall distinctive district character, there is, nevertheless, a great variety of historic building types, styles, and scales throughout the districts and sub-areas that are described in Chapter 1: Introduction. Likewise, there are several types of new construction that might be constructed within the districts the design parameters of these new buildings will differ depending on the following types: b. Residential Infill These buildings are new dwellings that are constructed on the occasional vacant lot within a block of existing historic houses. Setback, spacing, and general massing of the new dwelling are the most important criteria that should relate to the existing historic structures, along with residential roof and porch forms. B. Setback 1) Construct new commercial buildings with a minimal or no setback in order to reinforce the traditional street wall. 2) Use a minimal setback if the desire is to create a strong street wall or setback consistent with the surrounding area. 3) Modify setback as necessary for sub-areas that do not have well-defined street walls. 4) Avoid deep setbacks or open corner plazas on corner buildings in the downtown in order to maintain the traditional grid of the commercial district. 5) In the West Main Street corridor, construct new buildings with a minimal (up to 15 feet according to the zoning ordinance) or no setback in order to reinforce the street wall. If the site adjoins historic buildings, consider a setback consistent with these buildings. 6) On corners of the West Main Street corridor, avoid deep setbacks or open corner plazas unless the design contributes to the pedestrian experience or improves the transition to an adjacent residential area. 7) New buildings, particularly in the West Main Street corridor, should relate to any neighborhoods adjoining them. Buffer areas should be considered to include any screening and landscaping requirements of the zoning ordinance. 8) At transitional sites between two distinctive areas of setback, for instance between new commercial and historic commercial, consider using setbacks in the new construction that reinforce and relate to setbacks of the historic buildings. 9) For new governmental or institutional buildings, either reinforce the street wall through a minimal setback, or use a deep setback within a landscaped area to emphasize the civic function of the structure. 10) Keep residential setbacks within 20 percent of the setbacks of a majority of neighborhood dwellings. Staff Comment: Average front setback for nearby structures is approximately 33-ft, ranging between 0-ft and 95-ft. Proposed building front setback is approximately 15 f-ft. 1301 Wertland Street – January 18, 2023 (01/11/2023) 9 C. Spacing 1) Maintain existing consistency of spacing in the area. New residences should be spaced within 20 percent of the average spacing between houses on the block. Staff Comment: Average side spacing for nearby structures is approximately 31 feet, ranging between 5 and 93 feet. Proposed building spacing is approximately 27 feet from 1215 Wertland Street and 10 feet from the existing house. 2) Commercial and office buildings in the areas that have a well-defined street wall should have minimal spacing between them. 3) In areas that do not have consistent spacing, consider limiting or creating a more uniform spacing in order to establish an overall rhythm. 4) Multi-lot buildings should be designed using techniques to incorporate and respect the existing spacing on a residential street. D. Massing and Footprint 1) New commercial infill buildings’ footprints will be limited by the size of the existing lot in the downtown or along the West Main Street corridor. Their massing in most cases should be simple rectangles like neighboring buildings. 2) New infill construction in residential sub-areas should relate in footprint and massing to the majority of surrounding historic dwellings. 1301 Wertland Street – January 18, 2023 (01/11/2023) 10 Staff Comment: Average footprint for nearby structures is approximately 4,000 square feet, ranging from 1,500 square feet to 14,000 square feet. Proposed building footprint will be approximately 5,600 square feet. 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. Staff Comment: Height. Prevailing height of nearby structures is three stories, ranging from two to five stories. The recommended max height of the new building would be six stories. Proposed building will be four stories. Width. Average building width nearby structures is approximately 45 feet, ranging between approximately 30 feet and 72 feet. Proposed building will be approximately 40 feet wide. 3) In commercial areas at street front, the height should be within 130 percent of the prevailing average of both sides of the block. Along West Main Street, heights should relate to any adjacent contributing buildings. Additional stories should be stepped back so that the additional height is not readily visible from the street. 4) When the primary façade of a new building in a commercial area, such as downtown, West Main Street, or the Corner, is wider than the surrounding historic buildings or the traditional lot size, consider modulating it with bays or varying planes. 5) Reinforce the human scale of the historic districts by including elements such as porches, entrances, storefronts, and decorative features depending on the character of the particular sub- area. 6) In the West Main Street corridor, regardless of surrounding buildings, new construction should use elements at the street level, such as cornices, entrances, and display windows, to reinforce the human scale. F. Scale 1) Provide features on new construction that reinforce the scale and character of the surrounding area, whether human or monumental. Include elements such as storefronts, vertical and horizontal divisions, upper story windows, and decorative features. 2) As an exception, new institutional or governmental buildings may be more appropriate on a monumental scale depending on their function and their site conditions. G. Roof 1) Roof Forms and Pitches a. The roof design of new downtown or West Main Street commercial infill buildings generally should be flat or sloped behind a parapet wall. b. Neighborhood transitional buildings should use roof forms that relate to the neighboring residential forms instead of the flat or sloping commercial form. c. Institutional buildings that are freestanding may have a gable or hipped roof with variations. 1301 Wertland Street – January 18, 2023 (01/11/2023) 11 d. Large-scale, multi-lot buildings should have a varied roof line to break up the mass of the design using gable and/or hipped forms. e. Shallow pitched roofs and flat roofs may be appropriate in historic residential areas on a contemporary designed building. f. Do not use mansard-type roofs on commercial buildings; they were not used historically in Charlottesville’s downtown area, nor are they appropriate on West Main Street. 2) Roof Materials: Common roof materials in the historic districts include metal, slate, and composition shingles. a. For new construction in the historic districts, use traditional roofing materials such as standing-seam metal or slate. b. In some cases, shingles that mimic the appearance of slate may be acceptable. c. Pre-painted standing-seam metal roof material is permitted, but commercial-looking ridge caps or ridge vents are not appropriate on residential structures. d. Avoid using thick wood cedar shakes if using wood shingles; instead, use more historically appropriate wood shingles that are thinner and have a smoother finish. e. If using composition asphalt shingles, do not use light colors. Consider using neutral- colored or darker, plain or textured-type shingles. f. The width of the pan and the seam height on a standing-seam metal roof should be consistent with the size of pan and seam height usually found on a building of a similar period. 3) Rooftop Screening a. If roof-mounted mechanical equipment is used, it should be screened from public view on all sides. b. The screening material and design should be consistent with the design, textures, materials, and colors of the building. c. The screening should not appear as an afterthought or addition the building. H. Orientation 1) New commercial construction should orient its façade in the same direction as adjacent historic buildings, that is, to the street. 2) Front elevations oriented to side streets or to the interior of lots should be discouraged. I. Windows and Doors 1) The rhythm, patterns, and ratio of solids (walls) and voids (windows and doors) of new buildings should relate to and be compatible with adjacent historic facades. a. The majority of existing buildings in Charlottesville’s historic districts have a higher proportion of wall area than void area except at the storefront level. b. In the West Main Street corridor in particular, new buildings should reinforce this traditional proportion. 2) The size and proportion, or the ratio of width to height, of window and door openings on new buildings’ primary facades should be similar and compatible with those on surrounding historic facades. a. The proportions of the upper floor windows of most of Charlottesville’s historic buildings are more vertical than horizontal. b. Glass storefronts would generally have more horizontal proportions than upper floor openings. 1301 Wertland Street – January 18, 2023 (01/11/2023) 12 3) Traditionally designed openings generally are recessed on masonry buildings and have a raised surround on frame buildings. New construction should follow these methods in the historic districts as opposed to designing openings that are flush with the rest of the wall. 4) Many entrances of Charlottesville’s historic buildings have special features such as transoms, sidelights, and decorative elements framing the openings. Consideration should be given to incorporating such elements in new construction. 5) Darkly tinted mirrored glass is not an appropriate material for windows in new buildings within the historic districts. 6) If small-paned windows are used, they should have true divided lights or simulated divided lights with permanently affixed interior and exterior muntin bars and integral spacer bars between the panes of glass. 7) Avoid designing false windows in new construction. 8) Appropriate material for new windows depends upon the context of the building within a historic district, and the design of the proposed building. Sustainable materials such as wood, aluminum- clad wood, solid fiberglass, and metal windows are preferred for new construction. Vinyl windows are discouraged. 9) Glass shall be clear. Opaque spandrel glass or translucent glass may be approved by the BAR for specific applications. J. Porches 1) Porches and other semi-public spaces are important in establishing layers or zones of intermediate spaces within the streetscape. L. Foundation and Cornice 1) Distinguish the foundation from the rest of the structure through the use of different materials, patterns, or textures. 2) Respect the height, contrast of materials, and textures of foundations on surrounding historic buildings. 3) If used, cornices should be in proportion to the rest of the building. 4) Wood or metal cornices are preferred. The use of fypon may be appropriate where the location is not immediately adjacent to pedestrians. M. Materials and Textures 1) The selection of materials and textures for a new building should be compatible with and complementary to neighboring buildings. 2) In order to strengthen the traditional image of the residential areas of the historic districts, brick, stucco, and wood siding are the most appropriate materials for new buildings. 3) In commercial/office areas, brick is generally the most appropriate material for new structures. “Thin set” brick is not permitted. Stone is more commonly used for site walls than buildings. 4) Large-scale, multi-lot buildings, whose primary facades have been divided into different bays and planes to relate to existing neighboring buildings, can have varied materials, shades, and textures. 5) Synthetic siding and trim, including, vinyl and aluminum, are not historic cladding materials in the historic districts, and their use should be avoided. 6) Cementitious siding, such as HardiPlank boards and panels, are appropriate. 7) Concrete or metal panels may be appropriate. 8) Metal storefronts in clear or bronze are appropriate. 1301 Wertland Street – January 18, 2023 (01/11/2023) 13 9) The use of Exterior Insulation and Finish Systems (EIFS) is discouraged but may be approved on items such as gables where it cannot be seen or damaged. It requires careful design of the location of control joints. 10) The use of fiberglass-reinforced plastic is discouraged. If used, it must be painted. 11) All exterior trim woodwork, decking and flooring must be painted, or may be stained solid if not visible from public right-of-way. N. Paint [Color palette] 1) The selection and use of colors for a new building should be coordinated and compatible with adjacent buildings, not intrusive. 2) In Charlottesville’s historic districts, various traditional shaded of brick red, white, yellow, tan, green, or gray are appropriate. For more information on colors traditionally used on historic structures and the placement of color on a building, see Chapter 4: Rehabilitation. 3) Do not paint unpainted masonry surfaces. 4) It is proper to paint individual details different colors. 5) More lively color schemes may be appropriate in certain sub-areas dependent on the context of the sub-areas and the design of the building. O. Details and Decoration 1) Building detail and ornamentation should be consistent with and related to the architecture of the surrounding context and district. 2) The mass of larger buildings may be reduced using articulated design details. 3) Pedestrian scale may be reinforced with details. Checklist from section P. Additions Many of the smaller commercial and other business buildings may be enlarged as development pressure increases in downtown Charlottesville and along West Main Street. These existing structures may be increased in size by constructing new additions on the rear or side or in some cases by carefully adding on extra levels above the current roof. The design of new additions on all elevations that are prominently visible should follow the guidelines for new construction as described earlier in this section. Several other considerations that are specific to new additions in the historic districts are listed below: 1) Function and Size a. Attempt to accommodate needed functions within the existing structure without building an addition. b. Limit the size of the addition so that it does not visually overpower the existing building. 2) Location a. Attempt to locate the addition on rear or side elevations that are not visible from the street. b. If additional floors are constructed on top of a building, set the addition back from the main façade so that its visual impact is minimized. c. If the addition is located on a primary elevation facing the street or if a rear addition faces a street, parking area, or an important pedestrian route, the façade of the addition should be treated under the new construction guidelines. 3) Design a. New additions should not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. b. The new work should be differentiated from the old and should be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. 1301 Wertland Street – January 18, 2023 (01/11/2023) 14 4) Replication of Style a. A new addition should not be an exact copy of the design of the existing historic building. The design of new additions can be compatible with and respectful of existing buildings without being a mimicry of their original design. b. If the new addition appears to be part of the existing building, the integrity of the original historic design is compromised and the viewer is confused over what is historic and what is new. 5) Materials and Features a. Use materials, windows, doors, architectural detailing, roofs, and colors that are compatible with historic buildings in the district. 6) Attachment to Existing Building a. Wherever possible, new additions or alterations to existing buildings should be done in such a manner that, if such additions or alterations were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the buildings would be unimpaired. b. The new design should not use the same wall plane, roof line, or cornice line of the existing structure. Chapter IV – Rehabilitation Link: Chapter 4 Rehabilitation As applicable to any exterior alterations to the historic house and site. 1301 Wertland Street – January 18, 2023 (01/11/2023) 15 Appendix Incorrect rendering (sheet 18 of submittal;) Correct rendering 1301 Wertland Street – January 18, 2023 (01/11/2023) 16 Canopy at garage entrance Stain for exposed wood ceiling 1301 Wertland Street – January 18, 2023 (01/11/2023) 17 Rendering: exposed wood ceiling 1301 Wertland Street – January 18, 2023 (01/11/2023) 18 Misc. maps and information 1301 Wertland Street – January 18, 2023 (01/11/2023) 19 1301 Wertland Street – January 18, 2023 (01/11/2023) 20 Wm. Wertenbaker Property Approx. parcel lines, based on historical survey notes 1301 Wertland Street – January 18, 2023 (01/11/2023) 21 1301 Wertland Street - BAR January 2023: Comparison to prior submittals. 1 of 3 (prepared by BAR staff 01/04/2023) February 2022 March 2022 September 2022 October 2022 September January 2023 1301 Wertland Street - BAR January 2023: Comparison to prior submittals. 2 of 3 (prepared by BAR staff 01/04/2023) February 2022 March 2022 move house September 2022 October 2022 January 2023 1301 Wertland Street - BAR January 2023: Comparison to prior submittals. 3 of 3 (prepared by BAR staff 01/04/2023) Wertland Street Wertland Street house new building February 2022 Wertland Street Image from page 31 of move submittal. rotated 180- Wertland Street house new building March 2022 Wertland Street house new building September 2022 house Wertland Street house new building October 2022 Wertland Street house new building January 2023 1301 WERTLAND ST. PARCEL 040303000 BAR SUBMISSION PRESENTED BY 12 | 27 | 2022 2 1 | COVER 3 | TABLE OF CONTENTS 4-5 | PROJECT NARRATIVE 6 | PROXIMITY MAP 7 | CONTEXT IMAGES 8-9| MASSING AND SITE DIAGRAMS 10-11 | MEETING ACDC GUIDLINES 12-19 |RENDERINGS 20 | STREET SECTION 21-24 | RENDERED ELEVATIONS 25-29| PLANTING SELECTIONS 30-33| EXTERIOR SITE & EGRESS LIGHTING 34-35 | MATERIAL SELECTIONS 36 | WINDOW & DOOR SELECTIONS 37 | GUARDRAIL DETAILS 38 | HVAC UNIT LOCATION & SCREENING 39-41 | APPENDIX ONE: ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS 1301 WERTLAND ST. TABLE OF CONTENTS BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 3 DECEMBER 27, 2022 TAKING CUES FROM THE CHARLOTTESVILLE ADCD DESIGN GUIDELINES; PART III: NEW CONSTRUCTION THE DESIGN GUIDELINE COMPELS US TO PROPOSE A PROJECT THAT ENDEAVORS TO... A. INTRODUCTION: (PG 6) OFTEN NEW COMMERCIAL, OFFICE, OR MULTI-USE BUILDINGS WILL BE CONSTRUCTED ON SITES MUCH LARGER THAN THE TRADITIONALLY SIZED LOTS 25 TO 40 FEET WIDE. MANY SITES FOR SUCH STRUCTURES ARE LOCATED ON WEST MAIN STREET AND ... TAKE CUES FROM THE ADJACENT CONTEXTUAL STRUCTURES ALONG THE WERTLAND STREET IN THE 14TH AND 15TH STREET AREA OF THE VENABLE NEIGHBORHOOD. THESE ASSEMBLED ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN CONTROL DISTRICT. REDUCE THE VISUAL PRESENCE BY REDUCING THE PARCELS CAN TRANSLATE INTO NEW STRUCTURES WHOSE SCALE AND MASS MAY OVERWHELM MASS INTO FOUR DISTINCT VOLUMES. PROVIDE A GENEROUS STEPPED-BACK THIRD STORY. PROVIDE NEIGHBORING EXISTING STRUCTURES. THEREFORE, WHILE THIS BUILDING TYPE MAY NEED TO IRREGULAR MASSING THAT RESPONDS TO THE UNIQUE CONDITIONS OF THE HISTORIC WERTENBAKER RESPOND TO THE VARIOUS BUILDING CONDITIONS OF THE SITE, IT ALSO SHOULD EMPLOY DESIGN HOUSE (5 DEGREE SKEW TO THE STREET). TECHNIQUES TO REDUCE ITS VISUAL PRESENCE. THESE COULD INCLUDE VARYING FACADE WALL PLANES, DIFFERING MATERIALS, STEPPED-BACK UPPER LEVELS, AND IRREGULAR MASSING. B. SETBACK: (PG 7) CONSTRUCT NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS WITH A MINIMAL OR NO SETBACK IN ORDER TO REINFORCE THE TRADITIONAL STREET WALL. USE A MINIMAL SETBACK IF THE DESIRE IS TO CREATE A STRONG STREET WALL OR SETBACK CONSISTENT WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA. KEEP RESIDENTIAL SETBACKS WITHIN 20 PERCENT OF THE SETBACKS OF A ... REACT AND RESPOND TO ADJACENT STRUCTURES, PARTICULARLY ALONG THE WESTERN SIDE OF MAJORITY OF NEIGHBORHOOD DWELLINGS. AT TRANSITIONAL SITES BETWEEN TWO DISTINCTIVE WERTLAND STREET, AFTER THE JOG IN THE ROAD AT 12 1/2 STREET NW. THE JOG IN WERTLAND STREET IS UNFORTUNATE, BUT HAS BECOME THE RECOGNIZABLE NORMATIVE CONDITION, WHILE SEVERING THE AREAS OF SETBACK, FOR INSTANCE BETWEEN NEW COMMERCIAL AND HISTORIC COMMERCIAL, DISTRICT INTO TWO DISTINCT STREETWALL CONDITIONS. WEST OF 12 1/2 STREET NW, THE DISTRICT UTILIZES CONSIDER USING SETBACKS IN THE NEW CONSTRUCTION THAT REINFORCE AND RELATE TO VERY TIGHT, LIMITED FROM SETBACKS, EXCEPT FOR THE HISTORIC WERTENBAKER HOUSE (AN IMPORTANT SETBACKS OF THE HISTORIC BUILDINGS. REASON TO RETAIN THE ORIGINAL LOCATION OF THE HOUSE). C. SPACING: (PG 8) MAINTAIN EXISTING CONSISTENCY OF SPACING IN THE AREA. NEW RESIDENCES SHOULD BE SPACED WITHIN 20 PERCENT OF THE AVERAGE SPACING BETWEEN HOUSES ON THE BLOCK. IN AREAS THAT DO NOT HAVE CONSISTENT SPACING, CONSIDER ... REINFORCE THE ESTABLISHED AND EXISTING SPACING BETWEEN BUILDINGS FOUND ON THE BLOCK. LIMITING OR CREATING A MORE UNIFORM SPACING IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH AN OVERALL EVEN IN THE EASTERN PORTION OF THE WERTLAND STREET ADCD, WHERE GENEROUS FRONT YARDS ARE RHYTHM. PROVIDED, SIDE YARDS ARE VERY LIMITED. AN ANALYSIS OF SPACING CAN BE FOUND LATER IN THIS BOOKLET. D. MASSING AND FOOTPRINT: (PG 9) NEIGHBORHOOD TRANSITIONAL BUILDINGS SHOULD HAVE SMALL BUILDING FOOTPRINTS SIMILAR TO NEARBY DWELLINGS. ... REDUCE LARGER MASSING TO SMALLER-SCALED FORMS BY BREAKING UP THE ROOF LINE, VARYING 1. IF THE FOOTPRINT IS LARGER, THEIR MASSING SHOULD BE REDUCED TO RELATE THE SURFACE OF THE BUILDING, AND STEPPING BACK THE BUILDING AT THE STREET LINE. TO THE SMALLER-SCALED FORMS OF RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES. 2. TECHNIQUES TO REDUCE MASSING COULD INCLUDE VARYING THE SURFACE BY ALLOWING STAIRS TOWERS AND BALCONIES TO CREATE VISUAL SLOTS IN THE MASS, THE PROPOSED LANES OF THE BUILDINGS, STEPPING BACK THE BUILDINGS AS THE STRUCTURE STRUCTURE READS AS A SERIES OF (4) TWO-STORY, 30’ WIDE RESIDENTIALLY-SCALED MASSES, SIMILAR INCREASES IN HEIGHT, AND BREAKING UP THE ROOF LINE WITH DIFFERENT TO WATER STREET EXTENDED OR BRICK TOWN HOMES FOUND THROUGHOUT THE AREA. THE ROTATED ELEMENTS TO CREATE SMALLER COMPOSITIONS. BRICK MASS AND FOOTPRINT ALSO REITERATE THE SKEW OF THE HISTORIC HOUSE TO WERTLAND STREET. ... RESPECT THE DIRECTIONAL EXPRESSION OF THE SURROUNDING BUILDINGS BY ESTABLISHING A E. HEIGHT AND WIDTH: (PG 10) RESPECT THE DIRECTIONAL EXPRESSION OF THE MAJORITY DIRECTIONAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE OLD AND NEW CONSTRUCTION. OF SURROUNDING BUILDINGS. ATTEMPT TO KEEP THE HEIGHT AND WIDTH OF NEW BUILDINGS WITHIN A MAXIMUM OF 200 PERCENT OF THE PREVAILING HEIGHT AND WIDTH IN THE THE TWO STORY BRICK MASS OF THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE ALIGNS WITH THE HEIGHT OF THE CORNICE SURROUNDING SUB-AREA. REINFORCE THE HUMAN SCALE OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICTS BY LINE OF THE EXISTING HOUSE. THE WIDTH OF THE BRICK MASSES DIRECTLY RELATE TO THE RESIDENTIAL INCLUDING ELEMENTS SUCH AS PORCHES, ENTRANCES, STOREFRONTS, AND DECORATIVE SCALE FOUND ALONG WERTLAND STREET. THE PROJECT REINFORCES THE HUMAN SCALE BY PROVIDING FEATURES DEPENDING ON THE CHARACTER OF THE PARTICULAR SUB-AREA. BALCONIES AND PORCHES. LANDSCAPING AROUND THE BUILDING MINIMIZES THE VISUAL IMPACT OF THE HEIGHT FROM THE STREET. F. SCALE: (PG 11) IN CHARLOTTESVILLE, THERE IS A VARIETY OF SCALE. REINFORCE THE SCALE ... ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THIS DISTRICT HAS VARYING SCALES, ARCHITECTURAL STYLES, USES, AND AND CHARACTER OF THE SURROUNDING AREA, WHETHER HUMAN OR MONUMENTAL. TECHNIQUES IN DEALING WITH SCALE. REINFORCE THIS VARIATION BY PROVIDING A THOUGHTFULLY COMPOSED AND COHESIVE EXTERIOR THAT DIRECTLY REFERENCES THE SCALE OF THE ADJACENT HISTORIC STRUCTURE. INTRODUCE DETAILING ELEMENTS TO REINFORCE THE HUMAN SCALE. 1301 WERTLAND ST. PROJECT NARRATIVE BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 4 DECEMBER 27, 2022 TAKING CUES FROM THE CHARLOTTESVILLE ADCD DESIGN GUIDELINES; PART III: NEW CONSTRUCTION THE DESIGN GUIDELINE COMPELS US TO PROPOSE A PROJECT THAT ENDEAVORS TO... G. ROOF: (PG 12) LARGE-SCALE, MULTI-LOT BUILDINGS SHOULD HAVE A VARIED ROOF LINE ...PROVIDE A VARIED ROOF LINE TO BREAK UP THE MASSING. UTILIZE THE VOIDS CREATED BY STAIRS, TO BREAK UP THE MASS OF THE DESIGN USING GABLE AND/OR HIPPED FORMS. SHALLOW BALCONIES, AND BUILDING FORMS TO PROVIDE A VARIED ROOF LINE. UTILIZE PARAPETS IN LIEU OF PITCHED ROOFS AND FLAT ROOFS MAY BE APPROPRIATE IN HISTORIC RESIDENTIAL AREAS ON A LARGE OVERHANGS TO SHIELD MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT WHILE REDUCING THE VISUAL IMPACT OF CONTEMPORARY DESIGNED BUILDING. THE ROOF LINE. ...THE PROPOSED PROJECT ADDRESSES THE STREET WITH A TWO-STORY CORNER TOWER ELEMENT ON H. ORIENTATION: (PG 14) NEW COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION SHOULD ORIENT ITS FAÇADE IN THE SOUTHEASTERN CORNER THAT SERVES TO ENGAGE THE PEDESTRIAN WHILE BREAKING DOWN THE THE SAME DIRECTION AS ADJACENT HISTORIC BUILDINGS, THAT IS, TO THE STREET. MASS OF THE FRONT FACADE. THIS MASS ALSO RESOLVES THE SKEW OF THE BRICK BASE BUILDING. THE PROJECT ALSO HAS THE UNIQUE OPPORTUNITY TO “FACE” THE WERTENBAKER HOUSE AND THE I. WINDOWS AND DOORS: (PG 15) THE RHYTHM, PATTERNS, AND RATIO OF SOLIDS (WALLS) AND FRONT YARD. BY ADDING BALCONIES AND LARGE GLAZING BAYS TOWARDS THE HISTORIC HOUSE, THE VOIDS (WINDOWS AND DOORS) OF NEW BUILDINGS SHOULD RELATE TO AND BE COMPATIBLE PROPOSED PROJECT AIMS TO ORIENT ITSELF COMPOSITIONALLY IN TWO DIRECTIONS. WITH ADJACENT HISTORIC FACADES. THE SIZE AND PROPORTION, OR THE RATIO OF WIDTH TO ...PROVIDE APPROPRIATELY PROPORTIONED WINDOWS THAT RELATE TO AND ARE COMPATIBLE WITH HEIGHT, OF WINDOW AND DOOR OPENINGS ON NEW BUILDINGS’ PRIMARY FACADES SHOULD ADJACENT HISTORIC FACADES. RESIDENTIAL SCALED, PUNCHED OPENINGS ARE PROPOSED IN A MORE BE SIMILAR AND COMPATIBLE WITH THOSE ON SURROUNDING HISTORIC FACADES. TRADITIONAL AND RATIONAL ORDER ARRANGEMENT. ON FACADES THAT FACE WERTLAND STREET AND THE WERTENBAKER HOUSE, APPROPRIATELY PROPORTIONED GLAZING BAYS HAVE BEEN INTRODUCED K. STREET-LEVEL DESIGN: (PG 17) STREET LEVEL FACADES OF ALL BUILDING TYPES, WHETHER TO BREAK UP THE MASS AND ENGAGE THE PEDESTRIAN. COMMERCIAL, OFFICE, OR INSTITUTIONAL, SHOULD NOT HAVE BLANK WALLS; THEY SHOULD PROVIDE VISUAL INTEREST TO THE PASSING PEDESTRIAN. NEIGHBORHOOD TRANSITIONAL ... ELIMINATE BLANK WALLS THROUGH CHANGE IN MATERIALS, BALCONIES, PORCHES, CIRCULATION BUILDINGS IN GENERAL SHOULD NOT HAVE TRANSPARENT FIRST FLOORS, AND THE DESIGN CORE ELEMENTS, AND APPROPRIATE AMOUNTS OF GLAZING. CREATE A DISTINCT TWO-STORY MASS TO AND SIZE OF THEIR FAÇADE OPENINGS SHOULD RELATE MORE TO NEIGHBORING RESIDENTIAL FACE THE STREET BY REFERENCING THE CORNICE LINE OF THE WERTENBAKER HOUSE. PROVIDE A THIRD STRUCTURES. STORY THAT RECEDES FROM THE STREETWALL / BUILDING FACADES. UTILIZE PORCHES AND ENTRANCES TO BREAK DOWN BLANK WALLS. L. FOUNDATION & CORNICE: (PG 18) FACADES GENERALLY HAVE A THREE-PART COMPOSITION: A FOUNDATION OR BASE THAT RESPONDS AT THE PEDESTRIAN OR STREET, THE MIDDLE SECTION, ...PROPOSE A BRICK FOUNDATION AND BRICK BASE. ABOVE THE BRICK CORNICE LINE (AT THE SILL OF AND THE CAP OR CORNICE THAT TERMINATES THE MASS AND ADDRESSES HOW THE BUILDING THE THIRD FLOOR WINDOWS) TRANSITION TO A THIRD STORY THAT STEPS BACK FROM WERTLAND STREET MEETS THE SKY AND REMAINS ORTHOGONAL TO THE STREET (FURTHER EMPHASIZING THE SKEW OF THE BRICK MASS BELOW). LEGIBLE VOLUMES TERMINATE IN A PARAPET WALL AND COPING CAP TO VISUALLY SIMPLIFY M. MATERIALS & TEXTURES: (PG 19) THE SELECTION OF MATERIALS AND TEXTURES FOR A NEW THE FORM. BUILDING SHOULD BE COMPATIBLE WITH AND COMPLEMENTARY TO NEIGHBORING BUILDINGS. IN ORDER TO STRENGTHEN THE TRADITIONAL IMAGE OF THE RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF THE ... SELECT HIGH-QUALITY, LOW MAINTENANCE MATERIALS THAT ARE IN KEEPING WITH ADJACENT HISTORIC DISTRICTS, BRICK, STUCCO, AND WOOD SIDING ARE THE MOST APPROPRIATE ESTABLISHED MATERIAL CHOICES. THE PROPOSED MATERIALS ARE BRICK AND FIBER-CEMENT PANELIZED MATERIALS FOR NEW BUILDINGS. LARGE-SCALE, MULTI-LOT BUILDINGS, WHOSE PRIMARY SIDING (I.E. HARDIEPANEL). KEY AREAS WILL UTILIZE METAL PANEL TRIM. FACADES HAVE BEEN DIVIDED INTO DIFFERENT BAYS AND PLANES TO RELATE TO EXISTING NEIGHBORING BUILDINGS, CAN HAVE VARIED MATERIALS, SHADES, AND TEXTURES. N. PAINT: (PG 20) THE SELECTION AND USE OF COLORS FOR A NEW BUILDING SHOULD BE ... AVOID BRIGHTLY COLORED OR INTRUSIVE PAINT COLORS COORDINATED AND COMPATIBLE WITH ADJACENT BUILDINGS, NOT INTRUSIVE. O. DETAILS AND DECORATIONS: (PG 21) MORE SUCCESSFUL NEW BUILDINGS MAY TAKE THEIR CUES FROM HISTORIC IMAGES AND REINTRODUCE AND REINTERPRET DESIGNS OF TRADITIONAL ... PROVIDE A HOLISTIC COMPOSITION THAT IS DEFERENTIAL TO ITS HISTORIC CONTEXT. TAKE CUES FROM DECORATIVE ELEMENTS OR MAY HAVE A MODERNIST APPROACH IN WHICH DETAILS AND ADJACENT BRICK DETAILING IN HEADERS, SILLS, SOLIDER COURSING, AND CORNICES. TAKE CUES FROM DECORATION ARE MINIMAL. CORNICE LINE HEIGHTS AND BUILDING PROPORTIONS. 1301 WERTLAND ST. PROJECT NARRATIVE BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 5 DECEMBER 27, 2022 1M ILE RA 1/ 2 DIU M S/ UNIVERSITY TRANSIT ILE SYSTEM BUS STOPS 20 M (6 WITHIN 1/4 MILE) 1/4 RA MI LE DIU R INUTE W S AD / 10 IUS SITE MINUTE WALK ALK /5 THE LAWN MINUTE W THE CORNER ALK CHARLOTTESVILLE AREA TRANSIT (CAT) BUS STOPS (3 WITHIN 1/4 MILE) 1301 WERTLAND ST. PROXIMITY MAP BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 6 DECEMBER 27, 2022 1311 WERTLAND STREET 1310 WERTLAND STREET 1306 WERTLAND STREET 1300 WERTLAND STREET 1250 WERTLAND STREET 1301 WERTLAN STREET 1254 WERLAND STREET 1256 WERTLAND STREET * DENOTES A CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE 216 FOURTEENTH STREET 1215 WERTLAND STREET WERTENBAKER HOUSE 1301 WERTLAND ST. CONTEXT IMAGES BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 7 DECEMBER 27, 2022 STEP 1: COVER EXISTING SURFACE PARKING LOT STEP 3: BREAK DOWN MASS THROUGH STEP 5: FOR THE PROPOSED BUILDING MASS IN FRONT VERTICAL VOIDS AT STAIR TOWERS AND BALCONIES OF THE WERTENBAKER HOUSE, SKEW THE FORM TO EMPHASIZE THE HISTORIC RELATIONSHIP TO THE STREET STEP 2: IDENTIFY 12 INDIVIDUAL UNITS, STEP 4: LIMIT THE IMPACT OF HEIGHT INCORPORATING A STEP BACK FROM THE STREET BY ESTABLISHING A BRICK MASS THAT IS THE SAME HEIGHT AS THE WERTENBAKER CORNICE LINE 1301 WERTLAND ST. PROPOSED MASSING DEVELOPMENT BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 8 DECEMBER 27, 2022 RESIDENTIAL SCALED VOLUMES RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL SCALED VOLUMES SCALED VOLUMES SCALED VOLUMES USE 5 DEGREE SKEW XISTING HO TO WERTLAND STREET FRONT OF E ORIGINAL CONCEPT 1301 WERTLAND ST. PROPOSED SITE ORGANIZATION AND DIAGRAM BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 9 DECEMBER 27, 2022 1 3 5 5 6 4 2 2 6 ELEV. 538 ELEV. 538 1. EMPLOY DESIGN TECHNIQUES TO REDUCE VISUAL PRESENCE. THESE COULD INCLUDE VARYING FACADE WALL PLANES, DIFFERING MATERIALS, STEPPED-BACK UPPER LEVELS, AND IRREGULAR MASSING. 2. ESTABLISHING A DIRECTIONAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE OLD AND NEW CONSTRUCTION 3. REDUCE LARGER MASSING TO SMALLER-SCALED FORMS BY BREAKING UP THE ROOF LINE, VARYING THE SURFACE OF THE BUILDING, AND STEPPING BACK THE BUILDING AT THE STREET LINE. 4. PROVIDE A VARIED ROOF LINE TO BREAK UP THE MASSING. 5. THE RHYTHM, PATTERNS, AND RATIO OF SOLIDS (WALLS) AND VOIDS (WINDOWS AND DOORS) OF NEW BUILDINGS SHOULD RELATE TO AND BE COMPATIBLE WITH ADJACENT HISTORIC FACADES. 6. REINFORCE THE HUMAN SCALE OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICTS BY INCLUDING ELEMENTS SUCH AS PORCHES, ENTRANCES, STOREFRONTS, AND DECORATIVE FEATURES DEPENDING ON THE CHARACTER OF THE PARTICULAR SUB-AREA. 1301 WERTLAND ST. COMPATIBILITY WITH ADCD GUIDELINES FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 10 DECEMBER 27, 2022 4 2 1 3 5 PREVIOUS MASSING ELEV. 538 ELEV. 538 1. SETBACK FROM WERTLAND STREET HAS INCREASED TO ACCOMMODATE THE SKEWED FRONT ELEVATION. 2. THE FRONT ELEVATION HAS BEEN REVISED TO ACCOMMODATE A PEDESTRIAN ENTRANCE. 3. THE LANDSCAPING AND ASSOCIATED FRONT COURTYARD HAS BEEN THOUGHTFULLY REFINED AND DEVELOPED. 4. EXTERIOR LIGHTING HAS BEEN DESIGNED AND STUDIED FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY’S BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW GUIDELINES AND ZONING ORDINANCE. 5. EXTERIOR MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT HAVE BEEN LOCATED. 1301 WERTLAND ST. SUMMARY OF REVISIONS BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 11 DECEMBER 27, 2022 1301 WERTLAND ST. RENDERED SITE PLAN BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 12 DECEMBER 27, 2022 PROPOSED 1301 WERTLAND ST. COURTYARD PERSPECTIVE BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 13 DECEMBER 27, 2022 1301 WERTLAND ST. EXISTING PERSPECTIVE FROM 13TH STREET BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 14 DECEMBER 27, 2022 NEW PEDESTRIAN ENTRANCE AT WERTLAND STREET ELEVATION (504) PROPOSED 1301 WERTLAND ST. PROPOSED PERSPECTIVE FROM 13TH STREET BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 15 DECEMBER 27, 2022 1301 WERTLAND ST. EXISTING PERSPECTIVE FROM WERTLAND STREET BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 16 DECEMBER 27, 2022 EXISTING 1301 WERTLAND ST. PROPOSED PERSPECTIVE FROM WERTLAND STREET BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 17 DECEMBER 27, 2022 PROPOSED 1301 WERTLAND ST. PROPOSED PERSPECTIVE ON WERTLAND ST. BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 18 DECEMBER 27, 2022 1301 WERTLAND ST. CENTRAL PEDESTRIAN AXIS BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 19 DECEMBER 27, 2022 574' 560' 546' 538' 532' 510' 502' SITE SECTION 1301 WERTLAND ST. STREET SECTIONS / ADJACENT MASSING BAR SUBMISSION SITE SECTION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 20 DECEMBER 27, 2022 1301 WERTLAND ST. WERTLAND STREET ELEVATION (SOUTH) BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 21 DECEMBER 27, 2022 1301 WERTLAND ST. SIDE ELEVATION (EAST) BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22 DECEMBER 27, 2022 1301 WERTLAND ST. COURTYARD ELEVATION (WEST) BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 23 DECEMBER 27, 2022 1301 WERTLAND ST. REAR ELEVATION (NORTH) BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 24 DECEMBER 27, 2022 1301 WERTLAND ST. COURTYARD PERSPECTIVE BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 25 DECEMBER 27, 2022 LEGEND EXISTING FEATURES 1- WILLOW OAK (OFF PROPERTY) 2- TREE, TYP. 3- PROPERTY LINE 4- RETAINING WALL 1 5- BRICK WALK O 6- PORCH 8 I 2 7- STAIR H 8- EVERGREEN TREE ST TH 13 D PROPOSED FEATURES A - LAWN ELLIPSE B - BRICK WALK A C - CONCRETE WALK I B 7 6 EX. RESIDENCE 4 D - SMALL FLOWERING TREE, TYP. E - MEDIUM CANOPY TREE, TYP. 3 B F - COLUMNAR TREE (4’ WIDTH MAX) 5 waterstreet studio G - COLUMNAR TREE (10’ WIDTH) H - SHRUBS, TYP. NDSCAPE ARCHITEC TS F E 3 M A N N E R S I - GROUNDCOVER C J - GRASSES & PERENNIALS, TYP. J WERTLAND ST K - GARAGE ENTRY (VEHICULAR) L L - GARAGE ENTRY (PEDESTRIAN) M - STAIR K waterstreetstudio G I waterstreetstudio waterstreetstudio feet 0 20 north waterstreet studio LANDSCAPE ARCHITEC TS LANDSCAPE CONCEPT PLAN 1301 WERTLAND ST BAR SUBMISSION CIVIL ENGINEERS 06 | DECEMBER | 2022 1 TREES & SHRUBS EX. TREE TO REMAIN EX. HOLLY TO REMAIN A B C Bald Cypress / Taxodium Liquidambar ‘Slender Yellowwood / Cladrastis kentukea E distichum Silhouette’ / Sweetgum ST TH 13 G I D H LAWN K PROPERTY LIN J EX. RESIDENCE D E F waterstreet studio Serviceberry / Amelanchier Sweetbay Magnolia / Magnolia Ginkgo / Ginkgo ‘Princeton Sentry’ C E ‘Autumn Brilliance’ virginiana ‘Moonglow’ NDSCAPE ARCHITEC TS ANNERS EX. HOLLY TO REMAIN WERTLAND ST B G H Inkberry Holly / Ilex glabra ‘Shamrock’ Summersweet / Clethra alnifolia ‘Hummingbird’ waterstreetstudio GROUNDCOVER A F waterstreetstudio waterstreetstudio feet 0 20 north I J K Dwarf Witchalder / Fothergilla Oakleaf Hydrangea / Hydrangea Arrowwod Viburnum / Viburnum gardenii quercifolia ‘Sikes Dwarf ’ dentatum ‘Blue Muffin’ waterstreet studio LANDSCAPE ARCHITEC TS PLANTING PLAN / TREES & SHRUBS 1301 WERTLAND ST BAR SUBMISSION CIVIL ENGINEERS 06 | DECEMBER | 2022 2 GROUNDCOVER EX. TREE TO REMAIN EX. HOLLY TO REMAIN N O L M N L Low Gro Sumac / Rhus Aronia ‘Ground Hog’ / Dwarf Black Liriope muscari ‘Monroe’s White’ aromatica ‘Gro Low’ Chokeberry / White Lily Turf ST TH 13 GRASS & PERENNIAL MIX N LAWN M PROPERTY LIN EX. RESIDENCE waterstreet studio E NDSCAPE ARCHITEC TS EX. HOLLY TO REMAIN ANNERS WERTLAND ST Threadleaf Bluestar / Amsonia Switchgrass / Panicum virgatum Dwarf Joe Pye Weed / Eupatorium hubrictii ‘Shenandoah’ dubium ‘Baby Joe’ N GRASS & PERENNIAL MIX GRASS & PERENNIAL MIX GRASS & PERENNIAL MIX waterstreetstudio Hyssop / Agastache ‘Purple Haze’ Purple Coneflower / Echinacea Sporobolus heterolepsis / Prairie purpurea ‘Magnus’ Dropseed N waterstreetstudio waterstreetstudio feet 0 20 north waterstreet studio LANDSCAPE ARCHITEC TS PLANTING PLAN / GROUNDCOVER, GRASSES & PERENNIALS 1301 WERTLAND ST BAR SUBMISSION CIVIL ENGINEERS 06 | DECEMBER | 2022 3 PAVING O A Sawcut Concrete ST TH 13 B PROPERTY LIN EX. RESIDENCE B B waterstreet studio Brick E NDSCAPE ARCHITEC TS ANNERS A WERTLAND ST waterstreetstudio waterstreetstudio waterstreetstudio feet 0 20 north waterstreet studio LANDSCAPE ARCHITEC TS PAVING PALETTE 1301 WERTLAND ST BAR SUBMISSION CIVIL ENGINEERS 06 | DECEMBER | 2022 4 1301 WERTLAND ST. COURTYARD PERSPECTIVE LIGHTING BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 30 DECEMBER 27, 2022 5.0 1.8 4.0 10.2 5.0 1.8 4.1 10.2 4.9 1.8 4.1 10.2 4.6 @ 8.25' G @ 8.25' G @ 8.25' G @ 8.25' 6.0 3.3 4.7 10.2 5.6 3.4 5.2 10.3 5.2 3.0 5.5 10.4 4.6 6.6 9.9 3.9 3.0 4.3 9.8 6.4 3.2 2.8 6.4 10.0 4.4 1.7 G @ 8.25' G @ 8.25' G @ 8.25' 6.0 10.4 3.1 1.4 3.5 10.4 5.8 1.7 1.8 6.3 10.0 2.8 0.7 PARKING DECK PLAN RENDERING Plan View Scale - 1" = 20ft n SITE AND EXTERIOR BUILDING 1301 WERTLAND ST. Lamp Intensity Total Input Polar Catalog Description LLF Efficiency Distribution Notes Output Multiplier Output Power Plot PGUL-63L-50K-C1-W Parking garage fixture with uplight, surface 6344 1 1 6344 0 100% mounted with J-box, 0-10 dimmable, suitable for wet locations. Designer FLVA-BE / BAP Date 12/20/2022 Scale SEE DRAWING Drawing No. V2 Summary NFC 2 of 2 10.1 5.0 1.8 4.0 10.2 5.0 1.8 4.1 10.2 4.9 1.8 4.1 10.2 4.6 10.1 5.0 1.8 4.0 10.2 5.0 1.8 4.1 10.2 4.9 1.8 4.1 10.2 4.6 G @ 8.25' G @ 8.25' G @ 8.25' G @ 8.25' 10.1 6.0 3.3 4.7 10.2 5.6 3.4 5.2 10.3 5.2 3.0 5.5 10.4 4.6 G @ 8.25' G @ 8.25' G @ 8.25' G @ 8.25' 10.1 6.0 3.3 4.7 10.2 5.6 3.4 5.2 10.3 5.2 3.0 5.5 10.4 4.6 3.1 6.6 9.9 3.9 3.0 4.3 9.8 6.4 3.2 2.8 6.4 10.0 4.4 1.7 3.1 6.6 9.9 3.9 3.0 4.3 9.8 6.4 3.2 2.8 6.4 10.0 4.4 1.7 G @ 8.25' G @ 8.25' G @ 8.25' 1.5 6.0 10.4 3.1 1.4 3.5 10.4 5.8 1.7 1.8 6.3 10.0 2.8 0.7 G @ 8.25' G @ 8.25' G @ 8.25' 1.5 6.0 10.4 3.1 1.4 3.5 10.4 5.8 1.7 1.8 6.3 10.0 2.8 0.7 GARAGE LEVEL PHOTOMETRIC PLAN SCALE: 1” = 20’ Plan View Statistics Scale - 1" = 20ft Plan View Statistics Description Symbol Avg Max Min Max/Min Avg/Min Scale - 1" = 20ft GARAGE 5.5 fc Symbol Description 10.4 fc Avg 0.7 fc 14.9:1 Min7.9:1 Max Max/Min Avg/Min GARAGE 5.5 fc 10.4 fc 0.7 fc 14.9:1 7.9:1 Schedule ScheduleImage Lamp Intensity Total Input Polar Symbol Label QTY Manufacturer Catalog Description LLF Efficiency Distribution Notes Output Multiplier Output Power Plot Lamp Intensity Total Input Polar Symbol Label 7 Image Spitzer QTY Lighting Manufacturer PGUL-63L-50K-C1-W Catalog Parking garage fixture with uplight, surface Description 6344 1 1 6344LLF 0 100% Efficiency Distribution Notes Output Multiplier Output Power Plot mounted with J-box, 0-10 dimmable, G 7 Spitzer Lighting PGUL-63L-50K-C1-W Parking garage fixture with uplight, surface suitable for wet locations. mounted with J-box, 0-10 dimmable, 6344 1 1 6344 0 100% G suitable for wet locations. 4 0.4 0.5 5.6 0.5 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.00.0 0.00.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 S1 @ 3.25' 6 0.5 0.5 2.6 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.00.0 0.00.0 0.00.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6 0.4 1.8 2.3 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.00.0 0.00.0 0.00.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8 0.6 0.9 6.2 0.8 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.00.1 0.00.1 0.00.1 0.00.1 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 S1 @ 3.25' 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 2.8 3.4 3.2 2.9 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.00.1 0.00.1 0.10.10.00.0 0.0 0.10.00.0 0.10.00.10.00.10.00.10.00.10.00.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 S1 @ 3.25' 6 11.9 10.7 9.0 7.2 10.8 9.6 6.5 10.8 9.9 11.1 6.5 2.5 0.9 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.00.2 0.10.6 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.00.2 0.00.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.3 1.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.25'S1 @ 3.25' 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.10.00.10.10.00.10.00.10.00.10.00.10.00.10.00.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 S1 @ 3.25' 0.1 0.0 0.0 B1 7' 5.1 1.6 S1 1.5@ 5.5 4.6 @5.0 3.25' 17.4 S1 @ 20.2 20.1 8.7 7.0 8.8 3.25' 0.0 0.50.0 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.04.8 0.07.3 0.00.2 0.00.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 3.6 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 S1 @ 0.0 3.25' 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.6 0.10.0 0.8 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.3 1.0 0.1 0.0 S1 0.0 @0.03.25' 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 S1 @ 3.25' S1 @ 3.25' 7' 0.0 0.0 B1 @ 7' B119.7 18.1 17.0 B1 @ 7' 19.0 0.0@ 0.07' 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 2.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.03.9 0.01.5 0.00.2 0.00.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 1.8 1.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 B3 0.0 0.0 @ 9'0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.5 4.80.1 0.2 7.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 3.6 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 B1 @ B1 7' @ 7' B1 @ 25.2 B1 25.67' 0.0 @ 7'0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 4.8 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 7.0 1.6 25.2 22.1 0.1 0.9 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.00.3 0.00.2 0.1 S1 0.1@ 3.25' 0.2 0.8 2.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 B1 0.4 @0.9 0.2 7'0.23.90.1 S1 @ 3.25' 1.5 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 1.8 1.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.4 18.9 B3 @0.09' 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 18.9 16.6 0.1 4.70.1 0.1 0.9 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 1.0 0.0 S10.0 8.9 @ 3.25' 1.6 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.00.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 3.4 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 7.0 1.6 0.1 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.8 2.0 0.3 S1 @ 3.25' 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.3 6.7 6.5 3.9 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2B1 3.1 @ 7' 0.1 0.2 0.7 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.0 1.5 0.0 11.4 0.0 0.5 0.00.3 0.00.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 2.0 2.5 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.10.1 0.20.1 1.0 8.9 S1 1.6 @0.13.25' 0.4 0.2 S1 0.1 @ 3.25' 0.1 0.1 0.2 3.4 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 3.9 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.1 0.6 0.2 1.6 0.03.1 0.01.4 0.01.0 0.00.8 0.00.5 0.4 S1 0.4 @ 0.53.25' 5.6 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.4 B1 0.6@ 11.4 7' 0.1 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 2.0 2.5 0.2 1.5 S1 @ 3.25' 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 1.8 0.5 S10.7 @ 0.4 1.2 0.13.25'1.9 0.0 0.0 3.2 0.03.4 0.01.7 0.01.2 0.00.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 2.6 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.40.1 0.6 0.8 1.6 3.1 1.4 0.0 1.0 0.8 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.5 5.6 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.4 1.1 0.0 0.9 0.1 0.7 0.2 2.3 0.05.6 0.02.3 0.01.8 0.00.8 0.00.6 0.6 0.4 1.8 2.3 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 S1 @ 3.25' 0.0 1.7 1.2 0.6S10.6 @ 3.25' B2 @ B2 7' @ 7' B2 @ 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1B2 7'0.1@ 7' 0.1 0.00.2 0.3 0.5 0.7 1.2 1.9 3.2 3.4 0.5 0.5 2.6 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9 3.0 1.2 1.4 4.8 5.5 2.4 6.9 3.3 1.2 1.4 4.8 0.1 5.5 0.1 0.1 1.40.3 3.70.7 6.5 1.2 1.43.1 0.3 8.6 0.0 3.8 0.1 9.2 0.0 6.5 0.08.4 0.09.2 0.04.9 0.02.5 0.01.3 0.8 0.6 0.9 6.2 0.8 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 B1 @ 7' B1 @ 7' B1 0.0@ 0.1 7' 0.1 0.20.0B1 0.3 @ 0.57' 0.7 0.9 B1 @ 1.1 7'2.3 5.6 2.3 S1 0.0 @1.8 3.25' 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.4 1.8 2.3 0.4 S1 @ 3.25' 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 S1 6 1.0 0.7 0.8 1.4 1.4 1.0 1.8 1.1 0.0 0.7 0.8 1.5 0.1 1.50.2 0.70.7 1.22.8 1.6 5.1 0.59.9 0.2 4.1 @ 2.5 0.0 13.7 0.1 0.03.25' 17.6 18.2 0.0 0.0 9.6 0.0 18.4 0.0 4.7 4.3 1.1 2.8 3.4 3.2 2.9 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 S1 @ 3.25' 0.0 4.9 2.5 1.3 0.8 0.6 0.9 6.2 0.8 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 .3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.7 0.11.2 0.3 0.3 3.10.2 3.80.3 8.60.3 9.20.1 6.5 0.0 9.2 0.0 8.4 0.0 S1 @ 3.25' S1 @ 3.25' 0.0 0.1 0.3 1.1 4.6 B1S1@@ 7'B1 @ 7' 3.25' B1 24.8 22.4S1 @ 19.3 7' 1.1 7.2@ 3.25' 4.0 6.2S12.6 S1 @@ 3.25' 11.9 10.7 9.0 7.2 10.8 9.6 6.5 10.8 9.9 11.1 6.5 2.5 0.9 0.2 0.0 0.0 3.25' 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.7 2.80.15.1 9.9 13.7 2.5 4.1 17.6 18.2 18.4 9.6 4.7 19.4 4.3 B1 @ 2.87' 3.4 3.2 2.9 S1 1.1 @ 3.25' S1 @ 3.25' 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.5 1.8 S1 7.4@ 3.25' B3 @ 9' 28.7 25.2 B1 7' 5.1 1.6 S1 1.5@ 5.5 4.6 @5.0 3.25'17.4 S1 @ 20.2 20.1 8.7 7.0 8.8 0.5 0.0 0.0 3.25' 0.0 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 B1 @ 7' S1 @ 3.25' S1 @ 3.25' 26.6 2.6 11.9 10.7 9.0 7.2 10.8 9.6 6.5 10.8 9.9 11.1 6.5 2.5 0.9 S1 0.2 @0.03.25' 0.1 0.3 1.1 4.60.1 B1 @ 7' 24.8 22.4S1 7.2@ 3.25' 26.6 6.2 4.0 0.0 S1 @ 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.13.25' 0.2 0.6 2.5 8.5 B1 @ 7' B1 @B17'@ 7'B1 @ S1 @ 3.25'S1 @@ 17.0 B1 @ 7' 7'7' 20.2 B1 @ 7'B1 7' 0.0 0.0 B1 @ 7' B1 @19.0 7' 18.1 0.1 19.4 19.3 B1 @ 23.2 3.25' S1 @ 3.25' 19.7 0.0 2.2 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.5 1.8 7.40.2 B1 @ 9' B1 @ 7' B3 @ 9' 28.4 28.4 28.7 25.2 B3 @ 9' B1 1.5@ 5.57' 5.1 1.6 S1 4.6 @5.0 3.25'17.4 20.2 20.1 8.7 7.0 B3 8.8 @ 0.5 9'0.0 0.0 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.00.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 B1 @ B1 7' @ 7' B1 @ B1 7' @ S1 @ 3.25' 7' B1 25.2 @ 25.6B1 7' @ 7' 0.1 0.7 2.6 7.3 26.6 26.6 27.0 23.8 S1 @ 3.25' 25.2 22.1 S1 @ 3.25' 0.0 4.8 0.9 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.0 B1 @ 7' Polar B1 @ 7' 0.6 2.5 8.50.2B1 @ 7' B1@@9'7' B1 @ 7' 20.2 B1 @18.9 7'B118.8@ 7' 0.0 0.0 B1 @ 7' B1 @19.0 7' 18.1 Lamp0.2 Intensity B1 Total Input 23.2 19.7 2.2 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.00.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Catalog B1LLF 0.6@ 2.5 9' B1 @ 6.7 7' Efficiency Description B3 @ 9' DistributionB3 @ 9' 18.4 18.9 18.9 B3 Notes 0.1 4.7 0.9 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Output0.2 Multiplier Output Power B3 @ 9' 19.5 28.4 28.4 17.2 Plot@ 9' 16.6 0.0 B1 @ B1 7' @ B1 7' @ 7'13.9 13.9 B1 @ B1 7' @ 7' B1 @ 25.2 25.6B1 7' @ 7' 0.1 CAV15QF1X16U4K 488 0.7 12.6 7.30.1 1 B1 @ 9' 18.5 488 27.0 23.8 100% Full Cutoff landscape bollard with anchor 25.2 22.1 6.5 6.7 0.9 0.2 0.1 @0.0 B1 @ 7' 0.1 B1 4.8 7' 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 1.5 3.5 4.6 4.2 4.3 3.9 3.1 0.7 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 B1 @ 9' 18.9 18.8 bolt attachment, 3000k, standard 40" 18.4 0.6 2.5 6.70.1 B3 @ 9' height, 180-DEGREE SHIELD, ONE 16W 19.5 17.2 18.9 18.9 B3 @ 9' 16.6 4.7 0.9 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.00.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.9 0.1 3.9 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Plan View9'B1 @ 7' 0.1 13.9 13.9 QSSI LED ARRAY, black finish B1 @ 7' B1 @ 4.3 6.7 6.5 0.4 1.5 3.50.0 Scale - 0.11" =0.220ft0.2 B1 @ 7' 4.6 4.2 3.9 3.1 0.7 0.2 B1 0.1 @0.07' 0.00.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.8 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 VANCWP-15L-30K-BK 1279 0.1 1 1 1279 18.42 100% Outdoor Building Wall Sconce, switchable 0.2 0.5 0.90.0 CCT, 3000k, up/dn output, frosted lens, 3.9 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 B1 @ 7' 2.2 2.2 B2 @ finish black B2 7' @ 7' 2.2 2.2 B2 @ B2 7' @ 7' 2.2 2.2 B2 @ B2 7' @ 7' B1 @ 7' 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.20.0 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 B1 @ 7' 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 1.5 6.6 3.2 1.2 1.4 4.8 5.6 2.5 6.9 3.0 1.2 1.4 4.8 5.5 2.4 6.9 3.3 1.2 1.4 4.8 5.5 1.4 3.7 6.5 0.0 B1 @ 7' B1 @ 7' 2.2 B1 @ 7' B1 @ 7' Statistics 1.4 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.10.0 2.2 2.2 Sconce, 2.2 2.2 B1 @ 7' B1 @ 7'0.4 0.2B1 0.1 @ 7'0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 VANCWP-7L-30K-BK 700 1 0.5 700 9 2.2 100% Outdoor Building Wall switchable 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 B2 0.6 @1.5B2 7' @ 1.0 7'0.7 0.8 1.4 1.4 B2 1.0 @1.6B2 7' @ 1.0 7'0.7 0.8 1.4 1.4 B2 1.0 @1.8B2 7' @ 1.1 7'0.7 0.8 1.5 1.5 0.7 1.2 1.6 0.0 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0Description 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Symbol Avg Max Min Max/Min Avg/Min 0.0 B1 @ 7' CCT, 3000k, dn output, frosted lens, black 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 2.50.3 6.90.3 3.00.3 1.20.3 1.40.3 4.80.2 5.50.3 2.40.3 6.90.3 3.30.3 1.20.3 1.40.4 4.80.3 5.50.3 1.40.3 3.70.3 6.50.3 1.40.2 0.30.3 0.10.3 0.00.1 0.00.0 0.00.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.00.0 0.10.0 0.20.0 1.50.0 6.60.0 3.20.1 1.20.2 1.40.3 4.80.2 5.6finish B1 @ 7' B1 @ 7' B1 @ 7' B1 @ 7' B1 @ 7' B1 @ 7' B1 @ 7' 0.0 0.0 Property Line 0.1 fc 0.4 fc 0.0 fc N/A N/A 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.6 1.5 1.0 0.7 0.8 1.4 1.4 1.0 1.6 1.0 0.7 0.8 1.4 1.4 1.0 1.8 1.1 0.7 0.8 1.5 1.5 0.7 1.2 1.6 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 site 1.2 fc 28.7 fc 0.0 fc N/A N/A Obi LB-4030M-WWC830 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 4384 1 1 4384 28 100% Ceiling mounted outdoor rated strip light, 3000K 120 3000K, 120° frosted lens distribution, end stairwell ground floor 1 21.4 fc 28.4 fc 13.9 fc 2.0:1 1.5:1 COURTYARD LEVEL PHOTOMETRIC PLAN to end connection, black finish stairwell ground floor 2 17.3 fc 25.6 fc 6.5 fc 3.9:1 2.7:1 Schedule SCALE: 1” = 20’ back deck courtyard lvl 2.8 fc 6.9 fc 0.0 fc N/A N/A Lamp Intensity Total Input Polar Symbol Label Image QTY Manufacturer Catalog LLF Efficiency Description Distribution Notes Output Multiplier Output Power Plot Schedule 20 PEMCO LIGHTING CAV15QF1X16U4K 488 1 1 488 18.5 100% Full Cutoff landscape bollard with anchor Lamp Intensity Total Input Polar Symbol Label Image QTY Manufacturer PRODUCTSCatalog LLF Efficiency Description bolt attachment, 3000k, standard 40" Distribution Notes S1 Output Multiplier Output Power height, 180-DEGREE SHIELD, ONE 16W Plot 20 PEMCO LIGHTING CAV15QF1X16U4K 488 1 1 Plan 488 View 18.5 100% QSSI LED Full Cutoff landscape ARRAY, bollard black finish with anchor PRODUCTS Scale - 1" = 20ft bolt attachment, 3000k, standard 40" S1 42 Spitzer Lighting VANCWP-15L-30K-BK 1279 1 1 1279 18.42 height, 100% Outdoor 180-DEGREE Building SHIELD, Wall ONE 16WSconce, switchable Plan View QSSI LED ARRAY, CCT, 3000k, black up/dn output, frosted lens, finish B1 Scale - 1" = 20ft black finish 42 Spitzer Lighting VANCWP-15L-30K-BK 1279 1 1 1279 18.42 100% Outdoor Building Wall Sconce, switchable CCT, 3000k, up/dn output, frosted lens, B1 18 Spitzer Lighting VANCWP-7L-30K-BK 700 1 0.5 700 9 black finish 100% Outdoor Building Wall Sconce, switchable CCT, 3000k, dn output, frosted lens, black B2 finish 18 Spitzer Lighting VANCWP-7L-30K-BK 700 1 0.5 700 9 100% Outdoor Building Wall Sconce, switchable CCT, 3000k, dn output, frosted lens, black B2 10 SONARAY Obi LB-4030M-WWC830 4384 1 1 4384 28 finish 100% Ceiling mounted outdoor rated strip light, 3000K 120 3000K, 120° frosted lens distribution, end B3 to end connection, black finish 10 SONARAY Obi LB-4030M-WWC830 4384 1 1 4384 28 100% Ceiling mounted outdoor rated strip light, 3000K 120 3000K, 120° frosted lens distribution, end B3 to end connection, black finish MEASUREMENT OF EXISTING BRICK MEASUREMENT OF EXISTING BRICK ON HISTORIC WERTENBAKER HOUSE ON HISTORIC WERTENBAKER HOUSE COMPLIMENTING EXISTING BRICK COMPLIMENTING EXISTING MORTAR 1301 WERTLAND ST. EXISTING HISTORIC HOUSE MATERIAL STUDY BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 34 DECEMBER 27, 2022 1 1 7 6 4 5 3 2 TREX ENHANCED NATURAL DECKING “COASTAL BLUFF” 2 WINDSOR PINNACLE ALUMINUM CLAD WOOD WINDOWS IN “SABLE” 7 6 5 4 3 SMOOTH FIBER CEMENT TRIM JAMES HARDIE VERICAL BOARD AND OLD CAROLINA BRICK COMPANY ARGOS “SAN TAN” MORTAR CUSTOM STEEL RAILINGS BENJAMIN MOORE “MIDNIGHT OIL” BATTEN SIDING PAINTED BENJAMIN HANDMADE BRICK IN “WINDSOR” PAINTED BENJAMIN MOORE’S MOORE “MIDNIGHT OIL” “MIDNIGHT OIL” 1301 WERTLAND ST. PROPOSED PROJECT MATERIALS BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 35 DECEMBER 27, 2022 WINDSOR EXTERIOR WINDOWS AND PATIO DOORS IN “SABLE” EXTERIOR ALUMINUM CLAD COLOR INTERIOR STAINED FINISH SELECTION - “SABLE” “ESPRESSO” 1301 WERTLAND ST. WINDOWS AND DOORS BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 36 DECEMBER 27, 2022 3 1/2" x 2" HSS TOP RAIL 3 1/2” X 2” HSS TOP RAIL 2” X 3/8” STEEL STOCK @ 2" X 3/8" STEEL STOCK @ 4" O.C. 4” O.C 2” X 3/8” STEEL STOCK 2" X 3/8" STEEL STOCK BANISTER 3' 6" TREX DECKING 8" BRICK BANDING 8" C-CHANNEL PAINTED BENJAMIN MOORE "MIDNIGHT OIL" 4 SECTION @ TYPICAL EXTERIOR DECK A5.2 1" = 1' 1301 WERTLAND ST. GUARDRAIL DETAILING BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 37 DECEMBER 27, 2022 UNITS INTERNALLY LOCATED AND NOT VISIBLE. UNITS INTERNALLY LOCATED AND NOT VISIBLE. ROOF DRAINS UNITS INTERNALLY LOCATED AND NOT VISIBLE. 1301 WERTLAND ST. HVAC UNIT LOCATIONS BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 38 DECEMBER 27, 2022 APPENDIX ONE: ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS 546' - 0" (33'-0") T/ PARAPET 534' - 0" (21'-0") THIRD FLOOR 523' - 6" (10'-6") SECOND FLOOR 513' - 0" (0'-0") FIRST FLOOR SEVEN DEVELOPMENT 505' - 0" (-8'-0") STREET LEVEL 502' - 0" (-11'-0") PARKING LEVEL SOUTH ELEVATION 546' - 0" (33'-0") T/ PARAPET 534' - 0" (21'-0") THIRD FLOOR 523' - 6" (10'-6") SECOND FLOOR CHECKED BY: KS DRAWN BY: MK 513' - 0" (0'-0") FIRST FLOOR SK1 BUI 505' - 0" (-8'-0") ELEVA STREET LEVEL 502' - 0" (-11'-0") ISSUE D PARKING LEVEL Decembe NORTH ELEVATION SK SHEET # 546' - 0" (33'-0") T/ PARAPET 534' - 0" (21'-0") THIRD FLOOR 523' - 6" (10'-6") SECOND FLOOR 513' - 0" (0'-0") FIRST FLOOR WEST ELEVATION 505' - 0" (-8'-0") STREET LEVEL SEVEN DEVELOPMENT 502' - 0" (-11'-0") PARKING LEVEL 546' - 0" (33'-0") T/ PARAPET 534' - 0" (21'-0") THIRD FLOOR CHECKED BY: KS DRAWN BY: MK 523' - 6" (10'-6") SECOND FLOOR 513' - 0" (0'-0") SK2 BUIL FIRST FLOOR ELEVAT ISSUE D 505' - 0" (-8'-0") Decembe EAST ELEVATION SK STREET LEVEL 502' - 0" (-11'-0") PARKING LEVEL SHEET # 1301 Wertland Street - Applicant's revisions January 10, 2023 1 of 3 Revised Sheet 18 1301 Wertland Street - Applicant's revisions January 10, 2023 2 of 3 Entrance at garage 1301 Wertland Street - Applicant's revisions January 10, 2023 3 of 3 Ceiling boards Certificate of Appropriateness BAR # 22-10-02 101 East Jefferson Street, TMP 330190000 North Downtown ADC District (contributing) Owner: First United Methodist Church Applicant: William L. Owens, AIA Project: FUMC solar panels Application components (please click each link to go directly to PDF page): • Staff Report • Historic Survey • Application Submittal January 2023 BAR Packet 4 City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Staff Memo January 18, 2023 Certificate of Appropriateness BAR # 22-10-02 101 East Jefferson Street, TMP 330190000 North Downtown ADC District (contributing) Owner: First United Methodist Church Applicant: William L. Owens, AIA Project: Install solar panels Background Year Built: 1923 District: North Downtown ADC District Status: Contributing First United Methodist Church is a Colonial Revival, brick church with a monumental portico and four Doric columns, with a tower and steeple. Prior BAR Actions (See appendix for complete list) September 20, 2022: Informal discussion, staff questions re: proposed solar panels. Meeting video (04:41:00): BAR Meeting Video Sept 20 2022 October 18, 2022: Motion to approve solar panels (BAR #22-10-02) failed, 2-4. BAR accepted applicant’s request for deferral. Meeting video (02:06:00): BAR Meeting Video Oct 18 2022 Submittal: 101 East Jefferson Street - BAR Submittal Oct 2022 Application • Submittal: Wm. L Owens Architect, First United Methodist Church Solar Panel Project, dated December 27, 2022: Narrative, photos, and product specs (29 pages). Request CoA for installation of roof-top solar panels. • Where solar panels are to be installed, the existing slate shingles will be removed, and replaced by asphalt shingles over waterproof underlayment. Salvageable slate will be stored for repairs on remaining slate roofs or for re-installation, if considered later. [Staff Note on the existing roof: Buckingham slate. Original to building, 1923. Life cycle of Buckingham slate can exceed 150 years.] 101 E. Jefferson – FUMC solar panels – January 18, 2023 (01/12/2023) 1 • All electrical connections will be made in the attic or the basement. The only exposed equipment, other than the solar panels. will be a 2” conduit running from the backside of the array on the west facing roof, along the roofline at the east face of the steeple, and down the north face of the steeple to the existing electrical service at ground level in the courtyard. The conduit will be painted to match the existing slate or brick. • The solar panels [on the mountain rails] will be no greater than 6” above the roof. Discussion Initial request: Install panels onto existing slate roof At the September 20, 2022 meeting, staff asked the BAR for informal comments on this pending request, with the following offered: • BAR Questions: o How will the panels be installed/mounted? (Brackets, hardware, etc.) o Where will wires/cables/conduit and equipment boxes be placed and how will they be screened, of necessary? o How high will the panels be above the slate? o How will the slate roof be protected during installation and subsequent maintenance of the solar panels? (Concern for condition of slate tiles with more-frequent activity.) o Photo-sim: panels on sanctuary are oriented NW. • BAR Comments: o Preference: install panels on rear addition; avoid panels on sanctuary. o Re: maximizing panel area, a frame over the parking area (east side) might be evaluated. Current request: Install panels onto asphalt shingles The BAR’s primary concern has been how the slate roof will be impacted by the activity related to the installation and maintenance of the solar panels. The applicant’s proposal resolves that concern. Like the City of Charlottesville,1 the FUMC congregation has made a commitment to support renewable energy. The ADC District design guidelines are somewhat silent on--if not in opposition to—externally adapting historic structures to accommodate on-site alternative and renewable energy sources. The guidelines do encourage sustainability and green building. However, they refer to 1 Charlottesville Climate Action Plan: Strategies and Key Actions for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Our Community, November 2022 Link: Charlottesville-Climate-Action-Plan Nov 2022 101 E. Jefferson – FUMC solar panels – January 18, 2023 (01/12/2023) 2 solar [collectors] only once—in discouraging them on historic roofs--there is no mention of photovoltaic, alternative, or renewable [energy]. Regardless, the urgency to act has increased exponentially since the guidelines were adopted. Term Times Used Sustainable / Sustainability 18 Green Building 6 Solar 1 Photovoltaic / Alternative / Renewable [Energy] 0 While not emphasized in the design guidelines, the City’s Comprehensive Plan, adopted in 2021, specifically recommends expanding opportunity for solar power, see below. [Staff note: The Comp Plan refers to residential homes and municipal buildings; however, staff is comfortable interpreting this as a City-wide goal.] From the five guiding principles [emphasis added]: The City government will reduce its carbon footprint and other environmental impacts. The Charlottesville community will be empowered and encouraged to reduce their environmental footprint and benefit from energy efficiency efforts. All will have access to high-quality natural resources, including improved air, soil, and water quality. From Chapter 4: Strategy 3.4 Encourage sustainable, energy efficient building designs and low impact development as complementary goals to historic preservation, including through support for adaptation, reuse, and repurposing of the built environment. • Sub-strategies: o Continue evaluating recommendations appropriate for historic structure improvements that increase energy efficiency and promote sustainability. Incorporate [the above] into the design guidelines for Architectural Design Control Districts, Individually Protected Properties, Historic Conservation Districts, and Entrance Corridor Overlay Districts. o Support the implementation of solar photovoltaic systems for historic structures. o Consider applying the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Historic Rehabilitation to all City-owned property more than 50 years old, and apply appropriate preservation technologies in all additions and alterations, while also pursuing sustainability and energy conservation goals. From Chapter 7: Strategy 1.5: Pursue use of cleaner sources of energy (e.g., renewable energy strategies) community-wide. • Sub-strategies: o Consider local policies and incentives to expand solar power in residential homes. o Pursue siting solar power on appropriate municipal buildings. From the design guidelines, Chapter I - Introduction: • Nothing in these guidelines should be construed to discourage green building or sustainable design. If such a design is found to conflict with a specific guideline, the BAR shall work with 101 E. Jefferson – FUMC solar panels – January 18, 2023 (01/12/2023) 3 the applicant to devise a creative solution that meets that applicant’s goal for sustainability that is also compatible with the character of the district and the property. • The guidelines are flexible enough to both respect the historic past and to embrace the future. Staff Recommendations To be clear, a strict application of the design guidelines and of the Secretary’s Standards would recommend denial of this request. With that, the options available to the BAR are: a) approve the CoA by, as instructed by the design guidelines, working with the applicant to devise a creative solution that meets that applicant’s goal for sustainability; or, b) deny the CoA, acknowledging the matter can be appealed to City Council who may consider additional information, factors or opinions deem[ed] relevant to the [appeal]. (That is, Council may consider factors the BAR cannot.) In choosing an option, staff suggests the BAR consider including guidance from the Comp Plan policy re: climate change and our environment. The following questions might be helpful--not to defer to obvious responses, but to establish context in considering how much flexibility the guidelines allow. • Do the design guidelines and the Secretary’s Standards express a clear, unambiguous direction? • Reversibility: Are the impacts of the proposed work reversible? • What guidance is offered in the City’s Comprehensive Plan and how should they be used, if at all? • In the pending updates to the design guidelines, would the BAR envision allowing or accommodating this and similar requests? • If the existing roof was asphalt shingles—or if the slate was replaced with faux slate, which the BAR has allowed--how would this request be treated? • Would approval stablish an unacceptable, possibly unanticipated, precedent? If the BAR approves the CoA, staff suggests the following conditions be considered: • Slate shingles removed will be properly stored for later use on the building. • If/when the solar panels are removed, the asphalt shingles will be replaced with either slate or a suitable faux-slate shingle. Suggested Motions Approval: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find the proposed slate roof replacement and roof-top solar panels at 101 East Jefferson Street satisfies the BAR’s criteria and is compatible with this property and other properties in the North Downtown ADC District, and that the BAR approves the application [as submitted]. Or, [... as submitted] with the following conditions: Denial: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed slate roof replacement and roof-top solar panels at 101 East Jefferson Street do not satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are not compatible with this property and other properties in the North Downtown ADC District, and that for the following reasons the BAR denies the application as submitted: 101 E. Jefferson – FUMC solar panels – January 18, 2023 (01/12/2023) 4 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 Chapter I – Introduction Link: Chapter 1 Introduction (Part 1) Sustainability: Sustainability and preservation are complementary concepts, and both goals should be pursued. Nothing in these guidelines should be construed to discourage green building or sustainable design. If such a design is found to conflict with a specific guideline, the BAR shall work with the applicant to devise a creative solution that meets that applicant’s goal for sustainability that is also compatible with the character of the district and the property. Flexibility: The following guidelines offer general recommendations on the design for all new buildings and additions in Charlottesville’s historic districts. The guidelines are flexible enough to both respect the historic past and to embrace the future. The intent of these guidelines is not to be overly specific or to dictate certain designs to owners and designers. The intent is also not to encourage copying or mimicking particular historic styles. These guidelines are intended to provide a general design framework for new construction. Designers can take cues from the traditional architecture of the area and have the freedom to design appropriate new architecture for Charlottesville’s historic districts. Pertinent Guidelines from Chapter IV - Rehabilitation Link: Chapter 4 Rehabilitation G. Roof 1) When replacing a standing seam metal roof, the width of the pan and the seam height should be consistent with the original. Ideally, the seams would be hand crimped. 101 E. Jefferson – FUMC solar panels – January 18, 2023 (01/12/2023) 5 2) If pre-painted standing seam metal roof material is permitted, commercial-looking ridge caps or ridge vents are not appropriate on residential structures. 3) Original roof pitch and configuration should be maintained. 4) The original size and shape of dormers should be maintained. 5) Dormers should not be introduced on visible elevations where none existed originally. 6) Retain elements, such as chimneys, skylights, and light wells that contribute to the style and character of the building. 7) When replacing a roof, match original materials as closely as possible. a. Avoid, for example, replacing a standing-seam metal roof with asphalt shingles, as this would dramatically alter the building’s appearance. b. Artificial slate is an acceptable substitute when replacement is needed. c. Do not change the appearance or material of parapet coping. 8) Place solar collectors and antennae on non-character defining roofs or roofs of non-historic adjacent buildings. 9) Do not add new elements, such as vents, skylights, or additional stories that would be visible on the primary elevations of the building. Pertinent Guidelines from the Secretary’s Standards 1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment. 2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. 3. Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken. 4. Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved. 5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be preserved. 6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence. 7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. 8. Significant archeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken. 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. 10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. Building Exterior – Roofs: Alterations/Additions for the New Use Recommended: 101 E. Jefferson – FUMC solar panels – January 18, 2023 (01/12/2023) 6 Installing mechanical and service equipment on the roof such as air conditioning, transformers, or solar collectors when required for the new use so that they are inconspicuous from the public right-of- way and do not damage or obscure character defining features. Designing additions to roofs such as residential, office, or storage spaces; elevator housing; decks and terraces; or dormers or skylights when required by the new use so that they are inconspicuous from the public right-of-way and do not damage or obscure character- defining features. Not Recommended: Installing mechanical or service equipment so that it damages or obscures character-defining features; or is conspicuous from the public right-of-way. Radically changing a character-defining roof shape or damaging or destroying character- defining roofing material as a result of incompatible design or improper installation techniques. Energy Conservation - Roofs Recommended: Placing solar collectors on non-character-defining roofs or roofs of non-historic adjacent buildings. Not Recommended: Placing solar collectors on roofs when such collectors change the historic roofline or obscure the relationship of the roof features such as dormers, skylights, and chimneys. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation & Illustrated Guidelines on Sustainability for Rehabilitating Historic Building https://www.nps.gov/orgs/1739/upload/sustainability-guidelines.pdf Pages 14 and 15 Solar Technology Recommended: • Considering on-site, solar technology only after implementing all appropriate treatments to improve energy efficiency of the building, which often have greater life-cycle cost benefit than on-site renewable energy. • Analyzing whether solar technology can be used successfully and will benefit a historic • building without compromising its character or the character of the site or the surrounding historic district. • Installing a solar device in a compatible location on the site or on a non-historic building or addition where it will have minimal impact on the historic building and its site. • Installing a solar device on the historic building only after other locations have been investigated and determined infeasible. • Installing a low-profile solar device on the historic building so that it is not visible or only minimally visible from the public right of way: for example, on a flat roof and set back to take advantage of a parapet or other roof feature to screen solar panels from view; or on a secondary slope of a roof, out of view from the public right of way. 101 E. Jefferson – FUMC solar panels – January 18, 2023 (01/12/2023) 7 • Installing a solar device on the historic building in a manner that does not damage historic roofing material or negatively impact the building’s historic character and is reversible. • Installing solar roof panels horizontally – flat or parallel to the roof—to reduce visibility Not Recommended: • Installing on-site, solar technology without first implementing all appropriate treatments to the building to improve its energy efficiency. • Installing a solar device without first analyzing its potential benefit or whether it will negatively impact the character of the historic building or site or the surrounding historic district. • Placing a solar device in a highly-visible location where it will negatively impact the historic building and its site. • Installing a solar device on the historic building without first considering other locations. • Installing a solar device in a prominent location on the building where it will negatively impact its historic character. • Installing a solar device on the historic building in a manner that damages historic roofing material or replaces it with an incompatible material and is not reversible. • Removing historic roof features to install solar panels. • Altering a historic, character-defining roof slope to install solar panels. • Installing solar devices that are not reversible. • Placing solar roof panels vertically where they are highly visible and will negatively • impact the historic character of the building. APPENDIX Prior BAR Actions re; 101 East Jefferson Street • February 17, 2004 – Preliminary discussion re: iron fencing. • April 20, 2004 – BAR approved the addition of a five-ft high, wrought iron fence parallel to the east property line to protect the public from a large window well. • March 15, 2011 – BAR approved (7-0) modifications to/replacement of main entry doors as submitted with conditions: (a) door be replaced, not modified, with existing doors saved/stored on site; and (b) glass in the new door is clear glass, not beveled glass. • June 21, 2011 – BAR approved (6-0) a new bathroom addition as submitted. • October 18, 2016 – BAR approved (8-0) steeple lighting. (BAR awarded a 2020 Preservation and Design Award: Rehabilitation of Historic Steeple and Installation of Steeple Illumination.) Solar panel installations reviewed by BAR since 2010. All were approved. Since 2010, the BAR has reviewed 15 projects with solar panel arrays, all were approved. (See list in the Appendix.) Since adoption of the current design guidelines, the BAR has reviewed and approved 11 CoA requests for photovoltaic panels--eight in ADC Districts and three in HC Districts. All, except one, were rooftop arrays. 101 E. Jefferson – FUMC solar panels – January 18, 2023 (01/12/2023) 8 The design guidelines for Rehabilitation do not specifically recommend against solar panels on historic roofs; instead recommending they be placed on non-character defining roofs or roofs of non-historic adjacent buildings. In the BAR staff reports for several projects reviewed between 2010 and 2017, the Preservation and Design Planner applied the following when recommending approval: The panels extend up from the roof by less than one foot, which does not significantly change the profile of the roofline. This appears to be an interpretation of a recommendation in the Secretary’s Standards to not place panels where they will change the historic roofline or obscure the relationship of the roof features such as dormers, skylights, and chimneys. That is, panels that are installed low and parallel to the roof surface will not change the profile of the roofline. Date Address District Roof type (location of panels) Apr-10 215 East High St North Downtown parapet (not visible) Aug-10 222 South St Downtown frame in back yard (rear) Oct-10 219 14th St NW Rugby-U Circle-Venable standing-seam metal (side) Mar-12 230 West Main St Downtown parapet (not visible) Oct-16 206 West Market St Downtown parapet (not visible) Aug-16 450 Rugby Rd Rugby-U Circle-Venable flat roof (rear) May-17 615 Lexington Ave Martha Jeff HC standing-seam metal (rear) Jul-18 503 Lexington Ave Martha Jeff HC standing-seam metal (side) Apr-19 1102 Carlton Ave IPP standing-seam metal (rear) Aug-19 507 Ridge St Ridge Street frame in back yard (rear) Mar-19 206 5th St NE North Downtown membrane (rear) Mar-19 420 Park St North Downtown standing-seam metal (side and rear) Mar-19 924 Rugby Rd Rugby Road HC standing-seam metal (front and rear) Aug-21 735 Northwood Ave North Downtown standing-seam metal (front) Jun-22 636 Park St North Downtown standing-seam metal (rear) Etc. During the 2018-2020 [pre-COVID] discussions re: updating the design guidelines, staff noted the following BAR comments related to solar panels: Chapter III – Rehabilitation. Roof: • Should not damage or interfere with historic material. • If existing roof is relatively flat, panels should not create the illusion of a sloped roof. • Advise owners to inspect condition of existing roof prior to attaching solar equipment; make necessary repairs—even replacement—prior to installing solar equipment. • Address/evaluate photovoltaic shingles as replacement shingles. • Address/evaluate how panels are attached to historic roofs. 101 E. Jefferson – FUMC solar panels – January 18, 2023 (01/12/2023) 9 FIRST UNITED METHODIST CHURCH Solar Panel Project December 27, 2022 Description of Proposed Work As part of green initiatives currently ongoing at the church, the congregation of First United Methodist Church (101 East Jefferson Street) wishes to consider adding solar panel arrays on several of the church building’s roof surfaces. The church has received a promise of a large donation to seed the project and will fund the remaining cost through matching donations and the Federal tax credit now available to nonprofits as part of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. The goal of the project is to reduce the church’s demand for electrical service as much as possible through being supportive of renewable energy and demonstrating good stewardship of the environment. In order to accomplish this goal, the church wishes to maximizing the coverage of solar panels as much as practicable. As proposed, (see attached photo simulations) the church’s electrical costs would be reduced by approximately 50% at a savings of about $11,000 per year. Following the presentation of the project concept to the BAR in October, the church met with its roofer and solar provider to reevaluate the project’s approach, particularly to installation, since the mounting of the solar panels through the existing 100-year-old slate shingle roof was a major topic of concern at the meeting. The church now proposes to remove the slate shingles under the solar arrays and replace them with a waterproofing underlayment and dark colored asphalt shingles. This will allow for a more typical installation of the panels by the solar provider (see attached product information) and reduce the maintenance concerns for the church associated with a slate roof installation. The existing slate tiles that are replaced for asphalt shingles will be salvaged and used to repair any damage to the exposed roof during installation or stored by the church for possible restoration if the solar panels are removed in the future. In addition, the roofer has found a source for new slate shingles that matches the original Buckingham Slate tiles, also for use in any required repair or future replacement. Since the solar panels sit parallel to and only 6” above the roof surface, and project 12”-24” beyond the mounting rails, the asphalt shingles will not be visible, even when standing on the roof itself. The geometry of the arrays has been revised to a regular rectangular shape from the stepped geometry previously proposed to simplify the new roof installation and more easily disguise the asphalt shingles. All roof areas not covered by solar panels will remain visible as the existing slate shingles. The solar panel arrays themselves will not be viewable on the church roofs from the surrounding block (see attached site photos) and only seen from the church parking lot and at a significant distance. Since the panels are mounted close to and matching the existing roof slopes, they should not be considered as changing the historic roofline or altering the character defining features of the church. 1645 Redwing Lane, Charlottesville, VA 22911 434.974.1620 bowens@wloarchitect.com www.wloarchitect.com First United Methodist Church Solar Panel Project Photo Simulation 1 William L. Owens Architect, LLC December 27, 2022 First United Methodist Church Solar Panel Project Photo Simulation 2 William L. Owens Architect, LLC December 27, 2022 First United Methodist Church Solar Panel Project Photo Simulation 3 William L. Owens Architect, LLC December 27, 2022 First United Methodist Church Solar Panel Project Site Photos – East Jefferson Street Property from E. Jefferson St./1st St. N. Intersection Property from E. Jefferson St./2nd St. N.E. Intersection Facing Property from E. Jefferson St. Facing Property from E. Jefferson St. William L. Owens Architect, LLC September 27, 2022 First United Methodist Church Solar Panel Project Site Photos – 1st Street N. Property from E. High St./1st St. N. Intersection Property from E. Jefferson St./1st St. N. Intersection Facing Properties from E. Jefferson St./1st St. N. Intersection Facing Properties from E. High St./1st St. N. Intersection William L. Owens Architect, LLC September 27, 2022 First United Methodist Church Solar Panel Project Site Photos – 2nd Street N.E. Neighboring Property from 2nd Street N.E. Property from 2nd Street N.E. Facing Property from E. High St./2nd St. N.E. Intersection Facing Property from E. Jefferson St./2nd St. N.E Intersection William L. Owens Architect, LLC September 27, 2022 First United Methodist Church Solar Panel Project Site Photos – E. High Street Property from E. High St./2nd St. N.E. Intersection Property from E. Hight St./1st St. N. Intersection Facing Properties from E. High St./1st St. N. Intersection Facing Properties from E. High St./2nd St. N.E. Intersection William L. Owens Architect, LLC September 27, 2022 Tech Brief FlashVue® Moving Flashing Forward We set out to design a flashing that checked all the boxes: fully waterproof, fast and easy to install correctly, economical, and strong enough to handle every environmental condition. FlashVue® does it all. The optimized flashing design features a large viewport, for easy alignment with the pilot hole. And the GripCap® and GripCap+® sit snugly in place, so the lag can be driven single-handedly. Three-Tier Water Seal, Reimagined FlashVue®’s seal architecture utilizes three layers of protection. The viewport is elevated 0.30”, and provides a “friction-fit” for the GripCap®. The GripCap® fully covers the viewport while a sealing washer adds another layer of protection. And an EPDM washer and lag bolt “seal the deal” in the GripCap® & GripCap+® The 360º capable GripCap® (2.74” tall) and GripCap+® (3.74” tall) can be placed in any orientation, and provide a “friction-fit” for easy installs. Push snug into the viewport, without worrying it will roll away or rotate while driving the lag. ⌀ 0.75” Large Viewport in Flashing The large viewport makes it easy to align the flashing with the pilot hole, and Triple Certified to drive the lag centered into the rafter. The Protect the Roof™ elevated rim not only provides a sturdy UL 2703, 441 (27) dock for the GripCap® or GripCap+®, TAS 100(A)-95 but increases water-shedding Tech Brief See Your Pilot Holes Large Viewport in Flashing FlashVue® makes pilot holes highly visible, like never before. No more tedious guesswork on hot Solve Roof Undulations Also Available: GripCap+® We know roofs are not always perfectly flat. GripCap+ can help when undulations get in the way. ® ® ® Trusted Strength & Certification Attachment Loading  FlashVue® has been tested and rated to support 1161 (lbs) of uplift and 353 (lbs) of lateral load. Structural Certification  Designed and certified for compliance with the International Building Code & ASCE/SEI-7. Water Seal Ratings  Passed both the UL 441 Section 27 “Rain Test” and TAS 100-95 “Wind Driven Rain Test” by Intertek. UL 2703 Listed System  Conforms to UL 2703 mechanical and bonding requirements. See Flush Mount Manual for more info. © 2022 IronRidge, Inc. All rights reserved. Visit www.ironridge.com or call 1-800-227-9523 for more information. Version 1.01 FLASHVUE® THIS EDGE TOWARDS ROOF RIDGE 12.00 3 2 1 8.00 2.77 3.51 ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION 1 FM FLASHING, MILL OR BLACK FLASHVUE® 2 GRIP CAP, MILL OR BLACK 3 LAG & BONDED WASHER, SIZE A DO NOT SCALE DRAWING 5/16 X 4.25, 7/16 HEX HEAD SCALE:1:4 WEIGHT: 0.6 lbs SHEET 1 OF 1 © 2022 IronRidge, Inc. All rights reserved. Visit ww w.ironridge.com or call 1-800-227-9523 for more information. FV-01-MAN REV 1.11 Installation Tools Requi red: tape measure, chalk, approved sealing materials, driver with 1/4” bit and 7/16” hex socket 1 2 3rd course Rafter 2nd course 1st course Locate rafters and snap vertical and horizontal Slide flashing between 1st and 2nd course, so the top is lines to mark locations of flashings. Drill 1/4” pilot at least 3/4” above the edge of the 3rd course and the holes, then fill with roofing manufacturer's approved bottom is above the edge of the 1st course. Line up pilot sealant. hole with view port. 3 4 Press Grip Cap onto flashing in desired orientation Insert lag bolt with EPDM backed washer through for E/W or N/S rails. flashing. Tighten lag bolt until fully seated. FlashVue is now installed and ready for IronRidge XR Rails. 5 Structural Certification Designed and Certified for Compliance with the International Building Code & ASCE/SEI-7. Torque to 250 in-lbs Water Seal Ratings Water Sealing Tested to UL 441 Section 27 “Rain Test” and TAS 100(A)-95 “Wind Driven Rain Test” by Intertek. Tested and evaluated without sealant. Any roofing manufacturer approved sealant is allowed. Attach rails to either side of the open slot using UL 2703 bonding hardware. Level rail at desired height, then Conforms to UL 2703 (2015) Mechanical and torque to 250 in-lbs (21 ft-lbs). Bonding requirements. See Ironridge Flush Mount Installation Manual for full ratings. © 2022 IronRidge, Inc. All rights reserved. Visit ww w.ironridge.com or call 1-800-227-9523 for more information. FV-01-MAN REV 1.11 Datasheet Flush Mount System Built for solar’s toughest roofs. IronRidge builds the strongest mounting system for pitched roofs in solar. Our components have been tested to the limit and proven in extreme environments, including Florida’s high-velocity hurricane zones. Our rigorous approach has led to unique structural eatures, such as curved rails and reinorced fashings, and is also why our products are ully certied, code compliant and backed by a 25-year warranty. Strength Tested PE Certied All components evaluated for superior Pre-stamped engineering letters structural performance. available in most states. Class A Fire Rating Design Assistant Certied to maintain the re resistance Online software makes it simple to rating of the existing roof. create, share, and price projects. UL 2703 Listed System 25-Year Warranty Entire system and components meet Products guaranteed to be free newest effective UL 2703 standard. of impairing defects. National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Technical Preservation Services National Center for Cultural Resources N ITS32 Interpreting UMBER The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation Subject: Slate Roof Treatments Applicable Standards: 2. Retention of Historic Character 6. Repair/Replacement of Deteriorated or Missing Features Based on Evidence Issue: The roof of a historic building is often its most character-defining feature and a roof covered in slate only adds to this character. Slate as a roofing material continues to be one of the most durable materials available, with a life-span as long as 150 years. It is also weatherproof, aesthetically appealing, and readily obtainable. Although the recommended treatment is to repair a slate roof or replace it in kind if necessary, with rising costs and a variety of alternative roofing products on the market, property owners may prefer to replace slate with alternative roofing materials. These include asphalt-based fiber- glass shingles, polymer-based shingles (often containing recycled materials such as rubber), and less successfully, concrete and metal shingles. Replacing a deteriorated historic roof may fail to meet the Secretary’s Standards if it is replaced with a material that does not have the same visual qualities as the original. Slate roofs can often be repaired and some roofers specialize in this practice by removing and replacing only the most damaged tiles and keeping as much of the original as possible. This is the recommended approach. It may be accomplished on an as-needed basis and is generally cost effective. Most importantly, it preserves the roofing material, and thus, preserves the building’s historic character. At times, however, slate may be damaged beyond repair or missing entirely. What, then, is the most appropriate treatment? Replacement of the slate in kind to match the existing is always the preferred treatment. However each project must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the existing condition of the roof, its profile and visibility, the availability of materials, and the overall design of the building. Application 1 (Compatible Treatment): After surveying Typical view of Colonial-Revival apartment building in complex before approximately fifty buildings in this Colonial Revival-Style rehabilitation. Note the mottled appearance of original slate due to apartment complex, it was determined that the 80-year old numerous past repairs. slate roofing was in poor condition. As a result, the owner proposed that all the slate be removed and replaced with a polymer-based substitute. The most distinctive features of these simple 2-1/2 story brick garden apartments are their hipped and gabled slate roofs, which are very visible within the complex. Therefore, replacement with a sub- stitute material was deemed incompatible and the owner agreed to use new slate from the original quarry. The new slate roofs, which require only seasonal maintenance, are a sound investment and historically appropriate. Close up of damaged and previously repaired slate. ROOFING MATERIALS Right: New rubber slate (center; left) next to historic slate (right). Application 2 (Compatible Treatment): This 1894 example of Second Empire architecture is “high style” with pedimented dormers, balconies, corbelled cornices, a dominant central tower, and a small mansard roof covered in slate. Prior to rehabilitation the property was in extremely deteriorated condition and although some of the slate on the mansard was still there, it was delami- nating, fractured, and partially painted. Since the roof is only one of many decorative elements making up the primary façade and not the sole defining feature of the building, replacing the slate with a polymer-based substitute slate was an acceptable alternative. Although the replacement slate is visible, it replicates the decorative fish-scale pattern of the historic slate and, thus, has the same appearance as the original roof. Because the building is on a nar- row street and is generally viewed at an angle rather than head on, the mansard roof is not the major focal point. Left: Second Empire former hotel, built in 1894. Right: Close-up of substitute slate after installation. Application 3: (Compatible Treatment): After careful inspection, the slate roof of this circa 1895 former brewery was determined to be beyond repair and during rehabilitation was replaced with high quality asphalt-based fiberglass shingles. The new asphalt shingles are the same size and color as the original slate and have similar shadow lines. The roof, with its many towers, turrets and monitors, is clearly a distinctive and prominent feature, but because of the massive scale and height of the building, it can only be viewed at a considerable distance. For this reason, a substitute roofing material was acceptable in this instance. Above: Close up of the replacement roof after installation. Left: View of the historic brewery taken from a distance after rehabili- tation. Audrey T. Tepper, Technical Preservation Services, National Park Service These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. July 2005, ITS Number 32 National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Technical Preservation Services Interpreting N ITS52 UMBER The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation Subject: Incorporating Solar Panels in a Rehabilitation Project Applicable Standards: 2. Retention of Historic Character 9. Compatible Additions/Exterior Alterations Issue: Enhancing the energy efficiency of a historic building is important. To that end, it is often possible to install features such as solar panels and photovoltaic cells provided they are installed in a sensitive manner. Because these elements must be positioned to take advantage of unobstructed sunlight, the roof of a historic structure is an obvious location. The roofline of a historic building is often a distinctive feature. Therefore, the installation of solar panels should conform to guidance regarding rooftop additions, i.e. that they be minimally visible, to avoid altering the historic character of the building. Historic buildings with a flat roof or parapet can usually accommodate solar panels because the panels will be hidden, while properties with a hipped or gabled roof are generally not good candidates for a rooftop solar installation. Solar panels on historic buildings should not be visible from the public right of way such as nearby streets, sidewalks or other public spaces. In circumstances where solar collectors are not placed on rooftops, they should only be positioned in limited or no-visibility locations in secondary areas of the property. Vegetation or a compatible screen may also be an option to further reduce the impact of these features on a historic property. For some historic buildings, it may not be possible to incorporate solar panels and meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. Application 1 (Compatible treatment): solar panels The rehabilitation of this mid-nineteenth century mill incorporated a large, roof- mounted photovoltaic installation. Although the historic building does not have a parapet wall at the roofline, the height of the building and the arrangement of the panels render the entire installation invisible from the ground. It is important Because of the size of this historic mill, a large array of solar panels could be installed on to note that the panels are placed the flat roof without being seen from the ground. horizontally. Had the panels been installed with a vertical tilt, the angle required to maximize efficiency would have caused the panels to extend significantly higher above the roof. Simply changing the direction in which the panels are tilted can affect their visibility and reduce their impact on the character of the historic property. By placing the panels horizontally, the overall height Solar panels installed on the flat roof. of the installation and its visibility is reduced. ALTERNATIVE ENERGY Application 2 (Incompatible treatment): During the rehabilitation of this late-nineteenth century commercial building, a conspicuous rooftop monitor with prominent solar panels and skylights was constructed on the one-story structure. The size and finish of this rooftop addition are incompatible with the historic character of the building. However, the building could have accommodated both skylights and solar panels if they had been installed differently. An alternative design that could have met the Standards would have included low-profile skylights and solar panels concealed behind the parapet wall. The addition of a large rooftop monitor featuring skylights on the front slope and solar panels on the rear slope is not compatible with the historic character of this small, one-story commercial building. Application 3 (Compatible treatment): The rehabilitation of this historic post office incorporated solar panels as dual-function features: generation of electricity and shading for south-facing windows. In this instance, the southern elevation of the building is also a secondary elevation with limited visibility from the public right of way. Additionally, because this area of the building is immediately next to the post office’s loading dock, it has a more utilitarian character than the primary facades and, therefore, can better accommodate solar panels. Because the panels are in a suitable location at the rear of the property and are appropriately sized to serve as awnings, they do not affect the overall historic character of the property. Additionally, a screen of tall plantings shields the solar panels from view from the front of the building, further limiting their visibility. Above: Shown from the rear of the property, these Tall plantings shield solar panels from solar panels serve a secondary function as awnings to view from the front of the building. shade south-facing windows. Because of their location at the back of the building immediately adjacent to a loading dock, the installation of these panels does not affect the historic character of the property. Left: The solar panels are not visible from the front of the building. Additionally, even if the vegetation were removed, the installation would only be minimally visible along an alley at the rear of a secondary side elevation. Jenny Parker, Technical Preservation Services, National Park Service These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. August 2009, ITS Number 52 Certificate of Appropriateness - Demolition BAR # 23-01-01 207-211 Ridge Street, TMP 290029000 Ridge Street ADC District (contributing) Owner: The Salvation Army Applicant: Erin Hannegan / Mitchell-Matthews Architects & Planners Project: Phased demolition of two, c1960s buildings. Application components (please click each link to go directly to PDF page): • Staff Report • Application Submittal January 2023 BAR Packet 5 City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Staff Report January 18, 2023 Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 23-01-0 207-211 Ridge Street, TMP 290029000 Ridge Street ADC District (contributing property) Owner: The Salvation Army Applicant: Mitchell Matthews Architects & Planners Project: Building demolition Background Year Built: Chapel/primary building 1965. Transient shelter (rear) c1980; Addition (north) 1992. District: Ridge Street ADC District Status: Contributing (Note: By code, all structures in the Ridge Street ADC District are designated as contributing, regardless of year built or historic significance. Note: The site is not within a NRHP Historic District, nor individually designated.) The facility, constructed by the Salvation Army as a shelter and transient facility, includes a two-story, brick chapel and three-story brick building, both constructed in 1965, a two-story transient shelter (at the rear), constructed after 1974, likely in 1980, and a two-story brick addition (at the north side), constructed in 1992. Prior BAR Actions: n/a Application • Submittal: Mitchell Matthews Architects & Planners drawings and submittal dated January 11, 2023: Sheets 1 – 11. o Supplement A: Tree Protection Plan, dated January 11,2023: Cover, Sheets 13-17. Request CoA for demolition of three brick structures constructed in 1965, c 1972, and c 1980, respectively. Demolition [to be phased and sequenced with new construction] will allow the Salvation Army to expand the facility and increase and enhance the services provided per its mission. 207-211 Ridge Street – Demo CoA January 18, 2023 (1/12/2023) 1 Note: The proposed new construction will require approval of Special Use Permit [related to setbacks], therefore, at a later date the BAR will review that request and make a recommendation to City Council. Additionally, the planned redevelopment of the site, regardless of the SUP, will require BAR review and approval of a CoA. Discussion and Recommendations Per a review of the standards for considering demolitions (Code Sec. 34-278) and the Review Criteria for Demolition in the Design Guidelines (see below), staff concurs with the applicant’s comments, generally, and finds no compelling argument to deny the requested demolition. The property is within the Ridge Street ADC District and the structures are designated contributing; however, the property is not within a National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) historic district, nor are the structures designated individually. Within Subarea C of the ADC District: two structures date to the 1800s; five date to the 1960s; four to after 1980. 207-211 Ridge Street – Demo CoA January 18, 2023 (1/12/2023) 2 Per preliminary discussions with the applicant, the planned programming of this site anticipates the sequenced demolition of each structure and construction of buildings so as to allow continued use with minimal, if any, disruptions to the operation and services provided by the facility. BAR approval is required for the proposed new structures, when those designs are completed; however, with the demolition CoA, the BAR may consider conditions related to the timing, sequencing, etc. for the razing of each building. The BAR may also want to discuss the 56” [red] oak at the front of the site. (See Appendix and the applicant’s Supplement A.) Protection the tree during demolition and later construction is preferred; however, even if expressed as a condition of approval staff cannot advise on how practicable or realistic that might be. Should the BAR approve the request, staff suggests the following conditions of approval: • Staff approval of the demolition permit [when that application is submitted] is contingent upon: 1. Applicant providing for the BAR record documentation of the existing building. [In addition to the photos provided, documentation will include dimensioned floor plans and elevations. Similar to documentation provided for 210 West Market Street, August 2022; 1532 Virginia Ave, January 2019.] 2. Either a condition or a recommendation that during the demolition and later redevelopment of the site all efforts be made to preserve the large oak tree at the front of the property. (See photos in Appendix.) 3. An approved building permit for construction of the new buildings. [The BAR may want to link the sequence and timing of demolition of individual structures and the related construction of new.] Or, in lieu of item 3: o BAR approval of proposed site treatment following demolition and prior to site redevelopment. Unless other criteria of the ADC District Design Guidelines prevail, BAR will apply Chapter 2. Site Design. Suggested Motions Approval: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed demolition of 207-211 Ridge Street satisfies the BAR’s criteria and guidelines and is compatible with this property and other properties in the Downtown ADC District, and that the BAR [approves the application as submitted]. Or […approves the application as submitted with the following conditions:] … Denial: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed demolition of 207-211 Ridge Street does not satisfy or the BAR’s criteria and guidelines and is not compatible with this property and other properties in the Downtown ADC District, and for the following reasons the BAR denies the application as submitted:… Criteria, Standards, and Guidelines Review Criteria Generally Sec. 34-284(b) of the City Code states that, 207-211 Ridge Street – Demo CoA January 18, 2023 (1/12/2023) 3 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 design guidelines for Tree Protection From Chapter II of the Design Guidelines: Site Design and Elements Link: Chapter 2 Site Design and Elements B. Plantings Plantings are a critical part of the historic appearance of the residential sections of Charlottesville’s historic districts. The character of the plantings often changes within each district’s sub-areas as well as from district to district. Many properties have extensive plantings in the form of trees, foundation plantings, shrub borders, and flowerbeds. Plantings are limited in commercial areas due to minimal setbacks. 1) Encourage the maintenance and planting of large trees on private property along the streetfronts, which contribute to the “avenue” effect. 2) Generally, use trees and plants that are compatible with the existing plantings in the neighborhood. 3) Use trees and plants that are indigenous to the area. 4) Retain existing trees and plants that help define the character of the district, especially street trees and hedges. 5) Replace diseased or dead plants with like or similar species if appropriate. 6) When constructing new buildings, identify and take care to protect significant existing trees and other plantings. 7) Choose ground cover plantings that are compatible with adjacent sites, existing site conditions, and the character of the building. 8) Select mulching and edging materials carefully and do not use plastic edgings, lava, crushed rock, unnaturally colored mulch or other historically unsuitable materials. Pertinent Standards for Review of Demolitions: From City Code Section 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 existing structures were constructed in three primary phases with minor alterations likely in intervening years. ▪ Chapel and primary building: 1965. ▪ Transient Shelter: c1980 ▪ Addition (north): 1992 207-211 Ridge Street – Demo CoA January 18, 2023 (1/12/2023) 4 (2) Whether it has been designated a National Historic Landmark, listed on the National Register of Historic Places or listed on the Virginia Landmarks Register; Staff comment: Neither the parcel or structures are listed on the NRHP or located within a NRHP historic district. (3) Whether, and to what extent, the building or structure is associated with a historic person, architect or master craftsmen, or with a historic event; Staff comment: No known associations. (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: No such characteristics are attributed to these buildings. (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 207-211 Ridge Street – Demo CoA January 18, 2023 (1/12/2023) 5 Staff comment: Structures have no historical or architectural distinction. (6) The degree to which distinguishing characteristics, qualities, features, or materials remain. Staff comment: None. Demolitions will raze the three structures. (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 property and structures are not linked historically or aesthetically to other properties and structures within the ADC District. The property is not within a NRHP historic district. (c) The overall condition and structural integrity of the building or structure, as indicated by studies prepared by a qualified professional engineer and provided by the applicant or other information provided to the board. Staff comment: The current use of the buildings and the photos provided by the applicant suggest the structures are not unstable or in poor condition. Demolition is requested to facilitate redevelopment of the site. (d) Whether, and to what extent, the applicant proposes means, methods or plans for moving, removing, or demolishing the structure or property that preserves portions, features or materials that are significant to the property’s historic, architectural, or cultural value. Staff comment: Proposal is to raze all of the structures; no elements, features or materials will be retained. The buildings and site are not historically, architecturally, or culturally significant. Pertinent design guidelines re: Demolitions Link: Chapter 7 Moving and Demolition B. Demolition of Historic Structures Review Criteria for Demolition 1) The standards established by the City Code, Section 34-278. Staff comment: See comments above, under Standards for considering demolitions. 2) The public necessity of the proposed demolition. Staff comment: Demolition is not a public necessity; the buildings have not been condemned or deemed unsafe. However, in considering the request, the BAR might weigh the public benefit of the site’s redevelopment. 3) The public purpose or interest in land or buildings to be protected. Staff comment: See comments above, under Standards for considering demolitions, item a. 207-211 Ridge Street – Demo CoA January 18, 2023 (1/12/2023) 6 4) Whether or not a relocation of the structure would be a practical and preferable alternative to demolition. Staff comment: See comments above, under Standards for considering demolitions, item d. 5) Whether or not the proposed demolition would adversely or positively affect other historic buildings or the character of the historic district. Staff comment: See comments under Standards for considering demolitions, item d. 6) The reason for demolishing the structure and whether or not alternatives exist. Staff comment: See comments above, under Standards for considering demolitions, item d. 7) Whether or not there has been a professional economic and structural feasibility study for rehabilitating or reusing the structure and whether or not its findings support the proposed demolition. Staff comment: See comments above, under Standards for considering demolitions, item c Guidelines for Demolition 1) Demolish a historic structure only after all preferable alternatives have been exhausted. 2) Document the building thoroughly through photographs and, for especially significant buildings, measured drawings according to Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) Standards. This information should be retained by the City of Charlottesville Department of Neighborhood Development Services and the Virginia Department of Historic Resources. 3) If the site is to remain vacant for any length of time, maintain the empty lot in a manner consistent with other open spaces in the districts. 207-211 Ridge Street – Demo CoA January 18, 2023 (1/12/2023) 7 Appendix Existing 56” oak tree at site (From applicant’s submittal) (BAR staff photo) 207-211 Ridge Street – Demo CoA January 18, 2023 (1/12/2023) 8 (BAR staff photo) (BAR staff photo) 207-211 Ridge Street – Demo CoA January 18, 2023 (1/12/2023) 9 Note: Information provided for context and discussion only Age of a 56” red oak: Possibly 220 to 375 years. Red oaks can live to 500 years, but usually live to about 300 years. • Tree Age calculator. Likely 223 years old. (www.cliftonparkopenspaces.org/treecalculator/) • How Old Is My Tree? Likely 224 years old (www.purduelandscapereport.org/article/how-old-is-my-tree/) • How old is that oak? At least 300 years old. (conservemc.org/how-old-is-that-oak/) • Tree Age Calculator. Likely 323 years old. (www.tree-guide.com/tree-age-calculator) • The Friends of the Wild Flower Garden. Likely 375 years old (www.friendsofthewildflowergarden.org/pages/photosubpages/photoinfopages/treeagecalculator.html) A Guide to Preserving Trees in Development Projects https://extension.psu.edu/a-guide-to-preserving-trees-in-development-projects Updated: August 30, 2022 Table 1: Guidelines for Tree Protection Zones. Distances should be increased for trees of poor vigor and to protect young and other trees with low branching from severe pruning of limbs. This table is adapted from a table provided courtesy of the International Society of Arboriculture, Savoy, IL. Species Distance From Trunk* Distance for 56" Tolerance to Tree Age (feet per inch of trunk tree) Impacts diameter) Tolerant Mature 1.0-ft 56-ft Intermediate Mature 1.25-ft 70-ft Sensitive Mature 1.5-ft 84-ft *These distances are based on a tree's tolerance to root pruning and soil disturbance and may not be adequate to protect branches of young trees or other trees with low branching. Because severe pruning would destroy the form of such trees, fencing at the dripline or beyond should be considered. Table 2: Size and Tolerance of Tree Species to Construction Impacts. This table represents opinions of the authors and information from three publications: Tree Characteristics, Protecting Trees from Construction Damage, Minnesota Extension Service, University of Minnesota; The Response of Ohio's Native and Naturalized Trees to Construction Activity, T. Davis Sydnor, School of Natural Resources, The Ohio State University; and Relative Tolerance of Tree Species to Construction Damage, Kim D. Coder, The University of Georgia Cooperative Extension Service, Forest Resources Unit. Tolerance to construction impact can vary greatly according to site characteristics such as soil depth, individual tree characteristics such as rooting habit, prevailing weather conditions such as drought, and the degree of construction impact. 207-211 Ridge Street – Demo CoA January 18, 2023 (1/12/2023) 10 Hazard Soil Compaction and Mature Crown Species Root Severance Potential Flooding Spread (feet) Rating* Red Oak Tolerant Sensitive 40-50 Low White Oak Sensitive Sensitive 50-90 Low *Hazard Potential Rating refers to the relative potential for a tree to become hazardous due to its large size and likelihood of breakage or decay. For a tree to be considered hazardous, a likely "target" (e.g., a person, a house, or car) must be present. A high rating does not imply that an individual tree is likely to fail. Tree protection dimensions: (shown on applicant’s site plan) 207-211 Ridge Street – Demo CoA January 18, 2023 (1/12/2023) 11 207 - 211 RIDGE STREET C H A R L O T T E S V I L L E , V A DEMO REQUEST M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S A R C H I T E C T S JA NUA RY 11, 2 0 2 3 Request is hereby made to the City of Charlottesville’s Board of Architectural Review for the demolition of 207 and 211 Ridge Street to allow for redevelopment of the site by the current (5) Whether the building or structure is of such old or distinctive design, texture or Owner. As the attached photographs and site plan attempt to show, these buildings possess no material that it could not be reproduced, or could be reproduced only with great redeeming architectural or historical value or qualities that warrant special consideration. difficulty; The following is an evaluation of the buildings based on the criteria for demolition as outlined in Response: In our opinion, the buildings and structures at 207 and 211 Chapter Seven of Charlottesville Architectural Design Control District Design Guidelines. We Ridge Street do not possess a distinctive design, texture, or material have also reviewed the city zoning ordinance and have addressed each of the demolition criteria. that could not be reproduced or that would warrant saving. Responses are shown in italics. (6) The degree to which distinguishing characteristics, qualities, features, or materials According to City Code Section 34-278 the following factors shall be considered in determining remain. whether or not to permit the moving, removing, encapsulation or demolition, in whole or in Response: Currently, the buildings are entact, as orginally designed, part, of a contributing structure of protected property: although the addition to 207 Ridge and of 211 Ridge significantly changed the original site conditions and access. The buildings and (a) The historic, architectural or cultural significance, if any, of the specific structure or other site features at 207 and 211 Ridge Street will be removed in their property, including, without limitation: entirety, in a phased manner to allow redevelopment to occur without (1) The age of the structure; displacement of the transient shelter, at 211 Ridge Street. Response: The building at 207 Ridge Street was built in approximately 1965 (age of structure is 58 years), an addition was added in 1992 (age of structure is 31 years), refer to page 11 for extents. The building at 211 (b) Whether, and to what extent, a contributing structure is linked, historically or aesthetically, Ridge Street was existing per the 1992 drawings, however we have no to other buildings or structures within an existing major design control district, or is one of record of its year of construction. Based on the Owner’s recollections a group of properties within such a district whose concentration or continuity possesses it occurred between 1965 and 1992, likely around 1980 based on review greater significance than many of its component buildings. of the conditions (presumed age of structure is 43 years). Response: There is no known historic or aesthetic link of the structures at 207 and 211 Ridge Street to the other buildings or structures within the ADC, and their demolition will not, we believe, adversely affect the (2) Whether it has been designated a National Historic Landmark, listed on the National character of the district. Register of Historic Places or listed on the Virginia Landmarks Register; Response: No – none of the buildings have been individually listed on the National Register of Historic Places or the Virginia Landmarks (c) The overall condition and structural integrity of the building or structure, as indicated by Register. studies prepared by a qualified professional engineer and provided by the applicant or other information provided to the board. Response: No study of the overall condition and structural integrity of (3) Whether, and to what extent, the building or structure is associated with a historic the buildings have been undertaken. The lack of architectural and/or person, architect or master craftsmen, or with a historic event; historical significance of these buildings does not, in our opinion, warrant Response: There is no known historic event, person, architect or such an exercise. master craftsman associated with the structures at 207 and 211 Ridge Street. (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 (4) Whether the building or structure or any of its features, represent an infrequent or materials that are significant to the property’s historic, architectural, or cultural values; the first or last remaining example within the city of a particular architectural style Response: There are no known features, portions or materials of the or feature; buildings that have historic value and should be retained. It is proposed Response: None of the structures or features of 207 and 211 Ridge that the buildings will be demolished in their entirety. Street are known to represent an infrequent or first/last remaining example within the city of a particular architectural style or feature. Salvation Army M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlott es v ille , VA DEMOLITION CRITERIA & JUSTIFICATION ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS 2 12.28.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2023 Y:\904\48482-Salvation_Army_Additions\DWG\48482-XPSURV_v2.dwg | Plotted on 6/11/2021 1:19 PM | by Joe Medley EXISTING CONDITIONS TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY ON THE LANDS OF THE SALVATION ARMY TAX MAP PARCEL 290029000 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA FIFEVILLE PLANNING NEIGHBORHOOD CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA Date: May 28, 2021 Scale: 1" = 20' Sheet 1 of 1 J.N.: 48482 Drawn by: DWJ / JCM Checked by: JCM LAST REVISED: _ FIRE STATION #207 #211 NOLAND PLUMBING Salvation Army M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlott es v ille , VA AERIAL FROM ABOVE ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS 4 12.28.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2023 NOLAND PLUMBING #207 #211 #207 #207 #207 RI FIRE STATION DG E ST RE ET Salvation Army M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlott es v ille , VA AERIAL FROM NORTHEAST ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS 5 12.28.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2023 #211 #207 NOLAND PLUMBING FIRE STATION #207 ST REET RIDGE Salvation Army M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlott es v ille , VA AERIAL FROM SOUTHEAST ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS 6 12.28.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2023 #207 #207 NOLAND PLUMBING #211 4T HS TR EE TS W Salvation Army M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlott es v ille , VA AERIAL FROM SOUTHWEST ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS 7 12.28.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2023 Salvation Army M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlott es v ille , VA EXTERIOR PHOTOS FRONT (#207) ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS 8 12.28.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2023 #207 #211 #207 & #211 #211 Salvation Army M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlott es v ille , VA EXTERIOR PHOTOS REAR (#211 & #207) ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS 9 12.28.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2023 Sept 1902 Oct 1907 Nov 1913 Feb 1920 Salvation Army M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlott es v ille , VA HISTORY OF THE SITE SANBORN MAPS 1902 - 1920 ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS 10 12.28.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2023 1992 CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS SHOW #211 RIDGE AVE AS EXISTING CONSTRUCTION, BUT NO DATE IS PROVIDED. ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION FOR #207 IS NOTED AS 1965 ON THESE DRAWINGS. Salvation Army M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlott es v ille , VA HISTORY OF THE SITE 1992 CONSTRUCTION (AN ADDITION TO #207) ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS 11 12.28.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2023 EXISTING CONDITIONS TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY ON THE LANDS OF 207-211 Ridge Street: (prepared by BAR staff 01/04/23) 1 of 5 City GIS City GIS Google street view 207-211 Ridge Street: (prepared by BAR staff 01/04/23) 2 of 5 1 2 1 Google street view 2 Google street view Google street view 207-211 Ridge Street: (prepared by BAR staff 01/04/23) 3 of 5 1 1 2 Google street view 2 Google street view 207-211 Ridge Street: (prepared by BAR staff 01/04/23) 4 of 5 1 Google street view 1 2 2 Google street view 207-211 Ridge Street: (prepared by BAR staff 01/04/23) 5 of 5 Constructed between 1991 and 1995 City GIS Constructed between Constructed 1974 and 1979 1965 City GIS 207 - 211 RIDGE STREET S U P P L E M E N T A TREE PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS 12’-1 3/4” DISTANCE FROM TREE TO EXISTING BUILDING Salvation Army M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlott es v ille , VA EXISTING SURVEY DISTANCE TO TREE ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS 13 01.11.2023 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2023 DEMOLISH BUILDING MAINTAIN OCCUPANCY & ACCESS TO FRONT DOOR AND FDC OF 211 RIDGE STEET DURING CONSTRUCTION PROVIDE TEMPORARY ACCESSIBLE ROUTE TO PUBLIC WAY PROTECT 56" OAK TREE PER TREE SPECIALIST RECOMMENDATIONS SASalvation LV A Army T ION A R M Y O F C HA R L O T T E S V IL L E EXISTING SURV EY & PHASE 1 DEMOLITION PLAN M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlott es v ille , VA Salvation Army of Charlottesville PHASE 1 DEMOLITION PLAN ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS MITCHELL / MATTHEWS © 2021 14 01.11.2023 CONCEPT DESIGN All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. ARCHITECTS 4 3 4 . 9 7 9&. 7PLA SK-201 5 5 0 NNERS © 2023 Wednesday, January 11, 2023 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 434-979-7550 32’-3 1/2” DISTANCE FROM TREE TO PROPOSED FOUNDATION 32' 18,967 sq ft -3 1 /2" SHELTER TO REMAIN OPERABLE DURING REDEVELOPMENT 36'-3" 36’-3” DISTANCE FROM TREE TO PROPOSED PORCH FOOTINGS Salvation Army OVERLAY PLAN WITH 56" OAK TREE M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S SA LV AT Charlott es vION ille , VA A R M Y O F C HA R L O T T E S V IL L EFOOTPRINT PROPOSED OVER EXISTING SURVEY ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS 15 Salvation Army of Charlottesville 01.11.2023 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. MITCHELL / MATTHEWS 4 3 4 . 9 7 9 . 7 5 5© 0 2021 © 2023 CONCEPT DESIGN ARCHITECTS & PLA NNERS SK-272 FIRE STATION 492 494 PROPERTY LINE NO SETBACK 5% SLOPE 490' 498 496 494 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 MECH / ST 2 ST 1 4TH STREET SW ELEC. O. O. O. O. O. O. 13 12 10 10 12 13 11 11 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 STOR EXISTING GYM STOR FOOTPRINT PLAYGROUND SOCIAL SERVICES / SHELTER ADMIN WAIT STORAGE M.P. RM STAGE STOR STORAGE / RR FUTURE MECH/ FUTURE BUILDING? CLASSRM ELEV. ELEC 491' CLASS. RM RR ROTATED FOOTPRINT OF FUTURE CLASSROOM FOR FRONTAGE ON M.P. ROOM, IF DESIRABLE RR RR CHAPEL 1 2 3 WK RM RECP CHECK IN 5% SLOPE 494' RIDGE STREET 5% SLOPE +/- 494' 3.5% SLOPE +/- FOOTPRINT OF WAIT 13'-2 1/4" BUILDING ABOVE WAIT 18,967 sq ft 490' 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 7 6 5 4 3 FIRE SEPARATION DISTANCE 2 1 1 1 FROM EXISTING BUILDING STORAGE STORAGE N HC FOOD PANTRY DINING HC VAN 5' W M J 494' 5% SLOPE STOR SETBACK IMPOS DW 10' 7'-9" 5'-9" ED BY TREE = 94' PROPERTY LINE SERVERY DISH EXISTING SHELTER TO -2 1/4" REMAIN DURING MIN. SETBACK LINE CONSTRUCTION STOR FRZR CITY'S REQ'D 34 PARKING SPACES MAX. SETBACK LINE TREE MAX. SETBACK LINE PROTECTION 10' BUFFER 3.5% +/- 1/4" PER FOOT FENCE LINE MIN. SETBACK LINE STOR R 84' COVERED PROPERTY LINE KITCHEN FOOTPRINT OF TERRACE OFFICE BUILDING ABOVE F ICE LOADING 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 AS H ST 3 490' TR 5% SLOPE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 NO SETBACK PROPERTY LINE 494 84’ RADIUS FOR REQUIRED CITY 494 NOLAND PLUMBING TREE PROTECTION GUIDELINES CREATES 94’ IMPOSED SETBACK & PROJECT IS NO LONGER FEASIBLE 1 1st Floor SK-202 SCALE: 1" = 30' 0 30' 60' Salvation Army SA Charlott LV A es TvION ille , VA A R M Y O F C HA RSITE PROPOSED E S V ILWITH L O T TPLAN LE REQ’D CITY TREE PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS 1S T FLOOR Tree protection M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS 16 Salvation Army of Charlottesville 01.11.2023 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. MITCHELL / MATTHEWS 4 3 4 . 9 7 9 . 7 5 5© 0 2021 © 2023 CONCEPT DESIGN ARCHITECTS & PLA NNERS SK-202 Salvation Army M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlott es v ille , VA CONCEPTUAL RENDERING SHOWING INTENT TO “SAVE” THE TREE ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS 17 01.11.2023 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2023