Packet Guide City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Regular Meeting February 22, 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: April 19, 2022 2. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR # 23-02-02 600 Lexington Ave, TMP 520165000 Martha Jefferson Historic Conservation District Owner: Tom Ward Applicant: Tom Ward Project: Window installation C. New Items 3. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR # 23-02-01 1516 East Market Street, TMP 560107000 Woolen Mills Village Historic Conservation District Owner: Marial & Connor Childress Applicant: Marial & Connor Childress Project: Rear Addition and Porch 4. Certificate of Appropriateness Application - Demolition BAR # 23-02-03 104 Stadium Road, TMP 160002000 Individually Protected Property Owner: Woodrow Too, LLC Applicant: Subtext Acquisitions, LLC Project: Demolition of structure D. Other Business 5. Preliminary Discussion 214 West Water Street, TMP 280080000 Downtown ADC District (contributing structure) February 22, 2023 BAR Packet 1 Applicant: Derek Uhler / Uhler and Company Project: Addition of upper floors. 6. Project update Belmont Bridge 7. Preliminary Discussion 422 2nd Street NE, TMP 330079000 North Downtown ADC District Owner: Erin Hall and Michael Shveima Applicant: Tim Tessier / Bushman-Dreyfus Project: Rear addition. 8. Misc. Discussion  BAR Elections  Update: Appeals to CC  Staff questions/updates  Time permitting - café lights E. Adjourn February 22, 2023 BAR Packet 2 BAR MINUTES CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW Regular Meeting April 19, 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, Ron Bailey, James Zehmer, Robert Edwards, Jody Lahendro, David Timmerman Members Absent: Breck Gastinger, Andy McClure, Clayton Strange, Hunter Smith Staff Present: Patrick Cory, Robert Watkins, Jeff Werner, Remy Trail Pre-Meeting: There was a discussion regarding the Levy Building demolition COA extension. The County was not sure that they could follow with the archaeology of the building prior to demolition. There was the thought that the grave for Jack Jouett was possibly buried on the site. Ms. Lewis did bring up that she had worked with two of the applicants for COAs. She does not believe that she needs to recuse herself from the COAs when they come up on the agenda. Ms. Lewis will provide a disclaimer prior to the discussion about those COAs. The meeting was called to order by the Chairman 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. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 22-04-01 864 Locust Avenue, Tax Parcel 510093000 Martha Jefferson Historic Conservation District Owner/Applicant: Elvira Hoskins Project: New accessory structure Motion to Approve the Consent Agenda – Mr. Bailey (Second by Mr. Lahendro) – Motion passes 6-0. 1 BAR Meeting Minutes April 19, 2022 C. New Items 2. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 22-04-02 500 Court Square, TMP 530096000 North Downtown ADC District Owner: 500 Court Square Applicant: Brannan Boze, Smartlink (for T-Mobile) Project: Install gas pipe for roof-top generator Jeff Werner, Staff Report – Year Built: 1906, renovated 1936 (Originally the City’s U.S. Post Office) District: North Downtown ADC District Status: Contributing. CoA to install exterior gas pipe to rooftop generators. (The November 2021 CoA approved the generators administratively, with gas service to be run inside the building. However, installing the gas pipe on the exterior requires BAR review.) Discussion The Design Guidelines do not specifically address conduits and piping; however, the guidance is generally to consolidate and screen equipment and utilities and to locate them where least likely to detract from the character of the site. At the ground level, the service is in the rear parking area, where other mechanical equipment is located. Screening is not necessary. Where installed vertically on the building—a span ten stories plus the parapet—screening or fully concealing the assembly would likely be more visible than a painted pipe installed at an appropriate location. Staff suggests two options: • Mounting the pipe as close as possible adjacent to a downspout; specifying which, if not as proposed by the applicant, and on which side of the downspout, if there is a preference. (below, left) • Mounting the pipe as close as possible into the vertical corner between the first and second downspouts The rooftop and the generators are concealed behind the parapet. The intent is to paint the pipe and anchor brackets. The BAR should approve or recommend an appropriate color allow for staff to make a determination. (For the Main Library, the CoA included a condition that the conduits be painted a color close to the existing brick, to be approved by staff. For that, staff circulated color samples with a recommended selection, which the BAR informally expressed support for.) Dan Wilson, Applicant – This is a landlord request. This is our proposal to satisfy them. Everything that was presented on the application is pretty straightforward. QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No Questions from the Public QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Bailey – This will be going up the back of the building? Mr. Watkins – Yes. It would be facing Market Street. Mr. Lahendro – The details that I have seen are for applying a pipe on a flat wall surface. I didn’t see a detail for tucking it into a brick corner. Does that mean it can’t be done? Is that another detail? 2 BAR Meeting Minutes April 19, 2022 Brian Law, Applicant – We can get additional clarification. It would virtually be the same technique. It would be tucked back into the corner as closely as possible. Mr. Lahendro – The strut is a foot wide. It looks like the pipe is centered on the strut. That is six inches from the corner? Mr. Law – We wouldn’t necessarily have to go with a one foot piece. We are utilizing an inch and a quarter gas line. We can utilize a six inch strut. We just need enough to anchor into the brick itself as well as the clamp that attaches to the inner strut and the pipe itself. I don’t see the need for a full one foot piece. Mr. Lahendro – Can you anchor it into the mortar joints and not the brick? Mr. Law – It would be the mortar. Mr. Lahendro – Why the south side? It seems to me that the south elevation is a more prominent elevation than the east side because 5th Street is a frequently walked street going back and forth between The Mall and The Courthouse. I can’t remember when I have ever seen the eastside of this building. The south side is something you see when walking up and down 5th Street and from Market Street. What do other Board members think about that? Mr. Timmerman – That’s a really good point. I can’t think of the last time I have been able to appreciate that building from that perspective. It is probably because you’re looking at the east side. Where can you actually get a good vantage point of the east side? There’s not that block or expanse that you can back up from the building like you can on the other corner when you’re in the Park and it gives you a clear sight line. That’s a really good point. I was thinking the same thing. Ms. Lewis – Does the applicant want to make any comments or respond? Mr. Wilson – I believe that we need to go on this side of the building due to where the actual gas main is and where we can get access to that. Mr. Law – That’s correct. Ms. Lewis – I am not in a position to argue with the applicant about engineering things. I am looking at the image on Appendix 1 that shows the rooftop and generator. It looks like you could take it around that east side. You’re heading in that direction. I appreciate that once you get to that lower addition, you’re going to have to navigate that. It almost seems like you could go straight down the side of that building or rather than going over its roof and down. Mr. Lahendro – I see that the gas line is originating at the southeast corner. Why couldn’t it go east as easily as it goes south? Mr. Werner – There are photographs further along in the appendix. On the south elevation, we are dealing with some things that are on the side of the building versus introducing something new on the east side. I don’t know if they’re working off a big cherry picker or hanging something over the side. I don’t know what the accessibility is on that side. When I was looking at and thinking of options, I left that out thinking there is nothing there now. Let’s not add to it. 3 BAR Meeting Minutes April 19, 2022 Mr. Bailey – I actually agree with staff on that. If you put it parallel to those gutters, it could get lost. If you put it on the east side (there is nothing now), it would obviously be adding something that wasn’t there before; perhaps more prominent. Ms. Lewis – In our materials, there is a really good picture of that corner with the HVAC garden in the addition. There are certain conduits that are coming out of the 300 Court Square Annex (the building next door to it). That may preclude these gas lines going there. Mr. Law – From a construction standpoint, either would be viable. Obviously, closer to the downspout would be better for concealment. That’s why we chose to stick with that. Ms. Lewis – It does appear as we get up to the parapet wall, the building is wider. When you come over the roof, you have to “hug” the building. You have to do some turns there. I am curious how the applicant is going to handle that condition. You probably don’t have right hand 90 degree turns in a gas line. Would there be a subtle turn that would allow it to have the building or would you just come over the wall and drop straight down, which would leave these lines far out from the building? It would make it more prominent and a lot less appealing. Mr. Law – We would “hug” the building as closely as possible. If it protrudes off, we wouldn’t keep that space off the following ten stories all the way down. It would “hug.” Mr. Timmerman – On Appendix 1, there is the image of the red line going up and a little diagonal. I don’t know if that diagonal was intended on showing that condition. I also wanted to confirm that it is just one line and this isn’t one line of many future lines that are going to be installed. I was curious about how many anchors there were working their way up. Mr. Wilson – With the red line question, that is to show how the building comes out. It will be a straight run. There’s not going to be a weird angle at the top. It is also a single line. Mr. Law – It is a single line. That diagonal is just to see where it lands. That will actually flow on the backside of the parapet and on the rooftop itself. It won’t be visible at all from the ground. Ms. Lewis – Was there a question about how many struts/holders will be down this ten story building? Mr. Lahendro – There were two details. One says every eight feet and the other one says every ten feet. Mr. Wilson – It is every ten feet. Mr. Zehmer – It is a steel pipe. Is it going to be grey if it is not painted? Mr. Law – That’s correct. Honestly, it will be black, not likely rust. It will rust if it is not painted. Mr. Zehmer – Aren’t you required to paint them? Is it required to paint them after the meter? Mr. Law – It is a safety yellow in traffic areas. Safety yellow would not be required next to the buildings. Ms. Lewis – The color would be black? Mr. Law – That’s correct. In its natural state, it would be black and ultimately rust. 4 BAR Meeting Minutes April 19, 2022 Mr. Zehmer – You’re proposing to paint to match adjacent surfaces? Mr. Law – That’s correct. Mr. Bailey – By adjacent surfaces, do you mean those downspouts? Mr. Law – That’s correct. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC No Comments from the Public COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Zehmer – I tend to agree that the south side actually makes sense if it is able to be tucked up really close to the downspout. You already have a bunch of vertical interferences on that side of the building. This would be introducing something new on the east side. If it can be tucked in and painted to match the downspout, I feel that is a pretty good answer. Mr. Bailey – I agree. Mr. Timmerman – I am wondering if an alternate would be if you went that route, instead painting it the color of the downspout, if you found a color that is more consistent with the brick so that it disappears more. The color of the downspout goes up and above that one on the corner. You’re going to see it. Mr. Zehmer – That would be fine. If you can find a red or brown tone that is a decent match, it would be fine. Ms. Lewis – (Staff) on the application we recently had on the library, did we specify brown because the brick was more brown? Mr. Werner – We had said that we will look at the colors in the field. The assumption had been something similar. When we went out there and looked at what was close to the brick, it didn’t work. That brown that I circulated, does dissipate into the background. The masonry here is a little different on a different side of the building. I would tend to say something that is not bright/red. When you try to match up something, it ends up being worse. Something that is flat and uniform would be preferable to artificially trying to make it disappear. The option for that would be to give me the ability to look at options. If I need some feedback on it, I will circulate it. We can do it by an email check. I have no problem with that. Mr. Edwards – I agree with what everyone else has said; either go black or try to match as much as possible. In my first month with the BAR, we had a similar case where the applicant tried to paint using a color that was pretty close to the brick as possible. Mr. Wilson – We are good with these comments and questions in terms of painting. We’re happy to go with whatever the Board recommends. Mr. Lahendro – How close can you get it to the downspout? Mr. Wilson – We can tuck it right in next to the downspout; basically touching. 5 BAR Meeting Minutes April 19, 2022 Motion – Mr. Bailey – Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the City’s ADC Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed gas pipe at 500 Court Square satisfies the BAR’s criteria and is compatible with this property and other properties in the North Downtown ADC District, and that the BAR approves the application as submitted, with the condition that the pipe be mounted immediately next to the downspout on the south elevation and that the color will be submitted to staff for approval. David Timmerman seconds motion. Motion passes (6-0). 3. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 22-04-03 707 West Main Street, TMP 320156000 West Main ADC District Owner: Starr Hill Properties, LLC Applicant: Orhun Bartu Dikmen Project: Storefront window replacement Jeff Werner, Staff Report – Year Built: c. 1925 District: West Main ADC District Status: Contributing 707-709 West Main Street is a 6-bay, 2-story duplex commercial building constructed in 1925. A wide cornice runs across the top of the storefront and divides the building’s two stories; six compass-headed metal sash windows overlook West Main Street on the second floor. A.G. Carter purchased and developed the building in 1925 on what had previously been a residential site. Carter also developed the neighboring building, 701-705 West Main Street. The subject building housed furniture stores for much of the twentieth century. Application • CoA submittal dated March 29, 2022. Elevation and plan drawings for new storefront window. Detail drawings of window sill, jamb, and head. Photos of existing storefront. Material sample for metal window frame. CoA request to replace storefront glazing with operable, 5-leaf metal-framed folding windows and install a metal-framed, fixed, single-lite panel in the opening adjacent to the entry. Discussion Staff identified two properties in ADC districts with retractable storefront windows, both are roll-up windows: 1397 West Main Street (Boylan Heights; no record of BAR review) and 109-111 West Water Street (Otto Turkish Street Food; CoA approved October 2021). Historic survey forms identify this property and the neighboring building at 701-705 West Main Street as the best-preserved stretch of historic commercial buildings on West Main Street. At the subject building, the storefront glazing itself is modern, but other elements that encompass the storefront retain good integrity; including the prism-glass transom and pressed-metal cornice above the transom; the entry recess, doors, and door trim; and the low stone-faced walls below the glazing. The Design Guidelines offer clear guidance for alterations and rehabilitation of storefronts. See staff responses to each guideline below under Pertinent ADC District Design Guidelines: B. Facades & Storefronts. The BAR should consider if the proposed 5-leaf glazing pattern and the added visual thickness from the inserted frame will impact the building’s historic character. As designed, the frame of the operable window is wider than the frame of the fixed window—see below. The windows are not on the same plane; however, the BAR should discuss if this an issue or not. 6 BAR Meeting Minutes April 19, 2022 The submittal does not indicate if the bronze corner post will be retained or replaced. (See component #3 in the photographs below, under Facades & Storefronts, item 4.) BAR should discuss this detail. For example, if replaced, with what and what are the dimensions. Note: It is uncertain if this a structural component—supporting the transom above—or only a glazing component. Innovation and flexibility allow the City’s downtown corridors to compete with suburban strip malls. At times, the City’s preservation goals might seem at odds with efforts to maintain and increase commercial activity. In evaluating this request, while we cannot conclude the existing storefront is too deteriorated to save, staff suggests the following might be helpful (from NPS Preservation Brief 11: Rehabilitating Historic Storefronts, see the Appendix): Where original or early storefronts no longer exist or are too deteriorated to save, the commercial character of the building should nonetheless be preserved—either through an accurate restoration based on historic research and physical evidence or a contemporary design which is compatible with the scale, design, materials, color and texture of the historic building. The sensitive rehabilitation of historic storefronts will not only enhance the architectural character of the overall building but will contribute to rejuvenating neighborhoods or business districts as well. If approved, staff recommends the following conditions: • Glass have VLT of not less than 70%. • Any original, metal components that are removed will be retained on-site and labeled, should a future restoration be considered. (Refer to comments under Facades & Storefronts, item 4.) Mr. Lahendro – (Robert and Jeff) You all agree that the elements that are being proposed to be replaced with the storefront are original. They’re historic? Mr. Werner – If you look closely at the photos, it looks like there is some small pieces of crown mold. Yes and no. It appears to be (by in large) yes of 20th century materials. I don’t know if it is 1920s materials. Given the similarity of the storefront adjacent to it, my sense is that this is primarily original material, which is original glass. We know that because the glass got smashed. Mr. Lahendro – That was my assessment spending some time with it this afternoon. It is the same kind of bronze stops that are used with the prismatic transom matrix. It is the exact same types of trim and corner mullions that are used in the mirror image store on the other side. They appear to be the historic materials. Orhun Dikmen, Applicant – We are here to apply with all of the regulations of the city and our proposal plan. We will coordinate to make sure we are following all of the city rules. The reason that we are changing our glass is that there were cracks with installation problem on the corner. We had to change it. We decided to make it folding glass. We don’t want to change any frame. We are just trying to make new glass. After the pandemic, people will want to sit outside. That is why we want to change the glass. We want to make folding glass. Cliff Fox, Applicant – I am the property manager. I have been working with the property owners for the past twelve years. They are supportive of the change. We have read the staff report. We understand some of the concerns. Some of the bronze trim is in substantial disrepair. I don’t know if Mr. Lahendro had a chance to look at it closely. It has been drilled multiple times: Either taking it down or replacing it. Gokhan Dikmen, Applicant – I have been doing business in Charlottesville. In this project, I am supporting my brother. We are in the process of preparing a new place for them. We originally are 7 BAR Meeting Minutes April 19, 2022 from Turkey. Since we are coming from the Middle East, we love the old and historical. We want to preserve that and not to mess with the historical pieces. In this project, there were a number of cracks in the corner. The place is a beautiful, old restaurant space. Unfortunately, they didn’t have an outdoor space. With the pandemic in the past two years, giving the option to the customers and giving some fresh air and outdoor feeling, it is one of main things driving the restaurants. I was lucky that my restaurant survived. I have a huge indoor space and a huge outdoor space. In this case/place, my brother didn’t have that chance. We came to the idea of changing this window piece is two pieces, five folding pieces. We have different examples around the city. We are working with the Dodson Glass Company. Everything is explained in the application. Nothing is going to change; only that glass. When there is good weather, it will give people some fresh air. QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No Questions from the Public QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Bailey – You said that there are cracks in the current window. Can you describe that? Mr. Dikmen – It might be from before. In the pictures, there are plastic pieces there. We had to replace that window. While they were moving some pieces inside, the cracks got bigger. We used plastic pieces temporarily there to keep that air inside. Next to the door, there is a piece there. It is a fixed piece of glass. It also has cracked glass in the corner. That will be replaced. Mr. Zehmer – You’re just proposing to replace the window at 707 but not proposing to replace the window at 709, which is the same building but the other side of the entrance? Mr. Dikmen – That is correct. We’re only replacing 707. Mr. Timmerman – I see some drawings of the window frames. Is there a drawing of what the window frame would like in the actual building? Mr. Dikmen – Yes. Mr. Werner – There are elevations showing the window in the submittal. There are frame details. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC Email from Carl Schwarz – Encouraged members of the BAR to walk the front of the storefront. Inserting a folding window might be impossible if removing the bronze frame. Storefront is historically important COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Zehmer – I see that as one building unit. Having an accordion/folding window on one side and not the other side would be very asymmetrical to the façade. It would distract from the historic character. I don’t think that I can support this application as it is submitted. However, I might venture a recommendation that the applicant might consider; some large pane like sliding window that would maintain the center mullion. That might be a solution to provide some fresh air while maintaining the historic look. That can maybe be placed behind the historic bronze frame. 8 BAR Meeting Minutes April 19, 2022 Mr. Timmerman – What is being proposed is quite a bit different than what we’re looking at. What is there now, while not in good shape, there is something special about the transom, prismatic effect? When you look at any of the photographs, particularly the black white picture (1996), you get a really good view of the whole composition of it. What stands out/makes it special is the (architecturally significant) profiling that happens everywhere. Everyone is one piece. There is really a fineness that is the articulation of the frame up above and down below. The proposed substitute has a much thicker frame. It would start to break up this wonderful expanse of glass underneath the transom in a way that I find to be detrimental. Doing it on one side and not doing it on the other side would detract from the overall effect of the building. I do appreciate what you are trying to do here. Your intentions are good. There is likely an alternative that will work. You have to think about it much harder and explore it more deeply. Whatever that proposal is, it is really important to see the drawings (not just the windows), but the windows in the space; understanding how thick the frame is above and down below, also understanding exactly how that works within the walls. A wall section of that is pretty important. When we do approve it, we know what we’re approving. I would hate to approve a window assembly and when you get into it and you start looking at the constructability of it, you come to the realization that it is not what the proposal is. Mr. Lahendro – I did spend some time looking at it. There is damage to the bronze trim. I believe that it can be repaired. I have known of similar kinds of trim to be repaired in the past. It is a distinctive design. It’s done to maximize the views from the street and what was a furniture store for both of these buildings. The same owner/developer did the corner building to the west. It also has that really interesting prismatic glass transom in the square matrix. There’s a style that is continuous. It says something about the history of the development of the three buildings together. I find the storefront design to be distinctively interesting. It is historic. It would be inappropriate to change one side and not the other side when they mirror each other so well. It is something that I really can’t support. Mr. Bailey – I am intrigued by James’ idea of large, flat panes of glass so that it can be sliding and that you could mirror the exact look to what it was before and provide fresh air. That would be a way to go in that direction to achieve both goals Mr. Dikmen would like to do and maintain some of the character other members of the Board are worried about. Ms. Lewis – I find the folding doors really interesting. We have seen them elsewhere. In this setting, it is a full window. When we get these accordion windows, the window will be more prominent on the street side than the historic storefront. I feel it is a little subordinate to the historic storefront in that plane to these operating windows and what they may look like. That’s one of the reasons why several members agree with Mr. Zehmer’s suggestion that holding that plane and having moveable windows that would move vertically, they wouldn’t break that historic storefront plane. It might be a lot more compatible with our guidelines. Mr. Werner – It sounds like there is possibly some options to explore. The way to do that would be you request a deferral. That bumps it to whenever you have something to bring back; probably need to meet with Dodson and float some of these ideas. That would be me offering a recommendation to you. The BAR could defer this. In that case, it would have to come back in May. By an applicant requesting a deferral, you control the calendar. If the BAR does it, we would have to see this again in May. Ms. Lewis – it looks like the majority doesn’t support approving this. What would you like to do here? Mr. Dikmen – We can work on it to make sure that it will look historical. We can interact with the same color right now. We will work on it to not change the historical view. For the safety, we have to do it. That glass has to change. That’s why we are doing that. It is a big cost. We are trying to do a new 9 BAR Meeting Minutes April 19, 2022 restaurant in Charlottesville. We need to change the glasses. If you have any requirements, we can work on it. Mr. Fox – What they are asking you to do is decide whether you want to defer the application and bring it back once you have made the changes that they seem to want. They don’t want the accordion door. They want a sliding window or something close to that. They are particularly concerned about the asymmetry. If you walk on the north side of the street (if you go back to the 1996 photo), it looks like three storefronts; not two or one building. I would task the BAR with that. Even from the south side of the street, it is the photograph that helps that read as one building. You’re going to have to change your window to get it approved. Mr. Dikmen – The BAR earlier mentioned the 709 part. If we do the same with 709 (folding glass window), would the project be accepted? Ms. Lewis – Would any member of the BAR be supportive if they did the other side of the door opening with the accordion windows? (Mr. Bailey and Mr. Edwards were supportive). You need four people to approve that. You’re a couple short of that if we were to vote on that. You can take a deferral. You would go back, collect comments that we have given to you, maybe redesign the moveable windows in a way that we have discussed, and see if it is feasible to do the other side as well. Maybe come back next month. If you could work with Dodson, you can get some plans back to us. Staff will help you. Informally, I can’t imagine a member of this Board that doesn’t want to see this happen. The accordion doors are not going to be passed tonight. Applicant requests Deferral – Mr. Edwards moves to accept applicant request for deferral (Second by Mr. Bailey) – Motion passes 6-0. 4. Certificate of Appropriateness (HC District) BAR 22-04-04 313 Steephill Street, TMP 55A135000 Woolen Mills Village HC District (contributing) Owner: Sara and Brian Shullaw Applicant: Robert Nichols, Formworks Project: Porch rehab and side addition Ms. Lewis – I have previously represented these applicants on a legal matter. It was unrelated to the application before us tonight. Under the Virginia Conflict of Interest Act, I don’t believe that I have a conflict. I think that I will be able to participate. I wanted to note that. I don’t have any stake in the outcome of this. (Statement on Conflict of Interest) Jeff Werner, Staff Report – 313 Steephill Street Year Built: 1897 Status: Contributing. Two-story, three-bay, framed dwelling, hipped-roof and two prominent cross gables. Façade features boxed cornices and returns on each of the cross-gabled side bays. Front entrance is in the middle bay. House has an altered, two-bay, shed-roofed front porch, with one remaining, original, squared column with inset panels and a molded base and cap. Front door is located under this original portion of the porch, surmounted by a pointed arch and framed on each side by three sidelights. Each of the façade’s other bays has a 1/1 double-hung replacement window with pointed arch trim. The house is weatherboard on a brick foundation. The roof is asphalt shingles. CoA for alterations to enclosed front porch. Extend on the north side with the rear portion being an enclosed addition. (Note: The 1920 Sanborn Map shows the open porch. If not original to the 1897 house, we know it dates to before 1920.) 10 BAR Meeting Minutes April 19, 2022 Discussion and Recommendations Note: The regulations and guidelines for projects within a Historic Conservation District (HCD) are, by design, less rigid than those for an ADC District or an IPP. The HCD designations are intended to preserve the character-defining elements of the neighborhoods and to assure that new construction is not inappropriate to that character, while minimally imposing on current residents who may want to upgrade their homes. Within the existing HCDs are buildings and/or areas that might easily qualify for an ADC District or as an IPP; however, in evaluating proposals within HCDs, the BAR may apply only the HCD requirements and guidelines. The design review should focus on the components of the project that will be visible from the streets. Referring to the staff comments (below, under Building Scale), the BAR should discuss the extent to which the porch extension and enclosed addition are perceived as additions. With that, if necessary, the BAR should discuss if the design should be differentiated further or, possibly, less so, should that differentiation result in additions that appear incompatible with this house and the character of the HC District. For example, (see below) is it more important the box cornice have two profiles, thus distinguishing new from original or be continuous, thus appearing visually and architecturally compatible? The goal is to differentiate old and new, and the modified siding contributes to that expression; however, for a porch expansion within a Historic Conservation District, staff suggests the result of continuity with certain elements (roof material, roof line, cornice, screen framing) is preferable to a subtle—or not so subtle--attempt to distinguish the old from new. Re: the original exterior walls and porch ceiling enclosed by the front addition. The window siding, trim, railing, etc. were removed with the prior alteration and no longer exist. Re: the porch entablature on the north side (see below), which will be enclosed by the expansion, the applicant noted it will be removed, that the within the screened enclosure there ceiling rafter will be exposed rafters and painted white, in order to create some height. Robert Nichols, Applicant – I will say one thing about the stair encroachment. It is an existing nonconformance. It has been documented on many surveys. It is part of the conversation that the owners have had with the city about the disposition of the street. They are the only residence on the street. It is not really maintained by the city. It is an existing nonconformance. There is going to be some new treads on that new stair where the encroachment exists. The setbacks are also nonconforming and have been there for a while. They match the average of their neighbors. In terms of the addition, I don’t have much to add. Staff referred to a conversation we have had over the last few weeks. I haven’t brought a project before the Board that falls under these criteria/Historic Conservation District. I am feeling my way through what the framework is and what guidelines matter here. Staff has been helpful in that regard. In response to some questions of staff about what is old and new and whether there is a distinction between the two, I wondered if we were missing an opportunity to mark the new versus the old. At a moderate distance, the porch is intended to look unified as you look across the façade of the building and you see the existing construction. I submitted a second design (the one we see here). That design lines up a structural heavier column that you see in the front screen assembly. It aligns that column with the position of what would have been the original column on that porch. It marks the edge of the enclosures seen above. In that allocation of space, the organization of the bays, it recreates that proportion and marks that footprint of the original porch. We’re content with the appearance of that. My client was less enamored of it when I told her about our idea. Staff hadn’t asked for that. When I started thinking about the old versus the new, I suggested this. I thought it might be helpful. Since it was my client’s preference for the previous design, just to refer to that for a 11 BAR Meeting Minutes April 19, 2022 moment. Our first pass at that design had divided that front panel of the screened porch into three primary equal structural bays. Each of those bays was divided into an equal pair of screening panels for ease of construction, screen width, and ergo manic comfort and proportion. Even though that organization of the façade of the screened porch is quite regular in its pattern, it has a non- corresponding alignment with the corner of the house and a non-corresponding alignment with the original porch. This was a regular pleasing pattern coming across the front. It had no bearing and no memory of the original condition. The pattern that we submitted subsequent to this creates an irregular layout of the screen panels and structural columns on the front and ‘nods’ to the proportion size and literal position of the corner of that porch. I am content with it either way. I can certainly understand my client’s perspective. It strikes me as more dignified to have the regular spacing and the two heavier structural columns dividing that the length of that front porch. From the north, the porch turns the corner and is about 8.5 feet wide. That’s the thickness that is being added to the side of the building. Midway, it transitions to an interior closed space. There is a kitchen back there. QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No Questions from the Public QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Lahendro – Do you know if the corner post is still within the existing infilled porch? Mr. Nichols – I know that it is not. If we were to look back at those older images, the porch was (at its corners) supported by matching columns. One is still existing on the left. It is quite a large one. There is nowhere near enough room for that column to be concealed in that new construction. Every other trace of the old porch trim is gone. You can see the quality of the exterior windows. It was put there. It is consistent with that newer construction throughout. Mr. Lahendro – The ceiling is gone? Mr. Nichols – That’s correct. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC Email from Lewis Schultz – The proposed design extends beyond the property line. Hope this is discussed at the meeting. The BAR does not have purview over zoning and setbacks. COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Lahendro – There is a building code requirement that siding must be at least eight inches from the grade. Is that still correct? Mr. Nichols – That is still correct. It would be code compliant. There is also a fairly exhaustive planting plan that goes with this. Ms. Lewis – It looks like from the existing photos that the foundation is actually of stucco or brick with stucco applied over it. Mr. Nichols – That’s correct. 12 BAR Meeting Minutes April 19, 2022 I may not have been clear as to what I would be asking for. Perhaps it is within the tolerances of design review like this. If in the Board’s mind, either of those screen panel and structural layouts from the front porch are acceptable, it would be a pretty terrific thing to be able to offer (amongst the stakeholders) a choice. Mr. Werner – The ordinance allows a lot of flexibility in the conservation districts. One of the provisions is that a project that has been reviewed by the BAR (if something changes), I have the ability to review that with BAR’s chair consent. That’s an avenue that certainly is available. Conceptually, if any specific details that you (BAR) want to address, I can approve those. That would be within consultation with the Board chair. Motion – Mr. Lahendro – Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City Design Guidelines for Historic Conservation Districts, I move to find that the proposed alterations and addition at 313 Steephill Street satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are compatible with this property and other properties in the Woolen Mills Village Historic Conservation District, and that the BAR approves either of the two designs put forward by the applicant tonight. Mr. Bailey seconds motion. Motion passes (6-0). 5. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 22-04-05 1901 East Market Street, TMP 55A149000 and 55A150000 IPP and Woolen Mills Village HC District (contributing) Owner/Applicant: Jon Fink Project: Rear addition Ms. Lewis – I previously represented this applicant before the BAR. I don’t have a conflict under the Conflict of Interest Act. I don’t have any involvement in this current application. I don’t have any stake in the outcome. I will participate unless somebody has an objection to me doing so. I haven’t had any discussions with the applicant about this matter. My representation ended a long time ago. Jeff Werner, Staff Report – Year Built: c1835, Pireus Store District: Individually Protected Property within the Woolen Mills HC District Status: Contributing to the HC District (Note: While within a HC District, IPPs are reviewed using the ADC District Design Guidelines.) The Pireus Store building is a two-story brick structure with a gable front and a Victorian porch. The building was constructed by 1840 to house a store for workers at the nearby textile mills. The store was converted to a house after 1875. CoA for a rear addition, extending a prior addition on the original, c1835 structure. Discussion The BAR offered comment on the submitted materials at the March 15 BAR meeting. A summary of the discussion is provided here: • BAR members are concerned about too many competing design languages and competing forms that take away from the historic structure o A joint, break, or hyphen between the earlier (2000s) addition and proposed addition might be a better transition • Because of the proposed addition’s site at the end of the house, new construction will create a long plane. The addition should manipulate the roofline and wall material to break up this long plane. • BAR members ask purpose of dormer without window. 13 BAR Meeting Minutes April 19, 2022 Criteria for Additions in Chapter III: • Function and Size • Location • Design • Replication of Style • Materials and Features • Attachment to Existing Building The BAR should also consider the building elements and details necessary to evaluate the project. Renderings and schematics communicates mass, scale, design and composition; however a complete application should include details and specific information about the projects materials and components. For example: • Measured drawings: Elevations, wall details, etc. • Roofing: Flat, hipped, etc. Metal, slate, asphalt. Flashing details. • Gutters/downspouts: Types, color, locations, etc. • Foundation. • Walls: Masonry, siding, stucco, etc. • Soffit, cornice, siding, and trim. • Color palette. • Doors and windows: Type, lite arrangement, glass spec, trim details, etc. • Porches and decks: Materials, railing and stair design, etc. • Landscaping/hardscaping: Grading, trees, low plants, paving materials, etc. • Lighting. Fixture cut sheets, lamping, etc. At the time that this staff report was written, the applicant has reviewed the March BAR meeting video but has not submitted additional drawings. Given that the applicant was not present in March, staff recommends that the BAR use this time to clarify any concerns or recommendations regarding the project. Jon Fink, Applicant – I did serve on the Planning Commission with Cheri Lewis in the early 2000s. I did have some legal matters that she represented me on. This is many years ago. I am fine with her not recusing herself. We have had no contact about this application. I know her to be very impartial. We loved and appreciated the comments on the initial set of drawings that we submitted to you. We came back with this. If the BAR would choose to, we would love this to be considered tonight. Andres Pacheco, Applicant – We carefully went through the comments that you made. There were smart comments. What you have in front of you addresses all of them, if not most of them. The understanding that this addition is needed creates the space that Jon needs for his house. We were not sure if we were continuing the roof or breaking it. Suggestions were made about bumping up or down or creating this addition and making it clear where the new addition starts and the old addition ends. The deck/porch at the end was maybe trying to do too many things. We decided to keep it simple. This addition has a smaller footprint than the design that you saw in area and simplicity to be built. This view is the view facing the street. The second level is at the same level of the street. There are some trees that actually screen the whole façade. There was a comment about the dormer with the window. I thought it was spot on. With this approach of keeping the roofline simple and making the whole mass the hyphen, we don’t have to worry about that. It is actually in the master room. It is an area where we don’t want a window for privacy issues or the sun getting into the bedroom. Sheet 2 14 BAR Meeting Minutes April 19, 2022 Here you can see the before and the after. In the top right, you see the approach that we have towards the east. We added a cover. There was a comment about maintenance and how durable the structure was going to be. Jon has access to really cool wood. He was going to make it happen with the right wood. With this way, we don’t have to worry about that. It is way more functional and flexible. Sheet 3 Here is another view going to the north. To the north, we do want a window in the third level. In order to create a three story structure, we are using the trick of putting the bedroom inside the roof. We raise the roof a little bit. At the same time, we achieve the minimum height that we need inside to make the space in the third level usable. That dormer facing north does have a window. There’s a little bit of space and light coming from the north. That’s one of the easiest to shade and screen. Mr. Fink – Our housing needs drove this program. My son, currently living Thailand, is going to join us. He is 12 years old. There is a good chance our 22 year old stepdaughter is going to come from Zurich and consider graduate work here. She is visiting with us now. We really do have space needs. This is what drove this entire design. Mr. Pacheco – Sheet 4 This is the plane elevation from the south and the north. You can see on the left the elevation facing the street. Those trees represented here are robust trees. They are screening the whole façade. To the north, you can see the addition with the dormer. The last sheet contains the floor plans. The floor plans are very simple. The ground level is in the top left and the two bedrooms. The middle floor is the top right. The middle floor is the main level. It has the kitchen and dining room and a deck. The third level is the master bedroom hidden under the roof structure. There is going to be a closet to the south. QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No Questions from the Public QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD No Questions from the Board COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC No Comments from the Public COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Timmerman – I am heartened to see more consistency going on in the design. There might be a little more to go. I think there was a comment made in the last meeting about the project where there was almost too much variation. I am still seeing that to a certain extent. An example is the porch on the right hand side. The rendering appears to be showing this natural wood that is off on its own with everything else. I am a fan of contrast. I feel the contrast needs to have a very serious effect and counter effect. When there are 4 or 5 materials working its way across the sod, like the historic fabric of the old glass window with the hyphen in between, (makes sense thinking of the old project where you had the glass and an addition that was harkening back to the original house), I want to consolidate 15 BAR Meeting Minutes April 19, 2022 that palate. You need to ponder that a bit more. I like the roof. There’s a bit more of consistency going on with that versus the straight up that was shown before. I am wondering if there are two levels of roof that happen. I am falling back on my thoughts about how to create a consistency to enhance the contrast between the old/historic and the new. I wonder if there is a way to take your new ideas and encapsulate that second addition as a way of creating a more cohesive addition/new additions and renovations from the past 20 years that somehow compliments and sets off the historic. Ms. Lewis – I do want to hear everybody’s comments on this. We do have three options here. I realize that these materials came to the people who have spoken a little bit late. Our options tonight would be to approve, to defer to May, or to defer and specify as a Consent Agenda item. If there are a number of modifications we are asking for, we probably wouldn’t want our motion to actually successfully place on the Consent Agenda. We would want to have an opportunity to look at those. We could deny the Certificate of Appropriateness. Mr. Bailey – It is a simple, clean, and elegant design. It enhances the situation of the original building itself. It doesn’t detract from it. It offers more space for the family to grow. It functions as a modern frame for the older building itself. It is pretty clean and nice. I wouldn’t change it very much. Mr. Zehmer – I like the improved roofline. It goes well with the original house and the early additions. I would be supportive of either of these. If we wanted to do a one month deferral so that other members could get some answers to the material questions, I would be fine with that too. Ms. Lewis – The applicant has probably noticed that we’re six instead of nine members tonight. A deferral could mean that it is reviewed by three people. We may be very favorable. Mr. Edwards – This is fairly new to me. I would be ready to vote on this tonight. Ms. Lewis – Can I see a show of hands of members ready to vote favorably on this tonight? Mr. Lahendro – I find that the forms are far more compatible between the historic (the first addition) and the newest addition. I can support it because of where it is relative to a historic house. It is not competing with a historic house on a major street. Consequently, I can allow more leeway for personal likes/differences as a result. I can support it as it is now. Motion – Mr. Bailey – Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the City’s ADC Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed alterations and addition at 1901 East Market Street satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are compatible with this property and other Individually Protected Properties in the City, and that the BAR approves the application as submitted in the drawings dated April 19, 2022. Mr. Lahendro seconds motion. Motion passes (6-0). D. Other Business Staff Questions/Discussion • 310 East Water Street – Mr. Nichols does plan to return to the BAR in May for the COA approval. Mr. Nichols did go over the changes that have been made to the project. Members of the BAR provided comments and questions for Mr. Nichols regarding the changes that have been made with the project. • 413 Ridge Street – Staff received a call to extend the fence around the front yard. The fence was approved by the BAR. The BAR had no objections to the new fence. 16 BAR Meeting Minutes April 19, 2022 Courts Expansion – Levy Site Demo COA extension • There was staff and BAR discussion regarding extending the COA for demolition. • Staff asked the BAR to acknowledge the extension of the COA and the BAR expressed goal to continue the archaeological work on the Levy Building. City staff will be in contact with Albemarle County, the other landowner of the property. Mr. Lahendro moves to acknowledge that the BAR strongly supports archaeological excavations at the Albemarle/Charlottesville district courthouse site. Mr. Timmerman seconds motion. Motion pases (6-0). E. Adjournment Meeting was adjourned at 8:18 PM 17 BAR Meeting Minutes April 19, 2022 18 BAR Meeting Minutes April 19, 2022 Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR # 23-02-02 600 Lexington Ave, TMP 520165000 Martha Jefferson Historic Conservation District Owner: Tom Ward Applicant: Tom Ward Project: Window installation Application components (please click each link to go directly to PDF page): • Staff Report • Application Submittal February 22, 2023 BAR Packet 3 City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Staff Report February 22, 2023 Certificate of Appropriateness Application (Historic Conservation) BAR # 23-02-02 600 Lexington Ave, TMP 520165000 Martha Jefferson Historic Conservation District Owner/Applicant: Tom Ward Project: Window installation Background Year Built: 1930 District: Martha Jefferson Historic Conservation District Status: Contributing (Historical survey in Appendix) Prior BAR Reviews June 19, 2019 - BAR approved CoA for fence and pergola on the south side of the rear yard. Application Applicant submitted: • Applicant photo: Existing south elevation and photo-sim with twin windows. Request to replace a single double-hung window on the south wall with twin windows, to match the existing. Discussion Staff recommends approval as a Consent Agenda item. (Approval of the agenda incorporates the motion to approve below.) This parcel is a corner lot at the intersection of Lexington Avenue and Sycamore Street. Because the south wall is visible from Sycamore Street, this alteration requires BAR approval. Within the HC districts, the ordinance allows the replacement of windows without BAR review, except when the wall opening is altered (ref Sec. 34-340(c)). Applying Sec. 34-342, staff finds the proposed change is visually and architecturally compatible with the house and the district; is 600 Lexington Avenue – Window - Feb 22, 2023 (2/14/2023) 1 in harmony with the proportion, sizes and placement of existing windows; does not change the essential architectural form and integrity of the house; does not architecturally conflict with the district; and does not conflict with the district’s design guidelines. Note: The regulations and guidelines for projects within a Historic Conservation District (HCD) are, by design, less rigid than those for an ADC District or an IPP. The HCD designations are intended to preserve the character-defining elements of the neighborhoods and to assure that new construction is not inappropriate to that character, while minimally imposing on current residents who may want to upgrade their homes. Within the existing HCDs are buildings and/or areas that might easily qualify for an ADC District or as an IPP; however, in evaluating proposals within HCDs, the BAR may apply only the HCD requirements and guidelines. Suggested Motions Approval: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including Historic Conservation District Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed window replacement at 600 Lexington Avenue satisfies the BAR’s criteria and is compatible with this property and other properties in the Martha Jefferson Historic Conservation District, and that the BAR approves the application as submitted. Criteria, Standards, and Guidelines Review Criteria Generally Sec. 34-341 - Criteria for approval a. In considering a particular application the BAR shall approve the application unless it finds: 1. That the proposal does not meet specific standards set forth within this division or applicable provisions of the conservation district design guidelines; and 2. The proposal is incompatible with the historic, cultural or architectural character of the conservation district in which the property is located. b. The BAR's review of the proposed new construction or addition to a building or structure shall be limited to factors specified in section 34-342. The BAR's review of the proposed demolition, razing or moving of any contributing structure shall be limited to the factors specified in section 34-343. c. The BAR, or city council on appeal, may require conditions of approval as are necessary or desirable to ensure that any new construction or addition would be compatible with the scale and character of the historic conservation district. Prior to attaching conditions to an approval, due consideration shall be given to the cost of compliance with the proposed conditions. Sec. 34-342 - Standards for review of new construction and additions. The following features and factors shall be considered in determining the appropriateness of proposed new construction and additions to buildings or structures: 1) Whether the form, height, scale, mass and placement of the proposed construction are visually and architecturally compatible with the site and the applicable conservation district; 2) The harmony of the proposed changes in terms of overall proportion and the size and placement of entrances and windows; 3) The impact of the proposed change on the essential architectural form and integrity of the existing building; 600 Lexington Avenue – Window - Feb 22, 2023 (2/14/2023) 2 4) The effect, with respect to architectural considerations, of the proposed change on the conservation district neighborhood; 5) Any applicable provisions of the city's conservation district design guidelines. Sec. 34-340. - Actions requiring certificate of appropriateness; exemptions; penalties. c) The proposed demolition, razing or moving of any building or structure requires a COA only when: 1) The building is a contributing structure; and 2) The proposed demolition is located in whole or in part to the front or side of the contributing structure; or 3) The proposed demolition is located on a lot that abuts a street on the side or rear; or 4) The proposed demolition is equal to or greater than thirty-three (33) percent of the total gross floor area of the existing building. However, the removal or replacement of windows or doors shall not constitute a demolition under this conservation district article, provided the size of the opening is not altered. From the Guidelines for New Construction and Additions (Historic Conservation) Building Openings – orientation, doors and windows 1. A single entrance door (or main entrance of a multifamily dwelling) facing the street is recommended. 2. Window and door patterns and the ratio of solids (wall area) to voids (window and door area) of new buildings should be compatible with contributing buildings in the surrounding area. 3. Windows should be simple shapes compatible with those on contributing buildings, which are generally vertically oriented in residential areas. Staff Comment: New windows are consistent with the existing house and the district Guidelines specific to the Martha Jefferson Historic Conservation District Architectural character-defining features: 1. Encourage one-story front porches; 2. Encourage garages to be located in the rear yards; 3. The levels of a building’s stories should be consistent with those on surrounding structures with respect to the natural grade [for example, a first floor should not be raised so that it is higher than most surrounding first floors]; 4. Do not exclude well-designed, new contemporary architecture [there may be a misconception that only historic-looking new buildings are permitted]; 5. Encourage standing seam metal roofs; 6. Maintain and encourage tree canopy [Maintain the existing tree canopy and encourage new large shade trees]; 7. The following Historic Conservation Overlay District Design Guidelines are especially pertinent: maintain neighborhood massing and form; encourage the use of sustainable materials; and limit the height of fences in front yards to 3 ½ feet in height. 8. Regarding the future development of the hospital properties, the neighborhood’s focus has been: not to tear down the old houses; to encourage low density residential development north of Taylor Walk (with the suggestion that Taylor Street be reinstated); and to expect the High Street area to develop as a sensitively designed, high-quality, mixed use development; 9. Encourage good stewardship of Maplewood Cemetery. 600 Lexington Avenue – Window - Feb 22, 2023 (2/14/2023) 3 Appendix Historical Survey 600 Lexington Avenue TM/P: 52/165 DHR: 104-5144-0043 Primary Resource Information: Single Dwelling, Stories 2.00 Style: Other, 1930. August 2007: This 2-story, 2-bay, hipped-roof American Foursquare is finished in stucco and has a hipped-roof porch that stretches across the entire façade. Clerk J. Briscoe Mundy built the house in 1930 on speculation, promptly selling it the same year to Charles Carroll. Carroll and his family are buried in Maplewood Cemetery. Approached via a single concrete step, the porch is supported by 3 slender Tuscan columns. The door is located in the south bay of the west-facing façade, while the other bay of the 1st floor has a pair of windows. The 2nd story bays have one window each; all windows are 3/1- sash. Brick chimneys emerge from either side of the roof and a hipped roof dormer with a 3-light casement window peeks out of the center of the metal roof. A 1-story, stucco- finished addition is attached to the rear of the house and is flush with the south elevation. Individual Resource Status: Single Dwelling Contributing: 1 600 Lexington Avenue – Window - Feb 22, 2023 (2/14/2023) 4 600 Lexington Avenue — Window replacement, south elevation — BAR review Feb 22, 2023 Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR # 23-02-01 1516 East Market Street, TMP 560107000 Woolen Mills Village Historic Conservation District Owner: Marial & Connor Childress Applicant: Marial & Connor Childress Project: Rear Addition and Porch Application components (please click each link to go directly to PDF page): • Staff Report • Application Submittal February 22, 2023 BAR Packet 4 City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Staff Report February 22, 2023 Certificate of Appropriateness (HC District) BAR # 23-02-01 1516 East Market Street, TMP 560107000 Woolen Mills Village Historic Conservation District Owner/Applicant: Marial & Connor Childress Project: Rear Addition and Porch Background Year Built: 1916 District: Woolen Mills Historic Conservation District Status: Contributing (Historical survey in Appendix) Prior BAR Review n/a Application • Submittal: Outlaw Design Company drawings Childress Additions and Renovations, dated 12/01/2022, 10 sheets. (BAR is reviewing exterior alterations only.) Request CoA for rear addition to the existing dwelling and replacement of the existing windows. Discussion and Recommendations Staff recommends approval and, except for one question for the BAR, staff would have recommended approval on the Consent Agenda. Question: On the east elevation, at the second floor, a former porch was enclosed with siding. The new addition, as presented, will continue the enclosed porch’s wall plane, as if a continuous wall. For the new to read as an addition, staff suggested the applicant push in the new wall, creating a corner and a visual break from the existing wall. However, that would create difficulties with the planned interior space—the location of a structural beam. In lieu of creating a corner, a simpler solution is to install a [flat] corner board where the new meets the old and, possibly, alter the face dimension or the pattern 1516 East Market Street - Addition (2/14/2023) 1 of the new siding, differentiating it from the old. In approving the CoA, staff asks the BAR to consider this condition and, if necessary, advise on an appropriate solution, which would be incorporated into the CoA. Note: The regulations and guidelines for projects within a Historic Conservation District (HCD) are, by design, less rigid than those for an ADC District or an IPP. The HCD designations are intended to preserve the character-defining elements of the neighborhoods and to assure that new construction is not inappropriate to that character, while minimally imposing on current residents who may want to upgrade their homes. Within the existing HCDs are buildings and/or areas that might easily qualify for an ADC District or as an IPP; however, in evaluating proposals within HCDs, the BAR may apply only the HCD requirements and guidelines. Suggested Motions Approval: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City Design Guidelines for Historic Conservation Districts, I move to find that the proposed addition, porch, and window replacements at 1516 East Market Street satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are compatible with this property and other properties in the Rugby Road Historic Conservation District, and that the BAR approves the application [as submitted.] […as submitted with the following conditions: …] 1516 East Market Street - Addition (2/14/2023) 2 Denial: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City Design Guidelines for Historic Conservation Districts, I move to find that the proposed addition, porch, and window replacements at 1516 East Market Street do not satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are not compatible with this property and other properties in the Rugby Road Historic Conservation District, and that for the following reasons the BAR denies the application as submitted: Criteria, Standards, and Guidelines Review Criteria Generally Sec. 34-341 - Criteria for approval a. In considering a particular application the BAR shall approve the application unless it finds: 1. That the proposal does not meet specific standards set forth within this division or applicable provisions of the conservation district design guidelines; and 2. The proposal is incompatible with the historic, cultural or architectural character of the conservation district in which the property is located. b. The BAR's review of the proposed new construction or addition to a building or structure shall be limited to factors specified in section 34-342. The BAR's review of the proposed demolition, razing or moving of any contributing structure shall be limited to the factors specified in section 34-343. c. The BAR, or city council on appeal, may require conditions of approval as are necessary or desirable to ensure that any new construction or addition would be compatible with the scale and character of the historic conservation district. Prior to attaching conditions to an approval, due consideration shall be given to the cost of compliance with the proposed conditions. Sec. 34-342 - Standards for review of new construction and additions. The following features and factors shall be considered in determining the appropriateness of proposed new construction and additions to buildings or structures: 1) Whether the form, height, scale, mass and placement of the proposed construction are visually and architecturally compatible with the site and the applicable conservation district; 2) The harmony of the proposed changes in terms of overall proportion and the size and placement of entrances and windows; 3) The impact of the proposed change on the essential architectural form and integrity of the existing building; 4) The effect, with respect to architectural considerations, of the proposed change on the conservation district neighborhood; 5) Any applicable provisions of the city's conservation district design guidelines. HC District Design Guidelines for New Construction and Additions Building Location – setback and spacing 1. Align a new building close to the average building setback line on the same street, if established, or consistent with the surrounding area. 2. Maintain average spacing between buildings on the same street. Staff Comment: This addition does not impact the front setback and does not significant alter the side yard spacing. Building Scale – height and massing 1516 East Market Street - Addition (2/14/2023) 3 1. Keep the footprint, and massing of new buildings consistent with the neighborhood characteristics and compatible with the character of buildings on the same street. 2. Keep the height and width of new buildings within the prevailing average height and width. Exceptions up to 200% of the prevailing height and width may be approved by the BAR when contextually appropriate. 3. An addition needs to be perceived as an addition and therefore should not visually overpower the existing building in scale and design. 4. An accessory building should appear secondary to the main building in scale and design. 5. Larger buildings (commercial or multi-family) otherwise permitted by zoning should be designed and articulated to be compatible with the scale of the majority of adjacent buildings on the same street or block. Staff Comment: (See comment in Discussion.) Building Form – roofs and porches 1. Roof forms should reference contributing buildings on the same street or surrounding area. Other roof forms may be approved by the BAR when contextually appropriate. 2. If many of the contributing buildings on the same street have porches, then it is strongly recommended that the design of a new residence includes a porch or similar form of similar width and depth. Comment: Consistent with the existing house and the district. Building Openings – orientation, doors and windows 1. A single entrance door (or main entrance of a multifamily dwelling) facing the street is recommended. 2. Window and door patterns and the ratio of solids (wall area) to voids (window and door area) of new buildings should be compatible with contributing buildings in the surrounding area. 3. Windows should be simple shapes compatible with those on contributing buildings, which are generally vertically oriented in residential areas. Comment: Consistent with the existing house and the district. Windows to be Marvin, Elevate series. The replacement windows will be 2/2, matching the existing, and will not alter the masonry openings. Building Materials and Textures 1. The selection of materials and textures for a new building should relate architecturally to the district, and should be compatible with and complementary to neighboring buildings. 2. Long-lasting, durable and natural materials are preferred, including brick, wood, stucco, and cementitious siding and standing seam metal roofs. Clear glass windows (VLT of 70% or more) are preferred. Comment: Painted siding and asphalt shingles are appropriate. Building Paint 1. Painting unpainted brick or other masonry is discouraged because it is irreversible and may cause moisture problems. Comment: n/a 1516 East Market Street - Addition (2/14/2023) 4 Site 1. Fences or walls that abut a City street (or fences located in a side yard between a street and the front of the principal structure on a lot) should not exceed three and one-half feet in height. Comment: n/a Guidelines specific to Woolen Mills Village Historic Conservation District Architectural character-defining features: 1. Encourage one-story front porches; 2. Encourage garages to be located in the rear yards 3. The levels of a building’s stories should be consistent with those on surrounding structures with respect to the natural grade [for example, a first floor should not be raised so that it is higher than most surrounding first floors] 4. Do not exclude well-designed, new contemporary architecture [there may be a misconception that only historic-looking new buildings are permitted] 5. Encourage standing seam metal roofs 6. Maintain and encourage tree canopy [Maintain the existing tree canopy and encourage new large shade trees] 7. Maintain neighborhood massing and form; encourage the use of sustainable materials 8. Encourage existing site features (wrought iron fencing, stone walls, shared streets) 9. Encourage good stewardship of Riverview Cemetery. Appendix Sec. 34-340. - Actions requiring certificate of appropriateness; exemptions; penalties. a) A certificate of appropriateness (COA) must be approved in accordance with this division, prior to the commencement of construction, erection, alteration, or demolition of certain buildings, structures or improvements, as follows: 1. All new buildings and structures require a COA if they require a building permit, and unless they are concealed by the principal structure from all abutting streets. 2. All new fences and walls that abut a street, or which are located in a side yard between a street and the front of the principal structure on a lot, require a COA. b) The following proposed additions to existing buildings or structures require a COA: 1. Additions located wholly or partially to the side or front of the principal structure on a lot; or 2. Additions located on a lot that abuts a street on the side or rear; or 3. Additions that are equal to or greater than fifty (50) percent of the total gross floor area of the existing building; or 4. Additions located to the rear that exceed the height or width of the existing building or structure. Sec. 34-346. - Administrative review. a) The director of neighborhood development services may review, and may approve or deny, or may refer to the full BAR for review and approval, the following types of applications for certificates of appropriateness: 1. Fences; 2. Applications that have previously been reviewed by the BAR, if the BAR has authorized final review by the director; 3. Applications for minor accessory buildings or additions, after consultation with the chair of the BAR. 1516 East Market Street - Addition (2/14/2023) 5 Historical Survey 1516 EAST MARKET STREET STREET ADDRESS: 1516 East Market Street DHR RESOURCE NUMBER: 002-1260-0040 RESOURCES: Primary: Single Dwelling (contributing) DATE/PERIOD: 1916 STYLE: Other July 2009: This house is a two-story, two-bay, brick structure with a side passage, double-pile layout. The house has a hipped roof with a central cross gable with returns and a boxed cornice. The house has regular fenestration with a single 2/2 double-hung window with a jack arch lintel in each of the two second-story bays and a 2/2 window in the east bay of the first-story. Its elevated, hipped-roof porch is raised on concrete block and has a poured concrete floor. It stretches almost the full length of the façade and features turned posts and a replaced railing of square spindles. Individual Resource Status: Single Dwelling Contributing Total: 1 Individual Resource Status: Shed Non-Contributing Total: 1 1516 East Market Street - Addition (2/14/2023) 6 CHILDRESS ADDITIONS & RENOVATIONS A00 KJB -22 JA K 01- -01 AS BUILT DRAWN BY: 12- TABLE OF CONTENTS SQUARE FOOTAGE OF NEW WORK 12 CD'S DRAWN BY: A00 COVER SHEET D01 DEMOLITION PLANS EXISTING 1st FLOOR 888 SF A01 FOUNDATION & FIRST FLOOR PLANS EXISTING 2nd FLOOR 888 SF SHEET DATE A02 SECOND FLOOR & ROOF PLANS 1776 SF A03 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A04 EXTERIOR PERSPECTIVES NEW 1st FLOOR 617 SF A05 INTERIOR ELEVATIONS NEW 2nd FLOOR 448 SF A06 INTERIOR PERSPECTIVES 1065 SF A07 BUILDING SECTIONS TOTAL OF EXISTING & NEW FINISHED 2840 SF EW NOTES ZONING: R-1SC, WOOLEN MILLS VILLAGE HISTORIC DISTRICT, VI CONSERVATION DISTRICT, HISTORIC PRESERVATION DESIGN REVIEW SETBACKS: RE FRONT: 25' SIDE: 5' REAR: 25' ET GN GENERAL NOTES S S 1. COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE CODES AND ORDINANCES. Y SI 2. VERIFY GRADES AND ELEVATIONS SHOWN ON DRAWINGS. NL 3. ANY DISCREPANCIES IN ELEVATIONS OR DIMENSIONS SHALL BE REPORTED TO DESIGNER. 4. DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS. DE ON L O 5. VERIFY AND PROVIDE ALL ROUGH-IN DIMENSIONS FOR EQUIPMENT PROVIDED IN THE CONTRACT. 6. REPETITIVE FEATURES MAY BE DRAWN ONLY ONCE AND SHALL BE COMPLETELY PROVIDED AS IF DRAWN IN FULL. NA 7. DIMENSIONS ON EXISTING CONSTRUCTION ARE TO FINISHED FACES OF WALLS & LEVELS. TI DIMENSIONS ON NEW CONSTRUCTION ARE TO FACE OF FRAMING/SHEATHING. NEW & EXISTING DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF MASONRY, CENTER OF OPENING, CENTER OF R BEAM, CENTER OF COLUMN & CENTER OF FIXTURE. ES TE 8. NEW INTERIOR PARTITIONS ARE 3 1/2" UNLESS OTHERWISE DIMENSIONED. NEW EXTERIOR WALLS ARE 2x6's UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. CHILDRESS ADDITIONS & RENOVATIONS IN 9. WINDOWS SHOWN ARE GENERIC SIZES UNLESS MANUFACTURER IS NOTED. QU 10. VERIFY SIZES OF ALL REPLACEMENT WINDOWS. PROJECT NOTES 1. VERIFY ON SITE THE SIZES OF EXISTING WINDOWS TO BE REPLACED SO NEW WINDOW SIZES WILL BE OPTIMIZED. C O VE R S H E E T 2. NOTE CRITICAL DIMENSIONS ON DRAWINGS __, __, AND __. WINDOW MANUFACTURER IS MARVIN, ELEVATE SERIES, ___ (SPECS SUCH AS CLAD, LOW E, COLOR, ETC.). 3. CABINETS CONSTRUCTION AND STYLE SHOWN IN ELEVATIONS ARE DRAWN GENERICALLY. SPECIFICATIONS AND CABINET MANUFACTURER'S OR CUSTOM CABINETMAKER’S SHOP DRAWINGS WILL SHOW GREATER DETAIL. 4. RAILINGS ARE DRAWN GENERICALLY, MATERIAL AND STYLE TO BE DETERMINED. DRAWING JOB ABBREVIATIONS A.F.F. ABOVE FINISH FLOOR GALV. GALVANIZED ALUM. ALUMINUM GYP. BD. GYPSUM BOARD R ut h E l l e n O u t l aw BD. BOARD HD. HEAD BM. BEAM INSUL. INSULATION 434 971 9914 o BLDG. BUILDING INT. INTERIOR C.O. CASED OPENING JST. JOIST 434 996 7849 c CAB. CABINETRY K.S. KNEE SPACE Copyright @ 2022, by CER. CERAMIC LT. LIGHT Outlaw Design Company CLG. CEILING MAS. MASONRY 1186 Old Lynchburg Road CLR. CLEAR MNT. MOUNT Charlottesville, VA 22903 COL. COLUMN N.I.C. NOT IN CONTRACT CONFG. CONFIGURATION P.I.P. POURED IN PLACE CRS. COURSE P.T. PRESSURE TREATED D DRYER PLYWD. PLYWOOD DET. DETERMINED PTD. PAINT 1 SITE PLAN DIMS. DIMENSIONS R RISER A00 N.T.S. D.S. DOWNSPOUT R.I. ROUGH-IN DW DISHWASHER REF. REFRIGERATOR DWG. DRAWING REG. REGISTER EA. EACH REQ'D REQUIRED ELEV. ELEVATION RET. RETURN EQ. EQUAL SID'G. SIDING EXNT. EXTENT T TREAD EXT. EXTERIOR T&G TONGUE AND GROOVE F.F. FINISH FLOOR TYP. TYPICAL F.P. FIREPLACE U.O.N UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED FL. FLOOR UTIL. UTILITY FIN. FINISH V.I.F. VERIFY IN FIELD FXTR. FIXTURE W WASHER FOUND. FOUNDATION W/ WITH FTG. FOOTING WD. WOOD O UT LAW BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION, INFORM THE D E S I G N PRIOR TO INITIATING ANY ORDER OR DESIGNER OF ANY DISCREPANCY BETWEEN DRAWINGS AND LOCAL AND STATE CODES C OM PAN Y 33'-4" 13'-4" 20'-0" 1'-2" 12'-2" 7'-10" 4'-4" 7'-10" 1'-2" 12'-2" 20'-0" 6x6 POST A03 HAND RAILS TO A03 3 EQ EQ 3 INSECT MATCH PORCH A01 6x6 CLEAR FIR, PTD. 3 A01 SCREEN RAILING, NO GUARD 3 2 (2) P.T. 2x8 BEAM, SEE DETAIL 3/A01 RAILS A07 DECKING 3'-0"x6'-8" 4'-0" 4'-0" P.T 2x8 JOISTS EQ EQ 3'-3" @ 16" O.C. A01 -22 KJB JA K 5'-0" P.T 2x8 JOISTS 24"x24"x8" P.I.P. PLANTING BED 7'-9 1/2" @ 16" O.C. 6'-10 3/4" 01- FOOTING, TYP. -01 BORAL SKIRT AS BUILT DRAWN BY: (2) P.T. 2x8 BEAM #2 2x8 CEILING JOISTS 12- 3'-6 3/4" (3) #2 2x10 BEAM, TRIM OUT (3) #2 2x10 BEAM, TRIM OUT 12 P.T. 2x4 BLOCKING 6'x3' @ 16" O.C. CD'S DRAWN BY: 4'-0" NAILERS DECK PLUG DECK 15'-0" 15'-0" 15'-0" (3) P.T. 2x12 BEAM 2x6 P.T. P.T 2x8 JOISTS SYNTHETIC DECKING SLOPED SLOPED @ 16" O.C. FLAT CEILING SHEET (2) 2x8 P.T. BEAM PLATE CEILING CEILING DATE PLANTING BED 11'-0" 11'-0" 6'-2 1/2" 6'-2 1/2" 6'-2 1/2" 2 1/8" / 12" A07 SCREEN PORCH 1x2 P.T. FRAME 3x6 POST 6'-10 3/4" SYNTHETIC DECKING 7'-2 1/2" 2x4 P.T. NAILER CEILING: PTD EXTERIOR ORTHOGONAL NEW GRADE PLYWOOD W/ FAUX POST LATTICE 3'-2" ELCA3355E CSMT BATTENS @ 4' O.C. (2) P.T. 2x8 BEAM, FLUSH -3" -3" -3" BRICK VENEER 1'-0" 4" 4" HOOD VENT ENG. STRUCTURAL HEADER ELCA2531 CSMT CMU PIER, 8" ABOVE GRADE, 12" DEEP GRANITE WINDOW 120 70 DOUBLE SLIDER EW +0" SILL TO MATCH COUNTER 3'-5 1/4" BELOW GRADE 48" x 26" POINT LOAD 06 TOP MATERIAL 1/A NEW SEMI FLUSH ENG BM, TRIM OUT FROM ABOVE KITCHEN #2 2x6 CEILING JOISTS 4 #2 2x6 CEILING JOISTS T&G, MATCH EXISTING FAMILY ROOM 4 VI @ 16" O.C. 9'-2 1/2" A07 T&G, MATCH EXISTING A07 4'-5 1/4" 8'-10 3/4" C.H. 8' - 9" 11 7/8" TJI 230 @ 16" O.C. C.H. 8' - 9" #2 2x8 RAFTERS @ 16" O.C. VALOR 2'-11" A05 ELCA3755E CSMT HORIZON FP, @ 16" O.C. RE #2 2x8 RAFTERS 18" MIN. 6 VERIFY MODEL @ 16" O.C. & CLEARANCES 1" 4 1/2" 8'-6" NEW 4'-4" 56" TV 18'-5 1/4" ET 33" ACCESS 18'-4" 18'-4" 18'-4" P.I.P. FOOTING 3 GN 4'-0" 4'-2" FP VENT 5'-2" BRICK VENEER, 8" CMU 2 A05 7 FLUSH ELCA2531 CSMT 5 A05 FAUX BEAM INSULATION S S A05 8 STONE 1" 1'-4" 1'-7" Y 1 SI 4 HEARTH 24"x24"x8" P.I.P. NL 3 PIER DETAIL 1'-6" NEW FOOTING, TYP. 2'-11" 8'-10 3/4" 9'-2 1/2" 33'-4" 8" A01 1 1/2" = 1'-0" A05 1'-0" DE ON L O +/- 5'-10" CONDITIONED CRAWLSPACE, MIN. 18" DEEP 06 2/A FAUX POST EXPOSED EXISTING 1 BRICK 8" 3'-4 3/4" NA A07 +/- 4 1/2" POINT LOAD 8 1/4" CRITICAL DIM. +/- 8" 1'-10" 2'-1" TI MIC. FROM ABOVE +0" ENG. FLUSH BEAM R ES TE 24 68 C.O. 1'-0" HALF POST LOWER SILL OF (2) P.T. 2x8 BEAM, SEE DETAIL 3/A01 5'-10" LOWER SILL ALCOVE CHILDRESS ADDITIONS & RENOVATIONS 3 EXISTING BRICK FOUNDATION EXISTING ARCHED M.O. IN NEW EXISTING A01 OF EXISTING NEW HEART PINE (2) P.T. 2x8 BEAM, FLUSH 6 R @ 6 5/8" QU SIM. DUCT, 24 6 8 KNOCK DOWN POPCORN F O U N D AT I O N & F I RS T F L O O R P L AN S EXISTING FOOTING ASSUMED. ARCHED M.O. HIGH P.T 2x6 JOISTS 5 T @ 1'-0" 2'-0 3/4" REINFORCE FOUNDATION CHASE & 28 6 8 HALF LITE w/ TRANSOM IF FOOTING INADEQUATE, +0" CEILING THIS ROOM @ 16" O.C. AT POINT LOADS AS REQ'D VERIFY NUMBER SOFFIT UNDERPIN W/ NEW OF R/T PER GRADE MUDROOM PORCH CER. TILE HALL NEW NEW OPENING FOR DUCT RUN 24" 24 6 8 4" T&G AERETIS NEW HEART PINE C.H. 8' - 11" EXISTING ASSUMED EXISTING +/- 5'-0 1/4" 1/8" /12" -3" +0" 1'-4" 1'-8 1/4" +/- ASSUMED EXISTING 50 7 6 C.O. NEW POWDER 6'x3' NEW CER. TILE 4" MIN. RAILING & POSTS TO MATCH 4" ACCESS *CRITICAL DIMENSION: 1'-0" THOSE ON FRONT PORCH 24 6 8 NEW 4" MIN. CLEARANCE FROM POST ABOVE TO M.O. OF DOOR AT 1st FLOOR PANTRY 1'-6" 24"x24"x8" P.I.P. 4" REMOVE PTD. EXTERIOR GRADE PLYWOOD 4'-4" FOOTING, TYP. NEW HEART PINE CEILING W/ BATTENS @ 4' O.C. 4'-9 1/2" PROJECTION DINING ROOM 4'-0" 3'-8" 2" EXISTING PIERS ASSUMED IF POSSIBLE NEW HEART PINE +0" C.H. 8' - 11" VERIFY M.O. SPACE AVAILABLE. EXISTING VERIFY & MAXIMIZE DOOR SIZE A03 4 2 A03 A03 4 NEW 2 A03 B.I. CUBBIES 30 7 0 C.O. +0" ON DEMAND 24 6 0 NEW 3 LOWER NEW FINISH TO BE FLUSH H.W. 2x10 JOISTS A07 ASSUMED W/ EXISTING FINISH FLOOR VERIFY REFRIGERATOR IN PANTRY 3'-0" DRAWING ASSUMED EXISTING UTILITY W ELDH3464 DH 7" SOFFIT NEW CER. TILE 1'-3" JOB 7" SOFFIT C.H. 8' - 11" WALL CABS. EXISTING WINDOWS TO BE LIVING ROOM EXISTING NEW REPLACED. EXISTING HEART PINE D 1'-2" 2'-6" CONDITION EXISTING CRAWLSPACE VERIFY IF INCLUDED IN THIS C.H. 8' - 11" SCOPE OF WORK FULL HEIGHT UTILITY SHELVES +0" R ut h E l l e n O u t l aw EXISTING 434 971 9914 o ELDH3464 DH EXISTING WASHER/DRYER GAS METER VERIFY REMOVING SOFFITS 434 996 7849 c 10" SOFFIT Copyright @ 2022, by NEW EXISTING FOYER Outlaw Design Company CHANGE EXTERIOR ELECTRICAL EXISTING HEART PINE 1186 Old Lynchburg Road +0" C.H. 8' - 11" PANEL TO SUBPANEL Charlottesville, VA 22903 EXISTING 210 6 8 HALF LITE w/ TRANSOM FRONT PORCH SLAB C.H. 8' - 11" -3" 1 1 A03 A03 1 T.O. FOOTER POLAR PLAN 2 FIRST FLOOR PLAN A01 1/4" = 1'-0" NORTH NORTH A01 1/4" = 1'-0" O UT LAW BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION, INFORM THE D E S I G N PRIOR TO INITIATING ANY ORDER OR DESIGNER OF ANY DISCREPANCY BETWEEN DRAWINGS AND LOCAL AND STATE CODES C OM PAN Y A03 3 A02 -22 KJB JA K 01- #2 2x8 RAFTERS -01 AS BUILT DRAWN BY: @ 16" O.C. 12- 12 CD'S DRAWN BY: 3" / 12" 3" / 12" FRAMING SIZES FOR ROOF 24'-1 3/4" SHEET DATE PENDING BETTER LIVING PLAN 2 3" / 12" A07 2'-2" #2 2x10 RAFTERS NEW @ 16" O.C. 6" ELCA2935 CSMT NEW ELDH3660E DH 1'-1 1/2" #2 2x6 RAFTERS 6" 2'-2" 2'-2" 3'-0 1/4" EW W.C. 8'-0" 4 1/2" EQ @ 16" O.C. 3'-4" 3'-4" ELDH3460 DH ELCA2935 CSMT 3" / 12" EQ NEW PRIMARY BEDROOM 28 6 8 C.O. 2x4 WALL 4 T&G, MATCH EXISTING NEW VI A07 NEW C.H. +/- 8'-7", VERIFY 6" PER FRAMING PLAN ENG. FLUSH BEAM RE INSULATE & CONDITION DRESSER NEW & EXISTING ATTICS PRIMARY BATH 10'-5" #2 2x6 CEILING JOISTS AND CONNECT W/ ACCESS CER. TILE @ 16" O.C. ELCA2935 CSMT & OPENING FOR DUCTS CENTERED OVER 5'-5" ET 12'-9 1/2" 18'-4" GN WINDOW BELOW 2x6 WALL 80" VANITY 28 6 8 PCKT NEW S S 7" 6" / 12" 6" / 12" 6" / 12" 6" / 12" Y NEW SI NEW NL 100 76 C.O. 6" 1'-1 1/2" REMOVE SIDING & DE 1'-2 1/4" 6" DRESSING AREA 6" NOOK ON SHEATHING, ADD L O GYPSUM BOARD 2'-6" GLASS T&G, MATCH EXISTING ELDH3460 DH 6 DRESSER A0 FLUSH PANEL 3/ 5'-1" CLOSE OFF THRU WALL 1 66" x 36" ATTIC ACCESS DESK NA 2x4 WALL 2'-6 1/4" VENTS A07 NEW TI STRUCTURAL HEADER EXPOSED EXISTING 3'-1" 1'-1 1/2" TILE 6" 6" 8" BRICK R NICHES ES TE +/- 14'-11 1/4" NEW 28 6 8 C.O. CLOSET 1 CLOSET 2 6" 6" 2'-1" CHILDRESS ADDITIONS & RENOVATIONS EQ IN QU NEW NEW LOW 26 6 8 26 68 4" / 12" 4" / 12" W.I.C. RETURN LOWER SILL OF 26 6 8 NEW 4" / 12" T&G, MATCH EXISTING EXISTING HALL ARCHED M.O. S E C O N D F L O O R & R O O F P L AN S EQ T&G, MATCH EXISTING ELDH3460 DH REMOVE PROJECTION IF POSSIBLE NEW 6" 6" 28 6 8 NEW 6" 6" ELCA2935 CSMT 66" NEW AIR HANDLER ABOVE 2 ROOF PLAN 26 6 8 NEW A02 1/8" = 1'-0" 3' - ALCOVE NEW PULL DOWN STAIRS 0" T&G, MATCH EXISTING 4 1/2" BATH 6 A0 NEW +/- 3'-11" 7 1/2" NEW LVT MIN 4/ . C.H. 8' - 4" BEDROOM 3 T&G WOOD 8 NEW 3 6 C.H. 8' - 4" LINEN 0 3'-1" 24 6 8 A03 4 EXISTING 2 A03 +/- 1'-9 1/2" 26 1 0 TRANSOM -52" ELDH3464 DH HALL 26 1 0 TRANSOM 3 24 6 8 T&G WOOD A07 C.H. 8' - 4" ING OM EXIST0 TRANS NEW EXISTING 6 1 2 8 CLOSET 24 6 DRAWING ELDH3460 DH 40 6 8 SLIDER JOB NEW R ut h E l l e n O u t l aw 434 971 9914 o 40 6 8 SLIDER BEDROOM 2 BEDROOM 1 T&G WOOD T&G WOOD CLOSET 434 996 7849 c C.H. 8' - 4" C.H. 8' - 4" Copyright @ 2022, by Outlaw Design Company 1186 Old Lynchburg Road Charlottesville, VA 22903 NEW NEW ELDH3460 DH ELDH3460 DH 1 A03 1 SECOND FLOOR PLAN A02 1/4" = 1'-0" O UT LAW POLAR PLAN BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION, INFORM THE D E S I G N PRIOR TO INITIATING ANY ORDER OR NORTH NORTH DESIGNER OF ANY DISCREPANCY BETWEEN DRAWINGS AND LOCAL AND STATE CODES C OM PAN Y 6" / 1 12" A07 WALL LOCATION FOR REF. 2 A07 A03 -22 KJB JA K 01- -01 AS BUILT DRAWN BY: 12- MATCH EXISTING BAND BOARD 12 CD'S DRAWN BY: CEILING_EXISTING 2nd CEILING_EXISTING 2nd TOP PLATE NEW 2nd SHEET DATE MATCH EXISTING OVERHANG NEW NEW NEW ELDH3460 DH ELDH3460 DH ELDH3460 DH 8'-7 1/2" NEW NEW 8'-4" 8'-4" ELDH3460 DH ELDH3460 DH NEW ELDH3464 DH 4 2" 4" / 1 2" A07 4" / 1 2" 4" / 1 F.F._2nd F.F._2nd 1'-0" 1'-0" EW CEILING_ 1st CEILING_ 1st TOP PLATE NEW 1st NEW NEW NEW VI ELDH3464 DH ELDH3464 DH ELDH3464 DH NEW ELCA2531 CSMT 8'-9 3/4" NEW 8'-11" 8'-11" TIGHT TO 2x6 HEADER RE ELCA2531 CSMT +/- 7'-9 1/2" +/- 5'-2 1/2" ET GN F.F._1st F.F._1st 11 1/2" S S B.O. JOISTS B.O. JOISTS Y SI NL DE ON L O 2 EAST ELEVATION A03 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 NORTH ELEVATION NA A03 1/4" = 1'-0" TI R ES TE CHILDRESS ADDITIONS & RENOVATIONS IN QU ED S SUM 1 2" A 1 6" / 2 A07 E XT E R I O R E L E V AT I O N S A07 12" 6" / +/- 1'-1" TYP. ENLARGE OPENING AS REQ'D, ALIGN HEAD WITH NEW MATCH EXISTING WINDOWS IN FRAMING CEILING_EXISTING 2nd TOP PLATE NEW 2nd TOP PLATE NEW 2nd CEILING_EXISTING 2nd NEW NEW ELCA2935 CSMT ELCA2935 CSMT NEW ELDH3460 DH 8'-7 1/2" ALSO 2X6 HEADER OR 2X10 HEADER TO REMAIN? NEW 3'-8 1/4" NEW 4" MIN. 8'-4" 4" MIN. EXISTING NEW TRIM TO MATCH NEW TIGHT TO HEADER ELDH3660E DH ELCA2935 CSMT DRAWING ADDITION ELCA2935 CSMT +/- 4'-8 1/2" +/- 4'-8" FLAT CEILING NEW SIDING AS REQ'D 4 JOB BEDMOULD 4" / 1 EQ EQ EQ A07 3 2" AS TO MATCH 3" / 12 3" / 12 SUM " " F.F._2nd EXISTING " F.F._2nd F.F._2nd 3" / 12 A07 F.F._2nd ED 3" / 12" CEILING_ 1st TOP PLATE NEW 1st TOP PLATE NEW 1st CEILING_ 1st R ut h E l l e n O u t l aw RAKE TO 434 971 9914 o NEW MATCH NEW +/- 6 1/2" ELCA3755E CSMT NEW 434 996 7849 c EXISTING ELCA3355E CSMT ELDH3464 DH Copyright @ 2022, by FRONT TIGHT TO HEADER Outlaw Design Company 8'-9 3/4" RAKE DIMS. 4" MIN. +/- 7'-9 1/2" 8'-11" & TRIM 1186 Old Lynchburg Road Charlottesville, VA 22903 3 +/- 3'-3 1/2" 3'-2 1/2" A01 F.F._1st F.F._1st F.F._1st F.F._1st PIER TOP FRAME ON PANELS, TYP. 8" 3 SOUTH ELEVATION 4 WEST ELEVATION A03 1/4" = 1'-0" A03 1/4" = 1'-0" O UT LAW BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION, INFORM THE D E S I G N PRIOR TO INITIATING ANY ORDER OR DESIGNER OF ANY DISCREPANCY BETWEEN DRAWINGS AND LOCAL AND STATE CODES C OM PAN Y A04 -22 KJB JA K 01- -01 AS BUILT DRAWN BY: 12- 12 CD'S DRAWN BY: SHEET DATE EW VI RE ET GN S S Y SI NL DE 1 2 ON NORTHEAST PERSPECTIVE SOUTH EAST PERSPECTIVE L O A04 A04 NA TI R ES TE CHILDRESS ADDITIONS & RENOVATIONS IN QU E XT E R I O R PE R SP E C T I V E S DRAWING JOB R ut h E l l e n O u t l aw 434 971 9914 o 434 996 7849 c Copyright @ 2022, by Outlaw Design Company 1186 Old Lynchburg Road Charlottesville, VA 22903 3 NORTH EAST PERSPECTIVE 4 NORTH WEST PERSPECTIVE A04 A04 O UT LAW BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION, INFORM THE D E S I G N PRIOR TO INITIATING ANY ORDER OR DESIGNER OF ANY DISCREPANCY BETWEEN DRAWINGS AND LOCAL AND STATE CODES C OM PAN Y 24" 44 1/2" 31 1/2" 40" 46" A05 -22 KJB JA K RETRACTABLE 01- 36" x 25" DOORS -01 AS BUILT DRAWN BY: COUNTER DEPTH 12- +/- 8'-9 1/4" 12 CD'S DRAWN BY: SHEET DATE 8" 8" MIC. 20"x16"x18" 3'-0" 24" 44 1/2" 24" VERIFY 32" 22 1/2" EW 1 KITCHEN ELEVATION MANUFACTURER'S A05 1/2" = 1'-0" REQ'D CLEARANCES VI RE ET GN S S Y SI NL DE ON L O NA TI R ES TE CHILDRESS ADDITIONS & RENOVATIONS IN QU 4'-0" I N T E RI O R E L E V AT I O N S 2'-9 1/4" 35" 35" CER. TILE CER. TILE 6'-0" DRAWING 48" x 26" JOB R ut h E l l e n O u t l aw 434 971 9914 o 16" 21" DW 36" 15" 30" 16" 9" 36" 36" 18" 22 1/2" 3 KITCHEN ELEVATION BLIND TRASH PULLOUT BLIND A05 1/2" = 1'-0" PULLOUT 434 996 7849 c 2 KITCHEN ELEVATION CORNER UNIT CORNER UNIT Copyright @ 2022, by A05 1/2" = 1'-0" Outlaw Design Company CROWN TO WRAP COLUMN? 23 1/2" 23 1/2" 1186 Old Lynchburg Road Charlottesville, VA 22903 BOTTOM OF BEAM IN FOREGROUND COLUMN 56" TV FAUX 8'-6" FIXED SHELF 4'-2" COLUMN 1" TYP. 7'-5" 1'-0" 1'-1" 6" ADJUSTABLE SHELVES 46" 23" ADJUSTABLE SHELVES O UT LAW BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION, INFORM THE D E S I G N 32 1/2" 32 1/2" 32 1/2" 32 1/2" SIDE PANEL PRIOR TO INITIATING ANY ORDER OR 4 ISLAND ELEVATION 12" DEEP W. 5 6 7 MANTEL & SURROUND TO MATCH EXISTING AS CLOSELY AS POSSIBLE ISLAND ELEVATION ISLAND ELEVATION ISLAND ELEVATION 8 FIREPLACE ELEVATION A05 1/2" = 1'-0" ADJUSTABLE SHELVES A05 1/2" = 1'-0" A05 1/2" = 1'-0" A05 1/2" = 1'-0" DESIGNER OF ANY DISCREPANCY BETWEEN A05 1/2" = 1'-0" DRAWINGS AND LOCAL AND STATE CODES C OM PAN Y A06 -22 KJB JA K 01- -01 AS BUILT DRAWN BY: 12- 12 CD'S DRAWN BY: SHEET DATE EW VI RE ET GN S S Y SI NL DE 1 ON KITCHEN PERSPECTIVE L O A06 NA TI 2 FIREPLACE PERSPECTIVE A06 R ES TE CHILDRESS ADDITIONS & RENOVATIONS IN QU I N T E R I O R P E R SP E C T I V E S DRAWING JOB R ut h E l l e n O u t l aw 434 971 9914 o 434 996 7849 c Copyright @ 2022, by Outlaw Design Company 1186 Old Lynchburg Road Charlottesville, VA 22903 3 PRIMARY BEDROOM PERSPECTIVE 4 BEDROOM 3 PERSPECTIVE A06 A06 O UT LAW BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION, INFORM THE D E S I G N PRIOR TO INITIATING ANY ORDER OR DESIGNER OF ANY DISCREPANCY BETWEEN DRAWINGS AND LOCAL AND STATE CODES C OM PAN Y 2 A07 1 A07 VERIFY FRAMING SIZES PER BETTER LIVING NOT DOING VAULTED CEILING IN PRIMARY? FRAMING PLAN A07 -22 KJB JA K 01- #2 2x10 RAFTERS -01 AS BUILT DRAWN BY: @ 16" O.C. 12- 12 CD'S DRAWN BY: #2 2x6 CEILING JOISTS SHEET @ 16" O.C. DATE TOP PLATE NEW 2nd EW TOP PLATE NEW 1st VI RACK BOTTOM RE 8'-9 3/4" 8'-9 3/4" 8'-9 3/4" 8'-9 1/4" ET GN S S Y SI NL F.F._1st DE PIER TOP ON L O 1 BUILDING SECTION NA A07 1/4" = 1'-0" TI R ES TE 2 BUILDING SECTION A07 1/4" = 1'-0" CHILDRESS ADDITIONS & RENOVATIONS IN QU BUI LDIN G SECTI ON S DRAWING RAW DATA JOB R ut h E l l e n O u t l aw 434 971 9914 o 3 STAIR SECTION 434 996 7849 c A07 1/4" = 1'-0" Copyright @ 2022, by Outlaw Design Company 1186 Old Lynchburg Road Charlottesville, VA 22903 O UT LAW 4 BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION, INFORM THE D E S I G N FAMILY ROOM WALL SECTION PRIOR TO INITIATING ANY ORDER OR A07 3/4" = 1'-0" DESIGNER OF ANY DISCREPANCY BETWEEN DRAWINGS AND LOCAL AND STATE CODES C OM PAN Y A03 A03 3 3 D01 -22 KJB JA K 01- -01 AS BUILT DRAWN BY: 12- 12 CD'S DRAWN BY: SHEET DATE EW VI RE A05 6 ET GN 3 REAR PORCH S S SLAB Y 2 7 SI A05 C.H. 8' - 11" 5 A05 NL A05 8 1 4 DE ON L O A05 NA TI R -3" ES 210 5 6 DH TE 210 5 8 DH 210 5 8 DH 210 5 8 DH 210 5 8 DH 210 52 DH CHILDRESS ADDITIONS & RENOVATIONS IN QU 30 58 DH KITCHEN T&G WOOD DINING ROOM 24 6 8 HB C.H. 8' - 11" T&G WOOD C.H. 8' - 11" 26 68 HALF LITE +0" 30 5 8 DH REMOVE PROJECTION KNOCK DOWN POPCORN IF POSSIBLE 210 56 DH 210 52 DH 210 56 DH 9" SOFFIT CEILING THIS ROOM HEATER BEDROOM 3 T&G WOOD REMOVE SOFFIT & D E M O L I T I O N P L AN S 26 6 8 C.H. 8' - 4" 30 58 DH ABANDONED DUCTS 2'-6 1/4" BATH NEW LVT C.H. 8' - 4" CLOSET 40 6 8 SLIDER REMOVE PROJECTION IF ? POSSIBLE C.H. 8' - 4" 2'-6" 24 68 24 6 8 A03 4 2 A03 A03 4 2 A03 24 68 C.O. 211 68 C.O. 26 10 TRANSOM HALL -52" 210 5 6 DH 24 6 8 T&G WOOD 26 10 TRANSOM C.H. 8' - 4" 0 TRA NSOM DRAWING FAMILY ROOM BATH 6 1 T&G WOOD 2 8 LINO 24 6 C.H. 8' - 11" CLOSET STK'D W/D JOB 3'-2" 7" SOFFIT +2" 40 6 8 SLIDER 210 52 DH 210 56 DH +0" R ut h E l l e n O u t l aw 3'-0" BEDROOM 2 434 971 9914 o T&G WOOD 24 68 C.H. 8' - 4" 434 996 7849 c 40 6 8 SLIDER CLOSET BEDROOM 1 ? Copyright @ 2022, by GAS METER FOYER T&G WOOD C.H. 8' - 4" Outlaw Design Company 10" SOFFIT 210 5 6 DH EXISTING HEART PINE C.H. 8' - 4" C.H. 8' - 11" 1186 Old Lynchburg Road 24 6 8 Charlottesville, VA 22903 +0" 210 5 6 DH 210 6 8 HALF LITE w/ TRANSOM 210 5 2 DH 210 5 2 DH FRONT PORCH SLAB C.H. 8' - 11" -3" 1 1 1 FIRST FLOOR PLAN POLAR PLAN 2 SECOND FLOOR PLAN D01 1/4" = 1'-0" NORTH NORTH A03 D01 1/4" = 1'-0" A03 O UT LAW BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION, INFORM THE D E S I G N PRIOR TO INITIATING ANY ORDER OR DESIGNER OF ANY DISCREPANCY BETWEEN DRAWINGS AND LOCAL AND STATE CODES C OM PAN Y W01 -22 Author CD'S DRAWN BY: D e s ig n e r 01- -01 AS BUILT DRAWN BY: 12- 12 SHEET DATE EW NEW 1st FLOOR 617 SF NEW 2nd FLOOR 448 SF VI RE ET GN S S Y SI NL EXISTING 1st FLOOR EXISTING 2nd FLOOR DE ON 888 SF 888 SF L O NA TI R ES TE CHILDRESS ADDITIONS & RENOVATIONS IN QU A RE A W O R K S H E E T 1 F.F._1st 2 F.F._2nd W01 1/8" = 1'-0" W01 1/8" = 1'-0" DRAWING JOB R ut h E l l e n O u t l aw 434 971 9914 o 434 996 7849 c Copyright @ 2022, by Outlaw Design Company 1186 Old Lynchburg Road Charlottesville, VA 22903 O UT LAW BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION, INFORM THE D E S I G N PRIOR TO INITIATING ANY ORDER OR DESIGNER OF ANY DISCREPANCY BETWEEN DRAWINGS AND LOCAL AND STATE CODES C OM PAN Y Certificate of Appropriateness BAR # 23-02-03 104 Stadium Road, TMP 160002000 Individually Protected Property Owner: Woodrow Too, LLC Applicant: Subtext Acquisitions, LLC Project: Demolition of structure Application components (please click each link to go directly to PDF page): • Staff Report • Historic Survey • Application Submittal February 22, 2023 BAR Packet 5 City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Staff Report February 22, 2023 Certificate of Appropriateness Application - Demolition BAR # 23-02-03 104 Stadium Road, TMP 160002000 Individually Protected Property Owner: Woodrow Too, LLC Applicant: Subtext Acquisitions, LLC Project: Demolition of structure Background Year Built: 1927 District: Individually Protected Property (designated by City Council in 2011) The MacLeod house (or Stone House, as it is referred to by prior owners) is an Individually Protected Property (IPP). The property is not listed on the VLR or NRHP. From the City’s 2011 survey: 104 Stadium Road is an exceptionally well-preserved example of an English Tudor Revival style residence. The growth of the University of Virginia in the early twentieth century spurred the growth of residential neighborhoods near its campus to house professors and students, such as Oakhurst-Gildersleeve neighborhood. [The property] could have been included in the Oakhurst-Gildersleeve Neighborhood ADC District, as the house is part of the same period of development in the city’s history and is located just across Jefferson Park Avenue. The terraces with the rock steps and low garden walls are in good condition, though overgrown, offering a rare example of historic landscape. Additionally, the prominent location of the house on Emmet Street makes 104 Stadium Road a landmark of the street. (The historical survey and the June 2011 BAR staff report are attached.) Prior BAR Actions July 19, 2011: BAR recommended City Council designate 104 Stadium Road an Individually Protected Property. (TMP 160002000; 0.22-acres) Application • Submittal: Subtext Acquisitions, LLC, Demolition of existing structure, dated January 31, 2023: Narrative, photos, and product specs (21 pages). Request CoA for demolition of existing structure constructed in 1927. 104 Stadium Road – Demolition of structure – February 22, 2023 (02/15/2023) 1 Discussion: The request is to approve a CoA allowing demolition the existing structure and landscaping elements. The BAR review should apply City Code Section 34-278 (Standards for considering demolitions) and the Review Criteria for Demolition in the City’s ADC District Design Guidelines (Chapter 7). Below, under the Criteria, Standards, and Guidelines section, are the applicant’s comments and staff’s comments. Should the BAR approve the demolition request, staff recommends the conditions noted below under Pertinent Standards for Review of Demolitions, City Code Section 34-278, item d. Charlottesville currently has 77 IPP’s. The ADC Districts and IPPs are within the same section of the City Code and reviewed using the same design guidelines. (76 of the IPPs have structures. At 1328 Riverdale Drive the structures were razed, but the IPP designation remained.) The process for designating an IPP or removing the designation are proscribed under City Code Sec. 34-274. For both, the BAR will make a recommendation to City Council; however, only Council can approve or deny a request for designation or removal, which requires a zoning map amendment and a zoning text amendment. The IPP designation is an overlay zoning and does not impact the underlying zoning. It must be emphasized that approval to raze structures on an IPP and/or any subsequent demolition—whether approval by the BAR or by way of appeal or completed without approvals, in violation of the City Code--does not remove the IPP designation. Removal requires City Council approval of a zoning map amendment and a zoning text amendment, see above. Note: Staff refers to the following provisions of the City Code only as a matter of full disclosure and for information only, not to suggest a possible a path or outcome, nor to provide an enforceable interpretation of the Code. Per Sec. 34-277 (Certificates of appropriateness; demolitions and removals), the BAR must approve the razing or moving of a contributing structure, except upon the determination of the building code official that the building or structure is in such a dangerous, hazardous or unsafe condition that it could reasonably be expected to cause death or serious injury. Having no such determination by the City, that exception does not apply. Additionally, per Sec. 34- 86(b) failure to obtain the necessary approval for demolitions, the owner is subject to a civil penalty not to exceed twice the fair market value of the building or structure, as determined by the city real estate tax assessment at the time of the demolition, razing or moving. Per Sec. 34-281 (Maintenance and repair required), the owner of a contributing structure shall not shall allow it to fall into a state of disrepair which may result in the deterioration of any exterior appurtenance or architectural feature so as to produce or tend to produce a detrimental effect upon the character of a major architectural design district or the life and character of a contributing structure or protected property. Per Sec. 34-86(a)(10) a violation of this requirement, the owner is subject to a civil penalty of $200 for the first violation, and a civil penalty of $500 for each subsequent violation. Per Sec. 34-285 (Approval or denial of applications by BAR) and should the BAR deny the CoA, the applicant may appeal to Council and seek further remedy per Sec. 34-286 (City council appeals). (See Appendix of this staff report.) 104 Stadium Road – Demolition of structure – February 22, 2023 (02/15/2023) 2 Suggested Motions Approval: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the BAR’s design guidelines and the standards for considering demolitions, I move to find that the proposed demolition of the house and gardens at 104 Stadium Road satisfies the BAR’s criteria and guidelines and is compatible with this property and other properties, 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 BAR’s design guidelines and the standards for considering demolitions, I move to find that the proposed demolition of the house and gardens at 104 Stadium Road does not satisfy or the BAR’s criteria and guidelines and is not compatible with this property and other properties, and for the following reasons the BAR denies the application as submitted:… Criteria, Standards, and Guidelines Review Criteria Generally Sec. 34-284(b) of the City Code states that, In considering a particular application the BAR shall approve the application unless it finds: (1) That the proposal does not meet specific standards set forth within this division or applicable provisions of the Design Guidelines established by the board pursuant to Sec.34-288(6); and (2) The proposal is incompatible with the historic, cultural or architectural character of the district in which the property is located or the protected property that is the subject of the application. Pertinent Standards for Review of Demolitions: 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. Applicant comment: The structure was built in 1927. Staff comment: 1927 is correct. (2) Whether it has been designated a National Historic Landmark, listed on the National Register of Historic Places or listed on the Virginia Landmarks Register; Applicant comment: No, the structure has not been designated a National Historic Landmark nor listed on the National Register of Historic Places or Virginia Landmarks Register. Additionally, the structure was excluded from the nomination and establishment of the adjacent Oakhurst-Gildersleeve National Register Historic District, and it was later volunteered as a protected property by the owner. Staff comment: Neither the structure or property are listed on the VLR or NRHP. 104 Stadium Road – Demolition of structure – February 22, 2023 (02/15/2023) 3 104 Stadium Road was built in the same period as many of the houses in the Oakhurst- Gildersleeve Historic District (1920s-1930s). It is possible 104 Stadium Road was considered as part of the district, but staff found no evidence it was intentionally excluded from it. (The draft PIF for the proposed district, competed in 2004, recommends JPA as the district’s west boundary. The formal NHRP nomination was completed in 2009.) (3) Whether, and to what extent, the building or structure is associated with a historic person, architect or master craftsmen, or with a historic event; Applicant comment: There is no known association with a historic event, person, architect or master craftsman that would qualify for nomination to a historic register or warrant protection. Staff comment: Staff concurs there is no known association with a historic event, architect or master craftsman. It has not been determined if the associations with the original owner, Malcolm M. MacLeod, and/or the frequent visitor, Edward R. Stettinius, Jr., meet the Criteria B of the NRHP (association with persons significant in our past), nor is staff qualified to make that judgement. This house was built for Malcolm M. MacLeod, an English literature professor at the University of Virginia. MacCleod resided there until its sale in 1954. The house is also associated with Edward R. Stettinius, Jr., who attended UVA in the early 1920s. Becoming acquainted with MacCleod, Stettinius was a frequent visitor to the Stone House. He later served as the U.S. Secretary of State [1944-1945] under President Franklin Roosevelt and in 1946 was named the country's first delegate to the United Nations. From 1946 through 1949, Stettinius served on the UVa Board of Visitors as UVa’s rector. That said, while Secretary Stettinius is the most historically significant individual associated with this property, there is 104 Stadium Road – Demolition of structure – February 22, 2023 (02/15/2023) 4 no information regarding when he was here, how long he stayed, or what historic events or activities, if any, might have occurred here during those visits. (4) Whether the building or structure or any of its features, represent an infrequent or the first or last remaining example within the city of a particular architectural style or feature; Applicant comment: No, the architectural style of the structure is not infrequent and none of its features are known to represent an infrequent or the first or last remaining example within the city. Staff comment: Stone buildings are not unusual in Charlottesville, but they are not frequent; stone site walls are more commonly found. Examples of similar period, stone homes within the Oakhurst-Gildersleeve ADC District include: o 1 Gildersleeve Wood (1925, Dutch Colonia Revival) o 3 Gildersleeve Wood (1928, Tudor Revival) o 12 Gildersleeve Wood (1935, Colonial Revival) o 700 JPA (1935, Colonial Revival)] o 117 Maywood (1938, Vernacular Craftsman) o 130 Maywood Lane (1940, Vernacular) o 550 Valley Road (1935, Tudor Revival) o 552 Valley Road (1937, Tudor Revival) (5) Whether the building or structure is of such old or distinctive design, texture or material that it could not be reproduced, or could be reproduced only with great difficulty; and Applicant comment: No, the structure is not of such old or distinctive design, texture, or material that it could not be reproduced. Staff comment: From the 2011 City survey: The property at 104 Stadium Road is an example of a 1927 English Tudor Revival style. The terraces with rock steps and low walls are a rare example of historic landscape. (6) The degree to which distinguishing characteristics, qualities, features, or materials remain. Applicant comment: The extent of changes since the structure was built is not known, but appear to include the addition of a metal fire escape and replacement of a number of windows. Staff comment: Staff has not examined the site or structure. However, the 2011 BAR staff report noted the following: The character-defining features of the main structure and site are intact. In addition to the main dwelling, the stone foundation of a one-story garage in place by 1929 remains today. The garage was removed by 1950. Surrounding the property are numerous trees. Two sloping terraces on the back of the property are marked with low stone walls. A stone planter sits at the head of a series of stone steps leading from the Woodrow Street entrance down the terraces. This terraced garden and stone steps are likely original as the stone matches the house. (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 104 Stadium Road – Demolition of structure – February 22, 2023 (02/15/2023) 5 properties within such a district whose concentration or continuity possesses greater significance than many of its component buildings. Applicant comment: The structure is not located in an ADC [District], and generally is no longer located in a neighborhood setting. There is no known historic or aesthetic link to other buildings in structures within an ADC [District]elsewhere. Staff comment: 104 Stadium Road is linked historically to a period of growth at the University of Virginia in the early twentieth century, which spurred the growth of residential neighborhoods near its campus to house professors and students, such as Oakhurst- Gildersleeve neighborhood. (c) The overall condition and structural integrity of the building or structure, as indicated by studies prepared by a qualified professional engineer and provided by the applicant or other information provided to the board. Applicant comment: The structure is in good structural condition to the best of our knowledge, but there is deferred maintenance that would need to be addressed in the future. Staff comment: Staff has not examined the site or structure. (d) Whether, and to what extent, the applicant proposes means, methods or plans for moving, removing, or demolishing the structure or property that preserves portions, features or materials that are significant to the property’s historic, architectural, or cultural value. Applicant comment: The applicant will seek out opportunities to re-purpose and re-use select existing materials in the future project in a meaningful way. Staff comment: The scale, scope and design of a future development project here has not been presented. It should be noted that, to the extent staff is aware of the planned development, it is speculative in nature, will likely require actions and approvals by City Council, and is in no way certain. Therefore, neither the necessity to raze this structure or how it or elements of it might be incorporated into the new project have been determined. If demolition is approved, the BAR should consider conditions that preclude demolition until the planned development is approved and underway. For example, from the conditions applied to the demo CoA for 218 West Market Street: BAR staff sign off on the demolition permit is contingent upon: o Applicant will submit for the record documentation and photographs of the existing building, including dimensioned floor plans and exterior elevations. o BAR approval of a COA for this building’s replacement (if it remains an IPP). o An approved building permit for construction of any new building on this parcel Chapter VII – Demolitions and Moving Link: Chapter 7 Demolition and Moving A. Introduction Historic buildings are irreplaceable community assets; and once they are gone, they are gone forever. With each successive demolition or removal, the integrity of a historic district is further 104 Stadium Road – Demolition of structure – February 22, 2023 (02/15/2023) 6 eroded. Therefore, the demolition or moving of any contributing building in a historic district should be considered carefully. Charlottesville’s Zoning Ordinance contains provisions that require the property owner to obtain approval prior to demolishing a contributing property in a historic district or an Individually Protected Property (IPP). The following review criteria should be used for IPP’s and (contributing) buildings that are proposed for demolition or relocation. Plans to demolish or remove a protected property must be approved by the BAR or, on appeal, by the City Council after consultation with the BAR. Upon receipt of an application for demolition or removal of a structure, the BAR has 45 days to either approve or deny the request. If the request is denied and the owner appeals to the City Council, the Council can either approve or deny the request. If Council denies the request, the owner may appeal to the City Circuit Court. In addition to the right to appeal to City Council or the Circuit Court, there is a process that enables the owner to demolish the building or structure if certain conditions have been met. After the owner has appealed to City Council and has been denied, the owner may choose to make a bona fide offer to sell the building or structure and land. The property must be offered at a price reasonably related to the fair market value of the structure and land and must be made to the city or to any person or firm or agency that gives reasonable assurance that it is willing to preserve and restore the property. City Council must first confirm that the offering price is reasonably related to the fair market value. The time during which the offer to sell must remain open varies according to the price, as set out in the State Code and the Zoning Ordinance. If such a bona fide offer to sell is not accepted within the designated time period, the owner may renew the demolition request to City Council and will be entitled [to a CoA that permits demolition]. B. Demolition of Historic Structures Review Criteria for Demolition 1) The standards established by the City Code, Section 34-278. Staff comment: See comments above: Standards for considering demolitions. 2) The public necessity of the proposed demolition. Staff comment: Demolition is not a public necessity; the building has not been condemned or deemed unsafe. 3) The public purpose or interest in land or buildings to be protected. Staff comment: See comments above: Standards for considering demolitions, item a. 104 Stadium Road – Demolition of structure – February 22, 2023 (02/15/2023) 7 4) Whether or not a relocation of the structure would be a practical and preferable alternative to demolition. Staff comment: See comments above: Standards for considering demolitions, item d. 5) Whether or not the proposed demolition would adversely or positively affect other historic buildings or the character of the historic district. Staff comment: See comments above: Standards for considering demolitions, item d. 6) The reason for demolishing the structure and whether or not alternatives exist. Staff comment: See comments above: Standards for considering demolitions, item d. 7) Whether or not there has been a professional economic and structural feasibility study for rehabilitating or reusing the structure and whether or not its findings support the proposed demolition. Staff comment: See comments above: Standards for considering demolitions, item c Guidelines for Demolition 1) Demolish a historic structure only after all preferable alternatives have been exhausted. 2) Document the building thoroughly through photographs and, for especially significant buildings, measured drawings according to Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) Standards. This information should be retained by the City of Charlottesville Department of Neighborhood Development Services and the Virginia Department of Historic Resources. 3) If the site is to remain vacant for any length of time, maintain the empty lot in a manner consistent with other open spaces in the districts. 104 Stadium Road – Demolition of structure – February 22, 2023 (02/15/2023) 8 Appendix: Related City Code Sections Sec. 34-285. - Approval or denial of applications by BAR. c) Upon denial of an application (approval of an application with conditions over the objections of the applicant shall be deemed a denial), the applicant shall be provided written notice of the decision, including a statement of the reasons for the denial or for the conditions to which the applicant objects. Following a denial the applicant, the director of neighborhood development services, or any aggrieved person may appeal the decision to the city council, by filing a written notice of appeal within ten (10) working days of the date of the decision. Sec. 34-286. - City council appeals. a) An applicant shall set forth, in writing, the grounds for an appeal, including the procedure(s) or standard(s) alleged to have been violated or misapplied by the BAR, and/or any additional information, factors or opinions he or she deems relevant to the application. The applicant, or his agent, and any aggrieved person, shall be given an opportunity to be heard on the appeal. b) In any appeal the city council shall consult with the BAR and consider the written appeal, the criteria set forth within section 34-276 or 34-278, as applicable, and any other information, factors, or opinions it deems relevant to the application. c) A final decision of the city council may be appealed by the owner of the subject property to the Circuit Court for the City of Charlottesville, by filing with the court a petition at law, setting forth the alleged illegality of the action taken. such petition must be filed with the circuit court within thirty (30) days after council's final decision. The filing of the petition shall stay the council's decision pending the outcome of the appeal; except that the filing of the petition shall not stay a decision of city council denying permission to demolish a building or structure. Any appeal which may be taken to the circuit court from a decision of the city council to deny a permit for the demolition of a building or structure shall not affect the right of the property owner to make the bona fide offer to sell referred to in subparagraphs (d) and (e), below. d) In addition to the right of appeal set forth above, the owner of a building or structure, the demolition of which has been the subject of an application appealed to the city council, shall, as a matter of right, be entitled to demolish such building or structure if all of the following conditions have been met: (1) The owner has appealed to city council for permission to demolish the building or structure, and city council has denied such permission; (2) The owner has, for the applicable sale period set forth herein below, and at a price reasonably related to the fair market value of the subject property, made a bona fide offer to sell the building or structure, and the land pertaining thereto, to a person or legal entity that gives reasonable assurance that the building or structure will be preserved and restored; and (3) No bona fide contract, binding upon all parties thereto, shall have been executed for the sale of such landmark, building or structure, and the land pertaining thereto, prior to the expiration of the applicable sale period. (4) If all of the foregoing conditions are not met within the applicable sale period, then the city council's decision denying a permit shall stand, unless and until that decision is overturned by the circuit court. However, following expiration of the applicable sale period, a property owner may renew his request to the city council to approve the demolition of the historic landmark, building or structure. e) The time in which a property owner may take advantage of the rights afforded by subparagraph (d), above (the applicable "sale period") shall be as follows: (6) Twelve (12) months when the offering price is equal to or greater than ninety thousand dollars ($90,000.00). […] [Note: The 2023 assessment for 104 Stadium Road was $541,900.] 104 Stadium Road – Demolition of structure – February 22, 2023 (02/15/2023) 9 Attachment to Feb 22, 2023 BAR staff report 104 Stadium Road Date: 1927 Material: Stone and wood Architect: Unknown Use: Private Residence Tax Map: 16 Parcel Number: 2 Date of Survey: June, 2011 Original Owner: Malcolm M. MacLeod By: Kristin Rourke Architectural Description: This 1 ½ story, English Tudor style cottage has a cross-gable plan. The exterior walls are stone with stucco and false half-timbering on the upper gable of the side facing Emmet Street, the shed entry, dormer, and gable on the Woodrow Street elevation and the three dormers on the northwest elevation. The dormer on the Emmet Street side of the house is painted wood cladding. According to the tax assessment in 1955 the roof is asbestos shingle, and the walls are wood and stone frame. The interior has hardwood floors, softwood framed partitions with plaster walls and ceilings. The interior of the one story section of the house has cathedral ceilings and full cement basement, while the rest of the home has no basement under it. In 1955, the metal fire escape or “metal stoop with steps” was added on the west end of the house. Two bathrooms were also added and the windows on the northwest side of the house replaced. The windows openings vary in size and have fixed metal frame panes most of which appear original excluding those already noted as being replaced in 1955. On the 1929 Sanborn Map, there is a small one-story garage located at the northwest corner of the lot. The garage was demolished by 1950, but the stone foundation remains today. A carport with a dirt floor and flat roof was constructed and stayed in place from 1955 to the mid-1970s, likely located where the gravel drive is today. The gravel drive on the side of the house that faces Emmet Street is likely a more recent addition. 104 Stadium Road – June 2011 Historical Survey 1 Attachment to Feb 22, 2023 BAR staff report Surrounding the property are numerous trees and overgrown plantings. There are two sloping terraces on the back of the property leading to what is now a parking lot. These terraces are marked with low stone walls. A stone planter sits at the head of a series of stone steps leading from the Woodrow Street entrance down the terraces. This terraced garden and stone steps are likely original as the stone matches the gold brown stone of the house. Building History: This house was built for Malcolm M. MacLeod, an English literature professor at the University of Virginia. Mr. Edward Stettinius was a frequent visitor to the Stone House and was a good friend of the original owner, Mr. MacLeod. Stettinius attended UVA in the early 1920’s and went on to become the U.S. Secretary of State under President Franklin D. Roosevelt. In addition, Mr. Stettinius served on the UVA Board of Visitors and as rector. MacLeod bought the property from John S. and Mary H. Nicholas on June 25, 1927 for $6,000. By the time the lot was sold again, the value of the land had increased to $16,500 showing that the house must have been built around 1927. The property had several deed covenants when MacLeod purchased it: 1) Said lot is not to be sold to anyone not of the Caucasian race 2) Said lot is not to be sold or used as a commercial property 3) No dwelling erected at a cost of less than $5000 and which is not in line with the dwellings on the other adjoining lots. Proper outhouses may be erected provided they would not injure nearby property. MacLeod lived in the house with his wife Margaret until 1954 when the couple sold the house to Sterling Decker, a physician at the UVA Hospital, who only owned the house for a year. Decker did not live in the house but rented it out to Paul Weis. The deed covenants were still in place in the 1954 deed, including the racial covenant. Such segregationist covenants were common during the first half of the twentieth century in residential neighborhoods throughout the South. The university itself was segregated at the time. The house was sold in 1955 to Henry C. and Annie M. Lowry. In 1955 two bathrooms were added to the house and a metal fire escape was added to the exterior to convert the building into a multi-family home. Henry worked as a salesman at Collins Inc, a men’s clothing company. Both he and his sister, Annie, lived in the house, technically making it a two family dwelling. The Lowrys owned the house until 1960, when they sold it to William H. Brown, a lawyer, who lived there with his wife, Brady F. Brown, until 1963 when Murray O. Clark and Betty B. Clark purchased the property and rented it out to UVA students, such as William W. Bennett who rented the house in 1964. The Clarks then sold the home to Alfred C. Proulx, an assistant professor at UVA. Proulx owned the house until 1968 when it became the property of the trustees of Evalyn M. Galgan. In 1976, Russell C. Winder and Patricia S. Winder purchased 104 Stadium Road. Overall, the house has been home to several professors and students, it has been converted into a two- family unit (though even after this alteration it was still used as a single family home by successive owners). 104 Stadium Road has changed hands many times, and was owned the longest by the original owner, Malcolm MacLeod. Neighborhood History: 104 Stadium Road – June 2011 Historical Survey 2 Attachment to Feb 22, 2023 BAR staff report 104 Stadium Road was built during the development of the Oakhurst/ Gildersleeve neighborhood located slightly west of the house and across Jefferson Park Avenue. Many of the homes in that neighborhood were built for University of Virginia professors and there are several similar examples of English Tudor revival style dwellings that may be by the same builder/architect. For example, 3 Gildersleeve Wood (1928) is another stone Tudor structure, and 1616 Jefferson Park Avenue (1925) is a stucco and false half-timbered Tudor that was constructed by English professor, Armistead C. Gordon Jr. 1616 Jefferson Park Avenue is across the street from 104 Stadium Road. Gildersleeve/ Oakhurst neighborhood contains several examples of stone buildings and site walls similar to that of 104. In 1919, the University of Virginia had an increase in enrollment which facilitated construction of more housing for the students and staff of the school. Oakhurst/ Gildersleeve neighborhood developed as a result of this. Because of the transience of university students, many homes like 104 Stadium Road also changed hands multiple times, and were divided into multiple family or apartment dwellings to market them to student renters. Statement of Significance The property at 104 Stadium Road is an exceptionally well-preserved example of an English Tudor revival style residence. The growth of the University of Virginia in the early twentieth century spurred the growth of residential neighborhoods near its campus to house professors and students, such as Oakhurst/ Gildersleeve neighborhood. This property at 104 Stadium Road could have been included in the Oakhurst/ Gildersleeve Neighborhood ADC District, as the house is part of the same period of development in the city’s history and is located just across Jefferson Park Avenue. The terraces with the rock steps and low garden walls are in good condition, though overgrown, offering a rare example of historic landscape. Additionally, the prominent location of the house on Emmet Street makes 104 Stadium Road a landmark of the street. 104 Stadium Road – June 2011 Historical Survey 3 Attachment to Feb 22, 2023 BAR staff report 104 Stadium Road – June 2011 Historical Survey 4 Attachment to Feb 22, 2023 BAR staff report View from Woodrow Street 104 Stadium Road – June 2011 Historical Survey 5 Attachment to Feb 22, 2023 BAR staff report Stones Stairs, terrace walls, and planter 104 Stadium Road – June 2011 Historical Survey 6 Attachment to Feb 22, 2023 BAR staff report Woodrow Street Side elevation showing overgrown gardens [south] Southwest oblique view 104 Stadium Road – June 2011 Historical Survey 7 Attachment to Feb 22, 2023 BAR staff report Emmet Street Side [north] Oblique Emmet Street Side [north] Elavation 104 Stadium Road – June 2011 Historical Survey 8 Attachment to Feb 22, 2023 BAR staff report Foundatin of garage (civere in vines) Gravel Drive facing Emmet Street 104 Stadium Road – June 2011 Historical Survey 9 Attachment to Feb 22, 2023 BAR staff report Metal fire scape and low concrete block wall (?) 104 Stadium Road – June 2011 Historical Survey 10 Attachment to Feb 22, 2023 BAR staff report 1955 Floor plan from City Tax Assessors’s file Floor plan from City Tax Assessors’s file 104 Stadium Road – June 2011 Historical Survey 11 Attachment to Feb 22, 2023 BAR staff report CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW STAFF REPORT July 19, 2011 Individually Protected Property Recommendation BAR 11-07-09 104 Stadium Road Tax Map 16 Parcel 2 Woodrow Too LLC, Owner /City of Charlottesville, Applicant Background The MacLeod house (or Stone House as it is referred to by its owners) is not currently listed on either the National or State Registers, nor is it protected with a local historic designation. City Council required IPP designation of this property as a condition of the sale of 409 Stadium Road (a vacant parcel) to the owners of 104 Stadium Road. Subsequent to Council’s February 7th, 2011 motion requiring the combination of 104 Stadium Road and 409 Stadium Road, the owners of 104 Stadium Road requested that the parcels remain separate. They proposed, and City Council agreed, that 104 Stadium Road would be designated as an IPP, and that 409 Stadium Road would be protected by a restrictive covenant, prohibiting development and requiring the parcel to remain as treed green space. Local historic districts and individually protected properties A property may receive local historic designation in one of two ways, either as an Individually Protected Property (IPP) or as part of an Architectural Design Control (ADC) District. Both types of local historic designation are subject to the Historic Preservation and Architectural Design Control Overlay District regulations and the same Board of Architectural Review (BAR) review procedures. Designation ensures that a property cannot be altered on the exterior or demolished unless it first goes through a review process. It also ensures that any new development built on the designated property will be compatible with the character of the district. Charlottesville currently has eight ADC Districts and 68 IPP’s that are not included in ADC districts. The process to designate individual properties may be initiated by City Council, the Planning Commission, or the property owner. In this case, on May 16, 2011 City Council initiated the process to designate 104 Stadium Road as an IPP. The designation consists of a zoning map amendment and a zoning text amendment. The IPP designation is a type of overlay zoning, so that the underlying zoning (in this case, R-3 Multi-family) remains the same. Process for Designation The Zoning ordinance provides that City Council may, by ordinance, designate individual buildings, structures, or landmarks as individually protected historic properties. City Council must first consider the recommendations of the Planning Commission and the BAR as to the proposed designation. A joint public hearing will be held, as with any zoning map amendment or zoning text amendment, and City Council will make the decision whether to designate the properties as individually protected. The BAR and the Planning Commission must address the following criteria in making their recommendations: (1)The historic, architectural or cultural significance, if any, of a building, structure or site and whether it has been listed on the National Register of Historic Places or the 104 Stadium Rd IPP 7/2011 1 Attachment to Feb 22, 2023 BAR staff report Virginia Landmarks Register; The property at 104 Stadium Road is an exceptionally well-preserved example of a 1927 English Tudor Revival style residence built for a University professor. The growth of the University of Virginia in the early twentieth century spurred the growth of residential neighborhoods near its campus to house professors and students, such as the adjacent Oakhurst/ Gildersleeve neighborhood. The terraces with the rock steps and low garden walls are in good condition, though overgrown, offering a rare example of historic landscape. (2) The association of the building, structure or site with an historic person or event or with a renowned architect or master craftsman; This house was built for Malcolm M. MacLeod, an English literature professor at the University of Virginia. Mr. Edward Stettinius was a frequent visitor to the Stone House and was a good friend of the original owner, Mr. MacLeod. Stettinius attended UVA in the early 1920’s and went on to become the U.S. Secretary of State under President Franklin D. Roosevelt. In addition, Mr. Stettinius served on the UVA Board of Visitors and as rector. (3) The overall aesthetic quality of the building, structure or site and whether it is, or would be, an integral part of an existing design control district; This building is a well-maintained and interesting looking stone dwelling. The prominent location of the house off Emmet Street makes 104 Stadium Road a landmark of the street. This property at 104 Stadium Road could have been included in the Oakhurst/Gildersleeve ADC District, as the house is part of the same period of development in the city’s history and is located just across Jefferson Park Avenue. (4) The age and condition of a building or structure; The structure was built in 1927. It is in good condition and has been well-preserved. (5) Whether a building or structure is of old or distinctive design, texture and material; This 1 ½ story, English Tudor style cottage has a cross-gable plan. The exterior walls are stone with stucco and false half-timbering. The interior of the one story section of the house has cathedral ceilings and full cement basement, while the rest of the home has no basement under it. The windows openings vary in size and have fixed metal frame panes most of which appear original. (6) The degree to which the distinguishing character, qualities or materials of a building, structure or site have been retained; The character-defining features of the main structure and site are intact. In addition to the main dwelling, the stone foundation of a one-story garage in place by 1929 remains today. The garage was removed by 1950. Surrounding the property are numerous trees. Two sloping terraces on the back of the property are marked with low stone walls. A stone planter sits at the head of a series of stone steps leading from the Woodrow Street entrance down the terraces. This terraced garden and stone steps are likely original as the stone matches the house. (7) Whether a building or structure, or any of its features, represents an infrequent or the first or last remaining example of a particular detail or type of architecture in the city. 104 Stadium Rd IPP 7/2011 2 Attachment to Feb 22, 2023 BAR staff report Stone buildings are unusual in Charlottesville; stone site walls are more commonly found. But there are several examples of stone residences in the Oakhurst-Gildersleeve neighborhood. (8) Whether a building or structure is part of a geographically definable area within which there exists a significant concentration or continuity of buildings or structures that are linked by past events or, aesthetically, by plan or physical development, or within which there exist a number of buildings or structures separated geographically but linked by association or history. 104 Stadium Road and the other dwellings of Oakhurst-Gildersleeve neighborhood are linked by building materials, time period of significance, and connection to the University of Virginia. Discussion and Recommendation Staff recommends designation of 104 Stadium Road as an Individually Protected Property. Suggested Motion Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including criteria for Additions to or Deletions from Districts or Protected Property List, I move that the BAR recommends that City Council should designate 104 Stadium Road, the MacLeod House building and property, an Individually Protected Property. Attachment: Historic survey, maps and photos 104 Stadium Rd IPP 7/2011 3 3000 Locust Street St. Louis, MO 63103 P: 314.721.5559 F: 314.667.3121 January 31, 2023 Jeffrey Werner City of Charlottesville Department of Neighborhood Development Services P.O. Box 911, City Hall Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: Certificate of Appropriateness Application – 104 Stadium Road Dear Mr. Werner and Board of Architectural Review Members, Enclosed please find the certificate of appropriateness application associated with 104 Stadium Road. The application requests demolition of the existing structure located at 104 Stadium Road, a 1 ½ story, English Tudor style cottage built in 1927. The structure is currently a rental property and has not been owner-occupied since as early as 1963. Subtext is an integrated real estate development company that creates better ways for students and young professionals to live and connect. Our firm is currently engaged with the owner of the subject property and surrounding properties to develop a residential project, albeit merely a concept until the future of the structure located at 104 Stadium Road is determined. This signature block bounded by Stadium Road, Emmet Street, and Jefferson Park Avenue has the ability to serve many of Charlottesville’s goals for smart growth. A project of which we can all be proud of and focuses on addressing housing supply needs and promoting affordable housing, improving and expanding the pedestrian environment, promoting multimodal transportation, and focusing density in appropriate locations to take pressure off of the residential and historic neighborhoods of Charlottesville. In addition to working with our experienced team of local and national consultants, we felt it imperative to engage a historic preservation consultant to provide an objective review of the structure. Mr. Mark McConnel of Summit Studio was identified to consult on this matter based on his long track-record as a preservationist. Mr. McConnel has 46 years of experience in historic architecture and preservation and is familiar with the structure from his time in Charlottesville and with the University of Virginia. Attached to the enclosed application you will find his analysis of the qualities and merits of the structure. Thank you in advance for your consideration. Sincerely, Dylan Lambur Development Manager Subtext 104 STADIUM ROAD BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW FEBRUARY 22, 2023 104 STADIUM ROAD 104 STADIUM ROAD - EXISTING PHOTOS VIEW FROM WOODROW STREET VIEW FROM SOUTHWEST SOUTH FACADE FROM WOODROW ST VIEW FROM EMMET STREET S 104 STADIUM ROAD - EXISTING PHOTOS VIEW FROM EMMET STREET S METAL FIRE ESCAPE GRAVEL DRIVE FACING EMMET STREET S VIEW OF GARAGE FOUNDATION 104 STADIUM ROAD - PLANS 1929 SANBORN MAP 1955 FLOOR PLAN FROM TAX ASSESSOR SURROUNDING SITE PHOTOS JEFFERSON PARK AVENUE - LOOKING NORTH WOODROW STREET - LOOKING SOUTH MONTEBELLO CIRCLE - LOOKING NORTH WOODROW APARTMENTS SURROUNDING SITE PHOTOS STADIUM ROAD - LOOKING DOWN EMMET STREET S STADIUM ROAD - LOOKING NORTH SOUTH RANGE APARTMENTS JEFFERSON PARK AVENUE - LOOKING WEST DEMOLITION CRITERIA The following is an evaluation of the building based on the criteria for demolition as (5) Whether the building or structure is of such old or distinctive design, texture or outlined in City Code Section 34-278: material that it could not be reproduced, or could be reproduced only with great difficulty; (a) The historic, architectural or cultural significance, if any, of the specific structure No, the structure is not of such old or distinctive design, texture, or or property, including, without limitation: material that it could not be reproduced. (6) The degree to which distinguishing characteristics, qualities, features or (1) The age of the structure or property; materials remain; The structure was built in 1927. The extent of changes since the structure was built is not known, but appear to include the addition of a metal fire escape and replacement of a number of windows. (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; (b) Whether, and to what extent, a contributing structure is linked, historically or aesthetically, to other buildings or structures within an existing major design No, the structure has not been designated a National Historic Landmark nor control district, or is one (1) of a group of properties within such a district whose listed on the National Register of Historic Places or Virginia Landmarks concentration or continuity possesses greater significance than many of its Register. Additionally, the structure was excluded from the nomination and component buildings and structures. establishment of the adjacent Oakhurst-Gildersleeve National Register Historic District, and it was later volunteered as a protected property by the owner. The structure is not located in an ADC, and generally is no longer located in a neighborhood setting. There is no known historic or aesthetic link to other buildings in structures within an ADC elsewhere. (3) Whether, and to what extent, the building or structure is associated with an historic person, architect or master craftsman, or with an historic event; (c) The overall condition and structural integrity of the building or structure, as There is no known association with a historic event, person, architect or indicated by studies prepared by a qualified professional engineer and provided master craftsman that would qualify for nomination to a historic register by the applicant or other information provided to the board; or warrant protection. The structure is in good structural condition to the best of our knowledge, but there is deferred maintenance that would need to be addressed in the (4) Whether the building or structure, or any of its features, represent an infrequent future. or the first or last remaining example within the city of a particular architectural style or feature; (d) Whether, and to what extent, the applicant proposes means, methods or plans for moving, removing or demolishing the structure or property that preserves No, the architectural style of the structure is not infrequent and none of portions, features or materials that are significant to the property's historic, its features are known to represent an infrequent or the first or last architectural or cultural value; and remaining example within the city. The applicant will seek out opportunities to re-purpose and re-use select existing materials in the future project in a meaningful way. Mr. Dylan Lambur Subtext 3000 Locust Street St. Louis, MO 63103 Re: 104 Stadium Road Historic resource analysis Dear Mr. Lambur: In the following pages, please find a review of the house located at 104 Stadium Road in Charlottesville VA. This review was conducted solely to determine the qualities of this resource and the impact on the community should this resource be removed. The age and components of the structure Its status on national or state registers of historic places The historical and architectural significance of the structure Singularity of the property or its components The pattern of development associates with this building (type) Its current environment and its contribution thereto While this house is old and an identifiable example of Tudor Revival residential construction, it is not a master-work of the genre or precious because of its rare type or associations. What you have here is a nice old house. Please review the attached and let us know if you have any questions. Regards, Mark McConnel, AIA, LEED AP WWW.THESUMMITSTUDIO.COM | 540.915.1233 | 4353 WINDY GAP DRIVE, ROANOKE , VA 24014 104 Stadium Road 01/18/23 Page 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The house located at 104 is a 1 ½ story, English Tudor style cottage built in 1927 in a cross- gable plan with stone exterior walls, stucco, false half-timbering, and some wood siding. Materials on the exterior include asbestos shingles, new aluminum gutters and downspouts, new entry doors, steel lower and replacement upper windows, and a steel fire escape. Interior finishes include plaster walls and ceilings with wood floors. The house is not a singular example of the Tudor revival style, in fact, there are nine Tudor revival houses in the neighborhood just to the east that were included in a National Register Historic District while this house (adjacent to the district) was omitted. This house did not then, and does not now, meet criteria for inclusion in the adjoining district. This property is not listed on the National or State registers of historic places. The house is no longer in a neighborhood setting. With one exception, the residential, single family, housing stock among which a resource like this should find a home has disappeared and been replaced by large structures. Major secondary roads border the house site on two sides contributing to the loss of its appropriate context. While the MacLeod family constructed the house, Mr. MacLeod was a professor like many others and occupied the house for 26 years; in the subsequent 70 years the house has been converted into a duplex and had no fewer than 8 owners. The MacLeods entertained a former secretary of state at the residence, however, this visitation would not satisfy the National Register requirement for association; thus, no significant historical figure or event has occurred at 104 Stadium Road insofar as the NRHP is concerned. Given the lack of singularity of the house, the urbanized setting, lack of nomination to state or federal registers, and lack of associations with historic events or persons, this resource can be documented per the requirements of the BAR and removed without causing the loss of significant historic fabric in the city. WWW.THESUMMITSTUDIO.COM 104 Stadium Road 01/18/23 Page 3 PROPERTY CONDITION The house contains many of the trademark examples of Tudor Revival styling including, stone walls, rough stucco infill between false half-timbers, steel windows, steep pitched roofs, painted wood siding, bracketed overhangs, and stone (type) roofing. The roofing is, in fact, asbestos in deteriorated condition. The windows openings vary in size and have fixed metal frame panes or replacement aluminum. The interior has hardwood floors, softwood framed partitions with plaster walls and ceilings. The interior of the one-story section of the house has cathedral ceilings and full cement basement, while the rest of the home has no basement under it. Changes over time include metal stoop with steps that was added on the west end of the house, which resembles a fire escape, two bathrooms a CMU enclosure near the fire escape, and the windows on the northwest side of the house replaced. The general building materials are common of the period and in fair condition. The conversion of the property into a duplex has not had a significant impact on the overall interpretation of the original building although some loss of plan clarity is evident. The site is overgrown leaving the building almost invisible on three of the four sides. General views of house WWW.THESUMMITSTUDIO.COM 104 Stadium Road 01/18/23 Page 4 Asbestos shingles Fire escape New front door w/ bracketed roof Dormer showing all materials present WWW.THESUMMITSTUDIO.COM 104 Stadium Road 01/18/23 Page 5 REGISTER LISTINGS The property is not listed on the Virginia Landmarks Register, the National Register of Historic Places, is not included in the adjacent National Register District, and is not qualified for any of these designations. To qualify for nomination to one of the historic registers, a resource must meet one of four criteria: Criteria A Properties associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history. To be considered for listing under Criterion A, a property must be associated with one or more events important in the defined historic context. Criterion A recognizes properties associated with single events, such as the founding of a town, or with a pattern of events, repeated activities, or historic trends, such as the gradual rise of a port city's prominence in trade and commerce. The event or trends, however, must clearly be important within the associated context: settlement, in the case of the town, or development of a maritime economy, in the case of the port city. Moreover, the property must have an important association with the event or historic trends, and it must retain historic integrity. Mere association with historic events or trends is not enough, in and of itself, to qualify under Criterion A: the property's specific association must be considered important as well. For example, a building historically in commercial use must be shown to have been significant in commercial history. Here are a few examples of properties associated with a pattern of events: A trail associated with western migration. A railroad station that served as the focus of a community's transportation system and commerce. A mill district reflecting the importance of textile manufacturing during a given period. A building used by an important local social organization. A site where prehistoric Native Americans annually gathered for seasonally available resources and for social interaction. Criteria B Properties associated with the lives of persons significant in our past. The persons associated with the property must be individually significant within a historic context. A property is not eligible if its only justification for significance is that it was owned or used by a person who is a member of an identifiable profession, class, or social WWW.THESUMMITSTUDIO.COM 104 Stadium Road 01/18/23 Page 6 or ethnic group. It must be shown that the person gained importance within his or her profession or group. The residence of a doctor, a mayor, or a merchant is eligible under Criterion B if the person was significant in the field of medicine, politics, or commerce, respectively. A property is not eligible under Criterion B if it is associated with an individual about whom no scholarly judgement can be made because either research has not revealed specific information about the person's activities and their impact, or there is insufficient perspective to determine whether those activities or contributions were historically important. In this case, professor MacLeod was not distinguished in the sub-field of English literature or held no office bringing notoriety to his life and career. It is likely that he had a significant influence on individual students but that alone is not enough to qualify his career as an pivotal association with the house under Criteria B Criteria C Properties that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction. This criterion applies to properties significant for their physical design or construction, including such elements as architecture, landscape architecture, engineering, and artwork. To be eligible under Criterion C, a property must meet at least one of the following requirements: Embody distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction. Represent the work of a master. Possess high artistic value. Represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction. Characteristics can be expressed in terms such as form, proportion, structure, plan, style, or materials. They can be general, referring to ideas of design and construction such as basic plan or form, or they can be specific, referring to precise ways of combining particular kinds of materials. 104 Stadium Road is a nice example of Tudor revival architecture but it is not unique even in its own neighborhood, it does not represent the work of a master, possesses no high artistic value, and is not a significant and distinguishable entity. Criteria D That have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. WWW.THESUMMITSTUDIO.COM 104 Stadium Road 01/18/23 Page 7 HISTORICAL NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT Any property being evaluated for historical significance is viewed in relation to its site, both historic and contemporary. The National Register of Historic Places requires several forms of documentation related to the situation of the building within its context including a narrative description, mapping data, and representative photographs. At the time 104 Stadium Road was constructed in 1927, the house was situated in a very loosely organized neighborhood of similarly-sized, single-family homes adjacent to the much larger university buildings. Over time, the neighborhood on the west side of Jefferson Park Avenue evolved to include much larger multi-family buildings with the larger structures closest to the University. This natural progression left the house and its one neighbor marooned between the larger structures around them. Contributing to the isolation of these two houses was the predictable improvements to Jefferson Park Avenue and Emmet Street (US 29 Business) as they changed into major secondary conduits for traffic to and from the University. In short, the context for 104 Stadium has changed to the point of being unrecognizable from the original or early condition and the house has lost its value as a contributing resource to a neighborhood of similar structures. 1920 Sanborn Map WWW.THESUMMITSTUDIO.COM 104 Stadium Road 01/18/23 Page 8 Current site imagery WWW.THESUMMITSTUDIO.COM MARK MCCONNEL, AIA, LEED AP Licensed Architect – Virginia – License No. 008800 North Carolina – License No. 16413 Tennessee – License No. 1541774 Licensed General Contractor – Virginia Class “A” – License No. 2705158022 Mark McConnel has been actively engaged in historic architecture since started work for Stuart Turner (Colonial Williamsburg) in late 1976. Now, 46 years later, he consults nationally on historic properties assuring compliance with the Secretary of the Interior Standards, providing condition assessments, documenting existing conditions, designing renovations, and filing National Register, district, and tax credit applications for historic property owners on projects as large as $40 million. EDUCATION Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Master of Architecture, 1989. Center for Real Estate Development 1989. Minor in Architectural History. University of Virginia (UVA) Bachelor of Science in Architecture, 1987. Minor in Architectural History. LECTURER • Virginia Tech • Roanoke College • University of Utah • University of Virginia • The Athenian Society • American Institute of Architects • Preservation Alliance of Virginia • Virginia Association of Museums • National Railway Heritage Society • Society of College and University Planners • Virginia Downtown Development Association • Virginia Society of the American Institute of Architects • Southeast Regional Association of Physical Plant Administrators PUBLIC SERVICE / HONORS ▪ Roanoke Foundation for Downtown – Golden Trowel Award ▪ Virginia Society AIA – Excellent in Design Award ▪ Virginia School Boards Association (twice) – Best elementary school ▪ Virginia Education Facility Planners – Preservation award ▪ Preservation Alliance of Virginia – Leadership in Preservation Award ▪ United Way - Distinguished Service Award ▪ Past President – Virginia Society of the American Institute of Architects WWW.THESUMMITSTUDIO.COM | 540.915.1233 | 4353 WINDY GAP DRIVE, ROANOKE , VA 24014 McConnel 2022 Page 2 REPRESENTATIVE PROJECTS CURRENT • Centralia Fox Theatre, Centralia WA • First National Bank Building, Rock Springs, WY • Clarks Landing, Clarksville, IN • Masonic Temple, Newburgh, NY • Historic YMCA, Newburgh, NY • Berlin Building, Bridgewater, VA • Scott-Griffin Hotel, Franklin, NC • St. Francis Barracks, St. Augustine, FL • Lightner Museum, St. Augustine, FL • 1030 Quarrier St. Charleston, WV • Twin City Motors, Winston-Salem, NC • Calvary Baptist Church, Roanoke, VA • Lakeside Mill, Burlington NC • Calhoun County High School, Grantsville, NC PAST (sample) • The Ironfronts. Danville, VA • Camino Real Hotel, El Paso, TX • Jackson Park Inn, Pulaski, VA • Food Bank of the RGV, Pharr, Tx • Oklahoma Heritage Society, Oklahoma City, OK • Athens Theatre, Deland, FL • New Market Mills, New Market, NH • Imperial Center for the Arts and Sciences, Rocky Mount, NC • Dusable Museum of African American History, Chicago, IL • The Dunnivant Building, Pulaski, VA • Melrose Caverns lodge and station, Harrisonburg, VA • Roanoke Higher Education Center, Roanoke, VA • White Columns Inn, Lexington, VA • Taylor Hotel, Winchester, VA • Pace Building, Danville, VA • 401 Bridge Street, Danville, VA • Colgate Palmolive historic district nomination, Clarksburg IN • St. Albans Sanatorium National Register nomination, Radford, VA • Staunton Historic Train Station, Staunton, VA • Stonewall Jackson Hotel, Staunton, VA • Our Health Phase II, Winchester, VA • 204 Jefferson Street, Roanoke, VA • Warehouse Row Business Center, Roanoke, VA • Harrison County Courthouse, Marshall Tx WWW.THESUMMITSTUDIO.COM Certificate of Appropriateness 214 West Water Street, TMP 280080000 Downtown ADC District (contributing structure) Applicant: Derek Uhler / Uhler and Company Project: Addition of upper floors. Application components (please click each link to go directly to PDF page): • Staff Report • Historic Survey February 22, 2023 BAR Packet 6 City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Staff Report February 22, 2023 Preliminary Discussion 214 West Water Street, TMP 280080000 Downtown ADC District (contributing structure) Applicant: Derek Uhler / Uhler and Company Project: Addition of upper floor(s). Background 214 West Water Street is a contributing structure in the Downtown ADC District. The historic survey is attached. The building appears for the first time on the 1929 Sanborn Map. The BAR has not considered any applications on this building since 2007. Prior BAR Review December 16, 2003 – BAR approved a request for a patio enclosure for La Cucina Italian restaurant. February 20, 2007 – BAR had a preliminary discussion considering an addition to the existing La Cucina Building. March 20, 2007 – BAR denied (7-1) the proposed encapsulation because it does not meet the guidelines. Regarding the preliminary discussion of the proposed new construction, some BAR members stated that they would support a 2 to 2 ½ story addition on top and set back from the second floor façade. Other members also suggested that the applicant rework the patio enclosure approved in 2003. May 15, 2007 - BAR approved (7-0-1) the partial demolition of the rear façade, given the heavily altered condition and the fact that the character of the building would not be altered by the partial demolition. BAR also approved (7-0-1) the general form and materials of the addition in concept, with the stipulation that further articulation of details and items such as windows, storefronts, exterior lighting, colors, and wall sections all come back to the BAR for further approval. The motion further included painting the new one-story brick extension, given it is a recent addition, not historic, and the original building is already painted. 214 West Water Street – Prelim Discussion Feb 22, 2023 (1/15/23) 1 July 17, 2007 - BAR approved (6-0-1 with Gardner recusing) the final submittal details for the Village at Waterhouse with the condition that the applicant use the darker color scheme (Benjamin Moore gray huskie and jackson tan) for the building. The BAR also suggested that the applicant eliminate the tie-backs and east overhang. October 18, 2016 – BAR approved (8-0) removal of existing folding aluminum door storefront and replacement with a stationary storefront with operable door in the left side. The existing double doors on the right side will remain. The black aluminum color will match existing. http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/694673/BAR_214%20West%20Water%20Street_Oct2016.pdf Request Preliminary discussion re: addition of upper floor(s). Google street view July 2019 – Water Street elevation 214 West Water Street – Prelim Discussion Feb 22, 2023 (1/15/23) 2 Google street view July 2019 – Rear elevation (from South Street) Discussion and Recommendations During a preliminary discussion the BAR may, by consensus, express an opinion about the project as presented. (For ex., the BAR might express consensus support for elements of the project, such as scale and massing.) Such comments will not constitute a formal motion and have no legal bearing, nor represent an incremental decision on the required CoA. There are two key objectives of a preliminary discussion: Introduce the project to the BAR; and allow the applicant and the BAR to establish what is necessary for a successful final submittal. That is, a final submittal that is complete and provides the information necessary for the BAR to evaluate the project using the ADC District Design Guidelines and related review criteria. In response to any questions from the applicant and/or for any recommendations to the applicant, the BAR should rely on the germane sections of the Design Guidelines and review criteria. While elements of other chapters may be relevant, the BAR should refer to the criteria in Chapter II--Site Design and Elements, Chapter III--New Construction and Additions, and Chapter IV— Rehabilitation. As a checklist for the preliminary discussion, the criteria for Additions in Chapter III: 214 West Water Street – Prelim Discussion Feb 22, 2023 (1/15/23) 3 • Function and Size • Replication of Style • Location • Materials and Features • Design • Attachment to Existing Building The BAR should also consider the building elements and details necessary to evaluate the project. For example: • Measured drawings: Elevations, wall details, etc. • Roofing: Flat, hipped, etc. Metal, slate, asphalt. Flashing details. • Gutters/downspouts: Types, color, locations, etc. • Foundation. • Walls: Masonry, siding, stucco, etc. • Soffit, cornice, siding, and trim. • Color palette. • Doors and windows: Type, lite arrangement, glass spec, trim details, etc. • Porches and decks: Materials, railing and stair design, etc. • Landscaping/hardscaping: Grading, trees, low plants, paving materials, etc. • Lighting. Fixture cut sheets, lamping, etc Suggested Motion No action will be taken. Criteria, Standards and Guidelines Review Criteria Generally Sec. 34-284(b) of the City Code states that, in considering a particular application the BAR shall approve the application unless it finds: (1) That the proposal does not meet specific standards set forth within this division or applicable provisions of the Design Guidelines established by the board pursuant to Sec.34-288(6); and (2) The proposal is incompatible with the historic, cultural or architectural character of the district in which the property is located or the protected property that is the subject of the application. Pertinent Standards for Review of Construction and Alterations include: (1) Whether the material, texture, color, height, scale, mass and placement of the proposed addition, modification or construction are visually and architecturally compatible with the site and the applicable design control district; (2) The harmony of the proposed change in terms of overall proportion and the size and placement of entrances, windows, awnings, exterior stairs and signs; (3) The Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation set forth within the Code of Federal Regulations (36 C.F.R. §67.7(b)), as may be relevant; (4) The effect of the proposed change on the historic district neighborhood; (5) The impact of the proposed change on other protected features on the property, such as gardens, landscaping, fences, walls and walks; (6) Whether the proposed method of construction, renovation or restoration could have an adverse impact on the structure or site, or adjacent buildings or structures; (7) Any applicable provisions of the City’s Design Guidelines. Chapter III – New Construction and Additions Link: Chapter 3 New Construction and Additions Checklist from section P. Additions 214 West Water Street – Prelim Discussion Feb 22, 2023 (1/15/23) 4 Many of the smaller commercial and other business buildings may be enlarged as development pressure increases in downtown Charlottesville and along West Main Street. These existing structures may be increased in size by constructing new additions on the rear or side or in some cases by carefully adding on extra levels above the current roof. The design of new additions on all elevations that are prominently visible should follow the guidelines for new construction as described earlier in this section. Several other considerations that are specific to new additions in the historic districts are listed below: 1) Function and Size a. Attempt to accommodate needed functions within the existing structure without building an addition. b. Limit the size of the addition so that it does not visually overpower the existing building. 2) Location a. Attempt to locate the addition on rear or side elevations that are not visible from the street. b. If additional floors are constructed on top of a building, set the addition back from the main façade so that its visual impact is minimized. c. If the addition is located on a primary elevation facing the street or if a rear addition faces a street, parking area, or an important pedestrian route, the façade of the addition should be treated under the new construction guidelines. 3) Design a. New additions should not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. b. The new work should be differentiated from the old and should be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. 4) Replication of Style a. A new addition should not be an exact copy of the design of the existing historic building. The design of new additions can be compatible with and respectful of existing buildings without being a mimicry of their original design. b. If the new addition appears to be part of the existing building, the integrity of the original historic design is compromised and the viewer is confused over what is historic and what is new. 5) Materials and Features a. Use materials, windows, doors, architectural detailing, roofs, and colors that are compatible with historic buildings in the district. 6) Attachment to Existing Building a. Wherever possible, new additions or alterations to existing buildings should be done in such a manner that, if such additions or alterations were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the buildings would be unimpaired. b. The new design should not use the same wall plane, roof line, or cornice line of the existing structure. Chapter IV - Rehabilitation Link: Chapter 4 Rehabilitation B. Facades and Storefronts 1. Conduct pictorial research to determine the design of the original building or early changes. 2. Conduct exploratory demolition to determine what original fabric remains and its condition. 3. Remove any inappropriate materials, signs, or canopies covering the façade. 4. Retain all elements, materials, and features that are original to the building or are contextual remodelings, and repair as necessary. 214 West Water Street – Prelim Discussion Feb 22, 2023 (1/15/23) 5 5. Restore as many original elements as possible, particularly the materials, windows, decorative details, and cornice. 6. When designing new building elements, base the design on the ‘typical elements of a Commercial façade and storefront’ (see drawing next page). 7. Reconstruct missing or original elements, such as cornices, windows, and storefronts, if documentation is available. 8. Design new elements that respect the character, materials, and design of the building, yet are distinguished from the original building. 9. Depending on the existing building’s age, originality of the design and architectural significance, in some cases there may be an opportunity to create a more contemporary façade design when undertaking a renovation project. 10. Avoid using materials that are incompatible with the building or within the specific districts, including textured wood siding, unpainted or pressure-treated wood, and vinyl or aluminum siding. 11. Avoid introducing inappropriate architectural elements where they never previously existed. 214 West Water Street – Prelim Discussion Feb 22, 2023 (1/15/23) 6 Certificate of Appropriateness 422 2nd Street NE, TMP 330079000 North Downtown ADC District Owner: Erin Hall and Michael Shveima Applicant: Tim Tessier / Bushman-Dreyfus Project: Rear addition. Application components (please click each link to go directly to PDF page): • Staff Report • Historic Survey • Application Submittal February 22, 2023 BAR Packet 7 City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Staff Report February 22, 2023 Preliminary Discussion 422 2nd Street NE, TMP 330079000 North Downtown ADC District Owner: Erin Hall and Michael Shveima Applicant: Tim Tessier / Bushman-Dreyfus Project: Rear addition. Background Year Built: 1839 (“Old Manse” House) District: North Downtown ADC District Status: Contributing The “Old Manse” is a late Federal-style architecture; two stories high, five bays wide, side gable roof with an entrance porch of coupled octagonal columns. The brickwork is laid in Flemish bond and terminating in a mouse-tooth cornice. In the 1930s, the side (north) porch and a brick, two-story, addition were constructed. In 1996, a framed, singe-story, rear addition was constructed. (survey attached) The house was at one time the Charlottesville Female Academy (the amphitheater graded into the rear yard is still visible) and later served as the manse for two local churches. Prior BAR Actions n/a Project • Applicant’s Submittal: Bushman Dreyfus drawings 422 2nd Street NE, Proposed Demolition and Addition, dated 2/22/2023, nine sheets. Preliminary discussion of proposed demolition of the c1930s and 1996 rear additions and construction of a new rear addition. (The house, side porch and both rear additions are 422 2nd St NE – Prelim Discussion Feb 22, 2023 (2/15/23) 1 designated contributing to the North Downton ADC District.) The applicant is seeking input on the proposed demolitions and on the location and scale of the proposed new addition. Discussion During a preliminary discussion the BAR may, by consensus, express an opinion about the project as presented. (For ex., the BAR might express consensus support for elements of the project, such as scale and massing.) Such comments will not constitute a formal motion and have no legal bearing, nor represent an incremental decision on the required CoA. There are two key objectives of a preliminary discussion: Introduce the project to the BAR; and allow the applicant and the BAR to establish what is necessary for a successful final submittal. That is, a final submittal that is complete and provides the information necessary for the BAR to evaluate the project using the ADC District Design Guidelines and related review criteria. In response to any questions from the applicant and/or for any recommendations to the applicant, the BAR should rely on the germane sections of the Design Guidelines and review criteria. Demolition: The BAR should refer to the criteria in Chapter VII - Demolitions and Moving, summarized below with staff comments under Criteria, Standards and Guidelines. Addition: While elements of other chapters may be relevant, the BAR should refer to the criteria in Chapter II--Site Design and Elements, Chapter III--New Construction and Additions, and Chapter IV—Rehabilitation. As a checklist for the preliminary discussion, the criteria for Additions in Chapter III: • Function and Size • Replication of Style • Location • Materials and Features • Design • Attachment to Existing Building The BAR should also consider the building elements and details necessary to evaluate the project. For example: • Measured drawings: Elevations, wall details, etc. • Roofing: Flat, hipped, etc. Metal, slate, asphalt. Flashing details. • Gutters/downspouts: Types, color, locations, etc. • Foundation. • Walls: Masonry, siding, stucco, etc. • Soffit, cornice, siding, and trim. • Color palette. • Doors and windows: Type, lite arrangement, glass spec, trim details, etc. • Porches and decks: Materials, railing and stair design, etc. • Landscaping/hardscaping: Grading, trees, low plants, paving materials, etc. • Lighting. Fixture cut sheets, lamping, etc. Suggested Motion No action will be taken. 422 2nd St NE – Prelim Discussion Feb 22, 2023 (2/15/23) 2 Criteria, Standards and Guidelines Review Criteria Generally Sec. 34-284(b) of the City Code states that, in considering a particular application the BAR shall approve the application unless it finds: (1) That the proposal does not meet specific standards set forth within this division or applicable provisions of the Design Guidelines established by the board pursuant to Sec.34-288(6); and (2) The proposal is incompatible with the historic, cultural or architectural character of the district in which the property is located or the protected property that is the subject of the application. Pertinent Standards for Review of Construction and Alterations include: (1) Whether the material, texture, color, height, scale, mass and placement of the proposed addition, modification or construction are visually and architecturally compatible with the site and the applicable design control district; (2) The harmony of the proposed change in terms of overall proportion and the size and placement of entrances, windows, awnings, exterior stairs and signs; (3) The Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation set forth within the Code of Federal Regulations (36 C.F.R. §67.7(b)), as may be relevant; (4) The effect of the proposed change on the historic district neighborhood; (5) The impact of the proposed change on other protected features on the property, such as gardens, landscaping, fences, walls and walks; (6) Whether the proposed method of construction, renovation or restoration could have an adverse impact on the structure or site, or adjacent buildings or structures; (7) Any applicable provisions of the City’s Design Guidelines. Pertinent ADC District Design Guidelines Chapter II – Site Design and Elements Link: Chapter 2 Site Design and Elements Chapter III – New Construction and Additions Link: Chapter 3 New Construction and Additions 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 422 2nd St NE – Prelim Discussion Feb 22, 2023 (2/15/23) 3 a. Attempt to locate the addition on rear or side elevations that are not visible from the street. b. If additional floors are constructed on top of a building, set the addition back from the main façade so that its visual impact is minimized. c. If the addition is located on a primary elevation facing the street or if a rear addition faces a street, parking area, or an important pedestrian route, the façade of the addition should be treated under the new construction guidelines. 3) Design a. New additions should not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. b. The new work should be differentiated from the old and should be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. 4) Replication of Style a. A new addition should not be an exact copy of the design of the existing historic building. The design of new additions can be compatible with and respectful of existing buildings without being a mimicry of their original design. b. If the new addition appears to be part of the existing building, the integrity of the original historic design is compromised and the viewer is confused over what is historic and what is new. 5) Materials and Features a. Use materials, windows, doors, architectural detailing, roofs, and colors that are compatible with historic buildings in the district. 6) Attachment to Existing Building a. Wherever possible, new additions or alterations to existing buildings should be done in such a manner that, if such additions or alterations were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the buildings would be unimpaired. b. The new design should not use the same wall plane, roof line, or cornice line of the existing structure. Chapter IV - Rehabilitation Link: Chapter 4 Rehabilitation Pertinent Standards for Review of Demolitions: Sec. 34-278. - Standards for considering demolitions. The following factors shall be considered in determining whether or not to permit the moving, removing, encapsulation or demolition, in whole or in part, of a contributing structure or protected property: [NOTE: Staff prepared the following only to facilitate the BAR’s preliminary discussion. The comments are general and possibly incomplete. A more thorough analysis will be prepared when this is a formal CoA request.] 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: There are two additions. The center, brick addition dates to the 1930s. The framed addition was constructed in 1996. 422 2nd St NE – Prelim Discussion Feb 22, 2023 (2/15/23) 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: 422 2nd St NE is listed as a contributing structure to the Charlottesville and Albemarle County Courthouse Historic District (104-0034). The district was surveyed in 1980 and amended in 1995, prior to construction of the framed addition, therefore that part of the house is not contributing to the NRHP district. From the NRHP listing: https://www.dhr.virginia.gov/historic-registers/104-0072/ 422 [2nd Street, NE] (The Old Manse): brick (Flemish bond); 2 stories; 5 bays; gable roof; 1-bay entrance porch with paired octagonal columns. Late Federal. 1839. Entrance in center\bay with 6-panel, raised-panel door, 1-light transom. Windows retain much original glass, have molded surrounds, blinds: 6/9 sash 1st story, 6/6 on 2nd. Mouse-tooth cornice. Side porch added 1930s. 3. Whether, and to what extent, the building or structure is associated with an historic person, architect or master craftsman, or with an historic event; Staff comment: n/a 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: Staff has not determined if the 1930s addition is unique within the City. 5. Whether the building or structure is of such old or distinctive design, texture or material that it could not be reproduced, or could be reproduced only with great difficulty; and Staff comment: The proposed demolitions are for the 1930s and 1996 additions only. (The 1839 house will remain.) The 1930s addition is relatively basic in design, materiality, and construction. The 1996 addition is unremarkable and easily reproduced. 6. The degree to which distinguishing characteristics, qualities, features or materials remain; Staff comment: The requested demolition will remove entirely the 1930s and 1996 additions. (The 1839 house will remain.) B. Whether, and to what extent, a contributing structure is linked, historically or aesthetically, to other buildings or structures within an existing major design control district, or is one (1) of a group of properties within such a district whose concentration or continuity possesses greater significance than many of its component buildings and structures. Staff comment: The proposed demolitions are limited and will not alter the main body of the house; however, the BAR should discuss how the exposed exterior walls will be treated. 422 2nd St NE – Prelim Discussion Feb 22, 2023 (2/15/23) 5 C. The overall condition and structural integrity of the building or structure, as indicated by studies prepared by a qualified professional engineer and provided by the applicant or other information provided to the board; Staff comment: No assessment has been provided. D. Whether, and to what extent, the applicant proposes means, methods or plans for moving, removing or demolishing the structure or property that preserves portions, features or materials that are significant to the property's historic, architectural or cultural value; and Staff comment: No details presented. This is a preliminary discussion only. E. Any applicable provisions of the city's design guidelines. Chapter VII – Demolitions and Moving Link: Chapter 7 Demolition and Moving B. Demolition of Historic Structures Review Criteria for Demolition 1) The standards established by the City Code, Section 34-278. 2) The public necessity of the proposed demolition. 3) The public purpose or interest in land or buildings to be protected. 4) Whether or not a relocation of the structure would be a practical and preferable alternative to demolition. 5) Whether or not the proposed demolition would adversely or positively affect other historic buildings or the character of the historic district. 6) The reason for demolishing the structure and whether or not alternatives exist. 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. Guidelines for Demolition 1) Demolish a historic structure only after all preferable alternatives have been exhausted. 2) Document the building thoroughly through photographs and, for especially significant buildings, measured drawings according to Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) Standards. This information should be retained by the City of Charlottesville Department of Neighborhood Development Services and the Virginia Department of Historic Resources. 3) If the site is to remain vacant for any length of time, maintain the empty lot in a manner consistent with other open spaces in the districts. Appendix From the North Downtown ADC District map 422 2nd St NE – Prelim Discussion Feb 22, 2023 (2/15/23) 6 1929 Sanborn Map with c1951 updates. 422 2nd St NE – Prelim Discussion Feb 22, 2023 (2/15/23) 7 PROPOSED DEMOLITION AND ADDITION PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW 2/22/23 APPLICANT IS REQUESTING APPROVAL OF DEMOLITION OF THE 1930s AND 1990s REAR ADDITIONS AND APPROVAL OF THE GENERAL DIRECTION AND FOOTPRINT OF THE NEW ADDITION PRIOR TO DEVELOPING THE ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPE DESIGN. DEED BOOK CHRONOLOGY 1839 Opie Norris Estate None 1840 Trustees of Charlottesville Female Academy Albemarle County Deed Book 38-263 1853 William T. Early None 1857 Baptist Church of Charlottesville Albemarle County Deed Book 56-219 -N.D.- William J. Parrott None 1863 Hyman Levy Albemarle County Deed Book 60-277 1866 Reverand Edgar Woods Albemarle County Deed Book 61-417 1871 Presbyterian Congregation of Charlottesville Albemarle County Deed Book 72-459 1950 Christopher Columbus Wells and Lillian Wells Charlottesville City Deed Book 150-341 1991 F. Scott Lebeau and Monica W. Lebeau Charlottesville City Deed Book 560-474 1995 David Morris and Douglas L. Morris Charlottesville City Deed Book 661-262 2003 Alice Cary Brown Charlottesville City Deed Book 901-494 2022 Erin F. Hall and Michael Shveima Charlottesville City Deed Book 2022-3241 Deed Book Chronology Landmark Survey SanbornSanborn Fire Insurance Fire Insurance Map,revised Map, 1929; 1920. 1939, 1951. Detail of Sheet 13. Sanborn Sanborn Fire Insurance Fire InsuranceMap, Map, 1920. Detail of Sheet 19, February 1920. 1902. Sanborn FireFire Sanborn Insurance InsuranceMap, 1902. Map, Detail of Sheet 5, September 1902. 1896. Sanborn Fire Insurance Map, 1896. Detail of Sheet 5, December 1896. SanbornSanborn Map Company, Map Company, and Library and Library of Congress. of Congress. Sanborn Sanborn Map Map Company, Company, and andLibrary ofof Library Congress. Congress. Sanborn Map Sanborn MapCompany, Company,andand Library of Congress. Library of Congress. Sanborn Map Company, and Library of Congress. University University of Virginia of Virginia Special Special Collections, Collections, MSS 5946-f MSS 5946-f University Universityofof Virginia Special Virginia Collections, Special MSS Collections, MSS5946-f 5946-f University of Virginia University Special of Virginia Collections, Special MSS Collections, 5946-f MSS 5946-f University of Virginia Special Collections, MSS 5946-f HISTORY 1929; Revised 1939, 1951 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map, 1920 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map, 1902 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map, 1896 2/22/23 LOCATED IN THE NORTH DOWNTOWN ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN CONTROL DISTRICT, 422 2ND STREET NE IS A CLASSIC EXAMPLE OF A FEDERAL STYLE BUILDING THAT HAS BEEN ADAPTED TO VARIOUS USES OVER THE YEARS. LIKE MANY BUILDINGS OF THIS ERA, ADDITIONS WERE CONSTRUCTED TO ADD NECESSARY SERVICES. HOWEVER, THE ADDITIONS OF THE PAST DO NOT PROPERLY SERVE THE NEEDS OF A MODERN HOME NOR DO THEY RESPECT THE CHARACTER-DEFINING ELEMENTS OF THE ORIGINAL HISTORIC STRUCTURE. FOR MUCH OF ITS HISTORY, THE REAR FACADE OF THE HOUSE REMAINED LARGELY OPEN TO THE YARD WHICH FEATURED A GRADED AMPHITHEATER, LIKELY UTILIZED BY THE CHARLOTTESVILLE FEMALE ACADEMY. BASED ON SANBORN MAP HISTORY, THE CENTRAL STAIR HALL LED DIRECTLY TO A REAR PORCH WITH ACCESS TO THE BACKYARD. A SMALL SERVICE WING WAS HELD OFF-CENTER TO THE SOUTH, RESPECTING THE CENTRAL AXIS THROUGH THE STAIR HALL. IN THE 1930s THE EXISTING WING WAS REMOVED IN FAVOR OF A BRICK ADDITION THAT WAS PLACED ON AXIS WITH THE ENTRY HALL. THE CONFIGURATION OF THIS ADDITION ENCROACHED ON THE REAR WINDOWS OF THE HISTORIC STRUCTURE AND AWKWARDLY TIED INTO THE EXISTING CORNICE LINE OF THE MAIN STRUCTURE. ADDITIONALLY, THE SECOND FLOOR OF THIS ADDITION WAS CONSTRUCTED AT THE STAIR LANDING, CREATING LOW CEILINGS ON THE GROUND FLOOR. A LACK OF WINDOWS TO THE EAST AND CRAMPED SPACES CREATE A BARRIER TO THE FEELING OD CONNECTION WITH THE BACKYARD. IN THE 1990s ANOTHER ADDITION WRAPPED ITS WAY AROUND THE 1930s STRUCTURE FURTHER BARRICADING VIEWS THROUGH THE ENTRY HALL TO THE REAR YARD. THE AIM OF THIS PROJECT IS TO REMOVE THE ADDITIONS AND TO PROVIDE ROOMS OF SUFFICIENT SIZE AND FUNCTION TO BE USEFUL WHILE OPENING UP THE REAR OF THE HOUSE TO THE YARD. THE DESIGN OF THE NEW STRUCTURE WILL UTILIZE A GLASSY CONNECTOR AS A HYPHEN BETWEEN THE OLD AND NEW AND PROVIDE VISUAL RELIEF AT THE HISTORIC WINDOWS. THIS CONNECTING STRUCTURE WILL FEATURE A LOW ROOF THAT SITS BELOW THE EXISTING CORNICE, ALLOWING THE CHARACTER-DEFINING FEATURES OF THE HISTORIC STRUCTURE TO REMAIN UNALTERED. LASTLY, THE PRIMARY AXIS THROUGH THE CENTRAL HALL WILL BE ACKNOWLEDGED WITH GLASS AND DAYLIGHT AT BOTH ENDS. THE NEW ADDITION WILL PROVIDE EXPANSIVE VIEWS INTO THE LANDSCAPE CREATING A MUCH STRONGER CONNECTION TO DAYLIGHT AND THE NATURAL SETTING THAN IS FOUND IN THE EXISTING ARRANGEMENT OF ADDITIONS. THE NEW ADDITION WILL BE DESIGNED IN A MODERN AESTHETIC WITH SIMPLE, CLEAN LINES AND MATERIALS THAT ARE DISTINCT YET COMPATIBLE WITH THE EXISTING BRICK STRUCTURE. 1950s 1840s 1930s 1990s GARAGE STRUCTURE ADDITION ADDITION DESIGN BRIEF 2/22/23 414 420 412 414 420 412 436 432 436 432 3RD STREET NE 3RD STREET NE 409 409 435 435 PROPOSED ADDITION PROPOSED DEMOLITION 428 426 422 428 426 422 410 410 2ND STREET NE 2ND STREET NE 409 409 423 419 415 413 411 407 423 419 415 413 411 407 N PROPOSED | CONTEXT PLAN EXISTING | CONTEXT PLAN CONTEXT PLAN 2/22/23 1930s ADDITION | EAST SIDE OF HOUSE GARAGE | EAST SIDE OF HOUSE BACK OF HOUSE VIEW FROM STREET | 3RD STREET NE ADDITIONS | EAST SIDE OF HOUSE COVERED PORCH | NORTH SIDE OF HOUSE FRONT FACADE VIEW FROM STREET | 2ND STREET NE EXISTING CONDITIONS 2/22/23 LEGEND EXISTING TO REMAIN EXISTING TO REMOVE NEW CONSTRUCTION EXISTING SHRUBS AND TREES HEAVILY SCREEN VIEWS OF THE BACKYARD AND THE BACK OF THE HOUSE 1930s PORCH 1990s ADDITION VIEWS THROUGH HOUSE TO REAR YARD ARE HINDERED UP DN BY SMALL OPENINGS AND LOW CEILINGS DN 1840s 1930s EXISTING ADDITION DN 1930s ADDITION ENCROACHES ON EXISTING WINDOWS 1950s GARAGE N 0 8' 16' 32' EXISTING SITE PLAN 2/22/23 LEGEND EXISTING TO REMAIN EXISTING TO REMOVE NEW CONSTRUCTION GLASSY CONNECTOR PROVIDES A BREAK FROM THE 1840s STRUCTURE EXISTING SHRUBS AND TREES AND MODERN ADDITION HEAVILY SCREEN VIEWS OF THE BACKYARD AND THE BACK OF THE HOUSE 1930s PORCH DN PROPOSED ADDITION UP DN DN 1840s EXISTING DN INSET GLASS WALL PROVIDES MORE ROOM FOR EXISTING WINDOWS AND SHUTTERS ADD GLAZING / DOOR IN SIDE OF GARAGE 1950s GARAGE N 0 8' 16' 32' PROPOSED SITE PLAN 2/22/23 LEGEND EXISTING TO REMAIN EXISTING TO REMOVE NEW CONSTRUCTION NO WINDOWS TO REAR YARD DN DN DN EXISTING | SECOND FLOOR PLAN PROPOSED | SECOND FLOOR PLAN INSUFFICIENT SUPPORT AND UTILITY SPACE FOR ARRIVAL DN DN EXISTING KITCHEN IS TIGHT ON SPACE AND STORAGE AND LACKS CONNECTION TO OTHER SPACES EXISTING | GROUND FLOOR PLAN PROPOSED | GROUND FLOOR PLAN N 0 8' 16' 32' FLOOR PLANS 2/22/23 LEGEND PROPOSED ADDITION 1840s EXISTING TO REMAIN EXISTING TO REMOVE NEW CONSTRUCTION 9'-3" 9' 8' 9'-8" 9' 8' 7'-2" 9' PROPOSED | BUILDING SECTION PROPOSED DEMOLITION 1990s 1930s 1840s OUTLINE OF 9'-3" PROPOSED ADDITION 9'-8" 7'-2" EXISTING | BUILDING SECTION 0 5' 10' 20' BUILDING SECTION 2/22/23