Packet Guide City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Regular Meeting March 21, 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 May 17, 2022 2. Review of action notes for July 19, 2022; August 16, 2022; September 20, 2022; October 18, 2022; November 15, 2022; December 20, 2022. 3. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR-23-03-01 204 Hartman’s Mill Road, TMP 260038000 Individually Protected Property Owner: Jocelyn Johnson and William Hunt Applicant: Bridget Ridenour / Alloy Workshop Project: Addition and exterior alterations C. New Items 4. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 23-03-02 506 Park Street, TMP 530123000 North Downtown ADC District Owner: Presbyterian Church Ch’ville Trust Applicant: Todd Shallenberger, Waterstreet Studio Project: Landscaping 5. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 23-03-03 361 1st St N, TMP 330188000 North Downtown ADC District Owner: W Gitchell, Et al, Trustees for Christ Episcopal Ch Applicant: Marcy Hooker Project: Replace Windows 6. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 23-03-04 March 2023 BAR Packet 1 130 Madison Lane, TMP 090138000 The Corner ADC District Owner: St Elmo Club of UVA INC Applicant: Kevin Schafer Project: Rehabilitation E. Other Business 7. Preliminary Discussion 843 West Main Street, TMP 310175000 North Downtown ADC District Owner: Kim Tran Dabney Applicant: / Mitchell-Matthews Architects & Planners Project: Proposed Hotel 8. Staff questions/discussion  DT Mall NRHP update F. Adjourn March 2023 BAR Packet 2 BAR MINUTES CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW Regular Meeting May 17, 2022 – 5:00 PM Hybrid Meeting 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: Robert Edwards, Breck Gastinger, Cheri Lewis, Clayton Strange, Jody Lahendro, James Zehmer, Ron Bailey, Dave Timmerman Members Absent: Hunter Smith Staff Present: Robert Watkins, Patrick Cory, Jeffrey Werner, Remy Trail Pre-Meeting: The members of the board did get accustomed to the hybrid meeting setup in City Space. The Chair asked staff if there was anything to share with regards to the Comprehensive Plan. Staff did go over the process for the Comprehensive Plan. The Chair also did ask staff regarding the Albemarle Courts Building and the timeline for construction of the Courts Building. There was discussion regarding the archaeology under the current Albemarle Courts Building. Staff has recommended that the Downtown Mall be registered in the National Register. Grant applications have been applied for and there will be several public meetings in the month of June. Registering for the National Register will require a maintenance plan for the Downtown Mall. Members of the Board did go and look at the materials brought in by Robert Nichols, one of the COA applicants. Mr. Nichols did provide a brief presentation of the materials that were brought into the meeting The meeting was called to order at 5:30 PM by the Chairman. 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. Meeting Minutes August 17, 2021 1 BAR Meeting Minutes May 17, 2022 Motion to approve the Consent Agenda – Ms. Lewis – Second by Mr. Zehmer – Motion passes 8-0. C. Deferred Items 2. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-10-04 310 East Main Street, TMP 28004100 Downtown ADC District Owner: Armory 310 East Main, LLC Applicant: Robert Nichols/Formworks Project: Facade renovations/alterations Jeff Werner, Staff Report – Year Built: 1916. In 1956 the north façade was reconstructed. The existing north façade was constructed in 1982. (South façade may have been built at this same time.) District: Downtown ADC District Status: Contributing (Note: When the district was established, all existing structures were designated contributing.) Application • Submittal: Formwork Design drawings 310 East Main Street, dated May 2022: Cover; Sheet 2, Context - East Main Street; Sheet 3, Context - Water Street; Sheet 4, East Main Street Views; Sheet 5, Elevator Shaft Decorative Scheme; Sheet 6, Elevator Shaft Decorative Scheme context; Sheet 7, Elevator Shaft Angled; Sheet 8, Elevator Shaft Closeup Views; Sheet 9, Mall Level Plan; Sheet 10, Water Street Views CoA request for alterations to the Main Street (north) and Water Street (south) facades. The proposed work will alter the 20th century facades. Discussion and Recommendations The original, 1916 facades no longer exist. The proposed alterations will replace the contemporary facades constructed in the 1980s. The November 1980 National Register nomination of the Charlottesville and Albemarle County Courthouse Historic District does not include this address, nor do any of the building descriptions for this block match the current design. Unless the building [the facades] are of exceptional importance, it does not meet the 50-year threshold necessary for consideration for the National Register. The BAR last had a formal review of this project at the February BAR meeting. The BAR was generally supportive of the project’s design, form and materials, but expressed the following concerns: • The glass used in the Main Street storefront should be clear. • Members expressed hesitation over design of screen; not sure what they’ll look like. • Applicant should provide material samples of brick and screen • Screen provides an appropriate contemporary take on existing materials seen on Mall. • Applicant should provide visuals that show how proportions of new façade relate to neighboring buildings. • Window patterns should exhibit more variety • Members express no objections to Water Street elevation. • Concern over color of screen; since it’s located on north elevation, it won’t receive direct sunlight. • Applicant should submit more detailed information about storefront. The applicant returned for a brief informal discussion at the April BAR meeting with the new design for the façade screen. The BAR commended the project’s direction and was intrigued by the design, but requested material samples and close-up renderings. 2 BAR Meeting Minutes May 17, 2022 Robert Nichols, Applicant – We made a significant transition in our whole strategy and attitude towards this decorative piece that was shown to you in February. Most of my comments that I will make go along with the fact that we have physical material samples in front of you. With respect to color, I have previously been describing the coated metallic materials on the Mall as black. We have been looking for warmth in the color/black. We have a miniscule chip that is quite dark. It is really nice in the shade. There is a lot of light bouncing around there. In many circumstances, it reveals the contrast that we’re looking for with respect to the backing material, which is a very light aluminum. The color for that material is a dark bronze. It has a little bit of metallic flake. It give a little depth and helps it tolerate pollen without it looking lessened. We also have brick and mortars samples for you tonight. The three of them together do a good job. The dark color, light bronze to our eye are well tuned with the little bit of warmth we’re looking to come through a neutral pallet. In terms of material, Mr. Gastinger had made some comments the first time we showed these projecting components of this and how that was going to be handled down close to grade in terms of encroaching into the right of way, accidents, or vandalism. His comments really helped us get more complexity and layering to the system; above nine feet, we don’t have any of these projections. When these projections do occur up higher, they correlate with topographic information. As we get up in the Blue Ridge, they adjust accordingly. When we’re towards the bottom/the lower nine feet, the panel corresponds with the tidewater conditions. We have no 3 dimensional characteristics. We have more of a graphic indication of low, non-varying topography. That is the circular penetrations. At the lower levels, we need to be aware of durability. At those elevations, we will have a material that is twice as thick as this. It will look as you see here. It will be able to register that depth in the penetrations. We will probably elect for a little more thickness as we get higher. With the panels that are going up there, each panel is about 3 feet square. It would be out of reach and have to tolerate the occasional falling branch. It wouldn’t be subject to vandalism or accidents. The views here let you see with a little more clarity what specifically would be happening with these panels in ways our previous illustrations were mostly full view. It reduced detail down to a level that was very hard to register. QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No Questions from the Public QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Lahendro – You mentioned before the meeting that there was some of these examples that you didn’t like and you wanted to make sure they weren’t going to be in the final design. Can you clarify that for the record? Mr. Nichols – What is happening is that there are overlaying conditions. In some cases, they behave like this. When we have a topographic change we want to make, we are adjusting the angle of this flap but to reveal more of the backing material. We are shortening the length. We have collisions like this where the circle cutouts are intersected. We’re going to build into our algorithm, depending on the length of the wing, we will have a modified number of columns of circles here. Mr. Strange – Is that the maximum angle? Mr. Nichols – What is modeled digitally gets up to about 60 degrees. This is just hitting 45 degrees. It is definitely a goal to not let them be confused for 90. We want them to be directional. Mr. Zehmer – The first 9 feet off the ground, everything will be flat/flush? 3 BAR Meeting Minutes May 17, 2022 Mr. Nichols – Yes. That comes across in the illustrations. There are two kinds of penetrations that are being indicated there. There is the circle. That indicates a certain kind of low type of topography. There’s another shape that is denser. That is an indication of population. Mr. Timmerman – What does a dense square look like? Mr. Nichols – You can see that there is a difference in the grid. It is a racetrack shape. They maintain the same height as the circles. They get a little narrower this way, which allows for the greater density. Mr. Lahendro – Is there going to be a sign that explains to people what this is? Mr. Nichols – We have been thinking about that. One of the goals with the design of something that is decorative, their success comes when they don’t quickly become mute. There is some complexity and ambiguity that you get more familiar with over time. Why leave something unaddressed when it is there? There are probably 3 phrases that could mention this. We have a few panels where there is no penetration. The various rules that determine where we have penetrations is left in a few flat panels. I would like to have a bit of information and a little description that doesn’t reveal itself as a historic plaque, just a little explainer. Mr. Lahendro – I am not suggesting that you have to. I was curious. Mr. Nichols –Any appreciation of it or dislike of it isn’t dependent on the genesis of it. We live in a culture where common language for decorative schemes has been going on for a long time. It would be nice to have some history or cultural resonance there. I would like to give a minimum amount of description. Mr. Edwards – I agree that interpretation is incredibly important in this space. Can you contextualize what this means especially because you have projections here that some people might consider dangerous/look dangerous? Have you done any studies on how they will effect birds? Mr. Nichols – I have not. Mr. Edwards – What does maintenance look like? Will you have to paint this? Mr. Nichols – The finish on this will go on in the same technique/same method as any coating on a storefront or commercial glazing system. Mr. Gastinger – Can you describe the weathering that you would expect on the back bronze material? Is there a gap? Mr. Nichols – There will be a gap. The gap introduces another shadow where it starts to break things up. We do want some air movement back there. When I originally thought about this, we were calling it bronze. We liked the idea of having real materials back there. To maintain the contrast we want, we can’t go with an architectural bronze back there. We’re using this aluminum, which is pretty stable. It looks metallic because you have seen the metallic nature of it. It should be quite stable. Mr. Bailey – The topographic intentions will only be really noticeable if you’re looking at it from the east? 4 BAR Meeting Minutes May 17, 2022 Mr. Nichols – I wouldn’t put it that way. It will reveal itself. It is definitely a different experience coming from the west. If you’re coming from the west, it won’t expose itself anymore as you approach it. Mr. Timmerman – I have a question about the materiality. Do you think there is going to be enough of a contrast? Looking at those renderings, the bronze portion looks to glimmer. There is almost a sheen to the renderings. That illustrates a nice contrast between the two colors. If you think there is enough contrast in those colors, maybe the story is how the sun hits that piece in your hand. Mr. Nichols – I do think there is enough contrast. This product is about as light as you can get within this range. The orographic elevation shows a bright color. There are two criteria that helped us get comfortable. The first is that we spent some time with it. The second is that I am fine with some subtlety. That is subjective: both with the repetition of penetrations of the dots. With the length of the pathway, it has that “Great Wall of China” effect. The width is nothing substantial. Those two conditions favor whatever pairing there. It is a concern that has led us to abandon some other choices and get to this one. Mr. Strange – When I first saw this project, I thought you were actually leaving a glass façade behind it. It actually became a screen for the elevator. It is pretty far along in the process to make a decision like this. I can imagine that at night with the elevator shaft behind it, it would be quite spectacular. My concern is that it is never going to look as bright as it does in the renderings. It is going to have shadows. That’s my biggest skepticism. As far as interpretation, I don’t mind that we have to figure it out for ourselves. There are a lot of things about The Mall we don’t know about but can still enjoy about it. Mr. Gastinger – I had a question about the mortar. Are you intending to have it raked back? Or would it come up to the face? Mr. Nichols – It would be up to the face. The second time we were here, we had some changes in the orientation of the brick. We’re not showing it now. Given the limited size of our panels, we decided to let everything rise. There’s no change in the materials. Mr. Timmerman – What is the size of the brick? Mr. Nichols – It is a modular brick. Mr. Gastinger – You have the actual brick color. The renderings show some variation in the brick color. Mr. Nichols – There is not an intended range. There’s a little bit of texture. Mr. Werner – I just wanted to offer something to bring to the discussion. I view as a sculptural element to be used as a part of the façade. Our guidelines don’t give us a lot to work with in that regard. To work through some of the pertinent review, material, color, and scale; is it compatible with the Mall? Does this fit? Our guidelines introduce the idea of flexibility of new design. We want new and creative designs. We’re not disturbing a historic structure. This isn’t removing an element. We’re trying to restore or rehabilitate. This is new and viewing it as such. The guidelines, for street level design, provide visual interest to the passing pedestrians. The brick, glazing, and typical pieces that we can look at are easy enough. I want to make sure we’re using our guidelines and not getting into liking/disliking a sculpture. The other thought that I wanted to offer was that somebody who evaluates a sculpture has a title. I noticed that there was some discussion around the glass. I have included in the staff report of the discussion a 5 BAR Meeting Minutes May 17, 2022 couple of years ago and the flexibility with the VLT. I wanted to balance this with the Design Guidelines. Those are some of the pieces that might be helpful. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC No Comments from the Public COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Gastinger – It has been interesting looking at the sample panel as we have been talking. The way this metal is deployed will be really dynamic in reflection of a wide range of colors in seeing greens, blues, and purples. It is not even outside yet. In actuality, you might think of it as dark/black. It’s going to be quite vibrant in the way that it reflects the landscape. Mr. Zehmer – Maybe we should consider it a curtain wall and not a sculpture. It is very sculptural. We have discussed whether some inscription. I like Mr. Strange’s assessment of let it be what it is. People can self-interpret. If you want to have some kind of plaque, tuck it in the recess of the entryway so it has to be discovered. I am curious if there is a way to pinpoint/highlight where you’re standing. It looks pretty neat. For me, it looks like a lightning strike, which is exciting. This is a façade that had a unique/modern adaptation to it a long time ago. That’s in the spirit of this façade. Mr. Timmerman – I agree with Mr. Gastinger in that the materiality is going to work very nicely. It is hard to see in the dark space. This mockup is a little misleading. The two materials are off from what they’re going to be. I like the idea of subtly. It is such a neat idea. I want to make sure that there isn’t an underwhelming effect with that subtly. You strike the right balance between less contrast but something that is imaginative and really strikes peoples’ imagination as they walk by. Looking at the bronze at certain points where the light reflects really does that. It sounds like you looked at glass samples. There is this glass that has the foil back. I don’t know if you would be interested in exploring a little more depth in the back. Not actually seeing the materials together, I am curious as to how the outside shell interacts with the back. Right now, it looks like a flat connection. I get what you’re saying about separating those two. It would create a shadow line and it creates a totally different effect. I am excited about it as another innovation for The Mall. This kind of variation is wonderful. Mr. Strange – It is interesting to go from this placelessness of the future to something that is so much about the place. Mr. Lahendro – I will speak in support of it. I applaud the architect and the applicant for sticking with it and doing something interesting and persevering against a bit of our pushback in wanting to get more information and not taking the easy way out. I am in support of it. Ms. Lewis – This is compatible with the guidelines and certainly meets the guidelines that I am looking at that govern new construction on the Downtown Mall. I do find that the rhythm and patterns of the exterior and solids to voids is found elsewhere on the Mall. The materials certainly meet the guidelines. They are noble. They are not discouraged by our guidelines. There is a verticality to both of the facades, South Street and The Mall. That is also called out in our guidelines. It is a façade and it is beautiful. It is a piece of art. It will be a wonderment. The ‘space rocket’ elevator was imagined in the 70s looking to the future. This looks to a past, a road from Richmond through the Blue Ridge Mountains. That is a past road. It will be beautiful to look at and walk around. 6 BAR Meeting Minutes May 17, 2022 Mr. Gastinger – I have been in support of the project. It has been an elegant way of dealing with this challenge of giving this new façade. I really do appreciate that vertical composition on both streets. It is going to be a good contribution. Motion – Mr. Lahendro – Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed façade alterations on the Downtown Mall and Water Street elevations at 310 East Main Street satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are compatible with this property and other properties in the Downtown ADC district, and that the BAR approves the application [as submitted], provided that the applicant adhere to the qualifications he made about the samples brought to the meeting and the types of patterns that will not be incorporated into the final design. Mr. Bailey seconds motion. Motion passes (8-0). 3. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 10-11-04 123 Bollingwood Road, TMP 070022000 Individually Protected Property Owner: Juliana and William Elias Applicant: Jeff Dreyfus, Bushman Dreyfus Architects Project: Modifications to the west elevation Jeff Werner, Staff Report – Year Built: 1884 District: IPP Disney-Keith House, a vernacular farmhouse. Between 1923 and the mid-20th century, Arthur Keith’s wife, Ellie Wood Keith, operated a riding academy here.* A barn, outbuildings, and stables immediately west of the house are no longer standing, but can be seen on the c1965 Sanborn Maps and 1966 aerial photo--see the Appendix. The existing garage south of the house was constructed in 1988. Application Request CoA to modify the west elevation of the rear addition: New sliding door and exterior stoop at the door. (The landscape plan, including other work on the property, is aspirational and included in the submittal for context only.) Note: In November 2021, the BAR reviewed a conceptual sketch of the proposed changes. Discussion and Recommendations Modifications to the west elevation: The existing door and window to the left (in the photos and elevations) are not in the historic photos and were added after/during construction of the small addition to the SW corner of the main house. (See the comparison photos in the Appendix.) The City’s landmark survey suggests the rear wing was added to the original, 1884 house, with that work completed in two stages, likely prior to 1923. Staff believes the rear addition (excluding the addition at the SW corner) likely dates to between 1894 and prior to 1907. Staff suggests the alterations to the elevation should be allowed, within the framework of the design guidelines, and supports this request conceptually. With that, staff suggests BAR discuss whether or not the proposed sliding doors are appropriate, within the framework of the design guidelines. The applicant’s submittal makes clear the design intent for the proposed changes: To connect the interior and exterior with better views and accessibility to the entertainment terrace. The design is intended to emphasize a distinction between the older building fabric and the modern renovation, not to pretend that this work was part of the historic fabric. 7 BAR Meeting Minutes May 17, 2022 * Typically, house additions are associated with growing households. The census data does not tell us when this house was expanded, but it does show how many people were living here. It is speculation only, but the census suggests the addition likely dates to between 1894 and 1907, when Lambert Disney and his family occupied the house. o 1884: Frederick Wm. Disney constructs 123 Bollingwood. o 1890 Census: Records are not available. o 1894: Property given to Lambert Disney. o 1900 Census: Lambert Disney and his nine children. (Disney’s wife died in 1895.) o 1907: Property sold to Stella Carver o 1908: Property sold to Frank Thornton. o 1910 Census: Thornton, his wife, and four daughters. o 1919: Property sold to Henry Corbet. o 1920 Census: Corbet, his wife, and two children. o 1923: Property sold to Albert Bolling, then to Arthur Keith. o 1930 Census: Keith, his wife, two children, and two servants. o 1940 Census: Keith, his wife, and three children. Jeff Dreyfus, Applicant – We were before the BAR in November with a concept sketch of this same small project. The response was favorable. Based on that, we have gone ahead and detailed the design to give you more nuance to what we’re talking about and to ideally receive approval for this component of a larger plan that our clients have for the property. What you see here is a more recent new landscape plan for the property. The landscape architect will probably be before you next month with a version of this plan. We included it here so you can understand that the future context ideally of the sliding glass door we’re talking about here. Relative to the project itself, you can see that Bollingwood Road is on the right. To the left is another parcel. Beyond that is Alderman Road. The sliding door is on the southwest/west elevation/southwest corner of the building. It is not seen from any public roads. It does currently open on to a bricked terrace. The future terrace will likely be bluestone. We’re not asking for any approvals. We would certainly entertain any commentary that you all have about this landscape concept plan. I am not prepared to talk about it. The idea here is that there will be a small plunge pool and a large entertaining area outside of this part of the house. You can see that this wing of the house is the kitchen and the family dining area. Next Slide This is the elevation that we’re talking about. It is interesting to see the evolution of the house, the telescoping additions here on the south end of the house. In the top left, you can even see a lean-to addition to the original farmhouse. The original farmhouse will be more exposed than some of the earlier photos. Outlined here in red is the location of the sliding door. On the right, we’re really talking about taking over those two windows and the door and maintaining the existing head height, 6 foot, 8 inches on the interior of the building as is that current door. On the right of the window, that small enclosure is the electric meter. We are going to need relocate that as part of this project. That has not been figured out yet. That will need to be moved. Next Slide These are some of the older photos of the house. The top right is the image that we’re talking about. On the original farmhouse, the lean-to is not yet in place in that photograph. Some of the first telescoping addition going out to the right is consumed by the lean-to that is added later. We have a series of not- original structures. 8 BAR Meeting Minutes May 17, 2022 Next Slide Here are the elevations: existing and proposed. With the proposed sliding glass door, we are working to minimize the amount of structure on the element. The idea here is to be distinctly different than the historic fabric of the house. In some of our earlier studies, we were looking at enlarging some of the openings on the original farmhouse on the left where the main living room is. The BAR was very opposed to modifying that façade. Our approach on this (the newer portions of the building) is to take a distinctly different approach and not pretend to be historic in any way, mimicking history, or trying to make it fit in. We’re going to distinctly modern with a three panels, sliding glass door. The two panels on the left will stack with the panel on the right. You can see the alignments that we’re going after with the left edge of the new unit aligning with the left unit of the window above it, similar to the one unit currently in its place, as well as the window on the right. Head height will mimic the existing door. Next Slide The house is currently grey, white, black shutters. The intent here is a metal surround that frames the opening, framed by a powder coated black seal surround. The sliding door system itself will likely be white. Black was a little ominous. It didn’t look quite right. We like the way white does relate (colorwise) to other elements of the existing house. The third element in the composition is the stoop, which will be bluestone to match the bluestone terrace that we’re showing here. The stoop stretches the width of the three panels. Compositionally, that’s the most settling and gratifying. The step down to the terrace is at the two doors for a little bit asymmetry. It is still a little bit more modern than if the step were to go the full width of the stoop because only those two panels on the left are operable. Next Slide This is the head-on elevation. We will be repairing any and all of the siding to match the existing siding. The intervention will require underpinning some footings in the basement. When we come back, we expect that it will look simply like a surgical cut all the way around. The siding will be repaired. Next Slide This is a section through the sliding glass door with elements called out. We also include here a plan on the far right. You can see exactly how the interior lays out. This will actually straddle the kitchen and the family dining room. Next Slide We did include some of the precedent images that we showed the BAR in November. The idea in all of these is that this is a very modern intervention in a historic structure, not trying to pretend to be anything other than that. Ms. Lewis – On the elevation concept where you show what this three panel window will look like, I can’t figure out whether it is recessed or whether it is proud. If you at it on the left hand side, it definitely looks not recessed. On the right hand side, it looks like it is proud. Mr. Dreyfus – The shadows are probably confusing. The reason the sliding door unit itself is just proud of the existing wall is structural. We are going to need to pour a new foundation and footing underneath there. We have studied the existing basement foundation. To put it in plane with the existing wall would 9 BAR Meeting Minutes May 17, 2022 potentially compromise the foundation. In this instance, the window is just proud of the plane of the existing wall. Beyond that, the metal surround is 8 inches proud of the wall. The window unit is about 4/4.5 inches deep. The metal surround is another 3.5/4 inches proud of the wall. QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No Questions from the Public QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Timmerman – I have a question about the screening systems. Is that going to be integrated? Mr. Dreyfus – There is a screen system that is integral to the frame. It disappears when it is not in use. It actually folds into the frame when the doors are closed. When the doors are open, you can pull the screen out of the frame. It actually attaches to the operable window edge. It is a German system and beautifully engineered. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC No Comments from the Public COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD Ms. Lewis – How old are the windows that we’re demolishing in order to accomplish this? Mr. Dreyfus – I am not sure any of us are clear when these additions came. I know that staff did some research. I don’t know that any of us were able to discern when these additions came. Mr. Werner – From the census data, there was a house built. Mr. Disney built the house. Ms. Lewis – The staff report says that you believe the rear addition, excluding the addition to the southwest corner likely dates between 1894 and prior to 1907. Mr. Werner – Yes. That is from the aerial photos. Nothing is clear. Mr. Watkins – This is the one historic photo that we have. I imagine that it was taken in the 70s. It shows the elevation in question. It is possible that these two windows on the first level are the two windows in question. A door has been inserted since then. These might be different. It is hard to tell. There has been this lean-to addition that consumed this space. Mr. Dreyfus – The one on the second story has been moved. It has a larger number of divided lights. Mr. Watkins – There have definitely been several different changes of just the apertures on this elevation. Jeff Elias, Owner – There are some original windows on the main portion under the single pane. The windows that we’re talking about are double pane windows. They’re different in the photo. Mr. Timmerman – When they moved window A, they also moved window B. Mr. Dreyfus – The lower window is still even closer to that line #4. Both of those windows to the left of the yellow line are further right than that earlier photograph. 10 BAR Meeting Minutes May 17, 2022 Mr. Gastinger – I felt comfortable that these windows would be removed. It did not seem to be that they were either, definitively original nor really critical to the buildings overall design or detailing. They are not visible from the street. I am in support of this project. I feel that it is an elegant solution that distinguishes the contemporary addition to the historic fabric. Mr. Timmerman – I agree. I am in support of it. It is an elegant solution in the way that it clearly contrasts with this historic fabric. There are some nice moves to relate to it. It improves the composition of that elevation. It will be a nice addition for that house. It will provide light for the owners. Mr. Bailey – I also think it is an elegant solution. I am a little amused by the addition of the extra shudder on the story above it. Mr. Gastinger – Mr. Dreyfus asked us if there was any guidance on the landscape plan since they will be presenting it shortly. Personally, I find it in keeping of the many ways that this landscape has been manipulated over the years. I don’t find anything particularly objectionable or out of line with our guidelines. Motion – Mr. Zehmer – Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City’s ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed alterations at 123 Bollingwood Road satisfies the BAR’s criteria and is compatible with this IPP and that the BAR approves the application as submitted. Mr. Lahendro seconds motion. Motion passes (8-0). D. Other Business Staff Questions/Discussion • There was a previous project that members of the BAR had been receiving emails about. Staff went over the purview of the BAR. The BAR does not have purview over zoning. The members of the BAR do not need to respond to the applicant. E. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 7:01 PM. 11 BAR Meeting Minutes May 17, 2022 BAR MINUTES CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW Regular Meeting July 19, 2922 – 5:00 PM Hybrid Meeting – City Space 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: Breck Gastinger, James Zehmer, Jody Lahendro, Cheri Lewis, Ron Bailey, Hunter Smith Staff Present: Patrick Cory, Jeff Werner, Robert Watkins, Remy Trail Pre-Meeting: Ms. Lewis staff about the details regarding the Downtown Mall possibly being added to the National Registry. Mr. Watkins provided details regarding the meeting that occurred on Monday. Mr. Zehmer had questions regarding the Preston Place, Court Square, and 14th Street COA applications on the Consent Agenda. Members of the BAR discussed those items on the Consent Agenda. After discussion, the Court Square and 14th Street COA applications were kept on the Consent Agenda. The Preston Place COA will remain on the Consent Agenda. It could be pulled following Public Comments. The BAR is going to be meeting at 4 PM at the Levy Building site to examine the building materials for the Courts Project for the regular August BAR meeting or a special BAR meeting on August 31st. The meeting was called to order at 5:31 PM by the Chairman. A. Matters from the public not on the agenda The BAR received comment from Paul Wright in regards to the Certificate of Appropriateness application for 605 Preston Place. He’d like to see details on how deep the proposed balconies will be. Beth Turner also spoke about 605 Preston Place. She asked the BAR to not allow the proposed changes to the building and to not allow more balconies. Balconies create noise and reduce privacy. 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 BAR Meeting Minutes July 19, 2022 1. Meeting Minutes September 21, 2021 2. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 22-06-02 636 Park Street, TMP 520113000 North Downtown ADC District (contributing) Owners and applicants: Jennifer and Blakely Greenhalgh Project: Rooftop solar panels 3. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 22-06-03 500 Court Square, TMP 530096000 North Downtown ADC District (contributing) Owner: Monticello Hotel Event & Receptions LLC; 500 Court Square LLC Applicant: Caitlin Byrd Schafer, Henningsen Kestner Architects Project: South addition--window replacements and fire escape alterations 4. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 22-07-02 123 Bollingwood Road, TMP 070022000 Individually Protected Property Owner: Juliana and William Elias Applicant: Gabrielle Sabri / Grounded LLC Project: Landscaping plan Link: http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/799485/2022- 07_123%20Bollingwood%20Road_BAR.pdf 5. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 22-07-04 207 14th Street, TMP 090070100 Rugby Road-University Circle-Venable ADC District Owner: University Hotel Management, LLC Applicant: Bill Chapman Project: Exterior alterations 6. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 22-07-03 605 Preston Place TMP 50111000 IPP and Rugby Road-University Circle-Venable ADC District Owner: Neighborhood Investment – PC, LP Applicant: Kevin Riddle, Mitchell Matthews Architects Project: Modify windows in new apartment building (CoA approved October 2021) Ms. Lewis moved to approve the Consent Agenda – Second by Mr. Lahendro – Motion passes 6-0. C. Deferred Items None D. New Items 7. Certificate of Appropriateness 2 BAR Meeting Minutes July 19, 2022 BAR 22-06-04 517 Rugby Road, TMP 050046000 Rugby Road-University Circle-Venable Neighborhood ADC District (contributing) Owner: Alumni of Alpha Mu, Inc. Applicant: Garett Rouzer, Dalgliesh Gilpin Paxton Architects Project: Porch repair and alterations and window sash replacements Request CoA to remove the non-historic decks flanking the front porch, re-construct the roof of the front porch, and replace all non-historic sash with Marvin sash replacement kits (new sash within frame inserts; existing wood frames and exterior trim to remain). Motion – Mr. Zehmer – Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find that the front porch repair, removal of non-historic porch wings, and window sash replacements at 517 Rugby Road satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are compatible with this property and other properties in the Rugby Road - University Circle - Venable Neighborhood ADC District, and that the BAR approves the application as submitted. Jody Lahendro seconds motion. Motion passes (5-0). 8. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 22-06-05 159 Madison Lane, TMP 090145000 The Corner ADC District (contributing) Owner: Montalto Corporation Applicant: Jack Cann, Montalto Corporation Project: Install brick infill panels (and other repairs to south porch) Request CoA to infill with brick the three, basement-level windows at the front of the porch. Link: http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/799486/2022- 07_159%20Madison%20Lane_BAR.pdf Motion – Ms. Lewis - Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City’s ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed infill of three masonry openings and other repairs noted at 159 Madison Lane satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are compatible with this district and that the BAR approves the application as submitted with the condition that the coursing, brick color and mortar be matched as closely to the historic as possible, and that the brick infill be set back several inches from the plane of the porch floor. Mr. Bailey seconds motion. Motion passes (5-0). 9. Sign Permit – BAR Consent for Design Approval BAR 22-06-01 550 East Water Street Suite 101, TMP 530162302 Downtown ADC District (contributing) Owner: Downtown Office, LLC Applicant: Kyle Gumlock, Gropen, Inc. Project: Install pole sign Motion – Ms. Lewis – Cheri Lewis: Having considered the pertinent sections of the City Code and the ADC Design Guidelines for Signs and per City Code Sec. 34-1041, I move the BAR 3 BAR Meeting Minutes July 19, 2022 concur with staff on the administrative approval of the design review component of the sign permit application for a pole sign at 550 East Water Street with the following conditions: • That the vertical post supporting the sign be set back equally with the first vertical post of the bike rack • That the pole sign design match the wall sign in lettering and background color • That this approval is explicitly for this one pole sign. Any future applications for pole signs for this building need to be submitted with a signage package for the entire parcel. Ron Bailey seconds motion. Motion passes (5-0). 10. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 22-06-06 0 Preston Place (also 508 and 516 Preston Place), TMP 050118001, 050118002 Rugby Road-University Circle-Venable ADC District Owner: Steve & Sue Lewis Applicant: Leigh Boyes Project: New residence CoA request to construct a new single-family residence and attached garage on vacant parcels. Link: http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/799484/2022- 07_0%20Preston%20Place_BAR.pdf Motion – Mr. Bailey – Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed single-family house and garage at 0 Preston Place satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are compatible with this property and other properties in the Rugby Road-University Circle-Venable Neighborhood ADC district, and that the BAR approves the application with the following conditions: • That the stone being repurposed for new walls be differentiated from the existing stone site retaining walls. Ms. Lewis seconds motion. Motion passes 4-1 (Lahendro opposed). 11. Recommendation to City Council – IPP Designation BAR 22-07-01 415/415-B 10th Street NW, TMP 4046000 Owner/Applicant: Dairy Holdings, LLC Former church, parish hall, and rectory for Trinity Episcopal Church Request for designation as an Individually Protected Property Motion – Mr. Lahendro - Having reviewed the criteria for designation of Individually Protected Properties per City Code Section 34-274, I move the BAR recommend that City Council approve the request to designate 415/415-B 10th Street NW (Parcel 4-46) an Individually Protected Property. Ms. Lewis seconds motion. Motion passes 5-0. H. Other Business 12. Updates 4 BAR Meeting Minutes July 19, 2022 Review of Courts Expansion • Meeting August 16th at Levy Building for Pre-Meeting at 4:00 PM. Zoning Rewrite • Mr. Schwarz (former BAR Chair) has been appointed to Planning Commission. Downtown Mall – update on VLR/NRHP nomination 13. Staff Questions • Current positions on BAR – Licensed Architect and Historian. • Possible Return to Normal Operations at City Hall. I. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:13 PM. 5 BAR Meeting Minutes July 19, 2022 BAR MINUTES CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW Regular Meeting August 16, 2022 – 5:00 PM (4:00 PM at the Levy Bulding) Hybrid Meeting – City Space and Levy Building Welcome to this Regular Monthly Meeting of the Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review (BAR). Due to the current public health emergency, this meeting is being held online via Zoom. The meeting process will be as follows: For each item, staff will make a brief presentation followed by the applicant’s presentation, after which members of the public will be allowed to speak. Speakers shall identify themselves, and give their current address. Members of the public will have, for each case, up to three minutes to speak. Public comments should be limited to the BAR’s jurisdiction; that is, regarding the exterior design of the building and site. Following the BAR’s discussion, and before the vote, the applicant shall be allowed up to three minutes to respond, for the purpose of clarification. Thank you for participating. Members Present: James Zehmer, Jody Lahendro, Breck Gastinger, Cheri Lewis, David Timmerman (4:00 PM Levy Building), Ron Bailey (City Space) Staff Present: Patrick Cory, Robert Watkins, Jeff Werner, Remy Trails Pre-Meeting: The applicants Walter Harris (Albemarle County Project Manager), Steve White, and Eric Amtmann (Frentress Architects) presented the different brick colors and mortar to members of the BAR at the Levy Building. The applicants presented three different brick and mortar colors to compare with the current bricks on the Levy Building. There was a discussion regarding the open spots on the BAR. There is a need for an architect, historian, and a representative from the Planning Commission. There is an active recruiting for these open positions on the BAR. Item 6 on the Agenda has been removed. It will be approved administratively by staff. There was discussion regarding the other items on the Agenda in front of the BAR tonight. A separate COA is going to be submitted for the color palate for the new courthouse building. The COA on the meeting agenda is going to be for the design of the new courthouse. There will be a special BAR meeting on August 31, 2022 to discuss the color palates of the bricks. The meeting was called to order at 5:31 PM by the Chairman. A. Matters from the public not on the agenda No Public 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. Meeting Minutes October 19, 2021 Ms. Lewis moved to approve Consent Agenda – Mr. Zehmer second the motion – Motion passes 6-0. 1 BAR Meeting Minutes August 16, 2022 C. Deferred Items 2. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 21-07-05 350 Park Street, TMP 530109000 and 530108000 North Downtown ADC District Owner: City of Charlottesville and County of Albemarle Applicant: Eric Amtmann, DGP Architects [on behalf of Albemarle County] Project: New courthouse building (at Levy Building) Note: Courts expansion: If necessary, discuss possible Special Meeting Aug 31? CoA request for construction of an addition to the Levy Building and new construction related to the expansion of the City-County Courts Complex. Link: http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/799518/2022- 08_350%20Park%20Street_BAR.pdf Motion – Mr. Bailey – Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City Design Guidelines for Public Design and Improvements, I move to find that the proposed courts expansion project at the Levy Building satisfies the BAR’s criteria and is compatible with the North Downtown ADC District, and that the BAR approves the application as submitted, including the proposed brick size and coursing, with the condition that a further CoA be submitted in which the BAR considers the building’s material palette, including the colors of the brick and trim, before the project moves forward. Ms. Lewis seconds motion. Motion passes (6-0). D. New Items 3. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 22-08-01 Downtown Mall Downtown ADC District Owner: City of Charlottesville Applicant: Riaan Anthony, Parks and Recreation Project: Install grates at three mall fountains Request CoA for the installation of metal grates, painted black, t the three (3) small fountain on the Downtown Mall: • between 2nd Street West and 1st Street, • between 2nd Street East and 3rd Street East, • between 4th Street East and 5th Street East. Installation of the grates is in response to concerns regarding pedestrian safety on the Downtown Mall and potential liability relative to provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The grates (painted black) will be installed flush with the brick pavers, set on metal brackets anchored to the fountain’s granite blocks and are intended to be permanent. The grating is constructed of 1” x 3/16” slats, spaced 1/2” apart on perpendicular metal rods. (Note: At this time, no related or similar alterations have been proposed for the fountain at Central Place.) Motion – Ms. Lewis - Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City Design Guidelines for Public Design and Improvements, I move to find that the proposed fountain grates do not satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are not compatible with the Downtown Mall and the 2 BAR Meeting Minutes August 16, 2022 Downtown ADC district, and that for the following reasons the BAR denies the application as submitted: • The application violates the following guideline from Chapter IV of the ADC District Design Guidelines: B. Plazas, Parks & Open Spaces 1. Maintain existing spaces and important site features for continued use consistent with the original design intent. • That the proposed design is inconsistent with the original Halprin design intent for the fountains because the grates obscure the sight and sound of the basin, and that the grates could cause additional water splashing that has not been considered. Jody Lahendro seconds motion. Motion passes (6-0). 4. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 22-08-02 800 East Market Street, TMP 530160000 Downtown ADC District (contributing property) Owner: City of Charlottesville Applicant: Scott Hendrix, Facilities Development Division Project: Roof replacement, Key Recreation Center Request for CoA to repair/replace roof, including the slate roof and the membrane roofs behind the parapet walls. Any necessary trim repairs will match existing. (See images in Appenddix.) Note: While this is being reviewed as a CoA request, Facilities Development has stated this is intended as a preliminary discussion and they seek from the BAR recommendations, suggestions, and any questions related to the options available. With that, staff anticipates the matter will be deferred following the discussion. Link: http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/799515/2022- 08_800%20East%20Market%20Street_Preliminary%20Discussion.pdf No action was taken. 5. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 22-08-03 210 West Market Street, TMP 330271000 Downtown ADC District (contributing property) Owner: McSwain Properties LLC Applicant: Jeff Dreyfus, Bushman Dreyfus Architects/ Heirloom Development, LLC Project: Building demolition Request for the demolition of existing commercial building. From applicant’s submittal: 210 West Market Street presents an opportunity for the City to further its stated goals for the Downtown Mixed-Use Corridor of increased commerce and additional housing in the entertainment and employment center of our town. Looking at the current and future expansion of Charlottesville, the BAR must identify opportunities for accommodating growth in ways that are sensitive to our historic urban fabric by protecting important structures in our cultural and urban development while recognizing that some old buildings must be allowed to be taken down to make way for the future. With that in mind, the BAR approved demolition of the neighboring structure at 218 West Market Street in 2019. Approval to demolish 210 West Market Street would be consistent 3 BAR Meeting Minutes August 16, 2022 with the BAR’s previous action, serving the long-term greater good to the City by making way for increased density on the site, rather than maintaining the existing structure with its suburban model of parking between the street and the building Link: http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/799514/2022- 08_210%20West%20Market%20Street_BAR.pdf Motion – Ms. Lewis - Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed demolition of 210 West Market Street satisfies the BAR’s criteria and guidelines and is compatible with this property and other properties in the Downtown ADC District, and that the BAR approves the application as submitted. Staff approval of the demolition permit [when that application is submitted] is contingent upon: • Applicant providing for the BAR record documentation of the existing building. In addition to the photos provided, documentation will include dimensioned floor plans and elevations. • An approved building permit for construction of the new building. Mr. Lahendro seconds the motion. Motion passed (6-0). E. Other Business 6. Preliminary Discussion 921 Rugby Road, TMP 020072000 Rugby Road HC District Owner: Grave and John Coleman Applicant: Keith Scott, Rosey Architects Project: Shed demo, landscape alterations • Staff presented the project to the members of the BAR. The property does lie within a Conservation District. • Staff can review projects administratively through permission from the BAR. • There was discussion on whether there were any guidelines within the Conservation Guidelines that staff would have to get permission from the BAR. • Members of the BAR expressed support for the proposed project. • Ms. Lewis did bring up the upcoming changes that are going to be made through the zoning ordinance rewrite and future density. Link: http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/799522/2022- 08_921%20Rugby%20Road_Preliminary%20Discussion.pdf The Following items were removed from the Agenda. 7. Staff questions/discussion 612 Locust Avenue, TMP 510039000 Martha Jefferson HC District Project: Shed/garage demo 311 East Market Street. Downtown ADC District Project: Foundation vents F. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:56 PM 4 BAR Meeting Minutes August 16, 2022 BAR MINUTES CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW Regular Meeting September 20, 2022 – 5:00 PM Hybrid Meeting – City Space Welcome to this Regular Monthly Meeting of the Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review (BAR). Due to the current public health emergency, this meeting is being held online via Zoom. The meeting process will be as follows: For each item, staff will make a brief presentation followed by the applicant’s presentation, after which members of the public will be allowed to speak. Speakers shall identify themselves, and give their current address. Members of the public will have, for each case, up to three minutes to speak. Public comments should be limited to the BAR’s jurisdiction; that is, regarding the exterior design of the building and site. Following the BAR’s discussion, and before the vote, the applicant shall be allowed up to three minutes to respond, for the purpose of clarification. Thank you for participating. Members Present: Cheri Lewis, James Zehmer, Carl Schwarz, Breck Gastinger, Ron Bailey, Tyler Whitney, David Timmerman Staff Present: Patrick Cory, Jeff Werner, Remy Trail Pre-Meeting: There was discussion with the 0 Third Street Northeast preliminary discussion. There was discussion around receiving materials, messages, and comments before the start of BAR meetings. Staff went over the items on the agenda. The discussion was over the 1301 Wertland project and the need for a formal Certificate of Appropriateness Application. The applicant for 0 Third Street Northeast is looking to possibly get the project onto the October BAR meeting agenda. There was discussion regarding public comments during preliminary discussions. The meeting was called to order at 5:30 PM by the Chairman. A. Matters from the public not on the agenda No Public Comments B. Consent Agenda (Note: Any consent agenda item may be pulled and moved to the regular agenda if a BAR member wishes to discuss it, or if any member of the public is present to comment on it. Pulled applications will be discussed at the beginning of the meeting.) 1. Meeting Minutes – November 16, 2021 Mr. Schwarz moved to approve the Consent Agenda (Second by Ms. Lewis) – Motion passes 7-0. C. Deferred Items NA D. New Items 1 BAR Meeting Minutes September 20, 2022 2. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 22-09-01 608 Preston Avenue, TMP 320014000 Individually protected Property Owner: King Lumber Partners, LLC Applicant: Bradley Kipp/Random Row Brewery Project: Random Row Brewery – enclosed patio area CoA request for the construction of a metal canopy at the front (northeast) elevation of annex building. Canopy will be supported by 6 steel I-beams that match I-beams at present front entrance as well as those supporting smaller canopy at building rear. Canopy will be clad in metal tuff-rib panel. Link: http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/800288/2022- 09_608%20Preston%20Avenue_BAR.pdf Motion – Ms. Lewis – Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed patio canopy at 608 Preston Avenue satisfies the BAR’s criteria and is compatible with this property and other Individually Protected Properties, and that the BAR approves the application as submitted with the condition the colors will match the information provided by the applicant [1], the gutters and downspouts will be black, and staff will review the building permit drawings for consistency with this CoA [2]. Mr. Bailey, second. Motion passes 6-0. 3. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 22-09-02 113 West Main Street, TMP 330259000 Downtown ADC District Owner: West Mall, LLC Applicant: Ben Wilkes/United Way Project: Mural Link: http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/800287/2022- 09_113%20West%20Main%20Street_BAR.pdf Motion – Mr. Bailey - Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City Design Guidelines for Rehabilitation, and Public Design and Improvements, I move to find that the proposed mural at 113 West Main Street satisfies the BAR’s criteria and is compatible with this property and other properties in the Downtown ADC District, and that the BAR approves the application as submitted; however, omitting the QR code and pie chart [at the lower section of the mural]. Mr. Zehmer, second. Motion passes 6-0. Discussion following the second of the above motion. 4. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 22-09-03 1301 Wertland Street, TMP 040303000 Wertland Street ADC District Owner: Roger and Jean Davis, Trustees Applicant: Kevin Schafer/Design Develop Project: New apartment building/existing Wertenbaker House c1830 2 BAR Meeting Minutes September 20, 2022 Link: http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/799369/2022- 02_1301%20Wertland%20Street_Preliminary%20Discussion.pdf Applicant requests a deferral to a future BAR meeting – Motion to Accept Deferral – Ms. Lewis – Second by Mr. Gastinger. 5. Certificate of Appropriateness Preliminary Discussion (no action to be taken) BAR 22-09-04 0 3rd Street NE, TMP 330020001 North Downtown ADC District Owner: Scott Loughery Applicant: Candace Smith, Architect Project: New residence on vacant lot Link: http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/800285/2022- 09_0%203rd%20Street%20NE_Preliminary%20Discussion.pdf E. Other Business 6. Preliminary Discussion Discussion: No action to be taken. Modifications to approved façade. BAR 20-11-03 (December 2021- approved CoA) 612 West Main Street (also 602-616), Tax Parcel 290003000 West Main ADC District Owner: Heirloom West Main Street Second Phase LLC Applicant: Jeff Dreyfus, Bushman Dreyfus Architects Project: Construction of a mixed-use building 7. Staff questions/discussion Church Solar Panels 32 University Circle – 1940s Metal Windows F. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 10:07 PM. 3 BAR Meeting Minutes September 20, 2022 BAR MINUTES CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW Regular Meeting October 18. 2022 – 5:00 PM Hybrid Meeting – City Space 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 and in person at City Space. 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: Tyler Whitney, James Zehmer, Ron Bailey, Carl Schwarz, Breck Gastinger, Cheri Lewis, David Timmerman Staff Present: Patrick Cory, Remy Trail, Jeff Werner Pre-Meeting: There was no Pre-Meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:30 PM by the Chairman. A. Matters from the public not on the agenda No Public Comments B. Consent Agenda (Note: Any consent agenda item may be pulled and moved to the regular agenda if a BAR member wishes to discuss it, or if any member of the public is present to comment on it. Pulled applications will be discussed at the beginning of the meeting.) 1. Meeting Minutes – December 21, 2021 Meeting Mr. Zehmer moved to pass Consent Agenda – Second by Ms. Lewis – Motion passes 7-0. C. Deferred Items 2. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR # 22-09-04 0 3rd Street NE, TMP 330020001 North Downtown ADC District Owner: Scott Loughery Applicant: Candace Smith, Architect Project: New residence on vacant lot 1 BAR Meeting Minutes October 18, 2022 Link: http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/800298/2022- 10_0%203rd%20Street%20NE_BAR.pdf Motion – The Applicant requests a deferral – Motion to accept deferral – Mr. Gastinger – Second by Mr. Schwarz – Mr. Schwarz. Motion passes 7-0. 3. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR # 22-09-03 1301 Wertland Street, TMP 040303000 Wertland Street ADC District Owner: Roger and Jean Davis, Trustees Applicant: Kevin Schafer/Design Develop Project: New apartment building/existing Wertenbaker House c1830 Link: http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/800290/2022- 10_1301%20Wertland%20Street_BAR.pdf Applicant requests a deferral – Mr. Bailey moves to accept deferral – Second by Mr. Bailey – Motion passes 7-0. D. New Items 4. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR # 22-10-01 1109 & 1121 Wertland Street (1025-1213), TMP 040305000 Wertland Street ADC District Owner: Neighborhood Investments--WS Applicant: Richard Spurzem Project: Rehabilitate exterior siding and trim Request CoA to remove the existing siding and trim to expose original wood below. Then, as needed, repair existing or replace with wood material. Link: http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/800291/2022- 10_1109%201121%20Wertland%20Street_BAR.pdf Motion – Mr. Schwarz - Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City Design Guidelines for ADC Districts, I move to find that the proposed exterior rehabilitations at 1109 and 1121 Wertland Street satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are compatible with this property and other properties in the Wertland Street ADC District, and that the BAR approves the application as summited, with the following modifications and/or conditions • If replacement of potions of the exposed siding and trim is necessary, the new will match the dimensions and scale, including the exposure dimension of the siding and general profile of any trim components. • Owners and contractor shall consult with City staff regarding unsalvageable original materials and selecting appropriate replacement material. • Applicant to provide for the BAR record progress photos of the work, including the original material and of the project upon completion. Mr. Zehmer, second. Motion passed 6-0. 2 BAR Meeting Minutes October 18, 2022 5. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR # 22-10-02 101 East Jefferson Street, TMP 330190000 North Downtown ADC District (contributing) Owner: First United Methodist Church Applicant: William L. Owens, AIA Project: Install rooftop solar panels Jeff Werner - [summarized Staff Report] William Owens, Applicant – I am the architect shepherding the project for First United Methodist Church. I am also a trustee of the church. The church has received an offer of a sizeable donation to add solar panels to the building and to reduce the church’s electrical demands as part of an ongoing green initiative at the church. The church’s goal is to cover at least 50 percent of their yearly electrical expenses at a savings of about $10,000 to $15,000 per year through the use of solar panels. The photo simulations, you have been provided, show the number and placement of solar panels as estimated by Tiger Solar as best to achieve this goal. The church would like to have an understanding of what the city and BAR would approve visually for the placement of panels on the existing roof. The roof surfaces of the church are not visible from the surrounding block except for the church’s own parking lot and directly in front of their courtyard. Only those at a distance and elevated will be able to see the solar panels. I also provided information on how the roofer would propose to attach the solar panel rack system through the existing slate roof. All electrical connections would be made through the attic or basement, except for a single conduit running up the back panel array and down the north face of the steeple to the existing electrical service in the courtyard. The church is more than happy to provide the city additional details on the design of the system as it is engineered. They would have a sense to what extent they would be permitted to have panels on the roof surfaces before going through the time and effort to have the system designed. QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Schwarz – The photo simulations you are showing us, that’s what you would like to do? Mr. Owens – Yes. That is what Tiger Solar is telling us would maximize the solar gain for the project. It is around 200 [to] 220 panels. It is not totally defined. The goal was to reduce the church to as close to net zero as possible. We’re still working through the numbers on kilowatt hours. We have everything from at least 50 percent up to 75 percent, depending on where we place them. This is the estimate based for solar design, where they should be. The initial submittal to staff showed them on the portico roof that I had corrected immediately. Hopefully, you have the newer submission, which has them removed from the portico and put on the back courtyard roof. Mr. Gastinger – I have a question about the mounts that was included in the packet. How often do those need to be in use? Are they essentially at the corner of every panel? Mr. Owens – My understanding is that the panels mount on a continual channel. These mounts would be every six feet to support this continuous channel. Once we have a sense of where this is going to go, we will work with the roofer on what is involved. We have an obligation to this donor to see this through. They have specifically pledged this money for this specific idea. 3 BAR Meeting Minutes October 18, 2022 Mr. Timmerman – Last time, somebody had a good idea of potentially locating the panels in the parking lot on the northeast side. Has that been looked at as a potential option as a way of taking some of the panels off the roof/off the slate? Mr. Owens – No. I am not sure what is meant by that. Mr. Timmerman – I have been in car parks where there is a framework. The panels mount overhead ten feet up and angled in a way to catch the sun’s rays. They also create some shading for the cars. Mr. Owens – My presumption would be that would be less desirable than disguising them on the roof. We haven’t really explored that. I guess it is something we can talk about. COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Gastinger – We should break this into two parts. I am guessing there are two major considerations. One is the impact on the historic district and the roofline of the structure. The second consideration being the detail and the issues relative to the preservation of the slate. Let’s talk about the first one. Are there questions or concerns about the panels’ installation relative to the historic district or to the roofline? Mr. Zehmer – Within the guidelines under Rehabilitation, Section G-Roof, Note-8, place solar collectors and antennae on non-character defining roofs or roofs of non-historic adjacent buildings. We need to determine whether the main roof of the sanctuary is a character defining roof. We need to get over that hurdle first. I would argue that it is the main roof of the building. I also think they have a valiant goal. If there are ways we can help them achieve it, we should. Mr. Schwarz – The fact is that it is not really visible from anywhere within close proximity. It is a character defining roof. You have to be standing back pretty far to see the roof. I agree with them not putting them on the portico. Anywhere else would be acceptable to our guidelines. I also do not believe it will change the profile of the roof to obscure any massing of the building. They are so relatively flat to the roof. I think that helps. Mr. Gastinger – That slim profile is important to me. It doesn’t seem like it is going to really substantively change the profile against the sky or the roof itself. In an ideal world, they might be tiles. In some day, they might be tiles. I really wouldn’t think there would be an issue with it. For me, I don’t think it has an adverse impact on the district or the structure from a profile standpoint. Mr. Timmerman – I felt that way last month when I was looking at all of the street views. You can’t really see them. I guess looking at this image of the solar panels on a fairly identifiable historic building has changed my mind. In keeping with the standards, the minor buildings are one thing. The next time we see this shot, are we prepared to see the oldest churches in the downtown with that roof covering? For me, it comes down that I am more concerned about the material of the roof, the damage they could potentially do. I am concerned about having a viable, really durable material in the slate, and doing something to it that will adversely affect it. Mr. Bailey – I practically walk by the church every day. I have never noticed the roof. I don’t think it is character defining in that sense. It is an old, durable roof. If the church is not worried about the fact that it may break down, why should I worry about it? 4 BAR Meeting Minutes October 18, 2022 Mr. Whitney – I would be in favor of proceeding with the solar panels and letting the church go the route of installing it. If it is visible, it is something of the church in a forward thinking direction. Since it is not visible by most viewpoints, I don’t see any reason why they shouldn’t proceed going with the solar panels. Mr. Gastinger – Let’s talk about the potential risk to the slate. The city recently explored replacing the slate on Key Recreation Center. We went through an enlightening discussion about the care and repair necessary and the state of slate supply currently in the market. This was a recent conversation we have had amongst the BAR. Mr. Zehmer – You know that the Buckingham slate has dried up in the quarry. It is really difficult to get these days. The message is to be cautious. It seems to me that this is an installation method that would potentially do a lot of damage to the roof; not just for cutting the slate with the grinder and popping that slate that you need for each of these mounting points. The fact is that the installer is going to be walking all over your slate roof. The potential to break slate is very high. I say that as a cautionary note and having worked on slate roofs. There is a lot of caution that would go behind this. It would behoove you all to do some research and see if there are other slate roofs that this company has worked on and can show you where they have successfully installed the solar panels. Go see those projects so you can rest assured that they can do a good job. Talk to their clients as well as the contractor to make sure the client was happy with the job. It might be worth exploring within your parking areas. It might be where a solution is actually less expensive than going on the roof. It might be worth exploring. If you can find something else that might be acceptable and is less expensive and meet your energy goals, maybe that is a ‘win-win.’ Mr. Bailey – Would you be willing to watch a solar farm built next to the church in a historic district? Mr. Zehmer – I am not over the fact that it is a character defining roof. It is the main roof of the main part of the sanctuary. Mr. Timmerman – For me, it would depend on the design of it. I think you can design something in a reasonable way. The parking lot, as it sits right now, is pretty empty. Mr. Owens – We would have to elevate it to get around the trees. That’s the advantage of the sanctuary since it is up high. Applicant #2 – Ten feet off the ground is not going to do it. We have another building. There is a 6 foot rock wall with a big house. It has shade. To get it through approval down there, there are a lot of things there. Mr. Werner – If this was an asphalt roof, I probably would have had this on the Consent Agenda. Breck asked the right question. “What is our charge?” I am probably speaking more from my years in construction than necessarily from the guidelines. It is appropriate for the BAR to be asking that question. I don’t know. Mr. Gastinger – I think that we would agree that the slate roof is a character defining feature of this church. If the proposal was to take the slate off and sell it to the city for Key Recreation Center, I don’t think we would approve that. We do have a role in trying to steer towards the protection of that roof and the protection of that detail in materiality. As citizens, we want to make sure that you do that, look at this material carefully. It obviously may save the congregation money in the long term. We don’t want it to be a risky move that could cause other headaches down the road. I wish there was a system that allowed for fewer penetrations. It seems like a very labor intensive and detailed installation on a delicate surface. I would also note, as someone who sits on a church board, if that risk is seen as too high, I would encourage 5 BAR Meeting Minutes October 18, 2022 you to think creatively about the strength of having a congregation. There are maybe things that you can do at the congregation scale of many residences throughout the city that could have as much or bigger impact overall. Mr. Timmerman – I am looking at the parking lot. There’s a pretty clear view of the west side of the main roof. Mr. Schwarz – A question for the installer: If the technology changes and you want to take these off and put a different panel on, what is the process of putting the slate back? It looks like you’re replacing more than just one slate. If you took one of these mounts off, how many slates are damaged, destroyed, removed, or would have to be to put a new slate back in that spot? What would be the scale of replacement should the solar panels have to be removed? Mr. Owens – I wasn’t completely thrilled with the system and with the penetrations that were involved. I couldn’t get as much participation from the roofer as I wanted (ahead of time) to resolve this. I would pursue it myself. I would much rather see something that was removable that replaced the slate and the slate could be salvaged in theory and then put back rather than damaging a slate by doing it. That’s something we haven’t resolved. We’re here because we have a specific obligation to us. The donor is wanting to give a large amount of money for this specifically (yes or no) to see that out. We’re trying to respond back to them, as a first step here. We will work out the details to what you think is warranted to make you all comfortable with what we’re doing. I certainly do understand. A lot of this could have been addressed by the solar company and the roofer. We could have hashed out something to save us a second visit. I agree with some of your comments in theory. Applicant #2 – We want that roof. We’re not going to do something that we feel and we can’t prove that it is going to be done properly. We intend to keep the roof. We have no reason to think that it is going anywhere else. The engineering and the research is going to be done. We don’t want to do it and come here and say we can’t put solar panels on a roof. Construction is slammed. It still is slammed in Charlottesville. Once we get the ‘go ahead,’ we can roll. We will not put it on that roof if it is going to delay or hurt the life of that roof. Mr. Gastinger – I am sure that you are more worried about that than we are. Applicant #2 – We have to deal with the leaks. We have enough of them. We understand. We’re making arrangements that we’re not going to put the panels straight through without any way to walk between them. We have to get to them. Slate contracts and expands all the time. We’re going to have to get behind those panels to fix it. We will make arrangements. We’re going to do that without taking the whole roof off. We have thought through things. We know what we have to do. We certainly expect to be convinced in our own mind that this is going to be done and the roof will be lasting. If we can’t, the solar panel might go away. Mr. Gastinger – I felt generally that there was consensus that the panels could be placed on this roof without adverse effect to the historic district or the building because of its low profile. What I heard is that we have concerns about the slate. There is some openness if we had more information. You feel like this is going to protect the roof. That is something we would be prepared to support. It might be that there is a different system. It might be there is someone who has a direct experience with that installation. Generally, this Board supports your effort and just wants to make sure we can do what we can to support you doing it the best way possible. 6 BAR Meeting Minutes October 18, 2022 Mr. Schwarz – It sounds like there are four of us tonight that seem to be supporting this idea. One person, who left earlier, denied a previous solar panel application. It might be closer than what it looks. Mr. Gastinger – I would also note that, not only is Jeff [staff] open for continued conversation, if you have questions or get more information, it is also possible to reach out to Board members. We can give you feedback prior to the next meeting. Mr. Owens – I understand the concern with the installation. I am not sure I am clear where we are with a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ with us going further. If we get a ‘no,’ what do I do when I leave here is substantially different. I certainly understand the concerns with the installation. I am pursuing a better solution possibly there. I don’t disagree. Mr. Gastinger – There’s a majority here that would support the location of the panels on the roof. Mr. Bailey – Shouldn’t we go through that with a motion? That’s what you’re here for. Mr. Owens – If Board members are not here, they are not here. Mr. Bailey – There is a suggested motion in the packet. (Mr. Bailey did read the motion from the packet). Mr. Gastinger – I don’t know if there’s the same amount of comfort with the detail yet; not that it wouldn’t be approvable. It seems like we need to have a little bit more information. Mr. Bailey – I can make the motion to approve. We can vote and they can decide what to do next. Mr. Owens – What I would be looking to avoid is that we have to come back and we have a different variable on the Board and we wasted the time to pursue something. Mr. Schwarz – As Breck recommended, it might be a good idea to reach out to us outside of the meeting by email and specifically reaching out to the members who are not here. I don’t think we can give them that because we have an incomplete Board. I don’t think we can vote tonight. Mr. Owens – Can you do the approval of the installation rooftop solar units with the caveat providing additional information on the installations to still be reviewed? Mr. Schwarz – We have gotten into trouble with that in the past. Applicant #2 – Is the installation reviewable by the city? Mr. Werner – This is another interesting question of what requires a building permit for roofing. I know there is an electrical permit involved. I don’t know about a roofing permit. It would not be an evaluation of the methodology. I am thinking back to when we talked about Key Recreation Center. I was surprised when they said that they would have 30 percent salvageable material. Having worked with and talked with the applicant about this, there is this understanding that the congregation is going to evaluate that. They’re not going to put somebody up on that roof if it damages the roof. I don’t know if you can say that in a motion. That’s the sense I get. They can’t move forward with that detailed evaluation without an affirmative or a negative. The choice would be to make a motion and make a vote. If it is a negative vote, they can appeal that to Council or take it as it is. If it’s a positive vote, they can move forward with the COA. If you have any ideas of provisions/conditions that don’t require a [later] subjective decision on my part. We can move forward with that. 7 BAR Meeting Minutes October 18, 2022 Mr. Owens – You’re not comfortable doing 50-50 or something. They do that in the county more often. I understand your concerns and they are warranted. I would like to address them. I would like to get out of here with enough confidence that we can do that and be able to resolve that. One proposal that the solar company had was to completely remove the roofing underneath the panels that would not be visible and put something that is actually easier to deal with as far as walkability. We decided that wasn’t the way to go. It does provide an easier solution on one end. Mr. Werner – Another option that the BAR has (you have 30 days to act on this). You can move to defer to the November meeting. They would have to come back and present this. You do have that ability. It forces the issue, but it is available. Mr. Gastinger – I want to ask [the BAR] if you feel that you could support this project with a little more confidence in the installation method. The panels are located as they are proposed either with a little more information or an improved mounting method. Do you feel that you could support this project? Mr. Timmerman – I would support it with a condition that we would avoid the planes that you could see from the ground. That probably knocks out the east sides. For me, it is the same thing as Key Recreation Center. I feel that we are here to maintain the unique character of the downtown. That’s our main job. That is something I appreciate every time I go over the Belmont Bridge. I see that roof. That’s one of the many details that I respond to as being part of the things I appreciate about the downtown. Applicant #2 – The southeast side of the sanctuary dropped [?] 46 kW of power. That’s half of the solar. We lose that whole sanctuary roof. Mr. Gastinger – Ron, you’re supportive as it is? Mr. Bailey – I am supportive as it currently is. I can’t believe these guys are going to let their roof leak if they can avoid it. Mr. Schwarz – In theory, I side with Ron. I need to see more detailing. Mr. Gastinger – I am seeing 4 votes in favor with a little more assurance on the detailing of the installation. There are 2 votes with some reservations. I can’t speak to the outstanding votes. Applicant #2 – Can we get approval for the panels and come back before doing any installation and present what we’re doing? Mr. Gastinger – There’s only one Certificate of Appropriateness. Applicant #2 – How do we know when we’re going to come back and present the details when we have spent $10,000 and you say ‘no?’ Mr. Owens – They are not going to say ‘no.’ They’re going to have a different dynamic on the Board that could say ‘no.’ Mr. Schwarz – What is your timeline? Are you in a hurry to do this? Could it be postponed a month for you to come back and we have more members present? 8 BAR Meeting Minutes October 18, 2022 Mr. Owens – I don’t think there is any hurry other than the wasted effort in that intervening time. We’re hoping to come out of here with some kind of agreed opinion from all of you. We can go back to the donor and see if there is still interest. The donation, as I understand it, is maximizing the solar output of the church that gets as close to zero as possible. I understand the concerns. I wish we had split it. That would be the most practical solution. I wish the roofer was here and tell you how he is going to do it. We’re stuck here with what we’re allowed to do. Mr. Schwarz – You don’t necessarily need to do the homework in the next month. If you can put the expense of doing any design work and figuring out if you can postpone that until we have a more complete Board. That might give you a little more assurance. Alex Joyner, Pastor – One of our hopes and the donor’s hope is that this could be an encouragement to other people in the congregation and to people in the city to consider solar energy to do what the city has said that it wants to do, which is environmental care. It matches the congregation’s values and the city’s values. I am sure you’re going to be getting more requests for solar panels. I realize that we are at forefront of that. It’s a question that is not going to go away for you. Mr. Gastinger – Our guidelines do encourage us to try to find ways to make it work. We just want to make sure you don’t end up in a bind. We can put the motion. I don’t think it would pass this evening. If we deny it, it can be appealed directly to City Council. Another option is we defer it. It would be on next month’s meeting agenda. You can request a deferral which gives you the option of coming back at your convenience. Motion – Mr. Bailey - Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find the proposed roof-top solar panels at 101 East Jefferson Street satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are compatible with this property and other properties in the North Downtown ADC District, and that the BAR approves the application as submitted. Whitney, second. Motion failed 2-4. (Y: Bailey, Whitney. N: Zehmer, Gastinger, Timmerman, Schwarz.) Link: http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/800297/2022- 10_101%20East%20Jefferson%20Street_BAR.pdf Applicant requests a deferral – Mr. Schwarz moved to accept for deferral – Mr. Bailey second. Motion approved 6-0. 6. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR # 22-10-03 612 West Main Street (also 602-616), TMP 290003000 West Main ADC District Owner: Heirloom West Main Street Second Phase LLC Applicant: Jeff Dreyfus, Bushman Dreyfus Architects Project: New building: modification to approved façade Link: http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/800295/2022- 10_612%20W%20Main%20Street_BAR.pdf 9 BAR Meeting Minutes October 18, 2022 Motion – Mr. Gastinger - Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find the proposed façade alterations at 612 West Main Street satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are compatible with this property and other properties in the West Main Street ADC District, and that the BAR approves the application as submitted with the following conditions: • that the BAR see a sample panel mock-up of the EIFS and stucco materials to confirm its color, texture, and that there will be sufficient differentiation between the various portions of the building and we suggest the mock-up be built with a north orientation. Mr. Bailey, second. Motion passed 6-0. E. Other Business 7. Discussion: No action to be taken. Request: Options for the required height step backs. BAR # 19-09-04 (Sept 2019: BAR recommended SUP would have no adverse impact.) 218 West Market Street, TMP 330276000 Owner: Market Street Promenade, LLC, Owner Applicant: Heirloom Real Estate Holdings LLC, Applicant Project: New structure • The applicant presented the application the options for the required height step backs. • The applicant is going to go for an amendment to the SUP. • The applicant is seeking input and advice for the possible height step backs • The applicant is going to be coming back to the BAR in the future seeking a recommendation for the Special Use Permit to Council. • Members of the Board did provide their suggestions and feedback to the applicant on how to improve the application. • The members of the Board were very supportive of what the applicant is proposing for the property on 218 West Market Street. Link: http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/800296/2022- 10_218%20West%20Market%20Street_BAR.pdf 8. Discussion: No action to be taken. Request: Relocate c1900 building approx. 25-feet towards street. 1025 Wertland Street, (1025-1213), TMP 040305000 Wertland Street ADC District Owner: Neighborhood Investments --WS Applicant: Kevin Riddle, Mitchell Matthews • The applicant presented what they are proposing what they are planning to do with the house on the subject property. • One member of the Board were very supportive of the applicant moving the building at the address 25 feet forward. • The applicant did state that there was a public benefit for moving the house forward 25 feet on the same parcel. • The other members of the Board were not very supportive of the applicant moving the building at the subject property. • There was general consensus that the guidelines will not allow for the moving of the house 25 feet. 9. Staff Questions/Discussion • Intro: 300 Court Square • BAR Notebook 10 BAR Meeting Minutes October 18, 2022 • Mall Trees • BAR Awards 2022 F. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 10:34 PM. 11 BAR Meeting Minutes October 18, 2022 Final Actions City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Regular Meeting November 15, 2022, 5:30 p.m. Member present J. Zehmer Members absent B. Gastinger (remote) T. Whitney C. Lewis C. Schwarz R. Birle R. Bailey D. Timmerman J. Werner (staff) [Note: Currently eight BAR members. Ninth seat is vacant, pending Council appointment.] Meeting video: https://boxcast.tv/channel/vabajtzezuyv3iclkx1a?b=zws6izrpegx6m7ox2o8i Pre-meeting (5:00 pm) 9. Mall Trees. Discussion with Parks and Rec. o For information only. No action taken. Regular Meeting (5:30 pm) B. Consent Agenda • Action: Mr. Zehmer moved to approve the Consent Agenda. Mr. Schwarz, second. Motion passed 5 – 0. (Gastinger abstained due to being applicant for item #2.) 1. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR # 22-11-01 0 Preston Place, TMP 050118001 and 050118002 Rugby Road-University Circle-Venable ADC District Owner: Sue and Steve Lewis Applicant: Leigh Boyes, Sage Designs Project: Landscaping • Action: Motion approved (5-0) with approval of Consent Agenda: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed landscaping at 0 Preston Place satisfies the BAR’s criteria and is compatible with this property and other properties in the Rugby Road- University Circle-Venable Neighborhood ADC district, and that the BAR approves the application as submitted with the following conditions: o New picket fencing in front yard to be similar to those at nearby properties on Preston Place and not exceed a height of 4-ft. New fencing at the side and rear yards to be similar to those at nearby properties on Preston Place and not exceed a height of 6-ft. Where a new rear and/or side yard fence is incorporated into a stone wall, the total height shall not exceed 6-ft. Wood fencing will be either painted or have an opaque stain. Prior to construction the applicant will present the design to staff to assure compliance with this condition and the design guidelines for Walls and Fences. [See Appendix of staff report.] November 15, 2022 BAR Actions (Final) 1 Final 2. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR # 22-11-02 480 Rugby Road, TMP 090003000 Rugby Road-University Circle-Venable ADC District Owner: Westminster Presbyterian Church Applicant: Breck Gastinger, Local Design Collective Project: Landscaping, site work (Common Grounds) • Action: Motion approved (5-0) with approval of Consent Agenda: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City’s ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed landscaping plan at 480 Rugby Road satisfies the BAR’s criteria and are compatible with this property and other properties in the Rugby Road-University Circle-Venable ADC District, and that the BAR approves the application as submitted. 3. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR # 22-11-04 402 Park Street, Tax Parcel 530115000 North Downtown ADC District Owner: Anchor Charlottesville Office 2, LLC Applicant: Kendra Moon / Line+Grade Project: Demo drive-through/ATM kiosk. New landscaping. • Action: Motion approved (5-0) with approval of Consent Agenda: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed demolition and landscaping at 402 Park Street satisfy the BAR’s criteria and guidelines and are compatible with this property and other properties in the North Downtown ADC District, and that the BAR approves the application as submitted with the condition that the Applicant will provide for the BAR record documentation of the existing building. [Note: In addition to the photos provided, documentation will include a dimensioned, sketch floor plan and elevations or photographs with dimensions noted.] C. Deferred Items 4. Certificate of Appropriateness (5:45 pm) BAR # 22-09-04 0 3rd Street NE, TMP 330020001 North Downtown ADC District Owner: Scott Loughery Applicant: Candace Smith, Architect Project: New residence on vacant lot • Action: Mr. Schwarz moved to accept applicant’s request for deferral Mr. Gastinger, second. Motion passed 6 – 0. November 15, 2022 BAR Actions (Final) 2 Final D. New Items 5. Certificate of Appropriateness (6:30 pm) BAR # 22-11-03 507 Ridge Street, Tax Parcel 290141000 Ridge Street ADC District Owner/Applicant: Kimberly and Clayton Lauter Project: Demo backyard shed/cottage • Action: Mr. Whitney moved to defer the request. Mr. Schwarz, second. Motion passed 6 – 0. [Note: Being deferred by the BAR, the matter will be reviewed at the December 20, 2022 meeting.] 6. Certificate of Appropriateness (7:30 pm) BAR # 22-11-05 914 Rugby Road. TMP 50145000 Rugby Road Historic Conservation District Owner: Erin and George Sloane Applicant: John Voight / JKV Architects Project: Alterations to front porch, side addition • Action: Mr. Schwarz moved: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City Design Guidelines for Historic Conservation Districts, I move to find that the proposed side addition and front porch alterations at 914 Rugby Road satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are compatible with this property and other properties in the Rugby Road Historic Conservation District, and that the BAR approves the application as submitted. Mr. Timmerman, second. Motion passed 6-0. 7. Certificate of Appropriateness (8:00 pm) Preliminary Discussion 300 Court Square, TMP 530096100 North Downtown ADC District Owner: Eagle Tavern, LLC Applicant: Candace DeLoach Project: Exterior alterations • No action taken. 8. Certificate of Appropriateness (9:00 pm) Preliminary Discussion 204 Hartmans Mill Road, TMP 260038000 Individually Protected Property Owner: Jocelyn Johnson and William Hunt Applicant: Dan Zimmerman / Alloy Workshop Project: Addition and exterior alterations • No action taken. November 15, 2022 BAR Actions (Final) 3 Agenda Actions City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Regular Meeting December 20, 2022, 5:30 p.m. Hybrid Meeting (In-person at CitySpace and virtual via Zoom) Noted times are approximate only. 5:00 Pre-Meeting Discussion 5:30 Regular Meeting A. Matters from the public not on the agenda [or on the Consent Agenda] (please limit to 3 minutes per speaker) B. Consent Agenda (Note: Any consent agenda item may be pulled and moved to the regular agenda if a BAR member wishes to discuss it, or if any member of the public is present to comment on it. Pulled applications will be discussed at the beginning of the meeting.) 2. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR # 22-12-02 116 West Jefferson Street, TMP 330183000 North Downtown ADC District Owner: Jefferson Street Properties, LLC Applicant: Kristin Cory Project: Porch reconstruction, alterations to rear addition Action: Motion approved (5-0) with approval of Consent Agenda: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed front porch reconstruction and exterior alterations at 116 West Jefferson Street satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are compatible with this property and other properties in the North Downtown ADC District, and that the BAR approves [the application as submitted with the following conditions: • Front porch will have a standing-seam roof and gutter detail similar to that in the staff report • Approval references the narrative, clarifications and photographs included as supplemental in the staff report • Applicant will submit for staff review the proposed column capital • Applicant will provide for staff review details on the porch railing and pickets and any proposed exterior light fixtures • Applicant will provide for staff review cutsheets for alterations to the windows and doors at the rear contemporary addition, with the understanding that the windows will not be vinyl, but may be wood, aluminum-clad wood, or fiberglass composite. • On the 1913 house, the two new doors (frame and trim) will not alter the height, arch, or width of the existing masonry opening. Necessary brick repairs will be toothed-in, not saw cut, and use an appropriate mortar mix (lime vs Portland cement). The historic windows removed will be retained on the site and properly stored to allow later re-installation, if/when that occurs. Note: Mr. Schwartz moved to approve Consent Agenda. Bailey second. Motion approved (5-0). (Note: Mr. Zehmer abstains from Consent Agenda). December 20, 2022 BAR agenda (Final 12-21-2022) 1 3. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR # 22-12-03 1513-1515 University Avenue, TMP 090080000 The Corner ADC District Owner: Lloyd’s Building, LLC Applicant: James Zehmer/University of Virginia Project: Replace built-in gutters w/hanging gutters, install new asphalt shingles. Action: Motion approved (5-0) with approval of Consent Agenda:: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed roof alterations at 1515 University Avenue satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are compatible with this property and other properties in The Corner ADC District, and that the BAR approves the application as submitted with the condition with a condition that the new hanging gutters will retain the existing profile of the upper cornice. (Similar to the CoA condition applied to the porch roof at 201 E. High Street, July 2019.) Note: Mr. Schwartz moved to approve Consent Agenda. Bailey second. Motion approved (5-0). (Note: Mr. Zehmer abstains from Consent Agenda). C. Deferred Items 5:40 4. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR # 22-11-03 507 Ridge Street, TMP 290141000 Ridge Street ADC District Owner/Applicant: Kimberly and Clayton Lauter Project: Demo backyard shed/cottage Mr. Zehmer moved: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed demolition at 507 Ridge Street does not satisfy the BAR’s criteria and guidelines for demolitions and that for the following reasons the BAR denies the application as submitted because the proposal is incompatible with the historic, cultural or architectural character of the district in which the property is located that is the subject of the application Mr. Whitney second. Motion passed 4– 2. CoA was denied. 6:25 5. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR # 22-09-04 0 3rd Street NE, TMP 330020001 North Downtown ADC District Owner: Scott Loughery Applicant: Candace Smith, Architect Project: New residence on vacant lot Mr. Zehmer moved: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find that the new residence at 0 3rd Street, NE satisfies the BAR’s criteria and is compatible with this property and other properties in the North Downtown ADC District, and that the BAR approves the application [as submitted with the alternate liriope noted in the staff report]. Mr. Bailey second. Motion approved 6-0. CoA was approved. December 20, 2022 BAR agenda (Final 12-21-2022) 2 D. New Items 7:10 6. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR # 22-12-01 300 Court Square, TMP 530096100 North Downtown ADC District Owner: Eagle Tavern, LLC Applicant: Candace DeLoach et al Project: Exterior alterations Mr. Schwartz moved: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed alterations and rehabilitations at 300 Court Square satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are compatible with this property and other properties in the North Downtown ADC District, and that the BAR approves the application as submitted with the following modifications and conditions: • Approve the [lime] wash in concept, but want to review a physical sample. [BAR approved a wash. Staff will make a later recommendation should approval of the color require a separate, formal CoA request.] • For the [exterior electric] lighting, all lamping will be dimmable, have a Color Temperature not exceeding 3,000K, and a Color Rendering Index not less than 80, preferably not less than 90, and lighting should be shielded to prevent glare to the sidewalk. • For removal of the four windows [north elevation], infill the openings with brick, but have a grout line indicating where the windows used to be. Do not tooth-in the infill into the adjacent brick]. Infill panels to be set back ¼’ to ½” [per applicant suggestion]. • All [setback] encroachments are subject to City zoning [specifically relative to the east portico, awning at the north entrance, and any projections out into the right of way, and anything in the sidewalk]. o Staff note: Per prior discussions with the applicant, it is understood that any encroachments into the public right of way must be resolved with the City through the appropriate process; that design approval by the BAR does not prevail over setback and/or other zoning requirements. • Separate signage package. [All signage will require a separate signage permit.] • Mechanical units will be screened. [Applicant indicated locations at the rear: Beneath the rear trellis/deck and on the low roof area. See image below for clarity.] Mr. Bailey second. Motion passed 6-0. CoA approved with conditions. December 20, 2022 BAR agenda (Final 12-21-2022) 3 Certificate of Appropriateness BAR-23-03-01 204 Hartman’s Mill Road, TMP 260038000 Individually Protected Property Owner: Jocelyn Johnson and William Hunt Applicant: Bridget Ridenour / Alloy Workshop Project: Addition and exterior alterations Application components (please click each link to go directly to PDF page): • Staff Report • Historic Survey • Application Submittal March 2023 BAR Packet 3 City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Staff Report March 21, 2023 Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 23-03-01 204 Hartman’s Mill Road, TMP 260038000 Individually Protected Property Owner: Jocelyn Johnson and William Hunt Applicant: Bridget Ridenour / Alloy Workshop Project: Addition and exterior alterations Background Year Built: c1873 with additions through 1920s; some contemporary alterations. District: Individually Protected Property George T. Nimmo House. [Nimmo, not Neemo.*] Family tradition holds original house--believed to be the northeast corner--was built in 1870, with later additions occurring over an extended period. Nimmo acquired the property in 1873 and tax records indicate three periods of building activity--1873-1874, 1880-1885, and 1915-1920. Periods of construction coincide with Census data showing the growth of the Nimmo household. (Historic Survey attached.) Prior BAR Actions October 20, 2020 – BAR approved CoA for demolition of the cottage. (See Appendix) November 15, 2022 – Prelim discussion re: addition and exterior alterations (BAR 23-03-01) [See notes in Discussion, below.] Application • Applicant’s submittal: Alloy Workshop drawings Johnson Hunt Renovations, dated February 27, 2023: Sheets A0.0 – A1.14. Request CoA for alterations to the single-story, framed house. Work includes: • South elevation: Bathroom addition, reconstruct patio/deck, enclose patio, non-historic window replacements, raise height of historic window, misc. painting. • North elevation: Bathroom addition, replace two windows, raise height of historic window, misc. painting. 204 Hartman’s Mill Road March 21, 2023 (3/16/2023) 1 • East elevation: Porch rehab/painting, reverse swing of entrance door misc. painting. Discussion and Recommendations From the BAR’s preliminary discussion, November 15, 2022. BAR Nov 15 2022 agenda and attachment (See page 190) https://boxcast.tv/channel/vabajtzezuyv3iclkx1a?b=zws6izrpegx6m7ox2o8i (Discussion begins at approx. 04:15:00) • New windows need to meet guidelines • Replacement windows, need to prove it is necessary. Pictures/survey showing condition. • Photographic documentation of windows suggested • Primary façade windows are more important than second (“front of house” is confusing) • Metal roof, changing to asphalt not preferred • New: contemporary for new rails on deck, back of house • Additions make sense, newer portion of house/off to the side; modern is better • Fireplaces, chimneys – keep • Board and Batten siding is a great idea to differentiate, but still fit in • Exist wood siding looks hand cut – if replaced, show it is not salvageable • Try to save the wood siding, even if it’s replacing the bottom several feet • Story is the house, not a particular date – identify materials original to the additions, freedom/ flexibility to create contemporary additions that play off the others Staff comments. Additions, rear patio and deck: • Scale, location, design, and materiality do not overpower the existing house. They read as additions that do not mimic historic elements, but are compatible with the historic house. Some exterior wall segments will be altered and/or become interior walls; however, the primary elevations will be retained. Also, this house has been so modified over time, it is difficult to determine if the sections being altered are historic or, if so, do they retain histroci material. Windows: • Raising the windows in the new kitchen retains the historic windows and does not incompatibly alter the character of each elevation. • New door and window at the south elevation [new dining room] replace non-historic windows. • New door and window at the south elevation [new enclosed patio] replace a picture window that is within a non-historic, shed-roof addition onto the rear of the house. • New 2/2 double-hung windows at north elevation [new bedroom 2] replace non-historic 1/1 windows. (See photos in Appendix. Prior to 1997 the two windows were 6/6; however, the earlier photo is not proof they were original windows. Porch rehab: • Reversing the entry door swing will not alter the opening, nor alter the historic character of the elevation. Photographs (see Appendix) indicate the porch steps and railings have been altered and are not original. Staff recommends approval, with the following conditions: • photographs of the existing exterior elevations that be altered or enclosed will be provided for the BAR archive. 204 Hartman’s Mill Road March 21, 2023 (3/16/2023) 2 • Should any existing siding, trim, or material not be salvageable and require replacement, the applicant will consult with staff regarding the new material to be used, to assure it is appropriately similar to the existing, relative to materiality, dimension, etc. Suggested Motions Approval: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find the proposed additions and alterations to 204 Hartmans Mil Road satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are compatible with this IPP, and that the BAR approves the application [as submitted]. Or, [... as submitted] with the following conditions: Denial: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed additions and alterations to 204 Hartmans Mil Road do not satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are not compatible with this IPP, and that for the following reasons the BAR denies the application as submitted: […]. Criteria, Standards, and Guidelines Review Criteria Generally Sec. 34-284(b) of the City Code states that, in considering a particular application the BAR shall approve the application unless it finds: (1) That the proposal does not meet specific standards set forth within this division or applicable provisions of the Design Guidelines established by the board pursuant to Sec.34-288(6); and (2) The proposal is incompatible with the historic, cultural or architectural character of the district in which the property is located or the protected property that is the subject of the application. Pertinent Standards for Review of Construction and Alterations include: (1) Whether the material, texture, color, height, scale, mass and placement of the proposed addition, modification or construction are visually and architecturally compatible with the site and the applicable design control district; (2) The harmony of the proposed change in terms of overall proportion and the size and placement of entrances, windows, awnings, exterior stairs and signs; (3) The Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation set forth within the Code of Federal Regulations (36 C.F.R. §67.7(b)), as may be relevant; (4) The effect of the proposed change on the historic district neighborhood; (5) The impact of the proposed change on other protected features on the property, such as gardens, landscaping, fences, walls and walks; (6) Whether the proposed method of construction, renovation or restoration could have an adverse impact on the structure or site, or adjacent buildings or structures; (7) Any applicable provisions of the City’s Design Guidelines. Pertinent ADC District Design Guidelines Chapter III – New Construction and Additions Link: Chapter 3 New Construction and Additions Checklist from section P. Additions 1) Function and Size a. Attempt to accommodate needed functions within the existing structure without building an addition. 204 Hartman’s Mill Road March 21, 2023 (3/16/2023) 3 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 4 – Rehabilitation Link: Chapter 4 Rehabilitation C. Windows 1) Prior to any repair or replacement of windows, a survey of existing window conditions is recommended. Note number of windows, whether each window is original or replaced, the material, type, hardware and finish, the condition of the frame, sash, sill, putty, and panes. 2) Retain original windows when possible. 3) Uncover and repair covered up windows and reinstall windows where they have been blocked in. 4) If the window is no longer needed, the glass should be retained and the back side frosted, screened, or shuttered so that it appears from the outside to be in use. 5) Repair original windows by patching, splicing, consolidating or otherwise reinforcing. Wood that appears to be in bad condition because of peeling paint or separated joints often can be repaired. 6) Replace historic components of a window that are beyond repair with matching components. 7) Replace entire windows only when they are missing or beyond repair. 8) If a window on the primary façade of a building must be replaced and an existing window of the same style, material, and size is identified on a secondary elevation, place the historic window in the window opening on the primary façade. 9) Reconstruction should be based on physical evidence or old photographs. 204 Hartman’s Mill Road March 21, 2023 (3/16/2023) 4 10) Avoid changing the number, location, size, or glazing pattern of windows by cutting new openings, blocking in windows, or installing replacement sash that does not fit the window opening. 11) Do not use inappropriate materials or finishes that radically change the sash, depth of reveal, muntin configuration, reflective quality or color of the glazing, or appearance of the frame. 12) Use replacement windows with true divided lights or interior and exterior fixed muntins with internal spacers to replace historic or original examples. 13) If windows warrant replacement, appropriate material for new windows depends upon the context of the building within a historic district, and the age and design of the building. Sustainable materials such as wood, aluminum-clad wood, solid fiberglass, and metal windows are preferred. Vinyl windows are discouraged. 14) False muntins and internal removable grilles do not present an historic appearance and should not be used. […] D. Entrances, Porches, and Doors 1) The original details and shape of porches should be retained including the outline, roof height, and roof pitch. 2) Inspect masonry, wood, and metal or porches and entrances for signs of rust, peeling paint, wood deterioration, open joints around frames, deteriorating putty, inadequate caulking, and improper drainage, and correct any of these conditions. 3) Repair damaged elements, matching the detail of the existing original fabric. 4) Replace an entire porch only if it is too deteriorated to repair or is completely missing, and design to match the original as closely as possible. 5) Do not strip entrances and porches of historic material and details. 6) Give more importance to front or side porches than to utilitarian back porches. 7) Do not remove or radically change entrances and porches important in defining the building’s overall historic character. 8) Avoid adding decorative elements incompatible with the existing structure. 9) In general, avoid adding a new entrance to the primary facade, or facades visible from the street. 10) Do not enclose porches on primary elevations and avoid enclosing porches on secondary elevations in a manner that radically changes the historic appearance. 11) Provide needed barrier-free access in ways that least alter the features of the building. 12) The original size and shape of door openings should be maintained. 13) Original door openings should not be filled in. 14) When possible, reuse hardware and locks that are original or important to the historical evolution of the building. 15) Avoid substituting the original doors with stock size doors that do not fit the opening properly or are not compatible with the style of the building. 16) Retain transom windows and sidelights. […] 204 Hartman’s Mill Road March 21, 2023 (3/16/2023) 5 Appendix Prior BAR Actions September 15, 2020 – BAR discussed proposed demolition of the cottage. In lieu of requiring an engineer’s evaluation, on September 22 four members of the BAR visited the site. October 20, 2020 – BAR approved CoA for demolition of the cottage. (As a condition of approval, the applicant provided staff with photos and documentation.) http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/798350/2020-10_204%20Hartmans%20Mill%20Road_BAR.pdf Undated, prior to 1997. Note 6/6 windows with shutters. 1997 204 Hartman’s Mill Road March 21, 2023 (3/16/2023) 6 Undated, prior to 1997. 1997 204 Hartman’s Mill Road March 21, 2023 (3/16/2023) 7 204 Hartman's Mill Rd Vicinity Map View 1 2 Not to Scale Not to Scale 204 Hartman's Mill Road| Charlottesville, VA, 22903 PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET INDEX Parcel ID: 260038000 A0.0 - Cover Page ISSUE: BAR Submittal Zoning: R-1SH A1.1 - Project History and Scope Summary County: Charlottesville City A1.2 - Site Plan Year Built: 1825 A1.3 - Existing Building Photographs Nimmo House Renovation Neighborhood: Ridge Street A1.4 - Adjacent Building Photographs Construction Type: V A1.5- Proposed Materials and Selections Cover Page A1.6 - Proposed Windows and Doors Existing SF: 1625 A1.7 - Main Level Floor Plan - Existing Proposed Addition SF: A1.8 - Main Level Floor Plan - Proposed Proposed Renovated SF: A1.9 - North Elevations - Existing and Proposed A1.10 - East Elevations - Existing and Proposed A1.11 - South Elevations - Existing and Proposed Front Setback: 25'* DATE: February 27, 2023 A1.12 - West Elevations - Existing and Proposed Rear Setback: 25' A1.13 - Deck View Side Setback: 5' A1.14 - Front Addition View A0.0 GIS 3 Not to Scale PROJECT HISTORY AND SCOPE: The historic ‘Nimmo House’ at 204 Hartman’s Mill Road is a one-story weatherboarded frame house which has a rambling quality after having expanded and grown through various additions in at least three separate time periods. The result is an amalgamation of styles, with the earliest dating back to the late nineteenth century and the most recent modern-style addition from the 1970’s or 80’s. There continues to be some debate as to which structure was the original to the property, but regardless, the earliest structures consisted of a simple gabled building, a separate kitchen structure behind, and another room with an attached shed-roofed porch. All three of these separate structures were connected early on, thereby creating a weatherboarded hallway dog- trot like condition in between. George A. Sinclair purchased a 9 ¼ acre parcel of land from Edward J. Timberlake in 1870. From there, Jesse and George Nimmo purchased 1.1 acres, added another half-acre in 1882, and divided the land into two parcels in 1887, with George’s half being the one that is now the current property. A combination of family history and tax records indicate that the first building was built in 1870-1871. The Nimmo family significantly grew in the 1920’s and 30’s which mostly likely spurred the next round of additions to the house thereafter. One was a much taller gabled structure with a section of the veranda which created the L-shaped porch. Another addition was a modern shed- roofed wing behind the original kitchen. Other separate outbuildings have also come and gone throughout its history which have included a stable, a chicken coop and an earthen dam structure near the pond. A detached board and batten cottage still exists behind the house but has fallen into disrepair and has already been granted permission to be demolished. Other historic details include descriptions of the original six over six double-hung wood sash windows which have all eventually been replaced. Two over two double sash windows are believed to have been put in place at the porch along with a different entry door around 1900 and both of these features are still present today. The original entry door was replaced with a Victorian style oak door, which has a single panel of glass surrounded by small panes of stained Project History and Scope Summary glass. The original exterior end chimney is of brick laid in stretcher bond. Somewhere along the way, the house number changed as well from 106 to 204. Members of the Nimmo family continued to occupy the house for over 100 years from its inception until they eventually sold the house with its accompanying 12 acres in 1973. It was subdivided soon after and at present day, the property is 204 Hartman's Mill Road| Charlottesville, VA, 22903 now nestled on 2 1/2 acres. The property has already overcome significant obstacles that threatened its existence in pursuit of building new housing developments in the 1960’s. A specific committee formed in response to fight ISSUE: BAR Submittal the proposed location of the public housing project and to help voters understand the repercussions of the proposed changes put forth by the Redevelopment and Housing Authority. During this process, voters were specifically asked “to examine his(her) conscience before Nimmo House Renovation recommending that these graves be touched” or that “these homes and land which are the fruits of generations of hard work be destroyed”. Given the historic significance of this home and its remarkable resilience over the past century and a half, we are undertaking the vital task of renovating it. Our goal is to preserve the home's historic fabric and qualities by retaining the most historic areas of the house with minimal alterations while making necessary functional adjustments that will allow the clients to fully enjoy their home. We plan to relocate the kitchen closer to the primary living and dining areas, and place all the DATE: February 27, 2023 bedroom spaces towards the back and more private areas of the house, significantly improving the layout and flow of the home. The new addition will be in non-historic areas of the house, and we intend to leave the original structures mostly undisturbed. The only alterations to the historic A1.0 sections of the house will involve raising the sill height for the existing windows in the proposed kitchen space, reversing the swing on the main entry door, and repairing the foundation walls. All proposed alterations are limited to non-historic materials and areas. We hope that our renovation and preservation efforts strike a thoughtful balance that results in a livable and historically significant home, vital for the future generations to come. 1 Site Plan Scale: 1" = 60' Ha rt m an sM ill Rd . N True North Hartm ans M ill Rd . N North Project 1s tS tS A1.1 Site Plan Nimmo House Renovation 204 Hartman's Mill Road| Charlottesville, VA, 22903 DATE: February 27, 2023 ISSUE: BAR Submittal 3 1 East Elevation West Elevation 2 4 3 North Elevation South Elevation 4 2 Key Plan 1 N True North N North Project A1.2 Existing Building Photographs Nimmo House Renovation 204 Hartman's Mill Road| Charlottesville, VA, 22903 DATE: February 27, 2023 ISSUE: BAR Submittal project site A1.3 Adjacent Building Photographs Nimmo House Renovation 204 Hartman's Mill Road| Charlottesville, VA, 22903 DATE: February 27, 2023 ISSUE: BAR Submittal 1. Exterior Rainscreen Cladding: Kebony, 8. Exterior Paint- Siding: Sherwin Williams, Tin Lizzie SW 9163 Click and Clading System or approved equal 2. Paint (Roof): Sherwin Williams, Silver-Brite Aluminum Paint. Model B59S00011 9. Exterior Paint- Trim: Sherwin Williams, Everyday White SW 6077 3. Exterior Semi-Transparent Stain (Deck and Front Steps): Benjamin Moore, Arborcoat Stain, Semi- Transparent, Flat (N638) 10. Exterior Paint- Shutters: Sherwin Williams, Blue Nile SW 6776 4. Cable Railing System (Deck and Screened Porch): Stainless Post and Cable System: Muzata NiceView Cable Railing System or approved equal Top Handrail: Kebony Proposed Materials and Selections 5. Decking and Wood Screening: Alaskan Yellow Cedar 204 Hartman's Mill Road| Charlottesville, VA, 22903 ISSUE: BAR Submittal 6. Exterior Wall Sconce (Deck): Schoolhouse Electric, Nimmo House Renovation Reed Outdoor Sconce - Jar Shade White, or approved equal 7. Exterior Surface Mount fixture (Porch): Schoolhouse Electric, DATE: February 27, 2023 Otis 6" Surface Mount or approved equal A1.4 Windows: All windows to be Kolbe All wood Heritage Series or approved equal EXCEPT clerestory windows. Clerestory windows: Fiberglass composite window, Anderson 100 Series or approved equal Double-Hung w/Muntins Casement Picture window Doors: Patio swing door and sidelight to be Kolbe All wood Heritage Series or approved equal. 204 Hartman's Mill Road| Charlottesville, VA, 22903 Proposed Windows and Doors ISSUE: BAR Submittal Nimmo House Renovation Outswing door and Sidelite DATE: February 27, 2023 A1.5 FLOOR PLAN LEGEND: 1 A1.8 Existing walls Flagstone Walkway Area not in scope To demolish 1/2 BATH DN Flagstone & Brick Steps DN LIVING ROOM Stone Retaining Wall BEDROOM 2 STORAGE PATIO Overhead Wires PORCH Electric Meter DINING ROOM Generator skylight above DN BEDROOM 1 HVAC 1 KITCHEN wood stove A1.11 HALL 1 COMMON A1.9 204 Hartman's Mill Road| Charlottesville, VA, 22903 DN Main Level Floor Plan - Existing OFFICE BATH Gas Meter ISSUE: BAR Submittal DECK Nimmo House Renovation DN DECK COTTAGE 1 A1.10 DATE: February 27, 2023 Main Level Floor Plan - Existing 1 N N A1.6 1/8” = 1’ - 0” True Project North North FLOOR PLAN LEGEND: GENERAL NOTES: New walls 1. New exterior windows throughout unless noted otherwise. Style to match existing, or changed Existing walls 2 to match the grille pattern from the existing windows A1.8 with muntins that are to remain. MFR: Kolbe Heritage series or approved equal. Existing windows to be New Addition restored and new storm windows applied. Existing two-over-two double sash window to remain 2. New Exterior Partitions at Addition: Kebony siding or approved equal Existing window to remain 3. Existing Exterior Partitions: Wood siding only in areas where existing siding is damaged beyond 7' 8" repair, painted finish DN LIVING ROOM 4. Foundation Walls (New and Existing): Parged finish BATH 5. Roof: Flat roof at addition spaces, Primary 1/2 PORCH Bedroom and Screened porch to be TPO roofing. BEDROOM 2 BATH 13' 2" reverse swing w/existing door New retaining wall WIC CL Turned-down slab at floor CL Ref. HALL New raised sill height for existing two-over-two double sash CL CL CL Existing window to remain window in Kitchen. New wood siding to match existing w/painted finish at infill areas, typ. DN DINING KITCHEN 2 PRIMARY A1.11 BEDROOM D 2 CL A1.9 W New raised sill height for existing four-over-four Main Level Floor Plan - Proposed OFFICE double sash window in Kitchen. New wood siding 204 Hartman's Mill Road| Charlottesville, VA, 22903 LAUNDRY to match existing w/painted finish at infill areas, typ. BENCH OUTDOOR STORAGE PRIMARY DECK 19' 0" BATH 16' 0" ISSUE: BAR Submittal SCREENED DN PORCH Outdoor storage unit: 8' 0" 12'L x 6.5'D x 5.5'H Nimmo House Renovation DN Double set of doors w/plantings above 8' 5" 13' 5" 24' 11" foundation wall and crawl space below Wood deck w/bench, new deck structure below, cable railing, and approx. 9 steps total from grade and to Screened Porch Screened Door DATE: February 27, 2023 2 6x6 wood clad posts and wood drink rail w/paint finish A1.10 and reinforced cable railing below. N N A1.7 True Project Main Level Floor Plan - Proposed North North 1 1/8” = 1’ 0” Existing clerestory windows Existing metal roof Painted Chimney Existing TPO roof Existing metal roof Existing metal roof Existing metal roof Existing painted post, typ. Existing painted shutters North Elevation - Existing 1 3/16” = 1’ 0” North Elevations - Existing and Proposed New Fiberglass composite Existing metal roof repainted Existing metal roof, repainted clerestory windows New TPO roof 204 Hartman's Mill Road| Charlottesville, VA, 22903 Painted Chimney Existing metal roof Existing siding, repainted, typ. ISSUE: BAR Submittal Nimmo House Renovation Existing post repainted Existing shutters relocated Existing window relocated to new sill height DATE: February 27, 2023 New casement window New addition with Kebony or approved equal A1.8 Existing foundation repaired and parged, rainscreen cladding system New windows: two-over-two color to match siding double-hung to match porch windows North Elevation - Proposed 2 3/16” = 1’ 0” Existing metal roof Existing metal roof Existing metal roof Existing TPO roof Existing painted siding Existing deck Existing painted shutters, typ. Existing painted post, typ. Electric Shutoff Cable Existing wood steps and handrail East Elevation - Existing Electric Meter 1 3/16” = 1’ 0” East Elevations - Existing and Proposed Existing metal roof, repainted Existing metal roof Existing metal roof, repainted Existing TPO roof 204 Hartman's Mill Road| Charlottesville, VA, 22903 New cricket New TPO roof New TPO roof ISSUE: BAR Submittal Nimmo House Renovation Existing siding repainted Existing shutters Existing two-over-two New door double-hung window New 1x6 painted screened porch Existing post, repainted typ. addition with wood screening New wood deck, steps and outdoor storage lockers DATE: February 27, 2023 A1.9 New Light Fixture New Paint on Railing Refinished wood steps and handrail East Elevation - Proposed Existing doors 2 3/16” = 1’ 0” Existing metal roof Existing clerestory windows Existing TPO roof Existing metal roof Existing metal roof Existing TPO roof Existing painted siding, typ. Existing Deck Painted Brick, typ. Hose Bib South Elevation - Existing 1 3/16” = 1’ 0” A1.10 South Elevations - Existing and Proposed New fixed window New light fixture, typ. New clerestory windows New swing door and sidelight window Existing metal roof, repainted, typ. Existing metal roof, repainted, typ. 204 Hartman's Mill Road| Charlottesville, VA, 22903 New TPO roof Existing TPO roof Existing metal roof New TPO roof at porch addition New casement window ISSUE: BAR Submittal Existing siding, repainted Nimmo House Renovation Existing window New fixed relocated to new window sill height Existing siding, repainted Existing foundation repaired and parged, DATE: February 27, 2023 color to match siding New casement window New fixed window New addition with Kebony or approved equal rainscreen cladding system South Elevation - Proposed New 1x6 painted screened porch 2 New wood deck steps and wood outdoor storage locker beyond addition with wood screening 3/16” = 1’ 0” New wood deck with semi-transparent color stain Existing metal roof Existing metal roof Existing TPO roof Existing cottage Existing painted siding, typ. to be demolished West Elevation - Existing 1 3/16” = 1’ 0” West Elevations - Existing and Proposed Existing metal roof 204 Hartman's Mill Road| Charlottesville, VA, 22903 Existing metal roof, repainted New TPO roof Kebony or approved equal rainscreen cladding system, typ. ISSUE: BAR Submittal Nimmo House Renovation Fixed window Existing window to remain Existing siding, repainted, typ. DATE: February 27, 2023 Existing siding, repainted typ. West Elevation - Proposed 1 3/16” = 1’ 0” A1.12 Deck View Nimmo House Renovation 204 Hartman's Mill Road| Charlottesville, VA, 22903 DATE: February 27, 2023 ISSUE: BAR Submittal A1.13 Front Addition View Nimmo House Renovation 204 Hartman's Mill Road| Charlottesville, VA, 22903 DATE: February 27, 2023 ISSUE: BAR Submittal Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 23-03-02 506 Park Street, TMP 530123000 North Downtown ADC District Owner: Presbyterian Church Ch’ville Trust Applicant: Todd Shallenberger, Waterstreet Studio Project: Landscaping Application components (please click each link to go directly to PDF page): • Staff Report • Historic Survey • Application Submittal March 2023 BAR Packet 4 City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Staff Report March 21, 2023 Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 23-03-02 506 Park Street, TMP 530123000 North Downtown ADC District Owner: Presbyterian Church Ch’ville Trust Applicant: Todd Shallenberger, Waterstreet Studio Project: Landscaping: Memorial Garden Background Year Built: 1954 (Fellowship Hall 8th Street constructed in 1986) District: North Downtown ADC District Status: Contributing First Presbyterian Church is designed in the Colonial Revival style and based on James Gibbs’ 1722 Saint Martin-in-the-Fields in London. Prior BAR Actions March 19, 2019 – BAR approved CoA for entrance and ADA ramp, east elevation of Fellowship Hall. June 2019 – BAR approved CoA for modifications to ADA entrance at east elevation. July 2020 – BAR approved CoA for three-story addition to the Fellowship Hall, including a new exterior terrace and modifications to the existing driveway. Renovations at the west elevation of the Gathering Hall: Remove four arched windows to accommodate French doors; alterations and new landscaping at the front terrace. Alterations to the Gathering Hall courtyard terrace. March 16, 2021 - BAR approved CoA (amending the July 2020 plan) to enclose existing arcade, construct hyphen, construct elevator tower, raze the concrete plaza, revised landscaping plan. Application • Applicant submittal: Water Street Studio submittal First Presbyterian Church Memorial Garden, dated February 28, 2023, 21 pages. CoA request for alterations to memorial garden. 506 Park Street March 21, 2023 (3/17/2023) 1 [Edited from applicant’s narrative.] Renovation of the memorial garden to provide a more sacrosanct space for events and ceremonies. Bluestone walk will lead from Maple Street and align with existing walk and gathering terrace. (Small entry way at the chapel will be repaved with bluestone.) The paving replicates the cruciform of the granite cross, expressing the cross-axial arrangement with bluestone pavers. The connecting transitions that close the circle will be colored concrete with saw-cut joints in a radial pattern. A low brick wall and piers will match the existing brick wall and mark the southern edge, between the garden and Maple Street. The plantings are structured with 4’ tall boxwood hedge forming the space--allowing for privacy and transparency without making opaque green walls. Eight dogwood trees mark each threshold of the axis; four sweetbay magnolias distinguish the two sides. Deciduous shrubs of dwarf fothergilla, winterberry hollies and summersweet contrast with the evergreen hedge. Small ‘little missy’ boxwoods define the circle and reinforce the bluestone axis. Plantings of perennials, groundcovers, ferns, grasses, and bulbs are intended to provide a predominant white flowering garden with different forms, textures, and four-season interest. Discussion Staff finds the proposed landscaping plan is consistent with the deign guidelines and recommends approval; however, the BAR should discuss the recent removal of two large trees and resolve with the owner/applicant what is planned for the site’s tree coverage. Note: During discussion in 2020 and 2021 regarding proposed alterations, the BAR expressed specific concerns regarding the tree coverage—see links below. (Refer to images in the Appendix.) In front of the chapel and south of the sanctuary, a large tree near Maple Street was recently removed and a 28” tree near the sanctuary (noted on the July 2020 submittal) has also been removed. Neither reviewed by the BAR. Link to July 21, 2020 meeting minutes (see pages 27-31): http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/799529/Minutes_BAR%20Meeting%20July%2 021,%202020.pdf Link to March 15, 2021 meeting minutes (see pages 16-20): http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/800565/Minutes_BAR%20Meeting%20March %2015,%202021.pdf Additionally (see maps in the Appendix), on this lot prior to construction of the church was a 19th century, two-story brick house. Of historic note, General Philip Sheridan established his headquarters in this house during the Union Army’s brief] occupation of Charlottesville, from March 3 to March 5 or 6, 1865. Sheridan’s cavalry camped further north along Park Street. The arguably more infamous General George Custer established his headquarters at The Farm (1202 East Jefferson Street). No evidence suggests the memorial garden area is archeologically significant; however, the applicant should be mindful of the site’s history and encouraged to treat appropriately any evidence revealed during excavations. Suggested Motions Approval: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed landscaping at 506 Park Street satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are compatible with this property and other properties in the North Downtown ADC District, and that the BAR approves the application as submitted. […as submitted with following conditions: …) 506 Park Street March 21, 2023 (3/17/2023) 2 Denial: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed landscaping at 506 Park Street do not satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are not compatible with this property and other properties in the North Downtown ADC District, and that for the following reasons the BAR denies the application as submitted: Criteria, Standards, and Guidelines Review Criteria Generally Sec. 34-284(b) of the City Code states that, in considering a particular application the BAR shall approve the application unless it finds: (1) That the proposal does not meet specific standards set forth within this division or applicable provisions of the Design Guidelines established by the board pursuant to Sec.34-288(6); and (2) The proposal is incompatible with the historic, cultural or architectural character of the district in which the property is located or the protected property that is the subject of the application. Pertinent Standards for Review of Construction and Alterations include: (1) Whether the material, texture, color, height, scale, mass and placement of the proposed addition, modification or construction are visually and architecturally compatible with the site and the applicable design control district; (2) The harmony of the proposed change in terms of overall proportion and the size and placement of entrances, windows, awnings, exterior stairs and signs; (3) The Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation set forth within the Code of Federal Regulations (36 C.F.R. §67.7(b)), as may be relevant; (4) The effect of the proposed change on the historic district neighborhood; (5) The impact of the proposed change on other protected features on the property, such as gardens, landscaping, fences, walls and walks; (6) Whether the proposed method of construction, renovation or restoration could have an adverse impact on the structure or site, or adjacent buildings or structures; (7) Any applicable provisions of the City’s Design Guidelines. Pertinent Guidelines for Site Design and Elements B. Plantings 1) Encourage the maintenance and planting of large trees on private property along the streetfronts, which contribute to the “avenue” effect. 2) Generally, use trees and plants that are compatible with the existing plantings in the neighborhood. 3) Use trees and plants that are indigenous to the area. 4) Retain existing trees and plants that help define the character of the district, especially street trees and hedges. 5) Replace diseased or dead plants with like or similar species if appropriate. 6) When constructing new buildings, identify and take care to protect significant existing trees and other plantings. 7) Choose ground cover plantings that are compatible with adjacent sites, existing site conditions, and the character of the building. 8) Select mulching and edging materials carefully and do not use plastic edgings, lava, crushed rock, unnaturally colored mulch or other historically unsuitable materials. E. Walkways & Driveways 1) Use appropriate traditional paving materials like brick, stone, and scored concrete. 506 Park Street March 21, 2023 (3/17/2023) 3 2) Concrete pavers are appropriate in new construction, and may be appropriate in site renovations, depending on the context of adjacent building materials, and continuity with the surrounding site and district. 3) Gravel or stone dust may be appropriate, but must be contained. 4) Stamped concrete and stamped asphalt are not appropriate paving materials. 5) Limit asphalt use to driveways and parking areas. 6) Place driveways through the front yard only when no rear access to parking is available. 7) Do not demolish historic structures to provide areas for parking. 8) Add separate pedestrian pathways within larger parking lots, and provide crosswalks at vehicular lanes within a site. Appendix: From July 2020 CoA submittal From applicant’s March 2023 submittal 506 Park Street March 21, 2023 (3/17/2023) 4 City GIS aerial photo (2022) Staff photo From applicant’s March 2023 submittal 506 Park Street March 21, 2023 (3/17/2023) 5 Prior residence at 506 Park Street 1877 Grey Map 506 Park Street March 21, 2023 (3/17/2023) 6 1907 Massie Map 506 Park Street March 21, 2023 (3/17/2023) 7 Board of Architectural Review (BAR) Certificate of Appropriateness Please Return To: City of Charlottesville Department of Neighborhood Development Services P.O. Box 911, City Hall Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Telephone (434) 970-3130 Please submit ten (10) hard copies and one (1) digital copy of application form and all attachments. Please include application fee as follows: New construction project $375; Demolition of a contributing structure $375; Appeal of BAR decision $125; Additions and other projects requiring BAR approval $125; Administrative approval $100. Make checks payable to the City of Charlottesville. The BAR meets the third Tuesday of the month. Deadline for submittals is Tuesday 3 weeks prior to next BAR meeting by 3:30 p.m. First Presbyterian Church Owner Name___________________________________ Todd Shallenberger, Watertsreet Studio Applicant Name______________________________________ Memorial Garden Renovation Project Name/Description______________________________________ Parcel Number__________________________ 500 Park Street, Charlottesville, VA 22902 Project Property Address____________________________________________________________________________ Signature of Applicant Applicant Information I hereby attest that the information I have provided is, to the 802 East Jefferson Street Address:______________________________________ best of my knowledge, correct. Suite 3 _____________________________________________ tshallenberger@waterstreetstudio.net Email:________________________________________ 02/28/2023 __________________________________________ _________________ (C) 434.249.8020 Phone: (W) 434.295.8177 _______________ Signature Date Todd Shallenberger 02/28/2023 __________________________________________ Property Owner Information (if not applicant) Print Name Date Address:______________________________________ Property Owner Permission (if not applicant) _____________________________________________ I have read this application and hereby give my consent to Email:________________________________________ its submission. Phone: (W) _________________ (C) _______________ _ __________________________________________ Signature Date Do you intend to apply for Federal or State Tax Credits _________________________________________ for this project? _______________________ Print Name Date See attached narrative, first page Description of Proposed Work (attach separate narrative if necessary):__________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________ List All Attachments (see reverse side for submittal requirements): Cover page, existing conditions plans and images, Memorial Garden renovation plans, brick wall elevation, precedent images, and plant images. ______________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________ For Office Use Only Approved/Disapproved by: ______________________ Received by: ___________________________ Date: _______________________________________ Fee paid: ___________Cash/Ck. # _________ Conditions of approval: _________________________ Date Received: _________________________ ____________________________________________ Revised 2016 ____________________________________________ HISTORIC DISTRICT ORDINANCE: You can review the Historical Preservation and Architectural Design Control Overlay Districts regulations in the City of Charlottesville Zoning Ordinance starting with Section 34-271 online at www.charlottesville.org or at Municode.com for the City of Charlottesville. DESIGN REVIEW GUIDELINES: Please refer to the current ADC Districts Design Guidelines online at www.charlottesville.org. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: The following information and exhibits shall be submitted along with each application for Certificate of Appropriateness, per Sec. 34-282 (d) in the City of Charlottesville Zoning Ordinance: (1) Detailed and clear depictions of any proposed changes in the exterior features of the subject property; (2) Photographs of the subject property and photographs of the buildings on contiguous properties; (3) One set of samples to show the nature, texture and color of materials proposed; (4) The history of an existing building or structure, if requested; (5) For new construction and projects proposing expansion of the footprint of an existing building: a three- dimensional model (in physical or digital form); (6) In the case of a demolition request where structural integrity is at issue, the applicant shall provide a structural evaluation and cost estimates for rehabilitation, prepared by a professional engineer, unless waived by the BAR. APPEALS: 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. Per Sec. 34-286. - City council appeals, 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. FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH MEMORIAL GARDEN RENOVATION 28 FEBRUARY 2023 NARRATIVE EXISTING CONDITIONS: THE PROJECT ENTAILS A RENOVATION OF AN EXISTING MEMORIAL GARDEN ON THE SOUTHWEST SIDE PARK STREET OF THE FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH PROPERTY NEAR THE CORNER OF PARK STREET AND MAPLE STREET. A CONCRETE WALK LEADS FROM MAPLE STREET AND PROVIDES AN ACCESSIBLE ENTRANCE TO THE MEMORIAL GARDEN. THE GARDEN IS COMPRISED OF CONCRETE PAVERS WITH STEEL EDGING THAT IS CENTERED AROUND A CIRCULAR PLANTING BED WITH A GRANITE CROSS. EXISTING PLANTINGS MEMORIAL GARDEN OF NANDINA, JAPANESE HOLLIES, BOXWOODS, LILY TURF AND FLOWERING DOGWOODS ARE LOOSELY ARRANGED AROUND THE PERIMETER WHILE AN ARRAY OF ANNUALS PROVIDES A SPLASH OF COLOR IN THE CENTRAL BED. THERE ARE THREE POST LIGHTS THAT LOOK OUTDATED AND WILL BE REPLACED, AND SOME GRANITE BENCHES WILL BE REUSED. MOST OF THESE ELEMENTS WILL BE DEMOLISHED MAPLE STREET EXCEPT FOR THE GRANITE CROSS, THE CENTRAL PLANTING BED INSIDE THE CIRCLE, AND THE INNER MOST STEEL EDGING. BESIDES THE GRANITE BENCHES, A GARDEN PLAQUE AND TWO FLOWERING DOGWOODS WILL BE SALVAGED AND RELOCATED IN THE NEW DESIGN FOR THE GARDEN. FIRST PRESBYTERIAN RENOVATION OF THE MEMORIAL GARDEN: CHURCH THE INTENT OF THE GARDEN IS TO PROVIDE A MORE SACROSANCT SPACE FOR EVENTS AND CEREMONIES. A NEW BLUESTONE WALK WILL LEAD FROM MAPLE STREET AND ALIGN WITH AN EXISTING WALK AND GATHERING TERRACE. A SMALL ENTRY WAY IN FRONT OF THE CHAPEL WILL BE REPAVED WITH BLUESTONE. THE PAVING DESIGN FOR THE MEMORIAL GARDEN REPLICATES THE CRUCIFORM OF THE GRANITE CROSS BY EXPRESSING THE CROSS-AXIAL ARRANGEMENT WITH BLUESTONE PAVERS. THE CONNECTING TRANSITIONS THAT CLOSE THE CIRCLE WILL BE COLORED CONCRETE WITH SAW CUT JOINTS IN A RADIAL PATTERN. A LOW BRICK WALL AND PIERS WILL MATCH THE EXISTING BRICK WALL AND MARK THE SOUTHERN EDGE BETWEEN THE GARDEN AND MAPLE STREET. 7TH STREET NE THE PLANTING FOR THE GARDEN IS STRUCTURED WITH 4’ TALL BOXWOOD HEDGES THAT HELP FORMS THE SPACE, ALLOWING FOR SOME PRIVACY AND TRANSPARENCY WITHOUT MAKING OPAQUE GREEN WALLS. EIGHT FLOWERING DOGWOOD TREES MARK EACH THRESHOLD OF THE AXIS WHILE FOUR SWEETBAY MAGNOLIAS DISTINGUISH THE TWO SIDES. DECIDUOUS SHRUBS OF DWARF FOTHERGILLA, WINTERBERRY HOLLIES AND SUMMERSWEET CONTRAST WITH THE EVERGREEN HEDGES. SMALL ‘LITTLE MISSY’ BOXWOODS HELP DEFINES THE CIRCLE AND REINFORCES THE BLUESTONE AXIS. THE OTHER PLANTINGS OF PERENNIALS, GROUNDCOVERS, FERNS, GRASSES, AND BULBS ARE INTENDED TO PROVIDE A PREDOMINANT WHITE FLOWERING GARDEN WITH DIFFERENT FORMS, TEXTURES, AND FOUR SEASONS INTEREST. CONTEXT PLAN waterstreetstudio landscape architecture l civil engineering FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH waterstreetstudio MEMORIAL GARDEN RENOVATION landscape architecture l civil engineering 28 | FEBRUARY | 2023 PARK STREET MEMORIAL GARDEN MAPLE STREET FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH SANCTUARY GATHERING CHAPEL TERRACE feet 0 20’ waterstreet studio MEMORIAL GARDEN EXISTING CONDITIONS FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH MEMORIAL GARDEN RENOVATION LANDSCAPE ARCHITEC TS CIVIL ENGINEERS 28 | FEBRUARY | 2023 3 144 LEGEND 1- (E) GRANITE STONE CROSS 2- (E) ANNUALS / SCATTERING GARDEN 3- CONCRETE PAVERS / STEEL EDGING 4- LAWN 5- MEMORIAL GARDEN PLAQUE (TO BE RELOCATED) 7 6- STONE BENCHES (6 TOTAL) 7- LIGHT POLES (TO BE REMOVED) MAPLE STREET 8- FLOWERING DOGWOODS 122 9- NANDINA SHRUBS 133 10 - JAPANESE HOLLY SHRUBS 3 11 - BOXWOOD SHRUBS 1 16 12 - LIRIOPE GROUNDCOVER 6 13 - OVERHEAD UTILITY LINES 14 - ACCESSIBLE PARKING / NO PARKING SIGNS 2 15 - BRICK WALL AND PIER 10 10 111 16 - CONCRETE WALK 144 1 11 1 3 7 166 4 16 9 100 5 9 6 12 8 3 8 7 16 16 8 6 7 15 15 GATHERING TERRACE FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH CHAPEL feet 0 10’ waterstreet studio MEMORIAL GARDEN EXISTING CONDITIONS FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH MEMORIAL GARDEN RENOVATION LANDSCAPE ARCHITEC TS CIVIL ENGINEERS 28 | FEBRUARY | 2023 4 waterstreet studio EXISTING CONDITIONS FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH MEMORIAL GARDEN RENOVATION LANDSCAPE ARCHITEC TS CIVIL ENGINEERS 28 | FEBRUARY | 2023 5 waterstreet studio EXISTING CONDITIONS FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH MEMORIAL GARDEN RENOVATION LANDSCAPE ARCHITEC TS CIVIL ENGINEERS 28 | FEBRUARY | 2023 6 waterstreet studio EXISTING CONDITIONS FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH MEMORIAL GARDEN RENOVATION LANDSCAPE ARCHITEC TS CIVIL ENGINEERS 28 | FEBRUARY | 2023 7 waterstreet studio EXISTING CONDITIONS FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH MEMORIAL GARDEN RENOVATION LANDSCAPE ARCHITEC TS CIVIL ENGINEERS 28 | FEBRUARY | 2023 8 waterstreet studio EXISTING CONDITIONS FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH MEMORIAL GARDEN RENOVATION LANDSCAPE ARCHITEC TS CIVIL ENGINEERS 28 | FEBRUARY | 2023 9 waterstreet studio CRUCIFORM SHAPE OF EXISTING CROSS AND DOGWOOD SEPALS FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH MEMORIAL GARDEN RENOVATION LANDSCAPE ARCHITEC TS CIVIL ENGINEERS 28 | FEBRUARY | 2023 10 MAPLE STREET PARK STREET MEMORIAL GARDEN FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH SANCTUARY GATHERING CHAPEL TERRACE feet 0 20’ waterstreet studio MEMORIAL GARDEN RENOVATION FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH MEMORIAL GARDEN RENOVATION LANDSCAPE ARCHITEC TS CIVIL ENGINEERS 28 | FEBRUARY | 2023 11 LEGEND 1 - GRANITE STONE CROSS AND GARDEN TO REMAIN 2 - INSIDE STEEL EDGING TO REMAIN IN PLACE ONLY 3 - (E) BLUESTONE WALK AND TERRACE 4 - NEW BLUESTONE WALK 5 - PIP COLORED CONCRETE W/ RADIAL SAW CUT JOINTS 6 - BLUESTONE PAVERS IN LAWN OR PLANTING BED 7 - (7) RELOCATED GRANITE BENCHES 6 8 - BUXUS ‘GREEN GEM’ - 18” BOXWOOD 9 - BUXUS ‘GREEN MOUNTAIN’ - 24” BOXWOOD MAPLE STREET 199 19 19 10 - BUXUS ‘LITTLE MISSY’ - 12” BOXWOOD 11 - RELOCATE 2 (E) FLOWERING DOGWOOD TREES 13 13 12 12 177 1155 12 - (6) NEW FLOWERING DOGWOODS - 2.5” CAL. 1144 13 - SUMMERSWEET 7 1188 14 - PEONY 5 15 - WINTERBERRY HOLLY 16 - (4) SWEETBAY MAGNOLIA - 12’ HEIGHT 2 17 - PENNSYLVANIA SEDGE W/ 3 TYPES OF BULBS 1 199 18 - TUFTED HAIR GRASS AND WHITE CONEFLOWER 200 4 7 19 - CORAL BELLS 20 - WOOD FERNS, SEDGES, AND WILD GERANIUM 2233 21 - LILYTURF, HELLEBORES, SOLOMON’S SEAL, AND FERNS 177 22 - WOODLAND PHLOX, HEUCHERA, AND MAZUS 188 23 - NEW BRICK WALL AND PIERS TO MATCH EXISTING 166 24 - RELOCATED MEMORIAL PLAQUE 25 - (14) STAKE MOUNTED LIGHTS TO MATCH EXISTING 1100 1111 26 - DWARF FOTHERGILLA 9 2211 24 24 25 25 4 4 3 2211 2211 22 22 22 6 7 26 8 GATHERING TERRACE FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH CHAPEL feet 0 10’ waterstreet studio MEMORIAL GARDEN RENOVATION FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH MEMORIAL GARDEN RENOVATION LANDSCAPE ARCHITEC TS CIVIL ENGINEERS 28 | FEBRUARY | 2023 12 feet 0 4’ waterstreet studio BRICK WALL ELEVATION AT MAPLE STREET FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH MEMORIAL GARDEN RENOVATION LANDSCAPE ARCHITEC TS CIVIL ENGINEERS 28 | FEBRUARY | 2023 13 (5) CLETHRA 'VANILLA SPICE', SUMMERSWEET (3) PAEONIA 'FESTIVA MAXIMA', PEONY 01 TREE PLANTING L4.00 L4.00 (6) CORNUS 'APPALACHIAN SPRING' (5) CLETHRA 'VANILLA SPICE', SUMMERSWEET (E) LAWN / FLOWERING DOGWOOD (3) PAEONIA 'FESTIVA MAXIMA', PEONY (40) HELLEBORUS 'ICE (76) HEUCHERA 'AUTUMN BRIDE', BREAKER', LENTEN ROSE (4) ILEX VERTICILLATA, WINTERBERRY CORAL BELLS (68) BUXUS 'GREEN MOUNTAIN'/ 24" BOXWOOD (3) ILEX VERTICILLATA, WINTERBERRY (43) HEUCHERA 'AUTUMN BRIDE', ALUM ROOT 02 PERENNIAL (50) DESCHAMPSIA 'GOLD TAU, L4.00 L4.00 PLANTING TUFTED HAIRGRASS MAGNOLIA VIRGNIANA, SWEETBAY MAGNOLIA (21) ECHINACEA 'WHITE SWAN', WHITE CONEFLOWER (50) CAREX PENSYLVANICA, INTERPLANTED WITH (75) CHIONODOXA, (50) DESCHAMPSIA 'GOLD (75) GLANTHUS, AND (75) SCILLA TAU', TUFTED HAIRGRASS (50) NARCISSUS 'THALIA', MAGNOLIA VIRGNIANA, WHITE DAFFODIL SWEETBAY MAGNOLIA (50) CAREX PENSYLVANICA, (50) CAREX PENSYLVANICA, INTERPLANTED WITH (75) CHIONODOXA, INTERPLANTED WITH (75) (75) GLANTHUS, AND (75) SCILLA (E) PLANTING CHIONODOXA, (75) (3) PAEONIA 'FESTIVA GLANTHUS, AND (75) SCILLA MAXIMA', PEONY (50) NARCISSUS 'THALIA', (30) DRYOPTERIS MARGINALIS AND (48) BUXUS 'LITTLE MISSY'/ WHITE DAFFODIL (70) CAREX PENSYLVANICA 12" BOXWOOD (50) CAREX PENSYLVANICA, INTERPLANTED INTERPLANTED WITH (75) (20) GERANIUM MACULATUM AND CHIONODOXA, (75) GLANTHUS, (40) CAREX PENSYLVANICA PLANT MATRIX AND (75) SCILLA INTERPLANTED 05 - TRIANGLE L4.00 L4.00 MAGNOLIA VIRGNIANA, SWEETBAY LAYOUT T MAGNOLIA (5) CLETHRA 'VANILLA SPICE', SUMMERSWEET (50) DESCHAMPSIA 'GOLD TAU' , TUFTED HAIRGRASS (3) ILEX VERTICILLATA, WINTERBERRY MAGNOLIA VIRGNIANA, SWEETBAY MAGNOLIA (21) ECHINACEA 'WHITE SWAN', WHITE CONEFLOWER (4) ILEX VERTICILLATA, WINTERBERRY SHRUB 03 (E) TREE PLANTING L4.00 L4.00 (5) CLETHRA 'VANILLA SPICE', SUMMERSWEET (3) PAEONIA 'FESTIVA MAXIMA', PEONY (100) LIRIOPE 'MONROE'S B (16) HELLEBORUS 'ICE WHITE', WHITE LILYTURF (100) LIRIOPE 'MONROE'S WHITE', BREAKER', LENTEN ROSE WHITE LILYTURF 04 EXISTING NATIVE SOIL L4.00 L4.00 (12) BUXUS 'GREEN GEM'/ (25) POLYGONATUM 'RUBY SLIPPERS', PREPARATION 18" BOXWOOD SOLOMON'S SEAL (15) POLYSTICHUM ACROSTICHOIDES, CHRISTMAS FERN (15) FOTHERGILLA GARDENII, DWARF FOTHERGILLA (E) TREE (E) TREE (E) TREE (E) TREE (26) MAZUS 'ALBA', WHITE MAZUS (30) PHLOX 'MAY BREEZE', WOODLAND PHLOX feet (41) HEUCHERA 'AUTUMN BRIDE', ALUM ROOT 0 8’ waterstreet studio MEMORIAL GARDEN RENOVATION PLANTING PLAN FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH MEMORIAL GARDEN RENOVATION LANDSCAPE ARCHITEC TS CIVIL ENGINEERS 28 | FEBRUARY | 2023 14 SEE PLANT SCHEDULE FOR SPACING FINISHED GRADE 2" DOUBLE-SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH SUBGRADE 2"x2"x6' MIN. HARDWOOD WEBBED STRAPPING, -USE 2 STAKES PER TREE ARBORTIE OR APPROVED 02 PERENNIAL PLANTING AND SET OUTSIDE ROOT EQUIV. L4.00 SCALE : 1" = 1'-0" PACKAGE -LOOPED TO TRUNK 3" DOUBLE SHREDDED -(2) PER TREE HARDWOOD MULCH, -NAIL OR STAPLE TO STAKE EXISTING VEGETATION TAPER AT TRUNK. MULCH SET TOP OF ROOT TO WITHIN 2" OF TRUNK CROWN 2" ABOVE IN PLANTING AREAS ADJACENT GRADE 4" 4" MODIFIED ROOT ZONE REMOVE ALL WIRE & SHAPE SOIL SURFACE TO (2" ORGANIC COMPOST PROVIDE 3' DIAMETER 3" DOUBLE SHREDDED SET TOP OF ROOT STRING FROM ROOTBALL TILLED INTO TOP 2" OF WATERING RING HARDWOOD MULCH CROWN 2" ABOVE AND ALL BURLAP FROM EXISTING TOPSOIL) FINISH GRADE PULL OR WASH POTTING ADJACENT GRADE TOP 2 3 OF ROOTBALL SHAPE SOIL SURFACE TO 1'-0" PRIOR TO APPLICATION MIX AND ROOT MAT ROUGHEN SIDES PROVIDE 3' DIAMETER MIN. OF SOIL, SCARIFY FACE APART TO DIRECT THE OF PLANTING HOLE OF SUBGRADE C L OUTER ROOTS INTO THE WATERING RING SUBGRADE NATIVE BACKFILL SOIL ADJACENT SOIL. DO NOT FINISH GRADE AMENDED WITH 15% LEAVE CIRCLING ROOTS TREE PIT DEPTH EQUALS ORGANIC COMPOST AGAINST THE ROOT BALL. ROOTBALL DEPTH COMPACT SUBSOIL TREE PIT DEPTH EQUALS -MEASURE BEFORE ROUGHEN SIDES TO FORM PEDESTAL ROOTBALL DEPTH DIGGING TO AVOID OF PLANTING HOLE TO PREVENT SETTLING -MEASURE BEFORE OVEREXCAVATION NATIVE BACKFILL SOIL DRIVE STAKES 6" TO 1'-0" AMENDED WITH 15% DIGGING TO AVOID INTO UNDISTURBED SOIL DECOMPOSED OVEREXCAVATION BELOW ROOTBALL ORGANIC COMPOST PREPARE SUBSOIL TO DEPTH NOTES: FORM PEDESTAL TO -1'-0" FOR ALL TREES PREVENT SETTLING -0'-4" FOR ALL OTHER PLANTINGS 3 X ROOTBALL 2 X ROOTBALL DIAMETER MINIMUM DIAMETER MINIMUM 01 TREE PLANTING 03 SHRUB PLANTING 04 EXISTING NATIVE SOIL PREPARATION L4.00 SCALE : 1" = 1'-0" L4.00 SCALE : 1" = 1'-0" L4.00 SCALE : 1" = 1'-0" 12" or 18", SEE SCHEDULE AD\03 SHEETS\MEMORIAL GARDEN\L4.00 PLANTING SCHEDULE NOTES & DETAILS.DWG 1" or 151" 102 2 SBYTERIAN CHURCH\CAD\03 SHEETS\MEMORIA PLANT 1 PLANT 2 PLANT KEY PLANT 1 PLANT 2 05 PLANT MATRIX - TRIANGLE LAYOUT L4.00 SCALE : 1" = 1'-0" waterstreet studio MEMORIAL GARDEN PLANTING SCHEDULE & DETAILS FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH MEMORIAL GARDEN RENOVATION LANDSCAPE ARCHITEC TS CIVIL ENGINEERS 28 | FEBRUARY | 2023 15 waterstreet studio BOXWOOD GARDEN FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH MEMORIAL GARDEN RENOVATION LANDSCAPE ARCHITEC TS CIVIL ENGINEERS 28 | FEBRUARY | 2023 16 4’ height boxwood perimeter hedge to frame and enclose memorial garden Lower boxwoods within the memorial garden to define walkways Bluestone w/ staggered joints in running bond pattern Colored concrete w/ radial saw cut joints Bluestone pavers combined w/ colored concrete Stake mounted pathlights waterstreet studio LANDSCAPE STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH MEMORIAL GARDEN RENOVATION LANDSCAPE ARCHITEC TS CIVIL ENGINEERS 28 | FEBRUARY | 2023 17 Cornus florida - Flowering Dogwood Cornus florida - Flowering Dogwood Cornus florida - Flowering Dogwood in fall Magnolia virginiana - Sweetbay Magnolia Magnolia virginiana - Sweetbay Magnolia flower Magnolia virginiana - Sweetbay Magnolia fruit waterstreet studio TREES FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH MEMORIAL GARDEN RENOVATION LANDSCAPE ARCHITEC TS CIVIL ENGINEERS 28 | FEBRUARY | 2023 18 Clethra alnifolia ‘Vanilla Spice’ - Summersweet Fothergilla gardenii - Dwarf Fothergilla Ilex verticillata - Winterberry Holly Liriope muscari ‘Monroe’s Whie’ - White Lilyturf Carex pensylvanica - Pennsylvania Sedge Deschampsia cespitosa ‘Goldtau’ - Tufted Hairgrass waterstreet studio PLANTS - WHITE BLOOMING FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH MEMORIAL GARDEN RENOVATION LANDSCAPE ARCHITEC TS CIVIL ENGINEERS 28 | FEBRUARY | 2023 19 Paeonia lactiflora ‘Festiva Maxima’ - White Peony Echinacea purpurea ‘White Swan’ - White Coneflower Heuchera villosa ‘Autumn Bride’ - Coral Bells Geranium maculatum - Wild Geranium Phlox divaricata ‘May Breeze’ - Woodland Phlox Polygonatum odoratum ‘Ruby Slippers’ - Solomon’s Seal waterstreet studio PLANTS - WHITE BLOOMING FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH MEMORIAL GARDEN RENOVATION LANDSCAPE ARCHITEC TS CIVIL ENGINEERS 28 | FEBRUARY | 2023 20 Dryopteris marginalis - Eastern Woodfern Polystichum acrostichoides - Christmas Fern Mazus reptans ‘Alba’ - White Mazus Helleborus x ericsmithii ‘Ice Breaker’ - White Lenten Rose Chionodoxa luciliae alba - Glory of the Snow Galanthus nivalis - Snowdrops (Bulbs) waterstreet studio PLANTS - WHITE BLOOMING FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH MEMORIAL GARDEN RENOVATION LANDSCAPE ARCHITEC TS CIVIL ENGINEERS 28 | FEBRUARY | 2023 21 Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 23-03-03 361 1st St N, TMP 330188000 North Downtown ADC District Owner: W Gitchell, Et al, Trustees for Christ Episcopal Ch Applicant: Marcy Hooker Project: Replace Windows Application components (please click each link to go directly to PDF page): • Staff Report • Historic Survey • Application Submittal March 2023 BAR Packet 5 City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Staff Report March 21, 2023 Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 23-03-03 361 1st St N, TMP 330188000 North Downtown ADC District Owner: W Gitchell, Et al, Trustees for Christ Episcopal Church Applicant: Marcy Hooker Project: Replace Windows Background Year Built: 1923 District: North Downtown ADC District Status: Contributing Carver House. Example of the Colonial Revival style popular in Charlottesville at the time the First Methodist Church (c1923) was being built. Typical in its double pile plan, three 6/6 windows on the second floor, a nice box cornice that returns on the gable and, a fine Federal door and porch, the variety and arrangement of the first floor fenestration is unusual and unique. All windows have segmental arches. (Historical survey attached.) Prior BAR Actions: January 2014: Administrative approval of 6 storm panels (glass with aluminum frames, screwed into inner molding) to 3 first-story windows and 3 second-story windows on façade. Application • Applicant submittal: Pella Lifestyle Series information. (Attached photos by BAR staff.) s of Request CoA to replace windows. Discussion and Recommendations Due to miscommunication during the application process, there are several unresolved questions, so staff recommends the BAR discuss with the applicant what is needed for a complete submittal 361 1st Street North - March 21, 2023 (3/17/2023) 1 and then defer the matter--either with a BAR deferral to the April meeting or with the applicant requesting deferral until a later date. Among the questions to the resolved: • Exactly which windows are proposed for replacement? • Why is replacement necessary? (Demonstrate the conditions that warrant replacement.) • Are the proposed new windows to be entirely new units? (Remove entire window—frame, sash, trim—and install new within the masonry opening.) Or window inserts? (Remove sash only, install new frame and sash within the existing frame.) Or sash replacements? (Replace only the sash, with matching new installed into the existing frame.) • Will the new be single-pane or insulated? • Will the new match lite arrangement and muntin widths? • Will the new match the operation? (i.e., replace double-hung with double-hung; casement with casement; etc.) Additional comments: Re: 361 N. 1st Street Shutters: The existing shutters are applied to the masonry wall and not original. The BAR should discuss if these might be removed during any work. Not required by the guidelines—nor is replacement with operable shutters—but it would remove a non-historic element. Re: 120 West High Street [120 West High Street and 361 N 1st street are both owed by Christ Episcopal Church.] Gutter replacement at West Jefferson Street entrance (See Appendix) Staff was asked about the [relatively] recent installation of K-style gutters. This was not reviewed by the BAR; however, while K-style gutters are discouraged in the historic district, the new matches what was in-place. Trees at West High Street entrance (See Appendix) Staff was asked about the two spruce trees removed from the north (High Street) entrance of the church. In January 2015, BAR approved removal of the spruce on the east side. In June 2015, BAR approved a sugar maple for its replacement. A 2016 Street View photo indicates a replacement tree was planted. A recent photo by BAR staff indicates both the replacement tree and the spruce on the west side have been removed. Links to BAR actions, staff reports, and applicant’s submittals: • 120 West High St BAR January 2015 • 120 West High St BAR June 2015 Suggested Motions No action is proposed, except to defer this request to a later date. 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: 361 1st Street North - March 21, 2023 (3/17/2023) 2 (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 4) Federal Regulations (36 C.F.R. §67.7(b)), as may be relevant; 5) The effect of the proposed change on the historic district neighborhood; 6) The impact of the proposed change on other protected features on the property, such as gardens, landscaping, fences, walls and walks; 7) Whether the proposed method of construction, renovation or restoration could have an adverse impact on the structure or site, or adjacent buildings or structures; 8) Any applicable provisions of the City’s Design Guidelines. Pertinent Guidelines for Rehabilitation C. Windows 1) Prior to any repair or replacement of windows, a survey of existing window conditions is recommended. Note number of windows, whether each window is original or replaced, the material, type, hardware and finish, the condition of the frame, sash, sill, putty, and panes. 2) Retain original windows when possible. 3) Uncover and repair covered up windows and reinstall windows where they have been blocked in. 4) If the window is no longer needed, the glass should be retained and the back side frosted, screened, or shuttered so that it appears from the outside to be in use. 5) Repair original windows by patching, splicing, consolidating or otherwise reinforcing. Wood that appears to be in bad condition because of peeling paint or separated joints often can be repaired. 6) Replace historic components of a window that are beyond repair with matching components. 7) Replace entire windows only when they are missing or beyond repair. 8) If a window on the primary façade of a building must be replaced and an existing window of the same style, material, and size is identified on a secondary elevation, place the historic window in the window opening on the primary façade. 9) Reconstruction should be based on physical evidence or old photographs. 10) Avoid changing the number, location, size, or glazing pattern of windows by cutting new openings, blocking in windows, or installing replacement sash that does not fit the window opening. 11) Do not use inappropriate materials or finishes that radically change the sash, depth of reveal, muntin configuration, reflective quality or color of the glazing, or appearance of the frame. 361 1st Street North - March 21, 2023 (3/17/2023) 3 12) Use replacement windows with true divided lights or interior and exterior fixed muntins with internal spacers to replace historic or original examples. 13) If windows warrant replacement, appropriate material for new windows depends upon the context of the building within a historic district, and the age and design of the building. Sustainable materials such as wood, aluminum-clad wood, solid fiberglass, and metal windows are preferred. Vinyl windows are discouraged. 14) False muntins and internal removable grilles do not present an historic appearance and should not be used. 15) Do not use tinted or mirrored glass on major facades of the building. Translucent or low (e) glass may be strategies to keep heat gain down. 16) Storm windows should match the size and shape of the existing windows and the original sash configuration. Special shapes, such as arched top storms, are available. 17) Storm windows should not damage or obscure the windows and frames. 18) Avoid aluminum-colored storm sash. It can be painted an appropriate color if it is first primed with a zinc chromate primer. 19) The addition of shutters may be appropriate if not previously installed but if compatible with the style of the building or neighborhood. 20) In general, shutters should be wood (rather than metal or vinyl) and should be mounted on hinges. In some circumstances, appropriately dimensioned, painted, composite material shutters may be used. 21) The size of the shutters should result in their covering the window opening when closed. 22) Avoid shutters on composite or bay windows. 23) If using awnings, ensure that they align with the opening being covered. 24) Use awning colors that are compatible with the colors of the building. 361 1st Street North - March 21, 2023 (3/17/2023) 4 Appendix Gutters at Jefferson Street entrance to 120 West High Street 361 1st Street North - March 21, 2023 (3/17/2023) 5 Tree removal at 120 West High Street (CoA request January 2015) Remove spruce tree on east side of entrance. Tree removal at 120 West High Street (CoA request June 2015) Replace east spruce with sugar maple. . 361 1st Street North - March 21, 2023 (3/17/2023) 6 Tree removal at 120 West High Street – Street View photo 2016 New sugar maple on east side. Spruce on west side in-place 120 West High Street - BAR staff photo February 2023 New sugar maple on east side removed. Spruce on west side removed. 361 1st Street North - March 21, 2023 (3/17/2023) 7 361 N. 1st Street: Window replacement request. March 2023 (BAR staff photos 3/10/2023) sheet 1 of 4 August 1974 (NDS) 361 N. 1st Street: Window replacement request. March 2023 (BAR staff photos 3/10/2023) sheet 2 of 4 August 1974 (NDS) 361 N. 1st Street: Window replacement request. March 2023 (BAR staff photos 3/10/2023) sheet 3 of 4 August 1974 (NDS) 361 N. 1st Street: Window replacement request. March 2023 (BAR staff photos 3/10/2023) sheet 4 of 4 August 1974 (NDS) Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 23-03-04 130 Madison Lane, TMP 090138000 The Corner ADC District Owner: St Elmo Club of UVA INC Applicant: Kevin Schafer Project: Rehabilitation Application components (please click each link to go directly to PDF page): • Staff Report • Historic Survey • Application Submittal March 2023 BAR Packet 6 City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Staff Report March 21, 2023 Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 23-03-04 130 Madison Lane, TMP 090138000 The Corner ADC District Owner: St Elmo Club of UVA INC Applicant: Kevin Schafer / Design Develop Project: Roof work, reconstruction of the roof railing, and renovations to the rear/side patio Background Year Built: ca. 1912 District: The Corner ADC District Status: Contributing St. Elmo Hall, constructed for the Delta Phi fraternity, is a Georgian Revival, brick fraternity house with four Doric columns supporting a flat portico roof. Except for the railings on the portico roof and main roof, the exterior remains generally unaltered since construction. The National Register nomination for Rugby Road-University Corner Historic District (104-0133) identifies this as one of UVa’s earliest fraternity houses. Rugby Road-University Corner HD Prior BAR Review (See Appendix) Application • Applicant submittal: Design Develop drawings St. Elmo’s Hall Renovation, dated 02/28/2023, 15 sheets. Request CoA to install faux slate, reconstruct the roof railing, and renovate to the rear/side patio. Roof: • Replace deteriorating slate shingles with synthetic slate. • Remove 1980’s metal railing along top of roof; reconstruct wood railing to match original. • Repair “crow’s nest” roof, remove vents no longer in use. • Replace copper flashing. 130 Madison Lane March 21, 2023 (3/16/2023) 1 Patio: • Remove existing trex decking. • Reinforce deck framing. • Weatherproof basement ceiling to prevent further water infiltration. • Install trex decking above new waterproofing and sleeper system. Discussion and Recommendations Regarding the patio work and roof railing. Staff recommends approval as submitted. Regarding the slate roof. In 2008, sections of slate roofing were replaced with faux-slate. There is no BAR record of a review; however, in the BAR archive is a roof plan (dated February 2008, see the Appendix) indicating planned replacement of cracked, broken, and missing slate shingles. It’s possible the roof work was approved as part of the broader submittal, but not noted in the staff report, which was focused on the new work at the patio. The BAR has approved replacing slate with faux-slate; however, staff suggests discussing whether replacement of all the slate is warranted. Buckingham slate, when properly maintained, can last 150 years or more. [Note: The longevity of Buckingham slate was cited in the BAR’s recent denial of a request to remove portions of the slate roof at FUMC, constructed in 1923.] Typically, the nails holding the shingles fail long before the slate requires replacement. In fact, it is likely the shingle replacement in 2008 was necessary more due to activity on the roof than to the age and weathering. Additionally: (Images below from the applicant’s submittal. See Appendix - 3/15/2023 e-mail re: roof questions.) 1) The existing slate has mitered hips. Applicant is proposing a hip cap. The BAR should determine if that detail should be retained or allow cap. (Staff recommends a cap is preferrable, relative to mitigating leaks.) 2) The existing slate include splits worked in between whole shingles. Staff believes the roof dates to the 1916 construction; however, because there is no apparent decorative pattern, might this suggest the original slate was salvaged material, not new? 130 Madison Lane March 21, 2023 (3/16/2023) 2 Suggested Motion Approval: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City’s ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed patio renovations and railing reconstruction at 130 Madison Lane satisfies the BAR’s criteria and is compatible with this district and that the BAR approves the application [as submitted]. […as submitted with the following conditions: …] Denial: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City’s ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed patio renovations and railing reconstruction at 130 Madison Lane does not satisfy the BAR’s criteria and is not compatible with this district, and that for the following reasons the BAR denies the application as submitted: Criteria, Standards, and Guidelines Review Criteria Generally Sec. 34-284(b) of the City Code states that, in considering a particular application the BAR shall approve the application unless it finds: (1) That the proposal does not meet specific standards set forth within this division or applicable provisions of the Design Guidelines established by the board pursuant to Sec.34-288(6); and (2) The proposal is incompatible with the historic, cultural or architectural character of the district in which the property is located or the protected property that is the subject of the application. Pertinent Standards for Review of Construction and Alterations include: (1) Whether the material, texture, color, height, scale, mass and placement of the proposed addition, modification or construction are visually and architecturally compatible with the site and the applicable design control district; (2) The harmony of the proposed change in terms of overall proportion and the size and placement of entrances, windows, awnings, exterior stairs and signs; (3) The Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation set forth within the Code of Federal Regulations (36 C.F.R. §67.7(b)), as may be relevant; (4) The effect of the proposed change on the historic district neighborhood; (5) The impact of the proposed change on other protected features on the property, such as gardens, landscaping, fences, walls and walks; (6) Whether the proposed method of construction, renovation or restoration could have an adverse impact on the structure or site, or adjacent buildings or structures; (7) Any applicable provisions of the City’s Design Guidelines. Pertinent ADC District Design Guidelines Chapter 4 – Rehabilitation Link: Chapter 4 Rehabilitation D. Entrances, Porches, and Doors 1) The original details and shape of porches should be retained including the outline, roof height, and roof pitch. 2) Inspect masonry, wood, and metal or porches and entrances for signs of rust, peeling paint, wood deterioration, open joints around frames, deteriorating putty, inadequate caulking, and improper drainage, and correct any of these conditions. 3) Repair damaged elements, matching the detail of the existing original fabric. 130 Madison Lane March 21, 2023 (3/16/2023) 3 4) Replace an entire porch only if it is too deteriorated to repair or is completely missing, and design to match the original as closely as possible. 5) Do not strip entrances and porches of historic material and details. 6) Give more importance to front or side porches than to utilitarian back porches. 7) Do not remove or radically change entrances and porches important in defining the building’s overall historic character. 8) Avoid adding decorative elements incompatible with the existing structure. […] G. Roof […] 3) Original roof pitch and configuration should be maintained. […] 6) Retain elements, such as chimneys, skylights, and light wells that contribute to the style and character of the building. 7) When replacing a roof, match original materials as closely as possible. a. Avoid, for example, replacing a standing-seam metal roof with asphalt shingles, as this would dramatically alter the building’s appearance. b. Artificial slate is an acceptable substitute when replacement is needed. c. Do not change the appearance or material of parapet coping. […] 130 Madison Lane March 21, 2023 (3/16/2023) 4 Appendix Prior BAR Review • May 20, 2008 – BAR approved (8-0, consent agenda) revisions to the courtyard walls. • April 17, 2007 - BAR voted unanimously to accept applicant request for deferral; requested more details of the courtyard design; suggested simplifying material palette. BAR supported tree removal, shed demolition, and the conversion of the two windows into French doors. • May 15, 2007 – BAR approved (8-0) shed demolition. BAR approved (7-1) replacing two windows with French doors at rear elevation. BAR approved (8-0) the reconstructed side/rear patio area (south and southeast sides of the property). (See attached 2008 drawings, from BAR archive.) • November 16, 2007 – CoA extended one-year to allow patio work during summer 2008. February 2008 roof plan (BAR archive) 130 Madison Lane March 21, 2023 (3/16/2023) 5 From: Kevin Schafer Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2023 5:37 PM Regarding the railing construction...we did consider a composite railing, and we would continue to consider it if a) the Board felt strongly it shouldn't be wood and b) we could find a product that is customizable to our specific dimensions. From my perspective (and I think this logic holds water, but I am eager to hear from the historians on this point...) was that if we were going through the effort to restore the original railing, we should make it a true restoration of the original wood railing, and not a composite replication. This choice, admittedly, requires upkeep and maintenance from the Owner, but the Elmo Board is a competent one and from my experience, appears to be proactive about upkeep. Regarding [your questions], my responses are below in red. JWerner: The slate is very likely original to the building, but I’m wondering if it was installed as salvaged slate. I’ve seen older roofs that don’t look that rough and why are there so many splits in between whole shingles? (See the first two pics below.) My point: If the slate is 100 years old, it’s difficult to support its removal and replacement. At the very least, the salvageable shingles should be re-installed. However, if the material is older than 1916—and yes, I know rock is millions of years old—then maybe replacement is warranted. Thoughts? KSchafer: I don't know if the slate was originally salvaged, but I do know it's not in great shape. "Rough" is how I would describe it as well, though I am not entirely sure why it is so rough. My initial thought regarding the varying shingle sizes was that it was done for decoration (a kind of roof tile pattern) or perhaps just because they were utilizing the sizes available - but I am not sure if that was a technique employed at this time, or why it would be employed on this structure. The shingle could very well be salvaged, to your point. The varying widths seem random, both in installation and size, which would support your theory. One point I think is important is that the tile has already been haphazardly patched and repaired with synthetic tile over the years. This patching and repairing has occurred on all four sides, and mostly around trouble areas (crickets, valleys, etc.). Unfortunately, I think this slate takes some abuse. Whether from various projectiles, or people walking on it, or salvaged materials, it's got a few worrisome spots, from where I sit. We took our drone up for a flyaround, and I'll share those files at the link below. The high-quality imagery allows some pretty detailed zooming, so you can investigate the shingles, as well. 130 Madison Lane March 21, 2023 (3/16/2023) 6 . 130 Madison Lane March 21, 2023 (3/16/2023) 7 JWerner: Also, but, I know the hips can be mitred, but that just a delayed leak. Do you plan to use a hip cap? KSchafer: Yes, we are proposing a hip cap. JWerner Finally, out of curiosity, looking at the bottom photo below, what are the small, I assume metal, loops? Possibly from old ice guards? I thought they might be clips from prior shingles repairs, but they are only in those three courses. KSchafer: I believe them to be snow guards, yes. They are on those three courses our all four sides of the hip. I am not sure if they are original, as this historic photo doesn't appear to show them, but I'm zoomed in through a tree branch, so it's a little hard to tell what is what. We are proposing the following snow guard in copper, which has a similar profile to the existing guards, and is meant to work with the proposed slate. 130 Madison Lane March 21, 2023 (3/16/2023) 8 Board of Architectural Review (BAR) Certificate of Appropriateness Please Return To: City of Charlottesville Department of Neighborhood Development Services P.O. Box 911, City Hall Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Telephone (434) 970-3130 Please submit ten (10) hard copies and one (1) digital copy of application form and all attachments. Please include application fee as follows: New construction project $375; Demolition of a contributing structure $375; Appeal of BAR decision $125; Additions and other projects requiring BAR approval $125; Administrative approval $100. Make checks payable to the City of Charlottesville. The BAR meets the third Tuesday of the month. Deadline for submittals is Tuesday 3 weeks prior to next BAR meeting by 3:30 p.m. ST. ELMO CLUB OF UVA INC. Owner Name___________________________________ KEVIN SCHAFER Applicant Name______________________________________ ST. ELMO HALL RENOVATION Project Name/Description______________________________________ 090138000 Parcel Number__________________________ 130 MADISON LANE Project Property Address____________________________________________________________________________ Signature of Applicant Applicant Information 802 EAST JEFFERSON ST. SUITE 3 I hereby attest that the information I have provided is, to the Address:______________________________________ best of my knowledge, correct. CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 _____________________________________________ KSCHAFER@DESIGNDEVELOPLLC.COM Email:________________________________________ __________________________________________ 434-665-4144 Phone: (W) _________________ (C) _______________ Signature Date KEVIN SCHAFER 02/28/2023 __________________________________________ Property Owner Information (if not applicant) Print Name Date 130 MADISON LANE Address:______________________________________ Property Owner Permission (if not applicant) CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 _____________________________________________ I have read this application and hereby give my consent to TOMMY@LORINGWOODRIFF.COM Email:________________________________________ its submission. 434-981-1486 Phone: (W) _________________ (C) _______________ _ __________________________________________ Signature Date Do you intend to apply for Federal or State Tax Credits _________________________________________ TOMMY BRANNOCK 02/28/2023 NO. for this project? _______________________ Print Name Date Description of Proposed Work (attach separate narrative if necessary):__________________________________ SEE ATTACHED BOOKLETS. ______________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________ List All Attachments (see reverse side for submittal requirements): 1 NARRATIVE BOOKLET (DIGITAL DELIVERY) ______________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________ For Office Use Only Approved/Disapproved by: ______________________ Received by: ___________________________ Date: _______________________________________ Fee paid: ___________Cash/Ck. # _________ Conditions of approval: _________________________ Date Received: _________________________ ____________________________________________ Revised 2016 ____________________________________________ St. Elmo’s Hall Renovation 130 MADISON LANE, CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA PARCEL 090138000 BAR SUBMISSION PRESENTED BY 02 | 28 | 2023 1 | COVER 2| TABLE OF CONTENTS 3 | VICINITY MAP 4| ADJACENT CONTEXT 5 | PROPOSED AREAS OF RENOVATION 6 | EXISTING CONDITIONS (ROOF) 7 | EXISTING CONDITIONS (PATIO) 8 -11 | RAILING & ROOF 12 -14| PATIO & KITCHEN 15 | MATERIALS LIST 130 MADISON LN. TABLE OF CONTENTS BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 2 FEBRUARY 28TH, 2023 RUGBY/UNIVERSITY/ VENABLE ADCD SITE THE CORNER ADCD WERTLAND ADCD WEST MAIN STREET ADCD OAKHURST- GILDERSLEEVE ADCD D 130 MADISON LN. VICINITY MAP BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 3 FEBRUARY 28TH, 2023 136 MADISON LANE 138 MADISON LANE 150 MADISON LANE 133 CHANCELLOR STREET 128 MADISON LANE 160 MADISON LANE 158 MADISON LANE 165 CHANCELLOR STREET 167 CHANCELLOR STREET 125 CHANCELLOR STREET 123 CHANCELLOR STREET 127 CHANCELLOR STREET 130 MADISON LN. ADJACENT CONTEXT BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 4 FEBRUARY 28TH, 2023 PORTICO EXISTING PORTICO EXISTING SHRUBS ROOF AND RAILING TO REMAIN NOT IN SCOPE PROPOSED EXTERIOR KITCHEN LOCATION ROOF RAILING RESTORATION “CROW’S NEST” FLAT ROOF EXISTING DORMERS REPLACEMENT TO REMAIN AS-IS ROOF SHINGLE REPLACEMENT DECK REPLACEMENT OVER EXISTING SITE WALLS BASEMENT TO REMAIN AS-IS 130 MADISON LN. PROPOSED AREAS OF RENOVATION BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 5 FEBRUARY 28TH, 2023 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK Replace deteriorating slate shingles with synthetic slate tiles, retaining aesthetic qualities and lowering weight. SYNTHETIC SLATE Removal of 1980’s metal railing REPAIR (2008) along top of roof and restore the original wooden railing around the top roof parapet. STEEL RAILING REPLACEMENT (1984?) Repair “crow’s nest” roof and SYNTHETIC SLATE remove vents no longer in use. REPAIR (2008) Replace all existing copper ORIGINAL SLATE flashing. SHINGLE ORIGINAL SLATE SHINGLE VENT TO BE REMOVED AND PATCHED PATCHING AT REAR GABLE SOME ADDITIONAL PATCHING AT CRICKET FLASHING / WATERPROOFING CONCERNS SYNTHETIC SLATE REPAIR (2008) 130 MADISON LN. EXISTING CONDITIONS (ROOF) BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 6 FEBRUARY 28TH, 2023 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK Removal of existing trex decking. Reinforcing the floor for designed live load of 100PSF (code minimum for assembly space). Weatherproofing of basement ceiling to prevent further water infiltration. Installation of new trex decking above new waterproofing and sleeper LOCATION OF PROPOSED system. OUTDOOR KITCHEN NOTE: The decking is above EXISTING TREX EXTENTS OF PROPOSED a 1984 basement expansion, TO BE REPLACED OUTDOOR KITCHEN not original to the historic (REFER TO SHEETS 11-13 FOR MORE house. The patio and INFORMATION) site walls are from a 2008 addition, and not original to the historic house. EXISTING SITE WALLS TO REMAIN AS-IS EXISTING TREX TO BE EXISTING TREX REPLACED TO BE REPLACED NEW WATERPROOFING ABOVE BASEMENT 130 MADISON LN. EXISTING CONDITIONS (PATIO) BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 7 FEBRUARY 28TH, 2023 Images from UVA’s Special Collections library (specifically Holsinger Studio Collection, ca. 1890-1938) reveal the original wooden railing around the roof. Using these images as templates, modeling software can be used to recreate the railings’ proportions and dimensions through a “photomatch” function. Restoring the wooden railing replaces the existing metal railing. Selecting corner post finials and railing profiles based on photographic evidence and popular styles in 1890S. STEP 1: 3D POINT CLOUD SCAN OF THE EXISTING CONDITIONS STEP 2: CREATE DIGITAL MODEL FROM POINT CLOUD SCAN STEP 3: UTILIZE DIGITAL NEGATIVES OF HISTORIC PHOTOS 130 MADISON LN. “CROW’S NEST” RAILING REPLICATION BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 8 FEBRUARY 28TH, 2023 Images from UVA’s Special Collections library (specifically Holsinger Studio Collection, ca. 1890- 1938) reveal the original wooden railing around the roof. Using these images as templates, modeling software can be used to recreate the railings’ proportions and dimensions through a “photomatch” function. Restoring the wooden railing replaces the existing metal railing. Selecting corner post finials and railing profiles based on photographic evidence and popular styles in 1890S. STEP 4: RECREATING THE HISTORIC RAILING THROUGH A “PHOTOMATCH” PROCESS, ALIGNING PERSPECITVES DIGITALLY ALIGN PHOTO AND MODEL TO ESTABLISH HEIGHT, SIZE OF RAILING MEMBERS, AND FINISH DETAILS COMPARING DETAIL COMPARING PROPORTION, SCALE, HEIGHT 130 MADISON LN. “CROW’S NEST” RAILING REPLICATION BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 9 FEBRUARY 28TH, 2023 8" PINEAPPLE FINIAL ACTUAL NOMINAL TOP RAIL WITH OGEE PROFILE 8" TALL X 5" WIDE 8" HANDCARVED ACANTHUS PINEAPPLE FLAT ACTUAL 1" 5/4" TOP PLATE POST CAP 1 1/2" 3/4" X 1 1/2" 1" 2 1/2" TYPICAL CORNER POST 6 1/8" 2x2 MEMBERS 1 1/2" EXTERIOR CROW'S NEST 3x4 BOTTOM RAIL 6 1/2" 2" 8" 8" TYPICAL POST 1 1/2" 1" 1 1/2" 1 1/2" 2 1/2" 2 1/2" 3 1/2" 6" 6 3/4" 1 1/2" 3'-8 1/2" 1 1/2" 2'-2" 2" 6 1/2" 1'-10 1/2" 3'-1/2" 1" CHAMFER 2'-10 1/4" 1 1/2" RAILS 1/8" 2 1/2" 2 1/2" 1" X 6" (RIPPED) TO PROMOTE 1 1/2" 6 3/4" 1'-6 1/2" 1'-6 1/2" 1'-7" DRAINAGE 2 1/2" 2 1/2" 2 1/2" 3 1/2" 5 1/2" 5 1/2" 5 1/2" 5/4" X 6" 5 1/2" 3'-2 1/4" 1 1/2" 3'-2 1/4" 5 1/2" 4" 3 1/2" 3 1/2" 4" X 4" POST 6'-11" 130 MADISON LN. RAILING & ROOF DETAILS BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 10 FEBRUARY 28TH, 2023 Bellaforté Bellaforté Slate Slate SHINGLES Designed Designed to to reduce reduce material material costs, costs, Bellaforté Bellaforté puts puts the the look look of of slate slate within within reach, and with it the premium aesthetics and performance that reach, and with it the premium aesthetics and performance that asphaltasphalt shingles shingles can can only only dream dream about. about. With With DaVinci DaVinci Bellaforté, Bellaforté, the the look look of of slate slate may may be be more more attainable attainable than than you you think. think. NAIL PLACEMENT MARKS BROWNSTONE SONORA EUROPEAN BROWNSTONE SONORA EUROPEAN cr cr STATEMENT FROM BUCKINGHAM SLATE The existing shingles cannot be replaced with Buckingham Slate; see announcement from their site. DaVinci Bellaforte synthetic slate tiles have been selected to maintain the same aesthetic appearance. CANYON SLATE BLACK SLATE GRAY CANYON SLATE BLACK SLATE GRAY cr BELLAFORTE SLATE 6 INCH cr OFFSET PATTERN SCALE: N.T.S. UNDERLAYMENT PLYWOOD 1-800-328-4624 EVERGREEN SELF-ADHERED www.davinciroofscapes.com CASTLE GRAY SMOKEY GRAY EVERGREEN CASTLE GRAY SMOKEY GRAY MEMBRANE cr cr ALSO AVAILABLE cr ALSO AVAILABLE bellaforté slate cr IN COOL ROOF COLOR IN COOL ROOF COLOR METAL EDGE bellaforté slate HIP DETAIL (BELLAFORTE SLATE) STARTER COURSE 130 MADISON LN. RAILING & ROOF DETAILS BAR SUBMISSION SELF-ADHERED MEMBRANE IS REQUIRED ON THE ENTIRE CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 11 THE ROOF PITCH IS A MINIMUM 3:12 ROOF DECK WHERE FEBRUARY 28TH, 2023 EXISTING EVERGREEN SHRUBS TO REMAIN; SCREEN KITCHEN EXISTING EVERGREEN SHRUBS TO REMAIN; SCREEN KITCHEN 130 MADISON LN. EXISTING FRONT ELEVATION BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 12 FEBRUARY 28TH, 2023 EXISTING FENCE TO REMAIN EDGE OF EXISTING PATIO 1'-6" 4'-6 1/2" 2'-7" ~9" ~9" 5 1/2" EDGE OF EXISTING MASONRY OPENING EXISTING FENCE TO REMAIN 5'-0" 2'-10" 1'-1" ~9" 14'-0" ~9" ~15'-6" 130 MADISON LN. PATIO & KITCHEN ELEVATION BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 13 FEBRUARY 28TH, 2023 EXTENTS OF TREX DECKING REPLACEMENT TO REMAIN AS-IS 130 MADISON LN. PATIO & KITCHEN PERSPECTIVE BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 14 FEBRUARY 28TH, 2023 ROOF DAVINCI’ “BELLAFORTE” SLATE SHERWIN-WILLIAMS SEMIGLOSS ACCOYA ENHANCED WOOD 8” X 5 “ HANDCARVED DEERFIELD MILLWORK POLYMER ROOF IN “SLATE GRAY” PAINT SW7005 “PURE WHITE” PAINTED “PURE WHITE” ACANTHUS PINEAPPLE FINIAL HANDRAIL PATIO TREX ENHANCED NATURAL BRICK TO MATCH EXISTING SITE BLAZE PREMIUM LTE 40-INCH BLAZE 24-INCH 5.5 CU. FT. OUT- DECKING “SADDLE” WALL BUILT-IN GAS GRILL DOOR RATED COMPACT REFRIG- ERATOR 130 MADISON LN. PROPOSED MATERIALS BAR SUBMISSION CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 15 FEBRUARY 28TH, 2023 Preliminary Discussion 843 West Main Street, TMP 310175000 North Downtown ADC District Owner: Kim Tran Dabney Applicant: / Mitchell-Matthews Architects & Planners Project: Proposed Hotel Application components (please click each link to go directly to PDF page): • Staff Report • Historic Survey • Application Submittal March 2023 BAR Packet 7 City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Staff Report March 21, 2023 Certificate of Appropriateness (Preliminary Discussion) 843 West Main Street, TMP 310175000 North Downtown ADC District Owner: Kim Tran Dabney Applicant: Mitchell-Matthews Architects & Planners Project: Proposed Hotel Background Year Built: Single-story, commercial building constructed in 1972 District: West Main Street ADC District. Status: Non-contributing See attached images from Sanborn Maps Prior BAR Actions (See Appendix) Application • Applicant’s Submittal: Mitchell/Matthews drawings 843 W Main, dated 3/10/2023, 27 sheets. Preliminary discussion of proposed new hotel. Discussion and recommendation In response to any questions from the applicant and/or for any recommendations to the applicant, the BAR should rely on the germane sections of the ADC District Design Guidelines and related review criteria. While elements of other chapters may be relevant, staff recommends that the BAR refer to the criteria in Chapter II--Site Design and Elements, Chapter III--New Construction and Additions, and Chapter VI – Public Design and Improvements. Staff recommends that the BAR refer to the criteria in Chapter II--Site Design and Elements and Chapter III--New Construction and Additions. Of assistance are the following criteria from Chapter III: B. Setback E. Height & Width H. Orientation C. Spacing F. Scale I. Windows & Doors D. Massing & Footprint G. Roof J. Porches 843 West Main Street Prelim Discussion - March 21, 2023 (3/17/2023) 1 K. Foundation & Cornice L. Materials & Textures M. Paint [Color palette] N. Details & Decoration Elements: • Roof • Doors & Windows • Plantings/Landscaping • Gutters & Downspouts • Lighting • Patios & walks • Exterior walls • Railings • Public spaces • Trim • Balcony details • Screening (HVAC, utilities) West Main Street Architectural Design Control District The West Main Street ADC District was created in 1996. (West Main from the Downtown Mall to 5th Street SW and 6th Street are within the Downton ADC District. Also, section west of the railroad is not within the National Register West Main Street Historic District.) West Main Street was part of a significant eighteenth-century Virginia transportation route, the "Three Notch'd Road" that connected the Tidewater to the Shenandoah Valley. It remains an important connection between the University of Virginia and Downtown. Early development included several stylish brick townhouses built by Jefferson's building James Dinsmore. Dinsmore purchased 13 lots in 1818 along the thoroughfare and constructed a series of brick townhomes. Development continued along the corridor during the 1850s when the Virginia Central Railroad installed its tracks parallel to West Main Street, and the Union Station was constructed in 1885 by the C&O railroad. By the early twentieth-century, West Main Street was an important commercial center and the principal hotel district. This area also developed as the institutional core of Charlottesville's African-American community, including the Delevan and Ebenezer Baptist Churches and Jefferson School. Further east, Vinegar Hill was the African-American commercial center. By the early 1930's West Main Street was the principal east-west route through town, with twelve service stations and six car dealers. Activity on the corridor gradually declined mid-century with suburbanization. In recent years, new hotels and the reuse of historic buildings have signaled renewed interest in this urban corridor. Guidelines specific to West Main re: Setback, Spacing, Massing & Footprint, Height & Width, and Scale Building Types within the Historic Districts • Traditional commercial infill buildings are the forms that fill in holes in a larger block of buildings … in certain areas of the West Main Street corridor. This type of building generally has a limited setback, attaches to or is very close to neighboring structures, and takes many of its design cues from the adjoining buildings. Its typical lot width would be 25 to 40 feet. 843 West Main Street Prelim Discussion - March 21, 2023 (3/17/2023) 2 [Staff note: Width of the parcel at 843 West Main, at the street, is approximately 150 feet.] Setback • In the West Main Street corridor, construct new buildings with a minimal (up to 15 feet according to the zoning ordinance) or no setback in order to reinforce the street wall. • New buildings, ... in the West Main Street corridor, should relate to any neighborhoods adjoining them. Buffer areas should be considered to include any screening and landscaping requirements of the zoning ordinance. Spacing • Commercial and office buildings in the areas that have a well-defined street wall should have minimal spacing between them. Massing & Footprint • New commercial infill buildings’ footprints will be limited by the size of the existing lot … along the West Main Street corridor. Their massing in most cases should be simple rectangles like neighboring buildings. Height & Width • Respect the directional expression of the majority of surrounding buildings. In commercial areas, respect the expression of any adjacent historic buildings, which generally will have a more vertical expression. • Attempt to keep the height and width of new buildings within a maximum of 200 percent of the prevailing height and width in the surrounding sub-area. • In commercial areas at street front, the height should be within 130 percent of the prevailing average of both sides of the block. Along West Main Street, heights should relate to any adjacent contributing buildings. Additional stories should be stepped back so that the additional height is not readily visible from the street. • When the primary façade of a new building in a commercial area, [such as West Main]. is wider than the surrounding historic buildings or the traditional lot size, consider modulating it with bays or varying planes. • Reinforce the human scale of the historic districts by including elements such as porches, entrances, storefronts, and decorative features depending on the character of the particular sub- area. • In the West Main Street corridor, regardless of surrounding buildings, new construction should use elements at the street level, such as cornices, entrances, and display windows, to reinforce the human scale. Suggested Motion Preliminary Discussion. No action to be taken. Criteria, Standards, and Guidelines Review Criteria Generally Sec. 34-284(b) of the City Code states that in considering a particular application, the BAR shall approve the application unless it finds: (1) That the proposal does not meet specific standards set forth within this division or applicable provisions of the Design Guidelines established by the board pursuant to Sec.34-288(6); and 843 West Main Street Prelim Discussion - March 21, 2023 (3/17/2023) 3 (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 4) Federal Regulations (36 C.F.R. §67.7(b)), as may be relevant; 5) The effect of the proposed change on the historic district neighborhood; 6) The impact of the proposed change on other protected features on the property, such as gardens, landscaping, fences, walls and walks; 7) Whether the proposed method of construction, renovation or restoration could have an adverse impact on the structure or site, or adjacent buildings or structures; 8) When reviewing any proposed sign as part of an application under consideration, the standards set forth within Article IX, sections 34-1020 et seq shall be applied; and 9) Any applicable provisions of the City’s Design Guidelines. Chapter 2 – Site Design and Elements Link: Chapter 2 Site Design and Elements Pertinent Standards for Site Design B. Plantings 1) Encourage the maintenance and planting of large trees on private property along the streetfronts, which contribute to the “avenue” effect. 2) Generally, use trees and plants that are compatible with the existing plantings in the neighborhood. 3) Use trees and plants that are indigenous to the area. 4) Retain existing trees and plants that help define the character of the district, especially street trees and hedges. 5) Replace diseased or dead plants with like or similar species if appropriate. 6) When constructing new buildings, identify and take care to protect significant existing trees and other plantings. 7) Choose ground cover plantings that are compatible with adjacent sites, existing site conditions, and the character of the building. 8) Select mulching and edging materials carefully and do not use plastic edgings, lava, crushed rock, unnaturally colored mulch or other historically unsuitable materials. D. Lighting 1) In residential areas, use fixtures that are understated and compatible with the residential quality of the surrounding area and the building while providing subdued illumination. 2) Choose light levels that provide for adequate safety yet do not overly emphasize the site or building. Often, existing porch lights are sufficient. 3) In commercial areas, avoid lights that create a glare. High intensity commercial lighting fixtures must provide full cutoff. 4) Do not use numerous “crime” lights or bright floodlights to illuminate a building or site when surrounding lighting is subdued. 843 West Main Street Prelim Discussion - March 21, 2023 (3/17/2023) 4 5) In the downtown and along West Main Street, consider special lighting of key landmarks and facades to provide a focal point in evening hours. 6) Encourage merchants to leave their display window lights on in the evening to provide extra illumination at the sidewalk level. 7) Consider motion-activated lighting for security. E. Walkways &Driveways 1) Use appropriate traditional paving materials like brick, stone, and scored concrete. 2) Concrete pavers are appropriate in new construction, and may be appropriate in site renovations, depending on the context of adjacent building materials, and continuity with the surrounding site and district. 3) Gravel or stone dust may be appropriate, but must be contained. 4) Stamped concrete and stamped asphalt are not appropriate paving materials. 5) Limit asphalt use to driveways and parking areas. 6) Place driveways through the front yard only when no rear access to parking is available. 7) Do not demolish historic structures to provide areas for parking. 8) Add separate pedestrian pathways within larger parking lots, and provide crosswalks at vehicular lanes within a site. F. Parking Areas & Lots 1) If new parking areas are necessary, construct them so that they reinforce the street wall of buildings and the grid system of rectangular blocks in commercial areas. 2) Locate parking lots behind buildings. 3) Screen parking lots from streets, sidewalks, and neighboring sites through the use of walls, trees, and plantings of a height and type appropriate to reduce the visual impact year-round. 4) Avoid creating parking areas in the front yards of historic building sites. 5) Avoid excessive curb cuts to gain entry to parking areas. 6) Avoid large expanses of asphalt. 7) On large lots, provide interior plantings and pedestrian walkways. 8) Provide screening from adjacent land uses as needed. 9) Install adequate lighting in parking areas to provide security in evening hours. 10) Select lighting fixtures that are appropriate to a historic setting. H. Utilities & Other Site Appurtenances 1) Plan the location of overhead wires, utility poles and meters, electrical panels, antennae, trash containers, and exterior mechanical units where they are least likely to detract from the character of the site. 2) Screen utilities and other site elements with fences, walls, or plantings. 3) Encourage the installation of utility services underground. 4) Antennae and communication dishes should be placed in inconspicuous rooftop locations, not in a front yard. 5) Screen all rooftop mechanical equipment with a wall of material harmonious with the building or structure. Pertinent Guidelines for New Construction Chapter 3 – New Construction and Additions Link: Chapter 3 New Construction and Additions 3. Building Types within the Historic Districts 843 West Main Street Prelim Discussion - March 21, 2023 (3/17/2023) 5 a) Traditional Commercial Infill i. Traditional commercial infill buildings are the forms that fill in holes in a larger block of buildings in the downtown mall or in certain areas of the West Main Street corridor. This type of building generally has a limited setback, attaches to or is very close to neighboring structures, and takes many of its design cues from the adjoining buildings. Its typical lot width would be 25 to 40 feet. B. Setback 1) Construct new commercial buildings with a minimal or no setback in order to reinforce the traditional street wall. 2) Use a minimal setback if the desire is to create a strong street wall or setback consistent with the surrounding area. 3) Modify setback as necessary for sub-areas that do not have well-defined street walls. 4) Avoid deep setbacks or open corner plazas on corner buildings in the downtown in order to maintain the traditional grid of the commercial district. 5) In the West Main Street corridor, construct new buildings with a minimal (up to 15 feet according to the zoning ordinance) or no setback in order to reinforce the street wall. If the site adjoins historic buildings, consider a setback consistent with these buildings. 6) On corners of the West Main Street corridor, avoid deep setbacks or open corner plazas unless the design contributes to the pedestrian experience or improves the transition to an adjacent residential area. 7) New buildings, particularly in the West Main Street corridor, should relate to any neighborhoods adjoining them. Buffer areas should be considered to include any screening and landscaping requirements of the zoning ordinance. […] C. Spacing 1) Maintain existing consistency of spacing in the area. New residences should be spaced within 20 percent of the average spacing between houses on the block. 2) Commercial and office buildings in the areas that have a well-defined street wall should have minimal spacing between them. 3) In areas that do not have consistent spacing, consider limiting or creating a more uniform spacing in order to establish an overall rhythm. 4) Multi-lot buildings should be designed using techniques to incorporate and respect the existing spacing on a residential street. D. Massing & Footprint 1) New commercial infill buildings’ footprints will be limited by the size of the existing lot in the downtown or along the West Main Street corridor. Their massing in most cases should be simple rectangles like neighboring buildings. […] 4) Institutional and multi-lot buildings by their nature will have large footprints, particularly along the West Main Street corridor and in the 14th and 15th Street area of the Venable neighborhood. a) The massing of such a large scale structure should not overpower the traditional scale of the majority of nearby buildings in the district in which it is located. b) Techniques could include varying the surface planes of the buildings, stepping back the buildings as the structure increases in height, and breaking up the roof line with different elements to create smaller compositions. 843 West Main Street Prelim Discussion - March 21, 2023 (3/17/2023) 6 E. Height & Width 1) Respect the directional expression of the majority of surrounding buildings. In commercial areas, respect the expression of any adjacent historic buildings, which generally will have a more vertical expression. 2) Attempt to keep the height and width of new buildings within a maximum of 200 percent of the prevailing height and width in the surrounding sub-area. 3) In commercial areas at street front, the height should be within 130 percent of the prevailing average of both sides of the block. Along West Main Street, heights should relate to any adjacent contributing buildings. Additional stories should be stepped back so that the additional height is not readily visible from the street. 4) When the primary façade of a new building in a commercial area, such as downtown, West Main Street, or the Corner, is wider than the surrounding historic buildings or the traditional lot size, consider modulating it with bays or varying planes. a) Reinforce the human scale of the historic districts by including elements such as porches, entrances, storefronts, and decorative features depending on the character of the particular sub-area. 5) In the West Main Street corridor, regardless of surrounding buildings, new construction should use elements at the street level, such as cornices, entrances, and display windows, to reinforce the human scale. F. Scale 1) Provide features on new construction that reinforce the scale and character of the surrounding area, whether human or monumental. Include elements such as storefronts, vertical and horizontal divisions, upper story windows, and decorative features. […] G. Roof 1. Roof Forms and Pitches a) The roof design of new downtown or West Main Street commercial infill buildings generally should be flat or sloped behind a parapet wall. b) […] 2. Roof Materials Common roof materials in the historic districts include metal, slate, and composition shingles. a) For new construction in the historic districts, use traditional roofing materials such as standing- seam metal or slate. b) In some cases, shingles that mimic the appearance of slate may be acceptable. c) Pre-painted standing-seam metal roof material is permitted, but commercial-looking ridge caps or ridge vents are not appropriate on residential structures. d) Avoid using thick wood cedar shakes if using wood shingles; instead, use more historically appropriate wood shingles that are thinner and have a smoother finish. e) If using composition asphalt shingles, do not use light colors. Consider using neutral-colored or darker, plain or textured-type shingles. f) The width of the pan and the seam height on a standing-seam metal roof should be consistent with the size of pan and seam height usually found on a building of a similar period. 3. Rooftop Screening a) If roof-mounted mechanical equipment is used, it should be screened from public view on all sides. b) The screening material and design should be consistent with the design, textures, materials, and colors of the building. 843 West Main Street Prelim Discussion - March 21, 2023 (3/17/2023) 7 c) The screening should not appear as an afterthought or addition the building. H. Orientation Orientation refers to the direction that the front of the building faces. 1) New commercial construction should orient its façade in the same direction as adjacent historic buildings, that is, to the street. 2) Front elevations oriented to side streets or to the interior of lots should be discouraged. I. Windows & Doors 1) The rhythm, patterns, and ratio of solids (walls) and voids (windows and doors) of new buildings should relate to and be compatible with adjacent historic facades. a) The majority of existing buildings in Charlottesville’s historic districts have a higher proportion of wall area than void area except at the storefront level. b) In the West Main Street corridor in particular, new buildings should reinforce this traditional proportion. 2) The size and proportion, or the ratio of width to height, of window and door openings on new buildings’ primary facades should be similar and compatible with those on surrounding historic facades. a) The proportions of the upper floor windows of most of Charlottesville’s historic buildings are more vertical than horizontal. b) Glass storefronts would generally have more horizontal proportions than upper floor openings. 3) Traditionally designed openings generally are recessed on masonry buildings and have a raised surround on frame buildings. New construction should follow these methods in the historic districts as opposed to designing openings that are flush with the rest of the wall. 4) Many entrances of Charlottesville’s historic buildings have special features such as transoms, sidelights, and decorative elements framing the openings. Consideration should be given to incorporating such elements in new construction. 5) Darkly tinted mirrored glass is not an appropriate material for windows in new buildings within the historic districts. 6) If small-paned windows are used, they should have true divided lights or simulated divided lights with permanently affixed interior and exterior muntin bars and integral spacer bars between the panes of glass. 7) Avoid designing false windows in new construction. 8) Appropriate material for new windows depends upon the context of the building within a historic district, and the design of the proposed building. Sustainable materials such as wood, aluminum- clad wood, solid fiberglass, and metal windows are preferred for new construction. Vinyl windows are discouraged. 9) Glass shall be clear. Opaque spandrel glass or translucent glass may be approved by the BAR for specific applications. K. Street-Level Design 1) Street level facades of all building types, whether commercial, office, or institutional, should not have blank walls; they should provide visual interest to the passing pedestrian. 2) When designing new storefronts or elements for storefronts, conform to the general configuration of traditional storefronts depending on the context of the sub-area. New structures do offer the opportunity for more contemporary storefront designs. 3) Keep the ground level facades(s) of new retail commercial buildings at least eighty percent transparent up to a level of ten feet. 4) Include doors in all storefronts to reinforce street level vitality. 843 West Main Street Prelim Discussion - March 21, 2023 (3/17/2023) 8 5) Articulate the bays of institutional or office buildings to provide visual interest. 6) Institutional buildings, such as city halls, libraries, and post offices, generally do not have storefronts, but their street levels should provide visual interest and display space or first floor windows should be integrated into the design. 7) Office buildings should provide windows or other visual interest at street level. 8) Neighborhood transitional buildings in general should not have transparent first floors, and the design and size of their façade openings should relate more to neighboring residential structures. 9) Along West Main Street, secondary (rear) facades should also include features to relate appropriately to any adjacent residential areas. 10) Any parking structures facing on important streets or on pedestrian routes must have storefronts, display windows, or other forms of visual relief on the first floors of these elevations. 11) A parking garage vehicular entrance/exit opening should be diminished in scale, and located off to the side to the degree possible. L. Foundation & Cornice 1) Distinguish the foundation from the rest of the structure through the use of different materials, patterns, or textures. 2) Respect the height, contrast of materials, and textures of foundations on surrounding historic buildings. 3) If used, cornices should be in proportion to the rest of the building. 4) Wood or metal cornices are preferred. The use of fypon may be appropriate where the location is not immediately adjacent to pedestrians. M. Materials & Textures 1) The selection of materials and textures for a new building should be compatible with and complementary to neighboring buildings. 2) In order to strengthen the traditional image of the residential areas of the historic districts, brick, stucco, and wood siding are the most appropriate materials for new buildings. 3) In commercial/office areas, brick is generally the most appropriate material for new structures. “Thin set” brick is not permitted. Stone is more commonly used for site walls than buildings. 4) Large-scale, multi-lot buildings, whose primary facades have been divided into different bays and planes to relate to existing neighboring buildings, can have varied materials, shades, and textures. 5) Synthetic siding and trim, including, vinyl and aluminum, are not historic cladding materials in the historic districts, and their use should be avoided. 6) Cementitious siding, such as HardiPlank boards and panels, are appropriate. 7) Concrete or metal panels may be appropriate. 8) Metal storefronts in clear or bronze are appropriate. 9) The use of Exterior Insulation and Finish Systems (EIFS) is discouraged but may be approved on items such as gables where it cannot be seen or damaged. It requires careful design of the location of control joints. 10) The use of fiberglass-reinforced plastic is discouraged. If used, it must be painted. 11) All exterior trim woodwork, decking and flooring must be painted, or may be stained solid if not visible from public right-of-way. O. Details & Decoration 1) Building detail and ornamentation should be consistent with and related to the architecture of the surrounding context and district. 2) The mass of larger buildings may be reduced using articulated design details. 3) Pedestrian scale may be reinforced with details. 843 West Main Street Prelim Discussion - March 21, 2023 (3/17/2023) 9 Appendix Prior BAR Actions March 20, 2018 – A prior design for this project was submitted for BAR review. BAR accepted applicant request for deferral. June 19, 2018 – Motion: Schwarz moved having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City Design Guidelines for New Construction and Additions, move to find that the proposed massing and proposed glazing (in-concept) of the Office Building satisfies the BAR’s criteria and guidelines and are compatible with this property and other properties in the West Main Street ADC district. Additionally, the BAR would like the applicant to investigate stepping back portions of the building [from the street] and the BAR strongly recommends the applicant investigate and change the building’s materiality. Mohr seconded. Approved (6-1, with Ball opposed). [Note: The BAR no longer approves partial CoAs.] August 21, 2018 – Partial approval of a three-story office building with retail/office space on the first floor. The building is approximately 119 feet long and 56 feet wide, and has a total height of approximately 43 feet. [Note: The BAR no longer approves partial CoAs.] 843 West Main Street Prelim Discussion - March 21, 2023 (3/17/2023) 10 Sanborn Map Approximate parcel 1896 843 Sanborn Map Approximate parcel 1902 843 Sanborn Map Approximate parcel 1920 843 Sanborn Map Approximate parcel c1965 843 843 W MAIN MITCHELL MATTHEWS ARCHITECTS informal BAR discussion S S R E O G FT R R A P D 843 W MAIN M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlottesville VA SITE SURVEY Architects & Planners 03 . 10 . 2023 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2023 Location 847 + 843 W. Main St Area 0.961 acres (41,861 SF) B3 Zone WMW (West Main St West) Hotel allowed by right - no limit on room number NW R3 Commercial allowed by right ET Parking commercial: 0 spaces if under RE (Parking Modified 5,000 sf ST Zone) above 5,000 sf, 50% of typical requirement H NT Height 35 feet (min) TE 75 feet (max) Setbacks 10 feet (min) WMW (front) 20 feet (max) 0.961 acres I ON Setbacks 0 feet (no borders with low TAT (rear & side) density residential) R WES PO T AN S MAI TR Stepbacks N X 10 feet @ 40’ tall (front) STR CS EET 45° plane @ 45’ tall (rear) WMW S S R E O G FT R R A P D 843 W MAIN M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlottesville VA ZONING SUMMARY Architects & Planners SK-02 03 . 10 . 2023 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2023 Location 847 + 843 W. Main St Area 0.961 acres (41,861 SF) Zone WMW (West Main St West) DOWN Hotel Rooms 97 to lower parking level on four levels above podium LAUNDRY Commercial under 5,000 sf Parking 54 spaces MEETING / on two levels EVENT Height 68 feet +/- DRIVE COURTYARD MECH EL UP EL KITCHEN RECEPTION DINING ROOM ENTRY PLAZA S S R E WEST MAIN STREET O G FT R R A P D 843 W MAIN M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlottesville VA STREET LEVEL Architects & Planners SK-29 03 . 10 . 2023 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2023 Location 847 + 843 W. Main St Area 0.961 acres (41,861 SF) WEST MAIN STREET Zone WMW (West Main St West) REAR BOUNDARY STREET BOUNDARY 10’ MIN 20’ MAX Hotel Rooms 97 on four levels above podium Commercial under 5,000 sf E AN PL LK Parking 54 spaces BU on two levels 75’ HEIGHT LIMIT 68’ +/- BUILDING HGT Height 68 feet +/- UPPER PARKING LOWER PARKING APPROX. AVERAGE GRADE approx. limit of excavation S S R E O G FT R R A P D 843 W MAIN M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlottesville VA BUILDING SECTION Architects & Planners SK-38 03 . 10 . 2023 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2023 S S R E O G FT R R A P D 843 W MAIN M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlottesville VA WEST ELEVATION Architects & Planners 03 . 10 . 2023 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2023 S S R E O G FT R R A P D 843 W MAIN M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlottesville VA SOUTH ELEVATION Architects & Planners 03 . 10 . 2023 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2023 S S R E O G FT R R A P D 843 W MAIN M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlottesville VA EAST ELEVATION Architects & Planners 03 . 10 . 2023 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2023 S S R E O G FT R R A P D 843 W MAIN M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlottesville VA CITY PRECEDENTS Architects & Planners 03 . 10 . 2023 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2023 S S R E O G FT R R A P D 843 W MAIN M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlottesville VA HISTORIC AREA HOTELS Architects & Planners 03 . 10 . 2023 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2023 S S R E O G FT R R A P D 843 W MAIN M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlottesville VA EXISTING SITE FROM THE OTHER SIDE OF W MAIN STREET Architects & Planners 03 . 10 . 2023 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2023 S S R E O G FT R R A P D 843 W MAIN M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlottesville VA PROPOSAL FROM THE OTHER SIDE OF W MAIN STREET Architects & Planners 03 . 10 . 2023 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2023 S S R E O G FT R R A P D 843 W MAIN M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlottesville VA EXISTING SITE FROM THE W MAIN STREET BRIDGE Architects & Planners 03 . 10 . 2023 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2023 S S R E O G FT R R A P D 843 W MAIN M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlottesville VA PROPOSAL FROM THE W MAIN STREET BRIDGE Architects & Planners 03 . 10 . 2023 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2023 S S R E O G FT R R A P D 843 W MAIN M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlottesville VA PROPOSAL FROM THE W MAIN STREET BRIDGE with MURAL Architects & Planners 03 . 10 . 2023 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2023 S S R E O G FT R R A P D 843 W MAIN M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlottesville VA PROPOSAL FROM THE W MAIN STREET BRIDGE + FUTURE BUILDING Architects & Planners SK-41 03 . 10 . 2023 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2023 S S R E O G FT R R A P D 843 W MAIN M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlottesville VA EXISTING SITE FROM THE OTHER SIDE OF W MAIN STREET Architects & Planners 03 . 10 . 2023 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2023 S S R E O G FT R R A P D 843 W MAIN M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlottesville VA PROPOSAL FROM THE OTHER SIDE OF W MAIN STREET Architects & Planners 03 . 10 . 2023 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2023 S S R E O G FT R R A P D 843 W MAIN M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlottesville VA W MAIN STREET ENTRY PLAZA Architects & Planners SK-51 03 . 10 . 2023 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2023 S S R E O G FT R R A P D 843 W MAIN M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlottesville VA RESTAURANT FACING W MAIN STREET Architects & Planners SK-45 03 . 10 . 2023 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2023 S S R E O G FT R R A P D 843 W MAIN M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlottesville VA COURTYARD Architects & Planners SK-47 03 . 10 . 2023 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2023 S S R E O G FT R R A P D 843 W MAIN M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlottesville VA ROOFTOP LOUNGE OVERLOOKING W MAIN STREET Architects & Planners SK-48 03 . 10 . 2023 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2023 APPENDIX Location 847 + 843 W. Main St Area 0.961 acres (41,861 SF) Zone WMW (West Main St West) Hotel Rooms 97 on four levels above podium Commercial under 5,000 sf BUILDING ABOVE Parking 54 spaces on two levels Height 68 feet +/- DRIVE ABOVE DOWN EL EL BUILDING ABOVE S S R E WEST MAIN STREET O G FT R R A P D 843 W MAIN M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlottesville VA LOWER PARKING LEVEL Architects & Planners SK-28 03 . 10 . 2023 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2023 MEZZANINE open to below COURTYARD below open to below UP EL LOUNGE EL FITNESS AUX. open to below KITCHEN UPPER DINING open to below ENTRY PLAZA below S S R E WEST MAIN STREET O G FT R R A P D 843 W MAIN M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlottesville VA SECOND STORY Architects & Planners SK-31 03 . 10 . 2023 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2023 laund. chute STORAGE/ CUSTODIAL EL MECH EL S S R E WEST MAIN STREET O G FT R R A P D 843 W MAIN M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlottesville VA TYPICAL ROOM LEVELS (stories 3-5) Architects & Planners SK-33 03 . 10 . 2023 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2023 easement laund. chute STORAGE/ CUSTODIAL easement EL MECH ROOF LOUNGE EL ROOF LOUNGE (outdoor) S S R E WEST MAIN STREET O G FT R R A P D 843 W MAIN M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlottesville VA SIXTH STORY Architects & Planners SK-34 03 . 10 . 2023 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2023