Agenda City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Regular Meeting June 22, 2022, 5:30 p.m. Hybrid Meeting (In-person at CitySpace and virtual via Zoom) Pre-Meeting Discussion Regular Meeting A. Matters from the public not on the agenda [or on the Consent Agenda] (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.) 1. Meeting minutes September 21, 2021 2. Sign 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: Erect 4½-foot pole sign 3. 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 C. New Items 4. 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: Lower floor window replacements and fire escape alterations June 22, 2022 1 5. Certificate of Appropriateness 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, chimney reconstruction, and window sash replacements 6. 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 replace porch pavers 7. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 22-06-06 0 Preston Place, 050118001 and 050118002 Rugby Road-University Circle-Venable Neighborhood ADC District (noncontributing) Owner: Steve & Sue Lewis Applicant: Leigh Boyes, Sage Designs Project: Construction of new single-family residence E. Other Business 4. Staff questions/discussion F. Adjourn June 22, 2022 2 BAR MINUTES CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW Regular Meeting September 21, 2021 – 5:00 PM Zoom Webinar Welcome to this Regular Monthly Meeting of the Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review (BAR). Due to the current public health emergency, this meeting is being held online via Zoom. The meeting process will be as follows: For each item, staff will make a brief presentation followed by the applicant’s presentation, after which members of the public will be allowed to speak. Speakers shall identify themselves, and give their current address. Members of the public will have, for each case, up to three minutes to speak. Public comments should be limited to the BAR’s jurisdiction; that is, regarding the exterior design of the building and site. Following the BAR’s discussion, and before the vote, the applicant shall be allowed up to three minutes to respond, for the purpose of clarification. Thank you for participating. Members Present: Mr. Mohr, Ms. Lewis, Mr. Schwarz, Mr. Gastinger, Mr. Zehmer, Mr. Edwards Members Absent: Mr. Lahendro, Staff Present: Patrick Cory, Robert Watkins, Jeff Werner Pre-Meeting: There was a discussion regarding the items on the Consent Agenda and possibly moving an item from the Consent Agenda. Mr. Gastinger had a question about the 209 Second Street application. Staff went over the questions about the application. Mr. Schwarz had a question about the Preliminary Discussion. Ms. Lewis had a question about the Gildersleeve Application. Staff did go over the application with the BAR. The meeting was called to order at 5:40 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. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-09-04 301 East Jefferson Street, Tax Parcel 330204000 North Downtown ADC District Owner: Congregation Beth Israel Applicant: Karim Habbab, BRW Architects Project: Install lighting at Sanctuary entry 1 BAR Meeting Minutes September 21, 2021 Ms. Lewis moved to approve the Consent Agenda (Mr. Mohr seconded). Motion passes 6-0. C. New Items 2. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-09-01 209 2nd Street, SW, Tax Parcel 280077000 Downtown ADC District Owner: Same Street LLC Applicant: Jim Rounsevell Project: Alterations to existing structure Jeff Werner, Staff Report – Constructed c1880, the Watson House is a two-story vernacular house within the Downtown ADC District. This house--and the adjacent, matching house—feature three- bays, single pile, with a front-facing central gable and a medium-pitched gable roof. Sitting on a low foundation, the front porch is topped by a low-pitched hip roof supported by four Tuscan columns. The roofs standing-seam metal with Philadelphia gutters. The historic survey is attached. Request for a CoA to rehabilitate and renovate the exterior of the existing historic house and the existing rear addition. (The proposed work will modify what the BAR approved Aug. 2019. Staff has attached a comparison.) August 2019 – BAR approved rehabilitation and renovation of the exterior of the existing historic house and the existing rear addition. Scope of Work East Elevation: • Install new entry door. Existing in-swing door is a hazard, swinging into an interior stair landing. South Elevation: • At the rear addition, remove previously approved doors and windows. • Install twin, windows. • Install two skylights. Velux. Fixed. CFP 6060. (Bathrooms #2 and 3.) West Elevation: • Remove window at main house, first floor. Install entry door. Steps and landing to be painted wood, identical to front steps—3-1/2” tongue and groove. • Remove the single-sash casement windows at addition, second floor and install new, similar to existing. North Elevation: • Remove existing, first floor windows (one on main house, two on rear addition). Note: Per applicant’s photos, the main house window has already been removed and the opening bricked up. • Install at the addition an entry door with steps and landing. Steps and landing to be bluestone. • Install roof skylight. Velux. Fixed. FCM 2222. (Bathroom #1.) Existing - General: • Windows: Repair/renovate existing double hung windows. Existing windows do not function--do not meet Code for egress. Paint white to match existing. • Brick: Repair mortar, match existing with Lehigh flamingo color mortar. Mortar type N. • New doors and windows to be Andersen E-series, per Better Living quote #1217826, dated 8/27/2021. • Velux Skylights (FCM and CFP) per cut sheets provided by the applicant. 2 BAR Meeting Minutes September 21, 2021 Paint: o All windows, doors, exterior trim, fasicas, risers, porch columns, ceiling, beams etc: Ben. Moore OC-152, Super white, semi-gloss, to match existing white on existing windows, fascia, freeze boards, etc. o Existing board and batten siding (rear): Ben. Moore HC-168, Chelsea Gray. o Porch flooring, treads: Ben. Moore AC-27 Galveston gray, semi-gloss, with non-slip additive. o Porch railings: black. Ben. Moore 2132-10, Black, gloss. o Brick will not be painted. • The patio area is yet to be determined and currently not in the scope of work (future). It has not really been designed but a concept was included as a courtesy. • Existing paving and pea gravel to be removed. • Existing white wall in back gets Virginia creeper which turns red in the fall. A small water feature to counteract heat island effect TBD. • Front: Existing dogwoods to remain with new dark green ground cover below, poss. Woodland phlox or sim. • Garden is honey dust (crushed brown stone a-la- bocce court). • Patio is bluestone pavers on stone dust. Like next door, new bluestone treads on over decaying concrete for front steps (safety issue-see existing images). Overgrown north side is replaced with bluestone stepping stones to access Bedroom #3. • A low hedge (<3’ high) shields the base of the adjacent building along the Northside. Lighting: (Not indicated. Notes From the applicant.) • Exterior lighting for the patio is TBD. All exterior lighting to be 2700K, CRI of 95 or better. All low voltage, low key, landscape lighting. (No exterior flood lights.). • No wall mounted fixtures other than two full cut-off fixtures at both entries (see cut sheet attached). • Porch has ceiling cut outs for three 3-1/2” recessed dimmable MR16 fixtures that will light the porch volume. (Contrasted lighting, white trim). All lighting done in consultation with Mark Schulyer Lighting Design. Discussion The house was constructed c1880 and, per the Sanborn Maps (see appendix), the single-story, rear addition was in place by 1896. As such, repairs to the existing masonry must be done carefully and use an appropriate lime mortar, relative to the amount, if any, of Portland cement used. Reference NPS Preservation Brief #2: Repointing Mortar Joints in Historic Masonry Buildings. https://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/briefs/2-repoint-mortar-joints.htm The two, single sash casements at the second floor, rear addition are likely sash salvaged from an original, enclosed window; however, the board-and-batten addition appears to be post-1960s. The existing, first floor window at Bedroom #1 has already been removed and the opening bricked closed, without BAR review and approval. Note: While a historic window, it is possible this is not original to the building. Per the Sanborn Maps (see appendix), the window may have added between 1907 and 1920. (There is not a matching window on the south wall.) Options available for the BAR: • Accept the change and completed brick work. • If extant, the original window could be reinstalled; however, due to the proposed use, the public safety code requires this be a fire-rated wall, including the window. As such, any replacement will require a new, fire-rated window. • Allow the bricked opening, but require it be installed as inset panel, not flush with the exterior wall, thus expressing the change from the original. 3 BAR Meeting Minutes September 21, 2021 Jim Rounsevell, Applicant – With the window on the north side that was bricked in, it is really unclear from the site survey that the north wall is close to three feet. You’re not allowed to have any openings that close to a lot line according to the building code. I am not sure that a fire-rated window would even be possible. If the Board decided that they wanted to do an indent there with brick, the south side doesn’t have an opening on it. I agree with you about the mortar. In the condition that I found the building, there are some repairs that need to get fixed. I am pretty picky about those things. Where the oven was going to go in the previous submission, there’s a steel door that is there. It comes out. The idea was to go back to a window that was closer in keeping to what was original. In this case, I was thinking of toothing in the masonry to match it. If the Board decides it wants a recess there reflecting where the doorframe was, that’s fine. With the upper windows, I am ‘game’ for whatever seems appropriate to everyone. The left one was clearly mismatched from the right one. If we wanted to match that, we’re totally flexible on that. Originally the submission had the French doors and two sidelights. As I understand it, the doors would not fit underneath the roof. We’re going to have to pry open the roof. As you can see from the photographs, they omitted those doors. In order to meet egress for the restaurant, insert the door where the window was on the west end of the original building. With the front, the proposal for swapping out the door, that’s a life safety thing. If you left the door that’s there, you’re going to ‘headbut’ somebody coming down the stairs. I don’t think it is safe. When you have transient occupants, the door outswing is safer than an inswing door, especially against a path of egress down the stairs. It has to be glass so you can see. With the railings, the existing railings are black metal. The ones on the concrete steps going out of the building will simply be repainted. There’s a railing on the south side of the building that is clearly not original. It looks like a kit. Technically, it’s not required. There’s less than a 30 inch drop off the porch to the adjacent surface. It still might be appropriate to put a railing back there because of the transient occupants. With the railings that go up the new steps onto the porch, we will put the original railings back there as well. QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No Questions from the Public QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Mohr – With the railings going up the steps to the porch (given the height up the porch), those could still actually be handrails instead of guardrails? Mr. Rounsevell – Absolutely. Going up the concrete steps that could also just be handrails. It is a little ‘over-wrought.’ In some of the existing photos, you can see the railings. Mr. Zehmer – Is the front door the original front door? Mr. Rounsevell – I don’t know. I was hoping that staff would know. Mr. Werner – I couldn’t tell. Mr. Schwarz – With the landscaping side-lighting, is that going to come back as a later application? Mr. Rounsevell – We had made a first pass on it. I never submitted anything for a landscape plan. I am not sure how this works. I am happy to talk about general thoughts. That will get phased in at a later date. Leave time on materials is awful at this point. If this continues, we will be lucky to have this ready to go by the end of January. 4 BAR Meeting Minutes September 21, 2021 Mr. Schwarz – It would be fine if you separated the two. Once you know what the landscape is going to be, come back with that rather than guessing. Mr. Rounsevell – Is of any help to go through it very quickly as a precursor? Mr. Werner – Make sure there’s nothing being cut down or being removed. There are no new tress I know of in the back. Mr. Rounsevell – I don’t think there’s anything. The dogwoods in the front will stay. The lower ground cover on the front is beat to hell. That has to get ‘some love.’ The hard surfaces are the same. With this clientele, you have to up the ante. We’re not cutting any trees down in the back, supplementing the wall that was previously approved. We’re just trying to keep it simple. Mary Wolfe is going to help with it. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC No Comments from the Public COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD Ms. Lewis – For staff, thank you for doing the elevations comparing the existing and the 2019 approval and what is in front of us. That helped a lot because I wasn’t on the Board in 2019. That was very helpful on this. Mr. Mohr – I would concur with everybody’s conclusion. I seriously doubt there was a window on that north elevation. Given that it’s a bedroom wall, it makes sense that it didn’t have a window. It does seem to me the front door had a little more body to it and might not be as exciting or a truly modern glass door as opposed to something that divides lights. The other option would be keying off the old door where the upper floor panels are glass and solid bottom panel. It just seems the divided light thing feel that it is not front doorish. I agree that it needs to have glass. Functionally, I do get what the applicant is doing. I was thinking the door could have a little bit more personality. Mr. Zehmer – I believe that I saw that the top two panels are currently glass. Is that correct? I might encourage you all to look at the house next door at 213 to see if those two front doors match and are historic. If so, the likelihood of them being original is higher. I would suggest moving that existing door to the front side of the jam so it can swing out. We already have glass in the top two panels; maybe consider putting glass in the middle panels so it is a little more transparent. It would help preserve the original front door while also achieving the safety goals. I agree that it is more of a reach. I didn’t see anything in the staff report that spoke to a guideline about whether or not we allow replacement of front doors. Mr. Werner – We do/don’t. There is so much focus on windows that it feels like doors are forgotten. That’s the approach I have taken on this. This is a building that we’re going to ‘breathe some life back into it. Looking at it over time and pictures that are available, it is difficult to determine. We could do an analysis on the door and make a determination. The idea would be what it is replaced with is appropriate. That would be the key. Is a full light, insulated, glass door appropriate? Arguably, no. It would be a six-panel door. That’s where you come down to a situation where there’s no right or wrong. The guidelines offer that direction. I don’t know if this was original. I can’t determine that. I know what was originally there was not a glass door. The option would be, while changing the swing, you all may request this be a six panel door. 5 BAR Meeting Minutes September 21, 2021 Mr. Schwarz – For me, it’s a case of either keep the door/reverse the swing or replace it/let it be. I agree with you Tim. I also feel the divided light does not really violate our guidelines. It’s obviously something new. I don’t know where we fall. Anybody else have a hang-up with this door being removed? Mr. Mohr – The door is a simple stamp on ownership. Unless there’s a really spectacular door that clearly had history, in my opinion, it is ‘open season’ on the door. My only issue is that I think it should have a little more personality: either be really modern or have more solid in void. It currently reads as a patio door. Mr. Rousenvell – I am game for throwing some personality at it. My biggest hang-up is the transparency for life safety. If it’s a six panel that has that and the panels are glass, would something like that be OK? Mr. Mohr – I think it needs to be something with a little more personality. Mr. Werner – Doors are jammed into entrances and porches. When we don’t know if something is clear, we need to go back to what the Secretary’s standards say. There is no doubt that it is to retain original material. One of the keys here is to maintain existing openings and size. We’re not talking about taking out that frame and transom. Something might have to change with the style. You maintain that existing frame and trim by maintaining that existing transom. When it comes to doors, safety, and access, it gets a little bit more difficult than windows. My deference here would be that the door be retained. Whatever is new goes in there. It stays in the existing frame and opening. That doesn’t change. It even says to retain existing hardware. There is some room for some flexibility here. Motion – Mr. Mohr – Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City Design Guidelines for Rehabilitations, I move to find that the proposed exterior alterations at 209 2nd Street SW 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, with the condition that the landscape plan will be submitted at a future date and with a recommendation that the applicant look into alternate solutions for the front door, either mimicking the existing door but all glass or be a more modern door, and that the trim and casing be retained, while still allowing that the door swing properly. Should the door be found to be historic, the BAR recommends that it stay somewhere on the property. Mr. Schwarz seconds the motion. Motion passes (6-0). 3. Certificate of Appropriateness Application BAR 21-09-02 106 Oakhurst Circle, Tax Map Parcel 110005000 Oakhurst-Gildersleeve ADC District Owner: 106 Oakhurst Circle LLC Applicant: Patrick Farley Project: Modifications to approved rear addition (CoA: December 15, 2020) Jeff Werner, Staff Report – Year Built: 1922, District: Oakhurst-Gildersleeve ADC District Status: Contributing. Designed as a combination of Colonial Revival and Craftsman styles, this two-story dwelling has a gabled roof, stucco siding, overhanging eaves with exposed rafter ends, a pent roof 6 BAR Meeting Minutes September 21, 2021 between the first and second floor, an interior stuccoed chimney, a concrete stoop, and a central door sheltered by a gabled hood supported by brackets. Triple eight-by-eight casement windows are found on the first floor, while eight-over-eight-sash double-hung windows are used on the second floor and flank a central triple eight-by-eight casement bay window. French doors on the east side lead out to a patio. The house also includes a rear deck and a projecting rectangular one-story bay window supported by wooden brackets on the west end. (Oakhurst-Gildersleeve Neighborhood Historic District.) CoA request for proposed alterations to existing house and a rear addition. Site work to include a new driveway, which will require removal of the south porch and replacement with a shallower version. Note: The proposed addition is significantly scaled-back from what the BAR approved in December 2020. Attached is a comparison of the two. For existing conditions, see information submitted for the October 2020 preliminary discussion. Roofing • Addition and existing house to be interlocking metal shingles. Simple design, flat, not ornamented. Color to be dark gray/slate. (Replace existing asphalt shingles on house). Materials • Stucco: Smooth finish, “StoPowerwall” stucco system. (www.stocorp.com)* • Trim: Fiber cement, painted.* • Doors and Windows (casement): Anderson, aluminum clad wood. White with black exterior trim.* https://aw930cdnprdcd.azureedge.net/-/media/aw/files/brochures/2020-to-current-literature/e-series- brochure.pdf?modified=20210712191053 Note: The lite patterns will be as shown on the renderings. For insulated glass with applied grills, the BAE should require internal spacer bars. • Ceiling at covered parking: Tongue and grooved trim, stained.* • Low wall: Board-formed concrete wall with stone cap.* Balconies, Deck and Stairs • Railing: Wood rail (natural finish) on panels with flat metal bars (painted).* • Decking/Treads: Composition material. Trim and exposed framing below to be painted.* Landscaping • Remove: 6” Crepe Myrtle (front), 6” Dogwood (front), 4” Holly (rear), 40” Oak (rear).* • New: See Plant Schedule on Sheet A. (Rain Garden, Ferns, Oak Garden, Living Fence/Green Screen, Pollinator Garden.)* • Hardwood mulch within planting areas.* Paving • Walking Path (front): Cut slate/flagstone in aggregate with steel edging* • Driveway (front): Concrete, permeable pavers* • Driveway (rear and existing): Crushed Buckingham slate with steel edging* Exterior Lighting • Pathway lights: AQ Lighting, 3 Tier Pagoda Pathway Light, LED, CCT 2,700K or 5,000K* • Soffit lighting: Recessed can lights, TBD* * No change from December 2020. Discussion Staff recommends approval, with the suggested conditions related to the applied grills on insulated glass windows. 7 BAR Meeting Minutes September 21, 2021 Driveway Previously, the existing driveway (along the north parcel line) was eliminated and a new constructed (along the north parcel line). The project will now retain the existing and use the new to create a loop for access to and egress from the parking area behind the house. City Code Section 34-972(a)(5) allows for the BAR to make recommendations [to the city traffic engineer] regarding modifications in the required driveway entrance widths. Conditions may require some flexibility—for example, as necessary to minimize the removal of the existing stone curbing. Staff is consulting with zoning and will address this more specifically during the September 21 meeting. Patrick Farley, Applicant – What we’re doing is reverting back to just single-family. Previously, we were going for two family upgrades. There is a photograph of the rear, which has the existing poorly built (soon to be removed) rear deck. The footprint of the addition nearly perfectly fits into that footprint. It is a very small addition. With regards to the roofing, we were previously looking at two things. One is upgrading the existing roof, which is asphalt shingles, to interlocking medal shingles. The rear addition was going to have standing seam. We had the advantage of that “hyphen” that broke the roof forms apart. We had a lot more scale on the addition working in our favor. It’s now really about upgrading, uniformity, and integration. The roof being a smaller area on the rear addition tying into the existing roof seems self-evident. It’s the same material. We’re sticking with the upgrade to the interlocking shingle approach. We’re hoping to have fully off street parking. Hence, the loop/in and out. That’s the logic behind that site plan change. We still hold to making the landscape planting improvements at the front yard. In the rear, we’re going to scale that back and keep our options open for any future endeavors we might want to undertake on the property. QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No Questions from the Public QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Gastinger – Can you give us an update on the strategy with the trees in the back? I know that was one of the major site drivers. Have any of the trees been removed? How has the site plan changed your approach? Mr. Farley – This strategy is much friendlier to the three oaks that are of some concern. The addition is occupying the existing footprint of this deck. Really net impacting the trees. We will be cutting a foundation. There is already disturbance there. We had the arborist, who was here a week ago. The one oak that was already essentially dead would have to be removed. It was just taken out. He did give us some advice around how we can approach, not only the foundation; he will come in and do some aeration, feeding, and nurturing of those trees as necessary. We still intend to do everything we can to protect them and the roots. That’s one of the reasons behind this. Mr. Mohr – The one not clear to me is the direction of travel. If I was to look at this by the angle of the parking, you’re considering the primary entrance as an added entrance. The concrete grid apron suggests otherwise. The other thing is that it seems pretty common that the primary walk to the front door actually addresses the sidewalk and not the driveway. I would see it might have a spur to the driveway. More than anything, the circulation implied at the front confuses me relative to the implied circulation in the back. 8 BAR Meeting Minutes September 21, 2021 Mr. Farley – We’re anticipating student renters. They’re coming primarily from the direction of traffic; coming in from classes. That is the northern approach to the property. There’s a landscape agenda, where I want to take the bisecting of the yard away and give more back to some plant diversity in that front yard space. The existing sidewalk needs to be redone completely. It’s all busted up. The concrete has been lifted by those oaks. We just want to take a different approach and not even use concrete. The idea behind the grid paver section is to allow more infiltration versus something that is less pervious on that side. Mr. Mohr – Where the concrete is would be the ‘out?’ That makes sense relative to the other side. I assume you’re not tearing up the existing driveway. Mr. Farley – We’re essentially extending it down, connecting it to the loop, and improving it with the material. We have a ‘grandfather’ in place there. Mr. Mohr – Generally, when we were talking about the driveway not cutting in front of the house, I understand what you’re talking about in terms of the landscape. I don’t think a footpath would split the landscape. You would be walking through it. On Park Street, we have generally encouraged people to maintain that connection to the sidewalk. I am not sure that I understand it. It fits with how the house relates to the street. Mr. Farley – I am favoring a subtle symmetry to make the front porch functional and pliable as a sitting area. It can an entrance off-center. That’s part of what is going on. It’s bringing foot traffic from that side versus down the center to re-imagine how that front porch works versus it being a perfectly symmetrical space that you pass through. The idea is you have a place to sit and enjoy being engaged. The landscaping is more active in terms of having pollinator plants. We’re really trying to emphasize that front yard as a place you don’t just pass through. You can actually enjoy it. There is a little more to the agenda as it relates directly to the redesign of the front porch. I don’t know if that is clear in the information that you have. There’s enough space where a couple of people can hang out. Mr. Schwarz – I know we can’t rule on program. I would hope you can help me understand about what we have to do in dealing with the city for these driveways. It’s a single-family home you’re going to have students renting? Mr. Farley – Yes. Nothing has changed. It’s been a student rental home for 30+ years. Mr. Schwarz – With the last iteration, you actually had separate units? Mr. Farley – It was a two family. It was six bedrooms. We’re now pulling it back to four, which is the maximum allowable. Mr. Schwarz – Can you tell us about these interlocking shingles? Was there a spec or something that I missed? Mr. Farley – Did staff include those references? Mr. Werner – I can’t remember. Mr. Farley – We have a contractor onboard. It is a well-known contractor that is good with these kind of projects. There are a number of products. When you go online, you get installer websites, not the 9 BAR Meeting Minutes September 21, 2021 website where the product originates. I am going to rely on whoever the roofer is to work that out. It’s the same thing for standing seam. Mr. Werner – The interlocking metal shingles is a 1920s stamped decorative design. There is a lot out there. You can get a metal shingle that looks like a slate shingle. If there is something you all are not comfortable with on this period of house, maybe that’s the way to express it. It’s a 1922 craftsman style house. Is there something on here as a type of roof that would not work? We can maybe work from there. Standing seam metal would be fine here. The metal I saw looked flat, a little more mechanical than the full slate. Mr. Farley – What we’re after is that we’re assuming the original roof was shingles. There are no records. We’re thinking of it more in terms of texture and hue. What is there now is pretty awful. Anything we do is going to be an improvement. If it was slate, why did they remove the slate and put up shingles? Shingles are definitely appropriate. There’s plenty of precedent in this district. Shingles is the right texture and color that is befitting of the period and some slate-like hue. Mr. Schwarz – My concern is that we have had the fraternity one. They wanted to do full slate out of metal. It had some very funny in-conditions. My only comment would be that if we approve this tonight, it’s going to be something staff is going to have to look at and say that meets what they were discussing so that there’s no really ‘chunky’ overlap of the shingles wrapping over the rakes. Mr. Farley – If we were to stick with shingles/the existing materials, but go to a high end of a fiberglass, would that be acceptable by virtue of the fact that it is the existing material? Mr. Schwarz – I don’t think we can deny that. You’re replacing what is there. I am not saying anything bad about the metal. It is some caveat for staff to look out for. With the windows, will they have spacer bars? Mr. Farley – Yes. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC No Comments from the Public COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Gastinger – The addition seems to be a responsible and good approach. As it gets scaled back, it has less pressure on it. It’s more in keeping with the neighborhood and the house. Whatever decision led to that, in general, is a net plus. I do have real concerns about the driveway approach and the loop road. Initially when we first reviewed it, it took a bit to get over the parking in the backyard. It was in keeping with the scale of the addition and the overall building. Even at that time, we requested a consideration of moving the path to the other side so that it minimized the amount of paved surface. Looking at the loop road now, it seems very out of scale with both the house and the neighborhood. Looking back at the ADC description of this neighborhood, three sentences refer to the mature plantings and lush character of this small pocket neighborhood. It’s like it is not required. I would be able to support an approach that still puts the parking in the rear if it would limit it to a single drive. The existing drive would be preferred. It seems over the top to require a looped drive around the entire house to put parking in the back. 10 BAR Meeting Minutes September 21, 2021 The project had a number of things we were reviewing in the past. We really didn’t absorb the small retaining walls and the off-center entrance to the building. Given the stately character of the front of this house and its symmetrical façade, it seems a little ‘tortured’ to having the walls frame an off- centered entrance. It seems like an odd addition to the front of this great house. Mr. Mohr – I would second that. My thing about the path curving off is that it seems the pre-car relationship of a lot of these houses was that it went down to the sidewalk. You didn’t bring them into the yard. It has this English cottage quietness to it, the way it currently exists in that photo. Having the pollinator garden split in half by a walkway could be a walking path with a lot of green in it. I don’t think it bifurcates that space at all. If you want to create more of an outdoor area, maybe there’s some seating somewhere in the front yard that’s in the middle of that garden. It really counters the effectiveness of that hood and the front door to have that retaining wall sliding everything off to the side and interrupting that front façade. I understand the concept. I don’t think it is that kind of space right there. It does fight the architecture of the house. I am not sure that I understand the reason for so much driveway. It does seem like one entrance should serve. Ms. Lewis – I am supportive of the application and the new addition on the back. The volumes are really nicely handled with the stair coming down. It is more appealing in its reduced shape. My big problem is the addition of the second driveway. One of our guidelines for new construction does talk about the impact of additions or construction on current gardens and landscaping. We’re taking a big swath out of this front yard. These driveways may not pass muster on one guideline. It states that driveways can’t occupy more than 25% of the front yard between the building line and the right of way. If you at page 91 of the packet, the scale is ‘funky.’ If you at the back of the property, you can see where the 25 foot setback line is. It would be the setback from the front. If you apply that off of Oakhurst Circle and look at whether these two driveways take up more than 25%. I think these two driveways exceed more than 25%. We can encourage zoning to waive that or give special consideration. I am not quite sure why. The purpose of the reduced addition is to restore this to the R-2 zoning or single-family zoning with renters. I don’t understand why the programming requires a second driveway. It seems like it would serve a more intense use. Planning for future use, this is R-2. I don’t think these two huge driveways in this small front yard are consummate with single-family. There’s another zoning guideline we were sent. The curb-cuts are not to exceed 33% of the lot frontage. That is going to be pretty close. We’ve already acknowledged some of the historic pavers might be impacted by that. I just can’t support this circular drive. I continue to support this application and thank the applicant for crafting a nice addition and endeavoring to be sensitive to the beauty of the landscape, especially in this backyard. Mr. Werner – I went back and forth with zoning on this. That was one of the questions that the applicant raised about the area involved. Zoning’s interpretation, as they applied it, is reduce the setback from the edge of the right of way to the house. When I started scaling and doing the math, one of the problems that our GIS is fairly accurate up to parcel boundaries. This one is off by ten feet. As far as that 25% is concerned, it’s close. My slide-rule didn’t go that far. With the width across the front, the curb-line is 52 feet. I calculated that width with the 9 foot existing driveway and the new 8 foot driveway would result in 32.6%; less than that 33%. These numbers are all following the fine decimal points. We are looking at the design. Is the design OK? Mr. Gastinger – I don’t think it matters. I don’t think the design is consistent with the neighborhood. That’s our purview. Ms. Lewis – The guidelines are there for a reason. They’re to limit the amount of hardscape/curb-cuts in a front yard in a residential zoning district. The language of 34-972 says that it is 25% between the 11 BAR Meeting Minutes September 21, 2021 building setback line and the right of way. It doesn’t say feet from building. It is not consummate with single-family. It is a lot more hardscape. It does impact the gardens and landscaping in this front yard. Mr. Schwarz – In reference to your recommendation (staff), even if we found the two driveways to be OK, I would not want to give zoning the flexibility to say “two driveways but they need to be 18 feet wide. We will take two feet off the 20 feet we usually require.” The BAR would set limits. If zoning and the site plan review wants to do something different, the plan would have to come back to us. Mr. Werner – We have dealt with this with aprons. If the applicant wants to go with one driveway, that would be a new driveway. I would encourage you all to express to the city engineer to minimize the width of that apron, minimize the disruption to the existing stone curbing. It would remain with the conversation to go with two or one that happens to be the new one. If we keep the old driveway and nothing changes, nothing changes. If they add a second driveway or add a new driveway/abandon the original, I encourage you to make some statement about minimal disturbance relative to the apron. No matter what you say, there are setbacks relative to the driveway. The reason I want to be clear about this is because there was a project about a month after I started. I didn’t even realize it had occurred. The BAR thought that a driveway was a good idea. Just because the BAR discussed it might be an interesting idea, it was not part of the motion. Even though you can’t change zoning, we can still make a recommendation to the city engineer. Mr. Schwarz – There’s a difference between making a recommendation. On some site plans we can say “this is what we are able to approve.” If the site plan process doesn’t allow it, it needs to come back to us. Mr. Mohr – If I was to look at the two driveways, my functional preference would be the lower one. It comes closer to the house. It gives access to the porch. It works with the geometry of getting into the garage. The one closer to the house, on the north side, is the one I would abandon. Unfortunately, it is the one that currently exists. In terms of preference, the new driveway is better than the old one even though it does separate the house from the yard. I think it functions better. I suppose you can change the direction of the cars. Given the use of the house, having that adjacency to that corner of the house, I am assuming it works well with your plan on the inside. That would be my preference. Mr. Schwarz – My one concern with that would be if that’s a new driveway, there will be even more pressure to make it a wide driveway. The 20 foot minimum makes no sense to me and it scares me. It’s sitting in our code. I don’t know how far they would allow us to wittle that down. Mr. Farley – I brought this up last year. There was some internal exchange with the city engineer. He basically said they take it on a case by case basis. A 20 foot driveway would make no sense here. That’s where we have the flexibility and we can be very subjective about it. That’s what I would do especially with that percentage eating into the landscape. One oak would have to go for that to work. I would agree with what Mr. Mohr just said. I am pretty sure my client would want to favor the southern/new entrance. It is safer. You pass by the house. That part of the circle is tight. Coming around, going past the house, and turning in versus the way it works now. It sneaks up on you. It’s very dense and comes right up to the sidewalk. You don’t even know the driveway is there. The southern entrance does make sense. We’re not against the central/retaining the center line entrance. What is there on the plan now is a carryover. That was originally a pedestrian entrance down to the second unit in the rear. We’re getting rid of that. We will still have pedestrian traffic that’s going to go down that side and come in the backside. It seemed to make sense. I am not hung up on that scheme. It sounds like this is going towards holding onto the current relationship with this sidewalk 12 BAR Meeting Minutes September 21, 2021 Mr. Mohr – You have quite a bit more front yard at that point. There’s certainly nothing precluding some seating area. I think the two driveways imply a different scale. Mr. Schwarz – Does anybody have any concerns with anything other than the driveway? Do we have any concerns with the house? Mr. Mohr – Just the retaining walls. That’s it. I’m not worried about the shingles as long you pick something nice. Mr. Schwarz – We can approve the house. With that approval, the landscape stays the same. The applicant can get a building permit. The site plan can come back to us. We can continue discussing. The site plan will come back to us as a new COA if the applicant is in a rush to get a building permit. We approve the house with no change to the landscape. The landscape can come back to us as a new COA. We can’t administratively approve what we’re discussing. Mr. Zehmer – You say approve the existing landscape. We approved (December 2020) a change to the landscape and to add the driveway on the south side. Are you saying that we stick with that approval? Or keep what is existing and come back with what you want? Mr. Schwarz – Keep what is currently in place on the site. I am not sure the old site plan still applies. That plan goes with the house with the addition on the back. It no longer is valid. Mr. Werner – You can make that statement. The applicant can come in with a prior approval. It’s still a COA for that. Mr. Schwarz – That would be for the whole project as it was before. Mr. Werner – This is the part the City Attorney had raised. Don’t amend the COA as a new COA. I don’t think there’s nothing wrong with you all making a statement of this new COA being a replacement of that. Make that clear. The site plan has that with what is submitted to the city. In reviewing the driveway with zoning and the city engineer, if it comes back and it modifies this, go to the drawing again. As it was drawn in December 2020, the parking area in the back was such that it allowed vehicles to do a T turn and come back out. As it is currently drawn, the intent is pull in and park, back out, and continue another way. There would have to be some modifications to the parking lot area. Mr. Schwarz – I’m not saying go back to the approved 2020 plan. I am saying to leave the ground as it is. Nothing gets touched. That site plan from 2020 goes with a different building than what we’re looking at right now. Mr. Werner – This replaces what was reviewed in 2020. Whatever comes back to you, there will also be some changes in that parking area in the back. You can account for the front walk. You have clarified that. The landscaping plan, as far as vegetation, nothing has really changed as far as the paved surface goes. As far as the driveway goes, there is some clarification on that. Mr. Schwarz – We’re treating the landscape plan as a preliminary discussion. We’re going to give the applicant some advice on what we think would be approvable. There are going to be changes that he’s going to have to figure out on his own. He will have to rotate the parking. We will let him do that under some guidance. 13 BAR Meeting Minutes September 21, 2021 Mr. Mohr – He doesn’t have to do a lot to the parking. He has a pretty generous apron to begin with. He has the parking underneath the house. I don’t think that’s such a big deal. It needs to be a separate application. I am agreeing with that bifurcation so that he can keep moving. Mr. Schwarz – With the preliminary discussion of the landscape, Tim, you’re preferring the driveway on the south. Was that the general consensus? Mr. Gastinger – I could see a successful application with either scenario. I do worry in thinking about student housing. This quickly could become not a 3 car parking area but 5 or 6. With the sensitive vegetation, I would ask the applicant to think about a way that protects and is really clear about where parking is to be located. Mr. Schwarz – The suggestion is to make the front walkway connect up to the sidewalk? Mr. Gastinger – Those are two really sensitive trees. I would be cautious about installing a new sidewalk in that area. I would recommend it. It would be consistent with our guidelines and the Secretary of Interior’s Standards to maintain the straight walk from the front door to the sidewalk. Motion – Mr. Schwarz – Carl Schwarz moves: 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 and new construction at 106 Oakhurst Circle for the house alone, and not the landscape elements, satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are compatible with this property and other properties in the Oakhurst-Gildersleeve ADC District, and that the BAR approves that portion of the application as submitted with the following conditions: that the window muntins will have internal spacer bars, that the metal shingles should be reviewed by staff and should resemble shingles (staff should pay attention to ridges and details at rakes and eaves), and a strong recommendation that the walls that have been added at the front stoop are not set asymmetrically. The previous CoA granted in December 2020, while still valid, is not valid in pieces. The BAR looks forward to reviewing the landscape plan for this project. Ms. Lewis seconds motion. Motion passes (6-0). The meeting was recessed for five minutes. 4. Certificate of Appropriateness BAR 21-09-03 936 Rugby Road, TMP 030144000 Rugby Road Historic Conservation District Owner: Sharon and Michael Nedzbala Applicant: Leigh Boyes Project: Side addition (Note: Covered porch at rear is not subject to review.) Jeff Werner, Staff Report – Year Built: c1911 District: Rugby Road Historic Conservation District Status: Contributing Stucco, vernacular dwelling designed by Eugene Bradbury. Addition • Roof: Match existing (asphalt dimension shingles) or standing-seam copper. • Gutter and downspout: Match existing. • Cornice and trim: Match existing. • Exterior wall: Match existing. Stucco. 14 BAR Meeting Minutes September 21, 2021 • Chimney: Match existing detail. Stucco. • Windows: Painted, wood, casement windows. Color: TBD • Light Fixtures: None indicated. Request CoA for construction of an addition onto the west south side and a covered porch at the rear. (NOTE: The rear, covered porch will not be visible from Rugby Road or Preston Avenue, due to the elevation and grade. Staff concluded this component does not require a CoA.) Discussion and Recommendations Note: The regulations and guidelines for projects within a Historic Conservation District (HCD) are, by design, less rigid than those for an ADC District or an IPP. The HCD designations are intended to preserve the character-defining elements of the neighborhoods and to assure that new construction is not inappropriate to that character, while minimally imposing on current residents who may want to upgrade their homes. Within the existing HCDs are buildings and/or areas that might easily qualify for an ADC District or as an IPP; however, in evaluating proposals within HCDs, the BAR may apply only the HCD requirements and guidelines. The BAR should discuss the use of an exterior chimney, which represents a new architectural element—the four existing chimneys are interior. Otherwise, staff recommends approval. (See specific comments below under Pertinent Design Review Guidelines.) QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No Questions from the Public QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD No Questions from the Board COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC No Comments from the Public COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD Ms. Lewis – I was supportive of putting this on the Consent Agenda given that it should be an IPP. It is in a Historic Conservation District and not in an ADC. The only thing staff asked us to look at the new chimney that is exterior instead of the ones that are interior. The location of it is really not at all prominent to the street-side. Given how the house is situated in the lot, I don’t if anybody else could see it. It looks like a very thoughtful addition to this house. I do support this. Mr. Zehmer – This is a very successful addition. The chimney being exterior actually helps. The width of the addition is inset slightly from the adjoining original portion of the building. By having that step in and having the exterior chimney be different from the original house helps show this as an addition. It works well. Motion – Ms. Lewis – Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City Design Guidelines for Historic Conservation Districts, I move to find that the proposed addition at 936 Rugby Road satisfy the BAR’s criteria and is compatible with this property and other properties in the Rugby Road Historic Conservation District, and that the BAR approves the application as submitted. Mr. Mohr seconds the motion. Motion passes (6-0). 15 BAR Meeting Minutes September 21, 2021 D. Preliminary Discussion 5. 745 Park Street – Demolition Year Built: 1957 District: North Downtown ADC District Status: Contributing Brick, stretcher bond; l-1/2 stories; gable roof (composition); 3 bays. Detached house, 1950s-60s. Entrance in center bay. Exterior end chimney on north, single ramp. (NRHP listing for the Charlottesville and Albemarle County Courthouse Historic District. VDHR #104-0072.) Preliminary discussion on request to demolish the existing, approx. 35-f x 30-ft, single story, brick dwelling. Owners planning significant and extensive improvements to home. Renovations to existing impractical; razing is preferred. Note: A CoA is required to raze a contributing structure. Also, a CoA is also required for subsequent construction on or alteration to the site. Discussion and Recommendations The BAR should discuss if the proposed demolition is compatible with the ADC District Design Guidelines for Demolitions. As is standard for demolition requests, should the BAR consider approval, pending a formal submittal and request, staff will recommend condition of approval that prior to demolition the applicant will provide sketch plan and photographs of the existing dwelling and site. While a contributing structure, it must be noted that when the ADC District was established, all but approximately 15 primary structures were similarly designated. This district, including 745 Prk Street) was established in 1991. (It was expanded in 2005 to include the area north of downtown, between McIntire Road and 1st Street North.) Prior to 1996, when establishing an ADC district, it was the City’s practice to designate all structures as contributing. Additionally, while this dwelling was constructed 64 years ago and is thus eligible to be considered for possible designation, it is unique only because it is dissimilar in age and style from the houses that characterize this district. Between Lyons Court and the Bypass, within the ADC District on the west side of Park Street, there are four houses north and four houses south of 745 Park Street. They date from 1840 to 1936; the median year built is 1910. On the east side of Park, not in the district, there are 15 homes, dating from 1946 to 1967; the median year built is 1951. Prior demolitions in the North Downtown ADC District, which might be helpful. • 705 Park Street, demo 1920s garage and construct new, CoA approved April 17, 2012. http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/622122/BAR_705%20Park%20Street_March2012.pdf http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/622121/BAR_705%20Park%20Street_July2012.pdf • 713 Park Street, demo c1920 garage, CoA approved April 21, 2009. http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/790894/BAR_713%20Park%20Street_April2019.pdf Note: Comments above and in the review below are based on the information provided and are intended for discussion only. Comments and recommendation may change when a formal request is submitted. • Owners want to make improvements to the house and demolish the house down to the foundation. • Owners just want to have the flexibility to demolish the house. • Owners were encouraged to submit a COA application. 16 BAR Meeting Minutes September 21, 2021 • Board members were very supportive of the owners’ plans for the improvements that they would like to make to the house. E. Other Business Staff Questions/Discussion • Annual meeting to be held in November – Elections to be held for Chair and Vice- Chair. • Staff went over the possible return to in person meetings. Brief Discussion ADC District Design Guidelines • Staff provided an update regarding the approval of the Comprehensive Plan. • Following approval of the Comprehensive Plan, the city will begin work on the Zoning Rewrite. Staff asked if members of the Board had any concerns with the Zoning in ADC Districts. • Staff also asked for their concerns and feedback with the ADC District Design Guidelines. PLACE Update F. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:32 PM 17 BAR Meeting Minutes September 21, 2021 Sign 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: Erect 4½-foot pole sign Application components (please click each link to go directly to PDF page): • Staff Report • Application Submittal June 22, 2022 3 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW STAFF REPORT June 22, 2022 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 Background 550 East Water Street is mixed-use building constructed in 2018. Recent BAR Approvals (See Appendix) Application • Sign Permit Application for 550 East Water Street, Suite 101: 18” x 11-3/4” x 3/8" aluminum sign, painted with applied vinyl logo installed at a height of 4’-4” on a 3" x 3" painted metal post within a landscaped bed. Pole signs are allowed in the Downtown ADC District only with BAR approval. Discussion and Recommendations Note for clarity: All sign permit applications are submitted to and reviewed by the Zoning Administrator. Applications for signs within design control districts (per Sec. 34-1025) are also reviewed by design review, on behalf of the BAR and applying the pertinent ADC District Guidelines. In addition to the Zoning review, Sec. 34-1041 requires BAR approval for pole signs within the Downtown ADC District. The Code indicates approved sign permits take the form of a Certificate of Appropriateness; however, with no separate BAR application for the design review component, staff does not refer to approved sign permits as approved CoA. For continuity, the proposed motion reflects this terminology; however, regardless of phrasing, the BAR’s action is equivalent to action on a CoA request. There are very few pole signs within the Downtown ADC District and most, if not all, likely predate the required BAR review. Except for the clearly unique Lucky 7 sign, most are located 550 East Water Street – pole sign (June 14, 2022) 1 within landscaped beds and where there is space between the building and the sidewalk. (Map and images below indicate existing pole signs—possibly not all--within the Downtown ADC District.) 550 E. Water Street 550 East Water Street – pole sign (June 14, 2022) 2 Conceptual (by staff) Staff finds that the proposed pole sign is appropriate for the Downtown ADC District; however, this finding assumes a single pole sign for this building. Within the building are ten condominiums, each with a separate Tax Map Parcel number and--either currently or potentially-- separately owned. Staff is concerned that one pole sign here creates a precedent that might result in ten, separate pole signs in front of this building. Staff has requested a determination from the Zoning Administrator and will present that prior to the June 22 meeting. Should those broader questions related to the City’s sign ordinance not be resolved—separate from the design review of this one sign--staff recommends this be deferred to the July 19, 2022 BAR meeting. Suggested Motion Approval: 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 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: …] 550 East Water Street – pole sign (June 14, 2022) 3 Denial: 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 that for the following reasons the BAR does approve a pole sign at 550 East Water Street and therefore instructs staff to not administratively approve the design review component of this sign permit application: … Deferral: I move to defer this matter to the July 2022 BAR meeting, with the instruction that staff provide clarifications on questions related to the sign ordinance, including the potential for precedent, and provide an inventory of pole signs within the Downtown ADC District, particularly those reviewed by the BAR under City Code Sec. 34-1041. 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 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 ADC District Design Guidelines Chapter 5 Signs, Awnings, Vending, and Cafes A. Signs 2) Placement … f) Freestanding signs, in general, are not an appropriate sign type in commercial areas of Downtown […] except for […] office use on a site where the building is set back deeply on the lot. In this case, freestanding signs should be no higher than 12 feet. Staff comment: Height of proposed sign is 4.33 feet. The budding is not set back deeply on the lot; however, the building’s façade is not built to the sidewalk and at this location the wall is approximately 16 feet from the sidewalk (approximately 20 feet from the curb) with the proposed pole sign 1 foot from the sidewalks (approximately 5 feet from the curb). 550 East Water Street – pole sign (June 14, 2022) 4 3. Respect the signs of adjacent businesses. Staff comment: The proposed sign does to interfere with other signage. Due to its design, location, and small size, it does not aesthetically conflict with existing signs or businesses. 4. Number of permanent signs a) The number of signs used should be limited to encourage compatibility with the building and discourage visual clutter. b) In commercial areas, signs should be limited to two total, which can be different types. c) A building should have only one wall sign per street frontage. Staff comment: Currently, the only commercial sign at this site is the lettering on the NW corner canopy (approved by BAR December 2018). Two additional signs are proposed at the NE corner: This pole sign and a small wall sign (14” x 40”) for the same business. (Wall signs do not require BAR approval.) 5. Size a) All the signs on a commercial building should not exceed 50 square feet. b) Average height of letters and symbols should be no more than 12 inches on wall signs, 9 inches on awning and canopy signs, and 6 inches on window signs. Staff comment: Proposed pole sign complies. 550 East Water Street – pole sign (June 14, 2022) 5 6. Design a) Signs should be designed and executed by sign professionals who are skilled at lettering and surface preparation. Staff comment: Proposed pole sign was designed by Gropen, Inc. 7. Shape a) Shape of signs for commercial buildings should conform to the area where the sign is to be located. b) Likewise, a sign can take on the shape of the product of service provided, such as a shoe for a shoe store. Staff comment: Proposed pole sign complies. 8. Materials a) Use traditional sign materials, such as wood, glass, gold leaf, raised metal or painted wood letters, and painted wood letters on wood, metal, or glass. b) Newer products, such as painted MDO may also be used. c) Do not use shiny plastic products. d) Window signs should be painted or have decal flat letters and should not be three- dimensional. Staff comment: Proposed pole sign complies. 9. Color a) Use colors that complement the materials and color of the building, including accent and trim colors. b) A maximum of three colors are recommended, although more colors can be appropriate. Staff comment: Proposed pole sign complies. 10. Illumination a) Generally, signs should be indirectly lit with a shielded incandescent light source. b) Internally lit translucent signs are not permitted. Staff comment: Proposed pole sign will not be illuminated. Division 2. - Historical Preservation and Architectural Design Control Overlay Districts Sec. 34-283. - Administrative review. (a) Notwithstanding any contrary provision of this article, the director of neighborhood development services may review, and may approve or deny, applications for certificates of appropriateness, in the following situations: ... (4) The addition, alteration or removal of any sign(s) where such sign(s) are the sole subject of the application, or where all other improvements comprising part of the application are subject to administrative review under this section or sections 34-1041 through 34-1043; and 550 East Water Street – pole sign (June 14, 2022) 6 Division 4. - Signs Sec. 34-1025. - Permit requirements—Generally. c) Applications for sign permits shall be submitted to the city's zoning administrator, and shall be accompanied by the required application fee, as set forth within the most recent zoning fee schedule approved by city council. Permits are issued as followed: … 2) For all other signage within any of the city's architectural design control and entrance corridor districts, such permit shall take the form of a certificate of appropriateness issued administratively by the director. Appeals from decisions of the director shall be taken to the board of architectural review and the planning commission, respectively. Sec. 34-1031. - Maximum number of signs allowed. a) A principal establishment may have no more than two (2) signs per primary street frontage, and one (1) additional sign for each linking street frontage, except where district regulations are more restrictive, or if these limits are varied by an approved comprehensive signage plan (section 34-1045). For purposes of calculation of the number of signs permitted per establishment, only one (1) street frontage shall be designated as primary street frontage. Signs for which a permit is not required shall not be counted in calculating the number of allowed signs. Sec. 34-1038. - General sign regulations. (e) Pole mounted signs. (1) All pole signs shall be located in a landscaped bed. (2) Unless otherwise provided within this article: a. No pole mounted sign shall exceed a height of twelve (12) feet. b. No pole mounted sign shall exceed an area of twelve (12) square feet including all faces. Sec. 34-1041. - Downtown and University Corner architectural design control districts—Special regulations. In addition to other applicable regulations set forth in this article, the following regulations shall apply to establishments located within the downtown and university corner architectural design control districts (reference section 34-272) except as approved with an optional comprehensive sign plan. a) Freestanding and monument signs shall not be permitted. b) Pole signs may be permitted with board of architectural review approval. c) Internally lit signs and neon signs shall not be permitted. d) One (1) projecting sign is permitted for each separate storefront fronting on a public right- of-way at ground level. e) No single sign face of any projecting sign shall have an area greater than ten (10) square feet. f) Projecting signs shall have a projection of not more than thirty-six (36) inches beyond the facade of the building to which it is attached, except marquees, which shall be subject to regulations as provided in section 34-1038(c). g) One (1) additional projecting sign may be permitted for a doorway entrance that provides primary access to a business located on an upper floor or basement level. h) The character of all signs shall be harmonious to the character of the structure on which they are to be placed. Among other things, consideration shall be given to the location of 550 East Water Street – pole sign (June 14, 2022) 7 signs on the structure in relation to the surrounding buildings; the use of compatible colors; the use of appropriate materials; the size and style of lettering and graphics; and the type of lighting. i) Except in the case of new construction, all signs in this district shall be subject to administrative review by the director of neighborhood of development services, with appeals to the board of architectural review. The board of architectural review shall review all signs for new construction. j) A sign may be attached to an existing freestanding or projecting sign. In the case of a building on a site with more than one (1) street frontage or more than one (1) principal entrance, one (1) additional freestanding or projecting sign per additional street frontage or principal entrance is permitted. k) Notwithstanding any contrary provisions of this article, the restoration or reconstruction of an original sign associated with a protected property is permitted, if the establishment identified in the sign is still in operation at that location. (2-19-08; 7-16-12) Appendix Prior BAR Actions January 15, 2008 – Preliminary discussion. In general, most liked the proposed building. BAR said the massing is generally OK, a nice response to site; some preferred red not yellow brick; some said tan brick would be OK with tan windows; glass balcony piece is weird; should enter stores from street; base needs articulation; need double hung windows; need 1 type of window, not 2-3; west elevation doesn’t go with the rest of vocabulary; balconies are anomalous in 1920’s design revival; decorate spandrels in tower? Consider a low resolution between vertical and long piece; concern with blank garage wall on street; one member said this is too conventional a solution for the site; discussion whether or not to simplify the tower given the context; suggested doing the warehouse look on the 2-story part, treating like a separate building? The BAR wants to see the roofscape; want the transformer moved from the visible location. May 20, 2008 – BAR approved (8-0) the design in concept for massing, height, openings, and scale. Details as they relate to its materials and construction are to come back to BAR (including guard rails, cornices, wall section through window sill and head, roofscape, and depth of niche defining the two separate building elements.) May 2009 - BAR approved in concept in a 9-story structure on this site. Following that approval, the zoning of the site was changed from Downtown Corridor to Water Street District Corridor. In 2009, based on an opinion from the City Attorney, a new plan for a 5-story building was reviewed and approved under the prior zoning.) September 15, 2009 – BAR made preliminary comments. The BAR preferred the version in their packet to the version submitted at the meeting. November 17, 2009 - BAR approved (6-1 with Wall against) the application for massing, height, openings, scale, and materials as submitted, with the applicant’s modification for exterior [vehicle driveway] pavement (pavers, not concrete) and retaining wall material (brick, not stacked block). Details as they relate to balconies and protection for secondary entrances shall come back to the BAR for review. 550 East Water Street – pole sign (June 14, 2022) 8 December 21, 2010 - BAR approved (7-0) the application for massing, height, openings, scale, and materials as submitted. The BAR noted that the applicant should consider Sec 34- 872(b)(3) of the Zoning Ordinance, which requires screening of all mechanical equipment. (December of 2010, the BAR approved the application for a new 4-story building on the same site, with consideration of Sec 34- 872(b)(3) of the Zoning Ordinance, which requires screening of all mechanical equipment.) September 17, 2013 - BAR accepted the applicant’s request for deferral (8-0). The BAR found the ADA entrance to the rear too isolating, the design overall too complicated for the size of the building, and that the applicant should appear to present an overall plan for the entire site, including possible future phases. May 19, 2015 – BAR discussed, but made no recommendation on the special use permit. The applicant asked to defer the vote until their June meeting because they are still working on the design. Mohr asked to see more context in terms of massing; Schwarz asked how building height is defined; and expressed interest in lowering the minimum height to the level of the King Building; Keesecker asked the applicant to show the existing 800 foot black fence; and to consider lobby references to the King building height; Question: Should guidelines be used to judge impact on ADC district? Neighbors asked about loading space requirements. June 16, 2015 - BAR recommended (6-0) to City Council that the proposed Special Use Permit (SUP) to allow additional height (from 70 feet to 101 feet) will have an adverse impact on the Downtown ADC district, and the BAR notes the following considerations when making this recommendation: • The height requested by SUP is too much, but the massing concept presented by the applicant is acceptable. • The BAR appreciates the modulated rhythm. • City Council should consider reducing the minimum required height of 40 feet. • The BAR has concerns about the pedestrian experience relative to the garage. • This site and/or the underlying by-right zoning may be uniquely problematic – the BAR is not advocating for the 70 foot street wall allowed by zoning. • The BAR is supportive of the potential to develop a building, and the aesthetic presented is headed in the right direction. • The BAR would advocate for a building with similar program, but lower height. September 15, 2015 – BAR held a preliminary discussion, no action was taken. Graves recused himself from the discussion. The BAR asked staff to provide an explanation of how height is averaged, with examples of how it has been done in the past. Some comments: Lower height is huge improvement; continue to make it relate to smaller buildings on sides, similar to a 2-story building plus a top; richer texture/details on lower levels; garage opening and trellis are strong and help pedestrian experience. October 20, 2015 – BAR approved the massing only, of the proposed new mixed-use complex, as submitted. (7-0-1 with Graves recused). March 15, 2016 - Schwarz moved to find that the proposed new mixed-use building satisfies the BAR’s criteria and guidelines and is compatible with this property and other properties in the 550 East Water Street – pole sign (June 14, 2022) 9 Downtown ADC district, and that the BAR approves the application, as submitted with the following conditions: • Planting and lighting plan • Revised mortar detail • How the applicant intends to deal with site walls and fencing • Continuing design development on warming up façade on street side and west elevation. Keesecker seconded. Motion passes (5-0-2, with Graves recused, and Balut abstained) Staff was asked to verify that guidelines E.2 and E. 3 in New Construction and Additions were considered. The question came up, what is difference between guideline and regulation? April 19, 2016 - Sarafin moved to find that the proposed new mixed-use building details satisfy the BAR’s criteria and guidelines and are compatible with this property and other properties in the Downtown ADC district, and that the BAR approves the application, as submitted, with the clarification that upon installation of the lighting, it is adjusted appropriately. Knott seconded. The motion passed (8-0) July 17, 2018: BAR approved the application as submitted with the following conditions: • COA applies only to the addition of an exterior entry at the west façade to accommodate street level access for a bank office requiring evening ATM access; extension of bluestone paving to provide access to the ATM entry; replacement of approved Black Gum street tree with a European Hornbeam; elimination of a wood and steel bench at public courtyard; addition of two S2 wall sconces on north façade matching fixtures approved at other entries; interior lighting of the ATM vestibule/lobby will include dimmable, recessed fixtures with color temperature of 3000k; match nearby exterior fixtures. • The monument sign must come back to the BAR for review. • Reminder to applicant that all exterior lighting should be reviewed when installed, specifically the location, directions, shielding, and timing of those fixtures. December 2018: BAR approved CoA for an overhead canopy with channel letters (at the NW corner entrance). 550 East Water Street – pole sign (June 14, 2022) 10 Sign Application and Permit Please return to: City of Charfottesvii1e Department of Neighborhood Development Servicesn P.O. Box 911. City Hal Charlottesville, VA 22902 Telephone (434) 970-3182 FAX (434) 970-3359 FordJnN:tlonal signs on the Downtown Mall, please lndudlt $125 permit fa9 par sign. Foral other' signs. pleastt lnduden $75 pennlt re. per sign. For an Optional CompreheMlva Sign Package. please Include a slngle fN of $250. Project NameJDescription - i r t f"l O Pan:el Number 3 0 I C. Z- � 0 -Z... Addressllocation 55() e. wc:i-k.- S�t 5vvk le> t Property Owner Name Oo"""'h""n 0th 'l LL C.. Applicant Name K'1 \t. 6'.t'"" locJ:. A. Property Owner lnfonnallon D. Sign Description / Address 1 "l. 3 F Mc..� s+. Im;. "Freestanding_ Projecting from wall_ (hc:--,\�+ks111·1(c... vA "2."Z.ctot. Aatagainstwal_ �t__ Other__n Phone Number j � '1- i '- I- IOI 5 •New signs wllh concrete footingsAoundations a,en Email W J� i,\ ' { "- �@ b. t C'.'l�. (, 0 M required to get a building permit before any conct&tan placement. Contact NOS at 434-970-3182. B. Property Owner Pannlsslon Size: Width L; 1, � Height If J/'1 .. = I, the undel'signed. owner or the property on which \ • 'l '1 Total Sq. Ft (Area may be lhis sign is to be erected, have read this appication measured using up to 8 straight. intersecting Unes.) and hen,by give my consent for this sign to be erected on my propertyfoulldlng. Max height to top of sigrr. j · 31 l-- + s....., QA V' v---..-, Min c1aarance to bottom or sign; 3 • ls;- '4 . Lighted? N� (Yd) Internal_ External_n C. Applicant'slnformatlon Allach a� of your sign lhat includes: exact I, the undersigned, agree to abide by all condillons of location on bulding; dimensions; materials; colors:n the City Sign Ordinance and Building Code In the worclngllogos; and lighting. erection cf this sign. and understand that my permit can be revoked at any li1le for just cause. F. SiJn Location Information Signed 11 l � street.Address S5o f Wo.b..- S\. s......� 10 t Is this sjgn replacing a pnNious sign. either for your Print Name (G,, l t. ('M"'°' lo e, l. business or a previous business?� (Y/Q) <"¾"' "L- µ, CompanyName (w:1t..,.., �c..n If yes, attach a 1st of lhe signs being replaced and Address \7 iraf�P• rnn"' Are the,e other signs on the property?� ft'IN) If yes. attach a list of lhese other signs and their sizes, even if they are not for your business. ForOfflc:e Use Only Sign Pennit No ___ Appnmds TaxMap__ Pan:el ___ ZonJng __ Zoning Administrator________ BZACase No _____ Date ___ Praservallon and Design Planns (EC cw ADC districts only) BAR No Date ___ Conditions of Approval ________ Data. ______ Amount Paid.____ cash/Check#___ Date Paid.____ Recaived by ___ SPECIFICATIONS • MATERlALS/METHOD: l ---3" - -+ - 1" 1: 3/8" Aluminum sign blank, Painted 23 3/4" 2: 18"x 5 5/16" Vinyl logo 3: l"x 1" Aluminum Angle, Adhesive Mount to '" Aluminum Blank 4: Mechanically fasten to post, Countersink fasteners 5: 3"x 3" Post. Painted I 6: Direct burial into concrete, 24" deep (i}X��� 14) i }-OETAI{,. 18" - -- ---1 +-0 [HJ FONTS � FIRST HERITAGE I N/A ' © COLORS � N 1: MP White, Satin 2: Avery Impulse Blue Vinyl 3: MP White, Satin ----·..�-. .. ..• j !-��� - �·��j , .. �.-- '/I,:'. ::,;rii�·. 5: MP Black, Satin � •. .. . •.•. �· I,'r ) •)I • -.- •�/' •.· .:•�-- � llla!!!II .'\ /· •If •. ::_· r"' '., • I ";,4r ,·;" .. '' . .. ... _'. j '. " ,. - ' -- .,;:__ ,J • �.- . · .. - ::i12:· __ -✓� . ., ���- . � ,...._ �-:" INSTALL NOTES � .' il! Direct burial into concrete ..·.:a l; Install 12" from concrete < SIDEWALK [�-A = 0 ti;� :- � • .. t 4 ._ . )' .::/ :i, • .... •�·...� ;p�,-j• ( l : FRONT ELEVATION: ONE POST , PHOTO COMP QTY 1 D 4 Ei GROPEN First Heritage Mortgage Office Signage Whit Douglas 434.227.5101 wdouglas@fhmtg.com PROJECT LEAD: Kyle Gum!ock DESIGN: Justin Gaydos HOURS: 4.5, (2) 1 DATE: 04.20.22 REV: 12) 04.27.22 With the exa�11on of previously COP\"righ'.€d wor� rurnished by c;ien1, the abov� renderingr�mainstl\ee1cJus1vej)!opertyo!G1C'l)ro,lnc. Thisdes,\}nmaynottla copi,;d in whole or in part wilhout thewrinen consent of Ur open. Ire ©2022 SIGN TYPE· 1 Post SCALE, 1:10. 1:4 PAGE: 33920 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 Application components (please click each link to go directly to PDF page): • Staff Report • Application Submittal June 22, 2022 4 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW STAFF REPORT June 22, 2022 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 Background Year Built: 1950 District: North Downtown ADC District Status: Contributing This two-story, five-bay brick house was constructed by Harry Munson in 1950 in the Colonial Revival style. The landmark survey is attached. Prior BAR Reviews (See appendix for reviews prior to February 2021) February 2021 – BAR approved (7-1) the installation of a fence on the inside perimeter of the skip laurel hedge that lines the property’s frontage along Park Street and Evergreen Avenue Application • Applicant Submittal: Blakeley Greenhalgh submittal, dated May 26, 2022: Site plan diagram illustrating location of proposed rooftop solar panels. CoA to install rooftop solar panels on the house and garage at 636 Park Street. Solar panels to be installed in the following locations (see diagram): (a) Rear (east) roof plane of primary house (b) Rear porch roof (c) North and south hipped planes of rear ell addition roof (d) East and west planes of garage roof 636 Park Street (June 10, 2022) 1 Discussion Since adoption of the current ADC District Design Guidelines, the BAR has reviewed and approved ten CoA requests related to photovoltaic panels, seven in the last four years. Seven were either IPPs or within an ADC District, and all except one installed rooftop panels. The Design Guidelines (Rehabilitation, Roofing) do not specifically recommend against solar panels on historic roofs, but instead recommended they be placed on non-character defining roofs or roofs of non-historic adjacent buildings. The application proposes installing solar panels on roof planes that are all situated at the rear of the subject property: on the back of the roof, on the rear porch, on the rear addition, and on the garage. As such, staff finds the proposed rooftop solar panels to be consistent with the guidelines and compatible with the ADC district. 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 rooftop solar panels at 636 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. (or with the following modifications…) Denial: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the ADC District Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed rooftop solar panels at 636 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. 636 Park Street (June 10, 2022) 2 Criteria, Standards and Guidelines Review Criteria Generally Sec. 34-284(b) of the City Code states that, In considering a particular application the BAR shall approve the application unless it finds: (1) That the proposal does not meet specific standards set forth within this division or applicable provisions of the Design Guidelines established by the board pursuant to Sec.34-288(6); and (2) The proposal is incompatible with the historic, cultural or architectural character of the district in which the property is located or the protected property that is the subject of the application. Pertinent Standards for Review of Construction and Alterations include: (1) Whether the material, texture, color, height, scale, mass and placement of the proposed addition, modification or construction are visually and architecturally compatible with the site and the applicable design control district; (2) The harmony of the proposed change in terms of overall proportion and the size and placement of entrances, windows, awnings, exterior stairs and signs; (3) The Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation set forth within the Code of Federal Regulations (36 C.F.R. §67.7(b)), as may be relevant; (4) The effect of the proposed change on the historic district neighborhood; (5) The impact of the proposed change on other protected features on the property, such as gardens, landscaping, fences, walls and walks; (6) Whether the proposed method of construction, renovation or restoration could have an adverse impact on the structure or site, or adjacent buildings or structures; (7) Any applicable provisions of the City’s Design Guidelines. Pertinent Guidelines for Rehabilitation: Chapter 4 Rehabilitation G. Roof 1) When replacing a standing seam metal roof, the width of the pan and the seam height should be consistent with the original. Ideally, the seams would be hand crimped. 2) If pre-painted standing seam metal roof material is permitted, commercial-looking ridge caps or ridge vents are not appropriate on residential structures. 3) Original roof pitch and configuration should be maintained. 4) The original size and shape of dormers should be maintained. 5) Dormers should not be introduced on visible elevations where none existed originally. 6) Retain elements, such as chimneys, skylights, and light wells that contribute to the style and character of the building. 7) When replacing a roof, match original materials as closely as possible. a. Avoid, for example, replacing a standing-seam metal roof with asphalt shingles, as this would dramatically alter the building’s appearance. b. Artificial slate is an acceptable substitute when replacement is needed. c. Do not change the appearance or material of parapet coping. 8) Place solar collectors and antennae on non-character defining roofs or roofs of non-historic adjacent buildings. 9) Do not add new elements, such as vents, skylights, or additional stories that would be visible on the primary elevations of the building. 636 Park Street (June 10, 2022) 3 Pertinent Guidelines from the Secretary’s Standards Building Exterior – Roofs: Alterations/Additions for the New Use Recommended: Installing mechanical and service equipment on the roof such as air conditioning, transformers, or solar collectors when required for the new use so that they are inconspicuous from the public right-of- way and do not damage or obscure character defining features. Designing additions to roofs such as residential, office, or storage spaces; elevator housing; decks and terraces; or dormers or skylights when required by the new use so that they are inconspicuous from the public right-of-way and do not damage or obscure character-defining features. Not Recommended: Installing mechanical or service equipment so that it damages or obscures character- defining features; or is conspicuous from the public right-of-way. Radically changing a character-defining roof shape or damaging or destroying character- defining roofing material as a result of incompatible design or improper installation techniques. Energy Conservation - Roofs Recommended: Placing solar collectors on non-character-defining roofs or roofs of non-historic adjacent buildings. Not Recommended: Placing solar collectors on roofs when such collectors change the historic roofline or obscure the relationship of the roof features such as dormers, skylights, and chimneys. Appendix Prior BAR reviews June 17, 2008 - BAR approved CoA (9-0) for shutters; enlarged rear porch; garage windows, door and siding; rear patio; new walkway; remove front boxwoods; remove rear 2 pines and gingko; replace rear drive with pavers, with the condition that the ginkgo remains. Submit the driveway pavement pattern and material to staff for approval. Informal suggestion: shutters should overlap window casing to appear to be hung. August 16, 2011 – BAR denied CoA (6-0) painting the unpainted brick house and approved (6-0) removal of the Sugar Maple and its replacement and the landscape plan as submitted. NOTE: BAR suggested applicant considers planting 2 trees in the front yard, recommending: Sugar Maple, American Beech, Willow Oak, Red Oak or White Oak. May 2014 – As a consent agenda item, BAR approved (9-0) the conversion of a concrete-block garage in the rear into a cottage. This project entailed the installation of HardiePlank siding, new doors and windows, and a new canopy over the entry doors. 636 Park Street (June 10, 2022) 4 Board of Architectural Review (BAR) Certificate of Appropriateness ADC Districts and IPPs Please Return To: City of Charlottesville Department of Neighborhood Development Services P.O. Box 911, City Hall Staff contacts: .__ Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Jeff Werner wernerjb@charlottesville.gov Telephone (434) 970-3130 Robert Watkins watkinsro@charlottesville.gov Please submit the signed application form and a digital copy of submittal and attachments (via email or thumb drive). Please include application fee as follows: New construction project $375; Demolition of a contributing structure $375; Appeal of BAR decision $125; A dditions 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. Owner Name Jennifer and Blakely Greenhalgh Applicant Name______ . __ ________ _ _ft_o_p _s_o_la__ R _ oo Project Name/Description__ e_ r_ p_an___ls_______ Parcel Number__52_0_l_1_3_0_0_0______ _P r_ Project Property Address__6_3_6_a_ t _ e_e_____ _k S_r t _______________________ Signature of Applicant Applicant Information Address: 636 Park Street Charlottesville, Va. 22902_ E m a il: i e n.parham@gmail .com blakeley2000@gmail.com Phone: (W)______ (C) 434.531.6281 1_ 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? ___N_o______ Print Name Date Description of Proposed Work (attach separate narrative if necessary):. _ _ _____________ Roottop solar panels per at tached List All Attachments (see reverse side for submittal requirements): A'-::t � Ju-:-.. u - 1Af-'iL'� 4' �,a..NA� For Office Use Only Approved/Disapproved by: _____ _ ___ ____ _ Received by: ________ Date: _________________ Fee paid: _____Cash/Ck.# ____ Conditions of approval: ___________ Date Received: _______ _ ___ Revised 2016 636 Park Street-solar panels ,. Indicate above the location of proposed panels. For example: ., ·� ur frh I " I ' -- • ' roof ·, . .., .'!" - ·'111, •' ------�-. ' ,.;"-�♦... -=-- ... � .ti ..,. ----- '! , ,.,;_ ,. · Watkins, Robert From: Blakeley Greenhalgh Sent: Wednesday, June 8, 2022 9:28 AM To: Watkins, Robert Cc: Werner, Jeffrey B Subject: Re: 636 Park Street - solar panels. ** WARNING: This email has originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.** Most of the panels that I have been presented with are 360-400 watt panels. Here is a screen shot of the layout and potential technology: 1 We are still awaiting one quote to some in before we pick a vendor but want to make sure we have approval before I go down this road. Let me know what else you need from me. Thanks, Blake On Tue, Jun 7, 2022 at 4:26 PM Watkins, Robert wrote: Dear Blake, I’m working with Jeff to prepare the staff report for your application. Do you have more information on the panels you’d like to install yet? Thanks, Robert 2 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: Lower floor window replacements and fire escape alterations Application components (please click each link to go directly to PDF page): • Staff Report • Historic Survey • Application Submittal June 22, 2022 5 City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Staff Report June 22, 2022 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 Background: Year Built: 1924-1926 District: North Downtown ADC District Status: Contributing Colonial Revival, nine-story, brick building, originally called the Monticello Hotel, was designed by architect Stanhope Johnson of Lynchburg. The building is also a contributing structure in the Charlottesville Albemarle County Courthouse Historic District, listed on the VLR and NRHP. Prior BAR Reviews (See Appendix for complete list.) November 29, 2021 – Admin. approval of rooftop generators for telecom equipment, gas pipe to be run inside the building. April 19, 2022 – BAR approves (6-0) CoA to install exterior gas pipe on south elevation to connect to rooftop generators Attachments • Submittal: Henningsen Kestner drawings Renovation of 500 Court Square Second & Third Floor, dated May 31, 2022: o BAR.01: Application title page o BAR.02: Site photos, including photos of windows and fire escape to be altered o BAR.03: Existing and proposed floor plans of second floor o BAR.04: Existing and proposed floor plans of third floor o BAR.05: Original architectural drawing of rear elevation windows before addition o BAR.06: Replacement window specifications o BAR.07: Fire escape specifications 500 Court Square (south elevation) – (June 10, 2022) 1 CoA to replace non-historic windows on second and third floors of south addition and extend the rear fire escape to ground and install fire escape door at third floor. (Installing the door and the lower section of the fire escape will replace previously removed elements.) Replacement windows will be white aluminum clad, double hung Marvin Ultimate windows. Existing brick sills will be retained. Discussion The windows to be replaced are located on a rear (south) addition constructed between 1957 and 1964. The existing, undivided windows do not match windows on the 1920s building and do not contribute to its historic character. The replacement windows will better complement those located on the rest of the building. Staff finds that the fire escape extension and associated new door opening are unobtrusive; the fire escape is already situated on that elevation, an auxiliary side of the building, and extending it to the ground will reinstall a previously existing element and not impact the building’s character. Staff recommends approval. Suggested Motions Approval: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the City’s ADC Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed window replacements and fire escape alterations at 500 Court Square satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are compatible with this property and other properties in the North Downtown ADC District, and the BAR approves the application as submitted. 500 Court Square (south elevation) – (June 10, 2022) 2 […as submitted with the following conditions:…] Denial: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the City’s ADC Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed window replacements and fire escape alterations at 500 Court Square do not satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are not compatible with this property and other properties in the North Downtown ADC District, and for the following reasons the BAR denies the application as submitted. Criteria, Standards, and Guidelines Review Criteria Generally Sec. 34-284(b) of the City Code states that, 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 Rehabilitation: Windows Chapter 4 Rehabilitation 2) Retain original windows when possible. 3) Uncover and repair covered up windows and reinstall windows where they have been blocked in. […] 9) Reconstruction should be based on physical evidence or old photographs. 10) Avoid changing the number, location, size, or glazing pattern of windows by cutting new openings, blocking in windows, or installing replacement sash that does not fit the window opening. 11) Do not use inappropriate materials or finishes that radically change the sash, depth of reveal, muntin configuration, reflective quality or color of the glazing, or appearance of the frame. 12) Use replacement windows with true divided lights or interior and exterior fixed muntins with internal spacers to replace historic or original examples. 13) If windows warrant replacement, appropriate material for new windows depends upon the context of the building within a historic district, and the age and design of the building. 500 Court Square (south elevation) – (June 10, 2022) 3 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. Pertinent Guidelines for Rehabilitation: Rear of Buildings Chapter 4 Rehabilitation 1) Meet all handicapped accessibility requirements. 2) Consolidate and screen mechanical and utility equipment in one location when possible. 3) Consider adding planters or a small planting area to enhance and highlight the rear entrance, and create an adequate maintenance schedule for them. 4) Retain any historic door or select a new door that maintains the character of the building and creates an inviting entrance. 5) Note building and ADA codes when and if changing dimensions or design of entrance. 6) Windows define the character and scale of the original façade and should not be altered. 7) If it is necessary to replace a window, follow the guidelines for windows earlier in this chapter. 8) If installation of storm windows is necessary, follow the guidelines for windows earlier in this chapter. 9) Remove any blocked-in windows and restore windows and frames if missing. 10) Security grates should be unobtrusive and compatible with the building. 11) Avoid chain-link fencing. 12) If the rear window openings need to be covered on the interior for merchandise display or other business requirements, consider building an interior screen, and maintain the character of the original window’s appearance from the exterior. 13) Ensure that the design of the lighting relates to the historic character of the building. 14) Consider installing signs and awnings that are appropriate for the scale and style of the building. 15) Design and select systems and hardware to minimize impact on the historic fabric of the building Pertinent Guidelines for Site Design and Elements: Utilities and Other Site Appurtenances Chapter 2 Site Design and Elements Site appurtenances, such as overhead utilities, fuel tanks, utility poles and meters, antennae, exterior mechanical units, and trash containers, are a necessary part of contemporary life. However, their placement may detract from the character of the site and building. 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. 500 Court Square (south elevation) – (June 10, 2022) 4 Appendix: Previous BAR Reviews February 28, 1989 - New windows in south wall façade and two to three outdoor mechanical units on fire stair June 27, 1989 - Install railings on towers and two sets of stairs on roof January 23, 1990 - Install six windows; close two fire door entrances; install vent; add two heat pump units on fire stairs April 24, 1990 - Screening for rear heat pumps June 21, 1994 - Replace new sliding doors February 2001 – Admin approval: co-locate antenna on roof April 2001 – Admin approval: replace two rooftop cabinets and upgrade telecom equipment. July 2001- Admin approval: locate six to nine rooftop antennas with accessory telecom cabinets October 2001 – Administrative approval: Remove three rooftop antennas and replace six. June 17, 2003 – Approve Add two new rectangular windows in south elevation. September 21, 2004 – Approve revolving door June 21, 2011 – Approve replacement the balustrade with a painted terne-coated stainless-steel replica. July 19, 2011 – Approve replacement of nine existing wood windows in a 6th floor unit facing Market Street with aluminum clad wood window sash kits with exterior applied 7/8” putty profile muntins. (This is the only approved window replacement at this time for the entire structure.) March 19, 2013 – Approve re-roofing and replacement of painted galvanized steel balustrade with painted copper balustrade. March 18, 2014 - Approve change in baluster material from painted copper to fiberglass as submitted. August 19, 2014 – Admin approval to replace three antennas with three similar sized antennas. April 21, 2015 - Approve replacement of six rooftop antennas and add one new cabinet on roof. June 16, 2015 – BAR accepted applicant’s request for deferral re: proposed rooftop communications equipment. BAR recommended a master plan be developed that might include options for: locating the antennas behind the baluster; locating the antennas to the sides of the penthouse, and painting the antennas to match the penthouse; or adding screening to the penthouse area resulting in a wider penthouse. January 2019 – Approve installation of two metal security gates, with the following conditions: o Drawing #1 for the Porte Cochere (without the ovals) o Drawing #3 for the Court Square Tavern (without the ovals) o Request to look at the proportions for the Porte Cochere [height of gate relative to fixed panel above] o Request the gates be set back and swing inward o Submit the updated final drawings for the BAR Archive July 22, 2020 – Admin approval of additional communications equipment. 500 Court Square (south elevation) – (June 10, 2022) 5 -----,--------------------------.--.-----; -- LANDMARK SURVEY IDENTIFICATION BASE DATA Street Address: 516 East Jefferson Street Historic Name: The Monticello Hotel Map and Parcel: 53-96 Date/Period: 1924-26 Census Track & Block: 1-112 Style: Neo-Classical Revival Present Owner: Monticello Plaza Condominiums Height to Cornice: 103.28 Address: Box 591, City Height in Stories: 9 Present Use: Hotel Present Zoning: B-3 Original Owner: Jackson Park Hotel Company land Area (sq. ft.): Land: 24,600 Original Use: Hotel Assessed Value (land + imp.): Building: 55,450 ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION The Monticello Hotel illustrates the return to classical architecture in the first part of this century. The architect, Stanhope Johnson of Lynchburg, was a leader in the Roman & neo-Classical revivals. The first two levels of this massive facade is treated with Doric pilasters supporting a horizontal entablature with triglyphs. Between the range of pilasters the architect placed tri-part windows with thermal windows above. The tope of the hotel is capped by a hugh cornice and balustrade. The public dining room is designed with graceful Adamesque details including slender engaged columns, finely carved entabla- - tures, and delicate carvings. The room is one of the finest revival spaces in the city. HISTORICAL DESCRIPTION In 1924 the Jackson Park Hotel Company purchased a row of Nineteenth century merchantile structures, from R. E. Yowell and razed them. The cornerstone was laid in 1925 and the building was opened to the public in 1929. In 1957, the Jackson Park Hotel Company sold the property to the Monticello Hotel Company for $925,000. In 1973, the owners began to convert the hotel into condominiums. Deed references: (see Farish House for pre-1924 references) City DB 48-199, 340-360, 352-455. GRAPHICS / CONDtTl0NS SOURCES Good City Records LANDMARK CO.MMISSION-DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ---'----[,L--.-. ~ s-la. ioi it IRTT r r FIrm n UK w r ItI f 1! LU P MONTICELLO HOTEL n 1 T? r u INN No Certificate of Appropriateness 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, chimney reconstruction, and window sash replacements Application components (please click each link to go directly to PDF page): • Staff Report • Historic Survey • Application Submittal June 22, 2022 6 City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Staff Report June 22, 2022 Certificate of Appropriateness 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 Background Year Built: c1910 District: Rugby Road - University Circle - Venable Neighborhood ADC District Status: Contributing. (Also a contributing structure to the Rugby Road - University Corner Historic District, VLR 1983 and NRHP 1984.) Constructed as a private residence, 2-1/2 story, Colonial Revival house features a symmetrical, three-bay front façade with a hipped roof and a front, hipped dormer with latticed casement windows. On the side (south) façade is a two-story bay, on the front (east) facade is a center bay, distyle porch with attenuated Roman Doric columns and a hipped roof. The entrance door features geometrically glazed sidelights and an elliptical, fan-light transom. In the 1964, the house transitioned to its current use as a fraternity house. Prior BAR Actions April 15, 2014 – The BAR approved (7-0) a series of exterior alterations, including window replacements, roofing repairs, door replacements, and general maintenance operations. Note: Records indicate this CoA may have been extended to October 15, 2016. December 21, 2021 – The BAR approved (8-0) the demolition of non-historic rear portions, construction of a rear addition, and related site work and landscaping. This Certificate of Appropriateness did not address alterations to the front porch. Application • Submittal: Dalgliesh Gilpin Paxton Architects drawings Delta Sigma Phi - University of Virginia, dated 05/31/2022: Sheets 1 through 24. 517 Rugby Road (June 14, 2022) 1 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). Porch alterations • Retain and repair existing elements: o Columns o Architrave and frieze associated with porch roof o Stairs and skirt board • Remove: o Non-historic flanking decks o Asphalt shingles on porch roof • Install new: o Azek skirt boards and composite lattice panels on sides o Painted wood railing o Standing-seam metal roof Windows • Remove non-historic sash and replace with Marvin exterior clad/interior primed insulated window sash within frames inserts. Insulated glass, applied grilles with internal spacer bars. • Existing entrance door, transom and sidelights and window at the east dormer to remain. 517 Rugby Road (June 14, 2022) 2 Discussion and Recommendations Front porch: Staff suggests removal of the flanking decks and the rehabilitation of the existing porch are appropriate and recommend approval. Windows: The applicant has provided documentation that, with the exception of the diamond- pattern windows in the east dormer, all of the sash are replacements (installed into the existing frames) sometime after 1987. In 2014, the BAR approved a remove the post-1987 replacement sash and install Marvin replacements with frame inserts. Staff recommends approval. (Note: The BAR has denied replacement sash inserts; however, the most recent request proposed removing original sash and installing new windows with frame inserts under-sized for the existing opening, requiring wide metal trim panels at the sides, heads and sills. For 517 Rugby Road, the original sash no longer exist and the replacement frames will fit relatively right to the existing frames.) 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 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[.] [… with the following conditions/modifications: …] Denial: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including 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 do not satisfy the BAR’s criteria and are not compatible with this property and other properties in the Rugby Road - University Circle - Venable Neighborhood 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; 517 Rugby Road (June 14, 2022) 3 (5) The impact of the proposed change on other protected features on the property, such as gardens, landscaping, fences, walls and walks; (6) Whether the proposed method of construction, renovation or restoration could have an adverse impact on the structure or site, or adjacent buildings or structures; (7) Any applicable provisions of the City’s Design Guidelines. Chapter 4 – Rehabilitation Link: V: 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. 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. […] 517 Rugby Road (June 14, 2022) 4 D. Entrances, Porches, and Doors 1) The original details and shape of porches should be retained including the outline, roof height, and roof pitch. 2) Inspect masonry, wood, and metal or porches and entrances for signs of rust, peeling paint, wood deterioration, open joints around frames, deteriorating putty, inadequate caulking, and improper drainage, and correct any of these conditions. 3) Repair damaged elements, matching the detail of the existing original fabric. 4) Replace an entire porch only if it is too deteriorated to repair or is completely missing, and design to match the original as closely as possible. 5) Do not strip entrances and porches of historic material and details. 6) Give more importance to front or side porches than to utilitarian back porches. 7) Do not remove or radically change entrances and porches important in defining the building’s overall historic character. 8) Avoid adding decorative elements incompatible with the existing structure. 9) In general, avoid adding a new entrance to the primary facade, or facades visible from the street. 10) Do not enclose porches on primary elevations and avoid enclosing porches on secondary elevations in a manner that radically changes the historic appearance. 11) Provide needed barrier-free access in ways that least alter the features of the building. a. For residential buildings, try to use ramps that are removable or portable rather than permanent. b. On nonresidential buildings, comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act while minimizing the visual impact of ramps that affect the appearance of a building. 12) The original size and shape of door openings should be maintained. 13) Original door openings should not be filled in. 14) When possible, reuse hardware and locks that are original or important to the historical evolution of the building. 15) Avoid substituting the original doors with stock size doors that do not fit the opening properly or are not compatible with the style of the building. 16) Retain transom windows and sidelights. […] 517 Rugby Road (June 14, 2022) 5 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. Alumni of Alpha Mu, Inc. Owner Name___________________________________ Garett Rouzer Applicant Name______________________________________ Delta Sigma Phi House Renovation Project Name/Description______________________________________ 050046000 Parcel Number__________________________ 517 Rugby Road Project Property Address____________________________________________________________________________ Signature of Applicant Applicant Information I hereby attest that the information I have provided is, to the 206 5th Street NE Address:______________________________________ best of my knowledge, correct. Charlottesville, VA 22902 _____________________________________________ grouzer@dgparchitects.com Email:________________________________________ 5/31/22 __________________________________________ 434.977.4480 Phone: (W) _________________ (C) _______________ Signature Date Garett Rouzer 5/31/22 __________________________________________ Property Owner Information (if not applicant) Print Name Date 1522 E Military Way Address:______________________________________ Property Owner Permission (if not applicant) Salt Lake City, UT 84103 _____________________________________________ I have read this application and hereby give my consent to its submission. ericedwardson@yahoo.com Email:________________________________________ Phone: (W) _________________ (C) _______________ 703.629.8078 _ 5/31/22 __________________________________________ Signature Date Do you intend to apply for Federal or State Tax Credits Eric Edwardson 5/31/22 _________________________________________ No for this project? _______________________ Print Name Date Description of Proposed Work (attach separate narrative if necessary):__________________________________ Repair of existing front porch, removal of non-historic wings and retaining wall ______________________________________________________________________________________________ Sash replacement of non-historic windows, previously approved by BAR ______________________________________________________________________________________________ List All Attachments (see reverse side for submittal requirements): Exterior Elevation, Window Survey, Images of Subject Property ______________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________ For Office Use Only Approved/Disapproved by: ______________________ Received by: ___________________________ Date: _______________________________________ Fee paid: ___________Cash/Ck. # _________ Conditions of approval: _________________________ Date Received: _________________________ ____________________________________________ Revised 2016 ____________________________________________ c. 1915 Photograph (Built c.1910) c. 1983 Photograph 1964 Delta Sigma Phi was Established at UVA Colonial Revival Photograph by Holsinger DELTA SIGMA PHI DELTA SIGMA PHI 2021 Photograph 2022 Proposed Construction 05/31/2022 DELTA SIGMA PHI- UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA | 517 RUGBY ROAD 4444 DALGLIESH GILPIN PAXTON ARCHITECTS 05/31/2022 DELTA SIGMA PHI- UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA | SITE MAP 4444 DALGLIESH GILPIN PAXTON ARCHITECTS Entry Porch East Lawn Facing South East Lawn Facing North-West Entry Porch facing East across Rugby Road 05/31/2022 DELTA SIGMA PHI- UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA | REFRENCE PHOTOGRAPHS 4444 DALGLIESH GILPIN PAXTON ARCHITECTS NOT TO SCALE Driveway facing South-West Adjacent Property facing South Parking area facing South-East Parking area facing East 05/31/2022 DELTA SIGMA PHI- UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA | REFRENCE PHOTOGRAPHS 4444 DALGLIESH GILPIN PAXTON ARCHITECTS NOT TO SCALE Parking area facing North-East Parking area facing North-East Adjacent Property facing East Site Map of Contiguous Properties- Next Page 05/31/2022 DELTA SIGMA PHI- UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA | REFRENCE PHOTOGRAPHS 4444 DALGLIESH GILPIN PAXTON ARCHITECTS NOT TO SCALE A. 4 University Circle B. 1 University Circle C. 506 Rugby Road D. 513 Rugby Road 05/31/2022 DELTA SIGMA PHI- UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA | CONTIGUOUS PROPERTIES 4444 DALGLIESH GILPIN PAXTON ARCHITECTS NOT TO SCALE 05/31/2022 DELTA SIGMA PHI- UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA | DRIVEWAY ELEVATION RENDERING 4444 DALGLIESH GILPIN PAXTON ARCHITECTS NOT TO SCALE Existing Historic Column Base Existing Historic Front Porch Column Capital and Entablature 05/31/2022 DELTA SIGMA PHI- UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA | PORCH ENTABLITURE DETAIL 4444 DALGLIESH GILPIN PAXTON ARCHITECTS NOT TO SCALE Existing Historic Front Porch Pilaster Base Existing Historic Front Porch Pilaster Capital and Entablature 05/31/2022 DELTA SIGMA PHI- UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA | RAILING DETAILS 4444 DALGLIESH GILPIN PAXTON ARCHITECTS NOT TO SCALE NON-HISTORIC NEW METAL ROOF 3" 6" 5 1/16" 3" 3" 1'-1 3/8" 1 1/16" 4 1/4" HISTORIC 8'-4 3/4" NEW PAINTED WOOD RAILING 4x4 SQ. POSTS 3 1/2" 1" SQ. PICKETS 1' 2'-8 3/4" 3'-6" RESTORED WOOD COLUMNS & PILASTERS 3 3/4" COMPOSITE DECKING 1" ALIGN w/EXISTING PORCH 2 1/2" 2" NON-HISTORIC AZEK SKIRT BOARD 6 3/4" NEW COMPOSITE LATTICE EXISTING BRICK PIER FRONT PORCH GRADE 1 SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" 5/31/2022 DELTA SIGMA PHI - UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA | ENTRY PORCH S D -2 4444 D ALGLIESH G ILPIN P AXTON A RCHITECTS RESUBMITTAL OF 2014 BAR APPLICATION FOR WINDOW REPLACMENT: * 2014 BAR-APPROVED WINDOW REPLACEMENT WAS NEVER PERFORMED. * 2014 WINDOW CONDITION SURVEY IS STILL ACCURATE. * NEW CUT SHEET FOR PROPOSED 2022 WINDOW SASH REPLACEMENT KITS PROVIDED. * HIGHLIGHTED ITEMS IN FOLLOWING PAGES FROM 2014 APPLICATION SUPPORT 2022 WINDOW REPLACEMENT APPLICATION. HIGHLIGHTED 2014 ITEMS SUPPORT PROPOSED 2022 WINDOW REPLACEMENT APPLICATION. 2014 WINDOW SURVEY SUPPORTS 2022 WINDOW REPLACEMENT APPLICATION. 2014 WINDOW SURVEY SUPPORTS 2022 WINDOW REPLACEMENT APPLICATION. 2014 WINDOW SURVEY SUPPORTS 2022 WINDOW REPLACEMENT APPLICATION. 2014 WINDOW SURVEY SUPPORTS 2022 WINDOW REPLACEMENT APPLICATION. * 2014 BAR-APPROVED WINDOW REPLACEMENT WAS NEVER PERFORMED. * NEW CUT SHEET FOR PROPOSED 2022 WINDOW SASH REPLACEMENT KITS PROVIDED. * 2014 BAR-APPROVED WINDOW REPLACEMENT WAS NEVER PERFORMED. * NEW CUT SHEET FOR PROPOSED 2022 WINDOW SASH REPLACEMENT KITS PROVIDED. * 2014 BAR-APPROVED WINDOW REPLACEMENT WAS NEVER PERFORMED. * NEW CUT SHEET FOR PROPOSED 2022 WINDOW SASH REPLACEMENT KITS PROVIDED. Pinnacle Series CLAD DOUBLE HUNG - Concealed Jambliner Option SECTION DETAILS : DIVIDED LITE OPTIONS SCALE: 3" = 1'-0" CONTEMPORARY INNER BAR OGEE PERIMETER GLASS STOP GLASS STOP GRILLE AVAILABLE STYLES - PUTTY - OGEE - CONTEMPORARY DETAIL: A SEE BELOW FOR GRILLE OPTIONS 5/8" WDL WITH 7/8" WDL WITH 1 1/4" WDL WITH 2" WDL WITH INNER BAR INNERBAR INNERBAR INNERBAR STANDARD INSULATING GLASS 13/16" INNERGRILLE DEPENDING UPON 3/4" PROFILED INNERGRILLE LOCATION 1" PROFILED INNERGRILLE 7/8" STICK GRILLE 1 1/4" STICK GRILLE Glass: LoE 366 Exterior: White Interior: Primed for Paint Hardware: White Screens: None NOTE: * ALL WDL OPTIONS CAN BE ORDERED WITH OR WITHOUT INNER BAR * PERIMETER GRILLES ONLY AVAILABLE IN THE 7/8" AND 1 1/4" OGEE STYLE GLASS STOP (SEE DETAIL: A) 8/6/19 * 2014 BAR-APPROVED WINDOW REPLACEMENT WAS NEVER PERFORMED. * NEW CUT SHEET FOR PROPOSED 2022 WINDOW SASH REPLACEMENT KITS PROVIDED. Pinnacle Series CLAD DOUBLE HUNG - Concealed Jambliner Option SECTION DETAILS : OPERATING / PICTURE SCALE: 3" = 1'-0" OPERATING HEAD JAMB & SILL JAMBS PICTURE HEAD JAMB & SILL JAMBS 8/6/19 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 replace porch pavers Application components (please click each link to go directly to PDF page): • Staff Report • Historic Survey • Application Submittal June 22, 2022 7 City of Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Staff Report June 22, 2022 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) Background Year Built: 1928 District: The Corner ADC District Status: Contributing Fraternity house designed by UVA architecture professor Stanislaw Makielski. Prominently situated at the north edge of the Madison Bowl, the five-bay, two-story brick house has a two-story Tuscan- columned portico at its center. Prior BAR Review September 18, 2007 - The BAR approved (8-0) a Chippendale style railing on the top roof area, with the stipulation that it be painted white. April 18, 2017 – The BAR approved (7-0) an accessible brick and metal ramp at the building’s northeast corner and the associated installation of a landscape planter and light fixture. Application • Applicant submittal: Jack Cann submittal: Photographs of building illustrating portico and stair disrepair and windows beneath portico. Request CoA to infill with brick the three, basement-level windows at the front of the porch. Applicant also wishes to address additional maintenance issues, including: o Reset basket-weave brick paving on the portico floor and replace bricks where necessary 159 Madison Lane (June 13, 2022) 1 o Repair east and west stairs portico stairs o Reconstruct deteriorated concrete stairs leading from kitchen to portico Staff finds that these activities fall under “routine maintenance and repair” and intend to review these repairs administratively. The BAR can offer any suggestions or feedback on these proposed repairs. Discussion and Recommendations The applicant has asked to brick-in the three basement-level opening under the portico to address maintenance issues and prevent vandalism. The original windows no longer exist. The three openings are headed with steel lintels, all significantly corroded. This corrosion has contributed to the buckling of the brick bulkhead wall beneath the portico. The applicant has also shared that the three windows are also subject to vandalism from passersby. The windows are therefore currently covered up with insulation and metal screens. In historic photographs, each window has two-lites separated by a mullion. Compared with the building’s other fenestration (lunettes, double-hung sash windows, compass-headed French doors) these basement windows appear utilitarian in nature. There are nearby examples of the apparent or suggested filling-in of basement-level openings. For example, at 165 Rugby Road (a nearby fraternity house), the arched basement openings under the rear porch are filled-in and stucco clad. Figure 1: 1965 photo of 159 Madison Lane with view Figure 2: Filled-in arched basement of basement-level windows. openings at 165 Rugby Road Staff finds that filling in these utilitarian openings will not alter the building’s historic character and will contribute to its future maintenance. In addition to the necessary repairs to the masonry, the steel littles have deteriorated and must be replaced. Staff recommends the brick infill, recessed (1/2” 159 Madison Lane (June 13, 2022) 2 to 1”) into the opening. Brick should be similar, but not matching, differentiating new from old. The other option would be infill with CMU, recessed (1/2” to 1”) into the opening, then parged and painted a neutral color. The flat arches and the brick sills should be retained. The infill panels should be simple and unadorned. If brick, they should not be tooted into the existing, allowing restoration/recreation of the original, if later considered. The BAR should state the preferred solution, including any details related to material and color (brick, parging), masonry coursing, depth of panel recess, etc. Repairs to the existing brick should use matching or similar bricks, replicating the existing bond and coursing. The existing mortar should be evaluated and, if necessary, repairs made with mortar using an appropriate proportion of lime [vs Portland cement]. 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 infill of three masonry openings at 159 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: …] 159 Madison Lane (June 13, 2022) 3 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 infill of three masonry openings at 159 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 A. Introduction These design review guidelines are based on the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, found on page 1.8. “Rehabilitation” is defined as “the process of returning a property to a state of utility, through repair or alteration, which makes possible an efficient contemporary use while preserving those portions and features of the property which are significant to its historic, architectural, and cultural values.” Rehabilitation assumes that at least some repair or alteration of the historic building will be needed in order to provide for an efficient contemporary use; however, these repairs and alterations must not damage or destroy materials, features or finishes that are important in defining the building’s historic character. Also, exterior additions should not duplicate the form, material, and detailing of the structure to the extent that they compromise the historic character of the structure. The distinction between rehabilitation and restoration is often not made, causing confusion among building owners and their architect or contractor. Restoration is an effort to return a building to a particular state at a particular time in its history, most often as it was originally built. Restoration 159 Madison Lane (June 13, 2022) 4 projects are less concerned with modern amenities; in fact, they are often removed in order to capture a sense of the building at a certain time in its history. Rehabilitation is recognized as the act of bringing an old building into use by adding modern amenities, meeting current building codes, and providing a use that is viable 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. 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. […] 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. 159 Madison Lane (June 13, 2022) 5 7) Do not remove or radically change entrances and porches important in defining the building’s overall historic character. 8) Avoid adding decorative elements incompatible with the existing structure. […] F. Foundation 1) Retain any decorative vents that are original to the building. 2) Offset infill between brick piers either with concrete block or solid masonry to ensure that a primary reading of a brick foundation is retained. 3) When repointing or rebuilding deteriorated porch piers, match original materials as closely as possible. 4) Where masonry has deteriorated, take steps as outlined in the masonry section of these guidelines. H. Masonry 1) Retain masonry features, such as walls, brackets, railings, cornices, window surrounds, pediments, steps, and columns that are important in defining the overall character of the building. 2) When repairing or replacing a masonry feature, respect the size, texture, color, and pattern of masonry units, as well as mortar joint size and tooling. 3) When repointing masonry, duplicate mortar strength, composition, color, and texture. a. Do not repoint with mortar that is stronger than the original mortar and the brick itself. b. Do not repoint with a synthetic caulking compound. 4) Repoint to match original joints and retain the original joint width. 5) Do not paint unpainted masonry. Maintenance Tips • Use knowledgeable contractors and check their references and methods. • Monitor the effects of weather on the condition of mortar and the masonry units and ensure that improper water drainage is not causing deterioration. • Prevent water from gathering at the base of a wall by ensuring that the ground slopes away from the wall or by installing drain tiles. • Prevent rising damp by applying a damp-proof course just above the ground level with slate or other impervious material. This work may require the advice of a historical architect. • Do not apply waterproof, water repellent or non-historic coatings in an effort to stop moisture problems; they often trap moisture inside the masonry and cause more problems in freeze/thaw cycles. • Repair leaking roofs, gutters, and downspouts; secure loose flashing. • Repair cracks which may indicate structural settling or deterioration and also may allow moisture penetration. • Caulk the joints between masonry and window frame to prevent water penetration. • Clean masonry only when necessary to halt deterioration or to remove heavy soiling. • Clean unpainted masonry with the gentlest means possible. • The best method is low-pressure water wash with detergents and natural bristly brushes. • Do not use abrasive cleaning methods, such as sandblasting or excessively high-pressure water washes. These methods remove the hard outer shell of a brick and can cause rapid deterioration. Sandblasted masonry buildings cannot receive federal or state tax credits. 159 Madison Lane (June 13, 2022) 6 • Use chemical cleaners cautiously. Do not clean with chemical methods that damage masonry and do not leave chemical cleaners on the masonry longer than recommended. • Avoid freezing conditions when using water or water-based chemicals. • Damage caused by improper cleaning may include chipped or pitted brick, washed-out mortar, rounded edges of brick, or a residue or film. • Building owners applying for federal or state rehabilitation tax credits must conduct test patches before cleaning masonry. • Disintegrating mortar, cracks in mortar joints, loose bricks or damaged plaster work may signal the need for repair of masonry. • Repair damaged masonry features by patching, piecing in or consolidating to match original instead of replacing an entire masonry feature, if possible. • Repair stucco by removing loose material and patching with a new material that is similar in composition, color, and texture. • Patch stone in small areas with a cementitious material which, like mortar, should be weaker than the masonry being repaired. This type of work should be done by skilled craftsmen. • Use epoxies for the repair of broken stone or carved detail. Application of such materials should be undertaken by skilled craftsmen. Contact the Virginia Department of Historic Resources for technical assistance. • If masonry needs repaints, use an appropriate masonry paint system recommended by a paint manufacturer. • Use water-repellent coatings that breathe only as a last resort after water penetration has not been arrested by repointing and correcting drainage problems. 159 Madison Lane (June 13, 2022) 7 Board of Architectural Review (BAR) Certificate of Appropriateness ADC Districts and IPPs Please Return To: City of Charlottesville Department of Neighborhood Development Services P.O. Box 911, City Hall Staff contacts: Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Jeff Werner wemerjb@charlottesville.gov Telephone {434) 970-3130_ Robert Watkins watkinsro@charlottesville.gov Please submit the signed application form and a d igital copy of submittal and attachments (via email or thumb drive). 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 $12S; Administrative approval $100. '-<«•c«<«'-"❖ >C< Make checks payable to the City of Charlottesville. ❖ Y/ff'f//,C C•C<•✓-C❖Y,C•CW✓N//N/.❖C•C❖ ❖Y,w; 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. Owner Name Montalto Corporation _ k__ Applicant Name_Jac Cann ____ ___ _____________ Repair masonry at soufu portico porch Project Name/Description 0 _ __ Parcel Number__0_9_ 0_1_4_5_00 _____ Project Property Address,__1_5_9_M_a_di__.o s _n_L_an_e_________________________ Applicant Information ��-7 II II Address:880 Rio East Court, Suite B_ � q.vJe��, � CharlottesvilJe, Va 22901 �-- Email: <:iackcann@earthlink.net > Phone: (YV) _______ (C) _______ I: · �\1,,1."1. &gnature ..X)\\ll?. Clt.�tJ ,c.: --r...�. 'ta-z.-i. Property Owner Information (if not applicant) L,.,,.,!:�!!L��<�<�<❖C❖C❖,<<,W/;;,y,-o❖e<❖C•C•e<<-e<<'-"'.-OW'-"'"-'•"""'•Y.->Y✓h>Y✓ ,.,E��,!.;... .,,,w,w;o ..c=."lf'.:'? .i.Joic::;....______ Project Name/Description 0 &..-o.J � Parcel Number () S:OIISooI 4J Project Property Address O ft.i;1"b...J Pu.t.e:) CAW beI'l!:5!1/\1..t.E"., Vl't. O�o//StJ0L Signature of Applicant Appllcant Information provided ls, to the I hereby attest that the information I have stof m (/o de , rrect. : �� . --;�� PC:$1-22- Print Name Oate Signatur,e sDate/3, /2-2.. Date Do you Intend to apply for Federal or State Tax Credits S+evet1 Let..JI:!) for this project? __ ..__.A/.�----- Print Name For Office Use Only Approved/Disapproved by: _________ Received by: ___________ Date: ------------------ Fee paid: ____Cash/Ck.# ____ Conditions of approval: __________ Date Received: R�vi#d2016 ------------ LEWIS RESIDENCE SAGE DESIGNS 0 PRESTON PLACE, TMP 050118001 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA. 22903 3033 ALBERNE CHURCH LANE, ESMONT, VA. 22937 05/30/22 434-296-7381 S1.0 SITE CONTEXT PHOTOS LEWIS RESIDENCE SAGE DESIGNS 0 PRESTON PLACE, TMP 050118001 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA. 22903 3033 ALBERNE CHURCH LANE, ESMONT, VA. 22937 05/30/22 434-296-7381 S1.1 1 PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE/SITE PLAN - 16 "=1'-0" LEWIS RESIDENCE SAGE DESIGNS 0 PRESTON PLACE, TMP 050118001 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA. 22903 3033 ALBERNE CHURCH LANE, ESMONT, VA. 22937 05/30/22 434-296-7381 S1.2 BUILDING PERSPECTIVES & BUILDING/SITE MATERIALS DN LEWIS RESIDENCE SAGE DESIGNS PRESTON PLACE, CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA. 22903 3033 ALBERNE CHURCH LANE, ESMONT, VA. 22937 05/30/22 434-296-7381 A1.1 FIRST FLOOR PLAN LEWIS RESIDENCE SAGE DESIGNS PRESTON PLACE, CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA. 22903 3033 ALBERNE CHURCH LANE, ESMONT, VA. 22937 05/30/22 434-296-7381 A1.2 SECOND FLOOR PLAN LEWIS RESIDENCE SAGE DESIGNS PRESTON PLACE, CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA. 22903 3033 ALBERNE CHURCH LANE, ESMONT, VA. 22937 05/30/22 434-296-7381 A2.2 ELEVATIONS LEWIS RESIDENCE SAGE DESIGNS PRESTON PLACE, CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA. 22903 3033 ALBERNE CHURCH LANE, ESMONT, VA. 22937 05/30/22 434-296-7381 A2.1 ELEVATIONS