City of Charlottesville
Board of Architectural Review
October 15, 2002
Joan Fenton (Chair)
Lynne Heetderks (Co-Chair)
Ms. Fenton convened the meeting at 4:58 p.m.
A. Matters from the public
Ms. Fenton called for matters not on the formal agenda.
Mr. Curt Keith Ecker, of Bruce Wardell Architects,
along with Don Pruett and Bruce Wardell, presented
for comments the renovation of 501 Park Street.
The site was Rosewood Manor and is to become a
hospice house for eight patients for Hospice of
the Piedmont. Most of the renovation work centers
on the back quadrant corner facing Hedge Street.
They wish to remove a porch to provide a new side
entrance and patient room. They are seeking
feedback to be able present a formal proposal for
the November meeting.
Mr. Don Pruett explained they had found an
opportunity to develop a better staircase that
would facilitate all the floors necessary. He
asked if they would be able to remove the savannah
porch to begin to engage the new elements. He
presented the BAR with photographs and site plans.
Ms. Fenton called on the Board for comments and
Ms. Fenton asked the age of the porch. Mr. Pruett
explained that they had only found drawings dating
to 1983 which showed porch expansion. He stated
there was very little information on the history
of the porch.
Mr. Coiner asked if they had spoken to the North
Downtown Neighborhood Residents' Association. Mr.
Pruett said they had not. The project had only
just begun and they were trying to come up with
something to present to the Neighborhood
Mr. Atkins sought clarification that all four
options were wood. Mr. Pruett concurred.
Mr. Knight asked if ramp access was necessary for
all entrances or if access could be on one side
only. Mr. Pruett explained that 75 percent of the
Hospice clients would be non-ambulatory and they
would like everyone to come in the front door for
a welcoming presence. Mr. Knight expressed
concern over how ramping would impact the front of
Mr. Atkins stated the basic strategy seems
reasonable and fine. He would prefer a simpler
There being no further items from the public, Ms.
Fenton closed that portion of the meeting.
B. Certificate of Appropriateness Application
Tax Map 33 Parcel 196
201 East Market Street/Jefferson Madison Library
New walkway from Third Street
Train and Partners, Architect
Bill Lyons, Applicant
Ms. Gillespie gave the staff report. In April of
2002, the library had been before the BAR seeking
feedback about a walkway. The Board was generally
supportive of the idea. The application is for a
new path from Third Street to the front entrance.
Staff looked at the proposal against the design
guidelines. All proposed ground cover is the same
as the existing ground cover. The proposal meets
all guidelines so staff recommends approval.
A representative of Train and Partners explained
that the pathway may be altered in the field to
allow for the root system of the two existing
Ms. Fenton called for questions and comments.
Mr. Atkins asked how drastically would the slope
adjacent to the main steps change. The
representative explained that there was a level
change that would be changed slightly so that
people would step up.
Mr. Tremblay asked how big the step up was. He was
told it was a foot.
Ms. Winner sought clarification on the timeframe for
the project. The applicant explained that, thanks
to the Friends of the Library, funding was already
available. He thought that the project could
proceed in a month after approval.
Mr. Tremblay made a motion for adoption as
presented. Ms. Winner seconded the motion which
carried six to one with Mr. Knight against.
C. Certificate of Appropriateness Application
Tax Map 28 Parcel 1
230 West Main Street/Charlottesville Ice Park
Replace column base and install new downspouts
DTMP, LLC, Applicant
Ms. Fenton stated that at the Request of Mr. Coiner,
the column and downspouts would be considered
separately for the purpose of motions.
Ms. Gillespie gave the staff report. The Ice Park
was constructed in 1997 with BAR approval. Since
construction, there has been a problem with
vandalism of various elements. The applicant is
requesting to replace the existing wood column
bases at the front of the Ice Park with brick.
The brick is to match the existing brick. The
applicant would also like to install U-shaped
steel guards to protect the downspouts. The
guards can be painted to match the downspouts.
Staff looked at the changes against the design
guidelines. The materials selected are compatible
with neighboring buildings. Staff finds the
proposed column bases are an appropriate solution.
Staff recommends approval.
Tim Slagle stated the Ice Park had opened in 1996.
Downspouts have been replaced numerous times. He
stated they were trying to look at solutions to
limit the amount of vandalism.
Ms. Fenton called for questions from the public or
Mr. Atkins sought clarification of the second page
of drawings for the piers. Mr. Slagle explained
what was depicted. The brick would be up to the
height of the existing wood column.
Ms. Fenton called for comments. There being none,
she closed that portion of the meeting.
Mr. Atkins made a motion to approve the brick pier
replacement for the deteriorated and vandalized
wood piers. Mr. Knight seconded the motion which
Ms. Fenton called for questions regarding the
Mr. Coiner recognized the need to do something, but
thought something better could be done. Mr.
Slagle stated he was open to suggestions. The
proposed solution would work for all of the
downspouts since they are not all the same angle.
Mr. Coiner stated he would support a steel pipe,
or a thicker copper pipe, from the gutter to the
brick. He further suggested using a cast iron
rectangle or square up to the water table.
Mr. Knight sought clarification as to whether this
was only for the Mall-side gutters. The applicant
explained it was only for the Mall side and not at
the front entrance.
Ms. Fenton called for comments.
Mr. Atkins wondered why the cast iron was not being
Mr. Tremblay concurred; he felt this solution was
not as aesthetic as cast iron.
Mr. Atkins made a motion to defer the application,
and suggested looking at cast iron downspout boots
that could follow the contour of the brick face
and go up to the desired height in a much more
agreeable manner than what was presented and if
presented to staff, and it seems in their opinion
to meet the intent of the motion, that it could be
administratively approved; staff could ask them to
come back. Mr. Tremblay seconded the motion. Ms.
Fenton sought clarification that if it could not
follow the contour, it would come back to the BAR.
Mr. Atkins concurred. Mr. Coiner expressed
concern about the proposal not coming back before
the Board. Ms. Gillespie expressed discomfort
with the BAR approving something that had not been
applied for. Ms. Fenton suggested the Board just
defer. Mr. Atkins retracted his motion with the
agreement of Mr. Tremblay.
Mr. Atkins made a motion to defer the application
based on the reasons suggested in his last motion.
Mr. Tremblay seconded the motion. Ms. Fenton
wanted to clarify in the motion that they were
suggesting that the applicant look at cast iron
and other alternatives as well. The motion
D. Certificate of Appropriateness Application
Second Street SE and Water Street:
New Charlottesville Contemporary Arts Building
Tax Map 28 Parcel 28
Amend BAR Approval:
Change opening on Second Street and change
siding from Zinc/Titanium to terne-coated
Bushman Dreyfuss, Architects
Charlottesville Contemporary Arts, applicant
Ms. Gillespie gave the staff report. The approval
granted by the BAR in December, 2001, was for a
building that was going to be clad with a Zinc
metal. Since that time they had problems with
pricing and obtaining the material and were
requesting a change in material to a terne-coated
stainless steel that would look almost identical
to the approved material. The applicant was also
seeking a minor change in the fenestration
openings along the Second Street elevation. Staff
looked at the changes against the design
guidelines. While the building does not meet the
materials/texture guidelines, the building was
approved as an appropriate new, modern statement
in the downtown area. Staff feels the proposed
changes would not significantly alter the spirit
of what was approved. There is an example of the
material at the Law school at the University of
Jeff Bushman distributed photographs of the roof
material in place at the University. He explained
the Zinc came from Canada and was hard to get.
The terne-coated stainless steel is a better
material which will last longer and not rust. He
also showed the Board two samples of the proposed
material: new and artificially weathered.
Ms. Fenton called for questions.
Ms. Fenton asked about the vandalism possibilities
of the material. Mr. Bushman explained that most
of the material would be out of reach.
Ms. Fenton called on the applicant to discuss the
proposed window changes.
Mr. Bushman explained there were two theaters in the
building. The stage door area for one of the
theaters was far too large. Decreasing the width
of the corner stair by three feet resulted in a
necessity to readjust the elevation and bring the
openings into harmony.
Ms. Fenton called for questions from the public and
the Board. There being none, she called for
Mr. Coiner sought clarification for the change on
the other windows. The applicant explained that
some windows were brought into alignment with the
same pattern and division of the rest of the
windows. Mr. Coiner also expressed his
frustration with being presented with one set of
plans and the architect having a newer, different
set with him.
Mr. Atkins made a motion to approve the change from
the Zinc/Titanium metal to the terne-coated
stainless and accept the minor changes in the
building's elevation. Ms. Winner seconded the
motion. The motion passed with a vote of six for,
one against. Ms. Heetderks gave the dissenting
E. Certificate of Appropriateness Application
Tax Map 31-169
909 West Main Street
Elevation changes and porch reconstruction
Gabe Silverman, Applicant
Ms. Fenton explained they would look at the
application in two parts.
Ms. Gillespie gave the staff report. It is one of
the few remaining residential structures of the
William Jeffrey era. The applicant is trying to
convert the lower level to retail space, the upper
level would remain as an apartment. When the
applicant came before the Board in September,
concerns expressed included that this building was
one of the few pre-Civil War buildings remaining
in the district, there was little relationship
between the upper and lower stories in the
proposed design. It was suggested the applicant
explore windows with divided lights and running
the store front out to the edge of the porch,
leaving the existing brick wall intact. The
applicant modified the proposal in response to
those suggestions. The application for the front
steps has not changed. The proposal for the two
storefront openings was modified. Staff looked at
the new proposal against the design guidelines.
The applicant had revised the proposal to address
the BAR concerns and comments. Staff recommends
The applicant stated he had explored putting another
facade in front of the steps and had explored
multiple designs of openings. He also explained
that the windows on the second story do not match
up so there was no way to line it up from the
Ms. Fenton called for questions from the public or
Mr. Knight asked if the railing would be extended
when the portecochere was extended. Mr. Silverman
explained he was only extending the beam and
moving the columns out. Mr. Knight also sought
clarification that there would be two separate
retail spaces. The applicant concurred.
Mr. Atkins asked if there were anything preventing
the addition of another column between the
existing end of the porch and the extended column.
The applicant thought he might be able to put one
at the handicapped ramp.
Ms. Fenton called for comments from the public and
Ms. Heetderks expressed concern over punching
additional openings in the historic facade. She
also stated that, while she applauded the attempt
to adaptively reuse the building, she was
concerned that they were trying so hard to
accommodate the applicant that they would be
squeezing a round peg into a square hole.
Mr. Coiner echoed Ms. Heetderks comments. He did
not feel he could support the windows and doors.
Mr. Atkins agreed with Ms. Heetderks and Mr. Coiner.
However, he felt the remedies from last time in
making the openings more compatible justified
Mr. Tremblay applauded the reuse of a historic and
Mr. Atkins made a motion to approve the change to
the steps in having them go the entire length of
the porch. Mr. Tremblay seconded the motion. Ms.
Fenton sought clarification as to whether the
pillars were included in the motion. Mr. Atkins
added to his motion a request to study adding a
column at the corner of the ramp and flight of
steps that goes up to shorten the span to be more
in keeping with traditional wood-framed porch
construction. Mr. Tremblay accepted the clarified
motion. The motion carried unanimously after
clarification that the motion was approved as
presented with a recommendation that the applicant
explore adding an additional column.
Mr. Tremblay made a motion to accept the new door
openings as shown in the plan submitted. Ms.
Winner seconded the motion. The motion carried
with a vote of four to three with Mr. Coiner, Mr.
Knight and Ms. Heetderks voting against.
Ms. Fenton recalled Mr. Bushman to discuss signage
for the Charlottesville Contemporary Arts
Building. Ms. Fenton also noted for the record
that she owns the driveway adjacent to the CCA
Building, but did not feel there was any conflict
since she can do nothing with the driveway.
Mr. Bushman stated he had been notified by Live Arts
about getting started on the marquee for the CCA.
Live Arts would prefer if the signage incorporated
some type of LED display rather than a more
typical marquee similar to the Paramount. His
options were a more standard style marquee,
contacting an artist to make the marquee an art
project, or a combination of high-tech, low-tech.
Ms. Fenton stated the marquee could not be backlit.
Ms. Gillespie clarified that it could not be
Mr. Coiner asked which side of the building it would
be on. The applicant stated it would be on the
Water Street side.
Mr. Coiner felt that a 21st century building should
have a 21st century marquee.
Mr. Knight asked if the LED would be a scrolling
message board. Mr. Bushman stated it would
probably be a constant display changed as needed
Ms. Fenton stated that she would not approve a
commercially made sign. An appealing, artist-made
sign she could override the lit sign
Mr. Knight sought clarification from Ms. Gillespie
as to whether the sign ordinance said anything
about animation, i.e. traveling lights. Ms.
Gillespie did not think so.
The owner's representative stated that the owner
would like to explore the possibility of some kind
of LED sign if the BAR were open to the idea.
Mr. Coiner asked that consideration be given to the
property across the street.
Ms. Fenton suggested the applicant come before the
Board with options.
F. Approval of Minutes
Ms. Fenton called for approval of the August 20,
2002 minutes. Ms. Heetderks wanted to correct the
spelling of Cheri Lewis' name. Ms. Winner made a
motion to accept the minutes as corrected. Mr.
Knight seconded the motion which carried with Mr.
Atkins and Ms. Heetderks abstaining.
Ms. Fenton called for approval of the September 10,
2002 minutes. Ms. Gillespie noted that Alexandria
Sorrels should be Alexandria Searls. Ms. Fenton
expressed concern that the minutes were not as
detailed as they had been in the past, that the
minutes had subsections A, B, C with a jump to G
with no mention of what happened to D, E, and F.
Ms. Heetderks made a motion to approve the minutes
as amended. Mr. Atkins seconded the motion which
carried with Ms. Fenton and Ms. Winner abstaining.
G. Other Business
Ms. Fenton called for other business.
Mr. Blake Hart, representing Art in Place, stated
there were two projects that needed BAR approval.
Ms. Fenton asked if these would be temporary
structures. Mr. Hart concurred. The art would go
up in October and would be taken down in
September. One of the pieces of art would go on
the parking garage where the United Way sign goes.
It would be a life-size lit box sculpture. The
sculpture will have a photocell to turn on the
light, it will not be lit constantly nor will it
blink on and off. The second piece is an
approximately ten feet tall, unlit sculpture which
will be placed next to the armory.
Mr. Coiner asked what the dancer sculpture was made
of. Mr. Hart stated neon, fiberglass, and steel.
Mr. Knight asked if a base were going to be made for
the second sculpture. Mr. Hart concurred that a
concrete base would be made.
Mr. Coiner sought clarification regarding the
placement of the second sculpture. Mr. Hart
explained the placement in conjunction with the
Avon Street Bridge. Placement would be close to
Ms. Fenton called for other questions.
Mr. Coiner sought clarification that the guidelines
did not help and that it was totally subjective.
Ms. Fenton stated there was an issue of lights on
the Mall. She further stated art had been
discussed previously with the fountain at the
Station Restaurant and with other temporary
placements. She wanted the Board to look at the
Mr. Coiner stated he could not support the sculpture
on the Mall. Ms. Fenton agreed with that
Mr. Knight found the pieces to be positive due to
their accessibility. However, he expressed
concern with the lighting issue. Ms. Fenton
agreed that allowing the sculpture would set a
precedent by which the Mall could be lit. She
stated she was willing to do a lit Lewis and Clark
down the entire Mall. Ms. Fenton clarified that
her statement was a joke of doing the whole Lewis
and Clark trail in lit figures down the Mall.
Mr. Atkins felt the lit sculpture was not
appropriate for the Mall in that being a lit piece
it takes on at night an extravagance and a level
of visibility that starts to overtake a number of
the pleasant aspects of the Mall.
Mr. Hart sought clarification that the Board would
not approve the lit sculpture on anything within
the BAR's jurisdiction. Ms. Fenton stated that
was her feeling. Mr. Atkins stated he would be
open to considering it in a different location.
Mr. Hart stated other possible locations which had
been considered were the Market Street Garage and
the top of West Main Street Station. Mr. Hart
asked if those were worth considering. Ms. Fenton
asked if that were the train station or the
restaurant. Mr. Hart clarified that he meant the
Station Restaurant on West Main Street.
Mr. Atkins made a motion to approve the sculpture
proposed for temporary installation behind the
Armory adjacent to the amphitheater. Ms. Winner
seconded the motion. Mr. Coiner sought
clarification of "temporary." Mr. Atkins and Ms.
Fenton stated as described as being just under one
year. Mr. Coiner sought additional clarification
as to what happened if the City decided to buy the
sculpture. Ms. Fenton stated they would have to
come back to the Board. Ms. Fenton then asked if
all were in favor of that; all were.
Mr. Atkins asked if Art in Place were willing to
consider other places for the lit sculpture. Ms.
Fenton asked for a motion to deny it at the
location presented. Ms. Fenton informed Mr. Hart
that if he wanted it placed somewhere not in the
BAR purview, he would not have to come back. She
further informed him if he wanted to place it at
Station Restaurant, he would have to come back.
Mr. Knight made a motion to deny the request to
place the lit sculpture on the parking garage as
applied for. Ms. Heetderks seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
Ms. Gillespie introduced Page Weiss and John Zehmer
from the Virginia Department of Historic
Ms. Weiss spoke about the Certified Local Government
Program, of which she is the state manager. The
program is a partnership between local governments
that have good preservation practices in place,
the Virginia Department of Historic Resources and
the National Parks Service. Virginia has 25
Certified Local Governments. The Certified Local
Government Program is designed to create a
community of active localities as related to
preservation. Ms. Weiss volunteered to be a point
of contact should the Board run up against
something they have not dealt with before. She
also spoke about dedicated grant funding. The
funding needed to be matched, but part of the
match could be staff work or in-kind contribution.
Grant applications would be coming out in
November. Ms. Fenton asked what could be applied
for. Ms. Weiss stated anything that would enhance
the local preservation program. The VDHR have
funded training opportunities, surveys, updates of
design guidelines, archeological studies,
African-American historic context. Mr. Coiner
asked if they would fund bricks and mortar. Ms.
Weiss stated there were two issues with bricks and
mortar projects: visibility for the program and a
tight time line because of the federal fiscal year
does not always allow for closing a project on
Ms. Fenton stated she had been attending the
Sorenson Institute and in a discussion about "What
is a Meeting," the determination had been that if
someone sent an E-mail to all members of the Board
and they could do a reply to all, that was a
Ms. Fenton wanted to have a meeting/work session
about entrance corridors. Ms. Fenton further
stated she was bothered that it was all decided
administratively unless there was a problem. Ms.
Fenton wanted a discussion about what should be a
problem that should come to the Board. Ms.
Gillespie stated that the zoning ordinance was
advancing through the Planning Commission which
hoped to get it to Council by December; she felt
the BAR should have their discussion in time to
approach Council before they adopt the ordinance.
Mr. Coiner asked if they could also discuss some
procedures for Council to follow when hearing an
appeal. Ms. Fenton thought that would be great.
Ms. Fenton suggested they meet at 5 p.m. on 29
Ms. Fenton called for the meeting to go off the
record at 6:39:14 p.m. She put the meeting back
on the record at 6:40:33 p.m. She stated she
wanted to put pressure on the planning department
to get the packets to the Board in a timely
manner. She felt the Board members should get the
packet within seven days of the scheduled meeting.
Ms. Fenton stated that she would like to have a
motion that is reported back to the staff about
the Board that if they do not get their packets
within seven days of the meetings, that the chair,
at their discretion, can postpone the meeting.
Clarification was sought that Ms. Fenton meant "at
least" seven days before the meeting. Ms. Fenton
concurred. Mr. Atkins asked if the 21 day limit
placed too big a burden on the applicants. Ms.
Gillespie stated that the greater distance from
the meeting has created problems when the design
is still evolving. Ms. Gillespie also stated
there was an internal issue of staff coordination
getting the packet through the system. Ms. Fenton
stated she had no problem with getting an updated
packet on Thursday or Friday before the meeting.
Mr. Knight expressed approval of the consideration
that it would be at the Chair's discretion and not
automatic. Ms. Gillespie sought clarification
that there was a motion that needed to be
seconded. Mr. Atkins seconded the motion. Ms.
Winner asked if there were some ordinance which
set the day of the meeting so that the BAR could
not change it. Ms. Fenton stated that it was more
that there had to be public notice of the meeting.
Mr. Atkins expressed appreciation for the spirit
of being as cooperative as possible, and he stated
he would go along with the motion as long as
meetings weren't being cancelled all the time.
Ms. Fenton tended to doubt it would happen. She
further stated that should it happen once, it will
never happen again. Ms. Fenton called the
question. The motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Coiner asked if there had been any word from the
owner of the log house. Ms. Gillespie stated she
had not heard from him but that several people had
approached him with an interest in buying the
house. She stated her assessment that he seemed
to be receptive in having someone take it off his
Mr. Knight wanted to know the outcome of the Ruby
Tuesday appeal. Ms. Fenton stated it was denied.
Ms. Heetderks left the meeting at 6:47 p.m.
Ms. Fenton asked for a motion to adjourn the
meeting. Mr. Knight made the motion to adjourn.
Mr. Coiner seconded the motion. The motion
carried unanimously and the meeting stood
adjourned at 6:49 p.m.