Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Residential Development topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

BAR generally supportive of single-story, aging-in-place house at 714 Lexington, requests detail on carport and materials

Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review · February 18, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

At a pre-application review for 714 Lexington, the BAR found the proposed single-story, aging-in-place house and carport generally sympathetic to the Martha Jefferson Historic Conservation District but asked for refined carport detailing, confirmation on setbacks and zoning build-to-width, and preferred brick or Hardie siding on the front elevation.

The BAR reviewed a pre-application for a new single-family house at 714 Lexington, inside the Martha Jefferson Historic Conservation District. Applicant Bridget of Allied Workshop said the clients, David and Chris Gardner, are pursuing a modest, accessible single-story home under 2,000 square feet with an integrated carport to support aging-in-place needs.

BAR members generally favored the carport over a front-facing garage and recommended strategies to reduce visual impact, such as adding posts, low walls, or screening to break the elevation; members said the carport should read as part of the house and suggested concrete driveway surfacing for continuity. The BAR advised that the front elevation and visible materials should be brick if the budget allows, with Hardie plank an acceptable alternate. Accessibility goals — zero-step entry and a 36-inch front door — were affirmed.

Members also flagged zoning/build-to-width constraints: a city planning/commentary note cautioned that a minimum build-to width requirement may disallow parking within active frontage, so the applicant should confirm compliance with the zoning administrator. Staff suggested that if materials and massing remain consistent, administrative review could be appropriate; otherwise the applicant should return for one more BAR meeting as an action item.

No permits were issued at this advisory session; staff and applicant will address zoning confirmation and material choices before the next formal submission.