Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Charlottesville BAR approves additions and window replacements at 554 Valley Road with conditions
Summary
The Board of Architectural Review approved a certificate of appropriateness for a two‑story addition and exterior alterations at 554 Valley Road, conditioning approval on consistent trim treatment, retention of the chimney, half‑round gutters and staff guidance on divided‑light windows; one member abstained.
The Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review on March 17 approved a certificate of appropriateness for exterior alterations at 554 Valley Road, including a two‑story front enclosure that will house an interior stair, replacement of deteriorated metal casement windows, and replacement of the roof.
Staff told the board the structure is a 1932 dependency associated with a nearby primary house and sits largely screened from Valley Road amid vegetation and stone‑faced neighboring houses. The applicant proposed widening lower‑level openings for egress, replacing several nonhistoric vinyl windows with double‑pane casements in a style intended to match the historic appearance, and using salvaged site stone to blend the new work with existing stone facades.
The owner‑applicant said a contractor had assessed restoring the original metal casement windows but concluded the originals could not be made to meet the building envelope and energy‑efficiency needs. “The efficiency of the original windows there, it was not possible to achieve what I needed to achieve for the envelope of the building,” the applicant said.
Board members questioned how visible the outbuilding is from Valley Road and debated whether a standing‑seam metal roof should be required under the ADC guidelines or whether allowing asphalt shingles would reduce costs and help preserve the structure. The board also urged the applicant to consider divided‑light sash options to better honor historic appearance and recommended retaining or reusing the existing garage doors on site if feasible.
After deliberation, the board voted to approve the COA with conditions that the applicant treat window and door trim consistently (with recessed windows in the stone facade), use half‑round gutters, retain and repair the existing chimney, and consider divided‑light sash options consistent with BAR guidance. The board also recommended, but did not require, that the owner preserve the historic garage doors on site for reuse or display. The motion passed, with six members voting yes and one abstention.
The board’s decision documents the approvals and the staff conditions; staff will follow up with the applicant on details of window profiles and trim to ensure consistency with the board’s direction.
