Laserfiche WebLink
8 <br /> The motion to ask the MPO to postpone their vote on the current year TIP by one <br />month and to direct the City's MPO representatives to support the delay was approved by <br />the following vote. Ayes: Mr. Caravati, Mr. Cox, Mr. Lynch, Mr. Schilling. Noes: Ms. <br />Richards. <br /> <br />APPEAL <br />: APPEAL OF BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW DECISION RE: <br />RUBY TUESDAY RESTAURANT <br /> <br /> Ms. Tarpley Gillespie, Planner in Neighborhood Development Services, said that <br />Ruby Tuesday is located in an entrance corridor and is subject to staff level design review <br />using design guidelines. She said that the painting of the brick and color were denied by <br />staff, and the applicant appealed to the Board of Architectural Review. The BAR <br />approved everything but the ne w stone as they did not feel it is compatible with the <br />building and the surrounding district. <br /> <br /> Mr. Lee Turberville, Architect for Ruby Tuesday, said that drawings were <br />submitted in April to Neighborhood Development Services and were looked at by Ron <br />Higgi ns who approved everything but the paint. He said that the only thing appealed to <br />the BAR was the painting of the brick. He said the BAR said they had no problem with <br />painting of the brick, but then said they did not like the stone. <br /> <br /> Mr. Ron Higgins, Pla nner in Neighborhood Development Services, said he denied <br />the design based on painting of the brick based on the wishes of the BAR. He said the <br />BAR then had issues with the stone. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brown said that any exterior change requires a certificate of appropr iateness, <br />but this was administratively denied. <br /> <br /> Ms. Richards asked if she is correct that Council is to consider the appeal as if the <br />application is coming to Council for the first time. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brown said that is correct, though the BAR's decision can be considered by <br />Council. Mr. Brown said the only issues are the veneer and stucco material. <br /> <br /> Responding to a question from Mr. Schilling, Ms. Gillespie said the vote on the <br />BAR was five to two. <br /> <br /> Mr. Schilling said he thinks we need to look internally at t he process given that <br />two bodies had approved all parts of the application. <br /> <br /> Ms. Joan Fenton, Chair of the BAR, said that the current stone was not approved <br />and is different than what was presented. <br /> <br /> Mr. Schilling asked for clarification, and Mr. Turber ville said that if Ruby <br />Tuesday cannot get stone that matches, it will take down what is there in order to have it <br />all match. <br /> <br /> Ms. Fenton said it was not just that the stone did not match, it was that it did not <br />conform with the look of the area, and was not improving or upgrading what is there. <br /> <br /> Mr. Cox said that when a national chain comes to Charlottesville there is some <br />expectation they will work with the locality. Mr. Cox said Ruby Tuesday is located in an <br />entrance corridor that leads to the Univers ity of Virginia. He said he cannot support the <br />appeal. <br /> <br /> Mr. Turberville said that a lot of buildings in the area do not follow the <br />guidelines. <br /> <br /> Mr. Lynch made a motion to uphold the decision of the BAR, and Mr. Cox <br />seconded the motion. <br /> <br />