1996-10-14 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

179 It was agreed that a work session on'downtown issues would be held on November 1 lth at 7:00 p.m. Ms. Richards said she would like to include some follow-up on the child care report as part of the workplan work session. APPEAL: APPEAL OF BAR DECISION BY REGAL CINEMA Mr. Clyde Gou!dman, City Attorney, explained that on August 20, 1996, the Board of Architectural Review denied the use of a fake window on the Water Street face of the Regal Cinema Building and the use of eight-inch pavers in the soldier course band along the edge of the mall surface. Mr. Steven Blaine, attorney for the Charlottesville 2000, developer of the property, is appealing these decisions. Mr. Colin Rolph, partner in Charlottesville 2000, presented a letter from the designers of the building, stating why Regal had the opaque windows installed. Mr. Rotph noted that the BAR agreed to the installation of opaque windows for the Ice Park. Regarding the bricks, Mr. Rolph said that the City told Charlottesville 2000 that the 12 inch bricks were no longer available, and the logical solution was to install eight and four inch pavers. After installation, Charlottesville 2000 was told that the 12 inch pavers were found, though they have not been delivered to date. Mm Rolph said it would be expensive to replace the pavers. Mr. Cox questioned whether the concern about the dear glass had been communicated to the City, and noted that there might have been other alternatives such as frosted glass that might be more appealing. Mr. Rolph said that the BAR insisted that the glass had to be clear. Mr. Cox asked if it would be possible to replace the blackened glass with frosted glass, and Mr. Rolph said he would need to discuss the issue with Regal representatives. Responding to a question from Mr. Toscano about the reason for the appeal, Mr. Rolph said the BAR's decision will be fairly expensive and will disrupt theater business, 5/h-. Kurt Wassenaar, Chairman of the Board of Architectural Review, presented background on the history of the BAR review. Mr. Wassenaar said that the BAR tries to constructively advise applicants and come up with alternatives as opposed to designing projects. Mr. Wassenaar said that Regal presented a design that was approved by the BAR, including use of clear glass, and a certificate of appropriateness was issued. Mr. Wassenaar asked that Council uphold the BAR's decision. Responding to a question from Ms. Slaughter, Mr. Wassenaar said that blackened windows were approved for the Ice Park because of the affect of the glare through the windows on the ice. Mr. Toscano asked if Mr. Cox's option for frosted glass would be acceptable to the BAR, and Mr. Wassenaar replied that it would be acceptable. Ms. Slaughter recommended that the issues of glass and bricks be considered separately. Ms. Daugherty made a motion to deny the appeal on the window and to accept the appeal on the bricks. Ms. Slaughter seconded the motion. Mr. Toscano said Council's determination should be based on criteria set forth in the ordinance, not on who did what to whom, which would remove the arbitrariness and appearance of second-guessing of the BAR. Ms. Daugherty said that on that basis she agrees that blackened glass is inappropriate for Water Street and that the brick design is appropriate.