[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6527778,"mediaKeyId","3533909-0e80b0c250f473f4819fa4cc0bb3d3ed","parentId",3533909,"title","Commission of Architectural Review: key votes and outcomes from May meeting","audioSeconds",370,"startMs",630000,"endMs",1000000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3533909-0e80b0c250f473f4819fa4cc0bb3d3ed&start=630&end=1000","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3533909-0e80b0c250f473f4819fa4cc0bb3d3ed/thumbnail_630000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6527778/Richmond-City-Independent-City/Virginia/Commission-of-Architectural-Review-key-votes-and-outcomes-from-May-meeting","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6527778-79a24c2826b8fcc77de9afe08c4a5fca/orig.mp4?Expires=1770865025&Signature=MP1tJtLUTLuflnxt-3f-HGkbQq8JtSyH-RldkMFqxJbFVSIb28rIaHndXGbgpcuh1a-m~l0gQkmgoTIG5jzSyCPKrYk8KcthJHAmG0~ewE69c37PKjGHht2iSRyu6Z5nS98aZcmrYwloid-gUEvkFYykZPlKyFsx-ffQ-QlQxTsoWD-uBEY263WpMWO~fe8TjjMhB6CE3clTIVGfxtX5Y~7AWJAt9lY0wDRyx9ilgM0QCKP~apth44YHO~piavAcuKHbCP95CK3kyjtQM6CAvCjWZcKhMabaCxbwKtWaZKzwIbdcY1Fw0aAsdrd-kM~d4LiD~hQRXri6LFesCRdZtg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Richmond City","date","2025-05-27T00:00:00Z","article","Richmond — The Commission of Architectural Review approved a series of routine and contested items during its May 2025 meeting, sending two historic‑district nomination changes to the Virginia Department of Historic Resources and taking final action on multiple building and site‑alteration applications.

The most consequential votes were on two National Register nomination amendments and a cluster of staff‑recommended certificate of appropriateness (COA) applications. The commission also deferred two items that raised policy or technical questions: an aluminum storefront replacement on East Marshall Street and a digital monument sign at St. James Episcopal Church on West Franklin Street.

What the commission approved

- Main Street Banking historic district boundary decrease and nomination update: The commission voted to concur with staff and forward a recommended approval letter to the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (DHR). The amendment extended the period of significance through 1976, removed a demolished building at 703 E. Main, and reclassified 705–711 E. Main Street as contributing for early modern architecture. Motion to approve was made by Commissioner Sherpa and seconded by Commissioner Rodriguez; commissioners recorded yes votes including Easterling, Greer, Moore, Nutt, Rodriguez and Stripler.

- Chanco Valley / Tobacco Row boundary increase and period extension: The commission recommended approval of a boundary increase and a period of significance extended to 1967, adding multiple contributing and non‑contributing resources to the district inventory. Two commissioners announced they would abstain from this vote; the motion passed with recorded yes votes from Greer, Moore, Nutt and Rodriguez and others.

- Multiple COAs and consent agenda items: The commission approved the modified consent agenda (items listed on the meeting agenda). On the regular agenda staff‑recommended approvals included final review approvals for infill and new construction projects at 2206 Jefferson Avenue (Union Hill), 3023/3025 East Franklin (infill duplexes), and rear/addition and window projects at 3422 East Broad and 15 West Lee Street. The commission also approved a slate/copper roof substitution at 2625 Monument Avenue and approved composite replacement windows at 3118 East Broad under conditions requiring samples and matching trim.

- 510 West Twentieth Street (Spring Hill) — roofing: The commission voted to deny the applicant’s in‑kind substitution of asphalt shingles on the principal roof but allowed the existing standing‑seam metal porch roof to remain. That partial denial was the result of discussion weighing district precedent and visible impact.

What the commission deferred or asked for additional work

- 3301 East Marshall Street (historic storefront): The commission deferred the proposal to replace an existing storefront with a prefabricated aluminum system and asked the applicant for revised shop drawings or alternative systems that better reproduce the historic proportions and built‑up transom bar. The commission asked staff and the applicant to continue design work and return with detailed shop drawings showing profiles and assembly.

- 1201 West Franklin Street (St. James Episcopal Church monument sign): The commission deferred a decision on an internally illuminated digital message board proposed for a low brick monument sign. Commissioners asked the applicant to return with lower‑light or non‑internally illuminated display options (examples cited included reflective or low‑lumen poster‑style systems), documented light levels, and clarity about message‑change frequency and zoning/permit conditions.

Votes at a glance (selected items)

- Main Street Banking historic district amendment (DHR concurrence): Motion to approve — mover: Commissioner Sherpa; second: Commissioner Rodriguez; recorded yes: Easterling, Greer, Moore, Nutt, Rodriguez, Stripler; outcome: recommended approval to DHR.

- Chanco Valley / Tobacco Row boundary increase (DHR concurrence): Motion to approve — mover: (recorded); abstentions: 2 commissioners; recorded yes: Greer, Moore, Nutt, Rodriguez; outcome: recommended approval to DHR.

- Move item 11 (11603.5 N. 20th St.) to consent: Motion passed; outcome: item adopted to consent and then approved.

- 2206 Jefferson Avenue (final review, Union Hill — new single‑family detached): Approved with staff conditions. Recorded yes votes included: Easterling, Greer, Moore, Nutt, Rodriguez, Strickland.

- 321/323 East Franklin (infill duplexes): Approved with staff conditions (motion and second recorded; commissioners expressed support for revised porches and fenestration).

- 510 West Twentieth (roofing): Motion to deny in‑kind asphalt main roof replacement; friendly amendment to deny the main roof but allow standing‑seam porch roof — approved. Recorded yes votes included Easterling, Greer, Moore, Nutt, Rodriguez, Strickland; outcome: partial approval (main roof denied; porch standing seam allowed).

- 3422 East Broad (rear deck, chimney, fence, windows): Approved with conditions (brick color to be administratively reviewed; replacement windows handled per staff guidance).

- 3301 East Marshall: Deferred — applicant to provide shop drawings or alternatives that better reproduce historic proportions for the storefront assembly.

- 1201 West Franklin (monument sign): Deferred — applicant to return with lower‑lumen or non‑internally lit alternatives and additional details on illumination, message frequency and permits.

- 2625 Monument Avenue (side porch roof replacement from slate to copper): Approved with conditions specifying flatlock seams on copper and matching detailing to existing metal roofs on the property.

- 3118 East Broad (composite windows): Approved with conditions requiring sample and final trim/installation details; staff to administratively review kitchen casement because it is not visible from the public right of way.

- 15 West Lee Street (rear two‑story addition): Approved with conditions governing siding, window materials, decking details, and limits on any future work to the primary façade.

What happens next

Approved items will get formal decision letters from staff, and the commission’s recommendations to the Virginia Department of Historic Resources will be forwarded as recorded. Deferred items (3301 East Marshall and 1201 West Franklin) were sent back to applicants with instructions to return with more detailed, lower‑impact options or shop drawings that better match historic profiles.

— Sources: Commission of Architectural Review meeting transcript and staff reports; motions and roll call recorded during the May 2025 CAR meeting.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Richmond City - Commission of Architectural Review on 2025-05-27 3:30 PM - May 27, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Richmond Commission of Architectural Review on May 2025 recommended approval of two National Register nomination changes and approved or conditionally approved multiple COA applications, while deferring two items for more detailed design information.","taxTitle","Richmond City (Independent City), Virginia","taxId",5755,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6527763,"Commission defers decision on St. James Episcopal monument sign; asks for lower‑light display options",992,6225000,7217000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3533909-0e80b0c250f473f4819fa4cc0bb3d3ed&start=6225&end=7217","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3533909-0e80b0c250f473f4819fa4cc0bb3d3ed/thumbnail_6225000.jpg","/articles/6527763/Richmond-City-Independent-City/Virginia/Commission-defers-decision-on-St-James-Episcopal-monument-sign-asks-for-lowerlight-display-options","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6527763-9e9eaf70f7dc5928ff83b51b86863061/orig.mp4?Expires=1770865025&Signature=NlJfQC8nvPzbqNMg8zBM0-pyu8TPHyi3J68TlJiG-j7hAe9dc~LJ56WSrvuRzC~3JX8Kt0riQyzwa43GfjOUGE4HUYDmJwH4imveYey2wUGsIaSavVlQ6clf5ybhcICcpO-mt38P~IxGGgYehAWIKfssXlADZtaVzkgJjr7XpSs3~NOpVd01k9LUdA4KOQLO5~8NEMfseK-6NBhK74h5w3XforPLXLD88UY~OHKU5FWqgTI46~-cuGXX8791WNpMaRZaRfrNhiS1LRQUguQTuaqcHq-p4djOL8ppCuLFnTjt1kKTyXOwM54jqTP41gW~hdBfJlIbMXdOaAhsYd9dXg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Richmond — The Commission of Architectural Review deferred a decision about a proposed digital message board at St. James Episcopal Church after members expressed concern about internally illuminated electronic signage in a Monument Avenue historic context.

What was proposed

Applicants sought CAR approval for a new brick and cast‑concrete monument sign integrated with a recently approved retaining wall and ramp. The proposed sign included a central digital message board intended to allow the church to update event information.

Why the commission deferred

Staff recommended approving the masonry sign but denying any internally illuminated digital message board, citing CAR guidelines that generally prohibit internal illumination in City Old and Historic Districts. Commissioners asked the applicant to provide:

- Examples of non‑internally illuminated display systems that provide poster‑like appearance (e‑ink or reflective low‑lumen displays were discussed),
- Documentation of brightness (measured light levels) and proposed limits on message frequency or animation, and
- Clarification about what portions of the sign are visible from public rights of way and any zoning sign‑permit constraints.

Public comment and applicant position

The church’s representatives said the intent was to increase accessibility and timely community messaging for events such as weekly dinners and campus outreach. Neighbors and representatives of the nearby West Avenue Improvement Association said they were concerned about the precedent and visual impact of a glowing LED display in a highly pedestrian area; several commissioners and public commenters requested mock‑ups or a dusk demonstration to judge visual impact.

Next steps

The commission deferred action and asked the applicant to return with examples of low‑lumen or non‑internally illuminated message displays (or mock‑ups), data on light levels and frequency of changes, and any relevant zoning conditions. Staff will work with the church to coordinate follow‑up and administrative review where possible.

— Sources: CAR meeting transcript and staff presentation.","CAR approved the masonry monument sign design but deferred a decision on the proposed internally illuminated digital message board, requesting examples of lower‑lumen or reflective display technologies, information on message change frequency, and zoning/permit constraints.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6527767,"Commission reviews conceptual replacement for unsafe building at 2228 Cedar Street; preservation groups and neighbors urge exploration of stabilizing options",1743,10499000,12242000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3533909-0e80b0c250f473f4819fa4cc0bb3d3ed&start=10499&end=12242","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3533909-0e80b0c250f473f4819fa4cc0bb3d3ed/thumbnail_10499000.jpg","/articles/6527767/Richmond-City-Independent-City/Virginia/Commission-reviews-conceptual-replacement-for-unsafe-building-at-2228-Cedar-Street-preservation-groups-and-neighbors-urge-exploration-of-stabilizing-options","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6527767-835f7b25108639319fefff206fb0f470/orig.mp4?Expires=1770865025&Signature=DYt5BMvXrJc8hkh~gmrssvCq887-2sRCGppIIW3q1iQDghYvt6KmQbUjoovbbY2bRuBUwcNFqF-Omf47db1zvaBQZP9iqUUku2RCZw3af3wWNwbuF~MEYeyRLraMgmef13k8co8z8P8EainROHiI~5LYWPBlepDGUkxhyDXOFhME8rPSm~iams58~qyUZ~~UyZZ8XKTMzQow5VWUaOAfxIWNFpldD3Zyl5iVh~M29NfJgvKX7RqB7v3~7Yxbq8-7AdR6dJrpFIWv-gSIgBg0DkUXgIw1CTpzHJ84mFVrJhbZ8DbKPLncGjuhnDoUvqy7ilTPAXNK8qynC8XeUcf5xQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Richmond — Commissioners reviewed a conceptual proposal for a new duplex to replace a distressed Greek Revival double house at 2228 Cedar Street after the city’s building commissioner declared the structure unsafe. The owner reported severe foundation and framing deterioration discovered during exploratory demolition and interior work, while neighbors and preservation advocates urged exploring alternatives to demolition.

Background and status

The property at 2228 Cedar Street was previously discussed by the commission to pursue rehabilitation and an addition. During interior demolition for preparation of construction drawings, the owner’s team discovered that the foundation mortar and some framing had deteriorated to a degree the building commissioner described as an unsafe structure. The building commissioner issued a violation and advised that demolition permits not proceed until CAR had reviewed conceptual replacement designs. The violation currently lists no firm demolition date, and the building commissioner has indicated he will not finalize demolition scheduling until CAR addresses a replacement design.

What the commission heard

- Applicant and contractor: Owner representative Chris Pollock described several site visits and structural reviews that showed crumbling brick foundation and joists at or near grade in parts of the structure; engineers and the building commissioner concluded rehabilitation options were limited. \"We put so much focus on the 1840 front section… the foundation is essentially crumbling,\" Pollock told commissioners.

- Neighbors: Several neighbors and community members urged preservation and careful salvage. A nearby resident noted that many neighborhood foundations use oyster‑shell mortar and can be repaired, and Historic Richmond asked the owner to pause demolition and allow the preservation nonprofit to explore stabilization or salvage options.

- Historic Richmond: Danielle Porter, Historic Richmond’s preservation director, called the situation “an illustration of the limitations of our current system,” noting the lack of penalties and municipal tools to prevent demolition by neglect. She requested an opportunity to explore stabilization alternatives with the owner and the city and referenced Virginia law (Code of Virginia §15.2‑2306(f)) in the context of demolition penalties and review.

Commission reaction and design guidance

Members of the commission expressed regret about the condition of the building and sympathy for local residents. Commissioners emphasized that, if demolition proceeds, CAR will typically expect a replacement to reflect the historic massing, form and proportions of the original primary elevation. Staff recommended that if demolition moves forward the replacement should:

- Retain a prominent gabled primary mass and raised (English) basement datum so the front mass reads as a distinct historic block;
- Use a standing‑seam roof on the primary mass rather than asphalt shingles;
- Configure rear massing so that the gable front remains distinct (suggested options included lowering or stepping back the rear shed mass or otherwise ensuring a clear subordinate attachment);
- Salvage and reincorporate historic materials (granite, brick, columns/posts) where feasible and document the salvage plan with staff prior to demolition or salvage removal.

No formal vote; next steps

This was a conceptual review only; CAR did not vote to approve demolition. Commissioners asked the applicant to continue exploring stabilization options with Historic Richmond and to provide more detailed design refinements that emphasize a clear foreground historic volume with subordinate rear massing if demolition is unavoidable. The building commissioner’s finding remains in effect; CAR noted that any future COA for demolition or for new construction will require detailed documentation.

— Sources: CAR meeting transcript, staff presentation, public comment from Historic Richmond.","The commission discussed conceptual plans for a new duplex to replace 2228 Cedar Street in Union Hill after the city’s building commissioner declared the existing Greek Revival building unsafe. Historic Richmond urged exploring stabilization alternatives before demolition; CAR asked the applicant for design adjustments if demolition proceeds.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6527772,"Commission permits porch standing seam, denies asphalt main roof at 510 West 20th Street",568,2168000,2736000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3533909-0e80b0c250f473f4819fa4cc0bb3d3ed&start=2168&end=2736","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3533909-0e80b0c250f473f4819fa4cc0bb3d3ed/thumbnail_2168000.jpg","/articles/6527772/Richmond-City-Independent-City/Virginia/Commission-permits-porch-standing-seam-denies-asphalt-main-roof-at-510-West-20th-Street","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6527772-5ac9c39a8500444239187e27408e51ea/orig.mp4?Expires=1770865025&Signature=Y9Jj~CcjyHBpTeAZKqPW69fLIzmoL8h97AFW~dVH8rUtsQtngCFvE-WBJM~yy6xLFEZq-VLdCeltav5NeS~7aDS1orw4vZh87~mGf29AGLKxc05QWqfQUL~y-D337LlZbDzUs2SomupqEzkIfnjOkMqOJlCJqHHFPBG2VMJO8Uluja~6WBdl9y~7kVlhnjyM-IrCe4zvx-4V91GYkMK9ic3CIG4zVkN7DZo3QGLtTVK5LTysKqKUUH9g34NOQUJ-GTLut-VoTJHBCONtUypcGzIVPnlLRnf0ymQFT8-cJFf6sz0yJrLTC9Yblpvcyc~oZzpgGd5Wb-lHatmc-a8jGg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Richmond — The Commission of Architectural Review partially denied a retroactive request to retain asphalt shingles on the main roof of 510 West Twentieth Street and allowed an existing standing‑seam metal porch roof to remain in place.

Why it mattered

The work had been completed without a certificate of appropriateness; staff recommended denial because the asphalt shingles and the porch treatment do not visually match the original standing‑seam metal roof material documented in assessor records and in the district guidelines. Neighbors and the homeowners offered conflicting views: the owners said the change reflected neighborhood practice and was performed because of urgent water intrusion; neighbors said inconsistent enforcement and prior unauthorized changes in the block make strict enforcement feel inequitable.

What the commission decided

After public comment from nearby homeowners and an explanation from the applicants — Austin and Andy Farrell — that a contractor had performed the work and the owners had received a stop‑work order months later, Commissioner Easterling moved to deny the application for reasons in the staff report. The commission adopted a friendly amendment to partially deny the application: the main roof replacement with asphalt shingles was denied, but the previously installed standing‑seam porch roof may remain. Recorded votes in the meeting transcript show the motion passed with yes votes from Easterling, Greer, Moore, Nutt, Rodriguez and Strickland.

What commissioners said

- Commissioner Easterling underlined that the house is a contributing structure in the historic district and that owners are expected to follow the guidelines for in‑kind roofing material: “Your house is a contributing structure to the historic district… you need to read and understand,” Easterling said when addressing the owners.

- Commissioner Moore and others offered a partial compromise to preserve some of the work that is least visually prominent from the public right of way.

Owner and neighbor comments

Homeowner Austin Farrell told the commission the work was urgent because of a hole and water damage and that the contractor had represented he would secure required permits. Farrell said the owners had recently welcomed a baby and were trying to make the house watertight quickly.

Neighbor Jeremy Weiland, who lives across the street, urged clearer and evenhanded enforcement and said he and other neighbors were concerned about inconsistent outcomes in the neighborhood: “It seems like we’re getting nickel‑and‑dimed for minor violations,” he said.

Next steps

The commission’s partial denial requires the applicant to revise the principal roof to a material that better matches the building’s original standing‑seam metal appearance or an acceptable substitute; staff will issue the decision letter and meet with the applicant to discuss permitted options and whether any portion of the main roof not visible from the public right of way might be retained or treated differently.

— Sources: CAR meeting transcript (public comment and vote), Department of Planning and Development Review staff report.","After neighborhood comment and staff recommendation to deny substitute roofing materials, the Richmond Commission of Architectural Review denied asphalt shingles on the main roof of a 1910s house in Spring Hill but allowed a standing‑seam metal porch roof to remain.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Commission of Architectural Review: key votes and outcomes from May meeting

Commission defers decision on St. James Episcopal monument sign; asks for lower‑light display options

Commission reviews conceptual replacement for unsafe building at 2228 Cedar Street; preservation groups and neighbors urge exploration of stabilizing options

Commission permits porch standing seam, denies asphalt main roof at 510 West 20th Street