Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Design Guidelines topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
BAR begins wide-ranging review of design guidelines and review process; members seek clearer workflows and district-specific guidance
Summary
Board members and staff opened an extended work-session-style discussion on updating Charlottesville’s design guidelines, seeking clearer checklists/workflows for applicants and staff, district-by-district descriptions, consultant analysis, and better alignment between zoning and preservation guidelines.
Members of the Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review spent the bulk of the meeting discussing planned updates to the city’s design guidelines and review processes, flagging a series of operational and policy challenges they want the updates to address.
Staff framed the effort as a district-by-district review that will include ADC, IPP and historic conservation districts and suggested staggered timelines. Board members pressed for clearer, more objective district descriptions and a public-facing flowchart or checklist so applicants can know in advance whether a project will be handled administratively or will come before the BAR. Several members said inconsistent processes and the absence of a clear checklist create uncertainty for applicants and can lead to repeated iterations that add cost.
The group discussed tensions between the new development code, which allows larger height and massing, and the BAR’s historic design guidelines, noting projects such as those on 7th Street and downtown that highlighted the mismatch. Members recommended a consultant-led analysis to produce objective language and subdistrict guidance, a prioritized GIS inventory of contributing resources, and a staff-produced checklist to clarify administrative approvals.
Speakers also raised broader concerns about housing affordability and whether design-review processes are unfairly singled out for project infeasibility; several members said construction costs and financing are major constraints and urged reuse and renovation strategies where appropriate.
Staff and members agreed on next steps: prepare a list of specific analysis items for a consultant RFP, draft checklists and flowcharts for administrative review, and produce GIS-based inventories and district descriptions to inform rewrites. The board indicated it will share those materials with city council as appropriate during the next stages of policy review.
