The center of the this alley forms the official divide between the Old Colony Inn from the nearby residents. Photo by Vernon Miles.
Often, the city and a group of citizens disagree on something development related. In theory, the city coordinates an effort to have the developers and citizens talk to each other, and all involved parties reach some type of compromise. That’s almost exactly what didn’t happen at the Board of Architectural (BAR) Review on Dec. 2.
Public discussion surrounding the expansion of the Old Colony Inn along the George Washington Parkway was particularly strident, even for an Old Town development project. Local citizens accused the BAR of shutting the public out of the process, while members of the BAR fired back that the public had been engaged but had refused to consider any compromise.
The core problem is that the new design is four stories tall, and local residents rejected the possibility of any expansion over three stories. Residents say the height would further overwhelm the homes around it.
“We feel this property is too big for the site,” said resident Christopher Newberry. “[It] obstructs our views and is contrary to Washington Street standards.”
By this point, the developers had approached the board with several different designs for the project taking specific criticisms into consideration. The tall chimneys had been removed, some top floor rooms has been limited in size and set-back, but the four story height remained.
“I think that in the front the preferred concept has variations in height and depth that are negligible,” said Newberry. “In the rear, developer’s presentation said they had made efforts to reduce height in rear. We would like to see heights reduced, period.”
The issue grew beyond the local residents, drawing in the North Old Town Independent Citizens Civic Association (NOTICe).
“[We] do not believe the changes meet the standards,” said Tom Soapes, president of NOTICe.
“The height of the proposed building is incompatible with neighboring heights. We do not believe this proposal should be approved.”
But the back of the building wasn’t the only issue of height facing critical feedback. Stephen Pisani, historical architect for the George Washington Memorial Parkway, argued that the building’s status on the parkway should limit the proposed expansion.
“I still feel that the mass and scale are too large for Washington Street,” said Pisani. “It serves as a transition from more pastoral setting up by Daingerfield Island as we transition into more urban section of King Street corridor.”
As the meeting went on, frustrations from the public began to boil over.
“If I was the developer, I’d be embarrassed by the submission,” said North Old Town resident Jonathan Shiner. “It clearly sacrifices aesthetic considerations for economic considerations … If I was the architect, I’d be embarrassed by my design of the building … the rear side comes close to resembling an example of Soviet-style Stalin era massiveness. If I was the attorney I would also be embarassed because of my arrogance and my condescension to the neighborhood.”
“This is the third work session to discuss the concept for this building,” said Kathy Puskar, an attorney for Old Colony Inn LLC. “We have tried to work, it is not a farce, we have gone a long way towards addressing concerns. We have tried very earnestly to address the concerns of the urban design advisory committee, staff, the BAR, and citizens.”
The BAR seemed to agree. Board member Margaret Miller made a final effort to urge the community to compromise, but it was met with laughs and jeers from the audience.
“You’re dealing with someone who's interested in what the community wants,” said Miller. “I think they’re willing to improve on it. I would work with them.”
Members of the public raised their hands to speak after the public hearing had closed, some beginning to talk before being shut down by BAR chair John Von Senden. “With what we have before us, it’s obvious that the neighborhood is opposed to this development,” he said. “To some extent, there’s such an opposition that it’s going to be a challenge to work out any compromise design, which is kind of sad. You do have someone who is willing to work with the community, that’s an opportunity that shouldn’t be forsaken.”
During a review of the building’s dimensions, members of the public repeatedly called up for the board to lower the building height, but the BAR pushed back in the opposite direction. The BAR approved the proposal, and even asked to consider bringing back the wide building bookends that had been removed earlier to reduce the building’s mass and scale.The BAR unanimously approved of the design, with the special use permit expected to be reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council in winter 2016.