2008-05-05 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

5 nd Ms. Kristen Suokko, a resident of 2 Street, N.E. said she represents six contiguous property owners and other concerned neighbors. She said the process by which the decision was made is being appealed and it is felt that the guidelines were not met. She said the issue is the character of the neighborhood and how the built form affects the neighborhood fabric. nd Mr. Fred Snyder, 506 2 Street, N.E. said that concerns about the size, scale and massing were expressed by neighbors at all the BAR meetings. He said the size and massing got insufficient scrutiny by the BAR. He read portions of the requirements in the ordinance. He said he believes the building is incompatible with the neighborhood and does not meet the guidelines for new construction. He said he does not think the BAR got or asked for the scale of other buildings in the area. He presented square nd footages for buildings in the 400 and 500 blocks of 2 Street, N.E. He said this building would be the largest by a factor of at least two and, in some cases, three times the average residence. He said the footprint appears larger because it is so big on the lot, and is grossly out of character with other houses on the street. Ms. Suokko said that the BAR is not required to consider sustainability. She said the three-car garage drives up the scale, and that and room for another vehicle are out of character with the district. She said the goal of sustainability is compromised by the number of cars it supports. She said this could help set the course for future in-fill projects. She requested that Council deny the certificate of appropriateness. Mr. David Toscano, representing Martin and Barbara Freed, owners of the nd property at 509 2 Street, N.E. said Mr. and Mrs. Freed want to move into the City from Albemarle County and want to be good neighbors. He said they will have to return to the BAR with a landscaping plan and details on the building. He asked Council to approve the certificate of appropriateness. He noted that the BAR wanted to see the building without trees shown. He noted that the property is now a parking lot occupied by cars. He presented a conceptual drawing of the building. He said the building design has benefited from the public process. He said he is not aware of any formal resolution passed by the North Downtown Neighborhood Association. He said the garage has been moved to the back. He noted that eight cars are parked behind the condominiums next door. He said the size has been reduced. He said if the building is incompatible the BAR has to turn it down. He said the building is designed to meet LEED certification and the carbon footprint is smaller than most if not all buildings in the neighborhood. He said the cars will be kept on site and will be hidden from the street. He said the key thing is urban infill. He said the BAR knew it was a big building from the beginning, with 5,748 square feet of finished living space. He said the condominiums next door are almost 8,000 square feet of finished space. He said the building will be less wide and not as high as the condominiums, and will have more of a setback. He said there will be more space nd around the building than others on 2 Street. He asked Council to look at specific guidelines. Ms. Alison Ewing, architect for Mr. and Mrs. Freed, said the Freeds wanted a house that could accommodate a family who will come in cars. She said numerous meetings were held and changes were made to the garage, there were horizontal changes, a porch was created to differentiate the massing, and the size was reduced. She said the BAR had quite a challenge, and noted that there is considerable diversity in the neighborhood. She said she tried to harmonize the building with the site, neighborhood and landscape. She said the design is modern yet contextual. She said only one car will be visible. Mr. Toscano said that the BAR, a citizen board, has done what Council has asked them to do, and he hoped Council will support the BAR’s decision. Mr. Fred Wolf, Chair of the BAR, representing the BAR, said he is sympathetic to both sides. He said the BAR saw the building on three occasions, decided the project did meet the requirements regarding massing, scale, proportion, dimension, and context with the street, and gave conditional approval. He said the BAR will look at other details. He said he thinks the neighbors’ concerns about the building’s dominance, garage and