2008-05-05 - Laserfiche WebLink

Metadata

Thumbnails

Annotations

6 massing were listened to and addressed. He said there is not one identifiable style on the street, and it was felt that the building fit within the streetscape. He said the BAR felt that the building had met benchmarks and guidelines. Ms. Suokko said the neighborhood is not opposed to the contemporary design. She asked people in support of denying the certificate of appropriateness to stand and a number stood in support. She noted that the condominiums next door are four individual residences. Mr. Norris asked if the neighbors are appealing both the certificate of appropriateness or just the structure, and Ms. Suokkos said just the structure. Mr. Norris asked for those in support of the BAR decision to stand and one person stood. Mr. Craig Brown, City Attorney, said that the neighbors fall within the definition of aggrieved parties. He said Council has a de novo review per the Code. He said the legal standard is that a building cannot be erected in an historic district if it is architecturally incompatible with the district. He said it is somewhat of a reach that sustainability affects the architectural compatibility. Dr. Brown said he philosophically thinks that Council needs to be careful overturning strong opinions by the BAR and Planning Commission, and hopefully, if we reconsider their decision, it is based on bigger issues. He said we should keep that in mind as we discuss the issue. Mr. Huja said this is an interesting case, and he feels that each side presented a good case. He said architectural compatibility is the issue. He agreed that it is a legal infill project and meets many criteria. He said he likes the modern design and feels the diversity is compatible. He said he does not agree that size is a major factor. He said his major concern is context to the street and how it relates to the neighborhood. He said he is not sure it meets the human scale at the street level. He said issues still need to be revolved and he thinks it would benefit from one more review by the BAR. He suggested porches or projections to break up the front of the building. He urged Council to defer so that Council, the BAR and applicants can work more to improve the project. Responding to a question from Mr. Norris, Mr. Brown said there is not a time limit for Council to take action on the appeal. Mr. Taliaferro said he would like to see it go back for further review. He said the scale and mass concern him a little, and said he would like to see it go back for more refinements. Mr. Huja said it would make a difference if the details regarding a porch were worked out. Mr. Wolf said that the BAR wanted more details on the trellis and columns and their relationship to the street, not a porch. Dr. Brown said if we defer the appeal where do we stand on massing and scale. He said the building from an unprofessional eye does not seem out of scale. He said he supports the BAR, but is open minded to having it go back to them. But he said we need to be clear what we are asking. Ms. Edwards said she hopes additional compromises can be made. She said it is part of the fabric of the neighborhood. She said she relies on the BAR to make good decisions, and citizens rely on her to protect the fabric of the neighborhood. She said it is logical to believe compromises can be made. Mr. Norris asked whether Council wants to have the BAR look at massing, scale, or the building’s relationship to the street.