2008-08-18 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

12 them on what the BAR and Council seemed to be looking for. She said changes have been made to the plan. She said the BAR retains jurisdiction to approve details not approved last March. Ms. Christina Suokko, a participant in the appeal, said she did not feel the original design met the guidelines regarding size and scale. She said Council asked for a compromise. She said she thought the BAR showed ambivalence about the design. She said the new design has not been seen by the BAR. She said she agrees that the new design addresses her main concern, and said she would be very pleased for the BAR to take action on this design. Ms. Suokko said she thinks the resolution before Council will contribute to a muddy process. She said she thinks the BAR would act quickly. She said procedurally she would like to start with a fresh slate. She said she is primarily concerned with setting a precedent for downtown. She said the guidelines are not specific enough. She said the procedures need to be made much clearer. She said she would like Council to formally dispense with the March scheme. Mr. Fred Schneider, a participant in the appeal, presented a petition showing support for this concern and for specific legislative for oversized development. Mr. David Toscano, 628 Evergreen Avenue, attorney for the applicant, said it is nice to hear the efforts by the applicant recognized. He said he hopes Council will approve the applicant’s revision dated August 18. He said the process has been lengthy, time consuming and has used a lot of resources. He noted that this matter went before the BAR in November of 2007, in January of 2008 and in March of 2008. He said the appeal was heard by Council on May 5, 2008. He said it went back to the BAR in June of 2008 with a little different design. He said some members of the BAR had some issues with some of the changes, though they liked the concept of opening up the porch. He said subsequent to that meeting changes were made to the porch. He said he hopes Council will dispose of the matter tonight so the applicant does not have to go back with a major submission to the BAR. He said Council can take the design heard in June by the BAR and approve new changes. He said the BAR will retain review of the final details, not the big submission. Mr. Toscano asked that the resolution before Council reference all design changes as of August 18. Mr. Norris said we are all on the same page with what we want which is shown in the latest design. Mr. Toscano and Ms. Allison Ewing, architect for the applicant, made some clarifying amendments to the resolution. Ms. Jennifer McKeever, 1140 Locust, counsel for the neighborhood, said she feels the expertise of the BAR is needed to review the new design. She said notice and transparency is missing from the process. She said she is not sure this is the way we want to do design. She asked that the new submission go back to the BAR. Mr. Fred Wolf, Chair of the BAR, said he thinks any other issue is open for discussion with the BAR. He said he felt like the design moved in a good direction, but noted that the BAR as a whole has not seen it. He said refinements of the design were embraced by the BAR. He said it would not warrant going through the process again. Mr. Norris said he wants to send a strong signal to the BAR that they are not being asked to retool the design. He asked for clarification that Council is being asked to approve the certificate of appropriateness. Mr. Brown said that in this context Council can approve the certificate of appropriateness, and Council can put on any conditions that it wants. Mr. Huja said if you look at the building, 90% is the same as it was, and the remainder has been improved. He said he thinks the process has worked fairly well. Dr. Brown said an important issue has been raised: does the City have the tools to regulate size. He said we should take a look at this. He suggested that the Mayor appoint