Laserfiche WebLink
92 <br /> <br />thinks the process followed was appropriate and the BAR's decision should stand. Mr. <br />Wassenaar continued that he feels it is important to maintain the BAR process and if Council <br />thinks there are issues of density and access, then these should be addressed through the <br />Planning staff and site plan revie~v process. <br /> <br /> Responding to a question from Mr. Toscano, Mr. Wassenaar stated that density is a <br />zoning issue relating to the number of residents and mass is a visual issue, with decisions <br />made on the compatibility of a structure with others around it. <br /> <br /> Mr. Vandever asked Mr. Wassenaar if he thinks the mass of the proposed development <br />is a problem and Mr. Wassenaar said that he did not. <br /> <br /> Ms. Slaughter stated that she is concerned with the aesthetics of having a second <br />building on the same lot and asked if this is unusual in the context of the block. <br /> <br /> Mr. Wassenaar replied that he did not think the proposal was unusual and said that it is <br />not an uncommon architectural concept. <br /> <br /> Responding to a request for clarification from Mr. Toscano, Mr. Gouldman explained <br />that the appellant has the burden of showing that the BAR made an incorrect decision under <br />the ordinance. Mr. Gouldman stated that neither the density, drNeway, nor access should be <br />issues in Council's decision. Mr. Gouldman added that he has seen no evidence that the ten <br />day notice requirement was violated. <br /> <br /> Responding to a question from Mr. Toscano, Mr. Gouldman explained that decisions <br />by the Planning Commission are advisory to Council, while the BAR is assigned the duty of <br />interpreting the ordinance and making decisions, and therefore a certain degree of weight is <br />attached to their decisions. <br /> <br /> Mr. Vandever asked whether the proposed development is compatible with the B-4 <br />zoning of the property and Mr. Gouldman said it is. <br /> <br /> Ms. Daugherty stated that she thinks in a way the proposed development could help the <br />historic district by removing the bad parts and renovating the historic building. Ms. <br />Daugherty noted that the new structure is proposed to be in the style of the surrounding ones <br />and is not very visible from the street. <br /> <br /> Ms. Slaughter expressed concern that the decision may set a precedent of allowing <br />secondary buildings on properties. <br /> <br /> Mr. Satyendra Huja, Director of Community Development, stated that Carter-Gilmer <br />condominiums are similar in that it is a secondary building on the site of an historic property <br />and the same criteria was used to incorporate that building. <br /> <br /> Ms. Daugherty stated that she feels the fact that the lot is deep makes it different than <br />one of average size. <br /> <br /> Ms. Slaughter stated that while she thinks the developers have been creative in their <br />approach she continues to be concerned with the visual impact of the development. <br /> <br /> Mr. Toscano stated that he feels it is safe to say that the issue revolves around the <br />development's mass. <br /> <br /> Mr. Vandever stated that he thinks the development will be a positive addition and <br />fulfills the ordinance requirements, and he did not see a reason to change the BAR's decision. <br />Mr. Vandever made a motion to affirm the decision of the BAR. <br /> <br />Ms. Daugherty seconded the motion to affirm <br /> <br /> <br />