1999-01-04 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

27 Mr. Toscano said it is important to assure that lawyers in the Court Square area and property owners are notified about the charette because similar work done in the Corner area was funded partly by assessments on adjacent property owners. Mr. Douglas Gilpin, 1665 Brandywine Drive, representing the Preservation Alliance, said he believes tourism can be promoted by enhancing the appearance of Court Square through streetscape improvements. Mr. Gilpin recommended applying for TEA 21 for improvements on Court Square. PUBLIC ItEARING: EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY TO AJ_,LOW STABILIZATION ORDINANCE OF MOORE'S CREEK BANK 1N AZALEA PARK Mr. O'Connell said that part of Azalea Park is eroding into the creek and the exchange of land will help the efforts to control this erosion. The public hearing was opened but as there were no speakers, the public hearing was closed: On motion by Mr. Toscano, seconded by Mr: Caravati, the ordinance entitled "AN ORDINANCE TO AUTHORIZE AN EXCHANGE OF REAL PROPERTY BETWEEN RICHARD AND SHARON CASON AND THE CITY FOR PROP[ERTY IN AND ADJOINING MOORE'S CREEK IN AZALEA PARK" was offered and carried over to the next meeting for consideration. APPEAL: BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW DECISION RE: SOUTH STREET Mr. Ron Higgins, Acting Director of Community Development, explained that construction was begun on a rooftop addition on South Street without a building permit or certificate of appropriateness by the Board of Architectural Review, and the work was stopped. The owner of the property, Ms. Roulhac Toledano, appeared before the BAR four times, providing revisions to the design, but ultimately the BAR could not agree on the design. Ms. Toledano has appealed the BAR's decision. Responding to a question from Ms. Richards, Mr. Higgins said that a rooftop addition on the building is appropriate under the existing zoning. Mr. James Summers, attorney representing Ms. Toledano, said that she is appealing the denial of the application of a certificate of appropriateness for the structure which is contiguous to a previously approved structure on the room. Mr. Summers said he thinks the size, a 2,900 cubic foot structure on a 307,000 cubic foot warehouse, is important. Mr. Summers said that the structure meets the standards set forth in the zoning code and is compatible with the architectural character of property in the district; the location of the structure was mandated by the existence of the other structure on the roof to keep it from piercing the roof; and there are similar rooftop structures on roofs in the downtown area (pictures were provided to Council). Referring to the guidelines regarding alterations and new construction, Mr. Summers said that the structure, material and texture are compatible and are in harmony with the surrounding area. Mr. Summers said that the structure, comprising less than 5% of the rooftop, is in the most discreet location possible on the roof. Mr. Summers said that the historic character of the building has not been altered by the structure, the new work is differentiated from the old, the new work does not impact the old, and the effect of the change on the neighborhood is minimal, as recommended in the guidelines. Mr. Summers noted that City staff had found the general form and material appropriate. Mr. Summers said that the enabling legislation provides that guidelines are to be considered and approval shall be given unless there is a finding that the standards and guidelines are not met and that a structure is incompatible with the property. Mr. Summers asked that Council approve the application submitted on August 11, with the proviso that the extension eaves be eliminated so that the current steeper sloped roof will be allowed to remain. Mr. Summers said that the slope requested by the BAR