1999-01-04 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

28 would mask the new building and he does not think changing the slope addresses any requirements in the guidelines. Responding to a question from Mr. Toscano, Ms. Betty Driscoll, architect for Ms. Toledano, said that a member of the BAR had requested a steeper sloped roof. Ms. Joan Fenton, Chair of the BAlL said that the BAR felt that the two rooftop buildings were inappropriate next to each other, but the steeper sloped roof might help. Ms. Fenton explained that Building and Life Safety issued a stop order when it was discovered that a building permit had not been obtained for the structure. When the BAR became involved in the process, they were told they should look at the issue with new eyes and should not be punitive toward Ms~ Toledano. Ms. Fenton said that the old and new structures are incompatible and she feels that the design would have been denied had Ms. Toledano submitted it to the BAR before building it. The BAR gave Ms. Toledano 60 days, then an additional 30 days to modify the design. Ms. Fenton said that the modihcations made were somewhat better, but still not acceptable to the BAR. Ms. Fenton said that if Council approves the appeal, they will be sending a message that if someone builds without a permit, they can just go to Council for approval and the BAR will be irrelevant. Ms. Fenton said that the bottom line is that the structure is a bad design, the two rooflines do not meet together well, and it is visible from the street. Ms. Fenton said it should not be judged on the basis of it being a small project. Ms. Fenton said that a major point is whether or not Council wants a BAR. Mr. Caravati, referring to the minutes of the BAR meetings, said there appeared to be a progression where the BAR seemed satisfied with the modified design, but that changed at the last meeting. Ms. Felton said that she feels that occurred because no one on the BAR wanted to say that the building was really awful looking and they were trying to be polite, helpful and constructive. Mr. Caravati asked if Ms. Fenton feels that more progress could be made on the design with the BAR, and Ms. Fenton replied that the BAR had that discussion and the consensus was that the BAR could not support the project. Mr. Caravati requested that Ms. Fenton clarify the reasons for denial by the BAR, and Ms. Fenton said that the BAR felt that the location is incompatible and that it is incompatible with the surrounding historic district. Ms. Richards expressed concern about the process, and about the appearance of it being arbitrary when an applicant starts the process, goes through an evolution of design, and then goes away without approval. Ms. Richards suggested that the BAR, in such situations, develop a minimum set of changes, and when an applicant satisfies that request, they know their project will be approved. Ms. Richards said she feels the BAR needs to understand the impression their actions give to the public~ Ms. Fenton said it was a difficult decision since the building was already there. In retrospect, Ms. Fenton said that the BAR should probably be more direct, and noted that some BAR members did say that they did not think the design would work. Mr. Toscano said that as he reads the minutes of the BAR meetings, he has.to search for justification for the denial, and added that the BAR does not appear to evaluate the project in terms of the guidelines. Mr. Toscano said he is struggling with how the Bar makes decisions and the applicant's right to appeal. Mr. Toscano said that he thinks that good design and architectural compatibility are two different things, and asked if the BAR turned down the design because it is not compatible. Ms. Fenton replied that the BAR denied the application because it was not compatible and because the rooflines of the old and new structures together do not work and are incompatible