1999-01-04 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

29 Mr. Gouldman clarified the record by noting that the BAR vote to deny the application was not unanimous. Ms. Richards asked if the BAR had considered the compatibility of other rooftop additions in the district when they deliberated about this structure, and Ms. Fenton said their deliberations had been confined to this building. Ms. Richards asked if the architectural character of the building is determined by the rooftop structure, and Ms. Fenton said that the building is looked at in its entirety. Ms. Camille Strachan, Vice President of the National Historic Trust and a 16 year member of the architectural review board in New Orleans, appeared at the request of Ms. Toledano. Mr. Toscano asked Ms. Strachan if New Orleans makes decisions based on architectural compatibility or a different standard. Ms. Strachan said that the process is more punitive in New Orleans if a building is constructed without a permit. Ms. Strachan said that New Orleans' standards and guidelines are similar, but they do not comrol paint color. Ms. Strachan said that they do struggle with the issue of aesthetics versus architectural compatibility and try to balance the need of the property owner and what can meet the guidelines. Ms. Strachan noted that there are times that the board does not find a design appealing, but it is approved because it is architecturally compatible. Ms. Daugherty reminded Councilors that they should consider this as a new case. Ms. Daugherty said that the applicant has the right to appeal the decision, and Council's decision will not degrade the BAR. Mr. Toscano said he will support the applicant in the appeal, but not without considerable struggle on his part. Mr. Toscano said he understands the BAR's struggle with a building that has already been constructed, but the standard is for them to look at it as if it had never been built. Mr. Toscano said he does not think it is an issue of whether the Council is supportive of the BAR, noting that the majority of BAR decisions are not appealed, and the majority of those that are appealed are upheld by Council. Mr. Toscano said he feels that Mr. Summers made a compelling case that the structure meets the criteria. Mr. Toscano made a motion to approve the appeal and the resolution presented by Mr. Gouldman, because the changes for which a certificate of appropriateness are sought Should not have an adverse impact on either the existing structure or the surrounding design control district. Ms. Daugherty seconded the motion. Mr. Caravati said that he will support the appeal, but noted that it has nothing to do with whether or not he supports the BAR. Mr. Caravati said the BAR process did not appear to be fair to the applicant. Mr. Caravati said that the structure appears to fit in with the guidelines. Ms. Richards said she is struggling with the prevailing judgment of the BAR that the addition is incompatible, but when asked if the previous structure is compatible, she is told it is. Not being an architect, she said it is hard to understand the internal compatibility of the two structures. Ms. Richards said this is not her area of expertise or what she is competent in. In future deliberations, Ms. Richards recommended that the BAR recommendations be directly related to the guidelines and not what constitutes good design. Ms. Richards said it is a tough decision to make as she wants to back up the BAR. Ms. Daugherty said that as she looks at the issue as a fresh case, she will approve the structure as she feels it is compatible, and is a simple structure on a warehouse that does not dominate. Mr. Toscano said the issues of the eaves and slope of the roof need to be clarified.