Council
Punts Project Back to Commission |
By Jorge Casuso
May 1 -- After hearing from more than 65 speakers last
week, the City Council on Tuesday sent a controversial addition
in the Third Street Historic District back to the Landmarks Commission,
which will take up the project for the fourth time.
In a highly unusual, if not unprecedented, move, the council chose
not to vote on the homeowner’s appeal of the Landmarks Commission
decision to reject the project after its architect Michael Folonis,
who chairs the City’s Architectural Review Board, suggested
the option.
 |
| North (side) elevation of
the proposed project (left) next to existing historic structure |
Angry neighbors, who vehemently opposed the modernist rear addition
they said overwhelmed the quaint 1905 historic structure at 2617
Third Street, once again packed the council chambers to hear first
hand the council’s eagerly anticipated decision.
“The architect realized that the community is divided, and
we can all open our minds,” said Mayor Herb Katz, who made
the motion to follow the homeowner’s request and send the
project back with “substantial changes.”
“I think this is a major step in trying to heal,” said
Katz, who is an architect. “I think this is important to do
this for the good of the community.”
The vote was opposed by Council members Ken Genser and Kevin McKeown,
who argued that the owner didn’t need council direction to
take a substantially changed plan to the Landmarks Commission.
“To let it go back through reapplication is a cleaner way
of doing it,” McKeown said. “I think this particular
building was inappropriate. We really should say, ‘No, that
really didn’t work. Let’s start clean with a new, substantially
different application.’”
McKeown said he wasn’t convinced sending the project back
would result in much more than a delay.
“I’d have a question whether there’s really any
hope that a satisfactory conclusion is going to be achieved, and
we’re just not putting it into another loop around and creating
another year or two years of uncertainty,” he said.
The project -- which failed to win the necessary four votes when
two Landmarks Commissioners recused themselves -- would be substantially
changed under the resubmitted design, Folonis told the council in
a letter.
The new design would change the flat roof into a pitched roof,
alter the color and windows and perhaps enclose the porch, Katz
said.
Genser thought that given the testimony of the neighboring residents,
the proposal would fall short and fail to win the approval of the
commission.
“I think one of the issues is the view from the neighbors,”
Genser said. “The perceived mass of the structure needs to
be reduced substantially. . . and lowered substantially.”
Bloom agreed that the proposed design was not in keeping with he
neighborhood.
“The new addition overwhelms the property,” he said,
adding that “the modernist design is not something that offends
me.”
McKeown went further, saying the 1,213-square-foot addition should
be considered as a separate structure. “What we’re looking
at here is a whole new house,” he said.
Council members said they were disturbed by an emotional battle
that pitted neighbors against each other.
“I’ve seen a lot of intolerance here,” said Council
member Pam O’Connor, who noted that the owner was called a
“carpetbagger” because he had moved in from out of town.
“I think we need to be more tolerant of other views.”
Bloom, who made a friendly amendment to direct staff to explore
how other cities resolve neighborhood conflicts, agreed.
“What’s been disturbing is the level of conflict and
polarity,” Bloom said. “There’s nothing worse
than a neighbor dispute.”
Council member Bobby Shriver said he sympathized with the owner,
who is single and lives in the house with his girlfriend. “This
man must be able to build a house he can live in and raise a family,”
he said.
But Shriver said he was disturbed by the level of animosity and
encouraged the neighbor, who hired a top local land use attorney
to represent him, to try and work with the neighbors.
“To see such radical misunderstanding with neighbors, how
can they be that furious with you,” he said. “They’ve
been trooping here night after night. They’re that cross.”
City Attorney Marsha Moutrie, who has held the post for 16 years,
said the council’s action may have been unprecedented.
“We’re never had this situation before,” she
said of the motion to send the project back to the Landmarks Commission.
|
