Eric - I called it a bagel, among other things. Not a waffle. Let me be clear. I believe the building is too large, too high, poorly designed, does a disservice to the Village, should never have been allowed to be built, etc. No ambiguity. I think it is a disaster. Others may love it. That is why we have horse races, and some horse races have been known to be fixed.
Last night I asked what would be the total height of the building (tower) at the highest point but never heard an answer. No one seemed interested in answering that. Now I believe the Landmark says it will be 54 ft. A person who saw the drawings told me it is 55'4", I believe. We started out with, I believe, 38 ft. and three stories as the allowable limits, in the code that we paid so much for. I believe I bet Mr. Corbisiero a pizza that it would be over 50ft whem completed. I would like anchovies and baby clams, thin crust. From Villa Nova. No need to deliver, I'll pick it up.
The elevator tower looks to be above 50' already. It is also made of cement block and visible from the street, sticking up above the right side of the main entrance of the building. That material is not allowed to be used where visible from the street so presumably it will be covered with something. Mr. Carraher correctly showed me the code where it is allowed as an "encroachment" to build such things above the allowable height limits.
Mr. Cariello is correct that there is/was no variance issued for the alley property, which we sold for $15,000 to the developer, and which now has four stories above it that probably represents a million dollars in square footage at the price they are asking. There was no fourth floor variance for the Chmell property either, which now has a deck on it that is being offered as part of the square footage of the largest apartment. If a lender or buyer gets in some trouble with this later on, and sues the developer, I can envision the Village becoming embroiled, not withstanding the village attorney's opinion that it is OK. Pridence is just that.
Ms. Rush: On the subject of pavers. Point of Order: Perhaps my earlier post was ambiguous. I have been to so many meetings lately that they seem to run together. I did not say that it was approved on the 11th. I meant to say that the Plan Commission did approve the Village attorney drafting an amendment for the use of pavers in the CBD at the meeting on 9/04/07, where it was discussed and voted on as item 6A. You and attorney Krone directed that process from the floor. Remember? In other words, you said, (words to the effect that) "This is what you can do, if you choose to do it," and they did. They said, approximately, "OK, we approve it, now draft it." There was a hurry to get it printed by last Friday, and you asked Attorney Krone if he could get it ready, and he said he could. Do you remember that? I was there and saw it happen. It was unanimous. Chairman Lesniak was not in attendance, but Doug Pollack was and voted for it. Then that was drafted and presented at the Board meeting on 9/10, the one where Trustee Smith went off on everyone that tried to speak against it. No one would even make a motion to accept it, I am told, so it was, in effect, turned down by the Board. I trust that clarifies this happenstance.
