And that's why I originally quoted a remark by Gary Jastrzab of PCPC
that you ignored in the original news article, and that you just ignored
again: “Initially we had major issues with the height of 11 stories. But
with the cut-outs," added Jastrzab in reference to the five rooms that
were removed from the hotel’s top story, giving it the appearance of a
reduced scale from certain angles, "the staff views this development as
a very difficult trade-off.”
Therefore, PCPC did not "ignore" height and scale in the 2nd hearing; it
responded to the developers who had responded to the 1st hearing. So
that's what happened to this issue in that venue. If you scrub
Jastrzab's explanation, it makes it sound like scale was ignored when in
fact it was addressed. Might as well leave it in, since it will not be
unknown to ZBA.
Was it addressed well enough? That's a question awaiting SHCA's and
ZBA's decision.
-- Tony West
UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN wrote:
but pcpc couldn't justify approving the hotel's height and scale in
the face of neighbors' opposition and a pcpc staffer's reservations
(even after the developer's revisions). so pcpc tabled their decision
in may, scrubbed the neighbors' testimony from their minutes, and
instead used an approved traffic study months later in september as
their justification to approve the hotel -- while telling the
neighbors they would 'get used to' the 'shock' of the hotel's height
and scale.
the hotel's height and scale was always an issue that pcpc considered.
they chose to ignore it, to minimize its importance, and to choose,
instead, another issue (traffic) as their reason for approving the hotel.
that is why I originally asked: 'what happened to the main issue: the
hotel's massive scale and height and footprint?'
----
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
<http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
