The German Village Architectural Review Commission on Dec. 3 continued the Certificate of Appropriateness review for Cedar Square, a proposed demolition and new‑construction project at 251 East Livingston Avenue that would replace a noncontributing office building with a four‑story, mixed‑use building containing 67 apartments and 38 parking spaces.

The commission, applicants and several dozen residents spent the meeting debating whether the project’s scale, massing and lot coverage are compatible with the German Village guidelines. After more than an hour of presentations and about an hour of public comment, the commission voted to continue the application to allow applicants to supply additional visualizations and details.

Why it matters: The site sits on Livingston Avenue, a perimeter corridor the guidelines treat differently from interior cottage blocks, but neighbors, preservation professionals and commissioners said the project’s footprint and height still risked altering the historic block’s character. The application pits competing public priorities — neighborhood preservation and the city’s push for more housing near transit and jobs — against each other in a dense, largely built‑out neighborhood.

What the applicants said: The design team told the commission it had substantially revised earlier concepts. “Our first submission had, you know, upwards of 98 units. Over the course of our discussions, we’ve now dwindled those to 67,” a design team member said, noting the removal of garages from Blankner and additions of landscaping and material changes intended to reduce visual impact. The applicants stressed the existing site is dominated by a parking lot and an office building they characterize as noncontributing to the historic fabric.

Public objections and concerns: Multiple residents urged the commission to reject or substantially downsize the proposal. “Cedar Square’s size and density are far out of proportion to nearby homes and commercial structures,” said Mike Evans, who said he lives across Blankner Street and warned of traffic, parking loss and safety hazards if the project proceeds as proposed. Several commenters raised the project’s lot coverage — residents referenced a figure of roughly 81% lot coverage in public remarks — and argued the building would create canyon‑like conditions that block light, reduce green space and jeopardize the contributing status of nearby historic structures.

Support and balancing arguments: Other speakers, including a longtime resident and a former GVC chair who submitted a letter read into the record, urged the commission to apply the guidelines fairly and noted the project has been substantially scaled back. “The project addresses massing, materials and details appropriately,” the former chair wrote, recommending conditional approval subject to final materials and detailed drawings.

Commission questions and staff guidance: Commissioners repeatedly returned to three core concerns — whether the proposal amounts to a commercial building (which may be treated differently under the guidelines), whether lot splits/consolidations proposed to assemble the project site improperly alter historic parcel patterns, and how visible the stepped fourth floor would be from public ways. Commissioners asked for additional evidence to resolve these points, including clearer sight‑line studies, more precise material and landscape plans and a breakdown of lot‑split effects on adjacent historic resources.

What happened: The commission voted to continue the application so the applicants can provide the requested sight lines, clearer elevation studies showing fourth‑floor visibility from public vantage points, and more detailed landscaping and materials submissions. The motion to continue passed by voice vote.

Next steps: The applicants will return with requested documentation. Commissioners repeatedly said they might be open to a three‑story massing that is clearly compatible with surrounding buildings but remain skeptical of a visible fourth story without further mitigation. The continuation keeps the project on the commission’s track but delays any final decision.

The record: The exchange included sustained public comment from nearby residents, a written letter from a former long‑serving commission chair read into the record, a lengthy applicant presentation, and detailed commissioner questioning about guidelines, precedent and lot consolidation. The hearing closed without a final vote on the COA; the commission set requirements for additional visual evidence and details before the next hearing.