Commission continues review of 52‑unit 'Cedar Square' after hours of public objections

The German Village Commission continued its review of a major 52‑unit mixed‑use proposal known as “Cedar Square” (COA2600322) for 247 East Livingston Street after a multi‑hour hearing in which dozens of neighbors urged denial or substantial redesign.

Developers and design consultants presented revisions intended to respond to earlier feedback — breaking up long rooflines with gables, adding fenestration and reworking Blinkner Street elevations, altering some materials, and adjusting parking and landscaping. The applicant team, represented at the hearing by Kareem Ammer and architect George Bardi, told the commission they had worked repeatedly with the neighborhood and reduced density and massing in response to comments.

Public commenters pressed a different case. Heidi Horenza, a resident, told the commission, “this has no precedent in German Village,” arguing the footprint, height and massing exceed neighborhood patterns and urging commissioners to apply the codified guidelines consistently. Several speakers cited prior denials of other projects as precedent and asked the commission not to allow piecemeal exceptions. John Clark, speaking on behalf of neighbors, framed the decision as one of law rather than taste: “The question before you is whether this proposal complies with the German Village guidelines.”

Other neighbors raised similar objections about the proposal’s length, the uniform use of composite siding panels, the appearance of a broad third floor and a long unbroken facade. Opponents also asked the commission to treat precedent critically, saying older approvals should not justify a new, larger development.

Commissioners focused on detailed design fixes rather than rejecting the idea of new construction outright. Several said massing and the perceived horizontal bulk were the most important issues; others said the overall height could be acceptable if the facades were convincingly broken into smaller visual parts. Specific items the commission asked the applicant to address included: reducing or replacing extensive Hardy‑type panel cladding on visible facades; adding masonry or brick to the north elevation; providing a more restrained design for the prominent arched “hyphen”/garage opening; increasing the visual depth of units (more pronounced setbacks or recesses) to break the long roofline; and substituting narrower, approved window types and exterior light fixtures with cut sheets for staff review.

Commissioner comments recorded throughout the hearing emphasized the commission’s narrow role — applying the German Village preservation standards in city code and the district guidelines rather than deciding zoning policy. Staff reiterated the applicable code citations (3116.11–3116.14) and advised that detailed window and lighting cut sheets, plus a clearer material palette and a tree/landscape plan with species that won’t conflict with utility lines, would be required if the application returned.

After the applicant agreed to produce revised drawings and materials addressing the commission’s list, a motion to continue the application passed. The continuation requires the team to return with the north elevation masonry treatment, alternatives to the arch/hyphen, a revised approach to the triptych/roof elements, an approved windows list and light fixture product sheets, and a more robust landscape plan showing species and spacing. The commission did not set a new makeup vote that night; the application will return after the applicant submits the requested materials and drawings.

What’s next: The commission continued COA2600322 to give the applicant time to submit the specified revisions and product cut sheets for staff review and to give commissioners time to re‑evaluate the project’s compatibility with the German Village guidelines.