11-14-16 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 14, 2016 looking across LaSalle in the same general area, one showing where the proposed building would be located, and a more distant view of the property from LaSalle. Ms. Smith stated that the developers are proposing a mixed use development on the site. The Site Plan on file with the City Clerk's Office shows up to a one - hundred and seventy -five (175) foot tall mixed use building with a four - hundred (400) foot long span along LaSalle that wraps around the corner. There is a proposed hundred (100) foot tall parking structure that is located in the center of the lot to service the site. A small portion of the site would be used for service parking and access. The proposed PUD allows all the uses within the Central Business District and adds group residence, manufacturing retailer, electric retailer, and a relay or public utilities substation. The PUD district standards include regulations for signage, parking, lighting, and various other items that are handled in the full ordinance presented to the Council. The assigned sections have been expanded a little bit to increase building coverage and allow for a roof sign, but the lighting and loading sections are consistent with the Central Business District. Ms. Smith stated that there has been much discussion regarding concerns about the shadows that may be cast from the proposed building. Ms. Smith presented an image captured from a simulation showing shadows cast by the building at the proposed height of one - hundred and seventy -five (175) foot, on four key points of the year — specifically, the Vernal Equinox, Summer Solstice, Autumnal Equinox, and Winter Soltice. Ms. Smith presented another image depicting shadows cast on the same days by the building if constructed at the allowed sixty (60) feet height, as currently allowed in the Central Business District. Ms. Smith then presented an image showing what the project might look like, with buildings to the left of the proposed building in the image scaled to the approximate height of the Pointe Apartments, located to the north of the project. Ms. Smith explained that as a Planned Unit Development, this project follows a slightly different process from the typical rezoning. The process is outlined in the provided map. It starts with the concept to the plan to the staff, which has been presented in a formal petition for zone map change, the PUD district ordinance —which is the fullest of development standards for the project—preliminary site planning, and the addition of materials that may be requested. It is then reviewed by the Area Plan Commission and sent down to the City Council. In this case it came to City Council with no recommendation from the Area Plan Commission. Ms. Smith listed the standards in 2015, when the PUD ordinance was amended, in which are outlined the intents of the PUD: to establish compatible and efficient mix of land uses and open spaces; to ensure compatibility with the Comprehensive Plan, surrounding development, and future development needs; to establish a creative approach in building design for architectural compatibility; to achieve flexibility and provide incentive for development that will sustain a wider range of choice and satisfaction to the changing needs of the community; and to provide for an individual land or combination of lands not otherwise specified elsewhere in the ordinance. The standards further express that a Planned Unit Development section of the ordinance specifically states that the PUD district is not intended to be used for permitted uses or special exception uses which are provided within another district of the ordinance, or for the development seeking relief from development standards within a district in which the use is permitted. Ms. Smith stated that in addition to not meeting the PUD development district standards, the proposed standards do not meet some of the other requirements of a zone map amendment as outlined by State law, which, Ms. Smith added, Mr. Magliozzi could address. Larry Magliozzi, Executive Director of the Area Plan Commission, with offices on the 11th Floor of the County -City Building, assisted with the presentation. Mr. Magliozzi noted the rarity of a dual presentation and staff report for zoning, but further emphasized that this was perhaps one of the most important zoning decisions brought before the Council in recent memory. Mr. Magliozzi explained that when reviewing redesigner requests, one must give reasonable regard to four (4) criteria: a reasonable regard to the Comprehensive Plan, of which the East Bank Plan is a part; to current conditions in character, from the area of the neighborhood or the immediate blocks; to the most desirable use for a piece of property; and to the conservation of property values. Mr. Magliozzi stated that, over the past months, there has been a great deal of discussion within the Area Plan Commission and the Zoning and Annexation Committee, and many intricate details have been conveyed to the Council regarding matters such as: the side treatments of the building; open space versus public space, and how that will be used in connection with the 5