11-14-16 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 14, 2016 Councilmember Karen White stated that the staff report indicated that five (5) items of intent for PUD were not met, but that she had heard a counter - argument from some of the presenters that they had been met, excluding the height. Councilmember White asked for a response to that by either Angela Smith or Larry Magliozzi. Angela Smith responded that she did not know necessarily how the counter - presenters said the five items had been satisfied. Councilmember White responded that she did not know whether Ms. Smith should respond or Mr. Matthews. Mr. Matthews stated that it might make more sense to list the points that were not met and hash it out. Ms. Smith stated that there are five (5) points, but two (2) emphatic points that she could recall without referring to her notes: that the PUD district not be used for variances, or uses that are allowed within a district —that has not changed with their presentation material, either. She listed the other points. First, to establish a compatible and efficient mix of land uses and open spaces. The APC says that it agrees that it is a compatible mix of uses, but the only comment was that they would like to see more open space along the river. Second, to ensure compatibility with the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Smith stated that she felt that APC has sufficiently stressed the fact that they do not consider this project compatible with the Comprehensive Plan. Third, to establish a creative approach to building design and architectural compatibility. The APC has yet to see much detail on the building design, and in fact, at the pertinent time, had not been privy to the elevation details presented to the Council. APC would probably agree that the project was moving in the right direction, but it still lacks a lot of the human scale and interaction at the ground floor that APC was looking for, and it is still unknown how the building functions internally. Fourth, to achieve flexibility and provide for incentives for development that will sustain a wider range of choices in satisfying the changing needs of the community. Ms. Smith stated that this one is vague and hard to address. Without seeing the internal layout of the building, it is hard to determine how this will fully function and how the wider community will be serviced by some of these things. Dave Matthews stated, One (1): we can't use this just as a way to avoid getting variances. That's why we are able to get this far in the PUD, because in our PUD application some of the things we applied for, we could not get as a special use or special exemption at the time. It is part of the reason. we applied early in the process, so as to make sure we were able to get this in before other rules changed with zoning and group housing. Two (2): establish open spaces and compatible uses. If we did a simple variance, we would ask for extra height and we could build almost whatever we wanted. With this, we expanded the PUD area to include the area east of the property, which we dedicated to the public. It's private area that we maintain. Mr. Matthews then referred to a slide showing a map of the property. On the right side, along the East Race, that whole area from Colfax to LaSalle is buildable land we could build on. We are making that public space, meaning that we will maintain. Even if I died and someone else owned it, if someone else wanted to build it, they would have to come to the City Council and say that we want to put a structure up. Is that okay? Unless that happens, this stays as it is. Three (3): do we use creative building design and are we architecturally compatible with the neighborhood? Absolutely. The pictures that Velvet showed of what we want this building to look like absolutely add to the character and quality of this neighborhood. These details we want to put on our buildings are gorgeous. We could build a one -story strip mall with a parking garage on the corner that would be awful. It would not add to the character of the neighborhood. That's not what we build. We care about this neighborhood. We care about how the buildings look and how it affects our daily lives when we see them, when we walk by and take photos with them in the background. Everything we try to design, we try to make gorgeous and timeless. It might not win an Architecture Digest award this year, but kind of like the LaSalle Hotel is a hundred (100) years old, it still looks good. This building, with its four (4) different building designs in it, will still be beautiful not just a decade from now but a hundred (100) years from now. Four (4): are we achieving flexibility for the changing needs of the community? Yes. Absolutely. We make it so that if you have four people that want to live together, they can. We have one (1)- bedrooms if you want to live by yourself. If you want to couple up, if you want to have kids, if you want to be lus