|
REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 14, 2016
<br />Angela Smith stated, In regards to how staff came up with the eight (8) stories, ninety -six (96)
<br />foot height that we had in our recommendation, that came from a Department of Community
<br />Investment policy that was introduced when Dave Matthews applied'for a height variance at
<br />Niles and Colfax. It was also used for the Sycamore project. We were looking at that as two (2)
<br />projects that had gone through the public process, and additional height was granted. Actually,
<br />Niles and Jefferson was the only one that was granted at ninety -six (96) feet in height. The
<br />Sycamore project was actually lower than ninety -six (96) feet in height. We had looked at that as
<br />the City and public process telling us that that was a change that they were willing to support
<br />with certain criteria. We felt that those criteria were met, in general, in the plan that was
<br />presented. So, we thought that there would be similar support at that height, and that was how we
<br />determined that.
<br />Councilmember Davis began to formulate an add -on question, but then he and Chairperson
<br />Gavin Ferlic briefly debated on whether or not Councilmember Davis's add -on was in fact a
<br />second, distinct question altogether. Councilmember Davis subsequently asked Angela Smith to
<br />expound on the thinking behind the two - hundred and forty (240) units.
<br />Ms. Smith responded, I don't believe that the density is what we have an issue with. If they can
<br />fit two - hundred and forty (240) units in ninety -six (96) feet of height, that wasn't our concern. I
<br />don't think we had any discussion about that being too many units.
<br />Councilmember Davis asked, What zoning would you approve for this to go forward, still
<br />preserving the intent of the project? Are we debating the zoning? The height? Could you clarify
<br />that for me?
<br />Ms. Smith responded, Sure. From an APC staff and planning perspective, we think that the
<br />zoning portion of it is a very critical aspect. Regardless of the height, regardless of the project, I
<br />don't think our staff has ever had any problem with the uses. The process is a little bit of
<br />concern. We believe the best zoning district is Central Business District. That's what the map
<br />shows. Regarding the changes that we made in 2015 to the PUD district ordinance, there is
<br />concern that the integrity of those changes will be greatly affected by tonight's decision. An
<br />approval of a PUD in any fashion greatly impacts that district ordinance that has been
<br />established, and would have a significant effect on other developments going forward. When we
<br />talk to developers to discuss what they can or can't do, if they don't like what they hear, they'll
<br />just apply for a PUD and come to the Council to ask for relief. That is a planning concern for our
<br />department. Ultimately, this property is completely surrounded by Central Business District. The
<br />uses are appropriate for the Central Business District. The height issue is really a variance issue,
<br />in my opinion.
<br />Councilmember Davis asked, So, for clarity just to make sure that I have a clear
<br />understanding —your answer to this whole situation is that if it had come through Central
<br />Business District, then it would have been given a greenlight?
<br />Ms. Smith responded, They would have had to get a height variance. Whether or not it would
<br />have gotten a greenlight, I'm not sure. If they were asking to apply for Central Business District,
<br />which is what they already have —for the zoning of Central Business District we would have
<br />recommended approval, yes.
<br />Councilmember Davis responded, So this is a zoning issue?
<br />Ms. Smith responded in the affirmative.
<br />Councilmember Davis continued, asking, And then we would deal with the height issue later?
<br />Ms. Smith responded again in the affirmative.
<br />Councilmember Dr. David Varner asked Mr. Matthews to describe to him what an aggressive tax
<br />abatement was, as he had never heard of an aggressive one despite being very familiar with tax
<br />abatements.
<br />Mr. Matthews responded, Typically, there is a form to fill out, and that qualifies it for a three (3),
<br />four (4), five (5), six (6), seven (7), eight (8), nine (9), or ten (10) year tax abatement. Then, what
<br />13
<br />
|