Laserfiche WebLink
REGULAR MEETING December 12, 2016 <br />considered in relationship to the height, and that's why I made the decision. I think, otherwise <br />though, the rest of those different development standards that exist within the CBD per our plans, <br />as Jitin outlined, deal more with the use aspects rather than some of the design aspects. Some of <br />the design aspects that were concerning, the developer worked with them on that. That was <br />outlined in the letter that we had sent a while back. <br />Councilmember Broden stated, So that's updated and that would be incorporated in— <br />Mr. Pawlowski interjected, stating, Yeah, I think anything that we submitted, automatically <br />being part of the record, actually is part of the overall public file on it, at this point. All that is <br />public record. <br />Chairperson Ferlic attempted to close the portion of the discussion of Bill No. 41 -16 devoted to <br />questions, but Councilmember Broden protested, stating that to approve these PUD's, Council <br />needed to go through all the relevant different uses and development standards. <br />Mr. Matthews responded, The design standards we went through with staff, and we went through <br />before the City Council Meeting and the Informal Meeting. I'm under the impression that there <br />weren't any objections to the staff's recommendations, which we then modified our PUD <br />application to meet, but if you have objections to any of those, I'm happy to talk about them, I <br />guess. I felt like we've moved beyond all those questions, and the only thing outstanding was <br />height and who is paying for the garage. <br />Ms. Smith stated, I believe you're talking about the Downtown Design Review Area? Ms. Smith <br />then explained what that entailed to Mr. Matthews. She stated, I think she is asking you if you <br />would be okay with following the downtown design guidelines in this project. Mr. Matthew <br />expressed that his internal design standards were way above the downtown design standards. <br />Ms. Smith stated, Just to clarify, as part of the Downtown Design Review Area, if he were to do <br />anything outside of that, he would go in front of the Design Review Committee who would grant <br />any waivers to that. One of the things with the PUD is that our department is tasked with keeping <br />track of any commitments or anything made as part of this. We have a chart where we have been <br />trying to follow any development standards and anything that the Council would recommend, <br />which we would incorporate also. For instance, we have incorporated in here that so far as what <br />he's represented, it says the parapet height will be one - sixty -two (162) feet, the overall height <br />would be one - seventy -five (175). I would actually encourage the Council, if they pursue the <br />PUD, to not hold him to the square - footages outlined in the presentations that he's made. In past <br />projects, we probably would have had to hold him to that, but because this is a Central Business <br />District kind of project, and there could be some flexibility as the project develops, we don't <br />want to get into a position where we would have to say, "You only represented that there would <br />be two - hundred (200) square feet of residential —you can't do two -ten (210)." Any references to <br />square - footages of the per -use, we would recommend that you would not incorporate those items <br />from the record. Some of the larger issues were: the main floor of the building shall contain at <br />least three (3) entry points, one of which would be a residential entry; the area east of the <br />existing Commerce Center would be reserved as open space accessible to the general public; the <br />ground floor shall be a nonresidential use. I don't know that there's any of those in there that Mr. <br />Matthews should have any objection to. <br />Mr. Matthews asked Ms. Smith if she had the parapet height in her record as one - hundred and <br />sixty -three (163) feet or one - hundred and sixty -two (162) feet. Ms. Smith responded that she had <br />one - hundred and sixty -two (162) in her record and corrected it to state that the parapet height <br />was set at one - hundred and sixty -three (163) feet. <br />Councilmember Davis asked Ms. Smith if she had seen the proposals sent to Council over the <br />weekend by Mr. Matthews, to which she responded that she had. Councilmember Davis asked <br />what Ms. Smith's thoughts on Mr. Matthews' proposals and the Mayor's letter were. <br />Ms. Smith responded, Our recommendation, as the Area Plan Commission staff to the Area Plan <br />Commission when we're looking at land -use issues —we still look at whether or not it's <br />consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The only option that gets close to the Comprehensive <br />Plan would be Option E. <br />21 <br />