2006-05-15 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

7 th Mr. Caravati asked if parking access was considered from either Sadler or 14 Street, and Mr. Funk said none of the parking plans could be accessed from Sadler. Mr. Caravati asked about massing guidelines, and Mr. Funk reviewed the guidelines. Mr. Funk noted this is the first project in this area since designation as an design control district. Mr. Caravati said the compatibility arguments seem like larger arguments, and he asked why the applicant considers the building to be compatible. Mr. Funk responded by saying he does not know why it is not. He said that the width and height of the building has to be kept to 200% of the those in the surrounding area. Mr. Lynch noted the 22 foot topography difference, and asked how much vertical space there is between the sidewalk and building. Mr. Funk said a level plane was created for the ground level and parking. He said there is roughly a 12 foot drop at one corner and 8 foot drop at another to the sidewalk. Mr. Lynch said he thinks the applicant has a better case for a waiver since the project started before the designation as a design control district. He asked if there was waiver, would we waive the ability to ensure that the building would be constructed as presented at the design review. Mr. Brown said there is no provision in the City Code to allow a waiver by Council. He said a decision was made by the City’s zoning administrator that the applicant did not have a vested right, and that decision would have to be appealed to the Board of Zoning Appeals. He said Council’s decision is whether to uphold or reverse the BAR decision. Mr. McCallum said he sees it as Council hearing the issue for the first time. Mr. Caravati said he thinks the main issues revolve around massing and parking. th He asked if taking the parking entrance off of 14 Street would require downsizing of the building because they could not meet the parking requirements, and Mr. Funk said yes. Mr. Lynch asked if stepping the building down with the grade had been considered, and Mr. Funk said that could be done but it would affect parking access. He said he does not want to do interior retaining walls. Ms. Hamilton said it is by accident that this is the first building in this design control district. She said it is a bit unfair that pressure be put to make this a landmark building, though she understands the desire for a better, more individual design. She said this block is not in keeping with the area the district was chosen to protect as most structures are non-contributing and relate more to the adjoining commercial corner. Mr. Caravati agreed with Ms. Hamilton. He said the parking entrance violates the compatibility with the surrounding area, but he sees no way around that. He said the only way to get at what the BAR wanted would be to reduce the structure. He said he feels the building blends in. He said it would take the applicant six months to start the project over again. He said is not comfortable with the current landscaping proposal. Mr. Lynch said it is difficult to come to a finding that this design is appropriate in an historic district because of the parking garage, massing, and the way it cantilevers 12 feet over people on the sidewalk. He said he feels sympathy for the applicant because it started before the design control district was in place, but he thinks it would set a terrible precedent to say the building is appropriate. He said he would be interested in how it would be possible to mitigate the towering of the building over the street. He said the access to the dumpster is also questionable. He said he thinks the applicant would have a stronger case with an appeal for a waiver.