City Council Minutes 2017 08 15 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City Council Meeting Minutes August 15, 2017 Page 6 of 13 Number One on the Utility Plan shall be amended to read "Existing water tap and meter service to the property are to remain " Applicant Presentation. Peter Stewart, 1132 Jefferson Avenue, Stewart Architecture, stated this has been a difficult and frustrating process due to the lack of a clear definition of what a commercial premise is He stated his understanding that the approval of a PUD is to provide the applicant assurances that if the proposed PUD is approved the applicant can proceed with technical drawings required for a building permit. As long as all those conditions are met the City will issue a building permit. Likewise the City is assured the approved design will be built We have met with staff over the last few weeks At the end of the process staff provided a summary letter that stated staff has the option to require something different at the time of permitting even with the approved PUD. Over the course of the project all of the planning and building staff has changed New planners indicated the existing documentation was not sufficient and additional plans were required This requirement made financing unfeasible Stewart stated that later he was told the addition needs to be physically attached to the building if we wanted to meet the definition of premise; otherwise it will be two premises and require two taps. Given that, the project was redesigned and staff received a new concept plan However, staff now told us additional area needs to be enclosed, we redesigned again and everyone seemed to accept it. We requested this be processed administratively to save time, but staff declined to do so and additional time was required to process the application which is why the PUD extension is needed. Public Works told us if the addition is attached it will be a single premise and so we designed and submitted it that way. We designed it to meet best practices for additions to historic buildings. However, Public Works stated it looked too much like two buildings not one We are still being told it is two premises but don't understand why that determination was made Stewart stated that more recently staff has placed additional conditions for it to be considered a single premise. He stated he feels the additional requirements being imposed on this application are not applied to other applicants He stated he expects all applicants to be treated equally. He thinks the solution they proposed works, meets the design guidelines and best practices for historic buildings, meets the goals of the applicant and meets the criteria for a commercial single premise. Stewart requested Council approve the amendment and the PUD extension without the condition staff is recommending With this assurance the applicant can proceed with technical drawings. Staff has stated tap fees are determined at permitting because they are determined by final engineering plans. We are not requesting tap fee determination at this time, but we are requesting a determination for building classification We want these PUD documents to clearly specify the number of commercial premises proposed.