Laserfiche WebLink
City Council <br />Meeting Minutes <br />March 20, 2018 <br />Page 13 of 19 <br />project if we mess with architecture. He asked for approval by Council for this project as <br />presented. He thought the retail on the first floor could be achieved easily with a note. <br />Charles Haseman, 247 S. Lark Avenue, wondered why the office space was necessary <br />downtown when there are empty office spaces in other parts of the city. <br />Cindy Bedell, 662 W. Willow, didn't think downtown needed a boxy building that doesn't <br />fit. She didn't want Council to be swayed by businesses threatening to move if this <br />project is not approved as presented. She suggested downsizing this project and <br />preserving the character of historic downtown. <br />Applicant <br />David Sinkey noted things change and the retail note could hamstring someone in the <br />future. There is no plan to finish the basement space but it can function as storage. <br />There is also no intent to use the patio space for offices. Third story is designed to look <br />like an add-on according to design guidelines. The project is intended to be its own <br />statement. He asked for really concrete ideas if Council wishes to change the look. <br />The bike spaces are depicted on the plan in the garage. He noted he will be offering <br />Eco passes to employees. <br />Erik Hartronft noted the parking spaces were based on what the City has done in the <br />past as well as the patio space; based on Code. Downtown parking standards were set <br />with the cross use in mind. Energy usage and daylighting were considered in the <br />design. He was not opposed to continuing to work on the design. <br />Mayor Muckle was interested in seeing an updated conceptual drawing. <br />Councilmember Keany noted the applicant needed something more specific in regards <br />to direction and noted design is subjective. <br />Councilmember Stolzmann felt this should be remanded to the Planning Commission <br />(PC) to address mass, scale and parking. <br />Councilmember Leh asked what the constraints on this might be. <br />City Attorney Light noted this could be remanded to PC but that would shift where <br />Council puts the comments and direction. The applicant could ask for a decision on the <br />application as presented. Notice would have to be repeated if remanded to PC. Items <br />to be focused on would need to be clear. <br />Councilmember Loo noted staff and PC had forwarded this to Council for approval. If <br />this is sent back the expectation needs to be very clear. She did not want applicants to <br />leave because of the process and the cost to their business. <br />40 <br />