Planning Commission Minutes 2015 09 10

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 10, 2015 Page 16 of 21 are narrowing Front Street as part of the Front Street design. South Street will keep the same number of spaces except we are gaining one with this project. The Front Street project with South Street will lose four parking spaces. Brauneis says on South Street, when you push the angle in the opposite direction, everything moves down. Russ says we don't think there is a loss on that side of the street with the streetscape. They just flip angles. Summary and request by Staff and Applicant: Staff supports the project. Closed Public Hearing and discussion by Commission: Tengler says he is ambivalent about this project. I have no objection to the size, the scale, and the usage. The Downtown Design Handbook suggests that "the building should utilize similar materials as what is established in Downtown and be a product of its own time." I think it accomplishes a product of its own time because it sure doesn't look like the other structure it is being attached to, which is of a different time. This feels more like something that belongs out in the Tech Center. I just feel it looks like it is totally disassociated with the original property. I don't know that I am really in favor of it because of that. I probably would defer based on the fact that the HPC is more adept at reviewing this kind of stuff than I am, but I just think it is kind of an eyesore compared to the original structure. It doesn't fit. Russell says I think as I understand it, when you are adding a structure to an existing historic structure, you have to differentiate from the original structure. It has to be evident in looking at it, what was the original structure and what wasn't. I actually think the scale is appropriate. If you perpetuate these historic structures, the town turns into a set piece. It just doesn't look authentic. This adds some variety to the landscape down there. I am supportive of it and I understand why it looks so different. Moline is in support. Brauneis is in support. O'Connell is in support. Russell is in support. I suggest that we strike the third condition. I don't like conditions that restate requirements that exist already. I would like to ask the Commission what they think of adding a condition that either requires successful completion of the Iandmarking process or payment in lieu for the parking requirement. There is a particular public benefit in Iandmarking. It is nice that they are preserving it. Without it, I don't think it is out of good will of the community. I think it is practical. I ask if we should require completion of that or payment in lieu for the parking. Tengler says he does not understand the connection between the two. The Iandmarking seems to be independent of the parking because, by virtue of the curb cut going away, we gain the space. Russell says we don't gain a compliant parking space because it is off -site. What the staff report says is they recommend that we allow the waiver and the loss of a parking place, because of the public benefit of Iandmarking the structure; not just preserving it, but Iandmarking it. Tengler asks Staff to comment on that. I thought the waiver was almost a concession because we were going to gain that off -site space that was directly related. McCartney says that is how Staff looked it. We were justifying it in two ways, either Iandmarking or getting the spot off -site. We see it compliant either way. Even without Iandmarking, I think the additional space on the street does satisfy the need and necessitates the reasoning behind it. It is in the queue to City Council on October 20, 2015. It has gone through the HPC.