Send your lobbyist to talk to the Mayor and get the State Journal to print a favorable story. It’s so commonplace and understood, it appears in public documents, as a matter of fact. Nevermind the rules. 
BACKGROUND>/b>
– In 2007, staff tell the developer a 15 story building is out scale and mass for the site. (see page one)
HOW TO GET AROUND IT
From February of this year, compliments of Ron Trachtenberg. (see page 3)
Dear Mr. Murphy,
As you are aware, I represent St. Paul’s University Catholic Center in its endeavor to redevelop its property at 723 State St. from a chapel-student center to a chapel-student center-residential college. We are fully aware of Planning’s opposition to this project based on its height and mass.
However, they go on, this is merely an “aesthetic” issue and we’re going to meet with the Mayor, here’s our new plans, please let him know what you think for when we meet with him.
The building changed from a 15 story building to a 14 story building.
They close the letter by noting this is a top priority of the Bishop.
No mention of landmarks related ordinance and how they can meet it, no discussion on scale and massing and how they hope to mitigate it. No discussion of how they improved the design or tried to meet various ordinance requirements.
Simply, we’re going to the Mayor and this is a top priority of the Bishop.
In March, the Planning Department’s position had not changed.
LANDMARKS INFORMATIONAL MEETING
In October the Landmark’s staff didn’t have an opinion. What the Landmarks Commission saw is here and here. It’s still very much at the concept level.
They asked for additional views, information about how the building relates to the ordinance and expressed concerns about the height.
URBAN DESIGN COMMENTS
Discussion by the Commission was as follows:
• Staff informed the Commission that the Landmarks Commission has reviewed the project, it has
concerns with the height of the building and asked for more details; as well as memos in the packet by
Brad Murphy, Planning Division Director, concerning the height.
• Can you do your program in a smaller scale?
o No. In fact the Landmarks Commission really liked the building; the issue is the relationship to
the Pres House.
No you haven’t looked at it, or no you won’t?
No we can’t. If we substantially cut the height, you’re cutting the program. Because of the cost
of construction, the housing for us is not income related.
• We’ve all seen the site. How do you marshal a project like this in such a small space?
o No differently than any other property owner with a smaller property. The crane will be internal.
It’s no different than any other tight site in bigger cities.
Actually it’s quite different because this is an active space.
• It feels like you’ve taken a building from Midtown Manhattan and plopped it down on State Street. I like
height but this doesn’t feel good for this site. I struggle with the comparison with Lucky. The difference
between State Street pedestrian mall and University Avenue, which absolutely calls for that kind of
density, they’re apples and oranges.
• I struggle how this fits into the context with height and massing. I struggle how this speaks to the
context from an architectural standpoint.
• What about the 21st Century?
• This is very, very heavy and thick and it almost competes with this statement piece.
• To me the Fluno Center feels about right height-wise. When I pass the Lucky building, it’s too tall and
the shadowing is very significant to me.
• One thing that’s missing from your presentation that’s very important is that you have eye level
perspectives of your proposal from all angles.
• It’s very clear to me that you’re trying to squeeze 50 pounds into a 5 pound can.
• You have too much program for your site in this location.
• I struggle with height. You’re trying to put too many uses here and to me it just doesn’t fit.
• What discussions have you had with the Pres House?
o They’re still looking at the project.
• As this proceeds we will need to see shadow studies. The quality of light in that public space is going to
change drastically, as will how people use it if it’s going to be a shaded space.
• Contextual elevations are going to be critical, looking down the street. A vertical figure ground modeled
in a way that the roofs of the buildings aren’t modeled dark.
• How are deliveries proposed to be handled on this site?
o There are some existing easements between St. Paul’s and the Pres House for trash pick-up and
deliveries. They will continue on this corner of the building coming out at Fitch Court.
• Taking a 14-story building and just lopping off the top 8 stories and saying, “see how this doesn’t
work?” That’s not really fair because you’ve designed this building as a 14-story building.
• Most of us are in favor of density and mixed-use, but there may be way too much trying to go into this
building. The site may just be too small to accomplish what you want in this context.
• I don’t think the building is contemporary at all.
• What kind of thought has gone into promoting the building to the public? How does the building
interface beyond these small little student lounges with the public realm?
o Within fulfillment of the program we don’t have the room for a huge terrace in front of the
building. The entire entry point is at grade and opens up to the State Street Mall.
• Give some serious thought to where the compromised size is that can still accomplish your goals.
• I’m a little disturbed to see letters from staff going back to 2007 saying essentially what we’re saying.
You need to work through that programming and make some of those hard choices, or at least show that
you have and what are the trade-offs.
PLAN COMMISSION MEETING
Daily Cardinal report of Plan Commission. Even the guy who would let you build a building as tall as physically possible says the height may be an issue.
But the State Journal calls it a “warm reception.”
AND A BETTING PERSON WOULD SAY?
Approved as is? I’m sure its good for economic development, so we must do it, right? And the Mayor and Bishop want it. Screw the laws, lets look at it “holistically” instead.
28.04(3) Scope of Regulations
(n) Any development on a zoning lot adjoining a landmark or landmark site for which Plan Commission or Urban Design Commission review is required shall be reviewed by the Landmark Commission to determine whether the proposed development is so large or visually intrusive as to adversely affect the historic character and integrity of the adjoining landmark or landmark site. Landmark Commission review shall be advisory to the Plan Commission and the Urban Design Commission.
(Cr. By Ord. 11,648, 8-20 & 8-26-96)
The proposed building is 30 ft (+/-) taller than the Memorial Library which had to lop off a floor or two to preserve the view from Bascom Hall. Must be due to divine intervention.
Sure looks visually intrusive to me. And I remember that Memorial Library had to reduce its height to maintain sight lines from Bascom to the Capitol. Has that requirement now also gone by the wayside?