It was brief, but important. Waterfront setback ordinance is different than they recommended, why they are not acting on the 1965 ordinance, what does the protest petition mean and requests for additional information.
BUSINESS BY MEMBERS
Eric Sunquist says that the shoreline setback ordinance will be before the council and there is a change in the ordinance and it is different than what the plan commission recommended.
Brad Murphy, Planning Unit Director, says there is a substitute ordinance on the council agenda. The substitute and the plan commission recommendation will be there. The sponsor is recommending the substitute.
Julia Kerr says while they are on Edgewater related items, she says there was a protest petition was filed, what would be the plan commissions role in that.
Murphy says there is not role for the Plan Commission, it is filed with the City Clerk and the City Council has to get ¾ vote to affect the zoning. He also points out that in the event that the boundaries of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) are expanded as proposed at the Urban Design Commission (UDC) last Wednesday, then there would be a new PUD to consider. In that event, new public hearings before Plan Commission and UDC.
EDGEWATER ITEMS 8, 9 AND 10
Nan Fey, the Chair says that these items are recommended by staff for referral pending a recommendation by Urban Design Commission. She says she hopes people read the next two paragraphs that explain where they are in the process. As Mr.
Murphy says they may be looking at a different project in the future. She says recommendation is referral on 8, 9 and 10, but if commissioners have questions or requests for additional information the commissioners may ask.
Motion to refer, could hear who made or seconded it.
Lauren Cnare asks why they can’t act on number 10 tonight. She says it feels more universal than the project proposed.
Murphy says number 10, the amendment of the 1965 ordinance that provided for the vacation of a portion of the Wisconsin Avenue is directly related to the project before us, the proposed Edgewater expansion and if it were not for the project before us, they would not be amending the ordinance. In discussing with the city attorney’s office, they felt it was better to keep them together so the ordinance only gets amended if the PUD and Conditional Use get approved.
Sundquist mentioned these before, but asks them to reinforce, getting a permit for the pier or concrete notion of what they can get. Not sure why they waited. The second is that they added some more parking and it will serve NGL (National Guardian Life) and so he had asked them to bring the TDM plan and now they will need NGLs commitment on that end as well.
Tim Gruber says he didn’t attend the UDC meeting, but the reason they referred it is that the revised plans came in too late.
Murphy says the changes were provided at the meeting.
Gruber says that didn’t give them time to consider the changes or follow our standard practice, is that correct.
Murphy says yes, they were at a level of detail that reflected what the applicant could bring forward to reflect the changes, recognizing that they not only have to do the design work, but also get authorization from the current property owner to bring those changes forward, so they did not have time to generate the level of detailed plans that UDC would normally see.
Gruber asks if when they see the next set of plans, can they have more of the dimensions shown on the plans, the buildings and the space.
Kerr says that she was hoping they could get some understanding of the amendments from 1966, 67 and 71 and she is wondering if page two of Zellhoefer’s memo from Jan 22nd would have to be revised. The second paragraph discusses the setback and thinks it will need to be revised due to the new plans. Also wanted to remind city staff and hoped to see included a draft operating agreement and maintenance agreement for the plaza. Understands why the applicant wasn’t able to provide the full thing, she was at UDC and thought they made some major improvements. No fault of theirs, just the fault of time, but she would reiterate her request that they should receive information in the regular course of business in their Friday packets and have them entered into Legistar.
Judy Olson says that the packet did not have a façade of the South facing portion of the building and she would like to make sure that is in the packet. Facing the Capital.
Fey says all facades. Olson agrees.
Someone says something off camera about elevations.
Fey thanks everyone for heeding the cautions about email and other ways of conducting business on this project and keeping your own council until they have a project before them. She says this is an unusual project given all the attention given to the project and she appreciates their integrity on that.
Motion to refer passes.
