Part 7: Staff Recommendation
This report describes each of the project’s components for ease of discussion and to facilitate the review of each of the criteria that apply specifically to those components. However, the proposal is a single integrated project and the Landmarks Commission is being asked to grant a single Certificate of Appropriateness for the project in its entirety.
Based on the materials submitted, staff believe that the project is consistent with the criteria for alterations to the 1940s tower. Staff also believe that the project is consistent with the criteria for alterations to the 1970s addition. Staff further believe that the project is consistent with the criteria 3-5 for new construction for the new tower. Staff believe that, considering changes made to the new tower and buildings now included within the Visually Related Area (notably the National Guardian Life Building and 1940s Edgewater tower), a case can be made that the project now is more in keeping with criteria 1 and 2. However, the applicants have requested variances if the Landmarks Commission feels these (or other criteria) are not met. To approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project, the Landmarks Commission must either find that the project meets all of the criteria, or grant the requested variances for those criteria the Commission may find are not met.
If the Landmarks Commission finds that the approval criteria are met for the entire project, and/or variances are granted, staff recommend the following conditions of approval:
1. The design details for the rehabilitation of the exterior of the 1940s hotel tower, including but not limited to, window, door, and material specifications, and brick repair, shall be approved by staff, or by the Landmarks Commission at staff’s discretion.
2. The design details and construction drawings for the new top floor, Rigadoon Room, and front entrance element for the 1940s tower must be submitted for approval by staff, or by the Landmarks Commission at staff’s discretion.
3. Minor changes to the 1970s addition and proposed public plaza, new hotel tower, and elements associated with the underground parking structure may be approved by staff, with any major changes, as determined by staff, to return to the Commission for further approval.
"a case can be made". Not the greatest language I've ever seen in a report. So they think it meets the criteria or not. My guess is they don't but don't want to say it due to pressure from above. But I can't tell, I'm used to cryptic staff reports, but this one has me wondering what is really going on. Especially because of the memo relaying what the State Historic Preservation Officer said. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.
Just in case no one noticed -- the project has grown in square footage by over 25,000 square feet in finished space (compare 2nd TIF application of 216,769 SF with the 3rd most recent TIF application of 241,969 SF).
ReplyDeleteThis is NOT parking space square footage, we're talking about finished space.
I noticed that too . . . I was a little unclear where all that new square footage was and haven't had time to look. Where did they add it all. The other thing to note is that with the new project, they make more money.
ReplyDeleteOh, planning staff - can you say "wimps"? Brad Murphy has established a routine in Plan Commission reports. For a bad project that has politically connected people, he does not recommend rejection. Instead he says something to the effect of "others have raised concerns about a b and c. If you can find that the project complies with a b and c then you should approve it." Talk about passing the buck. Talk about giving useful recommendations from the professionals ("oh, I didn't know that was part of our job").
ReplyDeleteStaff's recommendations to Plan Commission re the Edgewater followed that old modus operandi. The commissioners reacted to that report as "staff likes it." You think the commissioners would have figured out by now that faint praise means reject it. Otherwise they did know but used the wimpitude of the staff report as an excuse for approving the project.
For the first time the Landmarks Commission recommendation follows that same modus operandi, even though it is clear as the sky is blue that a 9-10 story building is not compatible with 2 and 3 story houses. And when I called them about it, they used the excuse that the Landmarks Commission will remember that staff recommended on the first design that the project doesn't meet the gross volume criterion, but in the same breath said that setting back the tower 15 feet was a change for the better! And, why did they reiterate in bold their previous opinions for all four of the other criteria, but not this one? Something rotten is going on but I can't figure out what. Probably just scared of Dictator Dave. I'm glad I don't work there any more.