HomeMy WebLinkAbout220 E. OLIVE ST. - MODIFICATIONS OF STANDARDS - 27-07 - CORRESPONDENCE - (3)Ted Shepard - Matthews/Olive inquiry
IV.IV.C.
From: Clark Mapes ® L I V >- t- /I AlN S
To: Cameron Gloss; Ted Shepard
Date: 12/12/2006 1:11:28 PM
Subject: Matthews/Olive inquiry
I need to follow up last week's meeting where we discussed the Olive/Matthews inquiry by Mr.'s Vaught
and Stoner.
There was little support for rezoning to D, Canyon/Civic Center subdistrict. Changed conditions was not
found to be a plausible rationale.
There was some good discussion about support for a Modification request, with some mixed opinions.
The safe route for the developer clearly is to meet NCB standards. That's clearly the bias and the path of
least resistance. But the discussion was a little mixed regarding the possibility of staff support for a
Modification. A Modification process makes more sense because whole essence of the request is a
special project on this one site. The Modification request would be a way to evaluate its merits, say by
showing proposed massing in the context of surrounding buildings, or possibly making a simple massing
model.
The con against the idea is eroding the transition created by the NCB. The block in question and the
facing Museum block are completely consistent with the NCB. A res. building meeting the standards
would be perfect in terms of scale. The historic Museum adds to the considerations in favor of the NCB
scale.
Some questions: has the developer taken a good look at the property that would be shaded next door;
talked to the owner; is it plausible that a 5-story building really could be "as good" at mitigating impacts on
the apartment building and its yard? (The question is not rhetorical.) In the context of the neighborhood,
including the museum, is it plausible that a 5 story building would not be an interruption with a disparity in
scale?
Could the developer make a plausible case the 5 story bidg would meet a community need - housing DT
in this case? We're looking at 14 units vs 19 units, with a difference in "affordability" as well. There was
mixed feeling whether 5 units is significant or not. Thinking of, say, Dave Edwards for example, a single
unit can be a significant addition. Also - is ONLY the 19-unit building feasible? Le. is the 14 unit building
unrealistic, which makes it either 19 or none? They'd have to do a good job of demonstrating this. But if
so, it could be a consideration.
Anyway, there was a good objective discussion about it. IF the developer wants to pursue the 5 vs 3 story
alternative, they ought to do the things noted in the above two paragraphs and then meet with staff again.
It would still be just conceptual exploration of the situation for discussion. More exploration could very well
simply cement the conclusion that sticking with the standards is the most appropriate and responsible
route.
I guess I'd conclude by saying if anyone wants an answer from AP right now with no further information,
then stick with the standards. But N the developer does explore the neighborhood compatibility issues
further, we would be interested in discussing that.
fyi