MORGANTOWN PLANNING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING
MINUTES
June 6, 2007
6:30 P.M. City Council Chambers
Members Present: Ray Hicks, Sam Loretta, Marti Shamberger, Jennifer Selin, Peter DeMasters, Teresa Miller, and Ken Martis
Members Absent: Tim Stranko
Staff Present: Christopher Fletcher, Planning Director
MATTERS OF BUSINESS:
Public Comments:
Mr. Stranko submitted a letter of recusal from the meeting.
Darlene Dunn, president of Main Street Morgantown, explained the purpose of her organization. Dunn, as a representative of the executive committee, spoke in support of the project. She continued that the residences will double the foot traffic that passes the current merchants and that the project could be an asset to promoting the downtown market with a captured market. The revised architecture will create open space and blend with the historical district.
Dan Nagowski, owner of Wings and Things Inc. and property at 1135 University Avenue, believes that this project will be a great asset to the community and believes this will bring people downtown by way of the captive market.
Alan Carlin, 41 Wilson Avenue and property owner in the downtown area, believes the $5 million dollar figure was what would be spent in the local economy not downtown. Carlin does not believe that Kane Core provide accurate information. The statement that if the Planning Commission did not approve the 12 story building they would be then build the 19 story building raised questions for him. Carlin researched Kane Core and found no telephone number listed in the area code given for the offices and that the internet website is under construction, and the offices are located at Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. He continued that David Kane has had previous tax liens placed on his properties. Carlin reviewed lawsuits and found a current suit that was for approximately $10,000.00. After speaking with the Plaintiff, Carlin was told that Kane Core’s attorney advised the Plaintiff that if pushed they would file bankruptcy. Carlin then read a statement that commented on the liquidation of Kane Core in regards to that case. Carlin believes that Kane Core is not what they are representing themselves as. Carlin commented that he respectfully requests that Teresa Miller should recuse herself because she will be leaving the area shortly and feels this decision is very important to the area.
Jason Lentz, of Stonehill PRM Realty, which is part of the venture formed with Kane Core, stated that he has had no trouble contacting Kane Core and those they are still operating and continuing to invest. Other investors in the project are in support of the 19 story structure and that if the 12 story proposal from Campus Living is not approved, they would return to the investors and move forward with the 19-story structure. He assured the commission that capitol funding is not an issue with the project and it will move forward.
Simone O’Hara, 515 Clark Street, commented on the quality of life being affected by this building. Things such as more students will require more need for police and fire, more bars, congested sidewalks, and increase of traffic, regardless of the PRT. O’Hara stated that she supports the downtown area. She continued that the stable residents are moving out of the downtown area and the unstable are moving in, and doesn’t feel an out of town firm should dictate to the City what will be done inside city limits. O’Hara wishes to preserve the old downtown charm of Morgantown.
Don Spencer, 565 Harvard Avenue, apologized for speaking in error on the project in the past. He spoke on behalf of the group that was opposed in hopes to have an impact on the architecture of the building including the setbacks and the sidewalks. Spencer now believes that this is not about specifications, but rather one or the other. Spencer stated that his feeling is that the housing is going to come, if not by Kane Core, then by someone else. Spencer researched dormitory housing in towns and realizes that there are always investors in this type of housing and the money will be available. Policy should not be made by default. There should not be a risk with the building and supports the smaller structure.
Bill Kawecki, President of the South Park Association of Neighbors, is disappointed that this is now an either/or situation. He asked questions such as: what has changed; is there still parking issues; will it turn downtown into high traffic retail area? He continued that issues that have allowed this still have not been addressed and that this can not succeed unless the City participates, and the City can not participate without causing significant change and detriment to the neighborhoods. He stated that this project does not follow the Comprehensive Plan and that the City is not watching out for the residents but is chasing a profit.
Linda Durphey, 141 Waitman Street, and David Roth, 312 Wagner Road, presented a petition of 180 signatures that are in opposition of the Riverside Center. Durphy read the petition and stated there would be no problem in getting many more signatures. She stated that this does not promote urban growth and asks the Commission to review the codes for changes to correct this problem. Roth stated the petition is to capture peoples feelings, concerns, questions, and cautions. The second part of the petition addresses the community with several aspects from sidewalks to aesthetics.
Bill Trumble, 236 Park Street, stated he is not a business owner or developer and is unsure of his position on the issue. The students are coming; the question is where they will live. If they live outside of the downtown area they will be forced to drive, if they live downtown they will be walking to class, to the bars and other areas. Generally he is not in favor of private sector projects that require public support.
Susan Riddle, Chief Operating Officer of Round Table Corporation and manager of the Hotel Morgan, Carvel Ice cream, the Warner Theatre and surrounding properties, stated that they are in support of the project. Riddle stated that the majority of people are here by some link to the University and that every project has pros and cons but the advantages outweigh the disadvantages in this situation. Through the City’s guidance the disadvantages can be addressed.
James Giuliani, 256 Prairie Avenue, read an article from the newspaper in regards to the Council members reviewing the background of the project. Giuliani stated that he believes that the Commission has made the right decision. The residents feel that no matter if it is a 600 or 1000 bed building, it will change the landscape and that it will not attract the type of development that the City wants. He continued that preservation is not addressed in the current zoning and economical development is not what Mainstreet is about; zoning needs to be reviewed.
Sam Bossio stated that Ms. Miller voted for this issue during the last vote and wanted to know if anyone could bring something back to the Commission if they do not like the outcome. The gentleman stated that all of the money will not be spent in downtown. In reference to Mrs. Riddle - there is not enough parking already for these areas. The number will increase in addition to the students with parents and visitors. He continued that Tom Arnold of the parking authority claims there is no parking problem. He continued that his family owns a parking area on High Street and if need be they can take the parking area away and get much more for the spaces. He stated that there are current housing areas that are not being occupied at this time and questioned if additional house is needed. He supported the request for Ms. Miller to recuse herself on the vote since she will be gone in less than 30 days.
Irving Goodman, 232 Wilson Avenue, addressed the footprint of the building in relation to Don Spencer’s notion to revitalize the downtown area. He continued that the problem is what type of revitalization we want.
Ron Bane, 504 Grove Avenue and 1st Ward City Councilmen, thanked the Committee Members that voted with their heart. Bane addressed the issue that the Dominion Post stated the residents wanted this project, but the people and petitions say otherwise. He spoke on what was originally portrayed and what is being proposed, such as parking decks and a bus stop. He stated that regardless if it is 12 or 19 stories, there will be issues with students walking through traffic with no cross walks because they are not allowed by State. He believes that this will back traffic up on to Westover Bridge. Mr. Bane is against this project and feels this was previously pushed through very quickly and if there were a different City Councilman on the Commission there would not be a problem.
Dave DeNardi, South Park resident, stated that when the meetings were held in the beginning there were requests that were submitted for information to Kane Core, to his knowledge they have never been answered. The issue of parking was brought up when merchants did not want to give up parking spaces to relocate the bus terminal back inside the city. He stated that this project will have a significant impact on surrounding neighborhoods, historical district and even over to developing areas in Westover.
Marilyn McLaughlin, currently a realty agent that has listings on the adjoining block where the proposed building will be located, stated there is another building there for sale by another agent. McLaughlin stated that if anyone is interested in discussing a parking garage to contact her.
Judy Spade, Café Bacchus employee, is concerned with parking and stated that she would be for the project if Council would ensure there was a parking garage. Spade stated she hopes things can be worked out.
Hicks closed the public comments.
Motion by Commissioner Teresa Miller
“In accordance with Chapter IX, §35 of Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised 10th Edition and the notice given in the call of this meeting, I, Teresa Miller, move to rescind the Planning Commission’s failure to approve a petition on May 10, 2007 for site plan approval of a major development of significant impact for case number S07-08.III/Campus Living Villages/University Avenue.” Second by Marti Shamberg.
Discussion:
Ken Martis stated he feels that Teresa Miller always votes from the heart for Morgantown and he respects her input. Martis stated he believes it is between 12 stories and 19 stories. After reading the items he will vote to rescind because he feels there is a difference between 600 and 1000 students.
Teresa Miller stated there have been comments about the microphones not working properly and asked that everyone speak loudly and clearly.
Pete DeMasters stated that when it came up one year ago he was against the project and still believes that this is not the right location for the development. He has an issue with putting 300 parking spaces across University Avenue without any means to cross University Avenue to get to them. He voted against the 12 story and now there is a letter from Kane Core stating they will build the 19 story building and that a law suit that has been filed against Council and the Planning Commission in regards to the 12 story building. DeMasters stated that to him, this is black-male and he will not vote for the project.
Marti Shamberger stated that regardless of how everyone votes, she thanks everyone for coming out and speaking on the issue and submitting petitions. She stated that even though some may not like how she votes she still thanks them for coming out and sharing their opinions.
Jennifer Selin stated she was sorry for missing the last meeting, but did watch the tapes. She looks at the project as a help to her area in the 5th Ward where there is a great deal of student housing. Students bring cars but there is a portion of students that do not have cars or affordable housing.
Sam Loretta stated that we comment on how much we appreciate the people coming out, but we need to listen to them. If this is a democracy then we represent those people.
Jennifer Selin stated she thinks there is a portion of population of people who do not come to the meetings because they are afraid. She stated that she has had comments to her from residents that are in favor of the 12 story building over the 19 story building. The design that has been resubmitted to please the residents was very nice, even though they did not have to do that.
Ken Martis commented that he wanted to be practical, realistic, and legal. At some point in the commission when something is going to happen, you have to choose what the best decision for the City is.
Teresa Miller stated she moved here because she loved Morgantown and wanted to raise her children here. She wants to be practical and legal as well. She addressed the requests for her to step down on the vote. Miller stated there were meetings, newsletters, newspaper articles, and meetings were put on television. Council holds a televised meeting each year for developers to discuss future projects. She does not believe this is a question of a 19 story building or a 12 story building and that the 12 story building meets the codes and is permitted. Miller stated she understands there are public concerns with the finances. The commission does not look at the financial status of the building only the specifications of the building. Miller went on to explain that she feels the Commission has listened and acted in the best interest of the City. Miller addressed the issue of Mr. Bane’s comments and stated she is not above the law. The law is set by code and she is not willing to do something illegal. She is not going to step down; it would be irresponsible of her after all of her efforts. She is here because she cares.
Ray Hicks commented on the public portion as the majority being in support of the project. Their decision was influenced by that public support. People are becoming interested in what is going to be developed in Morgantown. At the last vote, we voted on what we were hearing, what the public said. Hicks shared his views on Morgantown. He continued that the current zoning code is much better than before. If housing is provided in areas that are walkable, the residential area can go back to being truly residential. My initial vote was based upon what the public wanted and my second vote was as well.
Hicks asked for a call for question. Roll call vote: Pete DeMasters – no, Marti Shamberg – yes, Jennifer Selin – yes, Teresa Miller – yes, Ken Martis – yes, Sam Loretta – no. Motion carried.
S07-08.III / Perifido Weiskopf Wagstaff + Goettel: Request by Perifido Weiskopf Wagstaff + Goettel, on behalf of Campus Living Villages, for a Major Development of Significant Impact (DSI) Site Plan Review for property bounded by University Avenue, Chestnut Street, Moreland Street, and Kirk Street. Tax Map #28A Parcels #27, 28, 29, 30, 31; a B-4, General Business District.
Fletcher stated they had received the Leed score sheet and a letter between Robert Shuman clarifying the business relationship with various development team firms and a letter from David Cane to clarify questions as to whether they were going to proceed with the 19 story building.
Fletcher read the observations as the fundamental precept of local planning and zoning regulations is to balance the scale weighing private property rights pertaining to land use on the one side and community interest on the other. The fulcrum of this scale rests at fair, equitable, well-founded, and well administered
regulations that protect community interest and private property rights.
The administration of planning and zoning regulations is a process that must serve both community interest and private property rights. Community interest is protected through:
• A comprehensive plan developed through meaningful citizen participation
• Implementation standards (i.e. zoning, subdivision, etc.) that are recommended by an advisory body of citizen planners
• Constant exposure to public ideas and desires
• Legal advertising, neighbor notifications, signage, and public hearings
Private property rights are protected through the establishment of standards that each person knows in advance just what he or she can and cannot do. The standards (i.e. zoning, subdivision, etc.) assure the maximum amount of protection for private property and its investment. This assurance is routed in procedural due process. The “rules” of fair play in this kind of due process can be generally categorized as:
• Adequate notice of issues that come before the Commission
• Advance disclosure and public access to applications and accompanying exhibits pertaining to issues that come before the Commission
• The opportunity to be heard either in writing or through oral testimony at a public hearing
• Full disclosure of all statements and evidence considered by the Commission (i.e. staff reports, plans, studies, pictures, drawings, surveys, etc.) in rendering its decision
• An opportunity to question the statements and evidence presented by both sides
• Findings of fact to support decisions and to prevent arbitrary and capricious decisions (i.e., denying that which can be done within the parameters of the standards)
• Avoiding the appearance of impropriety (i.e., abstaining from issues where a conflict of interest exists, etc.) It is the opinion of the Planning Department that the proposed 12-story “Riverview Center on Chestnut” (S07-08.III) is within the standards established for the B-4 District.
Recommendation
The Planning Department’s recommendation to approve the proposed 12-story version of the “Riverview Center on Chestnut” development remains as presented at the May 10, 2007 Planning Commission meeting. Each of the proposed modifications to the site plan approved by the Commission on June 8, 2006 represent the developer’s willingness and cooperation to address many of the primary concerns raised by local student housing providers and neighborhood residents over the last eleven months:
• The reduction from 19 stories to 12 stories is in response to objections of a building that exceeded the “box” set forth by the zoning district.
• The forty percent (40%) reduction in the number of occupants is in response to concerns of the original project’s scale.
• The opening of the building footprint at University Avenue is intended to improve the quality of usable open space, provide a handicap accessible route from Chestnut Street to University Avenue, and reduce the potential need to temporarily interrupt traffic during construction along Kirk Street and Mooreland Street.
• Relocating the entrances of the commercial space along University Avenue to a newly proposed courtyard and including landscaped buffering is intended to improve the quality, usability, safety, and pedestrian orientation of this space.
• The significant increase in bicycle storage is in response to concerns that alternate modes of transportation be included and encouraged.
• The cladding material modification from EIFS to brick for a majority of the building is in response to suggestions that the contextual relationship between the structure and the surrounding built environment be enhanced.
• Each of the architectural recommendations of the Design Review Committee have been met or exceeded.
• The developer has committed to including the paving, lighting, and street furniture elements along Chestnut Street that are being used in the High Street streetscape improvement project.
• Demonstration of design observance to the LEED certification program is in response to concerns that larger-scaled developments within the City should be “green” or environmentally sensitive.
• Although not a part of the Planning Commission’s site plan review process, the proposed move-in plan for tenants presented at the June 8, 2006 Commission meeting has been modified with the assistance of City Departments so that the event is staggered and does occur in concert with WVU’s move-in event.
Concerning the issue of parking, it is common land use policy to waive private parking requirements within downtowns where effective public parking programs are established. Communities that require the development of downtown private parking, particularly for residential uses, are learning that it contributes to traffic congestion. San Francisco, CA and Chapel Hill, NC are recent examples of communities that have removed required parking from their downtowns and instituted bike parking requirements in an effort to increase residential densities, provide affordable housing opportunities, and reduce traffic congestion. It is not the intent here to compare Morgantown with these communities but to
demonstrate a shift in land use policies relative to downtown parking and traffic congestion. It remains the opinion of the Planning Department that the proposed 12-story “Riverview Center on Chestnut” (S07-08.III) development project:
• Is within the standards established for the B-4 District;
• Can serve to strengthen the economic vitality and livability of Morgantown’s urban core;
• Can serve as an opportunity to provide relief from multi-family residential development pressures within and around established Morgantown single-family residential neighborhoods;
• Can provide an affordable housing alternate to the multi-family residential sprawl occurring outside the City that directly contributes to the region’s traffic congestion. As such, the Planning Department recommends that the subject site plan petition be approved with the conditions stated in the May 10, 2007 Staff Report.
A presentation concerning the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building Rating System will be offered by the developer at the May 10, 2007 meeting. Because the proposed changes to the building height do not exceed 120’, it is the opinion of the Planning Department that the conditional use approval granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals on June 21, 2006 is no longer required.
With the exception of the opening at University Avenue, no changes are proposed to the building’s footprint along Mooreland Street and Kirk Street. Article 1381.06 of the City’s Planning & Zoning Ordinance provides that variance approvals apply to the subject property and may be transferred. As such, it is the opinion of the Planning Department that the Board of Zoning Appeals’ June 21, 2006 minimum side setback variances relieve the developer from seeking variance re-approval. The applicant has submitted the following exhibits (attached hereto) that detail the proposed modifications:
• Application
• Site Plan (6 sheets)
• Floor Plans (7 sheets)
The applicant will also present additional information digitally during the hearing that further demonstrates the development’s relationship to the surrounding built environment (i.e., massing, architectural character, etc.).
A brief project synopsis of the “Riverview Center” includes:
• A development project that includes an entire downtown city block
(approximately 39,900ft2)
• The site is currently vacant and used for parking primarily by an adjoining car dealership
• The proposed height of the structure (120 ft) is permitted by right in the B-4 District and will contain twelve (12) stories
• The structure will include 6,720ft2 of retail space fronting University
Avenue and 226 apartment units (600 bedrooms) primarily accessed from
Chestnut Street. The proposed unit to bedroom composition includes:
- 156 3-bedroom units
- 62 2-bedroom units
- 8 studio-style units
• The gross floor area of the building is approximately 306,00 ft2
• Off-street parking is not required in the B-4 Zoning District. Three (3) internal
spaces are proposed as loading facilities and for property management
personnel. The following off-site parking provisions have been presented by the developer:
- Proximity vehicle parking – Tom Arnold, Parking Authority Director noted
in an April 30, 2007 letter to Roger Phillips, Campus Living Villages, that
the Parking Authority has offered 300 spaces on a provisional basis at
three garage locations within the downtown area. Mr. Arnold also noted
that the Parking Authority is currently developing long-term storage
parking programming in and near the downtown area to accommodate
general downtown student residential parking needs.
- Remote vehicle parking – In addition, the following sites have been
presented by the developer. Both locations are currently served by
Mountain Line Transit routes:
Mountaineer Mall: 300 spaces
East Brockway (Pettito Tract): 300 spaces
• A move-in / move-out plan will be presented to the Commission at the meeting.
The proposed development project requires the following approvals:
• Planning Commission – Minor subdivision extension approval
• Planning Commission – MDSI Site Plan material deviation approval
The Design Review Committee examined the proposed development on April 25, 2007.
After an extensive presentation and discussion, the Committee voted to make the following design recommendation:
• That the design of the eastern elevation be modified to incorporate an
architectural technique that differentiates the “top” of the building thereby creating a unique visual interest when observed from a distance. The developer has agreed to submit alternate design proposals to address the Committee’s recommendation.
Fletcher read the staff recommendations as the proposed modifications to the site plan approved by the Commission on June 8, 2006 represent the developer’s willingness to address many of the primary concerns raised by local student housing providers and neighborhood residents. The scale, scope, and height of the building have been reduced and the architectural character of and the quality of open space have been significantly improved. Consideration of the proposed modifications presents the Planning Commission with a rare opportunity to address unsettled public concern for the project. For the purpose of providing cautionary guidance, the Planning Department is compelled to remind the Commission that the developer is still legally entitled to pursue the previously approved project. The Planning Department maintains that downtown redevelopment projects, which increase mixed residential and commercial uses, can serve to strengthen the economic vitality and livability of growing urban cores. Morgantown’s downtown is no different than any small to medium size downtown that is experiencing a paradigm shift from once serving as a regional magnet to finding new identity, purpose, and market opportunities. The revolution of “big box” shopping centers and consumer trends require downtown evolution. Community and economic development strategies of promoting urban downtown living is seeing success across the country. The preservation of single-family residential neighborhoods has long been a fundamental objective in Morgantown. New construction of quality student housing at urban densities and within close proximity to West Virginia University’s campuses should serve as an integral relief for the neighborhoods as well as the community’s roadway network.
Staff recommends approval of the proposed modifications with the following conditions:
• That the Design Review Committee’s recommendation concerning the eastern
elevation be adequately addressed and that the architectural design and cladding
materials presented to the Committee on April 25, 2007 be reflected in final
building permit documents;
• That final site plan submission include all required elements and be organized as set forth in Article 1385.08 of the Zoning Ordinance; and,
• That the final plat be recorded with the Monongalia County Clerk in accordance
with the Planning Commission’s decision to grant a recordation extension.
Enclosures: Application and exhibits noted above
Jim Short, president of Campus Living Property Interest, clarified that Campus Living property Interest Inc. has a contract with Kane Core and Stonehill to take over the permit if they so choose. They are not connected in any other form. Short gave a brief overview of the Campus Living Villages they have worldwide.
Alan Weiskopf gave a brief on the project in three parts. 1) Brief explanation of the urban context and site. 2) Explanation of design modifications from a 19 story to 12 story project. 3) A through description of the building design.
Kevin Wagstaff explained the description of the building by standards, requirements, and compliance of the code.
Marti Shamberger asked about people concerned about pedestrians being hit on University Avenue going to the parking area.
Sam Loretta asked how many buildings they have built.
Wagstaff stated the most recent was a 36 story-building in 2004. He stated that they have built other student housing of this size, and they have built a 5 story student housing unit in Fairfax Virginia for George Mason University. They also manage 4,000 beds in that area.
Jennifer Selin asked if residents must be university affiliated to live in the building.
Wagstaff stated they are solely in student housing business as a mandate from the investors. They will not allow non students to reside there.
Selin asked if they could be married students.
Wagstaff stated yes, by fair housing code for families requirements. Wagstaff commented on the lack of public support and reassured there would be no tax-exempt issues, they would be financing the entire project.
Teresa Miller stated she found them to be very receptive to the City and asked if they would be willing to work with the city regarding lease policies.
Wagstaff clarified it as being in regards to the community policies and living standards. Wagstaff stated he would have liked to have had more community involvement in the beginning of this project and will be happy to listen and try to assist.
Miller suggested restricting the residents to specific parking areas and enforce if not followed. Miller also suggested an overhead crosswalk.
Ray Hicks asked if a demand study had been done and how many buildings fail as a student housing and if failed did they sell the property.
Wagstaff advised they have had a few that didn’t perform as expected but they continue to manage the properties with no thought of selling. The rent will lower until the building is filled.
Hicks opened for public comment in favor.
George Papandreas stated that he is generally in favor of the project. He stated that the negative comments are given as worst case with no supporting information. He believes that the students crossing the streets will be a problem, but it can be over come. The location gives non drivers more opportunity as well as better location for students not waning to locate outside of the City. Papandreas commends the Commission on working with this project.
Don Spencer stated he was impressed with the redesign with the building. He addressed the issue of pursuing the LEED certification and questioned that the apartments could function with items such as a kitchen if they were needed for other uses. The impact should go down on other housing and assist the neighborhoods. The resources from this structure will support additional personnel and the TIF funds will assist with infrastructure.
Charles McQueen, 324 Grand View Avenue, commented on the downtown being a community that must react to normal change and that parking and density are the two issues that will be discussed. Parking will resolve itself by the time the building is ready. Density is an important part of the project. Increasing the downtown density would not have as much of an effect on residential as it would on merchants. Driving for these residents will be during off peak hours. The issue of losing the retirement community to students may not be an accurate statement.
Bill Trumble reiterated they must stop making the students drive everywhere. Trumble clarified that there are no “sweetheart deals” and no 75% occupancy issues. He addressed the promise scholarship allowing for more available money to the students. Trumble also stated that not all students have cars.
Hicks called for public comments in opposition:
Paul Steele, 220 Grand Street, says that is not totally for or against this project but does believe that this is a black-male situation. Steele stated that is lives in South Park because he likes to walk downtown and is all for things that can assist with controlling congestion. Steele asked if anyone knows of any project of this size built in the middle of town this size with absolutely no parking.
Jeff Isneracker stated in response that he is a student at Athens University and that there was a 600 bed facility in the middle of Athens with no parking but was never an issue. There were approximately 20,000 students and most do not bring a car.
Linda Durphy commented on Ms. Miller’s statement that students will park in designated parking only. Durphy inquired about the retail space.
Wagstaff stated that the parking issue has not been completed at this time and he would hope to incorporate a grocer in the retail.
George Papandreas stated the downtown community has discussed the demand for goods and services from this project and that the parking garage is only about 70% used.
Kenneth Vance, 2000 block of University Avenue, suggested that the Commission neither approve nor deny the request due to outstanding issues of finance. The opinion of the residents remains unresolved and the community needs more time to understand.
James Giuliani stated that the community needed the input from the Commission in determining the voice of the community. Giuliani stated that Kane Core will not complete the building and asked the Commission to take our time based on the use of out of state investors. The revitalization of the downtown could be affected by this project.
Bill Kawecki asked additional questions concerning this project and the implications. He stated that this is a mistake in concept for the downtown because residents will not want to utilize the Wharf if they feel they must compete.
Judy Spade, 425 Elysian Avenue, stated that having a car is a liability but there has to be infrastructure to support other means of transportation.
Sam Bossio addressed the issues of notifications, removal of parking in the B-4 District, and his projects.
Hick closed the public portion.
Discussion:
Marti Shamberger addressed the issue of finance being separate and asked for clarification if this was a TIF project.
Fletcher stated there have been no official discussions regarding that issue.
Teresa Miller commented that the City has come into a national spotlight and has drawn this company to the City for this project. The students are coming and they want better housing and that problems are changing such as biking routes and student housing in neighborhoods.
Teresa Miller made a motion to accept the proposal with the recommended conditions of the City Planner, second by Jennifer Selin. Four in favor, two against. Motion carries.
Ray Hicks stated there are going to be problems such as traffic problems but finding solutions is the issue. Hicks states he has issues with the message being the students detract from the quality of life. Hicks supported and thanked the students for being here. The majority are nice people only a few misbehave.
Hicks thanked everyone for their input.
Motion to adjourn by Teresa Miller, second by Jennifer Selin. Motion carried unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT: 9:50 P.M.