Planning 2017-09-28 Minutes - Board of Architectural Review Public Hearing - Alliance Realty Partners Design Review and Parking Variance

Browse Search

Page 4 Public Hearing Minutes September 28, 2017 the sidewalk; or (2) landscaping located in planters that are above grade. Once staff gets more detailed information about the utilities, they are recommending the frontage design be handled at the building permit stage. Ian Morrison , Attorney, for the applicant requested, “a friendly amendment to condition #1”, if they can establish as part of the building permit review that those easements are cumbersome and wouldn’t allow plantings to be located closer to the street. He asked the Commission if they would state for the record, if those things are true and the applicant demonstrates them they support the design solution currently being proposed. Commissioner Maestas asked about the weather protection along the façade, and said it is important to create a buffer between the pedestrian and the street Commissioner Hansen said he agreed with the applicant that if the planting strip is against the building, weather protection should not be required. He also expressed concern with the planters along the edge of the sidewalk, saying they would be hard to maintain, and wanted to know if there was another option. He said, the applicant’s explanation on Condition #10 made sense. He inquired whether staff was asking for the top treatment on the back of the building, or just the north and east facades? Staff said the treatment could be different, there may be some opportunities that weren’t explored. Commissioner Hansen said, ”I am having difficulty being at the Board of Architectural Review and there is not a design to review, so review is turned over to Administrative review.” Also, “it feels like there is work still to be done, and the language is broad.” Staff commented that the Commission can modify the language or provide direction to staff. Commissioner Martinez said, “at this stage this stuff should be ironed out.” There was extensive discussion on condition number 10, regarding what it would take to achieve a substantial horizonal articulation at the uppermost floor of the building to “create a top”. Maestas asked for clarification on the location of substantial articulation. Staff provided clarification regarding the horizontal articulation of the upper most floor. Staff referenced page 24 of the staff report of pictures demonstrating the criteria. The applicant said that a set-back at the upper level is not an appropriate solution for this project, they said that the two top floor designs on page 24 really are not applicable to their project. Ian Morrison , Attorney, for the applicant requested that the Commission support their request for a friendly amendment to condition #2, #7 and omit condition #10 because, they felt the design and the intent of the design guidelines had been met. Commissioner Mann made a recommendation to add the following language to condition #10, “To be accomplished by making the upper most floor a continual color of white except for the front corner and the gray in-set.” Commissioner Hansen and Martinez said they were comfortable with the design and thinks it meets the criteria.