Architectural Review Board Meeting   3/18/2024

Could you call the roll, please?

Mr. Mr. Van Der Werf?

Here.

Mr. Stoner?

Here.

Mr. Hancock?

Here.

Mr. Henningsen?

Here.

Mr. Matsuno.

Here.

Thank you.

Do any ARB members have anything to disclose?

No.

No?

No.

I have a disclosure that if we are still in session at 2 40, I will have to head out and I will hand things over to Frank.

So seeing as everybody's here,

So are there any members of the public that want to make a comment about a project that is not on the agenda for review?

No.

We could.

Mr. Henningsen.

Aye.

Mr. Hancock.

Aye.

Mr. Stoner.

Aye.

Mr. Matsuno.

Aye.

Thank you.

Chris, do you have a presentation ready?

Yes.

Thanks.

I'd be happy to answer any questions you all may have.

Frank?

Frank?

Does the applicant have a presentation?

Say those things, and if you have any comments or any suggestions, we will hear them and try to address them with the next round.

Frank Stoner.

I guess the only question for you is the notion of relegated parking in the context of what is essentially a drive-through fast food.

Cars are in the drive aisle.

I guess it looks like there are two spaces maybe in front of it.

Yeah, the staff question is more on the two parking spaces, or the combination of all, but more emphasis on the two parking spaces in front of the building.

Okay, so if they eliminated those two spaces, would it be potentially conforming?

That would be a big improvement.

We'll try to figure something out.

We were hoping that there was a way to reconfigure maybe the dumpsters and maybe the back portion of the, you know, behind the main portion of the building to reconfigure it to get additional, you know, to keep the number of spaces and still move those to perhaps.

Any questions for me?

Hey, do you have any questions?

Thank you.

It's beautiful instead of at night.

Tara, do you have any questions?

And then when you say you're up against it in terms of the parking count, could you just clarify what the requirement is?

in seated eating is not I mean the world has changed right so most restaurants don't really it's not a it's not a huge loss for them it's not a huge issue for them but it is just so you know that is a smaller footprint than their standard building great thank you all right thanks I I don't have any questions all right thank you all right are there any members of the public that would like to make a comment I

I guess we'll start with Frank Hancock.

So I think that helps this application.

Thanks, Dave.

All right, Frank.

I think these guys have covered it.

In that case, anybody like to make a motion?

No amendments.

If we could put it to a vote.

Mr. Henningsen?

Aye.

Mr. Stoner?

Aye.

Mr. Matsuno?

Aye.

Mr. Van Der Werf?

Aye.

Thank you.

Home Depot Final Site Plan, Margaret.

So our recommendation is for approval with the changes that are listed in the staff report.

Tara, do you have any questions?

No, I don't.

No.

Frank?

Does the applicant have a presentation?

We're happy to answer questions as well.

I guess we'll start with Dade if you have any questions for the app.

I guess a question is how deep is the sidewalk at the primary entrance or the distance to the travel or fire lane?

Either Megan or maybe David Ellington listening can look it up for us.

All right, Frank Stoner.

Do you know what the material is in the upper?

Let me ask one of the architects to come up and explain.

Can you repeat the question?

In the lower one, it appears to be the same material all the way down.

And I believe that's what you're seeing.

All right.

Do I have that right?

There's probably a few that still haven't been entirely, but the intent is to incorporate all of them with the final submittal.

Thank you.

Do we have an answer for Dade's question?

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

All right, thanks a lot.

Thank you.

I guess we'll start with Frank Stoner.

But otherwise.

So, yeah, I don't know what other things.

All right, thank you.

Frank Hancock?

So I don't have anything else to add.

Thanks, Tara.

So just in terms of process, how we can move to keep things moving and also ensure that all of the relevant comments and issues are resolved eventually.

I don't think it would need to be returned to you.

I guess I could go either way on the canopy also, but have a slight preference for the latest version.

Six is better than three.

Ten would be even better.

There's probably a point where it's like, maybe at 15 you started to push it, but whether that's something that the applicant would be open to or whether that's something that the board would be interested in moving forward with.

So I'm satisfied with that personally, but.

I think it's a nice feature for people coming out if it's raining, but that's not an architectural issue.

I'm okay with the six.

So I guess we could take a look at the motion.

I don't know if that's what was intended by beam.

Yeah, technically the depth of the beam is the same, but the canopy is steeper.

Strike three and add the same language from one.

I'm sorry, I didn't hear the last comment.

Is that what was intended by the comment or was it intended to be the vertical height of the beam?

The actual, uh, kind of like vertical depth of that beam.

That's great.

Does anybody have any other items from that list that need further discussion or modification?

No.

The final site plan was the conditions listed in the staff report amended as follows to indicate that on number one, the revised design shown in the meeting is acceptable to the ARB to change the word beam in item number three to canopy and to add that the six-foot depth shown in the meeting is acceptable to the ARB.

If we could call that.

Mr. Van Der Werf.

Hi.

Mr. Matsuno?

Aye.

Mr. Stoner?

Aye.

Mr. Hancock?

Aye.

Mr. Henningsen?

Aye.

Thank you.

Okay, so our last regular review item is ARB-2024-22, Rio Point Final Site Plan.

Okay, yeah.

All right, and thanks a lot.

I guess, Frank Hancock, do you have any questions?

Thanks, Chris.

Taro?

No, thank you.

Dave?

I seem to recall at one point there were buildings because it had cables and maybe more broken roof forms on their length but that's a prior application.

Okay, thank you.

All right, Frank.

Ground floor color change, I think, shown on

All right, I don't have any questions, so we'll move on to the applicant's presentation.

I'm gonna turn it over to Jonathan to go over some of the elevation updates.

The only change that can be seen for these buildings was just, again, where we added the landscaping to show how we're screening the mechanical units around each of our buildings.

See if anyone has questions for the applicant, starting with Tara.

The hallway that cuts through from the front and the back of the building.

The stair tower there?

So in 200 it's proud of the building, but on 100 it's in plain with the

One just projects out past this three bedroom unit and on 100 it's even if not slightly recessed from that three bedroom unit.

No.

That's something we could look at.

and some of them intersect with that volume and in others it has a

One of the reasons is because on building 100 this unit has the Juliet balcony so the unit as a whole does not project out as far and then once you get down to building 200 it does have the balcony that projects out so it kind of called for us to have to push the stair tower out some more and show you back on the site plan.

And if there's no technical reason why that couldn't be achieved in those entrance corridor fronting buildings, it seems to me that that is a more consistent expression of the stair tower that you've introduced.

So just so I understand, projecting the stair towers on building 100 to match how they project out on building 200.

Yeah, and I think my particular issue is the way that the roof returns back and dies into the stair tower rather than having the stair tower be proud of the building and have those stair towers end at the sides of the stair tower.

Dade?

Or are there any other options that you've considered to step the wall in line with the guidelines?

I believe we're right at the limit we need for parking and due to the site if we do reduce the parking in this area there aren't really any good options currently for relocating that parking which is why we left the parking as it was over there and in turn left the wall the way it is.

Do you have any other alternatives for stepping the wall or creating more space for the planting at its base?

Can you clarify the comment specific to the landscape in the wall?

You were saying like safety as the main... Just walls over six feet visible from the entrance door should be stepped and landscaped.

You're going to have sort of a tunnel there and it might be a bit odd.

Instead of creating that tunnel vision effect, like we can think about how the landscape could be more layered and maybe that'll help with some of the, taking some, a layered landscape might help detract away from that wall as well.

I guess the other question, this one's probably more architectural, is are there any feasible ways to break the continuous ridge and roof form of buildings 100 and 200?

I believe we were trying to accomplish that just by moving in those balconies to see if we could create some variation just by moving in those

Their ridges are somewhat prominent and sort of declare the overall scale of the building in a way that, well, the buildings are large in scale, but is there anything that can be done to break down the perception of that at the roof form?

Initially, no, but if that's something that would be required, then we could look into our options for trying to break up that ridge line some.

Well, thank you.

All right, thanks, Frank Stoner.

Right.

Yeah, there's, it drops off pretty quickly right on the other side of the sidewalk there.

I'm guessing it's, I don't know if the perspectives would show that, but.

But you do have a lot of layers already in there.

Thanks, Frank.

I guess we'll start with comments from Dade.

All right.

Frank Stoner.

Otherwise, I'm generally comfortable with the recommendations of staff and conditional site plan approval.

Frank Hancock?

Seems like we're now down to just kind of the final few comments, but I feel like we're getting pretty close.

An element that's present on the interior of the bar because currently it's pretty prominent and it contrasts pretty strongly with the effort that's been going on on the center of that building.

Because these two buildings are different ones as far as, because are you speaking specifically to the three bedroom units?

Like if you go to the perspectives, and I know they haven't been updated, but they haven't changed substantially that that unit on the corner there.

Yeah.

You know,

So that would definitely be visible as well.

It's the major point I was concerned with, so thank you.

So if we could take a look at the recommended motion.

I think most of 1 through 10 are really technical issues just coordinating things that are needed for coordination.

Dave?

Thank you.

No, thanks.

All right, I think we're good then if anybody wants to make a motion.

Steph, it's a question if the board wanted

Do you want to see back any of 12 through 15 in addition to number 11?

Is that something that can be done on a staff level?

Sure.

12 through 15, a couple of those seem more important than the retaining wall.

And if it's just, if we aren't sure, we could just bring it back in that case.

Is Dade or Taro for 12 or 13 or 15?

12 is fairly straightforward to interpret, I think, at a staff level.

I think that's a good point.

Do you need to see it again?

So I just wanted to see that you all felt comfortable with 15.

I think it could be a good item if not brought back to the other business.

So I feel comfortable moving forward if you are.

So in that case, does anybody want to move to

I'll move to approve the final site plan with the conditions listed in the staff report amended as follows which includes the addition of 12 through 15 I'll second Mr. Henningsen Aye

Mr. Hancock?

Aye.

Mr. Stoner?

Aye.

Mr. Matsuno?

Aye.

Mr. Van Der Werf?

Aye.

Thank you.

It is for the Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines Addenda for Route 20 South.

Happy to take any comments, suggestions, questions.

So Frank Hancock, do you have any?

So Mariah, she did a good job.

Yeah.

Just vacation.

Thanks, Dade.

I was reminded too, I guess Route 53 remains not an entrance corridor, is that

It is an interest quarter.

Okay, great.

Unlikely we would ever have to review an application in this corridor, in this section of the corridor anyway.

Right in the middle of that.

Is something with a special use permit?

Possibly.

Shelltower.

I think it looks great.

And then to the zoning map?

The other thing we might see is rezonings.

I think Galaxy Farm maybe started out as that and Greenhill, let me check.

That's the gross area.

If we could put that to a vote.

Mr. Van Der Werf?

Aye.

Mr. Matsuno?

Aye.

Mr. Stoner?

Aye.

Mr. Hancock?

Aye.

Mr. Henningsen?

Aye.

Thank you.

So like probably we'll be on April, I don't know, Frank, will you be on April as well?

I'm tentative, it's also my birthday.

Oh, but you'll definitely want to be here.

How's the agenda looking?

We have two items.

Can we move it the week following or what's the best way to make sure this can happen around then?

We can try to reschedule the meeting if that's your preference.

Or we just we don't meet and they go mid-April?

The two items that are are they bumping up against their

What I'd like to do is contact the applicants and see if they're okay with pushing it to the 15th, but just in case it's an issue for anyone, would everyone be available on the 8th?

What were you doing next week?

I'm sorry, did you say next week?

Yeah.

Except that the staff reports won't be ready for you.

Yeah I should be able to do the 8th and I guess if folks can confirm as well the 15th.

I can't do the 8th but it sounds like there's a quorum.

Okay we'll contact the applicants and we'll get back to you and let you know what will work.

Thank you, thank you, thank you guys.