 Chair Kincaid, Chair Moussir, and staff just letting you know that we are waiting for a few more board members to join us before we can start. Right, thank you for joining us. Board Member McHugh, if you can please test your audio and video for us. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Thank you. Sure. Sorry. No worries. Loud and clear. Thank you. Board Member McHugh's arrival, we do have a quorum for the Cultural Heritage Board at this time. And we are waiting for a quorum with the DRB for four voting members on the item present. We're waiting one more. Just a reminder for everybody that's out there, if you could please put yourselves on mute until so we don't get feedback or hear conversations. And thank you for joining us, Board Member Wagill, if you can test your audio and video for us. Howdy. Right, thanks for joining. With that, Chair Kincade and Chair Moussir, we have a quorum for both boards, and we are ready to start when you are. Hi, Friday. As am I. All right, if all board members can please turn on their videos. Thank you. Okay. Welcome, everybody. Like to call to order the Design Review Board and Cultural Heritage Board special meeting, noticed and agendized for today, November 23, 2020, at or after 5 p.m. And I do believe we find ourselves that after 5 p.m. here, you see that Board Member McHugh has not turned on his videos, so I'll wait. There he is. Okay. Before we get into the agenda, I want to acknowledge why we're here in this format. Due to the provisions of the Governor's Executive Orders, N-25-20 and N-29-20, which suspend certain requirements of the Brown Act, and the Order of the Health Officer of the County of Sonoma to shelter in place to minimize the spread of COVID-19, the Joint Cultural Heritage Board and Design Review Board members will be participating via Zoom webinar. Along with that, members of the public have been afforded the opportunity to both join through the Zoom webinar, access through phone conferencing, and this meeting is live-streamed on the web, on YouTube, and is being broadcast on Comcast Channel 28. With that, if I can get a roll call from the Recorded Secretaries, please. Thank you, Chair Kinkade. Let the record reflect that all commissioners are present from the Cultural Heritage Board except Board Member DeBacher and Vice-Chair Fennell, as well as one vacancy. And for the Design Review Board, let the record reflect that all board members are present. I believe the board member has passed. Thank you. Okay. On to item number two, Approval of the Minutes. We have two sets of minutes. We'll take item 2.1, which are the minutes from October 15th, 2020. Any board members from either Cultural Heritage Board or Design Review have any comments or changes to those minutes? All right. Seeing no one come forward, those will go into record. Next up is item number 2.2, which are the minutes from October 21st, 2020, which was a joint DRVCHB meeting as well. Any members of either board have any changes to those minutes? All right. Seeing no one come forward, we'll go ahead and put those into the record. There will be multiple opportunities for public comment this evening. This first item number 3, public comment, are for items that are germane to these two boards. Before we open that item, I think I'm going to switch the agenda or go with item number 4 ahead of item number 3, where we read our statements of purpose. That way we all know what is germane to each of these two boards. So with that, I'm going to go ahead and read the statement of purpose for the Design Review Board. Design Review Board zoning code chapter 20-52.030F project review. The review authority shall consider the location, design, site plan configuration, and the overall effect of the proposed project upon surrounding properties and the city in general. Review shall be conducted by comparing the proposed project to the general plan, any applicable specific plan, applicable zoning code standards and requirements, consistency of the project within the city's design guidelines, architectural criteria for special areas, and other applicable city requirements, i.e. city policy statements and development plans. That's the Design Review Board statement of purpose. And with that, I will hand it over to Chair Muser to read the Cultural Heritage Board Purpose. Thank you, Chair Concave. Cultural Heritage Board, the Cultural Heritage Board shall consider the following matters, standards, guidelines, and criteria to the extent applicable in determining whether to grant or deny a permit. Whether the proposed change is consistent or incompatible with the architectural period of the building, whether proposed change is compatible with any adjacent or nearby landmark structures or preservation district structures, whether the colors, textures, materials, administration, decorative features, and details proposed are consistent with the period and or are compatible with the adjacent structures. Whether the proposed change destroys or adversely affects an important architectural feature or features, the Secretary of the Interior standards for rehabilitation and guidelines for rehabilitating historic buildings. Such other matters, criteria, standards as may be adopted by resolution of the Cultural Heritage Board, Ordinance 26681988. Thank you, Chair Muser. Okay, I'll bring us back up to item number three, which is public comment. This would be a time for a general public comment on items germane to either the Design Review Board or Cultural Heritage Board. Each speaker will be allotted three minutes, and if you're here to speak on agendized items, we will hold public comment for those items when the items are ordered. So with that, I'll open it up for public comment. Thank you, Chair Concave. At this time, we do not see anybody raising their hand. We'll go ahead and give it a minute. Just so the board is aware, we probably have about 10 to 12 members of the public in attendance tonight. The rest being staff and applicants. Always good to know. Thank you. And at this time, no one is raising their hands. Okay, sounds like the members of the public are here for the agendized items. So we'll go ahead and close this public comment period and move on with the agenda. Item number five, Board Member Reports. Anybody from the Design Review Board have a Board Member Report to offer? All right. Seeing none, how about Cultural Heritage Board? Anybody from the Cultural Heritage Board have any Board Member Reports? I have just a couple of things, Chair Concave. First, I'd like to just mention that all the Cultural Heritage Board members received an invitation from Sherry Meads to participate in the downtown station area historic resource evaluation process as far as selecting a company to perform those duties. I just wanted to mention how important I think that that is that the Cultural Heritage Board participate in that process. And to ask if any of our board members are interested in doing that, either let me know tonight or possibly let me know by maybe Wednesday of this week. I don't want to leave Sherry waiting, waiting too long. So it's because her process is moving forward. And then I also want to say that I did meet with four members of the St. Rose neighborhood basically to discuss just the whole neighborhood and various issues going on in the neighborhood, upcoming potential projects and various needs. So it was a great meeting. I know they're going to be reaching out to other Cultural Heritage Board members if you have the time. It's a well worth taking your time. That's all I have. Thank you, Chair Muser. And I'll give a quick Board Member Report. And it's mainly just acknowledging an email that we received this afternoon from Mike Maloney, Recording Secretary for the Cultural Heritage Board. It was a very nice thank you email and some instructions. And the only one left out on the thanks and shout outs was Mike Maloney himself. So I wanted to say thank you for keeping us straight and putting all these things together in conjunction with Patty on these joint Cultural Heritage Board and DRB meetings. So thanks, Mike. With that, we'll go ahead and move on to Department Reports. Mr. Rose, Ms. Murray, any Department Reports for us this evening? Yeah, just a few things. Thank you Chair Kincaid, Chair Muser, members of both boards. Thank you for being here tonight on this special meeting. Excuse me. Just to follow up on Chair Muser's comments about the historic resource evaluation RFP. We're going to also extend that invitation and offer to the DRB. So the DRB should be on the lookout for that memo as well. I think it would be very helpful to have a DRB member. So if any of you have an interest, please let Chair Kincaid or myself know and we will pursue that. Very similar to that, we have another RFP that went out. It went out on November 10th and it's for the Missing Middle Housing Initiative. This is intended to provide by right process for housing in specified areas within the city. The number of objectives associated with this produce hundreds of new rental housing units in the low to moderate income range, create a new and diverse market for affordable by design housing types, add diversity and resident type and income level to standard single family neighborhoods, add infill density to low density areas of the city and design and scale compatible to single family neighborhoods, increase the types of housing units available to meet the demographic and cultural needs of the city and inform the public about the Missing Middle Housing through a comprehensive community involvement strategy. Just like the HRE, historic resource evaluation, we're also going to extend this to both boards. So this is something we would like to get. If there are board members interested on this, we'd like to have them participate as well. So Amy Nicholson, senior planner will be sending this out to the boards as well. We have a little bit more time on that. So hopefully we can get the deadline out to you with the message that goes out as well. So be on the lookout for that. Lastly, I wanted to mention with the recent election, the results of the election, numerous openings will come up on all of the boards, the planning commission as well. We will have an opportunity to see some new faces. I just wanted to remind all of the board members that the policy is that you serve until replaced. So if your appointment is one that may have someone else in it in the future, we ask that you continue to serve until replaced. We shoot for a target of February 1st to have all the new members seated. We sometimes have gone a little bit past that, but hopefully we'll be on target this year. And then certainly if you're still interested in serving, please by all means fill out an application. You can submit that to the city and you can certainly be reappointed. We've even seen board members from one board or commission end up serving in another capacity on another board or commission. So there's always that opportunity. Anyway, that's it for department reports. I just wanted to remind you of that. So thank you. Hey Bill, what was the name of that housing initiative again? Just for my own brain. Yeah, let me just get in here and to give credit to Amy Nicholson. She wrote what I was reading so we know it's perfect. It's the missing middle housing initiative. So we'll get that to you here shortly. Thank you, Mr. Rose and Miss Murray. Any department reports on your end? No department reports. I'm wearing a different hat tonight. I'm the project planner. So thank you, Bill, for covering that for me too. Perfect. Thank you. Okay. Moving on to item number seven, statements of abstention by board members. Are there any board members from either designer view or cultural heritage board that need to abstain from our sole item 8.1 this evening? Yes, this is board member Gordon Brock. I'll need to abstain due to the involvement on the design team for this project. So I'm sorry. Thanks. As always, no need to apologize. And since you'll be leaving us, happy Thanksgiving to you and your young family. Yes, thank you to everyone as well. So be safe. All right. All right. It looks like board member Gordon Brock successfully left the meeting. So we will continue on to our scheduled items. The one we have is item number 8.1. This is a public hearing for the flats at 528 E Street, file number PRJ20-005. Before I hand it over to senior planner Miss Murray and welcome any ex parte communication disclosures, which would be meeting with the applicant visiting the site and those type of things. So I'll start out by saying that I visited the site, both drove through the neighborhood in my vehicle and physically walked along both sides of E Street. I'll jump in and say that during my meeting with that I disclosed earlier, we did talk about this property and then walk over and look at his property as well. Have been past the site a couple of times twice in my vehicle to observe the site and the surroundings just in the past week. I guess I went to the site way back when we saw this project originally, but I haven't been since. I walked up today and I went by it last week. And I spent quite a bit of time in the entire vicinity, probably an hour. Visited the site a number of times, most recently about a week ago, and had nothing further to report. I too drove by the site in my vehicle and when we first saw the project I got out of the car and walked around and viewed the neighborhood and surrounding area, including the parking garage. Okay, thank you for those disclosures. And now with that I'll hand it over to Senior Planner Murray for a staff presentation. Trying to share my screen here. Am I successful? Yes, thank you. Okay, so again, good evening. And Chair Kincaid and Chair Muser, sorry, you got a lost for words there and members of the boards. Hey Susie, sorry to cut you off. Can you go into the presentation mode before you start your presentation? Yes. Thank you. Thank you. I thought I hit that button. So the project before you this evening is the flat set 528 B Street. The project proposes to construct a five-story mixed-use building. The use itself is permitted by right. The ground floor of the mixed-use building would be designated for commercial uses and the upper levels two through five would be comprised of 24 residential units, both one and two bedroom units. The actions before the board this evening is preliminary design review, which both boards would be asked to act on and a landmark alteration that requires of the Cultural Heritage Board. The project as I said will include 24 housing units, which gets us 1%, which is significant towards our goal of market rate housing. Here's an aerial of the project site as it's constructed today. It has limited parking in the rear but it looks like parking spaces on the eastern edge. That's actually the top floor of the five-story parking garage that you're looking out there. Here's kind of a neighborhood context where you can see commercial uses to the north and to the east and predominantly residential uses to the south and to the west. You can also see that this project is located right at the convergence of B Street, Healdsburg Avenue, 8th Street intersections. So the project had there was a neighborhood meeting back in January of 2019 and the boards saw 19. The applications were submitted in February the following year and we received the revised plans that are before you this evening on July 1st. Here is on the left the general plan land use designation. On the right the zoning and the general plan land use is retail and business services. The zoning is downtown commercial. It's also within a preservation district and the station area combining district. So applicable goals of the general plan the biggest is it helps meet the needs of Santa Rosa residents. It also provides a very nice diversity and housing for the downtown and certainly in this area and housing within walking distance of shopping and transit services both bus and train. I want to point out here that this is the current zoning code and when I say current this is the zoning code that we've been using for a while. The council has just recently adopted a new or some not a new zoning code but some changes that affect this area but this code is in effect until I believe it's December 18th so this is the code that we must review this project under. I'd also like to point out that the code because it anticipates that there will be projects they're under review during code changes and it gives the applicant the ability to request which code their project will be reviewed under. So at this point we don't need to know that answer from the applicant yet. This is the code that the current code is the one that you've been looking out for several years. The station area combining district what I what I've got here the graphic on the left the dotted line shows you the well I guess this is the old district but it also points out the courthouse square sub area. There's a little bit of change of plans here in your staff report B street I've pointed out that the it's got a designation of entryway and that entryway designation was removed as part of the station area plan update but it still holds true if you stand if you stand down on that that street on B street and you look at the project site either in front of the project or from across the street you have a pretty nice view of a five-story parking garage um so this is still the entryway was designated as something as an area where you could kind of mediate the change in single family type uses that are so often found in our preservation districts and and kind of a transition to commercial so in this case in this case I think that still holds true when I access San Rosa from Mendocino Avenue I come right down on this street so floor area ratio that's another hot topic these days during the adoption of the well certainly the zoning changes what have you there was a lot of discussion about the contributing structures along this section of B street in the council's final final decision when they adopted the ordinance they decided that that floor area ratio would not be applicable to contributing prop properties located along B street so um however those the the floor area ratio is applicable to non contributing structures or sites and this property is a non contributor I'm the graphic down below um I didn't have enough time sorry I try I threw it in here just before the meeting and I included um those two little red dots the top red dot is the location of this site I think I've got this right yes and and the um the the lower red dot if I'm not sure can you see these I'm hoping a nod but thank you um those those identify the properties that are non contributing properties to the district everything in gray along this section of B street everything else is a contributor building heights for contributors are limited now to 35 feet unless of course the the project receives a variance but building heights for non contributors are 55 feet with extra allowances for rooftop equipment screening applicable goals of the downtown and station area plan is to ensure land uses to promote use of transit and I want to point out too that these are only some of the goals encourage a variety of new housing development create identifiable places while seeking to preserve and enhance the character of existing neighborhoods within the specific plan area and encourage development projects that will improve the quality of life in the plan area and draw new residents into the core of san rosa then we get to the design guidelines and here again we have encouraged dense development in the downtown station area and apologize I know this is a lot of words and I don't normally do that on my slides but I'm going to do that to unite new buildings should be designed in such a way that they do not appear to have been built earlier than they were this does not preclude the use of materials scale or massing found in older buildings integrate multifamily development with surrounding neighborhoods as opposed to isolating this housing break up the mass of larger structures with articulation of the form with use of color and the use of multiple materials and develop a sense of architectural continuity on but all elevations not are need not be identical so this building has been designed with several different finishing materials exterior materials like a personal favorite are the the the railings but I'm going to let the applicant team talk about the building and and the materials used so there are six required findings to make for a design review which I've outlined here making sure you know for the finding of superior quality and consistent with city documents plans and regulations the design is appropriate for the use and location that it's proposed in the layout of the property would are the layout of the design would not interfere with the enjoyment of neighboring or existing future developments the architectural design of the proposed development is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood the design of the development would provide a desirable environment for its occupants and neighbors and visiting public and the proposed development would not be detrimental to the public health safety or welfare or materially in interest on to the saint rose preservation district and here are the boundaries of that district the star shows where the property is very tools for making the required um or when reviewing a landmark alteration the primary tools used are the secretary of the interior standards for rehabilitation and the processing review procedures for owners of historic properties which is a city city document um the secretary of the interior standards for rehabilitation don't really apply to this project because they they speak more to modifying existing structures so adding on or um you know just redesign the processing review procedures um provide the guidelines for the development um they guide us to um a contemporary design and specifically say the project should not mimic um that the existing structures in the area inform the design uh the compatible height and similar proportion um are also a consideration i'd like to point out too that document specifically says that the um the railroad square preservation district and saint rose preservation districts are the two preservation districts in the city where you will find those taller buildings um i also want to point out and i'm sure that the applicant uh team will drill down a little bit more on this that the existing structure ties in several uh architectural or character defining features from nearby buildings for their immediate neighbors um this also talks about the rhythm along streetscapes really about doors and windows and i think uh just getting that streetscape and inviting if you will and then it talks about similar exterior materials in the roof shape so review considerations um are the consistency or lack thereof with the proposed changes with the original architectural style and details of the building of course that one again it's not really applicable um the compatibility of the proposed change with any adjacent or nearby landmark structures or preservation district structures the consistency or compatibility of the proposed colors or textures materials fenestration decorative features and details with the time period of the building's construction and or adjacent structures um actually i want to go back to that and again i want to point out here that um it's it is the time period this building is a non-contributor so but where it is it is relevant is that it's pulling in those those other features from those nearby structures whether the change will destroy or adversely affect an important architectural feature or features again it's not applicable and the secretary of the interior standards which i already mentioned isn't in this case very applicable but there is one special finding and there's that challenge of getting from the current zoning code from 35 feet to 55 feet and there's one special finding that needs to be made and that's the increased height does not detract from the character of the preservation district or any adjacent contributing properties and this i want to point out is a finding that is only on the landmark alteration permit resolution this is not on the design review and i want to go point i i want to try to draw the connect the dots of how that that was made that finding was made the proposed mixed use building is located right on the very edge of the the eastern edge of the saint rose preservation district in this location it will screen from view the seven or the seventh street parking garage the five-story garage structure from v street the placement of the proposed structure along the southern property line um allows a gap but are a space um an open space for the use of the building's residents or occupants i should say um and it also puts a space between the single story uh property to the north which has has been identified as a contributor there are several architectural or elements that um are found in the district that have been tied into or inspired the design and tie the building to the district the contemporary building doesn't mimic but it does tie in finally a shadow study which i i will let the applicants speak to shows that the single story structure that's that's located it to the north of 534 and 536 b street is um it's already receiving quite a bit of shade but that shade is from the parking structure the construction of this five-story building that's proposed in the flats of 528 b street will provide a little more shade but it's not significant so that is how we connected the dots here did i go back up i think i bear with me here i'm getting the wrong buttons there we go so neighboring structures i thought it would be helpful for key elements of design just to say okay here where the star is is the project site um the first one is the five-story parking garage and then um on two is the entryway street type and again that this is no longer an entryway street type i didn't um i did not update my slides and uh but it regardless of what you call it it still really serves that purpose and the building still blocks the view from that perspective of this parking structure nearby contributors um of in you know in the district are located where you see the threes the the buildings to the the buildings to the west uh those those two nice victorian i guess style homes i i don't know i guess i shouldn't call them victorium i'm not the pro here but those those are both um very tall two and a half three-story buildings and they're a significant ways away down on the corner of eighth and b street the southwest corner that structure is actually a three-story structure and it's in my staff report as a two-story it steps it steps in the back of the building up then the the building immediately to the south of the project site is a three-story contributor to the district but it's a very tall three-story um and then of course to the north number the the single-story um structure is is the one where you know they pulled they pulled the building away from it for for that protection um i was out there doing my own site visits last weekend and decided to snap my own pictures instead of relying on google and in this shot here the existing site it just gives you the perspective from across the street of what people see now um and then i grabbed any one of the number of um renderings that the applicant provided um this is what it would it would look like and i tried to get my perspective while i was out on the street as best i could to match what their rendering looked like here um i was a little off so here's the site plan and on the northern side of the site plan as all along here is the open space area that's provided for um for uh the enjoyment really of the um the folks that live and work in the building they also have a gate proposed back here um on the east side of the the um site plan and which will give them immediate access to the parking structure there will be no parking on this site residents from the site will will um will have parking spaces over the parking structure and the project has been conditioned to require a uh contract with the city for spaces in the garage the project has been found in in compliance with the california environmental quality act um section 15183 is a streamlining measure that allows a project for which a previous EIR has been certified by the council um if the project is consistent with that EIR which it has been found consistent with the general plan EIR actually so um the also it is qualified for a um categorical exemption as infill development again because it's consistent with the general plan zoning it's within city limits and less than five acres it's not considered suitable habitat for any endangered or threatened species all services are available and it would not result in significant impacts for air quality water quality traffic or noise so up until today we had we received very few public comments which was surprising um the there were concerns expressed about height and there were also um there were some that were in support of the project um and i want to read we received one more today from the santa rosa metro chamber um it was uh it was provided for the design review board members so i'm going to read it and get it on to the record for everybody on behalf of uh yeah dear chair kinkade and and board members on behalf of the santa rosa metro chamber i am writing to express our support for the 528 b street project the flat santa rosa's housing shortage is impeding business growth and causing economic and environmental damage as our residents are forced to commute long distances to find housing these extra long commutes result in increased air pollution traffic congestion growing inequity and stressed employees resulting in reduced workforce productivity housing is one of the largest challenges for local employers who need to recruit and retain employees in order to stay and grow in santa rosa more residents within within walking distance of downtown shops and businesses means a larger customer base increased economic activity bringing tremendous returns to santa rosa economic and environmental alike the proposed development of this site aligns with the city's downtown station area specific plan and the city's goals and vision for down for downtown santa rosa we urge you to support this prop proposed project thank you for your time and consideration respectfully peter rumble ceo so there are no unresolved issues um as a result of staff's review and conditioning of the project and with that it is recommended by the planning and economic development department that the design review board and cultural heritage board adopt a resolution granting preliminary design review it is further recommended by the planning and economic development department that the cultural heritage board adopt a resolution approving the landmark alteration permit and that concludes my presentation and for any members of the public that um can't see the screen if you have any questions about the project my name is susie murray my direct line is five four three four three four eight and my email is s m u r r a y at s r city dot org and with that i will conclude my presentation unless and i'm sorry the applicant also has a presentation and i um um i'm available for questions if you have any now chair muser and chair concave just so you're aware vice chair hedge pef has joined the meeting thank you for that information um i think given the potential complexities surrounding this property um it would be wise to take questions from the boards uh for staff at this time prior to hearing the applicant presentation uh might provide more clarity and get into that presentation and avoid uh people hanging on to questions so um once i get my screen back um we'll go ahead and go through the board's questions for staff in your planner murray if you can please stop sharing your screen sorry i thought i had no worries thank you uh so we'll start with design review board questions for staff board member wicks susie can you can you tell me why the existing building that's being torn down is is not considered a contributor to the district who was constructed well outside of the um uh yeah the the climate loss for words the dates that um are acknowledged in the zoning code um for example i believe it was like the 18 1880s through 1940s and this building was constructed in 1970s i believe okay so it's it's age that that makes it a contributor or non-contributor yes and there's an age range that that each district has assigned to it that those are the the um period of significance yay i found the words thanks okay um one other question um you mentioned far and maximum height are we reviewing it under the max height limitation or are we reviewing it under far guidelines so right now we're reviewing it under maximum height limitations or that that version of the zoning code because the the changes to the zoning code don't take place until 31 days after the council adopts that ordinance they adopted it on november 17th so the changes don't go into effect until uh until december 18th i think that's 31 days um that said the zoning code also allows that the applicant can choose when they're this far into the review process that they can choose which version of the zoning code that their project will be reviewed under now i have not received a formal request from the applicant at this point but it's not relevant at this point because we have the current zoning code which is the old zoning code as you would it's not those revisions that you heard about at council now that said i also want to point out that this project complies with uh floor area ratio four there it's an 8400 square foot parcel and it is proposing less than 3200 square feet i'm sorry less than 30 30 000 square feet of development so it's it's it complies either way you look at it okay thank you board member wagel any questions for staff um so we we need two motions on this right we need the preliminary design review and then we need the landmark alteration correct and so they they're independent of one another obviously both of us vote on the design review component and chp is only for the landmark alteration is that correct that is correct and i don't know that there's a set rule in what order they go in but historically we've done it with when both boards vote on the preliminary design review and after there's action on that we dismiss the design review board and let the cultural heritage board carry on with the landmark alteration because it's usually additional discussion cool yeah and then we don't have any with the demolition of the building there's is that me or drew we lost drew there oh and it came back so look at that it decided to close itself and then reopen itself so who knew zoom uh i guess i was what i was asking about was the um the demolition of the building because it's a non-contributing building and we have the uh resource uh historic resource components evaluation and property survey that would be included within the action by drb as complying with the sequel components for the demolition of that building correct there's no other additional stuff no actually the building could be demoed without either the chp or drb approving oh okay cool all right well just thought of us because we've had a number of different scenarios as long as i've been on the board here so i just thought i'd clarify i think the special thing here is that it's a non-contributor in the district well those were my questions thanks thank you how about board members sharing any questions for staff no questions for staff thanks great uh vice chair hedge beth questions for staff no questions for staff and i have no questions for staff so i will turn it over to chp chair user and you can go through uh your board members thank you chair concaid um board member graniga big questions for staff board member graniga you're you've been muted at this time you can unmute yourself and start again now i'm unmuted because i'm popping back and forth here really no specific question other than um i for my own self as i've been reading and taking a look at this project i found myself um looking at it through the eyes of those zoning code changes that we had uh approved i think both boards did the city council now has uh that seemed to be even more beneficial than the and less restrictive perhaps of the current uh zoning code so is there anything in those new changes or in those changes that at least we and say the public should be made aware of that are either detrimental to the district and or to the uh project itself not that i'm aware of i i again i think the project complies with either version of the zoning code and either version of the downtown station area specific plan okay thank you board member garrett have any questions for staff no thank you not at this time thank you board member mccue questions for staff no questions for staff okay thank you um i just have one question and i probably should know the answer but i'm gonna ask uh um miss murray anyway is um the the structure to the north uh three or the five three four five three six b street uh were those contributors yes it's i think it's one structure and yes it is a contributor to the district okay thank you that's the only question i have back to you chair concave thank you chair um i should have mentioned at the onset this isn't the last opportunity for questions i just thought it might get some uh clarity before we heard the applicants please feel free to ask questions later after the applicant presentation so with that i will go ahead sorry to interrupt chair concave this is just a quick clarification i just wanted to quickly touch on this idea about the new station area plan and the rules under which this project is being evaluated i think the purpose for scoots um discussion on that is it's a relevant topic obviously there's a new downtown plan it's been a subject of a lot of focus recently it was just adopted but i just want to be crystal clear this project is not subject to the new plan it has not been reviewed under that plan if it were it could go forward it does meet those requirements but they really they don't have any bearing to the item before the board tonight so i just wanted to offer that clarification great thank you mr rose um with that we'll go ahead and welcome the applicant and their team for the presentation and if when speaking you could give your uh name and relation to the project that would be very helpful so with that i'll turn it over to the applicant team let them get set up thank you chair can k can you hear me yes sir we can hear you okay uh my name is peter stanley i am one of the development partners in the principal at arco logics um for this project of flats at b street so chair concave and muser and members of the c h b and d r b i wanted to thank you for this opportunity for us to come back before you and present our design and development revisions for this development of 528 b street tonight we have our design and development team available for any questions from the boards or the public um next slide please so we have tom karsten from the morrison karsten group who is the property owner and also one of the development partners myself principal at arco logics we have mark perry from artisan architecture he's our historic uh architecture consultant mitch connor my partner at arco logics we'll be talking about the design we have christine talbot from quadrigal landscaping and planning and she'll be talking about the site context as well we're showing jeff colman on here but he is not on the line but we all we have andrew desert from bkf engineering if there's any technical questions that came up from the site next slide please so i'm gonna hand this off right now to tom karsten um let him give you some context and history about this property over the last 30 years so uh can you hear me okay loud and clear very good thank you uh good evening all um uh as peter mentioned that along with my development partners at arco logics we are the applicant for the project before you uh to the respective board chairs and members of the cultural heritage and design review boards and on behalf of our team i want to thank you for the opportunity uh to present our project for a preliminary review approval having served on the drb and planning commission in an earlier life i am familiar with the time commitment associated with these important volunteer positions and so very much appreciate your willingness to serve in this capacity during these extraordinary times i also want to thank city staff for their help and support in getting us to this point and of course i want to thank our extraordinary design and support team for their collaborative efforts in designing what we believe is a terrific building uh before i turn our presentation over to my colleagues i thought it might be helpful to provide some historical perspective the current building on the subject site was built in 1969 to serve as a podiatry clinic and surgery center until my firm purchased the property in 1995 we've occupied it since as a real estate investment and consulting firm prior to purchasing this property we were tenants in the adjacent two-story office building to the north of the subject property for four years therefore we have been a resident and property owner in the neighborhood for 29 years and have been privy to the changes that have taken place over that time i might also add that back in november of 2005 we proposed a redevelopment of the site to build a four-story 22 000 square foot office building that at the time was jointly approved by the drb and cultural heritage boards however due to a multitude of economic reasons beyond our control we tabled the project as it was no longer economically viable then in early 2017 we envisioned redeveloping the site with a mixed-use building comprised of ground floor commercial office space that will serve as our new offices and that of my development partner archeologics with the upper four floors comprised of one and two bedroom apartment units allowing for six units per floor for a total of 24 residential rental units all units will have outdoor balconies in doing so we believe the project as designed complies with the city objectives to build high density housing appropriate for a city center pedestrian friendly environment notwithstanding what we think designing a project that can readily can reasonably and readily address both drb and chb design guidelines that are in conflict with one another along with inherent site constraints has made this a very challenging exercise furthermore environmental housing and traffic needs have changed since these design guidelines were inactive for instance the site is only 60 feet wide by 140 feet deep the narrowness of the site is compounded by the two office buildings to the north of our site sit directly on the property line and the apartment building to the south is a mere four feet off the property line accounting for necessary setbacks we can only design a building that is at most 40 feet wide 45 feet wide excuse me this leaves us with little flexibility in providing four plates large enough to build appropriately sized apartment units necessary to attract tenants making the economic feasibility of our project all the more challenging then there is the proximity of the 7th street parking garage to the east of our site while the garage is not a contributor as an historic structure because of location how tall it is and given its immense size that dwarfs all structures around it it cannot be ignored as it is in every way a contributor to what is going on around us however because of its location we are able to incorporate it as a vital contributor to our project for it allows us to engage the garage by enhancing its accessibility and usage in ways originally intended when it was completed some 20 plus years ago then there is the issue of b street itself which over the last many years has seen significant alterations prior to the parking garage being completed traffic moved in a north to south direction only that was changed to moving traffic in both directions to accommodate the parking garage while also providing street parking on both sides of the street then in order to accommodate changes brought forth with the reunification of courthouse square the street was reconfigured once again whereby street parking was removed from the east side as well as a portion of the west side of the street to allow for expanding the north to south arterial the two lanes while also installing a bike lane this reconfiguration most dramatically altered traffic flow on b street to one that could best be described as now a major north south thoroughfare connector that funnels faster and more significant traffic through and around downtown and a freeway on ramps i mentioned this to point out that collectively these actions did much to alter the nature of all properties on b street that sit between college avenue to the north and seventh street to the south the significance of these changes is that it is unlikely this edge of the historic district can be turned back to what it was envisioned 30 years ago and the district guidelines were created unless there are significant changes to how traffic flow is currently directed on b street would you mind uh turning to slide number four please thank you another challenging aspect is that our design has been somewhat constrained and that the site is situated on the southeastern edge of the saint rose historic presentation district highlighted in green while also part of the downtown stationary a specific plan highlighted in orange as such our site is governed by overlapping district designations and these plans as you know have their own set of growth redevelopment objectives and multiple design constraints that are fortunate that are unfortunately are not entirely consistent with we point this out to demonstrate there's a lot going on in and around the site with each plan and neighborhood contingent having different objectives related to this location that do not always mesh in context and intent i believe our architectural historian mark perry summarized it best in his historic resource evaluation report when he said quote the prospect of defining how to design contemporary buildings to be sensitive additions to preservation districts is not easy meeting current space functional economic and density needs supported and encouraged by the city of Santa Rosa's downtown stationary a specific plan combined with zoning code policy and establishing priority development areas within established historic districts is the design challenge presented for our project end quote that coupled with designing a project that can reasonably address both drb and chp guidelines that are also in conflict with one another along with inherent site constraints has made this a very challenging exercise but it's one that we embraced as we thought we could do something good here that aside we believe in the project before you has met all of those challenges and succeeded in striking a balance of what is capable on a tightly constrained infa lot and represents the kind of development our community desperately needs that is vital to the rebirth of the downtown core and its long-term stability and we are excited with some of the changes we are seeing in the neighborhood no more exemplified with our friends across the street at brew who with great spirit provide a safe haven for the community to gather in our own way we are making an attempt to providing another safe haven for the community with our project certainly not on all our own but with your help i will now turn our presentation over to peter who will walk you through some of the essential cited policy issues we face and once our presentation is concluded we certainly look forward to any questions you may have and of course we thank you for your time and consideration thanks i'm just going to take a few minutes to go over the planning and policy context of the project um a lot of this has been said already in the staff report and tom touched on it we talked about it the concept review but i think it's relevant for us to go back through it and just lightly touch on it and be ready for any question um the parcel of course sits in uh you know within the boundaries of the saint rose historic district and although it's on the extreme east edge of that district as tom has talked about and it sits about midlock block between seven and ten streets as you can see from this upper left image here the neighborhood context of the site relates much more to the four-story parking garage extending almost an entire city block from seventh to ten streets than it does to the bulk of the historic district which lies to the west of b street and our project site the development application was submitted to the city under the previous downtown stationary plan which was adopted by council in 2007 the project site also sits within a designated pda priority development area which was targeted and directed by council to focus on intensifying housing opportunity within its boundaries on page five of susie staff report she outlines four council directed housing objectives in the downtown planning area that as stated in her analysis this project fulfills under the oh seven plan the project site was given a zoning designation of cg five five-story max with no minimum or maximum residential density requirements we understand the policy and guideline tension that exists between the historic district and the adopted downtown specific plan and this will be addressed in our historic resources architect mark perry and later by mitch connor as identified in the staff report as well as the historic property analysis by mark the existing building on the site as seen in the lower left image is not a contributor to the district and therefore this development will not displace or destroy any historic structures within the district in our negotiations with the city parking director it is our intent to unbundle parking costs of the seven street garage from the unit rents in order to encourage alternative transportation options for our tenants next slide please it should also be noted that the project as designed and i only bring this up even though we're not under the content of the 2020 planning um the new amended plan i think it's relevant and maybe gets peace of mind that this project also complies completely under the adopted amended plan with a floor area ratio of four for our site we come in at about 3.8 and there's no minimum parking requirement on this project um it's in full compliance with the council's intent and objectives of the amended plan and the downtown housing development in general and i think it's relevant to point out that even as the contributor the contributor project to the north if it was to exercise its development rights and go to 35 feet i think we'd have a be having a very different conversation about height having these the surrounding buildings all at sort of this 35 feet or higher the parking garage is significantly higher than 35 feet so i think it's important to keep that context in mind because those are allowed development rights for that project to the north to the project site to the north of us um at this point i i'm going to hand it off to mark perry so he can start going through his and uh the historical context of the project thank you peter um tom brought up that the challenge is in balancing peter has brought up the significant issues of i would have to say pressure um i've spent my career at least 30% of all my projects have been in these preservation districts i've helped create two of them and the preservation districts are created by the residents predominantly through a process so you have development interests and residents interests and historical interests converging and that again creates tension i don't want to be comfortable with this tension because it makes better projects it makes a better city it makes more beautiful districts when we honor preserve and protect what we can but we also have to make room for the growth required growth necessary growth and here we are in that tension the benefit of the preservation districts is that we have a requirement to be contextual and we have done that could i go to the next slide please and we've looked at this district um and and character defining elements of local buildings the elephant in the room of course is the size of this building compared to these other three four three four almost five story buildings um and my and i've looked at this i've walked by it i've done tours in this neighborhood annually for 18 years a walk past this site for 18 years and it is it has a strong presence a new building will have a strong presence and any buildings that go in these districts have to be carefully and mindfully considered and we did mindfully consider this building i am behind it i i those that know me know i'm a straight shooter and the thing that makes it work for me and makes it work for the district is and if you look at my report we developed and i spent a decade trying to figure out how to make these things work um we made a building that is reflective of traditional design features character defining elements it doesn't make an affront as many contemporary buildings do to the district to the fabric of the district although it is a contemporary building i think the place that these happen and this one does happen well actually is on the perimeter of the districts um the boundaries of the districts can stand more height and more development and help contain the districts themselves um i this is hard stuff um our historic character our our landmarks are critical to the maintenance of our culture and our history and we've had to be mindful these kind of going the next slide please we've had to be mindful these tensions but we've looked at them we've allowed them to inform our building the building before you now has taken upon itself the importance of reflecting the character it's not going to punch a hole in this district it's not going to be in a front to it it is um an addition to it the and the way we did that was by looking at it and looking at the district itself um and how this building can reflect or participate in the district um there it is an historic building there's no historic features on the site worth remaining worth retaining so in this slide you can see those character defining elements that were taken from the district interpreted and applied to our building so that it becomes part of the fabric it doesn't punch holes in the fabric or ignore that fabric that's significant and that's important and we did it next slide please we had to look at um the chb's criteria um we had to look at the at the secretary of the interiors criteria although uh it isn't a listed district we took the district itself as the cultural resource so this building was designed to reflect the district as a resource not a specific building in that district so that it became an addition a sensitive addition to that district so and looking at it i believe the proposed changes were consistent compatible with the architectural period we did that by picking a specific 1920s um kind of 1920s era to inform ideas uh we made it compatible that way we used textures materials fenestration decorative features and elements consistent with the district um next slide please um main thing is is context there are certain elements not applicable there were no historic historic character on the property uh there were no materials removed um the property didn't require any historic significant center itself and there were no features to maintain next slide please so we basically looked for character throughout the district apply it to this building you can review the report um or take a look at these slides for a minute there there's not a lot to um apply to this next slide please these are the significant more significant elements that's the chb design guidelines um and just to read it the new infill development can be contemporary and should not seek to mimic it does not do that it does not match exactly but is informed by existing buildings within the district it is not a historic reproduction and those have happened and i'm not i don't support that as a as a consultant um you can get confused but the building does relate to the new construction in the district does maintain clearly the rhythm of flow of windows openings on the main facade and more importantly the key feature that i believe makes this building both sensitive and appropriate is that we use traditional building composition most modern buildings are not done with that and i i do i do not support that in preservation districts because the vast majority of preservation districts have been done with traditional building forms modern buildings tend to be form form-based um historic buildings tend to be proportion-based interrelated proportions and that's what we attempted to do um so i believe it works i think it's uh the building proportion scale is appropriate composition the organ principles of those elements work i think it's just sensitively designed and i believe it's appropriate and it references a character defining elements in the district and i i think we did a good job i'd like you to approve it thank you i think mitch is up next to design to explain uh a little more in detail about design features mitch yeah thank you next slide so i'm mitch connor i'm a principal with peter stanley development partner with tom and peter on this project pleased to be here this evening to uh present the uh efforts of a lot of hard work and good input from the community in the city and um what i'm primarily going to focus on is you know the actual building itself and the elements that you've you know that you've seen in some of the images so far but i wanted to go back to this slide this sort of neighborhood context and when we started this evening and all of you on the boards talked about how you visited the site and some drove and some walked and some stood and looked at it i think that is a very important idea on any kind of design problem in particular when you're in some kind of an infill urban setting whether it's a historic district or just the inner city core um cities are dynamic and the buildings while they are you know objects to reinforce planning principles in detail and texture and color it's important to understand how they're observed how you experience them whether you live in the district or you drive through it so as we went through different iterations of different materials and the way they were placed on the building and the way the forms were it was always important for us to sort of get up high or get back on the street and understand how it would be observed and interpreted so the next slide so in our original concept presentation that we did to the boards this was a slide that we felt was really important in space to what i was just talking about so we like to think of this as sort of a boots on the ground MRI of what it's like to experience B street the the predominant street obviously that we're building on and that tom talked about how it's changed through the years and different projects and the way that the just the general circulation works so the idea was that you can see that buildings changed the character of that street and what we felt was in sort of the aha moment for our team was when you come to that that sort of intersection of where the the brew retail outlet is is that the aperture of the street opens up and it felt like it was inviting us to consider a more robust building both in its detail and its scale because the environment at that point the actual physical whether you know walking or in cars and or on a bike changed significantly in fact tom and i did a couple of walk-arounds on our own and just looked at streets in general and tried to understand how other buildings in the district you know reinforce the the feeling and the atmosphere of the you know of the district so when you come to the a street section one at the top of this slide you see our building and you see it in relationship to the public realm which we think in any inner city development is a very important consideration and that the architecture needs to reinforce that next slide so taking that kind of thinking then the idea of movement in the way people experience buildings and then said well okay how do we place a building on the site and reinforce the public realm at the the b street elevation which is you know you can see where you go into the the office space but then you see the peseo and the peseo is a again it's another idea of movement and place making and sequencing space from the street you know to the inter lobby taking you up to the residential or walking through to the parking garage again a secured environment but nevertheless it's using movement in the treatment of buildings to reinforce that movement and to make it rich and inviting and and beautiful so what you see in the first floor like uh like tom has mentioned and susie is that it's uh it's the commercial office i think an important part and you'll see it in the elevations is that is that there's a transparent edge it doesn't really read real well in this floor plan but you'll see it with the way the windows are placed the idea that we have this sort of conference room graph you know it's kind of ours sort of our studio and display of what we do but it activates the street we're big believers that buildings need to show off what they do whether it's you know commercial office or retail excuse me or or living you know apartments and so forth that that it's important that people see activity um so that's kind of the thinking and you'll and i'll talk more about it when we get to the windows next slide so this is the typical floor plate floors two through five um as tom mentioned we have uh two-story or excuse me two-bedroom units which is the one facing the street to the left and then one bedroom units uh they go from west to east towards the parking structure an important thing to note about the circulation inside the building is that when you do come up through the elevator and you go to the lobby and then the internal circulation the hallway that's to provide a buffer basically a visual buffer for the building to the apartment building to the to the south of us so the idea here is that people will go into their units and look north or northwest and so the idea is that it sort of builds in sort of our privacy element for the building to the south next slide these are the individual units you can see a little key plan at the top shows how when we stitch it together how that works two bedrooms um and then the one bedroom units next slide so i'd like to bring christine into the presentation to talk about the approach to landscaping and hardscape and then i'll come back and talk about the building's exterior elements christine thanks mitch so i'm christine talbot from quadriga landscape architecture and i think you know it's been shared with you kind of the approach to the exterior the building and the procession and how you're treating circulation and so i'm not gonna completely go over that again but i think since the last time we we showed this project to you there's been a few changes um in response to your comments and um most of those had to do with screening and then responding to the um the neighborhood and so how we've responded to those comments so far is by providing um a screening tree element along the south side of the project you'll see there's a series of five uh trees and pavement and those are very tall columnar trees that will help to screen that south elevation and provide a little bit of seasonal interest for the neighbors and for the residents along the front of the property along the street side the public sidewalk side it was relayed to me that um by mark and i hadn't really thought about it that historically raised planters were part of residential properties and especially in this neighborhood and we didn't you know uh integrated that into the project without really thinking of it as a historic element but um it does play nicely with some of the landscapes in the neighborhood so we're going to keep that element and hope that that provides a great front door for our building the uh Paseo as Mitch um described is we do want to it's a small space but it has a lot of potential we want it to be very rich with texture so the ground plane is very playful um we also include uh very textural plantings with lots of seasonal interest um and then we looked um if you could go the next slide actually we looked to the neighborhood for screening elements and uh looked at some of the decorative ironwork and metalwork that were done at some of the properties and we incorporated that idea into our fencing and our gating um to really respond to that historic idea in a more modern way so we're proposing this very geometric pattern in our fencing and creating these arbored entry gates at the entry um some of the other elements you see on this plan are the idea for the pavement in this geometric pattern with high contrast color um the very seasonal colored plantings with the vibrant oranges and yellows and then um with some of the smaller plants we'll focus more on um texture in the flower in the leaves and seeds we've also looked at ways that we could incorporate lighting that would be soft and inviting and not affect the neighbors so we looked at some lower ballards and some downlights and some of these arbor elements at the gates um so it'll be very appealing but not overly lit thank you Mitch we'll hand it back to you thanks Christine a couple other comments about the Paseo well but both the north and the south of the building I mean I think Christine described the south for example with these commoner trees you know we really wanted to just sort of soften the south side of the building and give you know some seasonal interest to the building for the apartment I think for the north side it takes on a different role the landscaping I mean first of all we have more space we have 10 feet from the building you know to the property line and while we want the landscaping you know to have some height to it and want these other elements you know both you know the screens and fencing and so forth um but it's important you know as a sort of a neighbor response is to I mean it's a five-story building and in all likelihood the landscaping's never gonna you know mitigate that visually but what it does do is it layers the building it layers our concepts to the property line and enables the building to the north as it starts to sort of turn in on itself which it should do because of that courtyard and so forth it's a much more pleasant and rich experience as you know as they see these trees grow and possibly see the uplighting on the trees and stuff so it's you know it is a gesture and it's real I mean we were genuine and how we brought it forward but but the idea I think the best way to explain it is it sort of layers you know what we're trying to do with our building to the property line and so that's kind of part of the thinking behind it next slide so I'm going to go back to this slide that Mark had up earlier so what you know as we took inventory of the various buildings in the district and certainly the more contemporary 1920s era architecture definitely resonated with what we were trying to accomplish with our building so what we were trying to show here or what we're showing here is you know which of these elements you know we were able to put on a pallet and then interpret and integrate into the building that we're trying to do so window trim like on the upper image of the building our neighbor to the south the cornice treatment the middle building which is one that we're quite fond of where you see the steel sash windows and you can see how we've applied that to the window selection for the first level but then a smaller scale version of it for the actual living units themselves again a different window detailing treatment that I'll talk about here in more detail in a second or with a different kind of image but you see that we were using that on some of the windows on the upper floors and then the the the fence the the guardrail punched metal treatment that we like a lot so we're using it in quite a few locations it's the guardrail for the balconies it's the entry gates it's also the fencing at the north property line for our neighbor to the north the other thing that's important Mark refers to it in his report and um i think Susie had it in some of her comments about the secretary of interiors but this whole idea of rhythm the idea that you know as a composition these are you know as standalone items they they need to be stitched together and so we spent a considerable amount of time and you see it with this bb a db kind of idea is that we looked different configurations different assemblies are stitching together of building walls openings balconies and it's a great tool and it's one that you know does have a sort of a historical element to it in the thinking of older buildings and how they they put these buildings together you know through generations of development and so this was our sort of final rendition of doing that and it's primarily on the street facade the west elevation and on the north facade which is probably the most visible as far as the long elevation of our building next slide so this is you know these are the rendered elevations um one of the comments that came from the previous visit to the two boards had to do with the south elevation and trying to sort of liven that up and give some you know some different sort of elements in its own rhythm in itself um so we we were able to apply that kind of design logic when we worked on that but the north elevation you know is really kind of the culmination of this at scale i'll show the street elevation in a second um but you know we we think it works and we think it works well um and it's one way of you know basically and when i get into the material board you know we're using basically the same material it's a king's pants it's a smooth comp type material and all we're basically changing up his color and the and the scores you know the reveals to give give a different uh different texture and different look next slide so the street elevation did change in the sense that previously before we put the balconies on the southwest corner to come off of the master bedroom of the two-story units we had the balcony on the northwest corner coming off the living room and so if you know the the critique we got and we think you know as we look back at it was totally justified is that we had a sort of an off-balance elevation and mark was great at pointing that out in a very diplomatic way and um so what we've done here is we've sort of balanced the front the west facade the street facade it also enables us to set the elevation back we know of this requirement that from floors three to five or three on up you know the building needs to step back as much as six feet and so we were able to do that using balconies but at the same time we bring forward the these elements that have windows in it that are the bedrooms and then between those you see that sort of center darker element to draw your eye down to the main entrance at the retail commercial so the composition feels a lot a lot more you know balanced and has a sort of a strong rationale to it whereas before it it needed some help next slide so the building materials go from the top left we decided to use because we're not big fans of building cornices on a bunch of wood and kind of stitching it together so we went to a precast sort of corner section we like the fact that it's a little softer looking and yet it's got you know the depth in the way it's sort of chamfered back the way that you know we think it'll add a nice sort of shadowing you know to the upper part of the building again item two in the bottom left corner is our railing powder coated it's a it's a punched metal you know that we use balconies and fences and gates and so forth the the soffit is a cedar so the soffit is primarily at the underside of at the balcony so when you're looking up you're going to see this sort of clear cedar that we it's the only wood element actually on the building and just to provide a little differentiation at the balcony in that soffit plane but the rest of it the rest of the wall materials as I said earlier it's a king span of material and that's a it's an insulated material and again how we differentiated just through the use of different reveal patterns as it goes across the elevation as far as the windows this is where we wanted to if you went back to that you don't have to do it but if you go back to the street elevation and if you look at that window trim up in the right hand corner the front elevation and wrapping around on each side in this case this is the this is the northwest corner of the building on b street and then if you were to go and you'll see it on the renderings and I'll point it out again the the trim not only excuse me in case is the opening but it's also applied to the surface of the king span material and that's the only place on any window opening that we do that and we do it in the front of the building on the facade in the west and turning the corner like I said here on the on the northwest corner and when you see it on the southwest corner which is where we have our vertical circulation the stairwell we do it there but everywhere else we do the detail number six which is down on the right hand corner which basically keeps the trim punched you know into the punched opening and does not it's not there's no trim applied to the to the actual surface of the king span material so there's two different window treatments depending on you know where they're located but we really wanted to emphasize the facade on the street and not just have it on you know one elevation but to wrap it a certain distance and both in color and and the window treatment itself so it's sort of like puts a cap on the sort of the vertical end of the building in in three dimension the windows of steel sash door fronts of the windows on the lower level will have it'll be a composition of the window system itself with horizontal trim metal trim that's the same color as the window frame and then also we have it at the base so it's a like I say it's just not a window in a punched CMU opening it's uh you know it's a it's a it's meant to look structural both in the window itself and the framing of that opening and the the base material we're big fans of CMU in particular split face we we love the sort of stone like quality of that we're big believers in buildings need a base need something substantial to sit on so the idea is that bigger windows a more substantial base and when you get up above that then we go to this more lightweight panel system in the windows while there's steel stash they're smaller in scale but but there's a sort of a family of of a window opening elements that that we just apply differently depending on which level it's at next slide so I go back to the street the aperture where it opens up for B Street or this conversion of B Street and the other street I forget the name of it but it's right near you know brew we feel that you know if there's this I think Tom pointed out earlier that if there is a you know a part of this district that taller building works and it works in scale it's certainly along that stretch and I think this particular north elevation looking south really reinforces that it's the next slide at the street you know the balconies provide that sort of setback relief and again having them on both corners helps a lot even you can see that the bedrooms can move forward see the indentation between the bedrooms draws you into the entrance into the into our new offices Christine mentioned the raised planters the scene which is also done in CMU with a concrete cap enough landscaping to kind of hide the clutter of the you know anything that gets piled up against the window in the offices you know architects are we love to do that but it's and then you know we have a kind of a green screen on the southwest corner of this of the CMU which is actually our stairwell and if you go to the next slide that green screen actually you don't see it because of the tree but it does wrap around the corner and so these smaller windows again trimmed like the windows facing the street slightly different reveal texture but that's our vertical circulation for the for the stairwell and so forth and then the next slide so we're huge huge fans of lighting and and we feel it's it's an art form that sometimes has been forgotten about and we we love to illuminate our buildings in a tasteful graceful way but to draw interest and we're really pleased with how this has turned out both the Paseo which I think you know you can see you can see some of the steel sash windows on the other side of the punched metal gate you see our gallery conference room there on the corner right by the address and then the illuminated vertical element taking you to the entry into the office component on the first level so that concludes my comments I'm going to give it over to Peter who's going to direct the Q&A and we certainly are looking forward to your questions thank you so that does conclude our presentation but we are all here ready, willing and with bated breath to answer any questions any of you may have excellent well thank you for a thorough presentation very well done very concise and to the point lots of things to cover in a short amount of time so thank you for your preparedness before we get into questions for the applicant I believe we should take maybe a 10-minute recess to refresh ourselves and so we'll go ahead and reconvene at 7.02 sound good all right all right members of the DRB and CHB if you can please turn your cameras back on CHB member Garrett if you can please turn your camera on CHB member Garrett if you can hear this if you can please turn your camera back on okay welcome back everyone for those just joining us this is the cultural heritage board and designer view board joint meeting we are on item 8.1 which is a public hearing for the flats at 528 e street file number prj20-005 we've heard from staff we've heard from the applicant and now I'd like to hear from the public so let's go ahead and open up the public hearing for public comment period and each member of the public wishing to speak has three minutes to speak and it would be on item 8.1 so I'll turn it over to staff to start the clock and start taking public comment thank you chair concade at this time it doesn't appear that anybody is raising their hands we'll give a few then all right it looks like one member of the public is raising their hand Denise if you can please we're going to give you permission if you can please state your name for the record and unmute yourself the clock will start when you start hi my name is Denise Hill and I've lived in the St. Rose district for 29 years and this is a tough one and uh it's it's concerning that it has you know has to be this tough uh it's certainly a building that don't mind the design of if it came in at three stories I'd be telling you guys go ahead everybody vote yes let's get this built uh unfortunately here we are again with a building that's going to tower over uh contributors on either side uh really don't mind about the garage and blocking the garage is actually this looking garage in town um not too concerned about the density because we just had the city lawyer weigh in in the last uh a couple of weeks about the increase in density uh with the stationary of planets in the processor has just been approved uh that that is actually increasing enough units that we don't need to see the density in in our historic district um it is the historic district that was formed because it uh the first one because it was the most uh concerning at the time that uh developers because of this location uh will basically uh destroy the historic district so it was the first residential historic district to save it from that happening um and unfortunately we keep running into these situations where we get these really um you know they don't match the streetscape the the buildings that don't match the streetscape they're too big they overwhelm uh if you look at the more building which is now the 615 if you look at the actual part that is next to contributors is brought down to two stories even though it's five stories on the non where it's on the parcel that is not in our historic district if you look at the caritas village project and i'm not going to say that there's um you know that was a really egregious pros project as far as the results for our historic district but the tallest building there is four stories and when you think about pedestrians and the pedestrian streetscape that's appealing it should actually not overwhelm not stand out and the pedestrian experience and if you just have a straight up wall of a building like you do with the AT&T building instead of something when you look at you know other buildings that actually don't loom over you and don't have just a straight up no step back no step back situation it is not a good pedestrian experience so we'd love if this was three stories five stories is is not with keeping with our historic district and i really hope that there's some agreement we can come to where um where it can get built but it it's sensitive to the historic district thank you everybody for your time thank you thank you miss hill next up we have a roya loizen hello can you hear me yes loud and clear thank you okay thank okay i will begin i wanted to thank both boards for the opportunity to speak about this again denise and i seem to be thinking very much alike i find the building itself very appealing i i have no problems with the architectural style um i appreciate the the referencing of of other buildings in the the neighborhood again the question comes down to height and what that does psychologically um no matter how sensitive a building is if it gets too big it's no longer sensitive and so about this i i i also agree with the denise um coming on the heels of the city council vote to preserve the 35 foot height on the contributing properties of the neighborhood again i'm a little bit um caught off guard i i uh uh appreciate that this property is not a contributor and um because of that i'm not stressing the the new the decision of the city council but we're still in the historic district it's still part of the historic district it might be peripheral but only in the same sense that a hand or a foot is peripheral and if you heard it it becomes central so i'll just i'll just say that and otherwise i i want you to know that i do appreciate the quality of the work that's been presented and i have no no problem with that especially the night views you're very much right the lighting effect is very very poetic so that's the end of my comments and thank you for letting me speak again thank you mr. loison chair concave with that we do not have any additional hands raised at this time oh wait no we just go on greg parker and gray you can unmute yourself when you're ready and the time will start i'm ready all right go ahead yeah uh gray parker i'm in the st post st rose historic district i've been here for 27 years and uh i understand the the city's desire to to get growth on the on the downtown area i just have a problem with too much coming into the historic district picking down the the edges of the historic district they go on as high as they can go there is parts of the downtown stationary specific plan and i know we're not supposed to be talking about that because it doesn't apply to bill rose said it would fly through on the downtown station or specific plan update and in that it says in the event of any conflict between the following standards and those of the primary zoning district which i would presume would be uh what is it something mixed use core mixed use those applicable to the h combining district shall apply so that would be telling you that is 35 foot height limit would be the one that should apply when you get into the height limits i'm talking about uh it's 20 dash 28 dash 040 historic combining district it's the guidelines and i don't know whether they're there in the two i don't well i know they weren't in the 2007 uh downtown stationary plan but i don't know uh how that works i can't find it in there um but on this one it said height limits within the combining district are more restrictive than the height limits within the primary zoning district uh no structure in the h combining district shall exceed maximum height of 35 feet in two stories except as provided by subsection e3c and that says the increased time limit height limit does not detract from the character of the present dish preservation district or anti adjacent contributing properties where you've got contributing properties on both sides of this part partial uh i'm with Denise and Roy it's a beautiful building but in our opinion it's just a little too high and this kind of shows why we spent the time to get the variance of 35 feet on the contributors in this area because our history in the past uh is that nobody pays attention to it they just blow right through that 35 foot and they go right up to as high as they can go so thank you for your time uh appreciate your doing the work on this and we'll talk later thank you mr parker thank you and we have another hand raised thomas pope you can unmute yourself now and start when you're ready hi i'm uh the north property is the loamy psychotherapy clinic and i'm the clinical director of the building and we do have some major concerns uh with the building the north's the the balconies and the windows look over our property and it's going to create a privacy issue both visually and sound wise for our property and we are a psychotherapy clinic and this is going to uh have an impact on on our work because there will be sound and we will um have to live with it but i think it's too high it's uh i understand the reason for it to be for financial reasons to be uh as high as it is for them to make money uh uh with the apartments but it still has an impact on our building and uh negatively also the uh hold on if we can pause the timer we lost your first second all right can you hear me you can hear you now okay so uh besides the privacy thing the the the building is so large and in the winter time months for sure there's going to be a shadow on our building so we're going to be dark and uh i think the the sun in the south uh will not reach our building and that's going to negatively impact us and the other thing is i'm very concerned about b street it's dangerous already it's a curve there will be delivery trucks that stop moving in there will be uh trucks out there uh that's going to be very dangerous for that being right on the curve and uh that's already a problem and this is going to create more of a problem and uh so that's a major concern for us okay thank you thank you thank you mr pope with that chair concave we are not seeing anyone else with their hands raised we'll give it a moment we're seeing anybody come forward negative no one is raising their hand at this time okay are there uh any voicemails or other uh correspondence that need to be read into the record no the only other correspondence was read in by um planar murray during her presentation okay excellent then we will go ahead and close the public hearing public comment portion and bring it back to the board let's uh start out with questions for the applicant team and we'll go ahead and start out with board member wicks questions for the applicant team um yeah thank you very much for the uh thorough presentation i'm curious um curious if somebody from your team can talk about the trash and and how that's uh uh going to be uh picked up on a on a daily basis or on on the weekly basis uh i see in the building there's a trash area in the northeast corner of the building um how's it accessed by the apartment dwellers and then what happens what's the procedure for do all the trash bins go out to the curb um if i could get a little uh detail on that uh yes this peter stanley so um we are looking at doing concierge service for garbage so that that would be taken down and put in the garbage bins that are in the the garbage area that's at the east the northeast corner of the building and yes they those bins will be rolled out just about like every other infill business in downtown san josez they get rolled out the the rule of thumb is that every unit has about 32 um gallons of garbage a week and so depending on how much we're we can get through recycling and how much we can reduce waste through other practices within the building we're either going to have once or twice a week pick up we think we think we can get it to once a week pick up and those bins will be moved out there's a an exhibit that we had as part part of our submittal that showed that we could get the bins out to the street and still maintain um 80a uh path to travel access behind them on the sidewalks and um we will have somebody on site so those bins will be put out the night before and they will be brought back from the street within an hour to two hours of the garbage trucks arriving so they if they show up at six then by eight o'clock all the bins will be back off the street great thanks um what about load in and load out for tenants you know hopefully they move in once and and there for a very long time um but are you going to put up cones I mean what's what's kind of the the strategy for load in and load out so the idea behind the load in load out is that we will get an encroachment permit from the city of Santa Rosa that gives us that in other words these are smaller units too so it's not like you're moving into a single family home where you've got you know an 18 wheeler um moving truck that brings in so the idea is that the truck would come out cones would go out traffic um combing would happen move everything out into the courtyard then the truck goes away and then you move everything upstairs into the unit so it's only the units are only there I mean the trucks are only there as long as it takes to unload them not for the entire move process and we're looking at to the degree that we can having those move in move outs occur on the weekends and to the degree that we can maybe on the initial move in where you're going to have more people sort of a more consolidated move in that we would try and um you know schedule those so that the you don't have four moving trucks lined up on the street but that we would schedule those move ins as you know the sort of move in move out after you've got to stabilization happens just a little bit more organically you know it happens as a one-off and we would still maintain that same encroachment permit idea of um having somebody on the street making sure that it was a safe condition and perfect um on your north elevation and maybe a couple of the other ones that I noticed your datum point to your 50 foot 55 foot height limit is appears to be at the bottom of the cornice is that just a a uh rev it or a cad uh misalignment of your datum point or is it is it to the is it really to the bottom of the cornice no it's to the top yeah it's to the top on the cornice and then that also that will also that that will also act as somewhat of the screening for the rooftop equipment too so that parapet wall will also sort of do double duty for the lower equipment okay but it is 55 feet top of parapet it's a fire correct um the the cornice itself can you give me an idea of the size and scale of it the the uh I appreciated your kind of detail is it is it two feet high and two feet deep or can you take that one yeah it's probably more like 30 inches from the top to the bottom of the bevel okay um and then lastly the sun studies uh as soon as we mentioned we're going to see some sun studies do you have those available to show us yeah those were in your package they want to pull them up I don't know if any of the other board members by in trouble opening some of the materials in the package it wouldn't wouldn't stay open and when I scrolled up deleted yeah Henry I was actually going to tell you the sun studies are in there and then they also have a trash like exhibit I guess I would call it as part of the information I was going to defer you to that but all right like Peter answered your questions pretty succinctly and quickly on that so that yeah they all are that's all in here okay I'll I'll I'll stop at that and try to reopen that and see if I can answer my questions about sun state thank you thank you board member wicks board member wiggle questions for the applicant thank you chair concave um so uh maybe I missed this uh I was looking for fencing type two which I think was on the quadriga drawings and I can't seem to find it I saw a six inch curb note noted on bkf drawings but no notations of the fence design and then also uh in the building elevations it looks like the type one fence that's around the peseo is indicated for the southern fencing which is indicated at type two so can you guys elaborate on that one for me can you grab that one yeah so um yes the type two fencing is on the second page it's the one with the images and the legend for the planting it's a wire welded wire fence so it's more visually open than the more decorative metal fence and that will be on the back side the alley side the garage side well I'm seeing it now christine it was just I think it I lost it because it was in all the the imagery there as opposed to being like yeah specifically called out so then um so if you have that welded wire it's on the south side what are the the gates on either side of that are they similar the gate the decorative gate okay cool yeah all right we may do the wire input but it'll have a thicker post and overhead um okay um so still on fencing here a little bit and and I don't want to play uh uh I guess uh building code official um but something I noticed is on the peseo gate you have it indicated is four foot five inches and unless I miss I don't know my building code like I think I do um I think the maximum size for a gate is 48 inches for an egress path so I'm just curious what the the design implications would be uh reducing the size of that gate to comply with code um to adapt to that restriction I don't think there would be any I think um we were working with a preformed panel size so I didn't realize there was a max gate size so that's in chapter 10 of the california building so blame the architect right to bring up a gate size so that's okay I think I just was curious yeah it sounds like you don't have to cut it down so yeah so just cut it down that's an easy answer and and it doesn't really impact anything else except maybe like the size of that canopy I suppose the I guess the sunshade slash rainshade canopy yeah we're all pulled in okay cool um so uh on again unfortunately on a code question um at the rear entry for the residence the double door um you know appears to be a 6-0 door so the panels are 3 feet and it based on my finger measurements I guess uh that the distance between the ramp and the building face appear to be about 5 feet uh so that leaves you 2 feet left over and you can't do that by code you can't cut your egress path in half like that so I'm curious about that um those double doors and how they egress out and how you turn left and right to move through the peseo um what what I think is going to be the design solution there to to deal with that um because I know that you don't want somebody coming down those stairs and having a door open and then somebody run into a door and smack in their head so I'm curious what the how that impacts your your overall design yeah no that's a good point I think um we thought we had the dimension we needed um we were working on that ramp with civil so it's something that we'll have to work out well does it appear um you're talking about the double doors coming out of the lobby is that what you're talking about yeah the the the the resident lobby yeah you probably just have to tuck them back right mitch yeah yeah they'll have to be set in or just have a single door with the side light you open a door closes you can go right and go upstairs it actually doesn't interfere with the ramp the ramps on the other side up against the north property line right but I think there's like a limited amount of space between the door swing and the wall right yeah so but if we can tuck it in that'd be great yeah we got plenty of room in that lobby to do that yeah I was it was more of a design I think design question mitch from like an elevation standpoint it doesn't seem to affect anything I just wanted you to confirm that well the other thing about tucking it's it'll protect the opening to if we did that bring them the door inboard and then um I guess my other I've got two other questions sorry um the where is it I've lost it I'm sorry I wrote all these notes and I lost it so the the the king span product I'm assuming that's a you said it's an insulated metal panel you're just changing the reveal sizes uh right in color right in color and that's probably a response to the new energy efficiency standards and the code um did you did you look at any other material options aside from that because I know that insulated panels kind of hitting on a couple things right it's an economic it's efficient it looks good and then it's you know nail on that energy goal I mean it started with hardy that that one that they have and then we went to the more of a rain screen approach which was was too expensive so this kind of was the middle ground and we like it we think it's a good product that it was it was a response to the nichiha cost that came in um which was significant um double the cost of um the king span but we we were able as you said drew we're able to sort of hit a number of um items with that and then also just ease of installation of not having a bunch of different coming in and putting in this product fine yeah exactly um cool and then I guess my last one is on the entry point um off of B street I uh I worry just a little bit about um kind of the the CMU on both sides and then your glazed door in the middle I know um you know traditional store friends tend to not have that kind of solidness to them like that they tend to be a little bit more open uh for security uh and kind of for lack of a better word squatter prevention if you will and so I'm curious if you guys uh look if there's a structural reason why those two kind of wing walls to that main entry or CMU or if it was more of a just a design intent to kind of flank the entry with that that textual CMU that you've got um that's my last question yeah I think it was as much as anything to bracket the larger window you know looking into the conference room and then it just seemed you know like um I mean we need some structure there so um so just turning it into the where the door is um are you thinking about having glazing on that perpendicular wall is like it's just a thought it's something that that hit my mind I'm you know I've done a number of kind of residential or commercial infill projects actually not here but other places uh where that always seems to be a concern with homeless folks and what not trying to or you know a safety issue because someone can hide in that alcove you can't see that kind of thing that that was more where my question came from well the door will be you know is a is a glass door I mean so it's got I mean it has a frame of course but so you'll be able to see you know somebody's camp there but yeah I mean it's it's definitely an issue in the downtown in general yeah it's just a thought you know you know if you guys are thinking about that um that's it uh Scott thank you good questions uh board member Sharon questions for the applicant team I have no questions at this time thank you and vice chair Hitchbath's questions for the applicant team you're still muted yeah I just thank you chair okay all right um and thank you excellent presentation and um I had been thinking a lot about the uh the service um there there's some great questions about trash and bellies services and and we're all aware that the the parking from the garage the handicapped people coming out of the garage um they'll go to an uncovered area so they're already uncovered to on their journey to the proceedings I'm not sure if it's all going to be handled on the internet or texting when if someone is handicapped coming into the public garage and then exiting out is going to be visiting the development architectural office versus the um residential core the um the wonders of all of the the seating and so forth hopefully there will be a path for that wheelchair that will not disrupt the aesthetics or coziness of of sitting for uh people in the uh in the LA in the Paseo at the same time um my right thinking is going to be they're coming in a car and they'll be in in that garage they won't necessarily because of B streets uh activity uh B street being more and more vigorous no one's going to have flashing lights there they'll just find their way down the ramp and thread through to the front of the building and that that's my understanding is that the uh the polite protocol in uh in that effort Warren there there are there are a number of ways that could happen of course you know somebody Uber's in dropped off that's one thing somebody parts in the parking garage they can come into the lobby because the lobby of the the residential access of access into the office space as well and so that's for a situation of you know how would we manage our office because we will be in there with Tom um manage our office if we did have somebody who was arriving in a wheelchair um I think you're right about the uh the the back residential that's certainly an inclement weather that works well and I I think from a code standpoint being because of your your exiting you've got to have your your exits out of your commercial space swing out obviously that's been the um undercarriage conversation here but it was seen to me that you're going to pass muster by simply allowing people to come down the ramp that come to your office and Tom's and swing in to that lobby zone um that's residential and um it that's probably what's going to happen whether you need door activations if you suck the door in as Drew said you're going to need some door activation system that they can push on so that they don't have to try to finger for the opening if it's recessed um yeah I had I had another question this this may be for Mitch and um perhaps uh also Mark um if we go to the the cultural heritage um reference drawings um and the one I'm looking at is is kind of the reference sheet that you uh you had sourced and the reason I want to bring this up is um see which drawing that is um it would be it would be the one with with all the the St. Rose district with 600B on it 823 and 442 and what what's interesting here is that obviously there there's a lot of different buildings here and it's interesting that the the older building that um Tom Carson's office used to be in is I call it modern and in places like Paris and start away back in 1910 we had the um Pan-American in San Francisco and uh other historic buildings not in this area like the old Yeager building all in and for that matter uh you know uh the older offices drew of of AXIA those are all modern buildings and they have this this strength to them that the reveal lines and the windows the tip the windows are typically recessed and they don't necessarily have lentils on them what's interesting is over on um on 442 there isn't a cross room that's that's not a craftsman building so to speak 823 Washington to us again it's an up and over and 523B um those windows basically are are tucked tight the the upper lintel on those they don't really have a lintel it doesn't project over what I wanted to do was um I I worked for a while on the building in sabasco on high street it was all concrete modern a guy returned back from navy duty fighting on midway and he knew how to pour concrete he's a cb so the whole thing is a concrete bunker which is really hard to to modify but my my comments are when we go to the to the building in question here if we go to the west elevation everyone you can take your your thumbs and you can expand the west elevation and what's interesting is um the uh and I I think this is a wonderful elevation I just wanted to note this when it was drafted um to my liking the bottom right window at the bottom that is a window that is a crisp clear square and it could be flush with the panels the king span in my opinion if you go to the top upper right and this is not to be fussy there there's some things where the the lentils push over which is kind of a little craftsman which may be in in my opinion a bit over it's not quite jiving with the uh the strength of of the king span when you go to the renderings the 3d renderings which are gorgeous um you'll see the same thing kind of plays out the the render was obedient this is the perspective kind of your money shot the front the front elevation what you'll see there is it appears to be at the at the bottom right that's just a square wrap it does project and then the the one in the upper left kind of comes out in your in your architectural elements um what I see in in division seven window with trim it's um those those are really projecting out with a little projecting out and um I think I counted over six different types of windows and this is not necessarily a fault things but you've got six lights you've got two lights you've got you know various things going on and um my comment in general is that uh or my question in general is this um as you sourced carefully there's a lot of work with you and and mark I appreciate your work as well it's it's well executed what was said there is this drive to look at inclusiveness and contextuality at the same time um your steel sash door front windows that kind of number four that's a historic building as well and this is an office building it's it's not necessarily well it's it's a combo building and because it's mixed use you've threaded the needle with trying to create a storefront condition a larger lamp like element at the street which is what I believe the board many people hunger for we we hunger for a project a poster child project which is a functioning actual you you know where your desks are this building is designed in an internal incubated way where real people with real jobs and real housing is going to happen it's not speculative and that's why it's so finely grained so I'm I'm not here necessarily to comment or to question the the six light two light it's it's it's almost kind of a combination Japanese modern I'm just here to say that the uh the front of the building to my mind um the strength of the sides of the building in the rear that christness of the king span flying through and the reveals all matching is is a handsome gesture and it's it seems a little distracting to go into a lintel wrap uh more more of a kind of a border line where the windows aren't flush because so many of the buildings you and mark sourced actually have a more flush line it's it's more about the recess of the window than the trim kind of bulging out and maybe that was more of a comment than a question but it was just I'm sorry is a commented question so um anyhow um I don't know if you want to address that Mitch and yeah just talk through your thoughts there well I think yeah I mean more and on to what we're trying to do which is the street facade windows will not only have trim in the inset of the opening but on the face of the siding so whether we got it exactly right based on you know the the material board you know that's the general design intent so we do it on the street and then when we wrap one bay of windows on the north side we do it there and as I try to say in my comments we were thinking that as like a sort of a vertical cap on the end of the building that sort of just turns the corner and then we go down and then we're going to we still got to figure out how we're going to change that color I mean what I'd like to do is have that that wrap be out of plane with the the siding as it goes along that north elevation to the east but that's a detailing question for Kingsman that I gotta figure out but once we turn that corner then we go to just a window inset and the trim is confined within the punched opening and there's nothing on the surface so now whether or not we captured that from one of these contributing buildings we thought we did but you know in our coaching from Mark you know it presented that he can weigh in here two different opportunities of a sort of historical detailing approach so I don't know who the fun responding to your comment or even giving you an answer is just that was our intent so so to chime in if I may Mitch there's a foundational kind of conceptual difference between the previous building and this current building that I kind of underline in what I see going on in contemporary design versus historic design contemporary design tends to be integrated proportional slabs historic design tends to be punctuated proportional planes how you address the punctuations in those planes the that's where all the design happens is that the integration that changes materials and changes in planes and window trimming etc is far more of a traditional design theme I beautiful comment Mr. Hedgepath there because you know I didn't even track that I was looking for the you know the planes and the proportions to be fabric and correct to the district that that's that's there the integration of those two seven eight windows most of the historic houses most of the historic buildings only have two or three window designs I don't have problem with this complexity and contradiction it's a good thing yeah thank you all right thank you vice chair Hedgepath and I have no questions for the applicant team at this time so I will turn it over to chair Muser to go through the cultural heritage board for questions thank you chair Cankade member Groniga do you have any questions for the applicant first of all I would congratulate both the staff and the applicant in their presentations I thought they were both very thorough and as I understand it for the cultural heritage board the issue of height may be the largest question or tallest question I guess you'd say one of the things I'd like to know from the applicant or from the staff I guess is what is the height of the parking structure behind this building because so much of what this is about potentially is the screening of a five or six-story parking structure as you faced face east of the courts but I was just curious as to the height of the parking structure I think it's isn't it 47 feet didn't I see that that's the number that sticks with me 47 feet and so in fact this building is taller than that parking structure yes okay I guess I didn't read it that way okay thank you thank you manager member Groniga board member Garrett questions for the applicant yes I have two questions I'd like to know what the dimensions of the windows in the upper stories are on the front plus log on v street on the upper floors yeah probably six feet wide by probably close to six feet or square okay great thank you and then do you know what the depth of the balconies are or is I don't know how you phrase that they're six feet deep six feet okay and do you have any will you have any restrictions as to what can be on those balconies yes we absolutely will there will be rental agreements and what can go on there nothing visible above the railing certainly now cows and laundry and things hanging over the sides that was my concern thank you and and I appreciate that you are going to be occupying the commercial space it appears to me that the building on Hillsburg Avenue and 10th that that commercial space is um unoccupied and that is not very helpful in the district so um thank you for that and thank you for a great presentation and that's the end of my questions thank you board member McHugh questions for that I don't really have any questions oops I don't really have any questions other than to compliment both the applicant and staff for a pretty comprehensive presentation okay thank you very much and I don't have any questions either so I'll turn it back over to chair cincade excellent so the way in which we operate and I'll go by historical reference since we have cultural heritage board here is that we've we've gone with the design review portion of the meeting first so I'd like us to entertain a motion for the preliminary designer view approval which would then lead us into our discussion comments and friendly amendments so with that I will leave it to the board to make that determination I'd like to forward a motion to approve the project for preliminary design review deferring the final to staff and waive the reading of the text I'll second that I missed two second and was the board member sharing it was me you were quick on and off the mic all right efficiency that's right all right so we've got a motion and a second for approval of plenary design review with deferment of final to staff so let's go ahead and open it up for comments and friendly amendments to that motion and we'll start with the board member wicks um I'd be supportive of the uh motion before us land use zoning current design of the building fits both those uh meets a need in the city providing some diverse housing it's a dense development I also like that it's a mixed use development that has a commercial use on the ground level um I I'm not going to belabor the points but I think I can make all six findings required for design review approval and I'll let the rest of the board continue the discussion thank you board member wicks uh board member wagel comments friendly amendments so yeah I think I think Mitch and Peter heard us last time and they've come back with a project that I think is much more attractive while also providing a lot of amenities I think to your residential potential residential clientele in terms of kind of just the reworking of how the facade operates um so I really appreciate that um you have a couple uh kind of minor comments and they're they're really I think more personal preference for me um but I think they may make the project a little bit better um so I really actually like the I do appreciate the the Nietzsche Ha kind of cedar panel that you're going to utilize in the soffit I think that adds a level of warmth to the project um that uh it doesn't have otherwise I mean there's a lot of stark materials in terms of uh insulated metal panel and corrugated metal and CMU and things like that and so uh I'm wondering uh if it if you might want to consider I would say uh introducing a little bit of that Nietzsche Ha perhaps in where you have the tighter reveal line for the king's fan primarily I think on the the north facade and then I think there's some other spots for that um I think actually in the the B street facade the west facade that center component that's got that tight um tighter panel reveal I think that might be really interesting in a separate material because you've kind of uh elevated it with your lighting on the building and I think a warmer change of material there might be uh really intriguing and might bring the scale of the building down a little bit instead of having kind of like green gray green uh you might have that green gray kind of cedar warm brown in the middle and then green and gray again it might help the rhythm um and kind of compress the building a little bit um so I'm I'm not personally I'm not in love with uh split face concrete I think it has its purpose and its place I don't know if this is it and the reason I say that is because um you know there is some some kind of stone in the district I mean the old the st. Rose church is a is a stone building but there's a lot more kind of stucco and uh concrete and kind of there's a couple of art deco examples around the area that are more that are smoother so I'm wondering if like a shot a shot blast CMU that's got a smooth finish but still has that revealed texture might be a little bit more in you know jiving with the adjacent buildings or maybe like a limestone block um you know that probably is a little too expensive I think the shot blast is is in line with the split face cost wise if not maybe even less expensive so that may be something to explore um and then obviously I had the question about the glazed entry at the front I think you should consider glazing that but but keeping you know corner columns you know of structure that heavy structure with that CMU block I think that'd be very nice and then just kind of infill the middle I think that'll open up the front a little bit and then I think with the the introduction you know kind of that door situation we talked about at the rear entry I think if you press that in that gives you an opportunity to create an entry point whether that's a small you know cantilevered uh uh roof of some type you know that to kind of indicate an entry at that side for the residents I think that'd be that'd be interesting there uh to kind of act you know to have a drawing point for the eye as you enter the peseo to to kind of indicate where that entry point is uh because it feels like it doesn't exist right now a little bit unless I missed it um and then finally um you know the last time we saw this project I think I I made some comments about the height of the building um I I think the public was very clear and how they feel about the height um the challenge like I said last year is that it's a project serving two masters right you have the downtown station area plan and you have the historic district and um you have to kind of meet both requirements um and um it's hard to to do both and have good design all the way around and I think you guys have done actually a really really good job with both of that um and I understand the economic component uh as well because I think you know if you start lopping off you know two floors on the front you know 30 feet then then maybe you don't have enough rental income to pay for the you know the work the construction loan right so that's a real challenge and and I'm gonna maybe defer to to my colleagues on culture heritage board on that one I'm okay with it I think being five feet or five stories um I wish there was a creative way to to get kind of what you want but it doesn't seem like there is and and then finally um one moment sorry my children I apologize I had fighting uh children and um uh lastly I think the shadow studies are telling a little bit regarding the height um for the adjacent properties I think it's really clear that this is a big building um and what it's gonna do um from a shadow standpoint um so that that is a consideration but again how do you get density without going vertical again it's a kind of a two masters thing that the project has to serve and I don't I don't know I don't have the answer um but uh I think it's certainly some of you guys I thought about and uh you did a lot of work and I appreciate that and this is a challenge and and you did a fairly good job uh attacking it so thanks thank you board member Weigl board member sharing comments friendly amendments yes uh um good luck to you with the all the background and the excitement there it always happens at the perfect time of course um yes uh yeah first off obviously uh um thank you planner Murray um for a great presentation um for shepherding this uh this project um over the past um months years and uh applicant team thank you very much for um a really solid package and a solid um building and for the decades of of uh investment and work that you put into this site um and um I also very much appreciate um all the work that you've done since we saw this a little over a year ago um again comparing contrasting the the plans um looking back at compliment or comments um you guys have done a great job with incorporating uh what we brought up and uh and uh responding to them um if not incorporating them and justifying um it's one of the things I really like to see is is basically the thought process of what goes on behind the design decisions so thank you for spelling all that out um really great solid justifications for your for your work um I agree that uh yeah the the six uh design guidelines that we're looking at um I really think that it um what you're proposing um hits um all of them and uh I think what you're bringing uh this go around um I feel like you very much refined the the the the proposal in the building and it's a it's a large building um but it provides what I what I appreciate with with this iteration of it is it is much more um balanced um and it's it's centrally balanced it's it's it's got a um a nice it's a nice statement rather than being um kind of placed on the on the on the site this area um and in this building I I think that for what you're proposing the the height is appropriate for me um and I think is actually a very good use of the space we are um adjacent to and in the the um the the historic district but we're also adjacent to the downtown area um and um we're an entryway and a bridge and entryways are bridges that you have to translate how you're passing through that threshold and I think this building provides uh a good way to to provide a threshold um to the downtown it marries a bunch of what you're thinking I think the your your um design detailing um does a really good job with referencing the historic um context but then you're also representing um or referencing um the modern nature of what you're doing and also the the the downtown area I think the height does a really good job with screening um the parking garage and it also references other buildings that change that's happening um downtown and in this area um you know from this area you're also very close to the the proposed building around Ross Street it's also a larger building um you know it's only a block away um so um I think that it actually um provides a good um a good bridge and a good marriage of the of those two um which is a delicate um dance and again thank you for the the comprehensive package I feel that you've um I feel confident that you've thought um and are thinking about the of how to to get that balance and I think that it shows both in your details and in the design um some of the the comments that I had um last year had to deal um with the the south face um and and some of the the detailing in the front um I did you feel it yeah that you guys have incorporated those comments well I like the addition of the columnar trees um in in the the south entrance in the south face there um I think the south face just um for the the building itself also as much uh it's softer and is is is more is more balanced as well then again that wraps all the way around um I do like um just like Susie mentioned that she prefer she really likes that the powder coated uh railing um I think that's a really nice detail um touch tube and it does reference um the neighborhood and um I think that the southwestern corner um is nicely softened there um both by that that railing in the um wire trellising that's coming around there um and I think that that covers um what what I was thinking of um and uh yeah I also just wanted to um say bravo on on your emphasis on the um the kind of after hours thoughts um thinking really about the building and the lighting um I think it is very elegant and I think you've done a really nice job there um with uh with thinking about how to to um provide a very aesthetically pleasing building when you're looking at it because this is a it's a big visual statement um and a good choice in the color palette and materials and um thanks very much that'll do my comments thank you board member Sharon vice chair Hitchbeth's comments friendly amendments yes chair concage um again I'm very pleased with this building I saw in its earliest concept work and I just want to uh have an overarching thought about why this is a superior design there's a life to this project um when you look at buildings built in 20s and 30s um a lot of the the historic neighborhood didn't really afford a balcony so I actually have a friend that lives in the project just to the south of this with its hallways and so forth but the the gesture of having the um the hallway corridor quieting down the south elevation allowing the behavior of residents of that historic building that's a wonderful gesture um it's it's really tree like if all of us have walked under a deodorant cedar or a lot of these evergreens that have big boughs that come out and you you imagine the underbelly of these boughs and walking by or driving by this building with with that cedar and that delicate lacework in the balconies it's really stunning it's it's a building that's alive and that's uh that's a compliment um right said some buildings are quiet some talk and some sing and I would like to think that Drew's comment about the cedar and the inset is wonderful I apologize uh if if I got a little fussy on the window trim but I just I just think if it was just square around and didn't have little projections where you are coming out it could be as subtle as only one inch as you work with uh king span and other things just just note that that the subtlety of that trim it need not be loud um so in in general Drew's other comment about the uh that more polished CMU block I know it's it's too expensive to do poured concrete and there are other things to do but um there is something rather alluring and appealing about how we take CMU now and we we shave it we grind the face and I think that was a great comment Drew along with your cedar um love the lighting I've done ability before where you um once people are are safely tucked away driving by this with that vertical um light is a wonderful situation and again my comments stand on the height and the housing and the economy why not have beauty and population there is nothing in the guidelines that say that that can't be done and I'll have to say it's one of the other buildings in town it's replacing and I don't think this is a a bruise to the eye for anything in the historic district it's a good precedent of how triumphant balconies a good cornice line and people living and thriving downtown can save us from despair thank you those are some uh fantastic comments from all my board members um what I would echo is pretty much everything that I've heard what I did my site visit the only thing I would add is that I generally felt that this building would fit very well into its location the the biggest struggle that I had with the height was only due to the property to the north and I think that you know knowing that that property at some point in time could be redeveloped or at least repurposed with a 35 foot high building gave me a little bit more comfort that and also the fact that I do believe that it's a very well designed building I don't know that you could have taken the design to a greater detail although I've heard some fantastic comments from Drew and Warren and you know particular just the subtleties of the landscape design such a tight space you really took advantage of some small areas that take it a million miles further in the comfort and livability so um job well done um I think the way that uh I want to do this if it's all right with chair users I'm going to summarize kind of our bullet points before we lose them and then we'll jump over to cultural heritage board and let you provide design comments and then we can incorporate those as well because ours are really quick and easy so what I have from uh Drew Weigel board member Weigel consider north facade portions of the west where there are title tight reveal areas to transition to a warmer niche material or something of the like just call it just call it fiber cement make it easy fiber cement thank you material um consider more of a smooth shot blast cmu or limestone like look for the cmu that is currently ground face foot face consider fully glazed entry at the office entry I should specify and consider a recess entry at the residential lobby and vice chair hedge beth was asking for the consideration of more subtle trim on the entry glazing that's all we had for friendly amendments so with that I'll turn it over to chair and user to go through the cultural heritage board for design comments thank you chair concaid uh board member chronica they have comments as to design uh no real specific comments I leave that to the architects of engineers here um I would concur actually with uh the um public uh each of the four historical district all complemented the design even though the issue for them is hype I'm sure but uh at the same time looking at this project and it is the design uh one of the things that most concern me I guess in taking a look at the two garages uh that kind of surround uh the uh st roves district not being the one to the south south west I believe uh related to macy's the parking lot there is not very attractive at all and does not help that district at all I would concur again with the public members or the public who uh said and I believe a staff member did too that this uh garage to the east of this project is probably the best looking uh parking structure in the uh city I would just slightly disagree as when I was at the jc I built the parking structure there uh several years ago but a lot of folks may not know this that design was taken from the seventh street uh parking structure you can see a lot of similarity also I must uh forgive after your forbearance and forgiveness on my math skills when I was taking a look at the height of this building in the parking structure um I added when I should have subtracted say that but irrespective the nicest feature of this is that it does screen that parking structure even as attractive a parking structure it may be I think a design adds to the uh the district especially given that it's a non-contributor uh it seems to fit well 55 foot height uh as well so beyond that I have no further uh comments at this to me hey thank you very much uh board member Garrett uh well I appreciate that um the architects didn't mimic the historic architecture but took the rhythms and the fenestration um of the neighborhood into consideration and used the contemporary and used contemporary materials to avoid a false sense of history I think that was really well done um and I really like the simplicity of your color palette as it's more compatible with the historic district um I noted that um design review board members share and referenced a bridge from downtown to the historic district and the chp's job is to be vigilant that these bridges don't erode the perimeter of uh the historic district um I feel that the building is out of scale with the historic district and the adjacent buildings um the uh slide that was shown um with the building to the south that I think of a slide number four shows the three-story apartment just to the south of the of the building we're discussing shields the view of that parking lot um probably because it's um the same height or maybe even slightly taller than the parking lot I'm not sure um but it definitely shields it from the street view and the victorians across the street the two um ornate victorians that were relocated across the street that are there each 35 um feet tall which is what the contributors are allowed to be I think I think that we need to be really careful that we do not um destroy the perimeters of the historic districts and um St. Rose is is um is one of the historic districts that is in the downtown almost all of them are or very close to the downtown and if we value these I think we need to protect them we also need to be able to work with um projects that that um are infill which in a way this is since the building that's coming down was not a contributor um so I I I don't think I can support a five-story building um in this place okay um so I'd like to see it either a three or possibly a four-story depending on what the height would be um the specific area plan says that new construction should enhance the historic district and although this building is very attractive I don't think the height enhances the historic district it it um is taller than the church it's taller than any building in the area including the parking garage so I'll leave it at that okay thank you very much or member mckew well I want to begin by uh you know acknowledging the applicant's attempt to you know look at the contributing elements in the district particularly with respect to you know uh 600 b street and 523 b street and and how they have used those buildings to incorporate into design the the the structure at at issue um we are caught uh on a dilemma and as the city wants to develop to downtown and as we are faced with issues with respect to height it's it's it's one of these things that that I think is we're constantly going to have to deal with as a non-contributor I don't have a problem with with the uh with the five stories I think it's attractive building I think it's an attractive structure I wouldn't you know I appreciate the the members of the public who are concerned but at the same time I'm also concerned about the fact that we need the housing and we need the uh we we need the the housing and and if we have an attractive building and we have the housing then I'm going to be very supportive of that and I'm not going to be uh worried particularly in this particular situation because this building is a non-contributor and so I'm supportive of the project and uh I'm going to vote for it okay thank you very much um let me just go back and and uh as uh Chair Kincaid did and recap um what each of our board members at least what I heard so please uh please chime in if if I got something wrong or um you want to change uh a comment that I'm making with board member Groniga um I heard that he concurs with the public on uh the design and the approval of the design concurs with the public uh regarding the parking structure and that it's a good-looking parking structure and um and that uh also that it uh screens well the parking structure as uh as a positive with board member Garrett I heard that appreciates the contemporary materials that were used um like the simplicity of the color palette but felt that it was out of scale with the district and the adjacent buildings um and feel strongly that we need to protect the perimeter of our historic districts and would prefer a three or four story uh rather than the five story and with board member McHugh uh I heard um that the fact that it's a non-contributor that uh he doesn't have any problem with it being five stories um he demonstrated concern for housing needs and feels that this will help provide for housing needs and is very supportive of housing needs anybody like to add to that okay and um I'll give my comments um basically probably with regards to the design review findings my biggest uh well let me say first let me compliment um staff for their presentation I thought it was an outstanding presentation outstanding staff report and the applicants um you guys just all jumped in and just did a great job it was a great presentation um I I also like the design of the building I think it's very very attractive and I know a lot of work a lot of thought and I know you listen to a lot of our comments that first go around and that's very much appreciated um where I'm having trouble is um with number four of the design review findings which is and and this again comes from the stance of the cultural heritage board and and you know what our board at least what I feel our board um is supposed to be doing and that's um number four is compatibility with the neighborhood and you know so when we look at that word compatibility you know compatibility and height compatibility uh similar proportion um the building is just really really big and it's really really high and um I just can't really support the five stories um as far as being compatible with the historic neighborhood I think that it meets the downtown station area specific plan goals and needs it's a nail right on the head but I don't think it meets the needs and the compatibility of the st. rose historic district and that's that's the challenge that's the trouble but that's that's kind of the reality at least in in my thoughts so um with that I'll turn it back to chair concave thank you chair muser and the members of the cultural heritage board great comment all the way around um I didn't hear anything from the chp that would be a what we call friendly amendments to the motion itself um other than there would be um some challenges um on the height so I think at this time before we go ahead and uh you know solidify the friendly amendments and do a roll call I think I'll check in with um bill rose to see if he can give us any guidance on how best to proceed uh in in getting through our two decisions tonight yeah thank you chair concave I'd be happy to do so so as both boards know we do have two actions tonight one is the joint uh the design review and this is where both boards will take action the findings are design related uh chair muser just went through the compatibility finding there are others uh it sounds like what I'm hearing the concerns are related uh in a just in addition to the compatibility finding the chair muser just mentioned but height also and I just want to direct the board's attention back to the landmark alteration permit and I also just would like to take a quick moment to talk about height so there's been discussion about the five stories and the 35 feet and the way it works is the the the five stories is a height maximum and when you have discretionary review you have a maximum you can go to but you have to go through and satisfy the findings in a historic district 35 feet is your height limit and to exceed that have to meet certain findings and that was what uh miss murray spent some time on in her presentation directing your attention to it's the finding in the landmark alteration permit that allows this project to go over the 35 feet so if the boards please they could act on the design review focused on the design review findings certainly compatibility is one but if height is a specific interest then that can be something that's discussed in more detail with the cultural heritage board and the 35 feet so I just wanted to put some context to what the actions are these are available actions they would go to the city council right now if I'm looking at some votes it looks like the cultural heritage board mean what we might end up with a if we ended up with split vote then that would be a denial so and that would not allow the designer of you to go forward so I just wanted to add some context to this and happy to answer any questions that any of the members might have a bill thank you very much I I think that knowing that we can look at the design itself and those issues those findings and then the fact that you brought back up that the height issues really landmark alteration issue then we can deal with that with the cultural heritage board thank you certainly and then just one last item and I'm sure chair can give you will do this as you do it pretty much every time is prior to the I would suggest that we offer the applicants a chance to respond make sure they understand what some of the directions are the feedback conditions comments and see if they have any input on what they're hearing so that'd be my suggestion hey Bill I've got a quick question like a procedural question so let's say we both and everybody's you know agrees that the design is good and the design preliminary design package can move forward and then say during the landmark alteration permit they say no it's 55 feet doesn't work it's got to be 35 feet does the approved preliminary package now have to come back to design review because it's essentially a change to the approved design not necessarily that's why I mentioned it's appealable so the one action let's say one action gets approved one action gets denied than the one that than anybody can appeal that and so it could go to the council and the council would then take jurisdiction over that that answers it for me thanks all right so before we discuss with the applicant or considers does miss Murray want to take a shot at going through the uh considers um that you heard from us and clarify there first you know I I don't I started to write and you moved along much too fast for me uh chair so um I can I can I'm happy to take dictation again um I think generally when uh we're doing the conditions the considers I guess I'm a little confused I thought that I didn't realize I was doing a read back for them although I did try to start writing them but if you would like to would you mind reading those back again because I think you've got them written down right absolutely and not a problem saved me this time yeah so um consider on all facades where there are tighter reveal areas to change the material to the fiberboard fiber cement fiber cement thank you cedar collard yeah fiber color your colors to match the soffits yeah fiber cement cedar color to match the soffits that to just wrap it up completely thank you how's that one for you miss Murray I'm not planning on reading them back to you that's fine I think you'll get it that's good all right um consider a more smooth CMU such as a shot blast smoothness or a limestone block look for the CMU areas consider full glazing at the office lobby entry consider a recessed entry at the residential lobby and consider more subtle trim at the office entry glazing if I could just drive this point home a little bit I think what Warren was was after and I'm looking at the 600 B street building and and a couple of the other buildings that the windows don't have any trim on them on the residential units above um and that's I think and I'm working chime in I don't think it was just at the entry I think it was the west end elevation windows and the the corner northwest also has a trim element and then the southwest has a has a has a trim element and if I could do 615 uh Bealsburg Avenue again I take all the trim off of it so I I think this is the right time to get this building and I think I think probably some of the detailing with the king span will be easier if it just matches all the other window edges as well so if I could help amend that consideration that Warren had and how to let Warren in his eloquent way uh jump in on his consideration but I think that's where he was headed with it I'll just say yes the the eye is traveling around this building with these horizontals and there's verticals as well and there's a clarity of that that that makes it pure when you create a trim that jumps over those seams it kind of bruises the eye so I I think you've stated it well Henry that by by having things flush and just looking at at the panel material itself and dealing with the recesses the building has plenty of music with all its window type six light four and you know that there's a lot going on there it's already um very much a rich palette and I I'm concerned about the eye being distracted it's a stronger play to uh to sands to take away from that trim and uh we've already got the punched opening in between on the west elevation you've got in-out recesses so anyway that's that's well said and I support that so I feel like it's uh I think it's leaning more like a shall then with all these uh strong comments no okay I think it's a shall if the applicant's okay with it if it doesn't yeah you know fundamentally detract from how they want to see the building if they're cool with it then yeah it's a shall but otherwise I think it would be a consider okay well now's a good time to check in with the applicant team on those uh considerations and then the primary discussion on the uh shall or consider for the um trim at the what is now the northwest south sorry it's the west side it's the north and southwest corners thank you peter do you want to or do you want to well I yeah I can respond to the trim I mean I understand you know where Warren's going with it I mean really uh this is more of a procedural thing and how we approach these kind of tricky detailing things at times is to just you know get it at a scale where we can look at it I almost mock it up in a sense you know I mean if you go to kingspan you'll see both treatments in in their literature so it's not like this is foreign detail whether you're you know trimming out the inset and then applying something across the surface so I'm not saying no and I'm saying you know I think it deserves more study um but I get the intent of what you know Warren's trying to say so you would appreciate the flexibility of a consider uh yeah okay I let me chime in there Scott also is that um I think all of these are good ideas and I think that what we would want to do is go back and study them together as a package as opposed to pieces of the design right so absolutely these are all great comments and if you could give us the flexibility of a consider that allows us to go back and look at together and we will do design studies um you know looking at these various options just a comment might I make a comment trim is very historic it's all over the district and it's not inappropriate to it I can see that the conflict with where it is where it isn't but I think it's an addition that is certainly indicative of the district so I think that what we've seen from the design team in the collaboration that they've had with their historic architect and us and the chp and staff that might allow them the flexibility in the regard to study these items but I'll get consensus from the board so leave it as a consider I would accept um I disagree with mark just a little bit um you know when buildings go into to to historic districts you shouldn't you shouldn't try to to steal from the historic architecture you need to complement the historic architecture I think there's something about that applique trim that warren was uh that he identified that that I feel like is it's a little bit like lipstick on on the windows a little bit and and and I think there's something beautiful about just the simplistic way that the the king span window system is designed without an applique and I think that's maybe what he was trying to get at and I actually were marks coming from but I think that there's a need to draw the line and say this is new this is old and we're respecting the old by doing beautiful architecture well even even the old um from the 1920s and and the the art deco building on 600 that you know if you want to try to draw some parallels from it it there's steel windows and they don't have any trim on them I I just I feel pretty strongly with warren that the that adding that additional lipstick just doesn't doesn't do anything for the project if there's so many windows on the rest of the project that don't have that that don't interrupt your eye line and uh don't try to harken to a more traditional residential style trim I think it should be a shell personally but well I think you're listening to three out of uh at least five um it wanted to be a shell so maybe check in with the cultural heritage board what are what are your thoughts anybody have any I uh I also agree that I I don't see a need for it I I think it would look look cleaner and agree with the other um derby board members board members okay all right I think it's a shell then um and that's it's gonna head it in that direction so it's a shell do away with the additional trim on the west and southern northwest corners so I can't resist we'll trade you the trim for a fifth floor I'm sorry that's a that's a good one I'll let you I'll let you slide with that I don't think so match I'll take it hey nothing game right here we go all right so uh with that I'll just check in with staff do you uh are you comfortable with the gist of our considers and shell yes they're very clear and uh we have them okay excellent then uh at this time uh for the motion that's on the table I'll ask for a roll call thank you chair concave can you repeat the motioner and the seconder again oh yeah you know what we didn't formalize that those got entered into as friendly amendments so I believe the motioner was uh vice chair hedgepeth do you accept the friendly amendments yes I do and the second was board member Sharon do you accept the friendly amendments I do accept them okay thank you for that uh Mike appreciate it now we can take the roll call from so with cordon brock abstaining one vacancy we will start with board member Sharon hi board member weigel hi board member wicks hi vice chair hedgepeth hi and chair concave hi and from the cultural heritage board with board member debaker and vice chair final absent one vacancy we'll start with board member kim all right and so we're voting on the five stories can you find that you're you're voting on the preliminary design review that's what this action is for it is it is for a build a five-story building but there is a special finding that is on the landmark alteration permit specifically speaks to the height of the building I am going to have to vote no because I um am opposed to a 55-story building board member dronega yes I uh vote a yes I think it's a good project and I think it fits well board member becu I also vote aye I think it's a good project and we ought to move forward and cheer me sir vote aye as well okay uh motion passes so at this point in time uh I'll again ask for uh bill rose to give us some guidance or there is the designer review board excused and cultural heritage board carries on or do we all stick around for the landmark alteration discussion uh the drb actually could be excused this is just an action by the um cultural heritage board as a joint meeting it uh can I chime in for a second bill sure I have a question and that is I don't think that I think we need all four members of the chb to vote in order to to pass this and vote the same in order to pass this so it didn't pass until the new code the new zoning code goes into effect we require four members of the chb regardless of how many are in attendance to approve if your chairs can get a muser if you wouldn't mind indulging us uh just a five minute break so we can confirm this and make sure that whether that's true absolutely let's do it right go far all right we'll take five minutes uh back at uh 855 yeah we did check I think it was the uh okay I think it's time to reconvene if I could ask all board members to trim your cameras back on I got a message saying the host has stopped my video we're not your welcome may there you are maybe you uh left it on when you stepped away and they just turned off your camera for you either just try to look at my mug tonight that is the case we turn off the cameras yeah we've all been there any yeah my camera is off too so on our end we ask you to restart your camera so here you go thank you okay I think I see everybody back on so I'm gonna go ahead and turn it over to staff to let us know what they found out okay so chairs can kid him user and members it is true the cultural heritage board actually has a special provision that it requires all four it requires four affirmative votes to pass an item so the three one vote that we got uh is effectively it's a denial so then therefore since it needs to be a vote between consensus between both boards then that motion and that vote actually failed for the preliminary design review so um is further discussion on the item allowed or are we done maybe a mechanism I suspect if we made a motion and a second to open discussion again um but I'm not sure that the motion or the second would change in any way so it's almost like it's just a revote after discussion yeah there there is there are mechanisms to reconsider I believe though that happens has to happen at the next meeting I can confirm that if that's what the board would like to do I don't know if there's a mechanism to do it right now uh Patty might know I don't want to put you on the spot Patty so if you don't know please just indicate that one second bill if you can please repeat that it was just a question for our recording secretaries if either of you know if there's a mechanism to do a to send the vote that just occurred and to take another motion and act on it tonight or does that have to occur at the following meeting a motion to have that happen and then the actual vote happens at a meeting after that if either of you know that that would be helpful okay this is the host um I don't have that off the top of my head um my feeling is that if somebody makes a motion and there's a voted a vote to rescind but I if we can have a few minutes I can um look through the council protocols to verify that yeah we can absolutely get that tonight if the the board would boards would give us a few minutes if that's what the boards would like to do right now uh bill I have a can I ask a question Scott you make sorry so with the denial of the preliminary design review does that mean the landmark alteration discussion can't happen at all or are are they disconnected from one another or do we have to do preliminary and then do landmark as the process and so since we are I might I might mix in that up again I'm sorry they're distinct actions so one is with both one board so yeah that's what and and I apologize if I was unclear to any of the board members um with my discussion about the fact that it's a design entitlement the design review it is by virtue of its approval authorizing a 55 foot building and its design the landmark alteration permit has a more specific focus on height and so that was the that's what I was trying to to indicate uh just to try to put into some context some of the comments that I was hearing so hopefully that wasn't confusing but uh certainly if the boards are interested in reconsidering the action that was just taken at tonight's meeting uh I'm actually working on this I'm typing while we're we're talking to see if that's a possibility so a suggestion might be a if the chairs are interested in taking a straw vote to see if that is of interest to the boards tonight I think designer you probably is and I would offer up the straw vote to covalent heritage ward hey you chair concave um members of the cultural heritage board is there interest in doing a quick straw vote sure let's see where we are yes I would agree and I'd like to get something out of this past four hours of work we've all been doing and I would suggest reconsider pass the vote on the design review board take us then to the landmark uh alteration permit it will go to to it appears then let the the applicants appeal because either way you're gonna you're gonna lose a lot of time and you may lose a lot of us and so I uh that's a suggestion bill and board member uh Garrett I would be willing to discuss um I feel it's inappropriate to have a five-story building um in that spot and if we keep eroding the historic districts we're not going to have any left in our purview as the cultural heritage board is to um protect the historic districts so I would not change my vote I think 55 feet is is too high okay thank you board member Garrett chair concave I think we just need to move forward from here it sounds like a plan and uh with respect to the boards a lot of times been spent I think the applicant walks away with a lot regardless of where the vote ends up in his cast and they take you know this this whole dialogue well you know at times frustrating takes it to the next step which will be um I suspect an appeal to the city council and the city council will be able to digest all of the comments that were made this evening so um you know it's uh this is where we get sometimes as a board and I think we add a respect for each other that we move on can can I interject again you may I think the process requires that the boards have a consensus in the past um in the past we've had to have the boards vote so that they or the applicant has requested that the design review board uh deny revote and deny the design review preliminary design review because the boards have to agree here in order for us not to get jammed up we have to have a consensus so I am going to um if I could have maybe a five minute break so I can talk to my applicant and find out the how they will go forward from here and also talk to my my co-workers and find out the next steps um I apologize this is just kind of one of those the situations we just need to figure out the answer but my read of the zoning code says that we have to have consensus between the two boards which means we can't have one board approve and one board deny so I understand um my question to that uh it means to an end would be uh what what basis would we be denying um preliminary design review if we as the design review board find all six conditions of the met I think about is that it has to be a consensus and she's right about that the confusion here is that when we only have four members present and we have this other clause that says all four have to act in the affirmative I think that's where the uncertainty is so it's it's a it's a specific section in the code it relates only to the cultural heritage board and it just it's unfortunate because we only have four members present tonight so I again apologize for the delay but I think to get it right it would be very helpful to have a few more minutes to try to see if there is um more information we can get from this yes certainly I was just getting at when we come back to reconvene and take potential another vote um I mean I would assume that we would have to have grounds to deny a preliminary design review correct you have to you only have to make one find one finding that you cannot satisfy do that but that is true I um in the past we were able to do it based on an applicant request to deny so that they could move forward with their appeal and I do believe that you're correct I so all it why don't we recess again um we'll start with five minutes and if staff needs more time we'll allow for more time so let's call it 912 thank you thank you and if everybody can please turn off their cameras so you'll be able to turn back on when you return just wanted to do a quick check in it's 912 does staff need another five minutes all right yes we do need a few more minutes thank you okay let's go ahead and uh recess again till uh 917 thank you I'm not sure we're all supposed to be saying what's being shown on the screen right now I was just going to say you're sharing your screen uh I think it's probably Mike and that's exactly the project I was thinking of thank you chair kate see we're right in the process we'll be with you shortly chair kate and chair musicer just want to let you know that we were probably need another 10 minutes wanted to give you an update thanks for the update standing by appreciate everyone's patience I feel like we need some jeopardy music to round this out though okay cultural heritage board and designer degree board members sounds like staff is ready for us so if everyone can return to your live state of cameras on we can keep going again someone's gonna have to turn the video on it's not allowing me on this is Susie and we are still working on trying to figure this out and we're looking back at history right now just so everybody understands and there is bill so I'm gonna let him take over so first of all sincere apologies to all board members this is certainly presented an opportunity that we've not faced uh exactly in the past so sorry for the delay I did get a chance to talk to staff from the city attorney's office I just want to offer and I have it here I can read it I haven't looked through it in detail myself but I will read it if the board's choose just to go back to items it does appear that the vote as as was conducted stands it would be a denial so that is true the you have to have consensus between both boards and in this case you do not and so therefore that is a denial I did get some clarification this is the thing that I could read if the board's choose we did revisit it earlier look like the decision was no but it does appear that there could be a reconsideration at tonight's meeting if that was the interest of the boards there is a process and a mechanism to do that so if there's any interest in that I can read that which was sent to me by the city attorney's office other than that that that is a denial as I mentioned that preliminary design review is appealable it would go to the city council appreciate the fact that we may be able to reconsider I suspect that based on the straw vote that CHP board member Garrett would not change her vote and therefore we would have another failed consensus and so I just soon let it lie where it is and I believe that the landmark alteration as they discussed was probably going to go to you and fail as well in which case the applicant would be before city council anyhow and so unless others see it some other way I think we just move on so we will thank you vice chair go ahead board member ground again and then vice chair hedge beth after that just a question it might be more for bill is that if I'm following chair concaid then this would be a denial the whatever it was nine one vote or whatever and then we would then vote because we haven't voted yet on the landmark alteration and that is assumed to be a two-two vote now and so then that would deny so then both both items would then be subject to appeal by the applicant at the future city council meeting is that correct yeah board member ground could you have it correct so if as I indicated the vote that was just taken that does result in a denial effectively and then if it does turn out to be a two-two vote and that would for just the landmark alteration permit that is a denial actually a three one would be a denial because as I mentioned the board has to move forward with four affirmative votes it's unique to the chb so anything less than that would be a denial both of those would be appealable what we've done also I believe in the past who is when these scenarios come up because it seems that the height was the issue in this instance there might be some feedback that could be beneficial to hear from the applicant so I don't know if the chairs are interested in that or the other board members but it might be an opportunity to hear from the applicant to see if they have anything to offer given the the status right now vice chair hedge best did you have something to add yes it's it's centered on what bill rose was was mentioning when across the board there isn't consensus the record that goes in front of the council does it really highlight the height or is it just simply there was not agreement on moving forward because there was a hundred percent consensus it will be left up to the council to look at the records the reason I bring that up is that it seemed like at least on our board that the project was embraced and we're not going back to dismantle our findings or the fact that at least on our board there was consensus that the six prevailing statutes stand so this denial is actually a denial singularly based on lack of consensus and there isn't a message sent to council about uh nibbling away at what was voted on well when we go forward with an appeal we will be more than just the actual vote we will express some of the content of the person and the factors that went into that decision so I think that we will do our best to communicate that effectively and clearly thank you remember what's good board member wakes and then board member you're on again there's another clarification for you bill um this is my first experience with having um whether it was one person or or three people um voice concerns about the height but I I thought that we were taking an action on the design of the building and not on a zoning issue with with the building I don't really think it's our purview to uh you know review projects based on zoning if the zoning allows for 55 feet then I may have a personal feeling that maybe it's too tall but it's not really I don't really feel like it's my purview to say that I I don't I can't stand before the project because I think it's too tall or too short or too wide um so I just I just wanted to hear your comments on the that that the landmark alteration as I understood the way you explained it early on is that there would be two actions one for the design of the building and the second action on the height of the building which is a little more complex than that so the the design review as I've mentioned the findings the the scope the focus is design obviously when you take action whether it's on a joint action or it's just the designer view board by itself or its staff level whenever you're making findings in a discretionary action you have to say the project meets the findings it also has to meet the general plan and the zoning and a number of different things so there is a compatibility finding so you you could relate it I suppose in that sense but it's by and large is a design entitlement still has to be consistent with zoning in the case of the joint preliminary design review the zoning allows up to five stories uh it's not a given it means you still have to make the findings it's still discretionary but it is allowable up to five stories in the landmark alteration permit it gives a distinction and it says 35 feet is the limit and you can exceed that provided you make this extra finding so there's a special circumstance with regard to height under the landmark alteration permit that does not exist with the design review so so it's you know a lot of it is kind of different ways that you look at it and how you argue it you could say that it does satisfy the zoning code it is within the 50 or the five-story height limit and therefore it is satisfactory you still have to make the findings though and there is a compatibility finding it's just that there is a more specific distinction when it comes to the landmark alteration permit and that was my reasoning for trying to describe that earlier and still trying to do that now so so i have a question and and and what it is is that is that we have a member of the cultural heritage board that is opposed to the height limit and is she is that person likely to change their vote my sense is probably not so with respect to whether we reconsider all of the things that we do my sense is is is that that question is settled now we need to move on to what the cultural heritage board is going to do with respect to the to the permit and i think we should proceed there and have that vote and then let that be appealed to the to the council my sense is unless unless uh you know member gary is willing to change her vote that's where we are so let's move forward and deal with that and let's see and move forward i mean because otherwise we're just spinning our wheels here i'll go ahead i think the project is great i just think the height is excessive it's higher than the parking garage and the three-story building right next to it um hides the parking garage from the street i feel that the 55 feet is in excess the height or um that district and i and i will oppose the 55 feet i would be um okay with with you know a four-story i mean i'd be happier with the three but i would go for a four-story building but i think that it overpowers the rest of the district and once you start eroding an historic district where do you end that and as cultural heritage board member we are we are supposed to protect our historic districts so that's why i voted the way i did and i would again if if that if that then's the case then let's move forward and what we've done is what we've done and let's let the cultural heritage board move forward with it with the vote on the permit and the the applicant can appeal to the to the city council because that's where we are okay before before we head in that direction i'd like to uh get input from the third leg of our three-legged stool and that would be the applicant um i know they want at least have a voice in this discussion so with that i'll turn it over to the applicant for a brief dialogue again to uh board member mckews point i think we know where this is headed but didn't want to afford the applicant the opportunity to address both boards as we are all here tonight thank you chair concave this is peter stanley um you're going to understand our frustration tonight notwithstanding the fact that we are getting a denial although there's an eight one approval amongst the two boards um that is something that um frankly is a bit astonishing to us but we understand this is the process that the city has um to the point of the 55 foot height and it being too much i i would point out that two weeks ago city council pulled 12 parcels out of the amended station area plan those parcels had an far of four on them which would have allowed them to go over 35 feet they pulled them out because of impacts from conversations out of the um san rose district i want to make it very clear that they consciously left our parcel in that far four um which not only means that it's an far four but it's also um a cd five that means that the council made a very conscious decision that they knew that parcel was going to go over 35 feet and i think we're having this conversation that 55 feet is too high that sounds subjective to me that sounds that if the parcel to the north of us was able to develop by right to the 35 foot limit that that certainly our building is a little bit higher but that's how the city's evolved and if the city council did not want the historic districts inside of these priority development areas they would have excluded them um they we wouldn't even be having this conversation because those parcels never would have made it in to the policy document but they did and for the last two and a half years we've been encouraged by council members and staff and frankly the community to find these priority development sites and intensify development there to bring them desperately needed housing into the downtown so you can hear my frustration because we have spent well over a hundred thousand dollars to get to this point to a denial off of one vote and i realized that the landmark alteration permit will probably lose by two but we have been following direction as a developer as residents of this city for the past 40 years we have been taking our direction from adopted policy adopted policy and this is extraordinarily frustrating to get to this point and to have that policy essentially thrown out the window so in terms of what member mckews adding he's spot on there is we've got an eight one vote here which in the city of santa rosa is now a denial we are certainly not going to get four votes on the landmark alteration we are ending up at an appeal at council already and so my frustration and my development team and design teams frustration that was standing we'll take the vote and then we'll go have our conversation with council thank you mark perrier can i make comment peter of course thank you um this is a tension that i've experienced throughout my 30 years being involved in preservation districts um and it's because of passion and deep heart for our history and our preservation districts on the part of those involved in them i think it's pretty clear that the building will be perfect as an addition without a lot of comment even with trim or not trim if it were four stories the problem is perfection's theoretical um and the only thing that really is perfect is a greek statue and those are dead um the marble and we have to live and our neighborhoods have to live and our preservation districts have to live and um capi i i you know i respect you so much and this is not to pressure you in any way um and this is actually for the other people in the preservation industry that may still be listening these buildings are going to get built um big buildings are coming they're they're what they're the only ones that work um they're the only ones that can be afforded to be done and i've said numbers of times to uh the cultural heritage board are in and out of conditions that this isn't williamsburg i was educated by the architectural historian of williamsburg and that was preserved because it had massive historic prep meaning for the entire nation our preservation districts are important they're important to our character the design uh elements are important for memory they're and we can't we don't want to lose them however they are going to be affected these big buildings are going to get built because it's the only thing that is serving the development community and the only things we can afford to build in effect i don't like it i don't like the height of this building but i look at it and i looked at it and said gee i don't like the height of that it ain't perfect but man it really really works in the district my concern has been and i mean i think this is the first time i've actually said it to the cultural heritage board and i do with respect and admiration for what you do and what you have to go through because it is your mandate to protect the preservation districts and our cultural heritage and i would like the design review board members to think about that this is our cultural heritage it's our history it's important it should not be lightly dealt with it should not lightly be demolished but neither should it be hamstrings for our future neither should these districts um be keep us for being able to meet the needs of our community this is hard stuff it's a hard thing to say but it's also true i think and i've seen numbers of times this happened where the cultural heritage board with real intent real compassion a re our agency compassion but a real conviction that they're here to protect our preservation districts and they are sent into the city council and its overturning gets done anyway that's my concern that's probably that's more of the pattern i think the cultural heritage board would be served to navigate more carefully the um reality of the pressures and capi you know i really respect you and i would entirely respect your need to vote no and stay there because that's what you feel is protecting the preservation districts but i actually believe we're in a new era it's all around us and we have to find the way through and we have to find the way to find the balance and let our common let our common interests come out of it as much allegiance to our special interests as we can but these things have to shift and it's just going to happen i think if we it's going to it's going to it's probably going to go to the city council and it'll probably be approved by them because that's their that's what they're doing i don't know that that actually serves the application applicants to the cultural heritage board or the actual intent of the cultural heritage board i i don't know how to put it this is hard stuff to deal with and i just offer that up with great respect and admiration for all of you and all of your commitment both to santa rosa our built environment and our cultural heritage thank you mark i appreciate it and thank you peter and i appreciate you both being respectful obviously understand the frustration and appreciate the respect and admiration of people's decisions and sitting on these boards and and so i think again we move forward i think that's a great conversation piece for your appeal to the city council very well put on all accounts so with that i think that we should move on to the landmark alteration permit and i'd be happy to stay on i don't know that it's required of the design review board so i'd say that my fellow colleagues on the board can exit off if you want i don't believe our quorum is required past this point um and i'll turn it over to chair muser to take on the landmark alteration okay thank you chair concave so um i might uh get some advice from staff but i'm thinking at this point with all the discussion that has taken place that we could just move forward and to seeing if one of the cultural heritage board members um is willing to introduce the landmark alteration resolution that's correct that's what we would need at this point regardless so it can be a motion both to approve it could be a motion to deny and whichever the case uh it's a four requirement thank you bill um perhaps um member grannigo would you be willing to introduce the resolution uh board member grannigo you're on mute right now we're unable to hear you can you hear me now that's me can't thank you yeah no that's fine um so um i would so move that the resolution of the cultural heritage board of the city of santa rosa approving a landmark alteration permit for the flats at 528 b street involving the construction of a mixed use building located at 528 b street santa rosa within the saint rose preservation district assessor parcel number 010-035-022 file number prj 20-005 um both introduce it and move its passage and do we have a second oh you're i think you're muted all right i will second thank you okay we've uh had the motion has been seconded um till we open it up to discussion comments from uh board member granica um i would think that uh i'll rest on my previous comments i assume others will too uh i just believe in reading this uh all the documentation that i read and studied and understood that this uh especially as a non-contributing parcel is eligible to have a 55-foot uh um hype on the project and that uh it's designed as we've discussed which i would say failed to get unanimity but it failed to get unanimity but it did have consensus eight one sounds like a consensus to me so um i have nothing further to say though than i really did read and listen to mark perry's uh comments and uh they were enlightening to me coming into this meeting and uh i am further impressed by those uh arguments that he just made and beyond that i have nothing further to say tonight thank you uh board member garrett comments um i am going to have to vote no because i feel that the 55-foot um height limit being 10 feet taller than than the actual parking garage is um clearly out of scale with the rest of the district and um although i think the project design itself i would support that it's the height that i have the problem with and i can't vote for it thank you thank you board member becu well i can vote vote for it because i believe that this design is appropriate i mean our role as a cultural heritage board is to take a look at the outside of the building and the outside of the building is compatible nobody's really arguing with design the only thing that people are concerned about is the height and yet it's a non-conforming building and it falls within the regulations that we're able to to uh and we're supposed to uh have some discretion and to look at at at these at these um situations and be able to uh make decisions uh that are of benefit to the community at large and we desperately need housing downtown this is a good project nobody's arguing about the the design or the look of the building we're only we're only quibbling over the height and with all due respect to my fellow board member i think that that we we're causing a lot of consternation and forcing the applicant to spend more time and more money to to get a project done that absolutely needs to done and i'm frustrated by that i don't think that's a role of this this this board at all we are are here to to pay attention to the issues related to the the preservation districts but we're not here to block progress and i think that you know with all due respect that this is just not uh it's not what we're about it's just this is not something that we should be voting no against we should be supporting this okay thank you all for your comments um i think everybody has made made good points um you know my feelings are you know which i've expressed already tonight um with regards to the landmark alteration um i i can't agree with the findings um b c and g and basically b and c involved character defining elements um some of my concerns are the the three-story apartment complex on the south side is going to have a five-story wall very very close the proximity to it the one story which and it's a contributing structure the single story structure on the north side is going to have a five-story shadow casting wall to it and it already has a wall on the back of it um which is the parking structure so it's going to have two sides of its property one with five stories and one one well the parking structure i think is like four stories um so when we talk about um impact to the neighborhood impact to the historic district the fact that the five stories go vertically up basically from the ground uh you know there's some um you know patio insets and everything but it's pretty much just a very large square box vertical structure that's five stories high and so when i look at that in the context of a his the historic neighborhood the saint rose neighborhood um i can't agree again with with the findings uh bc and g so for that reason i i won't be supporting it tonight with regards to landmark alteration so any further comments before we call for a vote okay seeing none can we call for a vote thank you chairman q with board member debaker and vice chair fennel absent in one vacancy we'll start with board member garrett i know board member granica yes board member mcqueen i and chair muser no that's a two two vote that's an effective denial okay with the denial and no further items on the agenda tonight i think we're ready for adjournment correct we can adjourn the meeting okay if i could offer some closing remarks real quick i'd appreciate it um i just wanted to leave on a high note uh say that um i appreciate all the board members here this evening i appreciate the city staff and the applicant team um i've heard a lot of passion tonight and uh you know i think passion carries things forward and moves things in the right direction um and what i would say is that the way we look at it in our business is uh challenges are actually opportunities so how do we take this challenge and make it into an opportunity um there's a path forward even though it wasn't tonight um and i think uh you know as things progress um we'll we'll see how the future holds but uh again i really appreciate everyone's time i want to wish everyone a happy and safe thanksgiving um you know these uh these tough moments in time are even tougher in 2020 so uh just remember it's uh you know it's a drop in time uh we've got some more time left and and let's make the most of it so um chair muser i don't know if you wanted to add any closing remarks otherwise i'll let you take the adjournment i'd like to make closing remark i think we have an abuse of our discretion and i'm disturbed by that and i think that that's problematic and and so i wish that that we didn't do we've wasted five hours and got nothing done and i'm upset with that well these boards are you know the cultural heritage board when all seats are filled it's a seven-member board and the reason why there are seven members is there's a lots of different opinions and and feelings and beliefs and we hope that in the process in the end um the right thing happens um there is a process um the applicant has still has a path that they can follow and um if we all were the same if we all felt the same if we all always voted the same they probably wouldn't need the board so um i do i really appreciate the remarks that chair kincade made i i agree with him wholeheartedly that uh there is a path forward and uh um um i i i do feel for the applicant i i know it's what a challenge it's been for them but um hopefully they they listen to everything that they heard tonight over the five hours uh hopefully they don't feel that time was wasted and what they heard and uh and they can move forward from here uh any other comments i thank you for your comments um i think we are here i mean i live in an historic district i lived in an historic home for 30 years and i think our historic districts need to be supported and maintained and if we lose those we lose the fabric of our community which um would be really sad and there um i this project was a good project if it were one story shorter i would have voted for it but and it was i guess when i was off the board for the couple of years i was off i think when i first came to the board it was a three-story building and um i think i mean it's a great project it's just too tall for that space so i'm i'm sorry um and i know people are disappointed um i'm disappointed too thank you hey scott good bye yeah okay scott are you still there i yeah we're still here worn i i just want to make one mention uh been in town 40 years and i it's interesting that um there's two units in the front of this there's an elevator shaft you have to you have to actually create a stairwell that serves all four floors you could take two units out of the front at the top the performer to change and one of the interesting things that uh peter stanley brought up was you know give me five in the back it seems like we're talking a lot about the front i am i'm really curious that the building two doors down from this is a two-story building the next building is a three-story if this meeting would have happened if we would have had a drb and a heritage board or i think we had to interrupt you uh because we shouldn't be talking about the project anyway well i i would i would suggest that we we stop the deliberation since the project has been acted on the public hearing has been closed so okay fine all thank you i think we gave it uh our best efforts to uh end on a high note so i'll go ahead and uh adjourn the meeting see y'all