 All right, see you in a few. Chair Weigel, I did want to let you know that all board members are now present. Cool, thanks. Yeah, we just have to wait till 4.30. So it's about the witching hour. Let's have everybody turn on their cameras and get ready to go. And then we'll call the meeting to order at 4.30. Looks like we're waiting for Warren and Michael still to turn on their cameras. Here we go. There we are. Okay, and it is 4.30. So I'd like to call the regularly scheduled meeting of the Design Review Board of the City of Santa Rosa on September 16th to order. So a quick reminder why we're here due to the provisions of the governor's executive orders N2520 and N2920, which suspend certain requirements of the Brown Act. The Design Review Board will be participating via Zoom webinar. Members of the public can participate in the meeting virtually by navigating to www.zoom.us slash join and entering the meeting ID 81250144897 or by calling toll-free 18778535257 and entering the aforementioned red meeting ID. Public access to the meeting is through the Zoom link. You can provide public comment on agenda items at the times they're discussed. You can also find additional information on the city's website at srcity.org slash Design Review Board. The meeting is also live streamed on the city's website and it is also available on Comcast channel 28 and the city of Santa Rosa's YouTube channel, youtube.com slash city of Santa Rosa. So that all being said, can we get an official roll call recording secretary? Yes, let the record reflect that all board members are present. Awesome, thanks so much. So we don't have any items in item two, but we do have two sets of minutes to approve. Did everybody get a chance to look at the minutes? Any corrections to the minutes? The only comment that I had was I wasn't, let me get back to them on the September 2nd minutes. The Stony Point flats, I believe, it picked up the information around the action that we had to take, but I didn't see sort of our additional comments from that meeting for guidance. And I just didn't know. Sure, yeah, so what, so it's my understanding is the city staff is, so if we pass a resolution, it just indicates the resolution and then the obviously the conditions of approval are located within the resolution. They're not showing them in both places anymore. I believe that's correct. Is that right, recording secretary? Yes, that's correct. Okay, great, thank you. It's because you're back new and that's the way it used to be and it's changed. So there you go. Okay, so we'll do this one at a time real quick. So any changes to August 19th, 2021? Okay, seeing and hearing no changes. We'll enter those into the record, September 2nd, 2021. Obviously with the question Michael had, has been answered, any changes to that? Seeing none, we'll enter the September 2nd minutes into the record. Okay, so item number four. This is where we like to afford the public the opportunity to comment on items not on the agenda that are germane to our purview. So we will open public comment at this time. If you'd like to make a public comment on items not on the agenda, please raise your hand and the recording secretary will recognize you and give you some instructions. David, you should have a prompt allowing you to unmute and if you could please start by stating your name for the record, please. Yes, my name is David Harris and I live at Gemma Circle in Santa Rosa and have for many years. And I wanted to make the comment on something that's not currently yet on your agenda, but I think it will be next month. And that's the 101 over crossing at the JC area in the direction of Cottingtown. And, you know, time seems to be flying by on us that back in 2009, there was a charrette sponsored by Redwood Empire, AIA and the Leadership Institute. And I don't believe probably any of you participated in that but there was a charrette that had invited guests on the Northwest Station area i.e. the smart station planning. Smart ideas, community charrette and urban design competition from Northwest Santa Rosa. Well, the bigger picture relates more to say general plan, but it had a wide participation, a couple of hundred people and the outside participants were the past president of AIA, R.K. Stewart from San Francisco, David Baker who's an architect of, I'm sure you're most of you are aware of his work in the area. And Ellen Dunham Jones from Georgia Institute of Technology and an EPA staffer, Brian Sowell. And that charrette was dealing with all range of design ideas for the future of Northwest Santa Rosa. And there was an entry which received honorable mention by the judges for an example of the 101 Overcross. And that was submitted by Paul Harris and Jack Lee who in spite of the name, I'm not related, we're not related, but I want to bring your attention to that design that had been developed back then in 2009. This was published as a book in 2010, it's available on blurb and I would like to draw your attention Lisa Krantz was a presenter on behalf of the city and of course she's retired by now. And so quite possible that not many people are aware of this significant piece of work that was done back in 2009. And I would like to drop off some hard copy and ask the staff to find where some of the city copies of this publication are. Because I think it would be very instructive to have that information when you consider the 101 Overcross. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Harris for your commentary. I know we looked at a bridge proposal what like a year and a half ago, two years ago. It was when you were still on the board, right, Michael? No, I was not. Oh, I guess maybe you were off, but I think Adam and Henry and Warren were on the board. We looked at a bridge or didn't we? I guess I feel like we did. Yeah, that was my first meeting. It was January of 2019. I think it was maybe right before Henry started like the week before. But it was, yeah, it was the visioning meeting kind of the concept review of that. I'd be interested in here in seeing the plans that Mr. Harris just spoke about if anybody knows where to get that link to those. You can email those. Yeah, I think it'd be great. You could, Mr. Harris could drop that off to city staff and staffs could scan it and get it to us before it's on the agenda. So I think that'd be great. And yeah, so I think that's about it. Any other public comment, not on items on the agenda tonight before we move on? I am not seeing any further hands. And neither am I. So with that, I will close public comment. And actually, I think I was in grad school when Ellen Dunn and Jones came out here funny enough. And I remember her talking about it. I went to grad school at Georgia Tech. So if that makes sense, I remember her coming back and talking about this charrette she had done out here but she did it kind of vaguely. So maybe I'll reach out to her and see what's going on. See if she remembers anything. So we'll go to item number four now, which is board business, where we'll read the design review board statement of purpose zoning code chapter 2052.030F 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, e.g. city policy statements and development plans. I did also wanna address one thing. So we received an email from a member of the public this week about kind of the board's purview and they had an issue with a project, a single family home project. And I directed a gentleman to talk to city staff a little bit more and I wanted to clarify just for members of the public that may be watching. Our review authority generally is for projects that exceed 10,000 square feet. There's some other caveats to that based on where the project's located, what type of project it is. And that's all located within the zoning code under the design review board authority. I think we have to review telecommunications facilities as well as an example of something that would be exempt. So I appreciate that member of the public reaching out to us and hopefully we can get them in the right hands of city staff either for a code enforcement issue or perhaps even a commentary on where the project, that particular project may be within its process of its permit. So I just wanted to point that out that we typically do not deal with single family design, residential design as a board. So that would be my board business, board member report. Does anybody else have any board member reports today? Okay, seeing none. We don't have any elections or any introductions. Amy Nicholson, our staff liaison department reports. I've good evening, Chair Weigel and members of the board. I do not have any formal department reports to provide, but thank you for describing the email that you received. And I did send a follow-up email and I'm in contact with the building department so we will get the answer to that president. Thanks so much, Amy. Appreciate you. So item seven, statements of abstention. Anybody have to abstain from item 9.1 today? No, awesome. All right. Number eight, we don't have any consent items. So we'll move to the scheduled item. Item 9.1, which is a public hearing for Avenue 320 Apartments Design Review Major located at 320 College Avenue, DR-19045. And so before we go to the staff report with project planner, Susie Murray, I just wanted to get ex parte communication out of the way just so we can get that done. So I have met with the project applicant by myself twice on the site of their project since our last meeting and the applicant was concerned about my thoughts on the direction of their project. And so we chatted about that. So that's what we did. I did. Does anybody else have ex parte communication that they needed disclose? Looks like everybody. So we'll go to Henry first. I too had a meeting with the applicant and reviewed some different design directions. They thought that they might head to try to come to some compromise with the neighborhood. So that was about the extent of it. I gave my two cents worth and that's it. Cool. John, McHugh? I got a phone message from the applicant and got back to them with a phone message but I never heard anything back. Thanks John. Anybody else ex parte? I had a phone conversation with the applicant having not seen the project the first time around. Shared my thought that probably I would be more comfortable reviewing for the meeting and giving comments there. So it was brief. Cool. Warren? Yes, I did have one meeting with the applicant. It was after a design review and it was a workshop similar to Henry where things were presented thoughts incubation for future egg hatching. Thank you. And Adam, Adam, did you have any? No, and Sheila? I just wanted to state that I exchanged a couple emails with the applicant. We were trying to get together on a meeting about the redesign and that meeting did not take place. Cool. I think we're done with ex parte disclosure, communication disclosure. So we'll move to Susie Murray now for a staff presentation on the project. Board members really quick, this is one of the admins. If you can please remember to mute and unmute yourselves especially after you speak to mute yourself again so we don't have echoes and things. Thank you. Mike and Michelle, I'm getting a message on my screen that says I've been asked to start my video. Is that sharing my screen that you're referring to? I don't. No, right now the video is not showing. Okay, I know I hadn't shared my screen yet. So, okay. There you go. Now we can see it. You can, unfortunately I can't. So, hold on. We can see you, Susie. So we'll just compare with you while you get the presentation. So ignore my facial expressions, please. One second. Technical difficulty one more. Just so I show you. It's good to go. I need to go. Can you guys hear me okay? Yes, we can hear you. Okay, great. Can you, can you see my presentation? Yes, we can. Great. Now. It is in the presenter mode. I'm getting there, Mike, I'm there. Can you stand now in the right mode? Okay, so the project before you is the Avenue 320 apartments. It's located at 320 College Avenue. This housing project, if approved and constructed, will contribute 1.5% of the 5,000 unit goal by 2022 for market rate units. It proposes to construct multi-family housing that involves two structures, which will provide 37 units, a mix of studio one and two bedroom units. There will be one new, or there's proposed, one new building proposed that fronts Lincoln Street and the building that's there at 320 College Avenue would be the change in use going from office to residential. Access would be taken to the site from both College Avenue and Lincoln Street. The required entitlements, in addition to the design review before the board today, is also a landmark alteration, which will go to the Cultural Heritage Board. Here's an aerial view of the site, kind of a distant interview. And just to give you some context here, it's to the north commercial, to the south residential, and that's pretty much cut down the center of the property line on the northern part of the site, to the east and west, it's also commercial southern part of the site, on the east and west, it's residential. And this is what it looks like today, the parking lot on the south side and that building on the north side. So there's quite a lot of project history for this. We first saw it in early 2019, where it came to the Cultural Heritage Board for a concept review. There was a neighborhood meeting a few months later, and we accepted the applications originally in August 2019. After staff's review and issues raised, we received revised project materials in August of 2020, and then in January, the project came before the board, the design review board. And the project after hearing the details, the design review board, continued the item with some instructions for redesign. On April 13th, staff received the new design, which was in response to some of the board's comments. So just to refresh your memory, the graphic up in the right-hand corner is the elevation looking northwest from Lincoln Street. And that was what was proposed in January, and it's the same kind of perspective, if you will. The current proposal is on the lower left-hand corner. This area is kind of a lot of things converged right here. It's in an area designated by the general plan as neighborhood mixed use. The area in red to the north, which is across College Avenue, is retail and business services, and the zoning up there is general commercial. That's consistent. The areas shown in pink are the neighborhood mixed use, and the star shows where the site is located. The area is also in the St. Rose Preservation District, and that the blue line up on the screen shows you the boundary of that, and it kind of jets out for this property because really, I mean, it's more south of the property where the district is, where the preservation district is. It's also everything south of College Avenue, shown on this graphic, at least, is also within the downtown station area. The site has a floor area ratio assigned in the general plan of 4.0. So it's been my experience that reviewing the goals and policies for the station area plan, for the general plan, and for the design guidelines. There are a lot of similarities, so I'm just gonna point out a few. This project will help meet the housing goals or housing needs of Santa Rosa residents, and it'll also provide some diversity in the type of housing found in this area. It also puts housing within walking distance of several different types of transportation, bus, the train, and it's also within walking distance of the downtown, which restaurants, commercial uses, retail, it'll really energize that, help to energize that area. So some of the development standards that apply to the site, it's allowed to have 100% block coverage. It doesn't require any setbacks, although at the suggestion of the board, the building setback, or the new building was setback close to 20 feet from that sidewalk. There are no, there's no required parking. The site plan includes 36 spaces, but, and that we've conditioned the project to provide unbundled parking, which for those of you who don't understand what, or don't know, not familiar with unbundled parking, it basically means you lease an apartment, you pay extra for a parking space, or alternatively, you can look at it for a more optimistic point of view and you can have a reduced rent if you don't get a parking space. So there's also no maximum height limit because of the floor area ratio assigned. So there what is one caveat though, with properties that are located within preservation districts, if they're over two stories or 35 feet tall, the review authority must find that the additional height does not track from the character of the preservation district, or any adjacent contributing properties. The proposed new construction is at 37 feet, three inches, and it steps down to 24 and a half feet as it approaches Lincoln. A historic evaluation was attached to the staff report and concluded that there would not be any significant impacts to the district or the neighborhood. We'll talk a little bit more about that as we get into the presentation. And then of course the existing building is 36 feet tall. The board may also condition the project for some of the architectural elements. Okay, so here we have the site plan. As I said before, it has 36 parking spaces which it's not required to have, 11 of which are surface parking spaces adjacent to the new construction. And then there are 25 spaces on the ground floor of the College Avenue building. The yellow arrows there show where the entries are from Lincoln Street, the single arrow on the right-hand side and then from college the two arrows on the left side. Here is both the existing and proposed elevations for building A which front college above. The one on the top is the existing and then the one on the bottom shows some of the proposed changes. And here's the proposed elevation facing Lincoln Street. Here's the landscape plan. And I think it's important to note that there are three significant redwood trees proposed to be removed and then one beautiful oak tree that's proposed to remain. The project has been conditioned to replace trees in compliance with the city's tree ordinance of which three of them should be selected from the heritage tree list that's within the ordinance. And it's also been conditioned to require an arborist beyond site to monitor grading activities to protect that beautiful oak tree that's there now. Here are some of the design guidelines. Again, there are so many that support this project or that this project supports, I guess. So I'm just gonna name a few. It promotes, it puts a new variety of housing right in this area, it puts eyes on the street on both sides, the project has incorporated several elements from the neighboring community. And I expect that the concept landscape design is very nice and I expect it will be equally as nice when it's submitted for building permits. In March of 2019, the Cultural Heritage Board held the concept, many which I mentioned earlier. Some of their comments, their considerations were to add rounded elements, revisit polychrome material or exterior siding elements, lowering the building and the overall height and stepping of the building to revise and design to reflect elements in the St. Rose Preservation District. They said to revisit the double height entry and the tower portion. They also commented on the sun visors and I wasn't present at the meeting and I saw this note, I added it here, minimal elements into the design. So I'm gonna let you interpret that. I'm not exactly sure what that meant. The elevation that's shown here is what they based those comments on. So prior to January 21st when the board continued this for redesign, we received a lot of neighborhood comments and just to summarize those comments, they were concerned about traffic. We've had a traffic study done or a traffic impact study and our traffic division has reviewed that and concluded that there are no significant impacts. It'll actually reduce the number of AM and PM peak hour trips. I can get that one out. I've already talked about parking, the density. There's no limit in the NMU zoning district. The zoning district or the general plan actually instructs or requests us to look for the mid range of the FAR, but gives us some leeway in preservation districts where we can dip below that midway or midpoint level. And in this case, the project has been developed at a far of 1.18. I'm sorry, I shouldn't say far, floor area ratio. As far as the impacts on the preservation districts with the redesign, they have addressed the step back, building height and stepping and neighborhood context. The project will also require a landmark alteration, which will be scheduled after this meeting, hopefully this year. Public comments also addressed height and shading. If you could see this graphic here shows a shade study from March and September, or yeah, from March and September and the application materials actually included some other times of year. But as you can see in this scenario, that really the biggest impact from the development of the new structure is in the late afternoon on the properties to the west, I'm sorry, to the east of the new building. The project has been conditioned to improve both the, all three driveways actually, the one that we used on Lincoln, as well as the two on West College. They're, they need to bring all of the curb gutter, sidewalks, everything into compliance and of course correct whatever is broken, repair whatever is broken. And they will be putting in street trees as needed along Lincoln Street, if there's a possibility of preserving the ones that are there, I find it unlikely, but the applicant has agreed to at least look into it. In terms of environmental review, the project actually qualifies for two secret exemptions because of the floor area ratio is greater than 0.75. It's located within a transit priority area and it's on a parcel within the city limits that is less than five acres. It's also consistent with the downtown station area specific plan environmental impact report, the general plan and zoning, and it's substantially surrounded by urban development. The site does not provide habitat for listed species and I will include that if they do any tree removal during the month of February 1st through August 31st, they would be required to do the applicable study, bird and bat studies. And as we've had the studies that will not result in any significant impact for traffic, noise, air or water quality. The site can also be served by all utilities and public services. So last night in the late correspondence file, we uploaded, thank you, Michelle uploaded a revised version of the resolution and it fixed a couple of small typos, but condition number 11 was revised to allow flexibility in landscape design and ensure compliance with the tree ordinance. And I've already talked a little bit about that. Condition number 18B was deleted because it was a duplicate condition and condition numbers 23 and 24 were merged. And the reason for that is is because I requested that the applicant post a sign for neighborhood comments during construction and other signs would require a permit. Pending issues which are no longer pending as of this morning, condition number 10 that reduces the hours of construction and the applicant has agreed to that. Basically it doesn't allow them to start construction until 8 a.m. given proximity to the residential uses around it. And then condition number 18E, double I because of the arborist will be and arborist will be on site during grading activities to protect that oak tree. And again, the applicant has agreed to both of those at this point. So with that, the Planning and Economic Development Department recommends that the design review board by resolution grant design review for the Avenue 320 Apartments, a 37-unit multifamily residential development proposed at 320 College Avenue. That concludes my presentation and for anybody calling in, again, my name is Suzy Murray. My phone number is 543-4348 and my email address is SMURRAY at srcity.org and I know the applicant would like to do a presentation. If you have any comments for me, I'm available now. Otherwise I'll get there. Yeah, so that'd be great, Suzy. If you can pull up their presentation, we'll just roll right into the applicant presentation. I did have a quick question for you though. It looked like the late correspondence that you provided had already been reflected in the resolution included in the board packet. I think, so I just want to confirm that. I'm sorry, I didn't understand. Whoopsie, I didn't understand the question. So you had a, there was late correspondence that had the corrections to the resolution. Yes. And it appears that the resolution is actually has been corrected with your late correspondence corrections. That makes sense. Yes, yes. And the resolution that will come to you for signature reflects the changes that were in the red line document sent last night. And I also didn't mention that we did receive public correspondence from the previous design review board chair who recommended approval of the project. Cool. So let's roll to the applicant presentation. So if the applicant could, I guess, raise their hands so that you can be recognized by recording secretary, granted permission to speak, et cetera, et cetera. We'll get going and please introduce yourself and your relationship to the project before you get going. And then after the applicant presentation, we'll do questions of staff and applicant. And then we'll go, well, no, then we'll do public comment. Then we'll do questions. That's all we'll do. Hi, everybody. This is Nick Abbott. I'm part of the applicant group. And before Randy gets started with more formal presentation, I just kind of want to take a minute and just kind of update the board and whoever's listening caught on the action steps that we've taken since our last meeting in January, just to give you guys a little context on kind of what we've been doing to try to meet some of the issues that were raised. So we were before you in January. We had this Artbeco style building. It was larger than what's being presented now. And I really felt like it fit. I thought that the size worked. I thought that the styling was a nice offset to some other Artbeco buildings in the district. And I thought it was a dynamic building and allocation. And after the January meeting, it kind of forced us to kind of reevaluate our project. And I'll say now, I think through the process, we have a much better project. So I think I'm really happy with the architecture style. I think it fits better than before. Maybe it doesn't stand out as much. And that can be debated if that's good or bad. But I think the process has worked. And hopefully the community and the board sees that what's before you now probably fits a little bit better. After that January meeting, I did meet with a couple of the neighbors that have been involved in voicing opinion throughout the process on the 5th of February and sat down with them. I think in that meeting was Pamela and Denise Hill and Greg Parker. And I kind of presented them with what came out of the design review board meeting, which was like, hey, look, here's kind of three styling directions we can go, what's your opinion? And so those three stylings were a smaller Artbeco version, the Spanish revival style that you see here. And then kind of an Irving Gill inspired concept. And so we had a nice discussion on that Friday and kind of took cues from them and ran with the styling in this direction. We continued in the month of February to meet with city staff, design review board members just to kind of check in along the way to make sure that the path we're going down is hopefully one that's supported. I think we've done a good job to address the main issues that we heard from the design review board last time and neighbors last time that were height-focused, setback-focused styling to a certain extent unit count, to a certain extent parking. So I think all of those issues have been addressed and Randy will go through that in a little bit more detail. I think that's about all I wanted to say. I guess maybe the last comment is, we've been working on this since 2019. I feel like we've made a really, really good faith effort to get a project that both economically works and is something that the community can support. And we're hopeful that you guys see it the same way and the community sees it the same way. I'll go ahead and fade into the background and let Randy kind of run with this presentation but I just want to give you guys a quick little background on kind of what we've been doing over the last couple of months. Thanks, Nick, we appreciate you. Susie, I just want to let you know you're not in presentation mode, you're in like edit PowerPoint edit mode. So, and now you're in presentation mode. So you're good, thanks. I'll just ask the applicant team to tell me to advance when you're ready. Okay, and hopefully you can hear me. We can. Perfect. I'm Randy Figuarito, I'm the Tierney Figuarito Architects. I'm the project designer. I don't know most of the board is seeing this project already, but for the new board members, I'll kind of do a brief review of sort of the overall project itself. And then what, you know, probably the thing that drove this project the most in terms of difficulty was just the fact that these properties were merged at some point. And so the project is a combination of properties that were commercial properties existing on College Avenue and residential properties that sit on Lincoln Street within the historic St. Rose neighborhood. So when the properties were merged, the commercial building in its parking straddled essentially to zoning districts and uses. We're taking the existing commercial building, which at this point is fairly underutilized and we're going to be gutting the interior and creating 20 new apartment units and keeping the lower level of the building, which is currently all parking to serve as a part of the parking for the multifamily project, which will now include a second building, building B sitting on the southerly portion of the project, which is now just a parking lot for the existing commercial building. Let's see, we can probably move on to the next slide. And there's Don McNair's proposed landscape plan. I believe Don McNair is also on this call. If the board members have any questions regarding the landscape design or specific details of the proposed landscaping, we'd be obviously doing street trees. We're adding trees along the westerly property line. The small courtyard, which is kind of up at the elbow of the project on the easterly portion of the central part of the project is the large oak tree that Susie was referring to. And then along the northerly portion of the project along College Avenue, there's currently some kind of raised block planters that we are going to be removing and replacing with ground level planters. Now as part of the city's requirements that we improved the vision triangle of automobiles exiting the project through there. There's a trash enclosure that's being placed down along the westerly property line. And it's gonna be a similar architectural style to the new building B. Next slide. And there is the view from the parking lot looking west. That's an existing concrete fence that separates us from the residents to the west. Don's gonna be adding some landscape along there and the right portion of that is the trash enclosure with a roll-up door and a hip roof mimicking the new building B. Next slide. There's Don's proposed landscape pallet. Again, if they're gonna question specific to that, I'll let you ask Don if you want to. Next, this is the floor plan and roof plan for the existing building that'll have 20 units placed within it. It'll have the existing ground floor lobby down at the parking level and then it'll maintain the stairway locations. And essentially we're gonna keep central corridor and gut and place the apartments into it. Next. And these are the floor plans for the new building B which has been reduced in height from four stories to three stories. And it's a mix of studios, ones and two bedroom units. The third level has a rooftop trellis balcony and then there's a hip roof standing seam, metal hip roof placed over the top of that. Next, this is the existing elevations for the commercial building that's currently on College Avenue. Next, and this is our proposed modification. We're gonna be removing the wood planter boxes from it and we're also going to be taking off the manzered roofs. We're building new architectural elements. They're gonna be wrapping the windows, essentially replacing where those wood planters currently are. And we're adding shallow projecting elements on the West and East elevation. And we're also lowering the parapet height at the North elevation along College Avenue and creating a new mechanical screen pushed back from the front of the building. That was primarily because of the negotiations with the fire department in terms of allowing aerial access to function along the full length of the building. Next, and there's the color palette will be leaving essentially the block will be cleaned up but left pretty much the way it is. And the projecting elements will be done in plaster which will match the rear building be the new building which will also be in plaster next. And here is the new building, all four elevations. Again with the standing seam metal roof, Spanish colonial revival style. Just point maybe I'll walk real briefly through the comments that the Design Review Board had in our January meeting and this might help inform especially the members that weren't present at that meeting sort of what drove this design changes. So in terms of comments from that January meeting from the board, when it came to the existing building on College Avenue, there were only a few comments. One of them was to remove the man-sert roofs which we did. It was also a comment to remove the horizontal siding and perhaps replace it with stucco on the new elements which we also did that turned out to work well since the new building B also went to all stucco and didn't have any of the horizontal siding elements that it did in the original art modern scheme. And I've already mentioned the parapet changes for the fire department. On the new building on Lincoln Street that we're looking at right now, probably the primary comment that came out of Design Review Board at that time was that the building was out of scale for the neighborhood because it was a four-story building and it's common if the could the building be reduced to closer to 35 feet in height. So the building's been reduced to three stories. The third floor has a setback that pushes it back close to 30 feet from the lower two floors. The height at the ridge of the hip roof is about 37 feet. So the apparent height is quite a bit lower than the original design and it's quite a bit lower than the 35-foot comment at the Yves itself. And the applicant, as Nick stated before, met with the neighbors, kind of ran some of the design options by him, showed him the original sketches of the design and met with a great deal of approval on that change. The other comment that came out of the January Board meeting was to investigate some other architectural styles that might fit better with the neighborhood. And I know Warren in specific talked about Irving Gill and perhaps looking at a Spanish Colonial Revival style. Some of the homes across the street are in that style even though they're single-story. So that's the route I went down. And again, brought the building down to three stories and modified that style. So the new design is completely stucco. It has the hip roof, it has some accent tiles, low-walled courtyard to the front onto Lincoln Avenue or Lincoln Street and has a building entry form and arch that's very traditional for this style of building. Another comment that came out of the Board was could the building be below 30 feet in height at the eaves to avoid the fire department aerial access? So when I reworked the design, I designed the plate height so that we could get below that 30-foot height at the eaves and ran this by the fire department in bringing the building down this way and eliminating the aerial access requirement. It allowed us to have a lot less paving on the site because we didn't need the fire truck to roll completely into the parking lot so we could relocate the parking lot from a lot of the parking from under the building over to the westerly property line that allowed us to put units on the ground floor. So as a result, we were able to go from four stories to three stories but only lower the number of units from 20 down to 17. And the last modification we made based on a Board comment was to push the building further back away from the street originally was about 12 and a half feet behind the sidewalk. Now it's approximately 19 and a half feet behind the sidewalk and that allows it to align with the setbacks on the homes that are to the east and west of us on the street, which was an important consideration. Next slide. And there's the color version of the elevations for the redesigned new building. It would trellises, would sunshades as the wood balconies facing onto the Lincoln Street. You can see the low courtyard walls and the Lincoln Street elevation, that's south elevation with the colored accent tile. Next slide. There's the view to the northwest from down the street, which was part of Susie's presentation. Next slide. And here's the view looking to the northeast with the commercial building existing, commercial building in the background to give you a sense of scale of how the two buildings relate to each other. Next slide. There's the site analysis. Next, there's the property as it currently exists with the parking lot to the south. Next, and there's property looking from the south toward the north with Lincoln Street in the foreground. Next, and this is the surrounding neighborhood. These are the homes directly across the street from us to the south in single story, a little bit in the Spanish colonial revival style. Next, and these are just some homes in the surrounding historic neighborhood. It's kind of a very eclectic mix of styles in that particular area of the St. Rose neighborhood. Next, and those are some apartment buildings within a few blocks of the project. Again, in a wide variety of styles, mainly from kind of 30s, 40s and 50s. Next. That's it, Randy. That's the last one. Okay, well, I guess I am done and available to answer any questions. Thanks, Randy and team. If it's, okay, if you guys were gonna go and we're gonna go ahead and open the public hearing component and take public comment. So I'm gonna go ahead and do that. So we're gonna open the public hearing. And so if a member of the public wishes to speak on this project, please raise your hand. In the Zoom chat window there and we'll let you have public comment. And then Don, it looks like you're a member of the applicant team, you can't speak. Cool, thanks. So it looks like we have one right now. So I'm gonna turn it over to the recording secretary. Great, thank you. Greg, you should have a prompt allowing you to give me just one second. I'm having a technical difficulty on my end. It looks like, Greg, it looks like I'm getting a notification that you're using an older version of Zoom, which means that I cannot unmute you without promoting you to a panelist. Chair, I'll let that be your call. The only way he'd be able to do public comment is if he's promoted to a panelist. So I would recommend that Greg, if you wanna call in on the toll-free number, that would actually probably be the best way to do that, keep you from having to deal with downloading a new version of Zoom. And so I'll go ahead and I'll read that back off for you. 877-853-5257. Again, 877-853-5257. And then you enter the meeting ID, 812-5014897. I think I believe there's some prompts through the telephone to get you to come in and then it'll tell you how to raise your hand when you're, and I think it's like Star, if memory serves. Yes, it's Star-6 to raise your hand. Star-6, yeah, to raise your hand. So then we'll go. So we'll make sure that we get Greg's comment up, we'll keep everything open. Yeah, go ahead. Just one point of the screen that Michelle has up right now, the phone access number is different from what you just read off. It is, it's that one. We grabbed the wrong public comment screen. It's the one from last meeting. So it has last meeting's information. We'll try to fix that while we take, start taking public comment. We'll try to get that fixed in the background. So the correct number is what's chair Weigel just read off. Correct. Okay, just so everyone knows that. Don't go off the screen. Yeah, don't go off the screen. Thanks Adam for catching that. So Michelle, it looks like Denise H is first here. So if you could. Yep, Denise, you should have a prompt allowing you to unmute. And if you could please start by stating your name for the record. Hi everybody, can you hear me? Yes, we can go ahead. All right, my name is Denise Hill. I live in the St. Rose neighborhood. And I want to thank Nick Abbott for his willingness to meet with us after the January meeting with the DRB. I'm so glad that we had an applicant that was willing to sit down and listen to us. And he did. And he took a lot of our comments and put them into his design. And we really appreciate that. We love the setback. I think the setback really blends well with the neighborhood. The 37.3, I think it was high to little higher than the 35, but we understand that's the peak of the roof. So that's okay with us. And really appreciate the change of design from an art modern, which there are examples in our neighborhood, but none close by to the Spanish revival design, which as he pointed out or as they were pointing out on that PowerPoint actually is right across the street. So it actually has designed that it can mimic as much as possible and blend in. So all the way around, really happy with where this is going. And appreciate, like I said before, but I can't emphasize enough working with the neighbors in the neighborhood, especially in a historic district. So thank you so much. Thank you, Denise. Looks like the next one's David Harris. So while they're getting that set up, we'll go to Mr. Harris and wait for the recording secretary there, like, you know. David, please have a comment. I clicked the unmute. Okay, perfect. If you could please start by stating your name for the record and we'll rewind the clock to three minutes, thank you. Yes, thank you. Yes, this is David Harris. I just happened to be here because of my earlier comment during public comment. But when I first moved to Santa Rosa in 1987, I lived in the 900 block of Washington. So I know this neighborhood very well. And I'm very happy to see a conversion of a commercial building to residential. And having heard that this process began in 2019, that was before COVID. But maybe there's gonna be more of this type of conversion since people are going to offices less now post COVID than they did before. And certainly ADUs are a way we could increase our number of living units, but conversion of commercial properties to residential is maybe another efficient way to increase our housing stock in Santa Rosa. So I just wanted to give my applause to the fact that this maybe is starting a trend that you will see more examples of. Thank you. Thanks, David, for your comment. Looks like we have one more hand raised. I did wanna check in. Do we know if Greg, I don't wanna lose his public comment because of his technical difficulties, but I'm not seeing someone named Greg or a phone. But anyway, we'll move on to Roy now, Michelle. Yep, Roy, you should have a prompt allowing you to unmute. And if you could please start by stating your name for the record. Certainly, I hope you can hear me. My name is Roy Lucene. I live at 615 B Street in the St. Rose Historic Preservation District. And I do want to just echo Denise Hill's comments. I want to thank Mr. Abbott and Mr. Figueredo. I hope I pronounced your name correctly for the effort, time, and expense that you've taken to revise your original design. I think you'll find that people who are passionately involved with historic preservation also can compromise and understand the needs of new development. We're not frozen in amber as someone referred once said about us in the St. Rose Historic District. In fact, we're very intelligent, educated people who care very much about architecture and history and also the future because this is really all about the future of Santa Rosa. And I would say that I've certainly appreciate the quality of the new design. I think it's very appropriate for that particular stretch of Lincoln Street. And I would ask the Design Review Board to approve this project. And even though I've often been presented myself as sort of a contrarian, when I see good work, I recognize good work. So again, thank you very much, Mr. Abbott and Mr. Figueredo for your efforts. And I did understand your original design. I just think this, as Mr. Abbott said, is a better design. And I think that's what we all want in Santa Rosa is the best for all of us and for the whole city. So thank you for your time and listening to my comments. Thank you, Roy. It looks like we do have a phone call listener. So if that is Greg there, oh, hey, we got a hand up, awesome. I didn't want to lose that public comment because of technical difficulties. So we'll just go with that. Thanks. All right, Greg, you should have a prompt allowing you to unmute. And if you could please start by stating your name for the record. Can you hear me? We can, go ahead. Totally smokes, I updated. Name's Greg Parker. I live in the St. Rose Historic District and I haven't heard a word of what anybody else has said yet. So this may be repetitious, but I want to thank Mr. Abbott. I want to thank Chairman Weigel, everybody on the design review board. This has been a fairly pleasant process that we got the design review board people out, most of them, to walk the neighborhood, listen to our concerns, and they took our concerns into consideration on their meeting. And then Mr. Abbott brought us several iterations of what they wanted to change, and it looks real good. So this is just a thank you to everybody. I like what you've done and it wasn't a torturous process which it has been in the past. So thank you again. Thank you, Mr. Parker. We appreciate your public comment. I'm glad we could get that worked out for you, technical difficulties and all. I'm not seeing any other additional hands raised at this time. So I'm gonna ask the recording secretary, did we receive any phone messages today or in the last week or whatever on this project? We have not. And then obviously no additional electronic communication on the project, correct? That is correct. Awesome. So seeing no more hands raised and going through the rest of the communications, I would like to close the public hearing. Well, that's what we're gonna do. We're gonna close the public hearing. And then we're bringing it back to the board. So what I'd like to do, board, is we'll just go questions of staff and applicant just real quick. And then we'll do comments if we have a motion maybe and then hopefully we'll be done. So let's start with board member Wicks for questions of staff and applicant. I like that tone you said, Sharon. I'm trying to run through these really quick. Love the revised drawings before us, which I'll save most of that during our deliberation process. But I guess I have a couple of questions for Randy and maybe staff first. Do we have a color board or maybe you know, Chairman, do we have a color pallet board on this project that I'm just missing in the plan set? No, I didn't see one. And it doesn't look like Randy had colors called out. I mean, he's got them represented, but they're not called out as to what they are, correct. Yeah, so let me ask you, Randy, the elevation on your seven sheet seven A, which is are the colored 2D elevations. I'm assuming the blue is a tile. Right, the blue is a decorative tile. Okay, and then the primary building is white, but it looks like there's a creamy yellow color in the back and then a darker that's maybe it's because of shadow. Are there three stucco colors or two or one? And it's just, Yeah, there's the white and then there's just sort of a cream color just slightly offset. Okay. It's pretty subtle. All right. And then the roof is obviously a beige standing seam metal roof. Right. Yeah. Suzy, could you bring up the PowerPoint presentation for the applicant? And it's Randy's set of sheet number three, but it's actually I believe page six in the presentation. You know, I'm going to tell you that I'm having a hard time bringing up Randy's plans because it's a huge file. You could do it from this. We were fine a couple of minutes ago. Yeah, I just got it. Perfect. So actually go down to page five, Randy's sheet two or TFA's sheet two. Okay. It's not letting me scan from right. Oh, here we go. Hey, no, it went through my apologies. It's trying, it's trying hard here. This could be my connection. If can I ask, was it included? Oh, was it included in my presentation too? Was it the elevation that you're looking at? No floor plans, a roof plan. Okay. Suzy, I can try and share my screen. I think I just got it in. Okay. Oh, I just changed it. You're headed the right direction. Oh, it's trying. And you wanted to sheet five? Well, it's page five and up 19. Amy, you might have better luck if you can pull that up. Give it a try here. Oh, Henry, can you at least, I know while they're working on that. So maybe, so Randy can get an idea of what you're leaning towards in your question while they bring it up. It's mechanical units. On the existing building, hey, the mechanical units, I assume are gonna go up on the flat roof and that's what those condensers are depicting. That's the easy part. And that's the sheet up there. Yeah, of course. Yeah, no, Henry was able to get it up. Can you see that Randy where the rooftop mechanical units, I believe that's what those squares around circles are depicting? So I think you can. Right on the existing building. Correct. And then the new building B, which is the next sheet, if we could go down one sheet. On the first floor, am I correct in assuming that those rectangles on the first floor plan on the top of the page, there's four in a row and then one recessed and then a couple on the outdoor spaces for those apartments. Yeah, those are the condensing units, yep. Okay, I counted 17 units. And there's only 12 of those units, but that's not my point and that would be a total nitpick. But I like the Spanish revival and I think removing the mansard on the building A is a good solution. I'm just wondering if having the mansards on building B and having a mechanical well up on the top roof for those condensing units. And part of it's a noise issue for me, but the second part of it, if you look at Don's landscape plan, it would create more area to have outdoor space for the apartment units. And I'm curious if you had entertained that. The mansard roof with a flat roof would lower the overall building by three, four feet. And I just wanted in kind of question format if you took a look at that, Randy. I did, and in general, I try to avoid those type of roof well just for the cost and the waterproofing. I mean, we could revisit it. I mean, the way the roof goes together, it's hard to put enough of a well in there without really kind of compromising the appearance. Yeah, just with it being up at three stories, I think the mansard and picking a line where you'd end up with a fairly good size mechanical well in there might be a plus to it. I'm just raising the question and I'll see if it gains any traction with my fellow board members. But other than that, I really, really like what you've done. I'm glad you work with the neighbors. I appreciate Mr. Abbott coming in and asking our opinions and helping us be a part of the process and actively trying to watch you guys come up with a solution, as Warren said, it was a little bit of an incubation process, but I really like what you came up with, Randy, and I'll say the rest of my comments for my term during the deliberation. Thanks, Henry. Sheila, questions of staff and applicants. Yes, thank you. I'll just go through the questions and maybe people can answer me afterward. If the applicant can answer, I don't think there was an elevator in building B, the one on Lincoln Street, but if you can confirm that. And then also, if there is a manager unit in either the college building, which is A or the building B on Lincoln, and then in reading the noise study, there was a recommendation to provide sound-rated windows on college. And I'm just curious if those are proposed for the construction process of this. That's it. Thank you. Okay. Yeah, in terms of the sound-rated windows, that's a pretty typical comment for noise studies, and it's relatively easy to do. I mean, in general, in noise studies, obviously the windows have to be closed to meet the requirements in the noise study, and then that requires some type of an active ventilation system in those apartments. But again, that's pretty typical of any housing that's being built along busy roadways or the highway. There is no elevator in building B. It's a walk-up building. And in terms of the manager's unit, yes, there will be, I mean, there's required to be an on-site manager. I don't believe the applicant has formally picked a unit yet that would be used as the manager's unit in the project. Yes, state law requires there being a manager on site for a property like this. So we'll have to do that, but we haven't selected the unit yet. And there is an elevator in the first building. Thanks, guys. And Sheila, I would just say, if you're super concerned about the windows, we can probably condition it. If you wanna put a condition on there, that's something that the board can possibly entertain. Board member Sharon, questions? I do not have any questions. Thanks. Cool. Board member McHugh, questions, comments? Sorry, just questions. You're muted, John. My question goes along with a member, Wix. And I was curious about the air conditioning units on the new building. And with their efficiency, the design that you have, would they be as efficient as the ones on the existing building? And how do you measure that? Yeah, the efficiency when the units themselves, I mean, they're made to, as long as they've got essentially one open side, that's how they're designed to function. And they typically have a second side that has to be available for maintenance. So they're made to go relatively close to the buildings, that type of unit. Thank you. Yeah, they look like they're mini split suitcases, right, Rainey? So yeah, essentially, John, yeah. So the condensing unit's outside, it's got some coolant lines that run inside and it runs a unit inside. And they're ridiculously efficient now. Couple manufacturers make them, yeah, Mitsubishi, Daikin, LG, anyway. Board member Birch, questions of the applicant or staff? No questions at this time. Cool, vice chair Hedgepeth, questions of the applicant or staff? No questions at this time. Perfect, all right. So we'll now move it to a potential motion. So I'll leave it up to the board to determine what they wanna do. And as a reminder, we don't have, you know, like preliminary and final design room and all that stuff. We just have design review. If so, if you wanna make the motion, it's to grant design review. You can also not grant design review and then we can also continue to date certain if you're so inclined. So I'll turn it back over to the board and let you guys decide what you wanna do. There, I'd like to make a motion granting design review for the project located at 320 College Avenue, wave the reading of the text and have no pleas shells or shall nots in the process. Do I hear a second for that motion? I'll second that. All right, we have a motion that's been made and seconded. So we'll go through comments from the board. Board Member Wolskie, would you like to kick it off? Sure, I really need to organize my comments better. I just wanted to state that I did go back. If you wanna go later, you can, that's fine. It's okay, it's okay. This is gonna force me to be better. So I did go back and watch the January meeting, which was very long. And so I could better understand this project when it came back. I was really surprised when I opened up this agenda packet to see a complete redesign and really pleased with what I saw. I like this architecture, I like this design style. It fits in really well in particular with this block with the number of other Spanish colonial revivals that are there, granted it's a little taller but the applicant has made great strides in stepping back the projects, decreasing the height, decreasing the massing. I really, really like on that Lincoln Avenue elevation, that courtyard treatment with the balcony coming down. I think that makes for a really intimate, nice neighborly space. So those were a couple of things that I wanted to point out. Let's see, it's kind of a weird thing but I like where they put the trash and closures. I think, or the trash and closure, I think that's probably the least offensive place that you could put it. And as someone who lived next door to a multi-family, 50 unit apartment complex, that's a really important thing. I do like the changes made to the building on College Avenue when I saw the January submittal. There are a lot more horizontal elements. And I think with these more stucco blocks that really emphasizes the verticality of this building, it makes it seem a lot less, I guess, squat. So appreciated that. And my, I guess my one thought was on the roof on Lincoln, I was a little surprised. The color doesn't bother me. I think the color's fine. I was hoping to maybe see more of a Spanish tile. Maybe it doesn't have to be tile if they have a good product that's in metal. And I don't know if maybe this is for Calgary and requirements or building codes, 7A material requirements, but I was hoping for something a little more in that style. Not a deal breaker for me but those are my comments. Thanks. Thanks, Sheila. Henry, you're up. I'd say ditto to what ordinary Wolski just said. And I would, I think I kind of put my pitch into possibly relocate those mechanical units. I think five by one apartment is gonna be a roar. I know one by itself on a terrace, which I experienced is, can be disturbing, but, and it's really only a knit. And I don't wanna just say that change it or I don't like the project. I love the project, I love the direction that it's in now. I think it does fit. I think it blends some nice elements in the historic district. I appreciate all the hard work that TFA has had to go through. And I also appreciate the patience and all the hard work that the applicant has had to go through. So I'd like to hear from either four fellow board members about a lower man's roof up in the top, see if that has any traction. If not, it's just my own personal idea. Thanks, Henry. We'll go to board members Sharon. Thank you, Chair Weigel. Thank you, Susie. And thank you, applicant, for great presentation. And glad to see this one come back to us again. Yeah, I hadn't had any communication with the applicant and didn't know the status of this project. And so when it popped up in our packet, I was pleased to see it and wondering which direction that it went. And definitely pleased. I think it's a great iteration. Really glad to see all of the improvements and changes and feedback that has been incorporated. I think that it's, you know, I enjoyed the art modern and art deco design from before. I thought that that was pretty innovative, but I think that this, as our community members mentioned in their comments, this is a really great example of the process being very successful. It sounds like everyone is happy from most aspects. And it's, I'm glad to see that. And so I think that this Spanish revival iteration is a really great evolution of the project. And I think it does scale better with the kind of the south of the project in the neighborhood well. I think the masking is really great. Definitely there's really, I appreciate the fine attention to detail. There's been a lot of thoughts into the detailing and it's very, very sensibly done. And I think that going with your precedent photos from the neighborhood and also going down to the level of the detail with the tiling and with the wood and the wood choices. But I think it just shows the level of thought and incorporation of feedback you've been taking. I do think that, yeah, somewhat of the limitations of being in a remote meeting. We don't have the color board. I also had a question about the colors and what we were going to have there. We could see that. And board member Wolskies commented about the roof. It's really my only quibble as well. I appreciate all the wood elements that you're bringing in. And I'd like to see that kind of attention to detail being carried through to the roofing as well. And if we could see some of the material in person, it would provide some really nice context. I think what you have is going to be fine and will be great as well. With Henry's comment about the immense roof. I really could go either way. I think that the massive roof references the neighborhood and existing content context well, but I can also speak with lowering and reducing the profile. As far as the North building that on College Ave, I think that they're doing, Drew, can you mute for any chance? Yeah, that was weird. I don't know what happened. I didn't need it. Just some background chatter. Maybe there's creatures jumping behind you did. College Ave, yeah, I think the attention to detail is continued through to the busier streetscape that's there. And I think that it's gonna be an improvement and a refresh of this building here. One of the things I love about this project and I liked before and I really appreciate now is it ticks off some really great things for me. We have, as was mentioned in Susie's presentation, really revitalizing a property in the downtown core to that is walkable, close to transit, really close to downtown, close to jobs potentially, other neighborhoods that's really great. So infill housing is a really great thing to have here. And we're creating infill housing in Santa Rosa that is not necessarily new development. So we're staying out of that woolly interface. We're not building out into fire prone areas. We're also not using a lot of brand new materials and demoing a lot of materials. I appreciate the adaptive reuse of the building itself. Great sustainability here. This could be a really great example of something that could be taken through the city with the hopeful success of this project to see that this can be done here is gonna be a really great thing to have. And so kudos to the applicants teams for sticking with this all the way through. And I think this is gonna be a great project. I'm looking forward to seeing it. And it's gonna be a really great addition to this historic neighborhood and to this busy downtown core and corridor. So thanks very much. Job well done. Thanks Adam. And again, apologies for the muting. I didn't do it. I don't know what the heck happened. So I apologize. Board member McHugh comments on the project. Certainly a board member or board member Weigel. I really appreciate the applicants efforts. And I think the record reflects that the applicant paid attention to the neighborhood, paid attention to the historical district, the design of the homes around the project. I like the design. I like what you did. I compliment you on your efforts. I didn't see the original presentation in January because I wasn't on the design review board, but I love the way you took the comments and engaged with the neighborhood and have now created something that is attractive and interesting and dynamic. And we need the housing. And so I very much appreciate what you did and I very much support the project. So thank you. Thanks, John. I appreciate that. Weren't you on cultural heritage board when this originally came? I thought you were. You know, I was. I was. Yeah, that's what I thought. Yeah, I was. Yes. Cool. Thanks. Where are we? Board member Birch, your comments. Great. Yeah, just not to stretch this out. I would say every positive comment about the current design, the process that got everyone here through the interaction with the neighborhood, compliments to the applicant, the architect. And I'm gonna also just shout out city staff design review who clearly, you know, had a role in facilitating a really positive exchange. Having not seen the project the first time around, I did actually go back and read through the majority of the correspondents after the first meeting. I even shot a note today to staff to say what no correspondence this time around. You know, there were 50 letters last time and surprisingly quiet was the answer. And I thought, okay, so either we screwed up the noticing or the neighborhood likes the project that much. And it's awesome to see the process work really, really well this way. So I just, you know, this is great. I compliment the St. Rose neighborhood folks for being switched on and willing to work and compromise. We don't always get that. So just a huge plus, I will comment on the Mansard, the idea, the concept of getting all the chillers on the roof in a Mansard situation. I think if that chains were to be made, I think there's a sensitivity on the design team and the applicants part to do a great job with that. And I would be supportive of them making that change. I wouldn't condition it, but if it was something that they wanted to approach, I would say, I would be supportive of it as a member of this board. So other than that, fantastic compliments to everyone all around and look forward to seeing this get done. Thanks Michael, Vice Chair Hedgepeth comments. Thank you, Chair Flagel. Yes, I'm equally diddling. The whole process, what's wonderful is that going back and I want to speak here to Randy, there was a press in the modern contemporary side and it was very wonderful about reflecting on the whole heritage of this firm and that they had done restorations like the St. Rose School and that this language, this dance of the Gill situation collectively and knowing how narrow Lincoln is, it's not an easy hat trip to be on a very narrow historic street. I think it's less than 30, it's like 28 feet wide. And as I talked to neighbors, this is a wonderful poster child of how to engage in neighborhood and how to get your unit count up and the willingness of the applicant to lose a few in that. But well done, it's a bit eclectic but wonderful in that regard. I'm also very pleased that 320, that sleepy whale-like building will be animated with people and freshened up. I know Moss often goes on stucco on the north side. The sun doesn't go there much but in summary, if I was to change one thing, it'd be to make the blue tile kind of a smoke blue rather than too iridescent. It's just a wonderful building. It's got so much going on with the deep oxblood red and everything, maybe not too yellow of stucco color but I'm just saying that it was kind of a smoke gray blue. I would be thrilled and that's all, no request. Cool, thanks, Warren. So I wanted, as I was listening to everybody's comments, can I get a little bit of clarification on the roof comment you made, Adam? Were you referring to something Sheila said or you were talking about the roof well that Henry said? I referenced both. One with Sheila mentioning bringing in the Spanish revival of standing up to the roof with tile, having something more tile-like, having it go to the standing-seemed metal kind of brownish-goldish color that we can see on the renderings there. It just seemed like it didn't quite go all the way to the top, just a quibble and then with the manned third roof of Henry's, I could go either way. I think it's been addressed well by other members as well. Thanks, Adam, for that clarification. I appreciate that. Okay. Yeah, I actually don't have any kind of design comments. Everybody's made them already. And I think this is a great example of the process working in a positive way, like everybody said, which is fantastic. I did notice a couple of things that I'd like to condition the project with as shells, just because they're not part of the packet. And then staff can just check the box. Randy clearly has the information in some form. It's just not the official form that it needs to be. So one of them is that the applicant shall provide a material board in substantial conformance with the materials presented. The second one would be mechanical screens shall provide details of the rooftop mechanical screen on building B. But also I would say shall provide screening for the ground-mounted HVAC on the east side of building A. The design guidelines and the applicant, our form actually requires screening for mechanical units of all types, whether they're on the ground or up high. So they need to be screened in some way. So whether that's a little wall down low or something, but shall provide screening for mechanical units located to the east of building A. And then I actually, I'd like for us to condition the noise-rated windows. I don't think that's a stretch, but I don't wanna force anybody into that, but I think we should, this is my opinion. And then finally, I'm not in favor of the HVAC well for building A. I actually think the building's more effective the way it is. I'm just not a fan of Mansour Groups in general, but they feel fake to me because they're like not a real roof, but like half a roof. But anyway, that's just my personal opinion. I think what Randy has proposed, the applicant's proposed is it's far more architecturally clear what is occurring. So with that, that finishes up the conditions that I was thinking, does anybody have an issue with any of those conditions on the board? They don't agree with them. They wanna boot them. I think you've got your A's and B's mixed up though. You said- Oh, and if I do, I'm sorry. Yeah. I think we know exactly what you meant, but the building A is on college and B is- Yeah, I did get them mixed up then. All right. Apologies. Yeah, so flip everything I said on the buildings. And then applicant, do you guys have a problem with any of those conditions? Randy and Nick? I think I'm fine with them. I mean, yeah. I don't know enough about noise, radiant windows, but sure. Yeah, I think the windows we do, and then yeah, the screening, color and material board, that's all good. I'd also like to say I agree with the chair that I would like to avoid the mansard roofs on building B. I mean, I don't think it'd be appropriate and I'm trying to maintain some roof area up there visually. And I'll work on those condensing units and see what other kind of options we have to move them around a little bit and try to get that to work as well as possible. Yeah, I think what the condition would be is that you need to screen them, but you can choose. So whatever you, if you want to move them around, you want to put them behind the little wall, you want to bring it up to you and within the vernacular that you've created for the building that I'm comfortable with that. So cool, all right. So Susie, did you get all those? Do you need any clarification, Susie and Amy? Do you need clarification? Actually, I was just gonna interject that I missed one. I have to confess, but so very first when you're asking for the materials board, I'm hoping that a materials page will suffice, although our materials ask for a board, they're very hard to store. So I'm hoping that the materials page will suffice and then I'll call out paint colors as well as materials, siding materials and what have you. Then I had Shell provide screening for mechanical units located on the east side of building A. Building B, I mixed them up. It is building B, okay. Building B, I mixed them up. And then Shell provide noise rated windows specific to the noise study. I don't know, is that a shell or a consider? I think it- No, I think it's a shell. It's a shell provide appropriate noise rated windows on north elevation of building A per the noise report. Yeah. What, yeah. Yeah, and yeah, they, I can do that. Shell provide, I think the way Shell provide noise rated windows specific to the noise study on the north elevation of building A, facing college. Perfect. And then there was another screening. I know we talked about screening on the rooftop. Yeah, so the Randy just doesn't have any specific detail and the reason I say that is that so when it goes to construction documents, right? You know, the building department obviously would need to check that and there's nothing in the package to indicate what that is. So it's just a detail provide detail for building a rooftop mechanical screening. Perfect. And it could be just, it could be a picture. You know, it could just be just as simple as a picture of the type of metal screen or something that they want to use. It doesn't have to be like a, you know, architectural, you know, scale detail. We see that quite often. So include screening element on plan submitted for building permits for rooftop equipment on building A. Yay, I got it. Is that it? Did we get it all? I think that was it. Didn't I just read it? Yeah, I just had one thing to perfect in perpetuity. If all color boards were eight and a half by 11, the preservation would increase by 84%. Is that the problem with staff? Do you want a fighting weight and a half by 11 board in your future? Or do you think the whole thing is a struggle for you in storing color boards? I had a lot of color boards stored in my office and went through and purged them a while back. Since then, I've been getting color pages and material pages. I'm happy to get asked the applicants when we start coming back into the chamber to bring the board a color board, but we really don't have enough room to store a whole bunch of color boards. Okay. But if you want one. Yeah, I think my recommendation. I can arrange that. Yeah, I think my recommendation, Susie, is kind of what you alluded to, is that since everything is digital on our iPads now, so that we can review them at home, obviously the applicant, if they can provide a digital color board, you know, as part of the package, that's great. And then, obviously, when they come to council chambers, bring the physical samples with them. I know Henry is like itching to touch samples. So, and I think Michael likes looking at physical samples too, as well. I enjoyed it as well. And then the applicant then takes that board home with them. It doesn't stay in your office. I will say that the condition for the material board, it should say applicant to provide digital material board in substantial conformance with the plan set submitted, because then that'll give US staff really clear direction, because then Raina can pick, you know, there's 300 colors of white. Randy can pick one of the 300 colors of white that works for him, right? So, yeah. So, do I hear somebody who wants to make a friendly amendment to include all the conditions as stated? I'll make a motion to make a friendly amendment to include the conditions as read by the project planner into the motion. Cool. And so we'll go to the motioner, which is vice chair Hedgepeth. Do you accept the friendly amendments? I indeed accept the friendly amendments. Awesome. And then we'll go to the seconder, who's Adam, board member Sharon. Do you accept the friendly amendments? Yes, that's fine by me. Perfect. So I think we're ready for a roll call. So recording secretary. Okay. Board member Birch. Hi. Board member McHugh. Hi. Board member Sharon. Hi. Board member Wicks. Hi. Board member Wolskie. Hi. Vice chair Hedgepeth. Hi. And chair Weigel. Hi. All right, let the record reflect that the resolution passes with seven ayes. Awesome. So I want to thank the applicant and congratulations on your entitlement. And hopefully we'll be seeing construction here pretty soon. I hope. So with that, we'll move to item 10, which is adjournment. So everybody have a great weekend. We stand adjourned. Thanks all. Bye bye. Thanks everybody. Thank you.