It is 4 30 p.m. And I'm calling this meeting of the design review board to order Recording secretary. Can you please call roll? Board member birch is absent board member cook Board member lip tack here board member Sharon is absent board member with rich here vice chair Weigel Here chair Jones Carter here. Let the record reflect that all board members are present with the exception of board member birch and board member Sharon item 2 approval of minutes Does anyone have any changes to the minutes from September 7th and October 5th? Yes, I I believe it's the October 5th. I should have written it down the It was when we had the the general plan update Resented and the the resolution says that the planning and economic development recommend that the Planning Commission and I I Think it's supposed to be recommends that the design review board Give feedback Yes, I would just like that to be corrected Thank you, I'll make those changes. Thank you. I'll just need to abstain from October 5th Yes, yeah, because I was absent on the Whatever it was the 7th the 7th the 7th of September. So yes, you have four for that and then you have four for the other So yes, yes So the minutes for October summer sorry September 7th and October 5th Are approved as amended So the minutes for September 7th, did you have changes as well? No, okay So the minutes for September 7th are approved as submitted Yes, and then the minutes for October 5th are approved as amended. Yes, correct. Thank you Recording secretary do we have any public comment on item 2 approval of the minutes? If you wish to make a public comment on item 2, please make your way to the podium We don't have any attendees in person And just enough where we do have a few people listening and on Zoom Item 3 public comment. We are now taking public comment on item number 3 Not agenda matters. This is the time when any person may address the board on matters not listed on this agenda But which are within the subject matter jurisdiction of this commute committee Recording secretary, can you please provide instructions to the public? So just a reminder, we are only taking public comment in person now, and it does not look like we have any attendees in person Thank you public comment is closed item 4 0.1 statement of purpose zoning code chapter 20-52 point 030 F 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 Item 4.2 board member reports. Are there any board member reports? Thank you We do not have any public Comment on this item 4.3 none item 5 department reports. I believe Amy will provide a report to the board Maybe yeah, thank you chair Jones Carter and members of the board Just a brief report for you this afternoon First just for planning purposes. We will not be having a design review board meeting on November 2nd due to lack of items I Also wanted to announce that Susie Murray who was sitting right next to me was Promoted last week to the supervising planner position for current development So that was a position that I formerly held and now I'm supervising the advanced planning team so the the policy side so big congratulations to Susie and Just a quick update on the resilient city development measures ordinance so you heard that Several months ago, so we will be coming back to this board. I believe January of Next year just to show you The progress there and that concludes my report. Thanks. Thank you. I Don't believe we have any public comments since no one is here Item 6. Are there any abstentions on item 8.1? Great. Thank you Consent items item 7 there are none Item 8 scheduled items. We're moving on to the first scheduled item 8.1 public hearing Brookwood Medical Garage modifications design review 1002nd Street dash dr 23 dash 009 presented by Susie Murray Are there any x-party disclosures on this item? Thank you. Thank you Technology wasn't the reason I was promoted The project before you is one that many of you might find familiar and it may be new to others That's the Brookwood Medical Project and then the project that's here is an amendment to final design review for the garage structure This is hold on one sec Sorry, I had something covering my screen there The the scope of the project is to modify the garage structure. It'll reduce the parking levels from 6 to 5 Reduce the height of the building from 60 to 54 feet at its highest points and the number of parking spaces from 325 feet or 325 spaces to 276th The required amendments are the required entitlements are of course final design review and Minor conditional use permit. We're here for the revision for the design review And the minor conditional use permit has been approved by the zoning administrator. I'd like to note that there are no changes To the medical office building this is just to the garage Here's an aerial view of the site When the full project came before you it included these three parcels the third parcel the one outlined in red is a city-owned parcel and the the project will construct the the Sidewalk in between the project limits and the bridge which is the frontage of that little city-owned red parcel or parcel outlined in red The Garage is on the largest will be on the largest of the the properties and it There will be a lot line adjustment involved, but it'll be at the 1,000 second Street address and Yeah, it's in the area outlined in purple I'm just to give an idea of neighborhood context the site is surrounded by Residential commercial uses some medical office uses to the north as well as some very fine dining We have the police station off to the east kind of southeast and more commercial and residential along Sonoma Avenue So last year in September the design review board granted final design review And that at that point did include both the medical office building in the sixth story parking garage The zoning administrator approved the the minor conditional use permit a couple weeks later Earlier this year. We received the application requesting the modifications and Yeah The the general plan land use and zoning are consistent. They're both neighborhood mixed use And Neighborhood mixed use and that's shown you can see here by that kind of mauve-colored pink And it just represents a very large group of properties right in the vicinity As far as general plan goals that the changes that are proposed don't change any of the general plan goals that would be Supporting this or this would be implementing those same general plan goals as it was before Maintaining the downtown is a major regional financial civic and cultural center Promoting new higher density unit uses along the city's arterial streets And my favorite of course is ensuring that local creeks and riparian corridors are preserved and in this case We'll be enhanced and restored as habitat for fish birds and mammals But also for us to be able to walk on its public access and when they're done it should be beautiful Parking has been the primary issue. I think for from start to finish on this project the image shown on the screen is the the pink line is The the boundary of the downtown station area, which was modified a few years ago The property the subject property is shown by the star It's at the you know, eastern most edge of the of the downtown station area within that downtown Station area there are no parking requirements when The original project came before the design review board and the zoning administrator They were required to to really give us the argument why they needed so much parking I think that you know, we know how medical offices building medical office buildings Operate, you know, if you get there at the right time you can find a parking space if you get there at the wrong time It feels like you can drive around for hours looking for one the The they still exceed the number of parking Spaces required and there was an addendum to the parking study Which justifies the the parking reduction? I'm gonna say looking back going back to that September meeting for the design review board or Not the meeting but preparing for it It was a struggle to justify the 325 parking spaces getting up that high So this actually well, it's still a medical office building and we still it does need parking This gets us closer. I think to what the city's goal is There's also been a condition of approval added into the The resolution that says in the event the parking becomes an issue that they will implement measures to assist that like you know incentives for employees to carpool Yeah, and taking public transportation this property is is pretty far away from the the train station So but there are other measures that can be taken This is the image up on the upper left-hand corner is what was approved The image the larger image here is the the proposed changes again where the building drops down the to edits tallest point by about six feet and I'm Incline to think it's an improvement. I think it's a more attractive building not that my opinion matters, but here is a Mott whoopsie a modified site plan So you can still see the path of travel I Included as an attachment to the staff report the original plans Where you would have seen that you know, you would have seen the change in footprint, but this is the new the new site plan Again similar to the general plan there are several design guidelines that were implemented with this project or this project implemented and None none of that's changed this goes back I mean the the changes the reason this project is before you is because it was a very High point of discussion during the original meeting and some of the issues that were raised at that point was the height and You know the parking being a long along Brookwood Fronting the street, so I think all in all this this probably is less impactful As far as those comments were concerned So I've added kind of a small copy of the version of the planting plan or the landscape plan The building, you know the building is is It's When I say it's it's not transparent, but it gives you can see into each Floor but it's not a solid wall So I mean the the parking is screened and the back of the building you you can see the Landscape from the street. That's what I'm trying to get to when trees mature and whatnot So there were six required findings. There are still six required findings as in shown on the draft resolution Staff has found that those findings can be met And I'm sorry there are seven, but we always talk about the California Environmental Quality Act as a standalone I Guess I didn't on this one though So let's go back the project has was found in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act It was statutorily statutorily exempt because it met a significant number of Qualifications which were listed in the staff report And on the resolution There have been four public comments received two Requesting information only one was in support of The project and that was a telephone call and then one was opposed and that was uploaded as Late correspondence. I Received it on the 15th. So here we go the project is statutorily exempt Yeah, it and it met it I can't remember all the reasons that it met the Statutory exemption, but I'm happy to look that up if you need it and So it's recommended by the planning economic and economic development department of the design review board by resolution Allow the proposed changes and grant final design review for the Brookwood Medical Garage modifications for the project located at 1,000 Second Street and that concludes my presentation and I don't think there's anybody Online, so here's my contact information if anybody in the Chamber is interested the applicant does have a presentation and If you have any questions for me, I'm happy to answer them and Then pass pass the hat I didn't go into the design. I'm gonna let them do that. Thank you Thank you We'll have questions for both after the applicant Presentation you're gonna come down Would you like to come down and do your presentation? You're more than welcome to do that It's up to you All right. Hello, everybody. Can you hear me? Okay? Yes, okay? It's nice to see all of you I think there's a few new members on the board since the last time I presented I'm going to start just with a quick introduction and then our architect Darren Atkinson from Gensler is on the line on zoom and he'll Present on the architecture and then it'll come back to me with for landscape So Susie did a great presentation. It was very thorough So just as a reminder here's our project site the the property does The property line goes right along the banks of Santa Rosa Creek And it's at the intersection of Brookwood and 2nd Street pretty prominent intersection If you haven't you didn't tell anybody who's watching who you are and what come oh, I'm so sorry My name is Brianna Morrison. I'm the principal landscape architect at Carl. I'll may see I'm here representing our client a creative realty and Darren Atkinson of Gensler is also Here with us Thank You Drew Here's some views into the project site if you aren't familiar with it Most people drive by it, but you can see that there's a existing building on the corner There's a smaller linear building On 2nd Street that is will be incorporated into this project site with the lot line adjustment And then there's the big empty field and from that field you can see Santa Rosa Creek So with this I'm going to go ahead and ask that Darren Atkinson be elevated to speaker Okay, and I'll I will advance the slides for you Thanks, Brianna, and thank you everyone for giving us a minute today of your time to walk you through some of the Adjustments to the parking garage for this project again. My name is Darren Atkinson, and I am an architect with Gensler We are the architect for this project and And looking forward to hearing any comments that you may have for the changes I think Susie did an amazing job of representing the The adjustments to the project and so I'll probably can contain most of my comments to some of the architectural features I understand some of the board members are new to the board and had not seen some of these this presentation before so Again, nothing has changed other than the parking garage the medical office building is exactly the same as the last time we presented and maybe just go to the comparison image Brianna if you don't mind I think This this really just indicates in site plan that nothing's really adjusted significantly. We did adjust a little bit of site circular vehicular circulation in the garage became further developed and Controlled, but it doesn't change anything with respect to view of the garage So just going to the imagery the perspective view from Brookwood The image on the left was what we proposed last time and you can see Comparing the two images that we are maintaining The design ideas that we've proposed which is color texture material is all the same the main adjustment is strictly height and if you see on the left you see that we have some Panels with some green screen vegetation growing on them to help kind of provide a little bit of natural Growth on the garage to help kind of hopefully make it feel a little bit more connected to nature We all understand parking garages have certain qualities to them and kind of breaking them down in scale and helping them Feel a little bit more friendly to the pedestrian environment is challenging and so that we've attempted to do that with these randomized panels with growing vegetation on them that patterning Comes from the window patterning on the medical office building so that there's some consistency of the development And then further to the right in the middle of the screen on the original image You can see that we have the same type of panels, but those instead of being green screen are actually a kinetic Element to provide a little bit of interest and art and those are still on the garage We did kind of tuck them in and attach them to the garage surface a little bit tighter after working through the details But they are still there in the same pattern. I Think the image on the right that's modified has a little bit more accurate depiction of the trees as they grow in and I think it feels a little bit further from the street as we've moved those Better the connect panels back onto the face of the garage And then in the lower rain of the garage You see a little bit more of the photovoltaic shade structure on the top where cars will be shaded by the PV Panels and I think showing that towards the street. I think helps in a way kind of communicating the importance of You know providing some energy collection on the site and the commitment to hopefully Reducing our impact to the environment as little as as much as we can And that's really the main Thrust of the changes. It's really about reducing at one level and and hopefully reducing a little bit of the impact as you drive down Perkwood and these elevations really just highlight the top elevation Is the Southwest elevation is showing? What it is what it would look like towards the site itself. This is what you see if you are on the site And we we are also reducing some of those panels because we realize, you know, you're really not going to see those from the street You don't really see them. It doesn't have that much of an impact and it kind of helps Kind of keep things simplified by not having those on there. So the proposed elevation on the top reduces the Panels the Northeast elevation is what you would see a long Brookwood And so you can see the patterning is the same as it was in previous versions And here this is a illustration of what was originally proposed along This the site from the site view the original on the top and then again the modified where we've we've taken some of those Panels off because we just don't feel like they're having much of an impact and getting the the vines to grow in them would be very Difficult, which is part of the development of the design. We realized it's not going to really work the way we had hoped And so not having those panels seems to be a better move Next again original along Brookwood is on the top What's modified and you know the image here on the bottom is not showing the green screen The green growing in those panels as it did in the one above but those are any panel That's white is intended to be a green screen where there's vegetation growing on that And then this is a minor modification That we we added some so full photovoltaic panels state structure along the northern side of the garage as a way of really trying to Think about the user experience This is something that was really driven by the the the owner who Develops medical spaces and really has a very strong Opinion about how they develop their their projects and really cares about the user experience And so they were really intent on trying to make sure that Provide some of the ADA stalls as close as possible and and giving those stalls some additional shade and shelter And so you can see in pink the the top pink bar is actually the the canopy To the main entrance of the building which you see on the top image there top right image The the canopy is on the left side. That's the main entrance to the office building And you can see the canopy to the right with the photo will take canopy on the right there that allows for people to connect to Just across the street or the drive that driveway into the building That's a minor modification and you don't really see that from the Brookwood as you drive past I mean you will see it if you're looking in but it's not a major Component along Brookwood Then I'll let Brianna address the landscape plans, which I Is more of her purview Thanks, Darren There isn't too much to address with the landscape plans except that the only changes we made were in response to the shifts of the parking structure and Some minor shifts to the stormwater treatment we discovered that all of the joint trench on the side is running right behind the Curb so where we had our joint our stormwater treatment as like a planter median between the curb and the sidewalk We can't do that because you can't you can't have joint trench running through stormwater treatment So we had to push the sidewalk to the back of the curb And in order to treat the water of the sidewalk we had to angle the sidewalk back into the site Which is not typical So that's that actually is worked into the design review modification request And we got a variance for that There the only other changes are related to the to the shifts of the parking structure, so This is a side-by-side comparison just to illustrate that you know graphically We threw some color on the concrete in front of the building But otherwise you can see that it's Substantially the same and with that we are done with our presentation. Thank you very much Thank you We'll start with questions from the board if there are any Michael Thank you for your presentation and Just had some question a few questions on the circulation in the parking garage. It seemed like it changed From the exterior like the driveway to the interior and then also had a question about on the second floor when the Cars are driving up. It looked like in the original plans. It was a circular Facade and now it's been squared off and I was wondering the reason for that Darren, I'm gonna let you answer that one Okay, happy to can you pull up the imagery where we have the side-by-side site plan? Michael your observations are correct. There there was a minor adjustment in how you circulate the site I think if you go to This is the upper upper level. Can you there's a one that shows the site connection? I think it's better. Yeah, right here Well, it's kind of the same so originally the ramp up to the garage from grade was Accessed from this the call it the south side of the garage And so what this did was you had circulation in the parking garage So you would come in the site go through the parking garage on the ground level But not have access to the upper levels. You had to go all the way through that level Back out of it and then go around the site and into the ramp to get to the upper level So if you are looking for a parking space on the ground floor, but there's none You had to go all the way out and go back up out to get up based on Developing the parking garage with the parking garage design expert We worked through the flow and felt that it was better to provide access to that ramp From within the garage itself on that ground level It's the same access you would get as you go up to the upper levels if you're on the second third and fourth level You'll have that exact same kind of sequence. It seemed to make sense for user experience And that's why we made that adjustment It didn't change the location of the garage at all It just simply allows you to go into the ramp from within the garage itself And then Brian if you can go back to the original one you had where we're on the second level I think that starts to show the shape that Michael was referring to Sorry, which side is that on it's the site plane you had originally where it was the second level I think that was showing her landscape Here. Yeah, I think this kind of shows it in the dashed lines here The second level Started to show a curved form in the original design right there Which follows the the the the transversion of the of the cars As they go up the the ramp and the squaring off of that was really a product of Kind of efficiencies and trying to to get the the efficiency of the garage structural to work And then the the circulation path the required space for the cars to navigate that area is still intact in the modified version. It's just constructability wise started to Angle instead of curve Okay, thank you and then on the second floor or the third floor what happens when you're driving to the east you pass the Ramp to go up to the third level fourth level. Is it just a dead end or is there somewhere to turn around? It is well that they're the last in this drawing it doesn't really illustrate it very well, but the last parking spaces along that end are Additional width so you have room to pull into that and then turn around so that it won't be The the last parking space will not be an actual parking stall. It'll be reserved as a turn around So if you if you go past the the ramp and and let's say you want to turn around because there's no stalls down there You you pull into the designated turn lane back back out and and turn around and do a three-point turn That that's that is consistent with the way it was before too. That's not a change. That's just the way it was designed originally Okay, thank you and then I had a question on the elevations the proposed like I guess we'll call it the northeast elevation the Green screens don't come down to the ground How are we how are you gonna get vines up on the the green screens? So we've been working with Gensler to develop a Cable I think actually in reality. There is a Mesh screen that goes across the entire bottom. Is that correct Aaron? That was one of the design ideas, but I thought we were going with the cables Okay, so But are you either way there's a there's a way to get the cables to train up that up something to get to the panel So that's the intent right we so we worked with Gensler to connect not only Going vertically with cables, but also horizontally Just to help really fill those panels in so vines will be able to stretch along or or a Twine along the cable to get access to Adjacent panels because you see some of those panels are a little separated from other ones So we we do have them all connected in reality with cables So to allow the vines and you also note that there's some Panels floating above the the garage entrance. So those are also connected to the ground with cables So that vines will grow that way Yeah, so if I can clarify so on the northeast elevation There's gonna be cables and is that Completely wide open or is that a wall? On the bottom floor. Well, just just to clarify because as we You're asking a question that made me have to think back into past two weeks, so I have to really dig hard to remember here, but If you look at the drawing under modified the one on the bottom There's a call out for gr-01 along the base there And so Brianna your your recollection was correct that we did actually fill in those bays with a Grading system to help provide a little bit of security along the sidewalk So if you aren't just walking through there and that allowed then for the vines to grow in through that grading and then continue up The the cabling is Brianna was mentioning earlier is gonna be something we use to kind of connect the panels on the upper level So that there is something for the vine to train to Okay, thank you and then on the Sidewalk move that there's an existing joint trench there correct And then the sections are still showing that sidewalk separated from the curb but the the plans are showing it the way that Where you're proposing That's correct, and the tree that you're proposing in there, so we have Mainly it's just to figure out the size and The same question the panels are no longer off the building like they were there on the on the on the structure Correct in the previous Presentation they they kind of sat out away, so there was like an open-air area, but that's been moved back to be on the building so the trees we have I Believe We've been working on the construction documents, so I'm confusing myself on what's on the construction documents But it's I believe what we planted is the autumn blaze maple Or it might actually be the cork oak as the street tree Then we've got the Armstrong maple as what that yellow symbol is just to really try to frame the sides of that really pretty jewel box and Then in the the space underneath the jewel box We have Japanese maples and there's existing Japanese maples there and they're gorgeous and they're growing really really well So we are proposing the same kind of thing I guess I was staying more like by the garage You know more east because you aren't pretty tight there between the sidewalk in the garage Yes, it is very tight is being proposed as a cork oak Which those get big as you know? Yes, I'm wondering if you change that to something that's more upright Yeah, we were showing and I we show the autumn blaze maple which also can get kind of wide the Reasoning for the cork oak Wasn't that a request if you? Do you remember? Okay, the cork oak. I'm trying to remember why we put that and I think Possibly that's a Leftover from when we were doing a lot of stormwater treatment in the planting medium So we needed a tree on the lid list In reality, I think we're planting the maple And or maybe I'd have to look but you know you're right. It is very tight There are electrical lines going through there And we're trying to be really cognizant of of providing the the street trees that are desired and generally required But also making sure we're not going to plant something that grows into the parking structure Some of it I think can be managed through the maintenance of the landscape, but we do want to be thoughtful with the plant selection I have I have two more questions. One is On the actual rendering that the proposed rendering I Guess it gets picked later, but when I zoom in it does look like there are green screen panels on there, so I just I'm really You know concerned that what we're approving here in this package is not what's going to be You know submitted with based on tree species and you know what we're seeing in the package And so it's just I just want to make sure we're all on the same page Yeah, Darren did correct himself that there are green screens. There's like a it's a it's a mesh a Wire kind of security thing so people can't just jump through the garage But it's open air and the vines will be growing on it So he corrected himself that that's how the vines are going to get from the ground floor to the first level With the green screen Panels and then we have the cabling to connect those panels to each other Okay, thank you. I just another clarification on the renderings the colors on the building are different and so I just wanted to Know which color we're getting the colors based the reflection of this or the the Rendering that you're looking at is those two the garage and the building are the same color The the image that you're looking at is based on the sun angle and in the view of the garage Is this looks different because it's closer to the camera and in more in shade because it's running along a different angle But the if you look at the material Palette those two colors are the same And I mean that makes sense, but I meant more on the original versus the modified renderings I Think it's just a matter of different Time that's a new rendering. I don't think it there. It's not changing. We're not changing the color of the office building There's no changes to the office building. There's no changes to the material color of the garage itself at all. Okay Thank you Actually, I think to Brianna. Can you bring up? I think it's page Seven of your presentation. I think this might help Mike. I don't think I have the sheet with So I was just gonna say Mike if you look in the email that we got as late correspondence There's an applicant presentation in there and on page seven It's the material palette that Darren is referencing which has GR01 which is trellis wall-mounted with climbing vines and that's indicated as Brianna and Darren have both said Along the bottom it's indicated there and then all the little itty-bitty Rectilinear panels that are above it are tagged as well and then also the Concrete has the paint called out and it says painted a match pl-o one So at least I'm seeing what you're you're mentioning Darren. So I wanted to make sure you saw that Mike It's important to note. I think thanks for calling it out I could see how looking at an image that looks different between what was called modified and proposed might indicate that We're trying to change the color, but that's not the intent at all And if you look at the proposal, you know, the colors are clearly called out as to what was the same colors before You're done. Okay Ernest I Don't have any questions at this time. Thank you Vic No questions at this time True sorry we brought the we found it. There's the materials there. We found it, too Cool, thanks. Yeah, I just have a couple of questions So Brianna this is probably for you So the difference between the proposed original and the new with the parking Arrangement and the inclusion of the Solar array over that parking that's closer to the building you've reconfigured the concrete Circulation from the various ADA spaces Because it because it looks like it it got squished a little bit in terms of size maybe and So you moved a tree and kind of adjusted some other stuff and so now the the concrete layout Is a little I guess Disjointed I would say so I was just curious what drove that So we started construction documents and We ran into some issues which Created this requirement for the design review modification Part of the development of the construction documents. There are new code interpretations for Accessible routes of travel from the accessible parking spaces Before we had flush It was all Truncated domes. No, I'm with you now. Okay. You said flush transition. I'm like, yep I'm with you. Yeah, because it was before the code change and I could I know exactly what you're talking about So now what you're coming in is you've you've got your curb ramp effectively coming straight off of the At accessible aisle and then you're going into the sidewalk as opposed to a flat transition with other stuff going on Yes, and and I will say that I think the Configuration of that has changed just a hair in the construction documents because we worked with the plan check reviewer and with the city to Use some new interpretations of the code that basically the accessible path of travel Starts when you leave the building the safety of the building and you hit those truncated domes and you're not safe again Until you get in your car so we have Truncated domes kind of at the Opposite sides of that crosswalk and then we don't have to have Truncated domes and the problem with the switch from the flush transition was then you had to ramp So we basically had a little roller coaster in the center of there trying to get to all of those and Then trying to get into the parking structure. They were going to require additional domes and handrails So it was a we worked through some issues, but yeah, so the resulting change is the cleanup to to make it Constructible at the end of the day. Yeah, I was just curious what was causing it because it's You know people tend to Kind of go wherever they feel like I guess so from a design perspective in my head I'm like, well, there's no planting in the way at least as you're showing it So, you know Joe Schmo is just gonna get out of his car and just walk across the grass Yeah, because there's not you know kind of sidewalk connecting things It's kind of a disparate sidewalk But I understand what's causing it from an ADA and a CBC chapter 11 be kind of problem Yeah, and I really liked the previous option because we had this cool little planter median in the middle But we can't we just can't make it work Well, so that answers my question on that So then on the west side the property near I guess the 20-foot road that's coming in kind of Northwest Southeast we in the original version we had a lot more parking over there and I think a smaller trash enclosure and now there's a larger trash enclosure and some other Stuff, I'm guessing maybe generator pad that kind of stuff. So that's what effectively has Eliminated that parking is the requirement of an addition of a generator And I guess two other service structures of some type. Is that correct? Correct the parking or the trash enclosure needed to get much bigger and the generator has A lot of clearance requirements so what we tried to do is with the Adjustment to the circulation in the parking structure. We actually moved those parking spaces Over on the south face of the parking structure where you used to enter it Yeah, I'm seeing that I just so that's that that that was the trade-off Which is and then it you move the parallel parking with it. It looks like to Right so The one of the reasons we got rid of the parallel parking is because we We also had to shift the parking structure the footings for it can't be within the PUE and on the What is that the West? Southwest corner the Distance from the where the PUE is the footings for the parking structure are right there And then you've got you go across and we've got just enough room to get the curb And then we have the drive-al part of the designer view modification was Formalizing the fire departments allowance to let us narrow that drive-al down And then the drive-al is right at the creek setback. So it is very tight Yeah, I'm seeing the The shift in the drive-al like you're mentioning and then like the creek setback just squeaks out a little bit kind of midway And then it's right on it the rest of the way. Yeah, so it's really tight So that thank you for explaining kind of the changes and where they happened and Kind of what you were effectively forced to do more or less And that that so for me I understand why they had to happen So, you know, then I don't have to make a design review comment about it And I guess I just had a question for Darren about the solar panels so in the original layout it looked like kind of like You had a roof structure and then panels on top of it And it looks like you've moved to more of a prefab ask type system with panels acting as the roof I would assume that was just a product of cost and detailing and whatnot. Is that correct? Yeah, certainly a development in the design and execution. I think the previous Version was maybe a little less thought-through And what you're seeing in the modified version is is something that will actually work physically And so that's definitely the reason why Yeah, I mean that I think frankly I think it's way more PV than you had before even to in the way It's like at least what I'm seeing. Yeah, we have added more. That's right. Yeah, so that that's great news So and it it's a more integrated. I would say it's a more integrated system into the Overall structure of the building as opposed to like kind of being stuck on top like the previous layout had So kudos All right, I think that was it on my questions. So thank you. Thank you I just had a question about the traffic study because I'm a little bit confused So the last traffic study that was submitted which was attachment 8. I believe Was saying that they suggested that we have 311 parking spaces is that am I reading this right? Hold on and let me look at it What was the number? Attachment 8. No the number of parking spaces 311. Thanks So it's what they're saying there could they are looking at different resources for parking? If this structure were being proposed outside the downtown station area it would require one parking space for every 250 square feet. We also have the What it E in it international Don't know I it's a it's a it's a parking or it's a Transit tool not a transportation tool. They they also provide parking requirements that are not always consistent with ours What it boils down to in that area is that there's no required parking? And so the the report in the end did conclude that yes, they need parking. We know they need parking They have we added a condition of approval It's the the first of the planning committee conditions I think that requires additional measures be implemented if parking becomes a problem We don't know we don't know how many medical offices will be in there We don't know how many patients will be visiting those are just numbers That they they used for their analysis initially when we required them to justify the number of parking spaces Does that help? Yes, and no, okay So I I mean I understand the requirement that there's no parking is required, but I'm just looking at logistics of People still need to park even though the city says we don't have to have it So that was what my question is is if if 311 is a number and now we're reducing it even further This is that was not a question. Sorry. I mean this is part of discussion. So that's not a question. So, okay I'll be done I think that is it would someone like to make a motion I Will go ahead and motion this one Let me find the Resolution so I would like to move for approval of resolution number DRB Dash two zero two three Resolution of the design review board of the city of Santa Rosa granting design review approval for the Brookwood Medical Garage modification project located at 1,000 2nd Street assessor's parcel number is zero zero nine zero six three zero one nine file number PRJ 21 dash 024 DR 23 dash zero zero nine and wave the reading of the text and would someone like to second the motion I'll second Thank you So drew approved and beat Vic second and now we would like to have discussion Start this way. Do you have anything Vic? I'd kind of I I think I'd like to hear how the discussion goes. I'm sorry. I didn't hear you I I would rather not go first. Okay. Thank you. All right Michael So I'm willing to approve the project as is however, I'd like to see if there's any support for a couple ideas One would be to bring back the rounded kind of the end with the way that the The the cars go up the ramp at the at the end I I feel like that was a lot more attractive from both Brookwood and also the interior of the site So that would be one comment to see if it gets any traction and Then my second comment Is also regarding the ramp and I just on the back side so the interior of the site At least as far as I can understand the plans it looks like that's a solid wall and I'd like to see if we could request that they Use the green screen or a mast or something along those lines Then I I think that's it for me Thanks for the presentation and going over everything I I Don't have issue with the the project by any means and the design. I think is attractive You know, I this may maybe should have come up as a question But my only concern is you know in the traffic study finding Where they do make the recommendation since the anticipated man makes see the proposed apply implementation of measures to reduce the parking demand Should be considered. I hear that it is part of the conditions of approval. I just don't I Don't understand how that's going to actually be enforceable without you know knowing what's actually presented We would rely on on neighborhood complaints if there becomes an issue with parking there was with the original approval there were some Concerns that overflow parking would end up on other private parking areas across the street That that property owner can have cars towed they need to post signs and whatnot It's a condition that we have all over the city You know with with commercial space if there's overflow, so so that's that when we get start to get complaints We pull up conditions of approval We see that condition and we get in touch with them You know these these condition these permits are are revocable. Would it ever come down to that? No, probably not You it's not the parking is not designed for the worst-case scenario The parking is not designed for an average day It's just kind of like a neighborhood if somebody has a park a party they block all the parking so if if if there's going to be Sometimes an issue people will have to find parking there as public You know street parking within walking distance and and that would be it I just say put yourself in that that situation if you were going to the medical office building or any other Commercial building for that matter and you can't find parking you find a street parking space And again, it's it would really be up to the the park at the property owner across the street to Put up those signs and say no parking. It's reserved Those parking spaces are usually filled up around the lawn tower anyway. Like I said, they're really good restaurants over there Thanks for the clarification. I think that that was probably more of a question on my we have so I appreciate that Actually, all I got Thank you Are you ready Vic? You don't have to say no. I oh good. I'll go after All right true. Yeah So Thank you for a great presentation again You know, I think I'm the only one on the board who's actually seen this project before funny enough and I I Think the rest of board may not know this but the original original proposal for the entire project Is significantly different than what they have now and I just I want to commend the team of Gensler and Carl Masey for responding to the comments that they got from the board at the time and they actually MOB if it gets built as designed is a really attractive project that I think was enhanced through our design review process So thank you for that that being said I've got a couple little hiccups. I think with the revised Version because I think some of the essence of what you had originally is kind of disappeared a little bit And to me it's probably related to cost of course as you know We know as we get from as we move from schematic design design is up development to construction documents We continually update our cost estimates right either with a contracting partner or with a professional cost estimator and so things inevitably hit the chopping block because the price just keeps going up or whatever right so the one thing that I I'm kind of I'm sad about is that we lost kind of the foresighted nature of the building of the Harking structure when we kind of lost the the vine Components Yeah, when I ran the restroom So I'm sad we lost that I You know, I don't I don't want a foresheet to bring it back because that is adding cost and and I You know, we don't want to do that, but I wonder if we can't Introduce maybe a little bit of that color we had before that concrete You know originally the darker concrete was kind of bracketing the structure From both the elevator tower and then the stair tower and obviously I understand why you eliminated the walls around the stair towers Because that's again another cost-related element But I wonder, you know, there's a large expanse of a flat space labeled conch to in the Southwest elevation I'm wondering if maybe that could go to that darker gray And then I think the elevator core Could go to the dark gray and that may help Start to give it a little bit more depth and maybe the What what's what's interesting now versus what you had before also is you kind of have these Pylasters almost is what it feels like or at least that's how it's reading an elevation on that Southwest elevation and on the the corners where where we're connecting up into the This the PV array I'm wondering if those don't also grow dark gray and so that way you're not changing your structure You're not changing anything. You're just applying a different color to kind of to kind of mimic the rhythm that we kind of had before You know through color as opposed to you know the those elements that got lost I would disagree with Michael on the curved component I actually think that the parking is more efficient now from a user perspective And so well, I think the curve was nice the curve worked better because it had those Artistic panels applied to it and and so now you've got a rectilinear form and without the panels and so I'm okay with the way it is and then Beyond that. I mean I think it's just it's just lost a little bit of the character due to the monotone nature of the building. I do think the Brookwood Elevation is still the most dynamic obviously with the Kinetic panels and then the trellis panels both I Just think you know try and introduce a little bit of color to bracket it or to create some rhythm might help And I guess I would also say the northeast elevation that has the flat Concrete as well go dark on that like any of those large expanses of vertical concrete change the color But other than you know other than that it's a great project. It's You know, I I think we're all gonna have misgivings about the parking, but at the end of the day, you know It's a responsible Applicant team that says we're going to actually build parking even though we don't need to Or we're not required to by the zoning code And I think we need to respect that and they're trying their very hardest to get to squish as much parking on a site that really Frankly, I don't think I would have come up with a solution because it's such a funcally shaped site Yeah, so I they're doing their very best to squish everything every last little ounce of parking that they can out of this property And Just so everybody knows we had 323 total parking spaces before and we now have 276 spaces for a net reduction of 47 and That's primarily related to the loss of just that top floor of the previous Parking garage at least that's what I'm reading. So those are my comments Otherwise very good project. Thank you Yeah, thank you So I'm I'm gonna just Disagree a little bit with you Drew in that I think that the facade Particularly the along Brookwood, but actually all all of the sods The elevates let's just call them elevations really for the garage Because they're so articulated with spaces like the front spaces and then the through spaces. I I'm I think we have the color differentiation, you know, particularly on Brookwood where we have the screens and we have the green you the Vegetation screens and then we also have the art screens and I and I completely agree with you the put the Whether we call them column columns or pilasters that are now in the modified version that go from the ground up to the photovoltaic roof Do add an element of contrast color contrast and presumably material contrast as well.  Anyways, um, I I Think it's I like it. I don't usually say that about parking structures But I do and I think the real question is about to come up which is What a you know What does it mean to lose the 47 spaces or you know that number that's close to 50 Is it enough parking and How I you know, I Suzy you were talking about how how we would We would wait for neighborhood complaints to then ensure that the the alternate Rules for parking not rules incentives for parking for employees would then you know switch on And I That you know that that's sort of like is it enough parking? Wasn't in in the proposal to modify It was kind of it wasn't directly answered. So I don't know is it enough parking? I I Can respond to that a little bit. I know parking is is the big question It's the big question of neighbors, too, but that question has really been Superceded by the downtown station area plan the this is what we have to work with and I think that somebody pointed out I think Board member Weigel you said it was they were very conscientious and I'm going to say I'll go back to that original Concept design in addition to listening to board member suggestions What one of those suggestions was to go much taller on the parking as well as the Medical office building which they did so a lot of this is in this design is in response to the city's Recommendations to be in compliance with the downtown station area plan So they really needed that additional height to meet the floor area ratio requirements and and everything so The parking They could have come in and and said no parking I it would have been challenging to approve it would be challenging for them to operate a building with no parking a medical office building I think They have they've that is a very challenging site It's been up for sale over and over over since I've been with the city since 2006 I've heard so many people ask about the site and development has really shied away from it They came in and they designed something and shoehorned things in so they fit So we don't have we don't have any say in the parking. It's very similar to say a density bonus project When they get they They're proposing more than they're required to and we've conditioned it to hopefully make it work for the neighborhood But if they are surrounded by several public streets with public Not in terms of We have a say we have a say we have a say The I Need some help on the downtown station area plan. This is an area where we have said there is no Minimum parking requirement. I think it would be very challenging. I think I can help you out The zoning says one thing, right? So if we as a board Or any board right that had purview over this said Okay, fine this zoning code says zero they're proposing this but we as a board are unhappy with Whatever is being proposed we could all vote no right, but then the applicant could appeal the project and go to the city council and then Probably get approval because the downtown station area plan says no parking requirement so Yes, we as I think that's what Melanie was trying to say is that that we do have we as the board have the Option to say no right should we choose to? What you know whether that's to be seen or not? I don't know because we haven't voted yet but Yeah, but because it is in the downtown station area plan the requirement is zero Right and like many other projects that request a parking reduction. We're kind of in the opposite direction here, right? So for a lot of projects, you know the project is required to have x number of parking spaces and they're either going after Density bonus or there's a parking reduction for another requirement And so that would be something that this board would approve right is a reduction of parking But we're in the exact opposite direction this time, whereas the parking requirement is zero the applicants providing 273 times more parking than is required because there is no requirement so it's a it's a balancing act I think between the needs and desires of of a discretionary review authority and what's Implicitly written in the zoning code and that is the requirement that you know the applicant would be beholden to is what's implicitly written in the zoning code and and we you are absolutely correct Thank you, and you do you have the ability to deny and it can't go up to the city council These are regulations that have been adopted by the city council We run into this with a cultural heritage board when projects are proposed in areas, you know Historic areas, so I mean it's the same type of thing absolutely this board has the ability and has the authority To deny the project the changes And and there is a process for that my point was simply that this is a this is a regulation The part the lack of parking requirement. This was adopted by our council And I guess I could have maybe phrased that a little bit better, so my apologies Just if I may to Breanna did have a brief response related to how the the property owner might manage parking issues Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I just wanted to say our client develops medical office buildings That's primarily the developments. They do and as Darren alluded to they have a really strong evidence-based Rational for all of the design decisions around the buildings down to the color of the building drew probably remembers that from early on and They will be leasing the building out to someone So it's in their best interest to make sure that there's adequate parking for people coming to the building that they are Renting out to someone so I think that if parking did become an issue. They would voluntarily Utilize the conditions of approval Which were recommended in the some of the recommendations I think came from the traffic impact study So I really do think that they would voluntarily do that It wouldn't have to come down to neighborhood complaints if that helps in any way And chair I have a question maybe to Darren I'm going to completely change the subject because I think Vic brought this up and It's interesting so the back to the pilaster question just got to completely change the It does look like the pilasters are a different color in the rendering which is likely a product of how it's rendered But I would actually argue That if we just did that for the darker color, maybe that's the maybe that's what I'm met Maybe that's what I'm hoping for in terms of like the rhythm and the color is just those those vertical elements So the big like large swath I'd be okay with being the the field color Because it at the way it reads in the 3d that you did Feels very rhythmic with those that vertical column component being a different color. So that actually The 3d reads better than the flat elevations. I guess what I'm getting at so I would agree with you Vic are you done? Okay All right, um, I think my questions are my issues were about parking And I don't think I need to go into that because I think we have covered it sufficiently So In order to do conditions if there are any Someone would like to propose them and then we'll have a discussion and agree on the conditions That's our new process or there may be none I heard one from me and Vic and I agreed on it. I think but what do you guys think about the columns being a darker color? Sure Yeah, so you're talking just about the larger vertical just sections vertical columns. Yeah, no, it's a good suggestion Okay, so I think the way we'd write that and Darren if you're okay with this and Brianna is Vertical columns on all elevations shall be COC-0303 from previous Submission That's not good. I can't remember the color, but you guys proposed But it's labeled as conch dash 0 3 You could just say darker color gray or whatever in the wheel. Yeah, and then just leave it up to you guys to pick it Yeah, I'm cool with that. So I think the way we'll write it is Vertical columns on all elevations shall be Darker color At architects discretion, I think that sounds good Can I get clarification that a darker color or did you want a gray? You know in Just my opinion I've been very pleased with this applicant team in terms of how they've responded to comments and I think They'll pick a color that works with the palette of the entire property And I don't think it's we shouldn't dictate the exact color I was just trying to I guess when I said conch 3 I was because that's something that's already been approved submitted We know what it looks like, but I'm willing to give them the flexibility to pick a color that works for them you know because I Don't know about you, but I've had like all sorts of products get discontinued over the last two or three years It's a struggle anyone else I just clarify that it's darker than the field color Darker than what darker than the field color? Yeah Darker than the field color I think Drew said it better than I did when I talked about the the greens green and the kinetic sculpture But you know this is not foresight architecture and that is a requirement of projects in Santa Rosa so if there was a way for the applicant team to Make it foresighted architecture with either the greens greens or the kinetic sculptures I'd like to see that and I don't I don't need as much density as it is along Brookwood, but something That adds some interest. I agree anybody else You're talking about on the back side of the back. Yes. I agree You know, I would I agree, but I kind of disagree too. So I guess Darren and Brianna was I'm a I said earlier I'm assuming the reduction of those elements was directly related to cost, correct? So I Struggle with adding a condition that adds cost right because we really shouldn't Add cost if we can avoid it So the question would be I think to the applicant team is Could you reduce the density of the panels on the northeast elevation and Scatter them on the other three elevations in such a way that your cost is the same. Does that make sense? But let me get Vicks sure go ahead first before we start When you think You know four-sided It is four-sided there and each each side is different significantly from the other three sides I don't think it's only the the panel elements Which certainly distinguish the northeast now and the and the and the northwest Am I wrong about that? Are they still on the northwest a little bit? Yeah Right, but but the northwest of course is is different because it's got different Major forms, it's got the two the two large structures and then the horizontals and So then the southeast elevation is the only one that has no well. No, that's not true the long southwest elevation Because you can see through the building is visually interesting I I And I very much I The panels on Brookwood make the Brookwood driving experience, which is really the driving expert It's the only driving experience that one's gonna You know that that your basic Santa Rosen is going to have with this garage And it's a good one to drive by that and to see the the kinetic art and the green The green screens the green panels So I don't know I I'm it's not you we will not have really have a driving experience on the northeast You'll have a walking experience, and I think the walking experience I'm sorry Southwest it you know a walking experience If you're if you're walking back there because maybe you've parked and now you're walking in You know, you'll be close to the building. I yeah, I'm okay with it There's a creek trail on that side, too. Yeah, right. Let's open to the public Yes, there is but it's about the creek I mean they could you know We could say we liked it a lot Bring it back bring back bring it back if you can but I you know, I wouldn't say it I don't think it's a necessity So you're saying you don't think that the backside of the parking garage needs to have anything changed to it I don't think it needs to I think it I think a few green panels Wouldn't be a bad thing, but I I I don't think it Yeah, and Vic I I kind of actually tend to agree with what you just said in terms of the transparency between Front to back. I guess I hadn't thought about that So there's a different Dynamic element. Yeah on the southwest elevation because you're seeing the backside. It's like it's like that joke on The jungle cruise right and now the backside of water It's kind of like that underneath. Yeah underneath waterfall Can I say something about that though because you're looking at a flat 2d elevation?  It's not transparent Right, so when you're on the ground, you're looking up. You're looking through those openings You're looking at the concrete roof of each floor So it's not gonna look like this when you're experiencing the site And that's why I think we should have something on that facade Can I address the question that was posed? I think by drew about the scattering of the panels My opinion is that the density of panels along brook wood is needed to Create the effect that we've done we've created there. We kind of have done some studies of reducing it down more Adding more throughout the process. We felt like where we are now is kind of the the amount you would want It's the right amount. I think if we take those and move them around I think you might lose the effect along brook wood and and and maybe not have anything on any sides that work So my recommendation would be to keep the panelization whether it be the green screen or the the Kinetic panels the same along brook wood but I do think that I think drew again you might have brought this up earlier about this idea of Color and I apologize. I don't know if it was drew or Michael But I know there was a discussion about the pilasters But there's also a discussion about the solid walls and the in the elevator being kind of not having that the Different tone and I and I think that that's an easy thing for us to do And I think it would help provide a little bit of character and break up that that elevation a little bit If we were to paint the sheer wall the darker gray the same as the pilasters and then also to go back to the original idea of painting the Elevator tower that darker gray color as well so that you are kind of trying to break up the massing along there And I you know I think you know we can talk about trying to add some vines there But I don't know if we if the cost of that is prohibitive and I don't I don't want to suggest it as a Recommendation because I don't want it like you're saying drew I don't want to add cost to the project but paint certainly is going to get painted anyway So that's not adding cost if you're open to that as a recommendation to look at the Elevator tower the sheer wall along the southwest elevation is a different tone or different color. I'd be happy to provide that Darren if I could jump in also So part of the reason for the panelization on the Brookwood side Obviously to recall the architecture of the MOB But also so that we can get vines up the face of that building on the southwest elevation We don't if we want to add vines to say that big vertical sheer wall We don't have to have green screens, which are the big cost driver. We could just have a cleaning vine That greens that wall up So not not an additional expense. We're already putting in planting We could probably I Can't remember if you can irrigate vines on the same zone as a ground covers, but we could find a low water use Vine that could be integrated into the already designed planting design Or we could add a valve for it. So I think we could We can green that wall up without a lot of additional cost if you guys are okay with that instead of a panel I'm personally okay with both things that were mentioned. I think keeping the northeast elevation the same I that's You know has the biggest punch the way it's presented the southwest elevation if we provided the Breaking it up with the vertical colors that were mentioned Already, I think that starts to add more interest in the idea of forced hydro architecture I mean, it's it's a parking garage So we'll I think it's gonna look good by adding the vertical elements and the difference in colors will get us there and then it Whether it's the vertical Color elements on the southeast and northwest sides or whether it's fines. I think Either works I was personally okay with just the vertical colors. So I think if we get there with those items, I don't think that's a big increase in cost at all and It adds interest to everything we need. I think we get as close Yeah, I was just thinking about something else too like the shear wall on the southwest Like in a lot of in the other MOB by the hospital there They did some murals and stuff and I think this might be an opportunity to install a mural or something And that way it's something you do after the fact. It's public art And then you're kind of activating that elevation So maybe we could that would be maybe a consider if everybody like agrees with that one I was gonna ask does this qualify for a public art? It there is a art component for yes elements the Kinetic elements qualify will qualify for public art. That's it I mean, you know, I don't know that that's that's a call that's made by by parks and recreation They that the arts there's a arts in public place. Yeah arts in public places. Thank you very much They they make the they make the final call, but we've seen the those types of panels I mean, I think it's a very artistic application of the green of the greenery But it's not it's not our call. They have a certain dollar figure that they have to to match so I Think that the design review board can't approve the location of the art so There was an article I think it was today in the press democrat about the mural project Yes, I think I think the mural is a great idea. I would be happy if that wall was used for a mural Start with gray. Yeah Actually, I would I would just say like, you know, so what we're Ernest said I think Vic and I were in agreement all the vertical Columns go to a darker color of some type that matches the palette darker than the field and then what we could is we could say since DRB can control a location is we could say consider Consider installing a mural on the sheer wall on the southwest elevation and that would be it and Then that gives the applicant the opportunity to if they decide to get a mural great if not it's not the end of the world and But at least the location has been defined within the conditions of approval so that when they go to art in public places There's a location identified for it Does that sound good to everybody consider as opposed to a shall do it? I would like a shell, but I consider If you want to change it a shell, that's cool. Me.  I want a shell Okay We are shelling My only concern with a shell is just what constitutes public art Just because it's a section of the city code that we don't enforce in in planning And so I just wouldn't want them to have to return here or go through a different process with the The committee so okay, I'll consider All right, is there anything else? I'm sorry Can I just ask what what are we saying about the Southwest elevation? What has been added as a condition or what are we saying so for all elevations? We added a darker color than the field for all the vertical columns. So that's on all four elevations Right, and then the last thing we've just added is consider a mural on the sheer wall on the Southwest elevation And that's it If we I mean we can Mike if you want to Respond to Brianna's comments about the green room what now that's up to you Well, the only reason I was saying that is if if we Want to say that this is a spot where you could do a mural you don't want to have Vines on that spot But I was gonna say if they decide that it is not a spot for public art that the vines Would be a suitable replacement So I yeah, I would so that be that being said I would say consider Yes, consider the sheer wall on the Southwest elevation for either a mural location or additional vertical green element Vertical green a vertical planting element, maybe that would be the better way to write that Is that satisfying you Mike Not really no, and I agree with the applicant that planting vines on there Is not a big cost addition And I worry that the art that we're talking about the mural I mean, they're probably not gonna be required to do any additional art because they have the connect sculptures Right, so the connect sculptures are gonna take take their Art and public spaces requirement so what what What reason do they have to put a mural on the backside so we're gonna end up with a gray wall So that doesn't satisfy me I'd like to see something some Relief for some the green screen or can I sculpture or something on the back of the scope that the garage And If something isn't added to as a condition, I'm not our time voting for this I'm fine saying consider adding But I I think it needs to be put in there that this is important to Santa Rosa to have I Recited architecture. Yeah, I hear Mike. I hear what you're saying. I there may let me let me fumble my way through this So I think we can do a shell and I think it can also meet the requirements of not stepping on Arts and public places or something else Right, so to your point you made a comment about Foresighted architecture all that stuff I think that's the crux of how we could potentially condition this and so what we could say is Shall provide Shall provide architectural relief on Southwest Elevation Preferably at Shearwall Board recommends either Public mural public art mural or vertical landscape elements That sound better So where's the relief? You're saying consider relief. No, I'm saying they have to provide relief to the all the all the tan right and saying board is suggesting art and Or landscape element No, I don't mean relief in like the depth sense. I mean that's what I mean. I guess So, I mean if you want a wordsmith that but I was trying to get it to a shell That you know addressed your concerns, but also we didn't step on toes or whatever. It's kind of what I was thinking And can we continue the kinetic sculpture around the corner and then just at least on the first quarter of the West western side like it's that's something we could say. I mean that can't add a whole lot of cost and It's something and then the mural and then vertical vegetation. I mean there there is there is a Planting on the northwest elevation, which would be Bronic be on a correct if I'm wrong. That's the entrance That's directly across from the the MOB What's building entrance correct? Okay, and then the southeast elevation is the one that you would pull into from Brookwood if you were I Guess traveling north on Brookwood or potentially even south number. I don't know if there's a curb cut in the median Currently there there will be one. Okay, so there you go. So you could go left or right or whatever So that would be the other entrance and there's nothing so I guess the question I have for you Mike is What do you think needs more? Elements related to this is it the the naked southeast elevation which doesn't have kinetic sculptures or Any sort of plantings or is it that and the southwest? Do you see my question? So I would like to see something wrap around on the drive above the drive-al between the the garage and the Building and then come around so at least you can see a little bit from that parking At a minimum instead of trying to design it for them. Why don't we just say we they need to Explore they shall explore four-sided architecture for the building the garage structure Okay, and then leave it up to them to decide what they want to do, but it's a shell I would I would agree share I think there's lots of different elements that they could potentially explore I mean they could they could look at PV elements along that southwest side. They could look at Mesh screens. They could look at paint. They could look at yeah, there's a lot of different elements So shall explore four-sided architecture specifically on the southeast and southwest elevations You good Amy. I I I want to Express my concern. I was just saying if if you were a planner in Reviewing these plans in a couple of years. I'm not going to be here to look at those plans. I Don't know the first clarification. I have why let's stick with this one Shall provide four-sided architecture for the parking structure specifically on the southwest and southeast elevations and I Think for a future planner would be helpful to understand what the design review board is looking for there I think what we can say is that could include what we've talked about the vegetation the mural the vertical columns Continue the sculpture around the corner around the corner But I think you could say that could include and then give the definition of what we're looking for I Would like to note that four-sided architecture doesn't mean that all sides have to be equally beautiful Because we know that there are they're very very different conditions It's that you can't ever say and this one doesn't matter at all Although we did that we did that at whatever that the Oh the last Storage it's up against nothing and we said okay You don't have to do anything because there's only three feet there that somebody could hardly pass it through But I I just want to remind us that yeah, we it should matter, but it's They're not all the same They're not Even equally treated Yeah, I mean I agree Vic. I'm I was I'm trying you know being a former chair. I think I'm trying to to play like mediator or whatever to try to find a solution and I Think we're we're become we're I think we're getting danger a dangerous on the line a little bit Even with the the kind of thing we just came up with I think making a comment about the shear wall is one thing, but trying to To dictate other elements is is a little precarious. I guess they asked for a clarification on what it meant So that's what we were doing. Yeah, and but I still think it's precarious I mean I like I said I was trying to get this consensus building and I don't know I just I Guess I failed to think about the the staff input on that one I think Susie was shaking her head when I was talking and so I did that give you enough information No, I was looking down and trying to figure out of my if the wording on mine I'm trying to capture it as it's changing and so here's what I have written shall provide Foresighted architecture for the parking structure specifically on the southeast and southwest elevations that could include a mural continuation of planting or can or kinetic features Of course, I have to figure out how to spell kinetic features. I'll figure that one out later That could and just leave it there does that Does does that satisfy? I'm just again I'm just trying to make sure that when it's constructed. It looks like what the design review board is is wanting So if I lose the words relief we could Yeah, shall provide foresighted architecture for the parking structure specifically on the southeast and southwest elevations That could include a mural continuation or plant Continuation of the planting or kinetic features if that do Does that get to that spot? Okay, that's good And It's so there's a question from the applicant wondering if continuation of the planting features Require the panels or could it just be the vines? It sounds to me. Okay Features How about just confirm this is separate from painting the vertical elements the darker color right Could it say continuation of the kinetic features or vertical greenery? so that they're Just so that the planting isn't isn't Part of the continuation of features so that we can we can be distinct there Perfect, and then I also have a clarification on the the other Condition which is I have it written as vertical columns on all elevations shall be a darker color than the field color at the applicants discretion I If I weren't sitting in the room, I wouldn't know what field color me it meant so can we say that you can say Structure color no c o n c dash o too on the material board. That's the field color conch to Which is field color? Yeah conch to Can you on the material board? Conch to see oh and see capital c o n c dash zero to dash zero to okay on the material board And Susie instead of saying at the applicants discretion. I would say Compatible with Compatible with project architecture, which says the same thing, but It's a little more clear Vertical columns on all elevations shall be a darker color Let's see a Darker color specifically C o n c o zero to on the material board. That's applicant are that's compatible with the architecture Sounds good does it I I'm trying I'm I Think that maybe shall be let's take out that darker color and just say shall be Conch zero to Should be darker than darker than darker than shall be darker than conch zero to on the material board Yeah, got it. I didn't understand that okay Vertical columns on all elevations shall be darker than conch conch to okay, and then I can say The field color that'll make sense. Alrighty now people will understand what that means. I'm sorry I just I I put myself in that plan checker seat and looking at these conditions. So I Think we're good. So I'm the other condition I the way it's written written right and now that I've been thinking about it I would not accept that as a friendly amendment. I think It's already in the design guidelines it was already a requirement of the project and Trying to tell because effectively the way that's the way that it's written right now The applicant not that they would do this, but the applicant say okay. We considered four-sided architecture They told us we shall consider it, but they didn't provide any specific direction about what to do So we don't want to do anything We we changed it to shall provide not shall consider So I mean either but either way it's it's got I guess what you I'm just thinking of it as the architect have an option. Yeah as the architect not if I were the architect The option is to not do it because I want to redesign it, right? So I don't have to do it So the way that it's written I just I think we're trying to look we're getting too much into the weeds on this I I much preferred Trying to include a specific element that would help that elevation It's specifically the Southwest elevation as opposed to like trying to say because I because I think This building does by and large succeed It's not a building that has a completely blank face There is depth and undulation to the Southwest elevation that's going to get created by how the building is constructed And really the only piece to me that reads very blank is the sheer wall So I have a problem with that condition. I understand what Mike saying about you know, we lost all the kind of articulation that was occurring but They've introduced different articulation as a result of that and that kind of goes with what Vic said So I would have a hard time. I Would not accept that friendly amendment as the motion maker One like to make a new motion That's the option. You don't have to know you don't have to go off friendly amendment You can make a new amendment We would have to vote on the current motion Or I would have to remove the motion from the table and then you can make a new motion But right now we're considering an approval and including conditions. Yes or no And so if the motion maker and the seconder Don't approve that amendment That's their choice and then you can take a vote on the motion and if it doesn't pass as it doesn't pass And that would be the last action. I think right So far nobody's actually made a friendly amendment. We're still in the crafting of those so knowing that that one would be blocked Maybe we could change the language. I I Just yeah change the language. I don't know is it foresighted architecture or is it the Southwest elevation? That is is troubling folks. I I was hearing the Southwest elevation going through the meeting so Maybe if we can provide Visual relief on the Southwest elevation that could include a mural it We can they will do something there and you can give them a list or you can be very specific But the Southwest elevation through all the comments is what I was hearing so I mean, I feel like we can just remove foresight architecture work. We're specifically requesting that they do a mural do vertical vegetation continue the kinetic sculpture and Do the vertical columns so just remove the words vertical or up? foresighted architecture Does that make it any better drew? I think I just the way it was crafted it's Staff's gonna have a hard time implementing it and I think the apple can just go. Okay, whatever We have to be specific with what we're conditioning and why that particular thing Isn't in compliance substantial compliance with the design guidelines So from what I'm hearing from you Mike is that you don't believe that the Southwest elevation is in compliance with the design guidelines Because it doesn't share some of the same characteristics as the Northeast and the Northwest elevations like me That's how I would interpret that so it's a blank concrete wall. It's a blank concrete wall So the question then is how do we condition it to it and to include? To to require an element whatever that may be in a specific location that we feel takes it to being inclusive of the other sides of the building while also being respectful and Responsive to the project budget true. I think that the Statement did give them specific things and it said that they shall do it so they don't have an option of not doing anything Yeah, except it said it just said shall be four-sided architecture consider these things Is it and so the argument but the argument that could be made is Well, it's already four-sided architecture We're an architecture firm. We designed it. It's four-sided architecture. We did what we're supposed to do And it's nebulous for the planner to try to figure out What that element is I guess is the problem I'm having with it. Can I try another? Another condition shall provide visual relief on the Southwest elevation that could include a mural continuation of the kinetic element or vertical planting It gives three options on that elevation Does that does that achieve was that something that could be supported for me? Yes I guess the other thing is I just don't want to I don't want to Hem the architect in because there are a myriad of different solutions that are available in the toolbox and One may present itself as they iterate on how to Articulate that elevation and so I would much rather isolate the area that We as a board want to be activated with visual relief provide options Suggestions or other and then say or other Potentially, that's just my two cents or or such as how about or such as I'll prove we have a shall already and then This could be a B or C or or it could say such as a B or C Or something else Sure, but I think what Susie has currently is doing exactly what you asking for it's giving him a specific Elevation is giving a specific items and If we say or something else, I'm fine with that too, but it's I mean, I think that was the condition that's on the table or that we're trying to consider right now is doing exactly what you just said Except it it blankets it across the entire elevation Right where where I I think once because we're not seeing an elevation with the darker element Like we've been talking about that would actually fundamentally change how this elevation reads and likely the only spot that would need Visual relief would be the sheer wall Okay, so we're gonna do a vote on this and then if it doesn't pass We can get a new amend a new motion and then we can do the amendments and then we the Conditions and then we can move on Because we're in the weeds here for sure Do you want to hear the final the final draft? They were wordsmithing while I was over here So the two the two conditions are written as vertical columns on all elevations shall be darker than Conk to the field color shown on the material board that's compatible with the architecture The second condition is shall provide visual relief on the southwest elevation that includes either a mural Continuation of kinetic elements or vertical planting Gives a select Thank you. It's there that it that is in fact specific and it must be one of the three and I think The idea was I don't know. I I mean, I guess I've heard a lot of things That the architect may come up with an even better idea and we should let them do so And or doesn't do it because then it's it's still one of the three it would have to unless we said and or Another Susie, can you read the beginning of that motion that amendment again, please? Shall provide visual relief on the southwest elevation that includes I would I would stop there Shall provide visual relief on the southwest elevation. It's missing a specific location If indeed a specific location is desired we should ask and then it should say Such as not includes you could say such as the three options or another You know an or another solution or another solution Or just such as it wouldn't even say or as it's just such as such as is this is a suggestion. Yeah Is this is the specific location in a shear wall is that? Or what I think so if the rest of the board does not I'm willing to concede I agree with you actually that I think that's the only Well, not not the only but the biggest problematic area that are quote-unquote which could be a problem Is that section and for me that would be the one that I'd want to see relief at Okay, thank you can ask the question. What is vertical? Column's being does that include that the shear wall it does not so the vertical is All the pilasters that connect all the way up into the sunshade element the PV element at the roof That's all the column you only say all columns shall be darker than blah blah blah We're not talking about the sheer we're not talking about the shear wall Can't it would it be inappropriate to ask the architect if if there's enough Just to ask the architect. What I'm gonna ask him before we did this if He was able to work with the Condition that we have set forth But we can ask him now Well, I yes, I am thinking that It is true in the one little elevation, which is small and it's 2d it the thing that jumps out is the shear wall but if if things if If things were different it might not I don't that's why we have to talk to the architect I'm happy to respond. I Think listening to the discussions interesting. I I think the solution is probably fairly Simple I what I would like to add to or have the ability to do is to add color to the shear wall and even the Elevator tower when you look at the elevation and you look at changing the color of the columns There is a column right at the edge of the Elevator tower and I would want to kind of incorporate the elevator Tower into that same color scheme as the columns so as we're looking at that elevation I think When you put darker color on the columns, let's say you paint the shear wall a darker color Just in that it's going to create contrast I do think that it would benefit from additional a Vegetation I think Brianna's idea about having vines just go straight up that shear wall No, no cost really. I think it's a great solution But then giving the client and an option to engage an artist and put art on that wall instead I think is also a great option. I would love to to show that to them and see what their thoughts are I could see that while also going with the kinetic art and as another good option And again an artist could do that as well I think if you're comfortable with any of those solutions You know writing it as such gives us freedom to develop something And I think you guys can can anticipate getting some a good solution and we can work within those parameters And if that hopefully that helps But I would like to have the option of putting color on those shear wall and elevator tower Thanks, Darian. That's kind of what I was thinking about like if we hem you in with three Suggestions then you can just be like ah, I'm not gonna do them But well, I mean drew what I would love to You know just thank you for your consideration And I recognize the you know, you've been very supportive of the project And I think you said earlier that you know, you know us well enough that we wouldn't do that We won't what we want to wreck we want to accommodate the concerns that I'm hearing from the you guys today And I think it's an improvement Frankly, I think putting color there breaking the the columns up putting something on that shear wall will really help a lot Frankly, I support the idea of growing vines up, but I think that'd be a good idea A great mural of piece of art would be also really impressive It could early engage kind of those people who are walking through and enjoying the creek area. So So, you know, I appreciate the effort to try to give us room But I think there's a good solution within the the conversation you've had and and if you can accommodate the color I think I think we can get there quickly. I Can read Again, I just want to make sure that I got that last one right and I'm what I'm hearing from the board She And and the applicant actually shall provide visual relief on the shear wall on the Southwest Elevation such as a mural continuation of the kinetic elements or vertical planting which gives an idea of what the board Color-color change or distinctive color or color change. I would say just or color change. Okay. Yeah I'm sorry. I was thinking the color that he was talking about Was a mural My apologies there so now Shall provide visual relief on the shear wall on the Southwest Elevation such as a mural continuation of the kinetic elements vertical planting or a color change I Can get behind that and then to help Darren out to just so each if he changes it and the planner doesn't Know what's going on I would say consider color change of the elevator tower and then that way get gives him the flexibility to either change it or not Change it depending on how everything else lays out So it's or change of the just consider consider color change at elevator tower So then that way that gives them the option to change it if they want to to not change it to leave it The way it is I think if they change the color and the planner sees the difference between this Document and the final submission it might raise a question. So just providing him That condition to cover it Okay, so I have three conditions now. I think I When I'm reading them all three because I'm thinking that we're right at the point where we're going to make a friendly amendment Have we have we had a Move has have we moved to Approved the resolution. No, we We had a we had a motion. Yes, we did. We did. Okay. Yes. I'm sorry. Okay, so Okay, so I'm gonna read these out and if somebody wants to add them as a friendly amendment that would be great so Three conditions the first one vertical columns on all elevations shall be a darker color than the field color Which is shown as conch zero two on the material board that is compatible with the architecture net next condition is Shall provide visual relief on the sheer wall on the southwest elevation such as a mural continuation of the kinetic elements vertical planting or a color change and the third condition is consider Color change on the elevator tower I'm on board with that. How do we actually push that through though? We we have to someone has to make a friendly amendment to add that to the original amendment You can say what Susie said. No I'd like to make a friendly amendment or make a question to make the friendly amendment as Susie has stated those three conditions And we need a second That's your No Who seconded the motion Vic? That means Michael. I'll second that motion I accept the friendly amendment And so do I Now we need a vote Recording secretary, would you please call a vote? Board member Cook Yes Board member lip-talk Yes Board member with rich Yes, vice chair Weigel, yes Chair Jones Carter It's interesting. I thought the we would not be hung up on this. I thought we'd be hung up on parking interesting Yes So that motion passes with five eyes in two absences with Board member birch and board member Sharon being absent Please note this action is final unless an appeal is filed with a planning and economic development Department within ten calendar days of today's decision pursuant to zoning code section 20 dash sixty two point zero three zero This meeting of the design review view board is now adjourned