Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout17331 389 Ferguson SP DRB SR DESIGN REVIEW BOARD SITE PLAN STAFF REPORT 17331 Staff Report for 389 S. Ferguson Site Plan Page 1 of 13 Application No. 17331 Type Site Plan SP Project Name 389 S. Ferguson Building/ Lot 4 Ridge PUD Office Building Summary Site Plan application proposing construction of a 2-story 10,296 sq. ft. commercial building on vacant lot and minor foundation-area improvements as existing common parking, access and circulation are provided by The Ridge Athletic Club Planned Unit Development (PUD). CCOA review by DRB required per PUD Design Guidelines. Zoning B-P Growth Policy Community Commercial Mixed Use Size 11,841 sq. feet Overlay District NA Street Address 389 South Ferguson Avenue Legal Description Lot 4, The Ridge Athletic Club Planned Unit Development Subdivision (Plat J-465 plus private common areas 1&2 Plat J-465), S10, T02 S, R05 E, PMM, City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana. Owner: Andrew Hurlburt, 2621 West College St., Bozeman, MT 59771 Applicant: Ryan McIntosh, McIntosh Construction, PO Box 458, Bozeman, MT 59715 Representative: Kaylyn Brough, Architecture 118, 115 East Oak St., Bozeman, MT 59715 Staff Planner Rebecca Owens Engineer Griffin Nielsen Noticing Public Comment Period Adjacent Owners Mailed Site Posted Newspaper TBD upon DRC adequacy TBD TBD NA Advisory Boards Board Date Recommendation DRC 8/2/17 Inadequate DRC TBD TBD DRB 8/23/17 TBD Recommendation Approve with conditions Decision Authority Director of Community Development Date TBD Alternatives 1. Recommend approval of the application with the recommended findings conditions and code provisions provided in the staff report; 2. Recommend approval of the application with modifications to the recommended conditions and findings provided in the staff report; 3. Recommend denial of the application based on the Board’s findings of non-compliance with the applicable criteria contained within the staff report; or 4. With the applicant’s concurrence continue the review of the application with specific direction to staff or the applicant to address specific items. Full application and file of record: Community Development Department, 20 E. Olive St., Bozeman, MT 59715 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD SITE PLAN STAFF REPORT 17331 Staff Report for 389 S. Ferguson Site Plan Page 2 of 13 Project Location DESIGN REVIEW BOARD SITE PLAN STAFF REPORT 17331 Staff Report for 389 S. Ferguson Site Plan Page 3 of 13 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The applicant is advised that unmet code provisions, or code provisions that are not specifically listed as conditions of approval, does not, in any way, create a waiver or other relaxation of the lawful requirements of the Bozeman Municipal Code or state law 2. Those which may be identified by the DRB as recommended conditions. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS Analysis and resulting recommendations are based on the entirety of the application materials, municipal codes, standards, plans, public comment, and all other materials available during the review period. Collectively this information is the record of the review. The analysis in this report is a summary of the completed review. Plan Review, Section 38.19.100, BMC In considering applications for plan approval under this title, the advisory boards and City Commission shall consider the following: 1. Conformance to and consistency with the City’s adopted growth policy (38.01.040 C) Meets Code? Growth Policy Land Use Community Commercial Mixed Use Yes Zoning B-P, Business Park Yes Comments: Professional and business office uses are allowed within the zoning district. The property is within the City’s municipal service area and otherwise complies with the goals and objectives of the growth policy. No conflicts between the proposed uses, zoning and the growth policy are identified. 2. Conformance to this chapter, including the cessation of any current violations (38.34.160) Meets Code? Current Violations None Yes Comments: No known violations exist. The site is within an existing development that is increasing intensity. The applicant is advised that unmet code provisions, or code provisions that are not specifically listed as conditions of approval, does not, in any way, create a waiver or other relaxation of the lawful requirements of the Bozeman Municipal Code or state law. 3. Conformance with all other applicable laws, ordinances, and regulations (38.01.080) Meets Code? Conflicts None Yes Condominium ownership NA Yes Comments: The plans will be evaluated against the requirements of the International Building Code (IBC) during building permit review. The applicant must provide professional services for construction inspection, post-construction certifications from their project professionals that the project was constructed according to plan and specification. Required certification of services and design includes Professional Engineering, Professional Architect, Professional Landscape Architect, and compliant ADA accessibility verification, among others in Chapter 38, BMC. 4. Relationship of site plan elements to conditions both on and off the property (38.19.100) Meets Code? Neighborhood Compatibility Yes, with correction DESIGN REVIEW BOARD SITE PLAN STAFF REPORT 17331 Staff Report for 389 S. Ferguson Site Plan Page 4 of 13 Design and arrangement of plan to produce an efficient, functionally organized and cohesive development Yes, with correction Design and arrangement of plan in harmony with topography, water bodies, vegetation, contributing to the overall aesthetics Yes Conform with local historical or landmark designation requirements, including the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (NCOD) NA Relationship to other plans (subdivision/master site plan, PUD, etc.) Yes. The Ridge Athletic Club PUD Yes, with correction Comments: The proposed structure is located within an existing PUD that has all underlying site infrastructure and this is one of two remaining pad lots to be developed within the original PUD, which is undergoing the addition of three new pad sites on a new parcel on the opposite side of the PUD from the subject site, Lot 4. The overall pattern of development for the PUD has been to locate building pad sites along the perimeter and in proximity to the three abutting public streets, with private open space areas distributed between lots and a large common lot providing parking to the interior of the site. The PUD includes approved relaxations from code standards to waive the minimum lot frontage requirements, allow increased lot coverage in the BP zone, allow reduced setbacks, and to allow reduced minimum lot width in the BP zone. As a result, denser development is allowed overall as compared to a BP zone without a PUD. The subject site, developed adjacent pad sites, and broader Ridge PUD ‘campus’ are surrounded by a developed neighborhood established with residential character, in addition to some commercial and office uses. The intent of the PUD’s design guidelines is to “ensure innovative design that sets this development apart from other locations”. While the proposed primary colors of light gray, dark gray, gray steele, sandblast/doeskin, and secondary colors of driftwood gray and light blue, as well as the application of at least two primary materials, meet the PUD’s color neutrality and composition requirements, staff does not find several other key elements of the proposed architectural design to meet Bozeman Design Objectives Plan (“DOP”) requirements or PUD design guideline requirements for innovative design that compliments the existing neighborhood architecture. Specifically, refer to comments in the last section of this staff report for Design Review and staff recommendations. The proposed building design can meet requirements for neighborhood compatibility and efficient site organization, and conform to existing conditions on the property as relates to PUD design guidelines with address of issues identified in this section. 5. The impact of the proposal on the existing and anticipated traffic and parking conditions (38.24.010 and 38.25.010) Meets Code? Street vision Yes Yes, with corrections Snow storage No Traffic Impact Study / LOS NA Transportation grid adequate to serve site Yes Yes Comments: According to Engineering, traffic requirements and street vision are satisfied with existing conditions. Section 38.25.020.M states: Snow removal storage areas shall be provided sufficient to store snow accumulation on site. Such areas shall not cause unsafe ingress/egress to the parking areas, shall not cause snow to be deposited on public rights-of-way, shall not include areas provided for DESIGN REVIEW BOARD SITE PLAN STAFF REPORT 17331 Staff Report for 389 S. Ferguson Site Plan Page 5 of 13 required parking access and spaces, and shall not be placed in such a manner as to damage landscaping. Snow storage locations must be indicated on the site plan. Parking Required Provided (total) Yes, with clarification Total 40 607 in PUD Yes ADA 2 2 Yes Reduction NA Yes Bicycle 2 compliant racks at entrance Comments: Parking requirements for the subject project are met through parking provisions in the existing PUD common lot area, which has allocated 31 parking spaces to Lot 4 although 40 spaces are required for the proposed floor area of the subject building. This must be resolved prior to site plan approval. It appears that the pending PUD parking allocations do not apply the 2% reduction to parking provisions that was approved as a relaxation with the original PUD; if applied to Lot 4, then 39 spaces would be required of the subject site. Clarification is required as the original PUD did not include an instrument for tracking parking allocations between lots. Share parking is enabled through a shared parking, access and facilities agreement throughout the PUD that Lot 4 is party to and which is actively being updated with the pending PUD expansion application, which will include 607 total spaces available throughout the PUD. 6. Pedestrian and vehicular ingress and egress (38.19.100) Meets Code? Safe and easy movement Yes Pedestrian access location(s) Yes Site vision triangles Yes Fire lanes, curbs, signage and striping Yes Vehicle access to site Primary to south on S. Ferguson Ave. Yes Special Improvement Districts 0 TIS waiver Yes Yes Non-automotive transportation and circulation systems design features to enhance safety and convenience Yes Adequate connection and integration of the pedestrian and vehicular transportation systems Yes, with correction Comments: The site is generally served by adequate pedestrian and vehicular facilities. Pad sites in the PUD are accessed via shared vehicular drives from the public way to interior lots. As noted under #20, a mutual access, parking and facilities agreement currently allows shared access and parking on the subject site and between adjacent parcels within the PUD. The subject site is served by common vehicle circulation and parking with a dedicated pedestrian path between parking fields, and parking lot landscaping which enhances safety and convenience. The subject site is most directly served by an existing access located one lot to the south, off South Ferguson Avenue, in addition to via pedestrian accesses via a public trail along the South Ferguson length of the PUD, and concrete sidewalk connections located between the pad sites and maintained by the property association. The application proposes a 4’ wide new sidewalk connection between the northern common walk and subject building’s secondary entrance and a new 4’ wide sidewalk along the western elevation to connect and match with the existing sidewalks on adjacent lots and support connection to an existing accessible ramp from the ADA-signed parking spaces. A correction to attain full connectivity is identified for the proposed future patio on the eastern elevation, which must be connected to the new sidewalk proposed along the northeastern portion of the lot or to the southern sidewalk. The approved DESIGN REVIEW BOARD SITE PLAN STAFF REPORT 17331 Staff Report for 389 S. Ferguson Site Plan Page 6 of 13 PUD master plan identifies required sidewalk connections between both the northern and southern elevations of Lot 4 with the adjacent plazas although alternative designs for ensuring such connectivity may be considered. All other required elements of ingress and egress are provided for by the existing PUD. Dedication of right-of-way or easements necessary for streets and similar transportation facilities Yes Comments: The subject proposal has adequate existing conditions for access easements and transportation facilities. 7. Landscaping, including the enhancement of buildings, the appearance of vehicular use, open space, and pedestrian areas, and the preservation or replacement of natural vegetation (38.26.010-100) Meets Code? Submittal requirements for landscape plans (38.41.100) Yes Mandatory landscaping Yes, with corrections Yard Yes Additional screening Yes Parking lot screening Yes Off-street loading spaces screening NA Street frontage Yes Internal Parking lot landscaping Yes Acceptable landscape materials No Protection of landscape areas Yes Irrigation: plan, source, system type Not identified Trees for residential adjacency Yes Performance points NA as pad lot; must meet PUD design guide NA NA City rights-of-way and parks NA Tree plantings for boulevard ROW, drought-resistant seed Yes Public ROW boulevard strips Yes Irrigation and maintenance provisions for ROW Yes State ROW landscaping Yes Additional NA None NA Fencing and walls NA Comments: All PUD common lot landscaped areas adjacent to the subject site are provided with permanent irrigation system service that includes water efficient drip-lines along turf areas. Street trees comply with City of Bozeman forestry regulations, as proposed and will be provided with individual development phases that will proceed independent of the subject site plan (i.e., Phase 1 of the proposed/pending Ridge PUD Expansion). Surrounding landscaping is thus to be completed per the ultimately approved update to the PUD master landscaping plan. Pad site landscaping is the responsibility of the owner. A gas meter in the northern side yard will be screened by landscaping. As currently proposed, some of the softscape area is intended to accommodate drainage from downspouts to culverts. The building foundation area of the pad site will be landscaped as required by the PUD to surround a minimum of 75% of the building perimeter. The L-1 design is acceptable overall, including through provision of a minimum of 22 large and 22 small shrubs as required on each pad lot by the PUD design guidelines, however it must address the following: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD SITE PLAN STAFF REPORT 17331 Staff Report for 389 S. Ferguson Site Plan Page 7 of 13 a) Per Section 38.26.080 Landscape performance standards, the L-1 Plan has a landscape point calculation table however performance points are not required for a pad site like this one; b) 50% of the shrubs must be flowering—this must be confirmed on the plan; c) Each lot must provide landscaping to identify and enhance building entrances as can be met through alternatives such as above ground planters where in-ground landscaping at building entrances is not feasible. d) The Irrigation Plan and Landscaping Plan must be updated to match, with the recommendation to show the site furnishings and plantings on the Irrigation Plan on the Landscaping plan as well; and e) The Irrigation Plan must clearly mark the source of water (well or municipal) and service connection points. Please also refer to the attached Design Review comments for further potential improvements. 8. Open space (38.27.020) Meets Code? Enhancement of natural environment NA Wildlife habitat or feeding area preservation NA Maintenance of public park or public open space access NA Recreational area design NA Open space NA Parkland Cash-in-lieu for maximum known density not to exceed 12 units/acre (ac.). NA ___ ac. X ___ units/ac. X 0.03 ac.= _____ ac. Cash donation in-lieu NA NA Improvements in-lieu NA NA Comments: Required open space is met through PUD performance points in the common lot areas of the Ridge PUD development, surrounding the subject site. As a commercial site plan, open space is not otherwise required. 9. Building location and height (38.19.100) Meets Code? Zoning BP Requirements (38.10.030-.060) Yes Lot coverage 62% 7,434 sf footprint /11,841 sf lot area Allowed 60% Height 38’ Allowed 38’ Yes Comments: The maximum building height flat roofs in BP is 38 feet. The average building height in the PUD is approximately 27 ½ feet (see Design Guidelines). The Development Guidelines require a maximum roof pitch of 4:12. The proposed development is subject to zoning and relaxations to lot coverage approved for the PUD. As a pad lot in the Ridge PUD, the subject site is able to apply an increased lot coverage in the BP zone to exceed 60%. 10. Setbacks (38.12.150) Meets Code? Zoning BP Yards (feet) Structures Parking / Loading Yes, with corrections Front 25 NA Rear 20 NA Side 15 NA Alley NA NA DESIGN REVIEW BOARD SITE PLAN STAFF REPORT 17331 Staff Report for 389 S. Ferguson Site Plan Page 8 of 13 Watercourse NA Entryway corridor NA Block Frontage [insert type] NA NA Comments: The proposed development is subject to zoning and relaxations to yard setbacks approved for the PUD. As a pad lot in the Ridge PUD, the subject site is able to apply a reduced rear and side yard setback. The site maintains the base zoning front yard setback as measured from within a larger setback established by a 42’-wide public access easement granted for a trail along South Ferguson; this easement including yard setback is measured as 42’ feet from the S. Ferguson right-of-way and also accommodates various public easements for utilities and communications. As a minor correction, the A1.1 drawing must change the current 5’ “front setback” shown on the western portion of the lot to be the rear setback; this is a correction for the Ridge PUD design guidelines as well, to ensure consistency. 11. Lighting (38.23.150) Meets Code? Building-mounted lighting (cutoff and temperature) TBD Site lighting (cutoff and temperature) TBD Minimum light trespass at property line TBD Comments: The application does not include a proposal for exterior site or building-mounted lighting. More information has been requested to confirm the lack of lighting, including as may impact wayfinding on the lot and between adjacent sites. Otherwise, all light fixtures provide by the property association in common areas of the PUD are full cutoff and the edge of the property shows no light trespass. 12. Provisions for utilities, including efficient public services and facilities (38.21.030, 38.23.050, 38.23.060, 38.23.070) Meets Code? Municipal infrastructure requirements Yes Easements (utility rights-of-way etc.) Yes Water, sewer and stormwater Yes, with corrections Other utilities (electric, natural gas, communications) Yes CIL of water Yes Sanitation vehicle access 2 trash existing collection enclosures Yes Comments: The project is located on a parcel of land with existing municipal infrastructure established by the PUD and with adequate conditions for necessary private utilities. This includes a 12’ utility easement, 20’ communications easement, and 42’ public access easement for the shared use path located along the eastern boundary of the site next to South Ferguson Ave., and on-site utilities for telecommunications, NorthWestern gas and electric services located on the northeastern portion of the site. Plans were reviewed by the City Engineer and have been found to adequately provide adequate water, sewer and other needed infrastructure with the exception of additional information being required for DRC approval. Per BMC 38.23.070.A.1, the application provides detail for the installation of complete municipal facilities designed in accordance with the requirements of the state department of environmental quality the City’s Design Standards and Specifications. The applicant must provide an estimate of the peak-hour sanitary sewer demand, as indicated in the concept review, in order for downstream sewer capacity to be verified. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD SITE PLAN STAFF REPORT 17331 Staff Report for 389 S. Ferguson Site Plan Page 9 of 13 A shared access, parking, and facilities (including drainage) easement is in effect for the original PUD and is in the process of being updated for the expanded PUD. 13. Site surface drainage (38.23.080) Meets Code? Drainage design Yes, with corrections Stormwater maintenance plan (38.23.030.A) Yes Stormwater feature: landscaping amenity, native species, curvilinear, 75% live vegetation NA Comments: Bozeman Municipal Code (BMC) Section 38.23.030.A states: The developer shall install complete drainage facilities in accordance with the requirements of the state department of environmental quality and the city, and shall conform to any applicable facilities plan and the terms of any approved site specific stormwater control plan. The city's requirements are contained in the design standards and specifications policy and the city modifications to state public works standard specifications, and by this reference these standards are incorporated into and made a part of these regulations. The applicant must demonstrate that the existing subdivision stormwater improvements were designed with sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed project. The applicant must provide a storm water facilities maintenance plan. 14. Loading and unloading areas (38.23.140) Meets Code? Loading and unloading NA Yes Comments: No formal loading and unloading areas are proposed with this project. 15. Grading (38.23.080) Meets Code? Grading Yes On-site retention/detention Yes Comments: Grading has been approved by City Engineering. 16. Signage (38.28.010) Meets Code? Allowed (sq. ft)/lot 250 NA Proposed (sq. ft) NA Comments: Not required for site plan approval. A multi-tenant signage plan must be submitted and permitted independently and comply with the comprehensive signage plan section of the PUD Design Guidelines in effect at the time of submittal. 17. Screening (38.21.050 and 38.26.050) Meets Code? Mechanical equipment screening Yes, with correction Additional screening Yes, with correction Comments: The proposed building identifies a penthouse and rooftop units to be screened by the building parapet, per drawing A1.3. A gas meter in the northern side yard will be screened by landscaping. A set of ground-mounted air conditioner units, electrical service panels, and an external fire escape stair are proposed for the eastern elevation, to be screened by a semi-opaque cedar panel comprised of narrow horizontal slats. The proposed semi-opaque cedar plank paneling for wall- and ground-mounted equipment and the subject equipment placement do not meet code requirements and PUD design guideline DESIGN REVIEW BOARD SITE PLAN STAFF REPORT 17331 Staff Report for 389 S. Ferguson Site Plan Page 10 of 13 requirements (page 11). As relates to the location of equipment and fixtures, the external stairs, AC units, and electrical meters must be relocated to a side elevation area so that it is not in the street-facing front yard as defined by code. Specifically: - Sec.38.42.2760. – Screening. The method must use solid or nearly solid barriers (e.g., wall, fence, evergreen plantings, berms.” The cedar shielding is not opaque/solid. - Sec.38.21.060.A, Permitted encroachments into yards. The cedar screen on the northeastern façade is intended to cover an external staircase from the second floor to the northeast corner of the façade in the front yard however per Item 5 of this section, “Fire escapes may be permitted in require side or rear yards only.” The design must relocate the stairs, such as to the northern building elevation. Electrical meters and ACU units should also be relocated to a side yard elevation/area. 18. Overlay district provisions (38.16.010, 38.17.010, 38.18.010) Meets Code? Neighborhood Conservation NA Entryway NA Casino NA Comments: This project is located in The Ridge Athletic Planned Unit Development. While the PUD is approximately 10 feet from the edge of the Class 1 Huffine Lane entryway corridor and thus outside of the overlay district, PUDs are required to undergo DRB review and apply criteria from the Bozeman Design Objectives Plan. The subject site plan application is required to undergo DRB design review per the approved PUD Design Guidelines in the CC&Rs. The review authority (DRB) shall make a determination of any additional conditions/recommendations additional to the staff report to provide to the Community Development Director as the ultimate review authority for the site plan. Refer to the last section of this staff report for Design Review and staff recommendations. 19. Other related matters, including relevant comment from affected parties (38.40.010) Meets Code? Public Comment TBD TBD Comments: Public notification will be implemented in accordance with UDC Chapter 38, Article 40 upon determination of proposal adequacy by the Development Review Committee, which is still actively reviewing the application. Any comments received upon noticing will be evaluated and integrated with the staff report for the ultimate review authority, the Community Development Director. 20. If the development includes multiple lots that are interdependent for circulation or other means of addressing requirement of this title, whether the lots are either: Configured so that the sale of individual lots will not alter the approved configuration or use of the property or cause the development to become nonconforming OR Are the subject of reciprocal and perpetual easements or other agreements to which the City is a party so that the sale of individual lots will not cause one or more elements of the development to become nonconforming. (38.23.060) Meets Code? Required Easements and /or boundary aggregation or relocation NA NA Shared access easement Yes # of lots served 9 Yes DESIGN REVIEW BOARD SITE PLAN STAFF REPORT 17331 Staff Report for 389 S. Ferguson Site Plan Page 11 of 13 Comments: A mutual access, parking and facilities agreement currently allows shared access and parking on the subject site and between adjacent parcels within the PUD. 21. Compliance with article 43 of chapter 38 of the Bozeman Municipal Code (38.43.010) Meets Code? Affordable Housing NA Yes Comments: This requirement is not applicable to the subject application. 22. Phasing of development (38.41.080) Meets Code? Phasing No # of phases 1 Yes Concurrent construction requested NA Yes Comments: The project does not propose phasing. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1: Design Review Attachment 2: Key Application Materials DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS Citations below are from the Bozeman Design Objectives Plan (DOP) and The Ridge Athletic Club PUD Design Guidelines. Comments are advisory and may support compliance with required code provisions, and may be adopted by the DRB as recommended conditions of approval. 1. Outdoor Public Spaces (pg. 24) “Develop an outdoor public space as a focal point for the site.” “Connect an outdoor public space with major building activities.” “Design a public space to be actively used. Provide outdoor seating that is usable for extended periods during the year. Create a sense of enclosure when feasible.” While the subject site is intended for private ownership and office operations, it is located within a publicly accessible development with high pedestrian traffic from public and client visitation, and provision of accessible outdoor public spaces is encouraged in order to enhance the site as a place for pedestrians. As currently designed, the proposed yard facing the Ferguson Street area has landscaping but does not encourage the patio to be uses as a connected space with attractive amenities. The patio is proposed along the eastern groundfloor elevation of the building with access from a secondary entrance but no further connectivity via sidewalks or other provisions. The patio does not appear to provide any human-scale elements such as benches, bike racks, picnic tables, enclosure/low walls, or flower planters that enable it to be welcoming, accessible, usable, and both pedestrian- and occupant-friendly amenity however. The design should be updated to provide sufficient accents to enable the patio to be used, in addition to connecting it with sidewalk and shared PUD plazas to the north and/or south of the building. As relates to comments under Landscaping, the patio features shown on the Irrigation Plan would be appropriate additions to the Landscaping Plan. Planters, benches, portico, enclosure elements, textured surface materials, art, and similar elements are encouraged as features in this area and at both building entrances in general. See C. Primary Building Entrance DESIGN REVIEW BOARD SITE PLAN STAFF REPORT 17331 Staff Report for 389 S. Ferguson Site Plan Page 12 of 13 2. Building Character (page 39) “Innovative new design that draw upon regional design traditions are preferred.” While the proposed design appropriately strives to achieve a contemporary style, it is not necessarily compatible with the form and materials of adjacent development and is absent of innovative design. Character-enhancing architectural accents and fixtures may include trims, headers, columns, artwork/textured surfaces, mullions, parapets, renewable energy, weather protection such as awnings, and notable horizontal articulation, among other opportunities. More contrasting features to accentuate the building and support a sense of layered detail are required per DOP Section E., Building Mass and Scale, #3. The PUD design guidelines more specifically suggest incorporating metal like awnings, and natural timber accents like knee braces to provide additional character. Identifying features unique to the building may also enhance its character. 3. Primary Building Entrance (40) “Orient the primary entrance of a building to face a street, plaza or pedestrian way.” “Focusing an entrance toward a parking lot without also addressing the street is inappropriate.” The PUD allows for buildings to orient their front elevation facades and primary accesses toward the PUD’s interior parking areas. The effect on the subject site is that the aesthetic and functional rear of the building faces the public realm, including a public path and residential neighborhood to the east across South Ferguson Avenue, unless design elements address all elements with mass, scale and details that achieve human scale interest at the pedestrian level. Current code does not typically permit such lack of frontage-oriented design, however the PUD’s street perspective design guidelines help ensure four-side architecture through requirements for “architectural elements on all four sides of a building”. With the removal of the cedar screen as a primary design feature on the frontage of the eastern elevation, per the code correction identified under report section #17, the building sections on the street-facing elevation will be too prominent as long blank walls/masses with the exception of window perforations that appear to lack details of human-scale interest such as weather protection (e.g., awnings), trim, sills, etc. The design should apply a greater level of four-sided architecture especially as impacts the frontage area on Ferguson. 4. Street level interest (page 41) “Develop the street level of a building to provide visual interest.” The western elevations of the building should be enhanced with detailed materials, window treatments, street furnishings, and other human-scale details in order to meet guidelines. 5. Building Mass and Scale (page 42) “A building should appear to have a ‘human scale’.” The DOP and PUD design guidelines require buildings to be divided into modules, employ varying planes, and provide architectural details additional to fenestrations to reduce the perception of mass and bulk. The building mass and composition should implement additional, deeper recessing and offsets to express the different modules and improve composition of the facades through increased detail. For example, the building orientation means that sun will be strong on the second floor windows in the morning and afternoon and details such as window awnings or a similar ‘eyebrow’ on all or various windows especially on the western and eastern elevations would benefit the aesthetic and function of the structure. 6. Roof Form (page 45) “The primary roof form of a structure should help to reduce the perceived scale of the building.” “All roof forms shall have no less than two of the following features: a flat roof with parapet; a cornice or molding to define the top of a parapet; overhanging eaves; sloping roofs with a minimum pitch of 6:12; multiple roof planes.” DESIGN REVIEW BOARD SITE PLAN STAFF REPORT 17331 Staff Report for 389 S. Ferguson Site Plan Page 13 of 13 Existing elements in the neighborhood include a pattern of pitched roofs, horizontal siding and neutral colors whereas the proposed building has a flat roof, which while acceptable as a style, does not vary and the PUD design guidelines identify a preference for a combination of multiple roof forms. A clearly defined parapet with cornice or molding that has a different texture or material/color from the primary wall surface, and more distinct multiple roof planes are recommended. 7. Materials (page 46) “Materials that reduce the perceived mass of a building and appear to blend with the natural setting should be used.” “Alternative materials may be considered when they convey a human scale in their detailing.” The building proposes primarily vertical siding and smooth, solid surface hardie paneling and EIFS/stucco with minimal texture. Incorporation of some additional higher quality materials that provide a sense of permanence, such as brick and nonreflective or corrugated bonderized metal is recommended as those are the preferred building material per the DOP and PUD’s design guidelines. Reducing dependence of the building’s second floor materials on hardie panel and framing the building especially at the center and corners with more prominent, high quality secondary materials would be one option for expressing the façade with more human-scale interest and appeal. In summary, the development proposal as conditioned with all materials submitted and included with the application are found to be in general conformance with City standards. Administrative design review staff recommends conditional approval of the subject Site Plan subject to all code provisions identified for correction and additional conditions as may be recommended by the DRB.