06-09-2003 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

V’ i. #03-2889 Ravia Real Estate June 5,2003 Page II 1. Uehtin2 Proposed plaits for lighting are attached as Sheet A1.4. The applicants have provided lighting for the parking area. The applicants have indicated the individual buildings, entryways and walkways will be illuminated to the minimum extent necessary for safety. J. BulMiny Quality and Materials Sheets A2.1 thru A2.11 depict the generalized floor plans and elevations for the proposed buildings. The facades most visible from ofT-site contain substantial aichitectural features to enhance their appearance and break up t'le visual length of the buildings, lire applicants have provided a design that is sensitive to the :-ui rounding nropeities; for instance, the long facades facing the senior housing building, white being the functional rear of those offices, have stonewor*., columns, bays, and styled windows. The 6/12 pHched roofs will have asphalt “shangles" for a textured look. Siding is Hardie Plank or equivalent for low maintenance and good appearance. Stonework is a cultured “river rock ” and its use on the walkout level columns greatly enhances the appearance of those higher facades. The B-6 standards do not specify a percentage of the facade that must be brick; the proposed 2’ high cultured stone base along the entiie perimeter of each building is also a critical enhancement. The middle units (2/5,1/3) of each building have a 6’ deep proposed deck on the first story level on the walkout side. These decks add to the residential character of the buildings. The arched eyebrow and curved window feature of the second stv/ry portions of the buildings also is a critical design element that enhees the quality of these units. Staff is satisfied that the building design is of a quality appropriate for the proposed use, and should be a good fit with the senior housing to the east. ///. Summary of issues for Council Discussion: 1.How do the visual impacts of this revised office building complex compare with those of the previously approved office building (see Exhibit G of Api«; memo to compare footprints of buildings and parking areas)? Also see Exhibit F which depicts the relative heights of the proposed office buildii gs and the Senior Housing Building as viewed from Highway 12... 2.Is the intensity of use of this site significantly greater than would have been expected with the previously approved medical office use? 3.Under the PUD 2A Agreement the building may not be used for general retail use, but accessory retail uses could occur in up to 20% of the gross floor area of the building. Is Plaiming Commission comfortable with that same standard, or do the parking limitations inherent in the site suggest that ancillary retail use should be further limited? Retail uses require mo.e parking than ofBce uses...