AgdaPkt 2015-09-28 Joint SA PFA - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

For the North of Marshall district, in which the Project site is located, Neoclassical, Craftsman, Mediterranean, Art Deco and Contemporary architectural styles are permitted. In fact, the only architectural style not permitted in this district is Victorian. The North of Marshall district is the least restrictive of all downtown districts in terms of architectural style and character. More to the point, the DTPP expressly notes that the architectural review regulations do not “dictate style” for buildings, but simply “add final design touches to buildings in order to give them a character that may be unique but complementary with the architecture” of downtown. (DTPP, p. 26.) Thus, the Project is in compliance with required architectural style and height regulations. iii. The Project Complies with the Setback Requirements of the DTPP with Respect to Adjacent Property. Appellants’ Contention: The Project contains an 18-inch setback instead of a 20-foot setback with respect to adjacent property. (See, e.g., Carr Appeal, p. 8; Keyes Appeal, p. 9.) City’s Response: Along the shared property line between the Project site and 611 Middlefield, the Project may have a minimum 0’ and a maximum 20’ side yard setback. (DTPP, p. 69.) The Applicant proposes an 18” setback for the garage levels adjacent to this property line in order to accommodate architectural features (the cornice and trim along the top of the base levels of the building) to protrude from the face of the building without encroaching on the neighboring property. The Project has a 20’ setback for the office levels along this property line, consistent with the tower disposition guidelines. Thus, the Project is consistent with the DTPP setbacks both at the ground level and for the upper office levels along this property line. iv. The Project Complies with the “Complete Streets” policy of the DTPP, Is Consistent with DTPP Policies to Promote Marshall Street for Pedestrian Use, Is Not Too Tall and Close to the Street, and Will Preserve the Character of Streets and Neighborhoods. Appellants’ Contention: The Project violates the “complete streets” policy of the DTPP, is inconsistent with DTPP policies to preserve the character of historic streets and neighborhoods, will be detrimental to Marshall Street as a pedestrian right of way, and is too tall and close to the street. (See, e.g., Carr Appeal, pp. 1-2; Keyes Appeal, pp. 1- 2.) City’s Response: The complete streets policy seeks to ensure that the public rights of way are convenient for all modes of transportation (e.g., pedestrian, bicycle and 7.A. - Page 12