AgdaPkt 2013-11-18 Special - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Disposition Regulations Chart on page 87, the project site is located within the "$.A. - Page 15 Zone". There is no "Special Corner TreatmenY' or "Maximum Corner Height Required" indicated for the block within which the project site is located. The Project meets the height requirement of 10 stories and the maximum of 114 feet. The Appellant mistakenly cites that the Project "violates maximum corner height requirements" (Appeal, Item I.I.P) when in fact the Project is not required to have them. In addition, the Appellant erroneously "recommends a four story step down heighY' as referenced on page 88, Section 2.7.1 E of the DTPP, which does not apply to the project site location (Appeal, Item I.I.Q). e. DTPP - Section 2.8 — Facade Composition Requlations- Since the Project is located along "City Streets", the Fa�ade Composition Regulations Chart on page 95, provides regulations regarding heights and treatments for the Building Base, Cap and Top, (Building Base — 25 foot max., Building Middle — 100 foot max., and Building Top — 100 foot max.). In addition, specific standards per Section 2.8.3, page 97, are that the Base Cap "shall be limited to two feet of projection into the required setback." Appellant discusses his objections to the cap and horizontal fa�ade articulation treatments (Appeal, Items I.R, I.S), but as applied, the Project complies with the standards within the DTPP. As discussed below, and within Section 1 of this staff report, the AAC reviewed the deviations from the Guidelines with regard to fa�ade treatments and made recommendations to the Applicant which the Applicant included in their final submittal which brought the Project in compliance with the City's Municipal Code. 3. The Proiect was reviewed bv the Architectural Advisorv Committee, a discretionarv reviewinq bodv, in compliance with City regulations and the DTPP. As discussed in Section 1 of this staff report, the Project required input from the AAC per the City's Municipal Code. While nearly all 405 guidelines were met, the proposed design did not conform to multiple guidelines from the DTPP (refer to DTPP Guideline Compliance Table in Section 1 of this staff report). Regulations within the DTPP are divided into two groups: Standards are mandatory, and typically deal with conventional zoning subject matter such as use, height, setbacks, and parking; guidelines are recommended but not mandatory, and mostly focus on design issues. Projects that comply with all standards but not all guidelines are to be brought before the AAC for a recommendation "on the acceptability of the aspects of the application which do not conform to the guidelines." While the Appellant expresses concerns with the recommendations of the AAC regarding design adjustments to the Project (Appeal, Items I.R, I.S, and I.V) the AAC used its discretionary authority to make recommendations to the Planning Commission on certain guidelines in compliance with City regulations. The Guidelines as referenced above are presented for the City Council's consideration. II. The Project is in compliance with the historical resource preservation goals and standards of the DTPP. A. The Appeal Should Not Be Granted on the Grounds that the Prolect is not consistent with historical resource preservation qoals, strateqies and obiectives of the DTPP. Page 15