design review board - seattle
TRANSCRIPT
Design Review Board777 THOMAS STREET | SEATTLE, WASHINGTON
MACFARLANE PARTNERS / ANKROM MOISAN ARCHITECTS, INC.07.31.2013 DPD PROJECT # 3014045
SITE
777
N
2DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
777 THOMAS ST
07.31.2013
MACFARLANE PARTNERS, LLC
ANKROM MOISAN ARCHITECTS, INC.
Table of Contents
Project Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
SITE ANALYSIS : context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Landmark’s Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Proposed Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Previously Presented Concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Revised Proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Proposed Site Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Proposed Development: Ground Floor Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Proposed Development: Second Floor Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Proposed Development: Typical Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
PLANS: Roof . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
SECTIONS : A - North South . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
SECTIONS : B - East West. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
ELEVATIONS : Materials Selections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
ELEVATIONS : East - 8th Avenue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
ELEVATIONS : North - Thomas Street . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
ELEVATIONS : West - Alley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
ELEVATIONS : South - Church . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Response to DRB 1 Direction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
DRB Theme 1 : 8th Avenue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
DRB Theme 2 : Emphasizing Primary Residential Entry . . . . . . 25
DRB Theme 3 : Response to Alley. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
DRB Theme 4 : Response to Neighboring Church . . . . . . . . . 33
DRB Theme 5 : Response to Historic Landmark . . . . . . . . . . . 38
DRB Theme 6: Signage and Lighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
DRB Theme 7: Departures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
3DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
777 THOMAS ST
07.31.2013
MACFARLANE PARTNERS, LLC
ANKROM MOISAN ARCHITECTS, INC.
Project Information
PROJECT ADDRESS
777 Thomas StreetSeattle, WA 98109
PROJECT TEAM
OWNER/APPLICANT:
MacFarlane Partners
201 Spear Street, 14th FloorSan Francisco, CA 94105415.356.2500Contact: Susan [email protected]
ARCHITECT:
Ankrom Moisan Architects
117 South Main Street, Suite 400Seattle, WA 98104206.576.1600Contact: Ricky [email protected]
PROGRAM GOALS
DEVELOPMENT PROFILE
1. Use Type III wood frame construction
2. Achieve a minimum 174 residential units
3. 0.80 parking ratio minimum
1. 174 Units
2. 113,000 sf Net Rentable Residential
3. 5,070 sf Retail Space
4. 130 Parking Spaces
PROJECT GOALS
JOB / HOUSING BALANCE
Urban infi ll promotes job and housing balance, promoting 24 hour environments where people work/live/play all near their home. This results in less vehicle miles traveled, more use of public transit, etc.
MAKE IT MEMORABLE
Our project thrives to be unique in a sea of non-distinct mid-rise market rate housing. Our project will tell a story unique to the neighborhood with townhomes aimed at young families, work spaces geared to small businesses and material and form used in distinctive ways.
COMMERCIAL
RESIDENTIAL
OTHER
4DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
777 THOMAS ST
07.31.2013
MACFARLANE PARTNERS, LLC
ANKROM MOISAN ARCHITECTS, INC.
N
HARRISON STREET
THOMAS STREET
JOHN STREET
DEX
TER
AVE
N
8th
AVE
N
9th
AVE
N
WES
TLA
KE
AVE
N
DENNY WAY7 Denny Park Plan4 Denny Park Apts *Busy Massing & Colors
1
2
5
4
SITE ANALYSIS : context
1 1 Story Brick Building *Punched Openings
*Patchy Detail Accents
2 1 Story Brick Building *Intricate Brick Patterns
*Large Storefront
3 Trinity Park Lutheran Church *Monochramatic Palette *Brick
5 2 Story Residence *Sits Alone Next to Surface Parking
6 Seattle Unity Church *Clean & Simple Massing
*Ribbon Windows6
7Off Leash Dog Area
3
PROPOSEDPROJECT
DPD# 3012408
site
5DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
777 THOMAS ST
07.31.2013
MACFARLANE PARTNERS, LLC
ANKROM MOISAN ARCHITECTS, INC.
Landmark’s Features
large windows door integrated into bay module
horizontal band
simple ornament on pilasterregular bay module
Proposed Development
Site Plan - Proposed DesignN
0 8’ 16’ 32’
1
2
3
4
5
Remove existing floor slab and replace with new slab to accommodate underground parking, below landmark and adjacent new development.
Remove existing roof structure and replace with new concrete deck to accommodate new residential development and outdoor amenity space.
Remove existing wall during construction and rebuild with salvaged bricks
Remove portion of existing wall to accommodate parking entry. Site topography requires parking entry to be located here.
Remove existing wall to engage landmark with adjacent new development.
Proposed Changes
Residential Entry
Retail Entry
Vehicle Entry
ALLEY
8TH AVE N
THO
MA
S S
T
6DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
777 THOMAS ST
07.31.2013
MACFARLANE PARTNERS, LLC
ANKROM MOISAN ARCHITECTS, INC.
60’
120’777 Thomas(Landmark)
ExistingEntry
Residential Development
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
Previously Presented Concept
CONCEPT DIAGRAM CONCEPT DIAGRAM
7DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
777 THOMAS ST
07.31.2013
MACFARLANE PARTNERS, LLC
ANKROM MOISAN ARCHITECTS, INC.
8DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
777 THOMAS ST
07.31.2013
MACFARLANE PARTNERS, LLC
ANKROM MOISAN ARCHITECTS, INC.
Revised Proposal
9DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
777 THOMAS ST
07.31.2013
MACFARLANE PARTNERS, LLC
ANKROM MOISAN ARCHITECTS, INC.
Proposed Site Plan
N
UP
UP
UP UP UP UP
UNITUNITUNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT
RETAIL
LOBBY
LEASING
RETAIL
PARKING
TRASH
TRASH
DN 8.3% SLOPE
UNIT
UP
UP
UP
10DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
777 THOMAS ST
07.31.2013
MACFARLANE PARTNERS, LLC
ANKROM MOISAN ARCHITECTS, INC.
Proposed Development: Ground Floor Plan
0 5’ 10’ 20’
SCALE: 1”=20’
Thom
as S
tree
t
Chu
rch
8th Avenue
Alley
11DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
777 THOMAS ST
07.31.2013
MACFARLANE PARTNERS, LLC
ANKROM MOISAN ARCHITECTS, INC.
Proposed Development: Second Floor Plan
N0 5’ 10’ 20’
SCALE: 1”=20’
Thom
as S
tree
t
8th Avenue
Alley
12DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
777 THOMAS ST
07.31.2013
MACFARLANE PARTNERS, LLC
ANKROM MOISAN ARCHITECTS, INC.
Proposed Development: Typical Plan
UNITNNNIINIT UNITNNUNIT UNITNNNUNIT
UNITUUUUUUUUUUU TUNITUUUUUUUUUU T
UNITUNITNIT
ELEC
UNITUUUUUUUU
UNITTUNITNU
UNITU TUNIT
UNITUN
UNITNNUN
UNITN
UNITNI
UNITUUNNUNI UNITUN T
UNITITN UNITT
UNITTTTTTTTTT
UNITNU
UNITNITUNIT
UNITUNUN
TRASH
UNITU UNIT UNITNNNUNIT UNITTTIT
N0 5’ 10’ 20’
SCALE: 1”=20’
Thom
as S
tree
t
8th Avenue
Alley
13DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
777 THOMAS ST
07.31.2013
MACFARLANE PARTNERS, LLC
ANKROM MOISAN ARCHITECTS, INC.
PLANS: Roof
A
OVERALL ROOF PLANB
A
OVERALL ROOF PLANB
Thom
as S
tree
t
8th Avenue
Alley
N
14DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
777 THOMAS ST
07.31.2013
MACFARLANE PARTNERS, LLC
ANKROM MOISAN ARCHITECTS, INC.
SECTIONS : A - North South
KEY PLAN
Units
Parking/BOH
Retail
8th Avenue
Thomas Street
8th Avenue
Thomas Street
Thomas Street
Level 7
Level 6
Level 5
Level 4
Level 3
Level 2
Level 1
Property Line
Parking
RetailLobby
Property Line
Upper Level Setback per SMC23.48.012
N
Units
Parking
RetailKEY PLAN
8th Avenue
Thomas Street
8th Avenue
Thomas Street
15DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
777 THOMAS ST
07.31.2013
MACFARLANE PARTNERS, LLC
ANKROM MOISAN ARCHITECTS, INC.
SECTIONS : B - East West
Parking
Parking
Alley
Parking
Property Line
Property Line2’ Alley Dedication
8th Avenue North
Level 7
Level 6
Level 5
Level 4
Level 3
Level 2
Level 1
ELEVATIONS : Materials Selections
16DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
777 THOMAS ST
07.31.2013
MACFARLANE PARTNERS, LLC
ANKROM MOISAN ARCHITECTS, INC.
FIBER CEMENT PANEL FIBER CEMENT PLANK WHITE VINYL WINDOWSBRICK - COLE CREEK
MAIN BODY PLANKS FRAME/TRIM PENTHOUSE
MISTY GRAY BUNNY GRAY THUNDERCLOUD GRAY DEEP SILVER
PAINTED CONCRETE
ELEVATIONS : East - 8th Avenue
KEY PLAN
8th Avenue
Thomas Street
8th Avenue
Thomas Street
17DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
777 THOMAS ST
07.31.2013
MACFARLANE PARTNERS, LLC
ANKROM MOISAN ARCHITECTS, INC.
White Frame Vinyl Window
Bolt-on Balcony with Glass Guardrail
Fiber Cement Panel Fiber Cement Panel
Dark Mansonry Veneer Alum. StorefrontSteel and glass canopy
Existing landmarkpainted concrete wall
Existing landmark window system
Glass Guardrail System
Planter
Upper Level Setback per SMC23.48.012
PropertyLine
PropertyLine
ELEVATIONS : North - Thomas Street
18DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
777 THOMAS ST
07.31.2013
MACFARLANE PARTNERS, LLC
ANKROM MOISAN ARCHITECTS, INC.
KEY PLAN
8th Avenue
Thomas Street
8th Avenue
Thomas Street
Bolt-on Balcony with Glass Guardrail
Fiber Cement Panel
Fiber Cement Panel
Fiber Cement Panel
White Vinyl window
16’
Existing landmark window system
Existing landmarkpainted concrete wall
ELEVATIONS : West - Alley
19DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
777 THOMAS ST
07.31.2013
MACFARLANE PARTNERS, LLC
ANKROM MOISAN ARCHITECTS, INC.
KEY PLAN
8th Avenue
Thomas Street
8th Avenue
Thomas Street
Existing landmark painted concrete wall
Cast in place concrete
Dumpster Staging
Glass Guardrail System
Bolt-on balcony White Vinyl WindowFiber Cement Panel
Fiber cement panel
Property Line
Fiber cement panel
Cast in place concreteWhite vinyl window
Bolt-on balcony
Fiber cement panel
20DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
777 THOMAS ST
07.31.2013
MACFARLANE PARTNERS, LLC
ANKROM MOISAN ARCHITECTS, INC.
ELEVATIONS : South - Church
8th Avenue
KEY PLAN
Thomas Street
8th Avenue
Thomas Street
Response to DRB 1 Direction
21DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
777 THOMAS ST
07.31.2013
MACFARLANE PARTNERS, LLC
ANKROM MOISAN ARCHITECTS, INC.
1: 8TH AVENUE
2: EMPHASIZING PRIMARY RESIDENTIAL ENTRY
3: RESPONSE TO ALLEY
4: RESPONSE TO NEIGHBORING CHURCH
5: RESPONSE TO HISTORIC LANDMARK
6: LIGHTING AND SIGNAGE
7: DEPARTURES
MAJOR THEMES
Design Review Board Comments from DRB 1 GUIDELINE DRB RECOMMENDATION
A-2STREETSCAPE COMPATIBILITY
The Board reiterated the applicant should discuss options with SDOT to move the curb line further out to the street and provide a curb bulb.
A-3ENTRANCES VISIBLE FROM THE STREET
The Board suggested that the planter walls be replaced with lower planters and taller landscaping to soften and screen the patios.
A-6TRANSITION BETWEEN RESIDENCE AND STREET
The Board recommended that the planters separating the residential entries and the sidewalk should relate to a human scale and provide a visual transition to the entries.
D-1PEDESTRIAN OPEN SPACES AND ENTRANCES
The Board noted that the area adjacent to the south facing wall of the historic landmark should be designed to enhance the recessed entry with items such as lighting, landscaping, and benches.
D-6SCREENING OF DUMPSTERS, SERVICE AREAS
The Board expressed concern the solid waste staging area may not be sufficient. The applicant should demonstrate how the staging area will sufficiently accommodate the collection schedule and amount of solid waste on collection days.
D-7PERSONAL SAFETY AND SECURITY
The Board recommended bringing the garage door entry closer to the alley property line to assist with safety and security.
GUIDELINE DRB RECOMMENDATION
D-8TREATMENT OF ALLEYS
The Board noted that locating the garage door entry should line up with the wall of the building above.
D-10COMMERCIAL LIGHTING
Operable rollup doors, lighting, and any other strategies that can help to enhance the commercial viability on Thomas St would be strongly supported by the Board.
D-11RESPECT FOR ADJACENT SITES
Operable rollup doors, lighting, and any other strategies that can help to enhance the commercial viability on Thomas St would be strongly supported by the Board.
D-12TRANSITION BETWEEN RESIDENCE AND STREET
The Board recommended that the ROW should include items to delineate the entry location, such as benches or landscaping.
E-2LANDSCAPING TO ENHANCE THE BUILDING
The Board would like to see details of landscaping at the base of the dark masonry piers. The landscaping should serve to soften the material and enhance the residential entries. The landscape plan on the south facade should be designed to enhance the individual patio areas, rather than linear landscaping that appears to delineate a walkway.
DRB Theme 1 : 8th Avenue
Relevant Design GuidelinesA-2 Streetscape Compatibility
A-3 Entrances Visible from the Street
A-6 Transition Between Residence and Street
Design Review Board Recommendations
“... the planters separating the residential entries and the sidewalk should relate to a human scale and provide a visual transition to the entries.”The Board reiterated the applicant should discuss options with SDOT to move the curb line further out to the street and provide a curb bulb.
The Board suggested that the planter walls be replaced with lower planters and taller landscaping to soften and screen the patios.
“The Board appreciated the orientation of the street level entries and felt that the design of the front patios would serve to enhance the entries and usability of the patios.”
22DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
777 THOMAS ST
07.31.2013
MACFARLANE PARTNERS, LLC
ANKROM MOISAN ARCHITECTS, INC.
DRB Theme 1: 8th Avenue - Individual Entries
23DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
777 THOMAS ST
07.31.2013
MACFARLANE PARTNERS, LLC
ANKROM MOISAN ARCHITECTS, INC.
SECTION AT STOOP
7’
Property Line
6’ 6’
B C
11’
7’
4’-4
”
DRB Theme 1: 8th Avenue - Individual Entries
24DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
777 THOMAS ST
07.31.2013
MACFARLANE PARTNERS, LLC
ANKROM MOISAN ARCHITECTS, INC.
DRB Theme 2 : Emphasizing Primary Residential Entry
Relevant Design Guidelines
D-1 Pedestrian Open Spaces and Entrances
D-12 Residential Entries and Transitions
Design Review Board Recommendations
The Board noted that the area adjacent to the south facing wall of the historic landmark should be designed to enhance the recessed entry with items such as lighting, landscaping, and benches.
The Board recommended that the ROW should include items to delineate the entry location, such as benches or landscaping
25DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
777 THOMAS ST
07.31.2013
MACFARLANE PARTNERS, LLC
ANKROM MOISAN ARCHITECTS, INC.
DRB Theme 2: Emphasizing Primary Residential Entry
ENLARGED ENTRYLANDCAPE PLAN
16’
15’-8”
21’-7
”
33’-6
”
26DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
777 THOMAS ST
07.31.2013
MACFARLANE PARTNERS, LLC
ANKROM MOISAN ARCHITECTS, INC.
Retai l Space
1. LANDSCAPE FORMS PARALLEL BENCH 2. LOW ACCENT WALLS.
4. PLANTINGS AT FOUNDATION AND CANOPY. 3. PET REST AREA IN PLANTERS.
DRB Theme 2: Emphasizing Primary Residential Entry
27DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
777 THOMAS ST
07.31.2013
MACFARLANE PARTNERS, LLC
ANKROM MOISAN ARCHITECTS, INC.
DRB Theme 2: Emphasizing Primary Residential Entry
28DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
777 THOMAS ST
07.31.2013
MACFARLANE PARTNERS, LLC
ANKROM MOISAN ARCHITECTS, INC.
DRB Theme 3 : Response to Alley
Relevant Design GuidelinesD-6 Screening of Dumpsters, Utilities, and Service Areas
D-7 Personal Safety and Security
D-8 Treatment of Alleys
Design Review Board Recommendations
“The Board was concerned with the safety issues presented by the recessed garage entry.”
“The applicant should demonstrate how the staging area will suffi ciently accommodate the collection schedule and amount of solid waste on collection days.”
The Board noted that locating the garage door entry should line up with the wall of the building above.
29DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
777 THOMAS ST
07.31.2013
MACFARLANE PARTNERS, LLC
ANKROM MOISAN ARCHITECTS, INC.
DRB Theme 3: Response to Alley – Activating Pedestrian Experience
A PISA UNIT BLOCK WALLS B LARGE MULTI-LEVEL PLANTING AREA C TOURNESOL SITEWORKS PLANTERSFOR PRIVACY E ARCHITECTURAL SLAB PAVING
24”x24” (TYP.) D ACCENT TREES, (STEWARTIA SP.)
C
B D
E
A
30DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
777 THOMAS ST
07.31.2013
MACFARLANE PARTNERS, LLC
ANKROM MOISAN ARCHITECTS, INC.
8th Avenue
KEY PLAN
Thomas Street
DRB Theme 3: Response to Alley – Activating Pedestrian Experience
31DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
777 THOMAS ST
07.31.2013
MACFARLANE PARTNERS, LLC
ANKROM MOISAN ARCHITECTS, INC.
8th Avenue
KEY PLAN
Thomas Street
DRB Theme 3: Response to Alley - Waste Management Strategy
UP
8 7 6 4
A
5
B
C
PARKING ENTRY
ALLEY
TRAS
H2
C.YD
RECY
CLIN
G2
C.YD
RETAILTRASH/RECYC
14
RECY
CLIN
G2
C.YD
SOILD WASTE STAGING AREA
RECY
CLIN
G2
C.YD
RECY
CLIN
G2
C.YD
RECY
CLIN
G2
C.YD
RECY
CLIN
G2
C.YD
THE TRASH AND RECYCLING STRATEGY INCLUDES A LANDING ADJACENT TO THE ALLEY TO STAGE DUMPSTERS ON COLLECTION DAYS AND ALLOW CLEAR TRAVEL PATHS THROUGH THE ALLEY.
TRASH / RECYCLE STAGING AREA
32DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
777 THOMAS ST
07.31.2013
MACFARLANE PARTNERS, LLC
ANKROM MOISAN ARCHITECTS, INC.
Relevant Design GuidelinesE-2 Landscaping to Enhance the Building and / or Site
Design Review Board Recommendations
“The landscape plan should be designed to enhance the individual patio areas, rather than linear landscaping that appears to delineate a walkway.”
“... the design of individual terraces, setback, and refl ective surfaces is a positive response to the EDG...”
DRB Theme 4 : Response to Neighboring Church
33DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
777 THOMAS ST
07.31.2013
MACFARLANE PARTNERS, LLC
ANKROM MOISAN ARCHITECTS, INC.
PARTIAL PLAN AT SOUTH ALLEY
DRB Theme 4 : Response to Neighboring Church
34DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
777 THOMAS ST
07.31.2013
MACFARLANE PARTNERS, LLC
ANKROM MOISAN ARCHITECTS, INC.
DRB Theme 4 : Response to Neighboring Church
35DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
777 THOMAS ST
07.31.2013
MACFARLANE PARTNERS, LLC
ANKROM MOISAN ARCHITECTS, INC.
DRB Theme 4 : Response to Neighboring Church
Outline of North facade of Church
Church Windows
36DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
777 THOMAS ST
07.31.2013
MACFARLANE PARTNERS, LLC
ANKROM MOISAN ARCHITECTS, INC.
DRB Theme 4 : Response to Neighboring Church
37DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
777 THOMAS ST
07.31.2013
MACFARLANE PARTNERS, LLC
ANKROM MOISAN ARCHITECTS, INC.
JUNE 21
DEC 21
9:00
9:00
9:00
12:00
12:00
12:00
15:00
15:00
15:00
18:00
18:00
18:00
MAR 21
38DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
777 THOMAS ST
07.31.2013
MACFARLANE PARTNERS, LLC
ANKROM MOISAN ARCHITECTS, INC.
Relevant Design GuidelinesD-10 Commercial Lighting
D-11 Commercial Transparency
Design Review Board Recommendations
“Uplighting and/or downlighting of the historic structure would be helpful, but the Board noted this would be in the purview of either SDOT or the Landmarks Preservation Board...”
“... the design of individual terraces, setback, and refl ective surfaces is a positive response to the EDG...”Operable rollup doors, lighting, and any other strategies that can help to enhance the commercial viability on Thomas St would be strongly supported by the Board.
DRB Theme 5 : Response to Historic Landmark
A OPTIONAL FIRE PIT B CUSTOM BUILT IN BENCH / LOUNGE SEATING C LOLL: LOUNGE / CHAIR D LARGE DINING TABLE, BAR HT. E KNOLL: MAYA LIN STONES
F TOURNESOL SITEWORKS PLANTERS
G ARCHITECTURAL SLAB PAVING
FITNESS
G
FD C
B
A
E
LEVEL TWO TERRACE H ARCHITECTURAL SCREENSH
F
B
B
F
B
39DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
777 THOMAS ST
07.31.2013
MACFARLANE PARTNERS, LLC
ANKROM MOISAN ARCHITECTS, INC.
DRB Theme 5 : Response to Historic Landmark
AMENITY SPACE ABOVE LANDMARK STRUCTURE AT CORNER OF 8TH AVE AND THOMAS ST
EXISTING LIGHTING1
40DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
777 THOMAS ST
07.31.2013
MACFARLANE PARTNERS, LLC
ANKROM MOISAN ARCHITECTS, INC.
DRB Theme 5 : Response to Historic Landmark
41DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
777 THOMAS ST
07.31.2013
MACFARLANE PARTNERS, LLC
ANKROM MOISAN ARCHITECTS, INC.
Relevant Design GuidelinesD-10 Commercial Lighting
DRB Theme 6: Signage and Lighting
42DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
777 THOMAS ST
07.31.2013
MACFARLANE PARTNERS, LLC
ANKROM MOISAN ARCHITECTS, INC.
2 4
1
3
DRB Theme 6: Signage and Lighting
HINKLEY LIGHTING - PIER FIXTURE
EXISTING LIGHTING1
3 4
2
EDGE LIGHTING- UNIT DOOR FIXTURE
HINKLEY LIGHTING - STOOP FIXTURE
43DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
777 THOMAS ST
07.31.2013
MACFARLANE PARTNERS, LLC
ANKROM MOISAN ARCHITECTS, INC.
DRB Theme 6: Signage and Lighting
1
2
2
1) ENTRY SIGNAGE CONCEPT
2) RETAIL SIGNAGE CONCEPT
44DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
777 THOMAS ST
07.31.2013
MACFARLANE PARTNERS, LLC
ANKROM MOISAN ARCHITECTS, INC.
PERSPECTIVE LOOKING SOUTHWEST FROM 8TH AVE AND THOMAS ST
DRB Theme 6: Signage and Lighting
DRB Theme 7: Departures
REQUEST
1
2
3
45DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
777 THOMAS ST
07.31.2013
MACFARLANE PARTNERS, LLC
ANKROM MOISAN ARCHITECTS, INC.
DEVELOPMENT STANDARD REQUIREMENT
“ON CLASS 2 PEDESTRIAN STREETS, AS SHOWN ON MAP B, ALL FACADES SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM HEIGHT OF TWENTY-FIVE (25) FEET”
“ON CLASS 1 AND 2 PEDESTRIAN STREETS, SHOWN ON MAP B, LOCATED AT THE END OF THIS CHAP-TER: A MINIMUM OF SIXTY (60) PERCENT OF THE WIDTH OF THE STREET LEVEL FACADE MUST BE TRANSPARENT”
“BLANK FACADES SHALL BE LIMITED TO SEG-MENTS FIFTEEN (15) FEET WIDE, EXCEPT FOR GARAGE DOORS WHICH MAY BE WIDER THAN FIFTEEN (15) FEET. BLANK FACADE WIDTH MAY BE INCREASED TO THIRTY (30) FEET IF THE DIRECTOR DETERMINES THAT THE FACADE IS ENHANCED BY ARCHITECTURAL DETAILING, ARTWORK, LAND-SCAPING, OR OTHER SIMILAR FEATURES THAT HAVE VISUAL INTEREST”
THE HISTORIC LANDMARKED STRUCTURE FAC-ING THOMAS PROVIDES A MINIMUM FAÇADE HEIGHT OF FOURTEEN FEET SIX INCHES (14’-6). WE PROPOSE TO LEAVE THE HISTORIC STRUCTURE UNALTERED.
THE DEVELOPMENT FRONTS A CLASS 2 PEDESTRI-AN STREET ALONG THOMAS ST. WHICH REQUIRES A MINIMUM OF 60% OF THE WIDTH OF THE STREET LEVEL FACADE TO BE TRANSPARENT. THE HISTOR-IC LANDMARKED STRUCTURE FACING THOMAS IS ONLY 56% TRANSPARENT. WE PROPOSE TO LEAVE THE HISTORIC UNALTERED.
THE DEVELOPMENT PROPERTY FRONTS A CLASS 2 PEDESTRIAN STREET ALONG THOMAS ST. CLASS 2 PEDESTRIAN STREETS REQUIRE BLANK FA-CADES TO BE LIMITED TO SEGMENTS NO LONGER THAN 15 FEET WIDE. THE HISTORIC LANDMARKED STRUCTURE INCLUDES A NON-TRANSPARENT SEGMENT TWENTY TWO FEET AND 22’3” WIDE FACING THOMAS AND A 22’2”NON-TRANSPARENT SEGMENT FACING 8TH AVENUE. WE PROPOSE TO LEAVE THE HISTORIC UNALTERED.
23.48.014B2
23.48.018A1A
23.48.018B2A
DEPARTURE MATRIX
DRB Theme 7: Departures
23.48.014B2: MINIMUM FACADE HEIGHTS SHALL NOT APPLY WHEN ALL PORTIONS OF THE STRUCTURE ARE LOWER THAN THE ELEVATION OF THE REQUIRED MINIMUM FACADE HEIGHT LISTED BELOW.
1. ON CLASS 1 PEDESTRIAN STREETS, AS SHOWN ON MAP B, PEDESTRIAN STREET CLASSIFICATIONS, LO-CATED AT THE END OF THIS CHAPTER, ALL FACADES SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM HEIGHT OF FORTY-FIVE (45) FEET.
2. ON CLASS 2 PEDESTRIAN STREETS, AS SHOWN ON MAP B, ALL FACADES SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM HEIGHT OF TWENTY-FIVE (25) FEET.
3. ON ALL OTHER STREETS, ALL FACADES SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM HEIGHT OF FIFTEEN (15) FEET.
THE HISTORIC LANDMARKED STRUCTURE FACING THOMAS PROVIDES A MINIMUM FAÇADE HEIGHT OF FOURTEEN FEET SIX INCHES (14’-6). THE DESIGN TEAM PROPOSES TO LEAVE THE HISTORIC STRUC-TURE FACADE UNALTERED.
ALLOWING THE LANDMARK’S FAÇADE TO REMAIN UNAL-
TERED HELPS PRESERVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD’S HISTORIC
FABRIC.
CODE
REQUEST
WHY THIS DEPARTURE MEETS THE IN-TENT OF DESIGN GUIDELINES
14'-6
"
25'-0
"
REQUIRED: 25’
PROVIDED: 14’6
46DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
777 THOMAS ST
07.31.2013
MACFARLANE PARTNERS, LLC
ANKROM MOISAN ARCHITECTS, INC.
DEPARTURE 1: MINIMUM FACADE HEIGHT
DRB Theme 7: Departures
23.48.018A1A: TRANSPARENCY REQUIRE-MENTS APPLY TO ALL STREET LEVEL FA-CADES, EXCEPT THAT TRANSPARENCY RE-QUIREMENTS DO NOT APPLY TO PORTIONS OF STRUCTURES IN RESIDENTIAL USE.1 . TRANSPARENCY SHALL BE REQUIRED AS FOLLOWS:A. CLASS 1 AND 2 PEDESTRIAN STREETS, SHOWN ON MAP B, LOCATED AT THE END OF THIS CHAPTER: A MINIMUM OF SIXTY (60) PERCENT OF THE WIDTH OF THE STREET LEVEL FACADE MUST BE TRANSPARENT.
B. ALL OTHER STREETS: A MINIMUM OF THIRTY (30) PERCENT OF THE WIDTH OF THE STREET-LEVEL FACADE MUST BE TRANSPAR-ENT.
THE DEVELOPMENT FRONTS A CLASS 2 PEDESTRIAN STREET ALONG THOMAS ST. WHICH REQUIRES A MINIMUM OF 60% OF THE WIDTH OF THE STREET LEVEL FACADE TO BE TRANSPARENT. THE HISTORIC LANDMARKED STRUCTURE FACING THOMAS IS ONLY 56% TRANSPARENT. WE PROPOSE TO LEAVE THE HISTORIC FACADE UNALTERED.
ALLOWING THE LANDMARK’S FAÇADE TO REMAIN UNAL-
TERED HELPS PRESERVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD’S HISTORIC
FABRIC.
CODE
REQUEST
WHY THIS DEPARTURE MEETS THE IN-TENT OF DESIGN GUIDELINES
5'-0"
REQUIRED: 72’ PROVIDED: 67’
ADDITIONAL GLAZING REQUIRED TO MEET CODE
47DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
777 THOMAS ST
07.31.2013
MACFARLANE PARTNERS, LLC
ANKROM MOISAN ARCHITECTS, INC.
DEPARTURE 2: FACADE TRANSPARENCY REQUIREMENTS
DRB Theme 7: Departures
23.48.018B2A: 1 . ANY PORTION OF THE FACADE WHICH IS NOT TRANSPARENT SHALL BE CONSIDERED TO BE A BLANK FACADE.
2. BLANK FACADE LIMITS FOR CLASS 1 AND 2 PEDESTRIAN STREETS.
A. BLANK FACADES SHALL BE LIMITED TO SEGMENTS FIFTEEN (15) FEET WIDE, EXCEPT FOR GARAGE DOORS WHICH MAY BE WIDER THAN FIFTEEN (15) FEET. BLANK FACADE WIDTH MAY BE INCREASED TO THIRTY (30) FEET IF THE DIRECTOR DETERMINES THAT THE FACADE IS ENHANCED BY ARCHITECTUR-AL DETAILING, ARTWORK, LANDSCAPING, OR OTHER SIMILAR FEATURES THAT HAVE VISU-AL INTEREST. THE WIDTH OF GARAGE DOORS SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE WIDTH OF THE DRIVEWAY PLUS FIVE (5) FEET.B. ANY BLANK SEGMENTS OF THE FACADE SHALL BE SEPARATED BY TRANSPARENT AR-EAS AT LEAST TWO (2) FEET WIDE.
THE DEVELOPMENT PROPERTY FRONTS A CLASS 2 PEDESTRIAN STREET ALONG THOMAS ST. CLASS 2 PEDESTRIAN STREETS REQUIRE BLANK FACADES TO BE LIMITED TO SEGMENTS NO LONGER THAN 15 FEET WIDE. THE HISTORIC LANDMARKED STRUCTURE INCLUDES A NON-TRANSPARENT SEGMENT TWENTY TWO FEET TWO INCHES WIDE FACING THOMAS AND A TWENTY TWO FOOT TWO NON-TRANSPARENT SEGMENT FACING 8TH AVENUE. WE PROPOSE TO LEAVE THE HISTORIC FACADE UNALTERED.
ALLOWING THE LANDMARK’S FAÇADE TO REMAIN UNAL-
TERED HELPS PRESERVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD’S HISTORIC
FABRIC.
CODE
REQUEST
WHY THIS DEPARTURE MEETS THE IN-TENT OF DESIGN GUIDELINES
23'-3"
15'-0"
15'-0"
22'-2"
REQUIRED: 15’ PROVIDED: 23’3
REQUIRED: 15’
PROVIDED: 22’2
48DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
777 THOMAS ST
07.31.2013
MACFARLANE PARTNERS, LLC
ANKROM MOISAN ARCHITECTS, INC.
DEPARTURE 3: BLANK FACADE LIMITS