Voting Members Present

·         T. Veider (1^st)

·         R. Nieswander (2^nd)

·         C. Poh

·         P. Brown (CH)

·         B. Chew (A)

·         N. Reich

Project presented by Ryan Grass of City Architecture.  It is a 4-story mixed-use building with 63 units of residential on the top 3 floors and retail/commercial spaces on the first floor.  Please note that the property on the corner is not under the control of the Finch Group.  They are currently showing an idea of a future use for that corner.  The corner is still under consideration.  Please also note that the City is considering extending Orville Ave to E. 103^rd to provide additional access and circulation.  However, the Finch/MNTI site does work without the extension.  It is a predominantly masonry building with nicheha paneling, etc.

Committee Questions, Comments, Concerns

·         How do you foresee deliveries being made and trash removal?  Deliveries can be on the front or at the rear and block a few spaces temporarily.

·         Will there be some traffic calming on E. 105^th St?

·         Will you have to delete some parking spaces for a loading zone?

·         How do you envision signage for the building?

·         Will there only be one elevator in the building?

·         Kitchen exhaust from the restaurant(s) will be routed through the south stair and up to the roof.

·         Does the mullions on the storefront really alternate?

·         Will every tenant be parked?

·         Continue the rhythm of the colonnade in the rear so there is a better relationship with the columns and bases.

·         What are the sunshades around the windows made of?

·         What will the lighting be?

·         What kind of windows will be used?

Motion to approve for schematic development with the recommendation to study the lighting, deliveries/trash removal, windows, fencing, landscaping, colonnade, sunshade colors/materials, and parking.  Motion approved by a vote of 5-0, with one committee member abstaining to vote.

Voting Members Present

• T. Vieder (2nd)
• RS Nieswander (acting CH)
• C. Poh (1st)
• B. Chew (A)
• P. Brown (*) 

Project presented by Ryan Grass of City Architecture and Mark Dodds of the Finch Group.  He began by addressing previous comments from the Committee.  They are here today to seek final development approval with more details on the architecture, landscaping, parking access, fencing, potential signage, and dog park.

Committee Comments, Questions, Concerns

• Is the fencing needed in front of the "conference room" space?  The fencing appears to be defensive.
• What material will be used on the dog park?  RG: peat gravel
• What are the materials of the dumpster enclosure? RG: will be masory on three sides and vinyl fencing on the accessible side.
• What landscaping materials are being used for the rear strip at E. 103rd?  RG: washed river rock for drainage.
• Can you look at the screening wall from the plaza's perspective?  In the renderings it might read as the fencing and the screening wall is all one part of the facade.  Can the south portion of the screening wall be lowered or pushed back?
• Is the glass on the storefront all clear? RG: yes
• Consider using a different color for the retail storefronts to make it feel less institutional.
• What materials are the canopies? RG: glass


 Additional Comments

• Does the east side of the building need any fencing?  None of the other windows are fenced and as somewhat pointed out, it looks defensive.
• Even though the alley is currently fenced with a mix of fence types, fencing is not necessarily warranted here, especially not chain link.
• The gravel along the west line is stark. Perhaps a green solution such as Blue Dune Lyme Grass such as that is used in the median at the ballpark should be explored.
• Is there an irrigation system? Most rain in this area comes out of the southwest. The plants along the east side of the building are under a slight overhang. Combine that with the lack of rain hitting the space will provide a hostile environment for plants to grow without supplemental water. If no irrigation is planned, delete the plants and do something creative with the sidewalk.
• The Carex specified can become very invasive from seed and pops up everywhere. Another choice should be considered. In addition, Carex or the sedges generally perform best in moist and wet soils. If the soils are as sandy as described, and the plants are not sitting in a bioswale, then another plant should be considered.
• The area described as a dog park is very small and is really not a park. In these small areas, the odor can become over powering and the views not very attractive especially next to a "conference" area. I suggest that it be removed and that the residents be encouraged to the Cultural Gardens a block away.
• The parking is still a great concern of mine. It doesn't appear to be addressed in the resubmittal. As it stands, there are 63 apartments and only 49 parking spaces in the parking lot. There are 17 spaces shown on the street, none of them being handicap spaces. There is 16,742 sf of floor space on the ground floor to be used in combination with restaurant, meeting, and retail space. That would work out to about 75 additional spaces needed for the ground floor. My understanding of the code is, if the PRO classification is used, then the parking requirement can be reduced by 33%. So with that, using the regular zoning requirements, a total of 138 spaces are required, 67% of that is 93 spaces.63 spaces are supplied leaving a shortage of 30 spaces. No studies of where those spaces are located has been provided. If it is a retail use and there is no parking, I don't foresee people patronizing the facility if there is no easy place to park. Compounding the problem is that Orville is one way heading west. Lee Avenue is two way but with no parking on the east bound side of the street. Parking on either of those two streets is going to be tedious. To go around the block requires one to travel to East 109th.
• The delivery issue brought up in the original presentation is not a minor one either. To assume that a truck can sit and block a one way parking lot for an unspecified amount of time and a great inconvenience to the tenants is problematic. Perhaps a loading zone could be designated on the front side.

Motion to approve 3-1* with the recommendation to lower or push the mechanical screening further back from the the facade; and to reconsider the fencing at the north end of the building so that it starts at the northeast corner and heads toward the driveway and is setback four feet from the property so that it is not in front of the building. The Finch Group may have to change the grass materials in front of the "conference space" to achieve more security.