►
From YouTube: 11-17-22 Plan & Zoning Commission
Description
Des Moines Plan & Zoning Commission meeting on Thursday, November 17, 2022.
View the agenda: https://DSM.city/PZatHome
A
B
We're
gonna
start
the
meeting,
welcome
to
the
November
17
2022
meeting
of
the
city
of
Des
Moines
plan
and
Zoning
commission
I
will
first
read
the
rules
and
procedures.
The
plan
and
Zoning
commission
is
generally
an
advisory
body
to
the
city
council.
The
city
council
will
hold
a
public
hearing
and
make
the
final
decision
on
all
matters
before
the
commission
other
than
site
plans
and
subdivision
plots
unless
the
denials
or
conditional
approvals
thereof
are
appealed.
Please
contact
the
city,
clerk
or
development
services
department
staff
for
details
on
Council
hearings.
B
Applicant
will
be
given
10
minutes
to
present
the
request
proponents,
and
then
opponents
from
the
public
are
then
allowed
to
speak
in
that
order
with
each
speaker
allowed
a
maximum
of
five
minutes
applicant
is
then
allowed
five
minutes
for
a
rebuttal.
The
hearing
will
then
be
closed
and
the
commission
will
discuss
and
vote
on
the
issue.
All
comments
are
to
be
germane
to
the
item
under
consideration
and
speakers
are
to
maintain
a
courteous
manner.
B
Thank
you,
I
will
read
through
the
consent
agenda
items.
Item
number
one
is
continued
from
November
3rd
2022
meeting.
It
is
a
request
from
The
Oaks
on
floor,
represented
by
Adam
siernan
for
review
and
approval
of
a
preliminary
Platt
Oaks
on
floor.
Preliminary
Platte
on
0.94
Acres
of
property
at
3020,
Fleur
Drive
for
development
of
15,
one
household
residential
lots.
Is
there
anyone
on
the
commission
who
wishes
to
hear
this
item?
B
Anyone
in
the
public
number
one
will
remain
on
consent.
Number
two
is
a
request
from
13th
and
mulberry
represented
by
Josh
abberson
for
review
and
approval
of
a
public
hearing
site
plan,
The
Deco
for
property
at
1301
Mulberry
and
for
type
2
design
alternative
in
accordance
with
city
code
135,
to
allow
a
portion
of
building
to
be
one
story
in
height
when
buildings
are
required
to
be
three
stories
in
height
per
city
code.
Is
there
anyone
on
the
commission
that
wishes
to
hear
this
item?
B
Anyone
in
the
public
number
two
will
remain
on
consent.
Number
three
request
from
Gene
M
Schmidt
represented
by
Jana
L
Friel
for
review
and
approval
of
a
minor
preliminary
plot,
Schmidt's
acres
for
property.
At
1150
Northeast
52nd
Avenue
in
Sailor
Township
and
within
the
two
mile
distance
for
extra
territorial
review
of
subdivision
plots
by
the
city
of
Des
Moines
to
allow
subdivision
of
the
existing
property
to
create
one
new
residential
law
in
one
Outlet.
Is
there
anyone
on
the
commission
who
wishes
to
hear
this
item?
B
Anyone
in
the
public
number
three
will
remain
on
consent.
Item
number
four
is
on
public
hearing,
but
there
is
a
request
to
move
it
to
December
3rd.
It's
a
request
from
Eastgate
Plaza
LLC
represented
by
Norman
S
Weinstein
for
review
and
approval
of
Eighth
Amendment
to
the
Eastgate
Plaza
PUD
conceptual
plan
on
property
at
1514,
East
Euclid
Ave
to
allow
Car
Wash
use.
B
They
have
requested
to
have
it
continued
to
December.
1St
do
I
have
a
motion
to
continue
that
item.
This.
A
D
B
E
Madam
excuse
me:
Madam
chair
members
of
commission
Nick
tarpy
planning
staff.
So
what
we're
going
to
be
talking
about
here
tonight
is
a
land
subdivision,
so
just
to
reiterate
what
Emily
had
said
earlier,
so
this
land
subdivision
is
in
Polk
County.
So
it's
not
within
the
city
of
Des
Moines
jurisdiction,
but
per
Iowa
Code
Whenever.
There
is
a
land
subdivision
that
triggers
a
preliminary
plot
process
within
the
county
jurisdiction
if
it's
within
two
miles
of
our
city
limits,
we'd
conduct
a
courtesy
review.
So
that's
why
we're
looking
at
that
tonight?
E
It's
a
basically
in
Iowa
Code
that
we
have
to
do
that.
So
just
also
want
to
reiterate
too
we'll
talk
about
this
briefly
tonight,
but
also
this
plat
will
get
reviewed
separate.
It
is
getting
separately
reviewed
by
Polk
County.
They
have
their
own
public
hearing
process
for
that
any
future
development
on
the
land.
So
if
they
end
up
building
anything
it'll
go
through
Polk,
County,
Planning
and
Zoning.
So
all
the
building
code,
zoning
code,
storm
water
management,
all
those
things
so
just
wanted
to
preface
that
with
what
we're
about
to
talk
about
tonight.
E
So,
just
to
reiterate,
this
is
about
a
seven
acre
parcel
here
that
is
getting
subdivided
or
basically
lot
lines
rearranged
to
create
one
buildable
lot
and
then
one
Outlet
which
would
not
allow
development.
So
here's
the
vicinity
of
the
property
right
here
highlighted
in
Orange.
This
is
Northeast
52nd
Avenue
we're
about
a
half
mile
north
of
80
35.
You
can
picture
it
and
we're
probably
about
a
quarter
mile
to
the
west
of
Northeast
14th
Street.
So
you
can
kind
of
see
this
residual
commercial
Corridor
here.
E
A
lot
of
commercial
uses,
the
surrounding
area,
single
family
homes,
deep
Lots,
relatively
rural
in
character.
E
So
here's
the
Platt
document
here,
I'll
just
walk
you
through
it
real
quick.
So
here
this
hatched
area
here
this
would
be
an
Ingress
egress
easement.
So
that's
how
they
would
use
vehicles
to
access
the
site.
This
area
here
and
that's
shaded
a
little
bit
lighter
it's
almost
three
acres.
That
would
be
the
buildable
lot,
so
that's
where
they
would
propose
to
eventually
construct
a
new
dwelling
single
family
dwelling,
this
Outlet
Z
here
that's
in
the
darker
shade.
This
would
be
that
Woodland
Reserve
area
that
I
was
referring
to
so
it's
an
outlet.
E
They
couldn't
build
any
structures
on
it
and
they
would
have
to
preserve
this
as
Forest
land
also
want
to
note
here
this
area
that
I'm
highlighting
with
my
cursor.
It's
a
surface
water
flow
adjustment
So
eventually,
when
storm
owner
management
would
be
required
for
Polk
County
with
construction.
That
would
be
the
easement
that
they
would
use
for
storm
water
management.
E
So
generally,
because
of
all
that,
I
staff
is
generally
supportive.
We
support
the
request.
We
recommend
approval
of
it
subject
to
any
administrative
comments.
We've
worked
a
little
bit
with
the
county
on
this,
making
sure
that
everything
that's
proposed
complies
with
their
requirements
related
to
utilities,
site
development,
land
subdivision
Etc.
So
with
that
I'll
take
any
questions.
E
D
E
H
Hi,
my
name
is
Jeff
Willie,
so
I'm
representing
my
mother-in-law,
Janet
Friel,
which
is
in
the
the
listing
there.
Basically,
this
land
is
a
family
land
of
my
wife's
family
that
they
actually
lived
in
I.
Think
four
of
the
different
houses
there
with
different
grandparents
and
and
things
like
that
that
have
since
passed
or
moved
away
since
the
the
last
surviving
aunt
passed
away.
H
We
kind
of
inherited
all
those
three
different
lots
that
exist
today
and
our
plan
would
be
to
connect
those
together
and
then
divide
them
again,
so
that
we
actually
have
access
to
get
back
to
a
house
lot
so
basically
trying
to
keep
all
that
Woodland
as
preserved
as
possible
and
then
just
simply
building
a
single
house.
There
I
don't
have
much
else
to
add,
but
I
can
answer
any
questions.
You
have.
H
A
B
You
yep
and
just
sign
in
is
there
anyone
in
the
audience
who
wishes
to
speak
in
favor
of
this
item?
B
Okay,
okay,
okay,
so
does
anyone
on
the
commission
have
anything
to
say
otherwise,
I'll
just
close
the
public
hearing?
D
B
B
E
Thank
you,
madam
chair
members
of
the
commission,
Nick
tarpy
planning
staff
all
right,
so
the
Crux
of
the
relief
tonight
is
generally
more
about
some
of
the
architectural
elements.
If
you
read
your
staff
report,
read
the
agenda
so
in
terms
of
building
siting
things
like
that,
there's
really
not
a
lot
to
talk
about
so
a
lot
of
the
or
a
couple
of
the
items,
I
really
and
I.
Think
as
staff
in
general.
Collectively
we
want
to
hear
from
the
commission.
E
We
want
to
have
a
dialogue
with
between
staff,
the
applicants
and
then
also
the
commission,
so
hopefully
everybody's
ready
to
engage
a
little
bit.
So
it
should
be
a
fun
discussion,
so
the
property
in
question.
This
is
2701
Ingersoll
right
now
it
is
the
Star
Gas
Station,
that's
been
the
use
for
a
long
time.
It's
pretty
recognizable,
I
think
on
the
corridor.
People
are
relatively
familiar
with
it.
It's
partial
is
a
little
over
a
half
acre
right
on
the
corridor
in
between
24th
and
28th
streets
in
the
heart
of
that
Ingersoll
commercial
corridor.
E
Here's
a
street
view
of
the
property.
What
it
looks
like
today.
People
have
been
down
there,
a
lot
of
streetscape
improvements
have
been
recently
completed
as
part
of
this
project.
They
would
be
maintaining
a
lot
of
that,
so
here's
just
a
general
view
of
the
site
won't
spend
too
much
time
on
it.
You
can
see
it's
a
three-story
building.
It's
pushed
up
pretty
close
to
the
lot
line.
We
have
one
vehicular
access
parking
in
the
back.
Maintaining
that
streetscape,
like
I
mentioned
cycle
track
class.
E
E
So
here's
some
of
the
floor
plans
you
can
see
it's
pretty
Square
building
just
generally.
First
floor
is
proposed
to
be
a
flex
multi-use
retail
space,
commercial
space.
Tenants
users
are
unknown
at
this
time,
they're
still
trying
to
figure
out
some
of
the
programming.
Second
and
third
floors
would
be
all
residential,
so
we're
talking
10
units
on
each
floor
for
20
units
total.
So
it
is
really
a
true
mixed-use
building
in
that
way,
so
we've
got
first
floor
here
second
floor
showing
some
of
the
residential
floor
plans.
E
E
Here's
some
of
the
building
elevations
pretty
quickly,
just
want
to
dig
into
some
of
the
key
items
to
point
out
the
major
facade
material
that
they're
using
is
it's
like
a
slate
cladding.
We
haven't
really
seen
that
a
ton
at
all
actually
in
city
of
Des
Moines.
The
applicants
will
give
us
a
lot
more
information
about
that,
but
that
is
what
is
proposed.
If
people
are
familiar,
there
is
a
project
actually
in
Valley
Junction
that
just
has
utilized
that
slate
cladding.
So
that
is
the
exterior
facade
material.
E
It's
it's
slate,
so
it's
real
Stone
and
it's
basically,
we
propose
to
kind
of
lap
on
the
side
of
the
building
and
then
also
storefront,
building
type.
So
generally
thinking
about
a
lot
of
ground
story,
transparency,
they're,
hitting
a
lot
of
that
keep
moving
through
it
here.
I
also
just
wanted
to
show
this
example
as
well,
just
because
as
staff
one
of
the
items
that's
on
the
pnz
docket
tonight
is
talking
about
some
of
those
horizontal
facade
divisions
talking
about
those
Shadow
lines
and
generally
we
as
staff.
E
That's
proposed
generally,
the
applicant
has
shown
perspectives
from
both
Linden
Street,
as
well
as
High
Street,
to
try
to
show
some
of
the
concealment
of
the
units
that
is
proposed
with
their
partial
parapet.
So
I'll
dig
into
that
a
little
bit
more
when
I
dig
into
the
staff
report,
so
digging
in
the
staff
report
here,
the
Crux
of
the
relief
are
the
main
relief.
E
That's
requested
I'm
not
going
to
spend
too
much
time
on
part
A,
but
the
first
design
alternative,
that's
requested
here-
is
related
to
primary
entryway
recessing
and
per
the
storefront
building
design
regulations.
The
primary
entryways
are
required
to
be
recessed
between
three
and
eight
feet.
The
applicant
they
haven't
proposed
that,
but
they
have
a
couple
of
different
alternative
building
and
site
design,
features
that
really
meet
the
intent
of
that
requirement.
E
So
the
mass
Timber
construction
that
the
applicant
is
going
to
spend
a
lot
of
time
on
talking
about
those
exposed
columns,
really
draw
a
lot
of
attention
to
the
entryway
and
then
also
the
building
is
slightly
set
back
from
the
right-of-way
there's
a
green
space
buffer,
that's
proposed
between
the
public
realm
and
the
building
that
really
meet
the
intent
of
that
recessing
for
those
entries.
So
as
staff.
We
support
that
request.
E
Second
item
I
want
to
dig
into
is
that
rooftop
mechanical
equipment
so
I
know?
We've
talked
a
little
bit
about
this
on
the
commission
with
prior
projects,
but
per
code,
especially
with
the
new
construction.
The
requirement
is
that
all
rooftop
units
are
required
to
be
screened
on
all
sides,
either
by
a
parapet
or
with
some
type
of
metal,
architectural
quality
screening,
and
what
that
means
is,
if
you're
going
to
be
doing
a
parapet.
E
The
expectation
is
that
the
parapet
would
be
at
least
as
tall
as
all
the
units
on
all
the
sides
to
completely
screen
them.
What
the
applicant
has
proposed
is
a
three-sided
parapet,
and
the
parapet
at
any
level
would
not
match
the
height
of
the
unit,
so
the
applicant
has
definitely
demonstrated
that
there
is
definitely
some
rooftop
unit
concealment
from
certain
points
in
the
right-of-way,
both
on
Linden
Street
and
on
Ingersoll,
from
from
different
angles
and
as
staff.
E
We
do
acknowledge
and
recognize
that,
but
we
also
recognize
too,
that
there's
a
lot
of
nuance
with
a
lot
of
that
rooftop
mechanical
screening
and
there's
a
lot
of
views,
especially
with
topography,
with
different
different
points
that
people
could
be
on
adjacent
properties
with
different
views
within
the
right-of-way
and
that
without
screening
the
units
with
a
complete
parapet
that
at
least
meets
or
exceeds
the
height
of
all
the
units.
It's
really
hard
to
try
to
ensure
that
all
the
units
are
going
to
be
completely
screened
and
not
visible
from
public
view.
E
So
that
is
the
basis
of
staff's
recommendation
for
that.
So
as
staff,
we
do
not
support
the
type
2
request
to
waive
partially
wave
at
least
the
mechanical
unit
screening
on
the
roof
and
then
the
last
design
alternative
request
that
I
wanted
to
hit
on
so
that
relates
to
those
horizontal
facade
divisions
or
those
Shadow
lines.
So
you
might
have
noticed
in
the
staff
report.
E
This
was
worded
a
little
bit
more
flexibly
than
a
lot
of
our
other
staff
recommendations
and
that's
because,
as
staff,
we
dialogue
a
lot
with
the
applicant
and
we
understand
that
the
applicant
in
a
lot
of
ways
felt
that
they
were
meeting
the
intent
of
the
requirement.
So
when
we
think
about
a
shadow
line
and
I'll
just
read
it
kind
of
verbatim
here
try
to
paraphrase
basically
what
what
the
code
calls
for
just
to
get
everybody
thinking
on
the
same
plane.
E
But
basically,
what
a
shadow
line
is
from
the
perspective
of
staff
is
that
it's
an
architectural
or
a
building
articulation
piece
or
a
feature
that
either
protrudes
or
is
recessed
from
the
facade
at
least
two
inches,
and
it
creates
a
shadow.
So
it
is
really
supposed
to
delineate
floors
or
building
features
from
each
other
and
really
what
and
I'll
go
back
to
the
elevation
here.
E
The
applicant
has
argued
and
has
proposed
that
the
storefront
system,
with
with
its
recessed
system,
recess
two
feet
from
the
edge
of
the
facade,
as
well
as
the
canopy
action
has,
in
effect,
created
a
shadow
line
on
the
side
as
staff.
We
were
looking
at
that
we
were
a
little
bit
concerned
with
that
because
we
didn't
feel
like
it
created
a
strong
enough
Shadow
line,
a
strong
enough
division
between
that
primary
ground
story
and
those
upper
stories
that
have
different
uses,
programmatically
and
so
at
staff.
E
We
didn't
really
feel
that
it
was
meeting
the
intent
of
the
requirement.
We'd
also
wanted
to
get
some
input
from
the
commission
to
talk
about
that
in
a
little
bit
more
detail
and
then
also
I.
Just
we
wanted
to
show
this
example
again
different
context,
but
we
do
feel
that
with
this
strong
ribbon
here
with
the
storefront
system,
that's
continued
continuously
across
the
facade
that
we
felt
that
something
like
this
would
more
meet
the
intent
of
a
shadow
line
or
a
horizontal
facade
division.
That's
called
out
for
in
our
design
code.
E
So
I
know
I
got
a
little
rambly
there.
Does
anybody
have
any
questions
on
that
piece
or
just
this
in
general,.
F
E
Guess
it's
aesthetic,
as
well
as
maybe
more
functional
and
programmatic,
so
really
it's
to
create
like
a
strong
ground
story
and
so
to
really
to
try
to
draw
engagement
on
the
street
and
draw
visual
interest
with
that
ground
story
that
storefront
they're
going
to
have
those
active,
more
commercial,
a
little
bit
heavier
heavier
uses
and
then
delineate
that,
with
the
facade,
that's
kind
of
long
and
relatively
flat,
it's
so
it's
try
to
give
it
a
little
bit
more
depth
as
you
look
up
and
as
you're
a
pedestrian
or
a
motorist
experience
it's
experiencing
it
from
public
way
and.
D
Just
to
add
on
to
that
there's
a
variety
of
techniques
in
the
code
that
try
to
address
articulation
within
a
facade
just
to
try
to
break
up
buildings,
break
up
Mass
just
provide
visual
interest,
and
so
this
is
just
one
of
the
techniques
that's
in
there
and
we
put
it
on
the
agenda.
So
we
can
just
get
your
guys's
input
is
how
you
feel
about
the
project.
Are
we
achieving
that
here?
D
We
felt
it
was
kind
of
a
an
in-between.
You
know
the
the
amount
of
the
Upper
Floor,
siding
that
comes
down
in
between
the
grass
store
or
excuse
me,
the
glass
storefronts
really
provide
or
pulls
down
kind
of
the
mass
of
the
upper
floors
so
with
that
we
wanted
to,
but
we
also
recognized
too
that
sometimes
it's
good
to
have
somebody
else's
perspective.
So
we
thought
you
know
be
good
to
bring
this
before
you.
This
is
typically
something
that
we
handle
at
the
staff
level.
D
So
you
don't
you.
You
haven't
really
seen
this
before
you
before,
but
I
think
it's
a
valuable
exercise
for
the
commission
to
be
a
part
of
the
dialogue
on
something
that
seems
like.
Maybe
more
more
dialogue
is
needed,
so
that
was
our
thought
process
and
that's
a
little
bit
of
what
the
the
standard
is
trying
to
achieve.
J
On
the
Valley
Junction,
one
that
you
pointed
out,
you
described
it
as
a
ribbon.
Is
that
that's
neither
recessed
or
protruding,
though
that's
the
same.
E
J
D
We're
supportive
of
a
technique,
that's
it
doesn't
have
to
be
recessed
from
our
perspective
we've.
We
allow
flexibility
and
have
done
so
frequently,
but
this
was
just
a
particular
case
where
we
felt
like
you
know:
how
strong
is
that
visual
separation,
so
we're
not
looking
to
get
lost
in
the
Weeds
on?
Is
it
you
know
how
many
inches
you
know?
Is
it
actually
physically
released
it's
more
about
kind
of
the
visual?
Does
it
create
that
break
right?
D
Yeah
I
mean
this
is
something
we're
seeking
your
input
on.
I
mean
this
is
an
administrator,
the
fact
that
we're
bringing
it
before
you
it.
We
didn't
formally
deny
this
we're
gonna.
Take
your
a
your
your
input
into
consideration
in
our
review
of
it.
I
think
you
know
if
the
applicant
wanted
to
formally
request
that,
but
we
we
thought
this
was
worthy
of
kind
of
having
a
discussion
with
you
and
and
moving.
You
know
seeing
how
we
can
move
forward.
E
There's
three
hundred
seventy
thousand
dollars
arpa
funds
and
then
also
the
applicant-
has
indicated
that
they're
going
to
be
requesting
tax
abatement.
I,
don't
know
the
exact
schedule
yet,
but
that's
a
buy
right.
They
have
to
demonstrate
certain
sustainability
elements,
but
they
have
indicated
that
they
will
go
for
that.
M
I
have
I
have
I,
have
a
question
about
slate.
Tell
me
it
describes
slate
more
in
turn.
More
definitely
to
me
I,
you
know
one
thinks
of
a
slate
roof
with
overlapping
and
one
thinks
of
a
gray
or
a
light
black
or
something
like
that
in
terms
of
color
I.
Don't
quite
picture
that
on
a
flat
surface,
elevation
talk
to
me
about
that.
Please
yeah.
E
So
it
you
kind
of
did
hit
on
that.
A
little
bit
with
the
facade
material.
That's
proposed
is
a
slate
roofing
material,
so
it
is
like
a
shingle.
Basically
that
is
proposed,
so
they
have
there's
the
mass
Timber
construction
that
the
applicant
will
probably
talk
in
more
detail
about,
but
they're
proposing
Mass
Timber
panels,
and
then
this
slate
cladding
would
basically
lap
on
that.
So
it'd
be
about
three
quarters
of
an
inch
thick
roughly
and
it's
real
slate.
It's
got
a
75
to
100
year.
Warranty
and
it's
legitimate
stone
is,
is
what
is
proposed.
Yeah.
D
F
M
F
E
Intent
of
that,
the
intent
of
that
is
again
to
provide
a
little
bit
of
interest
to
try
to
break
up
the
facade
a
little
bit
and
then
also
from
a
functionality
standpoint
to
try
to
basically
reduce
pedestrian
conflicts.
So
people
kind
of
go
in
and
out
of
storefronts
with
the
right
of
way
with
the
fact
that
this
building
is
set
back
a
couple
of
feet
from
the
actual
property
line
and
I'll
go
back
to
the
site
plan
here.
So
they're.
D
Often
a
storefront
building
will
be
set
at
the
property
line.
Right
again,
you
know
right
up
against
the
sidewalk,
so
as
people
walk
down
the
side,
think
of
it
as
a
tradition,
you
know
like
a
storefront
how
the
door
kind
of
recesses
in
so
you
can
step
in
out
of
the
traffic
flow
of
The
Pedestrian.
That's
the
what.
E
B
All
right,
thank
you,
Nick
and
is
the
applicant
present.
You
have
10
minutes,
please
state
your
name
address
and
then
you
can
sign
them
when
you're
done.
N
N
We
have
our
architectural
team,
id8
Architects
as
well
as
our
civil
engineer,
ERG
and
they'll,
be
speaking
about
the
specifics
of
our
request
here
in
a
minute,
but
we
want
to
just
give
you
a
first
kind
of
a
broad
overview
of
of
the
project.
The
star
loss
building
will
transform
the
blighted
gas
station
located
at
2701
Ingersoll
Avenue
into
Iowa's
first
zero
carbon
building
as
certified
by
the
international
living
future
Institute.
I
So
to
be
certified
as
carbon
neutral
100
of
the
building's
embodied
carbon
or
carbon
footprint
during
construction,
as
well
as
100
of
the
building's
operational
carbon
or
carbon
footprint
during
occupancy,
will
be
reduced
and
offset
and
the
goal
this
goal
will
be
accomplished
with
the
use
of
Highly,
efficient,
Energy
Systems
and
also
with
the
use
of
innovative
Mass
timber.
That's
been
mentioned
before,
in
addition
to
providing
carbon
sequestration
benefits,
this
Mass
Timber
offers
a
beautiful,
aesthetic
and
additional
environmental
benefits,
including
durability
and
sustainability.
I
Our
team
has
been
working
on
this
project
for
the
last
18
months
and
we're
now
nearing
the
Finish
Line.
Pending
the
results
of
tonight's
meeting.
We
are
excited
to
potentially
break
ground
in
as
little
as
three
weeks.
Scott
and
I
live
down.
The
street,
oh
I
forgot
to
mention
Molly
and
5709
Walnut
Hill
Avenue.
We
live
down
the
street
from
the
project
and
we
look
forward
to
playing
a
Hands-On
role
in
both
the
development
of
the
site,
as
well
as
the
management
of
the
property
once
the
building
is
filled.
I
L
Hello,
I'm
Russ
bitterman,
with
id8
Architects.
Our
address
is
1440.
Locust
Street
Des
Moines
I
mainly
wanted
to
address
a
couple
of
things
the
so
the
the
question
was
about
the
Slate
siding.
It
is
a
slate
shingle.
The
exposed
face
of
those
is
eight
inches
high
12
inches
wide.
The
Slate
are
actually
16
inches
tall,
so
there's
a
full
half
of
the
slate
in
each
row.
That's
covered
up.
L
L
So
then
some
of
the
other
questions
that
particularly
relate
to
the
questions
that
we're
here
to
talk
about
I,
don't
I,
don't
feel
the
need
to
talk
about
the
recessed
entries,
since
the
staff
is
on
board
with
that.
If
you
have
questions,
I'd
be
happy
to
answer
those
on
an
architectural
level.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
it's
understood
that
the
building
is
set
back
five
feet
from
the
property
line,
so
there
is
a
lot
of
room
out
in
front
that
meets
the
staffs
or
the
the
zoning
intent.
L
I
also
want
to
be
clear,
then,
on
the
rooftop
units
they
aren't
rooftop
units,
we're
not
talking
about
not
screening
rooftop
units
in
the
traditional
thought
process
of
big
big
units.
These
are
condensing
units
for
each
apartment,
and
so
you
know
there's
something
that
sits
in
everybody's
backyard:
we're
putting
them
up
on
the
roof,
because
the
site
is
so
tight.
L
I
think
that
actually
helps
screen
them
better
than
if
we
had
them
on
the
ground,
but
they're
they're,
probably
what
three
feet
tall:
a
foot
and
a
half
or
two
foot
wide
something
else
deep,
maybe
two
and
a
half
feet
deep.
Our
parapet
from
the
at
the
center
of
the
of
the
building
is
about
two
feet
high,
so
the
units
will
be
sitting
about
two
feet
down.
That
means
approximately
one
foot
will
be
up
higher
than
the
parapet.
That's
why
we
think
we're
we're
meeting
this.
L
L
We
really
do
think
that
we're
meeting
the
intent
of
of
showing
the
front
and
the
back
or
the
front
lower
level
and
the
and
the
upper
floors.
We
have
more
glass.
On
the
first
floor
for
the
retail
it's
more
open,
we've
got
the
wood,
that's
going
to
be
visible
from
the
inside,
for
each
of
the
retail
spaces
and
all
of
those,
and
then
the
canopies
also
are
going
to
help
with
that
separation.
All
of
those
things
delineate
the
lower
level
from
the
upper
residential
level
levels.
In
our
opinion,
that's
all
I
have
to
say.
L
They're
close
because
of
the
way
the
Upper
Floor
are
residential
type
windows
with
nailing
flanges
on
the
upper
floors,
because
we
needed
some
of
that
depth.
We're
bounding
that
with
a
material
so
that
there's
a
depth
to
that
on
the
lower
level.
Since
we've
got
the
canopy,
the
storefront
system
sits
out,
it's
probably
an
inch
back
from
the
face
of
the
building
of
this
the
Slate.
L
Let
me
remember
this:
the
Slate
is
probably
each
layer
is
3
8
to
a
half
of
an
inch,
and
so,
when
you
get
three
layers
at
each
level,
that's
going
to
be
out
inch
inch
and
a
half
yeah.
L
L
L
K
Russ
hi,
could
you
talk
a
little
bit
about
the
slate
and
why
why
why
you
chose
to
use
it
on
the
project
and
I
guess
kind
of
the
benefits
of
it?
You
know
well.
L
The
long-term
durability
of
it,
it's
a
natural
material.
The
biggest
carbon
footprint
that
comes
out
of
it
is
the
harvesting
and
transportation
I.
Think
Molly
can
probably
speak
to
that
better
because
she's
been
working
on
that,
but
we
we
tried
to
find
some
other
products,
but
most
of
the
types
of
products
that
have
low
carbon
footprint
in
the
manufacturer
come
from
Europe,
and
so
then
we
just
lose
all
of
our
carbon
efficiencies
with
Transportation.
L
L
They
think
it's
going
to
perform
well
for
them,
it's
a
it
looks
natural
I
mean
it's.
It's
got
a
rough
face
to
it
like
slate
does
so.
K
As
I
look
at
the
the
drawings
I'm
struck
by
the
Simplicity
and
the
sort
of
lack
of
articulation
in
the
plane,
you
know
in
in
the
plane
that's
facing
us,
but
it
occurs
to
me
that
that's
probably
due
to
the
choice
of
that
material,
probably
if
you're,
if
you're,
if
you're
all
in
on
that
slate
you're,
probably
not
going
to
want
to
that's
part,
break
it
too
often
you'll
introduce
the
opportunity
for
water
infiltration
and
you'll
sort
of
lose
the
advantage
of
the
material.
L
And
again
we
looked
at
a
different
trying
to
use
a
different
material
on
the
lower
part.
There
are
some
pressed
Stone
materials
that
are
panelized,
but
again
those
come
from
Europe,
and
so
you
know,
the
goal
of
the
project
is
to
do
something
that
can
achieve
that
Net
Zero
carbon,
and
so
that's
that's
been
a
big
decision
maker
for
us,
so
yeah
it
finding
something
else
that
would
withstand
some
of
the
lower
level.
It's
going
to
take
a
little
bit
more
abuse
because
people
are
going
to
be
able
to
touch
it.
L
K
L
M
Excuse
me
I,
think
I'm
better
now,
I
have
a
question
about
the
canopies:
are
they
fixed
and
are
they
and
then
what
is
the
material
that
they're.
M
I'm
wondering
if
we
can,
the
the
city
presented
another
example
of
a
similar
situation.
Could
we
call
that
up
on
the
screen?
Please
yeah.
Thank
you
I'm
here.
In
this
instance,
the
the
design
does
make
a
really
quite
visual
distinction
between
the
first
floor
and
the
upper
floors,
both
in
terms
of
of
space
in
terms
of
depth
and
and
in
terms
of
color
and
when
I
look
at
the
building
as
proposed
here.
M
The
notion
of
the
horizontal
look
of
that
stretch
along
Ingersoll
is
of
a
one-story
situation,
and
this
is
a
much
higher
building
at
what
I'm
wondering
is
to
play
into
the
environment.
That
actually
has
this.
This
horizontal
look
to
it.
What
else
could
be
done
on
the
first
floor
to
break
up
the
image
more
of
a
blocky
substance
or
a
space
or
a
you
know,
a
mass
that
would
tie
in
more
with
the
horizontal
look
of
the
rest
of
the
block.
L
Well,
there's
there's
a
couple
things
on
this
building
that
are
different
than
what
we've
got
the
the
windows
that
are
shown
there
are
curtain
wall
they're
tall
enough.
That
I
think
that's
correct,
am
I
right
yeah.
So
though
we
have
our
Windows
10
foot
high,
so
they're
pretty
tall,
but
that's
as
tall
as
you
can
go
with
just
regular
storefront.
L
So
that
was
the
first
thing.
The
other
thing
is
that
the
Florida
floor
on
this
I
think
was
13
feet.
Our
building
is
15
feet
floor
to
floor.
We
want
to
provide
more
space
on
the
interior
for
the
retail,
so
our
building
is
actually
taller
than
this
and
then
the
third
thing
is
this:
building
is
on
a
narrow,
Frontage,
and
so
it
just
it
looks
taller
and
then
the
bottom
floor
is
All
Glass
and
then
they've
got
a
corner
entry
on
that
one
and
exposed
the
wood,
so
it
it
does.
L
M
Are
there
are
the
commercial
Windows
inset
or
are
they
flush
with
the
rest
of
the
elevation
they're.
L
G
L
We
could
extend
it
eight
inches
up
without
having
structural
issues
and
we
we
did
look
at
that
and
we've
talked
about
it,
so
we
could
make
the
parapet
eight
inches
taller
and
otherwise.
Otherwise,
we'd
have
to
have
additional
structure
up
there
to
support
the
parapet,
extending
up.
G
G
L
D
G
So
you're
saying
I,
guess:
I
guess
what
I'm
asking
is?
Why
not?
Why
not
meet
these
generally
okay
code
requirements,
like
the
you
know,
putting
oh
wait
a
horizontal
within
the
distance
of.
N
L
Well,
that's
why
we
set
it
back
though
we
set
it
back
so
that
we
wouldn't
have
to
do
that.
I
mean
everything
that
we're
talking
about
so
raising.
Raising
the
canopy
up
means
that
we
either
have
to
have
a
beam
across
there
and
separate
the
glass
so
that
it's
supported
since
it's
curtain,
wall
or
I
mean
a
storefront
or
we'd
have
to
do
curtain.
Wall,
glass,
and
so
we
thought
providing
those
parapets
across
are
the
canopies
across
there
gave
that
horizontal
line.
F
We
got
slight
shift
since
I
apologize,
I,
don't
know
much
about
horizontal
lines,
but
I'm
curious
about.
How
do
you
intend
to
offset
the
operational
carbon
I
mean?
Is
this
with?
Are
you
buying
wrecks
or
what
is
the
actual
operational
offset,
or
is
there
enough
of
a
sink
in
it?
Okay,.
I
Great
question,
thanks
for
bringing
that
up,
so
the
intent
will
be
so.
The
regulation
requires
us
to
drop
the
overall
energy
consumption
of
the
building
by
20
versus
a
standard
building
at
code.
First
of
all,
and
then
we
have
to
go
ahead
and
offset
the
remaining
energy
usage,
operational
energy
usage,
and
to
your
point
we
will
be
doing
a
combination
of
small
solar
on
the
rooftop.
But
we
also
are
investing
in
off-site
solar
projects
and
would
are
partnering
with
those
groups
to
retire.
I
I
Foreign,
it's
one
thing
that
we're
considering
we
do.
We
would
like
to
incorporate
some
sort
of
the
offset
on
site
versus
just
doing
it
all
off-site,
but
we
kind
of
haven't
finalized
that
piece
yet.
K
M
K
K
Then
we
can
just
fight
about
the
horizontal
line.
B
O
O
Unfortunately,
I
cannot
speak
for
that
organization
at
this
time,
because
we
did
not
take
a
formal
vote,
which
is
what
we
do
in
our
organization.
So
I
will
say
on
behalf
of
the
organization.
We
were
extremely
happy
to
have
the
cutlers
come
and
present
to
us
and
take
a
number
of
our
ideas
into
account.
So
we
we
really
appreciate
that
interaction
and
we
believe
that
they
are
and
will
continue
to
be,
good
neighbors
to
us,
both
residential
and
Commercial,
for
myself.
O
Personally
I
am
extremely
excited
to
be
near
or
be
in
any
way
involved
with
what
is
possibly
the
first
Net
Zero
carbon
Net
Zero
building
in
the
State
as
a
conservationist
and
a
sustainability
Advocate.
That
is
something
that
I'm
extremely
excited
for,
as
it
comes
to
the
the
waivers
being
sought.
My
belief
is
that
items
A
and
C
should
be
waived.
O
I
I
think
a
is
a
little
bit
of
a
moot
point.
Would
you
go
to
slide
58
or
page
58.
E
O
H
H
O
Oh
it's
not
in
here,
then
there
was
a
perspective
in
one
of
the
packets
and
I
apologize
that
it's
not
well
I.
Can't
apologize,
I
didn't
put
this
together.
That
shows
a
better
view
of
what
these
canopies
look
like
from
an
angle
of
the
way
they
come
out
when
you're
walking
down
the
sidewalk.
There
is
definitely
an
understanding
that
those
that
provides
a
pretty
strong
cross,
so
I
personally
believe
it
would
be
a
very
nice
way
to
show
that
this
is
commercial
on
the
bottom.
O
It's
also
good
to
understand
that
the
major
building
just
to
the
east
of
this
is
extremely
one-dimensional,
so
having
it
set
back
even
from
that
building
space
and
we'll
do
go
a
long
way
to
to
show
that
this
is
a
different
building
and
that
it
is,
you
know,
a
commercial
use,
everything
there
is
I,
can't
100,
say:
there's
no
entrances
to
residential
use
on
this
block,
but
I'm
pretty
darn
sure
that's
the
case.
All
of
the
residential
entrances
in
this
area
are
on
the
back
as
it
comes
to
Item.
O
B
I
would
agree
with
that
recommendation
that
some
sort
of
screening,
I,
don't
necessarily
believe
it
has
to
be
a
parapet,
would
be
appreciated.
The
way
Ingersoll
sits.
It
runs
basically
East
West
and
it
sits
in
a
valley.
So
those
residents
who
are
on
Lyndon
and
high
that
that
are
the
streets
that
go
north.
They
sit
up
quite
a
bit,
and
these
are
you
know,
1910s
20s
homes
that
are
two
three
stories
high.
So
as
you're
looking
out
your
front
window
or
as
you're
looking
out
your
bedroom
window
on
High
Street.
O
Normally
at
this
point
they
can
see
actually
right
over
to
Grand,
which
then
also
sets
up
higher
and
so
I
believe
that,
as
a
courtesy
to
those
residents,
it
would
be
excellent
to
provide
some
screening
to
this
mechanical.
Just
a
night
100
in
favor
of
Subler
panels.
I
would
rather
look
at
a
solar
panel
than
a
condenser
unit,
again
generally
in
favor
and
appreciate
your
time.
Thank
you.
B
B
D
L
Russ
betterman
again
with
id8
Architects,
I,
guess
in
looking
at
the
elevation
and
talking
about
that
band,
we'd
like
to
propose
that
we
could
add
canopies
on
the
corners
that
would
extend
and
go
around
the
corner
to
complete
that
all
the
way
across
the
front
facade.
If
that
would
help
that
would
be
over
the
window
area.
But
it's
just
a
suggestion.
We
want
to
make
sure
that
we
know
what
we're
leaving
here
with
and
as
they
said
they
want
to.
They
want
to
start
working
on
the
site
as
soon
as
possible.
B
Oh
you're,
good
I
will
close
the
public
hearing.
B
I
have
a
thought:
I
am
generally
supportive
of
approval
of
a
and
some
type
of
C,
with
his
Amendment
and
I.
Think
almost
all
the
emails
we
just
saw
were
in
favor
of
that
as
well,
and
the
neighbor
who
showed
up
tonight
it
seems
like
almost
no
one
is
in
of
the
neighbors,
are
supportive
of
denial
of
waiving
requirement
B
and
since
that
affects
them.
A
lot
I'm
in
favor
in
favor
of
what
the
city
has
proposed.
There.
M
I
I
didn't
quite
understand
what
you
said
quite
frankly,
if
you
could
repeat
what
you
what
you
said
so.
B
M
No
I'm,
in
agreement
with
what
you
said
in
terms
of
the
design
alteration
to
strengthen
the
horizontal
line.
I
also
think
that,
as
one
of
the
neighbors
mentioned
that
it's
important
to
have
the
these
units
on
the
top
screen
because
of
the
particular
topography
where
this
sits
and
neighbors
up
farther
to
the
north,
you
know
it's
an
aesthetic
feature,
but
particularly
because
I
mean
Ingersoll.
Avenue
has
just
blossomed
as
a
showpiece
corridor
and
I
think
this
building
is
going
to
add
to
it.
G
Where
would
code
require
the
hor,
so
the
horizontal
element
is
not
necessarily
describing
a
canopy
in
the
code.
It's
talking
about
an
architectural
articulation,
a
shadow
line,
and
it
requires
it
to
be
at
a
at
a
height
within
relation
to
the
second
floor,
to
try
to
establish
That
Base.
This
building
does
look
a
little
Squat
and
storefront
proportionally
sure,
I.
Think
of
benefit
from
responding
to
that
code.
Section
so
I
guess
my
proposed
Edition
would
be
that.
We
also
say
that
that
should
be
raised
up
to
with
that
Dimension
that
it
meets.
F
Are
we
sure
that
actually
putting
you
know
perforations
into
the
Slate?
To
that
point,
isn't
going
to
compromise
the
act?
It
isn't
going
to
compromise
the
envelope.
I
mean
I,
guess
I'm,
not
because
I
got
two
questions
on
this
and
apologies,
because
if
what
we're
saying
is
we're
looking
for
something
that
actually
visually
delineates
I
mean
what
do
we
mean
by
that
I
mean
if
I'm
looking
at
West
Des
Moines
I've
got
basically
a
string
of
metal.
That's
sitting
up
there
delineates
if
I
put
a
black
line.
G
Saying
or
we're
saying
that
this
canopy
can
suffice
for
it,
which
is
I,
don't
know
how
far
it
sticks
off
the
building
but
looks
like
a
foot
18
inches.
Something
like
that.
But.
F
G
F
G
Mean
they'll
beat
they'll
the
they'll
have
to
detail
the
building
they're,
not
gonna,
you
know
physically,
attach
it
through.
This
is
a
it's
actually
like
a
framed
out
piece
with
some
metal
cladding
over
it.
Water
is
going
to
drip
off,
but
it's
all
part
of
the
envelope
I
mean
I.
Think
what
would
look
best
is
if
the
glass
extends
and
just
goes
up
to
12
foot
of
storefront,
which
I
believe
we've
done
without
going
to
curtain
wall.
But
that's
not
really
the
role
of
the
commission
here
to
talk
about.
F
G
Because
we're
essentially
like
not
meeting
the
requirement
of
code
just
for
a
cost
reason
like
they
don't
want
to
move
up
the
windows,
because
those
windows
will
cost
more
I.
Think
I
think
we
should
address
the
code
because
I
think
it'll
benefit
will
result
in
a
stronger
building
or
a
stronger
public
Realm.
F
I
guess
that's.
My
question
was
the
purpose
of
the
code
was
the
purpose
of
code?
Is
the
purpose
of
the
code
to
make
sure
that
we
know
that
the
bottom
floor
is
different
from
the
top
floors
seems
like
we've
done
that
if
we're
saying
now
is
what
is
it
that
requires
that
that
we're
needing
to
actually
how
clear
does
a
line
have
to
be
that
I'm,
just
I.
G
Guess,
I'm,
just
not
on
board
with
the
arguments
that
have
been
made
about
why
relief
should
be
granted
like
we're
going
to
give
up
recessed
doorways,
because
that
gives
up
risk
retail
square
footage.
I
mean
that
would
be
true
of
absolutely
every
building
in
this
in
the
in
the
city
and
then
the
same
thing
is
true
about
this.
If
we're
saying
that
that
this
is
our
horizontal
datum
for
the
base
of
the
building
and
we're
not
going
to
require
it
to
go
up
because
the
glass
is
more
expensive,
you
know
it's
just
a
cost
thing.
F
Enough,
if
you're
trying
to
get
a
rise
on
that
I
agree
fully
screen
the
pair
of
it.
Fine
with
that
and
I'm
not
opposed
to
that
at
all,
because
again,
I
think
the
look
angles
as
they
have
them
here
are
deceptive
relative
to
what
the
what
the
surrounding
is,
but
on
this
one
we're
saying
we're
going
to
make
major
alterations
of
sniffing
cost
impacts
or
compromise
the
actual
envelope
to
actually
raise
it.
F
J
Just
wanna,
if
I
can
remember
what
I
was
gonna,
say,
I
think
I
asked
Jason
earlier
about
how
much
they're
trying
to
get
to
the
letter
to
the
of
the
code.
Precisely
because
of
this,
how
closely
do
they
need
to
bring
it
to
the
code
and
he
responded
that
it
was
more
of
the
intent
of
it.
So
I'm
not
sure
if
you
know
how
far
up
it
is.
J
Extending
the
canopies
to
the
corners
to
me
is
would
definitely
make
me
more
likely
to
accept
that
making
the
windows
higher
I
think
there
could
also
be
I,
don't
know
for
sure,
but
an
energetic
component
to
that,
because
Glass
is
very
inefficient
and
since
they're
trying
to
be
carbon
neutral.
D
Right,
what
I,
what
I'm
trying
to
convey
is
that,
on
the
staff
level,
we're
always
when
we
review
projects
we're
always
thinking
about
what
is
the
intent
that
we're
trying
to
achieve
we're,
always
open
to
finding
other
ways
to
achieve
and
attend.
I
think
the
two
things
that
have
kind
of
come
out
of
this
discussion
really
is:
there's
the
just
the
notion
of
creating
that
kind
of
visual
separation
between
the
first
floor
and
the
Upper
Floor
is
to
break
the
building
break
the
facade
up.
D
There's
also
that
kind
of
putting
that
shadow
line
up
higher
it
emphasizes
emphasizing
the
ground
to
floor
or
height
of,
or
excuse
me
that
is
making
sense,
but
ground
to
ceiling
height
of
the
first
floor
kind
of
creating
a
more
traditional
storefront
that
has
a
dominant
presence
to
it.
As
far
as
you
know,
glass
and
interaction
with
the
street
that
that's
also
a
part
of
why
that's
I
think
tied
to
the
trying
to
get
within
three
feet
of
the
the
ceiling.
D
But
at
the
end
of
the
day
you
know
we're
it
is
we're
always
open
to
looking
at
multiple
ways
to
do
it.
We're
looking
for
your
input,
I
I,
really
appreciate
all
the
the
conversation,
because
we
have
these
kinds
of
conversations
in-house
too
so
I'm
glad
it's
not
just
you
know
us
that,
are
you
know
nerdy,
but.
K
This
is
this,
is
this
is
a
tricky
building
to
think
about
in
some
ways,
because
they've
sort
of
set
up
an
argument.
They
set
up
a
bargain
right,
so
the
Net
Zero
piece
of
it
is
laudable,
and
it's
something
that
I
wish
that
we
could
do
with
all
buildings,
and
it
feels
like
it's
a
good
argument
for
concessions
and
some
of
the
concessions
that
they're
asking
for
are
design
problems
that
I've
struggled
with
and
felt
frustrated
by
and
kind
of
wondered
at
sort
of
their
arbitrariness.
K
But
it's
difficult
I
agree
with
Dan
that
our
the
the
reason
for
not
raising
the
parapet
or
raising
the
glass
is
really
a
financial
argument
that
every
single
project
that
comes
in
here
wanting
to
not
screen
a
rooftop
unit
can
make,
and
so
I
think
we
need
to
be
cognizant
of
that
and
look
for
a
solution
rather
than
just
granting
relief
on
that
and
I.
K
And
the
other
thing
I'll
say
is
that
I
think
I
I
bet
that
the
Slate
material
is
is
an
expensive
material
and
I
and
I
think
that
the
Valley
Junction
project
looks
nice
because
of
that
material.
But
I
also
think
that
the
project
lacks
articulation
and
I.
Don't
and
I
think
that
that
is
Meaningful
in
an
urbanist
point
of
view.
I
think
that
it'll
matter
to
people
walking
by
and
driving
by
and
looking
at
it
from
around
the
neighborhood
I
think
it.
K
The
lack
of
articulation
of
the
building
makes
it
feel
bigger
and
more
out
of
scale
than
it
would
if
it
were
more
thoughtfully
articulated,
and
so
it
it
feels
like
we're
just
saying.
Well,
if
you
can
just
sort
of
do
a
little
bit
more
canopy,
we'll
call
it
good
and
I.
Don't
think
that
that's
quite
right,
but
we're
trying
to
work
within
the
constraints
of
the
zoning
ordinance,
which
is
sort
of
a
crude
and
blunt
instrument
too.
So
that's
where
I'm
at
on
it
I,
don't
none
of
that
was
real
concrete.
P
I
think
you
said
something
very
interesting
where,
as
a
city,
we
would
like
to
see
carbon
neutral
buildings
and
I
I.
Think
personally,
I'm
willing
to
make
concessions
with
A
and
C
I
think
B
is
a
I
think
B
is.
We
should
require
I,
think
the
resident
took
it
perfectly
out
of
my
mouth
before
I
was
able
to
speak
about
it,
but
there's
that
elevation
of
homeowners
on
that
North
Side
can
see
from
that
end.
P
F
So
it's
not
anything
that
we're
I'm,
saying
I'm
fundamentally
opposed
to
it,
but
I
don't
think
we
can
actually
require
the
purchase
of
Rex
going
forward
over
a
period
of
time
unless
I'm
confused,
because
we
have
other
restrictions
than
other
ones.
So,
I
don't
think
that
saying
yep
we
got
an
intent
to
actually
have
a
wreck
requirement.
Now
shouldn't
excuse
a
change
in
what
we're
doing
now.
As
a
result
of
these
materials,
which
I
think
I
also
agree,
are
very
expensive
materials.
M
I
would
move
that
we
allow
the
waiver
of
a
that.
We
require
the
screening,
the
mechanical
equipment
on
all
sides
and
then,
in
terms
of
C.
We
accept
the
design
solution
that
has
been
proposed
by
the
applicant
to
extend
canopies
over
on
the
corners
of
the
of
the
front
facade,
as
discussed
here
in
the
meeting.
B
B
And
we'll
move
on
to
the
last
item
of
the
night
and
it's
a
request
from
Colbert
properties
represented
by
Rob
Beeman
for
review
and
approval
public
hearing
site
plan,
csla
lighting
for
property
at
2679,
Mari
Street
and
for
a
type
2
design.
Alternatives
a
through
e
and
Nick
tarpy
will
continue
to
present.
E
Madam
chair
members
of
the
commission,
Nick
tarpey
planning
staff,
so
this
is
a
little
bit
different
context
than
what
we
were
just
talking
about,
so
we're
going
to
have
to
rewire
a
little
bit.
So
this
site
is
over
on
Mari
east
side
of
the
city.
This
is
kind
of
an
unusual
one.
So
a
lot
of
the
relief
that's
going
to
be
brought
in
front
of
the
commission
tonight
is
really
related
to
it's.
E
A
really
specific
provision
in
city
code,
chapter
135,
article
10
deals
with
pre-existing
situations,
so
there's
an
existing
building
here,
they're
proposing
a
building
Edition
based
on
the
square
footage
and
the
value
of
the
building
that's
proposed.
The
entire
building
basically
has
to
come
into
compliance
with
chapter
135,
the
planning
and
design
ordinance.
So
that's
why
a
lot
of
some
of
the
relief
that's
being
saw
tonight
is
related
to
that,
and
so
we're
going
to
talk
about
that.
I'll.
Try
to
dive
into
that
and
try
to
explain
that
a
little
bit
more.
E
So
if
anybody's
confused
about
that
feel
free
to
stop
me,
I
can
explain
it
in
a
little
bit
more
detail
and
also
just
looking
at
these
design
Alternatives
here,
A
and
C.
They
they
really
relate
to
building
siting
they
all
kind
of
run
together
and
then
d
and
e
stand
a
little
bit
on
their
own
and
then
we're
going
to
be
talking
about
rooftop
units
again
too.
E
So
here's
the
context
of
the
site
again:
the
corner
of
Southeast
26th
and
Amari
Street
MLK
Boulevard.
The
extension
is
about
800
feet
to
the
north.
Here
WRA
facility
is
about
a
half
mile
to
a
mile.
South
Vandalia
road
is
about
another
half
mile
to
a
mile
to
the
east.
E
So
if
you
can
kind
of
picture
that
a
little
bit
in
your
head
really
interesting
mix
of
uses
and
contexts
in
this
area,
there's
a
lot
of
single-family
homes,
a
lot
of
undeveloped,
Parcels,
some
institutional
type
uses
so
really
kind
of
a
hodgepodge,
I
guess
in
terms
of
a
neighborhood
context.
Here,
here's
some
photos:
they're,
not
super
current
they're
from
last
year,
Google
Street
View,
just
to
show
you
this
is
the
existing
building
and
I'll
show
a
site
plan
too
that'll
show
the
building
Edition,
so
you'll
see
how
those
two
things
enter
play.
E
This
is
on
Mari
Street,
looking
towards
the
east.
This
is
Southeast
26th
and
then
the
other
cross
street
that
hems
the
site
in
Southeast
27th
Court,
is
where
my
cursor
is,
and
then
this
is
on
Southeast
26th.
This
is
looking
towards
the
north
existing
building
here
up
towards
the
intersection
of
Southeast,
26th
and
Murray
Street.
E
So
here's
the
existing
existing
conditions.
It's
basically
just
a
planned
view
of
what
you
just
looked
at
in
a
photo.
So
we
got
a
parking
lot
here.
A
couple
driveways
existing
buildings
about
5,
000
square
feet
large
front
lawn
here
and
then
here's
what's
proposed.
So
we
have
the
existing
building
outline
with
my
cursor
here.
Here's
the
building,
Edition
about
3000
or
so
square
feet
trimming
out
one
of
the
driveways,
adding
some
sidewalks,
some
Landscaping
doing
some
site
improvements.
E
Here's
the
elevations
of
the
building
and
then
here's
a
floor
plan
that
kind
of
shows
the
interior
layout
of
the
building
of
what's
proposed.
So
we've
got
office
space
here.
That's
really
proposed
for
the
addition.
The
existing
portion
of
the
building
would
be
a
warehouse
or
a
storage
type
space,
the
tenant
and
I'll.
Let
the
applicant
describe
in
a
little
bit
more
detail,
but
the
tenant
is
a
lighting
contractor,
so
they
do
sales.
E
They
do
they
ship
out
lights,
light
fixtures
things
like
that,
so
it'd
be
an
office
and
like
a
light
kind
of
Warehouse
use
and
then
here's
the
roof
plan.
So,
as
you
can
see,
we
can
delineate
between
the
existing
building
here
and
then
here's
the
new
building.
We
got
some
rooftop
mechanical
units
here.
E
E
So
when
we're
looking
at
the
site
plan,
the
building
siding
so
there's
a
basically
there's
requirements
to
meet
certain
Bill
to
zones,
as
you
guys
are
probably
pretty
familiar
with
with
chapter
135
with
a
lot
of
the
building
types
and
as
you
can
see,
the
building
is
set
back
over
100
feet
from
from
Mario
street,
from
that
primary
Frontage
and
about
40
feet
back
from
Southeast
26th.
The
applicant
is
proposing
an
addition.
E
That's
going
to
improve
both
of
those
conditions,
but
still
there's,
there's
really
not
a
way
with
a
huge
site
like
that
for
them
to
legitimately
expect
to
meet
those
Bill
two
zones
and
those
frontages
on
both
of
the
frontages,
as
well
as
meeting
the
primary
Frontage
coverage.
So
with
that
a
b
and
c,
like
I,
said
before
they
all
run
together
and
so
staff
we're
generally
supportive
of
that
request.
E
Part
D's
is
interesting.
Talking
about
entryways
so
as
proposed,
the
applicant
is
really
proposing
to
orient
their
main
entrance
to
the
east
to
the
parking
lot.
It's
kind
of
how
the
site
operates
today,
they're
really
trying
to
continue
that
addition.
That
condition
and
the
addition
is
also
going
to
continue
that
so
there's
a
main
entrance
and
we'll
go
back
to
the
elevations.
We
can
look
at
it,
that's
oriented
towards
the
parking
lot.
E
The
addition
does
have
some
glazing
and
does
have
some
elements
that
that
denoted
as
a
front
facade,
but
it
doesn't
have
a
principal
entrance,
and
that
is
something
that
is
required
to
recode
as
staff
I
think
we
just
I
just
talked
about
a
little
bit.
We
understand
the
context
that
the
building
is
set
pretty
far
back
from
the
street.
It's
an
area
that
isn't
as
Urban,
maybe
as
the
last
one
that
we
looked
at,
and
so
we
understand
we're
not
going
to
be
fostering
a
ton
of
pedestrian
connections
here.
E
I
think
we
we
understand
that,
but
at
the
same
time
we
still
would
like
to
see
some
elements
added
to
the
the
front
of
that
building
that
treat
it
more
like
a
front
so
whether
that
is
an
actual
principal
entrance,
whether
it's
a
canopy,
whether
it's
increasing
the
glazing,
different
types
of
facade
elements.
We
would
like
to
see
that
added
as
part
of
this
project
and
then
party
digging
into
the
rooftop
mechanical
equipment,
again
very
similar
to
the
last
conversation
that
we
had.
So
there
are
rooftop
units
that
are
proposed
the
applicant.
E
They
don't
know
the
exact
height.
Yet
they
are
proposing
a
pair
pit
of
about
three
feet
a
little
bit
over
three
feet
to
about
three
and
a
half
feet
or
so,
and
that
would
be
on
the
on
the
building
Edition.
It
would
partially
screen
the
units.
As
I
just
mentioned,
the
applicant
has
provided
a
line
of
sight
study
some
perspective
studies
that
have
shown
from
various
points.
There
is
some
concealment
of
the
units,
but
I
think,
as
we
just
talked
about
with
the
last
presentation.
E
There's
not
really
a
way
to
to
fully
guarantee
to
fully
conceal
units
from
all
perspectives,
all
directions,
a
line
of
sight
study,
just
it
does
not
accomplish
that
and
as
staff
we
feel
with
new
construction
that
there
should
be
a
parapet
that
would
be
at
least
as
tall
or
taller
than
the
units
to
fully
ensure
the
enclosure,
the
screening
of
the
units.
So
with
that
digging
in
the
staff
recommendation,
as
staff
like
I,
mentioned
before
items
a
through
e
related
to
the
building
citing,
we
do
recommend
approval
of
that
item.
E
Basically-
and
we
can
talk
about
this
and
have
a
little
bit
more
of
a
dialogue
about
it,
but
basically
to
we
understand
that
it
may
not
be
feasible
necessarily
to
provide
a
principal
entrance
per
code,
but,
as
Jason
talked
about
in
the
last
item,
if
we
can
try
to
meet
that
intent,
so
whether
there's
a
canopy
added
increase,
glazing
items
like
that
that
would
be
appropriate.
We
think
for
this
context,
and
then
staff
is
recommending
a
denial
of
item
e
to
partially
waive
that
screen
of
the
rooftop
units.
E
Here's
a
notification
area
did
receive
a
few
calls.
No
emails
about
this
residents
were
just
generally
kind
of
interested
in
the
patch
wanted
to
hear
more
about
it.
So
not
a
kind
of
Engagement,
though
I
can
take
any
questions.
E
F
D
About
I
think
Nick:
are
you
saying
what
I
understand
as
staff
when
a
project
comes
in
with
multiple
frontages,
we
make
a
determination
as
to
which
Frontage
is
the
primary
correct
yeah.
So
in
this
case
we
noted
the
street
to
the
north
is
the
primary.
So
that's
what
we've
based
all
the
relief
on
we
haven't
done
any
analysis
to
know.
E
Could
also
dig
into
into
it
too.
There
are
certain
Provisions
in
the
code
that
describe
primary
streets,
so
I'm,
not
100
sure
I
can
double
check,
but
there
are
certain
street
frontages
that
are
called
Maps
primary
streets,
and
so
we
actually
have
a
city
map
that
literally
shows
all
the
primary
streets.
So
if
there
is
a
building
that
has
front
edge
on
one
of
those
streets,
it
has
to
be
a
primary
Street.
E
No
questions
asked
if
there
are
no
mapped
primary
streets
as
staff
when
we
get
a
project
in,
we
have
to
designate
a
certain
primary
Street
and
we
can
make
that
evaluation
and
there's
basically
a
list
of
criteria
that
it's
kind
of
it's
kind
of
like
a
cascading
list.
You
go
down.
You
know,
if
you're
on
a
map
to
primary
Street,
if
you're.
If
there's
you
know
no
primary
frontages,
here's
how
you
would
determine
it,
so
there
is
kind
of
like
an
algorithm.
Basically
that
allows
us
to
determine
that
when
we
get
a
project
in.
K
I
think
that
that's
a
really
good
question
that
that
I'd
be
interested
in
knowing
how
you
guys
reach
that
decision,
because
it
looks
like
the
building
sends
it
to
an
existing
building.
It
looks
as
if
it
were
designed
to
orient
itself
to
that
side
street
right,
which
one
is
that.
E
F
But
I
think
he's
saying:
they've
used
the
east
as
how
they've
operational
use
the
building,
but
the
West
is
close
to
the
20,
Southeast
26th
Street
and
appears
one
could
argue.
That's
also
could
be
the
primary
Street
which
it
looks
like
mathematically
solves
our
problems
and
the
primary
street
map
that
I've
found
doesn't
appear
to
indicate
that
Mari
is
one
of
those
primary
streets.
So
it
doesn't
look
like
we're
required
to
make
Mori
a
primary
Street.
If
we're
not,
we
can
make
our
primary
Street
Southeast
26th
and
then
it
seems
like
Moses
goes
away.
F
D
I,
don't
I,
don't
think
that
most
of
this
goes
away.
I
mean
I
at
the
end
of
the
day,
the
stuff
that
has
to
do
with
the
building
positioning
we're
recommending
approval
of.
However,
you
want
to
slice
and
dice,
which
is
the
primary
Street
they're,
adding
on
to
the
east
and
we're
supporting
them
doing
that
and
whatever
relief
they
need.
The
question
at
hand
is:
do
we
want
to
offer
waiver
of
having
a
front
door
there's
no
front
door
on
the
East
either?
D
K
D
Sure
I
I
think
because
they
have
overhead
doors
and
that
side
functions
more
is
about
how
they
operate.
That's
you
know,
pushed
us
more
towards
thinking
along
with
the
addressing
and
where
their
actual
front
door
is,
is
closer
to
Mari,
but
at
the
end
of
the
day,
we're
not
arguing
with
them
about
the
placement
of
the
building
that
sort
of
stuff.
D
But
what
we're
asking
for
in
in
exchange
for
the
relief
of
the
is,
is
a
a
little
more
of
a
front
of
a
front
facade
flavor
to
the
the
north
side
of
the
Edition,
we're
not
necessarily
asking
for
them
to
do
anything
to
the
current
building.
E
C
E
C
C
I
think
it
would
look
more
like
a
front
facade
if
it
didn't
have
scuppers
and
downspouts
I
think
that'd
be
an
improvement
and
make
it
feel
less
like
you
know
a
more
considered
front
facade.
E
C
I
think
that
oh
I
was
just
commenting
that,
since
that's
all
open
Office
immediately
behind
the
north
facade,
it
seems
like
they
could
add.
I
mean
they
could
have
two
more
windows
of
the
same
size,
potentially.
B
All
right
did
you
have.
F
Something
yeah
can
we
go
back
and
look
at
the
west
elevation
as
well,
though,
because
I
think
there
is
actually,
if
you
look
at
the
floor
plan
existing
door
over
there,
it
looks
like
it's
both
operable
and
still
there
it's
the
black
one
on
the
left,
right,
I,
don't
I,
guess:
I,
don't
exactly
know
what
the
one
to
the
right
is.
It
didn't
look
like
it's
on
the
floor,
but
I
mean.
B
Q
Virtually
I'm
an
architect
Downing
Studio
address
is
7632
Northwest
86th
Street
in
Johnston.
So
where
do
you
guys
want
to
start
I
think
you
had
a
question
about
some
interior
programming,
so
I
figure
I
can
address
that
who
drives
this.
Do
I
drive
this?
Let's
go
to
the
floor
plan
yeah.
Q
So
Leah,
you
asked
a
question
about
on
the
north
side
of
the
open
Office,
why
we
couldn't
add
more
glazing,
So
based
on
the
furniture
layout
which
isn't
in
here.
We
actually
have
it's
purposeful
to
not
have
glazing
there,
because
we
do
have
interior
office
furniture
that
would
sort
of
be
pocketed
there.
So
we
do
actually
have
glazing
for
the
staff
and
that
glazing
is
rectified
with
the
interior
office
furniture
layout.
Q
So
let's
go
to
the
the
exterior
so
I
I
guess.
My
question
is
and
and
Andrew
I
kind
of
appreciated
your
comment
with
the
last
applicant.
You
know
that
sometimes
city
code
becomes
this
blunt
instrument
that
doesn't
really
allow
for
some
of
the
Nuance
of
you
know
kind
of
like
a
site-specific
architectural
solution,
and
so
you
know
what
we've
done
here.
We've
had
a
lot
of
I've
heard
a
lot
of
comments
about
the
north
facade
and
the
West
facade.
Q
You
know
Nick
addressed
it
earlier
that
that
this
building
really
is
it's
kind
of
a
vehicular
access
building.
You
know
most
of
the
people
that
are
going
to
be
coming
to
this
building
are
going
to
be
coming
to
it
by
vehicle,
and
so
we
felt
that
the
appropriate
thing
to
do
is
to
actually
Orient
the
front
face
of
the
building
not
towards
the
street,
but
to
where
people
are
actually
going
to
be
exiting
their
cars
and
then
walking
up
to
the
building.
Q
You
know
that
that's
kind
of
a
notion
of
Architecture
is
that
the
building
sort
of
presents
itself,
and
then
it
creates
its
own
Natural
Way,
finding
by
just
the
architectural
elements
that
you
have
on
the
building.
So
we
feel
that
we've
we've
kind
of
met
the
the
the
threshold
or
sort
of
the
intent
of
the
code,
which
is
to
provide
the
architectural
solution.
You
know
we've
got
the
canopy
on
the
East
facade.
Q
You
know
when
Nick
and
I
were
sort
of
talking
about
this
I
had
to
respectfully
disagree
about
adding
sort
of
more
canopy
type
elements
on
the
North
facade,
because,
in
my
opinion,
that
would
create
confusion
as
to
where
the
actual
main
entrance
of
the
building
want.
So
again,
I
I
think
that
me
and
my
team
have
done
a
good
job
of
sort
of
addressing
the
site-specific
nature
of
the
building.
Q
In
the
context
where
it
is,
you
know
we
talk
about
the
north
facade
and
so
some
of
the
architectural
elements
Leah
you
had
talked
about
you
know:
can
we
take
the
scuppers
off
the
north
facade
this
alternative
solution
to
that
is
to
put
them
on
the
East
facade,
which
we're
considering
kind
of
the
front
face
of
the
building.
So
it
was
actually
intentional
to
to
put
the
roof
scuppers
in
a
way
that
again
sort
of
addressed
and
cleaned
up
the.
What
we're
calling
front
face
of
the
building.
Q
We
actually
did
look
at
an
option
that
would
put
all
of
the
water
from
the
existing
roof
on
the
new
or
on
the
from
the
new
roof
to
the
existing
and
just
based
on
the
roof
drain
size
and
what
was
existing
condition.
We
couldn't
do
that.
F
Q
Q
It
already
is
yep
yep
yeah,
so
on
the
west
facade
there
were
some
existing
ground-mounted
units
and
again
you
know
just
in
an
attempt
to
sort
of
clean
up
the
property
we've
We've
removed
those
we've
cleaned
up
the
landscaping
and
we've
moved
the
the
mechanical
condenser
units
to
the
roof.
L
Q
Q
Q
Q
A
Q
Here
to
do
that
so
respectfully
I,
you
know
I
obviously
disagree
with
the
intent
of
the
code
so
and
here's
why
it
I'm
not
really
sure
why
we
why
our
client
has
to
take
on
the
burden
of
screening
the
views
from
views
that
they
don't
control.
Q
So
in
this
area
it's
a
it's
a
fairly
level,
neighborhood
meaning
you
know,
there's
not,
there's
not
much
great
change,
so
you
know
consider
an
instance
where
you
have
a
neighboring
property.
You
get
off
of
the
right
or
you
you
get
beyond
the
property
right
away,
and
then
you
get
to
an
elevation
that
could
actually
be
above
the
parapet.
Right
so
I
know
I'm
speaking
hypotheticals,
but
you
know
here:
I
think
that
we've
met
the
intent
of
The
Code
by
screening
the
units
with
the
parapets.
F
F
Q
That,
with
the
structural
modifications
you'd
make
to
the
roof
plus
the
roof
detailing
is
approximately
a
twenty
thousand
dollar
ad.
So.
Q
F
B
Thank
you
and
I.
Don't
think,
there's
anyone
in
an
audience!
That's
gonna
speak,
so
we
have
no
audience
I'll,
close
the
public
hearing
and
Commissioners.
What
do
you
think
this.
B
I
would
move
staff
I'm
in
agreement
with
that
Chris
did
you
need
to
add
anything
I.
F
Just
think
the
primary
entrance
item
is
something
we
should
probably
consider
more
closely
and
figure
out
how
we're
making
those
changes.
For
example,
we
had
a
project
on
Southeast
9th
a
while
ago,
where,
by
redefining
primary
entrants,
we
cause
significant
cost
to
an
applicant.
In
that
case
that
probably
couldn't
afford
it.
I
think
it
is
an
important.
You
know
our
logic
of
why
our
primary
interest
is
where
and
our
ability
to
be
more
flexible
in
that
definition.
B
B
Thank
you
and
we
do
have
a
few
items
at
the
end
here.
I
know
we
have
to
start
a
a
subcommittee
for
the
next
line
of
leadership,
yep
nominating
committee,
and
so,
if
you'd
like
to
be
on
that,
please
let
me
know:
I
have
been
on
it
for
the
last
three
years
and
I
would
like
to
do
it
one
more
time
and
then
I'm
going
to
be
done
with
it
forever.
B
So
I
would
like
to
be
on
it
this
time,
though,
if
anyone
else,
it's
a
committee
to
nominate
the
next
line
of
leadership,
so
the
chair,
Vice,
chair,
vice
vice
chair,
so.
D
B
Chris
and
Leah
is
that
is
any:
is
that
good,
okay,
so
I
I'll,
just
email,
you
both
and
then
we'll
chat.
So
all
right
anything
else,
Jason.
D
Oh
yeah
I
do
thank
you.
We
will
have
a
5
30
session.
The
next
meeting,
we're
going
to
give
you
an
update
on
the
historic
preservation
plan
that
we're
a
third
to
push
in
halfway
through.
Hopefully,
a
lot
of
you've
tracked
it
over
time.
We've
invited
you
some
initial
meetings,
so
if
you
can
make
it
I
appreciate
it.
Thank
you.