2016.02.01 CC Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

LaValle Fields - Apartment Concept Plan Page 5 meet the required ratio of 50% per the performance standards for multi -family residential developments. The plans show the facade being broken up with horizontal projections and a combination of building materials. There are windows along the sides of the building projections. There is a significant main entrance to the building, including secondary entrances that are visible and clearly defined. The horizontal projections at the secondary accesses into the building could be extended vertically to the third floor, instead of only being on the first floor. Multiple breaks in the roofline, as encouraged in the Multi -Family Design Guidelines, may help further break up the facade. To accomplish four-sided architecture, the back of the building will need some work. It is lacking vertical projections that are created on the front of the building. The back of the building will be very visible from the west along 147th Street. Although there are some good elements in the architecture of the building, it does not eliminate the look of a very long building. The walls of the building, even with the decks and projections at the entrances, are still generally flat and long. Building B, if designed well, could help break up the massing of Building A, but that is unknown at this time and it remains unclear whether the building would be built. Apartment Management and Amenities The applicant has stated that building A would be owned and managed by AHMC Properties. They have stated that there would be on-site management and underground parking. The amenities for the apartments that the applicant has listed in the narrative are, a spa/exercise room, community room, attached deck, and dog park. The applicant is showing a gazebo in the center common space, as well as a play area/basketball court on the north end of the site. The center common space would need more than a gazebo to be a valued amenity to the project. If the applicant wants to provide additional common space for a play area/basketball court, another location should be considered. Although the applicant has not provided staff with a plan for the lots lines and what would be built for each phase, it has been stated by the applicant that the center common open space would be built with phase 2. 4. CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION: Staff does not have concerns with apartments as a land use or the proposed density of the project, as this was expected and approved with the PUD General Plan. Staff's primary concern is with the massing of the buildings. The buildings will appear extremely long and large on the site. This could be addressed by providing more numerous smaller buildings, or alternatively by providing a more dramatic undulations in the shapes of the buildings. The architecture of building A has good elements, but it is in staff's opinion that a more compact design of the building or a non- linear footprint would further minimize the expansion of the long walls. The architectural elements alone do not break up the large massing of the building, it still seems very long. The applicant received flexibility for a higher density based on the approved PUD General Plan and conditions listed in the resolution. There were a few items that needed to be worked on and conditions were listed the resolution to address these concerns. Phase 2, the apartment project,