City of Seattle

Department of Construction & Inspections Nathan Torgelson, Director

FINAL RECOMMENDATION OF THE

DOWNTOWN DESIGN REVIEW BOARD

Project Number: 3021574 Address: 1015 2nd Avenue Applicant: Tom Bartholomew, for Martin Selig Real Estate Date of Meeting: Tuesday, August 29, 2017 Board Members Present: Anjali Grant, Chair Belinda Bail JP Emery Grace Leong Board Members Absent: Bradley Calvert SDCI Staff Present: Michael Dorcy

SITE & VICINITY Site Zone: DOC 1 U/450/U Nearby Zones: (North) DOC 1 U/450/U (South) DMC 340/290-400 (East) DOC 1 U/450/U

(West) DMC 240/290-400

Lot Area: 25,920 sq. ft.

Final Recommendation #3021574 Page 2 of 15

Current Development The project site is currently developed with the four-story (above 2nd Avenue) former Seattle branch of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. The site has been listed in the National Register for Historic Places since 2013. Constructed between 1948 and 1950, the FRB was designed by Naramore, Bain, Brady and Johanson, precursors of the present architects, NBBJ. Although nominated and denied landmark status in 2008, the FRB received landmark status from the Seattle Landmarks Preservation Board in 2015, shortly after the first Early Design Guidance meeting was held by the Downtown Design Review Board on December 15, 2015. Review of the proposal by the Architectural Review Committee of the Seattle Landmarks Board and by the Washington State Department of Historic Preservation will be undertaken concurrently with Seattle Department of Construction & Inspections review. Sloping gradually from north to south, the east-west topography of the site is dominated by the hillside steeply descending to Elliott By. The drop in elevation from Second Avenue to First Avenue is approximately 40 feet. Significant constraints would be imposed on the site by existing required view corridors on both Spring Street and Madison Street. The view corridors would require the north and south facades of any new construction above the 36-foot mark to be set back 30 feet as measured above the sidewalk of 2nd Avenue. Surrounding Development and Neighborhood Character: This area of downtown Seattle, the Commercial Core Urban Center Village, has been a mixture of low-rise and medium-rise structures, many constructed during the first half of the 20th century, with the addition of several commercial towers in more recent years Within a five minute walk of the site are located a number of significant designations: the Seattle Art Museum, Benaroya Symphonic Hall, the Seattle Public Library, Seattle City Hall, the Henry M. Jackson Federal Building, and the Colman Dock Ferry Terminal. Directly west of the former Federal Reserve Bank, occupying the north half of the block that faces onto 1st Avenue, are two landmarked historic structures, the Hotel Cecil and the Beebe Building. The majority of the historic and iconic buildings are of masonry construction, some composed of red brick. In recent years the historic fabric of the area has been transformed by the inclusion of towers of significant heights. Access: Vehicular access to site is planned from the alley to the west of the site. Environmentally Critical Areas: There are no critical areas on site. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed development on site involves the adaptive reuse of the Federal Reserve Bank building with a new office/residential tower to be constructed above the historic building. The

Final Recommendation #3021574 Page 3 of 15

current proposal calls for the addition of seven floors of office space (for a total of eleven floors of office) while providing new lobby and retail spaces within the first existing level of the building. Parking for 20 vehicles within the existing structure would be retained. Originally, at the time of the first EDG meeting, before being designated as a City of Seattle Landmark, the proposed rehabilitation of the Federal Reserve Bank building included 540,000 square feet of office use contained in 32 levels as well as 192 residential units on 12 levels. That proposed addition would have contained 20,000 square feet of public areas and 250 parking stalls contained within 5 levels below-grade. The proposal was modified after the First Early Design Guidance meeting.

FIRST EARLY DESIGN GUIDANCE December 15, 2015

DESIGN PRESENTATION The proposed development on site involves the adaptive reuse of the Federal Reserve Bank building with a new office/residential tower to be constructed above the historic building. Originally, at the time of the first EDG meeting, before being designated as a City of Seattle Landmark, the proposed rehabilitation of the Federal Reserve Bank building included 540,000 square feet of office use contained in 32 levels as well as 192 residential units on 12 levels. That proposed addition would have contained 20,000 square feet of public areas and 250 parking stalls contained within 5 levels below-grade. Three massing concepts were presented by the applicants. Each was separated above the existing form of the Federal Reserve Bank by a high volume gap of “hyphen” intended as a highly transparent public area and visually preserving the integrity of the historic building. Concept 1 showed a tall rectilinear for mirroring some of the symmetrical arrangement of the FRB and suggesting a “quiet stability.” Concept 2 was a curvilinear tower, described as a “pinwheel arrangement of curved facades. As in the first concept, a tall intervening hyphen space separated the tower from the FRB base. The third (“preferred”) concept also embodied a curved façade which was noted to address a transition in scale to nearby less-intensive zones by decreasing the perceived width of the tower while increasing the width of the narrow alley. Once again, the tall “hyphen” was tasked with preserving the integrity of the FRB structure beneath. The packet includes materials presented at the meeting, and is available online by entering the project number (3021574) at this website: http://www.seattle.gov/DPD/aboutus/news/events/DesignReview/SearchPastReviews/default.aspx The packet is also available to view in the file, by contacting the Public Resource Center at DPD:

Mailing Address:

Public Resource Center 700 Fifth Ave., Suite 2000 P.O. Box 34019 Seattle, WA 98124-4019

Final Recommendation #3021574 Page 4 of 15

Email: PRC@seattle.gov

PUBLIC COMMENT Several affiliates and residents of the Madison Tower, a combination residential and hotel structure across the alley from the FRB and located at the corner of First Avenue and Madison Street, voiced concerns regarding: the impacts to safety based on sharing a narrow alley that was incapable of being widened and which provided critical access to the operation of the Madison Tower ; impacts on 2nd Avenue “plaza”; general impacts of such a massive structure, one out of scale with the neighborhood in this location; the development proposed, it was noted, “would consume the whole area.” The design packet was said to be inadequate insofar as it failed to offer authentic massing alternatives, showed no response or contributions to the existing plaza on Second Avenue, lacked information from the applicant regarding historic status and processes connected to status. The proposal was thought to be out of step with several ongoing attempts to create an integration and balance between open space and tall towers currently represented in the immediate neighborhood.

PRIORITIES & BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS

After visiting the site, considering the analysis of the site and context provided by the proponents, and hearing public comment, the Design Review Board members provided the following siting and design guidance: The Board was generally agreed that the packet was “thin” and that they had not been furnished with sufficient information regarding the historic status of the FRB building, nor with information regarding processes for concurrent review, and that they lacked meaningful information to understand preservation requirements and their precise role in the approval process. The Board noted that they would have liked a greater amount of distinctiveness shown between the options, especially as the options related to contextual considerations. There were no sharp and clear differentiations between the three presented options, except as they were superficially differently shaped extrusions fitted above the hyphen which was centered above the externally preserved form of the FRB. The Board stated they would appreciate more information and discussion regarding how the height, proportions, scale of the hyphen element were arrived at. Further particulars and clarifications were desired by the Board related to the height, materials and vision for the “hyphen.”

Final Recommendation #3021574 Page 5 of 15

It was thought that renderings of the various options within the packet were generally disengaged from the actual context of the existing FRB building. There was, for instance, no real analysis of the 2nd Avenue “plaza” nor of existing the plaza-building relationships referred to in public comments. The presentation failed to address the transition in bulk and scale as the proposed structure abuts a less intensive zone. The request for a departure from development standards to allow the tower to overhang the historical building above its east façade was not believed to show respect for or deference to the historic building. Equally important, none of the proposed towers were thought to adequately reference the existing historical structure. No relationship in proportions were conveyed in any of the schemes; there was no obvious influence in the spacing between bays, etc. The upper masses of the proposed schemes were located close to, but showed no accommodation to, the buildings across the alley. The curvilinear form of the second and third schemes seemed to the Board to be arbitrary and out of place and showed no deference to the rectilinear form of the FRB structure. The overall massing of each of the schemes failed to respond to the context, including the existing zoning transition at the midline of the alley. The Board believed the applicants should show three distinct massing options, each of which would thoroughly explore the relationships between the existing building and the proposed addition, demonstrating, among other things, how the proposed design showed respect for the existing building, how windows and mullions, forms, rhythms and materials had been taken into account, and how reference points and regulating lines from the base building were acknowledged, or purposefully ignored, if that were the case, to achieve a better design. The applicants should provide more information for the Board regarding landmark issues and procedures. The Board should be provided with precedential studies of towers successfully erected above landmarked structures. The studies should explore and explain what the applicants see as successful applicable tactics. At the conclusion of the First Early Design Guidance meeting, the Board unanimously recommended the project return for another meeting in response to the guidance provided. At the second EDG meeting, the applicant should be prepared to respond to the concerns stated above and should include within the presentation treatment consideration of the following:

• The overall massing strategy should be a response to the specific context which includes a zoning transition across the ally from existing buildings and should demonstrate three distinct options.

Final Recommendation #3021574 Page 6 of 15

• The proposed schemes should give at least a preliminary sense of how certain programing issues will be addressed—entries and exits for parking, ground floor entries and entry sequences, and an explanation of the distribution of uses.

• Clarify any historic controls that would affect the alley façade and rooftop treatments.

• Show actual dimensions of the base building height and the height of the “gasket.”

• Indicate at least preliminary notions regarding the materials intended for the highly visible soffit within the gasket.

• Provide large scale sections that include structures in blocks adjoining the proposed building; provide some preliminary floor plans for the proposed gasket and towers.

SECOND EARLY DESIGN GUIDANCE December 6, 2016

DESIGN PRESENTATION The project site is currently developed with the four-story (above 2nd Avenue) former Seattle branch of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. The site has been listed in the National Register for Historic Places since 2013. Constructed between 1948 and 1950, the FRB was designed by Naramore, Bain, Brady and Johanson, precursors of the present architects, NBBJ. Although nominated and denied landmark status in 2008, the FRB received landmark status from the Seattle Landmarks Preservation Board in 2015, shortly after the first Early Design Guidance meeting was held by the Downtown Design Review Board on December 15, 2015. Review of the proposal by the Architectural Review Committee of the Seattle Landmarks Board and by the Washington State Department of Historic Preservation will be undertaken concurrently with Seattle Department of Construction & Inspections review. The proposal presented at this meeting called for the addition of seven floors of office space (for a total of eleven floors of office) while providing new lobby and retail spaces within the first existing level of the building. Parking for 20 vehicles within the existing structure would be retained. The proposal, with 7 stories of new office space separated from the historic structure by a more modest hyphen than in the earlier tall tower articulations, was presented as a deflated version of its formerly imagined self, but one that exuded architectural elegance while paying deference to the historic structure that would remain in place. (See the packet for this meeting, available at the web site above.) The proposal and architectural articulation had taken shape over several months, with a design influenced after a series of four meetings with the Architectural Review Committee of the Seattle Landmarks Board. PUBLIC COMMENT Several residents of the Madison Tower, a combination residential and hotel structure across the alley from the FRB and located at the corner of First Avenue and Madison Street, voiced concerns regarding impacts to the livability of their building, especially as the levels of natural light available to units facing the alley would be diminished. The impingement of the proposed

Final Recommendation #3021574 Page 7 of 15

structure on natural light in the alley, it was stated, was heightened by the treatment and choice of materials along the alley façade. A study of actual natural light diminution was requested. Elements of the design, arguably chosen to enhance the privacy of users of both buildings, would in fact be hostile to the residents of Madison Tower. At least one of the members of the public objected to waiving the requirement for view corridors along Spring and Madison Streets, and a concern was raised about the noise that would emanate from the new building’s mechanical systems. Despite these concerns, the design was thought by some attending the meeting to have “come a long way.”

PRIORITIES & BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS

After visiting the site, considering the analysis of the site and context provided by the proponents, and hearing public comment, the Design Review Board members provided the following siting and design guidance: The Board were agreed that the lesser program and reduced stature of the addition to the historic Federal Reserve Building enhanced its architectural presence and aesthetic weight. The massing of the project seemed right and the Board supported the revised massing. The Board agreed with the Architectural Review Committee that a waiver should be granted from the view corridor requirements (SMC 23.49.024) on both Spring and Madison Streets. As proposed, the addition would share the same setbacks as the historic building (which is not situated symmetrically on its lot) and the addition would produce a more unified and well-proportioned composition in keeping with Design Guideline B-4. The Board noted that they would like to see a greater opportunity for a public benefit in the plaza above Madison Street. Give it public access and bring it as close as possible to the sidewalk on Madison, even though it sits above the sidewalk level. A cantilevered “gasket” above the roofline of the existing structure makes a forceful architectural statement, emphasizing the separation of the old and the new. Continue to explore the engineering possibilities for achieving a cantilevered effect for the addition. One member of the Board thought that the “frame,” strongly visible along the back (alley)and top of the addition did not relate to the overall parti and should be rethought, as should be the two curtain-wall systems, one in relief of the other, that comprise the alley elevation. It was generally thought by the Board that some large-scale sections would help to show the relationship between the layered system as well as to the alley and the structure across the alley. Explore incising portions of the alley façade, rather than layering. Explore softening the materials, exploring light and reflectivity, where the office spaces addressed residential units across the alley. Recess the mechanical systems as had been shown in renderings at the meeting, and be prepared to demonstrate at Recommendation time, even greater particularization of mechanical elements.

Final Recommendation #3021574 Page 8 of 15

FINAL RECOMMENDATION August 29, 2017

PUBLIC COMMENT The following public comments were offered at this meeting:

• Stated that while the addition to the historic building does not over-power the original as did the original iteration of a proposal for an adaptive reuse, the current proposal is still out of harmony with the original building.

• Asserted that the proposed addition continues to contribute to an oppressive, narrow and dark alley and crowds the Hotel 1000 and Madison Tower condominium units on the east side of that structure located to the west.

• Concerned that the current design does not go far enough to ensure the privacy and livability of those living across the alley.

• Concerned regarding the noise impacts from rooftop mechanical equipment. One purpose of the design review process is for the Board and City to receive comments from the public that help to identify feedback and concerns about the site and design concept, identify applicable citywide and neighborhood design guidelines of highest priority to the site and explore conceptual design, siting alternatives and eventual architectural design. All public comments submitted in writing for this project can be viewed using the following link and entering the project number: http://web6.seattle.gov/dpd/edms/ OTHER CITY COMMENTS Seattle Department of Transportation supports the use of pedestrian-scaled lighting to create a warmer, safer environment for people walking downtown at night along 2nd Avenue, a Class I Pedestrian Street and along Madison and Spring streets, both Class II Pedestrian Streets. As the site is located along major bicycle facilities, protected lanes on 2nd Avenue and Spring Street, SDOT is in support of provisioning bicycle racks for workers and visitors at the building. Street trees are required and will be planted along all three street frontages. All vehicle access and commercial loading will be required from the alley. Since there are dedicated bicycle lanes on each street front, street loading will not be possible. Although SDOT favors a second loading berth at the alley, the Landmarks Board would have to approve what would be a substantial alteration to the existing historic building for that to happen. PRIORITIES & BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS After visiting the site, considering the analysis of the site and context provided by the proponents, and hearing public comment, the Design Review Board members provided the following recommendations. 1. Massing:

Final Recommendation #3021574 Page 9 of 15

The Board had earlier (at EDG #1, December 15, 2015) been shown a proposal for a 42-story tower addition (see page 5 of the August 29th packet). The current massing is that as shown at the second EDG meeting on December 6, 2016, and as shown to the Landmark Preservation Board meeting on January 5, 2017, and to a fifth and sixth meeting before the Board’s Architectural Review Committee. The current proposal calls for the addition of seven floors of office space (for a total of eleven floors of office) while providing new lobby and retail spaces within the first, existing level of the building. Parking for 18 vehicles within the existing structure would be retained. At the second EDG meeting the Board had expressed approval of the current massing of the proposal and had recommended moving forward to MUP application. The massing of the building had not changed since EDG #2. (B2.1, B2.3, B3.1, B4.1)

2. Street and Landscaping: The Board agreed that the lighting strategy (pages 20-23) was successful, and should provide enough lighting for safety while exhibiting a becoming amount of restraint. The planting scheme at the street edges was also restrained but seemly. The street trees along 2nd Avenue were a welcomed addition to the streetscape since tree planting hitherto had been prevented by site and structural restraints beneath the sidewalk at that location. The Board was appreciative of the elaborate structural steps taken to provide for the robust planting of six scarlet oaks on 2nd Avenue. Two frontier elms would adorn each of the two side streets. As explained by the design team, the on-site planting plan made attempts to capture the essentials of the original, mid- past- century, landscape plan while introducing a skylight system and accessibility into the garden and plaza areas reached from 2nd Avenue and the main floor of the former bank building. (B1.1, B3.2) While the Board expressed some regret that the improvements to the wall-enclosed pathways and plaza were not more truly “public,“ they acknowledged the constraints imposed by topography, history, and the presence of the already built structure on site. That said, the Board encouraged the greatest openness and accessibility possible to the plaza area, and an abundance of moveable outdoor furnishings in addition to tree pots and planted landscapes. The Board applauded the attempts to provide an open plaza but realized that the outdoor spaces connected at the main entry to 2nd Avenue would probably be utilized primarily by the office workers of the building. The plaza should be furnished with ample moveable furnishings, the Board noted, as well as by planters and stationary benches. (D1.2)

3. Materials and Textures The Board acknowledged the finely tuned detailing and joinery of the proposed transmogrified structure. The detailing of the “jewel box” above the existing building, keeping to the same dimension and massing as the original structure, was acknowledged as extremely well executed. The Board was appreciative of the how the “jewel box” achieved clarity of expression and visual independence from the historical building beneath through the re-placement of the support columns to the

Final Recommendation #3021574 Page 10 of 15

interior of the addition and creation of a clear cantilevered effect as the “hyphen” between old and new. (B4) The cantilevered “gasket” above the roofline of the existing structure, emphasizing the separation of the old from the new, had been made even more compelling with the removal of exterior columns. This was a move the Board had requested the applicants to explore at the second EDG meeting, and the Board expressed its gratitude for the enhanced outcome that had been produced and recommended approval of this aspect of the design. (B4.3) Additional attention was focused on the metal panels that comprised the south half of the rear, alley façade, opposite the Madison Tower. The Board pointed out how important it was that the metal panels be of such a gauge that there was no chance of an occurrence of “oil-canning.” (B4.3) The Board agreed that material expression of the addition should take cues from the restrained palette of the historic building and that care should be taken that any metal panels, whether solid or perforated, should appear as “warm” rather than as “cool.” (B3.2) While acknowledging the possible house-cleaning difficulties of too-fussy of a façade, the Board recommended the addition of developing more texture to the portion of the façade opposite the Madison Tower. The perforated metal screening attached to the narrow-slit windows, intended to allow light into the new office structure while optimizing the privacy afforded the residential units across the alley, was acknowledged as a move in the right direction, but the Board encouraged the design team to further explore the composition of the façade. The Board noted a “relentlessness” to the unmodulated plane and that it lacked clear reference to a human scale. The Board recommended that the rear façade should embody greater visual interest. Amelioration would include choices in both the size and distribution of the window openings, as well as in their depth of recess from the surface panels. Further exploration of the overall composition, as well as the texturing and coloring of the southern half of the alley façade was strongly encouraged. (B2.2, C6.1)

The Board further agreed that the west façade should be both restrained and promote the privacy of the neighboring Madison Tower. Nevertheless, the design team should continue to work with the planner to either increase the number of perforated metal/ glass panels, vary their placement, inset them deeper, or apply a combination of these strategies. In order to meet the desire for a more broadly variegated and textured surface, additional use of the perforated metal paneling should be contemplated and explored, while carefully analyzing the glare impacts to residents across the alley. (B2.2, B4.3)

Final Recommendation #3021574 Page 11 of 15

The charcoal gray covering of roof and roof material seemed appropriate and the Board reminded the applicants of the importance of keeping the rooftop neat and clean since it would be an additional façade in view of the many taller neighboring buildings. (B3.2)

DESIGN REVIEW GUIDELINES After visiting the site, considering the analysis of the site and context provided by the proponents, and hearing public comment, the Design Review Board members provided the following siting and design guidance. The priority Citywide and Neighborhood guidelines identified by the Board as Priority Guidelines are summarized below, while all guidelines remain applicable. For the full text please visit the Design Review website.

SITE PLANNING AND MASSING

A1 Respond to the Physical Environment: Develop an architectural concept and compose the building’s massing in response to geographic conditions and patterns of urban form found nearby or beyond the immediate context of the building site. A1.1. Response to Context: Each building site lies within a larger physical context having various and distinct features and characteristics to which the building design should respond. Develop an architectural concept and arrange the building mass in response to one or more of the following, if present: a. a change in street grid alignment that yields a site having nonstandard shape; b. a site having dramatic topography or contrasting edge conditions;

c. patterns of urban form, such as nearby buildings that have employed distinctive and effective massing compositions;

d. access to direct sunlight—seasonally or at particular times of day; e. views from the site of noteworthy structures or natural features, (i.e.: the Space Needle, Smith Tower, port facilities, Puget Sound, Mount Rainier, the Olympic Mountains);

f. views of the site from other parts of the city or region; and g. proximity to a regional transportation corridor (the monorail, light rail, freight rail, major arterial, state highway, ferry routes, bicycle trail, etc.).

A2 Enhance the Skyline: Design the upper portion of the building to promote visual interest and variety in the downtown skyline. Respect existing landmarks while responding to the skyline’s present and planned profile. A2.1. Desired Architectural Treatments: Use one or more of the following architectural treatments to accomplish this goal:

a. sculpt or profile the facades; b. specify and compose a palette of materials with distinctive texture, pattern, or color; c. provide or enhance a specific architectural rooftop element.

Final Recommendation #3021574 Page 12 of 15

ARCHITECTURAL EXPRESSION

B1 Respond to the neighborhood context: Develop an architectural concept and compose the major building elements to reinforce desirable urban features existing in the surrounding neighborhood. B1.1. Adjacent Features and Networks: Each building site lies within an urban neighborhood context having distinct features and characteristics to which the building design should respond. Arrange the building mass in response to one or more of the following, if present: a. a surrounding district of distinct and noteworthy character; b. an adjacent landmark or noteworthy building; c. a major public amenity or institution nearby;

d. neighboring buildings that have employed distinctive and effective massing compositions; e. elements of the pedestrian network nearby, (i.e.: green street, hill-climb, mid-block crossing, through-block passageway); and

f. direct access to one or more components of the regional transportation system. B2 Create a Transition in Bulk and Scale: Compose the massing of the building to create a transition to the height, bulk, and scale of development in nearby less-intensive zones. B2.1. Analyzing Height, Bulk, and Scale: Factors to consider in analyzing potential height, bulk, and scale impacts include: a. topographic relationships; b. distance from a less intensive zone edge;

c. differences in development standards between abutting zones (allowable building height, width, lot coverage, etc.);

d. effect of site size and shape; e. height, bulk, and scale relationships resulting from lot orientation (e.g., back lot line to back lot line vs back lot line to side lot line); and f. type and amount of separation between lots in the different zones (e.g. , separation by only a property line, by an alley or street, or by other physical features such as grade changes); g. street grid or platting orientations.

B2.2. Compatibility with Nearby Buildings: In some cases, careful siting and design treatment may be sufficient to achieve reasonable transition and mitigation of height, bulk, and scale impacts. Some techniques for achieving compatibility are as follows:

h. use of architectural style, details (such as roof lines, beltcourses, cornices, or fenestration), color, or materials that derive from the less intensive zone.

i. architectural massing of building components; and j. responding to topographic conditions in ways that minimize impacts on neighboring development, such as by stepping a project down the hillside.

B2.3. Reduction of Bulk: In some cases, reductions in the actual bulk and scale of the proposed structure may be necessary in order to mitigate adverse impacts and achieve an acceptable level of compatibility. Some techniques which can be used in these cases include:

k. articulating the building’s facades vertically or horizontally in intervals that reflect to existing structures or platting pattern;

Final Recommendation #3021574 Page 13 of 15

l. increasing building setbacks from the zone edge at ground level; m. reducing the bulk of the building’s upper floors; and n. limiting the length of, or otherwise modifying, facades. B3 Reinforce the Positive Urban Form & Architectural Attributes of the Immediate Area.: Consider the predominant attributes of the immediate neighborhood and reinforce desirable siting patterns, massing arrangements, and streetscape characteristics of nearby development. B3.1. Building Orientation: In general, orient the building entries and open space toward street intersections and toward street fronts with the highest pedestrian activity. Locate parking and vehicle access away from entries, open space, and street intersections considerations. B3.2. Features to Complement: Reinforce the desirable patterns of massing and facade composition found in the surrounding area. Pay particular attention to designated landmarks and other noteworthy buildings. Consider complementing the existing: a. massing and setbacks, b. scale and proportions, c. expressed structural bays and modulations, d. fenestration patterns and detailing, e. exterior finish materials and detailing, f. architectural styles, and g. roof forms. B4 Design a Well-Proportioned & Unified Building: Compose the massing and organize the interior and exterior spaces to create a well-proportioned building that exhibits a coherent architectural concept. Design the architectural elements and finish details to create a unified building, so that all components appear integral to the whole. B4.1. Massing: When composing the massing, consider how the following can contribute to create a building that exhibits a coherent architectural concept: a. setbacks, projections, and open space; b. relative sizes and shapes of distinct building volumes; and c. roof heights and forms. B4.3. Architectural Details: When designing the architectural details, consider how the following can contribute to create a building that exhibits a coherent architectural concept: j. exterior finish materials; k. architectural lighting and signage; l. grilles, railings, and downspouts; m. window and entry trim and moldings; n. shadow patterns; and o. exterior lighting.

Final Recommendation #3021574 Page 14 of 15

THE STREETSCAPE

C6 Develop the Alley Façade: To increase pedestrian safety, comfort, and interest, develop portions of the alley facade in response to the unique conditions of the site or project.

C6.1. Alley Activation: Consider enlivening and enhancing the alley entrance by: a. extending retail space fenestration into the alley one bay;

b. providing a niche for recycling and waste receptacles to be shared with nearby, older buildings lacking such facilities; and

c. adding effective lighting to enhance visibility and safety. C6.2. Alley Parking Access: Enhance the facades and surfaces in and adjacent to the alley to create parking access that is visible, safe, and welcoming for drivers and pedestrians. Consider d. locating the alley parking garage entry and/ or exit near the entrance to the alley;

e. installing highly visible signage indicating parking rates and availability on the building facade adjacent to the alley; and f. chamfering the building corners to enhance pedestrian visibility and safety where alley is regularly used by vehicles accessing parking and loading.

PUBLIC AMENITIES

D1 Provide Inviting & Usable Open Space: Design public open spaces to promote a visually pleasing, safe, and active environment for workers, residents, and visitors. Views and solar access from the principal area of the open space should be especially emphasized.

D1.2. Open Space Features: Open spaces can feature art work, street furniture, and landscaping that invite customers or enhance the building’s setting. Examples of desirable features to include are:

a. visual and pedestrian access (including barrier- free access) into the site from the public sidewalk;

b. walking surfaces of attractive pavers; c. pedestrian-scaled site lighting;

d. retail spaces designed for uses that will comfortably “spill out” and enliven the open space;

e. areas for vendors in commercial areas; f. landscaping that enhances the space and architecture; g. pedestrian-scaled signage that identifies uses and shops; and

h. site furniture, art work, or amenities such as fountains, seating, and kiosks. residential open space

DEVELOPMENT STANDARD DEPARTURES At the time of the first EDG meeting the design team indicated they would be seeking five (5) departures from development standards. (See the packet, pages 36 and 37.) Refinements to

Final Recommendation #3021574 Page 15 of 15

the departure requests should be prepared for the Second EDG meeting. The Board indicated a reluctance to grant, without further convincing and supportive ratiocinations, the requested Departure #5 which would place a considerable portion of the preferred curvilinear tower in the required setback area east of the FRB along 2nd Avenue. The applicant modified the proposal before the Final Recommendation meeting and now seeks no design departures as part of the Design Review process. The existing landmarked structure is nonconforming to present Code in several aspects, including setbacks, required façade transparency and blank façade limits. View-corridor requirements would apply to the addition. The Architectural Review Committee of the Landmarks Board have already agreed that aligning the addition according to current view corridor requirements would exacerbate an existing asymmetry of siting that would be aesthetically unpleasant and not serve the purposes of uniting the old with the new. The applicants are seeking a waiver from the view corridor setbacks that would better achieve a more unified and well-proportioned combined structure. At the second EDG meeting, the Board expressed its agreement that a waiver be granted and the addition made to align with the same setbacks as the existing structure, producing a more unified and well-proportioned composition in keeping with Guideline B-4. RECOMMENDATIONS The recommendation summarized above was based on the design review packet dated Tuesday, August 29, 2017, and the materials shown and verbally described by the applicant at the Tuesday, August 29, 2017 Design Recommendation meeting. After considering the site and context, hearing public comment, reconsidering the previously identified design priorities and reviewing the materials, the four Design Review Board members recommended APPROVAL of the subject design with the following conditions:

1. Furnish the plaza with ample moveable furnishings, planters, and stationary benches. (D1.2)

2. Any metal panels, whether solid or perforated, should appear as “warm” rather than as “cool” colors. (B3.2)

3. Either increase the number of perforated metal/ glass panels on the west facade, vary their placement, inset them deeper, or apply a combination of these strategies. (B2.2, B4.3)