“(b) Windows. Street facades shall contain windows covering a minimum of <br />15% of the facade on each floor level. <br />“(c) Criteria for Adjustment. Adjustments to the standards in this subsection <br />may be made, based on criteria of EC 9.8030(8)(a).” <br /> The applicant seeks an adjustment to allow a building more than 100 feet in length. Under <br />EC 9.8030(8)(a), the requirements set forth in EC 9.5500(6)(a) may be adjusted if the proposal <br />will “create a vibrant street façade with visual detail” and “provide multiple entrances to buildings <br />or yards.” Opponents argue that the applicant has not demonstrated how the proposed building <br />“creates a vibrant street façade.” The applicant responds that the proposed building will create a <br />vibrant street façade with visual detail by incorporating visual details such as modulation, <br />architectural articulation, and finish material selection. The building will also include an <br />exaggerated offset at the midpoint to visually break the building massing into two distinct <br />segments. Each segment also has multiple offsets and projections across the façade to break up the <br />massing even further. Vertical articulation is provided in addition to the horizontal massing <br />variations in the form of decks, patios, and large windows to enhance the “eyes on the street” and <br />connection between the interior and exterior. The siding treatment is broken up vertically in <br />alternating locations with changes in materials and color placement. <br /> The standard of whether a proposed building creates a vibrant street façade with visual <br />detail is a particularly subjective standard. The applicant has provided a long list of items designed <br />to create a vibrant street façade through visual detail. I agree with the applicant and staff that the <br />proposed building provides a sufficient vibrant street façade with visual detail to warrant an <br />adjustment. <br /> Finally, opponents’ traffic engineer argues that an adjustment to EC 9.6735(2) is not <br />warranted to allow access from River Road rather than Lombard Street. I agree with the applicant <br />that this is an odd argument since much of the opposition to the proposal concerns opposition to <br />additional traffic on Lombard Street. In any event I agree with the staff report and the applicant’s <br />engineer that the adjustment is warranted. <br />E.Other Issues <br />Opponents raise a number of issues that do not specifically relate to any applicable approval <br />criteria. Sandow argues that the application does not comply with Goal 1 (Citizen Involvement) or <br />Hearings Official Decision (WG 18-3/SR 18-3/ARA 18-8) 19 <br /> <br />