DRC offers generally favorable feedback on 110 Redmond Street mixed‑use concept

The Development Review Committee on Dec. 10, 2025 reviewed conceptual plans for a mixed‑use building proposed at 110 Redmond Street (P25‑219110), offering generally favorable feedback while identifying several outstanding zoning, parking and dimensional details for the applicant to address.

Andrew Bowen, planning staff, opened the review and described the submittal as conceptual. "As of this point, we do not have an LDR compliance checklist," Bowen said, and noted that the OR (office‑residential) zone does not permit purchase of parking through the fee‑in‑lieu program, an item the applicant will need to resolve in later materials. Bowen summarized the proposal as five residential units (including one deed‑restricted unit and four market‑rate units) with two roughly 800‑square‑foot commercial storefronts facing Redmond Street.

Representatives for the applicant walked the committee through site photos, floor plans and elevations. The team described a street‑facing commercial base, an outside courtyard that serves as a primary residential entry, a ramp and shared driveway to below‑grade parking, and individual elevators for each unit. Hans Blank, for the applicant, detailed streetscape and landscape features, including 30‑foot on‑center street tree spacing, a short‑term bike rack at the sidewalk and long‑term parking in the garage.

Committee members focused questions on stormwater, snow storage, parking allocation, easements and visual scale. Chair Catherine Koryakin raised concerns about snow shedding and water control on the tight site; the applicant said most roof drains will connect to the stormwater system, there is opportunity for some on‑site retention on the east side, and the parking garage runoff strategy includes a sand‑oil separator. The applicant also said the ramp down to the garage will be heated to prevent freezing in the utility area.

Members pressed the applicant to clarify the parking mix. The applicant acknowledged the design currently shows garage doors for multiple stalls and said the project is "over parked" overall but does not have the correct commercial allocation at present; their strategy is to convert one or more below‑grade stalls to shared use (employee/customer) so the mix meets commercial requirements without altering the building form.

The committee also questioned driveway and easement configurations. The applicant described a recorded easement arrangement and said they propose providing a 12‑foot drive aisle on their property combined with remaining width on the adjacent lot to create a two‑way aisle (about 20 feet now) while preserving the ability for a future 24‑foot aisle if the neighboring lot redevelops.

On massing and materials, members broadly praised the approach of breaking down the facade into smaller residential‑scaled pieces. Several reviewers suggested subtle adjustments—such as stronger signaling of private residential entrances, toning down taller windows on the driveway side, and additional 3‑D views up the stair—to reduce the perception of the building as two distinct blocks and to soften the long facade near the garage. The applicant said the material transition (dark brick at the commercial base and wood siding above) is intentional to emphasize the two uses while maintaining pedestrian interest.

There was no final decision at the conceptual stage. Bowen and the applicant indicated the team expects to return with a fuller submittal for the committee’s review in the next month. The meeting closed with a brief staff update on pipeline projects and a motion to adjourn.

Quotes used in this article are drawn directly from the meeting transcript. The presenters identified themselves in the record as Andrew Bowen (planning staff), Hans Blank (for the applicant) and, per roll call and in‑meeting references, Brad Hoyt (applicant representative).