HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-05-21 Architectural Review Board Summary Minutes
City of Palo Alto Page 1
1
2
Thursday, May 21, 2015, Meeting 3
8:30 AM, Council Chambers 4
5
Call to Order 6
7
Roll Call 8
9
Present: Chair Randy Popp; Vice Chair Robert Gooyer; Board Members Alexander Lew, Kyu Kim 10
11
Absent: None. 12
13
Staff Present: Amy French, Chief Planning Official; Diana Tamale, Administrative Associate III; Christy 14
Fong, Planner; Rebecca Atkinson, Planner; Jodie Gerhardt, Senior Planner; Matthew 15
Weintraub, Planner 16
17
Oral Communications: None. 18
19
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions: None. 20
21
Minutes Approval: None. 22
23
PUBLIC HEARINGS 24
25
Formal Reviews 26
27
1. 1450 Page Mill Road [14PLN-00335]: Request by Jim Inglis on behalf of The Board of 28
Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University for Architectural Review of a proposal to 29
demolish the two existing buildings on site with floor area totaling 59,539 square feet (sf), and 30
construct a new two story 74,400 sf office building in the RP (Research Park) zoning district. 31
Environmental Assessment: City of Palo Alto/Stanford Development Agreement and Lease 32
Project Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2003082103) and Exemption 33
15302 (Replacement and Reconstruction). 34
35
Jodie Gerhardt reported on details of the project and the ARB's preliminary review. The project met FAR 36
and setback requirements. Staff's concerns about placement of street trees had been addressed. One 37
condition of approval was for the construction road to remain open to the agreed upon time. Staff 38
recommended the ARB recommend the Planning Director approve the proposed project based upon 39
findings and conditions of approval. 40
41
Erik Sueberkrop, Studios Architecture, reviewed design concepts for the project. Gary Layman, The 42
Guzzardo Partnership, reviewed the landscape design for the project. 43
44
Board Members appreciated the completeness of the package and the applicant's changes to address the 45
ARB's concerns raised at the preliminary review. Board Members expressed concern regarding the height 46
of the mechanical screen; lack of details for light fixtures; the retaining wall for the berm; development of 47
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
MINUTES
City of Palo Alto Page 2
the 3,200 square feet based upon a future tenant's needs; diameter of the front columns in relation to 1
the height; and clear glass on the outside of the second story. 2
3
MOTION: Chair Popp moved, seconded by Vice Chair Gooyer, to approve the project as conditioned by 4
the Staff Report with the inclusion of: 1) additional evaluation of the mechanical screen and trash 5
enclosure, 2) provision of light fixture cut sheets to Staff for review; and 3) an additional condition of 6
approval that no less than 3,234 square feet of space be dedicated for amenities or the parking be 7
reconsidered. The condition of approval regarding the construction road, as approved by the City 8
Attorney's Office and Staff, be included. 9
10
Julie Jones, Perkins Coie, indicated the condition of approval regarding the construction road had been 11
approved by Cara Silver of the City Attorney's Office and Staff. Chair Popp requested Ms. Jones read the 12
relevant condition of approval, which she did. 13
14
Jim Inglis addressed Board Member concerns regarding the height of the mechanical screen. Chair Popp 15
clarified that the Board's concerns were the articulation of the mechanical screen. 16
17
MOTION PASSED: 4-0-0-0 18
19
2. 203 Forest Avenue [14PLN-00472]: Request by Ken Hayes Architects, Inc. on behalf of 203 20
Forest Avenue LLC, for Architectural Review of a proposal to construct a new 4,985 sf residential 21
addition to an existing 4,626 sf commercial building on a 5,000 sf site in the Downtown 22
Commercial (CD-C (GF)(P)) zoning district. Environmental Assessment: Categorical Exemption 23
per Section 15301. 24
25
Amy French distributed additional information provided by the applicant. The applicant did not elect to 26
submit the project to a Preliminary Review. Staff recommended the ARB allow public comment, provide 27
input, and continue the review to a date certain. The existing office use could remain on the mezzanine 28
and first floor. Staff sought ARB input regarding site circulation related to the ADA parking space; the 29
residential open space design; and building massing and transition with the second-floor placement 30
based on adjacent properties. Matthew Weintraub reviewed areas on which the ARB could be asked to 31
comment. Christy Fong indicated public comment received after release of the ARB packet had been 32
provided at places and to the public. 33
34
Chair Popp and Ms. French discussed the square footage/floor area of the project. 35
36
Ken Hayes reviewed details of the project site in relation to neighboring properties. One handicap 37
parking space in the parking assessment district had to remain, and it had to be placed onsite. He 38
requested the ARB consider approving the project with conditions. 39
40
Board Members questioned parking design independently and in relation to the existing tree; subdivision 41
of commercial and residential uses; a public art requirement; and the space labeled as study. 42
43
Herb Borock could not verify the floor area of the residential use based on the posted plans. 44
45
Board Members raised concerns regarding the site context, massing, parking and circulation, 46
compatibility, use of transom windows, orientation of open space, and the wall. 47
48
Board Members generally would not approve the project as proposed. The design of the building was 49
good; however, it was not compatible with existing buildings along the street. Closing the portico 50
detracted from the building. Utilizing materials from other buildings could be beneficial. The corners 51
should be pushed back at the upper level and the balcony relocated. The proposed parking arrangement 52
was acceptable. 53
54
Board Members and Staff discussed the location and design of the accessible parking space. 55
56
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Chair Popp advised that the item would be continued to a date uncertain. 1
2
Ms. French reported the Historic Resources Board would review the item on May 28, 2015. 3
4
Preliminary Review 5
6
3. 130 Lytton Avenue [15PLN-00089]: Request by Heather Young of FGY Architects, on behalf 7
of Tarlton Properties, for Preliminary Architectural Review of new core and shell façade 8
improvements and site improvements proposed in concept for an existing 47,352 sf, 4-story, City 9
of Palo Alto “grandfathered” office building in the CD-C(P) zoning district. Environmental 10
Assessment: Preliminary Reviews are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. 11
12
Rebecca Atkinson reviewed details of the proposed project. The applicant provided three options for ARB 13
consideration. The Staff Report highlighted key sections of the Municipal Code that could influence 14
design of the project. Staff sought feedback regarding the project's relationship to the 15
pedestrian/shopping combining district; requirements to design so as not to prohibit retail; visibility of the 16
rooftop terrace; tree removal; and future building signage. If the proposed options enhanced the 17
building's appearance without impacting surrounding properties, then findings might support a Design 18
Enhancement Exception. No public comment had been received. 19
20
Heather Young reviewed the history of and proposed details for the project. The three options were 21
proposed to improve the pedestrian experience and the relationship of the building to the pedestrian on 22
both the Lytton and Alma facades. One diagram demonstrated the three options and the need for a 23
Design Enhancement Exception. She requested the ARB comment on possible approval of the proposed 24
project, the canary pines and landscape, and project design. 25
26
Chair Popp and Ms. Young discussed the reasons for improving the building. Board Members questioned 27
the space originally designated for a parking ramp and parking. 28
29
Martin Summer requested the façades on Lytton and perhaps on Alma remain the same. The ground 30
floor could be opened to retail. 31
32
Board Members commented regarding the canary trees, the corner entry, retaining some elements of the 33
building, locating amenity spaces near the entrance, windows and glazing, location of the deck, and the 34
pedestrian experience. Board Members expressed a preference for a combination of elements from the 35
proposed options. 36
37
Board/Staff Announcements, Updates, Reports, and Comments 38
39
Chair Popp noted revisions to the format of Staff Reports. 40
41
Adjournment 42
43
Subcommittee Members: Alex Lew and Kyu Kim 44
45
SUBCOMMITTEE ITEMS 46
47
4. 2555 Park Boulevard [13PLN-00381]: Review of roof top canopy size and other minor items 48
as conditioned by the ARB to return for ARB subcommittee consideration. The project is 49
scheduled for City Council consideration on June 1, 2015. 50
51
Subcommittee Action: The subcommittee approved the following: 52
53
1 A reduction in the size of the roof top canopy replaced with a series of umbrellas; 54
2 A photometric plan; 55
City of Palo Alto Page 4
3 A translucent material to be applied to the lower portions of the windows to shield unwanted views into 1
the building; 2
4 More details in the landscape plan and; 3
5 Revised the second floor balcony railing to wrap around at the sides. 4
5
5. 420 Ramona [15PLN-00041]: Request by Brendan Canning on behalf of Leheng Cheng for a 6
facade remodel and tenant improvements to establish a new restaurant within the former 7
‘Mandarin Gourmet’ restaurant space in the CD-C (P) zone district. This is a staff level review 8
project referred to ARB subcommittee. 9
10
Subcommittee Action: ARB Subcommittee reviewed the revised project plans and provided 11
confirmation to staff that the project qualifies for processing at the staff level pending staff analysis and 12
staff ability to make the architectural review findings. 13
14
STAFF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEWS: 15
16
Project: Description: Minor exterior changes to the façade and entry of an existing building 17
Applicant: Christian Hansen 18
Address: 755 Page Mill Road, [14PLN-00475] 19
Approval Date: 5/5/15 20
Request for hearing deadline: 5/18/15 21
22
Project Description: Remediation of existing site conditions identified in owner’s 3rd party accessibility 23
plan 24
Applicant: Palo Alto Medical Foundation 25
Address: 795 El Camino Real [14PLN-00359] 26
Approval Date: 5/6/15 27
Request for hearing deadline: 5/19/15 28
29
Project Description: Exterior landscape improvements located in the front yard and courtyard 30
Applicant: Andy Plues, Jensen Architects 31
Address: 150 Forest Avenue [15PLN-0080] 32
Approval Date: 5/13/15 33
Request for hearing deadline: 5/26/15 34
35
Project Description: Replacement of three existing wall sings on the building with color changes 36
Applicant: Charley Schalliol 37
Address: 251 University Avenue [15PLN-00142] 38
Approval Date: 5/13/15 39
Request for hearing deadline: 5/26/15 40
41