Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-09-19 Architectural Review Board Summary MinutesPage 1 of 9 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 09/19/24 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MINUTES: September 19, 2024 Council Chamber & Zoom 8:30 AM Call to Order / Roll Call The Architectural Review Board (ARB) of the City of Palo Alto met on September 5, 2024, in Council Chambers and virtual teleconference at 8:37 a.m. Present: Chair Kendra Rosenberg, Vice Chair Yingxi Chen, Boardmember Mousam Adcock, Boardmember Peter Baltay, Boardmember David Hirsch Absent: None. Oral Communications There were no requests to speak. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions There were no changes. City Official Reports 1. Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative Future Agenda items and 3) Recently Submitted Projects Manager of Current Planning/ARB Liaison Jodie Gerhardt stated there are about 10 builder's remedy projects on 8 different sites. She reviewed some of those projects. Two projects have turned in SB 330s and have the possibility of filing a builder's remedy. The attorneys are working with City Council to see how to react to the individual applications. Action Item 2. 4335-4345 El Camino Real [24PLN-00152]: Request for Streamlined Housing Development Review to Allow the Development of 29 Three-Story Attached Residential Townhome Condominium Units and Associated Site Improvements on Two Non-Contiguous Lots. The Project Would Replace Existing Commercial and Motel Uses. The project Includes 4 Units at Below Market Rate and Accordingly Requests Waivers and Concessions Pursuant to State Density Bonus Law. A Compliant Senate Bill 330 Pre-Application Was Submitted on January 22, 2024. Environmental Assessment: The City is Preparing a Class 32 Exemption (Infill Development). Zoning District: CS (Service Commercial). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Emily Kallas at Emily.Kallas@cityofpaloalto.org. Page 2 of 9 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 09/19/24 Chair Rosenberg asked for disclosures. Boardmembers Baltay and Hirsch disclosed that they visited the site. Chair Rosenberg also visited the site and noted there were letters received via email in regard to this project. Vice Chair Chen was not able to visit the site but passes the site frequently and also did a Google Street View. Boardmember Adcock visited the site. She stated the second email noted an attachment that was not included. Planner Emily Kallas explained the streamlined housing entitlement process. This is the one ARB study session to receive feedback to help meet the intent of the objective standards with the waivers. After this it is approved as a Director's decision. The project is on two parcels at the intersection of Cesano Court and El Camino Real, in the CS Zoning District. There are two pockets of trees that are considered common open space for the condominiums across Cesano Court. The proposed project includes demolition of the existing commercial and hotel buildings and construction of 29 condominium units, 8 in one property and 21 on the other, each with 2-car garages. Each unit has 3 to 4 bedrooms. Four units will be provided at BMR plus 0.35 paid in in-lieu fees. There is a vesting tentative map under review. The townhomes are three stories with a fourth-floor balcony/deck area. The project includes three outdoor amenity areas. The applicants are requesting waivers to deviate from some of the objective design standards. She presented a site plan, floor plans and elevations, and material schemes. There are certain items not currently being met that could be addressed through requesting additional waivers or making changes to the plans, including privacy landscape requirements at the property line, seating near the entrance, 15% fenestration area for each end unit of townhouses facing the street, the horizontal shift not met on the left elevation of Building 3, and unit type 4 individual entry width of 5 feet not met. Ms. Kallas presented a list of waivers requested: to provide no retail or retail-like uses (determined not eligible for a waiver because it does not preclude the proposed density; however, it can be requested as a concession), to reduce the side yard setback to 4'8", to reduce the rear setback to 0 feet for refuse enclosure and 8 feet for units, to waive the 30% build-to line along Cesano Court, to reduce the number of required street trees by 5, to reduce the height of ground-floor finished floor by 0.6 to 1.2 feet, and to reduce privacy restrictions on windows and balconies adjacent to residential buildings. In terms of environmental review, a Class 32 exemption for infill development is being prepared. The staff recommendation is that the ARB conduct a study session to provide feedback on whether minor adjustments can bring the project into closer adherence with the objective design standards. Chair Rosenberg reiterated that this project is subject to the Director's decision and does not require a recommendation from the ARB. John Hickey, Vice President of Development with SummerHill Homes, added that Ms. Kallas recently raised a couple of points that had not been identified previously as requiring a waiver. He felt some of those could be addressed and others may still request a waiver. He wanted comments from the ARB to hopefully incorporate as much as possible into the project. He reviewed the proposal again, noting that the buildings were configured to provide an activated pedestrian-friendly street presence along El Camino and Cesano Court. Vehicle circulation is provided through two entry points from Cesano, and each unit will have its own attached private two-car garage. Bike storage for the residents will be in the garages, and there will be guest parking throughout the site on both parcels. There will also be trees planted between the garages to provide greenscape on that side of the building. Page 3 of 9 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 09/19/24 Jennifer Mastro, STG Architects, explained the townhouses have been designed in the contemporary architecture style, using variations in the roofline and massing to provide overall visual interest and human scale at the street level. She presented the views from the street, showing the variety of roof types. There will be landscaping between the entries and the public sidewalk. Public trees will be planted on the edge of the sidewalk as well as private on-site streets. The high-quality exterior finishes include plaster with 20/30 light sand finish, 8-inch smooth fiber cement siding, smooth fiber cement panels, and brick veneer at all entries, providing different levels of articulation. The roofing will be composition shingle roofing, with steel and wood railings used for the balconies and decks. The intent is to combine simple but refined materials with contemporary roof forms and building massing to develop an urban-suburban style. Roman De Sota, R3 Studios Landscape Architects, spoke about the proposed plant palette, trying to find a balance between native and nonnative species and low-light-tolerant species but also plants that are low water use, to screen the sides of building, to provide shade, and to prevent undesirable views. the amenity space next to Building 1 is a small outdoor space that has several uses, enhanced by a textured treatment of concrete, an electric barbecue counter, communal table, string lights, and a conversation area with a table. In and around that would be lush planting of native and nonnative species, remaining cognizant about the shade in the area. The second amenity space next to Building 3 faces Cesano Court. There is a pergola, seating area, tables, modern Adirondack chairs, and lounge seating. In front, specimen trees, such as native California oak trees, were proposed. The other amenity space to the northeast of Building 3 is another electric barbeque area. Because there is a trash enclosure adjacent, there is also a decorative perforated metal screen. PUBLIC COMMENT There were no requests to speak. Boardmember Adcock asked for clarification on the concessions. She noted the landscape screening toward the condominiums on the Mountain View side was not one of the waivers and questioned how that was being addressed. Regarding the interior streets being 32 feet, she asked how the dimensions were taken and why it exceeded standards. Ms. Pallas noted the suggestion was that the concession could be used for not having a retail component to the project. The landscape screening was identified as something that needs to be addressed as the project is not complete yet. Mr. Hickey explained the street measurement was because of an ordinance requiring 32-foot-wide private streets in Palo Alto. The measurement was taken from face of building to face of building, so it is not the travel-way itself. The intent was that the front door side will be used as the pedestrian side. The private streets are not designed to be pedestrian streets. Chair Rosenberg questioned why the retail component would be a concession rather than a waiver because with the townhome configuration, a retail component would preclude additional units. She clarified where the side and rear setbacks were intended to be reduced, including the portions that belong to the neighboring condominium and cannot be developed. She asked if it was possible that in the future those portions could be sold independently. She questioned the 8'11" setback and whether it was the bulk façade of the building. Page 4 of 9 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 09/19/24 Ms. Pallas explained that the retail waiver related to the density and number of units rather than the architectural style of the units. She replied that the sale of those portions of land would require unanimous approval of all of the condo owners and would potentially bring that project out of conformance for usable open space requirements. Mr. Hickey added that those portions would require a subdivision map or parcel map to create a separate legal parcel, which would be nonconforming and therefore unable to be created as a separate parcel for individual sale. He explained that the 8'11" was the second and third floors of the building, which are set further back than the 4'8" stoop on the ground floor. Chair Rosenberg asked for an explanation of the waiver for 30% build-to. She confirmed that the end of Street C was not able to be a through street and that the bike path suggested by the public could not be placed as the property there was not owned by this applicant. Ms. Pallas explained that normally there would be a 30% build-to to the setback, but on the right side of the property along Cesano Court, there was the amenity space, the driveway, and fire and transformers. Boardmember Adcock suggested that people living on one side could cross over and use the other amenities. Mr. Hickey agreed, noting it would be a single HOA serving the entire project. Vice Chair Chen asked about the trash collection for Parcel 1 as it was noted that on Parcel 3 the trash bin would be pulled out from the corner. Mr. Hickey showed how the bins would be pulled out to the street for Parcel 1, with the HOA paying an additional pullout fee to waste collection to pull out and push in the bins. Chair Rosenberg discussed the last two waivers. Regarding the request to reduce the number of street trees, she asked why the last few trees could not be included. She questioned the waiver to reduce restrictions on windows and balconies adjacent to residential buildings. Mr. De Sota stated the remaining trees were unable to be added due to utilities and the water treatment area and storm drain line, especially along El Camino. The small purple trees were pushed back to clear the storm drain line. Ms. Kallas clarified there was an additional tree from when the staff report was published, so the deficit is four trees rather than five. Mr. Hickey added that the objective standard does not provide an exception for driveways, where it is impossible to plant trees. He pointed out utility infrastructure and a crosswalk that prevented planting. Ms. Kallas explained that waiver six was in regard to Building 4 facing the apartments. Mr. Hickey added the applicant was taking a look at the issue of 15% requirement for each of the buildings and not as an average and was confident they would be able to address it. Vice Chair Chen noted the proposed building would be 10 feet or so from the property line and asked how far away from the property line the facing apartment is. She questioned the requirement for the bench location and how it works. Page 5 of 9 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 09/19/24 Mr. Hickey answered the distance from window to window was very close to 30 feet but had not been verified with a survey. The bench requirement had also not been looked at yet, but he expected to be able to comply. Ms. Kallas explained the code states, "Primary building entry shall provide at least one exterior seating area or bench within 30 feet of building entry or path leading to building entry." For this style of building, there is not a primary entrance compared to an apartment building, and Staff is still looking at whether the amenity space would qualify. Boardmember Adcock did not feel the amenity space made sense as the bench requirement is for public use. Vice Chair Chen asked whether there were any revisions on the left elevation of Building 3 where it did not meet the horizontal shift requirements. She questioned if the windows at the top of the buildings were dormers and if they were accessible. Mr. Hickey stated the horizontal shift would be addressed but had not been looked at yet. The constraint was that it looked out onto the amenity space, with some limits in terms of how far out it could go without encroaching onto that space. He explained the windows were faux dormers, actually the back side of the fourth-floor balcony. The windows are blackened glass, and it is fully enclosed, not an accessible space. They were included to elevate the interest of the roofline. Chair Rosenberg questioned if that enclosed area was counted as square footage. Ms. Mastro clarified that it was unconditioned attic space. Boardmember Adcock asked if there could be a ladder up to a storage space in there. Ms. Mastro noted there would need to be an attic access to that space but it was not designed structurally for anything to be stored there. Vice Chair Chen asked about the roof assembly. She stated the thickness of the roof deck seemed to be double height as compared to the floor assembly below. She pointed out areas on the first floor plan that counted toward FAR and questioned if they were accessible. Ms. Mastro explained usually 24 inches was allowed for floor assembly as well as potentially ducts running through the area to feed the floors below. The questioned first-floor areas were not accessible, just a projection on the outside of the building to create articulation. Chair Rosenberg suggested the area of projection could become a closet and asked if it could fit a hot water heater or furnace. Mr. Hickey stated share wall concerns may preclude that use but could look at whether structurally a door could be added there. Vice Chair Chen asked for thoughts about the different roof slopes. Ms. Mastro responded that there were extensive discussions with the Fire District on accessing these buildings for fire purpose. The 3:12 coming from the rear side of the building was a request from Fire so they are able to access the rear side of the building with equipment. Similarly, around the front and to Page 6 of 9 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 09/19/24 the highest points of the roof, they had requested a 5:12 maximum slope to get out to the roof over the deck space. Boardmember Adcock noted areas of switching from 3:12 to 4:12, making framing more complicated than it needs to be, for example on the upper right of the plan. Boardmember Baltay asked why the ground-floor units facing El Camino Real cannot be raised another foot. Ryan Hansen explained the streets are going in the opposite direction so there is an adverse reaction of pushing the building up from the back of walk along El Camino but too great of a difference to catch up on the street side without physical risers in the garage that would encroach into the minimum clearance space unless there was a waiver. Chair Rosenberg asked the amount of the difference. Mr. Hickey responded that Building 2 was 2/10 of a foot off and for Building 5, a little over a foot short. Boardmember Baltay suggested it was frequently a benefit to the residents to be somewhat elevated from the grade. Mr. Hickey felt it depended on the context and stated he would rely more on landscaping than grade separation for privacy. Boardmember Baltay stated there was a letter from the public about a bicycle path. He asked Staff to explain what that bicycle path is. Ms. Pallas answered that the comment arose from when a different project was proposed on this property and went to a Council prescreening. There is a bike lane multiuse path behind the Mountain View apartments. It aligns with the common use parcel on Cesano Court, slightly north of this project site. There was further discussion about the path, with Mr. Hickey giving his opinion that the only way to use that land was through eminent domain, which Ms. Pallas clarified is not an option in a streamlined housing project. Boardmember Hirsch noted that the amenity spaces did not include any playground equipment and suggested changing one of the outdoor barbecue areas to an area for children. He also discussed that the project is over an acre, which in the code would require two different types of housing typologies. He felt the project was well done and would be a pleasant addition to the street but that there should be more units on this site and add to the Housing Element requirement. He spoke more about the need for more housing. Ms. Pallas explained that in terms of housing typology, these are currently two separate parcels separated by a public street. Each lot is less than an acre, so one housing type is required per lot. Regarding the Housing Element, certain elements like the size of the units, which are 3- to 4-bedrooms, may serve the community in a different way than providing more but smaller units would. Boardmember Hirsch noted that if the Board were voting on this, he would vote against it only because it should have had a multiple dwelling building on the smaller lot. Page 7 of 9 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 09/19/24 There was further discussion about this issue and whether this was considered one or two parcels. Boardmember Adcock specified that the language of the objective standard says "A diversity of housing types…are required for projects on larger lots." She felt the lot was the question at hand because technically the applicant could have submitted two separate projects rather than one application with two separate lots. Chair Rosenberg asked if this should come back as two separate projects. Boardmember Baltay wanted to see the Planning Staff be more aggressive promoting overall city policies and objectives. He felt it was debatable whether this was considered one project or two but the Staff has never enforced this particular aspect of objective standards. He agreed that Palo Alto needed more housing and this was one tool the Planning Department could and should use to get greater density of housing. Boardmember Hirsch added that the larger number of units on a property, the greater the possibility of affordable housing. Chair Rosenberg felt this was an extremely appropriate site for townhouses and the City needs more family-oriented housing. There was further discussion about the type of project suitable for this location. Boardmember Adcock stated the townhomes had space for families, including multigenerational families. She noted it was missing the Housing Element numbers and was using more than the buffer percentage in terms of units it would provide, which she did not totally agree with, but did not feel that arguing whether this was the right type of development would push the need for housing forward. Vice Chair Chen understood the need for more units in town but also wanted to balance the needs of different groups of people, whether families or individuals. Boardmember Hirsch noted he was not expecting a change today but wanted to be more aware of the opportunity to work with a variety of densities. Planning Manager Gerhardt thought this was a good discussion about the need for housing in the City of Palo Alto. She noted Staff was very mindful in using the buffer the Housing Element allows for issues like this and tracking those numbers. Staff has interpreted the code in this case to say that there are two lots, each under an acre, and therefore only one housing type is required. Discussions about changing the objective standard should be tabled for another hearing. Boardmember Hirsch restated his opinion that this was not two separate projects. Chair Rosenberg redirected the discussion to questions related to the architecture and aesthetic of the buildings. She asked for input regarding the exterior elevations, specifically along El Camino and how they relate to Cesano Court. Boardmember Adcock had questions regarding massing and finishes. She noted there were three separate boards that were very similar in terms of color schemes. She asked the architect about the logic and strategy on those. She felt they were so similar that it felt like an apartment building with a few different paint colors of very similar tones. Page 8 of 9 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 09/19/24 Ms. Mastro explained the architects wanted to create a cohesive look for the five buildings within the same color palette but keep them distinct from one another. She stated the body colors are used on the stucco and on the siding and believed it provided the differentiation the applicant was looking for. The decision was made to do color schemes per building and not per individual unit. Different-colored entry doors could be explored. Mr. Hickey added that different options were explored, and this was the look that was preferred by the developers. He also explained that often colors that look very similar in one light end up being very different colors and vice versa. He explained which scheme was for which buildings. Boardmember Adcock questioned the perforated metal panels on L-9.2. Regarding the rooftop decks, she asked the material of the horizontal slat balcony edge and if that turns the corner when separating between units. Mr. De Sota responded that the enlargement on L-2.2 showed the metal panels behind the barbecue. It would transition from more open to opaque at the bottom as shown on the elevation. Ms. Mastro responded that it is horizontal slats along the rear piece of the deck, and then as it turns the corner, it transitions to horizontal siding because it is not able to having the slat railing there going perpendicular to the roof slope. There is also a 4-foot wall between balconies. Boardmember Baltay stated there were guidelines for what Palo Alto would like to see regarding privacy and balconies. Boardmember Adcock added that a townhome is like a private home and then to be on the balcony and only 2 feet from the neighbor feels less private. Chair Rosenberg closed the comment portion of the meeting. The Board took a 10-minute break before returning for internal discussion. Boardmember Adcock thought this type of housing was needed in Palo Alto for families. As far as the overall design layout, she felt the frontage on El Camino was nice but was unsure so many colors were needed. She was interested in some more accent colors on doors or porches. She was disappointed the dormer was a fake window and did not feel it added enough interest to make it worthwhile. She recommended Staff look into landscape screening on the Mountain View side. She felt there was enough space in the layouts to have a step between the garage and first level to elevate the floor. She felt the bike path was a lost opportunity. Boardmember Hirsch suggested a fence with planting to provide privacy. He described another project that took advantage of tight spaces by using narrow walkways. He repeated his request for consideration of children's play equipment. He agreed that it was a waste not to use the dormer windows as a light well. He suggested the step-up elevation for the first floor be carried out to the front of the house. He was happy with the subtle differences in color and scale changes but thought front door color changes would create more individuality. He was less concerned about the trees and felt the bike path was not something that could be solved with this project. He was not concerned about the side elevations and the amount of glazing. He felt it was an elegant project even though he disagreed with the use of the smaller site. Page 9 of 9 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 09/19/24 Boardmember Baltay stated this was one of the best townhouse projects he has seen. Regarding the compliance with objective standards, he wanted to see two items considered more. One was the question of privacy adjacent to the apartments on the Mountain View border. He felt the best solution was greater landscaping and did not think it would be fair to the residents to have translucent glazing on the windows there. The second item was the ground-floor elevation, which he felt could and should meet the objective standard. He believed it needed more complexity of construction and that there was room to get the stairs in there. He was disappointed in the fake roof dormers and felt they should be eliminated. He thought the roof forms were overly complex and could be tightened up a little, but he liked that each unit had separate roof pieces. He recommended stronger trim pieces around groupings of windows. He noted the colors met the standards but were boring and needed some accents. Vice Chair Chen thought the site plan was successful overall, fitting as many townhomes as possible on the site while still providing gathering space. She thought the materials and colors were very carefully selected and stood out from the neighboring buildings. Regarding the waivers, she did not have concern about the windows facing the apartment buildings and agreed that they should not have obscured glass on that side. She thought the waiver to reduce the height of the ground floor finish could be solved. She suggested to work on the left elevation of Building 3 to have the horizontal variations. She agreed with previous comments about the fake dormers and also suggested simplifying the roofline. Considering privacy between units, she wanted to see taller screening between the units on the rooftop. Chair Rosenberg noted there was a lot of agreement on these items. The ground floor needs to be reevaluated. The privacy screen was not too much of an issue. She echoed Boardmember Hirsch's commentary about the play structure. She agreed that the roofs were chaotic and could be cleaned up. She noted there was a split vote on the color scheme but felt the colors were nice. She encouraged accenting the doors for more variation. She felt the location was great and loved the idea of the townhomes here. There was no vote as this was a study session. Board Member Questions, Comments, Announcements Or Future Meetings And Agendas Manager of Current Planning/ARB Liaison Jodie Gerhardt explained there were no decisions on the ARB Awards today but wanted the Board to start thinking about it. She presented the bylaws, stating that every five years there will be design awards for outstanding projects. She noted that the criteria and number of awards was up to the ARB. She discussed the amount of awards presented in the past and also showed the carryover list from the 2020 awards cycle and the list of new projects. A list of about 100 to 200 projects will be reviewed. She discussed the process going forward. She planned to come back in a month with the list of eligible projects. Chair Rosenberg encouraged board members to think about categories and how the awards ceremony should highlight and showcase buildings. Boardmember Baltay suggested adding a residential category to get public interest. There was further discussion about this. Adjournment Chair Rosenberg adjourned the meeting at 11:40 a.m.