Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-10-03 Architectural Review Board Summary MinutesPage 1 of 14 Architectural Review Board Special Meeting Summary Minutes: 10/03/24 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES: October 3, 2024 Council Chamber & Zoom 10:00 AM Call to Order / Roll Call The Architectural Review Board (ARB) of the City of Palo Alto met on October 3, 2024 in Council Chambers and virtual teleconference at 10:03 AM Present: Chair Kendra Rosenberg, Vice Chair Yingxi Chen, Boardmember Mousam Adcock, Boardmember Peter Baltay, Boardmember David Hirsch Absent: None. Oral Communications None. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions None. City Official Reports 1. Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative Future Agenda items and 3) Recently Submitted Projects Claire Raybould, Interim Manager Current Planning, provided a slide presentation outlining tentative future agenda items, pending ARB projects and a potential new project. She added October 17 to the future agenda items as the date 762 San Antonio Road was planned to be brought forward for an early hearing and then 4075 El Camino Way planned community rezoning would be brought forward for zoning amendment which would be the second hearing for that project asking for a recommendation. She introduced Steven Switzer who would be taking over as the liaison to the Architectural Review Board starting at the next hearing. Boardmember Adcock announced she would be recusing herself from 3950 Fabian Way as it was a project of her office. Jennifer Armer, Assistant Director remarked an email would be sent prior to that meeting to confirm there would be a quorum. Study Session Page 2 of 14 Architectural Review Board Special Meeting Summary Minutes: 10/03/24 2. Study Session to Review Potential Amendments to the Regulations for the Housing Incentive Program (HIP) in Title 18 (Zoning Ordinance) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Implement Program 3.4 of the Adopted 2023‐2031 Housing Element. Chair Rosenberg, Vice Chair Chen and Boardmember Adcock had nothing to disclose. Boardmembers Baltay and Hirsch disclosed a passionate interest in the project. Jean Eisberg, Lexington Planning consultant, and Ryan Call, Keyser Marston consultant, gave a joint slide presentation that included an agenda and meeting purpose, city vs. state density bonus programs, Housing Incentive Program (HIP) overview, Program 3.4: modify HIP, map of HIP areas: existing and proposed, State Density Bonus Law, state vs. local density bonus, ensuring the HIP is a real incentive compared to the State Density Bonus Law, process, test sites, RM‐30 zoning standards (pre‐January 2024 updates), summary of findings – existing zoning standards (type of development supported by zoning), financial feasibility approach, summary of findings – existing zoning standards, zoning changes to enhance feasibility, example: RM‐30 zone site testing, example: resulting program RM‐30 zoning district, summary of findings – potential HIP zoning standards, example: CN zone site testing, example: resulting program (N zoning district), potential HIP changes to improve feasibility, comparison of density bonus options, PTC feedback (9/25/24 study session), built example: 588 Webster St. (downtown mixed‐ use w/office, built example 3705‐3709 El Camino Real (100% affordable), built example 3225 El Camino (workforce housing; PF/WH zone) and ARB discussion: potential HIP modifications. PUBLIC COMMENT Stephen Levy commented that financial feasibility was critical in allowing applicants to bring projects forward and that changes were currently needed at least on the prototype small projects. He hoped the Board would move forward quickly with the proposal. He requested the Board to ask the consultants to model the large apartment projects to make sure that the focus area and GM and ROLM changes make projects feasible, going for large modifications and measuring the additional cost of time delay. Amie Ashton, Executive Director of Palo Alto Forward, declared the changes to be essential to get the projects that are wanted and needed to meet the housing element commitment. She advised extending HIP to more parcels, eliminating parking minimums and allowing more FAR to create flexibility. Manuel Salazar spoke on behalf of SV@Home expressing support for the proposed amendments. He urged the Board to carefully monitor how the program is implemented alongside the State Density Bonus Law. Boardmember Baltay mentioned discussing FAR, height limitations, parking and landscaping. Boardmember Adcock wanted to understand PTC's recommendation on defining retail preservation requirements on South El Camino Real. Ms. Armer answered that was based on a concern about whether those nodes are clearly enough defined in the South El Camino Real design guidelines. They were looking to have some additional information to make sure that those really were the correct locations. There was additional discussion by the PTC about whether those lined up with areas that generally had vacancies or office since those design guidelines were adopted back in 2002. Page 3 of 14 Architectural Review Board Special Meeting Summary Minutes: 10/03/24 Vice Chair Chen asked for clarification about the retail preservation requirement revision mentioned on packet page 34. Ms. Raybould explained it was generally encouraged to be on the ground floor but was allowed on two floors. Chair Rosenberg thought there might be a way they could incentivize retail having some height bonus. Boardmember Hirsch questioned what determines the exact size of a potential mixed development. He wanted to know if the townhouse discussion referred to individual or multiple dwelling type townhouses. He added if a site is over an acre it changes into a two or three prototypologies. He asked if that had been part of the study. Chair Rosenberg explained that a lot of the examples were smaller sites and focused on one type of housing. They have rules and regulations about mixing the typology when the property gets above a certain size. Ms. Eisberg responded only one site was tested (packet page 50 and 51) in the ROLM that was exactly 1 acre. They only looked at an apartment configuration. Based on the City's standard, going beyond one acre is when there is more than one housing type. They were trying to maximize the development envelope. Kaiser Marston thought their units were a little bit small so they increased them to make them more financially feasible and realistic. If they tested multiple development typologies, on this site they could have done both typologies. It would have reduced their development intensity. The idea for this particular zone in the ROLM in that new focus area was not to allow townhomes. Mr. Call remarked part of the exercise was determining how to increase the feasibility of the development program on the site by allowing things like more generous building height and setbacks. The other challenge was knowing the City was very sensitive to significant changes in building height and setbacks and so they often strive for as much efficiency as possible and in all of the site layouts they did. He thought mixed typologies on a site was a great way to balance absorption demand in the city and introduce different folks that would be in that development. That only comes with extremely flexible zoning regulation that allows a low quantity of townhomes to be complemented with a high‐density podium or wrapped housing typology on a larger site. Most of the site studies were in the 5000 to 10,000 square feet which meant introducing multiple typologies could be cost prohibitive. Where flats and the stacking of apartments was studied, they looked at having a mix of three, two and one bedrooms units and, in some cases, studios. Smaller unit types are often heavily impacted by parking requirements. When looking at townhomes specifically, they looked at the typical Bay Area family products and some very narrow prototypes that were seen in some of the more dense cities with very small lots to see what the max unit count would be using the townhome product. They looked at one unit per townhouse. He commented they were trying to figure out what the threshold was for feasibility on these small parcels. They studied products that were more typical to the typologies found in the Bay Area in the Greater Bay Area market. They went with a family of townhome product types, some that were small and very narrow at 12 and a half feet wide and then with the other prototypes that were based on the 16‐foot and 22‐foot modules. Those are some of the tools that Kaiser Marston can do an analysis and find comparable sales, development costs and do their feasibility analysis. It does not mean their recommendations for reduced setbacks or increased building height will preclude a great architect Page 4 of 14 Architectural Review Board Special Meeting Summary Minutes: 10/03/24 coming in and introducing new typologies. They are advocating for greater flexibility for those creative solutions. Boardmember Hirsch hoped there would be an opportunity to expand to the mixed larger scale. He mentioned a project that had that opportunity the previous week and asked them to look into it and determine if it should have been a mixed use project. Boardmember Baltay explained the current code requires more than one type of housing on larger than one acre lots. The lot Boardmember Hirsch brought up was a question of whether it's one acre, bigger or smaller. He did not see any discussion about changing that requirement. He asked how that was addressing what recommendations we should make about the zoning code for HIP properties. Boardmember Hirsch advised it leads to a discussion about how waivers could be utilized versus trade‐ offs. Boardmember Baltay clarified that Mr. Call was suggesting that loosening zoning would make it more feasible to have the two types he talking about. He thought focusing on giving them recommendations of how to encourage the housing they were trying to get, they would get multiple types. He opined they should flat out eliminate FAR requirements. Other zoning has stepped in which really covers why FAR was originally created. Chair Rosenberg stated if they were to eliminate FAR, they should make sure to clearly define the open space. Boardmember Adcock agreed with Chair Rosenberg's comment. She wondered if the open space requirement be only on the rooftop if FAR is eliminated. Chair Rosenberg cautioned that limiting open space to the rooftop terrace could present privacy concerns with neighbors. She would want to have a feasible discussion on open space. Vice Chair Chen agreed with Boardmember Baltay's comment regarding the limitation requirements and they could control FAR in another way. She wanted to know if they limit the building height to 60‐foot how they would allow them to build an FAR to a maximum of 3.5. Boardmember Baltay responded the intention of FAR was originally to control the bulk of buildings but there are now other regulations that do that. It is the daylight plane that affects the neighbors. Chair Rosenberg agreed with the overall sentiment but cautioned that one of the benefits of a lot of these buildings is that there is a space to be outside. Boardmember Baltay shared Chair Rosenberg's sentiment about being careful with parking, open space and landscaping. Chair Rosenberg advised allowing for the concept of a podium and saying the open space is 20 or 30 percent based on the different zoning typologies but allowing that space to be either at ground level or at the podium. She was hesitant to say it would all be on the roof. Boardmember Hirsch mentioned a diagram of the daylight plane on page 25 with a dimension from the base of the B dimension which is the initial height of 25 feet. He pointed out there was no dimension for the distance between buildings so the open space and usable outdoor space was in question. Page 5 of 14 Architectural Review Board Special Meeting Summary Minutes: 10/03/24 Boardmember Baltay commented the daylight plane needed to be adjusted. Chair Rosenberg understood the B height where the daylight plane begins on packet page 25 was changing from zone to zone. Ms. Eisberg clarified that the diagram on packet page 25 was codified in 18.24 of the municipal code in the objective standards. That daylight plane would apply when no daylight plane was otherwise applicable to a site with a lower‐height building adjacent. The example that was shown was a modification to an existing standard. If someone invoked the HIP to raise the height to potentially 16 fet initially to get the second story at the confronting property line. Chair Rosenberg commented she would like to take a straw poll if the Board felt comfortable eliminating FAR understanding they would be relying more heavily on daylight planes, height limitations and open space requirements. Boardmember Adcock was in favor of that with a more robust open space requirement clarification. Vice Chair Chen was reluctant to agree with that because there were a lot of smarter people in town that could work around it. Boardmember Hirsch expressed he would rather throw it back at the consultants and see if they would give it consideration and preferred not making such a broad statement without asking for more research. He was in favor but with hesitation. Boardmember Baltay supported getting rid of FAR but agreed with Boardmember Adcock's comment stating it would have to be done carefully with guardrails. Chair Rosenberg wanted the Board's thoughts on height and daylight plane. She wondered if they could recommend that the 18.24 municipal code on packet page 25 remain the default with the exception of being next to a low‐density residential property in which case then it might default over to the 16 foot height with the 45 degrees as being proposed. Ms. Eisberg remarked the daylight planes that were identified as being problematic were adjacent to the lower‐density districts that have a more aggressive daylight plane that starts at the 10‐foot height. Boardmember Hirsch was concerned about a three‐story height stoop level arrangement where there was a duplex on an upper floor and a floor through apartment on the lower floor ending up with a facade that is approximately 50 feet high and a stoop in front of it to get to the second level as the setback would not work with a daylight plane. Boardmember Adcock felt like what was being proposed was too low in the majority of areas, particularly in RM 30 where it is 40 foot. She appreciated that the parapet was proposed to be removed from the height limit. She thought it should get at least another five feet. Boardmember Baltay generally supported the recommended height limit increases. He thought the standard 50‐foot limit would be better changed to 55. He brought up Chair Rosenberg's comment regarding conditioning the extra height on having retail on the ground floor to encourage retail preservation. He recommended a blanket change to the height limit to 55 feet. Chair Rosenberg asked if there was a height maximum on the parapets. Page 6 of 14 Architectural Review Board Special Meeting Summary Minutes: 10/03/24 Ms. Raybould did not know if there was a height maximum on the parapets but if they were to remove it they would want that. Boardmember Baltay described how he thought removing it would add unnecessary complexity to the design. Chair Rosenberg was not opposed to ignoring the parapet wall to an extent but felt like it would need to be stepped back or meshed. She felt like that would affect volume going against the daylight plane and height limit requirements. The question would be if they want to maintain the recommendations of the PTC that the parapet is not included or include it but give them five feet extra. Boardmember Baltay advised giving extra space. Ms. Raybould thought the proposed change came from the changes that were made to the focus area regulations. They did change the definition of height but the way the code was wording was railings and parapets shall be excluded from height calculations in table three only to the extent they are required for health and safety standards in titles 15 and 16 of the code basically limited to the OSHA standards for height. Boardmember Baltay remarked that when you have an exception about OSHA standards then the planning staff is governing making the call and they are not building professionals so it is putting planning mixed into technical details of building. Chair Rosenberg suggested saying the height goes to the top of the roof and up to a 42‐inch parapet could be added beyond the height limit. Vice Chair Chen remarked that assumed that all the buildings had a flat roof so it would depend on where it is measured from. She agreed with Boardmember Baltay that their role was to make sure the overall building massing would be compatible. She thought it made sense to include the parapet wall height. She was not sure if a additional five foot height was enough because it was more commercial area and based on the tablet the FAR allowed was 3.5. She asked for CC2 if they would still consider sixty foot high enough. Chair Rosenberg commented they were in agreement with everything proposed by the consultants and were looking to add an additional five feet to account for the potential grade changes from one side of a site to another and to include those parapets and not allow those to extend beyond the height limit. They wanted to regulate the exterior envelope of the building and give more freedom to the inside. Boardmember Baltay thought 65 was the right number for CC2. Chair Rosenberg thought 60 feet was appropriate for what they have and the 65‐foot height limit was a step in the right direction. Boardmember Baltay recommended that staff sell changing the definition of grade changes in the parapet heights to the Planning Commission and Council. Boardmember Hirsch asked how this would deal with a somewhat larger site. Chair Rosenberg was inclined to just keep it the same height for now for ease of development. Page 7 of 14 Architectural Review Board Special Meeting Summary Minutes: 10/03/24 Boardmember Baltay responded nobody is proposing daylight planes or setback at height along El Camino so that is where the height limit is important. Sixty‐five feet is a six story building and that is what they want to plan for. Boardmember Hirsch queried how penthouses were dealt with. Boardmember Baltay advised he could be persuaded to eliminate height limits and just rely on daylight planes. Mr. Call explained that in terms of building code, there are typologies in terms of construction they see all day long. In an instance where there is a podium and housing construction on top of that, the max wood frame seen above the podium would be five stories. The podium could be one or two stories depending on how it houses parking. If it has two levels of structured parking, it would be a 20 to 22 foot podium. This is a common typology seen throughout the entire Bay Area for that particular type of construction. Another common typology is if structured parking is wrapped where parking is not vertically stacked but the parking is wrapped by the housing. Then you will see a lower building that maxes out at the five stories, which would be in the 50 to 55 foot range. Another important consideration is for retail heights. Tenants that are going to pay rent that might cover the construction of that space expect and 18‐foot floor to floor for retail and maybe a 16 1/2 minimum. If looking at Class A retail tenants, flexibility is desired to have a higher retail level. If looking at a very dense project on a somewhat smaller site, then flexibility to have a two story podium is desired. When looking at the 65 foot height limit, that will accommodate 4 stories over 2 story podium comfortably but will not allow the developer that 5th story. They are looking at ways to compete against the state density bonus laws. The more the building height rules can be aligned with the maximum efficiency within a typology, the closer you will be to incentivizing folks to embrace the HIP versus going to state density. Another difference from older cities it in this area of California there is a massive cost threshold between the high rise construction, which is triggered after the top floor exceeds 75 feet in height. The predominant construction typology is what will basically be seen. Under that height limit will be wood frame, either type three or type five, over podium or in a wrapped configuration on the ground. If you start to get into the high rise, which has different exiting requirements and construction requirements, those buildings usually go up quite a bit more looking at 10, 11 or 12 stories to start getting feasibility. If they focus on the construction typologies that comfortably live under that high rise, efficiency will be found. Foreseeing a penthouse to have that setback at that that upper level could add a lot of cost to a project. A lot of cities have required setbacks at the upper levels and oftentimes that is one of the first things a developer will waive using the state density bonus laws. Boardmember Hirsch noted almost all of the major buildings in downtown Redwood City are taller than that. He asked if they examined their prototypes and have some knowledge of the construction cost for buildings like that. He thought they would be having to fight with developers who want to build that kind of density into projects. He did not favor it. He preferred a five or six‐story building with a lot of articulation but there are a lot of buildings in Redwood City that violate that. Mr. Call advocated that as they set the height limits, they take into consideration what the natural efficiency is of the typologies that live under that high rise threshold. If their objective design standards could be set around an efficient building product which either allows four or five stories above a podium then he thought there was a chance at getting developers to embrace the HIP. If they go with a 65‐foot height limit that includes the parapet and it is a strong retail address and that developer wants to do a Page 8 of 14 Architectural Review Board Special Meeting Summary Minutes: 10/03/24 proper 18 foot floor to floor on the residential, then they'll have a 4‐story opportunity above that retail space but they are keeping them from doing that level with that height limit set at 60 to 65. He added going into the high‐rise territory was a difficult move for developers and he did not know if they needed to design their odds around that but designing the odds around the building code allowances for type 5 or type 3 construction was important. Boardmember Baltay wanted clarification that Mr. Call thought 60 feet would be adequate to anticipate 4 stories above a 2‐story podium. Mr. Call preferred top of structure for the height limit requirement because it would allow an architect to have more freedom in how the massing is articulated and the building is not flat top. If the parapet height is restricted to 65 feet, it is more restrictive in terms of architectural expression. Boardmember Baltay wanted to know if Mr. Call thought going 5 feet further than the 60‐foot limit was an improvement. Mr. Call explained those recommendations were based on feedback through the process from the City. He opined allowing up to five stories over a two story podium would open up a bigger door for development solutions on the smaller parcels, especially in commercial districts. He stated 75 feet would not be an atypical height for that kind of product where you have a 2‐story podium plus 5 stories wood‐framed construction. He added one benefit of Palo Alto was that land values and rent were extremely high so there was support for going with the four‐story over two‐story podium. Chair Rosenberg encouraged the Board members to maintain keeping the fabric of the community and City in mind when thinking about the height limits. Boardmember Baltay stood behind the thought of adding five feet to the recommendations based on justification for parapets and grading and leave the measurement top of building to the ground. Boardmember Hirsch mentioned they had been looking at buildings in which the parking was not entirely underground to levels of parking below grade so that was another consideration. Chair Rosenberg argued that it would be up to the developer if they want to go two stories below grade and leaving the option of taking the 65‐foot height limit and put all of it as housing. She was unsure about encouraging a two‐story podium of parking and mechanical for all of the units as it detaches the buildings from the sidewalk. Vice Chair Chen asked for thoughts on raising it from 10 to 16. Chair Rosenberg felt the 16 feet at 45 degrees next to residential could be across the board for every one of the zonings especially knowing there were ADU laws allowing 16‐foot buildings right next door 4 feet from the property line and then having the default of the 18.24 municipal code if it is not next to residential. Boardmember Baltay remarked it was a significant impact on an R1 property when it was next to what would be an RM 30 apartment building or townhouse. Keeping the daylight plane at 10 feet would be a significant impact on the ability to create housing. He thought 16 feet was a fair compromise if there were good guardrails for privacy protection which was where landscaping would come in. Vice Chair Chen opined it would be a huge privacy impact to all the adjacent R1 buildings. Page 9 of 14 Architectural Review Board Special Meeting Summary Minutes: 10/03/24 Boardmember Baltay responded they were trying to drive builders to use the State Density Bonus Law which would lessen the impact. He stated they should establish a tight control of the daylight plane, landscaping requirements and additional privacy requirements. He believed they should require a maximum of one parking space per unit regardless of the size of the unit, consider having no parking requirement for studio size unit and some overlay requirement of additional parking for services uses. He thought this would achieve Palo Alto's goals of reduction of parking, traffic and load on the infrastructure. Chair Rosenberg did not think they should ever have a maximum of parking. She agreed with the recommendation of meeting the state standards on the minimum parking requirements. She thought they could reduce the minimum but was hesitant to impose a maximum. Boardmember Baltay agreed with going with one parking space per unit, provide additional service required spaces for services and visitors and he suggested having no parking requirement for commercial uses. Chair Rosenberg asked if there were concerns that reducing the parking requirements might encourage microunit studios. Chair Rosenberg was amenable to not having parking spaces for studies making sure that each unit is counted in the required minimum parking for service spaces. Boardmember Baltay supported that idea. His goal was to reduce the amount of parking required. He thought the parking drove the projects beyond what is reasonable. Boardmember Hirsch opined that people who are developing some commercial space are going to want to have parking nearby and when it is a mix of housing and commercial it would cause a big problem with the commercial tenants. Boardmember Baltay observed that many developers use the excuse of being required to provide parking as a reason why they cannot provide retail or commercial stuff. Chair Rosenberg was concerned that limiting it to one space per unit would result in a reduction in micro and efficiency units. She encouraged less parking in the higher density units and either having a half a space for a studio or eliminating the parking space for studios with a higher count for the service units. Vice Chair Chen did not want to result in nobody renting or buying the house due to lack of parking. She thought parking requirements should be based on the size of the units. Chair Rosenberg asked if they wanted to try and define the 20 units of service parking spaces. Boardmember Baltay advised leaving that to the pros. Vice Chair Chen explained that based on a study by Boardmember Hirsch and her, there were some design guidelines for the ratio being one per three units to provide guest parking. She suggested starting from there. Chair Rosenberg was comfortable with allowing for open space to either be at ground level or podium. She supported allowing rooftop terraces but was hesitant to allow open space to be only on the rooftop. Page 10 of 14 Architectural Review Board Special Meeting Summary Minutes: 10/03/24 Boardmember Baltay recalled the objective standards put significant guardrails against rooftop open space close to the edges. Vice Chair Chen queried if they should include height for the stairs if there is roof access. Ms. Raybould responded the staircase is typically included in the measurement of height. The elevator overrun is not. Chair Rosenberg advised the simple solution would be adding a caveat that there is an exemption for one staircase access and one elevator access to the height limitation. Boardmember Baltay thought more study was needed to decide how to regulate that but was in favor of projections into the height limit for access features provided they were not nominally visible from the ground. He would look to the consultants to do studies on the best way to accomplish that. Boardmember Hirsch remarked it is usually shorter dimension, the height is less at the perimeter. Boardmember Baltay suggested allowing those things to project into the height limit but not the daylight plane would ensure protection from impacting the neighbors. Chair Rosenberg commented a chimney of a staircase projecting 10 feet above at the front would be undesirable. She liked the concept of the daylight plane if it continued off beyond the height limit as long as the daylight plane continuance was respected. She would want some sort of setbacks. Boardmember Baltay agreed some exception would be needed for access to the rooftop things if allowed for open space. Ms. Raybould explained that as part of the objective standard changes some changes were made to the general standards and exceptions under 18.40.230 for rooftop gardens with an allowance for stairs with the exception that it had to be set back from the edges of the building. Vice Chair Chen suggested saying it is only limited to staircase and elevators. Boardmember Hirsch thought a half a space of parking per efficiency unit would be a better choice. Chair Rosenberg argued that the floor square footage of an efficiency space was equivalent to a one bedroom. Not requiring it at all might encourage more efficiency spaces and not taxing a three‐bedroom unit with a parking space might encourage those. The highest tax of parking space per square footage of habitable unit is the one bedroom. It will result in fewer one bedrooms but more efficiencies and two and three bedrooms. Mr. Call suggested consideration of a requirement for one space per unit but then allow building management to dictate the allotment. Chair Rosenberg agreed that flexibility of management of renting or not renting is completely up to whoever's running the building. Boardmember Hirsch thought they had to also be conscious of the marketplace, which is why he suggested at least a half for the efficiency is a good idea. Page 11 of 14 Architectural Review Board Special Meeting Summary Minutes: 10/03/24 Chair Rosenberg asked if they want to follow the open space recommendations that each type has its own system or create a more uniform voice on what open space is required. Boardmember Baltay was inclined to stick with the staff recommendations on open space. He preferred having no reduction in the amount of open space required and that open space could be provided anywhere on the property. Chair Rosenberg thought it needed to indicate either ground or podium. She thought putting it all on the roof would restrict floor area. Boardmember Baltay remarked that was the reason for having a landscape requirement even if there was no setback requirement. Boardmember Hirsch asked where the objective standards come in. Ms. Raybould answered the landscaped areas typically count toward open space once the minimum requirement has been met. Ms. Eisberg explained only the commercial districts allow open space on the roof and the objective standards created a series of design standards for those rooftops. Boardmember Baltay was in favor of allowing some open space on rooftop type areas in all housing developments provided the design guidelines for privacy protection was met. Chair Rosenberg suggested having up to 50 percent of the open space requirement on rooftop terraces. Boardmember Baltay wanted the professionals to check if that number would be the right amount. Chair Rosenberg thought having the requirement for open space at ground/podium level would force developers to make sure a minimum of 50 percent of open space would be required at ground or podium level. Ms. Raybould did not recall changing anything in the objective standards about the requirements of open space in terms of how much open space but they did put standards in on what was defined as open space, making sure it is large enough and meeting certain dimension requirements. There were a lot of references to ensure privacy, especially if it was placed in a rooftop setting. She thought they had some allowances for rooftop in some of the RM districts. Ms. Eisberg saw some standards in 18.40.230 which regulate rooftop gardens including the exemptions on the height limit, landscaping requirements at the rooftop, noise and performance standards. Female thought they heard direction from the Board of some interest to allow some of the open space to be on the roof but concern about privacy and having some of the open space on the ground level or podium, at least through landscaping. She agreed to look into this more based on that direction. Chair Rosenberg felt a reduction in retail requirements would allow easier development of these properties but she also supported incentivization. She though the potential of adding an extra height if going retail was a moot point with increasing everything by five feet anyway. She asked if the Board was comfortable with the reduction in retail requirements that had been proposed if there ideas for how to incentivize it back as not a requirement but as something that could be a benefit. Page 12 of 14 Architectural Review Board Special Meeting Summary Minutes: 10/03/24 Boardmember Baltay stressed the importance of the ground floor of these buildings activating the pedestrian way and not just be a wall with parking. He thought it could be retail or just the lobby to the building, the mailroom or a bicycle storage area. He the ground floor retail thing was trying to restructure society and put stores where nobody wants to run a business. His goal was to activate the frontage so it is seen that people live and work there. Chair Rosenberg thought having some sort of activation was important and questioned how that would be accomplished and how to prohibit parking from being adjacently facing the streetscape. Boardmember Hirsch opined commercial wants to be on street frontage so that poses a problem. He thought commercial has to be based on population that needs it nearby. He wished for a better way to determine something like that. He said small shopping centers were nice to have. Individual buildings separate from population or from other commercial do not generally work well. Chair Rosenberg agreed with Boardmember Hirsch's comments. She thought the reduction of retail requirements was appropriate but she was concerned if it was basically parking all the way up to sidewalk space and street facing space. She wanted the Board to figure out a way to come up with an idea that says how they can help prohibit this parking from just being concrete walls on sidewalks with parking on the other side. The goal was activating the streetscape and could be accomplished with things like mail rooms or bike rooms maintaining a buffer zone of activated space on streetscape ground floor level. Boardmember Baltay added regulating how the parking podium is constructed changes the economics of the project. There cannot be a ground floor podium because the front 20 feet or so has to be something else. It makes the building process more complicated. He thought the right regulation was to say something like no parking within 20 feet of frontage. Chair Rosenberg asked if the distance was the requirement the wanted to put in place or could they just say no parking is the immediate forefront of a building at street facing and let them figure that out. A 10‐foot mail room would provide the buffer. She would hesitate to say 20 feet if they can come up with a creative solution. She suggested keeping the open ended regulation of saying there must be a buffer of some type of activated space between parking and streetscape. Boardmember Baltay suggested letting Planning staff know their concern was somehow activating the frontage with something other than parking. Chair Rosenberg was less concerned if it was a corner lot than the front side. The longer side could be activated and the short side might go all the way out to the edge. Boardmember Baltay felt they should be conscious of the fact that it was a distinct negative for builders and they want staff to hear from them that they are aware of that and think it is important. Boardmember Hirsch did not think the podium should face the street. Chair Rosenberg agreed the Board was unanimous on that but did not have language to regulate exactly how it should be done. Page 13 of 14 Architectural Review Board Special Meeting Summary Minutes: 10/03/24 Mr. Call added the podium is not necessarily just parking. It could have residential units, retail or the mail room. It is simply type one construction. He agreed it was important. He appreciated flexibility on the side streets. Boardmember Baltay advised that to reduce the cost and complexity of underground parking two requirements that factor is how the ramps that go down into the spaces are designed and making dewatering requirements less difficult. Boardmember Hirsch wondered why buildings were being allowed to be so close to each other on San Antonio Road. Chair Rosenberg thought the developers would have to deal with that when they have zero setback limitations. Boardmember Baltay opined that is why they put the daylight plane guardrails in. Vice Chair Chen questioned the timeline of the permitting process between the HIP and the State Density Bonus Plan. Ms. Eisberg responded there are no prescribed timelines for the housing incentive program or the State Density Bonus Law. There is a 30‐day completeness review for both projects. The way the Housing Incentive Program was originally devised, there was a requirement for architectural review, which meant up to three hearings with the ARB. Since the adoption of HIP, they have the objective design standards and the streamlined review process. Now a project that is requesting HIP can also be eligible for the streamlined review if the project is meeting the objective standards. That means only one study session with the ARB. Vice Chair Chen was curious about the meaning of the proposed area on the map on packet page 67. Ms. Eisberg explained the housing element program 3.4 was specific about how this extends. It would only apply in certain commercial districts and has been proposed to be added to the GM ROLM focus area on the eastern side of the city and all of the housing inventory sites. This could capture both the existing parcels that are eligible and proposed parcels could capture sites that have been recently redeveloped or that we wouldn't expect to develop as housing. It is not intended to suggest that a housing development project might happen there. Chair Rosenberg summarized the final thoughts of the ARB for the staff. 1. On FAR, they were in favor of eliminating a maximum FAR and they would like to rely on daylight planes, setbacks and height limits to determine the floor areas that can be done. 2. They were comfortable with the municipal code standard of 25 feet at a 45 degree angle for the majority of properties. However, if the property is adjacent to any low‐density residential neighborhood, a low two story building or any of the residential units, that limit should be restricted to a 16‐foot height limit at 45 degrees per the packet recommendation. They would also like to include an additional five‐foot height bonus across the board to what is being shown in the packet to account for parapet walls and grade changes. That five‐foot height limit should be the maximum height, including parapet walls. The rooftop elevators and staircases should be Page 14 of 14 Architectural Review Board Special Meeting Summary Minutes: 10/03/24 exempt from the height restriction per the objective standards codes that were previously reviewed approved. 3. Regarding parking, the Board is amenable to half a space required per studio/efficiency apartment and one space required for all other units. They wanted to request that PTC and staff review an appropriate ratio number for requirement of service parking spaces per units in a building. They thought the one to three ratio from the townhouse study was too restrictive. That recommendation was based on the impact on the building design and construction and not parking need. They would like to see setback limits for parking from streetscape to maintain an activated sidewalk space and streetscape. They do not have firm size requirements or percentage lengths but they want to make sure the primary streetscape stays activated. 4. Regarding open space requirements, they were amenable to the percentages that were requested for each of the zoning types. They were amenable to rooftop terraces following the previously stated objective standards reviewed for that. They want to maintain privacy standards. They were amenable to being either at ground or podium level. They wanted to see at least 50 percent at ground podium level and beyond that could be more open for interpretation. 5. They were comfortable reducing any retail requirements per the packet. They wanted to make sure the streetscape stays activated. They would leave the capacity of that up to the developer and City Staff. She asked that staff provide a follow‐up after the next PTC hearing. She would sit in on that meeting and bring it back to the Board. She wanted to know what happens next. Female agreed to do that. Approval of Minutes 3. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for September 5, 2024 Chair Rosenberg requested changing the word "pain" to "paint" on packet page 78. Vice Chair Chen requested changing "grass floor area" to "gross floor area" on packet page 76. MOTION: Chair Rosenberg moved to approve the minutes as written with the two adjustments, seconded by Boardmember Hirsch. VOTE: Motion carried 4‐0. Board Member Questions, Comments, Announcements Or Future Meetings And Agendas None. Adjournment Chair Rosenberg adjourned the meeting at 1:09 PM