Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-11-21 Architectural Review Board Summary MinutesPage 1 of 24 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 11/21/24 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MEETING MINUTES: November 21, 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 November 21, 2024 in Council Chambers and virtual teleconference at 8:33 a.m. Present: Chair Kendra Rosenberg, Vice Chair Yingxi Chen, Board member Mousam Adcock, Board member Peter Baltay, Board member David Hirsch Absent: None. Chair Rosenberg welcomed all to the meeting and called the meeting to order. Administrative Assistant Veronica Dao called roll and declared there was a quorum. Oral Communications There were no requests to speak. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions There were no agenda changes, additions, or deletions proposed. City Official Reports 1. Director’s Report, Meeting Schedule, and Upcoming Agenda Items Historic Planner/ARB Liaison Steven Switzer announced that one project and one study session had been targeted for the December 5 ARB meeting, which was the El Camino Real focus area study session and the 660 University project. A new ARB project located at 340 Portage Avenue had been submitted, which was a master sign program. There would be three more meetings this year, including today’s. The 2025 meeting schedule was in the packet. He asked that any anticipated absences be directed to Veronica Dao. Board Member Hirsch recommended that there be a schedule in the project schedule list if a project changes in a significant way. Historic Planner/ARB Liaison Switzer commented that there were pending ARB projects detailing that information as an attachment, which was noted under the status notes column. Action Items Page 2 of 24 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 11/21/24 2. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI‐JUDICIAL. 3265 El Camino Real [24PLN‐00012]: Consideration of an Application to Rezone the Vacant Subject Parcel from Commercial Services (CS) to Planned Community/Planned Home Zoning (PC/PHZ) and to Construct a 100% affordable, Five‐story, 55 Dwelling Unit Residential Rental Project. Environmental Assessment: The Project is Being Reviewed for an Exemption under CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 (In‐Fill). Chair Rosenberg announced the item and added that staff recommended the ARB take the following actions: Consider the project exempt from CEQA and recommend approval of the proposed project to City Council based on the ARB findings (Attachment B) and subject to conditions of approval (Attachment B). PUBLIC COMMENT Principal Planner Garrett Sauls displayed slides and discussed the process and history of the application. They were targeting a special session with the PTC for December 18, depending on the outcome of today’s hearing and hoped to get a recommendation for that. Following that, they would target a Council decision or at least attend a Council hearing in January or early February. He provided an overview of the project. He discussed why an additional 11 units had been introduced into the project, which would target a deeper level of affordability. Additional parking spaces and bike storage was also proposed. The site coverage and setback requirements would not change. The minimum open space area per unit had increased. With increasing the number of units, the code required a short‐term drop‐ off requirement for vehicle parking, which the project did not incorporate. He discussed the location of the project in proximity to other projects. The El Camino Real focus area only applied to the Page Mill side and Matadero side of the street. Regarding the westward facing side, the City was evaluating where to expand the El Camino Real focus area. He detailed the feedback received from the ARB at the April 18 hearing concerning design. He spoke of concerns the applicant had related to recessing the garage door, the skylight, and the interior door to the garage from the lobby. The applicant had incorporated vertical windows on one side of the building and changes to the rear façade to break up massing of the building. Regarding privacy concerns and windows, additional solutions had been discovered, which he outlined. The project satisfied Option 2 of Council’s PHZ requirements. The project was located within the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan/future NVCAP boundaries, but those standards did not currently apply to this project. Any future application would likely need to conform to those standards. The project requested removal of a valley oak, but it exceeded the 25‐percent threshold for the buildable area and allowed for the tree to be removed. The roof deck would provide the majority of the open space requirements, which had been expanded previously. Staff recommended this project be reviewed, the CEQA document be considered, and the project be recommended for approval to the PTC. Chair Rosenberg requested that Board members who had revisited the site declare such and to let the Board know if there were any additional disclosures. She had no disclosures. Council Member Baltay disclosed that he visited the site yesterday. Council Member Hirsch voiced that he visited the site this past week. Council Member Adcock disclosed that her office was on Lambert almost next to the site but she did not own her office property. Vice Chair Chen had no disclosure. Page 3 of 24 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 11/21/24 Applicant Jason Matlof discussed his interest in building the 100‐percent affordable housing project, which would be prioritized for the educator unions for the Palo Alto school districts. He mentioned that almost all of the ARB’s feedback had been incorporated into the revised application, which he thought resulted in a better design. The most significant change in the revision was the increase to five residential floors. This was a for‐profit project trying to achieve community benefit using the planned housing zone process. He noted that there was support from the teachers’ unions, the two most recent presidents of the school board, the League of Women Voters, Palo Alto Forward, and others. He discussed the reasoning for increasing the residential floors and units, which included a higher ratio of lower and moderate income units and reduced rents for each level of affordability. He furnished a slide detailing how rents would be calculated. Applicant Isaiah Stackhouse provided an overview of the project, which received no subsidies from Palo Alto or other public funds. It was to be a 100‐percent BMR project and would be 500 feet from the closest residential district. He voiced that it would improve commutes, strengthen schools, etc. He shared a slide with the site context and a slide with comments from the last ARB hearing with the applicant’s responses, which he detailed. PUBLIC COMMENT Stephen Levy emphasized that there had been positivity in a previous meeting related to 3150. He noted that the ARB recognized that the applicant needed to see economic feasibility. He had calculated that there would be significant commute benefits and that there would be proximity to transit and to California Avenue, which was an environmental benefit. He discussed the business tax helping fund projects for low‐income residents, and he stated that this project would equal the entire benefit from the business tax. He requested this be moved forward. Manuel Salazar spoke on behalf of Silicon Valley at Home. He discussed why he considered this to be a wonderful project and hoped it would move forward. Board Member Adcock asked if the project going to the lot lines on three sides might influence potential future projects building up to the lot lines at the Indo Restaurant site or the hotel site and if there would be a dedicated spot for the pick‐up/drop‐off deliveries on Lambert. Principal Planner Sauls answered that this could potentially influence future projects at other sites. This area was considered to be high density, which was consistent with longstanding Comp Plan policies and El Camino Real design guidelines, which encouraged creating a sort of boulevard along El Camino with taller buildings. There would not be a dedicated spot for drop off and loading on the public right of way. Board Member Baltay inquired if it would be possible for a neighbor of the building to build a 65‐foot tall building to the property line. Principal Planner Sauls replied that potentially a neighbor of the building could build to the property line. It could be a 65‐foot building assuming that the El Camino Real focus areas would come forward in the future and a project could potentially be up to 85‐foot tall at an adjacent location to this project. Board Member Baltay queried if garage gates would be open between certain hours as opposed individuals opening and closing the gate with each entrance/exit. Page 4 of 24 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 11/21/24 Applicant Stackhouse responded that the intent was to keep the door closed for security purposes, but they were looking at high‐speed doors. Board Member Hirsch questioned if vehicles pulling into the garage would have to interrupt the bike lane; if everyone in the building could automatically open the door from their vehicle with a remote; if lot line windows were allowed; what kind of visibility there would be for exiting the garage; and if there would be room for vehicles to enter and exit at the same time. Applicant Stackhouse answered that vehicles should be able to get out of the way of bicycle traffic. Recessing the door would create a security issue. Everyone in the building would be able to automatically open the door from their vehicle with a remote. Over the last 15 years, they had done over 50 buildings throughout the Bay Area and had never recessed a door more than four feet and never had an issue. He discussed lot line windows being allowed and what could be done if there was a neighboring building on the property line. They would probably not put windows in the garage, but the garage door would provide light, the doorway into the side yard could be glass, and there could also be windows into the side yard. He explained the issues with installing a skylight, though they could continue to consider how it might be done. Maybe they could consider a transom window in the rear wall. Visibility exiting the garage fully met the City’s standards for view triangles. There was room for a car to enter and exit at the same time. Vice Chair Chen asked if consideration had been given to adding windows in the stair areas for light and if the garage door height had been increased proportionally to the increase in the ground level floor to ceiling height. Applicant Stackhouse answered that they had not considered adding windows in the stairs areas, although they could consider that and a skylight in the top. The stair area spaces tended to be on the property line, but he would have to research to determine if any of these areas were not on the property line. There might be an opportunity to add windows to the rear stair area. The garage door height had been increased, and with the clear story windows above, there should be good light. The door to the side yard could also have a fairly large transom. Vice Chair Chen requested clarification of the front building elevations, the clerestory, and the transom that had been referenced. She inquired what materials would be used for the privacy screening on the balconies between the units. Applicant Stackhouse indicated that the clerestory could be added above the garage. It appeared that they were relying on the frosted glass door, which he thought was a 12‐foot door, which could be adjusted to include clear stories above it. He supplied a slide and pointed out what was intended to be a grill line, which was roughly an 18‐inch zone, and he detailed what that was for. The privacy screening would likely be wood, six feet tall, and the same color as the accent material. Board Member Adcock referenced the space above the storefront windows and the garage door and inquired if the rendered elevation matched the intent more than what was depicted in Section A4.1; if the window height would be similar to what was shown on the exterior elevations; and if the doors were intended to be about 9 feet with about 6 feet of glazing above and then the panel, which would be a 3:2 proportion. Page 5 of 24 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 11/21/24 Applicant Stackhouse remarked that the space above the storefront windows and the garage door would be resolved in design development and construction drawings. The intent was for the lobby to have as much tall glazing as possible. The doors, glazing, and the panel above were intended to be a 3:2 proportion. Board Member Baltay asked if the depths of the recesses on the sides of the building would be five feet and if the ventilation requirement of the building code was a percentage of units being served and what that percentage was. He thought it was five percent, but he was not sure. He inquired if the side walls would have a texture or if it would be a flat panel, if the applicant had previously used painted fiber cement on projects, and how long the paint on fiber cement would last. Applicant Stackhouse replied that the recess would be five feet, which was a function of the building code, and the depth of the balconies was also very prescriptive. The building code allowed for fully mechanical ventilation, but otherwise it was a percentage, which was low and which they far exceeded. They would never do 100‐percent mechanical ventilation. The side walls would be an assembly of panels, which was somewhat of a modernized board and batten system, which had a change in depth to it. The shadow depth would be limited to the thickness of the material. The paint would be field applied. They had first used painted fiber cement on a project about 12 years ago, and it had not yet been repainted. Chair Rosenberg queried if the garage door and the lower windows would be frosted glass. The Hardie board appeared to be a wood finish, and she was concerned that the shadow lines may be overexaggerated in the rendering. She liked the concept of it, but she wanted to ensure it would not appear to be flat, painted orange‐brown block. She asked if the concept of a drop‐off and pick‐up space on Lambert had to be dedicated to this building or if it could serve several buildings. It would be interesting to have a site serving a couple buildings instead of each building having their own dedicated spot. She questioned if there would be an alarm system with the high‐speed garage door to let pedestrians and bicyclists know a car was entering or exiting the area; why small side windows were added only to the south façade but not to the north side; if there was anything addressing the maintenance of the rooftop trees; and how the trash from individual units would be taken to the basement. Applicant Stackhouse responded that the garage door would be frosted glass, so there would be light from there and from the doorway into the side yard. The lower windows would also be frosted. He provided an example of the Hardie board. They had not discussed an alarm system with the high‐speed garage door, but systems existed. He discussed why the small side windows were added only to the south façade. The whole rooftop was landscaped and would have a maintenance program. He detailed the route tenants would take to the trash area. They had not found a way to install a door from the lobby into the garage and were open to suggestions for doing it. They had determined it was not feasible to install trash shoots. Principal Planner Sauls would have to do some research to determine if the drop‐off and pick‐up space on Lambert had to be dedicated for this building or if it could serve several buildings. In some sense, this would be offsite parking. The requirements focused on providing onsite parking. It would be very challenging to do that onsite without significantly recessing the bottom floor back from the front property line, which would most likely create circulation challenges. Page 6 of 24 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 11/21/24 Board Member Adcock asked if the balcony doors were fire rated and if the stairs toward the front had the required egress. Applicant Stackhouse explained why the balcony doors did not need to fire rated. The stairs toward the front fully met building code widths. Board Member Hirsch noted that with a couple more feet a trash shoot could be installed at the back wall of the staircase in the garage, and he pointed out that without the bathroom in the back there would be room for a trash shoot. He suggested that the bathroom be in another location, perhaps on the roof. He asked about areas under the staircase and the van parking spot. He spoke the stairwell needing light. He inquired if it was possible to have a cellar area with an elevator going down to the trash area at that level. Applicant Stackhouse replied that the bathroom was not a requirement but allowed maintenance staff a bathroom. Even without the bathroom, there was not enough room in the side yard for trash receptacles. The areas under the staircase did not have enough height. The van parking spot had been heavily vetted through meetings with the Building Department. They could look at light in the stairwell, which might include windows and which he thought was feasible. He discussed a cellar being astronomically expensive. Chair Rosenberg closed the public portion of the hearing. She was overall pleased with the project. She did not want to overemphasize what might potentially go next to this building because that would be addressed when it occurred. She liked the idea of a transom window in the bike room and either skylights or windows at the staircases. She detailed her concerns with the Hardie board siding and spoke of aluminum siding being an alternative and requested that be evaluated. She added that paint color could add more variety than one flat color. She wanted the end product to look close the renderings. Principal Planner Sauls asked if Chair Rosenberg was speaking of considering multiple colors with the Hardie board siding. Chair Rosenberg stated that some panels could be dark in color and some light. Board Member Baltay stated that he was not comfortable with some pieces of the project. He felt the site was too tight and the building too tall and that it was too much for Palo Alto. He was concerned with the garage entrance being too close to the street; there being no service, drop‐off, or visitor accommodations; bicycle parking being difficult to get to (it should be closer to the main entrance); the space allowed for navigating into the parking spaces; the second‐floor balconies not being private and there not being enough room for them; the building being 20 feet above the street before there was human activity; the building height; and the quality of the fiber cement siding. Related to trash drop off, he thought there should be a better connection from the lobby to the garage. He spoke of future development next to this building dramatically impacting the typology. He felt that too much was being squeezed in. He found the basic design of the building to be well done. He remarked that low‐income housing should not result in lowered design and construction standards, which is what he saw with this project. He could not support this as it was currently. Board Member Hirsch stated that Board Member Baltay’s comments were not unreasonable. He noted that this was somewhat of a supportive housing building, and he presumed the price of rents, land, construction, etc., was being considered carefully, and he appreciated the effort being put into this with Page 7 of 24 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 11/21/24 those limitations. He voiced that the decision had to be based on economics and the possibility of folks who may not otherwise be able to reside in Palo Alto being able to live here. He thought the proportions of the building had improved by adding a floor, which seemed appropriate. He was impressed with the rooftop area. He was concerned with the lift system and there being a serious issue if it were to break down. He wanted assurance that the lift would work and that it be proved to the City. He found the setback and width of the garage to have reasonable visibility of the street, but this could be improved by having cameras and monitors to allow for visibility up and down the street. He considered an eight‐foot pedestrian path to be sufficient, so maybe a camera would not be needed. He felt that interrupting vehicle and bicycle traffic was a serious issue with visibility being the most significant. He accepted this without the idea of cameras but he wanted it to be considered. He did not think trash drop off could be improved. He was happy with the aesthetics of the building. Chair Rosenberg stated that City staff had reviewed several projects that included car lifts. It was determined at the prehearing that the applicant would maintain the car lifts. They were being implemented all over the city. Board Member Hirsch voiced that maintenance of the lifts was a budget issue to be taken extremely seriously. Functionality issues needed to be considered. He thought there was enough space for vehicles to maneuver but that there may need to be some protections on the wall for those who found the movements difficult. It was helpful to reference turning radiuses in the package. He approved of the project. He felt the standards would change on El Camino. Board Member Adcock was concerned with the entrance and exit of the garage door especially as it related to bicyclists. For safety, she recommended leaving the garage door open at certain times and, as a condition of approval, she wanted there be audible and visible signs for bicyclists and pedestrians. She did not find that bicyclists and pedestrians would have great visibility of what would be exiting the garage. She stated that the unit types being studios and one bedrooms limited the diversity of residents. She was not asking that it be changed, but she wanted other projects coming forward to be more inclusive of families. She felt 55 units should be supported, although she was concerned that it was more than 10 feet above the 65 feet overall. She commented that Palo Alto needed this type of project. Vice Chair Chen was generally in favor of the project. Although there were issues Board Member Baltay mentioned, she found that there was a good balance to provide a solution to the major issues. Access to the garage concerned her as it related to safety. She voiced that a visual and audio alarm was necessary. She stated that moving the garage door back a couple more feet may be helpful and requested that be reassessed. She was not too concerned with the functional side of the lift system, but she suggested additional measurements be taken related to sound and vibration issues that could be problematic for the second level tenants, which she thought would be addressed in the building permit phase. She strongly suggested adding windows to the staircases. She supported the proposed building height and the design of the lobby and garage door. She thought it was an approvable project. Board Member Baltay noted that open space requirements had not been discussed and that the project did not come close to meeting the requirements. He questioned why the requirement was being waived for this building. Chair Rosenberg remarked that certain concessions needed to be made if buildings were going to be built. She wanted the rooftop terrace to be expanded, but she did not know if it was feasible. She Page 8 of 24 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 11/21/24 thought for this project specifically that the Board was trying to find a balance of how much the project would be deterred based on a potential future build versus the current standards. Board Member Baltay expressed that two standards of design were being created, one for low‐income projects and one for regular projects, which he found unpleasant. Chair Rosenberg explained that, unfortunately, two standards of design were required. Board Member Hirsch commented that this was being presented as an urban project. He discussed this being a potential part of the future development of the whole neighborhood, which had been somewhat studied. Most of the time, one would have less personal space in the city, but there were parks, etc. He explained that having density was important. Board Member Baltay stated that the ARB was to enforce the current code, so he did not understand why this project did not require open space. He voiced that the lot was too small for this size building and that substandard design standards was not a solution but a second standard and everybody should have the same standard. Chair Rosenberg mentioned that the alternate would be no teacher housing. Board Member Baltay responded that this was not the property, that there were other sites, that sometimes things fit and sometimes they do not. He did not support the delivery area being around the corner. Chair Rosenberg remarked that with all the rules and regulations, the answer was not finding another site. Board Member Adcock stated that the unit type of studios and one bedrooms was almost transient. Board Member Hirsch wanted, in the event the building might be sold, any future owner to maintain the lifts and that there be a budget to ensure it. Principal Planner Sauls stated that he was aware of the Board’s concerns. There were provisions within the conditions of approval that ensured maintenance. Part of the requirements was that the City receive a public benefit, and Council dictated that the public benefit was the level of affordability. The Board’s concerns of what would be ideal versus what was seen in this project was a judgment call that needed to be made by Council. He added that the Transportation Department included a condition of approval (Number 28 on Packet Page 34) related to recessing the garage door. Board Member Hirsch noted that Vice Chair Chen had commented that moving the door back a couple feet would be helpful. Board Member Adcock voiced her concerns with visibility should the garage door be recessed. Chair Rosenberg agreed and advocated for keeping it to the foreground. Board Member Hirsch was not in favor of recessing it. Board Member Baltay voiced that many buildings the ARB reviewed were done that way. Discussion ensured regarding recessing the garage door. Page 9 of 24 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 11/21/24 Principal Planner Sauls stated that recessing the door further would potentially be 13 or 14 more feet into the building and the vehicle stall would be about 17½ to 18‐feet deep, which was a standard stall depth. Board Member Adcock expressed that the gate opening within 15 to 20 seconds was too long a time, and she felt it was important that the garage door remain open during specific hours. Chair Rosenberg countered that because she felt the visual of the door opening and closing was an indicator to pedestrians and bicyclists that something was happening. For safety reasons, she had concerns with the door remaining open. Board Member Hirsch indicated that the Transportation Department should make the decision. Chair Rosenberg agreed that it was in the purview of the Transportation Department. MOTION: Chair Rosenberg made a motion to approve the project with the following conditions: A) Natural light into the stairwells with skylights, windows, etc. B) Natural light into the bike storage. C) Auditory and visual warnings at the garage door operation. D) Consider a potential schedule for maintaining an open garage door at certain times of day. She was hesitant to include this because it fell under PTC’s purview. As for light into the garage, she thought the garage door being glazed would be a benefit and there was the side door. E) An ad hoc meeting for the Hardie board siding to determine the final answer related to the design element. F) The lifts must be maintained and operational (but she was not sure if was necessary as it had to be followed by the PTC). G) Regarding condition of approval Number 28, the garage door did not need to be recessed but it should be high speed and maintained as such. Principal Planner Sauls mentioned that staff could work with the applicant to get more specifics on the details of the timing of the garage door opening and closing. Board Member Adcock thought it should be under 10 seconds. Chair Rosenberg accepted that friendly amendment. Vice Chair Chen offered a friendly amendment to E. She thought details of the transition between the boards vertically where they connected for each level should be provided. Board Member Adcock seconded the motion. VOTE: Motion carried 4‐1 (Baltay no) [The Board took a five‐minute recess] Chair Rosenberg asked, related to the siding, if there were any volunteers to serve on the ad hoc committee and Board Members Baltay and Adcock volunteered. 3. PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI‐JUDICIAL. 824 San Antonio Road [23PLN‐00181]: Consideration of a Major Architectural Review to Allow the Construction of a New Four‐Story Mixed‐Use Building with 28 Dwelling Units and 2,948 Square Feet of Retail Space. Fifteen Units will be Independent Senior Living, 12 will be Assisted Senior Living, and One Owner’s Unit. On Site Amenities Include Common Outdoor Open Spaces, a Dining Facility, and Common Indoor Space. The Project Also Includes a Request for a Director’s Adjustment to Provide 23 Spaces Where 29 Spaces Would be Page 10 of 24 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 11/21/24 Required as well as a Housing Inventive Program (HIP) Waiver to Allow for 56% Lot Coverage Where 50% is Required. Environmental Assessment: The Project is Being Evaluated for Consistency with the Previously Certified Housing Incentive Program Expansion and 788 San Antonio Mixed Use Project Environmental Impact Report (SCH # 2019090070). Zoning District: CS (Commercial Services). Chair Rosenberg announced the item and noted that Housing Inventive Program Waiver should read Housing Incentive Program Waiver. Staff recommended the following actions: 1) Consider the consistency evaluation of the project the certified HIP expansion and 788 San Antonio Mixed Use Project Environmental Impact Report (Attachment G) and 2) Recommend approval of the Major Architectural Review application, Director’s Parking Adjustment, and Director’s HIP waiver of lot coverage to the Director of Planning and Development Services based on the findings in Attachment B and subject to the conditions of approval in Attachment C. Chair Rosenberg disclosed that she visited the site recently. Board Member Baltay disclosed that he visited the site yesterday and did not see not see a public notification sign on site. Board Member Hirsch visited the site recently. Vice Chair Chen visited the site recently. Board Member Adcock visited the site when the item was in front of the ARB the last time. Senior Planner Emily Kallas stated that this was a major architectural review application, which consisted of 4 stories, 28 dwelling units, and 2,948 square feet of retail space. It had been reviewed by the ARB on December 21, 2023. She provided slides and details related to the project location and the project overview. The building elevations had been revised since the prior ARB meeting, the façade would consist of two material forms, and a balcony space had been eliminated. The building height had not changed. Minimal changes were made to the side elevations. The ARB had recommended that the wood screen be removed from the rear façade, so that comment was incorporated as well as changes to the first‐floor windows. Materials and been replaced with natural color, as the ARB thought white was too bright. The project was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Zoning Code and architectural review findings as detailed in Attachment B, and it was determined to be consistent with the previously certified EIR for the HIP area, and all mitigation measures from the EIR would apply to the project. Staff recommended that the project be approved based on the findings and subject to conditions of approval. Board Member Hirsch inquired why it was necessary for all projects in this area have so much commercial space on the ground floor and asked if the commercial space could be waived for this project, if the Director had the ability to do such. Senior Planner Kallas responded that the HIP was designed to allow housing in certain areas zoned commercial service along El Camino and San Antonio Road. The intent was not to replace the commercial area with housing but to allow housing in tandem with commercial uses. The project was not subject to any waivers beyond the incentives provided by the HIP. Assistant Director Jennifer Armer answered, regarding a retail space waiver, that an applicant could request an exception through one of the processes, but this applicant was not requesting it. Page 11 of 24 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 11/21/24 Applicant Kate Conley detailed how the design had been developed based on the ARB’s commentary. The client’s vision for the property was to build a senior living facility that would be enjoyable and include amenities that would meet her personal dreams of retirement, so it was a personal project for her. The project comprised 27 units for seniors and a unit for the owner to occupy. There would be 24 parking spaces, which were EV ready or had the charging equipment installed, and multiple secured bike facilities. The landscaping was drought tolerant. She listed the onsite amenities. The current structure on the property was a retail office with one tenant. She outlined who the adjacent neighbors were. The overall design inspiration for the project was a cenote. The project focused on the juxtaposition of rigid and organic surfaces. She provided a diagram of how the areas of solid and void would be organized to break up the mass of the building. She provided a refresher summary of the ARB’s previous comments and shared ways the design had been improved with the incorporated suggestions and insights, which included changes made to the street frontage façade, the courtyard façade, and the rear and north façades; moving the truncated domes further from the entry doors; providing a true van accessible parking space; and relocating the dining prep kitchen and bar facilities to the ground floor with the assisted living facilities moving to the second floor, which simplified the trash collection path. She explained why they kept the orientation of the gate at Stair 3. The owner had opted not to pursue a PHC to eliminate the retail requirement. She outlined the circulation plan to the bike rooms, outdoor amenities, etc. The depth of the balconies had been increased to six feet. The custom decorative wood screen would be developed into a public art installation as the project progressed. The façade color had been darkened. PUBLIC COMMENT There were no public comments. Board Member Adcock asked what the base zoning parking requirements were. Senior Planner Kallas answered that the parking requirement for senior housing was 0.75 parking spaces per unit. It was required that the owner’s unit have two parking spaces as it was to be a two‐bedroom unit. The first 1,500 square feet of the commercial component was exempt from parking and the requirement beyond that was 1 per 200 square feet for a total of 8 required spaces. The typical number of parking spaces required was 29 spaces, and 23 parking spaces were proposed. The 24th space would be a loading space, which was not counted toward the required parking. Packet Page 104, Table 2 of Attachment D noted that 17 spaces were dedicated to residential use and 4 spaces to retail use. Board Member Baltay questioned if the material for the soffit on the projecting roofs over the balconies would be aluminum with a synthetic wood finish. He recalled requesting that the bicycle room be relocated or access to it be changed and asked why that was not done and if it was possible to have a door at the side of the property, the pathway along the way, rather than at the Redwood reflection garden. Applicant Conley confirmed that the projecting roofs over the balconies would be aluminum with a synthetic wood finish. It was the same cladding material as on the ground floor level in the rear and up the central portion of the rear façade. There was a ground‐level bike room with access through the side yard. It was possible to have a door at the side of the property, the pathway along the way, rather than at the Redwood reflection garden. Page 12 of 24 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 11/21/24 Vice Chair Chen asked what the support system would be for the front screen feature. She referenced the second story floorplan and asked it if was intended that the screen not extend to the back wall. The [inaudible 3:12:10] showed a skylight but it was not shown on the roof plan, and she inquired if there would be a skylight. She addressed Sheet PA5.1, the rear elevation, and asked if floor‐to‐ceiling‐height glazing had been considered for the dining room. She asked why the square window on the second floor was different from the others. Applicant Conley replied that the front screen feature would be artistic screen, a somewhat public art component, which had not yet been designed. It would be produced and designed as part of the public art process, so it would be up to the artist and her team to determine the support system. There was an entire building enclosure wall behind that screen that was intended to be the actual exterior envelope of the building. The design intent was for the screen to float in front of the building envelope, but they did not yet know the support, structure, or depth the screen would have, so ample zone had been left for the artist to design within while still meeting building against the setback requirement, the build‐to line. Chair Rosenberg asked if the screen had the capacity to wiggle back and forth between the front and the back of the frame. Applicant Conley responded that the screen would potentially have the capacity to wiggle back and forth between the front and the back of the frame. They did not yet know what it would look like. The skylight shown on the owner’s unit should be removed. They could consider floor‐to‐ceiling height glazing for the dining room. They would investigate why the square window on the second floor was different from the others. Senior Planner Kallas voiced that the screen would generally not be allowed to protrude into the front setback. Board Member Adcock noted that the windows on the first level did not line up vertically, and she queried if that was intentional. Applicant Conley responded that they would make adjustments to get the windows in better alignment. Board Member Adcock voiced that the windows vertically aligning was less critical than there being an odd‐shaped window not matching anything else. Board Member Hirsch asked if the front of the corridor on every floor faced the front end of the building; why there was a minimal jog in the stairs as it met the office space or exercise room; and what kind of the windows would be used. Applicant Conley answered that the corridor on every floor of the building would be glass the full width of the opening looking out onto the artistic screen out to San Antonio. She did not know why there was a minimal jog in the stairs as it met the office space or exercise room. They could explore making adjustments to flatten it out, but it would make the gym and the community room slightly smaller. The windows would be single hung with a fixed sidelight. Board Member Hirsch asked if there was an example of such a window being used in other projects. Page 13 of 24 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 11/21/24 Applicant Conley would find a picture of as single‐hung window that they had used in other projects, although the proportion would not be the same and it may not have a sidelight. Board Member Baltay thought Board Member Hirsch was referring to the sidelight. He noted that a single‐hung window had no support laterally, which may make it challenging. Applicant Conley would explore with the window manufacturer possible challenges with the windows. Board Member Hirsch commented that he was not suggesting using a double‐hung window. He questioned if the applicant was happy with a 50/50 proportion to the division of the operable piece; why there were metal railings on the north side and glass railings on the south side; if there could be one commercial space instead of two; how the common kitchen for the residence would be serviced; if trash removal happened from the side alley; and how commercial trash would be addressed. Applicant Conley answered that they needed close to a 50/50 proportion to the division of the operable piece to meet emergency escape and rescue opening size. The window could be wider but not narrower. There could be a thicker frame on the fixed‐light portion. She explained why there were glass railings on the south side and metal railings on the north side, although they could look at one or the other or it being unified across the building. The client had requested two smaller retail spaces. She did not think there was any code or planning‐related reason why they could not be combined into one if the future tenant preferred a larger space. The kitchen was to be a warming kitchen for meals that would be prepared offsite and brought to the dining room. The meals would be brought through the building via the corridor or the elevator, and there was potential to add a door on the side yard as well. She detailed how trash removal would occur from the side alley. They were having discussions with GreenWaste to ensure that the trash removal plan would work. The trash pathway for retail would be through the lobby and back through the corridor. GreenWaste had accepted the plan to have trash carts for retail and bins for residential trash. All the containers would end up at the street, and a loading zone had been created. She detailed the logistics for trash pickup. Chair Rosenberg asked to see the slide showing the juxtaposition of the different trash bins. She questioned how often trash collection would occur. She was concerned with how often trash bins would be positioned in front of the bike path and retail. Applicant Conley clarified where the bins would be staged. She not know how often trash collection occurred. Regarding trash bins being in front of the bike path and retail, she remarked that the frontage of the building had been a puzzle and they were doing all they could to fit all the pieces into the narrow street frontage. She agreed that the street‐facing retail doors was tricky as it related to the trash receptacles, although they thought most of the retail usage would be from residents within the building, so they had prioritized that being a pleasant experience. There would be street‐facing doors in case retail tenants wanted them. Board Member Hirsch asked if there was area for landscaping in the front of the building. Applicant Conley stated that there would mostly be pavement at the front of the building. She pointed out a couple areas of greenery. Chair Rosenberg questioned why there were diagonal lines across the façade. Applicant Conley explained what the diagonal lines across the façade were. Page 14 of 24 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 11/21/24 Chair Rosenberg inquired if there was a concern with there being angled lines at a senior housing facility where residents may have issues with vertigo or balance. Applicant Conley had not considered the angled lines being an issue, but it was a good observation. Board Member Adcock thought the applicant should provide the ARB with some parameters of the public art piece since up to 60 percent of the building elevation in the front would be effected, and she wanted to know what was being intended for the support system. Applicant Conley replied, concerning the art, that they intended for it to be biophilic and natural. They could put any amount of steel structure needed to connect pieces of the frame, but they would not know the attachment points until they were aware of what the piece would be. Chair Rosenberg queried if the art screening piece would return to the ARB or if the client would handle that directly with the artist. She asked if there were any depictions of the front elevations without the screen. Senior Planner Kallas responded that the client, artist, and Public Arts Commission (PAC) would address the art screening piece. It would not return to the ARB. Applicant Conley did not have any depictions of the front elevations without the screen shown. Board Member Adcock stated that with the previous plan to have assisted living units on the first floor with full height glazing, the ARB requested the art piece screen across the way to make it a two‐part elevation instead of three part, and with the PAC purview, it may or may not extend the full elevation, in which the case the front elevation would be four part instead of two part if there was no art piece. He thought a condition should be that the art be one piece. She was less concerned about the side toward the redwood trees but asked if it was sloped. Applicant Conley replied that it was intended for the art screen to cover the entire area shown on the displayed slide, which would be the charge given to the artist. The side toward the redwood trees was slightly sloped. Historic Planner/ARB liaison Steven Switzer voiced that the conversation was encroaching on the purview of the PAC. He stated that perhaps some flexibility in that condition language could allow for exploration of the entire area delineated on the plan set to be filled in, but if it was not within the ARB’s purview, that cannot be requested. Board Member Hirsch discussed why he considered that to be within the purview of the ARB. Assistant Director Armer expressed that it could be discussed and recommendations provided, but review of public art would go through the PAC. Chair Rosenberg commented that she wanted everyone to be on the same page as it related to what and where the art would be. She did not want it to be half of what the ARB expected or that it go only one story, leaving three stories exposed. Board Member Baltay expressed that this was not really a piece of art but was an integral, important part of the building that should not be passed to the PAC. The architect could bring in the artist as a consultant, but the full design of the building and the screen needed to be presented to the ARB. Page 15 of 24 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 11/21/24 Board Member Adcock inquired what the line was between the purview of the PAC versus the ARB. She noted, for instance, that the color shown was not being committed to. Senior Planner Kallas thought the ARB was discussing whose purview it was. She voiced that it would typically return to the ARB if the proposed location should be significantly different than what was shown in the renderings. Chair Rosenberg wanted to ensure that the quality of the material would be presented to the ARB one more time, which was why she mentioned having an ad hoc. She understood the purview fell to the ARB. The art was to be a significant portion of the façade and an architectural feature. She wanted the owner and the artist to have freedom, but she thought it was appropriate for it to come back as an ad hoc for the ARB to make a decision concerning the elevation. Board Member Baltay noted that the design was the architect’s responsibility and that the ARB’s responsibility was to review that. He indicated that a bi‐review between the ARB and the PAC would put a censorship level on the artist, which he did not want to do. He thought the applicant should find another way to do their public art, that the ARB wanted to see the design. He added that perhaps there could be an ad hoc design review. Board Member Adcock voiced that it could be public art but it should return to the ARB with the complete elevation design, including the public art. Board Member Baltay did not support reviewing the work of the PRC. Board Member Adcock agreed. Board Member Baltay gave an analogy of the ARB reviewing a sign for architectural merit, not the content. He suggested the artist be brought on as a member of the design team to present the design to the ARB. He insisted on full review and approval of such an element. Chair Rosenberg thought it was appropriate to specify this be a screen installation of artwork fitting a border. Board Member Adcock agreed with the portrayed elevation, but the execution needed to be determined. Applicant Conley did not believe the artist was allowed to be a member of the design team as the art would be included as part of the public art requirement. Assistant Director Armer suggested that an ARB member attend the PAC meeting on this item to provide perspective on the impact to the façade. Chair Rosenberg asked what the minimum requirement was for public art on this project. She asked if the area proposed for the public art was the screen in the front and the screen on the side. Senior Planner Kallas answered that the public art requirement was located in Chapter 2.26 of the City Code and was the same requirement that applied to every project. In recent years, applicants had typically chosen to pay the in‐lieu fee, which she explained. Applicant Conley responded that only the street‐facing component was part of the public art requirement. The side screen would be included if there was room in the budget. Page 16 of 24 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 11/21/24 Senior Planner Kallas indicated that the PRC would consider appropriateness of the materials, textures, color, and design, and she expected the building architecture to be considered. Board Member Hirsch questioned if the language could be expanded to include the ARB. Senior Planner Kallas replied that the language could not be changed, that it was within the purview of the PRC and she thought they would address the art interplaying with the architecture. Board Member Baltay asked if there were architects on the PRC. Senior Planner Kallas did not know if there are architects on the PRC. Assistant Director Armer did not know the composition of the PRC, but such had been considered on previous projects and there was restriction in the ability to bring it back to the ARB. She recommended that the ARB’s suggestions in terms of size and compatibility with the building be shared with the PRC. Public art on the front of a building façade had a separate review process. Board Member Hirsch remarked that there had to be a relationship among the PAC’s decision and their selection of an artist, ARB, and the architect. Board Member Adcock questioned if the architect could influence the art developed. Applicant Conley answered that there would be coordination with several design team members for structural, etc., requirements. If asked, she would provide her opinion on the compatibility of the piece with the building in order to pass the PAC’s requirements. Chair Rosenberg stated that she had not heard any major objections to the project. The issue was the front façade being screening, which impacted the architecture of the building. She thought the ARB was comfortable with the building with the screen as shown, and she questioned how to move forward. Board Member Baltay suggested that this not be public art but part of the building and that it return to the full ARB or a subcommittee to complete the design and that meeting the public art requirement be left up to the applicant and staff. Chair Rosenberg would probably feel comfortable moving forward if the art piece was within certain parameters. The screen was part of the architecture, not the art, and it might be useful to find another place for the art. Board Member Adcock mentioned that it was architecture and art. Chair Rosenberg indicated that it was a philosophical question as to when it stopped being art and started being architecture and vice versa, which she did not think would be answered at this meeting. Board Member Baltay considered this to be architecture to be reviewed and approved as such. Board Member Adcock asked if conditioning the approval to say the public art would be part of the architecture would put the applicant in a difficult place. Historic Planner/ARB liaison Switzer commented that if there were concerns with the design proposed or a lack of understanding of the public art and how it would interact with the design that an option would be to review the proposal without the screening or the screening being replaced with something Page 17 of 24 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 11/21/24 permanent and to have a conversation geared toward what findings the ARB would have to make. The public art component was outside the ARB’s purview. Chair Rosenberg did not think there were objections to the screen as presented or the ARB seeing the art piece to ensure it would be within compliance. It was not fully designed at this time, so she wanted it to return to the ARB to make sure it would be architecturally consistent. Although, if that would encroach on the PAC or if there were legal ramifications, that would be problem. There was an option to approve it without the screens, which was not being presented at this meeting. Applicant Conley did not think the building would be built without the screen. She requested that the building be approved with the Arktura screen as proposed. Chair Rosenberg questioned if a condition of approval could be including the screen as designed but allowing it to return to the ARB with an ad hoc or with an art piece. She wanted the screen to be a minimum standard but allow for flexibility in the future. Senior Planner Kallas remarked that the ARB would review the location of the public art, so it would be reasonable to say that the filling of the frame would be a requirement, and if that substantially changed, it could return to the ARB as being consistent with the planning entitlement approval. However, the density of the art may not be within the ARB’s purview. Chair Rosenberg thought there may be a maximum density concern. Assistant Director Armer understood that there needed to be some kind of screening to comply with the build‐to requirements. Vice Chair Chen stated that the element was projected in the front setback and asked if it was only allowed when defined as artwork. Senior Planner Kallas answered that the frame included an overhang of the roof, which projected into the front setback, but the screen itself was proposed at the front setback line and it would not project. Vice Chair Chen queried if there would be an exception for encroachment into the front setback. Senior Planner Kallas remarked that the roof overhang and frame would not extend more than four feet. There was a general exception in Code 1840. Board Member Hirsch indicated that there were many color choices that could disturb the façade of the building. Chief Assistant Attorney Caio Arellano appreciated the concern between what would be an architectural feature and how it would become public art. He noted there were provisions defining public art, and he read Section 3 iii in Ordinance 5226, which acknowledged there would be a gray area. One way to determine how much of the feature would be architectural versus what would be public art would be to look at the façade in terms of performance or material standards, which could be included in the recommendation and could be forwarded to the artist. He thought staff was resistant to having the artist’s product return to the ARB for additional feedback. He suggested the ARB concentrate on performance criteria around material choices and the effects of livability within the building. Page 18 of 24 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 11/21/24 Assistant Director Armer added that functionality criteria could potentially be included in the conditions of approval. Board Member Baltay suggested this be classified as part of the building, not as public art, so an ad hoc committee could verify the architect’s design. He noted that there were many buildings with such screening. He indicated that the artist should not design the screening façade due to there being many important technical architectural elements. If the artist was to be part of the design team, it would not be considered public art. Board Member Adcock did not want to put parameters on the artist. The panel would need structural and architectural design support, so it would become part of the architecture of the building and would be part of ARB’s purview. This could be approved with the screen design intent, but the artist could come up with something that may not be approved. Board Member Hirsch considered this to be part of the building, not a separate art piece. Board Member Adcock asked what the applicant intended for the diagonal lines with the panels. Applicant Conley thought there were provisions in the Public Art Code stating that the design team may participate for structural and electrification purposes. Concerning the panels, she shared an image of what they were considering. She appreciated the comment about vertigo and was something she would research. Senior Planner Kallas stated she would look further into provisions in the code concerning the design team’s participation related to structural and electrification purposes. She mentioned that the art needed to be structurally sound and who would be involved in that would be determined as part of the public art process. Chair Rosenberg opposed there being diagonal lines on the façade. MOTION: Board Member Baltay moved to recommend approval of the project as presented with the following additions: 1) Add a sentence to the end of condition of approval Number 20 stating that the front transparency screening on the front façade would not be considered public art. 2) The design for the transparency screening on the front of the building go to an ad hoc committee for approval. 3) The fiber cement panels go to the same ad hoc committee for review and approval. Chair Rosenberg seconded the motion. Board Member Adcock suggested an amendment of not having the small square window on the backside. Board Member Baltay would be happy to send that to the ad hoc committee. He wanted there to be greater consistency of the fenestration patterning on the south side. Board Member Hirsch questioned if the all the façades, the window patterning, and the rear building elevation had been looked at and if it had all been deemed acceptable. He addressed the glass railings versus the metal railings and thought the north and south sides should match and suggested the topic go to a subcommittee for consistency. He preferred they be glass, but he would accept them being metal. Page 19 of 24 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 11/21/24 Board Member Baltay stated that work needed to be done as it related to the large windows in front of the kitchen sink and the doorway. The ad hoc committee reviewing the configuration and placement of all the windows could be a condition of approval. Chair Rosenberg did not object to there being a combination of glass and metal railings. Board Member Adcock agreed with the railings being consistent. She preferred metal railings for easy maintenance. She pointed out that the balcony railings were being discussed, not the railings on the south elevation at the curve, which would be solid panels. Board Member Baltay moved that a condition of approval be that all balcony railings be a consistent material, which the ad hoc committee would return to the PRC for verification. Chair Rosenberg seconded. Historic Planner/ARB liaison Switzer noted that the motion perhaps had a list of extensive changes to the structure, so he wanted to be cognizant of the review process and what that might mean for the applicant. Board Member Baltay stated that the intent was for decorative elements or shifting windows, not extensive changes. Board Member Hirsch was happy with the landscaping, but he noted that it had not been discussed. Vice Chair Chen remarked that there had not been many comments related to the landscaping at the last meeting, and she did not believe many revisions were made. Chair Rosenberg asked how removing diagonal lines from the Equitone panel should be phrased in the motion. Board Member Baltay wanted the architect to consider the design pattern of the Equitone panels and for it to go to the ad hoc committee. He was comfortable with the landscaping as presented. Vice Chair Chen provided a friendly amendment to have full‐height glazing in the dining room on the ground floor. She wanted to connect the indoor/outdoor experience. Board Member Baltay suggested window and exterior door sizes and configurations be reviewed. He suggested considering access doors from the dining room to the rear yard. Chair Rosenberg explained why she opposed having full‐height glazing in the dining room on the ground floor. Due to the resident population, she wanted doors to look like doors and windows to look like windows. She addressed security issues with access doors from the dining room to the rear yard, so she was hesitant to require indoor/outdoor space to the back yard if there were reasonable parameters to not do that. Board Member Adcock did not think conditions should be put on indoor/outdoor space. Board Member Hirsch felt the dining room was okay as it was. Board Member Baltay and Chair Rosenberg accepted the friendly amendment as it was presented by staff on the screen. Page 20 of 24 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 11/21/24 VOTE: Motion carried 5‐0. Chair Rosenberg and Board Member Hirsch volunteered to sit on the ad hoc. Board Member Adcock recused herself from Item Number 4. [The Board took an eight‐minute break] 4. 3950 Fabian Way [24PLN‐00263]: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI‐JUDICIAL. Request for Minor Board Level Architectural Review for Exterior Modifications to an Existing 32,500‐Square‐ Foot, Two‐Story Commercial Building. The Project Includes Revisions to the Facade, Site Modifications, and Demolition of a Portion on the North End of the Existing Building and Construction of a New Approximately 4,200‐Square‐Foot Addition to the North Side. The Project Also Includes a Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Change of Use to Private Education to Accommodate The Girls' Middle School. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: GM. For More Information Contact the Project Planner, Steven Switzer at Steven.Switzer@Cityofpaloalto.org. Chair Rosenberg introduced the item and announced that staff recommended the ARB review and provide initial comments. No design decision would be made at this meeting. She asked if there were disclosures related to visiting the site and all voiced aye that they visited the site. She noted that all Board members knew Board Member Adcock who worked at the staff office. Board Member Baltay disclosed that he had visited the site yesterday and that he was friends with the architect. Vice Chair Chen had no disclosure. Historic Planner/ Project Planner Steven Switzer provided some background on the process and the anticipated entitlements for the project. The second round for plans had been submitted last week, which were included in the materials the Board had at this meeting and addressed some of the comments from the first review. Topics for discussion included consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code, architectural design and site planning, circulation and parking, and play spaces. He discussed and displayed slides related to project location, the site plan, the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning requirements, the floor plan, the play spaces, the landscape plan, and building elevations and façades. This meeting did not require a formal recommendation but was instead to provide initial comments to the applicant. Applicant Christine Fairless shared why the proposal was critical to the Girls’ Middle School (GMS). This would allow them to own the school building. The project had been designed with neighbors in mind. They had mailed a letter to each adjacent resident in September. Applicant Monique Wood shared a photo of the existing building. The extent of demolition was currently a two‐story space. The proposed addition was a single‐story space approximately the same square footage as the demolition. She discussed the path of travel for traffic. They were proposing that the main entrance be on the northern end. She showed a rendering of the building and detailed the materials and colors that would be used. Applicant Sang Eun Lee outlined and displayed the plan for the first and second floors. Applicant Georgia Leung discussed the landscaping and supplied slides. Page 21 of 24 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 11/21/24 PUBLIC COMMENT There were no requests to speak. Board Member Baltay asked about how many folks arrived by bicycle each day. Applicant Fairless thought about 15 arrived by bicycle, which may increase to 25 or so at the new location. Vice Chair Chen asked if the exterior bike parking was for teachers. Applicant Wood responded that the exterior bike parking was for students. Chair Rosenberg inquired if the woodshop and/or the metal ceramic buildings had garages or just double doors and if there were two components to the woodshop with one being fenced off within the structure and if there would be an exhaust system and if the same would apply to the metal ceramic area. She asked what the depth of patio space would be going out of the makerspace garage to the landscape fence, if the staff area in the corner was next to the art center and adjacent to the downstairs offices, if the student center had a rollup door, if art had an outdoor space, if the library had walls, why two offices were shown in green and others in blue, what the study nooks were for, if there was a sidewalk or a bike path or if bicyclists needed to go in the flow of traffic; if there was a designation for crossing over the bike path to the outdoor picnic area; if a lot of traffic was expected from the back side of Fabian; where transformers and trash would be located; how many parking spaces would be needed for staff; and if there would be an overhang at the school entrance. Applicant Wood answered that the only rollup door was in the makerspace. She explained what the study nooks were for, which would contain benches and maybe a little seating area. There was not a sidewalk for bicyclists, which she stated was a good point. There was currently no designation for crossing over the bike path to the outdoor picnic area. Fabian had a connection to Oregon Expressway, so there may be a lot of traffic from the back side. Trash would be at the northwest corner of the property, and transformers existed at the western side of the building within the outdoor workshop area. They calculated the required number of parking spaces to be 38, and the remainder would be used for school shuttles, visitors, and overflow. Applicant Lee explained that there needed to be a quiet room for the woodshop to impede sound traveling. There would be an exhaust system. Regarding the metal ceramic area, there would be a building brace frame in between to be used for storage. The depth of patio space going out of the makerspace garage to the landscape fence would be about 25 feet. The staff area in the corner would be next to the art center and adjacent to the downstairs offices. The student center would have a rollup door. Art would not have outside access. The library would have no walls but there would be bookshelves as faculty wanted it to be open and the heart of the campus. It was a mistake that two offices were shown in green and the others in blue. The school entrance would have an overhang of about 12 feet deep. Board Member Hirsch asked how many students would be picked up by a driver, if there were plans to pick up on the street, if a larger bicyclist population had been allowed for, how many students attended the school, and if there would be large busses for field trips. Taking busses into account, he requested that a larger sidewalk area be considered. He asked why the sidewalk dead ended and if the southeast Page 22 of 24 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 11/21/24 side of the building was available for teacher or user entry. He noted that the sidewalk dead ending seemed dangerous and asked that it be considered. He noted that the school would not have a front office. He asked why the floor plan was constricted and then widened out, if it was for student flow. Since the windows were not to be replaced, he asked what would happen if a wall should be placed on an exterior line of windows. He thought that was a design element that needed to be worked out. Applicant Fairless answered that they had about five vans that would collect about 60 students. The rest would bike or arrive by vehicle, and there was a good number of carpools. She would have to do the math on the total number of vehicles. They had planned for van and car circulation to coexist, and what they planned was exactly how it was done at their current site. They had not planned to pick up on the street as it was not a good idea. A larger bike population had been considered. They currently had 186 students and expected that to increase a little at the new site, which they would have capacity for. For field trips, a bus would pick up and offload students at the front of the building, which she thought would occur on the street. She thought the driveway could be widened to accommodate a bus. Applicant Lee explained why the sidewalk dead‐ended. Regarding the southeast side of the building being available for teacher or user entry, the building would be locked during school hours but the gates would be open for staff. Teachers could come through any entry. The students would enter through the northwest side of the building. She explained what they would do if a wall was to be placed on an exterior line of windows. Applicant Wood stated that there would be a reception desk in the upper right‐hand corner of the library. She stated that they were trying to maintain as much of the building as they could and to not change out windows. A wall being placed on an exterior line of windows had the most potential to happen with the small offices. Applicant Wood answered that the floor plan was constricted and then widened out for student flow. Board Member Baltay felt that a variation in the fenestration would be perfectly fine. Board Member Hirsch asked if the column line at that point was outside. He questioned if the major demo was to be on the north side, if the solid glass element on the materials board would be part of the gym, what the doors would roll up into, and if there would be use of the color scheme in the existing building. Applicant Wood confirmed that the column line at that point was outside. There were pilasters coming down to the ground as shown on A2.01, which was true all the way around the building. The major demo was to be on the north side. The solid glass element on the materials board would be part of the gym at a higher level, and only the doors would be at ground level. The top of the blue plaster would be the top of the overhead door with a window system above that. They were still trying to confirm if the door would be folding or rolling, but it would be an overhead door allowing for free open space, and it would be a glazed door. The intent was to have free open space at the two folding or rolling door locations. As for the color scheme, the neutral tone would be consistent between the existing and the new building. The overhang would add color to the existing perimeter. Historic Planner/ Project Planner Switzer provided an image of the elements Board Member Hirsh was referring to. Page 23 of 24 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 11/21/24 Vice Chair Chen asked why the trash enclosure was close to the entry instead of the bike parking and if there would be dedicated restrooms for males. Applicant Wood discussed why the trash enclosure was located close to the entry instead of the bike parking. Applicant Lee replied that there was to be a single restroom on the second floor designated for teachers. Applicant Fairless added that the adult restrooms would most likely be all gender in addition to one single stall restroom. Chair Rosenberg asked if there would be one all gender restroom on the second floor and if there would be an all gender restroom on the first floor. Applicant Lee responded that there would be one all gender restroom on the second floor. All adult restrooms would be all gender, and the teacher restroom would be near the elevator. The adult restrooms would be separated from student restrooms. Board Member Baltay, at a high level, supported the project the way it was presented. He thought the bicycle parking should be close to the building entrance and that the trash area and the bicycle parking should be switched around. He believed there may be a way to park bicycles in the front setback. He felt consideration should be given to the sidewalks and the flow of people walking to and from the parking lot. Board Member Hirsch liked what had been presented, and he loved the project. He was especially keen on the corners of the upper floor being opened up. He thought there should be skylights in each corner to provide borrowed light into the various rooms below and a lean‐to‐type skylight around the elevator to provide light to the stairwell. He felt the color scheme around the gym was fantastic and suggested it be continued around the entire building. He proposed that there be a bike rack at the front of the building, which could be enclosed, and that the sidewalk encompass the building. Vice Chair Chen supported bike parking being close to the entrance. Chair Rosenberg summarized that the Board considered the bike parking to be the biggest problem, and she suggested that parking spaces 44 through 46 be converted to bike parking. She felt the trash area should be left where it was proposed. She was in support of skylights. She did not know if the hallway was the best place for the kiln. She addressed the faculty lounge and a classroom on the second floor overlooking the triangular roof/balcony and the classroom having a door exiting out onto that. She requested consideration be given to there being classroom door to that, it being a roof, or the faculty lounge taking over the balcony. She voiced that the Board also felt that the sidewalk should not dead end into traffic. She stated it needed to end in a better way if it was not going to encompass the building. She requested that the applicant consider Board Member Hirsch’s comment related to the color scheme. Board Member Questions, Comments, Announcements Or Future Meetings And Agendas Chair Rosenberg announced there were no minutes to approve. She asked if the ARB Awards would be addressed soon. Page 24 of 24 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 11/21/24 Historic Planner Switzer replied that it would be brought forward soon and they could target it being agendized in January. Adjournment Chair Rosenberg adjourned the meeting at 1:50 p.m.