Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-10-11 Historic Resources Board Summary Minutes City of Palo Alto Page 1 Call to Order/Roll Call Present: Deputized Chair Martin Bernstein, Board Member Wimmer, Board Member Makinen, Board Member Shepherd Absent: Chair Bower, Vice Chair Corey, Board Member Kohler Chair Bernstein: Good morning everybody and welcome to the October 12th, is today the 12th or the 11th? Amy French, Chief Planning Official: Today is the 11th. Chair Bernstein: Yeah, welcome to the October 11th meeting of the Historic Resources Board. Would staff please call roll. Ms. French: We have a quorum. Sorry, Council Member Holman present. Oral Communications Chair Bernstein: First for our agenda, I would like to call if there are any oral communications. If there any members of the public who would like to speak on any item not on our agenda, please come up to the speaker. And I see none. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Chair Bernstein: Next, if there are any agenda changes, additions or deletions? Ms. French: There are none. Chair Bernstein: Thank you. City Official Reports 1. 2018 Historic Resources Board Meeting Schedule and Assignments. Chair Bernstein: City Official Reports, any meeting schedule and assignments? I don’t believe there are any. Ms. French: Well, I think we are doing pretty good in October to have two meetings, so, we’ll be, well we had one in September and this one in October. I don’t believe we’re going to meet again in October, towards November. Chair Bernstein: Okay, thank you. Study Session HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD MEETING MINUTES: October 11, 2018 City Hall/City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 A.M. City of Palo Alto Page 2 Chair Bernstein: All right, Study Sessions, there is nothing listed under Study Session. Action Items 2. QUASI-JUDICIAL. 1107 Cowper Street. [18PLN-00202]: Request for Review of an Individual Review Application for Consistency with the Professorville Historic District Design Guidelines. The Project Includes the Demolition of an Existing Two-Story Home and Construction of a New Two-Story Home. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance with Guideline Section 15303 (New Construction). Zoning District: R-1 (Single Family Residential). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Graham Owen at graham.owen@cityofpaloalto.org. Chair Bernstein: The next is Action Items. And I’ll read the item. Quasi-judicial, so if anyone has any disclosures, we’ll do that. 1107 Cowper Street: Request for review of an individual review application for consistency with the Professorville Historic District Guidelines. The project includes the demolition of an existing two-story home and construction of a new two-story home. Environmental Assessment: It’s been deemed, it is in accordance with the Guideline Section of new construction, and does staff have a presentation for us? Graham Owen, Project Planner: Thank you Mr. Bernstein. Graham with the Planning Staff. I don’t have a formal presentation, but just kind of to give a recap of where we are and why we’re here. The application that’s before you today was on your previous calendar, previous public hearing on the 27th of September. At that meeting the HRB looked at the project as it was presented as an individual review application for a two-story home in Professorville. The Board weighed in on a number of aspects of the design of the project and had a discrete list of specific things that they wanted to see returned to the Board. The Board did approve the project overall, but with that discrete list asked for those items to come back on the Consent Agenda. So, those particular things, there are as I mentioned, four things and so I’ll let the applicant, if it’s okay with the Board, review the changes that they’ve made to the project. Chair Bernstein: Okay, thank you Graham. Okay, any questions for staff before we invite the applicant to speak? Okay, I’d like to welcome the applicant. If you would like to present your project today. Thank you. Oh, I’m sorry for interrupting, I’m sorry. One other thing I just need to do administratively. This being quasi-judicial, are there any disclosures any Board Members need to make, other than the ones we made last week, or two weeks ago. Okay, sorry for the interruption. Please continue. Kristen Lomax: Hi, nice to see you again. So, we responded to four items that you asked us to from last time, and I just wanted to walk through those changes. So, the first change that we made was to the arch area in the center of the front porch. We brought the trim that was on the horizontal sides across to kind of beef up that arch area, and then we also brought in the two front columns which made the arch feel a little bit rounder than it felt last time. The second change that we made was to the chimneys. Before they were sloped a little bit at the top. We took that away and brought them straight up and then we detailed the top of the chimney top, thinking ahead for what venting requirements would be needed for that chimney. And then the third change that we made was about the plinth, so we wanted to emphasize that. We increased the height of the trim along the water table and then we also increased the height of the boards along the bottom and we decided to paint them a different color to help emphasize that. The last change that we made was to the grading at the front porch area. One of the comments we got last time was that typically in Professorville the houses are a little bit more raised up than ours, so by grading that front porch area, we could add another step. This is something we need to check in with Planning to make sure that’s okay. And then the last change that we made was to the windows. The window in the lower left corner, which was two smaller windows, it’s now one larger window, and then the windows in the top right gabled area were just two windows, now there are three to mimic the other side, so it’s more symmetrical. And we also increased the size of the windows on the gabled ends a little bit. And that was it. Those are the changes that we made. City of Palo Alto Page 3 Chair Bernstein: Okay, thanks. Any questions for the presenter, Kristen, right? Ms. Lomax: Yes. Chair Bernstein: I do have one. Looking on what we have in front of us, it looks like the floor is 12 inches above grade, right? Ms. Lomax: The floor is? Chair Bernstein: Yeah. I’m looking at the first floor is 51.7 and grade is 50.7, so the floor is 12 inches above grade, right? Ms. Lomax: On average, yes. And in the center, it’s now a little bit lower due to our grading changes. Chair Bernstein: Oh, I see. Your drawing does show that. I see that. It does drop. Okay, good. That’s how you can get the three risers there. Ms. Lomax: Yeah. Chair Bernstein: Okay, good. That was my question. Any other questions Board Members? Seeing none, all right. Thank you very much. So, looking for any other comments or questions or discussion or motions. Board Member Makinen. Board Member Makinen: I think the overall appearance is much improved from what we had before, so I would certainly endorse this project. Chair Bernstein: Board Member Wimmer. Board Member Wimmer: I agree with Board Member Makinen that I think it looks great. I think you guys have done a fantastic job and I hope that going through this process, even though it seems a little daunting at times, you end up with a better project in the end. I really hope so, but it’s beautiful. Ms. Lomax: Thank you. Chair Bernstein: Any other? Board Member Shepherd: May I add? Chair Bernstein: Oh, yes. Board Member Shepherd: Yes, I concur. I think this building now is significantly more compatible than the existing structure, and I think that’s worth commenting on because we are making an important decision in endorsing an opportunity to actually tear down a building in Professorville, but this is really a far superior design. Chair Bernstein: Okay. I look for any more comments or motions? Mr. Owen: Chair Bernstein, I have just one point of clarification, because the applicant was asking a question about the height of the porch. I’ve taken a look at the Municipal Code and what you have is this 12-foot height restriction for the porch, Section 1812 of Municipal Code which deals with the R-1 Zone, specifies that it be no more than 12 feet in height. It doesn’t say above grade but I think that the conservative approach would say, would be to say that it is above just grade, which for the purposes of R-1 is existing grade prior to any grading. So, that would be staff’s interpretation of that, so that would impact the one change that Kristen was talking about. City of Palo Alto Page 4 Chair Bernstein: Right, so then that porch would not be counted for additional FAR or, is it lot coverage or FAR that? Mr. Owen: It’s floor area, yeah. If it’s higher than 12 feet above existing grade, then it would count twice towards the FAR, but if it’s at 12 feet or less, then it would not count. Chair Bernstein: Okay, so this won’t trigger that doubling then? Mr. Owen: I’m sorry? Chair Bernstein: This will not double that FAR? Mr. Owen: Well, it would if it’s more than 12 feet above grade, which I think it’s… Chair Bernstein: Above existing grade? Ms. Lomax: It’s not. We were just differentiating between existing and new. Mr. Owen: Okay. Ms. Lomax: So, we’re saying that it’s less than 12 feet above existing grade, but since we’re lowering the grade, it would be more than 12 feet above new grade. That’s the question. Mr. Owen: Oh. We can look into it. What’s the differential? Is it… Ms. Lomax: It’s about six inches. Mr. Owen: Six inches. I think we can condition it one way or the other so that it would conform, yeah. Chair Bernstein: The ordinance says the, it exists 12 feet above… Mr. Owen: Existing grade. Chair Bernstein: All right, yeah. Because the light wells are lower and all those things. Thank you. Okay. So, that works for your house design, I believe. Ms. Lomax: Yeah. Chair Bernstein: Okay, looking for any motions. MOTION Board Member Makinen: I’d like to make a motion that we approve the project as presented today. Chair Bernstein: Okay, looking for a second. Board Member Wimmer: I’ll second that. Chair Bernstein: Okay. Is there any other discussion on the motion? All right. I will also comment that I do appreciate your responses to our questions last time for the detailing and the windowing, and I think it’s a good solution to, yeah, there is the ordinance and then for example, that 12-foot issue. And then there’s also the aesthetic concerns that you heard expressed from the Board, so I think that was a good creative solution to meet the ordinance and still attend to your goals for the project. All right, so I’ll be supporting this project also. Okay, all those in favor saying aye. Okay that passes unanimously with the four Board Members that are present today. City of Palo Alto Page 5 MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 4-0, 3 ABSENT. Chair Bernstein: Thank you for that presentation. Ms. Lomax: Thank you. Approval of Minutes 3. Draft Minutes the Historic Resources Board Meeting of September 27, 2018 for Approval. Chair Bernstein: All right, next on our agenda would be approval of Minutes from two weeks ago, or our last meeting September 27th. Any motions to approve or amend or correct? Board Member Makinen: Well, I’ll just make a comment. There were certain areas where it did not come through on the tape right there, and I know the one area where I brought up the recommendation for increasing the height of the porch was completely obliterated from there so… Ms. French: It’s a problem, I’ll just weight in here, Amy French. We don’t know what happened with the video tape. I have looked at it personally to see, and it just skips. So, there’s no capturing the minutes. Board Member Makinen: Well, yeah, the only recommendation I would add after the minutes then that I did make a recommendation that we increase the height of the porch, and my comment was completely non-represented there, so if we can modify the minutes to reflect that, that would be good. (inaudible) Board Member Makinen: I can’t find the particular page it’s on right now. Ms. French: It’s packet page 37. Board Member Makinen: Page 37. Let’s see. Ms. French: Because you are talking in that paragraph about the porch. Board Member Makinen: What page are you on? Chair Bernstein: Page 37. Ms. French: Packet page 37 or Minutes page 37, or Minutes page 11. Board Member Makinen: No, I think it was before that. Chair Bernstein: Well, I guess the message is that there are some things that are missing from these minutes. Board Member Makinen: Yes. Chair Bernstein: And then at least we have a recorded comment of what you’re making now. Board Member Makinen: Right. Ms. French: Thank you. City of Palo Alto Page 6 Chair Bernstein: All right, motion to approve or amend further? MOTION Board Member Wimmer: I’ll move to approve the minutes. Board Member Makinen: Would the maker like to include the amendment too, with your motion? AMENDMENT Board Member Wimmer: Yes, in consideration of the comments that Michael just made that some of his original comments were missing. Board Member Makinen: Okay, approve the minutes with the amendments. That’s the motion. I’ll second it. Ms. French: I think the amendment is to recognize that there was more that wasn’t captured. Generally, your comment about the porch, is that correct? Just the porch, because we aren’t going to capture the rest of the minutes. Chair Bernstein: Okay, all approve, or I mean… Board Member Makinen: We have to have a second here. I’ll second it. Chair Bernstein: Okay, it’s been moved and seconded. All those in favor saying aye. That passes for those Board Members present. Thank you. MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 4-0, 3 ABSENT Subcommittee Items Chair Bernstein: Next is Subcommittee Items. Any Subcommittee Items? Ms. French: None. Board Member Questions, Comments and Announcements Chair Bernstein: Any Board Member Questions, Comments and Announcements? Board Member Wimmer. Board Member Wimmer: Yes, I am working on a new application that we haven’t formally submitted yet at 281 Addison, and I don’t know if it’s something that I could bring in as a Study Session, but I think we’ll just submit it and go through the process. I don’t know if it’s – I think it’s probably an HRB review, exterior changes. I don’t know if it’s staff level or HRB, but I’m pretty sure… Ms. French: Is it listed as a category? Board Member Wimmer: No, but it’s a Group A Resource. Ms. French: We shouldn’t talk about it too much. Board Member Wimmer: I think I’ll just, we’ll just go through the submittal application and see where it goes. City of Palo Alto Page 7 Chair Bernstein: Any other Board Member questions, comments and announcements? Yes, Council Member Holman. Council Member Holman: I don’t have the exact date, but there will be coming to the Council, hopefully before the end of the year, and there are public comments still being accepted until November 7th I think it is, on the new updated Zero Waste Plan, and the reason I bring it up to this body is because it does involve deconstruction and salvage and I think it might be of interest to this group to get a hold of that copy and comment on it. You can contact Phil Bobel in Public Works Department. He’d be happy to share it with you all. Chair Bernstein: That’s an excellent program coming up. I’ve been involved in about four projects now where we do the deconstruction and the tax credits. Are Board Members familiar with the Federal Tax Credit? Board Member Makinen: Tax credit? Chair Bernstein: It’s a great program. It’s win, win, win all over the place, so, okay. It would be good to… Ms. French: I can send it out. Chair Bernstein: Okay, that would be great. And then when it comes to Council, does that count for something for Council to adopt or? Council Member Holman: Yes, it would be an amendment to the current Zero Waste Program. This is something personally I’ve been waiting on for like 13 years, since we first adopted our C&D or Construction and Demolition Ordinance, and finally we’re getting – and with the support and I would say the encouragement of Phil Bobel who has been wonderful in Public Works to try to address this. Chair Bernstein: I think it was George Bush the younger who made that Federal Law, that Deconstruction Tax Credit. It’s, I think it’s a great program. Okay, any other comments, question or announcements? Okay, I think that brings us to adjournment. Thank you. Adjournment