HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-02-03 City Council (10)City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: Planning and
Community Environment
AGENDA DATE: February 3, 1997 CMR:132:97
SUBJECT:2741 Middlefield - Appeal of Director of Planning and Community
Environment Approval; File No. 96-ARB-190
REQI~ST
This report addresses an appeal of the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s
approval to allow upgrade of the front, back and side facades of an existing building, seismic
upgrade and parking lot improvements to an existing retail building.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends that the Council uphold the approval by the Director, based upon the
findings for ARB appeal set forth in Attachment A. The appeal states that the proposed use
requires a Conditional Use Permit; however, the Conditional Use Permit is a separate
requirement from the Architectural Review Board (ARB) approval. Whether required or not,
the ARB approval can proceed independently as long as the proposed use and tenancy does
not lead to exterior building changes. Since the ARB meeting, the proposed use of 2741
Middlefield Road has been revised by the applicant,, and the Zoning Administrator has
determined that a CUP is not required because the building will be occupied by two separate
uses, one a retail use and one a consulting service office use.
The appeal also states that a variance is required for placement of parking in a required
setback; however, the Code permits this non-complying facility to continue to be used
without requiring a variance, provided the proposal does not increase the degree of non-
compliance. Since the proposed inclusion of office use, with a lower parking requirement,
actually decreases the level of non-compliance, a variance is not required.
CMR:132:97 Page 1 of !3.,
POLIC¥...IMPLICATIONS
The proposed project, as revised, complies with the Zoning Ordinance and Architectural
Review Board Ordinance requirements for permitted uses within a non-complying facility.
The proposal would enable occupancy of a vacant building and would enhance the
appearance of this retail building, helping with efforts by property owners, residents and the
City to revitalize the Midtown neighborhood shopping district. The applicants have also
incorporated substantial landscaping improvements to the property adjacent to Middlefield
Road and Colorado Avenue.
¯ Comprehensive Plan:
The proposed project is generally compatible with the Comprehensive Plan, particularly with
objectives in the Urban Design Element promoting variety and aesthetic quality and
encouraging maintenance of street trees and landscaping.
Compliance with ARB Standards:
The project, as revised and as recommended by conditions of approval, would comply with
the standards for architectural review, as set forth in Chapter 16.48 of the PAMC,
Architectural Review Ordinance:
The proposed project meets the goals, purposes and Standards for Architectural Review in
the following manner: The building is a clear investment to the City as the design and
related improvements provide a retail building which is attractive and will contribute to the
appearance and vitality of the Midtown shopping district. The proposed facade
improvements are compatible with the natural tones and stucco and wood detailing
characterizing many of the center’s better maintained buildings, while the teal painted steel
bracing and windows provide an attractive accent. Entryways are marked by redwood
trellises which relate the building to other structures in the center. (Refer to Attachment A
for a complete evaluation of the project according to the standards in ARB Ordinance Section
16.48.120.)
Zoning Ordinance:
The proposed retail use would occupy 14,743 square feet, and the proposed office use would
occupy 4,517 square feet, in conformance with the zoning ordinance limitations on the size
of retail and office uses of 15,000 square feet and 5,000 square feet, respectively. The
existing facility does not comply with lot coverage, Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and parking
requirements for the CN district, but the proposed design does not increase the degree of non-
compliance; thus a variance is not required per Sections 18.94.101 and 81.94.080.
CMR:132:97 Page 2 of 13
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The applicant has raised the following basic issues, which are addressed in detail in the
Discussion section of the attached in-depth staff report (pages 8 to 11).
1)
2)
The proposed project requires a Conditional Use Permit for retail use exceeding
15,000 square feet.
The proposed project requires a Variance to allow parking within a required side
setback under Section 18.41.050(f)(2) and 18.41.060(b) PAMC.
3)All building permit values should be considered together in determining whether
sprinklers are required by the Fire Department.
4)The parking lot on the property, located off Colorado Avenue, should be used for
employees and deliveries, which would require relocating the existing delivery area
from the rear of the property.
5)The parking lot on the property should, after accommodating the project’s employee
and delivery vehicles, be available for employee parking from other properties in the
assessment district.
6)Any illegal encroachments into the assessment district parking lot should be abated
and any legal ones should be vacated so that customer parking can be provided at the
rear entrance, and any missing parking stall stripes can be restored.
7)Limits on hours of operations need to be imposed, including deliveries and other
operations when business is closed to the public.
8)Illuminated signs shall be turned offwhen the business is closed to the public.
9)If the major customer entrance is from the rear parking lot, the required landscaping
on Middlefield Road should be extended over the building facade, since the required
access from Middlefield is much less than shown on the plans.
10)Unambiguous conditions are needed to give code enforcement officers the authority
they need.
ALTERNATIVES
If the City Council does not deny the appeal and uphold the Director of Planning and
Community Environment’s approval, it can:
CMR:132:97 Page 3 of 13"
1)Deny the appeal and uphold the Director’s approval with modifications, or
2)Grant the appeal by denying the Architectural Review approval of the project.
FISCAL IMPACT
The only potential fiscal impact of the proposed project would be the generation of potential
retail sales revenue if the approval is granted and the building is occupied in early 1997,
versus the loss of such potential sales revenue if the improvements are not approved and the
building is not reoccupied. The amount of such sales revenue cannot be easily projected.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
An environmental assessment is not required for this project, which was determined to be
Categorically Exempt from CEQA.
STEPS FOLLOWING APPROVAL
1) If the appeal is granted, the project would be denied and the property owner would
need to develop a different plan for reuse of the building.
If the appeal is denied, the next step would be for the applicant to comply with the
conditions of approval and undertake construction.
PREPARED BY:Alison Kendall, Contract Planner
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW:
KENNETH R. SCHREIBER
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
Ci
CMR:132:97 Page 4 of 13
SUBJECT:2741 Middlefield Road -Appeal of Director of Planning and Community
Environment Approval; File No. 96-ARB-190
~COMMENDATION
The staffrecommends that the City Council deny the appeal and sustain the approval of the
Director of Planning and Community Environment.
BACKGROUND
Project Description
Original Application:
The applicant applied on November 7, 1996, for design approval to upgrade the front, back
and side facades of an existing retail building, including a seismic retrofit and improvements
to parking and landscaping areas. The proposed primary tenant to occupy the existing
building is The KnOwhere Store, which retails Taylor environments and parts, including
work furniture, computer and communication systems, books, compact discs, tools, toys and
puzzles.
The initial application included an increase in the total building area of approximately 380
square feet, which resulted in the loss of one parking space and an increase in the building’s
non-compliance with zoning requirements for retail size, floor area ratio and lot coverage.
The applicants were notified verbally on December 5 and by letter December 9 that the
application was incomplete, and the proposed project would require a Use Permit and
Variances to increase non-compliance with these requirements. The applicant submitted a
revised application on December 10 which maintained the current number of parking spaces
and did not increase building area.
Table 1:Site Information
Applicant:Stoecker & Northway
437 Lytton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
CMR:132:97 Page 5 of 13"
Appellant:Herb Borock
2731 Byron Street
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Roxy Rapp & Company
P. O. Box 1672
Palo Alto, CA 94302
Comprehensive Plan Designation:Neighborhood Commercial
Midtown Study Area
Zoning District: CN - Commercial Neighborhood
Existing Land Use: Two story, 19,26i square foot retail building and parking lot
Surrounding Land Uses:
North:
East:
West:
South:
City owned parking lot and commercial building
Colorado Avenue and commercial building
Retail building with rear parking lot
Middle field Road, retail uses opposite
Parcel Size:19,125 square feet
ARB Approval:
The revised application was reviewed by the Architectural Review Board on January 2, 1997.
At that time Mr. Boroek addressed the ARB regarding his concerns regarding the need for
a conditional use permit, and other concerns including potential disruptions to residents from
lighting, noise and loading activities. After reviewing the proposed design and revised
drawings submitted by the applicant January 2, the ARB approved the application subject to
several conditions, including revisions to the landscape design adjacent to Middlefield to
promote pedestrian activity, additional landscaping in the Colorado Avenue parking lot and
enhancements to the rear and side entrances. The ARB added a further condition that, if a
Conditional Use Permit was found to be required, ARB approval would be conditional upon
granting of the use permit.
On January 9 the applicant submitted landscape plans and revised plans responding to the
ARB direction, which were scheduled for review on February 6.. However, due to the appeal
filed by Mr. Herb Borock, this further review is being delayed until Council action on the
appeal.
CMPc 132:97 Page 6 of 13
On January 15, the applicants met with City staff to discuss their proposed revision to
address the retail size limit. They stated that the proposed retail use would occupy 14,743
square feet, and the proposed office use would occupy 4,517 square feet, in conformance
with the zoning ordinance limitations on the size of retail and office uses of 15,000 square
feet and 5,000 square feet respectively. Their current proposal is described in a letter from
Margaret A. Sloan dated January 17, 1997 (Attachment G), and in a floor plan revision for
the mezzanine space dated January 17, 1997 (Attachment H).
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The proposed project complies with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance
requirements for permitted uses in non-complying facilities, and the Architectural Review
Board Ordinance.
Comprehensive Plan:
The proposed project is located in the Midtown Special Study Area, and is designated for
Neighborhood Commercial use. The existing plan contains the following relevant policies:
Urban Design Element. Ob_iective. page 42: "Promote visual environments which are
of high aesthetic quality and variety, and considerate of each other." The proposed
exterior renovation presents an upgrade to the appearance of the building which
continues the stucco earthtones and redwood trellis elements found elsewhere in the
Midtown area. The teal blue brace frame on the front of the building exterior is a bold
new contemporary element which is not found in the existing center, but which could
add color and excitement to the street while improving the building’s seismic
resistance. Teal aluminum windows would continue this color theme on the other
facades. Conditions of approval are recommended if desired to relate the facade
elements more closely to existing buildings in the center.
Urban Design Element. Ob_iective, page 42: "Encourage maintenance of trees and
planting of new street trees." The project involves the retention of an existing
Maleleuca tree in front of the store and the expansion of the landscaped area in front
of the store from two small planters to two large landscaped areas which could
accommodate substantial tree planting. Existing street trees would be retained. The
parking lot on Colorado Street contains no landscaping. Conditions of approval
include landscaping of the lot, including trees in the planter areas along Colorado and
in the "Sawtooth" area not needed for the diagonal parking spaces.
Architectural Review Ordinance:
Compliance with Architectural Review Ordinance standards is evaluated in the attached
.Findings for Approval (Attachment A).
CMR:132:97 Page 7 of. 13
Zoning Ordinance:
The project as described in the January 16 letter from the applicant’s attorneys complies with
the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, particularly sec. 18.49.040(b) and 18.41.050(k).
Table 2 below summarizes the proposed project compared to the zoning requirements.
T.~ble 2 Project Comparison with Current, Ordinance Requirements
REGULATION
Office Floor Area (sq. ft.)
Retail Floor Area (sq. ft.)
Floor Area Ratio
Maximum Height
Lot Coverage
Front Yard (Middlefield)
Rear Yard
SWeet Side Yard
Parking
PROPOSED PROJECT
4,517 sq. ft.
14,743 sq. ft.
1.0
No change
60%
10 feet
none
16 spaces (no change)
REQUIRED (CN Zone)
less than 4,781 SF
¯ (25% of lot area)
Less than 15;000 sq. ft.
Less than 0.4
25 feet (35 feet
w/residential mixed use)
Less than 50%
29.5 feet
none
1 SP per 150 SF or 130
spaces
DISCUSSION
Issues and Analysis of the Appeal
A number of basic issues have been raised with this appeal application. The points of appeal
and staff’s response to each are summarized below.
1)The proposed project requires a Conditional Use Permit for retail use exceeding
15, 000 square feet.
As described earlier, the Conditional Use Permit and ARB requirement are independent, and
the design approval can occur first, so long as the exterior of the building is not changed
through the Conditional Use Permit process.
CMR: 132:97 Page 8 of J3-
The appellant is correct in stating that a conditional use permit is required for a retail use
exceeding 15,000 square feet in the CN zone. Since the prior retail use was terminated more
than one (1) year ago, any new use must conform to this requirement, pursuant to PAMC
Section 18.94.040 (b).
Since the time of the ARB decision, the applicant has revised the project proposal to reduce
the retail area to 14,743 square feet and to include 4,517 square feet of general business
office use, which would be separated from the retail space by a wall, and located on the
mezzanine level of the building. According to the architect, the retail and office areas would
have independent access. This modification brings the proposal into compliance with the
limits to floor area in Section 18.41.050(k) and (1), and thus a Conditional Use Permit is not
required.
The proposed project requires a Variance to allow parking within a required side
setback under Sec. 18. 41.05009 (2) and 18.41.060(b) PAMC.
The Zoning Ordinance treats "noncomplying facilities" like the parking area, differently than
"nonconforming uses" like the retail use here. The existing facility does not comply with CN
district parking requirements and the prohibitions on parking within the first ten feet adjacent
to the street property line, but the proposed design does not increase the degree of non-
compliance; thus a variance is not required per Section 18.94.080 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Under that section, a noncomplying facility may remain, but no change is allowed if the
noncompliance would increase. In fact, the inclusion of office rather than the previous all-
retail use means that the overall parking requirement is somewhat lower, and thus the degree
of non-compliance is reduced.
The applicant agreed to the ARB condition of inserting landscaping, including trees, into the
triangular planting areas adjacent to the Colorado Avenue street side property line, and
additional planting in similar areas along the edge of the parking area. Because of the
narrowness of the lot, however, it is not possible to comply with the 10 foot street side
setback without substantially decreasing the amount ofparking provided. This would require
a variance and increase the parking deficiency for the property. The triangular plantings,
which average a depth of 4 to 6 feet, provide adequate screening for this small parking area,
and the addition of 18 trees to the lot will improve its appearance dramatically without
reducing the capacity of the lot.
3)All building permit values shouM be considered together in determining whether
sprinklers are required by the Fire Department.
The Fire Department will assess the value of the proposed improvements from all applicable
building permits associated with this project and determine whether sprinklers are required.
CMR:132:97 Page 9 of 13"
4)The parking lot on the property should be used for employees and delivery vehicles
for the project, so that the assessment district lot at the rear of the property can
continue to be used for customers. Vendors’ deliveries should be via the property’s
driveway on Colorado Avenue, a delivery door shouM be designated on the Colorado
side of the building, at least one off-street loading space shouM be provided in the
Colorado parking area. Vendors’ and businesses’ delivery vehicles shouM use
MiddlefieM Road to access the Colorado Avenue side of the property.
Currently, cars enter from Colorado Avenue, and park diagonally off a central aisle. To enter
or reach additional parking in the City lot, they continue through a drive-through under the
building. While the appellant’s suggestion for a delivery area off Colorado would decrease
the impact of deliveries from the City-owned parking lot on customers parking in the lot, it
would result in the loss of parking spaces in the Colorado Avenue lot and potentially obstruct
the lot for cars entering from Colorado Avenue. Because many trucks would be too high to
use the drive-through, they would need to back out onto Colorado, again blocking access and
egress from the lot for customers. Trucks backing out of the narrow drive could run into
customers or parke~ vehicles. The provision of a separate delivery door on Colorado would
be difficult without blocking the drive-through. Overall, this solution would result in a loss
of parking from a property with a major parking deficiency.
5)After accommodating the project’s employee and delivery vehicles, the property’s
parking could be available for employee parking for other properties in the
assessment district.
Given the overall shortage of convenient parking for retail customers and office clients, it
does not seem advisable to reserve any specific parking area for employees, particularly in
prime locations dose to most businesses and accessible from a major street such as Colorado.
6)Any illegal encroachments into the assessment district parking lot should be abated
and any legal ones shouM be vacated so that customer parking can be provided at the
rear entrance, and any missing parking stall stripes can be restored
While illegal encroachments should certainly be abated, it is not feasible to vacate legal
encroachments in the rear of the building. This area has been used as a delivery area by
Bergmann’s department store for many years, and the alternative location of the Colorado
Avenue lot would result in the loss of a substantial number of parking spaces and greater
potential for conflicts between customer parldng and delivery vehicles.
7)Reasonable hours of operation should be imposed, including deliveries and other
operations when business is closed to the public.
CMR:132:97 Page 10 of 13"
The appellant has not provided information on his proposed hours of operation. However,
if Council finds this hourly limit is needed pursuant to Section 16.48.120(b)(1), (2) and (11)
and (3)(c), a condition could be imposed limiting deliveries between certain hours, such as
10 p.m. and 8 a.m., in order to minimize any potential noise impacts on nearby residential
units, although the vast majority of deliveries would be made during the daytime.
8)Illuminated signs shall be turned off when the business is closed to the public.
A sign application has not yet been submitted for this property, so it is unclear whether signs
will have direct or indirect lighting, where they will be located, and whether they will be
visible from nearby residential units. The rear building sign is the only sign likely to be
visible from nearby apartments overlooking the assessment district parking lot. It would be
easier and more appropriate to address concerns regarding illuminated signage when the sign
permit is reviewed. While a condition requiring illuminated signs to be turned off after
business hours could be added to the conditions of ARB approval for this project, staff
recommends it be included as a condition of approval for the sign permit, when granted, if
illuminated signs are proposed.
9)If the major customer entrance is from the rear parking lot, the required landscaping
on MiddlefieM Road should be extended over the building facade since the required
access from MiddlefieM is much less than shown on the plans.
The ARB discussed with the applicant at some length the objective of enhancing the
appearance of the front of the building with landscaping while increasing the attractiveness
of the Middlefield frontage for pedestrian activity. The proposed landscape plan, submitted
January 9 in response to the ARB direction, provides three 24" box Chinese Pistache trees
.on either side of a large entry plaza, with two benches in shaded areas. A planted area with
ground cover and shrubs is provided to the south, while the pavement allows free pedestrian
movement between this property and the adjacent arcade retail building while allowing the
longer term possibility of public access between the buildings to the rear parking area. In
short, the landscape plan is compatible with objectives for the Midtown commercial district,
and details of its design can be resolved upon further review by the ARB.
Unambiguous conditions are needed to give code enforcement officers the authority
they need.
This general comment is appreciated, and staff supports it. It does not provide appeal
justification, however. Staffdoes not find the proposed ARB conditions (see Attachment C)
upon this project to be ambiguous.
CMR:132:97 Page 11 of.13
Public Participation
At the January 2, 1997 Architectural Review Board hearing, two people offered public
testimony in opposition to the application. The issues expressed in the public testimony are
the same as provided in the appellant’s letter (see Attachment D - Letter of Appeal) and are
addressed in the previous discussion section of this report.
.ALTERNATIVES
If the City Council does not deny the appeal and uphold the Director of Planning and
Community Environment’s approval, it can:
1)Deny the appeal and uphold the Director’s approval with modifications, or
2)Grant the appeal by denying Architectural Review approval of the project.
FISCAL IMPACT
The only potential fiscal impact of the proposed project would be the generation of potential
retail sales revenue if the approval is granted and the building is occupied in early 1997,
versus the loss of such potential sales revenue if the improvements are not improved and the
building is not reoccupied. The amount of such sales revenue cannot be easily projected.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
An environmental assessment is not required for this project, which was determined to be
Categorically Exempt from CEQA.
STEPS FOLLOWING APPROVAL
1) If the appeal is granted, the project would be denied and the property owner would
need to develop a different plan for reuse of the building.
2)If the appeal is denied, the next step would be for the applicant to comply with the
conditions of approval and undertake construction.
ATTACHMENTS
A.Findings for ARB Approval
B.Application and project description received from Stoecker and Northway on
November 7, 1997
C..Architectural Review Board letter of approval to application dated January 8, 1997,
with conditions
D.Letter of appeal from Herb Boroek, Dated January 10, 1997
E.Minutes for the January 2, 1997 ARB meeting
F.ARB StaffReport of January 2, 1997
CMR: 132:97 Page 12 of 13"
Go Letter from Margaret Sloan, Attorney for Jon Schink and Roxy Rapp, Owners, to Ken
Schreiber on January 16, 1997
Fax from John Northway with floor plans showing proposed location of office and
retail uses
CO:Herb Borock, 2731 Byron Street, Palo Alto, CA 94306
John Northway, 437 Lytton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Margaret Sloan, Jorgenson, Siegel, McClure & Flegel, LLP, Attorneys at Law,
1100 Alma Street, Suite 210, Menlo Park, CA 94025-3392
CMR:132:97 Page 13 of.13
Attachment A
Findings for Approval
2741 Middlefield Road
96-ARB-190
The Architectural Review Board has determined, in approving this proposed project with
conditions, that the proposed project, as conditioned, will fulfill the following general goals
and purposes of Chapter 16.48.010, namely, to promote the orderly and harmonious
development of the city; to enhance the desirability of residence or investment in the city;
to encourage the attainment of the most desirable use of land and improvements; to enhance
the desirability of living conditions upon the immediate site or in adjacent areas; and to
promote visual environments which are of high aesthetic quality and variety and which, at
the same time, are considerate of each other.
The design, as proposed and conditioned, would be consistent and compatible with
applicable elements of the City’s Comprehensive Plan, including the Urban Design
Element as previously described in this report. The proposed design will help achieve
the policy objective of revitalization of the Midtown neighborhood commercial
district.
o The design would be compatible with the immediate environment of the site. It
maintains the existing building height and size, which at two stories is appropriate for
the kind of vital neighborhood retail district which is desired for Midtown. The
redwood trellises proposed above each entry would provide a unifying element within
the Midtown center which relates to the neighborhood’s architectural character. The
design combines adobe colored stucco and redwood, materials characteristic of
buildings in the area, with teal metal bracing and windows which would provide a
contemporary accent appropriate to this neighborhood retail area. The exterior
renovations produce a building design suitable for this prominent location and
appropriate for this site, which is a key location within the Midtown Revitalization
Project Area.
o The proposed design is appropriate to the function of the project, which is to house
a retail business selling office furniture with a related consulting service. The
proposed renovation will upgrade the finishes on the building and add building design
features and landscaping which will enhance the general attractiveness of this
neighborhood retail district.
To the degree that the Midtown area has a unified design character, this project is
compatible with that character. The elements which are reflected in the design are the
use of wood and stucco in natural colors, large expanses of glass and sleek
contemporary lines which are found in many Eichlers, and in some of the churches
along Middlefleld. The redwood trellis element is also incorporated into a number of
churches, houses and small retail buildings in the Midtown area. These elements have
been attractively combined in this design.
The design promotes harmonious transitions in scale and character in areas between
different designated land uses. The design maintains the existing building height and
size, which at two stories is appropriate for the kind of vital neighborhood retail
district which is desired for Midtown, but not abruptly different from the surrounding
one- and two-story residential development. The proposed changes will increase the
building’s compatibility with surrounding retail and nearby residential uses.
6.While there are no relevant approved improvements on or off site, the proposed
design is compatible with the general concepts behind the Midtown Concept Plan
developed by property owners and currently being refined to guide public and private
improvements. In particular, the increased landscaping and improvements to the
pedestrian and parking areas are compatible with the Concept Plan and the general
objectives for revitalization of the Midtown commercial area.
o Within the constraints of the existing building and parking facilities, the planning and
siting of the various functions and the building on the site create an internal sense of
order and provide a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and the general
community. Unfortunately, the existing Colorado Avenue parking lot does not
provide enough parking to fulfill the requirements for these uses. In addition, the
narrowness of the lot requires a one-way access to the parking from Colorado, and
requires cars to exit the lot under the drive-through to the assessment district lot. As
non-complying facilities, the applicant is not required to change these facilities unless
he increases the degree of non-compliance.. The inclusion of office use and the
provision off a disabled persons parking space and bicycle parking will decrease the
degree of non-compliance slightly.
The amount and arrangement of the proposed open space is appropriate to the design
and fimction of the structures. The open space in front of the building would be
landscaped to improve the appearance of the building,, and provide an attractive,
shaded plaza and seating area which connect to the pedestrian arcade of an adjacent
building. The parking lot off Colorado provides shade to a south-facing facade and
would be substantially improved, with an additional 18 trees to provide substantial
shade to parked cars and pavement.
There are not ancillary functions needed to support the main functions of the project
beyond parking, described under standard (7). Within the constraints of the non-
complying facility, these are acceptable.
10.Access to the property and circulation within it is safe and convenient for pedestrians,
cyclists and vehicles, within the constraints imposed by the site and the non-
complying parking lot. Pedestrian access from Colorado Avenue requires that
pedestrians walk in the parking aisle to reach the side entrance. Hazards to
pedestrians would increase if deliveries were made via the Colorado Avenue lot, as
suggested by the appellant, and trucks had to back up to exit because they did not fit
beneath the drive-through.
11.Two existing trees at the front and back of the property are the only notable existing
natural features on the site. They are retained and integrated in the proposed design.
12.The renovation proposed superior building materials and textures to the current
concrete block building. These factors are an appropriate expression to the design and
function of the project. The extension of the adobe stucco treatment to three sides of
the building is a distinct improvement over the current painted concrete block, the
proposed materials, textures, colors and details are also compatible with neighboring
structures, landscape elements and functions.
13.As recommended by conditions of approval, the landscape design concept for the site
would create a desirable and functional environment and creates an appropriate unity
with the various entries to the site. The proposed design would increase the mount
of landscaping and number of trees visible from Middlefield Road and Colorado
Avenue. The landscaping improvements could help enhance the Middlefield frontage
as a more vital pedestrian area. The conditions would make less of the landscape area
off limits to pedestrians, and encourage pedestrian use of outdoor area. Conditions
of approval would require tree planting and landscaping wherever possible in the
parking lot, improving the appearance of the area and the pedestrian experience along
Colorado, while maintaining the function and capacity of the existing parking lot.
14.Plant materials were specified in the January 9 submission of a Landscape Plan, and
are appropriate to the site, drought resistant and generally low in water consumption.
15.The design is generally energy efficient. It incorporates shade trees and landscaping
to reduce heat gain in the paved parking area, a redwood trellis and shade trees to
reduce heat gain from the south-west facade, and skylights and increased window area
to provide natural lighting.
3
Appiication
Department o[ Planning ~ Corn ent,
950 Hamilton .;kve, Palo Alto,
T~I : {41~)
Attachment B
0 Appli~ant Requeat
[~ Architectural Review Board
Design Enhancement Exception
Environmental Impact Assessment
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Historic Resources Board
Home Improvement Exception
Property Loaatiort
Address of Subject Property, ¯
Zone District ¯ .
Conditional Use Permit
Variance
Site and Design
Zone Change
Subdivision
Parcel Map
Assessor’s Parcel Number: I~J’7 ..-.,7--.~ ,.-~:p~,~_ Historic Category(if applicable):
O Applicant., NOTE: The APPLICANT & PROPERTY OWNER must be placed on the submitted
Name: ~~ ~ L(~l/J’clkrailing list in Order t° be n°tified °f Meetings’ Hearings °r acti°n taken~’~ L./L.{
Address: ~.’~7 ~/~,k~_ \,. ~’~’-’,’L~ Phone:
i~ Proper%~ Owner NOT~: The APPLICANT & PROPERTY OWNER must be placed on the submitted
mailing list in order to be not[fled of Meetings, Hearings or action taken.
I ~"Phone:!City: "~ ~~State: ~ Zip:
hereby certify that I am the owner of record of the property described in Box #2 above indthat I approve of the requested action herein. If
application(s) is subject to 100% recovery of planning costs, I understand that.char( ~s-;tor staff ti~e,processing this application(s)
will be based on. the Policy and Procedures document provided to me. !..my an estimate of these charges .
and not a fee, and I agree to abide by the billing policy stated..../ ......
Signature of Ownel;!"i/ ~ 7-- ~ ~
tO--
USE C~TEGORY PER ZOHIHG:
OCCUP/~ICY GROUP(S) PER UBC:~’~TYPE OF CONSTRUCTIOtq PER UBC:_~ "
0,,,
Z,L
FLOOOZOtlE YES r7 NO ~L
HISI’OR~CBUILDIHG YES C}I’;0 ,~
ST,~IFOnO t~PRO’,’~L nEQUlr~EO YES []NO .~
SUBDMSIO~ M,.,’,P YES []NO ~"
l"~smol’~ ZC~IE YES []NO ~
V~CEREQUIRED YES []NO ~
USE PERMIT YES i"1 NO ~L
LANDSCAPE GUIDELINES "YES []NO~
LOT DIMEHSIOI’IS LEHGTH I~J..~.~{ VAOTH 7~>.~)~
~11rregul=r ~tt~ch tn~p)
PERCE~ OF SRE CO’~GE
S~BACKS
SPECW.
S’.OE
SIDE
EXISTIIqG SQU,-~J7E FEET
.SO. FT. 1"0 EE DEMOUSttEO
SQ. FT.TO BEADDED
TOTALAT COMPLETION
MAX. SO. FT. PER ZONING
I’~J’~.IMUM SO. FT. PER UBC
MAXIMUM FN’t PER ZONING
NUMBER OF SHOWF.RS
AUTOMOBILES
# COMP,N3T
# H~NOlC~
@ D EFEP, P,E O
REQUIRED
,
PROPOSED
o
ALLOWED PROP OSED
BICYCLES
CI.,~S I
C1.K~II
CLASS Ii
RESERVED
TOTAL
FENCE HEIG~
SIDE
PROPOSED
F YES, ELEVATION
FYES, CATEGORY
IFYES, OBT~JNEET?
FOR STAFF USE ONLY
COMP.PLAN DESIGNATION
SEW~.R YES 0
HAZ. MAT.YES rl
~ ,,PAGE
DISTANCE SIDEWALK
~’O PROPERTY UNE
UNDERLYING LOT LINE
SPECLAJ,. SETBACKS
(CPPO~JTE/ADJ. RESIDENTIAL}
HOUSING MITIGATION
’~:~FRC
5" PEFUMETER
LANDSCAPE
TR=..E EV£RY 6’
10’ LANDSCAPE BUFFER
NO. 0
NO O
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2741 Middlefield Road is the site of the former Bergmann’s department
store. Unoccupied since 1992, the structure has fallen into disrepair.
The building owners propose to upgrade and update the facade for use
by a single retail tenant. Exterior steel trusses in a teal color will be installed in
front of a new storefront glass system in the same color for a more
contemporary look. The trusses will act as a structural element, providing
seismic bracing to the existing building. The existing front awning will be
removed and replaced with a redwood trellis, and the two existing planters will
be expanded and replanted to provide a more pedestrian friendly entrance.
The exterior of the building will receive new stucco in an adobe color,
with a continuous cornice around all four sides. The side and rear will receive
steel trusses to echo the design of the front entrance, with the rear entrance
also receiving a redwood trellis element.
The existing parking lot will remain. As staff is aware, the Midtown area
is involved in a master planning process which will result in part in an upgrade
to the existing parking areas. The owners, therefore, propose to upgrade their
parking at a future date in accordance with the guidelines yet to be developed.
KNOWHERE
The Knowhere Store retails Taylor environments and all of their sub-comp.onents and
parts. To do this, we sell work furniture, specially configured computer and
communication systems, books, compact discs, tools, toys, and puzzles. We help you
to re-create your environment and way of working-at home or globally.
January 8, 1997
Claire Malone
Stoecker & Northway
437 Lytton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
-City of Palo Alto
Department o~Planning and
Community Environment
Attachment C
Dear Ms. Malone:
The Director of Planning and Community Environmem, upon recommendation of the
Architectural Review Board at its meeting of January 2. 1997 has approved, with
conditions, the following application per the plans submitted for review:
2741 Middlefield Road
Roxy Rapp
96-ARB-190
Recommendation to the Director of Planning and Community Environment for the
Architectural Review Board’s review for an upgrade of the front, back and side
facades, seismic upgrade and parking lot improvements to an existing retail building.
CONDITIONS
This ARB approval is conditional upon approval of a conditional use permit, if
required, pursuant to Section 18.94.lM0(b) and Section 18.94.030(b) and other relevant
sections of the Palo Alto Municipal Code.
Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit
Plannin~Zoning
1.The final site and/or landscaping plan shall be submitted to and reviewed by the
ARB and to include the following modifications:
a.Revised landscaping of the Colorado Avenue parking lot per Tom Richman’s
drawing of December 1, 1996 and continued access to adjacent parking lot.
b.The landscaped area in front of the building along Middiefield shall modified so
as to create a tree-shaded pedestrian area with outdoor benches and the possibility
of outdoor displays or tables and chairs.
250HamiltonAvenue
P.O.Box 10250
Palo Alto,CA94303
415.329.2441
415.329.2240Fax
c.Bicycle parking is required in accordance with PAMC, Chapter 18.83. Class 2
and 3 parking shall be located as close to the front doorway as possible, which
may require some redesign of the front area. Additional Class 2 and 3 bike
parking should be placed near the side entrance to the parking lot on Colorado
Avenue, if this can be accomplished without displacing existing parking.
2.Final architectural plans shall return to the ARB and include the following
modifications:
a. Modifications to provide additional architectural interest at east and north entries.
All public trees to be retained, as shown on the approved tree inventory or landscape
plan to be prepared and submitted to the Planning Division, shall be protected during
construction. The following tree protection measures shall be approved by the
Planning Arbodst and included in construction/demolition contracts and be
implemented during demolition and construction activities unless otherwise
approved. The following tree protection measures shall apply: PAMC See. 8-04-
070. Any modifications to these requirements must be approved, in writing, by the
¯Planning Arborist.
a.The City’s Planning Arborist shall consult with the project arborist and submit a
tree protection plan for the site prior to issuance of a building permit.
The ARB approved building materials and color scheme shall be shown on building
permit drawings for all buildings, patios, fences, utilitarian enclosures and other
landscape features.
o Detailed landscape and irrigation plans encompassing on- and off-site plantable areas
out to the curb must be submitted to and approved by the Architectural Review
Board. A Landscape Water Use statement, water use calculations and a statement of
design intent shall be submtited for each project.
These plans should be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and qualified
irrigation consultant. Landscape and irrigation plans shall include:
a. All existing trees identified both to be retained and removed including street trees.
b. Complete plant list indicating tree and plant species, quantity, size and locations.
c. Irrigation schedule and plan.
d. Fence locations.
e. Lighting plan with photometric data.
f. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to
ensure survival.
6.Signs (not included in this proposal) require a separate application. Sec. 16.48.050a,
See. 16.48.120a(14), See. 16.48.120(c).
The applicant shall submit a plan addressing trash disposal. The project shall
include a recycling area or enclosure which complies with the design guidelines
adopted by the ARB and approved by the City Council pursuant to Section
16.48.070(PAMC). See. 16.48.120a(12), Sec. 16.48.120(c).
Engineering
The applicant shall submit a final grading and drainage plan for the parking lot off
Colorado Avenue to Public Works Engineering, including drainage patterns on site
and from adjacent properties. The .plan shall demonstrate that pre-existing drainage
patterns to and from adjacent properties are not altered. Sec.16.28.270.
The proposed development will result in a change in the impervious area of the
property. The applicant shall provide calculations showing the adjusted impervious
area with the building permit application. A storm drainage fee adjustment will take
place in the month following the fmal approval of the construction by the Building
Inspection Division.
Transportation
10.Signage and landscaping shall meet the sight distance requirements of PAMC
18.83.080, applicable to project frontages where driveways are present, and in
parking lots. Landscaping shall be specifically identified in the landscape plan as
meeting these height requirements.
11.Bicycle parking is required in accordance with PAMC 18.83. Class 2 and 3 parking
must be located as dose to the front doorway as possible, which may require some
redesign of the front area. Additional Class 2 and 3 bike parking should be placed
near the side entrance to the parking lot on Colorado, if this can be accomplished
without displacing existing parking.
Utilities
12.All utility meters, lines, transformers, backflow preventers, and any other required
utilities, shall be shown on the landscape and irrigation plans and shall show that no
conflict will occur between the utilities and landscape materials and shall be
screened in a manner which respects the building design and setback requirements.
Sec~ 16.48.120(a)(13) and (c). See.16.82.060(c).
13.The Palo Alto Fire Department will be reviewing the renovation cost of
improvements to see if PAMC 15.04.170, Subsection 1003.2.9, 5) becomes
applicable for automatic sprinklers installation throughout. Please review the
referenced section of the PAMC on improvement costs.
Prior to Issuance of Building Permit
14.Color chips to match the colors specified in the building permit drawings shall be
attached to the cover sheet of the building permit drawing set by the Project Planner.
Section 16.48.120(a)12 and (c).IBP16.
Public Works Operation
15.Street trees shall be required in 24-inch boxes spaced at minimum 30-foot intervals
along project frontage. Species shall be determined by the Planning Arborist in
consultation with the Midtown Contract Planner. Newly planted street trees shall be
irrigated and maintained by the property owner.
During Construction
Public Works Engineering
16.The contractor must contact the CPA Public Works Inspector at (415)496-6929 prior
to any work performed in the public fight-of-way.
17.All construction within the City fight-of-way, easements or other property under
City jurisdiction shall conform to Standard Specifications of the Public Works and
Utility Departments.
Prior to Finalization
Planning
18.The landscape architect shall certify in x~a-iting and submit to Planning Division, and
call for inspection, that the landscaping has been installed in accordance with all
aspects of the approved landscape plans, that the irrigation has been installed and
that irrigation has been tested for timing and function, and all plants including street
trees are healthy.
19.All sidewalks bordering the project shall be repaired and!orremoved and replaced in
compliance with Public Works approved standards. Sec.12.08.010.
20.The Public Works Inspector shall sign off the building permit prior to the finalization
of this permit. All off-site improvements shall be finished prior to this sign-off.
Should you have any questions regarding this ARB action, please do not hesitate to call
the Planning Department at (415) 329-2546.
Lorraine Weiss
Planner
ARB Staff Liaison
Attachment D
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Office of the City Clerk CITY
APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF DIRECTOR OF P~NNING
AND COMMUNI~ ENVIRONMENT (ARCHITECTURAL
To be filed in duplicate
Application No.. 9 -~ -A~
Name of Appellant N ~"~
Address. ~2. ~ ~ ! I~’~ ~
Street City
Receipt No.
Phone (lit{)
ZIP
LOCATION OF PROPERTY: Assessor’s Parcel No. /~%-") -34 - o 0_,~" Zone District
Street Address "~’~"~q I ~t~ ~,~’~LL%---’~-(%"~ " ~
Name of Prope~ Owner (if other than appellant) ~#~ ~L~ ~,~)
Prope~ Owner’s Addres~~" ~¢~’c~"~’~) ~’~’ 6~ ~ ~ ~
Street City
The decision of the Director of Planning and Commun~ Environment dat~
19 ~ ]whereby the application of ~C~ g ~~
(original appli~nt)
for architectural review was
(approved/denied)
, is hereby appealed for the reasons stated
in the attached letter (in duplicate).
¯ Date i/i~[9"7 Signature of Appellant
I
CITY COUNCIL DECISION:
Date Approved Denied
Remarks and/or Conditions:
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS SATISFIED:
1.Plans
2.Labels
3.Appeal Application Forms
4.Letter
5.Fee
By:
By: ~
By: ~*.,. ’,.4,~,..~__
12/89
PROJECT DATA SUMMARY SHEET
CN NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL DISTRICT
CN PLANCHECK WORKSHEET
APPLICANT: ~A~-~ ~ F~-ti~,!PHONE: ~I~ -~7 - 70~
OWNER: ~,~~ ~ ~ ~~PHONE:
DATE SUBMITTED: Ii.-~ "~(~
DATE NOTICE OF INCOMPLETE SENT:
DATE ZONE CHECKED:
DATE RVSD DWGS RCVD:
SCOPE oF PROJECT:
PROPOSED USE:
CONDITIONAL
ADJACENT TO SCVWD P.O.W.
OR CREEK: .;yes
.ADJACENT TO STATE HIGHWAY: yes
PAST VARIANCES:yes
PAST USE PERMITS:yes
STANFORD PROPERTY:yes
SPECIAL FLOOD.:ZONE:yes
HISTORICAL INVENTORY LIST: yes
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS:yes
NOISE ISSUES:yes
CLEANUP SITE:yes
PROJECT 5 ACRES OR MORE:
HOUSING MITIGATION:
GRANDFATHERED
(If yes:
(If yes:
(If yes:
(If yes:
(If yes:
(If yes:
(If yes:
(If yes:
(If yes:
(If yes:
yes
¯LEGALLY NONCONFORNING"~.,
need SCVWD route & approval)
need Caltrans route &
approval )
describe in "Summary Notes")
describe in "Summary Notes")
need Stanford approval)
need Public Works approval)
need HRB approval)
need Fire Dept. approval)
describe in "Summary Notes")
need letter from state
agency or responsible party and
consultant saying project plans won’t
interfere with investigation on-going
remediation)
(If yes: need Regional Water Quality
Control Board storm water run-off
permit)
(If yes: fees may be required if
proposed project exceeds 20,000 s.f.
or if any housing is being removed)
BLOCK MAP:
Book # ~Page #
Distance from sidewalk to PL:
(See attached xerox)
Underlying lot lines: yes (~
Easements yes ~
(If yes: need to merge).
(If yes: show on site plan)
ZONE MAP:
Page #
Special Setbacks:(If yes: check special setback map)
p:\LWLPIanCk6 1116191
Page .I
KNOWHERE
The Knowhere Store retails Taylor environments and all of their sub-components and
parts. To do this, we sell work furniture, specially configured computer and
communication systems, books, compact discs, tools, toys, and puzzles. We help you
to re-create your environment and way of working-at home or globally.
Knowhere Store
The Knowhere Store retails Taylor Environments and all
of their subcomponents and parts. Selling work,furniture,
computer and commuaication systems, books, CDs, tools,
toys; with a.emphasis on high performance, collaborative,
user configfirable environments for the office, travel,
home and virtual work. These environments stress
adaptability, life cycle economics, human and earth
friendly ..materials, prospect and refuge, utility and beauty.
The goal of these environments is to facilitate human
creativity -- with a special focus on "group genius"-- in a
way that enables organizations of all kinds to excel and
recreate themselves.
Excerpt minutes of the
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD HEARING
January 2, 1997
Attachment E
II. 1. 2741 Middlefield Road 96-ARB-190
Roxy Rapp
Recommendation to the Director of Planning and Community Environment for the Architectural
Review Board’s review of an upgrade of the front, back and side fagades, seismic upgrade and
parking lot improvements to an existing retail building.
Mr. Ross: Are there any additional staff comments?
Alison Kendall: I would like to introduce myself. I am Alison Kendall, the contract planner for
Midtown planning. I am handling design review for this project.
Mr.. McFall: I have some questions for staff. Was there a project descriptioh in the packet? I did
not see any written description of the project.
Ms. Kendall: There was a one-page description of the retail business being contemplated.
Mr... McFall: What is the retail use envisioned?
Ms. Kendall: I invite the applicant to correct me on this. It is a tittle difficult to explain. As I
understand it, it is a retail business involved in selling office furniture and also computer
software and other materials to enhance the working environment in the home or office.
Mr. McFall: In the staffrepol’t, Condition #8 talks about an overall sign program.
Ms. Kendall: There is no signage included as a part of this application. There would be a
followup sign application. We would like to see at that time an overall signage proposal so that
it would be integrated with the design.
Mr. McFall: Are you making that a condition before issuance of the building permit?
Ms. Kendall: I suppose that could be made a condition of the subsequent building permit. That
was more to provide notice that we would prefer to have a sign program for the building rather
than an individual sign proposal, so that if you have occupancy changes we would have a
proposal that fit with the design concept.
Mr. McE.alI: In Condition #11, could you clarify that? It seems to be parts of two different
conditions.
1
Ms.Weiss: Yes, conditions lc and 11 should be combined into one condition.
Mr.McFall: And signs require a separate application. Is that a condition?
Ms.Weiss: Yes.
Ms. Kendall: That is a way of serving notice that they do have to submit a sign permit separately
later.
Mr. McFall: My last question has to do with the staff report discussion of the landscaping in
regard to pedestrian circulation, specifically the arcade next door, and extending that. Staff
would prefer to see that walkway extended instead of landscaping. Is that the intent?
Ms. Kendall: The suggestion is that it would be more appropriate, given our objective for the
Midtown area, which is to encourage pedestrian activity, particularly along the Middlefield
frontage, that the proposed landscaped area would result in blocking circulation through the
center in this area. It would be preferable to have that opportunity still available by providing
landscaping that would still allow that circulation.
Mr. Ross: In the parking adequacy and access description, it notes that the current zoning
requirements are a 0.4 FAR and 50% lot coverage. Is that actually the case?
Ms. Kendall: Yes, under the CN zoning.
Mr., Ross: So you can cover 50% of a site but only with a 0.4 FAR building.
Ms. Kendall: Yes, although it would be a bit of a challenge.
Mr. Ross: It seems inconsistent.
Mr.McFall:
Ms.Kendall:
Mr.McFalI:
Is a trash enclosure required for an existing building?
I am not sure what you mean.
One of the conditions is that details of an opaque screened trash enclosure be
submitted. Is that what the zoning requires with an existing building?
Ms. Weiss: Yes, we do ask them to upgrade whenever possible.
Ms. Kendall: I believe that in this case, there was a proposal to relocate either the trash or the
recycling area.
2
Mr........Peterson: Are there any landscape improvements proposed for the city parking lot directly to
the north?
.Ms.~..Kendall: I understand that there are no proposals as a part of this application at this time.
Obviously, we are looking at the whole Midtown area and landscaping improvements as part of
that effort.
Mr. Alfonso: I have a question of staff regarding your recommendation for this arbor. Can you
elaborate on this?
Ms....Kendall: Here is a detail of the trellis design. I have to note that it has been redesigned to
reflect the staff comment because I did call the applicant and gave him some sense of our
comments. In the staff report, I was commenting on an earlier version of this design. The
original proposal had the trellis elements parallel to the building surface and beneath the arbor.
The applicant has reeonfigured this to reflect the more traditional design of the perpendicular
elements on top of the supporting structural element. I think this better responds to the character
of this type of element throughout Midtown and throughout the City. So I would say that they
have already complied with the condition in the redesign.
.Mr~..Alfonso: Have they also changed.the truss configuration?
Ms. Kendall: There was no request made to them to do so, but the applicant has changed the
truss design.
Mr..Ross: We will now hear the presentation from the applicant. It is classified as a minor
remodel of an existing building. Roxy !Lapp will have five minutes.
Mr. Rapp: I am excited this project. Bergmann’s has been vacant for over three years now, and I
know the city has been working with the property owners there and with the merchants, trying to
get something going there. When Jon and I purchased the building, we thought that it was going
to be a great challenge. I am very sensitive to the area, as I grew up there. I used to live on Ross
Road, so I do agree that it is a neighborhood area, not a downtown Palo Alto or a California
Avenue area. Today I have with us John Northway who will speak later about the project. Also
I am excited to have on the pr0jeet Tom Richman, our landscape architect. He has done a
fabulous job, and it is really going to make a big change to the landscaping of the building and
the area.
First I would like to show you the rendering that Barry Nathan did of the architect’s drawing.
We really concentrated on the Middlefield Road side of the building. As an ex-retaller, I felt that
it was really important to try to make the building very inviting, open~ and to make people want
to stop and see what is going on there. Also, if you spend any time in that area, it is a very tough
area. You have a tremendous amount of traffic going down Middlefield Road. You have things
going by very fast. It is not a very comfortable area. We thought this area should be made more
comfortable. It has a lot of hard surfaces, a lot of cement. The entire front is all cement.
Tom and John spent a lot of time working on the front elevation of the building to make it
inviting and to soften it, making it comfortable for pedestrians. What we have done is to come
up with these folding doors that will open into this area, making it inviting for people to walk in.
There will not be a barricade .against.entering. Also the retailer can come out into this little plaza
that we have created out in front. We did a light trellis to let more light in. Also, we did change
the configuration of the structure. I felt that the original structure was too industrial, and this
works for seismic considerations. I feel it makes it look more like a retail establishment, not so
much like a warehouse.
Also, I am very excited about the colors. Basically, the whole building is going to be two
colors -- a terra cotta color here, the base color, and all the detail, all the moldings, including the
doors and windows will be this color. So it is very simple, but I think very rich.
Mr. Peterson: Like your shirt and necktie!
Mr. Rapp: Yes. This is Tom’s board on the landscaping that wewould like to do. As you can
see, in this area here, we have done a lot of landscaping. We have put in four new trees, and we
are putting in some high shrubs, some low ground cover, and we listened to Alison, and we think
she is 100% fight that, especially as we have been talking to Long’s and our neighbors next door
to see what they are going to be doing, we took out the bench here and made a walkway,
connecting it with the juice club and the photography shop and the flower shop next door. Also,
the entranceway, we plan to do with slate, bringing the slate inside the store, and probably will
do this walkway also in slate. I have a sample of that here.
In regards to the parking lot, if you take a look out there, it is rely desolate. It needs some
greenery. One of the parking lots I love is the back parking lot of Chop’s office, where they use
trees. People love to park their cars under a shady tree, so that is the way we designed this. We
have been talking to our neighbor next door, Tom Foy, and he has asked us and we have agreed
to leave one of the tree wells out in case someone wants to park in Tom’s area, if that is
acceptable to the city. Also, in the landscaping plan, we plan to put in a whole new stone area as
an entrance way. By the way, this parking is open to everyone in Midtown, not just for The
K.nOwhere store. (Five-minute buzzer sounds) Do you want me to talk about the stucco at all?
Mr. Ross: No, why don’t you close it up and maybe someone will ask you a question about the
stucco. Thank you, Roxy.
Mr. McFall: What is KnOwhere store?
Mr. Rapp: Home office use is one of the biggest increases in the United States, people working
out of their home with a computer and a FAX machine. So basically, they help to create an
4
environment, a workplace. It is very modular. They work with the homeowner. You can go
there and they will help you to work, make you feel comfortable, and you can take things home
and try it out. They have hardware, software, learning products.
Mr. McFalI: And the intent is to open up the front of the store with the folding doors? Do you
think that is going to be the typical way the building works? Do you think those doors are going
be open?
Mr. Rapp: Yes, I do. Of course, not at this time of the year, but California, especially in this
area, has a lot of beautiful days. I think KnOwhere would like to bring some of their products
out so that when people are driving by, they can see that they sell desks and computers. People
can sit out there, and it would be a nice little plaza. I hope that someday, when Tom develops his
property next door, they can get a cup of coffee and maybe sit on the bench that we plan to put in
there, and just cause some activity. It is like a little public plaza area.
Mr. Alfonso: Can you tell us about the stucco? (Laughter)
Mr. Rapp: This is a very famous stucco from a very famous house, designed here in Palo Alto
by a very famous architect, who shall remain nameless. This is a color that I just love. It is a
very rich color. Basically, what we would like to do is to stucco all of this area here and all
across here, and then along the back, we would stucco it completely here. By .~e way, we did
originally have an outside trash enclosure, but I felt that since we have this door area here
already, to just go ahead and put it inside. I think that is much cleaner, and it makes it much
easier for people to drive through this area, so we are enclosing the trash area.
Between Tom’s building and our building, there is only a little bit of room, and we do not think
we can get the stucco machine in there, so we are going to go back as far as we can between the
two buildings, and then it will be painted in between, and we’ll stucco along the top. The guy
almost has to turn sideways to work in there. Then in regards to the side of the building, what
we are asking to do is, I have a letter here from the tenant next door to give you from David Lee
who owns this property. He has trees all along here and plants and shrubbery, and in here, he has
a cooler for his flower shop, and there is a shed along here. He would like to paint this area here
and then we will stucco back, if that is all fight with the board.
Mr. McFall: Regarding the lights that he has shining down into his rear area, are they going to
stay on your building, or are those going to come off?.
Mr. Rapp: We are going to leave them on the building for security and to make it comfortable
for people.
Mr. McF~ll: What about signage?
Mr. Rapp: The tenant has not given me their signage, but I imagine it will be something very
rich to go up in this area. Also in regard to landscaping, we plan to do some cutouts right here,
and Tom will be working on doing some kind of crawling shrub to soften this wall on the
parking lot side. On the back side, we have this big tree, so that really is not necessary.
Mr. McFall: Is that a concern with the glazing on the Middlefield Road side? The sun exposure
coming in through the glass?
Mr. Rapp: No, it is not. Actually, we want the light. It is very dark in there. We are also adding
four skylights there.
Mr. Alfonso: I have a question regarding the reason why the truss, as shown in the package, is
different from what you’re showing us here today.
Mr. Rapp: Basically, it is real busy. I think simplicity is nice. As I said before, I think it looked
more like a warehouse. The engineer felt this was enough the other was more of a design. Being
a retailer, I agree.
Mr.Alfonso: And the color scheme for the building, can you describe where that came from?
Mr.Rapp: I fell in love with Mr. Peterson’s house. I love the colors. I think they are great.
Mr.Alfonso: Relating to that specific site, was there any question about that?
Mr. Rapp: I think it works very nicely. I think it is a rich color, and I think it will be inviting.
As people drive by there, I think they will say wow, what’s going on there? Let’s stop and see
what is going on there. There is no place to park out on Middlefield Road, so you have to do
what you can. As they drive down Middlefield Road, they will wonder and explore that area.
That is basically what I am trying to accomplish here.
Mr. Alfonso: On this plaza that you described, is my understanding correct that it is a place
where you intend to have people perhaps gather at some point, sit, gaze at your store, interact
with the adjacent properties? Is that the intent?
Mr. Rapp: That is it exactly.
Mr. Peterson: How does the pedestrian circulation work from your parking lot and also from the
city parking lot? How do they get into your building?
Mr. Rapp: Maybe John later on can talk about the whole area, because he has been working
under contract for all of the property owners. There is a new back door that will be installed
here, so you can enter the building here from the back parking lot. Also, we have a side entrance
here, and when Tom redoes his building, people will be able to walk around this way. The light
we hope will be moved down next to Long’s, so when people are at Mike’s Care having lunch,
they might take a little walk after they eat, cross at the light and come this way. Also there is
parking back here in either of these lots.
Mr. Ross: Roxy, is there any outdoor lighting in the front?
Mr. Rapp: No, there is not.
Mr. Ross: Are there going to be any changes to things like electrical equipment, transformer
pads, etc.?
Mr, Rapp: Yes. As soon as I get the approval from the city, that will probably go in the back.
There is a vault back here that the city would like to have above ground. This is behind the
building.
Mr. ,,Ross: Is that an underground vault now? (Yes) And the city would like to move it up?
(Yes) Have you though~ about some places for it?
Mr......Rapp: I think the city would like it to go right there.
Mr..Ross: About the same spot? (yes) What about the gas meter? Is that going to be moved?
Mr. Rapp: As far as I know, it will not be.
Mr.......Ross: Will the building be retrofitted with a sprinkler system?
Mr. Rapp: At this time, no.
Mr. Ross: So you do not have a riser or backflow preventer in the plans now. (No). Since he
has been referred to a number of times, I will ask John Northway to talk a little about the overall
pedestrian circulation out there.
Mr. Northway: This is very exciting, because this is the first of what we hope will be a series of
projects out there that will start implementing the master plan that we have all been talking
about. It is also an example of how free enterprise moves a lot faster than public projects can.
This project is moving ahead and is having to operate under the straitjacket of the CN zone and
not under the more workable zoning we are talking about ultimately for this area in the master
plan. When you look at this building, it is like the remodeling of the first room in the house. It
is going to be a lot cleaner and a little different from what is already out there. We are working
with the Co-op to redo some of their exterior, a~d they are thinking about some changes which
would be very sympathetic to this project. They are going to be opening up the front of their
store that fronts on Middlefield Road also, "
7
The circulation in the master plan is that the parking will basically be in the back part of the
whole quadrant. We will be encouraging people to be fixing up the rear sides so that people can
circulate from the back forward. Ultimately, we are going to have to address the problem of
Middlefield Road. We have a lot of studies on that showing that it can go down to two lanes
without an enormous effect, but that is a political third rail at the moment, and we are not going
to deal with it. We want to get Midtown up and going and not get stuck in the mire of whether
Middlefield Road should be redesigned or not.
Basically, I think what you are going to see is an incremental execution of the upgrade of
Midtown. There are about 12 different properties there, 12 different property owners, properties
in various states of repair or non-repair. People will be coming in with individual projects. We
have been working with Tom Richmond who is putting together a master landscaping plan,
parking plan, and circulation plan. We finally have gotten a complete survey from Brian, Kangas
and Foulk, and we will be working with traffic people to get the traffic light moved. So you are
going to see individual projects coming through that are going to start tying in to the whole
master plan. We may have two or three projects in place before the master plan is in place. That
is the way things often work.
Mr., Alfonso: I would like to know what happens in that little space? What does the tenant have
to be doing in the adjacent building on the left? There is a gate there now. Is that intended to be
just an alleyway between the buildings?
Mr. Rapp: That belongs to David Lee, the adjacent property owner. Right now, it is a little shed
area, and the front part is where he keeps all of his gardening equipment. David does an
excellent job of keeping up the landscaping. He is always planting new flowers and keeping his
front clean. He keeps his hoses, brooms, etc., in there, and behind that shed is where there is a
walk in for the florist. Basically, that’s it. Someday, it would be great to have that as a walkway
through, but perhaps not now.
Mr,Alfonso: That is what I was referring to, whether that is what it is intended to be.
Mr.Rapp: Maybe someday we will see it.
Mr,Ross: If there are no other questions for board members, I will open the public heating.
L~yrm Chiapella, 631 C01orado...Avenue. Palo Alto: I have just seen some of the landscape ideas,
and I think this will be a significant upgrade. The problem I have is that this really should be
treated as a major design review, in my opinion, due to the intensification of use and the lack of
existing employee parking. I believe he needs an conditional use permit because he is going
from what is allowed in the CN district of 15,000 square feet to almost 20,000 square feet. He is
going from a neighborhood retail service and food outer to a regional outlet which will generate
a different type of traffic pattern. We have had significant parking and traffic problems on
Colorado Avenue where I live.
8
I don’t think these issues were dealt with at the staff level prior to this. It may have been an
oversight, I don’t know, but it is clearly demarcated in the zoning that he is only 15,000 actual
square feet of retail usage. There are exceptions for certain kinds of things, but Bergmann’s
itself had a beauty salon, and it had a little restaurant. It had a gift shop of some type .upstairs, as
well as a children’s store.
I think there are some things that are missing anyway that need to be addressed before this is
approved. The project is located in the CN zone which allows 15,000 square feet for retail
services, per 18.41.050. He is proposing an extra 4 to 5 thousand square feet of development
which did not previously exist as retail space. According to the tax record, the building was
possessed of 11,500 square feet of retail. The planning division and the city manager’s
department supplied a figure of 14,000 actual square feet, and now we have 19,000 square feet.
This has all been done in the last year.
I think you are being asked to ignore parking and loading requirements as per 18.83 at the same
time that you are approving a differem and more intense usage. Lately, there have been 24-hour
deliveries being allowed all through the back of Midtown parking, which is a city parking lot.
There is no parking and loading there. I don’t know where the parking and loading is on this. I
assume that the city parking lot will provide the parking and loading. That also is the two-hour
parking spaces for customers, so I am not sure how that has been resolved by staff. It appears tO
me that you may be reducing the potential parking spaces in the city parking lot at the same time
that you are intensifying uses, building by building by building. I believe that should be
addressed.
It does not appear that city sidewalks are going to be redone or upgraded in this project. I don’t
know what materials are going to be used fight now. It is kind of a concrete out there, not very
attractive. I think the planting he has proposed is a good one. I would hope that those planters
would be increased in size, at least between the ones next to David Lee’s property, which is at
the left side of the front. Rather than being twelve feet, I think eight feet is adequate, and even in
rainy times, there would be an opportunity to get from one to the next without getting wet.
Others in that area have been required to upgrade their sidewalks at great expense when they
have just done simple driveways, such as was done across the street, when someone had to
upgrade the whole sidewalk when he just wanted to improve his own driveway.
I don’t know what the street trees are that are going to be planted. The street trees have not been
overly successful, particularly at the bus stop, which is a very bleak area. I would hope you
would consider at least another street tree on each side of the bus stop. There is a seat there, and
in the summer, it gets a blast of sunlight because there is no tree on each side to give any shade.
It is a very, very unattractive bus stop. It blocks Middlefield Road when the bus stops, and is
very unattractive and is very congested. So I would hope that you would take a look at possibly
two new street trees with irrigation going to all street trees in front of the building, because
frequently, you irrigate the new trees but not the old trees. The old trees continue to climb. They
have not been successful in that area, in general. You have addressed putting in eight new trees
because he has cut down the two large mature trees, so he has addressed the problem of
removing the two trees.
I believe he addressed the problem of the garbage that was on the neighbor’s property. (Yes)
Thank you. So I do think there are some things that need to be addressed before this is approved.
The zoning is important to consider before you approve this. It would be setting a precedent to
approve it without considering the zoning.
Mr. Ross: Lynn, could you clarify two things in your comments for me? When you say,
intensification of use, are you referring to intensification over what is there currently, or what
was there when Bergnmun’s was in existence?
Ms. Chiapella: When Bergmann’s was in existence. Currently, there is nothing there, so it
cannot be an intensification of what is there. There has been nothing there for four years.
~.. Ross: Well, it is an intensification over what is there now.
Ms. Chiapella: So it is definitely an intensification of what is there now. But when Bergmann’s
was there, it was a neighborhood commercial outlet that had lots of little things that people
would just walk into the store to get. This is really a regional store and depends upon a much
larger area to support it than Bergmann’.s depended upon. Bergmann’s serviced enormous
numbers of school children, for example, coming back and forth every day from school, through
the little restaurant, through the children’s shop in the upstairs area. It also serviced people in the
neighborhood because it had a little beauty outlet, etc. This really requires a regional drive to get
there. It is not a neighborhood store in the sense that it would not be mostly patronized by
neighbors.
~. Ross: The other comment you made is that there is a reduction of parking. Would you show
me where that is? I believe you said a reduction of city parking.
Ms. Chiapella: This parking lot does exist presently. It is the back parking lot. If the loading
and delivery is not addressed as to where it is and how it will function and when it will function,
in the past I don’t know what was done, but this was a very large, roll-up door. I don’t know if
trucks just drove in there or did they park parallel, but as far as I know, this is part of the city
parking lot here, and wouldn’t that be a problem? Will the loading be over here where the door
is here, or is it back here where the door is or is it up here? I couldn’t figure it out.
Mr. Ross: Thank you. I just wanted to make sure about whether the number of spaces was being
reduced. The next speaker is Herb Borock.
Herb Borock, 2731 B~0n Street, Palo Alto: I believe that this item should be continued to
provide an opportunity for a conditional use permit to be filed and an environmental impact
10
assessment prepared and to be noticed, giving people an opportunity to review it, as required by
law. The CN zone limits single use retail to 15,000 square feet without a use permit. There is no
provision for permitting at this time. Either Bergmann’s was a use that was larger than that size,
or it was not. If it was not, then clearly, there is no entitlement. If it was, that entitlement has "
lapsed. Under the zoning code, Section 18.94.040(b), a nonconforming use for non-residential
purposes which is discontinued or abandoned or otherwise ceases operations for a period of one
year or more shall not be resumed. All subsequent uses of such a site and facilities thereon shall
conform to this title. I don’t believe that the prior use of a single business was that large because
of the restaurant and the beauty parlor that took up space there, as well. Even it was, that
entitlement has lapsed, and a conditional use permit is needed. It is piecemealing to bring this in
separately under a categorical exemption.
Also, in terms of whether this-is a major or minor ARB approval and whether this requires fire
sprinklers, that also comes into the question of piecemealing by coming in with two separate
building permit applications, only one of which is before you today. So if the fire department is
calculating the square footage to decide if enough value is created to require sprinklers, and they
are only looking at one of the building applications rather than both of them, they may come up
with the wrong answer. In their previous experience with Mr. Rapp’s partner in the Wells Fargo
building where a loophole was used in the code to permit them to essentially remove a fire wall.
Finally, on the question of project description, Roxy Rapp has passed out, I guess, a copy of the
description of the firm. Board Member McFall asked for a project description, I believe, in the
packet you received, and I understood you to say that you did not get one. There is a four-
paragraph project description in the file from Stecker and Northway, so if you did not get one,
you should.
The conditional use permit heating and the EIA is the appropriate place to address the significant
environmental issues regarding employee parking and loading trucks, since we are talking about
a business which will have delivery trucks coming in from the outside, and also its own ti’ucks
delivering materials. There is a question of required street side yards of 20 feet each in the CN
zone, and various other environmental issues. This is the inappropriate place to discuss them,
because there is no environmental assessment which is required because a conditional use permit
is required for a single retail use of over 15,000 square feet that is not a grocery store. In the CN
zone, a grocery store can go up to 20,000 square feet without a conditional use permit. So I ask
you to continue this so that there can be the proper EIA prepared and a conditional use pemfit
application filed, with noticing and the appropriate hearings in that regard. Thank you.
Duane Dick: .The Co-op supports this application, and urges its expeditious approval. We
believe that it is a good application and a necessary first step toward achieving the Midtown
revitalization that we have all been working towards for the last several years. The Co-op hopes
to have an application before the ARB sometime in 1997. We commend the staff
recommendation that recognizes our current fagade treatment, and we appreciate that that
recommendation can make our potential application more viable. We, as I am sure all of the
11
owners, are watching the process with great interest. Numerous times over the past two years,
representatives of the city have given the process strong encouragement. The council, through
funding various portions of the process, has indicated its willingness to help. In July, 1995, the
term "partnership" was used at the council meeting and in subsequent meetings. The exact
nature of the partnership was not clearly defined, and it has been evolving. How this application
is considered by the ARB and city staff will further define that partnership.
In regard to the partnership issue, I have several observations. Conditions placed on projects at
the ARB approval level and the following staff level can have significant financial effects on the
viability of any given project. The nature of conditions placed on this project in the Midtown
revitalization process will set the standard for all of the other owners. One of the problems
addressed at the highest level in Midtown has been the nature of the property ownership. Nearly
all of the owners have very lengthy tenure, have tenants, and have little motivation to upgrade
their properties. If numerous and cosily conditions are attached to this approval, the other
owners may very well decide that it is far simpler to continue in their current condition rather
than going through the approval process. Specifically, we have a concern about staff
recommendations that call for owner improvements on public property. For such items such as
sidewalk repairs, street trees and future project curb cuts, we believe that public property
improvements should be completed at public expense in keeping with the partnership concept.
Finally, we have concern about the proposed tree protection recommendations, especially the one
that requires a tree enclosure to be erected at the tree drip line from the time that construction
starts until final inspection. Such a requirement, especially for an owner with numerous large
trees who is maintaining a business, would be onerous. Even on this specific site with a vacant
building, strict compliance with this requirement would block all pedestrian traffic on the
Middlefield Road side of the building, and it would also impact ckculation on the Midtown
Court side. We urge the ARB, in the spirit of the Midtown partnership, to recommend that the
city fund all improvements required for project approval that are on public property. Tree
protection, especially for large trees, should be sealed down to avoid blocking pedestrian and
vehicular traffic: When construction is completed adjacent to a tree, the tree protection should be
removed, rather than requiring it to remain until final signoff. Thank you very much.
Tom Foy, 2775 Middlefield..Road. Palo Alto: I am on the other side of the partner of the
neighbor of Roxy Rapp. I want to take a couple of seconds to review a few things. The nine
property owners in that quadrant have been meeting for almost two years, and generally, we have
come a long way in getting together on agreements. Our goal is to provide a nice neighborhood,
perhaps extended neighborhood, shopping area. It has not been easy to do that, because we have
had nine people who are set in their ways for a long period of time and have done literally
nothing, including the city. Now we have made some strides, and we think we are probably
going to end up with a very nice shopping area, well landscaped, well designed, etc. So I also
would like to endorse Roxy’s first step. Most of the things that Duane just said I concur with.
The thing is that most of us have been there for a long period of time, and we have been
operating our business out of our locations, as opposed to developing. That is a major difference.
12
We are now learning how to take the next step and do what we have to do in order to provide a
nice shopping area.
I am going to be coming before you also, sooner or later, hopefully sooner, and will probably be
going through this process over the next few months. The only thing I would like to refer to is
that I want to get it on the record here that on Page 4, under parking adequacy and access, in the
next to last sentence, it says, "To exit or reach additional parking, customers must enter a-drive-
though tunnel under the building to reach the city-owned lot, where additional parking is
available. Under a longstanding informal agreement, access to the adj.acent parking is..provided
from the Colorado Street lot." That also applies to my parking. Roxy and I have just begun to
talk about keeping one access way in this parking lot into my parking area. Leo Bergmann and I
had a handshake agreement on this for 30 some odd years, and I would hope that we continue to
have the same kind of hand shake agreement or informal agreement. Thank you.
.Mr.......Ross: Seeing no other members of the public wishing to speak, I will close the public
hearing and bring this back to the board for comment. Alison, are there any additional comments
you would like to make regarding conditional use permits, etc.?
Ms. Kendall: I just consulted with Nancy Lytle upstairs, and we did review this application with
Lisa Grote, the Zoning Administrator, and Nancy. At that time, the interpretation was that since
this building represents no increase in square footage over the Bergmatm use, and that was a
retail use, that size of retail, although in excess of the 15,000-square-foot limit, is still permitted
under the preexisting arrangement. We will have to look into the section that the member of the
public cited, which was 18.94.040(b). If a conditional use permit is required, then we will
initiate that process. Ms. Lytle’s suggestion was that the ARB act today to review the design
issues, and we could address other issues, such as overall parking adequacy, in the conditional
use permit, if that becomes applicable.
Ms. Weiss: We should also make, as a condition of project approval, that the applicant must
apply for a conditional use permit.
Allison: If required.
Ms. Weiss: Yes.
Mr. Ross: If required. That is an interesting condition.
Ms. Weiss: You can make it a condition, and if we deem that it is not required, we can eliminate
the condition.
Ms. Kendall: We will get that issue resolved as quickly as possible.
Mr. Ross: Thank you. We will now hear from board members.
13
Mr~....Peterson: First, let me address the issue of a future master plan. It obviously would be
desirable if we had a master plan before us for the whole area, for obvious reasons. I would
normally press very hard for that before we made some approvals. The master plan would
obviously help us in determining the issues of parking, circulation, landscaping and the
coordination of materials, colors, signage, etc. Having said that, I am not uncomfortable with
reviewing this at this time, for a couple of reasons. One is that we really do want to help this
area move forward in making the changes that they are working very hard to do. We do not want
to put road blocks in their way to do it. Secondly, the design team that is represented here in this
application is also the design team that is doing the master plan. I know them. I am comfortable
with them. I feel sure that they have clearly in mind what is coming in the master plan. So I feel
-comfortable that this will be an integral part of the resulting master plan of the whole area. So
based on that, I have no difficulty in moving ahead with this. It is time to do so.
In terms of the specifics of this project, I think the appearance and design of the building from
Middlefleld Road is really excellent. I think it will be a signal and a flag, both for this building
and for the whole area. I think it is very well done. I think the pedestrian circulation is very
fragmented and difficult in this area. What the building will do for Middlefield Road I would
like to see also signaling the same thing for the rear and side parking areas. Maybe that same
kind of entry feel can be expanded and carried around to those other two faqades in some way. I
realize there are entries there, but they are fairly minimal, and maybe there would be some way
to enlarge them or give them greater importance. I think much of the traffic is actually going to
come from that direction. Once they are in, I am sure they will go out the other way, and it will
be very good for the whole area, so expansion of those two areas would probably be useful.
The landscaping on the parking lot that is part of this application is really outstanding. It is really
a pleasure to see an applicant trying to figure out how to get landscaping in rather than seeing
how they can avoid putting it in. I think this is an encouragement for the city to do the same
thing for its parking area, as a part of the master plan.
The trellis is a very nice idea, and it is very nice that it goes inside the building as well as outside.
It may be that it could be extended on the sides in some way to signal connections to the other
businesses and circulation in that direction. But it is very good the way it is. That is just
something you might look at.
To address one of the comments made about tree protection, I think in the past, the required tree
protection has been flexible to meet site conditions. I cannot imagine that the city is going to
require that you screen offthe whole area and prohibit pedestrian circulation. I don’t think that
will be a major problem. I think this is a first step to a sorely needed improvement, and I am in
complete support of it, and wish you well.
Mr. Alfonso: I agree with Bob about the issue of the fragmented entry. I think that it is, in part,
the nature of all of the existing conditions, but one of the entries that I have the most to say about
is the front entry. I appreciate the bold move to create a facade that has kind of a beacon quality
14
in the neighborhood to begin this process of renovation. I also appreciate the intent of the
landscaping to help in that area, although I feel that building it self is a bolder move than the
landscaping. I find the landscaping somewhat weak in its intent.
The front concept, as I understand it and as Mr. Rapp pointed out, is an idea for an outdoor
gathering space given all of the open doors, etc. I feel that without any further canopies in that
front area, it really is not going to work that way. I have a feeling that it will be pfmarily a place
to move through, not to linger in. Regarding this revised landscape plan for the front, again, I
feel that especially on the left portion adjacent to Mr. Lee’s building, that may even seem to be a
better place to create a space for being, rather than having a bench over on the other side. I have
a question about the issue of a place to be. Although I think that the use of a tree canopy and a
kind of extension of the trellis is a very nice one, the fact that the diagonals on the facade tend to
abstract the branching nature. All of that is very good, but I would encourage this area to be
developed further and to have a bolder use of landscaping in the front, which I feel would be
really appropriate. Outside of that, I find this to be a really good step forward in this area. That
completes my comments.
Mr. McFall: I would agree with Bob’s initial comment regarding the phasing of the various
projects in Midtown in relation to the overall master plan. Ideally, it would have been nice to see
the overall concept initially, but in this case, it certainly is not working. I would suggest that to
make the master plan really move along, you must have some impetus, some momentum, and
these kinds of projects will help generate that. So I am very comfortable with looking at this
prior to seeing something for the whole Midtown area. I would also like to note that I am very
excited to see something happening here. I have been hearing about it and reading about it, and
now, it is nice to see something that is actually going to happen, and happen soon. That pleases
me greatly.
Regarding the project itself, I like the idea of opening up the front elevation. As we have seen,
with additional glazing, the canopy or trellis coming out is a good idea. Certainly with sun
control being an issue here, I like that idea very much. I agree with Bob in that the main entry on
Middlefield Road is very vibrant and lively, yet a lot of people will be using the other two sides
to come to the building. Those areas need some of the excitement that we see on the Middlefield
side. So I would also support the notion that perhaps something could be done, particularly on
the north side where I see a lot of foot traffic coming in because of the parking there. Perhaps a
more defined, more interesting entry could be created there. I actually had never seen the back of
the building until I drove by this past week to look at it, because I had always gone into
Bergmann’s from the Middlefield side. It was a big disappointment to see what is and what isn’t
there. There is not much there. I could see this really helping that whole north end of Midtown
acting as a focus to draw customers into this building, as well as to other retail uses.
One of the concepts I find very interesting is this idea of the folding doors and opening up and
bringing the store outside: There is a built-in plaza space here because of the location of building
relative to the sidewalk and the street. So I think that may happen. My big concern has to do
15
with the amount of traffic, and I am sure this will be addressed in the master plan, but with four
lanes of traffic, I am a little hesitant to endorse the notion that there is going to be a lot of people
sitting out there with the noise and fumes. Frank raises a very good issue. If it is going to
happen, perhaps you need something such as another roof or a tree canopy out there, or pullit
into the middle of it to create a room, even though you are outdoors, creating some notion of
some separation from the cars. I think that is a very viable concept, and I encourage the
applicant to look at that. It would make the building that much nicer to do something like that.
I have a few comments about conditions relative to the building. I would agree with the
applicant that the western elevation is not in need of plastering. The concrete block reflects what
is on the market, and I am comfortable with leaving that exposed concrete block. I think signage
is important, and of course, that will come back to us. I am not of the opinion that we need to
condition this approval on the signage. That will come back and have to stand on its own.
I would echo what you have already heard about the landscaping. It is wonderful to see plantings
and trees added. It could go a little further, as we have been hearing about this frontage, to where
additional landscaping in front of the folding doors might address that issue. That completes my
comments, and I am excited to see it.
Mr. Ross: Would any of you care to comment staff Condition #1C which requires that instead of
the bosque of trees on either side of the entry, that there be one or two large trees on either side?
Mr. Peterson: I would be glad to respond to that. In combination with Frank’s suggestion of a
tree canopy in the front, I think that is a very good idea to extend and enlarge that. I think we
should leave it to the designer to decide what that should be like, whether it is a bosque or
whatever. I think additional trees are desirable, but it should be the designer’s choice.
Mr. Alfonso: I think there are perhaps enough trees in terms of the numbers. Just the placement
could work for better use to create outdoor space for this place where people could interact and
be. The columnar quality of these trunks can create space, and people will respond to that. So I
do not see the need for a lot more trees, but perhaps just rearranging what is already there.
~. Ross: If we approve this project without modifying the staff condition, then it would force a
redesign of that entry to be one or two trees flanking the.entry rather than the bosque of trees that
are shown now. That is why I asked the question.
Mr. McFall: I think we would want to modify the condition.
Ms. Kendall: Could I just note that the intent of the condition was very much as you described,
to create a tree-covered space in the front of the building.
Mr. Ross: I am very supportive of the project. I live two blocks from the site, and I have been
waiting for a long time for something to happen to start the improvements. I am very pleased to
16
see this. I think it is going to be a beacon for further development both by the private property
owners surrounding it and by the city. So I am really glad to see something starting up here.
I think the nature of the facade of the building suggests that too many trees, while providing a
good canopy, may obscure a little bit the effect of the transparency. You tend to lose that from
more than a couple of feet away, especially across the street, where there is very much of a forest
in front of it. While I do like trees very much and appreciate the shade that they provide, as well
as the sun shade of the building, I think they need to be looked at with the interaction of the
facade a little bit. So I would support moving that last sentence of Condition #1C into Condition
#6 as a consideration in the submittal of the final landscape drawings. I would call that
Condition #6H, because there is a Condition #6G that I would like to add first. At any rate, the
interaction of the landscaping and the building here will be a crucial part of how wonderful this
building looks. The trees at the entry need to be looked at a little more from that point of view.
As Roxy pointed out, there is also some consideration being given to vines on the east elevation
that would grow up the side of the building. I support that very much.
Regarding the plaza at the entry, I have my doubts about whether people will stop there for very
long. If there were a table to sit at or benches to sit upon, people might linger there for a few
minutes, and it is going to be a more pleasant space than the bus stop which is close by. I can see
waiting there for the bus instead of out by the street. But because Middlefield is really quite
noisy at that point, I don’t think it is going to be a place where a lot of people are going to sit and
enjoy a cup of coffee and interact. So I do not see it as much of a gathering place. I think the
master plan for the overall shopping center is probably going to identify some gathering places.
My guess is that the gathering that takes place here is a meeting of friends or neighbors on their
way in and out of the building, not much more than that. So I do not feel too strong a need to
create more of a usable plaza space here for that reason. I just don’t think that it is going to be
used much more in that way, even with the number of amenities.
I like the color of the stucco very much. I am a fan of integral color stucco, and I have seen at
least one other project in this color. I think it is going to be very distinctive, very different from
what is there. People will believe that the existing building was demolished and rebuilt because
of this very strong change to the building. I think it is neat to express the structural elements
there, so I am very supportive of the way it looks.
On the conditional use permit question, we will rely on staff to provide us the interpretation that
they can support and defend as to the way the building is used internally. We do not have figures
in front of us for the actual use inside the building. I suspect that there are going .to be restrooms.
and some office space for the people that own the business, so I do not have a basis on which to
say that there is going to be 15,000 square feet of retail use inside the building. That is a
question that needs to be explored a bit further and supported by staff-. We will certainly add a
condition that if a conditional use permit is required, that the applicant shall apply for it and
procure it before they submit for the building permit. So I am very supportive of the project, and
I am ready to entertain a motion.
17
Mr. McFall: I have one question. There was a landscape plan for the Colorado parking lot that
was handed out, and I think it came in today.
_Ms. Kendall: It was not part of the application, but we can get that to you.
Mr. McFall: This addresses a number of the staff conditions. I would question whether we need
a street tree along here if this (landscaping) is going to occur. So I would strike Condition #1A.
MOTION: Mr. McFa!!: I move that we approve the project with a number of items to return to
the board. Condition #6 regarding final landscaping and irrigation plans to be submitted to the
ARB, to include the following modifications. Revise the landscaping at Colorado Avenue
parking lot per Richmond drawing 1 December, 1996, to include circulation to the adjacent
parking lot. That would strike existing Conditions #1A and lB. Then Condition #1C, the
landscaped area in front of the building along Middlefield Road shall be modified so as to create
a tree-shaded pedestrian area with outdoor benches and the possibility of outdoor displays or
tables and chairs. I would strike the next sentence entirely.
Mr. Ross: Making that a lot more flexible.
Ms. Weiss: Do you want to move the last sentence to Condition #H?
~. Ross: Maybe not. We have landscaping in two different areas. It is a bit of a toss up as to
which area a certain item might go. I don’t suppose there is any good way to roll all of this into
one condition.
~. McFall: I think Condition #6 could remain as more or less the standard condition, and
Condition #! would be the specific issues involved. I would strike the next sentence about one
or two large trees and give the designer the flexibility to address our comments today.
Mr. Ross: Cutting C down to one sentence?
Mr. McFall: Yes, unless anyone else has any specific conditions. That would be Condition #lB.
Then Two, final architectural plans shall return to the Architectural Review Board to include the
following modifications: I would eliminate 2A, 2B, andmake 2A "Modifications to provide
additional architectural interest at east and north entries."
Three looks okay. One possible modification which we have addressed on other projects would
be regarding fencing and the drip line. In this case, it does not work with the existing acacia,
certainly. Does the planning arborist do site inspections?
Ms. Weiss: The planning arborist was hired just as project was submittted, we can have him
look at the landscaping and other street trees and ask him if he can recommend protection
measures.
18
Mr......McFall: Can he coordinate with the owners and landscape architect as far as fencing?
Ms. Weiss: We could suggest "Shall consult with the project arborist"
.Mr.,......Ross: Maybe they should devise a specific plan for this site and submit that. It might be
better than the list of standard conditions. Also, just to make it clear, can we state that it is the
plan that needs to be submitted before issuance of a building permit, not that the tree protection
itself has to happen before issuance of the building permit?
Ms....Weiss: Okay. Submit a tree protection plan.
.Mr~.....McFall: Then four, which is not in there, we can continue to leave out. Has it already been
eliminated? Five is okay. For six, we would need the second half of seven to be included there.
There was a 6G somewhere.
.Mr.....Ross: I will leave those with Condition #1.
Mr. McFall: I would eliminate Condition #8.
Mr...Ross: Before we do that, let me ask staffa question. Is itanticipated that there will be
multiple tenants in the building, and that is the reason for the master sign program?
Ms..Kendall: The assumption is that there would be a succession of tenants. By designing a sign
program that went with this architectural concept, you could have a unified concept. Since the
signage concept is not obvious from the building design-certainly we don’t want to continue
with the current pattern.
Mr.....Ross: Then I can support eliminating Condition #8 and looking at the actual application.
..Mr....McFall: Condition #9, regarding the trash enclosure, the applicant mentioned that the trash
would be inside. Does that comply with city requirements as far as access and recycling are
concerned?
Ms....Weiss: Yes, actually the city scavenger company and the public works department make
that determination. So unless we hear otherwise, we have to ask them to tell us for certain.
Mr. McFall: So the applicant needs to resubmit a plan as to how that is going to be addressed.
Mr....Ross: In Condition #13, there needs to be some Class 2 or 3 bicycle racks adjacent to the
from entry. They are not being shown on the.plan now. Can we hold that back in Condition #1?
Ms. Kendall: It gets reviewed by the transportation staff. If we move it, it might be more
difficult for them to find it.
19
Mr. Ross: I don’t mind a condition listed under transportation so they know where to look, but
in terms of the applicant’s being able to integrate all of these items in the same plan --.
Ms. Kendall: We can repeat it.
Mr. Peterson: One question on Condition #15 on the fire department, when is that determination
made as to the need for sprinklers?
Ms. Weiss: When they submit for building permits.
Mr......McFall: So that is pending.
Mr. Ross: That, as I understand it, is standard operating procedure. The fire department does not
try to make that determination without actually seeing the improvement plans first.
Ms. Weiss: That is correct.
Mr. MoFall: End ofmotion.
SECOND: By
Mr. Ross: I would like to get one clarification made. Jim, is it your intention that all of these
items, or just some of them, will come back to this board for review? If so, which ones?
.Mr....McFall: Condition #1 would return. Condition #2 would return. Condition #6 is already
indicated to be returned.
Mr. Ross: All those in favor of the motion? That passes unanimously. Thank you very much
for bringing this in, and thank you to the members of the public for coming in to speak.
20
Attachment F
Architectural Review Board
Agenda Date:
To:
Staff Report
Item No. II.1
January 2, 1997
Architectural Review Board
From:
Subject:
Alison Kendall, AICP, Planner
2741 Middlefield Road
Stoecker & Northway, Architects Inc.
Department:Planning
File No.: 96-ARB-190
REQUEST/PROJECT DESCRHrI’ION
Review of exterior remodel to front, back and side facades and increase in square footage
of existing retail building, including seismic upgrade and landscaping changes.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the proposed exterior building renovation and landscaping,
subject to the conditions presented at the end of the staff report.
Minor redesign of the redwood trellis proposed for the from and rear of the building to
increase its compatibility with the trellis element at the Coop market, to help provide a
unifying element in the design of the Midtown area. This might include a change in the
placement of the redwood trellis elements to be above the steel cable-supported frame and
perpendicular to the building frontage.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
This. project is located within the Midtown Revitalization Project Area, an area for which
proposed new zoning is being prepared to encourage revitalization, along with a program
of public and private improvements. Renovation and rental of this building would
ce~y serve the objective of economic revitalization of the area, although the proposed
retail use for sales of office furniture, computer software, books and related items does not
reflect the neighborhood-orientation preferred in this neighborhood commercial district.
A:~trbX274 lmidd.~r Page I
The proposed use is, however, a permitted use in the district.
(~<~mprehensive Plan
Urban Design Element. Objective. page 42: "Promote visual environments which
are of high aesthetic quality and variety, and considerate of each other." The
proposed exterior renovation presents an upgrade to the appearance of the building
which continues the stucco earthtones and redwood trellis elements found elsewhere
in the Midtown area. The teal blue brace frame on the front of the building exterior
is a bold new contemporary element which is not found in the existing center, but
which could add color and excitement to the street, while improving the building’s ..
seismic resistance. Teal aluminum windows continue this color theme on the other
facades. Conditions of approval are recommended if desired to relate the redwood
trellis elements more closely to existing buildings in the center.
Urban Design Element. Objective. page 42: "Encourage maintenance of trees
andplan~ing of new street trees." The project involves the retention of an existing
Melaleuca tree in front of the store and the expansion of the landscaped area in
front of the store from two small planters to two large landscaped areas which could
accommodate substantial tree planting. Existing street trees would be retained.
The parking lot on Colorado Street contains no landscaping. Conditions of approval
should include landscaping of the lot, including trees in the planter areas along
Colorado and in the "sawtooth" area not needed for the diagonal parking spaces.
DISCUSSION
Background
The proposed project includes facade and landscaping improvements to an existing non-
conforming retail building in order to accommodate a new retail business specializing in
office furniture and other products for the work eavironment.
Analy.sis - Compliance with ARB Standards
The project as revised and as recommended by conditions of approval, would comply with
the standards for architectural review, as set forth in Chapter 16.48 of the PANIC.
Compliance with standards pertinent to this project are presented as follows:
1.. As discussed above, the design, as proposed and conditioned, would be consistent
A:~’b~741 midd.sr P~ge 2
with the Urban Design Element of the Comprehensive Plan. The exterior renovations
present a building design that would be suitable for this prominent location and appropriate
for this site, which is a key location within the Midtown Revitalization Project Area. The
design combines earthtoned stucco and redwood, materials characteristic of buildings in
the area, with teal meatal bracing and windows which would provide a contemporary
accent.
2. The design would be compatible with the immediate environment of the site. It
maintains the existing building height and size, which at two stories is appropriate for the
kind of vital neighborhood retail district which is desired for Midtown. With minor
revisions to the redwood trellis as recommended for conditions of approval, the trellis
could provide a unifying element within the Midtown center which relates to the
neighborhood’s architectural character.
3. The renovation proposes superior building materials and textures as well as an
innovative design, these factors are an appropriate expression to the design and function
of the project. (Standard #12) With some minor revisions as contained in the conditions
of approval, the adobe stucco treatment would be extended to all sides of the building, a
distinct improvement over the current painted concrete block.
4. As recommended by conditions of approval, the landscape design concept for the
site would create a desirable and functional environment. The proposed design offers the
opportunity to increase the amount of landscaping, and specifically the amount of
significant tree planting along Middlefield. By making some changes in the landscaping
plan, the proposal could help enhance the Middlefield frontage as a more vital, pedestrian
area. The conditions would make less of the landscape area off-limits to pedestrians, and
more use of outdoor seating, trees, colorful window displaus and other features to
encourage pedestrian use of outdoor area.
Conditions of approval would require tree planting and landscaping whereverpossible in
the parking lot, improving the appearance of the area and the pedestrian experience along
Colorado while maintaining the function and capacityof the existing parking lot. (Standard
#13)
The site provides opportunities for new landscaping and pedestrian improvements which
could significantly improve the appearance of the Midtown area and help create an
attractive pedestrian network throughout the site while improving the appearance of
driveways and parking areas.
A:~’b~/41 midd.sr Page 3
The character of the front yard landscaping should be changed from the proposed design,
which reduces the pedestrian area and disrupts pedestrian travel between this storefront and
others in the center. Instead, a revised design should create a tree-shaded area for
pedestrian, benches and outdoor tables and stalls which would attract passersby to linger
and explore the area. The pedestrian area in front of the building should relate and
connect to other pedestrian improvements on adjacent properties and elsewhere on the site
in order to improve the cohesiveness of the pedestrian experience in a revised landscape
design.
Parking Adequacy and Access
The existing building has an FAR of 1.0 and lot coverage of 62%. Since the current
zoning requirements are .4 FAR and 50% lot coverage respectively, this building is
substantially larger than permitted by the ciarrent zoning. The building does not meet CN
parking requirements, and although it is also directly accessible from the City-owned
parking lot in the rear, this public parking is shared among all retail tenants. Because of
these conditions, concerns have been raised regarding the adequacy of the parking to serve
the proposed use, and whether any design changes are possible which will increase the
efficiency of the parking available. Because the proposal seeks only to maintain existing
non-conforming conditions, no additional parking or reduction in square footage may be
required as a condition of approval.
The proposal does not include any changes to the existing on-site parking lot, and
maintains the current number of spaces (16). These spaces do not meet current
requirements for stall size or backup width. Access is provided from Colorado Avenue
to a one-way drive with diagonal parking. To exit or reach additional parking, customers
must enter a drive through tunnel under the building to reach the City-owned lot, Where
additional parking is available. Under a longstanding informal agreement, access to an
adjacent parking lot is provided from the Colorado Street lot.
Design’s Contribution to Midtown Character
The proposed design harmonizes with the predominance of earth-toned stucco and redwood
elements found in many of the better maintained buildings in the Midtown retail area. The
proposed teal metal frame and window elements would add vitality and a contemporary
feel while still harmonizing with the background palette of materials and colors. The
improvement in finishes and landscaping proposed would enhance the appearance of the
Midtown retail area, and the accommodation of a major retail ~enant in a previously vacant
storefront would help to attract other businesses to the center.
However, the activity and interest of the street facade could be enhanced beyond the
improvements proposed. Among the possibilities are the inclusion of other retail uses with
separate entries, such as a cafe or bookstore, or the incorporation of outdoor display space
or seating. The application does not include signage, but compatible signage that
incorporated colorful banners or hanging pedestrian scaled signage could also enhance the
interest of the facade.
Zoning Ordinance Compliance
The existing building does not comply with the following zoning requirements, however
the proposed design will not increase this lack of compliance and is therefore allowed.
1) Parking Requirement:
Existing Parking:
Proposed Parking:
1 space per 150 SF or 130 spaces
16 spaces
16 spaces
2) F.A.R.Requirement:,4 FAR
Existing FAR:1.0
Proposed FAR:1.0
3) Lot Coverage Requirement:50%
Existing Coverage:60 %
Proposed Coverage:60 %
4)Maximum Floor Area for Approved Use:
Requirement:15,000 SF
Existing:19,261 SF
Proposed:19,261 SF
Zone Designation CN
Retail
PUBLIC NOTICE
Notice of this project was provided by publication of the agenda in a local newspaper of
general circulation.
A :’arbOr’/41 tllidd.lr ~ 5
TIMING ACTION LIMITS:
Date project received: November 11, 1996, revised December 10,1996
Date application deemed complete: December 10, 1996
Action time limit:
(105 days after project deemed complete)
Optional extension upon applicant’s request:
(90 days after action date)
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The project is limited to exterior renovations to an existing building, and minor interior
alterations. This activity is categorically exempt from environmental review under Section
15301 of the California Environmental Quality .Act.
CONDITIONS
~or to Issuance of a Building Permit
Planning/Zoning
1.The final site and/or landscaping plan shall include the following modifications:
ao The planting of a street tree along Colorado Avenue near the NE boundary of the
site. The selected species shall be recommended by the City Arborist after
consultation with the Midtown Contract Planner. The specific location for planting
and the tree size shall be determined in consultation with the City Arborist. A
landscaped "parkway" (location between the sidewalk and the curb) shall be
installed below the new street tree.
The parking lot on Colorado shall be landscaped so as to place at least one tree
within the two triangular planting areas along Colorado Avenue, and at least one
tree within each row of parking, with smaller, ornamental trees or shrubs within the
"sawtooth" area created at the front of each stall. The overall aim shall be to shade
the parking area and to partially screen the view of parked cars whi~e generally
enhancing the area.
c. The landscaped area in front of the building along Middle field should be modified
A:~arbk2741midd.sr Page 6
so as to create a tree-shaded pedestrian area with outdoor benches and the
possibility of outdoor displays or tables and chairs. In particular, the northernmost
landscaped area shown in the plan should be reconfigured so that it does not cut off
the connection between the entry to this store and the arcaded walkway in front of
the existing building to the north. One or two large trees on either side of the
entry, with an attractive pavement beneath, should be used rather than a bosk of
small trees with ground cover as suggested in the conceptual plans.
2.Final architectural plans shall include the following modifications:
The adobe plaster treatment proposed for the front, back and east elevations wall
be extended over the entire exposed wall surface of the west elevation, since this
wall is also highly visible from parking areas within the Midtown center area.
Modification to the redwood trellis design in accordance with guidance from the
Architectural Review Board and this staff report.
All public trees to be retained, as shown on the approved tree inventory
or landscape plan to be prepared and submitted to the Planning Division,
shall be protected during construction. The following tree protection
measures shall be approved by the Planning Arborist and included in
construction/demolition contracts and be implemented during demolition
and construction activities unless otherwise approved. The following tree
protection measures shall apply: PAMC See. 8-04-070. Any.
modifications to these requirements must be approved, in writing, by the
Planning Arborist.
All trees to be preserved shall be protected with six-foot-high chain link
fences. Fences are to be mounted on two-inch diameter galvanized iron
posts~ driven into the ground to a depth of at least 2-feet at no more than
10-foot spacing. The fences shall enclose the entire area under the
dripline of the trees. The fences-shall be erected before construction
begins and remain in place until final inspection of the building permit,
except for work specifically required in the approved plans to be done
under the trees to be protected. (See Public Works Department’s standard
specification detail #505).
No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted
within the tree enclosure area.
c.The ground around the tree canopy area shall not be altered.
do
5. SBP16
6. SBP17
Trees to be retained shall be irrigated,-aerated and maintained as
necessary to ensure survival.
The ARB approved building materials and color scheme shall be shown
on building permit drawings for all buildings, patios, fences, utilitarian
enclosures and other landscape features.
Detailed landscape and irrigation plans encompassing on- and off-site
plantable areas out to the curb must be submitted to and approved by the
Architectural Review Board. A Landscape Water Use statement, water
use calculations and a statement of design intent shall be submitted for
each project.
All existing trees identified both to be retained and removed including
street trees.
Complete plant list indicating tree and plant species, quantity, size, and
locations.
Irrigation schedule and plan.
Fence locations.
eo
fo
7. SBP19
8. SBP20
Lighting plan with photometric data.
Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated, and maintained as
necessary to ensure survival.
Signs (not included in this proposal) require a separate application.
Sec.16.48.050a, Sec.16.48.120a(14), Section 16.48.120(c). These plafis
should be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and qualified
irrigation consultant. Landscape and irrigation plans shall include:
The owner shall develop an overall sign program for this property.
Sec. 16.48.120(c).
9. SBP21 Details of an opaque, screen trash eficlosure are to be submitted to and
approved by the ARB. The project shall include a recYCling area or
P~8
enclosure which complies with the design guidelines adopted by the ARB
and approved by the City Council pursuant to Section 16.48.070 (PAMC).
Sec. 16.48.120a (12), Sec. 16.48.120(c).
10. SBP22 The applicant shall submit a final grading and drainage plan to Public
Works Engineering, including drainage patterns on site and from adjacent
properties. The plan shall demonstrate that pre-existing drainage patterns
to and from adjacent properties are not altered. Sec. 16.28.270.
11. SBP23 The proposed development will result in a change in the impervious area
of the property. The applicant shall provide calculations showing the
adjusted impervious area with the building permit application. A storm
drainage fee adjustment will take place in the month following the final
approval of the construction by the Building Inspection Division.
Transportation
12. SBP29 Signage and landscaping shall meet the sight distance requirements of
PAMC 18.83.080, applicable to project frontages where driveways are
present, and in parking lots. Landscaping shall be specifically identified
in the landscape plan as meeting these height requirements.
13.Bicycle parking is required in accordance with PAMC 18.83. Class 2 and 3
parking must be located as close (o the front doorway as possible, which may
require some redesign of the front area. Additional Class 2 and 3 bike parking
should be placed near the side entrance to the parking lot on Colorado, if this can
be accomplished without displacing existing parking.
Utilitie~
14. SBP30 All utility meters, lines, transformers, bacldlow preventers, and any other
required utilities, shall be shown on the landscape and irrigation plans and
shall show that no conflict will occur between the utilities and landscape
materials and shall be screened in a manner which respects the building
design and setback requirements.. See. 16.48.120 (a)(13) and (c). See.
16.82.060 (c)
15.The Palo Alto Fire Department will be reviewing the renovation cost of
A:~trb~-~741 midd.sr Pa~ 9
improvements to see if PANIC 15.04.170, Subsection 1003.2.9, 5) becomes
applicable for automatic sprinklers imtallation throughout. Please review the
referenced section of the PAMC on improvement .costs.
Prior to Issuance of Building Permit
16. IBP5 Color chips to match the colors specified in the building permit drawings
shall be attached to the cover sheet of the building permit drawing set by
the Project Planner. Section 16.48.120 (a)12 and (c).IBP16.
Public Works Ot~eration
17. IBP16 Street trees shall be required in 24-inch boxes spaced at minimum 30-foot
intervals along project frontage. Species shall be determined by the
Planning Arborist in consultation with the Midtown Contract Planner.
Newly planted street trees shall be irrigated and maintained by the
property owner.
D,,l~ring Construction
Public W.orks Engineering
18. DC8 The contractor must contact the CPA Public Works Inspector at (415).
496-6929 prior to any work performed in the public right-of-way.
19. DC12 All construction within the City right-of-way, easements or other property
under City jurisdiction shall conform to Standard Specifications of the
Public Works and Utility Departments.
Prior to Finalization
Planning,
20. PF4 The landscape architect shall certify in writing and submit to Planning
Division, and call for inspection, that the landscaping has been installed
in accordance with all aspects of the approved landscape plans, that the
irrigation has been installed and that irrigation has been tested for timing
and function, and all plants including street trees are healthy.
Public Works/Engineering
A :~’b~.741 midd.sr P~¢IO
21. PF6 All sidewalks bordering the project shall be repaired and/or removed and
replaced in compliance with Public Works approved standards. Sec.
12.08.010.
22. PF8 The Public Works Inspector shall sign off the building permit prior to the
finalization of this permit. All off-site improvements shall be finished
prior to this sign-off.
ATTACHMENTS:
Plans (ARB members only)
COURTESY COPIES:
Christopher Thnay, Transportation
Prepared By:
Manager Review:
Alison Kendall, Contract Planner
Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator
Nancy Lytle, Chief Planning Official
AAarb~741mldd.$r Page 11
JAM 16 "97 II:33AM JORGENSON, SIEGEL
January 16, 1997 Attachment G
Ken Schreiber,
Director of Planning and
Co~mmlniny Envlronment
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Re:2741 Middlefieid Road (the former Bergmann’s)
I am writing on behalf of Gon Shink and RoxyRapp, the owners
("Owners") of the Berg~a/ln’s Building (~Building") at 2741
Middle£1eld Road in PaloAlto.
The Owners bed planned to lease the entire 19,260.square foot
Buildin~ to Matt and Gall Taylor for a KnOwhere Store (selling.
furniture, books., and music), and I understand they received ARB
approval with conditions for the Building’s renovation on
January 2, 1997. However, at that meeting, Herb Borock raised the
question as to whether more tha!115,000 Of retail use in this
location should be permitted without a conditional use permit.
The Building is located in the CN zone, where retail services
per establishment are not permitted to exceed 15,000 square feet
without a conditional use permit. Zoning Ordinance §18.41.050(k).
Bercjw~nn’s is a grandfathered non-conforming facility, and it was
assumed by the Owners (and presumably the staff) that the retail
use was also grandfathered. The retail use, however, was
discontinued over a year ago, and Section 18.94.040(b) states that
in such a case, the non-conforming use must be replaced with a
conforming one. Therefore, the Planning -Department has now
informed the Owners that if the Building is to contain more than
15,000 square feet of retail, a conditional use permit must be
received.
The Owners do not wish to apply for a conditional use permit;
rather, after discussions with the Taylors, they have another
proposal. The Taylor~ wish "to use 14,743 ~q%lare feet for retail
JAM I~ "97 II:~3AM JOR~EMSON, SIE~EL P. 3/3
Ken Schreiber
January 16, 1997 - Page 2
space and.4,517 square feet for general business offices for their
consulting business. The Zoning Ordinance allows office uses, such
as a general business office, not to exceed 25% of the lot area,
provided that a lot shall be permitted to have at least 2500 square
feet of office but no more than $000 square feet. Zoning Ordinance
~18.41.050(i). The BergmaEhn’s parcel is 19,260 square feet, and
25% Of that is 4781 square feet.
The Taylors own two separate and distinct businesses:
KnOwhere Stores and a consulting business knova% as MG Taylor
Corporation. Literature about both of these businesses was
previously provided to you. Although the businesses are both owned
by the same couple, they are two distinct businesses with two
separate functions--one is not accessory to the other.
The description of uses in the CN zone does not state or in
any way imply that two distinct uses cannot occupy the same
building. The limitation on uses refers only to floor area. See
Zoning Ordinance §§18.41.050(k) and (1). The Taylors plan to
separate the retail use and office us~ with a wall, and the pl~ns
for the building permit will be cross-hatched to identify which
section of the Building is permitted to be used as offices and
which section is p~rmitted to be used as retail.
In conclusion, we b~lieve that having 14,743 square Zeet of
retail space and 4517 square feet of general business office meets
the requirements of the City’s Zoning Ordinance (without nhe
~necessity to apply for a conditional use permit) and also satisfies
the business needs of the Taylors.
Please give me a call if you have any questions or wish any
additional information. I look forward ~o hearing from you as soon
as posslble.
Sincerely,
A. Sloan
MAS:csh
Nancy Lytle
Alison Kendall
Debra Cauble, Esq.
Jon Schink ,
john Northway
Attachment H
STOECKER AND NORTHWAY ARCHITECTS INCORPORATED
437 LYTTON AVENUE PALO ALTO CALIFORNIA 94301 41,5 327-7070
TRANSWTTAL
Under Separate Cover
~FFOrARF,. 7RANSMIT’r~D:
Your Usa
~ Review & Comment
_,.._ For Your Necessary A¢tion
.,.--- ~ Requested
Sent by: PLANNING DEPT 4153292154;~1/21!97 11:24AM;J~ #229;Page 2]3
.Sent by: PLANNING DEPT 4153292154;01 t21197 11:24AM;,,~I~.~X #229;Page 3/3
,