HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 152-08City of Palo Alto
C ty Manager’ Repor
TO:
FROM:
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
CITY MANAGER
DATE:FEBRUARY 25, 2008
SUBJECT:RESPONSE TO COUNCIL
STREET
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENWIRONMENT
CMR: 152:08
QUESTION REGARDING 1121 BRYANT
This is an informational report. No Council action is required.
BACKGROUND
On February 8, 2005, Ronatd Wager (on behalf of Fred and Kathleen Morse) submitted a
Development Review application for a project at 1121 Bryant Street that included the following
elements:
An interior remodel of the existing 8-unit apartment house into a reconfigured 8-unit
apartment house that would preserve the historic entry hall and staircase, as well as the
entire len~h of the existing entry corridor in a narrower width. All proposed renovations
would comply with the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Historic Preservation.
No change to the street-facing faqade or to the portions of the side elevations nearest the
street.
An increase in height of portions of the third-floor penthouse roof by approximately 3.5
feet (which would match the height of the peak of the center portion of the existing hip
roof) in order to provide a consistent interior ceiling height of 8 feet. This alteration
would create a flat roof that would replace the existing hipped roof, and that would be the
same height as the roof peak of the existing hip roof.
Installation of plate glass windows to the penthouse wa!ls on all four elevations.
Replacement of the mansard roof and two dormers on the rear elevation of the penthouse
with an exterior penthouse wall and an exterior balcony.
Installation ofphotovoltaic modules approximately two feet high to the proposed flat roof
at a location recessed several feet from the edge of the roof on all four elevations.
CMR: 152:08 Page 1 of 5
Reconstruction of the exterior staircase on the rear elevation to meet the standards of the
Uniform Building Code for enhanced safety and extension of the staircase to the third-
floor penthouse to provide a fire escape.
The project included a request for a Desig-n Enhancement Exception (DEE) to allow 1) the raised
penthouse roof on the south elevation to encroach into the daylight plane approximately 33 feet
in length at a height of 35 feet, and 2) to allow the proposed photovoltaic modules to extend to a
maximum height of 37 feet above wade, where 30 feet above wade would be the maximum
height normally allowed. The overall height of the building would not increase as a result of this
proposal. A DEE is a type of exception that is used for minor architectural changes that would
enhance the desigT~ of a proposed project without altering the function or use of the site, its
impact on surrounding properties, or enable the preservation of the architectural style of existing
improvements on the site.
The building is a Category 3 historic building located in the Professorville National Register
Historic District. The Historic Resources Board (HRB) is required to review exterior changes to
structures in the historic districts. The project was reviewed by the HRB at its Apri! 6, 2005
meeting. The HRB recommended approval to the Planning Director. A copy of the staff report is
included as Attachment A.
The project was approved by the Director of Plarming on May 9, 2005. A copy of the approval
letter is contained in Attachment B. The approval determination was based on the review of all
information contained within the project file, all public comments received after comparison to
all applicable zoning and municipal code requirements.
A building permit was issued in January 2006 for construction of the project.
DISCUSSION
In March 2006, the City received a request from an adjacent neighbor for the City to review the
height of the building. The concem was that, during constriction, the overall height of the
building was increased beyond what was approved for the building permit. Meetings were held
with residents and City staff in order to understand the concerns and provide responses.
In addition to the building height question, neighborhoods expressed concerns regarding three
other aspects of the project:
1.Building color- the property owners had repainted the building from the original dark
brown to a light brown color;
2. Privacy impacts resulting from the installation of new windows in the existing third floor
rental units; and,
3. Placement of solar panels on the roof in a manner that created a visual nuisance.
Staff has been working with the property owners and the nearby residents in order to address
these concerns.
CMR: 152:08 Page 2 of 5
Building Height
Building Division staff verified the height of 1121 Bryant Street last spring when concerns were
expressed about whether the project complied with the approved plans. From measurements
made of each of the ttaree floors on site, it was determined that the height of each floor
sufficiently matched the dimensions shown on the approved architectural plans. However, the
actual height of the building may vary somewhat depending on the ground location of the
measurement. Building Division staff measured the height at 35’-5". This was derived by
adding the measured heights of each floor plus 3’-5" or (the measured dimension from the first
floor to the adjacent grade from where the measurement was taken). This measurement is
approximately 3" less than what the approved plans show, or 35’-5" versus the 35’-8 ½" called
out on the plans.
Much of the confusion about the building’s height stems from the top of roof elevation noted on
the plans. The oriNnal height of the building prior to construction was not surveyed. Rather, it
was calculated by the project architect, who compiled data from a topographic survey of the lot,
along with as-built measurements made of the building to document the floor area, configuration
and size of the building. From these two sources of data, the architect calculated the top of roof
elevation 74.42’, which he indicated on the plans. He subsequently acknowledged that he made
an error adding the finished 3rd floor elevation of 66.17’ and 9.25’, (which is the proposed height
of the 3rd floor that the City’s Historic Resources Board approved) and should have called out the
top of roof elevation as 75.42’or one foot higher than what he wrote on the plans. The architect
however, states that this discrepancy has no bearing on what the HRB actually reviewed and
approved. Regardless of the actual top of roof elevation, the height of the building has not
increased, which was evident from observing the exposed construction framing within the ~
floor.
Building Division staff also measured the heights of the photovoltaic panels on the top of the
roof and determined that they are each 25" above the plywood roof sheathing at their highest
points. When the roof is finished, they will be 24" or less in height from the finished roof
surface.
Building Color
The property owner has recently repainted the building to match the original dark brown color
with white trim to comply with the HRB approval. The rear windows at the third floor will not
have the white trim so that they will blend in with the building color.
Privacy Impacts
As previously described, the project included raising the roof at the rear of the building in order
to increase head height in portions of the two existing third floor units. The overall height of the
building would not be increased as a result of the project. As part of the project review, a new
window system was approved to bring light into the rear portion of these units, as well as to
provide exiting to a new rear deck and stairway. The HRB’s purview is limited to compliance
with the City’s historic preservation ordinance as well as accepted preservation standards and
CMR: 152:08 Page 3 of 5
does not include assessment of privacy impacts. The HRB staff report does indicate potential
privacy impacts as background for the HRB’s review.
Staff conducted an on-site review of the third floor units in May 2006, after the renovation of the
third floor was complete. It was clear that the windows allowed direct views from the interiors of
the two third floor units to the adjacent properties at the rear of the site. Based on this review,
staff and the property owner discussed plans for a privacy screen, in the form of planter boxes
and plant material, which would reduce the direct lines of sight from inside the units to adjacent
properties. A preliminary design was proposed by the property owners in early July 2006. Staff
had concerns with the irrigation and drainage system of the planter boxes, as well as the species
of plant material that would be used.
Construction work on the project site slowed during the latter half of 2007, and no progress on
the privacy screen was made during this time. In January 2008, staff met with the property owner
to revive the plans for the privacy screen to address the staff suggestions. The screen, consisting
of planter boxes and safety railing, will be placed on top of the existing deck railing to a height
of 42 to 45" above the deck. Appropriate plantings would extend the screen to approximately
48". No screening is proposed at the master bedroom window in the unit near the north comer of
the building. It is expected that a final screening plan will be approved in March with
construction to beNn soon after.
Solar Panels
The project included the installation of a solar panel array to be placed on the roof of the
building. It was expected that the array would not be installed flat on the roof, but that it would
be installed on a support system that would angle the array in order to improve energy efficiency.
As part of the DEE request, the property owner requested two feet of additional height for the
solar array, not to exceed a total height of 37’ above grade. The application materials submitted
by the applicant include statements that the solar array would be "below the sight line from the
street or surrounding properties" and "the photovoltaic modules on the roof are designed to be
set back on the roof sufficiently to fall below the line of sight from the street and immediate
neighborhood and have the ability to be moved to accomplished this goal." Based upon this
information, the HRB and Plaming staff did not have any specific concerns with the solar
panels.
Planning staff conducted an inspection of the installed solar panels in January 2008. The panels
were installed in a mariner that would allow for maximum solar efficiency. As a result, the panels
have been installed close to the rear edge of the flat roof. The panels are visible from the
properties to the rear of the site and from the 300 block of Lincoln Avenue. Furthermore, the
panels have been installed in a maturer that would not allow for adjustments without
modifications to the roof system.
It is staff’s opinion that the roof is large enough to accommodate an adjustment to the location of
the solar panels that would reduce the visual impacts. The support structure could also be
modified to reduce the angle and height of the panels. These adjustments would require
additional costs to the property owner. It is unknown how the adjustments would affect the
efficiency of the system. Other possible modifications include painting the solar panel support
CMR: 152:08 Page 4 of 5
structure to minimize the metallic glare from off-site views and installation of a lightweight roof
screen that would block views of the panels. The property owner would need to voluntarily make
these adjustments, as the City and other jurisdictions are limited in the discretionary review of
solar energy systems by the Solar Rights Act. The intent of tl~is legislation is to limit a local
agency’s ability to °°adopt ordinances that create unreasonable barriers to the installation of solar
energy systems, including, but not limited to, design review for aesthetic purposes, and not
unreasonably restrict the ability of homeowners and agricultural and business concerns to install
solar energy systems" (California Govermnent Code Section 65850.5 (a)). The City has reviewed
the Solar Rights Act with regard to the City’s ability to require and request adjustments to solar
energy systems for aesthetic or design purposes. The Solar Rights Act limited the City’s
discretion to the issuance of a ministerial or building permit which would not enable the City to
specify the location of the panels on the roof.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: April 6, 2005 HRB StaffReport
Attacl’unent B: May 9, 2006 Planning Department Decision Letter
PREPARED BY:
STEVEN TURNER
Senior Plarmer
,~,-~ STEVE EMSLIEDirector of Planning and Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
EMILY HARRIS ON
Assistant City Manager
CMR: 152:08 Page 5 of 5
Attachment A
Staff Report
1
Apr~I1 6, 2~3~5
To:
Fro~:
Subject:
Dennis BacMund
Historic Preservation Ptanner
Department: P~anning and
Community Env~ronmen~
1121 Bryant Street [05PLN-00044; 05PLN-00045!: Application by
Ronald W. Wager in behalf of Fred and Kathleen Morse, owners, for
Historic Resources Board review and recommendation to the
Architectural Review Board and Director of Planning and Com_munity
Environment, pursuant to Municipal Code Section 16.49.050, regarding a
proposed rehabilitation and alteration of the Castilleja Hall apartment
house, initially constructed in 1892, which is listed on the City’s Historic
inventor?, in Category, 3, and is located in the Professorville National
Register Historic District, and in the R-! (929) zone district. The project
includes historic window relocation and replacement, installation of
additiona! new windows, extension of an existing exterior rear staircase,
conversion of the existing hipped roof of the recessed third-floor
penthouse to a flat roof which would raise the north and south end walls
of the penthouse by approximately 3.5 feet, installation ofphotovoltaic
modules approximately two feet high on the proposed flat roof of the
penthouse at a location recessed several feet from the edge of the roof,
and other modifications. The project would require a Design
Enhancement Exception (DEE) to allow (a) the raised penthouse roof on
the south elevation to encroach into the daylight plane approximately 33
feet in len~h at a height of 35 feet, and (b) to allow the proposed
photovoltaic modules to extend to a maximum height of 37 feet above
grade, where 30 feet above grade would be the maximum allowed height.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Historic Resources Board recommend approval of the
proposed project on the conditions that (1) the visual impact of the south elevation wall of
1121 Bryant Street in the Professorville Historic District Page 1 of 7
the third-floor penthouse be reduced by replacing tt~_e proposed ribbon of three windows
with two windows separated from each other by shingled wail area, and (2) that the visua!
impact of the entire remodeled penthouse be reduced by painting the molding around the
edge of the penthouse roof a dark color similar to the shingle wal! cladding. Staff
recommends that the Board find that the project as conditioned would substantially
conform to the Secretary of the interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation regarding
preservation of the site’s character-defining historic features and regarding compatibility
of the proposed exterior new construction with the historic building, the site, and the
Professorv. itle Historic District.
REVIEW PROVISIONS OF THE HISTORIC PF~SERVAT[ON ORDINANCE
A!! applications for a building permit for alterations and new construction in a historic
district shall be reviewed by the Historic Resources Board as provided by the Historic
Preservation Ordinance in Municipa! Code ! 6.49.050 (a). Compliance of the property
owner with the recommendations of the Board shall be voluntary, not mandatory, as set
forth in Municipal Code 16.49.050 (a)(1)(B). However, because the property is a
desi~,mnated historic resource and contains discretionary elements--Architectura! Review
Board design review and a Design_ Enhancement Exception (DEE)---the City must find,
under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) that the project
conforms to the Secretary of the interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation.
PROJECT DESCR~PTEON
The proposed project includes the following elements (see also Attachments A and B):
An interior remodel of the existing g-unit apartment house into a reconfigured 8-
unit apartment house that would preserve the historic entry, hall and staircase, as
well as the entire len~h of the existing entry corridor in a narrower width.
No change to the street-facing faCade or to the portions of the side elevations
nearest the street.
As indicated on the proposed floor plans and elevations of the first two floors,
some historic windows would be relocated or replaced on the portions of the side
elevations nearest the rear of the building, and some new windows would be added
to the first and second floors of the rear elevation.
The side elevations of the third-floor penthouse would be raised approximately 3.5
feet (which would match the height of the peak of the center portion of the existing
hip roof) in order to provide a consistent interior ceiling height of 8 feet. This
alteration would create a flat roof that -would replace the existing hipped roof, and
that would be the same height as the roof peak of the existing hip roof.
1121 B~’ant Street in the Professor~,ille Historic District Page 2 of 7
A number of plate glass windows would be added to the penthouse walls on all
four elevations.
The mansard roof and two do~--mers on the rear elevation of the penthouse would be
replaced by an exterior penthouse wall and an exterior balcony.
Photovoltaic modules approximately two feet high would be added to the proposed
flat roof at a !ocation recessed several feet from the edge of the roof on all four
elevations.
The exterior staircase on the rear elevation would be remodeled to the standards of
the Uniform Building Code for enhanced safety, and the staircase would be
continued up to the third-floor penthouse to provide a fire escape.
The historic multi-car garage at the rear would be preserved.
THE HI~STOR[C S~TE
The l, Tis~oric Buildi~g
This rectangular three-story Classical Revival shingled former school building,
constructed in 1892, is significant in the history of California education because it was a
very early location of Harker’s School and was the original !ocation of Castilleja School,
two distinguished preparatory schools stil! operating in the state. The building was
originally located at the south end of the block (319 Kingsley Avenue at the corner of
Bryant Street). It was moved to ! 12 ! Bryant Street in i902 (see Attachments C and D).
Previous Ai¢eratio~s
A series of historic Sanborn Maps provided by HRB Member Bumnenberg indicate that at
an undetermined date between 1908 and 1924 the left half of the street-facing faqade of
the building was rebuilt several feet c!oser to the street in line with the projecting right
half of the fa,cade (see Attachment E). At the same time the right half was rebuilt so that
the entire street-facing fa¢ade became a seamless flat wall. Also, the previously
projecting front entry porch (probably dating from 1902, the year the building was moved,
because a longer projecting entry porch is shown on the 1901 Sanborn Map) was
incorporated into the new faCade as a recessed entry porch. Finally an early projecting
porch on the left elevation (shown on the 1908 Sanborn Map but not on the 1901 Map)
was removed. These alterations likely occurred in 1910 when the building was converted
to an apartment house, and they resulted in the simple rectangular building seen today
from the street. The third-floor penthouse is either original to the building or a very early
addition because the 1901 Sanborn Map indicates a 2 ~/-_ story building. The existing
shingled hip roof of the penthouse may be a later alteration because the Historic inventory
form refers to a photograph of the front fa,cade in 1900 that depicts a "mansard roof [that]
1121 Bryant Street in ~he Professorville Historic District Page 3 Of 7
had three front do,_--reefs." This reference must be to the roof of the penthouse because the
existing rear elevation of the penthouse stil! has a mansard roof (with two don~_ers).
Another possibility is that the existing hip roof is the remnant of the upper pa~ of the
original mansard roof, and the roof at the rear elevation suggests this. Staff searched the
City’s permit record but did not find evidence of any other alterations. The long multi-car
garage at the rear of the site appears for the first time on the t924 Sanborn Map.
t,~as~ Use ~f ~ke 2.i~e
During !892 to 190 !, before it was moved, the building was occupied by the Casti!leja
Hall school. This school was not related to the later Castilleja School that operates today,
and it closed in !901. After the building was moved to ! i21 Bryant Street in !902, it
housed Miss Harker’s Schoo! from !902 to !907. !n 1907 Harker’s moved to its newly
constructed campus (demolished circa 1970) at the comer of Greenwood and Melville
Avenues. in 1907 Castilleja School for Girls was founded at 1 !21 Bryant Street and
remained there until 19 ! 0 when the school moved to its current campus at 1310 Bryant
Street. That same year 1 !21 Bryant Street was converted into an apartment house and has
remained in that use to the present day.
PROJECT REVIEW
The most important historic issue raised by the project, in staff’s judgment,
involves the approximately 3.5-foot increase in the height of the side elevations of
the penthouse, and the proposed fenestration treatment of these new taller walls.
The proposed higher side walls of the penthouse would be clearly visible to those
who are looking at the sides of the building from the street because the penthouse
is recessed on the side elevations only 3.5 feet Yet raising the height of all the
perimeter walls of the penthouse appears necessary because the interior ceiling
follows the existing hipped roof down from a maximum ceiling height of eight feet
under the roof peak to a minimum height at the interior walls of about 6 feet above
the floor. It also appears that most of the interior of the existing penthouse has a
ceiling height below 8 feet. Staff, therefore, accepts the penthouse proposal as
reasonable, and recorm-nends that the HRB’s historic review focus on the question
of the historic compatibility of the treatment of the side elevations of the
penthouse. When alterations are proposed for the exterior of a historic building,
the Secretary’s Standards and accompanying Secretary’s Guidelines recommend
that the new element be as inconspicuous and as subordinate in character as
possible so that the existing historic character is not diminished. Staff believes this
goal is partly met by the project proposal to maintain shingles as the cladding of
the penthouse wa!ls so that the penthouse will match the rest of the building.
1121 Bryant Street in the Professorville Historic District Page 4 of 7
The proposed fenestration for the new south wall of the penthouse, however,
appears to raise historic issues: staff concluded that the ribbon of three plate glass
windows proposed for the south wai! would significantly increase the visual
impact of the new taller wall. Staff recommends, therefore, as a condition of
project approval, that the ribbon window be replaced with a pair of windows
separated from each other by shingled wall area. This separation of the windows
would al!ow the double window treatment of the historic first and second floors of
the south elevation to be visually dominant without competition from the proposed
fenestration of the new third-floor wal!. Staff advises, but not as a condition of
approval, that the two dining room -windows be double-hung windows to break up
the expanse of plate glass, and that they be made smaller than proposed.
Staff did not recommend conditions of approval for the proposed fenestration of
the new north wall of the penthouse because the Vwo proposed windows nearest the
street are small and widely separated, and because the larger plate glass windows
are at the rear of the north elevation.
Staff also does not recorm-nend conditions of approval for the treatment of the
street-facing wail of the penthouse because the wa!l is set back from the edge of
the second floor roof approximately t 3 feet and cannot be seen from the street.
Finally, staff does not recommend conditions of approval for the proposed rear
wall of the penthouse even though all the windows proposed for the rear wa!! are
undivided plate glass -windows that are different in character from those generally
found on the historic building, particularly the horizontally-oriented three-part
window at the master bedroom. The treatment of the rear wall of the penthouse
does not impact the pubtic space (although it would impact neighbors’ private
views from the windows and backyards of the Professorville homes along Lincoln
Avenue). However, the Board may wish to discuss the new rear penthouse wal!.
A proposed color scheme for the rehabilitated building was not submitted and the
applicant’s intention may be to maintain the current color scheme of the building.
However, staff clarified a potential issue at the third-floor penthouse by
recommending a condition of approval that would require the proposed molding
around the edge of the new flat roof to be painted a dark color similar to the color
of the shingle wal! cladding. A light-colored molding would make the remodeled
penthouse significantly more conspicuous.
Staff concluded that all the proposed fenestration changes and treatments on the
first and second floors of the building maintain the existing historic character. The
project proposes no changes for the first and second floors of the street-facing
fagade.
1121 Bryant Street in the Professorville Historic District Page 5 of 7
Praj~ec: Ca~,~j<a~.cfat~ce ~.~i~4~ ~.~e 2,ecret~ry’s ;.~,ta~da~°ds
The ten Secretary’s Standards for Rehabilitation require that a project preserve historic
character-defining features and materials (Standards 1-8 and 10). The Standards also
require that new construction be compatible in massing, size, scale, and architectural
features with the historic prope~y and its environment and that new construction be
differentiated from the historic portions of the building (Standard 9). The primary
Standards, Nos. 1 and 2, are expressed as fol!ows:
Standard !: A prope~y shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use
that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and
environment.
Standard 2: The historic character of a property shal! be retained and preser~,ed. The
removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces tihat characterize a
prope_rty shall be avoided.
The remaining eight Secretary’s Standards provide details on how to conform to
Standards ! and 2.
Standards of Preservation
The proposed project as conditioned would prese~e the most important character-
defining features of the historic building and site as indicated in the staff comments
above. TEerefore, staff concluded that the conditioned project would substantially
confo__rm to Secreta~D"s Standards Nos. !-8 and 10 for preservation of historic features and
materials.
Standard of Compatibility of New Construction
Staff concluded that the proposed project as conditioned would be compatible in massing,
scale, materials, and architectural features with the historic building, site, and with the
Professorvi!le Historic District. Therefore, staff concluded that the project would
conform to Secretary’s Standard No. 9 for compatibility.
Standard of Differentiation
The Secretary of the interior’s Standard No. 9 also requires that new construction be
differentiated from historic fabric. The intention of this Standard is to protect the
authentic historic character of properties by preventing the false historicism inherent in
exactly matching new construction with the old. Staff believes that modern
manufacturing details that would be discernable in the proposed new fenestration would
c!arify that the new fenestration is not historic. Therefore, staff concluded that Standard
No. 9 for differentiation would be met by the project.
1121 B~’ant S~-eet in the Professorville Historic District Page 6 of 7
ZoM~g Ordf~a~ce Co,~pEirgnce
The existing historic building is legally non-conforming with respect to height and -with
respect to the south side daylight plane. The 35-foot existing height of the penthouse
exceeds the 30-foot maximum established for the R-! zone district, and the existing upper
portion of the south elevation encroaches into the daylight plane. Therefore, the proposal
to provide a consistent 8-foot ceiling in the interior of the penthouse, and the proposal to
provide solar power modules on the penthouse roof would require relief from the City’s
zoning regulations through the Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) process (the DEE
is similar in its required findings to the Home improvement Exception (HIE), but is
reserved for multi-family residential applications and other commercia! projects).
Because staff concluded that the proposed project as conditioned would substantially
conform to the Secretary’s Standards, staff recommends that the HRB include support for
the requested Design Enhancement Exception in its motion on the project.
KEY DECISIONS TO BE I~4ADE BY THE H~
Whether the proposed treatment of the third-floor penthouse would substantially
conform to the Secretary of the interior’ s Standards for Rehabilitation.
Whether the proposed fenestration changes to the first and second floors would
substantially conform to the Secretary’s Standards.
Whether the HRB should recommend conditions of approvai for the project.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Project Description Letter and Zoning Exception Letter submitted by the
Applicant.
Attachment B: Project Plan Set (HRB Members On!y).
Attachment C: Historic Inventory Form for 1 !21 Bryant Street.
Attachment D: Photos of the Property Submitted by the Applicant (Color Versions for
_P~RB Members Only under Separate Cover).
Attachment E: Historical Information on the Property submitted by HRB Member
Bunnenberg (Under Separate Cover).
PREPARED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
Dennis Backlund
Historic Preservation Planner
Advance Planning Manager
1121 Bryant Street in the Professorville Historic District Page 7 of 7
Attachment
WALTER & WA® R
Architecture & Site Analysis
475 Gate Five Road, Suite 308, Sausallto, CA 94965-i475
(415) 332o9010 o FAX (415) 332-O126
PROSPECT DE$CPdPT[ON ~%r i!2! BRYANT STREET° PALO ALTO° CA.
T’nis building ~aegan as a g4a’i’ s preparatoo~ school in 1 S92 at 319 Kingsiey Ave. in Palo ~Jto until
moved to its present tocation at 1121 Brant Street in 1902. The structure was enlarged at that time
and operated as an elementary school through !907. The structure was subsequently (circa 1910)
remodeled into the "Nardyne Apartments" and has remained an eight-umit apartment building to this
day. The building is a shLngled version of the Classical Style w4th flat roofs, classical pilasters mad
cornices. The structure is unique to tbJs area but retains a s,vmpathetic relationship to its immediate
neighbors because of the similar materials and style.
The pu~ose of this remodel is to improve and up~ade the existing stracture and interior while
carefully maLn_taining the historic exterior facades. We v,.~i!! be re-a_rranging the interior u_n_its to
-;_w_@rove their usefulness and access. The e~erior fenestrations, trim and siding wii! be patched,
repaired an&’or replaced as necessary but wiil retain their existing historic character. The front
(street) elevation and portions of the side elevations w-il! remain as they are while the rest of the
building w~ have either relocated e~sting w-indows or windows to match existing. The rear
elevation’s exterior stair wil! be remodeled to meet Uniform Building Code requirements and an
exterior stair wi!l be added from the existing second floor landing to the penthouse for fire escape
purposes. The penthouse ~a~i1 be remodeled and the ceiling raised at the pe_rkmeter to al!ow
reasonable use of the mn__it. Additionally we propose to add photovo!taic modules at the roof of the
penthouse, below the sight line from the sta-eet or most surrounding prope_rties, for the buildings
electrica! use.
The proposed work w-i!! not increase either existing floor area or coverage of the structure. The
height -will not exceed the existing except as to allow for the photovoltaic modules and a small area
v,~thin the da~ l~_ght plane at the south elevation.
The existing structure has been well maintained and is in good condition but is rapidly becoming
outdated and lags behind cut-rent Uniform Building Code requirements. _This remodel will ~low for
a general overhaul of the building, improvements of Code req_uirements and repairs of the genera!
-wear and tear over 100 years of use. We would expect the proposed work to ~eatly extend the
buildings use and preservation into the furore.
WALTER & WAGER
Architecture & Site Analysis
475 Gate Five Road, Suite 308, Sausalito, CA 94965-1475
(415) 332-9010 o FAX (415) 332-O126
~, !12~, BRYA2~T STREET
We are requesting a Variance to allow the buildJaqg to exceed its current height by a maximum of
two feet to allow the addition ofphotovottaic modules on the roof and also to a!low the existing
penthouse structure to prot,~de into the required "dayli~t plane" a* the south elevation.
1. _This application for relief from currem zoning requirements is largely due to the ,unique
ckcmmsmnces of a historic apartment building !ocated within a R-i residential zone. The request
for additional height rand minor intrusion into the "daylight plane" is of minimal visual impact and
will have no impact on current uses, floor areas or coverage. The proposed improvements will not
change an3" of the cu_rrent re!ations_hips *~o the buildings neighbors nor be detrimental to other
proper~des ~ the area.
2. Granting this application wil! a!!ow for the passive solar collection of enerD~, which is one
of the stated goNs of the City of Palo Alto, and the preservation of a f-me historic structure. These
goals are entirely consistent with and sympathetic to the Palo Alto Comprehensive P!an.
3. This building has been in its current location for over 100 years mud has been in continuous
use as an eight-unit apartment buitdin~ for nearly as !ong. The existing structure currently exceeds
the zoning regulations as to heist and intrudes into the "daylight plane" at the south elevation. The
_mSnor changes we a_re propos:mg require vm-iances due to these pre-existing conditions. Although
the existing building is not in compliance ~dth ca-rent zoning, it has a very sympathetic relationship
to its neighbors and the immediate neighborhood; additionally, the building is located within a few
b!ocks of similar uses ,.Mth much larger footprints.
The proposed improvements are of a very minor nature, which will allow reasonable use of
the existing building and improved ability- to use passive solar power. The photovoltaic modules on
the roof are desig-ned to be set back on the roof sufficiently to fail below the line of si~t from the
street and ~--nediate neighborhood and have the ability to be moved to accomplish this goal. The
slight intrusion of the penthouse roof into the "daylight plane" wil! not exceed the existing height of
the stracmre.
The demonstrated historic and unique character of this skructure and the proposed
improvements to bNng the building into Building Code compliance constitute a special
circumstance, -which the strict application of the zoning ordinance would deprive the property of
privileges enjoyed by others Ln the area. We feet this application is reasonable and hope it will be
supported. Thank yon for your consideration,
Ronald W. Wager
Principal
StaffNote: The application for the Zoning
exception would be processed as a Design
Enhancement Exception rather than as a
Variance.
Attachment
Historic Resources inventory Detail_
Date; 25-J’an-95
Historic Building Inventory IDi 66
~ocatio~
ownership
HistOric name: Castilleja Hall
Common or current name: Nardyne Apartments
Number & street: 1121 Bryant Street
City: Palo Alto
Alternate Address:
Past Address:
ZIP:County: Santa Clara
Category: 3
Historical District: Professorville Historic District
Owner: Ronald E. Jorasch
Address: 14555 Debell Rd.
City: Los Altos Hills, CA
[] National Registry
[] State Registry
public @ private
ZiP: ~4022
Present: Residential (apartments)
Original: School
Past:
A shingled version of institiutional Classicism, this two-story building has the fiat roof, classical pilasters
and cornices, and other devices normally associated with masonry buildings of this style. It was
somewhat enlarged not long after being moved to its present site, and again altered when it was
converted into apartments. An early photograph (1900) indicates that the columned porch once extended
beyond the front facade which now encloses the entry, and that the mansard roof had three front dormers.
Photo Date: 1978 Property, Size frontage: 100
depth: 115
acreage:
Condition: excellent
Alteration: Altered
Surroundings:
[] Open
[] Scattered Buildings
[] Densely Built
Other:
[]Residential
[]Commercial
[]Industrial
Threats:
[] None Known
[] Vandalism
[] Private Devetopmen
Other:
[] Public Works
[] Zoning
page 103
(cont.)
Architect:
Builder: William Pluns ?;
Date: 1892
@ factual
Notes:
Features:
[] Barn
[] Carriage House
OtherFeatures:
Pluns carried out an addition i
estimated
Exterior Material: wood
Other Material:
Original Site: moved
Therae: socialleducation
[] Formal Garden [] Outhouse [] Watertower
[] Windmill [] Shed [] None
This handsome building is an unusual version of the Classical mode. Two young Radcliffe graduates,
Miss Eleanor Pearson and Miss Lucy Fletcher, came to Stanford in 1891 at the request of President
David Start Jordan to establish a girl’s preparatory, school. The school was opened on Alpine Road in
that year, then moved in 1892 to 319 Kingsley Ave. Castilleja Hall took its name from the crimson
paintbrush which grew on the grounds at its first ~ocation. Miss Pearson was succeeded as Principal by
Mrs. Anna E. Peck in 1898. When the school closed in 1901, Mrs. Lucy B. Angell, wife of Professor
Frank Angell, bought the building and had it moved to 1121 Bryant and enlarged in 1902. Miss Katherine
Harker then operated her elementary school in the house from 1902-1907, when Miss Mary Lockey
founded Castilleja School for Girls. She used the building until new classrooms were completed in 1910
at the school’s present location, the structure then was remodeled again as Nardyne Apartments.
Although virtually unique in Palo Alto, the structure retains its environmental relationship to the
neighborhood through its surfacing material and use of classical elements, variations of which are found
in Colonial Reviva! styles of the era.
P.A. City Directories; P.A. Times 7/2711894, 12/30/96, 6/8/98, 8/30/01, 1/12/02, 3/28/02, 4/16/02, 1/2/17,
1/25/19; Live Oak 6/8/1898; Castilleja Hall Booklet, P.A. Historical Assn.; ’q’he Tall Tree"J, #4, October
1957, 7-8; see P.A. Live Oak 1/1/1900 for early photo.
Organization:
By: Carolyn George;
Date: 1978, 1985
DB Record Date: 6/16/94
Address: 250 Hamilton Avenue
City: Palo Alto
Phone:
Historic Resources Board; P.A
State: CA ZIP: 94301
page 104
1121 BRYANT STo PALO ALTO - FRON%’ [Street! FACADE
Attachment
BRYANT STo PALO ALTO - NORTHWEST CORNER
BRYANT STo PALO ALTO - NORTHWEST CORNER
] 12 ] BRYANT STo PALO ALTO - SOUTH FACADE
t121 BRYANT STo PALO ALTO
May 9, 2005
Attachment B
0
D~t~rftn~nf of Pl~nnin~
Di~dsions
Inspection Services
Planning
Ti"ansportafion
1konald WaGer
475 Gate Five Road, #308
Sausalito, CA 94965
~ubjecc 1121 Bryant Street- i~d[inor Architectura! Review/Design Enhancement
Exception 05PLN-00045, Historic Resources Review, 05PLN-00044
Dear Mr. Wager:
I am wTiting to inform you of my decision on behalf of the Director of Planning and
Community Environment regarding your request for Architectural Review/Design
Enhancement Exception and Historic Resources review. Your request is hereby approved
because all of the required findings for the Historic Resources Review, Architectural
Review and Design Enhancement Exception could be made, as set forth in Palo Alto
Municipal Code (PAMC) Sections 16.49.050, 18.76.020(d), and 18.76.030(c). This
determination is based on the review of all information contained wittSn the project file,
all public comments received and the review of the proposal in comparison to all
applicable zoning and municipal code requirements.
PRO~CT DESCRIPT!ON
Request by Ronald Wager on behalf of Fred and Kathleen Morse for A_rchitecmral
Review!Desig-n Enhancement Exception (DEE) to allow- (a) the raised penthouse roof on
the south elevation to encroach into the daylight plane approximately 33 feet in len~h at
a height of 35 feet, and (b) to allow the proposed photovoltaic modules to extend to a
maximum height of 37 feet above Fade, where 30 feet above Fade would be the
maximum allowed height. A Historic Resources Board Review has also been requested
for the proposed improvements. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the provisions
of the California Environmental Quality Act. Zone District: R-1.
In accordance with the provisions of PA2vIC Chapter 18.77.060 (c), any person may
request a hearing of this item before the Planning and Transportation Commission. Such
request must be made in wTiting to the Planning Division within 14 calendar days of the
publication or mailing of this decision. Should you.have any questions regarding the
Director’s determination, please do not hesitate to contact the Project Plam~er, Steven
Turner, at (650) 329-2155.
Sincerely,
Amy French
Manager of Current Planning
250 Hamilton Avenue
RO, Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
650.329.2404
650.329.2154 fax
1121 Bryant Street
05PLN-00044, 00045
May 9, 2005
Page 2
Attachments: Findings for Approval
Conditions of Approval
Copies to:Applicant!Owner
Shert3; Barez, 1127 Forest Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
1121 Bryant Street
05PLN-00044, 00045
May 9, 2005
Page 3
The design and architecture of the proposed improvements, as conditioned, complies with
the Findings for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76 of the PAMC.
The desig-n is consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the citF~’s
Comprehensive Plan in that the project would be consistent with Comprehensive Plan
policies, includin__. Poticv L-51 : Encourage public and private upkeep and
preservation of resources that have historic merit, including residences listed in the
Historic Inventory: and Polic-~’ L-48: Promote high quality, creative design and site
planning that is compatible with surromading development and public spaces.
The design is compatible with the immediate environment of the site in that the
proposed changes will affect only the rear elevation of the third floor roof and will
maintain the historic character of the existing structure.
The design is appropriate to the function of the project in that the project, which
involves and addition to increase ceiling height to the minimum standards at the third
floor residential unit will allow better use of the space and would allow the
installation of a roof top alternative energy system that will reduce electric demand fro
the uses at the site.
The design is compatible with the character of the Professo~dlle Historic District in
that the proposed improvements would be minimally visible from the public space
and that the significant first two floors of the building would retain their visual
dominance.
12.The materials, textures, colors and details of construction are appropriate expression
to the design and function in that the materials to be used to construct the requested
change would match the existing exterior materials and colors on the building. The
minor exterior change at the thirds floor would be compatible with the adjacent and
neighborir~g st_rucmres, !an_dscape elements and ~_ctions;
15.The design is energy efficient and incorporates renewable energy design elements
including, but not limited to: (A) Exterior ener~ design elements, (B) Lntemal
lighting service and climatic control systems, and (C) Building siting and landscape
elements. The request includes an exception for height to allow in the installation of a
rooftop alternative energy system that will reduce electric demand fro the uses at the
site.
16. The design is consistent and compatible with the purpose of architectural review,
1 t21 BD, ant Street
05PLN-00044, 00045
May 9, 2005
Page 4
which is to: 1. Promote orderly and harmonious development in the ciD’; 2. Enhance
the desirability of residence or investment in the city; 3. Encourage the attainment of
the most desirable use of land and improvements; 4. Enhance the desirability of living
conditions upon the immediate site or in adjacent areas; and 5. Promote visual
environments which are of high aesthetic quality, and varieD; and which, at the same
time, are considerate of each other.
Findings #5 through #t 1, #13, and #!4 are not applicable to this project.
1121 BD’ant Street
05PLN-00044, 00045
May 9, 2005
Page 5
FiND~NGS ~OR DESIGN EN%LgNCEMENT EXCEPTIONS
There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the
property or site improvements involved that do not apply generally to property in the
same zone district, in that the project site, located in the Single-Family Residence
District, contains a multi-family residential building that is listed as a Category- 3
structure in the City ifPalo Alto Historic Inventor?,. The building, built in 1892,
contains seven residential units on the first two floors and an eight unit is on the third
floor of the building. A portion of the ceiling height at the third floor is lower than a
typical ceiling height, which makes a portion of the unit useable only for storage.
The granting of the exception will enhance the appearance of the site or structure, or
. improve the neighborhood character of the project and preserve an existing or
proposed architectural style, in a manner which would not othepa;ise be accomplished
through strict application of the minimum requirements of Title 18 and the standards
for review set forth in this chapter, in that the further extension into the daylight plane
as a result of the requested project will allow the third floor to become more usable,
while maintaining the historic character of the building. The additional height, also a
requested exception, would also allow the installation of a roof top alternative energy
system that will reduce electric demand for the uses at the site. This system would be
minimally intrusive to the adjacent property owners and to the historic character of
the building.
The exceptions are related to a site improvement that will not be detrimental or
injurious to property, or improvement in the site vicinity and will not be detrimental to
the public health, safety’, general welfare or convenience in that the exceptions are
minor in scope that will not substantially affect the character of the building and the
surrounding Profesorville neighborhood.
1 ] 21 Bryant Street
05PLN-00044, 00045
May 9, 2005
Page 6
COND!TiONS OF A2PPRO V)~L,,
Pianr~i~_g Division
1.The project shall be constructed in substantial conformance with the plans submitted
on February 8, 2005, on file with the City of Palo Alto Planning Division.
2.A copy of this approval letter shall be printed on the blueprints submitted v,,q_th any
application for permit through the Building Inspections Division.
CONDITIONS OF BUILDING PERMIT iSSU~_24CE
The project includes a major remove and reconstruction of bearing walls. A complete
structural analysis will be required. Provide information regarding prior use of the
third floor as a residential unit.. Rear stairs show 8"R and 9"T. Only valid for a single
tenant stair.
P,~b!ic Worm Depart,.~e~t
STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION: Storm water pollution prevention
measures must be incorporated into the project durin~ const_ruction. The Cit)"s
standard "Pollution Prevention - It’s Part of the Plan" sheet must be included in the
plan set. Copies are available from Public Works at the Development Center.
Fire Depa~rae~t
~a.!f the requested work ;~ to exceed 50% of valuation., fire sprinfders will be ~,.,~,~,~.;~’~
(PA_M C 15.04. ! 60)