Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 7572 City of Palo Alto (ID # 7572) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 2/6/2017 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: 203 Forest Avenue: Appeal of Director's Decision Title: 203 Forest Avenue [14PLN-00472]: Appeal of the Planning and Community Environment Director's Denial of an Architectural Review Application for a 4,996 Square Foot Residential Addition Above an Existing 4,626 Square Foot Commercial Building. Environmental Assessment: Not a Project. Pursuant to Section 15270, CEQA Does not Apply to Disapproved Projects. Zoning District: Downtown Commercial (CD-C (GF)(P)) District From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends the City Council uphold the Director’s denial of an Architectural Review application, thereby denying the appeal based on associated findings. Executive Summary The Director denied a proposal to construct a 4,996 square foot (sf) residential addition to an existing office building at 203 Forest Avenue. The applicant proposed to maintain the existing one and a half story building and office use, and construct one new residential unit on the third and fourth floor above the ground floor office use. The applicant intended to subdivide the commercial and residential uses by creating two condominium units. Typically, development under 5,000 sf is reviewed at the staff level. However, the Zoning Ordinance allows for the Director of Planning and Community Environment to elevate such projects to the Architectural Review Board (ARB) when the project will significantly alter the character or appearance of a building or site. The ARB forwards a recommendation to the Director. The ARB reviewed the project on May 21, 2015, September 1, 2016, and November 17, 2016. Following ARB review, and pursuant to ARB recommendation, the Director denied the proposed City of Palo Alto Page 2 project in December 2016. The applicant has appealed this decision to the City Council. The appellant’s reason for the appeal is provided in Attachment C and summarized below with staff’s responses. The City Council may accept this report and adopt the staff recommendation on Consent, thereby denying the appeal and accepting the Director’s decision based on the information contained herein. Alternatively, if three or more City Councilmembers request, the matter may be pulled from the Consent calendar and scheduled for a future noticed public hearing (approximately 6-8 weeks from this Council date). Included with this report are all relevant records, including the Director’s determination letter (Attachment B) and excerpts of the transcripts of the ARB meetings on May 21, 2015, on September 1, 2016, and November 17, 2016. (Attachment G provides links to each ARB staff report, including minutes and videos, and including records from the May 28, 2015 Historic Resources Board review.) Background The proposed project is a 4,996 sf single family addition to an existing office building in downtown Palo Alto. Typically, additions of less than 5,000 sf are reviewed by City staff for conformance with the Context-Based Design Criteria (PAMC 18.18.110), Architectural Review Findings (PAMC 18.76.020(d)), and are processed at staff level in accordance with the Architectural Review Process (PAMC 18.76.020 (b)). However, PAMC Section 18.76.020(b)(2)(I) allows for the Director of Planning and Community Environment to elevate such projects the Architectural Review Board (ARB) when the project will significantly alter the character or appearance of a building or site. The ARB (PAMC 18.76.020(b)(2)(c)) then makes a recommendation for ultimate decision by the Director of Planning and Community Environment. The Director’s decision can be appealed to the City Council. The ARB recommended denial to the Director on November 17, 2016. This recommendation followed three hearings before the ARB on May 21, 2015, September 1, 2016, and November 17, 2016. The Director issued the determination letter on December 14, 2016. The Palo Alto Municipal Code provides 14 days to file an appeal, and a timely appeal was filed by the project applicant. A discussion of the ARB proceedings is provided below. ARB Review and Recommendation The ARB reviewed the project plans and received oral testimony from the applicant at public hearings on May 21, 2015 and on September 1, 2016. The City’s Historic Resource Board also reviewed the project at the May 28, 2015 hearing. Both ARB meetings were used to provide feedback on the design of the project. Staff reports and minutes from these meetings are linked in Attachment G. City of Palo Alto Page 3 The ARB discussed the aesthetic quality of the project, proposed floor plans and massing, access to and from the site and overall purpose of the design. Overall, the Board noted that they could not support the project for two reasons: it does not comply with the City’s zoning ordinance, and the Architectural Review Findings cannot be made. With regard to the zoning ordinance, the ARB identified the following provisions of the Downtown Commercial Community Zoning District with Ground Floor and Pedestrian Combining overlays (CD-C(GF)(P):  Setbacks: Development standards in the zoning district do not include required setbacks from property lines and maximum site coverage, with the exception of a 10 foot rear setback for the residential portion of the building. Balconies/open space are allowed to extend up to 6 feet into this 10 foot setback. The proposed residential unit is set back 10 foot 6 inches from the rear property line. The open terrace/balcony of the residential component on the third floor would extend to the rear property line, with a four foot wide landscaped buffer. However, this landscape buffer is inconsistent with the Zoning Code as proposed. The buffer is a paved surface with landscape planters, which constitutes a continuous balcony and terrace area up to the property line.  Parking: The Zoning Code (Section 18.54.020(b)(2) requires that residential uses provide parking in a garage that has an interior dimension of 10-feet in width. The proposed tandem parking stall is nine-feet-six-inches (9’-6”) wide that would require approval of a variance. Further, Board could not make the Architectural Review Findings in the affirmative for the project. Specifically, the Board found that the project was incompatible with the surrounding environment (Finding #2); and that the massing was larger than it needed to be (Finding #5). The Board also found that the project did not promote a pedestrian friendly or safe design (Finding #10), that the design was not appropriate for the function of the project (Finding #3), and that the design was not sustainable (Finding #15). The Board and staff extended an opportunity to the applicant to revise the plans, but the applicant expressed his desire to maintain the proposed design. The Board requested that the project return with a recommendation for denial; the denial recommendation was made on November 17, 2016. The Director denied the project on December 14, 2016. The Director’s letter (Attachment B) outlines the grounds for denial, which are based on the recommendation of the ARB. Project Description The applicant proposes to maintain the existing building and office use, and construct one new residential unit. The proposed residential gross floor area would be 4,996 sf, which includes an open residential floor plan on the fourth floor, three bedrooms on the third floor, a study area City of Palo Alto Page 4 on the second floor, and the private stair and elevator access to each area. The applicant intends to subdivide the commercial and residential uses by creating two condominium units. The proposed alterations include two new, enclosed parking spaces on the ground level for the new residential unit. These two spaces would be provided in a new tandem garage added to the east side of the building using an existing curb cut and driveway access from Forest Avenue. The existing, one covered parking space for commercial use will remain at the main building entrance with access from the existing driveway. This parking space would be designed to comply with required accessibility standards. The curb cut that currently provides vehicle access onto Emerson Street will be closed and access to the building at that location would be restricted for pedestrian use only. The two existing pedestrian entrances to the commercial space will be maintained. A new stairway is proposed for the residential unit; it will be located between the existing commercial entrances adjacent to Forest Avenue. A new elevator access for the residential tenant will have direct access from Forest Avenue. The proposed building has undergone a redesign since last year, and now consists of a predominately glass window building with a concrete block wall screen at the corner of Forest Avenue and Emerson Street. A board formed concrete tower encloses the three story elevator at the rear portion of the building along Forest Avenue, and a two story garage comprised of translucent glass door and an anodized aluminum canopy are located at the rear of the property. The following discretionary applications are being requested:  Architectural Review – Major (AR): The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.77.070. AR applications are reviewed by the ARB and recommendations are forwarded to the Planning & Community Development Director for action within five business days of the Board’s recommendation. Action by the Director is appealable to the City Council if filed within 14 days of the decision. AR projects are evaluated against specific findings. All findings must be made in the affirmative to approve the project. Failure to make any one finding requires project redesign or denial. The findings relative to the Director’s denial are explained in Attachment B.1 1 On December 12, 2016, the City Council adopted Ordinance 5403 which consolidated Architectural Review findings in the Code. These changes were intended to streamline the findings via non-substantive changes. The ordinance did not become effective until January 12, 2017, after the project at 203 Forest had been denied, and thus the new findings are not in use here. If the City Council accepts the appeal, removes the item from consent, and asks staff to notice a public hearing in the future, staff will prepare an analysis using the new findings included in Ordinance 5403. City of Palo Alto Page 5 Discussion A summary of key appeal statements is provided below, followed by information about the issues raised in the appeal and initial staff comments. If the appeal is pulled from the consent calendar, Council would need to schedule this item for a noticed public hearing, at which time the Council would conduct a “de novo” hearing, which means it may consider any of the issues raised by appellants or any other issue related to architectural review. Appeal Comment 1: The appellant states the following: The project successfully promotes harmonious development in the City in that it maintains a scale and character consistent with surrounding uses. The building creates a block-completing structure that mirrors the height and scale of buildings both across the street (northwest corner of Emerson Street and Forest Avenue) and at the other end of the block (northwest and northeast corners of Emerson Street and Hamilton Avenue). Staff Response: The proposed project is subject to the City’s Architectural Review Findings. One such finding requires projects to promote harmonious transitions in scale and character. As noted in Attachment B, the ARB and Director determined the project does not promote a harmonious transition in scale and character. While buildings to the southwest and northeast of the site contain structures that are five and three stories tall, respectively, buildings to the east, northwest, and south are single story. The building located tangential to the site along Forest Avenue is the same height as the existing structure. Therefore, placing a four story building immediately adjacent to a single story building constitutes an abrupt change in the scale and character of the street block. Further, the project contains areas inside the structure that are inaccessible. These inaccessible areas unnecessarily increase the volume, mass, and height of the building, exacerbating the incompatibilities with the height and character of the adjacent structure. Therefore, staff concluded, the project does not promote a harmonious transition in scale and character from buildings along the Emerson Street streetscape. The Architectural Review Board made similar comments during their review in May 2015. Staff sought Board input regarding building massing and transitions. The Board raised concerns regarding the site context and massing of the building. The resubmitted project in June of 2016 did not reduce the mass of the structure and its scale and character did not change to promote a harmonious development pattern. Appeal Comment 2: The appellant states the following: The project is compatible to the greatest extent possible with the immediate environment of the site. The ARB Findings for Denial states: “Buildings surrounding the site consists of more contemporary designs with solid concrete walls and intricate detailing.” It would be difficult for anyone with experience in observing and identifying City of Palo Alto Page 6 architectural styles arrive as this conclusion. The existing building is identified as “mid-century” in style. The adjoining building to the east (along Forest Avenue) is also a mid-century structure, with the same concrete block structure as the proposed Project, and the same repeating window patterns as the project (in fact the width of the proposed window design is based on the width of the windows in the adjoining building). That building was built contemporaneously with ours (the applicant’s). Characterizing this neighbor as “more contemporary” is just an outright misstatement of fact. The adjoining building on the Emerson Street (east) façade, according to its owner, is considerably older than our (the applicant’s)building, although it was modified in the late 1980s with applied moldings and cannot not now be described as belonging to any particular architectural style. As such, it is not possible, nor desirable, to attempt to emulate this architecture. Staff Response: This is an understandable comment since the building to the east of the project along Forest Avenue represents a mid-century design, comprised of a glass and concrete block structure. However, Finding #5 requires that project design promote a harmonious transition in scale. The project proposes a four story building. The site located immediately tangential to the project along Forest Avenue contains a two story building. Similarly, the site immediately adjacent to the project along Emerson Street contains a building that is the same height as the existing structure at 203 Forest. The project would place a third story immediately adjacent to this structure. Therefore, the project does not employ transitions in scale. However, this particular building employs solid concrete block walls and a rhythm of concrete blocks and glass. The proposed project differs from this structure. The project employs an open mesh style of concrete blocks which contrasts the solid concrete blocks. The project actually alters the compatible design of the existing building, which is composed of the same concrete blocks as the neighboring building along Forest Avenue. Further, the first two floors are comprised of mesh concrete blocks followed by glass with a concrete portico and elevator tower. Solid glass walls comprise the façade of the third and fourth floors. This style does not emulate the alternating rhythm of materials found on the building located to the east along Forest Avenue. Therefore, while the building may exhibit a similar architectural theme from a time period, its style is a deviation from the adjacent structure on Forest Avenue. The architecture of the building is incompatible with other structures surrounding the site. The building located tangential to the site along Emerson Street employs concrete walls with a pattern of subdued vertical columns framing windows and a doorway. The building to the north of this is comprised of stone, framed windows, and ivy covered walls. Buildings along the south and east sides of Forest Avenue and southwest of the project site employ a mixture of solid concrete and stucco walls with a pattern of glass windows and cantilevered metal window shades with sloping and peaked roof lines. The proposed features and design constitutes a deviation from these buildings because it employs concrete mesh blocks and solid glass walls City of Palo Alto Page 7 with rectilinear rooflines. These features are incompatible with the materials, architectural details, and detailing of the adjacent buildings. Appeal Comments 3 and 4: The appellant states the following: 3) The proposed project received significant input from several City Departments, including direct input from the Chief Transportation Official and his Staff. They concluded that the proposed parking plan for the project, given the City’s desire to close off the existing Emerson Street driveway (thereby increasing on-street parking), was both workable and recommended. This negates any inconsistency listed in the ARB Findings for Denial related to traffic and parking. Additionally, the ARB itself professed its approval of the parking design in 2015. 4) The items raised in the ARB Findings for Denial relating to design, environment, circulation, traffic, and landscaping, are inconsistent with input received from City and Department Staff on these matters and are in direct conflict with written findings and Department Staff recommendations on these same matters as they pertained to prior (2015) project design, at which time Department Staff found the very same designs to be consistent and worthy of approval. Staff Response: Staff believes the administrative record reflects a clear history of concern expressed to the applicant regarding the proposed parking plan, curb cuts, architectural design, and a variety of other concerns. The administrative record does not contain evidence of an approved parking plan. Staff noted in comments to the applicant on December 23, 2014, that the “at-grade parking facility serving the commercial space does not have sufficient distance from the street so that vehicle (sic) need to back out into or over the street or sidewalk (PAMC 18.54.010(a)(5)).” The correct Code Section is 18.54.020(a)(5). Moreover, staff met with the property owner on various occasions to discuss specific areas of concerns previously expressed by staff and board members. In the final analysis, reviewing the formal application, the ARB unanimously recommended project denial; the director concurred. Attached to this report are minutes from the ARB meetings as well as comment letters transmitted to the applicant (Attachments E and F, respectively). Appeal Comment 5: The appellant states: Staff has been unable or unwilling to provide specific comments on the proposed building designs in a timely fashion and has generally provided no comments whatsoever. The project has been classified at different times as both Major and Minor, notwithstanding that it should be only a Minor Review. The ARB review process is arbitrary and uncertain in the best of circumstances, and the appellant believes that they received a review that was inconsistent with the stated goals and purposes of the Board. In effect, the appellant City of Palo Alto Page 8 has not received the review to which they are legally entitled, both by the Department and from the Architectural Review Board. Staff Response: A Minor review is conducted by staff; a Major review requires ARB review. The municipal code includes a list of projects that are eligible for Minor review. However, the code also stipulates that the Director may determine that a qualifying Minor project may be considered a Major project if it will significantly alter the character or appearance of a building or site. This was the case for the subject application. While initially filed as a Minor application, it became evident after reviewing the plans, that ARB review was desirable. This was communicated to the applicant. The appellant makes other comments asserting that the architectural review process is arbitrary, uncertain, and inconsistent. To the contrary, the process for reviewing architectural review applications is clearly addressed in the municipal code. The review of such projects is subject to specific findings. Staff recognizes, however, that it can be challenging designing an appropriately scaled building when the surrounding context is not consistent with the project objectives. It is further worth noting that most projects get reviewed and recommended for approval from the ARB. However, in instances when the applicant fails to address significant and repeated design concerns, or requests a project denial from the ARB as opposed to working through the issues with the board, one should expect that application to be denied. Such action is not denying the applicant their legally entitled review as stated by the appellant. Rather, the applicant had several opportunities to address the concerns and instead opted out of the process, declining to even show at the last hearing. Environmental Review The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, the proposal is not a project pursuant to Section CEQA 15270, which states CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves. Should the Council choose to remove the project from consent and continue the hearing to a later date, an updated environmental analysis will be provided. Attachments: Attachment A: Location map (PDF) Attachment B: Director's Denial Letter (PDF) Attachment C: Applicant's Appeal Request (PDF) Attachment D: Comprehensive Plan Analysis (DOCX) Attachment E: Project Review Letter from December 23, 2014 (PDF) Attachment F: Project Correspondence (PDF) Attachment G: Public Hearing Chronology (DOCX) City of Palo Alto Page 9 Attachment H: Project Plans from September 2016 ARB Hearing - SEE COMMENTS (DOCX) 120-27-090 120-27-038 120-27-046 120-27-047 120-27-048 120-27-084 120-27-039 120-27-034 120-27-035 120-27-036 120-27-027 120-27-026 120-27-025 120-27-007 120-27-019 120-27-020 120-27-021 120-27-022 120-27-023 120-27-024 120-27-018 120-27-015 120-27-014 120-27-008 120-27-011 120-61-006 120-61-005 120-61-004 120-61-003 120-61-002 120-61-001 120-61-016120-61-015 120-61-014 120-61-013 120-61-012 120-61-011 120-61-010 120-61-009 120-61-007 120-61-008 120-61-021 120-61-020 120-61-019120-61-018 120-61-017 120-61-029120-61-028 120-61-027 120-61-026 120-61-025 120-61-024 120-61-035120-61-034 120-61-033 120-61-032 120-61-031 120-61-030 120-61-022 120-61-023 120-27-013 120-27-012 120-27-009 120-27-010 120-26-073 120-26-074 120 120-27-075 120-27-074 120-27-073 120-27-085 120-27-070 120-27-066 120-27-071 120-27-072 120-27-049 120-70-009 120-70-008 120-70-007 120-70-006 120-70-005 120-70-004 120- 120-70-002 120-70 120-70-010 120-51-019 120-51-018 120-51-017 120-51-016 120-51-015 120-51-014 120-51-013 120-51-012 120-51-011 120-51-010 120-51-009 120-51-008 120-51-007 120-51-006 120-51-005 120-51-004 120-51-003 120-51-002 120-51-001 1 120-47-0 120-27-064 120-27-063 120 120-27-053 120-27-017 120-27-016 120-27-077 120-27-045 120-28-006120-27-076 01 120-72-002 03 120-72-004 05 120-72-006 E M ERSO N ST R E ET H O M ER HIG H ST R EET H A MILT O N A V E N U E E M E RS O N STREET EET FO REST A F O REST A V E N U E R A M O N A STREET R A M O N A STREET L A N E 7 E AST L A N E 6 E A ST 12 W EST L A N E 11 W EST HIG H ST REET F O REST A V E N U E L A PC-2967 RM-15 P C-3707C R PF RT-50 C D-S(P) RT-35RT-50 CD-C (P) CD-C(GF)(P) C D-S(GF)(P) 66 643 643 635 635 627 629 631 635 635 685 677 675 655 645 645- 685 666 660 660- 666 620 620180 180 164 164 158 156 624 624 628 628 632 632 636 636 640 640 644 644 617 617 621 621 153 151 151 -165 185 175 171 1 7 1-1 9 5 195 203 203 642 642 640 640 636 636 200 200 623 630 630616 616 208 208 228 228 220 220 238 240 240 547 201 209 209 215 215 225 225 595 595 229 229 231 231 619 611 611-623 625 625-631 538 540 542 536 552 552 548 548 546 54 541 236 230 230-238 734 734723 723 721 721 728 724722 720 718 716 714 730 712 710 708 706 704702 702- 730 242 220 220-244 240 244 239 744 74 701 701 731 731 20 160 160 162 728 728-732 732 250 250 275 275 270 270 7 724 72 651 651 225 221 221-225 223 227 227 668 668 235 235 155 165 137 137 145 145 700 700 744 111 150 150 100 703 703 101 139 139 654 654 695 735 735 707 707 800 800 812 812 818 791 791 153 718 718 774 774 761 761 795 795 745 745 201 201 209 209 225 235 233 231 229 227 223 223-239 726 543 727 727 733 806 806 698 698 161 161159 159 157 157 777 777 247 247 658 658 739 700 700 668 668 730 781 234 151 257 218 218 705 705 600 600 229 229 597 597 This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Zoning District: Zone District Subject Site 0'114' 203 Forest Avenue Project Location Map CITY O F PALO A L TO I N C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2015 City of Palo Alto cfong2, 2015-05-13 09:32:46 (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\meta\view.mdb) Attachment A 14PLN-00472 City of Palo Alto Page 1 of 3 ATTACHMENT D COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS 203 Forest Avenue / File No. 14PLN-00472 Comp Plan Goals and Policies How project adheres or does not adhere to Comp Plan The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the site is Regional/Community Commercial. The project continues the Regional Commercial land use. Land Use and Community Design Element Goal L-1: A well-designed, compact city, providing residents and visitors with attractive neighborhoods, work places, shopping district, public facilities and open spaces. The project does not maintain the scale and character of the land uses in this area of the City. The project introduces a four story building adjacent to single- and two-story buildings that are immediately northwest of the site. The project does not provide a gradual transition in scale from the commercial buildings to the northwest to the proposed residential use. The project places a residential use on the third and fourth stories immediately adjacent to single-story non- residential uses. The fourth story penthouse exacerbates the proportions of the project relative to other buildings in the area and creates an incompatible sense of scale due to the lack of gradual transitions. Therefore, the project is inconsistent with Policy L-5 and Policy L-6 and does not fulfill Goal L-1 of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. POLICY L-5: Maintain the scale and character of the City. Avoid land uses that are overwhelming and unacceptable due their size and scale. POLICY L-6: Where possible, avoid abrupt changes in scale and density between residential and non- residential areas and between residential areas of different densities. To promote compatibility and gradual transitions between land uses, place zoning district boundaries at mid-block locations rather than along streets wherever possible. Goal L-4: Inviting, pedestrian-scale centers that offer a variety of retail and commercial services and provide focal points and community gathering places for the City’s residential neighborhoods and Employment Districts. The project is not compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood nor does it establish an inviting pedestrian-scale or an inviting street corner and pedestrian character. The project proposes a 1950’s architectural design with mesh brick façade and a modern designed building on the third and fourth floors with glass windows. Surrounding buildings consists of stucco and concrete with intricate details sculpted into the buildings’ design. The proposed mesh brick façade on the first two floors and modern third and fourth floor contrast these styles and is POLICY L-18: Encourage the upgrading and revitalization of selected Centers in a manner that is compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhoods. POLICY L-20: Encourage street frontages that contribute to retail vitality in all Centers. Reinforce street corners with buildings that come up to the sidewalk or that form corner plazas. 14PLN-00472 City of Palo Alto Page 2 of 3 POLICY L-23: Maintain and enhance the University Avenue/Downtown area as the central business district of the City, with a mix of commercial, civic, cultural, recreational and residential uses. Promote quality design that recognizes the regional and historical importance of the area and reinforces its pedestrian character. incompatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed pedestrian areas are located tangential to a vehicle parking space and the trash enclosure. The position of these pedestrian areas creates incompatible uses and does not reinforce a pedestrian character. Further, the proposed seating area does not promote an enhanced corner plaza or pedestrian friendly area because it is not directly accessible from the street. The project proposes to retain the office space which is inconsistent with Policy L-23 because it does not incorporate commercial uses. The project does not incorporate public art as well. Therefore, the project is inconsistent with the respective policies and Goal L-4 of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. POLICY L-24: Ensure that University Avenue/Downtown is pedestrian-friendly and supports bicycle use. Use public art and other amenities to create an environment that is inviting to pedestrians. Goal L-6: Well-designed buildings that create coherent development patterns and enhance city streets and public spaces. The project is inconsistent with Goal L-6 and its supporting policies. The site planning for the project is not compatible with surrounding development and public spaces because vehicles must back out over the curb and into the street to exit the site in two locations. This design compromises safety and compatibility with the surrounding development and public spaces. The project proposes a 1950’s architectural design on the first two floors comprised of a mesh brick façade and a modern style building comprised of glass windows on the third and fourth floor. The project is flanked by intricate stucco and concrete designed buildings and more traditionally designed stucco buildings. These buildings employ arched and setback entries that relate to a human-scale, and have sloped and peaked rooflines. The project proposes a blank solid wall at street level along Forest Street. Further, the four story building does not relate to a human scale and mass. Therefore the project is inconsistent with the Goal and Policies in the Comprehensive Plan requiring well-designed buildings that create coherent development patterns in the City. POLICY L-48: Promote high quality, creative design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces. POLICY L-49: Design buildings to revitalize streets and public spaces and to enhance a sense of community and personal safety. Provide an ordered variety of entries, porches, windows, bays and balconies along public ways where it is consistent with neighborhood character; avoid blank or solid walls at street level; and include human-scale details and massing. Transportation Element Goal T-3: Facilities, services and programs that encourage and promote walking and bicycling. The project improves amenities such as seating, bicycle parking, street trees, and outdoor 14PLN-00472 City of Palo Alto Page 3 of 3 POLICY T-22: Improve amenities such as seating, lighting, bicycle parking, street trees, and interpretive stations along bicycle and pedestrian paths and in City parks to encourage walking and cycling and enhance the feeling of safety. furniture. However, it does not encourage a pedestrian friendly design because it locates pedestrian areas adjacent to incompatible parking uses and proposes vehicle access over the sidewalks in two locations. This design reduces the feeling of pedestrian safety. Further, the project detracts from a pedestrian friendly environment by not providing defined entrances for the office use and residential uses. This is embodied in the project’s positioning of a staircase landing adjacent to the office entrance, and an elevator entrance that is not identified for residential uses. Therefore, the project is inconsistent with Policy T-22 and T-23, and it does not fulfill Goal T-3. POLICY T-23: Encourage pedestrian-friendly design features such as sidewalks, street trees, on-site parking, public spaces, gardens, outdoor furniture, art, and interesting architectural details. Housing Element Goal H-2: Support the construction of housing near schools, transit, parks, shopping, employment, and cultural institutions. The project includes one housing unit, which would create a mixed-use development on the site. This proposal is consistent with Policy H2.2. POLICY H2.2: Continue to support the redevelopment of suitable lands for mixed uses containing housing to encourage compact, infill development, optimize the use of existing urban services and support transit use. December 23, 2014 Ken Group Architects 2657 Spring Street Redwood City, CA 94302 Attn: Ken Hayes Subject: 203 Forest Avenue, Application #14PLN-00472, Minor Architectural Board Review, Notice of Incomplete Dear Mr. Hayes: Your application, referenced above, has undergone review for completeness and consistency with City of Palo Alto policies and regulations and cannot be deemed complete at this time. We have evaluated your project based on the plans and information currently on file. Additional comments may be made at a later time when we receive revised plans and additional information. Corrections/changes/items needed to complete the application: Subdivision 1. Declare the intent of ownership (i.e. one owner; subdivision or condominium) in the project description letter. Development Review 2. Provide the building plans and certified measurements from John Northway as referenced in your application. 3. Provide evidence to show that the office space is a lawfully existing use, such as a Use and Occupancy Permit. 4. Specify proposed site coverage in the site information table on sheet A0.1. 5. Show floor area breakdown of existing office use. 6. Differentiate areas for landscape open space coverage and usable open spaces. These are two separate requirements. 14PLN-00472 City of Palo Alto Page 2 of 5 7. Highlight proposed landscape open space and usable open space on plan and summarize area calculation in the site information table on Sheet A1.1. 8. Proposed planters shall not count toward usable open space as it does not meet the minimum size requirements. 9. Proposed atrium is considered as covered and enclosed space when skylight is in closed position. If an area is covered and enclosed, it shall not count as open space and would count toward gross floor area. 10. Proposed residential attic space is deemed to be usable as it has permanent access and not located on the roof of a building. This area shall count toward gross floor area. 11. Permanently covered and enclosed area devoted to storage or similar use, including all waste disposal and storage facility, irrespective of the waste source or distribution, shall count toward gross floor area. 12. Show details on trash enclosure that may be visible from public right of way. 13. Highlight proposed pedestrian overlay space in area diagrams on Sheet A1.1 and include square footage in the summary table. 14. Two long term and one short term bike parking are required for this proposal. 15. Provide existing building elevations to show the proposed changes and parts to be remained. 16. Existing elevation photographs shall be in larger format to improve readability for design analysis. 17. Show identification signage for ADA parking on site plan. Design 18. Provide justification and rationale on how the project would meet the Context-Based Design Criteria under PAMC 18.18.110. Urban Forestry 19. Two publicly owned specimen oak trees are to be retained and provided with enhanced root growing conditions from their current restricted state. The cork oak is a viable and unique and sizable specimen recognized by the City of Palo Alto, Canopy, and is the subject of local tree walks due to its unique cork bark characteristics and character. The 14PLN-00472 City of Palo Alto Page 3 of 5 holly oak is a healthy tree contributing to the urban canopy. Both specimen oaks are important to the Goals, Policies & Programs of the Comprehensive Plan, Urban Forest Master Plan, Downtown Improvement Plan and Zoning Ordinance. 20. Show both frontages, Emerson and Forest, with extended tree well openings, optimally as a narrow parkway strip to include one new medium size tree (Ginkgo b. ‘Autumn Gold’, Maidenhair Tree) on each frontage at least 10’ from any curb cut or utility. Low growing ground cover with low water irrigation may be added, utilizing large flat step stones for lateral pedestrian crossing. 21. Urban Forestry requests and commits to any design meetings with applicant and City engineering regarding the welfare of the specimen oaks during design review or building permit level revisions. 22. The sidewalk base shall utilize Engineered Soil Mix, 24”-36” depth from the curb to building face or property line for the length of the parkway strip. Plans shall note that: “At time of sidewalk demolition, the project site arborist shall instruct where existing roots diminish to allow depth of a new trench base for the enhanced tree root area. The new sidewalk may be re-poured on top for normal pedestrian passage over the root area. 23. For building permit issuance, the Tree Preservation Report shall be updated to reflect the above and specific oversight of the above and details using the latest plan sets. It shall detail any custom pruning needed for oak clearance from new building construction. 24. Attached are Engineered Soil Mix specs and Handout for dissemination. Please forward also to the civil engineer the pollutant removal document for water quality credit if it is able to be recognized for the project. Historic Review 25. The project includes alteration to an existing structure that is more than 50 years old. To determine whether this is a historical resource under California Environmental Quality Act and to access impacts on a historical resource, a Historical Resource Evaluation Report is required. The scope of work for the Evaluation is attached. PWD Recycling 26. Trash area for commercial and residential uses shall be separated. Residential refuse carts is recommended to be stored in proximity with residential use (i.e. garage or under residential stair). 14PLN-00472 City of Palo Alto Page 4 of 5 Transportation 27. Proposed residential parking does not meet the minimum stall width requirement of 9 foot. 28. At-grade parking facility serving commercial space does not have sufficient distance from the street so that vehicle need to back out into or over a public street or sidewalk (PAMC 18.54.010(a)(5)). It is recommended to maintain the curb facing Emerson Street to ensure safe access in and out this proposed ADA parking space. 29. Provide justification on how proposed building design would provide sufficient sight distance and relief traffic hazards at the (residential) garage exit. Green Building 30. The project is a new R3 single-family dwelling and therefore shall comply with the following requirements for electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE): a. The property owner shall provide as minimum a panel capable to accommodate a dedicated branch circuit and service capacity to install at least a 208/240V, 50 amperes grounded AC outlet (Level 2 EVSE). The raceway shall terminate in close proximity to the proposed location of the charging system into a listed cabinet, box, enclosure, or receptacle. The raceway shall be installed so that minimal removal of materials is necessary to complete the final installation. The raceway shall have capacity to accommodate a 100-ampere circuit. b. Design. The proposed location of a charging station may be internal or external to the dwelling, and shall be in close proximity to an on-site parking space. The proposed design must comply with all applicable design guidelines, setbacks and other code requirements. PAMC 5263 (Ord. 5228 § 2, 2014) Items for consideration: 1. Community outreach is recommended to address resident concerns prior to resubmittal. 2. Additional comments were provided by Building Inspection, Fire Department, PW Watershed Protection Group, Water, Gas & Wastewater Utilities, PW Electric Utilities, and Green Building Group that need to be addressed in the building permit process (see attachments). 3. Staff has concerns and questions on how the current design would meet the findings of the Context-Based Design Criteria set forth in PAMC 18.18.110. A meeting with staff is recommended prior to resubmittal. Additional comments may be made by PWD Engineering in the nearest future. 14PLN-00472 City of Palo Alto Page 5 of 5 Please contact me at 650-838-2996 or christy.fong@cityofpaloalto.org if you have any questions. Sincerely, Christy Fong Planner Attachments: Urban Forestry - Engineered Soil Mix specs and Handout for dissemination Historic Review – Scope for Historic Resource Evaluation Comments from various departments ATTACHMENT G PUBLIC HEARING CHRONOLOGY 203 Forest Avenue / File No. 14PLN-00472 Date and Hearing Architectural Review Board (ARB) November 17, 2016 Report Link http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/54709 Minute Link http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/55214 Video Link http://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-52/ Date and Hearing ARB September 1, 2016 Report Link http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/53660 Minute Link http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/54329 Video Link http://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-48/ Date and Hearing ARB May 21, 2015 Report Link http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/47434 Minute Link http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/53694 Video Link https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=37IXeUXyrR4&start=79&width=420&height=315 Date and Hearing Historic Resource Board May 28, 2015 Report Link https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/47492 Minute Link http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/55647 Video Link http://midpenmedia.org/historic-resources-board-12/ Attachment H Hardcopies of project plans are provided to ARB MembersCity Council. These plans are available to the public by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. Project Plans These plans are available to the public by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning 2. Search for “203 Forest Avenue” and open the record by clicking on the Blue dot 3. Review the record details and open the “more details” option under the second heading for 203 Forest Avenue 14PLN-00472 4. Use the “Records Info” drop down menu and select “Attachments” 5. Open the attachment named “203 Forest City Council ARB Appeal Submittal 2-6- 2017203 Forest - ARB Resubmittal - full size - 20160609 - FINAL.pdf” Field Code Changed