HomeMy WebLinkAbout0473.000L.·.· ~'. I· .....•
,
I
!
-
, .
August 9, 1990
HONORABLE tIlT COUNCIL
P~lo Alto. California
0
5>0 LTTTON AVENU1--APPEAL Of ARCHIllCTURAl REflEW BOARD.OECISION
~mbers mf the Councll:
On June 21, 1990, the Arcnltectural Review Board {ARBJ. by a ~ote of 3-1.
recommended that the Director ~f Planning and Community £nviranment deny t~e
propo~d <onstruction of i 4.845-square-foot office building .1t~ underground
and covered at-grade ~a~king t~ be located it 550/560 Lytton Avenue
(application number 90-ARB-4SJ. The Director Qf 'Tanning and C~mmunit1
Environment denied the project on June 26. 1990.
On July 9~ ]990, t~e ARB decision ~as appealed by t~ree parties; ~_ Coli~
Peters, property owner; John Brooks Bcyd, arc~itect/applicant and Alfcii Boyd.
The appellants list t~ree ~rlmaTJ_reisons for the appeal as follows: 1, t~e
appellants dfsagree with the subjective deslgn ideas of some members {If the
ARB an~ t~e Board's aut~orit1 and i~terpretation of the {PJ Distrfct
gUldelines (letters attached}; l} there is inconclusfve e~idence that the
subject progertJ is located ~'thiQ the boundaries of the (P) District; and 3)
staff reversed its recommendation for project approval_
The appllcant proposes to demolis~ an existing four unit, t~o-stor1 apartment
building an~ construct i 4,84S-square-foot thre~-st~ry effice building ~th
ten ~ark1ng spaces belov-grade and gine at-graoe parking spaces, four of ~icn
are covered. The proposed Jl-space belcw---grade pari:ing garage i!"\CTudes two
tande~ parking spaces iA addition to required par~ing. Second-and
t~ird-floor offices ire proposed above the at-grade covered parking_ Vebicle
a<:<:ess tEt the at-grit!!e par~ing is provided wi th iii two--way drivew.iY Qff l..,.Uan
Avenue~ A ramp to the belew-grade pariing is ~ff Tasso Street. Because the
prQject results 11 the loss of rental housing. the new commerciil floor area
is subject to the Cit,'s housing mitigatiec fee.
MAlISIS
ARB ~UTHORllf AND INT[RP~fTATION
The Arc~itectural Review Board denied the prQject because. while the proje~t
c~rrentfs meets the quantitative provisions of the zoning ordinance, it does
nat meet the qualitative purposes. The [F) District regulitions state in
section lS.4J.040,3} t~at. -. __ The speclflc nature and requirements of
pedestrian design feit~res snall be deter~ined by t~~ Arc~itectura1 Review
CMR:473:D
T'
•
i
,
.
,
[ • ,
I.
7-. ~ __ ,
~-~R;" ,
.... ."--~. I·:".~~t·
-
o o
Board, 1~ accordance ~1th design guidelines prepared by t~at Soard pursuant to
(~apter 16.48.-II particular, Objective C, guideline 'I states, ·Ground
froo~ spaces nust be deslgned SD t~at they can accommodate retail ~ses.·
Si~ce the ground floor areaS of the proposed project contii~ no square footage
other t~an for access to the upper floors, the design prohibits any commercial
use on the street level i~cluding ~ffice Dr retail. The ~ard found that the
absence ~f anI interest or activity at street level is a fundamentil design
flaw, due to the locatlon of the project withi~ the (P) District where street
vita1it] is a prfncipal purpose of the dlstrfct.
The Board's concer~s related to the project, and thefr efforts to work with
the applicant t~rough suggested design modifications that would bring the
project flare lilt., compliance wiU the {PJ District gu;'delines, are reflected
im the attac~ed ARB mlnutes of the May 17, and June 2]~ 1990 meetf~gs. The
majoritJ of the Board felt t~at it was very important t~ bring some portion of
the building'S floar are~ down to the street 1evel~ 11 order tB vitalize a
design whic~ resijlts 1m an at-grade covered parking lot and a dark. uninvlting
plaza access to the second floor. As designed~ t~e praject would not
contribute to pedestrian activity, since at-grade ~ark;ng lots are known to
veaken street life. The B~ard also expressed toncer~s related to this
prQject~s location withim a transitfon area between commmertill and
~ultiple-r~ill land ~ses, and that w~at ~appened wit~ redevelopment on this
site ~ou1d set t~e precedent for other similar properties al~ng lytton Avenue
and il the broader downtown area.
P[OfSTll~ DISTRICT RfGULATIONS AND GUIOflINES
One af the appellant~s reasons for the appeal is that there is inconc1yslve
evidence t~at the subjett propert1 is located wit~in the lP) District
boundaries. On february B. 1988. the Council onanimousl, adopted an amendment
t~ tne laDing map extending the boundaries Qf the (P} Dfstrict ;a tnB CD Zone
District, whic. included t~is site. Copies of ordl~ance number 3791.
extending the (P) District boundaries. ~ave been provided t~ the applicant.
The Zoning ~ap c1earl, indicates that the prDject Is ~t~il the {P) District,
and the applfcant ~as been so advis~ by staff throughout the application an~
preapp1ication ~rocess.
REYERSAl Of STAff RECOMMENDATIO~
Another reiSOO for the appeal is that staff reversed their recommen6ation for
approval of the project ~hen it returned for Board review on June 21~ 1990.
Many staff meetings ~ere ~~ld w1tk the applicant beginning over a year b~fore
the Board's review ~ere be was advised by staff t~at the design ~f the
building above grade-le'olel Jlarking ... ·as inherent1, in conflict 'Wit~ the intent
of t~e (P) District regulations and guidelines, and that it would require an
extraordinary desig~ effort i~ order to overcome that fundamenti1 design
dlsadvantage. He yas also imformed. as acknowledged in iis letter to staff
dated June 5. 1990, t~at 1t is the ARB that determines the appropriateness of
pedestrian design features. For the May ]1~ )990 ARB meeting. staff
recommended approval ~f the project based on technical (omptiance with the
loning Ordi~ance. rN considerable part, t~is ~~ommendatfon was i~tended to
provide the !loard "ith a dealt sl.ate aD the des;'gn aspc·ct of this praject~ il:l
response t~ the applicant's repeated expressions of cancer. regarding the rale
and appropriateness Qf staff design recommendations. Staff also imformed the
ilppl ieant that staff did not bel ieve the ARB would suppo·rt Utis design. On
~~y 11~ tPle ARB did not s'Jpport the design. Whe~ tf'le applicant ref.,sed to
CMR:4Il :0
Iyttonap/vw
---"!---
8/9/90
-2-
\ • \ . ,
\ \ .
~~ \: ,. \"
" . , •
-
i.
)
'-
o o
modif, the desi9~ consistent with t~e k~8 concer~S. staff recommended, for the
June 21~ 1990 Board meeting. denial Qf the project based on the design-related
issues identified by the Board 00 ~aJ 17.
for this rei-SoD .. staff recommended approvill of He project. 9H1ng the ARB the
option af tailng ~atever action the~ deemed approp~late with;. their
discretionary jurisdictfon. Th~ ARB did ~ot accept the project as des;~ned
and continued it for furtner des1gn development. After the continuance of May
11. 1990, the architect t ill: constllhtior. with the pr{)pert)' owner .. dec.ided to
resubmit the identical plans for Board re~lew. As outlined i~ t~e applicant's
letter of June ~. ]990, he belfeves the design of the building meets the
spirit of t~e {PJ District regulations. ~eD the applicant decided not to
~od;f~ t~e proje,t at the suggest ian of the Board, staff retorned wit~
findings for denial supporting the ARB's pre~ious d~sign judgment.
Staff recommends t~at the (itJ Council uphold t~e recommendation ~f the
Arditectunl Review Board and the decision of the Director of Pl anning anc!
Communit} [~vironment, and ~eny tne prop~sed construction of a
4,B4S-square-foot" office bui1ding with underground and podium parking, based
on t~e following findiog:
)_ The proposed project is inconsistent with the letter and iDtent of
the Pedestrian S~opp;ng Combi_lng District (PJ Re9~lations (C~apter
18.47 PAMCJ 1m that, the design of t~e podium building above at-grade
parking prevides 00 pedestrian ame~ities or i~terest it street le~el.
The specific purpose of the {P) Dlstrlct reg~lttio"s is t~ foster the
continuity of retail storfS and displiY windows ind to avoid i
mon~tonous pedestrian envircnment J i. order tQ ~stablis~ and ~aintain
an econornical1J healt~y retail district and the project does not
fulfill his purpose. I, addition. buildfng designs ire required to
provide displaJ windows or retail di~plaJ areas, covered recessed
areas for pedestrlan ~se and design features wh;c~ preclude blank
walls or building faces. ~ile this design includes peri~ter
landscaplng and a recessed entry area. approximatel, two-t~frds of
the street le~el is occupied by parking, whlc~ will diffuse
pedestrian vitality.
2. The pr~posed podium building above surface parking wit~ no usable
at-grade floor area is f~cor.sistent w;t~ Pedestrian Dlstrict
CU1~eljnes 11 and 2 un~er Object,~e ·C J -adopted by the Arc)itectural
Re~lew Board on February 22, 1983, whic~ state that. -l) Ground floor
spaces must be designed so t~at they can accommodate retail wses.
and. -lj Ground floors may ~ot utilize podiums with ~alf
depressed~alf above ground parking w~ich would disrupt pedestrlan
orientation of the building unlESS compensating pedestrian featUres
ar-e pro~ided.-
1. The design does not promote ~armooious transitions in scale or
cha.ritcter bet'weer.; different designated land 1liiS-e5 in that, the
proposed prQject whic~ is essenti~11~ an at-grade park~ng lot with a
buildi~g above presents conflicts ~it~ adj~cent residentiil land uses
due to ljght~ noise. and ~isual lmpacts~ and is suc~ is inconsistent
CMR:47l:0
lyttonap!vw
8/9/90
-3-
• . " ~. ,
, .
'. '
'),.,
~:
,
I • i
~
,.' ,
/
o o
wit~ requirements of PAM( ]8.64. {additional Site Dev~lopment
Design Regulatior.s for Commer(;,' and Industrial Districts).
> ,
and
-J::~d~-?-'Y/rh t, Ie
Respectfully submitted.
l;'/m! /' 14l{,'c.
R()BUT [. HALE! KENNETH Q_ SCHREIBER
Director of Plannfng and
Communit~ {nvironment /:l~,A-;~YH~
/ Assistant CH,. JIIanag
~ /
~cAttachments:-Project hfo·rmatior::l and ~f5torl
location J4ap
letters of Appeal
~inutes of 5-11-90 ARB meeting
ARB IAfornatfonal ~morandum of 5-11-90
Minutes of 6-Z1-90 ARB meeling tExcerpt}
ARB [~formational ~morandum of 6-21-90
May J. 1990 letter from applicant to staff
June 5. 1990 letter from applicant to staff
Pedestrian Shopp~ng (ombi.'ng District (P) Regulations
Fedestrfan Shopping Combining Distr;ct lP) Guf~elines
Plans lCouneil Members onl,)
CI(: "Col fl Peters
.101m Srool s. Boyd
Mary ~.nnedy (401 Veb,ter Street, F,lo Alto)
Alicia Medi •• (1196 Hamilton Avenue, Pal. ~lto)
Bob Moss (4010 Orme, Pal. Alto)
lcis 'a~derbeet (1~6 Barron Avenue, P~l~ Alto)
Arc~ltecturil Review Board
Planning Commission
0111:41):0
lytton,p/""
8/9/90 -, -
..• ,~;,);~:~
c-·,·-"..:
•
~ 0<: i.! ; o __ ~ :
N>J11Jcant:
Jtequ_es~ed~~_!_.L~_~ :
~rnIHfOI!llATlON __
Pi '".c;e 1 ____ 11ze:
o
BACKGRODND AND SITE INfORMATION
550/560 LYTTON AVENUE
(90-~RB-45)
550/550 Lytton Avenue
Boyd/JenKs Associ ate s
454 Forest Aven~e
Pal. Alto, CA 94301
Mr. C~li~ Peters
525 University Avenue
Pol. Alto, CA 94301
o
Appr~vl1 of 4 1 845 ~quare foot office bu'ld'~9
AS2 __ E:!_S SOl" ~ 5 __ ~.a __ r' e.L Humbe r:
5,000 Square Feet
120-03-02
~:l i SJ 1C.g. _~_l:ln igg:
(ompre'hen.s f ~_~_JJan
Qes. i_S!'_~_!..~_I;)_!! :
f~5 5 t f nq __ !1nd ____ ~_~:
il!!:!'_~~_I:~J~9 land __ Us~:
H i _~ __ t. ~_"1 ;
CD-{(P)
Regiona1/Commun,tJ Commercial
~ult;ple family ResiJentfa1
North:
Sout~:
East:
Vest:
Plediu" ~RSity M'ultip1e farllilJt RM-30
CD-elf} Commercial land .s,s
Hig~ Denslty Multip1e farnl1T~ RK-~O
CO-Clf) Commerc;.l land uses
1he ~roj~<t ~as first sutmitted for pre11m1nary re~iew O~ Na~ember 16. 1988.
Because the applicatio~ did not compl, wit~ many of t~e p~ovjsions of thE
zonfD~ ordi"ance, i"clu~fng setbacks. parkfng and FAR, it was never agendfzed
fer ARB review. Almost i year later, on november 9, 1989. i rev15ed second
pfclirnf"ary applfcation was filed. Similar issues rel~ted to noncompliance
wit~ the zoning ordinance also prevented this application fro~ befng (ewle~ed
by the ARB. It is Planning Department po1ic1 not to agendize projects for
6~ard rewiew Whic~ are substantially noncompliant ~'th the zoning ordinance.
A ~otice ~f incomplete application ~as mailed t~ the applicant on December 9.
1989, whlc~ identified outstanding zoning issues as ~e'l as i~forming the
applicant th.t tn. proj€ct does not comply wit~ toe pro,lsions of the [PI
Clstrict regulaticns ind guidelines. On ~arc~ IS. 19~O, an application for
final re~iew was submitted. T~e ARB first rew1ewe~ this project on May 17,
1990. and continued t~e item for furt~er design dev~1opment~ for reiSO~S
stated in the appeal letters. the applfcant cho~e not to ~od;f1 the ~eslgn
res~1tin9 il th~ ARBr~ recommendatlon for denial on June 21, 1990.
lnTCM~ B/9/90
I
•
•
-,
-.
o
~and~t.r)'_Actioo Dat.!s):
£ovironment~l [mpacl
l~se1~me~f:
lYTTCMR
. ~. ". ;
/
o
The deadline for t~e City Council to ~ear the
appe.l is A'Jgust 20, 1990.
T~js prDject has been determined categorically
exempt from t"'e requirements of H,e Califon;a
Environmental Qualit, Act.
8/9/90
2
•
\
o 0
PC-2649
-
,
I
I
.: -0
I .':-
!
I
I
l ,
f
1
I
!
i
-'~I '. I -1
~ ....••..• "i
,~ J
?li.
B=;~"
./~--t·
\
' ..
-
r ~4~}';~ -:. l!_.
f.
o
.. '
./
CITY or PAlO AlTO
Office of rile Cily C1lr'll:
o
APPEAL FOOM TIlE DeClSKlN OF OIRECTOR OF eL.ANblINIlI 0.0 AW 'on
AN D COM MUNJTY ENWIONMENT tA/ICHlTECTURAL R€V1I!~ AJi\>ueA,1ON5) JU
To he filed in dupllcat&
Race ipC: Net.
As.sociat~____ Phone r415} 327-3302
Addn;ss ______ <_5~ Forest Jl.ve!lile Falo Hto 91.1.301
srr~t--------------~~~·y ----------~Z~~~--
LOCAnON OF PROPERTY: Assessor's Parcel No'. ~ __ 12Q_:::-_Q3-002 ____ Zone Dfstrict -.L~li
Name 01 PJoperty O'olmer (if rn1'1er than appenam) _ (HI"" .. Colin Peters)
Palo Alto
Qy
94301
211'
The dedsi,:m r:lllle Direcrar of Ptdnning and' Commun~ Ert\lironmenl dale<;f AF.:B meeting Jun.e 21 ,
1:9 _____ 21 ______ .... tlereby the appllca!ion d __ ~_ Colin Peter.s510 Boy1 r J61ks AsSOCiates
~{~inal appl""lCant)
lOr ;EirchilectlJraI revTew 'was ______ > is hereby appeared for the reasorcs stated
ill !he attached Sener r-n dLJplkale)
Sjgnature of Appenart ----'a~Me;:;...-... 4,,-="'-''"'' ... '-<.
Dale Approved __ , DEnied ____ __
Remarfo: 5 and/(y C'JrxHions.:
\
SUSMITTAlREOUIREMENTS SATISF~D: 1 . i
•• Plans /j ,./"
L ~.
J. Appeal Appfcation Forms
. -" --,--
.'
By: ~'L--i·'
B-"' "_"-_'---jll--_ -_ -_ -_ ~_ -:_ -_ -_-:_ T_l ,Tl_. =' ' y: ---,-I
Sy J ...... t..-•• ,: 1.------,.',
-.
• l~..ner By: ..I~-~
5 Fee By: ~rrrp--
12/99
•
< ' .
.I.
'.
o
PETERS. PETERS & ELLJ~GSO.:'i
COt."'" ,'t.'Tl."'"
s-("." ... c .. 101 "11:''''''''''
f' ... rR'C'''' E E .... C"'''.;.sO ...
Co.unci 1 Members
City of Palo Alto
City Hall
Palo Alto. CA 94301
lI:e:. 55-0 Lytt.on
Dear C~uncil Members:
• ~"O~!:5"':l"'" cO","O" .. ~,OC' ..
~ "' .. 'vc .... , ... _"'E"'L.>I!:
July 9. 1990
·.·~~T\:,
.. (!,~
~ •• I'';'
Pursuant to the rule tbat "all reasons· for the appeal be
expressed; please acce~t this as tbe owner'S input.
As a lay person in the area of architecture, I ma~e no p~etense
of ~avjn9 any expertise in t~at field. That will be left to
otbers.
My contribution will be limited to personal and conceptual
aspects~
I was born in this town some 71 years ago. I bave lived and
worked in this area all roy life (except for 1941 through 1946).
In snort; this bas always been my home and I sbare the pride we
all feel for Palo Alto.
One of my ambitions has been to build an office buildin~ of my
~wn and not only own it but spend the rest of my working years
in it. My arcbite~t was given a free rein to design a first
class strllcluce and 1 feel be has d,o,ne that. Whether or not it
pleases everybody it pleases me. a~d I do~·t want to chan~e it.
Tha.t brings me to tbis ap,peal. As a novice spectator to these
proceedings, l have been astounded at the workings of the ARB.
Sightly or w[o,ng,ly; they bave ta'ken on the tole of a court of
last resort. Item after item is disposed of by an almost
off-hand comment of one of its members l such as, -I don~t like
this entry;· or "I d~n't like this balcony.-
---··-:."-~~"it~--"""'--·""""-""'" ,~
'""",-"
~
.,.~' -, ._< ... --' . ..;.~ '-
•
\
City Council ~mbets
July 9. 1990
page 2
,-
Q
fhat comment usually ends with the applicaQt being told to 9¢
bac~ and revise this. modify that. and eliminate tbe othera All
this is done by ob~iously sincere and conscientious boar6
members~ but whether by design ox destiny. this body has become
subjectively all po~erful~
Two qualified professionals can have two diffe~ing opinions~
That. does not. mean one is 'Wton9.. As demonstrat.ed! in this case,
t.he applicant must. follow the board: members· pees·onal
preferences ..
It is xespectfully submit~e6 tbat to conform is to confine. It
U 4n IDo1~ ~ If\--.J..t diet a tes .the. 1.i..S..t.e Q.f ~ ~.
Very tr~ly yours.
~~
ColiD Peters
CP:jj
•
", ..
i ,"
" >
~y 6, 1990
Palo Alto City Council
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Al to, CA 94J()1
J<E: 550 Lyttcn Avenue
~ 4,853 Square Foot Office Building ""til 01derg<0ur6 ParItin<J", .------,--. ---
Dear City o::..mcil M:!tt:Iers:
'!be subject project is hereby appealed to the Palo Alto City Council for
the following: reasons ~
To date .. there is :inconclusive evidence that this pr:~y is in fact
in the CD-C (P) Zone, cather than s.irrply the ct>-C ZOne.
Denial of tile pcClp:lSed project. at the ARB level by SCJl'e of its .rrerters
is .. I belieo.'e. based on subjective ideas of. -whether oc not the project
satisfies the guidelines of the Pedestrian (P) Shoppinq G::Irbined District.
'ltlis is asswrlng the pl"operty is in the (PJ District.
Staff infcxmational ~ of .May 11. 199'0: "Given that the pcoject.
aeets the City's :zorJng r~atians. staff LECWllESds iI(¥'OVal, subject
to the foll0win9 condi tiOO5 ... .. 'Itlere ~e 9 oondi lions.. incl uding
a $H,2ti1.82 housing mitigation fee. all of -.which are accept.able to
the Owner,
.June 21. 1990. after a cootinuatiaJ. by the ARB foc further design
m:xli f ication aOO a decisioo by the Owner and ArcfU teet to not. audify
the building: design that does cnrply with the zoning regulations of
the City, but does not oc:rrply with the architectural viewpoint oc the
ARB.. 'Ihe leo:Jiieldation of. the staff in its June 21, 1990 rrerorandtm
is as follQrliiS: -:eec.ause the aw-licant. has ch:lsen not. to .modi fy the
design in or:der to C'C'llply 1ro'ith the ~trian District 9Uide1ines and
foc -greater ~tability with the adjacent Residential District a100g
Lytton Avenue as specified i.n PAt«: 18641' based on previous direction
~ t,he Soa.rd staff recumends denio2l1 of the p!:"oject ha&ed on the following
findings ••••
~. after a one rrontb del.ay. the staff .. -vith absolutely no change
in the pcoposed plan ... lias reversed itself and recatmends denial. 'rl1o
is in charge'? And 'how' can ale ccnp1.y with incc.osistent decisions suctJ.
as those that have been made en this pcoject?
As the 1o.t"cfi.itect of this project, I respectfully disagree with the subjective
design ideas d serre rneniJers of the ARB. The proposal does ~1)" with
every pi:"escriptive CK"dinance and requirement. of. the City. Staff agreed
-..ri th this in M3y 1.9 90. and there hdis been no change in the plan since.
J truly believe this plan should be appcoved and all,~ to rrove ahead
t1>cv.xj/l DO<mOl channel s,
S:iIJIr='re 1 Y • U~Q&f
'[. ~--:-""'~""""',,~" -.," .-. ,,"
,
jd. I Lr(i
i'ober'
"
. ,
,
, ' , ;
•
';~.,
~L£,'
'f· ~.
'.\ "".
CO\.'N "I:.TI\.OI")
~~u' .... ( ....... r{.n,;"'"
f"~"',c·" !: £"., .. ;( .... ,~'"
/
o o
}:JETERS, PETERS & EL.LrNGSOS
...... c~ .. ".·"" .... ~ <:," .... O~ .. "'O ..
~ I.J .... VL .. ~I.,.~ """;:"',,11[
\
"
~.' ,--,:-. -..:-~.
City of Palo Alto
city Council Members
P.O. 80>< 10250
Palo Alto, CA 9430)
July 9 .. 1990 j "
I
I, ).1, '. lei:)',
"':. '" ':,'
----
Regarding: Appeal of Director of Planning and Architectural
Review Board Denial of: 550 LYTTON AVENUE
council Members:
Since ~he Directors of Planning and Community Environment
originally gave our project unanimous approval and subsequently
reversed themselves upon ARB denial I shall direct my statements
toward the Archltectural Review Board~ The ARB recommendation of
denial for our building was based on Pedestrian Shopping District
Regulation n·umber 18.47. (P section) • Buildings should foster
continuity of retail stores., maintain an economically healthy
retail district and avoid monotonous pedestrian environment~·
Specifically the ARB originally required: 1. Harmonious retail l 2.
That. the building not be elevated, 3. A lighter and more open plaza
~ith fewer automobile parking spaces.
To address the specifics of the denial: The closest retail store
to our site is the 7-11 store on the corner of ~averly and Lytton.
We believe very st.rongly that harmOf'lizinq with the 7-11 retail
sto,re is not in our or Palo Alto's best interest. If one looks at
t.he notes of the ARB meeting of June 211 it will show the .AP.B
rescinding it's original retail recommendation.
As far as avoiding monotonous pedestrian environment, we are not
sure this should apply. Lytton is now one of the thoroughfares l
designed to take cars oft University and has very little pedestrian
tcaffic. In either easel there is nothing monotonous about our
building. It provides an extensive area of perimeter landscaping,
trellis' with Wisteria vines, A great deal of fenestration on the
second and third floors trimmed in verdiqreed iron vork, a small
balcony overlookinq the street. a light grey slate plaza laced with
tastefully located concrete strips and a recessed entry areal which
will ha7e an art work display. At one time Ye were going to place
benches out in front, but because of out pro~bdty to the creek and
the problem with the homeless ve thought it best not to.
---....... c:""' ...... --, ... _ .......... ,,_ .... -.::~"'" ~-~ """'", ,':'0"",::. .• ","
'.',
-
-..,.-~ .
-
o
July 9. 1991)
City of Palo Alto Council Members
Appeal of: 550 LYTTON AVENUE
Page 2 of 2 July 9, 1990
/
o
Concerning the second and third ARB objections regarding the
building being elevated on a base and the plaza being prImarily a
parking space: With the four toot stucco wall, the setback from
the street, tbe trees, sbrubs and the trellis, most of the parking
spaces will be bidden. This bulldinq will appear to be more like
a qenteel old world residence then an office building. It was
suqgested t"at we put offices on t.he ground level with glass valls
and not raise the building.. We are a professional law corporation
and most people who come into a law office appreciate discretion~
Also, elevating: the building not only qives us more privacy it
creates a more open feeling. With a substant.ial amount of the
(base) qround. floor walls in glass and housing the previOllsly
mentioned art work display, the effect is very distinctive~
There was some lIIisu'nderstandlng regarding wby the Appl icant did not
chanqe tbe plans after the preli.inary meetinq with the ARB. We
would like it understood it was not bad faith or arrogance. But
our feeling that we had not explained our plan as well as perhaps
was possible.. Please note" after our second aGdience before the
ARB-... the Vo,te vas very close and kept qolnq back and. forth~ One
member cbanged her vot.e wben takinq in to account what was referred
to as ~d faith from the applicant and our fate was sealed.
OUr building is different and perhaps not easily understood. But
I say allow us to build it and we will quarantee Palo Alto
something it can be proud of.
very truly yours,
A~~~t::~
Executive Secretary to Mr. Colin Peters
..
~
i I
-
•
-.
,
\
" .' .
7""' -.. ~ .
"
0 0
~1"CllifCCfl.r.ll I~c\'ic\\' .l\\ilillte~ Ihml".1
CIl1 ~ p,..., AHo
Board Members Present..:
Mard Members Absent:
sta f( Present:.
Thursday, May 11~ 1990
8:00 A.M.
civic Center
250 Hami Iton Avenue
Council Conference P'Qom
Palo Alto~ California
Marni Bdrnes
Aino di!Rosa
Michael Lyzwa
Jon Schink
Shirley 'Wils.on
None
Haley and Lytle
Approval of the minutes of May J, 1990 \alas postponed t.o the
.Tunc 7 .. 19'90 ARB meeting.
None
Af"f'FtOV'&.U:;: The Architectural Revie'w Boar-d (ARB) decision on
the 'ksign. of the project is a r-ecoI:'Jr.endaticn to the Director
of l'lanning and Cor:1D1unity Envir-onmcnt (the Dir-ec::tor), '.iho
m'tk<.:s the final decision. Unless other .... ise stated by the }!~I:(B
or the Director, project approvals generally incorporate
i-'roj.'<:'t Fe ..... ie·.., Comrrdttee conditions as recorr,mend~d jn thr·
Tnformation ¥.cmorandums~
CllA~Gl~S: My change to an approved design pJ ,"In must 1:;c
n::-;ubmitted to the City for approvaL Reslo1:.'!llittal of a
proj('-Ct rr.dY also bE necessary if chal1<)€s are ~Iandated as a
result of complying ~ith Public Works/Engineering or other
City department rE:quin:'rne-nts, or any other-applicable code or
ordinance req>JirE:ments.
5117190
Page I C{;
.,
, .
-
. ,
.' -
.e.,
. -.-"
_ ..... ;;..;.;i..;.;:~.:..-'-------,---"--'---.-~ __ '_' ,.-,--.. --~ ____ -.~-,:.~~~.""!i'i~_~_,<~,_ ",~_!i"!_a!!l!IIII"''''''''~' -;.;
o
~~"!"!..Cl_l,¥..'J'TO!!'_~_~·d~J1E·
Boyd/Jenks
o
9 Q--ARB-4 5
Fin,l] review of deClolition of four-unit apartment building and
cnn!,;.truction of 4,8,.) ~~udre feet of office building \oIitr.t
und ...... [·qround parking
Mc1iIcd notices ",ere sent to all property o· .... ners and utility
customers within 30,0 feet of the project site. There vas no
public comment.
After det.ailed comment., the Board CON'l'UWED,. 5-0, this item
for further ~esign development that lor'ould bring the project
more in character with the residential neignborhood and the
cd'<J-c of P-Dist.ri(;t zoning. Board members agreed that site
pI~n needed another look, that the building needed to b€
put '~d away from the property line ... that the bu.ildlrrg should
be po.lled do-..rn at least partially to the pedestrian level..
th,lt th.e applicant needs to restudy the mechanical equipment,
thc p;):ves and -whether they penetrate the rear property 1 ine~
Am,) jo,r ity of Board members objected to the par-king garage
raised up on stilts or pillars and in view of reside~ces
dcross the stre.:-.t. Securi ty lighting for the 10bby and garage
could also create glare for the residences across the street~
it vas agreed that applicant needs to take into account tbe
~nviror~~nt and zoning and design to the spirit of the P
Dist-clct.
~L"g'-lrding architectural c1JrtlIDents, Aino daRosa thought the
.;ppl j cant had a good beginning in an interesting cross bet.'€en
residential and commercial, blJt she .'as concerned -wherE'. the
building is spliced off as it meets the property line~ She
;~lso .. ondered .... l"lY the .. indo' ... rhythm. is broken so a-,'kvardly.
~;. Wilson -was pleased to see tbat the applicant had changed
the n,-tture of the architecture .. but expre.sse-:l concErn for the
'?,Onirlf11lf're. She stated the ilnfXJI-tance of doir,'J a building
1hat i:; really compatible ",ith the residential !"pighborhood.
Plr _ f,y:r. .... a suggested that appl icant loc,k at the t loor pl an
'")'J.lin as. on-e exit IDdy be all that is required. Als.o, Mr.
l.yz.r,'1 asiced the applicant to study the codes -one more til1'!£ and
to check -w-it.h Fred Herman about the exiting requirements. M_r~
~~'hink thought this building holds together tetter as an
offic{.· than as a residence. He also stated that the landscape
buffer along Lytton is an important p.:lrt of this application.
Chair-person wilson. obs.erved that. based up:::n Board comments, a
n:dl.J(";tjon in the size of the building IndY be necessary. She
also told the applicant that further discussion could take
pJ')ce outside this meeting .. and that Staff and/or-ARB members
W'olJld ne happy to discuss this project further · .. 'ith the
.1ppl ic,~nt.
(it j s rccoo1-Il1t":!nded that the appl icant 1 isten to the tape
r,~·<.:ording of this item for detailed Board m<.;mrx'r comments.)
L
5/17/90
Page .; CG
•
---
'-~':\~{.
s'
••
, , •
II. REGUlAR AG£llDA
. "
INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOA~O
"" 17. 1990
o
3. S~ LYTTON AVENUE •
Boyd/Jenks
90,ARB,4S
fi~al rewiew of demoliti~n of four-unit !part~ent buildiog and
construction cf 4~85) sq~are feet of office building ~ith ~ndergro~nd
parHng
lONING
to-elP) Downtown Commercial with Pedestrian Shopping Combi~ing Distrlct
ENVIRONMENTAL IKPACl ASSES>M£Nl
PrQject impacts ~ere sufficiently addressed ir. the Downtown Study
[Gvironmental Impact Report
PUBLIC NOTICE
~ailed notices ~ere sent tc all propertJ owners and ~tllity c~stomers
wit_l~ 300 feet of the p~Qject site.
n£SCRI'JION/ANAlYSIS
The applicant proposes ta demoljs~ an existing four unlt two-story
apartment ~ouse and construct a 4,853 square foct three stor1 effice
building w,t~ ]0 parting spaces below-grade and 9 it-grade cQ~ered
park1ng spaces. The prgject ~ll also include two additional
non-required tande~ parking spaces lvcated in t~e below-grade garage lD
front gf spaces identified as numbers 9 and 10 OD She~t A.I ~f the ~lans
s~bmltted (or Board review. Because the project resu1ts ia t~e loss of
rental ho~sing ~ the ne~ commerc;al floar area 1s subject to the CitJrs
housing mitigation fee~ ~cond and third floor offices are p~opo$ed
above pedestaled at-grade covered parking. Vehicle access to the
it-grade parking is provided ~t~ a t~o·wal driveway off Lytton Avenue.
A r~p tc the below-grade parking is off Tasso Street.
Building ~ateria1s consist of stucco walls, alumfnu~ ~ndows. acce~t
cenmlC tiles, i metal railing 'Witl! copper ~atina around i second floo~
cerarorc t11e dect~ and flat red ~la1 tiles o~ the roof. A cov~red pla!a
is proposed at the corner of Lytton and Tasso bor~ered wit~ i ~ooden
trellis. The preliminary land~cape ,lan is fa compliance wit~ the
Utility Department's recently adopted landscape guidelines. The project
will resalt il the removal of one 17 i~c~ Sycamore street tree to provide
access to the site. The Citl Arborist ~as expressed i concer. t~at
excavation of the underground garage will res~lt in an inadequate amount
Gf soil arei to support the remaiaing S1X Sycamore street trees. I~
re~ponse to the Cit, Arborist's concer~s? the applica~t has submitted an
arborist's report prepared by S.,. McClenahan Co., dated ,II,pril 30, 1990.
The report states that re~ailing trees are il filT condition and.
, S '
---"''"':''''L· -. -.-,,-~.~. "'.'"
. '-' .......
-
•
\
~~.
.'1
, ¥,
• ,
I ,
,
i
f
! ,
y
( ,
r ,
• .
•
"
, .
--"'t' . }Il
;", '.
I
i
t
.,
"" I J.i
•
./
o
-The root feeding areas of these trees is limited by the street,
sidewalt l~d present building. ~verin9 of buttress roots was
accomplls~ed man] years ago ~t~lB one foot of the trunks to
facilitate sid£walk reconstruction w~ic~ further lim1ted the root
feeding ireas.
The present building des;g~ ~'l lntTude an underground parking area
wit~ necessary exca~atiQn wit~i. ~ine feet of th~ trunKS of these
trees ta a deot~ ~ell below tne root zone. Because the previoUS
severing of in,~oring roots. excavation is expected to ~ave mimimal
fmpact to t~e buttress/inc~oring r~ot5 and less t~an 20 percent [20%)
of t~e present feeding root systems will be iffecte~.~
The report identifies tree protection measures which are includ~d ia t~e
recommended ~onditions, 5~ould the Board approve the praject~
RECOI'I'IENOATlON
GiveR that the project ~eets the City's zoning regulations. staff
re,cmmends approval of the project subject to the follow10g condtions:
): ffllal coTors and 1 andscape plans sl'lal1 retyra. for Board' revie ....
prior to issuance ef • buil~rng permit. future signage shall
retura for Board review under a separate applicatlon.
2. The project is subject to the provisions of the Clt,'s Housing
~itigatio" fee lPAMC 16.47.020 {ell. The total foo of 114,161.82
is based on 4~8S3 square feet x S!.94 per square foot~ Half cf
the-fee ($71'133.91) snaH be paj.(j to He Cit.1 prior to issuance il
bu~lding permit. The second h~lf of the Housing Mitigation fee
is shall be paid to the (it.1 prior t~ occupancy. The current fee
~f 5l.94 per square foot -nll be in effect until Marc~ of 1991~
If the applicant ~as not secured a bUllding ~ermit by t~at date~
the fee ~ll be adjusted to the new per square foot dollar amount
11 effect at the tfme ~f building permit issuance~
3. The applicant shall submit a detailed grad,~g and dr.inage plan
and i Salls report to t~e Public ~orks Department prior to
submittal for a buildiog permit.
4. The applicant shall replace damaged gutters on both Tass~ and
lytton prior to occupancy. tity iRspectors will identif.1 damaged
gutters needing replacement.
s. Tbe basement garage excavat;cn and shorfng s~al1 not encroach
iDtc the publ ic right-of-vay.
6. The ba~ment s~all be equipped with a sump drainage syste~ and
inclu~e a back up emergenc, generator.
1. 8icycle parking details shall be submitted to the Transportation
Division for review and approval prior t~ submittal for a
building permit.
B. The ~eel blOCKS for the two tandem parking spaces provi~ed 1m
the belo~ grade garage s~all be 10cated as shown on Sheet A.I of
·6·
--~-------.----'L
"-E"'.' ';:'.
~i';_1"
•
---:.
o
, . '. -,
o
the ,lans submitted to the CIty 00 ~ay 3, 1990, i.
prevent that s~ace being converted to usable floor
tha~ for parking purposes.
order to
are~ other
9. The follo~ing street tree pr~te(tfDn mei5ures s~a11 be
incorporated ;~to the ffnal landscape plans:
I} Prior to fBitiation of construction operations the applicant
shall iRstall temporary barricades as close as feasible to
the dripl!no. No construction materials shall be stockpiled
withtn the driplines~
'b) Pruning to include removal of dead wood and and thinning of
the f'lia"r canopies by approximately 20 percent (20';} 5~all
b~ perfcrmed prior to iDitiation of construction actfy;tie~
by a certified arborist.
c) A ,program of fe.rtiHutfon by Ileans of deep root soil
injection shall be initfated prior to onset of construction
actiyities b1 I certified arborist. T~ls fertilization s~all
be performed bi-annuallJ i~ March-April and Jul,·August for
five IS} ye.rs.
d) Du:riTrg and upon completion of any trenching/grading·
operations withi. I t~e's dri~line, should any roots greater
than two ioc~es (2-} fa diameter be damaged bro~en Dr
severed, timel, root pruning to include flush c~tting and
s~alfn9 of elCposed roots shall be perfof1l'1ed by a cert1fiec1 .
irborist to mimimize ro~t deterioration beyond the soil line~
e) A certifled arborist s'ull be present on tile sHe during
excavation of t~e garage area ~t~ia t~e drip lines of the
existing street trees.
f)
9)
Spraying of t~e foliar ~anopies s~all be performed hy a
qua1ified arborist utilizing appropriate fungicides to
control tfle Leaf Antnracnos!. The fungicide s"al1 be applied
annuall, until a certified arbor-1st deems the treatment
compl ete.
Periodic inspectiQns by i certified arborist shall be
perfor~d ~onthl, during t~e construction phase and shall
report writteDi icspectfoQ fi"lldir,gs to the c.it, .A.rborist.
h} Any street tree(s) ~b'c~ die or suffer substantfal
deterioration vithia five {5} ~ears of occupancJ of t~e the
project shall be replaced by the applicant ~t the applicantrs
cost with specie{s} and s;ze(s} determined by the City
Arborist ~t the time of replacement.
-7 -
_ ..• -..... ·;·<, .. :~) .. Lr .. : ....... , -. -... ~'''''_"''''')''_''''''L''''~,'',~''''' ........ "",,~,~.»s .' .;.'/: . ...",.;.._d. --'
-.::'~: ~.~{ -:-.
,:t't~i·l
5'{~':;F .;
-I. .• '
•
~'" • . ~-.~~~~
.--..
'; ,
r
-
;
/
o o
Jon 21,. 1"0
DCBI'I'BC'r1lUL uvrn BOARD
.J:CItRn ItUItJTl!:8
550 LYTTON AVZHVB, 'O-ARB-45
BoydjJenlts
Final review of demolition of four-unit apartment building and
construction of a .~518-square-foot office building ~ith
underground parking.
John Boyd: My name is John Boyd~ I've had problems trying: to
keep track of minutes of what vas said and what ~asn't said~
trying to understand them and explain theD to my owner, who is
here today--Hr. Peters. In case he wasn't able to come we also
have a recorder so that ~e can try to abide with what the desires
of the 9rouP are.
It's a little bit difficult to tell my client that 40 days ago
staff said we did meet the requirements and now our latest
informational memorandum says we don't. We really haven't made
any changes at all because we're happy with what we have. We
think tbat we meet the requirements of the pedestrian quidelines
~t we no longer have the recommendation of staff for approval
because of the question on pedestrian regulations. I believe
that the plan that we have--maybe it's too comple~ and I haven't
explained well enough in the past and I just made this colored
rendering to try to explain better that really the building lines
at tbis point are 50 feet away rrom the property on this side.
We do have on-grade parking here. We have three compact cars
plus a handicapped at this point. The reason for that
delineation is to try show that the pedestrian's walkway ties
into the pedestrian plaza that's at this corner. Also we do have
a wall here yhich is 4 feet high and a wall at this point that is
« feet high with 12 feet of landscaping here~ 10 feet of
landscapinq here and five here. I ~ant to point out that there's
not that much parking under this building.. This ramp goes down,
this is where the elevator is and thatls the stairwell~ This is
the pedestrian area here that Ye would like to preserve. It does
one other thing in the quidelines--they point out the fact that
sitelines are desired for pedestrians which is exactly what I
have bere. The quidelines also suggest that a building facade
should be stepped in and out or set back one and one-half times
the distance of the building. You can see at this plaza that we
have quite a bit more than the .inimum~ We feel ve can landscape
this and make this a very attractive place~
We also propose to do the same paving which is a slate finish on
this entire deck so it's not just asphalt, in here for example~
or concrete or somethinq else. It's a total design concept and I
believe in working 'With my landscape architect, to lr,e this is
going to be a very nice place and that, in tact, it is pedestrian
Lytton Page 1
•
\
[
!
I
I
i
•
•
\
l
\
"
';
I
i
~~i
~;
:1 "
, ,
•
;"-'.:,.r-... ...... .: ." . . . J_ ~ ,,' . ~ ........... _ .... '.,",,;.-..• ~ .... ~; .. !.;.: ... ;.;; .. :.:.J:..c" :..:. .... ~. . .F IP.!~~ ......... _. _~:~_...:....---._. __ \. __ . _______ J u',,:" _____ , ___ ~_ ._-,. ~ 4fO.,.~;--"'~"'-':*':'~-.,,_.....:_._
o o
oriented a Tbe one thing that it does not have is retail. We
don't have any shops. We don't have any retail down here. It's
all pedestrian and that's the one part of the regulations we do
not comply with. I think there's some question about that point.
I think this is a better transition through the neighborhood to
not have the retail and the noise and the traffic through the
residential area where there's be~n some concern about this.
This, in fact, Is a better solution than putting retail stores
down there. There's even a question whether retail makes sense
financially, but that's probably not What we're talking about~
The other thlnq that :r want to point out and I"ve heard quite a
bit of comments about trellises. We just bappen to have a
tr'ellis here. A heavy timber trellis -would qo across that entry"
down along the f~ont and turn on the side so ~e've tried to
comply wIth the guIdelines. I don't know e~actly vhy thIs was
chanqed. The conversation came up at our last meeting about 40
days ago wbere this zoning maybe shouldn't be here. I don't
knov.. The property was purcbased .!I_S CD-C and in 1988 it was CO-C
after extensive study of the downtown. There's a guideline book
out that had this as CD-C with no .p. Qverlay. So now there is .p. I guess and I think that it should be at~ractive t~
pedestrian traffic" there's no question about that and I think
that it is. I think that it has a lot of nice space there and
meets the guidelines except for the fact that it doesn"t have
retail. So., as per our report that we had received through staff
at our last meeting, we meet with this proposal all the
p~escriptive requirements of all the ordinances and special
requirements for this piece of property so the only thing that~s
a problem and I don't think I explained it well enough to show
because it is very complex is the fact that we don"t have retail.
~her than that we more than meet the guidelines of the .p.
district overlay. I respectfully hope that you'll think about
this and comment and qive us approval 50 that we can move ahead
after considerable work and effort to this point. Mike had a few
questions at the last Zleeting-~ I have Ilet the Building
Departllent and revieWed those things and we do comply with the
requirements of the Building Department.
Shirley Wilson: You don't have anything that shows the building
next to this line?
John Bo~: On this property? There's an old Victorian bou5e.
Shirley Wilson: r know that. You don't show any distances O~
any relationships to this.
John Boyd: Don't you suspect that will be a new building
eventually?
Shirley Wilson: We can't suspect anything. I don"t know vhere
his building wall is in relationship to what's there. Is this
property riqht on the property line?
John Boyel: Yes.
Lytton Page 2
,
" .
-
':---,A;i, -:roo,
.~
., . .. ~, .\ -
.-
,
1
J
-
o o
Shirley Wilson: In looking at it almost like a party wall~
John Boyd: This vall right here is on the property line. The
same as the Dean Whitter buildf~ down at this corner right
bere--that's on the property lIne.
Sbirley Wilson. So the next pecson can build al~nq their
property line, next to him, right?
John Boyd: Absolutely.
to me and they can als~
aD I right Nancy, is SO
The other
build five
feet?
thing is they can build next
stories. I think a CO-C zone,
Nancy Lytle: Fifty-foot height limit but the FAR is 1 to 1.
John BoyeS: So you""d have a tower. This particular property -was
restricted to 35 feet high.
Marni Barnes: Part cf your planting Is sloped. Could you show
me what's sloped up? It comes up to the wall.
JOhn BoyQ: This would come up from the sidewalk, slope up a hit,
just for some drainage, that's all.
Marni Barnes: Ob, it's not to the top of that vall?
John Boyd: Riqht
top of the wall.
slope up about 18
now" we're thinking not. sloping this up to the
There would be a wall there. But this would
inches from here to here.
Shirley Wilson:
it and this Is a
these two thinqs
This 'Wall looks llke it
straiqht property line.
can be the same ..
has a lot of relief to
1 don"t understand how
John Boyd: This is the wall that's on the property line. We're
putting a pattern in the wall 60 it's not just a dull, flat wall.
I have to cut this overhang at that property line.. That's what
I've done there.. On this elev~tion, you're looking at it toward
Lytton and tbis prOjection is coming out over the parking l~t ..
Here's the property line, this wall actually sits back three
feet, then the upper floor comes over.. Here's a balcony with
wrought iron.
Shirley Wilson: I understand that but that's not what I'. asking
you, John. There's a lot or relief, apparently, in the property
line wall in this elevation but it's shown straight. I don't
quite understand how that works ..
JOhn Boyd: This wall, Shirley, is on the property line.
Shirley Wilson: I understand that.
John Boyd: That's why that overhang stops.
Shirley Wilson: But what about all the pattern and texture that
shows in this wall?
Lytton page 1
\
I
I "
. ...
r
r , ,
r--
!
," ;
-
"';'.
it "
o o
John Boyd: It's in the plaster. It's a te~ture in the stucco.
Shirley Wilson: What's happeninq. Does this take 6 inches to
do? Three inches?
John Boyd: About 3 inches. I talked to the Building Department.,
they say I can do this as a two-hour roof and that will allow us
to come back lite this Instead of going straight up.
){ami Barnes:
a solid 'Wall.
But some of this is open though isn't it? This is
You don't look over the cars there.
JOhn Boyd: Right. Cement plaster and if ve get the go ahead
we'll work out those colors. I'd like to do this with a green
finish on it. I've got the tile roofs.
shirley Wilson: So this wall here goes up a story and it just
stays here. Right?
John Boyd! Exactly, and then the elevator and stairs on the
other side. Maybe if you wanted, 1 thought later after reading
these. we maybe could ~rinq this walkway out this ~ay further and
brinq-~his out this way. That's one pedestrian design that we
could do.
Shirley Wilson: Okay. Any other staff comments?
Aino Viera-Oa-Rosa: I was particulary interested in the
paragraph st.aff inserted about historic buildings and some
contact they made with the MRB about this building? Was that
just research?
Virginia Warheit: 'I'hat was in regards to a specifically asked
question at the last meeting.
Aino Viera-Da-Rosa: But there is no designation.
Virginia Warheit: There is no desiqnation. The Building files
r~ferred me to ~~e historic inventory list but it's not on the
inventory. My understanding is that it was considered and the
owner at that time didn't want it on the list so it wasn't placed
on the inventory.
Aino Viera-Da-Rosa: All riqht. Thank you.
ShirleY Wilson: I'd like to open the public hearing. The first
name I received is Mary Kennedy.
Mary Xennedy: Yes. I live at 41 Webster and we're interested in
the trees. There are trees that are not on the property but are
on the property line and there are some that r can't tell whether
they're on the property or not but we like them very much and we
hope they will not be disturbed. The ones that are not on this
property~ ~e're concerned about the construction part of it.
Whether they might damage the roots and s-o forth during
construction. I heard some o·ther speaker say that they bad put
Lytton page ..
, ,
•
•
~.
~-., . -
\
\
:\
\ ,
\
o o
in so~e kind of request that if the tree died ~ithin a certain
length of time that it could be replaced~ This is very
complicated~ I understand. because it's on two pieces of propErty
and maybe this isn't appropriate at all but I just wanted to
point out that we are very fond of those trees and hope tbey'11
stay in spite of the construction that qoes on the other side~
The other question I had was, of course, everybody must have
discussed this before, the parking and the traffic. I'. sure it
has been discussed. I just don't knew. The parking, I assume,
has been arranged for, enough for the building itself between the
underqround and thi. other section in there and so it vould just
be a matter of whatever traffic there is and, as I said, there's
a qreat deal of ~raffic on Lytton already. I was hoping there
was plenty of parking space. Parking is very difficult fo~ os in
that area~ I think that's my ~ain point--the trees.
Shirley Wilson: Thank you. Ne~t member of the public to speak
is Alicia Medina~
Alicia Medina: My name is Alicia Medina. I ~ork for the owner
and I live with the architect. I know fo~ a fact that Colin,
when be first asked JOhn to design this building, the first thing
he said was I want a first class building. We have a building
now that shou1d come doW'n... It's faulty looking and it's faulty
structured. We bave designed it so that most of the parking is
underqround. The owner, by the way. plans to use it himself for
bis own law firm. Most of our parking will be underneath. The
parking on the surface level viiI be on Bryant. The qeneral
appearance that we're shooting ror is one of old Europe. Palo
Alto seems to be partial to the Spanish colonial. I think we
have enough of that. I think you're going to be very pleased~
We bave a talented architect and an interested ovner. They have
a combination that's going to produce something a little better
tha-n most. We are tw-o people that have been ",'orkifl9 on this for
a long time and I want you a11 to consider that. These are
professionals and they/re willtnq to go all out because it's
something that·s very meaningfol to them. Thank you~
Shirley~ilscn: 'l'hank you. Volunteers,,? Are there any other
members of the public vho wish to address this item?
Colin Peters: I don't have very much that's already been said.
I don'~ pretend that I have any inkling of the thinking that goes
into these things~ I can say that I like the building. I want
to qat into it~ 1 think it's very beneficial. It fits the area
and it just strikes ~e that this lady says that she's worried
about the trees as an exhaustive analysis of the trees and what
the affect the construction will have on the trees and the duty
to replace the trees and it's all in the staff report. I guess
that's beer, covered earlier or somebody would have told her that
ber fears are qroundless. There is one big avacado tree. If
that's the one you're thinking of, I think that 90es. It's right
smack in the aiddle or it but I'd like to harvest those avacados~
It sounds to me like the hang up is whether or not the staff can
block the vhole thing by just putting in a repctt saying we think
Lttto.-''1 paqe 5
•
\ .,
•
. ~.
;: .. ~--I-.
~'
.,~, ,
,
<'ot"!~ fl,
.,;~ , :
, ".'
t-
\ ,
:
L --
I--~i4-~·jr_
-
o o
it ouqht to be retail. There's no retail around there. I think
the nearest retail i8 7-11 which is hardly a guideline for the
rest of the construction around there and to have them say that's
the cause and to ask you to deny it, I think is a pretty
superficial analysIs and it certainly in not in keepinq with the
area and what JOhn has designed here, I think is far more
conforming to the area and beneficial to the public. It really
aight be pretty nice tor pedestrians with the ~ay he has it
designed. Confess1nq I know nothing about all the technicalities
that have ~e on before and what the others have said. All I
can say is that I want a first class building. It's been years
that we've been going througb this thing and I'd like to qet
qoinq and I don't see that any objections have been made now that
should stop it.
Shirley Wilson: Thank you. Any other members of the public ~ere
who wish to speak. All right. We'll return to the Board. Jon?
Jonathan &chink: Well I think you all know this is the same plan
we saw before. I thought it was a good project then and I think
we should support approval and I'll continue the same way. We do
bave a real dilemma bere with the Zoning Ordinance and a numher
of issues. Let me try to sort througb them one by one as I see
t.hem.
In looking at the architecture I I would hope you all ~ould agree~
if we were to look at just this second and third floor of this
building, ~hey'r. wonderfully designed, they're exc91lent
materials. This is really a suburb building, one of the best I
can remember seeing in a long time. It's just the relationship
of the building to the ground plane because of the conflicts
created by tbe parking. One other point on the architecture. I
can tell from some of the questioning that I sensed some concern
about the party wall elevation. I think the architect
sufficiently detailed that party vall to my satisfaction and I
think if we look at other projects ~e can see that it's even more
detailed than other projects that ve've approved in the Downtown
so the party vall is acceptable to me. How does this project
relate to the ground plane and then we get into the vhole idea of
pedestrian deslqn quidelines. It's always an awkward. difficult
mix when you introduce automobiles in the building and especially
with the Zoning Ordinar~e that we have nov. This Zoning
ordinance makes the 7-11 building up a block as sort of the
perfect zoning there. It's a little $0 percent lo~ coverage.
Anytime you want to go over that you create problems. I think
all of us as architects or people interested in design in our
community don't vant everythinq to look like 1-11 so bow do we go
to the next step. It means raising the buildings up and trying
to hide the parking underneath. I think that the detail he has
shown with the wall around the parking, the trellis, the
planting along Lytton, are appropriate to hide the parkinq.
Now that ve've introduced the landscaping, ho~ do ve satisry tbis
concern addressed in the .p. District design guidelines that
creating a space that is compatible or suitable for retail in the
future. I don't think you can accomplish the two. If you have
Lytton Page 6
L
•
\
,
,",.
'~
'%
-: <{:,,~
'-
'-
.~'"
r
I
.--,~,.--,;.
o o
parking on-site, you will really destroy your opportunity for
that retail unless you 90 all the ~y back to the 7-11 con~ept
and $0 I think this is a time where ~e reOO9nize that thOse .p.
Ols~rlct deslqn quldelines are simply that~ TheySre design
guIdelines and they're not applicable in all circumstances so qo
back and look at this bUilding, for what it is, ~here it's
located, it's on Lytton~ It's a rather busy street so that the
landscaping 1s appropriate. The the treatment of the -ground
plane is appropriate. I don't have any prOblems supporting this
project.
Shirley wilson: Would you address the contextual issues vith the
tremendous amount of residential that's around it?
Jonathan &chink: That was my first note here, the oonte~ual
direction of the architecture, and I tried to say vhat it is.
We've qot this incredible mixed bag~ We've got this qlorl~s
Victoran across the street. We've got this most massive building
in all of Downtown Palo Alto across the street in the other
direction, the Bank of Amerla and 525 University. You bead up
Lytton into sort of a strange bodge-podqe of office buildings and
low-leVel buildings. You get all the way up to the Times Tribune
~hich is industrial or you qo in the other directi~n of the
larqe~ massive, residential structure. I don't think that there
are any strong contextual clues that you can pick up on so you
just try to do a building that's really qood~ clean materials
that's qat the appropriate landscaping. I think that's the
direction you take.
Shirley wilson: Aino?
Aino viera-Oa-Rosa: Well~ I think that my analysis is similar to
~on's. Xy conclusion is a little different. The second and
third story of this building bave a lot of architectural detail.
There's some refinement that we talked about the last time that
I'd like to see but the real issue is that this is a par-king lo·t
with a building above it and every attempt has been made with the
walls and the landscaping and trellises to screen the parking lot
but that's lihat is beinq put on the ground floor and providing a
parking lot is the issue tor me. I think it's an inappropriate
location in that conte~t to have a parking lot in th~ middle of
Downtown.
It is a aixed bag in terms of residential--old, massive, delicate
buildings--but because it is a mixed bag, this is an opportunity
to start a new direction and what happens there is going to
influence What happens with those other smalls wooden buildings
next to it. I think that this is a critical building to look at.
The Bank of America building is the wrong direction to qo in. It
has a plaza that separates it from the public. It's very removed
from views into the building, trom anything that encourages the
Downtown activity which is only a block away to come over there.
You drive~ park, qo into the bank and leave. There~s nothing
that brings that into the whole Downtown area. The same vith
this building. There's nothing for the pedestrian ~alking by to
have any inVOlvement with this building except an attractive
Lytton Paqe 1
•
I
,
I
I
I
:-,'.
~.
o o
parkinq lot S() I couldn't support the site pl,uu,ing of this
building with the parking and I think that's the ~ajo~ issue.
In te.rms of tie architect.ure, I think there's some nice things
happening. I'll just repeat what we talked about the last time.
There's a nice symmetry here with the windows that all of a
sudden falls apart over here. We talked about why that was
happening and what happens to this elevation. Suggestions were
.ade last t1me to pull this building back a little bit so it
wouldn't be sliced off but you could extend the overhang in the
buildIng and come back and it would read like a whole building.
There's some VQrlt that needs to be done .. particularly on that
elevation to bring it more in character of that.
Shirley Wilson: Marni.
Marni Barnes: I have a difficult time, I think, with this
particular proposal though I do appreciate the color rendering
and I can vi&uaII~e it a lot better this time than I could last.
There are certain teat~res that Z like. I like the trellising.
I like that you screened th~ parking with a wall. I like the
basic look of the building though I do support Aino 100 percent
in her comments about the party ~all. that it needs to pulled
back in. If we're 90ing for elegant, we're going £or slate in
the parking lot, then I think we can lose the square footage that
you're going to lose there and put an eave over here. I think
that that's the kind of little detail that would make it work
better. I have a philosophically hard time with a building on
stilts anywhere in Palo Alto. This has the added p~Oblem of
being in the .p. district but I thir~ that the question that you
brought up, is retail viable on this corner. is a whole other
~e&tion and at thIs point~ as that area stands~ I would have to
say it isn~t. There's all these shades of qray for me pushing
and pulling in different directions. I think to talk of this
area here as public s~ce is not how I see it at all. This is an
entry way. It's going to be dark and covered with the building,
the same kind of vines and trellises which are going to be
attractive but make it even darker. It's going to have oark
flooring. This is designed to look like an entry. If you want
to sell us this buildinq saying this is a pedestrian-ori~nted
design because this is a pedestrian space~ then we need to open
this up.
AlicIa Kedina: Harni. that's not dark.
Marni Barnes: I'm sorry~ this is Board comment time. This needs
to be accessible to people coming across the street so tnat
someone with their baby carriage ~ould be just as apt to go this
way as they woul~ to 90 this way. That's vhat people space means
to me. ThIs feels like private space rather than open plaza
space.
John Boyd: That's our same goal, Marni.
Marni Barnes: I think if this could really work. and I ~ould
hate to lose this on the corner~ but it this can really be opened
Lytton page 8
"f ,,'
•
•
...-,,:
\
\
\
\
\.
\
\
.'--".
",'
-
, " ' \ 1
/
o o
up and maybe benches put in here, something else, I don't know
What~ and it's a small space and I realize that but I have to be
convinced that people are goinq to use this space other than j~st
qoinq to the elevator and coming out again in ~rder for me to
think that this Is a .p. district solution. What that comes down
to in my mind is that ve need to work on this area vitb some
tremendous Changes to really open this out and not make it people
space and do refinements on the building as I kno~ others have
suggested and at that point, when I see that kind of detail
coming! back, I could approve it. The other 'Way to go, if you
don't want to do this kind of opening up here would be to go for
a zoning change and make it a PC I guess is the option, the one
that it's just ~e lot at a time zoning. That's the only other
option I can se~ abiding more with the guidelines which are that
this really needs to be a people-oriented space and I can see if
we're going to the retail element of it, given ~t's location now~
retail certainly would not fly until there's been some dramatic
chanqes in that whole n~iqhborbood.
ShirleY wilson: There is a difference bet'll.~een a retail ground
floo·r and the .p. Eone. I think they kind of interrelate but .p"
zone is more general~ I think than just a retail use. I think we
were supportive of the fact that this is not a good retail site.
We weren't ramming that down anyone's throat. But there's the
spirit in the .p. district, I think that is what we're tryinq to
deal with here. I think everybody has made some excellent and
hopefully helpful comments. I know there's been a lot of
conflict over this project. I'd like to go on record that I have
met with the architects, both of them~ and with the City in
meeting prior to this since the last review.
I guess I too share this concern about the spirit of pedestrian
district and I think, Marni, that you have touched on something
t.hat maybe not the rest of us have that might be a real physical
cbange that would bring you more intocompliance4 OUr concern is
that you are brInging no life to the street and through ~ more
open plaza~ you're entry even into the building is a very dead
entry. It's a small lObby~ there are no windows along the stairs
from what I can tel14 If that were open and you could see people
qoinq up and down, it's life, it's action# it's City life and
this is such a closed aspect. to t.he project~
John Boyd: In the lobby there's a whole glass wall.
Shirley wilson: I think there's opportunity in your party wall
along the ramp not to have a solid wall. I don't know it tbere
are codes that require that be a solid wall. Can that have
openings in it? There's no building there. Could it just be
air? Three feet up? SO it has to be a solid wall? I was
wondering if the onus could be on the ne~t property developer if
he built a~ainst. That's a very deadly condition. Even if you
could valk across that plaza you still can't s~e very veIl. As
you are walking down the street, you're looking at this
gargantuan wall of sol id concrete and we can rant and rave about
this in residential areas but it's a very similar condition. We
seem to tolerate it in the Downtown~
Lytton Page 9
"~.-" --'.
• ,.
,
, ,
i " ,
t
t ' 0f' ..
! ,~ ,
f
I , !
f ,
I· r
!
I
i
r
.-... '-_ , i:
-'~. '. ' -\ "".
,,-:
•
.
___ -____ . __ "_ l. _____ . __ _
o o
That idea is no~. It's this ~hole entry concept, I think,
that~s qoing to be your saving grace. I have heard comments
about the architecture that are very valid. I think there are
some Tefinements that need to be made. I'm sorey that we
couldn't identify these things ~ore specifically last time. I
guess we feel more pusbed against the wall and the harder you get
pushed the more you start to figure out vhat the problems are.
Some of these things are very hard for all of us to identify and
we need to have a cooperative spirit about this. I think you've
heard other architects before this Board speak and we have made
some rather strong suggestions and they have come back feeling
really good about the fact that we raised these issu~s and I'.
sorry we·re raising them so late for you.
John Boyd: I'v~ tried to cooperate all that time ..
Shirley wilson: Well I don't call cooperation going away and
CODing back with the same plans.
J~ Boyd: I've st~ied this for over a year.
Shirley WilSon: This is not time for discussion John. You can
comment later.
Court Reporter: EYe-use me ..
but I need you not to speak
accurate record.
I hate to interrupt the proceedings
over one another for me to qet an
Shirley Wilson: Fine. So I am more in support for continuance
for more effort to be made about this corner situation. It is
your only opportunity, as far as I concerned, to bring this into
complIance yith the spirit of the street we are looking for. To
make it really neighborbood-friendly. You have some nice
landscaping. I think the building can be resolved. I'm
personally disappointed in this project because it's not what I
like to se~ there but I don't see completely stopping you either.
JOhn Boyd: Thank you.
Shirley __ Wilson: I will make 1I motion for continuance for
development of a more pedestrian-friendly entry plaza and entry
to the building if that's possible.
Jonathan Schink: You wouldn't consider a motion tv approve with
the requirement to redesign the entry?
Shirley Wilson:
think the facade.
resolution .
Well, those things would have to come back. I
elevation that Aino has identified really needs
~~han Schink: Would you approve those conditicns if they
modify the design?
Shirley Wilson: We don't have a lot of confidence here.
Marni Barnes: I second Shirley's motion as it stands.
Lytton Page 10
,L
•
\ ,
•
,
/
o o
Shirley Wilson: Want to have so~e discussion?
~lno Viei~a-Da-Rosa: I'~ not going to support the ~ot!on because
it Ii_its the solution to a plaza development~ I think there Is
an opportunity to look at this design a~d bring the building
itself down to the ground level and have that become a part of
the fabric of the City.
Shirley Wilson: Well~ we've certainly asked that enough.
Aino Vieira-Oa-Rosa: What we're talki~q about is a parking lot
on the ground floor. I think that's an inappropriate solution in
the Downtown area. As the motion is made, I wouldn't support it.
I would certainly support a motion for ~tinuance.
Shirley Wilson: Why don't r ~itbdraw my motion. Would you like
to make a motion?
Aino Vieira-Da-Rosa: I would make a motion for continuance on
this project. If the architect would look at bringing the
building into the fabric of the city and setting up a direction
for the rest of that block.
M3rni Barnes: r think we need to be really specific with our
.otion. Are you willing to accept a building on stilts? If not,
you need to say that in the motion because I think that the
architect needs to know that that's going to come back.
Aino Vieira-Da-Rosa! Well I think I would have a very di~ticult
tillle doin<J that.. I'. not: going to rule it out but it completely
alienates the pedestrian and the rest of the town from this
building wich provides only an entry lobby and a parking on the
corner. MaybE there is a creative way to make that work.. I
wouldn't rule that out but I'm skeptical that it's going to be
the solution.. My motion was for a contin.uance for the desiqn.
Sbirley Wils~: I'll second that motion. Support discussion?
Jonathan Schink: Could we let the applicant address the motion?
ShirleY Wilson: Yes. would you like to address the motion?
John Boyd: Could I please?
Shirley Wilson: Yes ..
J~ Boyd: We've 'Worked. on this so IOll9.. Well over a year and a
half. we'd like to either get it passed with the understanding
that ~erll work together to make that plaza so we agree it's more
pedestrian or you deny us today and let us appeal to Council. We
can't keep continuing and continuing. It takes a month every
time you do~ It's just gone too far already.
Shirley Vi~son: Tbat's a ligitimate request.
Lytton Page 11
"---'-... ,. ~.-."--'< .-".-
•
\ ,
I
I
I
I
! r
I
l
i
i
!
' •. : c, ". -, ,
,;-
"
• ~'7_'_
'..:;;~
;':1'
",
<~
,
,
"
.'
..J
, ,
,
-. ,
I ,
I
I
1
3 ,
1
-
Q o
Xarni Barnes: Well, I can support shirley's motion and then that
qlves us a vote of three, presumably because you ~ant to approve
it. That leaves Aino~
Jonathan SChink: I think it's appropriate to approve this
project with some very specitic recommendations.
Shirley Wilson: Well, that's ~hat I tried to do in my motion.
Jonathan &chink: You wanted a continuance and I think one of the
awkward pointe about sending this to council is that there is
still some good aspects to this project that maybe need to be
worked on. We can take, wh~t I consider, a mGre negative route
and that is to continue or de~y the project or we try to identify
what is good, What we can agree en here and just approve those
features.
Aino Vieira-Da-Rosa: I don't think the project is far enough
al~ towards that solution to make an approval. particularly~
wben we approve somethinq~ it's (or a minor modification. We're
talking about a ~ajor issue we've been disc~ssing all ~rning on
this project and saying that ~e're going to approve this and
tbat·s going to get solved and come back.
ShirleY wilson: Well. you have a motion on tbe floor that·s been
seconded. You have to either withdraw it 9r we·)1 take a vote on
it and see what happens. Should I call for a vote? Is everyone
clear What Aino's motion is? Could you restate it?
Arno Vieira-Da-Rosa: I move continuance of this project for
further .design.
~J~on~a~th~~a~n~Sc~h==i=nk~: Let me argue. to please vote against the
motion. The applicant has specfically requested that we dOn't.
frOD his views~ the applicant wants you to deny his project.
Atno Vieira-Oa-Rosa: I withdraw the mo,tion.
Shlrl_ey Wilson: Would you like to make a motion Jon?
:onathan Schink: Why waste my time, I .ant to make a motion to
approve it and the support is not there.
Shirley Wilson~ Well. you want to make a motion to approve it
with some specific requirements. Try and see what it sounds
like.
Jonathan Schink: I would move approval of this project with the
specific requirement that the entry court be redesigned to be
more open and accessible to the street. side~alk and be
pedestrian-friendly, that the tbird-floo~ fenestration be
adjusted to be eore compatible with the secor~-floor
fenestration, that the building be adjusted on the south.est
property line so ~hat eave detail can be maintained as typical
and the conditions contained in the May 11. 19~D. ARB Info Memo.
I would agree that those are appropriAte~
Lytton Page 12
• " ~ .
\
",
...
I r-•.....
J
-
..
" ~ -.
o
Shirley Wilson: I'll second that motion.
Jonathan Schnik: If it's not going to be a building on stilts,
as you described it, if ~e're not qolnq to let him do that we
should 90 Against the motion and say forget it. don't waste your
time but if there's direction-in solving this entry, then let's
qo forward.
Aino Vieira-Da-Rosa: I'm trying to understand what the big push
is on approving a project that has 6u~h a glaring prOblem--such
an enormous issue there that we vould approve it based on the
qood intentions when there isn't a clear idea of how that ~an be
approved ..
Shirle, Wilson: Well good intentions haven't been shown. I
think that is ~hat is discouraging. I reel the applicant bas had
a concept that they have stuck with st!.lbbornly through this 'Whole
process and have not responded to us and that disturbs me a great
deal. I don't think we're all vrong. There are lots of ways to
solve a problem but meeting the letter cf the zoning isn't really
enough or there wouldn't be a Board here. I think the city has
recognized that it isn't enough or we ~ouldn~t be sitting here
today. The decision we have to ma~e are somewhat subjective and
my concern is~ is this a wonderful contribution because we're
looking for wonderf~l contributions now because we're such a
built-out town and every little piece is so important and I quess
I share Aino's concern that this building is off the ground and
it really bothers me a lot. I said to you at the last review
that I knew what we were saying to you probably required less
square footaqe, the implications are that and that's because of
the -crunch of the zoning and the parJc:inq requirements and
everything. We don't make those rules~ unfortunately.
John _Boyd: I respectfully disagree with that.
Shirley Wilson: I realize that you do and that's why you h~ve
made no changes.
J~ Boyd: With 30 years experience, I believe I can give you an
attractive building on that corner.
KarnS Barnes: John, with these directiVes about making this
project more pedestrian-oriented, without going into your ideas,
do you have other ideas, can you see that is something that you
'Would work on and change and incorporate some o,ther features and
change that or do you want to stick with this as it is?
JOhn Boyd: Bob Peterson is my landscape architect and ~e work
together on thls so far. I don't see any problem with ocr trying
to redesign that to make it more pedestrian oriented. I just
need the direction to ta~e. We'll be happy to redesign that if
means more pavinq~ or less that's okay or-som'2 po,ts .... ith some
plants in them, maybe even a bench. We were a little concerned
about people sittir~ OYt there, the homeless, but that's another
~hole issue. If it ~as felt we could do a better thing [or the
City putting in benches, ~e ~ould do it. Definitely, ~e ~ant to
Lytton Page 11
\ ,
•
I
r v
I
I
!
f
, ,
<-
•
'~'
\ \ '
\
\ \>
.-
~
!
, j' -
-
: r, ",
o o
make that a nice pedestrian place I a place ~here people can be,
li~e the guidelines say, it's covered. They'll be some hot days
like nov vhere people might go and have lunch there~
ShirlEY Wilson: I'm concerned because ~erre playinq ~hi~sy with
your plaza but you've qot a very defined structural system there
tbat we're fussing with and it's not that easy, I don't thInk, to
do what we're suqqesting.
John Boyd: That's true. The structure is set in that far corr.er
becau~ it pulls it further away. That's the farthest I can qet
it from Lytton and al~ it gives me 5·0 feet to the nelCt side.
This puts the building into the more kind of commercial building
area of the site and trying to maximize the landscaping between
the buildinq and the residential across the street on Lytton
A~enue.
Shirley Wilson: I would like to ask the
just or~urred to me as I looked at this.
someOlle you knoW' working in the building
handicapped space all the time. Is that
a requirement for visitors?
JOhn Boyd: That's more for visitors.
board something that
I don't know if there's
would be using this
a given or is this just
Harni Barnes: One thing you might consider, do ~e really need
this vall here: Is this an asset or a Qeterrent for the life of
this site? If this ~all occurred back here really shielding
these cars and this space was not often used and you had more
open space and more visibility through this site, is that a
direction that Bight be suggested? You might as ~ell put a gate
here the way it ls noW'. It looks like it's closed.
Jonathan &Chink: It's fast, the cars, it's narrow there.
are moving quickly. It's not how you appreciate tbe site.
~estrian e~r!ence is off the side street. This is not
to be a destination. People are not going to sit at that
Sh i r1_I::!Y...J!.i 1 son: Ob, I know they're not.
Things
Any
going:
lobby.
Jonathan Schink: If yo~ vant to do something, that lObby needs
to be a focal point--a piece of sculpture or art work so that if
somebody is yalking down the street and they ~ant to stop under
the shade of the trees and look into that space they see
something like a sculpture~ I think ve're heading in the wrong
direction if we're trying to open it up because you're just
opening it up to the busy traffic on Lytton~
Harni Barnes: I just think that it's a fallacy to call it a
public space the vay it's designed out and if ~e're qoing to
accept this design, okay ve're not bring in retail or other
services, ve're bringing in a public space, then we need to make
it a public space and it isn't one the way it is now. I think
you're ri9ht. A sculpture in there would be wonderful or a
fountain or something that people would want to go in and look.
Lytton Page 14
•
\
•
,~,
:)'-~ . :,
•
,;,.'" :~ ...
...J
'.'
... J ...
I
r
-
t.
Jonathan SChink: Or view from the street.
Marni Barnes: Or a view from the street or something that would
draw their attention if not their body# hopefully their beinq as
v~ll but at least draw their attentio~ in there and viden that
out.
Shirley wilBon~ Are you ~9alnst the vall with your square
footaqe1
John Boyd: Very close. There'.5 a little additional square
footage allowed.
Shirley Wilson: Well z if I bad some square footage to play with 6
I would put it into that lobby and stairwell and I would get some
light and some amenities. It's dead as can be.
JOhn Boyd: Yes. I haven't designed the interior but I've got
some ideas that I think you'd like.
Shirley wilson: There are no windo~s in this wall that I can see
and I don't have an elevation to tell me that that's different.
It could be bl9ger~ if you need to pull the qlass a~ay from the
staIrs, somethinq~ You might have the square footage to play
with that~ Ther~'6 just no life.
JOhn Boyd: I haven't given YOu a design on that interior at all.
Shirley wilso~! You're asking for final approval here thouqh.
Interior? That's an exterior wall.
Joh,p Boyd: Well, what that is is a glass wall actually ybere you
go to the elevator lobby?
Shirley Wilson: -Just the doors.
John Boyd: Yes. They're solid qlass and glass on the side.
Shirley Wilson: We've ~ever seen a picture of that.
JOhn Boyd: I knov. I can give you that.
Shirley Wilson: And ~he rest of the walls or what that looks
like because you would show us the garden wall. Well, that~s nit
piCking but there's a feeling here that's really missinq.
John Boyd: That's what werre talking about--conceptual.
this concept~ We'd like to present this, develop it and
so that it is in everybody's .ind, for the' pedestri~n or
'WhateVer.
We like
work it
Shirley Wilson: But why baven't you developed it? This is a
final approval yourre asking us for.
Lytton page 15
•
I
f
I
!
•
I
.,
!
I
i
I
l
I
";'>,;.;.
.. ";;;
~~r
,"! -.
: ..
--_.'
-'.---~-----
o o
JOO'LBoyd:
materials.
No. I have to come back for colors. fvr example. and
Final selection anyhow.
Jo~athan SChink: May I a~ s~ething to my motion?
Aino. __ yiera-Da-Rosa: I have one thing to point out to the
applIcant. I don't know how this is qoing to go~ but you may
have a little trouble vith this ramp, ~ith these wing walls
comIng -right out to the side ... alk~ I think tll-e_re·s a question of
clearance wh~n you come up~
John B9~~: You're right. I cleared with Transportation already.
We do have the site lines. I have a little problem movinq away
from that property line because I*. concerned ~bout ~hat's goinq
to happen in the tuture. I don't kno~. Tbere are two parcels
there. I could easily have a building right up next to me.
Aino Viera-Da-Rosa: Part of your motion that talks about that
property line. the applicant is saying he can't change that.
Jonathan SChink: My motion says that the building has to be
shifted 50 that the third floor roof ovarhang he maintained as
typical.
Shirley wilson: So he'd be loosing square footage vbich he could
put someplace else.
Jonathan SChink: Of shiftinq the building slightly, we're only
talkIng a~t 1 foot out of a good 40 or SO feet.
Shirley wilson~ Is that clear to you, ~hat~s in this motion?
J~ Boyd: Yes. We could do that. When we're talking about 3
teet or 5 feet~ then I have a problem. A building coming next to
me is going to give us a slot right between the two and the
zoning will allow the building next door to be built on the
property line.
Shirley Wilson: It ~on't go up to the third floo~.
John Boyd:-It could.
Shirley wilso!!: We can't vorry about that. I'll going to call
for a vote on this motion. All tho~a in favor say aye. Opposed.
That vas a tie vGte, 2 to 2 (Schink and Barnes voting aye, Wilson
and Viera-Da-Rosa voting no).
John Boyd: I don't know wbat your rules are but usually the
president or chairman doesn't vote except in the case of a tie ..
Shirley ____ wils<?.!!.: We've never done that.
Marni Barnes: I move continuance for further design.
Shirley wilson:-I second th~ motion4 Oh, they vant us to deny.
I beg-you r pa rdon .
Lytton Page 16
•
-,
-< :,;:.~.':
) -
.....
o o
Marni 88. rne 51 : I move denta.l ..
Shirley Wilson: I seoon4 the motion. All those in favor? V~te
goes tOo the ayes. Based on t.he tin<lings and the comme.nts tbat
this Board bas .ade (Wilson. Viera-Da-Rcsa and ~rnes voting aye.
Sch ink. vt>t Lng no).
Lytton Page 11
•
11. REGUlAR AGENDA
. ~ .:
o
iNfORMATIONAL MEMORANDUK
ARCHITECTURAL RE~IE~ BOARD
June 21, 1990
3. 550 lYTTOM AVENUE •
Boyd/Jenks
90-I<RB-4S
o
final re ... iew of demolition ()f four-una apartlf:ent building. and:
construction of 4,8S3 s~uare feet ()f office bui1ding .,th underground
park.1ng
ZONING
CO-{{PJ Downtown Commercial w,t~ Pedestrhn Shopping Combil'11.")g Di:itdct
Project impacts were sufficientlJ addressed i~ the Downtown Study
Environmental Impact R€port
PUBLlt NOTICE
Mailed notices were sent to .)1 property owners and ~tility customerS
~it~ie 300 feet ()f the project s\te~
BAC~GROUND
l~\s project _as re ... iewed by the Board on ~ay 11~ 1990 and continued for
further design modifications to br:ng the project 1~to compliance ~it~
the Pedestrian O'istrict gui,delines and for compatibility ... itb the
adjacent residential distrlct along Lytton Avenue. Minutes of the May
11, 1990 meetlng are incl~de6 in ~ocr packet_
DiSCRIPTION/ANALYSIS
The applicant proposes to demolish an existing four unit two-stoTY
apa~t~ent house and construct i 4,853 square foot t~r€e stary office
bUl1dlng wit~ 10 parking spaces below-grade and 9 at-grade cc¥ered
parki~g spaces~ The project will also include two additional
non-required tande~ parling spaces located in the below-grade garage iD
front of spaces identified as numbers 9 and 10 on Sheet A.1 of the p1ans
submitted for Bnard re~ie~. Secause the project results il the loss of
rental bDusi~g ~ the ~ew commercial floor area is subj~ct to the tit1~s
bousing ~it\gat10n fee~ Second and t~ird floor offices are proposed
ibo¥e pedest~led at-grade covered parling_ Vehitle access to the
it~grade parking 15 provided vith a t~o· ... ay driveway off lytton Avenue.
A ramp to the belaw-grade parking is off Tasso Street.
Building ~aterials consist of stucco ~al1s. aluminum ~1ndows. accent
ceramic tiles, i metal railing w,th copper patina around a second floor
ceramic tile deck? and flat red clay tiles on the roof. ~ covered plaza
is ~ropo~ed at the cor~p.r of Lytton a~d Tasso bordered wit~ i waoden
trellis. The preliminar1 1andscape plan is l~ compliance ~it~ the
-13
---T-·---'~-"·"":::'
#~
•
\
,
I
-. ~ ,
f
I r
I
I
!
f
I .
,f ,
I
f
,
..... -.,.
,
\.
\
\ ,
-
i .
: ~,
./
--,,:~--:-__ l_-, _________ .. · __ -'· _ ~~ L ________ "
o o
Utilit, Oepartme~t's recently adopted landscape guidelines. The project
will result in the remo~al of one 17 i~ch Sycamore street tree to pro~id~
access to the site. The Cit, Arborist has expresse~ i concer9 that
e~cavation Qf t~e underground garage will res~lt in an ina~equate amount
~f soil irea t~ support the remainlng six Sycamo~~ street trees. [.
response to the CitJ Arborist's concerns. t~e app1icant has submitted an
.rborist's report prepared by S.P. ~Cl.nahan Co., dated April ;0, 1990.
The report states that rernalning trees are im fair condition and,
-The root feeding areas of these trees is limited by the street,
sidewall and present building. Severing of buttress roots was
accomplished many yeaTS ago ~itAin one foot of the trunks tD
facilitate sidewall reconstruction which further limited t~e root
feeding areas. .
The ~resent b~11di~g design ~ill inciude an underground parklog area
~t~ necessaTY excavation withiB nine feet ~f the trunks of the$e
trees to a dept~ ~ell below the root zone~ Because the previous
severing Qf anchoring roots, extavation is expected to ~ave miaimal
impatt to the buttress/anchoring roots and less than 2Q percent {20%}
nf the present feeding root systems will be affected.-
The plans currentl} before the Board kave not beeD modified ~ince the
last rev lew. A letter from the applicant dated June 5. 1990 to W;rgi~ia
"Warheit aes-crlbes He appl icants l!':ltent to contfnue with the pre·sent
pod fum design. A COP! of the June 5th letter is included fa your packet~
When tAis project vas rewiewed aD ~al 17~ 1990. Board ~ember5 jnquired
about t~e possibilit, of retai~\ng 1b~ existing bUlldiDg and coovertiDg
\t ta offices_ Ilis reu~e of the existing hu11ding would be possible jf
1t ~ere to be classified as J (ategorj 1 Dr 1 ~istaric building. Section
18~49.100'BJ of the CO District Regulations e~empts the requirements f~r
an·site ~arking f~r a conversion to commercial use Df i historlc building
i~ Catego~ies 1 a~d 2 that is fiftl feet or less ;m height and that has
mo~t rec~DtlJ been im residential ~se, if suc~ conversion is done im
conjunction with exterior blstorlc rehabilitation appro'"ed by the ARB and
the Historic Resources Board. scc~ conv£rsion ~ust not eliminate any
existing a~-site parking. 1D addition. a Category 1 or 2 historic
building may increase the e~lsting square footage by 25 percent Or 2~500
square feet w~ichever is greater without having to pro~lde on-s;te
parking {Section 18.49.060(b)(l».
R£(OMIIENDATlON
Beca~se the applicant ~as chosen not t~ the modify the design in
order 10 comply with the Pedestrhn: Oi strict guidelines and for
greater compatib;lit, with the adjacent residential district along
Lytton A":Jenue is specified 11 PAMC 18-.64, based on p ... ewio~s direction
of the Board staff recommends denial of the project based ~n the
follo~ing findings:
1. The proposed project is inconsistent with the letter and i~tent
of the Pedestrian Shopping Combining District tPJ Regulations
«(,apter 18.47 PAMC) i. t,at, the design of the podiu. buIlding
abo~e it-grade parking provides no pedestrian use it street
level. Tne specific purpo~E of the {P} District reg~litions is
-H -
•
--"
'.
--1 ...
o o
Ut{1ity Department's recently adopted landscape gu1dellnes. The project
~ll res~lt \D the removal of one 17 inch Sycamore street tree to provT~e
access to the site. The Cit, Arborist has expressed i (oncer~ that
exca~ition ~f the underground garage will result in an inadeQuate amount
of s~il irea to support the remaining six Sycamore street trees. I_
respnnse to t~e City Arborfst's concerns. t~e applicant has subm1tted an
arbor;sl's report prepared by S.P. McCTena~an C~ .• dated April 30. 199D.
Tbe report stales that remaining trees are 1m fiir condition and t
-rhe root feeding areas of these trees is limited ~y the street.
si6ewalk and present building. Se~errng of buttress roots was
accomplished many years ago withim ~ne foot ~f the trunts to
facilitate sidewall reconstruction ~~ic~ furt~er limited the root
feeding areas.
The present building desig~ ~ill include an under9~ound parKing area
wit~ necessary exca~ation ~ithiD Aine feet of the trunk~ of these
t~ees to a depth ~ell below the root lone. Because the previous
severing of anchoricg roots, excavation is expected to nave minimal
impact to the buttress/anchoring roots and less than 20 percent (20%)
of the present feeding root systems ~ill be affected.-
The plans ,urrentT, before the Board have not been modified si~ce the
la)t rewle~. A 1etter from the applicant dated June 5, 1990 to ~irgi~ia
Warheit describes t~e applicants ictent to <ontinue with the present
podium desig~. A copy of the June St~ letter is incloded i~ your packet.
Wheq this prGject ~s reviewed on May 17. 1990. Board members inquired
about t~e ~ossibil;tl ~f retaiaing t~e eXlsting buildiog and <on~ertipg
it !0 Dffic~s. T~;s reuse ~f the eXlsting bu'lding would be possible if
it vere to be ,lassified as i (ategory ] or 2 .istoric building. Section
18.49.100(B) of the CO District Regulations exempts t~e requireme~ts for
on-site parking for a conversion to commercial ~se of a kistoric buildi~g
in (ategories I and 2 t~at is fifty feet or less in ~eight and that ~as
most recentl, been im residential use, if suc~ conversioD is done i~
cnnJunction wit" exterior historic rehabilitation approved by the ARB and
the Historic Resources Board. Sucn conwersion ~ust not eliminate any
existiog on-s,te parking. [n addition, a Category] or 2 ~istoric
building may increase the existing square footage by 25 percent or 2,500
square fEet ~hiche~er is greater without ~a~ing to pro~ide on-site
parking (Section 16.49.060(b)(3».
Because the applicant ~as chosen not to the ~odify the design i&
order to complJ ~ith the Pedestrian District guidelines and for
greater compatihilitJ wit~ the adjacent residential district along
lytton Avenue is specified in PAMe 18.64. based on pre~ious direction
of the Board st~ff recommends de~fal of the project based on the
following flndings:
I. The proposed project is inconsistent wit~ the letter and intent
of the Fe~estrian Shopping Comblning District [P) Regulations
(Coapter 18.41 PAMCj ;. to,t, t~e design of t." podiu. building
above it-grade parking provides no pedestrian use at street
Te~el. !tle specific purpose of the {P) District regulatfons is
-14 -
>'" .... "' .......... ·-...,cr-'. -.. ----
-
•
\
\ \ .
Lc ... . ,. :~ \<y
. "-,-~ .. ~ ,
'., :'f'~,,-,~.
II
I
I
I
; I
I
-
2_
o o
to foster t~e ~ant\nutt1 of retail stores and display windows and
to avoid a monotonous pedestrian environment in Qrder to
establfs~ and maictilm an economically hei't~y retail district.
ra addition, building designs are required to provide displl1
windows or retail displiJ areas. covered recessed irfas fDr
pedestrian ~se and design features ~hich preclude blank walls or
b~1'dipQ faces. While this design includes perimeter landscaping
and I recessed entry area, approximately t~o-tkirds of the street
lewel are o<cup\ed by park'og.
Tbe proposed podiuln building above surface parklng witb no usabl e
at-grade floor area is inconsistent with Pedestrlan Oistrict
Guidel;n •• II and 2 uoder Object;,. ·C· adopted by the
Architectural 'Re ... ;ew Board CD Fe'bruary 22. 1983 which state that •
• 1) Ground floor spaces must be designed so that the! can
accommodate retail uses~· and, -2) Ground floors maJ not utilize
podfums ~it" half depressedjbalf above ground parking ~h;ch weald
disrupt ped~strian orientation of the building unless
compensating pedestrfa~ features are provid~J.·
3. The design does not promote ~armonlous transitior.s in s<ale or
characte~ between different designated land uses in that, the
proposed project ~hlcA is essent;a'l~ an at-grade parting lot
with a building above presents confl itt§; wit~ adjacent ...
reside~thl land \lses due to 119'ht .. rH)is.e. ar.d visual impacts.
and inconsistent with requirements of fAMe 18.6440
-15 -
.L ---------
, '
, ,
, '
•
-
-,
---
May 1. )990
MS. Virginia ~heit
City of Palo Alto
250 BaaUlton Avenue
Po. O. Box lO2SQ
Palo Alto .. Ca 94303
PE: 5 s.o Lytton Avenue
Dedr Virgirda:
..
\
L o
Dlc]osed are 12 sets of plans foc subject pcoject 'ooIith revisions as requestC!d
in the notice of i'lCQl'plete applkat1.on of 4/13/90 ..
].. As you Kna.or" I have beer. wai Ung foe a decision frem Planning
regarding the in-the-garage additional tanden parting.. This rerking
is in addition to tFie required park.ing~ and is very much desired.
If necessary, however,. t.~ garage can re reduced in size to eliminate
this padcing ..
2. ~.rea .. 'ill be -design€d fOf: the specified 19 car-s. See revisicn
to plaza level eleva-tion.r ele',.Td'tOC lobby and stairwelL
3. Proposed 7" to 3' high .... alI on I.yttoo has been reduced to 4. • rnaxi!'flLml
height .. t.herefoce a variance 'Will not be re.~.lir-ed ..
-4.. I belielle grOW1d floor carplies by defin.i tion wi th concept of C P}
Dis.trict .. Ass-uroc; this decision is the ARB's.
S. I have reviewed the ele?vdtoc she .. ·ith Mr .. W;:):xL The dra....·ings
delineate his r~tlOCls {7' 0" )It 5' 0" platfoan) ..
6. I have reviewed the location or exits .. "ith Q>..ne Brown in the Building
Dep.-rrttrent.. The ad&...->d l/4.n £looc plan reflects his recamcndations
and conforms with UBC 88 requirements~
7 A second opinion regarding the trees on L}ttoo (trL'lming .. care ..
€:'tc.) has been obtained - a copy is enclosoo foe your fi.le ..
john brooks boyd
robert r. jenks
associates
11~··~:';~'\,~··~'~>.··~·~-:~i;Io\i-.·'ffiiMl .. ,~5 .... ~· ... .;..,...:.· .... '-~O)----------------<OJ--____ _
P. ,
Ms. Vlrg.l..n.l.a W3.rheit
City or Palo Alto Page 2 May 1, 1990
Re: S5{J Lytton Avenue
I see no pt'oolm in o:::nplying 'With the usual miscellaneous ccmnents [.ran
the other ~trnents.
I see no reason for any further delay and am lOOking E<X'Ward to the .ARB
meeting of May 17. 1990.
Enclosures
•
-
Jutle 5. 1990
Ms. Vir9i.nia WaJ::heit
City of Palo Alto
250 Rami I ton Aven\.le
Palo ~to. ca 94)01
RE: SSO Lytton Avenue
[RS ~rGltIW~[D)
JUN 51991)
c r Ff:A~r~,~~ O~ [.~W':~ 1 u
I am 'WLiting to confirm the APE hearIng ddte of Thursday, June 21 .. 1990 ..
foe subject project.
It is our int.ent to review the .mechanical equi.fJ'l'J=nt ana exit reguire-nents
..nth the Building IJepa.t:"tlrent ... as suggeste1 by the Board at the May 17.
1990 IOC-eting ~
Design of the building and the spirit of the P Dist..dct are subjective
and those wt10 o.m. t.he pcoperty and their Acchitects are satisfied that
the &"'--sign of the building plaza, landscaping and par-'lUl19 are in t.artaClOy
1tfi th the neighbochood and believe that this i.npr:overrent 'Wi 11 be an asset
to the future of the ccmroni ty w
'Ihecetoce .. 1I/it.h all due respect .. ~ 00 not inter.d to red\.K'e t.he size of
this bui] ding or further c.loange the concept. Details of the m2<..i'lanica 1
<~i~t and. exits 'Will be addressed, -otherwise the plans ... 'ill c-ernain
as Stlhni tted.
As :rou know, the plans as subnit.ted ncet the many pcescriptive and special
requi"Cet'IE'rlts of zoning and plar.ning. Also. as suggestoo~ -...e did meet
-...rith AIm Ch~irperson Shirley -Wilson and 1,.oning .MIr-.irustratcc Na.."1Cy Lytle.
Please aDvise us of. a.'1ything' further that might be needed~
Yours truly,.
~.
•
CC: Colin Peters john brooks boyd
robert r. jenks
associates
~-~ ::.:'
t.~~;!< ..
"\ ... ':.,:--,-
•
.,
-.
(
-
-
." _.
•
o o
PED ESTRIAN SHOPPING DISTRJCT 18.47.010-11.47.040
Sections:
Cllapler 11.4'
PEDESTRIAN SHOPPING COMBINING
DISTIUCI' ('l REGUlATIONS
11.47.010 Specil'JCl'c".."...
1S.41.0~O App!i<:.bilit~ DI' ...,wations.
18.4'.030 ZOflin, map desi,nation.
18."'.040 lke limitations Ind sit!" d:e\'dopmenl rq.ulations.
U.47.(JIO S,pe...'if")(: purposes. The pedestriaT' s11oppin, combinml
district is intended to modify tht relwations of tht eN neilhborbood com
merciar distrlc-l, tIle OC community commercial cHstlic1 and the CO commer
cill dowIItown disuict in locations .... here it is deemed essential 10 foster the
continuity of R'1i.ll stores; and display windoW$ and to lVoid I monotonous
pedesuian ecvironmenl in order to HtabrlSb and mamtain ID cconomkally
healthy ret.~ district. (Or~. 379~ I I. 1988: Ord. 3098 I I, 1918: Ord.
3048 (pan). 1978).
18.47.020 App!i<:abmt~ of rq_r.tions. The pede.trian >l>opp;"r com
binin~ district may be:: combine" with .ny eN., CC or CO dIStrict.. in accord
with Chapter 18.08 and Chapter 18.98. Wbcre to c:ombined. the lqI,1latioru
ntablislled by this cl:!apter shan apply in lieu of_ or in addruon to. the pro-
visions esLa1>n.~.d by Chap'''' 18.41. 18.43 0< 18.49.IOr<1 ;7911l, 1988:
Ord. 3048 (part). 1978~
18 .• 7.030 Zonm, map dmBN!ion. The pedestrian sbciPP1nJ oombin:i:n.
cflStricl shaD apply to an), site acfjlCe'nt 10 desiallated pedestrian fi'ontaae or
pod"""n ... y .. howo on the .onInl m.p. ("'d. 3048 (part}, 191 n
18.47.040 U .. limit.tIons Inc! sit. d ... 1c.pmml rqulations. (Il P.d ...
trian Desil" Featurn RequiTed. On lIly site, or portion of a site, Idjoininl
• dtsianated pedestrian Sidewalk or ped'esUian .... y ~ ne .. construe-60ft and
alterations to cui in. Itr\.lcturn s11.aD be requirtd'. as d'ete:rminc:d by the
arthitectural review board. 10 prO"ide the fo'Gowinl deSiIA reatures intended'
10 crute pede~n or shopper interest, '10 provide ... eat1ler protection for
pe4e-sui.ans. and 10 pruJude inappropriate or inl'tarmotUous buDdin. c!Hien
and'sitin,:
(1) DUplay .. in~."..., or rotan display or ... ;
f 2) Pe ".estrian arcade" recesSed enUy'WIYs., or covered receued areu
desianed foi: pedC'Strian V:5e with an arta r'Iot less than the 1enil'k of the
IcfJOininl !rontace times tlS meters (I .. S fett);
(3) Land~.pinl or uchiiecturaJ c1esiln features intended 10 preclude
blink .... 115 Of buildinl rices..
The spec:if'1C nature and .requirements olpedHtrian desi," features shall
628-1
•
>
I· ~
I
I .. {,'
I ,
f t
I ~
r ~ .
r .. .
....
f:
[.
F. l~' r ,
~ ..
I
•
•
\
..
\ ,.
.•
' ..
.\
\ ,
.\
\ ~ ·V ......
.~" .
.P
. I
: I
l
. '.
•
-..
• <
/
o
11.47.040 ZONING
be 4etnminecl by Ule ~hitectunl ftYiew board, in ICCOrd witlll d~jgD
",ideO, .. prepued by ""'I boar6 punuantlo Cbapler 15.48.
(tI) Put:ina and Vehicular Access RC$tricred. Vehicular ac:ces.s 10 sites
adjobUna: dniJnltcd pedc:t:trilfl lidcwl.lks or pedestrian ..... ys wbiclt requires
nhicular mcwement Icross such pe6estrian sidewliks or ped'estrianwa)ls sJl.al1
'be prohibited, except where requiTed by Ia", or IS m.1ly 'be autllorized" by •
... pmnil issued in accord willi Chapter ]8.90. (Ord. 379113.1988: Ord.
3108118. I 979,Or4. 3098 f 2.1978: Ord. 3048 (pitt). 1978~
628-2
•
,,"
."" --
o o
11.41.040 ZONlNG
be: determined by !ht arcrutectural' review ~ard, in K,ord willi desiln
a:uidetine~ prtp:ared by 11l1lt board' pursuant \13 C"'a~ter ] 6.,48.
(b) Parklrl& and Veh..icuIar Access Rtstricted. Vel\kuJar .access to site5
Id'joinin, de:si,n.aicd ped'estrian sidew.aIkl Of peoestrianwa.1's .... hich requires
vehlClJTar movem.!ot across sud peaesttian side\/, aIks ~ petkstriaff.1i'il)''S ~han
'be. prcru"'bited. t.xcept ~'hert required by It ... ' or "-may be autl"lorized' by 3.
usc permit issued i1l accord: .'ith Chapter 18.90. (Ore!:. 37911 3~ 1988: Ord.
3108 I J S. 1979; Ord. 3098 ~ 2. 1978, Ord. 3048 0>'''). 1978~
U.1o AlIo I II} ~28·2
•
I
--
r -[/ ,.
.'
'.
o
November 17, 1983
flONORA8LE CITY COUNCIL
,,1. ATt •• Callfor.l.
o
CU,p of Ya10 )lito
,.. o .• 01: 101$~
P.fJ.O ".1.10, C"U1otNlA ,,)0]
Arc:hUectt.ll'"al Revfev Boare! .Approve~edi5t~fan .~)
ShoppfD9 Combf.f~g D~st~ict Oesfsn G~fdelfnes
Memb~rs of the Counefl:
Bacigroun(f
AUacMd Is a copy of the Pede.trlan Shopping Combfalng (P) Cistrlct Ceslgn
Guideline. that vere prepared and adopted by the Arc~ltectural Review Board
(ARB) on rebrua~ 22, 1983 fD accordance with ~e provisions of Sectfons
18,17.04Q !Zonlog Ord!nancel and 16.48 IARB Ord!nancel of the Municipal Code.
Thes.e design gufd'eHnes respond to I Zoning Or~;nance dfrective {Sectfon
18,47.0401 that stat •• the .pec!f!c nature ond requirements of (PI District
pedestrian design features stlllll be determined by desfgn gufdelfnes prepared' by
the Arc~ltocturol Review Board'.
The gel'leral purpose of the (P) Ped'estrhn ShoppirlQ CombfGirlg Oistrfct wtlere
these ~eslgn guidelines Ire being applied Is to foster cont!nulty of retail
acth1ty and c1fsplay areas and enhance tl1e pee!estTian ellyfronmeRt~ The CPl
District f. currootl, combined with the C01ll11llnlty COIlII\erclal (CC) DistrIct
fa the c~ntr.l arfa of Downtown Pll0 Alto4
~~ested C!t, Council Action
While City Council action Is not required on the.e (PI DI.trlct <feslgn
gufdelfnes. tne Arc~ftectural R!v1e~ Soard desires City Councfl endO~5ement to
shfl1lfze confwsfoll for ARB appHcants regarding t'fle .&pprcved status of the
guideline •.
The Arclrdtectura' RevielJ( Soard retomnends that the tfty Council ad'o,pt a ootioo
encl'e-rsfng the gufd'eHnes~
Respectr.l1,.
k.~#
JO~ SCHINK .
C~afM'l4" .. ,vcllftectul"'11 Revfel( Board"
GZ;JS:jb
(:c; DowntowD ".10 "lto. [fie..
Downtown COGr'~f1lathlg Commfttee
Jobt Spo!'1sor Group of Downt~wn .. 1nC4
Downtown Property CNners Comlttee
•
"
I'
t
"
I
l . [, ,
, ,
l.
,
:'",--:.:-"
't
+--J
I
/
.------"'-~ ---_'.._------------
f ebrua ry ZZ. 1983
DeSIGN GUIDeLINES FOR TKE (P) PEDESTil~ CcHBINIW, DISTtlCT IN THE DOWNTOWN
(CC) COMMUNITY CQHM(RCIAL ZONE
Object f.! A; Promote Pe~estrf.n crse
lonlng (lrdfnance Requfremer::lts
18.47.040 Use.llmltatlon and sIte de,.1opment regulatIons. Ca) PedestrIan
Desfgn Features Requfred. On af\)' site. or portion D·f I site. adjofJIfng a.
desfgnated pedestTf.~ sfdewa1l or pedestrr~nW1Y~ new Cvnstructfo~ an~
.1teratrons to ufstfDg structllres sllall be requfred ___ to p'r"ovide the fol1o'llfftlg
des1gn features h1tended to create pedestrian or shopper 1'iterest* to pro~ide
~eather protectfon for the pede5trla~~~to-preclude-t~~1lr~lte or
fn~.rmo~~.u!~d.lng .deslgn and sIting: -
Hi Cfs,p1a,y vfndows. or retafl Ireas~
(l) 'edestrran arcades. recessed entryways. O~
desfgnecJ for pedestr ra~ iJse v1th aD ;area not less
adjolal'Q frontage tImes 0.5 meter. (1.5 feet);
covered recessed areas
t~an t~e length of tne
(3) Landsc.plDg or ,chltectur.l desIgn f.atures I.tended to preclude blank
.alls or building faces.
The specfffc nature and requfremects of pedestrian desfgn {e.t~res shall be
determfned' by the Irchftectur.ll revfew bcar6f. h accord -with these desrgn
Quldellnes prepared by tn.t board pursuant to Cnapt.r 16.~8.
r,] Parting and Yebfcilar Access Restricted. Yehfcylar access to sftes
adjc;hing desrgnatej pedestrian sfde .... a:Hs or pedestrhnways 'Whfcll requires
vehrc.lar movement across suc~ pedestrfan sfdewalks 0; pe~estrfanways shall be
proh'blted. e~c~pt ~ere required by law or 15 ~1 be authorized by ,. use
permit '" accor( with Cnapter 18.90.
GuIdelines
1~ There should be. be no new drjVtw~ or curb c~ts on Unfversity A~enue
wlthfo the ., combinIng distrIct. lot.: T~ls prohibItion shl1 oot
app17 to cross streeh. Ramfltoc or lytton.
2. Pro~cts are encouraged to upgrade sf~e~lls. Acctptab1e ~terials
are brfe1c." and exposecf aggregatl! with brick headers. All sidewal ~
detaf1s are to be coordinated witit the Publ fc Work.5 Department.
J. BufTdfDg COrners It street f~ter$ectfons Ire e~curage4 to prowfde
the pedestrhn. I lfne of sfg'ht It the corner.
t-liote; ConstJlt witJII the h.l~ Alto 'ubHe Vorks Department for
specHfcatfons of acceptable brfcks_
~."'7"'''rlii~lIi,ilI·III.l!Ic .•.•. IIlCpil ..... · !ii' -.. , ""'-'-'~::, 7
.-_,~~~.'~
' .. '
-
•
\
,'.
\ .
•
I
I
,j
. -
\
.;: ,
• I
> -4.
o o
PrDjech wit), In Illey frontage should' capftalize en t"at (rentage and be
d.slgned to promoto p.~e.trlan .so. SpecIal Ittentlon should be paId to
upgradfng ref~s! dumpsters. storage are,s. and similar feature,.
'I
~ ..
-"'
ObJectlvo J: SIgns That Complement PedeHIT" Un
'.ldeHn ••
1. Sfgns art to be odented' to Ole ped'estdan lIs.er and' are not to be
<fesfgned to be SetD pr-fmarSly from IIOvfn9 automobiles .• {Ich 5fgn
w111 be" consfdered on fts own merfts.
2. SIgn. s,,'1 be l09Ical'~ proportIoned and posItIoned for the
ar"Chfte<:t~"'ill detal ~ 10g and fenes.tratfon e (acade.
3. There .hall be no freest.ndlng nor ~ ,Ister gns.
. '--
4. l11umlnatod 51gn5 may be consldeTed for .Ight tIme ... , provIded that
the lIghtIng 15 subtle.
5, Tbe facade an WIt" I S!c;..lL...lln_!;lpro'lpd $lIall be well rnaimtafned anI.! Itt~. or shail be upgrac1ed prfor to hstallfng • new sfgn.
Objectl.e C: Promote 'it.lfty and RetaIl Use,
GuIdelines
I. r.round floor spaces. must be designed so t'hat tPtey can accomodat~
retal1 uses.
2. Sround floors. NY not utfHze podiums wit" l1alf depressed/half above
ground partfng ~hJc~ would disrupt pedestrfan ~rfeRtatfon of the
building unless c~~eQsatfng pedestrfan features are provided.
Obj~ctf'e 0: Pr~serratfon of the ScaTe and Charac~er of Oowntown
'uldeHn ••
1. Jew bufldhtgs should ... o~i hi concert wit), GIlder structtlres throug'h
scale .. l!se of lIaterr~1s .. and desfgns wllfch enhance the hfstorfc
flavor of the area. ntfs guid'el1ne-fs not fntended to impose any
partfcwTlr style on new projects.
2. Oesigns should provide transftfon betweeA buildfngs 1ft the
relatfons~', of windows .. doors. '~lors .. pedestrfan feltures .. Ind
treatment of ~l.nl sIde wa1ls.
•
/
.If o o r ./
j.'
ObJectIve E. "fotlo. of l.tor.stlng OUt4.or Sp.ces
~l!.~
t. lorse projects OCf entoura9'~ to pr.vf~. plottS and p&ople-otf •• ted outdQor spaces ..
2. Projece. s~.l1 not fnel.d. f .. turo. ""lell Me<l1eu1l reau". th •
•• abl. are. of tile s!d."",,. end p.a~n.la. "'lS. Any exHting ••
propos.a f •• t~r •• f •• ,Ia.wall or pedes tria. ""'1 shall be $ho~ 0. hoOscope ,14.5.
S~ec!d ApplicatIon Su1>llolHal lo .. ufre .... t. h tile .1' lone
I. An Mj()l" ~r.l.ct. $1Iall $"'omft <!, • .nog. or tile groun~ fl" ... ele .. tlons
ne.t t. any H4_n or p'<!f>$~rh. ""I U • s<:ll. of 114 I.e~ equals on. ((lOt.
1. E.c~ ~lor ARB project $~.11 submIt drawIngs or photo9r.pbfc OI.pl.y. ""Ic~ show th. r~l.tf.n;hf, Qf ~. ne< prQject to it. nelg~borl.g ~ulJdf'9' an<! to tho blo.:t 0. >mfe' the pr.J~ct f$ 1"". ted.
•