HomeMy WebLinkAbout0189.091March 14,
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
Palo Alto, California
o
55~ LYTTON AVENUE -APPEAL Of AACHUEUURAL REVIEW BOARP P£CISION
Members of the Council:
Report in Brief
10
The proposal being presented for your review ;s an appeal of an ,drct1itectur'al
Review Boa~d denial of final architectural details and revisions to plans at
S50 lytton Avenue~ The project is a two·story office building which the
(ouncil approved on appeal on October 22, 1990. with conditions that rede$ign
of certain aspects of the projctt return to the ARB fer review and approval.
On two occasions. the applicant presented revisions to the ARB, but the Board
did not find that the revisions adequately addressed the conditions of Council
approval. On february 7, 1991. the ARB denied the proposal, ar,d the appl icant
has appealed that denial.
On June 21? 1990~ the Oirectcr of Planning and Corrmunity Enlfjronment. on the
recommendation of the ARB. denied this proposal to construct a two-sto~~
office building over surface ,parking at SSD lytton Avenue. On July 9, 1990.
the app1icants appealed the Director's decision to City Council. On October
22, 1990, the City Council approved the proposal with conditions, which
inc.luded the following design-related conditions:
I~ Prior to applying for a building permit~ t~e application shall
return to the Board with a revised design of the property wall off
T.isso Street, next to t~t uistir.9 ~ouse and the south cornel" of
the bunding, sho)r.ring the TOCiltion of the property 1 ine and the
location of the neighborin9 house, ind lddressing desig11 issue:.
ra;5~d in the stiff report~
2. Prior to applying fDr i building permit, the applicant sh~ll
return to the ARB for revlew and approval of (olors and materials,
including lIIindow gliss. framing stucco finish, decorative tiles,
roof tiles and other architectural or desi9n elements to be
determ;n~d by the BOird.
Tile staff report of October 18, 1990 and the minutes of October 22, 1990, and
City Council action are attached to Ulis report.
CMR: 189:91
•
o
In compliance .... ith the O.-::tober-22. 1990 City Ccuncil appro'wal. the appl1ctlnt
returned tc the ARB lIfith re",'ised plans. to CG'~lpl..)' .,.ith the Council c.vnditio!'1S
listed above. On January 3. 1991. the ARB r~vjewed an~ continued the Item.
The reasons gi~en by the Board for continuing this propos31 were thdt t~e
building had been (.hdn9~d signific.a.rltly fiorn what:. was approved by the City
Council in WiYS which detracted from the qual itj of the de~ign, and bec~use
onlj minimal c~dnge ~ad been made to tMe south party ~all ~nd the south {crrler
of the building which w'.;re r~C:IJired t!;, be r-2,j':$i~ne-d bj trrE' (Crdit~c!'1.s. of
approval.
The changes 'Which were made to the proj€'ct since the Co.uncil approved the
proje'Ct are; a) Exposed SCulpted ..... ood bea!r.3 at t.he second noor ;.'ue
eliminated; b) Exposed scuTpted · .... aod r-emf r2fter; "'ere rep:ac>:-d wit~ ~et::d
rafters and were cut back. to th", edge: of the rl,}of; c} inc 5t.a~n'l>.!\ '\ ~n the
center of the Tasso Street elevation was p~Jlled forward to the property line
to form a solid wall, brea~ing the horizontal patter~ of wlndows and balcQnie~
on this elevation. Another change in the Tasso Striet ele~ation, though not
for <:ode reasons, was tl'le elio:r;'tr.ation of a third n,:}or -.'jndow. These ctla~lges
were made~ according to the ~ppTjcant, to fu1'il1 fire rating requirements of
the Building Code 2nd certajM engineering concerns_ The Board concluded that
these code requirements should have been understood earlier and that the
modi fi cat ions detracted frern Fie qlial it] ar;,d ciiaracter of the project.
Responding to the tondilion of ~pproval reQ~iring redesign of the south party
wall and the south corner of t~e bujldi~g, the appl lcant mo~ed the wall one
foot inside the property line i~ order to al1c~ for ~o~e roof overhang along
the length of t.he wall, .and face-d the pro['Jerty wall lItitn brjc.~. SO:T.e B'J.drd
members believed that this did net adequately address the conaition that thi;
part of the bui1ding be redesigned, and that ... :th thi5 sol uti ')[1 , thp. part)'
wall, the south corner of t~e buil1ing and the ~assing of the lasso Street
elevation CGntinued to be LJi1satisfa~tcry.
Boar,j members also H,pre:;~~d to'2' CIJl\';:'i?rn that cer-tain aspec.ts. of the j>fC?1)Se1
colors and materials and bLild1ng d~t~ils were not ~ati5factori i~ that tl;ey
were not compatib1e IIIlth each ':t~:-2r ::lr.d/c,r 100"::"",," ~C!t con5htt:nt 'II/itr. the
crafted, Medjterranean/Oriental c~ar2cter of t~~ arch~tettural desig~.
The latest proposal ~as lrfjtially contin~ed with direction to the applicant to
retur~ to the QiJal1tie::. c;f tne design as show!I In the perspr:cth·e dra\llj·~ng
approved by City (~uncil, to specifically callout any changes the appli~ant
~as maki1g to the approved d~sign and to develop a t~ree dimensional solution
to the SQut~ party wall that wcu1d be friendlj to the exist1ng house next dOGr
and to the streetsciilpe. Sur:1:!:ar..r mir,ut.:s of t~€ Jar'uc:ry 3, !991 ARB meetjnq
are attach-ed to ttd s r-ppor-L .
o~ February 7, ]99i, the applicdnt returned to the ARB for re~je~ of the
revised plans. This sub~ittal includ(~ m1nor changes from the previous
I" ell ieW', s.uc.h as retlJ'rn of the third nIJQr IIItndow wr,i,(.~ had b.F!e:l d.~l-eted,
decorative corbel~ add~d to the garage entrance, the portion of t~ie scut~
CMR:189:91
p:\cror\S.50l~\n,
3,/14/91
Page 2
\' ,
o
,party wall nearest tt,e street c~a.nged to a stucco flnish, and wDod beam ends
attached to the ste~l beams at the se(~nd floor to replicate the look of the
originally approved beams. No change was made from the previous review to the
shir.rtell 'Wall fPl the center of the Tasso Street elevat ion, the massing of the
sout~ party wall and the south CQrner of the building, nor to the sculpted
wood rafters whlch had been del~ted since City Council approval. Tne Board
denied this proposal, 3-2 with Ms. da Rosa and Ms. Barnes opposed, on the
baSis that the building had c~.anged from what was appro'ted by City Council in
~ays w~;c~ were detrimental to the design, and that the applicant had not
ccmpl ied with the condit ions of Council approval to redes ign the 'South party
wall and the south corner of the huilding and to develop cclors, mat~rjals and
detatls to the satisfaction Qf the ARB.
REVISED DESIGN SUBKlTTAL FOR COUNCil APPROVAL
The plans being submitted for Co~ncil review are essentfally the same is those
denied by the ARB on february? 1991, with one excepti~n. Since the last ARB
relliew, the plans na"le been revised so that the stair~ell wall on the Tasso
Street elevation is the same is that previously approved by Counc+l, as the
ARB had reQYested the applicant to do. In addition, in response to further
building code review, the roof along the first 31 feet cf the sout~ property
line is cut back so that the 3-foot-deep roof overhang has been reduced to a
I-foot overhang, ~akin9 it uneven with the o~erhang on the other three sides
af the building. Also, along the south side, the rafter ends. \lt111 nat project
beyond the roof line, as the~ do orr the other sides of the building.
The plans under review today differ from t~e plans approved with conditions by
(ounci 1 <In Oct~ber 22. 199], in the following ways.
1. The D~ilding has been moved in 1 foot from the south property
1 ine. The roof overhang along Uri's wall has been reduced from 3
feet ta 1 foot, and along the rear portion of this wall the
~verhang is reduced to 4 inches.
2. The second floor balcony on the sout" corner-of tl1e buildlng has
bee~ reduced froi1l 10 feet deep to 5 feet deep.
3. The siJrface of the south property wall has been changed from
scored cement plaster to cement plaster and painted slump stone
concrete block.
c. A beam 3nd corbels have been added at the top of the opening to
the undergro~nd garage, and a 4-inch-thick column has been added
to the sout~ side of t~e garage entry to strengthen the appearance
of the sout~ wall.
5. Wood beams and rifters ~ave been replaced with steel. Sculpted
WQod bea~ ends and rafter ends will be bolted to the e~ds of tne
steel beams to ac~ieve the look Qf the originally approved exposed
rafters and beams.
CMR: 189: 91
p:\cmr\550lyln
, "
Jj14/91
Page l
\ .
/" -
o o
6. lIIindows. in the-rear-stairwell un the east elt!'Ja t.lan ha'ie uC'l'n
eliminated.
7. Oi~ensions of the trellis ~ots have been lncredseo to 8 x a irlches
and are routed.
lit COMME NDA T 1 ml
Staff recommends that Hl'~ Co'...:ncil up~c'd t"'e de,,:js.ion of the ,~rch:te~~ural
R€lIiew Board and deny tf1e prcject bas..:-J on tn", foll 1;-",fn!) fi.,,~i~C;S:
I. That the applic~nt ~as not met t~e condition to r~turn to the
Board with 3 revised des.ign of th~ property ~al1 Qff Tasso Street
and of the south (0r~er of the building;
2. That the appl1cCint ha). ~Dt ach~-e,,.e,.j (\.p,B apprQ~~l ~f cc,lon and
materials and ether architectural d~tails Sf de~ign elerne~ts: and
3. That t~e project lias ch<1:l3ed fro,,:,. t.~at 'Jr',gH'laljj appro',~d bf the
Council in ways which ire detri~ent&l t~ the desigr.
Should Council choose to reverse its dec
the project without thE conditio~s impD~
the project be approvea ~ith the Fincing
A.
REspectfully 3ubm~tt~d,
Attachment A
CMR dated AU'Ji.tst 9. 1£190
CMR dated GctODH 18 ~990
5 i on
d at
and
r:.f C,r.;tot!€r
t~,at t i:-J€,
COIl,dit~ons
22, 19;0 and appro~e
~taff ff:cor;:r:<erlds Hat
lIsted ;r_ AttacI1nlent
Minutes of the October 22. 1990 City (aurell meetirg
Mintites ~f the Jar:Hf)i 3 and FebrJar.'P' 7, 199i ARB meetings.
CDrres.pol'1Jence fro~ a~pl teant
Plans (latest submitt~C)
cc: Architectural Rl::-.. iew B'Gayd
Planning (ommission
col in Pet€rs. Proputy O~mu
(MR:IS9:91
p:\cmr\S50Lytn
3/14/9~
Pag~ 4
•
John Brooks Boyd, Applicant
Mary Kennedy (401 ~ebs,er Street, p.le Alto)
Alich. Medina (1l96 Hamilton Avenue, Pa'o ,.,ito}
Bob Moss (4010 Orme, Palo Alto)
lois Vand.rb •• ~ (736 Sarron AvenY., rilo Alto)
CMR:IB9:91
p:\cmr\550lytn
3/14/91
Page 5
•
J
! •
o ()
AnACH~£NT A
Shot..:1d Council choose to iilprolfe the project, staff recO",H":'ll;:fl,j!, that the
project be approved with thE Findings and Co~1itjo~s listed below:
The revIsed design complies suff~cjentl, ~ith the Pede~tria~ District
GtJidel~nes prohibitiun of blaI",K wa11.:. and parking, ir; t~at t1'1€ adrf""d
building wan and extellded 10bbj area pl"o.;ide a ba"",e f~r the bwildHig
and an adequate pre~ence at street level.
2. The re~isEd desig~ pro~ides ~isual jnt~rest for pedestrians as required
by the r District guideTines in that the landscaping, facade
artjculation and h~g~ quality mat~rials will prD~jde wlsual and t~xtural
interest.
3. The revised design provides an improv~J trdn~itian to the adjacent
residential lones in that the at-grade parking is partially shie~ded
from lytton Awenue by bujlding walls, and the land~caping and screen
wail S in the building setback. ha .... e been increased tQ provid€ fur trier
s-creen;ng along lytton Aver.woE.
ConditiQn§.
I. CcloY's and materials shall be as srwwr. en tre sample bDarJj submitted to
the PTanning Department en March 7~ 1991. inc1udin.g c.olQrs arid ;nater!d1s
for roof. balcony floors and wall o"naments, door and window frames.
iron railing~~ trellises 3.f1d floor materla1 for entry area. Glass in
all doors and windows shall b€ clear glass. The exterior finisfl shall
be three coats of c.ement 91aster ~ith a sand fi~ish. painted a 1 jg~t
cream coTor. &u1pted WQod rafter E:i'lCS and Uird·floDr beam f'rlds <;;hall
be instilled on all sid8S of the b~ild;n9, eKcept en thQ south party
wail where tney are not ;JE-r-mitted by u.;Jd€' ,
t. A concrete ~nopo::'ill fr;l the U C,/2 {If I.h~ yr,."M,.j rIC'i.'r :.,~..!q' HI tr"jJrllj I
keep life on the s.treet is. to be r;.'ielH~d bl tn" AR8 p(ior to final
building inspection. The prClposa' -sh.illnlncll..l_d_iL..ttnE;n_acguisit101l 'llJ_Q
insta,JJatior. of two-or three·d"jmel!_~j.oJl'!..l ____ ~rt to be r.~..Yit? ..... ed _QD_!)_~ _
_ ~ljbTic Art corw.l_ission........J!b.tt:_~..Jrl_~.L..Q.g, a fOl.<ntain.
1. BUilding sfgnage shall return fDr Board ~pprovai under a separate
application.
4. The project is subject to the prolisions of the Cjty'S HousIng
Mitigation fee (PAMC ]6.14.020{t)}. The total fee of SI4,238.42 js
based en 4,843 square feet x 52.94 per square ~DQt. Half of the fee
[$7,119.21) shall be paid to the City pr;cr to occurancy. The current
fee of $2.94 per sq~are foot will bE in Effect until Mar~h 1991. If the
applicant has not secured a bul'ding permit by th~t date, the fee ~il I
Att.chA Page
_/
•
s.
6.
'.
be adjusted tn the new per square foot dollar amount In effect dt th~
time of building permit issuancE.
The applicant shall
soil s report to tne
buildlng permit~
The applicant 'hall
prior to occ~pancy.
needing replacement.
submit a detail~d griding and drainage ~lan and a
Public W'nrks Department prior' to submittal for a
replaee damaged gutters on both Tasso and lytto~
City inspectors wi 11 i dent if)' damaged gut t e r 5
7. The basement garage exc.vation and snoring shall not encroach il"lto the
public rlght-af-way.
8. HIe basement shall be eqYipped with it !:t.lmp drainage sjstem iJnd inc1ude a
back-up e;r:ergenc)' generator~
9. Bicycle parking detiin s shall be submitted to the Transportat ion
Dhision for review and approIJa1 prior to submittal for a building
permi t.
10. The wheel blocks for the two tandem parkIng spaces pro'Jided in the
below-grade garage shall be located as shown on Sheet A-l of the plans
submitted to the City on Mal 3, 1990, in order to prevent that space
being con~erted to ~sable fl~or area other than for parking purposes.
11. Due t~ the close proximity of residences. any rooftop equipment sha.ll be
e~closed for noise containment t~ prevent noise carrying beyond the
property 1 ine.
12. The follo~ing stre~t tree protection measure shall be incorporated into
the final landscape plans.
a)
b)
cJ
d)
AttachA
Prlor to ioitiatfon of construction operations, the applicant
s~al1 install temp~rary harricades as close as feasible to the
driplines. No cons.truction materiaTs shall be stoc.kpiled \ll/itnir:
the dripl ines.
Pn.ming to include reme'llal of dead "00<1 and thinning of thE foliar
canopies by appr~ximately 20 percent (2~J shall be performed
prior to initLation of construction acti ... iti2s by a certifit!d
arborist.
A program of fertilization by means ~f de~p root soil injection
Shlll be initiated prior to onset of construction activities by a
certified lrborist. Ttds fertilization shall be perfol"1Jied bi
annuall~ in March-April and July-August for five (5) years.
During and upon completion of any trending/grading operations
within a tree's dr5pline, sho~ld any roots greater than two i~ches
,2-) in diameter be damaged, broken or severed, timely root
pruning to include flush cuttin~ and sealing of e~pDsed roots
Page 2
•
,
o
shall be p!rformed by ~ certified arborist to minimize root
deteriorati~n beyond the soil line.
eJ A certified arborist shall be prfsent on the site durirlg
excavation of the garage area within the drip lines of the
existing street trees.
f)
g)
h)
AttachA
Spraying of the foliar canopies. shall be performed by '1 qualified
arborlst ~tlliling appropriate fungicides to control t~e leaf
Anthracnc5~. The fungicide shall be applied anr.~ally u~til a
certified arborist deems Ihe treatment complete.
Periodic inspections by a certified arborist ~hall be performed
monthly during the construction pha$e and shall report written
i!1specUcn findings tn tne. City Arbnrist.
Any street tree(s) which dies or suffers substantial dete~iora~ion
within five years of occupancy of He project shall be replaced by
the applicant at the applicant's costs with specie(s) a~d size(s}
determined by the CHy Arbori5t at the time of replacement.
Page-3
•