Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0548.000• / /)~ •. " .. 1". \~~ ,-9 t"" ,: October Ie, 1990 HmlORABU Cny COUNCIL Palo Alto, California 550 LYTTON AHNUE--.~PP£AL OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOAPD D[CiSIO~ Members of the Cnun~il: Report in Brief On June 21, 1990, the Director of Phnning and (ommur.ity De'"elopment~ on the recoa;,endation of the At'c~itectua' Re'dew Board. denied Hi:> proposal to CDnstruct a two-star)" office buildi n9 over surface pa!"king at 550 lytton Avenue. On July 9, 1990, the applicants appealed the Director's decision to City tOGncil. The City Council heard the appeal on August 13, ]990, and continued the item. referring it back to the ARB. Council instructed the applicant to work with the ARB to rgso1ve the outstandi~Q design prob1ems, with the projEct to return to r.ouncil with ARB and staff recolTdTlendations witn~1'l 90 days. The applicant subm1tted a revised design: which ~as reviewed by the ARB or. Septe~ber 20, lS90. That revised design is being presented to Council for review with ARB and staff r~commendations for approval with conditlllns.. ~jact Description The proposal is to d'emoli:;h an e.xi.:;tir.g fowr-unit, t"o-story apartment bul1d11"1g and to construct a three-story huPding wHh t-wo Tevels t1f office over at-grade parking and a ground noor entry lobby. There are nine parking spaces it grade and t~elve spaces underground, i~cluding two tandem spaces. The underground garage is acces~ed off Tasso Street and t~~ surface parking is accessed off lytton A~e~ue. The architectural character includes Tefer~nces to bot" Mediterranean and Oriental ar~hitecture~ with stucco wa~15. flat tile roof, deep roof overhangs, exposed timbers and wrought iron ba1conies. The 12-to 20-foot-~ide setback aTong lytton Street is landscaped with d~corative scree~ pl.nting and trellises. Changes ~ade to the D€sign The revised design differs from the design previDuslj re~iewed by the ARB and CMR:548:0 ,-, "- • •• ~ '< , ==~'_' ____ /~_'. ~~ __ . __ _d"~~ o 'City Council 1" t~e following ways: 1. Part of the previously open plaza area (336 square feet) has been enclosed witn glass to form an expanded ground floor entry Tobby~ Tile applicant is discussing with the Visual Arts Comittee the possibHity ~f ustng the glass-enclosed lobby as a place to displaj art~ l. A section of building wall has been added at the ground floor alon9 lytton Avenue. This new building wall connects to the glass wall of tr.e expanded lobby. providing a continuous ~r{)und level str\.lcture and .a str'{mger base for the bu; lding along tne t.ytton Avenue frontage. The wall also serves the purp~se of screening part of the at-grade parking. 3. To offsp.t the increased floo.-area on the ground~ the second and' th1rd flGors have beer. reduced as fallows: a) On the second floor, the building wall along the south property line has been mov~d in 10 feet fer a distance of 19 feet. creating a 190-~quare-foot outdoor balcony area. b) On the third' floor~ the building waH a1tmg the soutl1 property line has been ~oved in 3 feEt for a distance of 31 feet. This s~tback al10ws for a roof o~erhan9 along the south wall similar to the overhang on th:e othef· three Sides of the buildi ng. el .6.1so on the Uiird floor, t:'e east wa'l has bee~ moved in fcot along the entire lengtn. except at the stairway, 4. Windows have been added on the third floor facing Tasso Street in order to ~ke the ~;ndow arrangement more symmetrical. 88B. Revh~"" of the Revised· OJ;!sign At the September 20, )990 ARB meeting. the Board voted 3-1 {AinD da Rosa abse-nt, Mic.hael l.Yl~a opposed) to recomend that the City Council approve tne revlsed design, The approva' was conditional on the applicant resol~ing se\'era.l outstanding desig01 issues~ and returning to the Bo~rd for review and approval of the~e d2sign changes. architectural detai15~ colers. materjali and final landscape plan pl"for t~ issuance of a building permit. The Board approved the revised design because some members believed that the changes "Nhic~ tne applicant had made to the d(>si.gn ga .... e the building a stronger base and pro"Vided an adeql.late presence at street le\l~l. In additlon~ same mellbers fea that the Board had nat niade their dfssatisfactions lIfith the design clear en~uQh to the applicant in their earlier re~iews ~f tne project. and SG lIfere not willing to deny He project. The Information Memorandum and the Minutes of tne September 20, 1990 ARB meeting are attached to this report. RECO!<!'!ENDATlDN Staff recommends that tne City Council approve the project based on the (oll~wing fin~ings and conditi~ns. CMR:54S:0 cmr5501,lV\l IOiIS/90 Page 2 ," ~-, , findings: 1. The revised de-sign complies sufficiently .. an the Pt!destrian District GUidelines prohibition of hlank walls and parking. in that t~e added building wa.ll and extended lobby area ptJltlide a ~a$e for-the bunding and an adequate presence at street lev~1. 2. The revised design provides visual interest for pedestria~s iii reqijfred bi the P District guidel ; nes in that the 13.ndS-C.:api ng. facade arti~ulation and high Quality materials ~jl1 prcvide visual and textural interest. 3~ The revised design pr\)'1ide~ an improved transHion to the adjao:ent residential zanes in that the at·g~ade pa,king is partially shielded frotA tytton .qvenue by building walls, a!'"1d the landscaping and $Creen walls f~ the b\,.;nd~ng setb~clc; have been increased to provide fltrther screen i ng it; long Lyt tori A'IIe:'lue. Conditions: 1. Prior to applying for a bUiiding permit, the application shall return tc the B,ard with a re'liselj desigp of th~ prope;-ty w-all off TassJ Street next to the existing house and the south corner of tne buildir~g, showing HIe location of Uie property li!1e and the location of t~e neight:tlring house~ and addressing d~sign issues raised in the staff report. 2. A concrete prop:Jsal for the use of the gt'()und floor space in tryir.g to keep life on the street is to be re\llewed by the ARB prior tD final building inspectic~. 3. Prior to applying for a bunding permit, t"f applir:ant shail return to the ARB for review and approval of colors and mat~rials. including window glass, framing stucco finish. decorati'.e tili!:i, roof tnes and other architectural or desigl' elemerots t~ be determined by the Board. 4. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a final landscape and irri9atio~ plan shall return for revi~w and approval by th~ Board and by the Er.er~y O~vision Qf the Uti~ities Department. 5~ BuPdin9 signage shall return for Baar-d approval unde:r a separate .I~p 1i ca t i on. 6. The project is subject to tne pro~isions of the Citl~s Housing Mitigation f.e (PAMC 16.47.020 (e). The tot.l fee of Sl4,2lB.42 is based on 4,843 squdre feet x S2.94 per square foot. HaTf of the fee {Sl~119.2J} shall be piid to t~e CitJ prior to OCGupancy. The current fee of S2.94 per square foot lIIill be in effect until March 1991. rf the applicant has not secured a bu;ldi~g permit by that date, the fee will be adjusted to the ne\lt per :squaroe foot dollar alnount in effect at the time of building o€nnit issual'1r::e. CMR:54S:0 emr55l1]y!VW 10/18/90 Page 3 7. s. Tn! app1icant shall soi 1 s. report to t~'e building permit. T~e applicant ~hal1 prior to occupancy. nt~ed1f'lg rep' acement. o submit a detail~d grading aod driindge pla" and a Publ ic Works Depart;11e"t prior to 5 l.lbir;ittal for it; replace damaged gutters 0.1 both Tass.o and lytton City inspectors will ident1fy damaged 9utters g. The basement garage excavation and shoring shal J net encroach into He pub' ic right-of-.... ay. )0. The basement shall be equipped with a Hi'llP dr-aina.g€ s.yste~ and incl'ud~ a b.:)d';;-up eJTIergency generat.or. I!. Bicycleo parking details sh.al1 be. submitted to the Transportation Dhisfon fer review and approval prior to subrni ttal for a building permit . 12, The wheel ~locks for the twa ta~dem par~rng spaces provided in the belolli-g.'ade ga.rage shall be located as shawn on Sheet A-1 of the plans; submitted to the City on Ma.y 3, 1990, in order to pt'event that space being converted to usable floor area other tMan for parki~g purposes. 13_ Due to the close prcximity of residences, any rooftop equipment shall be enclosed for noise containment to prevent noise carry~ng beyond the property 1 i ne_ 14, The following street tree protection measures shall be incorporated into the final landscape plans_ 0) b) oj 0) CIIR: 548: 0 cmr5501y/'iW Prior to initiation of construc~ion operations~ the ipplicant shall install temporary barricades as. close-as fe'illSlble to ttle driplines. No canstructl0n materials shall be stOCKpiled within the dripl ines. Pruni n<] to indud-€! removal of dead wood and thinn ing of the foi iar canopies by approximately 20 percent {20%, shall be perfonr.ed prior to i~itiation of co~structicn activities by a certified arborist. A program of fertilization by means of deep root soil injection shall be initiat~d p~ior to onset of construction a~tivities by a certified arbar~st. This fertiltz~tinn shall be performed ~i­ annually in March-April and Jlily-August Tor five (S} years. During and upon cDmpletion of any trenching/grading operations within a tree's dripline, should an~ roots greater than two inches (2"J in diameter be damaged~ b~oken or severed, timely root pr~nin9 to include flush cutting and ~Ealing of e~posed roots shall be performed by a certified arborist to minimize root deterioration beyond the sotl line. 10/18/90 Page 4 .. o e) A ceftified arbor~~t shall be present on the site during excavation of the garage area within the dl ip li~ei of the existing street trees. fJ Spraying of the fol i ar ca:"1opies shall be-p,=,:-fol"med by a: qual i fied arbor1st utnizing apprc'priate fungiddes to control the leaf Antkracnc>se. Th~ fungicide shall be 9.opTied 3l1nual1,. urtll a certified ar"borist dee.ns the treat:ncnt comp1et.e. 9) Periodic inspections by a cert i fled arbor; st :s.hill1 be perfor"me1 monthly during the cc~stru~tlon phase a~d shall report writt~" inspection findings t~ the City ~rbori5t. h) Any street tree(s) which rlie~ or suffers substantial deterioration withir; five years of occuparcy cf the project shall be repl aced by the applicant at the applicant's co~ts with sp~c~e(!J ind size(s) determined by the City Arborist at the time of replacemtnt. Res~ectfully su~itted. 1,1 <, . ! t ;. Ii, t:' 1 ~_ /r{,; l (i,e' (V It '-.lU. t ~rRuI~ifl\ WP.Rl1£1T ~niol"' Planner,,- I :,., , /:-'-' ;.-: .,-";' I '0<-, ... '" -< $.. ! J~NI fltM1NG ~ \~Ssistant Ci ti Ka1ger KENNETH R, SCHR[!BER Director of P1anning and COi11!l'1un~ ty Environme:-,t Attachments: Refited CMR:473:0 to City Counci1. August 9, 1990, with all attacnmerJts Information Memora~dJm. ARB Meetirg. Septembe; 20, 1990 Minutes. ARB Mt;etins. September 20, i990 Minutes. City Cou,dl Meeting. August i3 l 1990 cc: A.rddtectural Re.ie .... Bo:lard Planning COn1l1issiCln C"l:;, P~ters. Property Owner John Brooks Boyd, A~plicant Mary Kenn~dy ,401 Webster Street, Falo Alto) Alicia Medina (1196 Hamilton Avenue. Palo Alto) Bcb Mos. (4010 Orm., Pa,o Alto) lois Vanderbeek (736 Barron AvenuE, PaTo 11 Ho) CMR:54B:0 cmrS501y/VW 10/18/90 Page S ~.' , , . . . '. ~,~, . '." -" HONORAK E CITY COONe I L Palo Alto, Cal; forni a Members of the Council: o Ort Jun@ 21, 1990, the ArchitectlJral Review Boud (ARB). by a. \'ote of 3-1~ recomended that the Director of Planning and c.orrmunity Enviromllent dent the proposed construction of a 4,84S-sQuar~·foot ~ffice building ~;th underground and covered at-grade parking to be locate-d at 550/560 Lytton .. ~yenue {appl icatian number 90-.A.R2-4S). The Director of Plannfng and COlmTltJliity Environment den; ed the project on lhme 25. 1990. On July 9, 199G. the ARB d~cision was appe~Ted by thre~ p~rt;es; Mr. (oli~ Peters. property owner; John BrDQ~S Boyd, arc~itect/applicant and Alicia BOja. The appellants jist three primary reasons for the appeal as follows: 1) the appellants disagree with the subjective design ideas of some members of the ARB and the Board's authority a~d ir.terpretatjon of the {F} District g'jide1il'H~s (letters attached}; 2) there is il'lcor.c1usive evidr>nce that the subject propert,)' is loc:atelj IIIHhin the bcundarie'3 of tt1e (Pi District; and 3) staff reversed its reco~endatio~ for p~oject ~pproval. PROJECT D[SCRiPTiO~ The applicant rropos!s to demolish an existing four unit. two-story apartme~t buiidlng and .:onstruct a 4 l 84S-square-foot three-story office: building: lIIith ten parking spaces below-grade and nine at-grade pa.r\:'ing spaces, four of which are covered. l~e propossd 12-scace belo~·grade pa~k'ng garage jncludes two tande!l parldng spaces in addition to required parking. Second-and third-fl.oor offices are proposed above the at-grade covered parking_ Vehicle access to the at-grad~ p.arking 1S provided with a two-liay drh'eway off Lytton Avenue. A ramp to the be;{Jw-gradoe parking ;s off Ta!tso Street. Because tne project results in the 10.:>$ of rental hOII:s.jng. the new c-ommercial flc-or area is subject to the City~s housir1g mitigation fee_ ~~AL VSIS ARB AUTHORITY AND INTERPRET~TION The .Architectural Revie~ Eoard d€nied the pl-oject heca(Jse, 'lthile the pr.oject currentl! meets the quantitative provisions of the zoning ordinance, it does not meet the Qualitative pUfposes. The {P) Oistrict regulations state in section 18_47.04013) that, •. ,. The specific nature and requirements of p~destrian deSIgn featur~s s~al1 be determined by the Architectural Review CHK:473:0 o o Board, 1n accordance with design gUlde1inB prepared hJ that Board pursuant to Chapte-r 16+48,· In particular~ Objective C~ guideHneo II stites, "Groui1d floor s.p~ces must be designed 50 thdt they tiln accormlcdate re:ta11 uses." Sinte the ground f100r ireas of the propos~d project contain nc square footag~ other Han for accl!'SS to the upper f1ccn·~ the design prohibits any commercial use on the street level includir.g office or r"etail. The Board founa that the absence of any interest ar activity at street level is a fur,damental design fla~t due to the locaticn of t~~ project within the (D) District .here street vitality is a prfncipal purpose of the district. The Board's concerns related to tne project, and their efforts to work with the appl ;cant throllgh sU'9gested design mDjHicitions that ..... ctJ~d brir,g the prcject more into compliance with the (P) District guidelines, a:t'e reflected in the attached ARB minutes of the ~ay l]~ and Ju~e 21~ 1990 meetin~s. The majority of the Board fel t t.hat it was very importa!'lt to bring some portion of the buiiding's floor area down t~ the stre~t level, in order to ~it!lize a design )thich results in an at·grade covered parling let a.nd a dark, urdf'l ..... iting plaza access to the second floo~. As design~d, the project ~ou'd not contrib~te to pedestrian activity, since at-g~ade parking lots ere known to weaken street life. Tr:e Boa~d also expressed concerns related to this project's location witnin a transit~cn area between ccmmmercial and mu1tiple-tamil.)' land uses, and tnat 'IIIhat happened ;nth redevelopme-nt on this site would set th.e precedent for other similar properties along lytton Avenue and in the broader downtown area. PEDESTRIAN DISTRICT REGULATiONS AIID GUiDELINES O~e of the appel1ant I s reisons for the app~al is that there is inconclusive eVidence tl1at the: subject property is located within the (P} District bOlJndarias.. On February ~, 1988, the Council unanimo'.lsly adopted an amendment Lo the .ll;>ning map ex:tend1ng thE boundaries of the (P) District in the (Q Zone District, which included this site. Copies of ordinance numb~r 3791, extending the (P) District boundari~s, have been proljided to the applicant. The Zordng Map clearly indicates that the project i~ within t~e (PI District, and the applicant has been sa advised by staff throughout the app11cation and preapplicatlon proces5. An(ltrler reason fiJr tt,e app.eal is that staff reversed their recommendation for approval of the project .,hen it returned for BDard review on June 2i, 1990. fb!'l,)' staff v.eetings; were neld lIIith the app1icant beginning: over a yea.r before the Bl>ud's revifw where he was advised by staff that the de:.ign {If the b ... ndi!lg above grade-le-.rel park.ing was: inherently in conflict with the intent of the (P) District re.gulations and 9uid!!1ine$~ and that it would req:Jl re-an extnordinary design effort in order t'O overo.)me that fUJ'1dam-=ntal des'gn disadvantage. He 'lJas also infor'1T1ed, .as acknowledged in his letter to staff dat~d June 5, 1990, tnat it is the ARB that determines the appropriateness of pedestrian design features. for the May 17, 1990 ARB meeting, staff recommended approval of the project based on technical compliance with the Zoning Ordil'lan("2'. If! consi<!erable part, this reccmmendation was intended to prowide the Board witM a clea~ s1ate on the design aspect of this project. in responsE to the applicant's repEated Express'ions of concern r€guding the role and appropriateness of staff design recC'mmendations. Staff also informed the appl icant that staff did' not bel ieve the ARB wOIJld support tn i s design. Or. Ma,y 17, the ARB did not support the dp.sign. When the applicant refu",ed to CM~,473:0 lyttonap/V'M 8/9/90 -1- ~~~-~---...-~ i.:_ -:,2 -... modify the design consistent wHh the ARS C'Jncer!l!>, staff recom"ller.d-ed. for tho:! Jun-e 21. 1990 Board meeting. de.,; al of the project based on the Ijesign-rel iilte!j issues identifIed by th~ Board on May 17. For this reason, staff recommended approval of the proj~ct, giljing tt1e ARB the option of taking ~hatever action they deemed appropriate within their discretionar'y jurisdictinn. The ARB did not accept the project is designed and continued it f~r f~rther design deljelopment. After the continuance of ~ay 11, 1990, the archHect~ in c.oflsu1tation Wlt~ the property c>wne'l". decided to resubmit the identical plans for Board re~iew. As outlined ~n t~e applicant's letter of June 5, 1990, he believes the d~~i9n of t~e building meets th~ spirit of the {P) District regul~tions. ~n~n tne applicant detided not to modify the project at the suggestion of the Soar-d, staff returned with findings for der.hl supporting tn'! ARB's previ{)us design judgment. RWl'tlfN D~ lION Staff reco~~nds that t~e City eoureil uphold the recommendation of t~e Architectural Review Board ar;d the cecisiorJ of ttle Director of P] anning and Commun~tj EnvironmEnt, a~d deny the proposed constr~~tior. of a 4,8~5-square-foot office building ~ith und~r9rQund and podium parking, cased on t~e following finding: 1. The proposed project is inconsistent with the letter and intent of the Pcdestr'lan Shopping Combining Distr!ct (P) RegulatiGns (Chapte'r 18.47 p~~CJ in that, the dESig~ of the p~dium b~ilding above at-grade parking provides no p~d-2stTian amer,ities or inte~t:'st at streat leve1. HI!:! specific pur):,ese of tile (P) District regu'.ations is to foster He continuity Clf retiil stores and display windows atld to a\'oid i monotollolJS ped'estrian envircnment~ in orde'r to estiibl ish and maint;!il'1 an econcmical1y hea1thy retail district ar.d the project does not fulfill his purpose~ In addit1on. b~1Td1ng designs ire required to pro'J~d:e displ iY windo",'s or retail di spl iY areas, co\"ered recessed areas for pedestrian use and' design features whiCh pje~lude blank ~alls or bu:lding faces. WhiTe this design includes perimeter landscaping and a recessed entry area. approximatel] two-thirds of the street level is occupied by parking. ~hfch lIIill difft;se pedestrian ~itality. 2. The proposed podium building above !iurfac.e par-idng with no usable at~gf'ade floor area is inconsister.t witn Pedestriall Distric.t Gyfdelines ;1 ar:d 2 under Objective "C,· adopted by the Architector.l Review Board on February 22~ 1983, w~1cn state that. "1) Ground floor spaces must be designed so that they can aCtOmmoddte retai1 US~$.~ and, "2) Grcund floors may not utilize pc,diums 'linn ha1f ciepres~ed/half abOVE ground parking which ~ould disrupt p~destrian orientation af the buildir.g unless compensating pede-strian features are iH·ovided." 3. The design does not promote harmonious transitions in scale or c~aract~r between different deSignated land uses in that. the proposed proj2ct wnich is essentla11y an at-grade parking lot with a building above presents conflicts with adjacent residential land uses due to light, nOise, and visual impacts, and as sueh is inconsistent CMR:473:0 lytton.p/vw 8/9/90 -3- .-' .. o o with reQuirements. of PAMC 18.64. (additional Sit!;-O.:> .... elapment and DEsign Regulations for CD~n~rcia1 4nd Industrial Dis.tricts). Respectfully subrni!ted. // -1 l~£L,t /!~fltjL ROBERT L HALf! A ~t:e ?eMf 1..-<.:.. '; /t~ -/": ,- PI, n Praj~ct [nfcrmation and History location ~.lp letters of Appeal Hinutes of 5-17-90 ARB meeting KENNETH R. >CHREIS[R Director of Planning and COrTlilunity fn'olironment ARB [nf~rmatior,al Memorandum of 5-J7-90 Minutes of 6-21-90 ~RB mo.ting (E.cerpt) ARB lnformational Memorandu~ of 6-21-90 M:jY It 1'990 letter frol1 applicant to staff J~ne 5, 1990 letter f~o~ appliCe"t to staff Pedestrian Shopping CDmbining District {P} Regulati~ns Pedestrfan Shopping Ccmb'~in9 Distri,t (~) tuidel;nes Plan. (Council Kember, only) cc: C~liB Peters John Brooks Boyd ~ary Kennedy (401 Wetster Street, P.lo Alto) Alicia Kedi"a (1195 Hamilton Ave~uet Pal~ Alto} Bob Moss (4010 Orm., Pile Alto) Lois Vanderbeek (135 Barren Avenue, Palo Alto) Arch; tect.lJral Review B(lard Plannf~g Commission CMR:473:0 lyttonapj..v ,=-'\ <Y o BACKGROUND AND SiTE INFORMATION 550/560 lYTTON AVENUE (90-ARB-45) lfJCction: ~l __ (:;~!)_!: Requested Action: Parte 1 S f.~~: As.se~~~l'..~ __ s.. Parcel Number: ~ist1n9 Zoning: c'_~l:~hensiye P"lan Des; 9 na .. ti OJ'): [xi '5ti.!!9..~~ __ ~ __ ~ tlse: Sun"ounding taMf Us~: !i..i. __ ~t~,i : 550/550 l,tton Avenue Boyd/Jer,!c:,s Asso-cia.tes 4~ Forest Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Mr. Colin Peters 525 University Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Approval of 4,845 square foot office building 6,000 Square Feet 120-03-02 CO-c(Pl Regi ana ljCorrrnun i ty (o:t1uerc i a 1 Multiple family Re~id~ntiil North: South: East: West: Medium Density Multip1e Family, R~-3D CD-C(P) Commercial land uses High C~nsity M!J1tipie family. RM-40 CD-C{P) Commercial land uses The proje[t ~as first s~bmjtted for preliminary review un November 16. 1988. Because the application did not co~ply with many of the provisions of the zoning crdlnance J including setbaCKS. parking and FAR, it was never agendized fGr ARB review. Almost I year later, on No~ember 9, 1989, a revised second preliminary application was filed. Similar issues related to noncompliance with tfte zoning ordina:Jce .also prevented this application from being reviewed by the ARB. It is Plannfng Oepartme~t policy not to agendize projects for Soard review which .are substantially noncompliant "ith the zoning ordi\'lance. A notice of incomplete applicaticn was maIled to the applicarlt on December 9, 1989, ~hich identified outstanding zon1ng issues as well as 'nformin~ the applicant that the project does not comply with the provisions Df the (PJ District regulations and guidelines. On March IS, 1990, an app,jcation for fi~al re~iew was submitted. The ARB first reviewed this project ~n May 17, 1990, and contin~ed the item for further design development. For reiSO~S stated i~ the appeal letters, tne applicant c~o~e not to modify the design resulting in the ARB's recommendation for d~nTal on June 21, J990. HTTCMR 8/9/90 I • Environmental lmpact !_~ __ se5 sme.!!!: lVTTCMR .0 The deadline for the City tour<il to heir th~ .ppe.l Is AU9ust 20, 1990. This project has be~n determined cat€goric;11y exempt from the requ~rements of the California Environme~tal Quality Act. 8/9/90 Z • I ____________ J .,'::::~:~ ---'----. r<~ ,_ ... J '~'!:-::,. err, OF PALO AlTO CIT': 'jl, ~..;~.:.!" ~-:, OHIC. ot the City CWk APPEAl. FROM THE OECISION.OF DIRECTOR OF f.V-H/lIINIl""IW .on AND eQMMUNlTY HIVlRONMENT WICHlTECTlJRAL REVl8 AP'PUf!A'nOWS).}IJ To be fled In duplicate • -""<: Approcalioo No. __ -.;«7",0 -Af(F.. if5 r-r.--cCin:ri Peters-- Receipt: No: ____ _ Name of App<'l1ilI1t ________ .s:u..9_m.y~_ I J cr, k3 Ass oc ia. t e::;; Phone (415) 327-3302 Add"ess 45lJ F'ore..o:;t /i.'1(lVle 1'3.10 Alto g4301 -----.... SYeet -------,City"'.~.--------'. Z"',p=--- l()CATlON Of PROPERTY: Assessoa's Parcel No. SlreetAddress ~.?O Lytton !\velue 120-0-=1-002 Zone Disfrid:..J CDC} p Name ci Property Owner (if other than appellant) (Mr. (Alin Peters) --- Propelt)' Owner'a Address -----..525. [lpj ve::sity Ayerru e Sireet Palo Al"toL __ ...:.J9,,4~30~1!--_ e"V ZIP The decisJcn of !he Direc.tof or Pianniog and Community Envircnrnent dated AP.B meeting ..... un~ 21 19_--.2Q._ whereby the atlprrcallcm of :1c~ Colin Peters c/o fuyj I ';et'i~ Associat­ (original app(k:an1) d,enied -:==;-,..-;;-__ ~ fs hereby appeared for ~ reasons slated (approved/den1ed) . ..,., We artached Jetter ~n dupficale) Signature of Appellanr ___ "a,,;;, .... e:;,.,-_"'Lk..c:;.;<.<_"'A ..... __ CllY COUNCIl DEOSlON: Oa,. ___ ~ ______ . Approved ___ _ Oenied ___ _ Re1narfcs and/or Condrtiol'l!!: wumAl REQUiREMENTS SATISFJED: 1'1 1. Plans ,/)-.'", ~ '" . / , J 2. Labels ---y-- ._--- 3. ""peal AppflCation Forms 1.---- By: ,J/<--I· 8y: ~ I By: J~~ I 4 Letter ~ S. Fee -r By: ..;,.--<- 61: -~' .. , . .' 12/B9 """"OI"o'C.c. .-/ PETBIRS.PETERS & ELLINGSON CO .. -N "'~TC~S !!'l:" ..... C .... '" .. £ '[1'1" ~ ... ~"'::I ... E E:,-lIN<;,SOf. counci 1 Membe-rs City ~f Palo Alto City !lall Palo Altc~ CA 94301 ..... .:l~,,,J...,,.. .. ~ "O"_"~'Q" ~!! U"'."I"",",,'T~ ""i:,",UC '.''1' .J.I'8 ."0 ~"" , .. ,." ,.1ft e7~& July 9, 1990 ! ~e: 550 Lytton , _, I",' 1 '"lf'> " ',L', •.• ~ ~"':------------ Dear Council Members: Pursuant to the rule that -all reason~· for th~ appeal be expressedl please accept thi$ as the owner·s input. As a lay pe~son in the area of architectur~. I maKe no pretense of having any expertis~ in thct field~ That will be left to others. My contribution will be limited to personal and conceptual aspects~ ! was bo~n in this town some 71 yeaI~ a90. I have lived and worked in this alea all my life (eIcept for 19~1 through 1946). In short, this has always been my horne and I share the pride we all feel for Palo Alto. One of my ambiti~ns has been to build an office building of my own and not only own it but spend the rest of my working years in it~ My architect was qiven a free rein to desiqn a first class structure and I feel he has done that. Wheth~r or not it please$ everybody it pleases me, and I do~·t want to change it. That brings me to this appeal. As a novice spectator to these procesdings, I nave been astounded at the workings of the ARB. Rightly or wIGngly. they have taken on the role of a court of last resort. Item after item is disposed of by an almost Off-hand comment of one of its members. such as, -I donot like this entry,-or -I don't like this balcony.- .. City Council Members July 9. 1990 paQe 2 o That comment usually ends ~ith the applicant being told to go back and revise this, modify that. and eliminate the other4 All this is done by obviously sincere and ccnscie~tious board rnembers~ but whether by desi9n or destiny. this body has be~ome subjectively all powerful. Two qualified professionals can have two differing cpinions. That does not meart one is wrong ~ As demonstrated in this ease. the a~plicant must follow the board members· p~rsonal prefE:rences~ It is respectfully submitted that to conform is to confine. II .in 5U<iI.liQll\ll: ~ thJj; di!;:t.ll.!!.li. .t.M ll.lill 9J. j, 1=. Very truly yours, ~£2.,-> Colin Peters CP:jj l' --_ .... • PAlo Al-;O City (l;:}unc'.il 250 Ramilton Avenue Palo Alto ... 01. i4lOl 550 4't'"...a1 A-...nue / 'J',. • I , Propoeed 4.853 Square Foot Office Building with undergtW1d ~"J ---, Dear: City o:.mcil~' '!be subject project is hereby i!~led to the Palo Alto City CC;lJncil foe the foUQWi.nq rsascne .. To date, there is inconclusive evidalce that this prqJert.y is in fact in the ro-c (P) =. rather than .iJrply the <D-C Za>e. Denial of the ~ project at the I\!lB level by rooe of its manbers iS r I believe .. based m subjecti~ ideas of whether or rolOt. the project satisfies the guidelines of the Pedestrian (P) Shopping C'aTt:I.ined District.. 'Ihis is assuni.ng the property is ito. the (PJ District~ starf infoatational ~ of loUy 11, 1990: "Gi\!-ert that t.l)e pcoja..-t :ueets t.r"e C1 ty' s zooing regulations.. staff 19' dtt: ~ I subject to the follow:i."'l9 caxiiUons •• • "11lere we.re 9 C'OOditioos, ioclOOing ~ $14,261.82 housing mitilJiltioo fee, all of wuch are a~le to the O<ner. June 21, 1990 .. after a o:;::.n+..inlatioo by the ARB foc further design zn::di fication L'1d. a decision by the Owner and Archi. teet to not ltOdif Y the building design tl",e does CO'"ply with the oeoning r:egulaU""" of the City, b.Jt does not carply with the architectural viewpoint of the ARB. 1be lecouuadi.tioo. of the staff in its .June 21, 1950 meroor:-anc'hn is as folIOWI-: -Because the awlicant has c:b:;lsen not to IKXlify t!'"~ desi9J1 in order to """"ly with the Pedestrian Oisttict guidelines am ftlt' sreater carpltability with the-adjacent Residential District a1or.l9' l¥ttoo Avenue as specified in PAM: 1864, based on previous direction of the J':brGro staff Iecua!E!ids denial of the project based CC1 the !ollowiny findings • • • • How". after a c:ne month delay, the staff, \lith absolutely no char,ge in the pt:opoeed plan. has reversed itself and Ze<:UIIIEfljs deniaL \'1"=0 is itt c.:ha.rqe? And bow can one CCJl!)ly with inconsistent decisions such as tt£l8e that have been !'Jade on this project? As the Architect of WII prooject, I respect-fl.!lly disagree with the subjective design ideas of 0QIIe " ... bet. of to.! Mm. 1be p<q>OSal doc,," ~ly with every proocr4>ti"" ocdinanoe and reguiranent of the City. Starf a9<""d \l,ith this in Kay 1990.1 and there has been no change in the plan since. I truly t.eli ..... t1w. (,Jar. ohould t.e aJllX"OV8'l and aU.-:l to move ahea<i thrW<Jh llCClOl dlllllnels. .. jOh'l bro .. )-oberf ; Ihi .. d ; ~·lli"c )'l:: _\-, ~iaks co .. '''' PIE:'fEF>'5 srC.F>-fE:'" ... "1I:l'I!;~S F> .. r~,c, ... ~ 1!:t.t.''''G~O''' o PETERS, PETERS & ELLIS-OSO~ .. a"o. ~~.,. <;' ...... ~o ... <." ... ~'o .. S4!!!o .... ,"'[; .. :!.,~y ... ve. ... "'!!; ''''!I,' "·"'."'0 , ... ,,,,~, 3.7. 'P"II!II ~C'''.l July 9, 1990 ,~ .. j i I , City city P.O. Palo of Palo Alto council Members Box 10250 _._-' Alto. CA 9430) Reqarding: Appeal ot Director of Planning and Architectural Review Board Denial of: 550 L~N AVENUE Council Members: Since the Directors of Planning and community Environment originally gave our project unanimous approval and subsequently reversed theaselves upon ARB denial r shall direct my statements toward the Architectural Review Board.. The ARB recc~endation of denial for our buildinq was based on Pedestrian Shopping District Requlation number 18.47. (P section) • Buildings should foster continuity or retail stores, maintain an economically healthy retail district and avoid monotonous pedestrian environment4- Specifically the ARB oriqlnally required~ 1. Harmonious retail, 2. That the building not be elevated l J. A lighter and more open plaza with fewer automobile parking spaces. To address the specifics of the dcnial~ The closest retail store to our site is the 7-11 store on the corner of Waverly and Lytton. We believe very strongly that harmonizinq with the 7-11 retail store 1s not in cur or palo Alto's best interest. If one looks at the notes of the ARB ~eeting of 3une 21, it viII show ~he ARB -rescinding it l s ori"3'ir.al retail recommendation4 As far as a"oiding monotonous pede:;trian environment, we are net sure this should apply. Lytton is ~ow one of the thoroughfares, designed to take caLS off University and has very little pedestrian traf~ic. In ei~~er case, there is nothing monotonous about our buildinq. It provides an extensive area of perimeter landscapinq, trellis' with wisteria vines, A qreat deal of fenestration on the second and third floors trimmed in verdiqreed iron work, ~ small bal~y overlooking the street, a light grey slate plaza laced with tastefully located concrete strips and a recessed entry area, which will have an art work display. At one tiDe we were qoinq to place benches out 1n front, but because of out prollCi.lty to the creek and the problem with the homeless ve thought it best not to~ • , July 9, 1990 city of Palo Alto council Members Appeal of: 550 LYTTON A'IrENlJE Page 2 ot 2 July 9, 1990 o concerning the second and third ARB objections req.!lrdinq the building being elevated on a base and the plaza being primarily a parking &pace: With the four foot stucco valli the setback from the street, the trees, shrubs and the trellis, Bast of the parking spaces will be hidden~ This building will appear to be more like a qenteel old world residence then an office building~ It was suggested that we put offices on the qrownd level with q14sB walls and not raise the building. We are a prcfessional law corporation and aost people who come into a law office appreciate discretion. Also, elevating the buildinq not only gives u& more privacy it creates a more open feeling.. With a. substantial amoun't. of the (base) qr~ floor walls in glass and housinq the previously aentioned drt work display~ the effEct is very distinctive. There vas some .isunderstanding regardinq why the Applicant did not chanqe the plans after the preliainary ~eetinq with the ARB. We would like it understood it waS not bad faith or arrogance. But our feelinq that we had not explained our plan as w~ll as perhaps was possible. Please note, after our second audience before the ARB$ the vote was very close and kept qoinq back and forth. One IIf!J1ber chanqed her vote when takinq in to alccount what was referred to as bad faith fr~ the apylicant and our tate was sealed. OUr buildinq is different and perhaps not easily understood. 8u~ I say allow us to build it aruf we will guarantee Palo Alto so.ethinq it can be prou~ of. very truly yours, A~~~~ Executive S~cret~ry to Xr. Colin Peters • ~ ~rC"iteCh.r; .. l~e\Tle", Irtmrfl ,"ililites ::~----~C~1~~~~------------------------------------------~--::----------- Board Members Present: Board Members Absent: st .. ::-ff Present: Thursday, May 17, 1990 8:00 A.M. Civic Center 250 Hamilton Avenue Council Conference Room Palo Alto, California Marni Barnes Aino daRosa Michael r.yzlJa .Jon Schink Shirley Wilson .None Haley and Lytle App~ova). of the minutes of May 3, 1990 lJas postponed tv the June 7, 1990 ARB meeting. C. Q.EA). COMMUNICATIONS None APPROVALS: The Architectural Review Board (APE) decision on the desi~n of the project is 2l recommendation to the Director of Planning and Community Envit'onrnent (the Cicector) I , ... hG makes the final decision. Unless otherwise stated by the A..~B or the Director, project approvals generally incorporate Project RevielN' COllU'llittee conditioMs as recoiT.rr:ended in the­ Inf0rmation Memorand~rns. CHANG£S: Any change to an approved design pJ nn must b!" resubmitted to the City for approval. Fes~bmittal of a project may also be necessary if changes are mandated as a result of comp-lying 'With Public Works/Engineering or-other City department requireroents, or any other dPpl icable code or ordinance requirements. '::./17/90 Page 1 C·-:;: :' .- 55.0_ t.'t'TTON AVElo/lJE* Boyd/Jen..l(S o 90-ARB-45 Fij~al review of demolition af four-IJnit ~partm~nl building dnd con~trLlction of 4,85] square feet of offic@ building with und£.'rqrrn.md parldr:q Mailed notices "rolCre sent to ~ll pr0perty o·..-ner::;. and utility customers within 300 feet of the project 5 i t~. There ,,',3S no public com~p',nt~ After detailed comment, the Board CONTINUED, 5-0, this item for further design development that ,*"ould br ing the project morp in character 'With the residential neighborhood and the edqe-of P-Distr i<.:t zoning. Board members agreed that s j te plan needed another look, that the building needed to be plJl1ed away from the property line~ t.hat the building should be pulled do~n at least partially to the pedestrian level, that the applicant needs to restudy the .mechanical equipman-t_, the eaves and whether they penetrate the rear property line. A m~jority of Board members objected to the parking garage raised up on stilts or pillars and in view of resid~nces across the street. Se.:::urity lighting for the 1,3hby and ga.ragE' could also create glare far the residences across the street. It was agreed that applic~nt needs to take into account the environment and z.oning and design to t.he spirit of the P District. Reg<'lrding archi tect'Jrdl comments, Aj no aaRosa thought the app J icant had a good b€gin.~ing in an interesting cross between residential and ccm~erciali but she was concerned ~here the building is spliced off as it meets the property line. She also ..... ondered why the windo,,,, rhythm is broy.en so awkwardly. H$~ wilson ",as pleased to see that the applicant had chang<':'-j the n.-ltl.)re of the archite,:"ture, but expressed cCr]cern for thE­ zonjnq here. She stated the importance of doing a building that is really compatible 'With the residential neighborhood. Mr. Lyz\oIa suggested tnat applicant look at the floor plcw ~gain as one exit may be all that i& required. Also~ Mr4 Lyzw."] asked the appl icant to study the codes 0 •• (> more time and to cl"leck .... ith Fred Herman about the exiting requirenu:·nts. Mr~ Schj n}~ thought this building holds together better as an offic~ than as a residence. He also stated that the landscape bljffr~r along Lytton is an irnp<lrtant part or this application. crlairperson Wilson observed that~ based upon Board comments, e, rcduc:ticn in the size of the building may be necessary_ ShE dIsc told the applicant that further discussion CQuld take place outside this me~tinq, and that Staff and/or ARB members would be happy to discuss this project fUr-tiler \o,:j th the ~ppl ic.ant .. 'It i~ recommended that the applicant listen to the tape rc-cording of this item for detailed Board member com1l1ents.} 5/17/90 Page 4: CG .- II • REGUlAR AG END,\ . . INFORMATIDNAl KEHORAHDUM ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD llay 11, 1!90 3. 550 lffiOH AVENUE' Boyd/Jenks - Final review of demolition of four-unit apartment build:ng an~ constr~cti3n ~f 4,953 square feet of office building with underground parking ZONING CD-C(P} Downtown ComTlerciill with Pedestdan Shcpping Comb; ning District E"~IRONM!N1AL IMPACT ASSESSMENT Project impacts were sufficientl~ addressed ir. the Downtown Study £nv1r~n~ntal lmpact Report PUBLIC IiOTIeE Mail~ notices were sent to ill property OWners and utility customers wlthiD 300 feet of the project site. DESCRIPTION/ANALYSIS The applicant proposes to demolfsn an exfsting fOUT ~nit two-story aparu.ent house ind construct a 4,853 square foot t~ree story office 'DtJ,1diog with 10 parking spaces belolll-grade and 9 at-g·rade c.overed parking spaces. The project will also include two additional non-required tand~ parking spaces located in the below-grade garage in front of spaces identified as numbers 9 and ]0 on Sheet A.I of the plans submitted for Board reyiew. Because the projett results in the loss af rental nDuslrig I the r.ew commercial flcor area is subject to the City's housing miti:gatior. fe-e. ~cond and third floor ()ffjces are proposed abo .. e pedestaled at-grade tcvl!red parking. Vehicle acce:;s to the at-grade pariLing is proyided with a two·way driveway off Lytt:Jo Aver"Je. A ramp to the belo .. -grade parking is off Tasso Street. Building materials consist of stucco valls, a'um;nu~ windows~ accent ceram~~ t;les, a ~ta' railing with copper patina around a sEcond floor ceramic tile deck, and flat r!d clay tiles on the roof. A covered plaza is proposed at the carner of lytto~ and Tasso bordered with a wooden trellis. The preliminary landscape plan is in compliance wit~ the Utility Oepartr~r.t/s recentl} adopted Tandscape guidelines. The project will result "4n the remo)!!l of one 17 inch Sycamore stre~t tree to provide a~cess to the site. The City Arborist has expressed a concern that excavation of the underground garage will result in an inadequate amount gf soil ar~a to support the remaining six Sycamore street trees. In response to the City Arbor;st's concerns, the applicant has submitted an ar'borist's report prepared by 5 . .0. McClenahan Co., dated .~pr-il 3C, 1990, The report states that ramaining trees are i~ fair conditio~ and, ·5· , • o -Tne root feeding areas of th~se tr~es is limited by the street, sidewait a~d present b~ildin9. Se~ering of buttress roots Wli ac(ompl;shed many years ago within one (Dot of the trunks to f .. cilitatt sideitrialk reconstruction which further limited the rcot feed;"9 areas.. The present building desfgn will 1nt1ude an underground parking area with necessary excavatio~ within nine feet of the trunks of these tr~~s to I depth wel' below the root zone. Because the pre~ious severing of anchoring roots, excavation is expected to ~a· .. e minimal fmpact to the buttress/anchorf~9 roots and less than 20 percent (2~) of the present feeding root systems will be affected.- The report identifies tree protection measures ~hich ire included in the recnmmended conditions t should the Board approve the project. RECOHMFNDATION Giyen that the pr~ject ~ets the City's zoning regulations, staff recommends approva) of the project subject to the folTowing ccndtions: 1. final co'ors and landscape plans shall return for Board re.iew prior to issuanc~ of a build;ng permit. ruture signage shall retUrR for Soard review under a separ~te application. 2. The project is subje<:t to tt-,e proyis.ions. of the City's Housing MItigation ree (PAMC 16.47.020 (e». The total fee of $14,267.82 is based on 4.SS3 square feet x S2.94 per square foot. Half of the fee ($7,133.91) sh.ll be paid to the City prior to issuance a bui1ding permit. The second half of the Housing ~itigatjo" fee is shall be paid to the City prior to occupancy. The currfnt fee of $2.94 per square foot will be In effed ""til ~.reh of 1991. If the applicant has not sec1Jred a building P~n'1it by that date, the fee will be adjusted to the r.ew per squar~ fcot dollar amount in effect at th! time of building permit issuance. 3. The applicant shall submit a detailed grading and drainage pTan and a soils report to th2 Public Works D2partment prior to submittal for i building permit. 4. The applfcant sMall replace damaged gutters on both Tasso and lytton prior to occupancy. City inspectors will identify damaged gutters ceeding replacement. 5. The basement garage excavation and shDri~g s~all not encroach int~ the public right-of·way. 6. The base~ent shall be eQu;p~ed with a sump drainag~ system and incl~de a back U9 emergenty generator. 7. Bicycle parking details s""all be submitted to the Transportation Division for review and approval prfor to submittal for i building permit. 8. The wheel blocks for the two tandem parking spaces provided in the below gride garage shall be located as. Si'HHliI'n en Sheet A.l of -6 - the pla~s submitted tc the City on ~a1 3, 1990~ in order to prevent that space bei~g c~nverted to usable floor area o!her tha" for parking purposes. 9. The following street tree protection measyres shall be incorportted i~to the final landscape plans: oj Prior to 1nitiatfon of construction op~rations the applic~nt shall install temporary barricades as cl~se IS feasible to t~e dripl;ne. No construction materials s~a'l be 5toc«~i1ed within the driplines. b) Pruning ~Q incl'Jde removal of dead wood and and thinning of ttl!' foliar canopies. by apprOXimately 20 percent (2~) shall be perform@d prior to initiation of construction activities by I ce~tified arborist. () A progr~rn of fertilizition by ~eans of deep root so~l injection shall be initiated prior to onset of construction actlvities by i certified ,arborist. This fe!"'tilization shall be performed bi-~nnually in H~rc~-April and July-A~gust fer flYe (5) y •• rs. d) D1Jring and UPo" completion of any trenching/grading' operations wfthtn I tree's driplfne~ should any roots gr~ater than two inc~e$ (2-J in diameter be da~aged broken or severed, timely root pruning to include flush cutting and sealing of exp~$ed roots shall be performed by a certified arbcrist to rni~i=ize root deterioration beyond the soil line. e) A. certified arbo,ist shall be pres.ent on the site during excavation of the garage Irea wit~in the drip lines of the ~xisting street trees. fj Spraying 0' the folilr canopies shall be performed by i qualified arborist utiliiing appropriate fungicides to contr~l the Leaf Antnracnose_ The fungicide shall be applied annually antil I certified arborist deems the treatment complete. g) Periodic inspections by a ~ertified arborist 5hal1 be performed monthly during the co~st~ction phase and shall report writt~n inspection findings to the City Arborist~ b) Any street tre!(s} wn1ch dl! or suffer substantial deterioration with;~ five (5) years of octupancy of the tht project shall be replaced by the applicant it the applicant's cost with speci e{s:) and s1ze(s) determined by the City Arborist at the time of repla~ement. ·7· () /" JtID 31, 1"0 ARClII .... C'I'Il1IJ.L RIIVI.. BOARD UClIRft IUJItJ'l'BS 550 LTTTOK AVENUB, 90-AAB-45 Boyd/JeMS Final review of demolition of four-unit apartment builQing and construction of a 4,51B-square-foot of£ice building with underground parkinq. John Boyd: My name is Joh..., Boyd. I'va had problems trying to keep track of ainutes ot wbat was said and what wasn#t said, trying to under&:ta.nd thea and explain them to my owner, who is here today--Hr. Peters. In case he wasn't a~le to come we also have a recorder so that we can try to abide with what the desires of the group 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 memorandu. sayR we don't. We really haven#t made any changes at all because we're happ~ wi~~ what ~e h~ve~ We thrr~ that we seet the requirements of the pedQst~ian guidelines but we no longer have the reoo.mendaticn of s.taff for approval because of the question on pedestrian regulations~ I believe that the plan that we have--maybe it#& too complex and I haven't explained well enouqb in the paat and I just made this colored rendering to try to explain better that really the building lines at this point are 50 feet away from the property on this side. We do have on-qrade parking here. We bave 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 ~is corner. Also we do have a wall here wbich is 4 f~et high and a ~all at this point that is 4 reet hiqh with 12 feet of landscaping herg, 10 feet of landscaping here and five here. I want to point out that there~s not that much parkil19 under this building. This ramp qoes down, this is where the elevator is and that's the stairwell. This is the pedestrian area here that we 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. Th~ guidelines also suggest th~t a building facade should be steppe~ 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 Dare than the lIinimum.. We feel .... e C3n landscape this and make this a very attractive place. We also propose to do the sa.e paving which is a slate finish on this entire deck so it's not just asphalt, in here for example# or concrete or so.ething else. It's a total design concept and I believe in working with ~y landscape architect, to me this is going to be a very nice place and that# in fact, it is pedestrian Lytton Page 1 • . ';-:':;";­ "":;".".0' ""?:,~.";:.~.~:....: "',~. " , .' /" o oriented. The one thinq that it does not h~ve is retail. We don't have. any shops. We don't have any retail do\o,on h~re. It's all pedestrian and that's the one part ot the requl~tions we do not comply with. I think there'. some question about that poir-t. 1 think this is a better transition through the neighborhood to not have the retail and the noise and the traffic th~ouqh the residential area where there's been some concern about this. This, in tact, is a better solution than putting retail stores 40wn there. There's even a quastion whether ret~il ~akes sense financially, but that's prObahly not what we're talkinq abo~t. Tb~ othar thinq that I want to point out and I've heard quite a bit of comments about trellises. We just happen to have a trellis here~ A heavy timber trellis would qo across that entry, -down along the front and turn on the side so 'We've tried to comply with the guidelines. I don't kno'W exactly why this was changed. The convaraation came up at our last meeting about 40 days ago where this zoning ~aybe shouldn't be here. I aon't know. The property was purchased as CD-C a~d in 19S8 it was CD-C after extensive study of the downtown. There's a guideline book out that had this as co-c with no .p. overlay. So now there is .p. I quess and I think that it should be attractive to pedestrian traffic, there's r~ question about that and I think that it Is. I think that it has a lot of nice space there and llleets the guidelines E'_xcept for the fact that it doesn't have retail. So, as per ocr report that ~e bad received th~ough staff at our last meeting, we meet with this proposal all the prescriptive requir~ment. of all the ordinances and special requirements for this piece of property so the only thing that's a preble. and I don't think I explained it ~ell enouqh to show because it is very complex is the fact that we donrt have retail. Other than that we .ore than meet the quidelines of the ·P" district overla.y. I respectfully hope that you'll thi.nk about this and coament and qive us approval 50 that we can DOve ahead after considerable work and effort to this point. Mike had a few questions at the last meeting. I have met the Buildinq Department and reviewed those things &nd we do comply 'With the requirements of the Building Department. Shirley Wilson: You don't have anything that sbows the building next to this line? 30bn Boyd: On this propert.y? There's an old Victorian house. Shirley Wilson: I know that. You don't show any distances or any relationships to this. John Boyd: Don't you suspect that viII be a new buildinq eventually? Shirley Wilson: We can't suspect anythinq. I don't know ~here bis building wall is in relationship to what's there~ Is this property riqht on the property line? ~ohn Boyd: Yes. Lytton Page 2 " , o Shirley Wilson: In looking at it almost like a party wall. John Boyd: This wall riqht here is on the p~operty line~ The saae as the Dean Whitter building down at this corner right here--that's on the property lin~. Shirley WilBon: So the next person can build along their property line, next to him, right? John SOyd: Absolutely. The other thing is they can build next to ae and they can also build five stories. I think a CD-C zone, ~. I right Nancy. is 50 feet? Hancy Lytle: Fifty-foot. height limit but the FAR is 1 to 1. John Bovd: So you'd have a tover~ This particular property was restrIcted to 35 feet high. Marni Barnes: Part of your planting 18 sloped. Could you show ae What's sloped up? It com~$ up to the wall. John Boyd: This would come up from the sidewalk~ slope up a bit, ~for some drainage, that's all. xarni Barnes: Oh, it's not to the top of that wall? John Boyd: Right top of the wall. slope up about 18 now, we're thinking not sloping this up to the There would be a wall there. ~~t this would inches from here to here~ Shi~ley wilson: This vall looks like it h5s a lot of relief to it and this is a straight property line. I don't understand how these two things can be the same. John Boyd! This is the wall that's on the property line. We're putting a pattern in the vall so it's not just a dull, flat wall. I have to cut this overhanq at that property line. That/e what I've done there. On this elevat,ion, you"re looking at it toward Lytton and tbis projection is coming out over the parking lot. Here's the property lille, t..lotis wall actually sits back three feet, then the upper floor ocmes over~ Here's a balcony with wrouqht iron. shirley Wilson: I understand that but ~~atfa not what I~. asking you, John. There's a lot of relief, app3rently. in the property line wall in tni. elevation but it's shown straight. I don't quite understand how that vorts. John Boyd: This wall, Shirley, is on the property line .. !hirley Wilson: I understana that~ John Boyd: That's why that overhang stops. Shirley wilson: But what about all the pattern and texture that shows in this wall? Lytt.on Paqe J •. \ ". ,/ o o John Boyd: It's in the plaster. It's a texture in the stucco~ Shirley Wilson: What's happenin9~ Does this take 6 inches to do? Thres inches? John Boyd: About ~ inches. I talked to the Building Department, they say I can do this as a tWo-hour roof ana that ~ill allow us to come back lik8 this instead of qoinq straight UP4 Marni Barnes: But some of this 1. open though isn't it? This is a solid wall. You don't look over the cars there. John Boyd: Right. Cement plaster and if ve get the qo ah~ad ye'll ~ork out those colors. I'd like to co this with a qreen finish on it. I've qot the tile roofs. Shirley Wilson: So this wall here goes up a story and it just stays here. Riqht? John Boyd: Exactly, and then the elevator and stairs on the other slde~ Maybe if you wanted, I thouqht later after reading these# we maybe could bring this walkway out this way further and b~J.n9' this out this way. That's one pedestrian design that we could do. Shirley Wilson: Okay. Any other staff comments? Aino Viera-Da-Rosa: I was particulary interested in the paragraph staff inserted about historic buildings and soae contact they made wi~~ the HRB about ~~is building? Was that just research? Virginia Warbeit: That vas in reqarcis to a specifically as~ed question ~t the last meeting~ Aino Viera-Da-Rosa: But there is no designation. Virginia Harheit: There is no designation. The Buildinq files re~erred me to the historic inventory list but it's not on the inventory.. My und~rstandin9 is that it vas 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 right. Thank you. Shirley Wilson: I'd like to open the public hearing. The first name I received is Mary Kennedy. Karv Kennedy: Yes. I live at 41 Webster and we1re interested in the trees~ There are trees that are not on the property but are on the property line and there are some that I canlt tell whether they're on the property or not but we like them very Buch and we hope they will not bE disturbed. The ones that are not on this property. we're concerned about the construction part of it. Whether they .iqht damage the roots and so forth during construction. I heard some other speaker say that they had put Lytton Paqe 4 o in some kind of request tha~ if the tree died within a certain lenqth of time th~t it could be replaced. This is very complicated, I unc1erstand, because it'. on two pieces of property and maybe this isn't appropriate at all but I just wanted to point out that we ar~ v .. ry fond of those trees and hope they'll stay in spite of the construction that goes on t_he other side. The other question I had was, or course, everybody must have discussed thj.3 before, the parking and the traffic. r""m sure it has been discussed. I just don't know. The parking, I assume, has been arranged for, enouqh for the building itself between the underground and this other section in there and so it would just be a matter of whatever trafiic there is and, as I said, there's a great deal ot traffic on Lytton already. I was hopinq there was plenty of parkinq &pace~ Parkinq is very difficult for us in that area. I think that's my main point--the trees. Shirley wilson: Thank you. Next member of the public to speak is ~lcia Medina~ Alicia Medina: My name is Alicia Medina. I work for the owner and I live with the architect~ I know for a fact that Colin, when he first askea Jolm to desiqn t..~is bullding 1 the first thing be said was I want a first class building. We have a building r.ov that should come down. It's faulty looking and it's faulty structured. We bave desiqned it ~o that most of the parkl~q is underground. The owner, by the way, plans to use it himself for hi. own law fir.. Most ot our parkifl9 'Will be underneath. The parking on the surface level will b~ on Bryant. The general appearance that. we're shooting for is one of ola: Europe. Palo Alto se.ems to be partial to the spanish colonial. I think we have enough of that. I think you're goinq to be very pleased. We have a t31ented ~rchitect and an interested owner. They have a combination that's qoinq to produce something a little better than .ost~ We are two people that have been ~orkinq on this for a long tiae and I v~~t you all to consider that. The$e are professionals and they're willinq to go all out because it's something that's very Meaninq!ul to them. Thank you. Shirley Wilson: Thank you. Volunteers? Are there any other .embers of the public who wish to address this item? ~£~~~~~E~n41 don't have very much thatls already been said. I that I have any inkling of the thinking that goes into these tt.ings. I can say tb.at I like the building. I want to qet into it. I think it's very beneficial. It fits the area and it just strikes me 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'. been covered earlier or somE'_body would have told her that her tears are groundless. There is one big a~acado tree~ If that's the one you're thinkinq of, I think that goes. It's right smack in the _iddle of it but I'd like to harvest those avacados. It Bounds to me like the hang up is whether or not the staff can block the whole thing by just putting in a repott sayinq we think Lytton Page 5 o it ouqht to be retail. There's no retail around there. I think the ne~rBat rQtail is 7-11 which is hardly a guideline for the rest of the ~on5truction around the~e and to have the~ say that's the cause and to ask you to deny it, I think is a p~etty superficial analysis and it certainly in not in keeping with the araa and what John has daaigned here, I think is far more conforming to the area and beneficial to the public~ It really Bight be pretty nice for pedestrians vith the way he has it desiqned. Confessing I know nothing about all the technicalities that have qone 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 throuqh this thinq and I'd like to get ~oinq and I don't see that any objections hava been made now that should stop it. Shirley Wilson: Thank you. Any other me~ers of the public here who wish to speak. All rl~ht. We'll return to the Board. Jon? Jonathan schlnk: Well I think you all know this is the same plan we saw before. I thought it was a qood project then an~ I think we should support approval and I'll continue the same way. We do havo a real dilemma here with the zoning Ordinance and a number of issues. Let me try to sort through them o~e by one as I see the31. In lookinq at the architecture~ I would hope you all would agree, if we were to look at just this second and third floor of this building, they're wonderfully designed, they're excellent 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 qround plane because of the conflicts created by the parkinq. 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 thlnk the architect sufficiently detailed that party wall to my satisfaction and I think if we look at other projects we can see that it's even ~ore detailed than other projects that we've approved in the Downtown so the party wall is acceptable to me. How does this project rel~te to the qround plane and then we get into the whole idea of pedestrian desiqn guidelinea. It's always an awkward~ difficult mix wben you introduce automobiles in the building and especially with the Zoning Ordinance that we have now. This Zoning Ordinance mak£B the 7-11 building up a ~lock as sort of the perf~ct zoninq there. rt's a little 50 percent lot coverage. Anytime you want to 90 over that you create problems. I think all of us as architects or people interested in design in our community don't want everything to look like 7-11 so how do we go to the next step. It means raising the buildings up and trying to hide the parkinq underneath. I think that the detail he has shown with the wall around the parking# the trelli~~ the plantinq alonq Lytton, are appropriate to hide the parking. Now that we've introduced the landscaping~ how 00 we satisfy this concern addressed in the .p. District desiqn 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 E .. • 1 / parking on-site, you ~ill really destroy your opportunity for that ret3il Un18$8 you go all the way ~ack to the 7-11 conc~pt and 80 I think tbis is a time where we reooqniz~ that those ·P" District design quid.linea are si~ply that. They're desiqn guidelines and they're not applicable in all cirCUEstanCe& so qo back and look at this buildir~, for what it is, where it's located, it's on Lytton. It's a rather busy street so that the landscaping Is appropriate. The t.he treatment of the qround plane is appropriate. I don 6 t have any problems supporting this project . Shirley wilson: Would you addre5s the contextual issues with the tremendous amount of r~sidential that's around it? Jonathan SChink: Tbat ~as my first note here, the contextual direction of the architecture, and I tried to. say what it is. We've got this incredible mixe~ bag. w~'ve got this glorious Victoran across the street. We've qot this ~ost E3ssive building in all of Downtown Palo Alto across the street in the otber direction, the Bank of Ameria and 525 University. You bead up Lytton into sort of a .tra~e hodqe-podge of office bui.ldinqs and low-level bulldlnqs. You get all the way up to the Times Tribune which is industrial or you gc in the other direction of the large, massive, rasidential 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 qot the appropriate landscapinq. I t.hink that's the direction you take. ShirleY wilson: Aino? Aino Viera-Da-Rosa: Well, I think that my analysis i. ai_iler to Jon's. My conclusion Is a little different. The second and third story ot this bull ding have a lot of architectural detail. There's some refin~ent that we talked about the last time that I'd like to see but the real issue is that this is a parking lot with a bullding above it and every attempt has been made with the walls and the landscaping and trellises to screen the parking lot but that's what is being put on the ground floor and providing a parking lot is the issue for~. I think it's an inappropriate location in that context to have a parking lot in the middle of Downtown. It is a mixed baq in terms of residential--old, massive, delicate buildings--but because it is a mixed baq, this is an opportunity to start a new di~ectlon and what happens there is going to influence what happens with those other small, wooden buildings next to it. I think that this 19 a critical building to look at. The Bank of America building is the wrong direction to qo in~ It has .1, plaza that separates it from the public. It's very removed trom views into the building, tro~ anythinq that encouraqes the Downtown activity which is only a block away to come over there. You drive, park, go into the bank and leave. There's nothing that brings that into the whole Downtown area. The same with this building. There's nothing for the pedestrian walking by to have any inVOlvement with this building except an attractive Lytton page 7 < o parking lot so I couldn't support the site plarL~ing of this building with the park1nq and I think that'. the major issue. In te~s or the architecture, I think there's some nice things happeninq~ r'll just repeat vhat ve talked about the last time. There's a nice sywmetry here with the windows that all of a sudden talls apart over here. We talked about ~hy that ~as happeninq and what happgns to this elevation. Sugqestiona were "",de last time to pull this l>uildin<J bock" little bit 00 it woul~n'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 soae work that needs to be done, particularly on that elevation to bring it more in character of that. Shirley Wilson: Hami. Ham.! Barnes; I have it difticult tillie, I think ...... it" this partiCUlar proposal though I do appreciate the color rendering and I can visualize it a lot better ~~i~ t!~~ ~han I could last. There are certain fe4t~res th~t I like. I like the trellising. I like that you sc:eened the parking with a wall. I like the basic' look or the building though r do support Aino 100 percent in ber ca.menta about the rarty wall, that it needs to pulled back in. If we're going for elegant, we're going for slate in the parking lot~ then I think we can lose the square footage that youl're qoinq 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 problem of being in the .p. district but I think that the question that you brought up, is retail viable on this corner, is a whole other question 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 pullinq i~ di~%erent diractions. I think to talk of this ~rea here as ~lic space i. net how I see it at all. This is an entry way. It's qoinq to be dark and covered with the building, the same kind of vines and trellises ~hich are going to be attractive but make it even darker. It's going to have dark floorinq". This is desig-ned to look like an entry. If you -want to sell us this building saying this is a pedestrian-oriented design because this is a pedestrian space, then we need to open this up. Alicia Medina: Marni, that's not dark. Karnl Barnes: I'. sorry, this is Board comment ti~e. This needs to be accessible to p~ople cominq across the street 50 that so~one with their baby carriage would be just as apt to 90 this way as they would to 90 this way. That's what people space means to me. This feels like private space rather than open plaza space. John Boyd: That's our same goal, Marni. Hami Barnes: I think if this could really ~ork, and ~ would hate to lose this on the corner, but if this can really be opened Lytton Page 8 • . '.' /" C) up and maybe benches put in here J somethinq ~]se, I don't know what, and it'. a small space and I reali~e that but I have to be convinced that people are going to use this space other than just going to the elevator and coaing out again in order tor me to think that this is a .p. district solution. What that COEes down to in my mind is that we ne.d to work on this area with some tremendous changes to really open this out and not make it people space and do re~1nement5 on the building AS r know others have suggested and at that point, when I see that kind of detail coainq back, I could approve it. '}'te other 'Way to go, if you don't vant to do this kind of opening up here would be to qo for a ~oning cbange and make it a PC 1 guess is the option, the one that it's just one lot at a time zoning4 That's the only other option I can see LQidlng more with the guidelines ~hich 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 it's location now, retail certainly would not fly until there's been some dramatic changes in that whole neighborhood. Shirley Wilson: (.l'here is a difference bet~een a ~etail qround floor and the .p. zone. I think th~y kind of interrelate but .pn zone is more general, I think than just a retail use. I think we we~e supportive or the f~ct that this is not a qood retail site. We ".ret'en't ramminq that down anyone-'s throat. But there's the spirit in the .p. district, I think that is what we're trying to deal with bere4 I think everybody has made some excellent and hopefully helpful comments 4 I know there's been a lot of conflict over this project~ I'd like to go on record that I have Bet with the architects, both of them, and with the city in meetinq prJor to this since the last review. I quess I too share this concern about the spirit of pedestrian dist~ict and r think, Hami, that you h~ve touched on something that maybe not the rest of us have that might be a real pby&ical change that would bring you more into compliance. Our concern is that you are brinqing no life to the street and through a more open plaza~ you're entry even into the building is a very dead entry. It's a small lobby, there are no windows alonq the stairs frca what I can tell. If that were open and you could see people qoing up and down, it's liCe, it's action l it's city life and this is such a closed aspect to the projeet4 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 B solid wal14 I don't know if there 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 next property developer if he built aqainst~ That's a very deadly condition4 Even if you could walk across that plaza you still can't see very ~ell. As you are walking down the street, you're lookinq at this gargantuan wall ot solid concrete and we can rant and rave about this in residential areas but it's a very similar condition. We see. to tolerate it in tbe Downtown. Lytton Page '9 • • :.~ o o That idea is no qood. It's this whole entry concept, ! thi~k, that'$ going to be your saving grace. I have heard comments about the architecture that are very ~ ... alid. I think there are so.e retine.ents that need to be made. I'm sorry that we couldn't identity thea~ things more specifically last time. I quesi!I we feel more puahed against the 'Wall and the haz'der you get puabed the more you 9t~rt to figure out what the problems are. Some of these things are very ha.rd for allot 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 ha.ve made soae rather strong suggestions and they have come back feeling really good about the fact that we raised these issues and I'm sorry we're raising them so late tor yoq~ John Boyd: I've tried to cooperate all that time~ Shirley wilson: Nell I don't call cooperation going away and caainq back with the sa.e plans. John Boyd: I've studied this fQr ever a year. Shirley Wilson: This is not time for discussion John. You can COJ:dlent later. Court Reporter: Excuse me. but I need you not to apeak accurate record. 1 hate to intarrupt the proceedjnqs over one anothar for me to get an Shirley Wilson: Fine. So I am more in s'.J.pport for continuance for more effort to be .ade about this corner situation. It is your only QpportunitYJ as far as J concerned, to bring this into coapliance with the spirit of the street ve are lockir~ for. To .aka it really neiqhborhood-trlendly. You hav~ some nice landscapill9. I tbink the building can be resolved. I'. personally disappointed in this project because it's not ~hat I like to see ther~ but I don't see completely stopping you either. John Boyd: Thank you. st.lrl.ey wi1son: I will make a 1I:!otion for continuance for developaent of a more pedestrian-friendly entry plaza and entry to the buildinq if that's possible. Jonathan Schink: You wouldn't consider a motion to approve with the requirement to redesign the entry? Shirley Wilson: think the facade resolution. Well, those thinqs 1Io"ould have. to come back~ I elevation that Aino has identified really needs Jonat~.an Scbink: Would you approve those conditions if they modify the design? Shirley ~ilson! We don't have a lot of confidence here. Ham! Barnes: I second Shirley's motion as it stands. Lytton paqe 10 • shirley wilson: War,t to have some discussion? Aino Vieira-Da-Rosa: I'm not going to support the motion because it li_its the solution t~ 6 plaza development. I think there is an opportunity to look at this design and bring the buildinq itself dawn to the ground level and have that become a part of tho fabric of the City. Shirley wilson: Well, we've certainly asked that enough. Aino Vi~ira-Da-Rosa: What we're t31king about is a parking lot on the ground floor. 1 think that's an in~ppropriate solution in the Downtown area. As the ~otion is Dade, I wouldn't support it. :r would certainly support a Itotion tor continuance. Shirley wilson: Why don't I vithdraw my motion. would you like to .ate a motion? Aino Vielra-Da-Rosa: I would make a motion tor 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. Marni Barnes: I think w.s need to be really specific with our .otion. Are you willing to accept a building on stilts1 If not, you need to Bay that in the motion because I think that the nrchitect needs to know that that's qoing to come back. Aino Vieira-Oa-RoBa~ Well I think I woul~ have a very difficult time doinq that. I'm not qolng to rule it out but it completely alienates the pedestrian and the rest of tha town froD this building which provldse only an entry lobby and a parking on the corner. Maybe there i& a creative way to make that work. I wouldn't rule that out but I'm skeptical that it's qoinq to be the solution. My motion vas for a continaance for the design. shirley Wilson: I'll second that motion. support discussion? Jonath~~ 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. John Boyd: We've worked on this so long4 Well over a year and a half. We'd like to either qet it passed with the understanding ~~a~ we'll 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 continuin9~ It takes a month every tiae you do. It's just qone too far already. Shirley wilson: That's a liqitl~ate request. Lytton page 11 • ";; '. / o o Hami Barnes: Well, I can support Shirley's motion and then that qives us a vote o~ three. pres~a~ly because you ~ant to approv~ it. That leaves Alno. Jonathan Schink: I think it's appropriate to approve this project with 50.e very specific reco~endations. shirley Wilson: Well. that's what I tried to do in my motion. Jonathan Schink: You wanted a continuance an~ I think one of the awkward points about sendinq this to Council is that there is still some good aspects to this project that maybe nead to be ~orked on. We can take, what I consider, a more negative route and that is to continue or deny the project or we try to identify what is qood, what we can agree on here and just approve those features. Alno vieira-Da-Rosa; i don't think the project is far enough along towards that solution to maxe an approval.. particularly II' when we approve soaethinq, it's ror a minor modification~ We're talking about a major issue we've been discussing all morning on .this project and say~ng that ~e're going to approve this and that's qoinq to get solved and come hack~ Shirley Wilson: Well, you ha~E a motion on the floor that's been seconded. You have to either ~ithdraw it or vs'Ii take a vote on it and see what bappens. Should I call for a vote? Is everyone clear wbat Aino'8 BOtion is? Could you restate it? Alno Vieira-Oa-Roaa: I .ave continuanoe of this project for further desiqn~ J~on~a~tb~a~n~S~C~b~l~nk==.: Let me argue, to please vote against the .otion~ The applicant has spectically requested that we don't, fr~ his views, the applicant wants y~~ to deny his project. Aino Vieira-oa-Ro8a~ I withdraw the motion~ Shirl~ Wilson: Would you like to make a motion Jon? ~~~~~~!._WhY waste my time, I ~ant to make a motion to support is not there. Sbirley Wilson: Well, you want to make a motion to approve it with soaa .pacitic requirement&~ Try and see what it sounds lilte. Jonathan Schink: I 'Would move approval of this project with the specIfIc requireaent that the entry court be redesigned to be .ore open and accessible to the street, side~alk and be pedestrian-friendly, that the third-floor fenestration be adjusted to be .ore cQ.patible with the second-floor fenestration, that the building be adjusted on the southwest property line 50 that eave detail can be maintained as typical and the condition. contained in the May 17, 1990, ARB Info Memo. I would agree that those are appropriate~ Lytton P'!qe 12 • ~-. Shirley Wilson: I'll second that motion. Jonathan Schni~: It it's not qoing to be a building on stilts, •• you described it, if we're not ~oinq to let him do that we should 90 against the motion and say forget it, don't w&ste your time but it there's direction in solving this entry, then let's go forward. Aino vieira-oa-Rosa: I'm trying to understand ~hat the big push i. on approvinq a project that has such a qlaring prOblem--such an enor.aou& issue th~re that we would approve it based on the good intentions when there isn't a clear idea of how that can be approved. Well good intentions haven't been shown. I is discouraging. I feel the applicant has had & concept that they have stuck with stubbornly throuqh this whole process and have not responded to us and that disturbs .e a great d.-I. I don't think we're all wrong. There are lots of ways to $Olve a problem but .eetinq the latter ot the zoning isn't really enougb or there wouldn't be a Board here. I think the City has ~lzed that it isn't enouqh or we wouldn't be sitting here today. The decision we have to make are somewhat subjective and .y concern is, is this a wono8Tful contribution because we're lookinq for wonderful contributions nov because we're such a built-out town and every little piece is so important and I guess I share Aine's concern that this building is off the ground and it really bothers .e a lot. I saId to you at the last review that I knew what ve were saying to you probably required less .quare footage, tha i~plications are that and that's b~cause of the cruncb of the zoning and the parking requirements and everything. We don't make those rules, unfortunately. John BoXd: I re&pecttully disagree with that. Shirley Wilson: I realize that you do and that's why you have .ade no chanqes. John Boyd: With 30 years experience, I believe I can give you ar attractive buildinq on that corner~ Marn! Barnes: John, with these directives about makinq this project .ore pedestrian-oriented, without qoinq into your ideas~ do you have other ideas, can you see that is something that you voul~ work on and change and incorporate some other features and change that or do you vant to stick with this as it is? John 8oy~: BOb Peterson is my land~cape architect and we work together on this so far. I don't see any problem with our trying to redesign that to .ake it aore pedestrian oriented~ I just need the direction to take. We'll be h~ppy to redesign that if ..ana acre pavlnq, or less that's okay or some pots with same plants in thes, waybe even a bench. We were a little concerned about people sitting out there, the homeless, but that's another Whele i.sue. It it was felt ve could do a better thinq for the City putting in benches, we yould do it. Definitely, we want to page 13 • , . ~ .. " ... . , o o make that a nice pedeatrian place, a place ~here people can be, like the guidelines say, it's covered~ They'll be some hot days like nov vhere people aiqbt qo and have lunch there~ Shirley Wilson! I'. concerned because ~e're playing wbi.sy with your plaza but you've qot a verz-defined structural system there that we're tussin9 with and it's not that ~asy, I don't think, to do vhat we're sugg~sting. John Boy4: That's true. The structure is set in that tar corner !:leeause it pulls it further away. That's the farthest I can get it fro~ Lytton and also it qives me ~o feet to the next side. This puts the building into the more klnd of commercial building area of '~he site and tryinq to maximize the landscaping between the building and the residential across the street on Lytton Avenue. shirley Wilson: I would like to ask the just occurred to me as I looked at this. someone you knew working in the building handicapped sp~ce all th~ time. Is that a requirement for visitors? John Boyd: That's morE for visitors. board something that I don't know i~ there's would be using this a given or is this just Mami Barnes: One ~~ing you miqht consider, do we really need this wall here? rs this an asset or a deterrent for the life of this site? If this wall occurred back here really shielding these cars and this space 'Was T!ot ofte.n used and yo'.! had. more open space and more visibility through this site, is that a direction that miqht be 5uqqssted? You might as well put a qate here the way it is now. It looks like itls closed. Jonathan Schink: It's fast, the cars, it's narrow there. are moving quickly. It's not how you appreciate the site. pedestrian experiance is off the side street. Tlds is not to be a destination. Peopl~ a~e not going to sit at that Shirley wilson: Oh~ I know they're not. Things Any going lobby. Jonathan Schink: If you want to do so~ethinq, that lobby needs to be a f~· .JPoint--a piece of sculpture or art work so that if somebody i$ walkinq down the street and they want to stop under the shade of the tr.ees and look into that space they see something like a SCUlpture. I think we're heading in the wrong directlbn if we're trying to open it up because you're just opening it up to the busy traffic on Lytton. Marni Barnes: I just think ~hat it's a fallacy to call it a public space the way it's designed out and i~ we're going to accept this design, okay ~8're not b~lng in retail or other services, we'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 right. A sculpture in there would be wonderful or a fountain or something that people would want to go in and look. Lytton page 14 yonathan Scbink: Or view from the street~ Ham! Barnes: Or & view from the street or something that would draw their attention if not their body, hopefully their beinq as wall but at least dr4W their attention in there and widen that out. Shirley wilson: Are you aqains~ the vall with your square tootaqe? John Boyd: Very close~ There's a little additional square footage allowed. shirley Wilson: Well, if I had some square footage to play with, I ~ould put It into that lebby and stairwell and I would get some light and sase amenities. It'. dead as can be. John Boyd: Yes. I haven't designed the interior but I've got soae ideas that I think you'd like. Shirley Wilson: There are no windows in this wall that I can see and I don't have an elevation to tell ae that that's different. It could be biqqer, if you need to pull the glass away from the stairs, soaethiDq. Y~u might have the square footage to play with that. There's just no lite. John Boyd: I haven't qiven you a design on that interior at alla Shirley Wilson: You're asking for final approval here thouqha Interior? That's an exterior wall. J~~ Boyd: Well, what that is is a glass wall actually where you go to the elevator lobby? ShirleY Wilson: Just the doorB. John Boyd: Yes. They're solid glass and qlass on the sidea Shirley Wilson: We've never seen a picture of that~ John Boyd: I know. I can give you that. Shirley Wilson: And the rest of the walls or yhat that looks like because you would show us the garden wall. Well, thatls nit picking but there's a feelinq here that's really missing. John Boyd: That's ~hat ~erre talkinq about--conceptual. this cQncept~ We'd like to present this, develop it and so that it la in everybody's .ind l tor the pedestrian or watevera WE; like work it Shirley Wilson: But why haven't you developed it? This is a final approval you're asking us for. Lytton Page 15 .' o ~80yd: No~ I have to com~ back for colors, for example, and materials. Final selection anyhow. Jonathan schink: Hay I add something to my ~otion? Aino viera-oa-~os~: I have one thing to point out to the applicant. I don't know how this is qoinq to go, but you may have a little tro~le with this ramp~ with these wing walls coming riqht out to the sidewalk. I think there/s a question of clQarance when you co.e up. John Boyd: You're right. I cleared with Transport~tion already. We do have the site lines.. I have a little problem m;:)vL19 away from that property line because I'm concerned about what's going to bappen in the future. I don't know~ There are two parcels there. I could easily have a building right up next to me. Aino Viera-Oa-Rosa: Part of your motion that talks about that property line, the applicant is sayinq he can't change that. Jonathan SChink: MY motion says that the building has to be shifted so that t..~e third floor roof overhang be maintained as typical. sbi~ley wilson: So he'd be loosing square footage which he could put sODeplaoe else. Jonathan Schink: Of sblftill9 the buildin<J slig"htly, we're only talking about 1 foot out of a qood 40 or 50 feet. shirley wilson: Is that clear to you, what's in this motion? John Boyd: Yes. We could do t.1tat. When we're talking about 3 feet or 5 feet, then I have a prOblem4 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 won't go up to the third floor4 John Boyo: It could. Shi~ley Wilson: We can't worry about that4 I'm going to call tor a vote on this action4 All those in favor say aye. Opposed. That was a tie vote~ 2 to 2 (SChink and Barnes voting aye, Wilson and viera-Oa-Ro&a voting no). John Boyd: I don't know what your rules are but usually the president or chairman doesntt vote except in the case of a tie. Shirley Wilson: We've never dene that. "ami Barnes: Y move continuance tor flJrther de-sign. Shirley Wilson: I second the motion. Oh~ they ~3nt us to deny_ I beq your pardon. Lytton page l6 ',' - Marni Barn.s: 1 aove denial. ShirleY Wil.on: I second the aotion. All those in favor? Vote 908. to the aye.. Baaad on the finding_ and the COJllllent8 that this Board haa .ad. (Wllaon, Viera-D4-ltosa and Barnes voting aye, SCI>1M voting no). Lytton Paqe 11 I ! I 11. R~GUtAJt .'GOOA IMFO~T1ONAL ~EMORAMDUK ~CHI1ECTURAL REVIEW BOARD June 21, 1990 3. 550 LmOM AVENUE' 6<)yd/Jenks 90-AAS'45 Final ~~i~~ of d@~olition of four-unit ipart~nt b~;1din9 and construction ~f 4,353 square f!et of office building with u~d~rground parKing. Z()'~ING CO-C.{P} Do..,nlown Conmerc.ial IiiHh Pedestdan Shopping Combinir.g n;;strict ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSfSSH£MT Project i~pacts were sufficiently addresseG in the Oowntown Study tnviro~ntal l~act Report PUBLIC NOTICE Mail!d notices were sent to all proptrty owners a~d uti1ily customers within 300 feet of the project 'it •. BACKGROUND Tb~s project was revie~d b~ the Soard O~ ~ay 17, 1990 and contlnued for further design modifications to br1ng the project into compLiance with the Pedestrian Oistr1ct g~idelines and for compatibllitj ~ith the adjacent reSidential district llong lytton Avenue. Minutes of the May 11, 1990 II'It!stin9 are 'included in your pacht. DESCRIPTION/ANALVSIS The applicant proposes to demolish an existing four unit two-story apntment h{luse and construct a 4~8S3 sq'JaTe foot three stor.y office building with 10 parkir;g spices below-gude iIInd 9 It-grade covered parking spaces. The project ~ill &150 include two addltional ~on-requirtd tand~m pir~'ng spaces locited in the below-grade garage in front of spaces identified kS numbers 9 and 10 on Sheet A.I of the plans submitted for Board review. Because the project resllHs 11'\ th.e loss of r2nl&1 housir~ • the new cDBBercial floor arei is subject to the City's ho~sin9 mitigat'on fee. Seccnd and third floor offices are propos~ above pedestaled at-grade covered parking. Yehtcle ac~ess to the at-grade parking ;s provided with a two~way dr\~eway off lytton Avenue. A ramp to the be1ow-grade pai~ir.9 ~s off Tasso Street. Building lIIaterills consist of stucco \Ilalls. alumhH.lm window'S. accent ceramic tiles, a metal railing wit~ copper patina around a second floor cera~;c tll~ deck, and flit red clay tiles on the roof. A covered plaza is proposed it th~ corner of lytton and Tasso bordered with a wooden trell is. The preli .. 1narj landscape plan is in comp1i ance with the -13 C> ('\ Utilitj Oepartment's recentl1 adopted landscape 9u~lines. The p~Qje~t will result in the remov.l of one 17 inch Sycamor! street tree to pr~~lde access to the site. The Cit1 Arborl~t has expressed a con~~rn that excavation of the uncerground garage _ill result in an inadeQuate amount of soH area to 51.:pport the remaIning six Sycamore street trees. In response to the City Arborist's concerns, the app'Icant has SUDmitted an arborist's report prepared by S,P, HeClen.h.n Co" dated April 30, 1990, The report states that remai~ing trees are in fair condition and~ -The root feeding ireas af tnese trees i~ lim~ted by the street, 5ide~alk and present buildIng. Severing ef buttress roots W~$ accompl1shed ma.ny years agfJ w1thin one foot of the tl"UTlks to facilitate sidewalk re~onstructlon ~~ich furth~r limited the root f~edi ng areas. The present buildir.g design wiil include an ur.<ferground parking a~ea with necessary excavation wit~in nine feet of the trunks of thes~ trees to a d~pth we.l below the root ~one. Because the previous severing of anchoring roots, exca~ati'n is expected to have cinimal impact to the buttress/anchoring rocts and l~~s than lC percent (l~) of the present feeding root systems will be affected~- The plans currentl". before tne Board have not been modified since the last review. A letter from the applicant dated June 5, 1990 to Virginia Warheit describes the applicants intent to continue with the present podiuTi deSign. A copy of the June 5th letter is included in your packet. ~en th§s project was re~iewed on May 17, 1990~ Board members inquired about the p~sstbility of retainlng the existing bUl1ding and ton~erting it tc offices. Tbis reuse-of the eXisting building w<luld be possible if it w!re to be c'lssif~ed as a Category 1 or 2 bistoric building. Section 18.49.100(S) ~f the CD District Regdlations ex~ts tne requiremEnts for on-site parking for a c~nversion to cDmmercial use of a historic building is Categories I and 2 that is fifty feet or less in height and that ~as most recently been in ~e~identia' u~e~ if ,such (OnVe~SlDn is done in conjunction wit~ exterior hist~ric rehabilitation approved by thf ARB and the HistorlC R~sources Board. Such conversion must not eliminate any existing on·site parli:;';ng. [n additlon~ a Cat!9ory 1 or 2 historic building may ir.cr~G5e the existing square footage by 25 percent Dr 2,500 square feet whiche~er is greater without Fl.1.v1 rig tc prolJide or.-site p.rking (Section 18,49.060(b)(l)), RHO:1MENDA nON Because the applicant has chosen root to the ~odify the design in order to comply with the Pedestrian District g~ide'ines and for greater compatibility with the adjacent residential distri,t along lytton Avenue as specified in PAMC i8.64, based on pre'oliot.'s direction of the Board staff recommends denial Of the project based on the following findings: 1. The proposed project is f~cor.sfstent wit~ the lett!r and intent of the Fed~strian Shopping CombiDing Oistrict (P} Regulations (Chapter 18.47 PAMC) in t.at, the design of the podium building above at-grade parking prov1des no pedestrian use at street level. The specific purpose Df th~ (P} District r!gulations is • 14 • ·': 4> 0 to foster thE (.ontinuity of retan stores. and disp1ay windows and to avoid a monotonous pedestrian en~ironment 1n Drder t~ establish and maintain an econoroical1y healthy retail dfst~1Ct. In addition, bUildtng designs Ire reqy1red to provide display w~ndows Dr T!tail displi} areas, covared retessed areas for pedestrian use and de~i9n feltures whtch preclude blank walls or building facts. While t~ts des1gn in(.ludes per1~ter landscaping and i recessed entry arel, a~prDx1~ately two-thirds of t~e strtet le~el are occupied by park1R9. 2. The proposed podium building above s~rfac~ parKing with no usable at-gride floor area is inconsistent with Pedestr1an District Guidelines II and l under Objectiye 'C' adopted by the Architect"ral 'Revie. Board on February 22. 1'lB3 wllich state that, • 1) Ground floor spaces must be designed so t~at they c~n accommodate retail uses,-and. ·Z} Grounj floors may not utilize podiums with half depressed/half above ground parking ~hlch would disrupt pedestrian Qrientltion of tne building unless compensatfng pedestr1a~ features Ir. provfded.~ 3. 7he desiq~ does not promote harmonious transitions in scale or character between different deSignated land uses fn that, the proposed project ~'ch is essentially an at·grade parking lot wit!'! l building above presents conflicts 'IIith adjacent , residential land ~ses due to light, noise, and visual ;mpatts, and inconsistent w1t~ requirements of PAMe 18.64 .• -15 - \. -, ----. _ .. _-_.- I. _ ~y ], 1990 Ms~ Virginia warheit City of Palo Alta 250 Flamilton Avenue P. O. Box 10250 Palo Moo. ca 9>1303 DedI" Virginia: EncJosed are 12 sets of plans for S1.ll:lject project with revisioos as :requested in the notice of inccr.pl~ application of 4/13/90. L As you know, I have been -....aiting foe a decisicn fran Planning ...,ar0in9 the in-the-9arage additional tandun parking. This parking is in a(fdi tion to the rEqUired padc.ing. and is very much desired .. Ii necessaqo, hor.EvE!r:. the garage carl he reduced in size to el iIr.inate this p"rki"g. 2. lu:ea wi.lI be desiqned for the specified 19 cars. See revision to plaza level elevati-:.a., elevatoc lcCby and stairwell .. J.. Prc.posed 7' to 3 r high wall on Lytton has been red~ to 4' maxi.m.m heig...'fott, therefOL"e a vari.ance wi 11 not be requ ire::'!. 4. I believe ground floor o:mplies by definit.ion with o..?ncept of (P) District.. AssUI!E" t .. lis .;1e:::ision is the MB' s .. 5. I haVe reviewed the eleva.tor size with Hr .. woc::.d. "1\1E drawings <ieli.neate his reccmrendations (7'Q" x 5'0" platfOI.m). 6. I have reo.."'ieweQ: the location of exits wit.'1 Gene 'Brown in the Building Oepartzr.ent. lbe added 1/4-floor plan ref!oects his recc:mrendations and confocns wi th l,i13C 88 requi.renents .. 7 ". sea::xld cpinioo reqardill9 the trees on Lytton (tr irrrning ~ care ~ etc.' has been obt.ained -a copy is eTl<':Iosed roc your file. john brooks boyd robert r. jenks associates -:.,~,- M&: .. Vi.rginia Warheit City o£ PalQ Alto Pa9E' 2 l"~Y 1, 1990 Re: 55tJ Lytton AYellL.le I see no problem in ca!pI.yinq with t.he " .. sua} miscellaneous CCtlrTelts frCl:l the "chee deportioents. 1 SEe no rea30rl tor any further dfo-lay and' am looking: (onward to the-ARB lI'eetjng of" .Mail" 17, 1990~ ~oor. truly. 1 ' a,yd, AIA June S. 1990 .Ms. Vi.rqWa Wtu:hei t City of Palo Alto 250 fIamil.!:cn Avenue Palo Alto, at 94301 RE! 550 Lyt:t:on A\."enue Dear Virginia: !Fl ~ ©!E n ~[ID JUN 61990 " J D~P..tl?rr;il:)·H Cf Pt..ANN',Nr.:, 0 " rr OF PAlO ALl I ara ...riting to confinn the MtB hearing date of 'Ihursday. June 21. 1990" for subject project. It is our intent to review the mechanical equi~t and exit rec..'llicanents w.i th the Build in<; Department, as suqgest.e:l by <he Etoard at the M>y 17. 199(f JreCting. Design of the buildinq at'Id the spirit of the P District are subjective and those ...no o..m the property and thei..r Architects are sa.tisfied that the design of the b.lilding plaza, Jandscaping and parking are in MrlTwxly with the neighb;Jrhocxl and. believe that this irtpcoverent will be an asset to the future of the camJW'li. ty. 'Iherefoce .. vith all due respect, we 00 not intend to reduce the sizp-of this bllldinq ex .further chz.nge the concept. Details of the mechanical equi~t and ed.ts -.,nIl be addressed, ot.'lerv.ise ~ plans 'Will rerMin as subn.itted. As you k:n-~.'I the plans as sulnitted meet the many ~escriP'"..;i"e and special requireIEOts of zon:i.r;; and p1anni.ng. Also .. as sugg:ested. wz did rreet will; ARB Qairperson st.d.zley Wilson a"ld z.on.i.ng Idninistrator Nancy Lytle. Please advise us of anyt.'ti.ng further that might :be needed. Yours truly, '~-, a CC, Col in Peters john brooks boyd robert r. jenks associates " ~ .. PEDESTRL-.N SHOPPtNC D!STRJCT ! 8.47.010-18.47.040 Chapter 18.47 PEDESTIllAN SHOPPINC COMBtIoolNC DISTRlCT (p) REGUlA noNS Sections: J 8.47.01 a Specit:'C purposes.. Hi4 7.0~O Applicability of regulations. 18.47.03.0 ZociTlS m.p designation. lS.4i.04O Use Iimirations and sHe development ~gu!3Iicrus )8.47.010 Specif"JC plUP05eS.. The pedf3tria!l shoppiIl& combinin. C1.!!trict is inlended to modIfy the reltlatio::ls of the eN neighborhood com· m~clal district, tM CC community comm~rtial district and the CD commer­ c.lal dcwntcwo distnc£ in localions where it i:5 c}eetn~d esstntUl to foster the \:oMinuity of retail stores and disp1ay window<; and to avoid a monotonous pedestrian environmerd in order 10 establish Ind malntain an economicaUy h .. I'~y retaO distrk!. (Ord. 3791 ! I. ! 988: Ord. 3098 I I. 1978: Ord. 3048 (part). 191 8). 18.41.020 Applicainlity of regulJoons. The pedestruln shopping com­ bining di'ltrict rna:)' be combined 911Ul any eN. CC or CD districL in accord 'lrith Chapter IS.OS and. Chapter 18.98. \lr"he~ so com'bmed. the regulatktr.s established by this ChapleT s .... an apply in fif:u of. or in itddltloo to. the pro-­ vlsio~ establishe~ by ChapleTS 18.41. 13.43 or 18.49. iOrd. 3792 § 2, 1988: Ord. 3G48 (p.lrt). 1978). 18.41.030 lorUn!: map designation. The pedestrian shopping oombinL.,g district shall apply to any site adjacenf to design.afe-d ~des.trian frontage or pedestrian ways sbown or. the zoning map. (Ord. 3048 (par.:). 1978), 18.41.040 U:se Iimir:ltions and si(e dewelopmen:t .regu13tions. (a) Pedes­ trian Oesian Features Required. On any site. or portion of , site, adjoining a d~ted ped(:$tnan sidewalk or pedcstrianway. Dew constructioo and alterations to cltistina structurrs s1"lAD be required. as determined by the architectutal re-ricw board, to provid.e:he foilowi.'ll design features L"lten::ied to create pedestrian or shopper inteJUt. to ptO\ide weamer protection for pedestrians,. and to prectude inappropriate or inharmonious building desian and sitinB: . {1} Disp~y .... indows, or retall display art.a.s; (2) Pedestrian ;ercades, recesSed elltryways.,. or cO\lercd recessed areas designed for pedestrian use: with all area not Ins than the lengt~ 0 f the adjoinins fron[q:.e times O.S meters (15 feet); (3) Landscapin, or architectural design reatum intended to preclude blank waIls or bullifina faces. nrC' specific !13ttll'e and requirements ofpedestr".an design reatures sJ-.aD 628-1 -­:I>'" he -;-; -- o IL47.040 lONlNG 1N deltrmln.4 by the ardU,ecNnI ...;.., board. in lCeo,~ with dosiJn rulde-propared by .hll _d • ....,.,,110 Chip'" 16.". (b) Puti"l and Vehi ... 1at "c:cao "'ntOOed. V.hicuIar Kt"'" to >i: .. otllc>ininI dftilMled pe4eltriarl IidewaIkI or pedes'rian",),> 'llhiclt "Quires 'Hblcular mO¥'m1tr.1 acroa auclI pede1tri1l'Ilidrwalkl or ptdHtrianways shan be prohibi .... ex..." wbe .. requmd by law or as may be authorized by • _ parnil ios1>ed in .cconI with Chop'''' 11.90. lOrd. 379~ 13.1988, Q,d. 310& I U. 1919;Ord. 30981 ~. 1918: 0r4. 3048 (port). 1978~ 628-2 : Wo.e«ber 11, 1983 ~OND~eLE CITY COUNC!l Pal. Alto, Ciliforalo Po O. 100 x; 10;1'50 PALO ... \TO, CA.U'Oh,jlA. '4J.0l .l.rchftectural l~YfN 90al"'d .Approvedl~idi5tr1an .~} Shopping Combl.lng District DesIgn Guideline, Members of the Councfl: B.clground Attached I •• copy .f the Ped.strlan Shopping CombIning (PI District D.slgn Guidelines th.t .ere prepared and adopted by the Archltectur.l Re.lew Board IARB) on februa~ 22, 1983 In accordance wit~ the proylsloos of Sections 18.41.040 (lonlDg Ordinance) and 16.48 (ARB Ordlnancel of the Municipal Code. These design guideline. respond to • Zoning Or~lnance direct I.e (Section lB.47.0401 that stlte. the specIfic nature and requlreoents of (PI District pedestrian design features shall be determined by deslg. guidelines prepared by the Archltectur.l Re.lew Board. The gener.l purpose of the (PI Pedestrl'D Shopping Combining District where these design guidelines are b~lng applied Is to foster .... tlnuit)! of retail act,.,ty Ind disploy Ire •• and enhance the pede.triln en.lronment. The (~I District I. currently combined with the Communl~ Coonercl.l {CCl District 11 the central area of Downtown P,'e Alto. Requested City Council ~ct'on While tlty Council Ictlon Is not reQuired on these (FI District d.slgn guidelines. the Archftectura' R!v1~ toard desires C~ty C~ncfl endor~eneflt to .1.lmf.e conf.,fon for ARB Ipplfcants regarding the approved status of the il"1 dell n ... The Archltoeturol ~.vlew Board r~ __ nds that the Cfty Co"nel1 .dopt a ""tlon endorsing t~ guld.lIn ••. Respecthlly, ~~ Ch.lnoan. Archltectur.l Ae.l .. B •• rd- &Z:JS:jl> cc: Cow,tow. P.lo Alto. In!:. Downtown toordlnatlng C~ltt.e Jofmt Sponsor Group of Downtown. In,~ Downtown Property Own.rs Coemltte. ./ o o Fehru,ry 22. 1983 DESIGN GUIDEL!NES FOR THE (PI PEOESTR!~ CCHB!NI~ Olsr~ICT IN THE DOWNTO'~ (eCI COMMUNITY COMMERCiAl ZO~E Obje'tlye~: Fromct. F.~e'trl.n U •• Zoning Ord'nance Re9ufr~nts 18.~7.040 Usell.Itat.o" and site deyelo~nt regulations. '") Pede'trlan Design Fe.twres Requfrtd. On I~ sft!1 or port1on of I site, adjo~nfng a designated pedestrf.n sidewalk or pedestrfa~ay. "ew construction and aiterations to existing structures shall be required to p'ro~t~ the following desfgn futu~s 'Dtended' to ... create pedestrian Dr shopper interest. ;;.0 provide W!'ather protec:tfOrt for the p@"des:tr1a"r.n~to-preC''ttrde-fria-Wroprlatt or Inhonao~~"~u~il.d.lng design and slt!ng: . -" -------- -- 11) O!spl~ wfnd .... or retail Ire •• ; (Z) Pedestrian are!des, recessed ent~ys. or covered recessed areas designed for pedestrian use wah an Irea nat le-ss than. the 'engtil of the Idjololng frontlge t! .. s O.S meter. (1.S feet); !3) landsclp1ng or achftectural des'gn features fettnded to p~ec'ude blank "olls or ,,"l1dl09 faces. The specific nature .nd nequfr~nts of pedestrian des~gn features shall be detonoined bf the archlteet"r.l reylew board. I •• ecord with the.e design guldelin,. prepared by that board pursuant to Chapt.r 16.48. (b) Parking Ind Yehle.lor Access Re.trletod. Vehic.lar ac,.ss to sft •• adjoining designated pede.trlln side.alks or pedestrlanways wnf,h require. vehfcwlar .a~eNent across sv=~ pedestrian sfdewalts or ptdestrianways shall be pro~1bited. e-~eept Where required by llw or IS ~ be authDri:ed by i ~~ peMllit ,. aoeOf'd wfth Chapter 18.90. Guidelfne, 1. There ~1d be be no new dri~ew~ or curb c~ts on Cnfversf~ Avenue withi. tho -, eombl.lng d!strlct. Note: TOi. prohibItion shall not apply to eross. streets., Kamflton or l)'tto"~ 2~ Projects are encouraged to upgrade stdewalks~ Acceptable aaterfl1s are brfct* and e~p~sed Igg~eg4te w1t~ brick headers. ~ll sidewall detaIl. a .. to be coordinated with the Pd,lfe Works Oepartment. 3. Bufldfng corners It street fntersecttons are encouraged to provide the pedestrian I Hne of sIght at the COMlor. -Hote: Consult wfth tile Pilo Alto Publl, Works Oepartment for sp.clflcations of aceepl<bl. brlet •. .. o Projects with .n .11ey front.ge shoul~ caplt,llze on that front.ge and bo d.,lgn •• to proaoto pedestrIan us.. Spotl.l ,ttentlon ,.ould bo paid to upgrading rtf~s! du~ster$~ storage Ir~as, and s1m11ar ftatures. ObJettln e: Slg .. That COIIplenent Ped.stlran Us. &ul d.H"." L Signs Ire to be orient@'d to tht pe.destrhn \lser and Ire not w be designed w be s-.en prlNr1iy f""" IIIOYlng automobll.s. Each sIgn will be conoldered on Its own ... rlt •. 2. SIgns shall be 10gltll1y proportIoned Ind posltlone. for ~. arcMtectura1 deUn 1"g and fenestration ! facade. 3. There .hall be no freestandIng nor 91". ---4. Illulrtnlted sIgns .. y be consIdered for night time uses proylded ~at 5. ~. lighting Is subtle. ibe f.c.~ DD Wb1 ct a stgn is APProved shall be weli maintained ~nd .tt~rtlYe. or .~all be upgr • .:ed prior to Inst.l ling. nN sign. ObjectlYe C: Pr"'t. Tlt.llty Ind Retail u •• s Guidelines 1. Ground floor 'p.ce, ... st be designed '0 ~.t ~ey con ICcoamd.t. retan vsts. 2. G.-ound floors Ny not utillz. podl ... with half depressed/Mlf .bOVE ground parting which .... 14 disrupt pedestrian orientation ~f the building unless c~ensati"g pedestrfan features Ire provided. Objective 0: Preser¥&tfor. of tne Scale and Charl,~er Df DDwntown Guidelines 1. ~ ... bundl'gs ,""uld ... ort in con<:ert with oiller structure. through sc .. te. use of IlIterfals~ and desf!PI5 which enhance the histOriC flavor Df ~. Irea. This gulllel1ne Is not Intend,d to iorpo •• any partrc~lar sty1e on new projects. Z. o.slgns shou1d provIde transition between buIlding. In ~. relatfonshfp of ~~dows. ~Drs. colors. pedestrian features. and tr •• toent of ~l.nk sIde ... lls. , , /- : Objective E~ Creltfon of T~t~~rstf~g Outdoor Sp.,es Guldelln •• o 1. large proJects art .ncouraged to ~'fde ,1 •••• Ind people·orlented ou tdoor 5 PI Ct$ . z. Projeets .~.1l not Inelude feuures .... Ie~ ... .nessll reduce the usabl. area of the sIdewalk and pedestrlln .ays. Ao,y exl.tlng or proposed features fa a sf6rwllk o~ pedestrfan way shall be shown on landscape plan •• SpecIal Applfeltl'n SubmIttal R.qulreeents ,. the -P Zone I. All .. jor projeets shall su~lt drawing. of the ground floor ele.at!on, next to .ny sfdew.lk or pedestrIan WlY at .... 1. of 1/4 fne~ !qual. on. foot. z. ~.~ aajor ARB project s~all subalt drlwlr.~. or p~togr.p~le df.pl.y. whlc~ show the relatIonshIp of the new project to It. nelghborlog bu!ldlngs and to the block on whICh the proJeet I. located. J HfOIl!\A noHAI. MEMilRAHDUII ARCHJHCTUlLIl. REYJEV IOAlll) Stpt ... ber 20. J9!1O o II. AEiiUI.AR ASEHOA 6. 550 lmDlt AVElftlE • Boyd/Jenks 90·AAB·45 lOlliNG Final review of delllOlition of fOUT-\mit apartment building and construction of 4,850 square-foot office bui11dng with underground parkhg co-t(P) Oownt~ Commercial .nth Pedestria~ Shopping CombiDing District Project impacts were suffjeiently addressed lG the Downtown Study Envfron.ental Impact Report, ]986_ PUBLIC HOTICE Nailed notices were sent to ill property owners and utility cust~ers witt.in 30C feet of the project site. BACkGROOHD/REYIEW BY OTlfERS On t~e recoaaendation of the Architecturii Review Board at the ARB meetlng on June 21. 1990, the Director of Planning denied approval of this project. The applicant appe.l.d the Director's decision to City Council. w~o heard the appeal at the August 13. 1990; Cit} Council ""et i n9. M'!IIIbers of the Counc 11 were gener> lly ; n sympathy wit,~ the ARB's concerns about tne at~grade parking and the iack of any usable ground f100r area in the Pedestrhn O;stri£:t. They instructed the ipp1icant to revise the design t~ respond to the ARB's ccncerns and to retur& to Co~nc11 with staff and ARB rec~nditions on tM! revised des; gn wi tJl1 R 90 days. DESCRIPTION This proposal 15 for a t~ree-stor,!.' bUllding wit" offices on t.~e second and third floors, with parking, entry lobby and landscaped areas on the ground floor and addit;on.l undErground parkl"g. The building has 0 stucco finish and flat red tile roof. Tn! building f~cade is articulated with rough wood rafters and tri. be~s, moulded 9laster sills and trim, wrou9ht iron balconies and copper 9~tters. The revlsed design being presented for review today is ver~ similar to t~e Dri9i~al design, ~lc~ has been modified in the following ways: I. F'rt of t~e previously opo. plaz. ar •• (336 square feet) has bee. e"closed wHh glos, to fora on uponded ".try lobby. The -II • o appl~tant ~s discussin~ ~ith the Visual Arts C~ittee tne p~ssibllit.)' of uSirlg t~e glu5-enctosed lobby is a place to displij art. Also, the bUl'di~g wall h~s been extended to the ground at the north end of the lobbj and at the nortn east corner of t~e bu;'di~g. 2. To offstt this increase in floor area on the ground floor, the sfl:ond and third floon have been reduced as follows: a) On the second fioor, the building ~.11 along the south property ll~e has been moved in 10 feet for a distance of IS feet, crfating i 190-square-foot ~utdoor balcony area. b) On the third floor. the building w,ll .long the south property line has been moved in 3 feet for a distance of 31 feet. This setback allows for a roof overhang along the sout~ wall siai1ar the overhang an the otheT three sides of the bu-ild'"9. Also 'On the third noor. the rH,rt" lIIill has b.aen moved in 1 f~t along the entire length~ excluding the stairway. 3. ""nclaws have been added on U\! third floor facing h.sso Street in order to make tne window arrangement DOTe symetTicl1. ANJIlYSIS f!:pandedJ;'rDU~Il:! floor Lobby The changes which hal/E-been made to the desigp are minimal and do not ~rovide useable flcQr area at ground lev!l. thougM there app€ars to be no reasen wh1 such space cannot be provided. It seems from our ~evicw thlt over 500 sQuare feet of leaseable floor ire. could be provided on the gound level. even without cha"9i~g the pr~po$ed parking configuratfon or reducing total floor area. Undoubt.edl,. there are 1.1 so other design options ~ich cculd be e~plored that ~ould pro~lde ground level commercial space. Whlle the gla$sed-in lobby do~s have $O~ potentia1 is an art display area. the arrangement of doors a.nd circ:..1ation limits th~ ~sefulness of th2 space. Since triffit paths cross the lobb~ in both directions. the ~sabie floor area. is restricted to thre! small (orner spaces totallin9 about 80 sQuire feet. Tbis 1$ too small an area for any fut.u,"e retail use and may have 1 i'lited usefiJ1r'iess for irt dlsplay. Additi~na111. art displays in the 10bby will d~pen~ on an individual or agency ta~tng responsibllit, for sele,tlng and maintaining the displays. Chan¥es to Second and U::ird JJoors A somewhat. awkward design prob em bas been cr~atedl':Y-th~--Chanqes ~ade tQ the second and third floors. To (iff-set the increase in floo"r-uu on the grol.ind floor. building volume has be€n removed from thE southeast corner of t~. buildin9 at the second and third floors. This leaves a cantllevered thfrd floor with no verticIl support and disrupts th~ syoetry and balance of the buildIng facade. According to B"iiding Oepartaent officfals. these changes create structur.' cD~licGtiDns and will require more difficult a"d expensive construction. -lZ - . . ' Architectur~l Materials The building finish and fa,aje details include st~CCD, decorative t11!s. wrought iTQr. balconies, wood beurs, cop"er gutters and Iloulded sins and trlm. The Vl'5ual and text~ral interest and the s~ale of tnese elements makes them appfopriate cnofces f~r the downtown. We woul~ exp~ct that this ~S€ of natural, high qual1ty. trad1t,onal materials wi" b~ appreciated by the genor.1 p"~l;c. Street Trees Staff conthlues to have concerr,s about the impact of t~1s project on the seven existing street trees on lytton Avenue. One of these trees 'Will have to be remo""ed to provide access to the site on Lytton Avenue. Tbe proposed underground 9ar~ge will req~ire the severfr.g of roots of the remaining trees ilc~g th~ property line to within Ain! feet of the trees. The appl;cant ~as subsitted an independent arbor;st's report stating that wit~ an extensive progr~ of care and maintenance the remaining six trees would be expected to have a favorable prognosis for renewed ~i90r. However, tne C1t1 ArbDrist's opinfo" is that the proposed excavation will not leave adequate roots and soil volume to support these large street trees. He beli~yes that the trees, wh;,n ire in ill stressM condition due to the drought, are not likel, to survive the d~ge done by the proposed e)(ivation. It also should be noted that thes~ six trees are among the street trees ~ich will ~ave ill portion of their canopies re.oved in order to ~11cw the historic ho~se to b~ GQved to 422 Pil0 Alto Avenue. should that application be approved b1 City Counc~i. This can be expected to further weaken the trees. RECOf'tl£NOATlON Staff defers to the Board and will Qot be making a recommendation for approval or denial of the project ~t this t\me. The revised design does not prQv;c! useable ground floor $pace~ and we feel tn~t the expanded lobby is not an ade~uate substitute for !pace wh1c" c~uTd be occupied by a SllDP ot" bUSiNess. We feel that the revisions to tbe second ind tftird noars have resulted i~ new desfgn problems, and we are concerr.ed tnat the b~11qing excavation may result in the loss of the SlX street trees. For these reasans t we are very reluctant t~ recGmme~d approval of the project. However~ the design inc1udes attractive detailing and quality materials and it ~ay be that some ref,nemtnt of the design would result ic a satlsfactory building. We d€fer t~ the Board's j~dgement in tnis matter. [f tne Board sho~ld decide to recommend that the City Council appro~e the project, we recom.end that the approval be wit~ the following conditions: I. Prior to Jpplying for a building permit the appli(ant shall retur= to the ARB for review and approvil of colors a~d materiils including window glass and fra~in9. stucco finish and decoritfvE tiles and roof tiles and other irchitectural or desIgn .1 .... ts tD be doterm;ned by the B.ard. 2. Prior to issaance of a building permit a fi nal "lan.d'st.ape and irrfgation plan shall return for review and approval by tne -11 • • o Board and by t~e Energy Servites Oi~ision of the Utilities Department. 3. Bu11aing sigr.age shall return for aoard approval t,lnder separate appiication. 4. The project is subject to t~e provisicns ~f the City's Hou;lng Mitigation fee (P.~ 16.47.020 (c». The t,tal fee of ~14~238.'2 is based on 4,843 square fe~t x $2.94 per squar~ foot. Half of the fe. (l7,1l9.21) shan be paid to the City prior to issuance of a buildin9 p!~it. The second half of the Housing Mitigation fee shall be paid to the C;t~' 'prio~ to occ~pancy. The current fee of $2.94 per square foot ~il1 be in effec.t until ~.r'h of 1991. If the applicant has not s~ured i building permit by t~at date. the f€~ will be adjust!d to tne new per square foot dollar amou~t in effect at the time of building permit Issuance. 5. The applicant shaH 5ubmit Ii detailed grading iind drainaae plat. and a soils report til the PubHc Works Oepat"tment prior to subroittal fDr I b~11din9 permit. 6. The applicant shall replace damaged gutters on both TiSSO and Lytton prior to octupancy. tit] inspectors will identify damaged gutters needing repl~ce~r.t. 7. The basement garage ex,avation and shoring shdll not enc~oach into the publit right-of-way. 8. Tr.e basement shall be equipped with a sump drai~age system and inclYde a back-up emergency gener.tor. 9. Bicycle parking det,il. s~.ll be submitted to the Transportation DiYision for review and approval prior to submittal for a building permit. 10. The ~heer blocks for the two ta~dem parking spacts provide~ in the below grade garage shall be 1o~at~d as shown on Sheet A.I of the plans submitted to the City on Hay 3, 1990~ in order to prevent that space being converted to usable floar area other than for parking purposes. 11. Due to th~ close pr~xi~ity of resident&s, any roof top equipment s~all be entlosed for noise cont~inm€nt to prev~nt noise carryin; beyond the pro~erty line. 12. The following street tree protect10n measures ~hall be incorporated into the final Ta~dscipe plans: i) Prior tG iDitiati~n of construction operations, the applicant snall i~stal1 temporary barricades as (lose as feasible ttl the dripline. No constructio,., materials sh.al1 be stockpiled within the drip1ine~. b) Pruning to include removal of dead wood and thinning of tne foliar canopies by approximate', lO percent {20%} • 14 • shall be performed pri~r to initiation of constru(tion actjyities by a certifi!d arborist. c] A program of fett11izati~n by »eans of deep root soil i,jeetion shAll ~ Initiated prior to onset of construction activities by a certified arbarist. This f.rtilI2.tl.n s~.ll ~ performed bi-onnually In M.rc~-April and July-August for five (5) years. d) O:uring and upon cQmpletion of i!r\y trenching/grading operatforts withio a tree's dri;11ne. should any roots greater than tWQ inches (Z-J ;D di~ter be dama;ed~ brok~n or severed, timely root pr~nlng to include flush c~ttjng and sealing ~f expos~d roots shall be perfa~d by a certified Irborist to minimize root deterioration beyond th.a soil 1ine~ e) A certffied arborist $~all be present an t~e Site during excavation of the 9arage area within the drip l1nes of the existing street trees. f) Spr.yin~ of the f.llar canopies shall be performed by a qualified arborist titil;zi~g apprapriat2 fungicides to c~ntrol the leaf Ant~racnose. The funjicide shall be applied annuall, until a certified arborfst deems the treatmellt complete. 9) Periodic inspections by a certified arb~rist shall be performed eontnTy during the cDn5truct)~n phase and shall report written inspection findings to the Cit] Arborist~ h) Any street tree(s) ~hic" die or suffer substantial deterioration within five (5) years of occupancy of the project sh.ll b< replaced by the applicant at the applicant's cost wit~ spe(ie(s} and size,s) ~eiermined by tM! City Arborlst at the time Df repTace~~nt~ J1c1litectWtnI Ite\'ie\\' . nct;lr.1 ,"ililites -----Ot, of ....... ""----------___________ ..... _...::...::...:::..= A 4 ROl,L CALL Thursday~ September 20. 1990 8,00A.H. Civic Center 250 Hamilton Avenue Council Conference Roc1l1 Palo Alto, California Board Members Pr~sent: Karni Barnes Michael Lyzwa Jon Schink Shirley Wilson Board Members Absent: Aino da~osa Staff Preserlt: Robert Haley Virginia Warheit B. APPROVAL OF "MUlOTES It is Doted that Marni Barnes ~as not present at September 6. 1990 ARB and, therefore, did not be participate in the vote. september 6. 1990 Kinutes -Apprvved, 3-0, vitb the folloYing cha!'lge made by Shi rley Wilson: Itelll 2 on puqe 3, 322 Uni ..... ersity Avenue/ -Ms. 'Wilson .... oule:: like it noted that it vas approved as proposed ar.~ was con­ structed before it .as revie~ec by the A.B.B. ~!so cn page 6 under Ne~/Old Business Item 41 the last sentence 'Was amended to read, "Mr. Lyz-wa read a letter to the Board regarding the ~ac1ting deficit; which vi?_l be addressed to the City Council after Eortber development and review· c. ORAL COKMUHlCA?IONS None D. AGEh~A ITEMS APPROVALS: T~e A~chitectoal Review Board (ARB) oeclslon on the design of the project is a r~commen­ dation to the Director of the Planning and community Environment 'the director); who makes the final ~g­ c!sion. ]-9/20/90 6. After detailed discussion~ the Board APPROYED 1 4-0~ the project sUbject to thp conditions noted belo-": I ~ Modification to the pedest~ian-\la!k-... ay arch and the connections Qod details at the very top of the buttress walls to return on Consent ~he Board ~embers made cOmIDent of their appreciation for the sensitivity and excellent. job the Public Works Depa~tment has done on City Hal14 550 LYTTON AVENUE * Boyd/Jenks 90-ARB--4: fina! review of d~molition o£ four-unit apartment building and constructio~ of 4.51S-square foot office building Vith nndecgroun~ parking~ ~fter presentation and detailed discussion, tbe Board APPROVED~ 3-1, (Mr. Lyzva opPQsed)# subject to the fOllo~ing conditions: ]. Prier to applying fQr a building permit the ~ppli~ant shall retorD to th~ Board with ~ revised design of the property vall off Tasso Street next to thp. existing hoose ~nd the so~th corner of the building. sbowio9 the location of the property line ane the location of the neighboring house and addressing design issues raised in the Staff Report. 2~ A concrete proposal for the use of the: grol.Jnd floor space in trying to keep life on the stzeet 34 Prior to app1ying for a building permle the applicant sball return to the A~B for review and appcoval of colors and materials including windoy glass and framing stucco ficish acd decorative tiles and r~of tiles and other architectual cr design elements to be deter~ined by the Eo~rd. 4. Prior t~ issuance of a building permit a fin~I landscape and irrigation plan shall retcrD fCr revie~ and approval by the Beard and by the Energy Divisio:.-of the Utilities Department4 5. Building signage shall return for Eoard approval uoder separate application. 7-9/20/90 ." I,' , ./ 6. The p,oject is subject to the provlslans of the City's Housing Mitig~tion Fee (P~~C 15.474020 (eJl. The total f~e ~f $14,238~42 is based on 4.843 square feet x $2.94 per square foot. Half of the fee (7 f I19.21) sna11 be paid to the City prior to issuance of a building permit. The second half of the Housi~g Nitigatlon Fee shall be paio to the City prior to occL'pancy. The current fee of $2.94 per square toot vill be in effect unti1 March 1991. 1£ tbe applicant has not secured a building permit by that date, the fee will be adjusted to the new per square foot d~11ar amount in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 7. The applicant sh~11 5ubmit a detailed grading and drainage plan and a soilS report to the Public Works Department prior to submittal for a building permit. B. The applicant s~al1 replace damaged gutters on both Tasso and Lytton prior to occupancy. City inspe~to~s vill identify damaged gutters needing replacement. 9. The basement garage excavation and shoring shall col encroach intc the public rigbl-of-way. 10. The basement shall be equipped with a sump drainage system and inclode a back-up em~rgency generator. 11. Bicycle parking details shall be submitted to the rransportation Division for reviev and approval prior to submittal for a building permit. l2. The wheel blocks tor the tva tandem parking spa~es provided in the belov grade garage shall be located as sho.n on Sheet A-I of the plans submitted to the City on May 3, 1990, in order tc prevent that spa~e: being converted to usable floor area other than for parking purposes. 13. Due to the close proximity of residenc~s, any roof top ~q~ip~ent shall be enclosed for noise containment to prevent noise carrying beyona the property li~e. i4. The following street tree protection measures shall be incorporated into the final landscape plans: a) Prior to iDitiatioD of constru~tion operations. the applicant shall install temporary barricades as close as feasible to the dripline. No construction materials shall be stOCkpiled within the driplines. 8-9/l0/90 --. -- I i I o b) pruning to incl~d~ removal of dead vocd and thinning of the foliar canopies by approKimate!y 20 percent (20%) shall be performed prio~ to initiation of construction activities by a certified arborist. c.) J.. program of fertilization hjl means of chc:ep root ~oil inject:on s~all be injtiated prior to cnset of cOllstruct.ion act! vi ties by a ce:rtified aroori st. This fertili%ation shall be perEor~ed hi-annually in Marcb­ .April and Ju.ly-A'Ugust fer five {S} years~ d} During and upon completion of any trEncbin~/gradi~g operations within a tree's dripline, should any roots 9ceater than tvo inches (2-) in diameter be damages, broken or severed, timely root pr'Jning to include flush cuttir;,~ and si'!aling of exposed roots shall be perforlr,ed by a certified arborist to minimize root deterioration beyond the soil line. ~} It. certified arborist shall be present en the site {Jttring excavation of the garage area within the drip Jines of the existing street trees. fJ Spraying of the foliar cancpies shall be ptriormed t'y a qua J ified arbor ist utilizing appropria te fungicides to control the Leaf AnthEacnose~ Tbe fung~cide shall be applied annually ~~til a ce~tified ~rborist deems the treat~ent complete. £} PeriOdic inspections by a certified arborist scalI b~ per£crmed monthly duriug the constructicn phase and shall report written inspection findings to the City Arborist. h) ;~y street tree(s) which dies or suffer substantial deterioration within (5) years of occupancy of the project sball be replaced by the applicant at the aFplicant's cost with specie{s) and si~a(s) detprmin~d by the City Arborist at the time of replace~ent. Mr. Lyzva .~s unable to support the project and listed the following reasons: l~ H~ did not see a clear design concept. 2. The siting of the building does not reflect the th~ corner o~ Tasso Street and Lytton Avenue architectual Eorm. 3. rJo usahle ground flo,or. 9-9/20/90 .. 7. 8. 4. ThE." solid' treatlflent along the property .all is unacceptable. ~" Proportion of the building and tbe vindo\i placement. 6. Weak base treatment. Mr~ Schink felt the applicant had come a great distance ll'l makil'l_g modi ficat.ions and: compromises on this proj ect. He felt the building vas appropriately desi~ned for the location. parking ~as nicely defined; yet, etill screened from the str~et and felt the applicant was using fine materials~ He also felt the applicant had eone a good jo~ of articulating the design of the property­ line problem on Tasso Street. ~s_ Barnes thanked the applicant for the beautiful color rendering and the vorkinq model tbat ~as rreseDted~ She felt it helped her tremendously in making her decision. She also vanted to acknowledge th~ applicantts responsiveness to th~ issue$ brought up by the Board at the previous meeting. Sht::. \'-"s very happy with the changes to the buildinq~ specifically, th~ change in the look of the stilts and that being her main concern cou.ld support the project. Sbe also felt it vas critical for the applicant to keep the lohby loo~ln~ appealing and interesting not ooly vilh artYork, but also with lighting. This revised proposal viII go before City Co .. :.ncil on October 15. 1990. 4170 EL CAHIIlO REAL/HATBELL AYEIlU1!: Archon, Archit~cts ?r~liminary review of ~ixed use project with 18,000 ~quare ~eet commercial building and 40 re~iQental condomicium units vith underground par~ing. CANCELED from this agenda; to be rescheduled at a future c'!te. 1681 EL CAKlIlO 2EAL C~cald Development 90-ARE-I'9 Miner fa~ade ~o~ification and landscape changes to an existing medical of~ice building. A[t~r detailed discussion, the Board CONTINUED. 4-0, this item for further design development. 10-9/20/90 , " .. ". _.F ,_ , . ZQ. PUBLIC BEARING: Appeal fro. the decision of the Direct~r of Plannlnq and C.,...",ity Bnvironunt and the reCO_ndat!on of the Architectural Review Board to cleny an application for conatruction of an oftice bulldlnq for property lo.::atecl at 550/560 Lytton Avenue (lOO) (CMR.47J:O) ccuncil M8od>ar r ••• ino asked about the viabIlity of retail on the 8Ite since it "". a block or "" r8llOved froa any other retail. He alao reque_ted ..... ine1ght. into the retail-type cbaracter the Architectural Review Board (ARII) lOU looltinq for. Mr. SChreiber aald th .. oon1"'1 on the Bite oontained the pedestrian overlay d.d'P'.ation but dId n<>t contain the qround floor (GF) ratdl requir...ant. The area va. 888ft a. beinq adjacent to and iloportant tor the "",in retall 8e<ptent. or downtown, but the site itaelf did not necessarily require .. retaIl-oriented qround floor use. It va. bard for ataft to juclqe the viability of retail, and web a j\ld9lNnt vaa not required In the subject instllJlce. If the applicant dId not teel retail va. viable, retail did not have to be pursued. It va. iIIportant for those ar .... close to the downtown retail cor., whare the pede8trian overlay va. applied, to recognize the importance of cr .. t1ncJ the valklng-orlented, pedestrian­ friendly environunt. It .... important for the areas between the downtown, perJt1nq Iota, and other faciliti... to be friendly to pedestri'na and that va. the ca •• In the subject instance. Council Keaber razzino ~r!ed bow far the applicant had to qo to be pedestrian-friendly and what apacifically bad to be don~ to bri"'1 it about. ~; ~;!~;': 64-243 8/ll/90 , ,. '-. o 0 As&oclate Planner Virginia warheit be1ieved the ARB's position was that the building should, at & minimum, have some activity or use other than pa~king at street level_ The ARB found the plan not to comply with th. premise of thft: ·P" district because it had no qround tloor u ... other than parkinq~ Sha: concurre~ 'With t.he ARS's position. Vice Mayor Woolley queried whether the property ~a6 in tact in the .p" district. Maw Warheit said thera was no question the property was in the .p. district and had. been since early 1988. When the a.pplicant submittad hi. application in March t 1990, he listed the current zoninq as CDC-P. She believed it was also clear to the applicant that the property was ccntalned within the ~pft district. vice Mayor woolley queried whether statf had reversed its oriqinal recolillae.ndation. Mr. SChreiber said the initial staff recommendation was based only on co:apllance with the technicalities of the zoninq ordinance .. staff had a4viHd the appUcant early on of its belief the Al!B would have substantial problema with the proposed designa staff and JIIor. Boyd had a friendly disaqreement over the past aonth regarding the role of staft in the design review process and Mr. Boyd questioned: the. extent of ,,01IIe of th.e staff' s recoDmlendiStions. on his and otb&r proj.ats. In the first review, staff's recom.en­ dation was based .01e1y on the complian-:$ 'With the zoninq ordi­ nance, leavll'19 the 4 •• 1qn i •• ue open for the ARB. Wben the ARB ""Pressed it .. difficulty with the applications, it confirmed .tafl's view that the de.!qn revi6w proce.ae would aoddress the issues aboUt which staft 'Was concerned. When the applicant returned to the. ARB the second ti2e with no cbanqe in the applica­ tion. staff concurred with the ARB's conclusions and recommended denial. ARB Chair Shirley Wilson saId the ARB was conscious over the past couple ot years about urban desiqn issues in all new building and saw an CJPPQ:rtunity to be very selective since the town was so built-out~ The ARB wa& concerned that what little was d~veloped contribute positively and. .tronqly to the urban for». She spent a lot of time telling vith the applicant aboUt those goals and thouqht he understood thell. Rather, the a.pplicant chose to remain vith his original prop<nlal. council X.-ber Levy had some probless about the extension of the .p. zone to the subject site. He understood the ARB's ~udqment assUBing t.'P'J.e locatIon vas appropriate for the lip. zone. Since the application was before the Council, Council could revieW' the aatter in terms of the existence ot a .p. zone or it could look at vhether the .p. zone vas app-ropriate and also request the applicant to reconsider hIs architecture. He queried wbat Council needed to do in light ot the possibiliti ••. 64-2H 8/13/~O • o city Attorney Ariel Calonne .&1d the action before the Council was not a rezoning. While Council l • d8ciaion could be i~fl~~r~ed by DOra l.,gialatlve lon1ng considerationa, It should be tOC"olsed on the application. 1.1' Council wanted t.o defer final action on the .atter, it could deny the applic~tion without prejudice. General­ ly, the concept of a denial, without prejudice, was used to avoid reaching a tinal deteraination on the aerit. of the project and the tacit under.tanding W~. the applicant would reconsider the application In light of whatever future legislative action council .lght t.~. on the zoning. \ Council Meabe~ McCowr. .aid th~ Minutes referred to a discussion regarding p'~lling the building down to the ground floor and having SOIW: qround floor u.... In 119ht of the desire tC' have more parking, ab. queried what dift.rent approeche ... ight exist in teras . for an adju8tasnt to the design to deal with the ARB's concerns~ lis. Wil"on "ald it was obvi~. to the ARB that ita reco_ndations would require 1 ••• square footage on the .ite than the applicant Via'" tryirt.9 to achieve. If there was ever a.ny desire to convert the subject project to retail, it would never werk since it vas built out to the squar. footage, and there vas no bUilding vall on the aidevalJt. There wee a 24jor open. space behind 525 UnIversity Ayenue, whiell .... highly unc1er-uttlhe4. and which the urban Desi'J". C.,..itte. had identified ". a peraanent open .pace. There needed to be a va 11 along Teaso Street to end and fr ...... the spa"", and it would be id.al for the buIlding w"ll to have .. street presence so people would filter out into that apace. The body of buildinqs fra. Lytton thrOUqh university and beck over to Hamilton could be an ef~ectiv., ~c1al secondary eros. access to the downtown area, and it vas important t~ keep th •• treat strong and vital in order to keep those optione _no council Meabe%' MCCown queried Whether there vaa any discussion about any dirt.rent parking layout below qrade or at qrade that could eoaehow soften the iapact of the par~ing at grade. Ms. Wilson saId the ARB yaa never presented ~ith any alternatives. eouncil Member ,Sutor ius saId sInce the property was adjacent to .uIU-f .. ily, __ con.tralnt. ot how the alte could be used by any coaaerc!al building wer. introd"ced. Ks. wilson said the ARB did not teel the project was very coapati­ ble with a residential neighborhood. She preferred _illll density b',JI\lsinq on the site, bUt the property vaa not zoned that way and the ARB tried to "or~ with the current zoning. Cowper street to Middlefield Road across tbe street vaa all residential, and there was the existence or the vaca...,t bank building.. To continue to add to the dea~. of the area would not be • positive step. Jlayor Cot:b declare4 the Publlc Hearing open. c.,~;,:::---· ____ ._·. _____ .. ' 64-245 8/13/90 • :. ./ John Boyd, 119t; fia1lilton Avenue,. was the architect fer the project. He believed the concept met the requirement. of the .p. lone. The footprint o~ th. bullding waa 2,500 square feet, and in the center section were the elevator, the ele¥ator lobby and stairs and next to it, toward Taego and on Tasso and toward University Avenue, was the ramp to the underqround parkin9~ He tried to site his building on the corner ot the pro~~ty closest to the commercial zone. By doing that, he va. able to 88parate the building itself 50 teet troM the nelqhbor to the east ~h.n the ~~quirement was 10 feet. He believed it waa more than 4 parKing lot and he urqed more care£ul consideration. Ths .p~ district zone suggested a covered area for pede-striana and he had 1530 teet. Another ro15!quirement wa.s the desire to create a site line on buildings built on a corner, and he believed the project acre than met it~ He had held out for his design concept because it .et the ordinance, he believed it would be attractive and would open up the corner~ He urqed approval~ Council Member MCCown queried having some portion ot the qround floor functional iTI the buildin<J' and pulled down to the qround leveL Mr. Boyd said the elevator, elevator lobby and stairs contained 180 square feet and cut the open apace in half~ The project vas not really a buildift9 elevated o .... er a parking lot., and if in ~evelopinq the pedestrian apace, t.~e ARB desired more planting, coveZ"J or some sculpture or so~ other detail to make tba ~rea more friendly, it could be done~ Regarding the pavinq for tha plaza, he would like to pave the park1nq iIIrea the l!13lle aa the plaza in order to have one u..~itorJI platform, but he had not extended it out to the public sidewalk, and he believed it should be ~e. COuncil Member XCCo"~ clarified Mr. Boyd's pla~a vas not open to tbe. sky beoause the OO11(.1inq was on top of it. The "plaza-would really be looki~ underneath the buildi~. Hr. Boyd sa Ie! the t wa II! correct. sides., to Tasso and to Lytton. The bo.Jilding was open on two council Kember Levy queried the tot.l footprint o! the building. Mr~ Boyd said the building was approximately 50 feet square. Council Meaber Levy queried what changes the applicant would make if the property was not within a .p. zone. Hr. Boyd said. it was decIded the area • .. as probably not conducive to commercial 80 none was contained on the ground floor. It tbe ·P" zone requiraaent d14 not eXist, he would probably like to do the same pla.n. He liked the idea at providing the corner elevated with a space below ~~ere people could valk throuqh and be under cover rather than bri~ the buildi7\9 do"", to the property line like Blost other one-II ~ H-246 8/13/90 • , , g. (""\ , '''-..,--- Colin Peter, 5 University Avenue, 8a14 at ona time or another each aeaber of the ARB believed the project should not be retail, and at one t..t.e or ,pnother h. believed everyone had to (.:oncede it was a nic. looking buildinq.. The problftl ••• Iled to be 'With the­ -pedestrian tri.ndlinea.~~ It •• emed that within -friendly· vas tht ARB'. pbiloeophy about the project in qeneral. He could not change the fact the ARB did not like commercial, and the project va. ~clal. Thare was co ... reial across the street ira a 15- story buildinq. The Bank at ...... rica ... as a towerinq building of le.ser scale.. Staff made conditions one after anothar and the applicant .. t thea until approval was achieved. After the ARB dIsapproved the project, .tatt also di .... pproved it, and the explanation vaa _taft disapproved the project because they wanted to leave the ARB vl'th an Wltettered discretion. The area 'Vas transitionary and • towerinq building next door to a three-story vas lIOra ~til>le tllan a giant behind a dwarf. He urged approval .. Mayor cobl:l reterred to the parking on the first floor, and be asked about the possibility ot digqinq deeper with tile parking garaqe and building thit entire structure down furth*r. Hr. Boyd .aid it vas a poBdbility but ditricult because the lot was only 60 tNt by 100 t.et and t..".Iere was not Jauch rOOll~ The entry int.o the parking qaraqe used a lot of square: foot;,q.~ He bellev~ it voqld be coot prohibitive. Kayor Cob!:> Hid the only buildinq down could be done "". vi th two raaps--one to a aeoond level and one to a first level, and there .. ere a lready two entrances. council MeJIber KCCown queried other layouts in the qar_ge. She noted two extra tand" parkinq space. whicll appeared to be wasted space. She queried whether there sight be other .. ays to layout the qaraqe to qat 12 space. rather than 10 which 'Would then relieve the two up on the qr ade. Mr .. Boyd had tried to set the ramp closer to the surrounding coamercial properties, and the 50-foot width did not prov1de Buch turnaround 1&le space. He had tried several confi~~ations. council Member Levy queried the option of lIavinq parkinq off-site. Mr. Boyd was willing to put retail on the ground floor, even if it was not econoBlcal, and tried to purchase some off-site parking. 8e believed So.tI spaces were still p,·.l"ailable in the Bank of America building, but they had been unable to arrange ter it. They were. located in tbe .ssessaent district but could not use the aBsiqnment because the property as it currently stood W4S residential. Mayor Cob!:> declared the Public llaaring clo"ed. 64-241 8/13/90 • o MS. wilson .aid aa Cou~cil consioered the matter, it should realize that all of Ta •• o street was burdened by parkLng. What few houses currently existed ~ere zor.ed commercial so there ~as no way to park at those .ites~ Vice Mayor Woolley said 3S she read the ARB Minutes , one or t .. o .embers believed tha entry could be a partial solution. She clari­ tied th. entry a. currently proposed 'lias not aesthe-tically pleasing enough to Ittr!ct the pede&trian~ Ms. Wilson said that was the ARSrs assessment. There was a glass door and a window next to it, but there was no other view into the bulldifl9_ The ARB di~cU6SQd .at length tr;9 possibility of enlarging the lobby aa well as JIlakinq the plaza more inviting. S:~e believed the applicant va. deludinq himself that any membEr of the public would step into tbe yard the way it w~s currently designed. Council Meaber SUt.orius que~ied the purpose of .. invitin9-the pedestrian oft thQ street onto private property. Ma. Wilson said there .as not really any pu.rpose~ but the applicant had stated .any timeb the plaza space would be that way. counci 1 Mfillher s~to:rli.1S clarifi.ed the point was beinq made that the -invitation-...,a. illlpOrtant in the design to potentially enhance "the access and probebility of some access by the ·pedestrian.- b. Wilson said the. applicant stated repeatedly that he was prDvidinc; an the. open space plaza to the pedestrian. The ARB did not believ8 the plaza was welcoming to the public so the point was Doot. COUncil Member s~torluB appreciat~d ~~e ARB's efforts to enhance the pedestrian experience in the downtown, and reta i 1 at the ground floor was o~vloualy to the advantage of the building owner or the tenant. There were many things one might tc do to get people into .. retail buaine... For the subject design at the subject location. he quer led what the ARB l'li'~ht recommend "W.i. th respect to tlle landscape, trellis process, and the pavement treatment which seemed to be a little aore plea!lant than asphalt, tJ.""l-at "Would make the proj.ect ·friendlier~· He tJiOught the ;t...RB .... as making a proper effort toward. continuance because now the Council was struggling with the ... tter. Ms. Wilson b4lieved there were things that could be done, but the ARB did not feel it had any experience with the applicant to feel confident that he would accomplish any design changes without the ARB' B act\la.lly .eeing-them. The ARB did not want to approve anyt.hi.nq it had not se.en because there seemed to be so little acceptance or understanding of the ARB'. qoals. 64-248 8/13/90 • . ;;.;.. ... y o ~OW; Vice MAyor Woolley moved, seconded by McCown, to approve tbe at ... tf reco_endation to uphold t...... rocollllDendation of the Architectural Review Board and the Decision of the Planning and co_unity 'Environment to deny an application for construction of an office building tor prope~ty located at 550/560 Lytton Avenue. Vice Mayor WoolleY' referroed to the role of the ARB and the perception by .ome th.at it had too much power. '!'he ARB lias eata~lished to have scme discretion, and it the Council did not want any discretion in the design ot commercial buildings, it vould just rely on the ~onlng as it did fer R-l~ Council looked to the ARB to reviev 4 project in terms of some of the sotter parameters council would like to see in the City, one of which involved the ·P'II district guidelines. In the I>owntown study, C:Juncil was concerned about pede.tal covered parking and as a result, the decision va. to count pedestal covered parking in the floor area ratio {FAR) if it was at-grade or above. The idea .as to discour­ age it. ~~ll. there were appropriate locations for the covered pedestal parkinq concept, she did not believe it 'Was a qood solution at the subject property. There were many fine points to the seC"..ond and third stories, and without the first story, the project would be a. qood ~ddition to the downtown. 'I'be bottom lio& vas the pedestrian or neighborhood unfriendliness of the first story. Aa aha waL\.ed arO'.md the property, abe realized. the concern vas all108t 61 auch with the r8Bt of the neighborhood. because across the street on Tasso there were some Victorian houses and across Lytton there va. another string of houses. She did not believe parking: aa the .. in activity for the first floor was appropriate at the location. She referrad to the guidelines and the desire to preserve the scale and character of the downtown. A new building should 'Work in concert with older structures throug'l scale, use of material, and design which enhanced the flavor of the area. The design on th~ first floor aid not enhance the flavor of area. The area would probably end up with massive changes and~ except for the very large buildings •• he did not imagine the others would be there long. It va. iwportant to .et a precedent if Council did not want to see more of the subject type applications because the lets, were small# it ~a. difficult to provide the parking any other way, and it was impossible to get the FAR it one did not 90 to the pedestal parkinq. Council Member MCCown Baid tbe project had .any positive attrib­ utes. The sticking point seemed to be the issue of -pedestr ian friendlineBs.-The A..'qB's reasoning and the findil1gs in support pointed out the project was not yet within reach of the 90als of the .p. district. The first finding referred to the goal ot fostering continuity of retail stores and display windows, and in the particular instance~ abe did not believe that was the goal "',ying t.o be achieved. To the extent the finding .!lould be adjusted soaewhat to reflect a slightly different emphasis. it would be valuable becauee it was not an appropriate site and achieve a ground floor retail feel or U5e~ She belieVed it would be desirable it the ARB and the applicant could achieve some better treataent on the ground floor to accomplish the stated qoals. 64-249 8/13/90 , , • / Council Meaber A.. ... ?ers€;"'! .... ·~8 '..J".clea:: about liQ the applicant 'Was being a5k.-:1 to 40. 1'hF.: an~1.l vas z,c;'l.ed cOJ:llliercial yet there were .1qnals that Council di~ ~~c,t , .. ~~t cothmer-o:-ia:l there. He had not h.eard a way whereby tt.9 applicant c;~l.:.ld develop ..... he:t 'WdS zonecS for tbe area qiven the co:",,Str.:'ti:-,ts created by the parking. He was concerned. abou.t th9 :x=..!.Ked ;::~s'i;»qe. If the :Ec!'Iing needed to be changed .. it should be. -!cna 't;-.:t it Co'.;r-.cil was convinc-od the area .hould retaain commercial, tl:~ 3.;,plicd.~t had. operated en that basis. He would oppose the Jl;ot.h-.r: .. C01.lncll MOlber Rentel belioE~x~d tbe pcdp-strian ~istr iet was design.ed to ·provide interest to peopl~ cozting froID • .c;oinq to, and 'Wit.hin the cOIIIDercial area. She COI"ct<.r?(;.d ".lith. t.he 1..RB that those aspects of the project b4inq 5~J;gqe.:tt-ed by the applicant as pedestr-ian amenities did not fly to: l!!cF. c·f I!!'1Y ldnd of attraction or because of parking at surface level. Th"? ar~a ha:d a fair amount of pedestrian traffic and it .as impcrtar.t tor Council to maintain that vitality by ineistin"3 cn aeaiSIj characteristics 'Which .·ould war)::. It Bight well be t~"t\!"': thE. bl.;il::!ing \"ould have to be smaller than the loning other.ise allol.'ed in order to meet thoa requirements of the p4rkil\9 and ti:e p.edE:s't.rilJ.1'"1 awenities. She supported the .otlon. COuncil Member Sutor ius did net ~ant to s~nd a roessaqe which might be lIisunderstood by tJ':,e applicant, st1.ff -or the .a..R.B. He appre­ clat~ the Ci'ty Attorney's L~sponse to Council Member Levy1s question about the zoning, a~d he ~ould not support changing the z:onin9 at the subject locati,:m. If tt.e project .. as denied, he clarIfied he had not heard any argument tor or sLlgqcstion tor a rezoning at the partlcul~r loc~tion. The subject application ~as intriquinq in how it ac~c!'1pliahQd the pedestal parkin; for the pa;rticular site.. The site already contain~d two pedestal bulldings whIch sarred th. entire do'W'r,tcVTI, e.g.~ the B:;!JInk o~ America building and its larger ne!q~?~, and the proposal used the site in a respecttul manner, pe.rtiGularly fr-o::t the standpoint of the vehicular ana pedestrian traffic ·:m Lytton. He believed the proposal did open up t~e c~!'r·-eT. In tC!rms of safety and appear­ ance, the pre-poaal was ~ FL:s to tt $ dOTwrmtCwn ar-e3. In terms of parking lots, the Counci 1 hao,d tr'i~d oyer the years to improve their appearanc-e and contribJ.lti;:n tc th~ -j" ..... "tltown via enhanced landscape and lllaintenance. There 'Were SQ1!l.<! plusee: it: the ma.nner in whiCh the site was approacr.ed. Be di~ net find anythinq ·visually varm W in the pedestrian concept created ju~t by colored concrete bond and alate in a kind of open tCj·er. T,"te exterior a.long Tasso and Lytton with ita landscaping and the f~c~ it extel~ed back was a plus tor the condominiWl. The potenti.!.l ..,as the occupants of the other property would be a little happier with the nature of the plantings as opposed to a shadov. As he looked down Tasso Street, he saw a building with some attraction but not euch in the ~ay of pedestrian interest; and yet the property had been sold ~nd had become the highest per-squars-foot piece of property in the entire south Bay. There was a need for space, and the proposed buildinq 'Would be attractive in terms of the office portions and the exterior ~ith the fact tt.at it did not all get dolofl'l too the grounC! level. He queried whether Council c.ou11 5':Jqg~:t a ,::o:Jtinuance and \tIhether the 64-250 8/13/90 • \ J o r1 applicant would be willin9 to York within al~the comments he had beard that eveninq. Mr. calonne .aid council could suggest a continuance. Mr. Peters .aid the action sounded fair. He clarified Council's continuance perpetuated its jurisdiction. Mr. Calonne said if the council did not refer the matter back tc another body~ it would retain jurisdiction. 8UB8TtTUTB KCn'IOIII Council Member Sutoriu$ moved, seconded by Cobb, to continue the-item with referral to the Architsctural Review Board and ataff for rec~Bndatlon and item to return to the Council within 90 days. Council M8llber Renzel would have no trouble re-referrinq the matter to the ARB if she felt the applicant would work in good faith. In the past e¥p8rience with the ARB, the applicant h&d requested a denial in order to appeal the matter to the Council ra.ther than try ;end contInue working with the ARB~ Now that the applicant indiC8~ a villinqness to make so~e improvement with respect to the design, a better aotion would be to refer the matter back to the ARB and let it go through th~ process with the understanding that the referral .... ould not bave been made if Councdl had been satisfied with the desiqn~ She was concerned about inviting ;jIforum .. bopping-by continuing the item for 90 days, having the ~atter pass thr~ the ARB and staff on its way back to Council, and holding jurisdiction to perhapa reviSit the item de novo~ She cou14 not support the motion as presently structured because the applicant had already told the ARB be preferred to work with the political body. council Meaber Faz%ino was not in a poSition to approve the project that eveninq although he found himself feeling t!'.at Kr. &o~·d bad lIet. all of the llpE!cific conditions and requirements Of the code~ He vas concerned aboUt whether there was clarity since the ARB Minutes did not reflect exactly what the ARB and staff proposed in order for th~ project to aeet the objectives of being pedestrian friendly~ He preferred to see the .applicant and the ARE :lake another atta.pt at resolving the matter, and be wanted the ARB to be very explicit with respect to h~~ the project needed to cbange in order to .,eat its pedestrian friendly objectives. counell could then act on the basis of that clear direction. If the applicant vas unwillinq to go along with some of the proposals of the ARB, he had no probl8DI. with the a\:i:.hority vested in the ARB and realized it was subjective to a qreat degree~ He supported the motion~ Vice Mayor Woolley said the property 'Was unusual in that it had never been a part of the assessment district although geograph­ ically it va. located inside. the a.ilie.ament district. 'rherefore, in terms of the 5iz. of the lot, Council Kember Renzel had .uqgested the first way to deal with it was not to go for the full FAR. There 'Va. nothln~ that said ana va. entitled to the full FAR, it was si:aply a lIIaximUll up toO which one could work. The second way 64-251 8/13190 • o , '.' ' .. '" ""'"' to deal with the let .... '2.$ t·:> '-:.E,"'~'2Jt::-te 50;ue of the smaller parcels into one larger one be:::a~s ~ :. -::!'" ':'·"i:r·~.':~fl<1 park" inq eve-n of two levels becalll8 rea.sonabl4i at tJ ... ~t :-'-:.i~,~~ SrJ~ di-1 not understand the difference betwsen the z,=,t{-7-',1 ~..a fo.:e t.h"! Council and a dj rect referral to the ARB. Mr. Calonne "'Q'.11d have C'c.,~<:'r,s: ~:--=" ... ': r(,>f~.:'ri"g t1;e matter back: to the ARB diractly for: f1.r'3.1 c'!-;-,:ls::',=."'. Co~r.cil had the express aut.hority to ref~r to t~.~ PI-! ;,"J.J ~"q: CC·"'l.'IIissio:'1 and tt.e inherent authority to refer to th-e )-.• ',5 C·I' to s'";.aff for some additional report back before Cour.::i;' ~~d'~ a :jeci ~ion. He did not believe Council had the authority toe, refer the ::oa~to;:.c to a third body or another body lik2 the AF.B toe· ~,::,,;;oe a final decision4 Vice Mayor WoolllIiIIY said i!"~ n?:sp.cr:S"-I? to ... ·hether the project met all the parameters, the proj~ct ~~3"ht in tar<ll.S of the zoning, but the .p. d.istrict was o!:. part (If t.~,€" t:lrd::.;, anJ the J..RB said the project did not 'IIleet .p~ dietri::t I"el~irelT.ents4 She realiz.ed the ·P" district gu!delinas .lE!!ro:'! ns;,i"t"!" guid;;lines, not numbers, so it was more a matter of opinion. In Gefe~se of the ARB, its role was not to deslqn a proj<&Gt b'.lt r~tl;,~r to c(".rmmeO'lt and give general auqqestions. She believe.3 it W'a'90 teo '1luch to ask of the ARB to do anYJlOre than suqq8-st. She .'1'; = lfilli1l9 to support the SUbstitute action but would not support t'tJ9 t:adestal-covered parking if the proj ect returned tt"1.at wCJ¥. council MeJib4r. Lavy wa.;: trc".'bl ed by th:: "pI< z;or.in·~ of the site. Tbe .p. zone vas at the r-e':irt cf one cf the objections to the building. He obje.cted to t,he Co;-r-cr~it.ectu!"e: but not because of the. .p. zone elements. Th~ 3a!"Dc of }-Jteri-:"a was a foreboding buildinq, and the subject site was ~": tte .e.1:;~ c.,f ti:a ·P" z;or.e across Tasso. East of the !lite. 'Was ot.lt"s:d_~ :-:-f t!':e ~p:t'l l::Jne. There 'alas nothing to pull pedestrians oval' tc' t;i'!. .s.itit !'",ir-,coe pedestrians would not shop along Lytton beceuse t_f:.c 3-;:.~::"". ,:'f h.:".;otrica .. as there l and they 'Would not shop up Tasso beCz.".J.S~ t-.h~ lar~~ :i~an Witter b:1ilding was there and nejt.her ot them .. "z:.c,,=,. P--:':'2st::-:i3n sites. While the 525 University building had tr,;a '.:-~~:'c:'t':';"lity to be a pedestrian site, it was not too lDuch of C!"i~. Y-c'. ~ !:a '",-k e:f }.z;",",rica and the Dean Witter buil<!ings had no o .. p<..':.:t 1,;,:--:lti '--: t,~C::)!!.E ~oJ1vc:rt_ed intc pedestrian &ites BO to induce attI"~ct,i-,.:": . .sS5 for a pe:1estrian overlay on the corner did not !lake seCl3e because tt~e entries to it were not -pedestrian friendly.... He .in"e!.er.ced to refer the question of vhether the ar.,a. east of T~ssc :i-hou!d have the ·P" overlay at all. Notwithstandinq the foregoing. ~~ b~lieved the pro~sed building ov~rburdened the. site in terlI'.s ;:.f: its scale and character. The block <]oing over to '.t~be-ter ;,;a.s a lower level and the pr-oposed building would be out of scale to what.ever was arQund it~ He agreed the building did not hJ,"h~ t,:) occupy the total amount of the square tootaqe. He "W36 concerr.ed that if another problem occurred with the ARB and the lIlZatter re:tu:rne:," to th~ Council, he did not Jcnov the crit.eria on -.l1ici't :Me .. ~uld change his opi!lion. The applicant was misled if he bel iell.ed it. would be easier to deal with nonprofessionals rather ~han prof~sslonals. He was not SUre ~hich way to 90 on the cCiltirl'J.a:r:.c€ ~ t,",.:..t in tens of the :main motion, the architecture was not apprcpria~~ for th~ gite~ -" " 64-252 6/13/90 r'\ "1 Mayor Cobb .aid ¥e buildinq 0.1. the corner o,\:-"'wavsrley and Lytton VII. betor. the Council three times before it .... as ultimately approved. While the process was lon9 and painful, it worked. The pr-oject had been aI:"ound tor a. long time and the 90 ditya would work to get tb_ aatter finalized. Council waa not and shoul~ not be deaiqnera. It was appropriate for the zatter to go back to the council'. body of desiqnera tor opinion and advice, He shared s~me of the concerns elCPreased about pedoestal parking and having the structure be pedestrian friendly, and he waB also concerned about bow the project would affect the properties across the street. He supported tbe IIOtion and urqed the applicant to wor:.t with the city 1 s dea1qn professionals to come up with a solution to meet the concerr..s raised by thl!! Cou....,c i 1. council Meaher Renzel queriec1liihethe.r "' .. lthout prejudic ... ·: meant the fees were waived vhen the applicant reapplied. Mr~ calonne .. aid COllncil would heve to speclticall)' direct that the fees be waived.~ council Member P.enzel was uncomfortable wS.th the applicant ' shaving requested denial at the advisory level in order to ·play politics­ with the Council over design. ~~en there vere legitimate desiqn differences and Council was dealing: vith them t.hat 'Was one thing, and Council should make the decision as the ARB. In the subject instance, contlnuin<) the item and having the M3.tter return to council reqardlelill of what the AR.8 did .eelted to ur.tdenaine the purpose of the ARB. She preferred to eee council deny the application aattar without prejudice and to instruct staff to 'Waive the tees if the applicant desired to return to the ARB. She urged her colleagues to defeat the substitute motion and to wove to deny the application without prejudice and let the applicant do what be ~gbt to have done in the first instance. Mayor Cobb queried whether a denial w~_thout prejudice dealt only with the i8aue of a potential zone change. Mr. Calonne said the denial without ~rejudice coul~ be used with or without a Eone ch&nge4 If council did not deny the appli~tion without pr6judice, the code specifically preclude~ the applicant fro. reapplyinq with a substantially similar application within a six-.onth period. councii Member Levy referred to the building: at the corner of Lytton and. waverley and said the tinal desiqn agreed upon was a oo.plete change from the original deBign. Kayor CObb believed the intent of the substitute motion was that council not be designers and to qet tha matter back in the loop. SVB8TITUYIO. _OTIOR PABSBD 7-1, Renzel -no,· ~njss absent. ~Ia.: COuncil Member Levy moved to direct the Planninq Commis­ slO!'l to review the appropriateness of the pedestrian zone along Lytton east o~ Tasso. :-. . .. ' 64-253 SIll/gO •