Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0397.091- .,';" Aug",! 15, 1991 HONORAB,E Cln COUNCIL Palo Alto, California Members of the Council: , . This r~port summarizes the Architectural Re~iew Board (ARB) action on Council's request for review of details in the design of a 19-~nit project at 420 Jacobs Court. BACKGROUND This project ~as approved with conditions by tne ARB en March 21? 1991. and forlfrla!"'ded to U1e City Coun<:'il all May 20~ 1991. At that hearing, Council continue~ the item and referred it back to tha ARB. (ouncil delay~d taki~g fi~al a~ticn on the project at that time beca~se the ARB approval, a divided ,3-2) · .. ate, contained the cOildition that numerous deta.ils return for further re~iew. Council also re1ieved the applicant from the previously imposed condition that they would be required to provi~e an additlonal below~market-rate (BMR) unit, if the project ~ere approved after August I, 1991. in order not to penalize the appllcant for the delay 1n project approval caused by the return to tne ARB. A complete description and history of Ue project ;s included in the attached report of May 16, 1991. Architectura1 Review Board Action At the July 18, 1991 ARB meeting. the ARB revjewed and appr.o'w'ed {J-l) irchitectural details and the landscape plan, ~it~ Julie Maser ibsent and Marni Barnes voting aga:nst the proposa1. The majority of the ARB supported U:e project beCil'JSe they .believed that the design had a strong visual image and appropriate scale for the project being planned to the north of this site, and for £1 Camino Rea1. that thF nierarchy of open spaces were appropriate and the front entry courtyards were well des~gned, and that the project details were quite acceptabTe. Marnl Barnes stated that she could r~ot vote to support the project because she could not make the necessary findings, irrclud~ng creating a desirabla e~\dronment. preserv~ng natural features and compatibility with neighboring propertles. Ainc da Rosa amended the motion for approval to include only Finding .3, which related specifically to project details. The Bnard approved th~ proposed details and landscape plan based on Finding 13 ~ith staff recommended conditions~ ~i~h minor modifications to the conditions concerning tree protection, backyard landsraping, and staff reyle~ of fireplace shrouds. CMR:397 :91 • - o Minutes of the July 18, 1991, ARB meeting and Summary MiMutes of the City Council meeting of May 20, 199], are attac~ed to this report. RECOMMENDAtiON Staff recommends City Councl1 apprcve the design with the following findin9 and condit; ons. 1. Tn! materials. te~tures. cclors and deta1ls are ~pproprfate exp~essions to the design and functlon and ar~ compatible with tne adjacent and neighboring structures and landscape, in that the articulation of the building facades .. He use of wood and stucco ","'all finishes and metal porch roofs. and preservation of several large trees on tne site help to retain the sem~-rural feeling of the site and the informal residentia1 character of the neighborhood. (onditlt)~ L Prior to iSSuance of a building permit, the final planting and irrigation plan sharl be approved by the Utilities Departme~t. 2. Prior to issuance of i b~ilding permit and prior to any demolition on the site, the applicant shall provide the Planning Department with eVidence of a cQntract ~ith I Certified Arbvrist w~o ~ill be responsib1e for super~i5)ng i~p1ementation of the following tree protection measures. a. Prior to any demolition or co~struction on the !;t~. all trees deSignated to be preser~ed shall be protected with I 6·foot·high chain link fence mounted on 2-inch dlameter 9al~anized iron posts drjven into the ground to i depth of at least 2 feet at no more than IO-foot spacing. The fence shall enclose the entire area under the dripline, or a distance from the tree of I-foot per each inch of trunk diameter, wnicnever is great~r. This area sha11 be shown on the layout and planting plans. Spray paint the top of t~e fence with bright orange paint before unrolling tht: fabric to enSllre 'Visibility of tne barrler. rn r,o tase shall any \/ehicleo5 or e(luipment or any type of materials, includil'lg $011, be permitted' to be stored wit.~in thlS er.closed area. The fence shall be erected before demolition or construct!on begins and shall remain in place until final planting operations are completed. b. Any trencning within the enclosure snall be done by naneL A.r.y tree roots enc~u"tered smaller tha~ 2 inches shall be cut clean with approved tree prun1r.g too1s and sealed with an approved fungicidal tree sealant. Tree roots 2 inc~es or larger snall not be cut. Pipes snould be rJuted into an alternate location to avoid conflict. c. Any grade c~ange within the fenced zo~e shall be limited to 6 inches of cut or fl11 from the original gride and shall be accomplished by hand. Under all Q~ercvs ~nd Seqvcia tr~es there shaH be no grade change unoer at least t/H! inner 50 percent of ttre tree canopy. CMR:397:91 CMR420Jj ... B/15/91 Page 2 " '"C-, , ... ;;:> 1\""'. . . . • .' ... ' .-s: I I I. I _. '" " ':<-~i -'." ".- -., --~ .. --r·.·······:·· -. ---~-~. .--, , --....... --------- "- d. No so'l steri1ants shall be applied under pavement near existing trees. e~ Abcve ground surface runoff shall not be directed into t~e tr£e canopy area from adjacent areas. Ensure that stdewalks or ot~er con~truclion do not trap water near the tree. f~ Supplemental irrigation and fertilization before, during and' ;;fter constructic~ for all trees to be retained, and correctional pruning and cabling of specified trees s~all be pro~ided as directed by a certified arborist. 3. Standard no1se le¥el co~trol shall be imp1eme~ted t~rou9hout the project not to exceed 40 db interior level, to protect from both street ~oise ind' nOise generated on the project si te-. ~. A 24 x 24 inch standard stop sign snall be insta11ed on the right ~and side of the drlv~way it the back of the 5idewalk, to the satisfactiQn of tne Transportation Division prior to occupancy. 5. In compliance 'With conditions of c.ity Council approval of the zone c~ange from R,c to RM-15~ three BMR units snall be provided. This requirement shall be fulfilled to the satisfaction of the City Attorney and the Directcr pf Planning and COll'!ITlunHy [n¥ironment, in conjunctior. with tnf subdiv1si~n process. 6. The a.ppl icant sha1l grant a 6-foot-wide pe{1estrian easeme~t a10ng the redr {nortnern) property 1ine witnin the existing Santa Clara Valley Water District access easement for use by the 39S1 £1 Camino Rea1 project, in conjunction with the subdl~ision map process. 7. An irrigation stlJb. so;1 amendment and 24,inch box trees and a paved pitio shan be in5ta11ed in th~ backYlrds of a11 &-'nfts prior to occupancy. 8. If the proposed fireplace shroud and tre~tment of c~imneJ do not meet Bui1ding Division appro~aJI re~jsed chimn~y and 5hro~d desi9n sha11 return for staff approvaT prior to issuance c( blinding permIt. Respectfully submitted, /; .. " -.... :." • -t. ' 1-jJ~utJ:r~1 ~"w&,,- KENNETH R. SCHREIBER Director of ?lan~ing an~ (ommunity fnvi rOrlment AttacP1ments: Minutes of tne July 19, 1991 ARB meeting CMR:397:9l CMR420J/"" Minutes of th~ May ZO, 1991 City Counei' meeting B/15/9l Page 3 , ----...".... I. o o City Manager's Report and attachments. Hay 16, 1991 Project Plans [Council m~mbers only) cc: Arc~itecturil Review Board Barron P.rk Assocfition Mr. George Remsberg, Ligntner ~rcperty Group Denny Petrosian, 443 Ventura 12, Palo Alto, CA 94306 lols VanderbeeK, 736 sarron Aven"e, P.l, Alto, CA 94306 Bob ~oss, 4010 Orme, P.lo Alto, CA 94306 J~ne DeKover., 421 Jacobs Court, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Gary Breitbard, 740 San Jude Avenue, Pa10 Altn, CA 94306 Herb BorocK, 2731 Byron, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Georg. Smith, 390 Macl.n. Street, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Brian Donovan, 4054 WiTkie Way, Palo A1to, CA 94305 CHR,397:91 CMR410Jj .... ----.. "L BJl5j91 Page 4 • - o ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MEETING 420-461 Jacobs Court Palo .Alto, California July lB. 1991 Mr. lyzwa: The applicant is presant, and will have five minutes to make a presentation. Prior to Uat, J \:tant to remind the board of w!u.t we are looking for today. I was present at the council meeting when they took up this ,project. Tne council .... ants us to make a determir,ation <:In it. The project, was approved, as you will recall. w~th outstanding details and o~tstand;ng items. The council fe1t uncomfarl3ble giving this project approval prior to the board's approval of the outstanding details. Ther~fore, what 15 before us today is not the approval of the project but approval of the outstanding items that the board put as a condition on this project. Gegrge Remsberg: I believe, from Il'iY own perspectf'lle, at least, t,~at the 5Urr.m~.\"y just given by the chai rman of tni s board is accurate. lie a,e here today to ask you to look at those details which you pre'liioLisly lIanted to see after r.a~ing voted to appro~e the project. 1 am going to introduce Jeff Zimmerman and Wade Van Valen from Columbus Architects. They w11l take you step by st~p tnrougn those details. rn addition to that~ Ron Benoit from Hardesty and Associates lIIi Jl waH you t~rough the 1 andscape plan. We have brought along several exhibits. It feels like we have brought along tne whole building Spetifically, our records indicate t~at t~e details you wish to see are the flues, ~indows, trellises, stairs, eyebrows, expansion jornts, water leade'!'"5, transition between materials, and the landscape plans. With that brief introduction, Jeff Zimmerman \IIill take you through the details. ~r_ Zimmerman: In the submittal that you received, we ~ave chosen wnat we percEived from your comments and o~r view of the projett tne most impacted of the Questionable areas. First, I wouid like to talt about flues. r ha~! two examp~es of flues we have done in the past. These are the flue caps on the Sawyer residence here in Palo .Alto and tlolden Gateway (olTlr.lons in San francisco. In your packet, it pretty well explained how t~at flue wrap is detailed with the 18 gauge flas~, along with Sheets #3 and 4. you can see these things. Elevations 3 and 4 s~o ... the "'1ndaws. Whoat we have do~e is to blow up the previo~s submitta19 which ~as all one-eighth inch to a foot. This is all up t{) O!H!·quarter-inch. YOll c.an see the trim a.nd detailing i~ this a little better. There is a blOWUp detail in your packet, '10, w~ich explains that, and the hea~ znd jam detalls, ill. 12, 13 and 14 in that packet, is \lie 11 as t".o sample s \lin i en -.:e h a\le brougM in that we are entertaining. One is a wood window, Colby, and the oth~r is a premium grade aTulr.inum window, BTomberg. It is more expensi.'e than thp. wood window. His is a lesser grade aluminum ... ;ndow framed in It!.!ood, which we did at Redwood Snores. There is a proj~ct i~ Menlo Park that shows the Colby w1ndow. The trellises are the next item. Ele~ations 3 and 4 illustrate where those occur. We have added an !.,Yebrow trellis at five locations. There was concern about the vertica1ity at the entry court. and how to break up some of that. We have introduced an eyebrow veri simi'ar to what ~as on the rear yard elevations. {S~O\llS a project in M.enlo Park. that shows the 07/18/91 -1- • ,'. .,-. "'"'~. ;" , , I I ~ - o trel1i~es at t~e entry.) Detail sketches 1, 2 and 3, the colored Xeroxes,illustrate t~ose entries and their color elements. The eyebrows w~re orfginally O~ t~e rear elevation ~nly. so it 's simIlar to what is en the fronL You can see that in t;,e detail sheets also. Expansion joints are called out on the elevations. There was conCHD ibout water leaders .arid They ire ca17ed out in these elevations. seme 10cation5 we have scuppers. ~ow we would deal with them. y~u can s~e downspouts, and at There was concern about tri!.~.sition elements. We ire probably going to deal .ith stucco wOvd and trim. and wood board panels. That is illustrated in iii blowup detail, as 'Wen as the e"rarged elevations her;:!. That has been handled is a wall section. One last photog~apn sho~s some of the ways we deal with different materials. This is t~e Menlo Park project on Menlo A¥enue. Ron Benoit: J will discuss the landscaping. T~e landscape along the front entryway, which is all new. preserving as many of the e~isting trees as possible. The central courtyard driy€ ar€a wit~ the pa¥lng extending tnrough in an interlocking paver. bricklike in color and texture. There is common, op~n space at the end ~f the slte which ~;ll include a tot Jot, again preser~ing the existing large pepper trees. The priv~te spaces in this burnt orange color. A tree will be pro~ided in each of tnose spaces to he1p mitigate some of t~e on-and off-site views. ~e are allowing for the reSidents to nave a choice of landscaping. In addition, we are sensitive to some of the on-and off-site ~iews by pro~iding screening, for example, from the s; te acro~s the street on Wi 1 k.te Allenue and the adjacent residence where the neighbor is nard against the propertJ line. We are pro~iding oil tall screen (If pitt"spon:m, a tall, evergreo2'n shrubby plant that stays columna~ and narrow. looking at an enlarged view of tne open space. there .... <lS cancern last time about w~at we would be providing for recreation for c~i1dren. We are proposing a small play structure that would occur here. It would be tucked' in t}I,e corner, surrounded by the-fence and allowing t~e one panel to mD\le across in a linear fashion so that you ~ave a green space .... 'hid wil1 also form the terminus for the pe~estrian entry ~ni=h wo~ld come through a g2ted, trellised area and on into anot~er feature ~ere at the termin;Js of the drivewa)', which we envision as a trellis structure also, again surrounded by a wood fence and nicely land~caped throughout there, preserving the existing peppers. The la~ pane1s are relatively small. We are not using a lot of them, and ~e are putting them in an area .... nere we feel they will get t~e most use and nave the most vjsual impact. We haye an open hollow in the center, surrounded bj shrubs, tr~es and ground: coyer and a fence around it, so you t-:3'.:'e a sense of a small park with i hrminus at on!!' end having oil play structure and at the other end. a gated trel1is area. This opens out onto the court. So we ~ave prOvided some recr2itron space and a play struct~re for Children, as noted ~ere. In the court area and the er.tries to the units, we haye provided se~eral types landscape and hHdsc-ape that iII;ll halle some cOlor and texture, and hopefull, softe~ t~e hard space in fro~t of the units. For e~ample. caming in here at Units 4 and 5, we are propo~ing tnat you come in from L 07/l8/9l -2- ! , 1 - th2 drive~ai area into I sptcial pa~ing ~hich could be e,tner a brickli~e paving ~r an embossed concrete w~th a color to make it laak more like stone or flagstone. We are pro~iding gates and enclosed entrJ courts and patios, again with sma1; trees and ground cover to give i nite~ warm f~e1ing ~t tne entry points here. We piopose to carry that through as a the~ in all of the areas. Obvio~sly, where we have units backing up against on! another, it will b<:! more of it: courtyard feeling. and where it is open iga1nst existing land~caping, we wi11 have a m~re suburban type f~e1ing. Where we have exfstiog natj'le. trees. we are proposing that we put a panel of gravel or cohble arcund it so t~at we do not interject more water which might be damaging to the nati~e trees. In all cases, we are provid~ns Tlice landscaping arid paYing at these entry poirlts. Ms. Wilson: I see some ~nfinished spaces around these private patios. In other projects we ha~'e asked that some planting go in there. Is the deyelcper 90in9 tD do that according to their w1shes or is the owner rtsponsible for putting in plantings in that topsoil are~? Mr. Benoit: Many times, nothir.g is done within the private pati~ area. We are pr'Jposir.g to: prlJ~ide ane tr~-e ilnd ina..,. the ownH to develop th-e remaining portion as they see fit. as a customized version of their ya~d. Mr. lirrrnerman: We ha\le been providl!'lg em"jched soil to those areas prior to construction so that that problem is taken care of. We are not viewing t~is as a patio arei in a typical stacked cando project, but ~ore as a private, back yard. This is an e~ampl~ ~ere of what someone did in their own rear yard. We prc~ide irrigation ~DDkups. ind ~e amend the soil. They can personalize their own space. ~ lot af people do not like the 'oncrete pad w~ic~ they typically get. rt is not an ope~ spac! like a hig'h-densHy condominium project where peop1e Ciil1 Mialk through. Ms. Wilson: r understand tht. r think U1ere is a risk that it does not get p1anted. How do you guarantee that it get fini5~ed, and not left as dirt for children tD play in? Mr. Benoit: Even if you pro~ided something fer guarantee that it wo~ld be maintained properly. by fer.c.~s, so if it were t'O remain unde'le1cped, for others. them, there is no Also. they a;"e surro:..lr.c:!ed it ~o~ld not te an pye~cre Ms. Wilson: Is the reinforced lawn just in that front area? Mr. Ben?it~ It is just a little pa~el right here, TMe rfison I i~jected that was tnat ~2 needed a tur~around space for a fire truck. The area would have been ail ~ard pa~ing, ana 1 wanted to allo~ some portion of that to be in greenery. The materia' is a ring-like material that goes underneath _ lawn t~at can support a fire truck. That is speclfically wt1at it is designed for. 'tou can drive on it, but slnce it is green, there i,s a tendency for people not to dri\'E!. on it. The fire departm.ent will know that it is a dri~eabll landscapE!.. We do that in many cases. For example, if we were to ~ave i pass-tnrough ~ere, which ~e have done w,tn other projects, tne e~tire lawn can bt in the same ty?e mater'al. Tne fire department knows that it can ~op the c~rb, dri~e across there and not get stuck in tne mud. So it allows the area to look green and be used as i green panel. 1 prefer that to having ill of this in hardscape. It ~as part of the concept from t~e beginning to have this as a usable court 07/18/91 -~- • ., "., I '- () space rather than i driveway. ~s. Wjlson: Hive you selected the specific paving materials? Mr. Benoit: Yes. \Ie are using interlocking pavers with a herringbnne, bricklike look, so you would have essentially the same mottled surface with a brick flash in a kind' of d1arcoal color so that it lOOKS antique rather than a uniforu c010r. up against a tan coiored concrete hand around the edge, and tn!n ~it the curb. So ~e ire pretty ~ell set on using interlocking pavers. Tne privat! courtyards at the entries are w~ere we propese US)T11J a textured concrete whie,",. again, ~as an antique surface and in a cclor t~at will be compatible. The pattern ~e propose to use is this square one at the bottom. It is embossed concrete ~it~ a rubberized form that is pressed in place and then they sprinkle on color t~at 9'ues it t~at antique look. Ms. Barnes: ] wondered what types of plants you are planning on using under t~e pepper tree. Mr. Benoit: You are right. We can ~ave scme diffic~lty growing tnings under the pepper trees. You will notice I have held th~ lawn back there. There is a dwarf fescue th~t can tolerate some shade. I am pretty confident of being able to do that. We can be pretty s~cc~ssful ~ith soil prep in some of these areas away from the tree. We can plant shade tolerant plants such as azaleas in there. The ivy will work --a small leafed, helix does work under pepper trees, with some shrubs at t~is entry point and hringir.g them away from the direct canopy area. Ms. Barne~: Is that canopy high enough to accommodate a trellis? Mr. Benqit: We may need to do some minor pruning, but I think so. I don't think there is going to be a problem. It happens to fall right in between the trees. Right now, they do hang down. as peppe~s are wont to dD, but J do not see a problem with injecting a Tittle pyramid cap structure up to about 12 feet u~derneath that canopy. As i matter cf fact, I was debating whether we would ~ant to plant anything like a ~ine on tnat one in particular, and I (.~ose not to because I rel t we di;:! ~alie e:'lough softening with the evergreen peppel" tree there, ... ·hereas I ","as planting vines on all of the other tre1lis wort that ~e a~e anticipating installing to soften the caps of the '"000" fences. De~itt Durham: I live at 393 Maclane at the intersectioll of Wilkie and Maclan!, directly across t~e street from the rear ~f t~e development. My concern is for maintaining the integrlty of the neighbor~ood? whicn con:s.ists of one-story, small houses. rt wouid' toe i sname to build anything that changes the fee1 of t~e r.eig'hbor~ooo". Also, r am concerned about planting O~ that narrow strip of land t~at runs on Wilkie ~ay. In the ~riginal landscape plan, it cilled for an evergreen shrub~ ~~ich I fel t would not screen the two·story townhouses from my f10use and others as well. In talking with Ron, ~e suggested plantfng a tall, oval flo~ering pear, whic~ if planted large enough, ~ill farm a good screen. Mr. Lyz.a: So you are b~sic~11y in favor of the plans you see today? Mr Dur~am~ Yes. L 07/18/91 -4- f f , ; , t ~ . ·.t ........ Mr, Lyzwa: Chairman Marsh; Seeing no otner speak~r5. I will (7ose the p~blfc hearing and return this item t~ the board. Ms. Wilso~: Most things look okay to me. r hdve a question about your window sill design. Correct me if I am wrong. All Of these si11s ire shown dripping Ofl.to the trim. ~ Zimmerman: It ~;11 be dane like that one, ~son: Are these metal eyebrow elements gone or are they partially galle? In the model t r saw something diffErent from what I saw in the driwings. Is there a metal eyebrow anymore? Mr. l,mmerman: In the back yard, there is a partial co~ering on the back yard patio docr. We are opening up the otner part for a trellis and will grow SOr!:le pla~t1n9 material on it. Ms. ~;lion: Tne lighting i am comfortabJe with. The trees have been dealt ~ith. I do pref~r the wood windows but] am open to the board. don't know lf you are looking fer direction from us on that or not. ~r. Hmmerm~l1; We are open to the board. ~s. Wilson: ram i little clearer after seeing this drawing about the plywood sections, and am real pleased about that. Are .... e appro~lng col.ors now? Mr. limmerman: It is our un~erit2nding that they were approved. Mr. lyzwa: They were 2pproved. What about the roof? ~ Zimmerman: ~e got i comment on the roof that it was both too dark and too light. The council wanted it to be darker. 2nd you wanted it to be lighter. Ms. ~iJson: r still have some concerns about the back yards. ~e ha~e dealt with this on other co~dominium projects. We ha~e ultimate~y requested some simple installation there. 1 am would li~e to hear what other board members have to say about that. Also. r ~o~ld like to see tne actual paving materia1s. I1r. Zinrnerman: It is gray pa~ing. Ms. Wilson! ] have some concer11S about this central you would de~elop soma logical way to breik that ~p. to ~ake it look homogeneous, as they are so man made. a little more design effort to brea~ th~t up. pC!\drlg are.]. I .... ish These ~aterji15 tend I would like to see Mr. Zi.l!ITlerman: Are you talking about some kinds of banding in there? Ms. Wilsan! It -would be nice if you c.ould get a tree ;,'1 thls back space. Mr. Zimmerman: We tried to. Ms. Wiison: Something should be done to the paving to make it 'oo~ less like broadloom c.arpeting. 07/18/91 ·5· ---.~--~-, .- • , ! I :\ 1 I J I - • ____ a ... ·~_~ __ '_· .~"~' '".~"'~: o Mr. Zimmerman: T~at can be done. There ire two schoQls of tnought on that, such 25 trying to provide a neutral base plane fer tnese other elements to be happening like, such as the irchitecture and the softening of the edges. The oUler school of thought is that you can go in. and do banding cr cIrcle diameters \lfith differer.t materials. jf it is not handled p~operlYt it can get to be a litt1e busy looking. Ms. Wilson: I ur.derstand the ~roblem. Mr. ZilTl'llerman: Because of the pushes and pulls and all of the jogs throughout here, J think personally that there is en~ugh happening there that my feeling, when I designed this, was to cteate kind of a calm base plane. because of a11 of thes~ other architectural elements with things coming a~t vertically from the site t~at ~ere in p1ace, ratner than to do things that might make it 100k confuse~. r chose to let it be a simp'~ base plane. The model helps to look at it that lIIay. Thhi! is so much other verticality happening in there t~at it seemed most appropriati! to me to pet in i flashed look, b~t not a uniform tone. Obviously, we could do ttl at , howe'w'er. Ms. Vilson; It would not even have to be things that ran across. It could be an emb1tm ~ere in the middle, j~st something very little. Mr. Zilmlerman: Maybe iI beginning and ending point? Ms. Wilson: O:her tnan that, I am quite ~upportive of what you are doing. The only detail I have i really high level of di~comfort ~ith a~e tnese little trellises. Let If~e make sure I understand. Are these 'Wood members Dr wires being pulled in between in this Y? Mr. Z'1"i'Imernan: jh~$e ..,ood memb>:rs ilf~ probably going to ha~e to be steel vertical supports. The wires come from a concrete bnS! to tie up the ~ines that will 9ro~ up ln~ through. Ms. Wilson: Wood OVEr steel? Mr. Zimwerma~: If you can see ~aw they are strateg~cally placed, also, they really help identify the entries. t1~. Wilson: here. They little bit, In o~e sense, r am ~ery supportive of the creativity used ai! not like most of the trel1is~s we see. They scare me a so those are the areas [ am a little uneasy about. Ms~_ILa~osa: For the record, I have spoken to the city attcl'ney ilbout this project and to severJl co~ncil members. Since the city council did not take action and sent it back to ~s, I was confused is to the intent of the council. In talling wit'" some of the c-ouncil members. they convinced me t~at their cancern was real1y ~lth detai1s of the project. At the same time~ they said they ..-anted the ARB to make sure that it is iI good proj!ct. 1 am tne one who said I felt there were some fundamental planning issues that were ignored and that r was being asked to re~iew a project that was lackin3 in fundamental planning issues that I feel are reilly important. This is 1 special site ~hich had a special history for th! tity and butts up against an R-l lone. ~Dme of the trees that are being saved are scrawny and i~ paor condition, and some of the trees being r~mc~ed ire ~ealt~~. A11 of this is si~d for the record, because 1 feel I 07/lS/91 -6 - r I , i i 1 1 . - - i. o have an obligation to report to the board and' make His the best proje<:t that W~ can make, since the ~ajority of the board has accepted this proj,ct. I f •• l t~.t In , positive way. you h.,e •• nipul.ted th.s. buildings so t~at tnere 15 a feeling of individual units. There is! breakup i~ t~e articulation here. I can fol!c~ the logic. Whit I would like now is the landscaping. The architectural details you heve ire fine. rn te~s of windows, ] have a general preference for wood windows, because of the possibiTHies of painting, and in the f'Jture, of repail'ltir.g i project. But a good Gual it,)' ill uminum windoll' .. auld be acceptable. So r see the Tandsc.apin~ as being the mitigatir'9 factor fo'r some of r.I,J concerns. This plane in here of t~e driveway. although something might be dane, I agree that it is important not to get it really c~opped up. It is a unifying screen, and] like it the way it is, provided that the paving: you have is really mottled. J am not qu~te sure ~O~ these interlocking pavers worK, b~t sometimes with the ~se of a f1ash material, each piece is lilottled , sort of a variation or mix" of colors. That migM be 1 11" 07/18/91 -7· • . . "> ' - ..... ',,, I:- ,;c..~ethin9 you can do. The area of real conc~rn is bac( here in the so called community space. tan see it werking is i landscape area, but this !ong, tn;n strip made narro~er by this three-foot high wall seems more like a landscape buffer tna~ I space that ~ight be used t how someone might go there and read a book t etc. I would liKe to hear other hoard members talk about this area~ is I repl tl'1e l'E!ast cnmfortab1e about that. I wonder about the .... ans furtner isolating this cOrmlunity space ba':K here. In general, I wilT support this project. Ms. Barnes: As you know, I have had trouble with t~is project in the past. The findings are incorporated into our m~tion. I cannot support this project. I have said in ~aricus different \flays in the ,past wnCit my concerns are. r thin~ the ARB tnok a gOQd concept and did not follow through ~it~ it. Specifica11y, to try to get into the language of our ARB code so that it would be helpful to hath the applicant and t~e board m~mbers. I cannot imagine myse1f lf~;n9 in one cf the units at the back~ w~ere you ha~e a long ~riveway and it 1S going to have lets of noise. I do not think that the amount and arrangement of open spate is appropriate for the functions designed. T~ere is a tremendous density here, a~d I support th~ density, but there is no place for these people to go except the driv~way. which ~;l' be hot and noisy. r do not think there is a~ appropriate arrangement or amount of open space for this high density project+ ] don't think the n~tural features have been preser .... ed or intt>grated into U,e project. This lot is filled with tremendous. ~onderf~l old trees. some of w~ich ~ave been saved, but clearly the footprint was establis~ed first, because some of tne major trees have been taken out whiTe some of the m1nor c~es were kept. T~at is not pre;er .... ing and integrating a project ~;th its natural features+ I h3ve some serious concerns that the only opel1 space that has been left for green is under two p~ppe, trees wnich are notorious for having trouble I.!<'it" things gro~ir,g underneaU. I ~ave seriol..:S doubts that t~at lawn will sur~ive. not because of t~e shade of th~ pepper trees but because of the toxic.ity of the pepDer trees. You look. at any pepper tree any .. here in Palo Alto arid look at ltihat is urrderneC!:th it, and it "ill not be 5univirlg, except maybe for ivy. Ivy nas a cnar,ce to gro.,. If thdt .. hole area were i .... y. I would say t~at is fine. But agair" t~at is bad ,planning. ] am not saying. take out the pepper trees. I am say'ng, let's not put the only place to ~a .... e a lawn under them. let's think this project over from the beginning. I ha .... e serio~s concerns about natural ffatures being retained. r am worried about the compatibility with neig~borin9 properties. It borders on R~I+ and theoretically, the concept for this design was taken from the neighbor's nouse next dear whic~ is basically a farm ~o~se. It has come a long way from that. It is hard to find any of t~e same elements. 1 a~ concerned about the visibility from both inside and i~side the project. T~e color illustrations that we h6ve in our packet are very attracti .... e, but the perspecti .... e from t~o blocks away is probably i much more acc~rite presentation of wnat scale it is. It is all pavement here. Iii generil, the sCcle of tne building CO\ferag~. liInich ;5 cClntrfbuting to the ~eat and noise, all of these add up so that I cannot appro .... e the project. The den~ity is appropriate here, but to minimize the L 07/18/91 -8· • , I I·S-J , .J - . "" ',.,.! r--. en'l;ronmerltal effect a.nd il\SUT'e ccrnpa.tibi1ity .. ~th the surroundings, He ~QlJare footage of the units needs to be decreased so that tner€ is more 'iveable open sPace. Mr. lyzwa: I want to 90 DI't record as. haYing spoken with the architect and' developer, j a.trI in support of the project. I feel tnat tJle bt.lilding has been correctly dehned. I .... ould lilE to leave the decision on the 'Iiindows to tne ar{:hitect. I haliE already made C'ly coltlment in reference to the shroud. and that stlould return for staff approva1, if the propos.ed shroud is not oil 11 cirJed. J am comfortab1e witn ttle 'andscap~rlg. I like tne idea of al10wfng t~e individual owners to embe1lis'n their C,,11 prl\late backyards. There are enough proy;s;o~S made so that thej can do that. ~t least, from your verba) descrlption of ai1ow1ng hos~ bibs and planting sen. You iire putting in meaningful trees. ] feel comfortable with this, a~d overalJ, am 1" support of what has been presented. ~s. D~osa; ] did not comment on that, but 1 am in support of lea~ing som~ fle~ibi]it1 in the back yards. They are private, and J am so glad to 9iv~ people a chance to do some pla~tin9 themse1ves. Not nnly am I ,accepting of the back yards, but I am in support of the concept. Ms. Wilson: I wou1d like to comment, probably directed toward the city council, about whj 1 support thls prcj€ct. 1 support it because to me, it has a very strong visual image and an appropriate sca1e for the development that is going to occur next to It on the north. 1t is. appropriate for U,e urban c";rac:ter of f1 Camino. The i1ier-arcny of open space that does occur here is appropriate. Unfortunitely, the vehicle does take a lot of it, but J particu1arly like the entry courtyards. They are nice looking. jh~ back yards. are good private space, and whi1e it is unfortunate that there isnrt more open space for people to live in, I thinK what you are bas'cal'y going to find are people who wou1d prefer to have the internal space in this li~in9 situation. it is Quite urban. lhat is what ~e generally see along E1 Camino Real. M01JO!i: Shirh\l lIi1son: I mo\!! apprOval of Ule project as presented. ~EC\)ND: By ~,r. l:'Y'!l>Ia, I seccno that motion \With the addition that Hie fireplaces be retu~ned for staff apprcval and toe shrouds. Ms. B~rn~.~; !Jould you inc1ude in your Il'lotion Condition 2c, "Any grade chang! witnlP the fenced zone shall be limited to 6 in~hes ~f cut or fill from the or1 9 i l1a 1 grade and .sMa 1 J be accomp 11 shed by hand. Under all Querc\.ls al"ld Sequoia tre.es.. there shall be no gra.de ci1a.nge uJlder -at lus.t the inner 50 percent of t~e tree canopy." Ms. War~eit: Since the staff recommendation did not address the bact yuds, }IOU might add that they S.hOlllcl ~nch.de amended s'J\l, -ar. irrlgat 101\ stub, a Z4-inch boxed tree and a paved patio in each yard. .M!:......J,n.!I'.! : approves. J ~il1 be happy to add that if the maker of the motion (Yes) Ms. ~llson: 8efare ~e vote. I would like to ~ake one additional comme~t to the applicant. Be very c.arefuT of your roof details. \lie tlil'.'e n~d some L 07/18/91 -9· -,-. . , - <·'···.r'.' ." ~ . <"' . < ' . "_>£~~ ..... --. real flilures in t~e cornmun~ty. It reilly needs to be strong. sKetches look okay, but you need to be strong in these de~alls. housing proj~ct un Ca1iforn~a ~v~nue is a dismal failure ~n tne Your The city roof. Ms. Dc:.P.osa: Thh is a technical pOint. I 'Wan't support tne motion as made. This. pr\)ject has a1 reJdy been appro'Jed by the board. Ir .. hat \lie are approving now iT! details and conditions. 1 will work ~;th those details and conditions, but I don·'t want to go bad and make the first finding which says that the projPct is compatible. Ms. W;lso~: So that shou1d b~ removed. because it has already ~een voted upon. ~s. DaRosa: It 1S important to me t~at this approval specifically on the condition of prior ARB approval. struggling with t~is. of details be I am r •• lly Ms. Wilson: That is fair. The general findings were a1reiJd'y voted upon. Mr. l¥zwa: ] agree with Ainc. What we should do is, in wiew of w~at tnis is all about, we should vote on11 on what 1S outstanding and just inc1~de that in our motion. Everything else should be left as previously voted on. Ms. DaRosa: 1 am rea11y trying to ~ork in th~ spirit of the city council and the way the ,A,RB prOCESS works. Ms. ~iliQn: I will withdraw Findings 1 and 2 from tne motion. Mr. lvwa: it should be inc1uded in your mot ion that .all findings Hat YEre pre~iDusly approved ~ema~nJ and t~at this hearing is In reference to ex;ctlJ ~+'at the council asked us to review. We are not re·reviewing w~at we previous1y ~pproved. Ms.. Wi1son: In Hsht Df tl'lat •• e said a11 t!'lose tliings. about lJrbal'l context. Mr. Lyzwa: We have .a motio" and a seccnd. All thos.-e i1'1 favor? Ms. lytle: I nee~ clarification of tM2 friendly amendment tnat you made. t'.ichiel. CC'Jld you repeat the condition abc\Jt the fir~ph.ce shrouds? Are they tG return for staff approval? Mr. lyzwa: God bless you if you find a s"'roud t~at fred Herman will approve. He has a ver1 strong polity that if there are no IC«Q numbers, it is not accepte~. Pa10 Alto does not allow it. ff you can come up with ~ conce~t of treating the firep1aces witho~t shrouds, it means you ~iil have either exposed spark arrestors, or you will ~a¥e somelr.ing else, but there are code reqUirements that say. the flue has to extend 12 inches above tne ~ig~est point of th~ roof. He will consider the chimney as the hi~h~st point of the roof. Ms. lytle: So tne treatment of the fireplaces ~ill need to return for staff approval? L 07/18/91 -]0- • ! I~ I~ ~( . _ .. ,. I -. I I " j I o Mr, Lnwa: That is correct. ~o·Jt the other possib11ity 15 that you can put I shroud, but then you have to put t~e spark arrestor 12 or IS inches abo~e that, so it tends to defeat the purpos!. All thos~ in favor? All opposed? Tnat passes 3·1, wit~ Ms. Barnes di ssent 1 ng . 01/18/11 -ll- ----~--. ----------------------------~ o (') IlAY 20, 1591 CITY COUNCIL EXCERPT ~INUTrS 420-461 JACO~S COURT BEPORTS OF COMMITTEES AND C01'rM:ISSIONS 11. Architectural Review Board recommendation re Dpsign for a 19-unit residential project. for property located at 420-461 .Jacobs Court (3001 (CHR: 2BQ: $1) council Member McCo~n 'Was struck by the number of i te!!'.s referred to in the staff report (CMR:280:91j as additicnal desig:'1 rlodification or details which ~ere included in the conditions that 'Would need to return to the Architectural Review Board (A..'tl.B) after Council's action that evening. She queried 'Whether it lJas an unusual ccndi~io.n to have so many details -which still needed to be considered by the ARB. ARB Chairperson Michael Lyzva said the proposal 'Was creative and uni~e and in the. pas-t: 12 to 18 months, the ARB had foc\J.sed on details more than before and it vas requesting more of applicants~ Overall he was comfortable loIith the requested details and vas confident the applicar.t would fulfill his obligations. 66-196 OS/20/91 • an.,ll • t I II f-. -_""::? f I I I ! l 1 I I - George Remsberg, 833 Los Altos Avenue, Los Altos, represented the applicant. The property .... as presently zoned .R.~-15, and the J..R.S reco~ended approval o! the design, and he urged Cc~ncil to accept the JoJUl's re-comlllendation. The ne .. · Jacobs Court "'-as to continue the present flavor in terms of the site plan. The cour-tyaz-d ..... ould be shared by people and !n .. tomc;;bl.les. The iT'ltent ... ·as to create a ... ·an, friendly and inviting enyironment~ to address the concerns of the neighborhood and the immediate neighbors, and to blend the development into the neighbo["hood~ The plarl .. as to save nine of ele-./e.n mature tree.=, and apP't'oximately e.Q percent. of t.he remainin'3' smaller trees. Of the 15 trees being lost, 7 ..... ere rated as being in poor or very poor condition by the a:-borist. Tbe h:t!';".es .:ere individu.alized by tl1e tOyer elements ""hich ""ould also p!"'ovide additional natural light to the ir.terior-s. The design attertpted to promote social interaction among the residents by facing so::"e of the halconies or.to the interior courtyard and also some of the 'lllore active living rooms. The. privacy concerns of the adjace:.t neighbors \o'ere addressed by some screer. plantings and a ,.rider than required setback and a lower than re::zuired dayl i.;ht plane>. He believed the project blended nicely into tt::e neighborhood ccn­ sidering the surrounding uses. He b.elieved the e.'lVlrOnment create::: at .Jacobs Court '.'ould be appealing to the far-.ilies .,.·ho lived tr:ere. council Member Cobb "'-as distressed by the rr,ult.i-fa::-.ily intn:"$ion into the corner on wilki~ Way. It seemed as if a single fa~ily residence could have been built on the corner to complete the single family charac~er of Wilkie ~ay and there co~ld still be the lIlult.i-family development. He queried \o'hether thought ... .-as give:"! to such an approach. Mr. RernsbeL"g said some consideration \o:as given to t'he aPiJroach. If there ~as a single family lot located at the rear corncr of the prope'rtYI it .-ould likely be developed 4'o'ith a large house, it •• ;ould be some .... hat by itself I yet it ..... ·ould impinge on the adjoining properties ~ore because the setback ~ould place it closer to the property line and the daylight plane you1~ place it higher. In addition, if a single family t.o:::e ..... ·as created at that location, the same prol:-lern \"ould arise in accomr..:j<jating .hat.ever privacy issues there :oight be between the ne ..... ly created single family bouse and the rest of the development. Bob Moss, 4010 or~e, did no~ support the original ,cning to P~-15> He disagreed with Finding 2 which said the design provided safe access to tbe property because it "",as restricted to E1 Camino ·O'I'ay. By forcing all the traffic out o~to E1 Calldno ","a)" ~ people ",'ere required to enter and exit by going northerly on £1 Ca~ino ",a:,.". People .... ere also encouraged to come in from El CalI'd no and ;take a t.;:­ turn around the island. He believed it ~ould be safe~ and more convenient to have all tbe access off 'j,.~ilY"ie io.~ay or to have part of it off of Wilkie Way and part of it off of El Camino Way. He referred to the second Co~dition 4 on page J of the staff repo:-t (CMR:280:91). ~hich referred to the stop sign. He suggested the require'ment of a "Right Turn Only -One ;;ay" sign 50 people ex:iting .... ould kno'lo' they could only turn right to ... 'ard E1 CalT.ir.o. ?'We other 66-197 OS/20/91 , .~ ~ .. :::',";. 0""-.• ., .. ~, < :li" :.-... ~,_'C i , l 1 ~ i I I I j j L a .") conditions which ~ere discussed and supposedly agreed to wer~ the develooer would pay for extending the E1 Ca~inv island f5r enough do~n Ei Camino Way to disc~urage people from making either left or u-turn~. The extended island should require a no-turn or no u-turn. He was concerned about CalTrans 1 intent to remove the \11'70 Right Turn" sign on to El Camino WaYI which ~ould then legalize the occurrence. There should be additic;'l.3.1 signs on El Ca~inc> Way which prohibited making a turn across the isl~nd or just b~yond the island and making a u-turn, and it should be a condition of the project. He hoped the 6MR units would give preference to the six tenants who were moved off the site. He realized the City did not have ~n ordin.ance W'hich req1.:ired such preference but he believed it would be an appropri3te sense at the Cour.cil~ council ~ember Levy referred to the courtyard elevations and the COtments at the A...,{B level that the entrar:ces IOc."-';I;ed "deadly dull. f! As he looked at the dra~in9s, he th~ught he ~as looking at the back doors rather than the front doors. Mr~ Lyz .... a referred to the cout'tl'ard and the basic entry concept a.,d said it ~as a three-di~ensional cor.~ept. The €ntries ~ere clearly delineated and the applicant tried to create a canopy over the entry and there ""ere various color schemes as> \oIell as landscape concepts that \oIO:..l.!d reinforce the fannal entry into t.~.e units the!t"lselves off of t.he cO'.at.yard .. hieh -was embell is~ed. council Member Le"'y queried tl".E! proble=n .'i th u-turns on E1 Carr.inc, way. He bel ieved the applicant expressed a ..... illingness to help fund .... hat.ever changes ".·ould be necess3ry .... i thin reason to dis­ courage the u-turns. He believed Mr. l'!oss ",,'as correct insofa:.r as the u-turns being an i~evitability. Ms. Lytle believed any required signs to discourage u-tu~ns as part of Cor.dition 5 ,",ould be appropri.te~ The Trans>porta:tion Divisicn did an extensiVE preser.tation for the AF . .8 on irnprove-=:ents currentl'r~ being imple~ented in conjunction vith CalTra~s at t~e partic~lar intersection and expressed a ~illingr.es5 to lOOK to the fut~re fcr making further irnpro'.'eme!"'lts but they did not believe the proposed p!"oject in and of itself ...... ~rranted. any specific mitigaticn in participating in those project. Tr.e option of extending the constructed median further down ~l Camino Way ~as discusse~ but it ..... as never :made a condition or requiretle .... t or attr ibut~d to t!".:.e proposed project. Council Member Woolley was !:>OttJered by the lacK. of e.aves in the design. ~he puildings seemed to be chopped off. Mr. Lyz.a believed Council Me!ltber Woolley' s viewpoint "Was at sOl2le .... hat traditional loak: at residential t,uilding. The applicant designed a creati .... e project on a tight. site, and part of the crea­ tivity vas the mediterranean feel yith vertical and horizontal elements~ and changing colors and textures of materials t2"lrough the canopies; -and other eler.:.ent.s. He ',;as fI.ot bot.hered by the lack of eaves be:;aUse he did not believe they were necessary to execute the L 66-198 OS/20/91 , -' - ", ." ." ~";.r"-- o proposed design. The.ARB' s request for tr:e applicant to ret~rn vith so many details ~as not caused by its lack of faith in the execution of the design but rather that it .. 'as i! novel concept and t.he ARB "ranted to 'Work along "'ith the applicant to keEp the best possible appearance for the building5~ council Member 'Woolley said the light color-ed roof ~ shallo..., roof line and lack of eaves reminded her of the California Park project l which she found to be unattractive. !o!r. Lyz",a said the final sample boards and the deotails requeste:d ... ·0\,.;.1d be returning to the ARB. He would not be s ... ·ayed by the color of tl1e r;odel beca,-"se the ARB reiterated .. 'hat Council Member Woolley pointed out in terms of the California Park project. council Me:nber Woolley queried ... hether there ..... ould be .'ood siding~ Jef£ Zimmerman/ Columbus Arct .. itects, 150 Green street/ #309, Sa.: Francisco, said it .... Quld be wood and stucco. It .... as subjective tor one to characterize the building as a particular style, b~t the building intended to be re ... inisccl"1t of tr,e a'.;to CO'...l.~ts and r.otel cc'urts .. ·hich spr in}:led the set.t lerner.t in the a:-ea years ago. council Member Woolley did not claim to have the expertise of th~ ARB but agreed 'With Cou~,cil Member Le,,'y that the front doors looJ.".ed more like back doors. Y..r. Zimmerman said 'With the P..M-15 density, the intent was to try and emulate as m:Jch of a single-rami lJ' feel as pass ible. io."hile it could not be done cornple':ely with the R1I'I:-15 density~ the}' did afford diverse individualized eI"'.tries and individualized bacJ.:yards. There -were four unit types on a small project tr.at ..... E'.re quite diverse and addressed the streets in different ways. Ul.like ~ost housing developments 'Where track houses were built, there '.;as more diversity and interaction bet\oleen the units as they interfaced .... ith the street than could be found in nest sin?le family cevelop:i1ent:s. Council Member Renzel quer-ie::3: the average square foo~age of the proposed units. Mr. Lyz.'a said approxinately 1,400 square fect. Council Member Rer,zel referred to the C€!"lter-drive proposal arid queried -whether noise evaluations \oIere dor.e. Mr. Zimmerman said no. !o'.r. Lyz'w'a said the ARB a~ked the que;;tio.'l in terms of the r10ise coming from the .... ehicles in the cO:..lr-tyard itself and it .'as clearly pointed out that double-paned glass ",'inCo'.;s ""Quld be used~ and there vould be significant insulation end other measures \oIhich the ARB s~ggested. 66-199 0::'/20/91 • .> ", -+~~..,. ~~c, "r.,;'- ,it. I I 1 i - --------------.---" .'-." . t""\ Mr. Zimmerman said t~CitY had a mini~um have to be achieved durinq constr~ction. decibei revel ~hich ~ould council Member Renzel referred to the state.me:r:t. that the courtyard ",as "Warm, friendly and inviting and she queried lr/hat 'Wa::; so warm C!bout all of the garage doors. Mr. Zimmer:nan believed the .. ora -intimate" ","as also a subjective term and he referred to the courtyards of the Italian and Spanish towns , ... here one S3V similar densiti~s. with such a censity, the textures -we.re nice along the roadwa.y and the court.rard became a place vhere the automobile vas treated as a tolerated visiter and ""ere then tucked away. There ... ere entries, parer.es, decks, and 'Windows which .opened on to the ccurtyard which served a dual purpose of being an area ~hich units looked on to and extensive detail ~as placed into dealing ~ith the surface treatments I trellises, plantings I trees l and movement of the buildings so they ~ere not long lines. Council Member McCo,",n ..... as concerned ther-e .... ·ere too many detai ls not yet clear in the presentation. She queried whether the project could be referred baCK to the ARB to complete the prvcess and then it ~ould return to Council. Director of Planning and ccmmunity Enviro1U!'le;nt Ken Sch!'eiber said what was before the Council vas the ARB's fundamental apprcval of the project. It was com.."tIon in appr.::"lJing 2 prcject that a variety of details return to the ARB as the project ~oved to~ard working drawings and that part of the development process. Council was being asked to approve the project with the details returning to the ARB, and if Council 'Wished to see the det"Jils, the easiest .ay was to add a condition that ... ould require t~e matter to again return to the Council. Council Member McCo~ preferred for Council's rin31 action on the design to occur after the k~B approved all of the details listed. ~r~ Schreiber said if COUTlcil ' s desire wa5 to not ~ppr-ove the project. Until after the final details ,"'ere approved Py tt:e >.RB, the correct action ... culd be to refer the project back t~ the ARB. KOTION: Council Member McCO\i!l movec 1 seconded by Woolley .. to refer the item back to the Architectural ~evie ... Board for further deliberation prior to council's action and to extend the August due date for submittal to the City council. CO'JMcil Member McCo ... ·n .... as co!"!cerl"led about her O'WTl ability to understand the plans and .... hat the project "'ould look like and t~.e number ot details which the AP.iI still .... ant~d to look at. The reason COUncil 'Wanted to review the proj ect was to have ~he process be similar to vhat vas done .... ith a site and design app1ication. She 'Was not comfortable with the level of detail before the Council for action. She preferred to have the ARB's further recomDenda­ tions to the Council, especially since its r~commendations were by L 65-200 OS/20/91 • I , '. , ,­: ~.~.: .. , ! . . ,,,-..., r, ""./ a vote of )-2 from the ARB. before making a final de~ision about the desig!"l. Council Member Woolley agreed with Council Me:c;ber McCo .. 'Tl regarding the closeness of the ARB's decision. Other items of cor.cern at the ARB level ~ere the qaTage doors since they would be so promi!"lent~ a,nd che scattering ot Bl'iR uni ts throughout the project rather tban having them together in one place. It was unusual for council to function in the site and desiqn revie ... process and it was not easy to visualize the project. Counci I Member Andersen intended to recognize the professi,onal abilities of ttle ARB and those ,"'ho "'ere designing the proje::t~ and anticipated the project vould return fairly quickly without a lot of minor details to slow the project do.n. Council Member Kniss queried how referring the matter back to the ARE changed things for the applicant in terms of timing. Ms. Lytle: said. a condition of the ZClne char,gE! req';lired the appli­ cant to receive final approval of the .t.RB applicaticn p::,iar-to A'..Jgust~ 1991, or t.he applicant ,"'ould be subject to a:'.o:'her 8XR unit. The 2ppl icant .... Duld probably not be in a pos i tio.-J to return to the Council until after the August date a!1d ,*'ould :be r€~uired to provide an extra BMR unit. The applicant ... iculd be asked to ..... ark out many details "'itholJt k!"lo"'ing ..... hether they had any approval and a lot of extra tiJr.e .,'ould be involved. Coun=il Member Pentel agt"eed "'ith the referra.l. She believed the project .... as a prime exatr,ple of ..... hat happened \o'hen one took a D",;Jl ti­ faDiilj~ zone and tried t.o design a project as if it .. as a single­ family zone. There were a lot of fra~ented spaces which were not meaningful for anyone concerned and the result ""ould be housing that did not have a normal type of market. "''hile tl'.e contemplation could be families. ia:rnilies ..... ould not ..... ant to have a l:;ome ;..'here the front door was "out on the street-so to speak. She believe:::! tr,e project vOl.lld be l'Ilore successful if it was divided into four grol:ps of units rather than two big groups; and, if sOii1e of the ft"ag1rle~tej spaces ..... ere C OIllllJ 0",\ spa.::e. she believed t.here 'Would be l:'lore tr,ileage out of the property and a morE!: amenat,le project for families. Council !r.:ember ii'oolley queried ..... hether the August date could be extended so that. final design reviev b J' t.he .hRB .. ould be. done before Council rec~ived the matter for final action. Mr. Calonne believed the date .. 'as a condition of the zoning an,j it was a part of a contract. That .'ou.ld need to be amen jed in order to Dodi!y the :iate. .'"bile it .... as a fairly cU'lT'.bersome proce:ss, it could be achieved through an amendment to the conditior'.al zone change. Council M~rnber McCown did not ""ant Council to get backed into approving a design 'Which .... 'as not fully and clearly presented especially ... ·ith a 3-2 split vote fron the~. IE It,ore title .... as 66-2Q1 051'0/91 ~l . >~l t . - . .. i .. .-' I ,,::;.."' -,,,-,:-'if,.,' -. - . ~--"'-'. o -.~ -f -needed co~ncil should take the t~~e to ensure lts satls actlon and ~hatev~r the ~echanis~ to do so ~ithout penalizing the applicant. She had no intention to per.alize the applicant. Council ~eeded to :be COlr-fortable the design ... ·as ~ppropriate tor the site. Mr. Calonne said if Council's action indicated its ~illingness to have t.ne date provisi0n of thee ccnt.ra'Zt. amended, staff ;.;ould approach the applicant ""ith the of!er~ council Member McCown said in light of staff's co:trJt!en"t. regarding the concern about. · ... hether the revie .... could be turned around in tiI:l.e to l%leet. the AugL:st d~adline, she .,,-anted staff to revie .... the extension necessary to meet ttL€ date. ~r. Lyzwa said at no point during the prEsentation before the }~ ... as the ARB split or unclear about the design. The 3-2 vote did not represent a lack of clarity on the details requested. He was concerned that in order to return tc the ARB successfully, the applicant .... ould need to escalate the drawings to the point of construction documents before he could vote co~fortably. Cour.cil Member Cottb clarified Mr. Lyzwa believed council should send some type of messaqe in terms of ,..'heth(!r Cou:!'lei 1 was \.Ij 11 il"lg to approve the project if cert.:.:in improvements "'ere r'1ade. Mr~ LY2~3 said that was corre~t. Council Member Cobb queried 'Whether the AP,B ... anted to see t.he project again regarding the details~ Mr. Lyz.a said abso~utely. Council Member Cobb clarified that ... hile the ARB o;anted to see the project in terms of the details, it \.las concerned about tbe fairness of the applicant not having some indication in terms cf .. here Council ...... as going. }o(..r. Lyz.· ... a sa id that 'Was ccrrect. Council Member Andersen agreed with the appropriateness of CQl.t1'lcil pro .... iding SOIDe indication of its intent espeCially in light of COUncil's request ~hich would require a major expenditure of time and money. He ",as "'illing to ifidicate his approval of the project. subject to the kinds of conditions identified by the AJ<B being clarified. He did not believe the applicant should be penalized by having to provide an additional aX? unit if cou~cil changed the rules. council Member Levy bel ieved his vote in suppo:-t ..,.ould be an approval of the ARB's action up to that point pending the ARB'$ tinal approval ...,hich .;ould be reviewed by the COl.lnci 1. He agreed the applicant should Tlot be penal ized in tetlIls of the In.lt3ust deadline because of Council's action. If the applicant moved ahead ~ith all due speed, then the aMF. agreement should not be impacted. ££-202 OS/20/91 , I> • II .. I I -' r" The impact should ~y occur if the directions. developer ___ .Jpped and changed XOTIOJl PASSED 7-1, Col:;,b "no~" Sutori ";.lS absent . END OF EXCERPT '-'.