Architectural Review Board Report

Transcription

1 Architectural Review Board Report Architectural Review Board Meeting: June 5, 2017 Agenda Item: 7.1 To: From: Cc: Subject: Architectural Review Board Rathar Duong, ARB Liaison Stephanie Reich, AIA, LEED AP, Design & Historic Preservation Planner 16ARB-0463 to review façade remodel, colors, materials, and landscape plans for an exterior renovation to an existing three-story, 27-unit multifamily residential building. Address: Applicant: rd Street Jack Hollander Recommended Action It is recommended that the Architectural Review Board approve ARB application 16ARB-0463 based upon the findings and subject to the conditions contained within this report. Executive Summary The proposal is an exterior renovation and landscape design of an existing three-story, 27-unit multi-family residential building. The proposal is a simple, contemporary update of a 1965 building featuring modern finishes and complementary color scheme such as wood siding, new bronze aluminum windows/sliding glass doors, stone veneer, and metal railing. The proposed improvements were considered by the Board on April 3, 2017 and was continued for further refinements. Plans from the previous submittal are attached. Board Comments and Applicant Responses The Board was generally supportive of the proposed renovation and agreed it will be an improvement to the existing condition. Board members expressed concerns including the proportion of the central bay, placement and pattern of the stone veneer, and tree choice in the front setback. The project was continued to provide the applicant an opportunity to address the following comments from the Board: Provide more information on the existing building, including better photos and/or elevations. o An additional photo of the front elevation has been provided. Provide a section through the proposed design, particularly in the central bay. o A section through the central bay has been provided on Sheet A-7 and depicts detail through the stone, railing, windows, metal canopy 1

2 (eyebrow), and roof cap. The revised detail appears to address the Board s concerns. The stone pattern should be more simple, and detail should be lighter, not the heavy detail shown in the drawings. o The random pattern in the stone veneer has been modified to a more straightforward running bond. The proposed pattern is consistent throughout. Stone finish should align with sill of windows in the central portion of the building. o The stone treatment has been lowered to the bottom of the window sill of the central bay as shown on A-4. Proportion of central portion of the building should be modified. Suggestions include: Enlarge windows in central portion by making them taller, or Provide panel over the windows to visually extend height of the windows with panel or cornice-type detail, Maintain dimension of the existing columns all the way to the roof element. o The upper level of the central bay is modified to include a metal awning (eyebrow) above the windows and a furred out stucco panel directly above each window painted a different accent color. These two elements help sufficiently modify the proportion of the central bay (Sheet A-7). 4 x 4 wood members should be used at the trellis. o The 2 x 6 wood members have been replaced with 4 x 4 members as illustrated on A-5. Review the wood-type panel proposed to ensure joints are tight and materials provide a clean look; and o The applicant understands the concern and will ensure that joints in the wood siding will be tight. Propose trees at the front that will thrive in shade-in particular the Ceridium Desert Museum (Palo Verde tree) will not thrive in proposed location due to the canopy of the street trees. o The Palo Verde trees have been replaced with Magnolia champaca, previously known as Michelia champaca (Joy Perfume tree). This species will thrive in shaded areas, requiring average water use. Under the revised proposal, the applicant has made the appropriate changes to improve the project that appear consistent with the Board s comments. Based on the revised plans and as conditioned, staff supports the revised project and recommends approval of the façade remodel and landscape enhancement. 2

3 Impact on Historic Resources The subject building is not listed on the City s Historic Resources Inventory. CEQA Status The project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section (b)(3) in that it can be seen with certainty that the proposed project does not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment in that the project involves the review of design-related issues associated with the proposed structure(s) in terms of general architectural design, proposed materials, colors, mechanical screening and/or landscape plans. Code Compliance This application has only been preliminarily reviewed for compliance with the base district s development standards which address aspects of the plan that could result in significant changes to the project s design. Any significant changes to the design subsequent to any ARB approval will require Board approval. Summary The proposed improvements retain many of the building s existing features while updating its contemporary design with a new color scheme and modern finishes. The renovation introduces horizontal wood siding, stone veneer, metal railing as well as enhancements to the existing landscape with a new plant palette and common outdoor spaces. The proposed remodel provides the building a street presence while adding to the eclecticism of the neighborhood. Additional modifications appear consistent with the Board s comments/conditions and enhance the site condition and building further. FINDINGS: A. The plan for the proposed building or structure is expressive of good taste, good design, and in general contributes to the image of Santa Monica as a place of beauty, creativity and individuality in that the proposed façade remodel and landscape plan represents a simple, contemporary update of the original 1965 building that complements nearby buildings and neighborhood. B. The proposed building or structure is not of inferior quality such as to cause the nature of the local neighborhood or environment to materially depreciate in appearance and value in that high quality materials such as steel troweled integral color stucco finish, cable railing, horizontal wood siding, and stone veneer will be incorporated into the design and as detailed in the application submittal and presented to the Architectural Review Board. C. The proposed design of the building or structure is compatible with developments on land in the general area in that the proposal is similar in scale and mass compared to nearby structures and the proposed façade renovation improves the street orientation and significantly improves the appearance of the building with materials commonly used on multi-family developments and are found on similar projects in the general vicinity of the subject site. Additionally, the proposed 3

4 façade renovation would not cause the building to become larger, taller, or higher than the existing condition. D. The proposed development conforms to the effective guidelines and standards adopted pursuant to Chapter 9.55 Architectural Review Board, and all other applicable ordinances insofar as the location and appearance of the buildings and structures are involved. Specifically, the location and appearance of the buildings and structures comply with required findings set forth in Chapter 9.55, as documented by the Architectural Review Board, and as conditioned, the plans will fully comply with all applicable regulations prior to the issuance of a building permit. CONDITIONS: 1. Smooth steel troweled finish shall be used where stucco is proposed on the elevations. 2. A mitered joint shall be employed at all corners where siding meets. 3. Joints in wood siding shall be as tight as possible. 4. California Coastal Commission approval is required prior to the issuance of a building permit. 5. This approval shall expire when the administrative or discretionary entitlements, not including any Subdivision Map approvals, previously granted for the project have lapsed. If no such entitlements have been granted, this approval shall expire twenty-four (24) months from its effective date, unless appealed. 6. The thin profile of the new window openings shall be achieved through the nailon installation method as proposed by the applicant to maintain consistency with the contemporary design and thin profile of the existing aluminum windows. Retrofit windows and installation method shall not be utilized. 7. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall demonstrate that the plans comply with all applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. Significant changes to a project s design shall require review and approval of the Architectural Review Board. Minor changes may be approved administratively pursuant to all applicable guidelines. The Architectural Review Board s approval, conditions of approval, or denial of this application may be appealed to the Planning Commission if the appeal is filed with the Zoning Administrator within ten consecutive days following the date of the Architectural Review Board s determination in the manner provided in Chapter 9.55, Section

5 Attachments A. Applicant s Submittal Material B. Previous Submittal C. April 3, 2017 Staff Report F:\CityPlanning\Share\ARB\STFRPT\SR16\16ARB-0463 (821 3 rd St) 2 nd Review docx 5