Architectural Review Board Report

Transcription

1 Architectural Review Board Report To: From: Cc: Subject: Architectural Review Board Meeting: October 16, 2017 Agenda Item: 7.2 Architectural Review Board Michael Rocque, Associate Planner Stephanie Reich, AIA, LEED AP, Design & Historic Preservation Planner Rathar Duong, Associate Planner, ARB Liaison 17ARB-0276 to review building design, colors, materials, and landscape plans for a new two-story, 3-unit multi-family residential building. Address: Applicant: nd Street Paul Essick, Paul Essick Architects Recommended Action It is recommended that the Architectural Review Board review and provide comments on application 17ARB-0276 based upon the findings and subject to the conditions contained within this report. Executive Summary The proposal is a new contemporary two-story multi-family building with three residential units and six subterranean garage parking spaces with access from the alley. The existing single-family residence and detached garage will be demolished and the site landscaped upon completion of the new building. Staff recommends the Board review and provide direction for the proposed building design, colors, materials, and landscaping. Background The parcel is developed with a one-story single-family residence and garage constructed in The property is listed on the Historic Resource Inventory. 16ENT-0041: On June 21, 2017, the Planning Commission approved Vesting Tentative Parcel Map for the three-unit condominium. Project / Site Information The subject site is located on the east side of 22nd Street between Wilshire Boulevard and California Avenue. Multi-family buildings of varying styles and constructed in different eras surround the parcel with a few single-family residences mixed in. The subject site has a large mature Montezuma bald cypress tree in the rear yard. 1

2 The following table provides a brief summary of project data: Zoning District / Design R2 (Low Density Residential) Guidelines: Parcel Area (SF): 6,101 SF Parcel Dimensions: 46 x Existing On-Site Single-family residence (1924) Improvements (Year Built): Historic Resource Existing building is listed on the HRI Inventory Status CEQA Exempt pursuant to Section (b)(3) Adjacent Zoning & Use: North South East West Analysis Site and Landscape Design The rectilinear site has an existing single-family residence and detached garage that are proposed to be demolished to accommodate the new building. The large Montezuma bald cypress tree is centrally located in the rear yard and is also proposed to be removed. The proposed building accommodates three units with the entry access for all three units provided along the north side yard. Required parking is provided below grade within individual two car garages for each unit accessible from 22 nd Court (alley) along with the trash collection/recycling area. Each unit is designed with a private outdoor patio space and roof deck areas. Landscaping is proposed in the front, and as a buffer in the side setbacks. The drought tolerant palette provides a diversity in plant materials with a variety of trees, shrubs, and ground covers such as Leptospermum laevvigatum, Equisetum arvense, Sansevieria traifasciata, and Senecio mandraaliscae. The placement and layering of the plant species will achieve an attractive landscape design that complements the building design (LP.1). The proposed landscape in the front setback creates an inviting and transparent appearance that allows the building to engage the street. The front yard is designed as a viewing garden with Equisetum arvense and Senecio mandaraliscae. Modifications to plant species here could enable a more useable area in the front yard. The landscape along the side property lines, which consist of mostly shrubs and a few trees, ensure adequate buffers for the residents and provide privacy to/from the adjoining neighbors. Building Design/Architectural Concept The proposed building is contemporary in design that is further enhanced by the material and color selections. The project is a three-dimensional design, however the arrangement 2

3 of forms along the building elevations make it hard to distinguish a clear architectural concept. The building has various plays of projecting and recessed forms within the overall volume. The upper floor façade volumes are different in that the front unit along 22 nd street is recessed and steps back along the front elevation and has a lower finished floor line and roof deck area. (1.4 and 9.0). The metal trim and projecting metal eyebrow features are provided along both side elevations at different elevations but do not appear to create harmonious and balanced façades/floor levels along the building. The roofline is broken up to create the appearance that each unit is independent of each other, which enhances the roofline and creates individuality among the units. This reading has potential and should be strengthen. Overall, the proposed design does not appear to communicate a clear architectural concept. Mass and Scale The perceived mass and scale is interesting and three-dimensional but oddly proportioned. Staff has some concerns with the overall mass and scale, which include the height of the ground floor in comparison to the upper floor. The ground floor is oversized, is oddly proportioned in relation to the upper floor, and provides a two-story appearance along the south elevation due to the mezzanine level. The floor to ceiling glazing along the front elevation in (Unit 1) emphasizes the tall appearance and contributes to the oddly proportioned floor levels. The mass and scale is broken up through the composition of various projecting and receding volumes along the elevations as well as the change of colors and materials, a positive aspect of the design. This approach and treatment allows the building to take on a 3-dimensional quality. Overall, staff feels the mass and scale of the project should be revisited and furthered developed. Design, Details and Materials The contemporary building is primarily stucco and glass with stone veneer accent at the front. Stucco surfaces will be steel-troweled finish in order to achieve a clean appearance. Metal will be used to wrap the fascia, and balcony walls have a wood soffit finish beneath. A clear glass rail will be incorporated into all of the balconies and roof decks. The fenestration shows hierarchy and are proposed to be clear aluminum windows with wood and metal framing. The material palette and color scheme is simple, but could provide some variation to highlight the three-dimensional design. The property line walls are proposed to be stucco over CMU. Staff recommends a pre-finished material be used on the side facing the adjacent property. PROPOSED EXTERIOR MATERIAL, DESIGN ELEMENTS FINISH AND COLOR Façade Smooth stucco (white egg shell, cashew nut and miners dust), Accent color ( light gray) and stone veneer finish Windows Western window aluminum with wood and metal frame (clear) Doors Glass (clear) aluminum doors Roof Single ply reflective (flat white) Mechanical Screening Translucent glazing located on rooftop deck Refuse Screening Stucco wall Lighting Canopy/Awning/ Trellis LED wall mount, and LED in-ground Aluminum with wood soffit finish beneath 3

4 Fencing CMU with stucco (north side) and CMU 42 front yard Impact on Historic Resources The subject building is listed on the City s Historic Resources Inventory and noted for its Spanish Colonial Revival Style. The building has been assigned a Status Code 5S3, which identifies the structure as a unique or rare example of an architectural design, detail or historical type as indicated in the Historic Resource Inventory documents (Attachment B). The proposed project will be demolishing the existing building and replacing it with a new three unit condominium project. On February 13, 2017, the Landmarks Commission reviewed the demolition permit application and took no action. 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. A complete code-compliance review will not occur until the application is submitted for plan check. Any significant changes to the design subsequent to any ARB approval will require Board approval. 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. Additionally, the existing structure(s) proposed for demolition is/are over 40 years old. On February 13, 2017, the Landmarks Commission reviewed the demolition permit application and took no action. Based on the substantial evidence in the record, no further analysis is required to evaluate the potential environmental impact of the demolition on historic resources pursuant to CEQA. Summary The proposed contemporary style building will replace a single-family residence on site and accommodates three dwelling units in two levels and six subterranean garage parking spaces with access from the alley. The project does not appear to have a clear architectural concept, and the mass and scale should be revisited and furthered developed. The proposed landscape palette is diverse and drought tolerant and its design complements the building s architecture. FINDINGS: If the Architectural Review Board wishes to approve the project, the following findings could be made: 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 contemporary building 4

5 expresses a clear architectural idea and adds to the eclectic design found in the immediate neighborhood. The landscape design incorporates a diverse drought tolerant plant palette that complements the building and buffers the property from adjoining land uses, while providing a level of privacy for the residents. 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 wood and aluminum windows, wood and aluminum glass doors, steel troweled stucco and stone veneer accent finishes are proposed in the application submittal and as presented to the Architectural Review Board will be used. C. The proposed design of the building or structure is compatible with developments on land in the general area in that the perceived mass and scale are addressed through various design techniques, including use of colors, materials, fenestration pattern, and building form. The proposed design is compatible with surrounding developments as other contemporary buildings exist in the neighborhood. The proposed project is also compliant with the Zoning Ordinance in terms of number of units, setback, height, and parking requirements. 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. Strengthen the design for a clear architectural concept. 2. Review and revise the project proportions. Specifically, reduce the apparent height of the lower proportion in relation to the second floor. 3. Smooth steel-troweled finish shall be used where stucco is proposed on the elevations. 4. Provide more variations in materials to enhance the project design concept. 5. Review and revise the plant types for more usability in the front yard. 6. 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 24 months from its effective date, or 30 months if in the Coastal Zone unless appealed. 5

6 7. The approved plans includes single ply reflective roofing material that is highly reflective when new, but will lose its reflectivity after it oxidizes naturally over time or with a treatment that oxidizes the finish prior to its instillation. Approval of this material is conditions on compliance with SMMC requiring pretreatment of the material so that it is not reflective, or the material is installed in a manner that precludes violation of SMMC Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall demonstrate landscape and irrigation plan compliance with the City s Green Building Ordinance standards (SMMC 8.108) subject to staff approval. Modifications to the landscape plan that effect less than 150 square feet of area may be reviewed and approved by the Staff Liaison to the Board. 9. Prior to the issuance of a building permit a hydrozone matrix shall be included in the landscape and irrigation plans that describes for each hydrozone the following: the square footage, percentage of total landscaped area, plant type and plant form, hydrozone basis, hydrozone description, exposure or micro-climate, irrigation method, irrigation devices (including manufacturer, make and model), zone pressure, precipitation rates, zone gallons per minute and controller station numbers. 10. 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 SMMC Attachments A. Applicant s Submittal Material B. Historic Resource Inventory F:\CityPlanning\Share\ARB\STFRPT\SR17\17ARB-0276 ( nd St).doc 6