M E M O R A N D U M CITY PLANNING DIVISION PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF SANTA MONICA

Transcription

1 M E M O R A N D U M CITY PLANNING DIVISION PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF SANTA MONICA DATE: September 13, 2010 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: The Honorable Landmarks Commission Planning Staff Certificate of Appropriateness LC-10CA-017, 250 Santa Monica Pier Request for approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness for exterior modifications and the construction of a rooftop seating area on the eastern portion of the Billiards Building associated with tenant improvements for a new restaurant space. APPLICANT: PROPERTY OWNER: David Forbes Hibbert, AIA City Of Santa Monica INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND This application for Certificate of Appropriateness LC-10CA-017 proposes exterior modifications and construction of a rooftop seating area in an existing tenant space. The tenant space was last used as a nightclub and is proposed to be converted into a new restaurant space. The subject tenant space occupies the eastern portion of the existing multi-tenant building located at 250 Santa Monica Pier. The Santa Monica Pier was designated as a City landmark on August 17, The Santa Monica Pier is located in the Residential-Visitor Commercial (RVC) District and the subject project is subject to compliance with the Santa Monica Pier Design Guidelines. The Landmarks Commission issued previous approvals for the design of this building at the time the different tenants occupied the building. No signage is proposed at this time. PUBLIC NOTICE Notice of this hearing was provided as required by Section (b) as follows: notice sent to all owners and occupants within a 300-foot radius of the subject property; a newspaper notice published in the Santa Monica Daily Press at least 10 days prior to the hearing date. A copy of the hearing notice is contained in Attachment A

2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is proposing to convert an existing tenant space that was last used as a nightclub into a restaurant space. Although this building, referred to in the Pier Design Guidelines as the Billiards Building is not a designated landmark, the Pier Design Guidelines consider it to be historic since it is one of the structures that contributes to the historic fabric and integrity of the Pier. As part of the tenant improvement, the applicant proposes some interior remodeling, not subject to Landmarks Commission review, including raising the ceiling height of the first floor, expanding the mezzanine to create a full second floor and providing vertical circulation to the second floor and the new roof deck. As a result, the roof line of this portion of the building would be raised to accommodate the raised ceiling height and the full second floor level. On June 14, 2010, the applicant presented a schematic design of the proposed restaurant project to the Commission for direction and initial feedback. In general, there was overall support of the proposed restaurant use within a tenant space that has been vacant since However, there were some concerns expressed with certain design components of the proposal, which include the following: The proposed overall building shape and massing is not appropriate in relation to the Historic Carousel building and that the applicant should work with the existing scale and shape of the building; The applicant should try to open up and use the building as a restaurant without making such dramatic changes. Original tall windows in a picture of the building from 1917 could be used as a reference instead of the proposed windows which appear too contemporary. The height of the circulation tower and roof deck canopy supports is problematic and that the applicant should try to retain the existing roofline to maintain the existing relationship and hierarchy with the Carousel building. The column structures supporting the second floor deck and the canopy on the roof appear to be massive. In addition, the columns and the glass screen appear to be in conflict. Picture of Billiard Building (south elevation from 1917) The outdoor dining patio and deck on the north (front) elevation should be pulled back from the existing corner tower element of the building. In addition, the outdoor dining enclosure should not create separation between the patrons of the restaurant and the Pier The proposed screening of the outdoor dining area should be simplified to avoid a busy appearance. The proposed natural wood finish material is not appropriate given the location of the building on the Pier and instead painted elements which are more durable - 2 -

3 should be used. The applicant should try and upgrade the electrical panels along the east façade and try to activate the exterior space along the east façade. The applicant has returned with revised plans and elevations that address most of the feedback provided by the Commission as follows: ANALYSIS The applicant proposes to rehabilitate the south elevation as close as possible to the original elevation as shown in the archival photo from 1917, by providing the French windows with transom windows above. In addition, the applicant proposes to maintain the existing patio and enclosure on the south façade. The previously proposed canopy and support on the roof deck are eliminated from the design. Instead, the roof deck will use umbrellas for shade. The new roof along the north (front) façade is proposed to match the existing roof material and color to create a visual continuation of the existing roof along the front. The elevator lobby area on the roof has been reduced in size and both the elevator lobby and the new stair shaft enclosures are proposed to match the existing roofing material. The elevator shaft, which is the second highest element on the roof next to the existing tower element, is proposed to be clad in glass to visually reduce its perceived mass. The proposed first floor patio and second floor deck along the north elevation (front) will have clear glass wind screens with a frosted glass base. The second floor deck will be supported with new square double columns that are reduced in size from the previously proposed supports. The second floor deck will be pulled away from the existing tower element of the building and will have a new retractable fabric awning. All natural wood finish materials have been eliminated from the design, instead the new entry door and new windows along the north (front) and south elevations (both first and second floor) as well as those within the tower element will be painted to match the existing door and window finish. The existing entry door into the tenant space which is located along the east elevation of the tower element would be replaced with a new window system; while the existing window along the north elevation of the tower element would be replaced with a new single entry door to the restaurant. No changes are proposed to the electrical panels along the east side as the panels are outside the scope of work of this project. The historical significance of the Pier is due, in part, to its historic and current function as one of the City s important social and recreational public spaces. The Pier also contains notable buildings of architectural and historic interest, including the Looff Hippodrome Carousel Building and the subject building (Billiards Building). While the Pier has changed physically over the years, it continues to be a historically significant, Landmark property in the City

4 In reviewing this application, the Landmarks Commission must evaluate the proposal in light of the adopted Pier Design Guidelines, which sets forth recommendations intended to direct change on the Santa Monica Pier in ways that are compatible with the Pier s overall character and are also economically viable. Santa Monica Pier Design Guidelines (1987) General Goals #2 and #4, encourage design creativity and innovation within a context of continuity and encourage development of a unique environment with ease of access and user friendliness as a prime design consideration. Furthermore, General Goal #8 encourages designs to respect and enhance the character of existing structures on the Pier. More specific design guidelines for existing buildings in this document refers to the Billiard Building as one of few buildings recommended to be retained and one of the structures considered to be historic since they contribute to the historic fabric and integrity of the Pier. As such, the design guidelines that are applicable to this project are the following: 1. Buildings to be recognize as products of their own time and should not incorporate alterations which seek to create a historic appearance unrelated to that building. Building design represents the design philosophy and technology of a specific time. Rehabilitating a historic building should not strive to create a preconceived concept of a historic building but should reuse the existing materials and design. 2. Alterations or additions to a historically significant building may be necessary to ensure its continued use. Such changes may be necessary to increase square footage where land values have risen, or to structurally reinforce seismically unsafe buildings. These changes should not alter, obscure or destroy historically significant features, materials forms or finishes. Façade changes should be considered only after closely evaluating alternative means of achieving the same end. For example skylights can be used to allow more natural light rather than cutting in new window which would disrupt the façade or interior seismic bracing can be used rather than exposed exterior bracing which would obscure the façade. 3. An addition should complement the original design and not be overwhelming or disruptive. Additions should also be connected to historic buildings so that the addition may later be removed without destroying an original material. 4. Windows in historic buildings were generally wood sash and sometimes metal sash. They were generally single light with earlier windows being double hung and some later windows being metal sliding windows. The original historical window type style and material should be retained in rehabilitation. The proportion, size and location of existing window openings should be respected and maintained wherever possible. The rhythm of solid to void of the existing historic building should be maintained and the total percentage of façade glazing in proposition to solid wall mass should not be significantly altered

5 5. Awning design should be sensitive to the overall façade on which it is to be placed historical commercial buildings often had retractable awnings placed at the transom level which could be extended to create a sun barrier and which served to reduce the building to an intimate scale. The use of retractable awnings is recommended but not mandatory. Historic building traditionally have sloping shed style awnings of one or two colors which complemented the overall color scheme of the entire building. In rehabilitation, the shape of the awning shall be designed to fit the architecture and careful consideration should be given to incorporating a barrel-shaped or rounded awnings. Old photos or drawings of the Pier beach environment and other amusement parks should be consulted to determine the type and shape of awnings originally used. The size and scale of the awning shall be compatible to the rest of the building. An awning shall not be the predominant element of the façade. While the inclusion of the awnings in a rehabilitation design is encouraged the design plans for that rehabilitation shall show the building both with and without awnings since the subsequent removal of such awnings may significantly alter the approved design concept. The proposed design of the exterior remodel will rehabilitate the original elevation along the south façade by adding two more French windows while opening up the façade further with the addition of clearstory windows above the French windows. The changes proposed to the design of the main (north) façade also opens up the building by introducing new French windows, outdoor dining patio and decks. The design incorporates clear glass screens for the first floor patio, second and roof decks with frosted glass base; glass elevator shaft enclosure to visually minimize the perceived mass, fabric retractable awning and wood columns which are intended to pick details available from other structures on the Pier. The overall shape and scale of the remodeled building will remain the same as the original building, maintaining the existing hierarchy with the Looff Hippodrome Carousel Building and with the existing tower elements within the subject building. However, staff feels that the double columns proposed along the north elevation, although referencing elements that once existed on the Pier, are not necessarily appropriate on the new façade. Staff recommends utilizing a lighter single column or support system for the second floor deck that would enhance the open feeling created by the glass screens and French windows. In addition, staff suggests providing doors and/or operable windows in the two tower elements, referencing the open design of the towers as shown on the archival photo from The Commission may also choose to provide direction on what design element would be appropriate on the new restaurant façade. The proposal is an appropriate and compatible remodel on the Landmark Santa Monica Pier. The new restaurant appears to be consistent with the goals outlined in the Pier Design Guidelines and takes into account the historic character, setting, and context of the Santa Monica Pier as a true public recreation and social space. Through compatible design scheme and material, the remodeled building reflects the character of the Pier (past and present) and its physical evolution over the years. Specifically, rehabilitating the south elevation, visually continuing the roof on the north elevation and setting back the roof deck from the front façade as well as creating varying rooflines with the introduction of the roof deck and vertical circulation enclosures is characteristic of Pier - 5 -

6 architecture which typically utilizes the roof as a strong design element. Because the new restaurant design is compatible in scale, proportion, massing, it will not destroy the Pier s overall historic materials, features, setting, and spatial relationships that characterize its importance. Additionally, the remodel work is compatible in design yet visually differentiated from existing historic structure. Further, the proposed façade changes including the outdoor dining patio and decks would be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, would not compromise the Pier s essential historic form and integrity. Information regarding any proposed signage for the new restaurant will be required to be reviewed by the Commission. Conditions have been included reflecting this requirement. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the Landmarks Commission approve Certificate of Appropriateness 10CA-0017 based on the following draft findings and subject to conditions: CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FINDINGS (SMMC ) 1. The proposed rehabilitation and adoptive reuse of this portion of the Billiards Building for restaurant purposes will not detrimentally change, destroy or adversely affect any exterior feature of the Landmark or Landmark Parcel upon which such work is to be done in that the proposed project is consistent with the Pier Design Guidelines. The proposal retains key architectural features of the building, including the corner tower elements and windows. The project proposes compatible but differentiated new features such as the glass wind screens enclosing the outdoor dining areas and retractable awning. The proportions of outdoor dining areas with transparent glass screen walls and retractable awning create a pedestrian friendly tenant space façade, differentiating the tenant space from the existing building but maintaining harmony with the overall design of the Billiards Building. While the proposed project slightly alters the character of this portion of the building, the rehabilitation design with the continuation of the proposed roof along the front allows the space to still read as part of the overall building and it would still possess physical features that maintain the unique spatial quality associated with the original tower element. CONDITIONS 1. This approval is for activities shown on plans dated September 7, 2010, which are on file in the City Planning Division, except as amended herein. 2. Sign plans shall be submitted for review and approval by the Landmarks Commission

7 3. This Certificate of Appropriateness shall be in full force and effect from and after the date of the rendering of the decision by the Commission. Pursuant to Landmarks Ordinance Section (h), this approval shall expire within one year if the authorized work is not commenced. Should the applicant be unable to comply with this restriction, an extension may be granted pursuant to Section for an additional 180 days maximum. The applicant must request such an extension prior to expiration of this permit. After that time, the applicant will be required to return to the Commission for approval. In addition, this Certificate of Appropriateness shall expire if the authorized work is suspended for a 180-day period after being commenced. 4. This decision may be appealed by properly filing with the Director of Planning a Notice of Appeal on a form furnished by the Planning Department. Such notice shall be filed within a ten (10) day time period commencing from the date of the determination. 5. All required Planning and Building Permit approvals shall be obtained. Attachments: A. Public Notice B. Aerial Photo C. Project Plans/Photographs - 7 -