32:
DRAFT MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ARCHITECTURAL
REVIEW BOARD
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 2007
|
City Council Chambers, Room 213 |
|
7:00 PM |
|
1. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting
was called to order at 7:06 p.m.
2. ROLL
CALL: Present:
William Adams
Rodolfo Alvarez
Joan Charles
Tania Fischer
Edouard Mimieux
Lynn Robb
Also Present: Hank Koning, Planning Commissioner (departure 9:14 p.m.)
John Berley, Landmarks Commissioner
Steve Traeger, Urban Designer
3. SECRETARY’S REPORT:
·
The next meetings of the Architectural Review Board will be Regular meetings
on November 19, 2007 and December 3, 2007, both in the Council Chambers;
·
Each Board member has been distributed a hard copy of the Memorandum from
the Deputy City Attorney regarding Item 7.2, 07-ARB-442, 395 Santa Monica Place,
summarizing the purview of the Architectural Review Board, that was E-mailed to each Board member this
afternoon;
·
Discussion Item
8a, regarding the Solar Rights Act has been postponed, and will be re-agendized
to a later date to allow for additional preparation time.
4. APPROVAL
OF MINUTES: None.
5. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND
INPUT: None.
6. EX PARTE COMMUNICATION: Board member Adams
and Fischer met with the applicant for Item 7.2, 07-ARB-442,
Vice-Chairperson Robb and Board member Alvarez met in
the office of Macerich for an overview of Item 7.2, 07-ARB-442,
Chairperson Folonis visited
the site for Item 7.2, 07-ARB-442,
7. REVIEWS: Public input permitted.
A. CONSENT
CALENDAR
a. Resubmissions: None.
b. New
Submissions: None.
B. REGULAR CALENDAR
a. Resubmissions None.
b. New Submissions
7.1 *ARB 07-340,
Approval of
Building Design, Colors and Materials
ACTION: APPROVED
ON REGULAR CALENDAR WITH REVISED CONDITIONS
Clemente Macias and Chris Mercea were present to
discuss the project.
Chairperson Folonis closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Berley stated that the submitted
drawings make it difficult to decipher what is being replaced and what is
remaining. It would be helpful to have an outline of existing windows that are
to be retained, windows that are being replaced, and replacement types. There is a level of specificity that is important
regarding Historic Resources Inventory properties to retain historic value.
Commissioner Berley also expressed concern regarding
the casement windows on the east elevation and the double-hung windows on the
west elevation as the submitted application does not include a schedule of the
exiting windows to relate to the proposed modifications. It would be most beneficial to replace
windows in-kind, to retain the look and treatment similar to existing.
Commissioner Berley clarified with the applicant that
the front door is a double swinging door, that is a significant modification to
the existing house, and verified that the materials were all wood.
Commissioner Berley referred the applicant to work
with staff to make modifications to window replacement with in-kind treatment.
The Board concurred with Commissioner Berley’s
recommendations and Board member Fischer made the motion to approve the project
with revised conditions that was seconded by Board member Mimieux.
7.2 ARB 07-442,
Approval of
Building Design, Colors, Materials and Landscape Plans
ACTION:
CONTINUED AT THE APPLICANT’S REQUEST
Robert Aptaker, Vice-President of Real Estate, Phillip
Jones, Omni Plan Architects, Eduardo Cespuedes, Design Architect, Jerde
Partnership, and Charles Elliott, LRM Landscape Architecture, of the Macerich
Company requested fifteen minutes of presentation time. Chairperson Folonis made the motion for
additional presentation time that was seconded by Board member Charles and
approved by voice vote.
Two chits were submitted, Jerry Rubin and Joe Matoli.
Chairperson Folonis closed the public hearing.
The Board stated that the proposed project is a great
improvement to the existing Mall, the materials are an intelligent design, with
an excellent level of quality, with a clear articulate depiction in the
presentation materials, however, the Board expressed concern regarding the
relationship between the proposed four entrance elevations; the Civic Center
Entrance [Colorado Avenue], the Beach Entrance [Second Street], the Promenade
Extension Entrance [Broadway], and the Downtown Core [Fourth Street], as each
elevation is different and does not provide sufficient unified building elements
balanced with consistent architectural language.
The Board stated that the submitted renderings do not
allow the Board to make a judgment of the workability of the entrances, as they
do not demonstrate a stepped-back look of the whole façade of the block. Some
of the areas of concern regarding the entryways were outlined to be:
·
The “feel” is
not demonstrated. Is it “canyon-like?”;
·
The light and
shade are not demonstrated in the passageways;
·
There are pieces
of historical
·
The
·
The
·
The developing
residential Village project, south of the Mall, has planned approximately 325
residential units with a future transit stop nearby. This should influence the design of the Civic
Center Entrance;
·
Although the
four points of entry have similar building materials, there is a lack of a
cohesive design with a missing thread of consistency, that weaves the concept
together;
·
There is not a
sense of “timelessness” about the entryways and design in general;
·
The proposed
project is one building with too many “things” instead of one cohesive “thing”. This is a retail “show” that does not have its
act together.
The Board expressed concerns regarding the material
details. Some of the areas of concern
regarding the materials were outlined to be:
The North Elevation
-
Ø
Glass detail
finish up against the parking structure, glass enclosed stair and the handrail
detailing;
Ø
Material
call-outs are unclear;
Ø
Stone cladding
on elevation reads differently than the stone cladding on the image;
Ø
Location key in
the lower right hand corner is inaccurate (identifies wrong elevation).
The
Ø
Canopy materials
and the depth of the cantilever;
Ø
Stone veneer
detail, the corner, ground, and parapet detail;
Ø
Flashing detail,
stone size detail, and handrail materials.
The
Ø
Glass handrail
and parapet detail;
Ø
Metal railings
are demonstrated on the renderings but not on the elevation;
Ø
“Ocean Style”
entry appears much taller in the renderings;
The South
Elevation –
Ø
Metal handrail
details are unclear, the attachment is undefined;
Ø
Plaster texture
details are unclear;
Ø
Exterior wall
screen detail and materials are unclear;
Ø
Handicapped ramp
is not well-integrated and should not look like it’s just for the physically
handicapped.
The West
Elevation –
Ø
Canopy details,
connections, frame holdings;
Ø
Metals details
over the storefront, and detail of attachment to building;
Ø
Details of the
loading zone;
Ø
Details of the
canopy on the left side of the renderings (the one with the sign);
Ø
Column detail
and how the interface with the ground.
The
Promenade East Elevation –
Ø
Horizontal
detailing is undefined;
Ø
Detailing of the
material of frame around the window and door at the mid-portion of the building
is undefined;
Ø
Detail of the storefront
“Battler” material, calls out glass only on the plans.
The Board strongly encouraged the applicant to
consider sustainability and green building techniques in approach, and that
these should permeate thorough the entire project.
One Board member encouraged the applicant to focus on
the concept of opening up the food court and utilizing the views. The Board commended the applicant for working
within the limitations of the existing retained parking structures and the
existing Macy’s building.
The Board supported the idea of the creative
opportunity for a signature Mall for the City of
Commissioner Koning stated that the proposed new
housing development will allow people to travel to the Mall more fluently and
the Civic Center South elevation should be carefully considered.
Mr. Aptaker asked for a continuance.
Chairperson Folonis made the motion to continue the
project that was seconded by Vice-Chairperson Robb.
9. DISCUSSION: Public input permitted.
a. Presentation and discussion on the Solar Rights Act.
ACTION: NO ACTION TAKEN
b. Discussion
of potential recommendations for review and approval of solar energy projects
in conjunction with the Solar Santa Monica project.
ACTION: NO ACTION TAKEN
c. Review and discussion of the 2008 meeting schedule.
ACTION: DISCUSSION HELD
The Board reviewed the
proposed 2008 meeting schedule and determined that January 30, February 13, and
September 29, 2008 will be Special Meeting dates.
d. Discussion of the
possibility of exploring an “Award of Excellence” for architecture (RA).
ACTION: NO
ACTION TAKEN
e. Discussion of potential
recommendations for Shape the Future Project Team (Land Use Element/ Zoning
Ordinance Project)
ACTION: NO
ACTION TAKEN
10. FUTURE BOARD AGENDA ITEMS: None.
11. REFERRALS TO STAFF: None.
12. ADJOURNMENT: Chairperson Folonis made the motion to
adjourn at 9:19 p.m. that was seconded by Vice-Chairperson Robb.
MB
11-12-07