Planning Commission Meeting: June
15, 2005
TO: The
Honorable Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Staff
SUBJECT: Appeal 05-005 of the Architectural Review Board’s Approval of
ARB 05-060
Address:
Applicant: RTK Architects
Property owner: LT Development LLC
Appellant: Karen Grant
INTRODUCTION
Action: Appeal 05-005 of the Architectural
Review Board’s (ARB) approval of the design, colors, materials, landscaping and
irrigation plans for a new three-story, 5-unit,
condominium project with a subterranean parking garage.
Recommendation: Deny the Appeal
and uphold the Architectural Review Board's Approval.
The subject property is 7,500 square feet, located at the west
side of
The subject property is currently developed with a vacant single-family dwelling and two accessory buildings and contains no significant vegetation.
Zoning District: R3
(Medium Density Multiple Family Residential) Districts
Land Use District: Medium
Density Housing
Parcel Area: 50’ x 150’ = 7,500 square feet
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant proposes
to construct a three-story, five-unit condominium building above a ten-car
subterranean parking garage. One guest
parking space will be located to the rear of the first floor. Vehicle access to the on-site parking would
be from
The subject of this
appeal is the ARB’s approval of the proposed building’s façade design, colors,
materials and landscaping.
MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN
CONFORMANCE
The subject application has 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. It is the applicant’s responsibility to ensure that the plans
comply fully with all applicable provisions of the Municipal Code. The applicant has been notified of any
significant non-compliant aspects of their plans, and a condition has been
added requiring full compliance with all applicable regulations prior to the
issuance of a building permit. Any
significant changes to the design subsequent to any ARB, or Planning Commission
on appeal, approval will require additional Board review and approval prior to
the issuance of building permits.
CEQA STATUS
The project is exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Class 3, Section 15303
(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines. Projects located in an urbanized environment
designed for not more than six dwelling units are, consistent with the
Guidelines, exempt from environmental review. Additionally, the
existing structures proposed for demolition are over 40 years old. On March 14, 2005, the
Landmarks Commission reviewed the demolition permit application and determined
that these buildings are not of historic significance to the City. Therefore, these buildings do not require
further analysis to consider the potential environmental impact associated with
their removal pursuant to CEQA.
HISTORIC RESOURCES
INVENTORY DESIGNATION
The subject property
is not listed on the City’s Historic Resources Inventory. However, existing improvements on the subject property are over 40
years in age. The Landmarks Commission
reviewed a demolition permit for the existing house, garage and accessory
building on March 14, 2005 and determined they are not historic resources.
RENT CONTROL STATUS
Property was Ellised 11/24/89. The
site is currently vacant.
FEES
There are no special Planning
related fees associated with architectural review.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 9.32.180, within 14
days after the subject application was filed, the applicant posted a sign on
the property stating the following information: Project case number, brief
project description, name and telephone number of applicant, site address,
date, time and location of public meeting, and the City Planning Division phone
number. Staff has verified that the date
of the Planning Commission public hearing has been properly posted on the sign
(Attachment C). On April 28, 2005, the appellant was notified by
phone (voice mail) and in writing of the subject hearing date.
The Planning Commission
agenda and associated staff reports are also posted on the City’s web site
prior to the meeting. In addition, notice
of the public meeting was published in the “
ANALYSIS
The project will be
reviewed for compliance with all pertinent development standards during the
building permit plan check process. The
scope of this
appeal pertains to the Architectural Review Board’s approval of the proposed
building’s facade design, colors, materials and landscaping.
Project Design
The proposed project conforms to
the building height and number of stories standards of the R3 zoning district;
however, it is located adjacent to a property that is improved with a
single-story craftsman home. While other
buildings on the block have a similar scale as the proposed structure, the
verticality of the building and its modernist design call attention to the
differences between the proposed on-site development and the single-family home
to the north. The proposed three-story
condominium building height rises to 40-feet above theoretical grade. The proposal
incorporates the following design elements:
|
DESIGN ELEMENTS |
PROPOSED EXTERIOR MATERIAL, FINISH AND COLOR |
|
Façade |
Smooth
troweled stucco (White) Smooth
troweled stucco (Sand) Metal
siding, smooth (Silver) |
|
Windows |
Anodized
aluminum glass (Silver) |
|
Doors |
Anodized
aluminum glass (Silver) Painted
metal gate (Silver) |
|
Roof |
Flat
roof with cap sheet roofing (White) |
|
Mechanical
Screening |
Anodized
stainless steel (Silver) |
|
Refuse
Screening |
Painted
CMU block wall (Grey) |
|
Lighting |
Acrylic
and Stainless Steel (Opaque) |
|
Canopy/Awning/ Trellis |
Painted
stainless steel (Silver at door canopy) Painted
stainless steel (Blue at entry canopy) |
|
Railings |
Stainless
steel cables (Silver) Smooth
troweled stucco (White/Sand) |
|
Perimeter
Walls and
Fences |
CMU
block wall (Natural gray) Wood
(Natural) |
The proposed project is expressive of a contemporary architectural design and is composed of several geometric forms. The structure’s use of different materials and subtle color changes provides additional clarity to the building’s architectural concept. The building is well articulated and its massing well designed. The contemporary design creates an inviting ambience due to its fine level of detail and use of quality materials appropriate to a residential neighborhood. Additional building stepbacks on the north elevation reduces the visual contrast between it and the adjacent single-story house.
While the ARB staff report recommended approval of the
project as submitted, the report also recommended that the ARB consider the
following design issues: First, vertical
design elements emphasize the building’s three-story height, especially on the
south elevation; second, the front
elevation has the potential to appear rather dark and imposing given the
shadows that will be cast by the second floor balcony overhang. Similarly, the ground floor front elevation
could further develop its pedestrian orientation by further orientating
building features, such as entrances, patios and landscaping towards the
street; there is an opportunity to strengthen the building design by providing more
variation to the individual unit façade designs to support the strength
presented by the individuation of each unit; and as one of the larger buildings
on the street that has a strong vertical presence, the staff report suggested
incorporating additional horizontal elements to aide in reducing the visual scale
and proportion of the structure as well as providing additional layered reading
to the project.
On April 18, 2005, the
project was presented to the ARB. After
considering the staff report and comments from three residents, members of the
ARB expressed support for the overall design and in particular, the additional
stepback from the single-story house and the vertical elements used on the
south elevation to maximize glazing and natural lighting. One ARB member expressed concern regarding
the design of the front façade and second floor balcony design. An additional condition was added to replace
Creeping Fig plants with Boston Ivy and the ARB approved the project pursuant
to a six to one vote. The Board also
suggested, but did not require, adding Boston Ivy on the alley and front façade
to soften the building and create a horizontal impact. The ARB’s Statement of Official Action (STOA)
and the April 18, 2005 staff report and minutes are contained in Attachment
B.
Appeal Analysis
On April 25, 2005, Appeal 05-005 was
filed by Karen Grant, a
ARB inappropriately delegated verification of design changes to staff
The ARB conditioned their approval on changes to a small portion of the landscape design requiring the Creeping Fig plants to be replaced with Boston Ivy prior to the issuance of a building permit. The appellant contends that such a condition denies the public from verifying that the design change is appropriate or in conformity to neighborhood compatibility, or in conformity to the ARB’s direction. This contention implies that the ARB lacks authority to conditionally approve a project and therefore, any revision required by the ARB must be resubmitted for full review by the Board.
The appellant’s concern has been addressed since the revised landscape plans are included in Attachment E of this report. However, the ARB acted within its legal authority in imposing this condition. SMMC Section 9.04.32.140, specifically authorizes the ARB, or Planning Commission on appeal, to approve a project with conditions. Condition 2 merely requires a different species of landscape material with similar appearance to the Creeping Fig, but with better long term maintenance attributes. The substitution species was specifically identified. The change prescribed by the ARB has negligible impact on the overall landscape design or the appearance of the proposed building design.
Design over emphasizes
height and mass
The appeal statement contends that the proposed building design “over
emphasizes” building height and mass, that some of the proposed building’s vertical
features should be replaced with horizontal lines to address this concern.
This design issue was presented in the ARB staff report, included in
some of the public comments and discussed by the Board. The R3 District permits three- stories and 40
foot tall buildings. The proposal is
three-stories and 35 to 40 feet tall.
The overall character of this area is defined by multi-family apartments
and condominium buildings similar in mass and scale to the proposed
project. Most nearby properties are developed
with two and three story buildings with only five foot setbacks and no
stepbacks or upper level articulation to reduce their visual size and
mass. The proposed development provides
more front and side yard setback and stepback articulation than other
properties in the neighborhood. This
additional setback and stepback articulation visually reduces the size of the
building and makes it compatible with the area’s scale of development, while
expressing a clear architectural concept.
The design is especially sensitive to the single-story house to the
north. It provides additional
building stepbacks to help reduce the visual contrast between the north
elevation and the existing single-story house.
These ample setbacks and stepbacks increase the separation between
buildings, minimizing shading and protecting solar access to adjacent
properties. Given the sensitivity and
compatibility of the proposed design, the Board did not support potential
redesign. However, while the ARB determined that the proposed
building will be compatible with its R3 neighborhood, the building design could
benefit by additional horizontal elements on the south elevation, which would
mitigate the building’s vertical appearance.
A condition has been added to require such a revision.
Large windows violate neighbors privacy
The appeal statement indicates that “large windows violate neighbors’
privacy.” The appellant also raised this question during the ARB hearing. The stepped back portion of the south
elevation is glazed from floor to ceiling.
Staff believes the appellant’s concern pertains to the two-story,
six-unit apartment that is adjacent to the south elevation.
The size of the glazing on the south elevation could be reduced and still
comply with the building code, but requiring smaller window area is contrary to
City policy to increase solar access and natural lighting. In this case, the stairs are placed adjacent
to the south facing windows in a manner that will screen view and separate the
second and third floor bedroom areas from the glass walls to improve privacy. Because this floor plan design is not discernable
when looking at the façade renderings, the appellant may not be aware that a
reasonable degree of privacy is provided.
The front elevation is not pedestrian friendly
First floor should be level with sidewalk
The Appeal Statement does not
explain the appellant’s position.
However, Board Member Fischer expressed concern regarding the second
floor balcony and how shadows would impact the entryway.
Generally, the front elevation is
well designed, using multiple layers of architectural elements, such as large
windows, multiple wall plane stepbacks, open hand rails and a winged canopy
over the garage stairway to enhance pedestrian orientation. While the ARB staff report suggested the
design of the semi-enclosed second floor balcony could cause uninviting dark
shadows, upon further analysis, the proposed balcony design appears to enliven
the front façade.
While the large windows, balcony,
and overall interest in the building façade design provides a pedestrian
oriented proposal, this can be further improved by reducing the height of the
planter on the southeast corner, and a condition has been added to require such
a revision.
Conclusion
The appeal contention that the ARB
lacks authority to conditionally approve a project is incorrect. SMMC Section 9.04.32.140, specifically
authorizes the ARB, or Planning Commission on appeal, to approve a project with
conditions. Moreover, this issue is now
moot. The design’s ample setbacks,
stepbacks, articulation and landscaping
reduce its apparent mass, making the proposed three-story condominium building
compatible with the scale of development in the surrounding R3 area and does
not over emphasize height and mass. Privacy
to second and third floor bedrooms is provided by the stairs which are placed adjacent to the south facing windows to
screen view through the glass walls. In
addition,
The architectural design of the
proposed five-unit condominium building is expressive of a contemporary
architectural design and is composed of a variety of geometric forms with clear
architectural intent. The contemporary
design is able to create an inviting ambience that is appropriate to a
residential neighborhood.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning
Commission deny the appeal and uphold the Architectural Review Board’s approval
of ARB 05- 060 based on the following findings and conditions.
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 massing of the proposed three-story condominium building is compatible with the scale of development in the surrounding area. It is expressive of a contemporary architectural design and is composed of a variety of geometric forms with clear architectural intent. Use of a variety of subtle colors and materials provides additional definition to the formal concept. The contemporary design is able to create an inviting ambience that is appropriate to a residential 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 material, including smooth-troweled stucco and anodized aluminum
glazing system, as detailed 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 development on
land in the general area in that the structure has a comparable scale with
multiple family properties in the immediate neighborhood. Many of the properties on this street are
improved with multi-family buildings similar in size and scale to the proposed
project. The proposed development
proposes setbacks that are compatible with the immediately adjacent properties
and the additional stepback requirements visually reduce the size of the
building and keep it compatible with the area’s scale of development. Stairs
are placed adjacent to the south facing windows in a manner that will screen
view and separate the second and third floor bedroom areas from the glass walls
to improve privacy.
D. The
proposed development conforms to the effective guidelines and standards adopted
pursuant to Chapter 9.32 – Architectural Review Board, and all other
applicable ordinances insofar as the location and appearance of the buildings
and structures are involved. As conditioned, the plans will
fully comply with all applicable regulations prior to the issuance of a
building permit.
CONDITIONS:
1.
This approval shall expire when the
discretionary entitlements previously granted by an associated approval have
lapsed. If no such permit has been issued, this approval shall expire one year
from its effective date, or otherwise implemented pursuant to applicable
municipal regulations.
2.
Prior to the issuance of a building
permit, the applicant shall provide a substitute species, such as Boston Ivy,
to replace the Creeping Fig and demonstrate compliance with the City’s Water
Conservation Ordinance subject to staff approval. The applicant is encouraged to add vine
material to soften the west building façade. 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.
3.
Prior to building permit application,
the applicant adjust the design on the south elevation to include additional
horizontal elements at the floor lines, and reduce the height of the planter at
the southeast corner.
4.
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.
Attachments:
A. Appeal Statements of Karen
Grant
B. ARB Statement of Official
Action, Staff Report & Minutes
D. Rendering, Plot Plan, Floor Plans,
Elevations & Photographs of Site & Surrounding Properties