City Council Meeting: February
12, 2008
Agenda Item: 6-A
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Eileen P. Fogarty, Director of
Planning and Community Development
Subject: Appeal of Landmarks Commission approval of Certificate of
Appropriateness Application for demolition of a non-contributing structure and
construction of a new single-family residence at
Recommended
Action
Staff
recommends the City Council deny appeal 07APP-010 and approve Certificate of
Appropriateness application 07CA-009 for demolition of a non-contributing structure and
construction of new a single-family residence located at
Executive Summary
This report supports the
Landmarks Commission’s approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness application
filed by property owners Mark R. Gorman and Beth Burns for construction of a
new 2,365 square foot single-family residence on a non-contributing parcel
located in the Third Street Neighborhood Historic District (“the
District”). On December 10, 2007, a majority
of the Landmarks Commission determined that the design of the new,
single-family residence and its placement on the parcel would be harmonious
with the overall character of the District and with the scale, materials, and
massing of Contributing Structures within the District, and therefore approved the application by a
vote of 4-1.
This report presents analysis of
the proposed project in light of the required finding for approval set forth in
SMMC Section 9.40.030 (c) (4) that requires new construction be harmonious and compatible
with the character of the District and with the scale, massing and materials of
contributing structures in the District. The report also addresses the points
of the appeal filed by Beatrice Nemlaha, Scott
Campbell, and Tony Haig that, in summary, assert the Landmarks Commission erred
it in approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness application because the
proposed project is not compatible with the character of the District or with
Contributing Structures in the District, and is not consistent with the adopted
District design guidelines for new construction. In consideration of the full
record to date, including review of the appellants’ appeal statement, it is
recommended that the Landmarks Commission’s approval of the Certificate of
Appropriateness be upheld and the appeal, therefore, be denied.
Discussion
On August 28, 2007, Mark R. Gorman and Beth
Burns filed a Certificate of Appropriateness application requesting demolition of
an existing non-contributing structure and construction of a new two-story
2,365 square foot single-family residence at
The west side of Second Street contains a total of
three contributing structures: two adjacent structures at the corner of Ocean
Park Boulevard and one structure located two parcels south of the subject
property. The properties to the north of the subject property consist of a
parking lot and one-story structure. The
property to the south is currently vacant, however an approval was recently
granted for the construction of a new, two-story plus mezzanine single-family
residence.
When the District was
established, its intent was documented in an application referenced in the
Municipal Code (SMMC 9.36.290) describing in detail the neighborhood’s history,
architectural character, proposed boundary alternatives, and the purpose for
establishing this area as a historic district.
Out of three alternatives offered in the application, the Council
designated the District boundaries to include the west side of Second Street,
in part, because there was interest on the part of district applicants in
relocating historic structures from other areas to these non-contributing and
empty parcels on Second Street. When the
District was established, contributing structures were defined as those structures that were
built during or prior to 1935; non-contributing properties were identified as
vacant parcels and those structures constructed after 1935.
Following the
establishment of the Third Street Neighborhood Historic District, the Landmarks
Commission adopted the Third Street
Neighborhood Design Guidelines and a Landscape Survey (“District
Guidelines”) in 1992. These District
Guidelines are discussed more fully beginning on page 9 of this report.
Landmarks
Commission Action
The Landmarks Commission held a public
hearing for the Certificate of Appropriateness application on October 8,
2007. After listening to public
testimony both in opposition and in support of the project, and after an
extensive discussion regarding the proposal, the hearing was continued to allow
the applicant to revise the project based on specific direction provided by the
Commission during the course of the discussion.
The Landmarks Commission reviewed the revised project at its December
10, 2007 meeting and determined that the applicant had made appropriate
revisions that served to enhance its compatibility with the District. The Commission approved the Certificate of
Appropriateness application by a vote of 4-1.
The majority of the Commission based its approval, in part, on the
following factors:
- The
project’s overall design concept is appropriately responsive to the
character of the District and its context on
- The
project’s restrained modern design, overall building form, low overall
building height, and articulated building volumes are harmonious and
compatible with the character of the District and with characteristics
found in the architecture of a variety of contributing structures in the
Historic District.
As a condition of approval, the Commission
required the applicant to work with the Landmarks Commission Secretary to
select a modified exterior paint color palette.
The full text of the Landmarks Commission’s
Statement of Official Action is presented as Attachment B. October
8, 2007 and December
10, 2007 staff reports and meeting minutes are presented as Attachments C
and D, respectively.
Appeal Summary
The appellants state
that the Landmarks Commission erred in its decision to approve the Certificate of
Appropriateness application. The following is a summary of the appellants’
statement; the full text of the appeal is contained in Attachment A:
·
The proposed project damages the character of
the District and violates the purpose for creating the District and the story
of an early
· The project does not comply with the criteria for issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness contained in SMMC Section 9.36.140.
·
The project is incompatible with the District’s
dominant architectural character found in its
· The Landmarks Commission failed to strictly apply the Third Street Neighborhood Historic District Design Guidelines in evaluating and approving the project and instead substituted its own criteria that new buildings should be “of their time”, a standard not included in the any standards or guidelines relevant to the District.
· The project’s massing, style, building shape, and materials do not complement the surrounding contributing structures in the District as required in the District Design Guidelines.
· The Landmarks Commission failed to apply the analysis of District character-defining features presented in a report prepared by a preservation consultant hired by some neighborhood residents.
The
City Council, in its review of this appeal, must determine whether the proposed
project for construction of a
new single-family residence on a non-contributing parcel meets the following criteria for issuance of a Certificate
of Appropriateness in the Third Street Neighborhood Historic District set forth
in SMMC Section 9.40.030 (c) (4):
That in the case of any proposed
construction of a new improvement on any parcel located within the District boundaries,
the exterior features of such new improvement and its placement on the property
would not adversely affect and not be disharmonious with the District character
as set forth in Section 9.36.290, and with the scale, materials and massing of
the contributing structures within the District.
Appeal
Analysis
Based on the full record to date, including testimony
and documentary evidence presented at Landmarks Commission public hearings,
there is ample support for the Commission’s decision to approve the Certificate
of Appropriateness. Therefore, staff
continues to recommend approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness as
detailed more fully in the staff reports provided for the Landmark Commission
hearings. The following discussion briefly describes the proposed project,
addresses the appellants’ key arguments, and also summarizes the basis for
staff’s determination.
Description of Project Design
The applicant proposes to demolish the existing
structures on site and construct a 2,365 square foot, two-story residence with
a roof deck. A detached two-car garage is proposed at the rear of the parcel at
the northwest corner.
All setbacks incorporated into the project
design meet zoning ordinance requirements for the OP-2 Zoning District. The height of the proposed residence is
20’-0” to the top of the flat roof and 23’-0” to the top of the clerestory
skylights that are stepped back from the primary, street-facing elevation. The maximum height permitted in the Zoning
District is 30’-0”.
The proposed two-story residence is composed
of two rectangular volumes clad in sand finish stucco and wood. Its design
reflects elements of the International style in accordance with the adopted
Ocean Park Neighborhood Development Guide which specifies that new construction
in the OP Zoning Districts must be designed in the following historical styles:
International style/modern, Craftsman bungalow, or Spanish Colonial
Revival/Mediterranean style.
The primary, street-facing elevation
features doors and windows framed in teak wood, a centrally-located second
floor balcony and a ground floor recessed primary entry. Fenestration on the primary elevation
consists of ground-floor windows divided into multiple panes a maximum of 2’-0”
wide and divided wrap-around windows on the second-story accented by a
reclaimed ponderosa pine eyebrow on the south volume.
A ponderosa pine screen has been
incorporated on the primary, street facing elevation adjacent to the main entry
in order to add texture and finer-grain detail to the sections of smooth stucco
on this elevation. This ponderosa screen also serves divide the expanse of
glass on the ground floor of the street-facing elevation.
The north volume features reclaimed
ponderosa pine vertical siding and an overlay of wood boards turned to a
90-degree angle forming a ‘bris-soleil’ type trellis
for plantings. This wood cladding wraps around from the primary, east-facing
elevation to the north elevation adjacent to the proposed driveway leading to
the garage sited at the rear of the parcel.
The applicant proposes an exterior stair on
the inside, northwest corner of the house. This stair has been set back as far
from the street as possible and has been designed so that the stair guardrail
is located below the roofline to entirely eliminate its visibility from the
street.
The south elevation features sand finish
stucco, aluminum framed fenestration and a horizontal ponderosa pine eyebrow
extending the above the second floor windows to the rear of the building.
A grass-crete
driveway is proposed on the north side of the parcel that would lead to a
two-car garage at the rear of the property.
This one-story structure is also proposed with a ponderosa pine trellis
element with plantings and a wooden garage door.
Historic
District Design Guidelines and
Certificate of Appropriateness Criteria
The appellants state the proposed project does not comply with the criteria for issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness contained in SMMC Section 9.36.140. All proposed work in the Third Street Neighborhood Historic District is subject to the procedures and criteria established in SMMC Chapter 9.40. It is important to note that SMMC Chapter 9.40 provides criteria specifically-tailored to the context of the Historic District in order to evaluate different types of projects that require a Certificate of Appropriateness in the Third Street District. For such projects, these criteria must be used in lieu of the findings applicable to properties located outside of the Third Street Historic District established in SMMC Chapter 9.36 cited by the appellants.
The criteria relevant to the proposed project specifies that, “in the case of any proposed construction of a new improvement on any parcel located within the District boundaries, the exterior features of such new improvement and its placement on the property would not adversely affect and not be disharmonious with the District character as set forth in Section 9.36.290, and with the scale, materials and massing of the contributing structures within the District.”
While this criterion for issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness in the Third Street Neighborhood Historic District does not require consistency with the District Design Guidelines, the Guidelines are still relevant. The Guidelines should be used to assist in the assessment of whether the applicable finding can be made. In this instance, the Design Guidelines were used to help assess whether the project is compatible with the character of the District and with the scale, massing, and materials of Contributing Structures in the District in accordance with the applicable Certificate of Appropriateness criterion for new construction described above.
The appellants’
state that the Commission failed to strictly apply the Third Street
Neighborhood Historic District Design Guidelines, and that the project’s massing, style, building shape,
and materials do not complement the surrounding contributing structures in the
District as required in the District
Design Guidelines.
In contrast to the appellants’ assertion, the following presents a discussion of how staff and the Commission both found that the proposed project does, indeed, meet the required Certificate of Appropriateness criterion for new construction and also complies with District Design Guidelines.
Analysis
of Project Design
The way in which the new building visually relates to adjacent properties is an important aspect of staff review of new construction in the Third Street Neighborhood Historic District. A new building constructed in a historic district should respect and not detrimentally impact the character of the District. Compatibility is achieved by identifying and incorporating elements found in the historic district into the design of the new structure.
The goal is not
to imitate or duplicate a historic building, thereby creating a false sense of
history, but to construct a new building that is compatible with its
surroundings. In this instance, the
project site is located on the west side of Second Street; this portion of the
District presents a different visual experience in comparison to other sections
of the District which possess a more significant concentration of contributing
structures thereby creating a more cohesive sense of the District’s historic
context. A photo montage of the east
and a west side of
For proposed
new construction, the Third Street Neighborhood Historic District Guidelines
state that “new buildings should be
carefully designed to complement and not overwhelm the surrounding historic
buildings” and suggest the following four criteria:
·
Use exterior materials traditionally found in the
·
Maintain setbacks, heights, and overall building
shapes that are similar to surrounding contributing buildings in the historic district.
·
Use windows and architectural details at the street
level to create a pedestrian scale and a “neighbor-friendly” character.
·
Include a clearly defined main entrance that is
oriented toward the street. Parking should be at the rear of the property.”
Compatibility with the Character of the District –
Scale and Massing
While the appellants state that the project is
incompatible with the District’s dominant architectural character found its
California bungalows, the District does, in fact, possesses a variety of
architectural styles that are described in both the section of the Municipal
Code that addresses the character of the District (SMMC 9.36.290), as well as
in the District Design Guidelines. Both of these describe the Third Street
Neighborhood Historic District as possessing architectural significance to
The criterion for issuance of a
Certificate of Appropriateness for new construction states that the project
must be compatible with the scale, materials, and massing of contributing
structures. No where in this language is a requirement that
Furthermore, many Contributing Structures in the District are two-story structures
including 231 Hill Street, 245 Hill Street, 2627 3rd Street, 2637 Third Street,
and 2614 Second Street, and it is
appropriate to allow two stories on this property, provided that the design of
the proposed structure does not overwhelm nearby contributing properties.
Therefore, it is appropriate to state that the proposed project’s
setbacks, simple rectangular volumes, flat roof, and low scale (20’-0”) are
characteristics that are consistent with the architecture of contributing
structures in the Historic District.
Specifically, the project’s overall building form, low overall building
height and articulated building volumes are harmonious with the contributing structures
that exhibit American Colonial Revival and Spanish Colonial Revival
architecture (
Furthermore, the project design relates harmoniously to its
placement within the historic district in that non-contributing parcels are
adjacent to the subject property an site planning for the project incorporates
sensitivity to the adjacent parcel to the south which is currently vacant but
has been approved for a new 30’-0” tall two-story residence. The tallest
portions of the proposed project comprised of the clerestory skylight stepped
back from the street are sited adjacent to this parcel; the proposed project’s
driveway is adjacent to the parcels to the north which consist of a surface
parking lot and two, one-story structures.
Compatibility with the Character of the District –
Materials and Architectural Details
The proposed project design incorporates extensive use of
wood and stucco materials such as sand finish stucco, teakwood framed
fenestration, and use of reclaimed ponderosa pine wood screens on the primary, street-facing
and north elevations. This is consistent with the materials traditionally found
in many of contributing structures in the District that are comprised of
California Bungalow, Spanish Colonial Revival, and American Colonial Revival
architectural styles.
The proposed project incorporates carefully selected
architectural elements that complement and reflect the District’s character
while also creating an understated backdrop for the historic architecture in
the District. The project incorporates
extensive wood architectural screen and trellis elements that create a
neighbor-friendly character and also reflect in a contemporary but respectful
and compatible manner the traditional wood cladding found in the District’s
The project also design incorporates extensive
multi-pane fenestration that echoes the proportions and type of details found
in the District’s historic
District Design Guidelines for new construction state
that projects should include a clearly defined main entrance that is oriented
toward the street and that should be at the rear of the property. Accordingly,
the project design incorporates a clearly defined main entrance that faces the
street and is flanked by wood accents and a detached accessory garage is
proposed at the rear of the property.
Based on the whole of the record, staff recommends
that the City Council uphold the Landmarks Commission’s approval of Certificate
of Appropriateness application 07CA-009 for approval to demolish the existing
non-contributing structure on site and construct a new, single-family residence
at 2642 Second Street, a non-contributing parcel located in the Third Street
Neighborhood Historic District.
Alternatives
As an alternative to the staff recommendation, the Council may
consider the following with respect to the pending appeal if supported by the
full evidentiary records:
1.
Denying the Appeal.
2.
Remanding the application to the Landmarks Commission
for reconsideration.
Environmental Analysis
The
project is categorically exempt from the provisions of California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303, Class 3 and Section 15331, Class
31 of the State Implementation Guidelines in that the project consists of the
construction of a new single family residence and designed in a manner
consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of
Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring,
and Reconstructing Historic Buildings (1995), Weeks and Grimmer.
Public Outreach
As required by the Municipal Code, the
Third Street Neighborhood Citizen’s Participation Committee (CPC) was notified
of the application for and appeal of the Certificate of Appropriateness,
including notice of all hearings.
Additionally, this hearing has been noticed with on-site posting and
mailed notice of hearing as required in SMMC Sub-section 9.40.040(b).
Financial Impacts & Budget Actions
The recommendation presented in this report does not have any budget or fiscal impact.
Prepared
by:
Roxanne Tanemori,
AICP, Associate Planner
|
Approved: |
|
Forwarded to Council: |
|
|
|
|
|
Eileen P. Fogarty Director,
Planning and Community Development |
|
P. City Manager |
Attachments
A.
Appellants’
Appeal Statement
B.
Landmarks
Commission Statement of Official Action, December 10, 2007
C.
Landmarks
Commission Minutes, October 8, 2007 and December 10, 2007
D.
Landmarks
Commission Staff Reports and Hearing Submittals, October 8, 2007 and December
10, 2007
E.
Property
Owners’ Statement Regarding the Appeal and Project Plans and Renderings
ATTACHMENT
A
Appellants’
Appeal Statement
Electronic version of attachment is not
available for review. Document is
available for review at the City Clerk’s Office and the Libraries.
ATTACHMENT B
Landmarks Commission Statement of
Official Action
LANDMARKS
COMMISSION
OF THE CITY
OF
STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL ACTION
PROJECT
SUBJECT: LC-07CA-009
ADDRESS:
APPLICANT: Mark R. Gorman and Beth Burns
REQUEST: Application for a
Certificate of Appropriateness for approval to demolish a Non-Contributing Structure
on the property at
LANDMARKS COMMISSION ACTION
12/10/2007 Date
X Approved based on
the following findings and subject to the conditions below.
___ Denied
___ Other
EFFECTIVE DATE OF ACTION
12/20/2007 Certificate of Appropriateness
LC-07CA-009
EXPIRATION DATE OF PERMIT GRANTED
12/20/2008 Certificate of Appropriateness
LC-07CA-009
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FINDINGS (SMMC 9.40.030)
1.
The
proposed project is included within the list of work enumerated in SMMC Section
9.40.020 (d) (4).
2.
As conditioned herein, the exterior features of the proposed
new improvement on a parcel located within the Third Street Neighborhood
Historic District boundaries and its placement on the property would not
adversely affect and would not be disharmonious with the District character as
set forth in Section 9.36.290, and with the scale, materials and massing of the
contributing structures within the District in that the scale, massing, volume
and materials proposed in the two-story single-family residence are consistent
with the District’s intention that new structures should respect the
neighborhood’s historic scale and character. The proposed demolition of the
Non-Contributing structures on the parcel would also not adversely affect the
character of the District since the existing structures were constructed in
1953 and do not contribute to the District’s period of significance. The
proposed new construction relates harmoniously to its placement within the
historic district as described in the Third Street Neighborhood Historic
District Design Guidelines and Landscape Survey which advises that
infill buildings should “maintain setbacks, heights, and overall building
shapes that are similar to surrounding contributing buildings in the Historic
District.” Many Contributing Structures in the District are two-story
structures including 231 Hill Street, 245 Hill Street, 2627 3rd
Street, 2637 Hill Street, 2614 2nd Street, and it is appropriate to
allow two stories on this property, provided that the design of the proposed
structure does not overwhelm nearby contributing properties. The maximum height
of the proposed residence is 23’-0” in height with the maximum height of the
street-facing façade at 20’-0”.
Furthermore, the adjacent parcel to the south is currently vacant but has
been approved for a new 30’-0” tall two-story residence; the tallest portions
of the proposed project comprised of the clerestory skylight stepped back from
the street are sited adjacent to this parcel. The parcels to the north consist
of a surface parking lot and two one-story structures.
While the District possesses a variety of architectural styles, the
project’s simple rectangular volumes, flat roof, and low scale are
characteristic in the architecture of other Contributing Structures in the
Historic District. Specifically, the
project’s restrained modern design, overall building form, low overall building
height and articulated building volumes are harmonious with the examples of
American Colonial Revival and Spanish Colonial Revival architecture (
The District’s character includes exterior materials of wood and stucco
traditionally found in many of the Contributing Structures, and these materials
are reflected in the project’s extensive use of wood and stucco materials such
as sand finish stucco, teakwood framed fenestration, and use of reclaimed wood
screens that reflect in a contemporary but respectful and compatible manner the
traditional wood cladding found in the District’s architecture. The use of compatible exterior materials of
wood and stucco, characteristic of the District, is also consistent with the Third
Street Neighborhood Historic District Design Guidelines and
Landscape Survey.
The District’s character is also defined by the use of “numerous
windows to provide views and to merge the interior and exterior landscapes,” as
stated in
Section 9.36.290 which sets forth
aspects of the District’s character. The Third Street
Neighborhood Historic District Design Guidelines and
Landscape Survey also advises that new
construction shall use “windows and architectural details at the street level
to create a pedestrian scale and a ‘neighbor-friendly’ character.” The project incorporates extensive multi-pane
fenestration that echoes the proportions and type of details found in the
District, provides a connection between the interior and exterior landscape as
well as provides visual interest as viewed from the street. Further, the District
Design Guidelines advises that new construction should “include a clearly
defined main entrance that is oriented toward the street,” and that “parking
should be at the rear of the property.”
The project complies with these guidelines as the main entrance faces
the street and the project’s horizontal and vertical design elements define the
main entrance. A detached accessory
garage to house parking is located at the rear of the property.
Finally, the project’s overall design concept has been carefully
developed to be compatible with the scale, materials, and massing of the
Contributing Structures within the District.
The project design also incorporates carefully selected architectural
elements and materials that complement and reflect the District’s character
while also creating an understated backdrop for the historic architecture in
the District.
Based on the
foregoing, the proposed project is consistent with the Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, and with the guidelines
set forth in the Third Street Neighborhood Historic District Design
Guidelines and Landscape Survey.
CONDITIONS
1.
This
approval is for the plans dated November 1, 2007 and December 1, 2007 (north
elevation only) which are on file in the City Planning Division.
2.
Prior
to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit for review and
approval to the Landmarks Commission Secretary a revised exterior building
color palette.
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
9.36.170(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 9.36.250 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.
All
required Planning and Building Permit approvals shall be obtained.
5.
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.
VOTE:
Ayes: Bach,
Berley, Kaplan, Fresco
Nays:
Abstain: Genser (recused)
Absent: Lehrer
NOTICE
If this is a final decision not subject to
further appeal under the City of
I hereby certify that this Statement of Official
Action accurately reflects the final determination of the Landmarks Commission
of the City of
_ ____________________
Nina Fresco, Chairperson Date
ATTACHMENT C
Landmarks
Commission Minutes, October 8, 2007 and December 10, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
MINUTES |
|
|
|
|
|
REGULAR MEETING OF THE LANDMARKS COMMISSION Founded 1875 “Populus felix in urbe felici” |
|
|
|
|
Monday, October 8, 2007 7:00 PM |
City Council Chambers, Room 213 |
|
|
|
CALL TO ORDER OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE LANDMARKS COMMISSION: The meeting was called to order at 7:02 pm.
1.
ROLL
CALL: Present: Margaret Bach
John Berley
Roger Genser
Nina Fresco, Chairperson
Barbara Kaplan, Chair Pro Tempore
Ruthann Lehrer
Ruth Shari
Also Present: Kevin McKeown, City Council Liaison
Susan Umeda, Staff Assistant III
2.
REPORT
FROM STAFF:
Ms. Tanemori presented updates on upcoming City Council agenda items. She also provided the Commission with additional information regarding the Citywide Update noting that 32 properties were submitted as a result of the summer’s outreach to the community regarding potentially significant buildings.
Chair Fresco asked staff if an “urban design plan” will be created in conjunction with the Land Use and Circulation Element Update. Ms. Tanemori responded that part of the work plan for fiscal year 2007/2008 does include preparation of an urban design principles guide for new development, though the format has not yet been fully developed. Staff will keep the Commission informed about progress on this document.
3. COMMISSIONER ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Commissioner Lehrer announced that the Santa Monica Conservancy will conduct a workshop on October 28, 2007 at John Zinner’s home; the workshop will address the topic of sustainability and historic homes.
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
4-A. September 10, 2007
The Commission made several corrections to the September 10, 2007 minutes. Commissioner Lehrer made a motion to approve the minutes with corrections. Commissioner Genser seconded the motion. The motion was approved by voice vote with Commissioner Berley abstaining.
5. APPROVAL OF STATEMENTS OF OFFICIAL ACTION:
5-A. Landmark Designation Application, 06LM-009, 200–1500 block
of
The following members of the
public addressed the Commission: Jerry Rubin, who expressed his approval of the
designation.
Commissioner Bach submitted
suggested alternative language to the Findings and Determination to the
Commission. She stated that the
designation was very important and the Findings and Determination should
capture the true extent of the significance of the park. Therefore, she presented the Commission with
suggested alternative language to clarify the significance of the park.
Chair Fresco stated that the
suggested alternative language did not appear to change the substance of the
draft findings prepared by staff. Chair Fresco
asked Commissioner Bach if the suggested alternative language only eliminated
redundancies and smoothed out of the language.
Commissioner Bach gave examples of the changes that she had suggested.
Commissioner Lehrer noted
that both the Findings and Determination and the suggestions made by
Commissioner Bach were very well drafted.
Commissioner Lehrer asked staff if the Parks and Recreation Commission
approved the findings. Ms. Tanemori responded that the findings were drafted based on
the Commission’s discussion during the September 10, 2007 meeting and feedback
from staff representing the owner of the park.
Commissioner Genser commented that the suggested alternative language
may have left out some important details such as information regarding the
early history of the park. Commissioner
Bach responded that the language suggest the evolution of the park over time.
In regard to Finding 3,
Commissioner Bach asked if the Commission should be strict about the use of the
word “architects.” Chair Pro Tempore
Kaplan suggested that “architects” should be replaced with “architects and
craftsmen.”
Commissioner Bach made
several minor corrections to Finding 6.
Commissioner Lehrer made a
motion to approve the Landmark Designation application 06LM-009 for
5-B. Certificate of Appropriateness Application 07CA-008,
Ms. Tanemori
made a correction to the vote on the Findings and Determination.
Chair Pro Tempore Kaplan
made a motion to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness application
07CA-008 for
6. PUBLIC INPUT: (On items not on agenda and within the jurisdiction of the Commission)
The following
members of the public addressed the Commission, Jerry Rubin, Susan Hartley, and
Scott Smith. All of the members of the
public spoke about the status of the lodged landmark application for the ficus trees located on the public parkway between
7. CONSENT CALENDAR: None.
8. OLD BUSINESS:
8-A. Landmark Designation Application, 07LM-004,
9. NEW BUSINESS/PUBLIC HEARINGS:
9-A. Review of Demolition Permits and Consideration Whether to
File an Application for Designation of a Structure as a City Landmark or
Structure of Merit.
The Commission made ex parte communication disclosures.
Commissioner Berley made a motion to discuss 9-A.1, 9-A.2 and 9-A.3 as
one item. The motion was approved by
voice vote.
1.
C3-C – Downtown Overlay
Structure Identified in Historic Resources Inventory
(Continued from the September 10, 2007 meeting)
The following members of the
public addressed the Commission: Derek Jones, Wende
Goode, Bill Boehringer, Brad Goode and Teresa
Grimes. Mr. Jones, Ms. Goode and Ms. Grimes
stated that the consultant’s report overstated Waterman Aviation’s connection
to the site. Mr. Boehringer
stated that the structure was architecturally insignificant. Mr. Goode asked the Commission to allow the
redevelopment of the property.
Commissioner Genser asked Mr. Boehringer if he
had knowledge that the properties were on the Historic Resources
Inventory. Mr. Boehringer
responded in the affirmative.
Commissioner Genser noted that the buildings are contributors to a
potential historic district. Ms. Grimes
noted that the preliminary report focused on Waldo Waterman, not on whether the
structures were contributors to a potential historic district.
Chair Pro Tempore Kaplan noted
the site was significant because of its ties to early automobile culture in
A discussion was held
regarding the historical significance of the site in connection to Mr. Waterman
and the architectural integrity of the three buildings; the majority of the
Commissioners did not support the nomination.
No action taken.
C3-C – Downtown Overlay
Structure Identified in Historic Resources Inventory
(Continued from the September 10, 2007 meeting)
Discussion held. No action taken.
3.
C3-C – Downtown Overlay
Structure Identified in Historic Resources Inventory
(Continued from the September 10, 2007 meeting)
Discussion held. No action taken.
4. 829 Broadway (07PC1130)
BCD – Broadway Commercial
Structure Not Identified in
Historic Resources Inventory
(Continued from the September 10, 2007 meeting)
Commissioner Bach stated
that the Quonset hut as a property type appeared to have potential as a
Landmark. However, she also stated that the
significance of the Quonset hut was not site specific. She noted that the Quonset hut was once a
part of
Chair Fresco noted that the
location of the Quonset hut may not be appropriate for the downtown area.
Commissioner Lehrer noted
that the structure was a fairly intact example of a Quonset hut. Additionally, she stated that the structure
could be relocated to another location.
Commissioner Shari noted
that it would be better to revitalize the downtown commercial district with new
projects rather than preserve the Quonset hut.
Commissioner Genser noted that the Quonset hut was a wonderful structure
because the architecture of the hut could be seen as an early example of a
Frank Gehry building type building.
Commissioner Bach noted the
Quonset hut was a cultural artifact.
Commissioner Lehrer stated
that the Commission should consider a Structure of Merit designation as would
be less onerous to the owner. She stated
that the consultant’s report did not address the context of the structure to
similar structures in the City.
Chair Fresco made a motion
to nominate the structure on 829 Broadway as a City Landmark and to direct the
consultants to address the issues discussed during this meeting. Chair Pro Tempore Kaplan seconded the motion.
A roll call was held for the
motion to designate the structure on 829 Broadway as a City Landmark and was
approved by the following vote:
AYES:
Bach, Fresco, Genser, Kaplan, Lehrer
NAYS: Berley,
5.
R1 – Single Family
Residential
Recreation Room & Carpet
at Rear of
Structure Not Identified in
Historic Resources Inventory
No action taken.
6.
OP-2 –
Single Family Residence,
Garage, and Shack
Structure Not Identified in
Historic Resources Inventory
No action taken.
7.
R-2 – Low Density Multiple
Residential
Garage, Wood Shed and
Detached Rear Unit
Structure Identified in Historic Resources Inventory
(Main residence was designated as a City Landmark on December 9, 2002.
Structures located at rear of the parcel to be demolished are non-contributing
structures.)
No action taken.
8.
LMSD – Light Manufacturing
and Studio
Structure Not Identified in
Historic Resources Inventory
Chair Pro Tempore Kaplan
stated that
Chair Pro Tempore Kaplan noted
that SCI-Arc was associated with significant architects such as Ray Kappe and Thom Mayne.
Commissioner Lehrer noted
that she felt the building was on the cutting edge of modernism; therefore,
further investigation was warranted.
Commissioner Berley made a motion to continue this item and for staff to
provide additional information on this site.
Chair Pro Tempore Kaplan seconded the motion. The motion was approved by voice vote.
LMSD – Light Manufacturing
and Studio
Structure Not Identified in
Historic Resources Inventory
Discussion held. Commissioner Bach made a motion to continue
this item and for staff to provide additional information on this site since it
was not clear which building on the three parcels was associated with
SCI-Arc. Commissioner Lehrer seconded
the motion. The motion was approved by
voice vote; Commissioner Genser did not vote in favor of
the motion.
10. 3025 Olympic Boulevard (07PC1241)
LMSD – Light Manufacturing
and Studio
Structure Not Identified in
Historic Resources Inventory
Discussion held. Commissioner Bach made a motion to continue
this item and for staff to provide additional information on this site since it
was not clear which building on the three parcels was associated with
SCI-Arc. Commissioner Lehrer seconded
the motion. The motion was approved by
voice vote; Commissioner Genser did not vote in favor
of the motion.
11.
R-2 – Low Density Multiple
Residential
Single Family Structure,
4-Unit Apartment and Garage
Structure Not Identified in
Historic Resources Inventory
No action taken.
9-B. Certificate of Appropriateness Application 07CA-010, 1685 Main
Street, for approval of a new exterior elevator shaft, one-story electrical
room, and other exterior modifications including addition of a new door and
accessibility ramp at the courtyard and rear elevations of City Hall, a
designated City Landmark.
The Commission made ex parte communication disclosures.
Ms. Tanemori
presented the staff report. Staff
recommended that the Commission approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for
Commissioner Lehrer asked
staff how the exterior color will relate to the existing color of City
Hall. Ms. Tanemori
responded that the color will match City Hall.
Commissioner Lehrer asked if the Office of Historic Preservation (OHP)
made any comments about the window replacement.
Ms. Tanemori responded that the OHP made
preliminary comments about the interior rehabilitation of the former jail cell
wing; however, she had not yet reviewed the comments. Ms. Tanemori added
that staff reviewed the in-kind window replacements and determined that the
approach was consistent with the Certificate of Appropriateness that was
approved in 2002 for in-kind replacement windows on primary elevations of the
building.
Commissioner Berley asked staff if the in-kind replacement windows would
look the same as the ones that were already installed. Ms. Tanemori
responded that staff recommended that the windows be as close as possible to
the existing windows.
The following members of the
public addressed the Commission: Alex Parry, Civil Engineering Associate at
EPWM Civil Engineering and Architecture. Mr. Parry gave a presentation
regarding the proposed project.
Chair Pro Tempore Kaplan
asked Mr. Parry why Title 24 (related to energy efficiency standards) needs to
be satisfied in this case since it’s an historic building. She also inquired
about the replacement windows proposed for the project. Mr. Parry responded the City would like to
obtain a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rating for City
Hall; therefore, the performance of the building must be brought up to a
certain standard.
Commissioner Berley responded that the State Historic Preservation
Office is interested in finding ways to bring historic resources as close as
possible to compliance with energy efficiency standards without the loss of historic
fabric. If the windows were to be
replaced, Commissioner Berley noted that the
Commission would need to decide that request would significantly change the
integrity of City Hall.
Commissioner Bach asked Mr.
Parry to describe the detail the connection point between the new stair tower
and the existing building. Mr. Parry
responded that there are two places where the new elevator shaft would touch
the existing building. Commissioner Bach
asked Mr. Parry to describe the finish of the proposed stucco and if any other
exterior materials were considered. Mr.
Parry responded that the stucco will have a steel-trowelled
finish; he stated that cast and place concrete, pre-cast concrete and metal
panels were also considered. Commissioner Bach suggested that the metal reveal
proposed as a separation between the new addition and the existing City Hall
building should be used on the north and south sides of the stair tower.
Chair Pro Tempore Kaplan
asked Mr. Parry how staff will ensure quality control with a design-built
project. Mr. Parry responded that the
building will be design-bid-build and that the City has in-house architectural
staff who will oversee the project.
Chair Pro Tempore Kaplan asked Mr. Parry to describe the historical
oversight process during construction.
Mr. Parry stated that he had never worked with a historic oversight
consultant and described the oversight process that will be used during the
construction of the project. Chair Pro
Tempore Kaplan stated that someone whose main concern is oversight should be
retained since the historic oversight consultant will be unwilling to make
compromises because of cost. Mr. Parry
responded that if the retention of a historic oversight consultant is required
to complete the project, one will be retained.
Commissioner Bach asked Mr.
Parry to elaborate on the connection of the proposed temporary building and the
elevator shaft. Mr. Parry responded that
the footprint of the new building is unknown at this point; however he
described some of the schematic approaches that could be considered if the
temporary building moves forward in the future.
Chair Pro Tempore Kaplan
stated that the new temporary building should be separated from the existing
building. Mr. Parry responded if the new
building was separate from the existing one, the programmatic needs of City
Hall would not be met because the footprint of the temporary building would be
too small.
Commissioner Berley asked Mr. Parry if every top-third glazed element
would use spandrel glass. Mr. Parry
described the location of the kinds of glass that will be used for the
project.
Commissioner Berley stated that the color of the glass should be a grey
or bronze tone; the spandrel condition should be reconsidered as well as it
will affect the color of the glass. He
also stated that there should not be any differentiation between the hand rails
on the ramps and the guard rails at the top of the deck. In regard to the doors, Commissioner Berley stated that all of the doors should be painted
white. Commissioner Berley also stated that the
proposed horizontal banding should wrap around the corners of the electrical
room and that the six-inch metal reveal that is on the north side of the
building stair tower should be used on the south side of the building as well.
Commissioner Bach asked the
Commission if the color of the project should be differentiated from City
Hall. Chair Pro Tempore Kaplan responded
that the color should match.
Commissioner Lehrer stated
that the windows which were installed in conjunction with the 2002 approval
gave City Hall a different appearance and were not an in-kind replacement of
the original windows. She also stated that the OHP supports retaining original
windows if possible and that energy efficiency could be addressed in various
ways other than replacing historic windows.
She stated that staff should address this issue by carefully selecting
in-kind replacement windows or restoring the historic windows.
Chair Fresco stated that the
railings on the deck should be similar to the ones that are currently used at
the steps on City Hall. She also stated
that the scoring on the stucco surface should continue to be very simple. Chair Fresco stated that the wall of glass
would not relate to the building. She
noted that a row of windows would be lost during the construction of the
project; she asked staff if the structure could be moved south to preserve the
windows. Mr. Parry responded that the
structure would not comply with code if the structure is moved to the south.
Ms. Tanemori
noted that the original windows have a wire netting on the glass since this was
a former jail; the replacement would not have netting. Ms. Tanemori asked
the Commission if their discussion of “in-kind” replacement windows also
included the installation of wire netting.
Commissioner Lehrer stated that in-kind replacement with the wire would
protect the original character of the building.
Since three historic windows
will be lost, Commissioner Bach asked staff if these windows will be retained
and saved. Mr. Parry responded that the
original windows are not currently installed in City Hall since they were
replaced when the former Police Department building was demolished.
Commissioner Berley made a motion to approve the Certificate of
Appropriateness based upon the design modifications as outlined during this
meeting and that the in-kind window replacement come before the Commission as a
separate Certificate of Appropriateness with a clear outline of the cost and
benefits of restoring the original windows versus replacing them in-kind. Commissioner Bach seconded the motion.
A roll call was held for the
motion and was approved with the following vote:
AYES:
Bach, Berley, Genser, Fresco, Kaplan, Lehrer, Shari
9-C. Certificate of Appropriateness Application 07CA-009,
Commissioner Genser recused himself as he owns
property within 500 feet of
The Commission made ex-parte communication disclosures.
Ms. Tanemori
presented the staff report. Staff
recommended that the Commission approve the Certificate of Appropriateness
The following members of the
public addressed the Commission: Mark Gorman (applicant), Linda Taalman (project architect), Karen Blechman,
Maria Godfrey, Jim Bianco, Bea Nemlaha,
Larry Graber, Tony Haig, and Howard Robinson.
Mr. Robinson (applicant representative) gave the rebuttal to public
testimony; Ms. Taalman made a presentation to the
Commission regarding the project; and Mr. Graber presented the report from the
Citizen Participation Committee (CPC).
Two members of the public
supported the project; the remaining speakers opposed it.
Commissioner Lehrer asked
Ms. Taalman to discuss the suggestions made by the
CPC. Ms. Taalman
described the changes that were made to the project after the first CPC meeting
in July.
Chair Fresco noted that no
one at the CPC expressed their approval or disapproval of the project. Chair Fresco stated her own opinion of the
structure: [1] there is too much flat glass; multi-pane windows would reflect
the district better; [2] the south side of the structure does not have enough
openings; [3] the skylight element is industrial -- a low-flat roof without the
skylight element would be preferable; [4] the upper level should be secondary
to the lower level; and [5] one type of wood should be used.
Commissioner Lehrer stated
that the architecture was beautiful and would make a strong statement; however,
the strong design would probably threaten the integrity of the district. She stated that the Commission must consider
how this project would fit into the Third Street Neighborhood Historic District
and whether more contemporary manifestations of district character is an
approach the Commission wants to endorse versus more traditional interpretations.
Commissioner Berley stated that the Commission is evaluating how new
buildings in a district can be a good ‘neighbor’. He stated that the Commission should first
consider whether good architecture has been presented. He noted that the project has been designed
sensitively, has a modesty that is encouraging, and expresses its time.
Commissioner Berley recommended that the Commission
move forward with this design. The
appropriate scale for a new building is always going to be examined carefully
on a case by case basis.
Commissioner Bach made a
motion to continue past 11:00 pm.
Commissioner Lehrer seconded the motion which was approved by voice
vote.
In regard to the size and
height of the project, Chair Pro Tempore Kaplan stated that this project was
better than structures which already exist on that particular block. She also stated that the scale and design
movements were extremely well executed and skillfully applied references to the
district context have been incorporated in a modern vocabulary. However, the height and the expression of the
skylight might raise an issue of incompatibility with the district. She noted that the architect should modify
the saw-tooth skylight on the roof, which is a more industrial expression. She
also suggested that the architects look more closely at the height of the stair
tower. She noted that this project would
be acceptable in terms of its scale if a few modifications were made to the
verticality emphasized on the rooftop.
Commissioner Bach stated she
spent time in the district and recognized that there are ‘micro-climates’ in
the district in terms of its character.
She stated that she lost track of the district character on
Chair Pro Tempore Kaplan
reiterated that, in terms of evaluating appropriate scale for the neighborhood,
she previously voted against the project next door because of the design’s
oversized scale and massing.
Commissioner Shari noted
that new construction is a problem in a historic district; a 1,200 square foot
structure is too small for a modern residence.
Therefore, she noted that the scale of new construction would not
reflect the typical square footage found in the historic homes in the
neighborhood. She also noted that it
would be unrealistic to expect a new craftsman bungalow, Spanish or American
revival to be built in the district. She
stated that she supports the project; however a slightly modified design could
improve it. She also stated that the CPC
should review the project again.
Chair Fresco stated that she
could not support the project without changes to the design.
Commissioner Lehrer stated
that the project does not meet the compatibility standards of the district even
though the design is beautiful.
Commissioner Lehrer noted that there is an opportunity to do something
in the current design that references the contributing buildings on
Chair Fresco stated that a
contemporary building which reflects the scale and does not try to mimic the
style of authentic buildings in the district would enhance the look and feel of
the district.
Chair Pro Tempore Kaplan noted
that the elements on the roof should be more modest.
Commissioner Bach made a
motion to reopen the public hearing to review with Ms. Taalman
the changes that need to be made.
Commissioner Berley seconded the motion which
was approved by voice vote.
Ms. Taalman
asked the Commission to clarify the height restriction; she noted that part of
the building is actually subterranean from the street level. She noted that she might be able to modify
the saw tooth; she stated that she may not be able to move the stair bulkhead
of the building.
Commissioner Berley stated that the access to the roof could be
modified. Chair Pro Tempore Kaplan
stated that there might be a way to split the roof deck. Ms. Taalman stated
that some of the ceiling heights are currently 7’-6” high; code requirements
state that 7’-6” is the minimum interior ceiling height.
Commissioner Berley suggested that staff should work with applicant to
discuss the changes recommended. Ms. Tanemori stated that she has noted all of the comments made
during this meeting.
Commissioner Bach made a
motion to continue this item to the November 12, 2007 meeting. Commissioner Shari seconded the motion which
was approved by voice vote.
10. DISCUSSION ITEMS:
10-B. Discussion regarding timeframes, procedures, and outreach to residents concerning potential nomination of a Historic District in the South Beach Tract neighborhood (approximately bounded by Hollister Avenue, Ocean Park Boulevard, Barnard Way, and Neilson Way), including a report from the ad-hoc subcommittee of Commissioners formed to make recommendations on this matter.
Continued to November 12, 2007.
10-C. Report from City Council Liaison to the Landmarks Commission on recent City Council actions related to appeals, development projects, planning policy studies and ordinances related to the City’s historic resources, and information concerning future City Council agendas.
City Council Liaison McKeown reported on the appeals that will come before the City Council. He also reported that the City is working on a tree canopy preservation ordinance; the Landmark ordinance may not be the instrument in which to preserve trees.
City Council Liaison McKeown noted that the Social Services Commission received a report about the history of the Pico neighborhood; it addresses the economic, cultural and architectural history of the Pico neighborhood.
10-D. Report from Landmarks Commission Liaison to the Architectural Review Board (ARB) on recent ARB consideration and action taken on proposed projects involving additions to or modifications of potential historic resources.
Commissioner Berley reported that the ARB did not review any items that would concern the Landmarks Commission.
10-E. Discussion and potential formulation of comments regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Report and its treatment of historic resources for the High Place Affordable Housing Development Project.
Chair Pro Tempore Kaplan recused herself because her employer was involved in reviewing the report.
Commissioner Bach noted that she did not visit the site but read the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). She stated that there should be some archival effort to capture the evolution of neighborhood.
Chair Fresco asked Commissioner Bach if she would recommend that the EIR record the neighborhood photographically. Commissioner Bach responded in the affirmative.
Commissioner Lehrer asked Commissioner Bach if she wanted more research regarding the history of the neighborhood or just architectural documentation. Commissioner Bach responded that the EIR should have more information on the architectural, social, cultural and economic fabric of the community; part of the mitigation might include a contextual statement of the history of the neighborhood in relation to the evolution of the City.
Commissioner
Bach made a motion to request a mitigation measure which would involve
photographic documentation and a historical summary of the role and importance
of the neighborhood in the history of
10-F. Discussion and potential formulation of
comments regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Report and its treatment of
historic resources for the
Chair
Fresco stated that the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was incorrect; the EIR
stated that there will be limited impact to historic resources if the project
commences. Chair Fresco noted that the
EIR does not refer to the Lido Apartments and the
Commissioner
Lehrer noted that there is a very strong historic context at the project site;
the structure is a significant building because it is a period piece and was
originally used for a market which was a prototype of the modern
supermarket. Commissioner Lehrer stated
that this building played an important part of the social history of
Commissioner Bach suggested that a plaque acknowledging the history of the site could be included in the mitigation.
Commissioner Bach made a motion to request mitigation for the loss of this resource by the erection of a plaque or some sort of acknowledgement to the history of the site. Commissioner Lehrer seconded the motion which was approved by voice vote.
10-G. Discussion and formulation of potential recommendations to the City Council regarding a proposed policy and possible strategies to conserve the City’s private tree canopy.
Continued to November 12, 2007.
10-H. Discussion and potential recommendations from the landmarks Commission to City Staff or City Council regarding potential Municipal Code or City Charter revisions to allow condominium conversions of City Landmark designated multi-family rental units and/or designated commercial non-residential buildings and the potential for ownership of these rental properties.
Continued to November 12, 2007.
10-I. Discussion and potential formulation of recommendations to
City staff to forward to the City Council regarding annual Landmark Designation
Application fee increases.
Continued to November 12, 2007.
10-J. Discussion regarding a resident’s request for the City to
install a plaque to commemorate the Third Street Neighborhood Historic
District.
Continued to November 12, 2007.
10-K. Planning Commission Case List (Information Only).
11. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None.
12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS: (Requests from Commissioners to add items to upcoming agendas)
Chair Fresco noted that the future agenda items should include items continued from this evening’s meeting.
Commissioner Bach asked to agendize the approach to use to erect plaques on historic structures.
Commissioner
Lehrer asked to agendize a discussion of downtown
buildings with a high level of significance such as the Keller Block. Ms. Tanemori
reported that the following landmark applications are pending:
Chair Fresco suggested that the Landmarks Commission hold a special meeting to catch up on pending items.
13.
NEXT
MEETING DATE AND COMMISSION AGENDA: Regular Meeting: 7:00 PM Monday,
November 12, 2007; City
14. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Genser made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 11:49 pm. Commissioner Shari seconded the motion which was approved by voice vote.
ATTACHMENT D
Landmarks
Commission
October
8, 2007 and December 10, 2007
M E M O R A N D U M
CITY PLANNING DIVISION
PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY OF
DATE: October 8, 2007
TO: The
Honorable Landmarks Commission
FROM: Planning
Staff
SUBJECT: Certificate
of Appropriateness Application 07CA-009
Certificate of Appropriateness Application
requesting approval of demolition of a Non-Contributing Structure on the
property at
APPLICANT: Mark
Gorman and Beth Burns
PROPERTY OWNER: Mark Gorman and Beth Burns
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The subject Certificate of Appropriateness application
requests approval to demolish the existing Non-Contributing structure on the
site and construct a new 2,600 square foot single-family residence and detached
garage at
The subject property is an approximately 50’ x 100’ and is
located on the west side of
Within the
NOTICE
Notice of this hearing was provided as required by Section 9.40.040(b)
as follows: posting of the site; notice sent to all owners and occupants within
a 300-foot radius of the subject property and to all owners and occupants of
properties within the adopted Third Street Neighborhood District boundaries;
and a newspaper notice published in the Santa Monica Daily Press at least 10
days prior to the hearing date.
The application and project plans were distributed to the
Third Street Neighborhood Historic District Citizen Participation Committee
(CPC) and the applicant met with the CPC to present and discuss the project on
two occasions: July 16, 2007 and August 20, 2007.
CEQA STATUS
The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303, Class 3 and Section
15331, Class 31 of the State Implementation Guidelines in that the project
consists of modifications to a single family residence that has been designed
in a manner consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving,
Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings (1995), Weeks and Grimmer.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant proposes to demolish the existing
structures on site and construct a 2,600 square foot, two-story residence with
a roof deck. A detached two-car garage is proposed at the rear of the parcel at
the northwest corner. All setbacks
incorporated into the project design meet zoning ordinance requirements for the
OP-2 Zoning District. The height of the proposed
residence is 23’-0” to the top of the flat roof in accordance with zoning
district standards. The saw-tooth skylight and the stair enclosure are permitted
projections above the 23’-0” building height for structures with flat
roofs. However, both elements are less
than 30’-0” above theoretical grade, the maximum height permitted for a pitched
roof in the zoning district.
The proposed residence is designed to reflect
elements of the International style in accordance with the adopted Ocean Park
Neighborhood Development Guide which specifies that new construction in the OP
Zoning Districts must be designed in the following historical styles: International
style/modern, Craftsman bungalow, or Spanish Colonial Revival/Mediterranean
style.
The proposed two-story residence is composed of two rectangular volumes
clad in sand finish stucco and wood. The proposed saw-tooth skylight element
over the south volume incorporates a standing seam metal roof sloped toward the
street and skylights oriented to the west that will not be visible from the
public right-of-way. The stair enclosure
also features a sloped, standing seam metal roof and provides access to a deck
located on the south side of the roof.
The primary elevation features doors and windows framed in teak wood, a
centrally-located second floor balcony and ground floor recessed primary entry,
and a wrap-around second floor window accented by a reclaimed ponderosa pine
eyebrow on the south volume. The north volume features reclaimed ponderosa pine
vertical siding and an overlay of wood boards turned to a 90-degree angle
forming a ‘bris-soleil’ type trellis for plantings.
This wood cladding wraps around from the primary, east-facing elevation to the
north elevation adjacent to the proposed driveway leading to the garage sited
at the rear of the parcel. The south
elevation features sand finish stucco, aluminum framed fenestration and a
horizontal ponderosa pine eyebrow extending the above the second floor windows
to the rear of the building.
A grass-crete driveway is proposed on the
north side of the parcel that would lead to a two-car garage at the rear of the
property. This one-story structure is also
proposed with a ponderosa pine trellis element with plantings and a wood garage
door.
ANALYSIS
Project Design Compatibility
As with all requests for new construction within the Third Street Neighborhood
Historic District, proposed work must be undertaken in a manner consistent with
the character of the District and with the Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for
Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Properties.
The way in which the new building
visually relates to adjacent properties is an important aspect of staff review
of new construction in the Third Street Neighborhood Historic District. A new
building constructed in a historic district should respect and not
detrimentally impact the character of the District. Compatibility is achieved
by identifying and incorporating elements found in the historic district into
the design of the new structure. The goal
is not to imitate or duplicate a historic building, thereby creating a false
sense of history, but to construct a new building that is compatible with its
surroundings. Key factors to evaluate
include site planning; building size, scale, and massing; and the choice of
roof form, doors and windows, and materials.
In terms of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, the proposed
scope of work includes rehabilitation as the primary treatment for the project
site. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards define rehabilitation as, “The act or process of making possible a
compatible use for a property through repair, alterations, and additions while
preserving those portions or features which convey its historical, cultural, or
architectural values”.
According to the
Standards, related new construction is permissible in a historic district when
its effect on the contributing properties “does not destroy historic materials,
features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property,” and if the
new work is “differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the
historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to
protect the integrity of the property and its environment.”
The
proposed project is also subject to the Third Street Neighborhood Historic
District Design Guidelines. The
Guidelines, which were approved in 1992, provide suggested direction for a
project applicant in approaching the design of a new structure in the District.
The
Guidelines do not specifically prescribe the selection of architectural styles.
However, new construction should, regardless of style, express a consistent and
compatible architectural language and should respect and not detrimentally
impact or overwhelm the character of the District. For new construction, the Guidelines suggest
the following:
“New buildings
should be carefully designed to complement and not overwhelm the surrounding
historic buildings.
·
Use exterior materials traditionally found in the
·
Maintain setbacks, heights, and overall building
shapes that are similar to surrounding contributing buildings in the historic
district.
·
Use windows and architectural details at the street
level to create a pedestrian scale and a “neighbor-friendly” character.
·
Include a clearly defined main entrance that is
oriented toward the street. Parking should be at the rear of the property.”
With respect to the
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, staff reviewed the proposed residence in
the context of its impact on the general character and scale of the
District. Staff also reviewed the
proposal for compliance with the District Design Guidelines for new
construction outlined above.
The project demonstrates compatibility with the District character in
several key ways. The planning of the
site and the study of the site responds to its surrounding environment. The tallest elements of the building are
located on the south volume which will be adjacent to the recently approved
residence that rises to 30’-0” in height (see north elevation) and the north
volume remains at 23’-0” in height in order to better respond to the scale of
the surface parking lot and one-story structures to the north of the site.
The two distinct volumes (north and south) have been purposefully
differentiated by a change in material in order to break up the perceived
massing of the structure. The simple
building forms create an understated backdrop for the historic architecture in
the District while still incorporating carefully selected architectural
elements and materials to complement and reflect the District’s character. Examples of such features include the sloped
saw-tooth roof and stair enclosure provides a reflection on the pitched roofs
exhibited Contributing Structure across the street. The building’s flat roof
and simple rectangular volumes are also found in the architecture of other
Contributing Structures in the Historic District.
In accordance with the District Design Guidelines, the proposed project
incorporates sand finish stucco and extensive amounts of ponderosa wood
cladding and teak wood framed fenestration.
These materials not only reinforce the project’s design concept but also
compatible with the materials historically found in the District.
The City’s historic
preservation consultant reviewed the proposed plans and prepared a plan review
memorandum (Attachment B). The consultant’s analysis supports the project as a
whole and also suggests several refinements to the design would make it more
pedestrian friendly at the street level.
Staff has reviewed the consultant’s suggestions and agrees that the
project merits support, however, staff finds that the primary elevation is
appropriately scaled and does incorporate a clearly defined entry that does not
require further articulation.
Staff also finds
that the north elevation is sufficiently articulated by the vertical wood
siding and trellis with plantings that adds texture and warmth to the
elevation. Furthermore, the primary elevation incorporates a significant amount
of glazing to serve as a pedestrian-friendly element. In this case, additional glazing on the north
elevation does not appear to be necessary on the north elevation since it is
adjacent to a surface parking lot.
Finally, staff believes that the saw-tooth skylights and stair tower are
unique design elements that complement the overall design concept and also
reflects, in a contemporary interpretation, aspects of the historic
architecture in the District.
The Third Street Neighborhood Citizen’s
Participation Committee (CPC) was notified of the application within five days
of the applicant’s filing in September 2007.
The applicant met with the CPC on two occasions over the summer (July
16, 2007 and August 20, 2007). According
to the applicant, the current submittal reflects changes made in response to
comments received during the first neighborhood meeting. The applicant brought back the revised plans
at the second meeting for further discussion.
Staff has not received any comments from the CPC or
individual members of the community regarding the proposed project. However, the applicant’s submittal contains a
description of what comments they heard at the meeting and how they feel the
project design has been revised to address those concerns.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Based on the foregoing, staff
recommends approval of Certificate of Appropriateness 07CA-009 for
modifications to the property as enumerated, and per the findings below as
required in SMMC 9.40.030.
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FINDINGS (SMMC 9.40.030)
3.
The
proposed project is included within the list of work enumerated in SMMC Section
9.40.020 (d) (4).
The exterior
features of the proposed new improvement on a parcel located within the Third
Street Neighborhood Historic District boundaries and its placement on the
property would not adversely affect and would not be disharmonious with the
District character as set forth in Section 9.36.290, and with the scale,
materials and massing of the contributing structures within the District in
that the scale, massing, volume and materials proposed in the two-story
single-family residence are consistent with the District’s intention that new
structures should respect the neighborhood’s historic scale and character. The
proposed demolition of the Non-Contributing structures on the parcel would also
not adversely affect the character of the District since the existing
structures were constructed in 1953 and do not contribute the District’s period
of significance. The proposed new construction relates harmoniously to its
placement within a historic district as called for in the District’s Design
Guidelines, which advise that infill buildings should “maintain setbacks,
heights, and overall building shapes that are similar to surrounding
contributing buildings in the Historic District.” The adjacent parcel to the
south is currently vacant but has been approved for a new 30’-0” tall two-story
residence; the tallest portions of the proposed project are sited adjacent to
the this parcel. The parcels to the
north consist of a surface parking lot and two one-story structures. Accordingly, the north volume of the subject
residence would remain at 23’-0” in height.
Furthermore, many contributing District structures are two-story homes,
and it is appropriate to allow two stories on this property, provided that the
design of the proposed structure does not overwhelm nearby contributing
properties. The simple building forms create an understated backdrop for the
historic architecture in the District while still incorporating carefully
selected architectural elements and materials to complement and reflect the
District’s character. Examples of such
features include the sloped saw-tooth roof and stair enclosure provides a
reflection on the pitched roofs exhibited Contributing Structure across the
street. The building’s flat roof and simple rectangular volumes are also found
in the architecture of other Contributing Structures in the Historic
District. Finally, in accordance with
the District Design Guidelines, the proposed project incorporates sand finish
stucco and extensive amounts of wood cladding and teakwood framed
fenestration. These materials not only
reinforce the project’s design concept but also compatible with the materials
historically found in the District. Based
on the foregoing, the proposed project is consistent with the Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, and with the
guidelines set forth in the design guidelines for the Third Street Neighborhood
Historic District.
CONDITIONS
6.
This
approval is for the plans submitted on September 28, 2007 which are on file in
the City Planning Division.
7.
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
9.36.170(h), this approval shall expire within 180 days if the authorized work
is not commenced. Should the applicant
be unable to comply with this restriction, an extension may be granted pursuant
to Landmarks Ordinance Section 9.36.250.
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. 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.
8.
All
required Planning and Building Permit approvals shall be obtained.
Attachments:
A.
Public
Notice
B.
PCR
Services Memorandum
C.
Project
Plans
M E M O R A N D U M
CITY PLANNING DIVISION
PLANNING AND COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY OF
DATE: December 10, 2007
TO: The
Honorable Landmarks Commission
FROM: Planning
Staff
SUBJECT: Item
8-C. Certificate of Appropriateness Application 07CA-009
Certificate of Appropriateness Application
requesting approval of demolition of a Non-Contributing Structure on the
property at
APPLICANT: Mark
Gorman and Beth Burns
PROPERTY OWNER: Mark Gorman and Beth Burns
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The subject Certificate of Appropriateness application
requests approval to demolish the existing Non-Contributing structure on the
site and construct a new 2,365 square foot[1]
single-family residence and detached garage at
The subject property is an approximately 50’ x 100’ and is
located on the west side of
The Landmarks Commission opened the public hearing for
the application on October 8, 2007 and, after an extensive discussion regarding
the proposal, the hearing was continued to allow the applicant to revise the
project based on specific direction provided by the Commission during the
course of the discussion.
Staff has analyzed the project revisions in light
of the Commission’s direction to the applicant and has also revised the
recommended draft findings as necessary to reflect the current proposal.
NOTICE
Notice of this hearing was provided as required by Section
9.40.040(b) as follows: posting of the site; notice sent to all owners and
occupants within a 300-foot radius of the subject property and to all owners
and occupants of properties within the adopted Third Street Neighborhood
District boundaries; and a newspaper notice published in the Santa Monica Daily
Press at least 10 days prior to the hearing date.
The application and project plans were distributed to the
Third Street Neighborhood Historic District Citizen Participation Committee
(CPC) and the applicant met with the CPC to present and discuss the project on
two occasions: July 16, 2007 and August 20, 2007. The CPC also held a meeting
to discuss the project the week of November 5, 2007.
CEQA STATUS
The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303, Class 3
and Section 15331, Class 31 of the State Implementation Guidelines in that the
project consists of modifications to a single family residence that has been
designed in a manner consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards
for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving,
Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings (1995), Weeks and Grimmer.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION & ANALYSIS
Analysis of
Project Revisions
At the October 8, 2007 hearing, the Landmarks
Commission listened to public testimony both in opposition and in support of
the proposal, discussed the proposed Certificate of Appropriateness
application, and also discussed the issue of how best to approach infill in the
Third Street Neighborhood Historic District. While the project’s overall design
concept was not unanimously supported, a majority of Landmarks Commissioners
expressed satisfaction with the overall design concept for the project and
indicated that the proposal was appropriately responsive to the character of
the District and its context on
Individual Commissioners did, however, provide
specific comments regarding project refinements that would help to address
concerns expressed about compatibility with the District’s character. As a
result of this discussion, there appeared to be consensus regarding several recommended
project refinements and the applicant was, therefore, directed to revise plans
with consideration to the following in order to better respond to the context
of the District:
·
Re-evaluate the verticality-emphasized elements on the
rooftop including the industrial saw-tooth skylight and projecting stair tower;
and
·
Incorporate fine-grain details that reflect the texture and
character of the District in order to better articulate and break up some of
the flat areas of the building façades.
The following discussion contains a summary of key
revisions reflected in the modified project design contained in Attachment C.
This analysis should be considered in conjunction with all
previously-distributed materials regarding the subject application including
correspondence attached hereto; the October 8, 2007 staff report and
attachments; and with all public testimony and correspondence provided at the
October 8, 2007 public hearing and forthcoming December 10, 2007 hearing.
The applicant has made a series of revisions to the
project design based on the Commission’s direction. In order to better reinforce the horizontality of the
building design, reduce the mass of the building at the roofline, better
articulate the building elevations, and enhance compatibility with the
character of the District, the revised project design incorporates refinements
to all four building elevations, significant changes to roof including the
removal of the projecting stair tower and saw-tooth skylight, as well as a reduction
in proposed floor area.
- In order to entirely remove
the stair tower/bulkhead, the applicants propose an exterior stair on the
inside, northwest corner of the house. This stair has been set back as far
from the street as possible and has been further refined in order to lower
the stair guard rail below the roofline to entirely eliminate its
visibility from the street and to create a more streamlined building
roofline. This modification serves to reduce the maximum height of rooftop
elements by approximately 3 ½ feet.
- The creation of the
exterior stairwell resulted in necessary modifications to the interior
floor plan of the second floor, including a 235 square foot reduction in
floor area through the elimination of a previously-proposed guest bedroom.
- The proposed wood trellis
on the north elevation has been extended to screen the new exterior
stairwell and the kitchen window below, and to also further break up and
articulate the west end of the north elevation.
- The previously-proposed
saw-tooth skylight has been removed and replaced with a clerestory
skylight that is further stepped back from primary elevation, thus
reducing its visibility from the street.
- On the primary,
street-facing east elevation a section of the taller, south volume has
been reduced in its horizontal dimensions thus resulting in a more narrow
presence and reduced mass facing the street.
- A ponderosa pine screen has
been incorporated on the primary, street facing elevation adjacent to the
main entry in order to add texture and finer-grain detail to the sections
of smooth stucco on this elevation. This ponderosa screen also serves
divide the expanse of glass on the ground floor of the street-facing
elevation.
- In order to better reflect
the character of the District, fenestration on the street-facing elevation
has been refined to include additional openings to the wrap-around windows
on the second-story, and to divide the existing windows on the
ground-floor into multiple panes a maximum of 2’-0” wide.
- Fenestration on the south
elevation has been modified in response to programmatic changes resulting
from the creation of the exterior stairwell and loss of floor area. In addition, windows on the south
elevation have been further divided to add more articulation to this elevation.
Since the November 12, 2007 hearing, staff has
received additional comments from members of the community both in opposition
and in support of the proposed project.
This correspondence is contained in Attachment B.
CONCLUSION
AND RECOMMENDATION
In reviewing the revised plans, staff finds
that the applicant has made appropriate revisions that have resulted in a
project that better demonstrates compliance with the District Design Guidelines
and addresses the Commission’s specific direction provided at the October 8,
2007 hearing. Based on the entirety of the record, it is
recommended that the Landmarks Commission approve Certificate of
Appropriateness 07CA-009 per the following draft findings and conditions:
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FINDINGS (SMMC 9.40.030)
4.
The
proposed project is included within the list of work enumerated in SMMC Section
9.40.020 (d) (4).
2. The exterior features of the proposed
new improvement on a parcel located within the Third Street Neighborhood Historic
District boundaries and its placement on the property would not adversely
affect and would not be disharmonious with the District character as set forth
in Section 9.36.290, and with the scale, materials and massing of the
contributing structures within the District in that the scale, massing, volume
and materials proposed in the two-story single-family residence are consistent
with the District’s intention that new structures should respect the
neighborhood’s historic scale and character. The proposed demolition of the
Non-Contributing structures on the parcel would also not adversely affect the
character of the District since the existing structures were constructed in
1953 and do not contribute the District’s period of significance. The proposed
new construction relates harmoniously to its placement within a historic
district as called for in the Third Street Neighborhood Historic District Design Guidelines
and Landscape Survey which advises that infill buildings should “maintain
setbacks, heights, and overall building shapes that are similar to surrounding
contributing buildings in the Historic District.” The adjacent parcel to the
south is currently vacant but has been approved for a new 30’-0” tall two-story
residence; the tallest portions of the proposed project are sited adjacent to
the this parcel. The parcels to the
north consist of a surface parking lot and two one-story structures. Accordingly, the north volume of the subject
residence would remain at 23’-0” in height.
Furthermore, many contributing District structures are two-story homes,
and it is appropriate to allow two stories on this property, provided that the
design of the proposed structure does not overwhelm nearby contributing
properties. The simple building forms create an understated backdrop for the
historic architecture in the District while still incorporating carefully
selected architectural elements and materials to complement and reflect the
District’s character. Examples of such
features include its low overall building height and articulated building
volumes, wood architectural details that reflect in a contemporary manner the
wood siding incorporated in historic bungalow architecture and its multi-pane
fenestration that also echoes the proportions and of details found in the
District. The building’s flat roof and
simple rectangular volumes are also found in the architecture of other
Contributing Structures in the Historic District. Finally, in accordance with the District
Design Guidelines, the proposed project incorporates sand finish stucco and
extensive amounts of wood cladding, screens, and teakwood framed
fenestration. These materials not only
reinforce the project’s design concept but are also compatible with the
materials historically found in the District.
Based on the foregoing, the proposed project is consistent with
the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties, and with the guidelines set forth in the Design guidelines for the
Third Street Neighborhood Historic District.
CONDITIONS
9.
This
approval is for the plans dated November 1, 2007 and December 1, 2007 (north
elevation only) which are on file in the City Planning Division.
10.
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
9.36.170(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 9.36.250 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.
11.
All
required Planning and Building Permit approvals shall be obtained.
12.
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.
Attachments:
D.
Public
Notice
E.
Additional
Correspondence Received Regarding the Subject Application
F.
Project
Plans
ATTACHMENT
E
Property
Owners’ Statement Regarding the Appeal and Project Plans and Renderings
Electronic version of attachment is not available for review. Document is available for review at the City clerk’s Office and the Libraries.