City Council Meeting: September
8, 2009
Agenda Item: 1-O
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Eileen Fogarty, Planning &
Community Development
Subject: Statement of Official Action Denying
Appeal of Landmarks Commission Approval
of Certificate of Appropriateness Application 09-006 for
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council
approve the attached Statement of Official Action denying Appeal 09-009 and
upholding the decision of the Landmarks Commission to approve Certificate of
Appropriateness application 09-006, for the property at
Executive Summary and
Discussion
This staff report transmits for City Council certification the
Statement of Official Action for Appeal 09-009. After holding a public hearing, the City
Council denied Appeal 09APP-009 and affirmed the Landmarks Commission’s
approval of Certificate of Appropriateness application 09-006 for the
rehabilitation of a Landmark residence and contributing site features located
at 236 Adelaide Drive, based upon the findings and subject to the conditions contained in the attached
Statement of Official Action.
Financial Impacts &
Budget Actions
The recommendation presented in this report does not have any budget or fiscal impact.
Prepared by: Scott Albright, AICP, Senior Planner
|
Approved: |
|
Forwarded to Council: |
|
|
|
|
|
Eileen P. Fogarty Director,
Planning & Community Development |
|
P. City Manager |
Attachment: Statement of
Official Action
ATTACHMENT
A
STATEMENT
OF OFFICIAL ACTION
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF SANTA
MONICA
STATEMENT OF
OFFICIAL ACTION
|
PROJECT CASE
NUMBER: Appeal 09-009 LOCATION: APPLICANT: Kelly Sutherlin-McLeod Architecture APPELLANT: Linda
Liles PROPERTY
OWNER: Three Sycamores Trust CASE
PLANNER: Scott Albright, AICP,
Senior Planner REQUEST: Appeal 09-009 of
Landmarks Commission Approval of Certificate of Appropriateness Application
09-006. CEQA
STATUS: The project is categorically exempt from the provisions
of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301,
Class 1; Section 15302, Class 2; Section 15303, Class 3; and Section 15331,
Class 31 of the State Implementation Guidelines in that the project consists
of minor alterations and modifications to an existing single-family residence
and to existing accessory structure on the site, and construction of a new
accessory structure on the site. As detailed more fully in this report, the
proposed project 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, in that it consists of the
rehabilitation, restoration, and reconstruction of a Landmark single-family
residence and associated Contributing accessory structures and landscape
feature on the property. |
CITY COUNCIL ACTION
|
July 28, 2009 |
|
Date |
|
|
|
Appeal upheld and Landmarks
Commission approval reversed based upon the findings below: |
|
X |
|
Appeal denied and Landmarks
Commission approval upheld based on the following findings: |
|
|
|
Other. |
EFFECTIVE DATE OF ACTION: July
28, 2009
After
holding a public hearing, the City Council denied Appeal 09APP-009 and affirmed
the Landmarks Commission’s approval of Certificate of Appropriateness
application 09-006 for the rehabilitation of a Landmark residence and
contributing site features located at
Each and all of the findings and determinations are based on the
competent and substantial evidence, both oral and written, contained in the
entire record relating to the Project.
All summaries of information contained herein or in the findings are
based on the substantial evidence in the record. The absence of any particular fact from any
such summary is not an indication that a particular finding is not based in
part on that fact.
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FINDINGS (SMMC 9.36.140)
1.
The proposed project will not detrimentally change, destroy
or adversely affect any exterior feature of the Landmark upon which such work
is to be done in that the proposed project is consistent with Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. More specifically, the proposed
restoration and rehabilitation of portions of the Craftsman style residence
includes a treatment plan that incorporates assessment of existing conditions
of historic fabric and the preservation and restoration of materials, features,
finishes, and construction techniques and examples of craftsmanship that
characterize the property. On the main residence, these features to be
refurbished and restored include the existing redwood window casings and
sashes; existing original doors; existing outriggers, rafters, eaves and
fascia. The applicant proposes to replace non-original materials with
appropriate in-kind replacement materials such as custom-milled, cedar shake
cladding for the residence, guard house, and carriage house that will match the
original dimensions and installation pattern of the original shakes. Original doors
and windows will be restored; and missing original features such as open wood
guard rails will be reconstructed based on physical evidence. The design of new
features such as railings for a new open deck and a new 44-square foot kitchen
addition will be compatibly designed yet appropriately differentiated to be
identified as new. Treatment of the accessory structures on the site will
include restoration of original features and cladding, and introduction of new
elements such as new doors and windows, and a new exterior fireplace that will
not detrimentally change the character of the carriage house structure. The
reconstruction of the existing pergola is required due to deterioration and
inappropriate repairs done in past years; the reconstruction design is based on
full assessment and documentation of its existing design and will incorporate
remaining original wood members in the new structure. Finally, the proposed
removal of the existing concrete circular drive located in the rear yard will
not affect the property’s overall integrity and will not affect its ability to
convey its significant associations with historic development patterns and architectural
designs from the past, in part, because the project landscape plan includes a
designed element that commemorates the historical presence of the circular
driveway.
CONDITIONS
1.
This approval is for project plans
received on June 23, 2009, which are on file in the City Planning Division,
except as amended herein.
2.
Prior to issuance of a building permit,
the applicant shall provide for review and approval by the City’s Community
Forester, a detailed protection plan identifying the means and methods for
protecting the property’s Moreton Bay Fig Tree during construction.
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.
VOTE
Ayes: Bloom,
Nays:
Abstain:
Absent: McKeown, Shriver
NOTICE
If this is a final
decision not subject to further appeal under Article 9 of the Santa Monica
Municipal Code, the time within which judicial review of this decision must be
sought is governed by Code of Civil Procedures Section 1094.6, which provision
has been adopted by the City pursuant to Municipal Code Section 1.16.010.
I hereby certify
that this Statement of Official Action accurately reflects the final
determination of the City Council of the City of
_____________________________ ______________
MARIA M. STEWART, City Clerk Date