|
|
|
MINUTES |
|
|
MEETING OF THELANDMARKS COMMISSION Founded 1875 “Populus felix in urbe felici” |
|
|
|
Monday, February
11, 2002 |
City Council Chambers, Room 213 |
|
7:00 p.m. |
1685 Main Street, Santa Monica |
1. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioner Bolton
Kimberly Christensen, Sr
Planner
Arlene
Johnson, Staff Assistant
2. REPORT FROM STAFF:
Ms. Bar-El thanked those Commissioner who attended the City
Council meeting on the appeal of the Civic Auditorium. This has been continued to April 9th. Also, on 2314 La Mesa the building inspector
went out to inspect and see if there was a violation. It was noted that they have not demolished more than 50 percent
of the structure and have not gone beyond the scope of their permit. Also, the Realtor letter has been mailed out
to most of the Realty offices with the remainder to be mailed within the next 2
weeks. She also mentioned that the
demolition application for 610 23rd Street will be continued to next
month’s meeting because it was left off of the agenda, and 2 corrections to the
demolition list on the agenda: Items
9A-11 & 12 are not listed on the historic resources inventory.
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Public Input
Permitted
A. January 14,
2002
Commissioner
Genser moved to approve the minutes with two amendments. Commissioner Schnitzler seconded the motion,
and the motion passed by voice vote with the following correction(s): Item 8a
on page 4 should have included a note to add language regarding developing
incentives, and under Item 7b on page 3, Chair Pro Tempore Lehrer’s statement should
include that the application for putting paint on the building was not
consistent with Standard number 5 of the Secretary of Interior Standards, and
that the example of the Gamble house was given in the context of considering
the very high cost of removing paint from original stained shingles.
4.PUBLIC INPUT: (On items not on agenda and within the jurisdiction of the
Commission)
Bea Nemlaha, member of the public, stated that there is tremendous need
for information about what people may and may not do with their properties
within the 3rd Street Neighborhood Historic District. Sometimes this information is simple and
should be readily available but isn’t.
She suggested a few things that would help a lot of homeowners and
neighbors know what they could do. She
stated it would be helpful to let people know in general that if they plan on
doing work on the outside of their homes, they should check with the City prior
to doing so. Also, the Citizen
Participation Committee would like to have the historic district design
guidelines and the Secretary of Interior Standards for restoration and
rehabilitation. This would be helpful
when their neighborhood group reviews proposals/projects. She requested that the full staff report
accompany the packets that are sent out to CPC. She also offered to speak at a City workshop regarding her
neighborhood on issues concerning historic districts and landmark designation
to help others understand that the designation process is nothing to be fearful
of.
5. COMMUNICATIONS: (Public discussion by the person presenting the
communication on items not on agenda and within the jurisdiction of the
Commission)
Chairperson Alofsin passed around
a newsletter from Louise Gabriel of the Santa Monica Historical Society Museum,
and two letters from Mayer Feinstein written to ex-Commissioners Scott Page and
Laurel Schmidt thanking them for their service on the Landmarks
Commission.
Chair Pro Tem Lehrer stated that
Douglas Park was awarded a design award by the California Preservation
Foundation for the restoration and renovation work. The awards ceremony will be held on Saturday, February 23rd at
the J. Paul Getty Museum @ 5:00 p.m. It
will be a wonderful opportunity to see what’s going on around the state and to
network with people who are doing similar work to the Commission’s. She gave the website address for further
information.
Alofsin stated that they had a
taping of a public service announcement for the Landmarks Commission, and
thanked Liz Bar-El and Nina Fresco for their valued input. It will be broadcast on CityTV, Channel
16. Commissioner Fresco mentioned that
the OPCO Congress will be held on February 24th between 11:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. at Joslyn Park. She will be speaking on landmarks, and the
agenda can be found on the OPCO website.
6. CONSENT
CALENDAR:
Public Input Permitted
A. Statement of Official Action: Certificate of Appropriateness Application
No. LC-01CA-007, 2625 Third Street, for construction of a 220-square foot
accessory structure in the rear yard of a residential property that is a
contributor to the Third Street Neighborhood Historic District.
B. Statement of Official Action: Certificate of Appropriateness Application
No. LC-01CA-008, 406 Adelaide Drive, for alterations to a property designated
as a City Landmark, including repainting of siding shingles, demolition an
existing carport and construction of a new structure to include a three-car
garage and accessory living quarters in the rear yard with access from the
alley.
Commissioner Genser moved to approve the Statement of Official Action
for Items 6A and 6B. Commissioner Schnitzler seconded the motion and the motion
passed by the following vote:
Ayes: Bolton,
Fresco, Genser, Posek, Schnitler, Lehrer, Alofsin
Nayes: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
7. PUBLIC
HEARINGS:
Public Input Permitted
A. Certificate of Appropriateness
Application No. LC-02CA-001, 2553 Third Street, for construction of a
semi-subterranean garage with balcony and entry stairs at the front of the
property under the existing first floor of a residential property that is a
contributor to the Third Street Neighborhood Historic District.
Staff report presented by Ms. Bar-El recommended denial of
the request.
Shirley Bly, owner,
stated that she loves her home and its location and only wants to improve
it. The placing of the garage in front
is the only solution to a functional problem of parking. There is no way to put the garage in the
rear. She and the designer took both
designs to the CPC committee. The
community and committee approved the design with only three contingencies,
which were: submit a landscape design, details for the garage doors and an
agreement to keep the existing driveway to the neighbor’s property open during
construction. She agreed to all of the
contingencies and hopes that staff can approve the design details. Also, many of the neighbors signed a support
document. She stated that it was
unanimously agreed that the new design is a visual improvement over the existing
modifications, particularly the deck in front.
The design is an improvement to an already altered property. She added the shingles in 1987. They have worked many hours to find a
respectful and appropriate modification to approve functional usage of the
property and asked that the Commission approve the project.
James Dufourd, designer for
the applicant, stated that the garage has been looked at extensively and for many
reasons it is not possible. The only
location for the garage on this property is as it is in the proposal. The front facade of the residence has been
significantly altered over the years.
The proposed garage portion will be sheathed in rock to give the
appearance of an exposed foundation and further de-emphasize the garage. They have found that it is possible to
retain more of the front retaining wall.
The proposal not only achieves its objectives for onsite parking, but it
helps correct previous changes made to the residence over the years.
Francesca Smith, Senior Architectural Historian hired by the
applicant, stated that the
proposed alternatives meet the proposed project goals while minimizing the
affect on the historic resource. The
greatest alteration was the addition of the large deck in the late 1980s, which
really obscures the view of the house from the street and the sidewalk. The current depth of the deck is about 12
feet. The proposed garage is about 8
feet deep. The character defining
features will remain as much as possible in this alteration. This alteration will not make the house look
taller. At the individual resource
level, this would actually improve the historic resource because it would be
the removal of an alteration that does not comply with the standards whatsoever. Standards 9 and 10 are the ones that most
closely apply. They are doing a sound,
reasonable and flexible process. It is
an example of how change can be accommodated while retaining and improving upon
existing historic character. Without
this kind of reasonable application of the Secretary Standards, this may work
against the cause for historic preservation in this community.
Robert Ulrich, member of the public, stated that he believes in preservation in their
neighborhood and it is worth it. Stated
it is a family neighborhood. He does
not support the drawings because it is not integral to the Third Street
District which is defined by the City designation. He felt there were some misrepresentations made about this
proposal and the neighborhood’s recommendation should not stick. He hopes that some other measure can be
obtained.
Larry Graber, member of the public, stated that he has concerns with the look and massing of
the structure. The garage structure
seems like it would be the imposing façade of the property and he is concerned
that the steps are on the side of the property when most are on the
street. Also he has a problem with the
driveway creating added traffic. He
stated that a historic palm tree was removed a year ago in front of the
building, and he would like to see a requirement that another tree replace it
along with other greenery, if the project goes through.
Lisa Langlois, member of the public, stated she attended the last CPC meeting, and initially
agreed with the proposal but now has doubts.
She touched on an article that spoke about how developers are taking
notes and going back to the craftsman style and tradition. She also had concerns that the subterranean
garage would dominate the façade and should rather be located in the rear of
the lot.
James Bianco, member of the public, stated that when his property was designated, the
guidelines were not as restrictive. He
stated that in the past, the City always allowed for evolution of the uses of a
particular property. He stated that it
is a unique property with a narrow lot and he doesn’t think they have an
alternative. Stated he is not thrilled
to see a garage in the front but this is a special case, and it should be
looked at in that regard. Stated he
supports the project because it is an improvement from the way it is now. The deck shuts the house off from the rest
of the street. The underground parking
improves on the accessibility and the open space of the property. Not to allow this underground parking will
create a real disincentive for the owners to make an improvement that in many
respects would be a positive change.
Tony Haig, member of the public, stated that no vote was taken at the CPC meeting, and many
people were silent. He finds the
project to be not compatible to the district.
He also stated that the action of removal, without notice, of a historic
tree, was in violation of the Standards of the Department of the Interior, by
the owner. He sympathizes with the
owners’ parking situation but if you buy a property that doesn’t have that possibility,
as he did, you’re stuck. He also stated
that if the project was approved, that the driveway should be grasscrete.
Scott Campbell, member of the public, stated he has been working the last few years to where his
home will be a contributor to the district.
He believes that this building is more of a contributor to the
neighborhood, however, not necessarily as a structure of merit. He stated that since the front of the
building is very altered from its original appearance that this proposal is a
better adjustment. He also stated that
the contingencies that the CPC came up with are reasonable.
Bea Nemlaha, member of the public, stated that the CPC meeting was held at her house last
Thursday. She apologized for not
getting the summary out before the meeting.
She stated that one of the key dynamics of their neighborhood in regard
to neighborhood watch issues and historic district issues, is to accommodate,
cooperate and support as much as possible what people in the district want to
do with their homes.
She stated that the owners actually have off-street parking
between the front house and rear house.
The shared driveway accesses that parking. What happens if this driveway shuts down? They were advised that there was no recorded
easement on either property, but a private written agreement between the
property owners, which can cancel within 60 days notice. She stated that if the driveway is shut
down, there would be no off-street parking to the 4 living units on the
property to the north. The CPC stated
that if the Landmark Commission should approve this project, to expressly
include findings that this approval is not meant to be and should never be used
as a precedent for any future projects in the 3rd Street
District. She opposes the project but
is deeply sympathetic to the owners.
She stated that this is a choice we make, and that there is nothing that
entitles one to a driveway or garage.
The downstream impact worries her tremendously, and she believes the
character of the property would not be in keeping with their neighborhood. She asked that the Landmarks Commission
continue the project to next month so that the CPC could reconvene and evaluate
the project in light of information they did not have at their meeting
including the City’s staff report.
Jeff Chatham, member of the public, 25 year resident, stated that the owner’s home looks like
a 1980’s addition tacked onto a vintage bungalow, which looks completely out of
place. In the proposal it may look
prettier, and is also more functional.
If the Commission allows the owners to change it, it would be a definite
asset to the Third Street Historic District.
S. Forest King, member of the public, stated that he is in support of the project. He asked, why the National Standards are
being imposed on a local historic review?
He stated that PCR listed 5 character-defining features in their report,
all of which are going to be retained.
He does not consider the retaining walls as an important feature in a
historic district. It was his
understanding at the CPC meeting that there was a consensus and they did
support and approve the project.
Commissioner Schnitzler stated she spent a lot of time
analyzing this project. She feels the
new plan fits well with the house to the north and does not strike her as
looking abnormally high for the neighborhood.
After hearing the neighbors, she is not ready to make a decision this
evening. She also stated that this
neighborhood is really supportive of being a district and it is refreshing to find
people in the district who are going to be more stringent about meeting the
requirements of the district.
Commissioner Posek stated that the renderings are very
nicely done. His concern is with the
subterranean garage in general. It
gives the illusion of added height.
Chair Pro Tempore Lehrer stated that the program is
difficult, which is to accommodate a garage on this lot with all of the
constraints that it has. She agreed
with the speaker who said, “that no one is entitled to a garage”. However, she also believes that buildings
have to be responsive to owners’ needs, and that districts should not be so
frozen that houses cannot be adopted and changed over time. She stated that the existing house has very
few characteristics that make it a strong contributor to the neighborhood, and
the resulting modifications may bring out more of the historic character of the
original bungalow. She suggested
referring back to the CPC group to see whether or not there could be some
design modifications that everyone would be more comfortable with so that we
could move forward with approving the project.
She would like to continue the project to next month in order to give
the community more time to work things out.
Commissioner Genser stated that the new construction would
enhance the district but is reluctant to support it because of the parking
issue. He supports continuing the
project to next month in order to let the community meet again.
Commissioner Fresco stated that she thought it was a bad
idea initially, and suggested providing enough parking for the back unit as
well. She supported the CPC meeting
again.
Chairperson Alofsin stated that she had a concern with the
color of the garage doors in that it visually added to the mass of the
garage. She asked the designer if the
owner would consider a different color such as to match the house. He stated he would check with the owner,
however he thought they would be receptive to that idea.
Chairperson Alofsin thanked the designer for his input, and
felt it would be fair to continue it to March so that the CPC can meet.
Commissioner Schnitzler moved to continue to next month with
minutes in advance from the CPC meeting and omission of the consultants
review. Commissioner Genser seconded
the motion and the motion passed by the following vote:
Ayes: Fresco,
Genser, Posek, Schnitler, Lehrer, Alofsin
Nayes: None
Abstain: Bolton
Absent: None
Chairperson Alofsin asked
the Commission to keep their packet information on the continued items.
B. Landmark Designation Application
LC-01-LM-007, 236 Adelaide Drive, to determine whether the proposed property is
appropriate for formal consideration of Landmark Designation Application.
Report by Ms. Bar-El.
Ms. Caldwell, owner,
stated her house was built in 1910 by her grandparents and she would like to
have it designated.
Arthur Harris, member of the public, agreed that the community owes Ms. Caldwell a thank you for
designating her home. He agrees with
the staff report that this is noted to be the finest craftsman structure in the
City, and he is delighted that this action is being taken.
Chair Pro Tempore Lehrer stated that it is one of the really
great houses in Santa Monica and is please that Ms. Caldwell supports its
recognition. She asked staff to
consider that the property meets all six criteria and not 5 as the report
suggested because Adelaide Drive contains a grouping of original craftsman
homes of the early development to Santa Monica that should be recognized itself
as important to a potential district.
It should also move on to the National Register after becoming a City
landmark.
Commissioner Posek moved to have a hearing to designate this
property on March 11th. Commissioner
Genser seconded the motion and the motion passed by voice vote.
Pam O'Connor arrived @ 9:25pm.
C.
Structure of Merit
Designation Application LC-02-LM-001, 451 18th Street, Public hearing to consider a Structure of
Merit Designation Application for a single-family residence located within the
18th Street grouping listed as a potential historic district on the City’s
Historic Resources Inventory.
Chairperson Alofsin stated the
consultant’s report is not complete for the NOMA survey update and therefore
requested that the public hearing Items 7D and 7E be continued to April 8,
2002, so that the Commission will have a chance to review the report prior to
those hearings. Commissioner Genser
seconded the motion and the motion passed by the following vote:
Ayes: Bolton, Fresco, Genser, Lehrer, Posek,
Schnitzler, Alofsin
Nayes: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
Ms. Bar-El stated the owner of 470
18th Street just informed staff that they would not be present at
the April meeting which their item had just been continued to but that they
would be available at the March meeting.
After further discussion,
Chair Pro Tempore Lehrer moved to rescind the original motion. Commissioner Genser seconded the motion and
the motion passed by the following vote.
Ayes: Bolton,
Fresco, Genser, Posek, Schnitler, Lehrer, Alofsin
Nayes: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
Chair Pro Tem Lehrer moved
to continue item 7C to the April 8th meeting and item 7D to the
March 11th meeting.
Commissioner Genser seconded the motion, and the motion passed by the
following vote:
Ayes: Bolton,
Fresco, Genser, Posek, Schnitler, Lehrer, Alofsin
Nayes: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
This item is
continued to next month's meeting.
Please keep packet information
D. Structure of Merit Designation
Application LC-02-LM-002, 470 18th Street, Public hearing to consider a
Structure of Merit Designation Application for a single-family residence
located within the 18th Street grouping listed as a potential historic district
on the City’s Historic Resources Inventory.
This item is
continued to next month's meeting.
Please keep packet information
E. Certificate of Appropriateness
Application No. 02CA-002, 1685 Main Street (City Hall), for alterations to
windows on the front and side elevations of City Hall, a City-designated
Landmark. Continued to Monday, March 11,
2002.
8. OLD BUSINESS:
Public Input Permitted
A.
Approval of
Commission communication to City Council regarding FY2002-2003 Budget requests.
Chairperson Alofsin stated that people should probably apply
for the demolition permit before applying for the building permit.
Ms. Christensen stated that one of the goals in the HPE is
to re-look at the ordinance and the rules and regulations.
Commissioner Bolton stated that the reality of the
development is that demolition permits expire.
If the building is being Ellised, it could take a few years to go
through the full process. The permit
process would probably take another year, in which the demolition permit would
have expired.
Commissioner Genser would like to be more specific on the
paragraph stating “proactively generating new materials for distribution to
improve information available to the public”.
Perhaps it should include the letter to the real estate industry
informing them of their obligation to the property owners, and the information
letter that will outline all the procedures and landmark categories.
Schnitzler asked for the following replacement: instead of the distribution of informational
materials, replace with the development and distribution of informational
materials.
Counsel Liaison, Pam O’Connor stated that this would be good
to present to City Council when they are thinking about planning priorities and
what might be in the pipeline. Sooner
would be better than later. She also
mentioned that in regard to the demolition process, to let the Council know
that the committee is looking at those kinds of things and they’ll have
recommendations because it is a work task that is tied to funding. Ms. Bar-El stated that she would make
corrections and get the letter to Chairperson Alofsin for signature prior to
February 26, 2002.
9. DISCUSSION
ITEMS:
Public Input Permitted
A. Demolition
Permits
1. 1032 3rd Street (PC012608)
R3NW/Medium
Density Multiple Family
4
Wooden Structures, Residential Apartments, 4 units
Structure
Identified in Historic Resources Inventory - 5S3
No
action taken on this property.
2. 2659 33rd
Street (PC012617)
R1/Single Family Residential
390 s.f., One-car Garage and Storage Room
Structure Not Identified in Historic Resources Inventory
No action taken on this property
3. 820 Woodacres Road (PC012623)
R1/Single Family Residential
Single Family Dwelling w/Attached
Garage
Structure Not Identified in Historic Resources Inventory
No Action taken on this property
4. 428 Marguerita Ave (PC012627)
R1/Single Family Residential
Single Family Dwelling
Structure Not Identified in Historic Resources Inventory
No action taken on this property
5. 2531 2nd Street (PC012642)
OP2/Low Multiple Residential
Storage Garages
Structure Not Identified in Historic Resources Inventory
6. 3111
Broadway (PC012648)
R2/Low Density Multiple Residential
2-Unit Apartment
Structure Not Identified in Historic Resources Inventory
7. 2411 4th
Street (PC012658)
OP2/Low Multiple Residential
1-Story Wood Frame, One Unit and 1-Story Wood Frame, Two
Units
Structure Not Identified in Historic Resources Inventory
Commissioner
Fresco stated that she has always liked this building and it looks like the old
city hall. She doesn’t want to see it
go.
Chair Pro
Tempore Lehrer stated that it is a mission revival in terrible condition,
however represents a style that used to be very prevalent and there are hardly
any examples left in Santa Monica. It
is distinctive architecturally and feels it has value.
Commissioner
Genser stated that this is the second time this has come up for
demolition.
Commissioner
Schnitzler suggested that the Commission look at the property again, omit a
staff report, and discuss again at the March meeting.
Commissioner
Fresco moved to continued to the March meeting to discuss whether or not to
designate. Chair Pro Tempore Lehrer
seconded the motion and the motion passed by voice vote.
Ms. Bar-El
stated that she would inform the owners of this continuation.
8. 2028 6th
Street (PC012658)
OP2/Low Multiple Residential
2-Story, Single Family Dwelling
Structure Not
Identified in Historic Resources Inventory
No action
taken on this property
9. 123
Hollister Ave (PC012669)
OP2/Low Multiple Residential
Single Family Residence
Structure Not Identified in Historic Resources Inventory
Tom
Zaneck, owner stated that the demolition permit expired and that is why it is
back before the Commission.
After a
brief discussion, no action was taken on this item.
10. 137 Hollister Ave (PC012670)
OP2/Low Multiple Residential
Single Family Residence w/ Garage and Shed
Structure Identified in Historic
Resources Inventory - 5D
No Action taken on this item.
11. 715 15th Street (PC012668)
R1/Single Family Residential
Single Family Residence w/ Detached Garage
Structure Not Identified in Historic
Resources Inventory
No Action taken on this item.
12. 2520 La Mesa Way (PC012666)
R1/Single Family Residential
Single Family Residence w/ Detached Garage
Structure Not Identified in Historic
Resources Inventory
Commissioner
Schnitzler stated that it would be difficult to renovate this property but she
would like to continue to the March 11th meeting, until the North of
Montana survey is complete because it may be a contributor. Chair Pro Tempore Lehrer seconded the
motion, and the motion passed by voice vote.
B. 221-5 Santa Monica Boulevard: Consideration
of Commission application to nominate the property as a City Landmark.
After a lengthy discussion, the Commission
decided to wait until the project has gone to the Architectural Review Board
and they’ve had a chance to review the report.
C. Sub-committee report and
discussion: Ordinance changes, enforcement issues to protect potential
Landmarks and monitoring of Mills Act Contract properties.
Commissioner
Schnitzler stated that she and Commissioner Genser came up with a list of the
following: Mandatory disclosure of the
40 year ordinance at the point of sale, and information distributed at that
time about implications for potential buyers.
She also stated that once they have the rest of the Commission and
staff’s input, that a joint meeting with Planning Commission may potentially
expedite things.
Council
Liaison, Pam O’Connor stated that the Commission should articulate their
ordinance-related concerns to City Council.
Commissioner
Genser stated that there are similar concerns over slightly different
issues. However if the Commission met
with the Planning Commission they could discuss their mutual interest and
changing the Ordinance. He stated that
a powerful coalition would be a recommendation from the Planning Commission and
the Landmarks Commission to the City Council to make certain changes. Commissioners Genser and Schnitzler will
meet with staff to discuss these issues.
D. Planning Commission Case List (Information
Only)
10. FUTURE AGENDA
ITEMS: (Requests from Commissioners to add items to upcoming
agendas)
Chairperson
Alofsin asked that security be present at the March 11th
meeting.
Commissioner Genser asked that working with the
Santa Monica Historical Society be on the agenda for discussion in April or
May.
11. NEXT MEETING DATE AND COMMISSION AGENDA: Monday, March
11, 2002
12. ADJOURNMENT: 10:45
p.m.