|
|
|
MINUTES |
|
|
MEETING OF THELANDMARKS COMMISSION Founded 1875 “Populus felix in urbe felici” |
|
|
|
Monday, March 11,
2002 |
City Council Chambers, Room 213 |
|
7:00 p.m. |
1685 Main Street, Santa Monica |
1. ROLL CALL Present:
2 REPORT FROM
STAFF:
Ms. Bar-El informed the Commission that staff received a
draft of the NOMA Historic Resources Inventory. Staff has asked the consultants to provide additional information
in the report and a final draft will be provided to the Commission and
available to the public. Also, the
consultants will be presenting their report at a study session. The study session will take place on April 2nd
at 6:30 p.m. in the auditorium at the Main Library located on 6th
Street.
Also, all Realtor letters have been mailed out. The Annual Boards and Commissions dinner
will be held on March 19th at the Civic Auditorium. All cancellations need to be made ahead of
time. The budget priorities letter was
amended and delivered to the City Council members prior to the February 26th
meeting. Staff is recommending that 470
18th Street be continued to the April 8th meeting at the
request of the property owner, and if the Commission agreed, to let the public
know.
Commissioner Genser moved to continue item 7A, 470 18th
Street to the April 8th meeting.
Commissioner Fresco seconded the motion, and the motion passed by voice
vote.
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Public Input
Permitted
A. February 11, 2002
Chair Pro Tempore Lehrer made a motion to approve the
minutes for February 11, 2002, as submitted.
Commissioner Schnitzler seconded the motion, which was approved by voice
vote.
4. PUBLIC INPUT: (On items not on agenda and within the jurisdiction of the
Commission)
Greg Poirier, member of the public
addressed the Commission regarding a meeting held
on February 28th at Franklin Street School, for the residents and
property owners in the area North of Montana.
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 an article from the Los Angeles Art Deco Society.
6. CONSENT CALENDAR:
Public Input Permitted
None
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Public Input Permitted
A. Structure of Merit Designation Application
LC-02-LM-002, 470 18th Street, 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 (Continued to April 8, 2002).
B. Landmark Designation Application
LC-01-LM-007, 236 Adelaide Drive, to formally consider Landmark Designation.
Ms. Bar-El presented the staff report.
Chair Pro Tempore Lehrer made a motion to proceed with
landmark designation. Commissioner
Genser seconded the motion, which was approved by voice vote.
C. 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 (Continued
from February 11, 2002).
Ms. Bar-El presented the staff report.
The applicant, Shirley Bly, addressed the Commission
regarding this project and requested approval by the Commission.
The owner’s Designer, James Dufourd, also addressed the
Commission and took questions.
The following members of the public addressed the Commission
in favor of this project proposal: Robert Chattel, Bill Bolton, Kevin Kellow,
Leona Marolo, Jeff Chatham, Tom Larmore, Greg Poirier, Forest King, John
Juncos, and Scott Campbell.
The following members of the public addressed the Commission
in opposition to this project proposal: Sherman Abel, Karen Blechman, James
Bianco, Bea Nemlaha, Robert Ulrich, Annie Spalwin, Lisa Langlois, Peter
Spelman, Larry Graber and Tony Haig.
The following members of the public addressed the Commission
neither in favor of or opposition to this project proposal: Rick Laudati.
At the end of the public testimony, Ms. Bar-El clarified
that if the Commission were to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for
the garage, it would still need a variance for the front steps and stairway
encroaching into the front setback, which requires a Zoning Administrator
hearing. It also needs to go through
plancheck and building permits, etc.
This process will also look at the transportation impact. She also stated that staff is very aware of
what those transportation impacts are and they will be considered. She stated that the Commission needs to
consider the Secretary of Interior Standards and the findings in the Landmark
Ordinance and then determine whether the standards are met. Also, the Commission must make the findings
in the 3rd Street Historic District Ordinance.
Commissioner Posek asked Mr. Dufourd why the garage could
not be moved to the back of the house.
Mr. Dufourd explained that the Zoning Board thought it could
be redesigned, and that is when he was hired.
He stated that it would alleviate a great deal of problems if the garage
was in the rear but after having looked at it he realized that it was impossible
to do. The lot is only 35 feet wide and
by definition, substandard by the City code.
It limits the necessary turning radius to get into the garage. His purpose for putting a dotted outline for
a double-car garage was to illustrate that fact. The problem is that the driveway is very narrow, and at its
narrowest point its only 7 feet 6 inches wide.
There isn’t sufficient space to make the turn. To access the garage it really requires a substantial use of the
neighbor’s property.
Commissioner Genser asked how the City would deal with the
variance and the aspect of the driveway.
Ms. Christensen stated that there are two separate actions
that have to be taken. One for a
variance and one for a Certificate of Appropriateness. The variance was started some time ago and
the reason the Certificate of Appropriateness didn’t come before the Landmarks
Commission at that time was because staff was following through with the
variance process. She stated that staff
could not comment on the driveway issue without researching the legal ramifications,
and that the use of the driveway and the agreement between the neighbors is not
relevant to the Certificate of Appropriateness matter.
Chair Pro Tempore Lehrer stated that after a lot of thought
she couldn’t support the project. She
stated that a semi-subterranean garage is fundamentally alien to the character
of Craftsman bungalow style.
Historically garages were in the rear, if they existed. Having this attached to the building is an
irreversible alteration. Also, it does
not meet Standards 9 and 10 of the Secretary of Interior Standards. But more importantly is the character of the
neighborhood. She found the shared
driveway to be a compelling issue in terms of the fabric of the neighborhood
physically, socially and culturally.
The alterations proposed are also very alien to the neighborhood. Very fundamental to this block is the steep
slope and the way the houses are placed on the slope; the way the steps to the
house march straight up, the way the retaining wall defines the landscaping,
which is common to all of them, and there is parking is in the rear. The deck is reversible but the
semi-subterranean garage isn't. She
agrees with the staff recommendations and the staff report.
Commissioner Genser stated that he also spent a great deal
of time thinking about this proposal.
He stated he is, like many of the neighbors, focused on the parking
issue, which may or may not be the purview of this Commission. He stated he is not as opposed to the design
of the structure as others are, however he would like to see some effort made
to maintain it and make it somewhat permanent.
He stated that he did have concerns with the curb cut and that it would
eliminate a parking space. Also, this
could create a domino effect of providing more curb cuts that eliminate
parking. He would like to see this legal issue looked at, and if it were
brought up to the appropriate body, he would look at the project again and be
more inclined to support it. He feels
the Commission does have to be flexible, and the needs of homeowners have to be
recognized and the evolution of property as well.
Commissioner Fresco stated that she wanted to let this
project happen because she felt that adaptive re-use is an important part of
historic districts and you need to allow things to move forward and allow
people to do what they want to their property.
The thing that swayed her is when she was walking on a small street on
the beach tract with almost completely intact bungalows with retaining walls
and no hill. There was one house toward
the end of the block with a subterranean garage. She stated that seeing it from the street, made it look like a
giant building. She then realized that
this proposal would change the whole flow of the block in a dramatic way that
she had not realized from the architectural drawings. She stated at this point, she could not support the project
because of the impact on the historic character of the neighborhood and the
neighborhood sentiment. If there could
be a permanent easement agreement about the driveway, which would set a
precedent in allowing this to happen again, she could possibly be swayed in
favor.
Commissioner Schnitzler stated that she had wanted to
support this project and it was very well done. However, this garage changes the house from 1-1/2 stories to a
2-1/2 story house. She convinced
herself that she could let this one go because it had such a non-contributing
building adjacent to it, and the design would be softened because of the adjacent
property. She does agree with the other
Commissioners.
Chair Pro Tem Lehrer thanked the community for their support
and a job well done. She also thanked
Bea Nemlaha for her transcripts and commented that the designer did an
outstanding job with a concept that is flawed.
Chairperson Alofsin also thanked the community for their
support. She also stated that the
designer did as well as anyone could in respect to this project. However, in her opinion, it is not in
keeping with the neighborhood.
Chair Pro Tem Lehrer made a motion to deny the proposed
project with the findings in the staff report.
Commissioner Posek seconded the motion, which was carried by the
following vote:
Ayes: None
Nayes: Fresco,
Genser, Posek, Schnitzler, Lehrer, Alofsin
Recused: Bolton
Abstain: None
Absent: None
Commissioner Bolton left for the
evening at 9:00 p.m.
D. 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 from
February 11, 2002).
Ms.
Bar-El presented the staff report.
Sam
Aslanian, Project Manager for the City, took questions from the Commission.
Commissioner Posek made a motion
to approve Item 7D per staff recommendation.
Commissioner Schnitzler seconded the motion, which was approved by the
following vote:
Ayes: Fresco,
Genser, Lehrer, Posek, Schnitzler, Alofsin
Nayes: None
Abstain: None
Absent: Bolton
E.
Certificate of
Appropriateness Application No. 02CA-003, 380 Santa Monica Pier (Pacific Park),
for removal of the “PCH Driving School” ride and expansion of the adjacent “Sig
Alert” bumper car ride; a new children’s mini swinging ship ride; and
additional fixtures and fence replacement to enhance a nautical theme for the
Park; reconfiguration of rides and relocation of entrance gate and signs for
improved pedestrian traffic flow.
Ms. Bar-El presented the staff
report.
Dana Wyatt, Pacific Park, addressed the Commission regarding trying to improve
pedestrian flow through the park and replacing the benches shown as proposed
for removal with staff approval. He
also took questions from the Commission.
Commissioner Lehrer made a motion to approve Item 7-E per
staff recommendation. Commissioner
Schnitzler seconded the motion, which was approved by voice vote.
8. OLD BUSINESS:
Public Input Permitted
None.
9. DISCUSSION ITEMS:
Public Input Permitted
A. Demolition Permits
1. 610 23rd Street (PC012664)
R1/Single
Family Residential
Single
Family Residence w/Detached Garage
Structure
Not Identified in Historic Resources Inventory
The following member
of the public spoke on Item 9A-1: Chuck Allord.
No action taken
2. 1027 21st Street (PC012827)
R2/Low Density Multiple Residential
Single Family Residence w/Detached One-car Garage
Structure Not Identified in Historic Resources Inventory
No action taken
3. 617
16th Street (PC012681)
R1/Single Family Residential
Single
Family Residence w/Detached Garage
Structure
Not Identified in Historic Resources Inventory
No
action taken
4. 1736 22nd Street (PC012688)
LMSD/Light
Manufacturing & Studio
3 Detached Units
Structure
Not Identified in Historic Resources Inventory
No
action taken
5. 317 16th Street (PC012778)
R1/Single Family Residential
Single
Family Residence w/Detached Garage
Structure
Not Identified in Historic Resources Inventory
No
action taken
6. 539 11th Street (PC012770)
R1/Single Family Residential
Single
Family Residence w/ Garage
Structure Not Identified in Historic Resources Inventory
No
action taken
7. 425
11th Street (PC012769)
R1/Single Family Residential
Single
Family Residence w/ Garage
Structure Not Identified in
Historic Resources Inventory
No action taken
8. 2324
La Mesa Drive (PC012822)
R1/Single Family Residential
Attached Garage and Storage Room
Structure Identified in Historic
Resources Inventory - 5D
No action taken
9. 1304
Cedar Street (PC012753)
R1/Single Family Residential
Single
Family Residence w/ Garage
Structure Identified in Historic
Resources Inventory - 5D1
The following members of the
public spoke on Item 9A-9: Andrew Manigan, Project Architect, and Eleanor
Haynes, property owner. They also took
questions from the Commission.
Chair Pro Tem Lehrer stated that
the house has some wonderful architectural characteristics. She stated that the street is a completely
intact period street. She pointed out
that mid-block there is a vintage home that is having a major addition being
done to it that is completely consistent with the Standards. This house is truly unique.
Commissioner Genser stated that
this more of a doable small cluster of homes rather than a district. It’s difficult at this point to look at the
rest of the neighborhood. This is the
kind of street/block that the Commission should concentrate on in the
future. The Commission also needs to
look at historic properties that neighbors can rally around and save their
street.
Commissioner Schnitzler stated
that it is a great house. She stated
that she has in the past renovated homes in similar situations. She stated that a written report by an
engineer on the condition of the structure would help them make a better
decision on the property.
Chair Pro Tempore Lehrer voiced
concern about disseminating good, solid and factual information to the public
so that this does not become an issue like on 18th Street. A structure of merit designation for this
house would be in the context of a potential district on this street. She is interested in exploring that because
it is a wonderful charming house and street.
Commissioner Fresco concurred
with Commissioner Schnitlzer and Chair Pro Tem Lehrer’s remarks, and would also
like to explore other options and communicate with the neighbors to get their
thoughts as well.
Discussion followed on ways to
reach out to Cedar Street residents.
Chair Pro Tem Lehrer made a
motion to continue Item 9A-9 to the April 8th meeting. Commissioner
Genser seconded the motion, which passed by the following vote:
Ayes: Fresco,
Genser, Lehrer, Schnitzler, Alofsin
Nayes: Posek
Abstain: None
Absent: Bolton
10. 812
14th Street (PC012764)
R2NW/Low Density Multiple
Residential
5 Wood Frame Units and Detached
Garage
Structure Identified in Historic
Resources Inventory - 5D1
Ms. Bar-El informed the
Commission that the applicant informed her that he may withdraw his application
for demolition. She had not yet
received that withdrawal letter.
Commissioner Genser made a motion
to continue Item 9A-10 to the April 8th meeting see whether the
applicant withdraws. Commissioner Posek
seconded the motion, which passed by voice vote.
11. 2520
La Mesa Way (PC012666)
R1/Single Family Residential
Single
Family Residence w/ Detached Garage
Structure Not Identified in
Historic Resources Inventory
No
action was taken.
12. 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
The following member of the public spoke on this item: Paul Arnoldi, property owner.
No action was taken.
The following member of the
public spoke in regard to the demolition process and how to help owners
understand the process: Rick Laudauti.
Staff Liaison, Liz Bar-El stated that Preservation Week is
another way to get a positive message out in the community. Staff is working on the proclamation date,
which is tentatively set for May 14th, however it is not yet
confirmed. She asked the Commission for
any ideas regarding the event and suggestions of worthy recipients for the
Certificates of Recognition for people who have done something to really improve
their historic designated properties.
Chairperson Alofsin asked when the plaques would be
installed, and suggested arranging to have it covered by the press.
Ms. Bar-El stated that the plaques are backlogged but it is
on the list of things to do.
Chair Pro Tem Lehrer asked how staff will identify good
candidates for the Certificates of Recognition and will there be an event where
they will be recognized.
Ms. Bar-El stated that she welcomed ideas from the
Commission. She also suggested that the
property located at 2450 25th Street be nominated. The house at the southwest corner of 3rd Street and
Ocean Park Boulevard was also suggested for nomination.
Chairperson Alofsin stated that as the Commission came up
with other ideas, they would contact staff.
Ms. Bar-El also mentioned the Hollister Courts, and holding
the event in the park next door.
The Commission agreed.
C. Planning Commission
Case List (Information Only)
Chair Pro
Tem Lehrer inquired about the status of the Aero Theater.
Ms. Christensen stated that there was no change on the
status of the Aero Theater. She spoke
to the property owner, and stated that the pending deal with Sundance Films
fell through. She stated that the
existing retail spaces in the front are still in place and the theater is still
in operation. She also stated that the
owner is exploring other options. The
application is still pending, and he does not wish to withdraw at this time.
10. FUTURE AGENDA
ITEMS: (Requests from Commissioners to add items to upcoming
agendas)
·
To have staff set up a
community meeting with the neighbors to discuss a potential district for the
1300 block of Cedar Street.
·
Working with the
Santa Monica Historical Society be placed on the agenda for May.
·
A joint meeting with
Planning Commission to discuss issues pertaining to the ordinances and the
sequencing of demolition permits and related issues.
·
Update on the Crocker
Bank Building. (221 – 25 Santa Monica Blvd.)
·
Status of the Aero Theater for the May agenda.
11. NEXT MEETING
DATE AND COMMISSION AGENDA: Monday, April 8, 2002
12. ADJOURNMENT: 10:30 p.m.
F:\PLAN\SHARE\Landmarks\MINUTES\2002\3-11-02.doc