MINUTES

MEETING OF THE

LANDMARKS COMMISSION

Founded 1875

“Populus felix in urbe felici”

Monday, February 9, 2004
7:00 p.m.	City Council Chambers, Room 213, 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica

CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m.

1. ROLL CALL: Present: John Berley

Nina Fresco

Roger Genser, Chair Pro Tempore

Ruthann Lehrer, Chairperson

Barbara Kaplan

Debra Levin

Also Present: Michael Feinstein, City Council Liaison

Elizabeth Bar-El, Commission Secretary

Barry Rosenbaum, Senior Land Use Attorney

Stephanie Reich, Urban Designer

Arlene Johnson, Staff Assistant

2. REPORT FROM STAFF:

Ms. Bar-El gave an update on the Marion Davies Estate, 415 PCH. The Community and Cultural Services Department sent out the request for qualifications for a developer to work with the city and implement the already approved master plan. Also, the money for HRG was stretched to include the development of an interpretive sign program, which is being developed for the north house in addition to the HABS level photography.

Update on staff approvals.

She also introduced Stephanie Reich, Urban Designer.

3. COMMISSIONER ANNOUNCEMENTS:

Chairperson Lehrer mentioned that she had 3 copies of a book called “Historic Preservation and Incentives in California”, if anyone was interested.

4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:

Public Input Permitted

A. January 12, 2004

Chair Pro Tem Genser made a motion to approve the minutes, with the following corrections: Councilmember O’Connor did not depart at 7:45 pm. She only stepped down from the dais. Also a discussion about commercial incentives was omitted from “Future Agenda Items”. Commissioner Fresco seconded the motion, which passed unanimously by voice vote. Chairperson Lehrer abstained.

5. APPROVAL OF STATEMENTS OF OFFICIAL ACTION:

None.

6. PUBLIC INPUT: (On items not on agenda and within the jurisdiction of the Commission)

7. CONSENT CALENDAR:

Public Input Permitted

None.

8. OLD BUSINESS:

Public Input Permitted

None.

9. NEW BUSINESS/PUBLIC HEARINGS:

Public Input Permitted

A. Certificate of Appropriateness LC-04CA-001, 147 Georgina Avenue, for approval of a 10,173 square foot, two-story rear addition to the existing two-story single-family home (the R.D. Farquhar House) and requesting a waiver from the additional rear stepback above 14 feet in height required by SMMC 9.04.08.02.070(h).

There were two written communications from Bryna Skuro and Stanton Johnson.

Staff report was presented by Ms. Bar-El.

Powerpoint presentation by Bryan Murphy, Project architect.

Chairperson Lehrer stated that she is not troubled by the extra height because breaking up the massing is better than not breaking up the massing. However, she is concerned with the unrelieved blank wall on the outside, and would like to see some kind of treatment.

She also stated that the cornice treatment of the addition would be a very important architectural feature. Her concern is how massive they are. They should be a little more delicate. They don’t need to replicate the exact cornice detailing of the original.

Chair Pro Tem Genser stated that he is concerned about the height and how the addition is viewed from the street.

Commissioner Fresco stated that the staff report was great. She also stated that adding the extra height over the stairway to breakup the massing seems redundant and unnecessary. Also, the extra roof height from the street changes the perception of the building. She supports the staff recommendation.

Chairperson Lehrer stated that breaking up the massing is a much better approach. It is more harmonious with the existing building, rather than having an unrelieved straight long wing. The extra two feet of height isn’t significant and the approach overall is very consistent with the treatment of the historic building.

Commissioner Berley concurs with Commissioner Fresco. The addition is somewhat overwhelming to the original house. He’s also concerned about the addition being designed to resemble the historic house too closely. It is important that the work be more reflective of this day and time. In regard to the cornice, it would be helpful if we could see what is proposed. He was also concerned about the setback. He supports staff’s recommendation, and feels the addition needs to be brought down as a way of reducing its tendency to seemingly overwhelm the property and the landmark house.

Commissioner Genser stated that asking for a 15-foot sideyard setback was justified and balanced the modification reducing the rear yard stepback because it offset the project’s impact on a more critical elevation.

Commissioner Levin stated that the setback in the rear is not a problem, and supports the recommendation from staff.

Ms. Bar-El clarified some questions regarding the 15-foot side setback staff is suggesting and implications of the rear modification.

Commissioner Kaplan supports the staff recommendation to modify the rearyard setback. She felt that the introduction of the stairwell and the 27- foot height is aggressive and given that this is a landmark there probably is another way to look at the stairwell condition, where the height can be pulled down and back to create a nice space. The courtyard elevation on that side could use a little more unity.

Chairperson Lehrer summarized the Commission’s direction to find a way to diminish the bulk of the massing on the west elevation with a 15 foot setback. She is concerned about some the detailing, and would like to see revised elevations that do not replicate the original windows in the new design, but rather use a more simplified pattern. The cornices also, should have continuity but with more simplified expression.

Commissioner Fresco stated that the addition having different eaves would really detract from its compatibility and she would prefer to see different ways of differentiating the design.

Commissioner Kaplan made a motion to continue this item to next month. In addition to the staff recommendations, the Commission asked that the applicant propose modifications of elements on the addition such as the cornice and fenestration patterns, to differentiate from the existing Landmark structure. Commissioner Berley seconded the motion, which passed unanimously by voice vote.

10. DISCUSSION ITEMS:

Public Input Permitted

A. Review of Demolition Permits and Consideration Whether to File an Application For Designation of a Structure as a Landmark or Structure of Merit.

1. 640 17th Street (PC015403)

R1-Single Family Residential

1-Story Structure w/ 1 tandem Garage

Structure Not Identified on the Historic Resource Inventory

2. 403 / 405 Idaho Ave (PC015411)

R3NW - Medium Density Multiple Family Residential

1-Story Wood Frame Building w/2 Units

Structure Not Identified on the Historic Resource Inventory

3. 635 25th Street (PC015407)

R1-Single Family Residential

1-Story, Single Family House w/ Detached Garage

Structure Not Identified on the Historic Resource Inventory

4. 2635 31st Street (PC015445)

R1-Single Family Residential

2 Accessory Building w/Garages

Structure Not Identified on the Historic Resource Inventory

No action was taken on these items.

B. Discussion regarding the Sears-Roebuck buildings at 302 and 402 Colorado Avenue and Consideration of Whether to File an Application for One or Both of These Properties for Designation as a City Landmark.

The following members of the public addressed the Commission: Bill Christopher, Lou Coletto, Ivor Samson and Rick Shoemaker (representing Sears).

Chair Pro Tem Genser stated that designation may be premature at this time.

Commissioner Fresco stated that the Civic Center plan has gone so far in development and feels it is unfair to the planners of the Civic Center not to be aware of whether the Landmarks Commission is interested in this property as a potential landmark.

Commissioner Berley agrees that it merits a discussion. He feels it is important to raise awareness about structures within the community that have a high level of importance.

Chairperson Lehrer stated that the Sears store building is an icon. In terms of its architecture, it is a beautiful statement of modernism, and make a very strong statement in the downtown skyline. Identification of buildings that are important to preserve is better done earlier in a proactive sense, rather than waiting until there a threat. She does not feel that it’s a significant constraint to opportunities for alterations on the site.

Commissioner Kaplan stated that landmarking a building could be a positive attribute, and not something that will have a negative impact on the retail aspect of the business.

After further discussion with the property owners regarding their concerns, Commissioner Fresco made a motion to continue discussion on both properties to May and to also request a history of alterations and information on any potential ideas for incorporating the Sears building into the Civic Center plan. The Commission also directed staff to discuss with Sears any concerns that they have regarding designation. Commissioner Levin seconded the motion, which passed unanimously by voice vote.

C. Planning Commission Case List (Information Only)

D. Discussion Regarding Potential Incentives That Might Be Provided to Benefit Historic Commercial Properties As a Preliminary Discussion for Future Consideration of Revising the Landmarks and Zoning Ordinances. (Requested by Commissioners Genser & Fresco)

The Commissioners decided to participate in some meetings at the Chamber of Commerce and Main Street merchants with help from Michael Feinstein. The topic will be taken up again in future discussions.

11. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:

Public Input Permitted

None.

12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS: (Requests from Commissioners to add items to upcoming agendas)

Commissioner Fresco requested to agendize a discussion on the historic inventory list.

13. NEXT MEETING DATE AND COMMISSION AGENDA: Monday, March 8, 2004.

14. ADJOURNMENT: 9:45 p.m.