MINUTES

 

SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE

LANDMARKS COMMISSION AND

ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD

AND

REGULAR MEETING OF THE

LANDMARKS COMMISSION

 

Founded 1875

“Populus felix in urbe felici”

 

 

 

Monday, December 13, 2004

6:00 PM

City Council Chambers, Room 213

1685 Main Street, Santa Monica

 

 

 

CALL TO ORDER OF THE JOINT MEETING OF THE LANDMARKS COMMISSION AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD  6:10 PM

 

1.            ROLL CALL                         Landmarks Commission

                                       Present:    Roger Genser, Chairperson
                                                         Nina Fresco, Chair Pro Tem

                                                         John Berley, Commissioner                                      

Barbara Kaplan, Commissioner

Ruthann Lehrer, Commissioner

                                                         Colin Maduzia, Commissioner          

                                                         Deborah Levin, Commissioner

                                                        

                                                         Architectural Review Board

                                                         Joan Charles, Chairperson

                                                         Rodolfo Alvarez

                                                         Tania Fischer

                                                         Michael Folonis

                                                         Edouard Mimieux

 

                                    Absent:        William Adams, Vice-Chairperson

 

2.            INTRODUCTION OF CITY PLANNING STAFF 

 

3.            TRAINING SESSION (approximately 1 hour): Presentation by Professor Ken Breisch regarding the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties. 

 

4.            ADJOURMENT OF THE JOINT MEETING OF THE LANDMARKS COMMISSION AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD  7:20 PM

 

CALL TO ORDER OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE LANDMARKS COMMISSION (To begin at 7:00 pm) 7:25 PM

 

1.            ROLL CALL 

                                       Present:    Roger Genser, Chairperson
                                                         Nina Fresco, Chair Pro Tem

                                                         John Berley, Commissioner                                      

Barbara Kaplan, Commissioner

Ruthann Lehrer, Commissioner

                                                         Colin Maduzia, Commissioner          

                                                         Deborah Levin, Commissioner

 

                              Also Present:    Roxanne Tanemori, Commission Secretary

                                                         Stephanie Reich, Urban Designer

                                                         Barry Rosenbaum, Senior Land Use Attorney

                                                         Arlene Johnson, Staff Assistant

 

2.            REPORT FROM STAFF:

Ms. Tanemori announced that the proposed Development Agreement at 1327-1337 Ocean Avenue will be presented to the City Council on February 22nd or March 22nd.  She will inform the Commission of the exact date once it has been finalized.

 

3.            COMMISSIONER ANNOUNCEMENTS:

 

         Chair Pro Tem Fresco announced that the Santa Monica Conservancy is hosting a tour of the Third Street Historic District.  It will be held on January 30th from 12:00 – 5:00 pm.  For more information, please visit the website at: www.smconservancy.org.

 

4.            APPROVAL OF MINUTES:

                       

A.     November 8, 2004

 

Commissioner Lehrer made a motion to approve the minutes.  Commissioner Kaplan seconded the motion, which passed by voice vote with Chairperson Genser and Commissioner Levin abstaining.  The following correction was noted by Chair Pro Tem Fresco:  Page 5, 1st paragraph, 5th line, replace the word “and” with “which”.

                         

5.            APPROVAL OF STATEMENTS OF OFFICIAL ACTION:

 

A.     Statement of Official Action: Certificate of Appropriateness Application LC-04CA-008, 1911 La Mesa Drive, Approving Installation of Exterior Louvers Over the Front Windows.

 

Commissioner Lehrer noted the following correction:  Page 2 under Findings, first line, replace “does” with “does not”.

 

B.     Findings and Determination: Landmark Designation Application LC-04LM-008, 404 Georgina Avenue, designating the structure and parcel at 404 Georgina Avenue as a City Landmark.

 

Chair Pro Tem Fresco made a motion to approve Items 5A with correction and 5B.  Commissioner Maduzia seconded the motion, which passed by the following vote:

 

Ayes:           Berley, Fresco, Kaplan, Lehrer, Maduzia

Nayes:         None

Absent:        None

Abstain:       Genser, Levin

 

C.    Findings and Determination: Landmark Designation Application LC-04LM-004, 302 Colorado Avenue (Sears-Roebuck Building). (Continued from November 8, 2004. This item may be considered with items 10B and 10C.)

 

Chairperson Genser made a motion to consider Items 10B, 10C and 10G with this item.  Commissioner Kaplan seconded the motion, which passed unanimously by voice vote.

 

The following member of the public addressed the Commission:  Chris Harding, Attorney, representing Sears.

 

Chair Pro Tem Fresco made a motion to reconsider the Sears Statement of Official Action.  Commissioner Lehrer seconded the motion, which passed by the following vote:

 

   Ayes:           Berley, Fresco, Kaplan, Lehrer, Levin, Maduzia, Genser

   Nayes:         None

   Absent:        None

   Abstain:       None

 

Commissioner Lehrer stated that the most practical position would be to nominate the parcel, and to specify on it that the main Sears building is the most important structure meeting all of the criteria in the Landmark Ordinance.  The accessory building that was originally constructed as a Service Station and later converted into a Garden Center, has been altered, and is an accessory building of lesser significance.  However, it still has some architectural features that tie it to the main building and still retains a certain level of significance.

 

Mr. Rosenbaum stated that if the Commission were inclined to only landmark the main building, and not the Garden Center, the approach that staff would likely take with the Statement of Official Action would be to clearly indicate that only the main Sears building is being landmarked, according to the findings, and therefore discussion of the Garden Center would not be in the landmark findings section.  Discussion of the Garden Center could be in a separate section that describes some of the historical context of the Garden Center and some of the features.  The parcel would also be landmarked.

 

Commissioner Lehrer stated that what needs to be mentioned is that the accessory building is not an individual landmark.  It has been substantially altered from its original use as a Service Station to become a Garden Center.  It has certain architectural elements, such as the curving canopies, the horizontality, and the stucco walls with the scoring that relates to the main building, but architecturally, those are the only late moderne elements that remain.

 

Commissioner Lehrer made a motion to Landmark the Sears main building and the parcel.  The Garden Center’s historical past will be reflected, and any Certificates of Appropriateness will be reviewed by the Commission.  Chairperson Genser seconded the motion, which passed by the following vote:

 

   Ayes:           Berley, Fresco, Kaplan, Lehrer, Levin, Maduzia, Genser

   Nayes:         None

   Absent:        None

   Abstain:       None

 

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

 

            None.

 

7.         CONSENT CALENDAR:

        

            None. 

 

8.         OLD BUSINESS:

 

A.     Landmark Designation Application LC-04LM-007, 225 Santa Monica Boulevard (Bay Cities Guaranty Building) to determine whether the structure should be designated as a City Landmark. (Continued from November 8, 2004)

 

Ms. Tanemori presented the staff report.

 

Chair Pro Tem Fresco made a motion to designate 225 Santa Monica Blvd. as a landmark.  Commissioner Levin seconded the motion, which passed by the following vote:

 

Ayes:              Berley, Fresco, Kaplan, Lehrer, Levin, Maduzia, Genser

Nayes:            None

Absent:           None

Abstain:          None

 

9.         NEW BUSINESS/PUBLIC HEARINGS: 

        

  1. Certificate of Appropriateness Application LC-04CA-009, 320 Santa Monica Pier, to approve installation of a new 2,948 square foot public restroom building, new 194 square foot ice cream kiosk, and creation of three storage areas in and adjacent to the existing Pier Maintenance/Police Substation building on the Santa Monica Pier. 

 

Ms. Tanemori presented the staff report.

 

Vice Chair Fresco reminded the Commission that their job was to oversee the historic character of the Pier, which is not only the buildings that are historic thereof, but to maintain the continual and improved character and spirit of the Pier as it was traditionally and historically developed.  She stated that the Pier Guidelines are not rules but standards by which they can make findings.  The guidelines encourage a lot of creativity.  One of the most interesting consistent themes of the guidelines is that every aspect of the Pier should be interesting to look at, and inviting to passers by from all sides, and that particularly applies to this building because it is adjacent to the main vehicle entry into the parking, restrooms, etc.  There should be a constant awareness of Pier, beach and ocean environment, breaks and massing to encourage north/south view corridors are encouraging opening up walls, more glass and less mass.

 

Commissioner Lehrer stated that she was pleased with the treatment of this proposal because it incorporates visual variation.  She was not bothered by some components of it having an industrial look because Piers originally were just utilitarian places.  All of it doesn’t have to be designer places.  Also, it has many design elements that are fun and inventive. 

 

Commissioner Kaplan felt that there was a lot of variation and whimsy in the proposed design, and a lot of the character that’s starting to be developed on the Pier.  She was intrigued by the concept of the wind tower but was disappointed when she saw it on the drawings.   It looked more interesting in the perspective than on the elevations.  She felt that the idea had much more potential, such as the detail of the signage at the bathrooms.  There are lots of details and developments that can make or break this project.  Overall, she liked the schematic idea.

 

Chairperson Genser stated that it would be nice to have an alternative to the flap façade with the doors.

 

Chair Pro Tem Fresco stated that the east and south façade need to be more in context with the Pier theme of fun, and not so industrial, and if the chain link fence needs to remain across certain portions of it, it can be done in a way that suits the nautical theme. 

 

Commissioner Berley also stated that the drawings are inadequate and there needs to be more information.  Perhaps a color material board with material samples on it so they will know what the finish product will look like.  It appears that there is a lot of information that is being recommended to staff before the Commission has a chance to weigh in.  He feels this information should come to the Commission for evaluation and then they will direct staff if they have any concerns. 

 

Vice Chair Fresco stated that the new bathrooms are whimsical and gregarious.  She would like the privacy screen to be made of a more durable material that will be easy to maintain.  She liked the wave over the ice cream stand as a concept, but felt that it would create a problem for people wanting to put up signage because it would overlap with the architecture. 

 

Commissioner Kaplan commented on the roof ventilation system, she was concerned that the mechanical system over the bathrooms would violate the purity of that wave.  How would it be incorporated into that design without interfering with the form and the expression of the wave?

 

Commissioner Berley made a motion that the applicant return next month with a new set of plans (1 full-scale and 6 half-scale), material boards and colors, delineating what is occurring with this project, per the recommendations that have been made.  Commissioner Lehrer seconded the motion, which passed unanimously by voice vote.

 

  1. Certificate of Appropriateness Application LC-04CA-010, 200 Santa Monica Pier, for approval of Sign Adjustment Application 04-ARB-508 requesting signage for the Looff Hippodrome Carousel Building on the Santa Monica Pier.

 

The following member of the public addressed the Commission: Rob Loesch, Airport Concessions California.

 

Commissioner Berley had a concern with the triangulation support in that it seemed somewhat ill-considered.  The plans are showing an expressive armature and then a rod acting as a brace.  If there is going to be such ornamentation on the armature itself, then it would be nice to articulate the bracing also with a similar type of ornamentation and have it come off of both sides to the mid-point of the armature so that it acts as a complete design. 

 

Commissioner Kaplan also mentioned that the proposed sign should incorporate curving the letters for “The Carousel Gift Shop”. 

 

Chair Pro Tem Fresco made a motion to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness to include articulating the triangulation on the armature and curving the letters on the carousel gift shop sign.  Chairperson Genser seconded the motion, which passed by the following vote:

 

Ayes:              Berley, Fresco, Kaplan, Lehrer, Levin, Maduzia, Genser

Nayes:            None

Absent:           None

Abstain:          None

 

  1. Revision to Certificate of Appropriateness LC-04CA-002, 147 Georgina Avenue, for approval of a revised project design for a 6,403 square foot two-story plus basement rear addition to the existing two-story single-family home (the R.D. Farquhar House). The applicant is also requesting a modification from the required additional rear stepback above 14 feet in height required by SMMC 9.04.08.02.070(h). (Certificate of Appropriateness LM-04CA-002 and the modification to stepback requirements were reviewed and approved by the Commission on March 8, 2004).

 

Ms. Tanemori presented the staff report.

 

The following member of the public addressed the Commission:  Brian Murphy, Project Architect.

 

Commissioner Kaplan stated that the mass and articulation of the roof doesn’t feel elegant enough for this house.  It’s too massive and needs to be broken up more.  She also stated that, in the original set, looking at the south elevation, the scale and size of the windows and dormers feel better.  The windows reach higher under the eaves, and the eave touches the top of the window in the old scheme.  In the new scheme, the windows are cut out more on a flat façade.  The dormers are a different form in the original scheme.  They are elongated and read very square in the new scheme. 

 

Commissioner Berley made a motion to bring this item back next month and requested that the architect address the proportion between the roof and windows, and massing of the addition.  Chairperson Genser seconded the motion, which passed unanimously by voice vote.

 

10.       DISCUSSION ITEMS:

        

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

 

1.            505 Arizona Avenue (PC016866)

C3C-Downtown Overlay

                        Assembly Hall, Foyer, Sunday School, Church Offices & Auxillary Rooms

                        Structure Not Identified in the Historic Resources Inventory

 

The following member of the public addressed the Commission:  Ken Kutcher, Attorney representing the First Church of Christ Scientist.

 

Chair Pro Tem Fresco felt that this is a fine building and stated that this same architect built the Graduate School of Business Administration at UCLA.  She would like to see more research of the building.

 

Mr. Kutcher stated that state law grants religious institutions the right to exempt themselves from historic preservation, which includes preservation laws of chartered cities.  This right was confirmed by the Supreme Court in the year 2000.    Pursuant to the government code section that grants these religious institutions the right to exempt themselves, which is section 37361 Su vision A, the church has decided to object to any designation of its sanctuary, church offices, sunday school and other religious facilities at this location.  

 

Commissioner Lehrer asked if the church would consider putting the property up for sale prior to demolition to see whether or not there is someone who would purchase it.  This could accomplish their goals of providing for their needs as a religious organization in a way that didn’t involve the demolition. 

 

Mr. Kutcher stated that the church has been dealing with this issue for 2 years. They have been at this location since 1927, and would like to remain there. 

 

Chairperson Genser stated that the building is significant architecturally, and would like to receive an analysis from PCR for the record. 

 

Commissioner Berley stated that what the church erected in 1963, in his opinion, is an exceptional piece of modern architecture, and especially spiritual.  It’s a beautiful building. 

 

Commissioner Maduzia concurred with previous statements.  He also stated that the Commission’s job is to look at architecture in the context of preservation and its importance to the City.

 

Chairperson Genser made a motion to bring this item back next month with more information regarding the legal issues raised by Mr. Kutcher and the architectural significance of the building.  Commissioner Berley seconded the motion, which passed unanimously by voice vote.

 

               2.      1332 Ocean Park Blvd. (PC016828)

                        R3-Medium Density Multi-Family

                        Four Units w/1 Detached, Four Car Garage

      Structure Not Identified in the Historic Resources Inventory

 

               3.      1336 Ocean Park Blvd. (PC016829)

                        R3-Medium Density Multi-Family

                        Four Units w/1 Detached, Four Car Garage

      Structure Not Identified in the Historic Resources Inventory

 

               4.      1035 Yale Street (PC016844)                   

                        R1-Single Family Residential

                        Single Family Residence w/Detached Garage

                        Structure Not Identified in the Historic Resources Inventory

 

5.            1243 Franklin Street (PC016771)

R2-Low Density Multiple Residential

Single Family Residence w/Detached Two-Car Garage

Structure Not Identified in the Historic Resources Inventory

 

               6.      914 5th Street (PC016772)

R2-Low Density Multiple Residential

Single Family Residence w/Detached Two-Car Garage

Structure Not Identified in the Historic Resources Inventory

 

The following member of the public addressed the Commission:  Elizabeth Terry.                 

 

               7.      421 23rd Street (PC016759)

                        R1-Single Family Residential

                        Single Family Residence and Guest House

Structure Not Identified in the Historic Resources Inventory

 

8.            1711 Ocean Front Walk (PC016867)

R3R-Medium Density Multiple Family Residential

Single Family Residence

Structure Not Identified in the Historic Resources Inventory

 

               9.      650 Copeland Court (PC016862)

                        OP-Duplex Residential

                        Single Family Dwelling, Garage, Tool shed & Greenhouse

Structure Identified in the Historic Resources Inventory as 5S1

Previously submitted on December 10, 2001 (PC012499)

              

               10.    714 16th Street (PC016895)

                        R1-Single Family Residential

                        One-Story, Single Family Residence w/Detached 2-Car Garage

                        Structure Not Identified in Historic Resources Inventory

 

               11.    2250 Cloverfield Blvd (PC016904)

                        R1-Single Family Residential

                        One-Story, Single Family Residence and Detached Garage

                        Structure Identified in Historic Resources Inventory – 5D1

 

                        There was no action taken on Item 10A(2-11).

 

B.     Discussion of whether to reconsider the Landmarks Commission’s October 11, 2004 decision on Landmark Designation Application LC-04LM-004, 302 Colorado Avenue (Sears-Roebuck Building). (This item may be considered with item 5C.)

 

This item was discussed earlier with Item 5C.

 

C.    Reconsideration of the Landmarks Commission’s October 11, 2004 decision on Landmark Designation Application LC-04LM-004, 302 Colorado Avenue (Sears-Roebuck Building). (If the Landmarks Commission votes to reconsider the matter under 10B. This item may be considered with item 5C.)

 

This item was discussed earlier with Item 5C.

 

D.    Discussion of the Historic Preservation Element and ways in which the goals and policies of this Element can be integrated into the Land Use Element and Zoning Ordinance Project. Discussion of the next steps including formation of an ad-hoc subcommittee of Landmarks Commissioners to prepare recommendations for the Landmarks Commission to review and submit to City Planning staff during the public outreach component of the Land Use Element and Zoning Ordinance Project.

 

Chair Pro Tem Fresco commented on several subjects in the Land Use Element, and offered some changes and inclusions. 

 

Commissioner Kaplan commented on the number of projects involving courtyard properties.  The City is losing the low density in the R2 district every month when one of these courtyards properties goes down.  How do we maintain the density and not keep people from getting the full value of their property?

 

Commissioner Berley stated that the Zoning Ordinance conflicts with the Historic Preservation Element.  The Land Use Element encourages a certain atmosphere that the Zoning Ordinance doesn’t appear to.

 

After further discussion, the Commission formed a subcommittee consisting of Commissioners Genser, Fresco, Berley and Kaplan as an alternate.  This committee will meet and report back in January on its findings.

 

E.     Proposed Demolition Permit Review Team Schedule for 2005.

 

F.     Planning Commission Case List (Information Only).

 

G.    Clarification of Landmarks Ordinance (SMMC 9.36) related to designation of City Landmarks and criteria for subsequent Certificate of Appropriateness review for demolition, alterations & new construction.

 

This item was discussed earlier with Item 5C.

 

11.                   WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:

           

            None.

 

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

 

Commissioner Lehrer requested to agendize a discussion of the report from the subcommittee on the Land Use Element and Zoning Ordinance.

 

Chairperson Genser requested to agendize possible changes to the landmarks procedures and definitions.

 

Commissioner Berley requested to agendize consideration of the priority list for landmark designations.

           

13.       NEXT MEETING DATE AND COMMISSION AGENDA: Monday, January 10, 2005.

                                                  

14.       ADJOURNMENT:11:06 PM