Loading...
SR-406-004 (13)~~~ . . ~ ~;tyo, City Council Report Santa Monica City Council Meeting: January 23, 2007 Agenda Item: 6-A To: Mayor and City Council From: Eileen P. Fogarty, Director of Planning and Community Development Subject: Appeal 06APP-049 of Certificate of Appropriateness 06CA-018, approving alterations to the residence located at 2617 Third Street, a contributor to the Third Street Neighborhood Historic District Recommended Action It is recommended that the City Council uphold the Landmarks Commission's approval of Certificate of Appropriateness 06CA-018, and deny Appeal 06APP-049. Executive Summary This report supports the Landmarks Commission's approval of alterations to the primary single-family bungalow at 2617 Third Street, including a 148 square-foot addition and the relocation of the structure approximately seven feet forward on the property to no less than 25.4' from the property line. The neighboring property owner to the south appealed the Commission's condition allowing the structure to be moved forward so that it is set back halfway between the locations of the structures on either side. The report addresses the points of appeal and concludes that the project as approved is consistent with the Secretary of Interior's Standards, the guidelines for development in the Third Street Neighborhood Historic District, and the Certificate of Appropriateness findings. 1 Discussion Backqround and Commission Action On November 9, 2006, Mark Woollen filed a Certificate of Appropriateness application for modifications to the front structure on his property located at 2617 Third Street, a single-family bungalow that has been designated as a Contributor to the Third Street Neighborhood Historic District ("the District"). The 7,500 square foot parcel currently contains the 958 square foot bungalow and a 574 square foot detached rear garage with a second-story residential unit, which is also a Contributing Structure to the District. The project as submitted consisted of a 148 square-foot addition along the rear portion of the bungalow structure and relocation of the building 12'-5" forward to establish a 20'- 0" front setback, consistent with the minimum front setback permitted in the OP2 Zoning District. Modifications were proposed to the rear elevation of the residence to create access to a new deck. On December 11, 2006, the Landmarks Commission held a public hearing with extensive public testimony and by a vote of 5-0 with one recusal approved the request for the addition and rear modifications, and required that the plans be modified to move the bungalow structure forward approximately seven feet toward the front property line. The applicant's plans would have placed the structure closer to the street than the buildings located on the two adjacent properties. The Landmarks Commission found that this proposal would not be compatible with the character of the District. However, the Commission concluded that allowing the structure to be moved forward on the property to a lesser extent maintains an acceptable siting in relation to the slope by slightly lowering the building's profile while remaining compatible with the 2 overall character of the spatial configurations found along the block. The Commission arrived at the approved setback based on the average setback of the two adjacent structures, or 25.4 feet from the front property line. The Landmarks Commission staff report can be found on-line at the following address: http://santa-monica.orq/planninq/landmark/aqendas/2006/Ica20061211.htm. The Statement of Official Action is included in Attachment B. Candra Docherty, the owner of the adjacent property to the south (2619 Third Street), filed an appeal on December 20, 2006, objecting to the structure being moved forward on the property. The appellant specifically noted in the appeal that she does not take issue with any other aspect of the projecYs approval. Thus, although this matter is before the City Council de novo, this report focuses on the issue raised in this appeal. Appeal Analysis To summarize the points of appeal, the appellant states that it is unnecessary to relocate the bungalow closer to the front property line and that the requested addition could be undertaken without doing so. Furthermore, the appellant contends that, because it is not necessary, allowing the structure to be moved from its historic location is not consistent with the Secretary of Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties or with the District guidelines. She states that alternative courses of action other than relocation were not considered in the decision making and proper findings as required were not made. She further states that relocation of the bungalow at 2617 3 Third Street as approved by the Commission "will `flatten' the traditional staggered siting of the 5 bungalows on the uphill side of Third Street by lining them up in a row in the same plane" and that allowing this relocation without justification sets a dangerous and undesirable precedent for the Historic District. The full appeal text is contained in Attachment A. Staff supports the Commission's decision for a number of reasons. First, the plans as approved in the Certificate of Appropriateness are consistent with the standards and guidelines for the District, which were established as tools to maintain the integrity and historical character of this neighborhood while allowing it to evolve. SMMC Chapter 9.40 (The Third Street Neighborhood Historic District Standards) clearly authorizes a property owner to make the type of modifications proposed here subject to specified findings, including the relocation of both contributing and non-contributing structures [SMMC 9.40.020.d(5)]. The District guidelines were established to supplement the ordinance, providing background and guidance for restoration, rehabilitation and additions and highlighting the important neighborhood elements and architectural features in order to preserve them. Proper siting of buildings is noted in the Guidelines, which state that additions should "consider the location of the building on the property in relation to the slope of the site." However, these guidelines do not require that a building's position remain unaltered under all circumstances. The guidelines note that new construction should "maintain setbacks, heights, and overall building shapes that are similar to surrounding 4 contributing structures in the district." While this project is not new construction, it is a new placement of a structure, and so should follow the same principle. The project, as approved by the Landmarks Commission, is consistent with these guidelines. The appellant states that relocating this bungalow to a new position on the property is not necessary. However, there is no requirement in the Secretary of Interior's Standards, the District Guidelines or the findings for a Certificate of Appropriateness that modifications must be "necessary." Moreover, although moving the house forward may not be "necessary" to save the house from deterioration, the move does address the property owner's need for creating additional space behind the house. The repositioning of the structure in this case to meet the property owner's needs is reasonable because it promotes the neighborhood's preservation through fortifying this contributing structure with a new foundation, and it meets this need without being detrimental to the character of the property or the neighborhood. The appellant claims that the movement forward is detrimental because it will "flatten the traditional staggered siting of the 5 bungalows" among which it is located. Staff disagrees with this assessment and believes that it defines the relevant area too narrowly. When looking more broadly at the contributing District structures on the east side of Third Street befinreen Ocean Park Boulevard and Hill Street, it is evident that the relocation of this one structure will not change the overall historic character of the staggered setbacks, each of which reflects an individual preference of an original occupant in the early days of the neighborhood when setbacks were more flexible (see 5 Attachment D). The existing location of the bungalow on the subject property was likely chosen in order to take advantage of the hill to maximize views of the ocean. The current owner, in undertaking significant work and investment in the structure, has indicated a preference for maximizing usable outdoor space at the rear of the structure, which is also a legitimate preference. The proposed move also creates the potential for future expansion at the rear of the house. The guidelines strongly encourage rear additions if additional floor area is desired. Staff supports the Certificate of Appropriateness, including the relocation of the residence to establish a minimum 25.4' front yard setback that is the subject of this appeal, because the proposed project retains the property's historic character and architectural style for which it was designated as a Contributing Structure to the Third Street Neighborhood Historic District. Further, the proposed on-site relocation would not negatively or substantially alter the overall character of the District as viewed from the public right-of-way and the relocated residence will continue to be compatible with the overall character of the spatial configurations found along the block. Additionally, the proposal to add 148 square feet to the bungalow also complies with the District Guidelines and meets the criteria for issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness Environmental Analysis The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303, Class 3 and Section 15331, Class 31 of the State Implementation Guidelines in that the project consists of modifications to a 6 single family residence that 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. Public Outreach As required by the Municipal Code, the Third Street Neighborhood Citizen's Participation Committee (CPC) was notified of the application for and appeal of the Certificate of Appropriateness, including notice of afl hearings. Additionally, this hearing has been noticed with on-site posting and mailed notice of hearing as required in SMMC Sub-section 9.40.040(b). Budqet/Financial Impact The recommendation presented in this report does not have any budget or fiscal impact. Prepared by: E{izabeth Bar-EI, AICP, Senior Planner Approved: ~, i`(_=~: J~,c= ~'= , _ ., Name~ ~ ~J r Eileen P. Fogarty, D~ a e t of Planning & Community D~ lopment Forwarded to Council: / ~ P a ont Ewell it anager 7 Attachments A. Appellant's appeal statement B. Landmarks Commission's Statement of Official Action C. Certificate of Appropriateness Findings and Conditions D. Project plans and neighborhood structure diagram $ ATTACHMENT A Appellant's Appeal Statement Electronic version of attachment is not available for review. Document is available for review at the City Clerk's Office and the Libraries. 9 ; ~~ #~ @ =.. .::.: ~ ATTACHMENT to DECEMBER 11 2006 LANDMARKS COMMISSION ACTION re: Certificate of Appropriateness 06CA-018 2617 3`d Street, Santa Monica Third Street Neighborhood Historic District INTRODUCTION & SUMMARY This is an appeal of the Landmark Commission's December 1 l, 2006 Certificate of Appropriateness permitting the bungalow at 2617 Third Street in the Third Street Neighborhood Historic District to be moved on site closer to the sidewalk.' Relocation is not necessary to preserve the bungalow from demolition or unsafe or deteriorating conditions. Relocation is not necessary for expansion of the bungalow's living space. There are no unusual or restrictive lot conditions. The 7500 square foot lot (50 feet X 150 feet ) is unusuallylarge for the District and offers ainple space for residential eapansion behind the bungalow as currently sited. There is also a habitable two story structure at the rear of the property in which the current property owners live. This building can potentially be expanded for additional living space without a significant, detrimental impact on the streetscape. ~ To inove a significant, contributing bungalow without justification sets a dangerous and undesirable precedent for the Historic District. The Third Street Neighbarhood Historic District, designated in 1990, is Santa Monica's only Historic District. The District was initiated by resident property owners and tenants. It had the overwhellning support of both. The Landinarks Coinmission recominended designation of the District to the City Council by unanirnous vote. 'The Lazid~narks Commission also approved a side-yard addition to the bungalow visible froan tl~e sh-eet, two new basement windows, and new windows and doors at the rear o~the bun~low. None of these approvals are appealed here. ~ ~ Page 1 of 5 ~ ~;~ The City Council designated the District by unanimous vote. The Council found that the District met all of the then 5 criteria in the Landmarks Ordinance for designation. The Gouncil was clear in its deliberations that fonuation of the District was intended to preserve and protect the streetscape: the visible e~erior of the buildings and their siting in relationship to one another and to the street. Property owners could freely make changes not visible from the sh~eet: in rear yards and inside their houses. The Third Street Neighborhood Historic District designating ordinance findings state: "The Third Street Neighborhood Historic district possesses aesthetic significance to Santa Monica in that the area displays a high percentage of original, turn of the century structures, a consistency in building type, primarily the California bungalow, and a close association with the natural enviromnent, as demonstrated in the particular bv the siting of the homes on the east side of Third Street which are set into the slope of the hill [einphasis added]. These elements combine to create an area with both a sense of place and a sense of Santa Monica's past." (Section 9.36.290 of the Landinark and Histaric District Ordinance of the City of Santa Monica). Third Street is the acknowledged heart of the Historic District. The 5 bungalows on the east, uphill side of Third Street are the acknowledged heai~t of Third Street. Their lots are signiticantly deeper than other lots in the District: 155 feet (150 for the 2617 bun~low) compared to l 30 ~keet on the West side of Third, 100 feet on the West side of Second. The bun~alows are sited in staggered front yard set-backs with cleeper front yards than exist in other parts of the Distriet. ~ The Landinark and Histaric District Ordinance of the Cityof Santa Monica calls out Third Street Neighborhood Historic District Standards for work to contributing buildings in the District. A Certi~cate of Appropriateness is required for relocation of buildin~ within, out of, or into the Third Street Neighborhood Historic District (Section 9.40.020(d)(5)). The Historic District Standards state that a Certificate of Appropriateness should not be issued if relocation of a contributing building would adversely affect the character of the District oi° be inconsistent with any design guidelines and standards developed by the Landinarks Cominission specifically for~the District [einphasis added] (Section 9.040.030(c)(1). Relocation forward of the 2617 Third Street bungalow to a set-back equivalent to the adjacent bungalows as approved by the Landmarks Commission will adversel~affect the character of the District. It will "flatten" the traditional staggered siting of the 5 bungalows on the uphill side of Third Street by lining thein up in a row in the same plane. ~ Movement forward will make the 2617 bungalow appear larger and more massive, Page 2 of 5 ``~ ~ ~~ creating the illusion of new and more homogenous massing with its adjacent bungalows than currently eX1StS. ~ Lining up the 2617 bungalow with its~ adjacent neighbors will realign traditional sight lines between the bungalows and strip their front windows and porches of their traditional privacy one to another. In short, relocation will detrimentally impact the essential character of the heart of the District by altering the visual rhythm and pattern of the east, uphill side of Third Street. The Landmarks Ordinance allows the Landmarks Commission to use the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating E-Iistoric Buildings to assist in its evaluation of proposed projects within the District, although the Guidelines shall not be considered dispositive (Section 9.~40.070(a)). The Landmarks Oi-dinance also mandates the Landmarks Commission to adopt design guidelines for the District, which the Commission did in 1992. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines, while not dispositive, are generally considered "the gold standard" for evaluating alternative approaches to preserving landmarks and the overall character of a Historic District. Theyexpressly state throughout that certain approaches to preservation and rehabilitation of landmarks and contributing structures in Historic Districts are Not Recoinmended, including: "Removing or relocating historic buildings on a site or in a complex of related historic structures ... thus diminishing the historic character of the site or complex." "Removing or relocating histaric buildings or landscape features, thus destroying their historic relationship within the setting." The staff report subinitted to the Landmarks Commission on the 2617 Third Street project acknowledged that ". .. reloeation of an historic resource is not generally recommended as a first course of action [emphasis added]." Neither the staff report nor the Landmarks Commission itself made any findings that other courses of action, or design alternatives other than relocation, had been considered for the 2617 proj ect. Neither the staff report nor the Landinarks Commission itself inade any findings that relocation was necessaty to protect the 2617 bungalow from demolition or unsafe or deteriorating conditions. Page 3 of 5 . `~ /~~ Neither the staff report nor the Landmarks Commission itself made any findings that the size or configuration of the 2617 Third Street 7500 square foot lot posed any significant restrictions to expanding the living space of the front bungalow or of the building in the rear. The back of the front bungalow is currently 81 feet from the undeveloped portion of the rear propertyline and approximately 50 feet from the front of tlie rear two storybuilding. Neither the staff report nor the Landmarks Coinmission itself addressed the important pi-ecedent that relocation of a contributingbungalow in the District would set for future ~rojects. The 1992 Third Street Neighborhood Historic District Design Guidelines and Lanciscape Survey state: "The District is notable for its representation of a varietyof late 19`h century and early 20`~ century residential architectural styles as well as for its lack of substantial infill structures. This is most evident along Third Street, where the neighborhood's turn of the centur~character is relativelv undisrupted [emphasis added]." The Design Guidelines, however, do not address the significance or impact of proposals to relocate a contributing building in the Historic District. Without express direction from the Design Guidelines, the Secretary of the Interior Standards and Guidelines provide the only reasonably objective alternative for evaluatingrelocation of contributing buildings in a District, and these do not recommend relocation on-site. Relocating an individual landmark building on its site has a significantly different and lesser i~npact than moving a contributing building in a Historic District has on the character and integrity of the District as a whole. That is particularlytrue where, as in this case, the bungalow is one of 5 bungalows acknowledged by the Landmarks Ordinance itself as the heart of the Historic District. The Landmarks Commission should not have permitted a precedent-setting on-site z-elocation of the bungalow at 2617 Third Street without findings adequate to support such a drastic i-ehabilitation proposal: either that other design alternatives had been considered, that the bungalow was in imininent danger from detnolition or continued unsafe and deterioratingconditions, or that the size and contiguration of the 7500 square foot lot restricted residential e~ansion and use of the property. Here no such fuldings were made. SPECIFIC REASONS FOR APPEAL Is the appeal related to the discretionary action and findings issued for the proposed project? YES. See above. insufficient findings to support a justifiable need for relocation of a keybungalow were Page 4 of 5 ~ . ~ ,~ .iJ ~~ . " -a~ ..... made. Action sets a dangerous precedent for future. Is the appeal related to the conditions of approval? YES. See above. Owner's request for Certificate of Appropriateness requested 4 chan~s to the 2617 bungalow, including relocation of the bungalow approximately 12 feet toward front property line. Landinarks Commission conditioned approval of the project on movement to a front setback the average of the two adjacent bungalows, so relocation of approximately 7 feet forward. Is the appeal related to design issues? YES. See above for discussion of negative streetscape iinpact a"line-up" of identical set-backs of 3 of 5 of the bungalows will have on the historic "sta~ering" of setbacks, and on privacy among the ho~nes one to another. Is the appeal related to compatibility issues such as building height, massing, pedestrian orientation, etc.? YES See above for discussion of negative impact of "line-up", of increased massing of bungalows as seen froin the street. Is the appeal related to non-compliance with the Santa Monica Municipal Code? YES. See above. The purpose of the Landinarks Ordinance is to protect and safeguard the City's cultural, social, econoinic, political, and architectural historyand heritage througli designation of individual landinarks and Historic Districts. Relocation of the 2617 contributingbungalow in the Third Sti-eet Neighborhood Historic does not protect and safeguard the District's essential character and history. The Historic District Standards state that a Certificate of Appropriateness should not be issued if relocation of a contributing building would adversely affect the character of the District, as would occur here. The Landmarks Ordinance pennits use of the Secretaryof Interior Standards to evaluate projects in a Historic District. It requires development of Design Guidelines. Since the Third Street Neighborhood Historic District Design Guidelines do not directly address relocation of contributing structures within the District, the Secretary of Interior Standards are the only reasonably objective alternative available for evaluating this project and should have been used. Those Standards do not recommend relocation. Is the appeal related to environmental impacts associated with the project? NOo ls the appeal i-elated to other issues? YES. See above. This is the first proposal to relocate a contributing stnictu~~e in the District. It sets a significant, undesirable precedent. Page 5 of 5 ATTACHMENT B Certificate of Appropriateness Findings & Conditions 10 ~~ ~~s~~; ~ ~ CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FINDINGS (SMMC 9.40.030(cZ 1. The proposed project is included within the list of work enumerated in SMMC Section 9.40.020(d)(Subsections 3, 5, and 6). 2. The proposed alterations and relocation of the structure at 2617 3~d Street, a contributing structure to the Third Street Neighborhood Historic District, would not be incompatible with the exterior features of other contributing improvements within the District, not adversely affect the character of the District and not be inconsistent with any design guidelines and standards that may be develaped and adopted by the Landmarks Commission in that the scale and design of the proposed on-site relocation, 148 square foot addition, and addition of new doors and windows are appropriate for the property and the overall character of the District and street, and the wood and glass materials proposed complement the type of materials traditionally used in the Historic District, as encouraged in the district's design guidelines. The relocation of the structure to no less than 25.4' from the property line also reflects the District guidelines, in that it considers the slope and slightly lowers the building's profile and places the structure no closer to the street than the average of the adjacent buildings. The proposed on-site relocation will not adversely affect the overall character of the District as viewed from the public right-of-way and the relocated residence is compatible with the overall character of the spatial configurations found along the block. Therefore, the proposed project would not adversely affect and not be disharmonious with the District character, scale, materials and massing of the character-defining features of the existing residence and of other Contributing Structures within the District. 3. The proposed alteration and relocation of the contributing structure at 2617 Third Street will not adversely affect any exterior feature of the Turn-of-the-Century residence in that the on-site relocation of the residence to establish a minimum 25.4' front yard setback and the 148 square-foot addition on the rear portion of the bungalow retain the property's historic character and architectural style for which it was designated as a Contributing Structure to the Third Street Neighborhood Historic District. The scale, massing and volume of the addition complement the existing building and the height of the addition is similar to the existing structure. Consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Guidelines for Rehabilitation and the District Design Guidelines, the proposed addition is designed to be compatible with but not duplicative of the existing residence and is compatible with the overall scale and proportion of the existing residence. The project is also designed to reflect and complement the residence's Turn-of-the- Century architectural elements. The proposed addition of new doors and windows on the rear elevation of the structure are compatible with the Standards for Rehabilitation since they do not affect exterior character-defining features, materials, and finishes of the residence that are visible from the public right-of- way, and these elements are compatible and yet can be clearly differentiated as new features. 11 CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FINDINGS (SMMC 9.36.140) 1. The proposed project at 2617 3rd Street will not detrimentally change, destroy or adversely affect any exterior feature of the Turn-of-the-Century residence in that the on-site relocation of the residence to establish a minimum 25.4' front yard setback and the 148 square-foot addition on the rear portion of the bungalow retain the property's historic character and architectural style for which it was designated as a Contributing Structure to the Third Street Neighborhood Historic District. Further, the proposed on-site relocation will not negatively or substantially alter the overall character of the District as viewed from the public right-of-way and the relocated residence is compatible with the overall character of the spatial configurations found on along the block. Consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Guidelines for Rehabilitation and the District Design Guidelines, the proposed addition is designed to be compatible with but not duplicative of the existing residence and is compatible with the overall scale and proportion of the existing residence. The project is also designed to reflect and complement the residence's Turn-of-the-Century architectural elements. The proposed addition of new doors and windows on the rear elevation of the structure are compatible with the Standards for Rehabilitation since they do not affect exterior character-defining features, materials, and finishes of the residence that are visible from the public right-of-way, and these elements can be clearly differentiated as new features. 2. The proposed project would not be incompatible with the exterior features of other contributing improvements within the Third Street Neighborhood Historic District, and would not be inconsistent with any design guidelines and standards that may be developed and adopted by the Landmarks Commission specifically for the District in that the scale and design of the proposed on-site relocation, 148 square foot addition, and addition of new doors and windows are appropriate for the property and the overall character of the District and street, and the wood and glass materials proposed complement the type of materials traditionally used in the Historic District, as encouraged in the district's design guidelines. The relocation of the structure to no less than 25.4' from the property line also reflects the District guidelines, in that it considers the slope and slightly lowers the building's profile and places the structure no closer to the street than the average of the adjacent buildings. Therefore, the proposed project would not adversely affect and not be disharmonious with the District character as set forth in Section 9.36.290, with the scale, materials and massing of the character-defining features of the existing residence and of other Contributing Structures within the District. 11 CONDITIONS 1. This approval is for the proposed project at 2617 3~d Street as shown on plans date-stamped January 8, 2007, which are on file in the City Planning Division, except as amended herein. 2. The front yard setback of the relocated residence shall be no less than 25.4' (i.e. the average front yard setback of the abutting properties at 2607 and 2619 3`d Street) as shown on the approved plans. 3. This Certificate of Appropriateness shall be in full force and effect from and after the date of the rendering of this decision. 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 Landmarks 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. 12 ATTACHMENT C Landmarks Commission's Statement of Official Action 13 LANDMARKS COMMISSION OF TH~ CITY OF SANTA MONICA STATEMENT QF O~F'ICIAI. ACTION PROJECT SUBJECT: LC-OfiCA-018 ADDR~SS: 2617 3rd Street APPLICANT: Michael W. Folonis, AIA, and Associates R~QU~S7: Cerkificate of Appropriateness for approval of the on-site relocation and 148 square foot addition to a Contributing Structure loc~ted within the Third Street Neighborhood Historic District. LANDMARKS COMMISSION ACTION 12/11/06 Date Approved based on the following findings and subject to the X conditions below Denied Other ~FF~CTIVE dATE QF ACTION ~2/22/2006 Certifca#e of Appropriateness LC-06CA-018 CERTIFICATE OF APPRQPRIATENESS FINDINGS (SMMC 9.36.~40? The proposed project at 2617 3`d Street will not detrimentally change, destroy or adversely affect any exterior feature ofthe Turn-of-the-Century residence in that the on-site relocation of the residence to establish a minimum 25.4' front yard sefiback and the 148 square-foot addition on the rear portion of the bungalow retain the property's historic character and architectural style for which it was designated as a Gontributing Structure to the Third Street Neighborhood HistOric District. Further, the proposed on-site relocation will not negatively or substantially alter the overall character of the District as viewed from the public right-of-way and the relocated residence is compatible with the overall charact~r af the spatial configurations found -x- 14 on along the block. Consistent with the SeCretary of the Interior's Guidelines for Rehabilitation and the District DeSign Guidelifte5, the proposad addition i5 designed to be compatible with but not duplicative of the existing residenCe and is Compatible with the overall scale and proportion of the exi5ting residence. The projsCt is alsa designed to reflect and complement the residence's Turn-of-the-Century architectural elements. The proposed additipn of n~w doors and windows on the rear elevation of the structure are compatible with the Standards for Rehabilitation since they do not affect exterior character-defining features, materials, and finishes af the residence that are visibfe from the public right-of-way, and these elemenfs can be clearly difFerentiated as new features. 2. The proposed project would not be incompatible with the exteriar features of other contributing improvements within the 7hird Sfreet Neighborhood Historic District, and would not bE inCOnsistent with any design guidelines and standards fhat may be developed and adopted by the l.andmarks Commission specificalfy for the District in that the scale and design of the proposed on-site relocation, 148 square foot addition, and addition of new doors and windows are appropriate for the property and the overall character of the District and street, and the wood and glass materials proposed complement the type of materials traditionally used in the Historic Distriet, as encouraged in the districYs design guidelines. The relocation of the structure to no less than 25.4' from the property line also reflects the aistrict guidelines, in that it considers the slope and slightly lowers the building's profile and places the structure no Closer to the street than the average of the adjacent buildings. Therefore, thE proppsed projecf would not adversely affect and not be disharmonious with the District character as set forth in Section 9.36.290, with the sCa1e, materials and massing af the character-defining features of the existing residence and of dther Contributing 5fructures within the District. CONDITIONS This approval is far praposed project at 2617 3`d Street as shpwn on plans dated November 17, 2006, whiCh ~re on file in the City Planning Division, except as amended herein. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicanf shall be required to apply for a Variance to allow for the reconstructed front stairs if they project into the required front yard setback. lf the Variance is required and not granted hy the Zoning Administrator for this request, the applic~nt shall be required to redesign the project and apply for a madification to the approval of this Certificate of Appropriateness (06CA-Q18}. 3. The front yard setback of the relocated residence shall be no less than 25,4' (i.e. the average front yard setback of the abutting properties at 2607 and 2619 3~ Street). The plans shall be revised to demonstrate compliance with this requirement prior to issuance of a building permit. - z - 15 4. This C~rtificate of Approp-'iateness shall be in fuif force and effectfrom and afterthe date of th~ rendering of the d~cision by the Commission. Pursuant to Landmarks Ordinance SeCtion 9.36.170(h), this ~ppraval shall expire within one yEa~ if fhe auYhorized work is not commenced. Should the applicant be unable to aomply with this r~$triction, an extension may be granted pursuant to Section 9.36.250 far ~n additional 18p dayS m~ximum. The applicant must rGquest such an extension prior to expiration of this permit. Afterthat timE, the applicantwill 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 1$0-day period after being commenced. 5. 7his decision may b~ appealed by properly flling with the Director of Planning and Community Development a Notice of Appeal on a farm furn+sh~d by fihe Planning and Cammunity Department. SuCh notice shall be filed within a ten (10) day time periad commencing from the dat~ of th~ determination. 6. All required Planning and Building Permit approvals shall be obtained. VOTE: Ayes: Berley, Fresco, Kapfan, Lehrer, Shari f~ays: None Abstain: Genser Absent: Nane NOTICE If this is a final decision not subje~t to further appeal under the Ciry of Santa Monica Comprehensive Land Use and Zoning Qrdinance, the time within which judicial review of this decision must be sought is governed by Code of Civil Procedure Section 1 p9~4,6, which provision has been adopted by the City pursuant fo Municipal CodE Sectian '~ 400. 1 hereby G~f~l~}I tll~t tFlf5 ~tatem~nt of Offieial Action accurately reflects the final determination of the Landmarks Commission of the City of 5anta Monica. ~ L~ ~l Nina Fresco, Chairperson 16 ac men . . ava ~ a e o r rev ~ ew . . , in i er s o ~ce.