Loading...
SR-010108-6B~~ ~;tYo, City Council Report Santa Monica City Council Meeting: To: Mayor and City Council f Z~$ Agenda Item:'=~ r From: Eileen P. Fogarty, Director of Planning and Community Development Subject: Appeal 07APP-001 of Certificate of Appropriateness 06CA-021, denying reconstruction of brick work on the front porch of a contributing residence located within Hollister Court, a designated City Landmark. Recommended Action Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the Landmarks Commission's denial of Certificate of Appropriateness 06CA-021. Executive Summary This report supports the Landmarks Commission's denial of the reconstruction of the front porch brickwork at 2402 4t" St. Unit #4, within Hollister Court, a designated City Landmark. The property owner/appellant appealed the Commission's decision on the basis that the brickwork complies with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards because the work incorporates some of the original brick and the proportions of the porch have not changed. This report addresses the points of appeal and concludes that the proposed project would adversely affect the historic character of the Landmark complex because it is not consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and the appeal should, therefore, be denied. There is no fiscal impact associated with this item. 1 Discussion Background On November 21, 2006, the applicantappellant, Tammy Cameron, filed a Certificate of Appropriateness application for retroactive approval of the reconstruction of brick work on the front porch of the bungalow at 2402 4th St. #4 within Hollister Court, a designated City Landmark. The subject residence is one of thirteen individual units located on the property. Hollister Court, which was built between 1904 and the early 1920s during the height of the bungalow court construction movement in Santa Monica and across Southern California, is comprised of moderate-sized residences oriented around a central landscaped walkway on a single parcel. The bungalows all have front porches and are designed to have a "hand crafted" appearance through the use of low-profile building elements including brick at the base of the front porches. The full determination designating Hollister Court as a Landmark is included in Attachment C. Subsequent to the designation, the applicanUappellant entered into a Mills Act Contract with the City for the bungalow. A restoration plan for the bungalow was included as part of the contract. One aspect of this plan required the applicantappellant to replace and re-point damaged brick and to re-point damaged masonry and water seal to protect the masonry from water moisture. The Mills Act Contract is included in Attachment D. When the applicant's/appellant's contractor subsequently commenced the brickwork, he found that the bricks were not supported by foundation and therefore susceptible to collapse. As a result, all existing loose bricks were removed by hand and new bricks of 2 similar size and shape, washed to have an aged appearance, were installed (see Figure 1). Where possible, the contractor re-used the old bricks provided they were not deteriorated. The applicant/appellant indicates that the new brick was chosen specifically for its aged appearance in order to match the historic nature of the property. A bull nose brick was installed on top of the new brick to provide a flat surface and additional seating area for the front porch. Since appropriate permits were not obtained for the brickwork, a compliance order was mailed to the applicantlappellant on October 30, 2006. The applicant/appellant filed the subject application for the Certificate of Appropriateness in response to the compliance order. Figure 2: Examples of original brickwork in complex 3 Figure 1: Brickwork as constructed Landmarks Commission Action The Landmarks Commission reviewed the Certificate of Appropriateness at its December 11, 2006 meeting and continued the item to give the applicant time to return with information on the possibility of staining the new brick to match the older bricks used in other porches in the complex. The applicant returned with the information at the Commission's January 8, 2007 meeting and indicated that there were limited options for staining and that staining would cost several thousand dollars because she was only able to identify out-of-state companies to do the work. The Commission voted to deny the brickwork on the basis that the work did not comply with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. The Commission found that: • The brickwork does not comply with Standards 5 and 6 which state that distinctive finishes and materials should be preserved and where replacement of deteriorated features is necessary, the new feature should match the old in color, texture, and design; • The new, multi-colored brick, which has been treated to look "old", would adversely affect the historic character of the Landmark complex because the new bricks do not match the removed solid-color red bricks, as found in other porches in the complex; and • Allowing the porch to remain as built without prior approval would introduce a modern intrusion into the consistent design and materials of the historic porches in the central courtyard; and 4 The rounded edges, texture, and thickness of the bull nose bricks used to cap the wall are not compatible with the pointed, original brick used throughout the complex and introduce a new design that is inappropriate for the 20t" century bungalow courtyard property. The Landmarks Commission staff report can be found on-line at the following address: http://santa-monica.orq/planninpllandmark/agendas/2006/Ica20061211.htm. The Statement of Official Action is included in Attachment B. The applicant/appellant, filed an appeal on January 18, 2007, objecting to the Commission's decision. This matter is before the City Council de novo. Appeal Analysis To summarize the points of appeal, the applicant/appellant states that: • The Commission made arbitrary comments regarding the dimensions of the porch because the size of the porch was not altered by the construction of the new brickwork; e The new brickwork incorporated some of the original brick that was able to be salvaged; • The new brickwork could potentially be stained but more time is needed by the appellant to gather an estimate to complete the work; and • The expectation that the deteriorated brick could be replaced with identical brick was an unreasonable request by the Commission. The full text of the appeal statement is contained in Attachment A. 5 Staff had initially recommended that the Landmarks Commission conditionally approve the brickwork. Staff's recommendation was partially based upon prior consultation with the applicant and her contractor, who indicated that the removal and replacement of the bull nose brick and staining of the multi-colored brick was a possibility, albeit a difficult one. The applicant further researched brick staining companies and indicated that the staining would be quite costly and was not sure whether it was even possible. Given that it appears that it is unknown whether the brick could be appropriately stained to match the original brick, staff reconsidered the initial recommendation. Based on the entirety of the record ultimately presented at the Landmarks Commission hearings and in considering the key issue of whether the as-built brickwork complies with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards, staff concurs with the Commission that the brickwork is inconsistent with these standards and therefore, supports the decision to deny the Certificate of Appropriateness. All changes to Landmarks properties are reviewed for compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. In the case of the current proposal, the Standards for Rehabilitation would apply, specifically, Standards 5 and 6 which read as follows: Standard 5: "Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved." Standard 6: "Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence." 6 The applicant/appellant contends that the Commission made erroneous statements regarding the dimensions of the porch after reconstruction of the brickwork. In reviewing old photographs of the porch taken in the early 1990s, the size of the porch appears to be very similar to the size after the brickwork was completed. On this point, staff would agree with the applicant/appellant that the porch appears to have retained its original size after the new brickwork was completed. The applicant/appellant emphasizes that she was undertaking work required by her Mills Act contract. However, the demolition and reconstruction of the front porch brickwork with the new, multi-colored brick was quite different than the work contemplated by the contract. The applicant/appellant also contends that it is unreasonable to require that. identical brick be used in the reconstruction and that the new brickwork does incorporate some of the original bricks that were able to be salvaged. Although staff can confirm that the location and size of the new brick is similar to the old brick and that a limited number of old brick was re-used; the color, texture, and design of the new brick is inappropriate and detrimental to the historic character of the Landmark complex. Specifically, the multi-colored brick does not match the solid-color red brick that was removed and the rounded edges of the bull nose brick are a modern design that is incompatible with the pointed brick used throughout the complex. Staff does not agree that using similar, solid-red colored brick is unreasonable when replacement of the old brick is necessary. This is due to the fact that the red brick porches are a unifying element and character-defining feature of the complex. Consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards, brick of identical 7 color, texture, and design should be used for the replacement work. Furthermore, it is also reasonable to require that the top layer of brick be consistent with others in the complex. Alteration of the thickness, size, and shape of the top layer of brick is inconsistent with Standards 5 and 6, which require that distinctive finishes and construction techniques be preserved and that new features match the old. The applicant/appellant further contends that the Landmark Commission's decision was unduly influenced by the testimony of a former Landmark Commissioner who resides within the same complex. The applicant/appellant claims there is ill will between her and the former Commissioner. However, the former Commissioner's testimony was directed to the merits of the subject application and the Landmarks Commission's decision was focused on these substantive issues. Moreover, the City Council's review is de novo. Environmental Analysis The project is statutorily exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15270 of the State Guidelines in that CEQA does not apply to projects that are disapproved. Public Outreach A notice of public hearing was mailed to all residents and property within 300 feet at least 10 days prior to this hearing and published in the Santa Monica Daily Press. 8 Budget/Financial Impact The recommendation presented in this report does not have any budget or fiscal impact. Prepared by: Jing Yeo, AICP, Senior Planner Approved: Forwarded to Council: Attachments A. Appellant's appeal statement B. Landmarks Commission's Statement of Official Action C. Landmarks Commission Determination designating Hollister Court as City Landmark D. Mills Act Contract for 2402 4th Street #4 E. Landmarks Commission Staff Report and hearing submittals Additional attachments available in City Clerk's Office.