SR-042908-6A~®
~;tYof City Council Report
Santa Monica°
City Council Meeting: April 22, 2008.
Agenda Item:
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Eileen P. Fogarty, Director of Planning and Community Development
Subject: Appeal of Landmarks Commission technical denial of Certificate of
Appropriateness Application. for an addition to anon-contributing structure
located at 2617 Third Street.
Recommended Action
Staff recommends the City Council uphold appeal 08APP-004 and approve Certificate
of Appropriateness application 07CA-004 fora 1,213 square foot addition to a Non-
contributing structure located on the rear of the parcel at 2617 Third Street based on
the draft findings contained in this staff report.
Executive Summary
This report supports the approval. of a Certificate of Appropriateness application filed by
property owner Mark Woollen for construction of a 1,213 square foot addition to a non-
contributing structure located on the rear of the parcel located in the Third Street
Neighborhood Historic District ("the District"). On January 14, 2008, the Certificate of
Appropriateness application was technically denied by the Landmarks Commission after
a motion to approve the application failed by a vote of 3-2. On January 24, 2008, the
applicant appealed the technical denial (Attachment A).
This report presents analysis of the proposed project in light of the required finding for
approval set forth in SMMC Section 9.40.030 (c) (3) which specifies that in the case of
any proposed work to a noncontributing building or structure within the District,
reasonable effort has been made to produce compatibility with the District character and
with the scale, materials and massing of the contributing structures within the District.
This report also addresses the key points of the appeal filed by the property owner that,
in summary, .assert that there is no legal basis for denying the Certificate of
Appropriateness application because the applicant has worked in good faith with the
Landmarks Commission and made a reasonable effort, as required by the finding for
approval, to respond the Commission's direction and to produce a design for an addition
to anon-contributing structure that is compatible with the character of the District and
with Contributing Structures in the District.
In consideration of the full record to date, including review of the appellant's appeal
statemeht, it is recommended that the appeal be upheld and .the Certificate of
Appropriateness application be approved.
1
Discussion
On April 16; 2007, property owner Mark Woollen filed a Certificate of Appropriateness
application requesting to construct a 1,445 square foot addition to aNon-Contributing
Structure located on the rear-half of the lot at 2617 Third Street. Revisions to the project
have resulted in a 232 square foot reduction in proposed floor area; the applicant now
proposes a 1,213 square foot addition. The property is located on the east side of Third
Street between Ocean Park Boulevard and Hill Street in the Third Street Neighborhood
Historic District.
~ ~ ~.
~ - 3RD ST : t
~.b,
~' ~ ~ > rc .-~
~
d ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~d.. h
~~
~
~~ 2ND ST
~
_~
~~ q
~~
® NonconNbNing Builtlings
- Derrwl~shetl Bwltlings
Third Street Neighborhood Historic District boundaries (left); Primary residence at 2617 Third Street (right)
The 7,500 square foot parcel contains an existing one-story, turn-of-the-century
residence that was constructed in 1905 and is a Contributing Structure to the Historic.
District. The applicant's proposal involves the existing two-story, 1,148 square foot,
detached accessory building located oh the rear of the parcel that_was constructed in
1946 and determined to be a Non-Contributing Structure when the District was
established in July 1990.
The primary residence on the front. half of the property at 2617 Third Street is part of a
grouping of five turn-of-the-century bungalows on the east side of the street. The
adjacent property to the north consists of a primary, two-story bungalow and one-story
rear accessory building. The adjacent property to the south consists of a primary, one-
story bungalow and atwo-story rear accessory building. -Other Contributing Structures
2
along Third Streef include bungalows with Craftsman and Victorian influences, an
example of an American Foursquare style residence, and Spanish Colonial/Mission
Revival style. structures.
Non-Contributing Structure viewed from the sidewalk (left); Rendering of proposed project viewed from the sidewalk (right)
Rendering of the proposed addition in context with existing rear-yard accessory structures on adjacent parcels
Third Street Neighborhood Historic District Standards & Design Guidelines
When the Third Street Neighborhood Historic District was established by the City
Council in July of 1990, the neighborhood's aesthetic, economic, cultural and
architectural significance was set forth in the Municipal Code (SMMC 9.36.290). When
the District was established, all structures built during or prior to 1935 were formally
identified as Contributing Structures for their contribution to the District's character and
integrity; Non-Contributing properties were identified as vacant parcels and buildings in
the District constructed after 1935.
3
Following the establishment of the District, the City Council adopted SMMC Chapter
9.40 (Third Street .Neighborhood Historic District Standards) to set forth the procedures
and criterion for reviewing proposed modifications in the District. In 1992, the
Landmarks Commission also adopted the Third Street Neighborhood Design Guidelines
and a Landscape Survey ("District Guidelines"). The specific Certificate of
Appropriateness criterion applicable to the proposed project and the applicability of the
District Guidelines are discussed more fully beginning on page 10 of this report.
Landmarks Commission Action
The Landmarks Commission held three public hearings for the Certificate of
Appropriateness application on June 11, 2007, July 8, 2007, and January 14, 2008.
June and July 2007 Public Hearings
After listening to public testimony both in opposition and in support of the project, and
after extensive discussions regarding the proposal, the public hearings in June and July
2007 were continued to allow the applicant to .revise the project based on direction
provided. by the Commission during the course of the discussions. During both
hearings, a majority of the Landmarks Commission expressed satisfaction with the
overall design concept for the project and stated that, provided that the project is
responsive to its context, a modern architectural vocabulary could be used to implement
modifications to the non-contributing structure located at the rear of the property behind
the historic bungalow.
January 2008 Public Hearing
The Landmarks Commission reviewed the revised project at its January 14, 2008
meeting. The Commission again listened to public testimony both in opposition and in
support of the project and held an extensive discussion that centered on the following
key issues:
Did the applicant respond to the Commission's previous direction?
• What are the standards for evaluating changes to aNon-Contributing Structure?
• Is the project compatible with the overall character of the District?
4
• How visible would the proposed addition be from the street and will it impact the
character of'the District?
Three of the five Commissioners at the hearing found that it merited approval based, in
part, on the following factors:
• The applicant made appropriate revisions that address all of the Commission's
previous direction and serve to create a dialogue and enhance compatibility
between historic elements in the District and the new addition.
• Key project revisions include an approximate 1 '/ foot reduction in the proposed
building height; a 232 square footage reduction in proposed floor area; a
reduction in the size of the addition situated behind the historic front house;
modifications to window proportions and detailing; introduction of additional wood
cladding; and incorporation of roof overhangs.
• The proposed project involves an addition to aNon-Contributing Structure, a
structure that does not contribute to the historic fabric of the District. When
reviewing modifications to aNon-Contributing Structure, the Ordinance only
requires the Commission find that the applicant has made a reasonable effort to
produce a design .that is compatible with the District's character; the applicant
has met this criterion.
• The existing Non-Contributing Structure and the. proposed addition will be set
back from the front property line over 93 feet. The line of site of the existing
building. will be unchanged except that the overall building height will be
approximately 1 '/z feet lower than its current height. The addition will be
minimally visible from the street and the limited portion that will be visible will not
negatively impact the character and quality of the District.
In contrast, two of the five. Commissioners found that the project did not merit approval
based, in part, on the following factors:
• Although the applicant made several significant improvements to the project,
some of the Commission's requests were not addressed. Specifically, the scale
and massing of the addition behind the historic residence is still too large and
prominent; not enough references to the predominant architectural character of
the District are incorporated in the revised design; additional window divisions
are needed; and the incorporation of a sloped roof would create a greater sense
of compatibility.
• The proposed project should be considered `New Construction' in the District and
reviewed in accordance with the criterion for new construction, instead of
reviewing it as an addition to aNon-Contributing Structure, because the applicant
is making significant alterations that render it a new building.
5
• Based on feedback from the public and an effort to understand the intent of the
District Design Guidelines, the project does not appear to be highly compatible
with the neighborhood.
• The proposed addition will be highly visible from the street and will impact the
.character of the District.
Consequently, the motion to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness application
failed by a vote of 3-2 and therefore the application was technically denied.
The Landmarks Commission's Statement of Official Action is presented as Attachment
C. June 11, 2007, July 8, 2007, November 12, 2007, and January 14, 2008 meeting
minutes and staff reports and are presented as Attachments D and E, respectively.
Appeal Summary
The appellant states that the Certificate of Appropriateness application should have
been approved. The following is a summary of the appellant's statement; the full text of
the"appeal is contained in Attachment A:
• The applicant has responded in good faith to Landmarks Commission direction
and comments provided at two public hearings regarding the proposed project.
• The proposed project design achieves. compatibility with the District character
and with the scale, materials, and massing of Contributing Structures in the
District; this perspective is supported by City staff, the City's historic
preservation consultant, and the applicant's preservation consultant.
• The legal standard for review. of the Certificate of Appropriateness application is
whether the applicant has shown "reasonable effort" to produce compatibility
with the District character and with the scale, materials, and massing of
Contributing Structures in the District. The applicant has met this standard.
• The challenges faced by the applicant will discourage the creation of any new
historic districts in the City.
The City Council, in its review of this appeal, must determine whether the proposed
project fora 1,213 square foot addition to aNon-Contributing Structure meets the
following criterion for. issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness in the Third Street
Neighborhood Historic District set forth in SMMC Section 9.40.030 (c) (3):
6
That in the case of any proposed work to a noncontributing building or structure
within the District reasonable effort has been made to produce compatibility with
the District character as set forth in Section 9.36.290, and with the scale,
materials and massing of the contributing structures within the District.
Appeal Analysis
Based on the full record td date, including testimony and documentary evidence
presented at Landmarks Commission public hearings, there is ample evidence to
approve the Certificate of Appropriateness application: As detailed more fully in the
staff reports provided for the Landmark Commission hearings, staff continues to
recommend approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness application. The following
discussion .briefly describes the proposed project, addresses the appellant's key
arguments, and also summarizes the basis for staff's determination..
Description of Project Design
The applicant proposes a 1-,213 square foot one- and two-story addition to the existing
two-story, non-contributing accessory structure located on the rear of .the subject
property (50' x 1.50'). The project consists of a 453 square foot first floor addition and a
760 square foot second-floor addition. The existing structure's 1946 design is utilitarian
in nature and does not contribute to the District's historic character. The applicant also
proposes an interior remodel of the existing living space and addition of landscaping in
the side and rear yards.
In accordance with Municipal Code requirements, the proposed addition complies with
all Zoning District requirements, including but not limited to setbacks, parcel coverage,
and building height. The proposed addition maintains at least 50% of the perimeter
walls of the existing structure.
The primary elevation of the accessory structure will be set back 93 feet from the front
property line on Third Street. A 29-foot separation is provided between the proposed
addition and the rear building wall of the main residence on the parcel. The proposed
project responds to the topographic conditions of the site to ensure that the building
7
does not exceed the maximum permitted height in the OP-2 Zoning District measured
from Theoretical Grade (23'-0" for a flat roof and 30'-0" for a pitched roof).
The proposed. project's 21'-10" maximum height is approximately 1'-6" lower than the
current height of the existing rear building. The"cantilevered south building volume is
also stepped down approximately 2'-6" in order to minimize its visibility from the street.
As indicated in line of site exhibits for the project (below), when standing in front of the
property on the sidewalk and across the street, views of the addition are restricted.
oa.-~.-~~.~
Line of site exhibit for proposed project at 2617 Third Street
The windows incorporated in the project design consist of recessed, multi-pane divided
lights with wood frames. The roof over the north volume's second floor facing the street
will project 1'-0" beyond the face of the building in order to reference a characteristic
8
Proposed site pianfor 2617 Third Street -
design element of historic bungalows in the District. In addition, second floor windows
on the north elevation of the north volume are recessed 2'-0" in order to create more
visual interest and articulation and to further break up the perceived massing of this
portion of the building.
North (side) elevation of the proposed project at 2617 Third Street
Rendering of south (side) elevation of proposed project
Rendering of south (side) elevation of proposed project shown in context
9
In addition to smooth trowel stucco, two different types of natural wood siding are
proposed on the north and south building volumes. Clear-stained reclaimed redwood
shiplap siding is proposed on the second floor of the south volume. Reclaimed redwood
siding with alternating off-set pattern is also proposed on the second floor of the north
volume. This siding adds a compatible material and textural element to the most visible
portions of the structure as viewed from the street and from adjacent properties to the
north and south. The profile of this siding also creates a shadow line that reflects the
clapboard siding found on Contributing Structures in the District.
Applicable Certificate of Appropriateness Criterion
All proposed work in the Third Street Neighborhood Historic District is subject to the
procedures and criteria established in SMMC Chapter 9:40. SMMC Chapter 9.40
provides criteria .specifically-tailored to the context of the Historic District in order to
evaluate different types of projects that require a Certificate of Appropriateness in the
Third Street District. For such projects, these criteria must be used in lieu of the
findings applicable to properties located outside of the Third Street Historic District
established in SMMC Chapter 9.36.
When reviewing an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness proposed in the
Third Street Neighborhood Historic District, SMMC Section 9.40.030 (c) sets forth five
different findings. Depending on the nature of the project, one or more of the following
five criteria apply:
(c) Criteria for Issuance of Application for Certificate of Appropriateness. The
Landmarks Commission, or the City Council on appeal, shall issue a certificate of
appropriateness for projects in the District if it finds that the project is included within the
list of work enumerated in Section 9.40.020(d), and it makes a determination in
accordance with any one or more, as appropriate, of the following criteria, which shall
be in lieu of those otherwise required by Section 9.36.140:
(1) That in the case of any proposed alteration, restoration, construction, removal or relocation, in
whole or in part of or to a contributing building or structure within the District, the proposed work
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 developed and adopted by the Landmarks Commission
specifically for the District.
10
(2) That in the case of any proposed alteration, restoration, construction, removal or relocation, in
whole or in part, of or to a contributing building. or structure within the District, the proposed work
would not adversely affect any exterior feature of the historic structure.
(3) That in the case of any proposed work to a noncontributing building or structure
within the District reasonable effort has been made to produce compatibility with the
District character as set forth in Section 9.36.290, and with the scale, materials and
massing of the contributing structures within the District.
(4) That in the case of any proposed construction of a new improvement on any parcel located
within the District boundaries, the exterior features of such new improvement and its placement
on the property would not adversely affect and not be disharmonious with the District character as
set forth in Section 9.36.290, and with the scale, materials and massing of the contributing
structures within the District.
(6) That the applicant has obtained a certificate of economic hardship in accordance with Section
9.36.160.
The applicable finding for the subject Certificate of Appropriateness application which
proposes an addition to the existing Non-Contributing building located at 2617 Third
Street is contained in subsection (3) since it addresses "proposed work to a
noncontributing building or structure..."
The five findings presented above establish different standards for review. One of the
most significant differences is evident in subsection (3) which sets forth a less rigorous
review standard for proposed work to aNon-Contributing building or structure. In this
case, the decision-making body needs only to find that a "reasonable effort has been
made to produce compatibility" with the District character and with .the scale, materials,
and massing of Contributing Structures in the District.
This criterion does not require the decision-making body to find that the project is
compatible. Instead it only requires a determination that a reasonable effort has been
made by the applicant to produce compatibility with the character of the District. This
less rigorous review standard was purposefully established in recognition of the fact that
Non-Contributing structures were not identified as contributing to the historic character
of the District when it was formed and that a greater degree of flexibility should be
provided when proposals involve such Non-Contributing structures.
11
However, as detailed in this staff report, and the four previously-prepared Landmarks
Commission staff reports, staff has concluded that the proposed project is, indeed.,
compatible with the District and with the scale, materials; and massing of Contributing
Structures in the District.
The appellant states that a good faith effort has been made to respond to .all of the
Landmarks Commission's comments provided at the first two public hearings for the
project. Staff agrees that the applicant has met the standard of demonstrating that a
"reasonable effort has been made to produce compatibility" with the District character
and with the scale, materials, and massing of Contributing Structures irr the District.
The following summary of the applicant's project revisions is provided to support the
assertion that the applicant has appropriately responded to the Commission's previous
direction and met the legal standard of demonstrating that reasonable effort had been
made to produce a compatible design:
Landmarks Commission comments provided at the June 2007 hearing:
• Reevaluate the perceived massing and height of the structure; in particular address the proposed
treatment of the second-story cantilevered volume and its proximity to the historic bungalow on
site and its north elevation as viewed from the street.
• Reevaluate and refine the use of color (utilize a more earth-toned color palette).
• Reevaluate and refne the use of materials and textures (consider incorporating natural wood
elements).
• Reevaluate the location of the roof deck.
• Reevaluate the proposed 8'-0" perimeter block wall.
Applicant's response to Commission comments reviewed at the July 2007 hearing:
o Scaled back the cantilevered volume by two feet in order to create more open space between the
addition to the non-contributing building and the historic bungalow.
o Removed the proposed 8'-0" block wall along the north, south and east property lines.
o Relocated the proposed roof deck and photovoltaic panels in order to reduce height of the north
building volume.
o Eliminated the projecting stair tower and reduced the size of the roof deck.
o Reduced the height of the north building volume addition to allow that portion of the structure to
read as one volume, instead of two volumes that step up and increase in height.
o Added a new first-story clerestory window; relocated and recessed the ground floor entrance two
feet further into the living area.
o Proposed natural wood siding on second-story cantilevered portion of the south building volume.
o New color palette for stucco proposed.
12
Landmarks Commission comments provided at the July 2007 hearing
• Include more references to the predominant architectural-character of,the District.
• Address the perceived massing and scale of the proposed addition to the existing Non-
Contributing Structure.
• Reexamine the relationship between the proposed addition and the historic bungalow on the
parcel to ensure that the historic structure is not overwhelmed.
Applicant's response to Commission comments reviewed at the January 2008 hearing
o The project was reduced by a total of 232 square feet compared to the original submittal.
o The height of the entire structure was reduced by approximately) '/ feet, making it approximately
1 % feet below the current height of the roof ridge of the existing Non-Contributing. structure.
o The cantilevered portion of the south building volume was reduced in width from 19'-2" to 16'-1".
o The amount of second floor glazing on the primary elevation was reduced in order to refine the
window to wall ratio and to reduce the amount of glazing visible from the street.
o Windows were divided and framed in wood.
o A second type of reclaimed redwood siding was added on the north building volume.
o Roof overhangs and recessed windows were incorporated on the north building volume.
Applicable Third Street Neighborhood Historic District Design Guidelines
With respect to the applicability of the Third Street Neighborhood Historic District Design
Guidelines, it is also important to note that only subsection (1) discussed above, which
address work to Contributing .Structures, requires the decision-making body to make a
finding of consistency with the District Design Guidelines in order to approve the
application. Specifically, the criterion. that addresses work to Non-Contributing
Structures (subsection (3)) does not include this consistency finding.
In instances when the criterion for issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness in the
Third Street Neighborhood Historic District does not require consistency with the District
Design Guidelines, the Guidelines are still relevant. The Guidelines are used to assist
in assessing whether the, applicable Certificate of Appropriateness finding can be made.
In this instance, the Guidelines are used as a tool in assessing the applicant's efforts to
produce compatibility with the character of the District and with the scale, massing, and
materials of Contributing Structures in the District.
Only certain provisions of the District Design Guidelines apply to a proposed project
Section VI of the Guidelines is entitled, "Restoration, Rehabilitation, or Additions to
Contributing Buildings" and therefore does not apply to the subject Certificate of
13
Appropriateness application at 2617 Third Street since the subject addition is to a Non-
contributing Structure.
Section VII of the Design Guidelines is entitled "New Construction, Additions and
Architectural Compatibility". This section presents criteria for both small and large
additions to buildings in the District. The criteria for new construction do not apply in this
case since the applicant is not proposing a new building, but rather an addition to an
existing Non-Contributing Structure. A copy of the District Design Guidelines is
presented as Attachment F.
Analysis of Project Design
The following presents a discussion of how the proposed project meets the required
Certificate of Appropriateness criterion for work proposed to a Non-Contributing
Structure and also complies with the District Design Guidelines for Additions.
Compatibility with the Character of the District
The way a project visually relates and responds to its context is an important aspect of
reviewing proposed additions or new construction in the Third Street Neighborhood
Historic District. There can be divergent points of view regarding whether a
contemporary design is appropriate within the context of a historic district. However,
neither the District Ordinance nor the Design Guidelines specifically prescribe the
selection of architectural styles. Nevertheless, additions and infill should, regardless of
style, express a consistent and compatible architectural language and should
compatible with the character of the Contributing Structures in the District. As discussed
more fully beginning on page 18 of this report, Section. VII of the Design Guidelines
contains provisions to help assess the applicant's effort to produce a compatible design
for the proposed Non-Contributing building addition.
Compatibility with the District's overall character can be developed in both traditional
and contemporary designs and can be achieved in a variety of ways within the
framework of preserving the integrity of the District's historic architecture and character.
14
The District Design Guidelines reinforce this approach as it was specifically written in a
non-prescriptive manner in order to not limit the creativity and judgment of future
applicants, neighborhood stakeholders, and Landmarks Commissions. Section VII of
the District Design Guidelines ("New Construction, Additions and Architectural
Compatibility") states the following:
"These guidelines are given as suggested direction for the project applicant in
approaching the design of a new project or an addition. to an existing structure in
the Third Street Neighborhood Historic District. The problem of making design
harmonious with the neighborhood's existing conditions while not completely
limiting the creative act of design is no small challenge. These guidelines are
written with the hope that the design professional will find an appropriate balance
between conformity and creativity."
The purposefully non-prescriptive language provided in the District Design Guidelines
reflects that the District does, in fact, possess a variety of architectural styles. The
section of the Municipal Code that addresses the character of the District (SMMC
9.36.290) describes the Third Street Neighborhood Historic District as possessing
architectural significance to Santa Monica because the area displays a variety of
architectural styles, from Victorian to Gothic, to American Colonial Revival, to California
Craftsman, to Spanish Colonial Revival, which provide a visual representation of the
Neighborhood's development through the 1930s. This description goes on to state that,
in addition, "the neighborhood is dominated by bungalows;. twenty-nine bungalows and
one bungalow court are extant in the District."
The Municipal Code and the Design Guidelines both make it clear that there are a
variety of architectural styles that help to define the significance of the District. They do
not require that California bungalows be the only contributing structures against which
compatibility must be assessed or that any specific building form or architectural detail
is necessary to produce a compatible design.
In the case of proposed additions and infill, the goal is not to imitate or duplicate a
historic building and architectural style; thereby creating a false sense of history, but to
propose a new improvement that is harmonious with its surroundings and contributes, in
15
a respectful manner, to the understanding of how the District has evolved over time.
Compatibility with the scale, materials, and massing of Contributing Structures does not
require a design to duplicate a specific building form or shape, or incorporate literal
examples of particular architectural features such as rafter tails, clapboard siding, or a
red clay the roof.
In assessing whether a proposal is compatible with the character of the District, the
proposed design is evaluated to determine how it draws upon, relates to, or reflects in a
harmonious manner characteristics of historic buildings in the District. These
characteristics can be key material elements. or proportional characteristics of a building
that include but are not limited to the following examples:
• Incorporatioh of exterior materials to reflect traditional building materials and/or
textures of exterior cladding;
• Incorporation of an overall building form that is harmonious with examples of the
District's historic architecture;
• Consistency with lot use and building siting patterns found in the neighborhood;
• Incorporation of a fenestration pattern and/or a ratio of solids to voids that relates
to elements of historic buildings in the District.
These design relationships established between a new improvement and the District's
historic context and architecture are .more fundamental than the details of a specific
historic architectural style. Accordingly, a design can relate to the predominant
architectural character of a district without duplicating historic features or forms and can
be responsive to a historic context while also employing a modernist or contemporary
architectural vocabulary.
As presented in greater detail below and confirmed by the City's preservation consultant
PCR Services Corporation (Attachment G), the applicant has drawn upon a variety of
elements found in the historic architecture of the District and produced a project for a
1,213 square foot addition that expresses a consistent design concept; is compatible
with its context through its site plan, scale, and selection of building materials; and does
not alter the visual character of the District.
16
Compatibility with the Character of the District -Scale and Massing
As proposed, the majority of the existing rear, two-story structure and its 1,213 square
foot addition will not be visible when viewed from the street due to the following site
conditions: the addition is proposed to be set back 93 feet from the front property line; a
significant portion of the building's volume will be situated on the parcel behind. the
primary residence; and due to the existing mature landscaping to the south of the
structure and the proposed wood fence and landscaping along the north property line,
much of the rear building will not be visible from the street (see line of site exhibits on
Sheet A-3.1 and project renderings).
The project's .contemporary design utilizes simple rectangular volumes that are
consistent with the form and height of the existing structure and responds to the building
forms of a variety of Contributing Structures in the Historic District. Specifically, the
project's overall building form,: low overall building height. (a maximum of 21'-10" from
Theoretical Grade) and articulated building elevations are harmonious with the scale
and' massing of Contributing Structures that exhibit American Colonial Revival and
Spanish Colonial Revival architecture (2545 2nd Street, 2546 3rd Street, 246 Beach
Street, and 245 Hill Street, and 2637 3rd Street).
-.,
Contributing Structures in the District: 245 Hill Street (left); 2545 Second Street (center); and 231 Hill Street (right).
Furthermore, .many Contributing Structures in the District are. two-story volumes
including the adjacent rear accessory structure to the south of the subject property, as
well as the buildings at 231 Hill Street, 245 Hill Street, 2627 3rd Street, 2637 Third
Street, and 2614 Second Street. Therefore, it is appropriate to allow two stories the on
property, provided that the design of the proposed structure does not overwhelm District
contributing properties.
17
The proposed project retains the existing Non-Contributing building's site lines from the
street and the height of the structure will be modestly reduced from its current condition
in order to ensure that the project will not appear larger as viewed from the street.
Further, the height of the. addition positioned behind the historic bungalow is also
approximately 2 '/ feet lower than the north volume in order to minimize its visual
presence as viewed from the street. While the proposed addition does increase the
footprint of the. rear building, the project design incorporates an ample 29-foot
separation between the rear building wall of the historic residence and the proposed
addition.
District Design Guidelines for Additions
As previously discussed, while a finding of consistency with the Third Street
Neighborhood Historic District Guidelines is not a legal requirement for approval, staff
utilized the Guidelines to help assess the applicant's efforts to produce a compatible
design. The Guidelines establish the following provisions for both large and small
additions to Contributing and Non-Contributing buildings (Section VII):
Additions:
• Maintain similar proportions of existing elements in new elements.
• Height of new elements at the rear or side of the building should be similar to or less than the
existing elements.
• Scale, massing, and volume of the addition should be complimentary to the existing building.
• Clear distinctions should be made between existing conditions and the new construction so that
additions or changes are easily discernable from the historic building. This is to allow for easy
identification of the new and original, and to avoid a nostalgic reproduction of historical styles.
• Consider the location of the building on the property in relation to the slope of the site.
Second Floor Additions
• Where possible, set back the new facade from the existing front fapade.
• Large scale elements such as the roof line, overhanging eaves, window proportions, exterior
materials, should be similar to the existing structure. Small details should be subtly different
from the existing.
Strategies for Large and Small Additions
• Make a transitional zone between the existing and new construction. This can be achieved
through one or more of the following:
- Change of plane
- Change of material
- Change of height or a roof break
18
With respect to these Guidelines for Additions; the proposed project's simple
rectangular volume and wood and stucco cladding are compatible with the existing Non-
contributing Structure, and the variation in height and changes in plane between the
north and south building volumes address the suggestion to create a transitional zone
between the existing structure and new construction. Furthermore, in accordance with
the provision to consider the slope of the site, the proposed addition has been designed
to be recessed into the hillside in order to keep the cantilevered addition over 2 '/z" feet
lower than the rest of the structure. The provisions for second floor additions state that
an applicant should, "where possible, set back the new facade from the existing
facade". This provision recognizes that the primary facade of a historic building as
viewed from the street is important and that it is also not always possible to set back an
addition in this manner. In this case, due to OP-2 District rear and side yard setback
requirements, the second floor of the proposed addition has not been setback from the
existing front fagade of the Non-Contributing building; the proposed addition, however,
is setback over 93 feet from the public right-of-way.
In summary, the proposed project will not alter the. quality and visual character of the
District. This is due to the project's building footprint, streamlined form and massing,
significant 93-foot setback from the front property line, and limited visibility from Third
Street. Furthermore, the proposed addition has been designed to be compatible with.
but not duplicative of the existing structure, and per the District Guidelines for additions,
compatible with the overall scale and proportion of the existing structure.
PeerReview of ProjecfDesign and Renderings
In response to questions raised by several members of the public regarding. the
accuracy. of the applicant's project renderings, a peer review of the overall project
design, architectural plans and project renderings was conducted by design firm Urban
Studio at the City's request. Urban Studio was retained by the Gity in 2007 to perform
independent architectural and .urban design analysis for the City's Planning &
Community Development Department.
19
Urban Studio conducted a site visit fo the subject property and the District and reviewed
the project plans, renderings, and Third Street Neighborhood Historic District Design
Guidelines. Based on this review; Urban Studio affirmed that proposed project will not
impact the historic character of the Third Street Neighborhood Historic District as seen
and experienced from the public right-of-way as a result of its significant setback from
the street and because the overall building envelope that will be visible from the street
will be substantially the same or less than the existing rear structure on site.
Furthermore, in its review of the project, Urban Studio concluded that the renderings
provided by the applicant present a substantially accurate representation of the project
and its design components. Consideration of a modified color palette for the proposed
wood siding has been suggested by Urban Studio and is addressed as a staff-
recommended condition of approval on page 21 of this report. Correspondence from
Urban Studio is provided as Attachment H.
Compatibility with the Character of the District -Materials and Architectural Details
The proposed project design incorporates extensive use of wood and stucco materials
such as smooth trowel stucco, wood framed fenestration, and use of two types of
reclaimed redwood on the second floor elevations of the structure. This is consistent
with the materials traditionally found in many of contributing structures in the District that
are comprised of California Bungalow, Spanish Colonial Revival, and American Colonial
Revival architectural styles.
The use of wood siding is an important project component that addresses the need to
incorporate materials that respond to the context of the District and the neighboring
buildings. The wood siding also provides a depth of texture and a shadow line that
reflects the clapboard siding found on California bungalow and American Colonial
Revival architecture in the District. The wood cladding also helps to create a more
consistent visual rhythm to the property as viewed from the street and from the
properties to the north and south.
20
The project design incorporates multi-pane, wood framed fenestration that have been
designed to respond to the proportions and type of details found in the District's historic
bungalow and Victorian architecture and is a contemporary reflection of a historic
framed window architectural element.
The roof over the second floor of the north volume facing the street will project 1'-0"
beyond the face of the building in order to reference a characteristic eave element of
historic bungalows in the District. In addition, the second floor windows on the north
elevation of the north volume have been recessed 2'-0" in order to create more visual
interest and articulation and to further break up the perceived massing of this portion of
the building as viewed from both the street and from the neighboring property to the.
north.
Staff-Recommended Condition of Approval
While the .incorporation of .two different types of reclaimed redwood siding is an
important component of the project design that strengthens the relationship between the
Non-Contributing Structure and the historic. bungalows on site and on neighboring
parcels, staff does not support the clear stained finish of the wood cladding. As
proposed; the clear stained siding does not appear to be appropriate for the rear
accessory building because it would somewhat visually compete with the historic
bungalow on the site and would not provide the more visually `quiet' background that is
most respectful of this setting at the rear of the parcel. Based on an evaluation of the
context of the project site -both in terms of its location at the base of a hill with mature
landscaping and its relationship to neighboring buildings - it is recommended as a
condition of approval that an Arts & Crafts inspired wood stain/paint be applied to the
wood cladding on both the north and south building volumes. This application of an
appropriately muted .color to the wood cladding will serve to create a better visual
balance between the Non-Contributing Structure and the existing landscaping and will
allow the addition to better respond to the character of the District and also draw from
the colors found in adjacent properties.
21
Conclusion
Based on the whole of the record, staff recommends that the City Council uphold the
appeal and approve Certificate of Appropriateness application 07CA-004 for
construction of a,1,213 square foot addition to the existing Non-Contributing Structure
located on the rear of the parcel located 2617 Third Street based on the draft findings
and conditions set forth in Attachment B.
Alternatives
As an alternative to the staff recommendation, the Council may consider the following
with respect to the pending appeal if supported by the full evidentiary record:
1. Deny the Appeal.
2. Remand the application to the Landmarks Commission for reconsideration
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 the construction of an
addition to anon-contributing structure located in a designated historic district. The
project 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 in that the proposed project does not negatively impact the character or setting
of the historic district due to its location setback over 93 feet from the front property line
and compatible design.
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 all 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).
22
Financial Impacts & Budget Actions
The recommendation presented in this report does not have any budget or fiscal impact.
Prepared by:
Roxanne Tanemori, AICP, Associate Planner
Attachments
A. Appellant's Appeal Statement
B. Draft Findings and Conditions
C. Landmarks Commission Statement of Official Action, January 14, 2008
D. Landmarks Commission Minutes: June 11, 2007, July 8, 2007, January 14, 2008
E. Landmarks Commission Staff Reports and Hearing Submittals, June 1 T, 2007,
July 8, 2007, November 12, 2007, January 14, 2008
F. Third Street Neighborhood Historic District Design Guidelines and Landscape
Survey (1992)
G. Memorandum from PCR Services Corporation, May 23, 2007
H. Memorandum from Urban Studio, April 1, 2008
L Architectural Plans and Renderings & Additional Documentation from Appellant
23
Approved: Forwarded to Council:
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.
24
ity of
Santa Monica
Planning and Community Development Department
City Planning Division
(310) 458-8341
APPEAL FORM
(Please Type or Print all Information)
Application Number
Filed:
APPELLANT NAME: Mark Woollen
APPELLANT ADDRESS: 2617 Third Street, Santa Monica, CA 90405
CONTACT PERSON: Ken Kutcher Phone: (310) 451-3669
(all correspondence will be mailed to this address)
AddresS:1250 Sixth Street, Suite 300, Santa Monica, CA 90401
PROJECT CASE NUMBER(S) ; o7CA-oo4
PROJECT ADDRESS: 2617-1/2 Third Street
APPLICANT: Mark Woollen
ORIGINAL HEARING DATE: June 11 & ,July 9, 2007 & January 14, 20os
ACTION BEING APPEALED: Technical denial (on 3-2 vote) of Certificate of Appropriateness
for an addition to aNon-Contributing Structure.
Please state the. specific reason(s) for the appeal (use separate sheet if necessary):
Is the appeal related to the discretionary action and findings issued for the proposed
project? / Yes _ No If yes, explain:
See attached.
Is the appeal related to the conditions of approval? _ Yes / No If yes, which
conditions and why:
Is the appeal related to design issues? / Yes _ No If yes, explain:
See attached.
Is the appeal related to compatibility issues such as building height, massing, pedestrian
orientation, etc.? / Yes _ No If yes, explain:
See attached.
Is the appeal related to non-compliance with the Santa Monica Municipal Code? .Yes
/ No If yes, which Code section(s) does the project not comply with and why:
The project complies with the Municipal Code including Section 9.40.030(c)(3) as explained in the
Attachment.
Is the appeal related to environmental impacts associated with the project? _ Yes /
No If yes, explain:
Is the appeal related to other issues? _ Yes / No If yes, explain:
APPELLANT SIGNATURE:
Kenneth L. Kutcher, Attorney for Applicant
NOTE:: A hearing date on the appeal will not .be scheduled until sufficient
information regarding the basis .for the appeal has been received to enable City
Planning Division staff to prepare the required analysis for the staff report.
~pellant: Mark Woollen
Address: 2617 ~/z Third St.
ATTACHMENT TO APPEAL
STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR APPEAL
This is an appeal from the Landmark Commission's technical denial on a 3-2 vote
of the Certificate of Appropriateness for adding 1,213 square feet to an existing two-
story, Non-Contributing Structure located in the Third Street Neighborhood Historic
District.
A. The Applicant Has Responded In Good Faith To The Landmarks
Commission Comments.
This application has been the subject of multiple hearings at the Landmarks
Commission (June, July, and January). The applicant remains flexible as to style, color,
architectural features, materials and texture. The record will reflect that the applicant
has at all times worked in good faith with the Landmarks Commission to address their
concerns.
B.
The District.
While compatibility is hot the standard of review for this application,: the applicant,
the applicant's architect, the applicant's historic resource consultant, City Staff and the
City's historic resource consultant all believe that the proposed design is compatible
with the District and with the scale, materials, and massing of Contributing Structures
within the District. City Staff writes:
"[A]s detailed in this staff report, and the three previously-
prepared staff reports, staff has concluded that this project
is, ihdeed, compatible with the District and with the scale,
materials, and massing of Contributing Structures."
(Landmarks Commission Staff Report, January 14, 2008,
p. 4.)
PCR Services Corp., the City's historic resources consultant, writes:
"The proposed addition to the non-contributing ancillary
building retains both the existing non-conforming building's
site lines from the street and its height. While the proposed
addition does somewhat increase the footprint of the rear
ancillary building the character of the open space between
the two buildings is little changed and maintains the existing
spatial relationship between the contributing and non-
contributing buildings. The contemporary design of the
addition clearly differentiates it from the historic residence,
yet it does not overwhelm the architectural character of the.
district because of its back-of-lot position, with very little
visibility from Third Street, allows the building to have little to
no impact on the visual character and architectural
experience of the district ... As proposed, the design of the
new addition is compatible'in materials, features, style, scale
and proportion, and massing, yet is clearly differentiated
from the historic building ... The detached new addition to
the existing non-contributing, rear-of-lot building is of
compatible design ...." (PCR Report,. May 23, 2007,
PP. 2-3.)
Mary Jo Winder of Architectural Preservation Services also finds that the
proposed design is compatible:
"It is important to recognize that this--and most--historic
districts are made up of a diverse collection of houses
representing different styles and from different periods of
history. Anew contemporary design simply adds to that
diversity--it does not necessarily take anything away from
the historic houses or the historic district. The important
consideration is that the contributing buildings with their
.character-defining features are preserved and the new
construction is designed to be similar in massing, size, scale
and architectural features of existing buildings in the district."
(Winder Report, p. 3.)
Ms. Winder concludes, "The design of the new addition achieves compatibility."
Her report lists the characteristics on which this conclusion is based:
Massing -The basic massing appears from the public right-of-way as
a one and one-half story volume that is similar to the one and one-half
and two story structures that contribute to the district. Its rectangular
plan is similar to other buildings as well.
Roofline --The flat roof form of the proposed design is found on
Spanish Revival houses that contribute to the character of the district;
therefore, the flat roof of this design is not a feature that is being newly
introduced into the neighborhood. It is an appropriate roof form in this
case because it visually keeps the height low and it reflects the
horizohtality of Arts and Crafts influences that predominate in the
district.
Size -The four houses that, together with the applicant's front house,
are sometimes grouped together, are generally one and one-half to
two stories in height and are comparable in floor area to the resulting
rear house.
2
• Scale -The scale of the proposed design is enhanced by varying
exterior wall surfaces that are modulated and by incorporating a variety
of materials. Windows are divided, which also helps the design's
consistency with the scale of historic houses in the district.
Architectural Features -Additions such as this in a historic district need
not be limited to a design that is a literal interpretation of the character-
defining features of its contributing buildings. In this case, the
horizontal wood siding and smooth stucco cladding used on the
exterior walls clearly relate the new addition to surrounding structures:
Also, the windows that are grouped and muntinless are similar to the
bay window on the front elevation of the historic house on the property.
These features substantially contribute to the design's compatibility to
the historic neighborhood and its compliance with the applicable
guidelines for the district.
This project has the support of respected local architects, including Gwynne
Pugh and Eric Parlee. It is also supported by various stakeholders in the District, as
well as other residents.
Moreover, this building will be located more than 90 feet from the street and its
view will be largely obscured to passers-by.
C. The Legal Standard For Review Of This Application Is Whether The
Applicant Has Shown "Reasonable Effort" To Produce Compatibility.
Regardless of whether compatibility has been achieved, the legal standard of
review for this application, as established in the Municipal Code, is whether the
applicant has made "reasonable effort" to produce compatibility. (See Landmarks
Commission Staff Report dated January 14, 2008, p. 4.)~ Santa Monica Municipal Code
Section 9.40.030(c) sets forth the criteria for issuance of certificates of appropriateness.
The relevant criterion for additions to anon-contributing structure are set forth in
subsection (3), which. reads as follows:
"That in the case of any proposed work to a noncontributing
building or structure within the District reasonable effort has
been made to produce compatibility with the District
character as set forth in Section 9.36.290, and with the.
scale, materials and massing of the contributing structures
within the District." (Emphasis added.)
~ Design review decisions are adjudicatory actions, in that they apply established
rules to specific projects on a case-by-case basis. Such decisions must be supported
by findings based on the record of proceedings. 1 Adam U. Lindgren & Steven T.
Mattas, California Land Use Practice § 10.7, p. 440 (CEB July 2007).
3
In this instance, there can be no question that the applicant made his best efforts
to revise the project design to incorporate the suggestions and comments received from.
the Landmarks Commission at the June and July hearings. Even one of the
Commissioners who voted against this application acknowledged during deliberations,
"There's been a huge amount. of effort and good will, good effort that's gone into this
project." Because effort is the criterion, this application merits approval.
As an indication of the applicant's good faith efforts, changes to the proposed
design include the following, none of which is required by Code:
• The mass of this small addition has been reduced by 16%.
• The height has been reduced by 1'/z feet.
• The cantilevered portion of the south building volume has been reduced in
width by three feet (more than 15%).
• The amount of second floor windows on the west-facing elevation has been
reduced.
• The windows have been divided into smaller segments to better reflect the
proportions found in the architecture of adjacent historic bungalows.
• Reclaimed redwood siding is now proposed on the second floor of the north
volume. This siding adds a compatible material and texture to the most
visible portion of the structure as viewed from the street.
• A roof overhang element has been added to the project. The roof over the
second floor of the north volume facing the street will project one foot beyond
the face of the building in order to reference a characteristic design element
of historic bungalows in the District.
• The second floor windows on the north elevation of the north volume have
been recessed two feet in order to create more visual interest and articulation
and to further break up the massing of this portion of the building.
D. The Challenges Faced By This Applicant Will Discourage The Creation
Of Any New Historic Districts Within Santa Monica.
Landmarks Ordinance Section 9.36.130(h) provides that an application for the
designation of a historic district will be automatically nullified if a petition opposing the
designation is signed by owners of a majority of the properties located within the
proposed district. The struggles of this applicant to obtain a Certificate of
Appropriateness to modify his Non-Contributing Structure within the Third Street
Neighborhood Historic District will surely be considered when the next historic district is
proposed in Santa Monica.
4
Thus, there are strong policy reasons why the City Council should wish to resolve
this design and approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for modification of this Non-
Contributing Structure. For the future, it is important for the City Council to provide the
Landmarks Commission with guidance concerning the review of these applications.
CONCLUSION
The long-pending Certificate of Appropriateness for this Non-Contributing
Structure should be approved by the City Council on appeal. If any further design
modifications are needed, they should be clearly articulated by the City Council. Given
the applicant/appellant's good faith efforts to respond to the input received to date, there
is no legal basis under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code for withholding
approval of this application.
5
ATTACHMENT B
Staff Recommended Findings and Conditions for Approval
DRAFT FINDINGS
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FINDINGS (SMMC 9.40.030)
1. The proposed project for an addition to the non-contributing structure located on
the property located at 2617 Third Street is included within the list of work
enumerated in Section 9.40.020(b).
2. The proposed modifications -and addition to the Non-Contributing structure
located at the rear of the property at 2617 Third Street work have been designed
in a manner that demonstrates that a reasonable effort has been made to
produce compatibility with the District character as set forth in Section 9.36.290,
and with the scale, materials and massing of contributing structures within the
District. Specifically, the proposed addition to the Non-Contributing rear building
retains both the existing building's site lines from the street and is approximately
1 %' lower than its existing height. While the proposed addition does increase
the footprint of the rear building, a 29-foot separation is provided between the
proposed addition and the rear building wall of the historic bungalow on the
property. The contemporary design of the addition clearly differentiates it from
the historic residence on the front of the lot, yet it does not overwhelm the
architectural character of the structure or the District because of-its significant 93
foot setback from the street and because it incorporates numerous architectural
elements and materials that complement the District's character .and respond to
the predominant architectural character of the District. These references include
the use of two types of wood siding that add a compatible material and textural
element to the most visible portions of the structure as viewed from the street
and from adjacent properties to the north and south. The profile of this siding will
create a shadow line that reflects the clapboard siding found on Contributing
Structures in the District. The proposed project also incorporates wood framed
fenestration that reflects the proportions of Contributing buildings in the District;
and the incorporation of roof overhangs that are a characteristic feature of the
historic architecture in the District;. and the incorporation of recessed second floor
windows on the .north elevation that create visual interest and articulation as
viewed from the street. The building footprint, streamlined form and massing,
position on the parcel, incorporation of significant site landscaping, and its
minimal visibility from Third Street, allows the building. to have no impact on the
overall visual character of the District. Furthermore, the proposed addition is
designed to be compatible with but not duplicative of the existing structure, is
compatible with the overall scale and proportion of the existing structure, utilizes
compatible materials such as two types of wood siding, stucco, and wood framed
25
windows, and also remains primarily hidden from the pedestrian's view from the
street. In addition; the proposed project meets the guidelines established for
additions to existing Non-Contributing structures in the District set forth in the
Third Street Neighborhood Historic District Design Guidelines.
DRAFT CONDITIONS
This approval is .for proposed project at 2617 Third Street. as shown on plans
dated January 14, 2008, which are on file in the City Planning Division, except as
amended herein.
2. Prior to issuance of building permit, the applicant shall submit to the Landmarks
Commission Secretary for review and approval final paint color selections for the
exterior wood cladding and stucco.
3. This Certificate of Appropriateness shall be in full force and effect from and after
the date of the rendering of the decision by the Commission. 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 Commissiorrfor approval. In addition, this Certificate
of Appropriateness shall expire if the authorized work is suspended fora 180-day
period after being commenced.
4. All required Planning and Building Permit approvals shall be obtained.
26
ATTACHMENT C
Landmarks Commission Statement of Official Action
27
LANDMARKS COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL ACTION
PROJECT
SUBJECT:
ADDRESS:
APPLICANT:
LC-07CA-004
2617 % Third Street
Mark Woollen
REQUEST: Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness requesting
design approval for a proposed addition to aNon-Contributing
accessory structure located at 2617 % Third Street, a property
located within the Third Street Neighborhood Historic District.
LANDMARKS COMMISSION ACTION
1/14/2008 Date
Approved based on the following findings and subject to the
conditions below.
X Technical Denial
Other
The Landmarks Commission held a public hearing for Certificate of Appropriateness
Application 07CA-004 on June 11, 2007, July 9, 2007 and January 14, 2008. At the
January 14, 2008 meeting of the Landmarks Commission, a motion was made to
approve the .Certificate of Appropriateness application. The motion to approve the
project failed by a vote of 3-2 and therefore the Certificate of Appropriateness
application was technically denied.
VOTE:
Ayes: Berley, Kaplan, Shari
Nays: Bach, Chair Fresco
Abstain: Genser, Lehrer
Absent: None
_28_
NOTICE
If this is a final decision not subject to further appeal under the City of Santa Monica
Comprehensive Land Use and Zoning Ordinance, the time within which judicial review
of this decision must be sought is governed by Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6,
which provision has been adopted by the City pursuant to Municipal Code Section 1400.
I hereby certify that this Statement of Official Action accurately reflects the final
determination of the Landmarks Commission of the City of Santa Monica.
Nina Fresco, Chairperson Date
-29-
ATTACHMENT D
Landmarks Commission Minutes:
June 11, 2007, July 8, 2007, January 14, 2008
-30-
MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
LANDMARKS COMMISSION
Founded 1875
"Populus felix in urbe felicf'
Monday, June 11, 2007
6:00 PM
City Council Chambers, Room 213
1685 Main Street, Santa Monica
CALL TO ORDER OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE LANDMARKS
COMMISSION: The meeting was called to order at 6:06 pm.
1. ROLL CALL: Present: Margaret Bach
John Berley
Nina Fresco, Chairperson
RogerGenser
Barbara Kaplan, Chair Pro Tempore
Ruthann Lehrer
Ruth Shari
Also Present: Kevin McKeown, City Council Liaison
Barry Rosenbaum, Senior Land Use Attorney
Roxanne. Tanemori, Commission Secretary
Susan Umeda. Staff Assistant 111
10-D. Certificate of Appropriateness Application 07CA-004, 2617 '/2 3`d Street, for
Commissioner Genser recused himself as he owns property within 500 feet of
2617-1/2 Third Street.
The Commissioners made ex pane communication disclosures.
Ms. Tanemori presented the staff report. Staff advised the Commission that the
projec# could be approved as there were draft findings for approval contained in
the staff report. However, if the Commission found that the project was not ready
for approval, staff recommended the following actions: [1] the Commission
should provide the applicant with specific design recommendations to improve
-31-
the proposal; and. [2] the public hearing should be continued after the
Commission. heard public testimony and the Commission had discussion of the
project to allow the applicant to respond to the direction provided.
Commissioner Lehrer asked staff if the Commission had authority over fence
materials. Ms. Tanemori responded that side and rear yard fences were subject
to a Certificate of Exemption only; therefore, the Commission did not have
purview over the fence design.
The following members of the public addressed the Commission: Michael
Folonis, who represented the applicant, Bea Nemlaha, Karen Blechman, James
Bianco, Lisa Mead, Jake Johannsen, Anthony Ackard, David Gibbs, Deborah
Levin, Leona Marolo, Tony Haig, Candra Docherty, Larry Graber, Dan Freund,
and Scott Campbell, spoke in opposition to the project. Erin Fotos spoke in favor
of the project. Ken Kutcher and Michael Folonis gave the rebuttal to public
testimony.
Commissioner Bach explained that while sheds comfortable in principle with the
insertion of a contemporary structure within a historic district provided that the
structure was designed in a modest way given that it responds to its context and
consideration is given to its visibility: and lines of site. However, she also
acknowledged that there is intense disagreement in the community over the
applicant's proposal.
Commissioner Lehrer stated the Secretary. of the Interior's Standards do not
address historic districts and do not provide guidance for cases when changes
are proposed in a district. She agreed that the community's opposition to the
project is significant and that and that while the design. for the structure is a
beautiful example of modernist architecture, the project does not meet the criteria
outlined in the Third Street Neighborhood Historic District Guidelines and is out of
context for the District, which is a very special place. She also stated that the
building. would be highly visible from the street; that the scale is not appropriate
for a rear building in the District; and the proposed block wall is very troubling.
Commissioner Berley inquired whether Commissioner Lehrer's evaluation of the
proposal would be different if the building were to be invisible from the street.
Commissioner Lehrer stated that if the building were not at all visible it would be
easier to accept. However, that is not the case and furthermore, neighbors to the
north and south spoke to the Commission about the visibility of the structure from
their properties. Commissioner Lehrer also stated that in terms of finding ways to
address changes within the greater context of district, the Commission should be
evaluating a project proposal such as this, to see that it is responsive to its
context within a modernist vocabulary. However, this project, as currently
proposed, is not responsive to its context.
-32-
Chair Pro Tempore Kaplan stated that she spent time studying the proposal and
the neighborhood very carefully and she felt that the impact on the character of
the neighborhood was not substantial enough to reject the project. She explained
that her understanding of the District is that it is not strictly speaking a `period
village', that the layering of history is important part of the District's character.
Furthermore, the building would not have an impact on the contributing building
on the site; the project would not be that visible from the street; and would not
change the character of the District as viewed from the street.
Chair Fresco noted that she studied the site and the proposal carefully and felt
that the overall approach was acceptable. However, the area of most concern
was the massing of the cantilevered bedroom addition and the sense that it is
crowded behind the front house. She stated that the use of glass made portions
of the building more transparent and blend into the hillside, but that portions of
the building would be visible from the street. The use of white stucco made the
cantilevered portion of the building unnecessarily stand out.
Commissioner Shari observed that it appears that there are more restrictions for
someone who lives in a historic district than for someone who owns an individual
Landmark property. She noted that in a district there could be more
neighborhood emphasis on preserving rather than evolving. She also stated that
an owner should be able to change anon-contributing structure within a historic
district as long as the owner did not violate zoning ordinances. Commissioner
Shari stated that the existing non-contributing structure seemed a little bit
awkward.
Commissioner Bach noted that refinement of the design might be appropriate
given all of the comments and discussion. The refinement could be done in areas
such as the materials, textures and colors.
Commissioner Berley that he is concerned about the level of controversy this
project is generating in the community. He suggested that the project could be
revised so that the limited portions of the building that one could see from the
street, if any part of the building is really going to be seen, is done in a modest,
quiet way. Commissioner Berley also stated that he is a proponent of the
perspective that communities and historic districts need to change and that
compatibility is developed, it should reflect that evolution, and it must incorporate
differentiation. Carefully studied and executed differentiation is vital to the
preserve the historic integrity of a property or a district. However, the
community's voice would also need to be heard in this process.
Commissioner Berley made a motion to continue the meeting past 11:00 pm.
Chair Pro Tempore Kaplan seconded that motion which was approved by voice
vote.
-33-
Chair Fresco suggested that the use of more earth-tone colors that would blend
into the hillside and natural materials such as wood might help soften the impact
of the building. She also suggested that the scale of the cantilevered portion of
the structure should be reduced and that some use of bungalow vocabulary
would help.
Commissioner Lehrer stated that the direction of the project should be revised as
.follows: [1] the structure should be less visible; (2] the structure should be less
differentiated; and [3] the scale and materials should blend in with structures
adjacent to the site.
Commissioner Bach noted that the use of glass could reduce the impact of the
structure much better than a solid wall or a wall punctured by multiple window
openings.
Chair. Fresco asked Mr. Folonis if the Commission had given him enough
direction to make appropriate changes to the project. Mr. Folonis responded that
he had enough direction from the Commission to execute a design that would be
more acceptable to the community than the one presented during the meeting.
He asked that he not be required to attend another Citizen Participation
Committee meeting since he did have enough direction from the Commission.
Commissioner Lehrer made a motion to continue this item. Commissioner Bach
seconded the motion which was approved by voice vote.
-34-
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
LANDMARKS COMMISSION
City of
Santa Monica
Monday, July 9, 2007
7:00 PM
Founded 1875
"Populus felix in urbe felicP'
City Council Chambers, Room 213
1685 Main Street, Santa Monica
CALL TO ORDER OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE LANDMARKS
COMMISSION: The meeting was called to order at 7:03 pm.
2. ROLL CALL: Present: Margaret Bach
John Berley
Nina Fresco, Chairperson
Roger Genser
Barbara Kaplan, Chair Pro Tempore
Ruthann Lehrer
Ruth Shari
Also Present: Barry Rosenbaum, Senior Land Use Attorney
Roxanne Tanemori, Commission Secretary
Susan Umeda, Staff Assistant III
Absent: Kevin McKeown, City Council Liaison
9-B. Certificate of Appropriateness Application 07CA-004. 2617 % 3`d Street, for
design approval of ah addition to anon-contributing accessory structure in the
rear of the property located within the Third Street Neighborhood Historic District.
[Continued from the June 11, 2007 meeting)
Commissioner Genser recused himself as he owns property within 500 feet of
the 2617-1/2 Third Street.
The Commission made ex pane communication disclosures.
Ms. Tanemori presented the staff report. Staff noted that the design met the
Third Street Neighborhood Historic District Design Guidelines and Landscape
-35-
Survey in regard to additions to non-contributing structures in a historic district;
however, staff advised that a revised color palette of greens or grey-browns with
bronze undertones would be more appropriate for the project. Ms. Tanemori
advised the Commission that the Citizens Participation Committee still expressed
strong concerns about the project.
The following members of the public addressed the Commission: Michael Folonis
(on behalf of the owner), Andrea Galvin, Ken Kutcher, Scott Campbell, Adam
Finkel, Lisa Langolis, Larry Graber, Karen Blechman, Tony Haig, and Bea
Nemlaha. Most of the members of the public did not support the project.
Mr. Kutcher presented a rebuttal to the public testimony.
Commissioner Bach stated that there is a strong tradition of juxtaposing modern
buildings within a historic context and there are many well known, beautiful
examples of how .this approach has worked well. However, in this case, she
stated she has gone back to review the Design Guidelines to help her evaluate
the proposed project.
Commissioner Lehrer noted that the neighborhood did not support the project
and that the District was formed through a community process led by those who
have a stake in protecting the neighborhood's history. She also stated that the
design, within the context of a historic district, does not meet the Third Street
Neighborhood Historic District Design Guidelines and Landscape Survev in terms
of its scale, mass, materials, fenestration, and siding.
Chair Pro Tempore Kaplan asked staff if the design guidelines would be applied
differently for anon-contributing building. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum
responded in the affirmative and also noted that the findings are different -less
stringent - for a project that involves work to anon-contributing versus a project
that includes work to a Contributing Structure in the District.
Chair Pro Tempore Kaplan stated she felt the Commission's role was to evaluate
whether the architect made the changes requested by the Commission at the first
hearing.. She also stated that the structure would not be as massive as some
have perceived it to be in comparison to the mass of the existing accessory
building. Based on her recent site visit and evaluation of the proposal from the
adjacent properties,. the project would have a negligible visual impact on the
properties to the north and south. She noted that portions of the structure would
be visible from the street but that it would not create a visual impact to the extent
that it would destroy the character of the neighborhood.
Chair Fresco stated that a modern structure could be constructed in a historic
district; however; the non-contributing structure must not overpower the historic
building. She stated that the revisions to the project were minimal and that some
-36-
reference to the bungalow style should -have been incorporated into the design.
Chair Fresco stated that she could not approve the Certificate of Appropriateness
as presented. However, she also noted that -she was not impressed with the
examples presented by the neighbors of what they considered to be more
compatible projects.
Because the project involved modifications to an accessory building,
Commissioner Berley noted that there should be more flexibility in reviewing the
appropriateness of the changes to the structure. He noted that the design of the
project was strong as it would evoke the time in which. it was constructed.
However, he stated that the project may need to have a more modest presence
and that the Commission should give the applicant additional design guidance.
Commissioner Lehrer noted that the project would be the primary structure as it
would be twice the size of the historic building in front.
Commissioner Lehrer noted that since the Third Street Neighborhood Historic
District is very small, it is more delicate than larger historic districts. If the project
were not in a very small and highly consistent historic district, it would be easier
to accept the juxtaposition of a modern building with a historic building..
At this point, Commissioner Berley made a motion to continue the meeting past
11:00 pm. Chair Pro Tempore Kaplan seconded the. motion which was approved
by voice vote.
Chair Pro Tempore Kaplan explained that the Contributing Structure on the site is
being protected as the project would affect only the non-contributing building.
She also noted that historic structures are protected if they are located within a
historic district; if they are not located in a historic district, the historic structures
could be demolished. Chair Pro Tempore Kaplan stated that the standards for
additions to non-contributing structures in a historic district should treated with
the same flexibility that is afforded to how individual landmarks are reviewed
when new construction is proposed on site.
Commissioner Bach stated that she would like #o see more adventure with regard
to additions to the fabric of the neighborhood as opposed to the examples
provided from members of the public to illustrate more compatible projects. She
suggested that the project be continued.
Commissioner Lehrer noted that there were a wide range of interpretations
regarding the differentiation between old and new structures within a historic
district. In this case, she noted that the design was very modern and beautiful;
however, the differentiation was too extreme and incompatible in this
neighborhood. Commissioner Lehrer stated that the project should have
-37-
included some reference to the' predominant architectural character of the
neighborhood.
Commissioner Berley noted that the new structure should be evocative of the
time when it was constructed. He stated that the design should also dravv upon
elements such as wood siding in order to create visual harmony between both
buildings.
Mr. Folonis requested that the Commission continue this item and asked the
Commission to clarify the changes that need to be made to the project. Chair
Fresco responded that the Commission would like to see the concepts which
were discussed during the meeting incorporated into the design of the structure.
Commissioner Lehrer asked Mr. Folonis why the non-contributing structure was
being remodeled rather than demolished. Mr. Folonis responded that a new
building would need to be constructed at least ten feet closer to the street and
that would make it even more visible from the street, as opposed to the current
design which is a remodel of the existing building in its original location with the
majority of the addition being placed behind the Contributing Structure.
Commissioner Bach made a motion to continue this item. Commissioner Shari
seconded the motion.
The motion was approved by the following vote:
AYES: Bach, Berley, Fresco; Kaplan, Lehrer, Shari
ABSTAIN: Genser
-38-
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
LANDMARKS COMMISSION
Founded 1875
"Populus felix in urbe felicP'
Monday, January 14, 2008
7:00 PM
City Council Chambers, Room 213
1685 Main Street, Santa Monica
CALL TO ORDER OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE LANDMARKS
COMMISSION: The meeting was called to order at 7:10 pm.
3. ROLL CALL: Present: Margaret Bach
John Berley
Roger Genser
Nina Fresco, Chairperson
Barbara Kaplan, Chair Pro Tempore
Ruthann Lehrer
Ruth Shari
Also Present: Kevin McKeown, City Council Liaison
Barry Rosehbaum; Senior Land Use Attorney
Roxanne Tanemori, Commission Secretary
Susan Umeda, Staff Assistant III
8-C. Certificate of Appropriateness Application 07CA-004, 2617 '/z Third Street, for
design approval of an addition to anon-contributing accessory structure in the
rear of the property located within the Third Street Neighborhood Historic District.
(Continued from the November 72, 2007 Meeting)
Commissioner Genser recused himself as he owns property within 500 feet of
2617 '/z Third Street. Commissioner Lehrer recused herself as she had written a
letter to the Commission which. expressed her views on this item which
constituted prejudgment of this matter.
The Commission made ex parte communication disclosures.
-39-
Ms. Tanemori presented that staff report. Staff recommended the approval of the
Certificate of Appropriateness 07CA-004 based upon the draft findings in the
staff report.
Commissioner Bach asked staff to explain why staff used the guidelines for
additions as opposed to the guidelines for new construction. Ms. Tanemori
explained that the proposal is for an addition to the existing structure in the rear
yard and the guidelines state that "there are two different ,approaches to the
problem of inserting a new structure in a historic district. The first guideline
concerns small scale additions or modifications to existing structures. The
second concerns new freestanding buildings replacing non-contributing
buildings." She noted that the guidelines go oh to discuss second floor additions,
strategies for larger additions and strategies for small additions. The next section
of the guidelines relates to new construction which is defined as new
freestanding buildings replacing non-contributing structures. She stated that
based upon this review and based on the fact that an addition is proposed to an
existing building, staff applied the guidelines for additions.
Mark Woollen, the project applicant, and Michael Folonis, project architect,
addressed the Commission; Mr. Folonis made a presentation of the project and
also presented rebuttal to public testimony.
The following members of the public spoke in opposition to the project: Michael
Bianco, Jim Bianco, Dorothy E. Thatcher, Richard Orton, Scott Campbell, Bruce.
Johnston, Sherrill Kushner, Naresh Mehra, Karen Blechman, Corey Blechman,.
Mitchell Lachman, Lisa Langois, Maria Godfrey .(presented CPC report), Candra
Docherty, Larry Graber, Joe Natoli, Tom Cleys, Robert Ulrich, Peter Mullins,
.Andrew Gledhill, Tony Haig, and Kate Holt.
The following members of the public spoke in support of the project: Alia Little,
James Differ, Ian Kely, Burton Meyers, Susan Kelly, Melody White, Erin Fotos,
Courtney Jones, Julie Eizenberg, Eric Parlee, and Gwynne Pugh.
Commissioner Shari commented .that she appreciated the changes that were
made to the project. Commissioner Shari asked Mr. Folonis to what extent does
design .merge the interior and exterior landscape on the south as it is looks a little
monolithic. Mr: Folonis referred to the materials which he provided to staff and
explained the elevations to the Commission and also provided information about
how the proposed addition is situated in relation to the existing rear structure on
the adjacent parcel
Commissioner Bach made a motion to continue the meeting past 11:00 pm.
Commissioner Berley seconded the motion. The motion was approved by voice
vote.
-40-
Chair Fresco stated that four Commissioners must approve the project for the
Certificate of Appropriateness to be approved.
Chair Pro Tempore Kaplan thanked staff for their report as it clarified many
issues for her. She stated that she can support the project because it is a well-
designed and restrained modern addition to a beautiful historic district.
Additionally, she appreciated the fact that the owner will make a significant
investment to restore the historic bungalow on the front of the lot. She also
explained that the dialogue between the new building and the existing bungalow
has improved. She stated that the materials are similar to materials found within
the district and that the scale of materials is complimentary to the clapboard
siding on many buildings in the district. She stated that the color is compatible.
Chair Pro Tempore Kaplan also stated that the scale of the proposed addition is
1 '/z feet below the height of the existing non-contributing structure and its overall
massing has been reduced from the previous submittal. Chair Pro Tem Kaplan
stated that the structure will be minimally visible from the street and that the part
of the building which will be visible will not have a negative impact on the
character of the district. She also explained that since the addition will be to the
non-contributing structure on the parcel, the project will not impact the historic
building and is also a reversible change to the property. She recommended that,
as a condition of approval, the landscape should be planted before the Certificate
of Occupancy is issued.
Commissioner Shari explained that there is a concern among non-supporters
about protecting the historical integrity of the existing contributing structure on the
property and its environment. However, she stated that the addition is ,proposed
to the existing non-contributing structure that does nothing to reinforce the fabric
of the historic district. She stated that the project has been improved in terms of
its scale and massing and the choice of materials -many of which are
sustainable. Commissioner Shari also stated that the applicant has made far
more than a very reasonable attempt to change the project to be more
compatible to the district; in fact they have gone beyond a reasonable attempt in
terms of compatibility. She stated that the project does incorporate tasteful
materials and the project will be in keeping with its surroundings. She noted that
some members of the public suggested that, if the project is approved by this
Commission, the approval would open up a floodgate for every modernist
contemporary design to be constructed in the historic district which would violate
the guidelines. She stated that this hypothesis is not a justifiable apprehension
because all projects are reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Commissioner Shari
stated that she supports the project and agreed with Chair Pro Tempore Kaplan
in regard to the landscape.
Commissioner Berley stated that creating incentives, such as the Mills Act, for
members of the community to landmark their property is an area of great
-41 -
significance to the Commission. He added that flexibility is another incentive; if
the Commission allows a historic resource to have some flexibility, then there will
be greater incentive to protect and improve the structure. Commissioner Berley
explained that while he appreciates the presentation made by neighbors showing
images of important characteristics of the district, none of the images showed
structures at the rear of these parcels, nor could rear structures be seen in these
images of the primary contributing buildings. Commissioner Berley stated his
review of the project centers on the fact that it consists of an addition to a non-
contributing structure that is not on the street; rather it is located on the rear of
the parcel and the sightline of that non-contributing structure will not be altered.
Commissioner Berley stated that he supports the project because it will be
minimally visible from the street since the project is set back 93 feet from the
street and the sightline is restricted. He also stated that this project will be a
contribution to the district in a manner that safeguards the quality and character
of the district -which is defined by what you feel and see while you are on the
street. He added that he also supports Chair Pro Tempore Kaplan's additional
condition.
Chair Fresco stated that the most important incentive to a historic district is the
preservation of the district; flexibility is not an incentive.. Chair Fresco noted that
the revised project with wood siding is a great improvement from the last version;
however, she stated that there-were still problems with the project. She stated
that the cantilevered portion of the addition comes forward too close to the
existing historic bungalow and that even though you will not be able to see the
windows on this portion of the structure from the street, she imagines them to be
like little `teeth' ready to bite the historic building. Chair Fresco stated while she
has not been in the backyard of many properties in the district, she did look into
the backyards of several properties and saw barn-like structures behind
residences in the district.
Chair Fresco stated the Commission had given the applicant a chance to revise
the project to conform to the guidelines for the district. She also stated that the
applicant made an effort to conform since they added the beautiful wood siding
that very cleverly reflects materials in the district in a modern way. However, she
stated that in addition to the wood siding, the only aspect other aspect of the
project which reflects other features of the neighborhood is the expanses of glass
which still do not have enough divisions. She stated that features of the whole
neighborhood should be reflected in new projects; however, because this is a
building on a lot which shares the parcel with a historic building, the historic
building should dictate which features the non-contributing building needs to
reflect. She stated that the flat roof resembled the. contributing Spanish-Colonial
Revival buildings, not a bungalow. Chair Fresco reported that she had spoken to
Michael Folonis, the architect on the project, regarding eaves, rafter tails, and
divided lights; she stated that the features. that were discussed were not
incorporated into the new design. She stated that the inset window with the
-42-
overhang did not look like an eave and was not compatible with any of the
bungalows. She stated that the three refinements listed in the staff report were
not addressed in the revision. She noted that the Commission made a
reasonable effort to give the applicant an opportunity to comply.
Commissioner Bach stated that this has been an amazing journey; and that a
huge amount of effort and goodwill and good effort has gone into this project.
She stated that based on her understanding of the district, the east side of Third
Street was the most critically-sensitive aspect. of the district. She stated that she
went back to review the standards and the guidelines and the ordinance to see if
they offer guidance in how to reach a decision since the Commission has a legal
responsibility to interpret and apply the law. Criterion #3 references district
character set forth in Section 9.36.290. She explained that in her view, the most
significant portion of this section states the character of the district is defined "by
the siting of the homes on the east side of Third Street which are set into the
slope of the hill." Commissioner Bach stated that while the project is, in a
technical sense, an addition, she stated that in reality it is new construction,-and
although she cannot legally refer to the project as new construction, those
guidelines for new construction should apply. Commissioner Bach explained that
she also goes back to the idea of intent and that the guidelines encourage
compatibility with the character of the neighborhood.. While an argument could
be made that the project accomplishes compatibility, however, going back to
issue of intent and trying to figure out the intent of those who drafted -the district
design guidelines, her sense is that the project does not have a high degree of
compatibility with the neighborhood and that is confirmed by the feedback
received from the public. Commissioner Bach also explained that this is a very
curious situation with the existing two-story structure: she stated it lives on a rise
and lives in a gap and even though it on the rear of the property, it is quite visible
from the street. She stated there will be an impact. While landscaping will help
diminish the visibility; there will be an awareness of this very carefully thought-
out, clearly very well articulated structure and it will be very apparent. Therefore,
she stated that she is struggling with this and is inclined to come down on the
side of "do no harm" and is inclined to not support the project.
Chair Pro Tempore Kaplan stated that she felt that a case could be made for
compatibility or non-compatibility in any framework and that the neighbors who
are objecting to the project are looking at this issue from a limited, more
traditional perspective, probably not an architecturally trained perspective. She
stated that she is the licensed architect on the Commission so the perspective
she contributes to the discussion will be that from of a licensed architect. She
explained that the architect has made some larger revisions, such as material
selection, to create a dialogue between the old and the new which makes the
project more compatible with the neighborhood. She stated that the architect
also made more subtle modifications that address the proportion of windows. The
amount of glass that was in the original proposal has been scaled down and the
-43-
proportions and details of the glass.. are a contemporary version of a historic
framed window detail. She stated that the proportion of the windows make a
very subtle transition between the front bungalow, the previously approved
addition to the front house and the proposed addition to .the rear structure. The
proportion of the windows on the new addition have a slightly larger proportion
but still relate to the proportions of existing bungalow in a more modern manner.
She noted that there is an inhate harmony between the new addition and the
historic building and that from any view of the .addition you can see the
compatibility and quiet relationship between both buildings. She stated that she
supports the project and that people who are opposed to the building may like
the building more once it is built since at this point they cannot imagine what it
will be.
Commissioner Bach stated she is very appreciative of the elevation strategies,
the material treatment and window treatment. She stated that the proportional
aspect of the project is done in a very skilled way. She stated that she is not
satisfied with the actual massing and shape of the building, especially the flat
roofline. She. stated that her greatest hesitation revolves around the roofline. She
stated that there should be a gesture to a sloped roof that would pull everything
together and create a greater sense of harmony and compatibility, even in the
context of modernism. She stated that it should be possible to bring a modernist
spirit to a building with a bit more of a gentle acknowledgement of a variation of
rooflines, especially in this section of the district.
Commissioner Berley stated that the applicant's current proposal Yesponds to the
Commission's previous suggestions that are outlined in the staff report and
contained. in the public record. Commissioner. Berley stated it would not be
appropriate for the Commission to request additional modifications at this point,
in particular when those changes were not articulated by the Commission the two
previous times the project was discussed. He explained that he felt the
Commission already had time to articulate its concerns and he is troubled by the
idea of requesting additional changes at this stage.
Chair Fresco stated that she felt that the three suggestions made by the
Commission were not met even though the changes that were made did improve
the project. She further explained that she was not satisfied with the way the
other suggestions were addressed by the applicant.
Commissioner Berley explained that, for example, a recommendation to modify
the roofline is now being discussed when no direction was given by the
Commission during the two previous public hearings regarding changes to the
roofline. He again stated that based on the direction provided by the Commission
at the previous two meetings; the applicant has already responded. to the
Commission's requests as outlined in the staff report by reducing the proposed
building height- and square footage; the cantilevered portion of the building has
-44-
been reduced; and modifications have been made to fenestration, building
materials and roof overhangs.
Chair Fresco stated that the Commission had asked for more references to the
predominant architectural character of the district. She noted that the applicant
added the siding; however, she stated that the structure still did not relate to the
architectural character of the district. For instance, Chair Fresco noted that the
indented window is not an eave, the mass and scale of the structure did not
really change, and the north side of the cantilever was moved over three feet but
the cantilever is still highly visible from the sidewalk.
Chair Pro Tem Kaplan and Commissioner Berley both stated that they disagree
that the cantilevered portion would be visible from the street: Chair Pro Tem
Kaplan also. stated that a portion of it would be visible from the yard but that is
not their purview.
Commissioner Berley made a motion to approve Certificate of Appropriateness
07CA-004 with the condition that the landscape would need to be in place before
the Certificate of Occupancy is issued. Chair Pro Tempore Kaplan seconded the
motion.
A roll call was held for the motion:
AYES: Berley, Kaplan, Shari
NAYS: Bach, Fresco
Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum stated that approval is technically denied
because there were not four votes approving the project.
-45-
Additional
attachments
available in the City
Clerk's Office.