City Council Meeting: April 22,
2008
Agenda Item: 6-A
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 a non-contributing structure
located at
Recommended
Action
Staff
recommends the City Council uphold appeal 08APP-004 and approve Certificate of
Appropriateness application 07CA-004 for a 1,213 square foot addition to a Non-Contributing structure located on the
rear of the parcel at
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 a non-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 statement, it is
recommended that the appeal be upheld and the Certificate of Appropriateness
application be approved.
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 a Non-Contributing
Structure located on the rear half of the lot at
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 on 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 a
two-story rear accessory building. Other
Contributing Structures along 
Revival style structures.
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.
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 a Non-Contributing Structure?
- Is the
project compatible with the overall character of the District?
- 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 ½ 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 a Non-Contributing Structure, a structure
that does not contribute to the historic fabric of the District. When
reviewing modifications to a Non-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 ½ 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 a Non-Contributing Structure, because the
applicant is making significant alterations that render it a new building.
- 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 for a 1,213 square foot
addition to a Non-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):
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 to 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 150’). 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 
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.
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 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.
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.
93’-4”
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.
(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.
(5) 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
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 a Non-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.
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 in 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 refine
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.
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 approximately1 ½ feet, making it approximately
1 ½ 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
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 Appropriateness
application at
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. 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
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 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 tile 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:
- Incorporation 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.
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).
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
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 ½ 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 façade from the existing front façade.
·
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
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 ½” 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 façade from the existing façade”. This provision recognizes that the primary façade 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 façade 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
Peer Review of Project Design 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 City in 2007 to perform independent architectural and urban design analysis for the City’s Planning & Community Development Department.
Urban Studio
conducted a site visit to the subject property and the District and reviewed
the project plans, renderings,
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
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.
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 a non-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).
Financial Impacts & Budget Actions
The recommendation presented in this report does not have any budget or fiscal impact.
Prepared
by:
|
Approved: |
|
Forwarded to Council: |
|
|
|
|
|
Eileen P. Fogarty Director,
Planning and Community Development |
|
P. City Manager |
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 11, 2007, July 8, 2007,
November 12, 2007, January 14, 2008
F.
G.
Memorandum
from PCR Services Corporation, May 23, 2007
H.
Memorandum
from Urban Studio, April 1, 2008
I.
Architectural
Plans and Renderings & Additional Documentation from Appellant
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.
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
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 ½’ 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
DRAFT CONDITIONS
1.
This approval is for proposed project at 2617 Third Street
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 Commission for approval. In addition, this Certificate of
Appropriateness shall expire if the authorized work is suspended for a 180-day
period after being commenced.
4.
All required Planning and Building
Permit approvals shall be obtained.
ATTACHMENT C
Landmarks Commission
Statement of Official Action
