April 21, 2008
City Chips Away At Historic District
The project is described as a pair of rectangular boxes clad in tan stucco and wood. Nevertheless, this project was approved by the landmarks commission. Neighbors opposing the project appealed the decision to City Council who denied their appeal Feb. 12
smdp042108
February 18, 2008
Old and New Collide in SM Developments
Maybe it’s time to amend the zoning codes to outlaw “modern” or “International style” in historic neighborhoods
smdp021808
February 16, 2008
Genser’s ire escalated during a discussion of an Appeal of the Landmarks Commission’s approval for demolition of a “non contributing structure” and construction of new residence at 2642 Second Street in the Third Street Neighborhood Historic District.
In questioning Associate Planner Roxanne Tanemon, who prepared the staff report, which supported the Commission’s decision, Genser behaved as if he were a prosecuting Attorney and Tanemon were a defense witness. The illustrated report was exhaustive and detailed, but he peppered her with questions that had less to do with its content than its organization.
It’s a complex question: what is appropriate in a Historic District?
Though Genser added more heat than light to the proceedings, the appellants, the property owners and their architect, and other interested residents, as well as City staff, focused on the issue. But, in the end, the Council failed to answer the question, voting 3-3 on both a motion to deny the appeal and a subsequent motion to remand the project to the Landmarks Commission for further work.
As a result, under the rules, the Landmarks decision was upheld.
February 12, 2008
Appeal of Landmarks Commission approval for demolition of a non-contributing structure and construction of new residence at 2642 2nd Street, located within the 3rd Street Neighborhood Historic District – recommendation to deny the appeal and approve the Certificate of Appropriateness application for demolition of a non-contributing structure and construction of a new single-family residence based on the findings set forth by the Landmarks Commission. Appellant: Beatrice Nemlaha, et al; Applicants: Mark Gorman and Beth Burns.
Agenda Item 6-A
http://www01.smgov.net/cityclerk/council/agendas/2008/20080212/a20080212.htm
Staff report
Staff recommends the City Council deny appeal 07APP-010 and approve Certificate of Appropriateness application 07CA-009 for demolition of a non-contributing structure and construction of new a single-family residence located at 2642 Second Street, based on the findings set forth by the Landmarks Commission in its action on December 10, 2007.
http://www01.smgov.net/cityclerk/council/agendas/2008/20080212/s2008021206-A.htm
Power Point Presentation
Minutes Item 6-A
http://www01.smgov.net/cityclerk/council/agendas/2008/20080226/February%2012,%202008%20Minutes.pdf
January 10, 2008
Historic District Challenged
In the last year, two new and one recent property owner have sought to build modern shoeboxes at 2646 and 2642 Second Street and 2617 Third Street in the very heart of the District. The Landmarks Commission has approved both projects on Second Street; 2642 is currently on appeal to the City Council.
http://www.smmirror.com/MainPages/DisplayArchiveArticle.asp?eid=7010
January 3, 2008
Controversial Project Appealed
Neighbors Rally Against Construction Project in Third Street District
A group of long-time residents and preservationists have filed an appeal to a new residential construction project in the heart of the Third Street Historic District, the latest chapter in a saga that has seen neighbors pitted against neighbors in this normally quiet community.
The appeal to the proposal at 2642 Second St. was filed on Dec. 20 in response to a Landmarks Commission decision about 10 days prior that gave property owners Mark Gorman and Beth Burns the green light to erect a two-story home that neighbors have called “modernist.”
The appeal moves on to the City Council which could hold a hearing on the issue sometime this month. Appeals to projects can be filed within 10 days of a Landmarks Commission decision, keeping building permits from being issued until the matter is resolved, according to Roxanne Tanemori, the planning associate liaison to the Landmarks Commission.
The appellants — Tony Haig, who owns a Victorian on Beach Street, Scott Campbell, who owns the so-called craftsman “airport” bungalow off Ocean Park Boulevard, and Bea Nemlaha, who owns a bungalow on Third Street — contend that the design of the proposed house does not keep with the spirit of the historic district and violates its guidelines.
Victorian on Beach Street (237 Beach Street) – 2007
237 Beach Street (original location 2547 Second Street) – 1992
Edwina and William Hostetter House, Queen Anne cottage built ca. 1885
December 26, 2007
Holding On To The Past
Long-time district residents mobilized against the two projects calling them out of scale and in the modernist style, being incompatible with the overall theme of the Third Street Historic District
smdp122607
December 20, 2007
LANDMARKS COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL ACTION
SUBJECT: LC-07CA-009
ADDRESS: 2642 2nd Street
REQUEST: Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for approval to demolish a Non-Contributing Structure on the property at 2642 Second Street and construct a new single-family residence on the parcel located within the Third Street Neighborhood Historic District.
X Approved based on the following findings and subject to the conditions below.
December 17, 2007
Another Bad Decision
Neither decision inspires my confidence that this commission is truly capable of protecting Santa Monica’s historic past.
smdp121707
December 13, 2007
Elegant, Refined, and Understated
The word is out! Monday night the Landmarks Commission did the wrong thing and approved a new construction project.
Arcane design details that professional architects love but visitors to and residents of the District could never identify are sliced and diced to support claims that large, shoebox buildings are compatible with the graceful, multi-faceted style and flavor of the neighborhood’s old turn- of-the-century beach bungalows. Details such as right angles, stepbacks, windows, and use of stucco and wood (presumably versus stainless steel) are used by project applicants and their architects to explain how shoebox projects look like the old historic buildings in the District!
If Landmarks Commission can describe your project as “elegant, refined, and understated,” you can build that too. By the way, there is no reference in the District Design Guidelines to “elegant, refined, or understated”. These are not defining characteristics of the District.
http://www.smmirror.com/MainPages/DisplayArchiveArticle.asp?eid=6844
|
