Modern
Home Approved in Historic District |
By Anita Varghese
Staff Writer
December 13 -- The Landmarks Commission awarded a certificate
of appropriateness Monday to allow homeowners to demolish one house
and build another in the Third Street Neighborhood Historic District
in Ocean Park.
Historic preservation activists pleaded with commissioners to continue approval
to a January meeting so that the project could be heard alongside another controversial
project in the historic district one block away at 2617 Third Street.
Despite the pleas, commissioners gave homeowners Mark Gorman and Beth Burns
permission to tear down a 1953 one-story duplex and garage at 2642 Second Street
and build a new 2,365 square foot single-family residence with a detached garage.
The property, located on the west side of Second Street between Beach and Hill
Streets, is identified as a non-contributing structure to the historic district
when the district was established in 1990.
“Everyone has their own taste in buildings and this is a matter of making
compromises to satisfy as many stakeholders as possible,” Burns said.
“We respectfully request that the Landmarks Commission review our project
on its own merits.”
Gorman and Burns’ proposal was first heard in October by commissioners,
who at the time agreed the project would match the context and character of
Second Street if design changes they recommended were made.
The applicants accepted the commission’s suggestions and changed the
building’s height and shape, the form of its roof, exterior building materials
and fenestration, as well as reducing the square footage of the house.
“After making all these design changes and participating in good faith
in this process, it seems to me that what bothers a few people isn’t really
about the architecture,” Burns said. “It is a timing coincidence
with another proposal on Third Street.”
Nina Fresco, chair of the Landmarks Commission, believes the Second Street
project is similar to many other non-contributing structures already in the
historic district.
“I think that there really are some strong correlations to existing elements
in the district,” Fresco said.
Some commissioners had begun to give a few more design suggestions to the applicants,
but changed their minds after recommendations they discussed seemed to contradict
one another.
“About conditions for further staff review, we should not start to pile
things on to where we muddy what I see is a well-executed design and very competent
architecture,” said Commissioner John Berley.
“The project’s simple building forms create an understated backdrop
to the historic architecture in the district while still incorporating carefully
selected architectural elements and materials to compliment and reflect the
district’s character,” said Roxanne Tanemori, an associate planner
for the City.
Tanemori said surrounding neighbors have both supported and opposed Gorman
and Burns’ proposal.
The Second Street project contrasts from the recently submitted proposal for
2617 Third Street, which involves remodeling a non-contributing structure located
on the same parcel as a contributing historic California bungalow.
A majority of historic district homeowners are opposed to the Third Street
project, while some are opposed to the Second Street project because both building
plans call for Modernist styles.
Homeowners say they love their vintage homes and the Landmarks Commission would
be setting “an unjustifiable dangerous precedent” if construction
of Modernist style structures were to be introduced into the historic district.
“The project on Third Street and this project raise the same issues and
concerns about the historic district and preservation in Santa Monica,”
said Bea Nemlaha, who was involved in creating historic district design guidelines
in the 1990s.
“Both projects challenge the City to listen to the voices of the people
most affected by the City’s decision,” she said. “The
residents of the historic district moved there because they wanted
to live in an old Santa Monica beachside neighborhood with a story
to tell.”
|
