Item 34 - Public Hearing - Appeal Application No. 2024-01 for Construction of a 23’-4” Tall Accessory Building (2221 N Heliotrope Drive)

Home Browse Search

Exhibit 6 - Response to Appeal Comments Appeal Application No. 2024-01 for Maharajah House Moon Pavilion (2221 N. Heliotrope Drive) change the character and integrity of the historic property. These are alterations that follow the Secretary of the Interior's Standards ("SOIS") for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, & Reconstructing Historic Buildings (Kay D. Weeks and Anne E. Grimmer, revised 2017). Moreover, Historic Resources Commission (HRC) Resolution No. 2006-01 outlines limited exterior physical modifications to historic properties that can be reviewed administratively by City staff. Examples include, but are not limited to, like -for -like repairs or replacements using the same material and style as the original; restoration of architectural features that are documented through pictorial evidence; on -site accessory structures (e.g., new detached garage, a shed, or a playhouse); etc. In this case, the proposed structure is not physically altering or changing the exterior of the Maharajah House. Therefore, the proposed project is not considered a modification, as defined by Chapter 30 of the SAMC, and no additional review by the HRC is required for this project. Moreover, pursuant to the SAMC Sections 2-350.2 and 41-630, the proposed CUP is a land use application within the purview and review authority of the Planning Commission, not the HRC. a. Appellant Statement — Historical Compatibility. 2221 North Heliotrope Drive, "The Maharaja House. "Is historically significant due to its Art Moderne architecture as well as provenance — listed on the Register of Historical Properties, designated as a Landmark, associated with a foreign ruling family, and given a Mill's Act Contract. Its Art Modern style fits in well with the varied styles that comprise the neighborhood and its style is multiple other Floral Park homes. Analysis of Issue: Appellant did not provide a specific reason for an appeal in this subsection. Rather, the appellant stated a known fact about the historic significance of the subject property. Statement noted. b. Appellant Statement — Variance for Project Height: The 23'-4 "height of the proposed new structure exceeds the City's code for accessory height limits of 20'-0". Because the structure will significantly exceed the approximate six -foot -high fence surrounding the property, it will be clearly visible from Santa Clara Avenue. Despite the fact that existing planting and added required plantings may hide the structure, nothing prevents future pruning of trees or re -landscaping at the sole discretion of the owners. Of Significant Importance, the approval of the CUP provides a dangerous precedent providing tacit permission to other residents (both within Floral 4