Loading...
SR-6-Q it? Z --t? tJ ?r ~-^ JANI01~ Santa Monica, California :- C/ED:CPD:DKW:DM Council Meeting: January 10, 1989 TO: Mayor and city council FROM: city Staff SUBJECT: certification of statement of Official Action for the Appeal of Development Review 464, 2338 pico Boulevard. Applicant: Ken Keatts INTRODUCTION This report transmits for City Council certification the statement of Official Action for the appeal of the above listed Development Review for Ken Keatts to allow the construction of a 3,106 square foot ten-minute oil change facility at 2338 pico Boulevard. BACKGROUND After pUblic hearing and careful review of the record and staff recommendations, the City Council denied the appeal and denied the proposed automotive facility on December 13, 1988. RECOMMENDATION It is respectfully recommended that the City council approve the attached Statement of Official Action which contains findings for DR 464. Prepared By: David Martin, Assistant Planner D. Kenyon Webster, principle Planner Paul Berlant, Director of Planning PB:DKW:DM PCjSTOAMEMO Attachment - 1 - b-Q JAN 1 0 1989 STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL ACTION PROJECT NUMBER: Development Review 464 LOCATION: 2338 Pico Boulevard APPLICANT: Ken Keatts REQUEST: Application for a Development Review to allow the construction of a 3,106 square foot building to be utilized as a Ten-Minute oil change Facility. CITY COUNCIL ACTION 12/13/88 Date. Approved based on the following findings and sUbject to the conditions below. X Denied. Other. FINDINGS 1. The proposed development is inconsistent with Policy 1.2.4 on the General Plan Land Use Element which states: "Mitigate the impact of commercial uses such as auto re- pair shops in those areas where an over-concentration of the use would have, or the operation of such uses might have an adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood". The service bays for the automotive use front onto Pico Boulevard as well as the rear alley, and the proposed traffic pattern could impact adjacent residential properties. 2. The proposed development is inconsistent with Policy 3.2.2 of the General Plan Land Use Element which states: "Where commercial uses abut residential areas, there should be an appropriate transition (landscaped setback or service alley and screen wall). The applicant has not proposed a sufficient screen wall or landscaping to mitigate impacts on adjacent residential properties. - 1 - VOTE Ayes: Nays: Abdo, Finkel, Genser, Katz, Reed, Zane Abstain: Absent: Jennings I hereby certify that this statement of Official Action accurately reflects the final determination of the city Council of the City of Santa Monica. ~~// ~a;~~ --a-i:grfcft ure - / January II, 1989 date C1ar~ce E. Johnsen, C~ty Clerk print name and title stdr464 DM 12/13/88 Appeal conSldered December 13, 1988. Statement of Offlc~a1 Act~on approved January 10, 1989. - 2 -