SR-080988-5A (2)
.
.
s-A
NJG 9 1988
California
ftJ 2,- 1005
C/ED:PB:LM:lm
council Mtg:
Santa Monica,
August 9, 1988
TO:
Mayor and City council
,,--
f(o 2 r 0 cJ..J
FROM: City staff
SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning Commission Approval Conditional Use
Permit 487; A Proposal to Construct a 4 Unit
Condominium at 245 Hollister Avenue. Applicant:
Barbara Coffman and Associates. Appellant: David L.
Ganezer.
INTRODUCTION
This report recommends that the City Council deny the subject
appeal and approve Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 487 for a 4 unit
condominium, as recommended in the Planning Commission staff
report and approved by the Planning commission by a vote of 6-0
on May 4, 1988.
The appellant cites the project's detrimental impact on the
surrounding neighborhood as grounds for the subject appeal
(Attachment A) .
The appellant has requested a continuance to september 13, 1988
in order to have the full Council in attendance. The applicant
has requested that a determination be made on August 9, 1988 as
scheduled. The Ci ty Council must determine whether or not to
allow a further continuance.
BACKGROUND
On July 12, 1988 the subject proposal was brought before the City
Council.
It was determined that the application for a
- 1 -
~~
.
.
Conditional Use Permit was incomplete in that lighting and
landscaping plans were not submitted with the original
application. The City Council opened the pUblic hearing, took
public testimony, and continued the hearing to August 9, 1988,
requiring that landscape and lighting plans be submitted for
their review.
In addition, it was found that the appeal period for the
tentative tract map had lapsed prior to submittal of the subject
appeal. The city council's scope of review is, therefore,
limited to the Conditional Use Permit. Upholding the subject
appeal, and denying the Conditional Use Permit, will prevent
development of the proposed 4 unit condominium regardless of the
fact that the tentative tract map was approved by an order of
law.
The applicant has submitted lighting and landscape plans in
conformance with the Municipal Code requirements for submittal of
a Conditional Use Permit application.
Prior Planning Commission Action
On November 2, 1987 the Planning Commission continued the
applicant's request to construct a 3 story, 4 unit condominium at
245 Hollister Avenue. In continuing the hearing on the proposal,
the Planning Commission directed the applicant to meet with
adjacent neighbors and incorporate their concerns into revised
plans. The Planning Commission also directed the applicant to
reduce the height of the building to 2 stories plus a loft,
- 2 -
.
.
provide screening for the roof decks, and address the relocation
of on-site vegetation.
On May 4, 1988, after a public hearing, the Planning Commission
approved revised plans for the development of a 3 story, 4 unit
condominium. The applicant had met with neighbors in an attempt
to address their concerns. The overall height of the building
was reduced from 35' to 27' and the roof decks were set back from
the perimeter of the building and screened with a 42ft high
parapet wall. In addition, the applicant agreed to maintain
significant on-site vegetation, and a condition to that effect,
Special Condition #2, has been placed on the project.
A more detailed project description may be found in the Planning
Commission staff report dated May 4, 1988 (Attachment B). The
Planning Commission statement of Official Action is included as
Attachment C of this report.
ANALYSIS
The proposal to construct a 3 story, 4 unit condominium at 245
Hollister Avenue is not subject to the Ocean Park Interim Zoning
Ordinance adopted by the city council on August 11, 1987. The
application for the subject proposal was deemed complete prior to
the July 28, 1987 cutoff date imposed under the interim
ordinance, and the project may, therefore, be developed to the R3
zoning standards.
The structure, as originally designed, was 3 stories/35' in
height, with stairway enclosures providing access to the roof
- 3 -
.
.
decks extending an additional 9' above the roof line. (Stairway
enclosures are permitted above the maximum height limit per SMMC
section 9126B.) The applicant has reduced the building's overall
height from 3 storiesj35I to 3 storiesj27' as measured at the
average natural grade. The maximum height limi t under the R3
zoning standards is 3 storiesj40', and the maximum height limit
under the Ocean Park Interim Zoning Ordinance is 2 storiesj271.
Although the building exceeds the maximum number of stories
permi tted under the Ocean Park Interim Zoning Ordinance, the
building'S overall height complies with the maximum height limit
imposed under the interim ordinance.
Under the R3 zoning requirements, a total of 4 units, or 1 unit
per 1,250 square feet of lot area, are permitted on the 4,490
square foot lot in question. Under the Ocean Park Interim zoning
Ordinance, a total of 3 units, or 1 unit per 1,500 square feet of
lot area, are permitted on the subject lot. At 4 units, the
subject proposal is at the maximum density permitted under the R3
zoning standards.
The subject proposal meets all applicable R3 zoning requirements
pertaining to building height, density and setback. The plans
approved by the Planning Commission on May 4, 1988 reflect the
applicant's attempt to reduce the size and scale of the building
and address neighborhood concerns over the impact of the building
on adj acent residences. In addition, the roof decks have been
set back from the perimeter of the building so as to minimize any
impact to adjacent residents privacy, and the applicant has
agreed to maintain significant on-site vegetation. Also, the
- 4 -
.
.
applicant has provided side yard setbacks greater than the
minimum 4' required, and the building elevations along the side
property lines are articulated and stepped back at the upper
floors so as to minimize the impact of the proposed structure on
adjacent residents.
The landscape, irrigation, and lighting plans submitted for the
Council's review are the same plans that will be submitted for
review and approval by the Architectural Review Board. The plans
contain plant sizes and species, and building elevations with
landscape materials shown after 2 years of growth. In addition,
a landscape plan for the roof deck has been included. The roof
top planting will aid in buffering the roof decks from adjacent
residences.
The applicant has also submitted a detailed lighting plan for
review by the Council. The location and type of all on-site
lighting is called out on sheet L-4 of the project plans.
The proposed lighting, landscaping, and irrigation plans meet
planning requirements and should be forwarded to the
Architectural Review Board for their review.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The recommendation presented in this report does not have any
budget or fiscal impact.
CONSIDERATION
- 5 -
.
.
In acting on this item, the City Council may deny the appeal and
approve the Conditional Use Permit with the findings and
conditions contained in the May 4, 1988 Planning commission
statement of Official Action: may uphold the appeal by denying
the Conditional Use Permit: or otherwise act to approve,
conditionally approve, or deny the project as it deems
appropriate.
RECOMMENDATION
1) It is respectfully recommended that the City Council
continue this proj ect to the September 13, 1988 Council
meeting, as requested by the appellant.
2) Should the Council decide to hear the appeal on August 9,
1988, it is also respectfuly recommended that the Council
deny the appeal and approve Conditional Use Permit 487
with the findings and conditions contained in the May 4,
1988 Statement of Official Action.
Prepared by: Larry Miner, Assistant Planner
Paul Berlant, Director of Planning
Planning Division
Community and Economic Development Department
Attachments: A.
B.
C.
Letter of Appeal by David L. Ganezer.
May 4, 1988 Planning Commission Staff Report.
May 4, 1988 Planning Commission statement of
Official Action.
Project Plans.
D.
PB:LM:lm
PC/CUP487CC
07/26/88
- 6 -
v;~
'.- .... I
~1 ~.
~eOi--'~ .
-- J jU~~lfi
..
t10y 23, 1988
-
,
TO Mr Poul Berlont, Dlrector of Plonmng
CIty Planmng D1V1Sl0n
1665 MOln Street
Santo Momco, 9040 t
Deer Mr Berl ant
On beholf of the owners end tenants ot 2326 Thlrd Street} I hereby eppeol
the 245 Ho1l1ster Project to the City Counel] on the grounds that lt 1$ not
In the best mterest of the nelghborhood
If any necessary 1tem 1S mlssrng from thls oppeol, please notlfy me ot.
2328 Thlrd Street -8
Sonta Momca, CA 90405
(2' 3) 396-6465
{>>~i-,~~
DElVl d L Gonezer _ /'
~~
l
f
,
Prtt ftC+\ J.4t5 IJ, & .
( (
CITY PLANNING DIVISION
Community and Economic Development Department
M E M 0 RAN 0 U M
DATE: May 4, 1988
TO: The Honorable Planning commission
FROM: Planninq Staff
SUBJECT: CUP 487, TPM 19007
Address:
Applicant:
245 Hollister Avenue
Barbara Coffman and Associates
SU11rA.ARY
Action:
Appl ica tion for Cond! tional Use penni t and Tentative
Parcel Map to construct a four unit condominium.
Recommendation: Approval.
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The subject property is a 4,940 square foot parcel located on the
north side of Hollister Avenue ~etween 2nd and 3rd streets, with
a frontage of 38 feet. Surrounding uses consist of multi-unit
apartments to the north, south and east (R3) and a single-fam~ly
residence to the west (R3).
Zoning District:~ R3
~and Use District~
Medium Density- Housing
,
Parcel Area:
4,940 Square Feet
PROP~SED PROJECT
This is an application to construct a 3 story 4 unit condominium. ~
All units have similar floor plans consisting of 3 beqrooms and 2
bathrooms. Access to the units will be from individual exterior
stairways leading from a ground level walkway, located along the
building's western elevation, to the second floor. Exterior
stairways leading from the third floor living rooms in each unit
will provide access to the roof decks. The roof decks are set
back from the perimeter of the building so as to minimize any
impact to the adjacent resident's privacy. Balconies are
proposed to extend from tJ'le second and third floors alonq the
western elevation of the structure, and from the second floor
along the buildings southern elevation.
- 1 -
"
_...... '-"4
.
.
" (
A total of 8 subterranean parking spaces are provided with access
taken off of Hollister Avenue.
The applicant has filed a "Declaration for Permanent Single
Family Home ExemptionU with the Rent Control Board in order to
remove the single family residence existing on the subject site.
MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE
The proposed 'proJect is consistent with the Municipal Code and in
conformity with the General Plan as shown in Attachment A.
~EqA STATUS
The proposed project is categorically Exempt per City of Santa
Monica Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA: Class 3(2).
FEES
The proposed 4 unit condominium is subject to a Park and
Recreation Tax of $200.00 per unit, and a Condominium Fac~lities
Tax of $1,000.00 per saleable unit.
BACKGROUND
On November 2, 1987 the subject proposal was brought before the
Planning' ComrnissJ.on. The proposal was cont~nued at that time,
and the applicant directed to redesign the structure based on
input from adjacent "neighbors. The Planning Comm~ss~on also
directed the9applicant to add~~~s buildin~ height concerns, roof
deck screening, and the relocat~on ~~ o~-sJ.te vegeta~~on.
The proposal 1s not subj ect to the Ocean Park Inter~m Zon~ng
Ordinance as adopted by City Council on August 11, 1987, and is
therefore subject to the standard RJ zoning requirements.
ANALYSIS
~-
The applicant has addressed the two major issues the Planning
Commission raised at the November 2, 1987 meeting. _ The applicant
has met with adjacent neighbors, the height of the building has
been sUbstantially reduced, and the roof decks have been pushed
back from the perimeter of the building.
<;;
The subj ect proposal meets all RJ Planning _ and Zoning
requirements concerning height, lot coverage, setback and
density. The proposed structure will be 27' in height as
measured from an average natural grade of 47.52' to the top of
the roof. A parapet wall extends approximately 42lt above the
roof. This proposal conforms to the maximum height limits imposed
under the Interim Ordinance. The previous proposal was 35' in
height with stairway enclosures extending an additional 9' above
the roof. The proposal i~at the maximum density of 4 units and
will provide a minimum of 4' side yards, a 10' front yard and 15'
rear yard.
- 2 -
'-
.(
.(
The average natural grade as indicated on the pI ans is 47. 52 '
and the finished first floor elevation is the same. Th~
subterranean garage, therefore, does not constitute a story.
The parking plan has been approved by the Parking and Traffic
Division, and the City Engineer has appro~ed the tentative parcel
map.
CONCLUSION
The proposed project is consistent with all applicable
regulations and, therefore, merits approval as conditioned below.
~ECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully recommended that CUP 487 and TPM 19007 be
approved with the following findings and conditions:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS
1. The proposed use and location are in accordance with good
zoning practice, in the public interest and necessary that
substantial justice be done and is co~pat~ble w1th
existing and potential uses within the general area,
traffic o~ parking congestion will not result, the public
heal th, Safety and general welfare are protected and no
harm to adjacent propert1es will result.
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP FINDINGS ~
1. The proposed subdivision, to;ether with its prOV1S1on for
its design and improvements, is consistent with appl1cable
general and specific plans as adopted by the City of Santa
Monica.
.
2. The site is physically suitable for the proposed type--of-_-
development in that the project is an in-fill of urban-
land adequately served by existing infrastruc~ure and
having no significant physical site characteristics pre-
cluding the proposed development.
3. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements
will not cause substantial environmental damage or sub- ~
stantially and avoidably injure fish or wildli~e or their
habitat. -
4. The design of the SUbdivision or the type of improvement
will not cause serious public health problems.
5. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements
will not conflict with easements, acquired by the publfc
at large, for access t~rough, or use of, property within
the proposed subdivision.
6. The design of the subdivision does not preclude future
passive or natural heating or Cooling opportunities.
- 3 -
'-