Loading...
SR-6-M (2) C/ED:PB:DKW:LM Council Mtg: August 22, 1989 Santa Monica, ~~ California 70? -tit? 2< TO: Mayor and city council FROM: city Staff SUBJECT: Certification of statement of Official Action for Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of DR 432, CUP 500 and SOl, ZA 5304-Y, VAR 89-008 and EIR 850 for a Two Story/3D', 76,074 Square Foot Retail/Commercial Development at 2233 pico Boulevard. INTRODUCTION This report recommends that the city Council certify the attached statement of Official Action for the above referenced appeal. BACKGROUND After a public hearing, and careful review of the record and staff recommendation, the City Council upheld an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of a proposal to construct a two story/3D', 76,074 square foot retail/commercial center sUbject to the findings contained in the attached statement of Official Action. RECOMMENDATION It is respectfully recommended that the Council certify the attached statement of Official Action. Prepared by: Larry Miner, Associate Planner D. Kenyon Webster, Principal Planner Paul Berlant, Director of Planning Planning Division Community and Economic Development Department l..-M 'j(Z 2 1989 CITY COUNCIL STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL ACTION PROJECT NUMBER: DR 432, CUP 500 and 501, ZA 5304-Y, VAR 89-008 and EIR 850 LOCATION: 2233 pico Boulevard APPLICANT: Schurgin corporation REQUEST: Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of a Pro- posal to Construct a Two Story/3D', 76,074 Square Foot Retail/Commercial Center on a Parcel of 115,832 Square Feet. Applicant: Schurgin Development Corporation. Appellant: Law Offices of Lurie & Hertzberg, Attorney for the Schurgin Development corporation. CITY COUNCIL ACTION 7-25-89 Date. Approved based on the following findings and subject to the conditions below. Denied. X Other. Appeal denied and EIR not certified. planning Commission denial upheld with amended findings. FRONT AND REAR YARD SETBACK VARIANCE FINDINGS 1. There are not any special circumstances or exceptional characteristics applicable to the R2 zoned property in- volved, including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, or to the intended use or development of the property that apply to other properties in the vicinity under an identical zoning classification, in that the R2 portion of the site could easily accommodate a residential development, and provide required setbacks adjacent to all property lines. The C4 portion of the site is 77,707 square feet in size, and could accommodate the a commer- cial building without use of the R2 parcel, thereby avoid- ing the requested variances. 2. The granting of such variance may be detrimental or in- jurious to the property or improvements in the general vicinity and district in which the property is located, in - 1 - that the requested front and rear yard variances will fur- ther reduce the amount of light and air available to residents of the multi-family dwelling to the north. 3. The strict application of the provisions of this Chapter would not result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships, not including economic difficulties or economic hardships, in that the R2 zoned parcel could be reverted to a residential or open space use, and the 77,707 square foot C4 zoned parcel would still be available for development. 4. The granting of a variance will be contrary to or in con- flict with the general purposes and intent of this Chap- ter, or to the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan, in that there is no apparent hardship in- volved in the sUbject request for variance. 5. The variance may impair the integrity and character of the district in which it is to be located, in that when as- sociated with the requested CUP, it will create a burden on the adjacent residential district by allowing the fur- ther intrusion of commercial uses into a residential district. 6. The subject site is not physically suitable for the pro- posed variance, in that the site is zoned for residential uses, and the variance to allow a commercial structure to encroach into a required front and rear yard setback would result in the increased shading of the adjacent residen- tial structures. 7. The strict application of the provisions of Chapter 10 of the city of Santa Monica comprehensive Land Use and Zoning Ordinance would not result in unreasonable deprivation of the use or enjoyment of the property, in that without use of the R2 parcel, the 77,707 square foot C4 parcel is still available for development with a FAR of 1.5, or 2.0 with Site Review. In addition, development of the R2 par- cel with a mUlti-family residential project is still possible. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FINDINGS 1. The physical location, size, massing, and placement of proposed structures on the site and the location of pro- posed uses within the project are not compatible with and do not relate harmoniously to surrounding sites and neigh- borhoods, in that the proposed architectural projections reach an overall height of 551, which seems out of charac- ter with the neighborhood. In addition, the location of the commercial building on the residential parcel further increases commercial intrusion into the residential dis- trict, and results in the loss of property that could be developed residentially. - 2 - 2. The rights-of-way would be congested by the accommodation of autos and pedestrians, including parking and access, in that the proposal is expected to generate approximately 18,540 vehicle trips which could negatively impact the adjacent residential neighborhoods. In addition, the mitigation measure proposed to address potential neighbor- hood traffic impacts would improve traffic at one inter- section at the possible expense of other intersections in the neighborhood. 3. The health and safety services (police, fire, etc.) and public infrastructure (e.g. utilities) may not be suffi- cient to accommodate the new development, in that the pro- posed number of alcohol outlets may create problems with respect to the developer's ability to control public drunkenness, and control noisy patrons leaving the premises. 4. The project is not generally consistent with the Municipal Code and General Plan, in that a CUP is required to permit the establishment of a commercial use in a mUlti-family residential district, variances are required to allow the building to encroach into required front and rear yard setbacks on the R2 zoned portion of the site, and to allow the use of compact parking spaces. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS TO PERMIT ESTABLISHMENT OF COM- MERCIAL USE IN A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT 1. The proposed use is one conditionally permitted within the subject district and complies with all of the applicable provisions of the "City of Santa Monica comprehensive Land Use and Zoning Ordinance", in that the proposed establish- ment of a commercial use in a mUlti-family district con- forms to the requirements of former SMMC Section 9148. 2. The proposed use may impair the integrity and character of the district in which it is to be established, in that the loss of potential housing stock, and the intrusion of a commercial use into a residential district, are factors which may contribute to the deterioration of neighborhoods. 3. The subject parcel is not physically suitable for the type of land use being proposed, in that the R2 site abuts a one story apartment building and public park, and as such, should be developed with a use permitted by right, and with one that serves as a transition between the R2 and C4 districts. 4. The proposed use is not compatible with the land uses presently on the subject parcel if the present land uses are to remain, in that the R2 parcel is currently vacant, and any future use should conform with the General Plan requirement relating to recycling of residentially zoned property used for surface parking. - 3 - 5. The proposed use would not be compatible with existing and permissible land uses within the district and the general area in which the proposed use is to be located, in that the permissible use for the site is a two story/3D', 25 unit apartment building, and proposed is a two story/3D' 76,074 square foot commercial center. 6. Public access to the proposed use may not be adequate, in that the alignment of the the driveway on pico Boulevard with 23rd street will negatively impact residents of that street by making the street available to through traffic. 8. The physical location or placement of the use on the site is not compatible with and does not relates harmoniously to the surrounding neighborhood, in that the use of the R2 zoned parcel for a commercial use is not compatible with the adjacent residential uses, and the building's exces- sive height, through the use of architectural projections would not relate harmoniously to the surrounding neighborhood. 9. The proposed use is not consistent with the goals, objec- tives, and policies of the General Plan, in that the pro- posal does not provide the type of neighborhood or service commercial uses encouraged by Land Use Element. Examples of such uses encouraged by the General Plan are candy stores, drug stores, hardware stores, liquor stores, small restaurants (under 50 seats), all food stores for off-site consumption (except fast food establishments), barber shops, beauty parlors, cleaners, gas stations, Laundromat, shoe repair, tailor/dressmaker, bank/savings and loan, child care, photo copy shop and repair shop. 10. The proposed use may be detrimental to the public inter- est, health, safety, convenience, or general welfare, in that the project related impacts when added to the cumula- tive impacts will created the potential for negative im- pacts to the adjacent residential neighborhoods. 11. The proposed use will result in an overconcentration of fast food and restaurant uses in the immediate vicinity, in that the proposal includes 20,000 square feet of those uses. The problems associated with an overconcentration of restaurants in one location typically relate to an ac- cumulation of trash in the surrounding neighborhood, and increases in both traffic and noise within the surrounding neighborhoods. ALCOHOL OUTLET FINDINGS 1. "The proposed use and location are not in accordance with good zoning practice, and in the public interest, in that the request to allow a "blanket" CUP for all proposed restaurant space may, in itself, add to an overconcentration of alcohol outlets in the immediate area. In addition, the request is contrary to planning - 4 - policy, in that each request for a CUP to sell alcohol must be independently reviewed. The blanket CUP would allow all 20,000 square feet of floor area devoted to eating establishments to sell alcohol, which would result in additional problems associated with traffic and noise. 2. The proposed uses are not compatible with existing and potential uses within the general area~ traffic or parking congestion may result; the public health, safety, and general welfare are not protected~ and harm to adjacent properties will result in that the concentration of fast food and restaurant uses will create parking and traffic problems. 3 . The wel fare of neighborhood residents may be adversely affected in that the availability of alcohol in such a concentration may the potential safety problems for those neighborhood residents. 4. The change in the license will contribute to an undue concentration of alcohol outlets in the area in that the proposal to sell alcohol within 20, 000 square feet of restaurant uses, and a 16,350 square foot market is an overconcentration of alcohol uses in itself. 5. There may be detrimental affects on nearby residentially zoned neighborhoods considering the distance of the alcohol outlets to residential buildings (the site directly abuts mUlti-family residential units), playgrounds and parks (Virginia Park is located adjacent to the site), and other existing alcohol outlets (one Type 21 and one Type 48 outlet are located within 500' of the proposed project) . VOTE Ayes: Finkel, Genser, Abdo, Katz, Zane Nays: Reed, Jennings Abstain: Absent: NOTICE If this is a final decision not subject to further appeal under the City of Santa Monica Comprehensive Land Use and Zoning Or- dinance, the time within which judicial review of this decision must be sought is governed by Code of civil Procedure Section 1094.6, which provision has been adopted by the City pursuant to Municipal Code section 1400. - 5 - I hereby certify that this statement of accurately reflects the final determination commission of the City of Santa Monica. Official Action of the Planning signature date print name and title I hereby agree to the above conditions of approval and acknowledge that failure to comply with such conditions shall constitute grounds for potential revocation of the permit approval. Applicant's signature Print Name and Title PC/STDR432 nh 07/26/89 - 6 - ..