Loading...
SR-7-A (50) ...... ~. JII..~ .,; ~ .~ ---~ f"- "....., 7-ft NO\' 1 2 \991 Santa Monica, California LUTM:PB:DKW:BAjCC91003.PcWORD.PLAN Council Mtg: November 12, 1991 DEe 3 1991 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: city Staff SUBJECT: Appeal of a Planning Commission technical denial of a modification to the expiration period of Development Review 89-004, Conditional Use Permit 89-019 and Performance Standard Permit 89-017 to allow a one year time extension on a three story, 61,650 square foot mixed use building proposed at 2221 Wilshire Boulevard. INTRODUCTION This report recommends that the City Council approve a three month time extension from the effective date of approval, delete Condition No. 48 relating to the Transportation Management Plan, and deny the applicant's appeal (see Attachment A) requesting a one year time extension for DR 89-004, CUP 89-019, and PSP 89-017, for a three story, 61,650 square foot mixed use building proposed at 222l Wilshire Boulevard. BACKGROUND On April 4, 1990 the Planning Commission certified the EIR and approved the project. On May 22, 1990 the City Council denied an appeal, and upheld the Planning Commission approval. The applicant had a one year period to obtain a building permit on the project, which ended on May 22, 1991. Upon a March 25, 1991, request made by the applicant, an additional three month extension was granted by the Zoning - 1 - -z~ If 1991 NOV 1 2 '991.1 Administrator, extending the current expiration date to August 20, 1991. The request to modify the expiration period may still be heard by the city council because the application was filed on May 24, 1991, prior to the August 20, 1991 expiration date. On September 4, 1991 the Planning Commission, by a vote of 3 to 3, failed to adopt a motion and therefore technically denied the request to modify the expiration period to allow a one year time extension. ~his would have provided the applicant with a total of two years and three months to obtain permits from the original date of approval. The Planning Commission was evenly split, with one absence, on whether to deny the request, or to approve a six month extension. staff recommended a three month time extension (see Attachment B) which was consistent with a previous action by the Planning Commission and city council on a similar request. Project Request The applicant is requesting that a condition be added requiring the issuance of a building permit for the project no later that 12 months from the later of, a) August 20, 1991, or b) the date the subject request is approved. In support of the request, the applicant contends the following: 1) that compliance with a con- dition for new landscape setbacks requires a redesign: 2) secur- ing financing for the project is difficult: and 3) that com- pliance with the Traffic Management Plan condition for payment of fees would create a potential and uncertain economic impact. Each of these issues are discussed below. - 2 - Landscaping Condition 21 requires a minimum 10 foot average landscape setback or compliance with the revised code if subsequently amended. As amended by Ordinance No. 1553 (CCS), the current landscape code requires a ratio of 1.5 square feet of landscaped area per linear foot of street frontage. Under these requirements, the land- scaped area is required to be located adjacent to, and within 10 feet of, the street right-of-way, and no portion of the building is allowed to be located between the landscape area and the street. Although staff believes that the Commission's intent was to require the building to move closer to the street if allowed by the new ordinance, neither the condition nor the new ordinance require that the building be moved. The current landscape requirements are less restrictive than pre- vious requirements in that buildings are now allowed to be con- structed closer to the street. Allowing buildings to be closer to the street was a general concern of the Planning Commission, and the subsequent landscape code revisions were in response to those concerns. However, there is nothing in the code or the conditions- of approval that precludes a project from providing additional landscape setbacks as long as the appropriate land- scaped area has been provided adjacent to, and within 10 feet of, the street right-of-way. The Architectural Review Board (ARB) has the authority to approve an alternate landscape plan with more or less landscaping, as deemed appropriate. - 3 - . On October 21, 1991, the ARB by a vote of 7 to 0 approved the building and landscaping plans for the project as designed with- out requiring that the building be constructed closer to the street (see Attachment C). The ARB action was taken with the understanding that the concept of moving the buildings closer to the street was an issue of concern to the Planning Commission and City council. However, the ARB felt the site plan and location and amount of landscaping was appropriate. The applicant has indicated that if there are no additional changes requiring that the building be constructed closer to the street, a three month extension from the effective date of approval would be adequate. Financing Financing difficulties have been expressed by the applicant as follows: "Satisfactory financing for the approved proj ect has not been available despite diligent efforts of Applicant due to the effects of the recession in the economy in general and on real estate financing in particular, as well as changes in real estate lending requirements by financial institutions." Financial difficulties, which are different from hardships, are not normally considered germane to Zoning Ordinance findings in- volving a land use entitlement, and are, therefore, beyond the scope of this analysis. However, the applicant's testimony may be taken into consideration in formulating a decision on the project. - 4 - Traffic Management Plan Condition Condition No. 48 notifies applicants that the City is contemplat- ing a Transportation Management Plan (TMP) which is intended to mitigate traffic and air quality impacts, and that development fees may be required when the ordinance is adopted. The appli- cant contends that lithe ability to obtain satisfactory financing will be impaired pending city council resolution of the issue." The TMP condition was placed upon projects as an advisory to note that there was pending legislation that could potentially effect a proj ect once the Transportation Management Plan was adopted. Compliance with the TMP Ordinance may ultimately be required regardless of the existence of a TMP condition. Therefore, staff is recommending that the TMP condition (No. 48) be deleted. Chronological Context of Approvals There was less than a two month lapse of time from the May 22, 1990 city Council approval, until the July 16, 1990 conceptual approval by the ARB. The landscape code was amended on October 23, 1990 which provided a ten month period where the applicant could have redesigned the plans prior to the August 20, 1991 ex- piration date. Without redesigning the plans to comply with the new requirement, the appl icant submitted more refined building plans, colors, materials, landscape and irrigation plans to the ARB, which were approved almost six months later on April I, 1991. To directly address the issue of the building location and the landscape setback, the applicant submitted revised plans to - 5 - the ARB on October 2l, 1991. These plans were approved without requiring that the buildings be constructed closer to the street. The commercial~ moratorium (Ord. 1577) was extended on February 26, 1991, and amended to place a moratorium on commercial proj- ects over 15,000 square feet in the C6 District. If a time ex- tension is not granted and the project is allowed to expire, a new project would be subject to this limitation. A more detailed chronology may be found in Attachment 0, "Chronological Context o,f Approvals". Previous Time Extensions There has been only one other case where a similar request for a modification of the conditions to allow a time extension has been before the Planning Commission and city Council. In this case, the applicant requested a six month extension and was granted a three month extension. Staffls recommendation is consistent with this previous Planning Commission and city Council action. If a three month extension is granted, the total time allowed to ob- tain building permits for the SUbject proposal would be a year and a half. PUBLIC NOTICE A duly noticed public hearing was conducted by the Planning Com- mission on September 4, 1991. At the hearing 11 people spoke in opposition to the project~ and three spoke in favor of the proj- ect. The November 12, 1991 hearing has been noticed consistent with Municipal Code Requirements. - 6 - , Conclusion Neither the landscape setback requirements, nor the ARB approval of the building and landscape plans require moving the building closer to the street. The financing difficulties experienced by the applicant are not normally evaluated in planning analysis, but the Council may wish to take this issue into consideration. Staff recommends deleting the TMP condition (No. 48). A review of the chronological context of approvals indicates that there has been ample time to obtain ARB approvals, which were recently granted without requiring a redesign to move the buildings closer to the street. Approval of a three month time extension would be consistent with previous Planning Commission and City Council actions in a simi- lar case. The applicant has indicated that a three month exten- sion would be adequate if the building does not need to be moved closer to the street. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT The recommendation presented in this report does not have a budget/fiscal impact. RECOMMENDATION It is respectfully recommended that the City Council approve a three month time extension from the date of Council approval, delete condition No. 48 relating to the TMP, and deny the one year time extension request for DR 89-004, CUP 89-019, and PSP 89-017, subj ect to the attached findings and applicable - 7 - . , conditions contained in the planning Commission staff report dated September 4, 1991. Prepared by: Paul Berlant, Director of Land Use and Transportation Management D. Kenyon Webster, Planning Manager Bruce Ambo, Associate Planner Attachment: A. Appeal Form dated 9/13/91 B. Planning Commission staff report dated 9/4/91 C. ARB staff report dated 10/2lj91 D. Chronological Context of Approvals BA PC/cc91003 11/5/91 - 8 - <( t- Z w ~ I U <{ t- t- <( AC\ \ -07-7 ATTACHMENT A Cay of Santa Monica Community and EconomiC Development Department Planning and Zoning Dlvtslon (213} 458-8341 APPEAL FORM FEE: $1 00.00 Date Rled ReceIVed by Receipt No r:z"E: C- ~ \ V"t t:::=> ?' LAt-..'i ~ 2c\J C~' September 13, 19~1 ~\0 E \ I -381~ Name Century West Development, Inc. ~ress 14Ui Ocean Avenue, Suite 300, Santa Monica, CA 90401 CornactPerson S. John Dudzinsky, Jr. PhOne (213) 458-1631 PleasedescnbelheproJedanddeClSlOntobeappealed App1icat1on to modify the expiration per10d of Development ReV1ew 89-004, Conditional Use Perm1t 89-019 and Performance Standard Permit 89-017 to allow for a one-year time extension on a proJect involv1ng a three-story, 61,650 square foot, Mixed-use building. DR 91-003 Case Number Mdre~ 2221 Wilshire Boulevard Applicant Century West Development, Inc. Ongll'lal heanng date September 4, 1991 Onglnal actIOn The Application was denied as a matter of law because the P1ann1ng Comm1ss~on split 3-3 on the item. Please state the specific reason{s) for the appeal See Attachment "A" hereto. II addll.lOOal space IS l'Ieeded. use bact of bm Signature 11f-F.:. <t- S~ ~ln Dudz1nsky, '9 :iJ. Date September 13, 1991 REASONS FOR APPEAL 1. Condition 20 in the statement of Official Action related to City Council approval of Development Review 89-004, Conditional Use Permit 89-019, and Performance standard permit 89-017 (collectively the "Development Permits") required Applicant to maintain a minimum ten (10) foot average setback for its project, wi th appropriate landscaping materials which conformed to the requirements of Section 9041.6(b) of the Zoning Ordinance as then in effect. Condition 21 in the Statement of Official Action provided that: "If prior to the time that final building permits are issued for the building, the City has revised the code landscaping requirement pertaining to the provision of an average 10 foot landscaping setback, to require less landscaping adjacent to a public right-of-way, the applicant shall revise the landscaping plans to provide compliance with the code revision." (Emphasis added.) Subsequent to the effective date of the Development Permits, the City Council adopted an amendment to Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9041.6(b) to reduce the landscaping setback requirement. Applicant is therefore required to revise the project plans to conform to the new requirement and to comply with Condition 21. This revision will involve the movement of the ground floor of the building closer to the property line abutting Wilshire Boulevard which will necessitate significant design changes to the building. Applicant requests the twelve (12) month extension to help facilitate the preparation of the revised plans and to provide adequate time for ministerial review of the revised plans by the City and the Architectural Review Board. 2. satisfactory financing for the approved project has not been available despite diligent efforts of Applicant due to the effects of the recession in the economy in general and on real estate financing in particular, as well as changes in real estate lending requirements by financial institutions. 3. In addition to the restraints on securing satisfactory financing imposed by the recession, Applicant's efforts have further been impaired by the uncertaln potential economic impacts on the project of Condition No. 48 in the statement of Official Action. That Condition recites the contemplated adoption by the City of a Traffic Management Plan, including the payment of one- time fees on certain types of new development. The fees proposed in draft plans which have been submitted to the City Council would, ATTACHMENT "An -1- if imposed upon Applicant I s project, be of major magnitude. A determination has still not been made by the city council on the adoption of a specific Traffic Management Plan. However, given the potential impact which the proposed traffic management fees would have, if adopted and applied to the project, the ability to obtain satisfactory financing will be impaired pending city Council resolution of this issue. 1ARFAI13.50oa ATTACHMENT "A" -2- a:J I-- Z u.J ~ I U <( I-- I-- <(