SR-102991-7B
'.
1-6
,,,
~
-/ '"
,_?- ~-,i.-L~ ;'
~ ~J~. -
<1." .T i!"~."-
rr"'''~:
OCT 2 9 1991
LUTM:PB:DKW:BA:CC90075.PCWORD.PLAN
Council Mtg: October 29, 1991
Santa Monica, California
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: city Staff
SUBJECT: Reconsideration of an appeal involving a design review
of Conditional Use Permit 90-075 and Vesting Tentative
Tract Map 50221 to allow the construction of a six unit
condominium project at 1226 11th Street.
INTRODUCTION
This report concerns a reconsideration of an appeal involving the
design review of a six unit condominium project that was approved
by the City Council on an appeal made by the applicant. The
Council originally imposed conditions of approval requiring a
redesign and a reduction in the number of units from six to five,
with the revised project to be reviewed by the Planning
commission. Before the Planning commission review was completed,
the Council reviewed the statement of Official Action and asked
that the project return for reconsideration of the original City
Council conditions of approval. The City Council directed staff
to review the redesigned building envelope of the six unit
project, which included additional front and rear setbacks and a
limitation on third floor square footage, and return the matter
to the City Council with an evaluation of the redesign at a
public hearing.
- 1 -
7-B fl""n.
OC1" '2 9 '991
.
~
BACKGROUND
On January 23, 1991 the Planning Commission failed to approve the
project, and by a vote of 3 to 3, technically denied the project.
At the hearing, numerous concerns were raised relating to the
historic significance of the existing structure,
and the
compatibility of the proposed building mass and height in
relation to the neighborhood. A motion to approve the project
with a condition that the height of the building be reduced from
three stories at 40 feet to two stories at 30 feet, failed by a
vote of 3 to 3 with one commissioner abstaining, resulting in a
technical denial. Two of the Commissioners who voted against the
motion did so because they felt that the Commission should not
require an applicant to reduce the size of a building that
complies with the Zoning Ordinance.
After a public hearing and careful review of the record and staff
recommendations, the City Council upheld the appeal and approved
the proposed Conditional Use Permit and Vesting Tentative Tract
Map on April 9, 1991. The following condition was added to the
project specifying the parameters for Planning Commission review:
II Condition No. 38
The proj ect shall return to the Planning
Commission for review of proj ect plans which shall include a
third floor setback a minimum of 40 feet from the front property
line and 30 feet from the center line of the rear alley, and a
total of five units.
Any decision of the Planning commission
with respect to the layout of design within the parameters which
the Council has approved is appealable to the city Council. The
- 2 - r""",?
square footage on the third floor shall be within 5% of that
illustrated in the conceptual shading illustration provided by
the Architect during the 4/9/91 City Council hearing.u
The redesigned proj ect was scheduled to be brought before the
Planning Commission on August 7, 1991 and continued until
September 4, 1991 to clarify the City Council's intent in
Condition 38 regarding the number of allowed units (five versus
six) . One Planning commissioner raised additional concerns
regarding the adequacy of the reduced scale and the massing of
the upper levels of the project with respect to the maximization
of the lofts and sun deck areas.
The City Council had the opportunity to clarify the condition
when the statement of Official Action was transmitted to the City
council for certification on september 10, 1991. The Council
directed staff to evaluate the project as redesigned within a
building envelope which included additional front and rear
setbacks.
ANALYSIS
The redesigned proposal still has two, three-story buildings with
three units in each structure, for a total of six units with 14
subterranean parking spaces. There are two units with 3-bedrooms
and one I-bedroom unit on the third floor of the front building.
The rear building contains three units, two with 2-bedrooms and
one I-bedroom unit on the third floor. A mezzanine level has
been added with a roof deck patio.
- 3 -
(\ fH' " ')
Both of the third floor units and mezzanines maintain a 40 foot
front setback, and a 30 foot rear setback to the center line of
the alley. The square footage of the third floor does not exceed
the maximum of 5% allowed deviation as depicted on the conceptual
shading elevation. The height of the building is a maximum of 40
feet as measured from the average natural grade.
The City Council may wish to refer the proj ect back to the
Planning Commission for additional design review. However, staff
has reviewed the revised project and found the proposed building
envelope
to
be
consistent
with
the
additional
setback
requirements and square footage limitation for the third floor as
specified by city council condition of approval.
RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully recommended that the City council approve the
design of conditional Use Permit 90-075 without referring the
project back to the Planning Commission for additional design
review, and that the Council direct the Architectural Review
Board to carefully review the massing and upper levels of the
project and consider greater reductions in bulk.
Prepared by: Paul Berlant, Director of Land Use and
Transportation Management
D. Kenyon Webster, Planning Manager
Bruce Ambo, Associate Planner
Attachment:
A. City Council statement of Official Action staff
report dated 9/10/91.
B. city council appeal staff report dated 4/9/91.
BA
PC/cc90075
10/21/91
1'1\ IH) 4
- 4 -
<1:
I-
Z
UJ
::.:
I
U
0:::(
l-
I-
0:::(