SR-0 (91)
A;1fAC h (vI-e/l t )3
~
;'
r
LUTM:PB:DKW:DM/CCUP9075.pcword.plan
Council Mtg: April 91 1991
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Staff
Santa Monica, California
SUBJECT: Appeal of a Planning Commission denial of Conditional
Use Permit 90-075 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map 50221
to AllOW the Construction of a Six Unit Condominium at
1226 11th street.
Applicant: Lance Lentz
Appellant: Lance Lentz
INTRODUCTION
This report recommends that the city Council approve the appeal
and reverse the Planning Commission's technical denial of CUP
90-075 and VTTM 50221 to allow a six unit condominium at 1226
11th street. At the Planning Commission meeting of January 23,
1991, the Commission denied the project by a vote of 3-3, with
one Commissioner abstaining.
The applicant has appealed the
Planning Commission action. The appeal form is attached for the
Council's review (Attachment A).
BACKGROUND
On January 23, 1991, the project was reviewed by the Planning
Commission. After a lengthy discussion regarding the historic
~ignificance of the existing structure and the neighborhood
compatibility of the proposed project, the Commission voted on a
motion to approve the project with a condition that the height of
the building be reduced from three-stories, 40' to two-stories,
30'. The motion failed by a vote of 3 to 3, with one Commission
abstaining, and therefore, the project was denied.
OOJO
- 1 -
~ -H-tX- ~^ ~l)-t 'S"
The Commission's concerns regarding the proposed project included
the project design and its compatibility with the surrounding
area and the historic: significance of the 11th street
neighborhood.
The motion to approve the project with the
condition that the height be reduced to two stories was made in
an effort to make the proposed project more compatible with the
surrounding neighborhood.
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 established zoning requirements. The
third Commissioner who voted against the motion felt that due to
the potential historic significance of the neighborhood, the
project was not categorically exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act as described by staff. Approximately
fifteen members of the public spoke at the Planning Commission
hearing. The maj ori ty of the speakers expressed concern about
the demolition of the existing structure and the compatibility of
the new structure in relation to the potential historic
significance of the 1200 block of Eleventh street.
In the Fall of 1989, the Landmarks Commission reviewed materials
submitted by residents of the 1200 block of Eleventh street
regarding the area's potential as an historic district. The
commission determined that the information submitted by the
residence was not enough to justify the filing of an application
for a historic district, but the Commission encouraged the group
to come back to them when more information was collected. No
additional information had been submitted to the Landmarks
- 2 -
,... iJ/"; ~ I.
\J ..1
Commission, over a year later, when the subject application came
before the Commission. While the subject property is within the
proposed district, the particular structure does not appear to
be of architectural or historic significance. The structure was
not identified in the "Preliminary Survey" conducted in March of
1983. If the project is approved, the demolition permit for the
existing structure would be subject to Landmarks Commission
review since the existing structure was constructed prior to
1930.
At the City Council meeting of February 26, 1991, the Council
adopted Ordinance 1572 (CCS) which declared a moratorium on
development on Eleventh Street between Wilshire Boulevard and
Arizona Avenue and on 1107 through 1115 Arizona Avenue. The
subject property is within this area. However, since the
ordinance only applies to projects deemed complete on or after
February 26, 1991, the project is exempt from the moratorium.
ANALYSIS
Project Design
Proposed is the construction of two, three unit condominium
buildings over a 15 space subterranean parking garage. As pro-
posed, the two buildings would be three stories, 40' in height
above an average natural grade. The project would include three
two-bedroom units and three three-bedroom units. The upper level
units would be accessed via exterior corridors with two stairways
and one elevator. No mezzanines or roof decks are proposed.
- 3 -
;Jj,).!.
Parking
The parking requirements are based on a ratio of 2 spaces for
each two bedroom unit and 2.5 spaces for each three bedroom unit,
plus one guest space for a total of fifteen spaces.
Fifteen
spaces are provided in a subterranean parking garage accessed
from lOth Court alley. Common pedestrian access to the garage
would be provided by one stairway located near the north property
line, and one elevator. The subterranean garage also includes a
storage room with six private storage lockers.
Neighborhood Compatibility
The proposed three story condominium would be located in an area
that currently contains a mix of one to three story residential
-
buildings. While the proposed building is substantially larger
than the one story building located on the adjacent lot to the
north, the height of the building is consistent with other three
story buildings in the area and complies with the 40' height
limit in the R3 District. Several buildings recently completed
or under construction in the area have been built to a height of
40 feet. Staff has included a proposed condition asking the ARB
to ensure that the design of the building is consistent with the
existing bungalow and craftsman style structures in the
neighborhood.
OOJ,j
- 4 -
Conclusion
The proposed condominium complies with all applicable provisions
of the zoning Ordinance and the General Plan. The existing
structure does not appear to be of any historic or architectural
significance and staff has included a condition of approval to
direct the Architectural Review Board to ensure that the design
of the new building is consistent with the existing bungalow and
craftsman style structures in the neighborhood.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The project is subject to a Parks and Recreation Facilities Tax
of $200 per unit and a Condominium Facilities Tax of $1,000 per
saleable unit for a total tax of $7,200. In addition, the
proj ect is required to comply with Program 12 of the Housing
Element of the General Plan as implemented by Ordinance No. 1519
(CCS) , which may be satisfied by providing affordable
inclusionary housing on-site or by payment of an in-lieu fee.
This fee, prior to adjustment in accordance with changes in the
CPI, will be $143,250.00, based on a gross residential project
area of 9,550 square feet.
RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully recommended that the Council approve the
appeal and reverse the Planning Commission denial of Conditional
Use Permit 90-075 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map 50221 with the
findings and conditions contained in the Planning Co~mtssion
staff report dated January 9, 1991 (Attachment B).
OJJ ,j
- 5 -
Prepared by: D. Kenyon Webster, Planning Manager
David Martin, Associate Planner
Planning Division
Land Use and Transportation Management Department
Attachments: A.
B.
C.
Appeal form dated 02/01/91
Planning Commission staff report dated 01/23/91
Project Plans
OM
PC/CCUP9075
04/02/91
^ -... ...
oj V j .J
- 6 -
FEE: $100.00
Cl~ of [. Cc.ktl~ ME.G'i"1~ COI
Santa Monica
Communrty and EconomIC OeveloQment Oepattmenl:
Planntng anc:I ZontnQ DlvtIiCI'I
i2' 3) 458.8341
APPEAL FORM
Da_Red , '1..{ \ ~q_1 I
R8C8IY8d by ~ R'1LTh-l
R~ No E..l U. l.f ~,~
N~ L&~CE LE~TZ c/o Rosario Perry
Address 1333 Ocean Avenue Santa ~on~cal CA 90401
Contact Person Rosario Perry Phone
(213) 394-9831
Please descnbe ltle PfOI8d and deciSIOn m be appealed
Cond~t1onal Use Perm~t 90-075
VestinQ tenat~ve tract map 50221
Address 1226 11th $~r~~~
Appl~cation for a Conditional Use Permit and a Vestin6 tenative tract map to
allow the construct1on of a pix (6) unit condominium at 1226 11th Street
Case Number Cond~t1onal Use
~ ~u 1226 11th Street
~ Lance Lentz
OngmaJ heanng dale December 5 t
Qr;gInaI actIOn
P-. state lhB spIdftc fIIIOn(l) Jar It1e appeaJ
Permit 90-075
VTM 50221
1990 continued to January 91 1991 continued to January 23, 1991
Sipt1n
~ J. lt~lII...nMded,_"oftamL
~ c...L ~ 0.. -
~(\.M ~
F""'" 'I I q11
'1 i. J .-
-..,vO
t\l\+C+\Vl6J'\ P-\
L1st of AD~al Deadlinel*
variance decislons: 14 days (SMMC Section 9113.8)
Home Occupation decisions: 14 days (SMMC Section 9110.6)
Temporary Use Permit decisions involving projects having span of
45 days or more: 7 days (SMMC Section 9111.7)
Performance Standards Permit decisions: 14 days (SMMC Section
9112.6)
- -
Reduced Parking Permit decisions: 14 days (SMMC Section 9133.7)
Administrative Approvals (revocation thereof only): 7 days (SMMC
Section 9134.5)
Ocean Park Yard Reduction permits: 14 days (SMMC section 9151.7)
Architectural Review Board decisions: 10 days (SMMC Section
9514)
Landmarks Commission decisions: 10 days (SMMC Section 9613)
Conditional Use Permit decisions: 14 days (SMMC Section 9114.8)
Development Review P~rmit decisions: 14 days (Section 9115.7)
Tentative Map decisions: 10 days (SMMC Section 9366)
*Appeal periods begin on next business day following the
decision. Appeal periods ending on weekends or holidays are
extended to the next business day. Appeals must be filed on
forms available fro. planning and zoning oft ice and be
accompanied by appropriate filing fee. See Santa Monica
Municipal Code for more information.
kjappeal
OKW:bz
0037