SR-402-001 (28)
ftJ2- OOr
1,2, -B
JUN2 3..1Q.~1
JUN 3 0 lQlr7
California
C/ED:SF:AS:nh Santa Monica,
Council Mtg: June 23, 1987
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City staff
SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of Development
Review 37l, l3l7 7th Street, Four Story Plus Loft,
18,248 Sq.Ft. Mixed-Use Building with Medical Offices
and One Residential unit. Applicant/Appellant: Michel
Rone.
INTRODUCTION
This report recommends that the City Council deny the appeal of
the appl icant and deny Development Review 371 for a four story
plus loft 18,248 sq. ft. mixed-use building.
The Planning
Commission denied the project by a 5-0 vote on April 20, 1987.
The applicant is appealing that decision. (Attachment A)
BACKGROUND
The four story plus 10ft l8,248 sq.ft. mixed use project is
proposed for a 50 I x 150' site on the east side of 7th Street
between Arizona Avenue and Santa Monica Boulevard in the Downtown
Frame Land Use District. The ground floor will be occupied by a
556 sq. ft. retail/commercial space and a 13 car garage. The
second and third floors are proposed for medical offices and the
fourth floor and loft will be occupied by one residential unit.
One level of subterranean parking will also be provided. Both
parking levels are accessed from the rear alley. A more detailed
project description is provided in the April 20, 1987 Planning
commission
staff
report
(Attachment
B) .
The
Planning
- 1 -
1,2 · 8
JUN 2 3 1987
tl" ...... .......
IuN , 0 1981
Commission's statement of Official Action is contained in
Attachment C.
The applicant originally received approval from the Planning
Commission for this project on September 19, 1983. Since the
project was approved under the previous Interim Development
procedures established in ordinance 125l (eCS), the applicant was
required to obtain the building permit within one year after the
adoption of the new Interim Development procedures established
under Ordinance l321 (ecs). The applicant did not conform with
this timeframe and, therefore, Planning Commission approval was
again required for this project.
A number of concerns were raised by the Planning Commission at
the public hearing. Although the project is consistent with the
height, and floor area ratio in the Land Use Element of the
General Plan, the Municipal Code requires that residential units
above the third floor in C3 districts provide 15' sideyard
setbacks. As proposed the proj ect would require a variance to
permit sideyard setbacks that vary from none to 8 t -6". Given
that only one residential unit would be provided at the fourth
floor, the Commission felt that the project could be redesigned
to conform with the required setbacks and that findings could not
be made to support a Variance.
The Commission further found the project to be too massive, out
of scale and out of context with the surrounding neighborhood.
The proj ect does not provide an acceptable transition from the
apartment building adjacent to the project's north side and would
- 2 -
effectively eliminate light and air from these residential units.
A narrow 491 long portion of the project's north side steps back
with only 21 or 31 wide planter areas at each floor. The project
is, therefore, inconsistent with Land Use Element Policy 3.2.2
which stipulates that an appropriate transition be provided
between commercial uses that abut residential areas.
As proposed the office area will be used for medical offices.
Since the adoption of the Land Use Element, the Planning
Commission has consistently required that medical offices provide
parking at a ratio of one spacej250 sq. ft. Parking for this
project is at a one space/300 sq. ft. ratio. No excess parking is
provided.
The applicant has made no changes to the project plans since the
Planning Commission public hearing. Should the City council
uphold this appeal as submitted the applicant would still be
required to file a variance to permit sideyard setbacks at the
fourth floor that are less than 151.
COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
In acting on this appeal the City Council may: l) uphold the
appeal and approve Development Review 371 with the findings and
conditions contained in the April 20, 1987 Planning Commission
staff report or with such other findings and/or conditions as it
deems appropriate; 2) remand the proj ect back to the Planning
Commission with specific direction for redesign; 3) deny the
appeal and uphold the determination of the Planning Commission;
- 3 -
or 4) otherwise approve, conditionally approve, or deny the
project as it deems appropriate.
BUDGET/FISCAL IMPACT
The recommendations presented in this report do not have a budget
or fiscal impact.
RECOMMENDATION
staff respectfully recommends that the City council deny the
appeal and deny Development Review 371 with the findings
contained in the April 20, 1987 Planning Commission statement of
Official Action.
Prepared by: Suzanne Frick, Principal Planner
Amanda Schachter, Assistant Planner
city Planning Division
Community and Economic Development Department
Attachments: A. Letter of Appeal by Michel Rene.
B. April 20, 1987 Planning Commission staff Report.
C. April 20, 1987 Planning Commission statement of
Official Action.
D. Project Plans.
SF:AS:nh
CCDR371
06/08/87
- 4 -
A~t-().C..\.,Wl.en+ A
CITY OF Sf ~ T.\ MONICA
CfTY Pl M~I, !: OFFlCF
May 1, 1987
"89 MAY -6 P 4 :49
115.00 .J-v- ~ - ~ G "€ff2C
~/e7 ~
City Plannlng Dlvlslon
Room 212 C~ty Hall
1685 Maln St.
Santa Monica CA 90401
Attn: Ms. Siracusa
Re: DR 371
1317 7th St.
Dear Ms. Slracusa:
ThlS letter constitutes a notlce of appeal of
Plann~ng CommlSS10n Act~on dated 4/20/87 -
project # 371.
Enclosed ~s a check In the amount of $75.00 for
the fl11ng fee.
I would appreclate your cooperatlon ln havlng
the Clty Councl1 conslder this appeal as soon as
posslble.
/I
your~ · ;f//'
. -tA0--, '
(/
\
A4to....c.Yil.Yl<e.'Y)-T i::>
:~l
fA
CITY PLANNING DIVISION
community and Economic Development Department
MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 20, 1987
TO: The Honorable Planning Commission
FROM: R. Ann Siracusa, Director of Planning
SUBJECT: DR 371, 1317 7th Street, To Permit the Construction of
a 4 story Plus Loft 18,248 Sq. Ft. Mixed-Use Building
with Medical Offices and One Residential Unit.
Address: 1317 7th Street
Applicant: Michel Rone
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The subject property is a 7,500 sq. ft. parcel located on the east
side of 7th Street between Arizona Avenue and Santa Monica
Boulevard having a frontage of 50 feet. Surrounding uses consist
of a 2-story apartment building to the north (C3), a 3 story
office building (C3) to the south, commercial uses across the
alley to the east on Lincoln Boulevard (C4), and a 6 story office
building occupied by General Telephone to the west across 7th
Street (C3).
Zoning District:
C3
Land Use District:
Downtown Frame
Parcel Area:
50' x 150' = 7,500 square feet
PROPOSED PROJECT
The proposed project consists of a 4 story plus loft 18,248
sq. ft. mixed use building over one level of subterranean parking
that will accommodate 16 vehicles. The building's ground floor
includes a 13 car garage, a 556 sq. ft. commercial space fronting
on 7th street, and the building lobby. Medical offices are
proposed for the second and third floors and one 3,598 sq. ft.
residential unit will occupy the fourth floor and loft. Both the
subterranean and ground level garage are accessed from the rear
alley. The existing single-story house, currently used for
office space by the applicant, will be removed.
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.
- 1 -
"
CEQA STATUS
This project is categorically exempt from the prov1s1ons of CEQA,
city of Santa Monica Guidelines for Implementation. Class 3
(14) .
FEES
The proj ect is exempt
program contained in
Element.
from the Housing and Parks Mitigation
the adopted Land Use and CirCUlation
BACKGROUND
The proposed proj ect was originally reviewed by the Planning
commission on June 6, 1983 (DR 143, ZA 4645-Y). At that time
neighbors expressed concerns about the building's proximity to
adjacent buildings, lack of setbacks and compatability with
surrounding structures. The Commission moved to continue the
hearing until plans could be revised to reflect these concerns.
On September 19, 1983 the applicant returned with revised plans
featuring stepped back balconies at the front facade, stepped
back planter areas at the north side and open balconies at the
south side. The Commission approved the project, adding
Conditions that "no dark or reflective glazing shall be permitted
and the ground floor pedestrian-oriented space shall have clear
glazing" and that "particular attention be directed 'to the
materials used on the south elevation."
The Architectural Review Board (ARB) conceptually approved the
project on October 5, 1983 and gave the building plans final
approval on July 3, 1985. As approved the project featured clear
glass, a painted metal panel system on the east, west, and north
elevations, and stucco on the south elevation.
This project was approved under the Interim Development
procedures established in Ordinance 1251 (CCS), which expired on
January 25, 1985. New Interim Development procedures were
established under Ordinance 1321(CCS), adopted December 11, 1984.
section 2(K) of this Ordinance specifies that a development
permit approved prior to Ordinance 1321 which does not have a
time limit on obtaining the building permit shall remain valid
only if the permit is obtained within one year of the Ordinance's
adoption. since the applicant did not file and receive a
building permit within this time frame, Development Review is
again required for this project.
ANALYSIS
As proposed the project is fundamentally the same as the project
previously approved by the Planning commission and the
Architectural Review Board. Minor changes have been made to the
parking plan, a bathroom has been removed from the loft above the
4th floor, and portions of the building's exterior corridors have
been left uncovered to reduce the building f s Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) .
- 2 -
I
I
~
\
Land Use Element Policy 1.3.4 requires pedestrian oriented design
features at the ground floor street frontage in the Downtown
Frame and Policy 3.3.8 prohibits on site parking at the street
frontage in that district. As proposed, the project has parking
at the ground floor, however, a commercial space with a depth of
20 ft., as well as the public lobby area, is located along the
7th street frontage.
Due to the small size of the lot and its location between a
2-story apartment building and a 3-story office building, the
Architectural Review Board in their review should pay particular
attention to the building's massing, bulk, scale and
compatibility with the surrounding structures. They should also
carefully review the landscaping plans and the building's
pedestrian amenities.
Section 9116A2u of the Santa Monica Municipal Code requires that
residential uses in C3 zones located above the 3rd floor provide
15 ft. setbacks from both the side and rear property lines. The
applicant has filed a Variance (ZA-5148-Y) to permit sideyard
setbacks that vary from none to 8'-6".
The residential unit at the 4th floor is consistent with Land Use
Element Pol icy 1. 3 . 5 which encourages res idential uses in the
Downtown area. The unit provides 3 bedrooms and 3 1/2 bathrooms,
while the loft covers less than the permitted one-third of the
floor area below. .
CONCLUSION
Although the project will require a variance to reduce the
of the sideyard setbacks, as proposed it meets the height
density requirements of the Downtown Frame Land Use District
therefore merits approval as outlined in the findings
conditions below.
size
and
and
and
RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully recommended that DR 371 be approved subject to
the following findings and conditions.
FINDINGS
1. The development is consistent with the findings and pur-
pose of Ordinance 1321 as set forth below.
2. The physical location and placement of the proposed struc-
ture on the site is compatible with and relates harmo-
niously to surrounding sites and neighborhoods in that the
proj ect conforms to the standards of the Downtown Frame
Land Use District. Portions of the north side facade step
back from the property line and feature landscaped planter
areas, while the 7th street facade steps back with balco-
nies. Additionally the building provides pedestrian ori-
ented design features with the inclusion of a ground floor
commercial space.
- 3 -
(
"
3. The existing and/or proposed rights-of-way and facilities
for both pedestrian and automobile traffic will be ade-
quate to accommodate the anticipated results of the pro-
posed development including off-street parking facilities
and access thereto in that the subterranean and ground
floor parking provided meets the requirement of the
Municipal Code, that the Parking and Traffic Engineer has
approved the parking and circulation plan, and that the
garage access is provided from the rear alley.
4. The existing and/or proposed pUblic and/or private health
and safety facilities (including, but not limited to,
sanitation, sewers, storm drains, fire protection devices,
protective services, and public utilities) will be ade-
quate to accommodate the anticipated results of the pro-
posed development.
S. The proposed development is consistent with the General
Plan of the City of Santa Monica and the Zoning ordinance
in that the project will conform to the height, bulk, use
and urban design pOlicies for the Downtown Frame as
specified in the Land Use Element of the General Plan and
conform to the appropriate C3 standards contained in the
Zoning Ordinance.
SPECIAL CONDITIONS
1. The proposed proj ect shall require that the Zoning Ad-
ministrator grant a Variance to permit sideyard setbacks
at the 4th floor residence range from none to 81-6".
2.
Ground floor street
public invited uses
(SMMC) .
frontage uses shall be limited to
as defined in Section 9119B.4.a
STANDARD CONDITIONS
1. Plans for final design, landscaping, screening, trash en-
closures, and signage shall be subject to review and ap-
proval by the Architectural Review Board.
2. Minor amendments to the plans shall be subject to approval
by the Director of Planning. A significant change in the
approved concept shall be subj ect to Planning commission
Review. Construction shall be in substantial conformance
with the plans submitted or as modified by the Planning
Commission, Architectural Review Board or Director of
Planning.
3. The rights granted herein shall be effective only when
exercised within a period of one year from the effective
date of approval. Upon the written request of the appli-
cant, the Director of Planning may extend this period up
to an additional six months.
- 4 -
..
4. The applicant shall comply with all legal requirements
regarding provisions for the disabled, including those set
forth in the California Administrative Code, Title 24,
Part 2.
5. Final parking lot layout and specifications shall be sub-
ject to the review and approval of the Parking and Traffic
Engineer.
6. On-site parking shall be made available without cost to
building customers and employees.7. Refuse areas, storage
areas and mechanical equipment shall be screened in accor-
dance with Sec. 9127J.2-4 (SMMC). Refuse areas shall be
of a size adequate to meet on-site need.
7. Refuse areas, storage areas and mechanical equipment shall
be screened in accordance with Sec. 9127J. 2-4 (SHMC).
Refuse areas shall be of a size adequate to meet on-site
need. C7. A Park and Recreation Facilities Tax of $200.00
per residential unit shall be due and payable at the time
of issuance of a building permit for the construction or
placement of the residential unites) on the subject lot,
per and subject to the provisions of Section 6670 et seg.
of the Santa Monica Municipal Code.S. A 5 to 6 foot solid
masonry wall shall be provided along property lines which
abut residential property in accordance with Sec. 9l27.I
(SMMC) .
S. A Park and Recreation Facilities Tax of $200.00 per
residential unit shall be due and payable at the time of
issuance of a building permit for the construction or
placement of the residential unites) on the subject lot,
per and subject to the provisions of Section 6670 et seg.
of the Santa Monica Municipal Code.
9. A 5 to 6 foot solid masonry wall shall be provided along
property lines which abut residential property in accor-
dance with Sec. 9127.I (SMMC).
10. The operation shall at all times be conducted in a manner
not detrimental to surrounding properties or residents by
reason of lights, noise, activities, parking or other
actions.
11. No noise generating compressors or other such equipment
shall be placed adjacent to neighboring residential
buildings.
12. Project design shall comply with the building energy reg-
ulations set forth in the California Administrative Code,
Title 24, Part 2, (Energy Conservation standards for New
Residential Buildings), such conformance to be verified by
the Building and Safety Division prior to issuance of a
Building Permit.
- 5 -
(
13. street trees shall be maintained, relocated or provided as
required in a manner consistent with the City's Tree Code
(Ord. 1242 CCS), per the specifications of the Department
of Recreation and Parks and the Department of General Ser-
vices. No street tree shall be removed without the ap-
proval of the Department of Recreation and Parks.
14. street and/or alley lighting shall be provided on public
rights-of-way adjacent to the project if and as needed per
the specifications and with the approval of the Department
of General Services.
15. Any outdoor lighting shall be shielded and/or directed
away from adjacent residential properties, with any such
lighting not to exceed 0.5 foot candles of illumination
beyond the perimeter of the sUbject property.
16. This determination shall not become effective for a period
of ten days (twenty days for Development Review Permits
and Conditional Use Permits) from the date of determina-
tion or, if appealed, until a final determination is made
on the appeal.
Prepared by: Amanda schachter, Assistant planner
AS:nh
DR371
04/09/87
- 6 -
I'r
'\
~
-l;.-..,;'6~'"
~
/
(
(
-__- II"
-_::-::~'::'l
---1
r '" :~TH
t ,j" I" T'" I "'ro" ";'" v I .. I" "[I~I-';Tw I ~l' 1"-'" i v . I' ~
{t~'-j,-:_JI, D I! l 1, Flr1,- .5...~ I I J ,! K ~Il .. I &'I~ l ;....... "l : l:, L ~
-"!. '-'n ~ ~ 'I"'" \J ~~ <~ ~ \ M ;~~ f?:t~/t :>
ij9-:tn;.,-...l.!.1,,' l':1 i' i ~:lIH!, .j J ~ ~; V ~,-" [l 5~ ~~ll' ~~i \L.....C~~J :::
"" ","',", ". I ~ ,~~~~, I, ~ , K I '. .. 1 i~ jrt- t;F' t- r I_~"'" :.;.Ji ~ ::J
,..ITt.-- "'" ,. .....~ ':-:-' ~~.:_~--=.......!....1oI- 0
.-....Q-<, · ,;:; .;- .' 1 <C>
~..-rnl ~l~~"'''' v ''''T'''J c~-,.....,,,: ~ '''' .. r.....:fD7.". I ~ "1" ~ ~ ,,,
!..... ~ ) $.I ,I I jI ~.... , '.J I " f' cr -~ 'r:'
~'''''I 'I -\ i ~~r, ~I ~l i I ~ 1':;-'l't:,~~';~~~'l}>i ~ ~ )1'" 'W
%Y; v ; U i T II .~~~ p I 0 : N : M I ~ ?;::'"'..:.~': ";:(:.~~~l:.. ~ 'I ~ ! ~ I'" I M 1 ~ ~ ~ /'
'" I '" I !,., ,,, I <A .~! ~ l~aG:1 r--r"l(. ~~ ........... '!-'lI:--F - . - 'L. ! ..... ~ 'It '-:...JL')~ t....'t.c; i t.t.
BOULEVARD /h~ , I' C'" , ~.. ~, <s ,-:::-.
~F ..~ J"~ , v~N 1-"';;' -:p ::- :;:: ~
... J "'J'" I" , .. ,J . .. I" I'" I" i../fi~J ~~}~';:-.tjS""'m~..-;;...t):..~. "t," -
~_~ I ~ ~j{J: . E ~!fG ,G r--..... J~'" f (r~//l ~ \.. ,~ ~Lr .....~,
~n--;; c; D I ~ F~-;;:'J I I J ' ~ /1 A '\C I ~ ! l\ .._~~II ~'ll I Il~d ~ 1 \. I: II : I; I : i :,
~Sl _ ~. .. l!, <;1.'''',h ~! J I,i. ~~!' ~L '!;l' C('k1'.-1 01, ,; J' J J L I I I
I I I <''-'1 ~ i ~ i l"] r:- . r ',,' t.. ! "'V ""I _ , _'1 I ~ ~!. 'I ~
<<" 'I-:; _I ~ , ,- I .. ," oJ::.. ~ I "" ...: I ,... '" ...,L ~ ,I '\110 l .Q- t..- __}............l,;;.. J ...,..~ 0;0:: i ',B I "1t ~ ,.
~~.,~j\, t" I"', '" 1 " j .. J ~ /<'. I ~ . ~ f'" j=': ~ .. -=-:~- =>- , ~ i. 1-; ~ I .. . ~ ",'
m,l. ~. 1 ~ ~ ", l :Ii, fl~ /l~~' ~i .r "~~!!~ ,J "'~II ~i ~ ~~ ~ 1 r; ~ t. ~:
tW~\( uIT,stFS1iP'Oif'.IQ' X,l"'!v U <iT{~tu~Q~'~'iOi~Jj''''' liINlv!ull',
w, 'I ~;?) i I I tt- ',01 .1 I !:: ~~ \....,,"',~~'. i r I \
- ""' i ~ ,o."\.e. ~ . se- Stl > ~ W \.:0 i 11:- : ... l-.. . 10) t U I: ~ c~r' j.:. Ie' Ie"! loc-_-.l _~ 10" ... I "'-_
..
STREET ~ ; \Sf{fr-j1:' -t ..... ~.,....~-
\._ ~ ~l1i \ ,Se(, f'\" ~ ~ , ,I- ~
~ '-~I" I" i" i '@~~ [P)Tli"~!' l-;"'! .r- ~~il~1'f-~;~T"TII"Tl ~ r" !" i" -I" j',
~~: II t> 'I' " ; ',l I" i oJ ! ";'\'''. .;:;! ; c',';; I r~-..I__~<<;" f" , I.:,..t, I,.: ~ ~ I~ lA I ~:[ olE"
~_51' I ! ". !1' I ~ .r~,""A' .~... ';;l=" -..,.
...:;J;;;;.j ~ If ~ ~ 'I-j'.p" OJ !I .'", I"\"" C_I - 1 ".;:" ~ " "/. <- \ .J .!
::. ~'" i,,-Lw.., I..!oL~~-: I ;v-;. s, _~ · ~ <~l,?.h, "f _~, "1 r ': ~ ~ ... .
'lo:'. ~~ '...,)u ~. ..!L-l.-\~-;t ~./.;f....::-::..~ 7..:--1......... _..2.. ~...:......-I~:::__;~..!'=-J L....:L_ ~ I.~ ; IIQ I ;.__
~-I--;:-r~ '''' " '" i " I' ..~' "~~i ...,~. "+.-."'---.,~-~-T...,,,-.'.,--_~I...' 'I r-;-,-,,-,-.:-~
Z jl ' "sil '" I -_ '. I ...>'''- -. 1 I I -, , I r I
~3) ~ ~ !!., " l.\ l ~. ~ l>> .. 4>~._~.... ..__~~:._ ' .' ! ~ ~\ s\ :1 ~ <1;; "
1.'" . I ,~ ff) I " N I ' , . ,1,-', '"' ~ .. ^" I! I'; r"1 I 1
,:,). ,1.1 I' ~ , ~ L.... ' p !.;) ~,~' - 1 x...... " 't. ' \ I{ 1;;; i c I ~ I " ' ~ ." -r.! \ ' W I v : U I -
..,. I ! ! r II I J ~ I' -!. \:~ ,_1::11 I I ' rt? I v. I ~ \
IN ,. 1 1'" 1 AI"~ ~~ c,.....1 --, r--"~:#'~.:Ie.~J1.R..... ~...:('~p-~ I ~ it}
..JL-....i 1,,= - . 0,0- I .... I ~ I J J6"" t, [... ~ ~-'-L- ~ '~~ ~ I ~~~..... I ....~~~~"f ~.~~~___~
o u
STREET
,
....
~
I' I ~ I "~~I'
j A : ! ~f~, €
I ;;"';;;j I.' ~ ......1
~ i.LcJ, ';r)j
L",: ~ ~---1-~
; ~ 'h;\~~
I , J \1
I".J ~ I.,
.. i" ,I ,
!" :"1 "
BL"D
)Tj~E ET
SlUn
ll.
~
..
>
....;1'--,.........-
4--Y-~ ____.. ........._ ... .... - --....
r----;;r-=----r---"T~
,- ~ ...
.. .
L..---~_______.....
- ~ . ,,..,,, ~
~oIII~a~~-"''''oo:-'~~~.......~...~'tI:I.___-'''-'1I!!reI r:.-'C.la._ ~~~~'~~-'...
,
...,.;____~_ 4...--- _~_~.~'I:.--..~_~~~________~"-______~ _
. ' ~ 1-0"1 U, ~"~..:;lc::.~. \4'~ \,
. ,~ . . _ .-...... I -~ L' .....~. '. r "
l!::GAL m::SCR:?TIC"~ _~(:..J ::=-S=.~ ~.-:. !_~_~:'~,
'I
I
H
"
Ie R/,ca.:s ~,(~~P ~on \"i~ ~~i\~' <...~ Fi:..E
I fC)" f"> f..'.~<''''flf'l. r~ ,,-=,....r;--:.,.." I-'':?~ "1- -",''';;?;
I r 1r-~\l~llr:l~L't;,~i iJ:.-vll~:~ !..:.~~-~ ~.l J ~~i':~L:~ ~
i[ CJ"Ju~ (:~
p~.y fl ,Q
%.~ll'II ,." ~ I "f ' ..
t.i ... }........ --....---.. I '"'"'
l t "<~.gr ....,,, :~.-: ':- . . "-or:: '~i..~;'-_;;'
.....:--,. tt-,....1~U.r~__"....1.:.1J.:;.!. .
~\ '~~____,... -- .-:.4W'~.'&t;."D"t:....uo-~..~__--"'-'~ ...__~__,..'-.............___
I t!~~~..,-,,-.....,JiIL~"'.....:;o__............~lIII'lIGoao4.U'UIf'Io~~"'~~....f'" __....
c; c;'- -,0 __ _ __ __ _... _
. '<>;:'1'+1' -~Lr';t ~"-'''--':'.r'
STI'l=a ':'Oil.:SS_ _l-....:=.:;...:-~__.L-:;::::- _:-_'.~'_-:
.....r''\ ~
- ,-...
r'
- t-. _, t '__ . - .
A' FllC "4 r __.l '~ · '- t~ c~::___ 2.: ..:..:.::_~_,::.:.___
lJA.,: _ . _ ~_________
Pli?l 1f"
r.iE"\r~Ir...'.--' ...._
CI.'l[
P-cCe,~ 'Cr~
t 'bol'
'S-~t.......l"-'a _.....-_ _
~
.
-~._""'-
...
".
ATTACHMENT A
MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE
Land Use
Category Municipal Code Element Project
Permitted Use General Downtown Frame Mixed Use Medical
Commercial Pedestrian Office/
Residential Oriented Residential
Permitted at Design
4th Floor
Height 6 stories/90' 4 stories/56' 4 stories plus
lOft/55'-10"
Setbacks
Front yard none required none required office - none
residential -
11'-4"
sideyard 15' none required North: Varies
(residential none to 8'
only) South: Varies
none to 8'-611
Rearyard 15' none required 29'-5"
(residential
only)
F.A.R. 3.3 2.5 2.4
Parking 29 spaces 29 spaces 29 spaces
....
- L_~___
7A.
A-th:\..c..h yY1.e n.J.- C
STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL ACTION
PROJECT
NUMBER: DR 371
LOCATION: 1317 7th street
APPLICANT: Michel Rone
REQUEST: To Permit the Construction of a 4 story Plus Loft
18,248 Sq. Ft. Mixed-Use Building with Medical
Offices and One Residential Unit.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
4/20/87
Date.
x
Approved based on the following findings and
subject to the conditions below.
Denied.
other.
FINDINGS
1. The physical location and placement of the proposed struc-
ture on the site is incompatible with and does not relate
harmoniously to surrounding sites and neighborhoods in
that the project is inconsistent with the Municipal Code
which requires that 15' sideyard setbacks be provided at
the residential level on the fourth floor.
2. The design of the proposed project is physically un-
suitable for the site in that it is out of context with
and out of scale with the surrounding neighborhood and
that it eliminates the light and air of the adjacent
apartment building.
VOTE
Ayes: Burns, Farivar, Hecht, Nelson, Perlman
Nays:
Abstain:
Absent: Israel
Vacancy: One
- 1 -
/ J-- 6
ROBERT A. CLINCO
J!tJ-z,.tf?tJ/
ATTC"'!NEV AT LAW
3231 OCEAN ~A.R:k BG-uLEVAh!D SUITE 114
SA-.....TA MOXICA, CALIFOR..."fIA 9040~
"z. ~J 45 ::;-6280
JUNE 23, 1987
The Honorable James P. Conn
Mayor
Members of the City Council
City of Santa Monica
City Hall
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, Ca.
Re: 1317 7th Street
Appeal DR 371
Dee I' fIo1ayor Conn:
This matter comes as an appeal from an adverse ruling of
the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Monica
denying the applicant, Michel Rone, a building permit
for the subject property.
This project has been prosecuted by Mr. Rone since 1982,
having once been approved by both the Planning
COJIlmission and the Arch! tectural Review Board, and
having been reviewed and approved by the Bui lding
Department. A building permit was not issued to Mr.
Rone solely because, as a result of his failure to learn
that he could obtain such a permit, he did not present
himself to the Building Departwent prior to December 10,
1985.
As a result of the failure to obtain the permit, a new
application was submitted, reports were prepared, and a
hearing was held by the Planning Commission of April 20,
1987.
The attached material constitutes an analysis of the
Planning Commission Staff reports as presented to the
Com rriss10n and the Ci ty Council, and the actions taken
by the Planning Commission on the present application.
APPROVAL RECOMMENDED BY PROFESSIONAL STAFF
CITY PLANNING STAFF HAS CONSISTENTLY RECOMMENDED THAT
THIS PROJECT BE APPROVED, BASED ON ITS REPORTS THAT THE
PROJECT MEETS ALL CITY REQUIREMENTS.
In the 1983 application for perIDit, the project was
referred to as Development Review 143. It is
identitical in its final plan with Development Review
371 new before the Council.
STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION = 1983
Recommendation. It is respectfully recommended that
Developnient-Review 143 and Variance Z.A. 4645-Y be approved
with the following findings and conditions.
STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION ~ 1987
It is respectfully recommended that DR 371 be approved
subject to the following findings ... :
Following the rejection of the Planning Commission of
its Staff recommendation, the Staff, obviously speaking
for the commission and not for its own position, states:
STAFF REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL ~ 1987
This report recommends that the City Council deny the appeal
of the applicant and deny Development Review 371 ...
IT IS CLEAR THAT THE PRESENT RECOMMENDATION BY THE CITY
PLANNING STAFF IS A REFLECTION OF THE CITY PLANNING
COMMISSION AND DOES NOT REFLECT ITS OWN PROFESSIONAL
POSITION.
STAFF RECOMMENDED FINDINGS - VARIANCE
THE ONLY RECOMMENDED FINDINGS BY THE PROFESSIONAL STAFF
WITH REGARD TO THE GRANTING OF A VARIANCE OCCURRED IN
THE 1983 REPORT WHICH RECOMMENDED GRANTING THE VARIANCE.
The issue is with regard to a variance in the
requirement of a fifteen foot set back from the lot side
lines on the third floor residential unit. It should be
noted that enforcement of the set back requirements
leaves a twenty (20) foot wide area for building in a
fifty foot wide lot.
STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION = 1983
Findings
6. That the strict application of the provisions of the
Zoning Ordinance will result in practical difficulties or
unnecessary hardships inconsistent with the general purpose and
intent of the Ordinance.
8. That the granting of a variance will not be
materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the
property or improvements in such zone or neighborhood in which the
property is located.
NO RECOMMENDATION WAS MADE BY CITY PLANNING STAFF IN ITS
1987 REPORT AND, WHEN ASKED AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION
HEAPING FOR ITS POSITION, THE STAFF FEPRESENTATIVE
STATED THAT NO POSITION WAS TAKEN BECAUSE THE MATTER
SHOULD BE PRESENTED TO THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
FIRST.
STAFF REPORT Tg CITY COUNCIL ~ 1987
As proposed the project would requi re a var iance to permi t
sideyard setbacks that vary from none to ~t6n. Given that only
one residential unit would be provided at the fourth floor, the
Commission felt that the project could be redesigned to conform
wi th the required setbacks and that :findings could not be made to
support a Variance.
BASED ON NO RECOMMENDATION, NO STUDY, NO DIAGRAM OTHER
THAN THE BLUE PRINTS, AND NO ADVERSE COMMENTS BY ANYONE
PRESENTED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, THE COMMISSION
TOOK THE ABOVE ACTION.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION - SUITABILITY OF PROJECT
STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO PLANNING COMMISSION ~ 1987
2. The physical location and placement of the proposed
structure on the site is compatible with and relates harmoniously
to surrounding s1 tes and neighborhoods in that the project
conforms to the standards of the Downtown Frame Land Use District.
5. The proposed development is consistent with the General
Plan of the City of Santa Monica and the Zoning Ordinance in that
the project will conform to the height, bulk, use and urban design
policies for the Downtown Frame as specified in the Land Use
Element of the General Plan and conform to the appropriate C3
standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance.
AFTER STUDYING THE PROJECT, THE PROFESSIONAL STAFF FOUND
THAT THE PROJECT MET ALL LEGAL REQUIREMENTS AND WAS
APPROPRIATE TO THE LOCATION.
STAFF REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL ~ 1987
The Commission further :found the project to be too mass! ve, out of
scale and out of context with the surrounding neighborhood.
The project does not provide an acceptable transition from the
apartment building adjacent to the project's north side ... is,
therefore, inconsistent with Land Use Element Pol icy 3.2.2 which
stipulates that an appropriate transition be provided between
commercial uses that abut residential areas.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION, WITHOUT ADVERSE COMMENTS BY
PUBLIC, THE STAFF, OR ANYONE OTHER THAN THE
COMMISSIONERS~ WITHOUT ANY DIAGRAMATIC MATERIAL OTHER
THAN THE BLUE PRINTS, WITHOUT ANY REPRESENTATIONS WITH
REGARD TO THE OTHER BUILDINGS ON THE STREET IN QUESTION,
MADE THE ABOVE FINDINGS.
It should be noted that with regard to Land Use Element
Policy 3.2.2, the "residential area" in question
consists of a single ten unit apartment building, in a
C3 zone, which is an existing non-conforming use set
between a commercial building on its north and the
proposed commercial project on its south.
[3.2.2. Where cOII1mercial uses abut residential areas,
there should be appropriate transition (landscaped set
back or service alley and screen wall).]
STAFF RECOMMENDATION - LIGHT AND AIR
STAFF REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL .= 1987
The project would effectively eliminate light and air from these
resi dential units.
IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE ORIGINAL DESIGN PRESENTED TO
THE PREVIOUS PLANNING COMMISSION AND ARCHITECTURAL
REVIEW BOARD RECEIVED OBJECTIONS FROM THE RESIDENTS
LIVING IN THE APARTMENT BUILDING AND THAT AS A RESULT,
THE PROJECT WAS REDESIGNED TO MEET THOSE OBJECTIONS.
AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING ON APRIL 20, NO
OBJECTION WAS VOICED FROM ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC AND,
IN THE INTERIM, SPECIFIC CONTACT HAS BEEN MADE WITH BOTH
THE OWNER OF THE APARTMENT BUILDING AND HIS
REPRESENTATIVES, ROCQUE AND MARK, AND THEY HAVE
CONFIRMED THAT THE PRESENT PROJECT IS ACCEPTABLE AS
PLANNED.