Loading...
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.