Loading...
SR-402-001 (31) ... 4- r'O;;2"--- PO / f2--B C/ED:PB:SF:AS Council Mtg: March 8, 1988 tMR 8 1988 Santa Monica, California TO: Mayor and city Council FROM: City Staff SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of Development Review 356, Conditional Use, permit 437, Zoning Administrator 5113-Y, General Plan Amendment 09, EIA 835, 1115 Second Street, Five story, 96,000 sq.ft. Parking Structure with 270 Parking Spaces. Applicant: Miramar Sheration Hotel, W. G. Wells, President. Appellant: James Lunsford for Miramar Sheraton Hotel. INTRODUCTION This report recommends that the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission I s denial of Development Review 356, Conditional Use Permit 437, Zoning Administrator 5113-Y, General Plan AInendrnent 09, EIA 835 for a five story, 96,000 sq. ft. 270 space parking structure. The Planning commission denied the project by a 7-0 vote on December 7, 1988. Areas of concern include height, lack of landscaping, lack of setbacks, inconsistency with the General Plan, and general incompatibility with the neighborhood. The applicant, Miramar Sheraton, is appealing that decision (Attachment A). BACKGROUND The five story, 96,000 sq.ft. 270 space parking structure is proposed for a 15,000 sq. ft. site on the east side of Second street between Wilshire Boulevard and California Avenue in a R4A Zoning District. Miramar Sheraton currently leases the site to the owner of the Budget Rental Car facility. A total of 41 - 1 - 12-B MAR 8 1988 . . r. parking spaces are provided at the site, 12 of which are leased back to the Miramar Sheraton for employee parking while the remaining spaces are available to hotel guests and visitors. The proposed structure will provide access from a single driveway located off Second street. Pedestrian access to the parking structure will be available from both Second Street and Second Court. The project does not provide setbacks from any property line, does not step back from the street, alley or side property lines at any point, and utilizes 100 percent lot coverage. A Development Review permit is required in that the project is over 15,000 sq.ft. In addition, a Conditional Use Permit is required to allow a parking structure in a R~ district. Ordinance 1383 (CCS) permits off-site parking structures in R4 districts in conjunction with hotel development with approval of a CUP. Variances are required to permit zero setbacks and 100 percent lot coverage in a R4 district, and a General Plan Amendment is required to amend Policy 1.2.3 to allow the parking structure to be built to five stories rather than the maximum permitted four stories. An Initial Study (EIA 835) was prepared for this project and a variety of mitigation measures were recommended. These measures included articulation of the flat surfaces, adding texture or color to the exterior surfaces, utilizing planters for landscaping, reducing the project height, stepping back the upper levels, and providing setbacks. - 2 - ~ . In their denial of the project, the Planning Commission concurred with staff that the project did not relate harmoniously with the surrounding environs in that the parking structure did not meet the minimum development standards for a structure in a R4 district and that the proposal was inconsistent with the General Plan in that it did not provide design articulation, did not enhance the streetscape, and did not provide pedestrian amenities or architectural innovation. In addition, the Commission found that noise generated from vehicles in the parking structure would severely impact the neighboring residences. ANALYSIS The appellant's letter does not state any spec1fic reasons for the appeal. However, at the Planning Commission hearing the applicant stated that the hotel needed to provide adequate parking for its facility and that this property was purchased for this purpose. Al though there is clearly a need for parking in this congested area, the project in its current design does not merit approval. The utilitarian design is dominated by concrete sheer walls, concrete parapets and galvanized steel railings at each level. There has been no attempt at providing pedestrian ameni ties, as required in Land Use Element Pol icy 3.3. I or at including design articulation~ as encouraged in Policy 3.3.4, to enhance the building's physical appearance. As proposed, the project does not include setbacks, effectively eliminating any ability to provide landscaping to screen the structure from surrounding buildings. The shadow analysis - 3 - prepared for the Initial Study determined that a five story, 561 parking structure would block or impair the views of apartments on the third, fourth, and fifth floors of the Wilshire Ocean Terrace at 1118 Third street and would block views from guest rooms below the fifth floor of the Huntley Hotel. Although the zoning Code permits a four story structure at this site, a project that provided the required setbacks (201 front, 111 side, 15' rear) would also be able to provide adequate landscaping to screen the project and, perhaps, even enhance the views from these units by removal of the surface parking lot. Due to the amount of written correspondence received opposing the project, the Planning commission recommended that, should the project be redesigned, the applicant work with the surrounding residents to better understand their concerns. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT The recommendation presented in this report does not have any budget or fiscal impact. RECOMMENDATION It is respectfully recommended that the council deny the appeal and deny DR 356, CUP 437, ZA 5113-Y, GPA-09, EIA 835 with the findings contained in the December 7, 1987 Planning Commission Statement of Official Action. Prepared by: Amanda Schachter, Associate Planner Suzanne Frick, Principal Planner Paul Berlant, Planning Director Planning Division community and Economic Development Department - 4 - Attachments: A. Letter of Appeal by James Lunsford. B. December 7, 1987 Planning Commission Staff Report. C. Planning Commission Statement of Official Action. D. Final Initial study. E. Project Plans. CCDR356 02/03/88 - 5 - < , ~d+ o..c..\1 YYI e;1-t- A (, (' Mt6 ffurth D! 1 q~t JAMES" LUNSFORD 1 ^ -.Tl '-'tool' l'l>-'S\:L'T'" ''IT I?"~ 11101\" t.'lAV.R A"'I!:"L~ ""^"T^ ).lONJ( ^ C'"A IID4D~ IJlU' 31le.l~71l 7 December /.3, lQP,7 City Planning Di~i~lon Co'nmunity and EconomIc Developln~nt Departnent Santa Monica CIty Hall 1685 MaIn Street R,n 212 Santa Monlca 90401 Re: DR 356, CUP 437, ZA 5113-Y GPA-09, ErA 835 1115 Second Street On behalf of the Mlramar Sheraton Hotel..we hereby appeal the decision of the PlannIng CommIssion in the above matters. The ~equired fee of $75 is attached. Receipt of the above appeal IS ackno~ledged. Cit~lanning Division RY~ M~--- _ _ ___- _ _ pate_I3-~";\.e,7___ j),~ ,f ~Il.. )(Off' J7sflR- 1 . , Ma...c h 'r'Yl en --r B .--. .- .,....:.. I~ CITY PLANNING DIVISION Co~~unity and Economic Development Department M E M 0 RAN DUM DATE: December 7, 1987 TO: The Honorable Planning Commission FROM: Planning Staff SUBJECT: DR 356, CUP 437, ZA 5113-Y, GPA-09, EIA 835 Address: Applicant: 1115 Second street Miramar Sheraton Hotel, W. G. Wells, President SITE LOCATION k~D DESCRIPTION The subject property is a 15,000 sq.ft. parcel located on the east side of Second street between W~lsh~re Boulevard a~d Cal~for:na Avenue having a frontage of 100 feet. Surrcund:.ng uses consist of the 17-story Huntley Hotel to the north (R4A), the 2-story Santa Mon~ca Medlcal Center office build~ng to the south (R4A), the 6-story Wilshire Ocean Terrace apartment building to the east (R4A) and the Miramar Sheraton Hotel to the west (R:'A, C3) wh~ch occuples the ent~re block and incluc:tes a lobby and service building directly across from the project site. Zo:ung D:.strict: R4A Land Use District: High Density Residential Parcel Area: lOa' x 1501 = 15,000 Sq. Ft. PROPOSED PROJECT Proposed is a 96,000 sq. ft. 5 story parking structure providl~g 270 parking spaces. The structure reaches a maximum height of 56 feet. The site is currently leased by Miramar Sheraton to the owner of the Budget Rental Car facility. The project site provides a total of 41 parking spaces; 12 spaces are leased back to the Miramar Sheraton for employee parking and the remaining spaces are available to hotel guests and visltors. As proposed, parking in the structure will be available for a fee to both hotel guests and the general public. The structure would operate 24 hours per day. Ingress and egress to the parking structu~e will be provided from a single driveway located off Second Street. There will be one entry lane and one eXlt lane. Pedestrian access to the parking structure will be available fro~ both Second street and Second Court. - 1 - A Development Rev~ew penni t is requ~red ~r. that the proj ect is over 15,000 sq. ft. A Conditional Use Per~~t (CUP) is re~~lred to allow a parking structure in a R4 district. On Septenber 9, 1986 the City Council adopted Ordinance 1383 to amend Section 91l04A (S}rnC). This ordinance permits off-site parking structures in R~ Districts in conjunction with hotel development with approval of a CUP. Variances are required to permit a structure with zero setbacks and 100% lot coverage in a R4 District. A General Plan Amendment is required to amend Policy 1.2.3 to allow the parking structure to be built to 5 stories rather than the required 4 stories. MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE The proposed project is inconsistent with the Municipal Code in that variances will be required for setbacks and lot coverage and is inconsistent with the General Plan in that a General Plan Anendment will be required to allow the structure to exceed the height linit as shown in Attachnent A. CEQA STATUS An Initial Study has been prepared for this proJect and a var:ety of mitigation measures have been included. Hm:ever, staf= 1S recOIr,mend1ng that the proJ ect be denled. Ccp::es of t::e Draft Initial Study were distributed to the Plannlng CO~rr.1SS10n at the beg~nnlng of the 30 day public review period. PUblic corment was recelved and the responses are contalned In the Flnal Inl.tlal S~udy. The Final Inltlal Study ~s attached (Attach~en~ B) .~_ FEES Tte proj ect is exe:-pt fron the Ho'Using and Parks l:~ t.lgatlc~ Fee as outlined in the Land Use and Clrculatio~ Ele~ent. ANALYSIS Consistency with Land Use Ele~ent Policles a~d tte Zc~~~a Ordlnance The proposed project is located in a High Densi'ty Resldentlal area. The property is zoned R~A. Policy 1.2.3 of the Land ~se Element permits parking structures in 'tAli Off Street Parklrg Districts. However, these structures are only permitted if they conform with the height, bulk, setback and landscape standards required for the residential district. As proposed the proJect is built to the front, rear and side property lines and utl1izes 100% lot coverage. The lack of setbacks provides little opportunity to include landscaping to screen the surroundIng structures from the project. A General Plan Amendment has been filed to permit the project to exceed the 4 story helg~t I1nlt. A 5 story, 56' parking structure would block or impair the views of apartments on the third, fourth, and fifth floors of the WIlshire Ocean Terrace and wll1 block views from guest roo:-:s below the fifth floor of the Huntley Hotel. - 2 - . . Under the existing Zoning Ordinance the R4 standards req'.Jire setbacks from all property lines as well as a 50% lot coverage (Attachment A). The applicant has re~.Jired variances to eliminate these requirements. Ordinance 1383 amended Section 9ll0A SMMC to permit parking structures in R4A Districts in conjunction with hotel facilities with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Staff has no objections to a parking structure at this location. However, staff feels that the size, scale, lack of articulation, lack of setbacks and lack of landscaping are inappropriate for a parking structure in a residential district. Parking and Traffic Analysis A traffic impact study prepared by DKS Associates analyzed future traffic generation for the proposed project on two intersections. The study included traffic anticipated to be generated by proj ects either planned, proposed or under construction. The study concluded that the impact of the proposed project on the local street system would be re~nir.al. The Miramar Sheraton is not currently propos1ng expansion of the hotel facilities. The parklng structure ~s proposed in order to meet the hotells existing park~ng demand. Based on Clty parking standards the hotel should prov~de 418 parking spaces. Although additional off street parklng is highly des1rable in th~s neighborhood, since the hotel is not expandlng, the hotel is not required to provide additional parking. In addltion, the parking plan does not provide hand1capped parking stalls and has not been app~oved by the City'S Park1ng and Traff1c Engineer. ~ P:"oJect Design The proposed project is designed to be utilitarian and, therefore I provides no articulat10n or landscaping. The front and rear elevations are dominated by a concrete sheer wall with concrete parapets and galvanized steel railings on each level. The sioe elevations are blank concrete block walls with no openings or articulation. Land Use Element Policy 3.3.1 requireS that pedestrian amenities be provided at the ground floor frontages, such as windows, awnings or arcades. Pol icy 3. 4 . 3 requires that new development provide streetscape improvements "to contribute to the overall public open space system". POllCY 3.3.4 encourages that buildings provide design articulation. The proposed project design is inconsistent with each of these policies in that no pedestrian amenities are provided, the structure is built property line to property line and does no~ step back at any point, and that the concrete and steel building materials do not enhance the Second Street environment. Conclusion The project, which requires a CUP, variances and a General Plan Amendment, is inconsistent with the policies and obJectives of the Land Use Element as well as with the regulre:nents of the Zoning Ordinance in that the proj ect blocks VleWS, provides no - 3 - . . design amenities, exceeds the helght, stery, setback and le"=. coverage requirements and is not compatible wlth the surroundi~g mix of commercial and residentlal structures. RECOMMENDATION It is respectfully recommended that the Plann1ng COF~ission deny OR 356, CUP 437, ZA Sl13-Y, GPA-09, EIA 835 with the following findings: 1. The development is inconsistent with ~he findings and purpose of Ordinance 1321 as set forth below. 2. The physical location and placement of the proposed structure on the site is incompatible with and does not relate harmoniously to surrounding sites or neighborhoods in that the Land Use Element limits the height, bulk, setback and landscape requirements of park1ng str'.lctt.:res in "An Off Street Parking D1stricts to the standards 1n the residen"=.ial district. Furthermore the R4A zoning regulations state that 50% lot coverage be provlded as well as a 20 foot front yard setback, 11 foot sideyard setbacks and a 15 foo~ rearyard setback. 3. The proposed develop:nent lS 1nC0Y1S1sten": Wl th the General Plan of the City of Santa Monlca and the Zonlng Ordinance ln that the parking structure does not provlde deslgn articulation, does not enhance the streetscape, and does no~ provide pedestrian amenities or architectural 1nnovat1o~. In addition, the proJect does not confo~ with the appropr~ate R4A standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance. Prepared by: ~a~da Schachter, Associate Planner AS:nh DR356 11/30/87 Attachments: A. Municipal Code and General Plan Conformance. B. Final Initial Study. c. PUblic Comment Received After 30 Day PUblic Review of In~tial Study. D. Response from Applicant. - 4 - , - ATTACHHENT A MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE Category Municipal Code Permitted Use Permits Residential Uses and Parking Lots Ordinance 1383 Permits Parking Structures in conjunction with Hotels by Cond~tlonal Use Pernlt Helght 6 Stories/65, Setbacks Front yard 20' Sideyard 11' Rearyard 15' Lo~ Cove:::-age 50% Parklng 418 Parking Spaces Land Use Element Permits Parking Structures in "A" Off-Street Parking Districts 4 Stories/50' 20' 11' 15' 50% 418 Parklng Spaces - 5 - Project 96,000 Sq.Ft. Parking Structure 5 Storles/56, None Provided NC:1e Prov:l.ded None Provlded- 100% 270 Spaces Proposed 80 spaces Existing on Ma:l.:1 Parking Lot 41 Spaces Existing on Project Site