SR-402-010 (12)
tftJz--c/tJ
CjED:KR:nh
Council Mtg.: August 28, 1984
Santa Mon1ca, Cal1forn1a
TO:
Mayor and C1ty Council
a -II
AUG 2 8 1914
SEP 4 1984
FROM:
C1ty Staff
SUBJECT: Appeal of the Planning COffiffi1SS10n Decision DenY1ng DR
26l, 1714 W11shire Boulevard, to Permlt the Use of the
Slte Shared by Ace MUS1C Company for the Dlsplay of SlX
Late Model Automoblles, Applicant, Tony Newman.
Introductlon
An appeal of the Plannlng Comm1ssion deels10n denY1ng th1S proj-
eet has been flIed by Mr. Tony Newman, project appl1cant. The
proJect proposal lS for the d1splay of six late model automobiles
on a port1on of the Slte at 1714 W11shire Boulevard. Following a
public hear1ng on July 16, 1984 the six Plannlng Commiss1oners
present voted three to three to deny the proJect as submltted.
Back9round
The 50 r x 150 I parcel at 1714 Wilsh1re Boulevard is currently
occup1ed by Ace MUS1C Company which uses most of the one story
"L" shaped 2,200 square foot commercial building on-site. A 240
square foot office located toward the rear of the bU11ding 1S
avallable for use by a separate buslness. Most recently a retall
pottery store operated out of th1S office area, uS1ng the 28' x
58' open paved area front1ng on W1lsh1re Boulevard as the1r d1S-
play area.
The 51 te 15 currently vacant.
On May 7, 1984 the
Plann1ng Comm1ss1on den1ed an appl1catlon slmi1ar to DR 261, to
use the slte as a used car lot. The applicants 1ntroduced a curb
cut to prov1de access to the 51 te without pr10r aproval of the
Plann1ng Comm1SS10n for their proposed use. A l4' wide curb cut
and dr1veway now prov1de access to th1S paved area from W1lsh1re I~ -,1
AUt; Z , ,.-
- 1 -
SEP 4 '914
Boulevard. The flrst proposal (DR 235) was denled based on the
following findlngs:
1. The proposed proJect 1S incons1stent with the f1nd1ngs and
purpose of Ord1nance 1251 and would preJud1ce the abillty of
the C1ty to adopt a revlsed Land Use Element 1n that a wil-
sh1re Boulevard curb cut and drlveway at thlS location would
create a public hazard and conflict wlth the draft Land Use
Element polley to promote pedestrian orlentatlon along Wl1-
shlre Boulevard.
2. The proposed use would be a more intense use than previous
uses of the subJect area, would lncrease daytlme pedestrlan
and veh1cular traffic, and would increase parklng demand 1n a
nelghborhood already having a severe shortage of on-street
daytime parklng.
3. The 28' wldth of the one site area is not adequate to allow
for proper vehlcular access,
Parklng and Traffic Englneer
parklng use.
Analys1s.
The most recent proposal (DR 261) the subJect of thlS appeal is
to use thlS paved area as a showroom for the dlsplay of SlX late
model automobl1es, prlmarily Mercedes Benz, BMW's and Porsches.
The appellant currently owns a late model automob11e dealershlp
at 3030 Santa Monlca Boulevard. The appellant contends that hlS
proposal addresses the prevlous concerns of the Plann1ng Comrois-
maneuverlng and park1ng.
has d1sapproved the 51 te
The
for
sian in that no test drlvlng or rnechanlcal work w1l1 be performed
on slte and cars will be removed from the lot only after a pur-
chase agreement is f1na11zed. One employee will monl tor the lot
- 2 -
and wlll use the 240 square foot offlce at the rear of the build-
ing. Business hours wlll be from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., six or
seven days per week. No on-site parklng 1S avallable.
The Plann1ng Commlssion in denying this project determlned that
the Sl te area is not adequate to accommodate both the proposed
type of use and Ace Music Company WhlCh currently eX1sts on the
slte. Additionally, the Planning CommlSSlon determlned that the
proposal would be as intense as the proposal for used car sales
WhlCh they denied on the basis that it would increase daytlme
pedestrian and vehicular traffic beyond an appreclable amount and
would lncrease the parklng demand In a ne1ghborhood already
havlng a severe shortage of on-street daytlme parklng. The Plan-
n1ng CornmlSSlon also determined that th1s proposed prOJect 1S
inconslstent with the findlngs and purpose of Ordlnance 1251 and
would preJudice the abll1ty of the Clty to adopt a revised Land
Use Element in that a wilshire Boulevard curb cut and dr1veway at
this location would create a publlC hazard and conflict wlth the
draft Land Use Element POllCY to promote pedestr1an orlentatlon
along Wllshlre Boulevard. Even though use as a used car sales
area 1S permitted ln the zone, th1s use 1S inappropr1ate for the
lot size and access to the lot. The staff and Commlss1on members
have advlsed the property owner and appellant of other less In-
tense uses such as a low volume office use, an ice cream shop, or
a florist which could utlllze both the lndoor and outdoor area,
and be more sUltable for the lot Slze.
City Counell Authority
Under the prov1s1ons of Section 6 of Ord1nance No. l251(CCS) the
- 3 -
"-
City Council may aff1rm, reverse or modify any determination of
the Plann~ng Commiss~on 10 regard to an Interim Development Per-
m~t and the decision of the Clty Councll shall be f~nal. In ap-
provlng an appl~cation, the CommlSS1on or Councll must find that:
1. The development lS cons~stent w~th the findings and purpose
of Ordlnance 1251.
2. The proposed plans comply with eXlstlng regulatlons contalned
ln the Munlcipal Code.
3. The exist1ng and/or proposed r1ghts-of-way for both
pedestrlan and automobile trafflc wlll be adequate to accom-
modate the antlcipated results of the proposed development
lncludlng off street parklng facll1t~es and access thereto.
4. The eXlst~ng and/or proposed publlC and/or prlvate health and
safety facilltles (includlng, but not limited to, sanitation,
sewer, storm dralns, flre protect1on devices, protectlve ser-
vices, and publ1C utllities) will be adequate to accommodate
the anticlpated results of the proposed development.
S. The proposed development wlll not preJudice the abll1ty of
the Clty to adopt a revised Land Use Element.
6. The proposed use and locatlon are in accordance with good
zoning pract1ce, 1n the publlC lnterest and necessary that
substantlal Justice be done.
7. The proposed use 1S compatlble wlth eXlsting and potent1al
uses w~ th1n the general area, trafflC or parking congest10n
w1ll not result, the public health, safety and general wel-
fare are protected and no harm to adJacent propertles will
result.
- 4 -
F~nancial Impact
The recommendat~on presented ~n this report does not have a bud-
get/f1nanC1al 1mpact.
Recommendat1on
It lS respectfully recommended that the appeal be den1ed and the
act10n of the Plannlng Commlssion be aff~rmed, based upon the
f~ndings enumerated in the analys1s of this staff report.
Prepared by: Karen Rosenberg, Assistant Planner
Plann1ng and Zon~ng Division
Department of Commun1ty and Economic Development
Attachments: 1) Findlngs for Den1al of DR 261
2) Slte Plan
3) Rad1US Map
- 5 -