Loading...
SR-021208-6B~~~ ~;tYO, City Council Report Santa Monica® City Council Meeting: February 121,,2008 Agenda Item: yl ~ 8 To: Mayor and City Council From: Eileen Fogarty, Director of Planning and Community Development Subject: Appeal of Planning Commission's approval of Development Review Permit for the construction of a condominium complex located at 1433 Fourteenth Street. Recommended Action Staff recommends the City Council deny appeal 07APP-009 and uphold the Planning Commission's approval of Development Review Permit 06-010 and Tentative Map 06- 009 to allow the construction of a 27,550 square foot, 19-unit condominium complex at 1433-37 Fourteenth Street subject to the recommended findings and conditions. Executive Summary The applicant, 1433-1437 14t" Street LLC, requests approval of a Development Review Permit (DR06-010) and Tentative Tract Map (06-009) to allow construction of a 27,550 square foot, 19-unit condominium project with a 42-space subterranean parking garage. The Planning Commission approval of the Development Review Permit and Tentative Tract Map was appealed on the basis that the project is incompatible with the immediate neighborhood and will cause traffic congestion. Additionally, the appellant believes that public input was circumvented by actions of the developer and states this as a basis for the appeal. The project design has undergone multiple revisions since application in response to staff concerns regarding mass and height relative to adjacent properties, apparent massing from the street, lack of openness and pedestrian orientation. The applicant has further modified the project design to address the Planning Commission conditions of approval. This report addresses the points of the appeal, considers the revised project plans and concludes that the proposed project is generally consistent with the Municipal Code and General Plan and building's size, massing, and placement on the site relate harmoniously to surrounding.sites and neighborhood. The project is subject to taxes and fees totaling approximately $326,125. Background On June 13, 2006, the applicant applied for a Tentative Tract Map to allow an airspace subdivision fora 19-unit condominium complex. Since the proposed project was in 1 excess of 22,500 square feet, a Development Review Permit was required and was applied for on August 31, 2006. Following staff review and analysis, the building design was revised to conform to Zoning Code requirements and to address design concerns raised by staff, including the following: • Pedestrian Orientation -Openness of courtyard improved; Obstructions were removed from the courtyard entry; landscaping and walkways within the front yard were redesigned to create visual interest at the courtyard entry; fountain was added to the courtyard to provide a focal point that can be seen from outside the property; height of the first floor floor line was lowered to increase pedestrian orientation; doors and windows were added to the front fapade; fencing within the front yard was modified to feature open railings. • Height & Mass Relative to Adjacent Structures - To further reduce the perceived mass of the building, the third floor balconies at the front entry were reconfigured and made as transparent as possible. The side setbacks on the third floor were increased so that the entire third floor is stepped back from the side to eliminate a three story condition at the minimum side yard setback adjacent to the existing one story commercial building on the south. • Massing -The perceived mass of the building was softened by stepping back more of the building volume on the upper levels than required, and by reducing the mass of proposed columns. A CEQA Class 32 Exemption determination was completed on June 6, 2007. The Planning Commission reviewed the project on June 20, 2007 and provided the applicant with direction to return at a later date to improve the project design and presentation materials. The Commission directed the applicant to address a range of issues to improve the project's overall contemporary architectural design and its compatibility with the immediate neighborhood. In response the applicant made the following changes to the project's architecture to address the Commission concerns: • The central portion of the third floor was relocated from the front to the rear of the building to open up the entry to the central courtyard and minimize the mass of the building. • Windows, doors and balcony railings were modified to enhance the contemporary architectural style. • The balcony/roof terraces of the third floor front units were reduced in size. • The south fagade was modified so that portion of the upper floors toward the rear of the building no longer cantilever over the driveway and are set back approximately 28 feet from the south side property line. 2 On October 17, 2007 the Planning Commission approved the Development Review Permit and Tentative Tract Map with conditions. The appellant, E. Antonio, filed an Appeal of the Commission's approval on October 29, 2007. Discussion Project Description The following table provides a brief summary of the project location. Additional information regarding the project's compliance with applicable municipal regulations and the General Plan is available in Attachment C. Project and Site Information Table Zoning District: Land Use Element Designation: Parcel Area (SF): Parcel Dimensions: Existing On-Site Improvements (Year Built): Rent Control Status: Adjacent Zoning Districts and Land Uses: R3 Medium Density Housing 22,500 square feet 100' x 150' One-story, 14,490 square foot convalescent building (1954) N/A BCD District/ 1 story commercial building; R3 District/ 2 and 3 story multi-family residences; single family residence. Issues Related to Protect Design Staff expressed concerns regarding the original building design that were related to the height and mass of the building, the apparent mass at the street front, and concerns about the pedestrian orientation of the project. The applicant reduced the overall size of the project and redesigned the building so that the third floor of the project was stepped back on all sides of the project, and made a number of changes to improve the 3 Site Location Map pedestrian orientation of the building. Areas of concern that have been addressed in subsequent designs are highlighted on the graphic below. Original Design Remove Building Mass above Courtyard Entry at Front of Building Reduce Buildin Reduce Building _ g Mass at Side Mass at Side Balcony Areas Reduced ~ Improve T?~nsit[on to Add Landscaping in Low Planters to Enhance Courtyard Entry The building under consideration reflects modifications made to the design in response to Planning Commission direction and which conforms to the Planning Commission The proposed project is a three-story, 35-foot high building with a central courtyard. The building contains twelve three bedroom units and seven 2 bedroom units, including fourteen townhouse style units, and five two bedroom flats on the third floor. The third floor units are accessed via an elevated walkway overlooking the central courtyard. In addition to exterior stairs at the rear of the building, a central elevator provides access 4 conditions of approval. between the subterranean garage and the first and third floors. Each ground floor unit has a patio to provide private open space; the third floor units have either a terrace or balcony. A central courtyard provides additional common open space for the building. Parking is provided in asingle-level, 42-space semi-subterranean parking garage. Access to the parking garage is provided via a 20-foot wide, two-way driveway from 14rn Court alley. Multiple stairways and an elevator provide pedestrian access from the garage. The amount of landscape area within the front and side yard areas complies with City requirements. Additional landscaping is provided in the rear yard and within the courtyard. The Architectural Review Board will review the building's design, materials, colors and landscaping prior to submitting plans for building permits. The current design reflects direction provided by the Planning Commission both in specific conditions of approval and issues to be considered by the Architectural Review Board. ~i~ ~ - ~„ a i.4. _~ ~ ~~ ~ 1 y,~~ ~. J ~' ~ r dl „ ~,,~~ „P _ n i~ Project Site Plan 5 Development Review Permit/Neiphborhood Compatibility In addition to the Tentative Tract Map for the airspace subdivision to create 19 condominium units, approval of a Development Review Permit is required as new construction has been proposed in excess of 22,500 square feet in floor area. Surrounding land uses include a mixture of two and three story multi-family residential units to the north and east, and one, two and three story multi-family buildings across 14th Street to the west of the project site in the R3 District, one story commercial buildings to the south adjacent to the project site, and a two story multifamily residential project across 14th Street in the Broadway Commercial District (BCD). Anew 3-story, 6- unit condominium project was recently approved to replace the single story structure across 14th street to the west. This portion of the R3 District consists of approximately six 50-foot wide parcels located between the C4 District along Santa Monica Boulevard and the BCD District along Broadway. Fourteenth Street is a north-south street providing two travel lanes with a continuous two-way left turn lane down the center and is designated as a collector street in the City's Circulation Element. Most of the existing structures along the east side of this portion of 14th Street are built with minimal front yard setbacks. Additionally, the majority of the structures on both sides of the street are built with setbacks non- conforming to current development standards. Sfreetscape with Proposed Projecf - 14"' Streef Befween Broadway and Santa Monica Boulevard The existing development within the immediate neighborhood varies greatly with regard to age, style, condition and massing. The proposed project is designed in a contemporary style that features smooth troweled stucco, steel bar railings and brushed aluminum window frames. The project site is 150 feet wide, and while this is larger than most of the sites in the immediate neighborhood, the proposed 35 foot high, three-story s building is designed with front and side setbacks and stepbacks that reduce the perceived mass of the project. The proposed project will be setback from the side property lines a minimum of 8 feet with portions of the building set back 28 feet. More than 60% of the front facade is setback approximately 30 feet from the front property line at the lower levels, and approximately 40 feet from the front property line at the third level. Consistency with General Plan The project is generally consistent with the Municipal Code and General Plan, in that the 19-unit project implements City urban design policies, and provides 19 additional residential units which is consistent with Land Use Element Objective 1.1, to provide adequate housing for City residents of all incomes, and Land Use Element Policy 1.10 to expand the opportunity for residential land use while protecting the scale and character of existing neighborhoods. Redevelopment of the site with 19 new units is also consistent with General Plan Housing .Element Goal 1.0, to promote the construction of new housing within the City's regulative framework. Commission Action/ Applicant Response At the October 17, 2007 Planning Commission meeting no public testimony was received. The Planning Commission voted 4-3 to approve the Development Review Permit and the Tentative Tract Map to allow the 27,550 square foot 19-unit condominium project, with conditions. In its deliberation, the Commission identified a number of design concerns that would need to be addressed prior to approval of the building design and landscaping by the Architectural Review Board. The following conditions of approval are to ensure that the building's size, massing, and placement on the site will relate harmoniously to surrounding sites and neighborhood: • The Architectural Review Board, in its review, shall also pay particular attention to the project's pedestrian orientation and amenities; scale and articulation of design elements; exterior colors, textures and material; window treatment; glazing; and landscaping. The Architectural Review Board shall consider the jumbled nature of the proposed design. Prior to submittal to the Architectural Review Board, the applicant shall prepare an additional rendering that clearly shows the courtyard entry in relation to the public right-of-way and demonstrates how the courtyard design enhances the project's pedestrian orientation. • The Architectural Review Board, in its review, shall also pay particular attention to the project's design in context with the contemporary architectural style, especially the building symmetry, including the building's floorplate and massing configuration, and the entry gate, skywalk, and curved skylights which appear inconsistent with the established vocabulary of the building design. • Prior to submittal to the Architectural Review Board, the applicant shall revise the landscape plan and courtyard site design to create a usable courtyard space that accommodates a seating area that incorporates seats facing each other. The height of the planters as measured from the adjacent courtyard paving should be limited to "seat wall" height in this courtyard area. • Prior to submittal to the Architectural Review Board, the applicant shall minimize the height of the planters at the courtyard entry as measured from the adjacent courtyard paving in order to increase the perceived width of the entry. • The Architectural Review Board, in its review, shall also pay particular attention to the garage stairways within the side yard. The north stairway should be removed, and the south stairway removed if possible and the side yard areas no longer needed for access should be landscaped. The building design before the Council reflects these conditions of approval. The building's staggered rectangular forms create a unique architectural design. Recessed balconies, canopies and trellis provide architectural detail to the facades, and recessed. windows create shadows to provide additional architectural interest and are consistent with the established vocabulary of the building's architecture. The improved landscaping and courtyard design further enhance the project architecture and increase the project's pedestrian orientation. Staff believes that the revised project is of appropriate size and mass and will relate harmoniously to the surrounding sites and neighborhood. Amore detailed discussion of the project can be found in the October 17, 2007 Planning Commission staff report. Appeal Summary As detailed in the appellant's statement (Attachment A) the appellant believes that the proposed building footprint is too big for the immediate neighborhood, and that the building is too high. Additionally, the appellant believes the project will cause traffic a congestion and bottle-neck alley access. The appellant also believes that public input was circumvented by actions of the developer and states this as a basis of the appeal. A~oeal Analysis Building Mass - As discussed earlier in this report, the proposed project features setbacks and stepbacks in excess of the minimum requirements and is under the maximum allowable height. The Planning Commission agreed with staff that the overall building massing is appropriate for the site. The appellant disagrees; she believes that the project footprint is too big and the building is too high. Traffic - As detailed in the Environmental Analysis section of this report, a determination was made following consideration of trip generation rates of the existing and proposed uses, that approval of the project would not result in any significant traffic impacts. (Attachment F) Additionally, the proposed subterranean parking garage will provide parking for 42 cars. The existing use, a convalescent facility, has a surface parking lot behind the building with spaces accessed directly from the alley. The proposed subterranean garage will have one point of ingress and egress and is not expected to contribute to traffic congestion in the alley. Public Process -The appellant believes that the project developer intimidated neighbors so that public comment on the project was stifled. At the first Planning Commission public hearing several members of the public testified and several pieces of correspondence were received; no public testimony was received at the second public hearing. Nonetheless, appellant's allegation of intimidation was reported to the City Attorney and to the Police Department. An investigation was conducted. There was insufficient evidence to warrant any further law enforcement activity. Existing Use - The existing convalescent facility on the site will be demolished as part of the project. The owners of the facility have decided to go out of business and have filed the required paperwork with the State regarding the closure of the facility and the 9 relocation of convalescing residents. All of the residents have been relocated; the facility has been closed since November, 2007. Environmental Analysis The project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Class 32, Section 15332 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Projects characterized as in-fill development consistent with the following conditions are exempt from environmental review: (a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations. (b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses. (c) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. (d) Approval of the project would .not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. (e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services As indicated in the Class 32 Exemption Environmental Assessment, 1433 14t" Street, Santa Monica dated June 6, 2007 (Attachment E), the project has been analyzed and found to be in conformance with the applicable conditions to qualify for an exemption pursuant to CEQA Section 15332, Class 32. Moreover, the project, including the property and any existing improvements have been reviewed, and for the purposes of CEQA, determined not to be a significant historic resource. Notwithstanding this CEQA determination, because the existing structure(s) proposed for demolition is/are over 40 years old, a permit to demolish the existing improvements will not be issued until the Landmarks Commission reviews the demolition permit application and all requirements of SMMC Section 9.04.10.16.010 (d) are met. The City's Landmarks Commission retains jurisdiction to review the demolition 10 permit application and to nominate the improvement as a City Landmark or Structure of Merit pursuant to the designation criteria and procedures contained in Chapter 9.36 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code. At the time this report was prepared, the applicant has not submitted an application for a demolition permit for this property. Public Outreach Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 9.04.20.14.030 and Part 9.04.20.22, notice of the public hearing for both Planning Commission hearings and for this City Council hearing was posted at the site and was mailed to all owners and residential and commercial tenants of property located within a 500 foot radius of the project and published in the Santa Monica Daily Press at least ten consecutive calendar days prior to the hearing. Financial Impacts & Budget Actions 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 $22,800 In addition, the project is required to comply with the City's Affordable Housing Production Program as specified in Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 9.56. This requirement may be satisfied by providing affordable housing on or off-site, or by payment of an in-lieu fee. The applicant has opted to pay the fee; the fee is estimated to be $303,325. The project is exempt from the Housing and Parks Project Mitigation fee established by Ordinance No. 1367 (CCS), based on the fact that the project will not result in the new construction of 15,000 net rentable square feet or the addition to an existing project of 10,000 net rentable square feet or more of office area. 11 Prepared by: Laura Beck, Associate Planner Approved: Forwarded to Council: Development Attachments: A. Appeal Form B. Draft City Council Statement of Official Action C. General Plan and Municipal Code Compliance Worksheet D. Public Notification and Comment Material E. Class 32 Exemption Environmental Assessment (6/6/07) F. Project Plans, Renderings, Photographs and Photomontage & Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 66611 12 Additional attachments available in City Clerk's Office.