M I N U T E S
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
OF
THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
|
WEDNESDAY, March 24, 2004 |
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS |
|
6:00 P.M. |
ROOM 213, CITY HALL |
1. CALL
TO ORDER: The
special meeting was called to order at 6:12 p.m.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Brown led the Pledge of Allegiance.
3. ROLL
CALL: Present: Barbara
Brown
Darrell
Clarke, Chairperson
Julie
Lopez Dad
Arlene
Hopkins
Jay
P. Johnson
Gwynne
Pugh
Absent: Terry O’Day
Also
Present: Elizabeth Bar-El, AICP,
Associate Planner
Kyle
Ferstead, Commission Secretary
Paul
Foley, Senior Planner
Jonathan
Lait, AICP, Senior Planner
Kevin
McKeown, City Council Liaison
Stephanie
Reich, Urban Designer
Barry
Rosenbaum, Senior Land Use Attorney
Amanda
Schachter, Acting Planning Manager
4. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S
REPORT:
In the absence of the Director,
Acting Planning Manager Amanda Schachter gave the Director’s Report. She
announced that the Commission is scheduled to meet on the following dates:
April 14, April 21, May 5 and May 19, 2004.
City Council Liaison McKeown
welcomed Ms. Schachter and wished her well on her first occasion of sitting in
for the Director of Planning.
5. PUBLIC
HEARING:
This
item was continued from March 17, 2004.
Text Amendment
04-002: Downtown Development and Design Standards.
Amend the Santa Monica Municipal Code to modify development standards,
off-street parking standards, project design standards and the project review
and approval process for projects in the Downtown area of the City including properties in the
BSCD Bayside Commercial District, C3 Downtown Commercial District, and C3C
Downtown Overlay District.
Implementation of the proposed modifications to the development
standards, project design standards and off-street parking standards requires
modifications to the Municipal Code in the following areas: Part 9.04.08.15
BSCD Bayside Commercial District, Part 9.04.08.18 C3 Downtown Commercial
District, Part 9.04.08.20 C3C Downtown Overlay District, Subchapter 9.04.10
Project design and development standards, Part 9.04.10.08 Off-street parking
requirements, Part 9.04.20.28 Administrative Approvals, and Chapter 9.32
Architectural Review. [Planner: Paul Foley]
APPLICANT: City
of Santa Monica.
The City’s consultant, Boris Dramov of ROMA Design Group, made a brief presentation to the Commission on the proposed Downtown Development and Design Standards.
Commissioner Dad commented that the
discussion so far has focused on the streets east of downtown. She asked Mr.
Dramov to comment on Second Street. Mr. Dramov stated that when the courtyard
prototype was considered, it was in terms of the recommendation to increase
mixed-use projects in the downtown area.
Commissioner Dad asked about the height limit for Second Street. Mr. Dramov stated that the height limit is 56-feet in the BSCD Bayside Commercial District (BSC), however the height limit for Second Street is 45-feet, and this does not change under the current proposal.
Commissioner Johnson commented on
proposed street widths and canyonization east of downtown. Mr. Dramov responded
that Seventh Street is currently permitted 60-foot height and the proposal is
to increase to 65-feet in order to provide more first floor height for retail
uses. He commented that the feeling of canyonization has to do with the
relationship between the buildings and the street as well as street and
sidewalk widths. He also commented that, on the issue of continuity, more
breaks in building frontages, such as with courtyard style buildings, is more
effective than providing wider sideyards between buildings. Mr. Dramov stated
that an eighty-foot right of way does not change the nature of streets with
varying building heights. He noted that the question is how effective these
changes can be for the public environment. He stated that recommendations to
widen sidewalks, encourage traffic calming and the addition of bicycle lanes
are part of the proposal for Council to evaluate.
Commissioner Johnson asked who pays
for street changes, then commented that the City of Los Angeles requires
developers to replace sidewalks. Mr. Dramov stated that a recommendation would
be to create a business improvement district to pay for street upgrades, which
are generally done all at once.
Commissioner Brown expressed concern
regarding the language proposed for Section 9.04.08.15.170(h) on page sixteen
of Attachment C, which requires no repetition of design in a block. She asked
how this can be reconciled. Mr. Dramov stated that many buildings have
courtyards, but are not connected to the public environment. He explained that
courtyards are a type of building with more common open space and that the
prototype allows for a variety of design. He also stated that the courtyard
prototype creates more public interest beyond the building’s front façade as
well as adding more solar and air access to the units.
Commissioner Pugh questioned what
would constitute a different design and not require a discretionary decision.
Mr. Dramov stated that there are already constraints in the downtown area,
since it is already platted, however the proposal makes the development
standards more prescriptive. Ms. Schachter stated that Ms. Reich will be
integral to the process. Ms. Reich stated that the building models present in
the Chambers are an example of what has been approved by the Architectural
Review Board (ARB). She stated that she has worked with the applicant/developer
to change the design, including changes to proposed building materials,
articulation and other areas.
Commissioner Dad expressed concern
with the ARB being removed from the approval process for the new buildings in
the downtown area. This would eliminate public involvement.
Commissioner Hopkins asked staff why
it was deemed that this courtyard prototype is an appropriate model for Santa
Monica, which is a small city. She asked Mr. Dramov to share his empirical
basis for this design model. Mr. Dramov stated that the courtyard prototype was
not based on buildings in European capital cities, the photographs were meant
as examples. He stated that he was hired to enhance the criteria for downtown
design standards as there are currently no standards for open space, solar
access, or for providing for a sense of community in new developments. He further
stated that the courtyard building design type is historic in Santa Monica and
Los Angeles and solves issues of basic concerns raised by the Commission. He
commented that it is common to build little boxes on little streets and he
sought to get away from this commonality. He concluded by saying that Santa
Monica is known to be innovative.
Commissioner Johnson commented on
the models and his general appreciation for the courtyard design. He asked
about buildings with courtyards in the middle of the structure. Mr. Dramov
explained that his recommendation is for courtyards that connect with the
street and public environment. He commented that the proposal requires 20% of
the street frontage be devoted to the opening of the courtyard.
Chair Clarke commented that the
courtyard model presents a wall that is 50-feet straight up from the street
level. Mr. Dramov explained how the stepbacks could be presented.
Chair Clarke asked Mr. Dramov about
his assertion that the proposed courtyard prototype will provide 20% - 30% more
solar access. Mr. Dramov stated that the proposal provides more solar access
than most current building designs, especially for interior units.
Commissioner Pugh asked if the
25-foot by 55-foot courtyard can be placed all at the front of the building or
be totally interior. Mr. Dramov stated that there is a provision that the
courtyard may not be all at the front of the building, however a 20-foot
connection to the street is required.
Chair Clarke stated that there are
four new members of the public who have submitted request to speak forms and
one request from a person who spoke at the prior hearing. Senior Land Use
Attorney Rosenbaum stated that since new information has been presented, it is
customary to allow all persons who submitted request to speak forms to address
the Commission. He stated that all speakers should address the new information.
Chair Clarke reopened the public
hearing. The following members of the public addressed the Commission: Craig D.
Jones, Joan Charles, Don Empakeris, Allen Freeman and Ellen Brennan.
Chair Clarke stated that he would
like to give a PowerPoint presentation showing examples of courtyard style
buildings in other cities prior to the report from the subcommittee. [As there
were some technical difficulties, discussion continued.]
Commissioner Hopkins stated that she
has additional questions and concerns. She commented that it had been expected
that new buildings on the Third Street Promenade would be taller, but that did
not happen, and that there is a good pedestrian experience and quality of life
for those residing adjacent to the Third Street Promenade. She asked Mr. Dramov
to comment on how livability, sustainability and a sense of community will be
achieved through his proposal, citing specific criteria and objectives. Mr.
Dramov explained that the essential characteristics for the Third Street Mall
were to create a gathering place and increase density through retail space. He
stated that a great downtown has evolved, but it can get better. He admitted
that not every street can be the Third Street Promenade, but the idea is to
concentrate activity in the downtown area and one way to do this is through the
updating of the development standards.
Commissioner Pugh gave a minor
editorial saying that typology will not necessarily create what is desired. He
stated that he wants reassurance that developers can still go to the ARB and
Commission with projects. Ms. Reich stated that developers can chose to have
ARB review as an option should they decide to “meet the intention” of the
standards and prototypes setforth in the Text Amendment. Ms. Schachter stated
that proposal that exceed the thresholds must seek Planning Commission and ARB
approvals.
Commissioner Pugh asked if he
understood correctly that only the courtyard design will receive an
Administrative Approval and bypass the ARB. Ms. Schachter answered in the
affirmative. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum stated that if a project goes
only to the ARB for approval, then the ARB will be make the appropriate
findings for approval.
Commissioner Johnson asked if ARB
decisions will still be appealable to the Commission. Senior Land Use Attorney
Rosenbaum answered in the affirmative.
Ms. Reich commented that the
courtyard prototype will enhance the urban design and architecture in the
downtown area. She stated that initially she was not convinced of this, but
upon further study she has found this to be an appropriate model and that it
does include flexibility. Additionally, Ms. Reich stated that all building
designs begin with a mandatory meeting with the City’s design team.
Mr. Dramov commented that it used to
be that retail and residential projects were kept separate, however mixed-use
buildings have been built more and more in the Downtown area. He stated that
“typology” is a type, and the proposal for the courtyard style building
responds to a broader public concern.
Commissioner Brown commented that in
thinking about these issues she got a copy of the Request for Proposal (RFP)
for the project and a copy of ROMA’s proposal, then looked at the City Council
staff reports and minutes. She stated that her concern is with the process,
especially as regards discretion during the review process. Ms. Schachter
responded that study and analysis has changed the options. She explained that
the consultant team looked into more specifics than the prototype presented in
order to provide an avenue to process applications expeditiously (through
Administrative Approvals). She stated that the proposal presented marries two
processes thus reducing the workload for staff as well as the Commission and
ARB. Ms. Schachter concluded by saying that staff wants to be able to forward
the Commission’s comments to the City Council for consideration.
Chair Clarke gave his PowerPoint
presentation which included photographs of mixed-use residential buildings in
San Diego, San Francisco, Portland, Oregon, Paris, France and Rome, Italy.
City Council Liaison McKeown
commented on the City Council initial proposal under the Interim Ordinance. He
thanked Chair Clarke for the great visual tour. He stated that the problems
identified by the City Council included floor area ratio (FAR), housing bonuses
and Development Review Thresholds. On the threshold issue, attention was
directed at developments on 50-foot wide lots that were developed to the
maximum FAR and avoided Commission review by being approved administratively.
City Council Liaison McKeown expressed excitement that Mr. Dramov expects
100-foot wide developments and that the City has hired an Urban Designer to
allow more careful in-house review of projects. He also stated he is excited by
the proposed process changes, although he does not want to see the elimination
of public hearings. He suggested that the parking issue may need to be set
aside at this time. He concluded by saying that he hopes to hear more about
affordable housing.
Chair Clarke thanked City Council
Liaison McKeown for his comments. He expressed the opinion that the City is in
an FAR straight-jacket. He stated that adding height to a building to gain open
space and density housing bonus is a problem for him and he feels this should
be scaled back. City Council Liaison McKeown commented that the intention is to
create more livable residential units Downtown, which is a good place to add it
in this City.
Ms. Schachter interrupted the
Commission’s discussion to say that the consultant needs to leave soon to catch
his flight home and asked if there are more questions he might be able to
answer.
Following some discussion regarding
public input, Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. Dramov about the proposed height
limit changes. Mr. Dramov stated that the issue is to achieve density that is
currently being achieved while giving ground floor retail spaces additional
interior height. He also commented on the presentation by Chair Clarke and
stated that many of the buildings would not meet the proposed standards. He
also stated that continuous blank walls on alleys will not be permitted under
the new standards.
Chair Clarke thanked Mr. Dramov for
his presence at this meeting.
Commissioner Pugh asked Mr. Dramov about heights for various building types. Mr. Dramov stated that for structures 65-feet or more, steel frame construction is required, which is more costly than wood frame construction. He expressed the opinion that Santa Monica is up to the challenge of the proposed standards and that the proposal does “push the envelope.” Commissioner Pugh commented that from a practical standpoint, the proposal may still result in 50-foot tall buildings with less density. Mr. Dramov stated that this could be the case, however it depends on how the proposals are accepted. On the issue of equity, affordable housing should be as good, or better than, market rate housing, and it should livable. He expressed the opinion that there will be lots of innovation in design with the great architects working in Santa Monica.
Commissioner Hopkins stated that she wants quantitative analysis on how this proposal is to be achieved. Mr. Dramov recommended looking at the current number of units with solar access today versus the prototypes. He stated that the proposal is more equitable. Chair Clarke commented that if the buildings are 25% shorter, then there will be even more light and air for residents.
Commissioner Hopkins gave the subcommittee report. She stated that the subcommittee consisted of Commissioners Johnson, Pugh and herself, as well as various Planning staff members, and they met at 4:00 p.m. on Monday, March 22, 2004, in City Hall. She stated that Mr. Dramov made a one and one-half hour presentation, then the meeting continued after ARB staff left. She stated that she has two pages of information for consideration, which she then projected on the Chambers screen using the overhead projector. She outlined proposed building incentives: such as for meeting or exceeding Sustainable Green Building Standards, including a 25% increase in FAR; and an additional 25% FAR increase for providing affordable housing units. She also stated that the incentives can be combined. Additionally, Commissioner Hopkins outlined livability standards, including noise mitigations. The subcommittee also devised a way to “front-end the public comment.” The process included extensive public contact between the developer and project neighbor prior to application submission to the City. The process also included a right for the public to appeal the project to either the ARB or Commission.
Commissioner Johnson stated that the subcommittee’s “front-end process” proposal is a “win-win” solution. Commissioner Pugh added that the 500-foot radius mailings required by the “front-end process” would include copies to the ARB and Commission so they too could appeal.
[The Commission took a break from 8:54 p.m. to 9:11 p.m.]
Chair Clarke discussed with the Commission reopening the public hearing to allow the public to comment on the new information presented. It was determined that the public should be allowed two minutes each to speak.
The following members of the public
addressed the Commission a second time: Craig D. Jones, Don Empakeris, Allen
Freeman and Ellen Brennan.
Chair Clarke closed the public
hearing.
Commissioner Johnson suggested that
the Commission begin by discussing process. Chair Clarke stated that
fundamentally a courtyard with 65-foot sheerwalls are not amenable. He stated
he is comfortable with 50-feet and setbacks. He recommended that the City
Council revisit the development standards. Chair Clarke also stated that he is
adamantly opposed to the loss of ARB oversight, especially in an effort to
streamline the process. He recommended that the City Council extend the Interim
Ordinance while a community vision process can occur.
Commissioner Brown suggested that
the Commission focus. She stated she is hearing that everyone wants to keep
discretionary review of projects. She suggested the Commission recommend that
the City Council not adopt that aspect of the Text Amendment. She also
suggested a recommendation that the City Council consider ways to make the
process more efficient, as well as extend the Interim Ordinance. Commissioner
Brown stated that the Commission can not “pick-at” guidelines this evening, but
should make a recommendation either for or against the Text Amendment.
Commissioner Dad expressed agreement
with Commissioner Brown, especially as regards the process. She stated that she
wants to retain ARB oversight and she is not comfortable with the uniform
height increase. She suggested recommending that residential be permitted on
the first floor, if it is affordable housing, and all types of housing in the
rest of the building. Commissioner Pugh recommended the affordable housing
units use the formula of dividing the number of floors by the number of units
so that height is linked to the number of units provided.
Chair Clarke commented that
affordable housing is already required, so adding a story is not a good idea.
He suggested keeping the height and adding more light. He also stated that the
“in-lieu” fees are very low and need amending. Senior Land Use Attorney
Rosenbaum cautioned the Commission that this last issue is not on the agenda.
Commissioner Johnson asked staff to
comment on extending the Interim Ordinance. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum
stated that it is in the purview of the City Council to extend an Interim
Ordinance.
Commissioner Hopkins commented on
enhancing and shortening the public process as well as holding developers
accountable to the public.
Commissioner Pugh commented on the
public process, which has merits as discussed.
He stated that he likes the idea of the developer receiving input from
the community and it is a way to reward developers for going through the
process.
Commissioner Johnson stated that he
is comfortable with the 65-foot height limit, if the FARs are “tweaked.” Chair
Clarke stated he wants to keep the 50-foot height limit. Commissioner Johnson
responded that 65-feet is permitted for Downtown. He added that he endorses the
courtyard prototype, but still has issues with the parking proposal. He
commented on the “front-end process” devised by the subcommittee and suggested
expanding to a 21-day notice instead of 14-day notice.
Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum
stated that the proposal by the subcommittee was unknown until this evening and
some issues will need further review, especially the leverage given to property
owners and tenants.
Commissioner Dad pointed out that
developers will not build to the height limit, for a variety of reasons, and
there will be other standards in place to encourage building. She stated that
she likes the various height limits, FARs and wants to retain the bicycle lanes
and wide sidewalks. She commented that this should not be “piecemeal” and
everyone should remember that the area is primarily for commercial uses. She
also stated that the proposal is not her goal for the City.
Commissioner Pugh commented that he
generally agrees with the comments made by Commissioner Johnson. He stated that
the proposed 65-foot height limit is fine, noting that the current limits range
from 50 to 80-feet. He stated that he is less concerned with height because the
variety already exists. He also stated that he does not want the FARs to
change, although a requirement for affordable housing instead of an in-lieu fee
might be appropriate. Commissioner Pugh commented that if the proposal does not
work, developers will not develop. He expressed the opinion that the courtyard
dimensions should be 25-feet by 50-feet for lots less than 75-feet in width and
the entry should not be clear to the sky. Lastly, he stated that bicycle lanes
are an issue unto themselves, but should be kept.
Commissioner Brown asked staff if
three motions were in order: to extend the Interim Ordinance; one on process
and one on the design standards and guidelines. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum
stated that the Interim Ordinance is adopted by the City Council and the
Commission cannot recommend an extension. Commissioner Brown asked if the
Commission can suggest the City Council take item to review this issue. Senior
Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum stated that the Text Amendment should be addressed
first. City Council Liaison McKeown commented that Senior Land Use Attorney
Rosenbaum is wrestling with the wording on the agenda, then stated that if the
Commission needs more time, then they need to recommend how this is to be
accomplished.
Commissioner Brown concluded that a
motion either for or against the ROMA and staff recommendation was needed.
Chair Clarke commented that he would like to reject the ROMA proposal.
Commissioner Brown stated that she supports the proposal, but it needs
amendments. Commissioner Johnson commented that he would adopt staff’s
recommendations with some changes.
Commissioner Hopkins commented that
the key issue is whether the proposal will achieve the objectives. She stated
that she has concerns and that if this goes forward it needs to be done right,
thoroughly and conscientiously.
Chair Clarke expressed the opinion
that this is an “opportunity squandered” and the proposal does not “feel
right.” He stated his recommendations would be to do the public process with
revised heights and FARs. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum stated that the
task before the Commission is a recommendation on the Text Amendment,
specifically to recommend, all or in part, adoption of the Text Amendment, or
if the recommendation cannot be made, the Council would review this issue
through the appeal process.
The Commission discussed with staff
ramifications of continuing this item again. Staff counseled that only the City
Council can extend the Interim Ordinance and adopt the Text Amendment. Staff
also gave the set timetable for this item reaching the City Council agenda.
Chair Clarke began a series of polls
for various issues related to the Text Amendment.
· On the courtyard design, per the Text
Amendment: 6-0 in favor;
· On raising the maximum height to
65-feet: 3-3;
· On removal of ARB oversight: 6-0
against
Commissioner Pugh commented on the
courtyard prototype and proportions for the actual courtyard in various width
lots. He also commented that the building entry to the courtyard should not be
required to be open to the sky.
Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum
reminded the Commission that they need to either recommend or not recommend the
Text Amendment to the City Council and that they need to make their
recommendation clear.
Commissioner Johnson asked about the
issue of removal of ground floor parking. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum
stated that this issue is not part of the Text Amendment.
Chair Clarke commented on
Commissioner Hopkins design standards comments that recommended reducing the
FAR and/or incentivizing FAR. City Council Liaison McKeown stated that this
issue is not part of the Text Amendment. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum
stated that the Text Amendment issue is the modification of building heights
and setbacks, process and the courtyard prototype.
Chair Clarke asked Commissioner
Hopkins about an incentive for a stepback at 50-feet. Commissioner Hopkins
stated that they should be encouraged like the ones along the Third Street
Promenade.
Commissioner Dad stated that she
agrees with the current standards. Commissioner Pugh disagreed. The vote to
retain the existing stepbacks was 4-2.
Chair Clarke raised the issue of a
required five-foot setback, then permitting the building to rise straight up
without stepbacks. As discussion began on this, Ms. Schachter encouraged the
Commission to focus on the broader policy issues rather than on how the
language of the Text Amendment is written.
Commissioner Hopkins commented on
the BSCD recommendation (Attachment B, page two, subsection (d) which states
that a Development Review permit is required for new construction of more than
30,000 square feet. She recommended that the threshold be reduced to 15,000
square feet and permit a 7,500 square foot FAR bonus if the project complies
with Green Building Guidelines and/or has an affordable housing component. This
recommendation was discussed and approved 6-0 in favor of this recommendation.
Commissioner Hopkins commented on
item 14 (page four of Attachment B), which deals with Green Building Standards.
She recommended that this item be removed and replaced with the subcommittee
report. Commissioner Johnson expressed the opinion that the noticing should be
increased from 14-day to a 21-day notice and should include the City’s “Big
List” mailing list.
Commissioner Brown suggested that
rather than adopting the subcommittee’s recommendation, the recommendation
should be that the City Council review and consider the recommendation. This
issue was agreed upon with a 6-0 vote.
Commissioner Johnson commented on
including an affordable housing component that is not specified in the Text
Amendment, which would permit an additional floor should the component be
included. He felt this should not be permitted if the City Council accepts the
65-foot height limit. Commissioner Pugh suggested an alternative method for
calculating an affordable housing percentage using number of total units and
number of floors for a project.
Chair Clarke made a motion to
recommend adoption of the Text Amendment with modifications cited above to the
City Council.
Commissioner Brown stated that there
are three sections in the proposed Text Amendment which cite removal of ARB
review of projects and these should be removed from the Text Amendment. The Commission was in agreement to this
removal.
Commissioner Johnson seconded the
motion.
The motion was approved by the
following vote:
AYES: Brown, Clarke, Dad, Hopkins,
Johnson, Pugh; ABSENT: O’Day.
Following the vote on Item 7-A, the
Commission asked staff if they could reconsider the motion on the Text
Amendment. Staff determined that the
Commission could vote to reconsider their motion.
Commission Brown made a motion to
reconsider the Text Amendment vote. Commissioner Hopkins seconded the motion,
which was approved by voice vote.
Commissioner Brown asked that the
motion include consideration of remarks made from the prior public hearing by
Landmarks Commissioner Nina Fresco and issues raised by the Santa Monica Conservancy
representative. Commissioner Johnson seconded the amended motion.
The motion was approved by the
following vote:
AYES: Brown, Clarke, Dad, Hopkins,
Johnson, Pugh; ABSENT: O’Day.
6.
APPROVAL
OF MINUTES: Consent
Calendar
6-A. Commissioner Hopkins made a motion to approve the minutes for February 18, 2004, as submitted. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion, which was approved by voice vote.
7. STATEMENTS OF OFFICIAL
ACTION: Consent
Calendar
7-A. Appeal 03-019 of
Architectural Review Board 03-381, 1751 Appian Way.
Chair Clarke made a motion to approve the Statement of Official Action for 1751 Appian Way. Commissioner Hopkins seconded the motion, which was approved by voice vote.
8. PUBLIC
HEARINGS:
8-A. Conditional Use Permit 03-014, 3020-3028
Santa Monica Boulevard. Conditional Use Permit to allow a
new automobile sales facility at a site where the prior sales facility has been
closed for more than one year. The
proposal includes remodeling the existing 10,260 square-foot structure by
demolishing 391 square feet and renovating the remaining 9,869 square feet for
a Land Rover and Jaguar auto showroom and office facility. A second structure
on the property will also be demolished.
The site plan includes 29 surface parking spaces, exterior auto display,
landscaping and an 8-foot wall along the rear property line (alley). [Planner:
Elizabeth Bar-El, AICP] APPLICANT:
Pendragon North America.
PROPERTY OWNER: 7R Properties.
The Commission had no ex parte
communication disclosures to make.
Associate Planner Elizabeth Bar-El
gave the staff report.
Commissioner Hopkins asked staff
about the alley entrance to the site, which is off a very narrow alley. Ms.
Bar-El stated that the gate on the plans is for emergency access only.
Commissioner Hopkins asked if this would include Fire Department access. Ms.
Bar-El answered in the affirmative.
Chair Clarke commented that the
prior automobile dealer for this site was denied the use of the rear gate on
appeal to the City Council.
Commissioner Dad commented on
e-mails received by the Commission regarding exterior lighting and car alarm
issues. Ms. Bar-El stated there is a standard condition included in the staff
report that requires businesses to comply with City lighting standards. She
further stated that the condition requires that neighbors be shielded from
exterior lighting on adjacent properties.
Commissioner Dad asked staff for the
height of the light pole. Ms. Bar-El stated that this question should be
directed to the applicant.
Chair Clarke asked staff how this
Hornburg Jaguar dealership site is related to the 3300 Olympic Boulevard
Hornburg Jaguar dealership. . Ms. Bar-El stated that this question should be
directed to the applicant.
The applicant’s representative,
Christopher Harding of the Law Firm of Harding, Larmore, Kutcher and Kozal, was
present to discuss the project application. Also present were the project
architect, Sami El Bayar and a representative from Pendragon North America,
Russell Smith.
The following members of the public
addressed the Commission: Ana Ortiz and Ed Simonian. A third speaker, Allen
Welch, was not present when his name was called.
Mr. Harding spoke in response to the
public comment.
Commissioner Dad asked Mr. Harding
about the height of the exterior light pole. Mr. Harding stated that he does
not know the height, however the light is on a timer and will be shut off
approximately one hour after the closing of the facility.
Commissioner Dad expressed concern
that neighbors may be kept awake by the exterior lighting. Mr. Harding stated
that some lighting on the property is for security reasons and he will agree to
a condition that the lighting be shut off two hours after closing. Chair Clarke commented there appears to
landscaping lighting on the alley, possibly as a deterrent for the homeless.
Commissioner Hopkins suggested that
a lighting study and plan be done with some creativity such as variations of
lighting colors. Mr. Harding stated that this suggestion makes sense and he was
agreeable to a condition that such a plan should be submitted to staff. He
further stated that the condition should include the following: ensure that
exterior lighting is turned-off two hours after closing; that a full lighting
plan be submitted to staff; and that the alley lighting and landscaping be
reviewed.
Commissioner Hopkins asked if the
fourteen-foot high wall will be sound-rated. Ms. Schachter stated that this
property is in a commercial district, therefore the height of the wall is not
at issue. Commissioner Hopkins suggested that the wall be landscaped, perhaps
with a climbing fig. Mr. Harding stated that the fourteen-foot wall is
acceptable to his client.
Commissioner Hopkins asked Mr.
Harding about the proposal for an “all terrain test tract” for Land Rovers and
the narrow alley gateway. Mr. Harding stated that the gate can be removed if it
is not required for life-safety reasons.
Chair Clarke closed the public
hearing.
Commissioner Hopkins asked staff if
the alley gate is required. Ms. Schachter stated that this will be evaluated
during the plan check process.
Commissioner Hopkins made a motion
for approval per staff recommendations and conditions and with the following
additional conditions: that the gate be removed if staff finds there is no
life-safety reason for it; and that the rear wall be moved five feet from the
property line and the alley setback be fully landscaped with a creeping fig;
and that a licensed lighting designer submit a plan to staff the reduces light
spill into the alley and reduces exterior lighting on-site after closure of the
business.
Commissioner Pugh commented that he
is not aware of any licensing procedure for lighting designers.
Commissioner Dad asked for a
condition that states exterior lighting will be turned-off two hours after the
business closes, except for security lighting.
Urban Designer Stephanie Reich
commented that if the rear wall is moved, the applicant may loose up to two
required parking spaces. Commissioner Hopkins expressed the opinion that the
parking can be reconfigured to comply with parking requirements.
Commissioner Pugh seconded the
motion with conditions.
The motion was approved by the
following vote:
AYES: Brown, Clarke, Dad, Hopkins,
Johnson, Pugh; ABSENT: O’Day.
8-B. Design Compatibility Permit 03-012,
Tentative Tract Map 03TM-021 (TTM54355), 2018 Nineteenth Street. Proposed is a two-story, 23 foot-tall, five-unit
condominium building with 11 semi-subterranean or at-grade parking spaces
accessed from the 19th Court alley. The project will be deed-restricted for 100%
occupancy by low and moderate-income families.
The project includes four three bedroom, townhouse-style units and one
two-bedroom unit. The project also provides a tot lot and
a community room with a small, adjacent patio for use by all residents.). [Planner: Elizabeth Bar-El, AICP]
APPLICANT: Archwest Developments. PROPERTY OWNER: Habitat
for Humanity, Los Angeles.
The Commission had no ex parte
communication disclosures to make.
Associate Planner Elizabeth Bar-El gave the staff report.
The applicant’s representative,
Steve Zubkoff, and the project architect, Bill Crawford, were present to
discuss the project.
Commissioner Pugh asked the
applicant about access to the private open spaces in the project. Mr. Crawford
explained about the decks for each unit as well as the parking spaces being
tied to each unit.
Chair Clarke asked for the size of
the lot. Mr. Crawford stated that the lot is 50-feet by 160-feet.
Commissioner Dad commented on
pedestrian orientation and neighborhood compatibility for condominium projects,
then asked Mr. Crawford how he achieved this on his first try. Mr. Crawford
stated that he wanted a simple design with “home feel” units.
One member of the public, Jesse
Cuevas, was present to negatively comment on the project. Two other members of
the public had submitted to request to speak forms, Judith Younger and Roy
Halliburton, but were not present when their names were called.
Commissioner Johnson commented that
he uncomfortable with the open driveway and courtyard design. Urban Designer
Stephanie Reich responded that the design has had a positive response and it is
a simple design with sophisticated materials.
The applicant responded to the
public comment.
Chair Clarke asked if not having a
deck over the subterranean parking was designed to save money. Mr. Zubkoff
responded in the negative. Mr. Crawford commented on the overall fenestration
of the building and how the design breaks up the units.
Commissioner Johnson asked if the
architect has designed other projects like this one. Mr. Crawford stated that
this is a new concept for open space.
Commissioner Hopkins expressed
concern that there may be a sound echo effect with the current design. Mr.
Crawford stated he was unsure if this would be a problem, however the parking is
below grade and he can add landscaping to the retaining walls to reduce noise.
Commissioner Pugh expressed concern
regarding access to Unit C being only from the subterranean garage. Mr.
Crawford stated that he was trying for a “single family feel” with access
through the garage or via the motorcourt. Commissioner Pugh stated that his
concern is that only Unit C has this access and the other units have access
from the sideyard. Mr. Crawford stated that the unit access has a stairway, not
just a ramp. Commissioner Pugh suggested adding a stair from the “tot lot” to
Unit C. Mr. Crawford agreed this could be done. Commissioner Pugh stated that
this will make the unit more consistent with the other units. He also stated
that the decks are too small, at only four feet wide, to be of much use as open
space.
Chair Clarke closed the public
hearing.
Chair Clarke asked staff if there is
preferential parking on this street. Ms. Schachter answered in the affirmative.
Commissioner Pugh made a motion for
approval of the project with the following conditions: that the decks be
enlarged to a minimum six-foot depth; that Unit C (the middle unit) have direct
access from the sideyard via stairs; and the ARB review the project.
Commissioner Dad seconded the
motion.
The motion was approved by the
following vote:
AYES: Brown, Clarke, Dad, Hopkins,
Johnson, Pugh; ABSENT: O’Day.
9. DISCUSSION:
Note: These items may have been continued
from March 17, 2004
Public Input Permitted
9-A. Discussion of “in-lieu” development fee, and the relationship between the amount of fee versus market price versus cost of replacement, the City’s Affordable Housing Production Program, and attendant issues related to on-site inclusionary housing. Requested by Commissioner Johnson on January 21, 2004. [Continued from February 18, 2004.]
Action: Continued to April 14, 2004.
9-B. Discussion
and possible direction to staff regarding the creation of a master plan of the
existing LMSD district, to include traffic pattern/planning, pedestrian
enhancement issues, housing creation, preservation of light manufacturing and
the creation, incubation and preservation of artist live / work space, small
local businesses and related quality of life and sustainable community issues.
Requested via e-mail on March 4, 2004 by Chair Clarke, Commissioners Johnson,
Hopkins and Pugh.
Action:
Continued to April 14, 2004.
10. FUTURE
COMMISSION AGENDA ITEMS: None.
11. PUBLIC INPUT: None.
12. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 12:13 a.m. on Thursday, March 25, 2004.
APPROVED: APRIL 21, 2004