The URL can be used to link to this page

SR-8A (35) PCD SF JT SHK LB f lplanlsharelcounc~llstrp~lr1 nomalcounc~l doc A~~ '~ Q~ Counc~l Mtg August ~ 0, ~ 999 SaRta Mon~ca, Calaforr~~a TO Mayor and City Council ~ROM City Staff SUBJECT Introduction and Adoption of an Emergency Ordinance to Amer~d Santa Monica Municipal Code Sections 9 ~4 08 02 020, 9 44 08 02 040, 9 04 0$ 02 070, and 9 0~ 08 02 a80 and to Add Section 9 04 OS 02 075, and Section 9 a4 13 050, Reiating to the Development Standards for Parcels m fhe R-1 District Area Bounded by Montana Avenue, the Northern C~ty ~imits, Twenty-Sixth Street, and Ocean Avenue; D~scussion of Potential Modi#ications to the Use Permi# Review Process and ~ar~r~scape Standards, Declar~r~g the Preser~ce of an Emerger~cy INTRODUCTION This report recommends tfi~at the City Council introduce far first reading an emergency ordinance amending Section 9 04 08 02 020, Section 9 04 08 02 040, Section 9 04 08 02 070, Sectian 9 04 OS 02 080 and adding Secfions 9 Q4 08 02 075 and 9 04 13 050 ta Artrc~e iX of the Santa Mon~ca Mun~c~pal Code ta madify the deve~opment standards 'For the R~ d~str~ct locat~d north of Montar~a Avenue Or~ June 16, 1999 the Planning Commass~on uofed 5-0 ta recommend approval of thes~ modifications The proposed ard~nance is contained in Att~chment A BACKGROUND On July 28, 1998, a group of residents from the North of Montana Neighborhood Association {NOMA} spoke before the City Caunal regarding a surge of demoiit~on of existing okder houses and construction af new, `~o~ers~zed" houses in thekr ~ neighborhood In response ta the group's concerns, Counc~l directed staff to consider amendments to the R1 d~strict standards in the North of Montana res~dential ~ .J AUG 14 r better inta the neighborhood The recommended madifications are designed to reduce build~ng mass while strll allow~ng fvr desrgn expresscon and flex~b~lrty Some of the modifications to the proposed standards were provisians in Interim Ordmance 1925 (CCS) A chart comparing the proposed standards with the existing standards and ~nterim standards is attached (Attachment B) Excessive Bu~lding Mass One ot the pr~mary concerns ident~fied dur~ng the p~blic process was excess~ve bur~ding mass Given #he range of concerns regard~ng overall s~ze, massing, scale, proportion of ~uilding to lot size and pravision of adequate light and air, a multi-dimensional approach with a series of recommendations to address building mass Es recommend~d, mcludmg • Lot Co~eraqe While reduced 1ot coverage w~ll nat alone resol~e overbuild~ng, staff believes that reducing maximum al{~wable lot co~erage wiil address nergh~orhoad concerns regardmg Irght, arr and open space, and pramote use af basements to achie~e additional square footage Maxim~zing basernent areas far laundry, family, and utility roams will help to reduca the visible building mass, while accammodat~ng the property owner's need for additionai living area square foa#age It is recommended that lot coverage be reduced fo a max~mum of 35% in most cases (Section 9 04 48 02 070 (d)) • Second Floor Go~erage To reduce the building mass aboWe 14 feet, the size of the second floar will be limited to 2fi% of the parcel area, with the ability to ~ncrease this only if a comparable reduction in first flaor square footage ~s pro~ided Residents expressed conc~rn at the Planning CommissEOn public hearings that the massing at the second fioor affected en~oyment and pri~acy af their rear yard area (Section 9 04 08 02 075(a)} ~ Light and Air Ta maximize the benefit of stepbacks to ad~acent neighbors, any pat~a, balcony, roof d~ck or terrace open on less than twa s~des will count as parcel coverage, including second flaor parcel co~erage if the floor line is abo~re 14 feet rn he+ght (Sectian 9 0~# ~8 02 D?5 ~d)} TY~ts requ~rement 3 encourages placement of stepbacks at the building corners, reducing bu~lding mass and enhancmg the views and open space of ad~acent properties • Sinqle Story Incentives To provide arr ~ncentive for ane-story hauses, fhe maximum parcel coverage for a structure no greater ~han 18 feet high wii! be ~ncreased to 50% StafF believes thts will encourage de~elopment of new one-story structures and allow expansron of exrstmg homes wrthout a second story additian (Section 9 D4 O8 02 070(d)) • Front Stepback To red~ce the ~mpact of t~e build~ng on the streetscape, the reqwred ~ront stepback above 14 feet will be increased to an area equal to 8% ot the !ot depth and w~!! be appl~ed to a slightly larger port~on of #he tront farade (Section 9 D4 08 02 070(f}} • Rear Stepback To ensure the preservation of open space m~he rear yard anci reduce the impact of the buElding on neighbormg rear yards, the requ~red rear stepback above 94 feet w~ll be increassd to 3D% of the lot depth f~r the entire rear farade, but in no case greater than 40 feet ~Section 9 04 08 02 470{h)) ~ Buildinq Heiq~tt To accommodate more ~aned architectural s#yles, the maximum building height ~s proposed to be ~ncreased #rom 28 feet to 32 feet (Section 9 a4 08 02 070(a)} In addition, the proposed bUilding en~elope ~s des~gned to accommodate buildings with steeper pitched roofs that wilf limEt building mass at the point closest to the side setlaack Ime ~Sectian 9 04 08 02 070 ~k)} The building envelope retains the maximum 21 foat wal! height at the side setback, but with a 30 degree angle exte~ding tawards the interior to #he maximum 32 foot height In order to promote further design flexibility, tf~is standard could be madified sub~ect to Arch~tectural Review Baard approval. ~ Sideyard Setback To increase the space between buildings and reduce the impact of buildmgs over 18 feet in height on ad~acent properties, the proposed ardinance requires an increase in s~de yard setbacks An add~tional 1 a% of the lot width will be dedicated to the side yard area The min~mum requirecf side yard will remain 10% of the lot width, howe~~r, the combmed total of the s~de yards at any pamt or~ the parcel will equal 30% af the lot width The additiona! side yard ar~a can be provided on either side, or a portion on both sides (Section 9 04 08 02 070(i)} 4 Staff belie~es that this requirement creates opportunities to provide more light and air on one side of the property, while retaining design flexibility Addrtronal open space can accommodate mare landscapmg, part~cularly #rees that can not otherwise be accommodated in a standard 5 foot wide s~deyard Li~able Space Another issu~ identifEed during the public process ~s the need for suff~c~ent livable space inside the home to accommodate families' needs Given the reduction in second floor area, max~mrzing c~se of basemerrt areas will help meet famrlres' needs for livable space without adding building mass to the neighborhood The following proWisions address these goals ~ Excavation Exca~ation for the p~rpase af pro~iding lightwells andlor stairways to below grade areas wi11 be permitted in #he required side yard, pro~ided that the excavated area is na closer than 10°/a of the lot width to the property line (Section 9 04 08 02 070{p)) There is no maximum size of these areas En order to encourage sunken patios, windows a~d ot~er features that provide light and air to basement raoms, resulting ~n mare livable space Further, because the excavated area is setback from the property line, the build~ng will not be perceived as a three-story structure from the street or from ad~acent properties • Two Story Accessory Bu~ldrnqs The maxrmum ground floor area of a two- story accessary building will b~ limited by parcel coverage, rather thar~ the current 650 square foot building area limitation However, the second flaor will be I~mited to 254 square feet in order to control the building mass and mitigate the accessory building~s impact an ad~acent praperties This standard allows graund flaor livabte area ~n a i~rvo-story accessory building ~n addition to the required two-car garage Setbacks for these two-story accessary bu~ldm~s have also been addressed ~ Parcel Coveraqe Variat~ons Staff recommer~ds increasing the secand story parcel co~erage if the equivalent amount of co~erage is reduced on the first floor T~is would create a smaller overaH bui~dmg while provrd+ng desrgn 5 flexib~lity for more diverse architectural styl~s Th~s results m a maximum 30% parcel co~erage on both the first and second floors Con~ers~ly, staff recommends ~ncreasir~g the f~rst stary parcel caverage to a maxtmum of 40% ~f an equi~alent amount of second story parcel coverage is reduced This wauld create a smalle~ secand floor, which will reduce ~he amount of building mass visible to ad~acent properties This provision will allow existing struc#ures to maintain their 40°/fl {ot coverage on the first floor and limit secand story additions to a maximum of 21 %(Section 9 d4 O8 02 07~ {a)} PriWacy The trend towards larger houses has not only impacted the neighborhoad streetscape, but has afso reduced the pri~acy, light, and a~r of ad~acent homes 1n particular, buildmg elements such as balconies, terraces and roof decks can oWerlook ad~acent praperties, negatrvely rmpactrng privacy, while excess+ve massrng at the rear of a ~uilding can effect~~ely result in a 28' high buildmg wall ad~acent to a neighbar~ng back yard The follawing measures are intended to increase distances between buildings and ~romote rear yard pri~acy • Balcony Size The aggregate square footage of s~cand floor balconies, terraces or roof decks is fimited to 400 square feet, unfess modified by fhe Architectural Re~iew Board This provision limits use of the required second floor stepback areas for a balcony or raof deck while protecting the pri~acy af neighboring propertles ~Sectian 9 04 08.a2 075(c)} • BalconylRoof Deck Stepbacks Any roof declc or balcony greater than 50 square feet lacafed in the rear two-th~rds of the parcel is required to be setback at least 12 fieet from the property line This prev~nts second floor outdaor areas, where people may congrsga#e, from directly overlookmg a neight~oring property (Section 9 04 08 Q2 075~e)} • Rear Stepbaclcs The secand story stepback for the rear yard has been rncreased to an amount ~qual to 30% of the lot depth, not to exceed 40 feet 6 from rear prop~rty l~ne or where a~ley centerlme of a!!ey to red~ce the b~ild~r~g mass and limit the amount of building area either o~erlaoking or blocking the [ight and air of a~eighboring rear yard (Sectian 9 ~4 08 02 070{h)) • Exter~or stairs and required fire escapes wdl nat be permitted in the requ~red side yard Lacatmg these access features further from the side property line will reduce the impact on the neighboring property {Section 9 04 08 Q2 fl75~h)) Streetsca~e City Councd, Planning Commiss~on and public comments ha~e cansistent[y emphasized the importance of the streetscape ~n mainta~ning the area's un~que neighborhood character Develapment standards mtendad ta protect and enhance the streetscape to include the following • Alley Access Many blocks within the North of Montana neighborhood ha~e rear or side alleys Alleys can be a significant resource in maintaining the streetscape as they al~ow for vehrcular/garage access, pro~~de a p~ace for refuse collection and serve other utditarian purposes Alleys disencumber the public street, allow a more unified streetscape, and permit unbroken curb lines, wh~ch res~alts in additional landscaping and open space Where alleys are used, the public street fosters greater pedestriar~ use and en~oyment G~ven the resource alleys represent, staff believes alley use should be maximized wherever passible. The proposed ordinance recommends requinng alley access ta garages whene~er alleys exist Driveways accessing a public street would only be allowed sub~ect to the approval of a Use Permit, inciuding a finding that alley access is not otherwise possEbie (Section 9 04 08 02 04D (d)} 7 • Fror~t Stepback The qual~ty of the streetscape is compr~sed of many features Arnong the most impartant of these, howe~er, is the relationship of fron# farades to the public street Flat, unarticulated fa~ades can detract from the overall street aesthet~c, especially for two-story homes To address this concern, the proposed ordinance requires articulation of the portians of the front fa~ade above 14 feet which exceeds 70% of the maximum buildable front elevation (Section 9 fl4 08 02 070 (f)} This requires about 113 of the maximum front ele~ation abo~e 14 feet be stepped back The proposed stepback distance wouEd be 8% of the parcel's dep#h (e g, 12 feet for a 15Q-foot deep lat~, ~ut not mare than 12 feet • Porches Porches encourage pedestrian scale and use and ~romote neighborhofld mteract~on Porches can also help to break-up the front fa~ades, add architectural detail and interest, and enhance the streetscape The propased ord~nance ~ncludes two provls~ons that pramots the use af porches First, Section 9 D4 08 02 07~ (~) prov~des that porches may pro~ect up to 6 feet into the required front yard setback so long as they do not exceed 50°/a of the building width However, since some porcF~ designs may warrant a size greater than 50% of the building width, Section 9 04 0$ 02 08(e) (3) would allow a larger parch sub~ect to Architectura! RevEew Board approval • Garaqe Treatments Garage doors oriented toward the front yard portion of a parcel negat~~ely impact pedestrian character The proposed ordinance recommends that wherever garage doors face the street, the garage portion of the burldmg be set ~aek 5 feet beyond the front setback and the garage doors may not exceed 16 feet in width (Section 9 ~4 08 02 075 {f}} This will help to ensure that the garage doors are not ~he primary architectural features vis~ble from the street To aflow flexibility wherever #his provision wauld be impract~cal, however, the Architectural Review Baard couid modify ~his setback standard ~Section 9 04 08 42 080 (e} (2)) The ordinance also proposes ~hat single-story garages oriented perpendicular to the street be allawed to pro}ect up to F~eet into the front yard setback, b~t never ctoser than 20 feet (Section 9 04 08 02 075 (g)) This enables further architecturaf diversify and greater design ffexi~ility, yet ensures that the streetscape is not comprised af monotonous garage doar fa~ades The ability to pro~ect the garage into the required front yard setback will result in a greater setback for the prirnary structure For example, since tf~e minimum garage width is 18 feet, on properties with a 30 foot front yard setback, the pr~mary residen~e vsrould have ta be set back an additional 12 fest. 8 • Front Yard Excavat~on Ar~ather consistent cor~cern expressed by res~dents and policymakers relates #a excavatian within the front yard to accommodate subterranean garages or basements Exca~ation d~srupts the streetscape by adding a design efement more ariented to the automobile and averse to pedestnans Therefore, the proposed ordinar~ce reta~ns the mter~m ordinance's prah~bit~on on exca~ation within the front yard setback area (Section 9 04 08 02 07D (p)) • Front Yard Pa~inq Preserving and enhancing the streetscape requires not only openness but also opportunities far landscaping Landscaping and trees serve to saften building efevations and add ~isual interest to the street scene Accord~ngly, the proposed ardir~ance restric~s paving to 40% of #he required front yard area ~Section 9 04 08 02 070 (k}} Two-stary Accessory Bu~ldmqs T~e current R-1 DEStrict development standards permit a second story addition to an accessory structure to be located on a side property line and five feet from the rear property line, provEded the second story portion complies with the setback requirements for the primary structure Th~s provision allows far second story add~tions to existing garages, where the raof of tf~e garage may be used as a roof deck and the deck has minimal setback fram ad~acent properties These structures ~mpact the privacy, as weli as the light and air of neighbormg rear yards In or~er to add~ess ~F~is concern the following madifications are pro~osed + Use Permit A Use Permit wilf be requ~red for two-story accessory buildings to ensure that the structures do not ad~ersely impact e~ther ad~acent ne~ghbors or the surrounding neighborhood and tf~a~ they are developed m manner which protects the integri#y of the neighborhood The Use Permit process involves a Zoning Admm~strator public hearing that is not~ced to surrounding property owners and residents, and whose dec~sion may be appealed to the Plannmg Commission (Section 9 04 08 02 040(c)} • Second Flaor Area The maximum size of the second floor wilf be I~mited to 9 250 square feet to reduce the mass of the structure (Section 9 44 13 fl50(g}) • Second Floor Setback The secand story of the accessory building will not be located in any required yard with the exception of the portion that is drrectly abo~e the garage The por~ion of the bujlding directly above the garage may extend into the required rear yard bu# must be set back at least 15 feet from the centerline af the alley or 15 feet from the rear property IGne where no alley exists The second story of the access~ry structure may not be located in the required side yard (Sectio~s 9 04 13 050{a) and (b}} Th~s setback will allow the second story to be located on top of the garage, but reduces potential impac~s on the light, air and pri~acy af ad~acent properties • Exterior Decks Roof decfcs, landings, upper level walkways and balconies are limited to 35 square feet to reduce the potential for negat~ve impacts on the neighbormg properties (Section 9.44.13 050(c)). • Deck Setback Roof d~cks, landings, upper level walkways, and balconies will be set back at ~east 25 feet from the side prop~rty line closest to the structure, and at least 25 feet frorn the rear property line (or centerfine of the alley} (Section 9 D4 13 050(c)) + Buildinq Separation The second f[oor of the accessory buifding must maintain a minirnum separation of twenty feet from the second floar of the prjncEpal buildrng to minimize the impact of building mass above 14 feet (Section 9 04 13 050 (a)} PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS At the June 1fi, 1999, Planning Commission hearmg, the Planning Commission generally supparted the staff recommendations The CommissEOn agrees that the proposed ordinance will effecti~ely reduce building mass, thus acidress~ng concerns about the loss of {ight, air and privacy The Commission also supports the prov~sions of the proposed ordinance which address the stree#scape, ~nclud~ng increased second story stepbacks on the front and rear, incenti~es ta encourage frant porches, limitat~ons l0 on front facfng garage doors and restr~ct~ons on street access HowE~er, the Cammission identif~ed the following issues, w~~ch staff has addressed m the final draft af tf~e propased ordinance • Curb Cuts The Planning Gommission supports the Use Permit requirement far curb cuts and street access for lots with alley access, #~owe~er, the Commissior~ was concerned that the Use Permit pracess itself woulcE not be sufficient to maximize the use of the alleys Therefore, Use Permits for street access on parcels with an alley would granted only where unique circumstances precfude afley access • Flexible Side Yard Setback The Planning Commission recommended that the proposed ordinance should jnclude a provision to modify the required 30% of parcel width side yard se#back to accommodate different building conf~gurations, specific site features, and/or landscaping In response, staff included a provision ~ha~ allows ARB modification af the side yard setback requirement to a minimum of 10% of the parce[ width if specific findings can be made ~Section 9 ~4 08 02 080(e)(4)) * Second Story Stepbacks To ciar~fy that the additronal srde stepback above 14 feet should be measured from the minrmum side yard setback, not from the additional side yard setback requirement, staff has amended the propased ord~nance to specify that the stepback is relati~e to the minimum setback line • Buildinq Heiqht and Roof Pitch The Plannir~g Commissian exprESSed concern that the proposed ordinance would discourage ~he preser~ation of existing homes if additions des~gned in the existmg style could not be achieved with~n the proposed buiiding en~elope To accommodate certain styles of architecture, such as Tudor style, staff has included a pro~ESion in the propos~d ordinance that allows ARB to appro~e a design modificatian wF~ich does not f~t within the prescribed buildir~g envelope if certain findings are made • V!lEr~dovvs ~n Accessory B~~1d~nqs The Plann~ng Corr:m~ss~on supports staff recommenda#ions to require a Use Permit for two-stary accessory bu~ldings Issues regardmg light and air, aesthetics and pri~acy were the focus of 11 Commission d~scussion Although staff's mitial recommendation was to restrict the locatian of windows on the second story of an accessory build~ng, the Planning CammrssEan was cancerned that m certam circumstances a wmdow would be preferable to a blank walf Windows and similar features will be reviewed, and restricteci as necessary, through the Use Permit process required for two-story accessory budd~ngs • Retention af Exist~nq Structures The Planning Commission also expressed concern that exESting homes, particularly homes with histonc and architectural mer~t be reta~ned Beyortd the standards, wh~ch have been designed to provide flexibility to accommodate additions ta existing structures, staff has ~nduded specific language in the Speaak Pro~ect ~esign and Development Standards section of the ordmance that encourages the preservatjon and expansion of existing structures in order to mainta~n neighbor~ood scale and character There were other issues that the Planning Cammissian discussed that staff has not ~ncorporated d~rectly ~nto the proposed ord~nance The follow~ng ~s a br~et d+scuss~or~ of these issues • Small Lots The Planr~ing Commission raised concerns about how smaller than standard, or larger than standard, s~zed Ip#s are impacted by the proposed side yard setback and the rear yard second story stepbacks Staff recognizes that the addit~onal sideyard requirement and the rear second story stepback requirement (30% of lot depth) may not be practical on lots with widths less than 50 feet, or with lengths subsfant~ally less than 150 in length The proposed ordinance allows for madifications af botf~ these requirements if certain f~ndings can be made • Desiqn Re~iew The Planning Commission discussed the merits of institutmg a design re~iew process Certain Commissioners felt that some of the concerns voiced by t~ie neighborhaad could only b~ addressed through a des+gr~ review process, and suggested a requirement #or Architectural Review Board approval of pro~ects over a certain size threshold Others felt that Architectura! Re~iew would be cumbersame for the appl~cants, may nat prevent designs that are out of context w~th the neighf~orhood, and may threater~ the architectural diversity ~n the ne~ghbarhood Another suggestion was the creation of design guidelines to which applicants would be required to conform 12 Staff does not recommend architectural re~iew for build~ng design or design gu~delines The North of Montana ne~ghborhood has a w~de ~ariety of architectural styles that contribute to #he unique character of the neighbarhaod StafF belie~es that design review would be contrary to the purpase of the ordinance to allow flex~b~lity while reducing mass One Commissioner felt fhat in the absence of design rev~ew tl~ere should be a restriction on the use of design elements that extend above the first ffoor, such as two-story columns or windows Anather Commissioner felt that the City should consEder developing design guidelines for this r~eighborhaad, but there was not consensus or~ this is~ue Staff believes the eclectie m~x ot architectural styles found in the North of Montana area would ~e dEfficult to reduce to se~eral model types In light of the numerous and varied architectural styles, and the desire to allow innovati~~ architectural design, staff does not support design rev~ew or the development of design guEdelines for this neighborhood ~ Modification to Use P~rmit Standard The Planning Commission directecf staff to address the appropr~ate procedures for evaluating twa story accessory build~ngs Staff bElieves the existing Use Permit process, which allows for a public hearing before the Zonir~g Administrator, with appeals ta Planning Commission, ta be the most effecti~e avenuE to review twa story accessory bu~ldrng r~quests Use Permrts ma~dat~ that all property owners and res~dents within a 3a0-foot radius of the sub}ect site, not ~~st immediately ad~acent neighbors, are notified of the public hearing This notification affords a[I ~rea neighbors with the opportunity to proWide written or oral comments on the proposed request Add~t~onally, Use Permit appl~cation matenals encourage applicants to contact neighbors regarding the praposed pro~ect Staff has found th~s procedure to be an effectiWe means of solici#ing neighborhood comment, which is subsequently cons~dered in the Zoning Administrator determination analysis • Landscape Standards The Planning Commission requested that staff also address the need far lar~dscape stanciards in this R1 neighborhood Currently, the Zon~ng Ordmance requires that R1 development in the City, at a minimum, landscape 50% af the req~aired front setback area Pu~lic camments rdentifr~d concerns regarding the desire for add~t~onal landscaping in the rear two-thirds of the site in order to screen larger structures and improve ~~ews Staff has analyzed this issue and identified a number of constraints if required, rear yard trees cauld block solar access to paol ar~as and reduce natural light in limited rear yard areas Addit~onally, it cauld result in the need far a discret~onary re~iew process to determine the appropriate tree size, type, and location s~nce a uniform tree standard may not be suitable far all properties 13 Such a standard would be d~ff~cult ta reg~late and would rrot resol~e the essent~al issues of buildtng massmg, light, and air at the rear of the property Staff belieWes these issues are effectively addressed in the praposed text amendment C~TYWIDE M~DIFICATION TO R-1 DEVELOPMENT STANDARaS ~allawmg its review and recommendation on deWelopment standards for the Norkh af Mantana neighborhood, the Planning Comm~ssion further recammended that the City Council consider app[ication of these standards in R1 neigfi~borhoods Citywide The Commissian believed that the proposed standards successfully addressed issues regard~ng E~uilding mass~ng, neighbarhaod scale, and ~edestrfan orientat~an and that other single family neighborhoods would benefit from attention to t~ese concerns The recommended North of Montana development standards represent the cufminat~on of a year long study process that included public participation, the evaluation of a vanety of options to address the identified concerns, and Planning Cammission hearings to study alternative scenarios StafF belie~es that, while many of these recommendatians may be appropriate for other single family neighborhoods, examination af the issues particular to individual neighborhoods is warranted Further, this w~ll provicfe the opportunity for public participat~on in the preparation of re~ised de~elopment standards Staff recommends that Councal direct staff ta modify development standards in the City's ather R1 neighbarhaods, and further recommends that, ~fi further analysis demonstrates a need, an inter~m ordinance return for Cauncil consideration prior to adoption of permanent standards 14 PUBLIC PROCESS On February 14, 1999, the Planning Commission held a public meeting to identify the issues that would be examined as part of the development of permanent standards On May 5, 1999, the Planr~ing Commiss~an heid a commu~ity workshop ta provide the publ~c and the Planning Commiss~on an opportunity to discuss issues related to the de~elopment standards and ~dentify possible solutions Approximately 40 members of the public participated in the workshap On June 9, 1999, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to adopt a Resolution of Intention that stated its intent to modi#y spec~fic Zaning Code sections. Eigh# members of the public testified at the public hearing On June 16, 1999, the Planning Commission held a public hearir~g on the praposed text arnendment Twenty three membErs of the public testified at tF~e hear~ng - nineteen were in favor of the amendmer~ts, four were against the proposed amendments PUBLIC NOTIFICATION Pursuant to Munici~al Code Section 9 04 20 20 050, natice of the public hearing was pUblEShed in The Las Anqeles Times at ieast calendar ten days priar to the hearing A copy of the natice ~s contained in Attachment B fn addition, notice of the public hearing was mailed to all owners and residential and commercial ter~ants located within the sub~ect area BUDGETIFINANCIAL IMPACT The recommEndation presented in this repart will have no budgetary or financial ~mpacts 15 RECOMMENDATION Staff respectfully recommends that the City Council adopt the attached emergency ordinance Prepared by Suzanne Fr~ck, Director Jay Trevmo, AICP, Planning Manager Amanda Schachter, Senior PlannEr Susan Healy Keene, AICP, Acting Senior Planner Laura Beck, AICP, Associate Planner Plannmg and Community Develapment Department City Plannmg Di~ision Attachments A Proposed Ordinance B Comparison Chart C Notice of P~ablic Hearmg D Corresponde~ce E Plannmg Comm~ssion Staff Repo~t, June 16, 1999 16 ATTACHMENT A ~~ ~ -- Y f iattyimuniliawslbarrytnomdevsf fin CEty Ca~ncil Meeting 8-10-99 Santa Monica, Caiifomia ORDINANCE NUMBER 14~0 (CCS) {City Gouncif Ser~es) AN ORD[NANCE OF THE C1TY CDUNC{L OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA MO~IFYING THE CEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR PARCELS IN THE R1 DISTRICT AREA BOUNDED BY MONTANA AVENUE, THE NORTHERN C~TY LIMiTS, TWENTY-SIXTH STREET, AND OCEAN AVENUE INCLIJDING AMENDfNG SECTiON 9 04 08 Q2 020 (PERMtTTtD 'USESj, SECTIQN ~ 04 08.02 04Q (USES SUBJECT TO A USE PERMIT), SECTION 9.04 08.~2 074 {PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS), S~CTION 9 04 08 02 ~80 {ARCHITECTURAL REVlEW) AND ADDlNG SECTION 9 D4 Q8 02 075 (SPECIAL PROJECT DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS) AND SECTfON 9~4 13 050 (ACCESS4RY BUILDING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND CONDITIONS} TO ARTICLE 1X QF THE SANYA MONlCA MCJNlGIPAL C4D~; DEC~ARlA~G TH~ PRESENCE ~~ AN EMERGENCY LvHER`AS. the area of the C~ty bounded by Twenty-Sixth Street, Ocean A~enue, ~y"or~ta~a Avenue an~ t~e northern C~ty ~im~ts, commonly referred to as the North of Pviontana neigh~orhood. contains a m~x of modest, older, singie story and two story hames an~+ ne~~~, substant~ally farger dwellings canstructed m recent years, and GtifhEREAS. the developmer~t sta~c~ards estab~tshed bythe C~ty's Zonrng Ord+nar~ce a~~honz~ t~e construction of housing dramaticaliy different from the ex~st~ng scale and characterafthis neigh~orhood t~ereby significantly Gmpacting existing residences ~n terms o; a~~ess to lig~t and a~r, pr~vacy, and tf~e overafl amount of open space, and ~"4rH~REAS, w~thm the past two years. real estate vakues i~ t~e Narth of Montana neighba~haori ha~e r~sen dramai~cally, and r WHEREAS, priorto the City Counc~l~s adoptian of fnterim flrd~nance Number 192'~ and fnter~m Ordrnance N~mber 1925, there had been a surge m the demol~tion ofthe older housEng and rebuilding wi#h housing built to the maximum develapment standards authvrized by the City's Zoning Ordmance, and WHEREAS, in 1997, there were twen#y fiv~ {25} demolition applications fied far single famiiy ~esidences in tt~is ne~gh~orhood -- t~e h~gt~est number record~d far a srr~gle year and a figure wh~ch represented more tF~an a doublEng of tt~e number of demoiitia~ appl~cat~ons in 1996 and a five fiold increase o~erthe numher of applicattons in 999~, and WHEREAS, as of September 15, 1998 wt~ert tf~e interim ardinances were ada~ted, there had aiready been thirty-six (36) demalition applications fi[ed far that year -- a contmuataan of thrs trend for the ramainder of the year woufd t~ave placed the figure at a~most double ~997~s record, and UVHER~AS, simifarly, permits for the canstruct~or~ of new smgle family residences ~n 1997 t~taled a recard af sixteen (1fi), and WHEREAS, in ~~98, twenty-eight (28} such ¢erm~ts E~ad a~ready been issued by the timp e~ the acfopt~or~ o# the interim ard+nances, and VVH~REAS. w~tho~t C+ty Cour~c~! actson, t~e r~umber af appl+cat~or~s ~IECi for ~e}re~opme~+t pro}ects vv~th~n thtis ~e~ghbar~ood wsfluld have can#in~ed ta esca~ate g~ve~ mar~et co~dit~ans and the des~rabilsty o# t~~ area, ~nci 1,NHEREAS. mos# of these new hauses an the n~jg~bor~ood were two staries of a~prox~mate#y 5,~00 s~uare feet m s~ze and contamed bfts and mezzarnr~es between the fFrst and second fioors and between the second ffoor and roof of a structure, and 2 . WHEREAS> these lofts and mezzan~nes created #he appearance af a three story structure, and WHEREAS, the second story was aften built w~th very litile articulation in comparESOn ta the firs# stary - the combmed he~ght and mass~ng of these houses causes them to tower over and dwarf the ewst~ng ad~acent houses and #o be whaliy at odds with the exESting scaie and c~aract~r of the ne~ghbarhooci, and WHEREAS, much of this new hous~ng was also designed with ea~es, chimneys, bay w~ndows, patios, or balconies, whic#~ p~o~ect mta the required yard se# backs, ~nereas~ng the bu~ldmg's mass and Ets impaet on ad~oming properties, a~rd WHEREAS, m ac~d~tion, these rede~eloped parcels often mcluded a twa stvry accessory structure andlor s~cor~d stary add~tions to exist~r~g garages located in the rear and s~de yard areas, and WHEREAS, when these accessory s#ructUres are located on corner iots, they s~gn~ficantly ir~crease the s~te's ~erce~ved development ir~tensity because of the ~~s~bil~ty of these structures, and WH~REAS, the fufi bu~ld-out oftF~ese lats substantially reduces the o~erall amount or open s~ac~ in the neGghbarhood, and WHEREAS. these mono~~thac st~uctures ~nvelop smalfer ad~acent houses, ~arti~ularly v~hen an older i~o~se is sand~viched m between tu-+o such structures, and WHER~AS, when these huge houses are adlacent tc~ one ar~other, the~ create a wa14e~ effect, transform~ng ths street ~nto a canyor~, and 3 . WHEREAS, #he size and scale of tF~fs de~elopment has a s,gn~ficar~t detr~mental impact on ad~ace~~ nerghbors' access to l~gt~t and air, on the~r pr~~acy and on the o~erali amount of a~en space as viewed from the strset and betw~er~ bu~kdmgs, and WHEREAS, the Gity it~sff is extremely dense w~th a land area of Just 8 square m~ies and a po~ulatEOn of approx~mately 90,400 peopfe and WHEREAS, given th~ City's density, the open space pro~ided by the North of Montana ne~ghborl~ood ~s an essentiai City asset, and WHEREAS, given the pace of redevetapment that was occurring, the amaunt of constr~cfion ac#ivity ~n this area also caused signifcant disrup#ion and rtoise problems far the resrdents af the area smce construct~on mater~als and equipment were often pfaced in t~e roadway ancf/ar on stdewaiks, thereby abstructEr~g both ~ehicular and pedestr~an traffic and construct~on fenees impact neigF~borhood aesthetics, and WHEREAS. to address the abo~e-mentroned cancems, the City Caur~cil adopted I~"ter~m Ordmance N~m~er 192'~ ~CCS) on August 19, ~998 modi~ying the develo~ment standards m the Zoning Orcfmance pend~ng re~~e~nr and assessment of the appropriate permanent devekopment standards that should be estab4ished for th~s area, and ~~IHEREAS, on Septem~e~ 22, 1998, tha C~ty Cour~c~l adopted Interim ~rdina~ce Num~er 1925 (CCS) which extended 4~ter~m Ord~nance Numbes 1921 {CCS} a~c! whjch wi44 ex~ire on September ~1, 1999, and LvHER~AS, the City sUbsequently retamed the ser~ice~ of three arch~tects to ass~st w~th t~e devefopment of permanent star~dards, and V1tHEREAS, or~ February 10, 1999, the Plannmg Commission heid a public heanng to ident~fy tt~e issues tfi~at shouid be exammed ~n de~elaping permanent standards, an~ 4 Y WHEREAS, on May 5, ~ 999, the Pfannmg Cornmiss~on held a commun~ty workshop to ~rov~de further publ~c input an the appropnate develo~ment s#an~ards, artd WHEREAS, on June 9, 1999, the Plannmg Commcssion heid a public hearing ta adopt a Resalution af Intentton which stated t#~e Commiss~on's mtentian to madify the City's Zan~ng Ordinance, and WHEREAS, on June 1f, 1999, the Planr~ing CommissEOn held a pub~ic hearing on the proposed text amendm~nt and recommended spec~fic modificat~ons to the ~evefopment stanciarcis ~n the North of Mantana neighborhood, and WHEREAS, if development standards established bythe Zan~ng Ordmance are not modified, additional housing would be develop~d that would severely impact ex~sting resEdences, wou~d be mcompat~bie wfth t#~e existrng neEghbor#~aod scale ar~d character, and Urould be contrary to the rteighborhood's hEStoric de~elopmen# pattems, and WHEREAS. the proposed amendments are consistent in prinaple w~th the goals, o~lectives, po~~c~es ~and uses ar~d ~TOgrams spec~fied rr~ the adopted Ger~eral Pfar~ rn that there ~s no cha~ge to the allowable Entensities as defir~ed in the Land Use Ckassificafion an~ ~n that the proposed amendments ensure that future de~elopmen# ~s compatible w~th tn~ ex~stina ne;ahborhQO~+, and G'I~H~R~.AS, tne propos~d amendment is consEstent with Land Use Efement Pol~cy ~ 1 C~ t which is to ercourage the devefopment of new ~ousEng while stikl protecting the ~raracter and scale of the exis#ing ne~gE~borhood," and ~'I~H~REAS, the public heaith, safety, and general welfare require the adoptior~ of the proposed amendme~t in that if current deve[opment standards are not modified, add~t~onal haus~ng would be developed that wauld severeiy impact exist~ng residences, ~ . wouid be Encompat~ble wi~h the exEStmg ne~ghborhoad scaie and character and wouid be cantrary #o the neighbo~hood's histar~c development ~atterns, and m that the praposed amendmentwill set developmer~~ standa~ds thatwill ensure that adequate Isght, air, pr~vacy, and open space is provided for each dweiling, that new development is com~a#ible with tF~e north of Montana ne~ghborhood, and that tt~e character af the ne~ghbvr~oad ~s maintained, WHEREAS, tt~e faclt of permanent de~elopment standards for #his neighborhood is creating great uncertainty regarding the le~ei and type of c~svefopmer~t t~at wiii ult~mately be aliowed ar~d mak~ng redevelopment deasions exceedmgly di~cult dur~ng this tnterim periad. fVOW THEREF~RE, THE CITY CQUNCIL OF THE C1TY ~F SANTA MONICA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS SEGTfO[~ ~ Santa Mon~ca M~n~c~pal Code Sect~Qn 9 p4 48 Q2.Q20 ~s here~y amended to r~ad as foliows 9.p4.4$.02.020 Permitted uses. The followmg uses shall be perm~tted ir~ the Rf District (a) Hosp~ce fac~lities, (b) One single family dwelling per ~arcel placed on a permanent ioundat~o~ ~includ~ng manu#actured housing), (c) One-story accessary buildmgs and s#ructures up to 14 feet rr~ he~ght, 6 (d) Except m the area bounded by Montana Aver~ue, tt~e norther~ C~ty hm~ts, Twenty-Si~cth Street and Ocean Ave~u~, one-story accessory bu~idrngs a~er 14 feet m hecght to a maximum hetght of 28 feet, or two-story accessory buildings up to a max~mum he~gfi~t of 28 feet, if such buildmgs confarmtothe re~u~red setbacks and stepbacks forthe pnr~c~~al building ar~d with the devefopmer~t star~ctards set forth rrt Section 9 04 ~4 110, (e) Pu~lic parks and playgrounds, (~ Small family day care homes, ~g} State author~zed, I~censed, or cert~fied uses to the e~eni requcred ta be perm~tted by State ~aw, (h) Yard safes, lrmrted to twa per cafendar year, for a maxrmum of two days each, (i j Domestic v~olence shelter SEGTION 2 Santa Monica M~~ic~pal Code Section 9~4 OS 02 040 as hereby amended to read as folEaws 9.04.U8.02.040 Uses subject to use perm~#. The fol~owing use may be permitted in the R1 Distr~ct sub~ect ta the apprava! of a Usp Permit {a) Duplexes on a parc~! hav~ng not less tha~ fi,0d0 square fee# of area, a s~de parce! i~r~e of w#~ich abuts or is separated by an aliey from any R2, R3 0~ R4 Djstnct, 7 a {h} Second dwellirtg urnts subJect to the requrrements s~t forth ~n Sectian 9 04 13 040, (c} On parcels in the area bounded by N~ontana Aven~e, the northern City limits, Twenty-Sixth Street and Ocean Aven~e, one-story accessory buildings aver 14 feet m heigt~t ta a maxrmurr3 height of 24 feet, ~r twa-story acc~ssory buildmgs up to a maxrmum height of 24 feet, if such buiid~ngs conform to the development star~dards set forth in Sectian 9 04 13 050 {d) Or~ Parcels rn the area bount~ed by Monta~a Aven~e, the €~orth~rn C~ty l~mits, Twenty-Si~cth Street and Qcean Aver~ue, curb cuts for purpas~es of pravi~ing strest a~cess to an on-s~te parkEng garage on parcels with an ad~acent s~de or rea~ alley having a minimum r~ght-of-way of 15 ~eet SECTION 3 Santa Monica Munic~pal Cade Sectron 9 04 0$.~2 Q70 is hereby amended to read as follows 9.fl4.08.~2.070 Property development standarcis. All ~roperty ~n t~e R1 D~stnct shall be de~eloped in accordance with the following standards (a) Maxim~m Build~~g Height (1 } Two stories, not to exceed 28 feet, wh~ch ~r~cludes ail bu~i~mg elements except chrmr-eys and required ~ents, $ (2) On lots of more than 20.fl~0 sc~uare feet wEt~ a mEn~mum front parce{ I~ne dimens~on of 20p feet. the height shall not exceed 35 feet for a p~tched raof or 28 fest far other types of roafs (3) On lots of Eess than 20,000 sq~are fee# in the area bounded by Montana Avenue, the narthern CEty limits, Tvrienty-S~xth 5treet ar~d Ocean Aven~e, the maximum builtiing he-ght shall be 32 feet, except that for a parcel wrth greater than 35 percent parcef cvverage, t~te maxrmum ~urldrng height shall be one story, n~t to exceed 18 #eet, wh~ch incfudes a!I b~Eldmg elements except chimneys and required vents ~b) Maxim~m Unit Density. One dwetlmg unit per parcel, except where a Use Permrt has been approved for a dupiex as perm~tted by Section 9 04 08 02 040{a~ (c} Mir~rmum Lat Size. 5,~Q0 squ~re feet Each ~arce~ shall contain a minimum depth of 1 Q4 feet ar~d a mmimum width of 50 feet except for parcefs bounde~ by the center Emes of ~irst Caur~ Alley to the west, Seventh Stree± to the east, Montana Place North Aliey ta the sauth. and Adelaide Dr~~e to the north, which shall conta~n a m~n~mUm width of 9 00 feet and a m~nimum deptF~ of 175 feet Any parcel existing on the effecti~e date of th~s Chapter snali nat be sub~ect to tF~is rec~u~rernent (d j Maximum Parcel Coverage. 40 percent except that parceis between 3,001 and 5.000 square feet may have a parcel co~erage of 50 ~erceni, and parcels of 3.00~ square feet or smaller may have a parcel co~erage of 60 percent, howe~er, in the area bounded by Mantana A~enue. 9 i the r~ortl~ern City IrmEtS, Twenty-Sixth Street and Ocean Avenue, maxrmum parcel coWerage shall be 35 percent except that parcels with only one-story structur~s not exceeding 18 feet ~n height may ~a~e a maximum parcel co~erage of 50 percent (e) Front Yard Setback. As shown on the Official D~str~ctmg Map of the C~ty, or, Ef no setback ~s specrfied, 20 feet (f) Additional Front Stepback Abave 14 ~eet in Height, For new structures or addit~ons to existing stnactures, any portEOn of #he front bu~lding elevat~on abo~e i4 feet exceed~ng 75 pe~cent of t#~e maximum buildable front ele~a#ion shal! be stepped ~ack from the #ron# setback f~ne an add~t~onal average amount equaf to four percent of parcei depth, but Rn no case resultEng m a required stepback greater than ~ 0 feet However, m the area bounded by Montana Avenue, the northern City ~~m~ts, Twenty-Sixth Street and Ocean Avenue, the stepback shall be as follows any gortion of the front build~ng efe~ation above 14 feet exceeding 70 percent of the maximum buildable front ele~at~on shall be step~ed bac#c from the ~ro~t set"aack line an addit~or~al average amo~nt e4~a~ to etght ~ercent of parcel depth, but in n~ case re~ult~ng ~n a requfred stepback c~reater than 12 feet As used ~n th~s Chapter, "maxim~m bu~4dable elevat~on" shal~ meart the max~mum pote~tia! ler~gth of tha elevat~oc~ pe~mitted ~~de~ these regulations. which i~c{udes ~arcel wEdth or length (as applicable), mtinus rec}u~fed ms~~murt~ set~ack (g) Rear Yard Setbaclc. 25 feet ~0 , (h) Addi#iona! Rear Stepback Above 14 Feet in Height. Far new structures or addittons ta existing structures, any p~rtion of the rear bwldmg ekevat~on above 14 feet exceed~ng 75 percent of the maxirnum ~~~Idable rear elevation shali be stepped back from the rear setback, Ime an add~tional average amou~t eq~al to four ~ercent of parce! depth, bu# ~n no case result~ng ir a required stepback greater than 10 feet Howe~er, m the area boundeci by Monta~a Avenue, the narthem City limits, Twenty-SExth Street and Ocean Aven~e, the stepback shall be as follows the entire rear build~ng ele~at~ar~ abave 14 feet shal! be stepped back an amaunt equal to 30 percent of the lot depth, but no greater t~an 40 feet from the rear property fEne (i} Side Yard Setback Ten percent of the parcek width or a minimum of thre~ feet six inches, wh~chever is greater, but in no case greater than 15 feet Howe~er, in the area bounded by Montana A~enue, t~e r~orthern City I~mEts, Twenty-S~xth 5treet and Ocean Avenue. for structures over 18 feet in he~g~tt. including all build~ng elements except ch~mneys and re~uEred vents, the reau~red amount of setback for bath side yards carnb~ned as measuret~ at any point on tF~e parcef, shall equ~l 30 ~ercent a{ the parcei w~dth but rn no case be greater than a tatal of 4~ feet The m~nimum setback for eac#~ s~de yard shall also be equa~ to 1 Q percent o~ the parcef vuidth, or a minimum of thres fee#, six ~nches whichever is greater {Ses aJso SECtion 9 04 1~ 02 ~9D ) 11 : (~} Additional Side Stepbacks Abo~e 'i4 Feet in Height. For new structures ar addit~ons #o ex~st~ng stnactures, any ~ort~on of the side #~utld~ng elevat~on above 14 feet exceed~ng 5~ ~ercent of tt~e maxtmum buiidable side ele~ation shall be stepped back from the side setback I~ne an add~tianal one foot for every 2 feet 4 ~nches abo~e 14 feet o~ buildrr~g height to a maximum h~ight af 21 fee# ~k} Additional Sicie S~epback Above 2ti Feet in Height. No porttan of the bu~fdrng, except perm~tted pro~ect~ons, shall ~ntersect a plane commenc~ng 23 feet m he~ght at the mrr~imum s~deyard setbacEc and extend~ng at an angle of 45 degsees fcom t~e vert~cal toward the mte«o~ a# the s~te Howe~er, in the area baunded by Montar~a Avenue, #he northern C~ty frm~ts, Twenty-Sixt~ Street and Ocean Avenue, na ~ortion af the bu~ldmg, except perm~tted pro~ect~ons, sha[I i~tersect a plane commenc~ng 2~ feet En height at the mmimum sideyard s~tbac~C and extendmg at an angle af 30 degre~s from the honzontal toward the interror of #he site (i; Front Yard Paving. No more than 50 percent of the requ~red front yard area -ncludmg dr~veways shaiE be pavec~, except that lots w~th a wrdth o€ 25 feet ar ~ess may have up to 60 percent of the required fro~t yard area paved However, rr~ the area baundeci by Montana Avenue, the r~art~em C:ty lim~ts, Twenty-S~xth St~-eet and Ocea~ Avenue, na more tk~an 40 percent of tt~e requFred frant yard area shall be pa~ed, including dr~~eways, except tha# iots wrth a width of 25 feet or less may ha~e up to 60 ~ercent of the rec~uired frQnt yard area paved 12 , (m) ~Iflodificatians to Stepbacks Abo~e 14 Feet in Height. The stepback reqwremen#s of su#~sect~ons (f), (h}, (~), an~ (k) of thts Sec#ion may be modified sub~ect ta the review ar~d ap~roval af the Arch~tectural Re~~ew Board ~f the Board fnds that the modificatEOn w~ll not be detr~mental to tfi~e property, ad~of~ing p~o~ert~es or the generaf area m which the property ~s located, and the ob~ectives of the stepback requirements are sat~sfied bythe pro~ision of alternati~e stepbacks or other bt~ilding features which reduce effective mass to a~egree camparable, ta the rele~ant standard requirement (n) Driveways. Na more than one dr~veway per parcel to a pubi~c street shall be perm~tted an parcels less than 100 fee# m w~dth. (o} Basements and Suhterranean Garages. No basement ar subterranean garage shall extend into any required yard setback ar~a, except for any basement or garage ~acated beneath an accessary bui~d~ng which ~s a#herwise ~ermitted within a yard area, Ef such basement, sem~- subterranean or subterranean garage ~s focated at least five feet fram any proper~y I~ne (p) Access to Subterranean Garages ar~d Basements. {1) Up to a total of 50 sc~uare feet of area m tl~e s~de and r~ar yards may be util~zed for fightwells or stairwa~s to below-grade areas of th~ mam bu~lding and ~ny accessory butJdings However, ~n tt~e area bounded b~ Montana Avenue, th~ n~rthern C~ty lim~ts, Twenty-S~xth Street and Ocean Avenue, the s~de and rear yar~s may be util~zer~ for lightwells or starrways to ~3 r belo~x-grade areas of the mam bu~lding ar~d any accessory bu~~dEr~g provrded such excavated area ~s setback a minim~,m of 10% of the fat width from the property l~r~e, (2) No more tt~an three feet of excavat~on below grade for a dr~~eway, starrway, doorway, lightwell, windoworofhersuch elementto a subterranean or semi-subterranean garag~ or basement shal! occur in the fra~t yard setback area This re~u~rement may be mod~fied by the Arch~tectural Review Board far parcefs with an eievatian rise afi five feet from the firont property I~ne to a po~nt fifty feet towarcls the interror of the site if it fnds tha# tapagraphic cond~tions necess~tate that such excavatror~ be permftted However, ~n the area bour~ded by Montana Avenue, the northern City fim~ts, Twenty-Sixth Street and pcean A~enue, no excavatian for a driveway, stairway, daorway, IEght-well, w~ncfow or other such e~ement to a subterranean or sem~- subterranear~ garage or basement sha11 be permitted in the front yard setback area, and this prohrbit~on shafl no# be modi#ied by t~e A~chitectt~ral R~v~ew Board {q ) Roaf Decks. Raaf decks shall be set back at least three feet from th2 m~nim~m si~eyar~ sett~ack The h~~gnt of any rail~ngs or parapets associated with such roof decks mav n~i exceed the maxim~m alfowable bu~ldmg heig~tt for the structure SECT~ON 4 Sec#+an 9 04 ~8 42 D75 is a~ded ta th~ Santa M~rnca Mun~apaf Cade to read as foflows 14 ~ , Sec#~on 9.04.08.OZ.075 Special project design and development standards. Notwithstant~~r~g Sect~on 9 04 10 02 ~ 8a, ~rolects m#he area bo~ndet} by Montana Avenue, the northern C~ty i~mits, Twenty-S~xth Stree# and Qcean A~enue, shall comply wi~h t~e following spec~a! pro~ect cies~gn and development standards These standards are ~ntended to promote design flexibifity, encaurag~ the retention of existing structures thai eontnbute to ne~gi~borhaad character and pedestr~an scale, and result tn hames that do not impact the ligt~t, air, apen space, and pri~acy of ad~acent structures (a} For parcels wrth a max~mum ground floor parcel coverage of 35 percent, the maximum s~car~d ~laor parcel coverage, including the second ~loor ofi a!I accessory bu~Ed~r~gs, shal~ not exceed 26 percent ~t the ~arce! area Secor~d fEoor pa~cel coverage may be ~ncreased u~ to a maximum af 30 percent of the parcel area if the ground floor square footage ~s reduced an equivalent amount Conversely, the ground floor co~erage may be Encreased to a max~mum af40 pe~cent ~f an equivalent amount Es reduced on the secanC floor (bl In computing the first floor parcel coverage for a parcel with alley access, one-half the width o# a rear al~ey, wh~ch abuts the parcel, may be counted as a portion of the parcel area i~ alley access is prov~dsd and there are na cur~ cUts for t~e p~rpose af prov+d~r~g street access to or~-s+te pari~mg ~5 ~ 9 (c) The aggregate square faotage of secand floar balcon~es, terraces or roof decks shall not exceed 400 square feet {d) The area of any pat~a, balcony, roof deck or terrace apen on IeSS tt~an #wo srdes shall count towards parcel co~erage ancf shafl count for secor-d #loor parcel coverage i~ the fiaor icne ~s abave '~4 feet in ~e~ght (e) Any mdiv~duaf second fiioor balcon~es, t~rraces or roof decks greater than 50 square feet and located m the rear 2/3 of the parcei shall be set back 'i2 feet from any ~roperty Ime ~~ Garage doors facmg t~e pubfic street must be set back a m~n~m~m of 5 feet from the front setback I~ne and may not exceed 16 feet ~n width unless iacated in the rear 35 feet of the parcei. (g} A or~e-stor~+ garage attached to the primary structure with a max~mum height of 14 feet, inciuding parapets and ra~l~ngs, a maximum length of 25 feet, and w~t~r garage doors perpendicular to tt~e publ~c street, shall be allowed to {~ro~ect up ta 6#eet ~nto the requ~red f~ant yasd ~# ~o alley access exists, but may not extend closer than 20 feet to ihe front property fine (hj Exterror stairs and required fire escapes shall not pro~ect into the re4~rred frar~t or side yard areas (~} Porte cocheres not mare than 2~ feet lang, not ma~e tha~ 14 f~et m height ~ncl~d~ng railings or paTapets, and open an three sides may pro~ect into requireci side and rear yards iB (~) Balconies and porches open on at ieas# two sides with a maximum height of 14 feet mcludmg parapets and raifings, that do no# ex~sed 50 ~ercent of the front build~~g widti~ measured at the front facade, may pro~ect up to 6 feet ~nto the required front yard Stairs less than 3 feet abo~e gracle may pro~ect an addit~onal 4 feet mto the required front yard (k) The requrrements of subsec#ions (c), (fl and ~) of this Section may be mad~fied sublect to the re~iew and approval of the Arch~tectura! Re~iew Board pursuant to Section 9 04 08 02 Q8Q(f) SECTION 5 Santa Mornca Mun~cipal Code SectEOn ~ 44 08 02 080 Gs hereby amendad to read as foffows 9.04.08.02.Q80 Architectural review. No bu~ldmg orstructure ~n the RI D~str~ct shal! be sub~ectto arch~tectural review pursuant to fhe provisions of Chapter 9 32 of this Code except (a) Properties mstallir~g roof or buiidmg-mounted parabolic antennae ~only with respect to the antennae and screening}, (b? Duplexes, (cj Any structure abo~e fourteen feet m height that does not conform ta the requ~red y~rd stepbacks for structures aboWe fio~arteen feet in h~~ght, ~d} Any structure that does not conform to t#~e l~mitat~ons on access to sUbterranea~ garages and basements, 17 ~ (e} Any de~elopment rn the area bounded by Mo~tana Avenue, the northern City iimits, Twen#y-S~xth Street and Ocean A~enue, with regard to t~e fo4~aw~r-g car~d+t~ons only (1 } AnydevelopmentwitF~ an aggregate square fiootage of second fi~oor balconies, terraces or roof decks which exceeds 4D0 square feet (2~ Any structure with garage doors tacrng the ~ubfic street w~thm the front one-half of ti~e p~rcel which are not setbac~C from #he builci~ng facade a mm~mum of five fee# (3} Any strvcture with bafcon~es or porches oper~ on at least finro s~~es with a max~m~sm ne~ght af 14 ~eet i~c~uding parapets 2~nd ~ail~ngs, whsct~ pro~ect into the re~uired front yard and wh~ct~ exceed 5~ percent of the frar~t buiidmg w€dth measured at the front facade 44} Ar~y structure w~th s~de yard setbacks t#~at do not cc~nform w~th Sect~on 9 D4 08 02 D70~i} but which has m~nimum setbacks for each side yard ec~uai to 10 percent vf the parcel wcdth (f~ T~e Arch~tecturai Review Baard may appro~e the des~gn modifications set forth En 9 fl4 Q8 02 080(e) pro~~decf ai! the foilowing find~ngs of fact are made {1) There are specia! circumstances or except~onal characterrstics applECab~e ta the property En~o9~ed. ~nclud~n~ s3ze, shape topograpf~y, surroundings, or location of the ex~strng impro~ements or mature landscapmg on the s~te 18 ~ i {2) The grantmg of the design mod~ficatia~ will not ~e detrimentat nar rn~urious fo the praperty or improvements m the general v~cin~iy and distnct m which the property ts located (3) The granting of the design modificat~an w~li r~ot imAarr the mtegr~ty and character of t~~s R1 ne~ghborhood, nor impact #he iight, acr, open space, and privacy of ad~ace~t propert~es {4) in the case of add~#~ons to bu~ld~ngs rn the C~ty's Histor~c Resources lnventory, the design madificat~on is campat~ble wsth the bu~lding~s h~stor~c architectural character, does not resu~t m the removal of histonc bu~ldrng feat~res, ~nd the addct~on ts cans~stent with the Secretary of the Interior - Standards for RehabilEtat~on (5} T#~e design modificat~ans also compfy with the crtteria established in Sect~on ~ 32 t40 Any applicant #or a develo~ment sub~ect to architec#~raf review ~nder these prov~sions shall proWic~e Certification of notice to all owners and commercial and residentEa{ tenants of property with~n a radius of tnree hunared feet from tt~e exter~or boundaries af the propeRy in~olved m the applicat~on, not less than ten days in advance af Archit~ctural Review Board cons~derat~on of the m~tter, wh~ch not~ce and cert~ficatior~ thereof s~alf be m a#orm sat~sfactary to th~ Zoning Adminjstrator SECTION 6 Section 9~4 13 050 ~s added to fhe Santa Mon~ca M~n~cipaf Code to read as fo1lows 19 i 9.04.~ 3.~50 Or~e story accessory i~~ifdings o~er fourteen feet in height or two stofy accessory buildings. Tt~e pur~ose of th~s Sect~on is to ensure that accessory bu~ldmgs lacated on parceis ~n the area bounded by Montana Avenue, the narEhern City I~m~ts, Twenty-Sixth Street and Ocean Avenue, do not adversely impact ad~acent ~arcels or the surro~nding neight~orhoad, and are deve~oped m a manner which protects the ~ntegrity of tF~e neighbofioad Notwit~standing Sect~on 9 D~ 10 02 '! 10, t~e fallowmg cond~t~ons ancf property devela~ment standards shall apply to singfe story accessory ~u~Edings overfourteen feet ~n height ar two story accessory bu~ldings. (a} The accessory butld~~g sha~4 canform to al! p~operty development standards of t~e r~s~dent~al distnct ~n wh~ch the accessory building ~s bcated, except tha# a~ne-story garage or the garage portion of an accessary burlding may extend ~nto tt~e rear yard and may extend ta one mter~or s~de property fine on the rearthirty-f~e feet of a lot ar~d the second storv s~ai! I~a~e a m~nimurr~ separat~an af 20 feet trom the second stary of the pnncipaf building (b~ The second story portcon of an accessory bufldmg wh~ch is d~rectiy above the garage may extend ~ntfl the required rear yard k~ut shall tae no cioser than 15 feet from the centerl~ne of the alley ar ~ 5~eet from the rear property iine where no aliey exESts, and may not extend into any required scde vard 20 t (c) Roof dECks, ~and~ngs, ~pper ie~el walkways and ~alcon~es are lim~ted #0 3~ sq~are fest in area and must be set back at ieast 25 feet from the side property Ime closest to the str~cture, and at ieast 25 feet from the rear property fine, or ~f an alley exists, 25 #eet from the centerlme of the alley (d} Maximum Building Height The maximum bu~ld~ng he-ght shal~ be twa stories. twenty-four feet m he~ght Howe~er, no accessory bu~ld~ng shalf be higher than the prmcipal building (e} S~de Yard Setbacks The accessory building shall have the same mmfmum s~de yard se#back requirement as the prmcrpal building on the parcel, b~t ~n no case less than fi~e feet ~f} ArchEtecturaf Compatib~l~ty The accessory butlding shalE be architectural~y compatible with the pr~nc~pal dwelling and the surrounding ne~ghborhaod and s#~ail incorporate th~ same colors and materials as the ma~n dweliing (g) Max~mum S~ze of Second Floar No accessory builc~mg shall have a secon~ ftaar tha# exc~eds 25~ square feet in siza ~h) K~tchen ThE accessory bu~lding shall not contain a kitchen unless specificaliy permitted as a second dwEll~ng unit p~rsuant to Section ~ 04 08 02 04Q(b) (i) Ful~ Bath The accessory ~uildmg may cantain a smk and toiiet, but shall not cantain a shower or tub enclosure unless specificaliy permitted as a second dweliing unit pursuant to Section 9 D4 4$ 02 040~b) 21 Where t~ere is swimrning pool ar spa locat~d on the pr~mises, a shower that ~s 4ocated o~ts~de may be pesm~tted. (~} Renf~ng No accessory buildmg shall be rented for ar~y purpose or otherw~se used as a seParate dwelling unit unless speci~calky permrtted as a second dwell~ng unit pursuant to Section 9 44 Q8 02 04~(b) tk) Deed Restriction Prior fo issua~ce of a building perm~t for any accessory building, a deed restrict~on rn the form approved by the Gity shall be executed and recarded to ensure compliance wfth tF~is Sect~on SECTION T Plan checks far single family f~omes rn the North of Montana ne~ghborhood submitted pr~ar to the effect~ve date of this ordinance s~all cantinue to be sub~~ct to the developments s~andards established by Interjm Ordmance Number 1925 (CCS) unless the appl~cant chooses to redes~gn the plans to conform to #he standards cantained in this ordmance SECTfQN 8 Th~s ordir~ance ~s declared to be an urgency measure adopted pU~rsuant to t~e prov~sion of Sect~on 6i 5 of tt~e Sar~ta Monica City Charter As set forth ir the f~ndings above, thrs ord~nance is necessary for preserv~ng the pub~~c pea~e, health, sa~et~~. a~cf welfare As an urgency measure, #his ordinance is effecti~e immedia#ely upon adoptior SECTION 9 Any pro~ision of the Santa Monica Mun~cipal Code or appendices thereto inconsistent wi#h the pra~isions of this Ordmance, ta t1~e extent of such 22 e . inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repea~ed or modrfied to tt~at extent necessary ta effect the provisEOr~s of thES Ord~nance SECT~ON 10 If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, ar phrase of thrs Qrdrnar~ce +s for any r~asor~ hefd to be m~alyd or unconst~tut~onat by a decrs~o~ of any cflurt of competent ~urisdiction, s~ch dec~sion shall not affect the validrty of the remam~ng portions of this Ord~nance The G~ty Counc'~her~by deciares that~t wou~d have passed th~s Ordinance and each and every sectEan, subsect~an, sentence, c~a~se, or phrase not declared invalid or uncons#itutionai without regard to whether any partion of tt~e ordinance would be subsequently declared ~nvaE~d or unconstatutional SECTI4N ~ 1 The Mayor shal! srgn and the City Cterk shall attest to the ~assage of th~s Or~~nance The City Clerk shall cause the same to be publisheci once En the offic~al newspaper w~th~n 15 days after ifs adoption Th~s Ordmance sF~all become effect~~e upon its adoption r';PPRQVED A5 TO FORM . ~; . ~ - ~ • ~'_.ci ,. , ~- ` -- ~-', '~-' ~ r~1ARSHA ,~~NES MOUTR3E Citv Attorraey 23 Adapted and approved this 10`~ ~a~~ of Au~ust, 1999 _ ~i; ` I , ~ r" . ~ Y ~~ 4 ~ ~ Pam O'Coruior, Ma~ror Srate of Cai~forma } Count~- of Los Anaeles ~ ss Cit~~ of Santa Monxca ) L Maria M Stewar[_ C~t~ Clerk of the CctF~ of Santa Monica, do hereh}~ certtfi~ that the foreaoina Ordinance No 1950 {CCSl had its introd~cuon and adoption on Au~ust 10, 1999. b~~ the followina vpte Aves Council members Hol6roak, Rosenstein. NlcKeown. F~instein, Mayor Pro Tem Genser. ~4Sa4or O'Can~or ~oes CounciI members None Abstam Counc~l ~nembers I~one absent Council members Bloom ~---%L~;TEST ~ -__ ~~~. w - ~~3aria ~1 Ste«~art C~ti~ Clerk ATTAC~N'T B . ~; ~ r, Comparison of Proposed Ordinance wi#h Existing and Interim Standards L ISSUE ~ EXISTING C~DE ~ INTERIM ORDINANCE ~ PROPOSEQ ~ ParCPi CUVC;r~3ye 40"/,~ 40% 35% 50% sinc~le story 50% single story (up to 40`% rf'L"'' story is 21 °/~or iess} Seeand Floar Parr.eJ Couerar~c 40"/~ 2Fi°/n 26%~ same as Interim Ord Allow increas~ to 30"/~ wdh carresponding reduct~on in ground floor ~y~~rcel coverage (trnm ;i5%) Froni Yard 5etb~ar,ks Per Giiy 4istncting Map or if nane Average of ~d~ parcels, ~~er City Per City Distrtctinq Map, or if none shown, 20 ft Map, or 20 ft wi~ichever is gr~~ter shown, 2U ft Side Yard Sethar,ks 1U% of lot widlh, 3'6" mmimum 1f~/„ of lot w~dfh, 3'6" min~mum 10'% of lot widtti, 3'~" ~runultui~~, w~th required ~,,,~,..,,, of scit.iack fnr both s~de yards cumbined tor hldgs ~ 1$ fi in ht = 3Q%~ of lot width (ARB modificalion allowed) Rear Yard 5etbacks 25 ft 25 ff 25 ft Front Stepbacks - akro~a 14 it ~75% a~ m:aximum buddable ~75"/~ of maximum buildahle > 70"/0 of m~ximum b~ildabfe elevation mus! slepback 4% of lot ~levalion must stepback 4%~ of lot elevation must stepback 8%~ of lot depth cieplh depth Max 12 tt reyu~rcd StPpback Side Stepbacks - abav~ 14 fi ~ 50°/~ of max fauddable elevation ~ 50'%~ of max buildablc elPVation > 50`% of max hwldable elevation stapback nf 1 fl for each 2'4" of ste~~bar,k of 1 ft for each 2'4" af slepback of 1 ft for e~ach 2'4" of heiyht above 14 ft up l0 21 ft heic~ht ahov~ 14 ft up to 21 ft height ahove 14 ft up to 2~ ft Rear Stepbacks - abovc 14 ft Same ~~s fmnt stepbacks Same as iront stephar,ks Must stcpbar,k entirc 2"'' floor rear elevaiion an amount =:iU% of lot depth, to a maximum setback of 40 ft Measure from rear F~ropcrty line or ~f none cxists, cenlerline of alley Srde Stepbacks - a~iove 2~ft Angle back at 45 degrees Angle back at 45 dec,~ress An~~le back at 30 degrees {Building Envelope) Max~mum Bwlc~ing He~ght - 28 ~t 2a ft 28 fl 32 ft Max~mum Buddinq He~ght - 2 stories 2 stoncs 2 stones 2 ston~s ~ Page 1 ,.~:, Comparison of Proposed Ordinance with Existing and Interim Standards x r ISSUE 2"" Floor halconies, terraces or roof decks Fronl Yard Paviny Basement Second 5tary Accessory Buildinqs I EXISTING CODE 3 ft setback from mmimum sideyard 1 selback I Maximum 50% -Permatted within tootpr~nl -Lighfwells, e#c permdled in setUacks to a maximum of 50 sf -Limited excavalion permitted ~n front y~ird - 650 sq fi maximum size for buddiny - Max~mum build~ng he~c~ht 24 ft INTERIM ORDINANCE 3 ft setback from minimum sideyard setback 250 sf maximum M~aximum 50% Permitted within footpnnt LightwPHs. etc r~ermitterf in setbacks to a maximum f~f 5O sf -No excavation pcrmittcd in front y€3rd Use Permit Rcquircd 650 sf rnawmum lor building Nol ~ermittPd on ext~:nor side o# IoE if cornr;~r !nt PF20POSED Maximum of 40Q sq ft (aggregate) of roof decks, terr€~ces and balconies permitted (AR8 modi~ allowed) Any deck {n rear 213 of parcel larqer than 50 4q ft must be sethr:jr,k 12 ft from property line Maximum 40%~ Permitted within fflp#~7rint Lightwells, etc perrnitted in side and rear sr:ihacks hul no r.lo5~r thsnl0%, of the parcei width from property line No size hmit I~o excavation permitted in front yard - Use Permit required - 25U sf maximum for second floor _ 2"'' floor not permilied m side y~ard - No kimik on square tootac~e af ground floor - Second floor permitied within rear yard above garage, hut rnust be set back 15 ft - Windows must be seEbac~C 25 ft from closcst sidc pro~3crty line - Upper level decks, landings, walkways & ua~cun~es I~m~ted to 35 sq ft& must be set bac;k 25 it from sidc and rear prop hne5 - Max building height = 24 il - 2"`' floor must be at least 2U feet from the 2"`` floar of the pnnapal buEldiny Paye 2 ~ ~s Comparison of Proposed Ordinance wit#~ Existing ar~d Interim Standards ~ ISSU~ ~ ~XISTING CODE ~ INTERIM ORDINANCE I PROPOSED ~ Front Porch M~y pro~ect 30" into froni yard May pro~oct 30" mto front yard - Porches (and baleonies) may pro~ect 6 fl into frant yard wiEh maximum width ot 50"/o allowable bu~ldable elcvation, 14 ft m~xim~im heighi includinc~ ra~lings (ARB madd for width ) - Stairs to front porch may pro~cct into the front yard an adclitional 4 ft if na hi~her than 3 ft above c~r~de Garage Locations - -M~y cxlr,nd to one side properly line May extend to ane side property line If parcel has no alley, garage may far s~ngle stary qarage up to 14 ft he~ght in rcar 35 ft of parcel in rear 35 Il of parcel exkend to one sidc prapcrfy hno in ~ncl~ding any E~arapci or guardrails -Streef access optional for parcels rear 35 ft of parcel wrth alley ac:r,ess UsP Perm~t requ-red for streei -Allows hmited excavaiion within ....,,,.,,,, if parcei has any alley firont yard for acc~ss to subterr~nean Incentive provided far taking alley garac~es access {m~y inr,lude % ~~11ey width in parcel coverac~e calc ) Garaye doors f~3cinq street must bc setback 5 ft from the buildiny facade (ARB modif allowcd) Mawmum width of garagc doors facinq the streel is 16 leet, unless m rear 35 ff of parcci (ARB modif allowed) 1-story garaqs with doors ~~erpend~cular to the StrePt may pro~ect up to f ft intcf front yard up to 25 (l lenyth with minimum sethack 20 ft from iront property line No subterrane~n parking or access ramps in front yard F 1PLANISHAREICOUNCILISTRPTIRI nomalcounciltable wpd LBIk 71'13l99 t Paqe 3 ,~ ~ ~~'t ATTACHMENT G ~ ~ x 4 NQTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE SANTA MONICA CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: A Public Hearing will be held by the City Council on the following Ordinance for Introduction and First Readmg to Amend Santa Mon~ca Municipal Code Sections 9 04 08 02 D20, 9 ~4 08 02 04Q, 9 04 08 02 070, and 9 D4 08 ~2 08D and to Acld Section 9 04 08 02 Q75, and Se~t~on 9 04 13 050, Relating to the DEVelopment Standards for Parcels in the R-1 District Area Baunded by Montana A~enu~, the Northern City Limits, Twenty- Sixth Street, and Ocean Avenue WHEN: Tuesday, August 10, 1999 at 7 00 P M WHERE: Caunc~l Chamber, Room 213 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica HOW TO COM[~ENT The City of Santa Monica encourages public comment on this and other pro~ects You or your representative, or any other persons may comment at the City Council's publ~c hear~ng, or by writing a letter Letters should be addressed to City Clerk 1685 Main Street, Room 102 Santa Mon~ca, CA 90401 MDRE INFORMATION If desired, further ir~formation on the proposed ordinance may be obtained ~rom the City Plannmg Di~ision at the address a~ove or by callmg (310j 458-8341 The meeting facil~ty is access~ble If you need any disability-related accommadations, please contact staff at (310)458-8709 Pursuant #o Californ~a Government Code Section 85009(b}, if ~his matt~r is subsequently challenged in Court, the chaflenge may be lim~ted to anly those issues raised at the Public Hearing described in this notice, or in wr~tten carrespondence deli~ered to the City of Santa Monica at, or prior to, the Public Hearing ESPANQL Esto es un aviso sabre una audencia publica para revisar applicaciones prapan~endo desarrollo ~n Santa Monica Esto p~aede ser de interes a usted Si des~a mas mformacion, Ilam~ a Carmen Guti~rrez al numero (310) 458-8341 flplanlsharelcouncil'~noticesir1noma wpd p' .s ~~ ~• APPROVED AS TO FORM ~ ~ :la Tre~ino, AICP P anning Manager Y y. ATTACHMENT D - ° ;~ ~Y area. This requErement may be modified ~y the Architectural Reviev~r Board for parceis with an elevat~on rise of f3ve feet from the front property line ta a point f~fty feet towards the interior of the site if it f~nds tha# topagraphic cond~t~ons necessitate that such excavati~r~ be permitted {q) Roof Decks Roof decks shall be set back a# least three feet from the m~nirnum sideyard se#back The height of c^y ra~lings or parapets associat~~c with such roaf decks may not exceecf the maximum allowable building height for the structure Section 9.04.08.02.075 Special project design and development standards. Notwithstanding Section 9.04.10.02.1$0, projects in the area bounded by Montana A~enue, the northern City I~mits, Twenty-Sixth Street and Ocean A~enue, shal! comply with the following specia! pro~~ct design and developmen# standards: (a) The maximum parcel co~erage of the second floar, including the second floor of all accessory buildings, shalE not exceed 26 percent of the parcel area. Second floor parcel co~erage may t~e increased up to a maximum of 30 ~3% of the parcel area if the ground floor square footage is reduced an equivalent amount. (b) ~n computing the first floor parcel coverage for a parcel with alley access, one-half the width of a rear alley, which abuts the parcel, may be counted as a portion of the parcel area if alley access is provided and there are no curb cuts for the purpose of pro~iding street access to on-site parking. (c) The aggrega#e square footage of second floar balconies, terraces or roof decks shail not exceed ~IOQ square feet. ~d) The area of any patio, balcon~, roof deck or terrace open on less than two sides shall count fowards parcel co~erage and shall count for second floor parcel co~erage if the floor line rs above 14 feet in height ~s ~; _ . ~< ~; {e) Any indi~idual second floar balconies, terraces or roof decks greater than 5Q ?n~ square feet and located m the rear 2!3 of the parce~ shall b~ set back 12 feet from any property line. (fl Garage doors facing the puhlic street must be set bacic a minimum of fi~e {5) feet from the front buildir~g elevation and may not exceed 'Ifi feet ir~ width. ~g) A ane-story garage attached to the primary structure with a maximum he~ght af ~4 feet, includir~g parapets and r~ilings, a max~mum length of 2~ feet, and with garage doors perpendicular to the public street, shaii be allowed to pro~ect up to 6 feet inta the required front yard ~f no alley access exis#s, I~ut may not extend closer than 20 feet to the front property line. (h) Exterior stairs and required fire escapes shall not project inta the required front or side yard areas. (i) Porte cocheres not more than 20' long, not more than 12 feet in he+ght includ~ng railings or parapets, and open on three sides may project into required s+de and rear yards. (j} Balconies and porches open on at least two sides with a maximum height of 14 feet including parapets and railings, that do r~ot exceed 50% of the front building width measured at the front fa~ade, may project up to 6 fee# into the required front yard. Stairs less than 3 feet above grade may pro~ect an additiona~ 4 feet into the required front yard. (k) The requirements of subsections (c), (f; ~n~! ~j~ o# this Sect~on may be modified subjec# to the re~iew and approval of the Architecfural Review Board if the Board finds that the madification will not be detr+mental to the property, adjoining proper#ies or the general area in which the property is located, and the building design will be compatible with the neighborhood. 9 04 08 02 Q80 Architectural re~iew No bu~ld~n~ or structure ~n the R1 D~str~ct sha#1 be sub~ect to architectural rev~ew ~ ,i i ~. ; ~ 4~ ~ pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 9 32 of this Code except (a) Praperties rnstalling roof or build~ng-mounted parabalic antennae (only w~th respect to the antennae and screen~ng). (b} Dupiexes, (c) Any struc#ure abo~e fourteen feet in height #hat does not conform to the reqwred yard stepbacks for structures abovs fourteen feet in he~ght, (d} Any str~~ctur~; that does n~t confarm t the limitat~ons on access to subterranean garages and basements. ~e) Any de~elopment in the area bvunded by Montana A~enue, the northern City limits, Twenty-Sixth Street and Ocean Avenue, with regard to the following cor~ditions only• 1. Any developmen# with an aggregate square footage of second floor balconies, terraces ar roof decks which exceeds 400 square feet. 2. Any structure with garage doars facing the public street within the front one-haff of the parcel which are not setback from the buiid~ng fa~ade a minimum of five feet 3 Any structure with balconies or porches open on at least #wo sides with a maximum height of 14 feet including parapets and railings, which project into the required front yard and which exceed 50% of the front building width measured at the front fa~ade. Any ap~lica~t for a de~~elopment sub~ect to arch tectural re~ie~v under these provisions shalf provide certiftcation of notice to all owners and commercial and residential tenants of property within a radius of three h~ndred feet from the exter~or boundaries of the property in~ofved in tF~e appl~cation, not less than ten days En advance of Architectural Review Board cons~deration of the matter, which notice and c~rtEfication thereof shali be ~n a form satisfactory to the Zoni~g Administrator 9 _ ..s G.: ~^-eb-15-04 09=41P P.QZ ~ ^ ~ t ~D ANGELIKA DEVQL 53f 17TH STREET SAI~iTA MONICA, CA 90402 6/ t 3/99 TO PLANNII~TG C0;1~IlVIFSS~~'~T , CIQ LAURA BECK RE PROPOSED PERM.4NE1tiT CHANGES I'O TIIE riORTH QF MONTANA INTERiM QRDINANCE DEAR PLANNiNG CUMMISSiQN VIrE OWN A 140~ S/~' ORiGiNAL SPANiSH HOUSE ON A 50 X I50 L~T WITH NI('E MATIJRE TREES 1N NEED FOR M4RE SPACE WE WDULD LIKE TQ REMODEL $Y ADDL'~iG 300 S/F TO THE FIRST FL04R AND ADDING A 13{)0 S/F SECOND FLOOR WG WISH 'tQ PRESERVE ANI? UPDATE THE CHARM OF AN ~LDER HOME AND TO DESIGN AROUND A MATURE TREE OUR HOUSE WOULD END UF TQ BE @ 3000 S~F HOME THIS CAN HARDLY BE CONSiDERED AN OVERBUILD HOWEVER WITH THIS RIDICULDIJS CONSIDERATIOIV TO INSTITUTE A CDMBINED T'OTAL OF 15 FEET SiDE SETBACK A1` A.hY G1VEN POINT OF THE STRUCTUR~E WE W~ULD NOT BE ABLE TO ACCOMPLf5H OUR MODEST PROGRAM WE WOULA BE FORCED TO Cl1T DOWN TH1S BEAUTIF'UL 4LD TREE ANQ D~JE TQ A 4 FOflT PRE- EXISTFNG SETBACK O~T QNE SIDE CREATE A LQNG NARIZOW BUiLDiNG TF[E 1RONiC THING 1S THE NEIGHBORS ON THE SIDE WH1CH WOULD BENEFIT FROM A 1 l F04T SIDE SET BACK DO N~T EVEN HAVF WINDOWS {)F llNPORTANCE FAL'tNG THAT WAY AND WOULD ALSO PREFER TO PRESERVE THE TREE THAN FIAVE TO LOaK AT MQRE BtJtLDiNG TN 4UR BACKYARI] THERE HAS TO BE A SYSTEM THAT ALLOWS FOR VARiATTQNS ~1VCASE OF A REMODEL EACH SiTUAT10N IS INDI VIDUAL AND THIS RIGiD ~ 5 FOOT' SLDE SET BACK IDEA NST DOES NOT WORK ~ 1 f~ FRANKLY, T AM SHOCKED AND REALLY CONCERNED THAT Ti-CERE SEEMS TO BE A LACK QF CONCERN TO PR~TECT EV~RYONES iNTEREST VVE ARE NOT DEVELOPERS, WE DQ NQT PLAN TO 8U1LD A MQNSTER MANSION, WE ARE THE VERY PEbPLE ~rOV ARE SuPPOSED To PROTECT ~. ~ - ; ~ ~ ~. Feb-15-04 09=42P TFiERE WiLL BE A L~T OF FAMIL~ES I~1 OUR POSiTION A:VD WE ALL WILL N4T BE HAPPY IF THE lti'EW PERMANENT ORf}INAZVTCE iS G4~NG 7~ MAKE THINGS WORSF RATHER THA.'tf BETTER FOR THE CQMMUNTTY AI~'D ASSURE A DRpP 1Ti PROPERTY VALL,`E5 THE N~1~4A GRQUP MAY HA1~'E STARTED THIS PAOCESS W1T~i GOOD INTENT~pNS HU'T DON'T BE FOOLED, THEY ARE NOT ?HE VOICE FQR ~VERY SMALL HOME QW'NER Pr,T TH(S AREA T~IJS i5 A VERY DELICATE PROCESS Ah'C YOU SHOULD NOT BE ET~`CQURAGED T~ RUSH INTO A~'~NAL ORDTfti1Ah'CE U1`~'IL YQU HAVE ~AIR AND ~NTE[1L~G,~NT 50LLUTlQNS WHICH CON5TDER EV~RYONES 1NTERESTS 5IN ~, ' ` . t /./ / ~ ANGELIKA DEVOL P.A~ s i ~ i ~, -` ~ ~f ~.~~ ~-~ ~t.~~ ~ ~t~L ~F ~T .~5E !:'Tfa w~~EEz J~~~~.~ h~i~.~~,~r~ C~.~t ~~~t~~,~~ J4~~~.'F Jt3ne 1S, 1999 ~Ien~~ers o~ ~h~ 5ar~~a Monica P~annir~g Cot~is~ion ~~~ F~ank Gruber, Ac~ing Chair I685 Ma~in S~reet, Room 2],2 Santa Monica, Califor~ia st34ol b~ar G~mmissioners: VIA ~AC~IMIL~ 3~U,~5$.338U I am a n~~eawner ~.n ~he area narth of M~ntana. Unf~rtc~na~~ly, I cannat a~tend '~he meeting tamorrow ~.zr~ht tr~ exgress m~ ~trozx€~ be~ief tha~ ther~ ~s t~o m~~h av~rsized h~u~ing be~nq cc~nst~~cted ~n this ne~qhb~r3zaad . Th~ emerg~nc~ ozdirt~n~~ 3oQked Ca ~ne a prudent ~irst step, and recen~ actsans to ha~d at 35~ (first ~Ioor) seem furthe~ evidence ~~ sensib~e p~an~~ng. I ~m pl~a~ed that th~ Plar~ning Ccammissian ~-nd ~t~ ~~af~ a~e being sc~ tj-~aughtfui a~id ~t~~ntive to this matter. Flease hold tiqht aga~nst th~ a~efbuil~ing. Th~~k you ~Qx~ yo~r attent i~*~ . S l, t1C~Z'[G 1~ . r ; G ~~ anathan i~. Kauf~.3t ZO"d JI3K: ia~b " ~ ~ d~~C=SO 56-St-unc ~P~,t ~ ~~rr~ T~ r~~ ~5~~~ marv~c,q ~L~9ltl~I,~G Cen1~1 ~SSio~ : C~dF~t~,~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ rI ~ ~I~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ . ~9' .~c~ ~ ~ ,~,c~ ,~ ~~ s~; • ~ 4 ~~ .~J ~~ ~9' cu~.~ ,~~,r~ ~y .I~:.~,~i ~'~ xZrrn.~ h:u.~,x,~" ~ - . '~ ~ ~~ . ~ hr.w.~r-~~.~~.G ~ . ,~.r,c.~,u,~.c~ ,~ ,H ~ ,cc.l,~ ,.c~,~ ~ ,1,~ ~ ~ ~v '~,~°'~ ,d,~,~~ ~ ~ . ~ '~" -~~ , ,G(~4 ~~ ~IG • _ ~~ ~ .. ~ '~ : I ~~ - ,vd ~ ,~ . ~~ ~ ' ..~ ~i~c- ~~~ ~v ~ ~ .~,~ .~ a~ ~ ~t'~t+lit~,L ~] ~- ~ a~~ ~L+ti~rxJ f~GL/ i~~~~J . ~ ~ . . ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~t.~- ~C~c.~-~.~. a.~,~ ~%~~v ~ a~r,v ~ ~ ,~- .~ ~~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~'~~ .~ .~ .~ .~ ~ . ~.~ ~ , ~ -. ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ . ~~ .c~ ~~, ~~9~ v _ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ w ,~rz ~~ .~,..;;_ t, 51599 ~„ : - ~; ; . Har,°es tlorth of .~~antar~a 'gg , ~::~~ 15 ; _ S~xeet 1 Sto~y xarge Bigger 4~r or less 5 Br or ~~Ior~ L~ncoln 35 14 29 9~In 3~ 23 25 10th 29 'Z 27 Z Z th 53 2~ 22 12th 50 25 27 E1.~clid 37 22 2~ 14th 46 22 2a ~ Sth 57 27 34 ~ &th 58 31 21 17th 59 27 34 13th 33 16 57 19t'-~ 44 25 4 ; 20th ~5 31 47 21s~ 25 30 a5 21st P1. 39 28 ~5 22nd 29 21 56 23rd 37 17 57 24th 78 29 51 25th 29 ~4 b0 758 434 730 ~lease nottce t~e incrz~se in recyvlang of the noce,es after i6t.~? street. I'nis survey zsn`t absolute. It's :r~ guess as to wtuc~ har:es ~,ro~ly have 4 bedroa~s and a den or 5 be:~_roor;s or more. You've a grea~ Git}r staff and they could da a great ~ob. Single stary is easy. ,ve aII know no one zs ga~ng i~fl pay $7r8,or ~9E}~,000 fo~ a~ot with a 24Q0 ar 3QOQ foot house on ~t to live in..They aren`t going to p3y at buzld a~ iaedxo~n ay 5~edroarr~ house ~aith b~drooms the size of Glosets. They'll go eZse~~~nere and eventually ta;~e thezr businesses w~~~ th~-~. Property F~~Il drop until t~e economic5 ge~ in line. ~~ ~ ;~, z. yde wilZ have lost t:ne people that glac~ly support tne Czty and your charitypragrams. They're the b~.g gavers to ci~ara~ty anyti~ay and they ~on't expect services for nothing. They are the contrib-utors, .~e the older peonle and t~e ones ~~~zth t~e s.~ll homes are users. We don' t Fay o~zr *,aap .~~7e pay ~.o:ti= ~roperty taxe~c, don' ~ spend a Iot _ A1? th~se ane story hor^e a~,~nez~ ~'e sitting on pronerty ~orth more ~han t~'~ey have beec~ abie to accumuZate zn their ~ntire life. It r,aiZ~ give them secui'ity ~a~en they can't l~ve in their hoTnes any longer or they can pass Y~ an to thair childr~n. The CitLL~ w~.ll ~ve a fore~aard, proax~essive electorate that'sthinlcing of t'~e future, not the past and the C~ty ~~ill b~ prasp~xous, able to do all the aood thzngs you peop~e ~o. Sarita t~tonica is landlock~. .~Ie can't add an inch. There as no way you can T~ake revenue grow by cutting iaack. The present zon~nq is acceotable to the people that ar~ ~r~oving here, y~e're lucky. There s~eil~ always be a fe:~ people that push any Iaw to th~ absolutz l~r~.t. 7ust Iike th~re wa~.7. always ne people _yau can never sat~sfy_ Go with ~ahat'~ best for the City after we're ail gone. Leave it so it can grow financially and provade the s~rv~ces ~T,F, the peaple want a~-:t~ need, inc~udzng those Iess fortunale.. Raght today, if a property owner Nort~'~ af "~:ont~ ~•3 is unha~~py they ca~ sell t_heir home for lat value and ~ove on w~th a whole bunch of m~ney and both they and the City will ~e in much better shape. ~Re tfu , ~1 , ~ " ~~J ' . ~~ ~ ~ . ~~ ~ ,. ~7 z3xa. s~. s~ta rianica, Ca., 90402 310-395-5651 '~y ~, ~ F; :: NflR7H O F MONTAriq AS50GlATi07V A CAI4FOF2NIR NbN-?ROFIT p~g~1G BENEFIT CORPORATION l~fs ~.aura Beck Assoc~ate Pla.z~er City Planni~g Di~ision Santa Mo~ca, California Dear Laura, 29 7une 1999 :. ~ C ~ -~-~; ~ -~ ~ F-;. C_ _,--. - ~ -- ~ ~ u3 p ~ -~. The excellent propasal ihat yat~ and ~our colle,~gues preserrted ta the Plan~ing Commiss~an incorporated the vast rna~onty of the initiatives we have been asivocating, a~d fvr t~at we are mast grateful Inevitably, such a broad range of rule changes w3~1 raise questions of clarification and a c~esire ta fne-tune certain aspects Severai suc~ issues were ratsed by the Cornmissioners In this letter we offer our own s~ggestions for your cti~derat~on (~) One of the most cantentious and d~fficult issues is the treatment o€the garages ~d accessary buildings We ha~e t~-ee reconunendations in this area (1 a) Regarding the ~ocario~ af the garage on lu~s rvith an alley, we recom~nend that the development stanciard simply state that tt~e pre~'e3-red locataon ~s in the rear, with a1ley access, and that a~y vther arrangement wil~ require ~ special rev~ew (a Use Permit far a front gara~e itseif, as well as a new curb cu~, for example) That wQUId eliminate the nee~l for ~he incentive clause (}~aragraph ~b) in section 9 04 O8 02 075 in t~e 16 Ju~ draft} wluch we find undesuabls (~b) Far attached garages placed in tk~e front of the lot, a survey of hames in the area leads us to conclud~ tlr~t side-facing garages have no intrinsic advanta,ge o~er frotrt-facing_ One offers monotono~s garage daors facmg the street, the other offers monotanoua garage end wa11s facing the 5treet and more front-yard pa~+ing We recommend deie~on of the clsuse a~~awin$ side-facing garagas to extend mtv the requued frorn yard setback (paragraph {g) in secCion 9 04 OS 02 075 in fhe 16 ~une draft) (1 c) We applaud the fi~il range of restr~ctions placed on the second stary of a two-story accessary building, wfth the following eomments Paragraph (bj of section 9 04 13 O50 states that tl~e seeond stvry of an accessory building may e~end into the requyred rear yard `~ut s~l be no closer than ~ 5 feet fram the reaa- propea~ty line " In the Pla~ning Comm~ssion meeting it appearec~ that tt~is was ~ntended to mea.n 15 feet froir- the center line of a back alley, we support this, but it shQUid be clarified Secand, the Use Permit ,~ ~ ` !1 v ~ ~ ti -2- pracess for garage seco~d stories shauld be strengthened to put snore burden on the apglicant These srnall second-stones prov~de little benefit ta the ovrr~er and rn.ay have a large impact on neighbo~-s (2) We endorse the suggestian made ~y one of the Camr~iss~oners that a"re~erse" trade be alloweci betw~e~n first and second story floor area Spec~fiically, we recnmmend that a one-for-or~e trade in floor area be allflwed between f~rst anc~ secand story in either direct~vn, but wath a rnaximum of 3 E1% lot area foF the second story and 40°/v ~ot ar~a. for the ftrst stary (3) Ta accommodate the occ~onal lot of odd s~e ar shape, we recommend that the second stary rear setback be specified as a percentage of the Eot depth A value of 25% (40{15~} seems ap~rapria~e (4} Finally, we jo~n wit~ athers who favor some k~r~d of ~ncenf~ve to remn~el rather than tea}- down and replace We expltcitly would iike the new ~ul~s to encourage owners to remadel older homes rather tha.~ tear dow~n and start over (For example, add~ a sma.~l secanci story to an exis~ing ~ouse that doesn't meet the 30°lo side yard requir~merrt should be accornmodated ) Incent~ve elauses are always tricky, sa perhaps a paragraph cauld be included in tt~e preamble statuig that general preference, as guidance for f~.ture acttons hy the Zoning Commissioner and the Planiung Commis~an In closing, we want #o again aclc~owledge our gratitude and apprec~ation to the staff ntembers and t~e cansulting are~utects foz your many contnbut~ons througl~nut this pracess ~f you eonsider ~t apprapr~ate, we wo~ld be pleased to rneet and dtscuss ~ny aspect of our ~'ecornmendatians Cnrdially yours, rr ~~G;L ~i.t~ I3qns Sasln Chairperson, i~TOMA cc Jay Trevino, Planning Manager A~anda Schachter, Semor Planner Susan Healy I~eene, Senior Planner Memb~rs af the City Council 10~7 MoNTANp AV~NUE • Box 578 • San~rA MON~CA • CA • 90403 ($'10} 45f-1741 • SMINOMA~AOL COM ~ ~ - ;~ AMERICAN REALTY A~VISORS [',f~~ ~ `_ C~TY =; . . ~ ~~. -~ Y'~z ~f fnstifutiona~ Rea! EsFafe lnvestment Manaaement ~uh• 2, 1999 ~'ia First Class 11r~ai1 ~Is Laura Beck ~ssociate Planner Csn~ Plaruung Dnrision Cst~~ of Santa Mant~a Plannuig Div~sion POSt Oft1CC BO:Y ~~vJ Santa ~ioruca, Califorrua 9~4~7-22G~ Re De~-elopmenz Standards tor the R-1 Distnct tiorth of ~iontana ~venue Dear ~1s Eeck It ~ as a pleasure ha~-uig ~-au take the tune to discuss ~zth me the i-arious fssues surrounc~ng the proposed orduiance ior the `do.~-n-zonu-ig'' of the residenual area north of Montana in Santa 11~Ioruca, Callforrua ~s a resident of the nonh ot l~Iontana area in Santa VIoruca for the last 3 li~ ~-e:~-s. I ha~ e a keen uiterest u3 ensuring that the ~ alue ot m;.~ home is ma~ntauied and that the ~ntegnn~ of the "commurut~~ teeluig" is also mauztained I.~ ant to applaud the efforts ot e~-en-one uaE-ol~~ed. ~.-ho ha~-e broug~Zt rl~e ~ude~uies to the pou~t ~~ here ~ e are no~- discussing them in the conte~t of long term plamm~g for Santa 1.~oruca The follou7ng issues, I bel~et-e, need to be considered in connecuon ~~ith insunng t~e successful irnplementanon of an~- legislati~-e effort ~-1uch see~s to address the long terrn needs of the commurut~,-, the unpact, and ultunate ~7abilit}- of ant~ such propasal Hou-et~er, before I begui to addtess some issues R-hich T behet-e need funher discussion, I~an~ to outluae ~-hat I belie~ e to be the tssues ~-hich the commurutv is concemed ~s-ith as arnculated b~- the communit~~ at the R-1 ~-orkshaps These goals .~~ere as follo~-s • Ta ~nsure that light and air to ad~acent single famil~r residenual propertfes north af I~lontana are maintauied in an appropnate manner, • Reduce the bulk and densit~• of n~- homes and/or addiuons to exssting homes to conform to the s~ze of the lots and ma~.nta~n the o~ erall commurut5- feeLing, • 1~1u~ta~n the "character and ambiance of the nor~h of l~iontana neighborhood", • 11~1auitaui those charactenstics that are considered to be essential to the streetscapes of the north of I~~~ontana areas consistent ~szth the unage that is desired to be created and/or mauztauied, and B18 545 1152 faX B 18 545 8460 wwwamericanrea~ cOm 700 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 30d, Glendale CA 91203 ~ ij tl AMERICAN REALTY A~VI5OF25 VIs Laura Beck JultT 2, 1999 Page 2 • Ensure the pnl-acr of the homes aa~ the ~-ards in the area north ot h~onrana ~7s- a-1-is ne~- de~•elopment and/or reno~-ation of e:~sung homes on adJaCent parcels De~~elopment, renovation, and remodel.u~g axe and ~~1 be, a constant, as change is constant, and ~-ili continue fax ~nto the future as prxces of homes contu~ue to increase in ti•alue and as citizens in our commuiut~- desire to e:~-pand their hornes to meet thexr future h«ng requirernents Change is an unportant part of am- statutort- standard, and ~; e must be cogruzant that change ~-i11 continue to occur o~°er tune and that ~•e must ac~ommodate ~;hat those changes are anucipated to be 1~-20-30 ~•ears from no~ Thus, it becomes imponant to step back from the process and not become ent~c-ined in the fla-~r-dzd ~rr- of current attitudes and pre~udtces, but rather ~e need to ~u.~-tapose our short-term goals ~-ithin a broad framea•ork of ho~ the~~ u-~11 ~ ork tor our children and the future generauons ~-ha ~.zll hti=e here As ~ e ha~~e discussed, each one of the goals articulaLed b~~ our commurut~- are extremehr laudable, but they- do not necessanli• address some of the underl~-uig huidamental issues ~.~luch need to be strongl~-considered 6~- the i'lanrnna Department, r.he Plaru~ung Cominission, and the Cat~.r Counc~l These ~ssues are as follo~c-s • L:~,~'DSCAI'ING ST~1~aRDS: Landscaping stanc~arc~s ~zs-a-vis a landscaping orduzance or a viable standard ~-ithui the development g~udeluies to maintatn an appropnate degree ot landscaping consistent ~-ith the character of the cammunttt~; and • DESIGV RE~"IEVF` I:~KCHITECTL,RE REVIEVi~' PROCESS: ~ desi~n re~~le~= process to ensure that the ulumate design of an~- ne~~ renor°auon or new construction on a propem- is conszstent ~-rth the o~-erall goals of the commurutt= In adc~uon, I~-ould lrke to comment on seti°eral of the issues that.~~ere ci~scussed in the Planrung Co~uzussion ~-h~ch I bel~e~•e need to l~e considered, fur~her, ~-1uch are as follo~.~s • The use and cost of a basement • Second ston~ side ~=ard~-mdo.~-s. and L.~~-DSC.~I'ING ORDli1~_~\CE/L_-jND5G41'E DESIG~I ST_~.'`'I)_~RDS A landscaping arduiance ar landscaping design reqiuremen.ts can accommodate the follo,~~ng axeas of concern, and I bel~e~-e these are an e:~tremel~- important and integral part of any- de~-elopment standard for a communit~- hke the north of l~Zantana area of Santa ~Toruca ~ Pn~-acy- nghts ~,~ith respecc to side ti ards and ad~acent properties; and F ''•,F1\k'1SL1~Beck-Vrtioil4icntana.~~sec dec t ~ ~ i AMERICAN REALTY A~VISOF25 VIs Laura Beck July 2, 1999 Page 3 •~Zauztau-ung the e~stmg integnt~.- of the cornmurut~- tlu-ough front j-ard landscaping reqwrements, ~ hich uiclude a rninunum standard for ground co~-enng, trees, and shrubs Vlan~- comrnurnues, ~:ho are at the forefront on setung design and commurut~= de~~elopment standards, supenmpose landscaping restncnons and guidelines on side and rear yards and requu-e tront t-az-d co~-erage ~~th trees and shrubs. The Cin~ of Irc uie has ven- restnctat-e landscaping requ~rements, .z-i~ch, needless to sa~-, are some~-hat difterent from Santa Vloruca m the context that these restnctions are unposed pursuant to co~ enants, conditions and restncuons ("CC&Rs") ~-hich delegate the obligations on all homea~.-ners and ~-hich are a marter ot record a-hich unpact tide The goal of the landscapmg ordtnances, ho~,-ever, are to create a set of standards necessar}- to mauitaui the ambiance of the neighborhood, and to ensure that all properues look ~-ell ma~ntauied, and are consistent ~~ith the o~~erall goals of ,~-hat the neighborhood is trc2ng io accomphsh San ~Ianno and Pasadena and other cities ha~-e landscaping standards, and, needless to sa~T, rhese are the more af$uent cammuruties, but the~= ha~-e recognized the need for set~uzg these standards in establishuig a teel of the commurut~ : ~1an~- coi:unuruues, have det eloped orcl~nances ~-1uch specif5- the follo~~ng. ~ Each house shall ha~-e a rrurumum number of trees, as u:•ell as shrubs and ground co~-er, based upon a cenaLn ratio tor even- square foo~ of lot area For e~ample, • The Cit~- of Fort ~~'orth, Te:~as has uut~ated a program that reqtures that one tree and ten shrubs must be planted for ever5- ~C~ square feet of lat as a general rule • Irnganon s~-stems ~-ould also be required ~°ith respect to a~l residenual areas, in order to ensure that the properties are ~-ell matntained 1lan~= other cities reqwre certain size trees be p~anted ane~ mau~tained ~n order to mauitain the ambience of the o~~erall neighborhood and to ensure the look of a«able communin- 7'he side ~=ard landscaping reqlurements that shnuld he ~-er~= carefiillj considered are as follo~.-s • There should be certain prn-acE• screens thax could be created ~-en~ efhciently xhroug~ landscaping ~-luch can be accompl~shed to protect et-en one's propexties from lzsual sight trom their neighbors The pr~~-act- issue, both tor first-storsr and F ~~F'~1~;'\SLI\Beck \rrho ~4ontana.~sso~ doc `s- i~; ~ ~~ -, Ms Laura Beck Julj= 2, 1999 Page ~- AMERICAN REALTY A~VIS~RS second-ston- propenies can be easilr addressed through ha~~ng a requu-ement that at a minimum, second-ston- add~uons reqwre the imposiuon of landscapmg on the propem- to ensure that the ad~acent properues are not unpacted b~- the second-stors- design There ma~ be some unpedxments to tlus standard, ho~ e~=er, shoul~ 5C' lots not set aside space to do tlus as ~t pertatns to existing deti elopment, but I behet-e that an appropnate ordinance can be drafred to regulate that ~ssue The use of trees is also a ver~T effecti~ e tool Co ens~~re that ~he cornmuru~- sxandards are ma~ntau~ed It is ~o be noted, that the Cit~~ o~ Santa'I~Tonica has e~ended a great deal oi mone~- and tune through their nature's resourCe committee and through their forestrzr program to ensure that the mec~an strips in front of all o# the properties in the north af Vlontana area are maintained praperl~ , and that trees are consistentlr planted as the old trees die There should be no reason ~ h~- that same piulosoph~- should not be carned fon;rard to the front S-ards of the homes uz the area it is also unportant to note, that a landscapina or~nance ~-ould ehm.u~ate some ot the `tobacco road" l~ke effect denl-ed from homes .~-hich are old, and ~-here the current habitant is na longer there, or does not desire to maintatn the properti- Tlus is a crucial tool that can be used to ensure that an~- de~-elopment or redej-elopment goals be reqiured to effectuate the landscapu~g goals of the commu~un Further, as most urban sociologists ha~~e articulated, ~-hen a commurut~~ establishes m~n~,,,um standards for home mauitenance and el~minates ~7sua1 bl~ght, propert}- ralues go up, cnme goes do~sn, and much more vnportanr.h, raxes go up and can be further ~~°pended to beauni~ the cit~T There should be a m,n,rr+um number of trees ar~d ~-ith a size requiremenc ta be unpased pursuant to the iandscaping ordinance on each hame. and there should be a des~gn re~-~e~? process, ~-here one can re~ ie~.~ the landscapmg plan for each ne~.- home to ensure that the lands~aping standards meet the m,n,mum standards far the area DESIG~T RE~'IE~' PROGESS As ~,-e all knoa-, the issue of design is a vern- emononal one, inasmuch as many ~f the members of the commut~t~- arr~culated the fact that theti- dtd not ~ at~t "stucco palaces" or "monster mansions" ~-hich are poorh• designed Luruting size and bulk, ~-~ule laudable does not necessaxYh- propose an}' standard ~-icIun the conte:~-t of design The design issue can on1~- be addressed through the creation ot a design rei-ie~~ board V~;`hile mani- of the commuruts- members are ~-erc- cancerned about the fact that a design re~7e~- board could supenmpose standards of design ~-hich ~-i11 create a~Stepford" l~ke e~tect, all ot us u-ho are eYpenenced in real estate de~-elopment, nonetheless recognize that the l~rtefit_< of design re~ ie~• boards far out~ eigh the ~i ot a design retine~- board These F \F`•V4' ~SL3~B~ci~-~rtl~o l,Soncar.a~~sso~ ccc ~~~ `' ~, AMERICAN REALTY A~VISQRS bIs Laura Beck Ju1~- 2. 1999 Page 5 benefits are the abil~ts- of the local cornmunin- to superunpase scandards consFStent u~th the commurut~- feeluig, necessan~ to ensure that the bad designs that ~s-ere ratsed u~ photographs at the commun~n- meet~ngs and aruculated at the t-anous meetu~gs of the Planrung Comr~ussion ~-~11 not occur agaui Therefore, it is mr strong recommendation that a design reyie.~• process be created u1 order to ensuz-e that the design of all remodels or ne~• homes are consistent .~•ith the o~-erall neighborhood and ~,•luch trt u~to the o~ erall standards for the commuruti- Iz is currenth~ the goal to deluieate cer~aui design issues that are problematic, ~~ithin a l~st, and reqwre thaL those problemauc design issues be addressed by- a design ret~ietis- board Tfie issues that ha~-e been articulated as being some~-hat contro~~ersial are • T~-o storS- caliunns; • Floar to ce~ng ~ uido~: s, • Flat rooflines, and • flther such factors ~-1uch are articulated in some of the photographs of the ob~-~ous homes that e~ubit "bad taste" or bad designs The unfornuiate problem is t~at b~- not estabhslung a design re~•ie~- board, than ~•hat ~ e are going to do is lea~:e up to each inditi~dual designer/architect and commurun- member, the ab~t~- to create their o~-n standards of tasze Unfor~unatel3=, one has learned from lustoncal fact and trom rel~•uig on t~e commurutc- standard that this is gaing to be ~en difticult to obtaui an~~ consensus on ~~'h~le the detnment of a design reti-ie~- board ~-hich dictates that a group of commumt~~ rnembers through architects and other members of the commurut}~ srt do~~n in ~ud~nent of a d.esign of a home, at least rlus process can create ari ot-erall effecr ~luch is beneficial tor the o~-erall commurnt~~ The issue of design rerie~- boards has been hot1~- debated ui manz- mant communit~es throughout the LTruted States Design reti-~e~- boards, b~-definsuon, supenmpose same oj~erall commurnn= standard, ~rluch maj= be of detnment to a cer~ain small riunont~- of the commurut~T Lnfortunatelj~, the~ questian that dn~.res the legislauon ~x•hich ~-e are discussing toda~~, is the fact that a it is those ineinbers of our coininuiut;~ liati~e bwlt laonies ~-1uch the rna~ontST of our community~ do not llke from a design sFandpoint and have offended man~-. This small muiorit~- has unpacted the overall commuiutr ui a negatt~-e ~-a~=, and thus results in legislation being promulgaced todai~ ~•luch is designed to amel~orate that problem The same issue applies ~-ithui the cantex~ of a design revie~- board The benefit of a design revie~- process, is tha~ it is proph~-lactic, in that raotl~g can be built, unt~I the design re~-~eu- F ~F\~'\5LI\Beck-1~r~.~o~Iontana.a.sso~ 3oc tJ ~ AMERICAN REALTY ADVISOF25 Ms. Laura Beck J~tt~ z,1999 Page 6 boaz-d approti es the design tor Fhe construction ot that par~icular edifice Canti•ersehr, .~nthout a design re~-~eu- board, ~-e ~c~ be torced to reh upon ~he good faith ot all of aur nezghbors to abide b~- a commtuut~T design s~andard, .~•luch expenence has ind~cated ~~ill not occur in all cases The negautires, ot course, are the fact that design re~•ie~- boards can supenmpose standards ~-hich ma3~ not necessarihT allo~,- a small Frunont~r ot the commurut~-EO bwld u-hat thec~~-ant, but this is a small pnce to patT for mauitauung the oreraU integnt~T ot the commusuty Needless to sa~-, no one ~-ants to li~ e ne~-t doar to .~Ir Pla~rn&~-~m from Daruel Puik~-ater's children's book "The Big Orange Splat" ~~ho sa~-s, "I am m~- house arzd m~- house is me " `Ihe cost ta our corninurut~- is small relative ta the benefits to be gained ~Iani- of us are taiiuliar ~ ith homes that hat e been built ~7th horritic designs thae offend most ~-ell think~ng members of our commurut~- The impact of tlus effect has t-anous uruntended consequences ~-hich include visual bl~ght, decluzuag gropem- values for adjacent parcels, and unhapp~- neighbars ~-ho are torced to lii e next door to those designs ~n example of ~-hat u-e are talktng about is the home on Sunset Boule~-ard ad~acent to Gretna Grzen, that noi on1~- offends our senszb~ues, but behtEles its neighbar uZ a manner ~,-hich seems to indicate a sound slap in the face ?~ design retiie.x- board is far more beneficial in chat it ~till ac~cEress the Fssues prospecti~el~r rather than retroacti~-el~T, through legislauon surular to this, a-hen these issues could ha~ e been addressed proph~~laci~call~- up-front, ~r~ ~he offendang properties ~.-ere constructed In an etfor~ to establ~sh standards ~itlun the commurut~~, it is mir strong recomrnendazion that the i'laruung Corrumss~on, the Staff and the Csn- Council carefulli~ consider the issue, of ~.-hether design re`~e~~ boards can amel~orate manti~ of these problems and address the issues before theti become an issue, rather than after the ~tact ~~hen ~-e as a commurun~ are stuck Rzth these "ug1~- buildings" BASE~~iE~"TS The Fssues of basemen~s is e~remel~- ~7able one and one that should be applauded as an opporturutS- to add addiuonal space to our properties Lnforfunatel~-, ~ hat one has not cons~dered, is the fact to supentnpose a basement m a propem- is an extremel~- ekpensi~~e proposiuon As a pouit in fact, a basement casts approxuiiateh- t~-ice as much per square foot to construct a basement on a ne~- home than far ground floar and second floor space; but more unportantli~, tor those communtt~= rnembers R~ho ~~sh to add adc~tional space, but do not ~-ant to change the design of their propem- to add a basement is cost prolubited Therefore, the Crty Counc~l needs to strongl~- consider whether the use ot a basement that is z erti viable, is an econormcall~- ~7able one. F ~F'\~t ~SI.I`.Beck-1~nholiantanaAssoc doc ~: - }J ~ - AMERICAN REALTY A~VISOF25 ~Zs Laura Beck July 2, 1999 Page 7 SECOIti'D STOR~ SIDE Y.~RD ~k~`L~~DO~k~S The fact that most neighbors do not ~-ant second-stori- side i-ard ~-indo~rs, creates some ~ en- negati~e issues, ~c-luch are that one is gouig to be looking at blank~-alls It is, therefore strongl~- recommended that this be modtfied ta allo~~ for side ~-ard ~-uido~-s, but that to the eYtent that ~indoa-s are allo~-ed, that the landscaping pro~7sfons articulated above be superimposed and required to be utilized to slueld the neighbars from the abil~t~~ of a neighbor to ~-ie~- theu- pri~-ac~.~ of the~- neighbor's propem- CONCLL: SIO'~1 In conclusion, I strongly beheti e that the Cit~.- Councal, the Plan.n~ng Co~ssion, and the Cm.r Plaiu~ing Di~-~sion carefull~- consider the follo~~ng- 1 ~ landscape portion ot the orduZance, u=luch ~~otald specif5- a m~r„m~ nutnber of trees, a mm~mum number of shrubs, the requirernent for side ~>ard buffer zones, as ~rell as the r~uugation to ensure that ungauon is reqiured in all properues, necessan to appropnateh~ provide for the mauitenance of tl~e landscaping ui question, 2 That a des~gn re~ze~- baard be ereated, necessar~- to aver re~zew all ne~~ del-elopment, in order to ensure ~hat the design is appropnate and effect~tie for the commumtv, inasmuch as sueh a design ret-ie~ board benefits of ~-htch far out~-eigh the detnments ot the same 3 That the issue of the basements, be carefully considered R itlun the context of the o~ erall cost at the same, inasrnuch ~•h~le it is a problem-sol~~ng d.ev~ce, it is go;ng to be extremel}- e:~pensn-e to accommodate, and 4 That careiul considerauon be allo~-ed to be git en to the not~on of second-storc ~-uidoe~~s tor second-s~or~- additions ot all portions of the propert~.~, m order to ensure that prn-ac~- screens t~-u-ou~h landscaping, is effectuated rather than Lrrutu~g the number of ~-indo~-s that ~; ill be de~~ eloped on the prapert~= I trust that chls letter is self-explanaton- and I e~•elcome the oppor~urut;~- to discuss it ~,~~th ~-ou in greater detail F ~~'1~'LSII~Beck-]~nh, t~1lonxana~s>oc~doc .~.~' ~ ~;. AMERICAN REALTY A~VISOF25 S~ncerel~T, :~i~IERIC~3,..'v R~~I.TY ~D~'ISORS, a California corporation SEanl~:~ L Iezman V President and Cluef Executi~-e Officer Direct Dial (818) 54~-3762, E~~t 2?7 E-mail siezman@amer~canreal corr; SLI/gse cc I~Zr Iiick ~belson I1~Ir Berton Bradle~- I1.Zr Kenneth Breisch Counc~lrriember l~~chael Fesnsceui I~'la~, or Pro Tempore Ken Genser I~Sr ~rank Gruber Counc~lmember Robert Holbrook II-~r Chnstopher Joseph Il,~r l:Satt Kanrn- I42r Howard Laks, ?~I.~ Counc~lmember Ke~-u~ D•7cKeo~-n I1~~a3-or Pam O'Connor Ib1r Enc Parlee. AIr1 Counc~nember Paul Rosenstem I~~s i~hson St Onge Ms Kathy ~'ererruuk I11s Susan ~~~'h~te IIrIr Sergio Zaballos, AL~ b•Ir John Zinner 11r1s Laura Beck Ju1~,- 2, 1999 Page 8 F \F\~`'.SLI\Beclc-I~r~ho}~iontana.~ssoc doc _ ~ ~~ '~ aa^- 1 3-~ 04 1 O. O 1 P ANGELllCA AND GORDQN DEVOL 536 17TH STREET SANTA MON3CA, CA 9~403 7/5/49 MS. SUSAN AEALY KEENE FAX: 310-458-338D RE PERMANENT CHANGES TD M~DIFY THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR FARC~LS TN THE R-1 DiSTRICT AREAN4RTH QF M~NTANA AVENUE DEAR M5 ~EENE, F~ _ [l l I URGE YOU TQ TAKE THE ~'QLLO~NING FACTS iNTO CONSIDERAT~QN AS YpU MAKE YOUR FINAL t)EC~SIUN TN REGARDS TO THE PERMANEN'I' CHANGES TO THE NORTH OF MONTANA ~NTERIM ORDINANCE TH[S WILL II,,LUSTRATE H~W SpME OF THE NEW RE5TRICTiON5 SUGGESTED WOULD ACTL3'ALL1f CREATE TIiE. OPpOSITE, RATHER THAN THE DESIRED EFFECTS QN THE ~ON~iUNITY IN THE CAS~ OF A REMdDEL WE OWN A 136D 5tF ORIGjNAL SPAMSH HOUSE BUILD ~N 1925 UN A 50 X 150 LOT ON THE NORTH SIDE WE HAVE A PRE-EXIST~ING 4' 5IDE SETBACK AND ?O TFfE 50[lI't~ WE HAVE A DRNEWAY GO1NG TO THE GARAGE ATTACHED TO THE GARAGE I5 A WELL BUILD AND PERMITTED I~C~iEATTONAL R40M WH1CH WE WANT 'f0 KEEP T~ GAlZAGE AND REC-RODM f3AVE A l5 F44T S~TBACK ~itOM TI~E ALLEY BEHIND UUR PRUPERrY WE HAVE A BEAUTIFUL MATLTR~ TREE 8 F6ET BEHIND OUR HQUSE WHiCH DESERVES AN EFFOR? TU BE PRESERVED AUT WHICH LIINITS OUR OPTIONS T~ EXTEND T,~ BUII.DING A5 QUR FANllI_Y GROWS WE HAVE THE NEED FOR M4RE 5PAC~ WE WERE FACED W[TH THE OPT[ONS TO DEIv~OLISH THE HOUSE, CUT DQWN THF TRE~ AND BUILD A NEW HQUSE OR TQ ADD TO DUR CNARMTNC'r OL,D HUUSE ANU CREATE A 5~CflND ST4RY WH[CH WQUI,D BE DESIGNED TO LOOK AI~~NTIC !T IS IMPOR?ANT T4 U5 T4 SAYE TI~ TREE AND OiJR LiVING RE30M WITH VAULTED CEILINGS ANU A BETCHELDER FIREPLACE bUR PROGRAM COULD BE ACCaMPLISHED BY AUDfNG @ 3~0 SIF TO THF. GRO[TND F~.OOR A~~D HA~E A]300 S/F SEGOND FLOOR ADDITiOTI TE~ FINISHFD HOUSE WOULD SE {?u, 3000 S/F THIS IS NpT BY AIVY 5TANDARDS TOO LARGE ~OR A 54 ~C 150 L4T OUR PLAN WAS TQ BUILD INTO A PORTTON ~F THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY AND TO KEVERSE OUR GARACTE T~ BE ENTERED FROM T~~E ALLEY W1TH 4UR PLAN TO PAR'~IA3..LY -' l.~d J h ! ~ Mar-1~-04 lO:O1P NEIGH$ORS TO THE SOUTH HAVE JUST RECENTLY R~MODELED Tf~'EIR TW4 STORY HOUSE AND ACTUALLY GLOSED QFF THE~R WINDOWS EACING THIS SIDE OF OUR PKOPER?Y, SO 'i'I~Y CLEARLY WOULD N4)T BE NEGATIVELY EFFECTED QUR PLAN DOES NOT EVEN CALL FOR BUILDING INT~ THE ENTIIZE DRIVE WAY WE STII.,L ALLOW SOME OPEN AREAS BETWEEN TI-~ TWO BUILDllVGS IItOIV~CALLY WITH THE SUGGESTIONS MADE TO TI~ PLANNING COMMISSIQN BY THE HIRED ARCHIT~CTS, WE REALIZED THAT WE CDULD NQT BUILD THiS SENSIBLE PLAN IF WE ARE E7~ECTED TO KEEP 2 S FEET 0~ COMBIN~D SIDE SET BACK ALONG THE ENTIRE BUfLDING, DUE 7`O TI-IE EXISTINCx SIDE SETBACKS ON 7'HE NORTH WALL OF 4 FQOT WE CANNOT AFFORD TO TEAR DOWN QUR HOUSE AND TO BU[LD THE MAXIMUM HOUSE ALLOWED BUT WE ARE ABLE TO ADD TASTEFULLY TO THE EXISTING, SAVE T#~'~ CHAREICTER OF OUR SPANISH HOME AND BASiCALLY 1MPROVE AND UPDATE THE PROPERTY WE EVEN PREFER TQ CHERiSH 'TIi~ OLD AND AGREE IT IS IlVIPORTANT TQ KEF9 THE C~IARACTER AIVD CH'ARM OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD HQWEVER fF YQU DQ NQT KEEP ENE)UGH FI.EXIAILITY FUR REMODELS YOU W1LL CLEARLY N~T ACHIRVE YOUR OBIECTIVES WL DO NOT OBJECT TU AN ARCHTI`ECTURAL DESIGN REY~W BOARD BUT WE DO NUT WANT TO BE P~NALIZEU WITH GREAT DELAYS AND LARGE EI~t-~~[~A EXPENSES FQR TAIS PRUCESS. WE DQ AiOT V1-ANT TO BUILD A`~1-f4NSTER MANSidIV" WE WANT TO ~'RESERVE THE RiGHT TO BUILD A NICE HOME F'OR OUK FAM[LY, AS UUR NELGHB~RS TO THE LEFT AND RIGHT ALREADY 1-iAVE HAVE YOU EV~R CONSiDERF.,D THAT THE PEQ~LE WH4 ALREADY HAVE LARGE H4USES WILL GREATLY BENEFIT FROM THiS PROP05ED ORDINANCE WHTLE 4UR PROPERTY VALUES M05T LFKELY WILL DECLllYE ry FUR'THER, ANY O~ THESE CODE CHANGES CANNOT FAiRLY SE SINGLEU ~UT FOR Oi~L,Y THE NORTH OF MaNTANA AREA, UTHERWISE THOSE TASTELE5S HUGE H4MES Wf~CH HAVE STARTED ALL THIS CONTROYERSY, WiLL ]IJST BE B[TtLT 5QUTH OF MONTANA WE URGE YOU TO CAREFULLY CDNSTDER UUR CASE AS A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF TFiT~ NEED T'd CAI~£FULLSf BUTLD ~N FLEX1Sji,ITiES INTO THE PR4POSED CODE CHANGES SINCEREL i ' ~` P_OZ #s ., t~ '+ ATTACHMENT E ~. ~: ~ ~ ~~