SR-8-A (73)
LUTM:PB:DKW:LH:cn/varcc.hpword.plan
Council Mtg: December 3, 1991
Santa Monica,
~ -A
C 1. f nEe 3 J99J
a 1 ornla
~
DEe 1 7 199J
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City staff
SUBJECT: Recommendation to Adopt Text Amendments to the zoning
Ordinance to: 1) Modify Section 9113.3 Pertaining to
Applicability of Variances and Miscellaneous
Clarifications to Text in Section 9113.1 through 9113.8
2) Modify Section 9040.19 Pertaining to Building
Addi tions Extending Into Required Side Yard and 3)
Create an Adjustment Procedure (Subchapter 10Q)
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of a variance is to allow a modification to a code
requirement to assure that a property owner is not deprived of
making property improvements commonly enj oyed by others in the
same zone and vicinity because of unique physical circumstances
on the subject parcel.
Currently, the Code has very limited situations in which a
variance can be requested and as written, appears primarily
oriented towards new development and sites with significant
building constraints.
After the council heard from several
homeowners having difficulty adding on to existing homes which
did not conform to current setback regulations! the Council
directed staff to modify the variance section of the Zoning
Ordinance (Section 9ll3) to provide greater flexibility in the
types of variances that can be requested. Staff's experience is
that the majority of variance applications in recent years
involve small projects, often involve substandard lots, and
frequently concern additions to existing single family
- 1 -
hOIDa ~A
DEe 3 1991
DEe 1 7 1991
t
~~
-. ,
.,..~ .) 4
small
!
commercial
buildings
or
operations.
The
proposed
amendments are primarily intended to address aspects of the
present code which regularly appear to create significant
constraints to these classes of projects.
The Planning commission held a public hearing on the proposed
text amendments on July 24, 1991.
The commission in their
recommendation to Council suggested some revisions to the staff
proposal (see Commission minutes, Attachment A).
Staff has
incorporated these changes into the draft ordinance (see
Attachment B). Subsequent to the Planning commission meeting and
in working with the City Attorney.s office in formatting the
revisions into ordinance form, some additional changes have been
made for technical clarity.
For example, throughout the
ordinance, the word "permit" has been deleted and the word
"allow"
substituted.
The proposed code modifications are
discussed below.
PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS
There are two main issues with the variance regulations: the
types of modification to the Ordinance that can be requested and
the level of review, including the time and cost, required. In
addition, the variance section relates to Code Section 9040.19
pertaining to
the
expansion of existing buildings wi th
nonconforming setbacks.
While in many other cities most code requirements may be modified
through a variance procedure, Municipal Code Section 9113.3 of
subchapter 10E narrowly defines the types of variances to the
<' ~
,
"""
.')
1/' ~
.
- 2 -
Ordinance that can be requested. The proposed text amendments
will expand the list somewhat to provide a greater range in the
types of requests that can be considered (see Attachment B), but
does not make all code provisions subject to variance. In
addition, several of the proposed changes would create limited
circumstances under which application could be made, i. e., a
certain amount of grade differential needs to be present for
sloping lots to be eligilble for a height variance. An expansion
of the list does not mean that the applications will be approved,
but simply provides the mechanism for someone to request an
exception to the code. An application will be reviewed through
the public hearing process and all of the necessary findings must
be made in order for an application to be approved.
The following analysis summarizes the proposed amendments in the
order in which the changes appear in the attached ordinances (see
Attachment B). only substantive changes are discussed below.
Page numbers listed at the beginning of each topic discussion
refer to the draft ordinance showing the variance section of the
code with bold and strike-out text.
Lot Sizes and Parcel Dimensions
(Page 4) section 9113.3 (a) is proposed to be modified in
several respects. The language referring to lot coverage has
been moved to another section. In addition, the language
allowing modification of lot sizes and parcel dimensions lias may
be necessary to secure an appropr ia te improvement on the site II
has been deleted. Modification of lot sizes or parcel dimensions
- 3 -
may be unrelated to the type of improvement which might be
appropriate on the parcel. The link to an "appropriate
improvement" is not made for other types of variances.
Yard Setbacks
(page 4) Existing section 9113.3 (c) is proposed to be deleted.
See discussion below of proposed Section 9113.3 Cd) (yard
setbacks) .
Fence Heights
(page 5) Modifications shmvn in section 9113.3 (c) eliminate
redundant language concerning fence heights.
Yard Setbacks
(Pages 5-6) Modifications shown in Section 9113.3 (d) address
yard setback variances. Currently, an exception to a setback
requirement can be requested if a lot is irregularly shaped or
the parcel has a 12.5 foot grade differential. The proposed
modifications to this section (9113.3(e)) would allow a variance
request for setbacks and parcel coverage on substandard lots,
which is defined in the proposed amendments as parcels with a
depth of 90 feet or less or a width of 39 feet or less. This
definition of substandard is consistent with a zoning
Administrator interpretation which was approved by the Planning
Commission in 1988. The ordinance otherwise lacks such a
definition.
- 4 -
New wording is proposed to replace "irregularly shaped parcels"
(9113.3(d) (2)) since a definition is not provided in the
Ordinance. staff has proposed that irregularly shaped parcels be
defined as nonrectilinear or nonrectangular parcels with
parallel property lines that differ in length by a minimum of
five feet.
Currently, a setback variance can be requested if a parcel has a
12.5 grade differential between the curb level and a point 50
feet from the front parcel line, midway between the side parcel
lines. The Planning commission and staff recommend that rather
than using one point of reference for grade differential, that a
variance application be allowed for setbacks and lot coverage if
there is at least a 12.5 grade differential measured from the
front to rear parcel line or any point from one side to the
opposing side parcel line. This amendment is intended to address
the variety of sloping lot configurations which exist in the
ci ty . The City Council has heard from several homeowners who
have wanted to expand their existing residence, but because the
existing structure does not comply with the current setback
requirements of the Ordinance, and the addition exceeds the 12
linear feet allowed by Section 9040.19 (which permits the
expansion of an existing non-conforming structure in limited
circumstances) the homeowner cannot expand his/her residence as
desired. Currently, no mechanism exists in the Ordinance to
allow an exception unless the parcel is substandard. In order to
address this situation, the Planning commission and staff
recommend the following two changes: 1) to expand the size of the
- 5 -
addition allowed as a matter of right from 12 to 15 linear feet,
and from 12 to 14 feet in height (see Section 9040.19) and 2) to
allow a variance request to expand beyond the proposed 15 foot
allowance. The 15 foot length and 14 foot height are intended to
permit a small room addition.
In reviewing the existing language and this proposed modification
concerning setbacks, staff determined that section 9113.3 (c) ,
pertaining to additions to existing residential structures I
should be deleted because it is not entirely clear what type of
variance is allowed and it is redundant given the proposed change
concerning expansion along an existing non-conforming line
(Section 9113.3 (d) (4)) . The proposed section is different, in
that it does not apply only to small lots or limit the size of
the additionl but does require that the addition follow the
existing line of the building and specifies a minimum four foot
setback.
state Density Bonus Law Requirements
(Page 6) Section 9113.3 (e) addresses requirements relating to
State density bonus law. The Planning Commission and staff
recommend the addition of a new category in response to state
legislation (AB 1863) which requires that cities establish
procedures for modifying development and zoning standards for
proj ects which conform to the state density bonus provisions.
The new section (9113.3(e)) would allow variance requests for a
25% reduction in required setbacks and parking for projects
complying with the state density bonus.
- 6 -
Height
(Pages 6-8) section 9113.3 (f) addresses height variances.
Currently, variances are not permitted for building height. Two
situations concerning exceptions to height have been identified.
There are instances where because of site topography and the way
height is calculated, the height limit does not allow the
development otherwise contemplated by the code. Therefore, the
Planning Commission and staff recommend that a mechanism be
provided to address such situations, and that a height variance
of not more than five feet be allowed in two cases: 1) the site
has a 12.5 foot grade differential at any point between the front
and rear parcel lines or between the side parcel lines and 2) to
expand an existing structure that does not comply with the height
limit. In both of these situations, the applicant would have to
demonstrate why the variance request is justified and could not
obtain approval for more than a five foot allowance above the
height limit.
New Variance Sections
The Planning Commission recommended two new sections be added to
the types of variances that can be requested. The situation
concerning the expansion of buildings that are legally
non-conforming as to height is a result of an application for a
text amendment submitted by Leisure Care, which was intended to
allow the expansion of an existing penthouse senior recreation
room at 2107 Ocean Avenue. The requested text amendment was to
modify Section 9080.2 (b) , which addresses expansions and
- 7 -
additions to nonconforming buildings, to.::'low an expansion of
the upper, non-conforming level of a building.
In reviewing the application, staff recommended that rather than
modify the requested section and allow such an expansion as a
matter of right, that a case by case review would be more
appropriate. Therefore, the Planning Commission recommended that
a variance request be allowed for such an addition provided a
number of criteria are satisfied. The criteria would limit the
size of the addition, require that the addition comply with other
applicable regulations, and require that the addition not
increase the nonconformity or intensity of the use wi thin the
building. The Planning Commission recommendation also included a
requirement that the addition be reviewed by the Architectural
Review Board. This criteria has not been included since
architectural review is required by code for all new construction
in all of the zoning districts except Rl and is therefore not
needed in the variance section of the Zoning Ordinance.
Detached Garage Additions
(Page 8) The second situation recommended by the Planning
Commission was raised by a member of -the public during the
hearing process and is included in section 9l13.3(h). This
section is intended to allow a variance request to a front yard
setback in order for someone to be able to construct a detached
garage to provide covered parking for an existing residence.
Three criteria, concerning use, lot depth, and access, must be
satisfied to be able to request the variance.
- 8 -
Clarifications to Text
The remaining proposed modifications to Subchapter IDE are to
clarify language in the Ordinance. The ordinance currently uses
the phrase "permit the modification" which is proposed to be
changed to "allow the modification". This change is proposed
because the use of the word "allowll is arguably less ambiguous
than "permit". Another language change is in Section 9113.5,
Findings. This language modification is in the introduction and
does not change the findings themselves.
Building Additions in Required Side Yards
(Page 14) For discussion of this issue, see analysis of Section
9113.3 (d) above.
variance Process
(Page 15) The variance process is onerous for certain very minor
categories of code exceptions, for example six inches in building
setback. Both the cost ($600, plus preparation of a notification
list for a 300-foot radius ) and the amount of time seem out of
proportion for certain minor requests. The Planning Commission
and staff recommend that an "adjustment" procedure be established
to allow requests of limited and clearly defined minor
modifications. The adjustment procedure was used in the past in
Santa Monica, but was deleted with the adoption of the new
Ordinance in 1988.
As proposed, the adjustment procedure would be an administrative
process, reviewed by the Zoning Administrator (see Attachment B,
- 9 -
Subchapter 10Q) for limited requests as specified in Section
9152.3. Upon receipt of a complete application, notices would be
mailed to property owners and tenants "Ii thin 100 feet of the
exterior boundaries of the subject parcel, advising them of the
application and a 14 calendar day time in which to request a
public hearing if one is desired. Absent the request for a
public hearing, the Zoning Administrator would make a
determination on the application within 14 days of the completion
of the notification period. The Zoning Administratorl in making
a determination, would need to make all of the findings outlined
in Section 9152.6. If a hearing is requested, the application
would be scheduled for a public hearing by the Zoning
Administrator. Property owners and tenants wi thin 100 feet of
the exterior boundary of the subject parcel would be notified of
the public hearing.
An appeal of the decision, by the applicant or an interested
party, would be allowed during a 14 day period after a decision
is made. The applicant, and anyone having written or spoken at a
hearing on the application would be mailed a copy of the
decision. If no appeal is received, the applicant could then
proceed with the project. If the decision or any condition of
approval is appealed, the appeal would be reviewed in a public
hearing process by the Planning Commission.
A filing fee of $330 for the adjustment procedure was adopted by
the City council by Resolution 7607 in April 1988.
- 10 -
PROCEDURE
The proposed text amendments are categorically exempt from the
provisions of the california Environmental Quality Act, Santa
Monica Guidelines for Implementation, Class 5.
section 9120.4 of the Zoning Ordinance sets forth procedures for
processing a text amendment and requires that the city Council
conduct a public hearing. This proposed text amendment was
noticed as required by the Code.
section 9120.3 provides findings that must be made in order for
the council to adopt the amendments. The findings are that "the
amendment is consistent with the goals, objectives, policies,
land uses, and programs specified in the General Plan" and that
"the public health, safety, and general welfare require the
adoption of the proposed amendment.1I
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
Adoption of the ordinance amendments will not have an adverse
impact on the City'S budget. While the amendments to the
variance section will allow a greater number of applications, the
$600 fee established for a variance is intended to cover the cost
of processing the application. A filing fee of $330 was
established for the adjustment procedure in 1988. It is
anticipated that this fee will cover the processing of these new
applications.
- II -
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission and staff recommend that the City
Council:
A.) Adopt the proposed ordinance modifying Subchapter IOEI
Variances, of the Ordinance with the following findings:
1. The proposed modifications to subchapter IDE are
consistent with the goals, objectives, policies, land use and
programs specified in the adopted General Plan in that they do
not adversely change the intent of the current code section, but
rather provide more flexibility in the types of modifications
that can be considered, as well as clarify certain language in
the SUbchapter. Increasing the ~lexibility of the section does
not necessarily result in approval of such applications, but
only that they can be considered through the public hearing
process.
2. The public health, safety, and general welfare require
the adoption of th -ryosed amendments in that they will allow
people to request a modification to a code requirement that
currently cannot be considered in order to enj oy development
opportunities enjoyed by others in like zoning classifications
and similar locations. The Zoning Ordinance adopted in 1988
unduly restricts the variance procedure and does not provide
adequate flexibility or relief from restrictive regulation in
some instances where it is appropriate to modify existing
development. Adoption of the text amendments will provide the
- 12 -
community with a mechanism to allow a case by case review of such
requests.
B.) Adopt the ordinance amendment concerning the expansion of
existing buildings with nonconforming setbacks (section 9040.19)
based on the following findings:
1. The proposed amendment is consistent in principle with
the goals, objectives, policies, land use and programs specified
in the adopted General Plan in that it does not adversely change
the intent of the code but allows for a slightly larger, more
reasonable building addition that is still in scale with what is
allowed by the current code.
2. The public health, safety, and general welfare require
the adoption of the proposed amendment in that it will provide
more flexibility to create a reasonable building addition that is
in scale with what is currently allowed and will allow the
reasonable enjoyment of development opportunities provided to
others in like zoning classifications and similar locations.
c.) Adopt the ordinance amendment establishing a new section in
the ordinance to create an adjustment procedure (Subchapter lOQ)
based on the following findings:
1. The proposed text amendment to create an adjustment
procedure is consistent with the goals, objectives, policies,
land use and programs specified in the adopted General Plan in
that the proposed adjustment procedure creates a process to
- 13 -
expeditiously review minor adjustments to specific Zoning
Ordinance development regulations.
2. The public health, safety, and general welfare require
the adoption of the proposed amendments in that it will establish
a process by which the City may consider minor adj ustments to
Zoning Ordinance development regulations and which provides for
public review of an application,
yet provides the review in a
more timely, less costly manner, and will provide for development
opportunities comparable to those enjoyed by others in like
zoning classifications and similar locations.
Prepared by: Paul Berlant, Director of Land
Transportation Management
D. Kenyon Webster, Planning Manager
Luci Hise, Associate Planner
Use
and
Attachments: A.
B.
Planning Commission minutes, July 24, 1991
Text Amendments of Subchapter IDE, Section
9040.19 and Subchapter 10Q
DKW:LH
hp/varcc
11/21/91
- 14 -
1\ +-L. +- r' ~ ~, rrn ' , I' ti 1\
" \~ \.-.\. 0 I I , Ie 1 n
!1 I NUT ::: S
SPECIA~ MEETING OF THE ?LAN~ING CO}rnISSION
OF THE CITY OF SANTA ~ONICA
WED~ESDAY, JCLY 24, 1991
7:30 P.}!.
CITY COCNCIL CEN1BERS
ROOM 213, CITY F~LL
1. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:45 p.m.
2.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
Allegiance.
Conr.lsslone~ pyne led the Pledge of
3.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Sha=on Gilpin
Ralph Hech'.lr
Rita Horales
Donald Nelson
Jenr.ifer Polherr.us
l'ho:1as pyne
Paul Rosenstein
Also Present: Paul Berlant, Director of Planning
Suzanne Frlck, Planning Manager
David Jackson, Associate Planner
Joseph Lawrence, Ass't Clty Attorney
Davld Hartinl Acting Senlor Planner
Ruta Ski~ius, Sr. Admln. Analyst
Kenyon Webster, Planning Manager
4. . APPROVAL OF 11INDTES: Commissioner ?yne made a motion to
approve the minutes for June 12, 1991, as submitted.
CO~~lssioner ~orales seconded the motlon, which was approved
by voice vote.
5. PUU~NING DIRECTOR'S REPORT: ~r. Berlant gave the Dlrector's
Report.
co~~issior.er Polhe~us stated she wlll be absent on July 31st
and A1..':.gus't. 7th.
6. STATEMENTS OF OFFICIAL ACT=ON: Consent Calendar
CO~~issloner Nelson made a motlcn =or approval of the
statemen~s of Official Act~on as submit~ed. com..-nissioner
Polhemus secor:.d.ed the motic:;., ~.;hlcr: vIas approved. by voice
vote with CO~~S51cne= Gil;~~ abstalning.
A. CGP 90-098, ~p~ 22809, 349 l~th street.
3. ~PC 155, VTTM 50713, 927 ::t~ St~eet.
7. P~BLIC HEARINGS:
A.
Text Amendment Reaard~~a Additions to Nonconformi~q
3ulld~ngs (SubChapt~r 9) ,'Appllcant: Leisure Care,
Cons~de~at~on of a text amend7.ent to Subcnanter 9 of the
Munic~nal Cede pe~taln~nc to addltlons and-enlarae~ents
to nonccnforml;g bUlldlnqs. More speclflcally, the
pronosed tex~ amend~ent lS to allow more flexibllitv to
~xpand a bUlldlng t~at exceeds the helght Ilmlt of-the
dlstrlct 1n WhlCh ~~ 1S located. (Planner: Hlse)
COI:lrtissioner Gllpin stated she ,.,ras stepping down
the dais during the dlScussion on thlS item because
was not present at its ?rior hearlng.
from
she
Chalr Mech~r stated teat the public hearing was closed
at the prevlOus hearing of thlS item.
CO~~lssioner ?olhemus expressed concern over the length
of tl~e it will take to bUlld this proposed addltlonal
faclll ty. Karen Blac}:~'Jell, representing Leisure Care,
stated that it is estimated the construction will take
six r::onths.
Commissl0r.er Polhemus asked for an explanation of the
diffe:r-ence het"'tJeen a text amendment and a variance.
Staf:: si:ated that, lf favorable, this will change the
variance sect~on of the code rather than the
non-conform~ng bu~ld~ng SeCi:lOn of t~e code.
Commiss~one~ Polhemus asked if staff was in favor of the
f~ve recommended cond::.:::.ons submltted by Leisure Care.
Staff stated t~e conditions are very l~miting and
acceptable. chair ~echur commented the conditlons would
then apply to all variances under the code.
Co~~issioner Polhe~us asked if staff had any additional
condl ticns t~at they ..;auld like to add. Staff stated
that the text and conditions as presented appear to be
Suf:!:lcient.
CO~~lssicner Rosenstel~ asked staff how long the
approval p~ocess through C:.ty Co~ncil would take if the
variance route was chosen ir.stead of the text amend~ent.
Staff stated It would take four t~ six months.
cor.:....'nissioner Roser.s~eln stated he had a problem with
staff's recom~ended changes.
Mr. 5erlant asked if ~~e text amencnent had been
revlewed by the ci::y A~tor~ey. Staf:: stated t~at it has
not vet teen revle~ed bv the Attcr~ey's staf::, excent as
part.of the Co~~ssicn ;acket. -
- 2 -
Com~lssloner ?yr.e as~ed staff .::..f the tlme table could be
shor~ened. Staff s~a~ed that after the City council has
approved ":.he text aner.dment, and during the 30 day
perlod p~:.or to. flnal adoptlon, they could accept an
appl:.cation.
Chaiy ~:ech::r
currently has.
stories.
as~{.ed
T::e
ho'..; :--any
applican-:.
stOYleS t~e
stated there
building
are ten
Chair t'~echl:.::::'- asked ~/;hat uses occu~ on the ten floors.
The appl~can~ stated that there aye livir.g quarters on
mes":. :loors.
Chalr Xech~r asked about the ~enth floor In particular.
The appllcant s~ated t~ere are offlcesl a 11brary,
pentho~se l~vlng quarters and t~e outdoor space.
Chair ~echur stated r.e wants the building to have
adequate facilities, but this is a privately run
facill ty ar.d the :::-equest; lS for a change of use and
additior.al space. He felt the offlce spaces or living
~~arters en the tenth floor could be converted into the
needed ce~~~nlty space. The applicant stated that the
bUlldi~g was built as a ho~el and the living space was
not deslgr.ed for long term occupancy. 'The applicant
also stated -:.hat mos-:. rooms are about. 500 square feet
and the resldents ~eed more common areas.
Chair Mech~r s~ggested other uses fer the tenth floor.
Connnissl.oner Nelsen commented on the apparent w~ndow
screer.s shm.;n on the rendering. The archi teet stated
that these are skylights, not additional usable space.
Commissloner Nelson stated his problem with the proposal
is that, if approved, ot~er applicants will request the
sal"e pr::vilege. He questi.oned whether i"=. would be a
good public policy to make this text a:nendment. The
applicant cor.~ented that variances are rev~ewed case by
case. Commissic~er Nelson stated that if the
appl~catlon ~s slm~lar, then It ~ust be approved by code
because the ~~ecedence will have been set.
Cor.~issloner Nelson asked i= the text amendment could be
llmlted to "res:.dentlalH buildings only. The applicant
stated t~at her applicatlon is a special case.
conu~issioner pyne asked ~ojhy the :nanage:r,ent could not
vacate the office space and make that common space. The
appl.:.cant s-=-ated ":.:hat:. the office and l::brary space is
sha~ed ar.d t~ere :.s ~o o~her place to put them.
CO~~1SSl0~e~ Fvne asked what else is on the tenth flco~.
~he apo:lca~t ~tated that ~here a~e client servi~g uses
such as a beauty parler and two living u~its.
- 3 -
Conmlss~oner pyne asked ~ow nany uni~s are i~ the
complex. ~he appllcant s~ated t~at there are 119 units
wit~ very ~ittle open space or co~~on space. The
appllcant stated t~at this area is currently an open
patio and '.,nll be better utillzed if it is covered.
Also, the appllca~t commen~edJ ~here is a long waitlng
l~st for UTIlts and no vacancies.
commissloner Rosenstein
staff ~ecc~mendatlCTI5
application.
!:'ade
and
a ~otion
to deny
for adoption of
the specific
CommiSSloner pyne seconded the not~on for d~scussion.
CO~~lssloner RosenstelTI stated that taking the
application separately, ~t should be allowed, however he
did not support the general text amendment.
Chair 1~echur commented tbat the area add~tion would
total approxirately 1 1/2% of the building.
CommisSloner Polhemus asked if the Commission was voting
on the merit of the text amendment.
CO~uissioner Nelsa~ asked if the
incorporate the applicant's five
Comr,lssioner Rosenstein stated it would not.
motion would
conditions.
The TIotlon approved by ~~e following vote:
AYES: Mech~r, ~orales, Nelson, PolheMUS,
Rosenstein; ABSTAIN: Gilpln.
pyne I
B. Conslde~atlon of Ordi:1ance ':'ext Amendments to Variance
section (9113.3) f Building Add~tions Extending into the
Requlred S~de Yard Sectlon (90~O.~9) and Creatlon of an
Adjust~ent Procedure for Speclfic Mlnor Modlfications to
the Ordlr.ance. (Planners: Webster/Hisel
Follm'l:'..ng the staff report, Cor..m:,ssloner Nelson asked
for more detail cn the new Section 9113.3{F) regarding
yard setbacks and parkir..g requirements. He stated he
did not understand the setbacks. Staff stated that
state law does not cover specific variances and s~aff
selected setbacks and parkl.ng as areas for var1.ances.
Staff also stated t:!1at the State requires t:!1e city to
offer t......o areas for varlances and staff is trying to
meet state law. Addit:.onallYJ staff stated that a limit
of 25% density bonus has been set.
Commissioner Nelson asked what will hanoen if an in-lieu
fee is adopted. Staff stated t~at if a-fee is not paid,
then t~e applicant can not bui:d the bonus U~ltS.
Com.r:\:.ssioner Nelson asked If an applicant can get the
bon~s If the in-lieu fee is paid. staff stated this is
incorrect.
- ~ -
ComIDlsslor.er Nelsen :Eel t there would be a signiflcant
change if, as an exa~ple, a project was required to have
12 parklng spaces, but allowed to have only 9 spaces
under t~e proposal. Staff explained the 25% rule.
CO:!Ll![1issi.oner Polr..emL:.s commen~ed on attachment "ell, at
the bo~tom of the page, and asked who are the adjacent
properties. Staff stated adj acent properties are
def:':1ed as !?rOpertles that have shared property lines
with t~e subJec~ property.
Chair Mechur asked ,~
across the alley fro~
stated it would not.
this
the
would include properties
SUbJect property. Staff
Comll'l.ssioner polhe:nus asked about the
variance mail ir.g. staff stated there
radius.
distance for a
is a 300 foot
COIPililssio~er ?olhe~us corr~ented that property owners and
tenants across the street should be notified, within at
least 100 feet of t:-.e subj ect property. staff stated
this could be done. Staff also stated that parking
issues are very sensltlve and other issues, such as
fence height, are not as sensltive.
Commlssioner Polhe;::.us asked that past experiences be
referenced for these sensitive issues. staff stated
they were seeking balance in the amendments.
Chair Mechur co~mented on the proposed amendments,
especially the 5% lot coverage adjustment. 3e also
asked about hardship criteria. staff stated that the 5%
lot coverage adjustment came from requests from existing
single family dwell~ngs, WhlCh requested adding one or
two rooms, WhlCh would exceed maximum lot coverage by a
small amoun~. Sta=f stated t~is adjustment was designed
to address small roo~ additions to existing single
family dwellings.
commissioner Pyne expressed concern that the amendments
were created unscientlfically. Re asked staff how these
issues would be approached If there was not need to be
sensitive. Sta=f stated t~at the Zoning ordinance and
General Plan are an excression of the will of the
community, developed through an interactive process.
Staff commented that fence heights are a great concern
and a "hot" issue. Hr. Berlant commented that
plan:J.ersanalyze appllca-::lons using sensitivity to the
co~~unity concer~s. He also stated that the new Zoning
Ordlnance has shown some flaws for some types of
develGp~ent and lots of ~lgidlty. T~e a~endcents,
stated ~,!~. 3e~la:1"C., are ~ntended to gi ve so:ne
flexibility.
5 -
Conm1ssio~er pyne commented t~at th~s profession needs
sensitlv~ty/ but passed a r~gid code.
One me~ber of t~e p~bllc/ Clifford W1eber, 713 Bay
street/ spoke about ~is particular need for a variance
to build a garage.
staff spoke i~ respo~se to ~r. W1eber and s~ated ~hat to
accom~odate hl~ wou:d req~lre changing the definit10n of
a sub5ta~dard lot as regards slze, or change the site of
garages per cede.
Cornrnlssioner pyne co~mented on the incremental aooroach
being too res~r1ct~ve. staff stated there was a great
deal of public debate on this issue.
Another :-ember of ~he
represen~~r.g Leisure Care,
public, Karen Blackwell,
spoke to the amend~ents.
Chair lfechur asked if 'the 90 foot figure was chosen for
a particular reason. ?!r. 3erlant explained.
Corn~lssicner Morales asked for a clarification regarding
the Leisure Care letter, item G on page t,'IO. Staff
stated thls could not be accommodated.
COllL"nl.ssioner ~'!orales asked if any thing could be done
about th~s. Staff sta~ed nothing could be done at this
time.
Commissloner Rosens~ein felt the wording was unclear.
Staff stated it can be clarified to state any existing
structure five feet or g~eater.
Corr~issloner Rosenstein proposed some new word1r.g, which
he subm:~~ed to s~aff.
Chair Mechu~ commen~ed on nur.~ers for the Leisure Care
addition. Ms. Black~ell stated the p~oposal is to
enclose 1,187 square feet of a buildlng that 15
currently apprcxima~ely 89,600 square feet, which equals
approxinately 1.3% of the building.
Chair Mechur closed t~e public hearing.
Comrnlssioner Nelson commented on COrnIDl.ssior.er
Rosenstel.n's new language and stated he was not prepared
to allow additional height on structures with an
increase of l.5% or 2% square footage in a
non-conforming building. He sta~ed he would love to
restr:ct t~e text amendmen": further to "residential ,.
only.
Chair Mechur cc~mented
footage. Com~issl.oner
should remain even.
on i~crease in r.e~ght and squa~e
Nelson stated that roof l~nes
- 6 -
Chalr i!ecb.:r asked if the text amendment could be
res~rlc~ed. Mr. Eerlant stated that the Commlssion can
limlt the text amend~en~ to apply to residential
buildlngs only.
commissioner pyne camme~ted that the
proj ect lS congregate housing and
amendment co~ld be :lrnited even further.
Leisure
suggested
care
the
CcmrniSSloner pyr.e ~ade a motion for approval of the text
amendraents.
Co~missloner ~orales seconded the motion.
CommlSSlcner Rosens~ein asked that the following
amend~ents be added: (1) that the proposed five points
subnltted by Lelsure Care be included, with other
percentage figures s~ch as 2% and that &qB approval be
required; (2) that t~e ~6 altered use of the structure
of t~e build~ng is not practical; and (3) that additions
are not to exceed adjacent buildings or be seen from the
street. CO~~lSS1oner Nelson asked that the residential
restriction be added.
Com.."Tlis s loner
amendments.
pyne
was
agreeable
to
the
proposed
Commissl.o:1er ?olhe:"lus asked that the alphabetical
portlon of Sectlon 9125.3 be made numerical and that
Section 9125.4 be amended to read mailings be done for a
100 foot rad~us =c~ owners and tenants.
commissioner pyne agreed ~o these changes.
Chaiy Nechl..lr asked foy a re,-lOrding of the language on
Section 9l1J.3(G). :'!r. Berlan~ stated that five feet
applies to all ~ax~~~m. Chair Mechur asked staff to add
language regarding allowing covered parking on
subs-candard lots ,.Ii th existlng struct:1res I with review
prior to city COU:1cil.
Commissloner pyne agreed to the changes.
Commissioner ~elson asked for a clarification. He asked
that "accessory build1.ng be used as a garage on parcels
less than ICa feet: deep ,.nth no alley access". He
stated this should be for need and not for convenience,
and ~here be an existing structure on the site.
Commissl0ner ?yne and Polhemus agreed to the changes.
Co~~~ssioner Nelson co~~ented that Section 9152.3 found
in at~achlLer;t. "C" on page one naGe him uncomfortable.
He felt: i~ w~ll generate a large number of requests. He
also stated he could support it If i~ applies to
ex~sting parcels and cuildlngs only.
- 7 -
Co:r.muss loner ?olherms asked how it should be phrased.
Chalr Mech~r sugges~ed the Zoning Administrator should
determine ~he word~ng.
Chair Hechur asked for an explanation of addit1.ons as
regards ~ot coverage. ~r. Berlant stated that a
varlance 15 to allow and exception to code because of a
uni~e circumstance.
commissioner Nelson expressed agreement with Mr. Berlant
and commented on socla1 equity.
Chair Mechur stated the ame~dments should be limited to
existing structures and co~~e~ted that he did not favor
the 2% figure.
commissioner Nelson commented he had no problem 'with
granting varlances ".,i thout increasing the height of a
structure. Ee stated that the applicant does need
common space, however he stressed that there needs to be
SOIDe analysis done regarding space utilization and who
will use the space so that it is functional.
Chair Mechur expressed agreement with Cor-missioner
Nelson.
Commissioner Polhe~us recoLnended that Leisure Care make
an exact calculation of the square footage of the their
bUllding prlor to the City Council hearlng.
The motlon was approved by the following vote:
AYES: Gilpin, Mechur, ~orales, Nelson, Polhemus, Pyne,
Rosensteln.
c. To change the following zoning designations: M2S
(Industrlal Dlstrlc~ - Slte ReVlew Overlay District) to
C5 (Speclal Office Dlstrlct), M2 (Industrlal Distrlct)
to C5, MI (formerly Llffilted Industrial Dist~ict) to C5,
and M2 (Industrlal Dlstrict) to MI (Industrlal
Conservation). The rezonings are necessary to make the
zoning consistent wlth the designatlons approved by the
City ln 1988.
Following the staff report, Chair Mechur asked staff if
this was the final redistrictlr.g hearing. Staff stated
that there would be one more hearing on the beach areas.
commissioner pyne asked staff why the request was made
to rezone 612 Colorado. Ms. Ruta Skirius of the
Economic Development Division and Property Manager for
the c~ty, sta~ed that tte prcper~y is owned by the city
Transporta~~on Depart~ent and the Community and
Neighborhood Services Division (CNS) is c~rrently using
the facility for social services organlzatlon since
1988, in add': tion to leasing to several market rate
tenants. Ms. Skir:.us stated that CNS pays the
- 8 -
/~ t t 0.C Il(llE: nt
Q
u
CA:RMM:CB:cbvartxt/hpc/pc
city council Meeting __-__-91
Santa Monica, California
ORDINANCE NO.
(City Council Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA AMENDING SECTIONS
9113.1, 9113.3, 9113.5, 9113.7, 9113.8, AND
9040.19 TO THE SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL CODE AND ADDING
SUBCHAPTER 10Q TO ARTICLE 9, CHAPTER 1 OF THE SANTA
MONICA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO VARIANCE
PROCEDURES, ADJUSTMENT PROCEDURES, AND BUILDING
ADDITIONS INTO REQUIRED SIDE YARDS
WHEREAS, on July 24,
1991, the Planning Commission
conducted a pUblic hearing on proposed text amendments to
Subchapter 10E of the Zoning Ordinance regarding modifications to
the variance procedure and certain miscellaneous clarifications
to the language of the Subchapter; and
WHEREAS, the Planning commission recommended that the
Council approve the amendments as modified by the Planning
commission: and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed
amendments are consistent in principle with the goals,
objectives, policies, lands uses, and programs specified in the
adopted General Plan, in that the amendments do not change the
intent of Subchapter 10E but rather provide greater flexibility
to modify, where appropriate, development regulations through the
variance procedure, as well as clarify certain language in the
Subchapter~ and
- 1 -
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the publ ic health,
safety, and general welfare require the adoption of the proposed
amendments, in that the Zoning Ordinance adopted in September
1988 unduly restricts the variance procedure and does not provide
adequate flexibility or relief from restrictive regulation in
some instances where it is appropriate to modify existing
developments or land uses; and
WHEREAS, on July 24, 1991 the Planning commission conducted
a public hearing on the proposed text amendment to Section
9040.19 to increase allowable additions to existing buildings
with non-conforming side yard setbacks in residential districts;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended that the
Council approve the amendments; and
WHEREAS I the ci ty Council finds that the proposed
amendments are consistent in principle with the goals,
objectives, policies, lands uses, and programs specified in the
adopted General Plan, in that the amendments will allow
reasonably sized building additions that are still in scale with
current development regulations; and
WHEREAS, the City council finds that the public health,
safety, and general welfare require the adoption of the proposed
amendments to allow reasonable additions to residential
structures; and
WHEREAS, on July 24, 1991 the Planning commission conducted
a public hearing on a proposed text amendment to add Subchapter
10Q to the Zoning Ordinance, thereby creating an adjustment
- 2 -
procedure to allow the City to consider certain minor exceptions
to development regulations of the Zoning ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the Planning commission recommended that the
Council approve the amendment; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed amendment
is consistent in principle with the goals, objectives, policies,
land uses, and programs specified in the adopted General Plan, in
that the amendment provides the process to expeditiously review
minor adjustments to specific Zoning Ordinance development
regulations; and
WHEREAS, the city council finds that the public health,
safety, and general welfare require the adoption of the proposed
amendment to allow a process, similar to the variance procedure,
by which the City may consider minor adjustments to Zoning
Ordinance development regulations and which provides for public
revl.ew, and authorizes application fees that are commensurate
with the minor nature and impact of the physical improvement,
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA
MONICA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1.. Section 9113.1 of the Santa Monica Municipal
Code is amended to read as follows:
section 9113.1 Purpose. A
variance is intended to permit allow
variations where practical difficulties,
unnecessary hardships or results
inconsistent with the general purpose of
- 3 -
this Chapter would occur from its strict
literal interpretation and enforcement.
SECTION 2.
section 9113.3 of the Santa Monica Municipal
Cede is amended te read as fellows:
section 9113.3
Applicability.
The
Zoning Administrator may grant a variance
from the requirements of this Chapter to:
(a) I':;=-:::it Allow modification of
the minimum lot
sizes or minimum lot
parcel
dimensions
:lnd
lot
"-".........."-.........~-
_____....., ....-1-..:_--
... -"":/........ ~ -----...-
=3Y == ~=====~=7
..~ ~------
-- --_....""'-
....~~
~pp;:~;;::i~t=
..:----....----"'-
...~u~..s.. _ . _...d'l;;;j;..I.......
t~~~ 1vt.
(b) I':;=-=it Allow the reduction of
the automobile parking space or loading
space requirements.
(e)
~-
....~.
___~.! ~__..L..! _."
.... ~~~\..tc....c: ......11;I....
,,:,.:_~-..:_~-
'IoA.........,.""'.L......_....~,
't
p~~=r
..... '1 ., .-._..
w............PT
..J..._
""......'IWi
_~~..!.L.!__
.....uo",.l..L- &.,.......u....1 V.L
a",-:il~?fIcmcnt
.-& -....:_....!__ .........~l~~__
VoL. <..tJ:.1. ~.n..-L...:;1I '-..L......~ ............................L.......":f,
nQ;:- =onformin'1
a~
4-,.... 'I"''''''''II_~ __........__1...._ -- -----,. - ,. ---
.L -..... - -- _~'-A"".$"~ -...... J:"~ '-""'IIiiiiiO.....,.. ........--
+-J....~,.,
L "'^"
""",...,...,v
--.. ....--
~':1""'oLA...L.""
&__.
........I;;;il".'
___n.:~_~
,t-'...........".........w.......
..J.._+-
to........II.4_
t.J:;2
addi ti.::.rJ~
v~
__.. ________..L..
C"U.La~ :ft:::."C"U L.
.3~ _ _
YVC"~
--......
J.lV...
-..-___A
1Wo~.....~~....-
.. l:"
""..,., J;-'1Jl;;..L
.-.--.1-
,-I;;;:i.r.~'-
".......,... D .
I"" -'"l> I
_ ~ ..L..L _ ~..
v~ \....~ ..L .L .....U.L
CI..L o::a
- ...
v....
th.=
-., ~ - ~ .: --
-........~....-......"':1
------_&-----~--
"-V..............,.. JU..LJ.l.,,:/
1.;t.;ildi~q :Jnd
p;:c;.-idad
......1-. _.L
1l....l..Lu. L..
it
i~
--......
..UV.....
g
-----~
O=\..o-V.U.Y
fl:;or
a dd-i-eic;;..
....-
.........
.i
!J tZ-i-i cti..t.i-.;
~u
.L.... _
....."''''~
nl
District.
- 4 -
(c) (d)
flc==it
Allow
the
modification
of
fence
heights
~
_______~_7 __~ ___~A__~~_~ ~~_~_~_~_
............,.I-1UI.wL "'-"..L.~"'" '-'I.....L~ .... ........;1...&.__...... ................... """-4," _........_ __ .
(4) (0)
T"'J.__........:.
... 1IWo'..................
Allow
the
modification
of
yard
setbacks
6fl
.:_____.."'__'1... _1..____~
~~~~~~~a~~I ~~~~~~~
1_~_ __
....-....." -~
lDt::
...1..___
,............... ,.,..
~1.._
......-
_ '7 _......._...!__
.....L......"'"~........'-"'..&...
-~
........
~1.._
"".........
q=~~~= .:: t ~
---.:_~
~......~..........
1:"'"
oJ'"
.&.......... &_--
..L T;"r;;;:' '-' .L...L \-'..1:.1.1
~1.._
......."'.....
&___..... '.-01-
......&.. __......1Loo ................
'T../__
-~
..:: 7_.
__Ai
fuidnuY bct~~~~ t~~ =i== l~t li~=~ diff==c
12
, /..,
~/....
~--~ -- ~--- ~---
.. "--.... .....~ ~'I"\",II'.. ~ ....... _....
~I..._ _.._L...
_.......... _......... A-'
'1_...._'7
........... ... -....... .
or parcel coverage on:
(1) Parcels havinq a depth of
90 feet or less or a width of 39 feet or
less.
(2) Non-rectilinear
parcels
or rectangular parcels on which parallel
property lines differ in length a minimum
of five feet.
(3) Parcels with a 12.5 foot
grade differential or more, as measured
from either any point on the front parcel
line to any point on the rear parcel
line, or from any point on a side parcel
line to any point on the opposing side
parcel line.
(") Addi tions to the same
floor of an existinq buildinq which is
- 5 -
non-conforminq as ~o yard setbacks, where
such addi tiOD follows the line of the
existing buildinq but in no case is
closer t~an four fee~ ~o a proper~y line.
1!l Allow encroachment in~o no
more than 25 percent of a yard se~back,
or reduction of the numher of on-site
parking spaces by no more than 25 percent
of the required number of on-site spaces,
or bo~h, for multi-family residential
developments conforminq to state density
bonus "lidelines. In no case shall a
rear yard setback of less than five (5)
feet be allowed.
(f) Allow buildings ~o exceed
district heiqht limits by no more than
five (5) feet in one of the following
situations:
(1) If a parcel has a qrade
differential of 12.5 feet or more, as
measured from either any point on the
front parcel line to any point on the
rear parcel line, or from any point on a
side parcel line to any point on the
opposing side parcel line.
(~) To allow an addition to
an existing structure that is legally
- 6 -
non-conforming as to height provided the
addition does not exceed the height line
of the existing building.
(g) Allow an addition to an
existing building that is legally
non-conforming as to height provided all
of the following criteria are met:
(1) The addition does not
exceed the height line of the existing
building.
(2) The addition does not
exceed two (2) percent of the total floor
area of the building.
(3) The addi tioD does not
increase lot coverage or the overall
footprint of the building.
(4) The addi tion does not
increase the density or nnmher of
inhabitants or increase the intensity of
use of the building.
(5) The add! tiOD otherwise
conforms to the regulations of the
district in which it is located.
(6) There is no feasible
alternative method of attaining the
desired use.
- 7 -
(7) There is no substantial
adverse impact to adjacent buildings,
existing streetscape, privacy, nor
significant increases to the mass and
bulk of the building_
(h) Allow the modification of the
required front yard setback to allow, in
the case of existing development, a
detached garage provided all of the
followinq criteria are met:
(1) The lot is less than 100
feet in depth.
(2) The on site use is a
single-family dwelling.
(3) No alley access is
available to the site.
(f) (i) PQrmit Allow the
modification of the side yard setback for
primary windows in the OP-2, OP-), and
OP-4 Districts when the imposition of the
required setback would severely constrain
development on the project, an
al ternative setback would still satisfy
private open space requirements, and
maintain privacy for the occupants of the
project.
- 8 -
SECTION 3.
section 9113.5 of the Santa Monica Municipal
Code is amended to read as follows:
Section
9113.5
Findinqs.
Following a public hearing, the Zoning
Administrator shall prepare a written
decision which shall contain the findings
of fact upon which such decision is
based.
The Zoning Administrator,
or
Planning
Commission
on
appeal,
may
approve a Vyariance application in whole
or in part, with or without conditions,
provided all of the following findings of
fact Ciii.i
1.. _
........
__-3..- __
"UL-I.\0.4y ....L.L
-. _ __ JC.I:."..! ~_ ..... .&. .: _ _.-.. .... -. _.... __.-
u.t:.... U,L......... ..u~ L....&. 1f W ",U.i:g.,J"'J:"'yL
are made:
(a)
There
are
special
circumstances
or
exceptional
characteristics
applicable
to
the
property involved, including size, shape,
topography, location, or surroundings, or
to the intended use or development of the
property that do not apply to other
properties in the vicinity under an
identical zoning classification.
(b) The granting of such variance
will not be detrimental ~or injurious to
the property or improvements in the
- 9 -
general vicinity and district in which
the property is located.
(c) The strict application of the
provisions of this Chapter would result
in practical difficulties or unnecessary
hardships, not including economic
difficulties or economic hardships.
(d) The granting of a variance
will not be contrary to or in conflict
wi th the general purposes and intent of
this Chapter, nor to the goals,
objectives, and policies of the General
Plan.
(e) The variance would not impair
the integri ty and character of the
district in which it is to be located.
(f) The subject site is physically
suitable for the proposed variance.
(g) There are adequate provisions
for water, sanitation, and public
utilities and services to ensure that the
proposed variance would not be
detrimental to public health and safety.
(h) There will be adequate
provisions for public access to serve the
subject variance proposal.
- 10 -
(i) For the reduction of the
automobile parking space requirements,
the reduction is based and conditioned
upon an approved parking reduction plan
that incorporates transportation control
measures that have been demonstrated to
be effective in reducing parking needs
and that are monitored, periodically
reviewed for continued effectiveness, and
enforced by the city as contained in
Section 9044.5 of this Chapter.
(j) All the above specified
requirements need not apply to variances
which the Zoning Administrator finds are
essential or desirable to the pUblic
convenience or welfare and are not in
conflict with the General Plan and where
the granting of the variance will not be
materially detrimental ~or injurious to
property or improvements in the general
vicinity and district in which the
property is located.
(k) The strict application of the
provisions of this Chapter would result
in unreasonable deprivation of the use or
enjoyment of the property.
- 11 -
SECTION 4. section 9113.7 of the Santa Monica Municipal
Code is amended to read as follows:
section 9113.7 Revocation. The
Zoning Administrator may, in his or her
own discretion, or upon the direction
f:;:c~ of the Planning Commission, shall
revoke any approved vvariance in
accordance with the following procedures:
(a) A revocation hearing shall be
held by the Zoning Administrator. Notice
of the hearing shall be published once in
a newspaper of general circulation within
the City and shall be served either in
person or by registered mail on the owner
of the property and on the permit holder
at least ten 1101 days prior to such
hearing. The notice of hearing shall
contain a statement of the specific
reasons for revocation.
(b) After the hearing, a ~yariance
may be revoked by the Zoning
Administrator, or by the Planning
Commission on appeal or review, if any
one of the fOllowing findings are made:
(1) That the -vyariance was
obtained by misrepresentation or fraud.
- 12 -
(2) That the use for which
the Yyariance was granted has ceased or
has been suspended for six 161 or more
consecutive calendar months.
(3) That the conditions of
the permit have not been met, or the
permi t granted is being or has recently
been exercised contrary to the terms of
the approval or in violation of a
specific statute, ordinance, law or
regulation.
(c) A written determination of
revocation of a~yariance shall be mailed
to the property owner and the permit
holder within ten ~101 days of such
determination.
SECTION 5. Sect10n 9113.8 of the Santa Monica Municipal
Code is amended to read as follows:
Section 9113.8 Appeals. The
approval, conditions of approval, denial,
or revocation of a variance may be
appealed to the Planning Commission H
filed within fourteen (14) consecutive
calendar days of the date the decision is
madeL in the manner provided in
- 13 -
Subchapter 10L, section 9132.1 through
9132.4~.
SECTION 6. Section 9040.19 of the Santa Monica Municipal
Code is amended to read as follows:
section
9040.19.
Buildinq
Additions Extending Into Required Side
Yard.
In all residential districts, an
addition to an existing building that has
a non-conforming side yard may also
extend into the required s ide yard
provided all of the fOllowing- criteria
are met:
(a) The addition :Bdoes not exceed
one-story and 12 i. feet in height~
(b) The addition -G'~ontinues the
facade setback line of the existing
structure.
(c) The addition Bdoes not extend
closer than four (4) feet to the side
property line~
(d) The addi tion -Bdoes not exceed
12 15 feet in length parallel to the side
property
line.
Tho
non ee:-1:!~Y"~ing
addi ti~:-1
.,..,~'t7
..._~
.0""1. 'U".,."....... A
_06.__"'''_
..:....~-
......~........-
,..... ....
-....-
xequired
~c y~~d ~~t ~~t b~th.
- 1~ -
(e) The addition does not extend
into both side yards.
(e) (f) N~ ~~=~ t~=n one There bas
been
no prior
5.._1..
............&..&
addition
...-
......
th:J
S...-- -.....--
......L ""'''''''......10.(.........
'L.__
.......lAfWI
.- _..-.....____.3
..................u........ ......
_&.....---
LI.,L. .............
...1.._
.............
6tfgctiv~ ~g~~ cf t~i~ C~apter under this
section.
SECTION 7. Subchapter lOQ is added to Article 9, Chapter
1, the Santa Monica Municipal Code to read as follows:
subchapter 102. Adjustments.
section
9152.1
Purpose.
An
adjustment is int.ended to permit minor
variations where practical difficulties,
unnecessary
hardships
or
results
inconsistent with the general purpose of
this Chapter would occur from its strict
literal interpretation and enforcement.
Adjustments are modi fications of lesser
siqnificance than variations allowed by
variance.
Section
9152.2
Application.
Application for an adjustment shall be
filed in a manner consistent with the
requirements contained in subchapter 10J,
Section 9130.1 through 9130.6.
- 15 -
section 9152.3 Applicability. The
zoning Administrator may grant an
adjustment from the requirements of this
Chapter to:
(a) Allow modification of parcel
coverage regulations by up to five (5)
per cent of the total lot area for
additions to existing structures.
(b) Allow modification of the
nnm~er of required parking spaces by up
to one ( 1) per cent of the number of
required spaces.
(c) Allow the modification of
fence heights by up to one (1) foot.
(d) Allow the modification of side
yard setback requirements by up to six
(6) inChes, but in no case resulting in a
setback of less than four (4) feet.
(e) Allow the modification of
building heights by up to six (6) inches
on parcels Which have a grade
differential of five (5) feet or more, as
measured from either any point on the
front parcel line to any point on the
rear parcel line, or from any point on a
- 16 -
side parcel line to any point on the
opposing side parcel line.
Section 9152.4 Notice of
Application.
(a) Within fourteen (14)
consecutive calendar days after
determination that an application is
comp1e~e, the zoning Administrator shall
give notice of the application by mail,
postaqe prepaid, to all owners and
residential and commercial tenants of
property within a radius of 100 feet from
the ext.erior boundaries of the property
involved in the application. For this
purpose, t.he last known name and address
of each property owner as contained in
the records of t.he Los Angeles County
Assessor shall be used. The address of
the residential and commercial tenants
shall be determined by visual si te
inspection or ot.her reasonably accurate
means. The applicant shall provide a
list of property owners and tenants
within the prescribed area of
notification and shall sign an affidavit
verifyinq that the list has been prepared
- 17 -
in accordance with the procedure outlined
in this section.
(b) All notices of an application
for an adjustment shall state the nature
of the request, the location of the
property, and the manner in which
addi tional informa tion may be recei veCl:..
The notice shall also state that the
deadline in which to request a public
hearing' is fourteen (14) days from the
mailing' of the notice of application for
an adjustment.
section 9152.5 Request for Pub1ic
Hearing. Any person receiving' notice
pursuant to Section 9152.4 may, within
fourteen (14) consecutive calendar days
after the date of the notice, request
that a public hearing be conducted. such
request must be in writing and received
by the Zoning Administrator within the
time indicated. It a request is timely
made, a public hearing shall be held
within forty-five (45) consecutive
calendar days of receipt of the request.
Notice of such hearing' shall be given in
the manner provided in section 9152.4.
- 18 -
section 9152.6 Review and
Findings. within fourteen (1~)
consecutive calendar days following a
public hearinq or expiration of the time
in which to request a hearing pursuant to
section 9152.5, the Zoning Administrator
shall prepare a written decision which
shall contain the findinqs of fact upon
which such decision is based. The Zoni~q
Administrator may approve an adjustment
application in whole or in part, with or
wi thout condi tions, if all of the
fo11owinq findinqs are made:
(a) There are special
circumstances or exceptional
characteristics applicable to the
property inVOlved, including size, shape,
topographY, location, or surroundinqs, or
to the intended use or development of the
property that do not apply to other
properties in the vicinity under an
identical zoning classification.
(b) The granting of such
adjustment will not be detrimental nor
injurious to the property or improvements
in the general vieini ty and district in
which the property is located.
- 19 -
(~) The strict application of the
provisions of this Chapter would result
in practical difficulties or unnecessary
hardships, not including economic
difficulties or economic hardships.
(4) The granting of an adjustment
will not be contrary to nor in conflict
wi th the qenera1 purposes and intent of
this Chapter, nor to the goals,
objectives, and policies of the General
Plan.
(eJ The adjustment would not
impair the integrity and character of the
district in which it is to be located.
(f) The sub;ect site is physically
suitable for the proposed adjustment.
(9) There are adequate provisions
for water, sanitation, and public
utilities and services to insure that the
proposed adjustment would not be
detrimental to public health and safety.
(h) For the reduction of the
automobile parkinq space requirements,
the reduction is based and conditioned
upon an approved parking reduction plan
that incorporates transportation control
measures that have been demonstrated to
- 20 -
be effective in reducinq parkinq needs
and that are monitored, periodically
reviewed for continued effectiveness, and
enforced by the City as contained in
Section 9044.5 of this Chapter.
(i) All the above specified
requirements need not applY to
adjustments which the zoninq
Administrator finds are essential or
desirable to the public convenience or
welfare and are not in conflict with the
General Plan and where the granting of
the adjustment will not be materially
detrimental nor injurious to property or
improvements in the general vicinity and
district in Which the property is
located.
(j) The strict application of the
provisions of this Chapter would result
in unreasonable deprivation of the use or
enjoyment of the property.
Section 9152.7 Appeals. The
approval, conditions of approval, denial,
or revocation of an adjustment may be
appealed to the Planning Commission
within fourteen (14) consecutive calendar
- 21 -
days of the date the decision is made, in
the manner provided in subchapter 10L,
section 9132.1 through 9132.5.
section 9152.8 Commencement of
Use. The rights qranted by the
adjust.ment shall be effective only when
exercised wi thin the period established
as a condition of granting the adjustment
or, in the absence of such established
time periOd, one year from the date that
the permit becomes effective. This t.ime
limit may be extended by the Zoninq
Administrator for qood cause for a period
not to exceed six ~,i months upon writt.en
request by the applicant.
Section 9152.9 Revocation. The
Zoning Administrator may, in his or her
own discretion, or upon direction from
the Planning commission, shall, revoke
any approved adjustment in accordance
with the procedures set forth in Section
9113.7.
SECTION 8. Any provision of the Santa Monica Municipal
Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of
this Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no
- 22 -
further, are hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary
to effect the provisions of this Ordinance.
SECTION 9.
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause,
or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid
or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of any competent
jurisdiction, such decision shall not effect the validity of the
remaining portions of this Ordinance.
The city council hereby
declares that 1t would have passed this Ordinance, and each and
every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not
declared invalid or unconstitutional ~ithout regard to whether
any portion of the Ordinance would be subsequently invalid or
unconstitutional.
SECTION 10. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall
attest to the passage of this ordinance. The city Clerk shall
cause the same to be published once in the official newspaper
within fifteen (15) days after its adoption.
This Ordinance
shall become effective upon adoption.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ROBERT M. MYERS
City Attorney
cbvartxt/hpc:df
- 23 -