SR-8-A (74)
..5(/ PP'/e"" e,/r
j-4
Dr rt . -
.... 'I"
_v ..L (
1991
LUTM:PB:DKW:bz
K/var2
city Council Mtg: December 17, 1991
Santa Monica, California
TO:
Mayor and City council
FROM:
City staff
SUBJECT: Supplemental Staff Report Regarding Variance Text
Amendments
INTRODUCT+ON
At the December 3, 1991 Council meeting, a public hearing was
conducted regarding a number of changes to the variance section
of the Zoning Ordinance recommended by the Planning Commission
and staff. After the conclusion of the public hearing, the item
was continued to allow additional time for Housing Division staff
to review the proposed changes,
with emphasis on the
recommendations concerning density bonus-related variances.
BACKGROUND
Housing Division staff have reviewed and have no comments on most
of the recommended amendments.
However, as a result of
discussions with Planning staff, several alternative approaches
to
recommended
section
9113.3(e),
which
addresses
density-hanus-related variances, have been identified. As
drafted, Section 9113,3{e) provides for up to a 25 percent
variance for yard setbacks and/or parking spaces for mUlti-family
developments conforming to state density bonus guidelines. In
5(/,,..t~~r tf-A-
- 1 -
DE C -! ! 'i;'l1
addition, at the Council meeting, staff recommended that a
reduction in parcel coverage also be permitted for such projects.
staff is recommending that the reference to parking spaces be
deleted for two reasons: first, staff is developing a number of
revisions to the parking standards of the Zoning Ordinance, and
among the revisions will be establishment of an as-af-right
parking standard for deed-restricted affordable housing units.
This standard will be based on studies of parking demand
associated with affordable housing. Secondly, the Zoning
Ordinance already provides for a Reduced Parking Permit for
affordable housing developments. Thus, the present code creates
the potential for reductions in parking requirements for
affordable housing developments, and future code amendments are
planned which are expected to create standards applying to
indi vidual affordable units which may be wi thin a m.arket-rate
project. While establishing the 25 percent reduction ability
pending amendment of the actual parking standards would have some
merit, given the pending code amendments, this does not appear
essential at this time.
staff believes that the ability to request a reduction in yard
setbacks for projects qualifying for the state densi ty bonus
program should be preserved to facilitate affordable housing
units and to comply with state law, which mandates that
jurisdictions offer incentives to such projects. However, the
Council may wish to consider placing greater limits on reductions
- 2 -
that may be requested, for example to restrict such reductions
only to the rear yard and one side yard. On a typical two-story
project on a standard 50' by 150' parcel, a seven-foot sideyard
is required. A 25 percent reduction in a seven-foot $ideyard
would result in a setback of five feet three inches, which is
still a significant setback amount. Given the requirement for a
minimum five foot rear setback, only parcels lacking a rear
alley would be eligible to request a reduction in the rear
setback requirement. Where a rear alley is not present I the
typical maximum reduction would be 3 feet nine inches out of a
normal fifteen foot setback requirement, resulting in a maximum
reduction to a setback of 11 feet 3 inches. It is noted that in
some situations involving smaller lots, allowing a reduction in
setbacks would not be meaningful without also providing for an
increase in parcel coverage, and vice-versa.
staff also recommends retaining the ability to request an
increase in parcel coverage for density bonus projects. However,
establishing more restrictive parameters may be appropriate, for
example, limiting such increases to no more than 10 percent of
the parcel area. Most multi-family zones have a parcel coverage
(or lot coverage allowance by code) limit of 50 percent, so the
maximum permitted increase would result in a total parcel
coverage of up to 60 percent. In some situations, greater parcel
coverage is critical to developing the number of units permitted
with a density bonus.
- 3 -
The recommended parcel coverage limit is consistent with the
allowances already adopted in the Zoning Ordinance for the nOP"
zones in Ocean Park, which provide for lot coverage of up to 60
percent for projects conforming to state density bonus standards
on an as-of-right basis. The recommended change to the Zoning
Ordinance would extend this concept to other mUlti-family zones,
but through a variance process which would allow more discretion
to consider the individual circumstances of each proposal.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The recommendations of this report would have no budget or
financial impact.
RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully recommended that the City Council make the
findings for and introduce for first reading the text amendments
set forth in the staff report dated December 3, 1991, with the
substitution of the following language for that set forth in the
December 3 staff report for Section 9113.3(e):
(e) Allow encroachment into no more than 25 percent of
one side yard setback, or the rear yard setback, or both,
and, except in those zones where an increase in parcel
coverage for state density bonus projects is already
permitted, allow an increase in parcel coverage by no more
than ten percent of parcel area, for projects conforming
- 4 -
..
to state density bonus guidelines.
In no case shall a
rear yard setback of less than five (5) feet be allowed.
Prepared by: D. Kenyon Webster, Planning Manager
Paul Berlant, LUTM Director
Chuck Elsesser, Housing Programs Manager
12/12/91
- 5 -