The URL can be used to link to this page

SR-8-D (19). ~~ ~ , ' 1 '•= ~ j ~ ~ ~ LUTM:PB:DKW:DB/pa0D8cc.pcword.plan Santa Manica, Cal~~o~nia~-° Council Mtg: January 19, 1993 To: Mayor and City Cauncil FRC?M: City Sta~f SUBJECT: Text Amendment 93-0~2 ~Formerly referenced as TA 92--008} to Al1ow Issuance of an Adjustment Permit for Location of Garage Accessory Structures INTRODUCTION This xeport recammends that the City Council adopt Text Amendment 93-002, to a~law Ad~ustments for garage acc~ssory structures to extend to the rear property ~.ine if certain findings can be made. B~cxG~zoUr~D Case Histary This request for a text amendment resulted from an interpretati.Qn of SMMC Section 9.04.].0.02.].00(b) requested by Alan ~e}~ker and h~ard by the Planning Cammiss~on on June 24, 1992. (Attach~nant A). In that interpretatian, the Zoning Administrator found and the Planning Commission agreed that it would be a violatian of the Zoning ordinance to construct a garage a.ccessory structure at the rear propexty line if the rear praperty line did nat abut an a].ley. SMMC Ssction 9.04.~.0.02.100~b), the subject of the Zaning Admini~tratox's interpretation, currently reads as fol3.ows: ~~ ~~~ 4 ~.'^"' ~ ~ ~~~~.~ ~ ~ ~ \ SECTION 90.04.].O.Q2.1p0 One--Story Accessory Building ~14 feet maximum height) (b) The ~ccessory building may be located in ~ required rear ya~d, but sha11 be at least 5 feet from any lot l.ine. A garage or garage portion af an accessory bua.lding may extend up to one interior side property line an the rear 3~ feet of a~.ot. A garage or garag~ portion o~ an acces- sory bu~.lding may ex~end to the rear property line abut- ting an al.ley provided vehicle accass is not taken from the alley. As noted in the Zoning Administrator's interpretation, this ex- isting code language requires that any accessory building must be at least 5' from the rear property l.ine if the subjact parcel does not abut an alley. This interpr~tation is problematic for Mr. Zebker because he is s~eking to construct a qarage accessory struoture at the ~~ar lat line af a property which abuts another parce~ to the rear. Mr. Zebker's praperty also abuts an al~ey on ane side property line. In order tv place his garage at the rear praperty la.ne, Mr. Zeb- ker asked the City Council to direct a text amendment ta allow garages ta extend to the rear property line in cases where th~ rear prop~rty ~ine does not ab~t an alley. At that time, staff received a directive from the City Council tQ draft a Text Amendment. Proposed Text Amendment Based on Mr. Zebker's concerns, staff ariginally propased a Text Amendment to SI+'~~IC Section 9.04.10.D2.lOD~b) which wauld have al- lowed garage aceessory buildings to extend to the rear property line in cases whera tha subjact structure abutted the rear 35' of th~ ~ot adjacent ta the rear Qf the subject project. This would - 2 - have prevented the construction o~ a garage aacessory structure at the rear property Iine if it abutted the side yard area of the adjacent parcel, but was nat abut~ing the rear 35' of ~hat ad~a- cent parcel, which could occur only if the two lat~ were reversed in their arientation tv perpendicular streets. {Attachments B and F.) However, the Plannzng Commission expressed cancern that the staff proposal may adversely impact neighboring residents and, instead, recommended a Text Amandment to Sectian 9.~4.20.34.030 that wou~d a11ow an Adjustment to be grant~d al- lowing garage accessory buildings to extend to rear pxoperty lines if certain findings can be made. Consist~nt with the Co~mission's action, s~aff recommends that Section 9.04.20.34.030 be amended as foliaws (bold indicates new text): Par~ 9.04.20.34. Adjustments 9.04.20.34.030 Appl~Cability The Zoning Administrator may grant an adjustment fram the requirements of this Chapter to: {a} Al~ow modification of parce~ caverage regulations by up to five percent af thE to~al lat area for addit~ans to existing s~ructures. (b} Allow modification of tha nu~ber of required parking spaces by up to one percent of the number of required parking spaces. (c) AZlow the modifica~ian of fence heights by up to one faot. (d) Allow madi~ication of side yard setback requirements by up to six inches, but in no case resuiting in a setback ~f less than four feet. (e) A11ow the madi~icatian oE b~i~ding heights by up to six inch~s on parcels which have a grade differential of tive feet or more, as meas~red from either any point on the front parcel lin~ to any point on the rear parcel line, or from any point on a side parcel Iine to any pa~nt on the oppasing side parc~I 1ine. (f) Allow a garage accessary bui~dinq to extend to ~he - 3 - rear praperty line of the parcel an which it is located where otherwise prahibited. If the proposed Text Amendment were adopted by the City Council, it wauld be possible to apply far an Ad~ustment to allow garage accessory buildings t~o abut the rear praperty line. When an ad- justment is filed, ali tenants and property owners within a 1~~' radius are noti~ied by mail at least fou~teen days after staff has de~med the application compl~te. within fourteen days of the date o~ the pt~blic no~ice, interested persans may request a hear- ing before the Zoning Administratar. The d~cision of the Zoning Administrator is appealable to the Planning Cammissian. In order to grant an Adjustment, the Zoning Administrator (or Planning Commissian on appeal) must make specific findings callad out in Section 9.04.20.34.060 of the Zoning Ordinance. These findings are similar to those requir~d for a variance, including the findings that the adjustmen~ will not be ~'injurious to the praperty or improvements in the general vicinity and district in which it is located," that thare are "special circumstances ap- plicable to the property involved,'" and that the granting of the Adjustment is not "contrary to nar in confl.ict with the general purpases and inten~" of the Zoning ~rdinance. Staff ba~ie~ctes that the proposed a~nendment is app~apriate tor the Adjustment sectian oP the Zoning drdinance rather than the Variance section, in that garage accessary structures are already permitted ta abut an~ side property line in the rear 35' of a parcel withaut either a Variance or an Adjustment. By requiring an Adjustment, the immediate neighb~rs would be notified and the _ 4 .. Zoning Administratar, ar Planning Commissfon on appea~, would be required to make the necessary ~indings. General P~an Conformance Although the General Plan is sil~nt on the issue of accessory buildings, the proposed Text Amendment, which would affect a Sec- tian of the Zoning ord~na~ce generally utilized in residential districts, is consistent with objective 1.1.0 to "expand th~ ap- portunity for r~sidential land use while protecting the scale and character of existing neighborhoads.}' This proposa]. would allow mor~ opportunities for usabl~ outdoor apen space in the rear af singZe family residential lot~ if the findings for an adjustmant cnuld be made. Ls'nder the existing Zoning Ordinance, people who wish to construct garage accessory buildings on properties which abut other parcels to the rear are r~quired to devate a us~xally unusable tive foot strip of land between their garage and their rear property line, whereas if they were permitted to construct a garage at the property line, and the garage were to abut their neighbors' rear yard araa, they would have a minimal impact on their neighbor. Conclusian The proposed Text Ainendment is an improvement of the Zoning Or- dinance and is consistent with the abjectivas af the General Plan and therefore warrants adaption. - 5 - PUBLIC NOTIFICATION Because this proposal is nat site-specific, no radius map, signag~ or mailing notification is required. A legal natice was published in ~ha outlook and sta~f has notified the Neighborh~od Suppozt Center of the proposed Text Amendment. A capy of the legal natice is cantained in Attachment E. BUDGET/FINANCIAL iMPACT The recammendati~n presented in this report does n~t have any budget or fiscal impact. RECO~~+IENDATION Tt is respectfully recommended that the Cauncil make the following findings and introduce ~dr fi~st reading the ardinance attached as Attachment D: FINDINGS 1. The proposed T~xt Amendment is consist~nt in principal with the gaals, Qbjectives, palicies, land uses, and pra- grams specified in the adopted General Plan, in that it is eonsistent with Land Use and Circulatian Element Object~.ve 1..1~, which states that the City shauld expand the appor- tunity for residential land use while protecting the scale and character of residential neighbarhoads, and in that the General Plan is silent on the issue af setbacks for accessory buildings. 2. The public health, safety, and geneza~. we~fare requi.res the adoption of the proposed amendment, in that the amend- ment allows expanded opportunities for usab~.e private out-- door open space on a sign~ficant number o~ parceis in San- ta Monica caithaut any adverse impacts on adjacent parce~s. Prepared by: D. Kenyon Webster, Plan:~ing Manager Drummand Buckley, Associate PJ.anner Planning Divisian Land Use and Transportation Management Department _ ~ _ Attachments: A. Planning Commission Staff Report for Interpretation of sr~IC section 9.a4.lo.oz.loo(b) (Prior coae section 9040.1o(b) B. Plann~ng Commission Sta~f Report for TA 93-002 (Farmerly Referencad as TA 92-008), ~ai~h Attachments C. Planning Cammissitin Statement a~ Official Actian, TA 93-002 D. Ordinanc~ Amending SMMC Sectian 9.04.20.34.Q30 E. Notice of Public Hearing F. Correspandence and Drawing from Ron McCoy Illustrating the Placement of Accessory Garage S~ructuras DB/ db Pc/~aooscc 0~/~.2/~~ _~_ AT~'AC.I~E~' A ~o oa (~va7E ~ r~-1~s 1s il~,fo h~v nT'7ACHM~~T` 7v Pl.~~~,~uc~ Can'-.r,KSroN STaFF I~EPD~rFoF~ T~t °I3~ OOZ~ P8Z : QKMI: bz :!c/interpl Planning Co~nissiar~ ~ftg: June 24, 199z T~: The Honarable ~lanning Coemissian fROM: Pia~ning Staff /~ TT~i ~~i ~'r~ .ti"~r 5a~ta Monica, Californ~a SUBJECT: Interpretation of Seetiar~ 904Q.10(b) Regarding the Location of a Garage Relative to ~he Rear Property Line Intro¢~ctian 7his re~ort sets forth an lnterp~etation of Zonir~g Urdinance Sect~on 9040.1Q(b) regarding the location of a garage relative to the rear property line. ~~1]5 ~flt~l"Q1"~tdt'IO~I Mas requested by Alan Ze~ker after consul~ation with Planni~g staff. Mr. Zebicer is building a home an a parce~ in the OP2 district in the Ocean Park neighborhood. 7here is no alley be#~in~ Mr. Zeb~Cer's property, althaugh there is a side a17ey, Staff advised Mr. Zebker that the ~lannQd garage req~ired a~ive-foot uinimu~ setback fra~ the rear praperty line. Mr. Zebker wo~ld like an alternatirre interpretation to be ap~roved by the Planning Cosnission. Backaraund Sect~o~ 9040.10(b) states that accessary bu~l~ings may be located in a required rear yard, but nwst be at jeast five feet from any lat line. The secLion fu~ther permits a"garage ar garage portion of ar~ accessory buiiding" to extend "to the rear ~raperty iine abutting an a~~ey provided vehicle access is not taken fro~ the alley." A copy of the Sectior~ is included as Exhibii I. At issue is the ~ntent of the code as regards the location of a garage where ~o alley is present at the rear of the site. E~via~sly, in suct~ a sit~atian, vehicle access is nat take~ fro~ the alley, si~ce there is no such rear a11ey. Mr. Zebker f~as requested an i~terpretation t~-at results in ~a rear setback for the garage being required. A rationa~e for this irterpretattan wo~ld be that the intent behind the five-foot setback is to allow safe vehicle access fram the rear when there is a rear alley, and where s~th access is ~at taken, no rear setbac~c is needed. An alternate inter~retation woald be that the purpose of the five-foot setbac~C is ta provide a reaso~ab~e transition between properties; +~fie~ an a11ey is preser~t, no such buffer is nee~ed, b~t in the a~ser~ce af an aliey, the code reqnires ti~e five-foot setback so that neighboring ~roperties are not adversely affected. This interpretation follaws the spetifit ~anguage of t~e code, rrhich only al ~ows a zera setbacfc from the rear property ~ ine wt~er~ access is nat taken froia a rear alley. T#~ere is no affiraaative statement to the effect that garages on properties withaut alleys may be placed on the rear property ~ine. Staff inter~ds to develap a text amendmenL to clarffy garage setbatk requir~nts set forth tn th~s sectian. c~~~ 09 F ~nteroreta~ipn Given t#~e specificity of the ianguage af t~at garages o~t properties wit~out rear feet from the rear property line. Secti~n 9040.10 (b), staff be3ieves alleys m~st be located at 7ea~t fivQ Ganmisstan R~thoritv ilnder Sectian 91~0.3 of ~he Zoning Ordfnance, the Zoning A~ministrator may file a wrttten interpretation with the Planning Conmission. The interpretatio~ becomes effective l4 days fro~ the daLe the ite~ appears on the Gom~iss~on's agenda uniess changed by the Co~issian by its ~m action or on appeal. Any persan ~eay, withi~ the 14 day pcriod, appeal the Tnterpretation to the Ca~issian. if such appeal is fi~ed, it is req~ired tv be ~eard w~t~in 60 days. Aoy aetion af the ~oa~ission on ~nterpretations may be appealed to the City Co~nc91. Pre~ared by: U. Kenyon We~ster, Plan~ing Manager k/interp7 Exfiibit 1: Municipa] Co~e Section 904~.10(b~ Exhibit 2: Alan Zebker ~etter C~O~ 10 AT~'14C~ENT B o ~~ ~ ~ ~"` P&Z:DI{W:DB:TA92008 Santa Monica, California Planning C~~!mission Mtg: 4ctober 21, 1992 TO: The Honorable Planning Commission FROM: Planning Staff SUBJECT: Text Amendment 92-008 Address: Citywide Applicant: City Council INTRODUCTION ~~ Action: Application for Text Amendment ta permit garaga accesso- ry bui~dings to extend to the rear property in certain situatians. Recammendation: Cammission discussion and recam~Qndation of ap- proval to the City Council. Permit Streamlining Exp~ration Date: None. S~TE IACATI4N AND DESCRIPTION The proposed Text Aznendment wou~d affect properties in all Zoning Districts in the City where accessory garaqes are permitted. Zoning District: All Districts Land Use District: A11 Districts PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed Zoning 4rdinance Text Amendment would in~alve the modification of SMMC Section 9040.10(b) in ordar to permit qaraqe accessory buildings to extend to the rear property line in situa- tions where the garaqe accessary structure would abut the rear 35' of the parcel adjacant to the rear. MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFDRMANCE The proposed Text Amendment is consistent with the General Plan. CE~A STATUS The proposed Text Amendment fs categorically exempt from the pro- visions of the Califarnia Environmental Quality Act pursuant ta Class 5(10) of the City of Santa Monica Guide~ines for the Im- ple~unentation of CEQA. - ~ - 00`~ 1~ FEES The proposal is not subject to any development fees. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION Because this praposal is not site-specific, no radius map, sig- nage ar mail~ng notification is reqtiired. A legal notice was published in the Outlaok and staff has natified the Neighborhood Support Center of the proposed text amendment. A copy of the ~egal notice is contained in Attachment A. Ai~IAT,YGTR Background This request for a text amendment resulted from an interpretati.on of SMMC Section 9040.10(b) requested by Alan Zebker and heard by the Planning Commission on June 24, 1992. (Attachment B}. In that interpretation, the Zoning Administrator found and the Plan- ning Commission agreed that it wou].d be a violation af the Zoning Ordinance to construct a garaga accessory atructure at tha rear property line if the rear property line did not abut an alley. SI~+IC Section 9040.~0(b), the subject of the Zoning Administra- tor's interpretation and this proposed text amendment, currently reads as follows: SECTION 9040.10. One-Story Accessory Building (14 feet maximum height)... (b} The accessory buildinq ~ay be Zocated in a req~ired rear yard, but shall be at least 5 feet from any lot line. A garage or gara~ge partion of an accessory building may extend up to one interior side property line on the rear 35 feet of a lot. A garage or garage pvrtion of an acces- sary building may extend to the rear property line abut- ting an alley pravided ~ehicle access is not taken from the ailey. As noted in the Zoning Administrator's interpretation, this ex- isting code ~anguage exp~icitly sta~es that any accessory build- ing must be at least 5' from the rear property line if the sub- ~ect parcel does not abut an alley. This interpretation fs problematic for Mr. Zebker because he is seeking to construct a garage accessory structure at the rear lot line of a property which abuta another parcel to the rear. Mr. Zebker's property a~so abuts an alley on one side prop~rty line. In order to place his garage at the rear property line, Mr. Zeb- ker asked the City CounciZ to spansor a text amendment to allow garages to extend to the rear property line in cases where the rear property line does not abut an alley (Attachment C). - z - o~~ ~3 . ~P- , Proposed Text Amendment Based an Mr. Zebker's concerns, staff propo~es ~ Text Amendmant tv SMMC Section 9D~0.10(b) as fo~.Iows (bold indicates new text): (b) The accessory bu~.lding may be lacated in a required rear yard, hut shall be at least 5 feet fram any lot line. A garage or gaxage portion of an accessory building may extend up ta one interior side property line on the rear 35 feet of a lot. A garaqe or garage partion of an acces- sory building may extend to the rear progerty line abut- ting an alley provided vehicle access is not taken from the an alley. ~f the rear lot lfne o~ tha aubject parcel a~buts another paroel, a gdrage or garags gortian af an accessory buildinq may extend to the rear property line of the subject parcel pravided the struatur• abuts the rear 35~ of the parcel adjacent to the rear. The suggested Text Amendment would allow a garage accessory btxi.lding ar garage portion of an accassory building to abut the rear praperty line provided that the sub~ect garage abutted within the rear 35' of the adjacent parcel. The purpase of the maximum 35' requirement is to remain cansistent with the exisitng Code provision allowinq garage accessory structures to abut one side property line, provided the garage accegsory bui~ding ~s within the rear 35' of the lot. If the proposed Text Amendment dves nat include a 35' limit, it is feasible that in same circum- etances where a rear praperty line abut~ a side proparty line, the qarage accessory building could abut the neighboring parcel's side or frant yard. Mr. Zebker's architect hae expreased concern because his client wishes to construct a garage which abuts the neighboring side property ].ine to a depth of 40', rather than the 35' maximum per- mitted by the proposed Text Amendment. Staff believes that the 35' maximum is consistent with other portions of the code in es~- tablishing a threshold and shauld therefore be adopted. Staff's proposed text amendment addresses the issue raised by Mr. Zebker in a manner consistent with the code rather than simply alZowing him to achieve certain objectives on a single parcel. GeneraZ Plan Conforman~e Although the General Plan is s~lent on the issue of accessory buildings, the proposed Text Amendment, which applies to a Sec- tion of the Zaning Orainance generally uti.l~.asd in residential d~stricts~ seema consi.stent with Ob~ective 1.10 to "expand the apportunity for residential land use whi~e protecting the scale and character of existing neighborhoods" in that the proposa~ wauld allow mare opportunities for usable outdoor open space in the rear of single family residential lota, without significantly impacting the light and air of ad~acent properties. In the ex- isting ~oning ordinance, peaple wha wish to aonstruct garaqa ac-- cessory buiidings an properties which abut other parcels to the rear are required to de~ate a basically unusable five foot strip ' ~ ` C?!~~~ 1 ~ of Iand between their garage and their rear property line, where- as if they were permitted to construct a garaqa at the property line, and the garage was to abut their neiqhbors' rear yard area, they wauld have a minim~l impact on their neiqhbor. Conclusion The praposed T~xt Amendment is an improvement of the Zoninq Or- dinance and is consistent with the ob~ectives of the General Plan and therefore warrants adaptian. RECOMMENDATION It is recammended that the Planning Com~nission recommend to the City Council adaption of the proposed Text Amendment based on the fol~.owing findings: RTNT]TNCS l. The proposed Text Amendment is cansistent in princi.pal with the goals, objeatives, policies, land uses, and pro- grams specified in the adopted Genera~ Flan, in that it is consistent with Land Use and Circulation Element ~b~ective 1.10, which states that the City should expand the appor- tunity for residential land use whi].e protectinq the scale and aharacter of residential neighborhoods, and in that the General Plan is silant on the issue of setbacks for accessory buildings. 2. The public health, safety, and qeneral welfare requires the adoption of the proposed amendment, in that the amend- ment allows expanded opportunitieg for usable private aut- door open space on a significant nt~m~er of parcela in San- ta Monica without any adverse impacts an adjacent parcels. Prepared by: Drummand Buckley, Assistant Planner Attachments. A. Notice of Pub~ic I~earing B. Interpretation of Zoning ~rdinance Section 904~.10(b) (with attachments) C. Carrespondence to City Council DB:db PC/ta92048 10/14/92 -4- ~~ 15 ~~-_. OFFICIAL N~TICE OF PUBLIC HEARINa Subject o~ Hearinq: Text Amendment 92-008, Citywid~ Applicant: City Council ~r~~rc~~~,~r- ~ A Public Hearing will be he~d by the Planning Commission on the fo~lowing request: Application for a Text Amendment to Section 9~40.10(b} of the Zan~ng Ordinance to permit garage accessory structures to extend to rear property line if certain cr~teria are met. (P~anner: Buckley) TIME: ~PEDNESDAY, OCT4BER 21~ 1992 AT 7:00 P.M. LOCATION: COUNCIL CHAMB$R, ROOM 213, CITY HALL 1685 MAIN STREET SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA INTERESTED PERSONS MAY COMMENT A LETTER. Letters sho~tld be addressed to: ENCQURAGES PUSLIC COMMENTS. AT THE HEARiNG, OR BY WR~TING Planning Division, Room ~11 1685 ~iain Streat Santa Monica, California 90401 Attn: (D. Buckley) Additional information raay b~ obtained frora the Planning Division at the address above ar by calling (310~ 458-8341. The meeting facility is handicapped accessible. If you have any special needs such as sign language interpreting, please aontact the Office of the Disabled at (310) 458-8701. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65o09(b), if this matter is subsequently challenged in Court, the challenge may be limited to on~y those issues ra~sed at the Public Hear~ng described in this notice, or in written carrespondence delivered to the City of Santa Man~.ca a~, ar prior to, the Public Hearing. Esto es una noticia de una audencia publica para revisar appiicacianes praponiando desarrollo en Santa Monica. Si deseas mas ~nformacion, favor de llamar a Elsa Gonaalez en la Division de Plantificaci.on al numero (310) 458-8341. - 1 - ~~ 1~ -~, ~~ ~T~~~#~A~~,~ ~ P~Z:DKi~:bz:k/interp7 Santa Manica, California Planning Conmissian Mtg: June 24, 1992 T0: The l~or~arab~e P]a~ni~rg Camr~iss~on FROM: ~lanning Staff St1BJEC3: jnterpretatian of Section 9Q40.~O~b) Regardir~q the Location of a Garage Relat~ve ta the Rear Property ~ine I~tro~uct~on T~~s report sets fart~r an ~rt~erpretatfort of Zor~z~rg Orc~inaRCe 5ectiar~ 944Q.10(b) regard~r~g the iacation of a garage reiative to the rear pro~erty line. 7his interpretatian was requested by A~an Zebker after consultatfon with Planni~-g staff. Mr. Zebke~ is building a home on a parcel in the OP2 disLr~ct in ~he Qcean Park r~eighborhood, There is r~o ailey beh~nd Mr. I~bker's ~raperty, aftho~gh t~ere fs a side a~ley. Staff advtsed Mr. Zebker that the planned garage required a fi~e-foat aini~m setback from the rear prnper~y line. Mr. Ze~ker waul~ like an alternative ir~ter~retation to be ap~roved by the Planning Comnission. H~CICQt^OUAa 5ect-io~ 9040.10(b) states that accessory bui]d~ngs may be lacated in a req~ired rear yard, but must be at least ~ive feet from any lot line. The section further~ per~nits a"gar~age or garage portian of an acce5sary building" to exter~d "to the rear property ~irre abuttir€g an a2]~y pr~~vide~ v~hic~e access is nat taken fro~ the alley." A copy af the Section is include~ as Exhib9t 1. At isstre is the intent of the ca~e as regar~ds the iocat7on of a garage w#rere no a~ley is present at Lhe rear of tt~e site. Obv~ausly, in such a situation, vehicle access is nat taken fra~ the alley, since there is no such rear a~ley. Nr. Zebker has req~ested an i~terpretation that results in no rear setback far the garage ~eing required. A ratinnale for this interpretation would be tha~ the intent befrind the ~FTVe-foot setback is ta a?~€~w safa vehTC2e actess fraar the rear when there is a rear alley, and Mrhere such access is not taken, no rear s~tback is needed. An alternate interpretat~on would be that the purpose of the five-foot setbacic ~s to protride a reasonab]Q ~ransitio~ between properties; w~-en ar~ a~~ey is present, no such buffer is needed, b~t in the absence af ar~ ailey, th~ code reqnires the five-fnot setback so that neighboring properties are not advers~ly affected. This ~nterpretat~or~ fo~~ows the specific language of the code, w~ich vnly al~aws a zero setbacic from the rear property iine when access Ts not talcen frrmr a rear ailey. There is na affirmative statem~r~t to the effect that garages on properties without alleys ~nay be placet! pn the rear property l~ne. S~aff intends to develop a text amend~ent to clarify garage setbac~C requirements set forth iR t~is sectian. ~,~~ 1 r ~ •'" ~ I nter~oretat i on Given Lhe specificity of t~e language of tf~at garages or~ properties without rear feet from the rear property iine. Sect~on 9040.10 (b), staff bei9eves alleys must be located at least five Com~nission A~thoritv Ur-~er Sectian 9100.3 af the Zoning Ordinance, the Zoning Administrator atay file a written interpretation wit~ the Plannfng Comnission. ~he i~terpretatian becomes effective 14 days from the date the iteiq appears on the Comnissio~`s agenda unless char~ged by the Con~lss~on 6y its awn action or on appea7. Any persan may, within the 14 ~ay period, appeal the interpretatian ta the Con~ission. If such appeal is fi~ed, it is required to be hears~ w~thin b0 days. Rny action af t#~e Camnission on interpretations ~ay be appealed to the City Cotmci~. Prepared ay: D. Kenyan Webster, Planning Manager k/tnterp7 Exhibit 1: Municipal Cade 5ection 9(~44.10~b} Exhib~t 2: A~an Zebker Lett~r ~~~~ ~~ , ~'~l~ r ~S ~ ~ ' ~ April 8 1992 To: Mr Henyon Webster City of Santa Monica Chazr~an, Planning Dept. Fram: Alan Zebker 2722 6th St Santa Monica ~3Y 4fi S":- ° ~n~.:GA ~ H ~ .M.r•r. C~y ~. ~`~n+ ~_ = ~r: -',~ '+92 j-~t 15 A u ~: ~ 2 Subject: Req~est fnr Zanir~g Interpretation in Regards Garage Setback Dear Mr. Web~ter, This letter finds itself before pou ta serve as a formai request far a"zon~ng interpretatian" in regards to the specific lacation of the ~arage for my sing~e family residence located at 2fi22 6th 3t. Preser~tlq the IIarage is required to have a 5' setback alon~ the rear property line, the request is to be allv~aed to plsce the ~arage on t~e property line itae7.f. The Zoning Ordiaance Manual reads with a certain ambiguitq that has ~elped to lead me to this current aaorass. Additionslly there has appeared to be some questian within Lhe p].anning dep~rtment itself, on two ~eparate occasions the architect s~orking on the project, Ron McCay, spoke W3th Dav~d Martin over the counter and was ta~d on bath occasions that placing the garage ots the rear property 3ine wss eonsistent with the currerit interpretation. It Fras not until we had submitted the plans for ad~tiniatrative approval that we s.rere informed that a five faot set back would be required st the rear of the property. By this ti~e we all wished to carry on, but ~f we had had this understanding earlier I am certain the project wou~d have taken a q~ite different architectural direction. ~~ ~~ ~1 This request is not suggesting a complete revision of the code but rather that trie unique circumstancea pertain~ng to my lot should allow the 8arage to be permitted an the properyty l~ne in this specific case. If one is able to separate the rule fra~ the resson for the rule~ I think my case has some merit. The follaWing is a~ist of some of the distinct charac~eriatics affected my propertp: I. The al~ey runs perpendicu3ar to the street frontage not parallei as ia comenanly faund Ssee A~ msp 1}. 2. The rear praperty Iine abuts a~a~nst a serieg of lats that do have t~e commonly faund street fronta~e with paraliel alley (see B}. 3. The ~ot ~s clsssified as sub-standard having the dimensions of 40'x1a0'. 4. There is currently no curb cut, thus, according to my understanding of the present zon~ng cade, no neW curb cut is perm~tted because the property sbuta an alley thua creating severe degign li~~taitons. These peculxarities I think csn be largely traced to Ocean Par~ having been subdivided at an earli~r ti~e and with different guidelines than the remninder of the city. Thus we find in this ~rea s plethora of irre8u~ar and sub-standard lots. Because of the relatively haphazard layout of Ocean Park, clear, hard and fast rules see~ to be evasive, and in certain instances counter-productive to the underiying design guidelines that are presently operative. I think my situation could be one of these. There would appear to be little benefit for th~ adjacent west lot bp the current eu~darstanding w~ile causing a re~ative level of hardship to my substandard lot. I say little benefit because if one looks et Map ~ it Wouid appear that a garage cowld be placed on the praperty line of all af the lats along Raymond that run from the alley aft~r 4th St y~til one reaches ~p lot where an arbitrary 5' is required. Whfle there seems ~ittle advanta8e to the adjacent lot for this setback the impact becomes subatantial for the compact ~ot I am trying to build on. Further the impact to the adjacent Iot seems negii~ible because having the o~ners perm~ssion I will be building an 8' high fence along that property l~ne while the ~arage will be only slightly more obtrusive than the permitted wall. ~~t~ G~ ~i' ~~'h If We are able to locate the gers~e a~ong the desxred property ~ine it would not be to either enlarge the house nr the ~arage but rather to increase as muc~i as possible the open gardenable area. This would appear to be in keeping wzth the current spirit af max~mizin~ green area. If the ~are~e is forced to be located with a 5' setback it beco~oes Punctionallp noniateraal ta the project and a likely haven for weeds and accumu3.ated debras. I s~ould cert~inly be eamfort~b~e with s restriction that the bouse nor the gnra~e can be enlarged from t~eir current envelope if the ~ara~e can be pl$ced in this practicai~y superior location. I appreciate pour indul~ence in this mstter which to you might seem small e-nd trite besides some of the larger issues that cro$s your desk on a dsilg basis, but for ~e it looas l~r~e and vital. I look forHard to yaur response and if I can be of he~p in facilitatin~ this request, I Will be roat avai}.ab~e. With Thanks, lan Zebker 2722 6th St Sants Monica 396-1481 ~~~ ~ ~ y~C `t°^ ~ ti..~ ' .~ Pd ~ ~ ~ ~, CGO[ es~4 ~ ~ ro~ ~~n ~t~~ ~u 3ze - ~ ~ ~ N N .[1 Y\ _ % "~` `~ ~ ~ 5~ ~~ .~ ~ • L~ STO N~ r~AM T RAC T M B 3-7~ STONEI-IAM_TRACT NO 2 M B S -135 ,~~ y~ r ~ ;~ ~ ~ ~ • (~ ?~ . / IL ~-. ~ ~ .~ _ 6A0.RdE~ --~~--- =~ --'- - ~_ _~~ ~ G1ltir+~ ~+ Py ,1 -- - - - -_-_-_ - _ - _ - - _ ~ LL ~ ~ ~ ~~ - - - --- - - - - --_ ~ ~-_ -- - -~ _ - _-_-: T _ - ~ MAP 2 ~~~ ~ ~ ~ FA~CSIMILE 1'RANSMI'!'TAL Prom: Rarwld Mocop MchiMrocr 3ZZ1 Hu~son Avenue 1,aa~ Au$eje~, CA 90034 ~ ~ , zc~ ~ ~'Z Job: Pi-one: {213} 836-94e7 FAX: (213j 837-0C~13d Ta: _~~ ~ ~ ~1 ~ ~~ ~•~ ~ ~ CC ~ Num~a of 1'a~a (ixludina thif aoa) ~' If ycw ~ive aot rec~ived ~II p~ea, ple~s }~oa~e oc PAX ur. Nate: 0000 2~ FROM RtIR :~'} 86.24.19?'~~• 98e31 P. 2 RaNALD M~C(7Y ARCti~7 hC'r J ur~e 24. t 992 Mr. Kcnyoa Wet~ster Plar~ning M~a CSty of S~nta Monica R~:. 7~kes Recidencc 2722 l5th St. Santa Monic~ v~~ rAx r)ear Kenynn: Ycsicrd~y ! roceived the staff intelprztaiion Io the PlaRmng ['.ommission r-cgarding the gar~~c 1ocalir~n fex the 7Jebker ~sidcnoc. The sta~'repori on Secfion 9U44.1 {b) presents a~ analysis of ihe 5 ft. setback reqi~iremcnt with re.~ect to the c;ondit~ons af the al~ey. '1'here is hnwevcr. ~nothcr as~act at' Ihe setback requir~mer#ts whic~ has lek~ u~ da wEth the ic~c.~han af the ailcy. ltcfcrenoe is rnade tio lhe attac:ha~ ictter I hav~ ~en! tU th~ mqnb~xs of thc I~la~+ni~g C.ammsss~an (~ apoiogi~~t for ncrt ~d~ng yoe~ t~is lelt~r saoe~s). 'lfie issue whi~h [~eheve iy mn~ im~rta~t i~ the ~tt~lysis and in an of Soction 9E~,1(h) is thc con~itir~n Ehai exicE.c wh~n the ~ propertY line of 2~1~~ stroet ~s al~ the interiar sick. prcrEx.7ry tincs nf the adjaa~t ~. The code ~llows fihe aeccxsocy huild+nK Ic~ bc ivc~tod on vne interiar si~ property Ii~. 7'h~r~fore, an acces~ory bu:lding on this line ciocv nol d~v~~te €rom thG typical conditian of properttes pe~rpcndicular to ~he Raymond P1:~cc a~1cy. In Ihis rc~ard, the adjaini~~ ProP~Y ~$ cssentia~~y nc~t disadvant~~d by our propc~s~~. Plc;tsc Ict me know ~f thi~ a~~x:t of thc ~ituation can be cansicie~+ed hy staff p~or lo the hcnrrng tonight. Sinc:ereiy yours, U~ ~ ~z~~ ~iu i~c }~~~-carv nv~; ~{)S ANC;ri.~~, c~n ync~~a ~~0 ~5 (~~tti~ K~~-~~t~K~ rAx f3~;~~ ~3~-t~33a FRRM RMp 05.2~.1992 ~8:51 P. 3 RO N Al.n M~c~~r 1~xc~tIT~CT ]une 1S, 1992 Mr. Ralp~ Mechur Gh~ir, P)~t1r~t~g C:ottlmisSlO~ t 3 2~ Oak St. S~nt~ Monica~ CA 9040:5 Rh: Planning Commissian Hearing I~ine 24, t992 Sin !e Family Rebidencc 272~ Fth Stract, Sar~ta Monica Eh~rncr; Mr. At~n 7xbker T~ear K~lph: The abovc rcf~nc~d projoct has been schedulcid for a Meaz~ng before thc Pianni~g C.c~mmission on 1~~ne 24, 1942. As the architect tor ihc projoct I w~a~tld like to summariu the nx~ues! b~ing presented ta the P4anning Commiss~an. '~~is ~nc~,ject ~s for a singlc family residenoe witt~ a deta~ gar~agc. '1'he si#c is an aly}~ical umditxx~ localad with R cide-yard atley bt~t ~to rear yar~ alley, We ha~e requested an inter~rda~ion af the the requirements of tha Zoning Ordir~ncc with respoct co tl~e ~nu~ual site oonfi~uration. 'f'he rc~c~uirements i'c~r the lcx;atinn af the garage are cl~c~ihed in seetian 90~44.10 of the Z~ing t}rdmance. According bo t~is sec~ion, a ga~agc in the re~r y~d may ex~et~d up to t~c ~ntcricx sic~ prc~perly line but nt~t the rear T-roPErl.Y )ine. W~ are raquesting epproval to extend thc ~arage ur !o one s~de y~d property lin~ and to ext~d thc ~araee ta the rear ~rvnc:rtv line (see illustr~tion A). By exter~ding thc giu~gt to the rear~op~ly ~ine a larga ~ardcn are~a a~uld be cn~tcd bctwee~ the reside~ce arxf thc garage. ~~, lo create a larger ~~clen and to be ~ble to m~ke bett~a use of the prapeny, is the rea.~on behind aut reques~. '1~ r~r propc~ty linc of 2722 bth Str~et (~ite no. S n~ i~~L~~tion A) i~ aiso tho si~ yard nf the ad jnming propcrty at S 19 Raymo~d Avc.(aite no. 9). As s~uch, site na. 5 r+ela~es ta ~;ite no. 9~ust as site no. ~ 1 rtiates ta siie no. 9. Wa be~iwe thai Et~e appmval tn extend the garaRc to t~ reas }~mF~enY line of site no. 5 virould t~e in agreement with thc typicat, allowablc, ~arage tacartio~s on ti~e r~orth-~outh s~~es. 7he propaued gar~go lacation vn site no. S will noi ere~tte a dttiaclwantage for lhe adjo~ni~g pm}~etiY, sile na. 9. '17tank yau in advancx far you ~sideratitm of this iss~e. ~~ nc~ercl Y Y~+ ~'~ ~ R[x~1d McC~ay ~a~~ 2s '4zzl fiUTC}iI~~N AVF,. LqS ANGELLS, CA 9(1E139 (3to) ~:~~-yc~~~ rnx {3in~ K3~•n~;~a r F V h R n M ~ \ ., ~ ~ ~ ~' i .,, . ~ dO~Ly.177L VO.JL ~ r~ ~a . ~,~ ~~ ~ ~~ _ . - - - ~ _ _ -- _- - - _ ~_-• ~ ~._~~ ~r. _ ~ . ~~~ - - . -- ____ ~ ~ ~ ~. . . ~' -- ~ ~ _.., p _ _ ~ , ,~ - _ . ~~ . ~ `~`~.~ ~~ ~ ~ O~ ~ ~~ y ~ v `v ~~ Q~ ~ '~R4NALD MCC4''~'` fl ARCHII'ECT ~~~~J{-~~ ~"~ r~ July 9, 1992 Mr. Ken Genser, Mayor City af Santa Momca 1GOS Main Streei Santa Monica, CA 9U401 Re: Proposed Single Family Resi~nce for Alan Zebker 2722 6th Street ` Santa Moruca Dear Mr. Genser and Cour~cil Members: 'Ihis letter is wntten to request the City Council to utitiate a tezt amex~dmeat on be~alf of the above refer~enced p~ojecc. '~s project is for a s~ng}e fanuly r~eside~ce with a detacheci garage. 'Ifie relatianship of ti~e s~te to the acl,~oin~r~g rear pmgerty is un~s~ (thcwgh a~ tm~qae) and ~ot speci.fically add~ssed by the Zanmg Ordinance. The requirements for t[~e laca~ion of the garage azc described in s~ctian 904Q.1U. Avcvrding to this section, a garage in the reaz yard a~ a parce~ without a rear atley may extend up ba the interior side pm~erty liae but eot tbe r~ear property line. We are reque~n~ a~eact amendment to the c~ode allowing the ext~uon of tt~e garage up tv one side yard praperty line and to Extend the ~araQe to tl~e r~ear nro~rty line (see iIlus~rarion A). - - - - - The rear property line af 2?22 b~ Street (site no. 5 on illustration A) is also the side yard af the adjoining ~,~~~rty at Si9 Raym~d Ave.(site no. 9). As such, site no. 5 relates to site no. 9 just as site no. 21 relates tn site no. 9. We believ~ that the app~vval tv extend the Sa~age ta the rear pra~ linc of sit~ na 5 wonld be in agreement w~th the t}+pical, allowable, gaiage loca~ons on the no~t6-south sites. The propased garage location on s~te no. 5 will not cr~eate a disadvantage fo~ the adjoqning prop~ty, site no. 9. 'Ihis issu~ has be~n rev~ewed with the P~anntng Staff and on June 24, I992 a request for an 111tCI~f~d~t011 wa.S tt1~~ b~oI'B thC P~ailnitlg COFt1Il7iSS[Oil. Whi1B Ri@mbBiS Of ~ P~anntf~$ Commission and the P~ann~ng Staff' acknawle~ged the limitation of the cvde in addre.ssing this sitnation, it was determinod by the C.ommiss~ion that the ~~p Ordinance does not ava~l itself to the irib~p~an we had sough~ It is vsnth th~s background t~at a text a~nendm~t is requ~ed. TharEk you in ad~+ance for you cans~de~aaon of this issue. s~~~y ye~, _ ~~ Ran McCoy ~: r~~y~ w~~ 3221 HU7CHISON AVE LQS ANGELE5, CA 9Qd34 (310) 836-9087 FAX (310) 837-0334 O,~k~ ,~~ ~~J ._ a ~ ' c~ ~~ t ~ ~ ~T~N ~~#~aM -r-~~-_ ~k.Ly~~-~~T14~ ~~d ~ z 72~ ~r N s-~- ~-~ ,~ .f , ~ ~ tiry ~ ~~~,~~~ ~ ~~~? ~~ PLANNIN(3 CQMMIS$ION BTATEM$NT OF OFFICIAL ACTIOZQ PROJECT CASE NUMBER: TA 93-002 (Fvrmerly ReEer~nced as TA 92-008) LOCATION: Citywide CASE PLANNER: Drummond Buckley, Associate F~anner REQUEST: Recontmendation to City Council to approve a Text A~nendement ta allow qarage accegsory buildings to extend to the r~ar proparty line if an Adjustment is granted by the Zvning Ad- ministrator or Planning Commission, upon appeal CEQA STATUS; Categoriaally exempt pur~uant to Class 5(10) oP ~he City of Santa Monica Guidel~nes for the Implementation of CEQA PLANNING COMMISSION ACTTON 1O121f 92 Date. Approvsd based on the following findings and subject to the conditions below. Denied. x Other, Recommendat~.an that City Council adopt TA 93-OQ2. EFFECTIVE DATE{S) ~F ACTION(S~ IF N4T APPEALED: 10/21/93 TA 93-002 FINDINGS 1. The proposed Text Amendment is consistent i.n principal with the goals, abjectives~ policies, land uses, and pragrams specified in the adapted General Plan, in that i.t is coneis- tent with Land Use and Circulation Ele~ent 4bjective 1.10, which states that the City should e~tpand the opportunity for residential land use while pratecting the scale and aharacter af residential neighborhooda, and in that the General Plan is silent on the issue of setbacks for accessory buildings. 2. The public health, safety, and general we~fare rsquires the adoption af th~ proposed amendment, in that the amendment - 1 - 0 t~ 3 ~ a~lawe expanded appartunitfes for usab2e privatie outdoor open ap~ce an a sign~~icant number of parcela in Santa Manica without any adverse impacts an ad~acent parcels. VOTE Ayes: Mechur, Mora~es, ~'Connor~ Polhemus, Rosenstefn Nays: Abetain: Absent: Gi~pin, Pyne NOTICE If this is a final dscision not sub~eat the City of Santa Monica Comprehensive dinance, the t~me wfthin which ~udiciai must be saught ie governed by Code of I094.6, which provi~ion hae~ been adopted Municipal Code Section 1400. to further appeal under Land Use and Zoning Or- review of this deaie~ion Civil Procedure Seat~on by the City pursuant to I hereby aertitp that thi~ statement af of~i.aiai Action accura~ta- ly refleat~s the final detarmination of the Pianning Commissian ot the City af Santa Monica. s~gnature date Ralph Mechurr Chairperson Please Print Name and Title PC/da~02sta DRW:bz - 2 _ ~fl 32 A~"I'~1~~I~' ~ QO 33 CA:~iS:qarad7/hP/P~ City Council Meetinq ~-39-92 Santa Monica, calif~rnia ~RDINANCE NUMBER (City Council Series) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE C~TY OF SANTA M4NICA AMENDING SAN'~A MONICA MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 9.Q4.20.34.030 REGARUING AD.TUSTMENTS FOR G~lRl~4GE ACCESSORY BUILDINGS WHEREAS, after adaption of a Resolutian of Intention, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearinq on October 21, 1992 and recommended amendment of the Santa Monica Municipal Cade to a~low garage accessary buildings to e~end to the rear property line if the findings for an adjustment could be made; NOW, THEREFOR~, THE CITY C~UNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES ORUAIN AS FOLLOWS: S~CTION 1. Santa Monica Municipa~ Code Section 9.04.20.34.U30 is amended to read as follows: Section 9.04.20.34.030 Applicabi~ity. The Zoning Administrator may grant an adjustment from the requi.rements of this Chapter to: (a) A~.low modif ication of parcel coverage regulations by up to fiv~ percent of the total lot area for additions to existing structures. p~o 34 -~- of required parking spaces hy up to one percent of the number of required parkinq sgaces. ~c) Allow the modificatian of fence heights by up to one foot. {dj Allow modification of side yard setback requirements by up to six inches, but in no case resultinq in a setbaak of less than four feet. {e} A31ow the modif ication of building heights by up to six inches on parcels which have a grade differential of five feet or more, as measured from either any point on the front parcel line ta 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. (f) Aliaw a garage accessory building to extend up to the rear property line of the parcel. on which it is located where otherwise prohibited. SECTION 2. Any provision ot the santa Monica Municipal Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions a€ this Ordinance, to the e~ent af such ~nconsistencies and na further, are hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to effect the provisions of this Ordinance. - 2 - ~00 3~ SECTI~N 3. If any section~ subsection, sentence, clauae, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or uncanstitutional by a decision of any court of any competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining pvrtians of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed th~s Ordinance, and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional w~thout regard to whether any portion of the Ordinance would be subsequent~y declared invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 4. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this ardinance. The City Clerk shall cause the same to be pub~ished once in the official newspaper within 15 days after its adoption. This Ordinance shall become effective after 30 days from its adoption. APPROVED AS TO FORM: J SEP ENCE ting City Attorney oa~ 36 -- ~ - A~"TACI~EN~' ~ o~ 37 NOTICE 0~" D$V~LOPMENT PROP08I~L Ta: Conaerned Parsor~s From: Ths City o~ Banta Monica 8ubject ot Hearing: Text Amendment 93-002 (Formar~y Referenced ag Text An-endment 92-008) A Public Hearing wi3i be held by th~ C~ty Council on the follawing raqtxeat; Text Amendment to allow garage accassory bui~dinqa to extend to the rear praperty llne if an Ad~ustment is obtained troffi the Zoning Administrator or the Planning Commission upon appea].. TIl~E! TIIEBDAY~ JANUARY 19, 1993 A~ 7530 P.M. LaCATION: COIINCIL CHAMBER, R40M 213, CITY HALL 1b85 MAIN STREET, BANTA MONICA 8QW TO COMMENT: The City o~ Santa Monica enaourages puhlic ^omment on this and other pra~ects. Yau ar your representative, or any other persons may comment at the City couna~l's public hearing, or by writing a letter. Lettera should lae addressed to: City Counail, City C1erk~s Of~ioe 1585 M~fn 8treet, Roa~ 102 Santa Moaica, California 90~0~, MORE INFORMATION If desired, f~rther information on any application may be obtained from the City Planning Divis~on at the address above or by calling (310) 458-$341. The meeting facility is handicapped acaessible. ~f you have any special needs such as sign language interpreting, p~.ease cantact tha ~ffice af the Disabled at (310)458-8701. Pursuant to Cal~fornia Go~ernment Code Section 65009(b), if this matter is subsequ~ntly challenged in Court, the challenge may be limited to onZy those issues raised at the Public Hearing deacribed in this not~ae~ ar in wr~tten correspondence delivered to the City of San'~a Monica at, ar grfar ta, the Publ~.c Hearinq. _ ~ _ Ua 3~ Esto es un avieo sobr4 una audenaia publica para revisar applicaciones proponiendo desarrollo en Santa Monica. Eato pusdo ser de interes a usted. S~ deseas mae intormacion, favor de ~lamar a EI~a Ganzalsz en la Division de Plant~fiaaoion ~1 numero (310) 458-8341. PCWORD/ca32pn - 2 - ~0 3~ A ~"A CHME~ITT ~ 4~ 4~ l Ro~vAia M~co' ARCMjTECT ~~~~ ~~~,~' ~ . ~ July 9, 1992 ~. x~ ~~~, ~y~ Ciry of Sar-ta Momca 1b4S M~in St~et Saata Monica, CA 9040I IVo~E; THt~ i] I~LSa Au f~ T t A[ 4'1 M~'NT TO Q~'fI AIM~NG Co,~-Hr tSS~~ ~.. 5 7'~-'~ F K~f ra ~?'- Re: ~~v~s+ed Single Famity Residenoe for Alan Zebker 2T22 6tt~ Street ' Santa Momra Dear Mr. Ge~ser aztd Co~ncil Members: 'I~as lett~r is written w raqn~st the L~ry Co~~ to initia~ a text ameudment on behalf of tht ai~ove referenceci pmled- Tt~is projecE is for a single family ~~ with a de~d garag~. 'Ihe relations~iip of the site w tl~ adjo~ning rear p~vpe~iy is unusual (though n~ ~uu~que} and not sp~cificallY addressed by the Za~ing Qrdina~aca Tt~e requr~ts fo~ d~ ~ation of t~e garage are described in secti~ 9040.10. Ac~ wag oo this ~ectian, a gara~e in the rear yazd on a pazoel wit~oa~t a r~az alley may e.xt~d up to the i~ate~io~ side propaty line but not the r~ar property li~e. We are roquesting a~ext an~eadmeat to th~e code aliowing the eait~~n of the garage up to one side yard psaperty line ~d to eatend the ~ar~~ m the rear nronextv line {~ee illustraria~ A). - - - The rear p~+apezcy line of 2722 6#h St~et (site no. 5 0~ illu~~ion A} is also the ~~~~ of the adjoining pmvperty at 519 Raymo~d Ave~.{sice na 9). As such, site no. 5 relates ~n sitc na 9 just as s~te no. Z 1 re~ates to s~te no. 9. We believe that the ap~ro~ ta e~cteY-d the garage to the rrar prapaty line of si~e nck 5 would be m a~t with the ty~rical, allowable, garage locatiaas on the north-south ~tes. 1be propose~i garage loc~an on s~~ no. 5 will not ci+~~ a~iSadvantagE for Ehe ad,j~ni*~S pr+~prrcY, site no. 9. This issue f~as bee~ revieroved with the Piatiring St~tf end on June 24, 1992 a t~equest fos an i~et~apr~tateon vvas made befone the P9anting Ca~~±±~~o~. 1iVhile mem}~s of the P~aaning Commsss~on ar~d the P~anni~g Siaft' aclrnowledged t~e 1ir~iratioa of the vode in ad~ag t~is s~te~atiaa, it waa deaarmined by the Cc~+~+*~~~ that the Zo~nimg Ordinanoe does ~ot avail itself to the in~tioa ~v~e had sought Ii is with #his bac~~~*+nund tl~ai a text a~neadmeat is requested. Thank you in advance fa~ you c~nsideiation of this issue. Si~iy youss~, ~ ~~ Ron McCoy o~ Ke,nyon Webs~r 3221 HUTCHjSON -AVE. LOS ANGELES, CA 9U034 (310} 836-9087 FAX {310} 837-0334 ~ 4t7~`? ' ~ ~` r± , + !k,~, ~~ . '~y y' 6'! i ''~ nr Y, . 1 \ I ~ i 'i i ~ 27T2 (orM,~ ST ,' ~ I ~ , ,j ~ , J ~ ~~oN F~~ ~ ~ I wl.l~f.TRATIQ N •• ~~~ /~ 1 ~ ~~ ~~