SR-102991-7A
-Zzft
LUTM:PB:DKW:SMW:ccvar.pcword.plan
Council Mtg: September 24, 1991
Santa Monica, california \
Gel 2 9 199
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City staff
SUBJECT: Appeal of a Planning commission denial of Variance
90-039 and Waiver of Parcel Map 90-001 to allow the
adjustment of a parcel line and to allow the creation
of a lot that is approximately 3' in depth less than
the minimum 100' depth required by code.
Address: 2039-2045 11th Street
Applicant: Robert Baron & David Gallenson
Appellant: Robert Baron & David Gallenson
INTRODUCTION
This report recommends that the Council deny the appeal and
uphold the Planning Commission's decision to deny Variance 90-039
and waiver of Parcel Map 90-001 on July 10, 1991. The Planning
Commission denied a request to allow the adjustment of a parcel
line and to allow the creation of a lot that is 3.14 I less in
depth than the minimum lOa' depth required by code. The
applicant has appealed the Planning Commission's decision to deny
the request and contends that failure of the planning Commission
act on the application within six months as required by
Government Code has resulted in automatic approval of the
request.
BACKGROUND
The Planning Commission denied Variance 90-039 and Waiver of
Parcel Map 90-001 on July 10, 1991 to allow the adjustment of a
parcel line from a north-south to an east-west orientation an?
- 1 -
7-~
EP 2 1\ \99'
S OC1 '/.;9 \991
creating a lot that is 3.14' less than the minimum 100' depth
required by code. The application was technically denied by the
commission by a 2 to 3 vote (Attachment B). Findings could not
be made to support the variance request as one lot would be
created with less than the minimum dimensions, which does not
meet the requirements of section 9113.3 (a) of the zoning
Ordinance (Attachment C).
wi th the current parcel configuration, two existing structures
straddle the parcel line oriented north-south. The adjustment of
the parcel line would change the orientation of the lots from
north-south to east-west. The proposal would create two lots
with different dimensions; Lot "An would have a width of 53.51'
to 69.62' and a minimum length of 102.11' and Lot nBn would have
a width of 59' to 59.231 and a length of 96.86' to 102.11'
(Attachment H). A variance is required to create a lot with a
depth less than lOa'.
Applicant's Appeal
The applicant appealed the Planning Commission's decision because
a variance and waiver of parcel map is necessary to secure an
improvement on the property (Attachment A). The adjustment of
the parcel line would realign the parcel line from a north-south
orientation to east-west and create a parcel with a depth 3.14'
less than the 100' minimum required by code. The parcel line
currently runs through two existing structures situated on the
two parcels (Attachment H) .
- 2 -
The applicant is also appealing the failure of the Planning
Commission to act on the request within six (6) months of the
.
deemed complete date of November 21, 1990. He submitted a letter
to staff on June 7, 1991 stating that the application was deemed
granted by operation of law pursuant to Government Code section
65950 and case law interpretation (Attachment E).
staff
responded on June 18, 1991 stating that the applicant had agreed
to a continuance of the matter pending Planning Commission action
on amendments to the Variance section of the Municipal Code which
might increase the chances of recommending approval of the
variance request (Attachment F). A considerable delay was caused
by the continuance of the Variance amendment item six times by
the Commission.
The variance and waiver of parcel map request
were scheduled for the July 10, 1991 hearing due to the
applicant's June letter (Attachment E) .
The applicant's representative submitted a letter to the city
Attorney on July 9, 1991 contending that the six (6) month time
limit to take action on the application expired on May 20, 1991
and that the application was approved by operation of law. He
also contended that an extension of the time limit was not
granted by the applicant and that any action taken by the
Planning commission on July 10, 1991 would be void (Attachment
G) .
Analysis
Under current Municipal Code (Section 9113.3), a variance to
modify minimum lot sizes and parcel dimensions can only be
- 3 -
granted to secure an "appropriate improvement" on the parcel, and
if the appropriate findings are made (Section 9113.4). There are
two (2) existing single family residential structures on-site.
The applicant does not propose altering or removing these
structures at this time and, therefore, is not seeking to add an
improvement to the parcels. Also, allowable density for the two
lots may be expanded up to a total of nine dwelling units for the
parcels separately or together without the granting of a variance
or waiver of parcel map.
According to ci ty Attorney interpreta tion of case law, " . . . a
variance is appropriate where enforcement of a zoning requirement
would cause unnecessary hardship." (Attachment D). The variance
request is not prompted by a hardship nor are the applicants
deprived of the use or enjoyment of their property. Findings to
this effect could not be made. A finding regarding size, shape,
topography, location or surroundings of the property, not
applying to other properties in the vicinity with an identical
zoning, can not be made as only the orientation of the subject
lots are dissimilar to others in the area. Therefore, the
variance request cannot be supported by the findings currently
required under Municipal Code section 9113.3.
The state Permit streamlining Act (Government Code Section 65920
et seg.), states that public notice and hearing must occur to
effectuate the requirement that the Planning Commission act on a
project within the six (6) months. The applicant did not provide
a notice of intent to request a hearing after agreeing to delay
the application's review pending a Commission decision on staff's
- 4 -
variance amendment proposal. Therefore, the applicant has not
met their requirements to enforce the streamlining Act and the
application has not been approved by operation of law.
Required Notification
The application, submitted with the required notification
materials, indicates that the applicant spoke to adjacent
neighbors and informed them of the intent to request a variance
and waiver of parcel map. No community meetings regarding the
application have been held by the applicant. staff noticed the
Planning Commission hearing and this City Council meeting as
required per SMMC section 9131. 5. Tenants and property owners
within a 300' site radius were notified for the July 10, 1991
Planning Commission hearing and have been notified for the
September 24, 1991 City Council meeting.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The recommendation presented in this report does not have any
budget or fiscal impact.
RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully recommended that the Council adopt the
findings set forth in the attached Planning Commission Statement
of Official Action, deny the applicant's appeal and deny Variance
90-039 and Waiver of Parcel Map 90-001 for the adjustment of a
parcel line and the creation of a lot that is approximately 3.14'
less in depth than the minimum 100' depth required by Code.
- 5 -
ATTACHMENTS
A. Appeal form dated 7/24/91.
B. Statement of Official Action dated 7/10/91.
C. Staff Memorandum to Planning Commission dated
7/10/9l.
D. City Attorney Memorandum opinion Number 91-10
dated 3/25/91-
E. Letter from David Gallenson to staff dated 6/7/91.
F. Letter from staff to David Gallenson dated 6/18/91.
G. Letter from David M. Shell to staff dated 7/9/91.
H. Site Plot Plan.
Prepared by: Paul Berlant, Director of LUTM
D. Kenyon Webster, Planning Manager
Susan White, Assistant Planner
Planning Division
Land Use and Transportation Management Department
SMW
PC/ ccvar
09/l7/91
- 6 -
, "S. t^-
Ci;y of A TT A CH1:IENT A
Santa Monica C;.C q/Z4/1 J
COmmtllily and EeonamIC 0It1l1JJ,..,..,nt Dep.lllltnt 9 /1::) "n - S,., A r r~ _
PIannIn; II1d ZGI'tInI Dt\1IkIn -~ , R. f:" P D.... t::
{213)4S8-a:M1 C<'-o'''-.\-l- A.,.C" E ~
APPEAL FORM 0 - "':, l-t t- l L '2 ( ~ J 1~1 1
-;:;. c..' c c va..r
PEE: $100.00 Dale RId ~ ..> ~ 2 4-. (9 If. (
~by~ _i f\.C-..-
. RecIIpt No,,___ , ,
NamI ,,~__~e~~ ~ro^ ~ 3?~'"0,,~~<2-"1~~v' ! ~~~ ~.,
MiIII,!~2.R.W\l~'Io.~f!I."5.J\LY_ 2~~..S~~"~'! . - .
COnIact PInIon DAtJ ~~ M I ~ eL-V . Ptmt ~cr?;> -, ~4
P'IuI dncnbe !hi proied and dIciIIon ID be appealed l.o" l-...-.J E-. ~..:> ~"T~~ t"'o ~ lIE:..... I
J..p.\; t....,(.~ -=>a ~ t;{A-.T" rr -g,JUS Bcz...""t'w~e-...0 \1:.-\'1n ~l~rI~6 ~a:-J~
j2.~..J.~c2 l(,4A-~ 'Tt..z.q~.....c.JG.~ '"T'M~5-T\2.<.J c...1-cJ-2S-JS;, __un
. I
"
CUe Nl.tnbIr, Vc.,or ~~c.J1..r, ~o- o~ ~ WOo ~"'~_ & ~~ 11'\~ ~ -_~ _ \
AdcbII ?C~ - 'J..cD'4,...!:, \ \ \l7 ~ . . -0 - - ,--
AppIcant R...,.~ ~~ ~ DIA:<J Ld~ (Dc;:{/~ ^ -". :' .., , .
0ItgNI1'Ieanr9 dati ~. J ltt" \ ( - ";T ..AL.{ \ () _ (q,:t ~ ___ __ _
ClnQIwIICICn .,r- - / f F --
PlllgIWa...~ .....)brtleappell J:.~" ~a...coo",.5 ~~ CIt....-\- d.;(,.,; \.0 (o:;z,q ( -
~~~--~ ~~~./..bt.-9.-. ~~ ~_1~~ ~;~
--~~}v ~~ ~~I(~~-- ~1€~_ ~-
__U~ ~~ t.dJ C::R _/JJbv~~A.. .___ _. ..n
__~~I(~~ ~~k.A.ll ~'t ~~~
&J -w.~ ~-~tf 1q..~Q,,/AJ)~~ l)o~jf)\4~4.A/v...
l)c ("n'>C>,'l+l-\s .,..\" ~ ~ - I,' - ~. ~ _...~ 1\' (/_ . -,. - u____
o ~ ,_ ~ tf}j2fJ' ~~_ \..1'"\h. "-Q..(.11.
\ -- {J t-
...
"
- ,
___11111
"-..
-----'-
. __,1/1 _ ,....
~4w~---"'~-;-2-cf-<11
A