SR-400-004-01 (3)
PCD:SF:JT:AS:JL:BR:f:\plan\share\council\strpt\2002\TA02-002.doc
Council Mtg: September 24, 2002 Santa Monica, California
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Staff
SUBJECT: Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance Amending Santa Monica
Municipal Code Section 9.04.20.10.030(K) Regarding Processing of
Variance Applications to Exceed Maximum Building Height and Number of
Stories.
INTRODUCTION
This report recommends that the City Council introduce for first reading an ordinance
modifying the variance applicability chapter of the Zoning Ordinance to facilitate
processing of both additional story and building height variances. The proposed
ordinance is contained in Attachment A.
BACKGROUND
On March 28, 2000, the City Council unanimously voted (with one member absent) to
direct staff to initiate a text amendment to the variance section of the Zoning Code. The
Zoning Ordinance allows independent variance applications from the number of stories
requirements and building height requirements. However, it does not allow these to be
processed or approved together. This amendment is intended to provide a process
where both variance requests can be considered. The City Council’s direction intended
that the amendment would facilitate the ability to apply for a building height and number
of stories variance under appropriate circumstances.
On April 3, 2002, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 02-002 authorizing
1
staff to prepare a text amendment in accordance with the City Council’s direction. On
May 1, 2002, the Planning Commission unanimously voted to recommend approval,
with modifications, of the text amendment to the City Council.
ANALYSIS
Proposed Ordinance
The proposed amendment enables an individual to request a variance authorizing both
an additional story and an increase in the building height beyond the standards set forth
in the Zoning Ordinance. Each of these two variance provisions currently exist
separately and will remain unchanged except for the opportunity to process, and have
them approved, together. Additionally, there is no change to any of the existing criteria
and no change to the required findings that must be made in order to grant the
requested variance. Like all other variance determinations, it remains subject to appeal
to the Planning Commission.
Variance eligibility for building height modifications relates to two primary factors, a) the
parcel’s topography must have a slope of at least 12.5-feet as measured between any
point on the front and rear property lines or the opposing side property lines, or b) the
existing structure must be legally nonconforming as to its height. As for an additional
story variance, the key criterion that must be met is having a finished first floor that is
more than 3-feet above average natural or theoretical grade for an existing residential
structure.
2
There are two possible scenarios in which an individual may request both variance in
conjunction: 1) a less than substantial remodel to an existing residential structure on a
parcel with a lot slope of 12.5-feet or greater between two opposite property lines with a
finished first floor that is more than 3-feet above average natural or theoretical grade,
and 2) a less than substantial remodel to an existing residential structure legally
nonconforming as to height with a finished first floor that is more than 3-feet above
average natural or theoretical grade. Other scenarios may qualify for consideration of
either a building height or number of stories variance, but not both.
More specifically, the proposed ordinance would principally be of benefit to residential
structures on raised foundations (a feature found in older homes). It is common that
these one-story structures would be considered a two-story building based on City
regulations. Specifically, if the finished first floor is more than 3-feet above average
natural (or theoretical) grade, that floor level is considered a second story.
Consequently, the crawl space and earth beneath the home’s lower floor level, albeit
unusable, is considered the first story. This limits the house to only one usable story
above the raised foundation. Variance applications can be processed under SMMC
Section 9.04.20.10.030(k) to allow residential structures in this situation to have an
additional story (i.e. three stories by definition but two usable stories from a practical
perspective). However, the language in subparagraph (k)(4) restricts their height to the
maximum allowed by the applicable zoning district. Since building height is measured
from average natural (or theoretical) grade, and because average natural grade on
sloping lots generally falls below the foundation level of the house, the height of a multi-
3
storied structure becomes severely restricted. This amendment provides an opportunity
to seek relief so an existing residential structure can be remodeled in proportion to itself
and surrounding improvements.
Application of the proposed amendment would extend to all existing residential
structures in only the R1, R2R, OP1 and OP2 Zoning Districts, including those that have
been identified as potential historic resources or are designated landmarks. While its
scope would permit historic resources to apply for additional stories and building height
variances, the amendment does not supplant any of the City’s existing criteria relating to
preservation of these structures.
Planning Commission Action
The Planning Commission recommended two modifications to the proposed ordinance.
The first would limit its applicability to only the R1, R2R, OP1 and OP2 zoning districts.
This recommendation relates to a concern that larger residential structures in the R2,
R3 and R4 zones, for example, would take advantage of this opportunity to increase
building height or number of stories. Given the existing criteria that would be applicable
to these combined variances and the topography of the City, staff believes the likelihood
of an R2, R3 or R4 zoned property requesting a variance is low. Furthermore, the
Planning Commission’s inclusion of the R1, R2R, OP1 and OP2 districts covers the
areas (i.e. northerly City limits, northeast neighborhood, Sunset Park, and Ocean Park)
generally exhibiting significant slopes, which is a key qualifying criterion of this variance
process.
4
Secondly, the Planning Commission recommended adding language acknowledging
that preservation and protection of existing residential structures is a paramount benefit
of this amendment. Specifically, the Planning Commission suggested linking the ability
to apply for the variance to the preservation and protection of existing structures from
demolition or substantial remodel. While staff supports this concept, staff believes that
the existing Municipal Code requirements already address this concern. This variance
only applies to existing (emphasis added) structures. By definition new construction is
not eligible to apply for this variance. As a result, the proposed amendment supports
the preservation of existing structures rather than encouraging demolition. Activities
meeting the City’s definition of substantial remodel (i.e. where 50% or more of the
existing exterior building walls are removed or relocated for any duration of time) are
considered new construction and would also not be eligible for this variance. Therefore,
because it is already an inherent qualifying criterion, staff does not believe it is
necessary to add specific language to the ordinance linking the ability to apply for the
variance to the preservation/protection of an existing structure. The proposed language
bold text
is shown in Attachment A, with the representing language added by this
proposed amendment.
A copy of the May 1, 2002 Planning Commission staff report and meeting minutes are
provided respectively in Attachments C and D.
Conclusion
The Zoning Ordinance currently permits variance applications from the number of
5
stories requirements (SMMC 9.04.20.10.030(k)) provided the project complies with
specific standards including maximum building height requirements. While there is also
a variance provision that allows modification of building height standards (SMMC
9.04.20.10.030(f)), the Zoning Ordinance prevents variance applications seeking
modification of both building height and number of stories requirements. The proposed
amendment would allow a variance to be sought from both the height and number of
stories standards. This amendment does not change any existing language, but rather
augments these provisions by creating a link between these two code sections. This
amendment only applies to existing residential structures, is subject to specific criteria
and provides flexibility to encourage the retention of existing residences. Findings of
fact in support of the request are still required. The proposed amendments are
consistent with the goals, objectives, policies and programs specified in the General
Plan.
This amendment would enable owners of existing, older structures to improve their
residences to meet the needs of a modern household. Rather than limiting an owner’s
choices, the amendment allows additions that, through the variance findings, are in
keeping with the existing structure and the neighborhood. As a result, the existing
structure is retained, the character of the area is not significantly changed, and
demolition is made less desirable because of this option. In this way, the proposed
amendment works to promote retention and rehabilitation of the City’s housing stock,
including preservation of structures that have been landmarked or listed on the City’s
Historic Resources Inventory.
6
CEQA Status
The proposed ordinance is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State Implementation
Guidelines in that CEQA applies only to projects having the potential to cause a
significant effect on the environment. This ordinance does not have this potential – it
simply links two existing sections of the Municipal Code to allow applications for building
height and the number of stories to be considered together rather than having one
preclude the ability to apply for the other. In other words, it provides the ability to seek
approval for additional building height and number of stories variances, in combination,
rather than simply individually. Applications made pursuant to the proposed ordinance
are still individually subject to review for CEQA compliance.
Public Notification
Pursuant to Municipal Code Sections 9.04.20.22.050, notice of the public hearing was
published in the “California” section of the Los Angeles Times newspaper at least ten
consecutive calendar days prior to the hearing. Notice of the hearing was also sent to
all neighborhood organizations, the Planning Commission, City of Los Angeles, and
posted on the City’s Web Site. A copy of the notice is contained in Attachment B.
Budget/Financial Impact
The recommendation presented in this report does not have any budget or fiscal impact.
7
Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council introduce the attached ordinance for first
reading.
Prepared by: Suzanne Frick, Director
Jay M. Trevino, AICP, Planning Manager
Amanda Schachter, Principal Planner
Jonathan Lait, AICP, Senior Planner
Bill Rodrigues, AICP, Associate Planner
City Planning Division
Planning and Community Development Department
Attachments: A. Proposed Ordinance
B. Public Notice
C. Planning Commission Staff Report (without attachments)
D. Planning Commission Minutes
8
ATTACHMENT A
AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE AND ZONING ORDINANCE
OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE
ZONING ADMINISTRATION SUBCHAPTER OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE
9
f:\atty\muni\laws\barry\TA02-002-1.wpd
City Council Meeting 9-24-02 Santa Monica, California
ORDINANCE NUMBER
(City Council Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
AMENDING SECTION 9.04.20.10.030(k) OF THE SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL
CODE REGARDING THE PROCESSING OF VARIANCE APPLICATIONS TO
EXCEED MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT AND NUMBER OF STORIES
WHEREAS, Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.04.20.10.030(f) authorizes
a variance to allow buildings to exceed district height limits by no more than five feet if
either the parcel’s topography has a slope of at least 12.5 feet as measured between
any point on the front and rear property lines or the opposing side property lines or the
existing structure is legally nonconforming as to its height; and
WHEREAS, Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.04.20.10.030(k) authorizes
a variance to allow an additional story which would otherwise not be permitted for an
existing residential structure under specified criteria; and
WHEREAS, one of the criteria for seeking an additional story variance is that the
overall height of the structure not exceed the height limit of the zoning district in which
the property is located; and
WHEREAS, given these requirements, variance applications for modification of
both building height and number of stories cannot be processed or approved; and
10
WHEREAS, there are circumstances in which it would be appropriate to consider
variance applications for both building height and number of stories if the Zoning
Ordinance did not otherwise preclude this possibility; and
WHEREAS, the proposed text amendment would allow variances to be sought
from both the height and number of stories standards, but would not otherwise change
the requirements for issuance of these variances; and
WHEREAS, on April 3, 2002, the Planning Commission conducted a public
hearing to adopt a Resolution of Intention which stated the Commission’s intention to
modify Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.04.20.10.030(k); and
WHEREAS, on May 1, 2002, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on
the proposed zoning text amendment and forwarded a recommendation to the City
Council to adopt the proposed amendments with modifications; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, in part recommended that the
amendment be limited to the R1, R2R, OP1, or OP2 zoning districts; and
11
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on the proposed Zoning
Ordinance Text Amendment on September 24, 2002; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment is consistent in principle with the goals,
objectives, policies, land uses, and programs specified in the adopted General Plan,
specifically, Land Use Element Objective 1.10 which states that the City’s land use
policies should seek to “expand opportunity for residential land use while protecting the
scale and character of existing neighborhoods” in that the proposed amendment would
promote retention and rehabilitation of existing residential structures by giving property
owners another alternative to demolition and reconstruction of residential buildings and
Land Use Element Objective 1.1 which states that the City’s land use policies should
seek to “insure fair treatment of property owners and residents in the City” in that the
proposed amendment gives property owners the ability to seek relief from the maximum
building height and number of stories provisions of the Zoning Ordinance when the
physical characteristics of their property act to deprive the owner of aprivilege granted
to other properties in the neighborhood; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds and declares that the public health, safety and
general welfare require the adoption of the proposed amendments in that the
amendment would provide an alternative to demolition of existing housing by allowing
the retention and rehabilitation of older, and potentially historic, residential buildings in
existing residential neighborhoods, thereby, protecting the integrity of these valued
resources that help to form the fabric of the City through their sense of place and rich
architectural and cultural history,
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.04.20.10.030 is hereby
12
amended to read as follows:
Section 9.04.20.10.030 Applicability.
The Zoning Administrator may grant a variance from the
requirements of this Chapter to:
13
(a) Allow the modification of the minimum lot sizes or minimum
parcel dimensions;
(b) Allow the modification of the number and dimensions of
automobile parking spaces, loading spaces and driveway requirements
including those set by performance standards, use permit special
standards, special conditions for conditional uses, regulations of the
various zoning districts, the off-street parking requirements and the off-
street loading requirements;
(c) Allow the modification of fence heights;
(d) Allow the modification of yard setbacks or parcel coverage on:
(1) Parcels having a depth of ninety feet or less or a width of thirty-
nine feet or less,
(2) Nonrectilinear parcels or rectangular parcels on which parallel
property lines differ in length a minimum of five feet,
(3) Parcels with a twelve-and-one-half-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,
(4) Additions to the same floor of an existing building which is
nonconforming as to yard setbacks, where such addition follows the line of
the existing building but in no case is closer than four feet to a property
line,
(5) Parcels in the CM District on which relocated structures that are
identified on the Historical Resources Survey as having a value of 1
through 5D or which are determined to be historically significant by the
Landmarks Commission are located. A variance may apply only to the
relocated structure;
14
(e) For projects conforming to State density bonus guidelines, allow
encroachment into no more than fifteen percent of one side yard setback,
and into fifteen percent of either the front or rear yard setback, 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. In no case shall a rear yard
setback of less than five feet be allowed;
(f) Allow buildings to exceed district height limits by no more than
five feet in one of the following situations:
(1) If a parcel has a grade differential of twelve and one-half 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,
(2) To allow an addition to an existing structure that is legally
nonconforming 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
nonconforming 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 percent of the total floor area
of the building,
(3) The addition does not increase lot coverage or the overall
footprint of the building,
(4) The addition does not increase the density or number of
inhabitants or increase the intensity of use of the building,
(5) The addition otherwise conforms to the regulations of the district
15
in which it is located,
(6) There is no feasible alternative method of attaining the desired
use,
(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 replacement of an existing residential building in an
OP District that is legally nonconforming as to height where the parcel has
a grade differential of twelve and one-half 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 provided the following criteria are met:
(1) The replacement structure does not exceed the height line of
the existing building,
16
(2) The replacement structures does not increase the density or
square footage beyond the existing structure or increase the intensity of
use of the building,
(3) The replacement structure otherwise conforms to the regulation
of the district in which it is located,
(4) There is no substantial adverse impact to adjacent buildings,
existing streetscape, privacy, nor significant increases to the mass and
bulk of the building;
(i) Allow the modification of the required front yard setback to allow,
in the case of existing development, a detached garage provided all of the
following criteria are met:
(1) The lot is less than one hundred feet in depth,
(2) The on-site use is a single family dwelling,
(3) No alley access is available to the site;
(j) Allow the modification of the side yard setback for primary
windows in the OP-2, OP-3 and OP-4 Districts when the imposition of the
required setback would severely constrain development on the project, an
alternative setback would still satisfy private open space requirements and
maintain privacy for the occupants of the project;
(k) Allow an additional story which would otherwise not be
permitted for an existing residential structure provided all of the following
criteria are met:
17
(1) The existing structure has a finished first floor level that is more
than three feet above average natural grade or theoretical grade,
(2) The street frontage and overall massing are compatible with the
existing scale and neighborhood context,
(3) The addition does not enlarge the first floor of the existing
residence such that a nonconforming condition is expanded,
(4) The overall height of the structure with the additional story does
not exceed the height limit in feet of the zoning district in which it is located
unless authorized by a variance granted pursuant to subsections (f)(1) or
(f)(2) of this Section for a structure located in the R1, R2R, OP1 or OP2
zoning districts, which variance may be granted concurrently with a
variance authorized pursuant to this subsection (k).
(5) The addition otherwise conforms to the regulations of the district
in which it is located.
(l) Allow the modification, renovation, or replacement of
nonconforming building access features such as stairs, ramps, doors,
balconies, and windows, or features that provide shelter and which are
located at the exterior of the buildings, such as awnings, canopies, or
covered walkways, provided:
(1) The modification, renovation or replacement is no more intrusive
than, and does not intensify or expand such existing nonconforming
features, and
18
(2) The modification, renovation or replacement either improves
access to the building or improves the building’s aesthetic appearance.
SECTION 2. 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 further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary
to effect the provisions of this Ordinance.
SECTION 3. 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 competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would
have passed this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause,
or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion
of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 4. 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
officialnewspaper within 15 days after its adoption. This Ordinance shall become
effective thirty days after its adoption.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________
MARSHA JONES MOUTRIE
City Attorney
C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\TA02-002-1.wpd
19
ATTACHMENT B
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
20
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE SANTA MONICA CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Ordinance for Introduction and First Reading
R1, R2R, OP1 and OP2 Zoning Districts Only.
APPLICANT: City of Santa Monica
A public hearing will be held by the City Council to consider the following request:
Ordinance for introduction and first reading to amend Section 9.04.20.10.030 of the
City’s Zoning Ordinance. The amendment would allow the opportunity to file concurrent
variance applications to exceed the maximum permitted building height and number of
stories in the R1, R2R, OP1 and OP2 zoning districts only. Presently, the Zoning
Ordinance allows an applicant to file a variance to either exceed building height or the
number of stories, but not both.
DATE/TIME: TUESDAY, September 24, 2002, AT 6:45 p.m.
LOCATION: City Council Chambers, Second Floor, Santa Monica City
Hall
1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, California
HOW TO COMMENT
The City of Santa Monica encourages public comment. You may comment at the City
Council public hearing, or by writing a letter. Written information will be given to the City
Council at the meeting.
Address your letters to: City Clerk
Re: 02TA-002
1685 Main Street, Room 102
Santa Monica, CA 90401
MORE INFORMATION
If you want more information about this project or wish to review the project file, please
contact Bill Rodrigues, AICP, Associate Planner at (310) 458-8341, or by e-mail at bill-
rodrigues@santa-monica.org. The Zoning Ordinance is available at the Planning
Counter during business hours and on the City’s web site at www.santa-monica.org.
The meeting facility is wheelchair accessible. For disability-related accommodations,
please contact (310) 458-8341 or (310) 458-8696 TTY at least 72 hours in advance. All
written materials are available in alternate format upon request. Santa Monica Big Blue
Bus Lines numbered 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10 serve City Hall.
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65009(b), if this matter is
subsequently challenged in Court, the challenge may be limited to only those issues
raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence
delivered to the City of Santa Monica at, or prior to, the public hearing.
ESPAÑOL
Esto es una noticia de una audiencia pública para revisar applicaciónes proponiendo
desarrollo en Santa Monica. Si deseas más información, favor de llamar a Carmen
Gutierrez en la División de Planificación al número (310) 458-8341.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________
JAY M. TREVINO, AICP
Planning Manager
f:\plan\share\council\notices\02ta002.doc
ATTACHMENT C
May 1, 2002 Planning Commission Staff Report
(without attachments)
23
PCD:SF:JT:AS:JL:BR:f:\plan\share\pc\strpt\02\vartextamend.doc
Planning Commission Mtg: May 1, 2002 Santa Monica, California
TO: The Honorable Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Staff
SUBJECT: Text Amendment 02-002
Address: City Wide
Applicant: City of Santa Monica
INTRODUCTION
Action: Amend Zoning Ordinance Section 9.04.20.10.030 relative to variance
applications to exceed the maximum permitted height and number of stories for existing
residential structures in all zoning districts.
Recommendation: That the Planning Commission recommend approval of the text
amendment to the City Council to modify the City’s Zoning Code by allowing the
concurrent processing of variances to exceed the maximum permitted height and
number of stories for existing residential structures in all zoning districts.
Permit Streamlining Expiration Date: Not applicable to text amendments.
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
This amendment would apply to all existing residential structures in all zoning districts of
the City.
Zoning District: All Districts City Wide
Land Use District: All Districts City Wide
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Proposed is a Text Amendment to Section 9.04.20.10.030(k) of the Zoning Ordinance.
Currently, this section authorizes the Zoning Administrator to grant a variance for an
additional story that would otherwise not be permitted for an existing residential
structure provided certain criteria are met and the findings for a variance can be
established. One criterion requires the building height conform to the height limit of the
zoning district in which it is located. This provision prohibits processing a height
variance application, which is separately permitted pursuant to Zoning Ordinance
Section 9.04.20.10.030(f)(1) and (2), concurrent with a request to allow an additional
story.
The proposed amendment would enable an individual to request a variance authorizing
both an additional story and an increase in the building height beyond the standards set
forth in the Zoning Ordinance. Each of these two variance provisions currently exist and
24
will remain unchanged except for the opportunity to process them together.
Furthermore, the text amendment only applies to existing residential structures
throughout the City. There is no change to any of the existing criteria, which will be
described later in this report, and no change to the required findings that must be made
in order to grant the requested variance. And, like all other variance determinations, it
remains subject to appeal to the Planning Commission.
The text of the proposed amendment can be found in Attachment A.
CEQA STATUS
The proposed ordinance is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State Implementation
Guidelines in that CEQA applies only to projects having the potential to cause a
significant effect on the environment. This ordinance does not have this potential. It
provides the ability to seek approval for additional building height and number of stories
variances. Applications made pursuant to the proposed ordinance (if adopted) are still
individually subject to review for CEQA compliance.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
Pursuant to Government Code Section 65804, notice of the public hearing for the text
amendment was published in the “California” Section of the Los Angeles Times
newspaper at least ten consecutive calendar days prior to the hearing. Notice of the
public hearing was also sent to all neighborhood organizations, the Planning
Commission, City of Los Angeles, and posted on the City’s Web site. A copy of the
notice is contained in Attachment B.
BACKGROUND
On March 28, 2000, the City Council unanimously voted (with one member absent) to
direct staff to initiate a text amendment to the variance section of the Zoning Code. The
amendment would authorize applicants to seek a variance to add an additional story
and exceed the height limit for existing residential structures throughout the City. A
copy of the March 28, 2000 City Council Minutes (Agenda Item 13-A) is contained in
Attachment C.
On April 3, 2002, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 02-002 authorizing
staff to prepare this text amendment in accordance with the City Council’s direction. A
copy of this staff report, the draft Planning Commission Minutes (Agenda Item 7-A), and
Resolution of Intention is contained in Attachment D.
ANALYSIS
A variance is intended to allow 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.
25
This process allows property owners to seek relief from the City’s Zoning Ordinance
where physical aspects of the property would impede development of a parcel
inconsistent with the intent of the code. Variance applications require a noticed public
hearing before the City’s Zoning Administrator whose decision is appealable to the
Planning Commission. In order for a variance to be granted a number of findings must
be made in support of the request. Some of these findings are summarized below (the
full text can be found at Section 9.04.20.10.050 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code
(page 502)):
The presence of special circumstances or exceptional characteristics that
?
does not apply to other properties in the vicinity and zone.
The strict application of the code results in practical difficulties or
?
unnecessary hardships, not including economic hardships.
The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance results in unreasonable
?
deprivation of the use or enjoyment of the property.
The variance will not be contrary to or in conflict with the general purposes
?
and intent of the Zoning Ordinance or the goals, objectives and policies of
the General Plan.
Section 9.04.20.10.030 of the City’s Zoning Ordinance establishes the development
standards that qualify for variance consideration. Included among these at
subparagraphs (f) and (k), respectively, are exceptions to the building height and
number of stories. In order to be eligible for a height variance certain criteria must be
satisfied. This criteria relates to two factors, a) the parcels topography must have a
slope of at least 12.5-feet as measured between any points on the front and rear
property lines or the opposing side property lines, or b) the existing structure must be
legally nonconforming as to its height. As for an additional story variance, the key
criteria that must be met is having a finished first floor that is more than 3-feet above
average natural or theoretical grade for an existing residential structure. Of course, all
variance applications must still be able to make the required findings in order for
approval to be granted.
Given various combinations of these factors (i.e. topography, development status, and
scope of construction) staff has identified 2 eligible scenarios where a concurrent
variance from the maximum height and number of story requirements may be
requested. These are: 1) less than a substantial remodel to an improved upsloping,
downsloping or sidesloping lot with a finished first floor that is more than 3-feet above
average natural or theoretical grade, and 2) less than substantial remodel to an existing
residential structure legally nonconforming as to height with a finished first floor that is
more than 3-feet above average natural or theoretical grade. Other scenarios may
qualify for consideration of only either a building height or number of stories variance.
And, in some cases, applying for a variance is not even possible because the property
does not exhibit any of the required qualifying features.
The proposed ordinance has particular applicability to residential structures on raised
foundations (a common construction technique in older homes built on sloped parcels).
It is not uncommon that these one-story structures would be considered a two-story
building based on City regulations. Specifically, if the finished first floor is more than 3-
feet above average natural (or theoretical) grade that floor level is considered a second
26
story. Consequently, the crawl space and earth beneath the home’s lower floor level,
albeit unusable, is considered the first story. This limits the house to only one usable
story above the raised foundation. Variance applications can be processed under
SMMC Section 9.04.20.10.030(k) to allow residential structures in this situation to have
an additional story (i.e. three stories by definition but two usable stories from a practical
perspective). However, the language in subparagraph (k)(4) restricts their height to the
maximum allowed by the applicable zoning district. Since building height is measured
from average natural (or theoretical) grade and because average natural grade on
sloping lots generally falls below the foundation level of the house, the height of a multi-
storied structure becomes stunted. This amendment would provide an opportunity to
seek relief so an existing residential structure can be remodeled in proportion to itself
and surrounding improvements.
Application of the proposed amendment would extend to all existing residential
structures in all City Zoning Districts, including those that have been identified as
potential historic resources or are designated landmarks. While its scope would permit
historic resources to apply for additional stories and building height variances, the
amendment does not supplant any of the City’s existing criteria relating to preservation
of these structures.
Staff believes that this amendment is an important opportunity for owners of these
existing, older structures to improve their residences to meet the needs of a modern
household. Rather than limiting an owner’s choices, this amendment allows additions
that, through the variance findings, are in keeping with the existing structure and
neighborhood. As a result, the existing structure is retained, the character of the area is
not significantly changed, and demolition is made less desirable because of this option.
In this way, the proposed amendment works to promote retention and rehabilitation of
the City’s housing stock, including preservation of structures that have been landmarked
or listed on the City’s Historic Resources Inventory.
At the April 3, 2002 Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission inquired
about limiting the square footage of the second (third story by definition) story addition.
Staff believes that existing variance findings ensure that a project will not be detrimental
nor injurious to the improvements in the general vicinity and will not impair the integrity
or character of the district in which the property is located. By not imposing a square
footage restriction, there is greater flexibility to request a variance and increased
likelihood of retaining older structures. Evaluating the compatibility of a proposed
addition with improvements in the general vicinity will occur during the public hearing
process and be based upon required findings.
In order to recommend the proposed text amendment to the City Council, the Planning
Commission must satisfy two findings. These findings relate to consistency with the
City’s General Plan and promotion of the public health, safety and general welfare.
The proposed amendment is consistent in principle with several of the goals, objectives
and policies of the General Plan. Specifically, the amendment is consistent with the
following:
Land Use Element Objective 1.1 that states that the City’s land use policies
27
should seek to “insure fair treatment of property owners and residents in the
City.” The proposed amendment gives property owners the ability to seek relief
from the maximum building height and number of stories provisions of the Zoning
Ordinance when the physical characteristics of their property act to deprive the
owner of a privilege granted to other properties in the neighborhood.
Land Use Element Objective 1.10 that states that the City’s land use policies
should seek to “expand the opportunity for residential land use while protecting
the scale and character of existing neighborhoods.” The proposed amendment
promotes retention and rehabilitation of existing residential structures by giving
property owners an alternative to demolition and reconstruction of residential
buildings in order to improve their home to meet the changing needs of today’s
families.
Land Use Element Objective 2.1 that states that the City’s land use policies
should seek to “encourage citizen and neighborhood participation in the City
planning process to ensure realization of the goals of the Land Use Element.”
The proposed amendment would allow concurrent processing building height and
number of stories variances. The variance process involves a public hearing,
which is duly noticed pursuant to the requirements of law, in order to inform the
public of proposed development requests and solicit their comments either in
support of or objection to the project’s scope.
CONCLUSION
The Zoning Ordinance currently permits variance applications from the number of
stories requirements (SMMC §9.04.20.10.030(k)) provided the project complies with
specific standards including maximum building height requirements. While there is also
a variance provision that allows modification of building height standards (SMMC
§9.04.20.10.030(f)), the Zoning Ordinance prevents variance applications seeking
modification of both building height and number of stories requirements. The proposed
amendment would allow a variance to be sought concurrently from both the height and
number of stories standards. The amendment does not change any existing language,
but rather augments these provisions by creating a link between these two code
sections. This amendment only applies to existing residential structures, is subject to
specific criteria and provides flexibility to encourage the retention of existing residences.
Findings of fact in support of the request are still required. The proposed amendments
are consistent with the goals, objectives, policies and programs specified in the General
Plan.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend adoption of the text
amendment to the City Council, as specified in Attachment A.
TEXT AMENDMENT FINDINGS
1. The proposed amendment is consistent in principle with the goals, objectives,
policies, land uses, and programs specified in the adopted General Plan,
specifically, Land Use Element Objective 1.1, which states that the City’s land
28
use policies should seek to “insure fair treatment of property owners and
residents in the City” in that the proposed amendment gives property owners
the ability to seek relief from the maximum building height and number of stories
provisions of the Zoning Ordinance when the physical characteristics of their
property act to deprive the owner of a privilege granted to other properties in the
neighborhood. It is also consistent with Land Use Element Objective 1.10,
which states that the City’s land use policies should seek to “expand the
opportunity for residential land use while protecting the scale and character of
existing neighborhoods” in that the proposed amendment would promote
retention and rehabilitation of existing residential structures by giving property
owners another alternative to demolition and reconstruction of residential
buildings in order to improve their home to meet the needs of a modern
household. Finally, the proposed text amendment is consistent in principle with
the goals, objectives, policies, land uses, and programs specified in the adopted
General Plan, specifically, Land Use Element Objective 2.1, which states that
the City’s land use policies should seek to “encourage citizen and neighborhood
participation in the City planning process to ensure realization of the goals of the
Land Use Element” in that the variance process involves a public hearing, which
hearing is duly noticed pursuant to the requirements of law in order to inform the
public of proposed development requests and solicit the public’s comments
either in support of or objection to the scope of the request.
2. The public health, safety, and general welfare require the adoption of the
proposed amendment, in that the amendment would provide an alternative
allowing the retention and rehabilitation of older, and potentially historic,
residential buildings in existing residential neighborhoods, thereby, protecting
the integrity of these valued resources that help to form the fabric of the City
through their sense of place and rich architectural and cultural history.
Prepared by: Jay M. Trevino, AICP, Planning Manager
Amanda Schachter, Principal Planner
Jonathan Lait, AICP, Acting Senior Planner
Bill Rodrigues, AICP, Associate Planner
City Planning Division
Planning and Community Development Department
Attachments:
A. Recommended Ordinance Text
B. Notice of Public Hearing
C. March 28, 2000 City Council Meeting Minutes (Item 13-A)
D. April 3, 2002 Planning Commission Meeting Staff Report And Resolution Of
Intention
f:\plan\share\pc\strpt\02\vartextamend.doc
29
ATTACHMENT D
May 1, 2002 Planning Commission Minutes
30
M I N U T E S
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
WEDNESDAY, MAY 1, 2002 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
7:00 P.M. ROOM 213, CITY HALL
1. CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 7:11 p.m.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
Principal Planner Amanda Schachter led the
Pledge of Allegiance.
3. ROLL CALL:
Present: Barbara Brown
Darrell Clarke
Julie Lopez Dad
Arlene Hopkins
Jay P. Johnson
Geraldine Moyle
Kelly Olsen, Chairperson
Also Present:Kimberly Christensen, AICP, Senior Planner
Kyle Ferstead, Commission Secretary
Suzanne Frick, Director of Planning / PCD
Jonathan Lait, AICP, Acting Senior Planner
Kevin McKeown, City Council Liaison
Jean M. Moore, AICP, Associate Planner
Bill Rodrigues, AICP, Associate Planner
Barry Rosenbaum, Senior Land Use Attorney
Amanda Schachter, Principal Planner
Jay M. Trevino, AICP, Planning Manager
8-B. Text Amendment 02-002.
The Planning Commission will conduct a public
hearing to consider a text amendment to Section 9.04.20.10.030 of the City’s
Zoning Ordinance. The amendment would allow the opportunity to file
concurrent variance applications to exceed the maximum permitted building
height and number of stories in a zoning district. Presently, the Zoning
Ordinance allows an applicant to file a variance to either exceed building height
Applicant:
or the number of stories, but not both. (Planner: Bill Rodrigues, AICP)
City of Santa Monica.
31
Associate Planner Rodrigues gave the staff report.
Commissioner Hopkins asked if a square footage limitation for the addition was
considered if 400 square feet would be sufficient. Mr. Rodrigues stated that a 400
square foot limitation would restrict the property owner’s flexiblity.
Commissioner Johnson stated he was comfortable with the R1 District, however
he expressed concern regarding other districts in the City. Mr. Rodrigues stated
that most R2 Districts in the City are flat and the criteria for this Text Amendment
is a “slope criteria,” with a grade differential of more than 12 ½ feet.
Commissioner Johnson asked for clarification that the Text Amendment only
affects slope or hillside parcels. Mr. Rodrigues answered in the affirmative and
stated that the property must have an existing structure that is non-conforming to
current height requirements as well.
Commissioner Johnson asked City Council Liaison McKeown about the Council’s
intention when they requested this Text Amendment, specifically if it is only for
R1 Districts or citywide. City Council Liaison McKeown stated that this is a
citywide Text Amendment and simply permits two parts of the code to be
combined under the variance procedure.
Commissioner Brown asked about the purpose of the original code language. Mr.
Rodrigues stated that Section 9.04.20.10.030 subsection (k) qualifies only if the
request does not fall under subsection (f). He stated that the Text Amendment
clarifies the current law.
Commissioner Moyle asked about the term “finished first floor;” whether it refers
to a crawl space or a basement; and why it was not phrased an “unfinished first
floor” instead. Mr. Rodrigues explained the terminology and stated that it would
take another Text Amendment to amend the definitions section. He further stated
that the City Council had specifically directed staff to address the variance
aspect.
City Council Liaison McKeown commented that the Council felt the definitions for
space beneath the finished first floor could raise more issues and affect more
properties.
Commissioner Clarke commented that when the North of Montana Avenue
development standards were developed the conclusion was reached that the
bulk of the building impacts the neighbors, not adding space below grade such
as a basement.
Commissioner Hopkins suggested a scenario where a property owner wants to
add a floor, then expand an existing basement on a slope. She asked if this
32
would be precluded. Acting Senior Planner Jonathan Lait explained that this
scenario could occur on any lot, however if the lot is sloped and excavation is
needed for the basement expansion, the addition of another floor could constitute
the creation of a third floor, which is prohibited by code. He added that
basements are currently permitted by code in residential districts.
One member of the public, Russell Bennett, spoke in favor of the Text
Amendment.
Commissioner Dad thanked Mr. Bennett for his preservation efforts. She
suggested that the Text Amendment could be limited to R1, R2 and OP Districts
only. Chair Olsen pointed out that the Text Amendment language is specific. Ms.
Frick stated that the Commission can amend the language. Senior Land Use
Attorney Rosenbaum stated that this is a recommendation to the City Council, so
any suggested changes can be forwarded to the Council for consideration.
Commissioner Moyle made a motion to forward the Text Amendment to the City
Council per staff report recommendations.
Commissioner Hopkins seconded the motion. She suggested a friendly
amendment to use the wording “to preserve existing homes” as a sixth criteria.
Ms. Frick stated that this could be added to the list of requirements.
Commissioner Moyle was agreeable to this suggestion.
Commissioner Moyle commented on the Applicability section on page eight of
the staff report, which cites criteria for issuance of a variance. She suggested
that the wording include “issuance of a variance results in preservation of the
integrity of existing dwelling.” Mr. Rodrigues stated that the suggested wording
will result in a technical dilemma because the intent of the change is for when
subsections (f) and (k) are applied for simultaneously.
Commissioner Moyle commented on Mr. Bennett’s request and the “bold”
lettering on subsection (k)(4). She asserted that preservation language must be
added. Ms. Frick stated that staff will determine where such language should be
added.
Commissioner Clarke commented on the narrowness of this Text Amendment as
regards the requirement for a steep grade on the property applying for the
variances.
The motion to forward the Text Amendment to the City Council was approved by
the following vote:
AYES: Brown, Clarke, Dad, Hopkins, Johnson, Moyle, Olsen.
[The Commission took a break from 9:25 p.m. to 9:48 p.m.]
33
13. ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 10:56 p.m.
34