City Council
Meeting: September 26, 2006
Agenda Item: 7-C
To: Mayor and City Council
From:
Subject: Ordinance for Introduction and
First Reading to Modify Santa Monica
Municipal Code Sections 9.04.20.10.030, 9.04.10.02.450, 9.36.270, 9.32.170, and
9.56.030 to Allow for Modification of Development Standards and Implementation
of Incentives for Projects that Include the Retention and Preservation of a
Recommended
Action
It is recommended that the City Council introduce for first reading an ordinance modifying Santa Monica Municipal Code (SMMC) Sections 9.04.20.10.030 (Variances), 9.04.10.02.450 (Project Design & Development Standards), 9.36.270 (Landmarks and Historic Districts), 9.32.170 (Architectural Review), and 9.56.030 (Affordable Housing Production Program) to allow for modification of development standards and implementation of incentives for projects that include the retention and preservation of a designated Landmark building or Contributing Structure to an adopted Historic District.
Executive
Summary
The
applicant, Fifth Street Condo Project LLC, has proposed a series of ordinance
amendments to create a procedure for review of the requested modifications and
to provide specific incentives for the preservation of a designated historic
resource on site (Attachment B). Specifically, the applicant has proposed a new
discretionary review process through which the Zoning Administrator or Planning
Commission may approve requested modifications to development standards for
projects that include the retention and preservation of a designated Landmark
structure or Contributing Structure to an adopted Historic District.
The
applicant has also proposed amendments to the Municipal Code to allow for the
retention of an existing curb cut and front yard parking; a waiver from the
Construction Rate Program; and to clarify that the Landmarks Commission has
sole design review authority over changes to properties containing a Landmark
structure.
The
proposed Ordinance (Attachment A) incorporating the amendments also reflects three
staff recommended modifications that are discussed in greater detail in this
report.
The
following key issues should be considered by the City Council in its review of
the proposed Ordinance:
1)
Consider whether the proposed Ordinance is consistent with the City’s goals, as
expressed in the City’s Historic Preservation Element, to promote preservation
of historic and cultural resources through incentives and technical assistance.
2)
Evaluate whether the proposed Ordinance
is consistent with the City’s long-standing commitment articulated in both the
Land Use Element and Housing Element to facilitate the development of new
housing, including affordable housing, in all residential neighborhoods, while
still protecting the character and scale of neighborhoods.
Discussion
Background
The applicant submitted a Zoning Ordinance Amendment application in
conjunction with a Vesting Tentative Parcel Map and Use Permit Application to
develop a project that includes on-site relocation of the Turn-of-the-Century
Cottage (circa 1908) that was designated as a City Landmark in 2002 and the construction
of three new condominium units behind it on the rear of the parcel at 954 5th
Street.
The proposed 954 5th Street project requires a variety
of modifications to development standards including those which specify the
maximum height, number of stories, and building volume and parcel coverage
above 23’-0” and the 2nd story; minimum rear yard setback; projections into
required front yard area; private open space accessibility; and the amount of
unexcavated yards provided on site.
Discussion & Analysis
Proposed
Ordinance Amendments
The proposed Ordinance contains five
amendments to the Santa Monica Municipal Code that would be applicable to
projects that involve the retention and preservation of a designated Landmark
building or Contributing Structure to an adopted Historic District.
SMMC
Section 9.04.20.10 (Variances)
As part of the applicant’s Zoning Ordinance
Amendment application, a Use Permit process was initially proposed as a new
mechanism for evaluating requested modifications to development standards for
projects that include the retention and preservation of a designated Landmark
structure or Contributing Structure to an adopted Historic District. However, in lieu of a Use Permit process
staff has proposed a Variance process to evaluate requested modifications. The
applicant has not objected to the staff-recommended Variance procedure.
The staff-proposed Variance process would
allow an applicant to request modifications to development standards provided
that nine provisions are met. These provisions are designed to ensure that the
proposed project, with requested modifications, is consistent with key factors
that help to retain neighborhood compatibility such as: maximum unit density,
maximum height and number of stories permitted by the Land Use Element,
provision of private open space, and provision of unexcavated yard area. In
addition to these nine standards that must be met in order to request
modifications to development standards, the proposed Variance process would
allow the Zoning Administrator, or Planning Commission on appeal, to evaluate
each project and approve, deny, or modify each requested modification as deemed
necessary in order to make the required findings of fact.
Further, the Variance process requires that
projects are proposed in a manner consistent with the Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties in order to
ensure that the important historic character of the existing designated resource
is retained.
By allowing applicants to request certain
modifications to development standards for projects that retain designated
resources, some of the key impediments to creating innovative designs that
balance new development with preservation goals can be eliminated. The proposed
Variance procedure creates a mechanism to evaluate such requests for
modifications on a case by case basis in order to ensure that proposed projects
are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and appropriate for the
site.
The proposed amendment is also consistent
with the Landmarks Commission’s articulated support for creating tangible
incentives for projects that involve preservation of a designated historic
resource, and demonstrates that designated City Landmarks and Contributing
Structures to Historic Districts are significant resources that contribute to
local neighborhood character and more broadly to the City’s unique community identity.
SMMC
Section 9.04.10.02.450 (Project Design & Development Standards)
The applicant proposes an amendment to allow
projects that involve the preservation of a designated City Landmark or Contributing
Structure to a Historic District to be exempt from the provisions of the
Construction Rate Program. The Program specifies that for projects involving
new construction or the substantial remodel of two or more dwelling units in
all multi-family residential districts, only one such construction project
shall be allowed within a five hundred foot radius of another construction
project during a fifteen month period. When
a building permit has already been issued within the fifteen month timeframe,
the new project is placed on a waiting list to begin construction.
A waiver of the provisions of the
Construction Rate Program represents a significant benefit to applicants who
propose innovative projects that incorporate both new construction and
preservation of Landmark structures. This proposal is also consistent with the
Landmarks Commission’s ongoing recommendation to establish incentives that
support the City’s Historic Preservation Program. Further, it is not
anticipated that such projects would constitute a significant number of new
construction projects in the City’s residential districts.
SMMC 9.36.270 (Landmarks and
Historic Districts) & 9.32.170 (Architectural Review)
The applicant proposes two amendments to
clarify that Landmarks Commission has sole regulatory authority over design
review for projects that involve alterations to designated Landmark buildings
and Contributing Structures to adopted Historic Districts as well as for any
new construction on parcels containing a designated Landmark building and on
parcels located within an adopted Historic District.
The two referenced sections of the Municipal
Code do not make absolutely clear that design review by both the Landmarks
Commission through review of a Certificate of Appropriateness, and the
Architectural Review Board are not required for new construction on a parcel
containing a designated Landmark building or on a parcel located within an
adopted Historic District.
As a matter of policy, and consistent with
the City’s permit processing procedures, duplicative design review is not
recommended or practiced. These two
proposed amendments recognize that the Landmarks Commission has specific
expertise and familiarity with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards to
evaluate proposed alterations to Landmark buildings and to evaluate new
construction to ensure that no negative impacts to the existing designated
resource are created. Further, this
clarification to the Municipal Code serves to ensure a fair and predictable
design review process for applicants, and is consistent with the City’s current
practice.
SMMC
9.56.030 (Affordable Housing Production Program)
In addition to the applicant’s proposed modifications
to the Zoning Ordinance, staff also proposes an amendment to the Affordable
Housing Production Program to specify that an existing designated Landmark on
site shall be exempt from the obligations established by SMMC Chapter 9.56.
This exemption would only apply to new multi-family projects that include the on-site
retention and preservation of a designated Landmark building or Contributing
Structure to an adopted Historic District.
The following is an example of how this proposed amendment would be
applied: for a multi-family ownership project that involves the on-site
retention and preservation of a designated Landmark residence and the
construction of three new units on the parcel resulting in a total of four
multi-family ownership units, the existing designated Landmark residence would
be exempt for the purposes of calculating the total number of multi-family
ownership units subject to the obligations of the Affordable Housing Production
Program. In this example, there would a
total of three multi-family ownership units subject to the obligations of the
Affordable Housing Production Program instead of a total of four units.
The currently proposed amendment to SMMC Chapter 9.56
is appropriate because the designated Landmark residence or Contributing
Structure to an adopted Historic District would be an existing housing unit and
would not represent new construction on site, and is consistent with the
primary purpose of the proposed Ordinance which is to provide incentives to
support innovative project designs that balance new development with the City’s
preservation goals. Further, this
proposed amendment to the Affordable Housing Production Program is also
consistent with the Landmarks Commission’s ongoing recommendation to establish tangible
incentives and policies that support the City’s Historic Preservation Element.
Planning Commission Action
At
the June 21, 2006 hearing, the Planning Commission recommended that the City
Council approve the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments as modified by
staff. During the public hearing, a
member of the Landmarks Commission addressed the Planning Commission to express
support for the proposed project and the concept of the ordinance amendment. The Planning Commission also received
correspondence from an adjacent property owner who expressed concerns about the
height of the proposed new construction on site. A second letter was received
from a Landmark property owner who expressed support for the proposed
amendment.
The
Planning Commission found that the staff-proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments
are consistent with the goals, objectives, policies specified in the adopted
Land Use Element and Historic Preservation Element of the City of
The
Commission also found that the scale, massing, and design of the new
construction at 954 5th Street to be compatible with the scale and
character of the existing Landmark Cottage on site and the surrounding
neighborhood. Finally, the Commission
approved the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map and Variance for the proposed
project, subject to Council approval of the pending Zoning Ordinance amendment.
Finally,
the Planning Commission concurred with staff’s recommendation to not support an
ordinance amendment to allow the Landmarks Commission to approve retention of
existing curb cuts and to allow front yard parking when alley access is
available in a multi-family zoning district for projects that retain a
designated historic resource. Accordingly, language proposing retention of
existing curb cuts and front yard parking is not included in the Ordinance
contained in Attachment A. The applicant
has not filed an appeal of the Planning Commission’s formal recommendation on
this matter.
The
Planning Commission staff report can be found on-line at the following address:
http://www.smgov.net/planning/dev/commission/agendas/pc2006/pa20060621.htm.
The Planning Commission’s Statement of Official
Action can be found online at the following address:
http://www.smgov.net/planning/dev/commission/agendas/pc2006/ps2006071907-C.htm
Landmarks Commission Action
The
subject property at
Following
Planning Commission’s positive recommendation on staff-modified, proposed ordinance
amendment language and approval of the Tentative Map and Variance associated
with the proposed four-unit condominium project, the Landmarks Commission held
a public hearing to consider the Certificate of Appropriateness application for
the project. In its action on July 10,
2006, the Commission found that the plan for rehabilitation of the Cottage is consistent
with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties and that the design for the new construction on site is compatible
with the existing historic resource and the surrounding neighborhood. Moreover,
the Landmarks Commission noted that the proposed project would be a model
project to promote both preservation of a Landmark structure while still
allowing for new development on site. The
Commission also expressed support for the retention of the existing curb cut surface
parking adjacent to the Landmark Cottage.
The
Landmarks Commission also reiterated its support for the amendments that would
allow for modifications to the Zoning Ordinance as an incentive for preserving
historically significant properties in the City. This position is consistent with the
Landmarks Commission’s ongoing efforts in this area. One area of special interest to the Commission
has been support for the creation of more incentives to facilitate
implementation of the Historic Preservation Program and the inclusion of
procedures that would provide more flexibility with respect to the application
of development standards in the current and forthcoming Zoning and Landmarks
Ordinances. In support of this effort,
an ad-hoc Committee of Landmarks Commissioners has been actively engaged in the
Shape the Future 2025 Project since 2004 in order to develop recommendations
for incorporation into the forthcoming Land Use Element and Zoning Ordinance.
The
Landmarks Commission staff report can be found on-line at the following address:
http://www.smgov.net/planning/landmark/agendas/2006/0lca07102006.htm.
The
Landmarks Commission’s Statement of Official Action for the proposed project is
also included as Attachment D.
General Plan Consistency
The proposed amendments are consistent in
principle with the goals, objectives, policies, land uses, and programs
specified in the adopted Land Use Element, Historic Preservation Element, and
Housing Element of the City of
Land Use Element Policy 1.10.1 encourages
the development of new housing in all residential neighborhoods, while still
protecting the character and scale of neighborhoods. The proposed Ordinance is
consistent with this policy in that it would allow new residential units to be
constructed while still providing incentives to support the on-site retention
of an existing historic resource that contributes to the character of the
surrounding neighborhood.
Land Use Element Policy 3.1.3 encourages the
retention of historic and architecturally significant resources and states that
the design of new buildings should respect the character of nearby historic
resources. The proposed Variance
procedure specified in the draft Ordinance is consistent with Policy 3.1.3 because
it incorporates a requirement that projects to be designed in accordance with
the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties, which specifies that any new construction on site shall be compatible
with the historic resource while not duplicating its design.
Goal 3 of the Historic Preservation Element
calls for an increase in public awareness of the history of
Goal 5 of the Historic Preservation Element
encourages the promotion of preservation of historic and cultural resources
through incentives and technical assistance. The proposed Ordinance provides
several key incentives for projects that retain and preserve designated
historic resources. These incentives include the creation of a discretionary
review process to evaluate requested modifications to development standards in
order to facilitate retention of character-defining features of the structure
while still allowing for new construction on site. The Ordinance also proposes
incentives such as an exemption from the construction rate program and an
exemption of the existing residence for the purposes of calculating the
project’s affordable housing production program obligation in order to help
promote and facilitate the retention and preservation of designated historic
resources in the community.
Housing Element Policy 1.3 calls for the
establishment and maintenance of development standards that support housing
development while protecting quality of life goals. Housing Element Policy 1.7 encourages the
maintenance of development standards that ensure that the development of new
housing in residential neighborhoods is designed to fit within the existing
neighborhood context. Housing Element
Goal 4.0 encourages the rehabilitation and continued maintenance of existing
housing and Policy 4.3 calls for the rehabilitation of existing housing to
address the health and safety needs of residents while respecting the character
of the structure. The proposed Ordinance supports these Housing Element goals
and policies by providing a mechanism to promote the production of new housing
in residential districts while also establishing a process to evaluate
requested modifications to development standards that would help to facilitate the
preservation, rehabilitation and retention of existing historic resources that
contribute to neighbor character.
The general welfare of the City is enhanced
when the development of new housing in residential neighborhoods is encouraged,
while still protecting the character and scale of neighborhoods. The proposed
Ordinance serves as an important catalyst to allow for both the construction of
new housing and the on-site preservation and retention of designated City
Landmarks and Contributing Structures to Historic Districts that enhance the surrounding
neighborhood and contribute more broadly to the City’s unique community
identity.
Environmental Analysis
The project is categorically exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Class 5 Section 15331 of
the State CEQA Guidelines. Class 5 consists of minor alterations in land use
limitations in area with an average slope of less than 20%, which do not result
in any changes in land use or density. The applicant proposes a Text Amendment
to permit modifications to development standards subject to a discretionary
review process when the project includes preservation of a Landmark building or
Contributing Structure to an adopted Historic District.
Alternatives
In addition to the recommended
action, the Council may:
1) Adopt the proposed Ordinance with modified
text language and findings;
2) Direct staff to return with a revised
Ordinance with modified text language based on Council’s direction; or
3) Disapprove the proposed Ordinance.
Budget/Financial
Impact
The recommendation
presented in this report does not have any budget or financial impact.
Prepared by:
Roxanne
Tanemori, Associate Planner
|
Approved: |
|
Forwarded to Council: |
|
|
|
|
|
Interim
Director, Planning and Community Development |
|
P. City Manager |
Attachments:
A.
Proposed
Ordinance
B.
Staff-Proposed
Text Amendments
C.
Applicant-Proposed
Text Amendments
D.
Landmarks
Commission Statement of Official Action, July 10, 2006
E.
Correspondence
Received Regarding the Proposed Text Amendment
ATTACHMENT
A
Proposed
Ordinance
f:\atty\muni\laws\barry\landmarkstandards.doc
City Council Meeting 9-26-06
ORDINANCE NUMBER (CCS)
(City Council Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF
SANTA MONICA AMENDING SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS 9.04.20.10.030,
9.04.10.02.450, 9.36.270, 9.32.170, AND 9.56.030 TO ALLOW FOR MODIFICATION OF
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND IMPLEMENTATION OF INCENTIVES FOR PROJECTS THAT
INCLUDE THE RETENTION AND PRESERVATION OF A DESIGNATED LANDMARK BUILDING OR
CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE TO AN ADOPTED HISTORIC DISTRICT
WHEREAS, on May 12, 2005, the owner of the property
at 954 5th Street submitted a proposed text amendment application in
conjunction with a vesting tentative parcel map and use permit application to
develop a project that includes the on-site relocation of a residence that was
designated a City Landmark in 2002 and the construction of three new
condominium units behind the residence on the rear of the parcel; and
WHEREAS, the proposed text amendment would be applicable
to projects that involve the retention and preservation of a designated
landmark or contributing structure to an adopted historic district and would,
in part, allow an applicant to request modifications to development standards
through a variance procedure which would be subject to specified standards and
parameters; and
WHEREAS, review of this application would ensure that the
proposed project, with the requested modifications, is consistent with key development
standards that ensure retention of
neighborhood compatibility such as maximum unit density, maximum height, number
of stories, provision of private open space, and provision of unexcavated yard
area; and
WHEREAS, the proposed text amendment would also ensure
that projects are undertaken consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties so that the important
historic character of the resource is retained; and
WHEREAS, the proposed text amendment would eliminate some
of the key impediments to innovative designs that balance new development with
preservation goals; and
WHEREAS, the proposed variance process would also allow
the Zoning Administrator, or Planning Commission on appeal, to evaluate each
project and approve, deny, or modify the request as necessary to make the
required findings of fact; and
WHEREAS, the proposed text amendment would also exempt
such projects from the Construction Rate Program, clarify that the Landmarks
Commission has sole regulatory authority over design review of these projects
and clarify that the retained historic structure shall not be considered for
purposes of assessing any of the obligations that an applicant might have under
the Affordable Housing Production Program; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the proposed
zoning text amendment at a public hearing on June 21, 2006; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended that the
City Council approve the request as modified by staff; and
WHEREAS, the proposed text amendment has also been
reviewed and supported by the Landmarks Commission in that it is consistent
with the Commission’s articulated support for providing incentives for projects
that involve the preservation of historic resources; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on this
proposed text amendment on September 26, 2006; 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 Policy
1.10.1 which encourages the development of new housing in all residential
neighborhoods, while still protecting the character and scale of neighborhoods
in that new residential units are proposed along with the retention of an
existing historic resource that contributes to the character of the surrounding
neighborhood; Land Use Element Policy 3.1.3 which encourages the retention of
historic and architecturally significant resources and provides that the design
of new buildings should respect the character of nearby historic resources in
that the retention and preservation of the historic resource is proposed and
the new construction is designed to be compatible with the historic resource on
site while not duplicating its design; Goals 3 and 5 of the Historic
Preservation Element which calls for an increase public awareness of the
history of Santa Monica and historic preservation in the City and which
encourages the promotion of preservation of historic and cultural resources
through incentives and technical assistance; Housing Element Policy 1.3 which
encourages the establishment and maintenance of development standards that
support housing development while protecting quality of life goals; Housing
Element Policy 1.7 which encourages the maintenance of development standards
that ensure that the development of new housing in residential neighborhoods is
designed to fit within the existing neighborhood context; Housing Element Goal
4.0 which encourages the rehabilitation and continued maintenance of existing
housing; and Housing Element Policy 4.3 which encourages the rehabilitation of
existing housing to address the health and safety needs of residents while
respecting the character of the retained structure; and
WHEREAS, the public health, safety, and general welfare
require the adoption of the proposed amendment in that the proposed text
amendment serves as an important catalyst to allow for both the construction of
new housing and the on-site preservation and retention of designated City
landmarks and contributing structures to historic districts that will enhance
the surrounding neighborhoods and contribute to the City’s unique community
identity and in that by allowing applicants to request certain modifications to
development standards for projects that retain designated historic resources,
some of the key impediments to creating innovative designs that balance new
development with preservation goals can be eliminated,
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
Section
9.04.20.10.030. Applicability.
The Zoning Administrator may grant a variance from the requirements of this Chapter to:
(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;
(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 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,
(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:
(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
(2) The modification, renovation or replacement either improves access to the building or improves the building’s aesthetic appearance.
(m) Allow the modification
of maximum building height; maximum number of stories; required setbacks; maximum
parcel coverage and building envelope requirements; permitted building height
projections; permitted projections in required yard areas; access to private
open space; and provision of unexcavated yard areas contained in this Chapter
for projects that include the retention and preservation of a designated
Landmark building or Contributing Structure to an adopted Historic District,
provided that all of the following conditions are met and all of the findings
of fact contained in Section 9.04.20.10.050 are made:
(1) The proposed
project conforms to the Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.
(2) The proposed
project conforms to the allowable land uses permitted in the applicable Zoning
District.
(3i) The proposed
project does not exceed the maximum unit density permitted in the applicable
Zoning District.
(4) The proposed
project does not exceed the height permitted in the Land Use Element of the
General Plan for the applicable Land Use Classification.
(5) The proposed
project does not exceed the maximum height permitted in the applicable Zoning
District by more than ten (10) feet.
(6) The proposed
project does not exceed the maximum number of stories permitted in the Land Use
Element of the General Plan for the applicable Land Use Classification and does
not exceed the maximum number of stories permitted in the applicable Zoning
District by more than one (1) story.
(7) Covered
front porches and stairs of a designated Landmark building or Contributing
Structure to an adopted Historic District may project a maximum of 12’-0” into the required front yard setback area provided
that the building façade complies with the front yard setback requirement in
the applicable Zoning District.
(8) The
only requirement related to the provision of private open space that can be
modified is the requirement that private open space be adjacent to and
accessible from, and at the same approximate elevation, as the primary space of
the dwelling unit.
(9) Requirements for the provision of unexcavated area in yard areas may only be modified when the strict application of such requirements would not allow for the preservation of the Landmark building or Contributing Structure to an adopted Historic District.
Section
9.04.10.02.450. Construction rate
program.
(a) For projects involving the new construction or substantial remodel of two or more dwelling units in all multi-family residential districts in the City for which a development application was deemed complete on or after March 7, 2000, only one such construction project shall be allowed within a five hundred foot radius of another construction project subject to this Section. Except as provided in subsection (c) of this Section, this restriction shall apply for fifteen months after issuance of a building permit, after which time another project may begin construction in the defined area. The multi-family residential districts in the City are: R2R, R2, R3, R4, RVC, RMH, OP-Duplex, OP2, OP3, OP4, NW-Overlay, BR Boulevard Residential R3 Overlay, R2B, and R3R.
(b) Building permits shall be provided on a first come first served basis in accordance with the terms of this Section. No application for a building permit shall be accepted for filing or otherwise processed by the Building and Safety Division unless the applicant provides documentation on forms provided by the City that the project has received all other City or State approvals or permits necessary to commence the project, with the exception of building and sewer allocation permits.
(c) During the plan-check process, the Building and Safety Division shall determine the status of other building permits for projects in the area. A building permit shall not be issued when the Building Officer determines that a building permit has been issued in the previous fifteen months for any other project within a five hundred foot radius of the subject property unless the owner of the previously permitted project has formally relinquished the building permit for that project or obtained a certificate of occupancy for the project.
(d) If the Building Officer determines that another building permit has been issued less than fifteen months prior to the date on which the building permit has received all plan-check approvals and the exceptions specified in subsections (c) and (e) do not apply, the Building Officer shall place the project on a waiting list in order of the date and time of day that the permit application received all plan-check approvals. The life of other City approvals or permits necessary to commence the project shall be automatically extended by the amount of time that a project remains on the waiting list. The Building Officer shall approve the project in accordance with the Uniform Technical Code in effect at the time of the plan-check.
(e) The following projects shall be exempt from this Section:
(1) Affordable housing projects in which one hundred percent of the units will be deed-restricted for very low, low, middle, and/or moderate income housing.
(2) Structures identified by the Building and Safety Division as unreinforced masonry construction and subject to City-mandated seismic upgrading.
(3) Projects to be developed on a site that is vacant.
(4) Projects to be developed on a site in which either: (a) the structures on the site are uninhabitable, not as a result of the owner’ s failure to maintain the structure, or the property of which the structure is a part, in good repair, and the structures cannot be rendered habitable in an economically feasible manner or (b) the current use of the property is not otherwise economically viable. The City shall prepare an exemption application form which delineates all submission requirements. An owner shall not be required to file a project application with the exemption application. City staff shall make a final determination whether a project meets the requirements of this subdivision within ninety days after the owner’s exemption application for the project is deemed complete.
(5) Projects that include the retention and preservation of a designated Landmark building or Contributing Structure to an adopted Historic District, provided that a variance has been obtained pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.04.20.10.030(m).
(f) The Planning and Community Development Department may develop administrative guidelines implementing this Section.
Section
9.36.270. Preservation incentives.
(a) Architectural Review Exemption. Provided that a Certificate of Appropriateness is obtained from the Landmarks Commission, the following projects shall be exempt from review by the Architectural Review Board:
(1) All work to a designated Landmark building or Contributing Structure to an adopted Historic District; and
(2) All additions to, modifications of, alterations of, or new construction on a Landmark Parcel or parcel containing a Contributing Structure to an adopted Historic District.
The Landmarks Commission may refer any of these matters to the Architectural Review Board for comment.
(b) Building Permit and Planning Application Fees. All building permit and planning fees for Administrative Approval applications shall be waived for designated Landmarks, or contributing structures located in a Historic District.
(c) Certificates of Appropriateness/Administrative Approval Fees. All certificate of appropriateness and certificate of administrative approval fees for any alteration, restoration or construction, in whole or in part, to a designated Landmark or to a contributing structure located in a Historic District shall be waived.
(d) Any parking incentives permitted by the Zoning Ordinance.
(e) Streetscape Improvements in Historic Districts. Whenever streetscape improvements are proposed by the City in areas that are designated Historic Districts, the City shall consider the use of materials, landscaping, light standards and signage that are compatible with the area’s historic and architectural character.
(f) State Historical Building Code. The California State Historical Building Code (Title 24, Part 8, California Administrative Code) shall be applied to alterations to designated Structures of Merit, Landmarks, and contributing structures located in Historic Districts.
(g) Historical Property Contracts. Designated Structures of Merit, Landmarks and contributing structures located in Historic Districts that are privately owned shall be considered qualified historical properties eligible for historical property contracts submitted or entered into, pursuant to the provisions of Article 12, commencing with Section 50280, Chapter 1, Part 1, Division 1, Title 5, of the California Government Code upon resolution approval by the City Council.
(h) Plan Check
Processing. Structures designated as Landmarks or
Section 9.32.170. Architectural review district boundaries.
Pursuant to Section 9.32.110 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code, an architectural review district is hereby established. Said architectural review district shall be composed of all commercial, industrial and residential areas within the corporate boundaries of the City, with the exception of those areas designated as R-1 Districts by Article 9 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code, and those structures for which a certificate of appropriateness is obtained from the Landmarks Commission (or City Council on appeal) pursuant to Chapter 9.36 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code. Non-contributing structures located within Historic Districts shall be subject to architectural review unless otherwise exempted by the ordinance that establishes procedures for the alteration of structures within the Historic District. Single-family structures, including accessory structures, in all districts in the City are also exempt from Architectural Review Board district boundaries.
Section 9.56.030. Applicability of chapter.
(a) The obligations established by this Chapter shall apply to each multi-family project for which a development application was determined complete on or after May 25, 2006 involving the construction of two or more market rate units. No building permit shall be issued for any multi-family project unless such construction has been approved in accordance with the standards and procedures provided for by this Chapter.
(b) Multi-family projects for which a development application was determined completed prior to May 25, 2006 shall be subject to the provisions of Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.56.010 et seq., as they existed on the date the application for the project was determined complete.
(c) A designated Landmark building or Contributing Structure to an adopted Historic District that is retained and preserved on-site as part of a multi-family project shall not be considered or included in assessing any of the requirements under this Chapter.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________
MARSHA JONES MOUTRIE
City Attorney
ATTACHMENT
B
Staff-Proposed
Text Amendments
Attachment B
Staff-Proposed Text Amendments
SMMC
Section 9.04.20.10 Variances
SMMC
Section 9.04.20.10.30 Applicability.
The Zoning Administrator may grant a variance from the requirements of
this Chapter to:
(m) Allow modification to maximum building height; maximum number of
stories; required setbacks; maximum parcel coverage and building envelope
requirements; permitted building height projections; permitted projections in
required yard areas; access to private open space; and provision of unexcavated
yard areas for projects that include the retention and preservation of a
designated Landmark building or Contributing Structure to an adopted Historic
District, provided that all of the following are met and subject to the
findings of fact contained in SMMC 9.04.20.10.050:
(1)
Proposed
project conforms to the current Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties.
(2)
Proposed
project conforms to the allowable land uses permitted in the applicable Zoning
District.
(3)
Proposed
project does not exceed the maximum unit density permitted in the applicable
Zoning District.
(4)
Proposed
project does not exceed the height permitted in the current Land Use Element of
the General Plan for the applicable Land Use Classification.
(5)
Proposed
project does not exceed the maximum height permitted in the applicable Zoning
District by more than ten (10) feet.
(6)
Proposed
project does not exceed the maximum number of stories permitted in the Land Use
Element of the General Plan for the applicable Land Use Classification and in
the applicable Zoning District by more than one (1) story.
(7)
Covered
front porches and stairs of a designated Landmark building or Contributing
Structure to an adopted Historic District may project into the required front
yard setback area a maximum of 12’-0” provided that the building façade
complies with the front yard setback requirement in the applicable Zoning
District.
(8)
The
only requirement related to the provision of private open space that can be
modified is the requirement that private open space be adjacent to and
accessible from, and at the same approximate elevation, as the primary space of
the dwelling unit.
(9)
Requirements
for the provision of unexcavated area in yard areas may be modified only when
the strict application of such requirements would not allow for the
preservation of the Landmark building or Contributing Structure to an adopted
Historic District.
SMMC Section 9.04.10 Project Design & Development Standards
SMMC Section 9.04.10.02.450
(e) Construction Rate Program.
(e) The following projects shall be exempt from this Section:
(5) Projects that include the retention and preservation
of a designated Landmark building or Contributing Structure to an adopted
Historic District, provided that a Variance has been obtained pursuant to Santa
Monica Municipal Code Section 9.04.20.10.030(m).
SMMC 9.36 Landmarks and Historic Districts
SMMC 9.36.270 Preservation Incentives.
(a) Architectural Review Exemption. All structures designated as Landmarks and any contributing building or
structure within a Historic District that requires a certificate of
appropriateness shall be exempt from review by the Architectural Review Board.
The Landmarks Commission may refer any matter to the Architectural Review Board
for comment. Provided that a Certificate of
Appropriateness is obtained from the Landmarks Commission, the following
projects shall be exempt from review by the Architectural Review Board:
(i)
All
work to a designated Landmark building or Contributing Structure to an adopted
Historic District; and
(ii)
All
additions to, modifications of, alterations of, or new construction on a
Landmark Parcel or parcel containing a Contributing Structure to an adopted
Historic District.
The Landmarks
Commission may refer any of these matters to the Architectural
Review Board for comment.
SMMC 9.32 Architectural Review
Section 9.32.170 Architectural Review District Boundaries.
Pursuant to Section 9.32.110 of
the Santa Monica Municipal Code, an architectural review district is hereby
established. Said architectural review district shall be composed of all
commercial, industrial and residential areas within the corporate boundaries of
the City, with the exception of those areas designated as R-1 Districts by
Article 9 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code, and those structures for which
a certificate of appropriateness is obtained from the Landmarks Commission (or
City Council on appeal) designated as landmarks or contributing
structures within Historic Districts pursuant to Chapter 9.36 of the
Santa Monica Municipal Code. Non-contributing structures located within
Historic Districts shall be subject to architectural review unless otherwise
exempted by the ordinance that establishes procedures for the alteration of
structures within the Historic District. Single-family structures, including
accessory structures, in all districts in the City are also exempt from
Architectural Review Board district boundaries.
SMMC
9.56 Affordable Housing Production
Program
SMMC
Section 9.56.030 Applicability of
chapter.
(c) A designated Landmark
building or Contributing Structure to an adopted Historic District that is
retained and preserved on-site as part of a multi-family project shall not be
considered or included in assessing any of the requirements under this Chapter.
ATTACHMENT
C
Applicant-Proposed
Text Amendments
Attachment C
Applicant-Proposed Text Amendments
PROPOSED
Section 9.04.10.02.500. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PRESERVING A LANDMARK. For new multi-family residential projects involving the preservation of an officially-designated landmark, a use permit shall be obtained if the project does not meet all of the objective development standards set forth in the Zoning Ordinance for the zone in which the property is located. This provision shall authorize, but not obligate, the applicable City decision-making body to modify the objective development standards otherwise applicable to the project; provided, however, that the project (including the existing landmark to be preserved on the site):
(i) shall not exceed the maximum unit density allowed in the zone,
(ii) shall provide at least the number of parking spaces required by the code (unless a parking variance or reduced parking permit is granted), and
(iii) shall not exceed the maximum total floor area that would be allowed for a theoretical new conforming project that could otherwise be constructed on the project site (assuming such project were to fully comply with the objective development standards for the zone in which the project is located, including lot coverage, height, number of stories, setbacks and building volume envelope), calculated as if there were no landmark building to be preserved on the site.
In no event shall the height of the new project exceed the maximum height (in feet) allowed by the Land Use Element for the project site, and in no event shall the total resulting floor area (including the landmark building to be preserved) exceed the theoretical maximum floor area calculated as described above.
PROPOSED
Section 9.04.10.08._[insert heading]_. Notwithstanding Municipal Code Sections 7.24.050, 7.04.180, 9.04.10.08.080 and 9.04.10.08.190, and any other similar provisions of the Municipal Code, projects involving the preservation of a landmarked building in the multi-family zoning districts shall be allowed to retain existing curb cuts and existing parking in the front yard provided such existing conditions are deemed appropriate by the Landmarks Commission, or the City Council on appeal, when considering a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project.
PROPOSED AMENDED CODE SECTION:
Section 9.04.10.02.450.
CONSTRUCTION
* * *
(e) The following projects shall be exempt from this Section:
* * *
(5) Projects involving the preservation of a designated landmark.
PROPOSED ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
Section 9.32.170 Architectural review district boundaries.
Pursuant to Section 9.32.110 of
the Santa Monica Municipal Code, an architectural review district is hereby established.
Said architectural review district shall be composed of all commercial,
industrial and residential areas within the corporate boundaries of the City,
with the exception of those areas designated as R-1 Districts by Article 9 of
the Santa Monica Municipal Code, and those structures for which a
certificate of appropriateness is obtained from the Landmarks Commission (or
City Council on appeal) designated as landmarks or
contributing structures within Historic Districts pursuant to Chapter 9.36
of the Santa Monica Municipal Code. Non-contributing structures located within
Historic Districts shall be subject to architectural review unless otherwise
exempted by the ordinance that establishes procedures for the alteration of
structures within the Historic District. Single-family structures, including
accessory structures, in all districts in the City are also exempt from
Architectural Review Board district boundaries.
PROPOSED LANDMARKS
Section 9.36.270 Preservation incentives.
(a) Architectural
Review Exemption. All structures
designated as Landmarks and any contributing building or structure within a
Historic District that requires a certificate of appropriateness Provided a certificate of appropriateness is
obtained from the Landmarks Commission, the following projects shall be exempt
from review by the Architectural Review Board:
(i) all physical work to structures designated as Landmarks,
(ii) all additions to, modifications of, alterations of or new development on a Landmark Parcel, and
(iii) any contributing building or structure within a Historic District.
The Landmarks Commission may refer any of these matters to the Architectural Review Board for comment.
1891/docs/TextAmendment.4002.klk
ATTACHMENT
D
Landmarks
Commission Statement of Official Action, July 10, 2006
LANDMARKS
COMMISSION
OF THE CITY
OF
STATEMENT OF
OFFICIAL ACTION
PROJECT
SUBJECT: LC-06CA-004
ADDRESS:
APPLICANT:
REQUEST: Certificate of Appropriateness for
design approval for a proposed 4-unit condominium project that includes new
construction of three units on the rear of the parcel at
LANDMARKS COMMISSION ACTION
07/10/2006 Date
X Approved
based on the following findings and subject to the conditions below.
Denied
Other
EFFECTIVE DATE OF ACTION
Effective Date of Zoning Ordinance Amendment (05TA-002)
Certificate of Appropriateness LC-06CA-004
EXPIRATION DATE OF PERMIT GRANTED
Two (2) Years from Effective Date of Zoning Ordinance Amendment
(05TA-002)
Certificate of Appropriateness LC-06CA-004
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FINDINGS (SMMC 9.36.140)
1. The proposed project at
1.
Proposed four-unit condominium project at
2.
This
approval is for the proposed project at
3.
This
Certificate of Appropriateness shall not be effective until the effective date
of the zoning ordinance amendment implementing Text Amendment 05TA-002. The approval of this permit shall expire if
the rights granted are not exercised within two (2) years from the permit’s
effective date. Exercise of rights shall
mean issuance of a building permit to commence construction. Should the applicant be unable to comply with
this restriction, an extension may be granted pursuant to Section 9.36.250 for
an additional 180 days maximum. The
applicant must request such an extension prior to expiration of this
permit. After that time, the applicant
will be required to return to the Commission for approval. In addition, this Certificate of
Appropriateness shall expire if the authorized work is suspended for a 180-day
period after being commenced.
4.
This
decision may be appealed by properly filing with the Director of Planning and
Community Development a Notice of Appeal on a form furnished by the Planning
and Community Department. Such notice
shall be filed within a ten (10) day time period commencing from the date of
the determination.
5.
All
required Planning and Building Permit approvals shall be obtained.
VOTE:
Ayes: Berley,
Fresco, Genser, Levin, Lehrer,
Nays: None
NOTICE
If this is a final decision not subject to
further appeal under the City of
I hereby certify that this Statement of
Official Action accurately reflects the final determination of the Landmarks
Commission of the City of
_ ____________________
Roger Genser, Chairperson Date
F:\CityPlanning\Share\Landmarks\STOAS\2006\STOA 06CA-004 (954 5th
Street).doc
ATTACHMENT
E
Correspondence
Received Regarding the Proposed Text Amendment
Electronic version of attachment is not
available for review. Document is
available for review at the City Clerk’s Office and the Libraries.