Planning Commission Report

Transcription

1 Planning Commission Report To: From: Planning Commission Planning Commission Meeting: September 19, 2012 Amanda Schachter, City Planning Division Manager Agenda Item: 8-A Subject: Appeal of the Zoning Administrator s Denial of Variance Address: 614 Grant Street Appellant/Applicant: Eva Sobesky, EIS Studio Property Owner: Earnest and Sandra Spath Recommended Action It is recommended that the Planning Commission take the following actions subject to findings contained in Attachment B: 1. Uphold the determination for Variance application 11VAR-025 and deny Appeal 12APP Adopt the Statement of Official Action (STOA). Executive Summary On March 21, 2012, the Zoning Administrator denied the applicant s Variance request to permit a height variance for a railing and new roof deck on an existing single family dwelling because the strict application of the provisions of Chapter 9 would not result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships for the proposed project. On April 3, 2012, the property owner subsequently appealed the Zoning Administrator s denial of the project, and requests that the Planning Commission overturn the Zoning Administrator s decision to allow a roof deck and railing on the front portion of the roof. The site previously obtained a Variance in 2008 (VAR ) to construct a single family dwelling with a deck that encroached into the front yard setback, a garage that encroached into the rear yard setback, and a front portion of the building above the 23 foot height limit. The following issues should be considered by the Planning Commission in its review of the proposed project and is addressed in this report: Would the strict application of the provisions of this Chapter result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships, not including economic difficulties or economic hardships? Whether there are special circumstances or exceptional characteristics applicable to the property involved? 1

2 Whether the strict application of the zoning standards of the Ocean Park Zoning District would result in unreasonable deprivation of the use or enjoyment of the property? Background VAR VAR requested a modification to the development standards of the Ocean Park Low Multiple Family District (OP2), to construct a proposed two-story single family dwelling with an attached two-car garage. The applicant requested the following: a portion of the building to be above the maximum 23 height limit; a portion of the attached two-car garage to extend approximately 10 into the required 15 rear yard setback; a front deck more than 3 above theoretical grade to extend approximately 15 into the front yard setback; front walls/fences in the front yard setback to extend above the 42 maximum height limit; the guardrail above the existing one car garage in the front yard setback to be closer than 3 from the edge of the building; a fireplace to encroach 2 into the required 4 side yard setback; and, a fence/wall to exceed the 8 height limit along the north side yard. The Zoning Administrator approved the variance request on April 29, CBP1127 VAR The City of Santa Monica issued a building permit for the construction of a new, two-story single family dwelling with a two-car garage on January 6, The project was finalized June 29, A height variance of the OP2 district height standards to permit a railing and portion of the roof deck to extend above the district s height limit for a proposed roof deck to be constructed on top of the existing roof. The Zoning Administrator denied the application on March 21, Project / Site Information The following table provides a brief summary of the project location. Additional information regarding the project s compliance with applicable municipal regulations and the General Plan is available in Attachment A. Project and Site Information Table Zoning District: Ocean Park Low Multiple Residential Land Use Element Designation: Low Density Housing Parcel Area (SF): 3,280 Square Feet Parcel Dimensions: 41 x 80 2

3 Existing On-Site Improvements (Year Built): Rent Control Status/Remaining tenants on-site: Single Family Dwelling built in 2010 Exempt, Owner Occupied SFD Adjacent Zoning Districts and Land Uses: Surrounding parcels are multifamily and single family dwellings all located in the OP2 district 614 Grant Street The subject parcel, 614 Grant Street, is a 3,280 square foot lot developed with a twostory single family dwelling. The site is located in a residential district in the western portion of the city, in the City s coastal zone. The subject property is bound by Grant Street to the north and 6 th Court (alley) to the east. The surrounding neighborhood is a mixture of residential developments of various sizes and architectural styles. On the north side of Grant Street there are two one-story single family dwellings that have front yard setbacks of less than 10 feet and are located on relatively flat lots. The remaining properties on the 600 block of Grant Street are multifamily developments that are one or two stories in height. Front yard setbacks range from 10 to 20 feet and many properties provide some type of off-street parking. The properties on the north side of Grant Street are situated on lots that are relatively flat, while the properties on the south side Grant Street, where 614 Grant is located, gently slope upward from the front to the rear of the property. The subject property also shares a property line with parcels that have addresses on 6 th Street. This block of 6 th Street includes a combination of single family and multifamily structures that are two or three stories in height. Parcels slope upward from the front to the rear of the property. Environmental Analysis The project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section in that the project involves a height variance request to allow a roof deck and railing to be built on the roof of an existing single-family dwelling. Project Analysis Project Description The property owner has appealed the Zoning Administrator s denial of a 42 inch railing and roof deck that extend above the building height limit. As proposed, the roof deck would have an area of 719 square feet, of which 285 square feet is the subject of the 3

4 Variance request. The image below indicates the areas of the roof deck and railing that are the subject of the variance request. Railing height limit Railing above height limit Roof Deck (285 sq. ft.) above height limit Building height limit Legend: Red Line = Building Height Limit (23 feet) Blue Rectangle = Proposed roof deck (25 feet) Black Line = Railing Height Limit (26.5 feet) Green Shade = Proposed railing (28.5 feet) Zoning Code Requirements The applicant requests a variance from the following Zoning Code development standards: SMMC Section (a) the maximum building height for properties in the OP2 District shall be two stories, not to exceed twenty-three feet for a flat roof SMMC Section (b)(2) Legally required parapets and guard rails that do not exceed forty-two inches in height. Zoning Administrator Action The Zoning Administrator held a public hearing for this variance request on February 14, On March 21, 2012, the Zoning Administrator denied the application because the strict application of the provisions of this Chapter 9 (Ocean Park 2 height standards) would not result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships, not including economic difficulties or economic hardships. Specifically, there is no practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship associated with the request to exceed the building height limitation in the OP2 Zoning District. The request to build a roof deck and railing above the height limitations is not justified because a considerable amount of open space for the property can be provided by a roof deck that is compliant with the height 4

5 requirements of the District. A code compliant 434 square foot roof deck could be built on the property, a 285 square foot reduction from the proposed 719 square foot roof deck. This 434 square foot roof deck could be provided in addition to other existing outdoor areas, for a total of approximately 1,200 square feet of open space on the property. The 1,200 square feet of outdoor space includes the following: an existing 161 square foot open space in the rear of the property; an existing 351 square foot deck that encroaches over 14 feet into the required front yard setback that was previously approved by Variance 07VAR-016; and an existing master bedroom terrace that is 285 square feet and faces Grant Street. Furthermore, the existing front deck and master bedroom terrace provide over 630 square feet of open space facing Grant Street; these outdoor areas currently provide open space that is oriented in the same direction as the proposed deck that would require approval of this Variance. In comparison, the properties directly across the street at 611 Grant Street and 613 Grant Street are single family dwellings and provide 300 and 850 square feet of open space, respectively, in their rear yard areas without obtaining a Variance. Appeal Summary On April 3, 2012, the appellant filed an appeal of the Zoning Administrator s denial of the Variance. The full text of the appeal is presented in Attachment D. The appellant s statements explaining the reasons for the appeal are based on the three points summarized below: 1) There is significant practical difficulty and hardship because a code compliant 434 square foot roof deck is actually much smaller because: a) it is interrupted by a skylight that protrudes into the deck space thereby splitting the roof deck into two areas rather than one continuous space; b) the requisite railing around the roof deck would create 16 square feet of unusable deck space adjacent to the stairwell enclosure; and c) an additional 34 additional square feet, between the railing and the skylight, would also be unusable. Furthermore, the applicant also states that the proposed roof deck area, subject to the variance, would create private outdoor open space which would not be shaded or have views blocked by the stair tower, if approved. 2) The design of the dwelling would be negatively impacted because if the variance is not approved, the railing of the code compliant roof deck would cut across the middle of the house. This design would create an awkward appearance for the deck and the dwelling. Granting the variance would permit the railing to follow the outline of the house and give the dwelling a complete and well integrated design. 3) The appellant believes that there are compatibility issues related to height, massing, and pedestrian orientation based on the following points: 5

6 a. The lot has severe change in elevation and is sub-standard. b. The master bedroom deck was designed as an indoor/outdoor space and is meant only for the bedroom inhabitants. c. If the building were on completely flat land the height of the building would be 21 feet 9 inches, under the 23 feet height limit, and the railing and deck could be built without requiring a variance. d. The neighboring properties of 611 and 613 Grant Street that respectively provide 300 square feet and 800 square feet of private rear yard space without obtaining a variance should not be considered in the decision for 614 Grant Street. The neighboring properties should not be considered because they do not comply with the 20 foot front yard setback requirement and both properties are on relatively flat lots while the subject property has a front to rear grade differential of 12.9 feet. e. The additional 285 square feet of roof deck area, requested by the variance, would give the family that lives there much needed private outdoor recreation space. f. Roof decks are allowed in the OP2 district without a size limit and one should not be placed on this dwelling. Appeal Analysis The appellant s first point is related to the usable size of the code compliant proposed roof deck. Although the area of the proposed roof deck is 434 square feet, the appellant contends that the area is actually 384 square feet of usable space. Specifically, a 34 square foot portion of the roof deck is separated from the rest of the deck by an existing skylight and a 16 square foot area, between the new stair tower wall and the guardrail, would be unusable if it were built to Code without the variance. On the next page is a diagram that illustrates the proposed roof deck and the area that is the subject of this variance request. Roof deck area that is the subject of the Variance request. 6

7 Additionally, the appellant contends that the skylight creates two disjointed open spaces versus one large open space area. Therefore, the variance should be granted to allow a larger continuous deck. However, staff believes that even though the skylight and stairwell do project into the deck open area, the plans of the proposed roof deck indicate one contiguous area of over 384 square feet is still possible. Furthermore, the appellant contends the additional roof deck area is needed to provide the owner with an open space not impacted by shadows or views blocked by the stair tower. While the view quality of the roof deck is not relevant to the Variance findings, the smaller deck would provide views in all directions. The appellant s second point states the variance should be approved as otherwise the railing would cut across the middle of the roof and create an odd aesthetic, instead of following the outline of the building. Staff does not agree with this point. Pictured below is a photo showing how the house appears as built. Specifically, denial of the appeal would not negatively impact the neighborhood because, due to the grade differential and distance of the proposed railing from the street, a code compliant railing would not be substantially visible from the public right-ofway. If the roof deck is built to Code and the required railing is built around it, the railing would be approximately 44 feet from where the sidewalk curb meets the street. Additionally, the grade differential from the street to the proposed roof deck is approximately 30 feet in height. With the distance from the street and the change in elevation, along with the existing structures and vegetation shown in the photo above, the railing would be negligible to pedestrians or motorists. The appellant s last point of contention relates to six compatibility issues including height, massing, and pedestrian orientation. The following numerical list highlights the six compatibility points, as stated by the appellant, followed by the corresponding staff responses: 7

8 1. The severe change in grade elevation and sub-standard lot size are reasons the site was eligible to apply for a variance and also are reasons for granting an appeal of the Zoning Administrator s denial. In 2008, a variance (Variance ) was approved to authorize the construction of the existing single family dwelling at 614 Grant Street. Among the requests in that application, specifically, a flat roofed portion of the dwelling was allowed to exceed the 23 foot height limit. This approval was based on the site s slope (12.89 foot grade change) and the minimal impact of the minor height projection on adjoining properties. Furthermore, the scale of the house and desired design/layout was approved based on the small lot size (3,280), resulting in limited private open space. Accordingly, the Zoning Administrator balanced the lack of substantial yard space and other private open spaces versus the property owner s desired design. Even with the limited yard space per the design, approximately 800 square feet of private open space was included between a 161 square foot open space in the rear of the property, a 351 square foot deck that encroaches over 14 feet into the required front yard setback, and a 285 master bedroom terrace. Now the new property owner seeks an additional 718 square foot roof deck, 434 square feet which can be built by right. However, a portion of the proposed deck would be built on top of the portion of the house that was authorized to exceed district height limitations through 07VAR-016. Staff believes a further increase above the district height limit is inconsistent with the low scale neighborhood context. Further, denying a portion of the proposed roof deck would not result in any practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships or result in any unreasonable deprivation of the use of the property, since adequate open space is provided and additional roof deck area can be added without the need for a variance. 2. The master bedroom outdoor terrace is for the users of the master bedroom only. While the bedroom terrace is presumably used primarily by the inhabitants of the bedroom, the terrace is still a significant outdoor space. The master bedroom terrace extends out from the bedroom and faces Grant Street, the same orientation of the proposed roof deck. Since this is a single family dwelling all of the open space for the residence is for the use of the residents in any manner of their choosing. Regardless of the placement, location, or access to the open space on the property, the owner has the sole discretion regarding how these spaces are used. Additionally, even if it is not desirable to allow people other than the master bedroom inhabitants to use the master bedroom terrace, an even larger open space can be built on the roof without the need for a variance. Therefore, denial of the proposed variance will not result in any unreasonable deprivation of the use of the property. 3. The appellant states that the building would only be approximately 22 feet in height if it was measured on flat land. 8

9 According to the measurements taken by the applicant, if the base of the existing single family dwelling were measured from the ground floor foundation to the top of the roof, the building would have a height of 21 feet and nine inches and would be compliant with the height standards. Therefore, the railing for the proposed roof deck could be built by right. However, since the project site is sloped, similar to other properties in the vicinity, height must be measured according to the Ordinance the City has in place for lots in that district. This lot has grade differential at 12.9 feet. In Ocean Park the height of the building is measured from theoretical grade. According to the height measurement from theoretical grade, the portion of the building where the roof deck is proposed exceeds 23 feet. While staff understands that the overall height of the built house is relatively low scale as measured physically from top to bottom, the fact remains that house was built on a sloping lot in the Ocean Park district. The purpose of the theoretical grade height calculation methodology, which involves determining the grade from the mid-point of the front property line to the mid-point of the rear property line, is to require structures to be built along the slope. By requiring structures to step down, or follow, the slope, potential massing, height, and privacy concerns can be mitigated. In this case, the house was built as a flat roofed structure and therefore a maximum height of 23 feet is permitted and a variance was granted to allow additional height. Therefore, staff believes that there has been no unreasonable deprivation of the use of the property. 4. The appellant believes that the properties at 611 and 613 Grant Street, specifically, the private open space each property provides, should not be considered when reviewing the compatibility of the project at 614 Grant Street. One reason the Zoning Administrator denied the appellant s request for a variance was based on a review of neighboring properties. Specifically, at 611 and 613 Grant Street, 300 and 800 square feet of private open spaces are provided in the rear yard area of these properties, without obtaining variances. The appellant believes 611 and 613 Grant Street should not be considered when considering this appeal because these properties do not comply with the OP2 district s front yard setback requirement and are relatively flat lots. In reviewing the appeal, staff believes these properties have similar circumstances to 614 Grant Street such as lot size, slope, and street front orientation. Additionally, the lots are also developed with single family dwellings and front yard setbacks vary throughout the neighborhood. Therefore, staff does not believe there are special circumstances or exceptional characteristics applicable to 614 Grant Street. The immediate vicinity has several other parcels along 6 th Street from Grant Street to Pacific Street that have comparable lot parcel sizes, configurations, setbacks, and slopes. 5. The appellant believes this project should be approved because it would provide much needed private open space for the family that lives at 614 Grant Street. Staff appreciates the desire for additional open space but does not believe the requisite findings can be made. The site already has private outdoor spaces in the 9

10 rear yard, front yard, and a terrace that extends from the master bedroom totaling 797 square feet of private open spaces and a 384 square foot roof deck could be built on the roof that complies with current development standards and does not require a variance. 6. Roof decks are allowed in the OP2 district without a size limit and one should not be placed on this dwelling. While there is not a limit on the size of roof decks in the OP2 District, the Zoning Administrator s determination was not about setting a numerical limit on the roof deck, but deciding whether strict application of the OP2 zoning standards would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships to the property in order to authorize the proposed private open space. In any development, setbacks and other site constraints should be accounted for to achieve the right balance of open space and building area. Accordingly, the subject site s existing private open space in the rear yard, the front yard deck, and the area of the roof deck that could be built by right, excluding the master bedroom terrace and limited space areas on the roof deck, would provide 925 square feet of open space. Given the substandard parcel size of 3,280 square feet and the site coverage of 50%, the amount of open space provided is in proportion to these limitations and no finding of practical difficulty of unnecessary hardship can be found. Community Meeting and Public Input At this time there have not been any comments, questions, or correspondence received from the public regarding this application. Alternative Actions: In addition to the recommended action, the Planning Commission could consider the following with respect to the project: A1. Continue the project for specific reasons, consistent with applicable deadlines and with agreement from the applicant A2. Articulate revised findings and/or conditions to Approve OR Deny, with or without prejudice, the subject application Conclusion The property owner has appealed the Zoning Administrator s decision to deny the Variance request to build a railing and roof deck above the OP2 district s building height limit. The Zoning Administrator denied the request based on the finding that strict application of the provisions of this Chapter would not result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships, not including economic difficulties or economic hardships. The appellant argues that not granting the variance would result in practical difficulties such as creating two disjointed areas on the roof deck. Further, the existing building would appear incomplete if the railing was built to the limit permitted by the Code which would have a negative impact on the dwelling and surrounding properties. The proposed roof 10

11 deck would address several compatibility issues, and the proposed deck would provide much needed private open space. Staff believes that the granting the variance cannot be supported. The applicant is able to build a roof deck with a railing by right and the Code permitted deck could provide 434 square feet of additional open space. The compliant deck would not negatively impact the house or neighboring properties, and it would not create any incompatibility issues. Furthermore, the site already has several private open space areas that are comparable or larger in size to those provided on surrounding properties. Based on this information, staff recommends the Planning Commission uphold the decision of the Zoning Administrator and deny the appeal request. Prepared by: Dennis Banks, Associate Planner Bradley J. Misner, AICP, Principal Planner Attachments A. General Plan and Municipal Code Compliance Worksheet B. Draft Statement of Official Action (includes recommended findings and/or conditions to act upon the project) C. Public Notification & Comment Material (includes notification requirements, radius map, published notice, site posting photographs, and correspondence) D. Applicant s Appeal Statement & Zoning Administrator s Determination E. Photographs & Project Plan F:\CityPlanning\Share\PC\STFRT\2012\12APP002(614 Grant).doc 11

12 ATTACHMENT A GENERAL PLAN AND MUNICIPAL CODE COMPLIANCE WORKSHEET Project Location and Permit Processing Time Limits Project Address: 614 Grant Street Application Filing Date: April 3, 2012 CEQA Deadline: N/A PSA Deadline: N/A Total Process Review Time (Days): DAYS: 169 General Plan and Municipal Code Compliance Worksheet CATEGORY LAND USE ELEMENT MUNICIPAL CODE PROJECT Permitted Use Low Density Housing Single family dwelling Railing for a roof deck above height limit for a single family dwelling Dwelling Units N/A Height of Building N/A 23 feet for a flat roof Proposes to build a railing above the 23 feet height limit. Railing and roof deck would be above the 23 foot height limit. Number of Stories N/A Two stories Two stories Height of Walls, Fences Setbacks Frontyard Sideyard Rear Yard Stepbacks OP Primary Window NW Special Stepbacks NW Parallel Plans N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 12 Attachment A General Plan & Municipal Code Compliance Worksheet

13 ATTACHMENT B DRAFT STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL ACTION City of Santa Monica City Planning Division PLANNING COMMISSION STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL ACTION PROJECT INFORMATION CASE NUMBER: Appeal of Variance LOCATION: 614 Grant Street APPLICANT/APPELLANT: Eva Sobesky EIS Studio PROPERTY OWNER: CASE PLANNER: REQUEST: CEQA STATUS: Earnest and Sandra Spath Dennis Banks, Associate Planner The appellant requests an appeal of the denial decision made by the Zoning Administrator for Variance The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA, pursuant to Class 1 Section for existing facilities. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION September 19, 2012 x Determination Date Approved based on the following findings and subject to the conditions below. Denied. Other: EFFECTIVE DATES OF ACTIONS IF NOT APPEALED: EXPIRATION DATE OF ANY PERMITS GRANTED: N/A N/A 13 Attachment C Public Notification Information

14 LENGTH OF ANY POSSIBLE EXTENSION OF EXPIRATION DATES*: N/A * Any request for an extension of the expiration date must be received in the City Planning Division prior to expiration of this permit. Each and all of the findings and determinations are based on the competent and substantial evidence, both oral and written, contained in the entire record relating to the Project. All summaries of information contained herein or in the findings are based on the substantial evidence in the record. The absence of any particular fact from any such summary is not an indication that a particular finding is not based in part on that fact. FINDINGS: VARIANCE FINDINGS 1. There are not special circumstances or exceptional characteristics applicable to the property involved, including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, or to the intended use or development of the property that do not apply to other properties in the vicinity under an identical zoning classification in that several properties in the nearby vicinity are of a similar size, shape, surroundings, orientation, and slope. Specifically, the parcels located generally in the vicinity of Grant Street and Pacific Street, along 6 th Street are comparable. There are thirteen (13) parcels that are less than 6,000 square feet and directly adjacent to the subject property. Further, there are seven (7) parcels of 4,000 square feet or less. Additionally, the parcels located at 611 and 613 Grant Street have the same street orientation as 614 Grant Street and are of comparable size. Furthermore, the vicinity is a mix of single family and multi-family uses and the intended use of 614 Grant Street is also residential. Therefore there is not a special circumstance concerning the intended use of the subject lot in that there are many properties in the vicinity with private open spaces in a variety of configurations. 2. The strict application of the provisions of this Chapter would not result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships, not including economic difficulties or economic hardships. Specifically, there is no practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship associated with the request to exceed the building height limitation in the OP2 Zoning District in conjunction with the request to build a roof deck, because a considerable amount of open space for the property, by constructing a deck that is consistent with the height requirements of the District, can be provided. A 434 square foot roof deck that is compliant with the 23 height requirement could be built on the property; this represents a 285 square foot reduction from the 719 square foot roof deck proposed with the Variance. This 434 square foot roof deck would be provided in addition to other existing outdoor areas for a total of approximately 1,200 square feet of open space on the property. The 1,200 square feet of outdoor space includes the following: an existing 161 square foot open space in the rear of the 14 Attachment C Draft Statement of Official Action

15 property; an existing 351 square foot deck that encroaches over 14 feet into the required front yard setback that was previously approved by Variance 07VAR-016; and an existing master bedroom terrace that is 285 square feet and faces Grant Street. Furthermore, the existing front deck and master bedroom terrace provide over 630 square feet of open space facing Grant Street; these outdoor areas currently provide open space that is oriented in the same direction as the proposed deck that would require approval of this Variance. In comparison, the properties directly across the street at 611 Grant Street and 613 Grant Street are single family dwellings like the subject property. These comparable properties provide over 300 and 850 square feet of open space, respectively, in their rear yard areas and achieved this without obtaining a Variance. 3. The strict application of the provisions of this Chapter would not result in unreasonable deprivation of the use or enjoyment of the property in that denying the variance request for a portion of a proposed roof deck does not entirely restrict the use of the roof as a roof deck area. A code compliant roof deck of 434 square feet can be constructed without the need for a variance. Furthermore, an additional 797 square feet of private open space exists and can be used in any manner at the property owner s discretion. VOTE Ayes: Nays: Abstain: Absent: NOTICE If this is a final decision not subject to further appeal under the City of Santa Monica Comprehensive Land Use and Zoning Ordinance, the time within which judicial review of this decision must be sought is governed by Code of Civil Procedure Section , which provision has been adopted by the City pursuant to Municipal Code Section I hereby certify that this Statement of Official Action accurately reflects the final determination of the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Monica. Gerda Newbold, Chairperson Date 15 Attachment C Draft Statement of Official Action

16 ATTACHMENT C PUBLIC NOTIFICATION INFORMATION Pursuant to Municipal Code Section and in accordance with the posting requirements set forth by the Zoning Administrator, prior to application filing the applicant posted a sign on the property regarding the subject application. At least 8 weeks prior to the public hearing date, the applicant submitted a photograph to verify the site posting and to demonstrate that the sign provides the following information: Project case number, brief project description, name and telephone number of applicant, site address, date, time and location of public hearing, and the City Planning Division phone number. It is the applicant's responsibility to update the hearing date if it is changed after posting. In addition, pursuant to Municipal Code Section , notice of the public hearing was mailed to all owners and residential and commercial tenants of property located within a (300 foot or 500 foot) radius of the project and published in the Santa Monica Daily Press at least ten consecutive calendar days prior to the hearing. On September 29, 2012, the applicant/appellant was notified by phone and in writing of the subject hearing date. The applicant provided the following information regarding attempts to contact area property owners, residents, and recognized neighborhood associations: Ocean Park Association Adjacent Neighbors Community Meetings Other: NOTE: The Commission stated at their October/November 2010 hearing that will not hear a project on Consent if the applicant has not contacted the neighborhood group. 16 Attachment C Draft Statement of Official Action

17 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE SANTA MONICA PLANNING COMMISSION SUBJECT: Appeal of Variance Grant Street APPLICANT: Eva Sobesky EIS Studio PROPERTY OWNER: Earnest and Sandra Spath A public hearing will be held by the Planning Commission to consider the following request: The appellant requests an appeal of the Zoning Administrator s decision to deny a proposed roof deck and associated railing to extend above the building height limitations of the Ocean Park (OP2) Zoning District. DATE/TIME: LOCATION: WEDNESDAY, September 19, 2012 AT 7:00 PM 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 Planning Commission public hearing, or by writing a letter. Written information will be given to the Planning Commission at the meeting. Address your letters to: Dennis Banks, Associate Planner Re: 12APP002 City Planning Division 1685 Main Street, Room 212 Santa Monica, CA MORE INFORMATION If you want more information about this project or wish to review the project file, please contact Dennis Banks at (310) , or by at dennis.banks@smgov.net. The Zoning Ordinance is available at the Planning Counter during business hours and on the City s web site at The meeting facility is wheelchair accessible. For disability-related accommodations, please contact (310) or (310) TTY at least 72 hours in advance. Every attempt will made to provide the requested accommodation. 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. 17 Attachment C Draft Statement of Official Action

18 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) APPROVED AS TO FORM: Amanda Schachter Planning Manager 18 Attachment C Draft Statement of Official Action

19 ATTACHMENT D APPLICANT S APPEAL STATEMENT & ZONING ADMINISTRATOR S DETERMINATION 614 GRANT STREET 19 Attachment C Draft Statement of Official Action

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28