SR-5-A (4)
~
S"'''P~__'N'
~D .s--4-
U1A[) Q 1f)OQ
'-I tJ? -(Jog'
MAR 1 5 1~88
C/ED:PB:ljw
council Meeting: March 8, 1988
Santa Monica, California
TO:
Mayor and city Council
FROM:
City staff
SUBJECT: Appeal of Development Rev
Santa Monica Boulevard
tit 369, EIA 839, 2336
INTRODUCTION
This report recommends that the City Council deny the appeal and
uphold the Planning Commission's approval of a three story,
27,637 square foot medical office building.
The City Council
continued it's February 23, 1988 hearing in order for City staff
to respond to questions regarding required setbacks.
BACKGROUND
The Planning staff and city Attorney's office have reviewed the
rear yard setback question as directed by the City Council. This
item was before the City Council on appeal by owners of
neighboring properties, having raised issues of compatibility,
setback and height and bulk considerations.
Upon review of the Ordinance language relating to rear yard
setbacks and past interpretations of that language, it became
clear that a case such as this is not specifically addressed and
that there is room for divergent interpretations.
Since the
subject parcel is separated by a public alley from the
appellants' R-2 property, it is unclear whether or not the
Ordinance would require
a setback.
The planning staff
i~
o 1 (HH~
-
l
1
_J
S"~""I"'.Nr
- 1 -
~I ..J-4
MAR ' 5 1983_
interpretation, and the Planning Commission acting on that
interpretation, has not required a setback given the 20'
separation created by a public alley.
The planning staff has
viewed the alley as a separation between properties such that one
parcel does not ab.
alley. An exa'~~IE:
:l property on the opposite side of the
s interpretation and past decision is
the Parkside Medical :"'.l..fice building on the east side of 24th
street which was reviewed and built under the same circumstances.
,
i
occasions, which is subject to review and change by the City
Council.
~
1
.
This has been an interpretive decision, made on several
'"
Another issue raised at the city council hearing related to
stepping back the building.
Policy 3.2.2 of the General Plan
suggests such a transition when office or other commercial
buildings abut residential uses. The policy suggests the use of
an alley or screen wall to achieve the transition.
since the
subject parcels are separated by a 20' alley, the planning staff
and Planning commission felt the needed transition was already
accomplished.
A final question was raised regarding adequate turning radius in
to the garage entrance from the alley.
General Services
Department staff would like to see an additional two foot setback
from 24th Street to the garage entry along the alley. This has
been discussed with the applicant's representative and is
acceptable to him.
- 2 -
i
-1
. _ f <,._.. _ _ ..f
-... -;S"'Joo .,C"..-],.__-~
RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully recommended that the current staff setback
inte~retation be allowed to stand. with regard to the
Ut,. ^
. ion" called for in Policy 3.2.2,
Planning staff
re
~ that the Planning Commission approval be sustained
(i.e. cnat the alley provides adequate separation). However, a
two foot setback should be required from 24th street to the
garage entry on the alley (Santa Monica Place).
Wi th regard to Councilmember Herb Katz's question regarding a
setback for landscape purposes, the Council has the authority to
require such a setback if it aeems appropriate.
Prepared by: Paul V. Berlant, Director of Planning
Planning Division
Community and Economic Development Department
PVB:ljw
PC/infdr369
2/29/88
- 3 -
{
'I
~
1
I
~
..>~",~~~j