Loading...
SR-9-C (11)~r ~ LUTM:SF:DKW:DB:~:\plan\share\council\strpt\ta92Ql1a Counci~ Mtg: March 8,1994 Santa Monica, Ca~ifqrnia TO. Mayor and City Cauncil FROM: City Staff SUBJECT: Recommendatian to Deny a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Recommended by the Planning Commissian to Modify the Standards Related to Accessory Garage Buildings INTRODUCTION This report recommends ~hat the City Council deny a Zaning Ordinance Text Amendment recommended by the ~lanning Commissian which would reduce ~he height of separatE garage structures fram fourte~n feet in height to ten £eet for a flat roaf and fourteen feet for a pitched raof provided the pitch comm~nced a~ ten feet and has not less than a 1:3 pi~ch. This requirement would only apply if the garage was constructed within the required sideyard setback. The existing code permits a rr-aximum of fourteen feet far garage accessory structures and allows these structures ~o extend to one side property line provided the structure is located within the rear 35 feet of a parcel. BACKGROUND Currently, Sectian 9.04.10.02.7.00 permits the garage portion of accessory buildings to extend to one side property line by right, provided the garage is located ~n the rear 35 fe~t af the parcel. This provision has been in effect since 1948, when the Zaning - 1 - Ordinance was amended pursuant to Ordinance 148 (CCS). Priar ta 1948, the Zoning Qrdin~nce was silent on the issue of side yard setbacks far garage accessory buildings. On October 21, ~992, the Planning Comm~ssion directed staff ta draft a text amendment which would require an Ad~ustment for al~ garage accessory structures which are constructed within the sid~ yard s~tback area. On May 5, 1993, the matter wen~ b~fore th~ Planning Commission with a recomrnendatian of denial by staf~. At that tame, the Planning Commission agreed with staff that an Adjustment should nat be xequired However~ the Ccmmission was concerned with the mass and hezght of fourteen foot high garage accessory structures cons~ructed at the side property ~ine, Therefore, the Commission recommended a new, more restrictive standard for garage accessory struc~ures which would eetablish a ten foo~ maximum height at the praperty line for flat roof garages and ~ourteen feet in height far pitched roofs provided the pi~ch s~arted at ten feet and was no less than a 1:3 pitCh. A garage could extend to fourteen feet in height without restrictions if it maintained ~he same siaeyard setback as th~ rnain dwelling. Specifically, the amendment recommendea by the Planning Commission would require madif~cation of Section 9.04.~0.02 100fb) of the Zoning Ordinance, "one-story accessory building (14 feet maxirnum heigh~) " Th~ propased modification would result in the following addition ta the existing standard - 2 - (bold indicates new te~t?: (b) An accessory building 14 feet in haight may be located in a required rear yard, but shall be at least 5 feet from any lot line. A garage or garage portian of an accessory building may ex~end up to one interior side property l~ne an the rear 35 feet af a lot provided no portion of the garage accessory structure exceeds ten feet in height for a flat roof and fourteen feet in height for a pitched roaf provided the pitch coma~ences at ten feet and is not less than a 1:3 pitch. A garage or garage portlon of an accessory buzZding rzzay extend to ~he r~ar px'operty line abutt~ng an alley provided access is not taken frorn the al~.ey The Planning Commission felt that requiring additional height restrictions for garage accessory structures would address a cancern that garage accessary structures at or~e side propezty line may have an adverse impac~ an the residents of the adjacent property. This concern however was not a result of a camplaint. F2ather, it resulted from a public hearing on another mat~.er during which staff informed the Pl.anning Commissi~on that ~.he 2aning Ordinance permits garage accESSOry structures tfl extend to one side property line. At tha~. tirne, a Commissioner expressed concern that the existing code was too permissive and a motian was rnade for staff to revise the 2anzng Ordinarzce. At the May 5, 1993 Planning Commission public hearing on this ~ssue, the Commission indicated that it is appropriate for garage acces~ory buildings ~o extend to ane side property line witha~n the rear thirty-five feet of a].ot provzded the height of the structure is lowered. The Commission was concerned that a 14- foot h~gh garage aecessory structure on the property line was too - 3 - tal~ and mass~ve. Theretore~ the Commiss~an recommended that the height be reduced if the building was within five feet of the side property line. Far 45 years, garage accessory buildings have b~en perrnitted to encroach to one side property line in Santa Manica, leading to the construction of hundreds (if not thousands) of such structures primarily in the R~ (Single Family Residential) D~stricts of the City. Throughout th~s period, staff knows of no instance where a resident has complained regarding the canstruction of a garage accessory build~ng a~ the side property line by his ar her neighbor (except for an occasional property line dispute), nor where the impact of this type of canstruct~an was considered great enaugh to generate discussion by sta~f or the City Council to amend this part of the Zoning Ordinance. The opportunity to change this standard was provided in 1988 as part of ~he Zoning Ordinance update. As part of that process, th~ height af accessory buildings was reduced to fourteen feet. Prio~ ta 1988, one story accessory buildings were allowed Qn the side property Zines, however no he~ght lz~it was estabZ~shed for one story structures. Staff does no~ believe that significant negative impacts result from the construction of garage accessory structures at the side yard within the rear 35 ~eet of a parcel. In the R3 District, the required rearyard setback for the main struc~ure is 25 feet, so the rea~ 35 feet of the parcel is genera~ly not accupied by - 4 - any habitable raoms other than accessory buildings. {In order to maximize back yard open space, most accessory garages are con- structed within the rear 25 fee~ of parcels.} Furthermare, a sideyard setback is generally is intended to provide light, air and privacy ~or the residential structure. The Planning Commisszon recommendation would require a five foot sideyard setback should a accessary structure extend ~o fourteen f~e~ ~n height. The sideyard setback is typically under-ut~lized when it ~s provided next to a garage, as a garage cannot be used for ~iving purposes, and thErefore the setback would not serve its intended purpose. In many instances the space be~ween the garage and the property line wauld b~ unusable, whereas, by eliminating that space, usable rear yard space can be increased. General Plan Conformance The proposed Text Amendment is consistent with the General Plan, which is silen~ on the issue of accessory buildi~gs. Sp~cifical- ly, it is consistent with Ob~ective 1.~0 to "expand the oppor- tuni~y for residential land use while protecting the scale and character of existing neighborhoods " ConClusian The proposed Text Amendment stepback requirements ~ar a p~rmitted for ~5 years. fourteen foot high garag constructed on side property would create additional height and type of development which has been During that 45 year period, some e accessory buildings have been lines. This proposed Text Amendment - 5 - was generated not by a specific problem, but by a general concern on ~he part of the Plann~ng Commission. If any Section af the Zoning Ordinance has been test~d ~hrough experience, it is the Section relating to garage accessory buildings. Statf believes it is unnecessary to amend this section to reduce ~he height of garage accessory buildings. Th~refore, staft recomrnends that the City Counci~ deny the proposed Text Amendment. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION Because this prapasal ~s no~ site-specific, no radius map, sig- nage or mailing notificatian is required. A legal notice was published in the Outlaok and staff has notified the Neighborhood Support Center of the proposed text amendment. A capy of the legal notice is contained in Attachment A. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT The recommendatinn presented in this report does not have any budget or fiscal impact. RECOMMENDATION It is respectfully recQmmended that the Cauncil deny Text Amendment 92-~11 based on ~he fallowing finding: 1. The public health, safety, and general welfare do not re- quire the adop~ion of the proposed amendment, in that the amendmen~ would result in unnecessarily restrictive development standards far the constructian of garage accessory bui~dings which encroach to one side praperty line within the xear 35 feet of a parcel, and that the Sectian propased for amendment has existed for a long period of time without problems arising which warrant a - 6 - Text Amendment. Prepared by: Suzanne Frick, Acting Director D. Kenyon Webster, Planning Manager Drummond Buckley, Associate Planner Planning & Zon~ng Division Land Use and Transportation Management Department Attachments: A. Notice of Public Hearing B. Planning Commission Staff Report (Withaut Attachments) C. May 5, 1993 Minutes of Planning Commissian for TA 92-Oll D. Ordin~nce 148 {1948) Amending Zoning Ordinance ta Permit Garage Accessory Buzldings to Encraach to One Side Yard Set- back Line DB f:\p~an\share\counci~\strp~\ta92011a - 7 - AT~'ACHMEII~' A OFFICIAL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING To: Concerned Persans ~Yom: The City of Santa Monica Subject of Hearing: Text Amendment 92-Oll A Pubhc Hearing will be held by the City Council on the followmg request Text Amendrnent to mod~fy SMMC Sect~on 9 04 10 Q2 100(b}, which currendy permits the ~arage portian of an accessory structure to go to one s~de property l~ne with a maxim~un height of 14' permitted The proposed Text Amendment would establish a maxunum burlding envelope far the partton of the structure withm the s~deyard setback required for the maFn structure The rnaximum build~ng envelope would be 10' at the property line and would extend toward the intenor of the propert}T at a m~unum 1 3 prtch No port~an of the garage accessory structure would be permitted to extend into the maxunum building enveiope (Pianner D Buckley} TIME TUESDAY, MARCH S, 1994 AT 6 3fl P M LOCATI4N COUNCIL CHAMBER, ROOM 213, CITY HALL 1685 MAIN STREET, SANTA MOIVICA HQW TQ COMMENT The C~ty of Santa Moruca encourages public comment on this and other pro~ects You or your representative, or any other persons may camment at ~he City Counczl's public hearmg, or by writing a letter Letters should be addressed to MaRE INFORMATI~N City Council, Ciry Clerk's Office 16$5 Main Street, Room 102 Santa Monica, Califorma 90401 Attent~on D Buckley If desired, further infflrmation on any apphcation may be obtained from thE City Plann~ng Di~ision at the address above or by calling (310) 458-8341 The meeting facilrty is handicapped accessible If you have any special needs such as sign language mterpret~ng, please contact the Office of the Disabled at (310}45$-8701 - 1 - Pursuant tfl California Gavernment Code Section 65409(b}, if this matter is subsequently challenged m Court, the challen~e may be limited to only those issues raised at the Public Hearing described m this notice, or in wr~tten correspondence deli~ered to the City af Santa Momca at, or prior to, the Public Hearrrig Esto es un aviso sobre una audencia publica para revisar applicaciones propomendo desarral~o en Santa Moruca. Esta puedo ser de zn[eres a usted Si deseas mas infarmacion, favor de llamar a Elsa Gonzalez en la Division de Plantificacion al numera (310) 458-8341 f,lplanlsharelcouncillnaticesltal lccpn APPROVED AS TO FORM D KENYON WEBSTER Flanrung Manager - 2 - A T~'14 C~-IME~T B r'~ ~~ ~li ~~~f P&Z:DKW:DB:TA92011 Santa Monica, California Planning Con~missivn Mtg: May 5~ 3.993 To: The Honorable Planning Commissian FROM: Plann~ng Staff SUBJECT: Text Amendment 92-021 Address: Citywide INTRODUCTION Action: Propased Text Amendaaent to require an Ad~ustrnent for garage accessory buildings which extend ta one side property ~ine withi.n the rear 35' of a parcel. Recommendation: Denial. Permit Stream~i.ning E~cpiratian Date: None. SITE IACATI~N AND DESCRIPTTON The praposed Text Azaendment would affect properties in all Zoning Districta in the City where accessory garages are permitted, Zoning District; Al1 Districts Land Use District: AI1 Districts PROJECT DESCRIPTION The propased Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment would involve the modification of S1~IC Secticn 9.44.14.02.10a(bj and 9.04.20.030 in order ta require an Ad~ustment for garage accessory buildings which extend to one side property line in the rear 35' of a par- cel. Currently, Section 9.04.10.02.100 permits the garage por- t~on of accessory buildings ta extend to one side property Iine by right, provfded the garage is lacated in the rear 35 ~ af the parcel. MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE The proposed Text Ainendment is cansistent with the General Flan. CEQA STATUS The proposed Text Amendment is categorically exempt from the pro-- visians af the Calffornfa EnviranmentaZ qua3ity Act pursuant ~o Class 5(1Q) of the City af Santa Manica Guidel~nes for the Im- plementation of CEQA. - 1 - FEES The proposai is not su}~ject to any developmant fees. PUBLIC NOTIFICATIDN Because this proposal is not site-specific, no rad~us map, sig- nage ar mailing notification is required. A l~gal notice was published ~n the Dutlook and staff has notified the Neighborhood Support Center of the proposed text amendment. A copy vf the ~egal notice is contained in Attachment A. ANALYSIS Hackground On Qctober 21, 1992, the Planning Commissicn considered Text Amendment 92-008 to allow garage accessory buildings ta extend to the rear property buildings if an Adjustment is obtained. At that tima, a member of the Planning Commission expressed ~oncern about an existing proaision of the Zoning Ordinance which allows garage accessory buildings to extend to one si.de property line by right, and the Commiss~.on directed staff ta draft a tiext amend- ment which would alsa require an Adjustment for all garage acces- sary structures which are constructed within the side yard set- back area. Currently, Section 9.04.~.0.02.iaa permits the garage portion of accessory buildings to extend to ona side property line by right, provided the garage is located in the rear 35' of the parcel. This provisian has bean in effect since 1948, when the Zoning 4rdinance was amended pursuant to 4rd~nance 148 (CCS). Prior to ~94$r the Zoning Ordinance was siient on the issue of s~de yard s~tbacks for garage accessory buildings. Proposed Amendment The proposed Text Amendmerit would require modffioation of two Sections af the Zoning Ordinance. Section 9.04.~0.02.100(by, under the heading "ane-story accessory building {14 feet maximum height)," wauld contain the following addition under subsectf.on (b} as follaws (bald indicates new text): (b) The accessory buildinq may be Zocated in a required rear yard, but shall be at least 5 feet Prom any lot line, A garage or garage partion of an accessory building may extend up to one interior side property line on the rear 35 feet of a Zot if an Adjust~aeat is qranted by the Sor~inq ~idministrator or the Planninq Commission oa appeal. A gazage or garage portion af an accessory building may ex- tend ta to the rear property line abutting an alley pro- vided access is not taken from the alley. In order to establish that Ad~ustments are possible for this kind of development, Section 9.04.20.34.030 would be modified with the following addition: - 2 - i ',~ : ~...+ tq) A~lo~r the qa~raqe portion of an accsssory buildinq to extend to ans side prop~rty line xithin the rear 35 feet af a parcel. Planning Commission Concerns By requiring an Ad~ustment rather than allowinq it by right, the propased Text Amendment wou~.d address a concern that garaga ac- cessory strtictures at one side property line may have an ad~erse impact on the residents of the adjacent property. The Adjustment procedure requ~.res City notification of ail property awners and residents within 100~ of the subject parcel within 14 days of deeming the appl~cation aomplete. Within 14 days of this notice, a public hearing may be requested before the Zoning Administra- tor. If no pub~ic hearing is r~quested, the proposal may be ap- praved by the Zani.ng Admini~trator administratively. The Zaning Administrator's decision is appealable to the Planning Commissian. Effects nf Taxt Amendment Staff beifeves that the praposed Text Amendment wou3.d cause an unnecessary burden on property owners intendirng ta construct garage accessary buildings in the City, Far 45 years, garaqe aceessory buildings have been permitted to encroach to one side property iine in Santa Monica, leading to the construction of hundreds (if not tho~sands} of such struatures primarily in the R1 (Single Family Residentia2} D~strfcts af the City. Throughout this period, staff knows of no instance where a resident has cam- plained regarding the construction of a garaqe accessory building at the side property line by his or her neiqhbar (except for an occasional property Iine disputej, nor where the impact of this type af aonstructian was considered great anouqh to generate d}.s- cussion by staff or the City Counci~. to amend this part o~ the Zaning ~rd~nance. If the proposed Text Aatendment were adopted, it would result in a considerab~e increase ~n the amoucct of time f.t takes far a grap- erty owner in the R1 District ta eonstruct a garage with one side located within the setback required for the side yard for the main stxvcture. Currently, in order to construct a garage which encraaches to one side property line, the property owner must pay a plar~ check fee (which var~es depending on the vaZt~at~on of the praject) and submit the plans to the Buildinq and Safety Divisian for plax~ check, at which time the plans are routed to the Plan- ning ahd Zoning Divisxon for raview. This process generally takes 3--4 weeks. If an Ad~u.stment were required, the applicant would current~y be required to pay a$250 fee for an Adjustment applfcation. Under State law, staff has 3f3 days to deem this type of app~ication complete and b month~ to make a determination. If it were ap- ~roved adm~nistrati~ely, it would gen~ralZy be comp~eted in ap- proximateiy 2 months. If a publfc hearing were requested, that period wauld probably be increased to abaut 3 manths. zf an ap- peal to the Planning Commission ~ere filed, the procesa may take - 3 - f ^~, t !~ { 4 ta 6 months. If the Adjustment were qrmnted, the applicant wo~ld still be required to file for plan check with Huilding and Safety, adding those costs and an additional 3-4 weeks to the process. Staff does not believe that significant negative impacts result from the construction of a garage accessory structure at the side yard within the rear 35 feet of a parcel. Yn the Rl District, the required rearyard setback for the main etructure is 25 feet, so the rear 35 feet vf the parceY is gen~rally not occupied by any habitable rooms other than accessory buildi.ngs. (In order to maximize back yard open space, most accessory garages are con- structed within the rear 25' of parcel.s.} Furthermore, the 4-6 foot setback genera].Iy required for the main structure is intend- ed to provide light, air and privacy for the residential struc- ture. The setback is underutilized when it is prov~ded next to a garage, as a garage cannot be used for living purposes, and therefore the setback would not serve fts intended purpose. In many instances the space between the garage and the property line would be unusab~e, whereas, by eliminating that space, usabie rear yard space can be increased. ~'he height af a garage accessary buiZding may not exc~ed 14 feet. Rather than causing a nuisance to the ad~acent neighbor, staff believes that the construction of a garage at the property line may actually enhance the properties by providing a privacy bu€fer at the xearmast portion af the parcel. At a staff level, the proposed Text Amendment would create a sig- nificant a~nount af additionaZ wark at a time when the number of Assistant and Associate P~anners in Planning and Zoning has been reduced to four from a total of six two years aqo. Genera~ P~an Cor~formance The proposed Text Amendment is consistent with the General Plan, which is silent on the issue of accessQry buildings. Specifical- ly, it is consistent with Objective 1.10 to "expand the oppor- tunity for residential land use while protecting the scale and charact~r af existing ne~.ghborhoads" in that the proposal would requa.re a more extensive review process in the interest of pro- tecting the character of existing neighborhaods. Conc~usi.an The proposed Taxt Amend~nent wauld create a discretianary approval for a type cf development which has been specificaZly permitted by right for 45 years. Durinq that 45 ]~ear per~od, hundreds (if nat thousands) of garage accessflry buildings have been censtruct- ed which abut one side property 2ine. This propased Te3ct A~aend- m~nt was generated not by a specific problem, but by a general cancern on the part of the Planning Commiss~on. If any Section of the Zoninq Ordinance has been tested through experience, it is the Section relating to garage accessory buildings. Staff believes it would be unnecessari~y }aurdensame on applicants to amend this sectian to require additional layers af public review. - 4 - Therefore, staf~ recommends that the Planning Commission recom- mand that the City Cauncil deny the praposed Text Amendment. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the P~anning Commission deny the propased Text Aiaendment based on the fallowing finding: FINDING 1. The public health, safety, and general welfare do nat re- quire the adoptian of the proposed amendment, in that the amendment would require an unnecessary increase ~n the review process for the construction af garage accessory buildings wh~ch encroach to one side property ~ine within the rear 35' of a parc~l, and that the Section proposed fvr amendment has existed for a long ger~od af time with- out problems arising which warrant a Text Amendment. Prepared by: Dru~n~mond Buckley, Associate Planner Attachments: A. Notice of Public Hearing B. Ordinance 148 (1948) Amending Zoning Ordinanc~ ta Permit Garage Accessory Buildings to Encroach to ~ne Side Yard Set- back Line DB:db PC/ta92011 04/27/93 - 5 - AT~AC.~E~1T~ C ~, ~ ~1n~r ~r 5~ ~ I~~- 3 n~ ~~v ~ 7~5 Q~ ~~ G ti option for either building signage or a monument sign. Commissioners Pyne and Parl~e agreed to include the recommendation regarding signage. Cammissioner Parlee commended the applicant on his presentation. He also axpressed cancern regarding the utilitarian nature of the building and suggested modifications to the raof-line and encouraged the addition of a landscaped trellis in the waiting area. Chair Mechur asked if tha.s recommendation was acceptable to the maker of the motion. Commissioner Pyne agreed to the inclusion af the recommendati.on. Chair Mechur asked about trees for the landscape plan. The applicant stated that the Police Department had expressed concern that trees would obscure visibility at the site. Chair Mechur recommended trees be included at the rear af the site. The pro~ect was approved by the following vote: AYES: Mechur, 0'Connor, Parlee, Polhemus, Pyne; ABSENT: Gilpin, MoraZes. E. Text Amendment 92-Oilr Citywicle~ Text Aruendment to modify SNII~IC Section 9.04.10.02.100(b~, which currently permits the garage portian of accessory structures to go to one side yard praperty line. The proposed Text Amendment would require an Ad~ustment ta allow the garage portion of accessory buildings to go to on~ side praperty line. (Planner: Buckley} Commissioner Polhemus expressed her cancern regarding the issue cf the Text Amendment. Commissioner Parlee commented on recent prolalems and revisions to the code. He expressed concern that two-thirds af the residences north af Montana Avenue have the condition cited in the Text Amendment and that this Text Amendment affects all properties. He also cammQnted that height is a separate issue, which can be addressed by requiring certain raof slants. H~ nated that everyone wants more usable yard space, not an unused four foot sideyard that will collect debris. Chair Mechur stated he has mixed fee~ings on this Text Amendment because there is no large abuse. He commentad on an Adjustn~ent process to a31ow the neighbors to voice their apinian on specific sites. He also noted that sideyard space betwaen buildings often becomes a~'junk storage" space. He expressed support for the staff report. Commissioner Pyne expressed agreement with the prior speakers. - 10 - Commissioner Polhemus asked about pursuing the height issue instead. Commissioner Parlee stated that if fourteen feet at the peak of a pitched raof is allowed, the height for a flat roof wou~d be reduc~d. Chair Meahur stated the most old garages have pitched roofs. Chais Mechur asked if this Text Amendment should return to the Commission. Staff suggested an alternative of changing tha definition section of the code. Chair Mechur asked about assuring variable heights. Staff stated recommended standards fflr heights for accessory buildings can return to the Co~unissian for cansideration. Chair Mechur asked if the Commission could direct staff to change the warding in the Text Amendment before us . Staff stated this could be done ~f the Commission is certain about the wording. Coxnmissioner Parlee suggested the following: a flat roof, to the parapet, no taller than ten feet, or a pitched roof commencing at ten feet with a pitch no less than one and three, to an ultimate height of fourteen feet . Commissioner Polhemus made a motion to incorporate Commissianer Parlea's wording as a revision to the Text Amendment. Chair Mechur seconded the motion. Mr. Berlant asked if the Commissian was solving a problem that does nat exist or creating a new prablem, Commissioner Parlee commented that a flat roof garage does not need a faurteen foot height, so there may not be a pr~blem. Chair Mechur agre~d, but understood Mr. Berlant's caution. CommiSSianer Pyne feZt there was not a probl~m and the Commission should not create one. He stated he cauld not support the Text Amendment. He also commented that less rules are needed and the Ca?ti!?!!1SSlOT! shauld wait for any problems to occur before they act. It was agreed to vote on two motion. The first motion is ta upho].d the s~aff report. Cammissianer Pyne seconded the motion. The motion to uphold the f report failed by the following vats: AYES: Mechur, 0'Connar, Parlee Pyne; NOES: Polhemus: ABSENT: Gilpin, Morales - 11 - The second motion is the revised Text Axnendment wording proposed by Commissioner Farlee. Commissioner Polhemus seconded the motion. Commissioner Pyne ask~d i.P the motion was setting a standards for accessory garages. Chair Mechur stated that the motion expands the existing standards for accessary building roofs. Deputy City Attorney Strabel asked if the motion to require the height standard only applies to structures built on a side property Zine. Comma.ssioner Parlee $tated that was coxrECt. The motion was approved by the following vote: AYES: Mechur, O'Connor, Par~ee, Polhemus; ABSTAIN: Pyne: ABSENT: Gilpin, Morales. F. Conditional Use Permit 92-fl49r 814 Broadway, C4, Applicant: Tina Bowden for K~ngstan 12 Club/Maco Restaurantr ~ipplication for a Conditional Use Permit for an alcohol license change fram a Type 42 public premises beer and wine to a Type 47 general public premise in con~unction with an existing live entertainment/dance club and a 38 seat restaurant. ~Planner: G. Szilak) CONTINUED T~ MAY 19, 1993. G. Specific Plan Amendment 92-001~ Zane Change 92-002~ north side of Broadway between 20th and 23rd Streets~ C4, Applicant: Saint John's Hospital and Health Centerr Application for a Specific Plan Amendment and Zone Chanqe to modify the Hospital Area Specific Plan and Offic~a~ Districting Map for parcels loaated on the north side cf Broadway between 20th Street and 23rd Street fro~u a C4 {H~.ghway CozAZUercial ) District designation to a CP-3 (Commercial Professional) District designation. {Planner: Buckiey) CONTINIIED TO MAY 19, 1993. H. T~xt Antendments to S~cti~n 9.04.02.030 0€ the Santa Monica Municipal Coder Consideration of a Text Amendment to Section 9.04.02.030r Definitionsr of the Santa Monica Municipal Code, The praposed text amendment will add new definitions~ delete definitions and modify existinq definitiflns of the Zoning Ordinance. (P~anner: L. Hise) CONTINIIED TO JiTNE 2, 1993. 9. OLD BUSINESS: None. ~0. N£W BUSINESS: None. 1~. COMMUNICATIONS: A. F~anning Cammission Caselist B. Zoning Administrator Caselist C. C~mulative Projects L~st - 12 - AT~'ACHMENT D ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ J -,. ~ .~... _ _ + SE~.`i'IQI+I 91flTC2. Front Yard Scor~es ~n neignc, side yard shaIl be --A front yard ha~i:~g a depth o[ eaC ~n ~idth f~r not less• than that specified on „ , ~~ories sha~t be the "Dlstrfctinq Map ' . ~~~ON 9109t - pru~-idcd and maintatn~~ ' -'A resr yard ot 1 :SEt; rfflN 9107C3. Side YardS I " " ~e~t shall be prov R2 ~,Samr as requircd ln the i h th 16 DL taincd. wer str en e cr except w SEC'TION 9109C story is used entlraly for accessory purpoxs the gnrages may tn. tween Bufldings-~ ~ in ~~ `~~" L a~oach to either sidr !ot llne p~a- vided that no pactlon of any dwell- ~~~~ • ms unit or units over auth ga- sEGTION 971~. rares sha13 extend within th~ re- ~OBILE PARKi' qulr~d 4. ioot :ide _yerd-~ection EGULATIONS. 9106C3. ~`~ •~`~: ~.. .,, ~•: rcgulat~ons ap~lY ~ ON 910TC4. . Rear~ ~Yard mobi~e Parking D --A r~ar yard of nat ]ess than 15 A lot cla~s#lled fect shall be provided and main- trict shall also be' ~ 'a~neci. ;., , , " • • ~ ~istrlct. •• "~ ~~~~~l~ ~~c~l+~ ~j~~t ~ ~ ~c ~ G~ G~~ ~~ ~.- , ~~~ ~~ t~'~ ~~C~~