SR-8-B (91)
1
,. r
P&~:f:\plan\share\council\strpt\mista3cc Santa Monica, Califarnia
City Council Mtg. Novem3~~r 14, 199~ ~~~ Z~~~
T0: Mayor ard City Counc~l
FROM: City S~aff
SUBJECT: Recommendation to Amend Article TX of the Santa Monica
Municipal ^ade to Accomplish Varie~.y of Minor Amendments
to E~cist~ng Star.dards, Including Standards for Px'ojec~s
Spanning Lot Lines, LMSD St¢pback Requzrements;
Affordable Housing Height Po~icies, Antenna Regulations,
Housing Production Incentives; Service Station Standards,
and Variance Regulations
INTRODUCTION
Pzoposed is an amendmen~ of Article IX of the Santa Mqnica
Municipal Codz to modify a variety of existing Zaning Ordinance
standards. The purpose of tre amendment is to Clarify requirements
~or projects spanning lat lines; achieve greater consistency among
Zoning Ordinance standards for bu~lding s~ep backs by making Light
Manufacturir_g and ~tudio ~istrict ~LMSD) requirem~nts identical to
those af other non-res~dentia~ districts; ~o make height policies
for Affordable Housing Pro~ects consistent in the mult~-famiiy
d~stricts, to make a mknor clarify~ng amendment to antenna
regulat~ons; to summarize existzng incentives far the production of
affordable hous~ng, ~o address access issues for remode~s af
existing serv3ce stations; and to amend ~x~sting variance
provzsions.
The Plann~.ng Carnmissa.o~ conducted pub~ic hearings and unanimously
approved the proposed amendments
1
V ~~~
BACKGROUND
On an ongoing basls, staf~ ~denti~ies inconsistencies or unclear
parts of the Zoning Ord~nance, or the need to create new code
provisions, Amendments are proposed as needed to address these
issues. EaCh of ~he revisions proposed in this package of cade
amendments is d~scussed below.
o SECtion 9 04.05.010(g) woula be arnended to better address
the situation of a buildzng crossing parce7. ~znes. The existing
section assumes that such sites wil1. be under common awnership.
While this is usuaZly the case, there are instances where this will
not bP true. As lon~ as a covenant or other instrument ~s recorded
treating the site as one development, the underlying ownership
should not be a City concern.
o S~ction 9 04.08.35.050(gi regarding buiiding stepback
requiremen~.s in the LMSD would be amended to s~mply reference the
existing g~neral code section setting stepback requiremen.ts in non-
rESidential zones rather than listing the stepback standards in the
LMSD regu~at~ons
o S2ction 9.04.08 55.060 would be amended to clarify that
Affordable Hous~ng Projects in the NW over~ay d~s~ric~ are governed
by height in feet but not number af stories. Identical revisions
would be made to the BR overlay d~strict {~~ct~on 9.04.08.65.050?
and the R2B district ;Section 9 04.~J8.52.060} These provisions
2
are the same as exist in th~ other mult~-farnily residential
district~ (R2, R3, R4, the OP distr~cts, e~c.)
o Section 9.04 10 06.].~0 (a) (4) would be amended to clarafy
~.he heiqht ~~mit for tower antennas by znserting ~he word
"freestanding " The addition of this word makes zt clear tha~ Chas
de~in~tlon applies to this type of antenna
o Section 9.04.12.13D wou~d be amended ~o changE the
Performance Standards for servzce stations. The zev~sions would
d~stinguish between remodeis to existing stations versus new
statzc~s, and would allow ex~sting stations that are remodelled to
retain existing non-conforming driveways. Due to the parcel size
and physical layout of ~any existing serv~.ce stations, thA
requiremen~. that ~here b~ only one driveway per street is sometimes
unwcrkabJ.e. In the pas~ year, two service station chains have not
g~ne forward witl~ station upgrades due to th:'.s pravision. As
proposed, whi~e existing stations could retain exis~ing d~'iv~ways,
new stations wauld have tQ limit driveways to one per s~reet. A
similar amendment would be made to the CUP standards for service
statians (5ection 9.04.7.4 ~40) .
o Seetion 9.04.~4.044 would be amended to ref~~c~ existing
Stat~ density bonus provisions ~n ~.he Zanzng Ord~.nance, and to
reference other existing provisions of the Zoning Ord~nance which
act as incer~tives far the product~on of affordable housing. The
3
arnenarnen~s wauld not alter existzng substa~~ive provisaons relating
to tnis issue
o Sec~ion 9 04 20.10.D3Q would be amended to specify ~hat
dr~veway requirements may be sub~ect to var~ances to provide
great~r flexibility to address unique situations in thas area_ In
add~t~on, the s~ction wou~d be amended to address rep~~cement Qt
ex~sting residentxal buildings on signi~icant~y upslaping lots in
OP distrzcts. The third amendment to this section would address
addi~ion o~ a story to exis~~ng buildings which would not be
otherwise permitted due ta the height of the existing ~xrst floor
above grade.
BUDGET~FINAN~iAL IMPACT
The recommenda~ians of this report would have no budget/financial
impact.
RECOMMENDATION
Staf~ recommends that the City Cauncil introduce the attached
ordinance for first read~ng.
Prepar~d by: Suzanne Frick, PCD Director
D. Kenyon Webster, Planning Manager
Attaehments• A Ordinance far In~~oduc~ion and First Reading
B. S~rikeout/~a1d vers~an of Amendmen~s
4
ATTAC~ENT A