Loading...
SR-400-002-01 (25) . . 8-E APR 2 4 i990 California MAY 1 1990,. l-jtro- 00:) - 0 I C/ED:PB:DKW:LM pc/ccta9001 Council Mtg: April 24, 1990 Santa Monica, TO: Mayor and city Council FROM: city Staff SUBJECT: Ordinance for Introduction and First Reading Regarding Modification of section 9041. 6 (b) of zoning Ordinance Regarding Landscape Area for Building Sites in the Main Street commercial District. INTRODUCTION This report recommends that the City Council introduce for first reading an ordinance modifying the landscape setback requirement for buildings in the Main street commercial district. This matter was considered by the planning commission on February 28, 1990, as part of a ~_~xed-us~. de~opme~ proposed for the northwest corner of Bay and Main streets. The development proposal and the Text Amendment were recommended for approval by a vote of 5-1. BACKGROUND On January 17, 1989, Rossetti and Associates filed an application to develop a four story mixed-use project on the northwest corner of Bay and Main Streets. The project, as approved, consists of 20 residential units, 6,400 square feet of ground floor retail space fronting on Main and Bay streets, and 35,855 square feet of office space. ~"'E - 1 - M~R 12 4,cMU At the time the application was submitted, the proposal did not conform to the landscaping requirements imposed under SMMC 9023.6(b), which required a five foot minimum, ten foot average landscaped setback area from all property lines. The proposal was processed based on the fact that a request to amend the landscaping requirements contained in the zoning ordinance was being processed. In pUblic hearings at which the proposed amendment was discussed, staff, the Planning Commission, and some members of the City Council agreed that the existing code section requiring the five foot minimum, ten foot average setback in all commercial zones needed to be modified. Further, there appeared to be general consensus that this requirement, inserted late in the adoption process of the new zoning Ordinance, should recognize that there were a number of zoning districts, including the CM, CP, RVC, and C5, which already had special setback requirements, and that the five foot minimum, ten foot average requirement was duplicative. The CM district, which is the subject of the amendment before the Council, has had special front yard setback requirements since the creation of the district through a citizen committee process in 1980. These special setback requirements were overlaid by the adoption of the new zoning ordinance in 1988, which created a new ci ty-wide setback requirement for all commercial zones without addressing zones which already had setback requirements. On October 10, 1989, the City-wide text amendment was brought before the City Council. Planning staff had increased the scope - 2 - of the text amendment from the original request to eliminate the landscaping requirements from only the C3C District to include the C5, CP, CC and CM Districts. Staff also proposed the modification of landscaping requirements in the C3, C4, C6 and BCD Districts. The Council showed general support for the text amendment, but at least one member felt that the same standards proposed for the C3, C4, C6 and BCD Districts might also be appropriate in the C2 and C3C District. The text amendment was subsequently referred back to the Planning Commission for further study. The Council did not indicate any concerns with elimination of the landscaping requirements from the CM District. Upon referral to the Planning Commission, the Commission decided to form a subcommittee with ARB members to develop recommendations on the general issue of commercial setbacks, and the issue is still pending at this time. On February 28, 1990, the Rossetti mixed-use project was brought before the Planning Commission. Because the modifications proposed under the City-wide text amendment had not been adopted, Rossetti and Associates were faced with the need to either redesign their project or file their own version of the text amendment in order to continue processing the project. Rossetti and Associates chose to file a zoning text amendment which sought to eliminate the landscaping requirement from the CM District only. This was consistent with the original recommendations of the Planning Commission and staff to the Council on the City-wide amendment. The mixed-use project, which included a text - 3 - amendment dealing only with the CM zone, was subsequently approved by the Planning commission. ANALYSIS The previous zoning ordinance permitted buildings in most commer- cial districts to be built to the property line adj acent to public rights-of-way. This allowance was in conformance with the Land Use Element Policies listed below: "Require that a majority of ground floor street frontage on a block by block basis be active pedestrian-oriented uses (shop-fronts, cultural activities, cafes, and other uses catering to walk-in traffic) in order to promote pedestrian activity at the ground floor." "Maintain the urban image of certain areas by reinforcing a continuous street facade by means of a requirement that some portion of the front facade of a building be built to the front property line. In other areas, enhance a garden-like image with landscaped setbacks". "Control ground floor design to require a majority of street frontage in certain areas to feature "pedestrian- oriented" design qualities". The new zoning ordinance, adopted in September, 1988, specifical- ly requires that in all commercial districts, all new construc- tion provide a landscaped area averaging at least 10 feet, but at no point less than 5 feet, adjacent to and visible from all public street rights-of-ways. This requirement would appear to - 4 - contradict the spirit of the Land Use Element Policies stated above. The requirement may also work against the creation of an active, pedestrian-oriented streets cape by requiring that store- fronts be set back from the sidewalk. In addition, the require- ment did not recognize that the development standards of several commercial districts already had special setback requirements. Rossetti and Associates filed the subject text amendment applica- tion in response to design constraints the ordinance imposed on a specific project the applicant is proposing at 1920 Main street and 135-147 Bay street in the CM District, and as a result of the City's inability to reach a timely outcome regarding the general text amendment. In its previous review of the City-wide text amendment, the City Council did not voice any concerns regarding the elimination of the landscaping requirement from the CM Dis- trict. In further support of the subj ect text amendment, the elimination of the landscaping requirement imposed under SMMC section 9041. 6 (b) should not have a significant impact on the Main Street District in that there are a setback standards cur- rently in effect. One effect, however, in eliminating the landscape setback re- quirement from the CM district, and from other the zoning dis- trict as previously proposed, would be as it pertains to corner and through lots. The CM zoning standards do not require a side yard setback, or a side yard setback along the street side yards of corner lots. A rear yard setback is only required if a parcel abuts a residential district. The landscape requirement imposed under SMMC 9041.6 requires a landscape setback adjacent to and - 5 - visible from any public right-of-way. Based on the text amend- ment as proposed, the building would be allowed to be built to the property line along Bay street and Neilson Way, while provid- ing the minimum front yard setback as required for the CM-4 zoning district (3 percent of the site area multiplied by the number of stories of the structure). Under the zoning code as it exists, a landscape area averaging 10 feet, but at no point less than 5 feet would have to be maintained adjacent to both Bay and Main streets, and Neilson Way. Staff will work with the Planning Commission subcommittee regarding this issue. The Planning Commission and Planning staff recommend that 904l.6(b) be amended to eliminate the landscape requirement from the CM zoning district. CEQA STATUS The proposed CM zone amendment is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Santa Monica Guidelines for Implementation. Class 5(12). BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT The recommendation presented in this report does not have any budget or fiscal impact. RECOMMENDATION It is respectfully recommended that the City Council introduce for first reading the ordinance set forth in Attachment A with the following findings: - 6 - 1. The proposed amendment is consistent in principal with the goals, objectives, policies, land uses and programs specified in the adopted General Plan in that the Land Use Element of the General Plan encourages that certain areas of the city shall maintain an urban image by reinforcing a continuous street facade by means of a requirement that some portion of the front facade of a building be built to the front property line. Furthermore, the Main street District has a separate set of setback requirements that are intended to reduce the bulk and mass of buildings while promoting an active pedestrian oriented streetscape. 2. The public health, safety, and general welfare require the adoption of the proposed amendment in that the implementation of the existing ordinance results in the construction of projects which may not adequately address the intent and objectives of the Land Use Element of the General Plan. Prepared by: Paul Berlant, Director of Planning D. Kenyon Webster, Principal Planner Larry Miner, Associate Planner city Planning Division Community and Economic Development Department PB:DKW:LM PC/CCTA9001 04/18/90 Attachment A. B. C. Proposed Ordinance Planning Commission staff Report (2/21/90) Correspondence - 7 -