SR-050995-8D8D
P&Z:DKW:f:\plan\share\pc\strpt\mista2cb Santa Monica, California
City Council Meeting: May 9, X995
TD • Mayor and City Council MAY 0 9 ~~5
FROM City Staff
SUBJECT Proposed Amendments to Article IX of the Santa Monica
Municipal Code to Accomplish Minor Clarification to the
C4, C6, Ml, Accessory Building Standards, Landscaping
Standards, and Parking Standards; Eliminate Various Site
Review Development Standards and a Duplicate Standard for
OP Roof Decks, Create Standards Relating to Development
Spanning Zoning Districts; Create Standards and Use
Allowances for Automobile Washing Facilities, and
Restrict Operating Hours of Certain Auto-related Uses
INTRODUCTION
The attached amendments would revise Article IX of the Santa Monica
Municipal Code to accomplish minor clarifications to the C4, C6,
Ml, Accessory Building Standards, Landscaping Standards, and
Parking Standards; eliminate various Site Review Development
Standards and a duplicate Standard for OP Roof decks, create
Standards relating to development spanning Zoning Districts; create
Standards and Use allowances for Automobile Washing Facilities; and
restrict operating hours of certain auto-related uses The
Planning Commission approved these revisions on November 2, 1994.
BACKGROUND
In working with the Zoning Ordinance since its adoption in 1988,
staff has identified a number of amendments which are needed to
enhance clarity, achieve consistency among different requirements,
update policies, and correct simple typographical errors. The
o~? -~~
,~ .
proposed amendments attached to this report would accomplish these
ob;ectives Each revision ~s described below.
o C4 District The list of conditionally-permitted uses
for this district would be modified in two respects: first, to
revise the threshold far when an expansior_ of an existing auto
dealership requires a CUP, and second, to add Automobile Washing
Facilities as a conditionally-permitted use. The threshold
revision is necessary to achieve consistency with a recent text
amendment approved by the City Council whrch allows expansions of
ex?st~ng dealerships of 1D% or less, or 5DD0 sq ft. or less to be
approved via a Performance Standards Permit (PSP? Thus, if the
CUP code section is nat revised, it is not clear how an expansion
of between 10% and 25o should be addressed. The amendment would
resolve this inconsistency
The second revision would simply add Automobile Washing Facilities
(carwashes) as a conditionally-permitted use This is consistent
with an existing interim ordinance.
o C6 District The existing C6 regulations indicate that
expansion of existing automobile dealerships of more than SOo
requires a CrJP. However, the Cs regulations do not address how an
expansion of less than 5C°s should be addressed. The text amendment
would require a PSP for this type of revision.
o M1 District. The revisions to this section would add
Automobile Washing Facilities and Live Theaters as conditionally-
permitted uses.
o One-Story Accessory Buildings. The change to subsection
(b) would address an existing code inconsistency for accessory
structures Presently, subsection (a) of these standards states
that accessory buildings shall not extend into required sideyards,
however subsection (b) indicates that such nuildings must be at
least 5 feet frcrn any lct line These two standards may be in
conflict, for example on substandard lots with required sideyard
setbacks of less than 5 feet, or for lots which have required
setbacks greater than 5 feet. To clarify these requirements,
subsection ib) would be mad~fied to indicate that such buildings
must be at least 5 feet from the rear property line. Side yard
setbacks would have to be maintained per subsection (a).
The second substantive change to this section is to separate
exwst3ng language regarding outdoor showers from the section
pertaining to accessory living quarters. Such showers are
permitted if there is a spa or swimming pool an the property As
currently organized, the code would imply that an outdoor shower is
only permitted on sites with accessory living quarters that also
have a pcol or spa The Planning Commission determined that the
outdoor shower allowance should apply to any parcel, given that
Santa Monica is a beach commun~.ty, and that many properties have
pools or spas.
o Accessory Buildings Over One-Story or 14 Feet. A
provision for outdoor showers would be added to this section.
o Site Review Development Standards. This section was
inserted in the Zoning Ordinance when it was adopted in 198$, and
reserved the poss~.bil~ty that the greater FARs and heights cited in
the section might someday be instituted. The adopted Zoning
Ordinance had lower heights and FARs, and in years since 1988,
further reductions have generally occurred Thus, this section is
unnecessary and inconsistent with other provisions of the Zoning
Ordnance and is recommended for deletion
o Roof Decks in the OP Districts. There are two
conflicting sections in the Zoning Ordinance regarding roof deck
setbacks in the OP d=stricts. One was adopted in 1989 when the OP
regulations were created, and requires that roof deck handrails be
setback from the s~deyard a r^lr?imum cf 8 feet The other standard
was adopted in 1990 as Hart of a cleanup of the OP regulations, and
requires that the roof deck handrail be setback three feet from the
edge of the building at the side and rear yards. This is a more
workable standard to protect the privacy of neighbors. As part of
the previous cleanup, the older standard should have been deleted,
but was not. The proposed amendment would delete the older
provision
4
o Development Spanning Zoning Districts A new sect1an
would be created to address project which cross zoning districts
The amendment would provide that the setbacks between districts
which would otherwise be required would not have to be provided in
such situations
o Landscape Screening and Buffering Consistent with
recent amendments concerning fence heights which allow side and
rear-yard walls and fences of up to 8 feet in height, the maxir-tum
fence height in this section of the code would be increased to 8
feet Another amendment would be to require ore tree for every 5
linear feet, instead of every 10 linear feet, to acha.eve
consistency with the requirement in the same section of the code
fcr screening trees be planted not less than 5 feet apart.
a Paring. A typographical error would be corrected in the
standard fcr small mar'~ets: a previous text a~rendment dropped one
of tre zeros making what was intended to be the number 5000 to be
500 square feet The second change to the parking standards would
clarify that the existing standard far convalescent homes would
also apply to community care facilities, rest homes, and
residential facilities
o PSP Standards for Automobile Dealerships. This amendment
would provide that auto dealer operating hours for dealerships
with~n 100 feet of a residential district would be between lam and
lOpm, unless otherwise approved by the Planning Commission
o CUP Standards for Service Stations This amendment would
provide that any mini-mart component of service stations within 100
feet of a residential district could only operate between lam and
10pm, unless otherwise approved by the Planning Commission.
o CUP Standards for Auto Repair Facilities. This amendment
would provide that auto repair activity could not occur between Spm
and lam, unless the repair facility was more than 100 feet from a
residential district.
o CUP Standards for Autarnobile Dealerships. This revision
would delete reference to the C5 and C5 districts, so that these
standards would apply to auto deaie-rs in any zone where such use
requires a CUP.
o r~u~omobile Washing Facilities. Anew set of development
standards would be created far carwashes in this set of amendments.
These standards are modelled an existing regulations for other
auto-related uses such as car dealers and service stations.
BUDGBT/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The proposed amendments would have no budget/financial impact.
6
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council approve on first reading the
attached ard~nance wyth the findings that:
1 The proposed amendment is consistent in principle with the
goals, objectives, policies, land uses and programs specified in
the adopted General Plan in that the amendment would correct
typographical. errors in the existing Ordinance, would resolve
existing conflicts and _nconsistencies between overlapping
sections, and would create needed new standards for some uses
2. The pablic health, safety, and general welfare require the
adoption of the proposed amendment ~.n that the amendment would
correct typographical errors in the existing Ordinance, would
resolve existing conflicts and inconsistencies between overlapping
sections, and would create neeczed new standards fo_ some uses.
Prepared by: Suzanne Frick, PCD Director
D. Kenyon Webster, Punning Manager
Attachments: Proposed Ordinance
v7
7