Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/31/94AGENDA SPECI L MEETING HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, May 31, 1994, - Council Chambers, City Hall 7:00pm MAYOR Sam Y. Edgerton MAYOR PRO TEM Robert Benz COUNCIL MEMBERS John Bowler Julie Oakes J. R. Reviczky CITY CLERK Elaine Doerfling CITY TREASURER John M. Workman CITY MANAGER Stephen R. Burrell CITY ATTORNEY Charles S. Vose All council meetings are open to the public. PLEASE ATTEND. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: ROLL CALL: JOINT WORKSHOP MEETING BETWEEN THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION. TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION: 1. Small lot zoning standards (Continued from meeting of 3/29/94) 2. Permitted location of open parking on residential lots. (Continued from meeting of 3/29/94) 3. Other items CITIZEN COMMENTS Citizens wishing to address the Council on items within the Council's jurisdiction may do so at this time. Please limit comments to three minutes. ADJOURNMENT to a Special Joint Workshop Meeting of the City Council / Hermosa Beach School District / Parks, Recreation & Community Resources Advisory Commission on Thursday, June 2, 1994 at 7:00p.m. NOTE: This meeting will be televised live onMultiYision Cable Channel March 10, 1994 Honorable Chairman and Members of the Regular Meeting Hermosa Beach Planning Commission March 15, 1994 SUBJECT: SPECIAL STUDY 94-1 PURPOSE: TO STUDY THE ISSUE OF WHERE PARKING MAY BE LOCATED ON RESIDENTIAL LOTS INITIATED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION Recommendations Direct staff as deemed appropriate. Background At the meeting of January 18, 1994, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution of intent to study the issue of the location of parking stalls on residential lots. Concern about this arose because of the hypothetical situation of public right-of-ways being vacated. Could the property then be used for parking?. Analysis As previously discussed, the zoning code only addresses this issue in terms of where parking is not allowed. Section 1157(d) is the only section that addresses this issue directly, stating that parking "within the front twenty (20) feet shall be allowed only when paved and leading to the garage." Otherwise, though it is not specifically permitted, the code -implies that just about anywhere else on a lot is allowed for parking (see the attached 10/25/93 memorandum). It should also be noted that ground level open space required in the R-1 zone cannot be used for parking. - The concern -about this is due to the visual impact associated with cars parked in the open --in side yards or rear yards. Cars parked in garages or in subterranean levels do not present any concerns. Further, the location of garages are subject to zoning standards that apply to buildings or accessory structures. As such, this issue should be limited to the question of where open parking should be allowed. The advantage of permitting open parking anywhere on the site is that it gives designers maximum flexibility and several options on how to design a site layout, and provides for the maximum amount of parking. The most common use of open parking, other than guest parking behind garages, has been the use of side yard areas adjacent to garages, also for guest parking. 1 In short, any attempts to reduce the areas where cars can park shall be carefully considered. If the interest is only in clarification staff would suggest the following modified Section 1157(d). "Open parking is permitted anywhere on a lot, except -in the front twenty (20) feet, where it is only allowed when paved and leading to a garage." For discussion purposes, the following are some additional options available to the Commission: 1. Modify Section 1157(d) to extend the front yard prohibition of parking to a greater depth--i.e. 30 feet, or 40 feet, or a percentage of lot depth. 2. Allow open parking only in a specific portion of the rear portion of the lot--i.e. the rear 20 feet, or rear 40 feet. 3. Allow open parking only in a percentage portion of the rear of the lot--i.e. the rear 50%, 40% or 30% 4. Limit open parking in the front half or 2/3 of the lot to one open parking space 5. Apply these limitations or variations thereof only to exterior lots (i.e. corner lots). 6. Establish a maximum square footage or percentage of a lot that can be used for open parking--i.e. 400 square feet, or 20%) CONCUR: 441 ac/ar 4.t/e Michael Schubach Planning Director Attachments 1. P.C. Reso of Intent/Minutes 2. Memorandum 10/25/93 3. P.C. Minutes 11/3/93 p/pcsrref Associate Planner 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION P.C. 94-5 A RESOLUTION OF INTENT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, TO INITIATE A STUDY AND POSSIBLE TEXT AMENDMENT IN REGARDS TO LOCATION OF PARKING SPACES ON RESIDENTIAL LOTS. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public meeting on January 18, 1994, to consider initiating a study and text amendment on this matter and made the following findings; A. The zoning ordinance is not clear in regards to where parking, whether in a garage or open, is permitted on residential lots; NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, directs staff to conduct the study for the purpose of setting standards for location of parking on residential.. lots. VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms.Di Monda,Marks,Suard,Chmn.Merl None None None CERTIFICATION I hereby certify the foregoing Resolution P.C. 94=5 is a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, at their regular meeting of January 18, 1994. �� �� ' I /77 Rod Merl, Chairman Z---/ 94 Date c:\win\persint Michael Schubach, Secretary C r. Schubach stated Staff recommended approval as modified by the City Council. Comm. Di Mon str- sed the request for parking requirement revision was originated by the Planning Commission r. Schub: ch stated the City Attorney's opinion stated it was all right to modify the Negative De ration to state, ' itigated Negative Declaration". Chmn. Merl op ' ed the Hearing at 7:31 p.m. No one wished to speak relating to thi . tern, and Chmn. Merl closed the He: 'ng at 7:31 p.m. Comm. Di Monda recalle the Planning Commission had recommended e in -lieu fee be deleted and a monthly fee be instituted. r. Schubach discussed the actions and ..ssible studies being taken. Comm. Di Monda commented h . was a proponent of in -lieu fee of ation, supported by the Planning Commission, and questioned the fa that fees are not being de ed in dollar amount. Mr. Schubach detailed the recommendations/action o e Downtown Enha ' ement Commission pertaining to in -lieu fees, its application to "old" and "new" bui ings and incl .. ing the action cost/price of parking spaces on an annual basis and language for clarifica on. stated all proposals must be approved by the Coastal Commission. Comm. Di Monda note. • . definition had been included for a "smaller lot", noting the Commission's intention had bee o r- • uce the parking requirements to 65% in the downtown zone, which would be defined by e Downto n Enhancement Commission, and to further reduce the parking requirements of builgs with a 1 to 1 r. 'o, with the lot size of 10,000 sq.ft. or less. Mr. Schubach stated this policy w a general plan change, allowing modification of the zoning ordinance; the purpose being for arification. Comm. Suard determined f ther study would be conducted to determinwho would actually pay the in -lieu fee. MOTION by C . Di Monda, Seconded by Comm. Suard, to APPROVE It SS 93-2. AYES: Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Suard, Chmn. Merl NOES- None AB NT: None STAIN: None STAFF ITEMS: 10.a. A resolution of intent to initiate a study and possible text amendment in regards to location of parking spaces on residential lots. Mr. Schubach stated Staff felt a statement should be in the zoning ordinance regarding where specifically open parking can be located on a lot. Comm. Marks felt a statement of where open parking is not allowed would be sufficient. Mr. Schubach's preference was to state what is Page 4 PC Minutes 1-18-94 C 10.b. permitted, as done in the past. Comm. Suard discussed with Mr. Schubach enforcement capability and the advantages of Option 1 versus Option 2. MOTION by Comm. Suard, Seconded by Chmn. Merl, to APPROVE Staff's recommendation, Option #1. AYES: Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Suard, Chmn. Merl NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None orandum regarding newsracks issue. Mr. Sch . bach discussed the difficulty of enforcement, including the problem of fr= - dom of speech in gement. If the Commission desired, Staff could bring back ordinance amendment. ' - explained the difficulty in finding the rack owners and enforc- ent problems. Comm. Di Mon.. questioned the protection of the First Amendment .: it applied to the newsracks. Churn. i erl felt advise from the City Attorney was neces:. ry, noting this issue arose due to safety iss -s. Comm. Di Monda detailed the provis'.ns of Redondo Beach's ordinance. After discussio of intent and safety issues, the Comm'.sion agreed an enforcement provision to allow removal o s onpermitted racks should be ' luded and requested review of other cities' similar ordinances. The Commission que oned what potentially could be legislated. The consensus of the Commission was to ' EQ ST Staff to pursue initiation/modification of the ordinance incorporating the Commis '..n's concerns and bring back a proposal to the Commission. No objection, so ordered Chmn. Merl invited public comment. Howard Longacre stated the video not have defusers, interior lights w require a lot of light and video almost worthless. He hope _ 10.c Memorand 17' gara meeti cture quality for all meetings as very bad, noting lighting did e not replaced when they no longer ctioned, older video cameras cture quality was almost at zero. He statehe audio on "replays" was these problems would be passed on to the City 4 anager and corrected. to the City Council, from the Planning Commission re:. rding imposing setback on nonconforming remodels (continued from Dec• is ber 7, 1993 �ir. Schubach stated this memorandum had been requested by the Commission and . - ailed the background issues. Comm. Di Monda requested the section of Land Use Element to Page 5 PC Minutes 1-18-94 r CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Chairman and Members of the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission FROM: Ken Robertson, Associate Plann SUBJECT: Location of Parking Spaces on Residential Lots DATE: October 25, 1993 Recommendation Choose from the following alternatives: 1. Adopt the attached resolution of intent to initiate a study and possible text amendment. 2. Direct staff to prepare a policy statement Analysis Recently a question of interpretation regarding the permitted location of parking on residential lots has been brought to the attention of the Planning Department. While section 1157, Off -Street Parking, addresses the issue of location of parking, only sub -section (d) directly relates where parking is permitted/prohibited on residential lots. That section states that parking "within the front twenty (20) feet shall be allowed only when paved and leading to a garage." Other sections which indirectly address this issue are as follows: Section_ 1157(a) states that "all parking spaces shall be located on the same lot or building site as the use for which such spaces are provided..." and goes on to state situations where off-site parking is sometimes acceptable for commercial uses. Section 1157(c) sets forth setback requirement for parking stalls and garages (thus implying that parking beyond those setbacks is acceptable). - Section 1157(e) sets forth standards to allow detached garages in rear yards to be located on side or rear lot line when certain circumstances are met. Section 1158. Off -Street Parking, size of spaces, while not directly_ stating where parking is permitted on a residential lot, sets forth size requirements, and provides for an 1 1 accompanying graphic handout on design standards. These requirements certainly imply that several locations on a residential lot are permitted for parking. Otherwise the code is silent on the question of where parking is permitted on a residential lot. Does this mean parking should be allowed anywhere else on the lot other than where its prohibited by 1157(d)? In the past allowing parking anywhere on the lot other than the front yard has not been a problem since most parking is typically provided in garages. Otherwise parking has been provided subterranean, limited to one or two spaces placed outside, or located in the rear portion of a lot. In other words, when addressing parking, developers have used good parking layouts. However, this question has recently arose because of the hypothetical situation that might arise if public right-of-ways are vacated and thus become private property (for example the extra right-of-way widths along the walk streets west of Beach drive); could the property then be used for parking? The intent of the parking section of the zoning ordinance is not to allow rows of highly visible tandem parked vehicles. This factor must be clarified. Planning Director i C 11. RESOLUTION OF INTENT REGARDING THE LOCATION OF PARKING ON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES. Staff Recommended Action: To adopt the resolution of intent. Chmn. Di Monda questioned the wisdom of hearing this item during this meeting, since the City was currently involved in litigation. Mr. Schubach stated this item was a result of. Staff's telephone conversations with residents questioning if cars could be parked upon their properties. In Staff's opinion, the ordinance did not intend to allow parking in non -designated areas. Mr. Schubach thought l = the ordinance should be clarified. Comm. Merl expressed concern that this item be heard without the �( specific knowledge of the City Attorney. Responding to Comm. Suard's question, Mr. Schubach stated he had not received a response pertaining to the issue of confidentiality, but he suspected the answer was, "No". Comm. Suard stated this was a continuing source of frustration to the Commission, which was being forced to "spin its wheels" when some communication could prevent that. Chmn. Di Monda opened the Hearing at 8:09 p.m. No one wished to speak relating to this item, and Chmn. Di Monda closed the Hearing at 8:09 p.m. MOTION by Comm. Merl, Seconded by Comm. Marks, to RECEIVE AND FILE this Resolution of intent regarding the location of parking on residential properties, with direction to Staff that this item be brought back for hearing at an unspecified future date. AYES: Comms. Marks, Merl, Oakes, Suard, Chmn. Di Monda NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Page g P.C. Minutes 11-3-93 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Ken Robertson, Associate Planne SUBJECT: Special Study of Zoning Requirements Regarding Small Lots DATE: March 14, 1994 Recommendation Provide the Planning Commission with input regarding modifying zoning standards to allow expanded floor area on small lots. Background The Planning Commission is seeking support and further input in its efforts to change residential zoning requirements for small lots. As the Council may recall this study was initiated by the Council to look at open space requirements only, and subsequently expanded in scope by the Commission. The Planning Commission and staff have been examining zoning standards for small lots to determine what changes, if any, might improve opportunities for building larger homes. The Commission has considered several possibilities: reducing open space; reduc- ing setbacks; eliminating the 17 -foot parking setback; and/or increasing, allowable building heights. Further, the Commission investigated the possibility of "zero lot line" developments as a way of using land more efficiently. The study has focused on changing requirements on R-1 lots of 2100 square feet or less (most of which are located between 30th Street and Longfellow in the Shakespeare tract). While these lots are already given exceptions to open space requirements, the Commission believes further changes are needed. After a thorough review and discussion of several options the Commission plans to pursue the following specific changes to the zoning code: 1. Allow mezzanine levels above the second floor in the rear half or center of the lot (the R-1 zone otherwise limits dwellings to two stories and a maximum of 25 feet in height). 2. Allow the front yard setback area to count towards ground level open space requirements. 3. Allow specific size second or third level decks to count as a higher percentage of open space requirements. 4. Make open space requirements proportional to lot size (i.e. 10-15% of lot area rather than 400 square feet). NOTE: (1) through (3) would be applicable to certain size lots (i.e. on lots 2100 square feet or less) while (4) would apply to all R-1 lots. The Commission requested bringing these proposals to your atten- tion to find out if there are any objections. Further, the Com- mission is seeking any further input or suggestions from the Council. Selective staff reports and minutes are attached as background information. %4NCU Michael Schubach, Planning Director Steph:3" R. Burrell City Manager Attachments p/memo3 8. SS 92-2 -- SPECIAL STUDY OF ZONING REQUIREMENTS FOR SMALL LOTS (continued from January 4, 1994 meeting). Staff Recommended Action: To direct Staff as deemed appropriate. Mr. Schubach explained the variety of ways for small -lot floor area expansion being presented to the Commission. He requested direction from the Commission or approval to forward the Commission's input to the City Council. Comm. Di Monda felt this item had been initiated by the Planning Commission and that "initiated by the City Council" should be replaced by "initiated by the Planning Commission". Comm. Suard noted the Council had requested the Commission to investigate one small - lot aspect, with the Commission requesting expansion to all small -lot parameters. Chmn. Merl opened the Public Hearing at 7:15 p.m. Jerry Compton, architect, felt the additional of another story would destroy the character of the areas increase mass and block light. He noted back yards are counted as open space and suggested switching from the back yard to the front yards of walk street properties, allowing the front area as open space, noting 400 sq. ft. of open space was currently being required and cited examples of impacts. He also suggested a change in the set back requirements to decrease the appearance of building bulk. He stated ground space was very precious within Hermosa Beach. He felt a 10% setback on R-1 lots was fine. He suggested properties located on an alley have eight -feet setbacks, allowing sufficient parking space. Mr. Schubach confirmed current setback requirements were 3, 8 and 17 feet. Comm. Di Monda discussed his concerns relating to "bulk", possible setback allowances and possible mezzanine locations with Mr. Compton, who suggested a required step back in the front would decrease the appearance of bulk while allowing a taller building with more ground -level living area. He discussed these suggestions with the Commission. He noted Redondo Beach allowed provision for a large upper level deck to be counted as open space. Comm. Marks requested more information pertaining to this provision. No one else wished to speak relating to this item, and Chmn. Merl closed the Public Hearing at 7:55 p.m. - Comm. Suard felt small lots would build three-story structures and that the zoning requirements should be changed to allow a third floor with a certain minimum square footage and force a deletion of the third floor bulk situation. He felt open space requirements for all sized lots should be based upon lot square footage arid supported the elimination of the 17 ft. setback requirement, which would help small lot property owners. He suggested that the height between 25 and 30 feet be limited to architectural features to relieve the flat -roof appearance. Page 3 PC Minutes 3-1-94 C Comm. Di Monda suggested allowance of a mezzanine level throughout the R-1 zone be reviewed. He supported retaining the 17 ft. setback, noting larger buildings increased bulk, traffic and people. Comm. Dettelbach opposed expansion consideration to all R-1 lots, noting the focus should remain on small lots and supported Mr. Compton's suggestion for a "step look" at the building front. The Commission agreed to the following issues which the Commission wished to pursue for submittal to the Council. 1. Allowance of mezzanines 2. Allowing front yard as open space instead of back yard area 3. Allowing decks on the second floor 4. Establish an open -space percentage requirement, based on lot size MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, Seconded by Chmn. Merl, to DIRECT Staff to forward a memorandum to the City Council listing the four areas the Commission wished to explore with regard to the issue of small lots and providing opportunities for small lots. Before Staff time is committed, the Commission wishes to know if the Council has any objection. To be included in the memorandum is the fact that the Commission reviewed zero lot line on row house, duplex style and others. AYES: Comms. Dettelbach, Di Monda, Marks, Suard, Chmn. Merl NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None 9. SS93-7 -- SPECIAL STUDY AND TEXT AMENDMENT TO A A DEFI INION AND METHOD OF DETERMINATION FOR GRADE,FOR THE PURPOSE MEASURING BUILDING HEIGHT, AND ADOyTION OF AN ENVIRONMEN EGATIVE DECLARATION (continue Ytrom December 7, 1993 and January 4, 4 meetings). Staff Recommended Action: Tore ommend approval%f said text amendment and adoption of the Negative Declaration. Mr. Schubach detailed the two items previously requested by lieommission and explained the related procedures of other cities. He stated Stafl✓I ad made the change -s', -it requested during the January 4, 1994 meeting. Comm. Di Monda-confirmed that a definition for " -ade" was being added. He suggested the definition as:,," Grade is the existing surface of the ground, th paved or unpaved." Comm. Di Monda then explained the application of this definition. Comm. Suar eft the statement in Section 208, "...not including the building code required parapet fire wall." should b�e feted and "finished grade" should be clarified. Comm. Dettelbach supported the comments made by Corte. Di Monda. Page 4 PC Minutes 3-1-94 December 30, 1993 Honorable Chairman and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach Planning Commission January 4, 1994 SUBJECT: SPECIAL STUDY 92-2 PURPOSE: TO STUDY ZONING REQUIREMENTS AND THEIR EFFECT ON SMALL LOTS INITIATED BY CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION Recommendation Staff suggests the following alternative actions: 1. Forward this study to the City Council with a recommendation that no additional relief be granted for small lots. 2. Direct staff to develop new standards for small lots in one of the ways described below or discussed in previous staff reports. Background At their meeting of November 23, 1993, based on the recommendation of the Planning Commission, the City Council adopted a resolution of intent to expand this study from a focused review of open space requirements on small lots to a comprehensive review of all zoning requirements and their effect on small lots and, further, to study possible changes that would allow the construction of larger homes on small lots. The study of small lots was initiated by the City Council in 1992, focusing on reducing open space requirements on R-1 lots of 2100 square feet or less. Staff and the Planning Commission have already extensively reviewed this topic, which also included a review of many other requirements as included in the 8/4/92 and 3/16/93 Planning Commission staff reports. For further background please refer to the attached staff reports and minutes. Analysis As discussed in the previous staff reports, possible areas for changes in R-1 standards for small lots include the following: 1. Allow open space to be completely on decks and/or balconies similar to multi -family zones 2. Allow the entire front yard area to count as open space 3. Eliminate the 17 -foot garage setback requirement from streets As noted, these particular areas, if changed, could potentially allow bigger homes, but typically would increase building square -1- footage by a( ximum of 200-300 squar( 'eet. Allowing this increase would require some tradeoffs. Other possibilities brought up by the Planning Commission to allow larger dwellings, would include raising maximum building height so three story buildings could be built or allowing "zero lot line" development (i.e. zero side yards). RAISING MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT This change would be a significant departure from current standards to allow 30 feet, or some other height, instead of the current 25 feet to accommodate 3 -story buildings. This change would obviously allow for a significant increase in floor area. For 30 X 70 lots, as used in the attached example from the 3/16/93 staff report, another story would allow for an approximate increase of 1200 square feet over the 1800 square feet of living area allowed by current standards. It should be noted that 3 -story buildings are currently not even allowed in the R-2 zone, but with the 30 -foot height limit it is fairly easy to build to three levels if the lowest floor is subterranean or semi -subterranean in accordance with the basement definition in the building and zoning codes. As such, another option would be to raise the height limit to accommodate three levels, but to still limit buildings to two "stories" as defined by the building and/or zoning code. Any raising of the height limit would result in a substantial potential to change the character and types of development in the small lot R-1 areas, including increased bulk, possible view blockage, and a general loss of the desirable low profile of these areas. ZERO LOT LINE Attached are conceptual drawings of ways a "zero lot line" development might look like on a series of adjacent lots. These are typical ways it is done, whereby one side yard is allowed to be zero. The use of "zero lot line" is a proven and legitimate design technique for high density areas as a way of clustering townhouse units into pairs and thus creating wider more usable side yards and to allow a little more building area on small lots. This technique is typically used, however, for planned new developments when the buildings are originally constructed or designed at the same time. It is a completely different situation to apply this design technique to subdivisions that are already built out with detached individual dwellings. Would one property owner be allowed to build to one side lot line, leaving only three feet from the neighbors house?, or would these zero side yards only be allowed when two adjacent property owners apply in conjunction with each other to attach their dwellings? If the latter is the case two or more property owners will need to be ready for major construction projects at the same time, and covenants or deed restrictions would need to be imposed regarding future construction. The lots in t: e areas of concern were (1- tght as single family lots with certain expectations that go along with single family lots. To allow or impose changes in the neighborhood that might allow zero side yards after the fact and in a piece meal basis does not seem feasible or desirable. The amount of additional floor area that could be gained with this type of design is not very substantial, and would vary depending on the side yard requirement opposite the zero side yard. If the opposite side yard requirement was set at the very minimum of 3 feet, the dwelling could be three feet wider. Using the 30 X 70 lot as an example, it would add a maximum of about 270 square feet of living area for the two-story example. This report has discussed two additional possible methods for granting further relief for small lots. Several other methods have been discussed in previous reports. Staff's position, as discussed previously, is that many zoning standards are already proportional to lot size and that small lots are already given some relief in the zoning requirements. Any further relief results in tradeoffs that might negatively impact the quality of the subject neighborhoods. It simply should be recognized that small lots only have the capacity for certain amount of building space. Any further allowances to allow significantly more building may result in standards that do not protect access to light and air, and the overall quality, scale, and appearance of existing neighborhoods. Please refer to the attached previous staff reports (3/16/93 and 8/4/92) for further analysis of this subject, which include extensive discussion, graphics, and charts which are relevant to the current discussion. CONCUR: Michael'Schubach Planning Director Attachments 1. Examples of zero lot lines 2. C.C. resolution of intent 3. P.C. Minutes 11/3/93. p/pcsrsmll 64:1:01 n Robertson Associate Planner City of Hermosa Beach Zero Lot Line Example < M+ac.hccr 6.nA1 d �v sy ) %iol g •' 4-a sec-a.�d P �pl� L J \1 1/2-c_9,4 ,d�� vs� � 1 ALLEY Note: By utilizing the zero lot line feature, the side yard setback can be doubled on one side, creating a more usable side yard, or, if maintained at current standards would allow for additional floor area. 30' 30' 6' City of Hermosa Beach Zero Lot Line (Detached Example) 30' Note: The Side Yard Setback is Doubled with the Utilization of this Type of Zero Lot Line Layout. 30' 1 00' 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 93- 5644 A RESOLUTION OF INTENT OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, TO DIRECT THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO CONDUCT A COMPLETE STUDY OF ZONING REQUIREMENTS AS THEY APPLY TO SMALL LOTS, AND TO STUDY POSSIBLE CHANGES THAT WOULD ALLOW THE BUILDING OF LARGER HOMES ON THESE LOTS WHEREAS, the City Council held a public meeting on November 23, 1993, to discuss the request of the Planning Commission that the Council initiate a study of small lot zoning requirements and made the following findings: A. Current zoning requirements, when applied to small lots, do not allow homes of adequate size; B. A comprehensive review of all requirements is needed to consider possible changes in the zoning standards; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, hereby directs the Planning Commission, to comprehensively study zoning requirements on small lots; PASSED, VED, and ADOPTED t•%s 23rd day of Novembez 1993. /177? PRE ENT of the City • pc,"1„,:and MAYOR of the City of irmosa Beach, Californi•.� ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: p/ccrsint CITY CLERK 5 V%7 CITY ATTORNEY HEARINGS 4. SPECIAL STUDY TO CONSIDER REDUCING OPEN SPACE REQUIRE- MENTS FOR SMALL LOTS. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated November 16, 1993. Planning Director Schubach presented the staff report and responded to Council questions, explaining that this study would apply to lots of 2,100 square feet and under, and look at all standards, not just open space. Mr. Schubach said the study would probably return to the Council in February of 1994. The hearing opened at 9:45 P.M. As no one came forward to ad- dress the Council on this item, the hearing closed at 9:45 P.M. Action: To approve the staff recommendation and adopt Resolution No. 93-5644, entitled, HA RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, City Council Minutes 11-23-93 Page 8357- . ��_ C TO DIRECT THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO CONDUCT A COMPLETE STUDY OF ZONING REQUIREMENTS AS THEY APPLY TO SMALL LOTS, AND TO STUDY POSSIBLE CHANGES THAT WOULD ALLOW THE BUILDING OF LARGER HOMES ON THESE LOTS." Motion Oakes, second Benz. The motion carried unanimously. City Council Minutes 11-23-93 Page 8358 9. SS 92-2 -- SPECIAL STUDY TO CONSIDER LESS RESTRICTIVE REQUIREMENTS FOR SMALL LOTS. Staff Recommended Action: To forward to the City Council with the request to broaden scope of study. Mr. Schubach presented the Staff Report, -noting the request that a detailed study be made as to what should be done with small lots. He stated Staff would send the resolution of intent to confirm the Council supported the idea that small lots be examined, to allow larger homes being built upon them. Chmn. Di Monda opened the Hearing at 7:58 p.m. No one wished to speak relating to this item, and Chmn. Di Monda closed the Hearing at 7:58 p.m. MOTION by Comm. Suard, Seconded by Comm. Merl, to APPROVE forwarding SS 92-2 to City Council at its November 23, 1993 meeting or a later one. AYES: Comms. Marks, Merl, Oakes, Suard, Chmn. Di Monda NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None 10. SS 93>3, -- SPECIAL STUDY REGARDING HISTORICAL SIGNS. Staff Recommended ~Action: To direct Staff as deemed appropriate. Mr. Schubach noted that during re.ew of the sign ordinance, the idea that so - signs were of historical significance came forth. He discussed`the problems and Staff suggestio :.ertaining to historical signs. He stated a survey of historical signs had . t yet been conducted Churn. Di Monda noted the owners of the Lighthou : h. a .een told they could restore its sign. He felt that rather than spend time and taxpayers' money . wn - an ordinance, the sign should be identified and through a C.U.P. (if possible), create . • exception fo he Lighthouse's sign. He suggested notifying Council this was probably the t way to deal with this s ation. Comm. Merl also thought another method would be more ap ropriate in addressing this single s :. problem. H Chmn. Di Monda opened -t a earing at 8:05 p.m. No one wished to speak rela '.g to this item, and Chmn. Di Monda c os‘ the Hearing at 8:05 p.m. Mr. Schubach suggested this item be continued indefinitely, allowing Staff to bring back . resh approach to resolving the problems and to conduct a "windshield" survey as to the number of historic Page 5 P.C. Minutes 11-3-93 HEARING CON 91-4 -- REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT • • VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #22916 FOR A TWO -UNIT CONDOMINI 1 AT 228 ARDMORE AVENUE. Recommende ction: To grant a one year extension. Mr. Schubach s :ted the proposed development et all current requirements, nota. • Staff found no reaso not to allow the extension. Chmn. Di Monda invited audi ce partic'•ation. Chris Coale, 217 5th Street, Man•. tan Beach, requested an 18 -month extension due to the current an al situation. No one else wished to s.-, regarding t item. MOTION by Comm. Me , seconded by Comm Suar• to APPROVE CON 9174 with an 18-month-xtension. AYES: Comm. Merl, Oakes, Suard, Chmn. Di Mon NOES: None ABSTA None ABSEgT: Comm. Marks SS 92-2 -- SPECIAL STUDY REGARDING STANDARDS FOR SMALL LOTS. (continued from August 4, 1992 meeting). Recommended Action: To direct Staff as deemed appropriate. Mr. Schubach explained the Commission's alternative actions suggested by Staff. Churn. Di Monda confirmed with Mr. Schubach the lots were primarily within the R-2 zone, with an abundance inthe northern portion of the City. Mr. Schubach stated that half lots. were scattered throughout the City. Chmn. Di Monda invited audience participation. No one else wished to speak regarding this item. Chmn. Di Monda felt the 17 -feet setback in the front "chewed into" usable living area, suggesting that if the open space requirement were reduced, automobile access from the alley might be required. Comm. Oakes confirmed a 17 -feet setback from the alley was no longer required. Mr. Schubach discussed with the. Commission actual footage requirements to assure adequate turning areas and actual required setback square footage. Comm. Suard confirmed allowance of a third story was available to the Commission as an alternative. He felt many small lots could 5 P.C.Minutes 3/16/93 not be used if a third story was not allowed. Comm. Suard felt City Council should now realize third stories were necessary in these instances and be realistic in its review of such lots. He noted more families were moving into the City and that they needed more living square footage. He felt zoning that allowed for an esthetic hometown feel while allowing property owners to build to their needs should be considered. He suggested creative building requirements to accomplish this. Comm. Suard noted that many lots were close to buildings with heights of 30+ feet, feeling the 25 feet height requirement on the small lots was an impossible requirement. He suggested the Commission review all the parameters, rather than a "piece -meal" planning review. He felt all zoning standards should be reviewed; not just one and graphics should be based upon the average -sized small lots. Comm. Suard suggested a letter be sent to City Council, asking if the Commission could proceed with an overall review, explaining the philosophical differences were between the Commission and Council. He noted that the Council had declined the Commission's previous suggestion that a straight percentage be applied to all lots as a modification to the open space requirements. He suggested, for better understanding and communication, the. Council forward"a rational of that action to the Commission. Chmn. Di Monda did not support this action. He felt the north end of the City required more radical action in the Zoning Ordinance. He suggested one possibility might be going to "0" lot line, adding 6 feet to the buildable area; another might be requiring vehicular access from the alley. Comm. Oakes felt Pages 4 and 7 of the Staff Report should be removed as unacceptable and stated her support of Comm. Suard's suggestion that the Commission review all issues regarding housing needs and environmental requirements. MOTION by Comm. Suard, seconded by Comm Oakes, to forward a request to City Council to allow the Commission to conduct a comprehensive study to consider all avenues to enhance small lots' ability to. build appropriate -sized homes, including. yard reductions and other zoning recommendations and to receive from the City Council a listing of any limitations or issues/items the Council wished excluded from this study. Mr. Schubach suggestion a Resolution of Intent, including an explanation, be drafted for the Commission's approval, including a request that the City Council give direction to the Commission, after which it would be forwarded to the City Council for confirmation. No objections, so ordered. 6 P.C.Minutes 3/16/93 March 9, 1993 Honorable Chairman and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach Planning Commission March 16, 1993 (CONTINUED FROM AUGUST 4, 1992 MEETING) SUBJECT: SPECIAL STUDY 92-2 PURPOSE: TO CONSIDER LESS RESTRICTIVE REQUIREMENTS FOR SMALL LOTS INITIATED BY CITY COUNCIL Staff Recommendation Staff suggests the following alternative actions: 1. Forward this study to the City Council with a recommendation that no additional relief be granted for small lots. 2. Direct staff to set a public hearing for a text amendment to grant relief to small lots in one or more of the following ways: a. Allow open space to be completely on decks, and/or balconies, similar to multi -family zones b. Allow the entire front yard area to count as open space on small lots c. Eliminate the 17 -foot garage setback requirement from streets on small lots Background At the meeting of August 4, 1992, Planning Commission continued this item for staff to return with graphic analyses of the proposed alternatives. This study was initiated by the City Council who directed the Commission and staff to study -possible text amendment to allow relief for small lots Similar circumstances found in that case (substandard lots with substandard alleys). For further background please refer to the 8/4/92 staff report. Also, it should be noted that an ordinance proposed -by the Commission to make open space requirements a percentage of lot size was rejected by the City Council. This would have provided some relief to smaller lots. Analysis In the previous report, staff argued that additional relief to small lots was notnecessaryor appropriate for the city, as existing zoning requirements satisfactorily addressed the issue of varying lot sizes by making most standards proportional to lot 11 size, and provided relief for lots under 2100 square feet in regards to open space. The remaining standards which are not proportional to lot size, primarily parking requirements, are necessary and far too important to waive. Further, minimum setback requirements are necessary to preserve character and to provide minimal building separation, privacy, and air. It was also noted that excessively small lots would have grounds to request a variance. Staff also presented some alternatives that might provide limited relief, and thus the potential for added living area. These alternatives are now presented in graphic form in the attachments for the 30' X 70' lot situation common in the Shakespeare tract. The first two diagrams show the maximum building potential under current codes, which yields approximately an 1805 sq. ft. dwelling using alley access, or a 1878 sq. ft. dwelling if street access is available. The remaining diagrams show building potential under other scenarios as previously suggested: allow the required front yard counted as open space; allow open space to be counted on decks; and street access without the 17' setback requirement. In each case, the maximum floor area increases by about 200 square feet, exceeding the lot area. For further analysis, please refer to the attached 8/4/92 staff report. CONCIIJR Michael Schubach Planning Director Ken Ro•ertson, Associate Planner Attachments 1. Diagrams of maximum building potential 2. 8/4/92 minutes 7' REQUIRED FRONT SETBACK 8.3' X 24' OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT 3' SIDE YARD SETBACK City of Hermosa Beach R-1 Building Potential Scenario 30' 25.7 X 24 LIVABLE SPACE 61 6.8 21X20 1111111 ghJle 70' 1188.8 LIVABLE SPACE 7 x 14.3 DECK (100] ) 9' GUEST SPACE 10' ALLEY 1' -2ND STORY SETBACK 10' ALLEY 100 [P DECK 200111AT GRADE OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT GUEST SPACE 2 CAR GARAGE 7' REQUIRED FRONT SETBACK UNIT TOTAL SQ. FT. =1805.6 LOT COVERAGE =61.4% USABLE OPEN SPACE=300 t ] HEIGHT=25' SETBACKS: FRONT= 7' REQUIRED SIDE=3' REAR =9' GROUND, 1' SECOND FLOOR 17' FRONT SETBACK 1 City of Hermosa Beach R-1 (30' x 70' Lot) Building Potential Scenario Street Side Access GARAGE 3' SIDE YARD SETBACK 90 SQ. FT. DECK Ow - 624E LIVABLE SPACE . GUEST PARKING 70' ALLEY 7 X 30 OPEN SPACE (210 SQ. FT.) 1254 LIVABLE SPACE 7' x 12.8 DECK (90 SQ. FT.) 7 SECOND FLOOR SETBACK ALLEY 2 CAR GARAGE 17' FRONT SETBACK OPEN SPACE (210 SQ. FT UNIT TOTAL SQ. FT. = 1878 LOT COVERAGE =64% USABLE OPEN SPACE=300 HEIGHT=25' SETBACKS: FRONT= 17' FIRST FLOOR, 7' SECOND FLOOR SIDE=3' REAR =7' GROUND i City of Hermosa Beach R-1 (30' x 70' Lot) Building Potential Scenario Required Front Yard to Count as Open Space 13' FRONT SETBACK TO COUNT AS OPEN SPACE (390 SQ. FT.) -}- 3' SIDE YARD SETBACK 28 X 24 LIVABLE SPACE 672E ON OLE' A AAAA AAAAA 70' 13447 LIVABLE SPACE 9' GUEST SPACE 10' ALLEY 1' -2ND STORY SETBACK 10' ALLEY 13' FRONT SETBACK TO COUNT AS OPEN SPACE (390 SQ. FT.) GUEST SPACE 2 CAR GARAGE 13' FRONT SETBACK TO COUNT AS OPEN SPACE (390 SQ. FT.) UNIT TOTAL SQ. FT. = 2016E LOT COVERAGE =64% USABLE OPEN SPACE=390E HEIGHT=25' SETBACKS: FRONT= 13' SIDE=3' REAR =9' GROUND, 1' SECOND FLOOR WO- 13' FRONT SETBACK City of Hermosa Beach R-1 (30' x 70' Lot) Building Potential Scenario Required Open Space Provided on Decks 3' SIDE YARD SETBACK ' 28 X 24 LIVABLE SPACE 672 CP 70' 1344 LIVABLE SPACE 13' FRONT SETBACK 9' GUEST SPACE 10' ALLEY 1' -2ND STORY SETBACK 10' ALLEY 12.5 x 24 ROOF DECK 13' FRONT SETBACK GUEST SPACE 2 CAR GARAGE UNIT TOTAL SQ. FT. = 2016 J LOT COVERAGE =64% USABLE OPEN SPACE=300IIALL ON ROOF HEIGHT=25' SETBACKS: FRONT= 13' SIDE=3' REAR =9' GROUND, 1' SECOND FLOOR f�RlP"�i RJ'� otArglptiuNaorMir City of Hermosa Beach R-1 (30' x 70' Lot) Building Potential Scenario Street Side Access Without 17' Setback 7' FRONT SETBACK GARDE 1- 3' SIDE YARD SETBACK 1 11 8641 LIVABLE SPACE 70' GUEST PARKING AAAAAA ALLEY 7 X 30 OPEN SPACE (210 SQ. FT.) V \ .'J 1254 LIVABLE SPACE 7' x 12.8 DECK (90 SQ. FT.) 7 SECOND FLOOR SETBACK ALLEY 90 SQ. FT. DECK GUEST SPACE - 7' FRONT SETBACK OPEN SPACE (210 SQ. FT.) UNIT TOTAL SQ. FT. = 2118 LOT COVERAGE =64% USABLE OPEN SPACE=300 HEIGHT=25' SETBACKS: FRONT= 7 FIRST FLOOR, 7' SECOND FLOOR SIDE=3' REAR =7' GROUND ,zs. '" '-it 4:V f ? .fn'stlr zfit p aR i! a,'. -, 4.,,ry C MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Oakes, to APPROVE Text Amendment 92-2, a Text Amendment to lower the allowable height in R-3 and R -P zones and adoption of an Environmental Negative Declaration, with the changes to 2.A. and 4.B, as discussed. AYES: Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Oakes, Suard NOES: Chinn. Merl ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Chmn. Merl stated this item would be forwarded to the City Council. HEARINGS SS 92-2 -- SPECIAL STUDY REGARDING STANDARDS FOR SMALL LOTS. Recommended Action: To forward this study to the City Council with a recommendation that no additional relief be granted for small lots. Mr. Schubach gave the Staff Report, defining the Commission's alternatives, the background of this special study, City Council's direction to initiate a text amendment so small lots with access onto substandard alleys could also be granted the same relief from current zoning requirements as that granted to 3104 Ingleside. Chmn. Merl invited audience participation 10:50 p.m. No one wished to speak upon this issue, and Chmn. Merl opened the discussion at 10:50 p.m. Comm. Di Monda discussed with Mr. Schubach specifics of the designs, including the fact that an addition 10 square feet would be added to the structure, resulting in more floor area than lot area. After discussing possible impacts of proposed garage setbacks and increased structure square footage with the Commission and Staff, Comm. Di Monda stated he would like to see graphic analyses of all the proposals, to assist the Commission in its decision. The Commission agreed with his suggested request. A MOTION was made by the Commission, to CONTINUE this item, to allow Staff to present graphic analyses with this item, when the item is brought back to the Commission. No objections, so ordered. THIRD QUARTER GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT. Recommended Action: To direct Staff as deemed appropriate. Comm. Di Monda and Chmn. Merl agreed the "street closures" that were recommended during this meeting must be added. P.C.Minutes 8/4/92 C C July 23, 1992 Honorable Chairman and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach Planning Commission August 4, 1992 SUBJECT: SPECIAL STUDY 92-2 PURPOSE: TO CONSIDER LESS RESTRICTIVE REQUIREMENTS FOR SMALL LOTS INITIATED BY CITY COUNCIL Staff Recommendation To forward this study to the City Council with a recommendation that no additional relief be granted for small lots. Alternatives. 1. Allow open space to be completely on decks, and/or balconies, similar to multi -family zones 2. Allow the entire front yard area to count as open space on small lots 3. Eliminate the 17 -foot garage setback requirement from streets on small lots Background At their meeting of January 14, 1992, the City Council voted 4:1 to grant a variance from garage setback requirements and open space requirements to allow a single-family addition and remodel at 3104 Ingleside Drive, supporting the decision of the Planning Commission. In conjunction with this action the Council directed staff to prepare a text amendment to allow expansions and remodeling under similar circumstances found in this case (substandard lots with substandard alleys). At the meeting of December 3, 1991, the Planning Commission voted 3:2 to grant the -requested variance at 3104- Ingleside. Staff recommended denial of the variance. PAST AND PENDING TEXT AMENDMENTS BENEFITING SMALL LOTS Open Space exception for lots 2100 square feet or. --less: This amendment, adopted in April of 1988, was in conjunction with several amendments in regards to definition, computation, and location of open space. This exception to allow 300 square feet of open space instead of 400 sq. ft., 33% on decks and balconies rather than 25% and dimensions of 7 feet rather than 10 feet. The ordinance was also tightened to not allow required front and side setbacks to be counted towards open space, except for excess yard areas. - --- - e- • Removal of 17-foot garage setback requirement on alleys: This amendment, adopted in April of 1990, removed a requirement adopted in 1987 to require 17-foot garage setbacks from alleys, and in its place allows setbacks of 3-feet, 9-feet or 17-feet. The 17-foot requirement still applies for garages with street access. Open space as a percentage of lot size: This is a recommendation adopted by the Commission at the last meeting to make open space a proportion of lot size in the R-1 zone. This ordinance, if adopted by the City Council, will effectively lower total open space requirements for those small lots in the 2100 - 3000 square foot range. Analysis The significant factors of the case at 3104 Ingleside, were as follows. The subject property is an R-1 zoned corner lot, with 30' X 70' dimensions and the project was a remodel and expansion of a nonconforming structure. The reason for the variance request was to allow a 456 square foot addition, including the remodel of a one -car garage facing a 10 -foot alley to a two -car garage facing Ingleside Drive. This proposal required a variance to allow a 3.5 garage setback rather than 17 feet and to reduce ground level open space from the existing nonconforming 200 square feet to zero. The Council direction is to somehow generalize this situation into a text amendment so other small lots with access onto substandard alleys could also be granted the same relief from current zoning requirements. Staff's approach to this study was to first understand the magnitude of the problem by counting how many small lots exist in the City. Assuming that small or substandard lots are those under 3,000 square feet in the R-1 zone, those under 1750 square feet in the R-2 zone and those under 1,320 square feet in the R-3 zone, staff prepared the attached Exhibit A showing the distribution of small lots in the City. Also, staff has determined the number of R-1 lots that abut 10 -foot alleys and which are corner lots. - Since only a few small R-2 or R-3 lots exist, it seems that any relief needed for these few exceptionally small lots are appropriate- for Variances, rather than a -general ordinance. Further, R-2 and R-3 lots are allowed to have all open space in decks or balconies. In contrast, the number of small R-1 lots is rather significant (1059 out of 2569 total lots) and, as such, it could - be argued that it is appropriate to consider granting more relief to these lots. The bulk of the smallest lots are either located in the Shakespeare Tract (north of Gould, East of Manhattan Ave.) which are comprised of 30' X 70', 2100 square foot lots, or scattered in areas east of Prospect Avenue and are comprised of 25'-X 100', 2500 square foot lots. The Shakespeare Tract lots almost all have alley.access_(mostly 10' alleys), while the 2500 square foot lots usually have only street access. Attached are schematics of the maximum development potential for these typical lots which 17-( clearly show that adequate sized homes can easily be constructed in compliance with current requirements. Additionally, the Commission is reminded that the R-1 lots of 2100 square feet or less already are given relief from open space requirements. Further, the Commission has recommended that open space requirements be proportional to lot size which further benefits other small lots in the 2101 - 3000 square feet range. Of the other zoning requirements which effect two-dimensional space, side and front setbacks and lot coverage are also proportional to either lot dimensions or lot size. Also, front or side yard areas in excess of the setback requirement may also count towards open space. The only zoning requirements not already proportional to lot size are the rear yard setback and, more critically, parking, parking setbacks, and turning radius. The attached Exhibit B shows the percentage of lot area that each zoning requirement "eats up" and the resulting area left for first floor living area. This is calculated for varying lot sizes. From this data, parking requirements are the onlystandards that clearly cause a greater burden on small lots as compared to larger lots, and thus are the only significant cause for the lower proportion of living area available on the first floor of smaller lots. Obviously, it would not be appropriate to reduce the basic requirement of two parking spaces per unit, or to reduce dimensional requirements for parking spaces. Thus the question to the Commission is whether guest parking or the parking setback should be less for small lots; or, whether another requirement such as setbacks, or open space, should be considered for reduction to compensate for the high proportion of the lot that must be devoted to parking. The following is staff's summary of each option, and reasons why staff does not support any further relief for small lots: Guest Parking: Staff would not support the elimination of the guest parking requirements, since the code has recently been modified to allow parallel parking behind garages and the 17 -foot setback also provides the guest parking. As such it is not a burdensome requirement and it provides a necessary relief to parking congestion which is common in the small lot areas. Parking Setbacks: It has been suggested in the past that the 17 -foot requirement is what burdens small lots the most. Recently, however, the 17 -foot requirement has been removed from alleys. Staff would not support removal of this requirement from streets in the Shakespeare Tract as it would strongly encourage use of the streets for access, eliminating needed street parking and impacting the character of these areas. If the street is used, 17 -feet should be required. Turning Radius: Also, along 10 or 15 foot wide alleys a turning radius of 19-23 feet must be provided depending on stall width. This results in minimum 9 -foot setbacks .on either 10 -foot or 15 -foot alleys. This is obviously necessary to maneuver cars, and also gives space behind the garage for parallel parked vehicles. 17- (7 Open Space: R-1 open space must be at grade and clear and open to the sky and is proposed to a proportion of lot size. An option for relief would be to allow small R-1 lots to be have all the open space provided on decks or balconies similar to multi -family zones. Staff does not support such an option, however, because the intent of the R-1 open space standard is more to provide open green space and/or recreation area than simply an outdoor extension of interior living space. Front Setbacks: Front yard requirements are set at 10% of lot depth. Additionally, front yards cannot be counted towards ground level open space. In this sense the front yard requirement has a fairly significant effect on small lots, especially those with alley access because the rear yard is used for driveway/guest parking it cannot be used for ground level open space. As such, a possible relief to small lots would either be a reduction in the front yard requirement and/or a provision to allow it to be counted towards ground level open space. This type of relief might be preferable to changing parking standards. Staff does not support relief, however, because the front yard contributes to neighborhood character and open space over and above yard areas is necessary to provide a bare minimum of open space/green area. Side Setbacks: These setbacks are 10% of lot width, a minimum of three (3) feet. Thus for the small lots 3 feet is the typical requirement. These are necessary for basic needs such as building separation and emergency access/exiting, and even if some sort of relief is possible (i.e. zero setback on one side) it would be an insubstantial amount of relief. Rear Setback: These setbacks are 5' first floor, 3' second floor if there is an abutting lot to the rear, or, 3' first floor, 1' second floor if along an alley. These setbacks are necessary for minimal building separation from an abutting lot, and minimal clearance if along an alley. Also the rear yard area is allowed to be counted towards open space if it meets minimum dimensional requirements. Given the already minimal requirements, any possible relief would also be rather insubstantial. In sum, the Variance at 3104 Ingleside involved a lot not completely unique in terms of lot size and location adjacent to a 10 -foot alley (24 other similar corner lots exist), however other circumstances were very unique to that particular lot including the location of a power pole and the fact that it was a remodel of an existing nonconforming structure. Staff does not believe it would be appropriate to generalize from that case and start providing relief to all small lots in all cases whether they be new projects or remodels. Particularly in regards to the expansion of existing structures where there will always be unforeseen unique circumstances. - Staff believes that existing zoning requirements satisfactorily address the issue of varying lot sizes by making most standards proportional to lot size. The remaining standards which are not proportional to lot size, primarily parking requirements, are necessary and far too important to waive. Parking requirements are especially difficult to reduce given that standard dimensions are necessary in all cases, and because parking is such a critical need. Further setback requirements are necessary to preserve character and to provide minimal building separation, privacy, and air. As such, the scrutiny of the Variance procedure should be necessary to grant any relief. 5 -OU : Michael Schubach Planning Director Ken Roberbn, Associate Planner Attachments 1. Exhibit A 2. Exhibit B 3. Diagrams of maximum building potential 4. City Council Minutes/Staff Report 1/14/92 5. P.C. Minutes/Staff Report 11/7/91 1_-_Xh101t. A HiTbi uLN 1 IAL LO -1 INF-Om-1AI ION TOTAL 14-1AND R - 1 A LO -15 = 2569 TOTAL < 3000 SO. FT. = .--701-.3000 .50 FT. = 240 I -2700 50. FT, = 42:5 1 01-2400 so. FT, = 2:57 160 00 SO. FT. = 16S4 1800 SO. FT. = - TOTAL R-2 ANI) R -2B LOTS = 1306 TOTAL < I 750 U. b = TOTAL R-3 AND R -P LOTS = 1067 TOTAL < 320 50. FT. N -I LOIS iN THE SHAKESPEARE TRACT =-171 (Primarily 30 x 70 or 2100 sq. ft. lots) - w Eh 10' a i eys. = 157 - w tn 15' al lets = 14 - corner lots = 24 - on walk; streets = 50 EXHIBIT B PERCENT OF LOT AREA TAKEN UP BY VARIOUS ZONING REQUIREMENTS LOT SIZE (IN SQ.FT.) LOT DIMENSIONS ALLEY OR STREET ACCESS AREA REG'D FOR GROUND LEVEL OPEN SPACE AREA REQ'D FOR SETBACKS AREA REQUIRED FOR PARKING AREA POTENTIAL 1ST FLOOR AREA 1500 30X50 (ALLEY) 9.0% 34.0% 36.0% 21.0% (STREET) 9.0% 26.0% 46.0% 19.0% 2100 30X70 (ALLEY) 9.0% 29.0% 26.0% 36.0% (STREET) 9.0% 24.0% 33.0% 34.0% 2500 25X100 (STREET) 10.5% 32.0% 27.0% 30.5% 3000 30X100 (ALLEY) 10.5% 30.0% 18.0% 41.5% (STREET) 10.5% 27.0% 23.0% 39.5% 40X100 (ALLEY) 10.5% 31.0% 13.5% 45.0% (STREET) 10.5% 26.0% 17.0% 46.5% 5000 50X100 (ALLEY) 10.5% 30.0% 11.0% 48.5% (STREET) 10.5% 26.0% 14.0% 49.5% IR.S' City of Hermosa Beach R-1 Building: Potential Scenario (30' x 70' Lot) 7' REQUIRED FRONT SETBACK — 8.3' X 24' OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT 3' SIDE YARD SETBACK 3 0' 25.7 X 24 LIVABLE SPACE 616.841 21X20 70' 1188.80 LIVABLE SPACE = 7 x 14.3 DECK (100 l#] ) 9' GUEST SPACE 10' ALLEY 1' -2ND STORY SETBACK 10' ALLEY 100 [la DECK 200E13 AT GRADE OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT GUEST SPACE 2 CAR GARAGE 7' REQUIRED FRONT SETBACK UNIT TOTAL SQ. FT. 1805.6$ LOT COVERAGE =61.4% USABLE OPENSPACE=300 [l HEIGHT=25' SETBACKS: FRONT= 7' REQUIRED SIDE=3' REAR =9' GROUND, 1' SECOND FLOOR 25' City of Hermosa Beach R-1 Maximum Building Potential (25 x 100) Lot Size w w w w w w w• www A'A. SPACE'.'., 59% LOT COVERAGE 100' LOT COVERAGE = 59% HEIGHT = 25' 1ST FLOOR SETBACKS: FRONT= 17' SIDE = 3' REAR = 12' OPEN SPACE = 300 SQ. FT. (12 x 25) SQUARE FEET= 1349 -400 (Garage).949 SQ. FT. 2ND FLOOR SETBACKS: FRONT = 10' SIDE = 3' REAR = 12' OPEN SPACE = 100 SQ. FT. (10 x10) SQUARE FEET= 1482 - 100 (Deck) 1382 TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE = 2331 TOTAL OPEN SPACE = 400 SQ. FT. MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE = 59% FLOOR AREA RATIO = .932 AGENDA SPECIAL MEETING HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, May 31, 1994, - Council Chambers, City Hall 7:00pm MAYOR CITY CLERK Sam Y. Edgerton Elaine Doerfling MAYOR PRO TEM CITY TREASURER Robert Benz John M. Workman COUNCIL MEMBERS CITY MANAGER John Bowler Stephen R. Burrell Julie Oakes CITY ATTORNEY J. R. Reviczky Charles S. Vose All council meetings are open to the public. PLEASE ATTEND. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: ROLL CALL: JOINT WORKSHOP MEETING BETWEEN THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION. TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION: 1. Small lot zoning standards (Continued from meeting of 3/29/94) 2. Permitted location of open parking on residential lots. (Continued from meeting of 3/29/94) 3. Other items CITIZEN COMMENTS Citizens wishing to address the Council on items within the Council's jurisdiction may do so at this time. Please limit comments to three minutes. ADJOURNMENT to a Special Joint Workshop Meeting of the City Council / Hermosa Beach School District / Parks, Recreation & Community Resources Advisory Commission on Thursday, June 2, 1994 at 7:00p.m. NOTE: This meeting wilLbe televised live on MultiVision Cable - Channel 3, ITEM #1: SMALL LOT ZONING STANDARDS. THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED FROM THE PREVIOUS JOINT WORKSHOP MEETING MARCH 29, 1994. PLEASE REFER TO ITEM #2 OF THE MARCH 29 1994 AGENDA PACKET TO REVIEW ORIGINAL STAFF REPORT. ITEM #2: PERMITTED LOCATION OF OPEN PARKING ON RESIDENTIAL LOTS. THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED FROM THE PREVIOUS JOINT WORKSHOP MEETING MARCH 29, 1994. PLEASE REFER TO ITEM #3 OF THE MARCH 29, 1994 AGENDA PACKET TO REVIEW ORIGINAL STAFF REPORT.