HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/02/00AGENDA
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, May 2, 2000 - 7:10 p.m.
MAYOR
J. R. Reviczky
MAYOR PRO TEM
John Bowler
COUNCIL MEMBERS
Kathy Dunbabin
Sam Y. Edgerton
Julie Oakes
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
CITY CLERK
Elaine Doerfling
CITY TREASURER
John M. Workman
CITY MANAGER
Stephen R. Burrell
CITY ATTORNEY
Michael Jenkins •
1. CONSIDERATION OF TEXT AMENDMENTS TO SINGLE-FAMILY
AND MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO:
PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR SINGLE-FAMILY AND MULTI-
FAMILY
ULTIFAMILY PROJECTS; OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS AND
SETBACKS IN R-2, R -2B, AND R-3 ZONES; AND ADOPTION OF AN
ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. Memorandum from
Community Development. Director Sol Blumenfeld dated April 25, 2000.
RECOMMENDATION: Direct staff as deemed appropriate.
ADJOURNMENT
NOTE: THIS MEETING WILL BE TELEVISED LIVE ON
ADELPHIA CABLE
0\
April 25, 2000
Honorable Mayor Members of the Special Meeting of
Hermosa Beach City Council May 2, 2000
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF ZONING STANDARDS FOR SINGLE-FAMILY AND
MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
(CONTINUED FROM THE FEBRUARY 29, 2000 MEETING)
Planning Commission Recommendation
That the City Council:
1.) Maintain existing multi -family parking standards, but provide that guest parking spaces be open
and available to all units within a project
2.) Require that no greater than 15% of required open space be provided on roof decks.
Background
At the City Council special meeting of February 29, 2000, several proposed amendments to residential
development standards were discussed and considered. The Council considered the matters of
reducing single-family parking and establishing upper floor stepped setback requirements and rejected
both of these proposed changes. The public hearing and discussion on the remaining issues were
continued the May 2, 2000 special meeting. On the matter of multi -family parking requirements, the
Council directed staffto study the design and development impacts of requiring one guest parking
space per unit. Based upon the results of that study, the Council indicated that it would make a
determination regarding limitations on the amount of required open space permitted on roof decks and
at the ground level. (For analysis of all proposed changes previously under consideration please refer
to the February 29, 2000 report.)
Analysis
The outstanding proposed changes to zoning standards are:
• Multi -Family Parking
• Roof Deck Open Space
• Open Space on the Ground
MULTI -FAMILY PARKING
Staff has conducted further study of the design and development impacts of requiring 1 guest
space per unit in multi -family projects (the current requirement is 1 space for every two units.)
The Council requested that staff investigate the number of R-2 and R-3 properties that are most
impacted by an increase in the multi -family parking requirement when adding one guest space per
unit. The Council was also concerned that providing additional parking would result in
unanticipated negative impacts such as excessive curb cuts, driveways and the loss of landscaping
if a greater percentage of a lot was allocated to parking.
Staff has conducted further study of these issues and found that the impacts varied relative to lot
size and lot pattern. The lots most negatively impacted by additional parking have a street to lot
orientation. (Please See Attachment 1 and 3.).
•
For lots with street to alley or street to street access, the proposed change would have no effect
because the street and alley setback requirements permit the additional parking to be met in the
garage or alley setback with a guest space tandem to the required unit parking. However, for lots
with a street to lot orientation (street frontage only) providing the additional guest parking
requires changes to the ground floor parking layout, with impacts on the amount of livable area
and design. (See Sketch - Attachment No. 2).
The following are the most common lot types that have multi -family development potential:
Lot Type Zone / Lot Size
1. Street to Lot
2. Street to Lot
3. Street to Lot
4. Street to Lot
5. Street to Alley
6. Street to Alley
7. Walk Street
R1A,R-2, or R2B / 40' X (100' — 135')
R1A,R-2, or R2B / 50' X 100'+
R-3 / 40' X 100'+
R-3 / 30' X (90'-110')
R-3 / 30' X (90'-100')
R-3 / 40' X 100'
R-3 / 30' X 95'
The attached map shows the location of these lots throughout the City, which can be potentially
developed with multi -family projects (typically two or three unit projects on each lot).
Attachment No. 1 shows the numbers of each type of lot and a description of the anticipated impact of
adding guest parking. Attachment No. 3 shows these impacts graphically.
In sum, the proposed addition of guest parking space will impact lots with street to lot orientation by
requiring different designs for the ground floor. These lots represent about half of the lots that can
potentially be developed. The severity of this impact varies depending on the lot size. The smaller R-3
lots (30 X 90-110), representing about 5% of the total lots, are most significantly effected, as the only
way to provide the guest parking is to re -orient the front unit garage toward the street to provided
tandem parking in front of the garage. (Please See Sketch, Attachment No. 3). The back unit garage
will still be accessed by a 9 -foot drive along the side. This will create a curb cut for the entire width of
the lot, and eliminate any possibility of landscaping or entry -doors facing the street front. The
estimated loss of building square footage is about 200 square feet. For the larger street to lot lots,
guest parking could be provided towards the rear of the lot, or by re -orienting the front garage as
noted above. It is likely that many builders would choose the latter option, as it would result in little or
no loss to their buildable square footage, but would result in the same design impacts noted above for
the smaller R-3 lots.
Walk street R-3 lots would also be significantly impacted. If two guest spaces are required, the only
option would be to provide the guest parking in tandem, which is specifically prohibited by the Zoning
Ordinance, thus precluding the possibility of any two -unit projects on R-3 zoned walk streets unless
tandem guest parking is allowed.
Another issue is the impact on larger multi -family projects on assembled lots. While these are not
as common as the individual lot developments, there are three such projects currently in the plan
check process. (7, 9, and 12 units). If these types of projects were required to have additional
guest parking it would result in significant design changes. All the projects noted were able to
provide the required and guest parking with minimal curb cuts by accessing the parking off a
common driveway. This has allowed for positive design features, including landscaping along the
street frontage, door -entries facing the street instead of garages, the preservation of on -street
• •
public parking, and large common landscaped areas (required for projects of 5 -units or more).
If additional guest parking were required for these projects, the only design options available
would be to face garages to the street (to create the most possible tandem guest parking), or to
develop the lots separately as two or three unit projects. These options would result in the design
problems noted above, and if split into separate projects, would eliminate the efficiencies created
by sharing driveway access, and providing common open space areas.
OPEN SPACE & ROOF DECKS
Establishing new limits on roof deck or ground level open space was also under consideration by
City Council. The Planning Commission recommends limiting roof deck open space to 15% of
the required open space for each unit, but not requiring all open space on the ground level. The
Commission felt this was a reasonable compromise between mandating 2nd and 3rd level setbacks
and no restriction on the location of open space. The proposed limitation will cause new projects
to locate up to 170 square feet of open space per dwelling unit along building 2nd and 3rd levels
rather than on the roof where it is most typically located. Locating 200 square feet open space on
the roof has no effect on the volume or mass of projects which was a concern expressed by City
Council. This change would result in varying building setbacks at 2nd and 3rd levels at the
discretion of the builder and an overall 170 square foot reduction of living area per unit. (Please
see Sketch - Attachment No. 3.). The Commission rejected a limitation to provide all open space
on the ground floor as too restrictive.
Concur:
Sol Blumenfeld, Director
Community D welopment Department
Step - ' .: urrell
City Manager
/076—
Ken Robertson
Associate Planner
Attachments
1. Map & Table - Impacts of Added Guest Parking by Zone/Lot Size
2. Sketch – Impact of Added Guest Parking Worst Case.
3. Previous Related Exhibits – Parking and Open Space Requirements
4. Photos of Parking and Open Space Issues
5. City Council Staff Report and Minutes 2/29/2000
3
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
IMPACT OF REQUIRING ONE GUEST SPACE PER UNIT
Break -down of lot types for potential 2 or 3 unit developments
in R1A, R-2, R2B, and R-3 Zones
Lot Type
Zone / Lot Size
Number
Percent of Total
Impact of Guest Parking
Change/ Notes
Street to Lot
547
51%
Design changes, impacts vary
by zone/lot size
R-2,R2B / 40' X (100' — 135')
349
32%
(1)
R1A, R2B / 50' X 100'+
55
5%
(1)
R-3 / 40' X 100'+ (3 -unit
sites)
87
8%
(2)
R-3 / 30' X (90'-110')
56
5%
"worst case" (3) see graphic
Walk Street
R-3 / 30' X 95'
80
7%
Design changes (4)
Street to Alley and
Street to Street
453
42%
No effect (5)
R -2B / 40 X 120'
15
1%
R-3 / 30' X (90'-100')
330
31%
R-3 / 40' X 100' (3 -unit
sites)
108
10%
Total
1080
(1) Will cause the reduction of ground floor area to provide added space or will cause reorientation
of garage towards front to provide added space in front of garage on street, causing curb cuts for
entire lot frontage, and decreased landscaping in front of building.
(2) Already requires tandem parking to provide parking for 3 -units (3 sets of tandem spaces!) will
require guest parking to be in tandem, which is not permitted, thus precluding third unit. For 2 -
unit projects on these sites see (1).
Forces the reorientation of garage towards front to provide added space in front of garage on
street, causing curb cuts for entire lot frontage, decreased landscaping in front of building, and
side -entry into units.
(4) Precludes use of tandem parking for two units (i.e. tandem garages directly accessing alley with
guest space to side) as additional guest cannot be provided in tandem, thus requires one garage
facing alley and sloped driveway on side to access second garage towards front of the lot --
resulting in a significant loss of ground level square footage (may thus preclude ground level
entry facing walk street, forcing side entry of front unit)
Proposal has no effect. Extra guest parking spaces (one to compensate for loss of on -street
space, and at least one additional) already provided in tandem in front of garages with street to
alley or street to street lots (as required by 17 -foot setback on street side, and typically provided
in 9 or 17 -foot setback on alley.
(3)
(5)
A
I1
l
1
LOSS OF
tom, ON -STREET
PARKING
I 1
1
1
L___J
w
w
XCESSIVE (1�)
iRIVEWAY.WIDTH
.OS5 OF
BUILDING AREA
17'
Le)
THROUGH DRIVEWAY
TYPICAL R-3 (30' x 100') LOT WITH
NEW PARKING REQUIREMENTS
00
CANTILEVER ABOVE
FINISH GRADE
28' CLR. I.
TURNING RADIUS REQUIRED 1
UNIT ENTRY UNIT ENTRY
8' CLR.
BUILDINGS
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH.
SCALE:1/4" =1' COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Z 'ON INIY'IH3VILH
0•
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
Open Space Requirements by Zone & Use
Typically
Zone/Use Open Space Requirement Provided /Project
......1r.T.... t ::. e:�aiitt.►:"':�::>::»>:>:»:>:>::>:<::>:»:«:[��':<:':>:>:>'.>:�::!4'tiQ:s<�s:?.�iiis�#iirierisiori:.:1tY.;:;:.;:.;::•;:.;:.;:.;;:.;:.;:.;;:.;:.::.;:.;;:.;;;:.;;;:.dfl.:>`:::»:>:>:�t::�z:>::>:>::
25%0 on decks permitted / 75%% on &rade ::
....:•:;:::�.�:•��:�''�:::�1k! ��.�......�tF:�...................................����•..i�:::• .�:��:�: t]1��f::4111?�'#�+1blk...................................?�i.Q.Q:.>::•>::•::::kS'. F::�;"�:>S::S::
100% on decks permitted/50% covered.
.::;:.;:.;::•R.:�.;:.;:.:.�ln t:<i':tva.:or.3............................:..:...::::.:.:2Gi1:s z::ib::'.ez?dci»:minsdin;reiasio�ot:7<:�;s::»::>::>::>::>:::::z:>:z::<:>:<:::>:<::::GOtf::.�:.::::::�� :::�Y�:<:>::::::»
100% on decks permitted /50% covered
100 sq. ft. private open space on decks
100% on decks permitted/50% covered/
50% directly accessible ea. d.u.
:flit Ee:"i'::>::>::;::>::::>::>:«:«:<::<:::>::>:�»»::»::»>::>Z��::s »�:: 0t. tt �#.... � �•::dtttt git�ut;'x`;:. :3t tt:.;:.:.:.;:.;:.;;;:.;:.;:.;;::.;�t��}.;: �:.:;:.;:.;:� ;> .:
100 sq. ft. private open space on decks /
100% on decks permitted/50% covered /
50% directly accessible ea. du.
Parking Standards by Use
Number of On -Site Spaces - Sections 17.44.020 and Section 17.44.090 (c) provide:
• Single family
• Two family/duplex
• Multi -family units
Parking Typically Provided by Use
Use
• Single farnily dwelling
• Duplex / two family dwelling
• Multiple dwellings (three +)
Notes
2 spaces per unit and 1 guest space
2 spaces per unit and 1 guest space
2 spaces per unit and 1 guest space per two units
Parking Requirement
2 spaces plus 1 guest space
2 spaces per unit plus 1
guest space & 1 additional space for
each space lost w/curbcut /driveways.
2 spaces plus 1 guest space
for each two dwelling units
1 additional space for each space
lost w/ curbcuts or driveways.
Req'd.
3
5
8
Typical
4*
8*
9 * **
2. Single Family Dwelling - Up to 25% may be provided in balconies or decks with a min. dimension of 10'.
Small lots (less than 2100 sq. ft.) 300 sq. ft. open space, 7' min. & 100% required open space permitted on decks.
3. Assumes two units.
4. Assumes three units.
5. 50% or more directly accessible to each du. (Five or more units — 100 sq. ft. per/du additional cominon
recreation space) Open Space may be provided in directly accessible balconies or decks
6. Only an area exceeding the minimurn yard area may be counted toward recreation space and only if the overall
dimension of the required setback and the exceeding area together have a dimension of at least seven feet in R-2
and R-3 zone and 10' in the R-1 zone.
7. Circular, triangular, odd and/or unusual shaped recreations space shall have a minimum of forty- nine (49) square
feet in area, minimum dimension of 7' in R-2, R-3 and 10' in the R-1 zone.
* Assumes 17' garage setback to accommodate 2 cars per du.. Parking calculations are rounded up.
** Assumes three units with one unit providing 17' garage setback. Parking calculations are rounded up.
wry
ISI
Lot OriOtation & Parking ,Provide'
17' Garage Setback 17' Garage Setback.
MI, Mr
I
we)
Iffirlatra
Illi?LIP
Unit A
8 Spaces Provided
41. 411•1 IIMMOIMMIIID AID ONO
MP
air
MA AMP MO. OM
"Mr MS
7=8 Spaces Provided
/MP AM
Unit A
aim
i
•
1
S Spaces Provided
C`F_d
Unit A
Unita
rafILill
N
••I1P IMP
2 Unit Development'
Unit 13
OM. MO
2 Unit Development
•
iU4
Unita
SII__ 10)
Unit A
7 Spaces Provided
Mr MD
MEM IWO
2 Unit Development
MP OW
%VOA
I I
Unit13
2 Unit Development'
Typical Guest Parking
Min.1 Space 12/Unit If
Located In' Driveway
1
! � I
'100'
17 Garage Setback
-- -
0
1
OOP III.
2 Unit Development
Parking Configuration
(1,000 Sc,. Ft. Typical)
Current Buildable Area On 3000 Sq. Ft. Lot
Lot Size:
Lot Coverage:
Number of Levels
Total Buildable:
Parking Area:
Subtotal:
3000 Sq. Ft.
x .65
1950 Sq. Ft.
x3
5850 Sq. Ft.
-1000
4850 Sq. Ft.
MOP 41111,
dOl. AMP
4:witw,-.
6---
,,,.............,......_......:,......., IF
Sloir.
� .
ratitirM
1
1
1
Typical Unit Size
2,375 Sat. Ft.
Subtotal:
Total Open Space
(Not On Roof Deck)
Net:
Total Buildable*
P/DU
* Approximate reduction of condominium development --
100 sq. ft. due to Planning Commission requirement
4850 Sq. Ft.
-100
4750 Sq. Ft.
2375 Sq. Ft.
S
Deck Delow
Typical Open Space Above
(300 SQ. FT. Min)
200 50. FT. Typical
30 50. FT. Vroposed Countable
•
Site Fiari
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
The following proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance are the product of an ongoing study, initiated by the City Council in
March of 1999. Following the direction of Council, the Planning Commission has held public meetings to discuss and evaluate the
proposals, and obtain input from the community. The Planning Commission made their final recommendations in November,
1999.
Proposal
Current Requirement
Proposed
Change
Impact if adopted
Status*
Two-Family/Multi-Family Parking
Increase Guest Parking Requirement for
Multi -Family projects
One guest space for each two dwelling
units. An additional space required for
each on -street space lost because of
new curb cuts
One guest space per unit,
plus replacement of lost
on -street parking..
Additional guest parking, resulting in a reduction
of total floor area.
To not adopt
change
Setbacks on Upper Floors
Require greater front and rear setbacks
on upper floors (R-2, R -2B, and R-3
zones)
R-2 and R -2B zones:
Front 5';
Rear 5', 3' on upper floors
R-3 zone:
Front varies by block
Rear 5'
re'ired
ac
: atconies &
robe
Additional setbacks on
upper floors:
rd floor: additional 4 feet
3rd floor: additional 11 feet
€<eriiId�re'EnE
�iresall'
re' sir.-a
#h r
Reduces the bulk and mass of buildings, and
increases the light and air to neighboring
properties. Livable floor area reduced on the
second and third floors, where open decks are
provided.
:.>:.: <>` .kcant.':'•' ed€iee
To not adopt
changes.
::>o er 0 s care>feef
3e <.soaee rdl e t' he•
n►a::tevet::;aatacent 3
Itreetil
ge napa ing<are
ste � a lu resu t nir > rox
*Planning Commission Recommendation
Page 1
(over)
PROPOSED CLARIFICATION ITEMS
Proposal
Current Requirement
Proposed
Change
Impact if adopted
Status*
.............................................
.............................................
.............................................
niinate::the::nnsleai
..................................................
...................................................
..................................................
eI€ at < :nconslste c:.::..
Banca:a
Parting Requirements for Buildings
Nonconforming to Parking
Clarify rules for expanding and
remodeling residential buildings when
nonconforming to parking
If only one space per unit, maximum
expansion 250 square feet, if less than
one per unit, maximum expansion 100
square feet.
If two spaces per unit, but
nonconforming with guest
parking/garage setback, Parking
section allows unlimited expansion,
but Nonconforming section of Code
limits expansion to 50% increase in
valuation (up to 100% with Planning
Commission approval)
No change, clarify by
relocating from parking
section to
nonconforming building
section.
Clarify inconsistency in
code, by placing all
requirements in
Nonconforming Building
Section of Code, clearly
stating 50% rule if
building nonconforming
to guest parking/garage
setback/or other parking
standard
No impact
No impact, corrects potential "loophole"
To adopt
change
..............................
...............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
iiw€<r1xYlkezJ
..............................
�i3fYC . �11�T:t77
Siit
0 tin
*Planning Commission Recommendation
Page 2
��`•!..
'',.
-_ ,!4 11114: �
\ 3 t 7 7 >r
f11_4 •5 �•,. ..•re • , -.
ti .c,�'
_)v..,,j,,.Fil yl
N ,��� y 1' 1+ -V`+I wt�j "" [
r_
NF1, u
i �e{ '-f�£
q+t^! r,¢*.
f
�ii• VI 1��°k )��
✓1.
"^oyl,,, .�
`
YAG 'YF2i .
aw C'�• •,' Landscaped front
p
E}1
. L:. °1
fi n.'4.w�w .:.,
New 3 -unit condo w/ side access drive,
adjacent to garages loaded on street
Upper floor open spaces accessed
from living area
Side access parking court (tandem
Barking for 3 -unit)
?
,aY' •�,
A.3 .. 'Fd
, Jr l.,ftn -
,,,.., ..w. _ ,.:
l
+ax e \. �f T
I4 ;N1 ,4kjT�8t
`�ru�° r� A� r
�y .�
1 !!1 +t
i ' J
I
,� f to
�1 r rr'�!'1"9•t li
?`
Ctl ill yi li C e— �rz t,,
4 /
-----
u� l
� �f
y
rl• yy ,k�z +
: i
�}S�a' 1 T r� A•av�` �t S IJa Na
Parking court with tandem parking (3-
unit condo)
Side access driveway
3 -unit condo front view
yJJ
x�, 1
11
`fist
P
:wi"
" x BMJ
S f
} r
14 r
-'" ;^�a
9 {
N a
F
x " 5
it'C{3
j ` „3---3--:-7---
--y
"�Ii r •>5
S €
��
Landscaped front
(not installed yet)
ry
1
4
£' h f ��' = 7.'^
fza
✓
:r 1'n,»--^^'�a`o-'"T"'S
2 -unit with side access drive
Guest parking at end of drive
Garage access to side access drive
- "�3�}1.
ti€
5 {
1
.y.
IA ` .rad
i...�'rr--.s..ft
I
�°arrr 4
.,
IIE
+•.+�. pny`+Ii".''"
1 i
"'"^"tet
•ear ,
.. _
,.�,„ '"' a • ''^ �'r ;.:
1.
�'..'
,r rpt{$
fik��
x i, ■■r C
Y*}I
-: Y
`.' •`;..
-
interior
Side access, landscaped front
Side access, landscaped front
1!
Side access drive/entry
Rear yard area with landscape
planters
Single guest parking space
12.
Guest parking at end of side access
drive
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
February 22, 2000
Honorable Mayor and Members Special Meeting of
of the Hermosa Beach City Council February 29, 2000
SUBJECT:
REVIEW OF ZONING STANDARD RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
SINGLE FAMILY AND MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
Recommendation:
That the City Council direct staff as deemed appropriate.
Background:
The City Council previously directed staff to provide an overview of development standards on
March 30, 1999 with direction to further analyze several proposed changes. The Council had
originally expressed concerns that new residential development appeared out of scale and
inappropriate to neighboring residential properties. Staff prepared several recommendations
addressing concerns relative to building mass and creation of additional open space primarily
though second and third level building setbacks. Parking issues and zoning clarifications were also
addressed and the matter was referred to the Planning Commission to conduct an informal
workshop and public hearings. A workshop was conducted on September 30, 1999 and hearings
were conducted in October and November on the proposed changes. Following the final hearing in
November, the matter was set for special hearing at City Council with public notice issued to over
5000 residences pursuant to City Council direction.
Analysis:
The development
1. Parking:
2. Open Space:
3. Lot Coverage:
4. Stories:
5. Clarifications:
standards under consideration included:
Location, Tandem, Covered and Underground
Amount, Location and Calculation
Percentage, Definition of Allowable
Required Number of Stories for All Zones
Story, Basement, Lot Coverage, Nonconforming Parking
The public input received at Planning Commission generally was not supportive of the proposed
changes or any new restrictions on development. The Commission considered several alternatives
to eliminating required open space on roof decks and providing it on second and third stories but
felt the standards were too restrictive and did not permit enough development flexibility. The
alternative proposed by Commission was to allow a small portion of required open space on roof
decks and the remainder on grade or on decks. The Commission also recommended that the
proposed requirement to provide all open space on the ground level was too restrictive as it would
eliminate up to 600 square feet of livable area on typical two unit condominium projects. Parking
requirements recommended for change included elimination of guest parking for single family
dwellings, but maintaining the 17' setback requirement and maintaining the multifamily parking
requirement of one guest space per two units plus replacement of lost on -street parking. The
Commission also recommended that any parking provided for multifamily development be open
and available to all units. (Please See Attachment Nos. 1 and 2) The proposed changes are
summarized on Attachment No. 1.
/3
Once the City Council determines which of the proposed Commission recommendations to
implement, staff will prepare the necessary resolutions for adoption.
(14
Sol Blumenfeld, Director
Community Development Department
Conc r:
Stephen R. Burrell,
City Manager
Attachments:
1. Summary of Recommendations
2. Parking and Buildable Area Exhibit
3. Previous Recommendations and Staff Report
F:b95/cd/ccmemo 14
r4
! •
MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, held on Tuesday,
February 29, 2000, at the hour of 7:20 P.M.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Betty Ryan
ROLL CALL:
Present: Bowler, Dunbabin, Edgerton, Reviczky, Mayor Oakes
Absent: None
ANNOUNCEMENTS: Mayor Oakes announced that the next Friends of
the Library Book Sale would take place Saturday, March 25,
2000 from 9 A.M. tol P.M. at its usual location in front of
the Library and also on the west side of Bard Street next to
the antique store, due to the current renovation of the
Library and the group's storage of books and tables in a City
warehouse on Bard Street.
Councilmember Edgerton- announced the Hermosa Beach Little
League opening ceremonies at Clark Field at 6:15 P.M. on
Friday, March 3, 2000, noting that Mayor Oakes would throw out
the first pitch at 7 P.M.
Councilmember Dunbabin announced a Project Touch fundraiser
Sunday, March 12, 2000, at the Jackson Village Bistro, with
brunch from 9:30 A.M. to 2:30 P.M. and special raffles between
11 A.M. and 2 P.M.
Councilmember Bowler announced that he would have to leave the
meeting at 9 P.M. in order to catch the last flight to San
Francisco to attend a conference.
1. CONSIDERATION OF TEXT AMENDMENTS TO SINGLE-FAMILY AND
MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OF THE
ZONING ORDINANCE INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PARKING
REQUIREMENTS FOR SINGLE-FAMILY PROJECTS AND EXPANSIONS TO
NONCONFORMING BUILDINGS; OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS AND
SETBACKS IN R-2, R -2B, AND R-3 ZONES; ELIMINATION OF
NUMBER OF STORIES REQUIREMENT IN R-1, R -1A, R-2, AND R -2B
ZONES; LOT COVERAGE DEFINITION; AND ADOPTION OF AN
ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. Memorandum from
Community Development Director Sol Blumenfeld dated
February 22, 2000. Supplemental information from the
Community Development Department received February 29,
2000. Supplemental letter from Nancy Schwappach dated
February 29, 2000.
Mayor Oakes said this workshop meeting was scheduled for
the sole purpose of discussing proposed amendments to the
City's residential development standards. Mayor Pro
Tempore Reviczky said the Council was looking at the
standards because people continually come forward to
object to individual projects with concerns about issues
such as parking, bulk, open space and setbacks.
City Council Minutes 02 -29 -
Page 10195
19
It was the consensus of the Council to handle the issues
separately. It was noted that any changes approved this
evening would have to come back for final action.
Community Development Director Blumenfeld presented the
staff report and responded to Council questions on the
proposed elimination of the single family guest parking
requirement, noting that the parking requirements were
based on use (single family) rather than zone (R-1).
Coming forward to address the Council on this issue were:
Shirley Cassell - 611 Monterey Boulevard, said to
save time, the Council should let people speak
once -rather than on each issue;
Roger Creighton - 1070 Third Street, questioned what
effect the change would have on the 25 -foot
wide, 2200 -square -foot lots that dominate the
area and if the 17 -foot required setback would
be reduced to 9 feet (Mayor Oakes said the 17 -
foot garage setback was not in question, and
the 9 -foot setback applied only to alleys);.
Betty Ryan - 588 - 20th Street, spoke against the
proposed change; said parking was a problem in
the majority of residential areas;
Paul Brennan - 309 26th Street, said he had a
single family home in an R-2 zone with a street
to alley lot and expressed concern about the
proposed change (Councilmember Reviczky said
the standards would not affect existing
structures, ° only new structures or remodels
greater than 50 percent);
George Shweiri - 304 Manhattan Avenue, said he had a
single family home in an R-3 zone; thought the
proposed change should be considered due to the
less restrictive standards that currently exist
for the surrounding multi -family structures;
Edith Pfeifer - 843 Loma Drive, spoke against the
proposed change; said there were usually a lot
of drivers in single family homes, i.e. parents
and their children when they reach driving age;
Mike Watson - 661 25th Street, said it was ironic
that the Council was considering taking parking
away from single family and adding it to multi
family; cited parking problems near the beach
and said standards should be consistent; said
small lots could be granted variances;
Pete Tucker - 235 34th Street, said the 17 -foot
setback was meant to eliminate or mitigate the
parking problems; suggested that the Council
also keep the alley setback at nine feet;
Troy Pliska - 1348 Palm Drive,. asked if all items
would be voted on at the same time, as his
opinion on some issues would depend on the
outcome of others (Mayor Oakes said this item
affected only single family parking, and that
City Council Minutes 02-29) Page 10196
/G
multi -family issues would be discussed
together);
Nancy Schwappach - 3124 Hermosa Avenue, supported
the proposed change; said her lot was on a
narrow alley in the Shakespeare tract and must
meet the minimum turning radius; supported
reducing single family parking in R-3 zones;
Jill Hewes - 126 Monterey Boulevard, spoke in favor
of the change; said she had a small home in an
R-3 zone with a single -car garage and a parking
space in the 17 -foot setback; said she would
need additional parking in order to remodel;
Park Lee - 1250 Eighth Street, spoke in favor of the
change; said he had a one -car garage and one
space in the driveway; said he could not add to
his house because of the additional parking
currently required; and
Jo Hollingsworth - 607 Gould Terrace, opposed
reducing the guest parking requirement because
parking was such a premium in the City.
Action: To maintain the existing single family parking
standards rather than lessen them as proposed.
Motion Edgerton, second Reviczky. The motion carried by
a unanimous vote.
Community Development Director Blumenfeld presented the
staff report and responded to Council questions on the
proposal to eliminate the limitation on the number of
stories in all residential zones, keeping only the height
limit standard.
Coming forward to address the Council on this issue were:
Shirley Cassell - 611 Monterey Boulevard, said this
was a public hearing and the Council should not
consider continuing any portion of it and
should stop wasting time; and concern
Bill Lyle - 715 First Street, expressed
about neighboring construction (City Manager
Burrell said the height limit was measured
before the start of construction; Mayor Oakes
suggested Mr. Lyle meet with staff).
Action: To eliminate the story limitation from the
Zoning Code and maintain only the height limit standard.
Motion Mayor Oakes, second Bowler. The motion carried by
a unanimous vote.
Community Development Director Blumenfeld presented the
staff reports and responded to Council questions on the
following proposals relating to multi -family projects:
increasing guest parking; no longer allowing roof decks
to count towards open space requirements; requiring
greater front and rear setbacks on upper floors; and
vA
ri ry council Minutes 02-29-
Page 10197
requiring 200 square feet of open space per unit to be on
the ground open to the sky.
Action: By consensus, the Council expressed no interest
in the proposal to require greater front and rear
setbacks on the upper floors in multi -family zones.
Before leaving the meeting at 9 P.M., Councilmember Bowler
expressed his interest in increasing the multi -family parking
requirements, but said he had no interest in changing
standards on the issues pertaining to roof deck open space and
open space on the ground.
Coming forward to address the Council on the issues of multi-
family guest parking, roof deck open space, and open space on
the ground were:
Jerry Compton - architect, 1200 Artesia Boulevard
#300, did not oppose increasing- the guest
parking to one space per condominium unit,
noting he tries when possible to provide two
per unit, •but expressed concern -about adding
displaced parking -spaces as well, because in
many areas, such as walk streets, the parking
could not be provided without going tandem;
Roger Creighton - 1070 Third Street, suggested
increasing the parking requirements but
allowing exemptions in certain areas of the
city; said a big problem in town was the use of
garages for purposes other than parking;
George Shweir - 304 Manhattan Avenue, said he had a
home on a half lot in the R-3 zone; compared
the small lot sizes in Hermosa Beach to the
larger lots in other cities; suggested making
open space a percentage of the lot size
(Councilmember Reviczky said the City already
had a small lot exemption at 2100 square feet);
Mike Watson - 661 25th Street, said most of the
City's parking problems were caused by the
older rentals rather than new condominiums; was
opposed to a parking increase for condominiums;
Gary Skardina - 625 30th Street, said he bought his
property in 1987 and was planning to develop it
soon; expressed concern about the issues of
open space, roof decks and additional setbacks
on upper floors; wanted the rules to maintain a
level playing field;
Rob Seaman - 1120 Loma Drive, said parking was the
hardest component of planning his condominium
project; cited problems with turning radius,
setback and raised grade requirements; said
increasing guest spaces would make many sites
single family lots; suggested if parking is
increased that other restrictions be lessened;
Charlie Cheatum - 548 Seventh. Street, supported
adopting increased parking standards; said
City Council Minutes 02-29- Page 10198
/9-
there was a need in the City for more greenery
in front of structures and suggested requiring
increased open space on the ground in front to
eliminate the concrete jungle look;
Bernie Talmas - 1649 Monterey Boulevard, was opposed
to all of the changes being considered; said he
lived in an older structure built in the 1930s,
and the changes would prohibit him from
changing or upgrading his building because he
could not meet the parking requirements for his
two units; said his ocean view is now blocked
by new boxy structures but he could not meet
the requirements to add a second story;
Bruce Robles - 2138 Loma Drive, objected to the new
boxy single-family homes being built, citing
one across the street from him that looked like
a loaf of bread; said most of the nonconforming
R-2 structures on his block provide ample
parking, while people in single-family homes
use their garages forstorage rather than for
parking their cars; objected to increasing
multi -family parking;
Lee Grant - 1011 16th Street, said he had a small
R-1 lot with two tall homes on the lot behind
him; said more open space was needed to avoid
the appearance of a concrete jungle; said more
open space meant greater value;
Edith Pfeifer - 843 Loma Drive, said she had a 1920s
beach bungalow that would be her children's
inheritance; expressed concern about a decrease
in property value with the proposed changes;
Jo Hollingsworth - 607 Gould Terrace, said buildings
with more open space would increase ambience
and would eventually increase property values;
supported increasing guest parking;
Pete Tucker - 235 34th Street, asked if upper floor
setbacks would be needed to accomplish some of
the remaining proposed changes;
Nancy Schwappach - 3124 Hermosa Avenue; objected to
using a 15 -percent figure for roof decks
because a usable deck would have to be much
larger;
Jerry Compton - architect, 1200 Artesia Boulevard
#300, said Hermosa was known for roof decks;
said 65 -percent lot coverage was very tight;
thought 15 -percent for a roof deck was
soo
strict and suggested that 40 to 50 percent
might be more reasonable;
Jonathan Schwartz - 259 31st Street, said he had a
30 -by -70 -foot lot on a walk street and could
not count his front yard as open space; said he
had a 400 square foot roof deck that was well
used and did not know how he would otherwise
meet the open space requirement;
nir_v Council Minutes
02-29 j9j� Page 10199
David Olin - 1243 Palm Drive, said everyone wants a
roof deck; said Manhattan Beach had consistent
lot sizes while Hermosa's lot sizes varied; did
not oppose increasing the guest parking but
suggested keeping the existing roof deck
requirement, or making it at least 50 percent
or 65 percent if it is changed;
Name indistinct - 1144 Cypress, said the proposed
changes would eliminate the ability to build
three units in the City, that Council would
eliminate that whole market if the proposed
open space requirements are adopted.
Unidentified speaker - said he bought his property
solely for future development, and the price
was based on current requirements; said changes
could destroy the value of his property and he
was against anything that would diminish the
value of his property;
George Brown - 2006 Hillcrest Drive, said reducing
the bulk and mass of buildings and increasing
open space would actually enhance property
values; and
Sandy Fister - 903 Eighth Street, said change was
good but everyone did not want a single family
home with a lawn to mow; asked the Council to
keep the quality of life.
Proposed Action: To require the greater of either three
parking spaces per condominium unit or the existing two
and one-half spaces plus the replacement of displaced on -
street parking spaces,
Motion Edgerton, second Reviczky. The motion was
subsequently restated in the following motion.
Proposed Action: To require three parking spaces per
condominium unit (two spaces plus one guest space).
Motion Edgerton, second Reviczky. The motion failed due
to the dissenting votes of Dunbabin and Mayor Oakes and
the absence of Bowler.
Proposed Action:
condominium unit
per project.
Motion Edgerton.
To require three parking spaces per
and no more than two replacement spaces
The motion died for lack of a second.
City Manager Burrell suggested continuing the public
hearing to a date certain, again as a separate meeting,
and said staff could look at some scenarios and come back
in about eight weeks with more information and some
drawings for consideration by the full Council. He
invited the public to submit within the next two weeks
written comments for evaluation, and asked the press to
help bring this to the attention of the public. He said
the issues to be considered at the next meeting include
multi -family parking, roof top open space, and open space
O
City Council Minutes 02-29- Page 10200
30
• •
on the ground, as well as two issues not discussed this
evening --parking requirements for buildings nonconforming
to parking and clarification of lot coverage definition.
Action: Mayor Oakes directed, with the consensus of the
Council, that the public hearing on residential
development standards be continued to Tuesday, May 2,
2000, at 7:10 P.M.
ADJOURNMENT - The Regular Meeting of the City Council of the
City of Hermosa Beach adjourned on Tuesday, February 29, 2000,
at the hour of 11:40 P.M. to the Regular Meeting of Tuesday,
March 14, 2000, at the hour of 7:10 P.M.
0D
City Council Minutes 02-29-0 Page 10201
6/(}--k-(.2 L.
When street to lot applications are in place in the R-1 zone, 3 parking spaces per
unit and a 17 -foot set back are required. This creates two unenclosed parking spaces on
the driveway. The 4th parking place created over and above the required 3 parking spaces
is justified by its replacing the parking spot for the one lost to the added curb cut
mandated to create access to the two -car garage. The parking for condos and town homes
should be the same as R-1 as the condos and town homes are built and sold, for actual use
as R-1 homes. Therefore a minimum of 3 parking spaces should be required and a 17 -
foot setback also required, which creates 2 unenclosed parking spaces. One of the
unenclosed parking spaces created will offset the one lost by the added curb cuts the
same as in the R-1 zone.
When street to alley applications are in place a 9 -foot set back is required. That
allows parallel parking behind the garage creating the third parking place. The area
where most the alleys are is in the most impacted parking area in the city. Therefore it is
only responsible to require a 17 -foot set back to satisfy turning radiuses, and generate the
fourth off street parking place the same as is required in the lesser parking impacted areas
of town.
The time may have arrived that requires 2 enclosed and 2 unenclosed parking
spaces for all residential units as small one bedroom apartments are not being built. Even
the R-3 with the 30 -foot height limit allows large square footage condos and town homes
that are built and sold for single-family ownership and occupation.
The question of having trees versus driveways and parking places was answered
years ago by the continual paving of the public easement and private setbacks including
side yards for the purpose of parking and storing vehicles.
The open space allowed by roof top decks should not be changed. It is imperative
that the usable square footage in condos and town homes not be reduced so the dwellings
will continue to supply the needed living space for family owned and occupied dwelling
units.
Naoma Valdes
• 1
From: Mottram, Doug <doug.mottram@nissan-usa.com>
To: <nvaldes@hermosabch.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2000 5:40 PM
Subject: Proposed Residential Zoning Changes
Dear City Council Members,
The new Residential Development Standards being considered for Hermosa Beach
ignore a significant and simple fact: developments being built in Hermosa
Beach today are a response to what consumers want. By giving people the
housing they want, both the city and local business owners win. Rule
changes should be considered only if development in the city is detracting
from its appearance or resulting in a declining quality of life. Judging by
the increase in property value (relative to other areas of Los Angeles),
this is not the case in Hermosa Beach.
Ultimately, Hermosa Beach is a 'victim' of its original zoning and the
population explosion that has transformed it from a remote beach town to a
popular residential community in the middle of everything. Hermosa Beach is
no longer the sleepy beach town it once was. And the city council has
responded to that truth in the changes it has made to downtown.
No question, development in Hermosa Beach will continue with or without the
new rules. The rules might eliminate a roof deck, or force a trade from
building square footage to open-air guest parking spots. What benefit does
this offer the city or its residents? The rule changes seem to be no more
than a poke in the eye against developers that are profiting from the
booming popularity of Hermosa Beach. That should not be a government
agenda.
ask that the city council continue to respond to the demands of consumers
and vote against the proposed zone changes.
Thank You,
Doug Mottram
HB property owner
03/23/2000
•
1801 Rhodes Street
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
February 18, 2000
Community Development Department
Planning Division
City of Hermosa Beach
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Dear Sirs:
ditEoyEtt,
FEB 2 3 2t°
I object to the text amendments to single-family residential development standards of the zoning ordinance
including elimination of number of stories requirement in R-1 zone, lot coverage definition, and adoption
of an environmental negative declaration.
Any rezoning, or redefinition of existing zoning, is necessarily a transfer of wealth and income from some
persons to other persons, i.e., the scenic view of one property is enhanced at the detriment to another
property. It may be argued that there is a net increase in property values resulting from such rezoning or
redefinition. If so, parties who gain in value should be able to buy out those persons who are negatively
affected. Only that rezoning which is unanimously approved by all affected parties should ever be
enacted. It should be noted that the market solution suggested here is superior to an arbitrary act by the
City Council, as all voluntary participants may be assumed to benefit.
No evidence has yet been offered showing that the net values of all affected properties will increase. If the
City Council is confident of such increase in value caused by rezoning, the City of Hermosa Beach could
easily purchase all affected property before rezoning and resell following rezoning, realizing a profit to be
shared by the community at large, without conferring any windfall profits or losses to third parties.
Sincerely,
Bruce Beatty
Emeritus Professor of Economics, El Camino College
• •
Lawrence W. Harter
635 Loma Dr.
Hermosa Beach, Ca. 90254
Home Phone (310) 379 - 9192
February 24, 2000
Community Development Dept.
Planning Division
City Hall
1315 Valley Dr.
Hermosa Beach, Ca.
90254
Dear Mr. Blumenfeld,
RECEIVED
FEB 242000
UOM. DEV. DEP/:
Some years back the City of Hermosa Beach saw fit to increase the amount
of "open space" required on my lot, which is in the R2 zone at the south end
of Loma Dr. This, in effect, was a down -zoning since I am no longer allowed to
build more than one unit on my property. The result is a drastic reduction in
the value of this parcel.
At the time the present rule went into effect, it was already a case of
closing the gate after the horses were out. As I count it, there are only
eight single family units left on Loma, between 6th and 8th streets, out of
thirty parcels. That leaves twenty two that have two or more units.
The stated purpose for increasing the amount of "open space" was as an
anti -density measure. In light of the present building boom this is laughable.
The only thing that it has done is to decrease our flexibility in the use and
enjoyment of our property, and to unfairly decrease its value.
Amid all the building in this area in recent years, the only
construction on this 600-800 block of Loma has been the replacement of one
single-family dwelling. We're stagnant.
We have better access than most of Loma, because 6th and 8th streets
both run from Hermosa Ave.to Valley Dr. and 8th continues up to Pacific Coast
Hwy. where there is a signal. The lots on the west side of Loma front on both
Loma and Sunset so garages can be put on both streets. Allowing the eight
remaining single units to expand will have little or no effect on traffic flow
or parking.
At least on south Loma, the rule should be changed back to what it was,
or the R2 zone should be changed to R3, as is the rest of Loma up to Pier Ave.
On the subject of "Number of Stories", the allowable height should be
the same for every lot on the side of the same hill. That is the fairest way
to enable everyone to maintain their view, from at least their top story, even
if the neighbor down hill is in a different zone.
Sincerely,
Lawrence W. Hailer
•
STEPHEN ALLEN AND MARYSUE BRUIIAKER
36029TH STREET ♦ HERMOSA BEACH CALIFORNIA 90254
Home Phone 3103763256 ♦ Email MSBRU21JAN@AOL.COM
Community Development Department
Planning Division
City of Hermosa Beach
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA. 90254
REGARDING: PUBLIC NOTICE SENT FEBRUARY 15, 2000
SIRS:
Feb�ruary 19, 2000
neceivE
FEB 22 2000
uOM. DEV. DET
According to your notice the Planning Conunission is recommending Text Amendments to single family and
multi -family residential development standards of the Zoning Ordinance including, but not limited to:
PARKING, EXPANSIONS TO NONCONFORMING BUILDINGS, OPEN SPACE, SET BACKS
IN R-2, R -2B AND R-3 ZONES, ELIMINATION OF NUMBER OF STORIES, LOT COVERAGE
DEFINITION AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION.
We tried to call the city offices on our return, however they were not open on Friday. So we were unable to
get any kind of explanation of these Zoning Changes.
We are against any kind of Zoning Changes that would increase the number of homes on a lot, the number of
stories in each home, the lack of any set backs, expansions to nonconforming buildings and especially any
negative changes to the already impossible parking situation. Such as less garage space for any new development
As we will not be here for the meeting to voice this objections. Please accept this letter as our non acceptance
of any major changes in the Zoning of any property in the residential community of Hermosa Beach.
Sincerely,
Stephen A. Bru aker
arySw rubaker
1u -(sr)
Z'
CITY, OF HERMOSA BEACH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTM `Y�� .•
RESIDENTIAL ZONING REQUIREMENTS
SUMMARY** •
ZONE
PERMITTED USES
., . ,.:.
'LOT AREA PER
DWE!lING UNIT ''
LOT
COVERAGE
BUILDINg'
..:HEIGHT:::.
` USABSE. )'
•: OPEN SPACE'
YARD REQUIREMENTS.
FRONT .. .SIDE.. Reali
(R-1
--.1
\ Single Family
Residence,
Accessory Building.
1 lot/dwelling unit
(d.u.)
65% Max.
Maximum
2 -story
25'
400 sq. ft.
Min. dimension
of 10' (see small
lot exception)
10% of lot depth:
min. 5'
max. req. 1041)
10% of lot width:
min. 3'
max. req. 5'
Ground: 5' (2)
2nd fl.: 3'.
If alley, ground: 3'
2nd fl.: 1'
R -1A
Single Family Res.,
Duplex, Condos.
3350 sq. ft./d.u.
(Max. 2 units)
65% Max.
Maximum
2 -story
25'
400 sq. ft./d.u.
Min. dimension
of 10'
10% of lot depth:
max. req. 10''1
10% of lot width:
min. 3'
max. req. 5'
Same as above
R-2
Any use permitted in
R-1 zone, Multiple
Dwellings, Condos.
1750 sq. ft./d.u.
Lots Tess than 30'
wide: SFR only
65% Max.
Maximum
2 -story
30'
200 sq. ft./d.u.
Min. dimension
of 7'
5' unless
indicated on
zoning map01
10% of lot width:
min. 3'
max. req. 5'
Same as above
R -2B
Any use permitted in
R-1 zone, Duplexes,
Condos.
1750 sq. ft./d.u.
(Max. 2 units)
65% Max.
Maximum
2 -story
30'
200 sq. ft./d.u..
Min. dimension
of 7'
5' unless
indicated on
zoning map(')
10% of lot width:
min. 3'
max. req. 5'
Same as above
R-3
Any use permitted in
R-2 zone, Multiple
Dwellings, Condos.
Min. 1320 sq. ft./
d.u.
65% Max.
Maximum
30'(3)
200 sq. ft./d.u.
Min. dimension
of 7'
As required on
zoning map(1)
10% of lot width:
min. 3'
max. req. 5'
Min. 5'
If alley, ground: 3'
2nd fl.: 1'
R -P
Any use permitted in
the R-3 zone
Min. 1320 sq. ft./
d.u. (lots less than
30' wide: SFR only)
65% Max.
Maximum
30' (3)
200 sq. ft./d.u.
Min. dimension
of 7'
As required on
zoning map()
10% of lot width:
min. 3'
max. req. 5'
Same as above
R -P
Professional Offices
subject to Conditional
Use Permit
N/A
70% Max.
30' (3)
N/A
As required on
zoning mapl11
10% of lot width:
min. 3'
max. req. 5'
Same as above
(1) Where garages or parking stalls front on a public street; the min'mum setback for the garage shall be 17 feet from the back edge of the sidewalk provided
roll -up doors are installed; a minimum of 20 feet shall be required where standard garage doors are installed. (Required guest parking may be located in
this required setback.)
(2) Where garages or parking stalls front on an alley, a setback of three (3) feet, nine (9) feet, or seventeen (17) feet shall be provided except those on any
alley of fifteen (15) feet in width or Tess need only comply with tuming radius requirements of Section 1161. Required guest parking may be located in the
nine (9) foot setback (parallel) or in the seventeen (17) foot setback (tandem).
(3) The Planning Commission may grant a height up to 35 ft. subject to compliance with specific conditions.
DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS ON ONE PARCEL
R-1 and R-3: Minimum of 8 ft. between habitable buildings; 6 ft. between a habitable and accessory building.
R -IA, R-2, R -2B: Minimum of 6 ft. between all buildings.
OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS
Single Family dwellings: Two spaces per unit + one guest space.
Duplexes: Two spaces per unit + one guest space.
Multiple Units: Two spaces per unit + one guest space for each two units (rounded up: e.g. 3 unit site must provide 2 uest spaces.)
Additional requirement for duplexes and multiple units: One space of on-site guest parking for each on -street space lost due to curb cuts and/or drive rays.
Tandem parking is permitted; however it may be accessed directly from the street in the R-1 zone only.
••
iTti•#til'.�:1..:...........�...............................
MINIMUM DWELLING UNIT SIZE: (Excluding porches, balconies, garages, or other such accessory structures or architectural features.)
Single Family Dwelling
2 bedrooms or less -1000 square feet
3 bedrooms or 2 bedrooms and den -1300 square feet
4 bedrooms or 3 bedrooms and den -1600 square feet
More than 4 bedrooms -1900 square feet
Condominiums
One (1) bedroom - 900 square feet
Two (2) bedrooms - 1,100 square feet
Two (2) bedrooms & den -1,250 square feet
Three (3) bedrooms - 1,400 square feet
Three bedrooms & den - 1,600 square feet
Each additional bedroom -130 square feet
Multi -family Dwelling -s (Apartments)
1 bedroom or Tess - 600 square feet
2 bedrooms - 900 square feet
3 bedrooms -1200 square feet
More than 4 bedrooms -1800 square feet
R -2B (2 Dwelling Units),
One unit shall consist of 1300 square feet minimum
The second unit shall consist of 750 square feet minimum
1. Height - As prescribed by the zone; except on walk streets in the front 1/2 of the lot, buildings may not exceed 25 feet.
2. Setback - As prescribed by the zone; exce t a minimum of a five foot front setback is required.
3. Recreation space - Private: square feet o rivate space per unit in addition to zoning requirements.
Common: r r more must provide 100 square feet per unit of common recreation space
requirements.
4. Private storage space - 200 cubic feet per unit.
**Please refer to the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code, Zoning Ordinance, for complete information on zoning requirements. The Code is available on-line at
www.hermosabch.org or may be purchased from the City Clerk. fb95\cd\zoninreq-10%22/98
in addition to zoning
;, , ibill ' ; 111 1111111111,;11i0111;1•1'''' ' 1.
4414oNtilhio!
' '''il',',.-.,,' '''',','....: ' • • •• •li11"111.'• h.,.
111.11111 II111
li il,.„.,,,,, ,I• ::,1;•;,,1 . ••, •
41 I
„.,1;111.11111; • :' i 1 ' ''''''I';
:01110 '; 'm Ill "ili 11;r l
IhIl!IIIih '
L11IIL.:1'1
I
,lomooli . II i
I.
1,. ;:: 0....1,1.I.. IIIiiillt11,1.-11. , rl, II .
. , • .• , Il ; dl ; il 11 III
Il
1
00.10,1',...; "' I ..... • ,11-11!:;!;•••ill..iii,iiiiiiim.,l'it l'; • ,,.
il 1! II'
1,11iill11111011111111111;•l1:1.11 I.1.1.111.1111Ir.;;;•',.."..,I,I,lil;1,
i;1•;1,1;,11,1;i1.1110,10: ,;;;;,,•,,!;,,,o,dr; ' • • : ,;,',111ill; - II,
, I', l i :, l'• ,... , ..,,. '.,,, ; ' , hi; 1 ...1;
ri,111111'1111
• ; 1
,,II• ;11111,11
'1.. • 1
.• 11.• 11'
1, ..,•ll ;Ik1i
1:,1;11i1";1.;11;111"[;;l.11,11;;II•
:
• • •,•1,1•1
.: • I
,11" 1111,11,1111:•1111•i1111:1111,...-1, •
• • • • 1.1.1•,.,..- ;;; 11';';;;;,'11111,111;111111
I " ..•••• •1111,1!
.1''''111111111111,1 1111"'' • • ,1 .• ,•• ••••
1..11; ,•• ;•
IIlllIll
I. .11i 11 !i.1111,'
, 101 i iil Ili] I illm iiiiii I 1111;111' '1111' I; 11'
,p111, ;;in i ,,i lil,,,,, '111,1'111,10,111.!,,,ii'l'iiI1iiii11111,11!,11,1.11111,1i1.1.1u1,filiIIIIi11,111111',1'1,1111i111111111'
111111 III III I ili;II li 1 [111410 IIIIII I lilljIllillii ;III • • '
1;111111.1:1,111illi,,m1;11,1,4;110;11, u:', 11 oiisi,,it;,,i',11,1,11.;11;
IIIIIIIi10111101111i,11111,i1SIMIFrIllimill411 1000,1,11 i
rl imp''''f1;71 l lii" ;Ill l 1, Fl; l ftil llifl) li I; ll; li illiii Illjiill lj111i1111111$1111lIIIIIIIIIIRIIMIRTIPTIRIrm,Trtnr.,, ,,,,,, . ;,, , ;,r,l;',,l'Illl. l'Ill''' . —.,..,.''ll l ',"--!..; •• , ;-...., •
111 11111 I 11,1. il.I11:11; 11 I; li lil!Il lill 11111,10;1f
11. 1, 1:'11iI11,, I, 1 l'Im11111'111.1'1,;11, t111,1'.110.1'1111u'i'1iti,ii'lill!I'l,,,i,1','Lli;l';;HI';'; '', '11.''' ''I'lli''''''''''''''i':''''''I
;;•,, ; III 1,;,1 , ; 'ill; 11,11,1.11,1,111i1,161;10111010som • I. • .; I F.11;1111111,1111111}:Iiii,li; 11,111'111,1 !11.1 ;Iii!i,1111;iili111111;11111t1I'il ;1111i1411,111III, ill: IIIIIIII I
,,,• 1111,11,1111111,11111,1ii ,!
1Illl
11111 1 ,11111,1,11111,111111' 1111111111111111'11111111111111'1'1;1111''1111'!ril liliiI''111111'i1111111i11111i'11'1111'11°11i11°1'1111111'1°,1, f11111111.111i1)41:i111)1:,,•,1!1111.!
0 1 1!1,m 01, iiii,i,„ 1101".,Iil t111:111111!111"lIll1111111,i1111111'1111.1111'111111111111!111'1111111'1111111 111111111111,1111i111,1101111-1111:11,1;1111':1111,111 '
11'1 11 !III! 1Ill111,1111111111,I111,1.1111,P.IIII111fIl11III;!, ,.,11. ,, 1.11,10,1, II :1111., IIIIIII. iIII;IIIIIIIlli, II. II411°I;';;°;IIIII41 1111' ; l '1 '
1,,,,,10,11,,,,11.1i, ,1,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,1 ...,,p,. ,,,,,,,•,,,, ,,,,,,,•,,,,,,,,,,,!,,,,,,,,,,,•,,,,,,,, 111,11 '•''. '..,
iiiii
i • '
1 11 1 HI .1
1 i li 11 1 1,1
III ;.1 1
II, ..,•,,
1;11
1 '
101114Ph
11111, „
11111:illili11111114111111111ii 111h11
,
11
hi
11;
011
III!, Ii1111,111;.,iil
1;,•;11,111;;; ;',;11;,1111;l;111,1;;;;111 ;;
11,1; i1111;i11111
111
1111111,11111',111,11'fili'11111IIM
1111' I'll 1111111 1
11 11 11 '111'1'
,11 11 111111111,111,11111i11111.11111,iii,111,1111111111,11'111 1111'11
1111 .1'111'1 H 1
111,111111111111111111111111111111111 111 11
111 3 111
41
111
it
•
14111,11111
11 . :I.': • .
'011;1111.110H1'1°''
• .,, II'
gil'Ami• 11111101
1111111111 11 11
•• 11:1111
•• 1 1,1,111!Ilb1.1•• • •• • • •
. . • •... •
• ••• •
,1111111,111111 1 11
111'1
l'1111'.11 11,1111r, 1 1 111,11 .11 1111111tP1,,tilf.111110.1r0,111111,11111111111,111i111,110111111 1111111 11111 1 1 1, 11,11 1 11 1.11
. •
• 41 1
•
III 11111 1111
411131
b11
1101
1.4
11 1 1 114 1:1
II I /I WHIM
•
•
11111111111
• "!;1."''';:li",111•••".!,
.,1,,,1:,'111110,11111111i111,111
' • ,
11,„ ,111
I]
NI
IIII IIIIpIIII111111,11111,11,,111111,11111
1111,11,111.:111 r1,, 1,11
I
11
tommememal.p.00mujilL
I
!
'I .1
j,
I. I
I
I
I 1
i
1 ;
, I
..•
1111111$
Pt:
lir11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111.11111i111.1111111111
III 1
1.411111111
I, I' "
1'11111 I 11,111 I
1 1,1
1111111111
I I 11
1111Dialt,i1111!Irli
HI
dal
411i, witx illuomuma
AUII
1
1111 III 1'01111,11 1, ,, • •
,., 11 I 111 11 11,111114,1111,1,1111,,I,1,11,11,
11 'i IPI1I j
111,I1,11i "Ili 1,11,11111,1,1111J "I " !NI"
!
11111.14110Fuo I
19011,!pm
111111111111 I
1 1 I
OH i 11,11,1i1
1111
I .
11 11111 111,I
11 11111 I 1,11
11,
11111
1
1,11111111[ 1111111, 11,111,11,1,11IIII
1,1
I
i. II
1,11,11
11.
„
111111111
:11
vommom 1
Nff
I l4
:1111111111
,
11
1 „
, I Illii'llid.,.,111111
:77..—.„., . 111 III! Il.:...11,illiiill ;111E1111 l•I'.I'...1!!,i o ,1,
,',-.„,...• • 1111,4,11tw.IIII,III!,,,I,P,,, 1,11;1:1111,111i
,i
I
I
1
1 I
11,111I1
rotted
:::::•::::::::: , :. H.::•,.:..v: 1 '"' 1 r 7.,
„ir sIr'"'"'Irrt'ig 1 !!I{Mr[1111'.. t' 01
I.'
1Tr . : " :,': r 1
1 111 1, ; ':
h':':: '111
:,::::
I ' 11 l'fi I IIIiiiillIF ! . 1 11 Hli', !I
.04111111,111.
LAIIIIIIii11111111111:111:1 1:I•1
rlI•
I.
r I 1111i ..4114111"'
I
1!
II1.1,11.111 I,
111211111111'111111111''''1111L
I1111111111111
1111J1 11111111111111111ln
:11111 11111'14, 1111'11.!!!'llitilillill
11111
1111.1„,"11,',,:,i1.1,111111,1114,1:1
IllPr
.111
,
I I
1111111111111k 1 11 11
l','.1111111'111..1
:1,11 11' '111 I
f 0111,
111111111.1,111111140,11111Nt
11 11,1!
1 ,11. '111
101 4411111111111111411111111111111111111.161411111ii 11
1W°111,11111111 ltIjJf1111 11
11 11.1 111. 111 • .?1
.1111' 111 11111111111111111111 Ii1,1111 1111f111111 1I1 11 1 1111
• 1.1
1
1'11,11 I 111.
1 1( 11 11 f
1111h! 111,111;1)i: 111111 11 1 111 11
Hit' 1 j1' 11111
I ,111 1111 1,1111.1
1111..'1°
1 1, 1 1
;H:11,i1 '111,1
111i
1111 1
d1111,11,111111
'
!!•,. •1!.
T,1"11.111,11111"1111111111"j1111
11111111 it1111111111 At 'Ili 11111
'1 11
II Ii
ji]IiJJ1 II JIIIIII,III II
„ I [i
r:rirr
;:r1 rr
1111111i.
111011111i
'rrrrIrr rorrrriorrrrirrrirrr!
1111111111
!II 111111 11
.11,';';1,111111111!11111'!'!!!!11111'"1:',!"„
111[1111'1P
,1
!,11.11 1 111
' • .,
111
111
1
1
1
1
111
•
•
! '1
,![11!!,1111 11111111 1
1111111111,1111'11'1.1111I11,11,ililli,11.11111,1, , , 1111011!!!!!!iiIi11111111111!.
1!!..
'11111111111111111,
1 11111111 11
111,1
I,
11111111111
!!!,!
II!' 1111IIII! .!.
! !II
,!1
I 1:1111111111111111111111II!1'111111 III
• '!!!!!!!!!.!•!!!!!!!•-!•!!!!!"!" '" !. !-!! • '
I , I
1,1!
111
!I
1,40.101,,
1111111,NI1111;111111,11111111
411 ILA 111441111E1
'111,
11; 111;;1;;
"i111,1:4,1.1,m1100
11111,;111.:11111110110111Inni I 611111:'l
,,11,11., 111111
1, IN,11$1
1,1,11,;,,, • •••••..-„—••
1.1;111i'i11,111111111111111111111111111
1111,1, 11 • 111;1;111 1 1 1
I;
DIL '
•
• ; • •
.1,:r I ; •
;
,1111',••••'' I ;
•'Ih1I,;•'1 1 11.
i1111111111.1111;.;
'Ii11.1. if
..,.. ,
, .111111.1ft
11 :1:11,1,,,r1•11 1,1
1I1' 111'1
111'1!,7111:II111!!!IIIII. :11' ,1.1,.1 i' ,,r • , • • • . ..., .1 , •H., ., • ,, , r .,, r,,, ,1,,,,,,,r,111,111111i1H!! 1.! r.
1111[11 11
II 111,110 I II!IIIIIIIIIIIII III I ,III III I II I.I ' ! ! !I!ill .1,11111111 1111111.11.1,11.1iiiii,!111.111.11!,
11
Ill
.,.;' 1 1 1,11.1 1 1 11 ,.1! 1,11 1..ii.,',.:i••,11,1'.'11111,1i1,:
i
11111 1!II ,i[,1 1111111 ill ill!Iii1111 ii!i!iti,,.......0.11!!!!,[,,,,,!.1,,,,,1II .11 1 . 11I'll 1 1 11 11 1,111 11111 1,1111111111 1111111111111111 11.1 11111 1111 1 1 11
.......i • ,'....! ,.........',,,....'....,.:1'.....,..,,,....,.....::,- !,;,,p1T0111 11111 II 1 ! !I , 1: II,1 ,d • 44! 4. ! !!!
! !! !! 1!!!!!!1Hi!i,11111.!!!!!!,!!!!!!!„!„III!!
1 1 II ,H,111..,!,,,!!!!!im!!,!!!!!,, 1 ,,/ 1! 1!,1 1ii! ,!: 4,!I,,l ,, 1 1 I 1 il 1 1 1.1!I, 1,1 1,111 111
1,11
,,,ii!! 1 Jr.! 1 I! ,!! !i!!, !! 1 ,1 111. I II III 1!!!!,!!!!ii!!!111.1!!!!ii.!!!!!ii!!!!11.! III!, I , 1.!!!,1 111.1.111,1 1„ 1!!!!! I 1.!1,,i11,1,11111il,i,
III! li!!!111 1111111111111111111111!!!.111 1111 1 !Ii!!111iim II II 1!!!1,
111111'11111i41111 !I! 1 1.11.0 1 1 !II, 1!!!11.111 111111 .1 1
!, !!!!1!!1,1,!!!!,,)11,,,,11,1,1 1 1,1!!!!., 1!!Iii. 1,!1!.1,!, !1! IH 1 !I !!! H 1 111 II:...„ ; •,,1'. rfr:11,1111tf111111! Ill 1111.11111,1:1111,11 ,,!1 : : 1 • ,j, ' 1,;,!H]1..,,11:11,1.., 111 1, 11; 111 1,1 ,,•-"11i1111.
.11 ,11.11i1111.11111,111 1111,111,1111111111 111.. 1111111111.111111111.1111 11111111. I II I II I 11. !III IiII I 1 III III!!1111111 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I Ill II MF [I . !!I II,
: ! : : , . ,:,:r : ' ,........I,Ii•!.,,,,,I,:!:, !,..!,,,Ir I','. • r.r. r!,,r, : • :r .., r r. • r . ! :1 , • ' ,r :: 1 , ,r,, !!,,!, ', .,:r.!•1,,,,,!!!,•1I, ,
lb u II
........,.,..!...,,,,.,,,,., :„.,...,,.:!,,
.. .. . : r .,, ...
111,1
• 1 .
I
ill] ,111 1
II 1h'
II1.1,111:'101,1,1111,1m111,11g1111, ,11111'1'1111011iiiiiivigii.1111,144,48.1 1111
11111111,,11,1',
1., 4011 , ' 1'1 I IIIIIII
1111, .'1114*
II 141 III 111111111111,' 1111
11IIIF,11111I1 NI 11111111:1,11,!.11:i111,I,I11[1111,11,I,111irmi,,II„,1,1,1,11
1,,„,i1,;111„,,pq 1,111,
11111 11
1 11 II 'hid I II
14 I '111'14,411'11}111,111ii 111'' 111111PIIIIII '
IIH II
I 1110 111 1104
91 I:1.11171;11 111111111g ! I ,itio141,11., l!ltrtlii
I "ill' 1,11 111111111':1,511
•
1 HP
I,
'44' t1ItoillMliiiiillirlill!!!!!!,!!!!!!
11,,11
"'"rini1111111111111111,.„
,
111
.111.1::,111111,1111111!il
.1!!!1,1!1111,1111,11111111!
I !!!!!IlltiogillimillW
11
11'11141411,4., !
411111111111111111111111[111111111,1111'
l',':11141,11111.4111,11
,:',;,111J11[1,.11:figv I I
Illrl!!!,111111;1114w
1111,111i1110111111,
'"'"!111111111111HW
!!!!!!
,I
'III '11;111
l'111111111111111111111111111111111;11fi'lll 1111111
d1111111i1111101111111".--:',
ous
•
1111:1 , Ii.1.11111111,,,II.,,,,,111,1!1:1,I1III1111 111.
1I..r.'III:1,11.III11I1
.111I.1.:....::::I:•II.:I„
,. .1....., IiIiIiIII . • .. • , •'.::: 11111 I I.1 ,......IIIIII.: ••• HI "
• ::IIIiIII •• ... .. •IllitIf'.:11:(11''11111,,11:,:,,I.!.iii:::,.. ,
I;II !I•1111 1.1..111111I1..I1,...IIIII•III '.I.1. ,IIII,1111 1111111111111111111. . ...,,:1 -..."••,I'Jr:!"I'.11,11I',II"I ,I.'.....:..,:: :1.. 1,1 1..":".....,IIII...I„:•,I.. •
1:....11 II I111 ItiIiIII111, ;III I- •••II,....1•I .......,•...„ • • . II:IIIIII• • . .1111111.. : :I.,. .I... ,..
II u.,1111111,111,1I,L.
1::: I'...I.:II!.:1,,,,I• .-,
, ...... .
. .
• !.111,1,..,!..,....
• ' 1;111111. • •11,11111.11.1..i!!.u.,.,„.,: :
III 111111111111 I " 1'1 '' Ill
111111111111'1111111
1111111111111111111111111
''111111111111111i111
1111111'1'1 11'1'',1 1111'
,1111,11.1.1111111'11111111111111'11'' 1
'I''Ill'I'''ill' r l'11111111111111111t1111/1[1111111111111111111111 111',
.11111111I,i11111111,1,1:111,1.
111113111111111
,11,.111111
, I
11111'11'111;1.!'
1,1111,11,111' 1[1;11
11,111111114111111111‘1,11
111
1.111 ii1111,111111i[1111$111.„
IIII11111111111'1" 11111
'1, .1,11 1,1,1 11111,,
1!..!iitrill:,11!1111111111 '111111"
111111111,
111114q11111;Iiiillithill I
11!
1E10
:111
u
11