HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/29/00•
'&
AGENDA
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, February 29, 2000 - 7:10 p.m.
MAYOR CITY CLERK
Julie Oakes Elaine Doerfling
MAYOR PRO TEM CITY TREASURER
J. R. Reviczky John M. Workman
COUNCIL MEMBERS CITY MANAGER
John Bowler Stephen R. Burrell
Kathy Dunbabin CITY ATTORNEY
Sam Y. Edgerton Nfichael Jenkins
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
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.
RECOMIIIENDATION: Direct staff as deemed appropriate.
ADJOURNMENT
NOTE: THIS MEETING WILL BE TELEVISED LIVE ON
ADELPHIA CABLE
• •
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. to 1 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 02-29-99 Page 10195
a
•
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 02-29-99 Page 10196
Y• •
• •
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
Bill Lyle - 715 First Street, expressed concern
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
City Council Minutes 02-29-99 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
x#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 02-29-99 Page 10198
• •
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 for storage 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 too
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;
City Council Minutes 02-29-99 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: To require three parking spaces per
condominium unit and no more than two replacement spaces
per project.
Motion Edgerton. 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
City Council Minutes 02-29-99 Page 10200
• i
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.
City Council Minutes 02-29-99 Page 10201
AGENDA
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, February 29, 2000 - 7:10 p.m.
MAYOR
Julie Oakes
MAYOR PRO TEM
J. R. Reviczky
COUNCIL MEMBERS
John Bowler
Kathy Dunbabin
Sam Y. Edgerton
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
CITY CLERK
Elaine Doerfling
CITY TREASURER
John M. Workman
CITY MANAGER
Stephen K 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 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.
RECOMMENDATION: Direct staff as deemed appropriate.
ADJOURNMENT
NOTE: THIS MEETING WILL BE TELEVISED LIVE ON
ADELPHIA CABLE
1
HERMOSA BEACH
FRIENDS of
the LIBRARY
February 28, 2000
Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Re: MARCH 25, 2000 BOOK SALE
Dear Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council:
It is requested that the Hermosa Beach Friends of the Library be permitted to hold its
Spring book sale on the west side of Bard Street, as well as the usual location in front of
the Library.
If the Council agrees, 5 or 6 tables of paperbacks will be set up in front of the library and
22 tables of hard covers will be set up on Bard Street.
The reasonfor this request is that, with the closure of the library for refurbishment, our
books, tables, etc. are stored in a city warehouse on Bard. It would greatly simplify our
operation if we could use the Bard Street location.
With council approval, we would use the west side of Bard Street from 8:00 AM to 2:00
PM on Saturday, March 25, 2000.
Many thanks for your consideration in this matter, and thanks also to Steve Burrell and
Mike Flaherty for their assistance.
Sincerely,
Charlotte Malone, Booksale Chairman
550 Pier Avenue, Hermosa Beach, California 90254
310/379-8475
Honorable Mayor and Members
of the Hermosa Beach City Council
February 22, 2000
Special Meeting of
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 standards under consideration included:
1. Parking: Location, Tandem, Covered and Underground
2. Open Space: Amount, Location and Calculation
3. Lot Coverage: Percentage, Definition of Allowable
4. Stories: Required Number of Stories for All Zones
5. Clarifications: 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.
Once the City Council determines which of the proposed Commission recommendations to
implement, staff will prepare the necessary resolutions for adoption.
Viki
Sol Blumenf:I d, Birector
Community • evelopment Department
Conc _ r:
Stephen R. Burrell, I
City Manager
Attachments:
1. Summary of Recommendations
2. Parking and Buildable Area Exhibit
3. Previous Recommendations and Staff Report
F:b95/cd/ccmemo 14
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
US 9 n sp ce
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..
.............................................
fiJ111 i 1?47#ESTI S#Td IU
Additional guest parking, resulting in a reduction
of total floor area.
..................................
............................................................................
_....: z::ff;S>:%�z;•��:;t%:<S'r.':i%�fS;Si;�['%ifr}S_'S: S>i ii �?S�r4
To not adopt
change
went
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'
Additional setbacks on
upper floors:
2nd floor: additional 4 feet
3rd floor: additional 11 feet
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.
To not adopt
changes.
re
�tl reduce 1i
.................
ysfrle
.................
square:
...........................................................
C htially es #tttt': ; b ? et :
*Planning Commission Recommendation
PROPOSED CLARIFICATION ITEMS
Proposal
":•:i":pit}{iiiiii$$"�^:4:'4'iso:4'G:•i:4:!:i:•i:v:•i:0:^ii:!!�"+
Current ,Requirement
Proposed
Change
:StUL S?:% lnl tatic n
Impact if adopted
.1/nunat9iiitnc.onststency bei
Y;;i:i::i'•:i::i: :i::i::iii:::::...:::.....:...::::::.i:.�::::.:i::i:i:i::i
nanCe::andlleIriiBu:.
...............:.............................................
seine•
Parking 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"
.....................................
.....................................
.....................................
....................................
.....................................
Status*
To adopt
change
*Planning Commission Recommendation
Par151-7,
Lot Orientation & Parking Provided
17' Garage Setback 17' Garage Setback
Mr MI OM OM
!a11111101
Mt
.11.0ro*
DLO MM. IDOMM
ti -W.117-01
1-0017*
Unit A
8 Spaces Provided
DIM
BO%
1....444
III •
7=8 Spaces Provided*
Orr Mar MM./
Unit A
ODOM IND
11111111
Unit 13
(EMI
2 Unit Development.
MOD /DM /NM/ IMMI
MR"
L.
Unit 13
AIM DIM ••••••
2 Unit Development
/MI /MD AND /MO MI. am*
ivigh!on
1mi
5Spaces Provided
r --
/DM
Unit A,
Om Mr OM DOB
/MIMI IMAM
Ift:10;)
Or*
Unit A
7 Spaces Provided
•
IiUt
I I
M2192.111Mill ',wow/
Unit
2 Unit Development
iti 11
_111107-
• Unit
2 Unit Development
Typical Guest Parking
Min.1 Space P/Unit If
Locited In *Driveway
100'
17' Garage Setback
44-1,
110111111 1
1
1111111, MM.
2 Unit Development
Parking Configuration
(1,000 Sol. Ft. Typical)
Current Buildable Area On 3000
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.
Sq. Ft. Lot
01111,
41101.010 --s—
'�1 J��uQ�Qyy
Typical Unit Size
2,375 Sot. 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.
I
Deck Delow
Typical Open Space Above
(300 SQ. FT. Min)
Site F7Lri
•
Attachments
•
July 20, 1999
Honorable Mayor and Members Regular Meeting of
of the Hermosa Beach City Council July 27, 1999
SUBJECT: FOLLOW-UP REVIEW OF DRAFT ZONING STANDARDS FOR
SINGLE AND MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
Recommendation:
That the City Council direct staff as deemed appropriate relative to proceeding with a text amendment to
the Zoning Ordinance.
Background:
The City Council previously directed staff to provide an overview of zoning standards for single and
multi -family residential development projects. Staff presented a report on proposed changes to
development standards at a special meeting of City Council on March 30, 1999 and Council directed
staff to further analyze and refine certain elements of the suggested changes and report back to Council.
Staff evaluated proposed revisions based on Council direction as summarized below and on the attached
tables.
Analysis:
The standards requiring further review by staff involved:
• Parking
• Open Space & Upper Floor Setbacks
I. Parking Standards
The City Council proposed that requirements for single family guest parking be reduced to providing
only a 17' setback requirement, but suggested increasing the guest parking to one space per each
dwelling unit for multi -family projects. The size of lots and lot orientation effects the actual number of
parking spaces provided for projects. The current parking standards are found in Sections 17.44.020
and Section 17.44.090 (c) as follows:
■ .Single family 2 spaces per unit and 1 guest space
• Two family/duplex 2 spaces per unit and 1 guest space
■ Multi -family 2 spaces per unit and 1 guest space for each two units
Staff evaluated the effects of the proposed changes and found that eliminating the guest parking in single
family projects would allow additional floor area on the ground floor and have a minor impact on most
parking conditions as a 17' setback is generally provided for all new construction. Alley fronting lots
with garages could accommodate a guest space with 9' or 17' setbacks. (Please see Summary of
Proposed Changes to Residential Development Standards.)
Multi -family parking changes will result in no change for through lots, but street fronting lots will
require tandem parking and make some projects unbuildable and substantially reduce ground floor
livable area. This change in combination with other recommended zoning standard changes will result
in projects which are small and may not be desirable for residents. (Please see attached tabulation.)
Parking Recommendations:
• Change single family parking requirement for guest parking not located in the garage setback
• Maintain the current multi -family parking requirements because of excessive floor area reduction.
II. Open Space & Upper Floor Setback Standards
•
The current open space requirements are summarized as follows:
Typically
Zone/Use Open Space Requirement Provided /Project
•xnge:#`•am•
i):.;�::::.::•
:.:.:::.:R:�.;�Saztgl¢,..��:o•pz;.3::.?...........................................��.�y,..�.:pew:.d�u..{iau#�.�Gnaerxsr�n::'�::�::::>>::>»>:<:r�::>:::>::»:z<:::»::>::::::»:: . . q
R -2B 100% on decks permitted /50% covered
t:...r:�tt.. ttl?�:�?1k0.��€Q....................................................::..:.:::::::.:::::::.::?�:..::.::::.::::::.:::._.::::::::::
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.
»>::;»:«:::»::»«:<::«z:<:;z::;:>::>;::«:<:>:::2�t%:�9:>��'•i?:�<d;u€�ririt;::�trinegstAn;�?�:
100 sq. ft. private open space on decks /
100% on decks permitted/50% covered /
50% directly accessible ea. du.
............................... .
::=>:»:::ondomrn�ums>E:r tlue:z
Complaints about new projects constructed in the City generally involve comments that buildings look
massive and tall and that there is insufficient open space. Council responded to this issue with a
recommendation that the new projects be stepped, creating new "front yard" requirements on the floors
above the ground level (at streets or alleys) and eliminating the ability to provide required open space on
roof decks.1 Building volume has been reduced with this recommendation since it will no longer be
possible to put required open space on the roof . The effect of the proposed changes will step the
highest part of the buildings away from the street making buildings appear less massive and generally
reduce livable area by approximately 720 sq. ft. for a typical 3000 square foot lot. However, providing
200 square feet of additional open space at grade in combination with new stepped "front yard"
requirements as previously suggested by Council will substantially reduce floor area by another 282 to
745 square feet (a total reduction of up to 1,465 square feet depending on lot orientation) and may not
be desirable to potential buyers of these projects. A typical condominium will be reduced in size from
2,375 square feet unit to 1,924 square feet on street to alley oriented lots or as low as 1,377 square feet
on a street fronting lot. As livable area is substantially reduced the units will be less attractive as higher
end housing. (Most of the two -on -a lot condominium units which are in the range of 2,000 — 2,300
square feet currently sell for up to $500,000). Changes in housing size will affect the housing market in
the City. (Please Refer to Buildout Table.)
The effect of these proposed changes should -also be examined on the attached floor plan. As the plan
for a typical 2,000 square foot unit indicates, livable areas are still substantial even with the proposed
upper level setbacks. However, adding an additional 200 square feet at grade will potentially reduce
building depth by an additional 6 to 7 feet resulting in small living rooms, potential elimination of
bedrooms at basement levels, and elimination of bath rooms at first floor levels and den/dining rooms at
second floor levels.2 (See attached floor plan.)
In order to avoid excessive reductions in living area with the above standards, staff is recommending
that building separation requirements in the R-3 zone be reduced from 8 feet to 6 feet, consistent with
R-1 and R-2 requirements. It is also recommended that the minimum open space requirement be
reduced to 4 feet in order to make the "front" yard setback countable open space.
Open Space Recommendations:
1. Eliminate option to provide required open space on roof decks for R-2, R-3 zones.
2. Omit minimum 200 sq. ft. open space on grade (R-2, R-3 zones) as it substantially reduces unit size.
3. Eliminate calculations for open space which includes excess yard areas.
4. Reduce current minimum dimension open space requirements to 4 feet for R-2, R-3 zones
5. Maintain optiontto partially cover a percentage of required open space on 2nd floor level decks.
The effect of the above recommendations will be to reduce building volume, provide increased building
setbacks along street frontage and setback the highest part of the building from the street to minimize the
appearance of building height. The effect of eliminating alternatives to calculating open space with excess
yard areas will be to simplify the Zone Code and add additional open space for new projects.
Sol Blumen
Community
Concur:
elc., Director,
Development Department
Stephen R. Bell,
City Manag
Notes:
ertson,
anning Associate
1. Applies to street and alley through lots and street side only for street fronting lots.
2. 200 sq. ft. / 30 ft. lot depth = 6.65 ` (Typical lot size 3,000 sq. ft. or 30' x 100')
Attachments: . ..
1. Summary Table of Proposed Changes to Residential Development Standards
2. Buildout Tabulation -
3. Typical Proposed Floor Plan (2000 sq. ft./3000 sq. ft. lot)
4. Typical Building Elevation
5. Typical New Development Projects
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
City Council Proposal
I Single -Family Parking
Decrease Guest Parking Requirement
fot SingleFamily to no guest parking
u(still require 17 -foot setbackon
ontinglots-)
B. Duplex or two- family dwelling: Two off-
street parking spaces for each unit plus one guest
space per dwelling unit. One additional space of on-
site guest parking shall be provided for each on -street
space lost because of new curbcuts and/or driveways.
Impacts
treet fronting lot NO Cl•I
Ailey fronting only reduced
pa king, use of 3"garage setbac
would be_ OTC allowing mi
livable area`on ground f "
Staff Recommendation
range requirement
single family to -t
'',',a0440',01-
II.
paces only
Street to alley through lots: NO
CHANGE
Street fronting lots: to provide
additional space will require
tandem parking in most situations.
and will make some proiects
unbuildable. Will reduce livable
area on ground floor (net reduction
of 120 square feet typical).
Do not change
requirement for guest
parking space for two
unit or multiple family
because of tandem
parking and reduction
in gross floor area for
street fronting lots.
II. Two-Family/Multi-Family
Parking
Increase Guest Parking Requirement
for Multi -Family projects to one
guest space per unit
Current Code Language •
Proposed Code Language
B. Duplex or two- family. dwelling:
Two off-street parking spaces for each
unit plus one guest space. One additional
space of on-site guest parking shall be
provided for each on -street space lost
because of new curbcuts and/or
driveways.
C. Multiple dwellings (three or more
units).: Two off-street spaces for each
dwelling unit plus one guest space for
each two dwelling units. One additional
space of on-site guest parking shall be
provided for each on -street space lost
because of new curbcuts and/or
driveways
oof Deck pool' Space
o not allow Roof Decks to Count
wards Open SpaceRequirement (in
-3 zones)
ogen'space areas mea
include patios, pools, spas, and'garden
areas, also balconies and decks over non
"Irving areas or quer living areas of the
same dwelling unit when ai cessible
through the interior oftire dwelling unit
and ove only the dwelling umt for=whic
there rs: nterroraaccess .
C. Multiple dwellings (three or more units).:
Two off-street spaces for each dwelling unit plus one
guest space for each dwelling unit. One additional
space of on-site guest parking shall be provided for
each on -street space lost because of new curbcuts
and/or driveways.
'nate open space areas may include patios, pools
span and garden areas; also balconies and decks over
non -living ares or over living areas,�ofthe same
dwelling unit when accessible through the interior of
the dwelling unit at the same:floor level and over qnl
the"dwelling anrt`for which there rs interior access's
Roof decks' with= access.onl (from"afloorbelowshall
not be included in the required one
calculation
ificaritly more open space,decl
and balcony areas will have to be
provided at:first and second level
old or on the ground ` Wi11 red`uci
rndoorlrvable areas atthe floors;.
where additional decks/balconie"s'.
ovi+"
on qualifying roof"deck open
space will probably still_be"" `
>-provided for view reasons.
Page 1
City Council Proposal
Current Code Language •
Proposed Code Language
Impacts
Staff Recommendation
IV. Setbacks on Upper
Floors
Require greater front and rear
setbacks on upper floors (R-2 and R -
2B zones)
B. Front Yard. Every
lot shall have a front yard setback equal
to at least five feet unless a greater than
five-foot setback is indicated on the
official zoning map of the city, in which
case, the larger figure shall apply.
C. Side Yards. Every
lot shall have a side yard on each side of
the lot equal to ten percent of the width
of the lot, provided such side yard shall
not be less than three feet in..width and.
need not exceed five feet in width.
D. Rear Yard. Every
lot shall have a rear yard not less than
five feet in depth. The second floor can
be three feet from the property line. On
any alley the rear yard requirement is a
depth of three feet form the property line
on the first floor and one foot from the
property line on the second floor.
B. Front Yard. Every lot shall
have a front yard setback equal to at least five feet
larger figure t"^" apply. Additional front yard
setbacks are required for upper floors as set forth in
Section 17.12.025 (17.14.025 for R -2B zone)
C. Side Yards. Every lot shall
have a side yard on each side of the lot equal to ten
percent of the width of the lot, provided such side
yard shall not be less than three feet in width and
need not exceed five feet in width.
D. Rear Yard. Every lot shall have
a rear yard not less than five feet in depth. The-sesend
.Onany
alley the rear yard requirement is a depth of three feet
form the property line on the first floor and one foot
from the property line on the second floor and above,
and shall include additional rear yard setbacks for
upper floors as set forth in Section 17.12.025
(17.14.025 for R -2B zone)
Upper level setbacks in addition to
yards will reduce the bulk and mass
of buildings, and increase the light
and air to neighboring properties
and on the public rights-of-way.
Livable floor area is reduced on the
second and third floors, reducing
total potential livable area that can
be built. Will impact both multi-
family projects and single-family
projects built on smaller lots.
For street fronting lots with no
alley access, would severely impact
livable area on the third floor
towards the rear of the property.
Change requirement for
greater setbacks as
recommended, along
front yards, and along
rear yards only when
abutting an alley.
yaks on Upper Floors
reater front and rear
"n upper floors R-3 zone
716.030 Frontyard
Every, lot shall have a front yard as
shown; on the map entitled "Front
Requirements' and adopted as a'p
this title Refer to Chapter 17 22 fi
additional front yard requirements:
,condominiums.
17.16.040...
iange);
17 16.050~ . Placement
buildings
Placement of buildings on any lot s
conform to the following.;
No building may occupy an
ortion of a required yard
Any, buildings; used for,
human habitation shall'not be located
closer the rear property line than; a
distance of five feet However, where a
rear.yard abuts, a street or alley, the
building may be located three feet on the
ground flaor'level, and oe foot on upper
stories, from rearproperty line.',
rant yd
ar
•
very lotshall have a front yard as shown on the mar
entitled "front Yard Requrremients'" and adapted as a
apart ofth s title Refer to Chapter 17.22 for add a .erl
frontyard requirements for condominiums
Additiorial.front=yard setbacks'arc.055 , ed:for upper
floors as setfforth in Section 17.16.055
1716 040 • Side yards (nochange)
716050 ' Placement o,llair dings
Placement of buildings on any lot shall conform to
the following
.'A x``No building may occupy any porton ofa.'
required yard
Any buildings used forhumanhabitatton shall not
e located closer tit the rear property; line than ae .
distance of fivefeet. However, where a rearyard
abutsa street efeety, the building may be located°.'
three feet on the ground floor level, acid one foot on:
upper stones, from the rear'property line 'and
additional real •yard. setbacks are requiredfor.upper
, floors asset forth i -;section
' 17.16.055
Change°`requirement,
greatersetbacks-as
recommended, along
front yards, and along;
=rear yards only when
abuttingan alley.':
Page 2
City Council Proposal
Current Code Language
Proposed Code Language
Impacts
Staff Recommendation
VI. Additional Upper Floor
Setbacks of 4 Feet and 11 Feet
Additional front and rear setbacks of 4
„feet on the second floor, and 11 feet
on front and rear to be added as new
sections to R-2, R -2B, and R-3 zones.
Upper Floor Setbacks
Section 17.12.025 (R-2)
Section 17.14.025 (R -2B)
Section 17.16.055 (R-3)
A. Second floor - Front Setback: On the second floor level, a
minimum additional four (4) feet of setback from the front yard
requirement, shall be provided from the building to the front property
line. Balconies and decks, provided the railings are 60% open, may
encroach into this required additional setback, but may not be located
within the front yard area.
B. Second Floor - Rear setback: On the second floor level. a
minimum additional four (4) feet of setback from the rear yard
requirement, shall be provided from the building to the rear property
line. Balconies and decks, provided the railings are 60% open, may
encroach into this required setback, but may not be located within the
required rear yard.
C. Third Floor - Front setback: On the third floor level, a minimum
additional eleven (11) feet of setback from the front yard shall be
provided from the building to the front property line. Balconies and
decks, provided the railings are 60% open, may encroach into this
required setback, but may not extend beyond the required second
floor front setback line.
D. Third Floor - Rear Setback: On the third floor level, a minimum
additional eleven (11) feet of setback from the rear yard, shall be
provided from the building to the rear property line. Balconies and
decks, provided the railings are 60% open, may encroach into this
'required setback. but may not extend beyond the required second
floor setback line.
Upper level setbacks of 4 feet and
11 feet in addition to required front
yard will typically result in a total
setback of 9 feet at the second
floor, and a total of 16 feet at the
third floor, with allowance for
balconies to project to within 5 feet
at second floor and decks located
above the second floor to project to
within 9 feet at third floor (exact
dimensions may vary in the R-3
zone, where front yard
requirements differ by block).
Will reduce the bulk and mass of
buildings and create a stepped back
effect at second and third floor.
Will reduce the potential livable
area on many projects.
Will impact both multi -family
projects and single-family projects
built on smaller R-2 lots.
For street fronting lots with no
alley access, would severely impact
livable area on second and third
floors at the rear of the property.
Change requirement for
greater upper floor
setbacks of 4 and 11
feet as recommended,
along front yards, and
along rear yards only
when abutting an alley
Separation between
standard from 8 -feet to 6
e consistent with R-1 and R-2
zones knot previously, discussed. by
1'7.16.050 C ;The
distance between any
=building used for. human
-:habitation shall not
Mess than eight feet''
distance between A m
building band accessory
building'.shall be not les
'Alan,`six feet
17 16,050 C The distance between a iy building used for human
.'habitation shall be'not less than srx'feet The distance between a main
''. budding and accessory building shall'.be notless than;six feet
Will make,R 3 standard for
separation between byddings the
same as fo'r R 1 and R-2 zones, will
allow a slight increase in potential
floor area, and flexrbil ty in design ,'
to compensate for reduction caused
y upper floor setbacks
Charequirement
bulldmngeg;separation from
Sfeetto6feetinR-3',
zone
Page 3
City Council Proposal
Current Code Language
Proposed Code Language
Impacts
Staff Recommendation
VII. Open Space on the
Ground
Require 200 square feet of open
space per unit on the ground, open to
sky in the R-2, R -2B and R-3 zones
R-2, R -2B, and R-3 Usable open space standards
(Sections 17.12.080, 17.14.080, and 17.16.080)
D. Common open space areas may include
pools, spas, gardens, play equipment, courtyards (a
minimum of twenty (20) feet wide), decks over
non -living area, and/or similar area, but shall not
include driveways, turning areas, parking areas,
and required front, rear, and side yard areas.
E. Private open space areas may include patios,
pools, spas, and garden areas; also balconies and
decks over non -living areas or over living areas of
the same dwelling unit when accessible through the
interior of the dwelling unit and over only the
dwelling unit for which there is interior access.
R-2, R -2B, and R-3 Usable open space
standards (Sections 17.12.080, 17.14.080, and
17.16.080)
D. Common open space areas may include
pools, spas, gardens, play equipment,
courtyards (a minimum of twenty (20) feet
wide), located on the ground, clear and open to
the sky -=-
similar area, but shall not include driveways,
turning areas, parking areas, and required
front, rear, and side yard areas.
E. Private open space areas may include
patios, pools, spas, and garden areas; located
on the ground, clear and open to the sky also
Would create a standard that will
significantly reduce potential
livable area at all floor levels.
Especially significant impact on
smaller R-3 lots of 3000 square
feet, reducing livable area by
over 600 square feet. Forces the
majority of open space to be at
the ground level adjacent to
garages and parking areas, (not
typically directly accessible to
living areas on floors above).
Will likely reduce the amount of
decks and balconies provided on
second and third level living
areas since required open space
is at grade --potentially resulting
in boxier, less articulated
buildings.
Do not change
requirement and
continue to allow
flexibility in design,
with open space to be
provided on decks,
balconies, and/or
ground level.
R 1 Building Heigh
Building 1leight' Any building may have"a
maximum of two stories, but shall not exceed in
any case a maximum oftwenty five (25) feet'm
height Refer to Chapter 17122 for additionalheight
requirements for condominiums = .
R 2 and R 2;B Building,Ieight
Building Height.:.Any building may have a
maximum of two stories, but` shall; not exceed in-,
any`ease a maximum of thirty (30) -feet in height. 2.
ferrto Chapter 17 22 for additional height
requirements for; condominiums
Definitions "Basement" means thatportion of a
budding partially below the average level of the
highest and lowest point of that portion of a
budding site covered by,tie building with a'ceiling µ
no part of which) is more than seven feet above -
suchlevel
"Story
'means ti at portion ofa buil3mgincluded'.
etween thef surface of any floor and the surface of
he floor next above it, If there be no floor above it;'.-
en the space between such floor and the ceiling
next above itsshall be considered a story A"
bbasementshall not be considered as;a storywh
computing theheight of a;building;-,
R 1 Building Height
=Building Height Any building may have a
'shall not "exceed
n any case a'maximum of twenty-five.(25)
feet in height. Refer to Chapter 17.22 for" -
- additional height requirements for
condominiums -
R 2 and Building Height -
',
eight"
',Buildin Height. Any building may
shall not exceed in' any co e a
maximum of thirty (30) feet in height
Refer to` Chapter 17.22 for additional
height requirements for
condominiums.
Will eliminate the misleading
`story" limitation, and eliminate
inconsistency between the
Zoning Ordinance and the-
Uniform Building Code relative
to basement' and story"R
May reduce artificial raising o
the grade to qualify ground`
floors as basements (although
still allowable` under the LT.B.C.
to avoid providing two
stairways)
Chan a re urem
ientto
g q
eliminate number of
story limitations aril
efinitions of basemen
=and story
Eliminate definitions of Basement
*IX. Minimum Dimension for
Open Space Areas
Change R-2 and R-3 standard from a
minimum 7 -foot dimension and
minimum area of 49 square feet to a
minimum 4 -foot dimension and
minimum area of 40 square feet.
C. The minimum dimension of open space
areas shall be seven feet. &
H. Circular, triangular, odd and/or unusual
shaped open space areas shall have a minimum of
forty-nine (49) square feet in area as well as
minimum seven -foot dimensions.
C. The minimum dimension of open
space areas shall be four feet with a minimum
total area of forty (40) feet. &
H. Circular, triangular, odd and/or
unusual shaped open space areas shall have a
minimum of forty (40) square feet in area as
well as minimum four -foot dimensions
This revision is necessary to
recognize four foot wide decks
as open space (per the new
setback standards) and to
compensate for the loss of open
space previously provided on
roof decks.
Change requirement as
recommended
*Proposed by staff for clarification purposes and to compensate for changes proposed by Council
Page 4
Hypothetical Max Buildout for 2 -unit Projects
(Based on typical 3000 Square Foot street to alley through lot in R-3 zone)
Lot Size
Lot Coy
erage
Max. Buiildout
Gross Building Areal
Reductions
Parking Requirements2
Yard Requirements3
Open Space
Requirement°
Max.
Buildout
G.F.A.
Est. G.F.A. per
unit (2 -unit
project)
Current requirements:
street to alley through lot
3000
0.65
lstlevel:
1950
2nd level:
. 1950
3rd level:
' 1950
Total :
5850
5 spaces / 17'
setback from
street
1000 Current:
5' front 3'
sides l'rear
1000
0
600 square
feet/200 sq.ft.
private per unit
950
475
1950
975
100
1850
925
100
4750
2375
City Council Recommendations:
..................................
julyd? oiler additional;
space (6i.t04
�s#aevel>
L0
10
d
6
6
so
sS
375:
II. No Open Space on
Roof Deck (but allowed on
other decks),
3000
0.65
lst level:
1950
2nd level:
1950
3rd level:
1950
Total :
5850
5 spaces / 17'
setback from
street
1000
1000
Current:
5' front 3'
sides 1'rear
0
600 square
feet/200 sq.ft.
private per unit
950
475
100
1850
925
200
1750
875
300
4550
2275
eve,l
0
0
0
7d/ev
level
9.
52
0
i5
IV. Require 200 square
feet per unit open space
to be at grade, clear to sky
3000
0.65
lst level:
1950
2nd level:
1950
3rd level:
1950
Total :
5850
5 spaces / 17'
setback from
street
1000
1000
Current:
5' front 3'
sides l'rear
0
600 square
feet/200 sq.ft.
at grade per
unit
94
94
94
282
856
428
1856
928
1856
928
4568
2284
2nd le
5:0:
0
00
s2
4
4
28
lff
�4
4
Based on maximum Lot Coverage, multiplied by three (2 stories and basement)
2Reduced livable area due to parking requirement (includes garage area and necessary setback or turning area)
3Reduced livable area due to open space requirement (does not include amount of usable open space than can be placed on roof deck, overhang as exception to lot coverage, or ground to sky
area already reducing livable area due to lot coverage requirement)
4Reduced livable area due to yard requirements (does not include yard areas that already reduce livable area due to lot coverage requirement)
5Combination of II and 111 yields an estimated square feet per unit of 2065
Hypothetical Max Buildout for 2 -unit Projects
(Based on typical 3000 Square Foot street fronting lot in R-3 zone attached building)
Lot Size
Lot Cov
erage
Max. Buiildout
Gross Building Areal
Reductions
Parking Requirements2
Yard Requirements3
Open Space
Requirements'
Max.
Buildout
G.F.A.
Est. G.F.A. per
unit (2 -unit
project)
Current requirements:
street to alley through lot
3000
0.65
1st level:
• 1950
2nd level:
. 1950
3rd level:
1950
Total :
5850
5 spaces / 17'
setback from
street
1630
1630
Current:
5' front 3'
sides l' rear
0
600 square
feet/200 sq.ft.
private per unit
100
100
320
1950
1850
4120
160
975
925
2060
City Council
Recommendations:
lstli�
2hd:'le:ve!'
...................
II. No Open Space on
Roof Deck (but allowed on
other decks)
3000
0.65
W. Require 200 square
feet per unit open space
to be at grade, clear to sky
3000
0.65
1st level:
0
0
0:
1950
2nd level:
• 1950
3rd level:
1950
Total :
1stlev
3rd:leVi
1st level:
5850
0
0
1950
2nd level:
1950
3rd level:
1950
Total :
Sri
Totai
5850
0
0
0:
>10:0
975
525
5 spaces / 17'
setback from
street
5 spaces /17'
setback from
street
0:
1630
1630
0:
1630
1630
0.
Current:
5'front 3'
sides 1'rear
Current:
5 front 3'
sides 1'rear
0
0
600 square
feet/200 sq.ft.
private per unit
320
1800
1670
3790
reeu;
nvate! pemit:
160
900
835
1895
1:60
4:::975
600 square
feet/200 sq.ft.
at grade per
unit
105
1735
1735
3575
52.5
867.5
867.5
1787.5
5
1Based on maximum Lot Coverage, multiplied by three (2 stories and basement)
2Reduced livable area due to parking requirement (includes garage area, and necessary setback or turning area)
3Reduced livable area due to open space requirement (does not include amount of usable open space than can be placed on roof deck, overhang as exception to lot coverage, or ground to sky
area already reducing livable area due to lot coverage requirement)
4Reduced livable area due to yard requirements (does not include yard areas that already reduce livable area due to lot coverage requirement)
5Combination of II and III yields an estimated square feet per unit of 1875
• •
Proposed Building Upper Level Setbacks
Current Buildin
Envelope
Proposed Building
Envelope
Roof Deck Not Part
of Required Open Space
)pen Space
Street
Req'd
1—'Open
Space
t'
-1 !—
11/
17' Garage Setback
Elevation
IMP
Rear Yard
Typical recta setback at first and second levels
or vary with percentage provided at grade
17' Garage Setback
•
•
EStreet
4'� T
Flan View
Rear Yard
Regd Open Space
TYPICAL FLA, PLAN WI"ITH UPPER I 0UK SETBACKS
30'-0`
3'-0"
24'-O"
r -
GARAGE
I ,
FARM G i
1
■■11■■■■■11■■■■..■■■U■■
AI:CC::G:C:::C��:::C:::::
DECK
p
BEDRM.
I3'xIT
C
BATH
0
0
13A
0 0
0
rash:
BEDRM.
13'x15'
0
BATH
BASEMENT
FLOOR PLAN
FIRST
FLOOR PLAN
/7
4
1U■■11■■■■■U■■U■■■.M11111111111•11111111111111111111111M1•11 11•11111111•11101MIiimoDECKiii�i T24'■■iiii
u■■■■■■■■11.11■■1111■■■/11■U■
Q
•.
•
C
KITCHEN
AIDENT
8'x8'
LIVING/DINING
16'x24'
L
I'll"
1■■■■■■
i■■:■■■
DECK
1124
■■■■MUMU■
SECOND
FLOOR PLAN
Minimum Additional
5' Setback @ 3RD Level
Minimum Additional
2' Setback @ 2nd Level
n
Roof Deck Not
Part of Required
Open Space
1111111111111111111111111111111111111
1111111111111111111II I I I LI I I I111111 11111I I I11I111 I I I
I`
STREET / ALLEY ELEVATION WITH
AVERAGE UPPER FLOOR SETBACKS
l C�
Required Open Space
Front Yard Setback
@ 3rd Level Varies
Required Open Space
Front Yard Setback
2"d Level Varies
• •
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
Date: September 30, 1999
To: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
From: Sol Blumenfel , irector
Community Development Department
Subject: Special Meeting and Workshop on Residential Development Standards
Pursuant to Council direction, a workshop will be held to discuss the following proposals to
change residential zoning requirements.
I. Single -Family Parking: Decrease Guest Parking Requirement for Single
Family to no guest parking (but still require 17 -foot setback on street fronting
lots)
II. Two-Family/Multi-Family Parking: Increase Guest Parking Requirement for
Multi -Family projects to one guest space per unit
Ill. Roof Deck Open Space: Do not allow Roof Decks to Count towards Open
Space Requirement (in R-2, R -2B, R-3 zones)
IV. Setbacks on Upper Floors: Require greater front and rear setbacks on
upper floors (R-2 and R -2B zones)
V. Setbacks on Upper Floors: Require greater front and rear setbacks on
upper floors R-3 zone.
VI. Additional Upper Floor Setbacks of 4 Feet and 11 Feet: Additional front
and rear setbacks of 4 feet on the second floor, and 11 feet on the third floor
to be added as new sections to R-2, R -2B, and R-3 zones.
VI(a)Separation between buildings (*recommended by staff): Charige R-3
standard from 8 -feet to 6 feet to be consistent with R-1 and R-2 zones (not
previously discussed by Council)
VII. Open Space on the Ground: Require 200 square feet of open space per
unit on the ground, open to sky in the R-2, R -2B and R-3 zones
*IX. Minimum Dimension for Open Space Areas (*recommended by staff):
Change R-2 and R-3 standard from a minimum 7 -foot dimension and minimum
area of 49 square feet to a minimum 4 -foot dimension and minimum area of
40 square feet.
A detailed matrix of the proposals (including recommended code language, impacts, and
staff's recommendation) and example building plans are attached to aid the discussion.
Also, based on the discussion at the last meeting, staff has prepared an alternative proposal
for the upper floor setbacks, which would allow averaging of the setback along the width of the
lot. This would allow more design flexibility and building articulation along the front and rear of
buildings where the upper floor setbacks would be required.
Page 1
/5
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
City Council Proposal
Current Code Language
Proposed Code Language
Impacts
Staff Recommendation
q � r
d n p « S : a a. .`
�. $ F's,� 3.: yt':;
,
..i ,..,.. ,Yp. -,.-{£ �
to mil � a : *_w '
g<.,.�. 5:ktng�,-
e`` 'airing ee uiremcrit
� g q�
. x+i 4
• tont arrkm
.fig !
gut i ' uir 17 footsetbackon
^ i i +rY Yom F 4
•nttng lois)
��: ,-�§e� d
<fi.- �«L" n4.£i.n�...�.. .,Yt.s
''# >s;c„5.;. .zc "4%`•"
xl:k" v[1: ,.:.ak SOs. M -':9
,... ..s .. r. :. .:. ,::y,,
One=famil :=?Two o -`street$�r, �
�t.,,-�.:L y.,..��.;.,�;x:�>�:��...��;�
i arkm : aces erdwellin Funtt, lus,one;
tl? g P P g P
k>.,cc r ,s•�r tr y ^�*
uest act.;
�g:
t ? '
C >-C'
'
nl. 1A< da. 3t! '.-,._ ."; T' .. ,S°i�`S?� a .v ._.
. 1•<" C �^.."'':L
`� a� w'i a" '.•,'*8 tt h a
..^ rk.. �v;,....t.: . Yy Cr ..:+?x' s�:i:..,n, .+.:�
-'One family Two` off=street arkin ,s aces er
��'�'''''''ii�.�..Y,� p gP, P
dwellinnit
gY,
g#- s : z ..s
b
J �
w = �_
;nt�i"2x aw ,• iw Hwx.. y`
Y i
✓o � M,,, 4.' r
,..'4.03. ,L . . ^L .: HA
Street£frontin lot . NO CHANE :
� g,4�
AIIe frontin onl reduced
, ,. z c. g. Y x
parking use of 3 garage setback
., . ,,"
would be bK allowingrequirement)
$ y
livable area on ground floor
?..,, .,n
'7 P
� z
T •'1,..4 s:.he .i��7ium�'X
:t h`ange eq uirement or.::
.zrg�4�,�� sf
sin le=ffamiil =to"two
g
a ..:rf 3 Y a#; x`
spaces°only noguest
,s,.„..„...,,,,,,,,..,,,...., f
� 8
I1. Two-Family/Multi-Family
Parking
Increase Guest Parking Requirement
for Multi -Family projects to one
guest space per unit
-
B. Duplex or two- family dwelling:
Two off-street parking spaces for each
unit plus one guest space. One additional
space of on-site guest parking shall be
provided for each on -street space lost
because of new curbcuts and/or
driveways.
C. Multiple dwellings (three or more
units).: Two off-street spaces for each
dwelling unit plus one guest space for
each two dwelling units. One additional
space of on-site guest parking shall be
provided for each on -street space lost
because of new curbcuts and/or
driveways
B. Duplex or two- family dwelling: Two off-
street parking spaces for each unit plus one guest
space per dwelling unit. One additional space of on-
Street to alley through lots: NO
CHANGE
Street fronting lots: to provide
additional space will require
Do not change
requirement for guest
parking space for two
unit or multiple family
because of tandem
parking and reduction
in gross floor area for
street fronting lots.
site guest parking shall be provided for each on -street
space lost because of new curbcuts and/or driveways.
C. Multiple dwellings (three or more units).:
Two off-street spaces for each dwelling unit plus one
guest space for each dwelling unit. One additional
space of on-site guest parking shall be provided for
each on -street space lost because of new curbcuts
and/or driveways.
tandem parking in most situations.
and will make some projects
unbuildable. Will reduce livable
area on ground floor (net reduction
of 120 square feet typical).
$bt�J <.\�, .:,..R
' o ' e S ace;1.; . { <
.�, n g•`�k Op n�* p �vF
n1 fw
- 'x ' �: r x
]. iSi cks o Count�
... , ,...
ces, '
°i o :enS�ace- a irement (in .
�;� ..�
+ to ?
zo a
��
q s s ?
Ea.! ��. �#,c+� , s r a
' lv '.t ^.
_t,.F� � �
a ._
?'� ; , � ..� s� ,�.
i
��t`there<i5--mte
z, z y rc
"'
°'i4"r .x e3�$4' 1•l:m^ G ;
.> t .'i,> tW
.l W. '*� x•µk. K3• ,ii ..UL.4•xXz a✓�P M1,•az. r°" ' A
�E �< ,nvateo ens ace areas: a
�„ � p � P �.'•, �
4n �. ilia ,, d4, ,:gki a , ..x,,. r , 0
x -include' aiiossw 1 S �asland1 arden, °;:
n P°d g! P g ,�r
r,'")-r4.,....y..>P,«y>; xg a. ;x�?' .,. a ,^6 xR..,:�
,ari , f ` -”
�areas,<alsobalcomes�anddgckso�er�non,�:
..,.�y,�,�3 i�+.� ,�a,.+k�,i'..<g,=z
>' a' s , e
:.Lvmg areas or,over Iivmg arcas,oftti r
"�•.+sfi .. .`r> i' T nm, w .:^,rr i a..M":v"0.:; „r;...,
;. satne; wellin �unit>whenraccessible,
3., g: ,pu 1,
+Y"rou ..l.4 pdteri ro ., xdwe '�
w'throu =the mtenor'b the wellm unit` ''
_ � a� 'fl 3,..� .N g��.
r b >- .`.,r, x f .,.
sand ovet?aonl ,,the,dwelhn untt.for�which;�.
�;. . .., � g rem.. q
oraccess �'�� � '
„ =r � i � � <, ,
Y J. ; � ...4 Ap '£' a.. '•
i � a .x.
dE :.. „$:: ti:,..
i •^ f., .. .� `r^ .mss. ..., .. r . .•�-..n r.
Private o en s ace areas ma include atios ools,>#
,,. � P , P�, Y rrP�x,,,„, P
#'.. , y , 5_.,.i e ....., :: ,y .. ,M„P ie '., �W'.,.e xi
P s 'as and arden;areas also balconies-and=decks over „
P g , .
,.:. ». .a.,o,: ,'; �L' .Y'».t : a ' r
non iivmg�az . o o � g �_ f
n`" ' eas=fir, ver liv n areas o the`same
` �.*'S. yaazYs;.�ti:'4�;;� r t t '.-:� nim. ;r x,,-1..en .� -'h
'dwellin :unitwhen'>accessibleithrou h:theainteriorofz;
g g
tx 3.., ,.:,. . C4'� s`0s.: > .. Ya.,:.�e, 63 v<; .... b /�'r '4,"'", -h,' ....•.x
the'dwellin °unit:at.thesame floor level°and over onl „
ag%� x� �. ?�;
''w:' ✓ i .?' , a�Ti,e k.,ic K ,...swe.... n ....a ,.. A'.1,>_,
fatheii#11. unit for -which there is mtenoraccess
� � �g�;�:a���� rv� ,� < � - '.
. ie, i y
Roof decks'>wtth�acces3ibnly�froni<aflo6tbelow shall:,
...
i .:rSy �
Si iflcantl more d en s^ ace,deck":�
,>m wY P P,�
: . , r, i .:. , iV -. ...> ,
• and balcon areas w 11 have to be
Y 1
;a�& ,eif Y�. % ,-
rovided;atfirstand ec - nd levei
� p � , s o s
+t � sa a:�'.>z�a. .�a
and/or onthe' round��Willreduce:F
ground
,. rH .a, .. .A-:«: .
. indoor, livable; a aar`eas at the;floors
w +a.,a � �.t c �:rx v . �.,
x . .:a`.. r .�' �! .> ..
z Ii4.additi 4. iaecks/balconies
,��. ��#�., e � ��
provided, and''iielp to reduce bulk
��x=£
wand mass
rn ... ,.a l ..L .
Non 'ual1 m roofdeck o en
9 f3'g P
Spacelwill probably still be
X � J k-
Provided forvievlreasons"
S •;Y: ..., ) 6vX'
,,Chan e;re uirement as ,;.
,: g q.
.'!tiAS-ii. Y .. .,
recommended F'y
�
� ,
� < ,, ��
"' `
'notbe mcluded�in the required open space ,w
f cu, np; $.s�::5.. ,+.t q.. �,
ce1culanon. . ° a,';
t
?. t t` $.. �1.. °`~�, � d.f .4 �.a.. ..�
K
1 ,.na
'_
Page 1
City Council Proposal
Current Code Language
Proposed Code Language
Impacts
Staff Recommendation
IV. Setbacks on Upper
Floors
Require greater front and rear
setbacks on upper floors (R-2 and R-
2B zones)
B. Front Yard. Every
lot shall have a front yard setback equal
to at least five feet unless a greater than •
five-foot setback is indicated on the
official zoning map of the city, in which
case, the larger figure shall apply.
C. Side Yards. Every
lot shall have a side yard on each side of .
the lot equal to ten percent of the width,
of the lot, provided such side yard shall
not be less than three feet in width and
need not exceed five feet in width.
D. Rear Yard. Every
lot shall have a rear yard not less than
five feet in depth. The second floor can
be three feet from the property line. On
any alley the rear yard requirement is a
depth of three feet form the property line
on the first floor and one foot from the
property line on the second floor,
B. Front Yard. Every lot shall
have a front yard setback equal to at least five feet
- • • • •
Upper level setbacks in addition to
yards will reduce the bulk and mass
of buildings, and increase the light
and air to neighboring properties
and on the public rights-of-way,
Livable floor area is reduced on the
second and third floors, reducing
total potential livable area that can
be built. Will impact both multi-
family projects and single -family
projects built on smaller lots.
For street fronting lots with no
alley access, would severely impact
livable area on the third floor
towards the rear of the property.
Change requirement for
greater setbacks as
recommended, along
front yards, and along
rear yards only when
abutting an alley.
- - - . , .
:: _
-' - 6 - : •
larger figure shall apply. Additional front yard
setbacks are required for upper floors as set forth in
Section 17.12.025 (17.14.025 for R-2B zone)
C. Side Yards. Every lot shall
have a side yard on each side of the lot equal to ten
percent of the width of the lot, provided such side
yard shall not be less than three feet in width and
need not exceed five feet in width.
. D. Rear Yard. Every lot shall have
a rear yard not less than five feet in depth. Thecond
, :: - • • :: - : : •• • - : : : - -- ' :. On any
alley the rear yard requirement is a depth of three feet
form the property line on the first floor and one foot
from the property line on the second floor and above.
and shall include additional rear yard setbacks for
upper floors as set forth in Section 17.12.025
(17.14.025 for R-2B zone)
aaks n J er'Floors
6efb ,o , EP
,». w" ..'..u'�k'?� 5 ,.. <:
q d r
e tar ; _ eater.. p .and-rear a -
ud.. :,,,..»fix^, ;? ».,,,
q 9�entitle
ili ezksr� #loors R`� 2one->�•�
� uPpx..,, '
�Sta'=a
' " s 7+,,P•;
g V.,,,,'
g}a , j# z:> �Y z '" c ,`.r ,�«e
k `'�' �� : t � �m
,;.r�rY
a s w s x xS
1 ,.:
,
.
�>�- •ts � s ;-�
��rx v.
r �
n,:
Y
F tp �a �
'� N.. Y• .L:\T'"�moi. ..,. .. .
u a
S`«fit F'.•, X •n-£ ss, .>C` .Stt R6 ,? .
7.16.03.0 - .� tont and
i E `
... ., �, ,.a..:,,,, ,,. <, le»p•._^$>, .,a'�
x : h a e front, aril as< ;.-
Y�Eye ,. Ions all;h V a, r � .
to,„ �. .h ,.
shdn:br5»thel�pa .entltle`t1�-Front Xarc� �
�. •it��P ,, mac, ae,-,V..-: .. ,...
a tnrements ;ari;ado techs a= art:of
fwar.. V.^- .,. 14v�_d ....xx„hW .. ,,.-....
; e e e a e 2 r:
a.'t`h�stttl ..R f r torch t r171 ,fo : °;
.��n P
.«,� at-ri."§.. h-.i'. �sY`
addttioriafront',: aril re}u�trnentsfor
.,pt, ae? xts, ,r4”.. FC. n, �•w y,,vx¢�g
cdndodun1ums
,. i i-.04 x ay. �°yat
�A17 b 040 �fi a s Srde: ands no�� x
�`� (
change .��,-q
7=I6050-sPlacementof =
•� 1u , s at
yex> E bu�ldmgs,
lacement�o>;�bw(dm�s br�t'a'rty1ot shall �
brti{ 'tot ("° afloivin fi sx .
:., erg
r"x�.� 7
Ao burldifi and occ an
— «,,� .E�g Yom,,, PYA Y
otttonxna re acted, and + f
✓ ,, X,
a'Yy. ✓
�- � :� tr a�iiililni s::-istd for � �
+.�„ a.,:�� � yrs , �- �
>x k; '
^y ' ,- t`f ,ti .. a..;e ✓,:o.."fe.. .,y x ti, . ,c .-
tumtitahabttationsfial ot.be;located= k
. to' - : a a _ _ •
.nc�o,,A$A the rear ro ;,h th is a ,
an rig e L. iti- e * ere:
t dist cc of e f �Io t
n v:.',.° kk. .,;k r:: �e,}i ..,. vWY>. id.... .,F
rear t'ard5abuts ai streeto alley, the•;: `
pK '.l Pi`.:s'K's: 'M1{';`.ki at d th ..FPS.
ui ilrns��^.maYY l�e��iilacatet :thtee^f0 -dri the
�'� "i, .>t�5ae'�`r�:4 ry � %".'S§9�'i Ya�+`9^ y..V..
out: oot levelandxone.+ oot onu ` erg
rr, 0 PP
x,,,, +?'.4:..- My:r>*: prb ei Q X z ;i h° 4
stbit`hOrgarSprbpe,'Al!t?.,
h1'1 16 030 kront=- and - ,
Y .k
,,.; ...�da� .,C e
"2i; <'°...t.<,. ,$,as, ,;. r.<. :a-
taEVe . -1 t liall¢have a-frant ,aril°asjsh wn:onithe`ma
n', o .., s i
,ry 9.., ,<.,, e 9r..,�.::.:�* ..7,.; �
' - on aril a uiremen� and•ado ed as»a
, i r t Y 7•t q s� pt �
,ss.rt+x a�wa.r
-� art-of�thtsttttlez'Refer to Cha”"ter 17:32_for addrt'ioifal k
,. c.. ... wci, `2a.,.rn:fT„ -Saha. _ _.
n%, atilt a mrd e'ts,for..cotid mmiiims
� frb . , - . r m, n, o �, .
?i, L.- y q
, �, a'.;w, , ^�^'�F�: ^�;"i � .r 9 v' .a�?. �, r;: n*
8d�troralafrontyardcsetbacCs';arb required fonupper i
See above
_., ...w.
: � ,"- y x'
..a ..'. s <._
� r;
z
:E ,ry ;Y 4
a
: F
;
., y ° -r -
-
�, �
Q
,
t.--
T •.i
&
Chan ere uirement for.;
g q .
..»�"`s .f.$^ fA
reate r e
$g , rs tbacks as
t fi
a,.�,;.�om.r`a nde o
F :recommended, alon
,n....+ L -;ti�z^`,;�*4r xg
-fronts ard`s�FaridRalon -
aQ a'3.`�.�.a':+'s .i4a'�a Yii
to ar. c s on� ,when `•:,.
Ya Y
x 4
:ribift7n an'alle ,
g Y
floors as setforth in"Section 17Y16 055
y ,.i« ;
,1°7Y 16 040 � �&r Stde� arils no change)
cxt 3u .a»s rvti'. , x.: Y ( �5:^ ,
1 0 0 r, t r la'cemeri "o,' uil'iin s
1:�< G S P t #'� g
PlacementoPbui)din s0` Mot ii'''' contirint oa'
s:
.,. »ate.«.z ¢r g 7 z may:; - ,,--
the followin
.; g
,a " o undui Erna` -occu . an o i » ofja
N 3b Y Y � P tt on
;re uited; aril
9 ,.tt.. pxe r
,fir �.,
B , An biiildm used for human habttatw shallriot
Y� s q aag��'x, �.A.;:, a»�,� Y.. 6;
bezlocated closer to thesrear roe .,lme than a
S' f d` R "y 43 '£� f' N 5^ t
anceo k .a ,.' : „a' ,r-
;dis�anceio .'five fee:.lioiveVer awl�ere;a€rear, aril
�Y „� � � r" Y
.X^�°s.a3�°".: z � Fss ".� '"fY� .@Yr$�Y'1.sc '?�..i 5..(
} ,. -„ y,.. ye n .' ' -'..r.... , taty
_abuts astreet ar alle • .the birt�dan a .me'locateda
. t ee < ee'' t ep r and r=leve andl de* t' n t
hr f on h g o flog 1; o fob o
ti er sto ids :froitl i*itea : ro' e :,lme artd.„
Pp r t p _ p rtY �
. �e,.....M' <' .,aA'T.i'{a . Y..> .Yf,..', ','''.tf.
;additional:rear�yard;setbacks arerequ9red&forsupper°
add along
:..t.
<fliiditls dffoitii:in7Secdonz1:7 16,055..
l x
?' f,.
Page 2
City Council Proposal
Current Code Language
Proposed Code Language
Impacts
Staff Recommendation
VI. Additional Upper Floor
Setbacks of 4 Feet and 11 Feet
Additional front and rear setbacks of 4
feet on the second floor, and 11 feet
do the third floor to be added as new
sections to R-2, R-2B, and R-3 zones.
•
Upper Floor Setbacks
Section 17.12.025 (R-2)
Section 17.14.025 (R-2B)
Section 17.16.055 (R-3)
A. Second floor - Front Setback: On the second floor level, the
Upper level setbacks of 4 feet and
11 feet in addition to required front
yard will typically result in a total
setback of 9 feet at the second
floor, and a total of 16 feet at the
third floor, with allowance for
balconies to project to within 5 feet
at second floor and decks located
above the second floor to project to
within 9 feet at third floor (exact
dimensions may vary in the R-3
zone, where front yard
requirements differ by block).
Will reduce the bulk and mass of
buildings and create a stepped back
effect at second and third floor.
Will reduce the potential livable
area on many projects.
Will impact both multi-family
projects and single -family projects
built on smaller R-2 lots.
For street fronting lots with no
alley access, would severely impact
livable area on second and third
floors at the rear of the property.
Change requirement for
greater upper floor
setbacks of 4 and 11
feet as recommended,
along front yards, and
along rear yards only
when abutting an alley
building shall be setback a minimum additional four (4) feet.
measured from the rear line of the required front yard. Balconies and
decks, provided the railings are 60% open. may encroach into this
required additional setback, but may not be located within the front
yard area.
setback: On the second floor level the
B: Second Floor - Rear
building shall be setback a minimum additional four (4) feet.
measured in addition to the required rear yard. Balconies and decks.
provided the railings are 60% open. may encroach into this required
setback, but may not be located within the required rear yard.
C: Third Floor - Front setback: On the third floor level the building
shall be setback a minimum additional eleven (11) feet. measured
from the rear line of the required front yard. Balconies and decks.
provided the railings are 60% open. may encroach into this required
setback. but may not extend beyond the required second floor front
setback line.
On the third floor level the building
D. Third Floor - Rear Setback:
shall be setback a minimum additional eleven (11). measured in
addition to the required rear yard. Balconies and decks, provided the
railings are 60% open. may encroach into this required setback. but
may not extend beyond the required second floor setback line.
'°'�� "" "' "" � "' "'een " --- "`
VI( . Sirp�?ahon betty ..�
�. k eN �t ��- �..., x .
.� htld�ti g3^%.?' . ..,-"r ..,a r
.,v+. : W. y,9 ,.:: . : ,.
e -3 tandard from,8=feet to bµ rt.
`eeG"toktie co stste twit ' and R 2 w
o e n t` V,1+n51 dtscussecl b av>
One �P yx Y
.a....; `d sp,c. c *
ou� t��I
' +
17�16tO50�C The � : �
, r :, ::. ..;
r,
:distancebehveen:ah "�s �>
s.'F:F,
a. «c <.. ,ox..,.. .. , ..
• buddin 3used.for human
:'habitation shall be not
(,1=iian;et ht feet (
g
is .. ' ; & p,o,e n ea„.z-:aii
distance between a nam
'2 v,”
1 bntlJing andyaccessory
building shall be not Tess
than iifeet. Z
,, i
1�T<°16 050 C. dtstancerbetweeman
... ,. ,.,
,
��abrtationshall.be�tot�less
,, nom ,.r ,,e3n.Yi
buildm and accesso .
�.
, £ ' ti _ o
��'
r
n u g> i._ ..., ,, ._ w
.'buildm Used?for human ,:,.
g
thans�x feel.>The-distanct between a mam::'.
; , i .,m.. :.
W,ill,make,R-3standard-for "'°
<se azation between buildin s the °;
e
P g
.. ,' :,::� d ......: '
same, as for,P. 1 and R2-zones, will ;
allow a slight increase to potential
floor area, and flexibility to design
-floor, �1
ucti . *,n.5.
to compensate for reduction caused
by upper floor setbacks
'Chan ere uirement for:'
q
g .,
,bGildii :ae ara'tion from.
g P.
8 feet to 6 feet in R 3
zone
: ...
buildin shall be;not less,than six'feet :-Y
f ...... ,.., :.•
Page 3
City Council Proposal
Current Code Language
Proposed Code Language
Impacts
Staff Recommendation
VII. Open Space on the
Ground
Require 200 square feet of open
space per unit on the ground, open to
sky in the R-2, R-2B and R-3 zones
,,
R-2, R-2B, and R-3 Usable open space standards
(Sections 17.12.080, 17.14.080, and 17.16.080)
D. Common open space areas may include
pools, spas, gardens, play equipment, courtyards (a
minimum of twenty (20) feet wide), decks over
non-living area, and/or similar area, but shall not
include driveways, turning areas, parking areas,
and required front, rear, and side yard areas.
E. Private open space areas may include patios,
pools, spas, and garden areas; also balconies and
decks over non-living areas or over living areas of
the same dwelling unit when accessible through the
interior of the dwelling unit and over only the
dwelling unit for which there is interior access.
R-2, R-2B, and R-3 Usable open space
standards (Sections 17.12.080, 17.14.080, and
17.16.080)
D. Common open space areas may include
pools, spas, gardens, play equipment,
courtyards (a minimum of twenty (20) feet
wide), located on the ground. clear and open to
Would create a standard that will
significantly reduce potential
livable area at all floor levels.
Especially significant impact on
smaller R-3 lots of 3000 square
feet. reducing livable area by
Do not change
requirement and
continue to allow
flexibility in design,
with open space to be
provided on decks,
balconies, and/or
ground level.
over 600 square feet. Forces the
the sky decks over non living area, and/or
majority of open space to be at
the ground level adjacent to
garages and parking areas, (not
typically directly accessible to
living areas on floors above).
Will likely reduce the amount of
decks and balconies provided on
second and third level living
areas since required open space
is at grade--potentially resulting
in boxier, less articulated
buildings.
similar-area, but shall not include driveways,
turning areas, parking areas, and required
front, rear, and side yard areas.
E. Private open space areas may include
patios, pools, spas, and garden areas; located
on the ground. clear and open to the sky alse
. _
• - • -
;• - : -
• ' • • •' • - •
- ' •;
_ - - • • - _ _
for which there is interior access.
Y,III,FItmtnate�Ltmttattons�on
'' ""' ' ' ""
� 3 A' ," �TM��,:''.Y }9+ ,. '�.�:�
yum er` ,tortes •:
LY b O i.�`
lttrit at tmrta2, .'.5., o Unum ", o
n";+�..uria•<''
oilSI t - '-
toil �,�-, •2nd,�R2 , �
�.�:, ", �
:one � � � � �
•�/" °"f- � .:„.0 g6
,'a
t� .
K z e
5
l ` z
_
: s , ,
$ x
., sj t,r
%.-..-V l.� i ».�� � 1Ti�i.
�� �`
r� x�r
" � r•
'
', - 1Biiildtn • ei hh.,...
R I gH g � �
:.+5. "., a +.•, a"�°; ` ,; • ,•^. ., ..: �. ,.,.
)3utldm wHet hf build�m ma shave a ,
a g c �Y g Y
; maxtmttm of two stone but shad no exceed m+
i'•is�<:°r,•s1 ;�,§,ri.,'`.. �,.%?rof r�lq-r.;. ,y..
`` "b mu `°o wen five 25 eeti11
: dnycas.�.amate� m f, .�.,,h� % ).i' m, , �
*
'�" erg =ha to •ce1722=forad'ditioflal het >it-
; hetgt�t. Ref to C p �y $
v f^R itif n li (64 , i i .i4,ii<
,requirements for t ondomtntums
•a. an...rLcM. rj : J...,.-,:-.:.-..-.7-°',..-.,:°,,,,,,.-,,-f
-2sand ' Bh din ,Het htondominiumsIvle
War
,?
M$uddtng eight,Art �iuildmg ma ay„;., a : ,
' ,_�a� ran ....x,_ .,
a im(t "oftrof onesslsu{sha11not�exceedI
1 M, '` a.•..
an a;niaxtmum oftht 0 tfee m,het t
ltefe =to Cha ter 17.22� {orladditional;het ht `
P a,.rF� g
re u cement rcond&nin is
% q �:Yrw.:�."wS.Ei'�"dS,,N'� .. Q, �.,y, k^.:�^' r .x �.n•., �r Y� �
$De tnittons:"Basement"rrieansthat. ortio dfa
rr : .F, „s.,:r wa s x Pa• r �l Y
liutldmgpartiallybelow-the,ave agexlevel ofthe
oc .a r :« K. tof . rti n o
hig ies*di1C4, st: pOtnhoftiiat poyrt ° f a
=.buili�l' taf covered„b�ty�t1ietlut(din wtthta,cerlm
�. Jy � .� .aax`a � y
F. ,W.c..+.w E#�-,Ci°'fig,•. C,,. �'&ni h,r -., �$z$
, h part�ofwhich is te,i. hart ever feet:above x
,suchlevel - t
".- �: �".K ,i�'.: y,`y. (Jy� ••."3... �R.�"�;1YYa
"Sro 'trmaans° 'at do `�hutldtn include
etweett su ace,,,f ani oorandthe surface of
the flda next abovi f there ,e, no oor above tt,,
then thespadeetweenrsuch floor and the cetling�
nexcabo edit shall be"ccdnsidered a story
+ assetnen sha1(i ottb cdi see ered as d storywhen
co.0i p, thR helghtq(if a, udding
,R?LRoildin OHei ht
g g
v; ,. ,� ,.t.':-..s . ..... ,..- .-.. .y
Budden Height Anhave
Will eliminete.theImisleadin g ,
i,. ,,y>.. ... ..,.'::. t, •n ....... n ...
ato . ." hmttatton and'eltmmate
rY
mconststencyFbetween the
rr a.
9,16, >Ordmance"andthe
a �
pp
=,Umfonii%Buildin Codesrelaiive
< .'..4• iib f
to basement and story
reduce afiScial raisin 'of+
tithe, rade.t u
g o q altfyground
.. �< .,
floors as basements' althou'"h
( ,4$
still allowable under the U
'to avoidprovidin "two
P, g..
sstairwa'"'s)
Y /
ti
l 'g
Chan e:requireme� t
g �g n to
,. ::°°!-- u ..5 ., '. .',
;efimmate nurt er.of;-°
stogy ltmtta,, "'' and
H .,h�:�*as..4� ,r;✓':
.defmitto sof asementN``
n
sand sto rY
.
-butldtn rna a E,
P>, e a y $ Y�
c '� ail not exceed
sl
N#:' _r,..A;.. '; r:. r=*Z.'.'f ..
,01":axiinurri'oftwen five;t2. ..
�� �., n� (.,
;::feeNm:het ht`Refer-.to Cha "ter;l7 2-foT
..c. i 1 g.Y tP
adddtheight requirements for
t} a `•ildiri ci l
R=2and R2B Bu g H g t
...,< >e. «.� '�
Buildin HeightAn"""butldm :ma
tm.x P< a Y , g,taY
sltall not exceed a t *
maximum of tht • 3018'4;1T het ht <:
T. ,�,'..n i.. u•r'"ayz �,(•: v'.igi Y
Refe todCha ter,17.22foradditional
-, ,.rP� , _ z
heightrequirementsfor
eondominiunts
��* A
Elimmate definitions ofBasement and
.::, 5 (�.' 4.
Sto
*IX. Minimum Dimension for
Open Space Areas
Change R-2 and R-3 standard from a
minimum 7-foot dimension and
minimum area of 49 square. feet to a
minimum 4-foot dimension and
minimum area of 40 square feet.
C. The minimum dimension of open space
areas shall be seven feet. & •
H. Circular, triangular; odd and/or unusual
shaped open space areas shall have a minimum of
forty-nine (49) square feet in area as well as
minimum seven-foot dimensions.
C. The minimum dimension of open
space areas shall be four feet with a minimum
This revision is necessary to
recognize four foot wide decks
as open space (per the new
setback standards) and to
compensate for the loss of open
space previously provided on
roof decks.
Change requirement as
recommended
total area of forty (40) feet. &
H. Circular, triangular, odd and/or
unusual shaped open space areas shall have a
minimum of forty (40) square feet in area as
well as minimum four-foot dimensions
*Proposed by staff for clarification purposes and to compensate for changes proposed by Council
b95/cd/resstandards2 9/15/99
Page 4
ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL TO "AVERAGE" UPPER FLOOR SETBACKS
Alternative Proposal
Current Code
Language
Proposed Code Language
Impacts
Staff
Recommendatio
n
III. Additional Upper Floor
None
Upper Floor Setbacks
Section 17.12.025 (R-2)
Section 17.14.025 (R -2B) , ','
Section 17.16.055 (R-3)
A. Second floor - Front Setback: On the second floor level. the building
Upper level setbacks of 4 feet and 11 feet in
addition to required front yard will typically
result in a total setback of 9 feet at the second
floor, and a total of 16 feet at the third floor, with
allowance for balconies to project to within 5 feet
at second floor and decks located above the
second floor to project to within 9 feet at third
floor (exact dimensions may vary in the R-3
zone, where front yard requirements differ by
block).
Will reduce the bulk and mass of buildings
projecting at second level above garages, and
create a stepped back effect at third floor.
Will reduce the potential livable area on many
projects.
Will impact both multi -family projects and
single-family projects built on smaller R-2 lots.
For street fronting lots with no alley access,
would severely impact livable area on second and
third floors at the rear of the property, and
therefore, is recommended to apply to rear yards
which abut alleys.
With;the averaging ofth s upper floor setback;
desigitere would�be allowed flexibility to provide
relief ins the front yards
To require
greater upper
floor setbacks of
4 and 11 feet as
recommended,
along front yards, •
and along rear
yards only whe
abutting an alley
Ay'etta* Setbacks of 4 Feet
and 11 Feet
Additional front and rear setbacks that
averages feet on the second floor, and
WM 11 feet on the third floor to be
added as new sections to R-2, R -2B, and
R-3 zones.
shall be 'setback a minimum additional four (4) feet measured from the rear
line of the required front yard. Theadditionalffaiie(4):fee"t may°tieaveraged
across thewidtEof the'building,litov"ided;thitthe minimum'additional
setbaclt'.•is tW (2)ffee1. Balconies and decks, provided the railings are 60%
open, may encroach into this required additional setback, but may not be
located within the front yard area.
B. Second Floor - Rear setback: On the second floor level the building shall
be setback a minimum additional four (4) feet, measured in addition to the
required.rear yard. Theadddditiblill::four`(4) feetmay be`averagedtacross;"the
Widthlath-ebliildicikiiiiihilleciftligifiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiadditithialrsetbableiS two
(2)gfeei Balconies and decks, provided the railings are 60% open, may
encroach into this required setback, but may not be located within the
required 'rear yard.
C. Third Floor - Front setback: On the third floor level the building shall be
setback a minimum additional eleven (11) feet. measured from the rear line of
the required front yard. Tdieiaddi ionalcleven (d1) feet maybe averaged
aerossithe`width;ofetheEbuilding provided t ficihe minimum additional
o
setbacktisYflve_fS) feet. Balconies and decks, provided the railings are 60%
open, may encroach into this required setback. but may not extend beyond the
required second floor front setback line.
D. Third Floor - Rear Setback: On the third floor level the building shall be
setback a minimum additional eleven (11) feet, measured in addition to the
required rear yard. Thead"ditibnal"eleven.(11)afeetxmayyberaveraged+acrosss the
widthafthebuilding providbdithat>•thexminimum'additional;setback isslive
(•5) feet.-' iBalconies and decks, provided the railings are 60% open, may
encroach into this required setback, but may not extend beyond the required
second floor setback line
Honorable Chairman and Members of the
Hermosa Beach Planning Commission
SUBJECT: TEXT AMENDMENT 99-1
November 4, 1999
Regular Meeting of
November 16, 1999
PURPOSE: TO CONSIDER CHANGES TO RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS AND RESIDENTIAL PARKING REQUIREMENTS
INITIATED BY THE CITY COUNCIL
Recommendation
To recommend that the City Council amend the Zoning Ordinance as set forth in the attached
resolution summarized as follows:
1. Reduce the amount roof decks can count towards required open space to a maximum of
15% of the open space requirement in the R-2 and R-3 zones.
2. Eliminate the guest parking requirement for single-family uses.
Background
Based on direction from the meeting of October 19, 1999, staff has prepared the attached
resolution to address only these two issues. The Commission's recommendations are based on
consideration of several proposals from the City Council initially made on March 30, 1999; on
input received at a public workshop on October 6, 1999 to discuss these various proposals; and on
staffs analysis.
At their meeting of July 8 1999, the Staff Environmental Review Committee recommended an
environmental negative declaration in consideration of all the proposals made by the City Council
on March 30, 1999.
(For further background and analysis please refer to the October 19, September 30, and August 17,
Planning Commission staff reports)
Analysis
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS — ROOF DECK OPEN SPACE
This change to the code will be effectively reduce building bulk and provide more articulation,
without imposing an upper floor setback. With only 15% of the required open space, or 30 square
feet per unit, allowed on a roof deck, projects will be required to provide at least 170 square feet on
the ground or on first and second floor decks. This will require designers to rethink first and
second level floor plans to add relief to buildings in form of decks or balconies, or provide more
open space on the ground reducing the overall size of buildings.
Staff would further recommend that Section 17.22.060(E), which requires an additional 100
square feet of private recreation space for condominiums, be amended to include language that
roof deck space cannot count towards any of the requirement. This will require that 270 square
feet total of open space and recreation space be provided per unit on the ground or the first and
second floors.
While these recommendation will cause the potential reduction of 170 square feet of livable area
(270 square feet for condominium units), the actual impact will be less since a portion of this open
space or recreation space can be provided on cantilevered decks that partially extend into the
required front or rear yards, or can partially cover open space areas on decks at lower levels.
PARKING REQUIREMENTS
The elimination of the guest -parking requirement will provide a break for those properties with
alley access only (e.g. those located on walk streets), or for projects on street to alley lots in which
the alley is the chosen side for parking access. When access is provided from the street, guest
parking is currently provided within the 17 -foot garage or parking setback, which is not proposed
to be changed: "Since this reduced parking requirement will affect only alley facing parking it will
not substantially reduce parking. Further it may provide some incentive for builders to use the
alley side on street to alley lots, thus maintaining or increasing on -street parking, and building
projects with better curb appeal.
CONCUR:
Sol Blume
Community
ela, Director
Development Department
Attachments
1. Staff Reports
2. Minutes 10/19/99
en Robertson
Associate Planner
Director Blumenfeld stated he will investigate further the separation issue of the deck.
Mr , ompton further indicated that they have already applied for a Variance and paid the fees.
Chairm. Perrotti closed the public hearing.
Chairman Pe . tti expressed concern regarding the Variance for the height, but this may . e irrelevant
if the conversion as to comply with all of the standards of the Condominium Ordin. . e.
MOTION by Comm sioner Hoffman, seconded by Chairman Perrotti to CON NUE CON 99-
30/PDP 99-36 —/VAR • •-7 -- Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development P an and Vesting
Tentative Parcel Map #25 i 8 for a conversion of an existing duplex into a o -unit condominium
and Variance to the 30' heig limit at 1136 —1140 Monterey Boulevard
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Hoffman, Pizer, C
None
Schwartz, Vice -Chair
None
irman Perrotti
9. GP 99-1— GENERAL PLAN AME 1 M
AND CREATION OF A WALKSTRE
STREET AND 4TH STREET EAST OF
ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONME
(CONTINUED FROM OCTOBE' 9
EN ' FOR PERMANENT STREET CLOSURE
T • T OCEAN VIEW DRIVE BETWEEN 3RD
CIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, AND
AL GATIVE DECLARATION
1999 ETING).
Staff Recommended Action: To conti e to December 1, 1
Chairman Perrotti opened the pub c hearing.
Chairman Perrotti closed th • ublic hearing.
meeting.
MOTION by Commis: oner Pizer and seconded by Commissioner Hoffman o CONTINUE GP
99-1— General Plan : endment for permanent street closure and creation of a '. alkstreet at Ocean -
View Drive betw n 3rd Street and 4th Street east of Pacific Coast Highway, and a option of an
Environmental legative Declaration (continued from October 19, 1999 meeting).
AYES:
NOES:
ABS.' T:
A ! TAIN:
Hoffman, Pizer Chairman Perrotti
None
Schwartz, Vice -Chair Ketz
None
10. TEXT 99-1— TEXT AMENDMENT TO CONSIDER CHANGES TO RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN R-2, R -2B AND R-3 ZONES AND RESIDENTIAL
PARKING REQUIREMENTS.
Staff Recommended Action: To recommend approval of said text amendment.
P.C. Minutes 11-16-99
a7
Director Blumenfeld reviewed the staff report with the recommendations as follows:
1) Reduce the amount roof decks can count towards required open space to a maximum of 15%
of the open space requirement in the R-2 and R-3 zones.
2) Eliminate the guest parking requirement for single-family uses.
Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing.
Janet McHugh, 718 1st Place, Hermosa Beach, stated she owns three properties that are R-2
properties which were R-3 at one time. She suggested that the property owners should be properly
notified of this item on the agenda. Also, she said that changes should be specified in the noticing.
Director Blumenfeld stated that the City and State requirements are to provide a legal notice in a
newspaper of general circulation, and he said when there are over 1,000 properties, the City is not
required to provide a mailed notice to individual property owners. He further indicated that the City
has met legal obligation for public notice, and this item has been a continued hearing and discussed at
Commission since March. He said staff may be able to provide a list of affected properties along
with providing a more detailed description of the issues involved, but that a mailing of that size
could generate a significant cost.
Commissioner Pizer noted that the Agenda is also posted on the web site.
Commissioner Hoffman pointed out that only 15% of voters turned out for the election even with
significant notice to the public.
John McHugh, 718 1st Place, Hermosa Beach, asked about the design of the building. Chairman
Perrotti stated design standards would not be as restrictive as the original proposal examined by
Commission over the last several months.
Brett Johnson, 321 28th Street, Hermosa Beach, asked about the 17 -foot setback. Director
Blumenfeld explained that the 17 -foot setback (garage) is to provide for guest parking.
Charlie Chittam, 548 2nd Street, Hermosa Beach, expressed concern with the Commission not
receiving general public's input. He further stated that the compromise for roof deck reductions is
adequate which will help reduce the "concrete jungle look," and may even result in increased open
yard space in front of the development. However, he is concerned with reducing the parking
requirements.
Bill Wile, 715 1st Street, Hermosa Beach, stated that sometimes the public does not get the Beach
Reporter. He said he would like to be informed of any changes that will affect his property.
Michael Keegan, 1107 Loma Drive, Hermosa Beach, stated he wrote a letter to the Beach Reporter
and Easy Reader which was printed stating the issue that there should be notice in writing to the
owners affected. He said the Council is planning to do this.
P.C. Minutes 11-16-99
28
Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing.
MOTION by Commissioner Pizer and seconded by Commissioner Hoffman to CONTINUE to the
December 1, 1999 meeting, TEXT 99-1 — Text amendment to consider changes to residential
development standards in R-2, R -2B and R-3 zones and residential parking requirements.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Hoffman, Pizer, Chairman Perrotti
None
Schwartz, Vice -Chair Ketz
None
H
RINGS
11. .ON 96-5/PDP 96-6 — REQUEST FOR ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF THE
C I \ DITIONAL USE PERMIT, PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND STING
TEN TIVE PARCEL MAP #24249 FOR A TWO -UNIT CONDOMINI
CONVE ' ION PROJECT AT 1723-1725 GOLDEN AVENUE.
Staff Recommended A ion: To approve for one year extension.
City Planner Schubach sum
rized the staff report and stated the applic t is requesting a second
extension due to complications 'th securing the required common d eway easement.
Chairman Perrotti opened the hearing.
Chairman Perrotti closed the hearing.
Commissioner Pizer questioned why a one year e
there may be problems getting an agreement fro
ion is needed. Director Blumenfeld stated
djacent owner.
Commissioner Hoffman asked if all the req rements can b. met due to the project having a shared -
driveway. Director Blumenfeld stated it eets all the develop ent standards and having a common
driveway is not necessarily a problem
MOTION by Commissioner Pi r and seconded by Commissioner Ho
96-5/PDP 96-6 — Request for one year extension of the Conditional Use P
Plan and Vesting Tentativ ' arcel Map #24249 for a two -unit condominium
1723-1725 Golden Ave e.
an to APPROVE CON
't, Precise Development
nversion project at
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Ho man, Pizer, Chairman Perrotti
one
Schwartz, Vice -Chair Ketz
None
P.C. Minutes 11-16-99
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
29
P.C. RESOLUTION 99-66
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA,
TO RECOMMEND AMENDING THE ZONING
ORDINANCE OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS IN THE
R-2, R -2B, AND R-3 ZONES AND TO ELIMINATE THE
GUEST PARKING REQUIREMENT FOR SINGLE-
FAMILY USES
The Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach does hereby resolve as follows:
Section 1. The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on November 16,
1999, and December 1, 1999, to consider amendments to the Zoning Ordinance regarding residential
open space requirements and parking requirements, at which testimony and evidence, both written and
oral, was presented to and considered by the Council.
Section 2. Based on the evidence considered at the public hearing, the Planning Commission
makes the following findings:
1. The current practice of providing a substantial portion or all the required open space on
roof decks reduces the effectiveness of the open space requirement and its primary intent to provide
easily accessible and usable open space as a basic amenity. It also defeats another purpose of the open
space requirement purpose to break up the bulk of buildings and provide articulation.
2. The proposed amendment to allow only 15% of the required open space to be located on
a roof deck, or 30 square feet per unit, will mean at least 170 square feet of open space will be provided
on other decks or at grade. This will require designers to rethink first and second level floor plans to
add relief to buildings in the form of decks or balconies, or provide more open space on the ground
reducing the overall size of buildings.
3. The current requirement of one guest parking space for each single-family dwelling is
excessively restrictive on lots that have only alley access, and has no impact on lots which use the street
for garage access, since a 17 -foot setback is required.
4. The Planning Commission concurs with the Staff Environmental Review Committee's
recommendation, based on their environmental assessment/initial study, that this subject text
amendment will result in a less than significant impact on the environment, and therefore qualifies for
a Negative Declaration.
Section 3. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the
Hermosa Beach Municipal Code, Title 17 -Zoning, be amended as follows:
1. Amend Sections 17.12.080; 17.14.080, and 17.16.080 pertaining to open space
requirement in the R-2, R -2B and R-3 residential zones, to add subsection J. as follows:
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
29
"J. Roof Decks: Open space areas located on roof decks, defined as decks with access
only from a floor below, shall contribute up to a maximum of 15% of the total required
open space.
K. A minimum of fifty (50%) of usable open space shall be adjacent to and directly
accessible to primary living and activity areas, defined as living rooms, kitchens, great
rooms, and family rooms.
2. Amend Section 17.22.060(E) pertaining to Recreation Space (private) requirements for
condominiums, as follows:
"1. Private. Each unit shall have at least one hundred (100) square feet of private space
for a specified unit, in addition to open space required by the zoning ordinance. Such
required recreation space shall have no dimension less than seven feet; the space may be
partially covered up to fifty (50) percent. Such required space may include a patio, pool,
spa, balcony and a deck area over non -living areas or over living areas of the same
dwelling unit when accessible through the interior of the dwelling unit at the same floor
level and over only the dwelling unit for which there is interior access. Roof decks.,
defined as decks with access only from a floor below, shall not be included as required
recreation space."
3. Amend Section 17.44.020 (A) pertaining to parking requirements for one -family
dweling, as follows:
"Use
A. One -family dwelling
VOTE: AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Parking Requirement
Two off-street parking spaces
plus one quest space"
Comm. Pizer, Vice -Chair Ketz, Chairman Perrotti
Comm. Hoffman
None
Comm. Schwartz
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify the foregoing Resolution P.C. 99-66 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
Decnber 1, 199.
am Perrotti, Chairman
, Secretary
GL;z- f Ci ,12 0 D
Date V tarres
3/
i
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:
•
FEB 2 3 2Oti i
Qac.uev•°"
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.
Sin erely,
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 2 2000
UOM. DE1/. DEPT:
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. Harter
33
•
STEPHEN ALLEN AND MARYSUE BRUBAKER
360 29TH STREET 1 HERMOSA BEACH CALIFORNIA 90254
Home Phone 310-376-3256 ♦ Email MSBRU21 JAN@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:
ReceiveFoebruary 19, 2000
FEB 2 2 2000
OM. DEV DEPT
According to your notice the Planning Commission 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
/a
arySurubaker
3
Lfr
CRITICAL ISSUES FROM WORKSHOP
Square footage impacts on various lots, including the worst case.
While evaluating all possible scenarios would be virtually impossible, staff has more
thoroughly estimated potential loss of square footage from maximum build -out on a
variety of lot sizes, under street to alley or street to lot conditions. The following is a
summary of estimated impacts if staff recommendations were implemented with respect
to roof deck open space, and upper floor setbacks. The lot sizes chosen represent the
worst case (a 30 X 50 half lot) and the most common lot size dimensions found in various
parts of the City.
Zone(s)
Lot
Dimension
Use
Street or
Alley/Street
Access
Current
Maximum
Square Feet
(Per Unit)
Reduction
from
Proposals
Per Unit
(in sq. ft.)
Percent
Floor Area
Reduction
R -3/R-2
30 X 50
Single-family
Alley only
2425
-300
-12%
Street only
R -3/R-2
30 X 80
Single-family
Alley/street
4180
-384
-9%
Street
4080
-360
-9%
R-3
30 X 100
2 -unit condo
Alley/Street
2325
-210
-9%
Street only
2010
-185
-9%
R-3
40 X 100
3 unit condo
Alley/street
2000
-200
-10%
R -2/R -2B
30 X 95
Single-family
Alley/street
5060
-240
-5%
R -2/R -2B
40 X 120
2 -unit condo
Street
3780
-100
-3%
Please be advised that these are estimates based on an assumed typical floor plan on a
fairly flat lot* with standard right-of-way widths, setbacks, etc. In actuality these factors
can vary considerably. The estimated reduction is the amount of square footage that
hypothetically would be required to be reduced from a current maximum build -out
condition. Since lots are not always built -out to their potential maximum, reductions may
be over stated, but represent a "worst case" for each lot size.
*Sloping lots cause floor area to be distributed differently, and may reduce buildable
floor area under current codes, but typically the amount of excavation on site more than
compensates for any lost square footage.
Impact on single-family homes
The proposed changes are to the development standards in the R-2, R -2B, and R-3 Zones,
and therefore would affect single family * *, two-family, and multi -family development
within these Zones.
The proposed changes to development standards WILL NOT impact single-family
development in the R-1 zone. However, the proposal to change guest parking
requirements for single-family use, is not a zone specific requirement, and would apply in
all zones, including the R-1 zone. SUPPLEMENTAL
INFORMATION
1
•
**A significant number properties in the R-2, R -2B, and R-3 Zones are only permitted a
single dwelling due to their lot size (less than 2,640 square feet in the R-3 zone, and less
than 3500 square feet in the R-2 Zone), and property owners sometimes choose to
construct single-family homes even if the two or more units may be allowed
How many lots will be effected?
Based on 1991 data, there are 4,942 residential lots in the City. Of these, 2,569 are
located in the R-1 Zone, and 2,373 in the R-2, R -2B or R-3 Zones.
The proposed change to guest parking requirements is not zone specific and would apply
to any residential development on any of these 4,942 lots, and the proposed changes to
development standards, specific to the R-2, R -2B, and R-3 zone would apply to 2,373
lots.
Impact on property values
The potential reduction in buildable square footage may have an adverse impact on
property values, but how much is open to question. Property values are based on a
variety of factors, including building size, but are most simply the amount a buyer is
willing to pay at any given time for a particular piece of property. It would be necessary
to conduct a multiple variable economic analysis to predict all possible economic
impacts. Further, if a long-term view is taken, and if these changes achieve their goals
and improve the overall character, charm, and livability of the community (e.g. protecting
it from perceived over -development) it is arguable the impact might actually be a greater
appreciation of values over time for the entire community, than if current trends continue.
Claims that equate loss of square footage dollar for dollar with a loss in value are too
simplistic and should be considered among a range of possible outcomes.
Comparison or "equity" with R-1 standards
The proposed changes to development standards are intentionally targeted for R-2 and
R-3 zones, and are probably not appropriate to apply to the R-1 zone, which already has
significantly more restrictions on development The R-1 zone only allows -one unit per
lot, no matter the lot size; requires 400 square feet of open space with at least 300 square.
feet on grade; front setbacks equivalent to 10% of lot depth; and a 25 -foot maximum
building height.
Staff has not been directed to consider any changes to the R-1 standards, and since the
standards already deal with total bulk and front setback issues, equity is not a concern.
Can the requirements be made proportional and/or exceptions for small lots?
In staff's judgement, the standards under consideration (upper floor setbacks, and open
space requirements), do not warrant consideration to be proportion to lot size, as they are
minimum standards, based on a minimum scale that will a useful impact to control bulk
or to provide a useful amount of open space. If the amount of open space or setbacks
were reduced for smaller lots, it would defeat the initial purpose to deal with bulk and
mass. Further, it would potentially complicate the requirements. .
Should the proposed changes be adopted, the development standard that will still have the
most direct impact on buildable area is lot coverage requirement (65% of lot area), which
is a proportional standard. Also, in reviewing the impact of these proposed requirements
on small lots in the R-2 and R-3 zones (see above), a reasonably sized dwelling can still
be constructed. The small lot exception already in the code applies to R-1 lots only,
because of the zone specific impact of the on -grade open space requirement.
Reduce the impact of the standards
While reducing the standards to some lesser impact can be considered, staff would
caution that at some point it would render the requirement meaningless, and be punitive
while serving no purpose. It is important to develop standards which have an effective
and useful visual impact. If not, we should probably leave the codes alone.
Comparison with other beach cities
Comparing with other cities is valuable in terms of gathering ideas and for comparison,
and staff always includes this in our background research. This type of research is most
valuable when cities are considering a major overhaul or comprehensive rewriting of our
current regulations. However, the direction for this project has been to modify and refine
existing regulations which are are unique, and a result of policy decisions made from
community meetings in the past. Further, in reviewing other city's codes, we have found
that the lotsizes and development trends that exist here are also very unique, even
compared to other beach cities because of our exceptionally compact pattern of
development.
The following are some relevant approaches used by neighboring cities that we
evaluated, and are useful for comparison:
Manhattan. Beach.:
• Roof decks do not count towards required open space. Roof decks have been
effectively prohibited since they are only allowed if the floor of said deck is 9 -feet
below the height limit.
• Otherwise, bulk and mass are controlled by floor area to lot area limitation (F.A.R),
and open space is a required a proportion to building size.
Redondo Beach:
• Roof decks are allowed, but only 15% of a roof deck area can count towards required
open space.
• The front yard setback may be averaged across the width of the building.
• A bonus is given for open space areas adjacent to the main communal living areas
(150% credit for patios/decks at least 7' X 10', 200% credit for patios/decks at least
10' X 15'), while only a 50% credit is given to patios/decks adjacent to bedrooms or
other non communal areas.
Rolling Hills Estates:
• Greater setback is required along side yards at a 45% inclined plane starting from 10 -
feet above grade.
3
MINIITES OF THE ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL of
the City of Hermosa Beach, California, held on Tuesday, March
30, 1999, at the hour of 7:20 P.M.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Daal Praderas, The Beach Reporter
ROLL CALL:
Present: Edgerton, Oakes, Reviczky, Mayor Benz
Absent: Bowler
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:
No one came forward to address the Council at this time.
REVIEW OF ZONING STANDARDS FOR MtTLTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENTS AND NONCONFORMING RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS. Memorandum
from Community Development Director Sol Blumenfeld dated
February 16, 1999.
Community Development Director Blumenfeld presented the staff
report and responded to Council questions. City Manager Burrell
also responded to Council questions.
The Council then reviewed each component separately and acted to
provide direction to staff. It was noted that, in all cases,
the directives given tonight were preliminary, and that final
actions would not be taken until after the proposed changes had
been brought back for further review and public hearings before
the Planning Commission and the, City Council..,
Parking Standards: -
Action: By unanimous consensus of the City Council, it was
proposed to increase the required parking in multi -family
(R-2 and R-3) zones from two spaces plus one guest space
for each two units to a total of three spaces per unit.
(Bowler absent)
Action: By unanimous consensus of the City Council, it was
proposed to reduce the required parking in single-family
(R-1) zones from three spaces to two spaces where there is
a 17 -foot garage setback, as the driveway would provide two
additional spaces for guest parking. (Bowler absent)
Action: By unanimous consensus of the City Council, it was
proposed (1) to continue to allow tandem parking for
single family residences; and (2) to allow tandem parking
for the two required spaces per unit in a multi -unit
structure, but to require all guest parking spaces to be
single -loaded. (Bowler absent)
Action: By unanimous consensus of the City Council, it was
proposed to (1) allow underground parking anywhere on a
lot`if it is completely below grade, not semi -subterranean;
and (2) to eliminate the current excepti
1Ltr ow -
grade requirement. (Bowler absent) enc
L
INFORMATION
nnAA
1
Action: By unanimous consensus of the City Council, it was
proposed to require that guest parking be open/available
within a project when not located in the garage setback.
(Bowler absent)
Open Space Requirements/Lot Coverage Standards:
Action: By unanimous consensus of the City Council, it was
proposed to eliminate the option of providing required open
space on roof decks in multi -family (R-2 and R-3) zones.
(Motion Mayor Benz, second Reviczky, Bowler absent)
Action: By unanimous consensus of the City Council, it was
proposed to amend the multi -family (R-2 and R-3) zoning
standards (1) to require a minimum of 200 square feet of
open space at ground level, unobstructed from ground to sky
and (2) to increase the front yard setbacks on the upper
floors, providing a terraced effect from the street, with
the second floor of a structure stepped back an additional
four feet, and the third floor stepped back an additional
seven feet from the second level setback (for a total
additional setback of 11 feet). (Motion Mayor Benz, second
Edgerton, Bowler absent)
Public participation opened at 8:50 p.m.
Coming forward to address the Council on this issue was:
Greg Burnell - Shakespeare tract resident, expressed
concern about the creation of artificial grades
for the construction of large, three-story, 4,200
square foot buildings on the small, 30 x 80 foot
lots; said although the area- is R-2, a height
limit of 30 feet was too high and it should be
reduced to 25 feet, due to the narrow streets and
five-foot setbacks, which eliminate ocean views
and cause a tunnel effect; supported the proposed
tiered setbacks of the upper floors but suggested
a 10 -foot rather than a 4 -foot setback on the
second floor; re remodels, preferred limiting
expansions to 50 percent of the existing square
footage rather than basing it on the valuation of
the existing structure to ensure consistency with
regard to determining allowable square footage.
Public participation closed at 8:59 P.M.
The meeting recessed at 9:00 P.M.
The meeting reconvened at 9:25 P.M.
Number of Stories:
Action: By unanimous consensus of the City Council, it was
proposed to eliminate the two-story restriction from the
Zoning Code, since the number of stories has no effect on
the height of a structure built in accordance with the
City Council Minutes 03-30-99 Page 9945
established height standards. (Motion Edgerton, second
Reviczky, Bowler absent)
Action: By unanimous consensus of the City Council, staff
was directed to come back with recommendations on how to
deal with grading issues (e.g., flat lots being filled,
often in order to qualify the third floor as a basement and
circumvent certain Uniform Building Code requirements).
(Motion Reviczky, second Oakes, Bowler absent)
Definitions:
Director Blumenfeld said staff would return with definitions for
any terms not currently defined in the Zoning Code, as well as
with clearer definitions of existing terms in order to simplify
the Zoning Code and eliminate ambiguities and inconsistencies.
Condominium Requirements:
Action: By unanimous consensus of the City Council, it was
directed that the current discretionary review process for
two -unit condominium projects be retained, not eliminated.
(Motion Edgerton, second Reviczky, Bowler absent)
Nonconforming Remodels:
Proposed Action: To direct that any expansion beyond the
existing footprint must conform with the current codes.
(Motion Oakes, second Edgerton - failed, with Reviczky and
Mayor Benz dissenting and Bowler absent)
Action: By unanimous consensus of the City Council, the
issue was referred back to staff for more information and
additional options other than calculating the percentage of
remodel on dollars, with direction to staff to look at how
the problem is handled by other communities with similar
properties. (Motion Reviczky, second Mayor Benz, Bowler
absent)
Action: By consensus of the City Council, staff was
directed to review the issue of restoration and return with
a definition. (Motion Reviczky, second Mayor Benz, with
Oakes dissenting and Bowler absent)
ADJOURNMENT - The Adjourned Regular Meeting of the City Council
of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, adjourned on Tuesday,
March 30, 1999, at the hour of 10:26 P.M., to the Regular
Meeting of Tuesday, April 13, 1999, at the hour of 7:10 P.M.
City Council Minutes 03-30-99 Page 9946
• •
Mariorie gish
3233 ae (brand :.r0M, DEV. DEPT.
W rmosa aag, Cala$ornii 90254
FEB 2 4 2000
February 22, 2000
Sol Blumetd
Community Development Department
City of Hermosa Beach
Dear Mr. Blumen.,
We received a Hearing Notice to take place on
February 29, 2000. The Notice stated that:
Text Amendments to single family and multi-
family residential development standards of
the zoning ordinance including, but not limi-
ted to: Parking requirements for single family
projects and expansions to nonconforming buil-
dings; 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 declara-
tion.
-It does not seem possible for the average
homeowner to have any understanding- of the
items to be covered without more description
as to what is to be covered in these text
amendments.
I wish for this objection to the lack of in-
formation to be included in the written comments
at the Hearing.
Yours,
SUPPLEMENTAL
INFORMATION
1
FROM : REMAX BEACH CITIES J MCH• PHONE NO. :
FEBRUARY 26, 2000
1
Feb. 26 2000 10:02PM P1
REC V
FEB 2 8 2000
UO10. uE'i. DEPT.
TO MR_ SOL BLS J ENFELD
AND MEMBERS OF THE HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL
AND HERMOSA BEACH CITY MANAGER MR. STEVE BURRELL
FROM JOHN AND JANET MCHUGH
• 718 FIRST PLACE
HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254
RE: CONSIDERATION OF TEXT AMENDMENTS TO SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTS AND MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES.
WE WILL BE UNABLE TO ATTEND TUE MEETING•OF FEBRUARY 29, 2000
REGARDING THIS TEXT AMENDMENT PROPOSAL SO WE ARE WRITING
THIS LETTER ASKING THAT YOU DO NOT •.. DECIDE TO APPROVE OR
ADOPT ANY CHANGES TO THESE PROPERTIES. AS WE FEEL THE CHANGE
WILL AFFECT THE VALUES OF THESE PROPERTIES NEGATIVELY .
A DECISION LIKE THIS THAT WOULD AFFECT SO MANY PROPERTY
OWNERS, SHOULD BE THE DECISION OF THE PUBLIC, NOT A CHOSEN FEW_
WE DO NOT AGREE WITH THIS PROPOSAL AND HOPE YOU FEEL THE SAME,
WAY,
RESPECTFULLY,
JOHN AND JANET MCHUGH
02/26/00 20:52
TX/RX N0.8128 P.001
•
Monday, February 28, 2000
TO: The Community Development Department, Planning Division
and members of The Hermosa Beach City Council
FROM: MIKE WATSON
661 25TH STREET
HERMOSA BEACH, CA
FEB 2 8 2000
u06.4. OEV DEPT,
RE: CONSIDERATION OF TEXT AMENDMENTS TO SINGLE FAMILY AND MULTIFAMILY
RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES.
I AM OPPOSED TO THE CHANGES PROPOSED IN THE STAFF REPORT AS FOLLOWS:
1. TO INCREASE THE OPEN SPACE FOR APPEARANCE CONCERNS. TOO EXPENSIVE FOR THE
INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER. ULTIMATELY WILL STOP THE CONSTRUCTION FOR TWO ON A
LOT TOWNHOMES. IT WILL LOWER LOT VALUES INSTANTLY. TWO OR THREE TIER DESIGN
WOULD HAVE LEAKING PROBLEMS, I SEE A LOT OF THEM OUT THERE. I LIKE MOST OF THE
NEWER ARCHITECTURE, SOME OF THE OLDER BUILDINGS WERE LESS DESIRABLE, BUT THE
NEW BUILDINGS LOOK GREAT TO ME!
2. ADDING A FURTHER REQUIREMENT OF GUEST PARKING PER TOWNHOUSE. DO NOT! IT IS
NOT FAIR TO HAVE MULTIPLE UNITS MAKE UP FOR THE REDUCTION FOR SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTS PARKING REQUIREMENTS. IT TAKES UP TOO MUCH GROUND LEVEL SPACE! IF
WE ENCOURAGE MORE TOWNHOME CONSTRUCTION IN THE FUTURE OUR PARKING
PROBLEM WILL BE BETTER! MOST OF OUR CITIES PARKING PROBLEMS COME FROM THE
OLDER UNITS THAT MAY ONE DAY BE REBUILT WITH REASONABLE PARKING
REQUIREMENTS.
3.. TAKING AWAY ROOF DECK SPACE AS OPEN AREA. VERY POOR JUDGMENT. ROOF TOP.
DECKS SHOULD REMAIN AS OPEN SPACE, NOT JUST 15%.
4. LEAVE THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTS AS THEY ARE, IF
SPECIAL LOTS REQUIRE A VARIANCE THEN GRANT THEM.
5. HERMOSA BEACH RESIDENTS DESERVE BETTER NOTICE THAN THE NOTICE SENT OUT ON
2/15/00. IT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. THIS KIND OF CHANGE SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS IF YOUR
ADDING A STOP LIGHT TO THE CORNER INTERSECTION. THIS ACTION SHOULD BE SENT OUT
WITH AN IMPACT REPORT TO ALL OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS EFFECTED.
I VOTED FOR RESPONSIBLE REPRESENTATION, I AM VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THIS LACK OF
NOTIFICATION, PLEASE REMEMBER THE PEOPLE YOU REPRESENT, NOT JUST A FEW, BUT
EVERYONE!
WATSON
925 Second Street
Hermosa Beach, California 90254
Community Development Department
Planning Division
1315 Valley Drive
City of Hermosa Beach, California 90254
Re: Proposed Zoning Text Amendments
February 24, 2000
FEB 2 8 2000
�Uli4. �l v. DEPT
While this letter does not meet the deadline of noon this date it should be considered because illness has
precluded me from meeting said deadline. Additionally, because of my illness I cannot post this letter until
tomorrow. Therefore, failure to meet the deadline should be excused as unavoidable. If necessary for
appeal purposes I shall provided medical certification that I have been ill for several weeks up to and
including the day of this letter. However, such may not be needed since your notice does state that "All
written testimony by any interested party will be accepted prior to or at the scheduled time on the agenda
for the matter." I interpreted that phrase to mean that this letter is timely.
While I am not against development of Hermosa Beach per se, I am particularly disturbed by any
elimination of a limitation on the number of stories for family and multi -family residential buildings.
When I moved to Hermosa Beach last year I was told that there is a two-story limitation on the height of
residential buildings. This limitation is in accord with that of other areas where view is crucial to purchase
of real estate. Since your notice does not include any text of zone regulations or suggest where such is
easily accessible, I can only assume that you do not mean to require that only one-story housing be built.
Instead, the proposal engenders nightmares of several -storied townhouses and apartment buildings. Even
single family homes which exceed the two-story limit would decrease property values and damage the
Hermosa Beach lifestyle.
Additionally, all residents who already own homes with views of the ocean or other scenic spots or
landscapes have property rights in that view. Destruction of these property rights can lead to litigation
which would cost Hermosa Beach taxpayers incredible amounts of money both in defense of any lawsuits
and in possible damage awards against the city. Thus, I am very much against any change in zoning which
would allow development of more than two-story residential housing.
Sandra Canter
FEB -29-2000 TUE 04:01 PM
FAX NO. •
P. 02
To: The Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council
Re: Proposed Text Amendments to Single Family and Multi -Family Residential Development
Standards of the Zoning Ordinance; 1d30 700 '1!40:1
Public Hearing on February 29, 2000
Date: February 29, 2000
Ladies and Gentlemen:
First, thank you for mailing out the information regarding tonight's meeting. It was very helpful
to those of us who keep promising ourselves we are going to start reading the newspaper and
somehow never get around to it.
Last night I reviewed the file at the police station and I spoke to staff at the Planning
Department this morning, all of which was very helpful. However, I am far from an expert on
these issues and apologize if my comments are naive or miss the mark because of my relative
lack of familiarity with how ail these things work.
have two primary concerns with respect to proposed textual amendments related to open
space requirements and set -backs, and I generally agree with the Planning Commissions
recommendations (with one exception which 1 will point out below). I appreciate the Council's
concerns with aesthetics and wanting to preserve the nature of the community and the air, light
and view corridors of existing properties. !share the Council's concerns about the influx of the
"big boxes" that now dominate Manhattan Beach and support the Council's goals with the
proposed modifications. However, the changes to the open space requirements and set -backs
which.were proposed to address these concerns will have unintended consequences, and in
fact bring about the opposite result, in my neighborhood, severely impacting the buildable area
and view corridors and, therefore, the value, of a number of lots.
I will use my lotas an example. According to my discussions with staff, there are a reasonable
number of small R-3 lots, like mine, in the north end of Hermosa Beach and the R-2 and R -2B
lots in the sand area of the City will be similarly impacted. Therefore, it is my understanding
that my situation is demonstrative of a Targe number of similarly situated properties and it is at
least demonstrative of the 4-5 blocks at the north end of Hermosa Beach on Hermosa Avenue
(generally north of 31m). First l will provide the background of my property and then I will
identify my specific concerns with the proposed changes and present some alternatives which
would, at least, address my concerns with respect to my situation and that of those who are
similarly situated.
A. Background. l have lived in Hermosa Beach for 12 years. I have lived in my current
apartment, a duplex, for seven years, as a renter until I purchased the property last year. My
landlord told me he was selling the building and had offers from two developers who were going
to tear down the structure and rebuild. In a very busy week I worked out a budget, obtained
loan approval, had an appraisal, structural Inspection and termite inspection performed and
made inquiries at the planning department to check on zoning, variances, etc. I determined
that I could, barely, afford to purchase the home.
Although I am living in a 700 square foot apartment, which has become simply too small
for my needs, I love my neighborhood and didn't want to move. I decided to buy, thinking that if
1 later determined that l could not reasonably remodel and could not afford to tear down and
SUPPLEMENTAL
INFORMATION
000Z 6 Z 8 3i
01.72A13 3T1
02/29/00 16:03
1
TX/RX N0.8154 P.002
■
FEB-29-2000 TUE 04:01 PM • FAX NO. .
The Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council
February 29, 2000
Page 2
rebuild, 1 hoped to at least be able to sell for roughly what l paid for it, absent a severe
downturn in the real estate market generally. Therefore, even though it is unlikely that I will tear
down and rebuild a large house on the lot, I am very concerned about any change in the size
and type of home which could ultimately be built, as it significantly impacts the desirability of my
lot and, therefore, the amount of a Toss 1 would be required to take if I were forced to sell.
My block is in the north end of Hermosa Beach on Hermosa Avenue. We are R-3 on
2400 (30x80) square foot Tots, with existing non-conforming duplexes and some single family.
The homes on my block and the neighboring blocks are primarily older (built in the 40's) and
are built right on the street (we have a two-foot front set-back on my block) and go straight up
two or three floors. The garages are on the alley.
Under existing zoning, if I were going to rebuild (or needed to sell to a builder), the
property would be entitled to 1560 square feet of lot coverage. With the 2-foot front set-back
requirement, I would be able to build a 4680 square foot home, which could be oriented to the
front of the lot to maintain the existing air and light and view corridor.
With the proposed 200' ground to sky open space requirement and the proposed
elimination of the roof top open space provision, my lot coverage would be reduced to 1360
square feet. Therefore, with the new open space requirements, and without the proposed new
front set-backs, the maximum home size would be reduced to 4080 square feet. With the
proposed set-backs, it would be reduced to 3696 square feet, or by a total of 984 square feet.
The home would be stepped back from the street, which, while arguably more aesthetically
pleasing, would be out of character with the rest of the block and the neighborhood. Further, it
would cause my home to duck behind the neighboring home, which has been there for at least
50 years, thereby losing my light and air, not to mention my view corridor toward the Palos
Verdes Peninsula.
1 don't think this was the intended consequence of the proposed amendments. The staff
reports and public comment appear to have been concerned primarily with the larger R-2 single
family lots throughout Hermosa and the smaller R-3 two-family lots in the south end of
Hermosa. It is not clear that the impact of these proposed changes on the small R-3, single
family Tots at the north end of Hermosa were considered.
B. Pro posedChances/Sugaested Alternatives. Following is a specific discussion of the
impact of the proposed changes and my suggested alternatives to avoid the apparently
unintended consequences on Tots like mine and the others in my neighborhood.
1. Open Space. The two proposed changes with respect to open space
significantly impact aur buildable area. It is my understanding from staff that the open space is
in addition to required set-backs and must be accessible from a "living area" of the home. On
our size lot, with the necessary front of the lot orientation to maintain existing Tight and space
and view corridors, this significantly limits our developable area and the variety of designs we
could propose to fit within the limits.
(a) Roof Deck Open Space. The proposed change would require 100% of
the open space be at grade. The Planning Commission recommends that up to 15% of the
open space requirement may be on a roof deck, leaving 170 feet of open space at grade.
P. 03 "'
02/29/00 16:03
TX/RX N0.8154 P.003
FEB -29-2000 TUE 04:02 PM 411
The Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council
February 29, 2000
Page 3
FAX NO. S P. 04
Either 200 feet or 170 feet of open space, at grade, off of a "livable area of the home", would
significantly negatively impact the 2400 square foot lots.
(b) 200 Feet Open Space to the Sky. The impact of this proposed change
on the smaller lots is discussed in detail above. Because we would have a smaller building
pad, homes built on our lots would be more likely to become boxes going straight up, as this
would be the only way we could obtain reasonable square footage,
(c) Recommendations. In order to avoid the unintended consequences of
each of these proposed changes, the Council could (i) provide a new "small lot exception"
(similar to the current small tot exception for the 2100 square foot lots) for lots of 2400 square
feet with respect to both changes, or (ii) provide the new small lot exception for the roof deck
open space changes and follow the Planning Commission's recommendations not to impose
the new 200 square foot open to the sky requirement.
2, Revised Front Set -Backs,
(a) Impact. As discussed above, the proposed front set -backs would have
the unintended consequence of changing the character of my neighborhood, to the detriment of
new construction, without benefiting the existing construction. Lots like mine would lose their
air and space, while significantly reducing our interior living area and losing our view corridors.
The impact on the value of my property, and others like mine, would be devastating, without
furthering the Council's goals.
(b) Recommendation. The Planning Commission has recommended against
this proposed change and I support the Commission's recommendation. However, if the
Council decides to implement this change, I suggest a grandfathering provision where, for new
construction or remodel, a property would be entitled to the greater of the revised front yard
setbacks or the existing (pre -remodel or demolition) front setbacks. This would allow the same
street scene to be maintained as is currently the character of the neighborhood without bringing
about the devastating financialimpact of causing lots like mine to lose their air, light and views.
After checking around in the real estate community and looking at assessed values (I
just received my reassessment), my guess is that these changes, if implemented, would cause
the value of my lot to decrease by between $30,000 to $75,000. This would, of course, eat up
virtually my entire equity in the property, without furthering the Council's goals of maintaining
neighborhood aesthetics and light and view corridors. I can't believe that this is the result
intended by the Council for my lot and the other lots in my neighborhood and other similar
neighborhoods in proposing these changes_
Thank you for your consideration of my concerns and those of my neighbors and t hope you
find my suggestions helpful.
Sincerely,
Nancy S. Schwappach
3124 Hermosa Avenue
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
02/29/00 16:03 TX/RX NO.8154 P.004
. I
inA,Ct R WQZ-- vtA
Mi.Tt1okre- ag_D-D „sir/ri-11?./
G i4 -12,Y 5 KA kV AJ 6,2.5 3 .014 1, _ 5 pe -AK, P2.6?5E-
ittR 4-41.
7"
St‘ LotvIA-
(-2kzi--Lc--- 2 SN 21:1-& H-13.
&mu__ MDgAgift
fc\-ak)e-S Mov)1_ 7DLuD
jab
-1E5zaccE 5.70-u3Eve_. 56-4 (ActN
-o96/4-(4-6.9-1 A002S—afe.,e-
mAi 1 I htk
Az-ei
—3d'P 5-4
ot L—
ec/e/
a s 01-0
9tiv-"
, f
Dila-filq VI 5 21-C-(3
360
_._a,c)n_ -OLA-1-,33rd
nroc -`_ 64)ceppoG 3/0q 1-/er -205
PLisktq Vt9qg riV\ OiNti
b«NN anu 309 Q42
•
2_vo -+;1(c.A.p