Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Hearing - Zoning Text Amendment 99-2 - Ordinance 3455 Council/Agency Meeting Held: — )—oo Deferred/Continued to: — *pprov d O Conditionally A proved O Denied �k_clv dfrw,, Signature Council Meeting Date: April17, 2000 Department ID Number: PL00-25 j NM*V%0 j*A of *VkV)NAN%,V 245s AffNOV*Air SNW A Nod CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR ACTION N SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL M BERS y- X C2 SUBMITTED BY: ' RAY SILVER, City Administrator `Z ' s6:-•-r PREPARED BY: HOWARD ZELEFSKY, Director of Planning/ ---- ;` SUBJECT: APPROVE ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 99-2 C.; (SMALL LOT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE) v Statement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachment(s) Statement of Issue: Transmitted for your consideration is Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-2, a request by the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department to amend the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (ZSO) to establish development standards for small lot residential subdivisions in the Medium, Medium-High, and High Density Residential districts citywide. The item was continued from the March 20, 2000 meeting at the request of the City Council to allow members of the development community to meet with staff prior to final action on the proposed ordinance. On April 5, 2000, staff met with a planning commissioner and local development consultants to discuss concerns over the draft ordinance. The consultants maintain the ordinance limits creativity in site plan and building design. They recommended a sliding scale of development standards which would allow smaller lots and options for street sections depending on specific development proposals. They also.recommended that the City Council direct staff to consider evaluating all residential standards, and that this draft ordinance be adopted as guidelines in the form of a resolution. The Planning Commission and staff continue to recommend adoption of Ordinance No. 3tAG5 . Funding Source: Not applicable. Recommended Action: PLANNING COMMISSION AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: "Approve Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-2 with findings for approval (ATTACHMENT NO. 1)" and adopt Ordinance No. Z S (ATTACHMENT NO. 2)." \� REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: Aprill7, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-25 Planninq Commission Action on October 26, 1999: THE MOTION MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY MANDIC, TO APPROVE ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 99-2, WITH FINDINGS (ATTACHMENT NO. 1) CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: LIVENGOOD, BIDDLE, KERINS, MANDIC, LAIRD, CHAPMAN NOES: SPEAKER ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE MOTION PASSED Alternative Action(s): The City Council may make the following alternative motion(s).. 1. "Deny Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-2 with findings." 2. "Continue Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-2 and direct staff accordingly." Analysis: A. PROJECT PROPOSAL: Applicant: City of Huntington Beach, Planning Department, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Location: Residential Medium, Residential Medium-High, and Residential High Density Districts Citywide Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-2 represents a request to amend the following chapters of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (ZSO): 1. Chapter 210 Residential Districts, by adding provisions to Section 210.04 Land Use Controls to establish the entitlement process to permit small lot residential subdivisions in RM (Residential Medium Density), RMH (Residential Medium-High Density), and RH (Residential High Density) Districts. Small lot subdivisions would be subject to approval of a conditional use permit (CUP) and tentative map by the Planning Commission. (see Attachment No. 2) 2. Chapter 230 Site Standards, by adding Section 230.24 Small Lot Standards, which establishes development standards for small lot subdivisions. (See Attachment No. 2) PL00-25 -2- 4/6/00 3:15 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: Apri117, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-25 B. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS: The Planning Commission held numerous study sessions to discuss the development standards for the proposed small lot residential development ordinance dating back to the Spring of 1998. The study sessions included presentations by different architects and developers as well as field visits to several small lot residential projects in and around Huntington Beach. On July 27, 1999 the Planning Commission held a public hearing to discuss and receive testimony on the proposed small lot ordinance, and approved Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-2. Three persons testified during the public hearing expressing concern over the stringency of the proposed standards and impacts on the quality of good architecture and neighborhood design. One person requested the Commission separate the requirements for small lot subdivisions and one lot condominium maps, and that the standards not apply to one lot condominium maps (see Attachment No. 7). However, the Planning Commission's approval action did not result in separate standards from small lots and one lot condominium maps. At their next meeting, the Planning Commission reconsidered their previous action on the draft ordinance, requesting further analysis on the proposed standards, including comparisons with the standards adopted for the Ladera Planned Community in Rancho Mission Viejo. On October 26, 1999, the Planning Commission held a second public hearing on the proposed ordinance. The Commission approved the draft ordinance as originally approved in July, with the following changes: Established a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.7; and Allowed landscape parkways along streets to be an option instead of a requirement. C. STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION: As part of the City's on-going commitment to provide development services and a physical environment which responds to the community's needs in a fiscally responsive manner, the City has proposed an amendment to the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance to permit and regulate small lot subdivisions. PL00-25 -3- 4/6/00 3:15 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: April17, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-25 This particular zoning text amendment is being processed at the Planning Commission's direction after receiving a number of small lot development proposals over the past few years. These developments have become more prevalent due to the frequency of law suits involving multi-family attached projects, as well as land costs and the market demand for detached residential units. A small lot development can be defined as a single family detached residential project with reduced-sized lots owned in fee. The City's draft ordinance proposes a minimum lot size of 3,100 square feet, with an average lot size of 3,400 square feet per unit. The ordinance would apply to all small lot subdivisions, whether the tentative map is designed with single units per lot, or multiple units per lot (condominium). The proposed development standards will provide the necessary information and direction for this type of development. The draft ordinance is a product of reviewing other small lot developments in the City, including projects that have either been approved or constructed in the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan, Meadowlark Specific Plan, and other multi-family districts in the City. The majority of these projects were either permitted by unique development standards of specific plans or received variances to deviate from the regulations written for larger lots. Since several small lot projects have been occupied for years, staff has had the opportunity to review criteria used for these projects, receive feedback from property owners who reside in these projects, and forward appropriate recommendations on the small lot ordinance. The recommended standards would allow development compatible with projects developed under multi-family district standards for apartments or condominiums. In fact, many of the multi-family standards including allowable density, required parking, building height/bulk, and setbacks would result in more intense residential projects than if designed to the recommended small lot standards. This ordinance will serve as a guide for developers who decide to build single family detached units instead of multi-family attached units. It should be noted that this ordinance does not allow for small lot developments in RL (Low Density Residential) zones. All RL standards, including one unit per minimum 6,000 square foot lot remain constant. The following matrix compares the proposed small lot standards to the Residential Low Density (RL), and Holly Seacliff Specific Plan RL-3 standards: I �t P Ifmt�.�omic 1 Density <7.0 u/nac <13.2 u/nac 12 8 u/ac 2 Minimum Lot Sizes ft. 6,000 3,300 3,100 3 Minimum Average Lot Size n/a n/a 3,400 av 4 Minimum Lot Width 5 Interior Lot 60 ft 30 ft. 40 ft. 6 Cul-de-sac Lot 40 ft. 20 ft 30 ft. 7 Minimum Setbacks 8 Front 15 ft. 15 ft 15 ft + offsets in fa ade PL00-25 -4- 4/6/00 3:35 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: Apri117, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-25 cu�mt .' PCAVprwW Ctt 25,IUS cue Ilst &amRemimmdatlan 9 Front Porches lift n/a loft (covered/open on 3 sides 10 Upper Story 10 ft above 2" n/a Vaned upper story setback 11 Side 10%of lot width 20%aggregate, 8 ft aggregate min 3 ft, max 5 min 3 ft, max 5 ft min 3 ft each side ft 0 ft setback permitted w/8 ft on other side 12 Exterior Side 20% 20%aggregat, 10 ft including min 4 ft landscape min 6, max 10 ft min 6 ft, max 8 ft lettered lot 6 ft btw bldg and PL 13 Rear(dwelling) loft 15 ft 15 ft, 50%of budding width can be at13ft 14 (garage) loft 5 ft 3 ft 0 ft if garage is designed to back to another garage 15 Garage Setback 20 ft-front entry, 18 ft-front entry, 10 18 ft 10 ft-side entry ft-side entry 16 Minimum Interior Garage 18 ft x 19 ft None Min 400 sq ft Dimensions W x D Min 18 ft wide 17 Building separation 6 ft 18 Maximum Building Height 35 ft 35 ft 30 ft 19 Maximum Stones 3 2 2, 3rd story loft permitted <500 sq ft and 5/12 pitch 20 AccessoryStructure Height 15 ft 15 ft 15 ft 21 Max Site Coverage 50% 55% 50%+ 5%for open air porches, patio covers, balconies, etc 22 Max Floor Area Ratio None None 07 FAR 23 Private Open Space per None None None Unit 24 Common Open Space Area None 150 SF/lot<40 ft 150 SF per unit, total area must be per Project wide, 100 SF/lot for at least 3,000 SF with a min 50 ft lots>40 ft wide dimension Projects less than 20 units must provide a minimum 600 SF of open space(private&common) per unit Private open space excludes side and front yard setback areas If a portion is provided as common open space that area shall have a min dim of loft 25 Require Parkin 26 Unit 2 open+2 encl 2 per unit 2 open+2 encl(up to 4BR)3 open + 3 encl 5+ BR 27 On-Street 5 s /unit 5 s /unit 1/unit on-street pkg 28 Distribution of on-street Plan required spaces PL00-25 -5- 4/6/00 3:35 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: Apri117, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-25 Current HSSP PC AMMed Oct,26,IM bsue -- :. WB28tJ R RL-3 8 Staff Reco�tn�dation 29 Street(or Driveway)Widths Public 40 ft. curb to curb Private 36 ft.w/fire sprinklers(parking& Emergency Access sidewalks on both sides) (Based on vehicle trips/day; check w/Fire&PW for reduced standards 30 Sidewalk/Parkway Widths Option for min. 6 ft US parkway, Public sidewalks to City stds. Private 31 Fencing/Walls Block wall req/wrought iron permitted where appropriate 32 Landscaping Tree wells on street side of curb encouraged, however, shall not encroach into min. 24 ft wide drive aisle A comparison between the proposed small lot standards and development standards for other residential districts in the City, including the RMH-A (Downtown) district, and Meadowlark Specific Plan Planning Area-4 is provided for informational purposes in a matrix on Attachment No. 4. D. SUMMARY Staff recommends the City Council approve Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-2 as recommended by the Planning Commission and adopt Ordinance No. based on the following reasons: The proposed zoning text amendment provides the option for development of small lot subdivisions in multi-family residential districts citywide; no change to the RL Standards will occur. The proposed development standards will ensure that small lot subdivisions are architecturally designed to provide a healthy and aesthetically pleasing environment and remain compatible with existing surrounding residential uses. The proposed zoning text amendment will not adversely impact the City ft.s review and public hearing process. The proposed zoning text amendment is consistent with the goals and policies specified in the Land Use and Economic Development Elements of the General Plan. Environmental Status: The proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 4501, Class 20, which supplements the California Environmental Quality Act. PL00-25 -6- 4/6/00 3:15 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: April17, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-25 Attachment(s): City Clerk ft.s - . . - NumberDescription 1. Findings for Approval 2. Draft Ordinance 3. Legislative Draft 4. Comparison Matrix 5. Planning Commission Minutes dated October 26, 1999 6. Planning Commission Staff Report dated October 26, 1999 7. Planning Commission Minutes dated July 27, 1999 8. Planning Commission Staff Report dated July 27, 1999 PL00-25 -7- 4/6/00 3:15 PM ATTACHMENT 1 FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO.99-2 i FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL-ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO.99-2: 1. Zoning Text Amendment No.99-2 to establish development standards for small lot single family residential subdivisions in RM, RMH and RH Districts citywide is consistent with the goals and policies contained in the City's General Plan. The amendment is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the Land Use Element of the General Plan, including the requirement that development be designed to account for the unique characteristics of project sites and objectives for community character and assure that all small lot developments in multi-family districts be designed to be compatible with existing adjacent uses,regardless of density or zoning designation. Furthermore,the proposed code amendment will specify the approval process and development standards for small lot, detached single family residential projects and will require small lot subdivisions be of high quality and design with respect to building architecture and site layout, including parking, landscaping and open space. 2. In the case of a general land use provision,the change proposed is compatible with the uses authorized in, and the standards prescribed for,the zoning districts for which the small lot subdivisions would be permitted. The proposed amendment addresses the RM,RMH, and RH Districts city-vvide, permitting small lot subdivisions with the approval of a conditional use permit and tentative map. 3. A community need is demonstrated for the change proposed. The City Council and Planning Commission have recognized the need to offer a more viable option to developers of multi family residential properties without jeopardizing the character of existing multi family residential areas. The amendment will provide for housing types which are in demand in the present housing market, and allow for development of single family detached units. 4. Its adoption will be in conformity with public convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice. The amendment will permit the development of small lot, single family residential subdivisions, while protecting the general welfare of property owners and tenants within multi-family zoning districts. ATTACHMENT 2 � ORDINANCE NO. 3455 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ZONING AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE TO ADD STANDARDS FOR SMALL LOT DEVELOPMENTS (ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 99-2) WHEREAS,pursuant to the Planning and Zoning Law, the California Government Code Sections 65493, et seq., the Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, after notice duly given, have held separate public hearings relative to Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-2 which amends the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance to add development standards related to small lot developments; and After due consideration of the findings and recommendation of the Planning Commission, and all other evidence presented,the City Council finds that the aforesaid amendment to the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance is proper and consistent with the General Plan, NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. That Section 230.24 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance is hereby amended to read as follow: 230.24 Small Lot Development Standards A. Permitted Uses. The following small lot development standards are provided as an alternative to attached housing in multi-family districts. Small lot developments are permitted in RM,RMH, and RH Districts (excluding RL Districts and RMH-A Subdistricts) subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit and Tentative Map by the Planning Commission. The Design Review Board shall review and forward recommendations on all small lot development proposals prior to Planning Commission action. These standards shall apply to all small lot subdivisions,whether the tentative map is designed with single units per lot, or multiple units per lot(condominium). B. Design standards. The following standards shall be considered by the Planning Commission prior to development approval: 1. Architectural features and general appearance of the proposed development shall enhance the orderly and harmonious development of the area or the community as a whole. 2. Architectural features and complementary colors shall be incorporated into the design of all exterior surfaces of the building in order to create an aesthetically pleasing project. 1 4/s:4-990rdinance:smalllot RLS 99-538 3. All vehicular access ways shall be designed with landscaping and building variation to eliminate an alley-like appearance. C. Development Standards. The following standards shall apply to all small lot developments: Minimum Building Site or Lot Size 3,100 sq. ft. (3,400 sq. ft. avg.) Minimum Lot Frontage 40 ft. Cul de sac and knuckle 30 ft. Maximum Height Dwellings 30 ft.; max. 2 stories except 3rd level permitted<500 sq. ft. Min. 5/12 roof pitch No decks above the second story Accessory Structures 15 ft. Minimum Setbacks Front Dwelling 15 ft. +offsets in front fagade Covered Porches (unenclosed) 10 ft. Garage 18 ft Upper Story Upper story setback shall be varied Side 8 ft. aggregate,min. 3 ft. 0 ft. permitted with min. 8 ft. on other side Street Side 10 ft.; includes min. 4 ft. landscape lettered lot (6 ft. between bldg. and prop. line) Rear Dwelling 15 ft.; 50% of bldg. width may be at 13 ft. Garage 3 ft.; 0 ft. if garage is designed to back to another garage Maximum Lot Coverage 50%+ 5% for covered porches,patio covers, balconies. Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 0.7 Minimum Interior Garage Min. 400 sq. ft.; Dimension(width x depth) min. 18 ft. wide Minimum Building Separation to 6 ft. Accessory Building Open Space Common recreational area Projects of 20 units or more: (project) 150 sq. ft./unit; min. 5,000 sq. ft.; min. 50 ft. dimension. Projects less than 20 units: Min. 600 sq. ft. private and/or common per unit. Private open space excludes side and front yard setback areas. Common open space requires min. 10 ft. dimension. 2 Vs:4-990rdinance:smalllot RLS 99-538 Required Parking Small lot developments shall provide parking consistent with single family residential developments specified in Chapter 231. In addition, minimum 1 on-street space per unit for guest/visitor parking shall be provided. A parking plan depicting the location of all parking spaces shall be submitted with the conditional use permit application. Street Sections Streets The city shall review proposed street sections upon submittal of the tentative map and conditional.use permit applications. Min. 36 ft. curb to curb may be permitted provided all units in the development are equipped with automatic sprinkler systems—On-street parking shall be provided on both sides of the street. Sidewalks/Parkways Sidewalks shall be provided on both sides of the street. Min. 6 ft. landscape parkways may be provided on both sides of the street. Sidewalk widths shall be designed to Public Works Standards. Walls and Fences Block walls required; may allow wrought iron element where appropriate Landscaping Tree wells adjacent to landscape parkways on the street side of curb is encouraged, however shall not encroach into the min. 24 foot wide drive aisle. Also see Chapter 232 Landscaping SECTION 2. That Section 210.04 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance is hereby amended to read as follows: 210.04 RL,RM,RMH,RH, and RMP Districts: Land Use Controls In the following schedules, letter designations are used as follows: "P" designates use classifications permitted in residential districts. "L" designates use classifications subject to certain limitations prescribed by the "Additional Provisions" that follow. "PC" designates use classifications permitted on approval of a conditional use permit by the Planning Commission. 3 4/s:4-990rdinance smal I lot RLS 99-538 "ZA" designates use classifications permitted on approval of a conditional use permit by the Zoning Administrator. "TU" designates use classifications allowed upon approval of a temporary use permit by the Zoning Administrator. (3334-6/97,3410-3/99) "P/U" designates that accessory uses are permitted, however, accessory uses are subject to approval of a conditional use permit if the primary use requires a conditional use permit. (3334-6/97,3410-3/99) Use classifications that are not listed are prohibited. Letters in parentheses in the "Additional Provisions" column refer to provisions following the schedule or located elsewhere in the zoning ordinance. Where letters in parentheses are opposite a use classification heading, referenced provisions shall apply to all use classifications under the heading. RL,RM,RMH,RH, and P = Permitted RMP DISTRICTS: L = Limited(see Additional Provisions) (3334-6/97) LAND USE CONTROLS PC = Conditional use permit approved by Planning Commission ZA = Conditional use permit approved by Zoning Administrator TU = Temporary Use Permit P/U = Requires conditional use permit on site of conditional use = Not Permitted RL RM RMH RMP Additional RH Provisions Residential Uses (A)(M)(Q) (3334-&97.341 Day Care, Ltd. P P P P Group Residential - - PC - Multi-family Residential (B)(C)(D)(R) (3410-3/99) 2 -4 units ZA P P - (3334-&97,341 5 - 9 units ZA ZA ZA - (3334-6/97,341 10 or more units PC PC PC - (3334-6/97,341 Manufactured Home Parks ZA ZA - ZA (E)(F) Residential,Alcohol Recovery, Ltd. P P P P Residential Care, Limited P P P P Single-Family Residential P P P P (B)(D)(F)(P)(R) (333416/97,341 Public and Semipublic (A)(0) (3334-&97.341 Clubs & Lodges PC PC ZA ZA (3334-6/97.341 Day Care, Large-family ZA ZA ZA ZA (3334.&97) Day Care, General L-1 ZA ZA ZA (3334-M7.341 Park&Recreation Facilities L-2 L-2 L-2 L-2 (33U-&97.34- Public Safety Facilities PC PC PC PC Religious Assembly L-3 PC PC PC (3334-&97,341 Residential Care, General - L-1 PC PC (3334-6/97.34- Schools, Public or Private PC PC PC PC Utilities,Major PC PC PC PC Utilities, Minor P P P P Commercial Horticulture ZA ZA ZA ZA (3410-3/99) Nurseries ZA ZA ZA ZA (3410-3199) 4 4/s:4-990rdinance:smalllot RLS 99-538 Visitor Accommodations Bed and Breakfast Inns - - L-4 - (3334.6197,341C Accessory Uses P/U P/U P/U P/U (A)(G)(H)(I)(L)(M) (3334.6/97,341C Temporary Uses M(M) (3334-6/97.341C Commercial Filming, Limited P P P P Real Estate Sales TU TU TU P (N) (3334.6/97.341C Personal Property Sales P P P P Street Fairs TU TU TU TU Nonconforming Uses (K)(L) RL,RM,RMH,RH, and RMP Districts: Additional Provisions L-1 A conditional use permit from the Planning Commission is required and only allowed on lots 1.0 acre(gross acreage) or greater fronting an arterial in RL District. (3410-3/99) L-2 Public facilities permitted,but a conditional use permit from the Zoning Administrator is required for private noncommercial facilities, including swim clubs and tennis clubs. (3334-6/97,3410-3/99) L-3 A conditional use permit from the Planning Commission is required, and only schools operating in conjunction with religious services are permitted as an accessory use. A General Day Care facility may be allowed as a secondary use, subject to a conditional use permit, if the Planning Commission finds that it would be compatible with adjacent areas and not cause significant traffic impacts. See Section 230.06: Religious Assembly Yard Requirements. (3334-6/97,3410-3/99) L-4 A conditional use permit from the Planning Commission is required and only allowed on lots 10,000 sq. ft. or greater in RMH-A subdistrict. See also Section 230.42: Bed and Breakfast Inns. (3334-6/97,3410-3/99) (A) Any addition or modification subsequent to the original construction that would result in an increase in the amount of building area, or a structural or architectural alteration to the building exterior, shall require an amendment to the previousely approved conditional use permit, if any, or approval of a new conditional use permit. (3334-6/97, 3410-3/99) (B) A conditional use permit from the Planning Commission is required for residential uses requesting reduction in standards for senior citizens (See Section 210.08), for affordable housing(See Sections 2 10.10 and 230.14), or for density bonus (See Section 230.14). (C) A conditional use permit from the Zoning Administrator is required for any multiple family residential development that: (1) abuts an arterial highway; (2) includes a dwelling unit more than 150 feet from a public street; or (3) includes buildings exceeding 25 feet in height. (3334-6/97,3410-3199) 5 4/s:4-990rd inance:smal l lot RLS 99-538 (D) See Section 210.12: Planned Unit Development Supplemental Standards. In addition, a conditional use permit is required for condominium conversion pursuant to Chapter 235. (E) See Section 210.14: RMP District Supplemental Standards. In addition, a conditional use permit by the Zoning Administrator is required for the addition of manufactured home space(s) to an existing Manufactured Home Park. (3334-6/97,3410- 3/99) (F) See Section 230.16: Manufactured Homes. (G) See Section 230.12: Home Occupation in R Districts. (H) See Section 230.08: Accessory Structures. (I) See Section 230.10: Accessory Dwelling Units. RL,RM,RMH, RH, and RMP Districts: Additional Provisions (J) See Section 241.20: Temporary Use Permits. (K) See Chapter 236: Nonconforming Uses and Structures. (L) See Chapter 233: Signs. (M) Tents, trailers,vehicles, or temporary structures shall not be used for dwelling purposes. (3334-6/97,3410-3/99) (I) See Section 230.18: Subdivision Sales Offices and Model Homes. (3334-6/97,3410-3199) (0) Limited to facilities on sites of fewer than 2 acres. (3334-6/97,3410-3/99) (P) See Section 230.22: Residential Infill Lot Developments. (3334-6/97,3410-3/99) (Q) See Section 230.20: Payment of Parkland Dedication In-Lieu Fee. (3410-3/99) (R) Small lot development standards for RM,RMH, and RH Districts. A conditional use permit from the Planning Commission is required for small lot residential subdivisions, including condominium maps for detached single family dwellings. See also Section 230.24: Small Lot Development Standards. 6 4/sA-990rdinance:smalllot RLS 99-538 SECTION 3. This ordinance shall take effect 30 days after its adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof on the 1st day of May , 2000. -- Mayor ATT ST: // APPROVED AS TO FORM: a&*1v4!t— .,&� IL-< City Clerk / CityiAttoW ty' REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED: (524 City Adffiinistrator P ing Director 7 4/s:4-990rdinance:smalllot RLS 99-538 Ord. No. 3455 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, CONNIE BROCKWAY, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing ordinance was read to said City Council at a regglar meeting thereof held on the 17th day of April, 2000, and was again read to said City Council at a re ular meeting thereof held on the 1st day of May, 2000, and was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council. AYES: Julien, Sullivan, Harman, Garofalo, Green, Dettloff, Bauer NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None I,Connie Brockway CITY CLERK ofthe City of Huntington Beach and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council, do hereby certify that a synopsis of this ordinance has been published in the Independent on ,19 In accordance with the City Charter of said City City Clerk and ex-officio derk Connie Brockway City Clerk of the City Council of the City Deputy City Clerk of Huntington Beach, California G/ordinanc/ordbkpg 5/2/00 ATTACHMENT 3 J LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 210.04 RL, RM,RMH, RH, and RMP Districts: Land Use Controls In the following schedules, letter designations are used as follows: "P" designates use classifications permitted in residential districts. "L" designates use classifications subject to certain limitations prescribed by the "Additional Provisions" that follow. "PC" designates use classifications permitted on approval of a conditional use permit by the Planning Commission. "ZA" designates use classifications permitted on approval of a conditional use permit by the Zoning Administrator. "TU" designates use classifications allowed upon approval of a temporary use permit by the Zoning Administrator. (3334-6/97,3410-3/99) "P/U" designates that accessory uses are permitted, however, accessory uses are subject to approval of a conditional use permit if the primary use requires a conditional use permit. (3334-6/97,3410-3/99) Use classifications that are not listed are prohibited. Letters in parentheses in the "Additional Provisions" column refer to provisions following the schedule or located elsewhere in the zoning ordinance. Where letters in parentheses are opposite a use classification heading, referenced provisions shall apply to all use classifications under the heading. RL, RM, RMH, RH, and P = Permitted RMP DISTRICTS: L = Limited (see Additional Provisions) (3334-6/97) LAND USE CONTROLS PC = Conditional use permit approved by Planning Commission ZA = Conditional use permit approved by Zoning Administrator TU = Temporary Use Permit P/U = Requires conditional use permit on site of conditional use = Not Permitted RL RM RMH RMP Additional RH Provisions Residential Uses (A)(M)(Q) (3334-6/97,3410 Day Care, Ltd. P P P P Group Residential - - PC - Multi-family Residential (B)(C)(D)(R) (3410-3/99) 2 - 4 units ZA P P - (3334.6/97,3410-0 5 - 9 units ZA ZA ZA - (3334-6/97,3410 10 or more units PC PC PC - (3334-6/97,3410 Manufactured Home Parks ZA ZA - ZA (E)(F) Residential, Alcohol Recovery, Ltd. P P P P Residential Care, Limited P P P P Single-Family Residential P P P P (B)(D)(F)(P)(R) (3334-6/97,3410 8 4/s:4-990rdinance:smalllot RLS 99-538 Public and Semipublic (A)(0) (3334-6/97,3410 Clubs & Lodges PC PC ZA ZA (3334-6/97,3410 Day Care, Large-family ZA ZA ZA ZA (3334-6/97) Day Care, General L-1 ZA ZA ZA (3334.6/97,3410-: Park &Recreation Facilities L-2 L-2 L-2 L-2 (3334-6/97,3410 Public Safety Facilities PC PC PC PC Religious Assembly L-3 PC PC PC (3334.6/97,3410 Residential Care, General - L-1 PC PC (3334-6/97,3410 Schools, Public or Private PC PC PC PC Utilities, Major PC PC PC PC Utilities, Minor P P P P Commercial Horticulture ZA ZA ZA ZA (3410-3/99) Nurseries ZA ZA ZA ZA (3410-3/99) Visitor Accommodations Bed and Breakfast Inns - - L-4 - (3334-6/97,3410 Accessory Uses P/U P/U P/U P/U (A)(G)(H)(I)(L)(M) (3334-6197,3410 Temporary Uses (J)(M) (3334.6/97,3410-2 Commercial Filming, Limited P P P P Real Estate Sales TU TU TU P (N) (3334-6/97,3410 Personal Property Sales P P P P Street Fairs TU TU TU TU Nonconforming Uses (K)(L) RL,RM,RMH, RH, and RMP Districts: Additional Provisions L-1 A conditional use permit from the Planning Commission is required and only allowed on lots 1.0 acre (gross acreage) or greater fronting an arterial in RL District. (3410-3/99) L-2 Public facilities permitted, but a conditional use permit from the Zoning Administrator is required for private noncommercial facilities, including swim clubs and tennis clubs. (3334-6/97,3410-3/99) L-3 A conditional use permit from the Planning Commission is required, and only schools operating in conjunction with religious services are permitted as an accessory use. A General Day Care facility may be allowed as a secondary use, subject to a conditional use permit, if the Planning Commission finds that it would be compatible with adjacent areas and not cause significant traffic impacts. See Section 230.06: Religious Assembly Yard Requirements. (3334-6/97,3410-3/99) L-4 A conditional use permit from the Planning Commission is required and only allowed on lots 10,000 sq. ft. or greater in RMH-A subdistrict. See also Section 230.42: Bed and Breakfast Inns. (3334-6/97,3410-3/99) (A) Any addition or modification subsequent to the original construction that would result in an increase in the amount of building area, or a structural or architectural alteration to the building exterior, shall require an amendment to the previousely approved 9 4/s:4-990rd inance:smalllot RLS 99-538 conditional use permit, if any, or approval of a new conditional use permit. (3334-6/97, 3410-3/99) (B) A conditional use permit from the Planning Commission is required for residential uses requesting reduction in standards for senior citizens (See Section 210.08), for affordable housing (See Sections 2 10.10 and 230.14), or for density bonus (See Section 230.14). (D) A conditional use permit from the Zoning Administrator is required for any multiple family residential development that: (4) abuts an arterial highway; (5) includes a dwelling unit more than 150 feet from a public street; or (6) includes buildings exceeding 25 feet in height. (3334-6/97,3410-3/99) (D) See Section 210.12: Planned Unit Development Supplemental Standards. In addition, a conditional use permit is required for condominium conversion pursuant to Chapter 235. (E) See Section 210.14: RMP District Supplemental Standards. In addition, a conditional use permit by the Zoning Administrator is required for the addition of manufactured home space(s)to an existing Manufactured Home Park. (3334-6/97,3410- 3/99) (F) See Section 230.16: Manufactured Homes. (G) See Section 230.12: Home Occupation in R Districts. (H) See Section 230.08: Accessory Structures. (II) See Section 230.10: Accessory Dwelling Units. RL,RM,RMH, RH, and RMP Districts: Additional Provisions (J) See Section 241.20: Temporary Use Permits. (K) See Chapter 236: Nonconforming Uses and Structures. (L) See Chapter 233: Signs. (M) Tents, trailers, vehicles, or temporary structures shall not be used for dwelling Purposes. (3334-6/97,3410-3/99) (N) See Section 230.18: Subdivision Sales Offices and Model Homes. (3334-6/97,3410-3/99) (0) Limited to facilities on sites of fewer than 2 acres. (3334-6/97,3410-3/99) (P) See Section 230.22: Residential Infill Lot Developments. (3334-6/97,3410-3/99) (Q) See Section 230.20: Payment of Parkland Dedication In-Lieu Fee. (3410-3/99) 10 4/s:4-990rdinance:smalllot RLS 99-538 (R) Small lot development standards for RM, RMH, and RH Districts. A conditional use permit from the Planning Commission is required for small lot residential subdivisions, including condominium maps for detached single family dwellings. See also-Section 230.24: Small Lot Development Standards. 230.24 Small Lot Development Standards D. Permitted Uses. The following small lot development standards are provided as an alternative to attached housing in multi-family districts. Small lot developments are permitted in RM, RMH, and RH Districts (excluding RL Districts and RMH-A Subdistricts) subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit and Tentative Map by the Planning Commission. The Design Review Board shall review and forward recommendations on all small lot development proposals prior to Planning Commission action. These standards shall apply to all small lot subdivisions,whether the tentative map is designed with single units per lot, or multiple units per lot (condominium). E. Design standards. The following standards shall be considered by the Planning Commission prior to development approval: 4. Architectural features and general appearance of the proposed development shall enhance the orderly and harmonious development of the area or the community as a whole. 5. Architectural features and complementary colors shall be incorporated into the design of all exterior surfaces of the building in order to create an aesthetically pleasing project. 6. All vehicular access ways shall be designed with landscaping and building variation to eliminate an alley-like appearance. F. Development Standards. The following standards shall apply to all small lot developments: Minimum Building Site or Lot Size 3,100 sq. ft. (3,400 sq. ft. avg.) Minimum Lot Frontage 40 ft. Cul de sac and knuckle 30 ft. Maximum Height Dwellings 30 ft.; max. 2 stories except 3rd level permitted<500 sq. ft. Min. 5/12 roof pitch No decks above the second story Accessory Structures 15 ft. Minimum Setbacks Front Dwelling 15 ft. + offsets in front fagade Covered Porches (unenclosed) 10 ft. Garage 18 ft Upper Story Upper story setback shall be varied Side 8 ft. aggregate, min. 3 ft. 11 4/s:4-990rdinance:smalllot RLS 99-538 0 ft. permitted with min. 8 ft. on other side Street Side 10 ft.; includes min. 4 ft. landscape lettered lot (6 ft. between bldg. and prop. line) Rear Dwelling 15 ft.; 50% of bldg. width may be at 13 ft. Garage 3 ft.; 0 ft. if garage is designed to back to another garage Maximum Lot Coverage 50%+ 5% for covered porches,patio covers, balconies. Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 0.7 Minimum Interior Garage Min. 400 sq. ft.; Dimension(width x depth) min. 18 ft. wide Minimum Building Separation to 6 ft. Accessory Building Open Space Common recreational area Projects of 20 units or more: (project) 150 sq. ft./unit; min. 5,000 sq. ft.; min. 50 ft. dimension. Projects less than 20 units: Min. 600 sq. ft. private and/or common per unit. Private open space excludes side and front yard setback areas. Common open space requires min. 10 ft. dimension. Required Parking Small lot developments shall provide parking consistent with single family residential developments specified in Chapter 231. In addition,minimum 1 on-street space per unit for guest/visitor parking shall be provided. A parking plan depicting the location of all parking spaces shall be submitted with the conditional use permit application. Street Sections Streets The city shall review proposed street sections upon submittal of the tentative map and conditional use permit applications. Min. 36 ft. curb to curb may be permitted provided all units in the development are equipped with automatic sprinkler systems—On-street parking shall be provided on both sides of the street. Sidewalks/Parkways Sidewalks shall be provided on both sides of the street. Min. 6 ft. landscape parkways may be provided on 12 4/sA-990rdinance:smalllot RLS 99-538 both sides of the street. Sidewalk widths shall be designed to Public Works Standards. Walls and Fences Block walls required; may allow wrought iron element where appropriate Landscaping Tree wells adjacent to landscape parkways on the street side of curb is encouraged, however shall not encroach into the min. 24 foot wide drive aisle. Also see Chapter 232 Landscaping 13 4/s:4-990rdinance:smalllot RLS 99-538 ATTACHMENT 4 SMALL LOT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR DETACHED UNITS IN MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONES <1994 Current HSSP RMH-A Greystone Meadowlark PC Approved Oct.26,1999 Issue HBOC(111) HBZSO(RL) (111-3) (Downtown) Landing PA4 &Staff Recommendation 1 Density <6.5 u/gac <7.0 u/nac <13.2 u/nac >17.4 u/gac 11.6 u/nac 13.8 u/nac 12.8 u/ac 2 Minimum Lot Size(sq.ft.) None for PRD 6,000 3,300 2,500 3,100 3,000 3,100 3 Minimum Average Lot Size n/a n/a n/a n/a. 3,300(info) n/a 3,400 avg. 4 Minimum Lot Width 5 Interior Lot None for PRD 60' 30' 25' 43' 35' 40' 6 Cul-de-sac Lot None for PRD 40' 20' 25' n/a 30' 30' 20'flag lots 7 Minimum Setbacks 8 Front 15'to driveways 15' 15' 12' 15' 15' 15'+offsets in fagade 9 Front Porches 10'to driveways III n/a 8' 10, 12' 10, (covered/open on 3 sides) 10 Upper Story ** 10'above 2" n/a 10'above 2" Provided n/a Varied upper story setback 11 Side 15'to driveways 10% 20%aggregate 3' 3'&5' 4' 8'aggregate 3'-5' min.3';max.5' 8'min dwelling min.3' separation 0'setback permitted w/8'on other side 12 Exterior Side 15'to driveways 20% 20%aggregate 5' 3'&5' 20%of lot 10'including min.4' 6'-10' min.6';max.8' frontage landscape lettered lot(6'btw min.6',max.8' bldg.and PL) 13 Rear(dwelling) 15'to driveways 101* 15' 7.5' 10, 15'w/50%at 13' 15%50%of building width 5' can be at 13' 14 (garage) 10, 10, 5' n/a 0' 3' 5'garage w/10' 0"if garage is designed to habitable back to another garage up to 25%allowed at 5'/5' 15 Garage Setback 5'for half the 20'-front entry; 18'-front entry; 5'with alley 18'&20' 18' 18' units and 20'for I0'-side entry 10'-side entry access the other half 16 Minimum Interior Garage 18'x 19' 18'x 19' 18'x 19'w/min. Min.400 sq.ft. Dimensions(W x D) 400 SF Min. 18'wide 17 Building separation 6' 18 Maximum Building Height 35' 35' 35' 35' 30' 30' 30' 19 Maximum Stories 3 3 2 3 2 2 2;3` story loft permitted <500 sq.ft.and 5/12 pitch 20 Accessory Structure Height 15' 21 Max.Site Coverage 50% 50% 55% 50% 50% 50% 50%+5%for open air porches,patio covers, balconies,etc. 22 Max.Floor Area Ratio n/a 1.0 0.7 (FAR) *Zero 1 **Various other Provisions Apply <1994. Current HSSP RMH-A Greystone Meadowlark PC Approved Oct.26,1999 Issue HBOC(RI) HBZSO(RL) (RL-3) (Downtown) Landing PA4 &Staff Recommendation 23 Private Open Space per Unit ** None None None n/a 400 SF/lot None 24 Common Open Space Area 2,500<4 ac. None 150 SF/lot<40' n/a 150 SF/lot,40' 150 SF per unit;total area per Project 10,000>4 ac. wide; 100SF/lot frontage must be at least 3,000 SF with for lots 40'wide 100 SF/lot,.40' a min.50'dimension. frontage Projects less than 20 units must provide a minimum 600 SF of open space(private& common)per unit. Private open space excludes side and front yard setback areas. If a portion is provided as common open space that area shall have a min.dim.of 10'. 25 Required Parking 26 Unit MFR Standards 2 open 2 per unit 2 spaces<3 MFR Standards 2 open+2 enclosed 2 open+2 encl(up to 4BR) +2 enclosed bdrms+ (up to 4 BR)3+3 3+3(5+BR) 1/bdrm>3 (5+BR) +20 tandem 27 On-Street .5 sp./unit .5 sp./unit .5 sp./unit Approx. 1/unit 1/unit on-street pkg. 28 Distribution of on-street Plan required spaces 29 Street(or Driveway)Widths 25' 60' 33' 32'w/pkg.on side 40'curb to curb Public w/PW approval 36'w/sprinklers(pkg.&s/w Private and red curb on on both sides) Emergency Access other side& (Based on vehicle trips/day; fire sprinklers check w/Fire&PW for reduced standards) 30 Sidewalk/Parkway Widths Option for min.6'US Public parkway;sidewalks to City Private stds. 31 Fencing/Walls Block wall req./wrought iron Epermitted where appropriate Landscaping 'free wells on street side of curb encouraged,however, shall not encroach into min. 24'wide drive aisle. (g:carvalho/smalllot/mtx00) 1/24/00 *Zero 2 **Various other Provisions Apply ATTACHMENT 5 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, OCTOBER 26, 1999 Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California STUDY SESSION—4:00 PM (Room B-S) PALMIGOLDENWEST SPECIFIC PLAN—Mary Beth Broeren PLANNING COMMISSION PROTOCAL—Fred Speaker, Chairperson AGENDA REVIEW—Herb Fauland REGULAR MEETING- 7:00 PM PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE P P P P P P P ROLL CALL: Laird, Kerins, Chapman, Speaker, Biddle, Livengood, Mandic AGENDA APPROVAL Anyone_wishing to speak:must fill out and submit a form to speak No action can be taken by the Planning Commission on this date,:unless the item is agendi✓ed. Any one wishing to speak on items not on tonight's agenda or on non-public hearing items may do so during ORAL COMMUNICATIONS.,Speakers on items scheduled forPUBLIC HEARING will be invited to speak during the public hearing. (4 MINUTES PER PERSON,NO DONATING OF TIME TO OTHERS) A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS NONE B. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS B-1 RECONSIDERATION OF ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT N0. 99-2 (SMALL, LOT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS): APPLICANT: City of Huntington Beach LOCATION: Residential Medium Density(RM), Residential Medium-High Density PROJECT PLANNER: Wayne Carvalho I Transmitted for Planning Commission reconsideration is Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-2, a request by the City of Huntington Beach to amend the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (ZSO)by establishing development standards for small lot residential subdivisions in multiple family residential districts (RM, RMH, and RH). On July 27, 1999, the Planning Commission approved the zoning text amendment. At their next meeting on August 10, 1999, the Planning Commission voted to reconsider their action,requesting that staff further analyze the proposed development standards. Since the reconsideration,the Planning Commission received a brief overview of the standards adopted for the Ladera Planned Community in Rancho Mission Viejo, and discussed the possibility of including a floor area ratio (FAR)provision in the draft ordinance. A brief analysis of the FAR standards is provided in this report. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the original ordinance as previously approved by the Planning Commission in July for the following reasons: • The proposed zoning text amendment provides the option for development of small lot subdivisions in multi-family residential districts citywide. • The proposed development standards will ensure that small lot subdivisions are architecturally designed to provide a healthy and aesthetically pleasing environment and remain compatible with existing surrounding residential uses. • The proposed zoning text amendment will not adversely impact the City's review and public hearing process. • The proposed zoning text amendment is consistent with the goals and policies specified in the Land Use and Economic Development Elements of the General Plan. Alternative actions includes provisions for a floor area ratio (FAR) limitation or to continue the zoning text amendment and direct staff to further analyze the Ladera Plan. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Richard Harlow, 211-B,Main Street, asked that if the request were approved it only be applied to future projects and not projects currently in process. Mr.Harlow also stated that the small lot development standards are a single family residential alternate to multi family dwelling units. He stated that the standards should not necessarily be required to meet the required dimensions for regular single family residential development standards. Mike Adams, PO Box 382, stated that the original intent of setting standards for small lot developments was to provide an alternative to multi family dwellings. He stated that some of the recommended standards actually discourage small lot development. He stated that the standards should be allowed to vary according to lot size. Bill Hezmalhauch, 17875 Von Karman,9404,Irvine, stated that the Commission should review the guidelines used for the Ladera Planned Community in Rancho Mission Viejo and consider incorporating them in the proposed small lot standards. Leonie..Herting, 8162 Kingfisher Drive, spoke in support of the proposed request, stated the standards should be applied to any development currently in process. PC Minutes- 10/26/99 2 (99PCM1026) ATTACHMENT 6 � THERE WERE NO OTHER PERSONS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE REQUEST AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. The Commission discussed amendments to include changing the maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR)to .7 and include the option for parkways or no parkways. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY BIDDLE,TO APPROVE ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 99-2 AS AMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITH FINDINGS AND FORWARD THE DRAFT ORDINANCE TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Laird, Chapman, Speaker,Biddle, Livengood,Mandic NOES: Kerins ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 99-2: 1. Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-2 to establish development standards for small lot single family residential subdivisions in RM, RMH and RH Districts citywide is consistent with the goals and policies contained in the City's General Plan. The amendment is consistent with the objectives,policies, general land uses and programs specified in the Land Use Element of the General Plan, including the requirement that development be designed to account for the unique characteristics of project sites and objectives for community character and assure that all small lot developments in multi-family districts be designed to be compatible with existing adjacent uses, regardless of density or zoning designation. Furthermore,the proposed code amendment will specify the approval process and development standards for small lot, detached single family residential projects and will require small lot subdivisions be of high quality and design with respect to building architecture and site layout, including parking, landscaping and open space. 2. In the case of a general land use provision, the change proposed is compatible with the uses authorized in, and the standards prescribed for,the zoning districts for which the small lot subdivisions would be permitted. The proposed amendment addresses the RM,RMH, and RH Districts citywide,permitting small lot subdivisions with the approval of a conditional use permit and tentative map. 3. A community need is demonstrated for the change proposed. The City Council and Planning Commission have recognized the need to offer a more viable option to developers of multi family residential properties without jeopardizing the character of existing multi family residential areas. The amendment will provide for housing types which are in demand in the present housing market, and allow for development of single family detached units. 4. Its adoption will be in conformity with public convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice. The amendment will permit the development of small lot, single family residential subdivisions,while protecting the general welfare of property owners nand tenants within multi-family zoning districts. PC Minutes- 10/26/99 3 (99PCM 1026) (- C �� City of Huntington Beach Planning Department STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Howard Zelefsky, Planning Director BY: Wayne Carvalho, Associate Planner U/e� DATE: October 26, 1999 SUBJECT: ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 99-2 (RECONSIDERATION) (Small Lot Development Standards) LOCATION: RM, RMH and RH Districts Citywide STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Transmitted for Planning Commission reconsideration is Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-2, a request by the City of Huntington Beach to amend the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (ZSO) by establishing development standards for small lot residential subdivisions in multiple family residential districts (RM, RMH, and RH). On July 27, 1999,the Planning Commission approved the zoning text amendment. At their next meeting on August 10, 1999, the Planning Commission voted to reconsider their action, requesting that staff further analyze the proposed development standards. Since the reconsideration, the Planning Commission received a brief overview of the standards adopted for the Ladera Planned Community in Rancho Mission Viejo, and discussed the possibility of including a floor area ratio (FAR)provision in the draft ordinance. A brief analysis of the FAR standards is provided in this report. Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the original ordinance as previously approved by the Planning Commission in July for the following reasons: • The proposed zoning text amendment provides the option for development of small lot subdivisions in multi-family residential districts citywide. • The proposed development standards will ensure that small lot subdivisions are architecturally designed to provide a healthy and aesthetically pleasing environment and remain compatible with existing surrounding residential uses. • The proposed zoning text amendment will not adversely impact the City's review and public hearing process. • The proposed zoning text amendment is consistent with the goals and policies specified in the Land Use and Economic Development Elements of the General Plan. Alternative actions have been provided that includes provisions for a floor area ratio (FAR) limitation or to continue the zoning text amendment and direct staff to further analyze the Ladera Plan. RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: "Approve Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-2 as originally approved by the Planning Commission with findings (Attachment No. 1) and forward the Draft Ordinance to the City Council for adoption." ALTERNATIVE ACTION: 1. "Approve Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-2 with revisions to include a floor area ratio (FAR) limitation with findings and forward the Draft Ordinance to the City Council for adoption." 2. "Continue Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-2 and direct staff to further analyze the Ladera Plan." 3. "Deny Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-2 with findings for denial." ANALYSIS: Since the vote to reconsider,the Planning Commission held two study sessions to further discuss the draft ordinance. The primary issues raised were whether to incorporate a floor area ratio (FAR)provision into the ordinance, and modifying development standards that restrict creative site layout and architectural designs of small lot subdivisions. The following table, included for discussion purposes, describes the FAR restrictions adopted for the Ladera Planned Communitv located in Rancho Mission Viejo. Staff did not have sufficient time to analyze other aspects of the Ladera Plan. Lot Size(dimension) House Size* Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 2,800 sq. ft. (35' x 80') 1,350— 1,850 sq. ft. 0.48 - 0.66 3,000 sq. ft. (45' x 70') 1,500—2,100 sq. ft. 0.5 - 0.7 3,500 sq. ft. (46' x 80') 1,800—2,400 sq. ft. 0.51 - 0.69 4,000 sq. ft. (50' x 80') 2,100—2,800 sq. ft. 0.53 - 0.7 4,500 sq. ft. (52' x 87') 2,400—3,100 sq. ft. 0.53 - 0.69 5,000 sq. ft. (55' x 91') 2,700—3,400 sq. ft. 0.54 - 0.66 * excludes garage area Staff Report— 10/26/99 2 (99sr51) C The Ladera Plan standards limit the residential floor area(excluding garage) on a particular lot to approximately 70% of the total lot size, or a 0.7 floor area ratio (FAR). By restricting the floor area of the unit, concerns over building bulk and the overall massing of a project could be addressed. The Ladera Neighborhood Design Standards also require curb-separated sidewalks in each of the Village areas. The street section also mandates a 5-7 foot wide landscape parkway. However, the plan only requires sidewalks on one side of the street. The Planning Commission's previous action was consistent with the Ladera standards with the exception of the sidewalk requirement on one side of the street. The Planning Commission required a curb-separated sidewalk with a minimum six (6) foot wide landscape planter and sidewalks on both sides. The staff recommended standards without FAR would allow development compatible with projects developed under multi-family district standards for apartments or condominiums. Many of the multi-family development standards for attached projects, including density, parking, building height, and setbacks would result in more intense residential projects than if designing to the recommended small lot standards. This ordinance will offer developers the option to build single family detached units at similar densities as multi family attached projects, and will provide specific development standards for designing small lot subdivisions. SUMMARY: Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-2 based on the following reasons: • The proposed zoning text amendment provides the option for development of small lot subdivisions in multi-family residential districts citywide. • The proposed development standards will ensure that small lot subdivisions are architecturally designed to provide a healthy and aesthetically pleasing environment and remain compatible with existing surrounding residential uses. • The proposed zoning text amendment will not adversely impact the City's review and public hearing process. • The proposed zoning text amendment is consistent with the goals and policies specified in the Land Use and Economic Development Elements of the General Plan: ATTACHMENTS: 1. Qadiiaso for.AppigajAal. 2. d,�immse:` ^ 9. 3. Laiclat7�7P T,_ 1+ „dQ!!'laKii C — +3Y,7. .i7'I�b 0 4. Pl c�;�n staff R v.+nt-f ra its„1 .__77 u1Qn_ 5. Matrix of development standards comparison dated September 14, 1999 6. Matrix of development standards presented by Commissioner Tom Livengood at the October 12, 1999 Planning Commission Study Session r HF:WCkjl Staff Report— 10/26/99 3 (99sr51) SMALL LOT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR DETACHED UNITS IN MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONES `. SEPTEMBER 14,1999—PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION <1994 Current ffSSP RdIH-A Greystone A9eadowlarkl PC(Majority) Staff Recommendation PC Approved Issue HBOC(RI) ffBZSO(RL) (RE-3) (Downtown) Landing PA-4 Recommendation July 27,1999 1 Density 76.5 u/gac <7.0 u/nac <13.2 u/nac 517.4 u/gac 11.6 u/nac 13.8 ulnae <14.5 u/nac 13.8 u/ac 12.8 u/ac 2 Minimum Lot Size( .ft.) None for PRD 6,000 3,300 2,500 3,100 3,000 2,800 3,000 3,100 3 Minimum Average Lot Size n/a n/a n/a. n/a. 3,300(info) n/a 3.400 avg. Na 3,400 avg. 4 Minimum Lot Width 5 Interior Lot None for PRD 60' 30' 25' 43' 35' 30' 40' 40' 6 Cul-de-sac Lot None for PRD 40' 20' 25' n/a 30' 20, 30' 30' 20'flag lots 7 Minimum Setbacks 8 Front 15'to driveways I S 15, 12' 15, 15' 15'+offsets in front fagade 12' IS'+offsets in fagade 9 Front Porches 10'to driveways It, n/a 8' 10, 12' to, 6' 10, (covered/open on 3 sides) 10 Upper Story ••• 10,above 2 n/a 10'above 2 Provided o/a S'offset above 1 floor 5'offset above 1 floor Varied upper story setback I 1 Side 15'to driveways 10°/. 20%aggregate 3' 3'&5' 4' 20%aggregate;min.3'on 8'aggregate 8'aggregate 3'-5' min.3';max.5' 8'min dwelling one side&5'on other min.3' min.3' separation (min.8'between units); 0'setback lot permitted 0'setback permitted w/8' 0'setback permitted w/8' w/6'on other side on other side on other side 12 Exterior Side 15'to driveways 204% 20%aggregate 5' 3'&5' 20%of lot 10'which includes min.4' 10'including min.4' 10 including min.4' 6'-10' min.6:;mix.8' _ frontage landscape area lettered lot(6'from PL) landscape lettered lot(6' min.6',max.8' btw bldg.and PL) 13 Rear(dwelling) IS todriveways 10'• 15' 7.5' 10, I5'w/50°/.at13' 15%50%of building width I5';50%ofbuilding 15%50%ofbuilding 5' can be at 13 width can be at 13' width can be at 13' 14 (garage) 10, 5 n/a or— garage may be zero 3' 3' 5'garage w/10' 0"If garage design as 0"if garage is designed to habitable back-to-back back to another garage up to 25%allowed at 5'/5' 15 Garage Setback S'for half the 20'-front entry; 18'-front entry; 5'with alley 18'&20' I8' 18'on side w/6'sidewalk; 18' 18' units and 20'for 10'-side entry 10'-side entry access 20'on side without. the other half )° 16 Minimum Interior Garage IS'x 19' 18 x 19 I8 x 19'w/min. Min.400 sq.ft. 20'x 20' Min.400 sq.ft. �.j Dimensions(W x D) 400 SF Min.IS'wide Min.18'wide 17 Buildin separation 6' 6' �. 18 Maximum Building Height 35' 35' 33' 35' 30' 30' 30' 30' 30' 19 Max mum Stories 3 3 2 3 2 2 2 2 2;3 story loft permitted <500 .ft.and 3/12 pitch 20 Accessory Structure Height 15' IS' 21 Max.site Coverage SOY. 5 % 55% 50% 50% 50% 50%+S%for open air 50%+5%for open air SO°/.+5% or open air m porches,patio covers, porches,patio covers, porches,patio covers, balconies,etc. balconies,etc. balconies,etc. 22 Max.Floor Area Ratio AR a 1.0 23 1 Private Open Space per Unit None None None n/a 400 SFAot 400 SF None I None r''Z •Zero 1 Q ••Condominium Project • ••°Various other Provisions Apply ,v t 1 <1994 Current . ,, IISSP RMH-A Greysione Meadowlark PC(Majority) Staff Recommendation PC Approved Issue FIBOC(RI) FtBZSO(RL);' (Rfr3) +`, (Downtown) Landing PA4 1 Recommendation July27,1999 24 Common Open Space Area per 2,500<4 ac. None 150 SF/lot<40' n/a 150 SF/lot,40' 150 SF per unit;total area 150 SF per unit;total area 150 SF per unit;total area Project 10,000>4 ac. wide;I00SF/lot frontage must be at least 3,000 SF must be at least 3,000 SF must be at least 3,000 SF for lots 40'wide 100 SF/lot,.40' with a min.dimension of with a min.dimension of with a min.50'dimension. frontage 50'x 50'. 50'x 50'. Projects less than 20 units Projects less than 20 units must provide a minimum Projects less than 20 units must provide a minimum 600 SF of open space must provide a minimum 600 SF of open space (private&common 600 SF of open space (private&common)per unit. Private open sp..-- (private&common)per unit. Private open space excludes side and front unit. Private open space excludes side and front yard setback areas. if a excludes side and front yard yard setback areas. If a portion is provided as setback areas. If a portion portion is provided as common open space that is provided as common common open space that area shall have a min.dim. open space that area shall area shall have a min.dim. of 10'. have a min.dim.of 10'. of 10'. 25 Required Parking 26 Unit MFR Standards 2 open 2 per unit 2 spaces<3 MFR Standards 2 open+2 enclosed 2 open+2 encl.(up to 4 BR) 2 open+2 encl(up to 4BR) 2 open+2 encl(up to 4BR) +2 enclosed bdrms+ (up to 4 BR)3+3 3+3(5+BR) 3+3(5+BR) 3+3(5+BR) 1/bdrm>3 (5+BR) +20 tandem 27 On- tree! .5 sp unit .5 spJuntt .5 spJunit Approx.I unit .5/unit 1/unit on-street pkg. 1/unit on-street pkg. (Ping) 28 Distribution o on-streets aces Plan rc aired Plan required 2 Street or Driveway) the 25 0 33' 32'w/p g.on s e 8 R (32'curb to curb 40'curb to cur 40 curb to cur Public w/PW approval +6'sidewalk on one side) 36'w/sprinklers(pkg.& 36'w/sprinklers(pkg.& Private and red curb on s/w on both sides) s/w on both sides) Emergency Access other side& (Based on vehicle trips/day; fire sprinklers Max.600'distance for check w/Fire&PW for emergency(FD) reduced standards) 30 Sidewalk/Parkway Widths 4'walk w/8-10'US or 6' Min.6'US parkway Public walk behind curb Sidewalks to City stds. Private 31 Fencing/Walls Block walls between units No req.on material Block wall reghvrought permittediron where ap roriate 32 Landscaping CC&R's to restrict tree Tree wells on street side trimming(PTL) of curb encouraged, however,shall not encroach into min.24' Zg:cary sin o ma wide drive aisle. + •Zero 2 t •'Condominium Project `--*Various other Provisions Apply VI SMALL LOT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR DETACHED UNITS IN MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONES PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION—OCTOBER 12,1999 PRESENTED BY COMMISSIONER LIVENGOOD A I111� , ZONET I Lot Size 2,800 3,100;3,400 avg. 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000 6,000 2 Lot Dimcnsioo 35 x 80 40'wide;30'cut 45 x 70 46 x 80 50 x 80 52 x 87 55 x 91 60'width 3 Size of House Plan(Sq.Ft.range) 1,350-1,650 1,500-1,900 1,800-2,200 2,100-2,500 2,400-2,800 2,100-3,100 7—--dp—tional sq.ft.-Incrcase/Decrease 100-200 100-200 100-200 100-300 200-300 200400 5 Density 15.6 units/AC 12.8 units/AC 14.5 units/AC 12.4 units/AC 10.9 units/AC 9.7 units/AC 8.7 units/AC 7.3 units/AC 6 Sidewalk with parkway adj.to curb Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 7 Sidewalk on one side Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 8 Front Setback §_— Living(I story unit) 10, 15, 10, 12',67%to 10' 12',33%tot0' 12' 12' 15' to Living(2 story unit) 15',33%to 10' 15' 15',33%to 10' 15, 15' 15' 15' 15, I I Upper Story Varied 12 Porch 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 12' 12' —1 13 Garage Setback 14 Front entry N/A 18' 17' 17' 17' 18, 18, 20' 15 Side entry N/A N/A NIA N/A 10, 10, 10, 16 Side Setback 5. 8'aggregatc,min.3' 5. 51 5' 5' 5' 51 O'w/&'on I side 17 Street Side Setback 10'incl.4'US lot 10, 18 Rear Setback 19 Living(I story unit) N/A 15';5001.at 13' 12'(15'avg.) 15'(20'avg) 18'(20'avg.) 18'(20'avg.) 20'(25'avg.) 10, _2_0 —Living(2 story unit) N/A 15';50%at 13' 15' 20' 20' 20' 25'min 10, 21 Garage(alley-loaded) 3' 3';0'backing 5. 5' 5' 5' 5' w/another garage 22 Public Open Space(50) 2,800 7,500(150 sq.ft./unit, 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000 None min.3,000 sq.R.) 23 Garage Configuration 24 Alley-loaded Yes Yes No No No No No No 25 Side entry No Yes No No No Yes Yes Yes 26 Split No Yes No Single car No Yes Yes Yes 27 Tandem No No No No Yes(3 car) Yes Yes No 28 Comer Lot Plot Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 29 Minimum Interior Garage Dimension fOO sf—,min.18'wide 30 Maximum Building Height 30' 30';35 WCUP 31 Maximum Stories 2(3rd to ) 2;3 w/CUP 500 sq.ft.5/12 pitch _327-ITaximum Accessory Structure Height 15' 15' 33 Maximum Site Coverage Governed by setback 1 509/6+51/o patio-covers Governed by setback Governed by setback Governed by setback Governed by setback Governed by setback 501/6+5%for patio covers 34 Parking I on-street/unit > 35 Varies City Standard Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies B '2d Varies Street Parkway 6' Varies Varies Varies Varies Landscape. ay Width Varies Varies 37 Limit of Bedrooms None None None None None None None, None G:\Kim\Vardoc\99\KI9966.doc - � 1 _ L> L . 40 8 ft. landscape parkway 4 ft. sidewalk 3,,000 s . ft. a 30 ft. frontage ATTACHMENT NO. 4. 7 �� - -- i V.j • 1 . 8 ft. landscape parkway ! Approx. 1 space per unit 4 ft. -sidewalk t. 31000 sq. ft._ _ 40 ft, frontage r ATTACHMENT N0. � 8 OOP Y.� 1 . ,. 6 ft. sidewalk Approx. 1.5 space per unit 4d --- Ain VA �. E G L�-- - - - -- ----- y 6000 sq. ft. 60 ft. frontage f ATTACHMEENT NO.- I. 9 ATTACHMENT 7 � B-2 ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 99-2 (SMALL LOT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS): APPLICANT: City of Huntington Beach LOCATION: Residential Medium Density (RM), Residential Medium-High Density (RMH) and Residential High Density (RH) Districts Citywide. PROJECT PLANNER: Wayne Carvalho Transmitted for Planning Commission consideration and recommendation to the City Council is Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-2, a request by the City of Huntington Beach to amend the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (ZSO)by establishing development standards for small lot residential subdivisions in the RM, RMH, and RH Districts citywide. Similar standards currently exist elsewhere in the City including the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan, and Meadowlark Specific Plan. The new standards would allow developers the option to build detached single family residential projects on small lots in areas generally planned for multi-family attached projects. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-2 to the City Council for the following reasons: The proposed zoning text amendment provides the option for development of small lot subdivisions in multi-family residential districts citywide. The proposed development standards will ensure that small lot subdivisions are architecturally designed to provide a healthy and aesthetically pleasing environment and remain compatible with existing surrounding residential uses. • The proposed zoning text amendment will not adversely impact the City's review and public hearing process. The proposed zoning text amendment is consistent with the goals and policies specified in the Land Use and Economic Development Elements of the General Plan. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Richard Harlow, 211-B,Main Street,stated that his concerns are outlined in the matrix in Attachment No. 6.1 of the Staff Report. The Attachment is a letter from Hunsaker and Associates dated received July 21, 1999. PC Minute —7/27/99 14 (99PCM727) Bijan Sassounian, 6782 Presidente Drive, requested that the Commission separate the ( requirements for small lot subdivisions and one (1)lot condominium maps and act only on the requirements for small lot subdivisions on this date. Bill Hexmalhalch, 17875 Von Karman, Irvine, architect,presented a slide show to the Commission highlighting the architecture and neighborhood designs of existing small lot developments. He stated that the current design guidelines in the ordinance may be too strict to incorporate different and good architecture. THERE NO OTHER PERSONS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE REQUEST AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. The following modifications were made to the Draft Ordinance by the Planning Commission (majority vote): Issue Modification Minimum Building Site or 3,100 sq. ft. (3,400 sq. ft. avg.) Lot Size Minimum Lot Frontage 40 ft. Cul de sac and knuckle 30 ft. Maximum Height Dwellings 30 ft.; max. 2 stories 3rd level<500 sq. ft.permitted Min. 5/12 roof pitch No decks above the second story Accessory Structures 15 ft. Minimum Setbacks Front Dwelling 15 ft. +offsets in front fa ade Covered Porches 10 ft. unenclosed Garage 18 ft. w/6 ft. sidewalk 20 ft. without sidewalk Upper Story -Upper story setback shall be varied Side 8 ft. aggregate,min. 3 ft. 0 ft. permitted with min. 8 ft. on other side Street Side 10 ft.; includes min. 4 ft. landscape lettered lot 6 ft. between bldg. and prop. line Rear Dwelling 15 ft.; 50% of bldg. width may be at 13 ft. Garage 3 ft.; 0 ft. if garage is designed to back to another garage Maximum Lot Coverage 50%+5% for covered porches,patio covers,balconies. PC Minutes—7/27/99 15 (99PCM727) Issue Modification Minimum Interior Garage Min. 400 sq. ft.; Dimension(width x min. 18 ft. wide depth) Minimum Building 6 Separation to Accessory Building Open Space Private unit None Common(project) Projects of 20 units or more: 150 sq. ft./unit;min. 5,000 sq. ft.;min. 50 ft. dimension. Projects less than 20 units: Min. 600 sq. ft.private and/or common per unit. Private open space excludes side and front yard setback areas. Common open s ace requires min. 10 ft. dimension. Required Parking Small lot developments shall provide parking consistent with single family residential developments specified in Chapter 231. Plus min. 1 on-street space per unit for guest/visitor parking A parking plan depicting the location of all parking spaces shall be submitted with the conditional use permit application. Street Sections Streets The city shall review proposed street sections upon submittal of the tentative map and conditional use permit applications. Min. 36 ft. curb to curb may be permitted provided all units in the development are equipped with automatic sprinkler systems—On-street parking shall be provided on both sides of the street. Sidewalks/Parkways Sidewalks shall be provided on both sides of the street Min. 6 ft. landscape parkway shall be provided on both sides of the street. Sidewalk widths shall be designed to Public Works Standards. Walls and Fences Block walls required; may allow wrought iron element where a ro riate i Landscaping Tree wells adjacent to landscape parkways on the street side of curb is encouraged,however shall not encroach into the min. 24 foot wide drive aisle. Also see Chapter 232 Landscaping PC Minutes—7/27/99 16 (99PCM727) A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY MANDIC,TO APPROVE . ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 99-2 AS AMENDED WITH FINDINGS AND FORWARD THE DRAFT ORDINANCE TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Laird,Kerins, Chapman,Biddle, Livengood,Mandic NOES: Speaker ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 99-2: 1. Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-2 to establish development standards for small lot single family residential subdivisions in RM, RMH and RH Districts citywide is consistent with the goals and policies contained in the City's General Plan. The amendment is consistent with the objectives,policies, general land uses and programs specified in the Land Use Element of the General Plan, including the requirement that development be designed to account for the unique characteristics of project sites and objectives for community character and assure that all small lot developments in multi-family districts be designed to be compatible with existing adjacent uses, regardless of density or zoning designation. Furthermore,the proposed code amendment will specify the approval process and development standards for small lot, detached single family residential projects and will require small lot subdivisions be of high quality and design with respect to building architecture and site layout, including parking, landscaping and open space. 2. In the case of a general land use provision, the change proposed is compatible with the uses authorized in, and the standards prescribed for,the zoning districts for which the small lot subdivisions would be permitted. The proposed amendment addresses the RM, RMH, and RH Districts citywide,permitting small lot subdivisions with the approval of a conditional use permit and tentative map. 3. A community need is demonstrated for the change proposed. The City Council and Planning Commission have recognized the need to offer a more viable option to developers of multi family residential properties without jeopardizing the character of existing multi family residential areas. The amendment will provide for housing types which are in demand in the present housing market, and allow for development of single family detached units. 4. Its adoption will be in conformity with public convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice. The amendment will permit the development of small lot, single family residential subdivisions,while protecting the general welfare of property owners and tenants within multi-family zoning districts. r PC Minutes—7/27/99 17 (99PCM727) ATTACHMENT 8 �� I ( LIM City of Huntington Beach Planning Department L STAFF REPORT XUMINGTON BFACX " TO: Planning Commission FROM: Howard Zelefsky, Planning Director BY: Wayne Carvalho,Associate Planner avf DATE: July 27, 1999 SUBJECT: ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 99-2 (Small Lot Development Standards) LOCATION: RM, RMH and RH Districts Citywide STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Transmitted for Planning Commission consideration and recommendation to the City Council is Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-2, a request by the City of Huntington Beach to amend the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (ZSO)by establishing development standards for small lot residential subdivisions in the RM,RMH, and RH Districts citywide. Similar standards currently exist elsewhere in the City including the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan, and Meadowlark Specific Plan. The new standards would allow developers the option to build detached single family residential projects on small lots in areas generally planned for multi-family attached projects. The Legislative Draft Ordinance(Attachment Nos. 2 and 3)reflects discussion at several Planning Commission study sessions held over the last year. Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-2 to the City Council for the following reasons: • The proposed zoning text amendment provides the option for development of small lot subdivisions in multi-family residential districts citywide. • The proposed development standards will ensure that small lot subdivisions are architecturally designed to provide a healthy and aesthetically pleasing environment and remain compatible with existing surrounding residential uses. • The proposed zoning text amendment will not adversely impact the City's review and public hearing process. • The proposed zoning text amendment is consistent with the goals and policies specified in the Land Use and Economic Development Elements of the General Plan. RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: "Recommend approval of Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-2 as recommended by staff with findings(Attachment No. 1) and forward the Draft Ordinance to the City Council for adoption." r _ l ALTERNATIVE ACTION: "Continue Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-2 and direct staff accordingly." PROJECT PROPOSAL: Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-2 is a request to amend Section 210.04 RL, RM, RMH, RH, and RMP Districts: Land Use Controls and add Section 230.24 Small Lot Development Standards to the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (ZSO),to establish development standards for small lot subdivisions in Medium Density Residential (RM), Medium High Residential (RMH), and High Density Residential (RH)Districts citywide. Currently,the ZSO addresses this type of development in the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan and the recently adopted Meadowlark Specific Plan. Existing projects developed to comparable standards include A Augustine (southeast comer of Garfield and Seapoint), and Pacific Landing (bounded by Main St.,Huntington St. and Garfield Ave.). The proposed amendment which was initiated at the Planning Commission's direction,would create similar standards for multi-family zones throughout the city, and would offer developers an option to build single family detached units instead of the customary attached apartments, condominiums, or townhomes. The standards would apply to any detached single family dwelling project in RM, RMH, and RH Districts,regardless of whether the subdivision was designed as one unit per lot, or multiple units per lot which is typical in condominium and townhome subdivisions. Planning Commission Review: The Planning Commission held several study sessions dating back to the spring of 1998, which included field visits to several small lot residential projects built over the past few years. The Commission has reviewed the draft ordinance and directed staff to return with the final legislative draft ordinance. ISSUES: General Plan Conformance: The proposed zoning text amendment is consistent with the goals and objectives of the City's General Plan and Land Use Element designations of Residential Medium Density, Medium High Density and High Density throughout the city. In addition,the amendment is consistent with the following goals and policies: LU 1.1.1 Establish incentives for the development of uses to support the needs and reflect the economic demands of City residents and visitors. LU 4.1 Promote the development of residential buildings and sites that convey a high quality visual image and character. Staff Report—7/27/99 2 (99sr33) LU 4.2.4 Require that all development be designed to provide adequate space for access, parking, supporting functions, open space, and other pertinent elements. LU 9.2.1 Require that all new residential development within existing residential neighborhoods (i.e. infill)be compatible with existing structures. LU 9.3 Provide for the development of new residential subdivisions and projects that incorporate a diversity of uses and are configured to establish a distinct sense of neighborhood identity. The proposed amendment conforms with the General Plan by assuring that all small lot - developments in multi-family districts will be designed to be compatible with existing adjacent uses,regardless of density or zoning designation. In addition,the proposed development standards will require small lot subdivisions be of high quality and design with respect to building architecture and site layout, including parking, landscaping and open space. Furthermore,the amendment will allow for housing types which are in demand in the present housing market, and provide developers standards by which to build single family detached units instead of multi-family attached units in multi-family zones. Environmental Status: The proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 4501, Class 20, which supplements the California Environmental Quality Act. Coastal Status: An amendment to the City's Local Coastal Program(LCP) implementing ordinances will be filed with the California Coastal Commission to incorporate the changes of this zoning text amendment following final action by the City Council. The proposed zoning text amendment will not take effect on properties in the Coastal Zone until approved by the California Coastal Commission. Redevelopment Status: Not applicable. Design Review Board: Not applicable. Subdivision Committee: Not applicable. Other Departments Concerns: Representatives from the Departments of Public Works,Fire, Police, Economic Development, Building and Community Services have all reviewed the proposed standards and support the proposed-amendment. Staff Report—7/27/99 3 (99sr33) r Public Notification: Legal notice was published in the Huntington Beach/Fountain Valley Independent on July 15, 1999, and notices were sent to interested parties, including members of the City Development Services and Development Community Quarterly meeting. ANALYSIS: As part of the City's commitment to provide development services and a physical environment which responds to the community's needs in a fiscally responsive manner,the City has proposed an amendment to the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance to address small lot subdivisions. This particular zoning text amendment is being processed at the Planning Commission's direction after receiving a number of proposals for small lot developments over the past few years. These development standards are proposed in order to provide the necessary information and direction for this type of development. The Legislative Draft(Attachment No. 2 &3)reflects the Planning Commission(Majority) recommendation. Staff recommends further changes be made to the original Planning Commission(Majority)recommendation. These changes are listed in the third column of Attachment No. 3 and are also noted below: , Planning Commission ' (Majority)Recommendation Staff Recommendation Minimum Lot Frontage ft. 30 40 Cut de sac and knuckle 20 30 Minimum Setbacks ft. Front Dwelling 15+offsets in front fagade 12 Covered Porches 10 6 unenclosed Garage 18 w/6 ft.sidewalk 18 20 without sidewalk Side 20%aggregate;min.3 8 aggregate,min.3 min.8 ft.between units 0 permitted with min.6 on other side 0 permitted with min.8 on other side Rear Garage 0 3;0 if garage is designed to back to another garage Minimum Interior Garage Min.400 sq.ft.; 20 ft.x 20 ft. Dimension width x depth) min. 18 ft.wide Minimum Building Building separation not previously 6 Separation ft. discussed Open Space Private unit 400 s .ft. None Common(project) Amenities not previously discussed For projects with 20 units or more,at least one of the following amenities shall be provided: swimming pool, basketball court,tennis court,putting green,volleyball court,playground equipment,or covered outdoor cooking facility. Staff Report—7/27/99 4 (99sr33) Planning Commission (Majority)Recommendation Staff Recommendation Required Parking In addition,on-street parking shall be On-street parking provided at min. 1 provided at a minimum of/:space per space per unit unit. Parking plan not previously discussed A parking plan depicting the location of all parking spaces shall be submitted with the conditional use permit application. Street Sections Streets The city shall review proposed street sections upon submittal of the tentative map and conditional use permit applications. Min.38 ft.right-of-way Minimum curb to curb dimension shall (32 ft.curb to curb with 6 ft.sidewalk be 40 ft. A reduced curb to curb on one side) dimension of 36 ft.may be considered provided all units in the development are equipped with automatic sprinkler systems. Sidewalks/Parkways Sidewalk requirements and parkway Sidewalks shall be provided on both widths not previously discussed sides of the street 12 ft.parkway consisting of 8 ft.of landscaping adjacent to curb,and a 4 ft. sidewalk designed either along property line or meandering through parkway. Walls and Fences Block walls required No requirement on materials Landscaping Landscaping not previously discussed CC&R's to restrict tree removal Staff recommendations have resulted after the review and approval of other small lot developments in the City,including projects that have either been approved or constructed in the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan,Meadowlark Specific Plan, and other multi-family districts in the City. Since several small lot projects have been occupied for years, staff has had the opportunity to review the criteria used for these projects,receive feedback from property owners who reside in these projects, and forward appropriate recommendations on the small lot ordinance. The recommended standards would allow development compatible with projects developed under multi-family district standards for apartments or condominiums. In fact,many of the multi-family standards including density,parking,building height, and setbacks would result in a more intense residential project than if designing to the recommended small lot standards. This ordinance will merely serve as a guide for developers who decide to build single family detached units instead of multi-family attached units. Staff Report—7/27/99 5 (99sr33) SUMMARY: Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-2 based on the following reasons: • The proposed zoning text amendment provides the option for development of small lot subdivisions in multi-family residential districts citywide. • The proposed development standards will ensure that small lot subdivisions are architecturally designed to provide a healthy and aesthetically pleasing environment and remain compatible with existing surrounding residential uses. The proposed zoning text amendment will not adversely impact the City's review and public hearing process. • The proposed zoning text amendment is consistent with the goals and policies specified in the Land Use and Economic Development Elements of the General Plan. ATTACHMENTS: 1. 2. — ot the 3. _T Pg;oIativP tuft QrAjnanne S"t;nn 7In 7Ae ®e0e- 4. , 5. _N_A;_ibitq _ Of 6. Letter dated received July 21, 1999 from Fred Graylee of Hunsaker and Associates SH:WC:kjl Staff Report—7/27/99 6 (99sr33) (10) March 20, 2000 - Council/Agency Agenda - Page 10 2. Approve a.Disposition and Development Agreement— Disposition And Development Agreement By And Between The Redevelopment Agency Of The City Of Huntington Beach And Habitat For Humanity Of Orange County, Inc. — and authorize its execution by the Chairperson and Agency Clerk after execution by Habitat for Humanity, when advised by the City Attorney's Office. [Approved ALL recommended actions 6-1 (Sullivan NO)] 3.1� (City Council) Continued Open From February 22, 2000 - Public Hearing -Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-2 = Small Lot Residential Development Ordinance -To Establish Development Standards -Approve Introduction of Ordinance No. 3455 (450.20) Public hearing continued open from February 22, 2000, to consider the following: Applicant: City of Huntington Beach Request: To amend the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance by establishing development standards for small lot residential subdivisions in Medium, Medium-High, and High Density Residential Districts citywide. Location: RM, RMH and RH Districts citywide. Environmental Status: Categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. On file: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the Planning Department, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at City Hall or the Main City Library, (7111 Talbert Avenue) after March 17, 2000. All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If you challenge the City Council's action in court,you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the city at or prior to the public hearing. If there are any further questions please call.the Planning Department at 714/536-5271 and refer to the above item. Direct your written communications to the City Clerk. 1. Staff Report 2. City Council Discussion 3. Open Public Hearing 4. Following Public Input, Close Public Hearing Recommended Action: Planning Commission and Staff Recommendation: Motion to: Approve Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-2 with findings for approval (ATTACHMENT NO. 1) fi and approve introduction of Ordinance No. 3455 (ATTACHMENT NO. 2) after reading by title by the City Clerk— "An Ordinance Of The City Of Huntington Beach Amending The Zoning Map Of The Huntington Beach Zoning And Subdivision Ordinance To Add Standards For Small Lot Developments (Zoning Text Amendment No: 99-2)" [Continued to 04-17-00; Approved 7-0] HUNSAKER, &ASSOCIATES I R V 1 N E, I N C. PLANNING ENGINEERING July 20, 1999 SURVEYING GOVERNMENT RELATIONS Honorable Planning Commission IRVINE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH LASVEGAS 2000 Main Street RIVERSIDE Huntington Beach, CA 92648 SAN DIEGO Subject-. Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-2 (Small Lot Development Standards) Dear Commissioners: On' behalf of our client, D&D Development, Hunsaker & Associates Irvine.Inc., is offering the following information as suggestions*to the Small- Development Standards. For .your-convenience, we_have.provided these:suggestions_ -a matrix fora attached, whieh. .-r_orrespond",to.- th&_%Pla nning Commission fmap�rity) recommendations.--We will be attending 'the 7uly .27, 1999 Planning Commission.-hearing and would like to answer any questions or-comments you may have. Your time and consideration to our suggestions is greatly appreciated. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact_ me at (949) 458- 5486, or our agent Dick Harlow, at(714) 960-2147. Sincerely, HUNSAKER &ASSOCIATES IRVINE, Inc. oe Fred Graylee, PE Vice President, Project Management RICHARD HUNSAKER FG:tI TOM R.McGANNON xc: Dick Harlow JOHN A.MICHLER Bruce Dohrman, D&D Development DOUGLAS G.SNYDER Rick Julian, Advance Real Estate Services, Inc. Bill Patterson, Hunsaker &Associates Irvine, Inc. W.O. 501-6 Three Hughes 0\60501-6 1_3-fg.dod -Irvine,Callromia 92618-2021 (949)583-1010 PH (949)583-0759 F X J www.hunsaker.com ATTACHMENT N 0. 4. 10 D C D DEVELOPMENT RECOMj1C .DED Small Lot Development Standards W.O. 501-6 July 20, 1999 P(annmg Commtsston &D-Development ' s{ s�r� (Majority. Re`commendati ecommendattans` .> Minimum Building Site 2,800 sq.ft. (3,400 sq.ft. average). Agree. Minimum Lot Frontage(ft.) 30. Agree. Cul-de-sac and Knuckle 20. Agree. Maximum Height(ft.) Dwellings 30; maximum two stories. 30' height agree. However, request attic area to be included as habitable area (see exhibit). 'Accessory Structures 15. Agree. ` Minimum Setbacks(ft.) Front Dwelling 15 plus offsets in front facade. Agree. Garage 18 with 6 ft. sidewalk. Agree with 18 (in regards to sidewalks, 20 without sidewalk. see comments under streets). Covered Porches(unenclosed) 10. Agree. Side 20% aggregate; minimum 3 ft.Mini- Agree. mum 8 ft. between units .0 permitted with minimum 6 ft.on other side. Street Side 10; Includes minimum 4 ft. Agree. . landscape lettered lot(6 ft. between building and property line). Rear Dwelling 15; 50%of building width may be at Agree. 13. Garage 3;0 if garage is designed to back to Agree. another garage. BP:tj (Ac\wo\0501-6 D2-bp.doc) D-1 D&D Development W.O.501-6 Small Lot Development Standards Hunsaker&Associates Irvine, Inc. ADVANCED REAL ESTATE AMCHMENT NO. 4• 1l DEVELOPMENT RECOMM(_ 'DED Small Lot Development Standards W.O. 501-6 )uly 20, 1999 y �S Ni -tY- a - .,.M•.Xr+�g"r. .�„ r i., '� t':c} c.--t -- _ eve �-�i=1z•y-. m�PtamngComm�ss�onD&D_Dlopment� ,�: w�.. x�d(Majonty} Recommendattons K�Recommendations 3 ' r Upper Story 5 ft. setback from first floor of We disagree with a uniform setback building wall. requirement.The front yard setback requires offsets in the front facade.This requirement should adequately address the need to provide variations in the buildings front fagade.This can be done on a project by project basis subject to Design Review Board approval and the CUP process.We feel that the 5 ft. setback for upper story discourages architectural originality such as cantilevers, balconies,and recesses. Maximum Lot Coverage% 50+5 %for covered porches, patio Agree. covers, balconies. - Minimum Interior Garage Minimum 400 sq.ft.; Agree. Dimension (width x depth) Minimum 18 ft.wide. Minimum Building Separation (Ft.) 6 Agree. Open Space Private(Unit) 400 sq.ft. We agree with 400 sq.ft. However, smaller dimensions have been proven successful on other small lot develop- ments. Common (Project) Projects of 20 units or more: We agree. However, a smaller mini- 150 sq.ftJunit;minimum 3,000 sq. mum dimension could also work.The ft;minimum 50 IL dimensions. primary consideration is the quality of the space. Projects less than 20 units: Minimum 600 sq.ft. private and/or common per unit.Private open space excludes side and front yard setback areas.Common open space requires minimum 10 ft.dimensions. Required Parking On-street parking provided at Agree. minimum 1/2 space per unit. BP:tj ^6wo\0501-6 D2-bp.doc) D-2 D&D Development W.O.501-6 Small Lot Development Standards Hunsaker&Associates Irvine,Inc. ADVANCED REAL ESTATE AMCHMELENT NO. 4 I� D .( DEVELOPMENT RECOMM( DED Small Lot Development Standards W.O. 501-6 July 20, 1999 Ptamm�g Commtss�on � *- D&D,DeveCopment 's` �* . Recommendations j 4 ty)Recommendations �-�", .� �' ,�•'��:"'' Street Sections Streets The City shall review proposed street We recommend a minimum curb-to- sections upon submittal of the curb dimension of 38 ft.A reduced tentative map and conditional use curb-to-curb dimension of 36 ft. may be permit applications. considered if all residences are Minimum 38 ft. right-of-way(32 ft. equipped with automatic sprinkler curb-to-curb with 6 ft.sidewalk on system. one side). Sidewalks/Parkways Sidewalks shall be provided on both We recommend that a 6 ft.sidewalk be sides of the street. provided on the side of the street where 8 ft. landscape parkways adjacent to utilities are located, and a 4 ft.sidewalk the curb. on the opposite side. 4 ft. sidewalk may be designed along property line. Walls and Fences Block walls required. Agree. Landscaping CC& R's to restrict tree removal. Agree. ' I BP:tj ft\wo\0501-6 D2-bp.doc) D-3 D&D Development W.O.501-6 Small Lot Development Standards ' Hunsaker&Associates Irvine,Inc. ADVANCED REAL ESTATE _ATTACHMEENT NO. �. �3 • f j �� 8ORM 4 IJL 1 li �I �► 4 f i i ZED FLOOR i I . sr FLOOR T.O.CUZB Q n William Hezmalhalch Architects, Inc. Arditechwe & FWTing vats Va.1CMrw%S AM 404.lriv.Catlaria?W,4 . 6491 250 06=FAX 049)2%-Wg - .a693 Oti�hoa R4 S:+'v Dt Pkawta%CGI(aria 94SM 62A K}-v00 FwX t92A 463-VZ ATTACHMENT NO. �• I` T N _r_ O G -1 SMALL LOT RESIDENTIAL `= DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS �J Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-2 Project Description x Establish development standards for small lot subdivisions in multiple family zoning districts citywide x Similar standards exist in Holly Seacliff and Meadowlark Specific Plans and Downtown Project Description (2) x Option for development of single family detached vs. multi-family attached in areas designated for multiple family x Ordinance not applicable to Low Density Residential (RL) districts Planning Commission x Eight (8) Study sessions were held to discuss development standards x Discussion with developers and architects of small lot developments x Field visits to small lot subdivisions x Comparison with other small lot development standards x Two (2) public hearings were held by the Planning Commission 2 I Draft Ordinance x Drafted to incorporate Planning Commission recommendation Key Provisions: x Min. lot size 3,100 sq. ft. (3,400 avg.) x Min. 40 ft. frontage x Max. floor area ratio (FAR) 0.7 x Min. 40 ft. wide streets; 36 ft. w/ fire sprinkers Staff Recommendation x Approve ZTA 99-2 as recommended by the Planning Commission. x Ensure compatibility with existing and new surrounding residential uses x Provide development that incorporate diversity of uses and distinct sense of neighborhood x Establish incentives to support economic demands of City residents 3 t Council/Agency Meeting Held: 3 - ZO 00 befeffed/Continued to: 4 1-7 - o Approved ❑ Conditionally Approved ❑ Denied - VtrkW's Signature Council Meeting Date: March 20, 2000 Department ID Number: Pl_Qd -117 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACHn . REQUEST FOR ACTION ► c '`= co C00r�r11% SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS SUBMITTED BY: RAY SILVER, City Administrator 0 v PREPARED BY: HOWARD ZELEFSKY, Director of Planning 7�_______ SUBJECT: APPROVE ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 99-2 v (SMALL LOT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE)OWD. No_-3 S5 Statement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachment(s) Statement of Issue: Transmitted for your consideration is Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-2, a request by the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department to amend the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (ZSO) to establish development standards for small lot residential subdivisions in the Medium, Medium-High, and High Density Residential districts citywide. The item was continued from the February 22, 2000 meeting due the number of items on the agenda. The ordinance will allow developers and property owners the option to build single family detached units on small lots on properties zoned for multi family attached projects. Similar standards currently exist elsewhere in the City, including the Holly Seacliff and Meadowlark specific plans. This ordinance will not apply to Low Density Residential districts. The Planning Commission and staff have reviewed the draft ordinance and are recommending adoption of Ordinance No. 3455 Funding Source: Not applicable. Recommended Action: PLANNING COMMISSION AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: "Approve Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-2 with findings for approval (ATTACHMENT NO. 1)" and adopt Ordinance No. YSS (ATTACHMENT NO. 2)." REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: March 20, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-17 Planning Commission Action on October 26, 1999: THE MOTION MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY MANDIC, TO APPROVE ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 99-2, WITH FINDINGS (ATTACHMENT NO. 1) CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: LIVENGOOD, BIDDLE, KERINS, MANDIC, LAIRD, CHAPMAN NOES: SPEAKER ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE MOTION PASSED Alternative Action(s): The City Council may make the following alternative motion(s): 1. "Deny Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-2 with findings." 2. "Continue Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-2 and direct staff accordingly." Analysis: A. PROJECT PROPOSAL: Applicant: City of Huntington Beach, Planning Department, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Location: Residential Medium, Residential Medium-High, and Residential High Density Districts citywide Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-2 represents a request to amend the following chapters of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (ZSO): 1. Chapter 210 Residential Districts, by adding provisions to Section 210.04 Land Use Controls to establish the entitlement process to permit small lot residential subdivisions in RM (Residential Medium Density), RMH (Residential Medium-High Density), and RH (Residential High Density) Districts. Small lot subdivisions would be subject to approval of a conditional use permit (CUP) and tentative map by the Planning Commission. (see Attachment No. 2) 2. Chapter 230 Site Standards, by adding Section 230.24 Small Lot Standards, which establishes development standards for small lot subdivisions. (See Attachment No. 2) PL00-17 -2- 03/07/00 2:48 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: March 20, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-17 B. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS: The Planning Commission held numerous study sessions to discuss the development standards for the proposed small lot residential development ordinance dating back to the spring of 1998. The study sessions included presentations by different architects and developers as well as field visits to several small lot residential projects in and around Huntington Beach. On July 27, 1999 the Planning Commission held a public hearing to discuss and receive testimony on the proposed small lot ordinance, and approved Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-2. Three persons testified during the public hearing expressing concern over the stringency of the proposed standards, and impacts on the quality of good architecture and neighborhood design. One person requested the Commission separate the requirements for small lot subdivisions and one lot condominium maps, and that the standards not apply to one lot condominium maps (see Attachment No. 7). At their next meeting, the Planning Commission reconsidered their previous action on the draft ordinance, requesting further analysis on the proposed standards, including comparisons with the standards adopted for the Ladera Planned Community in Rancho Mission Viejo. On October 26, 1999, the Planning Commission held a second public hearing on the proposed ordinance. The Commission approved the draft ordinance as originally approved in July, with the following changes: Established a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.7; and Allowed landscape parkways along streets to be an option instead of a requirement. C. STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION: As part of the City's on-going commitment to provide development services and a physical environment which responds to the community's needs in a fiscally responsive manner, the City has proposed an amendment to the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance to permit and regulate small lot subdivisions. A small lot development can be defined as a single family detached residential project with reduced-sized lots owned in fee. The City's draft ordinance proposes a minimum lot size of 3,100 square feet, with an average lot size of 3,400 square feet per unit. The ordinance would apply to all small lot subdivisions, whether the tentative map is designed with single units per lot, or multiple units per lot (condominium). This particular zoning text amendment is being processed at the Planning Commission's direction after receiving a number of small lot development proposals over the past few years. These developments have become more prevalent due to the frequency of law suits PL00-17 -3- 03/07/00 2:48 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: March 20, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-17 involving multi-family attached projects, as well as land costs and the market demand for detached residential units. The proposed development standards will provide the necessary information and direction for this type of development. The draft ordinance is a product of reviewing other small lot developments in the City, including projects that have either been approved or constructed in the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan, Meadowlark Specific Plan, and other multi-family districts in the City. Since several small lot projects have been occupied for years, staff has had the opportunity to review criteria used for these projects, receive feedback from property owners who reside in these projects, and forward appropriate recommendations on the small lot ordinance. The recommended standards would allow development compatible with projects developed under multi-family district standards for apartments or condominiums. In fact, many of the multi-family standards including allowable density, required parking, building height/bulk, and setbacks would result in more intense residential projects than if designed to the recommended small lot standards. This ordinance will serve as a guide for developers who decide to build single family detached units instead of multi-family attached units. It should be noted that this ordinance does not allow for small lot developments in RL (Low Density Residential) zones. All RL standards, including one unit per minimum 6,000 square foot lot remains constant. The following matrix compares the proposed small lot standards to the Residential Low Density (RL), and Holly Seacliff Specific Plan RL-3 standards: Current HSSP PC Approved Oct.26, 1999 Issue HMO RL RL-3 &Staff Recommendation 1 Density <7.0 u/nac <13.2 u/nac 12.8 u/ac 2 Minimum Lot Size(sq.ft.) 6,000 3,300 3,100 3 Minimum Average Lot Size n/a n/a 3,400 avg. 4 Minimum Lot Width 5 Interior Lot 60' 30' 40' 6 Cul-de-sac Lot 40' 20' 30' 7 Minimum Setbacks 8 Front 15' 15' 15' +offsets in facade 9 Front Porches 11' n/a 10, (covered/open on 3 sides) 10 Upper Story 10'above 2n n/a Varied upper story setback 11 Side 10% 20%aggregate min. 8'aggregate 3'-5' 3'; max.5' min. 3' 0'setback permitted w/8'on other side 12 Exterior Side 20% 20%aggregate min. 10' including min.4' landscape 6'-10' 6';max.8' lettered lot(6'btw bldg. and PL) 13 Rear(dwelling) 101* 15' 15'; 50%of building width can be at 13' 14 (garage) 10, 5' 3' 0"if garage is designed to back to another garage PL00-17 -4- 03/07/00 2:48 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: March 20, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-17 Current HSSP PC Approved Oct.26,1999 Issue HBZSO(RL) (RL-3) &Staff Recommendation 15 Garage Setback 20'-front entry; 10'- 18'-front entry; 10'- 18' side entry side entry 16 Minimum Interior Garage 18'x 19' Min.400 sq.ft. Dimensions(W x D) Min. 18'wide 17 Building separation 6' 18 Maximum Building Height 35' 35' 30' 19 Maximum Stories 3 2 2; 3rd story loft permitted<500 sq.ft. and 5/12 pitch 20 Accessory Structure Height 15' 21 Max. Site Coverage 50% 55% 50%+5%for open air porches, patio covers, balconies, etc. 22 Max. Floor Area Ratio(FAR) n/a 0.7 23 Private Open Space per Unit None None None 24 Common Open Space Area None 150 SF/lot<40'wide; 150 SF per unit;total area must be per Project 100SF/lot for lots 40' at least 3,000 SF with a min.50' wide dimension. Projects less than 20 units must provide a minimum 600 SF of open space(private&common) per unit. Private open space excludes side and front yard setback areas. If a portion is provided as common open space that area shall have a min. dim. of 10'. 25 Required Parking 26 Unit 2 open 2 per unit 2 open+2 encl (up to 4BR)3+3(5+ +2 enclosed BR) 27 On-Street .5 sp./unit .5 sp./unit 1/unit on-street pkg. 28 Distribution of on-street Plan required spaces 29 Street(or Driveway)Widths 40'curb to curb Public 36'w/sprinklers(pkg. &s/w on Private both sides) Emergency Access (Based on vehicle trips/day; check w/Fire& PW for reduced standards) 30 Sidewalk/Parkway Widths Option for min.6' US parkway; Public sidewalks to City stds. Private 31 Fencing/Walls Block wall req./wrought iron permitted where appropriate 32 Landscaping Tree wells on street side of curb encouraged, however, shall not encroach into min. 24'wide drive aisle. A comparison between the proposed small lot standards and development standards for other residential districts in the City, including the RMH-A (Downtown) district, and Meadowlark Specific Plan Planning Area-4 is provided for informational purposes in a matrix on Attachment No. 4. PL00-17 -5- 03/07/00 2:48 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: March 20, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-17 D. SUMMARY Staff recommends the City Council approve Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-2 as 't recommended by the Planning Commission and adopt Ordinance No. based on the following reasons: The proposed zoning text amendment provides the option for development of small lot subdivisions in multi-family residential districts citywide; no change to the RL Standards will occur. The proposed development standards will ensure that small lot subdivisions are architecturally designed to provide a healthy and aesthetically pleasing environment and remain compatible with existing surrounding residential uses. The proposed zoning text amendment will not adversely impact the City's review and public hearing process. The proposed zoning text amendment is consistent with the goals and policies specified in the Land Use and Economic Development Elements of the General Plan. Environmental Status: The proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 4501, Class 20, which supplements the California Environmental Quality Act. Attachment(s): City Clerk's Page Number No. Description 1. Findings for Approval 2. Draft Ordinance ORD No. 3155 3. Legislative Draft 4. Comparison matrix 5. Planning Commission Minutes dated October 26, 1999 6. Planning Commission Staff Report dated October 26, 1999 7. Planning Commission Minutes dated July 27, 1999 8. Planning Commission Staff Report dated July 27, 1999 PL00-17 -6- 03/07/00 2:48 PM Council/Agency Meeting Held: 3 - 2-0 00 5efeffe4/Continued to: 4 " 1-7 "- oo XApproved ❑ Conditionally Approved ❑ Denied - C it rk's Signature Council Meeting Date: March 20, 2000 Department ID Number: P06,47 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH =- REQUEST FOR ACTION SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS SUBMITTED BY: RAY SILVER, City Administrator Co v PREPARED BY: HOWARD ZELEFSKY, Director of Planning/ 7� SUBJECT: APPROVE ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 99-2 (SMALL LOT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE)CID. 00_34SS 1[statement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachment(s) Statement of Issue: Transmitted for your consideration is Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-2, a request by the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department to amend the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (ZSO) to establish development standards for small lot residential subdivisions in the Medium, Medium-High, and High Density Residential districts citywide. The item was continued from the February 22, 2000 meeting due the number of items on the agenda. The ordinance will allow developers and property owners the option to build single family detached units on small lots on properties zoned for multi family attached projects. Similar standards currently exist elsewhere in the City, including the Holly Seacliff and Meadowlark specific plans. This ordinance will not apply to Low Density Residential districts. The Planning Commission and staff have reviewed the draft ordinance and are recommending adoption of Ordinance No. 3455 Funding Source: Not applicable. Recommended Action: PLANNING COMMISSION AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: "Approve Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-2 with findings for approval (ATTACHMENT NO. 1)" and adopt Ordinance No. Y51,7) (ATTACHMENT NO. 2)." REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: March 20, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-17 Planning Commission Action on October 26, 1999: THE MOTION MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY MANDIC, TO APPROVE ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 99-2, WITH FINDINGS (ATTACHMENT NO. 1) CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: LIVENGOOD, BIDDLE, KERINS, MANDIC, LAIRD, CHAPMAN NOES: SPEAKER ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE MOTION PASSED Alternative Action(s): The City Council may make the following alternative motion(s): 1. "Deny Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-2 with findings." 2. "Continue Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-2 and direct staff accordingly." Analysis: A. PROJECT PROPOSAL: Applicant: City of Huntington Beach, Planning Department, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Location: Residential Medium, Residential Medium-High, and Residential High Density Districts citywide Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-2 represents a request to amend the following chapters of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (ZSO): 1. Chapter 210 Residential Districts, by adding provisions to Section 210.04 Land Use Controls to establish the entitlement process to permit small lot residential subdivisions in RM (Residential Medium Density), RMH (Residential Medium-High Density), and RH (Residential High Density) Districts. Small lot subdivisions would be subject to approval of a conditional use permit (CUP) and tentative map by the Planning Commission. (see Attachment No. 2) 2. Chapter 230 Site Standards, by adding Section 230.24 Small Lot Standards, which establishes development standards for small lot subdivisions. (See Attachment No. 2) PL00-17 -2- 03/07/00 2:48 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: March 20, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-17 B. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS: The Planning Commission held numerous study sessions to discuss the development standards for the proposed small lot residential development ordinance dating back to the spring of 1998. The study sessions included presentations by different architects and developers as well as field visits to several small lot residential projects in and around Huntington Beach. On July 27, 1999 the Planning Commission held a public hearing to discuss and receive testimony on the proposed small lot ordinance, and approved Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-2. Three persons testified during the public hearing expressing concern over the stringency of the proposed standards, and impacts on the quality of good architecture and neighborhood design. One person requested the Commission separate the requirements for small lot subdivisions and one lot condominium maps, and that the standards not apply to one lot condominium maps (see Attachment No. 7). At their next meeting, the Planning Commission reconsidered their previous action on the draft ordinance, requesting further analysis on the proposed standards, including comparisons with the standards adopted for the Ladera Planned Community in Rancho Mission Viejo. On October 26, 1999, the Planning Commission held a second public hearing on the proposed ordinance. The Commission approved the draft ordinance as originally approved in July, with the following changes: Established a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.7; and Allowed landscape parkways along streets to be an option instead of a requirement. C. STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION: As part of the City's on-going commitment to provide development services and a physical environment which responds to the community's needs in a fiscally responsive manner, the City has proposed an amendment to the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance to permit and regulate small lot subdivisions. A small lot development can be defined as a single family detached residential project with reduced-sized lots owned in fee. The City's draft ordinance proposes a minimum lot size of 3,100 square feet, with an average lot size of 3,400 square feet per unit. The ordinance would apply to all small lot subdivisions, whether the tentative map is designed with single units per lot, or multiple units per lot (condominium). This particular zoning text amendment is being processed at the Planning Commission's direction after receiving a number of small lot development proposals over the past few years. These developments have become more prevalent due to the frequency of law suits PL00-17 -3- 03/07/00 2:48 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: March 20, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PI00-17 involving multi-family attached projects, as well as land costs and the market demand for detached residential units. The proposed development standards will provide the necessary information and direction for this type of development. The draft ordinance is a product of reviewing other small lot developments in the City, including projects that have either been approved or constructed in the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan, Meadowlark Specific Plan, and other multi-family districts in the City. Since several small lot projects have been occupied for years, staff has had the opportunity to review criteria used for these projects, receive feedback from property owners who reside in these projects, and forward appropriate recommendations on the small lot ordinance. The recommended standards would allow development compatible with projects developed under multi-family district standards for apartments or condominiums. In fact, many of the multi-family standards including allowable density, required parking, building height/bulk, and setbacks would result in more intense residential projects than if designed to the recommended small lot standards. This ordinance will serve as a guide for developers who decide to build single family detached units instead of multi-family attached units. It should be noted that this ordinance does not allow for small lot developments in RL (Low Density Residential) zones. All RL standards, including one unit per minimum 6,000 square foot lot remains constant. The following matrix compares the proposed small lot standards to the Residential Low Density (RL), and Holly Seacliff Specific Plan RL-3 standards: Current HSSP PC Approved Oct.26,1999 Issue HBZSO(RL) (RL-3) &Staff Recommendation 1 Density <7.0 u/nac <13.2 u/nac 12.8 u/ac 2 Minimum Lot Size(sq.ft.) 6,000 3,300 3,100 3 Minimum Average Lot Size n/a n/a 3,400 avg. 4 1 Minimum Lot Width 5 Interior Lot 60' 30' 40' 6 Cul-de-sac Lot 40' 20' 30' 7 Minimum Setbacks 8 Front 15' 15' 15'+offsets in facade 9 Front Porches 11' n/a 10, (covered/open on 3 sides) 10 Upper Story 10'above 2n n/a Varied upper story setback 11 Side 10% 20%aggregate min. 8'aggregate 3'-5' 3'; max.5' min.3' 0'setback permitted w/8'on other side 12 Exterior Side 20% 20%aggregate min. 10'including min.4'landscape 6'-10' 6'; max.8' lettered lot(6'btw bldg. and PL) 13 Rear(dwelling) 101* 15' 15';50%of building width can be at 13' 14 (garage) 10, 5' 3' 0"if garage is designed to back to another garage PL00-17 -4- 03/07/00 2:48 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: March 20, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-17 Current HSSP PC Approved Oct.26,1999 Issue HBZSO(RL) (RL-3) &Staff Recommendation 15 Garage Setback 20'-front entry; 10'- 18'-front entry; 10'- 18' side entry side entry 16 Minimum Interior Garage 18'x 19' Min.400 sq.ft. Dimensions(W x D) Min. 18'wide 17 Building separation 6' 18 Maximum Building Height 35' 35' 30' 19 Maximum Stories 3 2 2;3rd story loft permitted<500 sq.ft.and 5/12 pitch 20 Accessory Structure Height 15' 21 Max.Site Coverage 500/0 55% 50%+5%for open air porches, patio covers, balconies, etc. 22 Max. Floor Area Ratio(FAR) n/a 0.7 23 Private Open Space per Unit None None None 24 Common Open Space Area None 150 SF/lot<40'wide; 150 SF per unit;total area must be per Project 100SF/lot for lots 40' at least 3,000 SF with a min.50' wide dimension. Projects less than 20 units must provide a minimum 600 SF of open space(private&common)per unit. Private open space excludes side and front yard setback areas. If a portion is provided as common open space that area shall have a min.dim.of 10'. 25 Required Parking 26 Unit 2 open 2 per unit 2 open+2 encl(up to 4BR)3+3(5+ +2 enclosed BR) 27 On-Street .5 sp./unit .5 sp./unit 1/unit on-street pkg. 28 Distribution of on-street Plan required spaces 29 Street(or Driveway)Widths 40'curb to curb Public 36'w/sprinklers(pkg.&s/w on Private both sides) Emergency Access (Based on vehicle trips/day; check w/Fire&PW for reduced standards) E31 Sidewalk/Parkway Widths Option for min.6' US parkway; Public sidewalks to City stds. Private Fencing/Walls Block wall req./wrought iron permitted where appropriate Landscaping Tree wells on street side of curb encouraged, however,shall not encroach into min.24'wide drive aisle. A comparison between the proposed small lot standards and development standards for other residential districts in the City, including the RMH A (Downtown) district, and Meadowlark Specific Plan Planning Area-4 is provided for informational purposes in a matrix on Attachment No. 4. PL00-17 -5- 03/07/00 2:48 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: March 20, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-17 D. SUMMARY Staff recommends the City Council approve Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-2 as recommended by the Planning Commission and adopt Ordinance No. �1�» based on the following reasons: The proposed zoning text amendment provides the option for development of small lot subdivisions in multi-family residential districts citywide; no change to the RL Standards will occur. The proposed development standards will ensure that small lot subdivisions are architecturally designed to provide a healthy and aesthetically pleasing environment and remain compatible with existing surrounding residential uses. The proposed zoning text amendment will not adversely impact the City's review and public hearing process. The proposed zoning text amendment is consistent with the goals and policies specified in the Land Use and Economic Development Elements of the General Plan. Environmental Status: The proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 4501, Class 20, which supplements the California Environmental Quality Act. Attachment(s): City Clerk's Page Number No. Description 1. Findings for Approval 2. Draft Ordinance ORD. No. 3153 3. Legislative Draft 4. Comparison matrix 5. Planning Commission Minutes dated October 26, 1999 6. Planning Commission Staff Report dated October 26, 1999 7. Planning Commission Minutes dated July 27, 1999 8. Planning Commission Staff Report dated July 27, 1999 PL00-17 -6- 03/07/00 2:48 PM The foregouV muunent is a corMd copy of the orip(W on fk in this office. Attest ,k and Ex-off aofk of Cound of the City of Huntkpton Beach, Cal�omi 13 uty Council/Agency Meeting Held: -Se#effeclfContinued to:-,3-02 0 -00 ' ❑Approved ❑ Conditionally Approved ❑ Denied .City Clerk's Signatu Council Meeting Date: February 22, 2000 Department ID Number: PL00-12 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR ACTION G -� C-) SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS " C.,r�: SUBMITTED BY: RAY SILVER, City Ad �,ministrator >X.-Le� liL PREPARED BY: HOWARD ZELEFSKY, Director of Planning "{2 `•)C C1 a y T SUBJECT: ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 99-2 (SMALL LOT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE) S tatement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachments) Statement of Issue: Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-2 represents a request by the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department to amend the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (ZSO) to establish development standards for small lot residential subdivisions in the Medium, Medium-High, and High Density Residential districts citywide. Due to the number of items on this agenda, staff recommends action on this item be continued to the March 20, 2000 City Council meeting. Funding Source: Not applicable. Recommended Action: Motion to: "Open the public hearing and continue Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-2 to the March 20, 2000 City Council meeting" ,3 IJ RCA ROUTING SHE8i INITIATING DEPARTMENT: Planning SUBJECT: Small Lot Ordinance COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 22, 2000 RCA ATTACHMENTS STATUS Ordinance (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable Resolution (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable Tract Map, Location Map and/or other Exhibits Not Applicable Contract/Agreement (w/exhibits if applicable) (Signed in full by the City Attorney) Not Applicable Subleases, Third Party Agreements, etc. (Approved as to form by City Attorney) Not Applicable Certificates of Insurance (Approved by the City Attorney) Not Applicable Financial Impact Statement (Unbudget, over $5,000) Not Applicable Bonds (If applicable) Not Applicable Staff Report (If applicable) Attached Commission, Board or Committee Report (If applicable) Not Applicable Findings/Conditions for Approval and/or Denial Not Applicable EXPLANATION FOR MISSING ATTACHMENTS REVIEWED RETURNED FORWARDED Administrative Staff ( ) ( ) Assistant City Administrator (Initial) City Administrator (Initial) ( ) ( ) City Clerk ( ) EXPLANATION FOR RETURN OF ITEM: (BelowOnly) RCA Author: HZ:SH:WC:kjl D u D ' D MEETING DATE: February 22, 2000 DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: REQUESTING: o C:J Economic Development Proposed Disposition & Development Agreeme$t foithe Sale of Real Property Outside the Redvelopme*Ai�a"o_; Habitat for Humanity Planning Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-2 Planning Appeal of Conditional Use Permit 98-371, Coastal Development Permit 98-121, Special Permit_99-11, Special Permit No. 99-2 TODAY'S DATE February 3, 2000 VERIFIED BY ADMININSTRATION: 2/3/00 11:51 AM CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST SUBJECT: 20nJj vC-4- —rSXT A-MWDAAWL P0. 6t-2. DEPARTMENT: MEETING DATE:. CONTACT: w A-YN F CAR AI--60 PHONE: SS!z S N/A YES 1O ( ) ( ) Is the notice attached? ' Do the Heading and Closing of Notice reflect City Council (and/or Redevelopment Agency)hearing? ( ) ( ) Are the date, day and time of the public hearing correct? If an appeal, is the appelcant's name included in the notice? If Coastal Development Permit, does the notice include appeal language? Is there an Environmental Status to be approved by Council? ( ) ( ) (V Is a map attached for publication? ( ) ( ) (� Is a larger ad required? Size ( ) ( ) (( Is the verification statement attached indicating the source and accuracy of the mailing list? 'WpAgOV. ItJT6VgS ;p f04-.?TtES ONL-f.. Are the applicant's name and address part of the mailing labels? C ITY OF 948, QQ ( ) ( ) Are the appellant's name and address part of the mailing labels? ( ) ( ) If Coastal Development Permit, is the Coastal Commission part of the mailing labels? ( ) ( ) If Coastal Development Permit,are the resident labels attached? Is the Report 33433 attached? (Economic Development Dept. items only) Please complete the following: 1. Minimum days from publication to hearing date 10 2. Number of times to be published f 3. Number of days between publications 21 d d/��o70� -� NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Tuesday, February 22, 2000, at 7:00 PM in the City Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, the City Council will hold a public hearing on the following item: 1. ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 99-2 (SMALL LOT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE): Applicant: City of Huntington Beach Request: To amend the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance by establishing development standards for small lot residential subdivisions in Medium, Medium-High, and High Density Residential Districts cityivide. Location: RM, RMH and RH Districts City,,vide. Project Planner: Wayne Carvalho 2. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMMIT NO. 98-37/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 98-12/SPECIAL PERMIT NO. 99-1/SPECIAL PERMIT NO. 99-2 (117, 119, 121,AND 123 MAIN STREET COMMERCIAL): Appellant: Councilman Dave Sullivan Applicant: Jeff Bergsma. Public hearing on an appeal filed by Councilman Dave Sullivan of the Planning Commission's approval of the following: Request: Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit to allow the following: 117 Main Street: 1) Exterior and interior remodel of the V and 2"d floor; 2)Establish a restaxr g/banquet facility with outdoor patio dining and alcohol service on the 2"d floor. 119 Main Street: 1)Exterior and interior remodel of the I"floor; 2) Construct a new 2"d floor for retail or office use; 3) Abandonment of three (3) feet of alley on the west side. 121 Main Street: 1) Exterior and interior remodel of the 1"floor; 2) Construct a new 2"d floor for office use. 123 Main Street: 1) Demolish the existing building and construct a new two-story building with retail on the 151 floor and office on the 2"d floor. Special Permits to allow the 2"1 floor balcony of all four(4)buildings at a setback of two (2) feet in lieu of the five (5) feet build-to-line required along Main Street and to allow a seven(7) feet build-to-line in lieu of the required five (5) feet for the V and 2"1 stories of all four(4)buildings along Main Street(staff recommendation). Location: 117, 119, 121, and 123 Main Street(west side between PCH and Walnut Ave.) Project Planner: Ricky Ramos NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that item#1 is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that item#2 is covered by Environmental Impact Report No.89-6. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that item#2 is located in the non-appealable jurisdiction of the Coastal Zone and include Coastal Development Permit No. 98-12, filed on May 8, 1998, in conjunction with the above request. The Coastal Development Permit hearing consists of a staff report, public hearing, City Council discussion and action. Item#2 is not appealable to the California Coastal Commission. ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the Planning Department, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648, for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff \\HB ITFPS 02\COMMDE V\L EGALS\COUNCI L\00\00cc0222.doc report will be available to interested parties at City Hall or the Main City Library (7111 Talbert Avenue) after February 17, 2000. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If you challenge the City Council's action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. If there are any further questions please call the Planning Department at 536-5271 and refer to the above item. Direct your written communications to the City Clerk. Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street, 2nd Floor Huntington Beach, California 92648 (714) 536-5227 \\HBITFPS02\COMMDE V\LEGALS\COUNCIL\00\00cc0222.doc NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Tuesday, February 22, 2000, at 7:00 PM in the City Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach,the City Council will hold a public hearing on the following item: ,&1. ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 99-2 (SMALL LOT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE): Applicant: City of Huntington Beach Request: To amend the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance by establishing development standards for small lot residential subdivisions in Medium, Medium-High, and High Density Residential Districts citywide. Location: RM, RMH and RH Districts Citywide. Project Planner: Wayne Carvalho F]2. APPEAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 98-37/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT N0. 98-12/SPECIAL PERMIT NO. 99-1/SPECIAL PERMIT NO. 99-2 (117, 119, 121,AND 123 MAIN STREET COMMERCIAL): Appellant: Councilman Dave Sullivan Applicant: Jeff Bergsma Request: Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit to allow the following: 117 Main Street: 1) Exterior and interior remodel of the 1st and 2"d floor; 2) Establish a restaurant/banquet facility with outdoor patio dining and alcohol service on the 2"d floor. 119 Main Street: 1) Exterior and interior remodel of the I'floor; 2) Construct a new 2"d floor for retail or . office use; 3)Abandonment of three (3) feet of alley on the west side. 121 Main Street: 1) Exterior and interior remodel of the l'floor; 2) Construct a new 2"d floor for office use. 123 Main Street: 1) Demolish the existing building and construct a new two-story building with retail on the 1"floor and office on the 2"d floor. Special Permits to allow the 2"d floor balcony of all four(4)buildings at a setback of two (2) feet in lieu of the five (5) feet build-to-line required along Main Street and to allow a seven(7)feet build-to-line in lieu of the required five (5)feet for the 151 and 2"d stories of all four(4)buildings along Main Street(staff recommendation). Location: 117, 119, 121, and 123 Main Street(west side between PCH and Walnut Ave.) Project Planner: Ricky Ramos NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that item#1 is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that item#2 is covered by Environmental Impact Report No.89-6. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that item#2 is located in the non-appealable jurisdiction of the Coastal Zone and include Coastal Development Permit No. 98-12, filed on May 8, 1998, in conjunction with the above request. The Coastal Development Permit hearing consists of a staff report,public hearing, City Council discussion and action. Item#2 is not appealable to the California Coastal Commission. ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the Planning Department, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648, for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at City Hall or the Main City Library (7111 Talbert Avenue) after February 17, 2000. G:\LEGALS\COUNCIL\00\00cc0222.doc ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If you challenge the City Council's action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. If there are any further questions please call the Planning Department at 536-5271 and refer to the above item. Direct your written communications to the City Clerk. Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street,2nd Floor Huntington Beach, California 92648 (714) 536-5227 G:\LEGALS\COUNCIL\00\00cc0222.doc PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION CHECKLIST "B" MAILING LABELS - January 13, 1999 President 1 Huntington Harbor PO 10 FANS 16 _ H.B.Chamber of Commerce P. O.Box John Miles 2100 Main Street,Suite 200 S each,CA 90742 19425 Castl Circle Huntington Beach,CA 92648 H on Beach,CA 92648 Judy Legan 2 William D.Holman 11 Sue Johnson 16 Orange County Assoc.of Realtors PLC 19671 Quiet Ba e 25552 La Paz Road 23 Corporate Plaza,Suite 2-50 Huntin each,CA 92648 Laguna Hills,CA 92653 Newport Beach CA 92660-7912 President 3 Mr.Tom Zanic 12 Edna Littlebury 17 Amigos De Bolsa Chi New Urban West Gldn St.Mob. wners Leag. 16531 Bolsa Street,Suite 312 520 Broadway Ste.100 11021 o 'a Blvd. Hun n Beach,CA 92646 Santa Monica,CA 90401 en Grove,CA 92642 Sunset Beach Community A 4 Pres.,H.B.Hist.Society 13 Pacific Coast Archaeological 18 Pat Thies,Preside C/O Newland House Museum joj� ty,Inc. PO Box 19820 Beach Blvd. Box 1092et Beach,CA 90742-0215 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 a,CA 92627 Jane Gothold President 5 Community Services Dept. 14 County of Orange/EMA 19 Huntington Beach Tomorrow Chairperson Michael M.Ruane PO Box 865 Historical Resources Bd. P.O.Box Huntington Beach,CA 92648 a,CA 92702-4048 Julie Vandermost 6 Council on Aging 15 County of Orange/EMA 19 BIA-OC 1706 Oran e. Thomas Mathews 9 Executive Circle#100 H on Beach,CA 92648 P.O.Box Irvine Ca 92714-6734 S a,CA 92702-4048 Richard Spicer 7 Jeff Metzel 16 Planning Departme 19 SCAG jSeacliff HOA Orange Co MA 818 West 7th,12th Floor 1 Sh �borCircle P. O. 4048 Los Angeles,CA 90017 gton Be48 to Ana,CA 92702-4 48 E.T.I.Corral 100 8 John Roe 16 County of Orange/E 19 Mary Bell Seacliff HOA Tim Miller 20292 Eastwood Cir. 19382 S ane P.O.Box Huntington Beach,CA 92646 gton Beach,CA 92648 San a,CA 92702-4048 John Scandura 9 Lou Mannone 16 Planning Dir. 20 Environmental Board Chairman Seacliff HOA City of Co esa 17492 Valeworth Circle 19821 O luff Circle P. O. x 1200 Huntington Beach,CA 92649 tmgton Beach CA 92648 osta Mesa,CA 92628-1200 h:langei:phlbl Z/ 67-,-2 PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION CHECKLIST "B" MAILING LABELS -January 13, 1999 Planning Dir. 21 Dr.Duane Dishno 29 Country View Estates HO 3 i City of Foun alley HB City Eleme ool Dist Carrie Thomas 10200 er Ave. PO Bo 6642 T rive untain Valley,CA 92708 tington Beach,CA 92626 tington Beach CA 92648 PlannW�2ste Director 22 Jerry Buchanan 29 Country View Estates HOA 3 City oWe ter HB City Elem hool Dist Gerald Chapman 8200 r Blvd. 2045 er Lane 6742 Shir de ster,CA 92683 untington Beach,CA 92648 gton Beach CA 92648 Planning Director 23 James Jones 30 HB Hamptons HOA 3 City of Seal B Ocean View Elemen Keystone P rop.Mangmt Inc. 211 Ei t School dis 168 on Karman Avenue,Suite 200 each,CA 90740 17 mehurst Lane wine,CA 92606 untington Beach CA 92647 California Coastal Commission 24 Barbara Winars 31 Sally Graham 3E Theresa Henry Westminster S strict Meadowlark Area South Coast Area Office 141 arwood Avenue 5161 Gel ' e 200 Oceangate,loth Floor estminster CA 92683 E gton Beach,CA 92649 Long Beach,CA 92802-4302 California Coastal Commission 24 Patricia Koch 32 . _ Cheryle Browning 3f South Coast Area Office HB Union High S srict Meadowlark Are 200 Oceangate,loth Floor 10251 Yo Avenue 16771 velt Lane Long Beach,CA 92802-4302 gton Beach,CA 92646 tington Beach,CA 92649 Robert Joseph 25 CSA 33 CA Coastal Communities,Inc. 3� Caltrans District 730 El Camino #200 6 Executive Circle,Suite 250 3347 son Drive,Suite 100 Tus ' 2680 Irvine,CA 92614 e,CA 92612-0661 Director '26 Goldenwest College 34 Bolsa Chica Land Trust 4( Solid Waste Enf.A Attn:Fred Owens Nancy Donovan:Local .CHethncy15744 Gold st St 4831 Lo os.O. 55 H on Beach CA 92647 gton Beach,CA 92649 anta Ana,CA 92702 J New Growth Coordin f-� 27 OC County Harbors,Beach 35 Bolsa Chica Land>51> 4� Huntington B ost Office and Parks Dept Paul Horgan sident 6771 er Ave. P. O.Box 4 207- treet tington Beach,CA 92647 S a,CA 92702-4048 untington Beach,CA 92648 Marc Ecker 28 Huntington Beach Mall 36 SEHBNA 4 Fountain Valley Attn:Pat Roge a 22032 Capis ane Elemen of District 7777 r Ave.#300 H on Beach,CA 92646-8309 17 Street . H tington Beach CA 92647 ountain Valley CA 92708 h:langel:phlbl DEVELOPERS/ARCHITECTS 2/99 Dick and Kelly Kelter Duf Sfreddo Bob Corona 419-22°a Street Southridge Homes Seacliff Development Co. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 18281 Gothard Street, Suite 201 P.O. Box 269 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Kaz Begovich Bill Vogt Louie Hernandez Begovich&Haug Architects Vogt Development Louie Group 3821 Long Beach Blvd. Suite 201 19432 Pompano Lane#112 19312 Harding.Lane Long Beach, CA 90807 I Huntington Beach, CA 92648— Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Tim Roberts I Mathew Tingler Dick Harlow TNR Development Corp. 1 TNR Development Corp. Harlow&Associates 130 McCormick Avenue, Suite 104 I 130 McCormick Avenue, Suite 104 211 B Main Street Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 ' Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Bijan Sassounian Kirk Evans Robert Ferguson Parkside Classics Centerstone Development Co. t Sea Ridge Development 16373 Bolsa Chica Street I 3500 B Westlake Center Drive ; P.O. Box B Huntington Beach, CA 92649 i Santa Ana, CA 92704 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Rick Wood ! Doug Woodward _ _ ! Robert Rann Greystone Homes Greystone Homes I Gray&Rann 7 Upper Newport Plaza 7 Upper Newport Plaza 5160 Birch Street, Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Mike Kaser i Tom Zamc i Eric Zehnder Kaser Construction ! New Urban West Communities Zehnder Construction 5942 Edinger No. 1B 520 Broadway, Suite 100 6776 Findley Circle - Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Scott Minami Mike Adams Bill Holman Presley Companies PO Box 382 PLC 19 Corporate Plaza, Huntington Beach,CA 92648 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 250 Newport Beack CA 92660 Newport Beach,CA 92660 it Jonathan M. Jaffe Tom Redwitz Jeff Bergsma Lennar Homes of California,Inc. Taylor Woodrow Homes,Ltd. Team Design 24800 Chrisanta Dr. #200 24461 Ridge Route Dr. 215 Main Street, Suite A Mission Viejo, CA 92691-4819 ' Laguna Hills, CA 92653-1686 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Tom Mitchell Buck Bennett Ronald Metzler William Lyon Homes Sea Country Homes ; Shea Homes 4490 Von Karman Ayenue 3 Corporate Plaza Drive Suite 100 655 Brea Canyon Road Newport Beach, CA 92660-2000 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Walnut, CA 91788-0487 G:\carvalho\dtdev\labels I Hal Woods ! Arthur F.Kent Tom Reilly The Woods Group 1 Kent Architects ! Reilly Homes 3500-B W.Lake Center Drive 325 A 2nd Street 23 Corporate Plaza Drive Suite 24 Santa Ana, CA 92704 ! Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Mike Tekstra j Zack Lindborg Mark Jacobs 31 Echo Run 124 Promontory Drive East Heritage Communities Irvine, CA 92614 , Newport Beach, CA 92660 5620 E. Santiago Canyon Road Orange, CA 92869 Dave Oddo James D. Glenn Lenny Lindborg 815 Main Street I PO Box 2105 24 N. La Senda Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Laguna Beach, CA 92677 Thom Jacobs I Dwayne Fuhrman Bart DeBoe 201 Alabama Street Summerwood Homes 7285 Murdy Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92648 5200 Warner Avenue Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 _ I Rick Hauser Mike Taylor TNR Development Corp. P.O. Box 618 130 McCormick Avenue, Suite 104 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Costa Mesa,CA 92626 i y Y- - efff John Thomas - Phil Simon CB Commercial 3812 Sepulveda, Ste. 300 24422 Avenida Carlotta#120 i Torrance, CA 90505 Laguna Hills, CA 92653 I G:\carva1ho\dtdev\1abe1s M J� SMALL LOT RESIDENTIALr DEVELOPMENT --LJ J STANDARDS y Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-2 Project Description o] p x Establish development standards for small lot subdivisions in .multiple family Zoning districts citywide x Similar standards exist in Holly Seacliff and Meadowlark Specific Plans and Downtown � 1 r Project Description (2) x Option for development of single family detached vs. multi-family attached in areas designated for multiple family x Ordinance not applicable to Low Density Residential (RL) districts Planning Commission x Eight (8) Study sessions were held to discuss development standards x Discussion with developers and architects of small lot developments x Field visits to small lot subdivisions x Comparison with other small lot development standards x Two (2) public hearings were held by the Planning Commission 2 Draft Ordinance x Drafted to incorporate Planning Commission recommendation Key Provisions: x Min. lot size 3,100 sq. ft. (3,400 avg.) x Min. 40 ft. frontage x Max. floor area ratio (FAR) 0.7 x Min. 40 ft. wide streets; 36 ft. w/ fire sprinkers Staff Recommendation x Approve ZTA 99-2 as recommended by the Planning Commission. x Ensure compatibility with existing and new surrounding residential uses x Provide development that incorporate diversity of uses and distinct sense of neighborhood x Establish incentives to support economic demands of City residents 3 RCA ROUTING SHEET INITIATING DEPARTMENT: Planning SUBJECT: r Small Lot Ordinance COUNCIL MEETING DATE: f March 20, 2000 RCA ATTACHMENTS STATUS Ordinance (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Attached Resolution (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable Tract Map, Location Map and/or other Exhibits Attached Contract/Agreement (w/exhibits if applicable) (Signed in full by the City Attorney) Not Applicable Subleases, Third Party Agreements, etc. (Approved as to form by City Attomey) Not Applicable Certificates of Insurance (Approved by the City Attorney) Not Applicable Financial Impact Statement (Unbudget, over$5,000) Not Applicable Bonds (If applicable) Not Applicable Staff Report (If applicable) Attached Commission, Board or Committee Report (If applicable) Attached FFindings/Conditions for Approval and/or Denial Attached EXPLANATION FOR MISSING ATTACHMENTS REVIEWED RETURNED FOR_W_ RDED Administrative Staff Assistant City Administrator (Initial) ( ) 3 ) City Administrator (Initial) f ); City Clerk ( ) EXPLANATION FOR RETURN OF ITEM: Only)(Below S pace For City Clerk's Use J RCA Author: HZ:SH:WC:kjl Council/Agency Meeting Held: Deferred/Continued to: ❑ Approved ❑ Conditionally Approved ❑ Denied City Clerk's Signature Council Meeting Date: February 22, 2000 Department ID Number: PL00-05 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR ACTION SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS C= SUBMITTED BY: RAY SILVER, City Administrat ��� PREPARED BY: HOWARD ZELEFSKY, Director of Planning J4 SUBJECT: APPROVE ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 99-2 (SMALL LOT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE) O NO 3M55 Fs:t of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachments) Statement of Issue: Transmitted for your consideration is Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-2, a request by the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department to amend the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (ZSO) to establish development standards for small lot residential subdivisions in the Medium, Medium-High, and High Density Residential districts citywide. The ordinance will allow developers and property owners the option to build single family detached units on small lots on properties zoned for multi family attached projects. Similar standards currently exist elsewhere in the City, including the Holly Seacliff and Meadowlark specific plans. This ordinance will not apply to Low Density Residential districts. The Planning Commission and staff have reviewed the draft ordinance and are recommending adoption of Ordinance No. 34S5 Funding Source: Not applicable. Recommended Action: PLANNING COMMISSION AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: "Approve Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-2 with findings for approval (ATTACHMENT NO. 1)" and adopt Ordinance No. N9 (ATTACHMENT NO. 2)." REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: February 22, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-05 Planning Commission Action on October 26, 1999: THE MOTION MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY MANDIC, TO APPROVE ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 99-2, WITH FINDINGS (ATTACHMENT NO. 1) CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: LIVENGOOD, BIDDLE, KERINS, MANDIC, LAIRD, CHAPMAN NOES: SPEAKER ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE MOTION PASSED Alternative Action(s): The City Council may make the following alternative motion(s): 1. "Deny Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-2 with findings." 2. "Continue Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-2 and direct staff accordingly." Analysis: A. PROJECT PROPOSAL: Applicant: City of Huntington Beach, Planning Department, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Location: Residential Medium, Residential Medium-High, and Residential High Density Districts citywide Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-2 represents a request to amend the following chapters of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (ZSO): 1. Chapter 210 Residential Districts, by adding provisions to Section 210.04 Land Use Controls to establish the entitlement process to permit small lot residential subdivisions in RM (Residential Medium Density), RMH (Residential Medium-High Density), and RH (Residential High Density) Districts. Small lot subdivisions would be subject to approval of a conditional use permit (CUP) and tentative map by the Planning Commission. (see Attachment No. 2) 2. Chapter 230 Site Standards, by adding Section 230.24 Small Lot Standards, which establishes development standards for small lot subdivisions. (See Attachment No. 2) PL00-05 -2- 02/09/00 11:19 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: February 22, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-05 B. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS: The Planning Commission held numerous study sessions to discuss the development standards for the proposed small lot residential development ordinance dating back to the spring of 1998. The study sessions included presentations by different architects and developers as well as field visits to several small lot residential projects in and around Huntington Beach. On July 27, 1999 the Planning Commission held a public hearing to discuss and receive testimony on the proposed small lot ordinance, and approved Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-2. Three persons testified during the public hearing expressing concern over the stringency of the proposed standards, and impacts on the quality of good architecture and neighborhood design. One person requested the Commission separate the requirements for small lot subdivisions and one lot condominium maps, and that the standards not apply to one lot condominium maps (see Attachment No. 7). At their next meeting, the Planning Commission reconsidered their previous action on the draft ordinance, requesting further analysis on the proposed standards, including comparisons with the standards adopted for the Ladera Planned Community in Rancho Mission Viejo. On October 26, 1999, the Planning Commission held a second public hearing on the proposed ordinance. The Commission approved the draft ordinance as originally approved in July, with the following changes: Established a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.7; and Allowed landscape parkways along streets to be an option instead of a requirement. C. STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION: As part of the City's on-going commitment to provide development services and a physical environment which responds to the community's needs in a fiscally responsive manner, the City has proposed an amendment to the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance to permit and regulate small lot subdivisions. A small lot development can be defined as a single family detached residential project with reduced-sized lots owned in fee. The City's draft ordinance proposes a minimum lot size of 3,100 square feet, with an average lot size of 3,400 square feet per unit. The ordinance would apply to all small lot subdivisions, whether the tentative map is designed with single units per lot, or multiple units per lot (condominium). This particular zoning text amendment is being processed at the Planning Commission's direction after receiving a number of small lot development proposals over the past few years. These developments have become more prevalent due to the frequency of law suits PL00-05 -3- 02/09/00 11:19 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: February 22, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-05 involving multi-family attached projects, as well as land costs and the market demand for detached residential units. The proposed development standards will provide the necessary information and direction for this type of development. The draft ordinance is a product of reviewing other small lot developments in the City, including projects that have either been approved or constructed in the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan, Meadowlark Specific Plan, and other multi-family districts in the City. Since several small lot projects have been occupied for years, staff has had the opportunity to review criteria used for these projects, receive feedback from property owners who reside in these projects, and forward appropriate recommendations on the small lot ordinance. The recommended standards would allow development compatible with projects developed under multi-family district standards for apartments or condominiums. In fact, many of the multi-family standards including allowable density, required parking, building height/bulk, and setbacks would result in more intense residential projects than if designed to the recommended small lot standards. This ordinance will serve as a guide for developers who decide to build single family detached units instead of multi-family attached units. It should be noted that this ordinance does not allow for small lot developments in RL (Low Density Residential) zones. All RL standards, including one unit per minimum 6,000 square foot lot remains constant. The following matrix compares the proposed small lot standards to the Residential Low Density (RL), and Holly Seacliff Specific Plan RL-3 standards: Current HSSP PC Approved Oct.26,1999 Issue HBZSO(RL) (RL-3) &Staff Recommendation 1 Density <7.0 u/nac <13.2 u/nac 12.8 u/ac 2 Minimum Lot Size(sq.ft.) 6,000 3,300 3,100 3 Minimum Average Lot Size n/a n/a 3,400 avg. 4 Minimum Lot Width 5 Interior Lot 60' 30' 40' 6 Cul-de-sac Lot 40' 20' 30' 7 Minimum Setbacks 8 Front 15' 15' 15' +offsets in fagade 9 Front Porches 11' n/a 10, (covered/open on 3 sides) 10 Upper Story 10'above 2n n/a Varied upper story setback 11 Side 10% 20%aggregate min. 8' aggregate 3'-5' 3'; max. 5' min. 3' 0' setback permitted w/8'on other side 12 Exterior Side 20% 20%aggregate min. 10' including min.4' landscape 6'-10' 6'; max. 8' lettered lot(6' btw bldg. and PL) 13 Rear(dwelling) 10" 15' 15'; 50%of building width can be at 13' 14 (garage) 10, 5' 3' 0"if garage is designed to back to another garage PL00-05 -4- 02/09/00 11:19 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: February 22, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-05 Current HSSP PC Approved Oct.26, 1999 Issue HBZSO(RL) (RL-3) &Staff Recommendation 15 Garage Setback 20'-front entry; 10'- 18'-front entry; 10'- 18' side entry side entry 16 Minimum Interior Garage 18'x 19' Min.400 sq.ft. Dimensions(W x D) Min. 18'wide 17 Building separation 6' 18 Maximum Building Height 35' 35' 30' 19 Maximum Stories 3 2 2;3rd story loft permitted<500 sq.ft. and 5/12 pitch 20 Accessory Structure Height 15, 21 Max. Site Coverage 50% 55% 50%+5%for open air porches, patio covers, balconies, etc. 22 Max. Floor Area Ratio(FAR) n/a 0.7 23 Private Open Space per Unit None None None 24 Common Open Space Area None 150 SF/lot<40'wide; 150 SF per unit;total area must be per Project 100SF/lot for lots 40' at least 3,000 SF with a min. 50' wide dimension. Projects less than 20 units must provide a minimum 600 SF of open space(private&common) per unit. Private open space excludes side and front yard setback areas. If a portion is provided as common open space that area shall have a min.dim. of 10'. 25 Required Parking 26 Unit 2 open 2 per unit 2 open+2 encl (up to 4BR)3+3(5+ +2 enclosed BR) 27 On-Street .5 sp./unit .5 sp./unit 1/unit on-street pkg. 28 Distribution of on-street Plan required spaces 29 Street(or Driveway)Widths 40'curb to curb Public 36'w/sprinklers(pkg. &s/w on Private both sides) Emergency Access (Based on vehicle trips/day; check w/Fire&PW for reduced standards) 30 Sidewalk/Parkway Widths Option for min.6' L/S parkway; Public sidewalks to City stds. Private 31 Fencing/Walls Block wall req./wrought iron permitted where appropriate 32 Landscaping Tree wells on street side of curb encouraged, however, shall not encroach into min. 24'wide drive aisle. A comparison between the proposed small lot standards and development standards for other residential districts in the City, including the RMH-A (Downtown) district, and Meadowlark Specific Plan Planning Area-4 is provided for informational purposes in a matrix on Attachment No. 4. PL00-05 -5- 02/09/00 11:19 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: February 22, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-05 D. SUMMARY Staff recommends the City Council approve Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-2 as recommended by the Planning Commission and adopt Ordinance No. 4S5 based on the following reasons: The proposed zoning text amendment provides the option for development of small lot subdivisions in multi-family residential districts citywide; no change to the RL Standards will occur. The proposed development standards will ensure that small lot subdivisions are architecturally designed to provide a healthy and aesthetically pleasing environment and remain compatible with existing surrounding residential uses. The proposed zoning text amendment will not adversely impact the City's review and public hearing process. The proposed zoning text amendment is consistent with the goals and policies specified in the Land Use and Economic Development Elements of the General Plan. Environmental Status: The proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 4501, Class 20, which supplements the California Environmental Quality Act. Attachment(s): City Clerk's Page Number No. Description 1. Findings for Approval 2. Draft Ordinance OF9. No- 34�S 3. Legislative Draft 4. Comparison matrix 5. Planning Commission Minutes dated October 26, 1999 6. Planning Commission Staff Report dated October 26, 1999 7. Planning Commission Minutes dated July 27, 1999 8. Planning Commission Staff Report dated July 27, 1999 PL00-05 -6- 02/09/00 11:19 AM ATTACHMENT 1 FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 99-2 FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL-ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO.99-2: 1. Zoning Text Amendment No.99-2 to establish development standards for small lot single family residential subdivisions in RM, RMH and RH Districts citywide is consistent with the goals and policies contained in the City's General Plan. The amendment is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the Land Use Element of the General Plan, including the requirement that development be designed to account for the unique characteristics of project sites and objectives for community character and assure that all small lot developments in multi-family districts be designed to be compatible with existing adjacent uses, regardless of density or zoning designation. Furthermore,the proposed code amendment will specify the approval process and development standards for small lot, detached single family residential projects and will require small lot subdivisions be of high quality and design with respect to building architecture and site layout, including parking, landscaping and open space. 2. In the case of a general land use provision,the change proposed is compatible with the uses authorized in, and the standards prescribed for,the zoning districts for which the small lot subdivisions would be permitted. The proposed amendment addresses the RM, RMH, and RH Districts citywide,permitting small lot subdivisions with the approval of a conditional use permit and tentative map. 3. A community need is demonstrated for the change proposed. The City Council and Planning Commission have recognized the need to offer a more viable option to developers of multi family residential properties without jeopardizing the character of existing multi family residential areas. The amendment will provide for housing types which are in demand in the present housing market, and allow for development of single family detached units. 4. Its adoption will be in conformity with public convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice. The amendment will permit the development of small lot, single family residential subdivisions,while protecting the general welfare of property owners and tenants within multi-family zoning districts. ATTACHMEN T 2 1 ORDINANCE NO. 3�55 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ZONING AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE TO ADD STANDARDS FOR SMALL LOT DEVELOPMENTS (ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 99-2) WHEREAS,pursuant to the Planning and Zoning Law, the California Government Code Sections 65493, et seq., the Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, after notice duly given, have held separate public hearings relative to Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-2 which amends the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance to add development standards related to small lot developments; and After due consideration of the findings and recommendation of the Planning Commission, and all other evidence presented, the City Council finds that the aforesaid amendment to the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance is proper and consistent with the General Plan, NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. That Section 230.24 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance is hereby amended to read as follow: 230.24 Small Lot Development Standards A. Permitted Uses. The following small lot development standards are provided as an alternative to attached housing in multi-family districts. Small lot developments are permitted in RM, RMH, and RH Districts (excluding RL Districts and RMH-A Subdistricts) subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit and Tentative Map by the Planning Commission. The Design Review Board shall review and forward recommendations on all small lot development proposals prior to Planning Commission action. These standards shall apply to all small lot subdivisions, whether the tentative map is designed with single units per lot, or multiple units per lot (condominium). B. Design standards. The following standards shall be considered by the Planning Commission prior to development approval: 1. Architectural features and general appearance of the proposed development shall enhance the orderly and harmonious development of the area or the community as a whole. 2. Architectural features and complementary colors shall be incorporated into the design of all exterior surfaces of the building in order to create an aesthetically pleasing project. 1 4/s:4-990rdin ance:smalllot RLS 99-538 3. All vehicular access ways shall be designed with landscaping and building variation to eliminate an alley-like appearance. C. Development Standards. The following standards shall apply to all small lot developments: Minimum Building Site or Lot Size 3,100 sq. ft. (3,400 sq. ft. avg.) Minimum Lot Frontage 40 ft. Cul de sac and knuckle 30 ft. Maximum Height Dwellings 30 ft.; max. 2 stories except 3rd level permitted<500 sq. ft. Min. 5/12 roof pitch No decks above the second story Accessory Structures 15 ft. Minimum Setbacks Front Dwelling 15 ft. + offsets in front fagade Covered Porches (unenclosed) 10 ft. Garage 18 ft Upper Story Upper story setback shall be varied Side 8 ft. aggregate, min. 3 ft. 0 ft. permitted with min. 8 ft. on other side Street Side 10 ft.; includes min. 4 ft. landscape lettered lot (6 ft. between bldg. and prop. line) Rear Dwelling 15 ft.; 50% of bldg. width may be at 13 ft. Garage 3 ft.; 0 ft. if garage is designed to back to another garage Maximum Lot Coverage 50%+ 5% for covered porches,patio covers, balconies. Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 0.7 Minimum Interior Garage Min. 400 sq. ft.; Dimension(width x depth) min. 18 ft. wide Minimum Building Separation to 6 ft. Accessory Building Open Space Common recreational area Projects of 20 units or more: (project) 150 sq. ft./unit; min. 5,000 sq. ft.; min. 50 ft. dimension. Projects less than 20 units: Min. 600 sq. ft. private and/or common per unit. Private open space excludes side and front yard setback areas. Common open space requires min. 10 ft. dimension. 2 4/s:4-990rdinance:smalllot RLS 99-538 Required Parking Small lot developments shall provide parking consistent with single family residential developments specified in Chapter 231. In addition, minimum 1 on-street space per unit for guest/visitor parking shall be provided. A parking plan depicting the location of all parking spaces shall be submitted with the conditional use permit application. Street Sections Streets The city shall review proposed street sections upon submittal of the tentative map and conditional.use permit applications. Min. 36 ft. curb to curb may be permitted provided all units in the development are equipped with automatic sprinkler systems—On-street parking shall be provided on both sides of the street. Sidewalks/Parkways Sidewalks shall be provided on both sides of the street. Min. 6 ft. landscape parkways may be provided on both sides of the street. Sidewalk widths shall be designed to Public Works Standards. Walls and Fences Block walls required; may allow wrought iron element where appropriate Landscaping Tree wells adjacent to landscape parkways on the street side of curb is encouraged,however shall not encroach into the min. 24 foot wide drive aisle. Also see Chapter 232 Landscaping SECTION 2. That Section 210.04 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance is hereby amended to read as follows: 210.04 RL, RM,RMH, RH, and RMP Districts: Land Use Controls In the following schedules, letter designations are used as follows: "P" designates use classifications permitted in residential districts. "L" designates use classifications subject to certain limitations prescribed by the "Additional Provisions" that follow. "PC" designates use classifications permitted on approval of a conditional use permit by the Planning Commission. 3 41,A-990rdinance:smalIlot RLS 99-538 1 "ZA" designates use classifications permitted on approval of a conditional use permit by the Zoning Administrator. "TU" designates use classifications allowed upon approval of a temporary use permit by the Zoning Administrator. (3334-6/97,3410-3/99) "PAY' designates that accessory uses are permitted, however, accessory uses are subject to approval of a conditional use permit if the primary use requires a conditional use permit. (3334-6/97,3410-3/99) Use classifications that are not listed are prohibited. Letters in parentheses in the "Additional Provisions" column refer to provisions following the schedule or located elsewhere in the zoning ordinance. Where letters in parentheses are opposite a use classification heading, referenced provisions shall apply to all use classifications under the heading. RL,RM, RMIi,RH, and P = Permitted RMP DISTRICTS: L = Limited (see Additional Provisions) (3334-6/97) LAND USE CONTROLS PC = Conditional use permit approved by Planning Commission ZA = Conditional use permit approved by Zoning Administrator TU = Temporary Use Permit P/U = Requires conditional use permit on site of conditional use = Not Permitted RL RM RMH RMP Additional RH Provisions Residential Uses (A)(M)(Q) (3334-6/97,341: Day Care, Ltd. P P P P Group Residential - - PC - Multi-family Residential (B)(C)(D)(R) (3410-3/99) 2 - 4 units ZA P P - (3334-6/97,341 C 5 - 9 units ZA ZA ZA - (3334-6/97,341C 10 or more units PC PC PC - (3334.6/97,341C Manufactured Home Parks ZA ZA - ZA (E)(F) Residential, Alcohol Recovery, Ltd. P P P P Residential Care, Limited P P P P Single-Family Residential P P P P (B)(D)(F)(P)(R) (3334-6/97,341C Public and Semipublic (A)(0) (3334-6/97.341C Clubs &Lodges PC PC ZA ZA (3334-6/97,341C Day Care, Large-family ZA ZA ZA ZA (3334-6/97) Day Care, General L-1 ZA ZA ZA (3334-6197,341 C Park&Recreation Facilities L-2 L-2 L-2 L-2 (3334-6/97,341 C Public Safety Facilities PC PC PC PC Religious Assembly L-3 PC PC PC (3334-6/97,341C Residential Care, General - L-1 PC PC (3334.6197.341C Schools, Public or Private PC PC PC PC Utilities, Major PC PC PC PC Utilities, Minor P P P P Commercial Horticulture ZA ZA ZA ZA (3410-3199) Nurseries ZA ZA ZA ZA (3410-3/99) 4 4/s:4-990rdinance:smalllot RLS 99-538 Visitor Accommodations Bed and Breakfast Inns - - L-4 - (3334-6/97,341 Accessory Uses P/U P/U P/U P/U (A)(G)(H)(I)(L)(M) (3334.6/97,341 Temporary Uses MGv1) (3334-6/97,341 Commercial Filming, Limited P P P P Real Estate Sales TU TU TU P (N) (3334-6/97,341 Personal Property Sales P P P P Street Fairs TU TU TU TU Nonconforming Uses (K)(L) RL, RM, RMH,RH, and RMP Districts: Additional Provisions L-1 A conditional use permit from the Planning Commission is required and only allowed on lots 1.0 acre (gross acreage) or greater fronting an arterial in RL District. (3410-3/99) L-2 Public facilities permitted,but a conditional use permit from the Zoning Administrator is required for private noncommercial facilities, including swim clubs and tennis clubs. (3334-6/97,3410-3/99) L-3 A conditional use permit from the Planning Commission is required, and only schools operating in conjunction with religious services are permitted as an accessory use. A General Day Care facility may be allowed as a secondary use, subject to a conditional use permit, if the Planning Commission finds that it would be compatible with adjacent areas and not cause significant traffic impacts. See Section 230.06: Religious Assembly Yard Requirements. (3334-6/97,3410-3/99) L-4 A conditional use permit from the Planning Commission is required and only allowed on lots 10,000 sq. ft. or greater in RMH-A subdistrict. See also Section 230.42: Bed and Breakfast Inns. (3334-6/97,3410-3/99) (A) Any addition or modification subsequent to the original construction that would result in an increase in the amount of building area, or a structural or architectural alteration to the building exterior, shall require an amendment to the previousely approved conditional use permit, if any, or approval of a new conditional use permit. (3334-6/97, 3410-3/99) (B) A conditional use permit from the Planning Commission is required for residential uses requesting reduction in standards for senior citizens (See Section 210.08), for affordable housing(See Sections 2 10.10 and 230.14), or for density bonus (See Section 230.14). (C) A conditional use permit from the Zoning Administrator is required for any multiple family residential development that: (1) abuts an arterial highway; (2) includes a dwelling unit more than 150 feet from a public street; or (3) includes buildings exceeding 25 feet in height. (3334-6/97,3410-3199) 5 4/s:4-990rdinance:smalllot RLS 99-538 (D) See Section 210.12: Planned Unit Development Supplemental Standards. In addition, a conditional use permit is required for condominium conversion pursuant to Chapter 235. (E) See Section 210.14: RMP District Supplemental Standards. In addition, a conditional use permit by the Zoning Administrator is required for the addition of manufactured home space(s)to an existing Manufactured Home Park. (3334-6/97,3410- 3/99) (F) See Section 230.16: Manufactured Homes. (G) See Section 230.12: Home Occupation in R Districts. (H) See Section 230.08: Accessory Structures. (I) See Section 230.10: Accessory Dwelling Units. RL, RM,RMH,RH, and RMP Districts: Additional Provisions (J) See Section 241.20: Temporary Use Permits. (K) See Chapter 236: Nonconforming Uses and Structures. (L) See Chapter 233: Signs. (M) Tents, trailers, vehicles, or temporary structures shall not be used for dwelling purposes. (3334-6/97,3410-3/99) (N) See Section 230.18: Subdivision Sales Offices and Model Homes. (3334-6197,3410-3/99) (0) Limited to facilities on sites of fewer than 2 acres. (3334-6/97,3410-3/99) (P) See Section 230.22: Residential Infill Lot Developments. (3334-6/97,3410-3/99) (Q) See Section 230.20: Payment of Parkland Dedication In-Lieu Fee. (3410-3/99) (R) Small lot development standards for RM, RMH, and RH Districts. A conditional use permit from the Planning Commission is required for small lot residential subdivisions, including condominium maps for detached single family dwellings. See also Section 230.24: Small Lot Development Standards. 6 4/s:4-990rdinance smalllot RLS 99-538 SECTION 3. This ordinance shall take effect 30 days after its adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof on the day of 52000. Mayor ATTEST: "PROVED AS TO FORM: �J City Clerk Cit 'tt1 ty. REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED: 90.E -". /L-1 q AdKinistrator P ing Director 7 4/sA-990rdinance:smalllot RLS 99-538 ORDINANCE NO. 3t15S AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ZONING AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE TO ADD STANDARDS FOR SMALL LOT DEVELOPMENTS (ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 99-2) WHEREAS,pursuant to the Planning and Zoning Law, the California Government Code Sections 65493, et seq., the Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, after notice duly given, have held separate public hearings relative to Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-2 which amends the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance to add development standards related to small lot developments; and After due consideration of the findings and recommendation of the Planning Commission, and all other evidence presented, the City Council finds that the aforesaid amendment to the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance is proper and consistent with the General Plan, NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. That Section 230.24 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance is hereby amended to read as follow: 230.24 Small Lot Development Standards A. Permitted Uses. The following small lot development standards are provided as an alternative to attached housing in multi-family districts. Small lot developments are permitted in RM, RMH, and RH Districts (excluding RL Districts and RMH-A Subdistricts) subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit and Tentative Map by the Planning Commission. The Design Review Board shall review and forward recommendations on all small lot development proposals prior to Planning Commission action. These standards shall apply to all small lot subdivisions,whether the tentative map is designed with single units per lot, or multiple units per lot (condominium). B. Design standards. The following standards shall be considered by the Planning Commission prior to development approval: 1. Architectural features and general appearance of the proposed development shall enhance the orderly and harmonious development of the area or the community as a whole. 2. Architectural features and complementary colors shall be incorporated into the design of all exterior surfaces of the building in order to create an aesthetically pleasing project. 1 4/sA-990rdinance:smalllot RLS 99-538 3. All vehicular access ways shall be designed with landscaping and building variation to eliminate an alley-like appearance. C. Development Standards. The following standards shall apply to all small lot developments: Minimum Building Site or Lot Size 3,100 sq. ft. (3,400 sq. ft. avg.) Minimum Lot Frontage 40 ft. Cul de sac and knuckle 30 ft. Maximum Height Dwellings 30 ft.; max. 2 stories except 3rd level permitted<500 sq. ft. Min. 5/12 roof pitch No decks above the second story Accessory Structures 15 ft. Minimum Setbacks Front- Dwelling 15 ft. + offsets in front fagade Covered Porches (unenclosed) 10 ft. Garage 18 ft Upper Story Upper story setback shall be varied Side 8 ft. aggregate, min. 3 ft. 0 ft. permitted with min. 8 ft. on other side Street Side 10 ft.; includes min. 4 ft. landscape lettered lot (6 ft. between bldg. and prop. line) Rear Dwelling 15 ft.; 50% of bldg. width may be at 13 ft. Garage 3 ft.; 0 ft. if garage is designed to back to another garage Maximum Lot Coverage 50%+ 5% for covered porches,patio covers, balconies. Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 0.7 Minimum Interior Garage Min. 400 sq. ft.; Dimension(width x depth) min. 18 ft. wide Minimum Building Separation to 6 ft. Accessory Building Open Space Common recreational area Projects of 20 units or more: (project) 150 sq. ft./unit; min. 5,000 sq. ft.; min. 50 ft. dimension. Projects less than 20 units: Min. 600 sq. ft. private and/or common per unit. Private open space excludes side and front yard I setback areas. Common open space requires min. 10 ft. dimension. 2 4/s:4-990rdinance:smalllot RLS 99-538 Required Parking Small lot developments shall provide parking consistent with single family residential developments specified in Chapter 231. In addition, minimum 1 on-street space per unit for guest/visitor parking shall be provided. A parking plan depicting the location of all parking spaces shall be submitted with the conditional use permit application. Street Sections Streets The city shall review proposed street sections upon submittal of the tentative map and conditional_use permit applications. Min. 36 ft. curb to curb may be permitted provided all units in the development are equipped with automatic sprinkler systems—On-street parking shall be provided on both sides of the street. Sidewalks/Parkways Sidewalks shall be provided on both sides of the street. Min. 6 ft. landscape parkways may be provided on both sides of the street. Sidewalk widths shall be designed to Public Works Standards. Walls and Fences Block walls required; may allow wrought iron element where appropriate Landscaping Tree wells adjacent to landscape parkways on the street side of curb is encouraged,however shall not encroach into the min. 24 foot wide drive aisle. Also see Chapter 232 Landscaping SECTION 2. That Section 210.04 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance is hereby amended to read as follows: 210.04 RL,RM, RMH,RH, and RMP Districts: Land Use Controls In the following schedules, letter designations are used as follows: "P" designates use classifications permitted in residential districts. "L" designates use classifications subject to certain limitations prescribed by the "Additional Provisions" that follow. "PC" designates use classifications permitted on approval of a conditional use permit by the Planning Commission. 3 4/s:4-990rdinance:smalllot RLS 99-538 "ZA" designates use classifications permitted on approval of a conditional use permit by the Zoning Administrator. "TU" designates use classifications allowed upon approval of a temporary use permit by the Zoning Administrator. (3334-6/97,3410-3/99) "P/U" designates that accessory uses are permitted, however, accessory uses are subject to approval of a conditional use permit if the primary use requires a conditional use permit. (3334-6/97,3410-3/99) Use classifications that are not listed are prohibited. Letters in parentheses in the "Additional Provisions" column refer to provisions following the schedule or located elsewhere in the zoning ordinance. Where letters in parentheses are opposite a use classification heading, referenced provisions shall apply to all use classifications under the heading. RL, RM, RMH,RH, and P = Permitted RMP DISTRICTS: L = Limited (see Additional Provisions) (3334-6/97) LAND USE CONTROLS PC = Conditional use permit approved by Planning Commission ZA = Conditional use permit approved by Zoning Administrator TU = Temporary Use Permit P/U = Requires conditional use permit on site of conditional use = Not Permitted RL RM RMH RMP Additional RH Provisions Residential Uses (A)(M)(Q) (3334-6197,3- Day Care, Ltd. P P P P Group Residential - - PC - Multi-family Residential (B)(C)(D)(R) (3410-3/99) 2 -4 units ZA P P - (3334-/97,3- 5 - 9 units ZA ZA ZA - (333"/97,3- 10 or more units PC PC PC - (3334.6/97,31 Manufactured Home Parks ZA ZA - ZA (E)(F) Residential, Alcohol Recovery, Ltd. P P P P Residential Care, Limited P P P P Single-Family Residential P P P P (B)(D)(F)(P)(R) (3334-6/97.3 Public and Semipublic (A)(0) (3334-6/97.3 Clubs & Lodges PC PC ZA ZA (3334-6/97,3: Day Care, Large-family ZA ZA ZA ZA (3334-6/97) Day Care, General L-1 ZA ZA ZA (3334-s/97,34 Park&Recreation Facilities L-2 L-2 L-2 L-2 (3334-/97,34 Public Safety Facilities PC PC PC PC Religious Assembly L-3 PC PC PC (33-44.6/97,34 Residential Care, General - L-1 PC PC (3334.6/97,34 Schools,Public or Private PC PC PC PC Utilities, Major PC PC PC PC Utilities, Minor P P P P Commercial Horticulture ZA ZA ZA ZA (3410-3/99) Nurseries ZA ZA ZA ZA (3410-3/99) 4 4/sA-990rdinance:smalllot RLS 99-538 Visitor Accommodations Bed and Breakfast Inns - - L-4 - (3334-6/97,341 Accessory Uses P/U P/U P/U P/U (A)(G)(H)(I)(L)(M) (3334-6/97,341 Temporary Uses M(N1) (3334-6/97,341 Commercial Filming, Limited P P P P Real Estate Sales TU TU TU P GN) (3334-6/97,341 Personal Property Sales P P P P Street Fairs TU TU TU TU Nonconforming Uses (K)(L) RL,RM, RMH,RH, and RMP Districts: Additional Provisions L-1 A conditional use permit from the Planning Commission is required and only allowed on lots 1.0 acre (gross acreage) or greater fronting an arterial in RL District. (3410-3/99) L-2 Public facilities permitted,but a conditional use permit from the Zoning Administrator is required for private noncommercial facilities, including swim clubs and tennis clubs. (3334-6197,3410-3199) L-3 A conditional use permit from the Planning Commission is required, and only schools operating in conjunction with religious services are permitted as an accessory use. A General Day Care facility may be allowed as a secondary use, subject to a conditional use permit, if the Planning Commission finds that it would be compatible with adjacent areas and not cause significant traffic impacts. See Section 230.06: Religious Assembly Yard Requirements. (3334-6/97,3410-3/99) L-4 A conditional use permit from the Planning Commission is required and only allowed on lots 10,000 sq. ft. or greater in RMH-A subdistrict. See also Section 230.42: Bed and Breakfast Inns. (3334-6/97,3410-3/99) (A) Any addition or modification subsequent to the original construction that would result in an increase in the amount of building area, or a structural or architectural alteration to the building exterior, shall require an amendment to the previousely approved . conditional use permit, if any, or approval of a new conditional use permit. (3334-6/97, 3410-3/99) (B) A conditional use permit from the Planning Commission is required for residential uses requesting reduction in standards for senior citizens (See Section 210.08), for affordable housing(See Sections 210.10 and 230.14), or for density bonus (See Section 230.14). (C) A conditional use permit from the Zoning Administrator is required for any multiple family residential development that: (1) abuts an arterial highway; (2) includes a dwelling unit more than 150 feet from a public street; or (3) includes buildings exceeding 25 feet in height. (3334-6/97,3410-3/99) 5 4/sA-99Ordinance:smaIIIot RiS 99-538 (D) See Section 210.12: Planned Unit Development Supplemental Standards. In addition, a conditional use permit is required for condominium conversion pursuant to Chapter 235. (E) See Section 210.14: RMP District Supplemental Standards. In addition, a conditional use permit by the Zoning Administrator is required for the addition of manufactured home space(s) to an existing Manufactured Home Park. (3334-6/97,3410- 3/99) (F) See Section 230.16: Manufactured Homes. (G) See Section 230.12: Home Occupation in R Districts. (H) See Section 230.08: Accessory Structures. (I) See Section 230.10: Accessory Dwelling Units. RL,RM,RMH,RH, and RMP Districts: Additional Provisions (J) See Section 241.20: Temporary Use Permits. (K) See Chapter 236: Nonconforming Uses and Structures. (L) See Chapter 233: Signs. (M) Tents, trailers, vehicles, or temporary structures shall not be used for dwelling purposes. (3334-6/97,3410-3/99) (N) See Section 230.18: Subdivision Sales Offices and Model Homes. (3334-6/97,3410-3/99) (0) Limited to facilities on sites of fewer than 2 acres. (3334-6/97,3410-3/99) (P) See Section 230.22: Residential Infill Lot Developments. (3334-6/97,3410-3/99) (Q) See Section 230.20: Payment of Parkland Dedication In-Lieu Fee. (3410-3/99) (R) Small lot development standards for RM,RMH, and RH Districts. A conditional use permit from the Planning Commission is required for small lot residential subdivisions,including condominium maps for detached single family dwellings. See also Section 230.24: Small Lot Development Standards. 6 4/s:4-990rdinance:smalllot RLS 99-538 SECTION 3. This ordinance shall take effect 30 days after its adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof on the day of 2000. Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: "A" I L-< City Clerk Cit 'tt1 rPt ' tL. REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED: Qom. City A inistrator PVmhing Director The foregoing instrument is a oorrw copy of the original on file in this otfioe. Attest `fili lam.^ a G 20-6z— i Clark and Ex-off lojo crT of tf(wy - Council of the City of Huntington Cal . By Deputy 7 4/sA-990rdinance:smalllot RLS 99-538 ATTACHMENT 3 J LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 210.04 RL,RM, RMH, RH, and RMP Districts: Land Use Controls In the following schedules, letter designations are used as follows: "P" designates use classifications permitted in residential districts. "L" designates use classifications subject to certain limitations prescribed by the "Additional Provisions" that follow. "PC" designates use classifications permitted on approval of a conditional use permit by the Planning Commission. "ZA" designates use classifications permitted on approval of a conditional use permit by the Zoning Administrator. "TU" designates use classifications allowed upon approval of a temporary use permit by the Zoning Administrator. (3334-6/97,3410-3/99) "P/U" designates that accessory uses are permitted,however, accessory uses are subject to approval of a conditional use permit if the primary use requires a conditional use permit. (3334-6/97,3410-3/99) Use classifications that are not listed are prohibited. Letters in parentheses in the "Additional Provisions" column refer to provisions following the schedule or located elsewhere in the zoning ordinance. Where letters in parentheses are opposite a use classification heading, referenced provisions shall apply to all use classifications under the heading. RL,RM,RMH,RH, and P = Permitted RMP DISTRICTS: L = Limited(see Additional Provisions) (3334-6/97) LAND USE CONTROLS PC = Conditional use permit approved by Planning Commission ZA = Conditional use permit approved by Zoning Administrator TU = Temporary Use Permit P/U = Requires conditional use permit on site of conditional use = Not Permitted RL RM RMH RMP Additional RH Provisions Residential Uses (A)(M)(Q) (3334-6/97,341 Day Care, Ltd. P P P P Group Residential - - PC - Multi-family Residential (B)(C)(D)(R) (34,o-3/99) 2 - 4 units ZA P P - (3334.6/97,341 5 - 9 units ZA ZA ZA - (3334-6/97,341 10 or more units PC PC PC - (3334-6/97,341 Manufactured Home Parks ZA ZA - ZA (E)(F) Residential, Alcohol Recovery, Ltd. P P P P Residential Care, Limited P P P P Single-Family Residential P P P P (B)(D)(F)(P)(R) (3334.6/97,34, 8 4/s:4-990rdinance:smalllot RLS 99-538 Public and Semipublic (A)(0) (3334-6/97,34 Clubs &Lodges PC PC ZA ZA (3334.6197.34 Day Care, Large-family ZA ZA ZA ZA. (3334-6/97) Day Care, General L-1 ZA ZA ZA (3334-6/97,34 Park &Recreation Facilities L-2 L-2 L-2 L-2 (3334-6/97,34 Public Safety Facilities PC PC PC PC Religious Assembly L-3 PC PC PC (3334-6/97,3G Residential Care, General - L-1 PC PC (3334-6197,34 Schools, Public or Private PC PC PC PC Utilities, Major PC PC PC PC Utilities,Minor P P P P Commercial Horticulture ZA ZA ZA ZA (3410-3/99) Nurseries ZA ZA ZA ZA (3410-3/99) Visitor Accommodations Bed and Breakfast Inns - - L-4 - (3334-6/97.34- Accessory Uses P/U P/U P/U P/U (A)(G)(H)(I)(L)(M) (3334-6/97,34 Temporary Uses (J)(M) (3334.6/97,341 Commercial Filming, Limited P P P P Real Estate Sales TU TU TU P (l) (3334-6/97,34. Personal Property Sales P P P P Street Fairs TU TU TU TU Nonconforming Uses (K)(L) RL, RM,RMH, RH, and RMP Districts: Additional Provisions L-1 A conditional use permit from the Planning Commission is required and only allowed on lots 1.0 acre(gross acreage) or greater fronting an arterial in RL District. (3410-3/99) L-2 Public facilities permitted,but a conditional use permit from the Zoning Administrator is required for private noncommercial facilities,including swim clubs and tennis clubs. (3334-6/97,3410-3/99) L-3 A conditional use permit from the Planning Commission is required, and only schools operating in conjunction with religious services are permitted as an accessory use. A General Day Care facility may be allowed as a secondary use, subject to a conditional use permit, if the Planning Commission finds that it would be compatible with adjacent areas and not cause significant traffic impacts. See Section 230.06: Religious Assembly Yard Requirements. (3334-6/97,3410-3/99) L-4 A conditional use permit from the Planning Commission is required and only allowed on lots 10,000 sq. ft. or greater in RMH-A subdistrict. See also Section 230.42: Bed and Breakfast Inns. (3334-6/97,3410-3/99) (A) Any addition or modification subsequent to the original construction that would result in an increase in the amount of building area, or a structural or architectural alteration to the building exterior, shall require an amendment to the previousely approved 9 4/s:4-990rdinance:smalllot RLS 99-538 conditional use permit, if any, or approval of a new conditional use permit. (3334-6/97, 3410-3/99) (B) A conditional use permit from the Planning Commission is required for residential uses requesting reduction in standards for senior citizens (See Section 210.08), for affordable housing (See Sections 2 10.10 and 230.14), or for density bonus (See Section 230.14). (D) A conditional use permit from the Zoning Administrator is required for any multiple family residential development that: (4) abuts an arterial highway; (5) includes a dwelling unit more than 150 feet from a public street; or (6) includes buildings exceeding 25 feet in height. (3334-6/97,3410-3/99) (D) See Section 210.12: Planned Unit Development Supplemental Standards. In addition,•a conditional use permit is required for condominium conversion pursuant to Chapter 235. (E) See Section 210.14: RMP District Supplemental Standards. In addition, a conditional use permit by the Zoning Administrator is required for the addition of manufactured home space(s)to an existing Manufactured Home Park. (3334-6/97,3410- 3/99) (F) See Section 230.16: Manufactured Homes. (G) See Section 230.12: Home Occupation in R Districts. (H) See Section 230.08: Accessory Structures. (II) See Section 230.10: Accessory Dwelling Units. RL,RM,RMH,RH, and RMP Districts: Additional Provisions (J) See Section 241.20: Temporary Use Permits. (K) See Chapter 236: Nonconforming Uses and Structures. (L) See Chapter 233: Signs. (M) Tents, trailers, vehicles, or temporary structures shall not be used for dwelling purposes. (3334-6/97,3410-3/99) (N) See Section 230.18: Subdivision Sales Offices and Model Homes. (3334-6/97,3410-3/99) (0) Limited to facilities on sites of fewer than 2 acres. (3334-6/97,3410-3/99) (P) See Section 230.22: Residential Infill Lot Developments. (3334-6/97,3410-3/99) (Q) See Section 230.20: Payment of Parkland Dedication In-Lieu Fee. (3410-3/99) 10 4/s:4-990rdinance:smalllot RLS 99-538 I (R) Small lot development standards for RM, RMH, and RH Districts. A conditional use permit from the Planning Commission is required for small lot residential subdivisions, including condominium maps for detached single family dwellings. See also-Section 230.24: Small Lot Developmenf Standards. 230.24 Small Lot Development Standards D. Permitted Uses. The following small lot development standards are provided as an alternative to attached housing in multi-family districts. Small lot developments are permitted in RM, RMH, and RH Districts (excluding RL Districts and RMH-A Subdistricts) subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit and Tentative Map by the Planning Commission. The Design Review Board shall review and forward recommendations on all small lot development proposals prior to Planning Commission action. These standards shall apply to all small lot subdivisions,whether the tentative map is designed with single units per lot, or multiple units per lot (condominium). E. Design standards. The following standards shall be considered by the Planning Commission prior to development approval: 4. Architectural features and general appearance of the proposed development shall enhance the orderly and harmonious development of the area or the community as a whole. 5. Architectural features and complementary colors shall be incorporated into the design of all exterior surfaces of the building in order to create an aesthetically pleasing project. 6. All vehicular access ways shall be designed with landscaping and building variation to eliminate an alley-like appearance. F. Development Standards. The following standards shall apply to all small lot developments: Minimum Building Site or Lot Size 3,100 sq. ft. (3,400 sq. ft. avg.) Minimum Lot Frontage 40 ft. Cul de sac and knuckle 30 ft. Maximum Height Dwellings 30 ft.; max. 2 stories except 3rd level permitted<500 sq. ft. Min. 5/12 roof pitch No decks above the second story Accessory Structures 15 ft. Minimum Setbacks Front Dwelling 15 ft. +offsets in front fagade Covered Porches (unenclosed) 10 ft. Garage 18 ft Upper Story Upper story setback shall be varied Side 8 ft. aggregate, min. 3 ft. 11 4/s:4-990rdinance:smalllot RLS 99-538 0 ft. permitted with min. 8 ft. on other side Street Side 10 ft.; includes min. 4 ft. landscape lettered lot (6 ft. between bldg. and prop. line) Rear Dwelling 15 ft.; 50% of bldg. width may be at 13 ft. Garage 3 ft.; 0 ft. if garage is designed to back to another garage Maximum Lot Coverage 50% + 5% for covered porches, patio covers, balconies. Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 0.7 Minimum Interior Garage Min. 400 sq. ft.; Dimension(width x depth) min. 18 ft. wide Minimum Building Separation to 6 ft. Accessory Building Open Space Common recreational area Projects of 20 units or more: (project) 150 sq. ft./unit; min. 5,000 sq. ft.; min. 50 ft. dimension. Projects less than 20 units: Min. 600 sq. ft. private and/or common per unit. Private open space excludes side and front yard setback areas. Common open space requires min. 10 ft. dimension. Required Parking Small lot developments shall provide parking consistent with single family residential developments specified in Chapter 231. In addition, minimum 1 on-street space per unit for guest/visitor parking shall be provided. A parking plan depicting the location of all parking spaces shall be submitted with the conditional use permit application. Street Sections Streets The city shall review proposed street sections upon submittal of the tentative map and conditional use permit applications. Min. 36 ft. curb to curb may be permitted provided all units in the development are equipped with automatic sprinkler systems—On-street parking shall be provided on both sides of the street. Sidewalks/Parkways Sidewalks shall be provided on both sides of the street. Min. 6 ft. landscape parkways may be provided on 12 4/s:4-990rdinance:smalllot RLS 99-538 i both sides of the street. Sidewalk widths shall be designed to Public Works Standards. Walls and Fences Block walls required; may allow wrought iron element where appropriate Landscaping Tree wells adjacent to landscape parkways on the street side of curb is encouraged, however shall not encroach into the min. 24 foot wide drive aisle. Also see Chapter 232 Landscaping 13 4/s:4-990rdinance:smalllot RLS 99-538 ATTACHMENT 4 SMALL LOT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR DETACHED UNITS IN MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONES <1994 Current HSSP RMH-A Greystone Meadowlark PC Approved Oct.26,1999 Issue HBOC(RI) HBZSO(RL) (RL-3) (Downtown) Landing PA-4 &Staff Recommendation I Density <6.5 u/gac <7.0 u/nac <13.2 u/nac >17.4 u/gac 11.6 u/nac 13.8 u/nac 12.8 u/ac 2 Minimum Lot Size(sq.ft.) None for PRD 6,000 _3.300 2.500 3.100 3.000 3,100 3 Minimum Average Lot Size n/a n/a __ nia n/a. _ 3.300(info) n/a 3,400 aNg. 4 Minimum Lot Width 5 Interior Lot _None for PRD 60' 30' 25' 43' 35' 40' 6 Cul-de-sac I,ot None for PRD 40' 20' 25' n/a 30' 30' 20'flag lots 7 Minimum Setbacks _ 8 Front 15'to driveivaN s 15' _ _ 15' 12' 15' I S'+offsets in facade 9 Front Porches 10'to driN-eways I F n-a 8' 10' 12' 10' (covered/open on 3 sides) 10 Upper Story _ ** 10'above 2" n/a 10'above 2" Provided n/a Varied upper stop.setback 11 Side 15'to drivewa-vs 10% 20%aggregate 3' 3'& 5' 4' 8'aggregate 3'-5' min.3'.max.5' 8'min dwelling min.3' separation 0'setback permitted«-/8'on _ other side 12 Exterior Side 15'to driveways 20% 20%aggregate 5' 3'&5' 20%of lot 10' including min.4' 6'40' min.6':max.8' frontage landscape lettered lot(6'btw min.6',max.8' bldg.and PL) 13 Rear(dAkelling) 15'to drii,eri ays 10'* 15' 7.5' 10' 15'w/50%at 13' 15';50%of building width 5' _ can be at 13' 14 (garage) 10' 10' S' n!a 0' 3' 5'garage«-/10' 0"if garage is designed to habitable back to another garage up to 25%allowed at 5'/5' 15 Garage Setback 5'for half the 20'-front entry: 18'-front entry; 5'-,kith alley 18'&20' 18' 18' units and 20'for 10'-side entn• 10%side entry access the other half 16 Minimum Interior Garage 18'x 19' 18'x 19' 18'x IT w/min. Min.400 sq.ft. Dimensions(W x D) __ _ 400 SF Min. 18'wide 17 Building separation 6' 18 Maximum Building Height 35' 35' 35' 35' 30' _ 30' 30' 19 Maximum Stories 3 3 2 3 2 2 2.3` stop•loft permitted <500 sq.ft.and 5/12 pitch 20 Accessory Structure Height � 15' 21 Max.Site Co-,erage 50% 50% 55% 50% 50% 50% 50%+5%for open air porches,patio co%ers. balconies.etc. 22 Max.Floor Area Ratio n/a 1.0 0.7 (FAR) *Zero 1 **Various other Provisions Apply <1994 Current HSSP RMH-A Greystone Meadowlark PC Approved Oct.26,1999 Issue HBOC(It1) HBZSO(RL) (RL-3) (Downtown) Landing PA-4 &Staff Recommendation 23 Private Open Space per Unit ** None None None n/a 400 SF/lot None 24 Common Open Space Area 2,500<4 ac. None 150 SF/lot<40' n/a 150 SF/lot,40' 150 SF per unit:total area per Project 10.000>4 ac. wide; 100SF/1ot frontage must be at least 3.000 SF with for lots 40'.ride 100 SF/lot,.40' a min.50'dimension. frontage Projects less than 20 units must pro-,ide a minimum 600 SF of open space(private& common)per unit. Private open space excludes side and front yard setback areas. If a portion is provided as common open space that area shall have a min.dim.of 10'. 25 Required Parking 26 Unit MFR Standards 2 open 2 per unit 2 spaces<3 MFR Standards 2 open+2 enclosed 2 open+2 encl(up to 4BR) +2 enclosed bdrms+ (up to 4 BR)3+3 3�3(5+BR) 1/bdrm>3 (5+BR) +20 tandem 27 On-Street .5 sp./unit .5 sp./unit 5 sp./unit Approx. 1/unit 1/unit on-street pkg. 28 Distribution of on-street Plan required spaces 29 Street(or Driveway)Widths 25' 60' 33' 32'w/pkg.on side 40'curb to curb Public w/PW approval 36'w/sprinklers(pkg.&s/w Private and red curb on on both sides) Emergency Access other side& (Based on vehicle trips/day; fire sprinklers check w/Fire&PW for reduced standards) 30 Sidewalk/Parkway Widths Option for min.6'L/S Public parkway;sidewalks to City Private stds. 31 Fencing/Walls Block wall req./wrought iron 32 Landscaping permitted where appropriate p g Tree wells on street side of curb encouraged,however, shall not encroach into min. 24'wide drive aisle. (g:carvalho/smal1lot/mtx00) 1/24/00 *Zero 2 **Various other Provisions Apply ATTACHMENT 5 1 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, OCTOBER 26, 1999 Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California STUDY SESSION—4:00 PM (Room B-8) PALMIGOLDENWEST SPECIFIC PLAN—Mary Beth Broeren PLANNING COMMISSION PROTOCAL—Fred Speaker, Chairperson AGENDA REVIEW—Herb Fauland REGULAR MEETING - 7:00 PM PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE P P P P P P P ROLL CALL: Laird, Kerins, Chapman, Speaker, Biddle, Livengood, Mandic AGENDA APPROVAL Anyone wishing to speak must fill out and submit a form to speak No action can be.taken by the Planning Commission on this date, unless the item is agendized. Any one wishing to speak on items not on tonight's agenda or on non-public hearing items may do so during ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. Speakers on items scheduled for PUBLIC HEARING will be invited to speak during the public hearing (4 MINUTES PER PERSON,NO DONATING OF TIME TO OTHERS) A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS NONE B. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS B-1 RECONSIDERATION OF ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT N6. 99-2 (SMALL LOT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS): APPLICANT: City of Huntington Beach LOCATION: Residential Medium Density(RM), Residential Medium-High Density PROJECT PLANNER: Wayne Carvalho Transmitted for Planning Commission reconsideration is Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-2, a request by the City of Huntington Beach to amend the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (ZSO)by establishing development standards for small lot residential subdivisions in multiple family residential districts(RM, RMH,and RH). On July 27, 1999,the Planning Commission approved the zoning text amendment. At their next meeting on August 10, 1999,the Planning Commission voted to reconsider their action,requesting that staff further analyze the proposed development standards. Since the reconsideration,the Planning Commission received a brief overview of the standards adopted for the Ladera Planned Community in Rancho Mission Viejo, and discussed the possibility of including a floor area ratio(FAR)provision in the draft ordinance. A brief analysis of the FAR standards is provided in this report. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the original ordinance as previously approved by the Planning Commission in July for the following reasons: • The proposed zoning text amendment provides the option for development of small lot subdivisions in multi-family residential districts citywide. • The proposed development standards will ensure that small lot subdivisions are architecturally designed to provide a healthy and aesthetically pleasing environment and remain compatible with existing surrounding residential uses. • The proposed zoning text amendment will not adversely impact the City's review and public hearing process. The proposed zoning text amendment is consistent with the goals and policies specified in the Land Use and Economic Development Elements of the General Plan. Alternative actions includes provisions for a floor area ratio (FAR)limitation or to continue the zoning text amendment and direct staff to further analyze the Ladera Plan. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Richard Harlow,211-B,Main Street, asked that if the request were approved it only be applied to future projects and not projects currently in process. Mr.Harlow also stated that the small lot development standards are a single family residential alternate to multi family dwelling units. He stated that the standards should not necessarily be required to meet the required dimensions for regular single family residential development standards. Mike Adams,PO Box 382, stated that the original intent of setting standards for small lot developments was to provide an alternative to multi family dwellings. He stated that some of the recommended standards actually discourage small lot development. He stated that the standards should be allowed to vary according to lot size. Bill Hezmalhauch, 17875 Von Karman,#404,Irvine, stated that the Commission should review the guidelines used for the Ladera Planned Community in Rancho Mission Viejo and consider incorporating them in the proposed small lot standards. Leonie..Herting, 8162 Kingfisher Drive, spoke in support of the proposed request, stated the standards should be applied to any development currently in process. PC Minutes- 10/26/99 2 (99PCM1026) THERE WERE NO OTHER PERSONS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE REQUEST AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. The Commission discussed amendments to include changing the maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR)to .7 and include the option for parkways or no parkways. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY BIDDLE, TO APPROVE ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 99-2 AS AMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITH FINDINGS AND FORWARD THE DRAFT ORDINANCE TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION,BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Laird, Chapman, Speaker,Biddle,Livengood,Mandic NOES: Kerins ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 99-2: 1. Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-2 to establish development standards for small lot single family residential subdivisions in RM, RMH and RH Districts citywide is consistent with the goals and policies contained in the City's General Plan. The amendment is consistent with the objectives,policies, general land uses and programs specified in the Land Use Element of the General Plan, including the requirement that development be designed to account for the unique characteristics of project sites and objectives for community character and assure that all small lot developments in multi-family districts be designed to be compatible with existing adjacent uses,regardless of density or zoning designation. Furthermore,the proposed code amendment will specify the approval process and development standards for small lot, detached single family residential projects and will require small lot subdivisions be of high quality and design with respect to building architecture and site layout, including parking, landscaping and open space. 2. In the case of a general land use provision, the change proposed is compatible with the uses authorized in, and the standards prescribed for,the zoning districts for which the small lot subdivisions would be permitted. The proposed amendment addresses the RM, RMH, and RH Districts citywide,permitting small lot subdivisions with the approval of a conditional use permit and tentative map. 3. A community need is demonstrated for the change proposed. The City Council and Planning Commission have recognized the need to offer a more viable option to developers of multi family residential properties without jeopardizing the character of existing multi family residential areas. The amendment will provide for housing types which are in demand in the present housing market, and allow for development of single family detached units. 4. Its adoption will be in conformity with public convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice. The amendment will permit the development of small lot, single family residential subdivisions, while protecting the general welfare of property owners and tenants within multi-family zoning districts. PC Minutes- 10/26/99 3 (99PCM1026) I ATTACHMENT City of Huntington Beach Planning Department STAFF REPORT XUMINLTON BEACH TO: Planning Commission FROM: Howard Zelefsky, Planning Director BY: Wayne Carvalho,Associate Planner U/C, DATE: October 26, 1999 SUBJECT: ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 99-2 (RECONSIDERATION) (Small Lot Development Standards) LOCATION: RM, RMH and RH Districts Citywide STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Transmitted for Planning Commission reconsideration is Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-2, a request by the City of Huntington Beach to amend the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (ZSO)by establishing development standards for small lot residential subdivisions in multiple family residential districts (RM, RMH, and RH). On July 27, 1999,the Planning Commission approved the zoning text amendment. At their next meeting on August 10, 1999, the Planning Commission voted to reconsider their action,requesting that staff fin ther analyze the proposed development standards. Since the reconsideration,the Planning Commission received a brief overview of the standards adopted for the Ladera Planned Community in Rancho Mission Viejo, and discussed the possibility of including a floor area ratio (FAR)provision in the draft ordinance. A brief analysis of the FAR standards is provided in this report. Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the original ordinance as previously approved by the Planning Commission in July for the following reasons: • The proposed zoning text amendment provides the option for development of small lot subdivisions in multi-family residential districts citywide. • The proposed development standards will ensure that small lot subdivisions are architecturally designed to provide a healthy and aesthetically pleasing environment and remain compatible with existing surrounding residential uses. • The proposed zoning text amendment will not adversely impact the City's review and public hearing process. • The proposed zoning text amendment is consistent with the goals and policies specified in the Land Use and Economic Development Elements of the General Plan. Alternative actions have been provided that includes provisions for a floor area ratio (FAR) limitation or to continue the zoning text amendment and direct staff to further analyze the Ladera Plan. RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: "Approve Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-2 as originally approved by the Planning Commission with findings (Attachment No. 1)and forward the Draft Ordinance to the City Council for adoption." ALTERNATIVE ACTION: 1. "Approve Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-2 with revisions to include a floor area ratio (FAR) limitation with findings and forward the Draft Ordinance to the City Council for adoption." 2. "Continue Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-2 and direct staff to further analyze the Ladera Plan." 3. "Deny Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-2 with findings for denial." ANALYSIS: Since the vote to reconsider,the Planning Commission held two study sessions to further discuss the draft ordinance. The primary issues raised were whether to incorporate a floor area ratio (FAR)provision into the ordinance, and modifying development standards that restrict creative site layout and architectural designs of small lot subdivisions. The following table, included for discussion purposes, describes the FAR restrictions adopted for the Ladera Planned Community located in Rancho Mission Viejo. Staff did not have sufficient time to analyze other aspects of the Ladera Plan. Lot Size(dimension) House Size * Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 2,800 sq. ft. (35' x 80') 1,350— 1,850 sq. ft. 0.48 - 0.66 3,000 sq. ft. (45' x 70') 1,500—2,100 sq. ft. 0.5 - 0.7 3,500 sq. ft. (46' x 80') 1,800—2,400 sq. ft. 0.51 - 0.69 4,000 sq. ft. (50' x 80') 2,100—2,800 sq. ft. 0.53 - 0.7 4,500 sq. ft. (52' x 87') 2,400—3,100 sq. ft. 0.53 - 0.69 5,000 sq. ft. (55' x 91') 2,700—3,400 sq. ft. 0.54 - 0.66 * excludes garage area Staff Report— 10/26/99 2 (99sr51) C The Ladera Plan standards limit the residential floor area(excluding garage) on a particular lot to approximately 70% of the total lot size, or a 0.7 floor area ratio (FAR). By restricting the floor area of the unit, concerns over building bulk and the overall massing of a project could be addressed. The Ladera Neighborhood Design Standards also require curb-separated sidewalks in each of the Village areas. The street section also mandates a 5-7 foot wide landscape parkway. However, the plan only requires sidewalks on one side of the street. The Planning Commission's previous action was consistent with the Ladera standards with the exception of the sidewalk requirement on one side of the street. The Planning Commission required a curb-separated sidewalk with a minimum six(6) foot wide landscape planter and sidewalks on both sides. The staff recommended standards without FAR would allow development compatible with projects developed under multi-family district standards for apartments or condominiums. Many of the multi-family development standards for attached projects, including density, parking, building height, and setbacks would result in more intense residential projects than if designing to the recommended small lot standards. This ordinance will offer developers the option to build single family detached units at similar densities as multi family attached projects, and will provide specific development standards for designing small lot subdivisions. SUMMARY: Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-2 based on the following reasons: The proposed zoning text amendment provides the option for development of small lot subdivisions in multi-family residential districts citywide. • The proposed development standards will ensure that small lot subdivisions are architecturally designed to provide a healthy and aesthetically pleasing environment and remain compatible with existing surrounding residential uses. • The proposed zoning text amendment will not adversely impact the City's review and public hearing process. • The proposed zoning text amendment is consistent with the goals and policies specified in the Land Use and Economic Development Elements of the General Plan. ATTACHMENTS: 2. 3. d ^C+U. 7Q[k 4. pan R ! --- +octAtl C4off Ra,...rt�n+acTltt�c ')'1 1 nan . 5. Matrix of development standards comparison dated September 14, 1999 6. Matrix of development standards presented by Commissioner Tom Livengood at the October 12, 1999 Planning Commission Study Session HF:WCkjl Staff Report— 10/26/99 3 (99sr51) I SMALL LOT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR DETACHED UNITS IN MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONES `. SEPTEMBER 14,1999—PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION <1994 Current HSSP RMH-A Greysione Meadowlark) PC(Majority) Staff Recommendation PC Approved Issue HBOC(RI) tfBZSO(RL) (RE-3) (Downtown) Landing PA4 Recommendation July 27,1999 I Density <6.5 u/gac <7.0 u/nac <13.2 u/nac 51—u/gac 11.6 u/nac 13.8 u/nac <14.5 u/nac 13.8 u/ac 12.8 u/ac 2 Minimum Lot Size(sq.fL) None for PRD 6,000 3,300 2,500 3,100 3,000 2,800 3,000 3,100 3 Minimum Average Lot Size n/a n/a n/a n/a. 3,300(info) n/a 3,400 avg. o/a 3,400 avg. 4 Minimum Lot Width 5 Interior Lot None for PRD 60' 30' 25' 43' 35' 30' 40' 40' 6 Cul-de-sac Lot None for PRD 40' 20' 25' n/a 30' 20' 30' 30' 20'flag lots 7 Minimum Setbacks 8 Front 15'to driveways 15' 15' 12' 15, 15' 15'+offsets in front fagade 12' 15'+offsets in fagade 9 Front Porches 10'to driveways 1 I' n/a 8' 10' 12' 10' 6' 10' (covered/open on 3 sides) 10 Upper Story •°' l0'above 2 n/a 10'above 2 Provided n/a 5'o set above I whoor 5'offset above I floor Varied upper story setback 11 Side 157 to driveways 10% 20%aggregate 3' 3'&5' 4' 20%aggregate;min.3'on 8'aggregate 8'aggregate 3'.5' min.3';max.5' 8'min dwelling one side&5'on other min.3' min.3' separation (min.8'between units); 0'setback lot permitted 0'setback permitted w/8' 0'setback permitted w/8' w/6'on other side on other side on other side 12 Exterior Side 15'to driveways 200/. 20%aggregate 5' 3'&5' 20°°-of lot 10'which includes min.4' 10'including min.4' 10 including min.4' 6'•10' min.6';m„g7c.8' _ frontage landscape area lettered lot(6'from PL) landscape lettered lot(6' min.6%max.8' btw bid"g.and PL) 13 Rear(dwelling) 15'to driveways to" 15' 7.5' 10' IS'w/50116at 13' IS';50%of building width 15';50%of building 15';50%oCbuilding S' can be at 13' width can be at IF width can be at 13' 14 (garage) 10, 10, S' n/a 0' garage may be zero 3' 3' 5'garage w/10' 0"if garage design as 0"if garage is designed to habitable back-to-back back to another garage up to 25%allowed at 5'/5' 15 Garage Setback 5'for half the 20'-front entry; I8'-front entry; S'with alley 18'&20' 18, 18'on side w 6'sidewalk; 18, 18 units and 20'for 10'-side entry 10'-side entry access 20'on side without. the other half 16 Minimum Intenor arage 18'x 19' I8 FIT l8 x 19'w/min. Min.400 sq.ft. 20'x 20' Min.400 sq.ft. �.( Dimensions(W x D) 400 SF Min.18'wide Min.18'wide 17 Building separation 6' 6' 18 Maximum Building Hei ht 35' 35' 35' 35' F30' 30' 30' 30' 30' 19 Maximum Stories 3 3 2 3 2 2 2 2;3 story loft permitted <500 sq.ft.and 5/12 pitch 20 Accessory tructure Height 15, 15' 2l Max.Sue Coverage SOYe 50% SS% 50% 50% 50%+5%for open air SO%+S%for open air 50%+5%for open air m porches,patio covers, porches,patio covers, porches,patio covers, balconies,etc. balconies,etc. balconies,etc. 22 Max.Floor Area Ratio(FAR) r✓a 1.0 23 1 Private Open Space per Unit I None None None n/a 400 SFAot 400 SF None None °Zap 1 Q **Condominium Project —Various other Provisions Apply (A 1 <1994 . Current HSSP RMH-A Creystone 111eadowlar� PC(Majority) Staff Recommendation PC Approved Issue HBOC•(RI) HBZSO(RL),' (RI-3) (Downtown) Landing PA4 Recommendation July 27,1"9 24 Common Open Space Area per 2,500<4 ac. None 150 SF/lot<40' n/a 150 Mot,40' 150 SF per unit;total area 150 SF per unit;total area 150 SF per unit;total area Project 10,000>4 ac. wide;IOOSF/lot frontage must be at least 3,000 SF must be at least 3,000 SF must be at least 3,000 SF for lots 40'wide 100 SF/tot,.40' with a min.dimension of with a min.dimension of with a min.50'dimension. frontage 50'x 50'. 50'x 50'. Projects less than 20 units Projects less than 20 units must provide a minimum Projects less than 20 units must provide a minimum 600 SF of open space-, must provide a minimum 600 SF of open space (private&common 600 SF of open space (private&common)per unit. Private open st,.-- (private&common)per unit. Private open space excludes side and front unit. Private open space excludes side and front yard setback areas. If a excludes side and front yard yard setback areas. If a portion is provided as setback areas. If a portion portion is provided as common open space that is provided as common common open space that area shall have a min.dim. open space that area shall area shall have a min.dim. of 10', have a min.dim.of 10'. of 10'. 25 Required Parking 26 Unit MFR Standards 2 open 2 per unit 2 spaces<3 MFR Standards 2 open+2 enclosed 2 open+2 encl.(up to 4 BR) 2 open+2 encl(up to 4BR) 2 open+2 encl(up to 4BR) +2 enclosed bdrms+ (up to 4 BR)3+3 3+3(5+BR) 3+3(5+BR) 3+3(5+BR) I/bdrrn>3 (5+BR) -� — +20 tandem 27 On-Street 5 sp unit .5 spJunit .5 spJunit Approx.1/unit .5/unit 1/unit on-street pkg. 1/unit on-street pkg. (Ping) 28 Distribution of on-streets ces Plan required Plan required 29 Street(or Driveway)Widths 25' 60' 33' 32'w/pkg.on side 38'ROW(32'curb to curb 40'curb to curb 40'curb to curb Public %v/PW approval +6'sidewalk on one side) 36'w/sprinklers(pkg.& 36'w/sprinklers(pkg.& Private and red curb on s1w on both sides) s/w on both sides) Emergency Access other side& (Based on vehicle trips/day; fire sprinklers Max.600'distance for check w/Fire&PW for emergency(FD) reduced standards) 30 Sidewalk/Parkway Widths 4'walk w/8-10'L/S or 6' in.6'IJS parkway Public walk behind curb Sidewalks to City rids. Private 31 FencinglWalls Block walls between units No req.on material Block wallreq./wrought iron permitted where appropriate 32 Landscaping CC&R's to restrict tree Tree wells on street side trimming(PTL) of curb encouraged, however,shall not encroach into min.24' m g:cary o mut wide drive aisle. :Zero 2 t Condominium Project ••+Various other Provisions Apply VI N SMALL LOT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR DETACHED UNITS IN MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONES PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION—OCTOBER 12,1999 PRESENTED BY COMMISSIONER LIVENGOOD :F.jCAPPRQVMP,:,3, ""�q NE I Lot Size 2,800 3,100;3,400 avg. 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000 6,000 2 Lot Dimension 35 x 90 40'wide;30'cut 45 x 70 46 x 80 50 x 80 52 x 87 55 x 91 60'width f— Size of House Plan(Sq.Ft.range) 1,350-1,650 1,500-1,900 1,800-2,200 2,100-2,500 2,400-2,800 2,100-3,100 16ptional sq.ft.Incicase/Decrease 100-200 100-200 100-200 100-300 200-300 200-400 5 Density 15.6 units/AC 12.8 units/AC 14.5 units/AC 12.4 units/AC 10.9 units/AC— 9.7 units/AC 8.7 units/AC 7.3 units/AC 6 Sitt"T'parkway adj.to curb— Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes [7 Sidewalk on one side Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes -Yes Yes 8 Front Setback 9 L! 10, 15, 10, 12',670/a to 10' 12',33%to 10' 12' 12' E! 1 15, 15,10 1v!i2.jg!(5'Mo!ry-y unit) 15',33%to 10' 15' 15',33%to 10' 15, 15' 15, 11 _Upper Story Varied 12 Porch 10, 10, 10, to, to, 12, 12, 1 13 _Garage Setback I 14 Front entry N/A 18' 17' — 17' 17' 18, 18, 20' 15 Side entry NIA N/A N/A N/A 10, 10, 10, 16 Side Setback 5. 8'aggregate,min.3' 5' 5' 5' 5' 5' 5' 0'w/8'on I side 77— Street Side Setback 10'incl.4'lJS lot 10, 18 Rear Setback 19 Living(I story unit) N/A 15';50%at 13' 12'(15'avg.) 15'(20'avg) 18'(20'avg.) 18'(20'avg.) 20'(25'avg.) 10, 20 Living(2 storyunit) N/A 15';50016 at 13' 15, 20' 20' 20' 25'min 10, 21 Garage(alley-loaded) 3' 3';0'backing 5' 5' 5' 5' 51 5' %Y/anothcr garage 22 Public Open Space(50) 2,800 7,500(150 sq.ft./unit, 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000 None min.3,000 sq.ft.) 23 Garage Configuration 24 Alley-loaded Yes Yes No No No No No No 25 Side entry No Yes No No No Yes Yes Yes 26 Split No Yes No Single car No Yes Yes Yes 27 Tandem No No No No Yes(3 car) Yes Yes No 28 Comer Lot Plot Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 29 Minimum Interior Garage Dimension 400 sE,min.18'wide 30 Maximum Building Height 30' 30';35 WCUP 31 Maximum Stories 2(3rd loft) 2;3 WCUP 500 sq.fL 5/12 pitch 32 Maximum Accessory Structure Height 15' 15' -'33— Maximum Site Coverage --do—vemedby setback +5%patio covers Governed by setback Governed by setback Governed by setback— Governed by setback Governed by—setback 5%for patio covers 34 Parking I on-street/unit -T Varies J�m 5——Street City Standard Varies Varies Varies Varies Varie-'! Varies —376— Landscape Parkway Width Varies 6' Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies 37— Limit of Bedrooms None None None None None None None, None G:\Kim\Vardoc\99\KI9966.doc M 0 � f - <Zzz '1 - 8 ft. landscape parkway J . 4 ft. sidewalk i 3,,000 s . ft. q 30 ft. frontage ATTACHMENT NO. •�•7 _ E t - - - . I 8 ft. landscape parkway ! Approx. 1 space per unit 4 ft.-sidewalk !. 3,rOOO sq. ft. _ 40 ft. frontage ATTACHMENT NO. �. 8 i r .i a LL m i in O = U&Si � x o CL �-- j a i � .I..r� — �ti 'mow. �M.M.✓w../!. L.MYMM.W. �.hM1•..frsHv,.rf'7.^�!s�._' v e4��� M+ II[R..14.�. 1 .. - —r._._r...... .._r...n.,._.. __........ ...................�. .....r.._....... .n,......._ .,.... .4. .....r ......-,,.....-�. . • . i ATTACHMENT 7 B-2 ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 99-2 (SMALL LOT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS): APPLICANT: City of Huntington Beach LOCATION: Residential Medium Density (RM),Residential Medium-High Density (RMH)and Residential High Density (RH)Districts Citywide. PROJECT PLANNER: Wayne Carvalho Transmitted for Planning Commission consideration and recommendation to the City Council is Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-2, a request by the City of Huntington Beach to amend the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (ZSO)by establishing development standards for small lot residential subdivisions in the RM,RMH, and RH Districts citywide. Similar standards currently exist elsewhere in the City including the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan, and Meadowlark Specific Plan. The new standards would allow developers the option to build detached single family residential projects on small lots in areas generally planned for multi-family attached projects. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-2 to the City Council f6r the following reasons: The proposed zoning text amendment provides the option for development of small lot subdivisions in multi-family residential districts citywide. • The proposed development standards will ensure that small lot subdivisions are architecturally designed to provide a healthy and aesthetically pleasing environment and remain compatible with existing surrounding residential uses. • The proposed zoning text amendment will not adversely impact the City's review and public hearing process. • The proposed zoning text amendment is consistent with the goals and policies specified in the Land Use and Economic Development Elements of the General Plan. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Richard Harlow,211-B, Main Street,stated that his concerns are outlined in thL-matrix in Attachment No. 6.1 of the Staff Report. The Attachment is a letter from Hunsaker and Associates dated received July 21, 1999. r PC Minutes—7/27/99 14 (99PCM727) 3 Bijan Sassounian, 6782 Presidente Drive,requested that the Commission separate the requirements for small lot subdivisions and one(1) lot condominium maps and act only on the requirements for small lot subdivisions on this date. Bill Hexmalhalch, 17875 Von Karman, Irvine, architect,presented a slide show to the Commission highlighting the architecture and neighborhood designs of existing small lot developments. He stated that the current design guidelines in the ordinance may be too strict to incorporate different and good architecture. THERE NO OTHER PERSONS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE REQUEST AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. The following modifications were made to the Draft Ordinance by the Planning Commission (majority vote): Issue Modification Minimum Building Site or 3,100 sq. ft. (3,400 sq. ft. avg.) Lot Size Minimum Lot Frontage 40 ft. Cul de sac and knuckle 30 ft. Maximum Height Dwellings 30 ft.; max. 2 stories 3`d level<500 sq. ft. permitted Min. 5/12 roof pitch No decks above the second story Accessory Structures 15 ft. Minimum Setbacks Front Dwelling 15 ft. +offsets in front fa ade Covered Porches 10 ft. unenclosed Garage 18 ft. w/6 ft. sidewalk 20 ft. without sidewalk Upper Story Upper story setback shall be varied Side 8 ft. aggregate, min. 3 ft. 0 ft. permitted with min. 8 ft. on other side Street Side 10 ft.; includes min. 4 ft. landscape lettered lot 6 ft. between bldg. and prop. line Rear Dwelling 15 ft.; 50% of bldg. width may be at 13 ft. Garage 3 ft.; 0 ft. if garage is designed to back to another garage Maximum Lot Coverage 50%+ 5%for covered porches,patio covers,balconies. I PC Minutes—7/27/99 15 (99PCM727) Issue Modification Minimum Interior Garage Min. 400 sq. ft.; Dimension(width x min. 18 ft.wide depth) Minimum Building 6 Separation to Accessory Building Open Space Private unit None Common(project) Projects of 20 units or more: 150 sq. ft./unit; min. 5,000 sq. ft.; min. 50 ft. dimension. Projects less than 20 units: Min. 600 sq. ft. private and/or common per unit. Private open space excludes side and front yard setback areas. Common open s ace requires min. 10 ft. dimension. Required Parking Small lot developments shall provide parking.consistent with single family residential developments specified in Chapter 231. Plus min. 1 on-street space per unit for guest/visitor parking A parking plan depicting the location of all parking spaces shall be submitted with the conditional usepen-nit application. Street Sections Streets The city shall review proposed street sections upon submittal of the tentative map and conditional use permit applications. Min. 36 ft. curb to curb may be permitted provided all units in the development are equipped with automatic sprinkler systems—On-street parking shall be provided on both sides of the street. Sidewalks/Parkways Sidewalks shall be provided on both sides of the street Min. 6 ft. landscape parkway shall be provided on both sides of the street. Sidewalk widths shall be designed to Public Works Standards. Walls and Fences Block walls required; may allow wrought iron element where a ro riate Landscaping Tree wells adjacent to landscape parkways on the street side of curb is encouraged,however shall not encroach into the min. 24 foot wide drive aisle. Also see Chapter 232 Landscaping r PC Minutes-7/27/99 16 (99PCM727) A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY MANDIC,TO APPROVE ( ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 99-2 AS AMENDED WITH FINDINGS AND FORWARD THE DRAFT ORDINANCE TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Laird,Kerins, Chapman,Biddle,Livengood,Mandie NOES: Speaker ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 99-2: 1. Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-2 to establish development standards for small lot single family residential subdivisions in RM,RMH and RH Districts citywide is consistent with the goals and policies contained in the City's General Plan. The amendment is consistent with the objectives,policies, general land uses and programs specified in the Land Use Element of the General Plan, including the requirement that development be designed to account for the unique characteristics of project sites and objectives for community character and assure that all small lot developments in multi-family districts be designed to be compatible with existing adjacent uses,regardless of density or zoning designation. Furthermore,the -- proposed code amendment will specify the approval process and development standards for small lot, detached single family residential projects and will require small lot subdivisions be of high quality and design with respect to building architecture and site layout, including parking, landscaping and open space. 2. In the case of a general land use provision,the change proposed is compatible with the uses authorized in, and the standards prescribed for,the zoning districts for which the small lot subdivisions would be permitted. The proposed amendment addresses the RM, RMH, and RH Districts citywide,permitting small lot subdivisions with the approval of a conditional use permit and tentative map. 3. A community need is demonstrated for the change proposed. The City Council and Planning Commission have recognized the need to offer a more viable option to developers of multi family residential properties without jeopardizing the character of existing multi family residential areas. The amendment will provide for housing types which are in demand in the present housing market, and allow for development of single family detached units. 4. Its adoption will be in conformity with public convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice. The amendment will permit the development of small lot, single family residential subdivisions, while protecting the general welfare of property owners and tenants within multi-family zoning districts. PC Minutes—7/27/99 17 (99PCM727) ATTACHMENT 8 I City of Huntington Beach Planning Department STAFF REPORT XUMINGTON BEACH TO: Planning Commission FROM: Howard Zelefsky, Planning Director BY: Wayne Carvalho, Associate Planner aV_1 DATE: July 27, 1999 SUBJECT: ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 99-2 (Small Lot Development Standards) LOCATION: RM, RMH and RH Districts Citywide STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Transmitted for Planning Commission consideration and recommendation to the City Council is Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-2, a request by the City of Huntington Beach to amend the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance(ZSO)by establishing development standards for small lot residential subdivisions in the RM, RMH, and RH Districts citywide. Similar standards currently exist elsewhere in the City including the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan, and Meadowlark Specific Plan. The new standards would allow developers the option to build detached single family residential projects on small lots in areas generally planned for multi-family attached projects. The Legislative Draft Ordinance(Attachment Nos. 2 and 3)reflects discussion at several Planning Commission study sessions held over the last year. Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-2 to the City Council for the following reasons: • The proposed zoning text amendment provides the option for development of small lot subdivisions in multi-family residential districts citywide. • The proposed development standards will ensure that small lot subdivisions are architecturally designed to provide a healthy and aesthetically pleasing environment and remain compatible with existing surrounding residential uses. • The proposed zoning text amendment will not adversely impact the City's review and public hearing process. • The proposed zoning text amendment is consistent with the goals and policies specified in the Land Use and Economic Development Elements of the General Plan. RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: "Recommend approval of Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-2 as recommended by staff with findings (Attachment No. 1) and forward the Draft Ordinance to the City Council for adoption." r ALTERNATIVE ACTION• "Continue Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-2 and direct staff accordingly." PROJECT PROPOSAL: Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-2 is a request to amend Section 210.04 RL, RM,RMH, RH, and RMP Districts: Land Use Controls and add Section 230.24 Small Lot Development Standards to the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (ZSO),to establish development standards for small lot subdivisions in Medium Density Residential (RM),Medium High Residential (RMH), and High Density Residential (RH)Districts citywide. Currently, the ZSO addresses this type of development in the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan and the recently adopted Meadowlark Specific Plan. Existing projects developed to.comparable standards include St. Augustine (southeast corner of Garfield and Seapoint), and Pacific Landing (bounded by Main St., Huntington St. and Garfield Ave.). The proposed amendment which was initiated at the Planning Commission's direction,would create similar standards for multi-family zones throughout the city, and would offer developers an option to build single family detached units instead of the customary attached apartments, condominiums, or townhomes. The standards would apply to any detached single family dwelling project in RM, RMH, and RH Districts, regardless of whether the subdivision was designed as one unit per lot, or multiple units per lot which is typical in condominium and townhome subdivisions. Planning Commission Review: The Planning Commission held several study sessions dating back to the spring of 1998, which included field visits to several small lot residential projects built over the past few years. The Commission has reviewed the draft ordinance and directed staff to return with the final legislative draft ordinance. ISSUES: General Plan Conformance: The proposed zoning text amendment is consistent with the goals and objectives of the City's General Plan and Land Use Element designations of Residential Medium Density,Medium High Density and High Density throughout the city. In addition,the amendment is consistent with the following goals and policies: LU 1.1.1 Establish incentives for the development of uses to support the needs and reflect the economic demands of City residents and visitors. LU 4.1 Promote the development of residential buildings and sites that convey a high quality visual image and character. Staff Report—7/27/99 2 (99sr33) C_ C_ LU 4.2.4 Require that all development be designed to provide adequate space for access, parking, supporting functions, open space, and other pertinent elements. LU 9.2.1 Require that all new residential development within existing residential neighborhoods (i.e. infill)be compatible with existing structures. LU 9.3 Provide for the development of new residential subdivisions and projects that incorporate a diversity of uses and are configured to establish a distinct sense of neighborhood identity. The proposed amendment conforms with the General Plan by assuring that all small lot developments in multi-family districts will be designed to be compatible with existing adjacent uses,regardless of density or zoning designation. In addition,the proposed development standards will require small lot subdivisions be of high quality and design with respect to building architecture and site layout, including parking, landscaping and open space. Furthermore,the amendment will allow for housing types which are in demand in the present housing market, and provide developers standards by which to build single family detached units instead of multi-family attached units in multi-family zones. Environmental Status: The proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 4501, Class 20, which supplements the California Environmental Quality Act. Coastal Status: An amendment to the City's Local Coastal Program(LCP)implementing ordinances will be filed with the California Coastal Commission to incorporate the changes of this zoning text amendment following final action by the City Council. The proposed zoning text amendment will not take effect on properties in the Coastal Zone until approved by the California Coastal Commission. Redevelopment Status: Not applicable. Design Review Board: Not applicable. Subdivision Committee: Not applicable. Other Departments Concerns: Representatives from the Departments of Public Works,Fire,Police,Economic Development, Building and Community Services have all reviewed the proposed standards and support the proposed-amendment. I Staff Report—7/27/99 3 (99sr33) Public Notification: Legal notice was published in the Huntington Beach/Fountain Valley Independent on July 15, 1999, and notices were sent to interested parties, including members of the City Development Services and Development Community Quarterly meeting. ANALYSIS• As part of the City's commitment to provide development services and a physical environment which responds to the community's needs in a fiscally responsive manner,the City has proposed an amendment to the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance to address small lot subdivisions. This particular zoning text amendment is being processed at the Planning Commission's direction after receiving a number of proposals for small lot developments over the past few years. These development standards are proposed in order to provide the necessary information and direction for this type of development. The Legislative Draft(Attachment No. 2 & 3)reflects the Planning Commission(Majority) recommendation. Staff recommends further changes be made to the original Planning Commission(Majority)recommendation. These changes are listed in the third column of Attachment No. 3 and are also noted below: Planning Commission (Majority)Recommendation' Staff Recommendation Minimum Lot Frontage ft. 30 40 Cul de sac and knuckle 20 30 Minimum Setbacks ft. Front Dwellin 15+offsets in front fa ade 12 Covered Porches 10 6 unenclosed Garage 18 w/6 ft.sidewalk 18 20 without sidewalk Side 20%aggregate;min.3 8 aggregate,min.3 min.8 ft.between units 0 permitted with min.6 on other side 0 permitted with min.8 on other side Rear Garage 0 3;0 if garage is designed to back to another g e Minimum Interior Garage Min.400 sq.ft.; 20 ft.x 20 ft. Dimension width x depth) min. 18 ft.wide Minimum Building Building separation not previously 6 Separation ft. discussed O en Space Private(unit) 400 s .ft. None Common(project) Amenities not previously discussed For projects with 20 units or more,at least one of the following amenities shall be provided: swimming pool, basketball court,tennis court,putting green,volleyball court,playground ' equipment,or covered outdoor cooking facility. Staff Report—7/27/99 4 (99sr33) Planning Commission (Majority)Recommendation Staff Recommendation Required Parking In addition,on-street parking shall be On-street parking provided at min. 1 provided at a minimum of/z space per space per unit unit. Parking plan not previously discussed A parking plan depicting the location of all parking spaces shall be submitted with the conditional use permit application. Street Sections Streets The city shall review proposed street sections upon submittal of the tentative map and conditional use permit applications. Min.38 ft.right-of-way Minimum curb to curb dimension shall (32 ft.curb to curb with 6 ft.sidewalk be 40 ft. A reduced curb to curb on one side) dimension of 36 ft.may be considered provided all units in the development are equipped with automatic sprinkler systems. Sidewalks/Parkways Sidewalk requirements and parkway Sidewalks shall be provided on both widths not previously discussed. sides of the street 12 ft.parkway consisting of 8 ft.of landscaping adjacent to curb,and a 4 ft. sidewalk designed either along property line or eandering through parkway. Walls and Fences Block walls required No re uirement on materials Landscaping Landscaping not previously discussed CC&R's to restrict tree removal Staff recommendations have resulted after the review and approval of other small lot developments in the City, including projects that have either been approved or constructed in the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan,Meadowlark Specific Plan, and other multi-family districts in the City. Since several small lot projects have been occupied for years, staff has had the opportunity to review the criteria used for these projects,receive feedback from property owners who reside in these projects, and forward appropriate recommendations on the small lot ordinance. The recommended standards would allow development compatible with projects developed under multi-family district standards for apartments or condominiums. In fact,many of the multi-family standards including density,parking,building height, and setbacks would result in a more intense residential project than if designing to the recommended small lot standards. This ordinance will merely serve as a guide for developers who decide to build single family detached units instead of multi-family attached units. Staff Report—7/27/99 5 (99sr33) SUMMARY: Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-2 based on the following reasons: • The proposed zoning text amendment provides the option for development of small lot subdivisions in multi-family residential districts citywide. • The proposed development standards will ensure that small lot subdivisions are architecturally designed to provide a healthy and aesthetically pleasing environment and remain compatible with existing surrounding residential uses. The proposed zoning text amendment will not adversely impact the City's review and public hearing process. • The proposed zoning text amendment is consistent with the goals and policies specified in the Land Use and Economic Development Elements of the General Plan. ATTACHMENTS: 1. 2. — o e 3 T anie��tiyP T1r�fF n ')In 7A -V+U. Ten-- 4. , 5. N—Ahi its i 6. Letter dated received July 21, 1999 from Fred Graylee of Hunsaker and Associates SH:WC:kjl Staff Report—7/27/99 6 (99sr33) HUNSAKER &ASSOCIATES I R V 1 N E, 1 N C. D_ > >99 PLANNING ,.`Tv^� ENGINEERING July 20, 1999 1: I•.J SURVEYING GOVERNMENT RELATIONS Honorable Planning Commission IRVINE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH LFSVEGAS 2000 Main Street RIVERSIDE Huntington Beach, CA 92648 SAN DIEGO Subject: Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-2 (Small lot Development Standards) Dear Commissioners: On' behalf of our client, D&D Development, Hunsaker & Associates Irvine.lnc., is offering the following information as suggestions-to the Small. Development Standards. For.your-convenience, we:"have provided these:--suggestions-in-a matrix form attached, which. .-correspond to._ the.--:Planning Commission _(majority) recommendations. We will be attending 'the ]u�iy 27, 1999 Planning Commission-hearing and would like to answer any questions or comments you may have. Your time and consideration to our suggestions is greatly appreciated. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact. me at (949) 458- 5486,or our agent Dick Harlow, at(714) 960-2147. Sincerely, HUNSAKER &ASSOCIATES IRVINE, Inc. r Fred Graylee, PE Vice President, Project Management . RICHARD HUNSAKER FG:tl TOM R.McGANNON Xc: Dick Harlow JOHN A.MICHLER Bruce Dohrman, D&D Development DOUGLAS G.SNYDER Rick Julian, Advance Real Estate Services, Inc. Bill Patterson, Hunsaker& Associates Irvine, Inc. W.O. 501-6 Three Hughes 0\60501.6 1_3-fg.doc) -Irvine,Callromia 92618-2021 (949)583-1010 PH (949)583.0759 F X www.hunsakercom ATTACHMENT NO. 4. 10 D C D DEVELOPMENT RECOMNC .DED • Small Lot Development Standards W.O. 501-6 July 20, 1999 I -PI irig� Commisslan w� D&D Development' xx ; (Malon )Recommendations, ; s tRecommendattons`� > Minimum Building Site 2,800 sq.ft. (3,400 sq.ft. average). Agree. Minimum Lot Frontage(ft.) 30. Agree. Cul-de-sac and Knuckle 20. Agree. Maximum Height(ft.) Dwellings 30; maximum two stories. 30' height agree. However, request attic area to be included as habitable area (see exhibit). Accessory Structures 15. Agree. Minimum Setbacks(ft.) Front Dwelling 15 plus offsets in front fagade. Agree. Garage 18 with 6 ft. sidewalk. Agree with 18 (in regards to sidewalks, 20 without sidewalk. see comments under streets). Covered Porches(unenclosed) 10. Agree. Side 20%aggregate; minimum 3 ft.Mini- Agree. mum 8 ft.between units.0 permitted with minimum 6 ft.on other side. Street Side 10; Includes minimum 4 ft. Agree. landscape lettered lot(6 ft. between building and property line). Rear Dwelling 15; 50%of building width may be at Agree. 13. Garage 3;0 if garage is designed to back to Agree. another garage. BP:tj (A6woWS01-6 132-bp.doc) DA D&D Development W.O.501-6 Small Lot Development Standards Hunsaker&Associates Irvine, Inc. ADVANCED REAL ESTATE ATTACHMENT NO. 4• 11 , : D((y 3 DEVELOPMENT RECOMMC_ 'DED Small Lot Development Standards W.O. 501-6 July 20, 1999 P(anntng tom,.,_�sslon ;� D&D Development ' �z4'4�°�si= 4.�`� a' r� "'�5. a x �..� .c'�`.•P y ;q (Majority}Recommendations _ Recommendations Y Upper Story 5 ft. setback from first floor of We disagree with a uniform setback building wall. requirement.The front yard setback requires offsets in the front fagade.This requirement should adequately address the need to provide variations in the buildings front fa4ade.This can be done on a project by project basis subject to Design Review Board approval and the CUP process.We feel that the 5 ft. setback for upper story discourages architectural originality such as cantilevers, balconies,and recesses. Maximum Lot Coverage% 50+5 %for covered porches, patio Agree. covers, balconies. Minimum Interior Garage Minimum 400 sq. ft.; Agree. Dimension (width x depth) Minimum 18 ft.wide. Minimum Building Separation (Ft.) 6 Agree. Open Space Private(Unit) 400 sq.ft. We agree with 400 sq.ft. However, smaller dimensions have been proven successful on other small lot develop- ments. Common (Project) Projects of 20 units or more: We agree. However,a smaller mini- mum sq.ft./unit;minimum 3,000 sq. mum dimension could also work.The ft;minimum 50 ft.dimensions. primary consideration is the quality of the space. Projects less than 20 units: Minimum 600 sq. ft. private and/or common per unit. Private open space excludes side and front yard setback areas.Common open space requires minimum 10 ft.dimensions. Required Parking On-street parking provided at Agree. minimum 1/2 space per unit. BP:tj(Ac\wo\0501-6 D2-bp.doc) D-2 D&D Development W.O.501-6 Small Lot Development Standards Hunsaker&Associates Irvine,Inc. ADVANCED REAL ESTATE ATTACHMIENT NO. 12 Dr ) DEVELOPMENT RECOMMC DED • Small Lot Development Standards W.O. 501-6 July 20, 1999 Plann x x` ing Commission D&D DeveCopr `Y u (Ma oat RecommendatIons ecommendafions-- ,�� Street Sections Streets The City shall review proposed street We recommend a minimum curb-to- sections upon submittal of the curb dimension of 38 ft.A reduced tentative map and conditional use curb-to-curb dimension of 36 ft. may be permit applications. considered if all residences are Minimum 38 ft. right-of-way(32 ft. equipped with automatic sprinkler curb-to-curb with 6 ft. sidewalk on system. one side). Sidewalks/Parkways Sidewalks shall be provided on both We recommend that a 6 ft.sidewalk be sides of the street. provided on the side of the street where 8 ft. landscape parkways adjacent to utilities are located, and a 4 ft.sidewalk the curb. on the opposite side. 4 ft.sidewalk may be designed along property line. Walls and Fences Block walls required. Agree. Landscaping CC& R's to restrict tree removal. Agree. BP:tj(f\c\wo\0501-6 D2-bp.doc) D-3 D&D Development W.O.S01-6 Small Lot Development Standards Hunsaker&Associates Irvine,Inc. ADVANCED REAL ESTATE _ATTACHMi-NT No. 4,33 WRM 4 IND FLOOR zsr FLUOR ; I T.O.CUM • Q N William Hezmalhalch Architects, Inc. Arditecure & ftrkg • Mn van X"wm SuA 4U.h**.CWw&YWK 64%2SO-OW FAX 54%250,-ED A"Ouba Rd.Salts Df rAUWAO%CWOM "US 629 K}-VW FAX OU 4WVn fA ATTACHMENT NO. 17 RCA ROUTING SHEET INITIATING DEPARTMENT: _ Planning SUBJECT: Small of Ordinance COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 22, 2000 RCA ATTACHMENTS STATUS Ordinance (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Attached Resolution (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable Tract Map, Location Map and/or other Exhibits Attached Contract/Agreement (w/exhibits if applicable) (Signed in full by the City Attorney) Not Applicable Subleases, Third Party Agreements, etc. (Approved as to form by City Attomey) Not Applicable Certificates of Insurance (Approved by the City Attorney) Not Applicable Financial Impact Statement (Unbudget, over $5,000) Not Applicable Bonds (If applicable) Not Applicable Staff Report (If applicable) Attached Commission, Board or Committee Report (If applicable) Attached Findings/Conditions for Approval and/or Denial Attached EXPLANATION FOR MISSING ATTACHMENTS REVIEWED RETURNED FORWARDED Administrative Staff )- -X (- -) ( 0< ) Assistant City Administrator (Initial) ( ) ( ) City Administrator (Initial) ( ) ( ) City Clerk ( ) EXPLANATION FOR RETURN OF ITEM: (Below Space For City Clerk's Use Only) RCA Author: HZ:SH:WC:kjl PROOF OF P U B Ll CATI O N Special Permits to allow Connie Brockway C17 NOTICE OF the 2hd floor balcony of Clerk, City of flu PUBLIC HEARING all four(4)buildings at a Ington Beach, 2000 BEFORE THE setback of two(2)feet in Main Street,2nd Floor, CITY COUNCIL lieu of the five (5) feet Huntington Beach, STATE OF CALIFORNIA) OF THE CITY OF build-to-line required Caurornfa 92648 HUNTINGTON along Main Street and to 11411 714 536-5227 S S allow a seven m feet Pu�lished Huntington BEACH build-to-tine in lieu of the 1 Beach-Fountain Valley NOTICE IS HEREBY .required five(5)feet for Independent February GIVEN that on Tuesday, the 1st and 2nd stories 10,2000 County o f Orange ) February 22, 2000, at of all four (4) buildings _ 022-102 7:00 PM in the Gty along Main Street (staff Council Chambers, recommendation).Loca- 2000 Main Street,Hunt- Zion:117,119,121,and I am a Citizen of the United States and a ington Beach, the City 123 Main Street (west Council will hold a public side between PCH and hearing on the following Walnut Ave.) Project resident of the County aforesaid; I am item: Planner.Rift Ramos 1. ZONING TEXT NOTICE-IS HEREBY over the age of eighteen years, and not a AMENDMENT NO.99-2 GIVEN that item #1 Is (SMALL LOT RESIDEW party to or interested In the below TIAL DEVELOPMENT categorca y exempt entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of ORDINANCE):HuntAppington from the provisions off cant: City of Huntington the C a l i f o r n i a P P Beach Request: To Environmental Quality amend the Huntington Ad. the HUNTINGTON BEACH INDEPENDENT, a Beach Zoning and NOTICE IS HEREBY Subdivision Ordinance GIVEN that item #2 is newspaper of gL-neral circulation, printed by establishing develop covered byEnvironmen ment standards for small tal Impact Report No. and published in the City of Huntington lot residential 89-6. subdivisions in Medium, NOTICE IS HEREBY Beach, County of Orange, State Of Medium-High, and Hljlh GIVEN that item#2isio Densiti,Resldentiel Cis ceted in the non-ap- California and that attached Notice is a trios r�ty�na Local-cm.Dis: p�leblo jurisdiction of RM, R Hand RH Dis- tru e and complete copy as was printed trios Citywide. Project tiro Coastal Zone and in- California, Planner, Wayne clods Coastal Develop, Carvalho ment Permit No. 98-12, and published in the Huntington Beach 2.APPEAL OF PLAN- .filed n May8, 1998,e NING COMMISSION conjunction with the APPROVAL OF CONDI- above request. The and Fountain Valle issues of said coastal Development Y TIONAL USE PERMIT Permit hearing consists newspa news er to wit the issue(s) of: NO. 98-37/COASTAL of a"staff report, public aper DEVELOPMENT PER- .hearing, City Council MIT NO. 98-12/SPE- discussion and action. CIAL PERMIT NO.99-1/ Item #2 is not ap- SPECIAL PERMIT NO. pealable to the Califor- 99-2 (117, 119, 121, nfa Coastal Com- A N D 123 MAIN mission STREET C O M- ON FILE:a copy of the February 1 2000 MERCIAL): Appellant: proposed request is on Councilman Dave file in the Planning De- Sullivan Applicant: Jeff partment, 2000 Main Bergsma,Public hearing Street, Huntington on an a� a filed by Beach,California 92648, Sullivanc i man Dave for Inspection by the Slia of the Planning public. A copy of the Commission's approval staff report will be avail- I declare, under penalty of perjury, that of the following: Re- able to interested parties quest: Conditional Use at City Hall or the Mom the foregoing is true and correct. Permit and Coastal De- velopment Permit to al. TatbyertLlA enbrarue)(7after low the following: 117 February 17,2000. Main Street: 1) Exterior ALL INTERESTED and interior remodel of PERSONS are invited to the 1st and 2nd floor,2), attend said hearingand Execute o n February 10 2 0 Establish a restaurant/ express opinions or banquet facility with submit evidence for or at Costa Mesa, California. outdoor patio dining and against the application alcohol service on the as outlined above.If you 2nd floor. 119 Main challenge the City Coun- Street: 1) Exterior and .cil's Action in court,you interior remodel of the `may be limited to raising 1st floor,2)Construct a only those issues you or new 2nd floor for retail or someone else raised at office use; 3)Abandon- the public hearing de- ment of three(3)feet of scribed in this notice,or alley on the west side. :in written c o r- 121 Main Street: 1) Ex. respondence delivered tenor and interior re- to the City at,or prior to, model of the 1 st floor,2) the public hearing. If Signature Construct a new 2nd. e any further floor for office use. 123 there Are lease call the Main Street:1)Demolish Planning Department at the existing building and 536-5271 and refer to construct a new two- the above item. Direct story building with retail ou fice on the 2nd floor. r written communice- on the 1st floor and of- lions to the City Clerk. -ockway, City Clerk luntington Beach s F�-� )f the City Clerk /�t D. Box 190 i 5 i Beach, CA 92 H N1 TT E R 5 j D Woodw Greys e mes 7 Upper :port Plaza Ne Be CA 92660 D G 7 0 Woodw Gres e mes pper :port Plaz,. COMA Newp Bea CA 9, 9)d 77 u Rik.' TY LEGAL NOTICE- PUBL HEARM� S14 6 S C3 )ckway, City Clerk intington Beach f the City Clerk I. Box 190 v Beach, CA 92648 11� 0 Rick Wood Greystone Homes 7 Upper Newport Plaza Newport Beach, CA 92660 49 VTV U L GAL-NOTIC-4' PUBLIC HEARING I il ll I 1 l 1SS166 S "t-V1 Sc3 HIIIIfl111111iti idi illII MlilliIIIIII11ilit III111i :773 Dckway, City Clerk unfinglon Beach if the City Clerk Box 190 Beach, CA 92648 N. C. Bart DeBoe 7285Xiurdy Circle H gton Beach, Ca 92648 3NG R E7T:TUAR N T T ��q— R N "X19 TO SEfImE TO VTY LEGAL NOTIftFT 8UCI1EARING is If I fit H 1 3ckway, City Clerk X untington Beach 31 C'A v )f the City Clerk I Box 190 i Beach, CA 92648 H ;G �cj ER 65- -V rj?/ij/00 Louie Hernandez Louie Group 10312 Harding Lane ,IING Huntington Beach, CA 92646 HERN312 926461013 1199 08 02116100 FORWARD TIME EXP RTN TO SEND HERNANDEZ 19092 NC CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-6703 FN I LEGAL NOTICE- PUBLIC HEARING