Redondo Beach
Objective Residential
Standards
Planning Commission and
Public Meeting #2 March 29, 2023
Agenda
1. Goals for Tonight
2. ORS Overview & Process
3. Summary of Key Changes
4. Topics Needing
Commission Direction
5. Discussion
2 Goals for Tonight
• Share key changes from current design
guidelines
• Hear from community
• Obtain Planning Commission direction on key
topics
Draft Public Document Link:
https://www.redondo.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=41748 3 Comments Accepted Through Monday, April 3rd at 12 p.m.:
[email protected]
Overall Goal for ORS
To streamline the residential application process
and achieve compatible development through
objective building and landscaping standards
Proposed to be achieved by…
• Replacing the 2003 Residential Design Guidelines
• Adding Standards for R1A Zone
• Supplementing Existing Zoning Ordinance Requirements
• Clarifying Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Ordinance
4 Process to Date
5 • December 2021 Focus Group #1, Planning Commission
• January 2022 Community Meeting & Public Survey
• Early-Mid 2022 Develop ORS 1st Draft
• Fall 2022 ongoing Planning Commission Subcommittee Input • January 2023 ORS Public Draft, FAQs available
• Feb-March 2023 Input on public draft
• March 15, 2023 Design/Development Focus Group #2
• March 29, 2023 Planning Commission & Community Mtg
E-blasts for tonight’s meeting reached 4,648 subscribers by Instagram, Facebook, City’s main webpage and News feed
Next Steps
6 • April 2023 Planning Commission Subcommittee
• April-May 2023 Revise ORS Document
• May 2023 Planning Commission
• May-June 2023 Staff Prepares Zoning Amendments
• July 2023 City Council
• August 2023 City Council / Public Hearing: Zoning
Amendments, Adopting ORS
Note: Schedule is driven by SB2 Grant
7 Top ten topics considered important “to promote well-designed residential buildings that positively affect neighborhood character”
1. Maximum height and stories
2. Parking
3. Setbacks from property line
4. Massing
5. Lot design
6. ADUs
7. Outdoor living spaces
8. Driveways and curb cuts
9. Landscaping (front yards)
10. Fencing height or privacy screening
Respondents were asked to
select up to 6 of 21
suggested topics. Topics 1-5
each received more than
35% of all selections made.
Topics 6-10 each received
at least 20% of all
selections made.
Community Survey Results – Design Topics
8 “Other Topics” considered important that respondents wrote in pertained to (in order of prevalence):
1. Density & Height
2. Style & Neighborhood Compatibility
3. Parking
4. Setbacks & Privacy
5. ADUs
6. Outdoors (landscape, yard, lighting, porches)
7. Sustainability / Environment
8. Garages
9. View Protection
10. Balconies & Roof Decks
Community Survey Results – Design Topics
9 • Existing guidelines enforced as standards are now converted to requirements (“shall” not “should”)
Many clarify the requirement, not change it
• Existing guidelines that are confusing: Proposed changes clarify requirement based on preferred interpretation expressed by staff and/or community
• Where community has indicated development needs more
restriction (or conversely, that standard unduly restricts desired features) substantive changes were proposed
Note: This presentation highlights substantive changes and describes the proposed standards only
Summary of Key Changes
Single-Family Districts R1 and R1A
10 R1 (Page 5)
R1A (Page 19) Maximum Height
Pitched roofs: Clarifies height is to top of ridge
Flat roofs: Clarifies that parapets or any rooftop structures must be within the 30 ft
Single-Family Districts R1 and R1A
11 Side and Rear 2nd Story Stepbacks
R1 Side: Additional 2 ft average stepback from each side property line (PL) for the length of the 2nd story on the same half of the property width for that side (not applicable to parcels <40’ wide) Rear: 50% of rear elevation shall be 30 ft average from rear PL, so no point of 2nd story shall be <25 ft from rear PL
R1A Rear: 25 ft average from rear PL, provided no point of 2nd story shall be <20 ft from rear PL
R1 (Page 6)
R1A (Page 20)
Single-Family Districts R1 and R1A
12 Roof Decks, Front Porches
R1 Roof decks shall be set back 10 ft min
from building edge (measured from 1st
floor bldg edge). Covered porches
(unenclosed) shall be allowed to project
up to 6 ft into front yard area and
excluded from FAR; front entry or front of
covered porch shall be within 3’6” of front
of front-facing garage
R1A Roof deck 250 sf max (was 500 sf)
with setback from building edge.
Covered porches may extend 8 ft into
front yard if tandem parking is provided
R1 (Page 7)
R1A (Page 20)
Single-Family Districts R1 and R1A
13 Required Off-Street Parking
R1 Parking in rear may be covered
carport or enclosed garage. 3-car
garages cannot face the front of the
property. Front-facing garages have
some required design features.
Landscaping/permeability
requirements reduce amount of
concrete driveway leading to frontlocated garages. Alley access aligned with latest interpretation
R1A Provides options: side-by-side or
as tandem and one of the tandem
spaces may be uncovered
R1 (Pages 7, 13-14)
R1A (Page 23)
Single-Family Districts R1 and R1A
14 Modular Construction (Pre-fab)
R1 Standards introduced for:
Façade Variation - Alternatives provided to
comply with regular R1 standards, or to vary
building materials and set back 6’ beyond
min front setback and provide balconies
and/or other projecting features
Intent – The regular R1 envelope
requirements may prove unduly difficult for
modular construction, so standards allow for
an exception (provided other features avoid
potential "boxiness” of the structure)
R1 (Page 8)
Single-Family Districts R1 and R1A
15 Features with new definitions and standards
Hillside/Sloping Lot Standards & Basements
• Intent - Reduce visual impact of front garages and basements on sloping lots that have resulted in appearance of greater massing and height than generally allowed
Mezzanines Also applies in R1A (page 21)
• Intent - New definition/standards differentiate a mezzanine from a 3rd floor; requires stepbacks and other restrictions to mitigate the impact of mezzanine on massing; no plumbing fixtures allowed Roof Decks
• Intent - Allow roof decks in a manner that mitigates impacts on the privacy of surrounding uses
R1 (Pages 9-12)
Single-Family Districts R1 and R1A
16 Landscaping and Permeability
In Front Yards and Parkways
• Intent - New standards intended to result in more drought-tolerant planting and other garden materials, increased permeability to reduce run-off and replenish the aquifer
• R1 and R1A - Specific standards proposed for materials and plantings reflect conditions of each zoning district
R1 (Pages 15-16)
R1A (Pages 22-23)
Single-Family Districts R1 and R1A
17 Character Areas
Intent - Focus on characteristics that
help maintain neighborhood
character. Four Character Areas have
one or more added standards that
apply (e.g., parking/garages, roof
decks & mezzanines, fences & walls,
parkways
Design Guidelines – Are not required
to be followed but provide guidance
to architects/designers for each
Character Area (Section VI)
R1 (Pages 17-18)
Guidelines (Pages 51-66)
Multi-Family Districts
R2, R3, RMD, RH Highlights
• Intent - To translate guidelines into objective standards • Front setbacks - Average of existing setbacks on either side; corner property to match adjacent
• Applicability of Landscaping Standards - Preserve mature trees; make City’s existing Model Water Efficient Landscape ordinance applicable to all new development or additions >50% of existing structures
• Building Orientation/Massing - Projects on larger parcels must include more than one primary building to avoid massive structures • Design Variation - Specific requirements for variation in wall plane • Common Open Spaces - Required amenities, shade and shelter R2, R3, RMD, RH (Pages 31-34)
18 Multi-Family Districts
R2, R3, RMD, RH continued
• Pedestrian Paths - Required use of paths and materials for access and safety
• Preserving Street Parking – Limit curb cuts and driveway apron to retain street parking; side street access for corner properties • Architectural Requirements - Building entry or front unit with direct access from sidewalk; articulation with specific standards and materials for consistent architectural style and treatment of facades
Note: Some language indicates optional (“should”) intended as guidance for architects and designers
R2, R3, RMD, RH (Pages 35-38)
19 Multi-Family Districts
R2, R3, RMD, RH continued
• Height Variation - Allow for height averaging, with maximum of 5’ above underlying height limit
• Mezzanines - Same as R1
• Roof Decks - Only allowed on properties with more than 50’ width, with setbacks from sides and other limitations
• Roof Style - Mansard roofs prohibited
• Building Entrances - Specific features required to make entries stand out
• Carports - Prohibit use of metal or fabric
• Single-Family - Apply R1 standards (except setbacks)
R2, R3, RMD, RH (Pages 39-43)
20 Other Changes
Landscaping Matrix for Multi-Family
For new development, additional units and major modifications, including re-landscaping of 50% or more of the existing landscape, a new point-based system is required
R2, R3, RMD, RH (Page 50)
21 Accessory Dwelling Units ADUs (Pages 24-30)
• Language – Clarified language regarding how to interpret ADUs • Updates – Needed to comply with latest State of California revisions Comments Heard
Second story side setbacks – average 2’
• Provided FAR bonus remains, a great compromise to increase separation/privacy. • Drives up cost of construction.
• Results in bad architecture.
Roof decks
• Why prohibit them on lots less than 50’ wide (probably 95% of RB lots)? • If privacy is the issue, why does lot width matter?
• Allow roof decks for outdoor living set back a few feet (not 10 ft.) from required side yard.
Rear yard second story step-back
• Why? If for privacy/massing, this is the best place to allow more massing. 9’ stepback too restrictive. • Why punish shallower lots; why not tie the setback to lot depth? Rear yard setbacks in R-1A
• A little late. Most are built out to currently allowed setback. 22 Comments Heard continued
Hillside Lots
• Provide precise method for measuring slope.
• Clarify “plane of the garage” and why entry must be on it. • Remove requirement on where front door is located. It will depend on site and building design. Requiring entry to be on the same building face as the garage door will not alter the extent to which the garage dominates.
Basements
• Why penalize them? They have the least impact on mass. Allow living area behind garages.
Mezzanines
• Why regulate them if they don’t affect building mass? Just make sure they are within the allowable building envelope. If the objective is to not have mezzanines that “pop out” of the roof, just prohibit that.
• Why no plumbing inside mezzanine? Plumbing doesn’t affect massing or privacy. 23 Comments Heard continued
Balconies
• How is a balcony different from a big window when it is open? Side-facing balconies should be allowed.
• In R1-A, if existing building’s 2nd story already encroaches into the 25’ front yard setback, a balcony should not be allowed. Balconies facing side yards should not encroach into the side yards.
Other Massing - In R1-A a structure’s overall size and dimensions should be compatible with its neighbors.
ADU Maximum Height - Should be increased to allow an ADU over a garage.
Tandem Parking - Will never happen.
Front Yard Landscaping
• Entire yard or just setback?
• Threshold for redesign is too low (100 SF).
• 67% pervious may be high.
24 Comments Heard continued
Character Districts
General - Community members value the character/characteristics of their neighborhoods and want to reinforce a sense of community and community cohesion.
TRW Tract - Suggestions are misguided; should allow design flexibility, encourage highquality design.
Beryl Heights
• Limit curb cuts to 16’ plus curb slope so there is 17’ to accommodate one curbside space.
• limit tree height to 30 feet to maintain ocean views. • Front yard setbacks came about to avoid tunnel effect on narrow streets. Beryl Heights does not have narrow streets, so not need for added second story setback. • Separate front garage doors look better but are harder to navigate than a double garage door.
Photos - Provide better examples.
25 Commission Direction Needed
• 2nd story Stepbacks – Should this tool be used to reduce upper story massing on sides and rear?
• Balconies – Should they be restricted from directly facing adjacent properties (sides)?
• Mezzanines – Confirm proposed definition.
• Height: Should flat-roofed homes have all projections within the 30’ height limit as proposed?
• Roof decks: Should these be set back and/or limited in size as proposed (R1 and R1A)?
• Character Areas – Are the special standards appropriate? Should there be more?
• Driveway/Garages – Should carports be an option for rear covered parking? Should an uncovered rear-tandem space be allowed in R1A? • Other Topics? 26
Thank you!