From: Jeffrey Browning <[email protected]>
To: Scott Behrendt <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 04:19:15 PM PST
Subject: Re: Draft Objective Residential Design Standards Available for Public Review Hello ScottIt has been too long, and I do apologize.
Work and life have been keeping me hopping!
I'm sure you know.
I finally had a chance to review the Draft document on the city's website (attached) I applaud the work of the commission to take this on.
The result looks very promising!
I ended up having more questions than comments, so I realize we are late in the process, so I will try to stick with comments....
There aren't a lot.
But you did ask my opinion.
I've found myself wanting to add that to each comment.... _____________________
Max Heights of ADU and garage
A 2-story ADU should be allowed on properties with alley access- when detached.
This is the perfect set-up for an ADU and the easiest for a family to afford.
Provided parking is realized as recommended in the new draft.
This could encourage a resident to keep the alley clean, and help add to communal security by putting eyes out there.
Also, why would a garage height max be different?
Anything on the back of the lot should be the same height.
The goal here should be massing, not differentiating the use of a structure.
Front porches
Very happy to see this front porch amendment
I love front porches.
They encourage community.
Any way to encourage seating up there?
Or a fire pit?
Balconies on interior lots
Side facing balconies should be allowed if they meet the setbacks.
I am sure the concern is privacy here.
If a window could be built in that location, what is the difference if it is a balcony? It could look very cool and provide a neat space underneath.
No need for this.
Modular construction
There should be no limit to corrugated metal.
It could look very cool.
It will likely not lead to an entire street of corrugated metal, which may be a concern, but I think that wouldn't be bad either.
Seems like it could limit creativity arbitrarily.
I'm not sure why the material needs to be dictated at all.
Mezzanine
Comment b
Why is no plumbing allowed on the mezzanine?
Seems random and intrusive.
If the goal is massing, then who cares what they do on the inside.
This is an overreach.
E. Roof decks
Item c
Firefox https://mail.yahoo.com/d/compose/8042587490
1 of 2 2/28/2023, 3:34 PM
A small roof deck on a lot less than 40' could be very cool, provided all other rules are met.
It looks like it is not allowed.
It should be.
Applicability
The trigger for this improvement should be much higher.
It should be 800 sf instead of 100 sf.
There should be an ADU exemption.
An 800 sf threshold would apply to both.
Roof deck
The setback is fine but the max size of the roof deck should stay the same at 500 sf Again, massing would still comply.
Covered porch
I'm very happy with this rule.
I look forward to seeing this one implemented.
________________
That's it.
I hope it was worth waiting a month-plus for!
My comments seem to follow this:
1. Apply planning standards to massing and maintaining neighborhood scale
2. Do not over-limit the creativity of the design side
3. Encourage community
If you have any questions, I'm available.
Phone is best.
Thanks for your volunteer work and taking on this monumental task! I look forward to meeting in person someday.
And thank you for including me.
-Jeff
Jeffrey C. Browning AIA
Architect
310-308-6496 cell
Model Design, Inc.
www.model-design.net
Firefox https://mail.yahoo.com/d/compose/8042587490
2 of 2 2/28/2023, 3:34 PM
From: Stacy Straus <[email protected]>
To: Scott Behrendt <[email protected]>
Cc: Brandon Straus <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 6, 2023 at 10:46:46 AM PST
Subject: RE: Updates to Redondo Beach Residential Standards / Outreach to Design/Development Community
Hi Scott,
One thing we noticed about the proposed changes are the elimination of roof decks. Is there a particular reason for this? This is something that sets your City apart from others is the ability to have a roof deck and it is very desirable. What is the issue the City is trying to address and wondering if there is another way to approach the problem rather than the elimination of roof decks.
Another issue we noted in the proposed changes are the requirement to mandate Mediterranean-style homes on the Avenues. This seems to be stifling and this particular style, while popular in the past, is no longer desired by most and will have the effect of creating a lack of interest in developing in your City, lowering property values, and creating a situation where properties are not coming into today’s standard. It is important to note that structures have a useful life and especially by the coast where they are exposed to elements. The typical useful life of structures in this area is about 75 years. The idea that properties are limited to an architectural style that was desirable during a given time seems very limiting and really may have an inadvertent outcome the City doesn’t like in the end.
Thank you for allowing me to share my perspective and always appreciate your time serving our City.
STACY STRAUS
SROUR & ASSOCIATES
2447 Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 200
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
310-372-8433, ext 102 [email protected]
www.srourandassociates.com
JAN TROBAUGH
ARCHITECT
42500 SULTAN AVE. PALM DESERT CA.,92211
310-308-2582
[email protected]
March 1, 2023
City of Redondo Beach
Planning Services Divisions
415 Diamond St. Redondo Beach, Ca. 90277
Re: Residential Design Guidelines Revisions
I have listed my questions concerning the proposed revisions to the Residential Design Guidelines. 1. Will projects that have been submitted to the city for plan check or those that have an ADR prior to the new guidelines being approved be allowed to use the codes in effect at the time the plans went into plan check or have an ADR. 2. It was noted that the new guidelines would be integrated into the current zoning code only by reference. Since the current zoning code is going to be revised due to the large changes, it would make sense to include all the required items in the zoning code. Having one code would make it clearer to the homeowners and design professionals. 3. What happens to all of the homes that will become existing non-conforming. I believe that the new guidelines should address this issue. I have seen this problem with other cities that made large changes to their zoning code. 4. Currently there are bonuses for additional second story setbacks. How will these be applied with the new second story setbacks for FAR bonuses. 5. All of these questions are concerning ‘B. Hillside / sloping lots standards’ for question 5. Will there be detail standards on how and where the lots are measured to establish the slope of the lot. Will the whole lot have to exceed13.33% of slope, maybe 50% has to exceed, how will this be done?
In hillside sections d. and e. they talk about the location of the front door. On a standard 50’ wide lot these requirements have no effect on the design of the residence. On 40’ wide lots it is not that simple. The homes are 30’ wide, 20’ of that width is the garage and it leaves 10’ beside the garage. These standards will require a long hallway from the main part of the house, which is behind the garage, to the front door. This is a very poor architectural design. I have done homes on 40’ lots for over 40 years and have never used this type of design. We set the door back to be level with the rear of the garage, and we have had an interior courtyard with the door located at that location. If you want it to look like a front door in the front that is workable, but let the architects and their clients decide where they would like the front door. 6. These questions are concerning ‘D. Mezzanine standards’ for question 6. On section 1. of the mezzanine sections, would you clarify where walls are allowed and not allowed. On section 2 a. of the mezzanine section it notes that on up sloping lots you would not be allowed to have a basement and a mezzanine. If the design follows the requirements of c., d., and e. of this section you can have the same design with or without the mezzanine and from the exterior the look would be the same. What standards will the city have for projects that will be existing non conforming with this change in the mezzanine standards when they want to remodel or do an addition. 7. These question is concerning the R-1A standards. The additional second story setback change from 16’ to 25’ is large change. Once again every “tall and skinny” I have done has a 16’ rear setback on the second floor. The majority of these homes have 16’ second story rear setbacks. How will the city address and remodels or additions to these homes. 8. These questions are concerning the R-2, R-3, RMD and RH standards The new standards would require the front yard setback to be an average of the properties on either side of proposed project. Some properties will not be developed since the front yard average would be too great and require a reduction of living area. It would also work the other way, especially in South Redondo since some lots only have a 5’ current front setbacks and then that would be your setback under the new standards.
The new standard will require a single family residence built in a multi-zone area to comply with R-1 standards except for setbacks. People build single family residence in multi- zone area for various reasons. In North Redondo it usually means a larger lot, 50’x150’, it gives the owner more flexibility for the design compared to a 50’x100’ lot. In South Redondo the main reason single families are built on multi-zone lots is the lot is not large enough in square footage for 2-units. These lots are usually 40’ wide. Once again the existing single families homes on the multi-zone lots will be existing non-conforming. When you apply the FAR standards on these smaller lots they have a big penalty compared to the existing homes in the same zone.
I realize this is a draft and has a long way to go to be objective only. As an Architect I can use any rules provided to design a project, every city I work in has a different zoning code. There are always unintended circumstances in new codes and those areas will have to be looked at again. The new rules will have a large affect on the existing property owners. If you are going to remodel or add to a residence that is now existing non-conforming, or if you are selling your property for development. The developers will still make their profit, they will be paying less for lots that have major problems due to the code changes. Thank you for this opportunity to ask questions.
Jan Trobaugh, Architect
C-15577
JAN TROBAUGH
ARCHITECT
42500 Sultan Ave
PALM DESERT CA., 92211
310-308-2582
[email protected]
March 18, 2023
City of Redondo Beach
Planning Services Divisions
415 Diamond St. Redondo Beach, Ca. 90277
Re: Residential Design Guidelines Revisions
Thank you for the meeting with the design community. I only got to attend the first 30 minutes and the last 15 minutes due to a scheduling conflict.
It was stated the new guidelines were to take the existing guidelines and make them objective instead of subjective. After reading the proposed guidelines and listening to the meeting, I believe that the proposed guidelines not only make existing guidelines objective but there are a great deal of new and revised code items that make the proposed code more restrictive than the current code and guidelines.
I could be wrong but it seems you are really revising the zoning code. There are areas that are revised and there are new requirements that are not currently in the guidelines or the zoning code. That is not revising a code that is writing a new code. The proposed changes will result in some problems. As an example, when the first guidelines were approved it made most of the single family homes I had done since 1978 non conforming. If the proposed changes and revisions are approved it will make most of the single family homes I have done under the current guidelines non conforming. It will make all of the “tall and skinny” homes I have ever done non conforming. This would be true for most all designs by everyone. Due to the nature of the new proposed requirements there needs to be a new section of how the zoning code will address the existing non conforming residential properties. In most cities they restrict the changes to non conforming properties to force the old projects to be removed and a new design to be done that meets the current code. Not all homes are built by developers. When a homeowner sees a design they like and then are told that it is not allowed anymore they are confused. It is a case that their neighbor got theirs but you can not have yours, they see this as unfair.
The slope of the lot requirements need to be very detailed on how this is measured. Is the whole lot or a portion of the lot have to exceed13.33%. Where does the measurement take place, is it from the sidewalk to the back of the lot, measured in the center of the lot, the sides of the lot, this is very important so that it is an objective standard.
It seems you want to punish projects that have basements. They have the smallest effect on the neighborhood. I have done several homes on the lower avenues that have basements and from the exterior you can not tell there is a basement. We had to have them 40’ from the front property line due to FAR but they could have been under the entire house and no one would know. Currently the current rules are if we have a basement garage less than 40’ from the front property line and there is a door to the basement that is greater than 40’ from the front property line we have to count the basement into the FAR. All we do now is not connect the garage to the basement, we have a set of stairs that go to the first floor from the garage and then from the house we have another set of stairs that go to the basement which does not have access to the garage and is 40’ from the front setback. The only difference between the two is there is no door from the garage to the basement, the project from the exterior looks identical.
I would like to suggest that where the front door is placed is removed and the requirement replaced with a clear entry look to the site no matter where the front door is located. We can make it look like an entry but where the door to the residence is located should be per the owner request. I have done homes on the upper avenues where the owners had a door that faced the street and opened up to a courtyard, then there is a door that enters the home, now this would not be allowed. All the new requirements concerning mezzanines seems obituary. Some lots can have a mezzanine and some can not but if they are a good design the building can look the same with or without a mezzanine. I can have a home that has a mezzanine and it can look the same from the exterior with or with out the mezzanine. Everything has to fit inside the required height limit.
In the R-1A zone the new requirements for rear setbacks are a little late. My question would be how many of these lots are left to develop, there are not many left. This new requirement will assure that no one will ever tear down an existing house with the current standards. The new average front yard setback in the multi-family districts once again seems to punish the people who have waited to build a project. If you have a condo project on each side of your property you will have no changes. If there are single families on each side with greater that 20’ setback you have a completely different set of rules. Different rules for the same size lots. The last item is the requirement that homes built in the multi-family districts have FAR requirements but a multi-unit project would not. Let punish someone who only wants a single family on the lot.
In my opinion with all the changes proposed the only one that will have any effect on the exterior look of the designs are the additional setback requirements on the second story side and rear. It is similar to when the basement rules were changed to the 4’ average, the buildings did not decrease in height and they still looked the same. Thank you for this opportunity. Jan Trobaugh, Architect C-15577
[email protected]
PLINTH DESIGN GROUP
1. R-1 COMENTS
SETBACKS
States in 2ND Story SIDE SET BACKS, PG #6, AVERAGE 2ft. additional… As
long
as
the
current
FAR
Bonus’s
stay
intact,
this
automatically
builds
in
a
.08
Additional
FAR
bonus
at
second
floor
side
setbacks.. which
I
believe
is
a
great
compromise
in
trying
to
achieve
a
larger
second
floor
buffer
increasing
the
adjacent
neighbors
privacy.
2. REAR
SETBACK:
PG #6
2ND STORY: 50%
of
rear
elevation
to
have
30‘
avg.
rear
SB.
Second
story
to
be
Min. 25’
This
punishes
everything
less
that
150’
in
Length.
Why
punish
these
smaller
lots??
What
drives
this
kind
of
“Diminish
Mass
at
all
cost”
philosophy?
Why
can’t
this
increased
rear
set
back
be
reduced
to
something
more
relative
to
the
actual
lot
depth
than
an
arbitrary
number?
ROOF DECKS: PG #7,
I
am
in
agreement with
the reducing
of
mass
and
side
setback
in
an
effort
to
reduce
the
privacy
impact.
I
understand
the
need
to
reduce
the
privacy
impact
to
adjacent
neighbors,
with
todays
life
style
and
use
of
these
spaces.
.
However
I
do
not
agree
of
taking
the
ability
of
using
these
spaces
away
from
the
property
owner’s
that
did
not
have
the
luxury
of
either
remodeling
or
building
new
at
an
earlier
date before
these
R.D.G.’s
were
approved.
People
enjoy
these
spaces
and
one
thing
I
always
hear
the
staff
and
consultants
bring
up at
these
meetings
is
the
importance
of
outdoor
living
space.
Why
remove
more
of
this
desired
space?
Why
remove
decks
(and
Mezzanines)
for
lots
less
than
50’
wide?
This
constitutes
probably
95%
of
the
lots
in
Redondo
Beach.
I
feel
this
is
certainly
a
case
of
property
owner’s
rights.
This
horse
has
already
got
out
of
the
barn.
If
privacy
is
an
issue,
just
target
the
side
setbacks
at
this
level,
and
set
these
spaces
back
a
couple
of
feet
from
the
side
of
the
building.
3. FRONT
ENTRY AND
PORCHES: PG.#7
says
“PROJECT
6’
IN
FRONT
YARD
AREA”
Is
this
the
“FRONT
YARD“?
Or
“FRONT
SETBACK”?
This
should
be
clarified.
‘B’ HILLSIDE LOTS: PG. #9
How
is
this
13.33%
slope
measured?
Property
line
to
property
line?
Some
of
these
lots
start
at
5’
or
6’ above
the
sidewalk
with
existing
planters. How
was
this
slope
chosen?
What
was
the
rational
and
Logic
behind
this?
Why
not
15%
like the
Maximum
driveway
slope?
And
what
happens
if
we
have
a
5’
high
planter
in
the
front
of
these
properties
which
is
often
the
case?
2.C PG. #9
Need
to
clarify
“plane
of
the
garage”
Are
we
talking
about
the
plane
of
the
rear
garage
wall?
The
front
of
the
garage
door?
This
is
a
huge
mistake to
think
that
this
can
be
moved
towards
the
front
of
the
garage
door.
By
the
use
of
the
Entry
alone,
that
you
are
trying
to
make
dominate
the
front
Elevation, you
are
moving
all
this
mass
from
your
Entry
location to
7’ from
the
front
of
the
garage.
A
perfect
example
is
the
picture
of
the
2 Story
over
Basement
Building
on
PG.
#9.
I
think
this
is
the
type
of
building
you
are
trying
to
prevent
however
if
you
look
at
the
Entry
you
will
notice
that
it
is
probably
almost
20’
from
the
front
of
the
garage.
Now
imagine
that
front
door
on
this
building
to
be
ONLY
7’!
This
isn’t
really
what
you
are
trying
to
achieve here
I’m
sure
the
last
thing
you
want
is
moving
all
this
mass
from
your
Entry
location
to
7’
from
the
front
of
the
garage.
D. MEZZANINE STANDARDS: PG. #11
2.APPLICABILITY
A. BASEMENT GARAGE AND MEZZANINE PROHIBITED.
Why?
Per
2-‐E
the
roof
over
a
Mezzanine
shall
be
concealed
and
integrated
into
the
building.
What
difference
does
it
make
what
space
is
under
the
roof?
30’ height
is
30’
height.
Once
again
if
privacy
is
the
issue
you
are
trying
to
solve,
modify
the
side
set
back.
This
is
a
much
better
solution
for
that.
South
end
has
lots
of
properties
that
are
bought
with
the
intension
of
enjoying
the
ocean
view
from
these deck/mezz.
areas
E ROOF DECK STANDARDS
2.-C NOT ALLOWED 40’ OR LESS LOTS.
WHY ?
SETBACKS ARE SET BACKS. THEY DON’T LIMIT ANYTHING INSIDE THEM.
MEANINING A WIDER LOT HAS HIS DECK JUST AS CLOSE TO HIS NEIGHBOR AS A NARROWER LOT. ALL THE SAME..
WHY ARE MEZZ’S AND ROOF TOP DECKS NOT ALLOWED IN CERTAIN AREAS.
WHAT ABOUT PROPERTY OWNERS RIGHTS…. THE HAVE AND HAVE NOTS? R-1A’S
Extra
9’
off
the
rear??
Why??
Cost
reduction/more
affordable
to
buy?
Almost
10%
floor
area
reduction.
These
homes
are
small
enough.
Greater
rear
setbacks
on
these
homes
do
not
create
privacy.
Ask
the
people
that
live
in
these
homes!
Are the
Planning
commissioners
going
to
cut
9’
off
their
master as
an
example of solidarity
in
support?? Once
again..
have
and
have
nots
Tandem??
Will
never
happen,
nice
picture
of
enclosed
and
unenclosed
parking?
OLD!!
Never
happen
now,
especially now
that
your
whipping
out
171
sq.
ft.
Thank you the opportunity to share my note/thoughts her. Please feel to reach out when ever you feel.
Manuel George
Plinth
Design Group
(310) 753-4180
THANK YOU
PLINTH DESIGN GROUP, INC, 627 AVIATION WAY, MANHATTAN BEACH, CALIF. 90266 DIRECT: 310-753-4180