SR-400-002-06 (5)
~
e
e
(00- ot02-Db
CjED:CPD:PB:SF:JWR
wjopccrpt2
-D
---'f'
To: Mayor and City council
From: city staff
Subject: Recommendation to Introduce Ordinance for First Reading
Implementing Revisions to Clarify Ocean Park Zoning
Ordinance
INTRODUCTION
On September 26! 1989, the Ci ty Council adopted an ordinance
implementing the Ocean Park Rezoning Plan. After the first three
months of implementing the new regulations, staff has identified
a few sections which require minor changes to clarify the
ordinance. In addition! the City council asked staff to return
with an analysis of whether to exempt the OP-1 single Family
District from Architectural Review.
BACKGROUND
Architectural Review in the OP-1 Single FamiLy District
Currently! the Zoning Ordinance requires architectural review in
the new OP-1 district but not in the Rl district.
The city
council has requested that projects in the OP-l Single Family
District be exempted from Architectural Review in order to make
standards consistent in both single family districts.
consistent with Council direction, the proposed ordinance exempts
the OP-1 Single Family District from Architectural Review.
However, staff does not believe that the OP-l Single Family
District should be exempt from architectural review. Lot
conditions in the OP-1 Single Family district are very different
- 1 -
8'-D
FEB 1 3 1990
.
.
,-
from those in the R1 district and therefore warrant different
standards. Furthermore, it is the intent of the Ocean Park
Rezoning Plan that all development in Ocean Park be subject to
the Ocean Park design guidel ines , which will be the
responsibility of the Architectural Review Board to apply.
Typical lot sizes in the Rl Single Family District measure 50' by
150'. Houses on these lots typically have sizable front and rear
yards, which lend an open, spacious feeling to the streetscape.
By contrast, a typical OP-l lot measures 25' by 80'. Development
on these lots is often cramped, and under the previous
regulations, variances were often needed from setback and parking
standards. Because it is nearly impossible to develop two units
on one of these lots and still meet Code requirements for
parking, the OP-l district limits development to one unit per lot
and provides for a rear yard setback of 10' rather than 15' as
required in all other residential districts.
The constrained lot conditions in the OP-l district create a
special need for architectural review, in order to protect
privacy, open space, building articulation, and streetscape
quality. The Ocean Park plan intended that:, with the exception
of density, all areas in Ocean Park be subject to the similar
design and development standards. Therefore, staff feels that
development in the OP-l district should be subject to the same
design guidelines as all other OP Districts.
- 2 -
.
.
.,+-
Minor Clarifying Revisions to the Ocean Park Zoning Ordinance
During the first three months of administering the new zoning
standards for Ocean Park, staff has encountered a few sections
that require clarification. These are described below:
1) Section 9035.4 (a) concerns duplexes on parcels in the OP-l
district that abut R2- and R3-zoned lots. Since there are no R2
or R3 lots adjacent to OP-l lots, this section should be deleted
and Sections 9035.4 (b) and (c) should become (a) and (b),
respectively.
2) Sections 9036.6. (c), 9037.6. (c), 9038.6. (c) and 9039.6. (c),
Maximum Lot Coverage, all saYI "50% for lots 4,001 square feet
and larger". This language was inadvertent.ly carried over from
an earlier version of the text that provided for different lot
coverage standards for lots less than and greater than 4,000
square feet. This distinction was eliminated in the final
version. Accordingly, this should simply read "50 percent."
3) section 9040.41, Roof Decks in the OP Districts, should be
modified to require that the hand rail be measured from the edge
of the building instead of the side yard:
In the OP-Districtsl the handrail surrounding a roof deck
shall be set back a minimum of 3 feet from the edge of the
building at the side and rear yards.
4) sections 9035.6(a)1
Maximum Building Height,
9036.6(a), 9037.6(a), and 9038.6(a),
all allow the building height to be
- 3 -
.
.
'-
increased by a specific amount provided that the roof is pitched.
It was originally intended that only the pitched roof itself be
allowed to exceed the height limit for a flat roof; it was not
intended that the walls of the building be allowed to exceed the
limit. Accordingly, the following langucige as indicated in
italics is recommended:
Maximum Building Height. Two stories, not to exceed 23 feet
[20 feet in OP-I] for a flat roof, or 30 feet [27 feet in
OP-l] for a pitched roof. A pitched roof is defined as a
roof with at least two sides having no less than one foot of
vertical rise for ever three feet of horizontal run. The
walls of the building may not exceed the maximum height
required for a flat roof.
5) Subchapter lOP of the Zoning Ordinance sets forth a mechanism
to facilitate the development of additional units at the rear of
lots where there is an existing single family house at the front
of the lot. The mechanism, called a Yard Modification Permit, is
intended to help preserve the low-scale character of development.
In administering this section, staff has found a need for greater
clarity about the purpose of this section as well as a need for
language that protects land uses adjacent to the proposed project
site. Accordingly, staff recommends that the following findings
be added to to Subchapter lOP:
section 9151.5. Findings. Following a public
hearing I the zoning Administrator shall prepare a written
decision which shall contain the findings of fact upon which
- 4 -
.
.
such decision is based. The zoning Administrator, or
Planning Conunission on appeal, nmy approve a Yard
Modification Permit application in whole or in part, with or
without conditions, if all the following findings of fact
can be made in an affirmative manner:
(a) That the character and scale of the existing
single family house is substantially preserved.
(b) The granting of such permit will not be
detrimental or injurious to the property or improvements in
the general vicinity and district in which the property is
located.
(c) The yard modification would not impair the
integrity and character of the district in which it is to be
located.
(d) The SUbject site is physically suitable for the
proposed yard modification.
(e) There will be adequate provisions for public
access to serve the subject variance proposal.
On December 6, 1989, the Planning commission reviewed and
approved the recommendations of this staff report.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
There are no budget or financial impacts resulting from the
recommended ordinance revisions.
- 5 -
.
.
, ~
RECOMMENDATION
staff respectfully recommends that the City Council introduce the
attached ordinance for first reading implementing revisions to
clarify the Ocean Park Zoning Ordinance, but consider changing
the ordinance to require Architectural Review in the OP-l Single
Family District.
Prepared by: Paul Berlant, Planning Director
Suzanne Frick, Principal Planner
John Read, Associate Planner
Exhibits:
A
Ordinance Revising Ordirance Number 1496(CCS)
Establishing Development Standards in the
Ocean Park Area
- 6 -