Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout18 - Mansionization Recommendation from EQACREPORT TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Recommendation from Environmental Quality Affairs Committee Regarding Mansionization SUGGESTED ACTION: Direct the General Plan Update and Advisory Committees to monitor public input on mansionization, and advise the City Council on the need for action prior to the General Plan update EQAC Recommendation At their meeting of May 20, 2002, the Environmental Quality Affairs Committee (EQAC) passed a motion conveying their concern about the negative effects of mansionization on the quality of life in Newport Beach, and requesting that the City Council consider a process by which development standards to address mansionization could be developed by staff for City review. The issue was raised at EQAC because some members are concerned that the General Plan update will be a long process, and it may be too late to address mansionization when the updated General Plan is adopted and the City begins work on new implementing ordinances. An excerpt of the draft minutes is attached. Visioning Input " Mansionization" is an issue that has received a lot of attention in the General Plan visioning process. It has been defined in a number of different ways, including the following. The development of houses that are so much larger than the former neighborhood standard that they begin to change the character of the neighborhood. "Maximization," or the development of houses to the full size and bulk allowed by the Zoning Code, including maximizing height and floor area and minimizing setbacks, sometimes with the approval of modifications or variances. Building a house larger than one's own. Different neighborhoods have had different reactions to this issue. For example, there is more concern about population density than house size in West Newport, where some people welcome larger houses because they represent investment and a greater likelihood of resident owners. Some residents of Balboa Island, Balboa Peninsula, Corona del Mar and Newport Heights are concerned about the size of new houses and the changing character and scale in their neighborhoods. In all of these areas, people who have chosen to participate in the visioning CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Hearing Date: June 11, 2002 nCOMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC Agenda Item g DEVELOPMENT No.: 18 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Staff Person: Sharon Z. Wood 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD (949) 644 -3222 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 (949) 6443200; FAX (949) 644 -3250 REPORT TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Recommendation from Environmental Quality Affairs Committee Regarding Mansionization SUGGESTED ACTION: Direct the General Plan Update and Advisory Committees to monitor public input on mansionization, and advise the City Council on the need for action prior to the General Plan update EQAC Recommendation At their meeting of May 20, 2002, the Environmental Quality Affairs Committee (EQAC) passed a motion conveying their concern about the negative effects of mansionization on the quality of life in Newport Beach, and requesting that the City Council consider a process by which development standards to address mansionization could be developed by staff for City review. The issue was raised at EQAC because some members are concerned that the General Plan update will be a long process, and it may be too late to address mansionization when the updated General Plan is adopted and the City begins work on new implementing ordinances. An excerpt of the draft minutes is attached. Visioning Input " Mansionization" is an issue that has received a lot of attention in the General Plan visioning process. It has been defined in a number of different ways, including the following. The development of houses that are so much larger than the former neighborhood standard that they begin to change the character of the neighborhood. "Maximization," or the development of houses to the full size and bulk allowed by the Zoning Code, including maximizing height and floor area and minimizing setbacks, sometimes with the approval of modifications or variances. Building a house larger than one's own. Different neighborhoods have had different reactions to this issue. For example, there is more concern about population density than house size in West Newport, where some people welcome larger houses because they represent investment and a greater likelihood of resident owners. Some residents of Balboa Island, Balboa Peninsula, Corona del Mar and Newport Heights are concerned about the size of new houses and the changing character and scale in their neighborhoods. In all of these areas, people who have chosen to participate in the visioning process have indicated some interest in design guidelines and/or review that would help maintain neighborhood character. Discussion Because the input we have received so far is not statistically valid, staff does not believe there is clear direction from the community yet. Staff does not recommend that we begin work on specific tools to address any of the issues raised in the visioning process until we gain more clarity from the telephone survey, the General Plan Advisory Committee's deliberations and the Community Congress. Staff understands EQAC's concern with the time required for this process and the amount of development that can occur during that time. At the same rime, we believe it is important to respect the public participation process the City has undertaken, and to wait until the process is complete and the direction of the community is more clear to draw conclusions. Staff also understands that researching methods to address mansionization or any other issue does not mean that new regulations would be approved regardless of the outcome of the visioning process. But research and ordinance development require the allocation of staff resources. With the demands on staff time for the General Plan update, Local Coastal Program, and development review, it would be difficult to allocate time for a project whose acceptance by the community is still unclear. SHARON Z. WOOD Assistant City Manager Page 2 through the General Plan Update because it will take too long. Ms. Linhoff expressed that she felt EQAC should present something to the City Council that could take care of this problem quicker before it becomes a moot point. Ms. Linhoff referred to EQAC's Resolution No. 2001 -73, under Purpose and Responsibilities, number E and read, "To request the City Manager and /or City Council to schedule a presentation from members of the Committee ... any activity that the Committee has determined could have a significant effect on Newport Beach." Ms. Linhoff expressed that she thought this is an issue that would definitely have a significant effect on Newport Beach and suggested the Committee form a subcommittee to study the issues and present them to the full committee and then present the findings to the City Council. Chairman Hawkins commented that first the Committee needs to discuss if there is a problem. Chairman Hawkins said that, at the last meeting, they heard some committee members suggest that there is not any problem and that these people are building in the current entitlement, and that to allow a restriction in the middle of the stream unfairly prejudices those people's property rights and could even be alleged to create a taking for which the City might be liable. Chairman Hawkins commented that Ms. Wood's discussion from the General Plan Visioning document is helpful because it sets the stage. Mr. Hyans noted that R -2 lots in West Newport Beach, which are presently single family homes that are being converted into already entitled duplexes are contributing to the projection for traffic increase on the Peninsula. Chairman Hawkins remarked that the problem he sees is, if they are talking about the density issue, that is one thing but the mansionization controversy is over the elimination of view corridors or, not necessarily an increase in density because the single family residences on the Peninsula or the Island may only have two people living in 10,000 square feet. Chairman Hawkins expressed that he sees distinct concerns: 1. Density issue 2. Bulk or view corridors issues. Mr. Eaton commented that on the west side of the Bay, there are areas that are not older subdivisions but where very large houses are replacing smaller houses and it is more of a character issue. In response to a query, Mr. Eaton defined character as character of the neighborhood. Ms. Wood commented that they tried to talk about the lot problem at the District 5 workshop and they had the graphic but it was difficult for many to understand the issue. Ms. Hoffman commented that the committee has been most successful in their mission by being able to take documents that have been prepared for review, have EQAC's subcommittee conduct the review, make their comments and forward them to the proper decision makers. Ms. Hoffman suggested that staff could research in terms of what are the kinds of development standards that other places have used in dealing with this kind of issue where you could describe building on the property that will allow for a nucleus on the s4e that will a describe way in which a building envelope could reduce the boxiness and therefore create some view corridors or some other alternatives to insure creative neighborhood compatibility. Ms. Hoffman suggested that this could be put forth in terms of a proposal, which then could be reviewed by EQAC and ultimately the Planning Commission and City Council. Ms. Hoffman expressed that, in her opinion, it is not this committee's function to try and find building guideline for design review procedures. If the committee could figure out a way to convey a message to the General Plan Committee or to staff that this is a concern that EQAC would like to participate in and feel that some discussion about these kinds of solutions should be worked upon and sent back to EQAC for review, that might add emphasis to the need for work on this that EQAC could then participate in. Ms. Linhoff commented that more than 20 years ago there was a concern that this was happening, particularly on the Peninsula. The City Council established a committee that was called the Development Standards Committee, which was a Citizen's Advisory Committee. The committee was made up of builders, contractors, developers, architects and a couple of housewives. Ms. Linhoff said the committee then met and they came up with Residential Development Standards and presented the standards to the City Council who adopted them. Ms. Linhoff explained that they had adopted an open space option for a building lot so that there had to be so much visible open space and the architect could work within that. Ms. Linhoff presented a diagram, which was a part of the Development Standards document that presented different ways to accomplish the visible open space that the Development Standards required. Chairman Hawkins asked if those standards currently apply to any development in the City. Ms. Wood responded no. Chairman Hawkins asked if those Development Standards had been rescinded or overruled and is that ordinance still law? Ms. Linhoff responded that'is was not law now. Ms. Unhoff's conclusion is that it had been done, can be done and needs to be done again and feels that the General Plan Update would be too late. Ms. Linhoff expressed that she wanted EQAC to look at it because it is an environmental concern. Mansionization Discussion Ms. Wood referred to the Current Conditions, Future Choices booklet from the General Plan Update Committee, that talks about housing trends, and read from page 29, 2 n paragraph, "As in other built out communities, local property owners are choosing to build to the full limit of the City's development regulations in neighborhoods where most houses are much smaller in scale. In some cases, large single family houses are replacing duplexes and triplexes that provide rental housing affordable to moderate income households. This trend, labeled "mansionization" or "gentrification" or "canyonization" is partially an outgrowth of the City's high property values, which leaves owners to build a house befitting the value of the land. Neighborhoods experiencing this trend include Corona del Mar, Cliff Haven and Newport Heights. Many of these areas have neither mandatory homeowners associations nor architectural guidelines, which are usually strictly administered by the homeowners association. Some other cities have adopted new ordinances to limit mansionization as it changes the character of the neighborhoods. While character preservation is important to Newport Beach, the City benefits from the property tax base of the new and larger houses its residents are constructing." Ms. Wood noted that, while there are a few vacant sites that can be developed residentially, the current General Plan shows housing development to occur mostly in the older residential areas. Ms. Wood said there is a table, on page 31 of the Current Conditions, Future Choices booklet that provides a sample of potential growth in City neighborhoods as follows: • West Newport there is a possible 24 percent increase in the number • Lido Isle a 30 percent increase • Balboa Peninsula a 22 percent increase • Balboa Island a 26 percent increase • Corona del Mar a 17 percent increase • Newport Heights a 10 percent increase. "All of these percent increases would be possible if the single family detached homes constructed on more than one lot were torn down and new homes were constructed on each lot. Another component of future growth is in the older commercial areas where the City allows mixed -use development." Ms. Wood presented a graphic to illustrate how the City has a lot of residential development potential in the older residential neighborhoods if people were to take advantage of the older subdivision lot lines. Ms. Wood noted that the red lines at the top of the graphic are the old existing lot lines, and a lot of people have a lot and a half. The illustration depicts that the developer has taken a lot and a half of the next lot, and the people next door have a lot with the other half of the lot in the middle. Instead of having three houses, there are two lots and what the City is seeing is that, as people are selling these houses or are inherited by the heirs, they are reverting to the original subdivision so there are three lots whereby you could have three houses. That is a large part of where the increase in housing potential comes from. It requires no special approval from the City because they are existing, valid old lot lines. Ms. Wood said they are seeing this on Lido Isle and Corona del Mar. Ms. Wood explained that is the point of the question they have been asking about whether the City should require lot mergers. Should the City require that the original lot lines go away, and the existing lot and a half that has been built on be the actual legal lot line. Ms. Wood thought they would discuss mansionization, a convenient word that describes the houses that are larger than what you have as the existing character in the neighborhood, and the reverting back to original lot lines, which increases the density of the number of units. Are those things that the committee thinks that they should be concerned about? Should the City be addressing them in the General Plan Update? If the answer to those questions is yes, the committee could talk about some options that they would like the City to take a look at. Chairman Hawkins remarked that this would sort of convert the committee into a workshop for the General Plan Committee, and his understanding is that the charge of this committee is somewhat different than that. Chairman Hawkins agrees that this is a good idea but one of the things this committee should focus on is what is EQAC's input or do they have a mission here, if any. Chairman Hawkins expressed that he would hate to take this committee's time to do that since the General Plan Update committee already has the workshops. Ms. Linhoff said that she is afraid that the General Plan Update will take a long time before it is finalized and finished and feels the issue of mansionization is an urgent problem that should be addressed but not Mr. Eaton commented that from his experience in Fullerton, they went through a lot of the same discussions about 10 years ago, and they actually did change some codes. In the older lots they put in floor area ratios similar to that in Balboa Island. Some privacy restrictions from home to home so that the huge homes were not overlooking all their surrounding yards. Mr. Eaton expressed agreement with Ms. Hoffman that this is something that the City of Newport Beach could look at to see what else is being done in other places if there is enough of a consensus. Mr. Eaton commented that he tended to agree that it is, in a sense, a General Plan issue in that he did not think the City Council would do some of these restrictive things unless there is some sort of grounds with a consensus that it is needed. Chairman Hawkins commented that there is a need to have a process to focus this issue and it seems that the General Plan Update is the process to focus those sorts of efforts and is not sure if this committee has any role on this issue. Ms. Linhoff moved that EQAC establish a subcommittee to study the mansionization, density and garage parking and all the issues concerning it. Ms. Pantzar seconded the motion. Ms. Dietz wanted to be sure that everyone agreed with the definition of mansionization. Chairman Hawkins said that they are talking about garage mansionization as well as house mansionization. Ms. Dietz expressed that it should be called maximization instead of mansionization. Ms. Linhoff and Ms. Pantzar accepted the amendment to the motion to define it as maximization instead of mansionization. Ms. Linhoff suggested development standards to include parking, building floor area ratio and all the other issues. Ms. Hoffman commented that she supports the issue being worked on at the City but cannot support the motion because she did not think this is where it should start. Ms. Hoffman reiterated that it should start with staff doing investigation on what is being done in other cities and what kinds of solutions they could look at for ways to implement some sort of control to address the concerns of the committee. Ms. Hoffman remarked that she didsihink this committee had the right make -up to do this kind of work. Ms. Hoffman said that she would support a message go from this committee to the General Plan Update Committee recommending that it be looked at and solutions be addressed through their efforts that would then come back to EQAC for review. Ms. Hoffman said that this would be a big public hearing process and felt that it should begin with the staff and General Plan Update Committee. Council Member Heffernan commented that the first step would be a factual basis. By looking at the building permits that have been issued and comparing the area of expansion with the tear down. If we go to a factual basis of what we have now and the trend, remodel and teardown, it would be good to see what this town is going to be like. The Port streets are all changing. Basements are the rage, they will go as wide and as tall as setbacks allow and they will get variances. He would like to see how we started with the variances, what is the typical plus or minus; also the Modifications Committee, what is their discretion, what is the plus, how many are turned down. Council Member Heffernan noted there are a very few noes and a lot of yeses. With the people, the general theme is that there is not any standard and you could get anything you want. Chairman Hawkins noted that Council Member Heffernan's comments are well taken and that dovetails Ms. Hoffman's comments. The fact - finding is not something that the committee is set up to do. City staff may not even be able to do it but it is clear that sort of effort is what is necessary to fully evaluate this problem if it is a problem. Council Member Heffernan commented that you do not have to say it is a problem but that this is the trend, the market. First you see where the market is and then you adjust, if you can. You need to have facts rather than theories. Council Member Heffernan remarked that he did not know if it was the venue of this committee either, especially without a report. Chairman Hawkins commented that, historically, the subcommittees have not gone and looked at the applications and approvals, etc., not to say they couldn't, but questioned how fruitful that venture would be. Ms. Hoffman suggested a substitute motion to forward a concern to the City Council that either staff or consultant assistance be obtained to develop an analysis of the current problem of mansionization and recommendations for development standards that could address it and they are expressing a strong concern about the effect of mansionization on the quality of life in the Qty of Newport Beach. Ms. Hoffman said that way the committee is getting their point across and suggested Ms. Linhoff could lobby the Council to assign the resources necessary to get it done. The challenge is how best to get this message across. Council Member Heffernan suggested asking the candidates up for election if they are for or against it and do they view it as a problem or not. Council Member Heffernan said this has to come from the top down. Ms. Wood said this would take a big resource commitment so staff would not do it without direction from the Council. Council Member Heffernan said that is the point and it will not come from one City Council member either. Council Member Heffernan commented that it is just saying, "Is this an issue ?" Ms. Hoffman Mr. Eaton asked if the R -1.S on Balboa Island was done at about the same time. Ms. Linhoff responded yes and did not know what happened to that Ms. Wood said it is still there. Mr. Rivett commented that it is working very nicely, and that within the R -1.5 restriction there is a height restriction that goes along with it, and they are getting some very nice looking buildings. Mr. Lugar asked if the variances that are granted erode the policies that Ms. Linhoff was speaking of and expressed that that there are no real restrictions on the height limit and that zoning restrictions are not being evenly applied and they are just eroding. Ms. Wood responded that there are not variances at every Planning Commission meeting and on average there is about one a month. Ms. Wood said that probably more are for height on lots that slope down and the argument is that one could not get the same enjoyment or use of their property as somebody in the same zoning district who has a flat lot, so they need to exceed the height limit in order to do that. Ms. Wood explained the theory of variances, there is R -1 and R -Z and MFR zoning, and there is land throughout the City that is zoned R -1 that has very different characteristics. Not all the lots are flat, rectangular. When zoning is written, it is understood that this will not be applied in every single case thereby there is a provision in State law, which allows for variances, which is being able to vary or differ from what the strict regulations are. Ms. Wood said there are four findings that must be made before a variance could be granted. If a case can be made, then the variances will likely be approved but the case they have to make is that there are special circumstances with that lot physically, not just "I want a bigger house," that causes a need for varying from the normal development standards. Different people have different philosophies on how strict you have to be about making those findings. Ms. Linhoff expressed that she thought the Modifications Committee seemed to grant almost anything anyone asked for. Ms. Wood commented that staff has not had the time to put together a code amendment that they would like to propose. Ms. Wood explained that the Modifications Committee has "mini- variances," and they are also common from city to city but each city approaches it a little differently. In Newport Beach, the Modifications Committee cannot deal with height. If you need a use permit or a variance from the height restrictions or floor area, you go straight to the Planning Commission. If setback relief is needed, the Modifications Committee can grant a 100 percent relief from the entire setback. The findings the Modification Committee needs to make are far easier to make than the ones for a variance. The staff would like to limit the extent or the amount of relief that the Modifications Committee could grant, such as perhaps a person could be relieved from 20 percent of the setback and also to beef up the findings they have to make. Ms. Demmer asked if the Modification Committee is made up of citizen volunteers. Ms. Wood responded no that it consists of staff members. Ms. Demmer asked if there is another committee that reviews building standards. Ms. Wood responded that there is a Building Board of Appeals if one cannot meet some of the requirements of the Building Code, which is the more technical, structural integrity side of the coin, they can appeal the Building Director's decision. Ms. Wood noted that the Board of Appeals deals a lot with handicapped accessibility issues. In response to query, Ms. Wood said that they are volunteer citizens. Ms. Linhoff asked how does zoning get changed? Ms. Wood responded that the usual process is that either the Planning Commission or the City Council can initiate an amendment to the Zoning Code. The ordinance is prepared, it goes to the Planning Commission for a public hearing, if recommended for approval, it then goes to the City Council for a public hearing and then the Council has two readings before the ordinance can be adopted. Ms. Hoffman noted she thought there was a massive overhaul of the entire zoning ordinance two years ago. Ms. Wood said that about five years ago they did an update of the zoning ordinance. No residential development standards were changed at that time. Ms. Wood remarked that she was not sure when the old Development Standards was taken out of the code. Ms. Hoffman stressed that she thought it was important to note that those standards could not have been taken out of the code without a public notice and hearing. Ms. Hoffman said there was a process when it all happened and they would need to check the timing. There are records of all of the zoning code amendments with the dates and the conditions that were changed. From the City Clerk's office, there is a way to research how or when that might have happened. Ms. Pantzar expressed concern about where all the vehicles that are owned will park. Ms. Pantzar felt that the City's streets are being inundated by all the parking. Mr. Rivett said that he attended the Balboa Island Improvement Association meeting last year and there was a long discussion about the parking problems, and he suggested that storage not be done in the garages but that the garages are used strictly for their automobiles. Ms. Linhoff commented that she thought that mansionization and the garage /parking issues were all connected. commented that the importance of the issue must be stressed to the candidates running for office and to the Council that is there. Ms. Unhoff restated her motion. Motion fails. Ms. Hoffman offered a substitute motion that EQAC forward a recommendation to the City Council that they wish to express their concern about the negative effects of mansionization on the quality of life of the City of Newport Beach and request that the Council consider a process by which development standards to address mansionization be considered by staff for review by EQAC, Planning Commission and City Council. Mr. Eaton seconded the substitute motion. Motion passes. Page 25 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOP- MENT STANDARDS Chapter 20.11 R E S I D E N T I A L D E V E L O P M E N T S T A N D A R D S — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — RI Sections: 20.11 .010 20.11 .020 20.11.030 20.11 .040 Chapter 20.11 :SIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Effect of Chapter. Building Height and Floor Area Limit. Parking, Open Space Options, 20.11.010 EFFECT OF CHAPTER. The residential development standards contained in this Chapter shall apply to all dwellings located in Residential Districts in Corona del Mar, West Newport and the Balboa Peninsula as those areas are more particularly described below. Dwellings in those areas shall also be subject to all other provisions of this Title. Where there is a conflict between this Chapter and another provision of this Title, the provisions of this Chapter shall be controlling. A. The areas of Corona del Mar in which the provisions of this Chapter shall be controlling are more particularly described as follows: That area commonly referred to as old Corona del Mar generally bounded by Avocado Avenue, Pacific Coast Highway, Fifth Avenue, the easterly boundary of the Corona del Mar tract, the Pacific Ocean and the Harbor entrance; and more 'specifically described as that area included in Annexation #3 as described in Ordinance No. 252 of the City of Newport Beach, approved on February 27, 1924. B. The areas of West Newport and the Balboa Peninsula in which the provisions of this Chapter shall be controlling are more particularly described as follows: That area commonly referred to as West Newport and the Balboa Peninsula generally bounded by the Semeniuk Slough, Pacific Coast Highway, the West Lido Channel, the Newport Channel, the Main Channel, the Harbor Entrance, the Pacific Ocean and the Santa Ana River, and more specifically described as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the westerly boundary of the City of Newport Beach and the Mean High Tide Line of the Pacific Ocean; thence proceeding northerly along said City Page 26 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOP- MENT STANDARDS Chapter 20.11 Boundary to the intersection of said Boundary with the northerly right -of -way line of Pacific Coast Highway; thence due East a distance of 1t foot to an intersection with the City Boundary on the easterly side of that certain one foot strip shown on Annex No. 21, Ordinance No. 630, 10/31/1950; thence proceeding easterly, northerly, easterly and southerly along said City Boundary to an intersection with the northerly right -of -way line of Pacific Coast Highway; thence proceeding southerly along a perpendicular to said right -of -way line to the center- line of Pacific Coast Highway; thence easterly along said centerline to an intersection with the centerline of Newport Boulevar,; thence southerly along said centerline of Newport Boulevard to an intersection with the southerly Bulkhead of the Newport Island Channel, said point being westerly of U. S. Bulkhead Station #126 on the U. S. Bulkhead line; thence easterly to said U. S. Bulkhead Station #126; thence continuing along the U. S. Bulkhead Line to U. S. Bulkhead Station #114; thence northeasterly in a straight line to U. S. Bulkhead Station 4165; thence northeasterly, easterly and southerly along the U. S. Bulkhead Line to U. S. Bulkhead Station #162; thence southerly in a straight line to U. S. Bulkhead Station #113, and thence proceeding along the U. S. Bulkhead to U. S. Bulkhead Station #107; thence continuing southerly along the prolongation of the U. S. Bulkhead Line to an inter- section with the Mean High Tide Line; thence westerly and northwesterly along said Mean High Tide Line to the point of Beginning. (Ord. 1540 § 1 (part), 1974). 20.11.020 BUILDING HEIGHT AND FLOOR AREA LIMIT. A. In the R -1 and R -2 Districts in the above -noted areas, the total gross floor area, including basements, garages and carports, but excluding decks, balconies or patios open on at least two sides, contained in all buildings on a building site shall not exceed two times the buildable area of the site. For dwellings, the building height limit shall be 24/28 feet as specified in Chapter 20.02. For accessory buildings, the building height limit shall be fifteen feet. B. In the R -3 and R -4 Districts in the above -noted areas, the total gross floor area contained in all buildings on a building site shall not exceed three times the buildable area of the site; provided, however, that floor area devoted to parking within a building or to decks, balconies or patios open on at least two sides shall not be considered in determining the total floor area allowed. The height limit in the R -3 District shall be 24/28 feet on the front one -half of the lot and 28/32 feet on the rear one - half of the lot, except where in the opinion of the Planning Commission differences in grade warrant individual considerations. The height limit in the R -4 District shall be 28/32 feet as specified in Chapter 20.02. (Ord. 1540 § 1 (part), 1974). Page 27 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOP- MENT STANDARDS Chapter 20.11 20. 11.030 PARKING. The parking requirements for the above -noted areas shall be as follows: A. In the R -1 District two spaces for any structure contain- ing less than 2,000 square feet, exclusive of areas devoted to parking or open space; three spaces for any structure containing 2,000 square feet or more, exclusive of areas devoted to parking or open space. B. In the R -2, R -3 and R -4 Districts three spaces for any structure containing less than 2,400 square feet, exclusive of areas devoted to parking or open space, plus one additional space for each 600 square feet or portion thereof; provided, however, that the standards contained in subsection A. above shall apply to any single family dwelling in the R -2, R -3 or R -4 Districts. C. In addition to the above -noted parking standards the follow- ing parking controls shall also apply: For each dwelling unit there shall be a minimum of one covered parking space. v 2. For each dwelling unit there shall be a minimum of one independently accessible parking space. 3. Tandem parking up to a maximum of two cars in depth shall be permitted. Parking in one side yard shall be permitted; provided, however, that structural encroachments shall not be permitted. 5. Tandem parking and parking in a side yard shall not both be permitted on the same lot. (Ord. 1540 § 1 (Part), 1974). 20.11.040 OPEN SPACE OPTION. In the R -1, R -2, R -3 and R -4 Districts, in the above -noted areas, open space shall be provided in addition to the required front yard setback. This additional open space sfiaTi 6e a Volume of space equal to the buildable width of the lot, times the basic height limit, £i'mes six fe`et:`D-n-an-interior lot, this space" shall -b-e provided in t_he first twelve feet behind the required front yard setback. On a corner lot, this space may be distributed between the first twelve feet behind the required front yard setback and the first twelve feet behind the required exterior side yard setback. In the case of a lot fronting on permanent open space, such as the ocean or the bay, this space may be distributed anywhere behind the Page 28 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOP- MENT STANDARDS Chapter 20.11 required yard setback lines. Where a question arises as to where the additional open space should be provided, such as on a through lot or a lot with an unusual configuration, the location of the open space shall be determined by the Director of Community Development, following an investigation as to the locations of existing structures on adjoining properties in the neighborhood. This open space shall be open on at least two sides and shall have a minimum dimension in any direction of at least six feet and may be used for outdoor living area. Roofs, balconies, decks, patios, cornices, and architectural features may project into this area. This additional open space may be provided on any level or combination of levels and may extend across the entire front of the structure or any portion thereof. (Ord. 1629 § 1, 1975: Ord. 1540 § 1 (part), 1974). �, /// � ,�� / �� i � � c� �.n �����, :� ,� ,� ,� T...