SUBJECT: REVIEW OF ZONING STANDARDS FOR SINGLE-FAMILY AND MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

(CONTINUED FROM THE FEBRUARY 29, 2000 MEETIN G)

Planning Commission Recommendation

That the City Council:

1. Maintain existing multi-family parking standards, but provide that guest parking spaces be open and available to all units within a project
2. Require that no greater than 15% of required open space be provided on roof decks.

Background

At the City Council special meeting of February 29, 2000, several proposed amendments to residential development standards were discussed and considered. The Council considered the matters of reducing single-family parking and establishing upper floor stepped setback requirements and rejected both of these proposed changes. The public hearing and discussion on the remaining issues were continued the May 2, 2000 special meeting. On the matter of multi-family parking requirements, the Council directed staff to study the design and development impacts of requiring one guest parking space per unit. Based upon the results of that study, the Council indicated that it would make a determination regarding limitations on the amount of required open space permitted on roof decks and at the ground level. (For analysis of all proposed changes previously under consideration please refer to the February 29, 2000 report.)

Analysis

The outstanding proposed changes to zoning standards are:

• Multi-Family Parking

• Roof Deck Open Space

• Open Space on the Ground

MULTI-FAMILY PARKING

Staff has conducted further study of the design and development impacts of requiring 1 guest space per unit in multi-family projects (the current requirement is 1 space for every two units.)

The Council requested that staff investigate the number of R-2 and R-3 properties that are most impacted by an increase in the multi-family parking requirement when adding one guest space per unit. The Council was also concerned that providing additional parking would result in unanticipated negative impacts such as excessive curb cuts, driveways and the loss of landscaping if a greater percentage of a lot was allocated to parking.

Staff has conducted further study of these issues and found that the impacts varied relative to lot size and lot pattern. The lots most negatively impacted by additional parking have a street to lot orientation. (Please See Attachment 1 and 3.).

For lots with street to alley or street to street access, the proposed change would have no effect because the street and alley setback requirements permit the additional parking to be met in the garage or alley setback with a guest space tandem to the required unit parking. However, for lots with a street to lot orientation (street frontage only) providing the additional guest parking requires changes to the ground floor parking layout, with impacts on the amount of livable area and design. (See Sketch - Attachment No. 2).

The following are the most common lot types that have multi-family development potential:

 

Lot Type Zone / Lot Size

1. Street to Lot R1A,R-2, or R2B / 40’ X (100’ – 135’)
2. Street to Lot R1A,R-2, or R2B / 50’ X 100’+
3. Street to Lot R-3 / 40’ X 100’+
4. Street to Lot R-3 / 30’ X (90’-110’)
5. Street to Alley R-3 / 30’ X (90’-100’)
6. Street to Alley R-3 / 40’ X 100’
7. Walk Street R-3 / 30’ X 95’

The attached map shows the location of these lots throughout the City, which can be potentially developed with multi-family projects (typically two or three unit projects on each lot). Attachment No. 1 shows the numbers of each type of lot and a description of the anticipated impact of adding guest parking. Attachment No. 3 shows these impacts graphically.

In sum, the proposed addition of guest parking space will impact lots with street to lot orientation by requiring different designs for the ground floor. These lots represent about half of the lots that can potentially be developed. The severity of this impact varies depending on the lot size. The smaller R-3 lots (30 X 90-110), representing about 5% of the total lots, are most significantly effected, as the only way to provide the guest parking is to re-orient the front unit garage toward the street to provided tandem parking in front of the garage . (Please See Sketch, Attachment No. 3). The back unit garage will still be accessed by a 9-foot drive along the side. This will create a curb cut for the entire width of the lot, and eliminate any possibility of landscaping or entry-doors facing the street front. The estimated loss of building square footage is about 200 square feet. For the larger street to lot lots, guest parking could be provided towards the rear of the lot, or by re-orienting the front garage as noted above. It is likely that many builders would choose the latter option, as it would result in little or no loss to their buildable square footage, but would result in the same design impacts noted above for the smaller R-3 lots.

Walk street R-3 lots would also be significantly impacted. If two guest spaces are required, the only option would be to provide the guest parking in tandem, which is specifically prohibited by the Zoning Ordinance, thus precluding the possibility of any two-unit projects on R-3 zoned walk streets unless tandem guest parking is allowed.

Another issue is the impact on larger multi-family projects on assembled lots. While these are not as common as the individual lot developments, there are three such projects currently in the plan check process. (7, 9, and 12 units). If these types of projects were required to have additional guest parking it would result in significant design changes. All the projects noted were able to provide the required and guest parking with minimal curb cuts by accessing the parking off a common driveway. This has allowed for positive design features, including landscaping along the street frontage, door-entries facing the street instead of garages, the preservation of on-street public parking, and large common landscaped areas (required for projects of 5-units or more). If additional guest parking were required for these projects, the only design options available would be to face garages to the street (to create the most possible tandem guest parking), or to develop the lots separately as two or three unit projects . These options would result in the design problems noted above, and if split into separate projects, would eliminate the efficiencies created by sharing driveway access, and providing common open space areas.

OPEN SPACE & ROOF DECKS

Establishing new limits on roof deck or ground level open space was also under consideration by City Council. The Planning Commission recommends limiting roof deck open space to 15% of the required open space for each unit, but not requiring all open space on the ground level. The Commission felt this was a reasonable compromise between mandating 2nd and 3rd level setbacks and no restriction on the location of open space. The proposed limitation will cause new projects to locate up to 170 square feet of open space per dwelling unit along building 2nd and 3rd levels rather than on the roof where it is most typically located. Locating 200 square feet open space on the roof has no effect on the volume or mass of projects which was a concern expressed by City Council. This change would result in varying building setbacks at 2nd and 3rd levels at the discretion of the builder and an overall 170 square foot reduction of living area per unit. (Please see Sketch - Attachment No. 3.). The Commission rejected a limitation to provide all open space on the ground floor as too restrictive.