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

Recommendation:

That the City Council direct staff as deemed appropriate relative to proceeding with a text amendment to the Zoning Ordinance.

Background:

The City Council previously directed staff to provide an overview of zoning standards for single and multi-family residential development projects. Staff presented a report on proposed changes to development standards at a special meeting of City Council on March 30, 1999 and Council directed staff to further analyze and refine certain elements of the suggested changes and report back to Council. Staff evaluated proposed revisions based on Council direction as summarized below and on the attached tables.

Analysis:

The standards requiring further review by staff involved:

• Parking
• Open Space & Upper Floor Setbacks

I. Parking Standards

The City Council proposed that requirements for single family guest parking be reduced to providing only a 17’ setback requirement, but suggested increasing the guest parking to one space per each dwelling unit for multi-family projects. The size of lots and lot orientation effects the actual number of parking spaces provided for projects. The current parking standards are found in Sections 17.44.020 and Section 17.44.090 (c) as follows:

Staff evaluated the effects of the proposed changes and found that eliminating the guest parking in single family projects would allow additional floor area on the ground floor and have a minor impact on most parking conditions as a 17’ setback is generally provided for all new construction. Alley fronting lots with garages could accommodate a guest space with 9’ or 17’ setbacks. (Please see Summary of Proposed Changes to Residential Development Standards.)

Multi-family parking changes will result in no change for through lots, but street fronting lots will require tandem parking and make some projects unbuildable and substantially reduce ground floor livable area. This change in combination with other recommended zoning standard changes will result in projects which are small and may not be desirable for residents. (Please see attached tabulation.)

Parking Recommendations :

• Change single family parking requirement for guest parking not located in the garage setback
• Maintain the current multi-family parking requirements because of excessive floor area reduction.

II. Open Space & Upper Floor Setback Standards

The current open space requirements are summarized as follows:

Typically

Zone/Use Open Space Requirement Provided /Project

• R-1 (Single family) 400 sq. ft. (min. dimension 10’) 400 ² Sq. Ft.

25% on decks permitted / 75% on grade

• R-2 (Single, Two or 3+) 200 sq. ft. per d.u. (min. dimension 7’) 400 ^3,5,6,7 Sq. Ft.

R-2B 100% on decks permitted /50% covered

• R-3 (Single, Two or 3+) 200 sq. ft. per d.u. (min. dimension 7’) 600 ^{4, 5,6,7} Sq. Ft.

100% on decks permitted /50% covered

• Condominiums (two) 200 sq. ft. per d.u. (min. dimension 7’) and 600 ^5,6,7 Sq. Ft.

100 sq. ft. private open space on decks

100% on decks permitted/50% covered /

50% directly accessible ea. d.u.

• Condominiums (three +) 200 sq. ft. per d.u. (min. dimension 7’) and 900 ^5,6,7 Sq. Ft.

100 sq. ft. private open space on decks /

100% on decks permitted/50% covered /

50% directly accessible ea. du.

---

Complaints about new projects constructed in the City generally involve comments that buildings look massive and tall and that there is insufficient open space. Council responded to this issue with a recommendation that the new projects be stepped, creating new "front yard" requirements on the floors above the ground level (at streets or alleys) and eliminating the ability to provide required open space on roof decks. ¹ Building volume has been reduced with this recommendation since it will no longer be possible to put required open space on the roof . The effect of the proposed changes will step the highest part of the buildings away from the street making buildings appear less massive and generally reduce livable area by approximately 720 sq. ft. for a typical 3000 square foot lot. However, providing 200 square feet of additional open space at grade in combination with new stepped "front yard" requirements as previously suggested by Council will substantially reduce floor area by another 282 to 745 square feet ( a total reduction of up to 1,465 square feet depending on lot orientation ) and may not be desirable to potential buyers of these projects. A typical condominium will be reduced in size from 2,375 square feet unit to 1,924 square feet on street to alley oriented lots or as low as 1,377 square feet on a street fronting lot . As livable area is substantially reduced the units will be less attractive as higher end housing. (Most of the two-on-a lot condominium units which are in the range of 2,000 – 2,300 square feet currently sell for up to $500,000). Changes in housing size will affect the housing market in the City. (Please Refer to Buildout Table.)

The effect of these proposed changes should also be examined on the attached floor plan. As the plan for a typical 2,000 square foot unit indicates, livable areas are still substantial even with the proposed upper level setbacks. However, adding an additional 200 square feet at grade will potentially reduce building depth by an additional 6 to 7 feet resulting in small living rooms, potential elimination of bedrooms at basement levels, and elimination of bath rooms at first floor levels and den/dining rooms at second floor levels. ² (See attached floor plan.)

In order to avoid excessive reductions in living area with the above standards, staff is recommending that building separation requirements in the R-3 zone be reduced from 8 feet to 6 feet, consistent with R-1 and R-2 requirements. It is also recommended that the minimum open space requirement be reduced to 4 feet in order to make the "front" yard setback countable open space.

Open Space Recommendations :

1. Eliminate option to provide required open space on roof decks for R-2, R-3 zones.
2. Omit minimum 200 sq. ft. open space on grade (R-2, R-3 zones) as it substantially reduces unit size.
3. Eliminate calculations for open space which includes excess yard areas.
4. Reduce current minimum dimension open space requirements to 4 feet for R-2, R-3 zones
5. Maintain option to partially cover a percentage of required open space on 2nd floor level decks.

The effect of the above recommendations will be to reduce building volume, provide increased building setbacks along street frontage and setback the highest part of the building from the street to minimize the appearance of building height. The effect of eliminating alternatives to calculating open space with excess yard areas will be to simplify the Zone Code and add additional open space for new projects.

Notes:

1. Applies to street and alley through lots and street side only for street fronting lots.

2. 200 sq. ft. / 30 ft. lot depth = 6.65 ‘ (Typical lot size 3,000 sq. ft. or 30’ x 100’)

 

---

---

Note: There are several pages of small type tables that did not translate into this document.

 

Examples of Typical New Development Projects

Open Space Substantially On Roof Deck 1	Basement Condition Follows Topography Of Site 2	Typical 2 Story And Basement Condition 3
Open Space Substantially On Roof Deck 4	Roof Decks Provide All Open Space 5	No Building Setback Along Street Frontage 6
Example F.A.R. 1:7 to 1	Example F.A.R. 1:7 to 1	Example F.A.R. 1:7 to 1

Back to Agenda     Agendas / Minutes Menu