Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 211-05" in increased noise and traffic on the one hand; to_supporting the policies of the Housing Element for increasing these types of housing units, and allowing property owners to add second dwelling units and increasing the general housing stock as well as providing small units for family members . . Another topic of testimony was whether to allow second stories on substandard lots (4 supportive comments, 2 opposing, and 4in support if limited in scope, generally as proposed by staff). A few speakers spoke in opposition to the enclosure of noise producing equipment and in opposition to maximum lot sizes. Other comments addressed contextual front setbacks, application of Home Improvement Exceptions (HIE), opposition to parking in the front . setback for second units and the Single-Family (S) overlay districts. Staff has attached responses (Attachment C) to Council questions submitted during and following the March 14th meeting. DISCUSSION Second Dwelling Units In response to public testimony and Council questions, staff is recommending a development limit of 15-second units annually over the next 5 years. The proposed alternative recommendations for small second units consists of the following: • This limit would apply to small (up to 450 square feet) second dwelling units on lots of at least 7,000 square feet and less than 135% (8,100 sq. ft.) of the minimum lot size. • All single-family zones would allow for small second units on 7,000 square foot lots. This includes all R-l combining districts. (See Table 5B, Section 18.12.070 of the Ordinance). • The limit of 15 units per year would be rolled over to the next year if that maximum were not constructed. • The five-year limit will be from June 1, 2005 to June 1, 2010. Staff will also report annually to the PTC and Council on the development of these units, including total units approved and built, as well identifying concentrations of units in specific neighborhoods. After 5 years, the program will be evaluated and will expire unless Council takes further action to extend it. These limitations do not affect the existing allowance for second units on lots that are 135% or more of the required minimum lot size (8,100 square feet or more). A second dwelling unit of up to 900 square feet is allowed on such lots. There are two important reasons for not adding these lots to the 5 year limit; 1) these regulations are already in effect and there have been no negative impacts from the average of three units built each year; and 2) revising the existing provisions for second units could affect the City's compliance with State legislation. The proposed changes are incorporated into the draft code chapter at Section 18.12.070. The Planning Staff and City Attorney have also included findings in the proposed CMR:211:05 20f4 NOT YET APPROVED SECTION 4. Paragraph (3) of subsection (a) of section 18.040.030 (Definitions) of Title 18 (zoning) is hereby amended to read as follows: (3) "Accessory building or structure" means a building or structure which is incidental to and customarily associated with a specific principal use or facility, and which meets the applicable conditions set forth in Chapter 18.8818.12.080. SECTION 5. Paragraph (4) of subsection (a) of section 18.04.030 (Definitions) of Title 18 [Zoning] is hereby deleted. SECTION 6. Paragraph (15) of subsection (a) of section 18.04.030 (Definitions) of Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Al to Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (15) between the below grade located that is more than "Basement" means that portion of a building lowest floor and the ceiling above, which is fully or partly below and partly above grade, but so the vertical distance from grade to the floor below the vertical distance from grade to ceiling. SECTION 7. A new paragraph (15.5) , is added to subsection (a) of section 18.0.4.030 (Definitions) of Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to read as follows: ( 15 . 5 ) \\ Bed and Breakf as till odging means the furni shing of rooms or groups of rooms eguipped regularly to provide lodging by prearrangement and for compensation for short periods of time and not to exceed six guest rooms. Meals mayor may not be provided, but there is one common kitchen facility. SECTION 8. Paragraph (24.5) of subsection (a) of section 18.04.030 (Definitions) of Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (24.5) "Carport" means a portion of a principal residential building or an accessory building to a residential use designed to be utilized for the shelter of one (1) or more motor vehicles, which is open (unenclosed) on two or more sides ~including on the vehicular entry side~ and 'v"hich has no more than t~"o sides enclosed and which is covered with a solid roof. SECTION 9. A new paragraph (41.5) is added to subsection (a) of section 18.04.030 (Definitions) of. Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to read as follows: 4 050401 syn 6030042 !' " NOT YET APPROVED SECTION 21. Paragraph (83) of subsection (a) of section 18.04.030 (Definitions) of Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Al to Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows. (83) "Lodging uni t" means a room or group of rooms not including a kitchen, used or intended for use by overnight occupants as a single unit, whether located in a hotel, motel or a ffv~elling unit bed and breakfast providing lodging. Where designed or used for occupancy by more than two persons, each two-person capacity shall be deemed a separate lodging unit. Fer the purpose of determining residential density, eaeh hlO lodging units shall be considered the equivalent of one ffvlelling unit. SECTION 22. Subparagraph (B) . subsection (a) of section 18.04.030 [Zoning] of the Palo Al to Municipal read as follows. of paragraph (84) of (B) "Flag lot" means an buildable area is located to the street, and which has access to the a narrmil driveway. (Definitions) of Title 18 Code is hereby amended to interior lot on which the rear of a lot abutting a same street only by means of SECTION 23. A new paragraph (113 .1) ,. is added to subsection (a) of section 18.04.030 (Definitions) of Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to read as follows: (113.1) "Porch" means a roofed open area, attached to or part of the· building and with direct access to the residence. Please see definition for "vaulted entry feature" for similar structures greater than 12 feet in height. SECTION 24. A new paragraph (114. 2) , is added to subsection (a) of section 18.04.030 (Definitions) of Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to read as follows: (114;2) "Porte-cochere" means a covered structure attached to a residence or adjacent to a residence and erected over a driveway, which is completely open on three or more sides and used for the temporary unloading and loading of vehicles. SECTION 25. A new paragraph (114. 3) , is added to subsection (a) of section 18.04.030 (Definitions) of Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to read as follows: (114.3) "Privacy" means a reasonable expectation that personal activities conducted within and around one's home will not be subj ect to casual or involuntary observation by 12 050401 syn 6030042 NOT YET APPROVED SECTION 30. A new paragraph (143.5), is added to subsection (a) of section 18.04.030 (Definitions) of Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to read as follows: (143.5) "Vaulted entry feature" means a roofed but open structure greater than 12' in height attached to or part of the building and wi th direct access to the residence. The height shall be measured from grade to the top of the roof or, if there is a second floor above the feature, then to the underside of the floor above. SECTION 31. Subparagraph (E) of paragraph (146) of subsection (a) of section 18.04.030 (Definitions) of Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows. (E) "Street yard" means a yard adjoining a street lot line, other than the front lot line. SECTION 32. Section 18.08.020 of Chapter 18.08 (DESIGNATION AND ESTABLISHMENT OF DISTRICTS) of Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: II II II II II II II II II II II II 14 050401 syn 6030042 NOT YET APPROVED decision, the date the decision will be final if no hearing is requested, and a description of how to request a hearing. (3) The proposed director's decision shall become final fourteen days after the date notice is mailed unless a request for a hearing is filed. (4) The applicant or the owner or occupier of an adjacent property may request a director's hearing on the proposed director's decision by filing a written request with the planning division before the date the proposed director's decision becomes final. There shall be no fee required for requesting such a hearing. (5) The time limits set forth in this subsection (d) may be extended upon the written request of the applicant. (e) Director's Hearing (upon request). (1) Following the filing of a timely hearing request of a proposed director's decision the director shall hold a hearing on the application. A hearing request received after the expiration of the time limits set forth in subsection (d) (3) shall not be considered. (2) Notice of the director's hearing shall be mailed ten days prior to the hearing to the proj ect applicant, to owners and residents. of property . adjacent to the subject property, and to any person who has made a written request for such notice. Notice shall include the address of the property, a brief description of the proposed project, and the date, time and location of the hearing. (3) At the time and place set for hearing the director shall hear evidence for and against the application or its modification. The hearing shall be open to the public. (f) Final Director's Decision (1) The director shall issue a written approving, approving with conditions, or denying the application within fourteen days of the hearing. decision project (2) Notice of the director's decision shall be mailed to the project applicant, the owners and occupants of all adjacent properties, and any person requesting notice of the decision. The notice shall include the address of the property, a brief description of the proposed project, a brief description 18 050401 syn 6030042 NOT YET APPROVED subj ect property, the property or properties located directly across the street, and the next properties located diagonally across the street from the subject property. SECTION 41. Section 18.77.120 (Home Improvement -------Exception Process) Approvals) of Title is hereby deleted. of Chapter 18.77 .( Procedures for Permits and 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code SECTION 42. The following entry is added to Table 1 (Minimum Off-Street Parking Requirements) of Section 18.83.050 (Schedule of off-street parking, loading and bicycle facility requirements) of Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Al to Municipal Code: Use Single-family residential use (including second single- family dwelling units) : 050401 syn 6030042 Minimum Off-Street Parking Requirement (a) In the O-S district: for the primary dwelling unit, 4 spaces, of which one must be covered for a second detached dwelling unit, 2 spaces, of which one must be covered for a second attached dwelling unit, 1 space (b) In the R-l district: for the primary dwelling unit, 2 spaces, of which one must be covered for a second dwelling unit larger than 450 square feet, 2 spaces, of which one must be covered for a second dwelling unit 450 square feet or smaller, 1 space (c) In all other districts: for the primary dwelling unit, 2 spaces, of which one must be covered for a second detached dwelling uni t, 2 spaces, of which one mus t be covered for a second attached dwelling unit, 1 space 20 Minimum Bicycle Parking Requirement Spaces Class '\' .". . Sections: 18.12.010 18.12.020 18.12.030 18.12.040 18.12.050 18.12.060 18.12.070 18.12.080 18.12.090 18.12.100 18.12.110 18.12.120 18.12.130 18.12.140 18.12.150 18.12.010 Chapter 18.12 R-l RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT Purposes Applicable Regulations Land Uses Development Standards Permitted Encroachments, Projections and Exceptions Parking Second Dwelling Units Accessory Uses and Facilities Basements Exhibit A, Regulations for the Single Story Overlay (S) Combining District Single Family Individual Review Home Improvement Exceptions Architectural Review Historical Review Grandfathered Uses Purposes Provisions related to the single-family residential (R -1) district, four residential R-1 subdistricts, and the single-story (S) combining district are outlined in this chapter. Requirements for the RE, R-2 and RMD are included in Chapters 18.10,18.17, and 18.19 , respectively. The specific purposes of each residential district are stated below: (a) Single Family Residential District [R-l] (b) The R -1 single family residential district is intended to create, preserve, and enhance areas suitable for detached dwellings with a strong presence of nature and with open area affording maximum privacy and opportunities for outdoor living and children's play. Minimum site area requirements are established to create and preserve variety among neighborhoods, to provide adequate open area, and to encourage quality design. Second dwelling units and accessory structures or buildings are appropriate where consistent with the site and neighborhood character. Community uses and facilities, such as churches and schools, should be limited unless no net loss of housing would result. Special Residential Building Site R-l Subdistricts (7,000), (8,000), (10,000), (20,000)1 . The special residential building site R-l subdistricts are intended to modify the site development regulations of the R-l single family residence district, where applied 1 Subdistricts may be reflected on the Zoning Map as R-l(650), R-1(743), R-l(929) and R-l(1,858), respectively, reflecting the minimum lot size in square meters rather than in square feet. Response: Second dwelling units are counted toward achieving the City's ABAG/Housing Element goals, in particular toward the "moderate" income unit category. "Moderate" income group is between 80-120% of the area median income and for Palo Alto "moderate" is considered below market rate housing. The Housing Element in the City's Comprehensive Plan also includes policies and programs to modify R-1 standards to allow for more second dwelling units. While the number of potential new second units was not quantified in the Element, documented new units would count towards ABAG requirements. 6. Any idea what neighborhoods have the potential for the most granny units, considering that some neighborhoods have units currently grandfathered in? . Response: Please see attached map representing R-1 lot sizes. In particular, the lot sizes that are 7,000 square feet -8,100 square feet. Also shown on this map are lots that under existing regulations, and by size alone are eligible to apply for constructing a second dwelling unit. . Neighborhoods most likely to accommodate second units on lots greater than 7,000 square feet are found throughout the city, with the exception of small lot neighbor~oods such as College Terrace and Downtown North. South Palo Alto probably has more of a concentration of lots that under existing and proposed regulations are eligible to apply for second dwelling units, since the lots there tend to be larger than in the north half of the city. Residents that have raised concerns about allowing for small second dwelling units have pointed out that South Palo Alto has a higher number of rental single-family homes. Their concern seems to be that absentee property owners may see second units as added revenue. 7. . Besides the lot mergers that occurred under the current maximum lot size, do we know how many properties were proposed but no lot merger subsequently happened? Response: There is no current maximum lot size requirement in the code. While some applications for lot mergers may have been withdrawn at the applicant's request, staff is not aware of other lot mergers that didn't proceed to completion. 8. How could a limit be placed on the number of second units annually? Is it feasible to cap the number of applications, or sunset the ordinance if a set number of applications are received? Response: Staff has outlined in the staff report a proposed limitation on development of the small second units on lot sizes of 7,000 square feet or more (but less than 135% of the minimum lot size requirement in district). The limit would allow approval of a maximum of 15 such units annually for a period of 5 years (75 total), and could not be extended without Council approval at the end of the 5-year period. If not utilized, the annual fifteen permits will rollover to the following year. Existing R-1 properties currently eligible for second units would not be impacted by this review and sunset provision. 9. If no more than one car is proposed to be allowed in the front setback (and that in the regular driveway), could we see a couple example layouts of second units in 6000 and 7000 sf lots with the required parking? Response: Please see the attached diagrams. The exception to allow one parking space for a second dwelling unit in the front setback is intended to apply only to circumstances where the Director finds that the space could not be provided elsewhere on site and is therefore constraining the construction of a second dwelling unit. The exception would likely be limited to those existing homes with garages in the front of the lot and with the home built at or less than 20 feet from the front setback. If the home is built to the 6-8 foot side setback on the side where the driveway is located, an additional parking space could not fit on the side of the house and there would be no access to the rear of the house. In that instance the required parking space could not be provided out of the front setback without reconstructing the garage and/or portions of the house. The additional space could, however, be accommodated in the front setback, 2 conforming walls are those for which building permits were approved. The proposed revisions are not a change from current practice in the use of the HIE process, but do specify the limitations on what development exceptions may be requested. The proposed ordinance says "Such vertical extensions must remain within the height and daylight plane limits for the district unless an HIE or Variance for height or daylight plane encroachments is granted." This means that a second request for an HIE, or a Variance in some cases, would be required to be submitted if the wall was also proposed to encroach into the daylight plane or extend above the maximum height. The second request could only be granted if the required findings could be made. The deliberations over whether or not to grant such an HIE would be based on three findings that include a consideration of: (1) the existing architectural style of the home, neighborhood character, protected or significant tree, or historic status of the home, (2) how detrimental the extension or encroachment would be to property or improvements in the vicinity and public health, safety, general welfare or convenience, and (3) the extent of the encroachment or extension, which would need to be the minimum necessary to fulfill the purpose of an HIE, and CQuid not be based on personal circumstances of the applicant. 14. "No (permanent) pumping allowed after basement is constructed" is current policy of Public Works. Did PTC/staff discuss codifying? There are noise and energy issues as well as water table. Response: ZOU staff consulted with the Public Works Department, who indicated that the policy prohibiting the permanent pumping of groundwater is not codified in the Municipal Code. They indicated the policy alone has been sufficient for staff to impose the requirement on 'applicants. Public Works staff, however, would not be opposed to codifying the policy, if that is Council's desire. This would not be a part of the Zoning Ordinance Update (Title 18), but would be added to the appropriate engineering section of the Municipal Code. In terms of noise and energy consumption, Public Works also indicates that the pumps used to pump perimeter foundation seepage water are typically small electric units that are relatively quiet, energy- efficient, and are used only intermittently following rainfall events. An analysis and report prepared by the ZOU environmental consultant (EIP Associates) concluded that there would not be a cumulative impact of basements on the groundwater levels in Palo Alto. 15. Why take away the tiny amount of open space for the second unit? Response: The site coverage and setback requirements for the R-1 zoning districts provide sufficient open space areas for both the primary and second dwelling unit, so open space is not taken away. For example, an 8,100 square foot lot limits site coverage to 3,180 square feet if built as a single story and 2,835 square feet if built as a two story, leaving approximately 5,000 square feet for open space, driveways, walkways, and uncovered patiOS. It is virtually impossible to distinguish open space for the home from open space for the second unit, so the 200 square foot requirement is deleted to simplify the code. 16. Why require 4 parking spaces for O/S residence? Response: The Open Space (OS) zoning district is not before the City Council at this time. The . low-density residential districts include the R-1, RE, R-2 and RMD zoning districts. ZOU staff will return to the P& TC and Council with the OS district and other Special Purpose Districts at a future date. The Parking chapter of the ordinance will also be brought to the P& TC and Council as a separate review item. 4 · . Ondik, Susan Subject: FW: Freeman Agenda Questions 3.14.05 -----Original Message---~- From: Harrison, Emily Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 3:57 PM To: 'councilagendaemail@cityofpaloalto.org'; Council, City Cc: Emslie, Steve; Williams, Curtis; Lusardi, John Subject: Freeman Agenda Questions 3.14.05 ZOU questions: Where are the state mandated second unit laws documented? Second unit laws are in the State Government Code Section 65852. The basic difference between an R-1 with a second unit added and an R-2 is the size of the second unit. An R2 could be an R1 and an R1 could be an R2, but an R2, correct? Yes, the most significant difference is that the second dwelling is ·afullresidence. A single-family home may be located in an R,-2 zone (with or without a second unit) but a duplex or two units (in excess of 900 square feet) could not be located in an R-1 zone. There are several other differences, such as that a minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet is requiredfor 2 units in-an R-2 zone, and at least 8,100 square feet is requiredfor a second unit in an R-1 zone. Parking requirements are slightly different as well. Past development rates can be a base indicator of past performance, but a multitude of variables, such as a sluggish economy and changes in size of both parcel (smaller) and "granny unit" (larger) could change the non scientifically based linear abstraction that "revisions are not likely to result in an excessive number of new' second units". To make an informed decision, we would need to look at few, medium and fully built scenarios. Can you provide a vision of what the impacts would be on Palo Alto if this change in govemanceresulted in moderate and fully built scenarios? Suppose all 10,800 (or 7,200) parcel built units. What would that do to traffic and basic infrastructure? To accurately gauge even potential maximum buildout would require assessing all of the site constraints on every properly, including the size of the existing home and other structures and the available parking. Our suggested approach is to monitor'buildout annually, and adjust the requirements if a substantial number of new units are constructed. What is the school board's perspective on the proposals? The school board has not reviewed the proposals, but did review the Comprehensive Plan changes that suggested encouraging second dwelling units. Is there a Zoning Administrator (ZA)positiori? There seems to be a lot of responsibility placed on the Director (who has a very wide range of responsibilities) rather than a ZA who should be able torecite the rules, chapter and verse. If there isn't a ZA, can you tell us why not and what the statistics are of issues raised to the council level before and after a ZA position was in place? Is there a reason that 18.10. 140(b) (l)requires a Director and 18.1O.140(b) (2) requires a ZA? 1111 referenees should be to the Direetor, as there is no longer a Zoning Administrator position. The Current Planning manager has always served as the Zoning Administrator. Some years back. thetiifes of the three managers in the Planning Division were changed to Planning Manager. so that managers could rotate when necessary. 1 Will builders of all second units be required to pay impact fees? How will the city fund Comp Plan Policy C-Z8 "Neighborhood Parks" which states that 2 acres of neighborhood parkland should be provided for every 1 ,000 people, within walking distance of all residential neighborhoods. Yes, all builders of second units are required to pay impactfees. How much additional housing inventory has been built in Palo Alto in the last 5 years and what is on the books for the next five years? Staff win Fesp9Rd WRight. According to an annual analysis conducted by Planning staff (last updated in December 2004). ABAG Fair Housing Needs indicate a total need of 724 very low to moderate income housing units (265 very low. 116 low. and 343 moderate income housing units) are needed in the City of Palo Alto to meet ABAG goals. Between 1999 -2004.283 ofthese 724 units have been built or approved. For moderate income units (which second units would count toward) 39 ofthe 343 units have been approved or constructed. How does densification (allowing 2nd units) of the RE (larger parcels), mostly located in the foothills and hills, comply with Comp Plan Policy N-4 Preserve the Foothill Area as predominantly open space? The proposed revisions would only allow a small (450 square foot) second unit on relatively large lots. It is not expected, given the few requests for second units and the size of most R-E parcels, that the predominant open space feel of the area would be affected. The total floor area of these sites would not be increased by allowing a second unit. Are the R-1 guidelines for posting and notification of anticipated changes (i.e. posting the yellow application signs and notifying neighbors) documented for R-2, RM and RE? How about the appeal process -is that the same and is it documented? Individual Review occurs only in the R-1 District, and the ordinance requires posting on the site (done by applicant after applying to the City) and notices (application received, tentative approval/etter, director's hearing notice (if hearing was requested), and final decision after the director's hearing if requested. There is no Individual Review and therefore no posting or notices for new single family homes in the R-2, RM and RE Districts.PAMC Chapter 18.77 covers Variances, CUP's, and Neighborhood Preservation Exceptions within those districts; these applications would include posting in a public place and mailed notices to owners and residents within 600 feet of the subject property. PAMC Chapter 18.77 also covers HIE's 9applicable in R1, RE, RMD and R2 zones) which would include mailed notices to owners and residents within 150 feet of the subject property. HIE 18.12.120 (c) (14) (c) -page 26 of ordinance -why allow daylight plane encroachment? HIE 18.12.120 (c)(14)(c) single story accessory structures daylight plane encroachment up to three feet -this would allow, for example, a gabled roof on a detached garage, rather than a flat roof, if the design were more compatible with the main house. What is the rationale for the ARB involvement only if 3 or more adjacent properties are being simultaneously developed/modified? Why not 2 or 4? This change to three homes occured in July 2004 with the permit streamlining ordinance. Three homes is considered the threshold number for "multifamily". Duplexes were never reviewed by the ARB, so allowing two individual homes on the same lot without ARB review is consistent. How are 2 story basements categorized? StaffwiU 1'espend wnight. Two stOry basements are considered the same as a single story basement. When the basement wall exceeds three feet above grade. it is then considered the first floor ofthe structure. What is the rationale for selecting 9,999 sqft as the max R-1lot size? Could there be a requirement to have at 2 Exterior staircases are to be oriented towards the interior side or rear yards to reduce visibility from'the street and should not intrude on side yard setbacks. Why has staff brought forward a solution that does not comprehensively address noise, which will only increase with increased density? Staff believes that the proposed standards does address equipment noise. The PTe recommendation of ''fully housed and insulated" and outside the setback would mitigate noise impacts. Staff has some concern how this wouldaffect the equipment operation and warranty. However, locating only in the building envelope or rear setback and shielded could also achieve this objective. Consideration should also be given that we are addressing new equipment, which is more efficient and quieter and also that the Noise Ordinance would still apply. Can daylight plane (section 11(44) -page 5 of the ordinance) be re-written so that any person can understand the meaning? ' Staff is including illustrations in the ZOU to show daylight plane. What is the purpose of service equipment being allowed in setbacks? Noise-producing service equipment is not allowed in setbacks under the proposed regulations. What was public reaction to parking in setbacks? There was not an extensive amount of comment about parking in setbacks for second units (some comments in support and opposition were voiced). This would also only be allowed where the Director did not find that a suitable alternative was available. ' ' Emily Harrison Assistant City Manager, City of Palo Alto, emily. harrison @cityofpaloalto.org (650) 329-2533 4 Ondik, Susan Subject: FW: Kishimoto Agenda Questions 3.14.05 -----Original Message----- From: Harrison, Emily Sent: . Monday, March 14, 2005 2:41 PM To: 'councilagendaemail@cityofpaloalto.org'; Council, City Cc: Emslie, Steve; Ondik, Susan; Lusardi, John Subject: Kishimoto Agenda Questions 3.14.05 Item 4: ZOU a. Since the ZOU is to implement the comp plan, I reviewed the housing element we adopted in late 2002. There was a 9-0 adopted amendmentto add the following language to Goal H-1: "The policies and programs for implementing this Goal H-1 shall be implemented at locations identified in the Housing Sites Inventory and to be identified iIi the upcoming Zoning Map and Comprehensive Plan Land use Map Amendments as part of the· Zoning Ordinance Update. (p. 31 of minutes) When will the Map alllendments be made and why not as we review these zones? We need to see where these zones are throughout the city and look at where we can add density. a. Rezoning properties is not within the Council approved scope of the Zoning Ordinance Update. Housing Site inventory property rezonings are proceeding on a separate track, but not within the Zoning Ordinance Update. These properties are on multi-family and mixed use . sites, however, so are not related to the R-1 or Low Density Residential zoning. Staff will identify these sites as part of the review of the multi-family (RM-15, RM-30, RM-40) zones. b. What were the commission votes on these various topics we are voting on? b. The Planning and Transportation Commission votes on specific issues are summarized in table form as Attachment E to the October 4, 2004 CMR regarding the R-1 Chapter of the ZOU. c. There was some study done on the cumulative impact of basements. Is it true that public works ordinance prohibits long term pumping of water after the basement is constructed? What muni code is that? c. Public Works reviews all proposed basements and it is their current policy to prohibit pumping after the basement is completed. They now require that basements be adequately waterproofed to prevent infiltration. The Public Works authority to regulate drainage from basements is based on the City Engineer's authority under the Grading and Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance (Chapter 16.28) and specifically the authority to require a soils engineering report in Section 16.28.140. Furthermore, the ZOU"s Environmental Consultant prepared an analysis that documented and concluded that basements would not have a cumulative impact. This was reviewed by the PTC. d. Is staff considering adopting the compatibility standards we developed for SOFA in the overall ZOU including residential districts? d. Compatibility issues, including those standards developed during the SOFA plan, will be considered within the ZOU review of Multi-Family, Commercial and Mixed Use zones and to develop performance standards to apply to properties when adjacent to residential zones. The "compatibility standards" for single family residential are addressed through the Individual Review process. e. Noise producing equipment. If there is a concern about ventilation, is there some suggested language to allow shielding but allow for adequate ventilation? e. The PTC recommendation is "fully housed and insulated". Staff's proposed option is meant 1 to maintain the existing shielding (screening) requirement, allowing for ventilation and/or adding some Director's discretion to house and/or insulate equipment depending on the type of equipment and site conditions. Staff believes this is sufficient to allow equipment with screening in the rear yard setback as well as the building envelope. f. Is there any language about screening roof equipment on residences? f. Noise producing equipment, whether at grade or on the roof, would be regulated under the proposed requirements for screening and enclosure. Other rooftop equipment (antennas, solar equipment, vents, etc.), however, would not be subject to those requirements. g. In the map changes, will we be reviewing special setbacks, especially since we have decided we will not have significant road widenings in the future? g. When map changes are considered following the ZOU, and with the coordination with the Transportation and Public Works, reviewing special setbacks can be included at that time. The zoning map and special setbacks are not being modified as part of the Zoning Ordinance Update. h. Will we seea landscape element in the ZOU? h. In the R-1 Chapter under review there are no existing landscape requirements, other than for a minimum of 60% of the front yard to be of permeable materials. Performance standards, including landscaping, are being developed for multifamily, commercial and other zones, as well as revised standards for landscaping of parking lots. i. There are a number of suggestions from the public about some "quota" or requiring findings to head off any unintended adverse impacts on anyone area of town. Did staff consider these and is there a recommended way to do it? i. Staff assumes that this question refers to limits on second dwelling units permitted. Staff intends to report annually to the Planning and Transportation Commission regarding the number of second unit applications received, including any areas of concentration. If the . Council prefers, that review could occur after a certain number of units (e.g., 15 new second dwelling units) have been approved, rather than after one year. j. Why are there only 2-3 applications per year for second units on the 3000 "eligible" lots that are large enough? Is the 3000 number based on analysis of whether they all could meet today's requirements or are there other bottlenecks or constraints? . j. Staff could only speculate as to why R-1 property owners choose or choose not to develop a second unit. Some likely reasons include personal preference, limitations on floor area for the site, cost factors, or other construction standards or site circumstances that might restrict development on the lot. . k. When will conservation districts be considered? k. The Planning and Transportation Commission discussed conservation districts in May 2004. They considered the ZOU scope of work, and other issues that have been added to the ZOU and voted to put the discussion in a "ZOU Parking Lot" list to be considered after the Zoning Ordinance Update. Staff indicated that such districts would be a major work item and would significantly delay progress on the Zoning Ordinan~e Update. This is a good question/suggestion from Pria Graves. Could staff respond --no additional parking would be required for "B&B" in RMD under proposal? 2 ~ Be~in forwarded message: > First, with respect to the Low-Density Residential changes, I object > strongly to the changes allowed by the new "Bed and Breakfast" > definition. Under the old definitions, "each two lodging units shall > be considered the equivalent of one dwelling unit." This means that a > maximum of four lodging units would be allowed on an RMD parcel (two > dwelling units permitted). Under the new definition, lodging is "not > to 'exceed six guest rooms." This is a 50% increase in the number of > rooms allowed. Since most RMD parcels are in areas where street > parking is already problematic, I cannot support such a change, at > least until our parking problems are addressed. At a minimum, please > require a Conditional Use Permit for this kind of use in the RMD > zones. I. Re: Pria Graves comment/question: What density is currently aI/owed for "bed and breakfast" establishments? It appears that only 4 "lodging" units would be allowed under RMD regulations and the definition of "lodging" as "each two lodging units shal/ be considered the equivalent of one dwelling unit. " The proposed ordinance would allow 6 units in a "bed and breakfast" development. Could a conditional use permit be required? Is additional parking required for a 8&8? (summarized from Pria Graves' e-mail of March 14, 2005). A: It is correct th.at only 4 lodging units would be aI/owed on an RMD parcel under current zoning. ,The definition of "bed and breakfast" would allow up to 6 units, but could be an allowed use in not only RMD, but also in other RM or commercial zones. Staff does not suggest modifying the definition, but has no objections to specifying in proposed Table 2 of Chapter 18.12 that bed and breakfast uses are limited to 4units in the RMD zone. A conditional use permit has not been suggested, since lodging is now a permitted use in the RMD zone. Parking is required fQr a 8&8 similar at one space per guestroom, plus any requirements for residential use. Thus, if 6 units were allowed and one was the residence of the caretaker, a total of 7 off-street parking spaces would be required. 3