The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal About11) 8A Introduction and First Reading of Ordinance No. 19-1034 Pertaining to Flag Lot Subdivisions in R-1 ZoneAGENDA ITEM 8.A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE : June 4, 2019 TO: The Honorable City Council FROM : Bryan Cook , City Manager Via : Michael D. Forbes, Community Development Director Scott Reimers , Planning Manager By : Hesty Liu , Associate Planner SUBJECT: INTRODUCTION AND FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 19-1034 AMENDING TITLE 9 (ZONING REGULATIONS), CHAPTER 1 OF THE TEMPLE CITY MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO FLAG LOT SUBDIVISIONS IN THE R-1 ZONE RECOMMENDATION: The City Council is requested to : 1. Introduce for first reading by title only and waive further reading of Ordinance No . 19-1034 (Attachment "A "), amending Title 9 , Chapte r 1 (Zoning Code ) of the Temple City Municipal Code (TCMC) pertaining to flag lot subdivis ions in the R-1 Zone , and 2 . Schedule the second reading of Ordinance No . 19-1034 for June 18, 2019 . BACKGROUND: 1. In 1988 , the City Council adopted a Zoning Code amendment to allow flag lot subdivisions in the R-1 Zone . The code allowed only one flag lot per subd ivision for a total of two lots , the flag (rear) lot and front lot. The standards adopted at the time required the original parcel to have a minimum width of 70 feet , the driveway for the flag lot ("flagpole ") to be at least 15 feet wide , and both new parcels to have a minimum area of 7 ,200 square feet. Both parcels were subject to the R-1 development standards and could be improved with a one-story or two-story dwelling . 2 . In 1998, the City Council amended the Zoning Code to prohibit two-story structures on flag lots . The amendment limited structures on flag lots to one story City Council June 4 , 2019 Page 2 of 3 and a maximum height of 20 feet. The amendment also specified that such limitations apply to rear parcels in tiered lot subdivisions that are accessed v ia an easement, shared private driveway, or private street. 3. In 2002 , the City Council again amended the Zoning Code for flag lot subdivis ions . The amendment increased the minimum w idth required for the origina l parcel from 70 feet to 80 feet and increased the minimum flagpole w idth from 15 feet to 20 feet. 4. On February 5, 2019, the City Council discussed various issues regarding flag lot subdivisions. The City Counci l directed staff to prepare an ordinance lim iting structures on the front lot to one story, consistent with the limitation on the flag lot. (Attachment "C") 5 . On March 26 , 2019 , the Plann ing Commiss ion cons idered the proposed o rd inance and the issues discussed by the City Council. The Planning Commiss ion staff report is attached hereto (Attachment "8 "). The Planning Commiss ion voted to recommend that the City Council not adopt the proposed ord inance and not make any changes to the standards for flag lot subdivisions. ANALYSIS: At the February 5, 2019 , C ity Council meeting , the C ity Councilmembers d is cussed various issues related to flag lot subdivisions , includ ing the fo ll owing : • Amount of impermeable surface area; • Security and "eyes on the street"; • Amount of front yard pavi ng; • Variety in building heights; • Perception of density and building intensity; • Impact on infrastructure ; • Sense of community versus isolation ; • Original intent of the flag lot development standards ; • Housing goals; and • Preservation of property rights. For the Planning Commission staff report, staff analyzed five different flag lot scenarios based on different hypothetical Zoning Code standards (Attachment "8"). The analysis demonstrated that no single standard would address all the issues raised by the City Council. One complicating factor is that the above issues arise from different community values and may not be equally important. Given this , staff recommended that structures on a front lot be limited to one story and 18 feet, and that the maximum height of structures on the flag lot be reduced from 20 feet to 18 feet to be cons istent with other code standards pertaining to the f i rst story. Th is approach addresses the City Council's City Council June 4, 2019 Page 3 of3 concern about reducing the perception of intens ity and providing variety in building heights without affecting the abil ity of the City to meet its regional housing obligation . The Planning Commissioners disagreed with this recommendat ion and noted the following issues during their deliberations: • The minimal number of new flag lot subdivisions (nine in the last ten years); • One-story houses are often the same size as two-story houses and are not subject to the floor area ratio lim itation ; and • The desire for consistency , not va riety, of building heights . The Plann ing Commission voted to recommend that the City Council not adopt the proposed ordinance and not make any changes to the development standards for flag lot subd ivisions . CITY STRATEGIC GOALS: Adopting the proposed ordinance would further the City Strategic Goals of Public Health and Safety and Quality of Life . FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of th is item wou ld not have an impact on the Fiscal Year 2018-19 C ity budget. ATTACHMENTS : A . Ordinance Number 19-1034 B. Planning Commission Staff Report, Ma rc h 26 , 2019 C. City Council Staff Report, February 5, 2019 ORDINANCE NO. 19-1034 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING TITLE 9 , CHAPTER 1 OF THE TEMPLE CITY MUNICIPAL CODE Attachment A WHEREAS , the C ity of Temple City ("City") has adopted a General Plan to ensure a well-planned and safe commun ity; and WHEREAS, protection of public health , safety , and welfare is fully articu lated in the Genera l Plan; and WHEREAS, State law requ ires that the Temple City Zoning Code , found in T itle 9 , Chapter 1 of the Temple City Municipal Code ("TCMC"), conform w ith the General Plan 's goals and pol ic ies ; and WHEREAS , it is necessary from time to time to update the Zon i ng Code to bring it into conform ity with State law and to address public health , safety , and welfare concerns that have arisen since the last update of the Zon i ng Code . THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: TCMC Section 9-1A-9 is hereby amended to add the fo ll owing definitions i n alphabetical order: FLAG LOT : An irregularly shaped lot or parcel of land resembling a flag on a pole , located to the s ide and/or rear of another lot , w ith street frontage and access from the street to the main body of the lot ("flag " portion) provided by a narrow strip of land that is owned in fee ("pole " portion). FRONT LOT: A lot or parcel of land with frontage on a public street that is located in front of a flag lot or tiered lot. TIERED LOT: A lot or parcel of land without frontage on a public street t hat receives vehicular access by way of a private driveway , access easement, or a public street that does not meet the City's min imum standards for a street. SECTION 2: TCMC Section 9-1M-12.B .g is hereby de leted i n its entirety : g . No "flag lot" created unde r the provisions of this section s ha ll be improved with any structure which exceeds one story or t\venty feet (20 ') in he ight. Ordinance No . 19-1034 Page 2 of 3 SECTION 3: TCMC Section 9-1 M-12 .E .1 is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows : 1. Exception for certain lots : Notwithstanding the above , the maximum height of a dwelling must not exceed one story and 18 feet if the dwell i ng is on a a . flag lot; b. tiered lot; c . front lot; or d . lot w ith less than 35 feet of frontage on a public street. SECTION 4: The City Council declares that , shou ld any prov1s1on , section , subsection , paragraph , sentence , clause , phrase , or word of th is Ord inance or any part thereof, be rendered or declared invalid or unconstitutional by any f inal court action in a court of competent jurisdiction or by reason of any preemptive legislation , such decision or action wi ll not affect the validity of the remaini ng section or portions of the Ord i nance or part thereof. The City Council declares that it would have independently adopted the remaining provisions, sections , subsections , paragraphs , sentences , clauses , phrases , or words of this Ordinance irrespective of the fact that any one or more prov isions , sections , subsections, paragraphs , sentences , clauses, phrases , or words may be declared invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 5: The City Council , in light of the whole record before it , including but not lim ited to , any ev idence (w ithin the meaning of Public Resources Code Sections 21 080(e ) and 2 1 082.2) with in the record or provided at the publ ic hearing of th is matter, hereby finds and determines that the project is exempt from California Env i ronmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to Section 15305 (Minor Alternations to Land Use Limitations ) of the CEQA Guidel ines . The City Council also finds that the proposed Ordinance is exempt in accordance with Sections 15378 , 15060(c)(2), and 15061 (b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines , because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed Ordinance will have a significant effect on the environment. SECTION 6: The C ity Clerk shall cert ify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and to its approva l by the Mayor and shall cause the same to be published accord i ng to law. Ordinance No . 19-1 034 Page 3 of 3 PASSED, APPROVED , AND ADOPTED this 18th day of June , 2019. Nanette Fish , Mayor ATIEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM : Peggy Kuo , City Clerk Gregory Murphy , City Attorney I, Peggy Kuo, City Clerk of the City of Temple City, hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No . 19-1034 was introduced at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Temple City held on the 4t h day of June , 2019 , and was duly passed , approved , and adopted by said Council at the regular meeting held on the 18th day of June , 2019, by the following vote: A YES : Councilmember- NOES : Councilmember - ABSENT: Councilmember- ABSTAIN : Councilmember- Peggy Kuo , City Clerk City of Temple City Attachment B Planning Commission Staff Report March 26, 2019 FILE: PL 19 -1705 ADDRESS : Citywide DESCRIPTION: Zoning Te xt Amendment to Limit the Height of Bui ldings on the Front Lot of Flag and Tiered Lot Subdivisions APPLICANT: City of Temp le City (Council -initiated ) PROJECT PLANNER: Hesty Liu , AICP, Associate Planner ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: This project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15305 (minor alterations to land uses limitations), and the proposed ordinance is not a "project" as defined by Sections 15061 (b)(3) and 15378(b)(5) of the CEQA Guidelines. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the attached resolution recommending that the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance SUMMARY: On February 5, 2019, the City Council co nd ucted a discussion on flag lot subdivisions . The City Council directed staff to initiate a zoning code te xt amendment to limit build ing height on the front lot of a flag lot subd ivision to one -story. March 26, 2019 Pl an ning Commission Meeting Zoning Tex t Amendment: Ordinance No. 19-1034 File PL 19-1705 BACKGROUND : The provision to allow flag lot subdivisions was added to the Zoning Code in 1988, to address concerns about the then new Genera l Plan. In 1987, the City finished the update of the Genera l Plan which resu lted in a downzoning of some residential properties, including 600 parcels that were down-zoned from multiple family residential to sing le-family residential. Some owners of large parcels opposed to the change and argued that the City had limited the development potential for their properties. In respo nse, after the adoption of the General Plan , the City Council adopted a code amendment to provide development standards for f lag lot subdivisions (Ordinance No. 88 -629) (Attachment 3). The standards adopted b y the City at the time were : 1. A minimum lot width of 70 feet for the orig i nal parcel; 2. A m i nimum lot size of 7,200 sq uare feet for each new parcel ; 3. A 15-foot driveway or pole for the rear parcel which is called the flag lot; and 4. Only one flag lot would be allowed per su bdivision . Both parcels within a flag lot subdivision were su bject to all other R-1 standards, meaning both lots cou ld be improved with a two-story house. In 1998, ten years later, the City initiated a code amendment to modify the development standards for flag lot subdivisions. According to the record, the City was concerned about the scale of the houses on the flag lot (the rear parcel) and therefore decided to lim it the height of the house on the flag lot to 20 feet and one-story. The limitation also applied to other R-1 parcels located on a shared driveway or a private street. Those parcels by definition are not flag lots but are similar to flag lots, as they also do not have public street frontage. Tho se parcels are also known as tiered parcels (see Figure 1}, and are no longer al lowed for new su bdivis ions. Figure 1: '!!ered Lots There is a misconception t h at the City used to limit the front lot of a flag lot subdivision to one story as well. Howeve r, staff has rev iewed flag lot cases between the years of 2003 and 2009, and found that the Planning Commis sion approved projects with both one-story and two -sto ry houses on the front lot. Staff's implementation of the Code continues to be consistent with the past Planning Co mmi ss i on actions. In 2002 , the City initiated the second zoning text amendment to modify the deve lopment standards for flag lots . The amendment increased the minimum width required for the driveway of the flag lot from 15 Page 2 March 26, 2019 Planning Co mmission Meeting Zoning Text Amendment: Ordinance N o. 19-1034 File PL 19-1705 feet to 20 feet and the minimum width required for the original parcel from 70 feet to 80 feet. These stand ards are sti ll in place toda y. Flag lot subd ivisi ons have been the primary meth od for subdividing R-1 parcels over t he past three decades. It offers an option to subdivide larger parcels which are less than 100 feet in width but are over 16,800 square feet in size. A lot split is another method of subdividing parcels; bu t lot spl its are only allowed for parcels of 100 feet or more in width. In recent years, the creat ion of additiona l parcels through the flag lot subdivisions has helped the City to meet the goal set by the Regiona l Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). In the past decade, most houses on the front parcel of flag lot subdivision s have been two stories . Due to the zoning code amendment in 2005 that introduced floor area incentives, the max imum floor area allowed for a two-story house in R-1 was increased by 500 sq uare fe et. In most cases involving a land area between 7,2 00 sq uare feet and 9,000 square feet, the maximum floor area of a t wo-story house is therefore comparable to that of a one -s tory (Figu re 2). Th e increased floor area , in add ition to the market demand, has become an incentive for a home owner/developer to choose to build a two-story house. This phenomenon is particu larl y ev ident with f lag lot subdi vis ions in which most of the projects approved in the past ten years (seve n out of nine projects) had two -story hou ses on the front parce ls. Figure 2: Comparison of Maximu m Li vi ng Area for One and Two -s to ry Houses MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA (7,200 S.F. LOn MAXIMUM FLOOR ARE A (8 ,5 00 S.F . LOn MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA (9,000 S.F. LO T) One-story 3,000 s.f. 3,650 s.f. 3,900 s.f. Two-story 3,020 s.f. 3,475 s.f. 3,650 s.f. ANALYSIS : In the discuss ion of February 5, 2019, the City Council expressed ten concerns re lated to flag lot subd ivision s: permeability of pavement, sec urity, front yard paving, variety in building he ight, perception of building intensity, impact on infrastructure, sense of comm unity and isol ation, the origina l intent of the ordinance, housing goa ls, and property rights. To address the City Counc il 's concern s, the followi ng analysis explores these issue s and conside rs how they relate to five different options on how flag lots could be developed. The five options include (see Figure 3 for diag rams): Option 1: Require the fron t door of the house on the flag lot to be visible from the street Option 2: Require that both lots share one drivewa y (an easement) Option 3: Require that the bu ilding on the fla g lot be invisibl e from t he street Option 4: Limit the front hou se to one-story, with each lot ha ving a sepa ra te driveway Option 5: Prohibit flag lot subdiv isi ons List of Issue s 1. Increased Impermeable Pavement -Impermeable pavement increases stormwate r runoff, which has an impact on the City's stormwa ter infrastructure and increases pol lution in rivers, bays, and the ocean. Up until recently the Lo s Angele s County Fire Department (LACoFD) requir ed d r iveways Page 3 March 26, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting Zoning Text Amendment: Ordinance N o . 19-1034 File PL 19-1705 to use impermea ble, concrete pavement. After much negotiation with fire officials, LACoFD now allows the use of permeable pavement in the driveway and staff applies the City's permeable paving maximums to these lots, thus resulting in much of the pavement be ing permeable and complying with the City 's requirements of permeability. 2. Security -A key co mponent of crime prevention through environmental de sign (CPTED) is having "eyes on the street" to reduce crime. Prese ntly, the rear unit is tucked behind the f ront lot and as such the front door of th is unit is not visible from the street. This creates the opportunity for a crime to occur unnoticed. In respo nse to this, there are site des igns that would al low greater visibility of the rear unit. However, these designs would also run contrary to other goals such as reducing the perceived intensity of new development. 3. Front Yard Paving-A typical12-foot driveway on a 50-foot lot takes up 24 percent of the lot area. On a flag lot, 40 percent of the street frontage is taken up by driveways. Thus flag l ots disrupt the typical single -family character of a neighborhood and create an environment more hostile to pedestrians and bicyclists . Option Two would be to req uire the front house to move the garage to the rear of its lot and use the flag pole for access. This would, though, require the front lot to have an easement over the rear lot's flag pole, essential ly creat i ng a tiered lot confi guration. Most cities prohibit this since it creates the possibility of neig hbor disputes in the future. 4. Variety in Building Height -Some of Temple City 's neighborhoods are characterized by variety. Req uiring some lots to be one-story and others two-story does provide variety, but als o raises a host of questions. • Wou ld it be acceptable for all lots on a street to be come two stories? • What happens when an existing street is all one-story? • For the sake of variety, should the city require two-story houses or does having variety only apply to neighborhoods already with a mix of one and two-story houses? Requiring the front lot to be no more than one-story cou ld result i n a lack of variety when all other houses on the street are one story. Prohibiting flag lots would mostly likely result in these lots being developed with two story houses, which in the long run , could reduce va riety. 5. Perception of Inten sity-One of the desires stated at the February 5 City Council meeting was to limit the feeling of i ntensity in single-family neighborhoods. This desire is not surprisi ng as it was the foundation of the City 's accessory dwelling unit (ADU) ordinance whic h req uires certain design fe atures to reduce the appearance of additional density and intensity in the single-fa m ily neighborhood. One so lution to meet this desire is to limit the hou se on the front lot to o ne -story, require the house on the flag lot to be invisible from the street, and require both units to share the same driveway (see Option 3). One comp licating f actor, however, is that this desire run s contra ry to the value of providing security, eyes on the street, and a sense of community. It is worth noting that the City's floor area ratio requirements do not apply to one-s tory houses so while the front hou se may be one-story it may actually be larger i n square footage. As Page 4 March 26, 2019 Plann ing Commission Meeting Zoni ng Te xt Amendment: Ordinance No. 19-1034 File PL 19-1705 demonstrated in Figure 2, if the fron t lot is 9,000 square feet i n size then a one-s tory house b u ilt o n the front lot co uld be 350 square f eet larger than if a two-story house was built on the f ront lot. 6. I mpact on I nfrastru ctu re -The City already is experienc i ng infrastructure ch allenges especially i n t erms of sewers, parks, and streets. The added impact of these units is relatively minor. Lim iti ng t he structure to one-story has no im pact on this issue . However, eliminati ng flag lots and, or adopting a series o f development impact fees would add ress this issue. 7. Sense of commu nity and isolation -The rear unit, prese nt ly, is iso lat ed f rom the street and precludes a grea t er sense o f comm unity, es p ec ial ly in som e cases whe re th e f ront door ca nnot even be accessed . Some different co nfi g urations, such as Option One, cou ld improve a sense of community and re d uce isolation w h ile i mproving security, however these designs would run counter to the desire to reduce the perception of inten si ty. 8. Orig i nal Intent -As mentioned earlier in t he staff report, the City's flag lot subdivision ordinance was the result of a d ownzoning pe rformed in the 1980s. The property owners experienced a red uction i n max imum density. To ease t he burden on p ro p erty owners the City Counc i l provid ed an al lowance f or f lag lot subd ivisi o n s, t hu s al lowing one house to be rep laced with two. I n 2 01 7, the St ate of Cal ifo rn ia required juri sdic t ions to provide f o r accessory dwell i ng units (A DUs). Th us under today's code, a property with o ne dwelling u nit could potentially accommodate four dwelling units. An o ption would be t o disallow flag lot subd ivis ions, while al lowi ng single-family sized ADUs on properties t hat were previously ca pable of be ing subdivided as a flag lot. This would partially address the original intent of the City Co u ncil prior to the State 's ADU laws. 9. Hous ing Goa ls-The City's General Pla n, specifi call y t he Ho us i ng Elemen t, i ncl udes goals, polici es , and programs that relate to increas i ng th e supply of hous ing to he l p meet demand . Over the las t t h ree years the Planning Commission has approved seven f lag lot subdivisions. Allowing for t he continued subdivis ion of properties wi l l assist in meeting these g oals and addre ssin g the State 's housing cri sis. 10. Preservation of Pr operty Rights -As provided in the background information, the allowance for f lag lot subd ivisions was to provi de an option to subdivide la rger parcels w ith a width less t h an 100 f eet. Proh i bi ting f lag lot subdivisio ns wou ld arguab ly deprive owners of these la rge parce l th eir exi sting property ri ghts. Fu rthe rm ore, sett i ng a maxi m um height of one-story for t h e f ront lot would also reduce exist ing develo p ment potentia l. Page 5 March 26, 2019 Planning Commission M eeting Zoning Text Amendment: Ordinance N o. 19-1034 File PL 19-1705 Figure 3: Illustration of Different Options Option 1: Front door visi ble from st reet No bui ld ing allowe d here Option 2: Shared easement Separate driveway Page 6 March 26, 2019 Planning Comm ission Meeting Zoning Text Amendment: Ordinance No. 19 -1034 File PL 19-1705 Figure 4 : Comparison between the Five Options ISSUES OPTION 1 OPTION 2 OPTION 3 OPTION 4 OPTION 5 (NO FLAG LOT) Impermeability 0 0 0 0 0 I Security + + 0 0 + Front Yard Paving + + + 0 + I Variety 0 + 0 + 0 Perception of Intensity + + + I Impact Infrastructure 0 0 0 0 + Sense of Community + 0 0 0 + Original Intent of Flag Lot 0 0 0 0 Housing Goals 0 0 0 0 Property Rights 0 0 Final Scores ++ + ++ + ++ Legend: 0 No Impact + Consistent with Goal -Inconsistent with Goal The above analysis demonstrate that no option would address all concerns. One complicati ng factor is that each of the above va lues may not be weighed equally and th u s one value shou ld be given more sway than another. For instance, Option 5 meets most of the values, but the depth of the current housing cris is is so severe any opti on that limit's the City's ability to meet its RHNA is not viable. Option 1 is not viable either since it does not address the City Cou ncil 's concern regarding perception of in tensity or variety. Given the above, staff recommend s that the Planning Commission cons i der Option 4, as it addresses the City Council 's concern about reducing the pe rception of intensity and provid i ng variety in buildi ng heights wi thout affecting the abi lity of the City to meet its RHNA. Staff recom mends that the City Council amend the Zoning Code to limit the building height of the main house on the front parcel of a flag lot subdivision or a tiered lot subdivision to 18 feet and one-story. For consis tency, the bui l ding height for the flag lot or tiered lot, currently prescribed as 20 feet, should be reduced to 18 feet. FINDINGS : TCMC Section 9 -1G -O provid es that the Zon ing Code may be "a mended whenever the public interest and necessity so require." There are no specific finding s requi red to amend the Zoning Code or other titles of the Municipal Code. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: This project is exempt from environmental review under the Ca lifornia Environmental Quality Act (C EQA ) pursua nt to Section 15305 of the CEQA Guidel in es pertaining to minor alterations to land use limitations Page 7 March 26, 2019 Pla nning Commission Meeting Zoning Tex t Amendment: Ordinan ce N o. 19-1034 File PL 19-1705 and Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines be cause the project is not a project as defined in Section 15378 and it can be seen with certainty to have no possib il ity of a sign if icant effect on the environment. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the attac hed Resolut ion recommend in g that the City Co uncil adopt the proposed ordinance. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Pla nn i ng Commi ss ion Resolution 2. Ordinance No. 19-1034 3. Pas t Ordinan ces Pertaining t o Flag lot Subd ivisions Page 8 Attachment C COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: February 5, 2019 TO: The Honorable City Council FROM: Bryan Cook, City Manager SUBJECT: DISCUSSION REGARDING FLAG LOTS RECOMMENDATION: The City Council is requested to provide direction to staff as appropriate regarding the City's requirements for the development of flag lots . BACKGROUND: The City Council is asked to d iscuss the City's requirements for the development of flag lots . In particular, if both the flag lot and interior lot of f lag lots are to be allowed as only single story homes. ANALYSIS: Some areas of Temple City were originally subdivided into lots that are very deep , but not wide enough to subdivide into two side-by-side interior lots . A common practice is to subdivide such prop~rties into two lots using a flag lot configuration , w ith one lot located behind the other (see Figure 1 ). The rear lot is accessed via a driveway along the side of the interior lot, giving the lot an L-shape that resembles a flag on a pole-hence the term flag lot. The driveway is commonly referred to as the flag pole . The current Zoning Code allows a parcel to be subd ivided to create a flag lot subject to the following criteria: • The original lot must have a street frontage of at least 80 feet; • No more than two lots may be created, one flag lot and one fron t interior lot; • The f lag lot must have a street frontage of at least 20 feet, with a 20-foot wide flag pole ; • The flag pole must include a 12-foot driveway with four feet of landscaping on either s ide; City Council February 5, 2019 Page 2 of 3 Figure 1: Sample Flag Lot (not to scale) . : ·. \. · ... I • ~ ' • · ...... . . . '0 ·• .•. . . . . . : .·. \ ~ ' 0 . . ·. ·.. ' : : ·: .. \: .... · . :._: ~ . ..,.. :-~ .. . . ·. . .·. · : ·: Flag lpt :: . : . :. ~ . . ' • 0 •• •. . . . : ·, . ' . . . :, '· . ~ .. \ \ ' • •, •• 0 • . ·. ·. ··· .. ·.· · .. .. • Each lot must have an area of at least 7,200 square feet , not including the flag pole portion; and • The flag lot may not be improved with a structure that exceeds one story or 20 feet in height. The flag lot and interior lot are both subject to all normal R-1 development standards, except for the one-story limitation on the flag lot. The purpose of this requirement is to limit the visual and privacy impact of the house on neighboring properties , since it is located at the rear of the original lot, and therefore closer to neighboring houses and their backyards . The interior lot have been allowed to be developed with a two-story homes as there is no expressed prohibition in the current Zoning Code of two-story houses being allowed on the interior lot, and are treated with the same R-1 development standards as other properties that face the street. Since one-story houses are not subject to floor area ratio and maximum floor area limitations . the size of the single-story house on the rear lot is controlled only by lot coverage and setbacks . Applicants have the option of building a single-story house on the interior lot. but typically build two stories to maximize the development potential of the lot. Some cities have chosen to prohibit flag lot subdivisions as a means of preventing additional units from being built in single-family neighborhoods and/or preventing houses from being built at the rear of the lot. A potential unintended consequence of this approach is that the property owner is then left with one large lot instead of two smaller City Council February 5, 20 19 Page 3 of 3 lots. A larger lot can accommodate larger structures than a typica l lot, including single- story houses that are not subject to floor area ratio or maximum floor area limits and controlled only by lot coverage and setbacks . As part of the ongoing comprehensive Zoning Code update , staff has discussed the issue of flag lot subdivisions with the General Plan Advisory Committee and Planning Commission. Through this process, the Planning Commission directed staff to move forward with a draft Zoning Code that would reduce the min imum required lot width for a flag lot subdivision from 80 feet to 70 feet, so that the front lot would have a width of 50 feet consistent with the minimum width for other R-1 Jots. As the City goes through the Zoning Code update, it would be t imely to receive directio n as to the any desire to amend the manner in wh ich flag lots are developed . The concept of allowing both segments of a flag lot to be built only as single story houses is a policy consideration that would require Council direction . CITY STRATEGIC GOALS: This item is consistent with the City Strategic Goals of Qual ity of Life and Economic Development. · FISCAL IMPACT: This item has no impact on the Fiscal Year 2018 -19 City Budget. ATTACHMENT: Examples of single story flag lot developments and two-story flag lot developments ATTACHMENT A FLAG LOTS Temple City January 30 , 2019 4851 and 4853 HELEO ~, . . '"·t···""*--' .. " .' .. I '(·~: : , . J .' ' I 45029 HELEO \ ~ ' !;02 T \ 10326 OLIVE STREET 7 4910 and 4912 HELEO (New Construction) 5601 and 5605 PAL MAL 5018 and 5020 HELEO