The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal About11.5) Presentation - Zoning Code UpdateZoning Code & Map Update: PL18-1198 City Council Meeting September 17, 2019 1 Zoning Code Update 3-Phase Outreach with the Community 1.Seven meetings on different zoning topics 2.Interactive zoning code website with 1,000 hits 3.2 Planning Commission meetings City Council Review –July 16 Took comments from the public Provided comments to staff Asked for additional information Continued the hearing 2 Outline of Presentation Items to Discuss : •Building Height in the R -1 Zone •Front-of -the-Lot Floor Area Ratio (FAR) in the R -1 Zone •Front and Rear Yard Setbacks in the R -1 Zone •Minimum Lot Widths •Underground Parking in the R-3 Zone 3 Tonight’s Presentation : •Existing Code •Proposed Code •Council Comments •Additional staff information •Alternatives Building Height (R-1) 4 Building Height Existing Code Limit: 26 feet maximum & does not address the top plate height Proposed Code Limit: •28 feet for lots less than or equal to 75 feet wide •32 feet for lots greater than 75 feet wide •Maximum top plate height of 23 feet 5 Building Height 6 Jurisdiction Maximum Height (feet) Arcadia 25-30 Temple City (existing)26 Monrovia 27-30 San Gabriel 28 Temple City (proposed)28-32 Pasadena 28-32 Rosemead 30 San Marino 30-35 El Monte 35 Duarte 35 Unincorporated County 35 South Pasadena 35 Building Height 7 Proposed Code: House that is 28 feet in height and with a 21 -foot top plate Existing Code: House that is 26 feet in height. Building Height 8 Existing Code would not allow a building of this style. 2 feet would have to be cut off Building Height 9 When building height is too low, the roof looks cut-off and a house begins to look like a commercial building. Building Height 10 The only portion of the structure that will be higher than the existing 26-foot height limit is shown in yellow Street Building Height Potential Alternatives to the Proposed Code: 11 Alternative Description Alternative A:Reduce the maximum top plate height from 23 feet to 21 feet. Alternative B:Maintain the existing 26-foot height requirement for two story structures in the R- 1 zone. However,if an applicant is proposing a style of architecture that requires a higher roof pitch,the maximum building height may be increased to 28 feet on lots less than or equal to 75 feet and 32 feet on lots greater than 75 feet. Alternative C:Modify the draft Zoning Code so that it retains the building heights found in the existing Zoning Code. Front-of -the-Lot FAR Limit (R-1) 12 Front-of -the-Lot FAR Limit Existing Code: Mass is controlled by: 40-degree encroachment plane A requirement that at least 50% of the 2nd-floor front elevation of any dwelling shall be recessed or set back no less than 10’ from the front wall of the 1st story. Proposed: Replace the above requirements with a floor area ratio of .25 within the front 40 feet Concern: This would adversely affect shallow lots. 13 Front-of -the-Lot FAR Limit 14 Staff studied a shallow lot that is 90’ wide and 70’ deep. It is possible to meet the maximum floor area ratio, but not added incentives. Lot size: 6,300 sq. ft. Proposed Living Area: 2,192 sq. ft. Proposed FAR: .35 Front yard setback Front 40’ feet Front-of -the-Lot FAR Limit 15 Under the exiting Code someone could build a 2,600 square foot house. To achieve a 2,600 square foot house in the proposed code the front of the lot FAR limit would need to be increased from .25 to .4. Front-of -the-Lot FAR Limit Potential Alternative to the Proposed Code: 16 Alternative Description Alternative D:Shallow Lots:Increase the maximum front-of -the-lot floor area ratio to .4 as shown in Figure 5. Alternative E:Modify the draft Zoning Code so that it retains the existing Zoning Code’s 40- degree front yard encroachment plane requirement (§9-1M-12.E)and second floor setback requirement (§9-1M-15.A 5.d). Front & Rear Setbacks (R-1 Zone) 17 Front & Rear Yard Setbacks 18 Existing Code & Proposed Code: Concern: This would have an undue impact on shallow lots This would increase impermeable pavement Existing Code Proposed Code without Detached Garage in the Rear Proposed Code with a Detached Garage in the Rear Front 20 25 20 Rear 15 20 15 Front and Rear Yard Setbacks19 Front Setback Temple City (existing) 20’ Rosemead 20’ Unincorporated County 20’ El Monte 20’ & 20% of lot depth Temple City (proposed) 20-25’ Duarte 20-30’ San Gabriel 20-35’ South Pasadena 25’ & 25% of lot width Monrovia 25’ Pasadena 25’ Arcadia 25-35’ San Marino 25-40’ Rear Setback El Monte 10-20’ Duarte 10-15’ (1-story) 20’ (2-story) Unincorporated County 15’ Temple City (existing) 15’ Temple City (proposed) 15 to 20’ Monrovia 20’ Rosemead 20-35’ & 20% of lot depth South Pasadena 25’ San Gabriel 25’ Pasadena 25’ Arcadia 25-35’ San Marino 25-40’ 20 Existing Setbacks Proposed Setbacks Proposed Setbacks w/ Incentives Front Setback Front Setback Front Setback Street Street Street Front & Rear Yard Setbacks –Regular Lot 21 Existing Setbacks –Shallow LotMAX FAR: .58 22 Proposed Setbacks –Shallow LotMAX FAR: .38 23 Proposed Setbacks –Shallow LotMAX FAR: .41 Front & Rear Yard Setback Incentives if Garage is in the Rear 24 •Alternative G: Maintain the existing front and rear yard setbacks in the draft Zoning Code (20’ and 25’ respectively). On Non-Shallow Lots: Allow a five-foot reduction in the front and rear setback if the garage is detached & in the rear. On Shallow Lots: Allow a five-foot reduction in the front and rear setback if the garage is in the rear. MAX FAR: .50 Front-of -the-Lot FAR Limit Potential Alternative to the Proposed Code: 25 Alternative Description Alternative F:Non-Shallow Lots:Maintain the front and rear yard setbacks in the draft Zoning Code (25 and 20 feet,respectively) Shallow Lots:Maintain the front and rear yard setbacks found in the existing Zoning Code (20 and 15 feet,respectively) Alternative G:Maintain the front and rear yard setbacks in the draft Zoning Code (25 and 20 feet,respectively). Allow a five-foot reduction in front and rear yard setbacks if the garage is placed in the rear and is detached. Shallow Lots:The garage must be placed in the rear but does not need to be detached. Alternative H:All Lots:Maintain the front and rear yard setbacks found in the existing Zoning Code. Minimum Lot Widths (R-1) 26 Minimum Lot Widths (R-1) Existing Code: New R-1 lots must be at least 60’ wide. If the existing lot is at least 100’ wide, it can be split in two. Proposed: Establish a 50’ minimum width for all new R-1 lots. Provides consistency. Limits challenges to the City’s minimum 60-foot lot minimum. Provides additional housing capacity. Setting a 60-foot width adversely effects property owners who purchased a 100-foot wide lot with the goal of subdividing. Concern: This would allow for additional density in R -1 areas. 27 Minimum Lot Widths (R-1) Potential Alternatives to the Proposed Code: 28 Alternative Description Alternative I:Set a 60-foot minimum lot size for all newly created lots. Alternative J:Maintain the existing Zoning Code which sets a minimum lot width of 60 feet but provides for a minimum lot width of 50 feet when the lot that is being split is more than 100 feet. Underground Parking (R-3) 29 Underground Parking (R-3) Existing Code: Originally discouraged subterranean and semi-subterranean parking. Results in designs dominated by driveways, not open space. New minimum density requirement results in projects that MUST have subterranean parking. 2 projects have been submitted with underground parking. Proposed: Place parking underground and center the units around a central garden courtyard. Concern: Added cost of development.30 Underground Parking (R-3) Analysis of Proposed Code: •Seeks to balance the higher cost of design by providing higher maximum density. •Removes the minimum density requirement that forces parking underground. •The type of development is feasible. Two cases have been submitted. 31 Minimum Lot Widths (R-1) Potential Alternatives to the Proposed Code: 32 Alternative Description Alternative K:Direct staff to return with R-3 standards that encourage at grade parking,if feasible,while still meeting Housing Element requirements. Alternative L:Direct staff to return with an ordinance that revises R-3 development standards that have the effect of requiring parking underground (such as number of parking spaces,size of open space,etc.)while maintaining the open space concept to the extent feasible while still meeting Housing Element requirements. Recommendation: •Adopt an Addendum to the Temple City Mid -Century General Plan Update and Crossroads Specific Plan EIR •Introduce for first reading by title only and waive further reading of Ordinance No. 19 -1036 •Schedule the second reading of Ordinance No. 19 -1036 for October 1, 2019. 33