The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPlanning Comm Reports/1993/02/03 February 3, 1993 To: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission ., 1 Bob Leiter, Director of Planning / 'd/t: PCA-93-02: Commission Input on Possible Amendments to the City's Floor Area Ratio Requirements in the R-l Zone From: Subject: On January 12, 1993, a report was forwarded to Council on the City's F.A.R, requirements and alternatives to the present standards (please see attached), Council directed staff to report back on the following amendments: 1, The use of a sliding scale which would increase the F,A.R from 0.45 to 0.50 for lots between 6,000-7,000 square feet, and from 0.45 to 0.55 for lots between 5,000-6,000 square feet. This would be similar to the standards which have been applied in the newer planned communities, 2. Provide an exemption for open patio covers and covered porches. An exemption for open patio covers is also consistent with what has been applied in the newer planned communities, although in these cases it has been defined as a patio cover open on at least two sides with a lattice-type roof no more than 50% covered. The Council, however, indicated they may wish to consider an exception for patio covers with solid roofs, Porches are not presently exempt in either the R -1 zone or planned communities, The Council also directed that the Planning Commission provide input on these possible amendments prior to returning to Council with a report. Please review the attached report and provide specific input on the alternatives chosen for further consideration by Council. RAL:SG/nr (far.mem) c:;- / CITY OF CHULA VISTA COUNCIL REFERRAL 1/19/93 ORIGINATOR: ADMIN 1 REFERRAL NO: 2714 '"'. '. LEAD DEPARTME : PLANNIN --". 'Or- o...-.-J FLOOR AREA RATIOS (FAR): Report on the increasing the minimum FAR from 45% to patio covers and open porches from the 7~r'~ impact and benef i ts of (1) v,, 50% and (2) exemptionf~J;iBpen, calculation. ''''\\,) MANAGER DUE 2/23/93 COUNCIL DUE ORIGINATION DATE 1/12/93 ASST. PLANNING COMMISSION REFERRAL DETAIL At the 1/12/93 meeting, during a discussion of Item 19, Council directed staff to return with a report on the impact and benefits of (1) increasing the minimum FAR from 45% to 50% and (2) exemption of open patio covers and open porches from the FAR calculation. Council also requested a concurrent recommendation on the matter from the Planning Commission. DISPOSITION COMPLETION DATE: COMMENTS: DEPT. HEAD SIGNATURE: ADMIN SIGNATURE: ~4T' '~ dZ:J 2-C2 .. COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item l:j Meeting Date 1/12/93 ITEM TITLE: Report on Floor Area Ratio Requirements for Single-Family Residential Zones Director of Planning$Z City Manager Council Referral No. 2672 (4/Sths Vote: Yes_No-XJ SUBMITIED BY: REVIEWED BY: On September 15, 1992, the City Council requested staff to review the existing requirements in the Municipal Code pertaining to "floor area ratio" (FAR) requirements for single-family zones. These requirements regulate the total floor area of buildings pennitted on a lot to a certain percentage of the size of the lot. This referral was made in response to a letter received by the City Council from Harold West, dated August 27, 1992, who had been in contact with staff regarding a proposed building addition which would not conform to the City's requirements. (See attached letter). Council requested that staff provide input as to whether the City's existing FAR system is the best method, what other alternatives exist, and whether different FAR requirements should be imposed in older parts of the City. RECOMMENDA TION: That Council direct staff to prepare an amendment to the Municipal Code which would modify the Floor Area Ratio requirement for single-family zones to exclude open patio covers, and would provide for a "sliding-scale" FAR requirement in certain Planned Communities. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable. DISCUSSION: The existing floor area ratio requirements for single-family residential zones were adopted in May 1986, largely in response to public controversy regarding a proposed large three-story home in a developed residential neighborhood. The stated purpose of the regulations was to provide a means of controlling the bulk and scale of residential development in the absence of a design review procedure for single-family residential development. The specific regulations set a maximum FAR of 45% for single-family residential zones, and 55% for two-family residential zones, with specific FAR requirements ranging from 45% to 55% being established for each of the single-family residential zoning districts in certain Planned Communities in Eastern Chula Vista. In calculating the FAR's, floor area for all floors of all buildings, as well as patio covers, is included, except in certain planned communities, where patio covers of less than 300 square feet are excluded. .c:? 3 1-4=L Page 2, Item Meeting Date 1/12/93 The Municipal Code provides that property owners who wish to exceed the FAR requirements may request a zoning variance, which is considered by the Zoning Administrator, and whose decision may be appealed to the Planning Commission and City Council. Since the adoption of the City's floor area ratio requirements for single-family residential zones in 1986, there have been nine requests for variances to allow projects which would exceed these requirements, of which seven were approved and two was denied. Of those variances which were approved, the FAR's ranged from 48% to 53%; the two variances which were denied were for FAR's of 54% and 55%, In surveying other cities in San Diego County, only two other cities (Coronado and San Diego) directly regulate FAR's for single-family zones. Coronado's FAR limit is 75%, while the City of San Diego's limit is 60%. The City of Solana Beach is currently considering an "FAR-type" development standard which would result in a limit roughly equivalent to Chula Vista's. Other cities typically regulate height and bulk through a combination of setback, height, and lot coverage limitations. Qptions A. _ Retain Current Re~ulations As noted above, there have been relatively few variance requests pertaining to the City's FAR requirements, and the majority of variance requests have been for modest increases in FAR, which have been approved, The factors which led to the City's adoption of these requirements in 1986 do not appear to have changed substantially, and the impact of the regulations on the ability of property owners to make reasonable use of their property appears to have been minimal. B. Modify the FAR Standard There are several ways in which the City could modify the existing FAR requirements to provide greater flexibility: 1) Increased FAR Standard The City could revise the FAR standards across-the-board to a higher percentage figure, such as 50% or 55% for single-family zones. However, as noted above, there have been relatively few requests to exceed the 45 % standard. 2) "Sliding-scale" FAR Requirements Based On Lot Size In the newer planned communities, such as Eastlake and Rancho del Rey, the City has approved a sliding scale of FAR requirements, wherein lots of 5,000 to ..;) ,. 7 ~ Page 3, Item Meeting Date 1/12/93 6,000 square feet are permitted an FAR of 55%; lots of 6,000 to 7,000 square feet are permitted and FAR of50%; and lots of greater than 7,000 square feet are limited to an FAR of 45%. This sliding scale was based on the idea that it would allow greater flexibility to smaller-lot projects in planned communities, which are subject to a greater degree of design control than in older R-I-7 zoned areas, and where all buyers would be aware of the regulations at the time of purchase. The City could consider allowing "sliC\iIJg-scale" FAR requirements in other areas as well, particularly in older planned communities, such as Terra Nova, where homeowners associations are in place, and property owners would be notified of the change in rules through the action of amending the regulations. Staff would recommend consideration of amending the FAR requirements for these older planned communities to allow a 50% FAR for lots between 6,000 and 7,000 square feet, as is the case in the newer planned communities, provided that the total floor area not exceed 45% of 7,000 square feet (3,150 square feet). Staff would not recommend modifying the standard for lots below 6,000 square feet to the 55% FAR, but instead would recommend that all lots below 7,000 square feet in these areas be subject to the 50% requirement as suggested above. 3) Exlusion of Patio Covers from FAR Standard The City has allowed patio covers of up to 300 square feet be be constructed without counting toward the FAR requirement in newer planned communities. The City could also exclude the calculation of open patio covers from the FAR requirement for other areas. This approach would recognize that open patio covers do not necessarily have the same impact on overall bulk and scale as do buildings. C. Eliminate FAR Requirements The City could return to the system which was in place prior to 1986, wherein bulk and scale issues were regulated by height, setback, and lot coverage standards only. As was determined in 1986, these regulations alone did not adequately address at least one specific development proposal which would have met those requirements, but would have resulted in a house which was deemed to be significantly out of character with the surrounding neighborhood. While most other cities surveyed do not regulate FAR's, this may be a result of how their other zoning regulations dealing with bulk and scale are constituted, or may reflect different development patterns or community concerns on this issue, and do not necessarily suggest that the City of Chula Vista's use of FAR's is inappropriate. D. Apply Different FAR Standard to Older Neii:hborhoods "'\ c- "":-"">$" ~-~~.j r~ ~~ Page 4, Item Meeting Date 1/12/93 The City currently applies a uniform FAR requirement of 45% to all single-family residential zones in existing developed areas, with the exception of existing Planned Communities (Eastlake, Rancho del Rey, etc.) where the FAR's range from 45% to 55%. The variable range of FAR's in Planned Communities reflects unique circumstances which are demonstrated in particular projects, such as lot size, lot configuration, variable terrain, etc. Such circumstances have not been presented in the existing R-I-7 and other single-family zoned areas. However, it would be possible to change FAR requirements in specific areas, if unique circumstances were demonstrated. CONCLUSION While there are a variety of options available to the City to modify its current FAR regulations, as discussed above, staff feels that overall the current system has worked effectively since its adoption in 1986, and the existing variance procedure provides a means of dealing with unique circumstances which may warrant an increase in FAR in limited cases. However, we do feel that it would be reasonable at this time to consider amending the FAR regulations to exclude calculation of open patio covers, much as they are excluded from other floor area calculations (e.g., calculation of impact fees which are based on floor area.) In addition, we would recommend consideration of a "sliding-scale" FAR requirement for older planned communities, as discussed in Section B.2 above. If the City Council concurs with this approach, staff would return with an ordinance amendment which would implement these changes. FISCAL IMPACT: None. (far3.all) d~c;" /~'f . .. " August 27. 1192 The HonorIbIe .tf1try RnIone Councilman, cay 01 C1IUIa VIlla m 4Ih Avenue CIIuIa VIlla. CA .1.10 Dew CcuIcIInwI RnIone, ---- "- ':."' G.- . ,~;-~~ -'--- - ": r:--~ ;.: ; 1'J33'''' --'-.- .- . - ~~ -.- I -*l1II<e \D .... a 1lIOIII8III 01 yDIJ:.... and bIIng \D yDIJ: -....... .... I W- \D be .. ~ by 1he cay CcuIcII and !hi PIaI._", Do,..~._4. ....., YNII ago !hi cay CouncI cIIr.-cI !hi .....11110 DIpI/ImenI \0 develop a ~ \0 - ... -- __age 01 cay _ntialloIs. I beI_....!hI.... __ _ a publIC uproar cauud by lilt groaa over building 01 a ..... story home III _ ~.. 101 In ChuIa VIata 1/111 _ NIOInIed by _ story IIomes. Aa a.-ull1he PIaI.1II1II DIpao1J,..nt ~ a _ _ may be men .....I.A. IIIan 1he ortgIlI8I .....1JI1he cay CouncIl. The.....ning c..,......... de. . .....'.... II called a FAR. (Floor _ Rallo). TaI"phon" ChecIdng .... ....aied \0 me ilia! 1r'llpen.lIIead1, EI Cajon, NaIionaI cay, and !hi Counly NIy III .. back IIIQU_ only .. _ main Iorm 01_. San Diego CIIy cIoeI ... a FAR. . a rat" 01 80%. CoIonado.... a .... 01 75%. IICIIncIudIng I*ioe and gerages, which II greater IIIan ClUe _'I by . ." 01 two \D _. II __ ilia! .... main _ 01 concem II willi .... amaIIer IoIs 01 8000 aq. .. and ..., and also by counting.... eecond story, _ paIIO$ and _ ....__.. 1~ _lJIa_ l1li1 01 40% or 50%. Many new homes being bul~ lOCIII)' are bull! 10 1he maximum ai_I IIH and can _II In .... hundreds oIlhouSands 01 dollars. Many 01 .... hOme _ are In lor a IIIIpIIIe when Ihe)' In<! out Ihallhe)' can' even Ina1aII a legal pallo __ much ... allHCled bed.oo... Uling a lIgure 01 20 room IddItIonl a yew .. an -. cost 01125,000.00 IIICII and 30 pallo -.... aI an a..rage cost 01 S3OOO.00 wI1I1 a I0I8l cost 01 _ \D MOO,OOO.OO _ 01 -..ction _ being denied becausl 01.... FAR. The cay 01 C1IUIa _ II losing Income from I0Il permft ,-, Ules lUes not COIIecI8d, .... _1_" nlJl ~IC...ed, c:IIy amployees IICI _ (including building and planning deparlmen\ _..pt.",.). All amployment aIIIIII1IcIan may llgure 10 \0 20 workers unemployed In .... govemmell and _ IMIed Industrl"s. this liliiii11' II Imporlant \D III hOme _rs 01 C1IUIa VIata IICI only lor abvtoIa 8COI1OI'*'-I and hardship reasons _ It c:ontrI>uIes \DO, but perhaps ..... men lmpor1aIIIy, 1he adlllIIon 01 unnecessary _Icliooll IhaI are making our beautiful CIIUIe VIata ... ....At.. \0 Iv" In, ...., \D ... poIlI _ people .... Indeed IeaYIng lilt _ -'"'o'1ed. I am "_III a1yplcal plot plan 01 a hOme _ _ be _ onto only '***' 01... ......UIont 0I1he FAR. -.. _lilt large ... ywd'" In my _ "--*1 be _ 10 ... .. back line. Many home _ _ properly _aln a ywd _l1l1I8. Maybe .... oc-nmerc Call l1li1 willi .. In au. VIlla and make ... __10 ......._to IIId IIopeIuIIy III .... WI)" \D WlllllulIlOh. . I Call be 01 awvIce pIeasa call. z:iJ;tV4 ' Harold D. W" ~ Palm DrIYa BonIta. CA 11102 476-1108 ~~7 "'" "L~ { ,~ -. " ~ ~ i . . - . - f/L. ~ . '-0.110' '1,-- ., . ~~ ~~T .""~ ~.~" QIJ~ ,-roA.';' " . ID' ; . e;. . . t , ,',1 I r--- _._- - I 4'" ~ ".. c.' tlNt-f,. ....~'" ' _ -"'0 .' ,-roIL.,.:...;;:;:;: ."" '11' . ! : '.: t"' '. ~ :"_ . '.," . _..:!....~....- .. -:':: j.~J ....: ~.. . ~ . t~ I. '.. .. . ~ ..". N~L~"~-1"""'~"''''Cc.t.,A,)C: ... ., . " ,. I I ~.{, $" '110.00' to' . ,.' . .J.~. ." ;ti.'i" '. I I ". 'T .. I 1<1',. ... ti'O"'~" o,,~_o, ____'o . '~:-':'~t.~::CJ'~~olt~?;"O~1~"~A.~- . :-.- -. . J I '=J *".a: I.. 11.0" --' f/L--- ..- ! ""'. J " 2JJ' n COUC1::''-" I .-::-.- o~",e::=== ;: " '.~ :., :. .. -JA ..--- C_. .,N""""'- - - _._-- .. .., . _"" Co".. :... .';' .... '. ,. "." - ' , <' .~ - . ' , ... . . ~.- cr , 4-1--.....0...."'" -".'-e.,." --.0----.-..-- _ _. __ ... "" ",",J..._.. "'.. _ --_, - ~ '-', .. . ~ '. /~