Review of Residential Development Standards

Coronado City Council

August 20, 2013

December 18, 2012: City Council approves request to consider:

1. Whether the single family development standards should be reviewed for possible changes. 2. Whether the multiple family standards should be reviewed.

Todays Presentation
Review the history of how development standards have changed over the years

Review the RSIP 1 & RSIP 2 process and outcome

Development Standards
Regulate placement & size of structures on the lot

Structural Coverage & Setbacks

Stories and Building Height

Floor Area Ratio (FAR)

(Floor Area / Lot Area)

History of Zoning Standards

1980 No FAR limit. Lot coverage controlled yielding an effective FAR of 1.00 in R-1, 1.2 in R-3 & 1.8 in R-4 zone 1990 FAR limit of .75 adopted in R-1, .90 in R-3 & 1.6 in R-4 2000 Bulk & mass of buildings reduced in R-4 zone. 2000 Performance based FAR of .54 - .75 introduced. Applied to all lot sizes with equal weight for design features (also applied to < 3 units in R-3 & R-4 zones). 2003 - Orange Avenue Corridor Specific Plan adopted which further reduced bulk & mass in R-4 zone and created design guidelines.

History
2005 RSIP 1 Implemented a sliding scale FAR with larger lots limited to a smaller FAR. A base FAR from .35 - .60 & max FAR from .50 - .69 was adopted. 2006 Additional revisions made to allowed uses, height limits and setbacks in the R-4 zone. 2008 RSIP 1.5 further restricted size of carriage house & revised standards for roof dormers. 2009 RSIP 2 reviewed RSIP 1 and adopted twenty revisions.

RSIP 1.0 2003 2005

Original Committee
11 members R-1 Village Property Owners Representative from City Council Representative from Planning Commission Expertise focus on: Land Use Law Building Contractor Architect Real Estate Members at large

RSIP Guiding Principles

1. 2. Improve single-family development standards to be consistent with the desires of the broader community. Preserve the village atmosphere through the promotion of visually attractive architecture that is compatible with Coronados small-town feel. Enhance the quality of life by striving to achieve a lively, friendly and inviting community that is bonded together by a sense of civility, stewardship and consideration of neighbors.

3.

RSIP Objectives
Control Bulk and Mass of all structures Enhance Appearance
Attractive Architecture Neighborhood Compatibility Courtesy Notice Required Land Surveys

Strengthen Neighborly Consideration

Residential Standards Improvement Project

Process
Research and Education Public Input (Workshop February 2004) Analysis
Objectives
Control bulk & mass Enhance appearance Strengthen neighborly consideration

Problems & Solutions

Public Input (Workshop February 2005) Conclusions & Recommendations

Education @ Current Standards & Lots

FAR of Comparable Cities

La Jolla Del Mar Encinitas Redondo Beach Manhattan Beach Malibu Tiburon Santa Cruz Pacific Grove Monterey Carpenteria Pismo Beach

FAR of Comparable Cities

City/Lot size La Jolla Del Mar (3) Encinitas Redondo Beach Category 0 Lot size Less than 3500 SF .70-.65(1) 1.00-.57(1) .50 .65-.80 (bonus pts) .70 .94-.54(1) .65 .40 .50 .80-.67(1) .56 .52 .60 .68 Category 1 Lot size 3500-3600 SF .65(1) .57-.56(1) .50 .65-.80 (bonus pts) .70 .54-.52(1) .65 .40 .50 .67-.68(1) .56 .52 .56 .57 Category 2 Lot size 3601 SF-5700 SF .65-.59(1) .56-.35(1) .50-.60(1) .65-.80 (bonus pts) .70-.69(1) .52-.35(1) .65 .40 .50 .67-.54(1) .56-.54(1) .52-.45(1) .50 .56 Category 3 Lot size 5701 SF-7100 SF .59-.57(1) .35-.30(1) .60 .65-.80 (bonus pts) .69-.68(1) .35-.31(1) .65 .40 .50-.42(1) .54-.46(1) .54-.53(1) .45 .46 .54 Category 4 Lot size 7101 SF-10000 SF .57-.55(1) .30 .60 .65-.80 (bonus pts) .68-.67(1) .31-.28(1) .65 .40 .42-.40(1) .46-.39(1) .53-.52(1) .45-.36(1) .45 .50 Category 5 Lot size Over 10000 SF .54-.50(1) .25 .60 .65-.80 (bonus pts) .67 .28-.24(1) .65 .40 .40-.35(1) .38-.31(1) .52 .36-.27(1) .37 .40

Manhattan Beach Malibu(3) Pismo Beach Carpenteria Monterey Pacific Grove Santa Cruz Tiburon Median Min. Median Max.

(1) Allowable F.A.R. varies with lot size: the larger the lot, the lower the FAR. The range shown is for minimum lot size to maximum lot size for each Category. (Min. lot size in Cat 0 assumed to be 2000 SF, max. lot size in Cat. 5 assumed to be 15,000 SF for purposes of calculations) (2) For cities that exempt all or part of the garage from their FAR calc, the FAR shown in the table is what the FAR would be if the exempted area was included in the FAR calculation. (3) FAR values shown are based on the actual allowable structure size divided by the min. and max. lot sizes. These cities have a minimum dwelling size that overrides their FAR limitations for the smaller lot sizes.

2004 Public Workshop

Summary of Workshop Questionnaire
Houses too large for lot size Houses out of scale with neighborhood Houses too bulky looking Shadowing and loss of light Houses too close together Loss of backyard privacy Setbacks too close to neighbors Houses too imposing Disagree new and remodeled homes too large Do not think residential standards could be improved 71% 71% 70% 66% 64% 57% 57% 53% 16% 9%

Deliberation Phase
Problems vs Solutions

Recommendation Phase
21 recommendations in 10 areas
Setbacks Structural Coverage Landscaping Carriage House Roof Decks Building Heights Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Roof Dormers Courtesy Notice Off Street Parking

Tested and adjusted recommendations for range of lot sizes Final Recommendations

Side Yard Setbacks

Pre-RSIP
Homes too close together particularly on lots > 50 wide (10% of lot width max. 5)

Post-RSIP
Side setbacks required as a percentage of the lot width with no maximum:

Side Yard Setbacks

Pre-RSIP

Post-RSIP

Second Story Rear Yard Setback

Pre-RSIP Code
No additional 2nd story setback. Results in a long second story. Impacts privacy and sunlight issues.

Post-RSIP
Increase rear yard 2nd story setback

Second Story Rear Yard Setbacks

Pre-RSIP: 10 15

Post-RSIP 2: 20% of lot depth. 40% if lot 110 or greater in depth and 6000 sq.ft. or greater

40% Second Story Rear Yard Set Back

Carriage House
(Only Exception for Second Story Rear Yard Setback)

Pre-RSIP Code
Second floor over garage only allowed if connected shading and privacy issues

Post-RSIP
Allow only if on alley, detached, limited in size & greater dwelling setbacks.

Carriage House Pre-RSIP

Carriage House Post-RSIP 1.5

CARRIAGE HOUSE

Story & Height

ATTIC APPEARS AS

MAX 30

Pre-RSIP

Post-RSIP

Side Yard Projections

Pre RSIP: No limits - excessive bulk and mass & reduced setbacks

Post RSIP:

Limited projections, width & total length

Roof Dormers Above 2nd Floor

Pre RSIP: No limits - excessive bulk and mass & impacts privacy and sun

Post RSIP: Individual & cumulative width limited. Setbacks from faade and roof ridge required

Roof Decks

Pre RSIP: No limits - Impacts neighbors privacy.

Roof Decks

Post RSIP 2: Restricted. Setbacks from faade and rear lot line required. Preserves privacy.

Floor Area Ratio

FAR is an effective measure of bulk and mass if exceptions or exemptions are eliminated. Excessive exemptions result in mass of buildings not being realistically reflected.

Floor Area Ratio

Pre-RSIP FAR exemptions eliminated:
1. Garages

GARAGE

Floor Area Ratio

Pre-RSIP FAR exemptions eliminated:
1. 2. Garages Exterior walls

GARAGE

Floor Area Ratio

Pre-RSIP FAR exemptions eliminated:
1. 2. 3. Garages Exterior walls Large attics with doors or windows

GARAGE

Floor Area Ratio

Pre-RSIP FAR exemptions eliminated:
1. 2. 3. 4. Garages Exterior walls Large attics with doors or windows Stairs on both stories

GARAGE

Floor Area Ratio

Pre-RSIP FAR exemptions eliminated:
1. 2. 3. 4. Garages Exterior walls Large attics with doors or windows Stairs on both stories 5. Phantom floors >14 ft.

GARAGE

Floor Area Ratio

Pre-RSIP FAR exemptions eliminated:
1. 2. 3. 4. Garages Exterior walls Large attics with doors or windows Stairs on both stories 5. 6. Phantom floors >14 ft. Enclosed projections with floor area

GARAGE

Floor Area Ratio

Pre-RSIP FAR exemptions eliminated:
1. 2. 3. Garages Exterior walls Large attics with doors or windows 4. Stairs on both stories 5. 6. 7. Phantom floors >14 ft. Enclosed projections with floor area Courtyards with wall >14 ft.

GARAGE

Floor Area Ratio

Pre-RSIP FAR exemptions eliminated:
1. 2. 3. Garages Exterior walls Large attics with doors or windows 4. Stairs on both stories 5. 6. 7. 8. Phantom floors >14 ft. Enclosed projections with floor area Courtyards with wall >14 ft. Panhandle & easements excluded from lot area

GARAGE

RSIP Sliding Scale FAR

FAR vs Lot Area
0.8 0.75 0.7 0.65 0.6

Max FAR

1990 = .75
.69 / 3500 sf

RSIP 2005 Max FAR

Base FAR & Max FAR vary with lot size Design feature pts required to increase FAR More additional design points needed on large lots than small lots

.60

FAR

0.55 0.5 0.45 0.4 0.35

2000 = .54 - .75

.50 / 10,500 sf
FAR RSIP 2005 Base Base FAR

0.36
0.3 0 2000 4000 6000 Lot Area 8000 10000 12000 14000

Design Features

FAR 1980 - Today

FAR 1980 Today 25 ft. wide lots

-31%

FAR 1980 Today 50 ft. wide lots

-40.5%

Numerous Other RSIP Amendments

1. Tightened average front yard setback formula 2. Standards revised to discourage garages on front of dwellings 3. Incentives provided to hide garages at rear of lot for lots without alley access 4. Provided incentives for front porches 5. Revised definition of Grade for bld height purposes to follow contour of land 6. Limited the height of first floors to 30 above grade to reduce bulk and mass and preserve privacy

Other Adopted RSIP 1 Amendments

7. Prohibit separate enclosed structures to roof decks 8. Eliminate the exception to structural coverage for architectural projections that add to building footprint 9. Require 40-60% of front yards to be landscaped, reduce hardscape & require street trees 10. Require a Courtesy Notice to neighbors prior to demolition or new construction 11. Require lot survey with corner monuments set 12. Numerous definitions reviewed and modified

2009 RSIP 2.0

Eight Returning Members
Jim Strickland Chair
Former chair of Planning Commission Former Planning Commissioner Hisotrical Resource Commissioner

Jon Ryan Dorothy Howard - Architect Allan Rudick - Attorney Doug St. Denis Member-at-large
Planning Commissioner Design Review Commissioner

J. Lynn Dougan Member-at-large Ralph Greenspan Member-at-large Kelly Purvis Member-at-large

One New Member appointed by City Council

Sheryl Rosander Owner/Built Home under RSIP Standards

RSIP 2.0
Meetings (2009-2010)
Noticed meetings twice per month beginning September 2009 Received input from members of the community
Builder Architect Property Owner Landscape Architect

RSIP 2.0
Process
Reviewed RSIP standards & FAR design features for impact on original objectives Evaluated new homes built under RSIP standards against original objectives Proposed revisions to standards if needed Tested proposed revised standards on various lot sizes

RSIP 2.0
Conclusions:
FAR & Structural Coverage limits ok RSIP 1.0 generally working well for small & medium lot sizes (less than 6000 s.f.) Control of Bulk & Mass on large lots needs improvement Restrictions on Roof Decks need adjustment More flexibility needed with FAR design features to promote design diversity

RSIP 2.0
Recommendations & Review
20 proposed revisions Presented findings and recommendations to City Council requested minor changes. Public workshop conducted Public Hearing held at Planning Commission 2010 City Council Public Hearing and final adoption January 2011 revised codes became effective

RSIP 2.0
Findings & Recommendations
Finding:
RSIP 1 Second Story Rear Yard Setback of 26% not sufficient on large lots to provide privacy & sunlight to adjoining neighbors

Recommendation:
Increase Second Story Rear Yard Setback to 40% for large lots (over 6000 sf & 110 deep)

RSIP 2.0

RSIP 1 Standard: 26% Rear Yard Set Back

RSIP 2 Standard: 40% Rear Yard Set Back

RSIP 2.0
Finding:
Additional Design Features needed modification to provide more impact on mitigation of bulk & mass

Recommendations:
Limit total points in certain categories Add points for height reduction and multiple Side Yard Setback increases Add point incentive to provide more sun to neighbor by providing an increase Side Yard along a northerly side property line Eliminate point for underground garage

RSIP 2.0
RSIP 1.0 Additional Design Features
30 additional features to chose from, 46 possible points 5 potential FAR point deductions for undesirable features

RSIP 2.0 Additional Design Features

38 additional features to chose from, 51 possible points: 7 potential FAR point deductions for undesirable features

Summary
Standards refined multiple times since 1980 leading to more restrictive standards, smaller homes and neighborly consideration:

Single Family Zones:

1990: 2000: 2003-05: 2008: 2010: 2011: First FAR standard First design features and base and max FAR RSIP 1 (36 public meetings + 2 public workshops) RSIP 1.5 (revised carriage house & dormers) RSIP 2 (16 public meetings + workshop) RSIP 2 effective (16 homes completed)

Summary
Multi Family Zones:

1990: FAR standard in R-3 & R-4 zones adopted 1997-2000: R-4 Subcommittee reduces bulk and mass 2000: Design features with base and max FAR required for sfd/duplex in multi-family zones 2000-03: Orange Avenue Corridor Specific Plan further reduces bulk & mass in R-4 zone. 2005-06: Allowed uses, building heights & setbacks revised in R-4 zone

FAR 1980 Today 50 ft. wide lots

-40.5%