Recommendation
Introduce ordinance on July 12, 2010

Change in Law or Policy
The subject ZTA proposed to (1) clarify the definition of a buildable lot; (2) to establish minimum lot frontage requirements in the larger lot Single Dwelling Unit Residential Zones and Mixed-Use (MX) Zones in conjunction with modifying street frontage requirements in Planned Development (PD) Zones; and (3) to allow fences up to six feet tall to be approved to replace an existing fence in select PD Zones under certain criteria (see Attachment A).

Discussion
Definition of Buildable Lot
The first component of the proposed ZTA seeks to modify the definition of "Lot, Buildable." The current definition of “Lot, Buildable” reads as follows:

"Any record lot meeting the minimum lot area and frontage requirements of the zone in which it is located."

There are a number of properties in the City (see Planning Commission staff report, Attachment B) that either do not have any frontage on a public street, are smaller than the minimum lot size in the zone, or both. These sites were created prior to the adoption of the original Zoning Ordinance on August 3, 1932.

Under Section 25.21.03.b of the current Zoning Ordinance, the Planning Commission must approve a plat for any deeded lot that existed prior to October, 1957. The proposed ZTA would define a buildable lot as any record lot, except for any lot created prior to August 3, 1932 that contains less than 4,000 square feet in area or is less than 35 feet wide at the building line. Prior to the advent of zoning, it was common practice around the turn of the 20th Century to create subdivisions with numerous narrow lots, sometimes as small as 25 feet wide. The intent was for a prospective resident to purchase multiple lots and build a house. After the establishment of zoning, it became illegal to build across a lot line.

In addition, staff recommends modifying the language in the definition to clarify that the exception applies only to lots in Single Dwelling Unit Residential Zones. As currently filed, the definition would apply to all lots, notwithstanding the zoning designation. Historically, there has been no minimum lot size requirement in commercial and industrial zones.

Minimum Frontage
The second component of the ZTA proposes to add language to Section 25.21.03, "Recordation of an Existing Single Unit Detached Dwelling, Residential" which would require that such lots either have frontage or public access to a public street. Public access can be established by a public access easement or through formal dedication to the City. This component of the ZTA is related to the first component in so far as it proposes to establish a minimum frontage requirement for all Single Dwelling Unit Residential Zones. Historically, and presently, the R-90, R-150, R-200 and R-400 zones do not have a minimum frontage requirement width at the front lot line, which equates to the street line.

The presumption has been that with these larger lots, the frontage would be whatever the minimum needed to be to gain access. With the prohibition on creating any new pipe stem lots, the staff believes that there should be a minimum frontage requirement of 25 feet for new lots in these zones. The pipe stem prohibition remains, but this will still allow for the pie-shaped lots that are common around cul-de-sacs with a width sufficient to accommodate a driveway.

The ZTA also proposes to add a requirement for a minimum street frontage in the MX Zones. Under the current regulations, lots are not required to have frontage on a public street. The ZTA proposes to require a minimum of 10 feet of street frontage for any lot. This would apply only to recorded lots. It would not affect the creation of ownership lots within a record lot under the provisions of Sec. 25.21.13. The ZTA also proposes to add a provision in the PD Zones to allow record lots to front on a public street, private street, or common open space. This provision is already in place for the RMD zones (Article 11), and is a carry-over from the prior Zoning Ordinance. It recognizes that many projects that contain townhouses, condominiums, or other forms of multi-dwelling development are not always located on lots with frontage on a public street.

Fences
The third aspect of the ZTA proposes to revise the regulations associated with fences. Currently, in the residential zones, fences are limited to a height of four feet in the front yard. A front yard is defined as the area of the lot between the face of the building and street. In the case of corner lots, they have two front yards. There are a few instances (in certain PD zones) where lots have streets on three sides, and therefore are deemed to have three front yards.

One of these areas is in New Mark Commons, where many of the lots have frontage on New Mark Esplanade, but the real "front yard" of the dwelling faces on the side street (See Attachment C to the Planning Commission's staff report, Attachment B). In order to screen the yards from New Mark Esplanade, it appears that the developers erected five-foot wooden screen fences along the street. This would have been a technical violation of the Zoning Ordinance in effect in the late 1960s, which restricted fence heights in the front yards to 42 inches.

The governing PD documents do not indicate whether these excess-height fences were approved as part of the detailed application review, or granted some type of variance. Under the Zoning Ordinance in effect at that time, New Mark Commons was developed through the Planned Residential Unit (PRU) option, which did not change the underlying R-90 zoning.

The Text Amendment proposes to amend the regulation of fences under Section 25.09.05 to allow fences up to six feet tall in instances where the fence is in a PD Zone that has been in existence prior to January 1, 1975 (the date of the earlier comprehensive revision of the Zoning Ordinance), or where such fences are approved by the homeowner's association. This provision would apply to the following Planned Developments: (1) Barnside Acres; (2) Carter Hill; (3) Fallsmead; (4) Meadow Hall; (5) New Mark Commons; (6) Redgate Farms; and (7) Rockshire.

Mayor and Council History
On March 15, 2010, the Mayor and Council unanimously voted to authorize the filing of the subject ZTA. On June 7, 2010, the Mayor and Council held a public hearing on the subject ZTA. No verbal testimony was received during the public hearing. However, the Mayor and Council did receive written testimony from Margaret Chao, President, New Mark Commons Homes Association, Inc., in support of the subject ZTA (see Attachment D). The Mayor and Council held the record open for one week until June 14, 2010.

Public Notification and Engagement
Pursuant to State law, the public hearing has been advertised in a local newspaper (the Gazette). Also, the ZTA has been posted on the City's website for public consumption. In addition, notice has been given to all City homeowners and civic associations via listserv.

Boards and Commissions Review
The Planning Commission reviewed the subject ZTA at its meeting on May 12, 2010, and made a favorable recommendation. The Planning Commission also made a supplemental recommendation to broaden the text amendment and limit the height of fences to 48 inches in the effective front yard.

Next Steps

• Introduction of the Ordinance - 7/12/10
• Adoption of the Ordinance- 7/26/10

Attachments
Attachment A (TXT2010-00225, as revised):



Attachment B (TXT2010-00225 Staff Report to the Planning Commission):



Attachment C (Planning Commission Recommendation to the Mayor and Council on TXT2010-00225):



Attachment D (E-mail from New Mark Commons Homes Association, Inc., in support of the subject ZTA):

Department Head:



Susan Swift, Director of Community Planning and Development Services
Approved on: 06/16/2010

City Manager:

Scott Ullery, City Manager
Approved on: 06/16/2010