SUBJECT Changes to Accessory Dwelling Unit, Parking, Accessory Structure and Nonconforming Parking Regulations in the Zoning Ordinance

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "SUBJECT Changes to Accessory Dwelling Unit, Parking, Accessory Structure and Nonconforming Parking Regulations in the Zoning Ordinance"

Sibyl Parker
5 years ago
Views:

1 REPORT To the Redwood City Planning Commission From Planning Staff February 21, 2017 SUBJECT Changes to Accessory Dwelling Unit, Parking, Accessory Structure and Nonconforming Parking Regulations in the Zoning Ordinance RECOMMENDATION 1) Hold a public hearing and 2) Recommend approval of amendments to the Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance to comply with State law, create further flexibility and encourage legal creation of units, and related Zoning Ordinance amendments to increase flexibility for single-family home parking, modify the criteria to allow expansion of homes with nonconforming parking, and amend the regulations for accessory structures to permit a wider variety of designs and consistency with the Accessory Dwelling Unit restrictions. BACKGROUND On October 26, 2015, the City Council amended the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) regulations, easing restrictions and encouraging the creation of more units in residentially zoned areas of the City. These amendments were in response to the affordable housing shortage and the longstanding difficulty in creating the units under the original ordinance. The ADU ordinance is an important tool that can address affordable housing issues and support multi-generational living. ADUs create more options for increasing affordable housing stock in existing residential areas while preserving neighborhood character. In September 2016, the State passed two new bills requiring cities to further ease restrictions on ADUs. These new rules limit the ability of cities to require additional parking, allow garage conversions by right, and control when fire sprinklers and water meter connections are required (and when they are not). Additional provisions also apply and a summary from HCD is available in Attachment 2. Most importantly, the State requires cities to amend their ordinance to comply with these provisions, otherwise the local ADU ordinance is invalid. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Redwood City s General Plan has goals and programs to encourage the creation of new ADUs in existing neighborhoods. After the 2015 amendments, the City has seen a boom in successful applications for new ADUs, rising from a historical average of two applications per year to 27 applications in 2016 with additional applications pending (see Figure 1). The 2015 amendments created greater flexibility, particularly by allowing a range of locations for the required additional parking space. Property owners have been able to consider adding units that were not possible under the previous rules. While providing varied housing stock within the City, these units are also counted as low-income units for the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) report.

2 Figure 1 Number of ADU Applications Received To meet the new 2016 State law, the City is required to further amend the zoning ordinance, touching upon some of the areas identified in the 2015 amendments. The proposed amendments to Article 37 (Accessory Dwelling Units) include: 1. Number of Parking Spaces Removing the requirement for one additional parking space. State law prohibits requiring additional parking for properties with ADUs within one-half mile of a transit station, which affects most areas in the City. A few hillside properties would remain outside the distance radius, however, those areas typically have adequate street parking. For simplicity in administration, staff is recommending striking the requirement for an additional parking space within all residential districts citywide. 2. Conversion of the Garage Allowing existing garages to be converted to ADUs. Replacement parking may be located on the driveway and in a tandem configuration. 3. Location of the ADU Allowing conversion of existing accessory buildings to an accessory dwelling unit, regardless of setback. State law mandates that cities allow existing garages within any setback to be converted to an ADU. In December 2015, City Council adopted standards that distinguished between the rear yard setback of 6 feet for an accessory building and 10 feet for an ADU. With the new law allowing conversions of existing garages, ADUs may be created as close as 6 ft. or less to the rear or side property line. However, the City may still control the setbacks for new construction. State law also mandates that cities ministerially approve an application for a building permit to create an ADU if the unit is contained within the existing space of an accessory structure and the side and rear setbacks are sufficient for fire safety. The draft ordinance implements this requirement as well.

3 4. Height Allow an ADU to be built on top of an accessory building, within 5-foot minimum setbacks from the side and rear yard. This is a significant change in policy, as current requirements limit accessory buildings to one story, and twostory ADUs require a 20-foot rear setback. Per State law, this provision would be amended to allow two-story detached buildings that contain an accessory dwelling unit. Other types of detached accessory buildings will remain limited to one-story. 5. Applicable Requirements The ordinance must specifically reference any other Zoning Ordinance provisions that apply to ADUs. Additional provisions for supplementary setbacks, stormwater treatment, and historic preservation have been added. For completeness, staff has also added minor provisions from state law regarding the applicability of residential density requirements and how efficiency units and manufactured homes may be considered as ADUs. Staff is recommending additional modifications to Article 37 (Accessory Dwelling Units) not strictly mandated by State Law. These amendments are based on issues that have arisen in the past year and further information. Changes to Article 30 (Off-Street Parking and Loading), Section 36.5 (Accessory Building) and Section (Nonconforming Parking-Single Family Residential) are also recommended for amendments to be consistent with these changes. ANALYSIS Additional Modifications to Accessory Dwelling Unit Restrictions (Article 37) While not specifically required by State law, staff recommends two additional changes to the ordinance to increase flexibility and further encourage accessory dwelling units. ADU Size - The State has created ADU size maximums of 1,200 square feet or 50 percent of existing living area of the main home, though it allows cities to set their own minimum and maximum sizes. The city currently has a tiered structure for unit size, allowing bonus square footage for accessible units and lots of 10,000 sq. ft. or more in the R-1 and R-H zoning districts. The current basic restriction is 640 sq. ft., approximately the size of a studio apartment. Staff is recommending an increase of 60 sq. ft., while allowing 100 sq. ft. bonus square footage for accessible units. The 700 sq. ft. minimum is consistent with the size a onebedroom apartment. This expansion is keeping with the State s intent to not burden the development of ADUs and provides significant incentive to design accessible units that could meet the needs of disabled residents. Staff Recommendation: Increase the maximum ADU size to the following: 700 sq. ft. for all ADUs 800 sq. ft. for accessible ADUs 900 sq. ft. for R1 and RH properties in 10,000 sq. ft. or more.

4 Staff also recommends removing the restriction on the number of bedrooms, as the square footage limitation ensures that the unit is secondary to the main unit and the building code ensures certain minimum sizes for bedrooms. Modifications to Other Areas of the Zoning Ordinance: The State law allows accessory dwelling units in configurations that are not currently allowed for other home additions. With the new changes, in certain cases it would be easier to put in an accessory dwelling unit than it would be to add a bedroom. For example, the City would not allow conversion of a garage into a bedroom without replacing the covered parking. Also, the addition of a fifth bedroom requires a third covered parking space often a significant challenge due to the lot width constraints and existing floor plans. However, with the new law, an accessory dwelling unit would require no additional parking, and garage conversions would be permitted by right with replacement parking on the driveway. From a policy and practical perspective, staff is concerned about the implications of creating a dual-track of zoning regulations one (much easier set) for accessory dwelling units, and another (more difficult set) for bedroom additions or detached home offices in the rear yard. This dual-track is also inconsistent with the relative impacts of the use on adjoining properties. Staff is recommending additional amendments to ensure consistency with the accessory dwelling unit changes and to provide more flexibility to homeowners. Article 30 (Parking and Loading) In addition to striking the requirement for an additional parking space, staff recommends that required parking for single-family homes be adjusted. The ordinance requires two covered spaces, with a third covered space for a fifth bedroom and fractional additional spaces. Many homes were built before this requirement and currently have a one-car garage or only uncovered spaces. This renders the homes nonconforming for parking and strictly limits future additions. The requirement for side-by-side covered spaces requires certain setbacks, distance from other structures, and driveway access and maneuvering. A two-car garage requires 400 sq. ft. of building area and another 400 sq. ft. of driveway area. If the home is older or a more traditional style, it is often not possible to add this form of covered parking without substantial and expensive remodeling that changes the traditional character of the home. With the new law, an ADU would not require any additional parking. A fifth bedroom would require an additional space (covered) but an ADU would not. A garage could be converted to an ADU, with replacement spaces on the driveway, but an expansion of kitchen or living area into the garage would be prohibited. This lacks internal consistency. While providing parking is important for properties, the requirement for covered spaces often results in an area not used for parking, but storage or other uses. Residents are not required to park in their garage and often park in the driveway. Maintaining the same number of parking spaces but easing the covered requirement will create more flexibility, reduce the number of nonconforming properties, not create new impacts on street parking, and align our parking requirements with the new State law. Several other

5 jurisdictions in the San Mateo and Santa Clara counties, including Palo Alto, Mountain View, Menlo Park, Burlingame and South San Francisco have parking ordinances that only require one covered space and one uncovered space (See Attachment 3). Reducing the required number of covered spaces is also supportive of the design for historic properties and is not expected to create a negative impact on property values. Staff Recommendation: Modify the single-family parking requirement to one covered and one uncovered space, with the possibility for a tandem configuration. Remove the requirement for an additional covered space for homes with five or more bedrooms. Homes with Nonconforming Parking The Zoning Ordinance has criteria and findings for how homes with nonconforming parking may be modified or expanded. Currently, homes with accessory dwelling units or more than three bedrooms cannot be expanded. This restriction is not compatible with the State-mandated requirements or other amendments proposed by staff. Staff Recommendation: Amend the findings to allow more than three bedrooms or an accessory dwelling unit in the case of nonconforming parking. The following findings apply for properties that wish to expand without the required number of spaces: 1. The addition does not occupy existing available parking area; 2. The structure is located in the RH, R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4, or R-5 Zoning Districts; 3. The structure will not exceed two thousand (2,000) square feet in total living area after the enlargement is completed, except as provided in subsection 5 of this section; 4. The driveway meets the standards of Section 30.9 (Access Drives); and parking access and backup constraints do not prohibit use of the existing space. 5. The square footage limitation of two thousand (2,000) square feet may be exceeded with a Use Permit subject to meeting the following additional criteria: a. That the total net enlargement will not exceed two hundred (200) square feet (gross) over the life of the subject property; b. That the enlargement not require a variance or other additional special exception other than for the existing nonconforming parking condition. Section 36.5 (Accessory Buildings) This section limits accessory structures to two water fixtures. This limitation was designed to discourage or prevent unauthorized conversion to ADUs. As ADUs are now allowed in any detached structure regardless of setback with no additional parking, it will be much easier for homeowners to create legal units. With the current law, an ADU with multiple water fixtures could be permitted in a detached structure. With that in mind, limiting all other structures to two water fixtures is no longer logical. In addition, staff has noted some difficulties with the provisions limiting wall height for accessory structures and ADUs. This is limitation prohibits gables and requires a hipped roof see Figure 2.

The wall height limitation precludes many attractive designs, and essentially requires the same design across all properties, regardless of the architectural style of the main home.

6 Figure 2 Roof Types for Accessory Structures Permitted Wall height is 9 feet or less, as the roof is hipped on all four sides. Prohibited The wall along the rear fence exceeds 9 feet, as the wall is measured from grade to the tip of the roof. The wall height limitation precludes many attractive designs, and essentially requires the same design across all properties, regardless of the architectural style of the main home. Staff Recommendation: Remove the water fixture limitation for accessory structures, allowing homeowners more flexibility to add a detached bedroom or home office with a bathroom. Require the wall height restriction of 9 feet for shed and flat roofs, but allow exceptions for gabled roofs while maintaining the total height limitation of 14 feet. Twostory accessory structures would be permitted if they are located within the allowed building envelope for the main building (a 20 foot required rear yard setback). Lastly, staff is recommending a that small accessory structures be redefined up to 120 sq. ft., to be consistent with building code definitions. GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING COMPLIANCE This effort is an implementing ordinance that would further the City s Housing Element policies and programs that promote a variety of housing types that are accessible to all income levels. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The adoption of an ordinance to implement Government Code section (the Accessory Dwelling Unit Law) is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Public Resources Code section The related amendments not specifically related to the State Law are considered exempt from CEQA as there is no possibility of a significant impact on the environment, per Section 15061(b)(3). PUBLIC NOTIFICATION Notification of this hearing was published in the Daily Journal on February 10, notification was given to Redwood City Neighborhood Association chairpersons, interested parties of the Housing Element update, and leaders at religious institutions.

7 Social media outlets were used including the City s enews blast, Facebook and Twitter postings. Notification was also posted on the ADU website: FUTURE STEPS These recommendations will be considered by Council at their meeting on March 27, ALTERNATIVES 1. Recommend changes to the proposed amendments. 2. Recommend denial of the amendments. Diana O Dell Principal Planner Steven Turner Planning Manager ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution with Draft Ordinance 2. HCD Memorandum on the State Law Requirements 3. Comparison of Single-Family Home Parking Requirements

WHEREAS, on October 6, 2015, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing and recommended the proposed Ordinance Amendments; and

WHEREAS, on October 6, 2015, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing and recommended the proposed Ordinance Amendments; and ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDWOOD CITY AMENDING ARTICLE 2, ARTICLE 5, ARTICLE 30, ARTICLE 36, ARTICLE 37, AND ARTICLE 45 OF THE REDWOOD CITY ZONING ORDINANCE AND AMENDING