Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZTA200700001 PresentationZTA 07 -01 Zero side yard setbacks in Residential Districts R -2 to R15 Illustration of zero side yard concept History of Setback Amendments • May 2002 Neighborhood Model adopted • Sept. 2002 Drafting subdivision text amendments began • 2003 Worksessions with PC • Fall 2004 Subdivision Text Amendment recommended to BOS for NM features (curb /gutter /sidewalks /street trees, interconnections) • BOS sent to DISC II in June 2004 because of concerns of developers • Issue of Front Setbacks major concern with new street sections • November 2004 DISC II recommended approval of modified Subdivision Text Amendment • December 2004 DISC recommended that front setbacks be modified to make NM form easier to achieve with new subdivision requirements Ws 4 4 J� 411 -BULDING3 Stonewater --------- -- ,N,7 Q 4m V) Li LL) YRO +' iG110N C-4,0 Q 4m V) Li LL) YRO +' iG110N C-4,0 History of Setback Amendments - Continued • Sept. 2005 Staff brought zoning text amendments for front yards to PC. PC said no and asked staff to bring back a comprehensive proposal for front, side and rear yards that also related to EC's. • October 2005 to JanuarV amendments; development • January 2007 — Applicant 6 district 2007 —staff worked on draft review projects took priority made request for zero lot line for R- • 7an. 2007 — June 2007 staff worked on draft amendments • June 2007 —Staff brought proposals to PC. Staff described applicant's proposal for 15 feet between structures at zero side yards in R -6 district only. Staff asked if zero lot line could be incorporated into that setback work. PC said quickly • July 2007 — Staff brought full concepts for residential districts as well as other setback s es — please work zero lot to PC line for all ;,aDpnsrn zmo -(,OT PNEsEEAck i•.NoLlibM•ll "Ir -s � ■■Nii E Miami ii S■ n■ ■ ���ESEEEuH MEN �EE rEEEEEi ■ ■ M INE ■ EE■n E■■■■ ■ � u ■ ■ 0 ■ IMIME ■■■ ■E ■■■Nl � i■■■■I ■■■■■ ■ ■S■■ mal ■■ ■ S.J■■ ■ EN CN�■EEEiai EiE`EE�r■i E � ' ► I I ► I I �.w� r � so No �� ■ ■ SEEN E■■■■■■■■ ■n■■■ ■■ ■ ■■■■■■ ■■t■ MESS■ ■N■■ ■NI ■ ■■ ■ ■E■ ■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■E■■S■■■■ EE■u ■ •'ICEECSES CEEEEECEEEEE.EiES:E EEN■■■■■■■....■■■ ■ENE■■■ ■E. ■. ■ ■EE ■■S■EEEEEEE�E�E■ �ECESMEN • III 0 EXI S q& F.C&t MONS i OTS I}E (od WivE d 100' DEtP - -S1foM P-MWeFD 5M ")YAD-ns wo A S I De 5Ermcr uDuc M - .5Fbu.)S 4' ENCbAU4MEMr701QP: WOSED BVIIDIN��� (b EX15nN6 $urrbltvB- FN+�l� eMS J July 26, 2007 Worksession Results • Applicant asked for 15 feet between structures, staff recommended 10 feet between structures and PC agreed. • Applicant asked for change to R -6 district only, staff recommended R -2 up to R -15 districts and PC agreed. • 2 hour worksession— discussion on whether a building separation /side yard setback was even necessary, whether relegated parking was being forced on commercial buildings, whether a 10' separation was enough space, etc. • Staff said it would set up another worksession to continue work on the proposals Background Continued • August 2007 -- Planning positions frozen; development review took priority • November 2007 — PC asked that zero lot lines not wait for rest of setback amendments and that it be advanced as soon as possible • December 4, 2007 — Staff held worksession to finalize discussion on whether 10' separation was acceptable to PC also to answer other outstanding questions. Staff looked for most expeditious way to advance the proposal Applicant's Proposal Compared to Changes Recommended by PC • Zero lot side lot line be allowed by -right -- in proposed amendment • Combined side yards to be 15'; staff suggested a 5' side or 10' between structures (7- 26 -07) • Building separation between dwellings — 15'; PC recommended 10' (7- 26 -07) • Lot coverage — • Final subdivision amendment PC said no (12 -4 -07) plat requirements — in proposed • Preliminary plat requirements — these already exist • Uses permitted item not allowed; the building code the report tonight in side yard — pools were the only staff was instructed to find out what requires. Item to be discussed later in • Easement required — in proposed amendment Applicant's Proposal Compared to Changes Recommended by PC — Cont"d • 15' setback on Corner Lots — right now corner lots have front setback requirement — not discussed with PC- - it was to be part of overall setback discussion since it affected more than just zero lot line • Alley allowance — this already exists • Openings — PC discussed the different walls /openings and staff said that the Building Code does not allow windows and doors on less than 5' between dwellings — PC was ok with no less than 10' for windows and doors • Maintenance of building wall — PC said that getting into wall maintenance was not necessary (12 -4 -07) • Maintenance easements — required in proposed amendment • Roof overhangs — PC said ok for all building features to be included in setback with no intrusion (7- 26 -07) Applicant's Proposal Compared to Changes Recommended by PC — Cont"d • Building footings — staff recommended on 12/6 that no footing be placed on adjoining property; after checking with zoning inspectors, this was not feasible; they recommended 8 inches instead of 12' because it is common practice • Chain link fences — zoning ordinance does not currently regulate; staff did not cover with PC • Private drivewa s — currently there are no restrictions; staff lid not cover with PC since it would be adding a restriction that had more global impacts than just zero lot line • Landscape Plan — PC recommended against requiring a landscape plan (12 -6 -07) Recommended Ordinance • Adds definitions for "zero lot I i ne" and "zero lot line development" • Option only available in a "zero lot line development': • Changes side yard from 10 feet to zero feet, on one side of the lot only, in R -2, R -4, R -6, R10, and R -15 zoning districts under certain conditions: • Proposal must be shown on a subdivision plat that shows all lots in the zero lot line development and delineating the location of each unit • Buildings must have at least a 10 -foot separation • A 10 -foot maintenance easement must be provided on the lot abutting the zero lot line side of the dwelling unit • Deletes the requirement for a reduction of side yard setback where structures are within a four -mile radius of a responding fire station and the reference that buildings must conform to the Building Code. (Conformity with the Building Code is already a requirement.) RE ?UIREMENTS K«d STANDARD LEVEL CONVENTIONAL CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT DE V E LOPMEN T i0 awl 1117F1i 136 LEVEL CONVENT IONAL CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT Gross deasLry 2 d ul lane 2 d uwre 3 dulwre 3 doge Min imu ro Lot Size 21,780 aq ft i-1,500 sq tl 1-1,520 sq ft. 9,70 sq ft Mi n imu ro fraatw: ubLio, private 80 tit 70 feet 7 0 i}eet 65 Eee t Yards miaim u ra: Fran t 25 feet 25 feet 25 ket 25 ket Sides 10 fee t 10 feet 10 feet 10 fit Rear 20 feeet .20 feeet 20 i*t 20 feet ta7 M Ono mum side v ards may to reed used to not less th an ten 1101 tit in accordance wo th sectirin -[.I I . r}rov ided that. mini mum side v arils ma-r to red uced to zero tn71}eet op one side i n x m lot Line developments i n accordance -•i th section -1. L L.1 and are approved under chW&j L4. Max Lmum Structure he ikh L 35 fleet 35 t�et 35 ket 35 feet Questions by PC to Date: 1. What is being considered? Attachment A or Attachment B? 2. Why is everything crossed out and then new language provided? 3. Has any comparison been made between the applicant's request and the county's proposal for the zero lot line ZTA? 4. Do we want to prohibit detached garages or garden sheds from invading the setback space? 5. Why didn't staff delete the section related to Developments Approved prior to January 1, 1983 6. Are there any provisions for increasing the fire rating of buildings that will be so close? 7. Why do we want to limit windows and doors in proposed Section 4.11.2-B.4? Won't that be covered by the VUS Building code anyway? 8. Would sec 4.11.3.B.3 prohibit plantings in this area? 9. Why would we want to include sec. 4.11.3.C, and allow the subdivision plat com ly with the regulations that were in place when the sub ivision was approved? Pools in the Side Yard Swimming pools in the side yard would be allowed if they are 6'from the property line. Staff recommendation: If pools are desired in the side yard on zero lot line. consider with all side yard lot line amendments. Can Eliminate Windows and Door Reference in 4.11.3.b.2. Clarification received today: < 5'from property line — windows and doors allowed with fire rated walls <3' from property line — no openings Both Fire Flows AND Building Code requirements are necessary Potential Change to Reduce Confusion in Sec. 4.11.3.A.3 a. and b. A. Reductions for structures except in zero lot line development, with adequate tire flows and which are constructed in accordance with the building code. The minimum building separation or side yards for primary structures may be reduced if the structure is located in an area where available fire flows are adequate under Insurance Service Offices standards to allow the reduction. Each primary structure for which the minimum building separation or side vard has been reduced as provided in this subsection shall be subiect to the following: B. Reductionsefor dwelling units in zero lot line developments. The minimum building separation or side yards for detached dwelling units may be reduced to zero (0) feet on one side for each dwelling unit in a zero lot line development if the structure is located in an area where available fire flows are adequate under Insurance Service Offices standards to allow the reduction. Each zero lot line development shall be subiect to the following: Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission hold a public hearing on the proposed ZTA and make recommendations for changes, as necessary. If the Commission believes the ordinance is ready, staff recommends that the Commission take action to pass on the ordinance to the Board of Supervisors.