2016-05-04_PC_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

1959, R-2 parcels had the same minimum area requirement but, with a 40% allowance of 16 building footprints and paved surfaces, were permitted more (i.e., at least 4,400 square feet) of 17 the same building and pavement area. The2010 update of the zoning code introduced greater 18 diversity in the size of lots for development of single-familyhomes,but whilesuch lots in the 19 LDR-1 and MDR districts were each allowed to be developed with somewhat more than3,000 20 square feet of building and pavement area, lots in the LDR-2 district were unintentionally limited 21 to only 1,800 square feet. 22 This artificially low limit on building footprint and paved area in the LDR-2 district has generally 23 not been an issue since its creation in 2010 because Roseville has not approved any LDR-2 24 development until 2016. The applicant requesting the zoning amendment has recently gained 25 approval of the Wheaton Woods plat, which includes several LDR-2 parcels. The builder 26 engaged to develop homes on these parcels has been attempting to design modestly-sized homes 27 that adhere to the existing 30% limit and that are viable in the market.But, by the time a parcel is 28 developed with a 10-foot wide driveway that reaches to the required 30-foot minimum, front yard 29 building setback (300 square feet), and a 20-foot by 10-foot (200 square feet) place to park or 30 turn a vehicle around, 1,300 square feet of buildingandhard surface remains to be built. Even 31 with a veryminimal two-car garage(400 square feet), only a 900-square-foot house footprint 32 (which is the size of a 1920s bungalow or a 1950s Cape Cod or small rambler) could be 33 developed with the remnants of the 1,800 square-foottotalallowance, which doesn’t even 34 include a sidewalk—let alone a patio or a place to store alawnmower and other household 35 equipment that wouldn’t fit in the garage unless the homeowner hadcompact vehicles. 36 The applicant’s written narrative, included with this RPCA as Attachment A, also demonstrates 37 howthe hard surface allowance is quickly exhausted. Clearly, even a very modest residential 38 property is difficult to develop with building footprint and paved area that doesn’t exceed1,800 39 square feet, and it is easy to imagine that market demand for such a restricted property is very 40 limited. Of course, an LDR-2 parcel that has more than the minimum required area will allow for 41 a greater amount of building and pavement area, but it remains true that the 1,800 square-foot 42 allowance is dramatically and artificially lower than what is allowed for single-family homes in 43 the LDR-1 and MDR districts. 44 Because of this, Planning Division staff recommends increasing the percentage of building 45 footprint and paved surfaces allowed on parcels in the LDR-2 district.The applicant suggests a 46 limit of 50% for the LDR-2 district; as a percentage figure, it is a little greater than the average of 47 30% (allowed in LDR-1) and 65% (allowed in MDR), but the 3,000 square feet of building 48 footprints and paved surfaces it would allow on a 6,000 square-foot parcel remains less than the 49 3,120 square feet and 3,300 square feet permitted on MDR and LDR-1 parcels, respectively. 50 While people may discuss whether a greater or lesser allowance is most appropriate, Planning 51 Division staff believes a 50% limit is a reasonable place to begin that discussion. Attachment B 52 comprises a draft zoning text amendment that would incorporate the proposed 50% limit. 53 The proposed zoning text amendment was discussed by the Development Review Committee 54 (DRC) on April 7 and April21, 2016. The members of the DRC were generally supportive of the 55 greater parity among zoning districts that would be achieved by the proposed amendment.Public 56 Works staff also observed that the impacts on storm water runoff would be minimal because 57 existing LDR-2 parcels are few in number and broadly spaced as individuals or small groups 58 across the community(moreover, of those that are grouped together, most are governed by 59 Planned Unit Development agreements which will constrain additional development of those 60 PF16-010_RPCA_20160504 Page 2of 3