HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986/12/04 - Agenda Packet t M� s
PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP
t
\ THURSDAY DECEMBER 4, 1986 7:30 P.M.,
(following design Review Committee Meeting)
/'Neighborhood Center
�( 9791 Arrnw
fancho Cucamonga
SUBJECT: MINIM IN L,,T SIZE/KINJRN UNIT SIZE DISCUSSION
PURPDSE: This workshop is scheduled to facilitate. Commission 'review
of minimum lot sizes, minimum unit sizes, and related
development standards.
I. Meeting Called to Order 7:30
II. Introduz:tion_and Comments t;;: City vlanner 7:30 - 7:35 ,
III. Staff Report and Presentation of .;:sues 7:35 - 7:50
Lot Size/Unit Size
Multi-family Parking
IV. Presentation by the Building Industry Association 7:50 - 805
V. Discussion of Issues/Concerns 8:05 -'9:10
VI. Summary and Schedule by City Planner 9:10 - 9:15
VII. Adjournment to the December 10, 1986
Regularly Scheduled Planning Commission Meeting
i
it
,r
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
O �
DATE: December 4, 1986
:9n
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planring %nmm ssion
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Dan Coleman, Senior Planner
Otto Kroutil, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: MINIMUM UNIT SIZEJMINIWjM LOT SIZE STUDY -- liORKSNOP
1. ABSTRACT: During the past year, the City has seen an increase •in
ev�cveeTopment of single family detached subdivisions in the Low-
Medium Residential (4-8 du/ac) district, particularly in the 5-8
du/ec optional density range.. In viewing these proposals, the
P1?-ning C:.,mission has consistently raised concerns regarding
neighborhood appearance, usable yard area, and design quality. The
C'it} Council has directed the Planning Commission to re-examine the
Low-Medium optional standards, with emphasis on strengthening the
development standards to address these critical issues. This
report presents the causes, problems and alternatives for the
Planning commission's review and consideration. It also attempts
to tl;ace the issues in proper perspective by providing background
information on the amount of LM-designated land available for
futuro development. Finally, the issue of housing affordability is
also nnted. This workshop is intended to be a "kickoff" discussion
to begin the process that will ultimately lead to Development Code
changes,
II. PROBLEM DEFINITION: To define the problem it is necessary o
undersfand pow the Low-Medium.Residential District was developed.
A Iota. of 1,731 acres of land in the City are designated for Low
'Medium (LM) Residential Use. Of these, 529 acres are developed or
under development and 1,202 acres are undeveloped. Of the total
1,202 undeveloped acres designated for Low Medium Residential Use,
310 acres have approved tentative tract maps. This leaves 892
acres designated LM in the City (Exhibit 'W').
The Low-Medium Residential District was established to bridge the
gap between apartments and conventional subdivisions and to
encourage ?ffordable housing. Tht: Low-Medium residential standards
and polices were intended to foster high design quality while being
flexible enough to allow innovation. These standards are used in
conjunction with the Absolute Poll ies and Design Guide;ines (see
attached) which set forth the City`s goals for residential
development. ''he Low-Medium standards were specifically intended
to foster creative design solutions to those critical concerns
expressed in the policies and guidelines, such as neighborhood
compatibility, density transition and design quality.
v PLANNING COMMISSION 2604HOP
Minimum Unit Siie/Minimum Lot Size Study
�- December 4, 198�
Page 2 t
` Specifically, the,problera has been identified as the center plotted
houses on 3,000 sq., ft. to 6,000 sq. ft. subdivisions. These
tracts are characterized by streetscape monotony, reduced setbacks-%,_
reduced street sizes, , and inadequate yard area. Thy
characteristics are a function of density increases above that
"conventional subdivision" with 7200 square foot''tots. . 11 typi`caf
small lot subdivision has lot sizes ranging from`6000 down to 3000
square feet as,^tensity Increases from 4 to 8 dwellir3,.,units per
acre. Street'L�nd lot patterns become more grid oriented; to
maximize the number of lots along any given length of street
frontage. Density increases may also result in reduced street
rights�of-Way and pavement width which typically`�ecome privately
owned and maintained by a Home Owner's Association. The setbacks
are also reduced to accommodate a reasonably sized house which
eXacerbatas the effect of the ai-leady narrow streets. The narrow
lot widths and front loaded garages located close to the street
creme a "tunnel of€ecti' dominated by asphalt/concrete, garages and
r cars.
_ III. OPTIONS; In previous presentations, Staff has demonstrated the
re at onship between lot size/unit size and density. Further, a
lack of innovative site r`gnring design in small lot subdivisions
has yielded unacceptably, 'esult,. The following options are
t presented based upon y ColAcil 'and Planning Commission
discussions:
A. Lot Size Options_ Lot width/depth/area can significantly
a ecr, e s ree-acape appearance. For example, wider lots
allow greater exposure of living areas to the street which de-
emphasizes the garage and gives the appearance of a larger
lot. Building separation is another major factor in the "feel"
of a subdivision: smaller sideyard setbacks create a greater
feeling of closeness and are often wasted space.
CENTER PLOT' -
(LOW MEDIUM OPTIONAL STANDARDS)
OPTION 1 4,500 sq. ft. Minimum Lot Area
5,000 sq. ft. Average Lot Area
5/10 ft. Side Yard Minimum Setback
25 ft. Front 'hard Average Setback
20 ft. Front Yard Minimum Setback
15 ft. Rear Yard
40 ft. Lot Minimum Width
OPTION 2 5,000 sq. ft. Minimum Lot Area
5,500 sq. ft. Average Lot Area
5/10 ft. Side Yard Minimum Setback
25 ft. Front `lard Average Setback
20 ft. Front Yard Minimum Setback
15 ft. Rear Yard
50 ft. Lot Minimum.width
1
PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP
Minimum'Unit Size/Mi.nimum Lot Size Study
December 4, 1985
Page ?µ,
F` Staff �kbmmends Option 2 because it narrows the gap,'where
center--'plot product can be built on small lots by estabi'ishing
a 5,000 square foot minimum lot area.
Regardless of which option is selected, Staff recommends that
t the Basic:Development Standards be modified to-inrr ease the
o sideyarTrset aCKS feetand 10 fert from 5 'feet, and
incre<se the minimum lot width to 50 foot average from 45 focv
r; average.
INNOVATIVE PRODUCT
(LOW MEDIUM OPTIONAL STANDARDS)
OPTION 1 3,500 sq. ft. Minimum Lot Area
4,000 sq. ft. Average Lot Area
'_/10 ft. Side Yard
'20 ft. Front Yard
15 ft. Rear Yard ,
35 ft. Lot Minimum Width
OPTION 2 3,500 sq. ft. Mi!liming Lot Area
4,000 sq. ft. Ai*age Lot Area
0/10 ft. Side Ya[1,
20 ft. Front Yar)l
15 ft. Rear Yard-
45 ft. Lot Minimum Width
Regardless of which option, the Commissioli selects, Staff
recommends that design guidelifies be created that define the
City's expectations for innovative product. Zero lot line, "Z"
- lot line, attached and semi-detached, side entry garages,
detached or rear-'-tared garages, and offset rearlot lines are
examples of innovative techniques which can provide a dynamic
and attractive streetscape. The type of environment that is
desired must be defined in. terms of adequate open space,
greater spaciousness and vari.:_.,y.
B. Minimum Unit Size:
Currently, the City has a 900 sq. ft. minimum unit size
requirement for single family units. Smaller units are
-
,a�rmitted with a Conditional Use Permit to allow flexibility.
i":ie City has no multi-family minimum standards in place; the
size of multi-family dwellings is controlled by the Uniform
Building Code.
PLANNING COt MUM—ION VORKSNOP
Minimum Unit SiaeJMinimum Lot Size>Study
Decemf er dy.1986 J
Page 4
Based on Council direction, the Commission has discussed this
issue previously, .and the following options were briefly
considered:
Existing Standard Possible Option
Single Family 900 sq. ft.* 1,000 sq. ft.**
Multi-Family
t L14 None 1 000. sq. ft.**
rt None 1,000 sq. ft.**
MH None 900 sq. ft..**
N None _..` 750 sq. ft.**
less permitted itith a CUP.
** 100 sq. ft, reduction permitted on 10% of the units.
To date, no specific direction has been giver to staff
relative to this issue.
C. Discussion: . lbw question of appropri'ato minimum unit size is
:t n-6f ;eas y 4nswered, as it is very subjective in nature.
>x> Appropriate unit size cannot be determined purely by technical
criteria. Rather, it is a furwfijc�.,n of a variety of influences,
mm
4 counity expectations, mar`'ket farces, etc.
Based on existing policies, recent Commission actions, and
current development trends, staff could support an increase in
minimum size for single family dwellings from 900 to 1,000 sq.
ft. as proposed. If the Commission concurs, the flexibility to
permit smaller units through the Conditional Use Process should
be retained.
For multi-family dwellings, staff has- little policy direction
to go on. The standards suggested were proposed based on the
City of Upland, "according to a City Council request. The
r suggested minimums are graduated based on the density range,'
with smaller units generally permitted in higher density
categories.
In order to evaluate these standards, or to prepare new ones,
staff will need some additional policy direction and clearer
definition of th^ problem.
If. for example, the objective is to avoid overconcentration of
smaller units, staff Win develop criteria, for an appropriate
unit mix.
Staff is requesting Commission discussion on this issue.
.
PLANNXNG COMMISSION WORKSUrsp
Minimum Unit;.Size/Minimum Lot Size Study
December 4, '1986
Page f
IV. PJOUSING AFFORDABILITY Prior to coossidering modifications to the
LM develolment-s—t-aacd4rds, the Coamission requested an overview on
how the City is .meeting its affordability obligations. This
section provides a general overview, with emphasis on the 'Low
Medium land uss categor ' and single family detached housing.
A. Housing Goals: The City has ,adopted, housing goals for the
period January 1983. through Jz aary 1988, based on the Southern
California Association of Governments Regional Housing
. Allocation' Model (RHAM). The adopted five-year goals are
outlined below:
Total New Housing 10,368
Affordable Housing 4,44
"Affordable" housing goals are. Further broken down as new
housing units affordable to three income categories:
Category Annual Income Housing Goal
Very Low Income $13,400 1,210 units
Low Income $21,440 1,361 units
Moderate Income $32,160 1,875 units
Total Affordable Units 4,446 units
B. Housing Accomplishments: Between January 1983 and October
3 b, a total ot 10,009new units have been constructed. Of
these, 3,645 are multi-family, and 6,364 are single-family.
Therefore, with aver a year to go in the 1983 to 1988 period,
the total goal for new 'housing has almost been met.
Our affordable housing goals are being implemented as follows:
New housing goals for Vary Low Income Households (1,210 units)
are being implemented through provision of multi-family rental
housing and senior housing (monthly rent of up to $335 or
subsidized). This type of housing is not provided in the Low
Medium Residential category.
New housing goals for'Low Income Households (1,361 units) are
being implemented through multi-family rental and multi-family
5
36 s ice
for purchase housing (monthly rent of up to $_ or sale price
up to $60,000). This type of housing is being provided for the most part in the Medium, Medium Nigh and t'' h density
Residential districts.
PLANNING comrSSiom WORKSHOP
Minimum Unit $fte/Minimum Lot Size Study
December 4, 1986
Page 6
New housing- goals for the Moderate Income Households (1,075
„ units) are being provided Through either renteis (up to $804
per month) or 'for purcnase.housing (up to $100,000). Although
no exact figures are available vvithout an in-depth Study, It is
readily apparent that the Ci'ty`s moderate goals have been
substantially exceeded. To a great extent, the Low Medium
Residential category is used to provide moderately prices
housing in, tine City. Of ethe 6,364 single-family dwellings
built in tfty RW period so, liar, it can be safely stated that
�l substantiaT)y, more:t�„i`an 1.b�s unfits were affordable to moderate
Income families. Substantial numbers of mu;l ti-farti ly units
affordable to this income group were,also constructed during
this period.
i , C. Conclusion: Even without an in-depth study, it is apparent
' iaf a -'City is exceeding its moderate' incor housing
obligations, in substantial part due to development,•in the Low
;tedium density category,. We also dppear to be doing reasonably
well in the lower incoma categories. However, s dletailod study
would be needed to deteioine precise number of units built and
sold or rented in each %nd use category.
V. RECOMMENDATION:_ It is recommended Uat the Commission discuss the
F options Individually to reach consensus whenever possible before
moving on to next issue.
Respe tfully s,_4totted,
Buller
City Planner
BB:DC:nc
1
i
F I.
�� n !1•I I , 1 f 1 !f! � Hry, 1-
Ab
_:44
j LOR MEDIUM (LM) RESIDENTIAL LAND USE STATUS`
SUMMARY
A total of 1,731 acres of land in the City are designated for Low Medium (LM)
Residential Use. Of these 1,731 acres, 929 acres are developed or under
development and 1,202 acres are undeveloped. Of the total 1,202 j;developed
acres desi-gnated for Low Medium Residential Use, 310 acres ha16 approved
tentative tract maps. This leaves 892 acres that are undeveloped, have no
tentative maps approved, and are designated LM in the city.
LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL LAND USE DISTRIBUTION
The table below shows the Low Medium Residential land distribution in
the planned communities (Terra Vista/Victoria) and other areas of the
city (Alta Loma, Cucamonga and Etiwanda).
Total City Wide Acreage _ 1,731
Planned Communities. 786
Terra Vista =272 acres-
Victoria _ 514 acres
Other Areas 945
Total Number of Acres Developed' = 529
Planned Comstumties: 271
Terra Vista = 43
Victoria = 228
Other Areas 258
Total Number of Acres Undeveloped= 1,202
Planned Communities: 515
Terra Vista = 229
Victoria 286
Other Areas 687
Distribution of Undeveloped LM Land
with Approve r Ra i ve Iract maps
Total Acreage = 310
Planned Communities: 105
Terra Vista = 55
Victoria = 50
Other Areas 205
NOTE: In Terra Vista, the total number of acres designated or developed in LM
may vary. The Terra Vista. Plan provides flexibility to modify the land use
density designations as long as the total number of dwellings does not exceed
the number allowed within the Planned Community.
nomf
LOT UINE-,,�,t� -
Y Ccardr lizstrr tas 61o+e
Portononrc vvw of
antutitios beyond hems... ,
• Me'FntlM vki{'of
1nRltOSfK{�RW,, ii�f�Of� SFPC1
p ,
r
lop�.d la Ono ~
vlaws gwhr side W«tCfotrs ams sad
and n+or yad k�o w�tdarn on/�
avo-,`+r�na stdtr
s� 1 'pmocy woi bet 4m wo
No
t d"40w,� -
va orl zero
fot taw side tot4o jays to ckw b cd
scopod WAC*MfjaV ay to wo.
�. Progeny s ► on bod+>�da t+oma
ReaKed front wbadc
p vvidod by ado enhy gcropo J
Wide sheatscopr..asw presents '.\
601ea of orchAscMo
_ h3 a smd lot,bw d+o"dmb'&.mo Z4&'c"puofion woAdoe iapor,useble*6 and nor
yards,wr+3ow9 on bath sWu of house wd broods vfewi.
r
A
� 1
J
ll
vFFS ARAGNE
NOUN
ytbanMW4W,*. ' r
m the lace of it,there.'em EE to \
hs CI10U,�0�i11yi$�I1j Ilt ZICt►� I _ . a' '.,
hnus trot Craugh usable y'atG��• i r
not CYZh appal not e ilk 1
terior Interest.DA Chess skttches
Show how&simple'thLtig l 1 \
ter, vgs cart thaer�e an that (` ' Terq Lot 4 i ne
'43it phw ta!!s for Ming the 'i.+- \ rr. u�''.•,�
�s,�wge rathw than fining it up with the
bqr�A tr"aide P of Yard sepe<
rates garage�ra9 sOent lot lots The
f O�f`_t$]rage Creat4's ttYO rUsthlrY 'r.i
ty.p 1 8' a CanipiCt front�.OtIY ydrd that
tF 1 SCptaCCS'the tIa'�tliNtdl stilt etlt�8lfd
a backyard tha tum the Corner of the f
house and steals space from the side
rird, �garage alsn bsiantay ,
thefront elevation vuuaLY,tcskiog the 1, t '�
� houstspppularga:
� l'HfskttittA the garage ako im- ���
't. yrovesinterio:viom Because thehouse wrap around the backyard,buy.
sightlines,rather than strarght t mgh
the narrow hours.That makes the ptaa
it feel rnore open.Watts of Stare c the tKopai a vje.a cod F19*of 9k4A
�YatdoP+at up the house to thy, cem hams ro yard
.r 1
I
s
t> to do"acrwi"yd.ct r!.W...5 kW O.Cim Kw*.
I!
.... ..., F �.
SUM)
IVI"I
ti3 't IL ' f
TGv al
r
c '•L\1�i+�# ,�{ , ,ten, ...
.... ... ....
�Gs.•r UUI1 . �
1�� � .ram �•�� � � � ,
1 ►al' I_t3�r11)r e� ySPMV
_ WAR,
It t 9` ,q.: f l 'iiltlll r e t ( .. ar.x.1 t f ;`t f it►tlt[i i ,j'x�a{0 J 11l7l��J
--
Wit
MUMAN
T- t
✓ .=" ,►
r
f�iwlr��s/ � lrrarill!///�^ii�Ak�►�� a�i/ -
t�1
T
ZZ
,
UNIT SIZE EXISTING CITY STANDARDS
`�.
.,� 900 S9.FY.MINIMUM
i LESS PERMITTED WITH
. � A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
1 ' , NO MINIMUM
- CONTROLLED BY
UNIFORM BUILDING CODE
POSSIBLE OPTION? j
I
i
- i
I
1000 S"O.FT.
l LESS PERMITTED WITH
A CONDITIONAL USF.PERMIT
-I- i
r M 1000 SQ.FT.
MH 900 SO.FI'.
y - H 760 SO.FT,,
100 SO.PT.REDUCTION ALLOWED ON 10%OF THE UNITS' -- -�
Y n1
lit
Rap. li
Wi-
�w.VIA
;fP}'
a. l
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
a' o
v, >
BATE: December 4, 1986 1977
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission,
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Alan Warren, Associate planner
SUBJECT: MULTI-FAMILY PARKING
I. BACKGROUND: On several previous occassions, the issue of parking
stan8arUs for Multi-Family Projects was discussed, with the
intention of improving both the usefulness of required parking and
the quality of multiple family prof e:ts in the city. A general
direction was given to staff on several spr;ific 'parking issues for
incorporation to future development code amendments.. So far,
consensus was reached by the Commission on the following items:.
a. The elimination -'of differences in the parking
standards between apartments an4-;.condominiums.
b. Garages should form a part of the required covered
parking. A garages only policy would not provide
desirable design results.
11. PARKING STANDARDS/NUMERICAL REQUIREMENTS: The issue of adequacy of
e exist rig numerical par King requirements was one significant
item that the Commission and Staff felt needed further research.
As a result a field survey was conducted by Staff of selected
mul ti pi a family complexes throughout the City. This survey
indicated that there was no lack of parking availability in the
majority of those complexes studied. Where parking problems were
noted, lack of availabe guest parking, was not the cause of any
parking problem but the inconvenience of the parking area location,
unwillingness of residents to park in appropriate locations, and
general undesirahility (secilrity, etc.) of the parking areas
appeared to be iegative fea,4ires which caused their under use.
Therefore Staff Gaes not_recov*end an overall increase in the ratio
currently applied o condominiums. The apar en ra los should be
increased as a result of the previous approved policy to
condominium levels.
PLANNING COI+iF+1ISSION STAFF REPORT
MULTI-FAM m PARK'iu
December 4, 1986
Page c
t
.Those design issues which need to be addressed to improve the-use
of parking areas should be included in-a eoyised design criteria
for multi-farm-!,,=?developments. These conve&i.encejsafety features
should include th(kollowing
a. Minimum distances from assigned spaces to units.
b. Reduce grade separations between proper units and
assigned parking areas.
c. Avoid °closed-in" parking areas with constricted
i alley appearance of mul-tip'Ee garage structures.
d. Sufficielt' security 'slighting to insure safe
atmosphiA for the residot and. visitor.
Staff would recommend a modification of how ,the standards the
applied. Currently .25 guest spaces per dwelling unit is required
in addition to the minimum parking ratio reserved for each unfL
Staff believers that it would be more appropriate to combine the
P visitor parking into the ratio to better reflect the true total
p parking requirements. In addition, it is suggested that ,an
increase allocation - for four bedroom units be included "to
.% anticipate greater demand, for parking above the three bedroom
a units.
The issue of garage versus carports has been reduced, at previous
discussions, to a question.of which is an appropriate mix of each
type of-covered parking. Staff believes one covered space per unit
should be the minimum requirement which is the current standard.
From this, Staff further believes that one-half of the required
covered spaces should be within an enclosed garage. this
allocation would provide an acceptable mix of carports and garages-
within a complex to break up the potential monotony of any single
type of parking structure. The following tables show the existing
and potential standards:
EXISTING PARKING SPACES PER UNIT
Type of Unit Spaces Required
Studio 1.3
One Bedroom 1.5 V,
Two Bedroom 1.8
Three Bedroom 2.0
Four Bedroom and Larger 2.0
Note: In addition, open visitor parking is currently
required at the rate of .25 ;spaces per dwelling unit.
PLANNING COMMISSION. S74AFF REPORT .
MULTI=FAMILY PARKING-
December 4, 1986
Page 3
i
POTENTIAL PARKING REQUIREMENTS/SPACES PER!UNIT
A Total Covered
Type of Unit Spaces Requiredl Spaces;Required2
Studio 1.50 1
One Bedronn 1.75 1
Two Redrim 2.00 1
Three l ;e 2.25 1
Four Redr'n A'larger, 2.50 1
Note: l .2r\spaces per unit shall be allocated from the total
--king couni;;.far open, unassigned visitor p�rking which shall
be naintainz4J,jfor the life of the project. 50%of the total
required '0 red spaces, shall be within enclosed .garage,
G structures.;.'
Staff would iikh specific guidance from the Planning Commission on
these nuneri4M space and covered parking allocation
recommendations.
IV. DESIGN'''CRITERIA FAR COVERED PARKING: Much of this analysis was
contained in the_previous report and it included again for more
specific Commission guidance on suggested provisions. In s,"aff's
f� review of multiple family parking, two major issues surfaced from
i which our analysis evolved. Firstly, multiiple-fam;ly complexes are
i designed generally around two opposite concepts which are as
,\ follows:
Perimeter loq driveway a i,-1_pdrkin9 areas, This type
o design provides a maximum interior open space
allotment adjacent to the residential structures, but
adds a large degree ofinconvenience due to he lengthy
walking distance to the parking spaces. These
projects segregate "community activity" away from the
,perimeter.
Dispersed driveway acid parking areas. This design
type provides a great ea of user convenience by
placing the parking spaces closer (or adjacent to) to
the residential unit, but much of the potential
landscaped open space is used up by meandering
private streets and driveways. The driveway areas
become a part of the "community" activity in this
type of project, "Tuck-under" parking dictates this
type of design. While there are some advantages
associated with the concept of parking dispersed
throughout, the proportion of paved areas is
substantially higher,
i
L- 77 �!
Y PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
MULTI-FAMILY PARKING
December 4, 1086
Page 4
Design review policies should promote the positive features of both'
- types of site planning.. Staff suggests that creative combinations
of these two,types of plans should result in projects which exhibit
significant open` spaces and still provide convenient parking
locations.
Secondly, while garag,� tend to convey a more ;substantial,
permanent development'*)n those projects with carports;:,their use
exclusively does not ilec,essarily provide a better project from<a
design standpoint. Mane; projects with garages` tend to,�exhibit a
cluttered, monotonous and• ui! nviting area of a complevC:
With these issues in mind, Staff has drawn up a list of design
criteria for both (�ttrages and carports which could be incorporated
into existing develVpment policies;
A. Site Design: `Openness and reduced structure 'ass should be
prime c aracteristics of parking area design a:.-implemented by
the foilcAting
t I. Long,- unbralan liF:*s of opposing gararAs/carports on
each site of (h4ve aisle should be avoided. This
type of design results In a "constricted alley'
atmosphere.
.'r 2 Free standing garages/carports should be located to
not disrupt the primary view of th" residential
structure.
3. View's to landscaped areas should be maintained at the
ends of drive aisles. Vistas should not be obscured
by facing garages or carports.
4. `Planter breaks along the parking aisles. This. ,
feature adds a landscaping element into the parking_
drive aisle and can fom an interesting patte-,a to
the driveway/parking area rhythm.
5. Garages/carports should be limited to one-side of a
lengthy drive aisle. This feature would open up more
of the parking area to adjacent landscaped open
areas. it would further reduce the "alley' effect:
along the drive aisle.
B. Architecture: 'Garage and carport design should exhibit designs
which are compatible, supportive and fully integrated into the
overall architectural theme as implemented through the
following provisions:
i
i
" PLAiiNING C+MISSION, ST-A �YlEPORT
MULTI-FAMILY PARKING
December 40 1986
Page 5
1. Garage/carport structures should be limited in length
(limit 8-12 cars). Long structures present
difficulties in keeping proportions appropriate with
the original design intent on the main structure.
2. Recoguize garage doors as an element of design rythe
and,use to create varying patterns. Extensive use al,.
single width garage,-doors, should be avoided. The
perception,of increased density, can resift from a
parking area with large numbers of garage doors.
r",.. FurtheiY, an overly repetitious pattern of doors can
be monotonous and difficult to des) around. Double
width doers: in combination with �ingles can help
remedy the problem.
3. "Flimsy% "stick-like" carport designs which portray
an add-on: afterthought, non-permanent perception of
the parting area should be avoided. "Plant-onO and
other elowts should be integrated into :the
structure design to convey a more substantial and
permanent concept for the carports.
4. NHang-on storage units which again appear to be
afterthoughts to the carport design should be
avoided.
Additional criteria may be developed with the Commission's
F direction, and staff is requesting a determi"*tion on the
}, appropriateness of these provisions.
IY. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning direct staff
o ncorpora a the revised parking ratios in the next text
amendment to thp-ueVelopment Code. In addition it is recommended
that guidance b6 provided for the implementation of specific design
provisions with-the pev lopment Code or Design Review procedures.
Res fully )tied,
Brad ul j
City Planner
AW:BB:vc
MTI FAMILY PARKING SURVEY
PROJECT/ UNIT PARKING PARKING
GENERAL LOCATION TYPE TYPE AVAILABILITY NOTES
p, iBOO=VEN A{�artments open Carport Excellent Parking
(Lemon & Haven) ioOl Sub significantly
sidized) under-utilized
SUNRIOGE Rental Tuckunder O.K. Partly unoccupied
(19th & Hermosa) Condos Garages
E'
Di NIGUEL Apartments Open Good Some street
(19th & Archibald) (25% Sub Carports Plenty in back parking---
sidized) convenience?
b
ZXSCAPE Apts/Condos Open Goou Pre-City project
(19th & Carneli&a) Carports Plenty in back
SiR:SCRPE IT Condos Open Excellent
(19th & Beryl) Carports Plenty in back
EASTWOOD Apartments Tuckunder O.K. Pre-City project;
(Carnelt; 'S Carports & cluttered
Base Line'j open
RANCHO wiWOWS Rental Tuckunder O.K. but Parking on aprons;
(Base Line & Hellman) Condos Garages Numerous cars Partly vacant?
parked inappro-
priately
SYCAMORE STRINGS Rental Detached Extreme short- High proportion
(Archibald & Lomita) Condos Garages age of visitor of required parking
parking in garages
HERITAGE PARK Senior Open Only Excellent % i Parking
(Archibald & Lomita) Apartments under-utilized
PROJECT/ UNIT PARKING PARKING
GENERAL LOCATION TYPE TYPE AVAILABILITY NOTES.
WABOWIGH VILLAS Cores Tuckunder Very good;
(Archibald & Tryon) Garages Visitor parking
O.K.; no proble;
6)1CHO VILLAS "Apartments Detached Very goad harking in
(Ramona & Foothill) varages street
convenience?
WOODSONG Rental Open Good Plenty out hack
(Vineyard & Foothill) Condos Carports
ORCHARD WADONS Condos Attached Very good
(Vineyard) Garages
I i
i+UERRY PLACE Condos Tuckunder Inadequate; Parking on aprons;
(Vineyard & Arrow) Garages No guest vacant field
parking
' PEPPERED Apartments, Open Good Plenty out back
(Foothill) Carports
tiDEiNI'AIASIDE Apartments Open O.K. I
(Foothill & Hellman) -
DISCOVERY TOWNHOMES Condos Detached O.K., but Some illegally
(Archibald a Feron) Garages. some problems parked cars
TERRA VISTA Apartments Open
(2 on Spruce) Carports
TERRI, VISTA Condos !Detached Some iriappro- Not fully
(Sprice) Garages priately_ occupied?
parked cars
I