AgdaPkt 2000-06-12 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

'1 A- ~ appendiX). A lesser number of lots are 6000 sq.ft. - 7000 sq. ft., and even fewer are 7000 sq. ft. or greater. Based on zoning requirements, the amount of construction permitted on a lot is generally proportional to the lot size. Accessory units are permitted outside this calculation. The result is the potential for more density and massing in neighborhoods with the smaller lot sizes. Based on the lot size analysis, staff came up with a sliding scale approach. Options: 1. Increase the unit size as it relates to the lot area. * (Recommended). Specifically: . 5,000 sq. ft. - 5,999 sq. ft. lot area shall have a unit size of 640 sq. ft. . 6,000 sq. ft. - 6,999 sq. ft. lot area shall have a unit size of 750 sq. ft. . 7,000 sq. ft. or greater shall have a unit size of no more than 850 sq. ft. . All units shall be restricted to one bedroom * This relationship is about 12.5% for all lots. Impacts This sliding scale will have the potential to produce larger, new units in those neighborhoods with larger lots (Arlington, Eagle Hill and Canyon Neighborhoods). Increasing the size of the units will result in larger footprints and a loss of yard space, but since the size of the unit is proportional to the lot size, the loss of yard space should be minimal. The one bedroom restriction will limit the household size and thereby the number of cars. Otherwise, the City cannot limit the number of occupants. 2. Keep the minimum size as is, Le. 640 sq. ft. Impacts No impact 3. Increase the maximum size from 640 sq. ft. to 750 sq. ft. without relation to lot size, and retain the one-bedroom limit. Impacts Essentially the same impacts as in Option 1. Since the predominant lot size is 5000 sq. ft. - 6000 sq. ft., more massing would occur. C. OWNER OCCUPANCY The current Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance requires that the property owner reside in the main unit. At the last City Council meeting there was some discussion that the owner be required to reside on the property (either in the main or second unit) and that the City enforce this provision through a deed restriction. The City Attorney has agreed that such deed restrictions would be an appropriate legal tool to enforce the requirement. Indeed, Daly City did require a recorded agreement stating that the property will be owner occupied for its second unit program. In those cases when the property owner needs to move off- site for a special reason (e.g., for elderly care, to be with family, etc), then the City could grant an exception due to hardship. Such hardship could have a term (1 year for example) with potential for extension of one additional term (1 year). The City has recently adopted a similar hardship provision in the Administrative Citation Ordinance. 5