CC - Municipal Code Amendment 95-01 - Impervious Surface - Box 065TO: HONORABLE MAYOR
AND MEMBERS
ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL
FROM: FRANK G. TRIPEPI, CITY MANAGER
DATE: MAY 23, 1995
SUBJECT: MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT 95-01
IMPERVIOUS SURFACES, R-1 AND R-2 ZONES
SUMMARY
Staff has drafted an ordinance that would limit the amount of impervious surface allowed on R-1
and R-2 zoned properties. Impervious surfaces are materials like concrete, brick, etc. which do
not allow water to pass through. This ordinance was drafted in response to the number of
complaints staff has received about vehicles parking in front yards.
Staff finds that this ordinance would help to clean up areas that are visible from the public right-
of-way. It reduces impacts to the public infrastructure (flooding) and improves the aesthetics
of residential neighborhoods. It would not impact existing properties until they come to the City
to improve their property.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 3, 1995. Public testimony was
received in favor of the draft ordinance. One minor amendment was made to the draft and then
the Planning Commission voted 4-0 to recommend City Council approval of the Municipal Code
amendment.
1. INTRODUCTION
PP Some properties have installed excessive paving in their front and side yard areas. These
areas often become parking lots or storage for debris. Increased paving increases the
amount of water that runs off into the storm drainage system. In addition, it eliminates
landscaping that would help soften and accent the physical lines of the homes.
COUNUL AGENDA
MAY 2 31995
ITEM No. 5. 6.
A. PURPOSE AND INTENT
f ,
Municipal Code Amendment 95-01
City Council 5/23/95
Page 2
Staff surveyed surrounding cities to see how they address this issue. Staff received
samples of similar development standards from four cities. These codes set a limit of
paved areas to be 50%. Staff analyzed the potential of a more restrictive ordinance (i.e.
40%), but this did not allow adequate area for walkways.
B. CURRENT REGULATIONS
The Rosemead Municipal Code (RMC) provides development standards for R-1 and R-2
zones. There are standards for minimum setbacks and Floor Area Ratio (FAR). This
FAR restricts the size of a home that can be developed to 45%. No changes are
proposed to these standards.
C. PLANNING COMMISSION
The Planning Commission reviewed the draft ordinance on April 3, 1995. They found
this ordinance to be a good start towards cleaning up front yard areas. A standard that
required providing a minimum of five (5) feet of landscaping between the driveway and
residence for a rear garage was deleted. The Planning Commission found that not many
properties with existing rear garages have 15-feet on the side to be able to comply.
Therefore, such a standard would create hardships that could only be relieved through
the variance process. The Planning Commission voted 4-0 to recommend City Council
approval of Municipal Code Amendment 95-01.
II. ANALYSIS
A. PROPOSED AMENDMENT
The draft ordinance takes the existing FAR standard and places it under a heading of
"Allowable Lot Coverage". No other changes have been made to the FAR standard.
Secondly, standards limiting the amount of impervious surfaces have been added.
Impervious surfaces are materials that do not allow water to pass through like concrete,
asphalt, brick, etc. Staff recommends that front and side yard areas are limited to 50%
coverage of impervious surfaces. Two (2) limiting criteria would be used to help define
this 50%:
1. Front Driveway: limits the width of a driveway for a garage in the front of a
house to 25-feet wide for a 2-car garage and 35-feet for a 3-car garage.
2. Walkways: limit walkways to a maximum width of five (5) feet.
These standards would apply only to front and side yard areas since they are visible from
the public right-of-way. Staff has drawn a couple of typical scenarios to show how the
ordinance would work (Figures A & B). Table I outlines example calculations for these
scenarios.
O
O
O
MCA 95-01
FRONT GARAGE
EXHIBIT A
50.-0..
REAR YARD
25'-0"
GARAGE
0
N
20'-0"
15'-0
A
P4
W
A
A
~
o
HOUSE
w
A
5'
35'-0"
10'
o ~
YARD ~~~'.'::~i:}`.~:;`;:;•',;;•;';';:;~:,:?
...FRONT
•:::.::.:;;;:`.:;t:;;•::
N
5
O
0
0
MCA 95-01
REAR GARAGE
EXHIBIT B
Municipal Code Amendment 95-01
City Council 5/23/95
Page 3
TABLE I: PAVING CALCULATION SAMPLES
The following examples use a typical residence size on a 50 foot by 100 foot lot.
A. FRONT GARAGE
The following figures correspond with Exhibit "A":
• FRONT YARD SETBACK: (20' x 50') + (5' x 25') = 1,125 sf
0 SIDE YARD (1) SETBACK: 5' x 60' = 300 sf
• SIDE YARD (2) SETBACK: 5' x 55' = 275 sf
TOTAL SETBACK AREA 1,700 sf
Total Paved Area Allowed: 50% of 1,700 sf = 850 sf
Driveway Area Paved 20' x 25' = 500 sf
350 sf
This allows up to 70 feet of walkways that are 5 feet wide (maximum) at 50% ratio
350 sf / 5 ft = 70 feet of walkway available
B. REAR GARAGE
The following figures correspond with Exhibit "B":
0 FRONT YARD SETBACK: 20' x 50' = 1,000 sf
• SIDE YARD (1) SETBACK: 5' x 50' = 250 sf
• SIDE YARD (2) SETBACK:(10' x 30')+(20' x 25') = 800 sf
TOTAL SETBACK AREA 2,050 sf
Total Paved Area Allowed: 50% of 2,050 sf = 1,025 sf
Area Paved in Sample: (10' x 50')+(20' x 25') = 1 000 sf
25 sf
This allows up to 5 feet of walkways that are 5 feet wide (maximum) at 50% ratio.
25 sf / 5 ft (width) = 5 feet (length) of walkway available
25 sf / 3 ft (width) = 8 feet (length) of walkway available
B. ' PROCESSING
Staff finds that in order to enforce such an ordinance, some sort of review/permitting
process is required. Staff proposes to review site plans for all work in the front and side
yard areas. No other permits would be required unless structures are involved.
Currently, no fee is charged for processing site plans through the Planning Department.
No new fee is proposed at this time.
Municipal Code Amendment 95-01
City Council 5/23/95
Page 4
III. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
An initial study was completed on February 21, 1995. The study found that there would be no
potential environmental impacts by implementing this ordinance. The purpose of the study is
to reduce impacts' to aesthetics and infrastructure (storm drains/flooding). Notice of these
findings were sent to property owners over 21 days before the public hearing. On April 3,
1995, the Planning Commission adopted a Negative Declaration pursuant to Section 15074 of
CEQA and Rosemead's environmental guidelines.
Notices of availability of this study were sent out to agencies on February 22, 1995. A Notice
of Determination was filed with the County Clerks office following the Planning Commission's
action. This notice was then posted at the Clerks office for thirty (30) days. No comments were
received regarding this item.
IV. RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommends that
Amendment 95-01 amending Sections 9104
pertaining to impervious surfaces.
the City Council approve Municipal Code
and 9105 of the Rosemead Municipal Code
Attachments:
1. Draft Ordinance
2. Planning Commission Minutes (4/3/95)
3. Initial Study