Recently, some concern has been expressed by and to the City Council that the current development standards applicable to patio covers may be too restrictive, particularly with regard to small lot single-family development. The intent of this staff report is to review current development standards, outline the challenges being faced by some builders and home owners who desire a patio cover, and give a brief overview of some potential options for change.
Current Development Standards
There are many factors that impact the installation of a patio cover including, but not limited to, whether it is an attached or detached structure, whether it has a solid roof (impermeable) or lattice roof (permeable), setback and lot coverage standards of the applicable site zoning, the presence of any easements on the parcel, and nuances of topography and lot shape, etc. Additionally, it has become more difficult to fit patio covers and in some cases even patios onto properties as lot sizes have decreased and home sizes have increased.
To determine what standards are applicable to a given patio cover, first, we have to know if it is proposed to be attached to the house or detached. To be considered detached, the two structures must be separated by a minimum of 10 feet. A detached patio cover may be located in any side or rear yard provided a 10-foot separation from the house and any other structures on the property is maintained along with a 5-foot setback from interior side and rear property lines. An attached patio cover must generally comply with the same development standards as the house itself. Historically, for a typical single family home, the rear setback ranges between 20 – 25 feet, the side setback ranges between 5 – 10 feet, and the permitted lot coverage ranges between 25 - 40 percent. Additionally there are provisions in the Zoning Code that allow structures open on three sides (i.e., porches and patio covers) to extend up to 15 feet into the required rear setback so long as a minimum 5 rear foot setback is maintained and certain findings could be made. The findings amount to transferring development potential from one part of the parcel that the homeowner could otherwise build on to allow the encroachment into the rear setback area.
Assuming the patio cover can be developed within the allowable setbacks, lot coverage is the next standard that must be verified (i.e., how much of the lot will be covered by the combined footprint of all the structures built on a property). For purposes of this calculation, the projected roof area of a patio cover with a solid roof counts toward lot coverage, water permeable roofs (lattice and other roofing types that provide shade but allow water to pass through) are not counted toward lot coverage. This distinction is based upon a determination made by a Community Development Director many years ago.
For those properties where setback limitations would not allow for a traditional patio cover, a structure cantilevered from the wall of the house could be allowed, and/or a retractable patio cover could be installed. In all cases staff does its best to help homeowners understand the applicable development standards, the options they have, and tries to help them find an approvable solution that is as close to their vision as possible. In the last three years the City has issued approximately 360 individual permits for patio covers, this number does not include patio covers that were bundled with larger remodels, additions, or new home permits.
In summary, provided there is space within the setback and lot coverage parameters, a homeowner can usually get some kind of a shade structure to cover their patio although it may not be exactly the size, dimension, or type, which they had originally envisioned. Please see Attachment 1 for the specific Rocklin Municipal Code sections that govern patio covers as well as the standard interpretations that have been developed over time and are used to apply those code sections in a fair and consistent manner.
Challenges
The primary purpose of zoning lot coverage and setback standards is to provide space between structures so as to slow or prevent the spread of fire from home to home and to ensure that each home has adequate access to light and air. Secondarily, these standards have an impact on the aesthetics of a neighborhood. It is important to keep these factors in mind when contemplating any significant changes to how setback and lot coverage standards are applied in general and specifically to patio covers and similar shade structures.
As noted earlier, in recent years the development trend has been for larger homes on smaller lots. Twenty years ago subdivisions with lot sizes under 6,000 square feet were uncommon, today the majority of new single family residential projects feature lots sizes that are in the 2,500 to 4,000 square foot range. At the same time, home sizes have crept up with most new homes being over 2,000 square feet. Zoning standards have adapted to accommodate this trend by requiring smaller setbacks on all sides of new homes and allowing for greater lot coverage. By way of example, the lots in the Spring Valley subdivision in Northwest Rocklin averaged just over 3,000 square feet in area with 70% maximum lot coverage and 4-foot interior side and rear setbacks. The lots in the Garnet Creek subdivision in Central Rocklin averaged about 3,700 square feet in area with 60% maximum lot coverage, 10-foot rear and 5-foot interior side setbacks. Homes built to these setbacks obviously have little or no room for a patio cover.
Per the Rocklin Municipal Code, design review approval is required for all homes on lots that are less than 6,000 square feet in area. When evaluating these types of lots staff encourage builders to include a usable outdoor area in the home plan, such as a court or inset area, that is at least 10-feet x 20-feet to allow room for a small table and an area to barbecue. While a patio cover with a water permeable roof may be built over this area, often the lot coverage maximum in the zone will not allow for a solid patio cover. While lots that are greater than 6,000 square feet in area generally have more flexibility, builders and homeowners still sometimes run into limitations on the type or size or patio cover that they can construct due to setbacks and lot coverage standards.
Alternatives
For purposes of comparison, staff surveyed the following jurisdictions to see how they regulated patio covers and similar structures: Citrus Heights, City of Sacramento, Elk Grove, Folsom, Lincoln, Roseville, Placer County, Sacramento County, and West Sacramento. Based upon the survey, Attachment 2, Rocklin’s standards appear to be generally consistent with most of the surrounding jurisdictions. If anything, Rocklin’s standards are slightly more permissive than many, in that we do not count water permeable roofs toward lot coverage. In seven of the nine jurisdictions surveyed, patio covers count toward lot coverage. Of these seven, in all cases solid (impermeable) roofs counted toward lot coverage, it is only in West Sacramento (as in Rocklin) that permeable roofs are not counted toward lot coverage. Only Roseville and Elk Grove do not count patio covers toward lot coverage at all. Most of the jurisdictions require patio covers to comply with the primary structure setbacks although some allow some modification of the rear setback similar to Rocklin. Only Roseville and Folsom allow all patio covers with five foot interior side and rear setbacks. Detached accessory structure patio covers were generally treated similarly in all jurisdictions with a minimum required separation from the home and a minimum 5-foot setback from interior side and rear property lines; the most significant difference being if they counted toward lot coverage or not.
Based upon the above discussion the City Council has several options available to consider:
-
Do Nothing – The Council can choose not to initiate the amendment and retain the current development standards applicable to patio covers and similar structure.
-
Do not count patio covers toward lot coverage. This option would allow for the construction of patio covers with impermeable or permeable roofs to the limits of the setbacks of the applicable zone district. Attached patio covers could encroach into the required rear setback up to 15-feet provided the area of encroachment could be compensated for elsewhere on the property that could have otherwise been built upon. This would allow builders and homeowners greater flexibility to construct structures with impermeable roofs. On smaller lots, the effective rear setback in most cases would be 5-feet assuming that the lot allowed for compensation.
-
Do not count patio covers toward lot coverage and rescind the requirement to compensate for encroaching in to the required rear setback area. As noted in B above, greater flexibility in the type and location of patio cover would be achieved if these structures no longer counted toward lot coverage. Likewise, even greater flexibility would be gained if the maximum 15-foot encroachment into the required rear setback (minimum setback of 5-feet required) were simply allowed by right. Again, on smaller lots, the effective rear setback, in most cases, would be 5-feet. However, this change would allow far more homes to benefit than would Option B alone.
-
Allow all patio covers to be setback a minimum of 5-feet from interior side and rear property lines. Patio covers and similar shade structures typically have eaves or overhangs for practical and aesthetic reasons. Setbacks are measured from the property line to the nearest vertical element of the structure, in the case of a patio cover that would be the supporting posts or columns. Per the Building Code, eaves / overhangs may extend into the required setback up to 1/3 the distance of the setback itself. Therefore, a patio cover with a 5-foot setback from a property line could have eaves / overhangs 1.33 feet wide, leaving 2.66 foot to the property line. If the adjacent home had a patio cover built to the same standard, the gap between structures would be about 5’-4”, a space the average person could jump with little difficulty. This change in and of itself would allow more flexibility, but it would be somewhat limited so long as patio structures are counted toward lot coverage. As such, this change would most benefit larger lots by potentially allowing much larger patio covers. Smaller lots with rear yards that are 20 feet deep or less can already encroach in to the setback area up to 15-feet if they can compensate for the encroachment.
Accessory structure standards would currently allow a detached patio cover with 5-foot setbacks to be built on any lot with sufficient room. On lots greater than 6,000 square feet, it has been unusual to have such structures built that closely together on adjoining lots. On lots less than 6,000 square feet in area it is often difficult to fit an accessory structure as, in most cases, they must be separated from the primary structure by a minimum of 10-feet. If they do not meet the separation requirements, the structure would have to comply with the same setback requirements as the home (primary structure).
-
Do not count patio covers toward lot coverage and allow all patio covers to be setback a minimum of 5-feet from interior side and rear property lines. This option, a combination of Options B & D above would provide the greatest flexibility to all parcels. It could allow for some very large patio covers. In some areas where clusters of adjacent homes all constructed patio covers to the maximum extent possible under this scenario, you could end up with security issues where a person could cross from lot to lot on the patio covers simply by jumping over the narrow space between patio covers. This scenario could also create challenges for fire safety and response and could facilitate the spread of fire.
-
Apply one of the Options above only to lots that are less than 6,000 square feet in area. The lots that have the greatest difficulty being able to construct patio covers under the current standards are smaller lots, less than 6,000 square feet in area, that have less flexibility to start with due to their small size. If Council feels that the current standards are working reasonably well for larger lots but wants to provide some relief for smaller lots it would be possible to apply one of the options listed above only to lots that are less than 6,000 square feet in area.
Recommendation:
If Council is inclined to change the current standards, staff recommend Option C as it would provide a great deal of additional flexibility to builders and homeowners with the least impact on security, safety and aesthetics. Adoption of the resolution of intent would allow City staff to commence the process to update the Rocklin Municipal Code.