Side Setbacks

1,536 views

Published on

This is a copy of the presentation I made to Placer County CA officials complaining about the rezoning of my property in Truckee. The whole presentation was made moot when I decided to alter my remodeling plans to stay within the new setback requirements

Published in: Real Estate, Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,536
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
9
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Side Setbacks

  1. 1. Side Setback Requirements In Martiswoods Estates (MWE) For Andrew Bavetta APN 080-360-046-000 11630 Kleckner Ct Truckee CA 96161
  2. 2. Overview <ul><li>Project Description </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Garage/secondary dwelling addition </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Zoning Background </li></ul><ul><ul><li>How zoning changed </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Interpretation of new zoning </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Case for a 20 ft setback interpretation </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Zoning inconsistencies </li></ul>Skip, Refer to Handout
  3. 3. What, Why and When <ul><li>What </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Add “mother in-law unit” and two car garage attached to the North side of my home. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Why </li></ul><ul><ul><li>To provide storage space and room for visiting friends and relatives, potential rental income for me in the near term and quarters for a caregiver should I require one in the future </li></ul></ul><ul><li>When </li></ul><ul><ul><li>This year before the snow flies </li></ul></ul>
  4. 4. The History <ul><li>Purchased Home in 1997 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Side setbacks were 20 ft </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Drew up & Submitted Plans for Addition in 2002 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Side setbacks were 20 ft </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Neighbors objected to “Second Unit” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Plans were rejected by Placer County </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Asked PC Planning to verify setbacks in April 2009 before resubmitting the 2002 plans </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Told side setbacks were now 30 ft </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>2002 plans won’t work with a 30 ft side setback </li></ul></ul>
  5. 5. Plan View N
  6. 6. A Pictorial Existing House Garage Addition (24 ft)
  7. 7. The New Zoning Why the new zoning is messed up for MWE Second Issue
  8. 8. Zoning Hierarchy Land Use Zone District Combining District MVCP Example LDR 1-5 DU/AC RS -B-X 1 AC MIN Zoning Map
  9. 9. Zoning Background <ul><li>Old MWE zoning was Tahoe Residential 1 DU per parcel TR-1-B-40 with 20 ft side setbacks </li></ul><ul><li>New zoning is both Residential Single Family RS-B-X 1 AC. MIN. and Residential Single Family RS-B-40 depending on where the parcel is located within MWE </li></ul><ul><li>How and why the zoning changed </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Partially explained by the MVCP update </li></ul></ul></ul>
  10. 10. Problematic Due Process <ul><li>Scope of MVCP update </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Newspaper Articles </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Issues: 6000 new residences, affordable housing, traffic, environmental quality, development of Northstar, Lahonton, Eaglewood, Waddle, Hopkins & Siller Ranches & other “New Projects” out there in “The Valley” </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Nothing on re-zoning of MWE being part of plan </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>MVCP Document </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>MVCP text mentions MWE is included but beyond that nothing of import </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>No mention of re-zoning of MWE in 148 page MVCP text </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Distribution of Public Notices </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Sierra Sun - None </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Tahoe World - 3 Notices (undersize) - GC ¶ 65091 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>No mention of MWE </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Mail - None (OK if more than 1000 mailings required) </li></ul></ul>
  11. 11. Martis Community Plan (Updated Dec 2003) <ul><li>Intent </li></ul><ul><li>“ It is not the intent of the Plan to either encourage or support rezoning requests. Therefore, the requests to rezone property to increase density or decrease the minimum lot size should not be supported.”-MVCP pg 25 ¶ 1 </li></ul>
  12. 12. <ul><li>Land Use LDR (re-zones & up-zones) for MWE Sheets 2 & 3 -MVCP fig 1, pg 149 </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>“ Plan areas in which the Low Density Residential designation is used include much of the single-family residentially designated properties in the valley, including the existing developed areas at Northstar-at-Tahoe and adjacent to the Town of Truckee .” </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Land Use RR (spot zones) for MWE Sheet 4- MVCP fig 1, pg 149 </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>“ Plan areas in which the Rural Residential designation is used are entirely located in the west side of the Plan area and include the Siller Ranch site and a small developed area to the north.” </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Zone District RS for all of MWE -MVCP pg 152 </li></ul><ul><li>Combining District not specified </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>No indication MVCP drove change of Sheet 2 & 3 parcels </li></ul></ul></ul>MVCP Defines Land Use & Zone District but Not Combining District for MWE Why the Stealth?
  13. 13. Three Sheets of MWE Tract <ul><li>Are Zoned Differently </li></ul><ul><li>Are Nearly Built Out </li></ul>N O FOR FOR 86.0% 98 114 Total 90.5% 38 42 4 82.4% 28 34 3 84.2% 32 38 2 % Built Built Lots Sheet
  14. 14. MWE Sheets 2, 3 and 4 Comparison (Most parcels (75%) are less than an acre)
  15. 15. <ul><li>Are “essentially identical” in size distribution and neighborhood character </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>All parcels are of non conforming width (130 ft vs 135 ft); many, including homes on both sides of my property, are built to within 20 ft of property line, and most are slightly less than 1 acre </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>It is irrational , unfair , and thus unlawful to zone them differently. </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>A basic requirement for a violation of equal protection in the land use context is that similarly situated property is treated differently </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>e.g. 11345 Thelin is but a 9 iron away from my parcel and shares nearly identical physical characteristics yet is zoned to allow 20 ft side setbacks </li></ul></ul></ul>Martiswoods Tract Parcels
  16. 16. A 9 Iron Chip Shot
  17. 17. Land Use LDR and Zoning B-40 Are the Best Fit for MWE Nonconforming % Zoning 74.6 2.3 Acres* 43,560 sq. ft. B-43 74.6 0.0 1 Acre*** 10,000 sq. ft.** LDR MWE Parcels %<Min Area * Per paragraph 17.52.40 ** Minimum lot size within range determined by zoning Zoning 14.9 1 Acre* 40,000 sq. ft. B-40 RR 43,560 sq ft** 10 Acres*** Land Use Land Use *PCC ¶ 17.52.40 ** Minimum lot size within range determined by zoning *** PCC Table I-2 pg 13 to to to to Minimum Lot Area Minimize
  18. 18. In MWE (Sheets 2 & 3) the Lots Are Too Small for New Zoning Placer County took an existing developed residential area (e.g. MWE. Sheet 2) with 84% buildout and rezoned it to quintuple the number of nonconforming parcels for no apparent reason. 70.6% 24/34 26.5% 9/34 3 65.8% 25/38 13.2% 5/38 2 Nonconforming lots for New Zoning RS-B-X 1 AC MIN Nonconforming lots for Old Zoning TR-1-B-40 Sheet
  19. 19. PCC Sets 30 ft Side Setbacks for the ~25% of MWE Parcels that are > 1Acre For Fire Safety <ul><li>¶ 17.52.040 Footnote(5): “If the parcel is one acre or greater in gross area, the setbacks shall be as required by ……. ( ¶ 1276.01, Title 14, California Code of Regulations).” </li></ul><ul><li>¶1276.01 “ (a)All parcels 1 acre and larger shall provide a minimum 30 foot setback ……..” </li></ul><ul><li>Footnote (5) applies to all -B Combining Districts therefore it is a non issue wrt B-40 versus B-43 etc </li></ul>
  20. 20. MWE Zoning Inconsistencies 1.6 Low Density Residential (LDR) Ref: MVCP pg 27 ¶ 1.6 & PCGP pg 10 This designation is applied to urban or urbanizing areas suitable for single-family residential neighborhoods, with individual homes on lots ranging in area from 10,000 square feet to one acre MWE Sheet 4 Zone District RS is inconsistent with Land Use RR MWE Sheets 2 and 3 B-X-1 AC MIN is inconsistent with land use LDR as stated in MVCP ¶ 1.6 Consistent Zoning Districts Land Use Designation or more? TABLE 1.1 Ref: MVCP pg 24, PCGP pg 14 General Rules for Determining Zoning Consistency with the Martis Valley Community Plan Rural Residential (RR) Farm (F), Residential Agricultural (RA), Residential (Sheet 4) Forest (RF), Open Space (O) Low Density Residential (LDR) Residential Agricultural (RA), Residential Single (Sheets 2 & 3) Family (RS)
  21. 21. <ul><li>1) Change Land Use for MWE Sheet 4 on Fig 1 pg 149 from RR .4 to 1 DU/AC to LDR 1-5 DU/AC </li></ul><ul><ul><li>To comply with Table 1.1 of MVCP allowing the RS Zone District (page 152 of MVCP) to be a valid designation </li></ul></ul><ul><li>2) Change Combining District for MWE Sheets 2 & 3 from B-X 1 AC MIN to B-40 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>To comply with letter of ¶ 1.6 of MVCP </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>To back out unsubstantiated change to original zoning </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>To eliminate disparate zoning for similarly situated property </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>To minimize number of nonconforming parcels </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>To remove ambiguity in interpretation of PCC ¶ 17.52.040 </li></ul></ul>One way to Fix Inconsistencies and Achieve Fair Zoning for ALL of MWE
  22. 22. Change Impacts <ul><li>Martis Valley Community Plan </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Change 1: Fig 1 pg 149 change Land Use for MWE Sheet 4 from RR to LDR </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Change 2: Can be done without affecting MVCP </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Placer County General Plan </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Not affected </li></ul></ul><ul><li>MWE Tract Map </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Not affected </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Placer County Code Zoning Ch. 17 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Not affected </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Zoning Map for MWE </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Sheet 4: Zoning remains RS-B-40 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Sheets 2 & 3 Zoning changes from RS-B-X 1 AC MIN to RS-B-40 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Concurrent building in MWE </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Not affected, new construction (in Sheet 4 of MWE) is being built to 20 ft side setbacks of RS-B-40 </li></ul></ul>Planning Director Can Correct Zoning Map “Errors” Change 2
  23. 23. <ul><li>The new zoning for MWE was invalid when written as: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>It is inconsistent with the land use requirements as specified in ¶ 1.6 the MVCP </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The MVCP defines an inconsistent set of Land Use and Zone Districts (i.e. RR & RS) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The Zoning treats similarly situated property inconsistently (i.e. MWE Sheet 4 vs Sheets 2 & 3) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Until these inconsistencies get fixed setback requirements for MWE should provisionally revert to the old zoning specifications. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>i.e. Side setbacks for my parcel are 20 ft </li></ul></ul>Conclusion
  24. 24. An Open Invitation <ul><li>To really appreciate how unfair the current zoning for MWE is you should see for yourself </li></ul><ul><li>I would love to act as a tour guide through the neighborhood much as I did for Steve Kastan a couple of weeks ago </li></ul>

×