Side Setback Side Setback RequirementsRequirements

In Martiswoods In Martiswoods Estates (MWE)Estates (MWE)

For Andrew BavettaFor Andrew Bavetta

APN 080-360-046-000APN 080-360-046-000

11630 Kleckner Ct11630 Kleckner Ct

Truckee CA 96161Truckee CA 96161

OverviewOverview

Project DescriptionProject Description Garage/secondary dwelling additionGarage/secondary dwelling addition

Zoning BackgroundZoning Background How zoning changedHow zoning changed

Interpretation of new zoningInterpretation of new zoning Case for a 20 ft setback interpretationCase for a 20 ft setback interpretation

Zoning inconsistenciesZoning inconsistencies

Skip, Refer Skip, Refer to Handoutto Handout

What, Why and WhenWhat, Why and When

WhatWhat Add “mother in-law unit” and two car garage attached to Add “mother in-law unit” and two car garage attached to

the North side of my home.the North side of my home. WhyWhy

To provide storage space and room for visiting friends To provide storage space and room for visiting friends and relatives, potential rental income for me in the near and relatives, potential rental income for me in the near term and quarters for a caregiver should I require one term and quarters for a caregiver should I require one in the futurein the future

WhenWhen This year before the snow fliesThis year before the snow flies

The HistoryThe History

Purchased Home in 1997Purchased Home in 1997 Side setbacks were 20 ftSide setbacks were 20 ft

Drew up & Submitted Plans for Addition in 2002Drew up & Submitted Plans for Addition in 2002 Side setbacks were 20 ftSide setbacks were 20 ft Neighbors objected to “Second Unit”Neighbors objected to “Second Unit” Plans were rejected by Placer CountyPlans were rejected by Placer County

Asked PC Planning to verify setbacks in April Asked PC Planning to verify setbacks in April 2009 before resubmitting the 2002 plans2009 before resubmitting the 2002 plans Told side setbacks were now 30 ftTold side setbacks were now 30 ft 2002 plans won’t work with a 30 ft side setback2002 plans won’t work with a 30 ft side setback

Plan ViewPlan View

N

A PictorialA PictorialA PictorialA Pictorial

Existing HouseExisting House GarageGarageAdditionAddition (24 ft)(24 ft)

The New ZoningThe New Zoning

Why the new zoning is messed up Why the new zoning is messed up for MWEfor MWE

Second Issue

Zoning Hierarchy Zoning Hierarchy

Land UseLand Use

Zone Zone DistrictDistrict

Combining Combining DistrictDistrict

MVCPMVCP

ExampleExample

LDR 1-5 DU/ACLDR 1-5 DU/AC

RSRS

-B-X 1 AC MIN-B-X 1 AC MIN

ZoningZoningMapMap

Zoning BackgroundZoning Background

Old MWE zoning was Tahoe Residential 1 DU Old MWE zoning was Tahoe Residential 1 DU per parcel TR-1-B-40 with 20 ft side setbacksper parcel TR-1-B-40 with 20 ft side setbacks

New zoning is both Residential Single Family New zoning is both Residential Single Family RS-B-X 1 AC. MIN. and Residential Single RS-B-X 1 AC. MIN. and Residential Single Family RS-B-40 depending on where the Family RS-B-40 depending on where the parcel is located within MWEparcel is located within MWE

How and why the zoning changedHow and why the zoning changed• Partially explained by the MVCP updatePartially explained by the MVCP update

Problematic Due ProcessProblematic Due Process Scope of MVCP updateScope of MVCP update

Newspaper ArticlesNewspaper Articles• Issues: 6000 new residences, affordable housing, traffic, Issues: 6000 new residences, affordable housing, traffic,

environmental quality, development of Northstar, environmental quality, development of Northstar, Lahonton, Eaglewood, Waddle, Hopkins & Siller Ranches Lahonton, Eaglewood, Waddle, Hopkins & Siller Ranches & other “New Projects” out there in “The Valley”& other “New Projects” out there in “The Valley”

• Nothing on re-zoning of MWE being part of planNothing on re-zoning of MWE being part of plan MVCP DocumentMVCP Document

MVCP text mentions MWE is included but beyond that MVCP text mentions MWE is included but beyond that nothing of importnothing of import

No mention of re-zoning of MWE in 148 page MVCP textNo mention of re-zoning of MWE in 148 page MVCP text

Distribution of Public NoticesDistribution of Public Notices Sierra Sun - NoneSierra Sun - None Tahoe World - 3 Notices (undersize) - GC Tahoe World - 3 Notices (undersize) - GC ¶¶ 65091 65091

• No mention of MWENo mention of MWE Mail - None (OK if more than 1000 mailings required)Mail - None (OK if more than 1000 mailings required)

Martis Community Plan Martis Community Plan (Updated Dec 2003)(Updated Dec 2003)

IntentIntent““It is not the intent of the Plan to either encourage or It is not the intent of the Plan to either encourage or

support rezoning requests. Therefore, the requests support rezoning requests. Therefore, the requests to rezone property to increase density or decrease to rezone property to increase density or decrease

the minimum lot size should not be supported.”-the minimum lot size should not be supported.”-MVCP pg 25 ¶ 1MVCP pg 25 ¶ 1

Land Use LDR (re-zones & up-zones) for MWE Land Use LDR (re-zones & up-zones) for MWE Sheets 2 & 3 Sheets 2 & 3 -MVCP fig 1, pg 149-MVCP fig 1, pg 149

• “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.”

Land Use RR (spot zones) for MWE Sheet 4-Land Use RR (spot zones) for MWE Sheet 4-MVCP fig MVCP fig 1, pg 1491, pg 149

• “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.”

Zone District RS for all of MWEZone District RS for all of MWE-MVCP pg 152-MVCP pg 152

Combining District not specified Combining District not specified • No indication MVCP drove change of Sheet 2 & 3 parcelsNo indication MVCP drove change of Sheet 2 & 3 parcels

MVCP Defines Land Use & Zone District MVCP Defines Land Use & Zone District

but Not Combining District for MWEbut Not Combining District for MWE

Why the Why the Stealth?Stealth?

Three Sheets of MWE TractThree Sheets of MWE Tract

N

OOFORFOR

FO

R

86.0%86.0%9898114114TotalTotal

90.5%90.5%3838424244

82.4%82.4%2828343433

84.2%84.2%3232383822

% Built% BuiltBuiltBuiltLotsLotsSheetSheet

•Are Zoned DifferentlyAre Zoned Differently•Are Nearly Built OutAre Nearly Built Out

MWE Sheets 2, 3 and 4 MWE Sheets 2, 3 and 4 ComparisonComparison

(Most parcels (75%) are less than an acre)(Most parcels (75%) are less than an acre)

Are “essentially identical” in size distribution and Are “essentially identical” in size distribution and neighborhood characterneighborhood character

• All parcels are of non conforming width (130 ft vs 135 ft); All parcels are of non conforming width (130 ft vs 135 ft); many, including homes on both sides of my property, are many, including homes on both sides of my property, are built to within 20 ft of property line, and most are slightly built to within 20 ft of property line, and most are slightly less than 1 acreless than 1 acre

It is It is irrationalirrational, , unfairunfair, and thus , and thus unlawfulunlawful to zone them to zone them differently.differently.

• A basic requirement for a violation of equal protection in the A basic requirement for a violation of equal protection in the land use context is that similarly situated property is treated land use context is that similarly situated property is treated differentlydifferently

• e.g. 11345 Theline.g. 11345 Thelin is but a 9 iron away from my parcel is but a 9 iron away from my parcel and shares nearly identical physical characteristics and shares nearly identical physical characteristics yet is zoned to allow 20 ft side setbacksyet is zoned to allow 20 ft side setbacks

Martiswoods Tract ParcelsMartiswoods Tract Parcels

A 9 Iron Chip ShotA 9 Iron Chip Shot

Land Use Land Use LDRLDR and Zoning and Zoning B-40B-40 Are the Best Fit for MWEAre the Best Fit for MWE

Nonconforming %Nonconforming %

ZoningZoning74.674.62.3 Acres*2.3 Acres*43,560 sq. ft.43,560 sq. ft.B-43B-43

74.674.6

0.00.01 Acre***1 Acre***10,000 sq. ft.**10,000 sq. ft.**LDRLDR

MWE ParcelsMWE Parcels

%<Min Area%<Min Area

* Per paragraph 17.52.40* Per paragraph 17.52.40** Minimum lot size within range determined by zoning** Minimum lot size within range determined by zoning

ZoningZoning14.914.91 Acre*1 Acre*40,000 sq. ft.40,000 sq. ft.B-40B-40

RRRR 43,560 sq ft**43,560 sq ft** 10 Acres***10 Acres***

Land UseLand Use

Land UseLand Use

*PCC *PCC ¶ 17.52.40 17.52.40** Minimum lot size within range determined by zoning** Minimum lot size within range determined by zoning*** PCC Table I-2 pg 13*** PCC Table I-2 pg 13

toto

toto

toto

toto

Minimum Lot AreaMinimum Lot Area

MinimizeMinimize

In MWE (Sheets 2 & 3) the Lots In MWE (Sheets 2 & 3) the Lots Are Too Small for New ZoningAre Too Small for New Zoning

70.6%70.6%24/3424/3426.5%26.5%9/349/3433

65.8%65.8%25/3825/3813.2%13.2%5/385/3822

Nonconforming lots Nonconforming lots for New Zoning for New Zoning

RS-B-X 1 AC MINRS-B-X 1 AC MIN

Nonconforming lots Nonconforming lots for Old Zoningfor Old Zoning

TR-1-B-40TR-1-B-40

SheetSheet

Placer County took an existing developed residential area (e.g. Placer County took an existing developed residential area (e.g. MWE. Sheet 2) with 84% buildout and rezoned it toMWE. Sheet 2) with 84% buildout and rezoned it to quintuple quintuple the number of nonconforming parcels for no apparent reason.the number of nonconforming parcels for no apparent reason.

PCC Sets 30 ft Side Setbacks for PCC Sets 30 ft Side Setbacks for the ~25% of MWE Parcels that are the ~25% of MWE Parcels that are

>>1Acre For Fire Safety1Acre For Fire Safety

¶ 17.52.040 Footnote(5): “If the parcel is one acre ¶ 17.52.040 Footnote(5): “If the parcel is one acre or greater in gross area, the setbacks shall be as or greater in gross area, the setbacks shall be as required by ……. (required by ……. (¶¶ 1276.01, Title 14, California 1276.01, Title 14, California Code of Regulations).”Code of Regulations).”

¶1276.01¶1276.01 “ “(a)All parcels 1 acre and larger shall (a)All parcels 1 acre and larger shall provide a minimum 30 foot setback ……..”provide a minimum 30 foot setback ……..”

Footnote (5) applies to all -B Combining Districts Footnote (5) applies to all -B Combining Districts therefore it is a therefore it is a non issuenon issue wrt B-40 versus B-43 etc wrt B-40 versus B-43 etc

MWE Zoning MWE Zoning InconsistenciesInconsistenciesTABLE 1.1 Ref: MVCP pg 24, PCGP pg 14

General Rules for Determining Zoning Consistency with theMartis 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)

TABLE 1.1 Ref: MVCP pg 24, PCGP pg 14General Rules for Determining Zoning Consistency with the

Martis Valley Community PlanRural 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)

1.6 Low Density Residential (LDR) Ref: MVCP pg 27 ¶ 1.6 & PCGP pg 10This 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

1.6 Low Density Residential (LDR) Ref: MVCP pg 27 ¶ 1.6 & PCGP pg 10This 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 4MWE Sheet 4Zone District RS is Zone District RS is inconsistentinconsistent with Land Use RR with Land Use RR

MWE Sheets 2 and 3MWE Sheets 2 and 3B-X-1 AC MIN is B-X-1 AC MIN is inconsistentinconsistent with land use LDR as stated in MVCP ¶ 1.6 with land use LDR as stated in MVCP ¶ 1.6

Consistent Zoning DistrictsLand Use Designation

or more?or more?

1) Change 1) Change Land UseLand Use for MWE Sheet 4 on Fig 1 pg for MWE Sheet 4 on Fig 1 pg 149 from RR 149 from RR .4 to 1 DU/AC.4 to 1 DU/AC to LDR to LDR 1-5 DU/AC1-5 DU/AC To comply with Table 1.1 of MVCP allowing the RS Zone To comply with Table 1.1 of MVCP allowing the RS Zone

District (page 152 of MVCP) to be a valid designationDistrict (page 152 of MVCP) to be a valid designation

2) Change 2) Change Combining DistrictCombining District for MWE Sheets 2 & 3 for MWE Sheets 2 & 3 from B-X 1 AC MIN to B-40from B-X 1 AC MIN to B-40 To comply with letter of To comply with letter of ¶¶ 1.6 of MVCP1.6 of MVCP To back out unsubstantiated change to original zoningTo back out unsubstantiated change to original zoning To eliminate disparate zoning for similarly situated propertyTo eliminate disparate zoning for similarly situated property To minimize number of nonconforming parcelsTo minimize number of nonconforming parcels To remove ambiguity in interpretation of PCC To remove ambiguity in interpretation of PCC ¶ ¶ 17.52.04017.52.040

One way to Fix Inconsistencies and One way to Fix Inconsistencies and Achieve Fair Zoning for ALL of MWEAchieve Fair Zoning for ALL of MWE

Change ImpactsChange Impacts

Martis Valley Community PlanMartis Valley Community Plan Change 1: Fig 1 pg 149 change Land Use for MWE Sheet 4 from RR to LDRChange 1: Fig 1 pg 149 change Land Use for MWE Sheet 4 from RR to LDR Change 2: Can be done without affecting MVCP Change 2: Can be done without affecting MVCP

Placer County General PlanPlacer County General Plan Not affectedNot affected

MWE Tract MapMWE Tract Map Not affectedNot affected

Placer County Code Zoning Placer County Code Zoning Ch. 17 Not affectedNot affected

Zoning Map for MWE Sheet 4: Zoning remains RS-B-40Sheet 4: Zoning remains RS-B-40 Sheets 2 & 3 Zoning changes from RS-B-X 1 AC MIN to RS-B-40Sheets 2 & 3 Zoning changes from RS-B-X 1 AC MIN to RS-B-40

Concurrent building in MWEConcurrent building in MWE Not affected, new construction (in Sheet 4 of MWE) is being built to 20 ft side Not affected, new construction (in Sheet 4 of MWE) is being built to 20 ft side

setbacks of RS-B-40 setbacks of RS-B-40

Planning DirectorPlanning DirectorCan Correct Zoning Can Correct Zoning Map “Errors”Map “Errors”

Change 2Change 2

The The new zoningnew zoning for MWE was for MWE was invalid when writteninvalid when written as:as: It is It is inconsistentinconsistent with the land use requirements as with the land use requirements as

specified in specified in ¶ 1.6 the MVCP the MVCP The MVCP defines an The MVCP defines an inconsistentinconsistent set of Land Use and set of Land Use and

Zone Districts (i.e. RR & RS)Zone Districts (i.e. RR & RS) The Zoning treats similarly situated property The Zoning treats similarly situated property inconsistently inconsistently

(i.e. MWE Sheet 4 vs Sheets 2 & 3)(i.e. MWE Sheet 4 vs Sheets 2 & 3)

Until these Until these inconsistenciesinconsistencies get fixed setback get fixed setback requirements for MWE should provisionally revert to requirements for MWE should provisionally revert to the the old zoning old zoning specifications.specifications. i.e. Side setbacks for my parcel are 20 fti.e. Side setbacks for my parcel are 20 ft

ConclusionConclusion

An Open InvitationAn Open Invitation

To really appreciate how unfair the current To really appreciate how unfair the current zoning for MWE is you should see for zoning for MWE is you should see for yourselfyourself

I would love to act as a tour guide through I would love to act as a tour guide through the neighborhood much as I did for Steve the neighborhood much as I did for Steve Kastan a couple of weeks agoKastan a couple of weeks ago