FROM: SCOTT ANDERSON, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

DANIEL M. WATROUS, PLANNING MANAGER

SUBJECT: REFERRAL FROM TOWN COUNCIL REGARDING USES IN THE R-2 (TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) ZONE

BACKGROUND

At its meeting of January 22, 2003, the Planning Commission received and discussed a referral from the Town Council regarding Section 2.05.01 of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance, which addresses uses permitted in the R-2 (Two-Family Residential) Zoning District.

The Commission received extensive public testimony, provided some initial direction to Staff, and voted to continue the item to the meeting of February 26, 2003. The purposes for the continuance were for the Commission to have additional time to reflect on the oral comments and written material received to date, and for Staff to begin to narrow down and refine potential options for zoning ordinance text changes. Staff was also directed to prepare a draft resolution of intention to amend the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance. Adopted minutes from the meeting of January 22, 2003 are attached as Exhibit 1.

Previously-Considered Options

The Planning Commission considered six (6) options at the January 22, 2003 meeting, provided some initial feedback to Staff, as summarized below.

Addition of a simple statement to the section indicating that the strong preference of the Town for the R-2 zone is for a single building that strongly resembles a single family home, even if it contains two dwelling units.

Feedback: Staff did not hear any desire by the Commission to pursue this option.

Clarification of the section to require that extreme or unusual physical conditions must exist in order for a detached two-family dwelling to be considered. Examples such as very step terrain that lends itself only to detached units; or the presence of rock outcroppings, prominent trees or historic structures that mediate against attachment; could be included for clarity.

Feedback: Staff heard some interest in clarifying Section 2.05.01(2) along these general lines.

Require a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet for detached two-family dwellings (as originally recommended by the Planning Commission in 1990).

Feedback: The Commission appeared to find the larger lot size criterion ineffective as a stand-alone device, although its use in combination with other criteria was not ruled out.

Development of a specific list of criteria that must be met prior to qualifying for detached units. This list could include (for example), a slope greater than 25%, usable access from more than one street or lane, a lot size of at least 10,000 square feet, etc.

Feedback: This option is a variant of Option #2 above, but is more quantitatively specific. As some interest in Option #2 was expressed, this option should also be considered further.

Adoption of an "exception-like" procedure that would require specific findings to be made before a detached two-family dwelling could be approved in the R-2 zone. Granting of the exception could be within the permit review authority of the Planning Commission, and not the Design Review Board.

Feedback: The Commission expressed some interest in further consideration of this option.

Adoption of a formal "variance" procedure for allowing a detached two-family dwelling in the R-2 zone, with the State-required findings attendant to such a process.

Feedback: Staff did not hear any desire by the Commission to pursue this option.

Refinement of Options

Using the above-described initial direction, Staff has attempted to refine three (3) options for further consideration, based on prior Options 2, 4 and 5. These options are presented below in increasing order of deviation from the current text of Section 2.05.01, and are followed by potential pros and cons.

Option A (based on prior Option #2)

Option A attempts to clarify the current direction provided to the Design Review Board in Section 2.05.01 by making it more specific and directive, while retaining the same basic framework and criteria. Sample text could read as follows:

2.05.01 Principal Uses Permitted (R-2).

One single-family dwelling.

Two dwelling units in a single building.

Two dwelling units in separate buildings, provided that an extreme or unusual physical condition associated with the lot is reasonably demonstrated, which condition would render difficult or impractical the attainment of dwelling units in a single building. This physical condition may include terrain issues such as steep slope; unusual lot shape; extreme narrowness of the lot; the presence of rock outcroppings, prominent trees, historic structures, or other physical features. Once the extreme or unusual physical condition has been established, and its deterrent effect on the construction of dwelling units in a single building has been demonstrated, the Board may approve two dwelling units in separate buildings provided that it makes findings that this would reduce visual, environmental, privacy or other impacts as compared to a probable attached two-family dwelling.

Pros:

Fairly minor amendment to existing text, focused on clarification

Leaves discretion with Design Review Board (one-step review process)

Provides flexibility to property owners, architects and designers

Cons:

Terms are all qualitative and generally undefined

Intent may be subject to different interpretations

Application may vary considerably over time

Option B (based on prior Option 4)

Option B attempts to address in advance the "land use compatibility" issue raised by the Planning Commission by imposing a set of standards that would need to be met before the Staff could accept an application for two detached units in the R-2 zone. Once these standards were met, Staff could accept the application and the Design Review Board would review the application in accordance with the usual procedure. The Board would retain the authority to modify the project as necessary to achieve conformance with the Guiding Principles set forth in Section 4.02.07 of the Zoning Ordinance, and could require a single structure if deemed necessary to achieve that compliance. Sample text could read as follows:

2.05.01 Principal Uses Permitted (R-2).

One single-family dwelling.

Two dwelling units in a single building.

Two dwelling units in separate buildings, provided that the following standards are met prior to "acceptance for filing" of the application:

a. A minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet is provided.

b. A minimum "distance between buildings" of 25 feet is provided.

c. At least four (4) on-site non-tandem standard-sized residential parking spaces must be provided. No more than two of these spaces may be side-by-side, as viewed from any street open to use by the public.

d. One unit should be significantly smaller than the other; with a minimum 60%/40% floor area split between the two units.

e. No floor area exception is required to approve the project.

f. No lot coverage variance is required to approve the project.

g. No height variance is required to approve the project.

h. Applicant must agree to record a deed restriction that would prohibit condominiumization of the detached units.

4. Once the standards in paragraph 3 above have been met, the Board may consider the approval of two dwelling units in separate buildings, provided that an extreme or unusual physical condition associated with the lot is reasonably demonstrated, which condition would render difficult or impractical the attainment of the two dwelling units in a single building. This physical condition may include terrain issues such as steep slope; unusual lot shape; extreme narrowness of the lot; the presence of rock outcroppings, prominent trees, historic structures, or other physical features. Once the extreme or unusual physical condition has been established, and its deterrent effect on the construction of dwelling units in a single building has been demonstrated, the Board may approve two dwelling units in separate buildings provided that it makes findings that this would reduce visual, environmental, privacy or other impacts as compared to a probable attached two-family dwelling.

Pros:

Establishes objective and often quantifiable standards that attempt to address land use compatibility before delving into design issues

One-step review process

Does not increase uncertainty of outcome

Cons:

Standards may be considered inflexible and too constraining with respect to design

Process is slightly more complex than existing process

Standards may not necessarily guarantee desirable results in all cases

Option C (based on prior Option #5)

Option C would create an "exception" process, whereby a design review application for detached units in the R-2 zone could be submitted to the Design Review Board only with a prior determination by the Planning Commission that the applicant has reasonably demonstrated that a detached two-family dwelling could be compatible with its surroundings from a land use standpoint. The Commission could use "guidelines", similar to the standards a-h contained under Option B above, to evaluate the lot and the proposal in question. Other guidelines could be included as well, such as an evaluation of the potential of detached units to reduce visual, privacy, environmental or other impacts based upon the subject lot and the surrounding pattern of development. Sample text could read as follows:

2.05.01 Principal Uses Permitted (R-2).

One single-family dwelling.

Two dwelling units in a single building.

Two dwelling units in separate buildings, provided that:

a. The Planning Commission has approved a "detached two-family dwelling exception" prior to review by the Board; and

b. The Board finds that an extreme or unusual physical condition associated with the lot is reasonably demonstrated, which condition would render difficult or impractical the attainment of the two dwelling units in a single building. This extreme or unusual physical condition may include terrain issues such as steep slope; unusual lot shape; extreme narrowness of the lot; the presence of rock outcroppings, prominent trees, historic structures, or other physical features. Once the physical condition has been established, and its deterrent effect on the construction of dwelling units in a single building has been demonstrated, the Board may approve two dwelling units in separate buildings provided that it makes findings that this would reduce visual, environmental, privacy or other impacts as compared to a probable attached two-family dwelling.

[Note: Staff would need to create the appropriate application forms for the "detached two-family dwelling exception", and establish fees and a handout describing the review process, including the guidelines to be used by the Planning Commission in evaluating the application for exception.]

Pros:

Places the "land use compatibility" issue before the Planning Commission

Cons:

Considerably more complicated than existing process

Requires two-step review process (Planning Commission and Board)

Probably interjects design issues into Planning Commission purview more than has been customary

May be onerous enough to discourage people from applying, even if a superior project with less neighborhood impact could be achieved

Notification of Proposed Amendment

If the zoning ordinance text amendment process moves forward, Staff intends to provide notice through at least a quarter page display advertisement in The Ark and mailed notice to all property owners in Old Tiburon. If different notification is desired, please provide direction to Staff.

Resolution of Intention

A draft Resolution of Intention has been prepared and is attached as Exhibit 2. If adopted, the Resolution will be forwarded to the Town Council for consideration of March 5, 2003.

 RECOMMENDATION

Provide additional direction to Staff regarding draft text amendments to be prepared for future public hearing.

Concur with Staff’s notification plan.

Adopt the Resolution of Intention.

FUTURE STEPS

If the Commission adopts the Resolution, it will be forwarded to the Town Council for consideration at the Council meeting of March 5, 2003, as a consent calendar item. If the Town Council accepts the Commission’s recommendation to initiate zoning ordinance text amendment proceedings, Staff will provide public notice and schedule a public hearing before the Commission, probably for the month of April. The Planning Commission’s specific recommendations for text amendments would be forwarded to the Town Council for public hearing and possible adoption.