Item 12 April 20, 2016

Transcription

1 Item 12 April 20, 2016 Planning and Development Department Land Use Planning Division DATE: April 20, 2016 STAFF REPORT TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Members of the Planning Commission Elizabeth Greene, Senior Planner Sydney Stephenson, Planning Intern Zoning Requirements for Second Units RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review this report and consider whether zoning ordinance language is necessary to establish a size relationship between existing and new dwelling units on a single lot in low- to medium-density residential districts. BACKGROUND Current zoning regulations Zoning districts R-1, R-1A, R-2 and R-2A are considered low- to medium-density districts. These districts, except R-1, allow for more than one residential building on a single lot based on lot size. However, they do not have different standards for second dwelling units. Each dwelling unit on the lot is considered using the same development standards, including average height, maximum stories, setbacks, open space, and parking requirements. These standards appear in the Zoning Ordinance and its prior iterations dating back at least as far as Council remands and referrals and ZAB request The Council has asked that the Commission consider whether or not a proposed second dwelling unit on a lot should be evaluated against a different set of standards, and if its overall size should be limited based on the size of the first/existing dwelling unit. The issue of development standards for second dwelling units in the R-1A was first triggered by a 2009 Council remand to the ZAB of a proposed two-story second dwelling unit (2421 Ninth, Use Permit number UP , in Attachment 6). In response to this remand, the Zoning Officer outlined the development standards and ZAB practice for reviewing second units (see Attachment 1). On September 21, 2010, the City Council submitted a referral requesting clarification and recommendations for possible changes to the R-1A second main buildings development

2 Zoning Requirements for Second Units Item 12 Page 2 of 4 April 20, 2016 standards (Attachment 2). The Planning Commission (PC) did not take action on this referral. On July 14, 2015, the Council submitted another referral requesting clarification on the relationship (height and bulk) between front and rear units when the rear unit is proposed for the rear yard (Attachment 3). The issue of the relationships of second dwelling units was highlighted again with two recent projects brought before ZAB for consideration. On March 31, 2016, the ZAB sent a letter to the City Council and PC (Attachment 4). The letter requests that the City Council or PC clarify the intended relationship between front and rear dwelling units. This staff report explores second dwelling units in relation to Districts where they are allowed, their relationship to recently adopted Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) regulations, and examples of two second dwelling unit projects recently considered by ZAB. DISCUSSION Existing Zoning Regulations Second dwelling units are allowed in the R-1A, R-2 and R-2A districts, with similar development standards. No distinction is made in the zoning standards of any of the districts, for the relationship of front and rear dwelling units. Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) are a separate designation of second dwelling units, in response to State law. ADUs are dwelling units that are accessory to the main dwelling unit. An ADU can only exist in conjunction with a main dwelling unit. In addition, ADUs require that a deed restriction be set on the affected property, requiring that the owner of the property live on site. ADUs have a specific set of standards, identified in ZO Chapter 23D.10, different from those for dwelling units in the R-1A, R-2 and R-2A. Attachment 5 is a table comparing the development standards between R-1A District, R-2 District, R- 2A District, and ADUs. ADU standards were modified significantly in This was done at Council direction in order to simply the approval process and encourage the development of more affordable dwelling units. The new standards relaxed all of the ADU rules except for height, which is limited to 14 feet maximum height. The new standards increased the maximum size of an ADU generally from 640 square feet to 750 square feet. The allowed size relationship of the ADU to the primary dwelling unit increased as well, so that the ADU could be nearly as large as the primary dwelling unit. ADUs meeting a certain set of standards can be approved with a Zoning Certificate; exceptions to the standards are permitted through an Administrative Use Permit process. Recent Project Examples Any new dwelling unit, other than an ADU, requires Use Permit (UP) consideration through the ZAB. The ZAB has a long-standing precedent of considering second units in detached structures in the residential districts; it is not a new trend. The development standards do not limit the size or configuration of a second dwelling unit. Approved projects have ranged widely in size, with some rear units larger than the front unit, others

3 Zoning Requirements for Second Units Item 12 Page 3 of 4 April 20, 2016 equal size or smaller. This reflects the ZAB s protocol to evaluate each project on a caseby-case basis in its unique context. Attachment 6 catalogs projects that have gone before the ZAB in the past four years. The matrix presents information about each project and the ZAB action. The two most recent projects went to the ZAB at its February 25, 2016 meeting and are the last projects listed on the matrix in Attachment 6. While the properties are adjacent to each other and both projects proposed a three story second dwelling behind a smaller original dwelling, only one was approved by the ZAB Tenth 1651 Tenth Ht and stories of front dwellng 11-8, 1 story 12-9, 1 story, changing to 20-0, 2 stories Ht and stories of 24-6, 3 stories , 3 stories proposed dwelling Floor area of front dwelling 849 SF 1,043 SF to 1,831 SF Floor area of 2,359 SF 2,120 SF proposed dwelling ZAB decision Approved. Continued with direction to reduce the rear unit by one story and consider reducing floor area. The different outcomes reflect the different conditions for each project. The ZAB recommended changes to the rear dwelling at 1651 Tenth because of concerns about shadow and privacy impacts to neighbors. The three-story rear dwelling at 1655 was approved because the property is on a corner lot, meaning that the dwelling would have street frontage on Virginia Street. The dwelling would also provide a buffer between the multi-unit residential building on San Pablo and the R-1A neighborhood. Issues to Consider The referrals and ZAB request pose different questions. The first Council referral relates specifically to the size of second units in R-1A Districts, while the second referral and the ZAB memo refer to the size of second units generally in the City. In order to respond to the referrals and prompt conversation, staff has identified several questions for the Commission to consider. Issues 1 and 2 focus on policy questions, while 3 through 5 focus on specifics. 1. Are new regulations necessary? With recent relaxation of the ADU regulations, ADUs can be much larger and closer in appearance to other second dwelling units. Should a separate set of regulations be developed for second dwelling units?

4 Zoning Requirements for Second Units Item 12 Page 4 of 4 April 20, Is a policy statement/direction appropriate to guide the ZAB discussion in lieu of new standards? For instance, should the ZAB consider second units individually and in surrounding context, or should they focus on keeping second dwelling units smaller than primary dwelling units? 3. Types of regulations? If new regulations are deemed necessary, what controls should be put in place for second units? Should size restrictions be based on floor area, height, or both? Should new findings be required? 4. Types of second units? If new regulations are deemed necessary, should they apply to both attached and detached second units? 5. Location of second units? If new regulations are deemed necessary, should they apply to all low- and medium-density districts? CONCLUSION The staff requests that the PC discuss the noted questions and provide direction for staff to consider. Staff will return at a future date with more refined options for the Commission to consider. ATTACHMENTS 1. May 14, 2009 Memo to ZAB from Zoning Officer 2. September 21, 2010 City Council Referral 3. July 14, 2015 City Council Referral 4. March 31, 2016 Letter from ZAB to City Council and Planning Commission 5. Table comparing Dwelling Unit development standards and ADU standards 6. Matrix of recent second units considered by ZAB

5 Item 12 - Attachment 1 Planning Commission April Z O N I N G A DJUSTMENTS B O A R D M E M O R A N D U M To: Zoning Adjustments Board From: Debbie Sanderson, Zoning Officer Date: May 14, 2009 Re: Two Main Buildings in the R-1A zoning district I. Introduction On March 10, 2009 the City Council considered the appeal of Use Permit that permitted construction of a single family dwelling behind an existing single family dwelling at 2421 Ninth Street. A March 9, letter from Mr. Barton Seldon to Council members asserts that the 2421 Ninth Street project reveals a dangerous eroding of the difference between R-1A and R-2 zoning districts. In the Council Report, staff had recommended that the Council remand the 2421 Ninth Street project to ZAB for further consideration of the onsite parking configuration; at the Council meeting, staff further recommended that the Council include in the remand direction a request that ZAB also address the issues raised by Mr. Seldon, specifically: Does the zoning ordinance allow two main buildings on parcels in the R-1A Zoning District? If so, by what standards should the size of the rear main building be evaluated? II. Summary Conclusion: An evaluation of ZAB s decisions over the decades, moving from our low (R-1) to our higher (R-2) density residential districts, reveals a continuum of gradually increasing housing density and building density and of gradually decreasing ground level open space. Each district shares elements of the previous lower density district, as well as some elements of the next higher density district. For example, the R-1 District allows only single-family detached 2120 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA Tel: TDD: Fax: zab@ci.berkeley.ca.us

6 CLICK AND ENTER ADDRESS Page 2 of 6 ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD click and enter hearing date dwelling units and only one unit per parcel. 1 The R-1A allows two units per parcel (over 4500 sq. ft), including both single-family detached units and duplexes, with no limits on the size or configuration of the units. The R-2 allows more than two dwelling units, and a wider variety of building types, including apartment buildings. A comparison of the zoning purposes, development standards, and practice over the years show a consistent pattern of ZAB approving two dwelling units per parcel in the R-1A, in both duplexes and single-detached dwellings, and of varying sizes and types. Although the R-1A development standards do not specifically allow two main buildings, neither do they preclude it. The development standards do not limit the size or configuration of a second dwelling unit. The R-1A district s Purpose C encourages flexible uses of property in these parcels when considering two dwelling units. Staff finds no changes in development standards, district purposes, or the General Plan that call for a change in ZAB s long-standing practice of allowing consideration of a second main building in the R-1A zoning district, and of evaluating each project on its individual merits, in the context of its surroundings. Whether or not people agree that ZAB appropriately evaluated a particular project s fit with its surroundings is a separate issue from ZAB s authority to do so. III. Analysis The following text responds to the points raised by Mr. Seldon and compares elements of the three zoning districts in question: R-1, Single Family Residential District R-1A, Limited-Two Family Residential District R-2, Restricted Two-Family Residential District A. Points Raised by Mr. Seldon Mr. Seldon s March 9 th raises several points that staff believes misconstrues the meaning of the Zoning Ordinance. We respond to each one below: Issue 1: The 2421 Ninth Street project represents an eroding of the difference between R-1A and R2 Zoning Districts: Response: The ZAB practice includes numerous approvals of second main buildings of varying sizes in the R-1A District. Table 3 below shows that approval of a second main building and of a rear building larger than a front building, is not new and has occurred consistently through the decades. 1 In addition to this basic pattern, all of these residential districts allow accessory dwelling units by right, as a result of a 2003 Zoning Amendment to comply with state law. Provisions for accessory dwelling units are the same in all residential districts and are not just the R-1A District. File: G:\LANDUSE\Boards and Commissions\ZAB\E-Packets\2009\051409\ZAB Memo Re Main Bldgs in R-1A District\ZAB Memo Re Main Bldg. in R-1A District.doc

7 ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD CLICK AND ENTER ADDRESS click and enter hearing date Page 3 of 6 Issue 2: Mr. Seldon notes that the R-1A zoning mentions a main dwelling unit and an accessory dwelling unit, and mentions no 2 nd main building. The R-2 district, however, does provide standards for a 2 nd main building. He concludes that the R-1A district therefore only allows a main building and an accessory dwelling unit, not a second main building, as in the R-2. Response: First, every residential district allows for construction of an accessory dwelling unit by right. It is not unique to the R-1 and R-1A districts. While we agree that the R-1A development standards do not specifically authorize a second main building, nothing in the zoning ordinance precludes it, and the City has a long-standing practice of doing so. (See Table 3). Issue 3: Without the distinction between Main and Accessory Dwelling Units, the major difference between the R-1A and R-2 districts will be lost. Response: As the information in Table 3 demonstrates, the City has historically evaluated R-1A proposals on a case by case, approving a wide variety of housing types and sizes, including accessory dwelling units and 2 nd main buildings. The R-1A allows two dwelling units per parcel, places no restrictions on unit size or style, and allows both duplexes and single-family detached dwellings. R-2, on the other hand, allows a greater density in units and more diversity in building types, including apartment buildings. Issue 4: Mr. Seldon states that the existing pattern of lots in the R-1A is a main dwelling unit and an accessory dwelling unit. He points out that Purpose A of the R-1A district states, Recognize and protect the existing pattern of low medium density residential areas... whereas the R-2 purpose states, encourage the existing pattern of low medium density. He concludes that the purpose of the R-1A district is to protect an existing pattern of a main building and an accessory building on a lot. Response: First, the existing pattern found in R-1A lots is much more diverse than single-family detached dwelling units and accessory dwelling units. It includes several housing types main buildings, accessory buildings, and duplexes for second units, not primarily accessory buildings. The pattern of ZAB s decisions over the years has served to protect this pattern. Second, both R-1A and R-2 focus on protecting a low medium density residential character, as well as an open and spacious type of development. This language indicates how these two districts are alike, not different. B. ZAB Practice Over time Table 3 presents a sample of ZAB approvals in the R-1A zoning district since the early 1970 s that allowed two buildings. These seventeen cases include several from each decade back to the 1970s. Most of these lots are large (over 5,000 square feet) and File: G:\LANDUSE\Boards and Commissions\ZAB\E-Packets\2009\051409\ZAB Memo Re Main Bldgs in R-1A District\ZAB Memo Re Main Bldg. in R-1A District.doc [Right-click and choose update field to show correct file name]

8 CLICK AND ENTER ADDRESS Page 4 of 6 ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD click and enter hearing date relatively long and narrow compared to most other Berkeley residential parcels. The types of approved projects has varied substantially, including: replacing an existing small structure with two equally sized larger structures; moving one or two existing houses onto a vacant parcel; converting an accessory structure into a dwelling unit; and building a second main building at the rear of a lot. Of the 16 cases with information on building sizes, the two main buildings were the same size in 4 cases, the front building was larger in 7 cases, and the rear building was larger in 5 cases. The rear buildings varied in size from as small as 300 square feet to 2,007 square feet, with a fairly equal distribution in between. Staff believes this information indicates that the City of Berkeley has been approving second main buildings on R-1A parcels for quite a while, and the characteristics of these projects vary widely. These results are consistent with the Zoning Adjustments Boards mandate to evaluate each case in its unique context, and shows that the City has consistently interpreted the R-1A regulations as not imposing a bright line rule that second main buildings are prohibited or that they must be smaller than the original main building. Rather, the Board evaluates, on a case-by-case basis, the expected light, air, solar impacts on neighboring properties, the compatibility with the surrounding development pattern, visual impacts as seen by rear-yard neighbors as well as from the public right of way. C. Current Zoning Ordinance: The following text compares the district purposes and development standards as relate to the intended differences between the R-1A and R-2 zoning districts. i. District Purposes: Table 1 provides the purposes of these three zoning districts. The R-1A and R-2 districts share two purposes, supporting low medium density for reasonably open and spacious types of development. All three districts (R-1, R-1A, and R-2) seek to protect adjacent properties from unreasonable obstruction of light and air. Both the R-1 and the R-2 districts aim to maintain relatively large amounts of open space, which we assume applies to the in between R-1A district as well. However, the R-2 district differs from the R-1A in that it supports a wider range of housing choices, with a housing pattern that includes single-family, duplexes, and small apartment buildings, while the R-1A supports only duplex and single-family detached dwellings. ii. District Development Standards File: G:\LANDUSE\Boards and Commissions\ZAB\E-Packets\2009\051409\ZAB Memo Re Main Bldgs in R-1A District\ZAB Memo Re Main Bldg. in R-1A District.doc

9 ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD CLICK AND ENTER ADDRESS click and enter hearing date Page 5 of 6 Table 2 provides a side-by-side comparison of the development standards in these three zoning districts. The R-1, R-1A and R-2 districts require the same amount of open space (400 sq. ft per dwelling), the same minimum lot size (5,000 sq. ft.), the same average height and story limits (28 feet, 35 feet with an AUP, and 3 stories), and the same initial yard set backs of 20 ft rear and front; 4 ft side 2 ). Unlike the R-1 and the R-1A, the R-2 district requires a 6-foot side yard setback for 3 rd stories (rather than the 4 ft otherwise required), and has more complex restrictions for reducing side and rear yards. With respect to lot coverage, the R-1 and R-1A districts permit a maximum of 40% lot coverage, except for corner lots, for which the R-1A permits a maximum of 45%. The R-2 district maximum lot coverage is more complex, varying from 35% to 50%, depending on the building height and whether it is an interior, through, or corner lot. iii. Dwelling Unit Density: The R-1 district allows only one dwelling unit on a parcel, independent of the size. The R- 1A allows two dwelling units on a minimum 4500 sq. ft. parcel. The R-2 district allows multiple dwelling units on a parcel at a density rate of 1 unit per 2500 square feet. 3 So, smaller R-1A lots (less than 4,500 sq. feet) could have one dwelling unit, like a smaller R- 1 lot; larger R-1A lots (less than 7,000 sq. ft) could have two dwelling units, like the medium sized R-2 lots. Only the R-2 lots larger than 7,000 square feet would have three or more dwelling units. D. Previous Zoning Ordinance: When evaluating a code section, staff frequently reviews the previous version of the Zoning Ordinance to make sure the previous and new language are consistent, or to identify changes in code sections reflecting a change in policy. As background, from about 1991 through 1999, the City restructured the Zoning Ordinance. This effort sought to simplify the code, make it more consistent internally, and make it easier to implement. As was noted at the time, the new Ordinance contained some technical errors that would require fixing over time. Attachment D, Summary of Substantive Changes, to the January 26, 1999 Council Report identified all of the substantive changes to the Zoning Ordinance, i.e., those that reflected a change in policy or approach. All other changes were declared to be only textual, that is, revising the text without changing policy. Staff frequently refers to this document to help resolve ambiguities in the current Zoning Ordinance that were introduced unintentionally during the revision process. 2 R-2 requires a 6-foot sideyard setback for a 3 rd story. 3 Plus one unit if the remaining lot area is at least 2,000 sq. ft. File: G:\LANDUSE\Boards and Commissions\ZAB\E-Packets\2009\051409\ZAB Memo Re Main Bldgs in R-1A District\ZAB Memo Re Main Bldg. in R-1A District.doc [Right-click and choose update field to show correct file name]

10 CLICK AND ENTER ADDRESS Page 6 of 6 ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD click and enter hearing date The 1991 Zoning Ordinance (prior to revisions culminating in the restructured 1999 Zoning Ordinance) specifically allowed the development of two residential buildings in both the R-1A and the R-2 zoning districts. Then-Chapter 5A contained the regulations for the R-1A District and stated as follows: Section 5A.2 Uses Permitted (a) All uses permitted in the R-1 Districts, subject to securing a Use Permit for any use for which such is required in R-1. (b) Two (2) dwelling units, subject to the following conditions: (1) The two (2) dwelling units may be included in one (1) structure or may be two (2) separate structures. (2) A Use Permit shall be secured in each case. The current R-1A development standards (subsections C and D) no longer specify that the two dwelling units may be included in two separate structures. Attachment D to the January 26, 1999 Council Report (described above) indicates that the Council did not intend to substantively change the lot development standards in the R-1A district. Thus, any ambiguity in the current language should be interpreted accordingly. III. Conclusion and Recommendation: Over the years, the City has interpreted the zoning ordinance to allow a second dwelling unit in a second main building in the R-1A, subject to a case-by-case evaluation of the project s individual merits in the context of its surroundings. The Zoning Adjustments Board makes this decision on each project, using its best judgment to determine the overall impacts of a project on its surrounding residences. Staff has found no reason in the General Plan or Zoning Ordinance to deviate from this pattern; absent any additional evidence to the contrary, staff encourages ZAB to continue this practice. Attachments: Table 1: Purposes for the R-1, R-1A, and R-2 Zoning Districts Table 2: Development standards for the R-1, R-1A, and R-2 Zoning Districts Table 3: Approvals over time of R-1A Second-main Buildings File: G:\LANDUSE\Boards and Commissions\ZAB\E-Packets\2009\051409\ZAB Memo Re Main Bldgs in R-1A District\ZAB Memo Re Main Bldg. in R-1A District.doc

11 Table 1: Purposes of Residential Zoning Districts (R-1, R-1A, R-2) Single Family Residential District (R-1) Density & Development type A. Recognize and protect the existing pattern of development in low density, single family residential areas of the City in accordance with the Master Plan Limited Two-Family Residential District (R-1A) A. Recognize and protect the existing pattern of low medium density residential areas characterized by reasonable open and spacious type of development in accordance with Master Plan Policy, Restricted Two-Family Residential District (R-2) A. Implement master Plan policy by encouraging the development of low medium density residential areas characterized by a reasonably open and spacious type of development with a pattern of housing types ranging from single-family to duplexes and small apartment structures; Open Space and Housing Types B. Make available housing for persons who desire detached housing accommodations with a relatively large amount of Useable Open Space B. Make available housing for persons who desire a range of housing choice with a relatively large amount of open space Protections for adjacent properties C. Protect adjacent properties from unreasonable obstruction of light and air Special Provisions D. Permit the construction of community facilities such as places for religious assembly, Schools, parks and libraries which are designed to serve the local population when such will not be detrimental to the immediate neighborhood. B. Protect adjacent properties from unreasonable obstruction of light and air C. Allow flexibility in use of property for residential purposes by permitting two dwelling units on one lot under limited conditions. D. West of San Pablo, appropriately regulate the rear and side yards for the construction of a Dwelling Unit C. Protect adjacent properties from unreasonable obstruction of light and air

12 Table 2: Development Standards (R-1, R-1A, R-2) Single Family Residential District (R-1) Limited Two-Family Residential District (R-1A) Restricted Two-Family Residential District (R-2) Density: 1 dwelling unit per parcel having a minimum of 5,000 sq. 2 dwelling units per parcel having a minimum of 4,500 sq. ft. 1 dwelling unit per 2,500 sq. ft., plus 1 if remaining lot area > 2,000 sq. ft. Example: 1 dwelling unit on a 7,500 sq. ft. lot Example: 2 dwelling units on a 7,500 sq. ft. lot Example: 3 dwelling units on a 7,500 sq. ft. lot Useable Open Space 400 sq. ft / dwelling unit 400 sq. ft. / dwelling unit 400 sq. ft / dwelling unit Minimum Lot Size 5,000 sq. ft. 5,000 sq. ft. 5,000 sq. ft. maximum Lot Coverage 40%: all types of lots. 40%: interior and through lots. 45%: corner lot 35% to 50%, depending on main building height, whether interior, through, or corner lot. Doesn't say what to do with multiple main buildings. Height: Ave feet 28 feet, 35' with an AUP 28 feet, 35' with an AUP 28 feet, 35' with an AUP Height: Stories 3 stories 3 stories 3 stories Setback: front 20 feet [R-1 reduction restrictions] 20 feet [R-1A reduction restrictions] 20 feet [R-1 slight different reduction Setback: rear 20 feet [R-1 reduction restrictions] 20 feet [r-1a reduction restrictions] [PLUS: if reduced to construct a main building, then special non-detriment finding] Setback: side 4 feet [R-1 reduction restrictions] 4 feet [R-1reduction restrictions] [PLUS: if reduced to construct a main building, then special non-detriment finding] restrictions] 20 feet [R-1 slight different reduction restrictions] 20 feet [R-1, slight different reduction restrictions] [For Third Floor -- 6 feet separation Bldg separation not specified not specified Specified by story

13 Table 3: Approval Over Time of R-1A Second Main Buildings # Street UP# Year Lot Dimensions Lot Size (sq ft) Existing DU Square Feet 2nd DU Square Feet Back bldg larger than frnt by: # of Units if R-2 Sample parcel Notes 1408 Acton UP ' X 44' 6, sounds too small 1725 Eighth ' X 50' 6, existing b.dg size est. from plns 2338 Eighth UP ' X 34' 4, Acton ' X 44 6, Delaware ' X 80' 8, Demo 880 sq. ft. bldg 1730 Seventh A ' X 50' 6,000? Peralta A ' X 35' 4, Tenth A ' X 33' 4, Ninth A ' X 46' 6, lot vacant 1647 Tenth A ' X 40' 5, Ninth A ' X 50' 6, unit demoed sizes existing est. from bldg. plans Replaced 1036 Addison A ' X 60' 7, w/ two 2337 Ninth ZP# Z ' X 52' 6, Eighth ' X 48' 6, Tenth ' X 39' 5, Seventh ' X 55' 7, demoed 432 sq. ft bldg 2216 Ninth ' X 40' 5, Notes: 17 parcels in sample Several approved in each decade, 70's to now All have two main buildings (don't know the percentage) Relative size of front and back buildings: same 4 front larger 7 back larger5 no data on one Large mixture of types of projects Demolish existing building and build two new ones Convert accessory bldg to dwelling unit moved houses onto vacant lot

14 Item 12 - Attachment 2 Plannng Commission April 20, 2016 ATTACHMENT 8 ZAB Page 1 of 2 City Council Darryl Moore Councilmember District 2 CONSENT CALENDAR September 21, 2010 To: From: Subject: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Councilmember Darryl Moore Councilmember Laurie Capitelli Councilmember Susan Wengraf Referral of Second Main Buildings in R1A Zoning District to Planning Commission RECOMMENDATION: Refer the issue of second main buildings in the R1A Zoning District to the Planning Commission for clarification and recommendations for possible changes to the R1A standards. BACKGROUND: During review of the zoning application for 2421 Ninth Street, staff discovered that the language in the zoning code regulating second main buildings in the R1A zoning district does not offer any guidance as to its size in relation to the existing main building. Through the public process surrounding the project at 2421 Ninth Street, some concerns have been raised about the scale of the second main building in relation to an existing one. This is potentially problematic because in order to maximize development potential, there may be a proliferation of second main buildings that are out-of-scale in relation to existing main building and neighboring buildings. Development standards for new buildings should be created in order to provide for appropriately-scaled secondary main buildings. The following is not suggested language, but an example of the type of prescriptive language needed to clarify the zoning ordinance: 1. Where main buildings reside on a single R-1A lot, one of the structures must be no more than 75% of the size of the other structure, measured in square feet. In addition: a. Where an existing main building is (to be determined) square feet or larger, the proposed second main building must be no more than 75% of the size of the existing structure, measured in square feet Milvia Street Fifth Floor Berkeley CA TEL: (510) FAX: (510) WEB:

15 ATTACHMENT 8 ZAB Page 2 of 2 b. Where an existing main building is less than (to be determined) square feet, the proposed second main building must be no more than 133% of the size of the existing structure, measured in square feet, or the proposed additional structure must be no more than (to be determined) square feet, whichever is larger. 2. The standards expressed in paragraph 1 are in addition to all other applicable zoning provisions. The Planning Commission should also consider floor area (FAR) standards, as well as lot coverage and setback standards and any other standards that might further clarify the situation. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Unknown CONTACT PERSON: Councilmember Darryl Moore, District Two Councilmember Laurie Capitelli, District Five Councilmember Susan Wengraf, District Six

16 Item 12 - Attachment 3 Planning Commission April 20, 2016 CONSENT CALENDAR CITY COUNCIL July 14, 2015 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Councilmember Linda Maio Referral to Planning Commission: Clarifying Front and Rear Units RECOMMENDATION Refer to the Planning Commission a request to clarify the relationship (height, bulk) between front and rear units when a rear unit is proposed for the rear yard. BACKGROUND Currently, there is no language that explains the relationship between the front and existing unit and one proposed for the rear yard. When a project proposes a rear yard unit to be exceptionally larger than the existing street front unit, adjacent neighbors may have concern about the lack of clarity and design standards for the rear and proposed unit. This item requests that greater clarification be provided in the zoning ordinance language. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Staff time. CONTACT Councilmember Linda Maio, District 1, lmaio@cityofberkeley.info cityofberkeley.info/lindamaio

17 Item 12 - Attachment 4 Planning Commission April 20, 2016 Planning and Development Department Land Use Planning Division March 31, 2016 To: From: Subject: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council & Chair and Members of the Planning Commission Zoning Adjustments Board Clarification on Relationship Between Two Residences on One Lot in the R-1A Limited Two-Family Residential District Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) Chapter 23D.20, R-1A Limited Two-Family Residential District Provisions, permits two dwelling units on one lot when the lot has more than 4,500 square feet of land area. The conditions are described within the balance of the Chapter, and include such things as lot size; building heights and setbacks; lot coverage and required open space; and number of parking spaces. It does not include standards related to the relationship between the two units. The ZAB has considered several cases for new 1 or 2 story dwellings within the rear yard that involved more floor area than the existing dwelling on the lot. In these cases, the neighbors were opposed to the larger rear yard dwellings due to concerns regarding light and air impacts to adjacent rear yards and homes, and concerns about compatibility with the general pattern of development in the District. The Zoning Adjustments Board respectfully requests that the City Council, and if necessary the Planning Commission, clarify whether there is an intended relationship between the two units in keeping with the purpose of the district Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA Tel: TDD: Fax: planning@ci.berkeley.ca.us

18 Item 12 - Attachment 5 Planning Commission April 20, 2016 Second Dwelling Unit Development Standards Lot size Number Height Limits R-1 R-1A R-2 R-2A ADU Development Standards Single-Family Residential Limited Two-Family Residential Restricted Two-Family Residential Restricted Multiple-Family Residential District Provisions No lot of less than 5,000 square feet may No lot of less than 5,000 square feet may No lot of less than 5,000 square feet may be created. The lot must be at least 4,500 be created. be created sq ft to establish a second unit. No lot of less than 5,000 square feet may be created. ADUs may be created in a detached accessory building, or in an addition to an existing Main Building, on lots which have an area of no less than 4,500 square feet. No second dwelling units allowed, only ADUs Each building has the same development standards, including average height (28 ft), maximum stories (3) Comparison of Dwelling Unit Standards and Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Standards No more than two dwelling units shall be allowed. Each building has the same development standards, including average height (28 ft), maximum stories (3), setbacks and open space No more than one Dwelling Unit shall be allowed for each 2,500 square feet of lot area. One additional Dwelling Unit may also be allowed for any remaining lot area which may be less than 2,500 square feet, but not less than 2,000 square feet in area. Each building has the same development standards, including average height (28 ft), maximum stories (3), setbacks and open space 1. No more than one Dwelling Unit shall be allowed for each 1,650 square feet of lot area. One additional Dwelling Unit may also be allowed for any remaining lot area which may be less than 1,650 square feet, but not less than 1,300 square feet in area. Each building has the same development standards, including average height (28 ft), maximum stories (3), setbacks and open space N/A Allowed in R-1, R-1A, R-2, R-2A, R-3, R-4, R- 5, R-S, and R-SMU. An ADU is only allowed on a lot with a single main dwelling unit. In no case shall the building be taller than 14 feet maximum height as measured at the highest point of the roof, taller than the main dwelling unit, or have an eave height higher than 10 feet. In the case of a shed or flat roof, no portion of the building may be more than 10 feet in height when measured at the required setback. Setbacks Lot Coverage Open Space The Main Building shall be set back from the respective lot lines as follows: (Table not included) Maximum lot coverage may not exceed 40% of the lot area. Each lot shall contain minimum usable open space area for each Dwelling Unit, including Accessory Dwelling Units: 400 square feet. The Main Building shall be set back from the respective lot lines as follows: (Table not included) Maximum coverage may not exceed the following percentages: 1. 40% of the lot area for an Interior or Through Lot % of the lot area for a Corner Lot. Each lot shall contain the following minimum usable open space area for each Dwelling Unit: 400 square feet. The Main Building shall be set back from the respective lot lines, and shall be separated from one another, as follows: (Table not included) Maximum lot coverage may not exceed the following coverage percentages: (Table not included) Each lot shall contain the following minimum Usable Open Space area for each Dwelling Unit: 400 square feet. The Main Building shall be set back from the respective lot lines, and shall be separated from one another, as follows: (Table not included) Each lot shall contain the following minimum Usable Open Space area: for each Dwelling Unit, 300 square feet; for each resident of a Group Living Accommodation use, 125 square feet. 1. In no case shall the building be located within the required front yard setback. 2. The building shall be set back four feet from the rear and side property lines. Maximum lot coverage may not exceed the following coverage percentages: (Table not included) N/A The subject lot shall meet the open space and coverage requirements of the applicable zoning district. The gross floor area of an Accessory Dwelling Unit shall be no less than 250 square feet, and no greater than 750 square feet or 75% of the gross square footage of the primary residence, whichever is less. Unit Size N/A N/A N/A N/A

19 Item 12 Attachment 6 Planning Commission April 20, 2016 Recent projects involving second units in low- to medium-density residential districts Harmon Harmon Harmon Valley Julia Zone Front height /story Rear height /story Action Use Permit (UP) # R-2A 27 / /2 ZAB approved UP R-2A 22 /2 21 /2 ZAB approved UP R-2A 19-9 / /2 ZAB approved UP R-2 24 / /2 ZAB approved UP R-2A 15 / /2 ZAB approved UP Ninth R-1A 12 / /2 ZAB approved UP Tenth R-1A 16-6 / /2 ZAB denied (Staff recommended denial) 2415 Ninth R-1A / /2 ZAB continued, applicant withdrew (staff recommended approval) UP Ninth R-1A 23-4 / /2 ZAB approved UP Ninth (prev) R-1A 12-4 /1 22 /2 Council denied (Staff and ZAB recommended approval) UP Ninth R-1A 12-4 / /1 ZAB approved UP Jones R-1A 12-4 /1 to 24-1 / /2 to 12-4 /1 Council upheld ZAB approval. Original proposal had two-story in back and one-story on front ZAB required the applicant to have the larger dwelling at the front of the lot. UP Tenth R-1A 11-8 / /3 ZAB approved ZP

20 1651 Tenth R-1A 12-9 /1 to 20-0 / /3 ZAB continued: applicant to reduce size of rear unit (Staff recommended approval). ZP