Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1194 - l' . . '.- . RESOLUTIDN NO. 1194 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF TEXT AMENDMENT 82-1 ALLOWING UNLIMITED EXPANSION OF THE MAIN,DWELLING ON R-l and R-O LOTS WITH TWO OR MORE DWELLINGS AND DELETING tHE REAL ESTATE rNSPECTION REQUIREMENT. WHEREAS, a text amendment (82-1) was initiated by the City for the consideration of changing Section 9292.1.4.15 to allow unlimited expansion of the main dwelling on R~l and R-O lots with two or more dwellings and deleting Section 9292.1.9.5. which required a real estate inspection; WHEREAS, public hearings were held on January 26, February 9, February 23 and March 23, at which time all interested persons were given full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA HEREBY RECOMMENDS TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS BE MADE TO THE ARCADIA MUNICIPAL CODE: Section 1. That Section 9292.1.4.15 of the Arcadia Municipal Code be amended to read as follows: ~ "9292.1.4.15. In the R-l First One-Family zone and the R-O Second One-Family zone for any property with two or more one-family dwellings which are nonconforming uses, structures or buildings under Arcadia Municipal Code Section 9251.1 and 9252.1.1.: (a) For additional floor area, including covered patios to be added to the main dwelling on the lot; (b) Other alterations to the main dwelling which do not create additional space; (c) Required parking facilities for the main dwelling; (d) A swimming pool. There may be required as a condition of approval of the modification permit that plans be submitted for the removal or remodeling of any other nonconforming uses, structures, and buildings to conform to the provisions of the Arcadia Municipal Code. In such case, the condition may require the removal or remodeling of any such nonconforming use, structure and building prior to or concurrent with the alteration or improvement specified . in (a), (b), (c), or (d) above." - 1 - 1194 " . . Section 2. That Section 9292.1.9.5. of the Arcadia Municipal 4It Code be deleted. Section 3. That all requested modifications for additions to the main dwelling on R-l and R-Q lots with two OT more owellings be submitted to and approved by the Planning Commission. Section 4. The Planning' Commission finds that the public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice justi- fy the above changes. Section S. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and shall cause a copy to be forwarded to the City Council of the City of Arcadia. 1 HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 13th day of April,1982 by the following vote; . . AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Commissioners Fee, Hedlund, Jahnke, Kuyper, .Sargis, Soldate None Commissioner Hegg None m a:t l?1. eI ".{.d...tz- Chairm ATTEST: ;f,D/Y~Jd- Secretary - 2 - 1194 , . , . . MAY 4, 1982 HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA SUBJECT: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 1194 GENTLEMEN: The Planning Commission at its April 13, 1982 meeting voted 6-0 with one absent to adopt Resolution 1194 recommending approval of Text Amendment 82-1 allowing unlimited expansion of the main dwelling on R-l and R-O lots with two or more dwellings and deleting the real estate inspection. The City Council at its December 1, 1981 premeeting directed staff to prepare a text amendment, for consideration, which would permit expansions to main dwellings on nonconforming R-O and R-l lots. This text amendment would revise the shortcomings of the existing regulations, which were brought to light by a pending appeal and by a letter from another prope~ty owner. Staff proposed a change in ordinance which would allow unlimited ex- pansion to a main dwelling on a lot containing two or more dwellings subject to the approval of the Modification Committee. The text amendment as recommended by staff would allow the City, through the modification process, to review all proposals for additions to the main dwelling on a case by case basis. It was the opinionof the Planning Commission that these applications should be reviewed by the Planning Commission rather than the Modi- fication Committee because the membership is more consistent on the Planning Commission and policies can be established. The shortcoming in forwarding these modifications to the Planning Commission is that the processing time will be longer (3 weeks in lieu of 2 weeks) and the cost to the applicant would be almost five times higher, if the Council determines that the fee should be based upon actual cost incurred in processing the application (approximately $150.00), rather than the normal modification fee of $35.00 Section 3 of Resolution 1194 states "That all requested modifications for additions to the main dwelling on R-l and R-O lots with two or more dwellings be submitted to and approved by the Planning Commission". Page 1 . . . :i . .1 Attached for your consideration are Resolution 1194 and the staff report. Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, the Planning Department has prepared an initial s~udy for the proposed project. Said initial study did not disclo~e any substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project, therefore a Neg- ative Declaration has been prepared for this project. To approve this Text Amendment, the City Council should "move to approve and file the Negative Declaration and find that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment and direct the. City Attorney to prepare the ordinance for adoption." PLANNING DEPARTMENT /' _ 7 .~().:y~ Donna L. Butler Associate Planner Attachments DLB:ds .: .' ... February 9, 1982 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT CASE NO.: T.A. 82-1 PREPARED BY: DONNA L. BUTLER ASSOCIATE PLANNER This text amendment was continued by the Planning Commission at its January 26, 1982 meeting to tonight's meeting. ... As noted in the staff report, the purpose of this text amend- ment is to permit unlimited expansion to a main dwelling on a lot containing two or more dwellings and allow the City, through the Modification process the review of these requests on a case by case basis. The Modification Committee would be able to take into consideration such factors as lot size, configura- tion, existing building size, location, conditions and proposed size and location of the requested additions. The text amend- ment states "there may be required as a condition of approval" the removal or remodeling of any other nonconforming uses, structures or bu~ldings. Staff recommends approval of this modification as written, for the following reasons: 1. In reviewing the modifications which have been granted for expansion of a main dwelling on lots containing two or more dwellings, all but one of these modifications have been for owner occupied units. 2. All the modifications granted have been for structures which are fairly well maintained, ranging in age from 20 to 30.years. 3; Allowing improvements to be made to the main dwelling encourages continued maintenance of the nonconforming structures. ... 4. The other dwellings on the lot provide needed rental housing within the City as identified in the Housing Element adopted by the City Council in December, 1981. They also are often a source of income for the owners who occupy the main dwelling. .. . ... SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT T.A. 82-1 2 5. The procedure as proposed will benefit property owners by ,facilitating and expediting the processing of such requests and does not necessitate tying up the Planning Commission and City Council's time. If the Commission and Council determine that these modification should be reviewed by either the Plann~ng Commission or the City' Council, rather than the Modification Committee, it should be noted that the fee for this modification (presently $35.00) is not adequate to cover the cost of processing the application and preparing..th.e staff report. Staff recommends approval of T.A. 82-1 as outlined in the staff report. ... ... . \' . ... JANUARY 26, 1982 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF ARCADIA FROM: CASE NO.: PREPARED BY: PLANNING DEPARTMENT T .A. 82-1 WILLIAM WOOLARD DONNA L. BUTLER DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & ASSOCIATE PLANNER GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: CITY OF ARCADIA REQUEST: Text Amendment to allow unlimited expansion of the main dwelling on R-1 and R-O lots with two or more dwellings and deleting the real estate inspection report requirement. ... HISTORY Prior to March, 1967 a property owner of a large lot could construct additional dwellings on the lot, which could be used as rental units. In March, 1967 the Zoning Ordinance was amended, limiting R-O and R-1 properties to only one dwelling unit per lot. From 1967 to 1974 the Arcadia City Attorney had advised the City Building Division that permits could be issued to expand the front house or the main house on an R-1 or R-O lot that had two or more legally constructed dwellings. The Attorney considered the rear and/or smaller house on the lot to be the nonconforming portion of the lot and advised the Building Division that these structures could not be enlarged or structurally altered. In 1974, inquiries were made to the new City Attorney regarding the question of which structure should be considered the legal dwelling. The Attorney's opinion differed from the previous Attorney's opinion. The Building Division was advised that the existence of an additional dwelling unit made the entire lot nonconforming and the building Div- ision should not issue permits for any expansion or structural altera- Page 1 ... , _, 0_ ... .- ~ ~'~la:,~._~.;..~-_.""V~..~,-,,;,;.,., ..-.:.;;-..,;....~.;.......~::-,:;:.~---.,--. , _ ____ -~=_.~__.-_, , _'.,' -,....,.'...'.:L: "..:......_~.r...,n,.~._._~~._ ,_-,.._....-_:..._~,_-. - - . ,.", ,~::~;...~~~-=--~~ '. -<.!i-~:; .,~~:-...,,""i.,~?:.r,,_~~~..~~. ,;~,:.;:,-~~y,,,. _'".T ...~~~_ J.u,...,_~., :_.:"'.;.~:.~~:~_~~~~~:~..~. ... ... ... ( . ( . JANUARY 26, 1982 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF ARCADIA FROM: CASE NO.: PREPARED BY: PLANNING DEPARTMENT T.A. 82-1 WILLIAM WOOLARD DONNA L. BUTLER DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & ASSOCIATE PLANNER GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: CITY OF ARCADIA REQUEST: Text Amendment to allow unlimited expansion of the main dwelling on R-1 and R-O lots with two or more dwellings and deleting the real estate inspection report requirement. HISTORY Prior to March, 1967 a property owner of a large lot could construct additional dwellings on the lot, which could be used as rental units. In March, 1967 the Zoning Ordinance was amended, limiting R-O and R-1 properties to only one dwelling unit per lot. From 1967 to 1974 the Arcadia City Attorney had advised the City Building Division that permits could be issued to expand the front house, or the main house ,on an R-1 or R-O lot that had two or more legally constructed dwellings. The Attorney considered the rear and/or smaller house on the lot to be the nonconforming portion of the lot and advised the Building Division that these structures could not be, enlarged or structurally altered. ," In '1974,' inquiries were made to the new City Attorney regarding the question of which structure should be considered the legal dwelling. The Attorney's opinion differed from the previous Attorney's opinion. The Building Division was advised that the existence of an additional dwelling unit made the entire lot nonconforming and the building Div- ision should not issue permits for any expansion or structural altera- Page 1 :~~~';~=:f':li~~~~:,~~iE!EF:--'::_-~~>:;:~~~:'_~7-'-.".7~:-::::-~::;J~;"~'~;:~c.~~~-___,.;..: ~"~, ~ -'-:-"-',~-:-:--,-,-~",-,-",-..--~....,. . -", , ,~-,..................:-. --~-''''':-:''':'''''-'''',~-->.: . '. . <. '_.'-:-'.'~'.-,~-. , , , ,"-..-. -'.' . "-. '. "- ( . . ... tions for any dwelling on such a lot. The owners of such properties are permitted to maintain the existing dwellings and can obtain permits for roofing, electrical, plumbing, interior remodeling other than structuraf changes, and general repair when necessary (i.e., termite damage). In May, 1978 the Planning Commission received a letter from a pro- perty owner requesting an amendment to the existing regulations to allow limited expansions to nonconforming dwellings. Because of numerous similar requests, the Planning Commission formed an ad hoc committee to review the matter and make suggestions for change. In November, 1978 the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 1075 recommending approval of a text amendment which would allow for limited expansions. The City Council subsequently approved the text amendment and in Jan- uary, 1979 adopted Ordinance No. 1665, which set forth the following: 9292.1.4.15 In the R-O First One-Family zone and the R-1 Second One-Family zone for any property with two or more one- family dwellings which are nonconforming uses, structures or buildings under Arcadia Municipal Code Sections 9251.1 and 9252.1.1: (a) . which do not There have been several modifications which have been granted since the effectIve date of the text amendment, which include "plans for the removal". Usually, the removal was required within twenty years. On November 8, 1981 the City received a letter from Mr. & Mrs. Steven Hix. They own the property at 2015-2017 South Holly Avenue, which has two houses on it. Mr. & Mrs. Hix indicated they wanted to add 620 square feet to the main dwelling (the one in which they live), however the Code prohibited this. They requested that the City Council consider the possibility of amending Section 9292.1.4.15 (above) to allow more than 500 square feet to be added to the main dwelling on a . T.A. 82-1 1/26/82 Page 2 ~-~~~'~~"-<j:;::~~~~1-':"~~"'~"''''J~~~~~;f~Z:~:~.:t~~-.~'_~~::~:::/~'~,,:-~~\:=~'=;~:/: ~'~,::~-~:~ .. _ .--::__.___~,...._."c.. ,..,~ - -;.......... "....,.. . ,".-- ....>.- '--. ,,~. '.~ I . /.. -:!'If: ;,.. '-'. . . . . lot containing more than one dwelling and also delete the requirement that the structures be brought into conformity with the Code within a certain period of time. The City Council at its December 1, 1981 meeting directed staff to prepare a text amendment for their consideration which would permit expansions without necessarily requiring the future discontinuance of the nonconforming use as a condition of approval. PROPOSAL have drafted expansion to The proposed The City Attorney and the Planning Director 1738 (attached) which would allow unlimited on a lot containing two or more dwellings. be as follows: ;' "9292.1.4.15 In the R-O First One-Family zone ~nd the R-1 Second rVOne_F~mily zone for any property with two or more one-family dwell- ;' ings whi-ch"are nonconforming uses, structures or buildings under , Arcadia Municipal Code Sections 9251.1 and 9252.1.1: Ordinance a main dwelling change would (a) For additional floor area, including covered patios to be added to the main dwelling on the lot (b) Other alterations to the main dwelling which do not create additional space (c) Required parking facilities for the main dwelling; (d) A swimming pool. There may be required as a condition of approval of the modi- fication permit, that plans be submitted for the removal or remodeling of any other nonconforming uses, structures, and build- ings to conform to the provisions of the Arcadia Municipal Code. In such case, the condition may require the removal or remodeling of any such nonconforming use, structure and building prior to or concurrent with the alteration or improvement specified in Xa), (b), (c), or (d) above." The staff is also requesting that Section 9292.1.9.5 be deleted which requires a real estate inspection report be made prior to the filing of the application. ANALYSIS This text amendment would allow the City, through the modification process, to review all proposals for additions to a main dwelling and allows the case by case analysis of each request which could take into consideration such factors as lot size, configuration, existing build- ing sizes, locations, conditions and proposed size and location of the requested additions. The text amendment also sets forth the fact that "there may be required as a condition of approval" the removal or remodelIng of any other nonconforming uses, structures or buildings. T .A. 82-1 1/26/82 Page 3 ... ... . . . A real estate inspection (inspection for conformance with applicable Building Code regulations) could be imposed as a condition of approval if in the course of the field inspection of the property (for the Modification Application) it appears that there may have been altera- tions or additions which were done in violation of the City Building Code regulations. The correction of any Building Code violations would be required whethp~ 0r n0t the Rddition propnspd in the modification is r.arried out. The proposed text amendment allows applicants greater flexibility in their request and provides the City with the authority to review said requests and require conditions as may be deemed necessary in approving the requests. We believe that the proposal will benefit property owners by facili- tating and expediting the processing of such requests, without losing the City's authority to require removal or remodeling of nonconforming uses, structures and buildings which are determined by the Modifica- tion Committee (Planning Commission or City Council on appeal) to warrant discontinuance or removal. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Department recommends approval of T.A. 82-1 as per the draft Ordinance 1738. T.A. 82-1 1/26/82 Page 4