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