Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1. PLN-15-00161 8622 FontanaSTAFF REPORT PLANNING DIVISION DATE: OCTOBER 7, 2015 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTED BY: ALDO E. SCHINDLER, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REVIEWED BY: WILLIAM E. DAVIS, CITY PLANNER PREPARED BY: WILLIAM E. DAVIS, CITY PLANNER SUBJECT: PLN-15-00161 - A REQUEST TO RETAIN A LEGAL NONCONFORMING SECOND DRIVEWAY AND APPROACH ON A SINGLE-FAMILY LOT, BY MODIFYING THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF ZONE VARIANCE NO. 369 THAT REQUIRES REMOVAL OF THE DRIVEWAY AND APPROACH UPON THE SALE, LEASE, OR RENTING OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY LOCATION: 8622 FONTANA STREET ZONING: R-1 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) REPORT SUMMARY The Applicant is seeking the Planning Commission’s approval of a variance that will allow a nonconforming secondary driveway to remain. The Planning Commission approved a variance for this driveway in 1985, with a condition requiring a covenant that the driveway will be brought into compliance upon the sale, lease, or renting of the subject property. The Applicant intends to sell the subject property but considers the covenant as a deterrent because potential buyers prefer to keep the driveway. Therefore, the Applicant seeks approval of PLN-15-00161 for relief from the covenant. After reviewing the Applicant’s request, staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following resolution: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DOWNEY DENYING PLN-15-00161 - A REQUEST TO RETAIN A LEGAL NONCONFORMING SECOND DRIVEWAY AND APPROACH ON A SINGLE-FAMILY LOT, BY MODIFYING THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF ZONE VARIANCE NO. 369 THAT REQUIRES REMOVAL OF THE DRIVEWAY AND APPROACH UPON THE SALE, LEASE, OR RENTING OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8622 FONTANA STREET AND ZONED R-1 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) BACKGROUND The subject property is located on the south side of Fontana Street between Lakewood Boulevard and Patton Road, and it is zoned R-1 (Single-Family Residential). It has two driveways; one provides access to a garage from an alley at the rear of the site while the Agenda Page 1 PLN-15-00161 8622 Fontana Avenue October 7, 2015 - Page 2 other driveway is essentially an automobile storage pad at the front of the property. The front driveway provided access to a garage when the house on this site was built in 1950; however, this garage was converted into a bedroom legally in 1952. Construction of the rear garage, also with permits, occurred concurrently with the conversion of the original garage, therefore, both driveways existed prior to the City’s incorporation in 1956. At some point after the adoption of Downey’s first Zoning Code, the City established a standard that properties in the single-family residential zone would only have one driveway. The Code defines a driveway as the required paved access way from the street property line to any garage, carport, parking or loading space. For the subject property, the rear driveway meets this requirement because it provides paved access from the alley to the garage; whereas, the front driveway (hereinafter the secondary driveway) does not lead to a garage or carport because the original garage was converted into a bedroom. The secondary driveway is merely a paved surface with an approach that connects it to the street; therefore, it does not meet the definition of a driveway. Furthermore, Section 9312 of the Code provides that front yards shall be landscaped and shall not be paved pedestrian walkways, driveways, and approved patios. Only temporary parking of vehicles pursuant to Section 9710.02(h), which provides standards for driveways, shall be allowed in the front yard. Properties that were developed legally, prior to the adoption of this standard, and with more than one driveway, exist as legal nonconforming uses. The Code also established provisions that allow nonconforming uses to remain, along with a time frame to bring them into compliance. For the subject property, the date to bring the subject property into compliance occurred in 1984. That year, the City initiated actions to eliminate the nonconforming driveway; however, in an effort to retain it, the property owner, Mr. Charles Treat, requested a variance from the single driveway standard on the basis that other properties in the area also had driveways that did not lead to a garage, the driveway had been in place since 1952, the driveway does not create an eyesore, neighbors had not complained about the driveway, and he felt that removing the secondary driveway was not necessary because it would not create any problems for his neighbors or for the City. A review of the Planning file for Zone Variance case No. 369 indicated that the Planning staff noted that the legal status of the nonconforming driveway had expired and was concerned about the eventual removal of this paving in the required front yard setback area. The Engineering Division recommended denial of the variance on the basis that DMC Section 7175.7 of the Code required the removal of the driveway. Although a subsequent City Council action (Ordinance 850) amended Chapter 7 of the Municipal Code two years later, the text of Section 7175.7 is found in Section 7172.6 of today’s Code. It reads as follows: “When any driveway approach or curb depression is abandoned and no longer serves the purpose of providing access to the required parking area, such driveway approach shall be removed and/or the curb depression shall be removed and reconstructed with a an applicable standard curb. The owner of the property at the time when any such access is abandoned shall be required to remove and reconstruct the same in accordance with the appropriate sections of this Code.” Nevertheless, on February 6, 1985, after considering staff’s recommendations as well as the testimonies of neighbors who spoke on behalf of Mr. Treat, the Planning Commission Agenda Page 2 PLN-15-00161 8622 Fontana Avenue October 7, 2015 - Page 3 adopted Resolution No. 838, thereby approving Zone Variance No. 369 to allow the second driveway and approach to remain on the property. With that approval, the Commission imposed a condition that required Mr. Treat to record a covenant with the Los Angeles County Recorder’s Office, to remove said driveway and approach upon the sale, lease, or renting of the subject property. The front driveway has existed as a legal nonconforming use for the last 63 years because it was lawfully established and maintained, and because the Planning Commission approved Variance No. 369 with the previously mentioned condition of approval. The Treat Family Living Trust is eager to sell the property but the driveway covenant has made it difficult to do so. Prospective buyers are attracted to the house because the secondary (front) driveway provides a convenient space to park. The Treat Family Living Trust Applicant submitted a Land Use Permit Application seeking the Planning Commission’s approval of a variance that would eliminate the condition of approval and retain the secondary driveway. SITE PHOTOGRAPH DISCUSSION The Applicant seeks approval of PLN-15-00161, to allow a nonconforming secondary driveway to remain. The Planning Commission approved Zone Variance No. 369 with the understanding that the secondary driveway would be removed and brought into compliance ultimately. However, the Applicant prefers to retain the secondary driveway because it makes the house more attractive to potential buyers. They contend that the secondary driveway has not created a nuisance in the neighborhood, that it reduces parking problems on Fontana Street, and several other properties nearby have a similar condition. Approving PLN-15-00161 would contradict the intent and purpose of Code Section 9410, which seeks to limit the number and extent of nonconforming uses, buildings, and structures. Said approval would not meet the City’s development standards for off-street parking and front yard landscaping. SUBJECT PROPERTY Agenda Page 3 PLN-15-00161 8622 Fontana Avenue October 7, 2015 - Page 4 FINDINGS Municipal Code Section 9826.08 sets forth the findings required in order for the Planning Commission to approve a Variance. Therefore, staff analysis of the findings for the Variance is as follows: 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist, which are peculiar to the land, structure and buildings involved on the subject property, which are not generally applicable to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same vicinity and zone. The subject property is identified as 8622 Fontana Street in Downey. Fontana Street borders the front of this site and a public alley abuts the rear yard. In 1950, the property was developed with a single-family dwelling with a one-car garage. In 1952, this garage was converted into habitable space legally and the homeowner constructed a new garage that was accessible from the driveway. The driveway that served the original garage remains. After the City’s incorporation in 1956, Downey initiated new development standards that no longer allowed more than one driveway on single-family residences; however, the improvements on the subject site were lawful, which categorized the secondary driveway as a legal nonconforming use. Downey established a compliance date to bring such uses into compliance with the City’s standards and eventually took action to resolve this condition in 1984. In response, the property owner applied for and received the Planning Commission’s approval of a variance (Zone Variance 369) to retain the legal nonconforming driveway; however, the Planning Commission imposed a condition of approval that required the Applicant to record a covenant with the Los Angeles County Recorder’s Office to remove said driveway and approach upon the sale, lease, or renting of the subject property. The Applicant prefers to retain the secondary driveway because it makes the house more attractive to potential buyers. They contend that the secondary driveway has not created a nuisance in the neighborhood, that it reduces parking problems on Fontana Street, and several other properties nearby have a similar condition. Nevertheless, the owner of the subject property is not deprived of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and in the R-1 zone, because the subject lot is of sufficient size to meet the minimum development standards for properties in R-1, Single-Family Residential Zone. The property is developed with a Code-compliant garage and there are no physical constraints that prevent removal of the nonconforming driveway. 2. The literal interpretation of the provisions of the Zoning Code would deprive the applicant of rights under the terms of the Zoning Code commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone in which the property is located. Subsection 9710 of the Downey Municipal Code establishes a standard that properties within the R-1 (Single-Family Residential) zone shall not have more than one (1) driveway except that parcels or lots having a street frontage of seventy (70) feet or more may be permitted to have two (2) driveway openings, but both the primary and secondary driveway openings shall serve the same driveway. It also allows a secondary driveway for access to a recreational vehicle storage pad, as approved by the Commission, but the recreational vehicle storage pad must be located outside all required front, side, and street side setbacks. The legal nonconforming driveway does not satisfy any of these conditions. Section 9312.08 of the Code requires the front yards in all residential zones to be landscaped, free of stored items, and unpaved except for pedestrian walkways, driveways, and approved patios. Only temporary parking of vehicles pursuant to Section 9710.02(h) shall be Agenda Page 4 PLN-15-00161 8622 Fontana Avenue October 7, 2015 - Page 5 allowed in the front yard. By approving Zone Variance No. 369, the Planning Commission granted the applicant rights that other persons in the same vicinity and zone would not be afforded under the City’s development standards; however the Commission granted that approval with the understanding that the nonconforming driveway would be removed when the property is sold, leased, or rented. Rather than being deprived of a right commonly enjoyed by other properties in the zone, the Applicant is requesting to maintain a non-permitted driveway that is not allowed by the Zoning Code. 3. Special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The Planning Commission’s approval of the proposed variance will result in special conditions and circumstances because it will allow a legal nonconforming driveway to exist beyond the time constraints established by the Zoning Code in effect in 1985, and beyond the stipulation established by Condition No. 1 of Zone Variance No. 369, that the secondary driveway and approach would be removed upon the sale, lease, or renting of the subject property. 4. Granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant special privileges that are denied by the Zoning Code to other lands, structures or buildings in the same vicinity and zone in which the property is located. The subject property was developed as a single-family residence with an attached garage in 1950. Two years later, the garage was converted into habitable space, and a new garage was constructed at the rear of the site. A driveway from an alley adjacent to the rear of the lot provided access to the new garage, while the original driveway remained as a secondary driveway. The property exists as a legal nonconforming use, subject to the provisions of Zone Variance No. 369, which conferred a special privilege to the Applicant to maintain the secondary driveway under specific circumstances. By granting PLN-15-00161, the Planning Commission will allow the Applicant and future owners of the property to utilize the property in a manner that is prohibited by the Zoning Code. 5. The granting of such a variance will be in harmony and will not adversely affect the General Plan. The Applicant seeks approval of PLN-15-00161, to allow a nonconforming secondary driveway to remain. Granting this variance would not be in harmony with the General Plan for the following reasons: Program 1.3.2.4. (Revoke unused zone exceptions and other zoning entitlements that are no longer used) seeks to eliminate an entitlement such as Zone Variance No. 369; Program 8.3.1.2. (Maximize the landscaped setback on street yard setbacks) and Program 8.3.1.3. (Minimize the amount of pavement and other non-plant material along the street yard setbacks) promote landscaping and plants in the front yard, but the proposed variance encourages a nonconforming paved surface in the front yard to remain. 6. The reasons set forth in the application justify the granting of the Variance and that the variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, or structure. The applicant requested a variance to eliminate the condition of approval of Zone Variance No. 369 and thereby retain the legal nonconforming driveway because it makes the house more attractive to potential buyers, the secondary driveway has not created a nuisance in the neighborhood, the nonconforming driveway reduces parking problems on Fontana Street, and several other properties nearby have a similar condition. Nevertheless, the reasons set forth by the Applicant for the variance do not justify approving the request because a Code compliant driveway exists on the site, economic hardship is not a justifiable reason to approve a variance, Agenda Page 5 PLN-15-00161 8622 Fontana Avenue October 7, 2015 - Page 6 and the nonconforming condition may never comply with the Code if the requested variance is approved. CORRESPONDENCE As of the date that this report was printed, staff has not received any correspondence regarding this matter. RECOMMENDATION Based on the analysis contained in this report, staff believes that none of the six (6) findings required to approve a variance can be made in a positive manner. As such, staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution denying PLN-15-00161. ATTACHMENTS: • Aerial Photograph • Zoning Map • Site Plan (Approved by Planning Commission February 6,1985) • Resolution • Planning Commission Staff Report February 6, 1985 • Covenant • Resolution No. 838 • Planning Commission Minutes February 6, 1985 • Zone Variance Application Agenda Page 6 PLN-15-00161 8622 Fontana Avenue October 7, 2015 - Page 7 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH ZONING MAP SUBJECT PROPERTY SUBJECT PROPERTY Secondary Driveway N Agenda Page 7 PLN-15-00161 8622 Fontana Avenue October 7, 2015 - Page 8 SITE PLAN (APPROVED BY PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 6, 1985) H:\Community Development\Davis\cases\Variances\PLN-15-00161 (8622 Fontana)\Staff Report (10-7-15).docx FO N T A N A S T R E E T AL L E Y SECONDARY DRIVEWAY REAR DRIVEWAY Agenda Page 8 RESOLUTION NO. ________ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DOWNEY DENYING PLN-15-00161 - A REQUEST TO RETAIN A LEGAL NONCONFORMING SECOND DRIVEWAY AND APPROACH ON A SINGLE-FAMILY LOT, BY MODIFYING THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF ZONE VARIANCE NO. 369 THAT REQUIRES REMOVAL OF THE DRIVEWAY AND APPROACH UPON THE SALE, LEASE, OR RENTING OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8622 FONTANA STREET AND ZONED R-1 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DOWNEY DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Downey does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. In January 10, 1985, Charles Treat submitted an application for a zone variance to retain a second driveway that was being used for off-street parking on a residential property. B. On February 6, 1985, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 838, which granted a variance (Zone Variance No. 369) to retain a legal nonconforming second driveway on a single-family lot, at 8622 Fontana Street, Downey, California. C. The approval for retaining the second driveway and approach required the recordation of a covenant with the Los Angeles County Recorder’s Office, to remove said driveway and approach upon the sale, lease, or renting of the subject property. D. The subject property is zoned R-1 (Single-Family Residential), and its General Plan land use designation is LDR (Low Density Residential). E. On July 27, 2015, Tom Morris submitted a Land Use Permit Application on behalf of the Treat Family Living Trust, seeking approval of a variance to retain the secondary driveway. The Applicant encountered difficulty selling the subject property because the covenant requires the driveway and approach to be removed upon the sale, lease, or renting of the subject property. F. On September 25, 2015, notice of the pending public hearing was sent to all property owners within 500’ of the subject site and the notice was published in the Downey Patriot. G. The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on October 7, 2015, and after fully considering all oral and written testimony, facts, and opinions offered at the aforesaid public hearing, denied PLN-15-00161. SECTION 2. Having considered all of the oral and written evidence presented to it at said public hearings, the Planning Commission further finds, determines and declares that: 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist, which are peculiar to the land, structure and buildings involved on the subject property, which are not generally applicable to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same vicinity and zone. Agenda Page 9 Resolution No. _________ Downey Planning Commission PLN-15-00161 (8622 Fontana) October 7, 2015 - Page 2 The subject property is identified as 8622 Fontana Street in Downey. Fontana Street borders the front of this site and a public alley abuts the rear yard. In 1950, the property was developed with a single-family dwelling with a one-car garage. In 1952, this garage was converted into habitable space legally and the homeowner constructed a new garage that was accessible from the driveway. The driveway that served the original garage remains. After the City’s incorporation in 1956, Downey initiated new development standards that no longer allowed more than one driveway on single-family residences; however, the improvements on the subject site were lawful, which categorized the secondary driveway as a legal nonconforming use. Downey established a compliance date to bring such uses into compliance with the City’s standards and eventually took action to resolve this condition in 1984. In response, the property owner applied for and received the Planning Commission’s approval of a variance (Zone Variance 369) to retain the legal nonconforming driveway; however, the Planning Commission imposed a condition of approval that required the Applicant to record a covenant with the Los Angeles County Recorder’s Office to remove said driveway and approach upon the sale, lease, or renting of the subject property. The Applicant prefers to retain the secondary driveway because it makes the house more attractive to potential buyers. The Applicant contends that the secondary driveway has not created a nuisance in the neighborhood, that it reduces parking problems on Fontana Street, and several other properties nearby have a similar condition. Nevertheless, the owner of the subject property is not deprived of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and in the R-1 zone, because the subject lot is of sufficient size to meet the minimum development standards for properties in R-1, Single-Family Residential Zone. The property is developed with a Code-compliant garage and there are no physical constraints that prevent removal of the nonconforming driveway. 2. The literal interpretation of the provisions of the Zoning Code would deprive the applicant of rights under the terms of the Zoning Code commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone in which the property is located. Subsection 9710 of the Downey Municipal Code establishes a standard that properties within the R-1 (Single-Family Residential) zone shall not have more than one (1) driveway except that parcels or lots having a street frontage of seventy (70) feet or more may be permitted to have two (2) driveway openings, but both the primary and secondary driveway openings shall serve the same driveway. It also allows a secondary driveway for access to a recreational vehicle storage pad, as approved by the Commission, but the recreational vehicle storage pad must be located outside all required front, side, and street side setbacks. The legal nonconforming driveway does not satisfy any of these conditions. Section 9312.08 of the Code requires the front yards in all residential zones to be landscaped, free of stored items, and unpaved except for pedestrian walkways, driveways, and approved patios. Only temporary parking of vehicles pursuant to Section 9710.02(h) shall be allowed in the front yard. By approving Zone Variance No. 369, the Planning Commission granted the applicant rights that other persons in the same vicinity and zone would not be afforded under the City’s development standards; however the Commission granted that approval with the understanding that the nonconforming driveway would be removed when the property is sold, leased, or Agenda Page 10 Resolution No. _________ Downey Planning Commission PLN-15-00161 (8622 Fontana) October 7, 2015 - Page 3 rented. Rather than being deprived of a right commonly enjoyed by other properties in the zone, the Applicant is requesting to maintain a non-permitted driveway that is not allowed by the Zoning Code. 3. Special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The Planning Commission’s approval of the proposed variance will result in special conditions and circumstances because it will allow a legal nonconforming driveway to exist beyond the time constraints established by the Zoning Code in effect in 1985, and beyond the stipulation established by Condition No. 1 of Zone Variance No. 369, that the secondary driveway and approach would be removed upon the sale, lease, or renting of the subject property. 4. Granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant special privileges that are denied by the Zoning Code to other lands, structures or buildings in the same vicinity and zone in which the property is located. The subject property was developed as a single-family residence with an attached garage in 1950. Two years later, the garage was converted into habitable space, and a new garage was constructed at the rear of the site. A driveway from an alley adjacent to the rear of the lot provided access to the new garage, while the original driveway remained as a secondary driveway. The property exists as a legal nonconforming use, subject to the provisions of Zone Variance No. 369, which conferred a special privilege to the Applicant to maintain the secondary driveway under specific circumstances. By granting PLN-15-00161, the Planning Commission will allow the Applicant and future owners of the property to utilize the property in a manner that is prohibited by the Zoning Code. 5. The granting of such a variance will be in harmony and will not adversely affect the General Plan. The Applicant seeks approval of PLN-15-00161, to allow a nonconforming secondary driveway to remain. Granting this variance would not be in harmony with the General Plan for the following reasons: Program 1.3.2.4. (Revoke unused zone exceptions and other zoning entitlements that are no longer used) seeks to eliminate an entitlement such as Zone Variance No. 369; Program 8.3.1.2. (Maximize the landscaped setback on street yard setbacks) and Program 8.3.1.3. (Minimize the amount of pavement and other non-plant material along the street yard setbacks) promote landscaping and plants in the front yard, but the proposed variance encourages a nonconforming paved surface in the front yard to remain. 6. The reasons set forth in the application justify the granting of the Variance and that the variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, or structure. The applicant requested a variance to eliminate the condition of approval of Zone Variance No. 369 and thereby retain the legal nonconforming driveway because it makes the house more attractive to potential buyers, the secondary driveway has not created a nuisance in the neighborhood, the nonconforming driveway reduces parking problems on Fontana Street, and several other properties nearby have a similar condition. Nevertheless, the reasons set forth by the Applicant for the variance do not justify approving the request because a Code compliant driveway exists on the site, economic hardship is not a justifiable reason to approve a variance, and the Agenda Page 11 Resolution No. _________ Downey Planning Commission PLN-15-00161 (8622 Fontana) October 7, 2015 - Page 4 nonconforming condition may never comply with the Code if the requested variance is approved. SECTION 4. Based upon the findings set forth in Sections 1 through 3 of this Resolution, the Planning Commission of the City of Downey hereby denies PLN-15-00161. SECTION 5. The Secretary shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this ____ day of ______________, 2015. ________________________________ Hector Lujan Chairman City Planning Commission I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of a Resolution adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Downey at a regular meeting thereof held on the ___ day of __________________, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: _______________________________ Mary Cavanagh, Secretary City Planning Commission Agenda Page 12 Agenda Page 13 Agenda Page 14 Agenda Page 15 Agenda Page 16 Agenda Page 17 Agenda Page 18 Agenda Page 19 Agenda Page 20 Agenda Page 21