HomeMy WebLinkAbout01. Review of Appeal of PC Denial 8622 Fontana St.• r •
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following titled resolution.
r • r r
On October 7, 2015, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider a request by
the Treat Family Living Trust for approval of a variance that would allow a nonconforming
secondary driveway and its approach, to remain on a single - family lot at 8622 Fontana Street. In
1985, the Planning Commission approved a variance for this driveway, with a condition
requiring a recoded covenant stipulating that the driveway will be brought into compliance upon
the sale, lease, or renting of the subject property. The Applicant is attempting to sell the property
but considers the covenant as a deterrent because potential buyers prefer to keep the
nonconforming driveway. Therefore, the Applicant filed a Land Use Permit Application
(PLN -15- 00161) to eliminate the covenant by modifying the variance. After giving full
consideration to the oral and written testimony and facts and opinions offered at the public
hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 15 -2942, denying PLN -15- 00161.
The Applicant filed a written notice of appeal letter to the City Council on October 20, 2015.
• r
attempt The proposed appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of the variance request represents
an by - Applicant s avoid • • • with a long standing condition of approval
required removal of a nonconforming driveway on the subject property at 7622 Fontana
Street in the R-1 (Single-Family Residential) zone. The property has two driveways; one
NOVEMBER 4
PAGE 2
provides access to a garage from an alley at the rear of the site while the other driveway is
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 this
way for 63 years and 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. This condition contradicts other standards for
properties in the residential zone regarding front yard landscaping, paving, and vehicle
parking.
This property exists as a legal nonconforming use. The Zoning Code allowed this legal
nonconforming use to remain but established 1984 as the year to bring the subject property
into compliance. 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. Mr. Treat reasoned that that other properties in the area
also had driveways that did not lead to a garage, the (secondary) driveway on his property
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.
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 adopted Resolution
No. 838, thereby approving Zone Variance No. 369. The Planning Commission's 1985
decision allowed the second driveway and approach to remain on the property. However, 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 issue of the driveway came to the attention of Mr. Treat's descendants this year. During
a transaction to sell the subject property, the Treat Family Living Trust discovered the
covenant. Pursuant to Mr. Treat's descendants, they are eager to sell the property but the
driveway covenant has made it difficult to do so.
The Treat Family Living Trust Applicant sought the Planning Commission's approval of a
variance that would eliminate the condition of approval and thereby allow them to retain the
secondary driveway. The Planning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing on
October 7, 2015. They considered facts of the case presented by staff as well as testimonies
from the applicant and neighboring property owners. Staff explained the issues surrounding
RI
APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION OECIStON
NOVEMBER 24, 2015
PAGE 3
Zone Variance Case No. 369, which centered on the 1985 staff's concerns that the legal
status of the nonconforming driveway had expired and that the paving would not be removed,
even though such removal was required by the Code. Staff also explained that on February
6, 1985, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 838, thereby approving Zone
Variance No. 369 to allow the second driveway and approach to remain on the property but
they 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 Applicant discussed the history of the property,
questioned whether the alley access truly constituted a driveway, and speculated on what
prompted the City to take action against Mr. Treat. He further discussed the potential impact
an unfavorable decision could have on properties nearby, parking issues, numerous
properties in the vicinity have the same problem, and that the alley is unsafe. Supporting
speakers voiced similar comments.
After fully considering all oral and written testimony and facts and opinions offered at the
public hearing, the Planning Commission could not make the necessary findings to support
the variance. They determined that the Applicant prefers to retain the secondary driveway
because it makes the house more attractive to potential buyers. But the Applicant has not
been 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
By approving Zone Variance No. 369 in 1985, 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 Treat Family Living Trust is requesting to maintain a non- permitted
driveway that is not allowed by the Zoning Code
If the Planning Commission approved the proposed variance (PLN -15- 00161), that decision
would have resulted in special conditions and circumstances because it would 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. 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. Granting PLN
15 -00161 would have allowed the Applicant and future owners of the property to utilize the
property in a manner that is prohibited by the Zoning Code.
The Planning Commission also determined that granting this variance would not be in
harmony with the General Plan for the following reasons: Program 1.3.2.4. (Revoke unused
3
OF s e e s
NOVEMBER 0
PAGE 4
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.
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 nonconforming condition may never comply with the
Code if the requested variance is approved. Therefore, the Planning Commission adopted
Resolution No. 15 -2942, denying PLN -15- 00161.
As of the date that this report was printed, staff has not received any correspondence on this
matter.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no financial impact associated with this action.
Attachments: "A" — City Council Resolution
"B Applicant's Letter of Appeal, dated October 20, 2015
"C" — October 7, 2015, Planning Commission Staff Report
"D" — Planning Commission Resolution No. 15 -2942
"E October 7, 2015, Planning Commission Minutes
"F —Applicant's Handouts
"G" — Planning Commission Staff Report February 6, 1985
"H" Covenant
"I" — Resolution No. 838
"J" Planning Commission Minutes February 6, 1985
"K" — Zone Variance #369 Application
H
•' i
i i • ri r• i • •
SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Downey does hereby find, determine and
declare that;;
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4; The subject property is zoned R -1 (Single - Family Residential), and its General
Plan land use designation is LDR (Low Density Residential).
5: 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. According to Mr. Morris, Mr. Treat's descendants are eager
to sell the property but the driveway covenant has made it difficult for them to do
so.
6, 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.
7; In -a letter dated October 20, 2015, the Applicant filed a timely appeal of the
Planning Commission's approval, along with a filing fee, requesting that the City
Council overturn the Planning Commission's action.
8. The City Council opened a duly noticed public hearing on November 24, 2015,
and after fully considering all oral and written testimony, facts, and opinions
offered at the aforesaid public hearing denied the appeal, thereby upholding the
Planning Commission's action.
SECTION 2. The City Council further finds, determines and declares the environmental
impact of the proposed development has been reviewed and has been found to be in
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and is categorically exempt
from CEQA, pursuant to Guideline Section No. 15301 (Class 1, Existing Facilities).
Attachment "A"
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 2
SECTION 3. Having considered all of the oral and written evidence presented to it at
said public hearing, the City Council further finds, determines and declares
that:
1, That exceptional or extraordinary conditions or circumstances exist
which are peculiar to the land, structure, or building involved and 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 anew garage that
was accessible from the alley. 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 1985. 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 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.
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 3
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 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 City Council's approval of the appeal of the Planning
Commission's decision to deny 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
the appeal, the City Council 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.
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 4
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 nonconforming condition may
never comply with the Code if the requested variance is approved.
SECTION 3. Based upon the findings set forth in Sections 1 through 6 of this
Resolution, the City Council of the City of Downey hereby denies the appeal, thereby upholding
the Planning Commission's decision on PLN -15 -00161 (Variance).
SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 24th day of November, 2015;
LUIS H. MARQUEZ, Mayor
ATTEST*
ADRIA M. JIMENEZ, CMC
City Clerk
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was adopted by the City Council of
the City of Downey at a regular meeting held on the 24th day of November, 2015, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
Council Members:
NOES:
Council Member:
ABSENT:
Council Member:
ABSTAIN:!
Council Member:
ADRIA M. JIMENEZ, CMC
City Clerk
RECEIVE&
-1
13 CityofDowney STAFF REPOW1
PLANNING DIVISION I
IF 11111ill 11, 1 1111 Ill �lrAll�
I , 1, 111" 111aw."Uffm
ZONING: R-1 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL)
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-1 5-00161 for relief
from the covenant.
LIP I I vgwrg Via= I L-A!'I g" g L-k-3vt
Attachment filfic"
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
PLN -15 -00161 8622 Fontana Avenue
October 7, 2015 - Page 2
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.
• •
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.
PLN -15 -00161 8622 Fontana Avenue
October 7, 2015 - Page 3
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
PLN -15 -00161 8622 Fontana Avenue
October 7, 2015 - Page 4
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,-
PLN -15 -00161 8622 Fontana Avenue
October 7, 2015 - Page 5
and the nonconforming condition may never comply with the Code if the requested variance is
approved.
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
PLN -15 -00161 8622 Fontana Avenue
October 7, 2015 - Page 6
PLN -15 -00161 8622 Fontana Avenue
October 7, 2015 - Page 7
H: \Community Development\ Davis \cases \Variances \PLN -15 -00161 (8622 Fontana) \Staff Report (10- 7- 15).docx
PLN -15 -00161 8622 Fontana Avenue
October 7, 2015 - Page 8
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:
generally 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist, which are peculiar to the land,
structure and buildings involved on the subject property, which are not
vicinity and zone.
Resolution No. 15 -2942
Downey Planning Commission
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 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 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
PLN -15 -00161 (8622 Fontana)
October 7, 2015 - Page 2
Resolution No. 15 -2942
Downey Planning Commission
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
PLN -15 -00161 (8622 Fontana)
October 7, 2015 - Page 3
Resolution No. 15 -2942
Downey Planning Commission
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 7th day of October, 2015.
Ori inaffy si ned by Yfector Lug
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 7th day of October, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS,
Lujan, Flores and Morales
NOES:
COMMISSIONERS:
Rodriguez
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS;
Owens
ABSTAIN:
COMMISSIONERS:
None
Ori inaffy signed by Wary CavanagF
Mary Cavanagh, Secretary
City Planning Commission
PLN -15 -00161 (8622 Fontana)
October 7, 2015 - Page 4
V
Chairman Lujan called the October 7, 2015� Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission to
order at 630 p.m., at Downey City Hall, 11111 Brookshire Avenue, Downey, CA. After the fla
salute, Secretary Cavanagh called roll. I
REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL ACTION- Director of Community Developmen o c n er
reported that the City Council gave consideration to the code amendment regarding drought
tolerant landscape ordinance and gave staff direction to return with regulations that are more
user-friendly. The ordinance should be brought back before the City Council approximately the
2nd meeting in October.
1. PLN-1 5-0161 (Variance): Chairman Lujan opened the public hearing for PLN-1 5-0161 � arill
Ms. Cavanagh affirmed proof • publication.
-Sir, is •021!111! 1111171y=
Attachment "Ell
Planning Commission Minutes
October 7, 2015
retain a legal nonconforming second driveway and approach on single - family lot located at
8622 Fontana St., and zoned R -1 5,000 (Single- Family Residential). City Planner Davis
reviewed the surroundings, and the circumstances that lead to the request for the variance. In
1984 the Planning Commission approved a variance with the condition that the secondary
driveway would be removed and brought into compliance if the property were to be sold, rented
or leased. The family discovered the variance when the property was being sold by the
daughter who currently owns the property. However, the applicant however, 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 St., and several other properties nearby have a similar
condition. The construction of the secondary driveway occurred in 1952, prior to the City's
incorporation in 1956. At that time, the original garage was converted into a bedroom and a new
garage was constructed at the rear of the subject site. It was after the City adopted its first
Zoning Code, that the standard for the single- family residential zone would have only one
driveway. The City Code's definition of a driveway is that of a paved access way from the street
property line to any garage, carport, parking or loading space, which defines the rear driveway.
However, 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. The City Code (Section 9312)
also requires that front yards be landscaped except for approved pedestrian walkways, and
driveways. In addition, only temporary parking of vehicles pursuant to Section 9710.02(h), which
provides standards for driveways, shall be allowed in the front yard.
Commissioner Rodriguez asked what had prompted the original variance, to which City Planner
Davis replied that the non - conforming uses are not intended to last forever and do expire and
assumes that was the reason, but was not sure.
Director of Community Development Aldo Schindler stated that these types of entitlements are
prompted by interaction such as a remodel, or Code Enforcement action; they are rarely
proactively pursued by staff.
Commissioner Morales asked if there is a list of other properties that have a`similar parking pad,
to which City Planner Davis replied that he did not see another situation similar to this one in the
surrounding area.
Commissioner Morales compared the neighboring property maintaining two garages used as
such and two driveways existing as legal nonconforming with Mr. Davis.
Commissioner Rodriguez stated that he believes there were a number of houses in the area with
a similar situation and several houses that had the approaches without having a garage. City
Planner Davis responded by saying that all of the houses exist as legal nonconforming uses; all
of them should have two -car garages. Mr. Davis said that he believes it would be onerous to go
back and tell those homeowners that they are supposed to have two -car garages to come back
to bring those properties into compliance.
Commissioner Rodriguez asked if the subject site currently maintains a one -car garage and
asked if they are supposed to have two spaces per lot. City Planner Davis confirmed that yes, F
they are supposed to have two spaces per lot and in today's standards, they would have a 20 x
20, two -car garage; however, in 1952, the standard was less than it is today, which is a
nonconforming situation.
-2-
Planning Commission Minutes
October 7, 2015
Commissioner Rodriguez expressed his concerns regarding parking requirements, to which City
Planner Davis stated that the issue is the driveway.
Chairman Lujan stated that the applicant agreed to the conditions of the variance.
Commissioner Morales explained that the property exists as legal nonconforming; however,
whenever you make changes to the property, you have to bring it into conformance.
Commissioner Rodriguez discussed his concerns with the size of the garage with City Planner
Davis. Mr. Davis reiterated that all construction was done with permits and met the City's
requirements at that time, and is continues to do so by bringing this application before the
Planning Commission today.
City Planner Davis stated that he received correspondence from a neighbor to the west of the
subject site expressing support of the project.
Chairman Lujan called for disclosures.
Commissioner Rodriguez disclosed that he was on site on October 3, 2015,
for approximately 1 -'/2 hours.
Vice Chairman Flores disclosed that he received a phone call from one of the neighbors
regarding informational procedures of the Commission and how things are conducted.
Applicant Tom Morris, representing the Treat Family Trust, 5339 Willowick Drive, Anaheim,
92807, presented the Commissioners with a handout to follow as he discussed the history of the
property which included the following:
• Photos of the subject site;
• Construction of the addition;
• Access to the garage and questioned the access of garage as being an apron and not
driveway;
• History of the 1984 action initiated by the City and the Treat family's decision to comply;
• Potential impact to property values;
• Loss of the sale of the property;
• Other properties in the area exist with the same problem;
• Negative impacts to parking in the community;
• A petition signed by neighbors to maintain the parking, therefore will not seta precedence
for others in the community;
• Potential buyers do not like homes that have alley access for safety reasons as well as
street sweeping issues.
Speaking in favor:
Carol Sackle [sic], Realtor, 10119 Muroc St., Bellflower, discussed the negative impacts of alley
access to the sale of a home regarding safety issues. Another issue is that of street sweeping
due to a lack of parking. Ms. Sample stated that losing the driveway is detrimental to the sale of
-3-
Planning Commission Minutes October 7, 2015
the property and said she is aware of an example of another situation on Nada St.
John Bastian [sic], 8628 Fontana, stated that he is new to the area and is in favor because of the
dangers involving the alley access. He said that he believes it to be unsafe and there is
nowhere to walk or allow for handicap access.
Chairman Lujan called for staff's recommendation,
City Planner Davis stated 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.
Chairman`Lujan closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Rodriguez thanked staff and Mr. Morris for their presentations and agreed that
the alley is not safe. There is a problem with accessibility, taking away parking is detrimental to
the area and he believes half of the houses have the same situation. In his opinion the driveway
is appealing, and taking it away would harm the neighbors and does not believe this variance will
set precedence in the area and explained how he believes the findings can be met to approve
the request.
Commissioner Morales stated that from a land use standpoint, the non - conformity is very clean
He explained that the project cannot be looked at based on the economic aspects, and in this
case you cannot make the findings from a land use standpoint. He understands the economic
losses due to the displeasures of potential buyers, nonetheless, looking through the aerials,
there are 11 properties that rely strictly on alley access and it makes it difficult to make the
findings when the other properties have not had the pleasure of enjoying the conditions of the
property that the applicant has enjoyed since 1985. It is unclear as to why the Planning
Commission, at the time, granted the variance to allow two access points. He has compassion
on personal level; however, the findings cannot be made to support the request.
Vice Chairman Flores thanked staff and Mr. Morris for their presentations, and to the members
of the community who appeared to speak. He said that he agreed with Commissioner Morales
in this being a difficult decision to make; on a personal level you would like to say yes, however,
he could not because he cannot make a single finding to approve the request. The approval for
the variance was based on the condition, and the option was given to the applicant to accept or
bring it to conformity. The applicant accepted the condition and they must abide by it. He
expressed concern that granting the variance would set precedence for other properties in the
area, and cannot grant the variance based on the facts.
Chairman Lujan stated that this is a'sensitive case and difficult; there is a desire to be fair, yet
they have to comply with the City standards. He said that by granting the variance, they will set
a precedence to give the same opportunity to others.
Commissioner Rodriguez disagreed with his fellow Commissioners and reiterated the need for
parking in the area and believes denying the request is unfair and would be a disservice to the
area.
Planning Commission Minutes
October 7, 2015
It was moved by Commissioner Morales, seconded by Vice Chairman Flores, and passed by `a
3 -1 -1 vote, with Commissioner Owens absent, and Commissioner Rodriguez voting no, to adopt
Resolution 15 -2942, thereby denying the request for a Variance (PLN -15- 00161).
2. PLN -15 -00169 Revision to a Conditional Use Permit :Chairman Lujan opened the public
hearing for PLN -15- 00169, and Ms. Cavanagh affirmed proof of publication.
Associate Planner Jessica Flores gave a brief PowerPoint presentation of the request to modify
an existing conditional use permit (revision a to PLN -11- 00098) to allow a 1,200 sq. ft.
expansion to an existing 1,200 sq. ft. tanning salon, totaling 2,400 sq. ft., located at 9964 -9968
Lakewood Boulevard and zoned C -2 (General Commercial). Ms. Flores reviewed the subject
site and the surrounding uses, which included Single - Family Residential uses to the north, east
and west, with General Commercial uses to the south. The subject site is improved with a one-
story inline multi - tenant commercial building, which contains a variety of retail, and office uses.
The applicant currently occupies and operates an existing tanning salon, previously approved
per Resolution No. 11 -2716, to operate within a 1,200 sq. ft. tenant space located at 9968
Lakewood Boulevard. The applicant is requesting approval to modify their conditional use
permit to allow the tanning salon to expand into the 1,200 sq. ft. adjacent space located at 9964
Lakewood Boulevard, which was previously used as office space. The applicant proposes to
use the existing offices as individual service rooms for traditional tanning beds, spray tan booths,
stand -up tanning booths, a leg tanning booth, waxing rooms and a body wrap room. The
proposed hours of operation are as follows:
• Monday through Thursday - 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.
• Friday 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
• Saturday- 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
• Sunday 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
Associate Planner Flores stated that during the meeting of the Development Review Committee
(DRC), the Police Department advised staff that there have been no incidents at this location,
and together with Planning, Building &Safety, Fire and Public Works,_ recommended standard
conditions of approval.
Vice Chairman Flores asked if there were changes to the hours of operation, to which Associate
Planner Flores stated that there are minimal changes to the hours of operation, but did not have
the original hours in front of her.
Chairman Lujan called for disclosures, to which there were none.
Applicant Flower Huizar, 8420 Erickson, Pico Rivera, stated that she was present to answer any
questions they might have.
Vice Chairman Flores asked Ms. Huizar what are the current hours of operation, and if she uses
music. Ms. Huizar replied that the current hours of operation are Monday through Thursday -
10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.; Friday - 10:00 a.m. to 7 :00 p.m.; Saturday - 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.; and
Sunday 10:00 a.m. to 3 :00 p.m. Ms. Huizar said that they operate with ambient music at a low
volume to allow conversation with clients.
-5-
Planning Commission Minutes
October 7, 2015
Commissioner Rodriguez asked for clarification between the different types of tanning booths, to
which Ms._Huizar explained that one type uses light and others are sprayed on.
Chairman Lujan called for correspondence; there being none, he called for staff's
recommendations.
Associate Planner Flores stated that staff supports the proposal and recommends that the
Planning Commission adopt a resolution approving PLN -15- 00169, subject to the conditions of
approval as stated in Exhibit A of the Planning Commission Resolution.
Chairman Lujan closed the public hearing..
The Commissioners thanked staff for a very informative presentation and had no issues with the
expansion. They said that it is good to see a business thriving and wished the applicant
success.
It was moved by Commissioner Morales, seconded by Commissioner Rodriguez, and passed by
a 4 -1 vote, to adopt Resolution 15- 2943, thereby approving the request for a- Revision to a
Conditional Use Permit (PLN -15- 00169)
3. PLN -15 -00178 (Final Map No. 72313) 9306 Gallatin Road: i A request for final approval of
final parcel map No. 72313 to subdivide a parcel into three lots.
-. 1-
It was moved by Commissioner Rodriguez, seconded by Vice Chairman Flores, and passed by a
4 -1 vote, with Vice Chairman Flores abstaining from item No. 4, thereby approving the Consent
Calendar.
OTHER BUSINESS: Commissioner Rodriguez commented on the lack of lighting on Lakewood
Blvd., to which Director Schindler replied that he will contact the Public Works Department to
look into it. Chairman Lujan asked for an update on the progress of the new Promenade
Shopping Center, to which he stated that the project will be completed in phases, beginning with
the Lazy Dog Restaurant opening the end of November, followed by other restaurants such as
the Green Olive, Jersey Mikes, Mod Pizza, Chipotle, Panera, and Fresh Griller. Director
Schindler stated that they currently have 70 percent occupancy, and the entire project is
estimated to be completed by June, 2016.
ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to discuss, Chairman Lujan adjourned the meeting
at 7:58 p.m., to Wednesday, October 21, 2015, at 6:30 p.m. at Downey City Hall, 11111
Brookshire Ave.
E
Planning Commission Minutes
October 7, 2015
Ori inafCy signed 6yY ectorGu
Hector Lujan, Chairman
City Planning Commission
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Minutes were duly approved at a Regular meeting of the
Planning Commission held on the 4th day of November, 2015, by the following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONER&
Lujan, Flores, Morales, Ro riguez an wens
COMMISSIONERS:
•, -
COMMISSIONERS:
No-
•,
COMMISSIONERS:
•, -
Ori inaCCy s fined 6y Wary Cavany
gh
Mary Cavanagh, Secretary
City Planning Commission
-7-
Subject
Photo
Property
-eet Drivewal
Attachment "F" `.
11
Fontana
October 1
I. History
A. 1950 - Charles & Evelyn Treat purchase new 1000± sq. ft. 2 bed. 2
bath resident.
B. 1952- Treat family legally converts single car garage into bedroom
and constructs new single car garage in rear of property, retaining
existing driveway as additional parking.
C. Date unknown - Treat family constructs legal 1 bed, 1 bath, family
room addition.
D. Subject is now 1,712 sq. ft. 4 bed., 2 bath Single Family Resident with
a one -car garage in rear and one off street parking space in front.
E. 1956 - City of Downey incorporated
F. City adopts first Zoning Code defining driveway as "paved access way
from the street property line to any garage, carport, parking, or loading
space ".
G. Front driveway becomes a legal nonconforming driveway
H. 1984 - City initiated action to eliminate driveway.
1. Staffs Background report indicates the time frame to bring the
subject into compliance occurred in 1984.
a. What prompted this action?
b. Within two blocks 5 other properties have the same issue.
C. When asked why the subject was selectively chosen to
change, staff stated that no one complained about the
others and they cannot run around searching for them.
1. Historically, most cities that have legal nonconforming issues, wait until
a property owner requests a permit to make alterations to a property.
Even these situations, usually include either a dollar or percentage
amount of the improvements before the change is required. Rarely are
these changes punitive in nature.
J. Treats were in their 70's on fixed income and were worried about the
financial burden of removing driveway and adding curb. So they tried
to fight it and were offered an either /or option. Sign the Covenant and
Agreement or remove the driveway.
H. In fear of the financial impact on them they signed the Covenant and
Agreement.
II. Accessibility
1. As stated in the third paragraph of the letter to Mr. Davis, dated
September 28, 2015 (see Page 4), from David and Hilary Shaw the
neighbor to directly West of the subject, Mrs. Shaw uses the
driveway to get her "out our car and into her wheelchair" because there
is no handicap access to her house.
2. Removal of the driveway and raising the curb will make the subject
property inaccessible to handicapped_ individuals.
11
• • • `1
• •
III Property Values Impacted
1. According to the Downey Municipal Code, ARTICLE IX - LAND USE,
Chapter 1 - GENERAL PROVISIONS AND DEFINITIONS, SECTION
9104. INTENT AND PURPOSE, Paragraph (b) "...such regulations are
deemed necessary to encourage the most appropriate use of land, to
conserve and stabilize the value of property ". (see Page 5)
2. Subject was in escrow when the Preliminary Title report identified the
Covenant and Agreement. This affected the sale of the property.
3 Buyer requested a $25,000 reduction in price for loss of the
driveway and other compensations while we were waiting for our
hearing with the Planning Commission. (See Page 6 - email dated
July 27,2015, From: Carol Sackal and To: Tom Morris
4. Value is defined by what a ready, willing and able buy will pay for a
property.
5. Loss of the driveway will negatively impact the values of the
neighborhood, which will negatively impact property tax values and the
cities income.
IV. City Residential Requirements
1. The City of Downey Planning Division R -1 Development Standards
(see Page 7 & 6) indicates that
A. 2 car garages will be provide for a resident of 2,999 sq. ft. or
less.
B. It also indicates that the maximum allowable front yard hardscape
for the subject is 50 %. A standard which we meet.
2. The Downey Municipal Code Chapter 7 - Parking (see Page 9)
indicates that
A. Apartments, condos, duplexes, lofts, townhouses; and other
multifamily dwelling units provide 2 parking spaces plus .5 guest
parking
B Mobile home /manufactured home parks - 2 spaces per unit
C. Second unit developments - -2 spaces in addition to parking
required for the main
4. According to the City of Downey Neighborhood preservation paper
(see Page 10) "Garage Conversions - If a garage is approved for legal
conversion, replacement parking (typically, a two -car garage) must be
provided."
3. Covenant and Agreement requires that "driveway shall be removed -
and replaced with landscaping ". Concrete is durable, low maintenance,
reflects quality construction and does not require watering.
�2_
11
October 1
• a
IV. City Residential Parking Requirements (cont'd)
3. Age of Downey homes
A. According to the Downey Housing Element Update reported by
Willdan Engineering in November 2009 (see Page 11). 57.7% of
the homes in Downey were built prior to 1960.
B. A large amount of these home were built with sub - standard
parking requirements. Creating street parking problems
throughout the City.
4. Subject now has two residential spaces. The removal will reduce
the parking to one space off the alley.
5. Potential buyers already feel the alley is a negative, removal the front
parking space makes the property less desirable and valuable.
V. Neighborhood Hardship
1. Because of the age of the homes and lack of on -site parking there is a
parking problem on the neighborhood streets.
2. The removal of an on -site parking space will increase the hardship of
finding parking spaces (see Page 12 & 13 photos of street parking).
3. When circulating a petition to neighbors, everyone commented that
street parking was bad enough without removing a space.
4. Several neighbors called us when they received the Notice of Public
Hearing were upset about losing the parking and encouraged us to
circulate a petition to keep the driveway
A. We received two written responses (see Pages 4, 14,& 15).
i. From Dave & Hillary Shaw adjacent West neighbors
ii: From Shelly Diaz adjacent East neighbor
B. We circulated a petition on both Fontana St. and Belman Ave.
requesting that we be able to retain the existing driveway. We
received positive responses from every neighbor.
C. We have attached our petition containing Twenty -three neighbor
signatures asking the City to keep the existing driveway. (see
Page 16 -19)
VI. Favorable Ruling
When a favorable ruling is reached I request that part of the resolution
contain instructions for the City Attorney to create and record the proper
documents to release the Current Covenant and Agreement from the
subject property
3
MMITWMMIE7 I l I
David and Hilary Shaw
C:1DataFiles%DLMAdminUlarsonahNiemoLe"ersNDowney Plan Comm 2015 -09 -28
8124/2015 Downey Municipal Code (Downey, California)
EHEI�
• • r , Nrzpost
�t
- purpose of r to consolidate and
coordinate all existi' • ' `, • • provisions t
• • r • ordinance order to designate,
regulate, and restrict the location and use of buildings,
structures, r • land for residence, • - trade,
industry, or - purposes; • regulate . r limit the height,
number of stories, and size of buildings and other structures
hereafter erected or altered; to regulate and determine the
size of yards and other open spaces; and to regulate and
limit the density of population and, for said purposes, to
divide the City into zones of such number, shape, and area
as may be deemed best suited to carry out . . regulations
Y �
• to provide • administration of r regulations and
to provide for their enforcement.
M
r Further, such regulations a- deemed necessary
i
encourage the most appropriate use of land, to conserve and
i
stabilize- r & property; to provide .• open
spaces for light and air and to prevent and fight fires; to
prevent the undue concentration of population; to lessen
•
congestion on to facilitate adequate provisions f•
• f
community utilities and facilities, such as transportation,
water, - g. schools, parks, • other public
- and to protect an! promote
and the general welfare, all in accordance with the
comprehensive General Plan of -
I
!-N
112
Page I of I
Tom Morris
From: carol sackal [carolsackal@hotmail,corn]
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2015 10:42 PM
To: morristom@sbcglobal.net
Cc: carol sackal
Subject: Buyer Request - Driveway Issue
Buyer communicated these requests to me earlier this evening, but this is the first
opportunity to get to my computer, and wanted to put them in writing,
5cenario I - No Driveway
Reduce sale price to $425,000
9 5cenario 2 - Driveway Remains
Reduce sale price by $2,500.00
Refund of $3,000 of good faith deposit, leaving only $1,000 in escrow, and
do so by end of this week.
Is concerned that this will drag into a 45 day escrow due to uncertainty of when the matter
will come before the Planning Commission.
Carol M. Sackal
Realtor since 1986
Mark 1 Real Estate, Inc,
19147 Bloomfield Avenue
Cerritos, CA 90703
Cell: (562) 926-1182
Office: (562) 924-6173
Fax: (562) 677-3995
BRE #00901275
10/7/2015
xI
Of If
+W d o
. w o
a. =dwte=a
-9 1&
�ry�
RE >_coo
C
7Y 3
'
W
m
°omo
2z
Ica
iz
Q
O
a,
p,o
h-a.0��'��
Nom„
�y
� ®.�
-a 3
de
b®
oc �
s•e
� �'� nnN
�
wZE o a
3
' ci
•o
, '' a �• a, s
M1
a
n0.m
n o
xI
ro
ro
:7T 0 >
r
m 10
C
P
0
a o
j7
cr
d. 5
R 2.1
Er
ro
ro
-- I I
I
:7T 0 >
r
m 10
C
P
0
a o
j7
cr
Er
-- I I
I
>
-40
C
new
M:3
cr
-- I I
I
-40
C
new
M:3
cr
10/5/2015
4- Change se;
Terms
entered�
+Parking
SECTION
9728.
SECTION
9720.
PARKING
Downey Municipal Code (Downey, California)
Chapter 7 — PARKING
I remove highlighting I
Land Use Type
Required 01*f- Notes and
Street Parking Comments
Apartments,
2,0 covered
condominiums,
spaces wit in a
duplexes, lofts,
garage; plus 0.5
townhouses, and other
guest parking
multi-family dwelling
space per unit
units
Conversion of buildings
N/A Subject to
to multiple ownership
Section 9510
Emergency shelter
I uncovered
space per 4 beds
plus I uncovered
space per staff
member
Mobile
2 per dwelling
home/manufact-ared
unit (tandem
home parks
allowed); plus
I per 6 dwelling
units used for
guest parking;
plus
I per 10
dwelling units
used for
recreation center
Parking
n
1/2
City of Downey - Neighborhood Preservation
Garage Conversions - As with any construction or alteration, converting a garage to another use without the
proper approvals is illegal. Requests for garage conversions must be reviewed by the Planning and Building
Divisions for compliance with relevant codes. If a garage is approved for legal conversion, replacement parking
(typically, a two-car errJosed garage) must be provided.
Bu!Ung Permft are generally required anytime a structure
is erected, enlarged, altered, repaired, Improved, converted or
demolished. Walkways and driveways may also require
permits. If you are not sure if a permit is required, call
Building & Safety.
• More than 3 animals in an R-1 zone.
• More than 2 animals in the R-2 zone.
• More than 1 animal in the R-3 zone.
Downey City Hall
11" 6
Opcn fAl'-;: 3�' am, -E S:30 i7i
Follow Us
Readers & Viewers
1jE3E3
Vvcbs-a: P'Jic' scmeme�.�
htip:/Iwww.downeyca.orgiresidents/proserve.asp 2/2
Structures Built
Number
Percent
Total Housing Units
34,574*
100.0%
2000 or later
531
1.6%
1990 to 1999
1,108
3.5%
1980 to 1989
2,812
8.1
1970 to 1979
3,383
9.7
1960 to 1969
6,711
19.3
1950 to 1959
15,491
44`.6
1940 to 1949
38263
9.4
1939 or earlier
1,275
3.7
*Does not include mobile homes or manufactured housing units.
}
City of Downey
Housing Element Update 3 -3 November 2009
Subject
Photo 1 taken at 2:00 pm on weekday
Photo 00 am on i.
Subject
attempt Photo 1 & 2 show how property owners
i solve off street parking problems.
* V 5
I hope this is ok! Good luck!
To the planning Commission of the City of Downey to be
Submitted on Wednesday. October 7, 2015 at 6:30 p.m.
Concerning- PLN-15-00161 Variance: To Retai-n fKeep 0S IS) tI
Driveway located at 8622 Fontana St. Downey, CA 90241
1,-SielleL-) Dia •d at the house next door to 8622 Fontana,
Downey, CA 90241 for 33 years (my entire life).
My family and I have never had any objection to the driveway
next door.
We would like the residents to Retain (Keep as is) the Existing
Single Family Driveway, both for their sake and also
To keep the property value up.
Shelley Diaz
8628 Fontana St. Downey, 90241
(562) 922-9479
Shelleydiaz@ca.rr.com
Please accept my E-Mail as Proof
Thank you,
Shelley DIa'z
M
9
yc I<
bowney City Planning-PLN-16-00161 Variance Petition To Retain or Keep Existing Driveway
Petition to the City of Downey
Concernink. PLN-15-00161 Variance:
Downey City Planning -PL -16 -00161 Variance Petition To Retain or Keep Existing Driveway
Name i
Address
4921
Phone Number
-7
Comments
Date and Time Signed
P-I
Name
Address
I'Z- (, J
Phone Number
_
J.jC7
Comments
4v "a S p L'e'eq'A
Date and Time Signed'
A) -t -
Name
AciclresAsff_�
Phone Number L/6!1�__/
Comments ell
J-) I'"' 6,-) ZZ'
Date and Time Signed
42:t6
I
Name
Address
Phone Number
Comments 44 ev a'f"2
Date and Time Signed
Name
Address Y)
Phone NumberLf
04 o
Comments n S
t It"
7
Date and Time Signed
F.
'Coco_
Name _'5 11_1�47 IVn
Address
Phone Number __-2
37
Comments
Date and Timm e Signedo
Name _,_\okPnq
Address '-1 r-)
k ?;14 o cn
Phone Number K
Comments IIN
Date and Time Signed
Name
Address Oil
Phone Number
Comments L-"'I_L
Date and Time Signed
N
M
Downey City Planning- PL -16- 161 Variance Petition To Retain or Keep Existing Driveway
9;
MOM
FA
•
A
o is • Z,
ID
11110
'r,etition To Retain • Keep Existing Drivewam
INTER-OFFICE MEMO
` Charles T �t (Signat�ar}
Evelyn L. 7 eat (;igrtature)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
(Signature)
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) SS
On this day of
19 ® before me, the undersigned, ;a
Notary Public, in and for the said Co my and State,
personally appeared
e
known to me to be the person whose name
T /' subscribed to the fore-
going instrument, and acknowledged to me that she, e, ey eXecuted same.
+ 1 ^. :-MpV "`d A
N pHfLA3I,,0i
- WITNESS my-hand--and o -fficial -seal
.
?ATjSgy Llryy CYgI A DC
oFlizclaL, sEl�
" S LEE ,.
NOTARY PUBLIC `.® CALIFORNIA
�*
'Notary PLC c in and or tize Coon .:
r
LOS fiNGELCS COUNTY
of Los Angeles and the State of C
:yvn,.n +.. expin =s ,1PG 3, 2:36
,
~
^ '
= RE30LuTz8w MU. 838 ,~
�-3OnxTIUN OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF DUWNEY" GRANTING ZONE VARIANCE MO. 369.
3-- All-conditions of this appmval sh-a-1-1-be- comple-tedbefore 'this Zone I V I arian 11 ce
becomps valid.
Charles Treat, 8622 Fontana Street,� the applicant presented '
testimony in support to retain their second driveway established
prior to the incorporation of the City.
Gene Black," 8656 Fontana Street, spoke on behalf of his own
� second driveway in the neighborhood and in support of the
applicant's request for Variance.
Mrs. Bea Lilly, e621 East Nada Street,�' spoke in favor of the
applicant's request for keeping the requested second driveway due ^
to the nn-street parking problems in the neighborhood.
- ,
As there was no one who else who wished to speak in favor or in
opposition, Chairman Verderbar declared the public hearing closed
and requested Staff's recommendation.
'
� .
Mr, Carter said the recommendation is for approval. If the
Commission agrees it would be Resolution Nu. 838.
Mr, Carter then read Resolution N n . 838 in title o n l y as follows:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE '
CITY OF DUANEY, GRANTING ZONE VARIANCE NO. 369.
� �MOTION by Commissioner Ray, SECONDED by Commissioner Brazel+o�
that Resolution No. 838 be adopted granting Zone Variance No.
369.
`
ROLL CALL VOTE: �
'
Ayes: Commissioners Bruzeltnn, Lam6ros, Ray, Hayden,
�
- Verderber '
Zone Variance #361 JL._N.MaL3403J (Continuedi
Location: 8300 Telegraph Road
� Recorded Owner? Republic Health Corpor*tiun,8300 Telegraph Rd.
Applicant: Edwin Scott, 8300 Telegraph Road
Request: To encroach into the required rear yard
building setback in order to add 7$0 + square
' feet to an existing h�spifal facility, in the
C-2 (General Commerc1al> zone.
Chairman Verder'er declared the continued public hearing open.
-.f-
Attachment K