Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission

Similar documents
17.13 RH HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL ZONES REGULATIONS SECTIONS:

May 12, Chapter RH HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL ZONES REGULATIONS Sections:

RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS (Amended 11/13/14; 6/9/16; 10/13/16) PART I. R-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT

LOT AREA AND FRONTAGE

Urban Mixed Use (UMU) Zoning District

Lacey UGA Residential density

Vacant Corner Lot in Golden Gate

CITY OF BLACK DIAMOND

Sec Table of height, bulk, density and area by land use.

30% 10 FT 10 FT A 20 FT A 16 FT 35 FT 35 FT 10 FT A 20 FT A 2 35 FT PERMITTED PERMITTED NOT AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE MAY NOT EXCEED THE.

Westwood Manor Homes FOR SALE & 2209 S 33rd St., 2210 S 34th St. Fort Pierce FL $499,000/each

CITY OF SURREY BY-LAW NO A by-law to amend Surrey Zoning By-law, 1993, No , as amended...

FRONT YARD MP 35 FT 35 FT 10 FT A 20 FT A 2 35 FT 30% NOT PERMITTED NOT PERMITTED

ARTICLE I ZONE BASED REGULATIONS

c. Public Facilities: Community Center; Public Park; Religious Use; Transit Stop. [Amended Ordinance #11-07]

CITY OF SURREY BY-LAW NO THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Surrey, in open meeting assembled, ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:

(b) each living unit shall have a minimum floor area of 27 m 2 (290.6 sq.ft.). (B/L No ) (a) the zoning designations R4, R5, R9, or

Single Family Residential

RP-2, RP-3, RP-4, AND RP-5 PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS

INTRODUCTION TO HOUSING LDC AMENDMENTS

ARTICLE V AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION AND RURAL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT

Staff findings of consistency with the Land Development Regulations and the Comprehensive Plan follow: Request One

Municipal Council has directed staff to report annually on the nature of Variances granted by the Committee of Adjustment.

Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA) Detached Accessory Dwellings

DISTRICT OF NORTH SAANICH BYLAW NO. 1306

Chapter 10 RD TWO-FAMILY (DUPLEX) RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT/ZONE

4-1 TITLE 4 ZONING CODE 4-4

Staff Report PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. Salt Lake City Planning Commission. From: Lauren Parisi, Associate Planner; Date: December 14, 2016

LOCATION: LUC AND UNDERLYING ZONING: OCP DESIGNATION:

This zone is intended to accommodate and regulate the development of medium density, high rise multiple family housing.

Development Requirements in the Residential Zoning Districts

ORDINANCE NO. IT IS HEREBY ORDAINED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF MT. PLEASANT:

Section 1. Appendix A, "Zoning" of the Code of the City of Charlotte is hereby amended as follows:

Board of Zoning Adjustments Staff Report Monthly Meeting Monday, June 13, 2016

Gulf Boulevard, Indian Rocks Beach

4.2 RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS

ORDINANCE NO

ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA

RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

ORDINANCE NO

A. Land Use Designations: General Plan: LDR Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1H Single Family Residential - Hillside Overlay

CITY OF SURREY BY-LAW NO THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Surrey, in open meeting assembled, ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:

ARTICLE 44. PD 44. Unless otherwise stated, the definitions and interpretations in Chapter 51 apply to this

CHAPTER NORTH LAKE SPECIFIC PLAN

SECTION 6 RESIDENTIAL TYPE 2 ZONE (R2)


PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AGENDA MEMORANDUM

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT

ORDINANCE NO. C 34911

TOWNSHIP OF SOLON COUNTY OF KENT, MICHIGAN. The following preamble and ordinance were offered by Member Poulsen and seconded by ORDINANCE NO.

Borough of Haddonfield New Jersey

CHAPTER 2 GENERAL PROVISIONS

For Sale 50 SOUTH QUEEN STREET MAYTOWN, PA Industrial/Commercial Realtors

EXTRA TERRITORIAL ZONING AUTHORITY CASE ANALYSIS

CHAPTER XX ZONING PART 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS PART 2 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS

Oceanside Zoning Ordinance

Approved by City Council Petitioner: Charlotte-Mecklenburg Planning Commission June 18, 2007

Accessory Dwelling Units

ARTICLE VII. NONCONFORMITIES. Section 700. Purpose.

ARTICLE ZONING DISTRICTS AND OFFICIAL MAP SEC SUPPLEMENTAL AREA, YARD AND HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS.

REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION

CITY OF SURREY BY-LAW NO A by-law to amend Surrey Zoning By-law, 1993, No , as amended...

A DJUSTMENTS. A. Zoning Permits Required: Use Permit to construct a dwelling unit, as required by BMC Section 23D

Article 5. Nonconformities

ARTICLE SCHEDULE OF REGULATIONS

ARTICLE 5. R-6 Residential- Duplex, Single Family Detached and Townhouse District

LUC AND UNDERLYING ZONING: OCP DESIGNATION:

SECTION 7. RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS

SECTION 827 "R-2" AND "R-2-A" - LOW DENSITY MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS

SECTION 6. RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS

Section 7.22: Multifamily Assisted Housing in AA-30 Residential Zone (MAHZ) [Note: an additional line will be added to the Table in Article 3, 3.1.

ARTICLE SCHEDULE OF REGULATIONS

DIVISION 7. R-6 AND R-6A RESIDENTIAL ZONES* The purpose of the R-6 residential zone is:

8.1 Single Detached (RSI/A-H, J-K; RS2/A-H, J-K

PART XXIII - RT-1 TOWNHOUSE RESIDENTIAL ZONE A. INTENT

ZONING COMPATIBILITY & WORKSHEET

CITY OF SURREY BY-LAW NO THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Surrey, in open meeting assembled, ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:

PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT STANDARDS. Cadence Site

SECTION 828 "R-3" AND "R-3-A" MEDIUM DENSITY MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS

NONCONFORMING LOTS, STRUCTURES, AND USES.

Proposed Changes to Conservation District Regulations. Quality of Life Committee March 25, 2013

Staff Report: Date: Applicant: Property Identification: Acreage of Request: Current Zoning of Requested Area: Requested Action: Attached:

Charter Township of Plymouth Zoning Ordinance No. 99 Page 200 Article 20: Schedule of Regulations

ORDINANCE NO. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA:

Planning Commission recommends APPROVAL of the amendment to Article 4, Article 7, and Article 14 as presented by Staff on 6/19/17.

Chapter 12 RMH MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT/ZONE

R E S O L U T I O N. 2. Development Data Summary:

This zone is intended to accommodate and regulate the development of low rise multiple family housing.

Development Permit Application

CVA Robert and Renate Bearden

CHAPTER 8. REVISION HISTORY

ORDINANCE NO

WHEREAS, on October 6, 2015, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing and recommended the proposed Ordinance Amendments; and

Midwest City, Oklahoma Zoning Ordinance

OTY OF SURREY. BY-LAWN A by-law to amend "Surrey Zoning By-law, 1993, No "

City of San Juan Capistrano Agenda Report

Planning Commission Report

ZONING CODE REVISIONS PT.1 PRIMER

ARTICLE FIVE FINAL DRAFT

TO: Glynn County Islands Planning Commission. Eric Landon, Planner II. PP2754 Stones Throw Cottages. DATE: February 6, 2014

Transcription:

TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Rafael Guzman, Director of Planning Update on Phase 2 Part 2 of the Nonconforming Buildings, Structures, and Use and the Abatement Thereof (Review for Neighborhood D ) DATE: June 15, 2015 RECOMMENDATION Receive and file. BACKGROUND On October 28, 2013, the City Council directed staff to implement a three-phase plan to address nonconforming conditions throughout the City: Phase 1 - Immediate (within 1 year) Relief EFFECTIVE MAY 28, 2014 Extend the abatement period - Approved Modify the thresholds for improvements and additions Approved Phase 2 - Short-term (2-6 years) Remedy ONGOING Review and consider modifications to various development standards that can result in nonconformities (i.e. setbacks) Review and consider Alternative Development Standards to allow existing conditions to address common nonconforming issues that cause friction (i.e., driveways length, lot coverage, open space, parking, driveways width, etc.) Review other possible strategies within the Zoning Code. Phase 3 Long-term (6 years plus) Solution Comprehensive Zoning Code update Update to General Plan Land Use Element On March 3, 2014, the Planning Commission recommended approval of amendments related to Phase 1 (Immediate Relief) of the plan. The amendment included the extension of the nonconforming abatement period to the 2022 which provided relief of immediate pressure of the previous abatement deadline. On April 14, 2014, the City Council approved amendments related to Phase 1. Page 1 of 3

Staff Report - Part 2 (Phase 2) Nonconforming Buildings ( Neighborhood D ) June 15, 2015 Page 2 of 3 On September 2, 2014, the Planning Commission considered a plan to address Part 1 of Phase 2 of the abatement of nonconforming buildings, structures, and uses. The plan including the application of analysis conducted for Neighborhoods 1, 2, and 3 that identified common issues, potential solutions, and the possible affects the solutions could have. On October 20, 2014, the Planning Commission recommended approval of amendments related to Part 1 of Phase 2 (Short-Term Remedy) of the plan. The amendment included: The reduction of the required setback for side-street facing garages from twenty (20) feet to ten (10) feet; The allowance for attached or detached carports to be located within the side yard setback; and The required setback for accessory buildings, garages, and carports that rear upon an alley shall be no less than twenty (20) feet from the opposite side of the alley and no less than fifteen (15) feet for single loaded alley. On November 17, 2014, the Planning Commission directed staff to move forward with the nonconformity review and analysis of Neighborhoods 4, 5, 6, 9, and D. The review and analysis will identify the nonconforming issues that are present and will allow staff to develop remedies for reducing nonconforming conditions. On February 17, 2015, the Planning Commission received and filed the Review for Neighborhood 4 on its Consent Calendar. On March 16, 2015, the Planning Commission received and filed the Review for Neighborhood 5 on its Consent Calendar. On April 20, 2015, the Planning Commission received and filed the Review for Neighborhood 6 on its Consent Calendar. On May 18, 2015, the Planning Commission received and filed the Review for Neighborhood 9 on its Consent Calendar. DISCUSSION A review of 407 residential and commercial properties within Neighborhood D has been completed. In an effort to ensure a comprehensive and thorough assessment of the nonconforming conditions, all development standards in the Bellflower Zoning Code were systematically applied to each lot. The review was conducted with the use of the City s Geographic Information System (GIS) software, aerial photos, electronic permit records, and field visual surveys. At the conclusion of the review of Neighborhood D, staff has determined that 83% of the lots have at least one (1) nonconforming condition. The attached Neighborhood D Review provides a breakdown of the nonconforming conditions found in the neighborhood.

Staff Report - Part 2 (Phase 2) Nonconforming Buildings ( Neighborhood D ) June 15, 2015 Page 3 of 3 As stated earlier, Part 1 of Phase 2 included a focused analysis of Neighborhoods 1, 2, and 3, which resulted in approved amendments to the Zoning Code that addressed previously nonconforming side street facing garages, carport side yard setbacks, and setbacks for accessory buildings, garages, and carports that rear upon an alley. Staff has applied the recently implemented amendments to the Zoning Code and has included a Report Card for Neighborhood D. The Report Card demonstrates the successful abatement of nonconforming conditions that have resulted from the implementation of amendments related to Part 1 of Phase 2. At the conclusion of the review for each subsequent neighborhood, staff will provide a monthly update to the Planning Commission. The monthly updates will include an assessment of the nonconforming conditions identified and a Report Card that demonstrates the successful abatement of conforming conditions that have resulted from the implementation of amendments related to Part 1 of Phase 2. Once each of the five (5) neighborhoods has been reviewed, an analysis will be completed and presented to the Planning Commission. ATTACHMENT Attachment A Neighborhood D Nonconformity Review Doc 321766

NEIGHBORHOOD OVERVIEW Neighborhood D is bounded by Alondra Boulevard to the north, Walnut Street to the south, Hayter Avenue to the west, Lakewood Boulevard / State Highway 19 to the east. Neighborhood D contains a total of 440 lots. Neighborhood D contains 24 lots that are part of a planned development and 9 lots that are vacant. Accordingly, 407 lots were assessed for nonconforming conditions: 278 lots zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential), 52 lots zoned R-2 (Medium Density Residential Zone), 44 lots zoned R-2 (Medium Density Residential Zone) that were developed with 1 residence and, pursuant to Bellflower Municipal Code 17.14.020(A), were assessed under R-1 development standards, 2 lots zoned R-3 (Multiple Residential Zone), and 31 lots zoned C-G (General Commercial). Characteristics of Residentially Zoned Lots The lots are zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential), R-2 (Medium Density Residential Zone) and R-3 (Multiple Residential). Most of the residences in Neighborhood D were originally constructed between 1941 and 1955. R-1 (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONE) The average size for lots zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential) is 6,685 square feet and the average size of a residence is 1,278 square feet. After applying the current residential development standards established in the Bellflower Zoning Code, it has been determined that 231 of 278 of the lots zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential) (83%) have at least one (1) nonconforming condition. Required Front Yard Setback (20 feet) 21 lots have a nonconforming front yard setback (8%) Required Interior Side Yard Setback (5 feet) Out of the 278 lots zoned R-1, 200 lots have a nonconforming interior side yard setback of less than 5 feet (72%). Required Rear Yard Setback (15 feet) 19 lots have a nonconforming rear yard setback of less than 15 feet (7%) 27 lots have a nonconforming parking condition because they are developed with a 1- car garage or no garage at all (10%) Page 1 of 4

Required Driveway (Minimum 10 foot width) 15 lots have a nonconforming driveway because they have a driveway width of less than 10 feet (6%) R-2 (MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONE) ASSESSED UNDER R-1 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS The lots in this category are zoned R-2 but, because they are developed with a singlefamily residence, were assessed under R-1 development standards (BMC 17.14.020(A)). The average size for these lots is 5,687 square feet and the average size of a residence is 985 square feet. After applying the current residential development standards established in the Bellflower Zoning Code, it has been determined that 26 of 44 of these lots (59%) have at least one (1) nonconforming condition. Required Front Yard Setback (20 feet) 7 lots have a nonconforming front yard setback (16%) Required Interior Side Yard Setback (5 feet) Out of these 44, 22 lots have a nonconforming interior side yard setback of less than 5 feet (50%). Required Rear Yard Setback (15 feet) 5 lots have a nonconforming rear yard setback of less than 15 feet (11%) 2 lots have a nonconforming parking condition because they are developed with a 1-car garage or no garage at all (5%) R-2 (MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONE) The average size for lots zoned R-2 (Medium Density Residential) is 5,660 square feet and the average size of a residential development is 1,464 square feet. After applying the current residential development standards established in the Bellflower Zoning Code, it has been determined that 39 of the lots zoned R-2 (Medium Density Residential) (75%) have at least one (1) nonconforming condition. Required Front Yard Setback (Formula for calculating front yard setback established in BMC 17.14.020) 3 lots have a nonconforming front yard setback (6%) Page 2 of 4

21 lots have a nonconforming parking condition because they do not provide an adequate number of 2-car garages (40%) R-3 (MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL ZONE) The average size for lots zoned R-3 (Multiple Residential) is 82,665 square feet and the average size of a multifamily residential building is 54,665 square feet. After applying the current residential development standards established in the Bellflower Zoning Code, it has been determined that both lots zoned R-3 (Multiple Residential Zone) (100%) have at least one (1) nonconforming condition. Both lots have a nonconforming parking condition because they do not provide an adequate number of 2-car garages Characteristics of Commercially Zoned Lots The lots zoned General Commercial are clustered along the northern and eastern boundaries of Neighborhood D along Alondra and Lakewood Boulevards. A total of 31 commercially zoned properties exist. Required Front Yard Setback (10 feet) 17 lots have a nonconforming front yard setback of less than 10 feet (56%) Required Landscaping (5% of the parking area with a minimum 10-foot wide landscaped planter adjacent to all rights-of-way 20 lots do not conform to the landscaping requirement in that there is less than 5% landscaping in the parking area (65%) Parking Requirement (1 parking space / 300 sq. ft. of building area) 4 lots have a nonconforming parking condition because they does not provide the minimum number of parking spaces required for the building size (13%) Nonconforming Uses 7 lots have nonconforming uses in that they are zoned C-G, but are developed with residential uses (23%) Page 3 of 4

NEIGHBORHOOD D REPORT CARD The Report Card evaluates the impact of prior amendments (Phase 2, Part 1) on the 376 residentially zoned lots in Neighborhood D. Side Street Facing Garage (former code required a 20-foot side yard setback; code now requires a 10-foot side yard setback) 29 lots have a side street facing garage, 6 were nonconforming (2%), all of which are now in conformance with the Zoning Code Carport Side Yard Setback (former code required a 5-foot side yard setback; code now allows for carports to encroach into the side yard setback) 30 lots have a carport with a nonconforming side yard setback of less than 5-feet (8%); all of which are now in conformance with the Zoning Code Alley Facing Garage (former code required a minimum 5-foot setback from an alley, code now requires that the setback for accessory buildings, garages, and carports that rear upon an alley shall be no less than twenty (20) feet from the opposite side of the alley and no less than fifteen (15) feet for single loaded alley 22 lots have an alley facing garage (6%); all of which are now in conformance with the Zoning Code Neighborhood D Review Complete: May 26, 2015 Neighborhood D Review Presented to the Planning Commission: June 15, 2015 Doc 321767 Page 4 of 4