Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
CC AG PKT 2004-02-23 #X
Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures City Council Staff Report February 23, 2004 ❑ All enlargements or expansions shall comply with the minimum yard dimensions for the zone and district in which the building or use is located. ❑ The existing nonconforming side yard setback shall be no less than three (3) feet in width, with the exception of existing legal non - conforming exterior stairways, which shall comply with all applicable provisions of the California Building Code as most recently adopted by the City, with the exception of the required setback. ❑ Garage and carport setbacks adjacent to a public alley shall comply with current applicable setback requirements. Please refer to Attachment 1 to review the draft ordinance indicating the appropriate language changes to Section 28 -2407 to implement the recommendation of the Planning Commission. Summary of Planning Commission Studv Sessions, City Council Actions, and Planning Commission Public Hearings: The City Council in early 2003 requested the Planning Commission to schedule a Study Session to review the existing standards in the Zoning Ordinance regarding the addition and expansion provisions for non - conforming residential uses. Concerns were expressed at both the Planning Commission and City Council level regarding a proposed expansion to a legal, non - conforming 4- unit residential development at 1210 Electric Avenue. After Planning Commission approval of the proposed project an appeal was filed and the City Council ultimately determined to deny the requested expansion, and requested the Planning Commission to review the current Code provisions. ❑ February 5, 2003 Planning Commission Study Session: The Planning Commission conducted an initial study session regarding this issue (copies of this Staff Report will be available at the Public Hearing for review), and directed staff to: ❑ schedule an additional study session for March 5, 2003; and ❑ prepare additional land development proposals regarding expansions to non- conforming residential structures related to provision of additional parking and allowable size of a proposed expansion. ❑ March 5, 2003 Planning Commission Studv Session: The Commission conducted their second study session regarding the issue of the current Zoning Ordinance provisions that allow for the expansion of legal non - conforming residential structures (copies of this Staff Report will be available at the Public Hearing for review). During the study session, several individuals indicated that the current regulations are not reflective of the community's desires and recommended that no addition or expansions of legal non- conforming structures be permitted in the future. After closing the study session, the Commission adopted on 5 -0 vote the following recommendation: ZTA Q4 -1.CC Staff Report 3 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures City Council Staff Report February 23, 2004 "To recommend the City Council consider elimination of the provisions allowing for expansions or additions to any legal non - conforming structures within the City." ❑ April 14, 2003 City Council Meeting: The City Council considered the recommendation of the Planning Commission and determined to adopt Ordinance No. 1498, An Interim Ordinance of the City of Seal Beach Enacted Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65858 Prohibiting Minor or Major Structural Alterations, Enlargements and Expansions to Certain Nonconfoituing Residential Buildings and Uses During the Pendency of the City's Review and Adoption of Relevant Permanent Zoning Regulations and Declaring The Urgency Thereof (the "Interim Ordinance "). The initial interim ordinance was effective for 45 days and was subsequently extended for a maximum period of an additional 10 months and 15 days on May 12, 2003, by the adoption of Ordinance No. 1502, in accordance with the provisions of State law. A copy of Ordinance No. 1502, the City Council Staff Report and the City Council Minutes were provided as Attachment 1 to the December 3, 2003 Planning Commission Staff Report (copies of this Staff Report will be available at the Public Hearing for review). ❑ July 14, 2003 City Council Meeting: The City Council considered the possibility of approving a limited exception of the interim prohibition for expansion or addition to legal non - conforming structures in the City if all current development standards, including the off - street parking requirements and excluding the density requirements, are met. After discussion, the City Council determined to receive and file the Staff Report on this matter, thereby taking no action regarding the proposed exception. A copy of the City Council Staff Report and minutes were provided as Attachment 2 to the December 3, 2003 Planning Commission Staff Report. ❑ December 3, 2003 Planning Commission Study Session: At the conclusion of this Study Session the Commission directed staff to schedule a public hearing on the proposed alternatives (copies of the Staff Report and minutes of this meeting will be available at the Public Hearing for review). ❑ January 21. 2004 Planning Commission Public Hearing: Planning Commission conducted a public hearing regarding the various alternatives proposed by Staff for consideration. Testimony was received from 7 individuals regarding the various alternatives. Upon receiving all public testimony and discussion among the Planning Commission, the following direction was given to staff: ❑ Prepare an additional alternative for Commission consideration that accomplishes the following: ❑ Eliminates the possibility of non- confonning, multi - family residentially developed properties from being allowed to request an expansion of existing living area except through the variance public hearing process. ❑ Requests for expansions of living area for non - conforming single - family residential properties that are non - conforming only due to an existing setback on the property would be considered through the "Minor Plan Review" process and this type of ZTA 04 -1.CC Staff Report 4 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures City Council Staff Report February 23, 2004 request would appear on the Planning Commission Agenda as a "Scheduled Matter ", not on the "Consent Calendar ". ❑ Allows for expansion of living area to be considered only for legal, non - conforming single - family residential properties that are non - conforming only due to an existing setback for the residence on the property, including a garage setback for those residential areas that do not have alley access to the garage area. ❑ Any other existing non - conformity, including the required setback from an alley right -of -way for a garage structure in the "Old Town" area would need to be eliminated as part of the proposed expansion of living area proposal or the City would not consider the request except through a variance proceeding; and ❑ All new construction shall comply with the then current provisions regarding setback, lot coverage, off - street parking, height, and other development standards of the zone in which the subject property is located. ❑ February 4, 2004 Planning Commission Public Hearing: Planning commission consideration of appropriate language amendments to the Code (identified as "Alternative 2- A ") to implement the direction of the Commission from the January 21, 2004 Commission meeting for recommendation to the City Council. The proposed standards would eliminate provisions to consider requests for expansion of living area for all non - conforming multi- family residential properties, and would establish separate standards for single - family residential non - conforming situations, as discussed above under "Planning Commission Recommendation Summary ". The Planning Commission also incorporated into the recommended ordinance provisions regarding height non - conformities as recommended by staff. Copies of he above referenced Planning Commission and City Council meeting minutes are provided as Attachment 3 for the information of the City Council. The referenced staff reports, except for the Planning Commission Public Hearing Staff Reports that are provided as Attachment 4 and 5 respectively, are not provided due to the length of the documents. Copies of the Planning Commission Study Session Staff Reports will be available at the public hearing for review by the City Council and interested individuals. Alternatives Considered by the Planning Commission and Not Recommended for Consideration: The Planning Commission considered several other alternatives and determined to not recommend approval of any of the following alternatives: ❑ Alternative 1 - Eliminate all provisions allowing for the expansion of non - conforming residential structures. ❑ Alternative 2 — Revise Provisions to only allow for an expansion if the property is non- conforming only due to a setback or height requirement. In this alternative all new construction would be required to comply with the development standards then in effect. Properties that are non - conforming due to density, off - street parking or lot coverage ZTA 04 -I .CC Staff Report 5 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures City Council Staff Report February 23, 2004 requirements would not be allowed to request an expansion. This would maintain the existing language of Section 28- 2407.A.5. ❑ Alternative 3 - Allow for expansions as currently set forth in Section 28- 2407.A.1 through 28- 2407.A.4 of the Code. This alternative allows for expansions of any non- conforming residential structure subject to compliance with various parking and density requirements, and requires either approval of a "Minor Plan Review" or "Conditional Use Permit ". ❑ Alternative 4 — Determine to recommend no changes to the existing Code provisions regarding expansion of non - conforming residential structures. This alternative would leave the existing Code provisions in place as they currently exist and maintain the same development standards and review processes. The City Council may also consider any of the above alternatives during the public hearing and may determine to approve a particular alternative or a combination of the suggested alternatives. FISCAL IMPACT: . Minimal. Staff resources have been allocated to prepare the necessary Zone Text Amendment staff report and proposed ordinance for adoption. Future expansions that may be allowed under the proposed Zone Text Amendment would result in a minimal increase in property tax revenues as any new additions would be assessed by the County Assessor's office. RECOMMENDATION: Introduce Ordinance Number , An Ordinance of the City of Seal Beach Amending Article 24, Section 28 -2407 of Title 28 of the Code of the City of Seal Beach Regarding Structural Alterations and Enlargements to Nonconfonning Residential Buildings and Uses (Zone Text Amendment 04 -1). NO " • A / APPROV :I : 1( or Whittenberg John Bit . °•rski Director of Development Servic; City ".nager Attachments: (5) Attachment 1: Ordinance Number , An Ordinance Of The City Of Seal Beach Amending Article 24, Section 28 -2407 Of Title 28 Of The ZTA 04 -1.CC Staff Report 6 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures Cite Council Staff Report February 23, 2004 Code Of The City Of Seal Beach Regarding Structural Alterations And Enlargements To Nonconforming Residential Buildings And Uses (Zone Text Amendment 04 -1) Attachment 2: Planning Commission Resolution No. 04 -10, A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach Recommending to the City Council Approval of Zone Text Amendment 04 -1, Amending Article 24, Section 28 -2407 of Title 28 of the Code of the City of Seal Beach Regarding Structural Alterations and Enlargements to Nonconforming Residential Buildings and Uses Attachment 3: Planning Commission and City Council Minute Excerpts re: Nonconforming Uses: A. Planning Commission Minutes - February 4, 2004 B. Planning Commission Minutes - January 21, 2004 C. Planning Commission Minutes - December 3, 2003 D. City Council Minutes — July 14, 2003 E. City Council Minutes - April 14, 2003 F. Planning Commission Minutes — March 5, 2003 G. Planning Commission Minutes — February 5, 2003 Attachment 4: Planning Commission Supplemental Staff Report re: Zone Text Amendment 04 -1 - Additions to Nonconforming Residential Structures - Elimination or Revisions to Current Provisions, dated February 4, 2004 Attachment 5: Planning Commission Staff Report re: Zone Text Amendment 04 -1 - Additions to Nonconforming Residential Structures - Elimination or Revisions to Current Provisions, dated January 21, 2004 ZTA 04 -1.CC Staff Report • 7 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures City Council Staff Report Februa,y 23, 2004 ATTACHMENT 1 ORDINANCE NUMBER , AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH AMENDING ARTICLE 24, SECTION 28 -2407 OF TITLE 28 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH REGARDING STRUCTURAL ALTERATIONS AND ENLARGEMENTS TO NONCONFORMING RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS AND USES (ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT 04 -1) ZTA 04-1.CC Staff Report 8 j Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures City Council Staff Report February 23, 2004 ORDINANCE NUMBER AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH AMENDING ARTICLE 24, SECTION 28 -2407 OF TITLE 28 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH REGARDING STRUCTURAL ALTERATIONS AND ENLARGEMENTS TO NONCONFORMING RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS AND USES (ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT 04 -1) WHEREAS, The City Council in early 2003 requested the Planning Commission to schedule a Study Session to review the existing standards in the Zoning Ordinance regarding the addition and expansion provisions for non - conforming residential uses; and WHEREAS, The Planning- Commission conducted an initial study session regarding this issue on February 5, 2003 and directed staff to: ❑ schedule an additional study session for March 5, 2003; and ❑ prepare additional land development proposals regarding expansions to non- _ conforming residential structures related to provision of additional parking and allowable size of a proposed expansion; and WHEREAS, On March 5, 2003 the Planning Commission conducted their second "Study Session" regarding the issue of the current Zoning Ordinance provisions that allow for the expansion of legal non - conforming residential structures. During the study session, several individuals indicated that the current regulations are not reflective of the community's desires and recommended that no addition or expansions of legal non - conforming structures be permitted in the future; and WHEREAS, After closing the March 5, 2003 study session, the Commission adopted on 5 -0 vote the following. recommendation: "To recommend the City Council consider elimination of the provisions allowing for expansions or additions to any legal non- conforming structures within the City. "; and WHEREAS, On April 14, 2003 the City Council considered the recommendation of the Planning Commission and determined to adopt Ordinance No. 1498, An Interim Ordinance of the City of Seal Beach Enacted Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65858 Prohibiting Minor or Major Structural Alterations, Enlargements and Expansions to Certain Nonconforming Residential Buildings and Uses During the Pendency of the City's Review and Adoption of Relevant ZTA 04 -1 .CC Staff Report 9 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures City Council Staff Report February 23, 2004 Permanent Zoning Regulations and Declaring The Urgency Thereof (the "Interim Ordinance "). The initial interim ordinance was effective for 45 days and was subsequently extended for a maximum period of an additional 10 months and 15 days on May 12, 2003, by the adoption of Ordinance No. 1502, in accordance with the provisions of State law; and WHEREAS, On July 14, 2003 the City Council considered the possibility of approving a limited exception of the interim prohibition for expansion or addition to legal non- conforming structures in the City if all current development standards, including the off - street parking requirements and excluding the density requirements, are met. After discussion, the City Council determined to receive and file the Staff Report on this matter, thereby taking no action regarding the proposed exception; and - WHEREAS, The Planning Commission conducted a final study session on December 3, 2003 and at the conclusion of the Study Session directed staff to schedule public hearing on Zone Text Amendment 04 -1, to consider several proposed alternatives; and WHEREAS, The City is proposing to establish new requirements and criteria for the enlargement or structural alteration of non - conforming residential structures; and WHEREAS, The subject zone text amendment would apply to all non - conforming residential structures within the City; and WHEREAS, The proposed Zone Text Amendment is Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301(a), (d) and (e), and Section 15305 of the CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, A duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on January 21, 2004, and continued to February 4, 2004 to consider Zone Text Amendment 04 -1; and WHEREAS, The said Commission held said aforementioned Public Hearing; and WHEREAS, At said public hearing there was oral and written testimony or evidence received by the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, The Planning Commission made the following findings: (a) Zone Text Amendment 04 -1 is consistent with the provisions of the various elements of the City's General Plan. Accordingly, the proposed use is consistent with the General Plan. The proposed amendment is administrative in nature and will not result in changes inconsistent with the existing provisions of the General Plan. ZTA 04 -1.CC Staff Report 10 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures City Council Staff Report February 23, 2004 (b) This proposal will result in the completion of a city study that was initiated in January 2003, but not finalized until adoption of the proposed Zone Text Amendment. (c) The proposed text amendment will revise the City's zoning ordinance and enhance the ability of the City to ensure orderly and planned development in the City through an amendment of the zoning requirements. Specifically, this amendment would establish new standards for the alteration to nonconforming residential buildings and uses, and prohibit additions to such legal nonconforming structures in accordance with the recommended language of Zone Text Amendment 04 -1; and WHEREAS, The City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on Monday, February 23, 2004; and WHEREAS, The City Council received into evidence the Report of the Planning Commission, including the Staff Report and Planning Commission Minutes of January 21, 2004, and Planning Commission Resolution No. 04 -10. In addition, the City Council considered all written and oral evidence presented at the time of the public hearing; and WHEREAS, At the conclusion of the public hearing, based upon the evidence presented, the City Council determined to approve Zone Text Amendment 04 -1. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 28 -2407 of Article 24 of Title 28 of The Code of The City of Seal Beach is hereby amended to read as follows: "Section 28 -2407. Enlargements or Structural Alterations to Nonconforming Residential Buildings and Uses. Nonconforming residential buildings may be enlarged or structurally altered as provided in this section. A. Permitted Improvements. 1. Minor Structural Alterations and Improvements to nonconforming residential buildings and uses listed as follows may be approved by the issuance of a building permit: (a) Skylights. (b) Solar Systems. (c) Additional windows. (d) Decorative exterior improvements. ZTA 04-1 .CC Staff Report 1 1 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconfonning Residential Structures City Council Staff Report February 23, 2004 (e) Building maintenance. (f) Adding or replacing utilities. (g) Other minor structural alterations and improvements similar to the foregoing, as determined by the Planning Commission. 2. Minor Structural Alterations or Improvements to nonconforming residential buildings and uses listed as follows may be approved by the Planning Commission pursuant to minor plan review as a consent calendar item: (a) Open roof decks. (b) Additional balconies and porches (not enclosed). (c) Roof additions over balconies and porches. (1) Roof eaves projecting five (5) feet into the required rear yard setback of Planning District 1, Residential Low Density Zone. (d) Additional exterior doors. (e) Additional garages and carports, including tandem garages and carports. (f) Interior wall modifications and remodeling which involves removal of or structural alteration to less than twenty -five percent (25 %) of the structure's interior walls. Such interior wall modifications or remodeling may increase the number of bathrooms provided that the number does not exceed the following bedroom/bathroom ratio: one bath for each bedroom plus an additional half -bath. The number of bedrooms, as defined in Section 28 -210 of this chapter, shall not be increased if the subject property is nonconforming due to density or parking. (g) Reduction in the number of units involving removal . or structural alteration to less than fifty percent (50 %) of the structures interior walls. (h) Other minor structural alterations and improvements similar to the foregoing, as determined by the Planning Commission. 3. Residential Low Density Zone, Planning Districts 1 through 7: Structural Alterations. Enlargements or Expansions to nonconforming single- family residential buildings and uses which are nonconforming only by reason of building heights exceeding the maximum height or inadequate setbacks to nonconforming single- family residential buildings and uses, including the required setback for existing legal, non - conforming garages, carports, and exterior stairways, may be approved by the Planning Commission ZTA 04 -1.CC Staff Report 12 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures City Council Staff Report February 23, 2004 pursuant to minor plan review as a scheduled matter item, subject to the following: (a) All enlargements or expansions shall comply with the minimum yard dimensions for the zone and district in which the building or use is located. (b) The existing nonconforming side yard setback shall be no less than three (3) feet in width, with the exception of existing legal non - conforming exterior stairways, which shall comply with all applicable provisions of the California Building Code as most recently adopted by the City, with the exception of the required ie California Building Code setback requirements. (c) The existing nonconforming side yard setback may be less than three (3) feet in width on properties developed pursuant to "Precise Plan" or "Planned Unit Development" approvals previously granted by the City. 4. Residential Medium Density Zone and Residential High Density Zone. Planning District 1: Structural Alterations, Enlargements or Expansions to nonconforming single- family residential buildings and uses which are nonconforming only by reason of building heights exceeding the maximum height or inadequate setbacks to nonconforming single- family residential buildings and uses, including the required setback for existing legal, non - conforming garages, carports, exterior stairways, may be approved by the Planning Commission pursuant to minor plan review as a scheduled matter item, subject to the following: (a) All enlargements or expansions shall comply with the minimum yard dimensions for the zone and district in which the building or use is located. (b) The existing nonconforming side yard setback shall be no less than three (3) feet in width, with the exception of existing legal non - conforming exterior stairways, which shall comply with all applicable provisions of the California Building Code as most recently adopted by the City, with the exception of the required with the exception of the required California Building Code setback requirements. (c) Garage and carport setbacks adjacent to a public alley shall comply with current applicable setback requirements." Section 2. Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance or any part thereof is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this ZTA 04 -1.CC Staff Report 13 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures City Council Staff Report February 23, 2004 Ordinance or any part thereof The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase be declared invalid or unconstitutional. Section 3. The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published in accordance with applicable law. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Seal Beach at a meeting thereof held on the day of , 2004. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF ORANGE } SS CITY OF SEAL BEACH } 1, Joanne M. Yeo, City Clerk of the City of Seal Beach, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance is an original copy of Ordinance Number on file in the office of the City Clerk, introduced at a meeting held on the day of , 2004, and passed, approved and adopted by the City Council of the City of Seal Beach at a meeting held on the day of , 2004 by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers NOES: Councilmembers ZTA 04 -1.CC Staff Report 14 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures City Council Staff Report February 23, 2004 ABSENT: Councilmembers ABSTAIN: Councilmembers and do hereby further certify that Ordinance Number has been published pursuant to the Seal Beach City Charter and Resolution Number 2836. City Clerk ZTA 04 -1.CC Staff Report 15 U AGENDA REPORT t ().- DATE: February 23, 2004 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council THRU: John B. Bahorski, City Manager FROM: Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services SUBJECT: Public Hearing - Zone Text Amendment 04 -1 - Additions to Nonconforming Residential Structures - Elimination or Revisions to Current Provisions SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Introduce Ordinance Number , An Ordinance of the City of Seal Beach Amending Article 24, Section 28 -2407 of Title 28 of the Code of the City of Seal Beach Regarding Structural Alterations and Enlargements to Nonconforming Residential Buildings and Uses (Zone Text Amendment 04 -1). Please refer to Attachment 1 to review the proposed ordinance. BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission has conducted several study sessions and two public hearings regarding this matter. Upon the conclusion of the Planning Commission public hearings, the Commission adopted Resolution No. 04 -10, on a 5 -0 vote of the Commission (Please refer to Attachment 2 to review the adopted Planning Commission resolution). This resolution recommends adoption of the proposed ordinance as presented for introduction this evening. Planning Commission Recommendation Summary: The proposed ordinance will establish the following standards for expansions of non - conforming residential properties within the City: ❑ Eliminates the possibility of non - conforming, multi - family residentially developed properties from being allowed to request an expansion of existing living area except through the variance public hearing process. The ability of the City to approve a project through the variance process is very difficult due to heightened level of findings that the Planning Commission must make to approve a variance request. ❑ Requests for expansions of living area for non - conforming single- family residential properties that are non - conforming only due to an existing setback or height on the property would be considered through the "Minor Plan Review" process and this type of request would appear on the Planning Commission Agenda as a "Scheduled Matter ", not on the "Consent Calendar ". AGENDA ITEM >.0 Z: \My Documents\ZTA\ZTA 04 -1.CC Staff Report.doc \LW\02 -09 -04 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconfonning Residential Structures City Council Staff Report February 23, 2004 ❑ The proposed ordinance revisions would establish separate standards for single- family residential non - conforming situations. The proposed standards are summarized below: ❑ Residential Low Density Zone, Planning Districts 1 through 7: These areas of the City comprise "The Hill ", "College Park East ", "College Park West", the "Gold Coast ", "Surfside ", and "Bridgeport". These areas are the more traditional detached single- family tract housing developments and comprise lots generally 5,000 square feet or larger, except for the Surfside and Bridgeport areas. Bridgeport is included within this provision even though the homes have alley access; the existing garage structures all conform to current City setback standards. These planning districts also include various high density areas of the City that are generally developed with multi- family residential developments that would not be covered by the proposed regulations. The proposed standards would require Planning Commission approval of a Minor Plan Review request for an expansion of living area for properties where the only nonconformity is inadequate height or setbacks, including the required setback for existing legal, non - conforming garages, carports, and exterior stairways. An application for an expansion of living space in these areas would still be required to comply with the following provisions: ❑ All enlargements or expansions shall comply with the minimum yard dimensions for the zone and district in which the building or use is located. ❑ The existing nonconforming side yard setback shall be no less than three (3) feet in width, with the exception of existing legal non - conforming exterior stairways, which shall comply with all applicable provisions of the California Building Code as most recently adopted by the City, with the exception of the required California Building Code setback requirements. ❑ The existing nonconforming side yard setback may be less than three (3) feet in width on properties developed pursuant to "Precise Plan" or "Planned Unit Development" approvals previously granted by the City. ❑ Residential Medium Density Zone and Residential High Density Zone, Planning District 1: These areas include all of "Old Town" with the exception of the "Gold Coast ", "Bridgeport", the Riverbeach Townhouses, the Seal Beach Trailer Park, and Oakwood Apartments. The subject areas is generally comprised of lots varying in size from 2,500 to 4,400 square feet in area, with the majority of lots being either 2,500 square feet or 2,937.5 square feet, and developed with a mixture of single - family and multi- family developments. The proposed standards would not allow for any expansion of living area for properties having more than one residential unit on the subject lot. The proposed standards would require Planning Commission approval of a Minor Plan Review request for an expansion of living area for single - family residential properties where the only nonconformity is inadequate height and setbacks, including the required setback for existing legal, non - conforming garages, carports, and exterior stairways. An application for an expansion of living space in these areas would still be required to comply with the following provisions: ZTA 04 -1.CC Staff Report Zoning Text Amendment 04-1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures City Council Staff Report Februmy 23, 2004 ATTACHMENT 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 04- 10, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT 04 -1, AMENDING ARTICLE 24, SECTION 28 -2407 OF TITLE 28 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH REGARDING STRUCTURAL ALTERATIONS AND ENLARGEMENTS TO NONCONFORMING RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS AND USES ZTA 04-1.CC Staff Report 16 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures City Council Staff Report February 23, 2004 RESOLUTION NUMBER 04 -10 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT 04 -1, AMENDING ARTICLE 24, SECTION 28 -2407 OF TITLE 28 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH REGARDING STRUCTURAL ALTERATIONS AND ENLARGEMENTS TO NONCONFORMING RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS AND USES THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES HEREBY RESOLVE: Section 1. At its meetings of January 21 and February 4, 2004, the Planning Commission considered Zone Text Amendment 04 -1. This amendment would establish new standards for the alteration and enlargements to nonconforming residential buildings and uses. Section 2. Pursuant to 14 Calif. Code of Regs. § 15305 and § II.B of the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, staff has determined as follows: The application for Zone Text Amendment 04 -1 is categorically exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15301(a), (d) and (e), and Section 15305 of the CEQA Guidelines. Section 3. A duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on January 21, 2004 and continued to February 4, 2004 to consider Zone Text Amendment 04 -1. Section 4. The record of the hearings of January 21 and February 4, 2004 indicates the following: a. The City Council in January 2003 requested the Planning Commission to schedule a Study Session to review the existing standards in the Zoning Ordinance regarding the addition and expansion provisions for non - conforming residential uses; and b. The Planning Commission conducted an initial study session regarding this issue on February 5, 2003 and directed staff to: ❑ schedule an additional study session for March 5, 2003; and ❑ prepare additional land development proposals regarding expansions to non- conforming residential structures related to provision of additional parking and allowable size of a proposed expansion; and ZTA 04 -1 .CC Staff Report 17 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures City Council Staff Report February 23, 2004 c. On March 5, 2003 the Planning Commission conducted their second "Study Session" regarding the issue of the current Zoning Ordinance provisions that allow for the expansion of legal non - conforming residential structures. During the study session, several individuals indicated that the current regulations are not reflective of the community's desires and recommended that no addition or expansions of legal non - conforming structures be permitted in the future; and d. After closing the March 5, 2003 study session, the Commission adopted on 5 -0 vote the following recommendation: "To recommend the City Council consider elimination of the provisions allowing for expansions or additions to any legal non- conforming structures within the City. "; and e. On April 14, 2003 the City Council considered the recommendation of the Planning Commission and determined to adopt Ordinance No. 1498, An Interim Ordinance of the City of Seal Beach Enacted Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65858 Prohibiting Minor or Major Structural Alterations, Enlargements and Expansions to Certain Nonconforming Residential Buildings and Uses During the Pendency of the City's Review and Adoption of Relevant Permanent Zoning Regulations and Declaring The Urgency Thereof (the "Interim Ordinance "). The initial interim ordinance was effective for 45 days and was subsequently extended for a maximum period of an additional 10 months' and 15 days on May 12, 2003, by the adoption of Ordinance No. 1502, in accordance with the provisions of State law; and f. On July 14, 2003 the City Council considered the possibility of approving a limited exception of the interim prohibition for expansion or addition to legal non - conforming structures in the City if all current development standards, including the off - street parking requirements and excluding the density requirements, are met. After discussion, the City Council determined to receive and file the Staff Report on this matter, thereby taking no action regarding the proposed exception; and g. The Planning Commission conducted a final study session on December 3, 2003 and at the conclusion of the Study Session directed staff to schedule public hearing on Zone Text Amendment 04 -1, to consider several proposed alternatives; and h. At said public hearings there was oral and written testimony and evidence received by the Planning Commission. Section 5. Based upon the facts contained in the record, including those stated in § 4 of this resolution and pursuant to §§ 28 -2600 of the City's Code, the Planning Commission makes the following findings: • ZTA 04 -1.CC Staff Report 18 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures City Council Staff Report February 23, 2004 a. Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 is consistent with the provisions of the various elements of the City's General Plan. Accordingly, the proposed use is consistent with the General Plan. The proposed amendment is administrative in nature and will not result in changes inconsistent with the existing provisions of the General Plan. b. This proposal will result in the completion of a city study that was initiated in January 2003, but not finalized until adoption of the proposed Zone Text Amendment. c. The proposed text amendment will revise the City's zoning ordinance and enhance the ability of the City to ensure orderly and planned development in the City through an amendment of the zoning requirements. Specifically, this amendment would establish new standards for the alteration to nonconforming residential buildings and uses, and regulate additions to such legal nonconforming residential structures in accordance with the recommended language of Zone Text Amendment 04 -1. Section 6. Based upon the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby recommends approval of Zone Text Amendment 04 -1 to the City Council as set forth on Exhibit A, attached to this resolution and incorporated herein. PASSED, APPROVED AND 'ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach at a meeting thereof held on the 4 th day of February , 2004, by the following vote. AYES: Commissioners DEATON, EAGAR, LADNER, SHANKS, AND SHARP NOES: Commissioners ABSENT: Commissioners ABSTAIN: Commissioners /s/ Chairman of the Planning Commission /s/ Lee Whittenberg Secretary of the Planning Commission ZTA 04 -1.CC Staff Report 19 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconfonning Residential Structures City Council Staff Report February 23, 2004 "EXHIBIT A" - ALTERNATIVE 2 -A REVISIONS TO ALLOW EXPANSIONS OF NONCONFORMING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES ONLY IF THE NONCONFORMITY IS A SETBACK ORDINANCE NUMBER , AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH AMENDING ARTICLE 24, SECTION 28 -2407 OF TITLE 28 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH REGARDING STRUCTURAL ALTERATIONS AND ENLARGEMENTS TO NONCONFORMING RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS AND USES (ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT 04 -1) ZTA 04 -1.CC Staff Report 20 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures City Council Staff Report February 23, 2004 ORDINANCE NUMBER AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH AMENDING ARTICLE 24, SECTION 28 -2407 OF TITLE 28 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SEAL " BEACH REGARDING STRUCTURAL ALTERATIONS AND ENLARGEMENTS TO NONCONFORMING RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS AND USES (ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT 04 -1) WHEREAS, The City Council in early 2003 requested the Planning Commission to schedule a Study Session to review the existing standards in the Zoning Ordinance regarding the addition and expansion provisions for non - conforming residential uses; and WHEREAS, The Planning-Commission conducted an initial study session regarding this issue on February 5, 2003 and directed staff to: ❑ schedule an additional study session for March 5, 2003; and ❑ prepare additional land development proposals regarding expansions to non- conforming residential structures related to provision of additional parking and allowable size of a proposed expansion; and WHEREAS, On March 5, 2003 the Planning Commission conducted their second "Study Session" regarding the issue of the current Zoning Ordinance provisions that allow for the expansion of legal non - conforming residential structures. During the study session, several individuals indicated that the current regulations are not reflective of the community's desires and recommended that no addition or expansions of legal non - conforming structures be permitted in the future; and WHEREAS, After closing the March 5, 2003 study session, the Commission adopted on 5 -0 vote the following recommendation: "To recommend the City Council consider elimination of the provisions allowing for expansions or additions to any legal non- conforming structures within the City. "; and WHEREAS, On April 14, 2003 the City Council considered the recommendation of the Planning Commission and determined to adopt Ordinance No. 1498, An Interim Ordinance of the City of Seal Beach Enacted Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65858 Prohibiting Minor or Major Structural Alterations, Enlargements and Expansions to Certain Nonconforming Residential Buildings and Uses During the Pendency of the City's Review and Adoption of Relevant ZTA 04-1 .CC Staff Report 21 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures City Council Staff Report February 23, 2004 Permanent Zoning Regulations and Declaring The Urgency Thereof (the "Interim Ordinance "). The initial interim ordinance was effective for 45 days and was subsequently extended for a maximum period of an additional 10 months and 15 days on May 12, 2003, by the adoption of Ordinance No. 1502, in accordance with the provisions of State law; and WHEREAS, On July 14, 2003 the City Council considered the possibility of approving a limited exception of the interim prohibition for expansion or addition to legal non - conforming structures in the City if all current development standards, including the off - street parking requirements and excluding the density requirements, are met. After discussion, the City Council determined to receive and file the Staff Report on this matter, thereby taking no action regarding the proposed exception; and WHEREAS, The Planning Commission conducted a final study session on December 3, 2003 and at the conclusion of the Study Session directed staff to schedule public hearing on Zone Text Amendment 04 -1, to consider several proposed alternatives; and WHEREAS, the City is proposing to establish new requirements and criteria for the enlargement or structural alteration of non - conforming residential structures; and WHEREAS, the subject zone text amendment would apply to all non - conforming residential structures within the City; and WHEREAS, the proposed Zone Text Amendment is Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301(a), (d) and (e), and Section 15305 of the CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on January 21, 2004, and continued to February 4, 2004 to consider Zone Text Amendment 04 -1; and WHEREAS, the said Commission held said aforementioned Public Hearing; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing there was oral and written testimony or evidence received by the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission made the following findings: (d) Zone Text Amendment 04 -1 is consistent with the provisions of the various elements of the City's General Plan. Accordingly, the proposed use is consistent with the General Plan. The proposed amendment is administrative in nature and will not result in changes inconsistent with the existing provisions of the General Plan. ZTA 04 -1.CC Staff Report 2 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures City Council Staff Report February 23, 2004 (e) This proposal will result in the completion of a city study that was initiated in January 2003, but not finalized until adoption of the proposed Zone Text Amendment. (f) The proposed text amendment will revise the City's zoning ordinance and enhance the ability of the City to ensure orderly and planned development in the City through an amendment of the zoning requirements. Specifically, this amendment would establish new standards for the alteration to nonconforming residential buildings and uses, and prohibit additions to such legal nonconforming structures in accordance with the recommended language of Zone Text Amendment 04 -1; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on Monday, , 2004; and WHEREAS, the City Council received into evidence the Report of the Planning Commission, including the Staff Report and Planning Commission Minutes of January 21, 2004, and Planning Commission Resolution No. 04 -_. In addition, the City Council considered all written and oral evidence presented at the time of the public hearing; and WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the public hearing, based upon the evidence presented, the City Council determined to approve Zone Text Amendment 04 -1. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 28 -2407 of Article 24 of Title 28 of The Code of The City of Seal Beach is hereby amended to read as follows: "Section, 28 -2407. Enlargements or Structural Alterations to Nonconforming Residential Buildings and Uses. Nonconforming residential buildings may be enlarged or structurally altered as provided in this section. A. Permitted Improvements. 1. Minor Structural Alterations and Improvements to nonconforming residential buildings and uses listed as follows may be approved by the issuance of a building permit: (a) Skylights. (b) Solar Systems. (c) Additional windows. (d) Decorative exterior improvements. ZTA 04 -1.CC Staff Report 23 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures City Council Staff Report Februaiy 23, 2004 (e) Building maintenance. (f) Adding or replacing utilities. (g) Other minor structural alterations and improvements similar to the foregoing, as determined by the Planning Commission. 2. Minor Structural Alterations or Improvements to nonconforming residential buildings and uses listed as follows may be approved by the Planning Commission pursuant to minor plan review as a consent calendar item: (a) Open roof decks. (b) Additional balconies and porches (not enclosed). (c) Roof additions over balconies and porches. (1) Roof eaves projecting five (5) feet into the required rear yard setback of Planning District 1, Residential Low Density Zone. (d) Additional exterior doors. (e) Additional garages and carports, including tandem garages and carports. (f) Interior wall modifications and remodeling which involves removal of or structural alteration to less than twenty -five percent (25 %) of the structure's interior walls. Such interior wall modifications or remodeling may increase the number of bathrooms provided that the number does not exceed the following bedroom/bathroom ratio: one bath for each bedroom plus an additional half -bath. The number of bedrooms, as defined in Section 28 -210 of this chapter, shall not be increased if the subject property is nonconforming due to density or parking. (g) Reduction in the number of units involving removal or structural alteration to less than fifty percent (50 %) of the structures interior walls. (h) Other minor structural alterations and improvements similar to the foregoing, as determined by the Planning Commission. 3. Residential Low Density Zone, Planning Districts 1 through 7: Structural Alterations, Enlargements or Expansions to nonconforming single- family residential buildings and uses which are nonconforming only by reason of building heights exceeding the maximum height or inadequate setbacks to nonconforming single- family residential buildings and uses, including the required setback for existing legal, non - conforming garages, carports, and exterior stairways, may be approved by the Planning Commission ZTA 04 -1.CC Staff Report 24 Zoning Text Amendment 04-1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures City Council Staff Report February 23, 2004 pursuant to minor plan review as a scheduled matter item, subject to the following: (a) All enlargements or expansions shall comply with the minimum yard dimensions for the zone and district in which the building or use is located. (b) The existing nonconforming side yard setback shall be no less than three (3) feet in width, with the exception of existing legal non - conforming exterior stairways, which shall comply with all applicable provisions of the California Building Code as most recently adopted by the City, with the exception of the required with the exception of the required California Building Code setback requirements. (c) The existing nonconforming side yard setback may be less than three (3) feet in width on properties developed pursuant to "Precise Plan" or "Planned Unit Development" approvals previously granted by the City. 4. Residential Medium Density Zone and Residential High Density Zone, Planning District 1: Structural Alterations, Enlargements or Expansions to nonconforming single - family residential buildings and uses which are nonconforming only by reason of building heights exceeding the maximum height or inadequate setbacks to nonconforming single- family residential buildings and uses, including the required setback for existing legal, non - conforming garages, carports, exterior stairways, may be approved by the Planning Commission pursuant to minor plan review as a scheduled item, subject to the following: (a) All enlargements or expansions shall comply with the minimum yard dimensions for the zone and district in which the building or use is located. (b) The existing nonconforming side yard setback shall be no less than three (3) feet in width, with the exception of existing legal non - conforming exterior stairways, which shall comply with all applicable provisions of the California Building Code as most recently adopted by the City, with the exception of the required with the exception of the required California Building Code .setback requirements. (c) Garage and carport setbacks adjacent to a public alley shall comply with current applicable setback requirements." Section 2. Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance or any part thereof is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this ZTA 04 -1.CC Staff Report 25 • Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures City Council Staff Report February 23, 2004 Ordinance or any part thereof. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase be declared invalid or unconstitutional. Section 3. The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published in accordance with applicable law. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Seal Beach at a meeting thereof held on the day of , 2004. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF ORANGE } SS CITY OF SEAL BEACH } 1, Joanne M. Yeo, City Clerk of the City of Seal Beach, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance is an original copy of Ordinance Number on file in the office of the City Clerk, introduced at a meeting held on the day of , 2004, and passed, approved and adopted by the City Council of the City of Seal Beach at a meeting held on the day of , 2004 by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers NOES: Councilmembers ABSENT: Councilmembers ABSTAIN: Councilmembers ZTA 04 -1.CC Staff Report 26 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures City Council Staff Report February 23, 2004 and do hereby further certify that Ordinance Number has been published pursuant to the Seal Beach City Charter and Resolution Number 2836. City Clerk ZTA 04-1.CC Staff Report 27 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures City Council Staff Report February 23, 2004 ATTACHMENT 3 PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL MINUTE EXCERPTS RE: NONCONFORMING USES: A. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE EXCERPT - FEBRUARY 4, 2004 B. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE EXCERPT - JANUARY 21, 2004 C. PLANNING COMMISSION - MINUTE EXCERPT - DECEMBER 3, 2003 D. CITY COUNCIL MINUTE EXCERPT - JULY 14, 2003 E. CITY COUNCIL MINUTE EXCERPT - APRIL 14, 2003 F. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE EXCERPT - MARCH 5, 2003 G. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE EXCERPT - FEBRUARY 5, 2003 ZTA 04 -1.CC Staff Report 28 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures Cite Council Staff Report February 23, 2004 ATTACHMENT 3 - A PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE EXCERPT - FEBRUARY 4, 2004 ZTA 04 -1.CC Staff Report 29 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures City Council Staff Report February 23, 2004 • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE EXCERPT - FEBRUARY 4, 2004 "PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. Zone Text Amendment 04 -1 (Continued from January 21, 2004) Expansions and Additions to Legal Non - Conforming Residential Structures Citywide Applicant/Owner: City of Seal Beach Request: To consider elimination or amendments to certain portions of Section 28 -2407 of the Code of the City of Seal Beach, which sets . forth the current standards regarding allowable expansions and additions to legal non - conforming residential structures. Recommendation: Approval subject to conditions and adoption of Resolution 04 -10. Staff Report Mr. Whittenberg delivered the supplemental staff report. (Supplemental Staff Report is on file for inspection in the Planning Department.) He noted that at the last meeting the Planning Commission (PC) had instructed Staff to prepare a modification to Alternative 2 based upon the discussion during the public hearing of January 21, 2004. He indicated that the PC wished to require that nonconforming multi - family residentially developed properties use the Variance process in applying for any expansion to living space. He then explained that for single- family residences (SFR) the provisions were split into two different districts as follows: Planning Districts 2 -7 Includes College Park East, College Park West, The Hill, Surfside, Bridgeport, The Gold Coast, and Leisure World. Single - family residences where the only nonconformity is an existing setback must use the Minor Plan Review (MPR) process. If the property is nonconforming due to density, parking, lot coverage, etc., then must use the Variance process. Planning District 1 Residential High Density and Residential Medium Density areas in Old Town, except for the Gold Coast, Seal Beach Trailer Park, Riverbeach Condominiums, Oakwood Apartments, and Bridgeport. ZTA 04 -1 .CC Staff Report 30 Zoning Text Amendment 04-1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures City Council Staff Report February 23, 2004 Single- family residences where the only nonconformity is an existing setback for the living area or a garage setback that is not adjacent to the alley must use the Minor Plan Review (MPR) process. If the garage setback is on the alley, the garage structure would have to be reconstructed to meet today's standards for provision of the proper turning area for entering and exiting the garage. He noted that these items would all have to come before the PC as scheduled matters on the agenda. He then referred to Page 3 of the Supplemental Staff Report where Staff recommends that the PC consider allowing cases of SFR with a nonconforming setback for an existing portion of the structure, and also suggested adding building height into this category. He explained that this is because a number of older SFR were constructed before the City had a Zoning Ordinance and the height for many of these homes is not known. He said that if the height issue were not included, this might prohibit one of these SFR that is over the 25- feet height limit from applying for an expansion. He also noted that revising the Code provisions for third story structures on the rear half of lots that are 37.5 feet wide or wider might also prohibit these types of structures from making additions to the existing first or second story. He suggested that the PC might wish to also incorporate this into Alternative 2. He said that if the PC were to decide against this, it would be necessary for applicants for these types of properties to apply for a Variance. Mr. Whittenberg noted that the draft resolution and ordinance are attached to the Staff Report for consideration by the PC. Commissioner Deaton asked if a home were already nonconforming due to height, then adding any living space would not be allowed, but including this in Alternative 2 would allow them to expand their home, even though they already have a third story. Mr. Whittenberg indicated that it might not be a third story but just the roofline of a two -story home that exceeds the 25 -foot height limit. He noted that some older homes have steeper roofs. Commissioner Shanks stated that as he reads the ordinance, it appears to do away with the problem of using the 10 or 15 percent calculation for the front yard setback of homes on The Hill. Mr. Whittenberg stated that what the proposed language states is that if you have a nonconforming setback on a SFR lot, no matter what it is, you must come before the PC for a determination. Commissioner Deaton asked whether nonconforming homes on The Gold Coast would be included in this proposal. Mr. Whittenberg stated that they would be included under the same limitations as The Hill, College Park East, and College Park West. Public Hearing Chairperson Sharp opened the public hearing. There being no one wishing to speak, Chairperson Sharp closed the public hearing. ZTA 04 -1.CC Staff Report 31 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconfortning Residential Structures City Council Staff Report Februmy 23, 2004 Commissioner Comments Commissioner Deaton referred to Page 12 of the Staff Report, Section 28- 2407.A, Permitted Improvements, 1 and 2, and confirmed that all of these types of improvements would be allowed on nonconforming structures. She then read from Items 3 and 4 on Pages 13 and 14 and confirmed that these would apply to Districts 2 -7. Mr. Whittenberg confirmed that this was correct and noted a typographical error in the title for Item 3, which should read "Residential Low Density Zone Planning Districts 1 through 7;" Mr. Abbe proposed the following language for Item 3: "Enlargements or Expansions to nonconforming single - family residential buildings and uses which are nonconforming only by reason of building heights exceeding the maximum height or inadequate setbacks, including the required setback for existing legal, nonconforming garages..." Commissioner Deaton asked how many structures in the City were over the height limit. Mr. Whittenberg stated that it would be difficult to say. He noted, once again, that any expansions of nonconforming structures would still have to come before the PC for review. Mr. Abbe also proposed the following that references to the Uniform Building Code should be changed to reflect California Building Code. MOTION by Deaton; SECOND by Shanks to approve Zone Text Amendment 04 -1 and adopt Resolution 04 -10 as amended. MOTION CARRIED: 5 — 0 AYES: Sharp, Deaton, Eagar, Ladner, and Shanks NOES: None ABSENT: None Mr. Whittenberg noted that this is an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance and the Planning Commission's decision tonight is not a final decision, but a recommendation to the City Council." * * * * ZTA 04-1.CC Staff Report 32 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures City Council Staff Report February 23, 2004 ATTACHMENT 3 - B PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE EXCERPT - JANUARY 21, 2004 • ZTA 04 -1.CC Staff Report 33 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconfornzing Residential Structures City Council Staff Report February 23, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE EXCERPT - JANUARY 21, 2004 4. Zone Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansions and Additions to Legal Non - Conforming Residential Structures Citywide Applicant/Owner: City of Seal Beach Request: To consider elimination or amendments to certain portions of Section 28 -2407 of the Code of the City of Seal Beach, which sets forth the current standards regarding allowable expansions and additions to legal non - conforming residential structures. Recommendation: Approval subject to conditions and adoption of Resolution 04 -10. The following alternatives will be considered: Alternative 1 — Eliminate All Provisions Allowing For Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures. Alternative 2 — Revisions to Allow Expansions of Nonconforming Residential Structures Only If the Nonconformity Is A Setback. Alternative 3 — Revisions to Allowable Size of Additions to Nonconforming Residential Structures. Alternative 4 — No Amendments to Code Regarding Structural Alterations and Enlargements to Nonconforming Residential Structures. Staff Report Mr. Whittenberg delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the Planning Department.) He provided some background information on this item and stated that Zone Text Amendment (ZTA) 04 -1 is a follow up of approximately one year of process the City has undertaken to address the issue of how to deal with expansions to nonconforming residential structures (NRS). He stated that the Planning Commission (PC) could elect any of the 4 Alternatives and or amalgamate them in any manner it feels is appropriate once the public hearing has concluded. He then reviewed the alternatives beginning with Alternative 1 (A -1) and noted that City Code currently allows for specific types of maintenance activities and ZTA 04 -1.CC Staff Report 34 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures City Council Staff Report February 23, 2004 additions of non - habitable living space to NRS subject to building permits or a Minor Plan Review (MPR) process. He said that A -1 would maintain those provisions of the Code but would eliminate all provisions that allow for any consideration of expansion of living area for. a NRS, He noted that A -1 reflects the PC's recommendation to City Council (CC) back in July 2003. He then explained that A -2 would revise the nonconforming section of the Code to allow for consideration of additions or expansion to living area only if the nonconforming issue is related to an existing setback of the existing NRS. He indicated that if the property were nonconforming due to density, parking, exceeding the height limit, or lot coverage, it would not be eligible for expansion under this category. A -3 would maintain the current process in the Code that allows for expansions to be considered under a 2 -tier process: 1. A Minor Plan Review (MPR) that has certain size limitations to it, and 2. A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) process that does not have a size limitation imposed. He stated that Staff recommends that the PC slightly modify this existing process and establish the criteria based upon the ability to provide more than 11/2 parking spaces per unit on the property or less than 11/2 parking spaces per unit. He said that Staff is suggesting that if they cannot provide at least 11/2 parking spaces, there would be a cap on the size of the addition that could be requested, and this would be considered through a CUP process. Mr. Whittenberg noted that is an applicant is willing or can provide on his property at least 11/2 parking spaces per unit on the property, then they should be able to request a CUP for an unlimited size expansion as long as it meets all current setback, lot coverage, and other City development standards. The Director of Development Services then explained that A -4 would make no changes to the Code. He reminded the PC of this issue coming to the forefront as a result of a CUP application for 1210 Electric Avenue for a substantial addition of an owner's unit on this 4 -unit property. He noted that the PC approved this request and this decision was subsequently appealed to CC who denied the request. CC referred the issue back to the PC and at that point the Commission directed Staff to study the issue and prepare changes to the Code as appropriate. He continued by stating that CC then adopted an interim ordinance that "froze" City Staff from accepting applications for new additions to NRS until the City had time to review its Code provisions to determine whether any changes were necessary. He noted that since the 45 -day interim ordinance was adopted, it has been extended for 10 months and 15 days and will expire in March 2004, unless it is again extended. He referred to pages 7 -9 of the Staff Report in which the particulars of three examples of applications for expansions to NRS are cited. He noted that the case at 236 — 5 Street in which the only nonconformity is that it has a 3 -foot setback on the side property lines instead of the required 3.75 feet for that lot width. He stated that under current provisions, prior to the adoption of the interim ordinance, the Director of Development Services would have been authorized to automatically approve this request by building permit because the difference in the setbacks is less than 10 percent of what is required. He continued by noting that ZTA 04 -1.CC Staff Report 35 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures City Council Staff Report February 23, 2004 for the property at 222 — 17 Street that has a number of nonconformities and prior to the moratorium a request to do an expansion on this type of property would have come before the PC under either the MPR process or the CUP process based upon the size of the addition requested. For 705 Bayside Drive he stated that the front yard setback is 15 feet 6 inches and the standard setback requirement for this zoning area of the City is 18 feet. He said that in 1957 the City adopted Ordinance No. 509, which established a 15 -foot setback requirement for 31 lots in that particular tract. He indicated that after Ordinance 509 was adopted, the City adopted a revision to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance in 1963 that stated the setback should be 18 feet and did not exempt the 31 lots covered under Ordinance 509. He stated that Staff has come across some situations in College Park East (CPE) where some of the garage setbacks are not in conformance with today's standards. He said that some of them have a patio area above the garage and there have been applications to enclose that patio area to create livable space. He noted that these homes are considered NRS and are now under the moratorium. He indicated that given the age of the tract and the way the City has done things in the past, there may be similar issues in College Park West (CPW). Mr. Whittenberg noted that the PC should take these types of situations into consideration in making a determination on this issue. He indicated that although Staff understands the PC's concerns and its recommendations that expansions to NRS should not occur, and generally Staff agrees with this, Staff is of the opinion that if the nonconforming issue is related only to setbacks for an existing structure, and all other developments standards are met, it would seriously limit the ability of an owner to expand a SFR that already meets density, lot coverage, and parking requirements. He said that Staff recommends that the PC strongly consider A -2. The Director of Development Services then indicated that Staff has prepared for each of the proposed alternatives a redline strikeout versions of the existing sections of the Code that applies to NRS so that the Commission can see what the exact language would be as proposed by Staff. Commissioner Questions Commissioner Deaton asked if A -2 could be designated to apply only to SFRs and not to multi- family structures? Mr. Whittenberg stated that this would be at the discretion of the PC. He noted that if the multi -unit complies with all of the density, parking, and lot coverage standards, and can still meet all of these standards after the addition is made, he would not be certain what the adverse impact would be in allowing this. Commissioner Shanks stated that he is familiar with at least two other situations; one in CPE and one on The Hill, where tracts that were nonconforming when they were built were later made conforming via a "blanket" ruling by the City. He asked if there might be any way of doing this for the 31 units on The Hill. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the PC could recommend that the City make a finding that these specific lots be determined to be conforming due to setbacks based upon the adoption of Ordinance 509 in 1957. He said that his only concern is that there may be other tracts in that same neighborhood with similar ordinance adopted along the way that Staff is not aware of at this point. This might make it necessary to come back and amend the Zoning Ordinance to include these exceptions. He indicated that this might not be the most productive way to handle this. He stated that if the PC is comfortable with the idea that as long as the property meets all other City standards, with the exception of setbacks, expansions to the NRS ZTA 04 -1.CC Staff Report 36 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures City Council Staff Report February 23, 2004 should be permitted. He noted that the current provision of that section of the Code only allows this variation to be 10 percent of the required setback. He commented that right now the 10 percent variation would not solve the problem for 705 Bayside Drive because 18 feet is a 1.8- inch setback variation that the Director of Development Services would be able to approve and the setback variation on this property is 2.5 feet. Public Hearing Chairperson Sharp opened the public hearing. Mr. Warren Morton stated that he had visited 15 or more of the sites listed in the Staff Report and that although some were in conformance with City Code, most of them stretched the density, parking and setback requirements impacting the neighborhood and the surrounding properties. He said that if properties do not meet the setback, parking, or density requirements, they should not be any large -scale expansion. He stated he favors A -2 with the added requirement that the 12 -foot alley setback standard is met in all cases. Mr. Morton noted that Staff should carefully review any application presented before any commitment is made to allow expansions to NRS. He said that Alternative 3 might be acceptable with the inclusion of a restriction of minimum size for additions. He stated that Staff is on the right track in attempting to come up with a single solution that everyone can live with. Mr. Rick Gordon of 705 Bayside Drive stated that his home is located in a tract that was constructed in 1957. He said that 31 home in this tract have the same model design, with 5 of these now upgraded to 2 -story dwellings. He indicated that his residence, although legal when built, is prohibited from upgrades as it is now categorized and a NRS. Mr. Gordon requested the Commission's support in making it possible to upgrade his home to match the homes that surround his. He stated that the moratorium was intended to address the parking problem in Old Town and was never intended to impact upgrades to SFRs. He noted that the moratorium has impacted at least 50 -100 homes. He stated that the focus of the moratorium up until now has been all about structural setbacks; however, in looking at Interim Ordinance' 1498 it is so broadly written that legally it encompasses all nonconformity, which would include plumbing, electrical, energy, and earthquake standards in the Uniform Building Code (UBC). He indicated that it would be a conservative estimate that well over 80 percent of all homes in Seal Beach are legal nonconforming in some way since the UBC has significantly changed in many ways since these homes were constructed. He commented that it would be an interesting exercise to look at all current construction being done in the City today to see if building permits were issued considering the broad application of Interim Ordinance 1498. Mr. Gordon stated that a non - capricious application of this ordinance would bring many of the remodels currently underway to an immediate halt. He noted that he and his wife saw the upgrades performed on other homes identical to theirs and used those as a guide for the plans for their home, and they simply wish to provide more living space for their family. He indicated that when he initially approached the Depaitinent of Development Services Staff did not realize that tract homes on The Hill had been constructed with setbacks like the one on his home. He said that when he suggested that a dozen or so homes had the same situation, he was met with disbelief He stated he personally found 31 such homes and he only covered half of The Hill area. He noted that this does not consider the ZTA 04 -1.CC Staff Report 37 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures City Council Staff Report February 23, 2004 between two homes this leaves very little room to work. She recommended approving Alternative 1 and if owners of legal nonconforming lots wish to expand, they should be required to bring the property up to Code. She stated that she believes that the standards for Old Town should be different from those for CPE or The Hill. There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Sharp closed the public hearing. In response to some of the public comments, Mr. Whittenberg stated that Interim Ordinance deals only with expansions of living area to nonconforming structures. It does not prohibit anyone from upgrading the plumbing or electrical systems or any internal remodel that does not involve expanding the living area. He noted that there is a wide range of nonconformities in this town on residential properties because there is housing that was built prior to the establishment of a Zoning Ordinance and that housing still exists. He said that newer homes and homes on The Hill and CPE were developed under Zoning Ordinance provisions, but after the City approved a map for subdivision, they subsequently came back in some cases and made exceptions for certain models of homes. The Director of Development Services stated that he agreed with several of the comments from the public and generally Old Town multi - family properties are a different classification of issues to deal with as opposed to a SFR. He said that Staff would still suggest that the PC could clarify the language to the A -2 proposal to indicate that it only applies to properties developed with SFRs and make this recommendation to CC. He indicated that the PC could also consider amending the 10 percent variation or stipulate that all approvals for expansions to NRS must be subject to a MPR or CUP review before the PC. He clarified that a MPR is a Consent Calendar item on the PC Agenda and not subject to a public hearing. If no one speaks against the application and the PC does not remove it from the agenda for discussion, it is approved as a routine matter subject to conditions of approval in the Staff Report. With this type of an application notice is circulated to every property owner and occupant within a 100 - foot radius of the property. Under the CUP process a 300 -foot notice is provided and the application is subject to a public hearing and notice is published in the newspaper. He stated that the City has used the CUP process to consider additions to NRS since 1974. He said that between 1974 and the present the process has been modified as to what would be allowed for consideration. He commented that this provides the PC a great deal of flexibility as requests are considered. He noted that the PC may wish to consider separate standards for SFRs and multi- family properties in Old Town. Commissioner Comments Commissioner Deaton asked whether it would be practical to separate Old Town on this issue from the rest of the City. She said if the PC recommends A -2, this still would not solve the problem for those properties on The Hill. Mr. Whittenberg stated that as the language for A -2 currently exists, it would not solve this problem unless residents apply for a Variance (VAR). He said that the problem with the VAR is that the PC must make a determination that there are unique circumstances to that property that do no generally apply to other properties in the area, and so far it has been determined that there are 31 other properties on The Hill with the same situation making this a difficult finding. He said that if these are issues the PC wishes to address, Staff can review the language for A -2 and change the percentage allowable. Commissioner ZTA 04-1 CC Staff Report 40 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures City Council Staff Report February 23, 2004 Deaton said that she would not wish to do this for Old Town. Mr. Whittenberg stated that Staff could return with suggestions for the language. Commissioner Deaton asked if the MPR could be made a public hearing item. She said philosophically she disagrees with using the MPR for residential because there is nothing that can be taken away as when a CUP granted to a business can be rescinded. She said that the MPR would be a better process to use if it can be a public hearing item with the 300 -foot notice. Mr. Whittenberg stated that as a part of the PC's recommendation to CC they could request that the MPRs not be Consent Calendar items and appear under Scheduled Matters. Commissioner Deaton stated that she did not believe that all MPR issues need to go to public hearing, but the most important thing is that the neighbors know what is going on. Mr. Whittenberg noted that for SFRs if the issue is setbacks, the neighbors have probably lived with for several years, and the addition would have to meet the new setback standards. Commissioner Deaton stated that A -2 does take care of. Old Town, but does not address the problem on The Hill. Mr. Whittenberg stated that nothing will happen until CC adopts an ordinance that changes something and this process could be a long one. He noted that if the PC were to make a recommendation to CC tonight, it would probably be at least 3 -3.5 months of public hearings and ordinance adoption before Staff can begin processing applications. He said that if the PC also wishes to address the problem on The Hill Staff could return at the next meeting with proposed language to help do this. Commissioner Shanks asked if the 10 percent variation were increased to 15 percent, this should take care of the problem. Mr. Whittenberg stated that this would solve the problem for the properties at 705 Bayside Drive, but if this change were to be limited to SFRs this would not solve the problem at 236 — 5 Street, which is a duplex. He suggested that Staff confer with the City Attorney to determine whether making an exception of Old Town would be feasible. He noted that this issue has always been a controversial one, particularly in a community with a large number of NRS. Commissioner Deaton referred to Page 47 of the Staff Report, Section 1, Item 3 and asked if items (c) and (d) were removed and this were revised to state that Minor Plan Review process would be necessary, would this take care of the problem on The Hill. Mr. Whittenberg clarified that what Commissioner Deaton is saying is that the MPR process would be used whenever there are inadequate setbacks. Mr. Abbe interjected that this would completely eliminate the Director of Development Services using his discretion to approve these, so if someone came in with a 1 percent variation, this would still have to come before the PC. Mr. Whittenberg stated that would not necessarily solve the problem, as anyone with nonconforming property due to a setback issue would still have to come before the PC to determine whether or not the request for an addition will be approved. Chairperson Sharp recommended that this item be continued to the next meeting to allow time for Staff to meet with the City Attorney to review the language and return to the next meeting with the proposed language. Mr. Whittenberg clarified that PC is directing Staff to provide language that would allow for consideration of expansions only to single- family residence developments whether in Old Town, The Hill, College Park East, College Park West, or Surfside only if it is a setback issue and this would be considered . under a Minor Plan Review process as a Scheduled Matter on the Planning Commission Agenda setting no limitations on the setback variation. Mr. Abbe inquired whether the 3 -foot minimum side yard setback requirement is to be maintained. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the only time an issue has arisen regarding this was with some of the very old homes that have a 2 -foot side yard setback. He said that these properties must still apply for a Variance. Commissioner Deaton stated that she would like the 3 feet setback to remain. She then verified that under Section 1, ZTA 04 -1.CC Staff Report 41 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures City Council Staff Report February 23, 2004 No. 3, items (a) and (b) be retained and items (c) and (d) be removed and the language be revised to include single- family homes only and not multi - family properties and that these expansions are to be subject to the Minor Plan Review process under Scheduled Matters in the Planning Commission Agenda. Chairperson Sharp re- opened the public hearing. Mr. Whittenberg noted that the public hearing would not be re- noticed. He said that a press release would be provided to the Sun Newspaper and they can run it at their discretion. MOTION by Deaton; SECOND by Shanks to continue Zone Text Amendment 04 -1 to the next scheduled meeting of February 4, 2004, and direct Staff to provide revised proposed language for Alternative 2 as discussed. MOTION CARRIED: 5 — 0 AYES: Sharp, Deaton, Eagar, Ladner, and Shanks NOES: None ABSENT: None" * * * * ZTA 04 -1.CC Staff Report 42 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures City Council Staff Report February 23, 2004 ATTACHMENT 3 -C PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE EXCERPT - DECEMBER 3, 2003 ZTA 04 -1.CC Staff Report 43 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconfonning Residential Structures City Council Staff Report February 23, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE EXCERPT - DECEMBER 3, 2003 • "STUDY SESSION 6. STUDY SESSION — Expansion and Additions to Legal Non - Conforming Residential Structures Mr. Whittenberg stated that this issue came about in 2002 as a result of an application for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a property on Electric Avenue. He explained that the Planning Commission (PC) had approved that request, which was later appealed to the City Council, who ultimately denied the request and directed the PC to consider the issue of expansions to nonconforming uses. He indicated that a study session was conducted in February 2003 where the PC recommended that Staff return with additional information at another study session to be held in March 2003. He noted that the PC has been provided with copies of the minute excerpts from these study sessions along with the previous Staff Reports providing the history of how the expansion of nonconforming use section of the Code_ has evolved during the period from 1974 to 2002. He stated that during this period of time there have been nine different amendments to the Code relating to nonconforming uses, the types of additions and expansions allowed, and the process changing over time for gaining approval of this type of expansion. He indicated that City Council (CC) had ultimately adopted an Interim Ordinance, which began a 45 -day moratorium on the acceptance of applications for additions or expansions to nonconforming structures. He said that prior to the expiration of this moratorium CC conducted another public hearing and extended the moratorium for a period of 10 months and 15 days, the maximum time that it could be extended under the provisions of State law. Mr. Whittenberg noted that the current moratorium is due to expire on March 12, 2004. He said that unless the City takes some kind of action to amend the Code prior to March 12, 2004, the old provisions of the Code would again take effect allowing the acceptance of applications for expansions to nonconforming uses. He continued by stating that in July 2003 an individual requested that CC reconsider the issue of a total moratorium on expansions for cases where the property met certain conditions as far as parking and density, but did not meet a setback or lot coverage requirement. CC had responded that they did not choose to consider this until the PC and CC could again review the entire process. The Director of Development Services clarified that what the moratorium does is state that any residential property that is nonconforming, regardless of what the nonconformity may be, cannot submit a request for an addition to the living space of the existing structure; however other minor improvements would be allowed. He indicated that Staff has subsequently met with several local residents submitting plans for an expansion who were not aware that the moratorium existed. He stated that at the request of two separate residents, copies of their plans for expansions have been provided to the PC to give the PC an idea of the types of projects residents are attempting to do. He explained that the plans are for a property at 236 Fifth Street, which is an existing 2 -unit property with a 4 -car garage with a ZTA 04 -1.CC Staff Report 44 • Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures City Council Staff Report February 23, 2004 lot size that meets the density and parking requirements, but is nonconforming due to a side yard setback for one -third of one side wall of the house. Everything else meets current Code requirements. The applicant is, therefore, requesting that he be able to construct the rest of the home to meet the setback requirement. Mr. Whittenberg noted that the moratorium as it currently exists states that this cannot be done. He then explained that the second set of plans are for a two -unit property at 222 Seventeenth Street that is nonconforming due to density, parking, and the alley setback for the garage. He said that the property owner wishes to add a second story to the front single- family residence (SFR) (a detached, small 2- bedroom, one -bath house), and to maintain the existing rear unit above the garage as it currently exists. He indicated that under the previous procedures in place prior to implementation of the moratorium, this type of request would have required a CUP. He said that the reason these cases are presented tonight is to give the PC an idea of what residents are attempting to do on their properties. He stated that the Minor Plan Review (MPR) and the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) were formerly used for review of applications for modifications to nonconforming uses. He also noted that there has always been a provision in the Code that states that if the only nonconformity on a property is a setback, and the property meets all other Code requirements, the Director of Development Services then has the authority to approve this type of project without it having to come before the PC. He stated that in March 2003 PC had made the recommendation to CC that they eliminate the provision allowing expansions or additions to any legal nonconforming structure within the City. He noted that this is generally the position that 80% of the cities in California have taken. Mr. Whittenberg continued by stating that Staff is recommending that the PC receive comments from the public on this issue tonight and authorize Staff to schedule a future public hearing for a Zone Text Amendment (ZTA) to change the Code. He stated that this would allow the public to comment and respond to the three alternatives as listed beginning on Page 19 of the Staff Report. He noted that the first recommended alternative would be to consider elimination of the provisions for expansions of nonconforming residential structures, but continue to allow for expansions of structures that are nonconforming due only to setback or height requirements with all new construction being built to conform to current City Code. He explained that the Code would continue to allow for minor additions or improvements of nonhabitable spaces to existing nonconforming structures. The Director of Development Services referred to Alternative 2 beginning on Page 22, which proposes that expansions be allowed as set forth in Section 28- 2407.A.1 through 28- 2407.A.2. This would maintain the current policies of the City regarding "Minor Structural Alterations and Improvements," but would exempt adding any new livable space. Mr. Whittenberg then presented the proposal for Sections 28- 2407.A.3 which would require a CUP for expansions greater in size than permitted by Section 28-2407.A.2 that do not provide a minimum of 1.5 off - street parking spaces per unit on the property and set a maximum size on an addition that could be requested by an applicant. A final alternative as presented for Section and 28- 2407.A.4 would require a CUP for expansions greater in size than permitted by Section 28- 2407.A.2 that do provide a minimum of 1.5 off - street parking spaces per unit on the property and set no maximum size on an addition that could be requested by an applicant. Mr. Whittenberg noted that these alternatives were very similar to what was discussed at the March 5, 2003 study session when the ZTA 04-1 CC Staff Report 45 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconfonning Residential Structures City Council Staff Report February 23, 2004 PC proposed giving property owners the incentive for increasing parking space by allowing them to build a larger addition. Alternative 3, as presented on Page 25 recommends no change to the existing Code; however, the Director of Development Services noted that based upon previous discussions by the PC and CC, this would not appear to be a viable alternative, but should still be taken under consideration. Commissioner Deaton stated that there is no alternative that reflects the determination of the PC at its last study session, which was basically to permit no additions. Mr. Whittenberg noted that this appears in Alternative 1 with the exception of the issue of an addition only if it is nonconforming due to setbacks. Commissioner Deaton stated that a separate Alternative 4 should be included to state the recommendation that PC had made to CC so that everything would be "on the table." Commissioner Shanks cited an example that if the required side -yard setback is 3 feet 9 inches, could the property owner then apply for a Variance (VAR) or would City Code clearly stipulate that if this setback requirement were not met, there would be no allowances made for a VAR or CUP? Mr. Whittenberg stated that if the Ordinance were to state that there would be no exception to this requirement, the property owner could still apply for a VAR; however, Staff would strongly urge the property owner to refrain from applying for a VAR, as Staff would recommend denial of the request to both the PC and CC. He emphasized that an individual could not be prohibited from asking for a Variance from a Section of the Code, but the only reason a VAR could be granted is if there are unusual circumstances on a particular property that do no generally exist throughout the rest of the community. He said that for nonconforming situations, particularly in Old Town, this would be a very difficult finding to make. Commissioner Deaton asked if there were any other means of requesting a change other than a Variance? Mr. Whittenberg responded that for a nonconforming lot this would be the only vehicle for doing this. Chairperson Sharp requested that the Planning Commission take a short recess before continuing with the Public Comment portion of the Study Session. The PC recessed at 8:45 p.m. The PC reconvened at 8:55 p.m. Mr. Whittenberg noted that the PC should focus on the fact that the Interim Ordinance currently in place will expire on March 12, 2004, and if the City does not formally go through the Zone Text Amendment (ZTA) process to change the provisions of the Code, the old provisions will automatically go back into effect. He said that he believes State law does allow for an additional one -year extension, which CC could consider, should the ZTA process not be completed by March 12, 2004. Pubic Comments Chairperson Sharp opened the public comment period. ZTA 04-1 CC Staff Report 46 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures City Council Staff Report February 23, 2004 Mr. Steve Cole stated that he lives in the home at 222 - 17 Street for which plans were presented to the PC tonight as an example of a nonconfoiniing use. He said he has lived in Seal B \beach for 33 years and purchased his present home 27 years ago and has since lived in it for most of that time. He stated that his home is an 850 square foot, 2- bedroom home and is quite small, so he would like to reconfigure the property by adding a second floor where the new two bedrooms would be located with the first floor being converted to create a dining room and a study. He noted that this would not create an increase in density on the property. He said that he could make one -half of the garage a tandem parking unit to provide for off - street parking. Mr. Cole indicated that it was frustrating to see other property owners who are allowed to complete projects similar to the one he is proposing without having to provide the required parking, yet he has not been able to do so. He said that he has done extensive remodeling on the inside of the home and would like to further improve it by adding the second story. He stated that this beach community does represent a wide range of people and their desires of what they would like to do with their property, and they should not have rigid rules that prevents this. He encouraged consideration of this type of case when deciding upon the alternatives for nonconforming uses. Commissioner Deaton asked what causes Mr. Cole's property to be nonconfoliuing. Mr. Cole stated that there is a rental over the garage and there are only 2 off - street parking spaces making his property nonconforming, due to density and parking. Mr. Warren Morton stated that what Staff has prepared is good. He said that additions to nonconforming properties should not be allowed if they do not conform to setbacks, height restrictions, and parking, and access to garages must be from alleys and not from the street. He stated that if the property does meet setback, height, and parking requirements they should be allowed to make some improvements and additions. He commented that the size of the 4 -car garage in the plans for 236 Fifth Street would not allow for the 3 foot 9 inch side yard setbacks on either side. Mr. Whittenberg clarified that this would be a 3 -car garage with one tandem space at the front of the garage. Ms. Mitzi Morton stated that what the PC needs to look at is what the City will look like 10 years from now. She said that when the City downzoned to single - family residences, homeowners had anticipated that the lots would have yards with front and rear yard setbacks, but as land became more valuable developers convinced homeowners to fill up their lots with huge two -story homes. She stated that major expansions to legal nonconforming uses should not be allowed. She noted that if owners of nonconforming lots wish to have more room they should give up the second unit on their property. She cautioned that if things continue there would be a high building density of these huge two -story homes, which block out the light from the sun. Ms. Morton commented that the current Minor Plan Review (MPR) process allows for too great an expansion. There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Sharp closed the public comment period. Mr. Whittenberg noted that written statements from Geraldine West and Roger West were received with the request that they be entered into the record. ZTA 04 -1.CC Staff Report 47 Zoning Text A,nendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconfonning Residential Structures City Council Staff Report February 23, 2004 The Director of Development Services then stated that Staff is recommending that the PC authorize Staff to schedule a public hearing for a Zone Text Amendment (ZTA) with formal language prepared for each of the alternatives presented in the Staff Report and Alternative 4 as proposed by Commissioner Deaton. He suggested scheduling the public hearing for January 7 or January 21, 2004. Commissioner Deaton asked if the public hearing were scheduled for January 21, 2004 would CC be able to complete its public hearing before the March 12, 2004 expiration date. Mr. Whittenberg stated he was not certain, but CC has the option to extend the ordinance for another year. Commissioner Deaton expressed her desire to see the issue resolved before the March 12 expiration date, rather than extending the hearing for another year making it necessary that members of the public come out once again to express their concerns on this issue. Mr. Whittenberg stated that it is the intent of the City that should resolution of this issue go beyond the March 12 deadline, CC could extend the ordinance to keep it in place only while a final determination is made. Commissioner Deaton thanked the members of the public present tonight and asked that they continue to appear at future public hearings on this issue until it is resolved. MOTION by Deaton; SECOND by Shanks to authorize Staff to schedule a public hearing for a Zone Text Amendment to consider alternatives to modify City Code regarding additions or expansions to legal nonconforming structures. MOTION CARRIED: 4 — 0 —1 AYES: Sharp, Deaton, Ladner, and Shanks NOES: None ABSENT: Eagar Mr. Whittenberg reported that because this is a citywide issue, the public hearing notices would be noticed in the Sun Newspaper only, with no individual mailings being sent out." * * * * ZTA 04 -1.CC Staff Report 48 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures City Council Staff Report February 23, 2004 many homes with side entry garages with less than the required setback of 10 feet. He estimated that the there could possible be well over 100 legal nonconforming homes on The Hill due to setbacks. He cited the following reasons for allowing upgrades to legal nonconforming residences: 1. Even City Staff states "a complete ban on expansions would prohibit many existing single- family residences that are impacted only due to nonconforming setbacks, and that comply with all parking, density, and lot coverage requirements, from ever being able to add additional living space, even when the additional living space is required to comply with current development standards of the City." 2. Real estate agents would be compelled to disclose by law the inability of numerous structures within the City that do not have the option of being remodeled or upgraded. This would impact housing values and may involve exposure to future litigation since housing have been sold during the term of Interim Ordinance 1498 and this disclosure was not made. 3. The inability to upgrade numerous properties in Seal Beach would significantly and negatively impact the growth of property tax revenue for the City. Denial of his upgrade that would have increased his property by approximately $2,500, and over a 10 -year period would result in a revenue loss to the City of $25,000. Multiplied by 100 -200 homeowners can result in a noteworthy loss of revenue. Mr. Gordon recommended approval of A -2 but change the 10 percent allowance for variation from the setback requirement to a 15 percent allowance. He said that either this should be done or allow homeowners to use the MPR review process of any setbacks exceeding the 10 percent variation. He asked how the use of 10 percent for the variation was determined? He noted that he liked Commissioner Shanks' suggestion that tracts that were nonconforming when built now be made conforming via a "blanket" ruling by the City. He cautioned that just as the City had found his home to be nonconforming after it had been determined to be legal and conforming when constructed, this same change in standards could affect anyone's home in the future. He asked that parking problems in Old Town not be allowed to affect the less congested areas of town. Mr. Caviola stated that he was faced with the issue of expansion in converting a duplex into a SFR. He said that over the years people have purchased properties in town and then try to expand them to 2,000 square feet, which is not permitted by the Code and have used the Conditional Use Permit process to circumvent the Code. He stated that this is a misuse of the system. He said that one standard rule must apply. He cited the example of a neighbor who has added two bedrooms to the interior of the home and there are only 4 parking spaces on the property. He then noted that his neighbor to the right of Mr. Caviola's property has an older home that has no rear yard setback and the home sits right on the back alley line. He stated that other owners of NRS should not be allowed to continue to add square feet when he is required to live by the Code. He said the CUP should be eliminated from the Zoning process and residents should apply for a Variance. He noted that Old Town is different from The Hill. He said he has ZTA 04 -1.CC Staff Report 38 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures City Council Staff Report February 23, 2004 no concerns about SFRs but is concerned about people who own multiple unit structures without adequate parking and who are then allowed to expand these structures. He stated he is in favor of banning all expansions to NRS in Old Town and these homes must be brought up to Code. He noted that generally many people that buy property in town are attempting to turn a profit. David Rosenman stated that the lack of standard setbacks between homes in Old Town creates a serious fire hazard. He suggested using the Variance process to address unique situations. He cautioned that buyers must do their homework before making the purchase of a home in order to avoid these types of problems. He said that although he sympathized with particular circumstances, not taking the time to fully investigate the history of a property before making a purchase is not reason enough to put the rest of the City at risk. For the record, Mr. Roger West read a letter from his wife stating her opposition to the CUP process for any additions or expansion to NRS. (Mrs. West's letter is on file for inspection in the Planning Department.) Mr. West added that many residents whose properties adhere to the Code requirements resent new buyers coming into town and wanting to be the exceptions from City Standards, particularly when once granted, these modifications to other properties ultimately affect the property values of those who have consistently abided by City standards. Mr. Steve Cole, owner of the property at 222 — 17 Street, stated that he purchased this property in 1976. He said that there are many multiple units on both sides of the street, but the changes he wishes to make to his property would not affect the density. He said that he has proposed various alternative floor plans, on of which would add a third parking space. He said he was not aware of where the alley setback requirement originated but he is able to park off the alley and not impede traffic. He stated that there is no question that some of the expectations presented by homeowners would be difficult to justify given the massive expansions some of them are doing. Mr. Cole stated that he wishes to convert a 2- bedroom house into a 2- bedroom house, but with some additional area. He said his neighborhood would not be adversely impacted by this improvement. He noted that the differences created by the odd -sized lots and some other characteristics of the town should be provided for by the ability to make exceptions to the Code. He stated the City would be doing a disservice in attempting to make everything conform to a rigid pattern. He encouraged adoption of an ordinance that would allow for some "intelligent interpretation" of individual requirements. He emphasized that not everyone has the same opinion on this matter. Ms. Mitzi Morton observed that throughout the past year as this issue has been addressed in multiple public hearings, only one owner of a nonconforming property has come forward. She noted that all the other people in town with nonconforming properties appear not to care what the City does. She stated that most cities do no allow legal nonconforming properties to make expansions and there should be no further expansions allowed within residential zones. She suggested that if expansions are to be allowed, there should be a maximum allowable square footage. She said that any request for an expansion should have to come before the PC, and if the property does not conform to the setback standards, then expansion should not be allowed at all as it would not be fair to neighboring homes. She said that the 5 -foot side yard setbacks in Old Town make it difficult when work has to be done on your home, as after a fence goes in ZTA 04 -1.CC Staff Report 39 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures City Council Staff Report February 23, 2004 ATTACHMENT 3 - D CITY COUNCIL MINUTE EXCERPT - JULY 14, 2003 ZTA 04 -1.CC Staff Report 49 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures City Council Staff Report February 23, 2004 CITY COUNCIL MINUTE EXCERPT- - JULY 14, 2003 "ITEM "X" - LEGAL NON - CONFORMING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES - LIMITED EXCEPTION - EXPANSION / ADDITION PROHIBITION - PROPOSED ORDINANCE The Director of Development Services noted that this item is for Council consideration, explained that since the time the Council adopted the interim ordinance prohibiting the processing of applications for additions and expansions of nonconforming uses there have been persons approach the City that have an existing nonconforming property with three units yet the lot is only large enough for two units and they are willing to meet all of the City's development standards including the required off - street parking as part of a proposal to add some floor area to the main dwelling on the property. He noted that staff was uncertain if Council would want to consider such an exception for this type of a project and go through the Planning Commission public hearing process for a Conditional Use Permit or Minor Plan Review at which time a decision would be made, if Council chooses to not adopt the proposed ordinance these persons would be on hold pending whatever decisions of the City Council are forthcoming with regard to revised regulations. Councilman Larson noted that when the ordinance was adopted it was understood that everything would be stopped, that was the purpose, and caution was raised that exceptions would be sought, this would be an exception before a final ordinance is considered and adopted, his feeling is that the prohibition should remain in place, that is what the Planning Commission recommended. Councilman Antos posed a scenario that if a person has a project and even though there is a moratorium which does not allow additions to nonconforming buildings through the Conditional Use Permit process, the individual could still make application to the Planning Commission through a Variance or other process and consider same under public hearing and with findings that it was not a grant of special privilege. The Director responded that he did not believe that the Variance process could be used to circumvent the provisions of the ordinance that is in place, at present the Code states that for additions and expansions for nonconforming uses it must go through either a Conditional Use Permit or Minor Plan Review process and that has been placed on hold, his belief would be that the Variance process could not be utilized to get around the interim ordinance. Councilman Antos inquired how long it will be before staff develops a final set of recommendations to be considered by the Planning Commission as to how to handle the nonconforming uses. The Director responded that it is anticipated that this issue with several options will be before the Commission by late August and to Council possibly by late September, a time frame of two to three months. Councilman Doane moved to deem that it is not appropriate to provide for such an exception and to receive and file the staff report. Councilman Larson seconded the motion. AYES: Antos, Campbell, Doane, Larson, Yost NOES: None Motion carried" * * * * ZTA 04 -1.CC Staff Report 50 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures City Council Staff Report February 23, 2004 ATTACHMENT 3 - E CITY COUNCIL MINUTE EXCERPT - APRIL 14, 2003 ZTA 04 -1.CC Staff Report 51 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures City Council Staff Report Februmv 23, 2004 CITY COUNCIL MINUTE EXCERPT - APRIL 14, 2003 "ORDINANCE NUMBER 1498 - LEGAL NONCONFORMING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES - ELIMINATION OF EXPANSIONS OR ADDITIONS The City Manager pointed out that this item is accompanied by an urgency ordinance that requires a four -fifths Council vote to approve. The Director of Development Services presented the staff report, explained that this item comes to the Council on recommendation from the Planning Commission and is part of the outgrowth of issues that were on appeal of a property on Electric Avenue with regard to expansions to a nonconforming residential structure, those issues were referred back to the Planning Commission for study sessions, the Commission received public input at their meeting of March 5th, at the conclusion of the study session and hearing public comments the Commission recommended on a five to zero vote that the Council consider amending the Code to no longer allow additions and expansions of existing legal nonconforming residential structures. The Director said if the Council agrees with that recommendation and instructs staff to prepare the necessary zone text amendment it is also suggested that the Council consider adoption of the interim ordinance, that will preclude people from trying to submit applications under the current provisions of the Code and the City trying to deal with how to process such applications during the period that staff will be preparing amendments to no longer allow that type of application. He noted too that the Ordinance places a forty -five day limitation on processing applications, during that time period staff will bring a report back to the Council under public hearing to extend the Ordinance if the amendments can not be prepared within the initial time period, and confirmed that it is known that the amendments can not be accomplished within the forty -five day time frame. Councilman Doane commended the Planning Commission, and moved to accept the Commission recommendation and adoption of Ordinance Number 1498 entitled "AN INTERIM ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH ENACTED PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65858 PROHIBITING MINOR OR MAJOR STRUCTURAL ALTERATIONS, ENLARGEMENTS AND EXPANSIONS TO CERTAIN NONCONFORMING RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS AND USES DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE CITY'S REVIEW AND ADOPTION OF RELEVANT PERMANENT ZONING REGULATIONS AND DECLARING THE URGENCY THEREOF." Councilman Antos seconded the motion. By unanimous consent, full reading of Ordinance Number 1498 was waived. Councilmember Campbell inquired if someone wanted to remodel a bathroom does this mean they could not. The Director explained that the Interim Ordinance will not allow anyone to expand an area of a room in their legal nonconforming structure, yet they can remodel within the confines of the existing perimeter walls but they could not increase the floor area of the structure. With reference to a one story cottage type home, Councilmember Campbell asked if they could ZTA 04 -1.CC Staff Report 52 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconfonning Residential Structures City Council Staff Report February 23, 2004 add a second story or enlarge a porch area. The Director responded that they could enlarge the porch as it is not habitable living space, however any addition of a living area, if the structure is nonconforming for density, setback, parking, or whatever the situation may be, would not be allowed to be considered by the City for legal nonconforming properties, if a residential property meets all of the development standards for the zone area that it is in an addition would be allowed, this Ordinance only applies to a legal nonconforming property, a great majority of applications that the City deals with are existing two unit or larger developments in the Old Town area. Councilmember Campbell asked if the residents want this change, to that Councilman Antos responded that they do. Mayor Larson said it is quite likely that there will be people questioning this action, they will have an opportunity to voice their opinions at the time of public hearings, the proposed Ordinance merely keeps things status quo until the Code amendments are prepared. The City Attorney explained that the Urgency Ordinance is for a period of forty -five days, in accordance with Section 3 thereof there will be a public hearing on this matter to extend the time period, the actual date will be May 12, 2003, at that time there will be an opportunity for public input. Councilman Yost inquired as to the requirements to enact an urgency ordinance. The City Attorney directed attention to Section 1 of the draft Ordinance, explained that the Council will need to make those findings, the key findings under the Government Code are identified under Section 5, basically a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, and welfare presented by minor or major structural alterations, etc., the Section goes further to state that approval of such expansions, minor plan reviews, or conditional use permits will result in a threat to the public welfare, those are the key findings. Mayor Larson said from his experience when people hear of this being proposed and should there not be an urgency ordinance there would be innumerable applications submitted, with the ordinance it will maintain the normal process pending adoption of new regulations. Councilman Yost offered that he has a problem with people expanding legal nonconforming residences, especially those that are legal nonconforming due to parking which increases the density of the area. AYES: Antos, Campbell, Doane, Larson, Yost NOES: None Motion carried" * * * * ZTA 04 -1.CC Staff Report 53 Zoning Text Amendment 04-1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures City Council Staff Report February 23, 2004 • ATTACHMENT 3 -F PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE EXCERPT - MARCH 5, 2003 ZTA 04 -1.CC Staff Report 54 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures City Council Staff Report February 23, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE EXCERPT - MARCH 5, 2003 "SCHEDULED MATTERS 6. STUDY SESSION: Addition and Expansion Standards for Non - Conforming Residential Uses. Staff Report Mr. Whittenberg stated that because this is a study session item, there would be no recommendations made by Staff. He said that an additional Staff Report was prepared based upon direction given to Staff at the PC meeting of February 5, 2003. He noted that public comment or questions could be received and at the end of the study session the PC could make a determination or direct Staff as to how they wish to proceed. He then provided some background information and explained that the main purpose was to review current standards for individuals wanting to expand livable space at an existing legal nonconforming structure. He noted that the City has a two -tier process for expansions to one- and two -unit nonconforming residential projects that under a Minor Plan Review (MPR) process allows additions up to a certain amount of square feet, and anything over that square footage requires a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). He said that there are specific Ordinance requirements in those sections of the Code that as part of reviewing these expansions requires the PC to make certain findings as to whether or not the project is consistent with the General Plan (GP). He stated that separate criteria with different size limitations exist for 3 -unit and larger projects. The Director of Development Services noted that at the last study session the PC asked Staff to look into the second step process for the CUP to attempt to develop additional criteria that would encourage people to increase the number of parking spaces on their properties that are currently substandard for parking. He stated that the supplemental Staff Report outlines the 2 -step process for the CUP that, would place a size limitation on the square footage allowable if a multi - family project does not provide at least 1.5 parking spaces per unit. He said that currently the only criterion the City has regarding parking spaces is that if the project is to be over a certain amount of square feet, it is subject to the CUP process. He stated that Staff recommends that if 1.5 parking spaces are not provided, the CUP still be required along with another size cap on the type of development to be considered. Commissioner Questions Commissioner Deaton stated that there are diverse nonconforming issues and she confirmed that if a property owner wished to go from 1 parking space per unit to 1.5 spaces, then under the CUP process they could add as many square feet as they want. Mr. Whittenberg stated that if they can provide 1.5 spaces or more per unit, they could ask for whatever they wanted and it would be up ZTA 04 -1.CC Staff Report 55 Zoning Text .Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures City Council Staff Report February 23, 2004 to the PC to determine what would be appropriate. Commissioner Deaton then clarified that if the property owner chose not to add more parking, then a cap of 216 square feet per unit up to the maximum of 600 square feet would apply, and for SFRs and duplexes the cap would be 432 per unit and 864 square feet per property Public Comment Period Chairperson Hood opened the public comment period. Ms. Jerri West shared the following recommendations for potential amendments to Section 28- 2407: 1. Eliminate the need for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for residential nonconforming property additions. 2. Discard any new idea for 1.5 off street parking spaces per unit under any conditions or circumstances. Keep the current requirement of 2 spaces per unit. 3. Keep the Code as is with respect to duplexes and single- family residence additions. 4. If 3 or more units allow no additions to these if they are on a 25 or 30 -foot lot unless they can meet the 2 -space per unit parking requirement. 5. Allow no expansion to 5 or more units unless parking requirements of 2 parking spaces per unit are provided. Ms. West ended by stating that to incorporate these requirements would prevent having to take up time testifying before the PC and having to pay fees to appeal decisions made by the PC. Mr. Roger West stated that this study session was unnecessary and creates unnecessary expense. He said that requiring the CUP process for expansions or additions to nonconforming residential property wastes taxpayers' money. He stated that countless hours and money are wasted the Planning Department in attempting to help an opportunist who buys into Seal Beach and wants to exploit it for profit. He noted that he estimates that the 8 -page report prepared for this meeting cost the City $2,000 per page. He said this is nonsense in light of the City's current financial situation. He said it would be best to stop squandering the City's money by eliminating the need to undergo the CUP process for additions to nonconforming structures. Mr. Jim Caviola stated that he has lived in Seal Beach for 24 years and it bothers him that within the last 5 years zoning in the City is being changed so frequently. He said that property owners must be able to rely on their property rights and he is concerned that zoning is being "played with." He noted that this is because of the property values. He said that within 200 feet of his property there are 5 illegal units. Mr. Caviola noted that this creates an overtaxing of electrical systems and sewer systems. He said that usually the landlords don't even live in this community and he is tired of spending time protecting his property. He stated that use of the CUP process circumvents his rights as a property owner. He commented that CUPs are for someone wanting to have a band in a restaurant, but the PC is using CUPs to allow permanent structures on nonconforming buildings that will never meet Code requirements. He said that when he built both of his homes, they had to be engineered and meet all safety codes. He noted that none of the homes in his neighborhood meet these standards. He said he is tired of the City changing the rules and he is asking that the CUP process be eliminated altogether. He stated there is no reason ZTA 04 -1.CC Staff Report 56 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures City Council Staff Report February 23, 2004 to make an addition to a nonconforming building and if they wish to do so, the building should be brought up to Code. Mr. Chi Kredell stated that ever since the 1980s when City Council approved converting 25 -foot lots from duplexes to SFRs the Code has been watered down. He asked why the Commissioners feel that they know more than the people who live in Old Town, when they do not have the same type of climate. He stated that the CUP does not benefit anyone and all it does is add density. He noted that more and more he hears about requests to exceed the height limit by greater heights. He asked why Staff keeps nibbling at the development standards? He said that residents of Old Town do not want more density and he recommended eliminating CUPs and that no Variances be granted without proof of hardship. Ms. Joyce Parque stated that every time a new law is made it creates more paperwork and more expense. She said Staff needs to generate paperwork in order to keep their jobs. She stated that if the guidelines are made very simple then Staff could not use a CUP or Variance. She commented that regarding parking the City is already in trouble with the California Coastal Commission (CCC) because of the things it has not done properly. Ms. Parque stated that the City has not complied with the people's desire to keep the town low density. She said that 2 parking spaces per unit should be required for any additions or expansions Mr. Chi Kredell stated that when construction of one SFR on 25-foot lots was approved, Staff said that no one would build one SFR on these lots. He noted that the first year after approval 18 SFRs were constructed on 25 -foot lots. He said that many developers reported that more money was made on SFRs than on duplexes. He stated that he believes this is still the case. He said SFRs also add more to the character of the City. Mr. Warren Morton recommended prohibiting all expansions to nonconforming structures within the City. There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Hood closed the public hearing. Commissioner Comments Chairperson Hood reviewed the recommended options as listed on Page 5 -8 of the Supplemental Staff Report dated March 5, 2003. Commissioner Deaton stated that all of the testimony recommends elimination of the CUP process altogether. She said that when she served as a Planning Commissioner for Fountain Valley the CUP was designed as something that could be taken away if the specific conditions were not met. She stated that she has never understood how a CUP could be issued to a permanent structure when there is nothing that can be taken away later. She said that she is bothered by the idea of not allowing any work to be done to nonconforming units. She noted that renovation inside of these buildings should continue to be allowed. She asked if the PC is looking at illegal nonconforming and /or legal nonconforming structures and she requested clarification on what the difference is between these definitions. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the ZTA 04 -1.CC Staff Report 57 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures City Council Staff Report February 23, 2004 sections of the Code refer to legal nonconforming structures, as structures that were built with building permits and when they were built met whatever the development standards were at that time. He said that subsequent changes to City standards during the 1980s related to density, setbacks, parking, etc., caused these structures to be classified as legal nonconforming uses. He explained that illegal nonconforming uses are those that were built without applying for building permits from the City and violations of this kind are usually addressed through the Code Enforcement process. He said that the process being discussed tonight does not apply to anyone that has illegally converted a structure. He explained that the CUP process for expansions to nonconforming residential structures has been in place in Seal Beach since 1974 under the provisions of an .ordinance adopted at that time, which allowed very, very limited additions or expansion. He said that over the years the PC and CC in dealing with issues in town have in their decision - making processes come to the decision to change ordinances and modify them to the point at which they are today. He stated that the CC heard a lot of criticism of the process and of the procedures that are now in place as part of the 1210 Electric Avenue process. This is why the CC has asked the PC to revisit these issues once again.. He emphasized that any changes to a law of the City that impacts how a development can be built on a piece of property is not something that is determined by Staff alone. He explained that there is an ordinance that is ultimately adopted by CC and Staff enforces and implements that ordinance, and people have the right to come in submit an application if the City's ordinances allow for this. He stated that what happens after this is a decision process at the PC and CC level. He observed that people don't like the decisions that are currently being made and the extent for what people can apply, and that is the issue before the PC tonight. He noted that as stated during the public comments, most cities do not allow expansions of nonconforming structures, period. Commissioner Deaton asked the Director of Development Services to expand on what the potential problems with this type of a prohibition might be. Mr. Whittenberg stated that as far as interior remodels or upgrades on nonconforming structures are concerned, the City already allows this. All residents have to do is apply for the building permits. He said that projects to expand or add additional living space to a unit must come before the PC. He indicated that since 1974 the size of the expansions able to be considered by both the PC and CC have increased, which he believes is more of a reflection of private individuals coming before the City and making a case to change the laws. He said that from Staffs standpoint, if the PC were to decide that no more expansions are to be allowed, it would make the City's workload very different and would allow Staff more time to work on other projects. He said that Staff is not bound to state that this is the best process in the world, but when PC and the CC ask for Staff's opinion for how best to deal with an issue, Staff is bound to provide the best advice possible. He said that for the most part cities that do allow some form of expansions are cities that have an older residential base constructed in the 1920s, 1930s, or 1940s, and provides multi - family housing that under their current laws could not otherwise be provided. He noted that in this town it is important to maintain this type of housing in some manner. He commented on the opposing opinions of whether Seal Beach should be a homogenous community of strictly single - family residences or whether multi- family housing should be included. He noted that many new developments throughout Southern California do include condominiums, apartment buildings, and townhouses. Commissioner Deaton stated that next door to her home is a duplex that her neighbor has beautifully renovated. She asked if the PC were to consider the elimination of any expansions or additions to legal nonconforming structures would property owners be able to do what her neighbor has done? Mr. Whittenberg ZTA 04 -1.CC Staff Report 58 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures City Council Staff Report February 23, 2004 reiterated that if no additional living space is to be added to legal nonconforming structures renovations are permissible by simply applying for the appropriate building permits. Commissioner Deaton inquired about whether a roof deck would be permissible. Mr. Whittenberg stated that a roof deck would not increase habitable living space, but should it exceed the height limit, the person would have to apply for a Height Variation (HV). He noted that this would be a separate category from expansions /additions to legal nonconforming structures. Commissioner Shanks stated that with regard to CUPs, one reason some of this has not been all negative is that one of the requirements for someone adding square footage is that they bring their electrical and plumbing up to current building and safety code standards. Commissioner Sharp asked how many of the properties on Marina Hill are conforming. Mr. Whittenberg stated that a number of the properties constructed on the Hill have garages that were less in square footage than the Code required at that point, but were somehow approved. He surmised that approximately 98 -99 percent of every residential area in town is generally made up of conforming structures except for those properties between Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) to the ocean. He said this is primarily an issue in Old Town and Surfside. Commissioner Sharp asked if the properties on Marina Hill are nonconforming would eliminating all expansions affect these homes. Mr. Whittenberg stated that it would not because there is already language in the Code that addresses the issue of garage size in that area and recognizes those as being legal size garages for building permit purposes. MOTION by Deaton; SECOND by Shanks to recommend that City Council consider elimination of the provisions allowing for expansions or additions to any legal nonconforming structures within the City. MOTION CARRIED: 5 — 0 AYES: Hood, Deaton, Ladner, Shanks, and Sharp NOES: None ABSENT: None Mr. Whittenberg noted that Staff would prepare a report for a future City Council agenda with the Planning Commission's recommendation. He said that at that point Staff would request authorization to begin a Zone Text Amendment (ZTA) process to amend the Code to reflect the recommendation of the PC, assuming CC wishes to proceed in this manner." * * * * ZTA 04 -I.CC Staff Report 59 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures City Council Staff Report February 23, 2004 ATTACHMENT 3 - G PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE EXCERPT - FEBRUARY 5, 2003 ZTA 04 -1.CC Staff Report 60 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures City Council Staff Report February 23, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE EXCERPT - FEBRUARY 5, 2003 "SCHEDULED MATTERS 4. STUDY SESSION: Addition and Expansion Standards for Non - Conforming Residential Uses Staff Report Mr. Whittenberg delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the Planning Department.) He stated that the Planning Commission (PC) had been provided an extensive written Staff Report along with a large amount of attachments in order to provide a detailed background of the processes the City has gone through, most recently in 1992, to look at the issue of what would be acceptable in town for additions and expansions to non - conforming residential structures. He said that City Council (CC) had requested that this matter be scheduled for a Study Session after CC had determined to deny a request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a major expansion to a non - conforming, 4 -unit apartment building at 1210 Electric Avenue. He stated that the PC had considered this request and based upon its determination had approved the request, which was later appealed to the CC, who ultimately determined to deny the request. He explained that tonight is probably the beginning of at least two study sessions that the PC may decide to conduct on this issue. He then proceeded to describe the attachments, which include a copy of the existing code provisions that deal with the allowable types of additions and expansions that the City is now willing to consider either by a right under just a Building Permit or under a Minor Plan Review (MPR). He noted that a MPR is a Consent Calendar item at the PC level that limits the size of an addition to a specific number of square feet, subject to the size of the property. He said there is a square foot cutoff point if it is one or two -units on a property, and for 3 -units or more on a property there is a smaller size per unit allowed and a maximum cap on the number of square feet on a property that has 3 or more units as allowed_ under the MPR process. He indicated that a large majority of the applications considered by the City over the years have been in the MPR category where they fall under the size limitations set forth in the Ordinance. Mr. Whittenberg stated that there is another process that allows for a major expansion under a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) process and that process places no limit as to the size of an addition, and on these types of request the PC has to make an evaluation of the use as to whether or not it meets the criteria in the code, and since there is no cap on the size of an addition, this is usually not an issue. He said it usually comes down to the issue of being compatible to the neighborhood and not causing a detrimental use or affect to adjoining property owners. He noted that these types of determinations are fairly subjective in nature, and this was the issue with the last case that was approved by the PC, but denied by CC. He stated that the Commissioners had been give a summary of every MPR or CUP that has been granted in the City for expansions or additions to non - conforming uses from 1985 up to this last application for 1210 Electric Avenue. He noted that within the body of the ZTA 04 -1.CC staff Report 61 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures City Council Staff Report February 23, 2004 Staff Report there is a summary table that deals only with properties having two or more units on the property. He stated that also included with the Staff Report is a summary of the different amendments to the Zoning Ordinance provisions that occurred between 1974 and 1997, when the last revision to this section of the Code was adopted. He commented that this issue is one that over the years has caused a lot of controversy and increased workloads at both the PC and City Council levels, and lots of people have different ideas as to what they should or should not be able to do to a non - conforming residence that they own or to a residence that might be next door to someone that lives in a conforming residential situation. Mr. Whittenberg then described the options for consideration by the PC as follows: ❑ Establish a maximum size cap on additions to non - conforming residential structures under the CUP process. Under the MPR process for 3 -unit and other properties up to 144 square feet per unit may be added with a maximum of a 400 square foot addition total for all units on a property. ❑ Require a reduction in the number of non - conforming units or increasing the number of non - conforming parking spaces when considering a proposed expansion of a non- conforming residential structure. ❑ Eliminate the provisions allowing for any expansion of a non - conforming residential structure. The general position of most cities in the Southern California region is that they do not allow any expansions of non - conforming uses at all. Commissioner Comments Commissioner Deaton stated that what was presented for 1210 Electric Avenue was entirely different than the case for 226 Fourth Street. She said that there are a lot of decisions that the PC makes that are subjective in nature and this should be kept this way. She stated that the purpose of the PC is to bring its expertise and experience as residents and the opinions of neighbors to the forum to allow the public to participate in the process. She said that she would not be in favor of eliminating the provisions that allow expansions for non - conforming structures. She stated that she believes that interior modification should always be allowed, but with regard to non- conforming structures, she believes that the City should not give longer life to a structure that is already creating a problem. She said she like the recommendation made by Staff that the City ask residents to do something about the non - conformance of their property to include enough parking. Commissioner Deaton noted that the City should create a better vision of what Old Town should look like. She stated that if the public wants to maintain an eclectic appearance to Old Town, rather than cookie - cutter, there still needs to be some order to it. She recommended that this item be continued to a future PC meeting to allow for input by the public. She indicated that she favors Option No. 2. Commissioner Shanks stated that he found the comments related to the application for 1210 Electric Avenue very interesting as they are recorded in the City Council (CC) minutes of December 9, 2002. He stated that although an eclectic look is encouraged this leaves both the Planning Department and architects with no specific guidelines as to what will ultimately be acceptable to the PC and CC. He noted that there is an element in town that would like to see all nonconforming buildings reach a severe state of deterioration that would require total demolition ZTA 04 -1 .CC Staff Report 62 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures City Council Staff Report February 23, 2004 and allow for new conforming structures to be constructed on these properties. He stated that he did not see the new legislation (AB 1866 and AB 2292) related to allowing "granny units" affecting the City very much because there is no land available for this. Commissioner Shanks then commented that he objects to the term "density" being used in different ways. He said in AB 1866 and AB 2292 density refers to the number of units on a particular lot, but the City also uses density to refer to the size of the buildings on a given lot. He emphasized that he would like to see a codified definition of "density" that would be clearly understood. Commissioner Ladner stated that all of the older home on the nonconforming properties will eventually age to such an extent that they will have to be demolished and replaced with "cookie cutter" homes. He noted that the nonconforming structures do add some diversity to the look of Old Town. Commissioner Sharp stated that only the District One Planning Commissioner deals with the problem of nonconforming structures. He recommended that a separate committee made up of Old Town residents be formed to review this issue, and provide feedback to the PC and CC. The Director of Development Services stated that this was a good suggestion, but would require CC concurrence and approval. He recommended talking with the City Attorney to discuss how best to proceed. Mr. Whittenberg then noted that very rarely is a property nonconforming due to density outside of "Old Town." He said that the City refers to density by the number of units on a lot. He stated that most of the lots in Old Town measure 25 feet wide by 100 or 117.5 feet deep and each of these lots can have one house on it, and a 50 -foot wide property can have two homes on it. He said that in the 18 years he has worked for the City he has never seen the multi- story apartment buildings constructed during the mid -50's through mid -70's be demolished to make room for a single- family residence. He explained that the economics of the rents that can be charged in this area make it highly unlikely that these structures would be demolished even if expansion of these uses were prohibited. He stated that most of the demolitions in town have been for properties with one or two units on them that may be nonconforming or are beach cottages that were constructed in the 1940s and 50s. The Director of Development Services noted that the cookie cutter homes might be the result of the smaller, 25 -foot lots, which limit the design alternatives for the size structures allowed. Commissioner Shanks stated that based upon the new legislation if a 25 -foot lot has two or more cottages and these structures are demolished to construct one new house, would this present a problem for the City in the future? Mr. Whittenberg stated that he would have to clarify this with the City Attorney. He noted that in all likelihood this legislation would have very little impact in Old Town and Surfside as most of the lots are already built out, making it difficult to meet all of the City Code requirements were second units to be constructed on any lot. He stated that this new legislation could impact Marina Hill and /or College Park East and West in the future, but this would have to be determined after meeting with the City Attorney regarding this. He said that he would prefer not to divert the discussion to AB 1866 and AB 2292 at this time, but would rather return the focus to the topic at hand. He stated that the main issue that arose with the project at 1210 Electric Avenue was that sufficient parking would not be provided. He explained that currently for major expansions the Code provisions require at least one space per unit. He suggested that the PC might wish to require 1.5 spaces per unit, which might require ZTA 04 -1.CC Staff Report 63 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures City Council Staff Report February 23, 2004 losing a unit in some cases to do this, but at least this creates the potential for reducing the parking impacts to the neighborhood. Commissioner Deaton agreed with Mr. Whittenberg suggestion and carried it further by recommending that the City acknowledge that there is a parking shortage and encourage owners of nonconforming uses to ensure that their units are not contributing to the problem. She also commented that although she liked the idea of forming a committee to study this issue, she would prefer to have this issue be open for discussion to all residents of Seal Beach. She stated that she is certain that the residents have a good idea of what they want the city to look like and she would like to hear their comments. Mr. Abbe provided a brief description of AB 1866 stating that this legislation reduces the City's discretion to disapprove second units, and AB 2292 reduces the City's discretion to downzone a particular parcel. Mr. Whittenberg noted that when the PC had gone through the 1992 discussions on this issue, the study sessions were advertised in the local newspaper by 118 page ads, and in reviewing the minutes for these study sessions, there were probably 8 to 10 members of the public present, and quite often are the same members at each meeting. He explained that because of publishing deadlines, the earliest that Staff could advertise the study session would be for the March 5, 2003 PC meeting date. He noted that a copy of the notice to be published and a copy of the Staff Report for tonight's meeting could be made available to the public on the City's website. MOTION by Deaton; SECOND by Shanks to continue this study session to Wednesday, March 5, 2003, to publish in the Sun Newspaper public notice of the study session, and to make this notice available on the City website along with the Staff Report for tonight's study session. Direct Staff to create a Staff Report that incorporates size caps into the standards for additions or expansions to nonconforming residential uses based upon the provision of adequate parking. MOTION CARRIED: 5 — 0 AYES: Deaton, Hood, Ladner, Shanks, and Sharp NOES: None ABSENT: None Mr. Whittenberg pointed out that the issue of parking is probably a 98% Old Town issue, as there are very few nonconforming properties due to density or parking outside of Old Town." *.* ** ZTA 04 -1 .CC Staff Report 64 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures City Council Staff Report February 23, 2004 ATTACHMENT 4 PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT RE: ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT 04 -1 - ADDITIONS TO NONCONFORMING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES - ELIMINATION OR REVISIONS TO CURRENT PROVISIONS, DATED FEBRUARY 4, 2004 ZTA 04 -1.CC Staff Report 65 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures City Council Staff Report February 23, 2004 February 4, 2004 STAFF REPORT - SUPPLEMENTAL To: Honorable Chairman and Planning Commission From: Department of Development Services Subject: ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT 04 -1 — ADDITIONS TO NONCONFORMING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES - ELIMINATION OR REVISIONS TO CURRENT PROVISIONS SUMMARY OF REQUEST To consider elimination or amendments to certain portions of Section 28 -2407 of the Code of the City of Seal Beach, which sets forth the current standards of the City regarding allowable expansions and additions to legal non - conforming residential structures. BACKGROUND Summary of Direction of Planning Commission of January 21, 2004: On January 21 the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing regarding the various altematives proposed by Staff for consideration. Testimony was received from 7 individuals regarding the various alternatives. Upon receiving all public testimony and discussion among the Planning Commission, the following direction was given to staff: ❑ Prepare an additional alternative for Commission consideration that accomplishes the following: ❑ Eliminates the possibility of non - conforming, multi - family residentially developed properties from being allowed to request an expansion of existing living area except through the variance public hearing process. ❑ Requests for expansions of living area for non - conforming single - family residential properties that are non - conforming only due to an existing setback on the property would be considered through the "Minor Plan Review" process and this type of request would appear on the Planning Commission Agenda as a "Scheduled Matter ", not on the "Consent Calendar ". ZTA 04-1 .CC Staff Report 66 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures City Council Staff Report Februaw 23, 2004 ❑ Allows for expansion of living area to be considered only for legal, non - conforming single - family residential properties that are non - conforming only due to an existing setback for the residence on the property, including a garage setback for those residential areas that do not have alley access to the garage area. ❑ Any other existing non - conformity, including the required setback from an alley right -of -way for a garage structure in the "Old Town" area would need to be eliminated as part of the proposed expansion of living area proposal or the City would not consider the request except through a variance proceeding; and ❑ All new construction shall comply with the then current provisions regarding setback, lot coverage, off - street parking, height, and other development standards of the zone in which the subject property is located. The Commission determined to continue the public hearing to this evening to allow for public comments on the proposed amendment language. Staff has prepared the appropriate language amendments to the Code (identified as "Alternative 2- A") to implement the direction of the Commission for recommendation to the City Council. The proposed standards would eliminate provisions to consider requests for expansion of living area for all non - conforming multi - family residential properties, and would establish separate standards for single- family residential non - conforming situations. The proposed standards are summarized below: ❑ Residential Low Density Zone, Planning Districts 2 through 7: These areas of the City comprise "The Hill ", "College Park East ", "College Park West ", "Surfside ", and "Bridgeport". These areas are the more traditional detached single- family tract housing developments and comprise lots generally 5,000 square feet or larger, except for the Surfside and Bridgeport areas. Bridgeport is included within this provision even though the homes have alley access; the existing garage structures all conform to current City setback standards. These planning districts also include various high density areas of the City that are generally developed with multi - family residential developments that would not be covered by the proposed regulations. The proposed standards would require Planning Commission approval of a Minor Plan Review request for an expansion of living area for properties where the only nonconformity is inadequate setbacks, including the required setback for existing legal, non - conforming garages, carports, and exterior stairways. An application for an expansion of living space in these areas would still be required to comply with the following provisions: ❑ All enlargements or expansions shall comply with the minimum yard dimensions for the zone and district in which the building or use is located. ❑ The existing nonconforming side yard setback shall be no less than three (3) feet in width, with the exception of existing legal non - conforming exterior stairways, which shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Uniform Building Code as most recently adopted by the City, with the exception of the required Uniform Building Code setback requirements. ZTA 04 -1.CC Staff Report 67 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures City Council Staff Report February 23, 2004 ❑ The existing nonconforming side yard setback may be less than three (3) feet in width on properties developed pursuant to "Precise Plan" or. "Planned Unit Development" approvals previously granted by the City. Residential Medium Density Zone and Residential High Density Zone, Planning District 1: These areas include all of "Old Town" with the exception of the "Gold Coast ", "Bridgeport", the Riverbeach Townhouses, the Seal Beach Trailer Park, and Oakwood Apartments. The subject areas is generally comprised of lots varying in size from 2,500 to 4,400 square feet in area, with the majority of lots being either 2,500 square feet or 2,937.5 square feet, and developed with a mixture of single- family and multi - family developments. The proposed standards would not allow for any expansion of living area for properties having more than one residential unit on the subject lot. The proposed standards would require Planning Commission approval of a Minor Plan Review request for an expansion of living area for single- family residential properties where the only nonconformity is inadequate setbacks, including the required setback for existing legal, non - conforming garages, carports, and exterior stairways.. An application for an expansion of living space in these areas would still be required to comply with the following provisions: ❑ All enlargements or expansions shall comply with the minimum yard dimensions for the zone and district in which the building or use is located. ❑ The existing nonconforming side yard setback shall be no less than three (3) feet in width, with the exception of existing legal non - conforming exterior stairways, which shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Uniform Building Code as most recently adopted by the City, with the exception of the required setback. ❑ Garage and carport setbacks adjacent to a public alley shall comply with current applicable setback requirements. Please refer to Attachment 1 to review the proposed resolution and draft ordinance indicating the appropriate language changes to Section 28 -2407 to implement Alternative 2 -A. Staff Recommendation: Staff would recommend the Planning Commission also include "height ", along with "setbacks ", as the only exemptions allowed for consideration of a Minor Plan Review for a proposed expansion of an existing legal, non - conforming residential structure. Staff is of the opinion that there may be many older single - family homes that currently exceed the current height limitations set forth in the Zoning Ordinance, particularly given the age of many of the homes in the "Old Town" area. This would just allow a home that is non - conforming to both or either a setback or height requirement to make an application for consideration. It does not require the Planning Commission to approve such a request. Summary of Alternatives Previously Presented to Planning Commission: To provide the Commission with the full range of previous alternatives considered on January 21, please refer to Attachment 3 to review the complete Planning Commission Staff Report of January 21, 2004, including all attachments. ZTA 04 -I .CC Staff Report 68 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures City Council Staff Report February 23, 2004 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that after receiving both written and oral testimony presented during the public hearing, the Commission recommend approval of ZTA 04 -1 to the City Council. The proposed resolution and draft ordinance revisions reflecting the implementation of Alternative 2 -A is provided as Attachment 1. If the Planning Commission determines to revisit the alternatives set forth in the January 21, 2004. Staff Report, it will be necessary to refer to the appropriate attachment in the January 21, 2004 Planning Commission Staff Report. Staff will provide that information as may be required upon conclusion of the public hearing. /s/ Lee Whittenberg, Director Department of Development Services Attachments: (3) Attachment 1: Proposed Planning Commission Resolution No. 04- , A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach Recommending to the City Council Approval of Zone Text Amendment 04 -1, Amending Article 24, Section 28 -2407 of Title 28 of the Code of The City of Seal Beach Regarding Structural Alterations and Enlargements to Nonconforming Residential Buildings and Uses ❑ "Exhibit A" — Alternative 2 -A - Revisions to Allow Expansions of Nonconforming Residential Structures Only if the Nonconformity is a Setback Nonconformity Attachment 2: Redline- Strikeout Version of Section 28 -2407 Revisions — Alternative 2 -A Attachment 3: Planning Commission Staff Report re: Zone Text Amendment 04- 1, with all Attachments, dated January 21, 2004 • ZTA 04 -1 .CC Staff Report 69 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures City Council Staff Report February 23, 2004 ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NUMBER 04 -_ , A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT 04 -1, AMENDING ARTICLE 24, SECTION 28 -2407 OF TITLE 28 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH REGARDING STRUCTURAL ALTERATIONS AND ENLARGEMENTS TO NONCONFORMING RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS AND USES ZTA 04 -1.CC Staff Report 70 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures City Council Staff Report February 23, 2004 RESOLUTION NUMBER 04- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT 04 -1, AMENDING ARTICLE 24, SECTION 28 -2407 OF TITLE 28 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH REGARDING STRUCTURAL ALTERATIONS AND ENLARGEMENTS TO NONCONFORMING RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS AND USES THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES HEREBY RESOLVE: Section 1. At its meetings of January 21 and February 4, 2004, the Planning Commission considered Zone Text Amendment 04 -1. This amendment would establish new standards for the alteration and enlargements to nonconforming residential buildings and uses. Section 2. Pursuant to 14 Calif. Code of Regs. § 15305 and § II.B of the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, staff has determined as follows: The application for Zone Text Amendment 04 -1 is categorically exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15301(a), (d) and (e), and Section 15305 of the CEQA Guidelines. Section 3. A duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on January 21, 2004 and continued to February 4, 2004 to consider Zone Text Amendment 04 -1. Section 4. The record of the hearings of January 21 and February 4, 2004 indicates the following: a. The City Council in January 2003 requested the Planning Commission to schedule a Study Session to review the existing standards in the Zoning Ordinance regarding the addition and expansion provisions for non - conforming residential uses; and b. The Planning Commission conducted an initial study session regarding this issue on February 5, 2003 and directed staff to: ❑ schedule an additional study session for March 5, 2003; and ZTA 04 -1.CC Staff Report 71 • Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures City Council Staff Report February 23, 2004 ❑ prepare additional land development proposals regarding expansions to non- conforming residential structures related to provision of additional parking and allowable size of a proposed expansion; and c. On March 5, 2003 the Planning Commission conducted their second "Study Session" regarding the issue of the current Zoning Ordinance provisions that allow for the expansion of legal non - conforming residential structures. During the study session, several individuals indicated that the current regulations are not reflective of the community's desires and recommended that no addition or expansions of legal non - conforming structures be permitted in the future; and d. After closing the March 5, 2003 study session, the Commission adopted on 5 -0 vote the following recommendation: "To recommend the City Council consider elimination of the provisions allowing for expansions or additions to any legal non- conforming structures within the City. "; and e. On April 14, 2003 the City Council considered the recommendation of the Planning Commission and determined to adopt Ordinance No. 1498, An Interim Ordinance of the City of Seal Beach Enacted Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65858 Prohibiting Minor or Major Structural Alterations, Enlargements and Expansions to Certain Nonconforming Residential Buildings and Uses During the Pendency of the City's Review and Adoption of Relevant Permanent Zoning Regulations and Declaring The Urgency Thereof (the "Interim Ordinance "). The initial interim ordinance was effective for 45 days and was subsequently extended for a maximum period of an additional 10 months and 15 days on May 12, 2003, by the adoption of Ordinance No. 1502, in accordance with the provisions of State law; and f. On July 14, 2003 the City Council considered the possibility of approving a limited exception of the interim prohibition for expansion or addition to legal non - conforming structures in the City if all current development standards, including the off - street parking requirements and excluding the density requirements, are met. After discussion, the City Council determined to receive and file the Staff Report on this matter, thereby taking no action regarding the proposed exception; and g. The Planning Commission conducted a final study session on December 3, 2003 and at the conclusion of the Study Session directed staff to schedule public hearing on Zone Text Amendment 04 -1, to consider several proposed alternatives; and h. At said public hearings there was oral and written testimony and evidence received by the Planning Commission. ZTA 04 -1.CC Staff Report 72 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures City Council Staff Report February 23, 2004 Section 5. Based upon the facts contained in the record, including those stated in § 4 of this resolution and pursuant to §§ 28 -2600 of the City's Code, the Planning Commission makes the following findings: a. Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 is consistent with the provisions of the various elements of the City's General Plan. Accordingly, the proposed use is consistent with the General Plan. The proposed amendment is administrative in nature and will not result in changes inconsistent with the existing provisions of the General Plan. b. This proposal will result in the completion of a city study that was initiated in January 2003, but not finalized until adoption of the proposed Zone Text Amendment. c. The proposed text amendment will revise the City's zoning ordinance and enhance the ability of the City to ensure orderly and planned development in the City through an amendment of the zoning requirements. Specifically, this amendment would establish new standards for the alteration to nonconforming residential buildings and uses, and regulate additions to such legal . nonconforming residential structures in accordance with the recommended language of Zone Text Amendment 04 -1. Section 6. Based upon the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby recommends approval of Zone Text Amendment 04 -1 to the City Council as set forth on Exhibit A, attached to this resolution and incorporated herein. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach at a meeting thereof held on the day of 2004, by the following vote. AYES: Commissioners NOES: Commissioners ABSENT: Commissioners ABSTAIN: Commissioners Chairman of the Planning Commission ZTA 04 -1.CC Staff Report 73 Zoning Text Amendment 04-1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures City Council Staff Report February 23, 2004 • Lee Whittenberg Secretary of the Planning Commission ZTA 04 -1.CC Staff Report 74 • Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures City Council Staff Report February 23, 2004 • "EXHIBIT A" - ALTERNATIVE 2 -A • REVISIONS TO ALLOW EXPANSIONS OF NONCONFORMING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES ONLY IF THE NONCONFORMITY IS A SETBACK ORDINANCE NUMBER , AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH AMENDING ARTICLE 24, SECTION 28 -2407 OF TITLE 28 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH REGARDING STRUCTURAL ALTERATIONS AND ENLARGEMENTS TO NONCONFORMING RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS AND USES (ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT 04 -1) • • • ZTA 04-1 .CC Staff Report 75 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures City Council Staff Report February 23, 2004 ORDINANCE NUMBER AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH AMENDING ARTICLE 24, SECTION 28 -2407 OF TITLE 28 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH REGARDING STRUCTURAL ALTERATIONS AND ENLARGEMENTS TO NONCONFORMING RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS AND USES (ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT 04 -1) WHEREAS, The City Council in early 2003 requested the Planning Commission to schedule a Study Session to review the existing standards in the Zoning Ordinance regarding the addition and expansion provisions for non - conforming residential uses; and WHEREAS, The Planning- Commission conducted an initial study session regarding this issue on February 5, 2003 and directed staff to: ❑ schedule an additional study session for March 5, 2003; and ❑ prepare additional land development proposals regarding expansions to non- conforming residential structures related to provision of additional parking and allowable size of a proposed expansion; and WHEREAS, On March 5, 2003 the Planning Commission conducted their second "Study Session" regarding the issue of the current Zoning Ordinance provisions that allow for the expansion of legal non - conforming residential structures. During the study session, several individuals indicated that the current regulations are not reflective of the community's desires and recommended that no addition or expansions of legal non - conforming structures be permitted in the future; and WHEREAS, After closing the March 5, 2003 study session, the Commission adopted on 5 -0 vote the following recommendation: "To recommend the City Council consider elimination of the provisions allowing for expansions or additions to any legal non- conforming structures within the City. "; and WHEREAS, On April 14, 2003 the City Council considered the recommendation of the Planning Commission and determined to adopt Ordinance No. 1498, An Interim Ordinance of the City of Seal Beach Enacted Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65858 Prohibiting Minor or Major Structural Alterations, Enlargements and Expansions to Certain Nonconforming Residential Buildings and Uses During the Pendency of the City's Review and Adoption of Relevant Permanent Zoning Regulations and Declaring The Urgency Thereof (the "Interim ZTA 04 -1.CC Staff Report 76 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconfonning Residential Structures City Council Staff Report February 23, 2004 Ordinance "). The initial interim ordinance was effective for 45 days and was subsequently extended for a maximum period of an additional 10, months and 15 days on May 12, 2003, by the adoption of Ordinance No. 1502, in accordance with the provisions of State law; and WHEREAS, On July 14, 2003 the City Council considered the possibility of approving a limited exception of the interim prohibition for expansion or addition to legal non- conforming structures in the City if all current development standards, including the off - street parking requirements and excluding the density requirements, are met. After discussion, the City Council determined to receive and file the Staff Report on this matter, thereby taking no action regarding the proposed exception; and WHEREAS, The Planning Commission conducted a final study session on December 3, 2003 and at the conclusion of the Study Session directed staff to schedule public hearing on Zone Text Amendment 04 -1, to consider several proposed alternatives; and WHEREAS, the City is proposing to establish new requirements and criteria for the enlargement or structural alteration of non - conforming residential structures; and WHEREAS, the subject zone text amendment would apply to all non - conforming residential structures within the City; and WHEREAS, the proposed Zone Text Amendment is Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301(a), (d) and (e), and Section 15305 of the CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on January 21, 2004, and continued to February 4, 2004 to consider Zone Text Amendment 04 -1; and WHEREAS, the said Commission held said aforementioned Public Hearing; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing there was oral and written testimony or evidence received by the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission made the following findings: (a) Zone Text Amendment 04 -1 is consistent with the provisions of the various elements of the City's General Plan. Accordingly, the proposed use is consistent with the General Plan. The proposed amendment is administrative in nature and will not result in changes inconsistent with the existing provisions of the General Plan. ZTA 04 -1.CC Staff Report 77 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconfonning Residential Structures City Council Staff Report February 23, 2004 (b) This proposal will result in the completion of a city study that was initiated in January 2003, but not finalized until adoption of the proposed Zone Text Amendment. (c) The proposed text amendment will revise the City's zoning ordinance and enhance the ability of the City to ensure orderly and planned development in the City through an amendment of the zoning requirements. Specifically, this amendment would establish new standards for the alteration to nonconforming residential buildings and uses, and prohibit additions to such legal nonconforming structures in accordance with the recommended language of Zone Text Amendment 04 -1; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on Monday, , 2004; and WHEREAS, the City Council received into evidence the Report of the Planning Commission, including the Staff Report and Planning Commission Minutes of January 21, 2004, and Planning. Commission Resolution No. 04 -_. In addition, the City Council considered all written and oral evidence presented at the time of the public hearing; and WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the public hearing, based upon the evidence presented, the City Council determined to approve Zone Text Amendment 04 -1. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 28 -2407 of Article 24 of Title 28 of The Code of The City of Seal Beach is hereby amended to read as follows: "Section 28 -2407. Enlargements or Structural Alterations to Nonconforming Residential Buildings and Uses. Nonconforming residential buildings may be enlarged or structurally altered as provided in this section. A. Permitted Improvements. 1. Minor Structural Alterations and Improvements to nonconforming residential buildings and uses listed as follows may be approved by the issuance of a building permit: (a) Skylights. (b) Solar Systems. (c) Additional windows. (d) Decorative exterior improvements. ZTA 04 -1.CC Staff Report 78 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures City Council Staff Report February 23, 2004 (e) Building maintenance. (f) Adding or replacing utilities. (g) Other minor structural alterations and improvements similar to the foregoing, as determined by the Planning Commission. 2. Minor Structural Alterations or Improvements to nonconforming residential buildings and uses listed as follows may be approved by the Planning Commission pursuant to minor plan review as . a consent calendar item: (a) Open roof decks. (b) Additional balconies and porches (not enclosed). (c) Roof additions over balconies and porches. (1) Roof eaves projecting five (5) feet into the required rear yard setback of Planning District 1, Residential Low Density Zone. (d) Additional exterior doors. (e) Additional garages and carports, including tandem garages and carports. (f) Interior wall modifications and remodeling which involves removal of or structural alteration to less than twenty -five percent (25 %) of the structure's interior walls.. - Such interior wall modifications or remodeling may increase the number of bathrooms provided that the number does not exceed the following bedroom/bathroom ratio: one bath for each bedroom plus an additional half -bath. The number of bedrooms, as defined in Section 28 -210 of this chapter, shall not be increased if the subject property is nonconforming due to density or parking. (g) Reduction in the number of units involving removal or structural alteration to less than fifty percent (50 %) of the structures interior walls. (h) Other minor structural alterations and improvements similar to the foregoing, as determined by the Planning Commission. 3. Residential Low Density Zone, Planning Districts 2 through 7: Structural Alterations, Enlargements or Expansions to nonconforming single - family residential buildings and uses which are nonconforming only by reason of inadequate setbacks, including the required setback for existing legal, non - conforming garages, carports, and exterior stairways, may be approved by the Planning Commission pursuant to minor plan review as a scheduled matter item, subject to the following: ZTA 04 -1.CC Staff Report 79 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 • Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures City Council Staff Report February 23, 2004 • (a) • All enlargements or expansions shall comply with the minimum yard dimensions for the zone and district in which the building or use is located. (b) The existing nonconforming side yard setback shall be no less than three (3) feet in width, with the exception of existing legal non - conforming exterior stairways, which shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Uniform Building Code as most recently adopted by the City, with the exception of the required with the exception of the required California Building Code setback requirements. (c) The existing nonconforming side yard setback may be less than three (3) feet in width on properties developed pursuant to "Precise Plan" or "Planned Unit Development" approvals previously granted by the City. 4. • Residential Medium Density Zone and Residential High Density Zone, Planning District 1: Structural Alterations. Enlargements or Expansions to nonconforming single- family residential buildings and uses which are nonconforming only by reason of inadequate setbacks, including the required setback for. existing for existing legal, non - conforming garages, carports, exterior stairways, may be approved by the Planning Commission pursuant to minor plan review as a scheduled matter item, subject to the following: (a) All enlargements or expansions shall comply with the minimum yard dimensions for the zone and district in which the building or use is located. (b) The existing nonconforming side yard setback shall be no less than three (3) feet in width, with the exception of existing legal non - conforming exterior stairways, which shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Uniform Building Code as most recently adopted by the City, with the exception of the required with the exception of the required California Building Code setback requirements. (c) Garage and carport setbacks adjacent to a public alley shall comply with current applicable setback requirements." Section 2. Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance or any part thereof is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance or any part thereof. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase be declared invalid or unconstitutional. ZTA 04 -1.CC Staff Report 80 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures City Council Staff Report February 23, 2004 Section 3. The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published in accordance with applicable law. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Seal Beach at a meeting thereof held on the day of , 2004. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF ORANGE } SS CITY OF SEAL BEACH } 1, Joanne M. Yeo, City Clerk of the City of Seal Beach, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance is an original copy of Ordinance Number on file in the office of the City Clerk, introduced at a meeting held on the day of , 2004, and passed, approved and adopted by the City Council of the City of Seal Beach at a meeting held on the day of , 2004 by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers NOES: Councilmembers ABSENT: Councilmembers ABSTAIN: Councilmembers and do hereby further certify that Ordinance Number has been published pursuant to the Seal Beach City Charter and Resolution Number 2836. ZTA 04 -1.CC Staff Report 81 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures City Council Staff Report February 23, 2004 City Clerk ZTA 04 -1.CC Staff Report 82 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures City Council Staff Report February 23, 2004 ATTACHMENT 2 REDLINE- STRIKEOUT VERSION OF SECTION 28 -2407 REVISIONS - ALTERNATIVE 2 -A NOTE: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS ARE INDICATED BY DOUBLE STRIKE- THROUGH FOR TEXT AND BY DOUBLE UNDERLINE FOR TEXT TO BE ADDED "Section 28 -2407. Enlargements or Structural Alterations to Nonconforming Residential Buildings and Uses. Nonconforming residential buildings may be enlarged or structurally altered as provided in this section. A. Permitted Improvements. 1. Minor Structural Alterations and Improvements to nonconforming residential buildings and uses listed as follows may be approved by the issuance of a building permit: (a) Skylights. (b) Solar Systems. (c) Additional windows. (d) Decorative exterior improvements. (e) Building maintenance. (f) Adding or replacing utilities. (g) Other minor structural alterations and improvements similar to the foregoing, as determined by the Planning Commission. 2. Minor Structural Alterations, – =° —: - - -: _ = _ : or Improvements to nonconforming residential buildings and uses listed as follows may be approved by the Planning Commission pursuant to c ..c_t ,...1.._a.._ minor plan review as a consent calendar item: (a) Open roof decks. (b) Additional balconies and porches (not enclosed). ZTA 04-1.CC Staff Report 83 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures City Council Staff Report February 23, 2004 (c) Roof additions over balconies and porches. (1) Roof eaves projecting five (5) feet into the required rear yard setback of Planning District 1, Residential Low Density Zone. (d) Additional exterior doors. (e) Additional garages and carports, including tandem garages and carports. (f) Interior wall modifications and remodeling which involves removal of or structural alteration to less than twenty -five percent (25 %) of the structure's interior walls. Such interior wall modifications or remodeling may increase the number of bathrooms provided that the number does not exceed the following bedroom/bathroom ratio: one bath for each bedroom plus an additional half -bath. The number of bedrooms, as defined in Section 28 -210 of this chapter, shall not be increased if the subject property is nonconforming due to density or parking. (g) - Reduction in the number of units involving removal or structural alteration to less than fifty percent (50 %) of the structures interior walls. nonconforming duc to :-. = • -;, - . ; - - - - f ,.11 ,.. _ .] --. ,_. �- - fit k:t.l ria 1:_ f 1-..t 7' ZTA 04 -1.CC Staff Report 84 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures City Council StaffReport February 23, 2004 • : —:_ -- _ - =° :-- • - - - =: -- :- - - - -e -e - -- a - =e . • = "- - - __ - P at4tin gr allIEI 1...1 itabitablew • • ZTA 04 -1.CC Staff Report 85 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures City Council Staff Report February 23, 2004 ( h) Other minor structural alterations and improvements similar to the foregoing, as determined by the Planning Commission. exception of the required 3cthaelc, arc 3ati3frcd-: .. - ..4-..-..,. .-.4..i.. . : tea • ZTA 04 -1.CC Staff Report 86 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures City Council Staff Report February 23, 2004 § 3. Residential Low Densit Zone Planning Districts 2 throu.h 7: Structural Alterations, Enlargements or Expansions to nonconforming single- family residential buildings and uses which are nonconforming only by reason of inadequate setbacks, including the required setback for existing legal, non - conforming garages, carports, and exterior stairway% may be approved by the Planning Commission pursuant to minor plan review as a scheduled matter item, subject to the following: (a) All enlargements or expansions shall comply with the minimum yard dimensions for the zone and district in which the building or use is located. (b) The existing nonconforming side yard setback shall be no less than three (3) feet in width, with the exception of existing legal non - conforming exterior stairways, which shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Uniform Building Code as most recently adopted by the City, with the exception of the required California Building Code setback requirements. (c) - — : = — - :: = The existing nonconformin ' side yard setback may be less than three (3) feet in width on properties developed pursuant to "Precise Plan" or "Planned Unit Development" approvals previously granted by the City. • Y= _ —= -_____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ t " 4. Residential Medium Density Zone and Residential High Density Zone, Planning District 1: Structural Alterations, Enlargements or Expansions to nonconforming single - family residential buildings and uses which are nonconforming only by reason of inadequate setbacks, including the required setback for existing for existing legal, non - conforming garages, carports, exterior stairways, may be approved by the Planning Commission pursuant to minor plan review as a scheduled matter item, subject to the following_ ZTA 04 -1.CC Staff Report 87 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures City Council Staff Report February, 23, 2004 (a) All enlargements or expansions shall comply with the minimum yard dimensions for the zone and district in which the building or use is located. (b) The existing nonconforming side yard setback shall be no less than three (3) feet in width, with the exception of existing legal non - conforming exterior stairways, which shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Uniform Building Code as most recently adopted by the City, with the exception of the required California Building Code setback requirements. (c) Garage and carport setbacks adjacent to a public alley shall comply with current a..licable setback requirements." • ZTA 04-1 .CC Staff Report 88 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures City Council Staff Report February 23, 2004 ATTACHMENT 3 • PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT RE: ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT 04 -1, WITH ALL ATTACHMENTS, DATED JANUARY 21, 2004 ZTA 04 -1.CC Staff Report 89 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures City Council Staff Report Februmv 23, 2004 ATTACHMENT 5 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT RE: ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT 04 -1 - ADDITIONS TO NONCONFORMING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES - ELIMINATION OR REVISIONS TO CURRENT PROVISIONS, DATED JANUARY 21, 2004 ZTA 04 -I .CC Staff Report 90 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures City Council Staff Report February 23, 2004 January 21, 2004 - STAFF REPORT To: Honorable Chairman and Planning Commission From: Department of Development Services Subject: ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT 04 -1 — ADDITIONS TO NONCONFORMING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES - ELIMINATION OR REVISIONS TO CURRENT PROVISIONS SUMMARY OF REQUEST To consider elimination or amendments to certain portions of Section 28 -2407 of the Code of the City of Seal Beach, which sets forth the current standards of the City regarding allowable expansions and additions to legal non - conforming residential structures. BACKGROUND I . Summary of Alternatives Under Consideration: Alternative 1: Eliminate all provisions allowing for the expansion of non - conforming residential structures. This would maintain the existing language of Section 28- 2407.A.1. and Section 28= 2407.A.2, sub - sections (a) through (g) and (j). These sections all relate to "Minor Structural Alterations and Improvements" and do not allow for an enlargement or expansion of living area. All language within Section 28 -2407 relative to allowed enlargements or expansions of existing legal non - conforming residential structures would be eliminated. The sections that would be eliminated are: ❑ Section 28- 2407.A.2(h) and (i); ❑ Section 28- 2407.A.3; ❑ Section 28- 2407.A.4; and ❑ Section 28- 2407.A.5 ZTA 04 -1.CC Staff Report 91 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures City Council Staff Report February 23, 2004 Please refer to Attachment 2 to review the appropriate language changes to Section 28 -2407 to implement this alternative. This alternative would not allow for any future expansion of living area of any non - conforming residential structure, no matter how small the non - conforming deviation may be. Please refer to the discussion regarding 236 Fifth Street and 705 Bayside Drive on pages 6 through 9 to review the discussion for setback only non - conforming situations. Alternative 2: Revise Provisions to only allow for an expansion if the property is non- conforming only due to a setback requirement. In this alternative all new construction would be required to comply with the development standards in effect at the time of the proposed addition regarding setbacks, lot coverage, building height, density and off - street parking — the existing nonconforming setback would be allowed to remain. Properties that are non- conforming due to density, off - street parking or lot coverage requirements would not be allowed to request an expansion. This would maintain the existing language of Sections Section 28- 2407.A.1, Section 28- 2407.A.2, sub - sections (a) through (g) and (j), and Section 28- 2407.A.5. Please refer to the discussion regarding 236 Fifth Street and 705 Bayside Drive on pages 6 through 9 to review the discussion for setback only non - conforming situations. All language within Section 28 -2407 relative to allowed enlargements or expansions of existing legal non - conforming residential structures would be eliminated, with the exception of the provisions of Section 28- 2407.A.5. The sections that would be eliminated are: ❑ Section 28- 2407.A.2(h) and (i); ❑ Section 28- 2407.A.3; and ❑ Section 28- 2407.A.4. Please refer to Attachment 3 to review the appropriate language changes to Section 28 -2407 to implement this alternative. Alternative 3: Allow for expansions as set forth in Section 28- 2407.A.1 through 28- 2407.A.5 as proposed to be revised below: ❑ Section 28- 2407.A.1 — No change to this section. Maintain the current policies of the City regarding "Minor Structural Alterations and Improvements" pursuant to Section 28- 2407.A.1. This section of the Code does not allow for any expansion of living space and the existing language would not be revised. ❑ Section 28- 2407.A.2 - No change to this section. Maintain the existing policies of the City regarding "Minor Structural Alterations, Enlargements or Expansions" pursuant to Section 28- 2407.A.2. The City currently allows for additions to nonconforming residential structures under the Minor Plan Review approval process and currently sets forth the following size limitations (which staff is not proposing to revise) that can be considered through the Minor Plan Review process: ❑ Sinale Family Dwellings and Duplexes: ❑ Maximum of 288 square feet per unit; maximum of 576 square feet per property. ZTA 04 -1.CC Staff Report 92 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures City Council Staff Report February 23, 2004 ❑ Three or more units: ❑ Maximum of 144 square feet per unit; maximum of 400 square feet per property. ❑ Section 28- 2407.A.3 and 28- 2407.A.4 - Establish a two -step process for consideration of "Major Structural Alterations, Enlargements, and Expansions" for expansions as currently set forth in Section 28- 2407A.3 and 28- 2407.A.4. Proposed revisions of the current requirements of Sections 28- 2407.A.3 and 28- 2407.A.4 are set forth below: ❑ Revise Section 28- 2407.A.3 to require a Conditional Use Permit for expansions in size greater than permitted by Section 28- 2407.A.2 that do not provide a minimum of 1.5 off - street parking spaces and set a maximum size on an addition that could be requested by an applicant. This provision would continue to require a conditional use permit for a major expansion and set a maximum size on an addition that could be requested by an applicant when not providing a minimum of 1.5 off - street parking spaces, including compliance with restrictions imposed by the current setback, height, and lot coverage requirements of the City. Current Size of Addition Limitations For Minor Plan Review Applicability: The City currently allows for additions to nonconforming residential structures under the Minor Plan Review approval process and sets forth the following size limitations that can be considered through the Minor Plan Review process: ❑ Single Family Dwellings and Duplexes: ❑ Maximum of 288 square feet per unit; maximum of 576 square feet per property. ❑ Three or more units: ❑ Maximum of 144 square feet per unit; maximum of 400 square feet per property. Proposed Size of Addition Limitations for CUP Process with less than 1.5 Off Parking Spaces: Staff is suggesting establishing a maximum size of an addition at 150% of the allowable maximum area established for the minor plan review process. That 150% allowable expansion would equate to the following size limitations on a major expansion request that provides less than 1.5 off - street parking spaces per unit: ❑ Single Family Dwellings and Duplexes: ❑ Maximum of 432 square feet per unit; maximum of 864 square feet per property. ❑ Three or more units: ❑ Maximum of 216 square feet per unit; maximum of 600 square feet per property. ZTA 04 -1.CC Staff Report 93 Zoning Text Amendment 04-1 Expansion of Nonconforrtzing Residential Structures City Council Staff Report February 23, 2004 This alternative would allow for a larger addition to be proposed than what could be requested through the minor plan review process, but still place a size limitation on those additions that do not provide a minimum of 1.5 off - street parking spaces. The CUP process requires a formal public hearing before the Planning Commission and notice to property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the subject property. Under the CUP process the Planning Commission has great discretion in considering a proposed project. In order to approve a CUP request the Planning Commission would be required to make affirmative findings regarding the following areas of consideration: ❑ Is the proposed project compatible with surrounding uses and the community in general? ❑ Is the proposed use consistent with the General Plan? ❑ Is the proposed use, as conditioned, not a detriment to the surrounding neighborhood? This alternative would provide a lesser incentive to a property owner wishing to propose a major expansion than when at least 1.5 off - street parking spaces are to be provided, as discussed above. This alternative would allow for a larger addition to be proposed than what could be requested through the minor plan review process, but still place a size limitation on those additions that do not provide a minimum of 1.5 off - street parking spaces. The provision of no additional off - street parking would not relieve any current on- street parking congestion around a particular development by increasing the supply of off - street parking, but the size of any addition is limited. Cl Revise Section 28- 2407.A.4 to require a Conditional Use Permit for expansions in size greater than permitted by Section 28- 2407.A.2 that do provide a minimum of 1.5 off - street parking spaces and set no maximum size on an addition that could be requested by an applicant. This proposed regulation would continue to require a conditional use permit for a major expansion and set no maximum size on an addition that could be requested by an applicant, other than the limitations imposed by the current setback, height, and lot coverage requirements of the City. In order to make a request to the Commission under this scenario, the applicant would be required to provide a minimum of 1.5 off - street parking spaces for each residential unit on the property. Currently, the City requires a minimum of 1 off - street parking space to be provided for each residential unit located on the subject property, while 2 parking spaces are required to comply with the current provisions of the Code for new residential units. In order to approve a CUP request the Planning Commission would be required to make affirmative findings regarding the following areas of consideration: ❑ Is the proposed project compatible with surrounding uses and the community in general? ❑ Is the proposed use consistent with the General Plan? ZTA 04 -1.CC Staff Report 94 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures City Council Staff Report February 23, 2004 ❑ Is the proposed use, as conditioned, not a detriment to the surrounding neighborhood? This alternative would provide an incentive to a property owner wishing to propose a major expansion, by allowing that type of request to be considered if additional off - street parking is provided. The provision of additional off - street parking would relieve any current on- street parking congestion around a particular development by increasing the supply of off - street parking. ❑ Maintain existing language of Section 28- 2407.A.5. No change to this section. This section allows the Director of Development Services to approve additions to legal, non - conforming residential structures that comply with the following general standards: ❑ All enlargements or expansions shall comply with the minimum setback requirements; ❑ The existing non - conforming setback shall be no less than 3 feet, except for legal, non - conforming exterior stairways, which must comply with the applicable provisions of the Uniform Building Code; ❑ The existing non - conforming front yard setback shall deviate no more than 10% from the applicable front yard setback requirement; and ❑ The existing non - conforming rear yard setback shall deviate no more than 10% from the applicable rear yard setback requirement. Please refer to Attachment 4 to review the appropriate language changes to Section 28 -2407 to implement this alternative. Alternative 4 — Determine to recommend no changes to the existing Code provisions regarding expansion of non - conforming residential structures. This alternative would leave the existing Code provisions in place as they currently exist and maintain the same development standards and review processes. There would be no amendments to the current provisions of Section 28- 2407 if this alternative is recommended by the Planning Commission. Please refer to Attachment 5 to review the Planning Commission Resolution to implement this alternative. The Planning Commission will consider all of the above alternatives during the public hearing and may determine to approve a particular alternative or a combination of the suggested alternatives. Background Summary of Issue: This issue was one that was extensively discussed in the 1991 -1992 public review and hearing process that ultimately led to the approval of ZTA 92 -5 and the subsequent adoption ,of Ordinance No. 1361 (Please refer to page 21 for additional information on the adoption process for Ordinance No. 1361). At that time extensive comments were received that limiting the ZTA 04 -1.CC Staff Report 95 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures City Council Staff Report February 23, 2004 allowable expansion size would ultimately lead to a disinvestment in the existing multi -unit properties. The same arguments, both pro and con, regarding this issue are now being made again. Many cities in southern California do not allow for expansions to non - conforming residential properties. Most communities that allow for expansions seem to be located in coastal locations or have older, highly desirable multi -unit areas that are non - conforming under current zoning standards. The City Council in early 2003 requested the Planning Commission to schedule a Study Session to review the existing standards in the Zoning Ordinance regarding the addition and expansion provisions for non - conforming residential uses. Concerns were expressed at both the Planning Commission and City Council level regarding a proposed expansion to a legal, non - conforming 4- unit residential development at 1210 Electric Avenue. After Planning Commission approval of the proposed project an appeal was filed and the City Council ultimately determined to deny the requested expansion, and requested the Planning Commission to review the current Code provisions. The Planning Commission conducted an initial study session regarding this issue on February 5, 2003 (copies of this Staff Report will be available at the Public Hearing for review), and directed staff to: ❑ schedule an additional study session for March 5, 2003; and ❑ prepare additional land development proposals regarding expansions to non- confoittling residential structures related to provision of additional parking and allowable size of a proposed expansion. On March 5, 2003 the Planning Commission conducted their second "Study Session" regarding the issue of the current Zoning Ordinance provisions that allow for the expansion of legal non- conforming residential structures (copies of this Staff Report will be available at the Public Hearing for review). During the study session, several individuals indicated that the current regulations are not reflective of the community's desires and recommended that no addition or expansions of legal non - conforming structures be peimitted in the future. After closing the study session, the Commission adopted on 5 -0 vote the following recommendation: "To recommend the City Council consider elimination of the provisions allowing for expansions or additions to any legal non - conforming structures within the City." On April 14, 2003 the City Council considered the recommendation of the Planning Commission and determined to adopt Ordinance No. 1498, An Interim Ordinance of the City of Seal Beach Enacted Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65858 Prohibiting Minor or Major Structural Alterations, Enlargements and Expansions to Certain Nonconforming Residential Buildings and Uses During the Pendency of the City's Review and Adoption of Relevant ZTA 04 -1.CC Staff Report 96 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures City Council Staff Report February 23, 2004 Permanent Zoning Regulations and Declaring The Urgency Thereof (the "Interim Ordinance "). The initial interim ordinance was effective for 45 days and was subsequently extended for a maximum period of an additional 10 months and 15 days on May 12, 2003, by the adoption of Ordinance No. 1502, in accordance with the provisions of State law. A copy of Ordinance No. 1502, the City Council Staff Report and the City Council Minutes were provided as Attachment 1 to the December 3, 2003 Planning Commission Staff Report (copies of this Staff Report will be available at the Public Hearing for review). On July 14, 2003 the City Council considered the possibility of approving a limited exception of the interim prohibition for expansion or addition to legal non - conforming structures in the City if all current development standards, including the off - street parking requirements and excluding the density requirements, are met. After discussion, the City Council determined to receive and file the Staff Report on this matter, thereby taking no action regarding the proposed exception. A copy of the City Council Staff Report and minutes were provided as Attachment 2 to the December 3, 2003 Planning Commission Staff Report. The Planning Commission has previously been provided minute excerpts of the following Planning Commission meetings regarding this issue (copies of these minutes will be available at the Public Hearing for review): ❑ November 6, 2002 — re: CUP 02 -16 and HV 02 -5, 1210 Electric Avenue ❑ December 4, 2002 — re: City Council Direction Re: Section 28 -2407 ❑ February 5, 2003 — re: Study Session, Addition and Expansion Standards for Non - Conforming Residential Uses ❑ March 5, 2003 - re: Study Session, Addition and Expansion Standards for Non - Conforming Residential Uses ❑ May 7, 2003 — Interim Ordinance No. 1498 — Additions and Expansions to Non - Conforming Residential Properties Report. The Planning Commission conducted a final study session on December 3, 2003 and at the conclusion of the Study Session directed staff to schedule this public hearing on the proposed alternatives (copies of the Staff Report and minutes of this meeting will be available at the Public Hearing for review). Staff Discussions with Property Owner's Desiring to Expand an Legal Non - Conforming Residential Structure: During the time that the Interim Ordinance has been in place approximately 12 -15 property owners have approached staff regarding proposals to expand an existing legal non - conforming residential structure. Staff has clearly indicated to those individuals that the current position of the City is to not process those types of applications until such time as the City has fully considered the issue and adopted either a total prohibition on expansions, adopted revised development and application processing standards and procedures, or determines to let the interim ordinance expire and make no changes to the provisions. Staff has indicated to those interested individuals that any proposed changes to the Code will require public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council ZTA 04 -1.CC Staff Report 97 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures City Council Staff Report February 23, 2004 and the ultimate adoption of a ordinance reflecting the determined policy that the City Council ultimately determines to be appropriate for the community. During those discussions with interested parties, two have submitted conceptual plans for the Planning Commission consideration during the study session process to allow the Commission to be able to consider some "real- life" proposals currently desired to allow for expansions of existing legal non - conforming residential structures. In addition, the Commission was addressed on January 7, 2004 by another property owner that has been impacted by the Interim Ordinance regarding a proposed addition to a single- family residence on "The Hill ". Staff has prepared a brief summary of these proposals for the information of the Planning Commission and provided reduced copies of the conceptual plans as attachments to this staff report: ❑ 236 Fifth Street — Existing 2 -unit • ro'ect with a 4 -car garage See Attachment 6 ❑ Current Non - Conformities: ❑ Side Yard Setback for portion of structure (38% of the wall length) — 3' provided when 3.75' is required ❑ Existing development on Site: ❑ 1 -story single family unit; 1,220 square feet ❑ 2nd story unit above garage: 1,029 square feet ❑ 4 -car garage: 895 square feet ❑ Complies with density, height, off - street parking, and lot coverage requirements ❑ Proposed development: ❑ 1 -story single family unit; 1,877 square feet ❑ 2nd story unit above garage: 769 square feet (Conversion of existing 2- bedrrom unit to a 1- bedroom unit) ❑ 4 -car garage: 895 square feet ❑ 222 Seventeenth Street — Existing 2 -unit • ro'ect with a 2 -car • araae See Attachment ❑ Current Non - Conformities: ❑ Density — 2 units existing; 1 unit is the legal density ❑ Parking — 2 spaces existing, 4 spaces required for a two -unit development ❑ Alley setback — 6' -8" existing, 12' required ❑ Existing development on Site: ❑ 1 -story single family unit; 2- bedrooms and 1 bath ❑ 2nd story unit above garage: 1 bedroom and 1 bath ❑ 2 -car garage ❑ Complies with height, front and side yard setbacks, and lot coverage requirements ❑ Proposed development: ❑ 2 -story single family unit; 2 bedrooms, 3 baths. ❑ 2nd story unit above garage: I bedroom and 1 bath (no change to this unit is proposed) ❑ 2 -car garage ZTA 04 -1.CC Staff Report 98 • Zoning Text Amendment 04-1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures City Council Staff Report February 23, 2004 The owner of the property at 705 Bayside Drive addressed the Planning Commission on January 7 during "Public Comment" regarding the impact of the current interim ordinance on a proposed second -story addition at his residence. Staff at that time indicated this situation would also be considered by the Planning Commission as part of this public hearing. Provided below is a summary and discussion regarding 705 Bayside, and several other properties within the same tract that face a similar situation. ❑ 705 Bayside Drive — Existina single family residence with attached 2 -car garage (See Attachment 8) ❑ Current Non - Conformities: ❑ Front Yard Setback for structure — 15' -6" provided when 18''is required ❑ Front Yard encroachment for covered front porch — 7' provided when 18' is required. ❑ Existing development on Site: ❑ 1 -story single family home; 1,743 square feet ❑ 2 -car garage: 411 square feet ❑ Complies with density, height, off - street parking, and lot coverage requirements ❑ Proposed development: ❑ 2 -story single family unit ❑ 1,817 square feet on first floor (74 square foot addition) ❑ 1,349 square foot second story addition ❑ total living area of 3,166 square feet Provided below is some background information regarding the front setback and front porch encroachment issues relating to 705 Bayside Drive. ❑ Ordinance 406 — Adopted June 18, 1951 (Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance) ❑ Section 11(D) — front setback is as indicated on the "District Map ". A copy of this "District Map" has not been located and it unknown as to what the subject property was zoned, or if it was, in 1951. ❑ Section 18(H) — a covered porch may extend into the front yard to a distance of 36" from the front line of the building across no more than 1 /2 the width of the building, but in no case shall be enclosed ... and stairs from said landing places to the ground may extend beyond the said 36 ". ❑ Ordinance No. 490 — Adopted March 26, 1956 ❑ This ordinance indicates the zone classification by tract and lot of all properties within the City. Tract 2590 is not included, as the tract map was not approved until April 16, 1957 (see below). It appears that the property was zoned either "Semi- Industrial" or "Industrial" at this time. ❑ Ordinance 502 — Adopted April 16, 1957 ❑ This ordinance zoned Tract 2590 as Single Family Residential (R -1) ❑ Ordinance 509 — Adopted August 13, 1957 ❑ This ordinance establishes a 15' front yard setback for 31 lots in Tract 2590, including the subject lot 239. ❑ Ordinance 628 — Adopted June 17, 1963 (Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance) ❑ Section 1827 — Permitted Intrusions into Required Yards. ZTA 04 -1.CC Staff Report 99 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures City Council Staff Report February 23, 2004 ❑ Subsection (4) — allows uncovered porches in the front yard, provided they may not extend into a required front yard not more than 30 ". A review of these ordinances does not provide any information as to how the subject covered front porch was permitted in accordance with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. A check of Planning Commission resolutions was made to see if a variance might have been granted for such a development. The City has no records of Planning Commission Minutes or Resolutions prior to 1964. The Planning Commission was established in 1949. The subject property was issued the original building permit on August 9, 1957 and the building permit was finaled on February 24, 1958. This property, and the other 30 lots in this tract are all considered legal non - conforming due to the permitted front yard setback of 15 -feet as established pursuant to Ordinance No. 509. The current front yard setback for this zoned area of the City is 18 -feet. Staff has provided a letter to the homeowner of 705 Bayside Drive to explain the current position of the City regarding his proposed development. A copy is provided as Attachment 9 for the information of the Planning Commission. Overview of Current Code Provisions Regarding Expansions to Legal Non - Conforming Residences: The current standards of the City are set forth in Section 28 -2407, Enlargements or Structural Alterations to Nonconforming Residential Buildings and Uses (A copy of this Code section is provided as Attachment 10). This section allows for enlargements or structural alterations to existing nonconforming residential buildings under several different levels of City review. Provided below is a brief summary of the various levels of City review currently established to considers requests to expand or alter an existing nonconforming residential building: ❑ Issuance of a Building Permit: Minor Structural Alterations and Improvements pursuant to Section 28- 2407.A.1 may be approved by the issuance of a building permit. No building expansion is permitted by this process and Planning Commission review and approval is not required. ❑ Consent Calendar Minor Plan Review Approval by Planning Commission: Minor Structural Alterations, Enlargements or Expansions pursuant to Section 28- 2407.A.2 may be approved by the Planning Commission pursuant to consent calendar plan review. This section allows for: ❑ additional balconies and porches that are not enclosed ❑ Interior wall modifications ❑ Minor enlargements or expansions. ❑ Single Family Dwellings and Duplexes: ❑ minor structural alterations or expansions which increase the floor area under the Floor Area Ratio standards of the appropriate zone less than ten percent (10 %) of the allowable floor area if the subject property meets the minimum parking requirements; ZTA 04 -1.CC Staff Report 100 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures City Council Staff Report February 23, 2004 ❑ a maximum of 288 square feet per unit up to a maximum of 576 square feet per property if the subject property is nonconforming due to parking and subject to additional standards. ❑ Three or more units: . ❑ minor structural alterations or expansions which increase the floor area under the Floor Area Ratio standards of the appropriate zone less than ten percent (10 %) of the allowable floor area if the subject property meets the minimum parking requirements; ❑ a maximum of 144 square feet per unit up to a maximum of 400 square feet per property if the subject property is nonconforming due to parking and subject to additional standards. ❑ One -time or cumulative enlargements or expansions greater than ten percent (10 %) of the allowable floor area to properties that are nonconforming only due to the use of tandem parking when the required number of spaces are provided and the required standard spaces cannot be physically provided due to lot width. ❑ Other minor structural alterations and improvements similar to the foregoing. ❑ Conditional Use Permit Approval by Planning Commission: Major Structural Alterations, Enlargements or Expansions pursuant to Section 28- 2407.A.3, to nonconforming residential buildings and uses may be approved by the Planning Commission pursuant to the approval of a conditional use permit provided that all the requirements of this chapter excluding density and setbacks for garages, carports and exterior stairways are satisfied: ❑ One -time or cumulative enlargements and/or expansions greater than 10% of the allowable floor area. ❑ One -time or cumulative interior wall modifications and remodeling which involves removal of or structural alteration to greater than 25% of the structures interior walls. ❑ Conditional Use Permit Approval by Planning Commission: Major Structural Alterations, Enlargements or Expansions pursuant to Section 28- 2407.A.4 to nonconforming residential buildings may be approved by the Planning Commission pursuant to the approval of a conditional use permit provided that all the requirements of this Chapter excluding density and parking are satisfied. ❑ One -time or cumulative enlargements and/or expansions greater than ten percent (10 %) of the allowable floor area. ❑ One -time or cumulative interior wall modifications and remodeling which involves removal of or structural alteration to greater than fifty percent (50 %) of the structures interior bearing walls. ❑ The Planning Commission must find that all feasible parking given the availability and location of space on the site or the constraints imposed by the existing sound structure is provided. ❑ Director of Development Services Approval: Structural Alterations, Enlargements or Expansions pursuant to Section 28- 2407.A.5, to nonconforming residential buildings that are only nonconforming due to existing setbacks may be approved by the Director of Development Services provided that all the requirements excluding setbacks, including those for garages, carports and exterior stairways are satisfied. ZTA 04 -1.CC Staff Report 101 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures City Council Staff Report February 23, 2004 Overview of City Actions on Requests for Expansions of Non- Conforming Residential Structures: Staff has prepared a detailed summary of previous approvals granted by the City for major expansions to nonconforming residential structures. Please refer to Attachment 11 of this Staff Report to review the complete summary. Between 1985 and 2003 the City considered applications for non - conforming single- family and multi - family properties as indicated below: # of Applications # of Total Units Type of Housing # of Applications Approved Involved Single- Family 20 20 20 Multi- Family 26 25 71 Provided below is a summary of previous approvals granted for properties that had two or more residential units on the property at the time of consideration by the Planning Commission: ZTA 04-1 .CC Staff Report 102 1 0 a) 0 > . o y "' U Q 0 � _ Q a. 0 J Q i�zy Z ) m c U N (O to � �, W 0 y o 0 U N 6 - C7 U Q ° i i N a O Q r o (/) Z o J U U o 1- ai a) rn o Q Z d N O "" ID Z °Z� LO _ OZ 4' H�. a) �)o�'o)o io o c� • o cr 0 4= O = as O a a) •a) as a)czoc a) 0 CZ a) Q J O -0 — _ 0 0 cts C � O o i_ o Z Q G N iii a5 (o — O O O C 7 Lii 0 �, O 0) � � O `) C ai U > en LLI I— In O a) c -Y 'a' cV 0- > O a ° U > Q a) a) • QN OL Ti-.N Um< ct Z r E ° < E C a) a) O �- o :, L Z C 4= a) a) L co U X U : a) W n) 4 • O c Q () W 0 C O O Q -a O N E) C 0 JZ - c cam ca c 0- Q. Q ^ 0 O -0 0 -.- (5 5 - Q_ • Y t 0 0 C C 0 ( z X C. U a) 04-7- _ ... C O O, N O = N C _ C -p Q Z wO N E �QD° 0 mc) ammo (= 0 CO Q 0) (6 O u) LL L_ J Z O 0 < y C ›.- C1) °6 = � Z Z cn= w - E Q Q O W °it• O r o .ao Nd'O- E U (n < P. I W W ce (n fn Ce o I* 7 r U O CN U N _ cC a 0 D 0 a N \ }�\ - c 0 - o - o Em � ® 2 2 2 0 / \ 2 2 a Q - z-. C X328 \ /e± s k t§Q A CV # 2 0 / � 0 0 / -� 2 � ƒ / § U 0 % co / ( cc ƒ 0 0 \ w 0 2 9 ƒ » k . § cn e ® c ■ 0 • / • § " 2 CU E . @ 0 . c (TS 0 0 as c \ d 5 / 2 \ / c 0) u) E 15 c 0 c e g E m q z■ o o f oi / o c 0 �' 2 _a 7 %._ƒ • u ©q / , 0 7 7, § 0 7 E w # z o E 5 2 o E 0 a o ® ® 3 7 U a§§ § 2 % U 2 2 c u U 7 \ CC E { E § Q■ c 2 0 o .c - ' o E c c < c _ _ c 0' E < ¥ E f < n 3 / 5 5 � "O � � � c 0 cr � ƒ 9 � E 0 2 �� E f 7 E/ 3 o y 2 2 a o o co o o a) . o E c c c 2 0 2= 0 o 0 -, 0 .- k 0 c- 2 & Z 0 - O-0 k k 7 w o 46 t _ 7 ) E a E. 0 o ° c 0= E - e o= • § co c \ C/ 0 0 0 , 7 % _ ® = o 0 0 0 , 9 e c w 0 • J/$ C. w - ƒ\ v w 0 • - 0 o k _0 d a M ƒ E 0 E ® E _ o o > £ o >, ■ c U) / \ / \ § / \ a � � 2 - =2 0 =2 -0 0 \ a G CN O. @ a � co @ _ / * IT CO .. 0 2 0 0 \ _ CC U D D U U \ N \ § _ \ \\\ C > > > \ /�® E @ E \\ gi p Q 0_ 0_ E \ \ @ / a 0. �; « « « \. 3w E , c o o CO # § C .0 2 -/ 2 N ƒ ƒ q d \ \ U 0 9 2 % \ W 0 0 • \ & K 7 c 2 E § m a >, 53 > 0 q o ] ® m £ © as o / 7 : 2 ° / m § @ Q ® 7 A 0) J - a c ± § 2 ¥ > w = _ 'E E cn _ >s-0 2 c 5 n g c g 3 \: g E / A 2 r 5 : 1 6 c co tn = o L Ct 0 t >< k. a ' � CT 0 \ 0 2 % 0 > L B U o. o• E ce • • • .E �_ • L. 0 2 • ° _� § •§ 4 ) I / « >, G § 0 k d \ k k k \ o a) E ) o §" a o " < E 2 0% / ± 2. / -o 0 / o / ocG» E — o= k - ƒ k 7 \ a E• 7 - 0 . 2 o c o 0. • Q c@_ o c o. • 0 o E « o k % )• f . 5 4, 7 2 m= g P_) • o d 0ƒ w 2 d 0 • w¢ k% w 0� • w 8\ d > Oa - 0 >1 § o >1 % 0 >1 u) c m / \ 0 ) \ 0 / \ 2 2 - §ƒ o \ o / o o a co cr Cl « _ / * CO N Cl) 0 0 R \ U o a_ Cl_ . } 2 2 0 ¢ N ~ 6�2 • -0 -0 S 4 °0 \ \ E m 0 a) > > --�~ < o Q 0 �� @» 3 .2 % j \ \/\ \) \ ® o o a �� 2 . . _ ' ■ _ < p 0 ¢ \ \ It o U o 0 7 \ R 0 k . 3.: 2 / & D 1.1:-S3 2 as o " > £ �\ 2 .� . . / >, q % @ m TD o -0 .. . = k k \a 2 k § N § o 2 & § ° S \ ® / a -i - �3 E c 3 2 a. • E g = i A a a Z §§ f / C a (>. § 7 — 2 Cr -8@ m@ o 2 B n 2 o a 2 E • 2 2 ® ? \ ' m - @ _ _ . o @< c t E i < ƒ C < • 0 8 7 >, > £ 7 E o ƒ 2 � . ? ° 7° E g o c y a o ° @ 2 0 % ° k o x E o 2 \ o o % Z �) 2 \ Z al a) E Z k E • 0 • >.....- n - 0 0 & - - 0 § cz a3 0 \ / \ \ @ \ \ § \ \ = 2 ° 2 . E � a £ .2 c£ a_ 'x = a) \ - x a)- 7 x\ - 7( o 7 a) x W ±« d m W 0 u,±±£± 0 ± d 2 2 Z = E R E @ _ a ° -c 3 \ = 7 \ -t o / $ = O •E \ ' \ f \ g*- e = o —= o —= 2 . o % (N Cb G 0_ N < \ % 7 ƒ CO CO 0 \ 2 It R R k . / 0 U 2 \ N \/ 2. C 2 \ ) 4 % _ @ c4 > > . § § 0 0_ a. a 2G 2'E < L E 0_ ( //\ « « - , -- / \ §± /\�� c 0) ƒ ƒ e»/ .4... 2 , % o /\ � k / ƒ ` 5 n § 0 ) / 0) # g a CL \ \ f u � 7 7 f % / • . a) 0 d- 7 k iii c— > E c u) • c -0 o' -0 c E o e E 6 as ifi @ J as E ° c 0 0 k 0 0 k 6 " 3 o 2 g / a g @ E 2 co r - C ¥ £ E £ E 0 o k 2 . o a§ 0 a 0 k§ c § E 0 J • c | c c ƒ c c 0£ 2 \ E. E. \ < / \ >, ƒ a 3/ ƒ © t c © o c 0 2 m o� 2 -_ § u E 7 $ c 0_ ƒ c 3- c§ c*- a- - - C § . i k Z§ o 0 — Z 7 k\ k • >= e& • > C E o . = b o R§ c: o c c c o . 2 c o= 2. F) 2ƒ % c /. c o / E- • ' a) • 2= x o o - 0 o ' 0 m E E o ± O±« 3 ± O CC « 2 L c W± 7 E O / al 05 z - c 0 � 0>. 7 0 �/t \/t 7 o c = 0 2 = o 3 = 2 2 2 ° c 0 m N a dr n "Cl { \ (0 # n \ 4:k 6 o a) / a) 0 M ƒ ƒ ƒ o » - 2 2 \ ( - - - -- - . - - - -- -- \\\\ c -a 2 ) a > > § \ � / < k k a ® « « « §.§�.; - I?. "c:3 1- \ \\ tg « 2 c to 2 _ - � cz , ƒ / \ < ƒ o ƒ 6 \ CO 0 7 ? A / § ƒ ¢ k • p 2 \ R _ / ° % ƒ 2 c E � § / o e ® � % @ qt /E /\ £ e3 0) .- = o. - e C C 2 G 2 E 2 C E m g U o 6- @ _ g � - 0 a ) - : 7 7 § . \ \ 3 § « ,- w o c o o o g e 0 = E "0 0- 2 2 a 0 w o -0 2 D r - c _ 7 a c§ k 2 ct E R ƒ §° a E f w 7 cp § k 7 \\ o/§ a Q o a CO \ Cr U k/ J Q 0 B 0 a U CO 2 g ( 2/ 2 J • 2 .- c ( 7 ± 2 Q • 2 - »-0 E • 6 0 : 2 Q o E m Q \\ f < 2§ 2 0. < 0 2 2 2 \ = o ƒ© 2= • 0 t 2 c E o R/ o ° \ £ E y G @ U E o E - ! ! ! !! ® / (3 %/2 \ ) 7 / @ ± Q % § 0 - \ § .13 0 d 0 ƒ< \ / / / o/ d 0 fY< 5 D • d 0ƒ\ 2 o 2 a) 0 > / o > o > c " 0/\ (7), /\ � /\ O § 2 ¥ § o c\ 2 \ 2 �o q 01 0. q �a - Ca < ~ .- C 0 fx It 2 1 \ $ ƒ \ � ƒ ƒ D . o U / w \�\ c \ 2 -o 'Z'. t: o > > > 5 E @ 6 � % 0 \ 0_ 0_ \ \ » « § \ %2 « « \/ \ \ \� c % 0) CD . . - .1 . k ® T ƒ }3 2 — , in 1 \ « E c \ / * . o / 0 R \ � % Ni.. a) • z cc \ 2 ± > c� coy£ o .� /ƒ� - / / f� a 0- 1 0) / y 2 / \ N CO = E a £ 2 E E �0 7 E E 2 ƒ � y y k 0 E ° 2 ¢. 0 0) ° . \ ° • 0 E 2 • _ § 0 / E E G c% o c - CD § o a) 2 D 0 o e : g ®_o m E E ,- 9 2 2 CT = 0 _a w c� ƒ . a \ • — cr U - 0 @ 0 a U 6 I o 0 E @= 0 E 2 9 E D 0) = m @ = ƒ 2 7 f C @ • / • ƒ 0) • 0) 0) 0 E 2 < E CO k< E a< % E 2 2 k� E g a S e 2 c a 0 ° % - 0 E co o » k E o: E 2 z) ) 4 0.. c 0 k& 2 % ° 7« 2 7® ° CU 7@ a 7/ ° \ - 2 C 7 / 0 0 0-0 c 0 c E\ 7 3 3 ° @ • 3 c 7 Q 0 2 0) �� /% q._ 2 §? »: \ — _\ - E0 z� / \ = e = ._ k \ 5 2 2 E 7 = e ) . \ o d \ ƒ / 2\ d 0 a CC< o o ƒƒ U « d 7 2 2 0 > _@ 0 � _E 0 > ■� ƒ/\ C /\ C / ) § 2 - & = 0 — = 2 10 = 0 � q �a o � % � "Z, \- CV CV 5 \ 4t `- CO r 2 \ 2 / 0 \ ■ i U 0 Q © N }� C - o -o 2 \ _ _ E \ 0 > > > > . . 2 2 2 2 {/ / a 1.) 3G2� < 0_ 0. a k @ e (/�2 « 4 « 4 S = \ \\ OI \� c co \ \ ƒ ?- ?_9 2 - ƒ ƒ ƒ % \ ƒ / 0 ƒ \ 7 4t \ § ƒ > a \ \ y � ± » ) _ x ¢ zt 'e o _ 7 o � a0 LI 2 � ) �CD C.) 4-- 2 ƒ 2 § E 7 0 § ¢ / " y / / o w : a & : k e a) 7 9 o a § g . E§ 7 7 2 f / D 0 1- 0 03 d °-0 L A ° I%/ c Cr 2 U " N- S k 1- • 1 0. 0 • C 2 • @ - : - ..c. -o • � E C _ ƒ Q E >< E\ E 2 < y o /© t 0 g _ ° o o ° g k£ E y e/ E a .G c a . Q \ c y o § 8 k §ƒ g E co § a) E E ) /@ ' E a § co a. ' >7 E ' 0 k o § 2 \ 2-0 o \ 2 o o 2 @ o@ 2 E 7 y ) 2 7 « 2 @ 2 2@ 7 a.@ c • % / : ? _ . • : % . • : ? _ C E _ = a o \ § • -0 0_ % c - 0 'F' \ C • 5 � \ E • - 0 2 0 .. 'k m { 0 x « CD 2 = . x m 7 - o = x e Q - 0 o@ b 0± < ± 0 Q< ± 0 CY < 0± 0 CY < o a d 2 oa §>, 3 o >1 7 o .§>I • C1) § d- / \ / \ -.2 -- \ ® / \ U § . / ° 2 ,'' 2 / = 2 �o (0 q\ ± � a ® (NI o_ �� - 0 10 Q q , 3 c. cC * a) a) / \ @ 2 ± # u ■ - m 4 � 0 0 0 \ R ~ § t 7 -a 2 - 0 4 § _ k - 6 = \ a. a ± G .7,, E < 0 0 0 CL a a ( //) . « « « \ \/\ /��� C 7 % % # � : k 0 0) Q $ $ 2 — % « E ƒ o 2 \ EL o § @ CL \ \ 2 0£ Cr) g 7 % 5 f 2 0 �a E Q303 a � � _ a) 2 - 0 _ = c » u) E u) = o a c ._ 0 § 0 u B 0 0 _ o o f t ©%£ - o \ _ % ak as / 7/ \ 0 o_ § ° 9 ¥ 2 0 \ a °� 0» 0) v 0 @ o Q ƒ a) 0 - 0 0 \ 0 ƒ \ - as cr / / c 9/ S /— o U 0/ § • • c k c R • o c o 0 / - • 2 § f Q E E. Q 0 t y = 0= o\ ƒ w 2 / £ ' @ • 2 2 \ 0 \ c @ e - 0 c @ a_ \ E ll a 3 2 o .g o/ 2 0 .g E o 03 -0 Z 0 o o e 2 0 2 E 7 Q e E c c 0 0 o c% o • Eƒ \' • k/ _o 4- Q% 0 0 2 0 % 0 0 § 2 9 2 0 @ F. 2 2. 0 c 0 0 2 O a W <co i5 ± OCL ± « Cl. 0 W _J 0 CL« .g d = 0 0 0 0 >, T- 0 >, k 4 � r. / / t @ u) t 7 / o,_ cb .- N k 0 c = 0 ƒ 3 § 2 J 2 / a \ a q q a 13 Q \ 2 C.0 LO ? L Et 2 It c9 c0 d v- / U D D D - O 0 \ Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures City Council Staff Report February 23, 2004 Overview of Zone Text Amendment 92 -5: The fundamental provisions of the current regulations regarding expansions and alterations to non - conforming residential structures was adopted as part of Zone Text Amendment 92 -5 (ZTA 92 -5). Provided below is a brief summary of the various actions of the Planning Commission and City Council regarding ZTA 92 -5: ❑ November 7, 1990: Planning Commission considered Staff Report that discussed the following issues: Processing of Development Applications; Standard of Review for Minor Plan Reviews; and General History of City Policy re: Expansion of Non - Conforming Residential Structures. The Commission requested City Council direction regarding the Minor Plan Review process. ❑ November 13, 1990: City Council considered the request of the Planning Commission, received comments from staff and adopted an urgency ordinance, Ordinance No. 1319, prohibiting the processing of development applications for the expansion of non- conforming residential structures. ❑ December 10, 1990: City Council extends Ordinance No. 1319 to October 1991 by adopting Ordinance No. 1321. ❑ February 20, 1991: Planning Commission conducts a study session to receive citizen input on the issues of expansion of non - conforming structures, receives comments from 5 persons and schedules an additional study session. ❑ March 6, 1991: Planning Commission held second study session, received staff proposal to establish separate standards for single family /duplex structures and for triplex or larger structures, received comments from 5 persons, and schedules additional study session. ❑ March 20, 1991: Planning Commission held third study session, received public comments from 7 persons, and requested staff to distill the public and Commission comments and prepare a report for the Commission. ❑ May 15, 1991: Planning Commission held fourth study session, considered additional information prepared by staff, received comments from 5 persons, and instructed staff to prepare alternatives for consideration by the City Council and Planning Commission at a joint study session. ❑ December 19, 1991: Planning Commission held fifth study session, received proposals from staff, and requested the City Council to schedule a joint study session to consider the matter. ❑ February 19, 1992: City Council and Planning Commission held joint study session, considered two alternative proposals from staff, received comments from 9 persons, and provided direction to staff for additional provisions to be included in the Zone Text Amendment proposal. ❑ July 15, 1992: Planning Commission conducts public hearing on ZTA and recommends approval to the City Council on a 5 -0 vote of the Commission. ❑ August 24, 1992: City Council conducts public hearing on ZTA, receives public comments, and introduces Ordinance No. 1361. ❑ September 14, 1992: City Council adopts Ordinance No. 1361; ordinance becomes effective on October 14, 1992. 112 ZTA 04 -1.CC Staff Report Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures Planning Commission Staff Report January 21, 2004 Provided as Attachments 3A to 3N to the February 5, 2003 Planning Commission Staff Report on this issue are copies of the Staff Reports, Minutes, and appropriate Resolutions or Ordinances for each of the meetings discussed above. Overview of Code Amendments re: Expansion of Non - Conforming Residential Uses: Between 1974 and 1997 the expansion of non - conforming residential structures provisions of the Code have been revised 8 times. Provided below is a summary of the actions of the City in amending Section 28 -2407 between 1974 and 1997. SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS RE: ADDITION /EXPANSION OF NONCONFORMING USES ORDINANCE ADOP- NUMBER TION DATE SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE PROVISIONS 948 12 -09 -74 Nonconforming Expansion provisions as set forth below: § 28 -703 — RMD Zone Additions limited to porches, balconies, bathrooms, small storage rooms, enlargement of existing rooms or other similar additions subject to CUP approval. Additions of bedrooms and additional living units not permitted. § 28 -804 — RHD Zone Additions limited to porches, balconies, bathrooms, small storage rooms, enlargement of existing rooms or other similar additions subject to CUP approval. Additions of bedrooms and additional living units not permitted. § 28 -2407 — General Provisions Except as provided in the above referenced sections, no enlargements or expansion of nonconforming structures, unless said project makes the building conforming. ZTA 04-1 .CC Staff Report 113 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures Planning Commission Staff Report January 21, 2004 ORDINANCE ADOP- NUMBER TION DATE SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE PROVISIONS 1059 12 -11 -78 Nonconforming Expansion provisions as set forth below: § 28 -703 — RMD Zone — Deleted in entirety § 28 -804 — RHD Zone— No Change Additions limited to porches, balconies, bathrooms, small storage rooms, enlargement of existing rooms or other similar additions subject to CUP approval. Additions of bedrooms and additional living units not permitted. § 28 -2407 — General Provisions — No Change Except as provided in the above referenced sections, no enlargements or expansion of nonconforming structures, unless said project makes the building conforming. 1192 10 -28 -85 Comprehensive revision to § 28 -2407 regarding nonconforming uses. § 28 -703 — RMD Zone — Deleted in entirety § 28 -804 — RHD Zone — Deleted in entirety § 28 -2407 — Major revision — added provisions for different review categories for improvements and expansions to nonconforming residential structures; adds minor plan review and conditional use permit processes. 1274 06 -20 -88 Revisions to § 28 -2407 regarding allowable expansions of nonconforming residential properties. 1315 11 -26 -90 Revisions to § 28 -2407 regarding density and tandem parking standards for allowable expansions of nonconforming residential properties. 1361 09 -14 -92 Comprehensive revision to § 28 -2407 Established different expansion standards for single and duplex properties than for three unit or more residential properties. Retained MPR and CUP approval processes. 1367 05 -10 -93 Revision to § 28 -2407 Revision to standards for allowable bedroom additions. ZTA 04-1 .CC Staff Report 114 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures Planning Commission Staff Report January 21, 2004 ORDINANCE ADOP- NUMBER TION DATE SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE PROVISIONS 1416 07 -28 -97 Revision to § 28 -2407 Revision to standards for allowable roof eave projection in RLD District 1 (Gold Coast). No revisions to above discussed sections. Items for Consideration by the Planning Commission: Based on the discussions held during the City Council public hearing on the appeal regarding CUP 02 -16 at 1210 Electric Avenue and the subsequent actions of the Planning Commission and City Council regarding this issue, including the Planning Commission Study Sessions of February 5, March 5 and December 3, 2003, staff has identified the alternatives for consideration by the Planning Commission as discussed on pages 1 to 5 of this Staff Report. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that after receiving both written and oral testimony presented during the public hearing, the Commission recommend approval of ZTA 04 -1 to the City Council, after determining which alternative is the appropriate alternative for City Council consideration. Should the Commission follow staff's recommendation, staff has prepared a proposed resolution recommending approval of ZTA 04 -1 to the City Council, with the Planning Commission needing to determine which alternative should be attached as "Exhibit A ". Please refer to Attachment 1 to review the proposed resolution, including the alternate Exhibit A's, the "Draft Ordinance's" as prepared by the City Attorney that are provided as Attachments 2 to 4 regarding Alternative 1, 2 and 3. If the determination of the Planning Commission is to recommend approval of Alternative 4, only a resolution will need to be adopted; there would be no proposed changes to the existing language of Section 28-2407._ The appropriate resolution is provided as Attachment 5. Staff Recommendation: Staff is aware that this matter is a policy issue of the Planning Commission and City Council. However, Staff would strongly urge the Planning Commission to consider allowing, at a minimum, expansions to non - conforming residential properties in accordance with the "Alternative 2" proposal. This recommendation is due to different situations for setback only non- confoHnities that staff has become aware of, which impact not only "Old Town" but also Surfside, the Hill, and College Park East. A complete ban on expansions would prohibit many existing single- family residences that are impacted only due to a non - conforming ZTA 04 -1.CC Staff Report 115 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures Planning Commission Staff Report January 21, 2004 setback (and that comply with all parking, density, height, and lot coverage requirements) from ever being able to add additional living space - even when the additional living space is required to comply with all current development standards of the City. This seems counter - productive to the concerns expressed regarding impacts to parking and other neighborhood compatibility issues that arise in the context of an application to expand a multi - family non - conforming residential property. /s/ Lee Whittenberg, Director Department of Development Services Attachments: (11) Attachment 1: Proposed Planning Commission Resolution No. 04- , A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach Recommending to the City Council Approval of Zone Text Amendment 04 -1, Amending Article 24, Section 28 -2407 of Title 28 of the Code of The City of Seal Beach Regarding Structural Alterations and Enlargements to Nonconforming Residential Buildings and Uses Attachment 2: "Exhibit A" — Alternative 1 - Eliminate All Provisions Allowing For Expansion Of Non - Conforming Residential Structures Attachment 3: "Exhibit A" — Alternative 2 - Revisions To Allow Expansions Of Nonconforming Residential Structures Only If The Nonconformity Is A Setback Attachment 4: "Exhibit A" — Alternative 3 - Revisions To Allowable Size Of Additions To Nonconforming Residential Structures Attachment 5: Alternative 4 - Proposed Resolution Number 04- , A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach Recommending to the City Council No Amendments to Article 24, Section 28 -2407 of Title 28 of the Code of the City of Seal Beach Regarding Structural Alterations and Enlargements to Nonconforming Residential Buildings and Uses Attachment 6: Reduced Plans - 236 Fifth Street — Existing 2 -unit Project with a 4- car Garage ZTA 04-1 CC Staff Report 116 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures Planning Commission Staff Report January 21, 2004 Attachment 7: Reduced Plans - 222 Seventeenth Street — Existing 2 -unit Project with a 2 -car Garage Attachment 8: Reduced Plans - 705 Bayside Drive — Existing Single Family Residence with Attached 2 -car Garage Attachment 9: 705 Bayside Drive - Letter re: Nonconforming Residential Structure, dated January 14, 2003 Attachment 10: Existing Language — Section 28 -2407 Attachment 11: Summary of Minor Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit Decisions For Expansions To Nonconforming Residential Structures - 1985 to 2003 • ZTA 04 -1.CC Staff Report 117 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures Planning Commission Staff Report January 21, 2004 ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NUMBER 04 - , A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT 04 -1, AMENDING ARTICLE 24, SECTION 28 -2407 OF TITLE 28 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH REGARDING STRUCTURAL ALTERATIONS AND ENLARGEMENTS TO NONCONFORMING RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS AND USES ZTA 04 -1.CC Staff Report 118 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures Planning Commission Staff Report January 21, 2004 RESOLUTION NUMBER 04- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT 04 -1, AMENDING ARTICLE 24, SECTION 28 -2407 OF TITLE 28 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH REGARDING STRUCTURAL ALTERATIONS AND ENLARGEMENTS TO NONCONFORMING RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS AND USES THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES HEREBY RESOLVE: Section 1. At its meeting of January 21, 2004, the Planning Commission considered Zone Text Amendment 04 -1. This amendment would establish new standards for the alteration and enlargements to nonconforming residential buildings and uses. Section 2. Pursuant to 14 Calif. Code of Regs. § 15305 and § II.B of the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, staff has determined as follows: The application for Zone Text Amendment 04 -1 is categorically exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15301(a), (d) and (e), and Section 15305. Section 3. A duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on January 21, 2004 to consider Zone Text Amendment 04 -1. Section 4. The record of the hearing of January 21, 2004 indicates the following: a. The City Council in January 2003 requested the Planning Commission to schedule a Study Session to review the existing standards in the Zoning Ordinance regarding the addition and expansion provisions for non - conforming residential uses; and b. The Planning Commission conducted an initial study session regarding this issue on February 5, 2003 and directed staff to: ❑ schedule an additional study session for March 5, 2003; and ZTA 04 -1.CC Staff Report 119 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures Planning Commission Staff Report January 21, 2004 ❑ prepare additional land development proposals regarding expansions to non- conforming residential structures related to provision of additional parking and allowable size of a proposed expansion; and c. On March 5, 2003 the Planning Commission conducted their second "Study Session" regarding the issue of the current Zoning Ordinance provisions that allow for the expansion of legal non - conforming residential structures. During the study session, several individuals indicated that the current regulations are not reflective of the community's desires and recommended that no addition or expansions of legal non - conforming structures be permitted in the future; and d. After closing the March 5, 2003 study session, the Commission adopted on 5- 0 vote the following recommendation: "To recommend the City Council consider elimination of the provisions allowing for expansions or additions to any legal non- conforming structures within the City. "; and e. On April 14, 2003 the City Council considered the recommendation of the Planning Commission and determined to adopt Ordinance No. 1498, An Interim Ordinance of the City of Seal Beach Enacted Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65858 Prohibiting Minor or Major Structural Alterations, Enlargements and Expansions to Certain Nonconforming Residential Buildings and Uses During the Pendency of the City's Review and Adoption of Relevant Permanent Zoning Regulations and Declaring The Urgency Thereof (the "Interim Ordinance "). The initial interim ordinance was effective for 45 days and was subsequently extended for a maximum period of an additional 10 months and 15 days on May 12, 2003, by the adoption of Ordinance No. 1502, in accordance with the provisions of State law; and f. On July 14, 2003 the City Council considered the possibility of approving a limited exception of the interim prohibition for expansion or addition to legal non - conforming structures in the City if all current development standards, including the off - street parking requirements and excluding the density requirements, are met. After discussion, the City Council determined to receive and file the Staff Report on this matter, thereby taking no action regarding the proposed exception; and g. The Planning Commission conducted a final study session on December 3, 2003 and at the conclusion of the Study Session directed staff to schedule public hearing on Zone Text Amendment 04 -1, to consider several proposed alternatives; and h. At said public hearing there was oral and written testimony and evidence received by the Planning Commission. ZTA 04 -1.CC Staff Report 120 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures Planning Commission Staff Report January 21, 2004 Section 5. Based upon the facts contained in the record, including those stated in § 4 of this resolution and pursuant to §§ 28 -2600 of the City's Code, the Planning Commission makes the following findings: a. Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 is consistent with the provisions of the various elements of the City's General Plan. Accordingly, the proposed use is consistent with the General Plan. The proposed amendment is administrative in nature and will not result in changes inconsistent with the existing provisions of the General Plan. b. This proposal will result in the completion of a city study that was initiated in January 2003, but not finalized until adoption of the proposed Zone Text Amendment. c. The proposed text amendment will revise the City's zoning ordinance and enhance the ability of the City to ensure orderly and planned development in the City through an amendment of the zoning requirements. Specifically, this amendment would establish new standards for the alteration to nonconforming residential buildings and uses, and regulate additions to such legal nonconforming residential structures in accordance with the recommended language of Zone Text Amendment 04 -1. Section 6. Based upon the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby recommends approval of Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 to the City Council as set forth on Exhibit A, attached to this resolution and incorporated herein. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach at a meeting thereof held on the day of 2004, by the following vote. AYES: Commissioners NOES: Commissioners ABSENT: Commissioners ABSTAIN: Commissioners • Chaiiuian of the Planning Commission ZTA 04 -1.CC Staff Report 121 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures Planning Commission Staff Report January 21, 2004 Lee Whittenberg Secretary of the Planning Commission ZTA 04 -1.CC Staff Report 122 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures Planning Commission Staff Report January 21, 2004 ATTACHMENT 2 "EXHIBIT A" - ALTERNATIVE 1 ELIMINATE ALL PROVISIONS ALLOWING FOR EXPANSION OF NON - CONFORMING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES ORDINANCE NUMBER , AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH AMENDING ARTICLE 24, SECTION 28 -2407 OF TITLE 28 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH REGARDING STRUCTURAL ALTERATIONS (AND ENLARGEMENTS) TO NONCONFORMING RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS AND USES NOTE: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS ARE INDICATED BY DOUBLE STRIKE- THROUGH FOR TEXT AND BY DOUBLE UNDERLINE FOR TEXT TO BE ADDED ZTA 04 -1.CC Staff Report 123 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures Planning Commission Staff Report January 21, 2004 ORDINANCE NUMBER AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH AMENDING ARTICLE 24, SECTION 28 -2407 OF TITLE 28 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH REGARDING STRUCTURAL ALTERATIONS AND ENLARGEMENTS TO NONCONFORMING RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS AND USES WHEREAS, The City Council in early 2003 requested the Planning Commission to schedule a Study Session to review the existing standards in the Zoning Ordinance regarding the addition and expansion provisions for non - conforming residential uses; and WHEREAS, The Planning Commission conducted an initial study session regarding this issue on February 5, 2003 and directed staff to: ❑ schedule an additional study session for March 5, 2003; and ❑ prepare additional land development proposals regarding expansions to non- conforming residential structures related to provision of additional parking and allowable size of a proposed expansion; and WHEREAS, On March 5, 2003 the Planning Commission conducted their second "Study Session" regarding the issue of the current Zoning Ordinance provisions that allow for the expansion of legal non- confouring residential structures. During the study session, several individuals indicated that the current regulations are not reflective of the community's desires and recommended that no addition or expansions of legal non - conforming structures be permitted in the future; and WHEREAS, After closing the March 5, 2003 study session, the Commission adopted on 5 -0 vote the following recommendation: "To recommend the City Council consider elimination of the provisions allowing for expansions or additions to any legal non- conforming structures within the City. "; and WHEREAS, On April 14, 2003 the City Council considered the recommendation of the Planning Commission and determined to adopt Ordinance No. 1498, An Interim Ordinance of the City of Seal Beach Enacted Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65858 Prohibiting Minor or Major Structural Alterations, Enlargements and Expansions to Certain Nonconforming Residential Buildings - and Uses During the Pendency of the City's Review and Adoption of Relevant ZTA 04-1.CC Staff Report 124 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures Planning Commission Staff Report Januaiy 21, 2004 Permanent Zoning Regulations and Declaring The Urgency Thereof (the "Interim Ordinance "). The initial interim ordinance ,was effective for 45 days and was subsequently extended for a maximum period of an additional 10 months and 15 days on May 12, 2003, by the adoption of Ordinance No. 1502, in accordance with the provisions of State law; and WHEREAS, On July 14, 2003 the City Council considered the possibility of approving a limited exception of the interim prohibition for expansion or addition to legal non- conforming structures in the City if all current development standards, including the off - street parking requirements and excluding the density requirements, are met. After discussion, the City Council determined to receive and file the Staff Report on this matter, thereby taking no action regarding the proposed exception; and WHEREAS, The Planning Commission conducted a final study session on December 3, 2003 and at the conclusion of the Study Session directed staff to schedule public hearing on Zone Text Amendment 04 -1, to consider several proposed alternatives; and WHEREAS, the City is proposing to establish new requirements and criteria for the enlargement or structural alteration of non - conforming residential structures; and WHEREAS, the subject zone text amendment would apply to all non - conforming residential structures within the City; and WHEREAS, the proposed Zone Text Amendment is Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301(a), (d) and (e), and Section 15305; and WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on January 21, 2004 to consider Zone Text Amendment 04 -1; and WHEREAS, the said Commission held said aforementioned Public Hearing; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing there was oral and written testimony or evidence received by the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission made the following findings: (a) Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 is consistent with the provisions of the various elements of the City's General Plan. Accordingly, the proposed use is consistent with the General Plan. The proposed amendment is administrative in nature and will not result in changes inconsistent with the existing provisions of the General Plan. ZTA 04-1 CC Staff Report 125 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures Planning Commission Staff Report January 21, 2004 (b) This proposal will result in the completion of a city study that was initiated in January 2003, but not finalized until adoption of the proposed Zone Text Amendment. (c) The proposed text amendment will revise the City's zoning ordinance and enhance the ability of the City to ensure orderly and planned development in the City through an amendment of the zoning requirements. Specifically, this amendment would establish new standards for the alteration to nonconforming residential buildings and uses, and prohibit additions to such legal nonconforming structures in accordance with the recommended language of Zone Text Amendment 04 -1; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on Monday, , 2004; and WHEREAS, the City Council received into evidence the Report of the Planning Commission, including the Staff Report and Planning Commission Minutes of January 21, 2004, and Planning Commission Resolution No. 04 - In addition, the City Council considered all written and oral evidence presented at the time of the public hearing; and WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the public hearing, based upon the evidence presented, the City Council determined to approve Zone Text Amendment 04 -1. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 28 -2407 of Article 24 of Title 28 of The Code of The City of Seal Beach is hereby amended to read as follows: "Section 28 -2407. ,-_'.._ c_ Structural Alterations and Improvements to Nonconforming Residential Buildings and Uses. Nonconforming residential buildings may be titlantatl=or structurally altered and improved as provided in this section. A. Permitted Improvements. 1. Minor Structural Alterations and Improvements to nonconfoLtuing residential buildings and uses listed as follows may be approved by the issuance of a building permit: (a) Skylights. (b) Solar Systems. (c) Additional windows. ZTA 04 -1.CC Staff Report 126 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures Planning Commission Staff Report January 21, 2004 (d) Decorative exterior improvements. (e) Building maintenance. (f) Adding or replacing utilities. (g) Other minor structural alterations and improvements similar to the foregoing, as determined by the Planning Commission. 2. Minor Structural Alterations. _ = °° = —: -- _ ° _ and Improvements to nonconforming residential buildings and uses listed as follows may be approved by the Planning Commission pursuant to consent calendar plan review: (a) Open roof decks. (b) Additional balconies and porches (not enclosed). (c) Roof additions over balconies and porches. (1) Roof eaves projecting five (5) feet into the required rear yard setback of Planning District 1, Residential Low Density Zone. (d) Additional exterior doors. (e) Additional garages and carports, including tandem garages and carports. (f) Interior wall modifications and remodeling which involves removal of or structural alteration to less than twenty -five percent (25 %) of the structure's interior walls. Such interior wall modifications or remodeling may increase the number of bathrooms provided that the number does not exceed the following bedroom/bathroom ratio: one bath for each bedroom plus an additional half -bath. The number of bedrooms, as defined in Section 28 -210 of this chapter, shall not be increased if the subject property is nonconforming due to density or parking. (g) Reduction in the number of units involving removal or structural alteration to less than fifty percent (50 %) of the structures interior walls. ZTA 04-1 CC Staff Report 127 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures Planning Commission Staff Report January 21, 2004 - -- Y __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ • --•---::-- b� ---- - ---- = - .-- - -:---- -- : b� _�_- - - _�_•__ _�- _--- _�___�__. - j. _ _ - - • =-- • •--- _ b ZTA 04 -1.CC Staff Report 128 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures Planning Commission Staff Report January 21, 2004 ,- tafidern ratIting when is required . _ h) Other minor structural alterations and improvements similar to the foregoing, as determined by the Planning Commission. ZTA 04 -1.CC Staff Report 129 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures Planning Commission Staff Report January 21, 2004 .-.4.......4 ....... ....4......... . .. l .. • .__ greater than ton perecnt (19%) of the allewablc freer area. nonconforming eti=1=y rca iitaticereta=tc 3ctbitck.a, inekiding -_- -- - - - __-- --5 - -- -= -- =�:- _ :-=- =c =--:-_-- - e-HDvv=c4opment mss, t to ZTA 04-1 CC Staff Report 130 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures .Planning Commission Staff Report January 21, 2004 Section 2. Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance or any part thereof is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance or any part thereof. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase be declared invalid or unconstitutional. Section 3. The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published in accordance with applicable law. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Seal Beach at a meeting thereof held on the - day of , 2004. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF ORANGE } SS CITY OF SEAL BEACH } 1, Joanne M. Yeo, City Clerk of the City of Seal Beach, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance is an original copy of Ordinance Number on file in the office of the City Clerk, introduced at a meeting held on the day of , 2004, and passed, approved and adopted by the City Council of ZTA 04-1 .CC Staff Report 131 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures Planning Commission Staff Report January 21, 2004 • the City of Seal Beach at a meeting held on the day of , 2004 by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers NOES: Councilmembers ABSENT: Councilmembers ABSTAIN: Councilmembers and do hereby further certify that Ordinance Number has been published pursuant to the Seal Beach City.Charter and Resolution Number 2836. City Clerk ZTA 04 -1.CC Staff Report 132 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures Planning Commission Staff Report January 21, 2004 ATTACHMENT 3 "EXHIBIT A" - ALTERNATIVE 2 REVISIONS TO ALLOW EXPANSIONS OF NONCONFORMING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES ONLY IF THE NONCONFORMITY IS A SETBACK ORDINANCE NUMBER , AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH AMENDING ARTICLE 24,. SECTION 28 -2407 OF TITLE 28 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH REGARDING STRUCTURAL ALTERATIONS AND ENLARGEMENTS TO NONCONFORMING RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS AND USES NOTE: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS ARE INDICATED BY DOUBLE STRIKE- THROUGH FOR TEXT AND BY DOUBLE UNDERLINE FOR TEXT TO BE ADDED • ZTA 04-1 CC Staff Report 133 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures Planning Commission Staff Report January 21, 2004 ORDINANCE NUMBER AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH AMENDING ARTICLE 24, SECTION 28 -2407 OF TITLE 28 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH REGARDING STRUCTURAL ALTERATIONS AND ENLARGEMENTS TO NONCONFORMING RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS AND USES WHEREAS, The City Council in early 2003 requested the Planning Commission to schedule a Study Session to review the existing standards in the Zoning Ordinance regarding the addition and expansion provisions for non - conforming residential uses; and WHEREAS, The Planning Commission conducted an initial study session regarding this issue on February 5, 2003 and directed staff to: ❑ schedule an additional study session for March 5, 2003; and ❑ prepare additional land development proposals regarding expansions to non- conforming residential structures related to provision of additional parking and allowable size of a proposed expansion; and WHEREAS, On March 5, 2003 the Planning Commission conducted their second "Study Session" regarding the issue of the current Zoning Ordinance provisions that allow for the expansion of legal non - conforming residential structures. During the study session, several individuals indicated that the current regulations are not reflective of the community's desires and recommended that no addition or expansions of legal non - conforming structures be permitted in the future; and WHEREAS, After closing the March 5, 2003 study session, the Commission adopted on 5 -0 vote the following recommendation: "To recommend the City Council consider elimination of the provisions allowing for expansions or additions to any legal non- conforming structures within the City. "; and WHEREAS, On April 14, 2003 the City Council considered the recommendation of the Planning Commission and determined to adopt Ordinance No. 1498, An Interim Ordinance of the City of Seal Beach Enacted Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65858 Prohibiting Minor or Major Structural Alterations, Enlargements and Expansions to Certain Nonconforming Residential Buildings and Uses During the Pendency of the City's Review and Adoption of Relevant ZTA 04-1 .CC Staff Report 134 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures Planning Commission Staff Report January 21, 2004 Permanent Zoning Regulations and Declaring The Urgency Thereof (the "Interim Ordinance "). The initial interim ordinance was effective for 45 days and was subsequently extended for a maximum period of an additional 10 months and 15 days on May 12, 2003, by the adoption of Ordinance No. 1502, in accordance with the provisions of State law; and WHEREAS, On July 14, 2003 the City Council considered the possibility of approving a limited exception of the interim prohibition for expansion or addition to legal non - conforming structures in the City if all current development standards, including the off - street parking requirements and excluding the density requirements, are met. After discussion, the City Council determined to receive and file the Staff Report on this matter, thereby taking no action regarding the proposed exception; and WHEREAS, The Planning Commission conducted a final study session on December 3, 2003 and at the conclusion of the Study Session directed staff to schedule public hearing on Zone Text Amendment 04 -1, to consider several proposed alternatives; and WHEREAS, the City is proposing to establish new requirements and criteria for the enlargement or structural alteration of non - conforming residential structures; and WHEREAS, the subject zone text amendment would apply to all non - conforming residential structures within the City; and WHEREAS, the proposed Zone Text Amendment is Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301(a), (d) and (e), and Section 15305; and WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on January 21, 2004 to consider Zone Text Amendment 04 -1; and WHEREAS, the said Commission held said aforementioned Public Hearing; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing there was oral and written testimony or evidence received by the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission made the following findings: (a) Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 is consistent with the provisions of the various elements of the City's General Plan. Accordingly, the proposed • use is consistent with the General Plan. The proposed amendment is administrative in nature and will not result in changes inconsistent with the existing provisions of the General Plan. ZTA 04 -].CC Staff Report 135 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures Planning Commission Staff Report January 21, 2004 (b) This proposal will result in the completion of a city study that was initiated in January 2003, but not finalized until adoption of the proposed Zone Text. Amendment. (c) The proposed text amendment will revise the City's zoning ordinance and enhance the ability of the City to ensure orderly and planned development in the City through an amendment of the zoning requirements. Specifically, this amendment would establish new standards for the alteration to nonconforming residential buildings and uses, and prohibit additions to such legal nonconforming structures in accordance with the recommended language of Zone Text Amendment 04 -1; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on Monday, , 2004; and WHEREAS, the City Council received into evidence the Report of the Planning Commission, including the Staff Report and Planning Commission Minutes of January 21, 2004, and Planning Commission Resolution No. 04 -_. In addition, the City Council considered all written and oral evidence presented at the time of the public hearing; and WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the public hearing, based upon the evidence presented, the City Council determined to approve Zone Text Amendment 04 -1. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 28 -2407 of Article 24 of Title 28 of The Code of The City of Seal Beach is hereby amended to read as follows: "Section 28 -2407. Enlargements or Structural Alterations to Nonconforming Residential Buildings and Uses. Nonconforming residential buildings may be enlarged or structurally altered as provided in this section. A. Permitted Improvements. 1. Minor Structural Alterations and Improvements to nonconforming residential buildings and uses listed as follows may be approved by the issuance of a building permit: (a) Skylights. (b) Solar Systems. (c) Additional windows. (d) Decorative exterior improvements. (e) Building maintenance. ZTA 04 -I.CC Staff Report 136 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures Planning Commission Staff Report January 21, 2004 (f) Adding or replacing utilities. (g) Other minor structural alterations and improvements similar to the foregoing, as determined by the Planning Commission. 2. Minor Structural Alterations, - = ° ° = —: -- _ _ or Improvements to nonconforming residential buildings and uses listed as follows may be approved by the Planning Commission pursuant to consent calendar plan review: (a) Open roof decks. (b) Additional balconies and porches (not enclosed). (c) Roof additions over balconies and porches. (1) Roof eaves projecting five (5) feet into the required rear yard setback of Planning District 1, Residential Low Density Zone. (d) Additional exterior doors. (e) Additional garages and carports, including tandem garages and carports. (f) Interior wall modifications and remodeling which involves removal of or structural alteration to less than twenty -five percent (25 %) of the structure's interior walls. Such interior wall modifications or remodeling may increase the number of bathrooms provided that the number does not exceed the following bedroom/bathroom ratio: one bath for each bedroom plus an additional half -bath. The number of bedrooms, as defined in Section 28 -210 of this chapter, shall not be increased if the subject property is nonconforming due to density or parking. (g) Reduction in the number of units involving removal or structural alteration to less than fifty percent (50 %) of the structures interior walls. _----_ :----- a - = - -- - _- - - ° - -= _ - :---- _ - =' -_ :- : -= :— _ -_ -: -= -- _- _-- - - - - -_ :- _ - - - - -: - - -- - -- - . —_ — :- - - - - -- : e = fl oor _ —' -- - =::- _ -_ _ _ - — == _— =;_ 1,.119-_.:r r ZTA 04-1 .CC Staff Report 1 7 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures Planning Commission Staff Report January 21, 2004 : — — — f - appropri- e—zenc if the 3ahjcct prorefty m rat for eaeh unit, 3Lihjcct to the fe - ----- ------- - - - ------------- - half ZTA 04 -1.CC Staff Report 138 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures Planning Commission Staff Report January 21, 2004 Itekoitarisrae • _ -_ -: -- - - - - -_ : - -- =- a - - - -. _ - -_ - --- =_ - - =- : -- : -- . -: : -_ = - -e --- a - = —:- e - - -_ -- -- . —_ - - -= a - -- - -- : - - -e -- : -: - -' -e _- : -- - -= -- - - - - -- (( h) Other minor structural alterations and improvements similar to the foregoing, as determined by the Planning Commission. • - - - •' - - - - .. •. . p • •. -f- the- apprepriatc zone. ZTA 04 -1.CC Staff Report 1 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures Planning Commission Staff Report January 21, 2004 . _ - :- a - - - - -: -_:- :- - - - - -- : - : - - - -:: ---- : - - - - -: 3. Structural Alterations. Enlargements or Expansions to nonconforming residential buildings and uses which are nonconforming only by reason of inadequate setbacks, including the required setback for existing legal, non - conforming garages, carports, and exterior stairways may be approved by the Director of Development Services, subject to the following: (a) All enlargements or expansions shall comply with the minimum yard dimensions for the zone and district in which the building or use is located. (b) The existing nonconforming side yard setback shall be no less than three (3) feet in width, with the exception of existing legal non - conforming exterior stairways, which shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Uniform Building Code as most recently adopted by the City, with the exception of the required setback. (c) The existing nonconforming front yard setback shall deviate no more than ten percent (10 %) from the current minimum front setback. (d) The existing nonconforming rear yard setback shall deviate no more than ten percent (10 %) from the current minimum rear setback." ZTA 04 -1.CC Staff Report 140 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures Planning Commission Staff Report Januafy 21, 2004 Section 2. Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance or any part thereof is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance or any part thereof. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase be declared invalid or unconstitutional. Section 3. The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published in accordance with applicable law. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Seal Beach at a meeting thereof held on the day of , 2004. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF ORANGE } SS CITY OF SEAL BEACH } 1, Joanne M. Yeo, City Clerk of the City of Seal Beach, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance is an original copy of Ordinance Number on file in the office of the City Clerk, introduced at a meeting held on the day of , 2004, and passed, approved and adopted by the City Council of - the City of Seal Beach at a meeting held on the day of , 2004 by the following vote: ZTA 04 -1.CC Staff Report 141 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures Planning Commission Staff Report January 21, 2004 AYES: Councilmembers NOES: Councilmembers ABSENT: Councilmembers ABSTAIN: Councilmembers and do hereby further certify that Ordinance Number has been published pursuant to the Seal Beach City Charter and Resolution Number 2836. City Clerk ZTA 04-1 CC Staff Report 142 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures Planning Commission Staff Report Januafy 21, 2004 ATTACHMENT 4 "EXHIBIT A" - ALTERNATIVE 3 REVISIONS TO ALLOWABLE SIZE OF ADDITIONS TO NONCONFORMING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES ORDINANCE NUMBER , AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH AMENDING ARTICLE 24, SECTION 28 -2407 OF TITLE 28 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH REGARDING STRUCTURAL ALTERATIONS AND ENLARGEMENTS TO NONCONFORMING RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS AND USES NOTE: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS ARE INDICATED BY DOUBLE STRIKE- THROUGH FOR TEXT AND BY DOUBLE UNDERLINE FOR TEXT TO BE ADDED ZTA 04 -1.CC Staff Report 143 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures Planning Commission Staff Report January 21, 2004 ORDINANCE NUMBER AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH AMENDING ARTICLE 24, SECTION 28 -2407 OF TITLE 28 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH REGARDING STRUCTURAL ALTERATIONS AND ENLARGEMENTS TO NONCONFORMING RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS AND USES WHEREAS, The City Council in early 2003 requested the Planning Commission to schedule a Study Session to review the existing standards in the Zoning Ordinance regarding the addition and expansion provisions for non - conforming residential uses; and WHEREAS, The Planning conducted an initial study session regarding this issue on February 5, 2003 and directed staff to: ❑ schedule an additional study session for March 5, 2003; and ❑ prepare additional land development proposals regarding expansions to non- conforming residential structures related to provision of additional parking and allowable size of a proposed expansion; and WHEREAS, On March 5, 2003 the Planning Commission conducted their second "Study Session" regarding the issue of the current Zoning Ordinance provisions that allow for the expansion of legal non - conforming residential structures. During the study session, several individuals indicated that the current regulations are not reflective of the community's desires and recommended that no addition or expansions of legal non - conforming structures be permitted in the.future; and WHEREAS, After closing the March 5, 2003 study session, the Commission adopted on 5 -0 vote the following recommendation: "To recommend the City Council consider elimination of the provisions allowing for expansions or additions to any legal non- conforming structures within the City. "; and WHEREAS, On April 14, 2003 the City Council considered the recommendation of the Planning Commission and determined to adopt Ordinance No. 1498, An Interim Ordinance of the City of Seal Beach Enacted Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65858 Prohibiting Minor or Major Structural Alterations, Enlargements and Expansions to Certain Nonconforming Residential Buildings and Uses During the Pendency of the City's Review and Adoption of Relevant ZTA 04 -1.CC Staff Report 144 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures Planning Commission Staff Report January 21, 2004 Peinianent Zoning Regulations and Declaring The Urgency Thereof (the "Interim Ordinance "). The initial interim ordinance was effective for 45 days and was subsequently extended for a maximum period of an additional 10 months and 15 days on May 12, 2003, by the adoption of Ordinance No. 1502, in accordance with the provisions of State law; and WHEREAS, On July 14, 2003 the City Council considered the possibility of approving a limited exception of the interim prohibition for expansion or addition to legal non- conforming structures in the City if all current development standards, including the off - street parking requirements and excluding the density requirements, are met. After discussion, the City Council determined to receive and file the Staff Report on this matter, thereby taking no action regarding the proposed exception; and WHEREAS, The Planning Commission conducted a final study session on December 3, 2003 and at the conclusion of the Study Session directed staff to schedule public hearing on Zone Text Amendment 04 -1, to consider several proposed alternatives; and WHEREAS, the City is proposing to establish new requirements and criteria for the enlargement or structural alteration of non - conforming residential structures; and WHEREAS, the subject zone text amendment would apply to all non - conforming residential structures within the City; and WHEREAS, the proposed Zone Text Amendment is Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301(a), (d) and (e), and Section 15305; and WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on January 21, 2004 to consider Zone Text Amendment 04 -1; and WHEREAS, the said Commission held said aforementioned Public Hearing; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing there was oral and written testimony or evidence received by the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission made the following findings: (a) Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 is consistent with the provisions of the various elements of the City's General Plan. Accordingly, the proposed use is consistent with the General Plan. The proposed amendment is administrative in nature and will not result in changes inconsistent with the existing provisions of the General Plan. ZTA 04 -1.CC Staff Report 145 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures Planning Commission Staff Report January 21, 2004 (b) This proposal will result in the completion of a city study that was initiated in January 2003, but not finalized until adoption of the proposed Zone Text Amendment. (c) The proposed text amendment will revise the City's zoning ordinance and enhance the ability of the City to ensure orderly and planned development in the City through an amendment of the zoning requirements. Specifically, this amendment would establish new standards for the alteration to nonconfoiming residential buildings and uses, and prohibit additions to such legal nonconforming structures in accordance with the recommended language of Zone Text Amendment 04 -1; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on Monday, , 2004; and WHEREAS, the City Council received into evidence the Report of the Planning Commission, including the Staff Report and Planning Commission Minutes of January 21, 2004, and Planning Commission Resolution No. 04 -_. In addition, the City Council considered all written and oral evidence presented at the time of the public hearing; and WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the public hearing, based upon the evidence presented, the City Council determined to approve Zone Text Amendment 04 -1. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 28 -2407 of Article 24 of Title 28 of The Code of The City of Seal Beach is hereby amended to read as follows: "Section 28 -2407. Enlargements or Structural Alterations to Nonconforming Residential Buildings and Uses. Nonconforming residential buildings may be enlarged or structurally altered as provided in this section. A. Permitted Improvements. 1. - Minor Structural Alterations and Improvements to nonconforming residential buildings and uses listed as follows may be approved by the issuance of a building permit: (a) Skylights. (b) Solar Systems. (c) Additional windows. (d) Decorative exterior improvements. (e) Building maintenance. ZTA 04 -I.CC Staff Report 146 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures Planning Commission Staff Report January 21, 2004 (f) Adding or replacing utilities. (g) Other V minor structural alterations and improvements similar to the foregoing, as determined by the Planning Commission. 2. Minor Structural Alterations. Enlargements or Expansions to nonconforming residential buildings and uses listed as follows may be approved by the Planning Commission pursuant to consent calendar plan review: (a) Open roof decks. (b) Additional balconies and porches (not enclosed). (c) Roof additions over balconies and porches. (1) Roof eaves projecting five (5) feet into the required rear yard setback of Planning District 1, Residential Low Density Zone. (d) Additional exterior doors. (e) Additional garages and carports, including tandem garages and carports. (f) Interior wall modifications and remodeling which involves removal of or structural alteration to less than twenty -five percent (25 %) of the structure's interior walls. Such interior wall modifications or remodeling may increase the number of bathrooms provided that the number does not exceed the following bedroom/bathroom ratio: one bath for each bedroom plus an additional half -bath. The number of bedrooms, as defined in Section 28 -210 of this chapter, shall not be increased if the subject property is nonconforming due to density or parking. (g) Reduction in the number of units involving removal or structural alteration to less than fifty percent (50 %) of the structures interior walls. (h) Minor enlargements or expansions. (1) Single Family Dwellings and Duplexes: One time or cumulative minor structural alterations or expansions which increase the floor area under the Floor Area Ratio standards of the appropriate zone less than ten percent (10 %) of the allowable floor area if the subject property meets the minimum parking requirements; or a maximum of 288 square feet per unit up to a maximum of 576 square feet per property, if the subject property is nonconforming due to parking, subject to the following: ZTA 04 -1.CC Staff Report 147 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures Planning Commission Staff Report January 21, 2004 (a) Additional bathrooms are permitted provided that the number per unit does not exceed the following bedroom/bathroom ratio: one bath for each bedroom plus an additional half -bath. (b) The number of bedrooms, as defined in Section 28 -210, may not be increased if the subject property is nonconforming due to density or parking. (c) Enclosures of balconies and porches shall constitute the addition of habitable space. (d) Such expansions and enlargements to properties that are nonconforming due to parking shall be permitted only if the Planning Commission determines that all feasible parking, given the availability and location of space on the site or the constraints imposed by the existing sound primary structure, is provided. (e) The provision of enclosed tandem parking spaces may be utilized to comply with the required off - street parking requirements, provided all required setbacks are provided. (2) Three (3) or More Units: One time or cumulative minor structural alterations or expansions which increase the floor area less than ten percent (10 %) of the allowable floor area under the Floor Area Ratio standards of the appropriate zone if the subject property meets the minimum parking requirements; or a maximum of 144 square feet per unit up to a maximum of 400 square feet per property, if: (a) the subject property is nonconforming due to parking, and (b) a minimum of one (1) standard, open and accessible covered parking space is provided for each unit, subject to the following: (1) Additional bathrooms are permitted provided that the number per unit does not exceed the following bedroom/bathroom ratio: one bath for each bedroom plus an additional half -bath. ZTA 04 -1.CC Staff Report 148 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures Planning Commission Staff Report January 21, 2004 (2) The number of bedrooms, as defined in Section 28 -210, may not be increased if the subject property is nonconfoiuiing due to density or parking. (3) Enclosures of balconies and porches shall constitute the addition of habitable space. (4) Such expansions and enlargements to properties that are nonconforming due to parking shall be permitted only if the Planning Commission determines that all feasible parking, given the availability and location of space on the site or the constraints imposed by the existing sound primary structure, is provided. (5) The provision of enclosed tandem parking spaces may be utilized to comply with the required off - street parking requirements, provided all required setbacks are provided. (i) One -time or cumulative enlargements or expansions of ten percent (10 %) or more of the allowable floor area under the Floor Area Ratio standards of the appropriate zone to properties that are nonconforming only due to the use of tandem parking when the required number of spaces are provided and the required standard spaces cannot be physically provided due to lot width. (j) Other minor structural alterations and improvements similar to the foregoing, as determined by the Planning Commission. 3. Major Structural Alterations, Enlargements or Expansions (Less than 1.5 Parking Spaces per Unit) to nonconforming residential buildings and uses listed as follows may be approved by the Planning Commission pursuant to the approval of a conditional use permit provided that all the requirements of this chapter excluding density and the required setback for existing legal, non - conforming garages, carports and exterior stairways, which shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Uniform Building Code as most recently adopted by the City, with the exception of the required setback, are satisfied: ( ZTA 04 -1.CC Staff Report 149 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures Planning Commission Staff Report January 21, 2004 • - - mods- of the-- apprerpr4ate --gene Single Family Dwellings and Duplexes: a maximum of 432 square feet per unit up to a maximum of 864 square feet per property. (b) stittettwes==iittea44. Three or more units: a maximum of 144 square feet per unit up to a maximum of 400 square feet per property. 4. Major Structural Alterations, Enlargements or Expansions (1.5 Parking Spaces Per Unit or More) to nonconforming residential buildings and uses listed as follows may be approved by the Planning Commission pursuant to the approval of a conditional use permit provided that all the requirements of this Chapter excluding density and parking are satisfied. Provided the parcel is nonconforming due to the use of tandem parking when the required number of spaces are provided and the required standard spaces cannot be physically provided due to lot width: (a) One -time or cumulative enlargements and /or expansions greater than (1) 432 square feet per unit and greater than 864 square feet per property for Single Family Dwellings and Duplexes. (2) 144 square feet per unit and greater than 400 square feet per property for Three or more units. (b) One -time or cumulative interior wall modifications and remodeling which involves removal of or structural alteration to greater than fifty percent (50 %) of the structures interior bearing walls. (c) Such expansions and enlargements shall be permitted only if the Planning Commission determines that all feasible parking given the availability and location of space on the site or the constraints imposed by the existing sound primary structure is provided. 5. Structural Alterations, Enlargements or Expansions to nonconfottuiing residential buildings and uses which are nonconforming only by reason of inadequate setbacks, including the required setback for existing legal, non - conforming garages, carports, and exterior stairways may be approved by the Director of Development Services, subject to the following: (a) All enlargements or expansions shall comply with the minimum yard dimensions for the zone and district in which the building or use is located. ZTA 04 -1.CC Staff Report 150 - Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures Planning Commission Staff Report January 21, 2004 (b) The existing nonconforming side yard setback shall be no less than three (3) feet in width, with the exception of existing legal non - conforming exterior stairways, which shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Uniform Building Code as most recently adopted by the City, with the exception of the required setback. (c) The existing nonconforming front yard setback shall deviate no more than ten percent (10 %) from the current minimum front setback. (d) The existing nonconforming rear yard setback shall deviate no more than ten percent (10 %) from the current minimum rear setback." Section 2. Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance or any part thereof is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance or any part thereof. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase be declared invalid or unconstitutional. Section 3. The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published in accordance with applicable law. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Seal Beach at a meeting thereof held on the day of , 2004. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk ZTA 04 -I.CC Staff Report 151 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures Planning Commission Staff Report January 21, 2004 STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF ORANGE } SS CITY OF SEAL BEACH } 1, Joanne M. Yeo, City Clerk of the City of Seal Beach, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance is an original copy of Ordinance Number on file in the office of the City Clerk, introduced at a meeting held on the day of , 2004, and passed, approved and adopted by the City Council of the City of Seal Beach at a meeting held on the day of , 2004 by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers NOES: Councilmembers ABSENT: Councilmembers ABSTAIN: Councilmembers and do hereby further certify that Ordinance Number has been published pursuant to the Seal Beach City Charter and Resolution Number 2836. City Clerk ZTA 04-1 CC Staff Report 152 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures Planning Commission Staff Report January 21, 2004 ATTACHMENT 5 ALTERNATIVE 4 - RESOLUTION NUMBER 04 -,, A RESOLUTION OF . THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL NO AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLE 24, SECTION 28- 2407 OF TITLE 28 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH REGARDING STRUCTURAL ALTERATIONS AND ENLARGEMENTS TO NONCONFORMING RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS AND USES ZTA 04 -1.CC Staff Repoli 153 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures Planning Commission Staff Report January 21, 2004 RESOLUTION NUMBER 04- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL NO AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLE 24, SECTION 28 -2407 OF TITLE 28 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH REGARDING STRUCTURAL ALTERATIONS AND ENLARGEMENTS TO NONCONFORMING RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS AND USES THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES HEREBY RESOLVE: Section 1. At its meeting of January 21, 2004, the Planning Commission considered Zone Text Amendment 04 -1. This amendment would establish new standards for the alteration (and enlargements) to nonconforming residential buildings and uses. Section 2. Pursuant to 14 Calif. Code of Regs. § 15305 and § II.B of the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, staff has determined as follows: The application for Zone Text Amendment 04 -1 is categorically exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15301(a), (d) and (e), and Section 15305. Section 3. A duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on January 21, 2004 to consider Zone Text Amendment 04 -1. Section 4. The record of the hearing of January 21, 2004 indicates the following: a. The City Council in January 2003 requested the Planning Commission to schedule a Study Session to review the existing standards in the Zoning Ordinance regarding the addition and expansion provisions for non - conforming residential uses; and b. The Planning Commission conducted an initial study session regarding this issue on February 5, 2003 and directed staff to: ❑ schedule an additional study session for March 5, 2003; and ❑ prepare additional land development proposals regarding expansions to non - conforming residential structures related to provision of additional parking and allowable size of a proposed expansion; and ZTA 04 -1.CC Staff Report 154 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures Planning Commission Staff Report January 21, 2004 c. On March 5, 2003 the Planning Commission conducted their second "Study Session" regarding the issue of the current Zoning Ordinance provisions that allow for the expansion of legal non - conforming residential structures. During the study session, several individuals indicated that the current regulations are not reflective of the community's desires and recommended that no addition or expansions of legal non - conforming structures be permitted in the future; and d. After closing the March 5, 2003 study session, the Commission adopted on 5- 0 vote the following recommendation: "To recommend the City Council consider elimination of the provisions allowing for expansions or additions to any legal non- conforming structures within the City."; and e. On April 14, 2003 the City Council considered the recommendation of the Planning Commission and determined to adopt Ordinance No. 1498, An Interim Ordinance of the City of Seal Beach Enacted Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65858 Prohibiting Minor or Major Structural Alterations, Enlargements and Expansions to Certain Nonconforming Residential Buildings and Uses During the Pendency of the City's Review and Adoption of Relevant Permanent Zoning Regulations and Declaring The Urgency Thereof (the "Interim Ordinance "). The initial interim ordinance was effective for 45 days and was subsequently extended for a maximum period of an additional 10 months and 15 days on May 12, 2003, by the adoption of Ordinance No. 1502, in accordance with the provisions of State law; and f. On July 14, 2003 the City Council considered the possibility of approving a limited exception of the interim prohibition for expansion or addition to legal non - conforming structures in the City if all current development standards, including the off - street parking requirements and excluding the density requirements, are met. After discussion, the City Council determined to receive and file the Staff Report on this matter, thereby taking no action regarding the proposed exception; and g. The Planning Commission conducted a final study session on December 3, 2003 and at the conclusion of the Study Session directed staff to schedule public hearing on Zone Text Amendment 04 -1, to consider several proposed alternatives; and h. At said public hearing there was oral and written testimony and evidence received by the Planning Commission. Section 5. Based upon the facts contained in the record, including those stated in § 4 of this resolution and pursuant to §§ 28 -2600 of the City's Code, the Planning Commission makes the following findings: ZTA 04 -1.CC Staff Report 155 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures Planning Commission Staff Report January 21, 2004 (a) Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1, due to its long -term detrimental impacts to property upkeep and maintenance of non - conforming residential properties, and the potential loss of multi - family housing resources within the community, is inconsistent with the provisions of the various elements of the City's General Plan. Accordingly, the proposed amendment is inconsistent with the General Plan. The proposed amendment, although administrative in nature, will result in changes inconsistent with the existing goals and policies of the General Plan. (b) This proposal will be detrimental to the long -term upkeep and maintenance of non - conforming residential properties within the City; thereby depressing property values and eventually resulting in the loss of existing non - conforming multi - family housing within the community. (c) The proposed text amendment will revise the City's zoning ordinance and reduce the ability of the City to continue to maintain and enhance the existing stock on non- conforming multi - family residential development in the City through an amendment of the zoning requirements. Specifically, this amendment would eliminate the potential for the expansion to nonconforming residential buildings and uses, and prohibit such additions to such legal nonconforming residential structures. (d) The current provisions of Section 28 -2407, upon further consideration of the Planning Commission during the public hearing process, are determined to be sufficient in allowing the City to consider applications for expansions of non - conforming residential structures in manner that allows for adequate public consideration and evaluation, and sets forth reasonable development standards. Section 6. Based upon the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council no amendments to Article 24, Section 28 -2407 of Title 28 of the Code of the City of Seal Beach regarding structural alterations and enlargements to nonconforming residential buildings and uses. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach at a meeting thereof held on the day of 2004, by the following vote. AYES: Commissioners NOES: Commissioners ABSENT: Commissioners ABSTAIN: Commissioners ZTA 04 -1.CC Staff Report 156 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures Planning Commission Staff Report January 21, 2004 Chairman of the Planning Commission Lee Whittenberg Secretary of the Planning Commission ZTA 04-1 CC Staff Report 157 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures Planning Commission Staff Report January 21, 2004 ATTACHMENT 6 REDUCED PLANS - 236 FIFTH STREET - EXISTING 2 -UNIT PROJECT WITH A 4 -CAR GARAGE ZTA 04 -1.CC Staff Report 158 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures Planning Commission Staff Report January 21, 2004 ATTACHMENT 7 REDUCED PLANS - 222 SEVENTEENTH STREET - EXISTING 2 -UNIT PROJECT WITH A 2 -CAR GARAGE ZTA 04 -1.CC Staff Report 159 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures Planning Commission Staff Report January 21, 2004 ATTACHMENT 8 REDUCED PLANS - 705 BAYSIDE DRIVE - EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH ATTACHED 2 -CAR GARAGE • ZTA 04 -1.CC Staff Report 160 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures Planning Commission Staff Report January 21, 2004 ATTACHMENT 9 705 BAYSIDE DRIVE - LETTER RE: NONCONFORMING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE, DATED JANUARY 14, 2003 ZTA 04 -1.CC Staff Report 161 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures Planning Commission Staff Report January 21, 2004 ATTACHMENT 10 EXISTING LANGUAGE - SECTION 28 -2407 ZTA 04-1 CC Staff Report 162 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures Planning Commission Staff Report January 21, 2004 "Section 28 -2407. Enlargements or Structural Alterations to Nonconforming Residential Buildings and Uses. Nonconforming residential buildings may be enlarged or structurally altered as provided in this section. A. Permitted Improvements. 1. Minor Structural Alterations and Improvements to nonconforming residential buildings and uses listed as follows may be approved by the issuance of a building permit: (a) Skylights. (b) Solar Systems. (c) Additional windows. (d) Decorative exterior improvements. (e) Building maintenance. (f) Adding or replacing utilities. (g) Other minor structural alterations and improvements similar to the foregoing, as determined by the Planning Commission. 2. Minor Structural Alterations, Enlargements or. Expansions to nonconforming residential buildings and uses listed as follows may be approved by the Planning Commission pursuant to consent calendar plan review: (a) Open roof decks. (b) Additional balconies and porches (not enclosed). (c) Roof additions over balconies and porches. (1) Roof eaves projecting five (5) feet into the required rear yard setback of Planning District 1, Residential Low Density Zone. (d) Additional exterior doors. (e) Additional garages and carports, including tandem garages and carports. (f) Interior wall modifications and remodeling which involves removal of or structural alteration to less than twenty -five percent (25 %) of the structure's interior walls. Such interior wall modifications or remodeling may increase the number of bathrooms provided that the number does not exceed the following bedroom/bathroom ratio: one bath for each bedroom plus an additional half -bath. The number of bedrooms, as defined in Section 28 -210 of this chapter, shall not be increased if the subject property is nonconforming due to density or parking. ZTA 04 -1.CC Staff Report 163 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures Planning Commission Staff Report January 21, 2004 (g) Reduction in the number of units involving removal or structural alteration to less than fifty percent (50 %) of the structures interior walls. (h) Minor enlargements or expansions. (1) Single Family Dwellings and Duplexes: One time or cumulative minor structural alterations or expansions which increase the floor area under the Floor Area Ratio standards of the appropriate zone less than ten percent (10 %) of the allowable floor area if the subject property meets the minimum parking requirements; or a maximum of 288 square feet per unit up to a maximum of 576 square feet per property, if the subject property is nonconforming due to parking, subject to the following: (a) Additional bathrooms are permitted provided that the number per unit does not exceed the following bedroom/bathroom ratio: one bath for each bedroom plus an additional half -bath. (b) The number of bedrooms, as defined in Section 28 -210, may not be increased if the subject property is nonconforming due to density or parking. (c) Enclosures of balconies and porches shall constitute the addition of habitable space. (d) Such expansions and enlargements to properties that are nonconforming due to parking shall be permitted only if the Planning Commission determines that all feasible parking, given the availability and location of space on the site or the constraints imposed by the existing sound primary structure, is provided. (e) The provision of enclosed tandem parking spaces may be utilized to comply with the required off - street parking requirements, provided all required setbacks are provided. (2) Three (3) or More Units: One time or cumulative minor structural alterations or expansions which increase the floor area less than ten percent (10 %) of the allowable floor area under the Floor Area Ratio standards of the appropriate zone if the subject property meets the ZTA 04 -I .CC Staff Report 164 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures Planning Commission Staff Report January 21, 2004 minimum parking requirements; or a maximum of 144 square feet per unit up to a maximum of 400 square feet per property, if: (a) the subject property is nonconforming due to parking, and (b) a minimum of one (1) standard, open and accessible covered parking space is provided for each unit, subject to the following: (1) Additional bathrooms are permitted provided that the number per unit does not exceed the following bedroom/bathroom ratio: one bath for each bedroom plus an additional half -bath. (2) The number of bedrooms, as defined in Section 28 -210, may not be increased if the subject property is nonconforming due to density or parking. (3) Enclosures of balconies and porches shall constitute the addition of habitable space. (4) Such expansions and enlargements to properties that are nonconforming due to parking shall be permitted only if the Planning Commission determines that all feasible parking, given the availability and location of space on the site or the constraints imposed by the existing sound primary structure, is provided. (5) The provision of enclosed tandem parking spaces may be utilized to comply with the required off - street parking requirements, provided all required setbacks are provided. (i) One -time or cumulative enlargements or expansions of ten percent (10 %) or more of the allowable floor area under the Floor Area Ratio standards of the appropriate zone to properties that are nonconforming only due to the use of tandem. parking when the required number of spaces are provided and the required standard spaces cannot be physically provided due to lot width. ZTA 04-1 CC Staff Report 165 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures Planning Commission Staff Report January 21, 2004 (j) Other minor structural alterations and improvements similar to the foregoing, as deteiniined by the Planning Commission. 3. Major Structural Alterations. Enlargements or Expansions to nonconforming residential buildings and uses listed as follows may be approved by the Planning Commission pursuant to the approval of a conditional use permit provided that all the requirements of this chapter excluding density and the required setback for existing legal, non - conforming garages, carports and exterior stairways, which shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Uniform Building Code as most recently adopted by the City, with the exception of the required setback, are satisfied: (a) One -time or cumulative enlargements and /or expansions of ten percent (10 %) or more of the allowable floor area under the Floor Area Ratio standards of the appropriate zone. (b) One -time or cumulative interior wall modifications and remodeling which involves removal of or structural alteration to greater than twenty -five percent (25 %) of the structures interior walls. 4. Major Structural Alterations. Enlargements or Expansions to nonconforming residential buildings and uses listed as follows may be approved by the Planning Commission pursuant to the approval of a conditional use permit provided that all the requirements of this Chapter excluding density and parking are satisfied. Provided the parcel is nonconforming due to the use of tandem parking when the required number of spaces are provided and the required standard spaces cannot be physically provided due to lot width: (a) One -time or cumulative enlargements and /or expansions greater than ten percent (10 %) of the allowable floor area. (b) One -time or cumulative interior wall modifications and remodeling which involves removal of or structural alteration to greater than fifty percent (50 %) of the structures interior bearing walls. (c) Such expansions and enlargements shall be permitted only if the Planning Commission determines that all feasible parking given the availability and location of space on the site or the constraints imposed by the existing sound primary structure is provided. 5. Structural Alterations, Enlargements or Expansions to nonconforming residential buildings and uses which are nonconforming only by reason of inadequate setbacks, including the required setback for existing legal, non - conforming garages, carports, and exterior stairways may be approved by the Director of Development Services, subject to the following: ZTA 04-1 .CC Staff Report 166 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures Planning Commission Staff Report January 21, 2004 (a) All enlargements or expansions shall comply with the minimum yard dimensions for the zone and district in which the building or use is located. (b) The existing nonconforming side yard setback shall be no less than three (3) feet in width, with the exception of existing legal non - conforming exterior stairways, which shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Uniform Building Code as most recently adopted by the City, with the exception of the required setback. (c) The existing nonconforming front yard setback shall deviate no more than ten percent (10 %) from the current minimum front setback. (d) The existing nonconforming rear yard setback shall deviate no more than ten percent (10 %) from the current minimum rear setback." * * * * ZTA 04-1 .CC Staff Report 167 Zoning Text Amendment 04 -1 Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures Planning Commission Staff Report Januafy 21, 2004 ATTACHMENT 11 SUMMARY OF MINOR PLAN REVIEW AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. DECISIONS FOR EXPANSIONS TO NONCONFORMING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES - 1985 TO 2003 ZTA 04 -1.CC Staff Report 168 1 y a O p C N C a) 'a _ y > a) M O 2 c N ~ �/� Q E ... U ` V) — Q� �� W L of U C N M CO '?o y' _ o O a) o O a) � � iv o 0) N ' 0 V� `� = Q � 0 CS n / O 1— r It o � o v ai o co Z J a N N o U 0 o OQ z 1Y Lo W V! H Lra _ _ > V W 2' � �°`��° W n3 oco o w i n CI D c CD LL i) a3 -0 .a) x a) cr -o C o O c a) Q) Z C � CO +' V O> G I.L. .` 0 "- 0 Q 0 " - O O J ee �M -o oj co 0. W Z O iii co c w o 0 0 ce 0. p c ° M a) o w O a� ° U -iii pm 0 - a c ° o - o Z a) o 2 � ,, �� 0- > ` O Q L > (/) Q a a' 0 2-70 O ? , _ N O pp< E c Q E c a) co 0 O o •6'X v x.� coW= Q U c a� m °-a,.o 2 Q~ Z o 5a) 0- -0 O cc c- — a3 o c , o � 0Z z ° a c 0 c ° o ` -0 �� E 0 0 Y u7 c o c (63 m o "=" -L- o u) Q) u) .N c -0 01 N c- p U n U X a) N a ) 'O L O-0 co o CO W o CD Q c) co a m as 0 Z Q '^ c 0 v/ z •L C Z oa U o >, Q N c :,- a CI. N m W C a a) O O O W - N � °- C a 0 LL. o W N N 0 R4 d U D 0 x ..-- > \\ /\ C > > > . . - ® ® 0 0 0 / \ \ 0 a a a ® t < a Q Q 3 a 2 ;_ , \ §d ® '', » c / 0 0 ®»\ ; 3 2 m ƒ 0 ƒ �� « v- ƒ ƒ \ \ o U 7 f \ / § Ce 0 0 0 , Q J. -o 0- .-a E a@ m CO ° 0 Eo2 a) / Q > c ° o , $a � a \ o 8 O E •- 3 L_% 0 / 2 o 2 0 @ 2 (1) @ \ . w -0 E 0) @ § ® ° / c c § -o 0 -0 _ � � • • % L— as o -o 7 / � § ° ƒ C • G§ L § E o & o q §/ f k o 0 / 0 c 0 0 k 0 7 E \/ § % k f 0 J @ a / a 2 § • (0 c0 § 2 • /0 9 2 6§2 E c c < E / g am E • k E§\ «�\ o .o c \ / / o § ƒ - .0 w c ® \ / 2 a o 0 2 o 0 a 0 o ' co o 0 7 £ 0 § 2 0 = E 0- a o@ 0 E o = E E = L a) 020 ) E a o f co v E o ' -0 £• E@ o -0 ° 3 J -o E c o 2 9 2 ± ± 0 a = Z C 0) y ' t- 2 176 ƒ 0 0 ' — 2 c: 0 0 C 2 w • q/ 2 • 0 c 0 0 _ L. % c 2 5 C\ %% \ 2 7 k • 2 0 7 ® 2 0 2 2 2 o x =' c 2 g • 0_ ± 2 n ±< o o(t ± W< 7 ± E o fY « 6 ci 0 f E ƒ E k ■ CA CO k \ 0 \ cn § 2 § 2 ) 7 \ - o c\1 co < y i I* (0 c % 2 0 d c \ 0 D a. D o 2 0 U 0 d Q •. , n - a- o C C a c a) 0 y N > > > y` N O O O 0 C_ C. C_ Q C_ C. C. y .,- — Q Q Q ro\\ 4.. it y V T T T ,° =' = ) O O O U p r T N c -:t. 4 C) `ti Q o O o 0 0 o 0 0� 0') /� Y) 1 I T LL CD T T O 0 0 U 0 c in > 0) o c .c ° c ) o X • o o 4- U C Q) 4- C 6 O 0 O Q > O 0 N -o U LC) D E (/j "D C N -o - 7 0-0 co rn c O al " p � tB .) O a w, U m o >, O c oo a - U a > ca 2 E ca �c < E E o< < o L >, L a) c L " --I >, L U > — L Q O (U U X O - 0 0 U a) O Er U Q L — C L C_ O L TT) , 0 C 7 a) t6 a (6 (0 u) C o 0 o a'- o a 0 E 0 •c o 4- cz c N a. c0 >, c Q_ • C Q 0 4-- _ __ 'a X O 0 Z 7 0 o E Z 0° Z co a) o 03 • C CO C c6 • >, in Q >, • >. Cl) 7/5 N C 6 C a) O' C 0 f6 C C ._ 0 C E CU .— a) •— D a) •N C 0 -+. N C . 00 1 (n V - o to 0) C • - 0 U _co C • C U • X (B C a) 'O C X O ( p a) a) - X a) a) X O W , (n CC < () W 0 CC < In W 0 fY W a p > c - ) >, Z Q ..--, (° _ U) C c) m :� a) o o N = a) U C C_ cn C C- ) 4_ W 0 C O C o 13 p 0 0-) �• o- o n T O T Q T co T T G 0 M G) O o O U cA O 2 2 N �§ > / { \ \ c \ 2 2 { • \ ® o o 0 2 / Ln ,-=-, 2 k 0 k e.e � « Q 4 - F.)- \ � i / \ \/ c c ¥y/ CD 7 o c ` ■ A ƒ 0 N -6 � � ƒ 0 \ \ � 7 2 CO £ U e-- m q Ce ' \ - ° ? / L -.- / � _ E 2 C 0 0 / / ® _/ >, a -0 ° D 0 a f _ o _ © f - / •, 3 >a _o z / o f E % Q 2 2 - o % � 2 2 0 // 0>, § >, S \ -5 \ § E 0 ƒ §� 0 E § g \ "o 0J @ 6 G @ o 2 E E C _§ 7 w C 0 0 - ƒ 0) a cv = 0 k o @ _ _ E — Cr 0 0 § 0 \ > c U£_c > a co E CD • • k 2 • • o 2 § 0 I E <> 2\ c • — 0 CO 7 2{< ¢ C 3 k g a G 5 ¥ >, 3 £#-o 2 o o E 2 0 % 0 CD 0- o 0_ o / L 0 _ ® ' ° ,_ , 0 o ® c § r c 6 0 o o 7 2 7 0 CU_o0 0 \� 2.2 >" _ cc0 - m---, ® E c m c o. c._ 0 Q c w 0) c J cn o g E _ _ @ ,^ 4= a _ 0-00L ' o 0 := % c 0 o = \ c_o • 0_� . - 0 - 2 • enc d CC w¢ 2 d 3ƒ ƒ w§§ w/>, CC k/ R d c z *5 2 / o > c o / to C 0 / \ ° / "() 0 ■ D 0 E a_ 0 E E ° + m = @ ¥ = P 00 a LO cp c < co 7 2 N m s 4t 1 — a a) 0 o c \ U CL D D CL - - 2 Q U < N \ \ �� c \ ) ) ® > > § §,� ' ® ®»E k k a ©% ®: « 4 « e � % ; \ \/\ \�� o 0 0 K y»/ a) o c c .� ~ / k / N k � ƒ o ¢ \ o . U 0 � � co § 2 R R R \ « 2 �D 2 - o )° ° / 2 -I--; ' O. e -o • \ = cif % 2 \ . . - E E 2 2 N 3 =3 k E § M 0 § E § 9 @ e _ g ® g g 2 a -o w 7 E 2 £ a 2 aƒ ').7 a . § 5 c w \ t- q 0/ k 0 0 C .11-_-' \ 7/ - c- o 6§ 0- -0 2 § 7 @ ; o . - E = 3 0 . ® • 0 _ = co @ CC m @ TS • CO n 2 < > § E • % < ƒ 2 o o C £ > ƒ 2 c° / 0 a § • 7 ƒ o § 0 g E m O. ° • m E 0 0 \ 3 " c a 0 'x > O W -0 (0 o o 2 E o f -0 Q 2 ' .. 4..-. V y @t E q - 17, « • •\ - k \ a >- ƒ - \ / ? E F ? m » 1 / = E @ \ 2 k : _ -o 3% / _£ • a£ • W W 2 W Q< � W 3 u CC W o d Z = E E / _ E� � : § § o o • k 0 0 / / 0 0 E a k o D in m o _ - 0 \ "0 « « il * 1 } 2 0 0 0 \ 03 E ƒ 4 0 2 \ 4 \\ \\ c 2 \ 0 .�� 0 > > > { \ ® / @ 2 / a a a ® •~ Q Q Q E/ -.\ \/ \ \ \�� 0) c c #k J ± A c ee ¥ A 7 \ ( c6 C « c \ \ 0 0 7 CO a) ƒ ¢ ¢ \ 2 E « 7 6- y > % ¢ e 0 7 o) c7) 76 _ 7 'n -o E R in al '7 § = 0 § CO o 0 o c ) CF) 0 o \ & \ in % c ¥ � % o - 7 . % - — £ / = o > o @ @ E o E W @ E \ \ _ � § -" C - 0 - 2 _ • § / ..,,,,.-• 1 E 12 < [ E \ • o " a® 2>, 2 0© 9 7 o _o o f y e o% 2ƒ 0 o 2 . \ 0 . 0 £ c \ L = / ® L E 0 - 0- • 2' o E 0 — .x • 2 E w § f § § c ± a c: 0% 2 • or • = %: § E ƒ 4(7.) ) / 0 • 2 / / .-.- \ ) D 2 2 d 0 w CC x d /ƒ 2\ d 0 CC k/ 0 2 > z E c < c _ ot s 4 , 7 0 / 2 0 >, to c / \ 0 - 0 m n co e Q 0 e 0- CD + r E ± f @ 0 a ' c a. "0 0 0 . . / c Q it a) a) o) 0 \ RI 0 ƒ k 2 0 d Q \ { } c -o 0 2 \ \ 0 2 2 2 \ \/ E < « §. 2 \ . /� 0) G c R w s » / .- J / / .§ .§ ca Q g N i s <� ƒ / 0 \ § O 7 £ # m .( § ¢ ¢ ¢ § CC \ \ _ — co % ( o > \ �772E / £ 2 > 0 m ® < k £ ¥ x o o a' m.0 o o E k ƒ 2 G 2 2 R k § @ c E o o'- ' E a C • L_ ' § Q 0 0 x 2 w m ® 2 0 o E o£\ 2 o / 0 \ 0 iii 7 0 0/ 0 § = 6 Q 6 20 $ 6 m 0- mmE 7 a c§ 2 5 c 2 4 / o • w E 2 0 ° *. @ c £ c g c 2 g .- _ ƒ o \ o/ 0 k 2 2 §% U \ - o 0 / % 0 7 > CC c 2. 0 • c o 6 2 • c k 2 ¢ ? f m E f « \ ƒ « $ ± ƒ « 0 ) % o \ c k a) 0 c k / c c % C % C § ± 2 o • § ° I_ 0 § § ' _ k- 0 2 « • 9 0 E ° O 2-o 4- 0 0 c CL 2-c 0 - 0 c 0 0 2 0 C — . \ . 2 @ 2 0 — 2@ f a\ •- 2 @ 2 u) » a 2 0 0 u) c: %/ f c: 2$ 2 (L13 c: f% C 0@ 0 .2_ 0 ._ (7 , _ _ � .- = 2 u) ._ .- 3 _ . ._ @ ƒ§ 0 o 0 ƒ§ m c a 2 <§ 0 2 ƒ\ o 2 c\ 2 2±« j ± 2± a 7 E ± 0 Y 4 Q, 2@ 0 2 Z a3 all c 2 0� 0>. 0 0 > « 4-. 5/ k/t oat § m 2 ® § ƒ m ® = 2 0 = 0 . o £ CO a J t- \ / = 7 n a } CD ƒ k ¢ \ ® ƒ ƒ ƒ U 2 2 . 2 ' \ % > g t \ - 3 C > > > . . 2 2 2 \ \ § U a 0- a ^ < Q Q 5 .2 � 2 s r \ ƒ5% \ \ \� c c c # 7c-). 0 2 ± G 2 - .E 2 m ƒ « � ƒ Q c § U 7 q q o \ ƒ k \ El 2 R \ o c 8 % £ ° as 2 E ¥ : _0 7 • -0 E 2 • .- - 0 7 ./ o \ as 2 § -J < - • c - § E g 2 • 2 g o '- g A @ as / Q a) as . % ¥ m = (0 > § . > , � > \ 2 U \ > 2 °- U g . U' @ ®E / n . ._ -0 b 0 cC E f 2\ 2 < 0\ E k o / o® o= ; 2 ›. o £ 7 3= o 2 c o 0 / 9 o% 2 9 \J § \/ §% o: d E u) o@ co a. ° - %� c EL o E Q o 2 73 0 7 0 o - 0 / c.g o 2 -o Z @ƒ co 7 Z 2 - c z 0 0 E c 9 {: q 7 0 • 7 • § q 2 E {: $ E 2 % C 0 2. a \ 2 / • -0 § / % § -0 o d 0 < J . d/ o Ct < o 2 d Cl) It k} o > / § § -t 2 CD ® 2 UJ -N 2 -0 0 % d 0_ 0 co C 0_ < N \ 2 •CT) = a) 0) o) oS \ U co � U 0 \ w 4§ \\ -Z'" 0 > > > ) @ @ @ \ \ \b < § / � \ , s + \ /e5 ,ER \gU CO CO CO � CW c c c ;G _ G G G ' ) .:--"- = 7.,- ■ c «� ƒ ƒ ƒ \ 7 G 0 CO \ a) a 0) \ \ 7 _ 7 : % / ƒ co £ 7 0 ® ' ƒ 2 0q c 3 o ' c 2 2 - o 0 - 0 e >, , ( § § o CO a) a \ r- o o = £ 2 o x '0 w 0 o£ § 0 0) C • o c = ® - o L- C U) ° 2 C .— ° : — %%Q \ 1 @ a . e o a 2 w 0 % § E $ 0 o 0 @ 0 q. 0 \ 0 0 0 0 Cr 0 %\ = 0 2 U£ ) U o 0 4 o f J • B » • n • a \ 222 « \\ «� o< 72a o_ 0 o 2 0 0 > 1... 0° 2 c 0 7 8 2 0 0 0 2 a 0 ? w @ • - \ ®% Q o E 0 Cl. (I) o 0 0 0) -0 0 0 0 CO 0 0 A @20 ± Z 0 2 * �2 • = o £ m / = • e n • _ (D - FD . = 0 0 0 § _ 73 .- 0 0 § c c 0 § 2 v 7 2 0 E - 0 k 0 S 0 . 2 - 0 [ � x =\ c o Q x E % » - 0 _ R@ o 7 ± E 2 0 ±< m 2. D ± «_ ± i w B 2 d Z ƒ uo (7) .0-, 0 0 a) ,. a ? 7 f / « / 2 2 CN } ¢ \ ƒ K \ u ® / / U 0 0 0 \ ( \ { \� c 2 2 { \ / 2 2 \ \ \\ < < < 5 / \ - \ \ \� ¥ ¥ y / 2 c c .- / 0 < C .. § * 0 0 / ? ) Ct % 0) ) ƒ 720 7 Ea �x 2e2 CO \ E 2 £ ' 5 ® _ M / § - o £ £ -0 o£ %R@ 2 5 4 9 0 E ° - 0 ( 0 0 0 . E 7 ƒ E T D / 0 '- co E @ @ 0 2 § � .. .0 0 o k % 2 = 0 ee 7 . o % @ o 2 2 C « � % ±0— \ % 7 2 0 w E 0@ £ 7 = @ ° / @ c o q • Ce _ ° E • F -o 0 E E _ _ to E 2 0 0 . C @ 9 @ C 0 @ 0 ® 0 L / ƒ k \ � �ƒ et 0 [ k 0 k-0 E m £ CO CO z / ƒ 2 Z / 6 2 2 • e z § (Ni 7 0= y // - "4 -' . % 5 . 2= \ 2 C • 70 E\ a w/\ • k/ k k k d o -o k\ \ 0 ;_ ^ o ® (n c ƒ / \ a) § ( = f 0 -0 O j � E / . < 3 ƒ CO q % * 1- 2 CD % a) \ (1) Cl_ D U U £ ( \ \ \ N c ) \ \ {\� c o > § / a 0_ a � ®. Q Q Q 3 / 2 E r \ \e2 \\ \� E-s 1::` c ® / / ©»— ; 2 3 m ƒ N � �� % ƒ ? § o 0 4:k ƒ % CL U.) a) % % ) cc \ -0- c c k a9 c E m co @ o o > S 3\ O ' O _ 0 0 2 2 \ § �o @ % c o 2w 0 0 � 0 >, \ ' o -0 \ 0 § > e c c £ o2 c .g °% £ 3Q \ v \ ) \ • @ ®a� �® kk 2 c± co % ? - • • ` ° 2 Cr 0 CO 7 > / 3 f U 0 0) 2/ y co % c E 2 - §§ • g 2 . 2 f < CO E E £ < o% 2 < E o > e 2 o o\ c 0 2 @ • 4.... o o 2 / 2 m = a e 0 0 / C 0 %§ @ ® o C CD o c o 0 ®ƒ L ƒ: \ c§ L 7 > 0 \ 12- 9 2 z/ �_ k k a Z .0 a) 7 - r_ E £ a � 2 — co 0. a .= Q 7 E o c / / / ® 2 a . \ = / _ § -/ • » / / / — o 2 • 2 C 2 n CO - 0) 0 7 D 2 2 3 >7 m a) = 0 2 t c " x 03 % 0 - 0 C> = J a) - o ± c.coQ < in as W _> <5< 2 » '0 ± <£ 2 k f } CO ' 2 0 E c U �2 ® \ / o o c q < CO y / It CO \ 2 � % e \ U . 4 0 U 0 < N \ \ \\ 2 \ § m c = o 0 \ ® 0 > > § \q a a a - - < a a a [ / -,f # Q « \ \ \\ \ � � � ¥ w % `, ® J \ 0 , / 0 \ \ & « 0 0 0 \ 7 o U 7 0 '- \ \ \ 2 0 % 7 \ o /� 7� E � = � « 2 . / 2 2 0 a .-- 3 0 k E 0 0 fil 7 E @ o o f o 2 < o c � 2 \ / w 0 c §£ e c w 3 C% 2 C 0 0 C g/ ® g 2 E 8 g m • rn :15 2 / 2% "¥ � o 2 _ 9 0 f E o o E I 2 7 0=@ 6 § m 0 R R U£ o G CC E • E/ . • / g\ c g � u, CO \ % - « / 2 k E 3 fa - 3 / c 0 -0° 0 ƒ c :2 _ o_ E E e o o k ® o as c * 2/ § ƒ = 2 [ ± c c o� _ 0 3 Z 2 k c o 0) Z x u 0 Z _ I ,-/ C: c % / • • 7 6 4- o e 0 @ - \ i.7) W \ o . ) \ c 2 \ } 0 E . m a) ° 0 o x a ± 0 o Ct < o L -. It 0 c ± CC 4 2 0 _ - 0 > / 0 > 0 .5 ti U) c ( / \ c / \ 0 2 ' §ƒ --S § o 00 o 0 - a ( a .- < . / o ¥ o } @ It 0) ƒ ƒ 0 ■ n 4 0 0 0 © N \( \/ -o -c S 2 \ { E c > > > > Ec�/ 2 2 2 2 \g o_ o_ o_ a ® ` Q 4 Q . Q 3 / % 2 - u r .-� \\ \ \� co k# 22 c @ \ \ ` / ƒ / ;. � � ƒ ƒ 0 o 3 3 . U 7 1- w CO � ( $ ƒ f § ; > y 0 y E _ as c 0 c 0) 2 / - �0 2 .� 0 — c 2 § ƒ 2 ¥ § § 2 a 2 § 2 / ® § ¥ g \ • 0 \ 4-0 § / 16 2 CO k E/ o G ƒ § % k \ @ ' § 2 vo w ® § 2 k — ƒ 0 £ / ® U \ \ U E { _ a U E / q CZ J _ • 2 • / c • -0 ` -o • 2 • ƒ • E E \ 4 ' \ < > Li\ 2 7 / ©« 0 ° 2 t a t 0 @ t 5 . _ . = c ± ® c o 9 c 0- a) \ o } @ E \ ./ 0 k 0 0 8 E c L = L m c c CL 9 ° 2 @ ° 2 ± 2 2 / 2 2 @ a) a 2 2 @ 2 a @ƒ eL = m 0_ 0) y c» . >.® a .>. (r) 0_ • 7 m @ c,- o .g . - c ._ 0 k c o@ k - o = _ 0 ., n - _ � = Q - (7) = o 0 a) -ƒ k § • d 2 § • 2 =. k § a) 2 ± « « - 0 g 0 CC Q o ± O ± « - 0 V- ± O ± Q - o c5 >, 2 2. a) Z § >1 7 0 >1 / / _ CO = ' t t = / t Q 3 % 2 Z 2 .' 2 J0 q Lo CV c �a_ . (NI C. If 0 2 « q / \ / It 2 CD 7 0 \ co 4 o 0 0 U \ ( \ \ \\ c \ \ 2 ¥ De 0 > > > g E § :� / a a \ \ \ b < d Q « I .2 2 - > / \ \ §\ \ §G c w co : R w yy/ 2 c c c o / 0 O. .< $ ƒ ( \ It \ 0 in m \ tY w • \ 2 E 2 / ) > cr ° § � / 2 ® . 0) - 0 § o • . csp - f . a 48 c .,- ici 't £ - 2 0 0 _ 6 E o E 'cri o m = 0 1-> 0 k 0 CO 0) 0 0 — _ * 7 a@ f \ 0 @ k C4 c 2 � 0) E e . ' a) E 2 < > ® • > < E E Q 2 0 . @ D _ � E a 0 k ƒ 2 @ o» 7 E 2 9 0 2 • E c ' L � 0 c - L c \ L 2 0 E 0 0 y -0 = 0 0 — - @ @ 0 0 7 a / 2 @� ± t -0 z @ % 3 a) \ w a£ _ u) 2 C GI _• �. • t o c E .0 0® @ 0 c 0.g 0 r \ § • -0 • f -o c o - a E - d 0 CY <§ a d \ 0 -0 d DCƒ\ 0 Z 2 E � / � ; 2 °° ® 65 CD ° E\ � a) 4 - o = 2 ® L. r- �� 2 2 < 7 / 4t ? co � . . 2 4 us ea CL a. 0 U U = Q K N \ \/ c \ \ W { \ > > \ 2 \ c4 2 k k k 2.2�� 4 Q < " u \ \ s/ • ; —, / %U ®c:4® c 2 % q ® »C : 2 .s C & c < � ƒ 0 % � § \ 4 k ` a. a. 0 V N \ Ce \ 2 2 m 7 — @/ co g c ± c o -0 w ® _ . � ? \ \ k m k 0 \ @ G a _ � - o _ _ _ q \ 7 2 U) • c E o C E = g o 3 G $ 2 ° @ — $ o - g 0 \ @ £ § o \ % ƒ § % / § o_ a ' x li § W _ / ° u 2 _c oi § 2 ¥ 7± 2 k I 2{ n § 2 k ƒ § / § / "J as @ § / 7 o - 7 O as \ Q O\ \ 7 7/ O\ o CL • 2 • 2 / \ o • ƒ c / § a) & E Q c 2 \ < c 2 6 m k o� k cz £ c E . © § . k 3 7 k g E o > 4 / o° S. 3 %§ f ƒ E= L c 7 EL & -0 E 7 ) E o 2 7 co f 2 •7 0 o§ 0 3 ._ in 0 2&° a• 9 � 6 6 n o o o 6® • a . § 2 2 o . \ § C 7 . • \ 7. § @ • _ @ 0 % ) E - § � � % C « o 0- • (4 % CD -0 73 Q E x o a) -0 Q : 9 .5- e co _ -0 °' ± a ± < G 2u) ± 2 a « o cn ± O E Ct 4 & Q O 2 ) 7 E . ' c E �� — - \ k \= 2 k 7 ƒ / 7 ƒ s o a CO \ a -0 0 « 0 0. 2 CO CO m % It 9 9 0 ® NL, \ CO D Cl_ D U 0 U / \ j§ \/ /e,0 -0 \ - g g c o 0 0 \ 0 0 > > . 2 \ \ a a a ®t < a Q Q § ,2 \ _ . # u . / /\\ %5u RR £ £ o to /\ 2 2 @ c o §' ■ k % � 0 ƒ 0 0 3 \ 0 U 2 ? ` ( $ co CO ( Ce \ 2 0) 0 0 . / § E ® 6 0 0) 0 c 2 E o g - o a s 2 2a ...t.-. (n 0 0 n = ° x $ 'S 2 g ° 0 § ƒ § E § § £ a o / . g = • ® * @ @ o ° ® # § E x w ® I § ) * % • U-o g 0 U 0 o E U= 2 t 0 * E o • o - . • : • k = E 2 < \ 0 E/< o / ° c < o b 4- 0 2 7 @ / o y/'0 2 0 \§ t y E / . 0 c / .0 0 _ ' E o ® ( c \ 0$@\ C 0 0 2 2 / § E / @ c o E § 3 0 0 0 73 0 0 0ƒ 2 a£ 0 - 0 . 2 § ƒ 4 2 § f � 2 .g'� o c f / ./ 7 0 0 f 0 0 [ m • � ® § ° _ ® = 7 0 0) • -m 0 m k k{ 2 0 ' k • o 5\ 0- • d 0 ± «< 2 w 0 0 0) ± o C 4. z 0 0 2 = 2 2 \ 7) 0 CA � © E ■ + ,_ ± 3 = g - 0 % q O. 13 0 CO Q { / $ $ $ \ 2 & 9 \ co EL L CL 0 U U \ k