The City (Los Angeles) is asking for 5' of street dedication and I can't figure out if my maximum residential floor area and percentage of lot coverage allowed is based on the lot square footage before my people give the City 250 s.f of their lot or the lot size after they give the City part of their lot.
I'm reading what I think is the relevant section of the zoning manual that is meant to explain this but I can't for the life of me figure out what it is saying.
If someone smarter than me either knows the answer or can tell me what the attached zoning manual page is saying I would sure appreciate it.
You could try arguing that the 5' dedication is a hardship and that you should be allowed to count that square footage as part of your RFA. your plan checker can grant that depending on why the city wants the 5' dedication. Otherwise you are probably screwed. My next question would be, can you deduct that 5' dedication from your prevailing setback calculation to give you shorter front yard setback?
If this is an existing street and the city is taking an additional 5' for a widened right of way then that's legally a Take... because it's reducing your clients maximum square footage... they are taking away your clients potential use and potential value and should be compensated.
Perhaps they are, but if not I would advocate for your clients rights by demanding that the calculations be based on the pre-take... if they are paying for the 5' that's a different story.
A "taking" is a case of eminent domain: acquisition by gov't for compen$ation.
A "regulatory taking" is a claim argued as Carrera does above, in the attempt to either get compen$ation, or escape the requirement. Historically, the bar has been very high to prove a de facto taking via regulation.
This is zoning in the city of LA: it's certainly worth making the best argument you can on the client's behalf (and based as much on code definitions and provisions as possible). Once you've done that, the question is: how much time do you want to burn going back & forth? If the client's paying T+M, go for it. If not, cut your losses and keep moving ahead.
This is one that even my plan checker hasn't been able to answer yet and I've received three different opinions from other people in the city.
It seems that the only area in the zoning code where this is spelled out is for when the city takes land for a highway and collector street dedication and this street is a "hillside limited street."
The city does not pay my clients for this take of land. In fact my clients are required to pay the city $3,317 for the processing of the paperwork!
^You really need to discuss this with an attorney, one that has some experience with Takings, and then refer your client to him, don’t drink the city's Kool-Aid!
Sep 9, 15 1:17 pm ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
Street Widening and Lot Area
The City (Los Angeles) is asking for 5' of street dedication and I can't figure out if my maximum residential floor area and percentage of lot coverage allowed is based on the lot square footage before my people give the City 250 s.f of their lot or the lot size after they give the City part of their lot.
I'm reading what I think is the relevant section of the zoning manual that is meant to explain this but I can't for the life of me figure out what it is saying.
If someone smarter than me either knows the answer or can tell me what the attached zoning manual page is saying I would sure appreciate it.
Bottom line (literally!): "subsequent" means subtract the five feet before calculating lot size.
If this is an existing street and the city is taking an additional 5' for a widened right of way then that's legally a Take... because it's reducing your clients maximum square footage... they are taking away your clients potential use and potential value and should be compensated.
Perhaps they are, but if not I would advocate for your clients rights by demanding that the calculations be based on the pre-take... if they are paying for the 5' that's a different story.
A "taking" is a case of eminent domain: acquisition by gov't for compen$ation.
A "regulatory taking" is a claim argued as Carrera does above, in the attempt to either get compen$ation, or escape the requirement. Historically, the bar has been very high to prove a de facto taking via regulation.
This is zoning in the city of LA: it's certainly worth making the best argument you can on the client's behalf (and based as much on code definitions and provisions as possible). Once you've done that, the question is: how much time do you want to burn going back & forth? If the client's paying T+M, go for it. If not, cut your losses and keep moving ahead.
Thank you everyone.
This is one that even my plan checker hasn't been able to answer yet and I've received three different opinions from other people in the city.
It seems that the only area in the zoning code where this is spelled out is for when the city takes land for a highway and collector street dedication and this street is a "hillside limited street."
The city does not pay my clients for this take of land. In fact my clients are required to pay the city $3,317 for the processing of the paperwork!
^You really need to discuss this with an attorney, one that has some experience with Takings, and then refer your client to him, don’t drink the city's Kool-Aid!
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.