Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - November 08, 2004 - CCAGENDA SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AZUSA LIGHT AND WATER 729 NORTH AZUSA AVENUE 1. PRELIMINARY BUSINESS • Call to Order • Pledge to the Flag • Roll Call MONDAY, NOVEMBERS, 2004 6:30 P.M. H. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION - Please note that public comments are welcomed by recognition of the Mayor. 111. CLOSED SESSION A. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR (Gov. Code Sec. 54957.6). Agency Negotiators: City Manager Gutierrez, and Assistant City Manager Person Organizations/Employee: APOA PUBLIC EMPLOYEE APPOINTMENT (Gov. Code Sec. 54957). Title: Human Relations Coordinator IV. AGENDA ITEMS A. Workshop on the City of Azusa Development Code. Recommendation: Conduct Workshop. B. Policy Regarding Nonconforming Uses. Recommendation: Direct Staff to include in the new Development Code abatement of only the most incompatible nonconforming uses Citywide and all nonconforming uses in the Downtown District and the Foothill Corridor. V. ADIOURNMENT A. Adjourn u11113013.1no 2IN;101 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: SHARON W. HIGHTOWER, ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR LISA BROWNFIELD, PROJECT MANAGER VIA: JULIE A. GUTIERREZ, CITY MANAGER DATE: NOVEMBER 3, 2004 SUBJECT: DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CODE WORKSHOP In an effort to focus discussion during the Development Code workshop, staff prepared the following agenda. These topics, thus far, have generated the most amount of discussion. Please bring the Draft Development Code and other materials (listed below) to the workshop. AAeenda 1. Workshop Purpose and Format / 2. Nonconforming Use Report and Discussion ✓ 3. Neighborhood Issues: Large Lot Neighborhoods ✓ Neighborhood General 4. Corridor Issue: Arrow Highway 5. District Issues: IX Phased Mixed -Use Downtown Park Once DWL — Landfill/Recreation Area G. Open Space: V Retreat Area ^ yrw�Q Gun Club ✓ 7. Specific Use Issues: Telecommunication facilities Sign Regulations Pole Signs Billboards 8. Residential use Issues: Stacked Flats v. Courtyard Housing Frontage Types Minimum Unit Size 9. Density Bonuses 1 Necessary Materials Please bring the following documents to the workshop; they have been distributed to you earlier. The document and its distribution date are listed below. Document Distribution Date I. Draft Development Code Summer 2004 2. October 21, 2004 Addendum & Errata October 28, 2004 for the November 1, 2004 City (printed on green paper) Council meeting 3. Article 2 Modifications Log (dated October 20, 2004 for the October 21, 2004 October 19, 2004) Joint Planning Commission/City Council meeting 4. Revised Zoning Map October 28, 2004 for the November 1, 2004 City Council meeting S. Letters from the public (printed on October 28, 2004 for the November 1, 2004 City white and blue paper) Council meeting For Council's convenience, if you bring everything (these documents and all the other documents, tables, etc.) that has been given to you, Lisa will organize the documents and purge those that have been revised. 2 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: SHARON W. HIGHTOWER, ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR VIA: JULIE A. GUTIERREZ, CITY MANAGER DATE: NOVEMBER 8, 2004 SUBJECT: POLICY REGARDING NONCONFORMING USES RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that City Council direct staff to include in the new Development Code abatement of only the most incompatible nonconforming uses Citywide and all nonconforming uses in the Downtown District and the Foothill Corridor. BACKGROUND A recent request by the owner of 310 N. Alameda Avenue to extend the life of nonconforming use has generated a discussion about the City's policy for amortizing nonconforming uses. Under prior zoning ordinances (map or text changes), many legally established businesses became "nonconforming uses" and, with a few exceptions, were given 20 years to remain. Therefore, most uses that became nonconforming prior to 1984 should have been fully amortized and abated by now. Some of those uses have been removed through attrition, and others have received time extensions — either.as provided for by Code or through settlement agreements. But what we are now discovering is that many fully amortized nonconforming uses continue to operate today. Some of these pre -1984 nonconforming uses have surfaced in recent years, but the City's response has varied as outlined below: • March 2002, the Zoning Administrator approved a 10 -year time extension for a nonconforming pawn shop (Azusa Buy Bacic) on E. Foothill Blvd. after the City Council approved a Code amendment to change the maximum term for time extensions from five years to 10 years. • February 2003, the City Council approved an 18 -month time extension for a nonconforming used car dealership (Peterson Used Cars) on W. Foothill Blvd. after the initial term under a settlement agreement had expired. • August 2003, the Council approved a settlement agreement to allow a nonconforming restaurant (El. Patio) on San Gabriel Ave. to operate for an additional 30 years. At present, there are several pending issues related to abating nonconforming uses that C:\DOCUME-1 \rperson\LOCALS-1\Temp\NomonformingUseAJternativePolicies I 1-08-04v2.doc Nonconforming Use Policy November 8, 2004 Page 2 of 5 require direction by the City Council. In addition to the use at 310 N. Alameda Avenue, staff has received yet another request to extend the amortization period for an office use in a residential zone (on San Gabriel Avenue), and we've recently discovered that the amortization period has expired for three auto repair businesses and a pawn shop in the CBD zone (the Downtown District). Given the recent history of handling requests to extend the abatement period of nonconforming uses, staff is recommending that the Council establish a policy in the new Development Code that will be enforced uniformly in the future. DISCUSSION The current City Code contains provisions that require nonconforming uses to be amortized (phased -out) over time. The amortization period for most nonconforming uses is 20 years with the possibility of a time extension of up to 10 years. Time extension requests are heard by the Zoning Administrator, and may be appealed to the Planning Commission and City Council. At the end of this amortization period, affected property owners can replace the nonconforming use with one that conforms to the new zoning and General Plan designation. In theory, the amortization period (20 to 30 years) provides ample time for a business to recover its investment in the property. This method of abating nonconforming uses presumes that the owners of these uses will make long range plans to find an appropriately zoned location for the nonconforming use and will be willingly relocate prior to the expiration of the amortization period. In some cases, an owner of such a property voluntarily "gives up" the nonconforming use before the expiration of time in favor of another viable conforming use. In actuality though, many businesses are not willing to move and it is often difficult to force the termination of nonconforming uses at the end of a specified time period. Many of these businesses have appealed the City's attempt to amortize the use, while others have gone unnoticed beyond their amortization period because the lack of a reliable tracking system. Occasionally, a nonconforming use is discovered as a result of a pending sale of a property or through an application for a business license. NONCONFORMING USE AMORTIZATION ALTERNATIVES The City is in the process of adopting a new Development Code including the section that regulates nonconforming uses and structures. The amendments to the land use matrix and zoning map will result in the creation of many new nonconforming uses. The way these existing and new nonconforming uses are treated will depend on the nonconforming use regulations of the Development Code. The timing of this Code amendment presents an opportunity to establish a consistent policy for nonconforming uses before acting on the pending requests (3 10 Alameda, Petersons Used Car Dealership, etc.) for special consideration. For discussion purposes, staff has identified three alternative approaches to amortizing nonconforming uses: 1) Citywide enforcement/amortization of all nonconforming uses; 2) no amortization; and 3) targeted amortization. 1) Citywide enforcement/amortization of all nonconforming uses. r Nonconforming Use Policy November 8, 2004 Page 3 of 5 The new Development Code, in its current draft form, proposes only minor changes to the current Code in regards to nonconforming uses. It requires most nonconforming uses to cease after 20 years. If an existing conforming use in the Foothill Blvd. Corridor becomes nonconforming as a result of the new Code, it will have 20 years from the effective date of the ordinance to remain. For existing nonconforming uses, their deadline for amortization will not change. If the amortization period for an existing nonconforming use is due to expire in 2007, that deadline will still apply (i.e. they will not be given another 20 years from the adoption of the new Development Code). A few uses such as auto wrecking yards, and adult businesses will have'a shorter amortization period. The advantage of a citywide approach is that it is more likely the City will reach its General Plan land use goals faster by eliminating uses that are inconsistent with the long range vision. There are several disadvantages to strictly enforcing amortization periods. It requires more staff resources to institute a comprehensive system of notification and tracking of all nonconforming uses, beginning with an inventory and assessment of all existing nonconforming uses. Without such a system, many nonconforming uses will continue to operate beyond their amortization period without being detected by the City. It requires notices to be prepared, public hearings, and appeals, all of which are demanding on staff time. Since the enforcement process can be costly, it requires that the Council make abating nonconforming uses a higher priority than it had been in the past. Mandatory amortization is sometimes an obstacle when it comes to selling or refinancing a property. Many lenders are reluctant to approve a long-term loan on a property with a nonconforming use. This approach is also dependent on the City Council upholding (on appeal) the established time frames unless very specific findings are made. 2) No amortization. Given the difficulty in abating nonconforming uses, many cities have elected to do without an amortization period for nonconforming uses, relying instead on natural attrition. Under this system, nonconforming uses are allowed to continue indefinitely, but with restrictions on their expansion or intensification. The advantage of eliminating the mandatory abatement is that it is less demanding on City resources (i.e. staff time, City Attorney expenses) needed to track, and enforce the abatement of nonconforming uses. The act of abating a nonconforming use means forcing a business to close, so removing the mandatory abatement could also lessen the perception of being "anti -business". The obvious disadvantage is that it will take longer to bring about the type of change envisioned in the General Plan, and some residents may be forced to tolerate incompatible uses in their neighborhoods. 3) Targeted amortization This approach attempts to prioritize General Plan goals by requiring the amortization of only the most incompatible uses while allowing other nonconforming uses to be removed through attrition. This targeted approach focuses scarce staff resources where it matters most. The targeted approach would identify for amortization: 1) all nonconforming uses located within the geographic areas (i.e. neighborhoods, districts, or corridors) where transformation is most likely and desirable; and 2) the nonconforming uses that are the most incompatible regardless of location. Nonconforming Use Policy November S, 2004 Page 4 of 5 Under this alternative, staff recommends that geographic areas be defined as: • Downtown District (Town Center, Transit Village, and Civic Center) • Foothill Corridor If the Council was interested in amortizing nonconforming uses located in "second tier" areas (i.e. West End District, University District, San Gabriel Avenue Corridor), it could set a longer amortization period for those areas — 30 years for example. The citywide list of the most incompatible uses targeted for amortization would include: • auto wrecking yards • outdoor shooting ranges (if made nonconforming) • Heavy manufacturing within ] 000 ft of residential (without a use permit) • alcohol sales (without a use permit) • adult businesses Requests for time extensions would be based on more explicit findings to assure consistency, and to make the extension process less arbitrary. For example, in addition to the usual considerations — an unreasonable hardship, the amount of the owner's investment in improvements, the depreciation schedule in the owner's tax return, etc. — the City would take into consideration whether there are immediate plans for the redevelopment of the site or area, and the detriment caused to surrounding properties by the continuance of the nonconforming use. Under alternatives 1 and 3 above, adequate staff resources need to be devoted to create a system of tracking and abating nonconforming uses. Components of such a system could include: • An inventory of both existing nonconforming uses and new nonconforming uses resulting from the new Development Code. • The creation of a database linking business license records and building permits via the GIS system to flag applications for changes (new or expanded businesses, and building additions). • Notification. An initial notice — identifying the property as nonconforming - would be mailed to affected property owners and recorded with the County Recorders Office to assure that the nonconforming status of the property is disclosed to subsequent owners. A second notice should be mailed to property owners 6 -months prior to the expiration of the amortization period. • Abatement process. Specific procedures need to be included in the Development Code outlining the abatement and appeals process, and the findings for time extensions. Staff's feels that the targeted amortization approach would be the most effective way of dealing with nonconforming uses, and that the new Development Code should be amended accordingly. It will require less staff resources than attempting to amortize nonconforming uses citywide. Citywide enforcement would require either budget enhancements (new staffing) or re -prioritizing existing programs. It would also minimize the problems facing many owners of nonconforming uses with respect to selling or refinancing their properties. However, the Planning Commission favored maintaining a citywide approach as written in the current draft of the Development Code. Nonconforming Use Policy November 8, 2004 Page 5 of 5 FISCAL IMPACT The fiscal impact of abating nonconforming uses will depend on the alternative selected by the Council. Under Alternative 2 (no amortization) there will be little to no direct fiscal impact. Alternative 3 will involve substantial staff and City Attorney time and the cost of recording documents with the County. Alternative 1 will have the greatest fiscal impact because it involves abating nonconforming uses Citywide. At this time it is not possible to accurately estimate the costs under Alternatives 1 or 3. Staff roughly estimates that the equivalent of .5 additional full time staff positions would be needed under the recommended alternative 3 verses one full time position under alternative 1. ��" Density Bonus/Affordable Housing Incentive ■ Mirrors City's Current Density Bonus ■ Now will be part of Development Code ■ Council Determines Amount of Bonus & Incentives ■ General bonus: 25% increase over max. number of units allowed, OR Condominium bonus: 10% increase over max. number of units allowed ■ Other Incentives — Site development standards reduction OR Approval of Mixed Use OR Other regulatory incentive Neighborhood General ■ 3 Neighborhoods Types: Traditional, Transitional, Tract ■ NG1 -Traditional • Applies to older neighborhoods w/ detached single family homes along traditional sbeetsnpes • Standards intended to maintain/enhance existing neighborhood ■ Upgrades/renovations should respect & reflect historic character & style Neighborhood General ■ NG3-Tract ■Applies to neighborhoods developed after 1960 ■ Anticipated maintaining and enhancing form wout much change from existing character • Generally, garages are dominate front features • Encourages use of porches, sidewalks, street landscaping Neighborhood General ■ NG2 - Transitional • Applies to neighborhoods built post 1945 but before extensive subdivisions of 1960 • Typically smaller more modest homes that have uneven renovationslmaintenance • Due the structure of neighborhood 8 homes, homes can be easily adapted to a'traditional' character— garage back, front porches, street -friendly facades • Encourages reinvestment with'traditional' characteristics Neighborhood General ■ 3 Density Ranges Low (0 — 8 dumas) Medium (8.1 —15.0 dulacre) Moderate (15.1 — 27 du/acre) ■ All densities can occur in each of the neighborhood types ■ Replaces Existing Designations (RA, R1,R2, 113) Gun Club ■ An existing nonconforming use ■ Original Draft Dev Code: Changed zoning from Industrial to Open Space. Continued nonconforming status but placed a 5 yr. amortization period on use. ■ Planning Commission recommends: Changing zoning to Open Space & adding Outdoor Shooting Range as a permitted use to Open Space zoning. PROPOSED PHASED MIXED USE WORDING 1. Mixed -Use Project — Phased. A mixed-use project developed in two or more phases pursuant to a master plan on sites greater than 3 acres containing existing buildings, where some of the existing buildings are to be retained during one or more phases, and where the final phase of the master plan meets the Urban Form goals and policies of the General Plan. Requires a Development Agreement in the Downtown, University, and Edgewood Districts. Not permitted in all other zones. 2. Comments 62 - 68 apply to the Foothill Center project — Proposed Revision (in italicized text) Page 2192 Article 2 — Urban Standards Chapter 2.14.020 — University District E. Site Planning and Building Design 1. Building Placement A. Front Setback: 5 ft min for shopfronts and arcades; 10 min for other frontage types; 20 ft max for 75% min of frontage (1) B. Side Street Setback: 10 ft min; 20 ft max for 75% min of frontage C. Sideyard Setback: 0 ft; 15 ft min for residential D. Rear Setback: 0 ft; 15 ft min for residential 2. Parking Placement A. Front Setback; 40% of lot depth min (1) B. Side Street Setback: 5 ft min C. Side Setback: Not required D. Rear Setback: Not required Note (1): Alternative Building and Parking Placement (setbacks) requirements may be permitted pursuant to a Development Agreement for phased mixed-use projects (see definitions).