HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-09-04; City Council; 5712-2; Expansion of Nonconforming usesCITY OF CARLSBAD
Initial
AGENDA BILL NO: ^S~ *7 / Zj ~ j^u^f^oJo^^^Jb ^ 3. Dept. Hd.y—y~ -
DATE: September 4, 1979 . Cty« Att¥
Cty. Mgr.
DEPARTMENT: Planning . ^
SUBJECT: EXPANSION OF NON-CONFORMING USES"
REPORT FROM PLANNING COMMISSION ' '
CASE NO.:. ZCA-105 APPLICANT: City of Carlsbad
Statement of the Matter
On August 8, 1979, the .Planning Commission discussed the attached staff
report. The report addresses specific issues that the Council desired
input on from the Commission. •„
During discussion, some of the Planning Commissioners stated their support'
for limiting the CUP to public services uses only. However, a motion to
support alternative #3 of staff's recommendation- failed by a vote of 4
. to 3. . . •-'•••
The Commission stated they recommended the 25% expansion limitation and
the 25% replacement limitation (decrease from the existing 50% replace-
ment limitation) because they were concerned that the 50'% limitation
would .impede abatement. They felt that the 25% figure was. arbitrary,
but no more arbitrary,-and twice as restrictive, as- the 50% figure.
A motion then passed, 5 to 2, to support their original recommendation
• as contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 1531.
Exhibits . . •
Memo to Planning, Commission, dated 7/25/79
• Planning Commission Minute's dated 8/8/79 . '
RECOMMENDATION / .
The Planning Commission has recommended APPROVAL as per Exhibit "A" dated
June 13, 1979. If the City Council concurs you should direct the*City
Attorney to prepare documents as per Planning Commission Resolution
No; 1531. If the Council desires to make any changes to the recommenda-
tion of the Planning Commission, they should so instruct the City Attorney.
Council Action: • •
9-4-79 Council continued the matter to the .next reg.ular meeting.
9-18-79 Council directed the City Attorney to prepare documents approving ZCA-105 as
pe.r Planning Commission Resolution 1531 ,/s.ubjeet to inclusion of an exception
allowing expansion up to 50% for those uses that provide public services
traditionally-provided by the.City.
DATE: July 25, 1979
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: (rf| Planning staff
RE; ZCA 105, RETURN FOR PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT
TO CITY COUNCIL
The Planning Commission has recommended approval of ZCA 105 as
per Exhibit A dated June 13, 1979. The City Council on July 17,
1979, reviewed your recommendation and generally found the amend-
ment acceptable. However, a representative of Coast Waste Manage-
ment explained to City Council that the improvement maximum of
25 percent of the replacement value was not sufficient to allow
the development of his planned expansion. He further indicated
that during the Planning Commission hearings he, by error in
calculation, had thought that the 25 percent was acceptable.
The City Council generally indicated a desire to provide a means
to permit the expansion of Coast Waste Management. The City
Council, however, was very concerned about how such ordinance
would affect other nonconforming uses, especially in the Ponto
area. Therefore, they returned this item to the Planning Commis-
sion to report on the following:
1. Why did the Planning Commission desire 25 percent maximum
in replacement instead of 50 percent as originally drafted
by staff?
2. What effect will raising the value to 50 percent have on
expansion of nonconforming uses?
3. What impact will this amendment have on the eventual abate-
ment of nonconforming uses in the Ponto area?
4. Can there be a specific time constraint placed in the
ordinance to limit the continuance of nonconforming uses
especially in the Ponto area?
5. What methods can the Planning Commission suggest that would
permit expansion of Coast Waste Management but not impede
the orderly abatement of other nonconforming uses?
The following is a draft report to City Council for your approval.
Please review and make any suggestions or changes you wish. The
final report will be forwarded to the City Council with your
recommendation on the ordinance amendment.
1. Percentage of replacement.
Staff originally suggested that the value of the expansion
not exceed 50 percent of the total replacement of the site.
This was based on the present figure for rebuilding after
fire or other damage. The Planning Commission, however,
felt that if a nonconforming building was constructed to
full 50 percent that the new construction would be equal to
the original and therefore abatement of the use based on the
original development would be in jeopardy. The Commission,
therefore, felt that the expansion should be a minor portion
of the existing nonconforming use. A figure of 25 percent
was suggested by the Planning Commission.
However, staff feels that raising the expansion to 50 percent
should have little or no effect on abatement as expansion is
to be approved by CUP and conditions of abatement would be
part of the approval. Therefore, if the Planning Commission
in their CUP deliberation felt that the proposed expansion
was too great it could be modified, denied, or approved with
conditions of abatement.
2. Effect of raising replacement value to 50 percent.
As worded in the exhibit originally approved by the Planning
Commission the effect would be greater amount of
expansion. However, staff believes as noted in 1 above that
the CUP would control the abatement process not the added
value of the expansion.
3. Impact on abatement processing in Ponto area.
The only use presently in Ponto on a limited basis is the
automobile storage yard. It was approved by CUP 64 for a
ten year period ending January 16, 1983. There was a condi-
tional use permit to permit a temporary trailer at the
existing animal kennel - CUP 60. There was no abatement
on this conditional use permit except for the trailer itself.
All other nonconforming uses were either in existence at the
time of annexation in 1964 or prior to the zone change from
C-M to R-D-M in February, 1974 - ZC 160. Building permits
for the Ponto storage structures were issued one month prior
to the zone being changed.
There was a great deal of discussion regarding abatement in
the Ponto area during the rezoning discussions in 1974. At
that time the property owners were told that the buildings
would be abated at the rate contained in the zone code which,
depending on the building, would be as long as forty years
from the date the building was constructed.
Our file retrieval system, which is about 80 percent com-
plete, could not locate any other actions in the Ponto
area that could have indicated abatement.
It appears the ordinance amendment will have little effect
on the abatement of the other uses in Ponto. The only other
uses with a time limit is the auto storage yard. All other
uses may continue to exist unless they are specifically
abated. The only effect the proposed code would have is
that the uses that do request expansion will by the require-
ments of the code, start their abatement process.
4. Time Constraint.
The ordinance could specify an abatement period. Staff
suggests that if the length of time for abatement is desired,
it not be less than five years. This would allow for a fair
amortization. Placing a five year maximum will limit the
time of a nonconforming use or building and will limit appli-
cations for axpansion to relatively minor expansions and to
those contemplating abatement. Nevertheless, staff believes
that the time limit should be determined by the conditional
use permit because each request will be unique and some may
require more time for adequate abatement.
5. Alternatives.
The Code could be modified to restrict expansion to those
uses that are a public service. This would allow expansion
of Coast Waste Management but not other nonconforming uses
in the Ponto area. If the Planning Commission believes this
is acceptable it can be accommodated by modifying paragraph d
of proposed Section 21.48.080 as follows: "A nonconforming
public service use or building -- " and change the 25 per-
cent replacement value to 50 percent.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that this report be forwarded to the City Council
and that the Planning Commission determine one of the following:
1. That the Code Amendment as originally recommended by the
Planning Commission is preferable to any modifications
suggested by Council or staff.
2. That the maximum expansion be increased to 50 percent of
the replacement value.
3. That the replacement value be increased to 50 percent and
expansion of nonconforming uses be limited to those uses
that provide a public service traditionally provided by the
City.
BP: jd
7/25/79
ATTACHMENTS: Planning Commission Resolution No. 1531;
Exhibit "A" dated June 13, 1979
Memo to Paul Bussey from James Hagaman dated June 28, 1979
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
20
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1531
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
A ZONE CODE AMENDMENT TO TITLE 21, CHAPTERS 21.44
AND 21.48 OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE BY THE
AMENDMENT OF SECTIONS 21.44.020 AND 21.48.080 TO
PROVIDE FOR ALTERATION AND EXPANSION OF NONCONFOR-
MING USES AND BUILDINGS.
CASE:
APPLICANT:
ZCA-105
CITY OF CARLSBAD
WHEREAS, at their January 2, 1979 meeting, the City Council
of the City of Carlsbad directed.the Planning Department staff
to review'.expiration requirements of nonconforming uses, review .
existing major nonconforming uses within the City, and draft an
ordinance amendment for Planning Commission consideration; and
WHEREAS, an Environmental Impact Assessment has been conducted
pursuant to the guidelines of the California Environmental
Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the
City of Carlsbad, and a Negative Declaration has been issued
for the subject project for the following reasons:
1. The project is administrative in nature and is only a minor
change to the Zone Code.
2. Any action regarding the intensification of a particular
non-conforming use would regurie a Conditional Use Permit
and therefore require additional environmental review; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to City Council direction, the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad did hold a duly noticed, public
hearing on June 27, 1979, to consider the subject Zone Code
Amendment; and • • •
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission received all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all persons who desired to be heard,
and upon hearing and considering all factors relating to Zone
1
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO )
CITY OF CARLSBAD ) SS
3
I, JAMES C. HAGAMAN, Secretary to'the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, do
6
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly
introduced, approved and adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad at a regular meeting
of said Commission held on the llth day of July, 1979
by the following roll call vote: •
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
JAMES C. HAGAMAN, Secretary
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
17
18 .ZCA-105
19
-3-
Code Amendment 105, found the following facts and reasons to exist:
1.' It is an undue hardship for non-conforming uses not to be
able to expand within certain limitations prior to abatement.
3
2. The code provides means to insure that the expansion will be
4
10
11
12
13
18
20
21
22
23
abated within a reasonable time.
3. Present code does not contain provisions of any type for
the regulation of non-conforming uses because of improper
zone.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, by the following vote,
APPROVED ZCA-105, as per Exhibit A, dated June 13, 1979,
attached hereto: •
AYES: L'Heureux, Rombotis, Schick, Marcus, Jose, Larson
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Wrench
14
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED that the foregoing
15
recitations are true and correct.
16
17
STEPHEN M. L'HEUREUX, Chairman
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
19
ATTEST:
JAMES C. HAGAMAN, Secretary
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
24
25
26
27
28
-2-
c EXHIBIT A '
^-13/ 1979
4
•
5
6
7
8
9
30
:11
12
13
"14
15
16
17
18
19
'20
21
22
23
24
25
26
•27
28
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA. AMENDING
TITLE 21, CHAPTERS 21.44 AND 21.48 OF
THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODS BY THE .
AMENDMENT OF SECTIONS 21.44.020 AND
21.48.080 TO PROVIDE FOR ALTERATION
AND EXPANSION OF NONCONFORMING USES
AND BUILDINGS. '
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad/ California hereby
ordains as., follows: , " •' •
SECTION 1: That Title 21, Chapter 21.44 of the Carlsbad •
* ' • * *Municipal Code is amended by the amendment of Section 21.44.020
tp substitute the word "Title" for the word "Chapter" in .
the first sentence of said section.
.- SECTION 2: That Title 21, Chapter 21. 48* of the Carlsbad -
Municipal Code is amended by the amendment of Section 21.48.080
to read as follows: * . .-.-.. . • '.-•""*
• • • " * ' ' • '
• . " * • - - ' " * "
•"21.48.080 Alteration, etc, of uses and buildings.
(a) Except as provided in this section , a nonconforming
use or building shall not be altered, improved, reconstructed,
restored, repaired or extended.
(b) A nonconforming building destroyed to the extent of
not more than twenty-five percent of its replacement value as
determined by the City Building Official at the time of its -
destruction by fire, explosion, or other casualty or act of
God, or public enemy, may be restored and the occupancy or
use of such building, or part thereof ,, which exists at the
time of such partial destruction may continue subject to all
other provisions of this chapter. • . .
Such restoration shall not extend the time of
abatement as established by this chapter.
(c) Incidental reconstruction, repair or rebulding
of a nonconforming building rendered necessary by ordinary
wear and tear and which does not increase. the degree of
nonconformity of a nonconforming building, nor increase the
degree or size of a nonconforming use may be made, provided
that:
1. The aggregate . value of such repairs or
alterations shall not exceed ten percent of the building's
replacement value at the time the building permit is applied
for as determined by the City Building Official.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
13
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
r-.-
• 2, Th«iu such reconstruction, r^_..«ir or rebuilding .
complies" with the provisions of Title 18 of this Code.
3. Such repairs, reconstruction or rebuilding
shall not extend th'e time of abatement established by this
chapter. • ' • .*-"•-'•
(d) A nonconforming use or building may be altered, .
improved, reconstructed, restored, repaired or extended as -
may be permitted by the Planning Commission upon granting of
the Conditional Use Permit processed according to the •
procedures established in Chapter 21.50 of this Code.
Before a Conditional Use Permit may be granted all provisions
of Chapter 21.50 shall be met and it shall be shown that: .
1. -The aggregate value of the proposed alteration,
improvement, reconstruction, restoration, repair or extension
shall not exceed twenty-five percent of the total replacement
at the time the Conditional Use Permit -is applied for as
determined by the City Building Official of all improvements
on the site unless the building or structure is changed to a
conforming use. . " • .
2. The proposed alteration, improvement, recon-
struction, restoration, repair or extension is of a type of
structure that is specifically designed to be easily removed.
3. The proposed alteration, improvement, recon-
struction, restoration, repair or extension meets all construction
setback, coverage, planning and all other applicable requirements
of this Code. . • •
In approving such Conditional Use Permit, the Planning
Commission shall establish a- date by .which all nonconforming •
structures and uses shall be made conforming or removed-from
the site.- In no event shall the date for such removal or
compliance extend beyond the date set according to the pro-
visions of this Title for abatement of the existing nonconforming
use. Extensions of said date for abatement shall be permitted
only upon approval of amendment of the Conditional Use "Permit
and, then, only upon showing of good 'cause. A Conditional Use
Permit or amendment shall be effective only upon execution by
the applicant of written acceptance of the Conditional Use
Permit, or amendment. Such acceptance shall include an -
agreement by the applicant to remove all nonconforming uses
and buildings or structures, or make them conforming, on
or before the date for removal established by the Conditional
Use Permit or amendment in exchange for permission to alter,
improve, reconstruct, restore, repair or extend.
The Planning Director shall cause each Conditional
Use Permit, complete with abatement date, or any amendment to
the Conditional Use Permit, extending an abatement date, to be
recorded'at the Office of the County Recorder within five
days after the issuance of the permit" or amendment. Any
alteration, improvement, reconstruction, restoration, repair
or extension undertaken pursuant to the Conditional Use Permit
shall be commenced within three months' after the issuance of
the permit unless an extension is granted by the Planning
Commission. - ... ^
(e) No nonconforming building, structure, or use shall
be changed to any other nonconforming use, building or structure."
* »
2.
5
•' 4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.25
26
27
28
EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall be effective
thirty" days after its adoption, and the City Clerk shall
certify to the adopticin of this ordinance and cause it to be
^
published at least once in the Carlsbad Journal within
fifteen days after its adoption. • . • ;
.INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the
Carlsbad City Council held on the . day of _,
1979 and thereafter .. : ";.-'• .
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of said City '
Council held-on the day of r '1979 by the
following vote, to wit: . -
AYES: . '" , "' • : \ .'" .• ; \' •. > " ' '"•.'..'.' ' ..'.;'•' .'-... '"
NOES: * '• •"•'• "•';••
ABSENT:. . ' • ! .
; RONALD'C. PACKARD, Mayor
ATTEST:
ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City Clerk
(SEAL) . -
3.
MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 28, 1979
TO: Paul Bussey, City Manager
FROM: James Hagaman, Planning Director
SUBJECT: ZCA-105, EXPANSION OF NON-CONFORMING USES
We believe that the drafted ordinance amendment meets your
directive. The amendment provides for expansion of non-
conforming uses and establishes an accelerated abatement
period. Nevertheless staff believes that if it is the
intent of the City to abate nonconforming uses, a more
effective method is to initiate an abatement program based
on present code provisions.
The amendment as requested by the Council was to provide
a means to expand lawfully existing nonconforming uses but
rot to provide for additional time on an abatement. In
doing this amendment several other related matters were
also incorporated into the zone code.
The amendments were added to an existing section 21.48.080
which is presently titled "Partially Destroyed Buildings".
The proposed amendment retains the present provision of
this section with slight modifications, and adds the
additional requirements as suggested by the City Council
and/or proposed by staff.
The proposed ordinance retitles the section to "Alteration,
etc., of Uses and Buildings". Subsection A introduces the
subsequent sections dealing with the rebuilding and expansion
of nonconforming uses.
Subsection B is basically the present requirements of
Section 21.48.080, with the exception that presently the
code allows up to 50% of a building that can be restored in
case of a fire, explosion, etc. The amendment reduces this
amount to 25%. The Planning Commission wished this reduction
to encourage abatement of nonconforming structures. The
Commission also added the last paragraph which states "such
restoration shall not extend the time of abatement as
established by this chapter". This makes clear that if
abatement is in process, the time running begins when the
building was first constructed.
Subsection C is a new section suggested by the Attorney's
Office that provides for incidental reconstruction repair,
etc., necessitated by ordinary wear and tear. This is
common language in most zone codes and for all practical
purposes we now allow this to occur anyway. Placing it in a
code gives proper guidelines to what is repair of normal
wear and tear and which would be considered expansion of the
use or building.
Subsection D is the provisions that the City Council originally
directed staff to prepare. It states that a nonconforming
use or building may be restored or expanded upon the granting
of a conditional use permit. There are however, specific
findings that must be met. One is the aggragant value of
the expansion shall not exceed 25% of the replacement at the
time of the conditional use permit. Second, the proposed
expansion can be easily removed, this will for the most part
be a subjective decision made by the Planning Commission at
the time of the CUP. The third finding is that the expansion
meet all requirements of the code.
In approving the conditional use permit an abatement period
will be established. This abatement will require an agreement
by the applicant to remove all nonconforming uses of buildings
or structures, or make them conforming upon a date determined
by the Conditional Use Permit. This abatement is then recorded
by the County Recorder, ensure that subsequent buyers of the
property will understand the abatement -requirements.
Subsection E is added to the code to clarify that nonconforming
buildings and uses cannot be changed to another nonconforming
use or building.
Staff and the Planning Commission believe that this ordinance
amendment will achieve the goals of the City Council in
providing the means to expand nonconforming uses but still
provide for a means for abatement. It should be noted
however, that even with this amendment expansion of nonconforming
uses will not be permitted unless sewer is determined to be
available. This would be consistent with the recent City
Council action on interpreting of the Sewer Moratorium
Ordinance.
JCH/BP/ar
7/10/79
C./fiAGAMAN
Planning Director