Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout102-Summary of Changes.pdfSUMMARY OF CHANGES: The following is a summary of the most significant changes proposed in the Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Article 15-65 - Nonconforming Uses and Structures. 1 Topic Current Approach and Problem Proposed Changes Definitions Article 15-65 does not currently contain a “definitions” section. The proposed amendment includes a Definitions section intended to make Article 15-65 more user-friendly. (15- 65.020) Cost of construction calculation vs. appraised value or floor area Article 15-65 currently provides that the “Planning Director” shall review and approve estimates of the cost of construction in determining the “value of improvements or reconstruction” and may use appraisers or other consultants for this purpose (15-65.120) and elsewhere requires a determination of the “floor area” (15-65.100(a)(3)) for purposes of assuring compliance with limits on reconstruction or alteration. The terms “Construction cost” and “Expenditure” are included in the proposed definitions section. The proposed amendment would use the Building Official’s current multiplier, a more quantifiable standard used in issuing building permits. It avoids dueling appraisals and bidding differences by using “average” costs based on typical construction methods depending on type of construction (e.g., new home vs. garage). Maintenance Currently, “maintenance” is treated the same as “repair” and “work” and is allowed in order to preserve a structure’s existing condition; retard or eliminate wear and tear or physical depreciation; or comply with the requirements of law. The term “maintenance” is included in the proposed definitions section. Under the proposed amendment, “maintenance” would be differentiated from “work” and “repair” on a structure. An example of “maintenance” would be repainting or reroofing (in kind). An example of “repair” (discussed below) would be replacement of a piece of siding which has been damaged by a tree branch during a storm. An example of an “alteration” would be relocating an undamaged internal structural wall. Repairs and Alterations: “Minor” vs. “Major” vs. “Reconstruction” Currently there are no defining thresholds for the amount of work that can be done to a nonconforming structure over time (also see cumulative discussion below). The terms “minor repair”, “major repair”, and “reconstruction” would be included in the proposed definitions section. “Minor” Repairs and Alterations is any work that is estimated to result in expenditure up to 20% of the estimated construction cost of the entire structure, prior to such work. “Major” repairs and alterations is any work that is estimated to result in expenditure between 20% and 50% of the estimated construction cost of the entire structure, prior to such work. “Major” repairs and alterations would require Planning Commission approval. “Reconstruction” is any work that is estimated to result in expenditure of greater than 50% of the estimated construction cost of the structure, prior to such work. All limits are cumulative (discussed below). SUMMARY OF CHANGES: The following is a summary of the most significant changes proposed in the Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Article 15-65 - Nonconforming Uses and Structures. 2 Topic Current Approach and Problem Proposed Changes Cumulative Work Currently, structural alterations may not exceed 10% of the replacement cost of the building during any one-year period. Nothing expressly limits the amount of repairs or alterations that may be performed over time (i.e., the complete reconstruction of a structure over a ten year period.) Under the proposed amendment, the percentage limits would be “cumulative” for any voluntary partial tear down and partial rebuild (15-65.050). “Maintenance” as defined above would not be subject to cumulative limits. Work would be counted cumulatively over time towards a maximum of 50% of the estimated construction cost of the structure, prior to such work. So, for example, work in 2010 with an estimated construction cost of 20% followed by work in 2013 with an estimated construction cost of 35% would not be permitted as it would exceed the allowable maximum by 5% (20% + 35% = 55%). The Building Official’s current multiplier for cost of construction (discussed above) would be used for determining when a percentage limit on work on a nonconforming structure has been reached. Expansion of nonconforming structures prohibited unless approved by the Planning Commission Currently, the code does not allow repairs and alterations to nonconforming structures that would increase the degree of noncompliance or extend the life of any portion of the structure. However, the public often proposes “trade-offs” that effectively do this (e.g., decreasing one large portion of a structure in order to increase another large portion of the structure). The proposed amendment clarifies this restriction by providing specific examples of prohibited types of expansion (15-65.060). For example, the owner of a structure that extends into a setback area wants to expand the structure and continue the wall along the same nonconforming setback line, but offers to remove equivalent nonconforming square footage from another yard setback area. This would not be allowed under the proposed amendment even though there would be no net gain in the total nonconforming area encroaching into a required setback. Notwithstanding the above, the proposed amendment would allow expansion or intensification to occur if approved by the Planning Commission after making specific findings. (15-65.100). Voluntary vs. involuntary destruction Currently, Article 15-65 does not distinguish between voluntary and involuntary damage or destruction with regard to allowed reconstruction Under the proposed amendment, repairs and alterations exceeding 50% of the estimated construction cost of the nonconforming structure would not be allowed if the damage is “voluntary” (e.g., tear down) (15-65.065). In this case, the structure would be required to conform to current standards. The threshold for “involuntary” damage (e.g., caused by fire or other catastrophe) would be 75% of the estimated construction cost of the entire structure. Section 15- 65.070, as proposed, includes additional situations where reconstruction would be allowed for involuntary damage. SUMMARY OF CHANGES: The following is a summary of the most significant changes proposed in the Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Article 15-65 - Nonconforming Uses and Structures. 3 Topic Current Approach and Problem Proposed Changes Reference to State law regarding reconstruction of multifamily dwelling units Currently, Article 15-65 does not expressly address reconstruction of nonconforming multifamily structures. A 1994 State law contains provisions enabling such reconstruction after involuntary damage or destruction absent specified findings by the City. The proposed amendment contains a reference to Government Code section 65852.25 adopted in 1994 (or any successor to it) which enables reconstruction of nonconforming multifamily dwelling structures after involuntary damage or destruction absent specified findings by the City. (15-65.070). Greater flexibility regarding deadline to commence reconstruction after involuntary damage or destruction Article 15-65 currently requires reconstruction or re- establishment of a use to commence within one year from the date of damage or destruction and no authority is given to the Community Development Director to extend such deadline. The proposed amendment will establish an initial two year deadline to commence reconstruction or re-establishment of a use and authorizes the Community Development Director to extend the deadline to commence reconstruction after involuntary damage or destruction for up to another two year period. Over the years, experience has shown (e.g., through insurance settlements) that various factors can delay commencement of reconstruction or re-establishment of a use after a fire or other catastrophic event. (15-65.110) Allowance of unlimited repairs exclusively for required compliance with standards for flood prevention, earthquake safety, energy efficiency and accessibility standards. Article 15-65 currently allows alterations necessary for compliance with law, but limits the same to 10% per year. The proposed amendment will allow unlimited repairs exclusively for retrofitting unreinforced masonry structures, elevation in floodplain, compliance with earthquake safety and energy efficiency standards, and compliance with accessibility standards. (15-65.30) Parking nonconformity Currently noncompliance with later-adopted off-street parking requirements creates a nonconforming use. Some cities have concluded that the actual impact of the parking nonconformity does not justify the delay and expense to resolve it, and such provisions may inhibit business expansion. (15-65.030) Un der the proposed amendment, noncompliance with later adopted off-street parking requirements would not create a nonconforming use. However, any intensification would have to comply with current parking standards. SUMMARY OF CHANGES: The following is a summary of the most significant changes proposed in the Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Article 15-65 - Nonconforming Uses and Structures. 4 Topic Current Approach and Problem Proposed Changes Clarification of status of residences on “nonconforming site” Currently, Section 15-65.160 addresses the use of “nonconforming sites” A nonconforming site is a lawfully created site having an area, frontage, width or depth less than the current minimums prescribed for the district. The proposed amendment uses the same standards previously used to determine setbacks for residences on nonconforming sites. (15-65.040) The proposed amendment also addresses multiple residences on a parcel that do not conform to later-adopted regulations that allow only one residence. In such case, the property owner must designate which residence is “conforming.” The remaining residence(s) shall be deemed nonconforming and the property owner shall record a Statement of Acknowledgment of Legal Nonconforming Status in the office of the County Recorder. Nonconforming uses created by later regulation Currently this issue is addressed in Sections 15- 55.130 and 15-55.140 (Use Permits) but the language is not very easy to understand. The proposed amendment would move these provisions from the Use Permit Ordinance to the Nonconforming Uses and Structures Ordinance and simplify the language to describe how “later-adopted” City regulations (General Plan and Zoning provisions) create legal but Nonconforming Uses. Status of structures or uses upon annexation City Code does not address the status of structures or uses which do not conform to City regulations at the time of their annexation. A structure or use lawfully existing on the effective date of its annexation into the City but which is in nonconformance at that time to any applicable City regulation is considered a legal nonconforming structure or use, unless (as the proposed new provision authorizes) the City, at the time of annexation, establishes a different status (in whole or in part) for that structure or use as a condition of such annexation. (15-65.035) Abandonment of Nonconforming Use Currently occurs after 90 days of continuous non-use. Proposed to occur after 180 days of continuous non -use Application of Heritage Preservation regulations Current City Code provisions regarding nonconforming structures do not address the application of Heritage Preservation regulations to repair, alteration or reconstruction. Compliance with City Code provisions governing heritage preservation is expressly required and takes precedence over any authorization for repair, alteration or reconstruction. Under Section 15-65.070, if a damaged or destroyed structure qualifies as a heritage resource, it may be reconstructed in a manner that reproduces the design of the predamaged structure to the maximum extent feasible, even if damaged or destroyed up to 100 percent of the construction cost thereof. SUMMARY OF CHANGES: The following is a summary of the most significant changes proposed in the Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Article 15-65 - Nonconforming Uses and Structures. 5 Topic Current Approach and Problem Proposed Changes Deletion of Provisions regarding Elimination after Lapse of Time Currently, Article 15-65 contains language regarding “termination after reasonable periods of time” in the “Purposes” section (15-65.010) and four other sections related to elimination of nonconforming uses or structures after a lapse of time (15-65.100-130). The proposed amendment will delete the provisions regarding elimination or termination of nonconforming uses or structures after a lapse of time. Instead, the amended ordinance would allow nonconforming uses and structures to remain in place but subject those uses and structures to limitations on their expansion, modification, repair, alteration and reconstruction. Deletion of Section 15-65.140 Currently, Section 15-65.140 provides that the Planning Commission may authorize a nonconforming use by granting a use permit and may authorize a nonconforming structure by granting a variance. This section is redundant since these provisions are addressed elsewhere in City Code. Article 15-55 addresses use permits for nonconforming uses. Article 15-70 addresses variances for nonconforming structure. Reorganization and renumbering The sections relating to “structures” were intermingled with the sections relating to “use.” The sections have been reorganized and renumbered to place sections relating to structures in one area and to uses in another area. The last section relates to termination of legal nonconforming status for both structures and use.