HomeMy WebLinkAbout0419.092~pt.lllber 10, 1992
HOIIORABcE C TY COUNCIL
Palo "IIlto,' "forni.
, r.,
.
. (
Chance in Interpretation ~ ReDlaceme~t pf Grandflthered Uses
Members of tne Counc i1 :
Report j n Bri gf
This report is 1nformatioroa1 only and no action is re~uired.
The porpos. of this report is to: I) Inform the City Council of a staff·
initilted c.hange in interpretation of the-lonin9 Ordinance provisions, which
"lates to replacement of site improvements for grandfathered uses and its
potential effects; 2) forwird a report prepared for the Planning Comtlssion on
this fss~e; 1) highlight neeessiry corrections to tnat rp.port; and 4) summarize
the Plan~ing Commissfon~s initial response to the 1nterpretatio~ c~ange.
Background
Nonconfo .... ing USES are previously c:onfoJ"'lling uses that have become noncQnforrnin9
through changes to the types (If uses permitted within the particul ar zoning
district, ttle aajority of whic.h iTe subject teo amortization. arandfathered !Jses
i.re nonconforming uses which have been given special status by means of a
-grandfather" clat.:$! and are not subject to amortization. Normal nonconforming
uses are subject to the standard zoning regul ations pertaining to sue,", uses
(Ch.pt~r IB.94 Nonconforming Uses/Noncomplying Facilities). The regulations
pertaining to grandfilt~ered uses Ire set out iP"J each grandfatller ..:huse+
Typically they Ire exempted from standard site development regulations.
T~e attached Pl&nning Commission staff report discusses specific language in the
Zoning Ordinance that describes the manner in which nonconfo~fng uses which have
been -grandfattlered" mily be remodeled or replilced. Staff's traditional
1nterpreh.tion regarding replacement of grandfathered uses has been that they mi.Y
be r~phced' is long IS they remair, within the EXisting bLIilding footprint and
buIlding en •• lope.
CMR:419 :92
>$~~:
.,".
The interpretation issiJe was r.;ised duor11'1g disc.ussion of iI redevelopment proposal
for the Creekside Inn, I grlndfatllered IIIOt01 locatEd It 340' E1 Camino Rea1. Tn.
owner!: questioned the tnditional1nterpretatfon .Iter the,; ",ught to replace the
existing .at!l w1tn I greatl1 improved facility of the Slm~ size and floor area
but d j ffore.t buildi ng I oe.t Ions. In re. j owi ng the ordi nance hnguage, st. ff
deterained that I liter.' reading did root preclude building rolocation; and the
owner.s of th-. Creeks ide rnn were allowed to proceed with thelr development plans.
Howeyer. staff wishsd to infDrm both t~e Planning Commissior. and City Council of
the change in interpretation.
Corrections to planning Comm isson Staff Report
The Ittac:hed Phnning COfIII1issio!'1 staff report states that the interpretation
quesUon rehte. oniy to us.s grondfatnered on July 20, Ig78. In fact, the
interpretation issue perta1ns to Jll 9randfit~ered uses t~at Ire allowed to be
replaced without benefit of c.-pliance with site developoe"t regulations.
A.s notl!d. i~ t~e ltta:::"ed Planlling ColIJftission staff report, the old interpretation
requiring buildings to b. rep' aced In the same location functions as a
disincentive to redeveloprnent. One concern about 11Towing redevelopment in
d~ffere"t locations was that it might functioll as an incentive to redevelop th~
grandhtbered Ndic:al Ind professional offfces n~ located in str;.lctures designed
for residential u.se. Required review by the ArchHectural Review BO'ird lItas
identffied &S I means of adciressing any aesthetic or ComPltlbility issues that
Might result fr~ rede.elopoent.
Tne grandfather clauses for medical and professional uses in residential zones
i ncl ucle In addi! 10nl1 protect i on lleiSUre not lnent i oned in tfle Plann i nq Cami 55 i on
report. TheIl grandfatner clauses include J provision that requires approval of
I conditional use permft for iny remodeling, improvement or replacement of any
grindfathered lledical or profess ional office uses in bcildings desigr,ed ilnd
constructed for residentf.l use.
Plapnjng Commissipn Reyiew
The Pla"ning Commission considered the stiff-initiit~d change in interpretation
of the code related to gra"dhthered uses It its .. eting of July Z!/, 1992. The
COImissi~n vote1 unanimously to c~~ti~~e discussion of t~e item ~ntil after the
proposed "De'igr, E"~anc .... nt Exception (OEf)' process wa. brought before tnem.
Planning COMmission distussion on the proposed interpretation change centered on
the potenti.! effects of .llowing grand fathered uses to rede.elop without the
necessity to cOIIPly with current site development rp'gulJtions. There was a
consens~s of opinion that the desire was to aSSUf! that redeveloped projects
would be 'better,' <nd 'mere complying," though tho difficulty in adeqo,tely
deffning and enforcing wh.t was meant by tnese te""s and abn ity to legi slate for
such w.s recQg~ized. There was Jiso I desire to allow for 9reater f1exibility
in redevelopment and allow shifting of existing areas of noncomplia~ce, is lon~
IS it would result in .. .In?tter project and would not increase the "overall·
9/10/92
Page 2
\,.. ". \ .' ," ,
degree of noncOIq)l tinct. The d1 scun i 011 then 1 ud to the pcbnt i i 1 .a~p 1 i C abil i ty
of t~e proposed Oes1grl Enh.ancement E.l(cept1an Proc:es.s now being developed.
Tne DEE proc.,s 1. Intended to .11ow c~.mercl.1 ,nd multiple·flmily projects to
exceed spec1ft~ site de~tlopment reguTatlons~ prDvided t~ey Ire minor lnd result
in In ·enninced· project design. Tnis process is intended to all~. for greater
design flexibility and 11 low oedlflcat;o" of t~e site development reQuirements
on the basi. of improved design rather th.n hardsh;p. It I S Intended to p.ral lel
the 5ucessful Home Ilpro~eaent Exception (HIE) process now in piact for single
f .. lly d ... ll1ngs. This proce .. l110ws single f ... 11y hOl1N! owners to apply for
eJlcept'ons to certain sft! deveTopm'!nt regulitiDns (setbiicKS, sitE! coverage,
etc.l provided they result in improved design.
The Planning C~fss~o" considered the possibl1ty of requiring gTindfatntred USE'S
seeking tc redevelop to go tnrcugh the proposed DEE proceSlJ IS a mea,'s of
ass~rfng In f~royed design.
Tne Planning Co.IIhsion continued further di.stLlss1on of the interpretation of the
grlndfather clilluses with the knm.oledge that until directed otherwls!. staff will
continue to use the new interpretatiDn for rede\;e1opment of the Creekside Inn and
other future redevelo~nt projects.
Re1pectfullY suo-itted,
-d-ttd c4~ S~ CHtHtY ',,",,)
Sen10r Ph.nner
KENNtTH R. SCHREIBER
Director of Planning and
Comunlty Environment
Attac~nt: Planning Commission Staff Report dated 7-24·92. ~ith attachments
c(: Ric.hard Cuapbell, c/o Noo~er ~.ssDciltes
~ark Wilsor., c/o Cretkside Inn
Barron Park AssociatiQn
C~P.;419;92
II ........... "'d4,.,
9/10/92
Pige 3
N
'I
July 24, 1992
PLANNING COMMISSION
Palo ~ltQ, ~,l;fornfa
Of, ",.,. "Iff
f~&A It'tftIH
Policy Interpretatign -Prandfathered Mote' Uses
~embers of the CommissSon:
Repprt in ir1 ef
This report addresses I staff-inltiated change in lnterpretatfon of the Zoning
Ordinance provisions which relate to re-placement of s1te improvements for
specific uses grandfa.' .. hered in July 1978. These uses 1nclud! IIOtels. medfcal and
professional offices, and two-family or multip1e-family uses existing en lower
density, residentiallY-loned parcels.
The purpose of the ,..port is to: IJ inform the Plaoning C"""'ission of the
revised code fnterpretation and its potential effects, and 2) request directicn
on reeDMmended code revisions.
Background
Eacn of ttl! zoning code sect;{H'lS related to the replacement of site improvements
for uses grandfathertd in July ~f 1978 contain one of tnf two following phras!s.
'weh liS., (grondfdhered lIed;c.1 Ind profess;D.I' "'fice uses)
shill be ~r.ltted. .,ithout necess;t, t. c.."I, .,ith sit.
detle1tlpaent regul.tion.s. to reaodrr .. feprove. fir repl.ce site
i.",v~ts ftlr cflntinuil liSP .nC occupancy by the .saae use;
protlfded, th~t .n, such re.odt'in9. iaproveaent fir repllceaent shaH
Mt f"'e'suJt in fncr-e.sed fleor .H·'e' .. nuaber of flffices, height
length, Gr .ny other increase jn size of the i~rQve.ent~~.·
'such lise. (gr.ndflthered twD-f .. f1, • .u7t;pJ.-f .. iJy .1Id ..,tel
uses) sh.11 be ,.,..iUed to reIIOde1, i~ro'le, Dr replIer site
------------
7/24/92
Page I
.:..'
•
tap"'Yf!llents on the s.ue site, atjthout necessity to co~1y tfitfl site
dereropeent ~J7Itiolt.s fe,.. c'JI1tinuai use IrK! occupancy by the. sue
use; pror-ided thlt II'IY such reaode1ing, illprove.ent or rep7iceJJent
shaH not resu1t in increase floor ,rea, nuaber of dwe71ing units,
height, 1eng'tII, Dr .ny other increise in the sizp! of the
#.roveMnt •..•
lbe Haning of these sections was recently rais.ed by repres~ntat1ves of the
owners. of the Creekside Inn. a grandfathered mote1 on El Carrrino Rnl, who wish
to replace the existing motel structure with a mcdern facility in a reconfigured
site plan which vould chi~ge the building locations and envelopes. The proposal
would not incre.ase the number of units., a'!" exceEd U,~ muiT.l..lm building height on
t~e site, the cumulative len9th, or floer area of all bujldings~
C~ange in lnterpr!tation
Staff has traditionally and conslst!ntly intfrpreted these clauses to mean that
the site improvements of such grandfathered uses could be replaced but all the
improvement would have to occur within the Sime building en~elope (meaning S~
height, width. dfpth). afld s.ame building footprir'lt (mesning 10cation). This
interpretation was applied to a recent effice r~del, the Ober property at 1515
[1 (amino Real. and to a offite replacement~ the Weeks property at 1686 [1 Cimino
Real. Witk this interprttation the motel could redevelop, but on'y in the sa~
bu11d1~g location ind envelope.
This staff interpretation was documented and raised with the Cormi ssion it Uli
time of the retent Drdinance modifi,ation~ to clarify the porti~ns of the Zoning
Ord1nance pertaining to nonconforming and grind fathered use~ (see Itt ached PC
staff report dat&d November 21. 1990, and excerpt PC minut., dated 11·2S·90).
At the applicant's request, the PTanning Department st.ff has revisited this
section and decided that, as currently drifted, these grandfather clauses do not
li.it redel(elQpIII!nt af gfil.ndhthered uses to the Sime bu.'\1d'ing locilt'ion, a.nd not
necessirily the same building envelope. Staff has determined that the hotel
redeve10pment proposal may proceed.
Effrcts of Cnange in interpretation
Staff bel ie'V!S that the traditional interpretation cf tr.ese C<lde sections has
served to discourage rpdev!Topment of the 9randfathered uses with new upgraded
facilities. lhe limitation to same bui1ding footprint an.d enve10pe acts IS a
strong disincentive to redevelopment because so little 'is gained for s~ch ii
s{Jbstanthl investment. Vet in tne coorse (If publ ic h!arings in Noyember of
19~O, staff learned that it ~as not the intent of the policy makHS to discourage
redtvelopmer.t. lhis intent is evidence by the word -rep1 ace"' in these
grandfather sections which allows the property owner to comp1etely rebuild an
aging: fatility.
The reslJlt of the new interpretati"on is increas-ed flexibi.lity ti'lat will a.110'lt
grandfathered uses to compl!tely redevelQP w~;cn. with benefit of required ARB
, :\IC\JIM'Idf ~hr.pt 1/24/92
Page 2
\
rl!'vfew, should result in ~ette\'" oIrchHeocture and site plans. Tne exception may
be where medical or professiOt"tal cffice uses are located ... at'lin singll!-f ... mily
homes. Aep1ice-ment 'of these 5ingle<hmily structl.'res with more ·office
appearing structures could b! seen itS iii detr'iment to the c"aracter of the
adjoining residential nefghtol"'hoads. Again, ARB revie ..... with the benefit of
public ~earing, should usure compatibiTity of d~slgn.
The new interpretation could also potentially affect the number and cost of some
of the City's more affordable housing units. Redeveiop~nt of some of th2 older
multiple-family projects with newer p~oj~cts could increase the cost of such
rtous~n9 .
HDWever t compliance .ith Program i3 of the Housing Element of the Comprehensiv2
P1an~ which requires a Below Market Rate (BMP.) contribution of JO percent for all
housing projects with three or ~~re units, may discourage red€velopment of older
multiple-family projects.
A housing development wnich is mere1y replaced would not be subject to the BMR
reqYirements. However, a housing site which is redeveloped would be subject to
tne BMR req~irements. T~i5 interp~etation would be consistent for a11 housing
projects, grandfatherpd or not.
Iuue af Concern
Though staff supports the in.creased flexibility in redevelopment allowed for
grandfltnered yses. staff is concerned about a'lo~ing ~omplete redevelop~ent of
grand fathered uses ·without necessity to cOllp1y with site developaent
reguhtions.· Jdeal ly ~ redeo,;elopment should increase the degree of c:ompl iance
with current site de~elopment regulations, and at a minimum shoul~ not increase
the degree of noncomp1 iance. Tnerefore, staff recorrrnends. that grandfathered uses
$hould be allowed to redeve10p without necessity to comply with 51te development
regulations providea that they do not increase th~ degree of nonco~pllance.
Such a cl arificiillt ion would reQl1i re a lI1inor text amendment to each of the
grtndfather cliuses.
RecQrrmendat i on
Staff recolllTlends tf'l at the Planni ng Corrmi s 5 j orl recommend to t ne City C.Ol.Jnc il t na t
Council direct staff tc prep.are Zoning Ordinance te~t amoF!ndments to tne clauses
pertaining to uses grandfathered in July of i978. to reQuire that redevelopment
of sLlch uses shall not increase th'E! degree of noncompliance lfrIIith appHcable site
dl!'velopment regulations.
Respectfully submitted,
~£/~~
SARAH CHENEY ~
Senior Planner U
P:U.c\i~ttM·PC
~?o/. /Ifd~ ~
NANCY {'YTl E
Zoning Administrator
7/24/92
Page 3
o
AttaehllH!nts: P1.nnjng Commi'sion Stiff Report dated 11·21·90
Excerpt P)annf~g Commiss~on Min~tel dattd 11~28~90
Plans for Hote' Redevelopment (CumMission Members onlyj
cc: Fred Henoa,. Chief Building Official
Sue C .... Senior Assistant City~ttorne)
Richard Campbell, c/o Hoover Associates? 87 [ncina Avenue, Palo Alto. CA
94301
~.rk Wilson, c/o Creekside Inn. 3400 E1 Camino Real. Palo Alto, CA 94306
BarrDn Pa.rk A.ssoc h t ; on! c/o Dave Ch alton, Pres i dent, 3875 El Ce~tro t Pi 10
Alto. CA 94306
7/24/92
Page 4
Noyember 21, 1990
PlAIINlNG COMltlSSION
Palo Alto, Cilifornf.
mO ZIJI!lNV ORI)!H/JICt CLEAHlJP AlfEND!!OOS
Background
:."'
Staff is proposing a number of revisions to tnt Zoning Ordinance as part of
the biennfll zoning code cleanup. Thul rrvhfeons COYet several d1 fferent
areas. the .cst complex of whfth is tne administration of no~conforming uses
and noncomplYlng fatilitfes. Attached Ire two oTdin~n~e5 containing all the
proposed royl.lons. Staff has outllnod below the Issue or problem rel.ted to
each proposed revision, and the specific ordinance changes recommended by
staff to resolYe that ls.ue Or problem.
Proposed Amendments
1. &RAHnFATHtRro USES IN INDIVIDUAL ZONING DISTRICTS.
A. Jsslje Statement
Over the past seyeral years staff ~as encountered increasing difficulty
interpret1ng and administering cede provisions regarding nonconforming
uses and noncomplying faeflUfes. With these propose<! loning cleanup
amendments, staff ~IS not tightened ncr relaxed. or ot~erwise trfed to
change, the way nontonform1ng uses and noncomplying facilities ITe
regulated. Rather, staff hiS attempted to cl.rifl what we belieye the
orlgin,l fntent of the differ.nt types of nooconfonoing us~ proyisions
wert. Tne Commission, upon rey1ew1ng t~e fo1lowing discussion tnd
staff's proposed amend~nts. m~ want to go further witn these
... ndments. Staff recognizes that this topic fs complex and technic.l.
Therefore, .hould the Commission find that this section of amendments
warrants further detailed dfseu$sfon, staff feels the discussion would
be .. st appropriately handled fn the subcommittee forum.
E55entillly. t~ere are four eateg~ries of no~eonform;n9 uses:
zngclnup.90
Ijt
I. Uses which ha..,·e been deemed ~onformin9 through lI'grandfather
clauses" in individual zoning districts, and which are not
subject to termination. The majority of these uses or.
Il/ZIj!O
·1·
..
· ~.-.
o
those wh;c~ became nOllconfoMiing as I result of t~e major
1978 Zaning Code revisions, Ind tne 1986 dcwntown
reguhtfon. w"lch r .. uHed from the Downtown Study. Such
·grandfat~er~d· uses inc1ude, far exasple. proft!s1anal and
~fcal off1ces in res~dential zones, motel uses in
multiple-family residentiai lones, and nonreta11 offi~e and
flnanclal service us •• lo'cated In ground fl cor (GF)
c","binlng didrlets. Thest lodividual district ,'grandfothtr
clauses· are not ynffonw fn t~e;r language, although tnose
adopted during the same zoning code revision are generally
con.shtent.
2. Uses wIllch are subject to te .... lnotlon according to the
termination schedule, specified by Chopter lS.94,
Nonconformln9 Use. and Noncooplylng Flcilltl.s.
Nonconfonnlng uses fall Into this cltogory for a Variety
reasons, and include a few ~1ch were made nonconfaMiing as
a result of the 1974 rl~. Zone I Study and a SUbstantial
numbor re.ult!ng from the 1975 Zoning Ordinance reYlslons.
3~ US!S ~1ch have bten Igr1ndfathered· on I site s,ecif1c
baSis. Host uses wIllch fill Into tni. category were made
nonconforming during recent reloning5 resulUng from t.he
Citywide lind Use Study. T~e Elks CI"b and the fiesta lanes
80wllng Alley are t~ such ",os.
4. Other use. which do not fill Into any of the three
titegarfes above. Staff does not have an inventory of what
types of uses Ire current', nonconfonm1ng whiC~ have not
been grandflth,rod and Ire not subject to termination.
These uses are .40lnlstered following the general
nonconforming use regulation. of Chapter 18.94.
To date, the nonconforming Use' which haye been the most difficult to
att.lnl.ter are tho.e wIllch were 'grandf,thered' through clause. In
Individual zoning districts. Staff has had difflc"lt! determining
whether the proviSions of the Indiyldull clluse. should be the only cod,
applicable to the.e uses, or whether the grandf.therod uses shoold also
be trtated. in some ways. the sam! IS other nonconforming uses, ~h;ch
are subject to the provisions of Chapter ]8.94. The individual district
grandfather cl.uses do not directly answer oany of the questions which
arls. regarding the rights to use and replace Improve~nts, .nd they
allow prlyllege, which are In excess of those enjoyed by conforming
uses. In addition, th~ llng~~se cf the indf~1dual grandfather e1auses
I. too often subject to dlff,rlng Interpretations. The.e 'ituations
reflect ur.derlyin9 object1ves of recent studies. e.g., Downtown and
Citywide, that addressed the need to reduce new development potenti.l
rlther than place new restrictions on existing development. Tnus,
property owner. of buildings that exceed ne. development regulations,
zngclnup.90
ljt
1I/1l/90
-1-
.~.
., : ,:::".,
.'
especia11y FAR, are allowed tD retain 9 remodel 'nd rebuild their
bundlngs up to existing !eyel. of developmenL
Stiff ~15, over t~e years, attempted to cross-jeferent! th~ fndividual
grandfatner clau.es with the general proylsions of Chapter 18.94 when
tne fndfyl~ull clauses are ~Jte on a spectric fssue_ However, this
approich ~ts proven to be problematic, IS tnere are some basic
inconsiste"cies between the two types of code provisions, as outlined
below:
zngc!nup.90
ljt
A. !XPAHSION OF USE
Grandfather tlause -NonconfonDing use may not be expanded to
increlse floor area occupied by the use.
Chapter 18.t4 -Honconforming us. may be expanded to include
additional floor are. within the same building, if it is
detenoined that the additional portion of the building to be
oceupfed is root re!$~nab'y susceptfble to use or occupancy by a
confan.ing use withoijt 5ubstanttll remod!ling or reconstruction.
8. CHAffS, OF USE
Srlndt.thor Clause -Grandf.the. clause Is applicable only for
-eenttnual use and occupancy by tne'same u~e~. Only the
nonconfonD1n9 use whicn ex1st~d It th~ time t~e grandfather clau~e
",as put Into .ffect Is allowed. No other type of nonconforming
use Day replace that u •••
Chapter lS.94 -Nonconforml"g use may be replaced by anotne.
nonconforming use which would haye been permitted under tn. lonlng
in place at the time of the rezoning. The use must be of equ.l or
less tntQns1ty, and must also meet other certain co"ditions.
C. DISCONTINUANCE OF USE
;r.ndfatt~r Clause -Srandfather clause is applicable only for
·continual use a~d occupancy by the same use·4 Tne ~aning of
·conti~ual· is not further defined and 1S subject to varied
interpretation, Iltheugh staff has consistently used the one year
teno of Chlpter 18.94.
chapter 18.94 -for "onconforming uses occupying facllitie.
designed and constructed for nonresidentl.l purpo.es, if the use
11 discontinued for I period of one year or DOTe, III subsequent
use of the 'Ite lnd facilities must be by a conforming use. For
nonconforming uses occupying facilities designed and constructed
for residential use, tne tfme 11rnit for distcntinuance is ninety
days or mere.
Il/11/90
-],
•
;"'"' ..... '. ~--
lngcl.up_90
ljt
O. NAINTENAHCE AND REPAI~ OF FACILITIES
gcCUPIEP BY NQHCQHFORMING USE
·"'" -
6rlnd'lthe~ Clause -Nonconforming ~~es Ire permitted -to rfmodel,
f~rDye, Dr rap11ce ~tte feproYelents on tne sa~ ,ite. without
n.c .. sity to c"'ply wit~ .fte development reguhtfon,' IS long a,
it does not re.u1t fn fncrea.ed floor ar •• , hefght, length or .ny
other Incre •• e In the Sfl. of tne Improvement. This ha. been
fnterpreted by .taff .s meanfng t.,t the envelope of the existing
structure fs the limit of the improvements allowed, but
illprovetll1lnts wHhfn the existing 3-dimen.!ona1 envelope are
."owe~.
Chapter IS.g4 -Norm.l and routine malnten.nce of facili,les
occupied by nonconforming u.e •• re allowed. Incidental
a'teratlon. are permitted, provided the va'ue of the ilteratlons
in any one·ye.r peried .h.l1 not exceed twenty percent of the
value of the facility. Struct"ra1 alt_ratlo •• or en1a'gement are
not all owed.
E. REPLACEMENT OF FACILITIES OCCUPIED BY HONtOtiFQRMING USES
Grandfather Ciau ••• A. noted above. facilltle. occupied by
nonconforming uses .. y be replaced, without necessity to comply
with sfte development regulotfons, IS long as the I"ep iacement does
not result in increased floor area t height, length Dr In1 other
fncrease 10 the .lz. of the laprove .. nt. The prefesslon.1 and
aedic.1 office grandfather clauses fn resfdentla1 zones ar. the
only clauses which do not contain the language 'without necessity
to comply wfth sfte development regulations'. Staff be1feves the
IntentIon was to .llow rep1.cORent of facf11tles occupied by such
u.es the .... prl.l1ege. as other grandf,tn_red u.es, but would
appreciate conff ... tlon of that Intention by the Commission.
Chapter 18.94 -In general, facIlities which are occupied by a
naneonform1ng use may only be replaced for use and occupancy by i
confonoing us.. Howe.er, ff • facility fs ~amaged or destroyed
by ~ny leans otner tnan ordinary wear and tear or deprecfation,
and If none of the nonconforming uso. occupying the facillty is
subject to termln.tlon, the f.cility •• y be replaced for continued
occupancy by the same use. The replacement structure .ust meet
.11 applicable sft. development regulations of tne current zoning,
and "ay not exceed th.t exfstlng P" 'viou.1y. When one or IIOre of
the nonconfonling use. Is subject to termfnatlon, replacement I.
11.lted to 75 percent of the value of the facility prior to d.mage
during the ffrst one-thfrd of the applicable terminatfon period,
50 percent during the second one·third. and IS percent during the
last one-third.
--.~------.. --.-
11/21/90
.~ -
•
i . ,
"
In researc~1ng t~2 ]978 a~d 1986 grandfather cliuses, and the language
of Chapter 18.94. staff has concluded that the Ir.tent when the
gnndhtnl!'r chuses wele Idopted was that the pro· .. isions of thll! chuses
would sti~d alone, and that these grindflt~ered uses would bE treated
dffferent;y tha" ~tker noneonfor.ing use~ Ind noncomplying facilities .
In other words, these uses were intended to be allowed to rema1n for in
In~eflnlte taount of time. but their ,Ito,tlon would be on. of 'status
q~o·. The facilities could be improved or replaced to maintain the use,
but no change (I,e.t occupancy by I~other category of nonconforming user
expansion of existing use Dr flcilities, etc.) cDuld occur. One of the
main reasons staff came to th's conclusion is tne use of the ¥hrase
·shall be deemed to be conformj"; uses· in each of the grandfather
c1.us.s. T~e effect of thl. phrase Is to .ay t~at u'es which were 1eg.l
conforming fJses-existing Dn ttle dlte of tfte zoning cflange. are still
conforming uses, ritner tn.n legal ~onconform1ng uses. 1"15 choice of
words leads st.ff to believe that It wa. intended that t~.se ",es be
treated similar to conforming U$IS, e~tept as provided for in each of
the 'nchidu.1 grandfather clauS05. If this were the cue. the
provisions found I. Chapter 18.94. which regu1.te III nonconforming
uses, wOfJld not apply.
Unfortunately, thi5 was also I poor ch~ice of words, Since it is the
opinion of the City Attorney's Office tnat ah effective legal argument
can be aade that, because the uses are -deemed conforming·, the
rEmainder of t~e grandfltn~r cla~se provisfons are negated, and the
proY;sions of Chapter 18.94 would not be applicable eIther. The term
-deemed conforming·, used often fn the llnguage of tne Individual
district gnndfatner clauses, could be ffl.terpreted to 1egal1y allow the
·grandf.tnered-use to return to the building at any tfme in the future,
regardless of whether or ~ot the use was discontinued for any number of
years. or had reve~ted to I normally permitted use. Staff believes this
was not the City's intent as evidenced by the language 'continual use
and occupancy·, whicn conSistently follows in tne grandfatner clauses.
In conclusion. staff be11eyes t.at the proylsions of the gr.ndflt~.r
clauses in the individual zone districts shQuld stand alone, and that
these type, of nonconforming uses should not be subject to .ny of the
regul.tlon, contained In Cnopter 18.94. Consequently. language should
be added to t~e individual grandfather clauses to ffJrt.~er cTar; fy how
these uses are to be treated. Spetifl<111y. langu,ge should be added
stiting that: !) tnese uses are -grlndfathered· uses (and the phrase
'deemed co"forDlng" eliminated); ZJ these us.s are not subject to the
requlre .. nts of Chapter 18.94; Ind 3) If the nonconforming use Is
dtscontfn~ed for one year or ~re, that use ~ay on1y be replaced by i
cDnfol"'lling USf'.
The commission sflould also note that tnere are two nonconforming use
(lauses contained in indi~idual zoning districts whi~h are different
from the ot~er grandfather clauses. These provisions are found in the
eN, Neighborhood Commertial, and CS, Service (omrnercial, district
zngclnup.90
1jt
11/11/90
·5-
\ ."-'
\
regulation. (Sections 18.41.050(m)(4) and 18.45.070(f)(3), respecti,.ly)
and speak to uses which were .. de noneo~fo~ln9 as I result ~f C1tywfdt
Land Use Study rezonings. T~ese twa sections are .1$0 granofltner
chuses, bd they are not ·seTf~cDntained· IS ITe the otf'ier granjhther
clauses. Uses wh1e~ were .ad. n~~c~nfDr.in9 1n these d~stricts IS of
August I, 1989 Ire reguhted by ',e provi.ion. of Chapter IS.94. The
only privilege ""Ich thes •• ectlOO.S allow above and beyond that .ll.o.d
for other nooconforming use. ts the right to remodel, Improve or rep1lo.
site improvement., In accordance with .ite development re;ul.tion.,
w1t~Dut ~aY1r.g to convert tr I ~cnfoMl1n9 use.
g, Staff Suggested So1vt1QD
Staff recommends that the applicable code seetlons be revised '0 it is
c1.ar that eaeh of the individual grandfather el.u.es, except t'e
Citywide rezoning clauses, stands alone. As a result, nonconforming
use., evon tho.e in noncomplying f.ei1ities, which h,ve been
'grandf.therod' by a elause in an lndivldu.1 zoning district would to
treated differently than other types of nonconfonoing use., which would
be subject to the proviSion, of Chapter 18.94. Staff recomnends adding
language to e.ch of the gran· ,t,er clause. (found in Chapters 18.10,
18.12, IS.17, IB.19, IS.22, ".24, IB.2~, 18.46, IS.49, IB.55, l8.51 and
IS.71) to, I) e1arlfy that the.e uses are con.idered 'gr.~dfathered'
uses by replacfng the phrase ~$ha'l be deemed to be conforming U$es~
with the phrase 'shall be deemed to be grlndfatllored uses'; 2} elarify
the phrl.e 'continual .se and oecupancy' by specifying th.t if t'. use
is discontinued for J period of one year ar ~re, t~e use wfll be
considered ,blndoned Jnd ~y on1y be replic~ by I confor.ming use; and ,
3) clarify t,.t the'e grandf.thered uses Ire not subject to any of the
provl.ions of Chapter IB.94, Nonconforming U.es and Noncomplying
Facilities.
Other important cleanup include, substituting the actual d.to from which
uses are 'IlTlndfath;:red for the p~Tise 1n each clause whfch states -uses
eXisting of the effective date of this section' Dr 'us.s existing on t~e
effeetive date of the ordinance codified in this Ch.pter'. This will
elimin.te any confusion regardin9 whe. the.e sections were adopted and
which uses have been gr •• dfat'ered. Additionally, the languoge 'without
nece •• lty to eomp1y oitll .ite development regul.tions' has been .dded to
the profeSSional ond medical office grandfather eTauses in each of the
residential zones, so that t~e language of .11 grindfather clauses,
except the Citywide rezoning claus •• , is eon,istent. Finally, the
grandfather clau.es of t,e dowotown CD·S and CO·N subdistricts (Sections
IS.49.0eO(d)(3) and IS.49.090(d)(3)) have been incorporated into the
gener.l CD district grandf.ther e1ause (Section 18.49.040(b)). This
change will reduce eonfusion by placing all the downtown grandfather
clause provisions in on! locltion.
zngel nup. 90
1jt
11/1l/90
-6-
Jf tn~ C~fss~on wfshes to continu~ discussion of these amendments to
discuss further poss1b1t': rt-1I1s1oIlS, staff wo~Td recOftl'ltend that a
subcommittee of the ( .... ission be appointed to w.rk wit~, staff on the
issue of nonconfonafng use and noncomplying flc'lit~ regulations.
~. &RAHDFATI!£Rf!) usn IN THE DO'tIMTOIIII COI!I!ERCIAL (CD) DISTRICT.
A, ]ssue Statement
As • re,ult of the difficuity stiff hiS experienced administering the
nonconfonafng USE regulitions, a nonc~nformfng use, Manpower Temporary
Services, was allowed to occupy a downtown space which 1t would haYe
been excluded from ., a result of the reviSions ,taff h., recommended
.bove. The City Council, on April 16, 1990, directed stiff to add
langu.ge t~ the CD grandfather clause which specifically grandf.ther;
t~h use.
B. Staff Suggested Sglution
Staff recommends t~at the following language be added to Section
IS.49.040(b)(3} of tne CD Comerci.l Downtown Reg'Jlatlons, in order to
grandfather the Manpower Te~orary Services: • ... Notw1t~stinding any
interven1ng conforming ~se on a praperty zoned CO ind SF combining, any
office use existing on April 16. 1990, whicn .ls. existed .s a lawful
conform1ng use prfor to August 28, 1986. may remain as & grand fathered
use pursuant to the provisions of this subsection-,
3. USE PE1UIlT REVOCATlOft STANllARllS
A. Issue Stitemtn1
Section IS.90.0aO of the Zoning Code controls the revocation, extension.
transferlb1l1ty and duration of use pe~its and variances. S~bsection
(d) states that '. use pOnDit which has not been used for .ny period of
one year or ~re shall bQcome null and vOid-, However. t~is subsection,
as written, requires that before th2 use permit c!~ be declared n~ll and
void d~e to nonuse. the Zonfng Administrator must notify ths property
owner and hold. pub1ic ho.ring t. he.r evidence on the use .nd/or
nonuse of t~e use permit.
The practice of staff has been to consider the use per.mlt YGid after one
year of nonuse, w1thout holding I publi~ hearing. To st~ff's knowledge,
there is no record of the required hearing. ever boing held. Staff is
concerned about the lack of • mechanism to track .11 use permits to
determine whether Dr not tney have lapsed for a ptriDd of one year or
more. Addition.ll/, there does not appear to be • clear benefit to the
public to hold a hearing to review I use permjt fer a use which is not
in operltfo~. [rostead, a clause can be placed at the bottom of newly
zngelnup.90
ljt
11/21/90
-7-
,
! ,
/'.
o
Issued pe .. lts notifying the property owner of tho code se<tlon whith
dechres t!'l@ us@ permit null and IJoi' .. fter one year of vacancy.
B. Stiff SU9gest~d Solutlpn
St,ff recoaoends that Section 18.90.080 (d) b< amended so th.t .11
l.ngu.ge referring to • publIc he.rlng by the Zoning Administrator is
del.ted, refloctlng current and past practices. The section would then
sleply state that • use po .. lt not used for .ny period of one year or
.. re shall become null and .0Id. Amendment of thIs section would not
chang< the procedure for revocation or godlflcation of the use pe .. it,
If the conditions are not being met or the use Is being conducted In ,
Banner detrl.nhl to the public he.lth, safety and welf.re. Revocation
or .adlficatlc. of • use permit is govern.d by subsections (b) .nd (c),
and will continue to require a public he.rlng by the Zoning
Administritor prior to action.
4. HEIGKBORHGOO TRAH51TION CO"BIH!HG (T) DISTRICT.
A. tuue Statement
The Neighborhood Tr.nsltion CombIning District (T) RegulatIons, C~.pter
18.31 of the Zoning Code, were edopted In 1984. The purpose of the
regulations w., to protect slngle-f.ml1y .nd two-famIly residences
located .dJacent to multlpl~ family projects ~y reducing tne .llowed
height of multiple-family buildings. Th. regul.tions limit building
nelg"t to 30 fe.t on those properties wnich the T district overl.ys.
Currently, the T district overlay Is locat.d only In very 11l1lted RH-15
.nd RM-30 areas adjac.nt to C.llfornla Avenue .nd tne Int.r,.ctlon of
Holler Avenue and Middl.field Ro.d, as shown on the att.ched site
loc.tlon graphIcs. The multIple-family zonIng ,mendments .dopted In
1988 establlsh.d strict daylight pl.ne and setback regulations for
.ultlpl. family developments which were not in effect .t the tl .. tn. T
distrIct w.s cre.t.d. Th ••• new multiple family regulatIons offer
greater protection th.n the T district to properties adjacent to
multiple-family developments, with the exception that in the RH-30 zone
• 35 foot h.lght limit Is al1ow.d. Height in the RM-IS district Is now
ll.ited to 30 feet. St.ff does not believe that tols 5 foot height
dlfferenc. Is slgnlficont, due to the strlc:er daylight pl.ne and
setback provl,lons of the RH-30 district. Additlon.lly, st.ff feels
that the ell1l1n.tlon of the dlff.rent helghtr'Qulrements of the RH-30
and T overl.y district will elimlnat. confUSion for applicants and
staff.
Bt Staff Syggested Solution
Staff believes the T district overlay regulations are redundant in light
of tne recent1y adopted multiple fami1y zoning amendments, and
re<oomends that Chapter 18.31 be deleted from the Zoning Code. In
zngelnup.90 11/21/90
ljt -8-
------.,.~---
•
~-.~-", :..,'
:-: :~
conjunctIon wIth the Chapl~r deletIon, the propertIes shown on the
ItUch01l 'fte l~.t!on grlphlc, would be rezonl>d 1!1? elf.fnate the T
des1gnltfon.
·5. S!'EC1Al. SEfSACIC R£QUillEIl£llU.
A_ I:$ut St.tllCot
The City his a SpecIal Setback Hap (Chapter 2D.08). orlgln."y adopted
In 1959, which laposes .etbacks I. certain Ireas of the CIty whi"
overrIde those I~o.ed by the underlying %o.lng distrIct. Currently,
the aap I~ •• s l.rger front setback" and In the case of some corner
lot., larger .I~e setbacks, for propertl •• Ilong .. jor streets.
However, the lo4lvldual z~nlng dIstricts do not prevlde any reference to
the Special Setb.ck Mop. Although staff .akes every .tt.~t to bring
the special setbacks to the lttentlon of preperty owners, .t,ff believes
It Is I~ortant t. hive I specifIc reference to the setback In the
1ndlvidull zoning district r.gulatlons.
8 St,ff Suggested Sglytipn
Stiff .ecODOends thot • ne .. ,ubsectlon be added to the sit. development
regu!atlons sectl.ns of e.eh Indivldu.l zonIng distrIct cl.rif,ing th.t,
""ere appllcible, 5Otb.ck lin., 1""osed bl the Spech1 setback Hap shall
be followed for the purpo,~ of detenoi"lng legal setback lfn •••
5. fLAG lOTS DEFINE!) M StIISTAlCDMD LOTS.
AT Issue Statement
Ouri"g the recent comprehensive revl,lon, of the '·1 Single Fully
Resldenc. DIstrict Reg"iltlons (Chlpter IB.12), the site development
reg"l.tlon. for sub.tandard lots were amended 00 that these ,trlcter
reguhtlon, (I. •.. , ,Ingl •• tory developllfnt onll, 11 foot height limit)
Ipplled to fllg lots a' well. During I sub,equlnt ordinlnce revision to
the cottage ordinance, the reference, to fllg lut. were Inadvertently
deleted.
B. Staff Suggested $olutlon
Stiff recommend. th.t the 1angulge applying sub.tandard lot sit.
developllfnt reg"lltlon, t. fllg lot, be reinserted fn Section IS.12.055.
St.ff hiS continued to admfnl'te. t~. ordlnlnce according to tho Intent
of the revf,ed R·l regulltlo", t~ limit development of flag lot. 'Imilar
to sub,t.ndlrd lots.
zngelnup.PO
Ut
11/2I/90
·9·
I
I
I
I
o
7. OI'EN $l'ACf lEQUIRDlOOS IN 1114-15 DISTltICT.
A. (ssue Stlt",nt
Th. 1114·15 ""ltlple-f •• II, ~.gul.tlons reQul .. that, for e.eh pr.j.~t. It
lelst 35 porcent gf the lot Ire. be •• Intllned In COMmOn uSlbl. open
SplC.. Addltlon.lly,.n unspecifl.d loount of prlv.te ~,"b!. open space
Idjacent to each unit Is required. Stiff has found that for the two
types of dev.lopoents proposed .. st ofte" for AM-IS properties -
',fngl.-f18111' styl. townho.es Ind .~II condoalnlUR projects of less
thin 10 units -• grelter aaount of open spice .... Is t¥plell!y devotEd
to prl,"to ,Ird. than to CDmIOn Ir.l. While the current code 1110ws
Plrt or III of the requlre4 prlvlte open spice Ire. to be added to the
e .... n open spice lrel (upon recommendltlon by the Archltectur.1 R.vi.~
Bolrd and Ippro •• 1 of the DIrector of ~lann!"s and Ccomonlty
["Ylronalnt}, It does not .11 .. the required ComMOn ope. spice Ire I to
be .dded to the prlvlta open spice .rea •. This sODetl .. s results In
design probl~, becluse for townhGmE Ind aultlple-famlly dev.lopments
on s •• 11 properti.s, th_r. ululll, Is not enough' room to provide 35
percent c~n uSlble open space, in Iddition to the privite areas which
.re t¥plcilly found In tile •• developments.
B. St,ff Suggested $q1yt1gn
St.ff recommends that t~. open space requirement for RH-15 project.
eliminate the referefice tD ·common-ITel 1 Ind simply re~uire 35 percent
of the lot Ire. to be usabl. open space_ 1"ls ~Ificltlon would not
reduce t~e amount of open space required In RH-15 multiple-family
districts, but would allow both private Ind coomon open spice Ire. to
count tow.rds ttoe required u,"ble opon spice. The provision Illowing
plrt or .11 of the required prlYlte ope" spice Ir.1 to be Idded to the
coomcn open spice arel (upon recommendation by the Archlteetur.l Re,iew
Board and approYl1 of the Director of Pllnnlng lnd C~nlty
EnYlromoent) would be delet.d. Staff does not belieye this amcndme"t
~III hay. In eff.ct on recreatlon.1 opportunitle. for ... Ident. of the,.
deyelopoents, beolUS .... t prlvlte Ylrds fn .-.11 townhome Ind DUTtipl.
f18lly developments Ire I.rge enough to be utilIzed In I .Inner slmil.r
to single family homes_ 'n the cI.e of I larger RH-IS deyelopment, when
common uSlble open spice Is ~re deSirable, stiff belieyes t~e design
re~1ew process Cin ensur~ that an ;dequate ~unt of t~e riQuired 3S
p.rcent open sp.ce Is provided In C?ODOn lrel'_
I. 'GRAnE' AND 'HEISHT' DEFINITIONS.
At [ssue Stattment
St.ff h •• found two Dljor dlfflcultle. with tile definitions of grade I .. d
heliht when applied to structur., built on lots wIth steep .lopes.
First, grade, from whIch point bUilding height Is measured, is defined
zngclnuF.90 11/21/90
ljt -10-
_____ .~_ •• ,~'~ _____ .,_ '.r" ..... _·
•
"',-,
1
I
IS ·the lowo!t point of Idjacent ground elevation of the finished
surface of the ground paving or sid~walk·~ This presents a problem en
slopt-d 'lots because when f111 15 uttHzed IS pilrt of tJle construction
process, building height ... y, depending on tile specific ciSe; be
..., .... ed f,.... the top of t~e fill. T~is prlcti:e can 7"Osu1l in •
st.uct ••• which appe •• s taller on the site, .ven though it complies ~ith
the height 11.lt. StIff believes th.t building hefght on sloped lets
should be ..... ured fr"" the finished Dr exfstiog grade, whichever is
lowor. In thfs case, ~h.n a st.ucture fs plaCed on ff11, the filled
are. would count tow.rds the over.ll height.
The second difficulty Is that the definitfon of height allows. building
heIght credft of up to 10 feet, when there Is • differential of 10 feet
or le.s between the highest adjOining ground surface and grade (which is
tho ta .. for ... t properties located In the focthllls). Sy this
deffn1tioll. I structU"re an a steep lot could lDf!et the height limit, but
physically .... ure up to 10 feet higher than the maximum allowed. Tni s
p.ovlslon was orlgln.11y Idded to the code because It Is contafned in
the Unlfono Building Code, and. staff a.sumes, because ft l110wed some
flexlbilfty for buildlog on steep slopes. However, this definition does
not take Into Iccount the .esthetic problems of .llow;ng a 10 foot
height credit, rlth.r th.n measuring the true height of the structure.
Staff believes that with the recent concern expressed regarding the size
ind visibility of foothill deYelopment, that it Is appropriate to revise
the definftlons of grade and height. as proposed below. in order to help
achieve desired a.sthetic goals.
S. Staff Suggested Sg1ytf,n
Staff recommends: I) amending the definition of srade (Section 18.04.030
(54») by adding the l.nguage 'In areas with natur,l .lop.s in excess of
lOS, 'grade' shall ~ir. the adjacent ground elevltfon of t~e finisned or
existing grade, whichever is Tower-; and. 2) l~nding the definition of
height (Section 18.04.030 (67») by eliminating the provision which
allows that 'the .. asurement may be ta'en from the high.st adjoining
sfdewalk Dr ground surface within a 1.5 met.r (fiye-foot) horizontal
distance of the exterfor wall of t~e building. when such sidewaik or
ground surfac. Is not more th.n 3.0 met.rs (ten feet) aboy. gr.~e'.
Stoff bel,ev.s these two amendments would result in foothills
deyelopment which Is more likely to reflect the natural topogr.phy
because height ~f11 be ... sured from the lowest grane •• ither exfsting
or nrturill, thu.5 cO\.lnting arty filled areas towards overall buildil"'.!;!
height. As a result building pads Ire more likely to be d.sfgned so
they are terriced with t~e contours ~f a s1te. instead of utilizing
extensive cut and ffll tD create' level building pad or capture views.
Additionally, .limlnation of the up to 10 foot height credit, which
would result in the measurement of the true height of the bUflding, will
help to reduce iesthet;c impacts sometimes resulting from hillside
zngelnup.gO
ljt
Il/lI/9D
-11-
·'7;';;'; .
--;~~
o
deYelopaentS'. These uendment.s would not I:ffect the ~~y 9rade or ne-1ght
is dEtermined on propert1fs w1t~ slopes of less than 10 percent. Staff
would note, howeve-r, that w~th these t~o rev1.s1ons, the 2£ foot height
ll.it in the OS district .oy be .or. difficult for new development and
additions to existing buildings to ... t, and yorlances for these
pro~rtles are likely t~ incre.,e. A similar problem is not anticipated
for sites zoned RE, ""ere the he I ght limit is 30 feet.
,. USE ,£It!!lTS FOR AlC.oHOLI C e EVW6£ SM.ES.
A, I nuc Shhment
The Zoning Cod. currently requires any use which Is subject to obtaining
an on-sale license from the State for tnt sale of Ilcohulie beverages,
t~ secur. a conditional use pe""it. Section 18.12.120 (b) requlr.s that
a new use pormit be applied for Wheneyer • new on-sal. llcerose is
required by the State. This has not been the nOnROl practice of st.ff,
as it would be an administrative bUrOen to issue • new use peroit
allowing the s.le of alcoholic beverages each time a restaurant changed
ownership. The normal procedure is to require I: ~se permit when a use
selling .lcohollc bever.ge. wi she. to open in I loc.tion which did not
preylously haYo a si.ilar use, or if there .111 be expinsion or
IntensIfication over the previous uso. Staff believes the intent of
t~is section is to provide a chance to review tne approprilttness of the
use penait, and perhaps ame~d c~nd1tion5 or deny a continuance of the
use. However, this can be achieved through ~ins -nfch are easfer to
admInister and are loss burd.n.~ to applicants. Staff is suggesting a
provisIon be added to SectIon 18.90.120 requIring revIew and amendment
to an alcoholiC beverage s!lES USE permit ~enever a use is expanded or
intensIfied. Additionally, vlol.tlon of the condItions, and cooplalnts
regarding operotlon of e.isti"9 uses, can bo handled through code
enforce.ent, and in eGTe severe cases. througn revocitio" proceedings.
B.' Staff Suggested So] ytion
Staff recommends that Section 18.90.120, regulating sal.s of alcoholic
be~erages, be amended to eliminatt the provisfcn of subsection (b"
which requires a new use permit whenever a new on-sll! 1 icer.n is
required by the Stato. This amendm.nt would not elIminate the need for
new uses, Dr uses which are c~rrent'y operating ~ithout a use permit, to
obtain a use permit when an on· •• lo liconse is required. Staff ~urther
recORrnend~ that new pro'Jh1ons be .dded to this section reqli'rir,~ review
and a.endment to an alconolic beverogo salos use peMOlt whenever a use
lS expanded Dr intensifiEd.
zngclnup.90
ljt
11/21/90
·12,
.". ';
10. ZONING ~INISTRATOR REFERRAL OF USE PE~IT AND VARIAN:! APPLICATIONS.
A. Issue Statement
The Zoning Administrator Is empowered by the Zoning Code to make
decisio~s en use per.1t and varianct requests. following I public
hearing. The City CounCil, upon recommendatIon from the Pl.nnlng
Coonlsslon, .. kes decisions on all other types of application, (except
for .rchltectur.l reylew). This .rrangement can lead to much increased
processing time and duplicative public hearing! In the cas. where oor.
t~an Dne permit 15 requireo, and th~ Zoning A~min;stritor is the
deCision miker for on!, while the City Council acts on the otner. To
Illustr.te, the New Children's Hosplt.l submitted an applicatIon In
August of 1986 for I use permit to build. new facility at 725 Welch
Ro.d. The Inltl.l Study Indicated th.t an Envlronment.l Impact Report
(EIR) would be required due to potential I~p.cts of the project on the
surrounding lind use. transportation system and parking flcilities.
Because the Zoning Adm1nfstrltDT .,ts on the use permit application, but
the City Council .ust first certify the EIR .s being adequate, the
public hearing process based on current c~de proceeded as outlined
below:
1. Pre] tlII.ary review by Arch I tectur.l Review Board (ARB).
This stop Is optlon.'.
2. Public he.~lng on Draft [IR by Planning Commission
(cantfnu.t1~n to second hearfng 1f necessary).
3. Public Hearing on Final ElR by City Council 'nd
certification of EIR IS complete (contlnu.tion to second
hearing If necess.ry).
4. Public hearing on Use PErmit by Zoning Administrator (ZA).
5. If ZA deCision I. appe.led, public h.aring on appeal by
Planning Commission.
6. Public he.rlng on .ppeal by City Council.
7. Public hearing by ARB for final design review.
Thi, proce.slng schedule can be "nnecessarlly burdensome for both the
public .nd the City, and Is contrary to the intent of the St.te Permit
Stre~llnlng Act. St.ff belieyes this process could be impro,ed by
allowing t~e Zo~fng Administrator to refer use permit and variance
.ppllcations to the Plannfng Commission and City Council for action when
zngclnup.gD
ljt
11121/90
" 13"
o
other action re1ated to t~e project (i.e., site and design pe~ft.
Planned (onuunlty Zone Amendment or En.lron .. nt., lopact Report), Is
required by these bodie:. T~fs pro<:us is (urref!tly lunable for
subdiYisfon~ whfc~ .1so requ1re one or more variances, and on June 27,
1990, w.s recoomended by t~e Commission to be ~de available for PC
lone a.e"daents wh1c~ .150 require variances, This ~~dment would
.11.lnat. the n.ed for the Zoning Ad.inlstrator to hold a separate
public hearing either before or .fte' the CommIssIon and CouncIl
heorlngs have taken plac.. Inste.d, the Zoning AdminIstrator would .a'e
• r.c .... nd.tlon on the ute permit or variance to the PlannIng
Coomlsslon. If thl. amendment .ere .dopted, the ex.mp'e application
Wlluld have bee. processed as f.llow.:
I. Preliminary revl •• by Architectural Revie. Bo.~ (ARB).
This st.p Is opt ;ona1.
2. Puollc h •• rlng on Draft fiR and the Use Permit appllc,tion
by Planning Comml.slon (contInuation to second he.rlng If
necessary). Plann1ng Commission makes rec~nme"dat1on to
Council on Use Perolt.
3. Public He.rlng on Final EIR and Us. Pe""H application by
City Council (contlouation to second h.,ring jf •• = •• ,ary).
Council certifies ,IR as complete and take, fina' Ictlon on
Use Penni t.
~. Publ Ie hearing by ARB for final deSign review
Staff feel' consolidation of t~e public h •• rln9' and decision .. 'ing
would result in I more 1~gica1 a~d comprehensive consideration of al'
.spects of • project by the public and decision .a'ers. Public
testimony could be ta,en by the Commission and Council rega~ing ,II
discretionary project .(tions at one time. This reduces confusfc~ for
both the public and Ccomission and Council by .'i.lnating the nlld to
try and limit comments only to that aspect of the Project which Is being
considered It • specific public h .. aring. Also, delays due to the l.ad
tf~ ~!cessary for notictng hearings and preparing staff rtports. would
be reduc.~. Finally, the public would be spared .ome of the frustTiUon
of having to Ittend up to seven or more pub'l~ hearing, to bring tneir
c~nt5 on I proj!ct forward.
B. Staff SUS9gited So1ution
Staff recommend. a new Section (18.90.105) be added to Chapter 18.90,
Variances and Conditional U.e Pennlts, specifying that whenever ,n
application is ~ade for I major s~te and design per.mit, planned
cOlTlllun1ty zone change or any approval wh~ch requiri!s an EIR. and the
plans for tl'.at appl ication alse require a variance or us.e permit
approval, t~e variance or use permit may be processed concurrently witn
zn9cloup,90
ljt
11/21/90
·14·
-.,.. _____ ~w~~""_,.._ ______ _
..
. ,
II.
".-
-'
" -
;).~~,' ::'--"-
the other Ippl1cltfon. In $uch I Clse where app'1tat1~ns ire process~d
concur~ntlYt the review procedur~s would follow those establish!d tur
the ~ite Ind design review, ~'~nned comm~nlty Zone change or E[Q,
whichever the cI.e may be. The Zoning Administrator would not act on
th, variance Dr use P~rllft applic.at1on,-but ,,"'Quld !!lake Ii recolflTlendation
to tho Planning comml.slon.
DAYLIGHT PlANE "EASUR~rNT FOR SUaSTANDARD LOTS.
A. [S$U@ Statrment
~urjng the recent comprehensive revisions of the Po-I Single Family
ReSidence District Regulations (Chapter lS.12l. It was intended that
daylight plane on sub.tand.rd H-I lots be measured the same as for
standard H-I lots. However. this revl,lon was accidently overloc~ed
when the H-I district amendment. were m.de_
B. Staff Suggested Solution
Staff recommends th.t So,tioo 18.12.055 (cJ of the site development
~e9ulations for substandard lots be amended so that all reference to
daylight plane 1s deleted. The Site development regul.tions fer
substandard lots only apply -in lieu of comparab'~ provisions in Section
18_12.050 (site develoP"Ont regulations for standard lots) above'.
Therefore, 1n the absence of a daylight pla~e pro~jsion specific to
substandard lots. the ,tandard lot daylight pl.ne measurement would
rlJle.
12. HONCONFORMIHS SECOND DWELLINGS AND TWO-F~llY USES IN RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS.
A. Issue Statl!f!!fnt
During the recent review by the Commission of t~e Cottage Use Permit
Update report prepared by the Zoning Administrator (dated September 7.
1990l. staff recommended an ordinance revision to clarify the status of
cottages which are legally no~conforming. Currently. tne R-l
regulations do ~ot permit properties which do not lOOet the mirlimum size
reQulrements of the -(ottagt ordinance-, t.e., they ire not 35 perctnt
la~er than the mir.i~um. to expand the prim~ry residence and maintain a
historic. legally nonconforming cottage. Section 18.12.070 appears to
prohibit t~e expansion of any structures on the property if there ire
two units. Hcwever, it has been the practice of the Planning ~partment
to ~lTow for exp;nsion of the main residence, w1th1n the site
development regulations •• rovided tnat the units are dotacoed and one of
them can be clearly distinguished IS the ·cottage·, Staff advised that
the code b. amended to support t'is practice. Believing the revisien
would be fairly simpl., staff Informed the Commission they would revi ••
tnt amendment with this package of cleanup items. Staff now rea11zes
zngclnup.90
ljt
1l/21/90
·15 -
the aaend8ents Ire more c~lfelted than orig'r.llly thought, and more
ti .. is n •• ded to fu"y work out tne details. Staff will return wit.
reco.nended nevision tD the cottage requirements at I later datt.
8, Staff SYQQested SolutiQD •
Stiff is not pro~osin9 ,ny amendment, to r •• olv~ this cnnfllct at thl.
t!... HOWlver, proposed lmendment. ~ill be brought to the Comm!"ion a,
SQQn IS posslbl •.
R£co!!!!ElmATIOlt
Staff rec .... nds that the PlannIng Ccom!,.!on recommend the Cit) Council
approv~ the Negative Declaration, Ind adopt the proposed Ordinance &mending
Title 18 Ind the proposed Ordinlnce rezoning prop.rtl., In the RH-15 IT) and
RH-30 IT) combing district, to delete the 'T-combining' deSignation.
Respectf.lly submitted,
't7./{1U~ /11 ¥(l-<
NAIICY M., TILE
Zon1ng inistratbr
lIte.eli.,,,Is: Crtljlll e and graphics rezoning RI!-15IT) and RI!-30
to RH-l In
Or posed text .... n
cc: Fred He ... an, Chief BuildIng Offkhl
Planning Staff
lngel nup.90
ljt
11/21/90
-16-
? -'f1i
Enviro~mental Ooc~ments -City of Pile Alto
~MENr'L ASSESSMENT
Project Description/T1t'~: Zqning OrdinanCe Clea~ (se~ attached
description)
Loc. li on/Addras" "C .. H"'y'-"W-ci"'de=-_____________________ _
Sponsoring AgencyiApplicant: (ih of PalD AltolZpnil"g Administrator
Address and Telephone of Applicant: City Hall. 250 Hamilton Avenue. Pa",lo,,--_
Alto. CA 94303 (4151 329-2441
Application fDr: Zoning text amendmgnts
(e.g., toning change. subdi~ision of prcperty, architectural re'll'few, Lise
permit)
Zoning at Project Location: City Wide Fee R~ceipt No.: "No",n",e __
NOTICE Qf OETERHINATION
Based upon review of the project fnes, thf:! lindersigned ll1ember of tre Pial"Tling
Oepartment has concluded:
IXI Negativ.O,claration: The prcject hi' no significant environm.nt,1
impact. No Environm!ntal Impact Report is required. lhe reasons for a
Declaration are:in the attached prQlect description ~nd analysis. A
record of pro1ect actlon is available for review at the Palo Alto
Plannlno Department. locat~d on the fifth floor of City Hall. 250
Hamilton Avenue. Palo AJtq. CA 94303
lJ The project may ha .... e iii; s;gnHkant en .... lronmental
Environmental Impact Report .wy~ b:yre~ared.
impact. An
Planning Dtpartment Official: /'1", j .,;'...I-y
P J • nn i"9 0 i roc tor: --:Jz; ,( ,;f.,FL-f;·--"-::'"'c:x-=_-,,--.L-",~{.7':2-=:+----D-' t-.-: -/-I-;'-~-/i-'?-C' ,
The project has been approved.
The project has been denied.
Rev i sed 8/1/79
[IANDD
Oat.:
Date:
File No.: 90-rIA-28 __ _
90-ElA-le
J
,-~
.. '.d;~'.:.
""" "'''",-" "~-~
PROJlCT D£SCRIPTIOH
The City of Palo Alto is proposing several Zoning Ordinance text amendments to
cle~n up and clarify the amended 5ectfons. -Following is a brief ~escription
of the propCl'sed GITIendments and an ana1Y,I)is of their potential environmental
impacts:
]. Amendment of the grandfatherinSl pravi s ions of many individual zone
di stricts ,to c1 arj fy that: aJ these uses are "grandhthered uses· and
not ·(o~forming uses· as currently stated; b) t~ese grindfathering
provislons stand alone and are not subject to the requirements of
Chapter 18.94, which rfgulates nonconfonrning uses and noncomplying
facilities; and, c) if I grand fathered use ceases operation for twelve
consecuti~e months, the ~se will be considered abandor.ed and may be
replaced only by a c~nform1ng use.
2, Amtmdment of the grand fathering provisions in the Downtown COIl1'l1-erc:ial
District (Section 18.49.040(bJ) to clarify that grar.dfath,,·ed uses
cannot b~ rep1aced with other nonccnfarming uses unless they meet timing
criteria establi$h~d in the ordinance. No significant environmental
impact can be found with tkis am~ndment.
3. Amendment of the Use Permit roYo<ation standards (Section lS.90.0S0(d»)
to allow expiration of a Use Permit which has not been used for any
period of Dne year or more"witnout a public hearing. This action is
adlftinistrative only and' has no significant en .... ironm!:nhl impact.
4. Deletlon of the Neighborhood Transition Combining Distri,t (TJ
Regu1ations (Chapter 18.31). This proposal wo~ld eliminate an overlay
district that limits multiple fanlily he~ght to 30 feet in a v!ry
llmited area adjacent to California Avenue and at the intersection of
Homer Avenue and Middlefield Road. The recent m~ltiple family loning
amendments whic~ establish strict daylight planes and setback
regulations adjacent to single family development will serve a simHar
purpose, .1though ir. the P~-30 zone. 35 foot height limit would b.
allowed. rt is not antiCipated that this rnudification will ha~e a
significant imoact on adjac~nt residential propErties or tne
environ~nt, because loss of sunlight to adjacent properties is
controlled by current daylight plane regulations, ... ·~ich require
significantly larger setbaCKS the taller a struct~re becomes.
S. ,Amc-ndment of the sHe development regulati'ons of al~ indi~idual zoning
districts by cross referencing Special Setback requirements (Chapter
20.08). T~fs amendmeht clarifies that certain properties are subject to
larger front setbacks along major streets which are identified an an
existing special setback map. This actior. is only administrative and
has no significant environ~~ntal impact.
ElANOO 90·EIA·1S
1
·---,
J -,
."~. ,,-
-/ -
E. Amendment of the substandard 10t prOY151or.S ir. the R-l District (Section
J8.12.055) reinstating the provlsion i~entifyin9 flag lots as
substandard lots. This provisi~n was inadvertently deleted durlng a
prfviolls ord'i.'1ance re'w'is!on. Th1s action ls only administrHive anu has
no slgniffcznt environme:ltal impact.
7. Amendm~nt of the RM-1S regulations {Section J8.22.050 (j)} to eliminate
the requirement for comman usable ope~ space in low density multiple·
fa~ily projects, which w~ll allow priVAte open space to meet the ope~
space requirements of the ordinance. This amendment has been proposed
bec~use the requirement that all required open space in low density
multiple-family projects be common open space made the design of such
projects extremely difficult. This modification will not reduce th~
amount of opeli space that is r!quire<1 in multfple-famiTy districts, but
will allow both prlvate and common usable open space to count toward the
required amount. The amendment is not anticipated to haYe a significant
impact on the recreation opportunities for individuals in the.c:;e
developments. because private yards can be utilized in a manner similar
to Single family ho~sl and therefoTt!, will Mt have Q significant
impact on the er.vironment.
a. Amendment of the definitions of "Grade" and -Height-{Section
18.04.030). The definition of -Grade-has been modified to ~ddress
sites with slopes in exces~ of 10% by defining 9rad~ as the lower of
either t~e flnished or existin9 grade. The definition cf "Height" h2S
bee I'! modified to e1iminat! the pro· .. ision which allcws up to a ten foot
h~ight credit ~hen there is a differential of 10 feet 01'" less between
the .highest adjOining ground surface and grade. These amendments are
proposed to encourage more sensitive developmer.t on sloped sites in two
ways. FiTst. development is roore like1y to reflect the nitwral
topography because helght will be measured from the l~west grade, either
existing or natural. so filled areas are counted towards the overall
bu;lding height. As a result, buildings pads are more Ji~eTy to be
designed so they are terraced with the contour~ of a site, i~stead of
utilizing e)(tensive cut and fill to create a le~'el building pad.
Second, elimination of the up to 10 foot height credit for development
on steep slopes requires measurement of the true height of the bu1Jding.
WhlCh will h~lp reduce aesthetic impacts sometimes resulting from
hil1sfde developments. It is antiCipated that' these amendments w~li
impro~e the environmental effect on the topography of sloped sites by
encourJging sensitive grading plans that reflect e~ist;ng site
conditions, therefore, these amei'ldments win not hal!e signiftcant
envi ronmenta 1 impacts.
~L Amfndment of the Alconolic BeveragE Sa1es pro\'lsions (Section 18.90.i20}
to elimtnate the requirement that a new CUP be obtained any time the
State requires l new on·sale license, and to require an amendment to an
e~fsting Use Permit if the use is E.l(panded or intensified. This char>;]E'
is proposed to eliminate the netd for established uses whicn have a
valid Use Permit to reapply for that permit ;n the event the use were to
[lANDO 90-EIA-IS
3
-,
1>-,
o
change ownership or otherwise have need to obt.in a new on-sal! license
from the State, but to allow reevaluation of th! use and sal~ of
alco~oljc beverages if tn! USt will be expanded or intensif;~d. This
amendment Is administrative and will not e1 iminil'te the need.~ ((lr M!!' uses
~h~ch re~uire an on-sale license f~·the state for the sale of
alconolic beverages from obtaining a Use Permit from th@ clty.
rherefore, t~fs a~endment is not a~t;c1pited to have any environmental
impact.
10. Addition of a pro'i'ion (Section 18.90.105) allowing the Zoning
Ad111rJistntor to refer Yal"iance~ Use flenllit ir'ld Home rmprovement
Exception applications to the Planning Commission and City CounCil for
action whEn ,ertaln other actions related to the application (i.e., Site
.and Design Permit, P1anned Conmunity Zone A.meP"ldmer.t, Enyironment"
Impact Report)1 are required by these bodies. This ame~dment will
eliEinat~ the need for the Zoning Administrator to hold a separate
p~bl~c hearing either before or after the Commission and Co~ncil public
hearings have taken place. This process is currently &vailable for
subdivfsions w~ic~ also require one or more variances. C~nsol;dation of
the public hearings and decis~on making will result in a more logical
and comprehens1ve consfderation of a11 aspects of a project by the
public and dec1iion makers. These amend~nts are o~ly administratlve
and have no si9niffca~t environmental impact.
11. Amondment of Section 18.12.015 (b) changing the daylight pl.n.
~as~rement for substandard R~l lots so it is identical tD that required
for standard R-J lots. Tnis amendment will result fn consistency
between the way daylight plane is ~asured for standard R~l lots and
substandard R·l lots. This modification was inadvertently overlOOKed in
the recent comprehensive revisions to the R-l regulations. No
significant impacts will occur as a result of this amendment.
flANOO 90-F1A·18
4
.. "1;?--.. -----------,-
,
.. . \
NOVEl'IBfR 28. 2990
,XC,~PT PLANNING COIfolISSION !!INUTES
AG£HOA ITEM 3 ZQHIHG ORP2~~Cf CLfANUP: Mi,cellaneou, zoning text
,..,n<!Mnts, including: (I) _nding ihe gr.ndfath.ring
pro,lslon, of .. ny Individual zone districts to clarify
the intent of h"" these grandfathered use, are regulated',
(2) .mending the grandfathering provisions of downtown
coaoerclal districts to clarify th. intent of the
provision, of Section IS.49.040{b); (3) amending Section
18.90.080(d) to allow use permit expiration .ft.r one
year without a public h.arlng; (4) deleting neighborhood
transition reg"l.tlons (Chapter IS_31); (5) amending ,it,
developlent reg~l.tians of various zoning districts by
cross·referencing special setback req~irements (Chapter
20_OS); (~) .-ending substandard lot provision, in the
R-l district to relnclude flag lot provisions
inadvertently deleted d~rin9 J previo~s ordinance
revision; (7) .... nding Section IS.2Z.050(j) of U .. :lM-15
regulations to modif1 the requirement for common open
space; (8) amending th. definitions of grade and height
(Section 18.04.030) to clarify heigllt "",.sureme"ts; (9)
..ending Section IS.90.120 to eli.inate the pro'ision for
a US~ peMiit to sell 11cQ~olic beverages whenever, new
oR-slle license is reQwired by the stlte, and to requlre
an amendment to an existing conditional use permit,
should. use selling .lcohollc bo,erage, .i,h t. expand
or intensify that u,e; (10) adding Section IS.90.105 to
~11ow the zQ~ing a~lnistrator to refer variance, use
permit and home improvement exceptfGn applications to the
planning ~ommlssion and ttty council for action ~hen
certain other zetions related tG the application 1s
required oy these bodies; (II) ... nding Sectio"
18.12.055(b) to challge the d.y;ight pTane req"ired for
substandard R-I lot. to bo consistent with the daylight
pl.ne required for standard R-1 lot •. [nvironment.,
AsseS5~nt~ He significant i~act, and a negative
dechratlon hiS boen prepared. File No. 90-ElA-l8.
Cnainman Marsh: Hext we have the J990 zoning ordinance cleanup
~ndments. These ire revisions that are routint1y sent to us by-th€
zoning administrator and other ~ers of the stiff who hive identifled
area$, in the cours! of their work, that t~ey feel are ;n need of
clarification or cleanup. Whit I propose doing is to first take public
comment on any of the items noted, then go tnrough the items, one by one,
!l/lS/90
-28-
)'
allowing stiff co.nent at t~e beginnin9 of each item. We will then come
to conse~Sb5 or yo~e on elc~ Item as required.
tomiu1gDtr Cbrt.JlJ1!..i.tD.: I hive I genenl question. Some of these
isues were t~osed It the request of the neighborhood ~. the J-zQne. (or
nstanee, in the £vtrgreen Park IreJ_ r do n~t see anj (c's to
nei9hborhood groups~ Ind that concerns .e.
Chairman Marsh: As we get to those Issues t~.t you feel are particularly
relevant to the nelg~bGr~ood, we ,an talk about .h.t~er further
n.tifi,atlon would be preferable. V •• il1 no. heir fro. a .. ~r of tne
public.
Penny petros1.". 443 Ytnturi Ayenye. Palo A]to~ r would like t~ sp€ak tc
the grandfathered a"d nonco"for.f~ uses~ the grandfather clauses versus
Chapter 18.94, whlc~ has helpfully be.n separated here, ma'ing it very
understandable. ] am ~ondertn9 why on Page J. fGr instance, under
Discontinuance af Use, whfc~ Is ~ main interest, grandfather cTauses are
defi_ as ·tIIe _ing Df 'CDfltlwu,I' i. not further defined .•. • That is
ntller yagve. Staff is ~roposlng to propose a <olution for thot. The
implication seems to be that grandfather clau.es having to do with
discontinutnce af use in a proposed resfdent~al area are not treated as it
f~ in chapter 18.94 below. In ~ther words, tnere seems to be some feeling
that with a grlndfathered use, the ,1ty does not have as ~uch interest in
•• eing it change over as It does. us. under Chapter IB.94. The point I
wlnt to .ake Is, why not have, t! .. limit of three months, 90 days, for
every discontinued use across the board, inchJding cOlTJllercial uses. I I
fe~l t~ere is an inconsistency here, and 00 not see a nee~ for
inconsistency. The thinge hiS been proposed by staff tnat all these uses
be changed over after dfsCD"tinuanc! af use of a year's period. On Page
-6, I would recommend changing in the 'Stoff Suggested Solution' Item 2,
·Clar1fy the phrase 'continual use and occupancy' by specifying t~at if
the use i5 discontinued far a pertod of one year or more, th! use will be
considered abandoned and may only be replaced by a conforming use.-I
would urge the cOB015.lon to substltut. 'If the use is discontinued for 90
days or DOre, the use will be c.nsldered abandoned and may enly be
replaced by a tonformlng use' .nether that Is a commercial use being
replaced by I c~rc111 use Dr a commerciJl US! being replaced by a
restdeptial lI.se, because the city ~u as milch ;:)f an interest in s.e-eing H.e
Neighborhood Commercial zone l for instance, strengthened as soon as
possible so that ff there was I Servfce Commercial ~s! in a Neighborhood
COOBer~la1 zone that was discontinued for a period .fthree months, then
,"tamatica11y the next us. coming In would have to b •• Neighborhood
Coemercial u,e~ Why gfve I year's leeway on discontinuance? I am very
muc~ 1n flvDr of hav1ng I ~~rctll use fn a res~d!nt1al Zone being
changed over as qUickly as possible. I would propose th.t since the
grandf,thered clauses are going to stana alone and the Chapter 18.94 is
going to stand 110ne, I think that the city has as much interest In seeing
I grand fathered use cha~ge over ta the desired us~ as soon as possiblf~ as
BlUch IS ft has In interest In seeing that i f)orlconfcrming use in Chapter
18.94 regulations be changed ever to the desired us. as soon as possible. r can think of I situation where there is a pi!ce of residential ~e with
a little cornfr of it has a grandfathered use, IS opposed to a use
regulatej by Cnapter 18.94. As it stands now, in the grandfatnered
clauses, there ;s no pro .... hion for changing over to residential uses in SO
days as th~re is und~r Chapter 18.94. So if you have a grandfathered u~e
11/28/90
-29·
•
/ '.'
In t~it resident111 piece of property, that Cin stay indefinite1y or for ~
year or IDOre, whereas if It W!'re changed o\ler in I thT"ee-month period. you
could incl"de tnit in 0 nice residenti,l development.
CGllissloner '"ll.n: Maybe I am .Issing SOMething. but .here Is .90-day
defined in Chapter IS.941 •
Ma. Petrosfan: Ora Page 3) ~noer D1scDntfn~ance of Use, at the bottom of
the page. It is stipulated under Chapter 18.94 but not under tho
grandfather clause, as I ynder5tind 1t, If ther~ is a co=mercial use in a
residentially deslgnat.d zone.
Chainman Marsh: let us now go through these proposals~ one by o~e. Tne
first one 15 -Anending the grandfatherJng prov1sions of man, individual
zone districts to clarify t~e intent of how these granafathered uses are
regyhted .•
Ms. Lytle: 1 would preface your dhcuss~oll by saying that our intent here
WiS ROt t ... te substlnt!ve changes, but only to ellrlfy .nAt we think tn.
origln.l inte.t WiS. W. wore not trying to treate con,;stency b.tween
t~~se different types of noncQnfo~fn9 and grandfathered uses t beceuse W~
believe that there •• s not conslstenty in the t~ •• 'Y they were tre.ted at
the time they wore adopted. All wo are trying to do is to get it very
cl~!r with aUTs!lv!s and get it cletr with t~e publi~ as to ~hat those
differences are l ilnd do-cument it as: to why they wet'e treated different1)'.
Commissigner Hirscb: Tell us ~y you used the one-year period?
Ms. Lytle: That was bocause it was another time period that was
refeTen~ed in Inotner portion of the code. Secpndly. beCiuse we do allow
replacement of tf'lose structures, three mOllths is not a reasonabl e amolmt
of time te allow you to replace I structure. RepTacement of a structure
would discontinue the use for .t l •• st that period. We felt that one year
was a reasonable t'me frame.
Commfssioner Beecham: [t is also referenced on Page 114 -90 days, six
-anths or one year, dependi~g on the situation. Ninety days is for a
~onresidential use in I resident11l aTea. The primary sect;o~ is
Section b, which is for nonreSidential areas, whj~h is th~ ene-year period
limit. ,hat Is the general situation.
~1ss1one~ HUber~ Ms. lytle, how do you determine tnat a use ~as been
discontinued for one year?
Hs. lytle: We generally ask for !vidence of when it was interrupted and
.. wIIen it be9los again. We go frOll lease to l .....
Commissioner Huber: So to the public, it could lOOK like something does
Tlot exist, yet becluse of tr.:e leasing, it j s considered to have been an
ongoing use. So i blackout in i building for a Yiir ~ay not necessarily
mean that that use 1s gone.
Ms. Lytle: That fs correct. We have a situation d~wntown right now where
• bank appears to have been vacant for longer than the one-year period.
The bank cffi~ers volunteered to pay Someone to occupy that bUilding while
the tenant improvements were being -completed in order to ~eet that
J1/28/~0
-30·
..
•
o
cDnditfon. We slid that WIS not really neces~ary. We do go from lease to
l~tse .
Comm'ssigner Hjrsch: What tnat ~an5, then, Is that since all it requfres
is I lust, 1$ that there is I very eiSY way around that, if someone Ti!nts
it out for II yeiir. for I penny I ItOnth, they have til use and thfs will
never co.e into play.
~lllli: We like to see t~.t there Is e.ideoce that the use is
forthcoming, through tenant i~rovement appiicatians, etc. The e~imple
just cited was further cl)nfidence that this was r;ot just sitting there arid
that they were not 'playing g..o$.'
C9llfssipntr Hirsch: Have you ~Id s;tuatfons where the property ha> been
I~ndoned, there is clearTy no use, 2nd )lO~ relied L1pcn this provision ir,
Iny wIY?
Ms. lytl,: [cannot tnink of an i~stance, eff hand, when iii use has
reverted to what the distrIct now perotts, ... result of our enforceoent
of that provl.ion. We had one Incident with Manpower Service. takIng on
an occupancy beyond the time frame. We nave dealt w1~h that specifical1y
in this code amendMent in I later settion. They were given permission by
the council to go beyond whit that ti"" period was.
Cgmmj~sfoner tullen: Where are t~ey located?
Ms. Lytle: The 100 block of Emerson.
CQm!issioner Cullen: How does the t£lepnone b~ild;ng on Bryant Street,
essentially not used for J5 years or 50, figure in?
Ms. Lytle: They a~p'ied for and ~ad appro~~ I Planned Community zone
district, allow1~9 the office use.
Cha1mn Mar"b; We have a reconnendat 10;'\ from staff I a staff-suggested
solution, on Page 6 which discusses the applicable code s.ctions and
changes and cleanup that ~Ight be .ade In those code sections.
Commissioner Cullen: We went through .~ny~ ~any of these grandfatnerfng
se$.ions, and there is a public perceplion that grandfath.rlng is not
advantageous to the property. That Is why we came up with thi$ language
about legally confonolng. W. were told that any property that was
grandhtherod was considered to be conformIng. ·How we are going to ch.nge
·it baCk to Mfog grandfathered. I am I little concerned about the publ ie
perceptIon. We had so •• ny c.lls from people who owned property,
plrt1cuhrly in the downtown when we were 901ng tt'wough thi s, and some
other times when .e have gone through rezonings at California Av~nve.
etc. Although we reassured them that the loning on the property and what
they could do with It had not cha"ged, they stIll did not like that term.
I just wonder if there is so.e other way of handling this besides just
saying ·grandf~therins.· Can we put something benind the word?
~s. (ase: We can call it anything we wa~t to, except ·conformin9~· If it
Is confonning, then you do not need onytning else behind it. In ract, it
is detrimental to the word ·conforming,-because that means it is
conforming. a~d that is the end of it. Orice you start putting these
11/26/90
·31-
_ .. _----
•
/
£>
aodtf1el"s on it, dlen it fs obviously not canfol'''''9. so to 'ill it
conforming is ~IJ giving someone i 5~nse of filse stcurfty. and (2; it
reilly creites SORe problems ~ich we have enCQuntered when ~e have had
threats of leg-al action by lawyers representing property owners ~ho say,
IY property 1$ conforming so I do not have to oomply with a,y.of the rest
of t~ls stuff. ~ reolize th.t w.s not·the intent either, so we think it
is reilly net I good idea, 1" retrospect, t~ continue use of the ward
"confof"tllln-g .•
COWlis.sfo~er (uUen.: I understand' that, but maybe we should have a
paragraph about what gr;ndf.t~ering .. ans.
Ms. tase: We could do that. We looked it up in Webster's D~ctionary, a~d
!t is I currently well defined part of the (ngli.h 1.nguage. W. therefore '"W no reaSon to put in , definition, but we could do that. It nad the
definition th.t you would thin. it .ould. It ju;t says, a clause th.t
gives somebody a benefit from prospective changes, usually in land use,
etc. 1t WIS very 5trafghtforward, and tnat was the reason why we decided
.... "",uld '"'t I!l!CI!' to Include '~'inition Df ft.
(missioner Cy11tn: Then I l'aYe another quest;on. Who looks in Webster
when they are dOing loning compliance? Maybe, we should put exp~icit
linguoitge in tht lon1ng ordini.nce iI:'1d perhaps t"1$ is one of those phces.
"s Cas.: W. would be very happy to add a definition of a gr>ndfather
clause tn the lon1ng ordina~ce. We would do it in very ,lose conform;ty
... ith Webster.
Cp!mis5ivne~ Hirsc~: r concur with Commissfoner Cutlen.
Chafrman Marsh: We then have a recommendation that the staff-suggested
solution be aMendtd a litt1e t~ incl~de a definition of ·grandfather~ in
tn! zoning code. We ~a~e CO~SEnsus on that.
Next is 1tem 2, Amending the grandfatnering provisions of downtown
cOImerci;1 districts to clarify tne intent of the provisions of Sectio~
18.451.D40(b). Th~s is a reference "to the Hanpower Temporary Sfrvi ce use
referred to earlier. The staff· suggested solution is to incorporate
• ... Notwithstanding iny intervening confo~ing use ~n i property zoned CD
and GF combining, any office use existing on April 16, J9;0, which also
existed .5 I lawful conform;"; use prior to August zs. 1986~ may remain a~
i grindfithere~ use pursuant to the provisfons ~f t~is subsection.-
Commissioner CuT len: ! must ~ave missed something. Would you give us a
little background on tnis. Wh.t happened?
Ms. Case: This has t~e pedestrian-combining district requirement. It was
an office use. Tnen it became a rug dealer~ but ~e did nat do well and
went out of bUsiness ciose to a year, mere or less. ihen they decided
they would like to go back to an office use because they were not getting
.any pedestrians there. There was a real Question ~f how 10n9 they had
actually been out of existence. and whether or not an intervening use that
.... s conforming neg.ted the ability to use the grandf.ther ag.in. They
~de a Tat~er persuasive case bef~re the city council. The City council
SU99~sted tnat staff go back and do something to the zoning ordinance to
clarlfy the fact t~at they should be allowed to continue tn€ir grandfather
11/18/90
·32-
·:~.~. --,_ ..
'"'<' 'C'.
•
o
use.
~lfljn Harsb: So bisfcll1y, we are ritif~ing something that the city
council hIS alrebdy requested?
Ms. Cas., That Is correct.
(.iuigner [hristen5e'n: Cerhfnly, i~ my lIind, if Uilire is an
intervening conforming use, tnat negates t~e grandfather clause. Ma~e we
lade that cle.r?
Ms. Lvtle: On t~e cc:;ntrary, whit we Ire saying is that continual use and
ocrupancy Is defIned as an InterruptIon of ..oro than one year. So
technIcally you could go to a conforming use and then return to a
grandf.thored use If there were less than a one-year Interruption.
Ms. Case: One of the thIngs we are saying is that notwithstanding how
long they were not a grandf,tnered use, they can get back in. That is
whot "" are doing for th",".
tom-issiuner Hirsch: [f the legally conf~rm;ng use is less than a year.
Ms. Case: That is correct.
Ms. lytle: ·rf the US! is d;scontin~ed for I period of one year Dr more,
the ase w'l' be c~nsidered aba~doned.·
Commissipner Hj~sth: Does this set an unfvrtunats precedent that might be
applied in other cases?
es. Lytle: Thi. would now apply consi.tently to all of the us.s that fall
into those grandfather clausos. It Is different if you are a
ncnconfo~ing US! falling $ubject to the provlsions ~f our general
nDnconfonl'!ng use section., But if you are those grandfittlered use-$. that
have t~Dse Yery specific clauses, it gives you'greater rights than the
others. That is what we Interpret.d the original intent to be. They
",ould haye greater rights. We are trying to clarify what we believe was
intended .t the tl ...
Ms. Case: In response to C~iss1oner Hirsc~'s Question, I don't think
this is going to create any un~sual precedent, as muc~ as it is going to
cl.an up the language so t~at staff will be able to administer the zoning
ordinance .are evenly, in case it ever comes up agajn~ One of the biggest
probl .. s is th.t It wa. yery "nclear in the way it was written. There was
a seneral idea of what it meant, but it was so unclear that there were
several different Interpretations that either wor~ed ir. the applicant's
favor or .9~1nst the ipplicant. That is what this languagE is meant to
do. I iID not SLlre it will, in Itself, create any precedent that would"
.~ke I difference one way or the other~
CPmliss;oner Cullen: 00 we ha~e any idea of how many properties whic~ are
grandfatnered in, ~art;cularly downtown where we spent s~ much time? I
realize that the retail ground floor regulation kicks in, too. after a
year. There are a number of properties that used to be ban,s or offices.
Do we ~ave any idea ~ow ~any properties may be involved ifi this, because
obviously it is much more remunerathe to ha .... e them as offices or banks
lI/l6/9D
-33·
--.,-.-~
ewell, J don~~ know lbout banksj t~ey aren't r~m~~~ratjve anymore,
e~peciilly Slls!] but do we have any id~a ~ow many there are, particularly
downtown? I Cin think of at lust 15 or 20 in the core ar ...
Ms. Lytlr: No, we do ~ct ha~e ~n tnven~ory. •
Commissioner Beech,.: Are we tIlting about peop1e who are affected by
It .. 2 or people wno just happen to ha.e been around for some ti .. ? My
understand'ng of Item 2 Is t.at It .ffects one Item. Is that correct?
Ms. tvlll: It ... 2 .11ows • us. that had be~n vacant longer than one year
to rev~rt back. Commlss1oner Christensen .sked i q~estion whether a
graodfathered use that returns to • conforming us. would then be allowed
to return to a grandh:tilered use. What we .ra saying is yes, even with
this cleanup, we feel that was probably the original intent, as long as
t~e Interruptfon of tnt grandfathered use is no moTe than a year.
Commissioner Stech'.: So t~at tne discussion is on the termination for
lock of us., but not Item 2 hec ••
Ms. Lytle: Yes. We hove gone back to Item No. I.
Commissioner Christensen: 1 am concern2d~ because ~hfn I thin~ of the
termination of • us., I thlnl< of • bunding being vacant. I oid not think
gf it being applied in (ases where they fo~~d a conforming use and then
they say, we don't like this as well and it ~asn't been a year yet, so
let's go batk to II nonconfor'lling use. It never even crossed my mind that
tkat Is what the grandfather clause allooed p~ople to do.
Chairman Marsh: This particular issue is r~al1y under the auspices of
lte .. I.
Commissioner Cnrjstensen: r certainly did not understand that that was
what we were approving under ftem 1.
CORn1ssjpner Hirsch: It looks like ]tem 2 is a housekeeping measure
needed by .taff to confirm what the city council has done. I de have a
problem with this potential oscillation baCK ind forth. J can understand
if it is vacant for less than a year, but if they go into a conforming
use, I think at that point they have given up their grandfather rights.
Tnat Is the way I would _ant it to be .
. l4s. lytle: In 19(3;4 it would not have IlTowed-you to revert back. Genenl
nonconformfng u'ses, once they are made confDrming~ cannot. That Is the
general rule that you see in IDOst nonconforming use sections. In our
discussions wltn other staff who were here at that time, they felt that
hd we interpreted this cl ause that way. the intent was not to Blak.e th~m
90 ilway. It was to allow them, in perpetuity, to remain. Greater dghts
were gi~en to these grandfatnered uses than to otner nonconforming uses.
Commissioner Christensen: ! certainly had no thought of that whatsoever
downtown. We aid not think that was even an issue.
Chairman Ma~: When you say -in perpetuftYt· do you mean beyond one
year?
II/Z8/90
·34·
..
,
l
o o
M;:;. lytle: What I llei!n h that bj' g1ving tnNl the one-year-break. you are
defining what continual US! and occupancy means, ~nd you are giving them a
t.nI during ~Ich they could have things be Interrupted and start up
a9afn. You could have 2 business come in and fall. A iot of tn~se
buildi~g$ t~at were built for non~tI1l, ground floor uses are,not
neces •• rily deslgnod for retail u.e. It·l. likely that ret.il could come
in and fall. That I •• reollstle scenario. Our understanding wa' that
orlgl.011y, the some Intent was not to be oppTled to these grandfather,d
U5es is you would to nOMial t nonconfonBir.g uses. In other words, we ire
not trylr.g to encourage them to go •• ay. The tero "oeemed conforming" is
pretty cle.r th,t the Intent wa. to soy, you ore fine, you can st.y
forever, 100 we are gOing to giY~ you. lot of the rights that we give to
confo~fng uses. In SOle cases , we even give .ore than we gTve to
confon.tng uses. That was our understanding, based or. c~nversations with
George Zi_rman and others who .... re here at the tllll).
Chairman Mars~: J think the question iS l when does the grandfather clause
Tapse If you decide to change the use?
Cpmniss10nfT Huber: Did Geo~t l1MmeMman glve you t~at inforzation based
on the Downtown Study discussions? (Yes) There n •• lot of us up here
who never thought about that at all.
Hs. lytl,: ·Yes, that was o~r understanding from Hr. Zi~rman on the
downtown. That can easily be ehanged, and we may have m;sunderstoQd what
he was communicating. We can ch3nge that if that is not ~hit you want to
communicate. All you have to do is 1nsert language that says, ·unless it
converts to a conforming US!, In whicn case ... • si.ilar to what our
general prOVisions now say, if that was and is tne intent of the
cOIIIIlisslon.
t.hajrmn Mars~: In terms of downtown, what you ne really talking about
is the Ret.il Onl~ zooe.
Ms. lytle; That Is correct. The ground floor.
Chairman Marsn: So I counter argument is .nether you encourage people tn
try being a retail use by having that one·year wind .. , to see if it will
work in the location where t~.y are, as opposed to forcing thern out.
Commissioner tbrj$tgr.sgn: But we have a~$o built in the out that if there
was a certain vacancy rate, there is an escape clause for tnat w~o1e
provision of t~e ground fToor .etall requir"";n!. That Is why we put tt.at
In there, to soy that If It r •• lly is not .orking for the downtown in
generol, then~ •• ay need to 10.~ at It and these people probably need to
have an cut. I can see t~e fssue of allowing them I year to rema~~l and
for th.t use to stay, but I om sure it never entered my he.d that if it
went.to a conforming use, t~ey could go Dack aglln w1t~in a year's time.
Cn!inman Marsn: I wou1d agree that that was not the intent of ~hat we
thoug~t. The argument was specifically in regard to Manpo~er, and whether
the IOD block of University Avenue (which Is included in the RetaiT Only
zone) lS appropriate1y included in the retail lone. So there you had i
case where someone tried to do retail, it failed, and they went back to
offite. The question t~at I pose is that if you change that requirement,
do you stlfle people's attempts to try to convert to a cDnfonming use?
11/28/90
·35·
•
..:. :;.
C9!mI!sio~rr Christensen; Jt may be true th~t we have to look ~t that
first bloc«, .nd t~at Retail Only •• y not be appropriate there. I don'!
t~in' this amendment we .re proposing is appcoprl.te, either. If it
really fs ~ot J b10ck where ~~ want to hive retl11_ only, wnere retail only
is 90ins to ~rk, then ~ s~ould be 100&1ng it that iss~e, not giving
case-by .. c ... exceptions so they can go back and forth.
Chairman Mars~: I don't think ~ ire giving Iny MOTE case-by·cIse
exceptions. What W~ are doing here is closing the door on any further
cise-by-case except fens, given the fact that we realize we had some
!lrobl.." in interpreting what It was that we .. ant.
Commissioner Cu1Jen; As one of the persor.s who se~ed on the Downtown
. Study Committee Wlth Co~issioner Huber. th~s waS not the i~tent of the
ordinance. TD now put on an intent that was not there is imposing
something that _e intended nor do W~ now want to intend. S~ J sU9gest
that that be rewritten.
Commissjocer B~~ I agree ~'th C~ai~n ~arsh When she spoke ~arlier
about whether shortening the tiAie will decrease the probabil ity in certai0
offices or buildings of somao~e trying somethi~g new. There are
facilities that come in and t~ey fail, for whatever reason. If people
worry about taking a risk lind CJnriot go bid. will not r-isK it as mUd. If
something fails Yithin Ii y~ar, it was a mistake. A year is not too long a
ti,... If It lasts beyond a ye.r, it will probably be successful, but a
year is a good test period in a retlil area to find out if an idea or a
location is going to be successful. I do not feel at .11 uncomfort.bl.
with saying, give them a year to find out. Make it so that they can ta,e
tne risk. If th~ risk works, they are not going to want to change itt ar.d
will work out for our betterment.
Chairman Karsh: r woul-d add that we will have had one additional year of
retail use of that space which otherwise m19ht not have happened.
COmmissioner Hirsch: I share what Commiss;oners March and Beecham have
said, that we ~ight stifle an attempt at improYement, but my (oncern is
that it ran oscillate back lind forth qu1te a few times. Ycu car. hav~ a
gran~father use, conforming LIse, it fails t you go back to the grandfather
lJse, then you try it again. If you are going to permit t~is, it l!':i9ht be
a lilllited rilJmber of times you can rely on that. How many attempts are yol.1
willing to havo?
COIWIIjssioner BltE-rham: I would like to c.ut it off whe~ it is successful.
CommistjQne~ ~ullen: It 15 amazing how successful people can b! when tney
have t~. We have watched that happen. For exa~le, the ground floor
ret~il zone was fought for it least three years by many property owners. we went along with them. They said, let us try it on a volunteer basis.
We said, all right. They said, you are gOing to wre(k us when you finally
put it in. It will destroy the-comunity, so we put in this little escape
clause abo~t the ~acancy rate, etc. They said good~ we are gOlng to need
that. Look what has happened.
tQmmissione~ Hirsch: 1 am not in favor of perpetual oscillatio~ back and
fortn between the grarjdhther and the good filth attempts to make
11/28/90
-36-
, ':-<"?--. J';'~-.. ' ";~: •. :J '-'-•• "_,,,,~ .....
"
(.)
sOiething desirable work.
Cb"~ln ~Ir$b: Hive we seen this to be I problem 1n.an~ other instancES
besIdes .... npowr!
Ms. lytle: Not to .y recollectlon. Could I Isk for clarIfication? We
ha •• he,rd about the Intent during the d~town study. Would th.t s.me
intent apply to all of our grandfatnered uses, such .s those done in the
1978 rezoning .. well? The Mdical professional offices in residential
~ane$? Th~ sa.e ide. that 1f they were to con~ert to a reside"t1al use,
they not then go back!
Comgissloner Christensen: I just see problems with allowing them to go
back. We h,ve just gone through this with the luto service down towr , and
we finally have th .. out of there. I would hate to think they could
return.
Ms. ttl,,: Thit t.s not a grandf;thered use. We bave some us.eos that a~e
aaortized, some th,t are grandfathered, so .. that are legally
nonconformIng. 1001 Emerson Is on an "ortizotlon schedule that does not
faTl und*r these grandfathered provisions. My question is, wouid that
concept, once it has turned over to a conforming use, lose its grandfather
stltuS? ODes th.t apply to all of our grandfatherfn9 provisions. or just
to the downtown? o.r rec.,...ndatlon would be tl10t It appl,Y unifonnly to
.11 of tl1< grandfather provisions. WIth some consistency, It is e.sier
for us to kee~ track of this.
Cpmmlssfoner Huber; Tnat makes sense to me. Hy sense of grandfatherfng
is that you have. little exceptlon.l de.l here, but re.lly everyone would
like to see It become the same as •• erything else in the are ••
COBmissioner Cullr~: You iTe ask1~g us to say t~at other grandfathered
~ses. e.g., profeSSional offices in residenttal lones, if t~ey have
reverted to reSidential, and then some~r.~ wants to put professional
offices batk in, if we were to foreclose that opport~nity, it wo~ld app1y
.cross the board .. Is that ~at you ore saying7
Chairman Marsh: Isn't it true that they only get 90 days?
Ms, Lytle: No, not if they are grandfithered. They are not subject to
those general pro~151ons in the chapter on nonconforming uses. They ha~e
t~eir own 5tandalone cl~use. What has happened in the past is that
becl~se those standalone provisfons were not explicit about tne rights of
those properties, 1r;e have done what w called ·cross·pol1inatioi •. • We had
to go blck and find s~thlng to give us guidance in ans.ering questions.
What we are tryIng to do is to Ivoid that. It has resulted in too much
confuston 1n overlapping tne 9~neral nonconforming us~ provisions with
these grandfather pro~1sjons. T~ere Ire toe many conflicts a~d it doesn't
work. We are trying to make them stand alone no.. What the commission
has pOinted out here is perfectly acceptable to staff. It is • concept
from the generil provisions that you are pulling forward ~nd putting into
tne grandfather standalone clauses. We have no trouble wit~ that. It is
in easy one for us to accept. I would recolm'lend that 'file do it to all
grandfathered uses, not just downtown.
Commissioner Huber: Js there any rationa1e for dcing anything other than
lI/l8/90
·37·
..
-.
~ ~'t:,.l
what you h.v! ju •• described?
Ms. lytle: Only if It was not your orfgfnal intent. That would be the
only rit1onale. If it Wi~ understood It the time that you were gOing to
let theo vacillate, ~ do not wa"t to get stricter here.
COmais~joDer Huber: forgetting 1nte~tJ is there 3ny ritionale for not
getting rid of the u',s that h,.e been grandfathered, jf they go by the
boards for awhne?
Hs lytle: Y~ur colleagues have pointed out that it does allow ~ore
flexibility for people to experiment with uses. In some buildings, if it
was de~igned for i use w~1ch was not a ground floor retail use, it might
have difficulty being successful IS I ret,il use. There might be trcuble
with experiaenting.
Coarois$ioner HYber; That is not the building out in the residentiaJ area
that has bee" I typing school for I hundred years.
Ms, Lytle: The same concept could apply there, but it is probably a
lirger stretch in otner districts than in the downtown area.
CjH,innan Marsh: I WDuld like to bring this to a vote, or defer it to
anQther time to consider it furt~er.
Commissioner Beecham: Tnis is not a cleanup item. It is a consjd~r~tion
for a citywid! change, and j would SUPPDrt puttin9 off a decisiDn until we
find out from staff ~re thoro~9hly what the impacts are, and how often
ha. this c~ UP in the past.
Comrniss;cner Glazier: r do nat understand this issue weil enough tonight,
and would appreCiate having more time and more informatlon.
Commissioner Hirscn: r am concerned about the uniformity aspect~ picking
up an Chainman Harsh~s comment. What would happen with a nonresidential
use in a reSidential area? Would that time be extended for a
grindfathered use from 90 days to one year? I am looking at 18.94.040 on
Page 114 of the staff report.
Ms. lytle: W. are not changing that at all.
CPmmissioner Hirsch: That is for i nonconforming use.
~s. Lytle: We are talking about grandfith!red uses.
Commjssioner Hirsch: The grandfitnered use would be treated differently
in a residential arei than would nonconforming ~ses?
~s. lytl., W. are actu.lly separatfng t~. grandfather clauses so that
they stand alone. There would not b! cross-referencing between th~se
grandfatnered uses which we used to cill -deemed conforming.-So that
stays as i~ is. and these n~ gr~ndfather clauses should answer all of our
questjons so that we do not nave to go back and reference the other
general provisions.
CCfm1ission'!r Hirsch: As we consider this, I would ask that we cor.sider
I f/28/90
·38-
---~-------.-
./
~aYing a gO-day provision for tne resldentil1 districts, beca~se we _ant
to .aye the non-resident111 ~se5 out ~f there. Thf! would be comparablF
te omat 18.94 h.s right now. J Quesl!.n omether In • residenti.1
district, we want to ~&ve I one-yelf provt51on.
CommiSSioner Cullen: [ .. putt1ed, bec,u,. wo Just sounded 11 •• we had
~Dn5en$US on the prevfou5 sectiun, which wa~ 9rindfithe~ed uses in
lodi.ldol1 zoning districts, and now we lre on the downtown commercial
district.
Commiss1pner Hirsch: We ire going bick.
COmMissigner Cullen: Okay, we Ire going back, beciuse we do have seme
e.~les, 11 •• the coupl. th.t wo just rezoned --fiesta l.nes and the
Elks ClUb. We r.ezoned tne. t. resldenti.l. Suppose someone co •• s .10ng
.nd wants to put In another club in there. I think we are shooting
ourselves In the foot. A little lOre consideration needs to be glv.n to
this. The ,ec..mendatlon does not with the Intent of the commiSSion with
Its .... ndf.therlng. Maybe .... wre not tleor enough nor looked at .11 of
the rzalflcatlons, but It 1. not too l.te to do so.
CQlmission@r Hirsch; Wo~ld it be In undue burde~ to l1st for us the areas
that ire subject to grandfather clauses?
Ms. Lytle: We have an inventory of our ~rtiztd ~ses. Those are SQon
going to be appearIng on the 'one .. p. W. will h.ve out 'ite-specific
grand fathered use', which is another category altogether. We haye don.
scae ,eey site-specIfIc grandf.thering with Individu,l, t,'lored
grandfather clauses applying to those sites. 'n the last Citywide, we did
that. Those will be Indicated on the map. But the use. from the 1916 and
the downtown were ,root inventoried. We do not have an inventory of them,
and that would be .o~thlng we would have to do • l.nd use survey for. W.
do .1.0 do not have busln.ss"]!c.nse. for tricking thos. things readily.
We have a use and occupancy permIt process whicn is rather casu.l1y
c~li.d with. We do not hive. good tracking mech.nism for land us.,
other th.n getti.g out and walking and surveying it.
COmmissioner Hirsch: lh.r •• as a memo dated April II, 1990 from MiKe Cobb
hUiLg about an a"",rtizatlM schedule of nonconfo,..,fng uses. Table 5 in
tb,ere was tit:e-s.pec1f1c grar.dfathered nonconforsing uses.. Cou1d you build
on that?
I1s, Lyt1f: We have those, too, We have aeortized fnventoried, and we
~aye site-specific inventorit~. Rut there ire two otner categories. of
grandf.thered use. that we do not ha.e • handle on .t all. One fs those
th.t Ire generol, nonconfocslng legal uses that wer. "ot specifically
grandflthered. We do not know exactly omere those ore. The other
,.tegory is specifically grandfat.ered ones. We can oIl think of lots of
example. of them, but we cannot come up wfth a list of them.
Chairman Hars~: let ~ clarify w~ere we are now. Hy u~derstanding is
that in general th~ planning ~omm'ss.ion endorses the staff-s.u9gested
solutiDn to rssue 11 which clarifies all of the code a~d prevents,
hopefully, in the future any ~Ist.kes on this whol. grandfatnering
subject. Beyond t~at, there have been two suggEsted changes to the actual
code. One of those referen~es tne 90-d~y res,dentia1 use that
B/ZS/90
-39·
(
-1 \.
~aa.isstaner Htr~ch spoKe to. The second one is th~ issu~ that
CDlBissfoner C~ristenlen brought up whic~ is the ~ne-year wind~ allowed
to changl!' back a'l~d forth on uses. Jf there are ne t].ther things to be
noted~ r would suggest that move on, agreeing with the so1uticn for 'I,
ask tile staff to look at It.ose two s~ecl!ic Issues. ond come bad to us
for discussion at a future tl ... Tills I. not sOMetlling lll.t Is terribly
t~~~¥. so we can CORe back to it whene~er you want. We will leave it to
the city atto""oy to decide whether or not you .ant to go ahead and update
.. 11 of these zones with these two <;'.lestiDns still outstanding. J am not
sure how the answers to those might Impact what we will do .
. !Is. Cas.: If we leave !t the way it Is with I]. the grandfather clauses
will all have tnt! provision in there that if it goes out of business for
ane year. wherever it is l(),ated, it will have to re'llert back. to a
t~nfDrming use. Tnat;5 the way 1t will re~in if you send it on.
Otherwise. If you •• nt to ch.nge that, r would suggest that you oct send
any of it on.
Ch.jrman Mirsh: All right. Tnen we will keep it here. Then tne Q"estion
for staff;' whether you are comfortable with going •• ay and bring!0.9 th!,
back. or whether you want a one·~et;ng task force or a subcommittee to
look It this with you.
-Ms. lytle: If this is tile on1y issue on the subject, it does not require
a task force cr subcommittee. We ha~e enough here to bring bac~ to )OU
some recommended solutions. There was also the adding of the definition
of grandfather.
CnaiDOln Mlrsh: That I, .ccepted by 011 of u ••
Ms. Case: We wil1 not send t~at on by itself, however.
(';missipner Cu11en: When it comes back to us, I think that this
grandf.tner!ng .ffects so many neighborhood. that they should be
notified. On previou5 incidents, we ~ad mar~ neighborhoods notified, and
with t~is particul~r o~e, no one ~as notified. ind they did care a lot
about it .hen we conSidered it 1n the past.
Chafrman Marsh: C~uld you attach I cO'ller memo saying that this is just
technical?
On ltefll l'l, amending the grancifatftering ,provis_ions of downtown cOlmlerciaT
district~p we ~ad an agreement that this is a housekeeping item dictated
by tile council. .
It~ 13,is to allow use permit expirat10n after one y~ar without a punlic
hearing. This wou1d codify a pract;ce that has already been in effect,
whjc~ is to conSider use pe~it hearings void after one year of nonuse
without ~olding a public hearjng. The publi' hparing has been required by
the laning cod!.
Compfssipner Hirsch: What h~pp!ns If I use lapses for more than _ year,
and Is then reinstituted, ar even a new use? How does the city g€t
invohed in it?
~....!...tl.l!: When they come in again for a. use and occupancy permit, aSklI1'9'
1I/28/90
-40·
·,".!--'
o
au" perllhsfon to locilte il'l t".ere, we ctleck thie ffie tQ see l' they have a
willfd use pe~it. If they do not. they are requ1red to go thr~u9h the
conditional use pe~1t proc~ss.
CQlljss~Qnfr Hirsch; What hlppens if iI partfcular property gaes ~acant1
Do they ha.e to c ... back In for a use pe1"1llU after that?
!IL....l.tlll: If it ha, been vac'"t for longer than. year, )es.
CQ!!lssfQner Hirsch: Do most people 00 that, or do they just go ahead and
do what they .ant to do (as Comals.loner Christen,en sugg.sted DO the
first It .. tonight!) and you olght never year abo"t It.
Ks. Lytle: I am .ure there .re Instance, of people who do go ahe.d and
ocoupy buildings without our having direct knowledge of ft. Host of those
~onditional uses Ire in need of sfgn1~g. howe~er, and we generally nave
the ARB proces, as a .. chani,m for finding out about them.
CIIWhslpner Hindi: I do not ,,_ I probl .. With the rec~;.."
other thIn J ... nted to tn ... how It ""',ld be enforced and what would
trigger the City's being able to reneer iI prior us.e f'e!'1llit null ~nd voi-d~
~ssuming you co~ld pick a date when it went ~acant and was vacant for more
than • year. I have a t.ndency to feel that peopl. might go in and ". it
for awhile, then leave. ind ret~rn, without goi~g to the (ity for
anythi~. If t~e siqnage is a problem, that is I mecnanism for
determining this, Ind I feel more c~fortabl. with it.
CPmnissjener Beecham: What we are talking about here. as I understand it,
is just whether there is i public hearing on ft, so presume you have no
prabl .. with the public hearing aspect of it.
Chairman Marsh: [iSSu.e we have consensus on t~at. Next is lt~m 14, the
neighborhood tranSitIon combining district. We should clarify this.
because J VIS confused that we have two t.ransition area. One;s th~
neighborhood transition combining dIstrict. which is noted in this
report~ The second are t~e tranSition areas.
Ms. tytlr~ Tl"iey are called -specia1 require!rlent zones, but we t-..a ..... e also
called tl"i. ':;ransitfon lones where our COlm!erchl interfac.es ..-ith our
residentiil districts, and we ha'~e special additional reQuirements that
apply.
Chairean Marsh: Thp,e all ,tay in place' (Yes) So those are two .try
different things.
COMPissio~er Chr'$ten~en: This is In item I was concerned about because
did not ,ee that these items h"e be.n sent to neighborhood groups. 1
know t~at 't hiS been an issue of concern to the E~ergreen Park and
Southgate area p~ople. Also the College Terrace neighborhood people. So
] ,am reluctant to deal with it without some input from neighbornoods.
Cnairman Marsh: These items all go to the council for ratification, so
there is that opportunfty for not i fication,
Commissioner Christensen: That still does not make me feel comfortable,
The neighborhood 9ro~ps realiy should ~ notified about this.
11/28/90
·41·
~---.--------.-----
•
, .,"
. ~'
.,' <.:
~~:,:~:.
~s. Lytle: Our .ttgrncy has pointed out tnat tnese tran~1t1on districts
Ir! really Yery s~11 s!gments throuqhDut the cQmm~nity and p~obably
deS!rYe I 300-foot -"'lnq, since they apply to so few lo~ati~ns. ] feel
it wo~ld be prude~t to continue this 1tpm, along with the form~r one to
allow for that ~1lfn9. We can contlct nei9hborhood groups, along with
the ordinante changes.
C9I!mhsioner Cullen: [am glad to hear that. as I wanted to reiterate
what Coarn!Ssioner Ctll'iste-"sen uiij. Putting in thfse transit1~n zones ifl'a5
Y~ry important to people in t~ose neighborhoods. [have had many, ~any
calls about development within those transition 20nes. I do not have them
inYllOre since we put them in. In terms or peac:e of mind~ they .it.ould be
notified to know that th.~ no longer need it. They should be abT. to pic,
that u~ frem the way you write it. Try to be a 1ittl. expository.
Chajrman Marsh: [t Is a little known fact that Bi~l Glazier is t~e
Southgate resident who has been aglt,ting on this all those year'. W.
will bring tA.t bo£c .fter the sugge,ted notification h.s t.ken plac •.
Nut is IS~ amending sitE: development regulations of various zoning
districts by cross-refer!ncing special setback requirements. This Simply
wou1d add I new subsectiQn to the $it~ development re9ulation section of
each 1~diY1dual lonfng district to clarify, where applicabl!, that therE
ire special setback lines. This fs 1 clarification to make things easier
for property owners.
Next is rtem '6. amending substandard lot provisions in tne R-J district
to reinclude flag lot provisions inadvertently deleted durin9 a previous
ordinance revision. This is Simply a cl~inup item. We have consensus on
tn.t.
Item 17, amending Section 18.22.0~O(j) of the RM-15 regulation, te modify
the requir~ent for common op~n space. This would allow project to
amalgaaate the amount of open space within the district, providing that it
could be locited in either the private or public o~en sp.,e of those RM-J5
proje-cts.
CQm11issioner Christensen: From the way this was w'ritten, it sounded to mE
like tney ~ere ending up with Jess open spaCE.
Ms. Lytle: No, we ar~ j~st allowing for priv.te to count, whereas before.
w~ had a private open space reqUirement, but none of your private could
count towards your common. We cannot make it work fur that ,ommon open
space on the style of development we are getting at these densit~es.
Commissioner Christensen: This requires less open space.
to have a certain percentage of crnmmon open space and you
private open space. How t ill they have to have is the 35
s~ that is less open space.
Before. you had
had to have the
percent common,
Ms. lytle: that ~ay be true, but the private requirement now is very
small. What ends up ~appening is t~at they want to take large chunks of
open space and put them into the prjvate yards. The private requirement
is extremely minor, liKe a balcony dimension.
11/28/90
-42-
,
Cgmmission-r Christensen: I would just is soen keep it in there. and let
them distrtbuie it the way tn~y WAnt to. I do not want to see l~S$ ope~
space required than i$ currently reQuIred.
Ms. lytle: The prlYite open sP'c~ requi~emEnt is still in there.
C~fssfoner CnrfsttD1tn: TherE Is 3S percent common open space
req~ireDent Ind I priv.te open space requirement. The way you haye
written 1t is t~at tll.y "ill end up with 35 percent and it car, be either
private or (ommon~
C9Oml,,'oner Hirsch: I concur wltb that. The .ay I read tnis is that w.
were reducing the amount of open sp~,e.
CO!IITIisstoner CUljcn: The staff report says quite blatantly that only
35 perce.t will now be required. 'Jn the case of a larger RM·IS
development, w~en c~n usable open space ~s more desirable, staff
beli~ves the design review procesl can ensure that an adequate amount of
the required 35 percent open ~pace is pro~ided in common areas.-;t does
not say anything about tOe prl.ate .reas. It look' like you have
eliminated that require~nt.
Commissioner Beecham; On Page 35, in regard to private space it says)
-Each dwelling shall have at ltist one private, usable open space
ccntigu~u$ to the unit.-
Ms. Toplev: Correct. All we did was to remove the word ·common~ where it
delineates bow ~ch open space tnere DUst be o~ a lot. There is sti1l a
requlreoent here that sa.e of that open spac. be private.
~jssioner Beecha.: So if we look at tht percentages of open space,
there is 3S percent required for (OIlmOnt an Linsped fied amount for
private. It could be two square fe.t.
Ms. Tgpley: The .inimum sile for a balcony is 50 square feet, end for a
patio or Y'~ ;l is 100 squ,re f.et.
So if you have 10 units at lOO square feet each, it is another
1,000 square feet.
Ms. Topley: As l percentage of t~e lot, it is a very small amount. All
we have donf is to allow, in $Dme deyelopments~ potentially 25 percent
~ight bf In private. with the remaf~der in common. or any ,ombinat10n.
T~.re is still a requirement that some of that open sp.ce be in priv.te
ilreas.
(9!mj$~ioner Bee~~am: So if or. Iverig~~ we SlY that the 100 squar~ feet
fe~t .inimum m~ be a few percent, one or two or three pertent ~f the
site, and we are talking about the r~quirement going from 35 percent plus
I few percent to 35 percent.
COITA; S'S i oner Cnristensel'l: That is a ri!duct i on.
Ms. Topley; Yes, it is a wery small reduction.
Commissioner Hi~sch: The way J construed it is that all 35 percent could
11/28/.0
·43·
---c;;:------"
the~ go into pri~ate.
Ms Io01l1= That is ; p~ssfbfllty. But 1 sincerely doubt that the
Architectural Review Board would Ippro'.le a develop.I;)E!nt that dld not ha',1e
some kind of entry features. from a design perspective, that erobably
would not work.
Ms. lytle: Let us re~mber that when we get to these 10. densitles, tnat
is tru1y ~at the de!1red pr~uct is, in terms of the buyers and the
neighborhooO. They want these low donslty projects as much, part of
thefr neighborhood is possible. to ble~d in well. !n ordfr to do that,
you haYe front yards and a rear yard. So that is the product tnat t~~
community 1S encouraging. I dOPo't know t~;t ~t is 50 ~ad to say that
100 percent cauld go into priYate areas for thesf low-density projects.
Co",,;ssionor.,,~Il1::.i.u~nllJF It "",uld be bad If .11 of them turned into
fenced front yards. There;s nothing prevent;ng that. either.
'ha1~in Harsh: Tne Architectural Re'.liew 8o~rd will piay a role.
Coernissioo!r Cullen: ~e spent a lot of meeti~9s on tnese multiple-family
regulations. This was one of the r~ulitions we (ame up wit~, that there
should be private open space. Publ1c open space was a1 ready requi red. As
somebody who lives in a small unjt and does not want all of tne open
spice, ] would not like to s'!e something like Rosewalk, where all of the
open space is confi~ed to the private open space, and there is almost no
public open space, no feeling of an amenity ilround the project.
Admittedly, Rosewillk is much larger than what you are t~lking about, and
thought thIs worked out pretty well. I c.n see takfng and usjng scme of
the co.mon open space in the pri'.late area, but the way this is written
looks like it eliminates the common area. You have taken out the word
·common-so that immedijtely 1ea~es it up to tne developer. You may hav~
acre faith in developers than J h~ve. They h.lM. about ",ihlt they are going
to do because t~at is what the ~rket will bear, a~d it is not tr~e. We
haye had lousy deYelopments in this town, and some ~f them are still
awailable. \'ou do need to stri«e a balance between cOl'lYOOn open space and
private open space. We succeeded in getting in SO square feet of private
spate, and now we are gOing to take away the conrnon open space and turn it
into prfvate. There needs to be a litt1e balance between the two. 1 am
tertainly willing to go aleng .,it~ ciistributing 50~ of that common spacE'
for private use, but not all of j[~
Co.;i$sfoner Christensen: The other conc~rn I have is that I would ljx~
It to be ~ddlt;... It took a lot of effort to get those 50 square feet in
there. and there was a lot of objection tD it. I am not will ing to give
it up. J think it is an jmportant part of the whole thing, even if it is
, very small percentage. 1t 15 cuttlng back on tne open space and J w~uld
like to see the whole thing be addlt1'Ye~ r ~gree .. lith Corrrnissioner C.uli~n
that in projects where it all potentially goes into private front and back
yards, 1 do not find that desirable.
Ms. lytle; let us remember that we ire tal«;n9 about RH~15 only. ~e are
not talking about our entire mult~ple·family regulations in making this
recommendation. These projects have a tendency to develop in a very
single-family look. Most projects you might be th1nking about when you
cons1d~r t~is are not RM~IS densit). We are seeing a product at that
11/28/90
-44-
------~-.--.-."'-:
~ 0
dens1t) thJt is .uc~ MOre single-family or duplex in ~ppearance.
Chff~~n M,r$h~ A good example of that ~f9ht be across from the Times
Tribune building, ~ittle town~ouses that ire boilt ~e~t to each ~ther in
San francisco styl@. Tney ~ave little front yar~sj they have little bark
yardsj they IIlve a toanon space to park.. 'When I envision that," the
cOl1cept of open space being .prhately provided is what makes sense for
til at project.
ClMjUigDfr Christensen: I wotlld think of tfle front yards as the
responslbl1 ity of the project. As soon as it becomes private, things 1 ike
fences, etc. can happen. That h fine for the back Yiill"d, but is lang is
that front yard Is <fefi ned as c"""",n space, It w1l1 stay open and they
will 111 ha.e to .ok. a decision about what happens there.
Chal .. on MarSh: In the example I cited, they iLl separ.ted by little
fences and it fs very appropriate.
'o.isliWr Hies,,"l; ~h"t is the site coo;erilge pe ... iHed in the R~-lS?
Ms, lvt1e: Thlrty,five percent.
Coma;ssioner Hirsch: With a 35 percent footprint, and 65 percent
ot~erwise, why it 1$ unreasonable to ask for 35 percent to be co~on?
that is h.lf of the availabl. square footage.
liS. lyUe; It Is not th.t type of project. With higher densities, you
get tnat, with common amen1t;es, i!nd connon areas, stack units, etc., you
will see those typtS of features. But with the townhouse type of design,
it Is not .hat is desired either by the applicants, the ARB or by the
neighborhood. The) ~ant it to look th3t way, is well. We are not talking
about wh.t the .arket .ill bear, We are t.lking about what the
neighborhoods are demanding, also. They .ant it to blend. So the ARB has
struggled with this inconsistenc)' in OUr Zoning ordlnance. It is a
d.sired product that everybody Is trying to achieve at those low
densities. It just isn't working well. I .ay not be ,o""unie,Hng this
well with you, and It might be appropriate to bring In a couple of sit.
plins. I co"ld P"t together a couple of projects for yo, as examples of
why it does not work.
Cna;rm~n Marsh: Let us first see if there is consensus.
CQl!lRissjQner Hirsch: Let's say there ;s a 35 percent sih cO'Yerage and
there is 35 percent open space, ill of whic~ is privat~. What happens
with the other 30 percent?
Ms. Lytle: It is for parking.
Commiss;o~er Hirsch: If you have chlldren in this lone, ~here do tney
ploy?
Ms. Lytle: In their yard.
Commissioner Hirsch: But then they tend t~ be relatively small,
individually.
11/28/90
,45-
----~-------...-------
-"'t;,
Ms. Lytle; T~ey .re ~ery small, ~nd they are not "~ry usable spaces, so
the fdea af ~kin9 t~em com=on beco~s very igpract1cal. The idea of
aak1ng Uetl little prfvite spaces becomes nice. People can put their
b.ilrbeQue 01.lt there, and have i 1 1ttl e place for their kids to ph),. It
becomes ~ery difficult for them to make them both common and u~able. They
become Ca-DlJl'I and unusable, but decorati'Je. The desire ;s to make them
useful to t~ose units.
CommissiQner Hirsch; J thought the idea of aggregating into tne
3S percent was to give some area w~ich would be of adequate size in ca~~
there ~re children. for t~em to play witho~t having t~ play in tne
street.
Chairman Marsh: If you can envisiDn that ~a~na Street project that is
across from the Times Tribune, wit~ the lIIultf-cojored Victor~ans that
front on the street_ They halie comon walls. Those units ha-.. e front
porches, wblct1 fs open spac~ in ,t~e front thit belongs to each indhidual
unit. Tht only way tney could have any common space wou1d be if you
pooled the dink! little back yards 1n .11 of tn.-so you would •• ve tids
running the dog run back .nd forth that would be cre,ted frem one end to
the other. My child has. friEnd who lives in tnose units, and they play
out back just fine.
Commissioner Hirsch; J was thfnking about the projects on Loma Verde when
this came up. One in particular seems to nave a central courtyard with
picnic tab1es. arod other things. That was the type of thing that strUck n:e
i5 b!ing i distinct advantage.
Chairman Harsh: I think that is a higher d~nsft)'+
ComgissioneT Hirscn~ . How does that change things?
H's. Lytle: When you start stacking units and get into Hie ~ igtH!r'
denSities, there is a ne!d for that type of amenity and there is more
flexibi11ty for designing those things. But Khat we are finding is that
doing it in a small project with two Dr three unlts, you are comlng up
with Y~Ty contorted ways of trying to meet the code that are not practical
to .... t people's n.eds. It gets to the point Khere it js so ludiCrous
that it is just not workable. Nobody Wdnts t~e dog run down the back.
T~ey are all Yfry single-fami11 1ooking. TMey are not like the lorna Ve~d~
project. The RIHS generally yields a very low density.
COfIWissioner Hirsch: We are talking abCiut two ·variables. Orle is RM-J5
and a limited n~ber of units. Are therE par~els in the city where you
have RM·IS but you have such. 1.rge parcel that you could have lots of
units? This goes across the whole lone. rt might even apply to a place
where you haYe two acres, but it turns out to be RM-lS.
Ms. Lytle: I know we do not t!ave many of those. It is possible that yo ....
co~ld have a large piece of property ~onsolidate under that loning. but it
still would probably be developed at a very low denSity town house style,
where people wo~1d want their ~wn individual spa'~. If you get a big
project, you are gOing to get commo~ amenities, nQ doubt about it. Vo~
will have swimming pools~ etc., but not generally it this density.
CommlsSiQner Beec~am: Since we are probably not ready to support the no
11/28/90
·46-
o
c~n space reQ~frement. J understa~d t~at staff ~as a strorog feeling
that it $~Duld be changed, so I t~fnk it is appropriate to come fQrwa~d
1~;1 convfnu' us at it dlffer!nt tfrne. i recOftMi.nd no chilige at this ti:ne.
Chairman Harsh: Are you coarfartable with ... the cDlm:i.ssion's COnc.erM?
Ms. lvllt: I feel th.t If I were to bring in a couple of sample plans for
you to look .t, it would be .. st helpful in understanding how the
regul,tlons are working.
Chairman Marsh: I would add that I personally have no concerns, because
thought this different!atlon was sUp"rfluous In the first place.
The next Item is amending the definitions of grade .nd height to clarify
height aeasurements. The clariftcitions ~hich ~aye suggested are to amend to" definItion of gr.de and height, simply to cllrify the tricky .reas we
$ ... ti~s get Into, particularly In the foothills. Any Questions?
Cgem!ssion!r Hirsch: Is this ~.iGllly • foothill probl .. ? (Ies) Because
didn't we do something In the R-l Zone 's t. how ~igh you could increase
the gr.de of a site?
~s. lytle: This is , footnil1 problem.
CPIOOissloner Hirsch: I had the impression fr~ tne staff report that it
could spillover into other areas besid€5 the foothills.
~s. lytle: It has to be • slope in excess of 10 perc.nt.
Comiss1oner eu:chilm: rf we ] oak. on Pilges 4 and S of the ordinance,
subparagraph 67, you are deleting a clarification of ~nere the measurement
Cin be taken. You are adding on P.ge 4 something defioing whetner the
grade fs natural Dr finished. whichever is lower, but you still are n~t
saying exactly where to take the measurement. We need to c1arify where
the moasureoent will be t.ken.
Ms. Topley: Immediately adjacent to the building.
( Eissioner Bee~~im: Where? You have top, bott~m? side .
Hs. Tapley: lowest.
(missioner Begc:hall'l: We need to say that. nds defines the lowe,. or
finished .xisting gr.de, but it aoes not define whether we take the
... sur .... nt .t the highest Dr lowest poiot.
Ms. lytle: If you look at the begfnnfng of the sentence, -'Grade' means
the lowest point of adjacent ground elevation of the finished surface of
the ground paving. or sidewalk. excluding tne following areas ... --In
bu;ldi~g areas with natural sTapel in excess of 10%, 'grad~' shall mean
t~e adjacent grDund elevation of the finished or e~istin9 9~ade, w~ichever
Is loW!r.-So that Is just i further clarification af going to tne bottcm
of fill in ore.! wnere they .re likely to use fill.
(onmissioner Bee-cham; Ttlank you. I understand.
11/28/90
·47·
. ,
.~ n
'.:::>' '--Chajrmi" Harsh: tliVe t'On5enSLlS on that item. . next item is t9, lIse
perw1ts to se-ll 11,oho1ic be,,"efages whene'llE!"r .a new on-sale t icense is
required by the state. ind to require and amendme~t to a~ e~isting
condUional use peralt, should I use sen ing alcohol fc beverages wish to
expand or intenSify tnat use. this 15 • staff reconmel".dation to clarify i
sectto:'l of t~e code thit regulates sale of &1coho11c be'llerages.' We would
elf.tnate the provision fo, i s~bsectlon that requires a ne~ wse permit.
Hds would co:-re1i1te the ctJrrent prilc:tices with th!! zoning code, We s~em
tl') haye consensus on that item.
Next is 110, adding Section 16.90.105 to al10 .... the Nning administratol'" to
refer variance, use permit and home i~pro¥ement exception applicatlons to
the planning comm;s~iDn and city council for action when certain ether
actions related to t~e ap~licAtlon are required by these bodies. 1n this
ease, the staff h rec.GtI'tI'Iend1n$! that we make some c:hll1!lgfS to speed up
certain applications t~at come 1ntD the city --variances and c.onditional
us~ permits. We would specify that w~ene~er an app1ication is made for a
aajor sitl!' and design permit, ,. .PC appl ication or any approva1 which
requires In Eli •• nd the pla~s also require a ~aTfance or US! permit
apprDval, t~e variance or use permit will be processed concurrently with
tne otner application. ihe process is deiineated on Page 14 of the staff
report. I would clarify here tnat wnen we encountl~r sucn situations. the
z6ning administrator would not hold a heari~g. but wculd pass on any
speCial section nf the staff report on the item with his/her
rec~nendation on the specific issue tnat is subject to the variance or
~se permit. She would not hold a hearing. Public lnput would be taken at
the pl,nning ccmm;ssion le~el and the city council. We ha~e consensus on
that.
Hext is Ill, _nding Section JB.IZ.055(b) to change the daylight plane
required for substandard R-l lots to be conSistent with th.e day1 ight plane
req~irec for standard R-l lots. This is another pro~isjon necessary due
to an accidental overlooking. We have consensus on that.
tet us go on to r.onconforming second dwellings and tWO-family ~ses in
residential districts, which ;s a recommendatlon to look at it later.
Corrm1sSioner Chrjstensen: I would like to sugg~st for the future Hat
wh!n we haVE a staff report like this. a10ng with the ordinance. that ~E
reference tne pages in the ordinance with the !ections in the staff
report
Chairman Marsh: We do "'a~! severa1 items that will retlJrn to ~s. J wil1
re~iew them. They are the grandfather ,lause discu~sion, the neighborhood
transition item. and the open space requirement in RH-1S.
Commissioner Hirsch: Will the whole thing co~~ back as a pac~age, or will
the ones we nad consensus on mo~e forward?
"5_ Case: The one item tnat could possibl1 come back separately would be
th! T district regulatfons and rrzoning. The othei items will go on.
Ms. lytle:
the council
th.t w.y.
My preference wo~ld be to keep it together and transmi t it to
in a packet. It would be easier for them to get through it
11/28/90
-48-
CC.1r.;n Marsh: We wfll net, ~oweverl at t~.t time. take up any of the
1t~s on which we ~ad consensus tanight$ tnc1udfng public co=ment. We
nred to be clear on thit. We have come to closure o~ efght of these ten
it .... ,
Ms. (ase: We will haye to renottce, I~ we did tonight. We w1ll 21so send
notices to the r District residents Ind everyone within 300 feet of those
districts. We will .1so seod rot ices to neighborhood groups, .s
suggested.
Chairman Milrs~: 1 think you need to put thh stiff rep(lrt on a computer.
p~~l out &11 the relevant sections that we ire sti'~ talking ahout, and
create a new report. You can keep t~e same ordinan(" if you wish, but if
you are going to 5~nd this out to I lot of people. you cannot say, we a~e
talking about this item, but not that Dr the other one.
~s, Case: In that CiSe, we might as well send the rest of it on to the
council.
Chairman Marsh: Do that. if you wish, but W~ do nDt want to open this up.
Commissioner Beecham: We could re~ommendl eake a motion and approve what
we have agr£ed on. Ther. we could consider t~e ot~er items at a future
dat~. You w~uld not ser.d any of it to the couhc;l until it is a package,
but we will consld.r the addition.l portion the next time.
Ch.ino!n~: We will leave It in your hands.
Cg~issioner Cullen; r have two concerns. When we ~sed to d~ oid zoning
ordinance amendments. we used to allow people to haye an opp(lrtunlty t(l
come before us without p.ylng the fee for getting a rezoning. Are we
still telling people they c.n do that?
Chainnan Marsh; Once a year?
Coamissfone!" Cullen: Once a year, and nc .. ft is once every two years. It
ustd to be once a year before we got into all of these other studiES.
Ms. lytle: What you
Wh.t we tell people,
and we keep a file.
followed.
are asking 1S t
when they come
It beco" .. the
can people initiate text dmendments.
up with an fssue. to wrlte us a letter
same prctess as was traditionally
C~i$sioner Cyllen: These were specific ippli~at:ons for specific
prDpert;~s.
"'s. lytle: We do not do triat ar.yrnore.
(OMniss;oner Cu1l{!n: I am not sure that it is in the charter, but it
c£rtlinly has been part of the practi,e until we get into the5e studies,
because t~ere was a time (and r am r.ot saying we need to do it) when
people felt tnat it was unf.ir for them to nave to pay $250 for an
application to be considered by the planning commission for a change in
their zonjng. A. lot of t~er;-I never got any changes, but tl'ley did not have
to pay 1250 to find out th.t they were not going to get it. That h' 5 be.n
a custom and a practi,e of the planning commission.
11/28/90
·4g·
.:-:
"s. Lytle:
uendllent.
DiE'ndment.
aust pay !t
Weo only hi.Ve a pro(ess for pub1 ic appl ication:s for iI lI1ap
We do not haye a pr~tSS for an applicition for iI text
The Clap illM'ndrnent 15 a fee and is a forma1 application.
to get It befor! you.
They
Commissioner Cullen: eut t~e opportunity to apply for it .it~out payl".
the fee. which was alw!ys part of the planning comission procedure, is no
longer? I s~9gest you talk to Mr. SchrEiber about that, b!cause that has
been part of t~e practice.
T~. other It •• I would 11 •• to rals. Is something t~at is not in the
report. r hlve been concerned a~cut the section in the zonin9 ordinance
that .llows Intrusion Into the rear Yird setback for one-h.lf the wIdth of
the house. The wa~ ;t got in was that some former councilman applfed for
a variance, and in orOtr to lIake it 1.eqal, they pet it into the zoning
ordinance. I find this something that Is not r •• l'y fiir to the people on
tho adjoining properties. I wo,Id 11'e to t ••• anoth .. look at th.t
prov;sfon. Most people are unaware of it.
Chairman Mars~: Comm;~sioner Cullen, you bring up ~ good point, but we
did just do a major revisjon to R-l not even a year ago, and I. for one,
would not want to take up t~ose lssues for awhile. I feel the whole R-l
is.ue needs to sit for •• hll •.
Ms. Lytle: W~ are required to come back and review it two years after it
was adopted. which is abo~t one year from now. So we could lOOk at it at
that time.
Cnairman Mirsh: Also. we down zoned the FAR allowances so much in that
process.
Cpmmissfongr Hf~sch: This just has t~ do with the rear yard setback.
Chairman Marsh: Nothing is ·j~st· in the R-l. fverything is connected to
everything else.
CPmmissiongr Huber: YOw were talking about coming in and asking for
zoning changes. I hav~ been "ere three-and-a·half years, and ] ~ave nfver
heard of ~hat you ire speaking of. 50 whateY!r the practice is, it ha~ ~Dt
occurred since I have been (If' this (;olTlrlission.
t9!missioner Cullen: That is w~y r hang around!
Conmissicner Christensen: It is true that tnere has bpfn i tradition of
allOWing the opportunity for anybody tc come in and suggest what they want
to during the process of the zoning ordinance clean~p each year.
145. Case: Haye you considered that you have no~ f',ade fonnal
recommendations on these items, or are you planning to do that as one big
packagE later on?
Chiirnan Marsh: We have not left this itfm yet. (olTlTJissioner Beecham was
just about to ~ke a motion to approve the items on ~hich we did ~cme to
consensus tonight, and p~ss those on to you.
1I/IB/90
-50-
Ms. Case! You n~ to adopt I n~itlve declirition before you do that.
~: CQlmiss1QDer Stlcham: J .ave thp stiff recommendations for the
\teas upon which we hive reached cnnstnsus, as listed by Cha;~an Marsh,
with the neg,ti.e declaration that 1 •• ttiched.
~: By Coo.i •• looor Christensen.
IIOIIOH PASSES: Chalmn Hirsh: I wili quickly run through ,od deHneate
the items on which we did 'gr... They were Items 2, 3, S, 6, 8 , 9, 10
and II. All those In f •• or, .ay Aye? All opposed? That pa.ses unanlllOu.ly.
Cqam15.ioner Hirsch: I w.nt to soy thot I concur with Commissioner Cullen
thlt we look. .t that provisfon. She is not ilone-in her opinion. r hav-::!
never understood the rotionol. for that, and it would bo worthwhile to
look at it an aprropriate ti ...
ca.;notn North, r think. yelr will probably roll around faster thin we
would iaagine, and we will make. note to tlk. It up vnen we look at R.j og.ln.
Ms. lytl,: I haye a stitus report fnformation ~morandum that I have been
asked to write before Jin~ary 1 IS a mid~po;nt report for you. I can
reference It In there th,t th.t concern hi' been raised. We will keep track of it that .ay.
END OF EXCERPT