Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.3 ScarlettCtMoratorium CITY CLERK #410-20 AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: September 3, 2002 SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Urgency Ordinance in Scarlett Court Area (this item was continued from the August 6, 2002) Report Prepared by: Andy Byde, Senior Planner ATTACHMENTS: 1. Urgency Ordinance 2. Scarlett Court Area Map 3. Scarlett Court Assessors Parcel Map RECOMMENDATION:  1. Open Public Hearing 2. Receive Staff presentation; 3. Receive Public Testimony and Close Public Hearing; 4. Determine if ministerial and discretionary actions could negatively impact the outcome of the desired Specific Plan; and 5(A). If the scope and exceptions proposed in draft Ordinance (Attachment 1) are determined to be appropriate Staff recommends that the City Council waive the reading and adoPt an Urgency Ordinance which will impose a moratorium on any ministerial and discretionary actions (subject to the exceptions listed in the Agenda Statement); or 5(B). If the scope and eXceptions proposed by Staff are not appropriate than provide direction to Staff on the 4 remaining options listed in the Agenda Statement. FINANCIAL STATEMENT: No financial imPact DESCRIPTION: This item was continued from the August 6, 2002, City Council meeting. During the June 18th 2002, City Council meeting, the Council voted to initiate and define the Scarlett Court Area Specific Plan and directed Staff to provide notification to the tenants and property owners within the Scarlett Court Area that the City Council is considering a moratorium for the area. On July 3, 2002, Staff sent out the notices to all known Tenants and Property Owners within the specific Plan area. On August 6, 2002, the City Council heard the proposed moratorium as well as concerns from business and property owners regarding the impacts of the moratorium. The City Council voted to continue this item and directed Staff to evaluate additional alternatives to the proposed moratorium. COPIES TO.' Property/Business Owners Project Planner ITEM NO. G:XPAg~2002\Scarlett Court Sp\ccstaffreport 8-26 Scarlett Court.doc /dr~ ISSUES Proposed Moratorium Staff is concerned, that without knowing the outcome of the Specific Plan study (which was authorized on Jtme 18, 2002), which would include land use, economic analysis, and a circulation analysis; certain types of ministerial and discretionary actions, which modify the appearance or allow vacant buildings to be retenanted could ultimately frustrate the City's long term efforts to ensure the area is properly developed as properties become suitable for reuse. At the August 6, 2002, City Council meeting, Staff proposed a moratorium that would prohibit ministerial or discretionary actions including: building permits which modify the appearance or potential use of a building or a business license for a new use or permit the resumption of the last use of a property that has been vacant for more than a year prior to the permit application, Site Development Review (SDR), Conditional Use Permits (CUP), and etc. Staff proposed three exceptions: (1) any discretionary action submitted prior to August 6, 2002; (2) emergency repair work deemed necessary by the Building Official for the safety of the occupants; and (3) proposed new auto sales franchises. In addition, the proposed urgency ordinance would temporarily modify the current zoning regulations and would require a CUP for new auto sales franchises to be approved by the City Council, instead of the Planning Commission during the moratorium period. Moratorium Process An interim ordinance would take effect immediately if adopted by a four-fifths vote by the City Council. State law limits the initial term of the ordinance to 45 days. State law also requires the ordinance to include a finding that there is a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety or welfare, and that the approval of ministerial or discretionary actions in order to comply with the Zoning Ordinance would result in a threat to public health, safety or welfare. State law allows the City Council to extend the ordinance by 10 months and 15 days, and again by one year (for a total of two years), following a noticed public hearing. Any subsequent extension shall require a four-fifths vote for adoption. No more than two extensions may be adopted. Ten days prior to the expiration of an interim ordinance or any extension, the City Council shall issue a written report describing the measures taken to alleviate the condition, which led to the adoption of the ordinance. Should the City Council establish a moratorium through the adoption of this urgency ordinance, the above mentioned written report would be brought back to the Council on October 15, 2002. Additionally, according to the City Attorney, the adoption of a moratorium pursuant to the authority of Government Code section 65858 will not subject the City to liability for damages due to delay in development of property. Alternatives to the Proposed Moratorium At the August 6, 2002, City Council meeting the Council requested Staff to return to the September 3, 2002, meeting with some additional information and alternatives to the proposed moratorium. Alternative 1: Modify Zoning Ordinance to Require CUP's During the August 6, 2002, City Council meeting it was mentioned that, rather than adopting a moratorium, the Cotmcil could require a conditional use permit (CUP) and be the approving body for all CUP's in the Scarlett Court Area, pending conclusion of the Scarlett Court Area Specific Plan Study. A CUP is a quasi-judicial, administrative action. Its purpose is to allow a particular use not allowed as a matter of right in the zoning district. According to the City Attorney, a CUP cannot be restricted to a term of years unless the applicant so requests. 2 ,fZ To implement Alternative 1, the City Council would have to create a new zoning district different from the M-1 district by amending the Zoning Ordinance and then rezone the Scarlett Court Area to that new zoning designation. Amending the Ordinance and rezoning the area would require bringing the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment to the Planning Commission for review and returning to the City Council for two public hearings, the ordinance would then be in effect 30-days after adoption. Significant Staff time would be required to prepare the ordinance, in lieu of Staff time spent on the preparation of the Specific Plan Study. Alternative 2: Prohibiting Certain Use Types As previously mentioned, the zoning for the Scarlett Court area is M-1 (Light Industrial). Contained below is a table from the Zoning Ordinance which specifies the uses which are permitted and require no discretionary approval ('P'), uses designated which are conditionally permitted (CUP required) with a hearing before the Zoning Administrator ('C/ZA), uses designated which are conditionally permitted (CUP required) with a hearing before the Planning Commission ('C/PC'), and uses designated which are prohibited ('-'). Staff proposes an Alternative that would prohibit certain uses that are currently permitted and conditionally permitted during the term of the Specific Plan Study as designated with the following' Permitted P Car Wash/Detailing Not Permitted - Conditional Use Permit/Zoning Administrator c/tn Conditional Use Permit~lanning Commission C~C Temporary Use Permit T~ Co~ercial School COMMERCIAL USE TYPE M-1 (coat) CIVIC USES Co--uniT Care Facili~/Large C/PC CIVIC USE TYPE M-1 Co~uni~ Clubhouse Copying and Blueprint~g Co~i~ Facili~ C/PC Hospitamedical Center :~Tg Day Care Center (13+) i~ Drive-i~rive-t~ough Business Eating ~d DriVing Newspaper ~e~cling Facili~ ' Establis~ent ~a~~ ~ ~ Fo~netell~g ~ General Retail Sales Health Services/Civics COMMERCIAL USES Hotel/Motel Housemover's Storage Yard COMMERCIAL USE TYPE M-1 ~h: :: ~g~ ~g~ ~ * ~ ~ Massage Establis~ent ~gl~a ~g~a~q~ ~ M~i-Storage ~ ~ Neighborhood Retail Sales Automobile~ehicle Brokerage - Outdoor Mobile Vendors C/ZA Automobile~ehicle Rentals C/PC Outdoor Sales Not Related to C/ZA Automobile~ehicle Repairs CJPC On-Site Established Business ~d Service Outdoor Seating Automobile~ehicle Sales and C/PC Personal Services Se~ice Plant Nurse~ ~: ~: :::::~~ ~F~: ~ :;;~ ;~:~ :~: ~:~ ~:' Professional/Administrative Banks and Financial Services - Office Bed ~d Breakfast ~ C/PC ~atl~al~ ~r Repair Shop Seasonal Holiday Sales Lots TUP Heavy Industrial - Service Retail Light Industrial P ~~ Printing and Publishing P Shopping Center Research and Development P Special Events TUP Laboratory Temporary Construction Trailer Tf3P ~ ~t~'I~"~ ~ Storage of Petroleum Products P for On-Site Use Under this alternative those uses, which the City Council felt were not appropriate during the term of the Specific Plan Study, would be prohibited. During the Specific Plan Study more detailed information on circulation and preferred location and guidelines for these types of uses would be established. To implement this alternative would require returning to the City Council with a new urgency ordinance moratorium. Alternative 3:Limiting Modifications of Properties over 2. 5 Acres This alternative would concentrate on maintaining the current development pattern without impacting the majority of the smaller uses. This approach would allow for modifications of uses on smaller parcels and replacement of previously existing structures that have been removed prior to September 3, 2002. Interior and exterior modifications (not including signage) and new construction would be limited to parcels under 2.5 acres in size. Currently 9 of the 21 parcels are over 2.5 acres (see Attachment 3 for Assessors Parcel Map which illustrates which parcels are over 2.5 acres in size). Limiting new development to smaller parcels would ensure that larger parcels, which have a greater chance for reuse, would be not be modified during the Specific Plan Study. To implement this alternative would require returning to the City Council with a new urgency ordinance moratorium. Analysis of Options Listed on the following page is a table, which includes an analysis, of the 5 options currently before the City Council, including the proposed moratorium, Alternative 1, Alternative 2, Alternative 3, and the no action option: Action Description Timing Advantage Disadvantage Adopt proposed Proposed moratorium that Immediately. Would prevent projects Would limit all property urgency would prohibit ministerial commencing without owners' current flexibility ordinance or discretionary actions respect to the pending of replacing tenants and moratorium. including: building permits Specific Plan. making modifications and (Proposed which modify the improvements to Moratorium) appearance or potential use Would protect City from properties. ora building or a business damage claims due to license for a new use or delay. Would maintain permit the resumption of existing uses and would the last use of a property allow a specific use to that has been vacant for move forward in the more than a year prior to process. the permk application except for new auto sales. Direct Staff to Zoning Ordinance Would Would allow projects to Would require significant amend the amendment that would require three move forward in the additional Staff time to Zoning require CLIPs to be heard public process, create and implement. Ordinance by the City Council for all hearings and (Alternative 1: uses within the Scarlett would not be Would not protect City Modify Zoning Court Area. in effect for from 'takings' claims. Ordinance to at least 4- Require CUP 's). months. May not allow Council to deny projects that are not consistent with Council's vision for area. Direct Staff to A moratorium that would Next City Would allow certain uses to May not anticipate certain prepare a new prohibit certain uses Council move forward in the projects that the Council urgency currently permitted and meeting, process and allow some finds inconsistent with ordinance conditionally permitted by level of flexibility to vision for the area. (Alternative 2: the M-1 zoning district property owners/tenants. Prohibiting within the Scarlett Court Would limit flexibility for Certain Use Area. Would protect City from tenants/property owners. Types). damage claims due to delay. Would maintain existing uses. Direct Staff to A moratorium that would Next City Provides flexibility to the May prohibit uses that prepare a new restrict ministerial and Council majority of tenants and would be appropriate. urgency discretionary actions to meeting, property owners. Preserves ordinance parcels less than 2.5 acres properties most likely subject Would limit some (Alternative in size and exempt to reuse, property owners' current 3:£imiting replacement structures, flexibility. Modifications of Would protect City from Properties over damage claims due to delay. 2. 5 Acres). Would maintain existing uses and would allow a specific use to move forward in the process. Take no Leave current zoning Immediately. Requires no additional Staff Could ulthnately fioustmte additional action, regulations in place. Time. Maintains currents the City's long-term zoning regulations and efforts to ensure the area is provides ukimate flexibility properly developed. to property owners/tenants. RECOMMENDATION: (1) Open Public Hearing; (2) receive Staff presentation; (3) receive public testimony and close public hearing; (4) determine if ministerial and discretionary actions could negatively impact the outcome of the desired Specific Plan; and (5A) if the scope and exceptions proposed in draft Ordinance (Attachment 1) are determined to be appropriate Staff recommends that the City Council waive the reading and adopt an Urgency Ordinance which will impose a moratorium on any ministerial and discretionary actions (subject to the exceptions mentioned in the Agenda Statement); or 5(B) if the scope and exceptions proposed by Staff are not appropriate than provide direction to Staff on the 4 remaining options listed above in the Agenda Statement. ORDINANCE NO. xx-02 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN AN URGENCY ORDINANCE MAKING FINDINGS AND ESTABLISHING A MORATORIUM ON THE ACCEPTANCE, PROCESSING AND APPROVAL OF APPLICATIONS AND PERMITS FOR DEVELOPMENT IN THE SCARLETT COURT AREA PENDING THE COMPLETION OF A SPECIFIC PLAN WHEREAS, the use or non-use of each parcel of real property in Scarlett Court, shown on Exhibit A hereto, and the manner of using those parcels, affects the value and potential development of other property in the surrounding area, also shown on Exhibit A hereto; and WHEREAS, unsightly or inappropriate land use on one parcel can discourage or prevent desired land uses in the surrounding area, negatively affecting the aesthetics of the City, decreasing the number of jobs and revenue for City services, frequently leading to the degradation of structures as failed businesses are not replaced, and increasing the likelihood that inconsistent and s.ub-optimal land uses will move into an area, further degrading it; and WHEREAS, Dublin Boulevard, a major thoroughfare, was recently improved to provide additional frontage to parcels along Scarlett Court; and WHEREAS, the Scarlett Court area has many large and underutilized parcels which have inadequate access and do not take advantage of the recent extension of Dublin Boulevard; and WHEREAS, the majority of the uses within the Scarlett Court area face inward and do not use their frontage onto Dublin Boulevard; and WHEREAS, several parcels within the Scarlett Court area have lot depths in excess of 1000 feet which renders many retail uses ineffective; and WHEREAS, Dolan's Lumber ceased operating at 6365 Scarlett Court in approximately June, 2001; and WHEREAS, during the Goals and Objectives session for Fiscal Year 02/03, the City Council requested Staff, as a high priority item, to initiate a Specific Plan for the Scarlett Court Area; and WHEREAS, on June 18, 2002, the City Council authorized the initiation of a Specific Plan for the Scarlett Court Area to assess the best uses for the properties in the Scarlett Court Area, how to encourage those uses to take advantage of their frontage on Dublin Boulevard, and how to encourage beneficial re- use of properties that are currently underutilized; and WHEREAS, a number of franchise car dealerships already exist in the Scarlett Court Area; and Attachment G:~PA#~2002\Scarlett Court Sp\Scarlett Court r~ritorium ord-revised7.24.doc ' ~'~ ~/~/~ ~...~ WHEREAS, the City Council believes that similar uses should be encouraged to develop in the Scarlett Court Area to improve the appearance of businesses in the area, provide jobs and revenUe, and to take appropriate advantage of the properties in the Area fronting on Dublin Boulevard; and WHEREAS, the City Council has authorized the initiation of a Specific Plan study to determine the best means of accomplishing those goals for the development of the Scarlett Court Area; and WHEREAS, untimely changes of uses within the Area during the time that the City completes the Specific Plan could ultimately frustrate the City's long term efforts to ensure the area is properly developed as properties become suitable for reuse, either by allowing the initiation of uses incompatible' with those recommended by the Specific Plan study or by directly preventing the use of properties as recommended in the study; and WHEREAS, based on the foregoing, the City Council finds that allowing development to continue to occur in a disorganized fashion poses a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety and welfare because it will likely cause land use incompatibilities; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the approval of additional subdivisions, use permits, variances, building permits, or any other applicable discretionary permit, except for building permits and discretionary permits submitted prior to September 3, 2002, which would allow the modification of the properties within the Scarlett Court area, therefore would result in that threat to public health, safety and welfare. NOW ~THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS, ADOPTED AS AN INTERIM ORDINANCE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65858: 1) The City shall not approve any applications or permits for ministerial actions, including a business license for a new use, which would result in the modification of the existing use or the resun~ption of the last use of property that has been vacant longer than one year prior to applying for the business license. The City shall not approve any applications or permits for ministerial and discretionary actions including but not limited to site development review, subdivisions, use permits, rezonings, general plan amendments, variances, building permits which modify the appearance or potential use of a bUilding, or any other applicable entitlement in the Scarlett Court area (shown on Exhibit A heretO), so long as this ordinance is in effect, excepting from the ordinance the following: (1) any discretionary action (and its associated building permit required to implement the approved action) submitted prior to September 3, 2002; (2) emergency repair work deemed necessary by the Building Official for the safety of the occupants; and (3) proposed new auto sales franchises, subject to the City Council approving a conditional use permit. The City shall, nevertheless, accept and process applications for such entitlements. 2) This ordinance is not a "project" within the meaning of Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change in the environment, directly or ultimately; it prevents changes in the environment pending the completion of the contemplated Specific Plan. This ordinance is categorically exempt from CEQA under section 15308 of the State CEQA Guidelines because it is a regulatory action taken by the City, in accordance with Government Code section 65858, to assure maintenance and prOtection of the environment pending completion of the 2 contemplated Specific Plan. 3) If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the ordinance, including the application of such part or provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby and shall continue in full force and effect. To this end, provisions of this ordinance are severable. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase hereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases be held unconstitutional, invalid, or unenforceable. 4) This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption if adopted by at least four-fifths vote of the City Council and shall be in effect for forty-five days from the date of adoption unless extended by the City Council as provided for in Government Code section 65858. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 3rd day of September 2002. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Mayor City Clerk Dublin Exhibit A to Attachment $carlett Court Area Map Zoning Attachment 2 ~SSESSOR'S MAP _9_4_1 ., Coae Area N0s.19-022 21 E M 1177(B.k.e7 P~1.69) §50 Map of the Property of the ";:" ¢~g ;b ~o.~ Estate Elizo~h A. Doughedy. ~o5 ~~. {Bk.8 Pg.75} ,, .. / EM, 5000 ~,/~ 2771 986/I ATTACHMENT-