02-27-2006 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

- �Y'€ °d"�:�,..'��``�-�`ti::�"`�C �. -� � t��wr::;,f�.,_,,.,"" �t,`$ _�:'�,�'�`��;:-� �,� MEMORANDUM To: Chair Ralui and Plamiing Conuilissioners From: Mike Gaffi•on, Placuiing Directot� Date: November 24, 2004 SY►bject: Update to #02-2829 Nonconfonning Uses &Nonconforming Structures Amendrnent - Zoning Code Section 78-71 List of Exhibits A - Ordinance Draft#8 (11-24-04) B - Minnesota Statutes Section 462.357 Subd. le "Noncoiifonnities" C - Mimiesota 2004 Session Laws - Bill SF 2274 - Illustrating�vhat was changed in 2004 D - Cluonolog of PC & Council review of this ordinance (2001-2004) E - Staff Memos 11-13-03 and 11-19-03 F - Existing Code as adopted in 1975/1984 � This proposed code amendmer�t would make siguificant changes in the waywe do business regarding rebuildulg and expand'uig residential stcuchues. Briefly,the aniendment would cha�ige the Nonconfomun.g Uses section of the code by henceforth having it also apply to Nonconfoi�ning Structures. The amendment would formally establish a"50%of value or volume removal"tlu•eshold after which a noncoiifonnulg stnicture has to be brought uito complete zonuig compliance;and establislunent of sta.ndards for expansion of existing homes and accessory stnictures, Other changes include elimination ofcertain outdated lan�uage and a reorganization of the entire section. This proposed ordinance revision has been reviewed on a number of occasions by the Plamung Commission and Council over the past 3 years. It was last fonnallyreviewed by Council in November 2003,and tabled for city Attorney review. Discussions with the City Attorney ui spruig 2004 have resulted iil a few chauges to the proposed text, which are noted in ExhiUit A. Impact of 2004 Legislation.Statue Statute revisions bythe 20041egislature,which becanle effective August 31,2004,appear to Iimit the extent of authority the Citymayhave regarding rebuilds.The Statute cha�zge appears to now allow the replacement,restoration a�ld improveinent(but specifically not expa�Lsion) of any existing nonconfonnity,whereas previously it only allowed"repair or maintenance". The ability of the property owiler to take advantage of this Statute goes away: a) if the nonconfonnity is discontinued for more than one year, or b) if the nonconfonnity is destroyed byperil(rather than vol�ultzrily)a�zd no pernut to rebuild has been applied for within 180 days of the destruction,in which case the City can impose `reasonable C011d1t1021S' on the pei�nit to mitigate any ziewly created impacts on adjacent property... Tlus may have sig�uficant impacts on the wording and intent of the proposed ord'uiance. Since the newest PC members may not be aware of the history of this proposed aulendznent,tlus is a good time for a stat�is update, as we seem to never see the end of partial rebuilds that tunl into total rebuilds... Page 1 of 1