Laserfiche WebLink
Chronolog Page 2 <br /> August 27,2002 Staff inemo including a revised version o:f tlie draft ordinance amendment. An <br /> alternative approachwas suggested: revisingthe`nouconforminguse'section <br /> to more clearly address the issue of e�:pansion or alteration of nonconfornling <br /> stilicttu�es, separately from nonconforniing uses. <br /> September 4, 2002 PC Work Session: It was suggested that we should consider adding a <br /> "NO11COl1f01711111g StI"L1Ctl1T�S�� section to the code, as a corzlplement to the <br /> "Nonconfoi7ning Uses"section. We also discussed whether we should use a <br /> `valuation'or`vohime'thresliold to defule at what poult a remodel proj ect i1ti71s <br /> into a rebuild. Either method has pitfalls,arld the more specif cally we define <br /> the parameters(i.e.how much of a space can be rnodified Uefore ii's considered <br /> as new), the more rigorous the aduzinistrative process will become. <br /> DecemUer 2, 2002 PC Work Session: Discussed the complexity of administering a code that <br /> would rely on volume or value as the deterniining factor in whether a proj ect is <br /> a remodel or a rebuild. We concluded a worksheet would be necessary in <br /> either case,and either the Builduig Official or Zoiuiig Adtni�ustrator would have <br /> to spend simiificant time with an applicant to determine just what building <br /> elements are going to remain aiid which are going to be removed for a given <br /> proj ect. <br /> Januaiy 27, 2003 PC Work Session. Staff offered a few basic premises for discussion: <br /> l. The basic premise of nonconformity is that existing buildings <br /> have the right to exist and to be maiutained. In the case of <br /> destruction by Acts of God, they can be rebuilt under certain <br /> circumstances. However, there is no assumed right that they can be <br /> voluntarily removed and rebuilt or expanded. <br /> 2. Tl�e voluntary actious of remodeling,�dditions 1ud total rebuilds <br /> are basically the onfy opportunities we have to bring structuc-es <br /> into conformauce with current codes. The City is not about to start <br /> condenining residential structures that are merely too close to a lot <br /> line or have too niuch hardcover. We can't expect that a toi-�lado or <br /> other natural disaster will come along to help us accomplish urban <br /> i•ene�val. <br /> 3. The codes are in place for a legitimate public pur,�ose ot•goal,to <br /> establist� minimum standards necessaty to provide the intended <br /> ueighborhood livixig enviroumeut. Any time we vary from those <br /> standards, we are required to aclazowled�e the special circttmstances <br />