02-27-2006 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r � � I .�----"""'"�. 60`�—��`� L� To: Chair Smith and Plaiuling Conu�lissioners �� na�� Fi•om: Mike Gaffron, Planning Director `;�;�r��¢� � � �-...�_ Date: Noveniber 13, 2003 Subject: #02-2829 Nonconfonning Uses & Nonconforming Stntctures Amendment - Zoning Code Section 78-71 , ;, � .� �� �� r List of E�hibits � � � - A - Ordinance Draft #5 (11-13-03) B -Public Hearing Notice C - Cun-ent Code Language (Sectiozl 78-71) �vith References to Summary of Proposed Changes: (See pajes 2 & 3) Staff Recommendation; Staff recomineilds that the Plaru-ung Commission review the attached Zoning Code revision, make any necessary chan�es, and recommend approval in order for Staff to bring it forward to the City Council. Background Plamling Commission initiated discussions on this topic in December 2001 (memo of 12-13-01). This was primarily in response to concerns that too often, remodeling projects were resulting in nearly total removals of existing structures, and the "pre-existing stntcture" basis for granting of certain variances to retain existing nonconformities was bein� abused. The problem was quickly identified as the lack of a threshold level of rernovals after which a mere `remodel and addition' project would be considered as a total rebuild subject to meeting all current standards. The initial concensus was that the City should adopt a formal policy establishing threshold percentages of newly constructed or reconstructed spaces that would define a project as a rebuild subject to meeting all code standards. A draft ordinance ainendment was presented for discussion in March 2002, proposing to add a new code section entitled "Residenkial Remodeling Total Replacen�.ent Standards". This was reviewed in May 2002,and resulted in consideration of perhaps a more elegant solution, by revising the "nonconforming uses" section of the code to have it also address nonconforming structures. Discussions continued tlzrough 2002 and included the issue of whether to use "value"or"volume" as the basis for a tlireshold.. Early in 2003 Planning Commission reviewed other cities' codes. A further issue was then identified-whether the topics of removal("how much of an existing building will be removed") and expansion (".how much greater has an existing building grown, and what percentage of the final product is original building") should be combined. It was concluded that n�ost other cities do not com.bine tlle two concepts,and primarily deal witll the removal issue in their nonconfonning uses/structures codes.