03-28-2005 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r #04-3066 4051 Hiebwood Road March 24.2005 Page 3 Staff Comments Is there still a valid hardship? The hardship for granting variances to allow upward home expansions that encroach required setbacks, is the pre-existing location of the house. To the extent that the house no longer exists, the hardship may become invalid. The City policy has been that i f more than 50% of the value of the house is removed, it is considered a “rd)uild”, and the policy has been that rebuilds must be conforming to hardcover, setbacks, etc. For the past 5 years or so the Council has attempted to hold rebuilds to a higher standard than less intensive remodeling projects. The basic premise is that site redevelopment is the only opportunity the City has to bring properties into conformity in terms of hardcover, setbacks, etc. One of the City’s goals, when it adopted roning standards that large numbers of existing properties didn’t meet, was to bring them into conformity as they redevelop, eventually resulting in a majority ofproperties meeting the standards. The zoning standards were established in furtherance of both environmental and “quality of life’’ goals. Determining whether the 50% threshold is crossed foranygiven project is somewhat subjective. Planning Commission has been working towards a new nonconforming structures ordinance which would define a more objective method of determination using value and volume, but this clfort has been stalled out in part due to last year’s revisions in State Statutes which broadened the ability ofproperty owners to maintain and replace (but not expand) nonconforming structures. Slaffis looking for direction on tliis application, and generally supports tlic Planning Commission’s position that a re-design may be appropriate. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED The property owner would like the City to allow his project to be completed within the envelope and setbacks as shown on the approved plans, without having to rc-dcsign now merely because more of the house will have to be replaced than anticipated. StafTis requesting Council’s confirmation that the project can go ahead as currently approved. I lowcvcr. ifCouncil concludes that the extent of removals is so great that the ho >se should be redesigned to meet setbacks, and that this is the time to eliminate a nonconformity rather than expand it and give it extended life, then the approvals granted in Resolution No. 5270 should be reconsidered. Option for Action 1 . Allow the project to proceed as approved; or 2. Require that the west wing constniction be re-designed to meet conforming side (and lake?) setbacks; or 3.Other. I