Laserfiche WebLink
r <br />i • <br />#03-2909 <br />JiiM 12,2003 <br />P«t«7 <br />3.Granting of the variances will result in the nonconformity remaining in place for a much <br />longer period than if the variances are denied (i.e. if it's put back on its old foundation, which <br />would have to be re-installed using old members, requiring lots of eflbrt but add no new <br />value to the structure... is this un-ringing the bell?...) <br />Cityordinancesasconsistently interpreted by staff allowed forthenon-structural rep irsthat <br />make this appear as an entirely new structure... should the code be revised to further limit <br />the extent of maintenance/remodeling that can be allowed for such structures?... this <br />tqiplicant has been allowed to expend significant dollars on this building but went a little too <br />far in attemptmg to increase its longevity... <br />5. <br />6. <br />Please review the letters from neighboring property owners. <br />Does Planning Commission have any other issues or concerns with this application? <br />Staff Recommendation <br />Staff recommends that the variances be denied, on the basis that this structure has been removed and <br />should no longer retain its status as an existing non-conforming structure. Had the structure remained <br />in place and the foundation woik been accomplished without its removal and with the proper <br />permits, it might have qualified as an exception under 26(B). But, the foundation work was done <br />without permits. The building was moved SO* away. It might have been moved SO miles away to be <br />renovated, it shouldn’t matter. It was moved off its grandfathered location and should be granted no <br />further nonconfonning structure statiis. This is how the City has consistently treated nonconforming <br />decks, etc. The new foundation work should be removed and the structure removed from the <br />property, or relocated on the site to a conforming location. <br />■ % •j'i