Laserfiche WebLink
To; <br />From: <br />Date: <br />Chair Smith and Planning Commissioners <br />Mike GafTron, Planning Director <br />November 13,2003 <br />Subject:^02-2829 Nonconforming Uses & Nonconforming Structures Amendment <br />Zoning Code Section 78-71 <br />List of Exhibits <br />A - Ordinance Draft #5 (11-13-03) <br />B - Public Hearing Notice <br />C - Current Code Language (Section 78-71) with References to <br />ip'O <br />Summary of Proposed Changes: (See pages 2 & 3) <br />Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the <br />attached Zoning Code revision, make any necessary changes, and recommend approval in <br />order for Staff to bring it forward to the City Council. <br />Background <br />Planning Commission initiated discussions on this topic in December 2001 (memo of 12-13-01). <br />This was primarily in response to concerns that too often, remodeling projects were resulting in <br />nearly total removals of existing structures, and the “pre-existing structure” basis for granting of <br />certain variances to retain existing nonconformities was being abused. The problem was quickly <br />identified as the lack of a threshold level of removals after which a mere ‘remodel and addition’ <br />project would be considered as a total rebuild subject to meeting all current standards. <br />The initial concensus was that the City should adopt a formal policy establishing threshold <br />percentages of newly constructed or reconstructed spaces that would define a project as a rebuild <br />subject to meeting all code standards. A draft ordinance amendment was presented for discussion <br />in March 2002, proposing to add a new code section entitled “Residential Remodeling Total <br />Replacement Standards". This was reviewed in May 2002, and resulted in consideration of perhaps <br />a more elegant solution, by revising the “nonconforming uses” section of the code to have it also <br />address nonconforming structures. <br />Discussions continued through 2002 and included the issue of whether to use “value” or “volume” <br />as the basis for a threshold.. Early in 2003 Planning Commission reviewed other cities’ codes. A <br />further issue was then identified - whether the topics of removal (“how much of an existing building <br />will be removed”) and expansion (“how much greater has an existing building grown, and what <br />percentage of the final product is original building”) should be combined. It was concluded that <br />most other cities do not combine the two concepts, and primarily deal with the removal issue in their <br />nonconforming uses/structures codes.