Laserfiche WebLink
d`t''l�"r���'�".�'0 �,�, <br /> . y <br /> .�,�,�'�'�,�R� .�,�,..,,'�`'��+'�' <br /> ' MEMORANDUM <br /> To: Cliair Ral�n aud Plamung Coiru�lissioners <br /> From: Mike Gaffion, Plaruung Director <br /> Date: November 24, 2004 � <br /> Snbject: Update to#02-2829 Nonconfoi7iiing Uses &Nonconfonniilg Si7lictures Amendment <br /> - Zoiuilg Code Section 78-71 <br /> List of Exhibits <br /> A- Ordinance Draft#8 (11-24-04) <br /> B -Miiuiesota Sfiahites Section 462.357 Subd. 1 e"Nonconfon�.�ities" <br /> C-Miiulesota 2004 Session Laws-Bill SF 2274-Ilhistratulg what was cha�lged in 2004 <br /> D - Cluoilolog of PC & Couizcil review of this ordiilance (2001-2004) <br /> E- Staff Memos 11-13-03 and 11-19-03 <br /> F- Existing Code as adopted in 1975/1984 � <br /> This proposed code amendineiit would make sigiuficaiit changes in the waywe do busuiess regarding <br /> rebuild'ulg aud expand'uigresideiitial structures. Biiefly,the anieiidinent would change theNonconfornung <br /> Uses section of the code by henceforth having it also apply to Nonconforming Structures. <br /> The aineildnient would formally establish a"50%ofvahte or volume removal"threshold afterwhich a � <br /> ' nonconfonnnig structure lzas to b e brouglit infio complete zoni.ug compliazice;and establislunent of standards <br /> for expansion of existing homes and accessoiy structures. Other clianges include elunination of certain <br /> outdated language and a reorganization of the entire section. <br /> Tlus proposed ordinance revisioil lias Ueen reviewed on a nuinber of occasions by the Planning <br /> Coirunission and Council over the past 3 years. It was last formallyreviewed by Couilcil in November <br /> 2003,and tabled for cityAttoineyreview. Discussioils with the CityAttorney ul spring 2004 have resulted <br /> in a few chailges to the proposed text,which are noted in ExluUit A. <br /> Impact of 2004 Le�islation.Statue Statute revisions bythe 20041egislature,which became effective <br /> . August 31,2004,appearto Iiunit tlle extent ofautlloritythe Citymayhaveregardingrebuilds.The Staiute <br /> change appears to now allow the replacement,restoration and'nilprovement(but specifically not expansion) <br /> of any existuig nonconfoimity,whereas previousiy it oi�ly allowed"repair or maintena�zce". The ability of <br /> the property owner to take advantage of this Stat�ite goes away: <br /> a) if tlie nonconfonnity is discontiiiued for inore than one year, or <br /> b) iftlzenonconfoi�iutyisdestroyedbyperil(ratherthanvohultarily)a�zdilopemuttorebuildhasbeen <br /> applied for within 180 days of the destructiou,iii wllich case the City can impose`reasonable <br /> coizditioiis' on the pei�ilit to mitigate aiiy newly created impacts on adjaceilt property... <br /> This mayhave sig�uficant inzpacts on tlle wording and intent ofthe proposed ord'ula�ice. Since the newest <br /> PC mernUers inay not be aware ofthe histoiy of this proposed au�endinent,tlus is a good tinle for a status <br /> update, as we seem to never see the end of partial reUuilds that turn into total rebuilds... <br /> . Page 1 of 1 <br />