Laserfiche WebLink
Chronolog Page 2 . _ <br /> Augi.ist 27,2002 Staffnaeino includiiig a revised version ofthe draft ordinaiice amendment. An <br /> alternative approach was suggested: revising the`noizcoilfoi7nuig use'section <br /> to inore clearly address the issue of expansion or alteration of nonconforming <br /> stnichues, separately from noncoiifoi7uiilg uses. <br /> SepteinUer 4, 2002 PC Work Session: It was suggested that we should consider adding a <br /> "Noiiconfoi7ning Stnict�ues" section to the code, as a complement to tlie <br /> "Nonconfornling Uses"sectioii. We also discussed whether we should use a <br /> `valuatioil'or`volunle'threshold to defitle at whatpoiut aremodel proj ect t�uns <br /> into a rebuild. Either method has pitialls,aizd the more specifically we define <br /> tlie paraineters(i.e.how much of a space caube inodifiedbefore it's considered . <br /> as new),tlie more i7gorous the admiiustrative process will become. <br /> December 2, 2002 PC Work Session: Discussed the coinplexity of administeriiig a code that <br /> would rely oii voluine or value as the determiniilg factor in whether a proj ect is <br /> a remodel or a rebuild. We concluded a worksheet would be necessary in <br /> either case,and either the Builduig Official or Zoning Ad.muustrator would have <br /> to spend sigiuficaiit time witli an applicant to deternline just what buildv.ig <br /> elemeizts are goiiig to reinain and which are going to be removed for a given <br /> . proj ect. . . . <br /> Januaiy 27, 2003 PC Work Session. Staff offered a few basic preinises for discussion: � <br /> 1. The basic premise of nonconformity is that existing buildings <br /> have the right to eYist and to be maintained. In the case of <br /> - destruction by Acts of God, they can be rebuilt i.uider certain <br /> circtmistances. However, there is no asstmled right that they caii be <br /> voluntarily removed and rebtult or expanded. <br /> 2. The voIuntary actions of remodeling,additions and total rebuilds <br /> are basically the only opportunities we have to bring structures <br /> into conformance rvith cux•rent codes. Tlie City is not about to stai-t <br /> condemning residential stnichires that are ruerely too close to a lot <br /> line or have too much hardcover. We can't expect tliat a tornado or <br /> other iiah�ral disaster will come along to help us accomplish urban <br /> renewal. <br /> 3. The codes are in place for a legitimate public purpose ox goal,to <br /> establish minimum standards necessary to provide the iutended <br /> neighboi•hood living environment. A.ny time we vary froni those <br /> standards,we are required to acknowledge the special circumstances <br />