Laserfiche WebLink
^ . �-�,-"°' <br /> - ��`'ZE�►"{� �� <br /> To: Chair Smith and Pla.inling Conul�.issioners � <br /> From: Mike Gaffron, Planning Director ���, . <br /> � ���� <br /> Date: NoveinUer 13, 2003 <br /> Subject: #OZ-2829 Nonconfonnuig Uses &Nonconforming Structures Amendnzent- <br /> Zonuzg Code Section 78-71 <br /> • ;' .:��../ <br /> -.�� ..� - <br /> List of E�hibits <br /> � � <br /> A -Ordi�iance Dra�t#5 (11-13-03) � <br /> B -Public Hearing Noiice <br /> C -Cun-eiit Code La.nguage (Section 78-71) �vith References to <br /> Sumznary of Proposed Changes: (See pages 2 3c 3) <br /> Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Plaruung Commission review the <br /> attached Zoning Code revision, make aiiy necessary changes, and recommend approval in � <br /> order for Staff to bring it forward to the City Council. <br /> Background <br /> Pla�uzing Commission initiated discussions on tlus topic in December 2001 (memo of I2-13-01). <br /> This was priznarily in response to concenis that too often, remodeling projects were resulting in <br /> nearly total removals of existing structures, and the "pre=existing struct�ire" basis for granting of <br /> certain variances to retain existing nonconformities was bein� abused. The problem was quickly <br /> ideii�ified as the lack of a threshold Ievel of removals after which a mere `xemodel and addition' <br /> project would be considered as a total rebuild subject to meeting a11 current standards. <br /> � <br /> The initial concensus was that the Cify 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, proposuzg to add a new code section entitled "Residential Remodeling Total <br /> Replacement Standards". This was zeviewed 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 througlz 2002 and included the issue of whether to use "value"or"volume" <br /> , as the basis for a tkax�eshold.. Early in 2003 Planning Commission zeviewed other czties' codes. A <br /> further issue was then ideiitified-whether the topics of removal ("how much of an existing building <br /> will be renioved") and expansion (".how much greater has an existing building grown, and what <br /> percenta�e of the final product is original buildirig") should be combined. It was concluded that <br /> most other cities do not combine tlie two concepts, and primarily deal with the removal issue in their <br /> nonconforming uses/structures codes. <br />