01-18-2011 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

+ ' � � � ♦ To: Chair Kang and Planning Commission Members � Jessica Loftus, City Administrator _ From:. Melanie Curtis, Planning &Zoning Coordinator �,(/ Date: 11 January 2011 � Subject: #11-3496—Amend City Code Section 78-71 . Public Hearing . Application Summary: The City is proposing an �amendment to City Code Section 78- 71 re ardin nonconformin , non-structural hardcover and un clubs. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval of the ro osed amendment. ' � Pertinent Zoning•Ordinance Sections � Sec. 7&71. Nonconforming structures and uses. , List of Exhibits - Exhibit A. Draft Ordinance � Exhibit 8. Existing Hardcover Regulations Exhibit C. Sketches Summary Hardcover. � The City Code has provisions for nonconforming structures and uses regarding changes, expansions, alterations, maintenance, etc. Currently an existing nonconforming structure may be rebuilt, in-kind following the provisions within section 78-71. An in-kind reconstruction or replacement is limited to the existing footprint, location, volume and envelope. Regarding a nonconforming structure this means you can rebuild exactly what currently exists in the exact location but cannot change the outer envelope or location in any way that expands the nonconformity. Additionally, a smaller structure could be constructed within the nonconforming footprint/envelope area. Hardcover is regulated by square footage or percentage of coverage by zone. With respect to hardcover the current provision allows a property owner to put back exactly the same square footage of hardcover in the exact location. When a property is redeveloped the City has an expectation that the redevelopment, i.e. new home and appurtenances, will conform to . today's regulations or what is permitted by the nonconforming status. Administration. of the hardcover regulations has historically not allowed for rearrangement of nonconforming hardcover at the discretion of staff. If a property owner exceeds the percentage of hardcover within a particular zone and wanted to reconfigure the hardcover resulting in a lesser percentage but still exceeding the amount allowed a variance would be required. Through the years numerous applicants have questioned this policy. However, since the City was able to be flexible and typically allowed the hardcover rearrangement (if reductions were made) the policy continued to be followed. Beginning in the summer of 2010 the Krummenacher Supreme Court ruling resulted in the City reviewing a number of our codes and processes. It is likely these types of applications for hardcover rearrangements�would not meet the hardship definition and variances would not be an option.