Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
<br /> , <br /> , <br /> . 4. ~,..I""It'\-Fl""n"m"lntT 91;ln;'I"It"ft:I: and Lots <br /> '!he lot has a 75' width by 199.49' depth. Under the =rent <br /> ordinance this lot is required to have a 95' width at setback. <br /> Both the width of the lot and the =rent setbacks of the hotre <br /> would categorize this as a nonconforming lot and building. I <br /> have asked our City attorney to evaluate this application under <br /> this section of the ordinance because of salE =erns that <br /> staff has with Section IX, A, 2. <br /> This section specifically states that if the nanoonfarmity is <br /> due to the height, setbacks and/or lot area the nonoonforrnity is <br /> rrerely teclmical in nature and it shall be exempt fran the <br /> provisions of this section. While the resulting interpretation <br /> of this is that our non.=Jfonning ordinance doesn't apply, staff <br /> didn't feel that this was the intent of the ordinance. <br /> Mr. Filla has indicated that the last sentence of Section IX, A, <br /> 2, if read by itself, appears to indicate that any non.=Jforming <br /> building would be allowed to beccme rrore non.=Jforming so long <br /> as the additional oonforrnity bad to do with height, setback or <br /> lot area. If this interpretation is correct, it \\OUld seem to <br /> - be contrary to the provisions of Section IX, A, 1; Section IX, <br /> A, 2, Section IX, E; and Section IX, I. <br /> Mr. Filla does not believe this part of the City Ordinance can <br /> be interpreted in this manner, instead he believes that Section <br /> IX, A,2 should be read in =junction with Section IX, H. '!he <br /> meaning of this part of the code is that a nonoonforming <br /> building does not have to be arrortized out of existence so long <br /> as the non.=Jforrnity has to do with height, setback or lot area. <br /> In =clusion, Mr. Filla did recognize a problem exists with <br /> this p::>rtion of the ordinance and suggested that the City try to <br /> solve this inte:rpretation problem legislatively. <br /> 5. N,:ll;nn'hnT";ng IJ"L.vloJIC.I..Lies <br /> All of the lots in Block 1, Arden Hills Subdivision have a <br /> similar lot width of 75 feet. However, because of the <br /> differences in side yard setbacks the other banes rreet the <br /> required 10' setback. <br /> '!he neighborhood was developed prior to present zoning standards <br /> . so rrost banes in this area do not confonn to present standards <br /> (ie: 75 feet wide while 95 feet is now required) . <br />