CCP 02-16-1995 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I ff , I. ~: I'lannin2: Commission Minutes Pa2:e 9 2/01/95 I Mr. Fritsinger indicated the contractor has stated the costs to rebuild the home are approximately I the same if the home were to be repaired. Mr. Fritsinger indicated the applicant is proposing to rebuild the home on the same footprint. He added, by building on the same footprint it allows I the construction to begin immediately and also eliminates additional encroachments into the setback. I Mr. Frirsinger noted two small additions are proposed on the north and south sides of the home. These additions will not encroach further into the existing setbacks of the home. I Mr. Fritsinger indicated the current setbacks of the existing home would categorize this home as nonconforming. As a nonconforming building this application needs to be evaluated under Section IX of the Zoning Ordinance. I Mr. Fritsinger reviewed Section IX, D, the ordinance states; "No nonconforming use shall be enlarged, intensified, increased, extended to occupy a greater area on the lot on which it is I located... " ,e Mr. Fritsinger indicated Section IX, F states; " A building strucrure constituting or containing a nonconforming use here after damaged or destroyed by any cause may be restored if the fair market cost of such restoration would be less than 50 percent of Fair Market Value..." , Mr. Fritsinger continued with Section IX, J states; "In the event a nonconforming building is hereafter destroyed by any cause, it shall not be restored or reconstructed except in conformity I with the applicable requirements of the ordinance." Mr. Fritsinger indicated further issues regarding Section IX, A, 2. This section specifically states I that if the nonconformity is due to the height, setbacks and/or lot area, the nonconformity is merely technical in nature and it shall be exempr from he provisions of this secrion. He noted the Commission and Council agreed wirh Staff thar rhis issue needed further auention and until I it is amended, voided the nonconforming use section of the ordinance as it applied in cases wirh an existing building. , Mr. Frirsinger indicared because the home is being demolished and rebuilr Sr~ff would contend rhar this "loop hole" can not be applied to this case. I Mr. Fritsinger indicated if this lot was vacant, the lot is unbuildable with current setback reqUlrements. I Mr. Fritsinger indicated much of this neighborhood was developed prior to present zoning standards, so most homes do not conform to present standards in one manner or another. ,e I