2008_0714_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

fr'�;J' �, 'c'3' 50 percent of its market value, and no building permit has been applied for within 180 days of when the property is damaged. In this case, a municipality may impose reasonable conditions upon a building permit in order to mitigate any newly created impact on adjacent property. 87 (b) Any subsequent use or occupancy of the land or premises shall be a conforming use or occupancy. A municipality may, by ordinance, permit an expansion or impose upon nonconformities reasonable regulations to prevent and abate nuisances and to protect the 90 Dublic health- welfare- or safety_ This subdivision does not Drohibit a muniCiDalitv from 9111 enforcing an ordinance that applies to adults-only bookstores, adults-only theaters, or 92 similar adults-only businesses, as defined by ordinance. 93 94 2.0 STAFF COMMENT & RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 During the 2007/2008 winter the Planning Division was presented a question regarding a 96 redevelopment proposal for a single-family residence that lay within the Shoreland Overlay 97 District. Specifically the request sought clarity regarding the principle structure setback from 1 98 the shoreline if the structure were to be redeveloped or refurbished (from. the foundation up). 2.2 The Planning Division reviewed the Code and concluded that without a text modification to ('_) 1 address current State Statute language and clarifications to shoreland property, the Division 'I () 2 could not justify its interpretation. 'I ('_)4 2.3 It should be noted that in 2004, the Planning Division amended the non- conformities section of the City Code to afford pre-existing structures greater flexibility to expand by allowing 'I ('_) 6 expansion of structures as long as the non-conforming setback was not encroached upon. 'I ('_'Y'7 However this amendment did not include shoreland property. The Division also received I approval of other corrections as well (noted as such in the Code). 110 2.4 On May 7, 2008 the Planning Commission opened the public hearing regarding the text modification and shared a few comments with the Planning Division. Specifically the 112 Commission continued the hearing regarding non-conforming use/structures, so that staff could 113 research and discuss the following issues with the City Attorney.- whether the legislative change 114 covered commercial industrial and residential districts or only residential districts; how the 11 proposed amendment and/or State Statute affects the R- I overlay district; and how the proposed 116 amendment and/or State Statute affects section 1005.07E (Nonconformlties - Mixed Use 11 "7 Business District), of the City Code. 119 2.5 The Planning Division has spent considerable time researching historical actions and reviewing 120 the current Code in an attempt to better address applicable implementation. The following are 121 our recommended changes to the existing Code regarding non-conforming structures and uses.- 122 123 124 125 1002.02: DEFINITIONS: PROJO014—RCA-071408 (2).doc Page 3 of 6