Agenda Item - 2022-07-11 - Number 06.2 - Presentation PCWS-2 07-11-22 Demo and Nonconform PP 22-0002 7/11/2022
PLANNING ANDE �J, BUILDING SERVICES
V mowQ
RL GOta
Nonconforming Development
Planning Commission Work Session
July 11 , 2022
Overview
Purpose
Conserve the community's quality of life by
planning for change and growth.
Issue
How should the Community Development Code
address development on existing nonconforming
structures?Should LOC 50.01.006 be updated
pursuant to Ordinance 2894 and the new
definition of demolition?
O E0
63
APIO
O#€GGO
PP 22-0002 1
7/11/2022
LOC 50.01.006.1. establishes and defines a nonconforming
development right for structures that were initially created
lawfully, but no longer comply with Code due to changes to
the Code or due to annexation.
LOC 50.01.006.2-4 provide that nonconforming
structures may be:
• 2.a. -Continued in use, so long as otherwise lawful
• 2.b. -Maintained (exclusive of any structural alteration per LOC
50.10.003.2. definition of"maintenance")
• 3.a.—Expanded in a manner that does not increase the degree of
nonconformity or create any new compliance issue
• 3.a.iv.—Modified with a change to roof pitch (top plate must remain)
• 4.a.—Rebuilt if damaged by any cause other than an intentional act of
the owner
p,
U 1_ D
-°,p E G per. -_ . -
-
Proportion of Plan Reviews
Assessing the12-month period between February 2021 and February
2022, the City received:
• 402 total structural permit applications
• 107 remodel or addition projects on existing residential structures
V Excludes small projects, such as window replacements, solar
installation, as well as new decks or accessory structures
• 36 of these projects were found to have possible nonconforming
features
• 25 projects modified existing nonconforming structures
• 24 projects retained nonconforming features through development
6% of total structural permit reviews resulted
D,v, Hof, in retention of nonconforming development
x
iS
o?FGON
PP 22-0002 2
7/11/2022
Nonconforming Standards
Out of the 25 remodel projects on existing nonconforming structures:
• 8 were nonconforming to multiple standards
• 17 were nonconforming to only one standard
18 existing structures were nonconforming to Dimensional Standards
• 15 were nonconforming to setbacks
• 4 were nonconforming to lot coverage
• 1 was nonconforming to height (reduced flag lot height)
Eight (8)existing structures had garages which do not conform to the
Garage Appearance &Location Standards. Two (2)of these
structures had other nonconforming features (setbacks, lot coverage).
One (1) structure had been developed across existing lot lines.
O�`LA Fr
s£
F M
o
�RfG�N-
Setback Nonconformity
Out of 15 existing structures found to be nonconforming
to setbacks, eight (8) were nonconforming to multiple
setbacks.
• 12 were nonconforming to side setbacks.
• 6 to front setbacks.
• 3 to rear.
• 1 to the Oswego Lake setback.
• 1 to RP District setbacks (sensitive lands).
04LAi��
�u s�
PP 22-0002 3
7/11/2022
Nonconforming Remodel Tour
1948 MAPLELEAF RD.
Zone:R-7.5(Low Density Residential) 667 3RD STREET
Nonconforming to: Rear Setback Zone:R-5(High Density Residential)
Nonconforming to:Front,Rear and Side
425 FURNACE ST. Setbacks,Lot Coverage,Garage Design
Zone:R-DD(Medium Density Residential)
Nonconforming to:Side setbacks 1148 NORTH SHORE RD.
Zone:R-10(Low Density Residential)
764 2ND ST. Nonconforming to: Rear and Side Setbacks,
Lot Coverage,Building Design
Zone:R-6(Medium Density Residential)
Nonconforming to:R-6 Alley Access&
Front Porch
o s£
M
U 1� D
1948 Mapleleaf Rd.
Zone:R-7.5 «?
Nonconforming to: Rear Setback ---
Nonconforming J aF .r ° '
�50 E i� t -
Outcome:Minor Variance �;P 7710 - r.
N
l 1
Floor Area Added:3,974 sq.ft. Gopp
3 (it
(wall removed due to dry rot +' , ? " -=--. ' .:'`r'i,;"- ="' .
entire dwelling replaced) //
?,dd Vim. ----
.e., m: , __. -
... ,/1 . _
/4 l ;, 1
A0T l�Y:. I1
-
TAX LOT i
ofLA F I. �. 63� �. . a
—�
f' o i �' - /e 70: -7 \ TAx LOT
j .o-i/ r66 Lor \�,� 6 mm
6600
°REGe
PP 22-0002 4
7/11/2022
425 Furnace St.
Zone:R-DD
Nonconforming to: Side Setback
Outcome:Approved 1 ' OETadctP R e I
a I PER 90�P101 S(6 wC
Floor Area Added:663 s .ft. �� " t �A�
q 50.04 MAx w
�\if,�-. 45; 100' �, m GaNU
i j,IIe;1;IN1 I~---`-IlirliiRlulllprilfl 5� �'
�I „ems,
I 1111'1111f r .'- --- - - tl'',,
I JI11y11v11111 EXIST. (wAT. ArT.,i,/ r I tk
/ 11 Zrt
Y" T 11,1 1 illl 1J TREwcw ,RE-• i III I
"ILA:
I,
r v '10r— �1�JS71rj110 9 -- -FL-P.E. I e'%'fill, 1;1
1 �.>—,,11 i
ad and•PLR--. I j:iJ {I i�.'�I
_• L. .-FL- PFE.f ,,, ,„,,,,,,,,,,
j / 1 — ��
.....1_ �" � Ilr ,ViiI I I Yi
,004,v1,.\11,,,,\\,,
N`���' i 11
•�Qf •� Y - CI' ExisTMG dY' � '11 11 '11 ; I"1155,, '\,'I
.UALII I WATER METER 95' I. • 4�1"}P1111
I a HATCHED AREA I t/I 85' sop
--?RE GO°''.,is
764 2nd St.
Zone:R-6
Nonconforming to: R-6 Access&Dwelling Design
Outcome:Approved
Floor Area Added:840 sq.ft,
LIT ' p ®—. _
° m 1 0 - . _. ° . N
I
r 1
i CO m EIS ' Jm±
fLA F IYr"�;s o.,uo..w . . ..,o _._ �I,i�fli� "' ''""'av
o4.
O
°REGO°
5 PP 22-0002
7/11/2022
667 3rd St.
Zone:R-2 1
Nonconforming to: Setbacks,Lot Coverage, # t , . 1
Garage Appearance
Outcome:n/a - •
4-
Floor Area Added:n/a
a./113
:a :!
; . : Illlll;illllil `l lilt>{fi
I t
gin. .1111a-
lUC
0
PREGO'4 is
1148 North Shore Rd.
LLY-E O LEfO
Zone:R-10
Nonconforming to: Setbacks,Lot Coverage, N.
Floor Area �=
Outcome:RID(LU 15-0031)
b
Floor Area Added:3,129 sq.ft. I , il—
o 1i
{ M as 1;
//// %fig
1i r
a
i
— i
o • -- - !STING BUIDLABLE AREA!SITE SETBACKS
e • awn 1 . LE vw.ra, '.ti1 N
"'NE 6 V`
PP 22-0002 6
7/11/2022
Code Concepts
Should residential nonconformities not be allowed to continue when a dwelling is
demolished (50%or more of the exterior walls or perimeter foundation are
removed)?
Pro: Moves more properties toward conformance, including conformance to
the requirements of neighborhood overlays and design districts.
Con: Reduces development rights and would result in more demolitions,which
may lead to more tree removal.
Alternative: Establish a different threshold (e.g., 80% removed)for full conformity.
04�A 4.of
ti
C.) 1_ o
Code Concepts
Currently, nonconforming developments may be expanded so long as the expansion
does not increase the degree of nonconformity. Should there be a limit on how much
a nonconforming dwelling may be enlarged even where there is no increase in
nonconformity? (The work group discussed this idea but did not reach consensus.)
Pro: Could promote remodels that are more in character with the neighborhood,
particularly in areas with historic landmarks or where surrounding
residences are similarly nonconforming.
Con: Reduces development rights and could result in more demolitions, which
may lead to more tree removal.
04LA fOf\
•
U .1.011Po
PP 22-0002 7
7/11/2022
Code Concepts
Should a pre-submittal meeting with staff, or a formal pre-application conference
with neighborhood input, be required for building permits when a nonconforming
portion of a building is proposed to remain?
Pro: Might reduce complications during plan review and inspections,for
example where a critical component of a structure that was supposed to
remain is removed and the building loses its nonconforming status.
Con: Adds costs and delay in the permit process,which is already complicated.
U o
PP 22-0002 8