Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-09-16 PACKET 08.A.RECIUEST OF CI�Y COUtJCIL ACTIOR! COURlCIL AGEN[3� MEETlNG iTE(Vf # �ATE 9l16/98 °� .� � PREP,4RED BY: Communify development Kim lindquist ORIGINl�TI(dG dEPARTP�AEiVT STAFF AUTHOR ��sm�tia.�A.a.¢.s,4ffi.b..��...�a«.d�dt�.�..e.a..�« • •, ' � Deny the proposed text amendment to Section 28-19 of the �oning Ordinance relafing to non- conforming structures. BUDGET IMPLICATION: N/A BUDGETED AMOUNT ADVISORY COMMISSION ACTION �. ►� • . : •: � ■ ` - � ■ ' ' •' � •.- � � ■ , ■ + • � •'' ■ SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS REVIEWED ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ° a N/A ACTUAL AMOUNT APPROVED ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ � � • ►�� ■ ■ ■ � : � MEMO/LE77ER: 1) Memo from Kim Lindquist dated 9/10/98 2) Letter from Corrine Thompson dated 8/18/98 ❑ RESOLUTIOid: � ORDlNANCE: Draft ❑ ENGINEERlPdG R�COMMENDATION: ❑ LEGAL RECOMMEPJDATION: � OTHER: 1} Sfaff Report and Exhibits 2) Excerpt from Unappraved Minutes of the August 24 Planning Commission Meeting , i � .• a- a , , � /C�� City lddministrator Dafe ..�a.��a� «.���.�a�s�a�«.«�������«$�k.&w�4.����� ce���crL �� r����: (� a,P���v�� [� ���i�� ❑ r� F:ecROU�s�sar�Ni�c�9ssa�csrrcour��r�sa-z4 �edmor�cov�.do� �-. ��/ T0: Honorable Mayor and City Council Ryan Schroeder, City Administrator FROM: Kim Lindquist, Community Development Director DATE: September 10, 1998 RE: Text Amendment Exempting Non-Conforming Properties Introduction The applicant has requested a text amendment that exempts non-conforming residential properties from the provision relating to reconstruction if destroyed by a natural disaster. The ordinance prohibits reconstruction if more than 5Q percent of the value is destroyed; then the structure must be brought into compiiance with the existing zoning. A structure can be reconstructed if the City issues a conditional use permit. Mr. Redmond indicates that the prohibition on reconstruction limited his ability to refinance his property. Discussion The goai of the non-conforming section of the ordinance is to over time bring non- conforming sites into compliance. The section of the ordinance which precludes re- construction of a structure, which is more than 50 percent destroyed by natural cause, fire, flood, expiosion, etc., is one way the City couid attain future compliance. Staff recognizes that often, residential uses located on commercial or industrial zoned land are more susceptible to market forces, which would ultimately cause redevelopment of the property. When Mr. Redmond's issue was first brought to staffs' attention, there were many attempts to address 4he mortgage company's concerns. Glearly, the intent of the ordi- nance provision is to not preGude investment and maintenance of existing structures. The problem is that staff cannot guarantee that a future City Council would approve a conditional use permit for reconstruction of the house should a calamity occur. Planning staff and the City Attorney discussed a variety of options for the City, which could perhaps, remedy Mr. Redmond's probiem and also maintain the integrity of the ordinance. A memorandum from Ms. Thompson is enciosed. As can be seen from the memo, the only option which provides Mr. Redmond with what the mortgage company requested is by text amendmeni. This option greatiy reduces ability of the City to bring nonconforming properties into compliance. Planning Commission Discussion The Commission discussed this item at their July and August meetings. At the first meetir�g, Commission members discussed what the impact of the ordinance amend- ment might be. Many expressed that the market wiil cause more properties to comply with the code than the nonconforming provisions of the ordinance. While there was some agreement that might be true, many also were concerned about the precedent which might be set by the text amendment. The Commission requested the City Attorney address precedent and discuss any options available to the City. These two items are addressed in the August 18, 1998, memorandum. After reviewing the Attorney's opinion at the August meeting, the Commission unanimously denied the text amendment request. Recommendation Deny the proposed text amendment request. ORDINANCE NO. XXX AN ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA AMENDING CHAPTER 28; ARTICLE 111 GENERAL PRdVISIONS; SECTION 28-19 NONCONFORMING USES AND STRUCTURES The City Council of the City of Cottage Grove, Washington County, Minnesota, does ordain as follows: SECTION i. AMENDMENT. The City Codes for Cottage Grove, County of Washington, State of Minnesota shall be amended by amending Chapter 28; Article IBI, General Provisions; Section 28-19(d), to read as follows: Chapter 28 Article Iil General Provisions Section 28-19. Nonconforminq Uses and Structures (d) Whenever a lawfui nonconforming structure shall have been damaged by fire, flood, explosion, earthquake, war, riot or act of God, it may be reconstructed and used as before; provided, that it is reconstructed within twelve months after such calamity, unless the damage to the building or structure is fifty percent or more of its fair market value, as estimated by the building inspector and approved by the council; in which case, the reconstruction shall be for use in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. Non-conformina residential dweliinps located within commercial zonina district mav be reconstructed and used as before if damaped bv fire fiood, explosion earthauake, war. riot. or act of God. reaardless of the value of the damape. SECTION 2. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shail be in full force and effect from and after its adoption and pubiication according to law. Passed this day of , 1998. John D. Denzer, Mayor Attest: Caron M. Stransky, City Clerk . � � � � . . • • . . PUBLIC MEETING DATE: 8124l98 TENTATNE COUNClL REVlEW DATE: 9/16/98 APPLICATION APPLICANT: Terry Redmond REQUEST: Amend Section 28-19, Nonconforming Uses and Structures of the City's Zoning Ordinance for the purpose of aliowing nonconforming residential dwellings in commercial zoning districts to be rebuilt in the event said dwelling is damaged 50 percent or more of its fair market value. SITE DATA LOCATION: ZONING: N/A N!A CONTIGUOUS LAND USE: NORTH: N!A EAST: N/A SOUTH: N!A WEST: N/A SIZE: N/A DEN N/ RECOMMENDATION Denial, based on the facts addressed in this staff report. • � "! " � � • F:\GROUPSWI.ANNINGU998lPCREPORlIRedmondTA98-21 covecdoc MEMORANDUM T0: Pianning Commission FROM: Kim Lindquist, Community Development Director DATE: August 19, 1998 RE: Case TA98-21 Case TA98-21, a text amendment to Section 28-19 of the zoning ordinance relating to non-conforming structures, was initiated by Terry Redmond, 9501 Islay Avenue South. The staff report for this case nas not changed. However, the language in the draft ordinance has been aitered for more clarity. The Planning Commission raised several concems during the July 27 meeting. A memo from the City Attorney's office tnat addresses these concerns is also included with the staff report. PLANNING STAFF REPORT CASE TA98-21 AUGUST 24,1998 PROPOSAL Terry T. Redmond, 9501 Islay Avenue South is requesting a text amendment to Section 28-19, Nonconforming Uses and Structures of the City's Zoning Ordinance. The purpose of the proposed text amendment is to allow non-conforming residential dwelli�gs in commercial zoning districts to be rebuilt in the event the dweiling is damaged 50% or more of its fair market value. A draft of the proposed text amendment as requested by the appiicant is attached for your review. BACKGROUND The future land use map used in the 1970, 1982 and 1994 Comprehensive Plans showed a commercial land use designation for Mr. Redmond's property and land surrounding his property. The zoning requirement prohibiting a nonconforming structure to be reconstructed if it sustained damage of 50 percent or more of its fair market value has been in the City's Zoning Ordinance since its adoption on December 30, 1976. Mr. Redmond states that the residential use of his property at 9501 Islay Avenue has existed since 1955. This year, Mr. Redmond tried to refinance his home mortgage loan, but was unsuccessful because the mortgage company had a concern over the potential inability to reconstruct the nonconforming dweiling if it was damaged 50% or more. '�7�'3al���Ie7�l Ordinance Requirements The uitimate purpose of zoning ordinance is to confine certain ciasses of uses and structures to certain areas. Nonconforming uses undermine that goai. The policy of zoning ordinances is to secure the gradual or eventuai elimination of nonconforming uses. To further this goal, the state enables local zoning bodies to impose restrictions on the expansion or aiteration of nonconforming uses. The City's Zoning Ordinance does prescribe that any structure or use lawfully existing may be continued at the same size and manner of use existing at the time the ordinance was enacted. Nothing in the ordinance prevents normal maintenance of a nonconforming structure to ensure its safe condition as long as the nonstructural Pianning Staff Report Case No. PP98-13 July 27, 1998 Page 2 repairs and incidentai alterations do not extend or intensify the nonconforming use. In the event that the nonconforming structure is damaged (e.g. fire, fiood, explosion, earthquake, war, etc.) by 50 percent or more than its fair market value, any reconstruction permitted must be to bring the buiiding into compliance with the ordinance. Tne provisions in Section 28-19 of the City's Zoning Ordinance relating to nonconforming uses and structures is very characteristic of similar regulations in other communities. Granting a text amendment to this provision exempting situations like Mr. Redmonds will decrease the probability that these nonconforming structures would ever go away. However, in general, non-conformities are not removed due to naturai disaster. Generally, the non-conformity is converted to bring it into zoning compliance when it is eco�omicaily beneficial to do so. Most likely all residential uses within commercial districts will be converted to compiementary uses when the retail value af the property outweighs the residential value of the property. Nonconfo�ming Residential Structures in Commercial Zones The appdicanYs nonconforming status as a residentiai dwelling in a commercial district is not the only one to exist in the community. Staff found 17 other residentiai dwellings located withi� a commercial zoning district: As you can see from the list below, the applicant's situation is not unique in terms of the nonconforming status. Staff is not aware that any of the other properties listed experienced similar home mortgage problems. Planning Staff Report Case No. PP98-13 July 27, 1998 Page 3 Future Land Use Aside from the other nonconforming residential dwellings in commerciai zoning districts, the �angdon area of the community has recently been identified as a potential area for a transit hub. This concept led to the discussion that land use designations and zoning ciassifications for this general area wouid probably be commercial with some medium residential. Staff recognizes that if such a plan were to be impleme�ted, the existence of unattached single family dwellings in this general area might require removal or relocation. Based on this example, it is questionable whether or not the City would aliow a nonconforming residentiai dwelling that was destroyed by fire to be reconstructed. Under the current ordinance, the City may grant a conditional use permit to reconstruct the building if destroyed by fire or other naturai disasters. From a pure planning perspective, the text amendment weakens the existing ordinance and removes the only prescribed approach to non-conforming structure removal. For this reason, staff is uncomfortable supporting the request. From a more reasonabie perspective, the number of non-conforming residential structures is somewhat limited, and the chance of a natural disaster occurring is slim. Therefore, the amendment most likely has little impact on the status of non-conforming residential properties. It is clear, which was stated to Mr. Redmond and his financing company, the intent of the ordinance is not to preciude refinancing of non-conforming building nor to dissuade investment and upkeep in the properties. I:7 x+ diI �� i 7 � � 7� T I 7_j �[�7 � 1 Staff recommends denial of the text amendment. Prepared by: John McCool, AICP Senior Pianner Attachments: Text Amendment e � :- • C H A R T E R E D August 18, 1998 ; . . � . ._ �_ 470 Pitlsbury C;enter 200 Soueh Sixch Screec Minneapolis MN 55402 (612) 337-9300 celephone (612) 337-9310 fax e-mail: acrys@kennedy-graveamm Kim Lindquist ::ity oi Ccttage vrovc 7516 - 80th Street South Cottage Grove, MN 55016-3145 RE� Amendment to Noneonforming Use Pravisions Dear Kim: � � (_ i �,�_ = _ � AUG I 9 1998 ;� � I' ��i CORRINE H. TAOMSON Attorney at I.aw (612)337-9217 cthomson @ kennedy-graven.com I have reciewed the amendment to Section 28-19(d) as proposecl by Terry Redmond, as you requested. Under Mr. Redmond's proposed amendmenC, a nonconfornung residenfial dwelling located in a commercial district could be rebuilt if damaged by storm, fire, or otber act of God, even if the building were damaged by more than 50 percent of its value. Mr. Redmond has claimed Chat the 50-percent limitaCion has prevented him from obtaining financing for his home, _ The planning commission asked for alternatives that would both address Mr. Redmond's concern and also further the City's goal of bringing nonconforming structures into compiiance. These goais are diametrically opposite, and I know of no alternative solution Chat would satisfy both of the stated concerns. There are a number of ways in which the City can allow reconstruction of damaged, nonconforming residential struetures. Those include: {1) allowing reconstruction by interim use pernut, which would require a text amendment to the ordinance; (2) allowing reconstruction by special use pemut; as � allowed by Section 28-19(e); and (31 allowin� reconstruction as a matter of right, as Mr. Redmond has proposed. Generally, the interim use pernut would be viewed as giving the property owner the fewest rights to rebuild, the speciai use pernut more rights, and Mr. Redmond's proposal would give the owner an unrestricted right to rebuild. The problem with the first two alternatives, from Mr. Redmond's perspective, is thaC he could not apply far the interim use or special use pernut until the damage occused, which would not resolve his refinancing issue. Secondly, the planning commission wanted to know whether the proposed amendment would set a precedent for other types of uses. From a legal perspective, the answer is probably not. The City can establish different requirements for different types of property, provided that it has a cnr�-ias�sx CTI55-1 Kim Lindquist August 18, 1998 Page 2 rational basis for the distinctions it makes. For practical and political purposes, however, any time the City creaees an exception for one group, it sets a"precedent" upon which another group can lobby for a similaz exception. If you need any further information, please let me know. Sincerely, �/�`�----- / " : �-€3,72-d-v' Corrine H. Thomson cnH-�as�as CT155-7 Unapproved Excerpt from the Minutes of the August 24, 1998, Planning Comrnission Meeting Terry T. Redmond, 9501 Istay Avenue South, has applied for a text amendment to Section 28-19 of the Zoning Ordinance relating to non-conforming structures. Lindquist summarized the staff report and recommended denial of the appiication. She then gave an overview of the letter from the Assistant City Attorney dated August 18, 1998. Lindquist stated that the text amendment had been modified from that reviewed at the July meeting so that the wording is more clear. Auge opened !he public hearing. No one spoke. The pubiic hearing was closed. There was no discussion by the Planning Commission. Podoll moved to deny the application as proposed. Rice seconded. The motion passed unanimously.