Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Nonconforming Code topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning staff outlines overhaul of nonconforming rules; commission forms subcommittee
Summary
Planning staff presented a proposed overhaul of nonconforming lot, structure and use rules in the city’s Land Development Code and recommended removing an amortization schedule and clarifying rebuild and repair rules.
Planning staff presented a detailed rewrite of the city’s nonconforming provisions in Chapter 18 of the Land Development Code at the March 5 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, proposing clearer rules for nonconforming lots, structures and uses and recommending removal of an amortization provision staff said is unenforceable.
Presenter Stephanie Edgardson (planning staff) told the commission the current code dates from 1987 and is strict on repairs and additions, often forcing owners into variance processes. Staff recommended allowing repairs and limited rebuilding for legally permitted structures, recognizing legally platted small lots regardless of current minimum lot sizes, and preventing expansions that intensify a nonconforming use. Staff proposed removing the amortization schedule because courts have treated such provisions as a regulatory taking that could require compensation.
The proposed changes would: allow residential properties to rebuild within their existing footprints if damaged, subject to health and safety codes and limits on increased size or parking impacts; allow legally platted small lots to be recognized for sale and financing without an administrative variance; prevent nonconforming commercial or industrial uses from expanding and require compliance if damaged beyond a specified threshold; and add an explicit appeal path through the planning commission and city council for staff nonconforming determinations.
Commissioners asked staff to clarify several enforceability and drafting issues. Staff said it would consult the city attorney about the code’s effective date language and a proposed provision that would treat adjacent legally owned lots as one parcel for zoning purposes — staff noted enforcement of the lot‑merger rule could be difficult without county‑recorded restrictions. Staff also recommended keeping mobile home parks and junkyards for later review and adding a floodplain compliance check.
The commission agreed to form a three‑member subcommittee to examine residential nonconforming properties and the proposed code text before the item returns to the full commission. Commissioners Reichert, Bud Key and Holt were identified as the three‑member subcommittee; two additional commissioners volunteered to assist. Staff said it will return recommended redlines and attorney guidance to the subcommittee and then the full commission.
No final ordinance was adopted; staff characterized this meeting as a review and directed follow‑up on legal wording, rebuild thresholds, and notification strategies for affected property owners.
