Laserfiche WebLink
The initial proposal, as presented to the Planning Commission, was only to have fines <br /> based on the appraised value. At the Planning Commission's November 13th meeting, it <br /> recommended adding an option to assess the fine based on replacement value in <br /> addition to appraised value, with the fine assessed based on the higher of the two <br /> values. The proposed ordinance, Attachment 1 , incorporates the Planning <br /> Commission's recommendation. Staff also supports the recommended approach, which <br /> had been considered among other options in developing the ordinance, based on its <br /> use in other communities. <br /> Fines would be set by the Director of Community Development based on the scope and <br /> nature of the violation, recommendation of professional consultants or appraisers, as <br /> necessary, and any other relevant factors. Fines could be appealed to the Planning <br /> Commission and City Council. <br /> Restrictions on Future Development. In addition to fines, the proposed ordinance <br /> imposes limits on future development. The purpose of such development limits is to <br /> make owners realize that they cannot illegally demolish a historic building with the <br /> expectation to immediately build a larger replacement structure. The proposed <br /> restrictions on future development include: <br /> A. Restrict the new or replacement development6 to be no larger than the <br /> demolished historic building in terms of: <br /> a. Square footage; <br /> b. Floor area ratio; <br /> c. Height; and <br /> d. Location (e.g. setbacks and separation between structures) <br /> B. Have these development restrictions in place for twenty (20) years <br /> C. Only allow a relaxation of these limitations if a new project is approved by the <br /> Zoning Administrator, Planning Commission or City Council. <br /> This latter provision is included to allow some flexibility for a current or future <br /> property owner to propose a replacement building (or to modify an existing <br /> building) in a manner that would exceed the strict development limits. For <br /> example, the owner may propose the height of a new pitched roof to exceed that <br /> of the old building, or for a new owner, not responsible for the original violation to <br /> propose a modest addition or other modification that would otherwise be in <br /> keeping with the City's design guidelines and standards. Any such variation <br /> would be subject to review through the typical design review process, which is <br /> typically either at the Zoning Administrator level (including a public hearing if <br /> requested by a neighbor), or at a Planning Commission public hearing, with the <br /> action of either subject to appeal by the Planning Commission and/or City <br /> Council. The ordinance would also not allow a new or replacement building to <br /> The proposed ordinance intentionally does not prohibit new construction for a certain period of time, as <br /> is the practice in a few other communities, as long term vacant lots are not a policy interest. <br /> Page 3 of 4 <br />