HomeMy WebLinkAboutA001 - Council Action Form, April 2, 1985 ITEM #
DATE: APRIL 2, 1985
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: RETROACTIVE CONVERSION PROGRAM
BACKGROUND:
You will recall that in response to requests from the real estate community
in the stunner of 1984, the City established a process of identifying and
inspecting residential structures believed to have been converted without
building and zoning permits.
Attached are two documents which provide information about the retroactive
conversion program. The first document entitled "Methodology" explains the
process that was utilized to identify and inspect structures included in the
program. The second document entitled "Random Sample Survey Results"
provides a listing of the violations that were identified for the 74
structures inspected, along with a statistical summary of the inspection data.
A summary and explanation of the information contained in the "Random Sample
Survey Results" is provided below.
Summary of "Random Sample Survey Results"
The "Random Sample Survey Results" lists the addresses of the 77 structures
included in the random sample, along with the violations that were
discovered during the inspection process. The standard used to determine
whether a violation exists is compliance with building and zoning codes at
the time of conversion. This standard was established by City Council last
fall.
You will notice that two of the build�i�nnc— code categories and four of the
zoning code categories are marked "2� if at the top of those six
respective columns. This symbol denotes the fact that staff is
recommending that these six categories be "grandfathered" as discussed in
the "staff recommendation" section of this form.
Page 4 of the "Random Sample Survey Results" provides a statistical summary
of the survey results. An explanation of those results follows:
Building Code Deficiencies - This table, on the far left-hand side of page
4, identifies the number of building code deficiencies that were discovered.
A total of 55 deficiencies were identified. There are only 22 structures
with building code deficiencies which indicates that there were an average
of 2.5 building code deficiencies for each structure that possessed
building code deficiencies.
Zoning Ordinance Deficiencies - The next table identifies the number of
zoning ordinance deficiencies discovered. Deficiencies were identified for
only 4 of the 10 categories included. Thirty-nine deficiencies were dis-
covered, and 23 structures contained at least one zoning code deficiency.
This results in an average of 1.7 zoning deficiencies for those structures
that possess zoning deficiencies.
Statistical Breakdown by Structures - The next table identifies the current
status of the structures inspected. An explanation of the 8 items con-
tained in this table appears below:
Converted Under Permit - includes those structures originally thought
not to possess building and zoning permits for which permits were
located after the random sample was drawn. Permits were located for
these structures through research of old building and zoning permits
issued before 1952 which was prior to the time when the issuance of
building permits was centralized in the Inspection Office. In essence,
these are structures which should never have been included in the list
of 389 suspected conversions because they had valid permits.
In Compliance with Building Code and Zoning - As expected, it was
discovered that several of the structures in the random survey were
built prior to 1925 which was before the City started issuing building
and zoning permits. Therefore, many of these structures were built
and/or converted to standards which would have met building and zoning
codes in 1925. However, since building and zoning records do not exist
for these structures, they were included in the master list of 389
units suspected of illegal conversion.
Owner-Occupied (Roomers or Non-Conversions) - are single family, owner-
occupied structures which the Assessor's office records indicate as
being conversions. However, under the definition of this retroactive
conversion program, a conversion must include at least two separate
living units with separate kitchen and bathroom facilities. Single
family units with rooming quarters do not fit this definition and are,
therefore, not converted units. The Assessor's office is apparently
utilizing a different definition of "converted units" from the one
being applied to the retroactive conversion program.
Constructed When Still in County - construction or conversion which
occurred outside of the Ames city limits. These structures are now
within the corporate boundaries of Ames. However, since the construc-
tion or conversion occurred prior to the time the structures were
annexed into Ames, these structures are, in essence, grandfathered from
this retroactive conversion program.
Non-Permitted Use - structures which were built or converted in the
wrong zoning district, i.e. , a single-family structure converted into a
duplex even though the zoning at the time of conversion was an R-1
district.
The next three categories, Both Building Code and Zoning Deficiencies,
Building Code Deficiencies Only, and Zoning Deficiencies Only, are
self-explanatory.
Summation of Findings - This table, on the far right-hand side of page
4, indicates the status that would exist for the 74 structures in-
spected if the staff recommendations to grandfather 6 of the building
and zoning code categories are adopted by City Council. As the table
indicates, 37 (or 50%) of the structures inspected presently comply
with the standards of the retroactive conversion program. An addi-
tional 12 structures, or 16% of the total number inspected, would be
eligible to receive retroactive conversion permits if the Council
adopts the staff recommendations concerning grandfathering 6 of the
building and zoning code categories. There are 6 structures (8% of the
total) which cannot be brought into compliance if staff recommendations
are adopted because they are either non-permitted uses or unable to
provide the necessary additional off-street parking due to insufficient
lot area (unless the property owner could enter into an agreement to
provide off-street parking on a separate lot within 300 feet from the
owner's lot as provided for by Section 29.42 of the Municipal Code) .
Finally, 19 structures (26% of the total) could receive retroactive
conversion permits through a combination of grandfathering the 6 recom-
mended categories and owner initiative to correct deficiencies in the
other 14 categories.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The previous section provides information concerning the magnitude and type
of building and zoning code deficiencies that exist for illegally converted
units. Based on an analysis of that information, staff is recommending that
Council consider the following actions:
1. Grandfather (i.e. , declare as legal non-conforming characteristics) six
categories of building and zoning code deficiencies as identified in the
attached "Random Sample Survey Results." These categories of deficien-
cies are: ceiling height, minimum room size, lot area, setbacks, lot
frontage, and building height. Staff is recommending that these six cate-
gories of deficiencies be grandfathered because these deficiencies would
be physically impractical to correct. Staff is proposing that the defi-
ciencies which exist for the other 14 categories of building and zoning
violations would have to be corrected by property owners prior to grant-
ing retroactive conversion permits.
2. Amend the rental housing code to add the granting of a retroactive conver-
sion permit as a necessary condition for receiving a rental housing
letter of compliance for those structures where conversions have occurred
without building and zoning permits. Staff views this ordinance change
as a necessary enforcement mechanism to ensure that illegally converted
structures comply with the standards of the retroactive conversion
program. If this ordinance change is enacted by City Council, then staff
is suggesting that property owners with illegally converted structures be
required to apply for a retroactive conversion permit by July 1, 1985.
(Letters would be sent to owners of the 389 structures contained on the
City's list of suspected illegal conversions and general publicity about
the July lst requirement would be published in the news media, "Key to
the City," and other sources. ) The reason for proposing the July lst
cutoff date is to ensure that an incentive for illegally converting struc-
tures is not provided in the future by allowing any future illegal conver-
sions to have the benefit of the six grandfathered building and zoning
code deficiencies. There is obviously a possibility that some property
owners with illegally converted structures may not receive notification
by the proposed July 1st deadline. Those property owners will be able to
avail themselves of the appeals process discussed in item 3 of this
section.
As previously mentioned, staff is proposing that property owners must
apply for a retroactive conversion permit by July 1, 1985, in order to
receive the permit and the benefit of the six grandfathered items. Staff
is recommending that any conversions which either are discovered after
July 1, 1985, or actually converted after July 1, 1985, be granted retro-
active conversion permits only if the structures comply with the then
present building and zoning code provisions without the benefit of any
grandfathered provisions. Another alternative for Council consideration
would be the abatement of any conversion which either occurs after July
1, 1985, or which occurred prior to July 1, 1985, without the owner apply-
ing for a retroactive conversion permit. Of course, the action to abate
could be subject to the appeal process.
As a related issue, 42 of the 389 structures on the list of suspected
illegal conversions are also structures that do not possess letters of
compliance. Staff plans on notifying the owners of these 42 structures
that they must also apply for a letter of compliance in addition to the
retroactive conversion permit prior to July 1, 1985.
Property owners who require retroactive conversion permits would also be
required to pay the $80 permit fee.
3. Amend the rental housing code to establish the Housing Appeal Board as
the Board to hear and act on appeals from property owners who believe
they should be granted an exemption from complying with a deficiency in
one or more of the 11 building and zoning codes recommended to be en-
forced under this program. (It is recommended that deficiencies in home
occupation and special use permits be referred instead to the Zoning
Board of Adjustment because this falls within their jurisdiction; and
staff does not believe that front yard parking is an appealable item.
Therefore, the Housing Appeal Board would only have 11 categories of
building and zoning code deficiencies to consider. ) Staff believes that
it is necessary to create this appeal process due to unique circumstances
which may exist with individual properties.
The off-street parking requirement is a good example of where individual
case-by-case examination would be useful. Eight of the properties
included in the random survey have off-street parking deficiencies.
Sound planning practices dictate that each property be examined on a
case-by-case basis. Factors to be considered include: the landscaping
and green space that may have to be removed in order to add the necessary
parking; the effect on adjacent properties; aesthetic considerations; and
the availability of on-street parking in the area. Staff believes that
this off-street parking example points out the need to create the flexi-
bility to examine properties in the retroactive conversion permit program
on a case-by-case basis.
It is suggested that the Housing Appeal Board utilize the standard con-
tained in Section 13.21(5) in the Ames Municipal Code as the measure for
Alternatives for Council Consideration
determining whether property owner's appeals should be granted. That
standard is as follows: "The Housing Appeal Board may grant reasonable
variances. . .if it determines that a minimum housing [retroactive conver-
sion permit] standard cannot practicably be net and that the structure is
not unsafe for habitation."
Staff recommends that another condition of the appeal process is that for
appeals of off-street parking and non-permitted use, owners and tenants
of property within 200 feet of the subject property be notified of the
substance and hearing date of the appeal. This is identical to the
process utilized by ZBA for appeals for zoning variances and is believed
to be necessary for these two deficiencies because of their potential
impact on surrounding properties.
Other alternatives which the Council may wish to consider as opposed to
utilizing the Housing Appeal Board as the appeal body for the retroactive
conversion permit program would be appointing a new Board to serve in
that capacity or to have appeals heard by the City Council.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Adopt the staff reccmmndations contained in this report and instruct the
City Attorney to draft the ordinance changes required to adopt the three
recommendations contained in this report.
2. Adopt a different set of recommendations concerning the retroactive con-
version permit program.
MANAGER'S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
It is the recommendation of the City Manager that City Council adopt Alterna-
tive #1 and instruct the City Attorney to draft ordinances required to imple-
ment the three staff recommendations contained in this report.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Alternatives for Council Consideration
METHODOLOGY
Retroactive Conversion Program
1. City staff have identified 389 structures believed to be converted without
building and zoning permits; 303 of these structures were identified through
a cross-checking of Assessor's office records, building permits, and rental
housing records. An additional 86 structures were identified through a wind-
shield survey in several areas of the community where a substantial number
of conversions have occurred.
2. DIAL (Data Information and Analysis Lab) at ISU provided the City with a
randomly generated sample of 80 structures to be inspected from the City's
list of 389. The number in the random sample was subsequently reduced to 77
due to inaccurate and duplicated addresses.
3. The Building Official and Fire personnel were able to inspect 74 of the 77
units in the random survey. The City was unable to gain access into 3 of
the 77 units after repeated attempts to conduct inspections at the owner's
convenience were unsuccessful.
4. During the last several months, requests were received to inspect 7
structures where sales were pending. These 7 structures were not included
in the random sample data because that would have diminished the random
nature of the survey.
Of the 7 structures where inspection requests were received, 5 met the
building and zoning codes at the time of conversion and either have been or
are in the process of being granted retroactive conversion permits. The
other two structures do not meet applicable building and zoning codes.
is
1 '
1 t�
U �a
Q
c �
r
I GZ
rl �g
a III � i
Ig o
I W
G I O
r 1
r x iu
� ' o
LL
I
Lai 0
z I v of
2 o a
7 ) mi W
J
2 19
of
W L
W
B� z o
_ � d
O � �
w
10
t I i I
e
c� l
6J
�W I
Z — �
2
Y�
go
G 2 _
gel
Z os
u � �
I W
r
I � ,
r
F:
I J'.
6 C ..WInC
I
e U 2
a hF w
12
— LL
J A
6J
a _
Z _ �
62 I
2 2
o �
04 p 01
c
NS
vil
ix A
LL
Jillf f I ul
Ld
a
ej
If
4V .;
- - JI cl
z
y•�
sy
orl I L ` O� �7`• Z4J " eTe4W a
O oo�Z vd qJ 00 o°G ¢72 °y 6! w
Q 22 ', W w
23
WFZL
m�dN
�0 0 d qqqqqq�+ �' W ¢QT � aEx o d ww w
yi1 raa Y� r�o2 OL
a d
d �,UJ �Wo NJ �r fJat as o . 0. 0
1� + w M w.2TZ Ili WZwO W6 ZN y 1
- F J adZ� d29 »ZQ �, d6F� ?�
HWo 1 a� JF �f 02 7a 4W
0 �d h°C 96 oc� w
[tµ 01�QL a0 J2W UJ �,Il) y
Qt-Wr LWr ** W r d� 0 2� fii
Jp� I rg N��-NC 2- LL Wd olr
7� z \at;rEt�q o o a ao uLL J ou ar
0 , �9 r r nr2n u 4 ,"J Wv .ill d-d
� dw J u2
QO
{, o
•t 3 ( M� W j V as Q vv�flrG a P
Z1 og —I j z r r° N HOc� M d f W0 $� v 4Ea
J 0 dw Op oQ So
r o
i J 2 o C.
af Z �ar2s
Pl I h z r �° °o rfso94r
a� — - - - -- - c] T y�' wV Wj � g �✓;r1 �E oal- oo
a Qµ� Yi2 2 a1�, avQ 30202
Wl F- u�
J d° 3 u2V OJAJ
Q
0
rf I o� Q 11 d 2 0 a 7 jd z� 2dZ)f
fow 4 a V1 Zw
J Qc' I' (� ,nJQw�J Gr cfZ3 JO
I a _ j W !
J� v�
4y F � d a° � wq
9i ¢ W d "uaJ p p
N- � o Q y o3owz Wyyv � �
NZuW
or aa � � fg o
Y >
01 � 7a0 z N
� va
Li
oW c 0a w Z z � cA0a000o
U � ,
a ad Z
i J
d
w- -
VW
w �u � s4y D
a �`✓ d � � W �� QYO� o Z Q
a O1 a � � wad4 d
oQz�9L'r B
—
, � Z o
4 Z ao -9 - moc�o- M n 1 w H
� J O
iQ t w Li
w 4
3 a U1
z , 0 0
wU.
7 Q 0
00
N Q a
p V� w 0
EP
J J
7do��ulu1
L2 rn.t b.D r co C
'lop, 1
D
RETROACTIVE PERMIT
CITY OF AMES, IOWA
Permit Denied Because:
The premises do not comply with the Codes in effect at the time
of construction, establishment, remodeling, or conversion as per
Inspection Form on file at the City of Ames, Inspection Office.
Permit Issued To:
Authority is hereby granted for the premises at
in the zoning district to be used as a
Under the terms of this Retroactive Permit, the City of Ames makes no
representation that said dwelling unit complies with all applicable Codes. The
City of Ames represents only that, from visual inspection that can be made at
this time, said dwelling unit appears to meet the standards of the retroactive
permit ordinance as per Inspection Form on file at City of Ames Inspection
Office.
The above permit notwithstanding, if the present use is not in compliance
with the present zoning regulations, and that use is discontinued for a year or
more, it may resume only by complying with all current zoning regulations.
Date Building Official ,
Zoning Enforcement Officer
a, LO
C C v W
•r a) aJ _
i•� d N r i
a) O a)
Q-
O ro N S
+-) n L,I o-
� o
-P +•)
v
o
O -a •r N
U N +-> C) S-
u 4-) aJ
r 7 ro
i r +-) E
CO a--) a) ro O
C +J N C
Lil O O 4-) Q)
+-) 3 U c
u O N Y �j
aJ r ro r- C N
a o a
N C
C Q1•r i a)
r N CT) O U
a) � •r C
a--) i ro
C N •h>O pl lJ
I— ro •r C C
•, r aJ •• 4-
C N t r—
v cv U) a) c
LL i N i :3 -0 CP
Q- ro a) d O O r
C
L LJ N
•• i + I- o
F- L
U aJ (a) Q1
Q 4 t C-
C) 3 4-) O
0:� O i O
F-- ' 4-) a a-->
LLJ ro N
C) a)
Ln C a) •r >
LLJ
O N 3 E
Li i-) O r-
vN 4- aJ
QJ O L]
O O
�--•� D- 4- C
F- O
Q i C
U �
C d••) 4->
J r _0 ro
Cl C) i (1) L
d i O i i 4-)
Q aJ 4- ro •r
(1) O C
C" O
i al U r
(1) i C 4-)
o) •r ro
ro = E
C Cr i
ro a) o
E i `+- v
c o,
i N r <
o •r
i +-3 ro
_ Q1
C E CO N N
G N
S- N Q)
r� O a1 4--> i
in
cu
v > v
C > Z7 ro 2
41 Q
l C i r6 4-> rt3
•'�J Q) O i >
i (D a) O
�-� C a•--) Q O
7 a) O r
Q) d O
�
a a)
� N
Q) aJ
3 a
a
TYPE I
Sec. 13.39. Retroactive Conversion Permits
(1) A letter of compliance under this chapter shall be denied or revoked
with respect to any dwelling or dwelling unit found to have been con-
structed, established, remodeled or converted without a city permit
required at the time of such occurrence. However, a letter of com-
pliance shall be issued for such dwelling or dwelling unit if its operator
applies for and is granted a "retroactive conversion permit" as herein-
after provided.
(2) A "retroactive conversion permit" shall be issued for those dwellings or
dwelling units which meet the housing quality standards of Sec.
13. 1(1), the minimum property standards of Sections 13.22 through
13.38, and all codes in effect at the time of establishment except for
requirements pertaining to:
(a) Ceiling height, if the height is at least seven feet, in habitable
rooms as defined under the uniform building code,
(b) minimum room size, if at least 750 of required,
(c) lot area,
(d) building setbacks,
(e) lot frontage,
(f) building height.
provided there are no discernable defects or other conditions consti-
tuting a clear and present hazard to the occupants of the premises, and
the application for the said permit is ma tin and re
the city before September 1, 1985. ti6 apptication otc zaid peAm t tz neeec:ved
b the Cat on eh
be e Seemb 1 , 1985,
(3) A "retroactive conversion permit" may be issued for dwellings or
dwelling units where some aspect of the premises was in non-compliance
with an applicable code at the time of the establishment of the desired
use other than one of the six "grandfathered" and excepted categories
set out in (2) above, but only if the non-complying aspects of the
premises are brought into conformance with the provisions of all pre-
sently applicable codes and ordinances adopted for Ames. In that
regard, the housing code board of appeals may grant specified and
limited exceptions from applicable code and ordinance requirements
where it finds that there is no practical way to achieve compliance, and
denial of the letter of compliance will produce a personal loss on the
part of an individual owner greatly disproportionate to any risks of
harm to individuals or the public interest that could likely be caused by
granting the desired exception; and, if the same exception can be
granted to all others similarly situated consistent with the public
interest.
2
Sec. 29.52. ZONING PERMIT REQUIRED.
It is unlawful to commence or to proceed with the erection, construc-
tion, reconstruction, conversion, alteration, enlargement, extension, razing
or moving of any building or structure, or of any portion thereof, or to
change the use thereof, without first having applied in writing to the
building official for a zoning permit to do so.
There are numerous buildings and parts of buildings, that are rented
as dwelling units, which were built, remodeled, converted and occupied at
various times, over many years, without proper city permits in violation of
various codes and ordinances, including zoning regulations. Such of these
that are in non-conformance with zoning regulations are by this provision
made lawful and conforming under the zoning regulations of this chapter if
the owner of the remises.__QbLains a retroactive conversion permit ursuant
to Section 13.391 haweven, i6 the use " ea Hued Uan one yeah an i6
�st,tuetune -ins AoUy an pattiaUy dens rayed, the pnav yaws a{y Sedan 29. 11
enta,i.ning to Zaw6ue nonean6anmLng use sha,P,e. apply. — __—
3
TYPE II
Sec. 13.39. Retroactive Conversion Permits
(1) A letter of compliance under this chapter shall be denied or revoked
with respect to any dwelling or dwelling unit found to have been con-
structed, established, remodeled or converted without a city permit
required at the time of such occurrence. However, a letter of com-
pliance shall be issued for such dwelling or dwelling unit if its operator
applies for and is granted a "retroactive conversion permit" as herein-
after provided.
(2) A "retroactive conversion permit" shall be issued for those dwellings or
dwelling units which meet the housing quality standards of Sec.
13. 1(1), the minimum property standards of Sections 13.22 through
13.38, and all codes in effect at the time of establishment except for
requirements pertaining to:
(a) Ceiling height, if the height is at least seven feet, in habitable
rooms as defined under the uniform building code,
(b) minimum room size, if at least 750 of required,
(c) lot area,
(d) building setbacks,
(e) lot frontage,
(f) building height.
provided there are no discernable defects or other conditions consti-
tuting a clear and present hazard to the occupants of the premises, and
the application for the said permit is made in writing and received
the city before September 1 , 1985 tib appication ban said peAmit .ice neeeived
b the U be ane Se temben 1 1985
(3) A "retroactive conversion permit may be issue or dwellings or
dwelling units where some aspect of the premises was in non-compliance
with an applicable code at the time of the establishment of the desired
use other than one of the six "grandfathered" and excepted categories
set out in (2) above, but only if the non-complying aspects of the:
premises are brought into conformance with the provisions of all pre-
sently applicable codes and ordinances adopted for Ames. In that
regard, the housing code board of appeals may grant specified and
limited exceptions from applicable "non-zoning" code and ordinance
requirements where it finds that there is no practical way to achieve
compliance, and denial of the letter of compliance will produce a per-
sonal loss on the part of an individual owner greatly disproportionate to
any risks of harm to individuals or the public interest that could likely
be caused by granting the desired exception; and, if the same excep-
tion can be granted to all others similarly situated consistent with the
public interest.
4
Sec. 29.52. ZONING PERMIT REQUIRED.
It is unlawful to commence or to proceed with the erection, construc-
tion, reconstruction, conversion, alteration, enlargement, extension, razing
or moving of any building or structure, or of any portion thereof, or to
change the use thereof, without first having applied in writing to the
building official for a zoning permit to do so.
There are numerous buildings and parts of buildings, that are rented
as dwelling units, which were built, remodeled, converted and occupied at
various times, over many years, without proper city permits in violation of
various codes and ordinances, including zoning regulations. Such of these
that are in non-conformance with zoning regulations pertaining to lot area,
setbacks, lot frontage, or building height, are by this provision made lawful
and conforming under the zoning regulations of this chapter if the owner of
the premises obtains a retroactive conversion permit pursuant to Section
13.39' For those in non-compliance with zoning regulations on some matter
other than the six categories stated above the zoning board of adjustment is
hereby empowered to grant limited conditional exception for specified items of
non-conformance to enable an applicant to obtain a retroactive conversion
permit pursuant to section 13.39 where the board finds there is no practical
way to achieve compliance, and that denial will produce a personal loss on
the part of an individual owner greatly disproportionate to any risks of harm
to other individuals, or to the public as a whole that could be reasonably
attributed to granting the desired exception, and if the same exception can
be granted to all others similarly situated.
however., ib the uze -ins duscontinued ban one years on ib the 6VUtctune ji,5whotty orspaAtia.2.e.y dattoyed, the pntov,us�.on�s ob Section 29. 11 pertaig
to ZawbuZ noneonboremi.ng use shah app.fy.
uses prior to the adoption of this chapter or its amendments, but which
would be prohibited, regulated or restricted under the provisions of
- this chapter. It is the intent of this chapter to permit those noncon-
formities to continue even though they are incompatible with the district
in which they are located so long as provisions hereinafter set forth are
complied with. It is the general intent of this chapter to restrict
nonconformities so that compatibility of land use and zoning will prevail.
(1) Nonconforming Uses of Land. The lawful use of land upon
which no building or structure is erected or constructed,
which is a vested nonconforming use under this and prior
zoning ordinances as adopted or amended, may be continued
so long as such use remains otherwise lawful, subject to the
following provisions:
(a) No such nonconforming use shall be enlarged , increased
or extended to occupy a greater, area of land.
(b) No such nonconforming use shall be moved in whole or
in part to any other portion of the lot or parcel.
(c) No structure or building shall be constructed on or
moved onto the land, unless the use is changed to a use
permitted in that district.
(d) If any such nonconforming use of land ceases for any
reason for a period of one (1) year, any subsequent use
of such land shall conform to the district regulations for
the district in which such land is located.
(2) Nonconforming Uses of Structures. If a lawful use or vested
nonconforming use of a structure, or of a structure and land
in combination, exists at the effective date of adoption or
amendment to these regulations, that would not be allowed in
the district under the terms of these regulations, the use may
be continued so long as it remains otherwise lawful, subject
to the following provisions:
(a) No existing structure devoted entirely or in part to a
use not permitted by this chapter in the district in
which it is located shall be enlarged, extended, recon-
structed, moved on the property, or structurally alter-
ed, unless the use is changed to a use permitted in the
district in which such structure is located.
(Ord. 2861 , Sec. 2, 10-25-83)
SUPP. 14 29-11 Jan . 1 , 1984
Sec. 29. 11. NONCONFORMING USE OF LAND, NONCONFORMING
STRUCTURES AND NONCONFORMING USES OF STRUC-
TURES.
Statement of Intent: Within the various districts established by
this chapter or its amendments, there exist structures and uses of land
with or without structures which were lawful or vested nonconforming
SUPP. 14 29-10 Jan. 1, 1984
(b) Any lawful, vested, nonconforming use shall not be
expanded or extended within the structure beyond the
area of such use occupied at the time a change in the
Zoning regulations made it non-conforming. No such use
shall be extended to any land outside such building.
(c) If no structural alterations are made, a vested non-
conforming use of a structure may be changed to another
similar nonconforming use by means of a special excep-
tion permit granted by the Zoning Board of Adjustment.
However, any proposed change or addition in usage of a
nonconforming use must first be reviewed by the Plan-
ning and Zoning Commission. Such review shall deter-
mine the impact on the surrounding area by considering
the following features:
(i) Similarity of the proposed use to the current use;
GO Traffic impact of the proposed use, including
delivery vehicles;
(iii) Parking adequacy, based on Ordinance parking
standards for the proposed use;
(iv) Compatibility with surrounding land uses, based on
the hours of operation, the ability to incorporate
buffering between the proprosed use and surround-
ing land uses where necessary, the proposed sign-
age, and the ability to alleviate such disturbing
factors as noise, air pollution, and glare.
Any conditions which would create greater disturbing
factors to the surrounding area than those produced by
the prior nonconforming use shall be a basis for denial.
A recommendation shall be forwarded to the Zoning
Board 'of Adjustment for review and determination .
(d) If any such nonconforming use of a structure or land
and structure in combination ceases for any reason for a
period of one (1) year, any subsequent use of such
structure shall conform to the district regulations for the
district in which such structure is located. When vested
nonconforming use status applies to a structure and land
in combination, removal or destruction of the structure
shall terminate the authorization for the nonconforming
use of the land.
SUPP. 14 29-12
Jan. 1, 1984
(e) Any structure lawfully devoted to a use made noncon-
forming by this chapter that is destroyed by any mean's
to the extent of sixty (60) percent or more of its re-
placement cost at the time of destruction, exclusive of
the foundations, shall not be reconstructed except in
conformity with the provisions of this chapter. If the
structure is destroyed less than sixty (60) percent
above the foundation, it may be reconstructed and used
as before provided such reconstruction is done within
one (1) year of such happening and is built of like or
similar materials.
(Ord. No. 2861, Sec. 2, 10-25-83)
(3) Nonconforming Structures. Where a vested nonconforming
structure is nonconforming by reason of restriction on area,
lot coverage, height, yards, or other characteristics of the
structure and its location on the lot, such structure may be
continued so long as it remains otherwise lawful, subject to
the following provisions:
(a) That is is not enlarged or altered in a way which in-
creases its nonconformity, and provided that such en-
largement or addition conforms in all respects to existing
zoning regulations.
(b) That should it be destroyed by any means to an extent
of sixty (60) percent or more of its replacement cost at
time of destruction, exclusive of the foundations, it shall
not be reconstructed except in conformity with the
provisions of this chapter. If the structure is destroyed
less than sixty (60) percent above the foundation, it
may be reconstructed and used as before provided such
reconstruction is done within one (1) year of such
happening and is built of like or similar materials.
(Ord. 2861 , Sec. 3, 10-25-83)
(4) Maintenance and Repair to Vested Nonconforming Structures
and to Structures Devoted Entirely or in Part to Vested
Nonconforming Uses. Nothing in this section shall prohibit
the maintenance and repair of vested nonconforming struc-
tures or structures in sound and safe condition, provided no
structural enlargement, extension or change shall be made to
increase the degree of nonconformity.
(Ord. 2861 , Sec. 4, 10-25-83)
SUPP. 14 29-13 Jan. 1 , 1984