Quote:
Originally Posted by bizaro86
If the rules don't allow you to rebuild your building on land zoned for that type of building after a fire with changes the city itself described as "modest" then the city should change the rules for everyone.
|
I think the clarification was meant to address the narrative that the City was not allowing a rebuild - full stop. And that it was demanding a high density development, or nothing. That isn't the case. When a structure burns down, you can use the existing permitting to build back what was there. When changes are proposed a new Development Permit was required. This is not discretionary - and if a landowner builds what is not on the current permit, if appealed, they are very exposed. It's the same thing with a house - to "rebuild" on your current permitting, you have to do things like keep the footprint the same. If you want a different house, you go through the normal process with the rules that apply to building envelopes, height, lot coverage, etc. The current regulations called for a different access and drive-thru configuration than was ideal in the minds of the applicant. The applicant disagreed, went for refusal so it could see if SDAB would agree with their argument. Again, there is perfectly reasonable space to debate whether the City's drive thru design standards are good or bad, but to frame this the way it was as City evildoers destroying the dreams of immigrant family out of some dogmatic crusade, I think was the reach.