07-14-2003 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

#03-2909 3980 Dihl Road July 9,2003 Page 2 in a few respects structural (which City code severely limits), and some of the work was considered to be expansion (which City code docs not allow for non-conforming lakeshore structures - see 10.55 Subd. 6B). The Building Official clearly marked the plans to indicate which items of work could be approved and which were not allowable. He also met with the builder to explain in detail the extent of work which was allowed. The value of the work was estimated by the builder at $20,000. It was the City’s expectation that the building would remain in place during the restoration/remodel, as any work to repair the foundation would be considered as structural, would not be allowed, and would far exceed “50% of the structure’s value at the time it became non-conforming’’ which the City has long established as January 1,1975 when the 75' setback ordinance was adopted. The value at that time was likely minimal, although it does not appear as a separate entry on assessors records. It has been the City policy and code intent to eventually have all such lakeshore structures disappear by attrition; the Code does not allow the construction of new accessory structures within 75' of the shoreline, and clearly intends to limit the ability to make major structural repairs to such structures. After issuance of the permit, it was discovered that the builder had temporarily moved the structure off its foundation and set it up on cribbing approximately 50' to the south, where it was being renovated. It was also found that they had done extensive work on the foundation of the structure, which consisted of posts sunk into the ground with beams upon which the structure sits. They were advised to stop work. Staff contacted the City attorney and conferred as to whether the structure had lost any ‘legal non-conforming’ status it may have had prior to the move. The conclusion was that if it is placed back on the original foundation (which was now laying in pieces on the ground) it would likely retain its grandfathered status. However, in staffs opinion the new foundation clearly is ‘structural alteration’ and undoubtedly exceeds 50% of the value of the structure in 1975. Planning Commission Review Please review the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting. The applicant and his attorney disputed the facts of this situation. They claimed that: - The City should have realized that the building would have to be moved offits foundation to accomplish certain items of work which were approved with the pcimit, i.e. installation ol 3/4" plywood sheeting and 8" insulation below the existing floor. - The foundation was not replaced, it was merely rebuilt using mostly existing materials. - The reconstruction of the foundation did reconfigure the post and beam relationships; the beams are now sitting on top of the posts rather than being bolted to the sides of the posts. This results in less encroaclunent of the floodplain, if that is an issue, and makes for a better foundation. - The City Attorney had provided staff with a verbal opinion that if the building was placed back on its existing foundation, it would not lose its legal nonconforming status. J