Laserfiche WebLink
M3-2909 3980 Dahl Road <br />July 9,2003 <br />Page 3 <br />- The wording of 10 S3, Subd, 26(B) suggests that structural alterations or additions that <br />*Vould substantially reduce potential flood damages for the entire structure” are not limited <br />to the 50% rule. <br />- Section 10.55 Subd. 26(E) should not be applicable because the building has not been <br />destroyed, it has merely been temporarily relocated. <br />Planning Commission was not unanimous in its view of this application. However, on a vote of 4-2, <br />Planning Commission recommended that the boathouse be allowed to placed back onto the <br />foundation, on the basis that it is the original foundation, that the work on it was not structural repair, <br />and should therefore retain its legal nonconforming status, and no variance should be required, <br />even though it was temporarily removed. <br />The minority opinion was that this approval is inconsistent with the way the City has historically <br />treated similar applications for repair/replacement of lakeshore accessory structures. <br />Staff Perspective <br />1. Foundation Alterations. The first issue to resolve is whether the foundation has been altered. <br />Staff believes it has been extensively altered. Staff believes the foundation has been altered as <br />follows: <br />a) The pre-existing beams were unbolted from the sides of the posts and set aside. <br />b) Most if not all of the pre-existing posts were pulled out of the ground (See photos). <br />c) New postholes were dug, Sono-Tubes were installed for some of the posts. <br />d) The old posts were placed into the tubes or holes which were then filled with aggregate <br />to provide stability to the posts. It is unknown whether a concrete pad at a 42" depth was <br />placed; however, such a footing would have been required by building code for a legal <br />foundation replacement. <br />e) The pre-existing beams were then placed on top of the posts rather than alongside them <br />and were held in place by brackets rather than through-bolts. <br />It is staffs opinion that the foundation as it had previously existed was in fact totally removed, and <br />a new foundation was constructed with a combination of old and new materials in a conflguration <br />different than the old foundation. <br />Has it been altered in ways that increase its non-conformity? The building is nonconforming as to <br />location, which is not proposed to change. The building will not increase in size. But it will, as a <br />result of the reconstruction of the foundation, have the potential to remain in place as a <br />nonconforming structure for a much longer period of time. This might be considered as an increase <br />in nonconformity. <br />The actions taken by applicant’s contractors are absolutely consistent with what staff has long <br />considered as structural alterations or additions. We have consistently told people that cosmetic <br />improvements such as re-siding or rerooflng are allowed but that structural improvements are not. <br />The work that is listed above clearly is considered as structural improvement.