07-14-2003 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

M3-2909 3980 Dahl Road July 9,2003 Paged 2. Does Structural Alteration Exceed 50% of1975 Value?. The second issue to resolve is whether the extent of structural alterations is more than 50% of the structure’s value at the time it became nonconforming (1975). Staff believes the value of the structural alterations does exceed the 1975 value of the structure. The mere value of the labor involved in the construction of the new foundation probably exceeds the value of the structure in 1975. No value has been formally established for this structure as of 1975. The assessors’ records do not separately recognize or document its existence on the property. Therefore, we must find other metliods to estimate its value as of 1975. The 12* x 20' (240 s.f.) structure could reasonably be equated to a one-stall detached garage, although it has a flat roof and a wood post/beam foundation which would probably reduce its comparative value. Staff found permits issued in 1975 for detached garages on 8 different properties, ranging in size from 440 s.f. to 768 s.f. with valuations ranging from $2200 to S4000. The average permit valuation was $5.06 per square foot. For the 240 s.f. McGlynn boat house, using a 1975 figure of $5 per square foot, the value of the boathouse in 1975 was probably no more than $1200. This would be replacement value, and does not account for any depreciation based on the (unknown) condition of the building at that time. It follows that, per 10.55 Subd. 26B, the boathouse can undergo no more than $600 in structural repairs during its lifetime. Staff believes the costs of reconstructing the foundation, including moving the building off the foundation, have far exceeded the $600 limit. Applicability of 50% Rule. Applicants attorney suggests the reconstruction of the foundation would “substantially reduce potential flood damages for the entire structure”, and therefore the 30% limit of Subd. 26B does not apply. Staff would submit that applicant had no initial intent to raise the building to meet any flood protection requirements, as evidenced by the lack of foundation revisions shown on their submitted plans. In fact, the plans proposed setting the building freestanding on a rock bed with 6x6 skid beams, rather than posts attached to the ground. This work was disallowed by the Building Official as constituting structural alterations (see approved plan sheets). This structure is located in the Flood Fringe District, i.e. the area between the 929.4’ OHWL and the 931.5' 100-year flood elevation. The beams as currently reconstructed would result in the floor being raised to approximately the 932.5* Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation as would be required if the foundation was being reconstructed to meet code. The building previously apparently sat about 6" lower based on the condition and appearance of the posts, but also was open between the floor joists; now it would be closed with insulation between the joists. It’s difficult to conclude that the raising of the building by 6" will ‘substantially’ reduce flood damage potential to the entire building. It apparently sat for many decades at a height that allowed its floor structure to remain intact and functional in 2003. 3. Was the Building "Destroyed"? The City code does not define the term “destroyed” in the context of non-conformity. Section 10.55 Subd. 26(E) indicates that if a non-conforming building is destroyed to an extent of more than 50% of its assessed value, it may not be ‘reconstructed’ except in conformity with the code; but the City