07-14-2003 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

#03-2909 3980 Dahl Road July 9,2003 Pages may issue a CUP for reconstruction if the building is located outside the floodway (i.e. landward of the 929.4 elevation contour) and is flood proofed, elevated or otherwise protected in conformity with 10.55. Temporary relocation of the structure was not contemplated by City staff and was not divulged by the contractor during the permit application and review process. Had such a relocation been proposed, staff would have immediately advised the contractor that relocation, even on a temporary basis, would put the entire building in jeopardy. This would have been considered in the discussions as part of a variance review had the proposed temporary relocation been anticipated. The City has long held that if a nonconforming building is intended be moved laterally, that it can and should be moved to a conforming location. For many years, we have insisted that once a structure is removed it is gone. Many decks and accessory structures have been dealt with in this manner. The City has required variance applications for scores of decks located within the 0-75' zone which were intended to be merely ‘maintained’ but which became near-total rebuilds, even though they were essentially replaced *in-kind’ partially using pre-existing materials. We fail to see how the removal of this building is any different than removal of a deck to replace parts of it or rebuild it. The building today sits on cribbing in a location that is more conforming to the lakeshore setback than the original location. It was clearly moved from its location, and while perhaps not ‘destroyed’ in the literal context, it no longer exists at its former non-conforming location. It has gone away. It may as well have been moved 50 miles away rather than 50' away. If a lakeshore structure can be moved off its failing foundation and later put back,, what are the limits as to how far it can be moved? 50 feet? 100 feet? Off the property entirely? How about going to the landfill, getting the pieces and putting it back together? That is why we have always stuck with the easily definable solution. Once it’s gone, it’s gone. And it must meet City Code location requirements in its new location. To return any structure to its old non-conforming location should require Council approval. From a zoning context the building in staffs opinion has lost any legal nonconforming status in terms of its location. 4. Should a Variance be Granted? If Council concludes 1) that the building and its foundation have been structurally altered in a way that increases its non-conformity and 2) that the extent of the structural alterations exceeded 50% of its 1975 value, then it follows that a variance is necessary for the building to remain. If Council then concludes that the structural alterations substantially reduce potential flood damages to the structure, then the 50% rule might not apply. In staffs opinion this would not necessarily void the argument that this building ceased to exist at its original location and putting it bock needs a variance. Assuming a variance is required, should it be granted? The variance must be considered on the basis of hardship and the potential impacts on the neighborhood. There are few if any new impacts to the neighborhood. The building has existed at this location for a long time, and if replaced at its former