Laserfiche WebLink
Issue of Establishing Precedent <br />Allowing this structure to be removed from its foundation and temporarily relocated while the <br />foundation is reconstructed, would have been called out as tequiring a variance before the fact and <br />should be considered no differently after the fact. Similar cases in the past have been treated as <br />requiring a variance. In 1981, John Erickson at 1620 Shadywood Road did similar work on a <br />lakeshore structure and was made to remove the structure. His variance was denied (See Exhibit B). <br />In more recent history, the Council has approved the renovation of some lakeshore accessory <br />structures and denied others. The consistency is that each has had to go through the variance <br />process. <br />City Attomey*s Conclusions <br />City Attorney Tom Barrett initially concluded that if the building underwent no structural alterations <br />but merely cosmetic alterations, it could be moved back onto the pre-existing un-altered foundation <br />without losing its legal nonconforming status. However, assuming the foundation reconstruction is <br />a structural alteration, the legal non-conforming status of the building is negated if the value of the <br />alterations exceeds 50% of the 1975 building value. <br />Mr. Barrett has suggested that this situation is primarily a matter of facts as opposed to a matter of <br />law, in terms of whether a variance is required. The law is clear, the facts need to be resolved. <br />Staff Recommendation <br />1. Staff concludes that the reconstruction of the foundation constitutes structural alterations in <br />excess of 50% of the structure’s value when it became nonconforming. <br />2. Staff concludes that the removal of the structure from its nonconforming location cannot be <br />condoned except in the context of a variance, or the City risks claims of inconsistent <br />treatment between similarly situated properties. <br />3. Staff has not seen convincing evidence that the structure has been or will be changed in a <br />manner that substantially reduces its potential for flood damage, and therefore staffconcludes <br />the exemption in 10.55 Subd. 26B does not apply. <br />4. Staff concludes that the variance process is the only method via which the structure ^ould <br />be allowed to be replaced back into its former location.