07-28-2003 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE OmONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 14,2003 7:00 o*clock p.m. (7. M13-2909 Piekkenpol Builders luc. on behalf of Tom McGlynn, Continued) long held that if a nonconforming building is intended be moved laterally, that it can and should be moved to a conforming location. 4. Should a Variance be Granted? If Council concludes I) 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. Gaffron stated that in staffs opinion this would not necessarily void the argument that this building ceased to exist at its original location and putting it back 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 location will not alter the essential character of the locality. The hardship is self-imposed, perhaps unknowingly, by removing the structure in order to do work on it. Issue of EstabllshlDg Precedent Gaffron maintained that allowing this structure to be removed from its foundation and temporarily relocated while the foundation is reconstmeted. would have been called out as requiring a variance before the fact and should be considered no differently after the fact. Similar cases in the past have been treated as requiring a variance. In 1981, John Erickson at 1620 Shadywood Road did similar work on a lakeshorc structure and was made to remove the structure. His vai >ance was denied. In more recent history, the Council has approved the renovation cf some lakeshore accessory structures and denied others. The consistency is that each has had to go through the variance process. Ill conclusion, Gaffron reviewed tbe Staff Recommendations as follows: 1. 2. Staff concludes that the reconstruction of the foundation constitutes structural alterations in excess of 50% of the structure’s value when it became nonconforming. Staff concludes that the removal of the structure from its nonconforming location ca.nnot be condoned except in the context of a variance, or the City risks claims of inconsistent treatment between similarly situated properties. PAGE 9 OF 21