12-08-1997 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

comfortable with the amount of structure that was still remaining at the time the building permit was issued on November 20. The builder was in contact with the building inspectors on numerous occasions this fall regarding whether this piece or that piece of the building hai. to be saved, and it eventually became obvious to the builder and the inspectors that the existing superstructure was more of a liability than an asset from a building code standpoint, and its incorporation into the new building could cause certain safety and structural integrity problems. As a result, in the two weeks since the permit was issued, the building inspectors have allowed the entire remaining superstructure to be removed due to its poor condition. Only a small portion of the original building remains intended for re-use, consisting of a portion of the foundation. The foundation under the wing which encroaches the «:ide setback is being totally replaced. The problem this creates is that the final product will be more than 95% new and less than 5% pre existing structure. Staff is concerned that this may not meet the Council’s expectations, and is a change in the circumstances upon which approval was based. Therefore, the job was stopped to(^y at my direction. The builder is quite upset that the inspectors allowed him to remove the remaining structure and then the City stopped the job a few days later because he had done so. The owner is out of town imtil Sunday, but 1 would expect the O'^tier and builder to both be in attendance Monday evening to discuss the situation. Council Action Requested Provide staff and the property owner with direction as to whether the project may proceed. Council may wish to consider one of the following options or some other course of action; 1.Allow the project to continue under the current building permit and variance approval, finding that the remaining foundation is sufficient to still treat this as a remodel. 2.Find that not enough house remains to consider this a remodel, and require that the house be moved to meet the side and lakeshore setbacks, or if that is impossible, a plan be submitted showing what is possible, for variance reconsideration: - If this is the case, then the approved hardcover percentages likely will have to be reconsidered, since part of the approval was for tradeoffs in the 0-75 zone. - Also, the variance resolution will need to be revised to reflect a finding that this is sewered property in a 2-acre zone and meets the 1 -acre/100' width standard for constructing a new house on an existing lot of record. 3.Other.