06-08-1992 Council Minutes2 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zoning File #1679 September 11r 1991 Page 2 of 3 3.The applicant had applied for a garage construction permit in mid*^August. When the Building Inspectors visited this site as part of their hardcover review, they found major work being done on the "bathhouse". While applicant states that the work was merely replacement of siding, the Building Inspectors found that virtually all structural members and the foundation were in the process of being replaced. The second story gazebo structure was supported by 4 new posts on top of new footings, and these posts were open rather than enclosed. The applicant was advised by the Building Inspectors and the Zoning staff that this work could not continue and that a variance would be needed to do anything other than replacement of siding, but that the work the Building Inspectors found far exceeded that cosmetic work. Three weeks later. Inspector Lyle Oman found that the structure had been completely enclosed with no approval to do so. i Dlscnssion Given the requirements of Section 10.55, Subdivision 26 (B), stwff feels that this work was in direct violation of the letter and intent of that section in that virtually every structural aspect of this 8’ x 8' building (i.e. replacement of foundation, beams, posts plus new siding and a door unit) constitute a structural alteration certainly in excess of 50% of the original value of the structure. The Assessor's records do not acknowledge the existence of this 8* X 8' structure aI«''.ough it shows up on the 1968 survey, hence it likely waa never assumed by the Assessor to have a significant value. In the past City staff’s position on structures such as this has been that mere cosmetic repairs such as re-siding or re-roofing have been permitted only to the extent that such work does not include repair to structural members (i.e. one can re-side or re-roof, but replacement of posts, foundations, joists or roof boards requires variance approval for continuing a non-conforming structure in the 0-75* zone). This interpretation evolved because Section 10.55, Subdivision 26 relies on having baseline valuation data which is often not available for this type of lakeshore structure. In the past, the City has in virtually identical situations, required the removal of such structures as they deteriorated. Given the total replacement of the first floor of the structure in question, staff feels that there is no question that the current work far exceeds the 50% allowance for structural maintenance based on a 1975 value. (1975 is the date in which the current Code containing a 75' setback requirement for principal and accessory structures, ¥^35 adopted. In fact, a 75* setback ordinance was first adopted in October of 1973.) t