Laserfiche WebLink
f - .* V .r. <br />••••^ .•• <br />***.4^**M.^•m <br />■: <br />)- <br />•’•■*^.* <br />•-•• •'k.' *•’ -*-.'» • • •^ <br />liV.,*'-••:• •• <br />. ^ <br />.' • .’ • '*' A *;•,•*•. • *'•*.- <br />•»‘‘‘*''■•*. <br />•/%«..»-.•*'*’/•.*'’•*' <br />»*f •_*• *•■. .’*»—• <br />•.' -..^.-'-i,,-■♦'+C -: V.. <br />.V ^•>■ • -. .**•’• <br />-*».!/#*>V \ »* if*'* «J ****1 <br />;•% .\ •.:..; .V - <br />,rj •‘..**'.. \.v.;-,/•. <br />.V-’.* *•.^.. ,•..-■*7 .. * <br />^•.*- <br />>•■•' <br />*■'. /*-a!''V .' <br />r •■...• <br />■■'■^••'•;.■'-v'-fV-•■':•••■ <br />r' <br />I, * <br />!■■. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .' <br />Zoning File #1679 <br />September 11#1991 <br />Page 2 of 3 <br />3.The applicant had applied for a garage construction permit <br />in mid-August. When the Building Inspectors visited this <br />site as part of their hardcover review# they found major <br />work being done on the "bathhouse". While applicant states <br />that the work was merely replacement of siding# the Building <br />Inspectors found that virtually all structural members and <br />the foundation were in the process of being replaced. The <br />second story gazebo structure was supported by 4 new posts <br />on top of new footings# and these posts were open rather <br />than enclosed. <br />The applicant was advised by the Building Inspectors and the <br />Zoning staff that this work could not continue and that a <br />variance would be needed to do anything other than <br />replacement of siding# but that the work the Building <br />Inspectors found far exceeded that cosmetic work. Three <br />weeks later# Inspector Lyle Oman found that the structure <br />had been completely enclosed with no approval to do so. <br />Diacussion <br />Given the requirements of Section 10.55# Subdivision 26 (B)# <br />staff feels that this work was in direct violation of the <br />letter and intent of that section in that virtually every <br />structural aspect of this 8* x 8* building (i.e. replacement <br />of foundation# beams# posts plus new siding and a door unit) <br />constitute a structural alteration certainly in excess of <br />50% of the original value of the structure. <br />The Assessor's records do not acknowledge the existence of <br />this 8* x 8* structure although it shows up on the 1968 <br />survey# hence it likely was never assumed by the Assessor to <br />have a significant value. In the past City staff's position <br />on structures such as this has been that mere cosmetic <br />repairs such as re-siding or re-roofing have been permitted <br />only to the extent that such work does not include repair to <br />structural members (i.e. one can re-side or re-roof# but <br />replacement of posts# foundations#joists or roof boards <br />requires variance approval for continuing a non-conforming <br />structure in the 0-75' zone).This interpretation evolved <br />because Sectior 10.55#Subdivision 26 relies on having <br />baseline valuation data which is often not available for <br />this type of lakeshore structure. <br />In the past# the City has in virtually identical situations# <br />required the removal of such structures as they <br />deteriorated. Given the total replacement of the first <br />floor of the structure in question# staff feels that there <br />is no question that the current work far exceeds the 50% <br />allowance for structural maintenance based on a 1975 value. <br />(1975 is the date in which the current Code containing a 75' <br />setback requirement for principal and accessory structures# <br />was adopted. In fact# a 75' setback ordinance was first <br />adopted in October of 1973.)