Correspondence re shed - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. Mr. Patrick Wolfe May 4, 1994 Page 2 • The fact that you had a boat house in the same location for many decades has little bearing on the Ciry's consideration of such structures. City codes are designed to eliminate such structures within rights-of-way or near the lakeshore as they deteriorate. Once the building was removed, it lost any "non-conforming structure" status it may have had. • Further, the fact that you used an existing "foundation" (in this case a deteriorating slab) has little bearing, since per Section 10.55, Subdivision 26 (E), "If any non-conforming use is destroyed by any means including floods to an extent of 50% or more of its assessed value, it shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions of this section". Removal of the old shed constituted a removal of more than 50% of its assessed value. All of the above leads City staff to conclude that you have not made and cannot make a legitimate variance application for this structure. A variance will not be granted for construction of an accessory building on the Ciry right-of-way. The offending structure must be removed immediately. The portion of your $175.00 application fee not used in legal notice publication will be returned. I suggest you relocate the structure to a conforming site on the lot. Zoning Administrator Jeanne Mabusth and I would be happy to meet with you to discuss any of the points in this letter and a possible location on your property that would meet code requirements for the shed. Please contact me or Jeanne as soon as possible at 473-7357 to anange a meeting. Sincerely, � / Michael P. Ga ron Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator MPG/ch Enc. Sections 10.55, Subd. 26; 10.03, Subd. 5 cc: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Qdm. Lyle Oman, Building Official Bruce L. Vang, Field Inspector John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director