07-14-2003 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

<l^03-2909 June 12,2003 Page 3 Background The existing house on this property was constructed in 1987, replacing an older home which had been located in the 0-75 ’ zone. Applicants purchased this property in 1993. An old boathouse had existed on the property for many years prior to their purchase (a structure, perhaps not this boathouse, appears in the City’s 1955 airphotos at this exact location) and that boathouse was shown on the survey when the new home was built. Applicants in 2002 determined to restore/remodel the boathouse and their builder applied for a permit to do so in March 2003. City staff reviewed the plans and determined that the extensive work proposed was in some respect*- cosmetic or merely maintenance (which City code does not prohibit), in a few respects structural (which City code severely limits), and some of the work was considered to be expansion (which City code does not allow for non-conforming lakeshore structures - see 10.55 Subd. 6B). The Building Official clearly marked the plans to indicate which items of work could be appro\ cd and which were not allowable. He also met with the builder to explain in detail the extent of work which was allowed. The value of the work was estimated by the builder at $20,000. It was the City’s expectation that the building would remain in place during the restoration/remodel, as any work to repair the foundation would be considered as structural, would not be allowed, and would far exceed “50% of the structure’s value at the time it became non-conforming’’ which the City has long established as January 1, 1975 when the 75 ’ setback ordinance was adopted. The value at that time was likely less than $500, although it does not appear as a separate entry on assessors records. It has been the City policy and code intent to eventually have all such lakeshore structures disappear by attrition; the Code does not allow the construction of new accessory structures w ithin 75 ’ of the shoreline, and clearly intends to limit the ability to make major structural repairs to such structures. After issuance of the permit, it was discovered that the builder had temporarily moved the structure off its foundation and set it up on cribbing approximately 50 ’ to the south, where it was being renovated. It was also found that they had replaced the entire foundation of the structure, which consisted of massive posts sunk into the ground with massive beams upon which the structure sits. They were advised to stop work. Staff contacted the City attorney and conferred as to whether the structure had lost any ‘legal non-conforming’ status it may have had prior to the move. The conclusion was that if it is placed back on the original foundation (which was now laying in pieces on the ground) it would likely retain its grandfathered status, but the new foundation clearly is ‘structural alteration’ and undoubtedly exceeds 50% of the value of the structure in 1975. Applicants were advised of their options and chose to apply for an after-the-fact variance to allow them to replace the structure on its new foundation in the 0-75' zone. Floodplain Issues. The survey provided by the applicant does not indicate the 931.5* 100-year flood elevation contour. However, visual observation at the site suggests that the structure was likely within the floodplain and is subject to floodplain regulations. Floodplain regulations would tend to have two goals: 1) reduce the potential for damage to this structure by flooding; and 2) mitigate the impact the structure has on the volume of flood storage in the Lake Minnetonka basin. City code would require that the lowest floor elevation of the structure be no lower than 932.5 ’. Mitigation for i l1