03-16-2003 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

*03-2909 June 12,2003 Pages Background The existing house on this property was constructed in 19S7, 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 w as shown on the sur\*ey when the new home was built. Applicants in 2002 determined to rcstorc/rcmodel 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 respects cosmetic or merely maintenance (w hich City code docs not prohibit), in a few respects structural (w hich City code severely limits), and some of the w ork w as considered to be expansion (w hich City code does not allow for non-conforming lakeshore structures - sec 10,55 Subd. 6B). The Building Official clearly marked the plans to indicate w hich items of w ork could be approved and which w ere not allowable. He also met w ith the builder to explain in detail the extent of work which w as allow ed. The value of the w ork w as estimated by the builder at 520,000. It was the City’s expectation that the building w ould remain in place during the restoration'remodel, as any w ork to repair the foundation would be considered as structural, w ould not be allow cd. and would far exceed "50% of the structure’s value at the time it became non-conforming" w hich 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 docs not appear as a separate cntiy on assessors records. It has been the City policy and code intent to eventually have all such lakeshore structures disappear by attrition; the Code docs 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 w ith massix. beams upon w hich the structure sits. They were advised to stop work. Staff eontacted the City attorney and conferred as to w hethcr the structure h.id lost any ‘legal non-confonming’ status it may have had prior to the move. The conclusion was that if it is placed back on the original foundation (w hich was now laving in pieces on the ground) it would likely retain its grandfathered status, but the new foundation clearly is ’structural alteration’ and undoubtedly exceeds 50*lo of the value of the stiucture in 1975. Applicants w ere advised of their options and chose to apply for an afier-the-fact variance to allow them to replace the structure on its new foundation in the ci-75’ zone. Floodplain Issues. The surv cy provided by the applicant docs no: indicate the 931.5' 100->rar flood elevation contour. However, visual observation at the site suggests that the structure was likely w ithin 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 basi;i. City code would require that the lowest floor elevation of the structure be no lower than 932.5’. Mitigation for