09-20-2004 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINITTESOFTHE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Moflday, AiiK«tt 16,2004 6:00 o*clock p.in. (#04-3046 Robert and Brenda MacDonald, continned) could rqMir or mainuim a nonconfomung structure. Kelley suted he is submitung to the Planning Commission that by incorporating the old slab and all the electrical controls, the structure has not been completely rebuilt. Kelley stated the Planning Commission has the discretion to apply the new statute if th^ so choose. Kelley stated in his view how the City* should interpret its code is to first see whether the applicant has the nght to do this nonconforming, and if they do has-e that right, the person gets a vanance. Kelley stated if the Planning Commission decides the new statute does not apply and deems the project to have gone beyond repair or remodeling, then the applicant still has the nght to ask for a vanance. Bremer stated in her opinion the statute would not be clTcctivc for unlaw ful activity prior to the cfTcctive dale of the statute because at the time the construction occurred, it did not comply with the Minnesota statute. Bremer indicated in her view the Planning Commission docs not have the discretionary authonty to apply the new statute but would have the nght in terms of their vanance process. Bremer stated m Iict opinion the Planning Commission is not bound by the new statute and is not in any way xiolating the new statute. Bremer indicated in her view tearing down and rebuilding a structutc is nut considered a repair or a remodel, noting that the Planning Commission has deemed some projects to be complete rebuilds w hen only half of the structure has been removed. Bremer stated if the applicant had come before the Planning Commission pnor to starting this project, he would ha\e had to follow the normal process and apply for a variance. Bremer stated the Planning Commission needs to look at this application the same as it would any application, which would mean that the property should undergo a hardship analysis. Bremer commented it does not appear that a hardship exists m this case and that the garage could have been relocated m a conforming location. Bremer stated if the Planning Commission had decided to allow reconstruction of the garage in the same location, it would then have conducted a hardcover analysis. Bremer stated the Planning Commission should discard the argument concerning w hether this is a complete rebuild or a icmodel since it is apparent that it was a rebuild, as well as disregard the state statute since it does not apply, and then decide whether the Planning Commission would have allow ed this, and if so. if a reduction in hardcover would be appropriate. Bremer indicated she probably w ould have approved the garage if an application had been submmed. but that they then would be undergoing a hardcover analysis. Bremer inquired w hether Staff has the hardcover calculations on this property. Gundlach indicated they do have the hardcover calculations available. Rahn staled m his view the excessive hardcover is the issue. PAGE 22