My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07-14-2003 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2003
>
07-14-2003 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/8/2023 1:57:55 PM
Creation date
2/8/2023 1:55:04 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
195
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Date Application Received: S-22-03 <br />Dale Application Considered as Complete: 6-S4I3 <br />60-Day Review Period Expires: 8-7-03 <br />REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION <br />JUL t 4 2005 <br />CITY OH OHONO <br />Dale: July 9,2003 <br />Item No.: *1 <br />Department Approval:Administrator Approval: <br />Name: Michael P. Gaf&on <br />Title: Planning Director <br />Agenda Section: <br />Zoning <br />Item Descriptloii: #03-2909 Plekkenpol Builders/Tom McGlyim, 3980 Dahl Road <br />- After-the-Fact Variances <br />List of Exhibits <br />A - Draft Planning Commission Minutes 6-23-03 <br />B - Resolution No. 1300 adopted July 27, 1981 (Similar case) <br />C - Memo and Exhibits of 6-12-03 <br />Appiication Summary: Applicant requests aftcr-the-fact variances for reconstruction of an <br />accessory structure (old boathouse) within the 0-7S' lakeshore setback zone where no such <br />structures are normally allowed. A permit was issued for non-structural maintenance ..nd <br />modifications to the building; work proceeded beyond the scope of the permit, iticiuding <br />moving the building off its foundation and reconstructing the foundation. <br />issues for Discussion: <br />1. Was the building, including its foundation, altered in ways that increase its non <br />conformity per 10.55 Subd. 26(A)? <br />2. Do the changes to the foundation constitute structural alterations that exceed 50% of the <br />building ’s value at the time it became non-conforming (1975) per 10.55 Subd. 26(B)? <br />3. Does removal of the building to a location 50* away and rcmoval/reconstruction of its <br />foundation, constitute it being ‘destroyed’ as that term is used in Section 10.55 Subd. 26(E)? <br />4. Based on the conclusions to the above questions, if a variance is necessary to allow the <br />structure to be placed at its former location, do adequate hardships exist that support the <br />variance request? <br />Synopsis <br />The old boathouse in question has existed on the property for many years (a structure, pertiaps not <br />this boathouse, appears in the City’s 1955 airphotos at this exact location) and was shown on the <br />survey when the current home was built in 1987. Applicants purchased the property in 1993. <br />Applicants in 2002 determined to restore/remodel the boathouse and their builder applied for a <br />permit to do so in March 2003. City staff reviewed the plans and determined that the extensive work <br />proposed was in some respects cosmetic or merely maintenance (which City code does not prohibit).
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.