Laserfiche WebLink
Ericson <br />Page 2 <br />-; A <br />"4.^- cIty , <br />», t .;A- <br />CltyofORONO <br />D / <br />RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br />NO. 1300________ <br />The proposed improvement to the structure is <br />major structural repair. <br />4) Ordinance 31.108 does not permit structural <br />repair of a non conforming structure. <br />If the directive of Ordinance 31.108 had been <br />followed, the applicant would have been made <br />aware of the alternatives available to him at <br />the time of the required staff inspection as <br />follows: <br />If the structure could have been repaired <br />by simple repair (no structural alterations) <br />this could have been done with a building <br />permit. <br />If deterioration of the structure was so <br />severe that removal of the structure is <br />required and applicant is made aware that <br />replacement permits cannot be issued, <br />Ericson could have had the use and benefit <br />of the structure for a few more years until <br />it failed. <br />6) The structural repairs proposed for the structure <br />will require approval of new building work <br />within 75 ft. of the shoreline; Ordinance 34.201 <br />does not permit this. <br />7) The proposed major repairs to the structure <br />would perpetuate 234 sf of hardcover within the <br />75 ft. setback area of the lakeshore which is <br />not allowed per Ordinance 34.202. <br />The complete replacement of the foundation of <br />the structure will extend the life of a non <br />conforming structure; approval of this action <br />would be contrary to the intent and objectives <br />of Ordinance 31.108. <br />9) Ordinance 31.106 would require the removal of <br />the structure for the assessor's records show <br />the fair market value of the structure at <br />§1,170.00 in 1976. <br />10) The applicant was in violation of section 69 B .020 <br />of the Municipal Code when he raised and jacked <br />the building without a permit. The work required <br />a licensed housemover.