07-28-2003 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, Jul> 14,2003 7:00 o ’clock p.m. 6. #03-2906Richard Roberts, 1937 Fagerness Point Road - After-the-Fact Variances As the applicant was not present, GafTron explained that the applicant had requested after-the- fact approval for construction of a retaining wall and stairway system in the 0-7S’ setback zone, constructing hardcover and structure where none is permitted. Staff supported the Planning Commission recommendation. White moved, Sansevere seconded, to 1) Deny the variance to allow retaining walls on the lakeside of the street; but permit construction of a 4* wide stainvay, bringing in 10 cubic yards of topsoil with a staff issued permit in the 0-75* zone to allow that area to become lawn and regrading of the area with the new walls to be removed to provide a stable, maintainable slope including revegetation. 2) Approve a two-tiered retaining wall replacement system on the house side of the road, with landscaping/screening to soften the visual impact for the property located at 1937 Fageruess Poiut Road. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. 7. f 03-2909Plekkenpol Builders Inc. on behalf of Tom McGlynn, 3980 Dahl Road - After- the-Fact Variances Gaffron explained (hat the applicant requests after-the-fact variances for reconstruction of an accessory structure (old boathouse) w ithin the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone where no such structures are normally allowed. A permit was issued for non-structural maintenance and modifications to the building; work proceeded beyond the scope of the permit, including moving the building off its foundation and reconstructing the foundation. Gaffron identified 4 issues for consideration, which would be expanded as Council proceeded: 1. Was the building, including its foundation, altered in ways that increase its non-conformity per 10.55 Subd. 26(A)? 2. Do the changes to the foundation constitute structural alterations that exceed 50% of the building’s value at the time it became non-conforming (1975) per 10.55 Subd. 26(B)? 3. Does removal of the building to a location 50' away and removal/reconstruction of its foundation, constitute it being ‘destroyed’ as that term is used in Section 10.55 Subd. 26(E)? 4. Based on the conclusions to the above questions, if a variance is necessary to allow’ the structure to be placed at its former location, do adequate hardships exist that support the variance request? With regard to the history of this application, Gaffton reported that the 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 respects PAGE 5 OF 21 .• « i J