09-28-1988 - Agenda Packet City Council - regular meeting

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEKBER 12, 1988 ZONING PILE #1275-DOUGLAS JOHNSON CONTINUED Mayor Grabek drew the applicant's attention back to page two, paragraph D, of the Resolution which indicated that the applicants' intened to add to an existing structure. At this time there is no existing structure and the stipulation is that under that condition, the proposed house must be moved to meet the setback requi ants. Mayor Grabek asked Mr. Johnson if he had revised his pi to conform with that stipulation. He also asked whether it .s the applicants' intent from the very beginning to remove the existing structure. Mr. Johnson responded that per the engineer's recommendations, yes, he did intend to remove the existing house. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron told the Mayor that it was staff's understanding that applicant would try to retain as much of the old structure as possible. The key point is that the City Building Inspector had determined that there are not sufficient footings for the proposed structure. Mr. Zimniewicz's recommendations were based upon the assumption that those footings were adequate., The City cannot approve building a house with the existing portion of foundation as is. New footings would need to be installed under that wall and that cannot be done. The wall will need tc be removed which would leave nothing of the initial structure. That would result in the proposed house being moved to meet the setback requirements as set forth in Resolution #2463. Councilmember Peterson asked it all the remaining wall would need to Le removed? Gaffron replied that yes, due to a lack of sufficient footings, all walls would need to be removed. The applicant asked why the engineer did not notice this problem when he examined the property. Gaffron stated that Mr. Zimniewicz assumed that there were 12" x 24" footings, there were not. The City cannot allow a 2-story structure to be built without proper footings. Councilmember Goetten added that Minnesota Codes dictate in this case, not the City of Orono. Mr. Johnson stated that he was just going by the findings of the structural engineer. Gaffron stated that the engineer's assumptions of what existed were found later to be incorrect and there was nothing that could be done at this point to change that. City Administrator Bernhardson stated that the original application and plans were requesting a remodelling of an existinq house. There was no mention of the foundation or redoing the joists. Mayor Grabek was alarmed by the aspect of this application being a request for rerrodeA ing only. Mr. Johnson objected to the implications that there wa,; no existing house on the property. Councilmember Goetten explai.. �d to Mr. Johnson that in cases such as this, she would like to ;ee the applicants' uphold the setback requirements. They are no 'onger remodeling :n existing structure; there is no existing structure, the; are building a completely new house. She reminded the applicant that she had discussed this with him and warned hi.: of 12