Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,August 16, 2004 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#04-3046 Robert and Brenda MacDonald, continued) <br /> could repair or maintain a nonconforming structure. Kelley stated he is submitting to the Planning <br /> Commission that by incorporating the old slab and all the electrical controls,the structure has not been <br /> completely rebuilt. Kelley stated the Planning Commission has the discretion to apply the new statute <br /> if they so choose. <br /> Kelley stated in his view how the City should interpret its code is to first see whether the applicant has <br /> the right to do this nonconforming, and if they do have that right,the person gets a variance. Kelley <br /> stated if the Planning Commission decides the new statute does not apply and deems the project to <br /> have gone beyond repair or remodeling,then the applicant still has the right to ask for a variance. <br /> Bremer stated in her opinion the statute would not be effective for unlawful activity prior to the <br /> effective date of the statute because at the time the construction occurred, it did not comply with the <br /> Minnesota statute. Bremer indicated in her view the Planning Commission does not have the <br /> discretionary authority to apply the new statute but would have the right in terms of their variance <br /> process. Bremer stated in her opinion the Planning Commission is not bound by the new statute and is <br /> not in any way violating the new statute. <br /> Bremer indicated in her view tearing down and rebuilding a structure is not considered a repair or a <br /> remodel,noting that the Planning Commission has deemed some projects to be complete rebuilds <br /> when only half of the structure has been removed. Bremer stated if the applicant had come before the <br /> Planning Commission prior to starting this project,he would have had to follow the normal process <br /> and apply for a variance. Bremer stated the Planning Commission needs to look at this application the <br /> same as it would any application,which would mean that the property should undergo a hardship <br /> analysis. <br /> Bremer commented it does not appear that a hardship exists in this case and that the garage could have <br /> been relocated in a conforming location. <br /> Bremer stated if the Planning Commission had decided to allow reconstruction of the garage in the <br /> same location, it would then have conducted a hardcover analysis. Bremer stated the <br /> Planning Commission should discard the argument concerning whether this is a complete rebuild or a <br /> remodel since it is apparent that it was a rebuild, as well as disregard the state statute since it does not <br /> apply, and then decide whether the Planning Commission would have allowed this,and if so, if a <br /> reduction in hardcover would be appropriate. <br /> Bremer indicated she probably would have approved the garage if an application had been submitted, <br /> but that they then would be undergoing a hardcover analysis. Bremer inquired whether Staff has the <br /> hardcover calculations on this property. <br /> Gundlach indicated they do have the hardcover calculations available. <br /> Rahn stated in his view the excessive hardcover is the issue. <br /> PAGE 22 <br />