Laserfiche WebLink
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, July 14, 2003 <br />7:00 o'clock p.m. <br />(7. #03 -2909 Plekkenpol Builders Inc. on behalf of Tom McGlynn, Continued) <br />cosmetic or merely maintenance (which City code does not prohibit), in a few respects structural <br />(which City code severely limits), and some of the work was considered to be expansion (which City <br />code does not allow for non - conforming lakeshore structures - see 10.55 Subd. 6B). The Building <br />Official clearly marked the plans to indicate which items of work could be approved and which were <br />not allowable. He also met with the builder to explain in detail the extent of work which was <br />allowed. The value of the work was estimated by the builder at $20,000. <br />Gaffron noted that it was the City's expectation that the building would remain in place during the <br />restoration/remodel, as any work to repair the foundation would be considered as structural, would <br />not be allowed, and would far exceed "50% of the structure's value at the time it became non- <br />conforming" which the City had long established as January 1, 1975 when the 75' setback ordinance <br />was adopted. The value at that time was likely minimal, although it does not appear as a separate <br />entry on assessor's records. <br />0 <br />Gaffron explained that it has been the City policy and code intent to eventually have all such <br />lakeshore structures disappear by attrition; the Code does not allow the construction of new • <br />accessory structures within 75' of the shoreline, and clearly intends to limit the ability to make major <br />structural repairs to such structures. <br />Continuing on, Gaffron explained that after issuance of the permit, it was discovered that the builder <br />had temporarily moved the structure off its foundation and set it up on cribbing approximately 50' to <br />the south, where it was being renovated. It was also found that they had done extensive work on the <br />foundation of the structure, which consisted of posts sunk into the ground with beams upon which <br />the structure sits. <br />They were advised to stop work. Staff contacted the City attorney and conferred as to whether the <br />structure had lost any `legal non - conforming' status it may have had prior to the move. The <br />conclusion was that if it was placed back on the original foundation (which was now laying in pieces <br />on the ground) it would likely retain its grandfathered status. However, in staff's opinion the new <br />foundation clearly was `structural alteration' and undoubtedly exceeded 50% of the value of the <br />structure in 1975. <br />The Planning Commission was not unanimous in its view of this application. However, on a vote of <br />4 -2, the Planning Commission recommended that the boathouse be allowed to be placed back onto <br />the foundation, on the basis that it is the original foundation, that the work on it was not structural <br />repair, and should therefore retain its legal nonconforming status, and no variance should be <br />required, even though it was temporarily removed. The minority opinion was that this approval was <br />CJ <br />PAGE 6 OF 21 <br />