07-14-2003 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE • ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 14, 2003 7:00 o'clock p.m. (7. #03 -2909 Plekkenpol Builders Inc. on behalf of Tom McGlynn, Continued) No value has been formally established for this structure as of 1975. The assessors' records do not separately recognize or document its existence on the property. Therefore, we must find other methods to estimate its value as of 1975. Taking liberty, Gaffron believed the 12'x 20'(240 s.f.) structure could reasonably be equated to a one -stall detached garage, although it has a flat roof and a wood post/beam foundation which would probably reduce its comparative value. Staff found permits issued in 1975 for detached garages on 8 different properties, ranging in size from 440 s.f. to 768 s.f. with valuations ranging from $2200 to $4000. The average permit valuation was $5.06 per square foot. For the 240 s.f. McGlynn boat house, using a 1975 figure of $5 per square foot, the value of the boathouse in 1975 was probably no more than $1200. This would be replacement value, and does not account for any depreciation based on the (unknown) condition of the building at that time. It follows that, per 10.55 Subd. 26B, the boathouse could undergo no more than $600 in structural repairs during its lifetime. Gaffron noted that staff believes the costs of reconstructing the foundation, including moving the building off the foundation, have far exceeded the $600 limit. • Applicability of 50% Rule. Applicant's attorney suggests the reconstruction of the foundation would "substantially reduce potential flood damages for the entire structure ", and therefore the 50% limit of Subd. 26B does not apply. Staff would submit that applicant had no initial intent to raise the building to meet any flood protection requirements, as evidenced by the lack of foundation revisions shown on their submitted plans. 3. Was the Building "Destroyed "? Gaffron noted that since the City code does not define the term "destroyed" in the context of non- conformity. Section 10.55 Subd. 26(E) indicates that if a non - conforming building is destroyed to an extent of more than 50% of its assessed value, it may not be `reconstructed' except in conformity with the code; but the City may issue a CUP for reconstruction if the building is located outside the floodway (i.e. landward of the 929.4 elevation contour) and is flood proofed, elevated or otherwise protected inconformity with 10.55. Temporary relocation of the structure was not contemplated by City staff and was not divulged by the contractor during the permit application and review process. Had such a relocation been proposed, staff would have immediately advised the contractor that relocation, even on a temporary basis, would put the entire building in j eopardy. This would have been considered in the discussions as part of a variance review had the proposed temporary relocation been anticipated. The City has r1 U PAGE 8 OF 21