02-27-2006 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUI�TCIL MEETING Monday,February 13, 2006 7:00 o'clock p.m. 11. #06-3171 JOHN AND JOAnT BROOKS, 905 FER�'DALE ROAD WEST—VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT John Broolcs, Applicant, and Christine Albertsson, Architect, were present. Gaffron stated the applicants are requesting variances for lakeshore setUack and hardcover in the 0-75' in order to relocate and reconstruct an eaisting deck and access stairway. In addition, the applicants are also requesting a conditional use permit to allow for installation of plumbing consisting of a toilet, lavatory and sink into the existing nonconfornling lakeshore accessory building. The�roposed cosmetic changes to the existing accessory Uuilding have been detern�ined not to require special zoning approvals. Gaffron noted the request for replacement of an existing fence completely within the right-of-way of West Ferndale Road is beyond the scope of the variance process and is subject to the provisions of Municipal Code Section 18-2 regarding obstructions within the right-of-way, and to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes regarding reconstruction of nonconfornzities. The Planning Commission recommended denial of the hardcover variance and CUP for plumbing in an accessory structure on the basis that Uoth replacement/relocation of the deck and installation of a toilet in the accessory building would constitute expansion of a nonconfornling use. It was noted that replacement of the stairway down the steep slope to the lower level could be accomplished without variance approval. The Planning Commission relied more on the basis that relocation and reconsn-uction of the existing deck to a location that is still within 75' of the lakeshore is prolonging an existing nonconformity that the City would rather eventually have removed. In addition, the Planning Coinmission felt that conversion of the accessory building to a more habitable space by the addition of plumbing would change the use of that nonconforming building from its original storage intent to a more recreational use and that this is an expansion of a nonconfonnity. Staff had initially recommended approval subject to the Planning Commission concluding that there would be no visual impacts to the neighborhood. The conclusion that the addition of plumbing and the reconstruction of the deck next to the building would convert this to a higher-intensity use is a compelling argument in favor of denial. Staff would caution that the owner may have the right to reconstruct the deck"in kind" in its current location based on State Statutes. However,relocating it clearly requires a variance, and if Council concludes that such a variance would result in expansion of a nonconforming use, then denial may be appropriate. Albertsson stated their application for the plumbing was based on 78-303 Item 17 of the zoning code which states that a toilet is a permitted use in an accessory building on a lot greater than two acres in size as long as the residential character of the neighborhood is not altered. Albertsson noted this lot consists of 4.5 acres and that in their opinion it would not alter the residential character of the neighborhood. Albertsson stated the difficulty��vith the lot is the fact that the lot is located on a peninsula, which limits the buildable area to a small triangle that would allow for a recreational structure to be constructed. Albertsson stated given the fact that this structure has existed for a long time, the applicant feels it is a reasonable request for a variance. Albertsson dish-ibuted a three-dimensional view of the deck to the Council. Albertsson pointed out the deck cunently sits on a small ]cnoll 11 feet fiom the shoreline and that they are proposing to relocate the PAGE 11 of 25