Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> October 16,2023 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> City Planner Curtis explained that in June the property owner submitted a building permit application to <br /> rebuild an existing 16' x 24' deck, in-kind. During the construction the City's building inspector noted <br /> discrepancies between the previous deck and the deck under construction. The new deck had been <br /> elevated from the existing approximately 7-8 inches, so that the deck was even with the door threshold <br /> eliminating a step down from the home to increase safety. This small deck height increase within the ALS <br /> and side yard setback is considered to be an expansion of the volume of the deck within the setback. The <br /> previous deck did not have a guard rail. The newly reconstructed deck requires a guard rail following <br /> MN State Building Code Guidelines. The new railings would be an expansion of the existing deck within <br /> the ALS.The stair on the north side of the deck was reoriented.The previous stairs were set into the deck <br /> at the northeast corner and joined a set of stairs which were set into the grade.Due to the height increase <br /> the existing stair configuration would not be able to meet building code requirements.To address this the <br /> owner turned the stair 90 degrees toward the lake and widened the treads by 1 foot,4 inches. A second <br /> staircase against the home on the south side of the deck was eliminated and the deck was constructed to <br /> abut the home. The owner has filed two separate applications,each requiring a public hearing. The first is <br /> an appeal of the staff interpretation of the deck stair within the average lakeshore setback(ALS);and the <br /> second is an after-the-fact(ATF)approval of an average lakeshore setback and side yard setback variance <br /> for the expansion of a reconstructed deck within the setbacks. Staff recommends the Planning <br /> Commission uphold the staff. The owner asserts that 78-1279(6)permits all stairs within the average <br /> lakeshore setback. Staff position is that because the stair in question is an integral part of the deck <br /> connected to the home,and not a stair to access the lake or a dock, it is not permitted within the average <br /> lakeshore setback. <br /> Bollis restated the facts of the application for verification. He said the first public hearing would be on the <br /> appeal process. <br /> Tripp Snyder, 1513 Bay Ridge Road,the applicant, said they have owned the house since 2007.His <br /> appeal on the staff's interpretation is a reading of the code,which he quoted to the Commission. Staff <br /> interprets this section as applying only to stairs go down to a dock.He said the code in his opinion <br /> excludes deck stairs. <br /> Chair Bollis opened the public hearing on the code appeal at 7:41 p.m. p.m. <br /> There were no public comments. <br /> Chair Bollis closed the public hearing at 7:41 p.m. <br /> Bolllis said traditionally in this section of code stairways attached to decks have been park of the principal <br /> structure but he tends to agree code was written to exempt stairways from the average lakeshore setback. <br /> If that is the case,they need to clarify but have no way of knowing what the original intent was. He said <br /> he intends to agree with the applicant. <br /> Ressler said he agrees the language needs to be cleaned up but he agrees with the staff interpretation of it. <br /> Libby said there have been many situations where they have applied this code and he cannot agree with <br /> the applicants.He supports the Commission's previous decisions which have been upheld by the City <br /> Council. He said they have been consistent in advising the City Council on that. <br /> Ressler said he was prepared to deny the appeal and move on to the application. <br /> Page 7 of 11 <br />