Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />October 16, 2023 <br />6:00 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />PUBLIC HEARINGS <br /> <br />5. LA23-000058 TRIPP SNYDER, 1513 BAY RIDGE ROAD, TWO PUBLIC <br />HEARINGS <br />a) An Appeal of the staff interpretation of Section 78-1279 relating to this request. <br /> <br />b) After-the-fact approval of setback variances to address expansions to a nonconforming deck <br /> <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 /> <br />Bollis restated the facts of the application for verification. He said the first public hearing would be on the <br />appeal process. <br /> <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 /> <br />Chair Bollis opened the public hearing on the code appeal at 7:41 p.m. p.m. <br /> <br />There were no public comments. <br /> <br />Chair Bollis closed the public hearing at 7:41 p.m. <br /> <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.