02-09-1987 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MACKALL. CROUNSE a MOORE Ms. Kathleen Hlatz Page 3 January 30, 1987 position is that under Odell the City cannot require removal of the plumbing, or any other alteration of this non -conforming structure, and therefore, the subdivision should be granted irre- spective of the status of the guest house. If the City believes it has the authority to require a conditional use permit to be granted before the non -conforming structure can be used, it may pursue whatever enforcement mechanisms it has available after the subdivision. However, it is highly unlikely that the City could effectively deny a use permit for use of the structure as a guest house, because the various criteria articulated for granting a conditional use permit for a guest house pursuant to Orono, Minn., Rev. Ordinances § 10.20, Subd. 3(G), relate to lot dimension and set -back requirements, and not to the use itself. Since it is a non -conforming structure and has been grandfathered in, the City would be precluded from attacking the location or existence of the structure. In that posture, there would be no grounds for denial of the conditional use permit for the guest house. Note that under Issue F, Item 11, the staff a; dined to recommend that the barns be removed. As we discuss,-, I be- lieve that the Odell rule absolutely protects the barns in the context of this subdivision, and that the City has no authority to condition the granting of the subdivision on removal of the barns. The Estate therefore agrees with the staff's position on this matter. With respect to the farmt a set -back variance is not required because the farmhor non -conforming structure. The City has no authority to re( removal nor deny the subdivision due to its existence u•,c Jel). Therefore, the variance serves no function exceF' .ality. It may be opportune to grant the variance a. , however, and the Estate would certainly not object . nL..,g a variance to the 50' set -back requirement. With respect to Issue G. since Lot 1 is not a "through lot" as defined by the City's ordinances, and Lot 2 is not a "corner lot" (it is not a lot bounded by two "streets"; see dis- cussion above relating to "through lots" and C--ro, Minn., Rev. Ordinances § 10.02(35)), the City cannot reyui zonditional use permits for placement of accessory structures .a the lots in the future. With respect to Item 13, I am unclear as to the precise meaning and application of the requirement that "accessory struc- ture shall be no closer to County Road 6 than the extended front line of the existing (or future) primary residence on Lot 2," but will seek clarification from Mr. Gaffron. The Estate's positionon