02-13-2006 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• • • ORONO CITY C Monday, Fe' 7:00 of 11. #06 -3171 JOHN AND JOAN BROOKS, 9 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT John Brooks, Applicant, and Christine Albertsson, Gaffron stated the applicants are requesting variance order to relocate and reconstruct an existing deck an( requesting a conditional use permit to allow for insta and sink into the existing nonconfonning lakeshore to the existing accessory building have been determi: noted the request for replacement of an existing fenc Ferndale Road is beyond the scope of the variance pi Code Section 18 -2 regarding obstructions within the Statutes regarding reconstruction of nonconformities The Planning Commission recommended denial of 1 accessory structure on the basis that both replaceme: the accessory building would constitute expansion c of the stairway down the steep slope to the lower lei The Planning Commission relied more on the basis to a location that is still within 75' of the lakeshore 1 would rather eventually have removed. In addition, accessory building to a more habitable space by the nonconforming building from its original storage in expansion of a nonconformity. OF THE fNCIL MEETING iary 13, 2006 ck p.m. FERNDALE ROAD WEST — VARIANCE were present. for lakeshore setback and hardcover in the 0 -75' in access stairway. In addition, the applicants are also ation of plumbing consisting of a toilet, lavatory cessory building. The proposed cosmetic changes -d not to require special zoning approvals. Gaffron completely within the right -of -way of West icess and is subject to the provisions of Municipal ight -of -way, and to the provisions of Minnesota e hardcover variance and CUP for plumbing in an /relocation of the deck and installation of a toilet in a nonconforming use. It was noted that replacement I could be accomplished without variance approval. at relocation and reconstruction of the existing deck prolonging an existing nonconformity that the City ae Planning Commission felt that conversion of the 3dition of plumbing would change the use of that nt to a more recreational use and that this is an 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. 1 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 with the lot is the f the buildable area to a small triangle that would all Albertsson stated given the fact that this structure 1 reasonable request for a variance. Albertsson distributed a three- dimensional view of deck currently sits on a small knoll 11 feet from the that the lot is located on a peninsula, which limits for a recreational structure to be constructed. existed for a long time, the applicant feels it is a deck to the Council. Albertsson pointed out the )reline and that they are proposing to relocate the PAGEi 11 of 25