Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,July 21,2014 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Gaffron noted the City has rarely granted height variances. The only somewhat similar application Staff <br /> has found where a number of stories variance was granted was for an attached garage addition to an <br /> existing home on a steeply sloped lot on Highwood Road. In that situation,the garage attachment at the <br /> street side was allowed to replace an existing detached garage adjacent to the road. <br /> The visual impacts of a third story on a sloped lot may be minimal as compared to the impacts on a flat <br /> lot. The impacts of a third story for the applicants' lakeshore lot are potentially two-fold: <br /> 1. The view from the lake of a full three-story façade; <br /> 2. The potential impacts of the third story on lake views enjoyed by the neighboring property, <br /> especially when the height and average setback variances are coupled. <br /> Gaffron stated as it relates to the first impact, Staff acknowledges that there are a significant number of <br /> existing Orono homes on Lake Minnetonka that present a three-level façade toward the lake. Many of <br /> those likely would be defined as two-story homes based on their placement within the topography. <br /> With regard to the second impact, revisions to the roofline to make the third story into a half-story would <br /> likely result in a lower peak height and reduced impacts on the neighbor's views of the lake. However, <br /> increasing the ceiling heights of the lower stories could potentially negate any gains by creating a half- <br /> story. Gaffron stated there is no guarantee that redesigning to a 2-1/2 story status will reduce the overall <br /> height. <br /> Gaffron noted the applicants have provided a practical difficulties statement and should be asked for <br /> additional testimony regarding the application. The Planning Commission should determine whether the <br /> property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner and whether the circumstances of this <br /> situation are unique to this property not created by the landowner. In addition,the Planning Commission <br /> should determine whether the variances will alter the essential character of the neighborhood and whether <br /> the special conditions being applied to this structure and/or property are peculiar to the property or <br /> immediately adjoining property. <br /> Staff acknowledges that the lot is not functionally buildable unless an average setback variance is granted. <br /> Staff does not support the height variance on the basis that a full third story is not necessary for <br /> construction of a modest residence on this substandard-sized property. <br /> The Planning Commission should hold the public hearing and consider whether there are sufficient <br /> practical difficulties to support the average setback variance and/or the height variance. If a <br /> recommendation for approval is forthcoming,the Commission should support the recommendation with <br /> appropriate findings and determine whether it is necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate any <br /> specific impacts created by the granting of the requested variances. If a recommendation for denial is <br /> presented, appropriate findings and reasons for denial should be presented. If the Planning Commission <br /> desires further information or concludes that other designs should be considered by the applicants,tabling <br /> would be in order. <br /> Gaffron stated based on some of the information received today from adjacent property owners,the City <br /> Attorney has suggested that there are some legal questions that may need to be answered prior to the <br /> application moving forward regarding the language in the Special Lot Combination Agreement, and in <br /> that case,the Planning Commission should table the application. <br /> Page 10 of 30 <br />