04-12-2021 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, March 15, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 6 of 7 Bollis said if they throw out the way they measure the code and they were to build these two buildings he just described side-by-side, the one that the code reads measures 30 feet with a pitched roof would actually measure taller than this building and look bigger. Barnhart clarified the peak height would be taller, yes. Bollis noted that is what a person sees driving down the road or standing there – that massing. The way it is proposed, he is okay with that height variance from what the code is just because of that. He clarified he would not be okay with it if it had a pitched roof and they were asking for 5 feet above code. Ressler’s only feedback is that it is a different design style, this is more of a contemporary look and they are not here to design it. Bollis makes a good point that the actual or affective height versus the peaked height and how it is being measured could arguably affect the massing and he would like to look a bit closer at that before he can weigh in on whether he would be agreeable to going above the height restrictions they have in place in the code. He knows they have been pretty reluctant to grant any sort of height variances for proposals like these, but it is a reasonable point of view to say that the actual massing is more favorable this way. It is whether or not the Commission feels that is not going to have as much of an impact. Erickson would like to support the existing guidelines that the City Council has acted on a number of times. He thinks they are trying to accomplish an architectural theme and it is a theme that runs the length of County 112 in Orono and includes a certain height restriction, a pitched roof, and setbacks equal to the height. He is comfortable in sticking with that. Ressler thinks there could be a project here that could be built without having to exceed that measurement and it would certainly be nice to see what that would look like in contrast. McCutcheon noted they should probably talk about the setbacks since it is not a five-acre property, it is much smaller. Is the Commission comfortable putting that much massing on a small lot. They may talk about where those people will walk their dogs, is there any kind of playground area, or anything the people there can enjoy. The rental space was mentioned but it needs to be rented. He would like to see a little more combination towards public space or common areas besides a parking lot. Ressler asked to go to page 9 of the cumulative concept, which shows a backset view of what the building looks like from afar. He thinks that was helpful for him based on setbacks to look at it from that setting. He noted there was a proposal last month and Ressler was very much against it due to the very mild setbacks…he thinks it was 10 feet. This one is proposed at 35 feet and asked if that is correct. Barnhart believes they met the requirements of 50 feet to Wayzata Boulevard and 35 feet to the rear and the side. The proposed plans show 82 feet to Wayzata Boulevard, 36 from the side, and 35 from the rear, so it meets the requirements from a setback perspective. He clarified it meets the prescribed minimum setbacks. There is also a clause in there that the setbacks should be at least the height of the building. If they use the existing grades and measure at 41 feet or so, then they are too close to the property line at 35 and 36 feet. Ressler stated if they were to grant a variance on height that would be an important part that they would need along with that. Kirchner agrees.