04/15/2013 Planning Commission Minutes

Metadata

Thumbnails

Annotations

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEET3NG Monday,Apri115,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. percent when applied to the list of structures. Section 78-1366(b)states that heights in excess of those allowed under subsection(a)of this section for the uses enumerated in that subsection may be permitted only by conditional use permit. Gaffron stated the first code section did not require a conditional use permit for the first 50 percent increase. You could have a structure 30 feet in height by code, and if you wanted to go another 50 percent or go to 45 feet,you did not need a conditional use permit. The items listed as structures included such things as church spires, belfries,cupolas and domes which do not contain useable space, monuments,water towers, fire and hose towers,observation towers,flagpoles, chimneys, and at one time smoke stacks. Mot city codes have gotten rid of smoke stacks as an allowed structure. Also included were parapet walls extending not more than three feet above the height of the building, cooling towers and elevator penthouses. This changed in 1977 when three changes were made via Ordinance No. 198: "Antenna or antenna structure"was added to the list; "Silos and other typical farm structures"was deleted from the list; and the conditional use permit requirement was added(antennas were removed in 1997 when a new section was added to each zoning district regarding"communication reception/transmission devices".) In order to get the first 50 percent increase above 30 feet, a conditional use permit was required, but then it also said if you want more than what is allowed,you would need another conditional use permit. There is no difference today in the way the City looks at a conditional use permit in that a resident would require a conditional use permit for the first extra 50 percent and to go higher,you would require another one. Under either section(a)or(b), a conditional use permit is required to exceed the standard height limit. The conditional use permit process and required findings are the same in either case, so the exiting language is confusing. Staff has presented four alternative concepts for discussion: Option 20A. No concept change: +50%and>SO%both require a CUP. In this option we eliminate the language in Part(b)and add the CUP code reference to Part(a). Option 20B. Concept change: +SO%via CUP and>SO%via variance. The intent here would be that the first 50% is a matter of right if the CUP findings are met, but anything above that is a variance requiring that practical di�culty be shown- i.e.harder to obtain. Option 20C. Concept change: +SO% OK; >SO%via CUP. In this option the extra 50% is allowed for the list of structures without any approval process required. If you want more than 50% increase, you need a CUP. This is what was in place from 1968 to 1977. Option 20D. Concept change:No Limit. Under this option,which is in place in a number of other cities,the height limits established by code simply do not apply to this same list of structures(this list is common to many cities' codes). In some cases,they have other height-limiting standards for certain items within the list.Examples include the Cities of Shorewood,Plymouth,Minnetonka, and Lakeville. Landgraver stated he has an observation tower in his back yard and asked how tall it could be under Option C. Landgraver indicated it is currently 20 feet and his house is 30 feet. Gaffron stated under Option C, he could go to 150 percent under 30 feet or 45 feet without any approvals. ` � Page 20 of 26