08-18-2014 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 21, 2014 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 10 of 30 Gaffron noted the City has rarely granted height variances. The only somewhat similar application Staff has found where a number of stories variance was granted was for an attached garage addition to an existing home on a steeply sloped lot on Highwood Road. In that situation, the garage attachment at the street side was allowed to replace an existing detached garage adjacent to the road. The visual impacts of a third story on a sloped lot may be minimal as compared to the impacts on a flat lot. The impacts of a third story for the applicants’ lakeshore lot are potentially two-fold: 1. The view from the lake of a full three-story façade; 2. The potential impacts of the third story on lake views enjoyed by the neighboring property, especially when the height and average setback variances are coupled. Gaffron stated as it relates to the first impact, Staff acknowledges that there are a significant number of existing Orono homes on Lake Minnetonka that present a three-level façade toward the lake. Many of those likely would be defined as two-story homes based on their placement within the topography. With regard to the second impact, revisions to the roofline to make the third story into a half-story would likely result in a lower peak height and reduced impacts on the neighbor’s views of the lake. However, increasing the ceiling heights of the lower stories could potentially negate any gains by creating a half- story. Gaffron stated there is no guarantee that redesigning to a 2-1/2 story status will reduce the overall height. Gaffron noted the applicants have provided a practical difficulties statement and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. The Planning Commission should determine whether the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner and whether the circumstances of this situation are unique to this property not created by the landowner. In addition, the Planning Commission should determine whether the variances will alter the essential character of the neighborhood and whether the special conditions being applied to this structure and/or property are peculiar to the property or immediately adjoining property. Staff acknowledges that the lot is not functionally buildable unless an average setback variance is granted. Staff does not support the height variance on the basis that a full third story is not necessary for construction of a modest residence on this substandard-sized property. The Planning Commission should hold the public hearing and consider whether there are sufficient practical difficulties to support the average setback variance and/or the height variance. If a recommendation for approval is forthcoming, the Commission should support the recommendation with appropriate findings and determine whether it is necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate any specific impacts created by the granting of the requested variances. If a recommendation for denial is presented, appropriate findings and reasons for denial should be presented. If the Planning Commission desires further information or concludes that other designs should be considered by the applicants, tabling would be in order. Gaffron stated based on some of the information received today from adjacent property owners, the City Attorney has suggested that there are some legal questions that may need to be answered prior to the application moving forward regarding the language in the Special Lot Combination Agreement, and in that case, the Planning Commission should table the application. Item #01 - PC Agenda - 08/18/2014 Approval of Planning Commission Minutes [Page 10 of 30]