My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07/21/2014 Planning Commission Minutes
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
2010-2019
>
2014
>
07/21/2014 Planning Commission Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/21/2018 11:46:32 AM
Creation date
12/21/2018 11:46:28 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
30
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,July 21,2014 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Gaffron stated the house has a peak height of 44 feet from the lowest point at grade to the peak. Gaffron <br /> stated the building technically meets the definition of building height because it meets a 30-foot building <br /> height by definition. Gaffron stated if the question is whether the height of each of the floors is reduced, <br /> would the height of the building be reduced and have less of an impact to the neighboring property than at <br /> 44 feet, then in that situation the peak height could be reduced down to 40 or 42 feet. <br /> Schoenzeit stated a redesign could help support their position. <br /> Leskinen stated even if there are three short stories,that would still be a problem since there would still be <br /> three stories. <br /> Gaffron stated it is not too tall but that it exceeds the number of allowable stories. <br /> Johnson stated the problem is when they read the City's ordinance, they thought it meant the level before, <br /> which is two-thirds of the basement. Johnson indicated they were not thinking that it went up to the next <br /> story to figure that out. Due to the extreme slopes on the site and the erosion that has happened over time, <br /> you end up with a situation where the City is not allowing for the floor of the garage and the floor of the <br /> house. Johnson stated if a different set of rules are imposed that says because the garage floor is not close <br /> to the main living floor, then that creates an issue, but that is not what the ordinance says. <br /> Thiesse stated he would disagree with Mr. Johnson since it says the floor above the basement and not the <br /> floor adjacent to the basement. <br /> Johnson stated there are two floors. <br /> Thiesse stated there is only one floor above the garage. <br /> Schoenzeit stated if the majority of the basement is six feet, it would be considered a basement. <br /> Johnson asked if you would not use the majority of the floor that is over the basement as it relates to <br /> figuring the six foot line. <br /> Schoenzeit stated you would use the floor above from where you are measuring. <br /> Johnson stated they did not understand the ordinance to be saying that. Johnson stated the house has been <br /> broken into two wings and that they did not see anything in the ordinance that would cover that. <br /> Gaffron stated he does not agree with Mr. Gronberg's analysis that because this is over 50 percent, you <br /> should be using the other one. Gaffron stated they should be using the floor above the basement that goes <br /> across the entire length of the house. Gaffron noted Staff has had this discussion with the applicants and <br /> their representatives. <br /> Johnson stated the house is approximately 2,500 square feet for the upper two stories and the basement is <br /> 1,000 square feet. <br /> Gronberg asked if there will be any discussion about the contours. Gronberg stated they would like to use <br /> the natural contours for determining the height of the story. <br /> Page 15 of 30 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.