09-27-2004 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 13, 2004 7:00 o’clock p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS - Roland Jurgens, 111. Representative Jurgens stated he docs not have any comments on tonight’s applications, but requested the City Council provide the Planning Commission Nvith some input on the large vehicle storage amendment. Sansevere noted the situation may have resolved itself since the resident in question is in the process of selling his truck. Gaffron indicated Staff, at the request of the Council, had reviewed whether large vehicle storage should be |x:rmitted with a conditional use permit. Staff has concluded that a conditional use option would not be a good option and that this item would be on this month’s Planning Commission agenda. Sansevere commented that in his opinion the rural character of Orono should be preserved and that people who have lived here for years and have utilr/ed work vehicles should not be pushed out because of complaints from residents of newer developments. Gaffron stated he is aware of appro.ximatcly 12 situations where there may be similar complaints in the future. PUBLIC COMMENTS None ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT 4. JAMES RENDER, 1335 TONK.\WA ROAD - BUILDING HEIGHT - .APPEAL OF ADMINISTIUVTIVE DECISION James Render, Applicant, and Allen Barnard, Attomey-at-Law, were present. Gaffron stated the Applicant is appealing Staffs interpretation of the City’s building height ordinances and policies as they have been applied to his protrosed residence located at 1335 Tonkawa Road. A building permit has not been issued because Staff believes the proposed building height exceeds the 30’ height currently allowed by City codes. GalTron stated the primary issue is the interpretation of the terminology “average height of the highe.st gable of a pitched or hipped roof’, and how the City has interpreted it from a policy stand|H>inl. A .second issue before the Counc.l is whether the low point of measurement must be the current existing grade or a grade proposed when the subdivision was approved but never created. Gaffron explained the City’s code specifies 30’, with a high point and a low point being defined within the code. From Staffs perspective, the defined height of the proposed house is 36.6 feet, or 6.6 feet higher than allowed by code, and was derived at based upon methods that Staff feels arc consistent with the code and with policies that have been established and refined over the past two PAGE 3