My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09-27-2004 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1950-2024
>
2000-2009
>
2004
>
09-27-2004 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/25/2023 1:22:12 PM
Creation date
1/25/2023 1:14:43 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
187
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, September 13,2004 <br />7:00 o’clock p.m. <br />(James Render, Appeal of Administrative Decision, Continued) <br />the home next door. Gaffron stated the existing grade where the house will be placed ranges from <br />932.9 ’ to 936.4 ’ per the Applicant ’s survey, which suggests that portions of the lot were filled <br />between two to tlirec feet when the home to the cast was built. <br />Gaffron stated the City’s building height definition in the code reads as follows: ’’Building height <br />means the vertical distance between the highest adjoining ground level at the building or ten feet <br />above the lowest ground level ___” “Topographic changes which elevate the adjoining ground level <br />above the existing terrain shall not be considered in determining building height.’’ Gaffron stated <br />approximately ten years ago that last sentence was incorporated into the City’s code <br />.specifically to force people to use the existing grade and not artificially build a mound w'lth a <br />structure being constructed on top of it. <br />Sanscverc inquired whether the architect would prefer the current existing grade or the proposed <br />grade be utilized in defining the height. <br />Gaffron stated the architect is utilizing the proposed grade of 939.5 ’. Gaffron stated in his view the <br />existing elevation of 936.3 ’ should be used. <br />Utilizing Exhibit G. Gaffro:. explained Staffs analysis of the defined height. Gaffron stated using <br />the gable located on the lakeside of the house and ignoring the City’s policy for a moment, the <br />average point is lower than the one the Applicant proposed. Gaffron indicated the proposed <br />residence has a number of hip roof features and gables, which has made it difficult for Staff to <br />determine which one is the highest gable. Gaffron stated this problem has routinely arisen in the past <br />ten years, with the Planning Commission suggesting that the visual perception of a roof system <br />should help dictate what is the highest gable. Gaffron stated that suggestion has become part of the <br />City’s policy. <br />Gaffron stated in determining the average height Staff has, as a matter of policy, considered that the <br />ceiling of any usable space within a gable that contains a window will be considered as the low point <br />of the highest gable for height determinations. Gaffron noted this policy has been in place and <br />administered for many years, but it has never been fomially added to the code nor adopted as part of <br />a policy resolution. <br />Peterson inquired whether the City has a policy on when the approved grading as part of a <br />subdivision would expire or whether that approval would continue indefinitely. <br />Gaffron stated in general Staff feels that w hen the letter of credit has been released and all the <br />improvements have been accepted on the property, that they do not expect changes to occur after that <br />time. Gaffron indicated a road was constructed as well as a storm water pond and some grading was <br />completed with the first home, (iaffron stated the lot to the west was constructed without much <br />change in the grade. <br />McMillan inquired when subdivision grading is approved, whether that creates a new baseline for <br />height. McMillan also asked if a portion of a subdivision is filled, whether Uiat then resets the <br />elevation for building height. <br />PAGES <br />litiiiii&ft
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.