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. (James Render, Appeal of Administrative Decision, Continued) Gaflron indicated his interpretation of the code is based upon the City’s policy. Gaffron stated he arrives at a defined height of 33.4 ’ using the historical grade of 940 ’. Gaffron stated in his opinion there is ambiguity in the code since Staff came up with a significantly different highest gable than the architect came up with. Gaffron stated in his opinion the highest gable is located on the rear of the house, and if the elevation of 940 ’ is utilized, based on Staffs interpretation of the code, the defined height of the structure is still 2.4 ’ higher than what the City allows. Render noted his architect arrived at 29.2 ’. Gaffron suggested the City Council, in order to reach a conclusion on how to define building height in this situation, look at, one, where the lowest measuring point is; two, decide whether to accept the use of this policy by Staff; and three, if the policy is not used, whether the architect’s or the City’s interpretation of the low point and highest gable should be used, and then determine whether or not they exceed the building height requirement. McMillan commented she has some reservations with the conditional use permit option since the peak is not an accessory architectural feature like a chimney or a cupola but is more a feature created by the rooflines of the house. McMillan stated it is not defined that specifically in the code, but in her opinion the peak is unusable space as far as living space goes and is more of an architectural feature in this situation. McMillan indicated in the future she would prefer a conditional use permit not be used for an architectural feature that is created with rooflines. McMillan stated since it is not well defined in the code, she would be willing to consider a conditional use permit in this situation. Gaffron stated Section 7813.66 reads that the height limitations imposed by other provisions in this chapter may be increased by conditional use permit by 50 percent and apply to the following structures: church spires, belfries, cupolas and domes which do not contain usable space, monuments and fire towers, fire and hose towers. Gaffron noted the City denied a conditional use permit for the fire station for a tower. Other structures include observation towers, flag poles, chimneys, smoke stacks, parapet walls extending not more than tw'o feet above the height of the building, cooling towers, elevators, and penthouses. Gaffron stated the City recently approved a conditional use permit for excess height for chimneys for a property on Brackett ’s Point but denied excess height for some screening above the art center. Gaffron noted the code does not provide a definition of a cupola. Peterson inquired what the height is from the base to the very peak of the residence. Gaffron stated the height on the lakeside is 49.0 feet Render suted he had his proposed residence compared with the neighboring house, with the builder doing an analysis and determining that the peak of his house is within a foot and a half of the height of the neighbor’s chimney. The City Council reviewed scaled versions of building plans for the tw'o adjacent properties and the proposed residence. Gaffron noted the peak for the proposed house is approximately 12 feet higher than the Applicant ’s existing house and is approximately two to three feet higher thw the chimney. PAGE 10 I LAJ ^ ft' L