Laserfiche WebLink
r - <br />I <br />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 />Render stated his builder, who also constructed the neighbor’s residence, informed him that there is a <br />foot and a half difference between the peak of his proposed house and the neighbor’s chimney. <br />Sansevere stated in his view what would be fair would be to look at the historical grade. Sansevere <br />stated the City Council cannot apply the architect’s interpretation of the code, but that he would be <br />willing to entertain looking at the historical grade since that one is the one that was in existence the <br />longest. <br />Render indicated that grade was there for approximately 55 years. <br />McMillan stated if the City went with the 940 ’ and used Staffs interpretation of the ordinance, the <br />defined height of the building would still c.xceed the maximum by two feet. McMillan commented <br />she would rather consider a conditional use permit. <br />Sansevere stated it is up to the Applicant to decide how to reduce the height of the building but that <br />he personally would not be in favor of a conditional use permit at this time. <br />Peterson indicated she is in agreement with Sansevere. <br />White commented in his view the common sense approach is the most compelling, which would give <br />this lot a similar elevation to the two adjacent properties. White indicated he would possibly be in <br />favor of a conditional use permit because the majority of the proposed residence is 12 feet lower than <br />the adjacent residence. White recommended the City ’s policy be incorporated into the ordinance. <br />Sansevere inquired on what basis the city would grant a conditional use permit. Sansevere stated he <br />docs not see the justification for it. <br />White stated in his opinion there is ambiguity in the ordinance. <br />McMillan commented in her opinion it is an architectural feature of the house. <br />Peterson agreed that the peak of the house is an architectural feature, but inquired whether it could be <br />reduced by two feet. <br />Render stated he is not an architect and is not sure how that could be accomplished. <br />Sansevere stated in his opinion it would be inconsistent to grant a conditional use permit. Sansevere <br />indicated he would be willing to use the 940 ’ with staffs interpretation, but noted the Applicant <br />would still need to reduce the height of the residence somewhat. <br />Peterson noted the City has always concurred with the policy that is being applied in this case. <br />White indicated he would be willing to consider a conditional use permit. <br />Peterson indicated she would not be in favor of a conditional use permit. <br />PAGE 11 <br />ii‘iiifiiiiliirii 1 i iiinitiJiiiftiiniii n '