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) McMillan stated she is a little sympathetic to the Applicant since this policy is not contained within the code book. McMillan commented that she understands Staff has applied this policy very consistently in the past, but that the code needs to be tightened up, especially relating to issues on architectural features. McMillan recommended that rooflines not be used in the future to create an architectural feature, but noted that is not currently contained in the City's ordinance. McMillan stated she would be willing to entertain a conditional use permit on that basis. White commented he docs not recall another instance similar to this, and inquired what impact that would have on other applicants that the City has denied. McMillan stated in her view an architectural feature is not livable space. Peterson stated the architect should have contacted the City for clarification. Sansevere inquired whether Staff would interpret the ordinance the same way they do now without the policy or whether they apply the policy to interpret the ordinance. Gaffron commented he would contact the City to find out what the highest gable would be, noting there arc at least five possible different interpretations that could be reached with the design of this house. Render stated in his view, using even the strictest interpretation of the code, they arc still under the City’s height restriction. Gaffron indicated he is not in agreement with that view, and that if you look at the rear side of the house, the average elevation is 972.9 ’. Moorse commented he would like to clarify the initial meeting at which the 939 ’ elevation was originally discussed. Moorse noted the meeting involved Lyle Oman, the City’s building official, rather thm Mike Gaffron. Moorse inquired how the common sense grade compares to the existing grade. Gaffron said in his view existing grade is what exists at the site today, and noted that the City’s code reads that “Topographic changes which elevate the adjoining ground level above the existing terrain shall not be considered in determining building height.” Gaffron noted the grade on this lot has changed several times, and inquired at what point in time Staff should define grade. Gaffron stated in his opinion the ordinance would need to be worded more clearly if the Council w ants to consider a proposed grade or a historic.'il grade. Sansevere pointed out the existing grade is a result of the construction on the lot next door, but that he w ould be willing to give the Applicant the benefit of the doubt and use the historical grade in determining the height of the structure. Sansevere inquired whether Staff would prefer the historical grade or a conditional use permit in this instance. Gaffron indicated he would be comfortable with the 940 ’ if the Council found that the ^ade on this lot has changed over the years due to the movement and placement of soils on this lot. Gaffron PAGE 12