Laserfiche WebLink
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 />stated in his opinion that would not set a precedent. Gaffron stated the City ’s sur\ey reflects a grade <br />of 940' in 1992. <br />Render stated he would be comfortable using the historical grade. <br />Gaffron e.xplained that the defined height of the structure would be 32.9 ’ using the historical grade, <br />but that there would still have to be some design changes in order to meet the maximum height <br />allowed. <br />White inquired whether the Applicant would be willing to change the design slightly to make this <br />section of the house look more unique and separate. <br />Gaffron indicated the Applicant has submitted plans showing different peak designs. <br />Render stated in one of the plans they created a metal band around the peak to make that area seem <br />mo'c like a cupola. <br />Gaffron pointed out a cupola would require a conditional use permit. Gaffron stated if the peak is <br />lowered to the point where the average from the windows to the peak yields a 30 ’ number, then it <br />would be reasonable to grant a conditional use permit for a cupola. Gaffron .stated in his view it <br />presently is not a cupola. <br />Barrett stated in his view Gaffron’s proposal would create no precedent, but that if the City granted a <br />conditional use pennit for a cupola on this residence, they would need to grant a conditional use <br />permit for other applicants that meet the same set of conditions. <br />Gaffron stated a hardship would not need to be shown with a conditional use permit. <br />Jurgens suggested the Applicant consider cutting off a band through the peak, leave the area <br />somewhat like it is but square off the peak and add some windows around it. Jurgens stated in his <br />mind It would create a peak, be a projection of the roofline, and create an architecmral feature that <br />could be considered a cupola. <br />Gaffron concurred in that instance it would be considered a cupola as long as it is not an extension of <br />the roofline. <br />Garrett stated the applicant would need to submit an application for a conditional use permit to allow <br />the cupola and appear before the Planning Commission. Garrett stated the appeal could be tabled to <br />allow the Applicant time to redesign that section of the house. <br />Peterson inquired whether a motion approving the 940 ’ elevation is necessaiy. <br />Garrett indicated the issue before the Council tonight is whether a building permit should be issued, <br />and if the Council determines, based upon the present design, that the building permit should be <br />denied, then a motion denying the appieal would be appropriate. <br />PAGE 13