Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Monday, June 17,2002 <br />6:30 o'clock p.m. <br />(#02-2786 JOHN R. JONES, Continued) <br />While he acknowledged that varying definitions exist, Rahn stated that the general definition agreed upon <br />by the Commission dictates that the 30’ height point be taken from the midway point between the ceiling <br />joist to the peak, which is assumed to be halfway up the roof, thus, this clearly exceeds the 30’ <br />requirement. <br />Rahn supported staffs general policy that the 30’ building height be based on the average height between <br />the ceiling and the peak. <br />Mr. Jones suggested that he cut off the roof, by making it a flat roof in order to meet the 30’ and 2 ‘/i <br />story house standard. <br />Bellows reiterated that this proposal is still too much for this site and the suggestion put forth by Mr. <br />Jones would merely make the structure appear even more massive. <br />Mr. Jones stated that if the Commission looks at the sites next door they w'ould sec that on cither side of <br />him, they have both been granted variances allowing much more lot cover than he is proposing. <br />Bellows stated that neither of these homes have the bulk he is proposing. <br />Mr. Jones insisted that both properties do have bulk, in fact, his first and current proposal is smaller than <br />the home built recently next door. <br />Bellows asked if the lot sizes were similar. <br />Mr. Jones stated that the dimensions arc the same. <br />Bremer questioned if the neighbor in question is the same neighbor who spoke to the Commission last <br />month. <br />Mr. Jones stated that she was. <br />Bellows believed the drawings looked like much more bulk. <br />Mr. Jones stated that the figures in the draw ing are not done to scale and look tiny in the sketches. <br />Bellows stated that they should be drawn to scale in order to give the City a true representation. <br />Gaffron pointed to figure E.2, a photo of the Jones and the two neighbors properties The house on the <br />right shows a tw o story home four feet above grade, w hile the one on the left is low er and consists of a 2 <br />'/j stoiy home. Gaffron felt that in order to squeeze this house in between the other two, you would see <br />what appears to be in effect a three story home w ith a flat roof, which would be taller and somewhat <br />overwhelming to its neighbors. <br />Smith clarified, with the Commissions support, that there is no problem with width and area variances; <br />however, there is objection to the height and concerns pertaining hardcover. She continued by referring <br />PAGE 4 OF 29 <br />ik