07-15-2002 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

>fINUTES OF THE OROXO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, June 17, 2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. («02.2786 JOHN R. .lONTS, Continued) story at that meeting would that be acceptable, to which, everyone nodded in agreement. He continued that after the last meeting he revised his application to meet the definitions as discussed only to come back and find once again that he is being denied based on a new definition. Berg stated that, in her opinion, the roof line is simply too high. The lot won ’t sustain this level of massing and it needs to be brought down. Although absent from the last meeting, she stated that her position has always remained the same, that the City needs to get control of the massing on the lake and therefore that is the direction they arc giving to Mr. Jones. Mr. Jones acknowledged that, in May, the Con.mission determined that their reservations were not based on height but were rooted on the half story question, so at that lime a definition was found and has since been met. Mr. Jones added that in order to meet the definition the roof line could be changed, and he agreed it was too hi; 'i. He continued that, as it stands now. he can redesign the plan in order to bring the height down by changing the roof line. Bcilows reiterated that the rules state both conditions apply. 2 Vi stories and 30 ’ must be met and he is not doing that. Mr. Jones stated that, in fact, he had met those requirements, only to find that the rules had now changed. There was never any discussion about, or has ever been as far as he could tell, any discussion on record with regard to windows e.xcept for this new recent memo, lie asked to be told why he has not met both conditions. Bellows maintained that Mr. Jones was not meeting both requirements because by the definition that he had accepted if one takes the average height as half tlic distance between the ceiling height and the ridge the design, tt is over thirty feet. Mr. Jones maintained that the proposal is at 30 ’ and docs not e.xcecd it. Bellows did not believe the picture rellected whal he was stating. Gaflron stated that the issue is that the upper measuring point is beuveen the ceiling of the third level and the peak a:.d not between the lower gable and the peak. Historically, and consistently. Gaffron stated that if the windows did not c.xist on the third level they would treat it as a half story. Rahn felt that the new elevation clearly reflects a third story. He maintained that if you took a poll of people they would say that this is a three stoiy home with three sets of w indow s. More time needs to be devoted to the definitions than his iccn allow ed at this juncture and much of w hat is going on is subjective and opinion based. He encouraged Mr. Jones to bring in more clear elevations than have been presented this evening in order to obtain a clear definition and understanding by the Commission. Mr. Jones stated that this type of unique situation has come up in othci jurisdictions that he has looked into. In none of the cases were windows mentioned. In California, they eliminated the subjective and opinion based conjecture by strictly focusing only on height. If this isn’t a 2 Vi stov, Mr. Jones asked once again, that the Commission define to him what constitutes a 2 '/j story with livable space PAGE 6 OF 2V