Laserfiche WebLink
G <br />(or average height as defined in the building cede,) <br />of the highe-t Sable, which in standard practice is the <br />distance hal. way between the eaves and the peak of the <br />roof. (See attachment) Within that definition this <br />building does conform to the height limitation within <br />the definition as stated and applied in Orono. The <br />appropriate measurement for height of building under the <br />zoning code is 5 feet out from the foundation of the <br />highest point to the highest gable on a hip roof on the <br />front yard side of a structure. Under our definitions <br />lakeshore lots do not have a front yard and in this case <br />since the front yard is normally the street side in non- <br />lakeshore lots we would use the street side in this <br />case. From the finish grade to the top peak of the <br />structure at the ,iighest gable, however, the height in <br />total will be 38 feet. As a side note the height of <br />this building is in concert with the heights found in <br />other developments including the development at the Pink <br />Palace, the development south of 15 on 19, and the <br />Stielow Addition (Oxford Road). <br />NEIGHBOR'S VIEW - Whi le the Sweatts, as non-lakeshore <br />owners, will lose a portion of their view by this <br />construction they will gain a portion upon removal of <br />the existing structure on .the site. The new structure <br />does sit back substantially from the average setback and <br />does not impact the lake view of abutting lakeshore <br />owners. <br />The problem with our current ordinances is that they addressed <br />ground height as being that from finished grade, not original <br />grade, together with having the maximum height measured as the <br />;Wean distance rather than total distance to the top. Staff has <br />been reviewing other ways of handling extensive site alteration <br />in conjunction with buildings together with ways of dealing with <br />maximum height, however, they would not be applicable in this <br />case ar,3 ?.f drawn too tightly would require everyone who builds <br />in Orono to come in for a conditional use permit if it <br />significantly limits site grading. <br />Should you have further comments or questions, please feel free <br />to contact us. <br />cc: Mr. and Mrs. Sweatt <br />PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by , seconded by _, that the City <br />Council -accept the information from staff regarding the Ulrich <br />property. Ayes _, Nays — <br />