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 /> story at that meeting would that be acceptable, to which, everyone nodded in agreement. He continued <br /> that after the last meeting he revised his application to meet the definitions as discussed only to come <br /> back and find once again that he is being denied based on a new definition. <br /> Berg stated that, in her opinion, the roof line is simply too high. The lot won't sustain this level of <br /> massing and it needs to be brought down. Although absent from the last meeting, she stated that her <br /> position has always remained the same,that the City needs to get control of the massing on the lake and <br /> therefore that is the direction they are giving to Mr. Jones. <br /> Mr. Jones acknowledged that, in May,the Commission determined that their reservations were not based <br /> on height but were rooted on the half story question, so at that time a definition was found and has since <br /> been met. Mr. Jones added that in order to meet the definition the roof line could be changed, and he <br /> agreed it was too high. He continued that, as it stands now,he can redesign the plan in order to bring the <br /> height down by changing the roof line. <br /> Bellows reiterated that the rules state both conditions apply, 21/2 stories and 30' must be met and he is <br /> not doing that. <br /> Mr. Jones stated that, in fact,he had met those requirements, only to find that the rules had now changed. <br /> There was never any discussion about, or has ever been as far as he could tell, any discussion on record <br /> with regard to windows except for this new recent memo. He asked to be told why he has not met both <br /> conditions. <br /> Bellows maintained that Mr. Jones was not meeting both requirements because by the definition that he <br /> had accepted if one takes the average height as half the distance between the ceiling height and the ridge <br /> the design, it is over thirty feet. <br /> Mr. Jones maintained that the proposal is at 30' and does not exceed it. <br /> Bellows did not believe the picture reflected what he was stating. <br /> Gaffron stated that the issue is that the upper measuring point is between the ceiling of the third level and <br /> the peak and not between the lower gable and the peak. Historically, and consistently, Gaffron stated that <br /> if the windows did not exist on the third level they would treat it as a half story. <br /> Rahn felt that the new elevation clearly reflects a third story. He maintained that if you took a poll of <br /> people they would say that this is a three story home with three sets of windows. More time needs to be <br /> devoted to the definitions than has been allowed at this juncture and much of what is going on is <br /> subjective and opinion based. He encouraged Mr. Jones to bring in more clear elevations than have been <br /> presented this evening in order to obtain a clear definition and understanding by the Commission. <br /> Mr. Jones stated that this type of unique situation has come up in other jurisdictions that he has looked <br /> into. In none of the cases were windows mentioned. In California,they eliminated the subjective and <br /> opinion based conjecture by strictly focusing only on height. If this isn't a 21/2 story, Mr. Jones asked <br /> once again,that the Commission define to him what constitutes a 2 1/4 story with livable space. <br /> PAGE 6 OF 29 <br />