10/18/2004 Planning Commission Minutes

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,October 18,2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#04-3059 James Render,Continued) probably is in the 970'-990' range. The lot itself is somewhat open, such that from certain angles the peak may be more visible than from others. Gaffron indicated the visual impact of the height of the cupola will be somewhat softened by the higher natural topography of the surrounding neighborhood and by the higher trees in the immediate neighborhood. Staff concludes that from a distance, from most angles,the cupola peak will not extend higher than the general canopy of the area, although from certain angles it may be visible through openings in the canopy. Gaffron noted the majority of the proposed residence is below the 30' height restriction. Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit to allow construction of a cupola extending 6.7 feet above the peak of the house per the submitted plans. Render commented Gaffron in his opinion has done a great job. Rahn inquired whether there were any public comments concerning this application. James Erler, 3448 North Shore Drive, indicated he is here tonight to try to understand the applicant's proposal and asked if he could withhold any comments until later. Rahn indicated that would be fine. Kempf inquired what material the cupola would be constructed out of. Render indicated there would be cedar shingles on the roof with some copper flashing. Fritzler inquired whether there is an actual roof underneath the cupola. Render indicated there is. Leslie commented in his view it would be difficult to imagine this house without the cupola and that the sole purpose of the cupola appears to be to continue the roof line. Leslie stated in his mind the reason a conditional use permit exists for a cupola is to allow a small structure relative to the entire peak of a roofline and that this is clearly a continuation of a roofline. Leslie stated the cupola serves the purpose of finishing the roof and is against the purpose or reason a cupola exists as a conditional use permit. Jurgens noted he was in attendance at the Council meeting when this matter was discussed and that in his opinion the cupola is a reasonable compromise based on the issues involved with this application. Jurgens indicated the applicant's architect did not have the benefit of staff's policy used in determining height of a structure and that they relied solely on their interpretation of the code that they found on the City's web site. Jurgens noted the policy,which further defines the code,is not found on the City's web site. Jurgens stated the option of incorporating a cupola into the design was arrived at PAGE 25