Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, September 13, 2004 <br />7:00 o'clock p.m. <br />(James Render, Appeal of Administrative Decision, Continued) <br />decades. Gaffron indicated in order to meet the City's height standard, the peak of the house would <br />need to be reduced by 12 feet. <br />Gaffron indicated the Applicant's architect feels the City should go by the strict wording of the code <br />and ignore the policy as well as use the grade that was proposed but never created at the time of the <br />approval of the subdivision. Gaffron stated if the City follows his method of determining the high <br />point, the defined height would still be 32.4 feet or 2.4 feet higher than allowed by code. <br />Gaffron stated this property was the middle lot of a three -lot plat created in 1998. The three lots <br />were then replatted a year later to relocate lot lines and incorporate additional land to expand the <br />two westerly lots. A grading plan proposing the creation of a built -up building pad for this lot was <br />provided with the initial subdivision. <br />Sansevere inquired whether the grading would need to be changed once the lot lines were changed. <br />Gaffron stated a revised grading plan was not required or provided at the time of the replatting. <br />Sansevere inquired whether the City's policy concerning height is typically provided to applicants or <br />their representatives. <br />0 <br />Gaffron stated if Staff receives a call from someone who is interested in finding out how the City <br />ascertains building height, they would be given the City's policy that was created in November of . <br />2002. Gaffron stated if the person relies solely on the code and their own interpretation of the code, <br />they may not be aware of the policy. Gaffron indicated Staff does not recall receiving a call in this <br />particular case from the architect requesting clarification of the City's defined height ordinance. <br />Sansevere inquired whether the policy should be made an addendum to the code. <br />Gaffron stated there is no question that codes are supported by policies that are written and <br />unwritten, and noted that the policy in question here was written two years ago but is not included in <br />the building permit packet given to applicants. Gaffron indicated the City also does not provide its <br />hardcover policy routinely to people unless it is requested. <br />Sansevere inquired whether there is any notation on the City's web site that says a person is to <br />contact the City for the various policies. <br />Gaffron stated he does not believe that language is currently on the City's web site and that Staff is <br />looking to incorporate the height policy specifically into the code. Gaffron indicated this issue has <br />started to become more regular in the past year given the complex roof systems being designed by <br />architects today. Gaffron noted the Planning Commission would be addressing this matter at their <br />September meeting. Gaffron pointed out the architect in this case did not have the benefit of the <br />City's policy for determining height. <br />Gaffron stated based on the Applicant's current submitted survey, the initial grading plan to raise the <br />grade to 939.5' for the middle lot was never fully accomplished, either as part of the subdivision or <br />later. The existing grade at the east end of the site is approximately 936.2' where it tapers away from • <br />PAGE 4 <br />