Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> Tuesday,March 15,2021 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> Regarding elevations, he showed on screen access to the underground parking in the south portion of the <br /> building and noted there are three levels exposed on the back and a little bit of the fourth story adjacent to <br /> the parking garage is shown exposed. The project is proposed as a flat roof building. In Barnhart's analysis <br /> of the RPUD zoning district it requires a five-acre minimum lot size for an RPUD zone—this property is at <br /> 2.48 and is calculated based on the remnants of the original project less the existing daycare center building <br /> at the northwest corner. The Council may find this project conforms to this exception under C;the zoning <br /> ordinance has certain exceptions where the Commission or Council can support a re-zoning. The exception <br /> here that would apply is the property is located in an area where it is a transition between commercial and <br /> existing residential.On the west side of the property is a fertilizer warehouse and gas station and on the east <br /> side is a senior housing project. It would meet with that condition in terms of a transition. To the north is <br /> single family residential. Barnhart noted the main issues are the roof style,the height of the building, and <br /> the private recreational areas. The RPUD zoning district requires 10% of the gross land area of a project <br /> to be private recreation. The City has allowed a range of uses for the private recreation. Orono Crossing <br /> last month had a tot lot and some open space in the center of that project, and for a senior housing project <br /> they had a walking path and a pavilion area,they have also had an outdoor deck for other uses. This plan <br /> shows a rooftop deck over the southern portion of the project which could meet some of the private <br /> recreation area. He would appreciate any comment the Commission has regarding the private recreation <br /> area. Perhaps the biggest issue that Staff and Applicant are looking for is feedback on the building height. <br /> Historically the City has kept to a 30-foot maximum limit for building height and there is a mechanism to <br /> define that different height. This is a unique situation because the property developed in 2005 and grading <br /> occurred for that project so the building is set up for walkout basements and office buildings. Obviously, <br /> this project is not that so there is some redevelopment as part of the grading proposal. In both situations, <br /> the building is more than 30 feet high. The shortest,most generous way to review it is a 35-foot-tall building <br /> and based on existing conditions it is defined as a 41-foot-tall building because of some challenges in terms <br /> of fitting within the 30-foot limit. The setbacks are based on a minimum of 35 foot for side yard and rear <br /> yard, but also there is a clause that the setback should not be less than the height of the building. If the <br /> height is measured at 41 feet the setback should be 41 feet from the side and rear and obviously this project <br /> does not do that. The roof is a flat roof and the RPUD regulation specifies residential character by <br /> incorporating pitched or hipped roof Barnhart does not know what was predominant in 2002 or whenever <br /> the RPUD was created but he thinks the intent with a residential hipped roof is something with a residential- <br /> type scale. He looks for feedback from the Commission and noted the challenge is when adding a gable, <br /> they add a pitched roof to the building and the height only increases unless they shorten the number of <br /> stories. Staff is looking for feedback on this project,primarily site size,building height, and the roof style. <br /> Bollis asked if there have been any projects where they have used previous grade to establish the height <br /> versus the grade that is there. <br /> Barnhart cannot remember any specifically and certainly not with an 18-year difference between them. He <br /> noted across the street they did an apartment building and used the grade that is there today,not what it was <br /> before it was mass-graded for Stone Bay. He does not want to say they have never done it. <br /> Kirchner said it notes a 750 square foot deck on the third floor as well as the 2"d and 3rd floor perhaps have <br /> some recreational space. He asked what the overall square footage of amenity space is. <br /> Barnhart does not know what amenity means, it could be the lobby and not the recreation space. He is <br /> looking for feedback of what the Commission expects out of a project of this scale and they can go forward <br /> from there. <br /> Page 27 of 34 <br />