Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> Tuesday,March 15,2021 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> market rate and building some of those amenities that typically come with. With the walls in the rear and <br /> the structural mass in the parking lot he is struggling to see where there might be that type of area. <br /> Mr. Richardson noted they have a partial wrought iron fence on the back of the property and they will <br /> probably just carry that around the property. <br /> Erickson asked if the existing daycare building is going to stay as is. <br /> Mr. Richardson answered yes, and the foundation that has not been built on they will remove. He was not <br /> aware that the restrictions were 30 feet,he has built homes in the past and was always told 36 feet. <br /> Barnhart thinks the difference is the defined height versus the actual top of the building. <br /> Mr. Richardson said from what he saw in the code he did not see it actually isolated. <br /> Barnhart clarified it has been there. <br /> Bollis said regarding the overall height, he knows they measure from the highest existing grade that there <br /> is today,to the top of the roof(because there is not a pitched roof). He said it would be fair to say if they <br /> can build a two-story building here with a third story underground with a pitched roof, it may actually <br /> measure higher than what he is proposing because this has a flat roof. The reason is because they measure <br /> a pitched roof to the midpoint of the pitched roof, so that could be 30 feet and there could be another 15 <br /> feet of roofing above that. <br /> Barnhart stated the City has approved buildings that have a bigger mass impact because of the pitch of the <br /> roof. <br /> Bollis said if they throw out the way they measure the code and they were to build these two buildings he <br /> just described side-by-side,the one that the code reads measures 30 feet with a pitched roof would actually <br /> measure taller than this building and look bigger. <br /> Barnhart clarified the peak height would be taller,yes. <br /> Bollis noted that is what a person sees driving down the road or standing there—that massing. The way it <br /> is proposed,he is okay with that height variance from what the code is just because of that. He clarified he <br /> would not be okay with it if it had a pitched roof and they were asking for 5 feet above code. <br /> Ressler's only feedback is that it is a different design style, this is more of a contemporary look and they <br /> are not here to design it. Bollis makes a good point that the actual or affective height versus the peaked <br /> height and how it is being measured could arguably affect the massing and he would like to look a bit closer <br /> at that before he can weigh in on whether he would be agreeable to going above the height restrictions they <br /> have in place in the code. He knows they have been pretty reluctant to grant any sort of height variances <br /> for proposals like these,but it is a reasonable point of view to say that the actual massing is more favorable <br /> this way. It is whether or not the Commission feels that is not going to have as much of an impact. <br /> Erickson would like to support the existing guidelines that the City Council has acted on a number of times. <br /> He thinks they are trying to accomplish an architectural theme and it is a theme that runs the length of <br /> Page 31 of 34 <br />