Laserfiche WebLink
........ <br />MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Tuesday, January 18,2005 <br />6:00 o'clock p.m. <br />prior (o the Coun^ M meeting, and further subject to elevation views and the homeowners <br />association covenants being submitted by the applicant. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. <br />m 05-3081 ZB CONSIRUCI ION, INC., OUI LOI E, STONEBAY, RPUD AMENDMENT, <br />BUILDING PLAN, FINAL PLAT, 10:17 p.m. - 11:23 p.iii. <br />Arnic Zachman, ZB Constmclion; Bruce Heller, Project M mager ibi Bruce Lchicr Architects; and <br />Steve Johnston, Landforin; were present. <br />CjafTroil addressed the City Council regarding the applicants* rcijucsl for an amendment of the Stonebay <br />RPUD for changes to the owner-occupied condominium building and site plan, fmal site plan approval, <br />and building plan approvals as well a.s final plat approval for Outlet H as a single 2.5 acre lot for the <br />condominium building. Gaffron stated the new propo.sal is somewhat similar to the three-story building <br />that was proposed la.st fall, (iaffron inquired whether 61 units is the total number of units being proposed. <br />Heller indicated there are 61 units, with one guest unit, fora total of62 units. <br />Gaffron stated the current proposal is for a single lv-.shapcd building with virtually the same footprint as <br />the originally propo.scd garage level but filing in of the open terrace space with building. The applicants <br />claim that this allows for larger individual units and provides spaces for certain amenities not provided in <br />tile original concept. 'I'hese include .i raay rooin/hot tub/exercise room at the rear of the garage level; an <br />undefined common space, and other amenities, fhe propo.sed 62 individual dwelling units range from <br />1400 square feet to 1700 .sriuarc feel in area. Ciaffron stated due to the addition of the amenities and the <br />incicased living space, the applicants arc proposing one building rather than two separate building.s. <br />(iaffron indicated in 2002, at (he time of Uic approval of the lots, there was a di.scu.ssion regarding <br />allowing a provision ba.scd on final grade as opposed to existing high side grade, which was determined <br />to be 18 feel. Ihe applicants have since added three feel to the height of the building, due to the increased <br />ceiling licighl, the height of the undeiground garage ceiling, and the pitch of the roorsy.slcins. I he <br />npplicanl.s are proposing o peak height of 1071.33 ’, with the original approval being for 1066*. which