Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Tuesday, January 18, 2005 <br />6:00 o’clock p.ni. <br />Gaflron stated tlie building would be located approximately 60 to 80 feet from the curb. <br />Jurgens indicated he still has a concern regarding the length of the building and iiKjuired whether the focal <br />point of the structure could change somehow to try to lessen the visual impact. <br />Heller indicated the vertical uprights come out four feet, with the fagade being broken up with different <br />shades. Heller stated a 3-D picture would help to better illustrate how the building will appear. <br />Rahn stated he prefers the step-down appearance of the building. Rahn recommended the apjdicant <br />review their plans to see how the building can be reduced in length. <br />Zachman iiugiired whether the Planning Commission would like to see the end units clipped off <br />Leslie staled he would like to see the top unit also clipped near the end cap so there would still be a .step <br />down. Leslie encouraged the applicant to review his options for reducing the size of the building. <br />Jurgens inquired whether a patio is being constructed off the back of the building. <br />Johnston stated the patio could be accomplished with an easement. <br />Gaffron stated the patio ends up being located in one of the common areas. <br />Johnston stated the outlets could possibly be replattcd to avoid the need for an easement. Johnston noted <br />commercial development will be going up in the area in front of tliis building and would also help reduce <br />the appearance of the building. <br />Rahn inquired whether there were any public comments regarding this application. <br />There were no public comments. <br />Winkey moved, Bremer seconded, lo recommend approval of Application #05-3081, Sloiii bay <br />Lofts, with the understanding that the propo.sed revisioirs arc acceptable and that a revised plan <br />would be .submitted prior to the Council meeting. V01E: Ayes 2, Nays 4, Rahn, Jurgens, Leslie <br />and Fritzler Oppo.scd. MOTION FAILED. <br />Rnhn indicated he was opposed lo the motion because he would like lo see some reduction made in the <br />size of (he structure. <br />Bremer sug^’csled this application l>c discussed at the next Planning Commission work sc.ssion. <br />FACE 47