02-28-2005 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tucsilay, January 18, 2005 6:00 o’clock p.ni. prior (n Ihc Council meeting, and further subject to elevation views and the houicowncrs association covenants being submitted by the applicant. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. «I I 05-3081 ZB CONSTRUCTION, INC., OU11.0T E, STONEBAY, RI’UL AMENDMENT, BUILDING PLAN, FINAL PLAT, 10:17 p.ui. - 11:23 p.m. Arnie Zacliman, ZB Conslniclion; Dmcc Heller, Project Manager lor Bruce Lclu'cr Architects; and Steve Jolmston, Landfurin; were prc.sent. Gaffroii addressed the City Council regarding the applicants reques't for an amendment of the Stonebay W^UD for changes to the owner-occupied condoininium building and site plan, final site plan approval. and building plan approvals as well as final plat approval for Outlet li as a single 2.5 acre lot for the condominium building. Gaffron stated the new proposal is somewhat similar to the three-story building that was proposed la.st fall. GalTron inquired whether 61 units is the total number of units being proposed. Heller indicated there arc 61 units, with one guest unit, for a total of 62 units. Gaffron stated the current proposal is for a single L-shaped building with virtually the same footprint as the originally proposed garage level but filing in of the open teirace space with building. The applicants claim that this allows for larger individual units and provides spaces for certain amenities not provided in the original concept. These include a party roonVliot tub/exerci.se room at the rear of the garage level; an undefined commoi, space, and other amenities. The proposed 62 individual dwelling units range from MOO squ.’re feet to I'^OO sqi'.,irc feet in area. Gaffro.i staled due to the addition of the amenities and tlie increased living space, the pj-pheants arc proposing one building rather than two separate buildings. Gallron indicated in 2002. at the tinn; of t!.e apinoval of the lots, there was a discussion regarding .allowing a provision based o*' iln'»l grade as opposed to e.xisting high side grade, which was determined to be 3.1 feet. The applicants have since added three fe :t to the height of the building tiue to llie increased ceiling height, the height o' the underground garage ceding, and the pitch of the loof systems. 1 he applicants are proposing a jieak height cf I07» 33’, with the original approval being for 1066’, which PAGE 42