11-15-2004 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MIMTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MoMlay, October IS, 2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. («04-3062 Joba Terraoce HoMct, Coatiaacd) building and what happens between the parking lot and the street w ith this grading change. The Planning Commission should determine whether the visual appearance of the building as a result of the added height is positisvly or negatisTly affected by the maeased length of the building. Gaffron recommended the Planning Commission ensure that the building materials ard w indow s depicted on the plans be utilized in this plan. Gaffron staled he is very satisfied with the landscape plan for this development, but noted the City's landscape consultant will need to review the plan. Gaffron noted the developer would need to submit a lighting plan for this development as well as a signage plan. Gaffron stated the developCT is one parking stall short and will nc^ to define where the additional sull will be located. Gaffron stated the impervious surface coverage in the RPl’D District is limited to 50 percent. NN'hile the Lofts site has 52.7 percent impervious area, the Stonebay project m its cntirct>' has an im|Krvious area well below the 50 percent limit. Gaffron noted this approval process is basically approval of Phase 2 of the Stonebay residential development. Gaffron requested the Planning Commission discuss the acceptability of building expansion and its visual iinpacu. the increased building height, the proposed building materials and building design, the acceptability of the location in relation to the west lot line, and issues relating to signage, lighting, parking and landscaping. There were no public commenu regarding this application. Johnston pointed out that in a lot of w^ys the loft or condominium building was basically an unknown at the time original approval was grant^. Johnston indicated they had a basic concept of what they w anted to build at the lime of original approval but have since m^tficd the plans to include some amenities that w ill help make the pnxluct n .ore nurkeuble. Johnston noted at the time of original proposal assumptions were also made concerning the size of the units and other items. Johnston stated they are addressing the Planning Commission tonight regarding a better*defincd H»i • !: a new architect being brought in on the project who deals with residential developments. JuhnMon indicated the architect made recommendations dealing w ith the mix of the units and Uk marketability of the units. Johnston stated guest ixxims. a hobby room, a business center, a family dining room, community room, car w ash, library and e.xcrcisc room are some of the amenities that have been added to help increase the marketability of the units. Johnston stated the two buildings were connected to accommodate the proposed amenities and to address the waierproofmg issues they would encounter with a portion of the undaground parking garage being located below turf Johnston stated m his view the proposed building is a more attractive building, but acknowledged that It u a change in the visual appearance of the sue. Johnston suted the biggest difTcrence between the two plans IS the elimination of the gap betw een the two buildings, w ith the visual impact being most apparent along Kelley Parkway. Johnston stated the view of the proposed building from other angles PAGE 36